What is an ecumenical patriarch. “The Patriarch of Constantinople does not have the primacy of power among the Orthodox Churches

"Ukrainian autocephaly", which in recent times the Patriarchate of Constantinople lobbies and pushes so stubbornly, is certainly not an end in itself for the Phanar (a small Istanbul district where the residence of the Patriarchs of Constantinople is located). Moreover, the task of weakening the Russian Church, the most numerous and influential in the family of Local Churches, is also secondary to the key ambition of the “Turkish subjects of the primates.”

According to many church experts, the main thing for the Patriarchate of Constantinople is the "primacy", the primacy of power in the entire Orthodox world. And the Ukrainian issue, which is so effective, including for solving Russophobic problems, is just one of the ways to achieve this global goal. And it is Patriarch Bartholomew who, for more than a quarter of a century, has been trying to solve this super-problem, set by his predecessors. A task that has nothing to do with the Orthodox understanding of the historical primacy of honor in an equal family of Local Churches.

Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, professor and head of the Department of Church and Practical Disciplines of the Moscow Theological Academy, Doctor of Church History, spoke in more detail about how the inherently heretical idea of ​​the “primacy” of church authority penetrated the Patriarchate of Constantinople in an exclusive interview with the Tsargrad TV channel.

Father Vladislav, now statements are very often heard from Istanbul about a certain “primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople.” Explain whether in reality the Primates of this Church have the right to power over other Local Orthodox Churches, or is it historically only a “primacy of honor”?

The primacy of power in relation to the Primates of other Local Orthodox Churches Constantinople, of course, did not belong and does not belong. Moreover, in the first millennium of church history, it was the Church of Constantinople that energetically objected to the claims of the Bishop of Rome to the primacy of power over the entire Universal Church.

Moreover, she objected not because she appropriated this right for herself, but because she basically proceeded from the fact that all Local Churches are independent, and the primacy in the diptych (the list reflecting the historical “order of honor” of the Local Churches and their primates - ed.) Bishop Rome should not entail any administrative powers of authority. This was the firm position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople during the first millennium after the birth of Christ, when there was still no schism between Western and Eastern Churches.

Did something fundamentally change with the division of the Christian East and West in 1054?

Of course, in 1054 this principled position did not change. Another thing is that Constantinople, in view of the falling away of Rome from the Orthodox Church, became the leading cathedra. But all these claims to exclusivity, to power appeared much later. Yes, the Patriarch of Constantinople, as Primate of the Church of the Roman Kingdom (Byzantine Empire), had significant real power. But this in no way entailed any canonical consequences.

Of course, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem had much less power in their areas (in terms of the number of dioceses, parishes, flocks, and so on), nevertheless, they were recognized as completely equal. The primacy of the Patriarchs of Constantinople was only in the diptych, in the sense that during divine services he was commemorated first.

When did this idea of ​​an "Orthodox Vatican" appear?

Only in the 20th century. This was a direct consequence, firstly, of our revolution of 1917 and the beginning of anti-church persecution. It is clear that the Russian Church has since become much weaker, and therefore Constantinople immediately put forward its strange doctrine. Gradually, step by step, on various particular topics, in connection with autocephaly (the right to grant independence to a particular Church - ed.), diaspora (the right to govern dioceses and parishes outside the canonical boundaries of the Local Churches - ed.), the Patriarchs of Constantinople began to formulate claims to "universal jurisdiction".

Of course, this was also due to the events that took place after the First World War in Constantinople itself, Istanbul: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Greco-Turkish war ... Finally, this is due to the fact that Constantinople lost its former support from the collapsed Russian empire, whose place was immediately taken by the British and American authorities.

The latter, as you know, even today has a very strong influence on the Patriarchate of Constantinople?

Yes, it remains unchanged. In Turkey itself, the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is very weak, despite the fact that formally in the Republic of Turkey all religions are legally equal. The Orthodox Church there represents a very small minority, and therefore the focus has been shifted to the diaspora, to communities in America and other parts of the world, but the most influential, of course, in the United States.

Everything is clear with the “primacy of power”, this is an absolutely non-Orthodox idea. But another question with the "primacy of honor": it has only historical meaning? And what about the fall of Constantinople in 1453? Did the persecuted Patriarchs under the Ottoman yoke retain their primacy in the diptych solely out of sympathy and respect for the glorious past of their predecessors?

Diptychs are not revised without the need to include new autocephalous Churches. Therefore, the fact that Constantinople fell in 1453 was not the basis for revising the diptych. Although, of course, there were large ecclesiastical implications concerning the Russian Church. In connection with the fall of Constantinople, it received more solid grounds for autocephaly (back in 1441, the Russian Church separated from the Patriarchate of Constantinople due to its entry into a heretical union with the Catholics in 1439 - approx. Constantinople). But, I repeat, we are talking only about autocephaly. The diptych itself remained the same.

