Pro-Russian forces continue their attacks on Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. This time the historical and canonical privileges of the Ecumenical Throne are being called out. Recently, pro-Russian outlets span a report by BNishop Sylvester (Stoichev), rector of the ROC Theological Academy, delivered at a congress of monks of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine.
One of the most painful issues came under attack – the primacy of Constantinople in the Orthodox world. According to Bishop Sylvester, “today the Patriarch of Constantinople insists on his special status in the Ecumenical Church, which provides for the presence of not only the so-called primacy of honor, but also primacy of power.”
In his opinion, these claims are manifested in the right of Constantinople “to provide a tomos on the establishment of new autocephalous Churches, to accept appeals from the clergy of all Local Churches, and to exercise power over the entire Orthodox diaspora.” He also notes that the Russian Church cannot agree with this.
The allegations aren’t new. Bishop Sylvester voiced similar messages in his sensationalist report “Charter of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the OCU: a Comparative Analysis”, which he delivered at a conference held on October 27, 2020, at the Kyiv Theological Academy. The article was widely discussed by theologians.
Now Sylvester repeats the same thing and emphasizes that “the Ukrainian church conflict has not only a political and canonical, but also a dogmatic dimension.” Therefore, in his opinion, “the settlement of the church conflict in Ukraine is closely linked to a theological controversy over the primacy in the Orthodox Church.”
Sylvester’s shift toward doctrinal issues is no accident. After all, in this way both Stoichev and his colleagues from the Moscow Patriarchate are trying to accuse Constantinople of heresy, namely of the notorious “papism.” However, is there a heresy in this at all? Let’s try to figure this out.
The first thing to note is that the primacy of Constantinople was granted by the Ecumenical Councils. In particular, Rule 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council ascribes equal rights to Constantinople and Rome, and commands that “a city honored to be the city of the king and the Senate, having equal privileges with ancient royal Rome, will also be glorified the same way in ecclesiastical affairs, and will be second to him.” Accordingly, after the Great Schism, the Patriarch of Constantinople came to the very top, achieving primacy. Only the Ecumenical Council, which, by the way, last time took place in 787, can change this situation in the family of Orthodox Churches.
It should be noted that it’s exclusively the Ecumenical Councils that have the absolute power to decide issues of dogmatic, canonical, administrative, and other nature. Given that more than 10 centuries have passed since the latest one was convened, a logical question arises as to how the Church should live in the inter-conciliar period? After all, the world doesn’t stand still and many different issues arise, so the Church desperately needs to provide comprehensive answers.
That is why the original role of the coordination center was assigned to Constantinople, as the first among equals. This is actually the so-called primacy of honor.
Any consolidating or coordinating role always gives the coordinator the appropriate rights. In the ecclesiastical issue, they are manifested in the convening of councils, meetings, the granting of autocephaly, and the resolution of many controversial issues that have always arisen and will arise in the Church. Historical experience shows that it was the Ecumenical Patriarch who enjoyed these rights based on the privileges granted to him by the Ecumenical Councils.
It should be emphasized that the ROC received the status of a patriarchate due to the sole decision of Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah. It is noteworthy that Moscow itself insisted that this status be granted by the Ecumenical Patriarch without the consent of other primates. Therefore, today’s accusations coming from the Russian side against such a right are seen as absurd.
The right to accept appeals was also granted to Constantinople at the 4th Ecumenical Council, which is reflected in the Council’s 9th and 17th canons. Following their text and content, it becomes clear that the throne of Constantinople is considered by the Council’s holy fathers as the final court in disputes between clergy. It should be noted that the rules did not elaborate, clerics of which local church are implied.
Authoritative church canon scholars Aristine, Zonara, and Valsamon note that the throne of Constantinople has such a right over other Local Orthodox Churches.
In particular, Zonara, speaking of advantages, points to the “primacy or exclusivity” of Constantinople. Interpreting the 5th canon of the Council of Sardis, Valsamon emphasizes that not only the bishop of Rome but also that of Constantinople has the right to appeal. Aristine speaks of the exceptional advantage of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which no other patriarch enjoys, to judge controversial cases and issues arising in other patriarchates. Zonara, in his commentary on the 17th canon, notes that a metropolitan of another jurisdiction could not resort, without his will, to the jurisdiction of Constantinople (and, judging from the opposite, he could if he had such will).
In an interview with Ukrinform, Bishop Makarios of Christopolis, an aide to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and resident professor at the Patriarchal Academy of Crete, said that “this privilege of the Ecumenical Patriarchate has been applied countless times in history to bishops of other Patriarchates and Autocephalous churches.”
In the same interview, he recalled that in 1663 the issue was considered at the Council of Constantinople, which was attended by all Eastern patriarchs. Then the “Moscow Church raised the question of whether the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople has the right to judge other Churches, and whether it hands down a final decision on any ecclesiastical matter.”
The Eastern patriarchs adopted a corresponding message, which was sent to the Russian Church, and which, due to its importance, was called ‘tomos,’ unanimously affirming that the cases filed by any churches shall be submitted for a final trial in Constantinople, which shall issue a final judgment.
Therefore, even in this regard, claims and accusations voiced by ROC hierarchs remain unfounded. In conclusion, it can be stated there is no “heresy” in the actions of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew as the mentioned accusations claim because he acted in line with the rights granted to Constantinople by the Ecumenical Councils, which is confirmed by the historical experience of the Orthodox Church.
