By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou
About ten years ago (around 1988), an excellent book was published under this title. It was written, based on archival material, by the capable author and historical researcher Mr. Petros Georgantzis. The book deals with a subtle aspect of the Greek Revolution of 1821, namely the so-called “excommunication” issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate against Alexander Ypsilantis.
Much has been said about this issue, most of it shaped by particular ideological perspectives, without a proper study of the historical and canonical data that led to this “excommunication.” The book is divided into two parts. The first is titled: “Historical Investigation of the ‘Excommunication’ of March 1821,” and the second: “Ecclesiastical–Canonical Investigation of the ‘Excommunication.’”
Both parts contain various chapters that provide extensive information and valuable material for understanding this event. It should be noted that the author consistently places the word “excommunication” in quotation marks, because he clearly does not accept that this text is truly an act of excommunication.
The most significant contribution of Mr. Georgantzis is that, through strong canonical arguments, he demonstrates that this so-called “excommunication” cannot, from a canonical standpoint, be considered a true excommunication. Moreover, this was done knowingly by both the author of the text and those who signed it.
He presents many arguments to support this view, but one key point can be emphasized: a genuine and canonical excommunication imposed by the Church is directed primarily against heretics who spread heretical teachings. It presupposes a summons to a Synod, where the synodal members act freely and without external pressure. Furthermore, for an excommunication to be valid and effective, its text must be formulated in the indicative mood (not in the potential or optative), in the present tense (not merely suggestive or hypothetical), and in the second person.
The so-called “excommunication” text against Ypsilantis does not meet any of these conditions. There is no heretical teaching involved, no summons to a Synod, and certainly the signatories were not acting freely. At the same time, the first “excommunication” text is written in the optative (wishful) mood (“may he be excommunicated”), and in the second text, out of twelve verbal forms, eight are in the optative, three in the imperative, and only one in the indicative — and even that one is not expressed in the second person singular or plural.
The book also provides a great deal of information regarding the historical circumstances that led to the issuance of this “excommunication.” Examining these conditions is essential, because without them one cannot properly interpret such events.
To understand the value of the book’s first part, it is worth listing its eleven chapters:
1. Characterization of the “Excommunication”
2. Initial Investigations Concerning the “Excommunication”
3. Conditions Under Which the “Excommunication” Was Written
4. Author of the “Excommunication”
5. The Trials of the Bishops Before the “Excommunication”
6. Recipients of the Texts
7. Time of Signing of the “Excommunication”
8. Why Two “Excommunication” Texts Were Issued
9. Bearers of the Texts
10. The Fate and Conduct of the Synodal Bishops After the “Excommunication”
11. The Synodal Bishops and the Filiki Etaireia
Even the titles of these chapters alone demonstrate the importance of the book and its detailed analyses.
However, it would be useful to briefly examine some of the most characteristic elements connected with this “excommunication,” which reveal the actual circumstances under which it was written and signed.
The first point is that the “excommunication” was not the result of the will of the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory V, nor even of the Synodal Hierarchs, but was a decision of a large clerical–lay assembly composed of 72 distinguished Romans (Greeks) of Constantinople, of whom 49 were laymen and 23 were clergy—hierarchs. In this clerical–lay gathering it was decided that the laymen would submit a declaration renouncing the revolution and expressing submission, while the clergy would compose the act of excommunication that had been requested of them by the Sublime Porte, and this, of course, in order to calm the Turks, since the circumstances were tragic. Among the 49 laymen who were present were included the former ruler of Wallachia, the Grand Dragoman of the Porte, the Dragoman of the Fleet, all the notable “political” figures (that is, the community representatives), the Greek great merchants of the City, the master craftsmen, the heads of the guilds, etc. And among the 23 clergy were included 2 Patriarchs and 21 Hierarchs. All of them were under suffocating pressure, living through the drama of Hellenism in Constantinople, and they had to make a decision in order to save the Greeks of the City from certain massacre.
The second point is that the Patriarchal Synod undertook the duty to compose an “excommunication” text, but in such a way as not to cause harm to the Nation. This was achieved in many ways. First of all, the Patriarchal authorities delayed the drafting of the “excommunication” document. The proclamation of the Revolution was made by Ypsilantis in Iași of Moldavia on February 24, 1821. The first “excommunication” document was issued one month later, that is, on March 23, 1821, and, of course, it reached its destination a few days later, when the Revolution had already begun in the Peloponnese. Then it became necessary to produce two “excommunication” documents, and this was part of the diplomatic manner in which the Patriarchal authorities acted. The first, which was sent to all the Hierarchs (March 23), was written in such a way that it cannot be characterized as an excommunication, since it did not even contain the customary formal excommunicatory expressions; and the second, which was written four days later, that is, on March 27, when the Turks realized the stratagem and deception, was essentially sent only to one Metropolitan, the Metropolitan of Ungro-Wallachia. In this way, both of these “excommunication” texts did not fulfill their intended purpose.
The third point is that the Patriarchal authorities paid very dearly for this action, precisely because even the Turks perceived their stratagem. Of the 23 Hierarchs who signed the “excommunication” document, one-third, including the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory V, paid with their lives for their “disloyalty” to the Sultan; another one-third was severely tested through imprisonments, exiles, and restrictions. It should also be noted that one-fifth of the Synodal Hierarchs took part in the Revolution. Furthermore, it is important to say that one-third of the Synodal Hierarchs were “entangled in the intrigues” of the Filiki Etaireia, even though in the “excommunication” texts they state that this was the first time they had learned of the establishment and aims of the Filiki Etaireia.
For the sake of history, we must mention that the first “excommunication” text, the so-called encyclical, was also signed by the then-present in Constantinople Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Arta, Anthimos. However, he too, like others, when they returned to their provinces, manifested their true sentiments and proved themselves great fighters. The Turks arrested Anthimos of Nafpaktos and Arta, because they considered him “an accomplice and principal instigator of the uprising of the Roumeliotes against the Ottoman Empire,” and without trial or defense they imprisoned him in the fortress of Arta, “where he endured many tortures and sufferings bravely, and imprisonments at the hands of the Ottomans, mockeries and beatings and many other hardships.” After his release, he was arrested again and exiled to Meteora, and when later, in 1825, he was freed, he fled to Southern Greece in order to participate actively in the later phases of the struggle. He was even called “much-contested” (polyathlos) because of all these sufferings he endured.
The book of Mr. Petros Georgantzis is important, because it shows the sacrifices to which the entire nation was subjected in order to achieve freedom, as well as the sacrifices and the diplomacy demonstrated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. At times it successfully confronted the currents of the European Enlightenment, which opposed the Orthodox Tradition, and at other times it dealt with the brutality of the Ottomans with discernment and maturity. The study of history requires seriousness, responsibility, knowledge of the entire archival material, and above all freedom from the tyranny of various ideological viewpoints.
Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.