Thus, for example, the Church of Alexandria is the Church with small numbers flock and only a few hundred clerics, but in the diptych she still, as in antiquity, takes second place. And once she took second place after Rome, even before the rise of Constantinople. But starting from the Second Ecumenical Council, the metropolitan see of Constantinople was placed in second place after Rome. And so it historically remains.

But how can other Orthodox Churches, and the Russian one in the first place, as the largest and most influential in the world, act in conditions when the Patriarchate of Constantinople and personally Patriarch Bartholomew insist that it is he who has the right to “knit and loose” in the entire Orthodox world?

Ignore these claims until then, as long as they remain merely verbal, leaving them as a topic for theological, canonical discussions. If this is followed by actions, and, starting from the 20th century, the Patriarchs of Constantinople repeatedly followed non-canonical actions (especially in the 1920s and 30s), it is necessary to counteract.

And here we are talking not only about the support of the Soviet schismatic Renovationists in their struggle against the legitimate Moscow Patriarch Tikhon (now glorified in the face of saints - approx. Constantinople). On the part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople there was also an unauthorized seizure of the dioceses and autonomous churches, which are parts of the Russian Church - Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Polish. And today's policy towards the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is very reminiscent of what was done then.

But is there any instance, some kind of general church court that could rebuke the Patriarch of Constantinople?

Such a body, which would be recognized as the highest judicial authority in all Universal Church, today exists only theoretically, it is - Ecumenical Council. Therefore, there is no prospect of a judicial review, in which there would be defendants and accusers. However, in any case, the illegal claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople must be rejected by us, and if they result in practical actions, this should entail a break in canonical communion.

The decision of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to appoint two Americans of Ukrainian origin as his “exarchs” in Kyiv may lead to a split in the entire Orthodox world

The appointment by the Patriarch of Constantinople of his representatives-bishops in Ukraine - without the consent of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and His Beatitude Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine - is nothing but an unprecedentedly brutal invasion of the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate. Such actions cannot go unanswered.

This is how Vladimir Legoyda, chairman of the Synodal Department for Relations between the Church, Society and the Media, commented on the decision taken in Istanbul. social network Facebook. Usually extremely diplomatic, Legoyda expressed only a fraction of the emotions of the Russians. Orthodox people, who are closely following the issues of "Ukrainian autocephalization", the process of which was launched by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople (in reality, Istanbul). But if yesterday it was about the “war of discussions”, today the Phanar (the Istanbul quarter, where the residence of the Patriarch of Constantinople is located) went on a real offensive.

According to many experts of the Tsargrad TV channel, including Archpriest of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, Archbishop Theodosius of Sebaste (Khanna) such actions are links in the chain of the anti-Russian policy of the United States of America, which largely controls the activities of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. To clarify the extent of the church tragedy(and we are talking about the beginning of the tragedy, which from today it has become much more difficult to prevent) Tsargrad turned to the leading expert in the Ukrainian church issue, Professor of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University, Doctor of Church History Vladislav Petrushko.

Professor of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University, Doctor of Church History Vladislav Petrushko. Photo: Tsargrad TV channel

Tsargrad: Vladislav Igorevich, how to assess what happened? What actually happened, what kind of characters were sent by Patriarch Bartholomew to Kyiv? Who are these “legates” or “nuncios” of the Constantinople “pope”?

Professor Vladislav Petrushko: It seems to me that we do not place accents quite correctly. What happened, on the one hand, is expected, since it is a logical continuation of the policy initiated by the Phanar. On the other hand, it was unexpected that so quickly, literally a week after the meeting of the two Patriarchs in Istanbul, a decision was made to appoint Phanariot "legates" to Ukraine. And although they try to present it in such a way that these two bishops are “only” representatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and not the heads of some new structure, new jurisdiction, we know very well from history the ability of the Greeks to juggle terms, words. Today it is "exarch" as a "legate", as a representative. And already tomorrow - the actual primate of the semi-autonomous "Church".

The appointed exarchs, or rather, the exarch and the deputy exarch, are two Ukrainian bishops of Constantinople jurisdiction. One is from the USA, the other is from Canada. And one, if I'm not mistaken, in the past was a Uniate (Greek Catholic), who converted to Orthodoxy in one of the Constantinople jurisdictions. It is clear that both come from Galicians, which means patented nationalists, but they should not even pay attention to this. And what happened at the last Synaxis (the bishops' meeting of the Patriarchate of Constantinople), and the statement of Patriarch Bartholomew on the results.

Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

In fact, there was a revolution. And not only canonical, but ecclesiological (ecclesiology is the doctrine of the Church, including its boundaries - ed.). For the first time, the creation of an eastern analogue of the papacy was declared so openly at an official event of the Church of Constantinople. It is stated that only the Patriarch of Constantinople is an arbiter and can interfere in the affairs of other Churches, resolve disputes, grant autocephaly, and so on. In fact, on the sly, what happened throughout the 20th century and at the beginning of the 21st came to a logical result. And Ukraine is a kind of first "trial balloon" on which this "Eastern Papacy" will run in. That is, a new structure of the Orthodox world has been proclaimed, and now everything will depend on how the Local Orthodox Churches react to this.

