Academic literature on the topic 'Istanbul (Turkey). Ecumenical Patriarchate'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Istanbul (Turkey). Ecumenical Patriarchate.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Istanbul (Turkey). Ecumenical Patriarchate"
1
Buzhashka, Boryana, and Ivanka Yankova. "THE BULGARIAN ORTHODOX COMMUNITY IN ISTANBUL: HISTORY AND PERSPECTIVES." Knowledge International Journal 28, no. 7 (December 10, 2018): 2453–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.35120/kij28072453b.
Full textAbstract:
In comparison to the other Bulgarian colonies around the world, that of Istanbul is a special case. If one compares it with those in America, Australia and Canada, it is small in size, but an important part of the complicated Bulgarian-Turkish relationship. What makes it different are the history of its creation, the role it played during the Bulgarian National Revival and the conditions in which it found itself during the years leading to the present day.The Revival is the period when, in the capital of the Ottoman Empire, the Bulgarians consolidated themselves as an ethnic community in the name of the struggle for ecclesiastical independence. With its multiple donors and the support of the Bulgarian State, the Bulgarian Exarchate bought many properties and built Bulgarian spiritual centres on the territory of present-day Turkey—churches, schools, community centres, bookstores, and other representative buildings. According to contemporary Turkish law, the Bulgarian colony, which now numbers 500 people, cares for the few remaining buildings from the Revival era in Istanbul, with the assistance of the Bulgarian Government.By now, hardly any representatives of the Bulgarian colony remain, and it is being revived by Bulgarians, mostly from Aegean Macedonia, who have never lived inside the boundaries of the Bulgarian state.Since the First World War (from Kemal Atatürk) until now (to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan), the colony has survived within a regime of constant discrimination. The colony does not boast any distinct personalities, it does not publish any printed publications, and has no active political and social life.Its ecclesiastical status introduces additional difficulties to its representatives. As a result of historical circumstances, the focus of our ecclesiastical struggle is concentrated on the Diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which even now spiritually favours the descendants of those who fought against it.Throughout the years, with different intensity, and subject to many external factors, the colony’s struggle to preserve Bulgarian national self-awareness and the Bulgarian spirit has continued to this day. The community members retain the generic memory of their Bulgarian roots and identify themselves as Bulgarians.The members of the colony were particularly tested during the period of the “Process of Rebirth” and the years of the anti-Bulgarian campaign, when they found themselves socially isolated and suffered the negative aspects of the politics of the Communist Bulgarian government.Throughout the majority of its existence, the Bulgarian community in Istanbul was hostage to contemporaneous Bulgarian-Turkish relationships. However, today it can become one of the elements for the strengthening and development of good relations between the Republics of Turkey and Bulgaria.
2
Buzhashka, Boryana, and Ivanka Yankova. "THE BULGARIAN ORTHODOX COMMUNITY IN ISTANBUL: HISTORY AND PERSPECTIVES." Knowledge International Journal 28, no. 7 (December 10, 2018): 2453–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.35120/kij29082453b.
Full textAbstract:
In comparison to the other Bulgarian colonies around the world, that of Istanbul is a special case. If one compares it with those in America, Australia and Canada, it is small in size, but an important part of the complicated Bulgarian-Turkish relationship. What makes it different are the history of its creation, the role it played during the Bulgarian National Revival and the conditions in which it found itself during the years leading to the present day.The Revival is the period when, in the capital of the Ottoman Empire, the Bulgarians consolidated themselves as an ethnic community in the name of the struggle for ecclesiastical independence. With its multiple donors and the support of the Bulgarian State, the Bulgarian Exarchate bought many properties and built Bulgarian spiritual centres on the territory of present-day Turkey—churches, schools, community centres, bookstores, and other representative buildings. According to contemporary Turkish law, the Bulgarian colony, which now numbers 500 people, cares for the few remaining buildings from the Revival era in Istanbul, with the assistance of the Bulgarian Government.By now, hardly any representatives of the Bulgarian colony remain, and it is being revived by Bulgarians, mostly from Aegean Macedonia, who have never lived inside the boundaries of the Bulgarian state.Since the First World War (from Kemal Atatürk) until now (to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan), the colony has survived within a regime of constant discrimination. The colony does not boast any distinct personalities, it does not publish any printed publications, and has no active political and social life.Its ecclesiastical status introduces additional difficulties to its representatives. As a result of historical circumstances, the focus of our ecclesiastical struggle is concentrated on the Diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which even now spiritually favours the descendants of those who fought against it.Throughout the years, with different intensity, and subject to many external factors, the colony’s struggle to preserve Bulgarian national self-awareness and the Bulgarian spirit has continued to this day. The community members retain the generic memory of their Bulgarian roots and identify themselves as Bulgarians.The members of the colony were particularly tested during the period of the “Process of Rebirth” and the years of the anti-Bulgarian campaign, when they found themselves socially isolated and suffered the negative aspects of the politics of the Communist Bulgarian government.Throughout the majority of its existence, the Bulgarian community in Istanbul was hostage to contemporaneous Bulgarian-Turkish relationships. However, today it can become one of the elements for the strengthening and development of good relations between the Republics of Turkey and Bulgaria.
