HARSH words were exchanged yesterday as politicians entered the fray in the Church row over the staging of elections to ordain a new Primate to replace ailing Archbishop Chrysostomos.
Diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, the elderly Archbishop has been unable to perform his duties for several years now, with his namesake the Bishop of Paphos now playing the role of acting Church leader.
But a vociferous minority in the Holy Synod – the top Church body – wants elections to nominate a new Primate. The matter has been repeatedly put to vote, ending in a deadlock every time. Those opposed to the elections cite ecclesiastical law, which states that an Archbishop cannot be replaced unless he dies of natural causes. Among them is Bishop Chrysostomos of Paphos.
In a move showing they meant business, the rebel bishops of Morphou, Kykkos and Trimithounda traveled to Istanbul to meet with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and appeal for his intervention.
That provoked the wrath of the majority, who charged the three dissidents of meeting with Bartholomew without the Holy Synod’s consent or permission. As a countermeasure, this weekend the bishops of Paphos, Arsinoe and Kiti had an audience with Bartholomew at Fanari, the seat of the Patriarchate, to “set the record straight”.
On their return to Cyprus on Sunday, they created more tensions by insinuating politicians were meddling in the affairs of the Church. Chrysostomos of Paphos claimed that a Patriarchate official told him that three politicians (House Speaker Demetris Christofias, DIKO deputy Zacharias Koulias and United Democrats leader Michalis Papapetrou) had sent faxes to Bartholomew, urging him to order elections forthwith.
The bickering spilt over into the political milieu when Chrysostomos took a jab at Papapetrou, questioning his motives.
“It’s a wonder that the church of Ayios Mamas doesn’t come crashing to the ground whenever he attends liturgy there,” quipped the bishop.
He was alluding to vespers held over the past two years at the occupied church in Morphou, a practice Chrysostomos and his supporters have condemned as unpatriotic. Papapetrou, an advocate of rapprochement and a supporter of the Annan plan, has consistently attended the service.
“I seriously doubt Mr. Papapetrou goes to church every Sunday,” Chrysostomos noted.
“So why all this interest all of a sudden?”
All three politicians yesterday denied sending faxes or SMS messages to the Patriarchate.
During the referendum last year, Chrysostomos was one of the most outspoken detractors of the UN blueprint. And bishop of Kyrenia branded the settlement “satanic”, saying anyone who supported it would “go to hell”.
Yesterday Chrysostomos retracted his statement about Christofias, saying the House Speaker did not in fact contact the Patriarch.
“It seems we were misinformed,” he acknowledged.
Officially, the government is steering clear of the quarrel; yesterday Government Spokesman Kypros Chrysostomides reiterated that the President did not wish to be involved in Church affairs.
But the AKEL party berated the bishops for making their row public, with party spokesman Andros Kyprianou saying “some people inside the Church behave like bad politicians”.
The main protagonists in the Church spat are Chrysostomos and bishop of Kykkos Nikiforos. The latter has accused Chrysostomos of changing his stance on the elections at the last session of the Holy Synod, implying that his Paphos brother does not now want elections because he does not think he can win.
Chrysostomos said yesterday that one of his mission’s purposes was to inform the Patriarch these allegations were untrue.
“We also showed the Patriarch clips from press reports citing past quotes by Nikiforos that he was against holding elections while the Archbishop is alive.”
“Another bishop who switched sides was Neophytos of Morphou, following the service he presided over at Ayios Mamas,” Chrysostomos added.
In effect, the two camps are now openly accusing each other of lying. And last week the two rival bishops exchanged some unflattering remarks. It all began when Chrysostomos said Nikiforos was unsuitable for the Archbishop’s Throne.
To which Nikiforos replied: “Who is suitable or unsuitable for the Archbishop’s throne will be decided by the public, who you are afraid of and look upon with contempt.”
“Slander, Holy Paphos, is something people resort to when they have no arguments to back the opinions they support,” read a written statement released by the Kykkos bishopric.
It also appears Chrysostomos tried to put a political spin on the whole affair, by telling the Patriarch that the bishops of Morphou and Kykkos were “concessionists” with regard to the Cyprus problem. The two took a stand in favour of the Annan plan last year.
Commentators suggest that Chrysostomos is playing this card because he knows Bartholomew needs to take a strong stance on the Cyprus Church crisis. Extremist nationalists in Turkey have held a number of rallies demanding the Patriarchate leave the country. Given this situation, the argument goes, Bartholomew would adopt a hard line stance on Cyprus, which is under Turkish occupation. Others, however, point to the fact that Bartholomew is a known moderate, who has urged rapprochement and spoken out against nationalism in the Church.
The Holy Synod is to convene on Thursday to decide whether to accept the Patriarch’s invitation to Istanbul to discuss the future of the Church. The informal meeting at Fanari has been set for November 10.
However, given the bitter climate now prevailing, it’s extremely unlikely the Church leaders will reach a consensus.