C.: Thus, what happened can be compared with 1054, the “great schism” that divided the Eastern and Western Churches, Orthodox and Roman Catholics?

Professor Petrushko A: Yes, that's the first thing that comes to mind. But even in the 11th century, it began with much more innocent things than now, when we see that the Phanar raged, lost all adequacy and, in fact, puts an ultimatum to the entire Orthodox world. Either you recognize the "Pope" of Constantinople, or we go to you and do whatever we want in your canonical territories, including recognizing any schism, any non-canonical structure. Of course, this is already complete chaos, this is the real church "raiding". And this must be brought to a decisive end by all the Local Orthodox Churches.

What does the decision of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople contain?

What is written:

In paragraph 1, the Synod confirms the movement towards the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church. But he doesn't give dates.

p.2 Says that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is restoring stauropegia in Kyiv, as one of the many historically existing stauropegia in Ukraine

Clause 3 removes the anathema from Filaret Denisenko and Makariy Maletich, restoring them to the priestly or episcopal camp. The communion of their faithful with the church was restored.

Clause 4 Cancels the effect of the synodal letter granting the right to the Moscow Patriarch to consecrate the Metropolitan of Kyiv and confirms its right to consecrate the hierarchs of the Kyiv Church

p.5 Makes a call for peace among believers.

At first glance, everything is clear and transparent. But Constantinople is the Byzantine tradition of cunning diplomacy. Because it makes sense to read between the lines. It will be unpleasant for many and gives several options for the development of events.

We read the meaning: what is written in the decision of the Synod?

Let's start with the third point about lifting the anathema. It is invalid, which means that Filaret Denisenko and Makariy Maletich are Christians who have not been excommunicated from the church and have been returned to the episcopal or priesthood. But, and here we recall the cunning of Byzantine diplomacy: the rationale says that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has the right to consider the appeals of all hierarchs or priests of all autocephalous churches. BUT the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not recognize these people as a patriarch (in the case of Filaret) or a primate (in the case of Macarius) of the church. Both are named by their first and last names, without titles, and restored to the priestly rank, but not to the administrative one.

The last sentence is extremely interesting. Their faithful words (again, not the flock, but the faithful) restored in communion with the church means that the believers are recognized as Orthodox believers of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Parishes as an organization of believers - part canonical church, the first in the diptych of the Orthodox Church. That is, spell it - they are K-A-N-O-N-I-W-N-S.

Now let's go up to the second point. It speaks of the restoration of Stavropegium over Kyiv and all of Ukraine. Stauropegia - direct subordination of church organizations (monasteries, schools, brotherhoods, even individual parishes, etc.) in a certain territory to the Synod and the primate of the church. talking in simple terms, this may be a representative office of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, or it may happen differently - the stavropegy will be installed over individual (or all) Cathedrals, monasteries, groups of parishes, seminaries of the UOC-KP and UAOC. But even here the trick of Byzantium - there is not a word about the recognition of the church organization, church hierarchy. That is, the parishes are canonical, they belong to the mother church, but the dioceses with their diocesan administrations... Firstly, there is not a word about them in any of the paragraphs of the document. Secondly, Stavropegia is precisely the independence (and direct subordination to the Synod) of church organizations from the local diocesan structure. Oh, but in our country both the UAOC and the UOC-KP have their own primates, their own synod, etc. What primates - read above - they were restored to the priesthood and episcopal status - a spiritual, but not a church-administrative rank. So far, a Stavropegia (or Stavropegia throughout Ukraine) is being created, which will be led by representatives of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople.

And, finally, point 4. The Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople canceled its message of 1686, which gave the Patriarch of Moscow the right to consecrate the Metropolitan of Kyiv. That is, now the consecration of the primate of the Kyiv Metropolis (read modern Ukraine, Poland and Belarus) belongs exclusively to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Item 5 - standard diplomatic turns with a call to live in peace according to the Commandments of Christ.

What do we have now

Today, from the point of view of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the church has been replenished with parishes of the UOC-KP and the UAOC. That is, if earlier the See of Constantinople in its statistics spoke of about 3,200 parishes, then, starting today, it can talk about the possibility of quickly including at least 7,000 more parishes into the church. The Ecumenical Patriarchate is becoming not only the first in authority, but also one of the largest church organizations.

The church hierarchy of the UAOC and the UOC-KP is not called illegal, but it is not recognized either. That is, now the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and only by its decision determines the structure of the church organization in Ukraine. If our local comrades agree to unite the dioceses, they can be recognized as such. Do not agree - it's not scary - they can be created. By the way, our hierarchs are not members of the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The highest hierarchs (in terms of administrative rights) in Ukraine today are the exarchs sent by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Of course, they will not stick out this fact, but if our comrades are intractable, they will be able to apply administrative measures without any problems.

