Israeli court OKs Greek Orthodox choice

[TomS]

TEL AVIV, Israel, March 5 (UPI) -- Israel's High Court of Justice has rejected an appeal to deny recognition of Eirinaios I as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Palestine and Syria.

Petitioners alleged Eirinaios stole church funds, made anti-Semitic statements and supported the Palestinians.

The church owns large tracts in key locations in Jerusalem and critics feared it would use its economic power against Israel.

Centuries-old traditions dictate a new patriarch requires the rulers' consent to operate. Eirinaios was elected in 2001, the government recognized his election this year, and the appeal was designed to deny it and order further police investigations.

Justice Dorit Beinisch noted Friday police found no basis for claims of criminal activity, and the witnesses who spoke up seemed unreliable.

The government acted reasonably in trying to respect the Greek Orthodox community's autonomy and not interfere in its election, she concluded.

[Linus7]

Good.

I hope he is at least as good a man as his predecessor, Diodorus of Blessed Memory.

Here he is:

[Linus7]

I don't think I made it clear enough in my last post: that is a picture of the new Patriarch of Jerusalem, Eirinaios.

God grant him many years.

[Antonious Nikolas]

I do not mean this to be rude, so I hope no one takes it the wrong way.  Why must the Orthodox seek approval from the secular government of Israel to elect the Patriarch?  This seems like a holdover from Byzantine times when the Emperor was a Christian or maybe Ottoman times when the Church was beholden to the Turks.  Why should the Church give Israel's government a say in who the Church chooses to be its leader?  Is this true in other places?  Can the Ankara government veto the Church's choice for the Patriarch of Constantinople?  Is this true in Moscow, etc.?  Just wondering.

[Linus7]

I do not mean this to be rude, so I hope no one takes it the wrong way.  Why must the Orthodox seek approval from the secular government of Israel to elect the Patriarch?  This seems like a holdover from Byzantine times when the Emperor was a Christian or maybe Ottoman times when the Church was beholden to the Turks.  Why should the Church give Israel's government a say in who the Church chooses to be its leader?  Is this true in other places?  Can the Ankara government veto the Church's choice for the Patriarch of Constantinople?  Is this true in Moscow, etc.?  Just wondering.

I don't think you are being rude at all.

Those are good questions.

[Αριστοκλής]

I do not mean this to be rude, so I hope no one takes it the wrong way.  Why must the Orthodox seek approval from the secular government of Israel to elect the Patriarch?  This seems like a holdover from Byzantine times when the Emperor was a Christian or maybe Ottoman times when the Church was beholden to the Turks.  Why should the Church give Israel's government a say in who the Church chooses to be its leader?  Is this true in other places?  Can the Ankara government veto the Church's choice for the Patriarch of Constantinople?  Is this true in Moscow, etc.?  Just wondering.

Linus7 is right, you are not being rude. Good questions all.
I THINK as far as the old Byzantine Sees go, it's a matter of old canon law. But the reality today is control of vast church real estate holdings in both Turkey and Jerusalem. Re-defining these relationships may put in question things such as the Jerusalem Patriarch's legal ownership claims to most the best of (east) Jerusalem which he has had for about 1500 years.
The Church is still under the Turks' thumb; yes they can withhold approval and the new patriarch can not "transact" legally. Same in Israel. Antioch (now in Damascus) gets approval but does not have the asset problem to the same degree; ditto Alexandria.
Don't know about Moscow; but they've got their own historical woes with the "State".

Demetri

[gregory2]

wouldn't it be strange if president bush had to approve the primacy Metropolitan HERMAN?  or worse yet, if president clinton had to???  

i read an essay written by St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai/SF a while ago where he wrote on the patriarchate of constantinople.... i believe that he said something like if the turkish government wanted to send the patriarch to ankara in order to get him out of constantinople, they could do that.  maybe the turks were considering that a while ago when greek dreams of recapturing constantinople were prevalent.

[Antonious Nikolas]

Thanks for the answers guys!  It would be weird if the secular leaders in this country had veto power over the Church leaders, and terrible!  I wish that this tradition could end in other countries, even if it is canon law.  I am no expert and I could be wrong, but the canon law was probably written when there was an Orthodox Emperor on the throne, not a Muslim Turk or a secular or nominally Jewish Israeli.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Christian News (Moderator: serb1389) > Topic: Israeli court OKs Greek Orthodox choice