3
Human Rights Case Digest, Editors. "Fener Rum Patrikliği (Ecumenical Patriarchate) v. Turkey." Human Rights Case Digest 18, no. 11-12 (October 3, 2008): 1077–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718131-90000057.
Full text
4
Smyrnov, Andrii. "THE RESTORATION OF THE EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION OF THE UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN DIASPORA WITH THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE AT THE END OF 20TH CENTURY." Naukovì zapiski Nacìonalʹnogo unìversitetu "Ostrozʹka akademìâ". Serìâ Ìstoričnì nauki 1, no. 33 (March 23, 2022): 105–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.25264/2409-6806-2022-33-105-109.
Full textAbstract:
The article analyzes two examples of restoring the canonical order in the fullness of Orthodoxy presented by Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada and Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA. In July 1990 the Sobor of the UOCC ratified an agreement with the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople that established a eucharistic union between the two churches. In 1989 UOCC made a decision to proceed with the “Articles of Agreement with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople” and to initiate the establishment of Eucharistic union. On April 1, 1990, the delegation of the UOCC officially accepted the “Articles of Agreement” in Istanbul at the Phanar – the office of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Patriarch Demetrius II concelebrated the Liturgy with the members of the UOCC delegation. These articles of agreement were presented for and again received approval at the 1990 Sobor of the UOCC. The Sobor, also in resolution form, made it clear that “in case of any internal-administrative conflict, priority is retained by the UOCC Charter and Constitution as a distinct Church body in a separate, sovereign state”. In December 1994 the hierarchs of the UOC of USA met with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul and came to an agreement recognizing the canonicity of the Church and accepting the UOC of USA and the entire Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the Diaspora into Ecumenical Patriarchate. On March 12, 1995, the entire Ukrainian Orthodox hierarchy outside Ukraine was received into the jurisdiction of Constantinople. According to the “Points of Agreement”, the UOC of USA continue to maintain its distinct internal structure and organization and shall be considered an ecclesiastic entity under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The parishes of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America were united with it.
5
İNCİ, Salih. "Journal of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul: Orthodoxia (1926-1963)-(1-38)." Journal of Eurasian Studies / Avrasya İncelemeleri Dergisi 7, no. 2 (January 3, 2019): 182–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.26650/jes181203.
Full text
6
Davids, A. "Op de Troon van Het Kruis." Het Christelijk Oosten 44, no. 2 (April 7, 1992): 73–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/29497663-04402001.