Which? And let's think. Both Macarius and Filaret today are (or have become) de facto priests of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This means that they are obliged to obey the decisions of the hierarchs of the church, the Synod and the Patriarch. Disobedience in Orthodox world“treated” by exile to a monastery (on Athos there is just a shortage of novices), deprivation of dignity or anathema. The last, if this happens, will already be final and irrevocable. Only the Russian Orthodox Church can try to cancel such a decision “in defiance of Constantinople”. But in this case, such a decision will be exchanged for very large concessions from the Kyiv hierarchs.

All further consecrations, appointments as primates of dioceses or metropolises lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of Constantinople. He can appoint himself, he can convene a council on the spot. After all, having canceled the decision of 1686, the Synod returned the conditions for the existence of the Kyiv Metropolis of the 17th century - subordination to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Thus, the ROC has already de facto lost its status in Ukraine. Its parishes are in the canonical territory of another church. The Patriarch of Moscow no longer has the right to consecrate a primate Ukrainian church. Dot. But the transition of the Ukrainian parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church into the bosom of another canonical church is easier than ever - to ask for stavropegy for a separate parish. Now the place of the Moscow Patriarch or his “watchers” is subject (until the final solution of the Ukrainian issue) to the Synod of the Church of Constantinople - the first in the diptych of Orthodox churches.

Plot development fork

First, consider the algorithm for creating a local church. The first part of it follows the scenario described by the Ukrainian authorities, both ecclesiastical and secular.

Formally, everything is done for this:

• the status of the country's territory as the canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was confirmed. Formally, we have returned to the status of the Kyiv Metropolis of the 17th century.
• Moscow is deprived of the right to consecrate the Metropolitan of Kyiv
• the status of the church administrative structure has not been confirmed - that is, the possibility has been left to create one from scratch (by the decision of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople) or by the decision of the local Council (which is still approved by the Synod)
• Appointed exarchs, who, in the absence of a recognized church hierarchy, are formally (from the point of view of Canon Law) the hierarchs with the highest status on the territory of Ukraine
• Stavropegiya is being restored (created), which, with a favorable course of processes, is only an administrative center, which can act as a body that has the right to assemble a Council of the Ukrainian Church. In case of an unfavorable development of events, it can also become the core of the creation of a church organization “from scratch”, leaving behind the ambitions of Ukrainian church hierarchs.
• Moscow, from a formal point of view, is deprived of the opportunity to influence the processes of creating a local church and, from the point of view of Canon Law, has no right (sorry for the tautology) to interfere - this is not its territory.
• After the Council has been held, the Ukrainian Local Church, without additional decisions, is part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. After all, the council was convened by the decision of the exarchs and the Patriarch, on the canonical territory, the organizer was the established Stavropegia in Kyiv (or Stavropegia in Ukraine - if there is a decision to create several). Since the church is being created as part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (look at the unfavorable development of events - persistence in the ambitions of local hierarchs, the creation of the church takes place through "gathering by parishes".
• Monasteries (after consulting with the abbots), cathedrals, church schools, seminaries, individual parishes. After that, an administrative structure is created from scratch - dioceses with an updated set of hierarchs.

It may be objected to me that the primates of the UAOC and the UOC-KP will not agree to such a thing. They will go for one simple reason: it will be very difficult for them to explain to their flock why yesterday, striving under the wing of Constantinople, they suddenly changed their minds. And the conflict with the Ecumenical Patriarchate (with the existing conflict with the Russian Orthodox Church) threatens to bury hopes for recognition by any other Orthodox Church. Although no - Moscow will be ready to "change its mind" on the condition of "repentance of the schismatics" and demonstrative "obedience".

In fact, this algorithm means that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is rebuilding its structure, taking over the management of individual parishes. The Russian Orthodox Church cannot resist this, since everything takes place within the framework of canon law on the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Moreover, the transition of parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church or even entire dioceses to local church, which “in the future may receive Tomos” is one thing, and the transition to the subordination of the canonical church, the first in the diptych, the oldest Orthodox church, is a completely different matter.

Option 1. Everything is going according to plan

This option provides for the peaceful holding of the Council, the establishment of the church, which initially, by definition, will be canonical. After all, parishes are ALREADY canonical and they simply create an administrative structure. The election of the primate is approved by the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the primate himself is ordained by the metropolitan (or patriarch, depending on the decision of the Council). This newly created church, or rather its primate, in the foreseeable future (perhaps even before the presidential election) will be granted a Tomos of Autocephaly.

Option 2. Bartholomew takes the jackpot

There will be a church in any case, but tomos is not a fact. More precisely, it will be in the foreseeable future. But "foreseeable" can mean several days, months, or even centuries, which by church standards is "only a moment."

