A History of the Orthodox Church
Orthodoxy Under the Ottomans (1453-1821)
Introduction |
History | Doctrine
The Christian ghetto |
Relations with the West
The Christian ghetto
According to Muslim belief, Christians, as well as Jews, were
considered as "people of the Book"; i.e., their religion was seen as not
entirely false, but incomplete. Accordingly, provided that Christians
submitted to the dominion of the caliphate and the Muslim political
administration and paid appropriate taxes, they deserved consideration and
freedom of worship. Any Christian mission or proselytism among the
Muslims, however, was considered a capital crime. In fact, Christians were
formally reduced to a ghetto existence: they were the Rum millet, or the
"Roman nation" conquered by Islam but enjoying a certain internal
autonomy.
In January 1454 the Sultan allowed the election of a new patriarch, who
was to become millet-bachi, the head of the entire Christian millet, or in
Greek the "ethnarch," with the right to administer, to tax, and to
exercise justice over all the Christians of the Turkish empire. Thus,
under the new system, the patriarch of Constantinople saw his formal
rights and jurisdiction extended both geographically and substantially: on
the one hand, through the privileges granted to him by the sultan, he
could practically ignore his colleagues, the other Orthodox patriarchs,
and, on the other hand, his power ceased to be purely canonical and
spiritual but became political as well. To the enslaved Greeks, he
appeared not only as the successor of the Byzantine patriarchs but also as
the heir of the emperors. For the Ottomans, he was the official and
strictly controlled administrator of the Rum millet. In order to symbolize
these new powers, the patriarch adopted an external attire reminiscent of
that of the emperors: mitre in form of a crown, long hair, eagles as
insignia of authority, and other imperial accoutrements.
The new system had many significant consequences. Most important, it
permitted the church to survive as an institution; indeed, the prestige of
the church was actually increased because, for Christians, the church was
now the only source of education and it alone offered possibilities of
social promotion. Moreover, through the legal restrictions placed on
mission, the new arrangement created the practical identification of
church membership with ethnic origin. And finally, since the entire
Christian millet was ruled by the patriarch of Constantinople and his
Greek staff, it guaranteed to the Phanariots, the Greek aristocracy of the
Phanar (now called Fener, the area of Istanbul where the patriarchate was,
and still is, located), a monopoly in episcopal elections. Thus, Greek
bishops progressively came to occupy all the hierarchical positions. The
ancient patriarchates of the Middle East were practically governed by the
Phanar. The Serbian and Bulgarian churches came to the same fate: the last
remnants of their autonomy were formally suppressed in 1766 and 1767,
respectively, by the Phanariot patriarch Samuel Hantcherli. This Greek
control, exercised through the support of the hated Turks, was resented
more and more by the Balkan Slavs and Romanians as the Turkish regime
became more despotic, taxes grew heavier, and modern nationalisms began to
develop.
It is necessary, however, to credit the Phanariots with a quite genuine
devotion to the cause of learning and education, which they alone were
able to provide inside the oppressed Christian ghetto. The advantages they
obtained from the Porte (the Turkish government) for building schools and
for developing Greek letters in the Romanian principalities of Moldavia
and Walachia that were entrusted to their rule came to play a substantial
role in the rebirth of Greece.
Relations with the West
The Union of Florence became fully inoperative as soon as the Turks
occupied Constantinople (1453). In 1484 a council of bishops condemned it
officially. Neither the sultan nor the majority of the Orthodox Greeks
were favourable to the continuation of political ties with Western
Christendom. The Byzantine cultural revival of the Palaeologan period was
the first to experience adverse effects from the occupation. Intellectual
dialogue with the West became impossible. Through liturgical worship and
the traditional spirituality of the monasteries, the Orthodox faith was
preserved in the former Byzantine world. Some self-educated men developed
a remarkable ability to develop the Orthodox tradition through writings
and publications, but they were isolated exceptions. Probably the most
remarkable among them was St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, the
Hagiorite (1748-1809), who edited the famous Philocalia, an anthology of
spiritual writings, and also translated and adapted Western spiritual
writings (e.g., those of the Jesuit founder, Ignatius of Loyola) into
modern Greek.
The only way for Orthodox Greeks, Slavs, or Romanians to acquire an
education higher than the elementary level was to go to the West. Several
of them were able to do so, but, in the process, became detached from
their own theological and spiritual tradition.
The West, in spite of much ignorance and prejudice, had a constant
interest in the Eastern Church. At times there was a genuine and
respectful curiosity; in other instances, political and proselytistic
(conversion) concerns prevailed. Thus, in 1573-81, a lengthy
correspondence was initiated by the Lutheran scholars from Tbingen (in
Germany). However interesting as a historical event, this correspondence,
which includes the Answers of Patriarch Jeremias II (patriarch 1572-95),
shows how little mutual understanding was possible at that time between
the Reformers and traditional Eastern Christianity.
Relations with the West, especially after the 17th century, were often
vitiated in the East by the incredible corruption of the Turkish
government, which constantly fostered diplomatic intrigues. An outstanding
example of such manipulation was the kharaj, an important tax required by
the Porte at each patriarchal election. Western diplomats were often ready
to provide the amount needed in order to secure the election of candidates
favourable to their causes. The French and Austrian ambassadors, for
example, supported candidates who would favour the establishment of Roman
Catholic influence in the Christian ghetto, while the British and Dutch
envoys supported patriarchs who were open to Protestant ideas. Thus, a
gifted and Western-educated patriarch, Cyril Lucaris, was elected and
deposed five times between 1620 and 1638. His stormy reign was marked by
the publication in Geneva of a Confession of Faith (1629), which was, to
the great amazement of all contemporaries, purely Calvinistic (i.e., it
contained Reformed Protestant views). The episode ended in tragedy. Cyril
was strangled by Turkish soldiers at the instigation of the pro-French and
pro-Austrian party. Six successive Orthodox councils condemned the
Confession: Constantinople, 1638; Kiev, 1640; Jassy, 1642; Constantinople,
1672; Jerusalem, 1672; and Constantinople, 1691.In order to refute its
positions, the metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mogila, published his own
Orthodox Confession of Faith (1640), which was followed, in 1672, by the
Confession of the patriarch of Jerusalem, Dostheos Notaras. Both,
especially Peter Mogila, were under strong Latin influence.
These episodes were followed, in the 18th century, by a strong
anti-Western reaction. In 1755 the Synod of Constantinople decreed that
all Westerners—Latin or Protestant—had invalid sacraments and were only
to be admitted into the Orthodox Church through Baptism. This practice of
the Greek Church fell into disuse only in the 20th century.
Webmaster Note: This page was retrieved from www.archive.org after
decani.yunet.com went defunct following the Kosovo conflict. This page was
originally created by monks at Decani Monastery in Kosovo. It has been
slightly edited for inclusion on this site. Abridged, from Callistos Ware,
The Orthodox Church, p. 12-16.
|