The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Announcement of an Agreement about Qatar in 2013

Greek original here, from June 21, 2013. Just for reference---


At the initiative of Deputy Foreign Minister Kosta Tsiara, a meeting was held today at the Ministery of Foreign Affairs between delegations between the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem. The main subject of the meeting, in which a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate also participated, was the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Qatar.

Following the discussions, conducted in a spirit of mutual trust and understanding, the representatives of the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem confirmed that each Church respects the boundaries of the other's jurisdiction and they agreed to relay specific proposals that serve the common goal of the unity of Orthodoxy to the Holy Synods of the Churches.

In conclusion, the Deputy Foreign Minister praised the mediating role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and thanked them for the agreement and the constructive atmosphere in which the talks were held.

an-Nahar on Antioch's Decision and Jerusalem's Response

Arabic original here.

On Antioch's Decision and Jerusalem's Response
by Mazen Abboud

On June 27 of this year, the Holy Synod of Antioch, meeting at Balamand for its regular session, issued decision no. ع3-5/2015, cutting off ecclesiastical communion with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. It stated in its rationale that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem had violated the geographical territory of the Patriarchate of Antioch by establishing a diocese in Qatar and installing an "archbishop" over it. Antioch stated that it had exhausted all eirenic means and noted that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem had "repudiated what had been agreed upon" in the presence of delegates from the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs and promises that it had made to some of the heads of the sister Orthodox churches. In order to affirm its right to the Gulf region, it cut off ecclesiastical communion with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and confirmed the necessity of returning to what had been agreed in Athens in June 2013. It affirmed that any solution to the conflict must be based on affirming the Church of Antioch's insistence on the necessity of respecting the principle of consensus, whether in terms of the presence of all autocephalous Orthodox churches or in adopting decisions at any joint Orthodox meeting.

This was a measure that some may have considered harsh and the response from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem was quick. Jerusalem began its response by declaring its sorrow over the decision to break communion and stating that incorporating Qatar into its territory was "responding to an invitation by the Christians of Qatar, a geographical territory within its ecclesiastical jurisdiction." It then points out that in 1997 it sent a priest to hold liturgical services, the present-day Patriarch Theophilus of Jerusalem. After a careful reading of the response from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, I would like to discuss a number of points:

First, to my knowledge, there has never existed any letter from the Patriarchate of Antioch to the Foreign Ministry of Qatar claiming spiritual authority over Jerusalem and Jordan. Nor was there ever any direct communication between the two sides in this context. His Beatitude the Patriarch never asked to visit Qatar or to cooperate with it in educational and medical affairs, as the letter from the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Church of Jerusalem reports.

Second, who are the Christians of Qatar who invited the Patriarchate of Jerusalem to come there? Are they members of the Patriarchate of Antioch, for example?

Fourth, I think the least that can be said of the Church of Jerusalem's response to her sister church is that it lacks diplomatic tact and it definitely lacks the spirit of Christ. Accusing another church of ethno-phylitism and racial discrimination better reflects the state of the accuser, which is estranged from its flock because it refuses to deal with their issues, concerns and crises. Likewise, accusing Antioch of lying in an official response reflects the extent of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem's estrangement from Christ.

Fifth, does the presence of an archimandrite holding liturgical services in Qatar actually comparable to consecrating an archbishop over it? And does the fact that Antioch did not object to a priest from Jerusalem holding services entail not opposing his election and consecration as bishop of Qatar?

I am afraid that the Church of Jerusalem has started to look for external crises with other churches in order to hide its behavior and distract public opinion and the media from being concerned with its news, the way it treats its flock  and sales of land.

Finally, our Church, despite all her weakness, is not an ethnic church and will never be, even if once upon a time the Arabs granted her the title of "Patriarch of the Arabs".

The Territory of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem according to the Fourth Ecumenical Council

This is taken from Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Liverpool University Press, 2005, vol. II, pp. 247-249.

Compare to this nonsense. For a map of the territories in question, see here. Notice that according to the Council of Chalcedon, most of modern Jordan should be part of the Patriarchate of Antioch.

Session VII (Session VIII in the Greek version of the Acts)

[...]