In this format, Patriarch Bartholomew receives one of the largest church organizations in control. With proper development, a parade of transitions of parishes from the UOC-MP (ROC), it can become the largest in the world. Judge for yourself - from 10 to 16 thousand parishes in Ukraine and another 3,200 in other countries of the world. Then you can talk with Lukashenka about the Belarusian Church. Moreover, to follow the same "Byzantine" path - formally, the territory of modern Belarus is part of the historical Kyiv Metropolis within the borders of the 17th century (with the exception of some North-Western regions of the country). Lukashenka can easily allow the presence of the ecumenical patriarchy and even repeat the trick with Stavropegia. And then, I think, there is no need to explain - work with individual priests with the tacit support of secular authorities. This is another 1.5 thousand parishes. As a result, the ROC shrinks to 14-16 thousand parishes, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate grows to 20-21 thousand. Bingo!

This option, by the way, looks the most frightening for Moscow. Since the quick receipt of autocephaly does not strengthen Bartholomew, does not allow quickly tearing off parishes, for example, in Belarus and, possibly, in Moldova. And the creation of a powerful Ukrainian church is a long process. That is, the ROC will get time to regroup and try to maintain the maximum share of today's influence.

Another question arises: would Bartholomew consider such a situation more profitable. More precisely, whether Erdogan considers such a situation more profitable. The Ecumenical Patriarchy depends on the position of the secular authorities of Turkey, which seeks to strengthen its position in the region. For the Turkish authorities, the opportunity to play the religious card in Ukraine (having full influence on Muslims - Crimean Tatars) may be too strong a temptation. After all, the most powerful (not respected, but strong) Orthodox Church in the world has a very large political weight in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans - the zone of interests of the Turkish Republic.

The downside for Erdogan is that keeping Ukraine within the framework of the Ecumenical Patriarchate will require changing the laws of the Turkish Republic. At least, the abolition of the rule that a citizen of the country, a representative of the Greek minority, can be elected patriarch. This means that in the future, in case of excessive pressure on the church, a new patriarch can be elected from the citizens of any other country, who will simply leave Turkey, away from the annoying authorities.

Is the "Constantinople Variant" dangerous for us? I don't think too much. The Turks are unlikely to be able to create a system of adhesion of the church and secular power - Erdogan is still an Islamist. That is, there will be cooperation, but not a "second Foreign Ministry." Ukraine, due to its size, will still receive significant independence and, perhaps, our hierarchs will play an important role in the world's first Orthodox Church in terms of seniority. Not a bad prospect. But terrible for those who dream of "their own little patriarchy."

Thus, we have two options, each of which is beneficial to Ukraine. And each of which is extremely dangerous for the ROC or, to be precise, for Russian state, since it hits the ideological myths of domestic and foreign policy, in the future it reduces the impact on vast regions (not only Ukraine).

The Moscow Patriarchate did the right thing by taking a tough stance towards the Patriarch of Constantinople.

It’s worth starting with the fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in fact, has long meant little and decides nothing in the Orthodox world. And although the Patriarch of Constantinople continues to be called the Ecumenical and the first among equals, this is just a tribute to history, traditions, but no more. It does not reflect the real state of affairs.

As recent Ukrainian events have shown, following these obsolete traditions did not lead to anything good - in the Orthodox world, the significance of certain figures should have been revised long ago, and without a doubt, the Patriarch of Constantinople should not bear the title of Ecumenical for a long time. For it has not been such for a long time - more than five centuries.

If we call a spade a spade, then the last truly Orthodox and independent Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was Euthymius II, who died in 1416. All his successors ardently supported the union with Catholic Rome and were ready to recognize the supremacy of the Pope.

It is clear that this was caused by the difficult situation of the Byzantine Empire, which lived out its last years, surrounded on all sides by the Ottoman Turks. The Byzantine elite, including part of the clergy, hoped that “foreign countries would help us,” but for this it was necessary to conclude a union with Rome, which was done on July 6, 1439 in Florence.

Roughly speaking, it was from that moment on that the Patriarchate of Constantinople completely legal grounds should be considered apostate. So almost immediately they began to call him, and the supporters of the union began to be called Uniates. The last Patriarch of Constantinople of the pre-Ottoman period, Gregory III, was also a Uniate, who was so disliked in Constantinople itself that he preferred to leave the city at its most difficult moment and go to Italy.

It is worth recalling that in the Principality of Moscow the union was also not accepted and the metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia Isidore was expelled from the country, who by that time had accepted the rank of a Catholic cardinal. Isidore went to Constantinople, took an active part in the defense of the city in the spring of 1453 and was able to escape to Italy after the capture of the Byzantine capital by the Turks.

In Constantinople itself, despite the ardent rejection of the union by a part of the clergy and a large number of citizens, about the reunification of the two Christian churches announced at the Cathedral of St. Sophia on December 12, 1452. After that, it was possible to consider the Patriarch of Constantinople a protege of Catholic Rome, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople dependent on the Catholic Church.

