THE STATUS QUO IN THE HOLY PLACES BY L. G. A. CUST, formerly District Officer, Jerusalem. With an Annexe on THE STATUS QUO IN THE CHURCH OF THE NATIVITY, BETHLEHEM. by ABDULLAH EFFENDI KARDUS, M.B.E., formerly District Officer, Bethlehem Sub-District.
INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
It is probably true to say that no question more constantly exercised the Moslem rulers of Palestine and took up more of their time than the ever recurring difficulties and disputes arising out of the circumstance that the Christian Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem were not in one ownership but were shared and served by several communities. In this respect the experience of the British Mandatory Government has not differed greatly from that of their Ottoman predecessor. As the several ecclesiastical communities represented in the Holy Places waxed or waned in influence or even (as in the case of the Georgians) lost all representation in the Holy Land, so their shares in the sanctuaries fluctuated and their boundaries within the shrines tended to depend upon the numbers, wealth, and even strong right arm, of the parties concerned and upon the favour of the Sultan. And that the latter was sometimes a precarious asset is shewn by the circumstance that between the years 1630 to 1637—a particularly important period in the history of the Holy Places—the right of pre-eminence (praedominium) in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of the Virgin near Gethsemane, and the Basilica of the Nativity at Bethlehem, alternated no fewer than six times, at the caprice of Sultan Murad IV, between the two principal shareholders, the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics.
Article LXII of the Treaty of Berlin proclaims the inviolability of the status quo of the Holy Places, and the phrase status quo has tlius assumed a wide significance in this connexion, since it is to it that appeal is made in all questions which arise within these sacred and much contested walls. Not only Orthodox and Latins, but Armenians, Copts, Jacobites and Abyssinians have still their shares in the Holy Places; and, owing to the complexity of the shares, to the frequent absence of authoritative rulings, and to contradictory decisions given in the past, the status quo is often difficult to define.
On this account the Paper prepared by Mr. L. G. A. Cust, who has had several years of experience in the Jerusalem District Administration, supplemented by a detailed description of the complicated practice at Bethlehem by Abdullah Effendi Kardus, M.B.E., District Officer of the Bethlehem Sub-District, will be of practical value to the officers of the Government of Palestine who have to administer and give decisions upon the interpretation of the status quo. While it does not attempt the vast task of examining and sifting all the rulings of the Mamluk and early Ottoman rulers of Palestine, it gives a succinct account of modern practice; and it is the only collection extant of the rulings and decisions taken since 1918. As such it cannot fail to be a valuable vade mecum to those charged with the delicate duty of applying one of the most fluid and imprecise codes in the world.
H. C. LUKE, Chief Secretary to the Government of Palestine.
JERUSALEM, September, 1929.
INDEX.
Introduction .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1
The Status Quo: its Origin and History till the Present Time .. .. 3
The Holy Places affected by the Status Quo and its General Principles .. 12
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre .. • • . • .. .. 13
THE PARVIS .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. 15
THE ENTRANCE .. .- .. .. . . .. .. 17
THE STONE OF UNCTION . . . . . . .. .. .. 19
THE STATION OF THE HOLY WOMEN . . . . . . . . . . 20
THE ROTUNDA .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 20
THE EDICULE . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. 22
THE CHAPEL OF ST. NICODEMUS . . . . . . . . . . 23
THE CHOIR OR KATHOLIKON . . .. . . .. .. .. 26
THE COMMEMORATIVE SHRINES . . . . . . .. . . 27
CALVARY.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..29
THE UPPER PORTIONS OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE . . . . . . 30
THE CONVENT OF DEIR AL SULTAN . . . . . . . . . . 30
The Sanctuary of the Ascension .. .. • • • • •. .. 33
The Tomb of the Virgin at Gethsemane .. • • • • . • .. 34
The Church of the Nativity .. .. .. .. . • .. .. 36
THE PARVIS .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. 38
THE ENTRANCE DOORWAY .. .. .. . . .. .. 38
THE NARTHEX .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. 39
THE NAVE . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 39
THE CHOIR OR KATHOLIKON .. .. . . . . . . .. 40
THE CHURCH OF ST. NICHOLAS .. . . . . .. .. 40
THE ARMENIAN CHURCH OF THE NATr"rr y .. .. .. ..40
THE GROTTO .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..41
THE MANGER . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. 43
The Wailing Wall .. .. .. . •. . • .. .. 43
Rachel's Tomb .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..46
The Status Quo in the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem .. .. ANNEXE
Appendix.
