The Moscow Patriarchate did the right thing in taking a tough position towards the Patriarch of Constantinople.

It's worth starting with the fact that Patriarch of Constantinople at, in fact, has long been of little importance and importance in the Orthodox world. And although the Patriarch of Constantinople continues to be called Ecumenical and 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As the latest Ukrainian events have shown, following these outdated traditions has not led to anything good - in the Orthodox world there should have been a revision of the significance of certain figures long ago, and without a doubt, the Patriarch of Constantinople should no longer bear the title of Ecumenical. For for a long time - more than five centuries - he has not been like that.

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 primacy 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, surrounded on all sides by the Ottoman Turks. The Byzantine elite, including part of the clergy, hoped that “abroad will 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 this moment that the Patriarchate of Constantinople was completely legally must be considered apostate. That’s what they began to call him almost immediately, and 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 chose to leave the city at its most difficult moment and go to Italy.

It is worth recalling that in the Moscow principality the union was also not accepted and Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus' Isidore, who by that time had accepted the rank of Catholic cardinal, was expelled from the country. 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 Byzantine capital was captured by the Turks.

In Constantinople itself, despite the ardent rejection of the union by part of the clergy and a large number citizens, about the reunification of two Christian churches was announced in the Cathedral of St. Sofia December 12, 1452. After which the Patriarch of Constantinople could be considered a protege Catholic Rome, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople is 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, took place according to both Orthodox and Latin canons. Since then christian prayers never sounded under the arches of the once main temple of the Christian world, 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 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 Union - monk George Scholarius. 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 sultans and there could be no talk of any independence. They were completely subordinate persons, reporting to the sultans about affairs in 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 region.

By the way, this area is under police protection these days, so the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople-Istanbul lives, in fact, as a bird. The fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch has no rights has been proven more than once by the sultans, removing them from office and even executing them.

All this would be sad if the story did not take on a completely absurd aspect. After Constantinople was conquered by the Turks and Ecumenical Patriarch Gennady appeared there, the Pope appointed the former Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus' Isidore to the same position. 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 - the anointed of God - then from 1454 they became just religious functionaries, and even in a foreign country, where state religion was Islam.

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 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 for this reason alone it could not be called Ecumenical. Because he cannot be called an Ecumenical Patriarch, whose power extends to the modest-sized Phanar district of the Islamic city of Istanbul.

Which leads to a reasonable question: is the decision of the current Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I on Ukraine worth taking into account? 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, represents someone unknown and bears a title that can cause nothing but bewilderment?

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

Yes, the Eastern Roman Empire-Byzantium was and will always 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 entered into a union with Rome. And when Constantinople fell, it was no coincidence that many representatives of the clergy, both Byzantine and European, argued that God punished the Second Rome, including for apostasy.

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

If he really wants to show himself as a significant figure and solve what he thinks is a global problem, then Orthodox tradition we need to convene Ecumenical Council. This is exactly how it has always been done, even more than one and a half thousand years ago, starting with 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, should not know this established order many centuries ago?

Since Ukraine is haunting Bartholomew, let him hold an Ecumenical Council in accordance with ancient tradition. Let him choose any city at his discretion: you can hold it the old fashioned way in Nicaea, in Antioch, in Adrianople, and Constantinople will do, too. Of course, the powerful Ecumenical Patriarch must provide the invited colleagues and their accompanying persons with accommodation, food, leisure and compensation for all expenses. 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 the next three years. Minimum.

But something suggests that if the powerful Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople tried to start such an event in Turkey, the matter would 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, which threatens to develop into at least church schism. With all the ensuing consequences, which Bartholomew does not need to outline, 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, which he called for hundreds of times? Where is the conscience, after all?

However, what can you demand from a Greek who served as an officer in the Turkish army? What do you demand from a supposedly Orthodox priest, but who studied at the Roman Pontifical Institute? What can you ask from a person who is so dependent on the Americans that they even recognized his outstanding achievements 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 take on a burden that is not according to your rank, but in this case you can say that you take on a burden that is not according to your rank. And to put it even more simply, it’s not Senka’s hat. It is not for Bartholomew, who now cannot boast of 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 it’s certainly not because of this Senka that the situation in other countries is rocking.