3. When all had taken their seats in front of the rails of the most holy sanctuary, the most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Our most divine and pious master, at the request of the most sacred bishops Maximus and Juvenal, instructed us to discuss with them the proposals that have been moved. The aforementioned most sacred men had a meeting and drafted a joint proposal in unwritten form, which, as they made clear even to us, appears to have been drafted justly by agreement. We therefore thought it essential that both of them should also inform the holy council, so that by our judgement and your decree that which has found approval may be confirmed.’

4. Maximus the most devout bishop of Antioch in Syria said: ‘After much rivalry the most devout Bishop Juvenal and I have decided in agreement that the see of the great city of Antioch, that of Saint Peter, should have the two Phoenices and Arabia, while the see of Jerusalem should have the three Palestines. And we ask that this be confirmed in writing by a judgement of your magnificence and of the holy council.’

5. Juvenal the most sacred bishop of the city of Jerusalem said: ‘I too have decided that the holy [church of the] Resurrection of Christ should have the three Palestines, and the see of Antioch the two Phoenices and Arabia. And I ask that this be confirmed by a judgement of your magnificence and of the holy council.’

[...]

7. Paschasinus and Lucentius the most devout bishops and Boniface presbyter, representing the apostolic see of Senior Rome, said {through the most devout Bishop Paschasinus}: ‘We recognize that this proposal resulting from an agreement between our brothers Maximus the most devout bishop of the church of Antioch and the most devout and holy Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem was made for the sake of the benefit of peace,that is, that the bishop of the church of Antioch should have the two Phoenices and Arabia and the bishop of Jerusalem the three Palestines. May it be confirmed
in addition by the declaration of our humility, so that from now on no rivalry may remain between the aforesaid churches over this matter.’

8. Anatolius bishop of glorious Constantinople New Rome said: ‘May the agreement between the most God-beloved Maximus bishop of Antioch and the most God-beloved Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem be confirmed by my declaration also, that the most holy church of the great city of Antioch should have the two Phoenices and Arabia, and the most holy church of Jerusalem the three Palestines, so that in future the two churches should have no cause for dispute with each other over this question.’

9. Thalassius the most devout bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said: The decision agreed between the most God-beloved and holy bishops Maximus and Juvenal we also approve.’

10. Stephen the most devout bishop of Ephesus said: ‘In accordance with the proposal of the most God-beloved and devout Maximus bishop of the city of Antioch and the most God-beloved Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem, that the most holy church of the city of Antioch should have the two Phoenices and Arabia and the most holy church of Jerusalem the three Palestines, I too confirm their joint proposal, so that both churches in future will have no cause for rivalry.’

11. Eusebius the most devout bishop of Ancyra in Galatia said: ‘We give thanks to the Lord God that the dispute between the two fathers has been ended by a friendly agreement, and we therefore wish that the proposal agreed by both parties prevail.’

12. Peter the most devout bishop of Corinth said: ‘We are delighted by the peace and concord between these two fathers, and approve the proposal.’

13. Julian the most devout bishop of Cos said: ‘In accordance with the agreement between both parties, that is, the most devout Maximus bishop of Antioch and Juvenal the most devout bishop of Jerusalem, that the most holy church of the great city of Antioch should have the two Phoenices and Arabia, and the most holy church of Jerusalem the three Palestines, I too pronounce that their joint proposal is confirmed, since the mediation of Christ’s love has brought them both into unity.’

14. Diogenes the most devout bishop of Cyzicus said: ‘I approve the proceedings of the holy fathers.’

15. Amphilochius the most devout bishop of Side said: ‘Since the divine dispensation has manifestly directed that the dispute between the most Godbeloved bishops Maximus and Juvenal should be settled by a friendly agreement, I too give thanks to Christ the Saviour for this peace between them, and approve their splendid decision.’

16. All the most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We too say the same and agree with the statements of the fathers.’

17. The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘This too is the work of the holy Trinity and of the policy of our most divine and pious emperor, so that the dispute between those who appeared to be rivals should be cut short by an agreed policy. The accord that has been reached, then, through agreement between Maximus the most holy bishop of Antioch and Juvenal the most sacred bishop of Jerusalem, as revealed in their joint proposal, now that it has been confirmed both by our judgement and by the decree of the holy council, will last for all time, that is, that the most sacred Bishop Maximus and the most holy church of Antioch is to have the two Phoenices and Arabia under its authority, while the most sacred Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem and the most holy church under him is to have the three Palestines under its authority. This decision abrogates, according to the command of our most divine and pious lord, all mandates and all rescripts otherwise procured by the two parties and the penalties contained in them relating to this matter.’