It is also worth recalling that the last service in the Cathedral of St. Sophia on the night of May 28-29, 1453, passed both according to the Orthodox and Latin canons. Since christian prayers never sounded under the arches of the once main temple Christendom, since by the evening of May 29, 1453, Byzantium ceased to exist, St. Sofia became a mosque, and Constantinople was subsequently renamed Istanbul. Which automatically set off an impetus in the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

But the tolerant conquering sultan Mehmet II decided not to abolish the patriarchy and soon appointed one of the most ardent opponents of the union, the monk George Scholaria, to the place of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Who went down in history under the name of Patriarch Gennady - the first patriarch of the post-Byzantine period.

Since then, all the Patriarchs of Constantinople were appointed by the sultans, and there could be no question of their independence. They were completely subordinate persons, reporting to the sultans on affairs in the so-called Greek millet. They were allowed to celebrate a strictly limited number of holidays per year, use certain churches and live in the Phanar region.

By the way, this area is now under police protection, so the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople-Istanbul lives, in fact, on bird's rights. The fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch has no rights was proved by the sultans more than once, removing them from their posts and even executing them.

All this would be sad if the story did not take on a completely absurd look. After the Turks conquered Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarch Gennady appeared there, the Pope appointed former metropolitan Kyiv and All Russia Isidore. Catholic cardinal, if anyone forgot.

Thus, in 1454 there were as many as two Patriarchs of Constantinople, one of whom sat in Istanbul and the other in Rome, and both, in fact, had no real power. Patriarch Gennady was entirely subordinate to Mehmet II, and Isidore was the conductor of the ideas of the Pope.

If earlier the Ecumenical Patriarchs had such power that they could interfere in the family affairs of the Byzantine emperors - God's anointed ones - then from 1454 they became just religious functionaries, and even in a foreign country where Islam was the state religion.

In fact, the Patriarch of Constantinople had as much power as, for example, the Patriarch of Antioch or Jerusalem. That is, not at all. Moreover, if the sultan did not like the patriarch for some reason, then the conversation with him was short - execution. So it was, for example, with Patriarch Gregory V, who was hanged over the gate Patriarchy of Constantinople in Phanar in 1821.

Total, what is obtained in the dry residue? And here's what. The Union of Florence effectively abolished the independent Greek Orthodox Church. In any case, the signatories of the union from the Byzantine side agreed with this. The subsequent Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, after which the Ecumenical Patriarch was entirely dependent on the mercy of the sultans, made his figure purely nominal. And that's why he could not be called the Universal. Because it cannot be called the Ecumenical Patriarch, whose power extends to the modest size of the Phanar district of the Islamic city of Istanbul.

From which a reasonable question arises: is the decision of the current Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I on Ukraine worth taking into account? Given at least the fact that even the Turkish authorities do not consider him the Ecumenical Patriarch. And why should the Moscow Patriarchate look back at the decisions of Bartholomew, who, in fact, represents no one knows whom and bears a title that can cause nothing but bewilderment?

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from… Istanbul? Agree, it sounds somehow frivolous, like a Tambov Parisian.

Yes, the Eastern Roman Empire-Byzantium was and always will be our spiritual foremother, but the fact is that this country has long been gone. She died on May 29, 1453, but, mentally, according to the Greeks themselves, she died at the moment when the Byzantine elite concluded a union with Rome. And when Constantinople fell, it was no coincidence that many representatives of the clergy, both Byzantine and European, claimed that the Lord punished the Second Rome, including for apostasy.

And now Bartholomew, who lives on bird's rights in the Phanar and whose predecessors were subjects of the sultans for more than half a thousand years and carried out their will, for some reason gets into the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate, having absolutely no rights to it, and even violating all laws.

If he really wants to show himself as a significant figure and solve a global, in his opinion, problem, then Orthodox tradition need to convene the Ecumenical Council. This is exactly what has always been done, even more than one and a half thousand years ago, starting from the first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325. Conducted, by the way, even before the formation of the Eastern Roman Empire. Who, if not Bartholomew, does not know this, many centuries ago, the established order?

Since Ukraine haunts Bartholomew, let him hold an Ecumenical Council in accordance with ancient tradition. Let him choose any city at his discretion: you can spend it in the old fashioned way in Nicaea, you can in Antioch, you can in Adrianople, and Constantinople is also suitable. Of course, the powerful Ecumenical Patriarch must provide the invited colleagues and persons accompanying them with accommodation, food, leisure and compensate for all expenses. And since the patriarchs usually discuss problems either for a long time or for a very long time, it would be nice to rent several hotels for three years in advance. Minimum.

But something suggests that if the powerful Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople tries to start such an event in Turkey, the case will end for him either in a madhouse, or in prison, or in flight to neighboring countries with a final landing in Washington.

All this once again proves the degree of power of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Who, despite his total inability to organize something more serious than a meeting with a couple of officials, considered himself such a significant figure that he began to actively shake up the situation in Ukraine, threatening to develop into at least a church schism. With all the ensuing consequences that Bartholomew does not need to describe, due to the fact that he perfectly understands and sees everything himself.