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 unrest he caused turns into a lot of bloodshed in Ukraine? He should know what religious strife led to, at least from the history of Byzantium, which was clearly not alien to him, and how many thousands of lives various heresies or iconocracy cost the Second Rome. Surely Bartholomew knows this, but continues to stubbornly stick to 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 assessed the actions of Bartholomew. And it would also be nice to reconsider the status of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, based in the center of the Islamic metropolis, taking into account modern realities.

The Russian Orthodox Church accused Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople of splitting world Orthodoxy after the decision to grant autocephaly to the church in Ukraine. In response to the appointment of exarchs, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church “broke diplomatic relations with Constantinople” - suspended joint services and prayerful commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch, calling his actions gross interference. Vladimir Tikhomirov talks about difficult relationship Russia with Constantinople and explains why Bartholomew became an enemy of the Russian Orthodox Church right now.

Not a single state in the world has done even a tenth of what Russia has done to preserve the Patriarchate of Constantinople. And the Patriarchs of Constantinople were not as unfair to any other state as to Russia.

Resentment over union

Historically, relations between Moscow and Constantinople have never been simple - from Russian chronicles it is known that in medieval Russia, which worshiped the greatness of Constantinople, quite often popular riots broke out against the dominance of the Greek clergy and moneylenders.

Relations became especially strained after the signing of the Union of Florence in July 1439, recognizing Constantinople as the primacy of the Roman Church. The Union made a deep impression on Russian clergy. Metropolitan Isidore, who strongly advocated union at the council, was expelled from Moscow.

After the overthrow of Isidore, Grand Duke Vasily II the Dark sent ambassadors to Greece asking for the installation of a new metropolitan. But when the prince learned that the emperor and the patriarch had actually accepted the Union of Florence, he ordered the embassy to be returned. And in 1448, a council of Russian shepherds in Moscow elected Bishop Jonah of Ryazan and Murom, the first Russian patriarch, as the head of the Russian Church - without the consent of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Signing of the Florentine Union in the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore.

10 years later, Constantinople, deciding to take revenge on Moscow, appointed its metropolitan to Kyiv, as if not noticing the fact that historically the Russian Church grew out of a single metropolis with its center in Kyiv, which was turned into deserted ruins after the Mongol invasion. It was after the destruction of the city Kyiv Metropolitan moved his department first to Vladimir, and then to Moscow, retaining the name “Kyiv Metropolis”. As a result, on the canonical territory of the Russian Church, by the will of the Patriarch of Constantinople, another Kiev Metropolis was formed, which existed in parallel with the Moscow one for more than two centuries. Both of these churches merged together only in 1686 - that is, after the disappearance of Constantinople from the political map of the world.

On the other hand, the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 was perceived in Rus' not only as God’s retribution for the blasphemous union with Catholics, but also as the greatest tragedy in the world. The unknown Russian author of “The Tale of the Capture of Constantinople by the Turks” described the entry of Sultan Mehmed II into the Church of Hagia Sophia as a real triumph of the Antichrist: “And he will put his hand into the holy sacrificial and the holy one will consume, and give his sons destruction.”

Then, however, other considerations appeared in Moscow - they say, the death of Byzantium means not only the end of the old sinful world, but also the beginning of a new one. Moscow became not only the heir of the lost Constantinople, but also the “New Israel,” God’s chosen state, called upon to bring together all Orthodox Christians.

This thesis was clearly and succinctly stated by Elder Philotheus from the Pskov Spaso-Eleazarovsky Monastery: “Two Romes have fallen, and the third stands, but there will not be a fourth!”

But at the same time, Russia did everything to prevent the spirit of Orthodoxy from disappearing from Istanbul, forcing the Ottomans to maintain the patriarchate as a church institution - in the hope that someday the Orthodox army would be able to return both Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire.

But all these acts of long ago have no relation to the current conflict, because the current so-called The “Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople” has virtually nothing to do with the church of ancient Byzantium.

