Patriarchate of Constantinople: history and situation in the modern world. Bartholomew, Patriarch of Constantinople

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

It should start with the fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in fact, has long meant little and decides in the Orthodox world. And although the Patriarch of Constantinople continues to be called Ecumenical and the first among equals, this is just a tribute to history and traditions, but nothing more. This does not reflect the real state of affairs.

As the recent Ukrainian events have shown, following these outdated traditions did not lead to anything good - in the Orthodox world a revision of the significance of certain figures should have taken place long ago, and there is no doubt that the Patriarch of Constantinople should not bear the title of Ecumenical for a long time. For he is not for a long time - more than five centuries.

If we are to call a spade a spade, then the last truly Orthodox and independent Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantople 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 was living out its last years, besieged from all sides by the Ottoman Turks. The Byzantine elite, including some of the clergy, hoped that “the 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, from this moment on, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, on completely legal grounds, should be considered apostate. So they began to call him almost immediately, and the supporters of the union began to be called Uniates. The last Constantinople patriarch of the pre-Ottoman period, Gregory III, who was so disliked in Constantinople itself, that he chose to leave the city at its most difficult moment and go to Italy, was also a uniate.

It is worth recalling that in the Moscow principality the union was also not accepted and was expelled from the country, the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, Isidore, who by that time had taken the dignity 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 part of the clergy and a large number of citizens, the reunification of the two Christian churches was announced in the Cathedral of St. Sofia on December 12, 1452. After which 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. Sofia on the night of May 28-29, 1453 was held both according to Orthodox and Latin canons. Since then, Christian prayers have never sounded under the arches of the once main church of the Christian world, since by the evening of May 29, 1453 Byzantium ceased to exist, St. Sofia became a mosque, and Constantinople was later renamed Istanbul. That automatically gave impetus to the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

But the tolerant conqueror Sultan Mehmet II decided not to abolish the patriarchy and soon appointed one of the most ardent opponents of the union, the monk George Scholarius, to replace 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 was no question of any of their independence. They were completely subordinate persons, reporting to the sultans about the affairs of the so-called Greek millet. They were allowed to hold a strictly limited number of holidays per year, use certain churches and live in the Phanar area.

By the way, this area is now under police protection, so that the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople-Istanbul lives, in fact, on the rights of a bird. The fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch does not have any rights was repeatedly proved by the sultans, removing them from office and even execution.

All this would be sad if the story did not take on a completely absurd form. After the Turks conquered Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarch Gennady appeared there, the Pope appointed the former Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia Isidore to the same post. Catholic cardinal, if anyone has forgotten.

Thus, in 1454 there were already 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 completely 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 only 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 in some way, then the conversation with him was short - execution. This was the case, for example, with Patriarch Gregory V, who was hanged over the gates of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Phanar in 1821.

So, what is the bottom line? Here's what. The Florentine Union 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 him a purely nominal figure. And for this reason it could not be called Ecumenical. Because he cannot be called the Ecumenical Patriarch, whose power extends to the modest Phanar district of the Islamic city of Istanbul.

From what follows a reasonable question: is it worth taking into account the decision of the current Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople in Ukraine? Considering 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, does not know whom he represents and bears a title that can cause nothing but bewilderment?

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from ... Istanbul? Agree, it sounds somewhat 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 is long gone. She died on May 29, 1453, but mentally, according to the testimony of the Greeks themselves, she died at the moment when the Byzantine elite concluded union with Rome. And when Constantinople fell, it was no coincidence that many representatives of the clergy, both Byzantine and European, argued that the Lord punished Second Rome, including for apostasy.

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

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

Since Ukraine is haunted by Bartholomew, let him hold the Ecumenical Council in accordance with the 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 will also do. Of course, the powerful Ecumenical Patriarch must provide the invited colleagues and their accompanying persons with accommodation, meals, leisure and compensate for all costs. And since 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 tried to start such an event in Turkey, the matter for him would end 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 the situation in Ukraine, which threatened to develop at least into a church schism. With all the ensuing consequences that Bartholomew does not need to outline, due to the fact that he understands and sees everything perfectly.

