Posts
Fr. Pavlos interviews Athanasios Sakarellos on the so-called "Greek" Revolt of 1821. This program is in Romaic (Greek).
Essentially the so-called "Greek" War of Independence was a Roman revolt which had as its aim the restoration of the Roman Empire, especially of its capital in Constantinople. In this sense, it did not fulfill ts mission. On the other hand, it did fulfill the mission of being freed of the Ottoman occupation. With the governing of Greece by foreign powers began the "barbarization" of Modern Greece and its loss of its historic Roman identity. Patriarch Gregory V foresaw this danger and warned the revolutionaries against the revolt.
Essentially the so-called "Greek" War of Independence was a Roman revolt which had as its aim the restoration of the Roman Empire, especially of its capital in Constantinople. In this sense, it did not fulfill ts mission. On the other hand, it did fulfill the mission of being freed of the Ottoman occupation. With the governing of Greece by foreign powers began the "barbarization" of Modern Greece and its loss of its historic Roman identity. Patriarch Gregory V foresaw this danger and warned the revolutionaries against the revolt.
By the 13th century "Romios" had started to be supplanted by the description "Ellinas." Medieval Europeans had already started calling the "Byzantine" Empire, "The Empire of the Greeks." During the 4 centuries of Turkish supremacy, the Orthodox Church, largely through Islamic doctrine, assumed a predominant role in Christian Greek society that did not reflect its position in the "Byzantine" Empire as subservient and politically much inferior to the Imperial administration. Ironically, the predominant role of the church in the revolution of 1821 and through to contemporary Greece is a manifestation of Turkish policy. One might say with validity that the present Greek orthodox Church is the living representation of the long-dead Ottoman Empire. That's why "Romios" and "The Roman Empire" finds such perverse sympathy with contemporary theologians and clerics.
ReplyDeleteI don't think most Orthodox would dare say they are the living representation of any Empire ecclesiologically. On the social and cultural level however, during Turkish rule they identified themselves as Romans and kept those traditions alive, so to say they became "Turkish" in a way after 1821 would not be accurate.
ReplyDeleteWhat one would dare or dare not understand about himself is beside the point. Under the Ottomans, and according to the tenets of Islam, the Orthodox Church became the political representative of the Christian Milyet. It assumed a central social and cultural role in the community as designated by the Ottomans. It is telling, and no coincidence, that the first President of an independent Greek Cyprus was a cleric. The late Archbishop of Athens Christodulos was following the role of the Church as designated during the Ottoman period when he incessantly involved himself in the politics of the nation. The once-great church of Orthodoxy became, under the Ottomans, a sclerotic, corrupt, and politically intrusive organization and it remains so today, although under the present Archbishop it is somewhat less aggressive, but far from intrusive, in political affairs. The present Greek Orthodox Church, in many ways, possesses no small part of its identity as formed during the Ottoman period. The institutional church was very much against any war of Greek independence against the Turks. It enjoyed a privileged position with the Imperial administration and was against anything that might risk that position and privilege. The church saw (sees?) itself as an extenuation of a church-dominated "Byzantine" society that had nothing to do with the "pagan Hellenism" which it despised, and even less to do with 19th century nationalism. It is, in those senses, a construction from an Ottoman Turkey that no longer exists.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with your conclusions on this, though a few points you make are true. You are just picking and choosing things out of the air of history however to make your point. The Church at all times and in all places where it has ever held a priveledged position in society has always been involved in political situations. It is not purely a late 19th to present day Greek phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteI meant "19th century"...
ReplyDeleteDuring the "Byzantine" empire, the Greek "Romiosini" was a direct translation of the Latin "Romanitas" which designated the hight of culture, refinement and civilization that a Roman citizen might attain in a barbaric world. It was a designation whose foundation was the classical Greco-Roman world. During the long centuries of Turkish domination when the Greeks were separaed from their historical and cultural heritage, "Romiosini" and "Romios" evolved to mean the yeoman-peasant who held fast to his narrow subsistence and politically disenfranchised existence. During and after the revolution of 1821, "Hellenes" were the educated Greeks from abroad and "Romios" was the salt-of the-earth peasant whose entire world was encompassed in his village and restrictive culture. Intriguingly, "Romios" had evolved (as language does) to mean the opposite of what it first did. Today in Greece, "Romios" has become almost extinct to be replaced by the ubiquitous "Ellinas."
ReplyDeleteOne more go:
ReplyDeletePeople, especially Greeks, speak of the "400 year Turkish occupation of Greece." The Turks, of course, have never occupied Greece, not even for a day. The only time Greece has ever been occupied in its history was by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. The distinction is not mere semantics, it is a gross historical, conceptual and psycho-sociological inaccuracy.
The critical difference between the church (any church) having a "political" role in society and the Orthodox Church under the Ottomans was that at that time the Orthodox Church was the sole political representative and administrator of the Greek-speaking community. There was no counter-administrative body as there normally was between king and Church (under the directorship of the king) in Medieval Europe and "Byzantium." It was for this reason that the Turks responded to the Greek revolutionary uprising in the Greek peninsula by hanging the Patriarch in Constantinople who was, literally, the political leader of the Greek community. Oddly, you say I "pick and chose" my examples. In fact, I am giving historical support for my conclusions. If you can produce historical evidence that disputes my opinions, I would be appreciative.
ReplyDeleteBest,
AdG
Again, I'm not denying some of your historical facts, I just find your conclusions a bit misleading and far-reaching from the facts. The Ecumenical Patriarch under the Ottomans was nothing more than a representative of the Orthodox people and was by no means an administrator. His jurisdiction was a lot bigger under the Ottomans than under the Romans as a milet, but not necessarily ecclesiologically.
ReplyDeleteYes, my use of the term "administrator" was hastily chosen and misleading because, of course, the actual administrating was done by the Sultan's court. Still, the Patriarch was in a sense "administrating" because of the financial influence, in many respects even control, that he had in the Greek (technically "Christian") community. Orders from the Sultan's court were also passed down to the community through him. It is not hyperbolic to say that the Patriarchal structure was a mini "court" of its own. The essence of my point is valid, however: the Orthodox Church was the sole accepted representative of the Greek-Christian community and thus had a (the) leading "political" responsibility for that community under the Sultan. It was a political role that it did not play, and political power it did not have, under the "Byzantine" emperors and one which influenced its self-identity, and social role, in the centuries to come.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your interesting reply,
best,
AdG
Athanasios Sakarellos is right on the mark. He is saying exactly what the Kollyvades Fathers said and exactly what Professor Christos Yannaras has been saying for years. Essentially the Byzantine Civil War of the 14th century never really ended. It carried on up to the Fall of Constantinople, lasted throughout the Turkish period, was front and center during the War of Independence, and continues to be played out in the politics of modern Greece up to the present day.
ReplyDelete