Carol Saba on the Rupture of Communion between Antioch and Jerusalem

French original here. Audio, from Radio Notre Dame, can be found here. It should be noted that Carol Saba is expressing his personal view here and is not speaking in his capacity of director of communications for the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France.

 "When the wise man points at the moon, the idiot looks at his finger"!
What is the Affair of Canonical Jurisdiction over Qatar about?



 "When the wise man points at the moon, the idiot looks at his finger"! The famous Chinese proverb was completely right. This teaching attributed to Confucius is very appropriate in this case. Especially when we read, here and there, commentaries on the affair of canonical jurisdiction over Qatar. In the same sense as the Chinese lesson, as they say in my country France, "the tree must not hide the forest". Everyone is looking at this affair from the perspective of the break in ecclesiastical communion that the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East was recently compelled to declare.  This break is only the visible consequence of a deeper cause which provoked Antioch's decision-- the ecclesiastical intrusion of of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in 2013 into Qatar, on the ancestral territory of the canonical, historical and apostolic jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East. It is not for nothing that this patriarchate has this name, the Patriarchate of Antioch --and All the East-- as its patriarchal territory extends over all the ancient East during the time of the Roman Empire and early Christianity. It was thus since the earliest apostolic times. As it has been since then and well before (historians and canonists must be reminded) the establishment of Jerusalem as a "Patriarchate" by the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. At that time, Jerusalem was only a simple episcopal see and did not have the rank of patriarchate. At that time it was under the metropolitan of Caesarea. The elevation of the See of Jerusalem to the rank of patriarchate (a patriarchate which also had a role that was somewhat sui generis, as a patriarchate of pilgrimage) was on account of the holy places on its territory more so than as a patriarchate with pastoral functions. Thus this elevation to the rank of patriarchate which was made at the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, held at the Church of Saint Euphemia, was made (we must recall) by a concession granted by the Patriarch of Antioch at the time, Maximus, to the bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem, who already at that time, as the acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council attest, was making multiple intrusions into the canonical territory of Antioch. Was not the agreement between Maximus and Juvenal (snatched from Antioch, and which many historians consider unjust for that patriarchate) the basis for forming Jerusalem's canonical jurisdiction? Was it not the Patriarch of Antioch who ceded his jurisdiction over the territory of Palestine to Jerusalem, while keeping (as is explicitly stipulated in the canons of the council) the See of Antioch and its region, as well as the two Phoenicias and Arabia? So how could the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, whose territory was taken from within that of Antioch, today claim to have a right to the jurisdiction of a patriarchate-- that is, Antioch-- which preceded it? Thus we see that the story is older than it seems. It has roots deep in history. It doesn't just date back to 2013! But let's set history aside and come back to the present day. Yes, the Patriarchate of Antioch could not accept without jeopardizing its historical, apostolic, canonical and ecclesiastical integrity for the priest Archimandrite Macarius of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, who by economia was providing certain liturgical and pastoral services in Qatar, to be elevated in March 2013 to the rank of Archbishop of Qatar, a decision of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem which also created a new diocese of that patriarchate on the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Antioch! For a church (i.e. Antioch) to welcome a priest of another church (i.e. Jerusalem) onto its territory out of canonical tolerance and pastoral economia is one thing, but it is something entirely different to accept a "bishop" of another church onto its own canonical territory. It's as if Cardinal André Vignt-Trois were forced to accept a second bishop of Paris from another church who came claiming the same title and the same episcopal rank as the Archbishop of Paris!

