Was the unfulfilled expectation of who would receive the lifelong
office and the administration of the religious institution the true reason
behind the insurrection within the orthodox community?
The Byzantine-inspired intrigues, scenarios and plots that we all
witnessed two years ago, constitute no hyperbole for those who are familiar with
people and situations in the land of Jerusalem; everything was staged by the
protagonist hierarchs who had their supporting groups fight a veritable power
war.
Should one take into consideration today the scheming by Patriarch Mr
Irineos’ opponents, the “Cretans” group was in the lead, followed by the
“Peloponnesians” in the strategy of a poorly copied petty-policy –exactly as it
happened in the 2001 Patriarch elections.
Expressing the views of said group was the close collaborator of the
deceased Patriarch Diodoros and Chairman of the then Patriarchate Financial
Committee, Metropolitan Cornelius of Petra. Full of ambition both for the
position of Suffragan Bishop (entrusted with ensuring that the clergy elects a
Patriarch in an orderly manner) as well as for the vacant Throne of Patriarch
Diodoros, he manages to be elected in the latter for the duration of the
transitional period, committing however many severe errors during his term of
office.
The gravest of all –which actually allowed the “Cretans” to prevail
easily on their first collective effort-, was that a letter from said group
leader-hierarch addressed to the Ariel Sharon administration was leaked, in
which he was thanking the Israeli government for its correct decision to exclude
five Metropolitans from the list of eligible candidates “for security reasons”.
Amongst them were Timotheos, Metropolitan of Vostra and Chief Secretary of the
Holy and Sacred Synod and the Patriarchal Exarch of the Tomb of the Holy
Sepulchre in Athens, Metropolitan Irineos of Hierapolis.
This careless action on behalf of Cornelius, Metropolitan of Petra,
resulted in the excluded candidate Metropolitans forming a common front and
blaming the “Cretans” of vilifying them, as the indecent –according to them-
behaviour of the former “aids their ultimate exclusion by the Israeli
government”.
Through personal efforts of the five aimed at all directions, the
excluded Metropolitans attempt –and finally manage- to reverse the decision
against them. The dispute still stands, as fierce as ever, thus facilitating the
chasm.
However, there is a cold-war like climate. The Pyrrhic victory of the
conciliatory Patriarch Mr Irineos only stiffens the internal strife. Neither of
the “Cretan” and “Peloponnesian” group leaders surrenders, while a sense of
ungratified anticipation lingers on in both blocks and the trends each of them
represents.
The Metropolitan of Petra Mr Cornelius and his supporters prove most
efficient on the chessboard of their opposition tactics, while the Metropolitan
of Petra Mr Timotheos, as leader of the “Peloponnesian” group, opts for the road
of intense in-court conflict against the Patriarch Mr Irineos, steadily losing
support within the brotherhood.
In a futile attempt to moderate the situation, the new Patriarch
fails to impose discipline through repression. Fully aware of all conflicting
ambitions, he pursues counterbalancing tactics through creative post
assignments, unwilling to disturb the spirit of consensus he wishes to
adopt.
From as early as the first meeting of the Greek Orthodox
Patriarchate’s new Synod, he entrusts the Archbishop of Constantine Aristarchus
with the task of Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod and assigns the
Metropolitan of Petra Cornelius as General Patriarchal
Commissioner.
The two leading members of the “Cretans” realise that in this
conjecture they may only shine in the new sky and they do not object in finding
their places in the pyramid whose cornerstone is the Patriarch
himself.
Later on, during the Synod’s internal changes in members,
Metropolitan Mr Cornelius remains within, while the “Cretan” Archimandrite
Theophilus, deep inside a pretentious coherent group, is upgraded to the key
post of Chief of the Skevophylakion (Treasury) of the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre.
Metropolitan Timotheos’ concern is manifest to the point of being
neurotic. Incapable of finding a way to react, he feels that in the framework of
the brotherhood’s collective instrument the “Cretans” are the majority, due to
the numerous tasks each of them have shouldered in their individual fields of
responsibility and that, in case of an artificially (or not) created “structural
crisis”, he could very well be taken by surprise.
Indeed, the Patriarch Irineos, ignoring the dynamic of his intentions
and while defending his renewal character and the long-term initiatives he had
undertaken aiming at the reversal of the fastidious past, falls victim to his
own devices.
At an inconspicuous point in time, he had made a proposal to the
(also “Cretan”) Metropolitan of Gerasa Mr Theophanis to be put to good use by
heading either the Estates Committee or the Press and Public Relations Service;
which he turned down. During the official visit to the Sinai Monastery, the
Patriarch Irineos makes another attempt at reconciliation and Patriarchate
circles commented that the new failure is due to the Hierarch’s temperamental
character.
However, the strengthening of one group/side has become a “power
occupation mechanism”. His All Holiness the Patriarch’s wider collaborations,
based on a rather fragile truce, certainly do not ensure his autonomy –quite the
contrary.
Everything seems to run smoothly. The most sought-after formal
recognition as Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox institution by Israel occurs in
January 2004. However, the recurrent appeals of that time at the Supreme Court
against his recognition impeded the execution of a plan on the administration,
planning and implementation of significant projects.
One year later, in February 2005, the Patriarch Irineos –more
confident than ever- will be convinced that in the always opportune place of
fermentation for views and proposals that is the Holy and Sacred Synod,
everything is discussed freely, everything is scrutinised and nothing may be
disappropriated in the name of any convenience.
