Book II The Church under the Ottoman Sultans

Chapter 1. A new life

On Tuesday, May 29, 1453, the old story ended. The last heir of Constantine the Great lay slain on the battlefield; the city founded by Constantine as the capital of the Christian Empire was triumphantly entered by a non-Orthodox sultan. There was no longer an emperor who ruled in the Holy Palace, symbolizing to the believers of the East the greatness and power of Almighty God. The Church of Constantinople, which for more than a thousand years was in alliance with the Orthodox state, became a Church of subject people dependent on the whim of a Muslim master. All her activities, views and entire way of life had to undergo radical changes.

The changes were profound; However, they were not as cardinal as it may seem at first glance. For many centuries the historic patriarchates of the East—Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—had been under the political authority of Muslim rulers, with the exception of brief interruptions. When the Turks conquered the regions of Asia Minor in the eleventh century, there were already communities belonging to the Patriarchate of Constantinople that lived under Muslim rule. In recent decades, the rapid expansion of the Ottoman Empire into Europe and Asia had increased their numbers, and by 1453 the bulk of the patriarch's flock was in the sultan's possessions. There were also many Greek lands which had for some time passed into the hands of the Latins, and which were destined to remain for some time under their rule. Although the Genoese lost most of their Greek colonies immediately after 1453, they held on to Chios until 1566.[251] The Venetians held fortresses in the Peloponnese and on some islands of the Aegean Sea as early as the sixteenth century; Crete was in possession until 1669, and Tinos until 1715, and Cyprus, which was still an independent kingdom at the fall of Constantinople, was in the hands of the Venetians from 1487 to 1570.252 The Italian Duchy of the Archipelago continued to exist until 1566, when the Turks made their Jewish vassal duke there. [253] The Knights of St. John ruled Rhodes until 1522.[254] The Ionian Islands along the western coast of Greece never came under Turkish rule. They remained in the hands of the Venetians until the end of the eighteenth century, when they were conquered by the French and then passed to the British, who ceded them to the Kingdom of Greece in 1864.[255] There were thus still a few provinces over which the authority of the patriarch could not always extend. Yet, from a certain point of view, the ecclesiastical administration and discipline of the patriarchate benefited from the Turkish conquest, because the broad boundaries of its territory were once again united under one civil authority.

But this civil power was heterodox. Throughout the existence of the Christian Empire in Constantinople, the Church and the state were united into one sacred region. The emperor may indeed have been terribly weak, but theoretically he was still the head of the Christian universe, the representative of God before men and men before God. Now the Church was separated from the state. She was associated with second-class citizens. And here, as the only organization of these citizens, she was allowed to lead them, and her disciplinary power over their communities increased. However, the highest sanction of freedom was taken away from it.

The conquering sultan was well aware of all the problems facing the Church, and he was not hostile to its welfare. He was a fierce enemy until Constantinople was conquered, and the conquest itself was accompanied by bloody and destructive cruelty. But after the conquest, he could not be denied nobility. Greek blood flowed in his veins. He was well read and interested in Greek learning. He was proud to be the heir of the Caesars, and he was willing to assume the religious obligations of his predecessors as far as his own religion permitted. As a pious Muslim, he could not allow Christians to participate in the supreme power in the Empire. But he wanted them to live in peace and prosperity and be content with their government as a complement to this. [256]

His first duty to the Christians was to establish a new administrative system for them. His decision followed the directions traditional for Muslim possessions. The Moslem rulers had long treated the religious minorities in their dominions as milets, or nations, allowing them to govern their internal life according to their own laws and customs, and making the religious head of the community responsible for its administration and for their due obedience to the prevailing authority. This was the system by which Christians in the Caliphate were governed, including the communities of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates. Now the system was extended to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. For practical reasons, it has always been followed in the dioceses of the Patriarchate located in the Turkish possessions. Where the civil authorities were expelled or fled, the Christians naturally expected their hierarchs to undertake negotiations with the conquerors; It was the hierarchs who had to govern their flock day after day and as best as possible. But until now, like the Orthodox patriarchs of the East, they had an Orthodox emperor in Constantinople, to whom they remained loyal and whose duty it was to protect them even when he could no longer govern them. In recent years, the protection he could provide from his impotent and impoverished state has been more nominal; but, nevertheless, it gave them authority; it elevated them above heretical Churches, such as the Coptic and Jacobite Churches, which had no civil protector and were completely slaves to the Muslim monarchy. Now, with the departure of the emperor, even this nominal protection disappeared. The Orthodox were equated in status with heretical Churches, at least in theory. In practice, their position was better, for they formed the most numerous, wealthy, and educated Christian community in the Sultan's dominions; and Sultan Mehmed, with his sense of history, was inclined to pay special attention to them.

