It has long been the custom to fling a good deal of contumely on the Holy Orthodox or Greek Church. Judging from the descriptions of trustworthy writers, from conversations I have often held with persons of authority on the subject, and from personal observation, I feel convinced that if part of the abuse heaped upon the Greek Church is well founded, the greater portion is due to the rivalry and hatred of the Western Church, and to the antipathy felt by the Reformed Church towards her superstitions and formalities; but a still stronger reason may be found in the errors the church still harbors, and in the ignorance in which her clergy remained so long plunged. Taking this as a general rule, and lamenting its consequences, we should on the other hand bear in mind the great antiquity of the church and its early services to Christianity. Some of its rites and ceremonies are certainly superstitious and superfluous, but there is none of the intolerance of the Romish Church, nor are religious persecutions to be laid to its charge. Its clergy, stigmatized as venal and ignorant tools in the hands of the Turks, have nevertheless had their virtues and redeeming points counterbalancing their evil repute. The rivalry of the upper clergy originated principally in the corrupt system of bribery pursued by them in their relations with the Porte for the grant of berats or diplomas installing the Patriarchs in their respective seats, and the practice indulged in by the Patriarchs of selling bishoprics at a price in proportion to the wealth of the diocese. Yet in the midst of this darkness there were still found men to carry on the work of culture and uphold the dignity of the church. Nor have the Greek clergy always been the cringing servants of the Porte, or the go-betweens of the Turks and the rayahs; in the list of the Patriarchs we find many who, in the midst of difficulties inevitable in serving a government foreign to their church and hostile to the hopes and aspirations of their people, hesitated not in moments of supreme need to sacrifice position, fortune, and even life, under most horrible circumstances, for the sake of the church. With memories of such martyrdoms ever present in the minds of a dependent clergy, it is not surprising to find this section of the Greek nation apparently so subservient to their rulers. The past, however, with all its blots, is rapidly passing away; the rules now followed by the Patriarchate in fixed salaries and written regulations with regard to certain contributions have put an end to many former abuses. The theological schools, rapidly increasing in number and importance in Turkey as well as in Greece, have also a beneficial effect on the training of the clergy, who daily attaining a higher standard in morality, mental development, and social position, have of late years been enabled not only to maintain a more determined and independent attitude before the civil authorities, but also largely to increase their influence in promoting the education of their flocks. The old class of clergy is dying out, and gradually a new and different set of men is coming forward.
The commonest charge that is brought against the Greek Church is its accumulation of superstitions. But the people are beginning to drop the more absurd ceremonies and treat the more preposterous superstitions with indifference. It is true that the church itself is not yet taking the lead in this matter, as how should it? I have often talked on this subject with ecclesiastics of the Eastern faith, and they admit both the absurdity of many of the rites practised and the beliefs inculcated, and also the tendency of the people to neglect these rites and to disbelieve these superstitions; but they say that any action on the part of the church would lead to the serious injury both of itself and the Greek nation; for a general synod would have to be held to deliberate on the necessary reforms; schisms would at once arise, and the Greek Church, and hence the Greek nation, would be disintegrated. However, I believe there are too many sensible men among the Greek clergy for this weak position to be maintained long. The church must reform if it is to remain the church of the Greeks.
At present, however, the priests are afraid to move. They dare not admit the falsity of parts of their doctrine and the absurdity of their practices, for fear of wider consequences. For example, a miraculous fire is supposed to spring from the supposed tomb of Christ on Easter Sunday. The Greek clergy do not actually assert it to be a miracle—at least not to Westerns—but if questioned about it they invariably give an evasive answer; and the priest still continues solemnly to light his taper from the tomb and present it to the congregation saying, “Take, then, the flame from the Eternal Light, and praise Christ who is risen from the dead.”[38] A similar ceremony is observed on a small scale in every Greek church at Easter, when the congregation light their tapers from the altar and the same formula is used.
It is needless to say anything here about the doctrines of the Greek Church: every one knows the insignificant differences which separate it from the Church of Rome. The rites are less generally known; but unfortunately they are too numerous and various to be described here. The general impression produced by a Greek service is gorgeousness. The rites are essentially Oriental, and have been little changed since the early days of the Eastern Empire. The ceremonies are endless; fast and feast days, with their distinctive rites, are always occurring, and though generally disregarded by the upper classes are scrupulously observed by the peasantry, to whom the fasts (on which they work as usual) cause actual physical injury, and the feasts sometimes produce almost equally disastrous effects. Some parts of the service are very beautiful and impressive; but the prayers are generally intoned in a hurried and irreverent manner, which renders them hard to be understood. These things, however, are mending: the lower clergy pay more attention to the ordinary rules of decorum in the conduct of the services, and bishops are now not consecrated unless they are somewhat educated. Formerly the lives of the saints were the topics of sermons, now they are becoming more practical and exhortatory; but political subjects are strictly excluded.