Usurpation of power in Constantinople

The history of the modern “Patriarchate of Constantinople” begins with the First World War, when in 1921, a certain Emmanuel Nikolaou Metaxakis, Archbishop of Athens and the Greek Church, which operated in the United States among Greek migrants, arrived in Istanbul along with the troops of the British Empire.

Patriarch Meletios IV of Constantinople.

By that time, the chair of the Patriarch of Constantinople had already been empty for three years - the former Patriarch Herman V, under pressure from the authorities of the Ottoman Empire, resigned back in 1918, and the Ottomans did not agree to the election of a new one because of the war. And, taking advantage of the help of the British, Emmanuel Metaxakis declared himself the new Patriarch Meletius IV.

Metaxakis held elections so that no one could accuse him of usurping the throne. But Metropolitan Herman Karavangelis won the elections - 16 out of 17 votes were cast for him. Later, Metropolitan Herman recalled: “On the night after the elections, a delegation from the National Defense Society visited me at home and began to fervently ask me to withdraw my candidacy in favor of Meletios Metaxakis... One of mine a friend offered me more than 10 thousand liras in compensation..."

Frightened, Metropolitan German yielded.

And with the very first decree, the newly-crowned “patriarch” Meletius IV subjugated all the American parishes and churches of the Athens Metropolis. In fact, the “Ecumenical Patriarchate” cannot exist only at the expense of several churches in Istanbul?!

Interestingly, when the rest of the Greek bishops learned about such arbitrariness of the newly-crowned “patriarch,” Metaxakis was first banned from serving, and then completely excommunicated from the church. But the “Ecumenical Patriarch” Meletius IV took and... canceled these decisions.

Next, he issued a tomos on the right of Constantinople to “direct supervision and management of all Orthodox parishes, without exception, located outside the boundaries of the local Orthodox Churches, in Europe, America and other places.” This act was written with an eye specifically to the fragmentation of the Russian Orthodox Church, which at that time the Greek “brothers” already considered dead. That is, all dioceses on former fragments Russian Empire automatically came under the jurisdiction of the American “patriarch”.

In particular, one of the first acquisitions of the newly-crowned patriarch was the former Metropolis of Warsaw - all Orthodox parishes in Poland. Then he accepted the Revel diocese into his jurisdiction Russian Church- the new Estonian metropolis. A tomos was also issued to the breakaway Ukrainian Church.

Pan-Orthodox conference in Constantinople, 1923, Meletius IV - in the center.

Help for “renovationists”

Finally, in 1923, there was talk of fragmenting the church on the territory of Soviet Russia itself. The discussion was about the recognition of the “renovationists” - the so-called “Living Church”, created by agents of the OGPU according to the project of Leon Trotsky to split and destroy the traditional Orthodox Church.

And there is no doubt that the “renovationists” would have been issued a tomos of autocephaly. The issue was actively lobbied by the Bolsheviks, who dreamed of replacing Patriarch Tikhon with obedient Lubyanka agents. But then London intervened in church affairs - the British government, which took a tough anti-Soviet position, demanded that Meletius IV stop flirting with OGPU agents.

In response, the angry Bolsheviks put pressure on the government of Kemal Atatürk, and Meletius IV was soon expelled from Constantinople. Gregory VII became the new patriarch, who even appointed a representative to Moscow to prepare the recognition of the new Russian Autocephalous Church. The Izvestia newspaper rejoiced: “The Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, chaired by the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VII, issued a resolution to remove Patriarch Tikhon from the administration of the church as guilty of all the church unrest...”

True, Gregory VII did not have time to fulfill his promise - he died several months before the appointed date of the “Ecumenical Council”, at which he was going to issue the tomos.

The new Patriarch of Constantinople, Vasily, confirmed his intention to recognize the “renovationists,” but requested an additional “fee.” At that time, in Soviet Russia, after the death of Lenin, a struggle for power broke out between various party groups, and the project of “Red Orthodoxy” lost relevance.

Thus, both Moscow and the Patriarchate of Constantinople forgot about the recognition of the “renovationists.”