And where is the patriarchal wisdom? Where is the love for one's neighbor, to which he called hundreds of times? Where is the conscience, after all?

However, why demand from a Greek who served as an officer in the Turkish army? What to demand from like Orthodox priest, but studied at the Roman Pontifical Institute? What can be expected from a man who is so dependent on the Americans that they even awarded him the Gold Medal of the US Congress for his outstanding services?

The Moscow Patriarchate is absolutely right to take tough retaliatory measures against the presumptuous Patriarch of Constantinople. As the classic said - you take not according to rank, but in this case you can say - you take on a burden not according to your order. And if it’s even simpler, then a hat is not for Senka. Not Bartholomew, who now cannot boast even a shadow of the former greatness of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and who himself is not even a shadow of the great Patriarchs of Constantinople, to solve the global problems of Orthodoxy. And even more so, the swaying of the situation in other countries is not due to the rank of this Senka.

It is clear and clear who exactly is inciting him, but a real patriarch would categorically refuse to sow enmity between fraternal peoples of the same faith, but this clearly does not apply to a diligent student of the Pontifical Institute and a Turkish officer.

I wonder how he will feel if the religious turmoil caused by him turns into a big bloodshed in Ukraine? He must already know what religious strife led to, at least from the history of Byzantium, which was obviously not alien to him, and how many thousands of lives various heresies or iconography cost the Second Rome. Surely Bartholomew knows this, but continues to stubbornly stick to his line.

In this regard, the question arises by itself - does this person, the initiator of a very real split in the Orthodox Church, have the right to be called the Ecumenical Patriarch?

The answer is obvious and it would be very good if the Ecumenical Council would give an assessment of the acts of Bartholomew. And the status of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, based in the center of the Islamic metropolis, would also be a good idea to reconsider taking into account modern realities.

Constantinople (Ecumenical) Orthodox Church

Eusebius of Nicomedia (338/9-341)

Proclus (434-446) (He began his Church career as a cell-attendant at John Chrysostom. He was known as a moderate church leader and a supporter of compromises. He was the author of more than 20 sermons, 7 epistles and other writings).

John II Cappadocian (518-520) (Confirmed the decision of the Council of Chalcedon and anathematized the distributor of the Eutychian heresy (Monophysitism). He died in 520).

Anastasius (730-754)

Constantine II (754-766)

Nikita I (766-780)

Anthony I Cassimata (821-834)

St. Ignatius (secondary) (867-877)

Nicholas II Chrysoverg (979-991) (Before the patriarchate he was Metropolitan of Adrianople. Known for his letters).

In 991-996. - the throne is vacant.

John IX Agapit (1111-1134), (Before becoming a patriarch he was a deacon Great Church, acted as hieromnimon).

Khariton Eugeniot (1178-1179)

Maxim II (1215) (Residence in Nicaea. Prior to becoming patriarch, he was abbot of the Akimites monastery in Constantinople. He was known as a great saint of women from the Nicene court gynoecium, thanks to whose patronage he became patriarch).

Methodius (1240) (Before the patriarchate, he was hegumen of the Nicene monastery of Iakinf. He was known for being a knowledgeable person, but in fact he was not very educated. He ruled the Church for only three months).

Mitrofan II (1440-1443) (Before the patriarchate, he was the metropolitan of the city of Kyzik).