The Mandate, Articles 13 and 14 .. .. .. .. .. .. A
The Palestine (Holy Places) Order in Council, 1924 .. .. .. B
The Ceremony of the Holy Fire .. .. .. .. .. .. C
Bibliography •. .. .. .. . •. • • • • • • D
Confidential.
"THE STATUS QUO IN THE HOLY PLACES," BY MR. L. G. A. CUST. CORRIGENDA AND ADDENDUM.
The following alterations should be made in the Section relative to the " Wailing Wall " commencing on page 43.
At the beginning of the last paragraph on page 44, for the first seven words substitute " In certain Jewish circles, however, this right to pray has been."
After " but " in line 5 on page 45 the words " for a time " should be inserted and " were " substituted for " are " in the same line.
At the end of the first paragraph on page 45 the following new paragraphs should be inserted:—
After the disturbances of August, 1929, the High Commissioner issued provisional instructions, in the interests of order and decorum, for the observances at the Wall. By these instructions the Jews were forbidden to bring to the Wall any screens or curtains or any seating accommodation. It was provided, however, that, on the occasions of the feasts of the New Year and the Day of Atonement, a prayer mat of approved size might be brought by each Jewish worshipper and certain approved ritual appurtenances only might also be brought. The Moslems were required during and on the eve of Jewish Sabbaths and recognized Jewish Holy Days to ensure that the wooden door giving access from the pavement to Zawieh at the southern end of the Wall, shall remain locked, and to refrain from driving animals along the pavement before the Wall.
These instructions were to be effective only until the rights at the Wall of the two Communities should have been defined by an authoritative body.
A public announcement was made by the High Commissioner on the 23rd January, 1930, to the effect that the Council of the League of Nations, having agreed that the question of the rights and claims of Jews and Moslems with regard to the Wailing Wall urgently called for final settlement, had decided that the settlement should be entrusted to a Commission to consist of three members appointed by the Mandatory and approved by the Council of the League, who should not be of British nationality and at least one of whom should be a person of eminence qualified for the purpose by the judicial functions he has performed.
Steps are now being taken to appoint this Commission. March, 1930.
INTRODUCTION.
Article 13 of the Mandate for Palestine lays on the Mandatory Power the responsibility of preserving existing rights in the Holy Places.
Article 14 provides for the constitution of a special Commission to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connexion with the Holy Places. This Commission has never yet been formed, and in consequence, the Government of Palestine is still under the obligation to maintain the Status Quo in every respect.
Although the arguments of the various claimants in the question of the Holy Places have been set out at length, there has hitherto been no attempt made to discover and codify as far as is possible what is the practice at the present time, and, irrespective of what is claimed, what are the existing rights that thus the Palestine Government is bound to preserve.
The experience of nearly five years as an administrative officer in Jerusalem is embodied in the following pages. But the Status Quo is not a growth of recent date; it is an evolution that traces its beginning to the early centuries of the history of the Church. Consequently, to obtain a proper perspective and so be able to appreciate what is the true meaning and import of occurrences that appear at first sight to be trivial, it is essential to comprehend how the position arose. A description is therefore given of the origin and history of the conflicts and rivalries in the Holy Places that culminated in the declaration of the Status Quo by the Sultan in the middle of the last century. The prejudice, it should however be realised, of the various authorities, as well as the valuelessness of firmans and other documents which often are directly contradictory, makes the study of this problem very difficult except when guided by actual experience.
It cannot be denied that the moment is opportune for an attempt to arrive at a solution of the question of the Holy Places. The most important external influences have disappeared for ever, and largely on this account, despite occasional setbacks, a new spirit of accommodation is increasingly evident among the representatives of the various rites that live together in these sacred surroundings. It is most sincerely hoped that the information collected in these pages may be of assistance to this end.
