The questioning of the ownership status of the historic Sinai Monastery came as no surprise. Those at the monastery had long anticipated this “eruption.” The Greek government was also aware that a “civil dispute” exists between the Egyptian state and this emblematic Orthodox center—a dispute that has grown into a significant issue. However, this is far from being the only challenge of its kind.
Observers who closely follow developments on Orthodoxy’s global stage consider it almost inevitable that, following Sinai, additional disputes will emerge. These may include challenges to the ownership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate by Turkey and to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem by Israeli and Muslim authorities in the region.
Grey zones
Currently, no one openly challenges the rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Phanar, yet a significant void remains. Where there is such a gap—especially in Turkey—it inevitably leads to serious issues.
Reports indicate that the Turkish Land Registry does not officially recognize all ecclesiastical properties as belonging to the Patriarchate. Consequently, ownership of many of these properties remains uncertain, with all the legal and practical complications this uncertainty entails.
Truth be told, given that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan wields considerable influence—bolstered by the explicit support of U.S. President Donald Trump—who can truly assure us that he won’t act against the interests of the Patriarchate to leave the lasting legacy of the Ottoman sultan?
Maybe Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis who is entangled in Payment and Control Agency for Guidance and Guarantee Community Aid (OPEKEPE) scandal? Or maybe Ministers like Giorgos Gerapetritis and Alexandra Papadopoulou seem to have left the “civil” case of Sinai to fate?
Much like Turkey’s application of “gray zone” tactics in the Aegean, similar strategies are employed against the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Although the Patriarchate refrains from publicly confronting these disputes, it remains constrained and compelled to show restraint.
Tragically, the Patriarchate’s options for defense are limited —especially when faced with a neighboring state that disregards fundamental legal norms and rules with authoritarian determination.
Now is not the time.
Similarly, following the Sinai dispute, no one rules out the potential emergence of challenges to the historic Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Since the time of Patriarch Irenaeus, the ownership status of properties belonging to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem has remained largely unchallenged. Given the current instability in the region, now is certainly not the time to address these issues.
However, experts warn that numerous legal loopholes exist, and a dispute could easily emerge at the earliest opportunity.
At present, the Russian Orthodox Church has effectively taken control over the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, while the Israeli state is preoccupied with other pressing concerns.
Despite this, the unresolved gaps persist, and the Greek government seems unable to adequately address them, let alone offer assistance.
Melchizedek
*Published in the newspaper “Orthodoxi Alitheia”
