Yet it was a religious speech, and thus it is only normal that members of the religious community would resort to harkening back to it in a bid to “save the world” from all kinds of ills. It is likely that the two most powerful leaders of the Orthodox Church had a dream of establishing a good relationship between their institutions before meeting in İstanbul. This dream brought Kirill I, the patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia, to İstanbul last Saturday to meet with Bartholomew I, the İstanbul patriarch, on a three-day official visit. Although it was characterized by some in the Turkish media as an historic visit, it was actually a “traditional” visit by the newly elected patriarch, as İstanbul has seniority among the 15 autonomous Orthodox churches. It means the patriarch of Moscow will next visit Alexandria, Jerusalem, Georgia and other Orthodox patriarchates respectively, in order of precedence.During this official visit, the two patriarchs delivered speeches at the welcoming reception. They also held a mass together at the Church of St. George on Sunday in which brotherly sermons were exchanged. In these speeches, a desire was expressed to start a new beginning and renew fraternal relations between the two patriarchates.
The main question still remains: Was there any rivalry behind these brotherly sermons? The two patriarchs must have discussed the two main issues that have caused strife between them. The first one was the Estonian Church, which asked the intervention of Bartholomew I to gain autonomy from the Moscow Patriarchate in 1996, as they claimed they were forced by Stalin to submit to the Russian Church. Afterwards, the previous patriarch of Moscow, Alexy II, cut off his relationship with the İstanbul Church, as he had not been consulted and regarded the developments as a fait accompli. The second conflict was the situation in Ukraine, where the Orthodox were divided into four different groups along lines of schism from the 17th and 20th centuries. Most of these groups want to secede from the Russian Patriarchate. İstanbul was accused of unduly encouraging the refractory process. Ukraine and her parishes are important for Russia for several reasons: among them, Ukraine was the only country whose churches remained open during the Soviet regime, and most of the Russian clergy received their education in Ukrainian seminaries.
On the other hand, İstanbul is anxious about the revival and renaissance of the Russian Church, as its weight and power might lead it to claim the overarching leadership of the Orthodox Church in the near future. The claim would not be groundless because the Patriarchate of Moscow has some 95 million followers, which constitute more than one third of the 250 million Orthodox worldwide.
The election of Patriarch Kirill is a new chance for İstanbul because he intends to create an atmosphere of trust and civilized dialogue between the two churches. Some religious experts claim that, unlike his predecessor Alexy II, who was the first church leader to be chosen since the Bolshevik Revolution without any state interference and was busy with the renewal and revival of the Church in Russia, Kirill has charisma like that of Pope John Paul II, with his public relations and his easy-going attitude toward all segments of his society.
The İstanbul Patriarchate interprets Byzantine-era canons as affirming that she has the exclusive right of jurisdiction over the Orthodox diaspora -- the Orthodox parishes that remained outside of the traditional boundaries of ancient patriarchates. However, this interpretation has not been accepted by local churches so far, and they tend to consider themselves independent in their respective countries and worship in their native languages. Similarly, İstanbul does not recognize the independent status of the Orthodox Church in America and likewise Moscow does not recognize the jurisdiction of İstanbul over Estonia.
Apart from confrontation and conflict, the two leaders must have also discussed local problems they face in their countries, such as the debates over reopening the Heybeliada Orthodox seminary in İstanbul. It is assumed that Patriarch Kirill would support İstanbul on this issue and most likely talked about it when he met with President Abdullah Gül, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Religious Affairs Directorate head Professor Ali Bardakoğlu. The closure of the seminary by the Turkish state was something against religious liberties in the first place. The Turkish state will allow the İstanbul patriarch to take and discuss the issue with foreign officials and garner support for the cause by keeping it closed. Otherwise, the clergy of the İstanbul Patriarchate will continue to receive their education in Greek seminaries or the monastery of Mount Athos in Greece. Furthermore, the state insists on having a Turkish citizen as a patriarch, yet it will be more difficult in the future to find a Turkish citizen to lead the İstanbul Church unless they are educated in Turkey. Otherwise, the İstanbul Church would be forced to naturalize clergy coming from other countries, without any knowledge of Turkish society or the state's attitude towards the Church. These naturalized officials would also rely on their native countries in times of difficulty. The Turkish state should immediately solve this problem if she wishes to be counted among the civilized and democratic countries in the world. Then the dream of Martin Luther King Jr. that “all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands” would come alive in a peaceful and plural world.
*Ali Murat Yel teaches in the sociology department of İstanbul's Fatih University.
Benzer Haberler 