Full textAbstract:
On the throne of the cross Dimitrios I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (1972-1991) His All Holiness Dimitrios I, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch, died in Istanbul on the 2d of October 1991 after a heart attack. Dimitrios Papadopoulos, born in 1914 near Istanbul, studied at the Theological School at Chalki. After having spent a year in Northern Greece, he was ordained priest and looked after the parish in Feriköy at Istanbul. From 1945 to 1950 he organized the Greek Orthodox community in Teheran. Called back by patriarch Athenagoras I, he soon became auxiliary bishop of Istanbul. In 1972 he was appointed as metropolitan of Imbros and Tenedos, one of the four eparchies near Istanbul. After Athenagoras’ death he was unexpectedly and against his own will elected as ecumenical patriarch, while the Turkish authorities had refused the candidacy of other, more prominent members of the Holy Synod. Dimitrios I continued and developped the work of his predecessor: with the preparation of the panorthodox council; with his „dialogue of truth” (instead of the former „dialogue of love”) with the Roman Catholic Church; with his collaboration with the World Council of Churches. Progress certainly has been made, but no final goal has been achieved. A panorthodox council is still not in view. The "dialogue of truth" is hampered by Roman Catholic proselytism in Eastern Europe. The World Council of Churches has departed too much from its „base”. In the last years of his life Dimitrios could visit the Orthodox churches abroad, including the patriarchate of Moscow, as well as the Vatican, Canterbury and Geneva. In the U .S.A. he spoke to the United Nations. Thus he became an internationally well-known spiritual Orthodox leader. In the meantime he had to cope with extremist Turkish aggressivity at home. Dimitrios I was a humble successor of St. Andrew on, as he called it, „the throne of the cross”.
7
Roccucci, Adriano. "Meeting of the Two Patriarchs. Patriarch Alexy I’s Visit to Constantinople (1960)." ISTORIYA 14, no. 12-1 (134) (2023): 0. http://dx.doi.org/10.18254/s207987840029437-9.
Full textAbstract:
From 23 to 26 December 1960, Patriarch Alexy I (Simansky) of Moscow and All Russia paid a visit to Istanbul, where he met with Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras (Spirou). This was the first ever visit of a Moscow patriarch to Constantinople. The meeting of the two church leaders completed the non-linear route of rapprochement between Moscow and Constantinople. Relations between the Russian and Constantinople Churches have not been easy. In addition to the weight of Cold War settlements, there were ancient disputes. The troubled events in the eastern Mediterranean — the Cyprus crisis (1955) and the military coup in Turkey (1960) — became the background against which the threads of the relationship between Athenagoras and Alexios, reconstructed from archival documents, were knotted. The relationship between the two Orthodox princes is interconnected with the processes that took place in the field of inter-Christian relations: the convening of the Second Vatican Council by John XXIII and the project of the pan-Orthodox meeting carried out by the Ecumenical Patriarch. The choice of the meeting of the two major patriarchs opened a new page in relations between Moscow and Constantinople. However, the dialogue between the two Churches has never been simple and has often followed confusing and contradictory paths. This will be confirmed after the meeting in Constantinople.
8
Levko, Oleksandr. "Shaping of the axiological status of Tomos in Ukrainian religious media discourse in the light of cognitive linguistics and rhetoric." Actual issues of Ukrainian linguistics: theory and practice, no. 37 (2018): 89–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/apultp.2018.37.89-105.
Full textAbstract:
The paper is focused on the cognitive mechanisms underlying the construction of axiological status of Tomos and autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukrainian religious media discourse of the last few months from the standpoint of cognitive linguistics and rhetoric. The data used for the study are interviews, announcements and other media texts of the UOC (MP) and UOC (KP) leaders and spokesmen, published on respective official websites of each jurisdiction in 2018. As a result of our study, it was found out that discussions around Tomos and autocephaly gave birth to new allusion-based phraseological units in Ukrainian media space, while also actualizing the use of religious terms which had been previously unknown to average citizens, such as "Tomos", "autocephaly", "canonicity", "Eucharistic communication", "Ecumenical Patriarch" etc. In the media context, these specific terms of the Church law have acquired axiological connotations, turning into axiologems and anti-axiologems. It was also revealed that the argumentation of the positive/negative axiological status of Tomos and autocephaly in Ukrainian religious mass media largely relies on cognitive metaphors and metonymies. In the media context, these cognitive mechanisms of knowledge categorization are of great importance in swaying the public opinion and affecting the value system of the audience. In the texts under study, the most common cognitive metaphors are "Church is body", "Church leaders are doctors", "Intra-Orthodox relations are war", "Intra-Orthodox relations are play", while the most prominent cognitive metonymy is geographical metonymy, whereby the agency is transferred to location. The most productive source domains for the metaphors, which serve to express the evaluation of current processes in the Church, turn out to be human body, medicine, war, play and crime. Decisions of Church leaders regarding Tomos are conceptualized as right or wrong diagnosis and treatment for an illness, expansionist policies or war for peace, raider attack or fair/unfair play. In the media texts produced by both sides, negative connotations are also conveyed via geographical metonymy, when the Constantinople Patriarchate is substituted for by Fanar or Istanbul, whereas the Moscow Patriarchate is referred to as Moscow or Kremlin. We have come to the conclusion that cognitive metaphors and metonymies in Ukrainian religious media discourse are used with the purpose of increasing the persuasive effect of the text and swaying the audience towards adopting the viewpoint of the addresser.