Reports drawn up by Bishara Effendi Habib, who was for over thirty years in the political office of the Mutesarrif of Jerusalem, and has always shown himself ready to put his wide experience at the
disposal of the Government, have been of the greatest service. A very complete and painstaking memorandum written by Abdullah Effendi Kardus, M.B.E., who was for many years District Officer, Bethlehem Sub-District, is given as well in full.
Certain appendices are added, including a detailed description of the Ceremony of the Holy Fire, which was drawn up originally for the guidance of the District Governor's office.
L. G. A. C.
JERUSALEM, July, 1929.
THE STATUS QUO. ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY TILL THE PRESENT TIME.
To form a just appreciation of what is signified by the Status Quo in the Holy Places and thus arrive at a clear understanding of the various rights and privileges that arise from it, it is necessary to trace the development of the Church from its earliest days. For in all its salient features the Status Quo is the logical outcome of some occurrence in history, until gradually the present complicated network of rights and privileges is produced.
It is natural that the actual scenes connected with the Life on earth of Our Lord must from earliest times have been of surpassing interest to His followers, and there has been no important event connected with the history of the Church that has not had its repercussion in the Holy Places.*
A fundamental reason for the present state of affairs is the fact that, except for limited periods, the Holy Places were for 13 centuries under the dominion of a non-Christian power from whom concessions were obtainable by diplomatic pressure or other influences. A remarkable feature, however, of the Moslem domination is the tolerance displayed on all but very rare occasions towards the Christians. The barbarian invaders of Syria and Palestine, such as the Persiansf and the Charismians spread widespread destruction, and the mad Caliph al Hakem destroyed with scientific thoroughness the second Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but the original Arab invaders and the Saracens later acted in the spirit of protectors rather than conquerors. This magnanimous attitude was doubtless encouraged in some degree by the fact that the Holy Places and the contentions of the different Christian sects on their account were profitable sources of income, but in Moslem eyes the Christians (like the Jews) are Kitabis, i.e. People of the Book, worshippers of the true God, but not in the right way, and whom the Prophet ordained should not be persecuted. \
In strong contrast is the rivalry of the Christian Churches and Powers. The history of the Holy Places is one long story of bitter animosities and contentions, in which outside influences take part in an increasing degree, until the scenes of Our Lord's life on earth become a political shuttlecock, and eventually the cause of international conflict. If the Holy Places and the rights pertaining
+ The story is told that the hordes of Chosroes in A.D. 614 spared the Basilica of the Nativity because over the doorway there was a large mosaic depicting the visit of the Magi in a Persian setting.
j: See Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, pp. 234-7.
thereto are an " expression of men's feelings about Him whose story hallowed those sites,"* they are also an index of the corruptions and intrigues of despots and chancelleries during eight hundred years. The logical results have been the spirit of distrust and suspicion, and the attitude of intractability in all matters, even if only of the most trivial importance, concerning the Holy Places.
A. Early Period.
In the earliest days the Church was one and undivided. Administratively it was split up into three great Patriarchates: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Jerusalem, under its Roman name of Aelia Capitolina, was a bishopric in the Patriarchate of Antioch depending on the Metropolis of Caesarea, at that time the administrative centre as well. Such was the position when Constantine founded the great Churches of the Anastasis and the Nativity.
By the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313, Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire, and the body politic of the Church set about organising itself. Seven great Councils were held, all of which were fraught with matters of great import for the future history of the Church.•]•
At the Council of Nicaea we find the Bishop of the Holy City, who had already obtained a form of honorary primacy, being accorded " the succession of honour " (dcxoXouOiiXv r^c, TI.}JLT](;). At the First Council of Constantinople, the newly elevated Capital of the Empire was created a fourth Patriarchate. At the Council of Ephesus, Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem attempted to obtain like privileges; he failed then, but succeeded a little later at Chalcedon, and so Jerusalem became the fifth Patriarchate. The venerable antiquity of the Jerusalem Patriarchate is therefore apparent.
These Councils, however, produced the heresies to which the lesser Eastern Churches trace their origin. After the Council of Ephesus the heresy of Nestorius broke off a large portion of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Council of Chalcedon saw the rise of Mono-physism, and the separatist Churches of this communion, the Armenian, Coptic,^ Syrian Jacobite,§ and Abyssinian.
f Nicaea (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (681), Nicaea II (787).