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

However, what to demand from a Greek who served as an officer in the Turkish army? What to demand from something like Orthodox priest but a student at the Pontifical Institute of Rome? What to demand from a man who is so dependent on Americans that they even awarded him the Distinguished Service with the Gold Medal of the US Congress?

The Moscow Patriarchate is absolutely right in taking tough retaliatory measures against the presumptuous Patriarch of Constantinople. As the classic said - you do not take on the rank, but in this case you can say - you take on the burden not according to the rank. And if it's even simpler, it's not a hat 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, not according to the rank of this Senka, the rocking of the situation in other countries.

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

I wonder how he will feel if the religious turmoil he has inflicted turns into a lot of blood in Ukraine? He must know what the religious strife led to, at least from the history of Byzantium, clearly not alien to him, and how many thousands of lives cost the Second Rome various heresies or iconoclasticism. Surely Bartholomew knows this, but continues to stubbornly bend his line.

In this regard, the question naturally arises - does this person, the initiator of a very real schism 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 assess the deeds of Bartholomew. And the status of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, based in the center of the Islamic metropolis, would also be nice to reconsider taking into account modern realities.

The well-known theologian and church analyst Sergei Khudiev tells "RG" about what Constantinople really means today and what "universe" is ruled by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

The words "Ecumenical Patriarch" sound mesmerizing. Translated from the sacred, this is "the most important". Can Constantinople claim this?

Sergey Khudiev: Once upon a time, in the Middle Ages, Constantinople was the center of the civilized world, the most glorious - there was no more glorious city on Earth. The city of cities, our ancestors called it Tsar Grad. It was an absolute center not only for the inhabitants of the Roman Empire - for the inhabitants of the entire then world. The word "universe", "ecumene" meant for the inhabitant of the Eastern Roman Empire the world that existed within the borders of this empire. Hence this high title - "Ecumenical Patriarch". The bishop of Constantinople, naturally, was perceived as the chief bishop of the empire and had the "primacy of honor." But this did not mean any fundamentally different status - he was the first among equals.

And now?

Theologian Sergei Khudiev: It seems to the Patriarch of Constantinople that he is the head of the Orthodox world in general. But this is an illusion. Photo: From the personal archive of Sergei Khudiev.

Sergey Khudiev: A lot of time has passed since then. We know that the Eastern Roman Empire, which would later be called Byzantium, fell into decay and was eventually conquered by the Turks. The Turks gave a certain degree of self-government to the Greek Orthodox community. And they left the Patriarch of Constantinople as its leader. But in the 1920s, the Greeks made an unsuccessful attempt to restore the empire, lost the war with Turkey - and this led to massive deportations of the Greek population. The Patriarch of Constantinople managed to stay in Constantinople with great difficulty and almost without a flock. About 100 Greeks live in Istanbul today.

It doesn't end with these 100 Istanbul Greeks. He also has parishes - in the United States, in Greece. But today there is no great, grandiose status that the Patriarch of Constantinople had during the time of the Eastern Empire. Now he is the bishop of a very small quarter in Istanbul, completely under Turkish rule. However, Patriarch Bartholomew, recalling the position that the Bishop of Constantinople had in the heyday of Constantinople itself, is trying to appeal to him. It seems to him that he is the head of the Orthodox world in general. And everyone must obey him.

By analogy with the Pope?

Sergey Khudiev: Yes, for Catholics, it happened historically, the Pope runs the Church. And he is seen as a kind of monarch, the spiritual head of all Catholics. A different system of government has developed in the Orthodox Church. There are fifteen patriarchates, each with powers within its own local church. Patriarchs are equal. Each patriarchy has its own canonical territory. And the rules of the Orthodox Church forbid the bishop to enter someone else's canonical territory. The bishop of Moscow, for example, cannot interfere in the affairs of the bishop of St. Petersburg. A very important example of the inviolability of this rule was shown by the Russian Church after the 2008 war, when the South Ossetian Orthodox parishes asked to join the Moscow Patriarchate. But Moscow refused to accept them in order not to violate the canonical territory. Georgian Church... But Constantinople for some reason decided that it could come to the canonical territory of another patriarchy - the Moscow one.

Given that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is just "one of" the Orthodox patriarchates, not towering over anyone?