9
Matiash, Iryna. "Activities of The First Ukrainian Representation in Istanbul: State Mission of Diplomats." Diplomatic Ukraine, no. XXII (2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.37837/2707-7683-2021-1.
Full textAbstract:
The article offers an insight into the foundations and main directions of work of the Ukrainian diplomatic mission in Istanbul through the prism of the personalities of its leaders. The author paid particular attention to the problems that Ukrainians had to face at the first stage of the formation of Ukrainian-Turkish diplomatic relations. The article was prepared on the basis of archival information contained in documents, which are mainly stored in the Central State Archives of the High Authorities and Administration of Ukraine. The results of studies of Ukrainian and Turkish scientists are taken into account. Based on the documents revealed and historiography, it was stated that the activity of the first Ukrainian diplomatic mission in Turkey lasted more than three years. During April 1918 – June 1922, there were five heads of the diplomatic mission, namely Mykola Levytskyi, Mykhailo Sukovkin, Oleksandr Lototskyi, Jan Tokarzewski-Karaszewicz, Lev Lisniak, each of whom exerted best of their strengths, intelligence and devotion to the national idea to implement the state mission. Mykhailo Sukovkin inflicted harm on the image of Ukraine maintaining contacts within the White Guard and demonstrating a non-Ukrainian position. The author states that the main areas of activity of the diplomatic mission were to establish political and economic relations, disseminate truthful information about Ukraine, achieve recognition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, popularize and institutionalise the idea of the Black Sea Union, organise aid to Ukrainian prisoners of war and refugees in Istanbul, form them into Ukrainian army units. The termination of the activities of the Embassy of the UPR was the result of the signing of interstate treaties between Turkey and the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR in 1922. The mutual diplomatic presence of the UPR and the Ottoman Empire in 1918 and the extension of the stay of the Ukrainian diplomatic mission in Istanbul in June 1922 give grounds to suggest that after the restoration of Ukraine’s state independence in 1991, the Ukrainian-Turkish diplomatic relations were not established but restored. Keywords: Ukrainian People’s Republic, Ukrainian State, Embassy of the UPR in the Ottoman Empire, Brest Peace Treaty.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Istanbul (Turkey). Ecumenical Patriarchate"
1
Economou, Kallistratos. "Saint Stephanos the Athonite Metochion of Megiste Lavra in Adrianople (17th-19th centuries) /." Theological Research Exchange Network (TREN), 1997. http://www.tren.com.
Full text
2
BINZ, Laura Elisabeth. "Latin missionaries and Catholics in Constantinople 1650-1760 : between local religious culture and confessional determination." Doctoral thesis, 2013. http://hdl.handle.net/1814/29613.
Full textAbstract:
Defence date: 27 September 2013Examining Board: Professor Antonella Romano (EUI/Supervisor) Professor Luca Molà (EUI) Professor Christian Windler (University of Bern/External Supervisor) Professor Bernard Heyberger (Institut d’Etudes de l’Islam et des Sociétés du Monde Musulman IISMM/EHESS Paris).
First made available online 13 May 2019
This thesis examines the actions of the Latin missionaries in the Latin Catholic community of Constantinople between 1650 and 1760. In Constantinople as well as in other mission territories, missionaries were constantly confronted with the universal claims of the post-Tridentine Catholic Church and the practical requirements of the local pluri-religious context. The main aim of this dissertation is to analyze how the missionaries acted within the local context of Constantinople. In terms of methodology, this study combines the approaches of recent research on Early Modern Catholicism after the Council of Trent, of closely related research on extra-European local Christianities and of recent social and cultural research on the Ottoman Empire. In order to work out the processes of negotiation and appropriation between the different actors, the thesis adopts a micro-historical approach and an actor-focused perspective. First, the thesis focuses on the institutional actors, as the representatives of the local Latin Catholics, the patriarchal vicars and missionaries as well as the ambassadors of the European powers. Secondly, the tensions between Roman standards and the local requirements are analyzed with regard to the Constantinopolitan sacramental practice regarding baptism, marriage and funeral rituals. Finally, issues related to the crossing of religious boundaries are explored. The study reveals that the multi-religious structure of Constantinople and the strong position of the French ambassador limited the influence of the Roman Curia on the Latin Catholic community remarkably. Moreover, it emerges how, rather than represent Roman standards, the missionaries acted to a large extent as representatives of the local Latin Catholics.
