JERUSALEM
367
JERUSALEM
private opinion of a heretic: here the Fathers are on
safe ground. Chapter iv defends — no longer Cyril
but — the Orthodox Church by quoting her formu-
laries, and contains a list of anathemas against the
heresies of the "Confessions". Chapter v again tries
to defend Cyril by quoting various deeds and sayings
of his, and transcribes the whole decree of the Synod
of Constantinople in 1639, and then that of Yassy
(Ttda-iov) in 1643. Chapter vi gives the decrees of
this synod in the form of a "Confession of Dositheus".
It has eighteen decrees (Spot), then four "questions"
(ipuT-qaei^) with long answers. In these all the
points denied l)y Lucaris's "Confession" (Church and
Bible, predestination, cult of saints, sacraments, the
Real Presence, the liturgy a real sacrifice, etc.) are
maintained at great length and in the most uncom-
promising way. .\ short epilogue closes the acts.
Then follow the date, signatures, and seals.
Because of its determined anti-Protestantism (Protestants are described as being patently heretics and a.ip(Ti.Kwv Kopv0ai6TaTOi) , Protestant writers have described this synod as a work of the Jesuits, of the French ambassador at that time, Olivier de Nointel. and of other Catholics who wereundcrminingthe Eastern Church. It is true t hat the Synod of Jerusalem repre- sents a strongly Catholic reaction after Lucaris's troubles (it accepts and defendsthe wonl tnuisulistnntiation — ^eroi'fftajcris — for in- stance). It is all the more remarkable that its decrees have been accepted luirc- servedly by the whole Orthodox Church. They were at once ap- proved by the other patriarchs, the Church of Russia, etc.; they are al- ways printed in full among the symbolic books of the Orthodo.x Church, and form an official creed or decla- ration in the .strictest sense, which every Orthodox Christian is bound to accept. Since this synod the Orthodox Church has not spoken again officially.
An afTair that concerned the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem was that of the independence of the great monastery of Mount Sinai. This monastery, one of the riche.-it and most famous of Eastern Chris- tendom, was undoubtedly at one time subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. In 17S2, after a great struggle, the Abbot of Mount Sinai succeeded in asserting his independence of any patri- arch. .\s .\rchbishop of Sinai the al)bot now reigns over the smallest autocephalous Church of their communion. But he is still ordained in Jerusalem, and the patriarchs have constantly tried to assert some kind of authority over their independent daugh- ter-church. The last great quarrel was in 1866, when the archbishop (Cyril Byzantius) had a dispute with his monks. Instead of applying to Jeru.salem he wrote to Constantinople for help. Sophronius III of Constantinople (1863-67) at once took up his cause against the monks. The Patriarch of Jerusalem then summoned a sjTiod (1867), in which he pro- tested hotly against the interference of Constantinople. Less for the sake of Jerusalem's shadowy rights over Sinai than because of the ever-welcome chance of opposing the arrngnnt interference of Constantinople, the (;thcr Orthndox Churches nil supported Jerusa- lem, so iliiit Byz;inti\is ■was deposed iuid the ratriiireh
of Constantinople had to resign. But that is the last
attempt made by Jerusalem to interfere in the affairs
of what is now universally recognized as the auto-
cephalous Church of Sinai (see Fortescue, "Orth.
Eastern Church", pp. 310-1).
During these centuries the patriarchate, never very rich, sutTered from steadily increasing poverty. Dosi- theus complains bitterly of this. He says that pil- grimages are rarer, and that the pilgrims who do come bring little money; he himself is obliged to travel constantly for the sake of collecting alms to Constan- tinople, Russia, Moldavia, etc. A result of the Tur- kish conquest was that since 1517 the Patriarchs of Jerusalem have been subject to their brothers of Constantinople in civil matters, as far as the govern- ment is concerned. The Turks made the oecumenical patriarch civil head of all the "Roman nation" {rum millet), that is the Orthodox Church. The other patriarchs can approach the Fnrte only through him. This civil authority must not be confused with ecclesi- astical jurisdiction. In Orthodox canon law the Church of Jerusalem is autocephalous, having no superior authority but that of Christ and the Seven Coun- cils. Jerusalem, like the other free branches of their communion, has al- '.vays indignantly \\ith-tood the many attempts of Constan- tinople to assert a kind of papal au- thority, and has al- ways upheld the axiom that the ofcumenical bisliop has no ecclesiastical juri.sdiction outside his patriarchate. Nevertheless, during these centuries till quite modern times, the inflependcnce of theoretical. The patriarchs
AR, Jerusalem
Jeni.salem was only
were all Greeks. Originally, under the Egyptian rule, they had been Arabs, taken naturally from the native clergy of Palestine. But in 1534 Ger- manus, a Greek of the Peloponnesus, succeeded in being elected and from that time to this his suc- cessors have all been Greeks. Germanus further succeeded in hellenizing all the administration of his patriarchate: the monks of the Holy Sepulchre, the bishops, archimandrites, and officials of the patri- archal court are all Greeks. It became a recognized principle that no native .\rab should ever be ap- pointed to any office in the patriarchate. The result of this is that for over three centuries the patriarchal curia of Jerusalem has teen and remains a foreign colony in the land, utterly separate from the native .Arab lower clergy and the people. But this state of things will soon come to an end. Following the triumphant example of .\ntioch there is at this moment a great agitation among the Orthodox Arabs to as.sert their place in their own patriarchate. And as they are supported by Russia they will succeed. The reigning patriarch, Damianus, though of course a Greek, is not unfriendly to the .Arab agitators. On the other hand the monks, the "Fraternity of the Holy Sepulchre," stand out as a bulwark of Orthodoxy for the present state of things, and treat the Arabs as .■^chismatical revolutionaries. Everj'one has heanl of the scandal- ous riots that took place in 1008, and culminated in the pretended depojiition of the patriarch. Till quite lately, moreover, most of the.se Greek pa- triarchs d.id not even take the trouble to reside iq