Sergey Khudiev: Yes. Its once extremely high status, given the metropolitan status of Constantinople, is an anachronism. This empire is long gone. And even if you start looking for the closest analogue of the Orthodox empire, then at least not in Turkey.

But the "bishop of one Istanbul quarter" wants to create an "autocephalous Ukrainian church."

Sergey Khudiev: Yes. And here it should first of all be noted that the entire movement for "autocephaly for Ukrainian church"was initiated and inflated by the secular authorities. The canonical Ukrainian Orthodox did not ask or ask for anything like this. Among the people who are fighting for autocephaly, there are very few at least formal members of the Church. Among the fighters for autocephaly for Ukrainian Orthodoxy are people who define themselves like Uniates, Protestants, atheists and anyone else. This is a purely political project. Its main goal is to suppress the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, legally associated with the Moscow Patriarchate. This is the hostility of Ukrainian nationalists. Nationalism is fundamentally hostile to Christianity and the Church. ", and for a Christian, of course," above everything "is Christ. The nationalist greeting" Glory to Ukraine "is a conscious parody of the pious greeting, traditional for Ukrainians," Glory to Jesus Christ. " patriarchy ", otherwise known as" Filaretovsky split ", but it is not recognized in the Orthodox world. With the help of the Patriarch of Constantinople, they hope to gain recognition. And Patriarch Bartholomew, who does not have a very large flock, roughly speaking, wants more people under him. And that's why, I think, he went to an agreement with the Ukrainian nationalists. Their interests overlapped.

During the Georgian-Ossetian war, the Russian Orthodox Church behaved as the Church should behave if it is a real Church. Constantinople and Ukrainian schismatics with a political admixture behave in a way that they do not behave in the Church.

Sergey Khudiev: As for Ukrainian politicians, these are ordinary Machiavellianists, what else to expect from them. But the behavior of Patriarch Bartholomew is still disappointing. He should know everything much better than the electrified Ukrainian nationalists.

Constantinople suddenly started talking about the lack of historical grounds for the independence from Constantinople once chosen by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Sergey Khudiev: It was chosen 300 years ago. And for 300 years all the historical foundations were, but today they have become doubtful?

How resourceful is the Patriarchate of Constantinople? Is Ukraine a "tidbit" for her?

Sergey Khudiev: Everything is quite transparent: Constantinople has few parishes, he wants to increase their number, and Ukraine is a very, very tasty morsel. And above all, the blatant unethical behavior of Patriarch Bartholomew towards his brother, Metropolitan Onuphrius, is striking. He recognized him as a brother of the bishop - and now he treats him and his flock as with an empty place, sending his exarchs without any agreement with him. For a person who claims to be a good shepherd of the entire Orthodox world, this is simply unthinkable.

Will Constantinople decide to give tomos to Ukrainian schismatics?

Sergey Khudiev: Some time ago, a very short time, I would have said that Patriarch Bartholomew would not take such an irresponsible step. But now it is already clear that he can do this. Another thing is that there is no structure that can receive this tomos. Someone must convene a council of various Ukrainian schisms and create it. Therefore, it is not yet clear how events will develop.

If Constantinople tries to legitimize the Ukrainian schismatics ...

Sergey Khudiev: This will lead to a sharp increase in pressure on the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The schismatics already showed extreme hostility towards her.

And two great laurels can try to take away from the canonical Church?

Sergey Khudiev: Whoever was not in our great laurels - both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis. But let's not forget that "the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church."

Not judge, Yes not judged will be,

for what by the court judgeso will be judged;

and whatWith the measure you mete, it will be measured to you also.

The Gospel of Matthew (ch. 7, v. 1-2)

As the date approaches Of the Great Pan-Orthodox Council on Crete near Orthodox people, spiritual and secular, more and more questions arise regarding the appropriateness of the upcoming event, the choice of the date and persistence Patriarch of Constantinople in the implementation of this idea. This topic occupies a central place not only in church circles, but is also actively discussed in the central Russian media.

And this is not surprising, because for last years role Russian Orthodox Church in all its fullness (clergy and flock) and activity in the life of our country has noticeably increased: church property is being returned by the state, the number of churches being restored and re-erected is growing.

