Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Constantinople and Jerusalem: The Delegation of Bishop Anthimos in the Holy Land, 1921||Other Titles:||القسطنطنية والقدس: بعثة المطران أنثيموس الى الأراضي المقدسة، 1921||Authors:||Papastathis, Kostas||Keywords:||Constantinople
|Issue Date:||2007||Publisher:||University of Balamand||Part of:||Chronos||Issue:||15||Start page:||7||End page:||29||Abstract:||
During the early period of the British Mandate in Palestine (1917-1948) the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem was in a difficult position. Between the years 1917-1921, a number of issues of great political importance were raised concerning its administrative and economic status. The change of the political regime in the area was for many agents an opportunity to initiate the modification of the existing state of affairs. On the one hand, the Patriarchate had to hold out against the concerted endeavor of the Catholic Church and of its protectress powers to alter the Status Quo of the Christian Holy Places (Zander 1973:337- 356; Cust 1929:passim; Pieraccini 1996:203-251; Bovis 1971:1-20). On the other hand, the conflict between the Greek prelates and the local Orthodox community had boosted, concerning the latter's claim to interfere in the affairs of the institution and to join without impediments in the Confraternity of the Holy Sepulchre (Hopwood 1969:180-207; Bertram-Young 1926: passim). The Arab Orthodox claims, which were ascribed to them according to the Turkish Order of 1910 (Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem 1944:3040; Bertram-Young 1926:318-327), had never been implemented, because they were considered by the Greek hierarchy as the first step towards the "Arabization" of the Patriarchate and the consequent reduction of traditional Greek predominance over the Orthodox world (Metaxakis 1909:35). The native Orthodox perceived the Greek prelates as foreign, whose eminent position was essentially a "snatch" status that deprived them of their unalienable right to govern an ecclesiastical institution of their homeland (Hopwood 1969:195). Furthermore, within the Confraternity of the Holy Sepulchre there was a dispute between Patriarch Damianos and a group of bishops, who had renounced him and contested his authority by accusing him, among other things, of being a despotic ruler (Bertram-Luke 1921:3-191,279-284). Common denominator of the above was the huge economic problem that the Patriarchate faced, due to the arbitrary administration of Damianos and the Holy Synod (Bertram-Luke 1921:191-216; Tsimhoni 1978:84-101).
|URI:||https://scholarhub.balamand.edu.lb/handle/uob/6341||Open URL:||Link to full text||Type:||Journal Article|
|Appears in Collections:||Chronos|
Show full item record
checked on Feb 5, 2023
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.