Books on the topic "Istanbul (Turkey). Ecumenical Patriarchate"
1
Runciman, Steven. The Great Church in captivity: A study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the eve of the Turkish conquest to the Greek War of Independence / by Steven Runciman. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Find full text
2
The Ecumenical Patriarchate today: Sacred Greek Orthodox sites of Istanbul. Istanbul: London Editions Turkey (LET), 2014.
Find full text
3
Adnan, Sofuoğlu, ed. Siyasî faaliyetleriyle Osmanlı'dan Cumhuriyet'e İstanbul Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi. Ankara: KÖKSAV, 2010.
Find full text
4
Die Beziehungen zwischen den Patriarchaten von Konstantinopel und Antiocheia unter Kallistos I. und Philotheos Kokkinos im Spiegel des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2000.
Find full text
5
Ralph-Johannes, Lilie, ed. Die Patriarchen der ikonoklastischen Zeit: Germanos I.-Methodios I. (715-847). Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1999.
Find full text
6
Binggeli, André. Catalogue des manuscrits conservés dans la Bibliothèque du Patriarcat œcuménique: Les manuscrits du monastère de la Sainte-Trinité de Chalki. 2019.
Find full text
7
Church of Constantinople in the Nineteenth Century: An Essay in Historical Research. Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, Peter, 2013.
Find full text
8
Patrik Meletios Metaksakis ve Istanbul Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi. Ötüken Nesriyat, 2017.
Find full text
9
Kitromilides, Paschalis. Religion and Politics in the Orthodox World: The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Challenges of Modernity. Taylor & Francis Group, 2018.
Find full text
10
Kitromilides, Paschalis. Religion and Politics in the Orthodox World: The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Challenges of Modernity. Taylor & Francis Group, 2018.
Find full textBook chapters on the topic "Istanbul (Turkey). Ecumenical Patriarchate"
1
Macar, Elçin. "The Ecumenical Patriarchate under Patriarch Bartholomew and Greek–Turkish relations." In Greece and Turkey in Conflict and Cooperation, 129–44. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2019. | Series: Routledge advances in European politics: Routledge, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203732151-8.
Full text
2
"Incorporating the Ecumenical Patriarchate into Modern Turkey." In When Greeks and Turks Meet, 249–72. Routledge, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315547350-22.
Full text
3
Beylunioğlu, Anna Maria. "Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople." In The Oxford Handbook of Religion in Turkey. Oxford University Press, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197624883.013.14.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The number of Eastern Orthodox Christians in Turkey has been in decline in parallel to the decrease in the overall non-Muslim population due to the identity reconstruction process since the founding of the Republic. The low numbers of non-Muslim population seem ironic particularly since the 1990s, when their cultural significance has become increasingly visible. The irony beyond this relative visibility highlights an illusion, and underscores the ongoing risk of extinction faced by these communities, because they are still subject to limited freedom in controlling and administering their own affairs. This chapter focuses on the Eastern Orthodox communities of Turkey and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, both of which experience similar obstacles that non-Muslim communities have been facing for decades. It will explore how the rights and freedoms of the Eastern Orthodox in Turkey have changed since the initiation of the EU reform process in the 2000s, assessing the impact of increased visibility of non-Muslims and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople on their declining population. Additionally, the chapter will suggest potential strategies for preserving the population and cultural heritage of Eastern Orthodox communities in Turkey.
4
GÜLLÜ, Ramazan Erhan. "İşgal İstanbul’unda Ermeniler ve Yahudiler." In Millî Mücadele'nin Yerel Tarihi 1918-1923 (Cilt 11): İstanbul, 401–19. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.53478/tuba.978-625-8352-73-3.ch10.