Bartholomew against the Russian Orthodox Church

The Patriarchate of Constantinople went against the Russian Orthodox Church for the second time in the early 90s, when the Soviet Union itself was bursting at the seams. At that time, a certain Dimitrios Archondonis, a former Turkish army officer, a graduate of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, and a doctor of theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University, became the “Ecumenical” Patriarch under the name Bartholomew. He was an ardent admirer of the ideology of Meletius IV about the rise of the Patriarchate of Constantinople through the consistent destruction of local churches - primarily Russian. Then, they say, the “Ecumenical” Patriarch will become like the Pope.

Patriarch Bartholomew (left) and Patriarch Alexy II.

And Patriarch Bartholomew I was the first to announce in 1996 the acceptance of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (EAOC) under his jurisdiction. He explained this simply: they say, back in 1923, the EAOC came under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. And this jurisdiction was preserved, despite the fact that in 1940, after the Estonian SSR joined the Soviet Union, the EAOC was “voluntarily and forcibly” returned to the fold of the Moscow Patriarchate. Some of the Estonian priests who managed to emigrate to Sweden founded a “church in exile” in Stockholm.

After the restoration of Estonia's independence, the problem of two Orthodox churches arose. The fact is that at the end of April 1993, the synod of the Moscow Patriarchate restored the legal and economic independence of the Orthodox Church in Estonia (while maintaining canonical subordination to the Russian Orthodox Church). But the “Stockholmers” were supported by the nationalist leadership of Estonia, which sought to sever all ties with Russia. And the “Stockholm Church,” without paying any attention to the act of goodwill of Patriarch Alexy II, issued a Declaration in which it accused Moscow of a variety of troubles and declared recognition of the canonical connection only with Constantinople.

The same boorish tone was used in the letter of Patriarch Bartholomew I to Patriarch Alexy II, who accused the Russian Church, crucified and destroyed in the Gulag camps, of annexing independent Estonia: “The Church of that time was engaged in the expulsion of Orthodox Estonians... Bishop Cornelius personifies the liquidation of the canonical order with the help of Stalin’s army..."

The insulting and ignorant tone left Patriarch Alexy no other opportunity to respond. Soon, relations between the Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchates were severed for several years.

The diplomatic scandal somewhat cooled the ardor of Bartholomew, who in the same 1996 planned to issue a tomos to Ukrainian schismatics from the self-proclaimed “Kyiv Patriarchate” of the former Kyiv bishop Mikhail Denisenko, better known as Filaret.

Religious unrest in Ukraine

Initially, the struggle unfolded in Galicia between Greek Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Then the Orthodox themselves fought among themselves: the autocephalous UAOC against the Uniates. After this, the Uniates united with the autocephalous people and declared a crusade against the “Muscovites” - the Orthodox of the Moscow Patriarchate. Each of these stages of the struggle was accompanied by bloody seizures of churches and massacres between the “true believers.”

Mikhail Denisenko.

With the support of the West, the onslaught on the Russian Church became so powerful that some Orthodox priests asked for the patriarch's blessing for a temporary transition to autocephaly for the sake of preserving parishes from Uniate aggression.

It was at this moment that the Russian Orthodox Church granted Kyiv independence in governance under the purely formal jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, which reminds of itself only in the name of the church. Thus, Patriarch Alexy II outplayed Patriarch Bartholomew I, depriving him of the grounds for recognition by the Ecumenical Council of Denisenko’s independent church. And the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, assembled in February 1997, excommunicated Filaret from the church and anathematized him.

The “Permanent Conference of Ukrainian Bishops Outside Ukraine,” uniting the Ukrainian Orthodox diaspora in the United States and Canada, brought charges against Filaret on 16 counts, including fraud and theft. It is possible that without the support of the authorities, the sect of the self-proclaimed “patriarch” would simply have liquidated itself, but the “Orange Revolution” of 2004 seemed to give Denisenko a second chance - at that time he did not leave the Maidan podium, demanding that the “Muscovite priests” be driven out.

Despite ten years of brainwashing, the schismatics failed to win the sympathy of the Ukrainians. Thus, according to Ukrainian media, only 25% of Orthodox Christians surveyed in Kyiv identified themselves to one degree or another with the Kyiv Patriarchate. All the rest of the respondents, who called themselves Orthodox, support the canonical Ukrainian Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The balance of power between the canonical church and the schismatics can be assessed during religious processions on the anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. The widely publicized procession of schismatics gathered 10-20 thousand people, while in procession More than 100 thousand believers took part in the UOC-MP. One could put an end to this in all disputes, but not if power and money are used as arguments.