The disputes over the positions did not have time to subside in the press Bulgarian and Antioch Churches regarding participation in the Pan-Orthodox Council, which caused a nervous reaction in Fanare(the name of the Istanbul quarter in which the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Patriarchal residence are located), another news spread around the world: the Turkish authorities decided to return the status of a mosque to the Hagia Sophia Museum. This provocative decision was made, as they say, in spite of the Christian and, above all, the Orthodox world. It seemed that the reaction should have followed immediately, but this did not happen. The United States, the "main culprit" of the Istanbul decision, is silent, the "Christian" West is silent, and the Local Orthodox Churches, along with Phanar, are silent. But in recent publications on this topic, indignant questions and direct criticism began to be addressed not to the Turkish authorities, but Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, for some reason, he is silent and does not address Local Orthodox Churches with an appeal to support him in preserving the existing status quo of the Hagia Sophia.

The question is natural, but at the same time we will try to understand why the Archbishop of Constantinople, who has the "primacy of honor" over the other primates of the Orthodox Patriarchates and Churches, so persistently promotes the idea of ​​convening a Pan-Orthodox Council ("the match will take place in any weather") and does not use his status, to lead the entire Orthodox ecumene in the struggle to protect the pan-Orthodox Christian shrine and preserve its current status quo?

Let's try to understand how the status of the Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome has changed throughout history. In the 4th century A.D. he receives the title of Ecumenical Patriarch, or "the first among equals" (primus inter pares), which until that time was possessed only by the Pope.

The transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire by Emperor Constantine the Great from Old Rome to New Rome on the shores of the Bosphorus (on the site of the ancient settlement of Byzantium), as well as the equalization of the titles of the Roman and Constantinople bishops, caused a chronic rejection of the Pontiff, who sent his legates instead of himself to the Byzantine emperors summoned by order Councils, at which decisions, fateful for the whole of Christianity, were made, aimed at combating the heresy that arose in the empire. The reluctance of the popes to share the seniority in the "honor roll" (diptych) with the Patriarchs of Constantinople was one of the reasons for the "Great Schism", or the split in 1054 of Christianity as the body of Christ into the Western (Latin) and Eastern (Orthodox) Churches. Since then, in Rome, during the divine services of the Roman Catholic (Latin) Church, the Catholic clergy ceased to remember the names of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs, and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates have excluded the remembrance of the names of the Popes in their litanies. Thus, in the Byzantine era, the Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome alone took first place in the diptych with the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch". This status meant only his presidency by historical seniority of honor among all the Orthodox First Hierarchs of the ancient Patriarchates: Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, but did not give any power advantages to the "first among equals" over them. The ancient Christian principle still operated: one diocese - one bishop. "The Ecumenical Patriarch could not give orders to the Local Primates of the Orthodox Patriarchates, since they were all considered equal.

In the era of the Ottoman Empire, the padishahs raised the status of the Patriarch of Constantinople, endowing him with special powers with the special title of "head of the Orthodox faith" (rum millet bashi). Now the Ecumenical Patriarch was responsible to the padishah with his head for the loyalty of all the above-mentioned Patriarchates on the territory of the Ottoman Empire. The Greek uprising of 1821 against the Ottoman authorities was the reason for the execution by hanging of Patriarch Gregory V of Constantinople.

In 1589, the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II, who was in Moscow, having received a refusal to his offer to become the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, was forced to agree to the election to the Patriarch and enthronement in the Dormition Cathedral of Metropolitan Job of Moscow, thereby approving a special letter (though other Eastern Orthodox Hierarchs) Moscow Patriarchate. Material and political assistance from the Grand Duchy of Moscow, the Russian Kingdom, and then the Russian Empire and its Greek-Russian Church largely helped the Ecumenical Patriarch to maintain his status before the Sultan and the Ottoman government (Vysokaya Porta). The collapse of the Ottoman Empire after the defeat in the First World War led to the loss of commanding status and power prerogatives over the rest of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox East. Moreover, the Patriarchate of Constantinople immediately fell under the influence of Western states, first Great Britain, and then the United States. This circumstance largely determined the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople to switch from the Orthodox (Julian) calendar to the Catholic (Gregorian). True, the secular Turkish authorities refused to recognize for the head of the Constantinople Church the Old Ottoman title of Ecumenical Patriarch with his commanding prerogatives, granted to the Rum Millet Bashi by the Ottoman sultans in relation to other Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates.