^ The Copts were originally the nonconformist Christians of Egypt. The words Copt and Egypt are of the same derivation.
§ The Syrian Jacobites like to attribute their origin to the Apostle St. James. The name " Jacobites" is actually derived from a monk, Jacob Baradai, who, under the protection of the Empress Theodora, wife of Justinian I, who liad Monophysite sympathies, was in some sort the founder of this Church in the (-itii century. Their official designation is " The Syrian Orthodox Church."
So by the time of the Moslem invasion we find the Church in the East already sub-divided into various sects, all of whom doubtless shared in the common worship at the Holy Places, arranging among themselves the order of their services. But there was only one Patriarch, the Orthodox, and it was the Orthodox Patriarch Sophro-nius who arranged the terms of capitulation with the Khalif Omar, and again the Orthodox Patriarch Nikephorus who obtained leave from the tyrant El Hakem for the Christians of all rites to resume their services amid the ruins of the Holy Sepulchre he had destroyed. Nor do we hear of any rivalry in these times between Eastern and Western Christianity. On the contrary, Haroun-al-Rashid appealed to Charlemagne for succour for the poor Christians in Jerusalem, sending him at the same time the keys of the Holy Sepulchre.* It is clear that the divisions and schisms in the Church elsewhere were not felt as yet in the Holy City.
That during the earliest centuries there was thus harmony and not discord in the Holy Places is generally accepted by authorities on this period. In the official exposes of the Roman Catholic point of view, one of which was submitted to the Peace Conference in 1919, and another published by the Franciscans in 1922,-j" no mention is made of any claim in regard to the Holy Places prior to the era of the Crusades. This is duly noted in a memorandum in reply drawn up by the Reverend Archbishop Timotheos Themeles, formerly Chief Secretary of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem.:}: Similarly that the Khalif Omar entrusted the custody of the Holy Places to the Greek element as distinct from the other Christian sects is an historical impossibility. §
B. The Crusades.
With the arrival of the Crusaders, however, a far-reaching change took place in the history of the Holy Places. Although in the first years after the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 the Frankish strangers and the indigenous Christians worked hand in hand in restoring the ruined shrines, the cleavage between the two elements became more and more pronounced. During the existence of the Latin Kingdom the Latin element enjoyed the paramountcy {fraedo-minium) in all the Holy Places, and the Orthodox Patriarch retired to Constantinople. At the same time we read in the account of
f Les Lieux Saints de la Palestine (pro manuscripto).
\ ' Greeks and Franciscans in the Holy Places, 1919."
§ The famous " Akhdname " or Firman of Omar (636) in the possession of the Orthodox Patriarchate is in some quarters held to be a forgery of the 17th century (see Franciscan Memorandum of 1922, p. 25).
6
the monk Theodoric, writing about 1172, that there were still at that time representatives of the other churches ministering under the roof of the Holy Sepulchre, though " differing in language and in their manner of conducting divine service."*
Two events now occurred which had an important and far-reaching influence on the question of the Holy Places. The reunion Councils that were held subsequent to the schism of Cerularius in 1054 proved abortive, and after the last one held at Florence in 1438, the estrangement between Eastern and Western Christendom became final and complete, and in the histories and records from that time onwards Latin and Orthodox are to each other dissidents, schismatics, and heretics.
The second event constitutes one ot the blackest chapters in the history of European civilization. In 1187 the Crusaders lost Jerusalem to Saladin. Preached by Pope Innocent III, the Fourth Crusade set out in 1204 from Venice for Palestine. Instead of proceeding to recover the Holy Places from the hands of the Infidel, the Crusaders found it easier to fight Christians than Saracens and plundered and sacked the centre of Eastern Christianity with all conceivable cruelty and horror.f The Pope, indeed, no sooner heard how the forces and money raised for a Holy War were being used by these " Soldiers of the Cross," when he excommunicated the whole force. But these abominable and unpardonable acts were never forgotten, and from, thenceforth the Eastern Church looked for its revenge on the West.^