The Sultan was also well aware that the Greeks could be useful to his Empire. The Turks will provide him with rulers and soldiers; but they had no skills in trade and industry; few of them were good sailors; and even in the countryside they were more cattle breeders than farmers. For the economy of the Empire, cooperation with the Greeks was essential. The Sultan saw no obstacle to them living side by side with the Turks in his dominions, as long as their rights were guaranteed and they understood that he was their supreme ruler.

Since the Greek miletus was to be organized, the first task was to provide it with a head. Sultan Mehmed was well aware of the difficulties that arose in the Greek Church in trying to impose a union with Rome on it; and soon after the conquest he was pleased to discover that the average Greek considered the patriarchal throne vacant. It was generally accepted that when Patriarch Gregory Mammas left for Italy in 1451, he renounced the throne. It was necessary to find a new patriarch. After conducting some investigation, Mehmed decided that it should be George Scholarius, now known as the monk Gennadius. Gennadius was not only the most outstanding scholar in Constantinople who lived there at the time of the capture of the city. He was universally respected for his impeccable honesty, and he was the leader of the anti-union and anti-Western party in the Church. You could rely on him not to start intrigues with the West. A month after the conquest of Constantinople, the sultan sent officials who brought Gennadius to him. At first, they could not find him. It turned out that he had been taken prisoner during the fall of the city, and had fallen into the possession of a wealthy Turk in Adrianople, who was fascinated by his learning, and treated him with an esteem seldom enjoyed by slaves. He was ransomed from his master and honorably escorted to Constantinople to the Sultan. Mehmed persuaded him to accept the patriarchate; Together they worked out the terms of the constitution that could be granted to the Orthodox. Its basic tenets may have been adopted before the sultan left the conquered city for Adrianople at the end of June, although six months elapsed before Gennadius actually took over the administration of the patriarchate. [257]

The enthronement took place in January 1454, when the sultan returned to Constantinople. Mehmed had to play, as far as his own religion permitted, the role that had previously belonged to the Christian emperors. We know nothing about the necessary convocation of the Holy Synod; but, apparently, it was composed of those metropolitans who could be assembled, and their task was to declare the patriarchal throne vacant and, on the recommendation of the sultan, to elect Gennadius to it. Then, on January 6, Gennadius received an audience with the Sultan, who presented him with the signs of his ministry - a mantle, a pastoral staff and a pectoral cross. The original cross was lost. It is not known whether Gregory Mammas took it with him when he left for Rome, or whether he disappeared during the storming of the city. So Mehmed himself gave him a new cross, silver with gilding. At the installation of the patriarch, he pronounced the following formula: "Be a patriarch, may good luck accompany you, and be sure of our disposition, possess all the privileges that the patriarchs enjoyed before you." Since Hagia Sophia had already been converted into a mosque, Gennadius was escorted to the church of St. Sophia. Apostles. There, the Metropolitan of Heraclius, whose traditional duty was to consecrate all the new patriarchs, performed the rite of consecration and enthronement. The Patriarch then rode in procession around the city on a magnificent white horse presented to him by the Sultan and returned to his residence on the grounds of the Church of St. John. Apostles. In addition, he received an expensive gift of gold from the Sultan. [258]