At the end of World War II, I.V. Stalin decided to use the church theme in his foreign policy. The increased authority of the USSR in the world arena, the share of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Orthodox world and the weakening of the influence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in it gave the Soviet leadership reason to believe that the Moscow Patriarchate should have moved from the fifth place in the diptych (after the Jerusalem Church) to the first. To this end, the Soviet government actively supported the pre-council meeting in Moscow, scheduled by Patriarch Alexy I (Simansky) for September 1947, of the heads of all Autocephalous Orthodox Churches or their representatives to prepare the "convocation in 1948 (500th anniversary of the independence of the ROC) of the Ecumenical Council to resolve the issue of conferring the title of Ecumenical to the Moscow Patriarchate. "

The United States of America, which took the Patriarchate of Constantinople under its patronage, began to develop countermeasures to neutralize the plans of the Soviet leader. Using the ancient principle of "divide and rule" and frightening the Greek primates of a number of Orthodox Churches with the theomachous power of Moscow, they tried in every possible way to disrupt the convocation of the Ecumenical Council and the idea of ​​transferring the Ecumenical Patriarchate to Moscow. As a result of these efforts, the Patriarchs of the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem, which were traditionally led by ethnic Greeks, did not attend the Pan-Orthodox Conference convened in Moscow in July 1948.

So the "Stalin's project", utopian from the historical and church-canonical point of view, inflicted a deep wound on the unity of the Orthodox world after the "Bulgarian schism" of 1872, as a result of which an insurmountable wall of mistrust arose between the Greeks and the Slavs. It was not possible to overcome it even after the elimination of the 73-year schism of the Bulgarian Church and its return in 1945 to the fold of Ecumenical Orthodoxy.

All these circumstances have constantly influenced and continue to influence the behavior of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, whose status has been deliberately belittled by the Turkish authorities since the time of President Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, trying to reduce his Patriarchal powers to the exercise of purely church functions. Even in recent times, during the visit of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church to Turkey, official Ankara deliberately overestimated the status of Russian representatives and belittled the position of Phanar. It should be noted that representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches often jokingly call the First Hierarch of Constantinople "Patriarch of Istanbul" behind their backs and try to challenge the legitimacy of his unique and exclusive honorary title "All-Holiness".

Such an attitude on the part of fellow believers evokes a corresponding reaction from the Ecumenical Patriarch, pushing him to consolidate his leadership in the Orthodox world and even to ecumenism in violation of the teachings and teachings of the Fathers of the Orthodox Church.

One should also bear in mind the deplorable situation in which the Patriarchate of Constantinople still remains. This is, first of all, the small number of the Orthodox flock in Turkey, dependence on financial and political assistance from the United States of America, from where mainly American Greeks come to work in Phanar on a watch basis.

These considerations should be taken into account when assessing the steps currently being taken by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople for an objective and unbiased assessment of the course he has taken towards holding a Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete "at all costs."

"Ukrainian autocephaly", which the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been lobbying and pushing so hard lately, is certainly not an end in itself for 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 ambitions of the “primates of Turkey”.

According to many church experts, the main thing for the Patriarchate of Constantinople is “primacy,” the primacy of power in the entire Orthodox world. And the Ukrainian question, so effective, including for solving Russophobic problems, is only one of the ways to achieve this global goal. And it is Patriarch Bartholomew who has been trying for more than a quarter of a century to solve this super task, 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 Practical Disciplines of the Moscow Theological Academy, Doctor of Church History, spoke in more detail about how the essentially heretical idea of ​​the “primacy” of church power penetrated the Patriarchate of Constantinople in an exclusive interview with the Tsargrad TV Channel.

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

The primacy of power in relation to the Primates of other Local Orthodox Churches to Constantinople, of course, did not belong and does not belong. Moreover, in the first millennium of church history, it was the Church of Constantinople who vigorously objected to the claims of the Roman bishop to the primacy of power over the entire Ecumenical Church.