Yes, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East was compelled, with heavy heart and pain down to the very depths of its ecclesiastical being, to break ecclesiastical communion until further notice with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem on account of the affair of canonical jurisdiction over Qatar. I say "affair" and not "dispute" or "disagreement" because to speak of a dispute or disagreement-- and as a lawyer I should know this very well-- implies the existence of a doubt or a debate about the existence of a right. In this case, canonical, historical and apostolic jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Antioch over Qatar and the entire Arabian Peninsula is not open to debate or interpretation. It was on this basis-- that is, explicit recognition by the Patriarchate of Jerusalem of the canonical right of the Patriarchate of Antioch over the whole of the Arabian Peninsula, including Qatar-- that an agreement was made in June 2013 between the two patriarchates. This agreement was made thanks to the mediation organized in Athens at the headquarters of the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, by that minister (in the presence of the minister and his advisers) and by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (represented by Metropolitan John of Pergamon and Archimandrite Bartholemew). I was there as part of the delegation of the Patriarchate of Antioch led by Metropolitan Saba of Bosra and Hauran and I contributed to the formulation of this agreement. Unfortunately, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem subsequently reneged on this agreement and claims that it never existed. Nevertheless, this agreement was not only announced on the very day of the negotiations by an official communiqué of the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, a communiqué whose tenor and every word was validated by the delegations from the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem as well as the representatives of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Greek minister, by also by correspondence exchanged between the primates of the Churches of Constantinople and Antioch.

"When the wise man points at the moon, the idiot looks at his finger"! Today we should not look at the finger, but at the moon! We should not look at the consequence, but at the cause! This is not a mere "territorial dispute" between two sister churches, but an issue that touches the very heart of the unity of the entire Orthodox Church, a unity that is based on the one hand on communion of faith and on the other hand on respect by all the Orthodox churches for the canons of the ecumenical councils as well as the taxis and praxis of the Orthodox Church. Thus any violation by a church of the texts of these councils and their canons wrongs not only the specific church that is being wronged,  but also the entire body of the Orthodox ecclesiastical family. The unity of the Orthodox Church is absolutely crucial today, especially with regard to holding the Great and Holy Pan-Orthodox Council which is supposed to be held in 2016, where the entire Orthodox Church must speak with one voice to meet the challenges of the contemporary world and must actualize its discourse and undertake its aggiornamento. Kyrie Eleison!

Archbishop Atallah Hanna Responds to Leaked Saudi Document

The Arabic original can be found here.


Clarification issued by His Eminence Atallah Hanna, Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Sebate in Jerusalem

We were shocked yesterday by a document issued by the Saudi Foreign Ministry that has been published across various social media sites. We do not know if it is real or a forgery. This document says that we received funds from the Saudi Embassy in Amman as support from the Saudi government. We would therefore like to clarify this as follows:

1. We have never requested assistance from Saudi Arabia and we have never received any assistance from Saudi Arabia. Therefore what was published in this document is erroneous and absolutely untrue.

2. Our positions are well-known to all and disseminated through all forms of media-- radio, television and print. Our positions are not up for barter. Our positions are not for sale and cannot be bought with money. We do not deny that we have been subject to temptations from certain parties to change our positions, especially with the start of the Syrian crisis. Our position has remained firm and clear. We refuse political money intended for specific political positions. Thus all attempts by those who want to influence us and our positions have failed.

3. We refuse funding that is conditional on political positions, whatever those positions may be. Our positions are patriotic and stem from our personal conviction based on our Arab identity with regard to the issue of Palestine, our primary concern and our concern for all issues of the Arab nation from the Ocean to the Gulf.

4. We have no way of knowing who is behind this document and we do not know if it is forged or real. The party who should be asked about this topic is the Saudi government and so I am demanding that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia conduct a serious investigation about this document, who requested assistance and who received it.

Here I do not rule out this being a case of corruption and serious fraud on the part of one of the officials or employees in the Saudi government. Personally, I have never delegated anyone to speak on my behalf to the Saudi government to request financial assistance and I have never received any financial assistance from the Saudi government.

5. Once more, I ask the Saudi government to conduct a serious investigation into this offensive document which contains information that is absolutely untrue and has absolutely no connection to me.

6. We affirm that what is found in this document has no relation to us. We have nothing to do with the money that is said to have been sent and requested from the Saudi Embassy in Amman, if it is determined who received this money and where it was sent.

7. I have the right to initiate legal proceedings if the Saudi government does not explain what happened, especially since it has become clear that it is an issue of bureaucratic corruption and fraudulently taking money in the name of other people who did not request this money and who of course will never receive it.

Wikileaks: Archbishop Atallah Hanna Sought and Received Saudi Funding

So the Wikileaks Saudi Cables, which have just started to be posted online, are going to prove to be very embarrassing for a lot of people. The only cable of interest so far (with 60,000 out of 500,000 documents released) with regard to the Orthodox Church is a cable from the Saudi embassy in Jordan, stating that in 2011, Archbishop Atallah Hanna contacted them with a request for money and they agreed to give him $200,000. The document, also reproduced below, can be found here.