Gennady II (for the third time) 1464-1465

Simeon I of Trebizond 1465

Mark II Xilokarawi 1466-1467

Dionysius I 1466-1471

Simeon I (secondary) 1471-1475

Raphael I 1475-1476

Maxim III Christonim 1476-1482

Simeon I (for the third time) 1482-1486

Nifont II 1486-1488

Dionysius I (secondary) 1488-1490

Maxim IV 1491-1497

Nifont II (secondary) 1497-1498

Joachim I 1498-1502

Nifont II (for the third time) 1502

Pachomius I 1503-1504

Joachim I (secondary) 1504

Pachomius I (secondary) 1503-1513

Theoleptus I 1513-1522

Jeremiah I 1522-1546

Joannicius I (illegitimate) 1524-1525

Dionysius II 1546-1556

JoasaphN 1556-1565

Mitrofan III 1565-1572

Jeremiah II Tranos 1572-1579

Mitrofan III (secondary) 1579-1580

Jeremiah II (secondary) 1580-1584

Pachomius II Batista (illegal) 1584-1585

Theolept II 1585-1587

Jeremiah II (for the third time) 1587-1595

Matthew II 1596

Gabriel I 1596

Meletius I Pigas m/bl 1596-1597

Theophan I Karikis 1597

Meletios I, m / bl (secondary) 1597-1598

Matthew II (secondary) 1598-1601

Neophyte II 1602-1603

Matthew II (third time) 1603

Raphael II 1603-1607

Neophyte II (secondary) 1607-1612

Cyril I Lucaris, m/bl (Patriarch of Alexandria) 1612

Timothy II 1612-1620

Cyril I Lucaris (former locum tenens) 1620-1623

George IV (not recognized) 1623-1634

Anfim II 1623

Cyril I (for the third time) 1623-1633

Cyril II Kondaris 1633

Cyril I (fourth time) 1633-1634

Athanasius III Patellarius 1634

Cyril I (fifth time) 1634-1635

Cyril II (secondary) 1635-1636

Neophyte III 1636-1637

Cyril I (sixth, times) 1637-1638

Cyril II (for the third time) 1638-1639

Parthenius I the Elder 1639-1644

Parthenius II the Younger 1644-1646

Ioanniky II (not recognized) 1646-1648

Parthenius II (secondary) 1648-1651

Ioanniky II (secondary) 1651-1652

Cyril III Spanos 1652

Athanasius III (secondary) 1652

Paisios I 1652-1653

Ioanniky II (for the third time) 1653-1654

Cyril III (secondary) 1654

Paisius I (secondary) 1654-1655

Ioanniky II (fourth time) 1655-1656

Parthenius III 1656-1657

Gabriel II 1657

Parthenius IV 1657-1662

Dionysius III Vardalis 1662-1665

Parthenius IV (secondary) 1665-1667

Clement (not recognized) 1667

Methodius III Moronis 1668-1671

Parthenius IV (for the third time) 1671

Dionysius IV Muselimis 1671-1673

Gerasim II Ternovsky 1673-1674

Parthenius IV (fourth time) 1675-1676

Dionysius IV (secondary) 1676-1679

Athanasius IV 1679

Jacob 1679-1682

Dionysius IV (for the third time) 1682-1684

Parthenius IV (fifth time) 1684-1685

Jacob (secondary) 1685-1686

Dionysius IV (fourth time) 1686-1687

Jacob (for the third time) 1687-1688

Callinicus II Acarnanus 1688

Neophyte IV Philaret 1688-1689

Kallinikos II (secondary) 1689-1693

Dionysius IV (fifth time) 1693-1694

Callinicus II (for the third time) 1694-1702

Gabriel III 1702-1707

Neophyte V (not recognized) 1707

Cyprian 1707-1709

Athanasius V Margunius 1709-1711

Cyril IV 1711-1713

Cyprian (secondary) 1713-1714

Kosmash 1714-1716

Jeremiah III 1716-1726

Paisius II 1726-1732

Jeremiah III (secondary) 1732-1733

Seraphim I 1733-1734

Neophyte VI 1734-1740

Paisios II (secondary) 1740-1743

Neophyte VI (secondary) 1743-1744

Paisius II (for the third time) 1744-1748

Cyril V 1748-1751

Paisius II (fourth time) 1751-1752

Cyril V (secondary) 1752-1757

Callinicus III 1757

Seraphim II 1757-1761

Ioanniky III 1761-1763

Samuel I Khantziris 1763-1768

Meletius II 1768-1769

Theodosius II 1769-1773

Samuel I (secondary) 1773-1774

Sophronius II 1774-1780

Gabriel IV 1780-1785

Procopius 1785-1789

Neophyte VII 1789-1794

Gerasim III 1794-1797

Gregory V 1797-1798

Neophyte VII (secondary) 1798-1801

Kallinikos IV 1801-1806

Gregory V (secondary) 1806-1808

Callinicus IV (secondary) 1808-1809

Jeremiah IV 1809-1813

Cyril VI 1813-1818

Gregory V (for the third time) 1818-1821

Eugene III 1821-1822

Anfim III 1822-1824

Chrysanthes I 1824-1826

Agafangel I 1826-1830

Constantius I 1830-1834

Constantius II 1834-1835

Gregory VI 1835-1840

Anfim IV 1840-1841

Anfim V 1841-1842

German IV 1842-1845

Meletius III 1845

Anfim VI 1845-1848

Anfim IV (secondary) 1848-1852

German IV (secondary) 1852-1853

Anfim VI (secondary) 1853-1855

Cyril VII 1855-1860

Joachim 1860-1863

Sophronius III 1863-1866

Gregory VI (secondary) 1867-1871

Anfim VI (for the third time) 1871-1873

Joachim II (secondary) 1873-1878

Joachim III 1878-1884

Joachim IV 1884-1887

Dionysius V 1887-1891

Neophyte VIII 1891-1894

Anfim VII 1895-1897

Constantine V 1897-1901

Joachim III (secondary) 1901-1913

Herman V 1913-1918

locum tenens

Prussian - Dorotheus 1918-1921

Caesarea - Nicholas 1918-1921

Meletius IV Metaxakis 1921-1923

Gregory VII 1923-1924

Constantine VI 1924-1925

Vasily III 1925-1929

Photius II 1929-1935

Benjamin I 1936-1946

Maxim V 1946-1948

Athenagoras I 1948-1972

Demetrius I 1972-1991

Bartholomew 1991-

Used materials of the book: Sychev N.V. Book of dynasties. M., 2008. p. 863-871.