Moreover, she objected not because she had assimilated this right for herself, but because she proceeded in principle from the fact that all Local Churches are independent, and the primacy in the diptych (a list reflecting the historical "order of honor" of Local Churches and their Primates - ed.) Rome should not entail any administrative authority. This was the firm position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople during the first millennium from the birth of Christ, when there was still no schism between the 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. It is another matter that Constantinople, in view of the falling away of Rome from the Orthodox Church, became the preeminent see. But all these claims to exclusivity and power appeared much later. Yes, the Patriarch of Constantinople, as the 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 relation to the number of dioceses, parishes, flocks, and so on), nevertheless, they were recognized as completely equal in rights. The primacy of the Patriarchs of Constantinople was only in the diptych, in the sense that it was commemorated first during the divine services.

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

Only in the XX century. This was a direct consequence, first of all, of our 1917 revolution and the anti-church persecution that began. 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 specific topics, in connection with autocephaly (the right to grant independence to a particular Church - ed.), The diaspora (the right to govern dioceses and parishes outside the canonical borders of Local Churches - ed.), The Patriarchs of Constantinople began to formulate claims to "universal jurisdiction".

Of course, this was also connected with 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 also 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, and today has a very strong influence on the Patriarchate of Constantinople?

Yes, that remains the same. In Turkey itself, the positions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople are very weak, despite the fact that formally in the Republic of Turkey all religions are legally equal. The Orthodox Church there represents a very insignificant minority, and therefore the center of gravity was shifted to the diaspora, to communities in America and other parts of the world, but the most influential, of course, in the United States.

With the "primacy of power" everything is clear, 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? Persecuted Patriarchs under the Ottoman yoke retained 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, this had great ecclesiastical consequences concerning the Russian Church. In connection with the fall of Constantinople, she received more solid grounds for autocephaly (as early as 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, again, we are talking only about autocephaly. The diptych itself remained the same.

So, for example, the Alexandrian Church is a Church with a small number of flock and only a few hundred clergy, but in the diptych it still, as in antiquity, ranks second. And once she took second place after Rome, even before the rise of Constantinople. But starting with the II Ecumenical Council, the metropolitan cathedra of Constantinople was placed in second place after Rome. And so it remains historically.

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 insists that it is he who has the right to "knit and decide" in the entire Orthodox world?

Ignore these claims until they remain just verbal, leaving them as a topic for theological, canonical discussions. If this is followed by actions, and since the 20th century, non-canonical actions have been repeatedly followed by the Patriarchs of Constantinople (especially in the 1920s and 1930s), it is necessary to resist.

And here it is not only about supporting the Soviet schismatics-renovationists in their struggle against the legitimate Moscow Patriarch Tikhon (now glorified in the face of saints - note of Tsargrad). On the part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, there was an arbitrary seizure of dioceses and autonomous Churches that are parts of the Russian Church - Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Poland. And today's policy towards the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is very similar to what was done then.

But is there any authority, some kind of general church court, which could curb the Patriarch of Constantinople?

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

The Ecumenical Patriarchate is the first ecclesiastical center of the Orthodox Church in the world, tracing its history back to Pentecost and the first Christian communities founded by the Apostles of Jesus Christ. According to legend, the First-Called of the Apostles Andrew preached the Gospel in the vast expanses of Asia Minor, the Black Sea, Thrace and Achaea, where he was martyred. In 36 AD, Andrew founded a local church on the shores of the Bosphorus in the city that was then called Byzantium, then renamed Constantinople, and today is called Istanbul. Saint Andrew is the Patron Saint of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and is commemorated on November 30.

The title "Ecumenical Patriarch" dates back to the 6th century AD and is a prerogative historically attributed to the Archbishop of Constantinople. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, as Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome, occupies the first throne in the Ecumenical Orthodox Christian Church and, in a spirit of brotherhood, presides according to his historical seniority of honor among all Orthodox Primates, which are the heads of the ancient Patriarchates: Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, as well as more late Patriarchates: Moscow,

Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Georgian. In addition, the Ecumenical Patriarch bears a historical and theological mission to guide and coordinate the actions of the Cypriot, Greek, Polish, Albanian, Czech, Slovak, Finnish and Estonian Orthodox Churches, as well as numerous archdioceses and metropolises around the world - in Europe, America, in Australia and Asia. In addition, it is his responsibility to convene

Pan-Orthodox Councils and meetings, as well as the promotion of inter-church and inter-Orthodox dialogue. The Ecumenical Patriarch serves the unity of the Orthodox Church in its totality, being its yardstick and the first voice. Being above state and international borders, the Ecumenical Patriarch is the spiritual leader of more than 300 million Orthodox Christians all over the world.