UPDATE: Archbishop Atallah has responded to this document and has categorically stated that he has never requested or received Saudi funding and that this document may be due to financial fraud on the part of someone at the embassy. It should be noted in his favor that the archbishop's political position with regard to the Syria crisis has always been strongly in favor of the Syrian government and against the policies of the Saudis. Please read his response here.

With reference to your cable no. 3772/206 dated 23.10.1432 Hijri [= September 21, 2011] concerning the request for monthly or lump sum financial assistance from the Archbishop of Sebaste of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, the bishop in Jerusalem Dr Atallah Hanna.

We inform of the issuance of Royal Decree no. 24965 dated 17.5.1433 [= April 8, 2012] to provide a lump sum personal assistance through the Ministry [of Foreign Affairs] of (200,000) two hundred thousand dollars by the embassy in Amman and to evaluate the results of this on his future positions.

The Ministry hopes that the necessary steps will be taken. Best regards.

Fr Georges Massouh: Islam and Religious Minorities

Arabic original here. The immediate context of this article is Syrian rebels forcing Druze to convert to Islam and killing them in Idlib and the threat that they may do so again if they succeed in their current assault on Jabal Druze.


Islam and Religious Minorities

Contemporary Islam has proven its inability to provide effective solutions to reassure members of religious minorities living among Muslims. What was apparently successful, to a reasonable extent, was the dhimmi system of bygone eras, before the age of human rights, citizenship and equality... However, even if, in the past, the dhimmi system contributed keeping the "People of the Book" safe where they live, this does not mean it is appropriate for the present day.

Contemporary Islam has likewise proven its inability to make a real effort towards rapprochement between Islamic sects, indeed, its inability to halt the deterioration of relations between their members. It has become a trend to dig up ancient fatwas that declare some Islamic groups to be unbelievers and permit the spilling of their adherents' blood and to implement them in some places. Some people have gone to lengths that even people in the distant past did not dare approach, declaring Islamic sects to be unbelievers even though the soundness of their Islam has been commonly accepted.

It is not surprise, then, that the issue of religious minorities has come to the forefront in Syria-- and before that, in Iraq.  This country that had been a model of religious diversity has now had its doors open wide to every sort of takfirism, displacement and religious cleansing.

We cannot limit responsibility for what has been happening in Syria to extremist Islamist groups alone. These groups build their opinions and rulings on the statements and codes of jurists and muftis who are recognized within traditional, moderate Islam. Factors that seem to neutralize some of these rulings declaring certain sects to be unbelievers are only present if there is political will, in the absence of which these factors are also absent. In other words, neutralizing these rulings is not based on sound juridical rulings that abrogate or cancel what came before, but most of the time only on the will of the political ruler.

When armed groups in Syria regard those who belong to a given sect as non-Muslims-- and therefore as infidels-- and that they must abandon some of their beliefs and practices and practices and adopt Islamic rulings, they are coming up with these rulings from the content of ancient books. They are not coming up with something new or an innovation of their own making. And here we have, in the fact that members of this sec [i.e., the Druze] who insist that they are Muslim monotheists, are still forbidden from performing the hajj to Mecca a shining example of this impotence that hampers moderate Islam and permits extremists to impose their rulings in the name of Islam.

In reality, both moderate and non-moderate Islamic thought has failed to solve the dilemma of minorities. As we have said time and again and will continue to say, this is because it divides society into two parts: Muslims and non-Muslims. Islamic thought itself is responsible for exacerbating the phenomenon of minorities and for not finding ways that would allow members of minorities to be engaged in Islamic society and that would make them more committed to Muslims' issues and aspirations.

The fundamental problem for those who strive for an Islamic state-- both those who are moderate and those who are not-- lies in their lack of respect for political, social and religious diversity and in their lack of respect for the particularities of the groups that make up the national mosaic that includes all citizens.

This country will not find security and the people of this country will not find tranquility so long as Muslim thinkers will not work for a real renewal of Islamic thought based on bold re-interpretations of the foundation of the Islamic state and a recognition of the right to religious diversity in Islamic society.