He is proven miserably wrong by the ensuing facts. There are attempts
to link the scandal-bristling ecclesiastic crisis that breaks out in Greece
directly with Jerusalem.
At the same time, the gutter press-like exploitation of the transfer
and long-term renting of a part of the Patriarchate’s real estates is the great
opportunity awaited by the two quarrelling factions, the “Cretans” and the
“Peloponnesians”, so as to make a fierce comeback in the field for the final
battle, with an alleged consciousness apprehension as to the Zionite Church’s
downhill.
Both groups, in order to overthrow the Patriarch Irineos, reproach
him of having sold land to Jews and criticise him for inefficient
administration!
The Patriarch Mr Irineos, in the midst of the storm, displays
self-restraint. Firmly believing in demolishing the dividing fanaticism and
collusion, he promotes other values such as tolerance and
democracy.
On 18 February 2005, he announces the promotion of the Holy and
Sacred Synod member Mr Theophilus from Chief of the Skevophylakion of the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre to Archbishop of Tabor. The Patriarch seems to have learnt
from the example set only ten days earlier in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt by Ariel
Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas! Violence begets violence and it is by far better for
the current insecure coexistence to be replaced by an act of rallying,
reconciliation and pacification that will once again set new premises for
everyone.
He is, however, reckoning without the directly involved local
ecclesiastic actors.
They, as deceptive interlocutors, suppress true facts from Hellenic
State Department people in order to compromise him.
Based on their orchestrated and elaborately formulated accusations,
within a few hours he is hastily found guilty by experts from the Greek
Directorate of Ecclesiastic Affairs, without any substantial –or even
convincing- evidence (when it took Palestinian experts over three months to
complete their findings which actually acquit the Patriarch Irineos from all
accusations levelled at him).
The same manipulated information was made available by the same
insubordinate groups to a Delegation that was sent to the Holy Lands from
Constantinople to closely observe what was taking place and draw up a Report on
the facts supported by the dissidents!
In the turmoil of paltry defamation, the Hellenic government and the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, distanced from the objective investigation and the
events in the Zionite Church, will –inadvertently- be convinced by inaccuracies
and slander.
The first strides of the schemers obtain an alibi.
Having secured the support of the misinformed Authorities, the
insurgents declare that the Patriarch Mr Irineos no longer has the right to
convene the Holy and Sacred Synod or to make any decisions –including any
against them! They would rather, as they say, the Patriarch stood down
peacefully!!!
The developments are swift. The “Peloponnesians”, hardly adequate to
deal with the situation and –most important- to regain the lost trust of the
orthodox brotherhood, can do little more than stand by and watch the “Cretans”
sweep on.
As pertains to the demand to summon a Panorthodox Meeting in
Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was informed, on behalf of
those who signed for the Renunciation of Patriarch Irineos, by the Metropolitan
of Gerasa Theophanis. Said Renunciation was served on the Patriarch by the
Archbishop of Constantine Aristarchus, while the frugal accompanying text on
behalf of the undersigned factionists was communicated by the Metropolitan of
Petra Cornelius.
Their scheming mechanisms, stretching out on a daily basis around the
ecclesiastic body like a spider’s web, despite the chaos during the first barren
meeting to elect a Suffragan, deliver the key post to the Metropolitan of
Petra.
Their pretext was that Mr Cornelius was Suffragan during the last
election for Patriarch in 2001 and he had been instructed by all three involved
governments (Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority) to proceed with the
vote.
They claim that, given the critical state the Greek Orthodox
Patriarchate was in, the Holy and Sacred Synod should not disturb the
equilibrium by entrusting another person with the elections.
The last great ruse of the “Cretans”, following the analogous
feverish backstage deliberations of the “family”, was that their two candidates
withdrew in favour of the one who would be preferred during the first phase of
the procedure.
During the vote, which boasted the participation of 13 Synod
Metropolitans, the contender for the Throne, Metropolitan Theophilus would not
stand a chance when faced with the two “Cretans” (Theophilus and Aristarchus).
And they were proven right.
The “contract of honour” results in the “unanimous” election of the
Archbishop of Tabor, Mr Theophilus.
A tactless ending, a purely internal, insidious and hypocritical act,
the result of heterogeneous groups that devastated the prestige of the
historical Greek Orthodox Patriarchate and denigrated the Patriarch Mr Irineos
who has been ministering the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem since he was thirteen
years old.
This article was published in
the newspaper "Eleftheri Ora" on
30.12.2007
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου
Το «Ελληνικά και Ορθόδοξα» απεχθάνεται τις γκρίνιες τις ύβρεις και τα φραγγολεβέντικα (greeklish).
Παρακαλούμε, πριν δημοσιεύσετε το σχόλιό σας, έχετε υπόψη σας τα ακόλουθα:
1) Ο σχολιασμός και οι απόψεις είναι ελεύθερες πλην όμως να είναι κόσμιες .
2) Προτιμούμε τα ελληνικά αλλά μπορείτε να χρησιμοποιήσετε και ότι γλώσσα θέλετε αρκεί το γραπτό σας να είναι τεκμηριωμένο.
3) Ο κάθε σχολιαστής οφείλει να διατηρεί ένα μόνο όνομα ή ψευδώνυμο, το οποίο αποτελεί και την ταυτότητά του σε κάθε συζήτηση.
4) Κανένα σχόλιο δεν διαγράφεται εκτός από τα spam και τα υβριστικά