Full textAbstract:
"In our study, the organization and activities of the Armenian and Jewish communities, centered on religious institutions, during the official and actual occupation processes of Istanbul will be examined. By revealing the activities of the two societies that are in opposition to each other, the causes and results of these activities will be dealt comparatively. Right after the Armistice of Mudros, the Armenian Patriarchate cooperated with the Rum/Orthodox Patriarchate and took a stand against the Ottoman State openly. This church-centered attitude caused the majority of the Armenian community to support the Patriarchate's activities. The Armenian Patriarchate, which prepared a joint memorandum with the Rum/Orthodox Patriarchate and forwarded it to the Paris Peace Conference, openly stated that they wanted to ""get rid of the Turkish yoke"". In this context, close relations have been established between the occupation forces and the Armenians, and the occupation forces' personnel needs of police, translator, guide, etc. Met by the Armenians along with the Rums. The Patriarch of the period, Zaven Efendi, was the main figure carrying out these activities. After the success of the National Struggle, Zaven Efendi had to leave Istanbul before the Turkish troops came to Istanbul, and then he resigned from the Patriarchate. The Patriarchate also saw Zaven as responsible for what happened during the occupation, and the clergy who were known to be close to him were not given any duties after he left Turkey. In response to the attitude of the Armenian Patriarchate that supported the Istanbul government and the occupation together with the Rums, the Jewish Chief Rabbinate initially followed a pro-Ottoman policy, and after a while, he was in favor of the Kuvâ-yı Milliye and the Ankara Government. The main figure, who was also influential in this policy of the Chief Rabbinate, was the Chief Rabbi of the time, Haim Nahum Efendi. Haim Nahum, who took office in 1909 and was known for his closeness to the Unionists, was also opposed to Zionist policies. Within the Chief Rabbinate, he had struggled with the Zionists, who advocated acting together with the Armenians and Rums. Despite being forced to resign under the pressure of the British in 1920, Haim Nahum succeeded in getting a clergyman with similar views to be elected instead, and he went to Ankara and continued to defend the National Struggle. This study aims to contribute to the understanding of the attitudes of non-Muslim institutions based in Istanbul against the occupations within the framework of the policies and activities of these two opposing clergy."
5
"The policies of Turkey toward the Ecumenical Patriarchate: the single-party era (1923–45)." In State-Nationalisms in the Ottoman Empire, Greece and Turkey, 144–64. Routledge, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203096901-14.
Full text
6
Atalay, Bülent. "“Karaman Türkleri’nin Meşru Mücadelesi ve Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisiyle Münasebetleri (1920-1923)." In Millî Mücadele'nin Yerel Tarihi 1918-1923 (Cilt 12): Ankara, 475–503. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.53478/tuba.978-625-8352-74-0.ch17.
Full textAbstract:
"There is no doubt that this Turkish and Orthodox nation, known by names such as Orthodox Turks, Turkish Orthodox, Karaman Turks, Karamanids, is a part of the Turkish nation. Known to have come to Anatolia long before the Muslim Turks, the Karamanids also lived and served in the Byzantine Empire. During this period, they adopted the Orthodox sect of Christianity. Today, they are known as Gagauz in Moldova, and they speak Turkish, which is spoken by Turks living in any village in Central Anatolia because it is their mother tongue. With the conquest, they were brought from Karaman and its surroundings and settled to ensure demographic balance in Istanbul. Since the Karamanids were Orthodox, they were within the religious dominion of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Fener. With the influence of the nationalist movements that spread after the French Revolution, the efforts to realize the claims that all Orthodox were Greeks began to disturb the Karamanids. They opposed the Greekization and anti- state activities of the Fener Patriarchate. During the Turkish National Struggle, Papa Eftim led the Karamanites, who supported the Turkish Grand National Assembly Government against the occupation and despite all the negativities, in their struggle. They performed a very important and historical task in propaganda activities in which the Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey was not very successful. In the same period, they succeeded in establishing their own Independent Turkish Orthodox Patriarchate, despite their demands dating back to the Ottoman Empire. This was not easy and was achieved despite all the obstacles of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Fener. But in the end, they were all subjected to the exchange, except for Papa Eftim and a few Turkish Orthodox families, which they never expected at the Lausanne Conference negotiations."