His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, in the world Dimitrios Archontonis, was born in 1940. In October 1991, His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew was elected Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch. He is the 270th Archbishop in the two thousand year history of the Church founded by the Apostle Andrew.

The personal experience and theological education of the Ecumenical Patriarch provides him with an exceptional opportunity to develop ecumenical ties and to protect the environment... His Holiness works tirelessly for reconciliation Christian Churches, he has gained international fame for his contributions to raising environmental awareness and sensitivity. He made great efforts to achieve reconciliation with the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches, as well as with other faiths, through theological dialogue and his personal contacts with religious leaders, the purpose of which was to identify those issues of common interest. He is in close cooperation with the World Council of Churches, was a member of its

Executive and Central Committees, as well as the Faith and Order Committee. In addition, on his own initiative, he organized a large number of international meetings and conferences with Muslim and Jewish leaders, seeking to instill in them a sense of mutual respect and religious freedom around the world. To this end, he in every possible way promotes interreligious contacts around the world. Finally, the Ecumenical Patriarch played a leading role in the historical revival of the Albanian Autocephalous Church and the Estonian Autonomous Church, providing His spiritual and moral support to many traditionally Orthodox countries that emerged from the long decades of religious persecution behind the Iron Curtain.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, being a Turkish citizen, received elementary education on the island of Imvros, and then studied in Constantinople. After completing his university course at the Theological Seminary on the island of Halki, His Holiness continued his postgraduate education at the Pontifical Oriental Institute at the Gregorian University of Rome, then at the Ecumenical Institute Bossay in Switzerland and at the University of Munich. His doctoral dissertation was on canon law. He acted as a founding member of the Society

Of the Canon Law of the Eastern Churches. He was ordained a deacon in 1961, and a priesthood in 1969. 1968-1972 was assistant to the rector of the Theological Seminary on the island of Halki. Then, until 1990, he served as director of the Bureau of his predecessor, the ever-memorable Patriarch Demetrius. In 1973 he was elected Metropolitan of Philadelphia, and in 1990 Metropolitan of Chalcedon.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was awarded an honorary doctorate by prominent academic centers such as the Universities of Athens, Thessaloniki, Patras and Yanninsky Universities in Greece, Georgetown and Yale Universities in the USA, Fliders Universities in Australia and Manila in the Philippines, as well as London, Edinburgh, Louvain, Moscow Bologna, Bucharest universities in Europe. Speaks Greek, Turkish, Italian, German, French and English... He is also fluent in ancient Greek and Latin.

The role of the Ecumenical Patriarch as the spiritual leader of Orthodox Christianity, as well as his global authority, continues to grow stronger over time. He has co-organized many international congresses on the theme of peaceful coexistence and meetings against racism and bigotry, bringing Christians, Muslims and Jews closer together in order to create a spirit of mutual understanding and reliable cooperation. He was invited to speak at the European Parliament, UNESCO, the World Economic Forum and the parliaments of many states. He organized six international interreligious congresses on the global environmental problems of rivers and seas, and these initiatives earned him the title of "Green Patriarch". He has received many important awards for his contribution to the fight for the preservation of the environment.

The pastoral ministry of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is realized by strengthening both inter-Orthodox cooperation, inter-Christian and inter-religious dialogue, and is also realized by visits to Orthodox and Muslim countries, rarely visited in the past by the Primates of the Orthodox Church. His efforts to promote religious freedom and human rights, his initiatives to foster religious tolerance among the world's various religions, coupled with his efforts to maintain peace among nations and preserve the environment, rightfully placed him at the forefront of ideals as an apostle of love. , peace and reconciliation. In 1997, he was awarded the US Congressional Gold Medal.

Material from the Internet resource: http://www.patriarchate.org