Sunday, July 12, 2015

Jerusalem responds to breaking of communion by Antioch

(Jerusalem Patriarchate) - The Patriarchate of Jerusalem expresses its sorrow on the recent decision of the Patriarchate of Antioch to break off communion with it, and would like to sincerely and truthfully inform the sister Orthodox Churches and its flock about the following:

Firstly, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, responding to an invitation by the Christians of Qatar, a geographical territory within its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, appointed Theophilos, now Patriarch of Jerusalem, as officiating priest there in 1997, when there was neither a church in the region nor was the Christian worship performed. Ever since and to this day, Orthodox Christians in Qatar attend the liturgy, initially in Houses of Prayer, and since 2009 in the Church of St George, the Glorious Great Martyr, and St Isaac the Syrian, founded by the Patriarchate on a plot of land offered by His Highness Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani. So, what would normally happen is that the body seeking to set up a church would ask the body whose territory it was if this was acceptable. This is exactly what Jerusalem demanded of the Romanian Church when it attempted to place churches within its territory without receiving permission from Jerusalem. This does not seem to have been done.

Secondly, the late Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem paid a pastoral visit to Qatar in 1999, His Beatitude Theophilos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in 2010. In the course of this pastoral activity of eighteen years but also prior to that, the Patriarchate of Antioch had never had a presence there, neither had it ever protested for any reason. Its protests were first put forward when the Patriarchate consecrated Archimandrite Makarios, serving there since 2004, as Archbishop of Qatar. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem, by the help of God, developed its project in Qatar into an Inter-Orthodox Multilingual Liturgical Center for a flock of approximately 12.000 souls, far from any racial discrimination. By contrast, the Antioch Patriarchate places the question on an ethnic-racial basis, as may be seen in its letter addressed to the Qatar Foreign Ministry, suggesting that “Patriarch John X of Antioch and All East is the only recognized Patriarch from the Orthodox Community (Taife) across the entire Middle East and represents the Orthodox Community in all Arab countries, including for example Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Jerusalem, Egypt, Bahrain, the Emirates, Iran”.

Thirdly, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem irrevocably refutes the unsubstantiated claim of the Patriarchate of Antioch for an alleged agreement to alter the title of Archbishop Makarios of Qatar reached during a meeting at the Directorate for Churches of the Hellenic Foreign Ministry in July 2013, invoking the testimony of the delegates of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and of the Directorate for Churches.

Fourthly, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem remains firmly committed to conciliation and dialogue, a stance it had held since the very beginning, and proposes the setting up of a Committee of Canon Law Experts to rule on the issue, without interrupting the memorial of the sister Orthodox Church of Antioch, for the sake of the unity of the Orthodox Church.

9 comments:

  1. What is the territory of the patriachates? Were they ever explicitly laid out in an ecumenical council?
    Qatar is certainly outside the boundaries of the Roman Empire when the patriarchates were set up.
    In any case, I am confident that the intention of the Council Fathers in establishing the patriarchates was to create these jurisdictional feuds in lands where the Church has the potential to grow. Even if the territory in which Qatar lay were that of Antioch, why is the patriarch interested in Qatar now? What has the patriarchate of Antioch (not even based in Antioch) been doing there for the last 1600 years in that region? Jurisdictional claims are important because order is necessary. But, this feud will be perceived as an ecclesiastical rivalry and can only make Christianity look bad to the pagans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Church's ecclesiology no longer reflects the reality that people can just follow the jobs or move somewhere else to avoid the wars. Or that people prefer to carry their particular liturgical forms with them wherever they go.

      Delete
    2. The boundaries of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem were set at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when it was carved out of the territory of the Patriarchate of Antioch, which surrounds it on all sides but the south. Antioch's territory has included all lands east of the Roman Empire since its foundation-- this is why Georgia was until the Middle Ages autonomous under Antioch, for example. If we bracket the Church of the East (which from Antioch's perspective was notionally under it, in a manner analogous to Georgia), the foundation of a catholicosate under Antioch in Baghdad for territories between Syria and Khorosan (where Antioch had another catholicosate located near modern Tashkent) goes back to the mid-10th century. After the Mongols, Baghdad continued on as a titular see in Antioch, and then in the 20th century the Archdiocese of Baghdad and the Gulf was founded (after its largest modern diocese in territory that had never been Roman, the Archdiocese of Amid/Diyarbakr was annihilated in the 1915 genocide). Currently Antioch has parishes in Kuwait and Oman in addition to both Arabic and Assyrian-speaking parishes in Iraq.

      Delete
  2. It should be noted that this statement is false:

    By contrast, the Antioch Patriarchate places the question on an ethnic-racial basis, as may be seen in its letter addressed to the Qatar Foreign Ministry, suggesting that “Patriarch John X of Antioch and All East is the only recognized Patriarch from the Orthodox Community (Taife) across the entire Middle East and represents the Orthodox Community in all Arab countries, including for example Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Jerusalem, Egypt, Bahrain, the Emirates, Iran”.

    Metropolitan Saba of Hawran has publicly stated that this letter is a fiction and that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem's claim that Patriarch John X said this is false. ( https://www.facebook.com/BishopSabaEsber/posts/867060620053912:0 ) He also points out that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem doesn't seem to know that they speak Persian in Iran....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Orthodoxy is hopelessly messed up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. False. Humans are hopeless. The Faith stands strong. This is merely political and has no bearing on the theology of either Church. "Breaking communion" is somewhat frequent and happens between Churches/Patriarchates that are having political disagreement to show they are having disagreement and affects clergy, but not the people. What they really should do is submit the matter to Constantinople. The Patriarch of Constantinople has the authority to rule political disagreements (if they voluntarily submit...he can't force the issue).

      Delete
    2. False. Humans are hopeless. The Faith stands strong. This is merely political and has no bearing on the theology of either Church. "Breaking communion" is somewhat frequent and happens between Churches/Patriarchates that are having political disagreement to show they are having disagreement and affects clergy, but not the people. What they really should do is submit the matter to Constantinople. The Patriarch of Constantinople has the authority to rule political disagreements (if they voluntarily submit...he can't force the issue).

      Delete
  4. It seems that local churches are quick to break communion with each other over territory but when it comes to services with the heterodox, praying with non-Christians, and bareheaded pseudo-ecumenical misstatements, no one cares.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly, true. While there is a disagreement and they do have an issue, there is a much bigger issue and they've chosen to ignore it.

      Delete