It is unlikely that a new constitution will ever be written. The general principles according to which the Christian Miletus was governed in Muslim territory were well known and did not need to be thoroughly developed anew. The imperial berat, which gave the sultan's approval for each appointment to the episcopal see, usually established the duties of the candidate, according to existing traditions. We only know by hearsay about two special documents issued by the conquering sultan. According to the historian Sfranzi, who was a prisoner of the Turks at that time and could have known about it due to his position, Mehmed handed Gennadius a firman signed by him, by which he granted the patriarch personal immunity, exemption from taxes, freedom of movement, a guarantee that he would not be deprived of the throne and the right to pass on these privileges to his successors. There is no reason to doubt this. It is indeed possible that the Sultan could grant the Patriarch some written guarantees concerning his position. It should be noted, however, that the guarantees regarding the preservation of the Patriarch on the throne did not, of course, imply interference with the traditional rights of the Holy Synod to depose a Patriarch if his election was uncanonical or if he was obviously unsuitable for the place he occupied. Patriarchate chroniclers, who wrote nearly a century later, claimed that the sultan had signed another document by which he promised that church traditions regarding marriage and burial would be legally sanctioned, that Easter would be celebrated, Christians would enjoy freedom of movement on the three holidays after Easter, and churches would no longer be converted into mosques. [259] Unfortunately, when the last point was violated by subsequent sultans, the ecclesiastical authorities were unable to produce a document which they rightly claimed had been destroyed in a fire in the patriarchate. But, as we shall see later, they could have grounds to prove the legitimacy of such claims. [260]

Be that as it may, it was generally accepted that the Patriarch, in agreement with the Holy Synod, had full authority over the entire church organization, bishops and all churches and monasteries, as well as their property. Although the Sultan's government had to approve the appointment of bishops, no bishop could be appointed or dismissed without the sanction of the Patriarch and the Holy Synod. Only the patriarchal court had judicial rights in relation to the clergy; The Turkish authorities could not arrest or try any of the bishops without the permission of the patriarch. In addition, in agreement with the Holy Synod, he controlled all issues related to dogmas. His power over the Orthodox people was almost as absolute. He was an ethnarch, the ruler of the Miletus. The Patriarchal Court had full jurisdiction over all cases concerning Orthodox Christians in connection with their religion, i.e., marriages, divorces, child guardianship, wills, and inheritance. The Patriarchal Court considered all disputed monetary cases if both parties were Orthodox. Although Christians were heavily taxed, clerics were exempt from paying taxes, although sometimes they could pay special taxes by personal agreement; And it was not easy for the Sultan to maintain this condition under pressure. The Patriarch could levy taxes on the Orthodox and, by the right of his authority, collect money for the needs of the Church. Complaints against the Patriarch were accepted only by the Holy Synod, and only if he unanimously agreed to hear them. The Patriarch could appeal to the Turkish authorities to be sure that his orders were carried out by his flock. In return, the patriarch was responsible for the correct and law-abiding behavior of his flock in relation to the ruling authorities and guaranteed the payment of taxes. He himself was not engaged in the collection of taxes. This was the responsibility of the elders of the local communities, who were responsible for maintaining the registers. However, if there were any difficulties in collecting, the government could ask the Church to punish the disobedient with excommunication from Holy Communion. [261]

The Patriarchal Court administered justice on the basis of Byzantine canon law and Byzantine customary law. Customary law grew rapidly in scope, owing to circumstances to which codified law did not conform and which varied from place to place. In cases of civil cases, justice was administered according to the principle of an arbitration court. If either party was not satisfied with the decision, it could appeal to the Turkish court; In addition, if one of the parties insisted, the case could be transferred to the Turkish court of first instance. This was rarely done because Turkish courts were slow, costly, and often corrupt, and cases were heard in accordance with the Koran. The patriarchal court was remarkably incorruptible, although the wealthy Greeks, on whose financial support the Church depended, could no doubt exert some influence. A characteristic feature of the court was that the testimony given with an oath was considered valid; The oath was taken so seriously that it was rarely abused. Criminal cases such as treason, murder, theft, or rebellion were submitted to a Turkish court, except in situations where the defendant was a priest. [262]