Since the conquest the Greek Church and its clergy in the Ottoman Empire have never been supported by the Government, nor have its ministers ever received any grant either for themselves or the churches and schools under their care. An imperial order confirms the nomination of patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops. The last received from each family in their diocese a portion of the produce of its fields: from a peasant, for example, from half a kilo of corn and hay to a whole kilo, according to his means. This was considered a loyal donation from each household to its spiritual guide. Besides this the archbishops enjoyed special benefits from the celebration of marriages, funerals, and other religious ceremonies to which they were invited. But unfortunately these emoluments eventually became subject to some abuses, which excited murmurs from the community. Another custom was that a bishop should receive from his diocese, at his consecration, a sum sufficient to defray his immediate expenses during the first year. This sum, as well as the offerings in kind, was fixed by the elders of the town in which the metropolitan resided; the local authorities never interfered in these arrangements, except when the bishops demanded their assistance for the recovery of their dues. These usages continued in force until 1860; Feizi Pasha and his two supporters, Ali Pasha and Fouad Pasha, had previously tried every means to induce the Patriarch of Constantinople and his Synod, together with the higher classes of the Greek nation, to accept the funds of their church from the Ottoman Government. The Porte, in order to obtain the end it had in view, showed itself liberal by promising large fees to the higher clergy. But for religious, political, and social reasons, the patriarch and the nation in general rejected the proposal. After the Crimean War a Constitutional Assembly, composed of bishops and lay deputies from all the provinces, was convened by order of the Porte, to deliberate upon the settlement of some administrative affairs connected with the œcumenical throne of Constantinople, the cathedrals, and the bishops. This assembly also regulated, among other things, the revenues of the patriarch and all the archbishops. Each province, proportionately to its extent, its political importance, and its Christian population, was ordered to pay a fixed sum. The annual minimum is 30,000 piastres, and the maximum 90,000 piastres. The patriarch receives thirty per cent on this. The fees fixed by the elders of each province are paid annually by each family: the maximum of this contribution does not exceed twenty piastres each, which, in the aggregate, constitutes the revenues of the bishops and the pay of their subordinates. The extra revenues are regulated in the same manner, the ancient customs concerning their receipt having been abolished. The fees and extra emoluments of the lower clergy of cities, towns, and villages are received after the same fashion. An annual sum is paid by each family to the priest, which in many villages rarely exceeds three or four piastres. The archbishops also receive their stipend from their diocese, and are very seldom obliged to request the assistance of the authorities, who show great repugnance to interfering in the matter.
The social influence of a bishop proceeds from many circumstances. He is considered the spiritual guide of all Orthodox Christians, presiding over the vestry and corporation intrusted with public affairs—such as schools, philanthropical establishments, and churches. He hears and judges, conjointly with a council composed of laymen, all the dissensions which arise between the members of the community. To a certain extent, and when there is no intervention of the local courts, he judges in cases of divorce, and in disputes relative to the payment of dowries, as well as in cases of inheritance; but the local courts have the right of interfering. In these cases the canonical laws are more or less well interpreted according to the pleasure of the Kadi. The bishop judges all that relates to the aforesaid cases in right of a privilege granted to him by the patriarch. He can also decide other matters which belong to the local courts in a friendly way when the disputants agree to it; but when one of them appears dissatisfied he may refer it to the local court, and the sentence or the bishop is nullified by that of this tribunal.
The bishop enjoys the political position of Ἐθνάρχη and permanent member of the Government Council of the province. In addition to his spiritual duties, in the fulfilment of which he has sometimes to call in the assistance of the local authorities, the bishop acts as intermediary between the Christians and the civil government when they ask for his intervention and counsel. But this is not always successful, as the bishop is invested with no regular power, and the local authorities, as well as the central administration, make use of it as they choose and when convenient to them, always acting for the direct interest of their government.
In the Council the influence of the bishop is nil; for his vote, as well as those of all the other Christian members, is lost in the majority gained by the Mussulmans, to which is added the arbitrary influence of the Pasha and the President. Very small benefit is derived from the presence of these Christian representatives at the councils. Liberty of speech, reasonable discussion, and all that might contribute to the proper direction of affairs, are entirely unknown.
The Greek Church is governed by four patriarchs residing at Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria; the last three are equal and independent, but the authority of the first is supreme in the regulation of spiritual affairs, and in his hands rests the power of appointing, dismissing, or punishing any of the prelates. He is elected by a majority of votes of a synod of the metropolitan and neighboring bishops, and is presented to the Sultan for institution, a favor seldom obtained without the payment of several thousand pounds—a long-standing instance of the habitual simony of the Church. The Sultan, however, retains the unmitigated power of deposing, banishing, or executing him. These penalties were frequently inflicted in former times, but the ecclesiastical body within the last half century has gained much in influence and substance.
In spite of the general ignorance and corruption of the higher clergy since the occupation of the country by the Ottomans, their ranks have never lacked men who were as famous for their knowledge as for their virtue and piety. There were many who shunned ecclesiastical dignity in order to pass their lives in instructing the rising generation of their time.