Εκκλησία και ελληνική μειονότητα της Πόλης μετά τη Συνθήκη της Λωζάνης

Part of : Δελτίο Εταιρείας Μελέτης της καθ' ημάς Ανατολής ; Vol.Γ, 2011, pages 735-744

Issue:
Pages:
735-744
Parallel Title:
The Church and the Greek minority of Istanbul (Constantinople), after the Lausanne Treaty
Author:
Abstract:
With the Lausanne Treaty, in 1923, the Church of Constantinople was deprived of a number of its competences and powers over the Greek Orthodox Minority of Istanbul. And, as the Turkish state held Greece entirely to blame for the Asia Minor Expedition, the responsibility of the Church for its 'flock' gained completely different characteristics. The Church remained the only autonomous leadership of the Greek community, while the policy of the Greek state not only did not turn out to be generally protective, but, at times, it encouraged the idea that the Greek Minority of Istanbul constitutes after all an impediment to the normal development of GreekTurkish relations. How did the Church of Constantinople perceive this new role, and how did it perform it? Particularly when, with the Second World War that interceded, Greece fell under the occupation of the Germans, the Italians, and the Bulgarians, and the Turkish Republic, continuing the tactics of the Young Turks, methodically planned the decimation of the Greek Minority of Istanbul. Even the late Athenagoras, who was the Archbishop of the Americas when he was elected Patriarch, and thus was considered sent by the US, became completely enfeebled with the [anti-Minority] riots of September 6-7,1955, and the deportations of 1964 of Greek citizens who were residents of Turkey and members of this country's Greek community. The Greek community, from Patriarch Gregory VII (Dec. 6, 1923) onwards, needed Patriarchs who would be contemplative and good managers, committed to the canonical order of the Church, sensible and prudent in their behavior and their initiatives, beyond reproach in their personal life, with clean and honorable people in their environment, upholders of tradition. All these qualities were necessary in order for the Greek community psychologically to rely on them, as it would see its leaders suffering first the consequences of the new situation. Leaders who would inspire the community, but also guide it through this situation. How many (and who) among the Patriarchs of this period managed to support Greeks of Istanbul in their effort to remain in their birthplace, not to forget their mother tongue, etc?
Subject:
Subject (LC):