Petro Poroshenko and Denisenko.

Pre-election move by split

Petro Poroshenko decided to take advantage of religious disputes, who in just four years of power managed to turn from a folk hero into the most despised president of Ukraine. The president's rating could have been saved by a miracle. And Poroshenko decided to show such a miracle to the world. He again turned to Patriarch Bartholomew for a tomos for the “Kyiv Patriarchate”.

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.

paragraph 2 says that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is restoring stauropegia in Kyiv, as one of the many historically existing stauropegia in Ukraine

clause 3 lifts 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 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 Appeals to peace among believers.

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

Let's read the meaning: what is written in the decision of the Synod?

Let's start with point three, about lifting the anathema. It is invalid, which means that Filaret Denisenko and Makariy Maletich are Christians who were not excommunicated from the church and their episcopal or priestly rank was returned to them. But, and here we remember the cunning of Byzantine diplomacy: the justification states 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 the patriarch (in the case of Philaret) or the primate (in the case of Macarius) of the church. Both are named by their first and last names, without titles, and were restored to the priestly rank, but not to the administrative rank.

The last sentence is extremely interesting. Their words are faithful (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, are part of the canonical church, the first in the diptych of Orthodox churches. That is, read by letter - they are K-A-N-O-N-I-C-N-Y.

Now let's go higher, to the second point. It talks about the restoration of Stavropegium over Kiev and all of Ukraine. Stavropegy is the 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. Speaking in simple words, this may be a representation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, or it may happen differently - stauropegy will be established over individual (or all) Councils, monasteries, groups of parishes, seminaries of the UOC-KP and UAOC. But here too is the cunning of Byzantium - there is not a word about the recognition of the church organization, the 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. Which primates - read above - they were restored to the priesthood and episcopal status - a spiritual, but not a church-administrative rank. For now, 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.

Point 5 is standard diplomatic language 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 UAOC. That is, if earlier the See of Constantinople in its statistics spoke about approximately 3,200 parishes, then, starting today, we can talk about the possibility of quickly including at least another 7,000 parishes into the church. The Ecumenical Patriarchate becomes not only the first in authority, but also one of the largest church organizations.

The church hierarchy of the UAOC and UOC-KP is not called illegal, but is not recognized either. That is, now the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and only it, 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. If they don’t agree, it’s okay - they can be created. By the way, our hierarchs are not members of the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

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

Which? Let's think about it. Both Macarius and Philaret today are (or have become) de facto priests of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This means that they are obliged to show obedience to the decisions of the hierarchs of the church, the Synod and the Patriarch. Disobedience in the Orthodox world is “treated” by exile to a monastery (there is a shortage of novices on Athos), defrocking or anathema. The latter, if this happens, will already be final and irrevocable. The only person who can try to cancel this decision is the Russian Orthodox Church “to spite Constantinople.” But in this case, such a decision will be exchanged for very large concessions on the part of the Kyiv hierarchs.

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

Thus, the Russian Orthodox Church has already de facto lost its status in Ukraine. Its parishes are located on the canonical territory of another church. The Patriarch of Moscow no longer has the right to consecrate the head of the Ukrainian Church. Dot. But the transition of Ukrainian parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church to the fold of another canonical church is easier than ever - to ask for stauropegy for a separate parish. Now the place of the Moscow Patriarch or his “supervisors” is subordinated (until the final resolution of the Ukrainian question) to the Synod of the Church of Constantinople - the first in the diptych of Orthodox churches.

Plot development fork

First, let's look at the algorithm for creating a local church. Its first part follows the scenario described by the Ukrainian authorities - both ecclesiastical and secular.

Formally, everything has been 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 is left for creating one from scratch (by the decision of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople) or by decision of the local Council (which is still approved by the Synod)
• Exarchs have been appointed, who, in the absence of a recognized church hierarchy, formally (from the point of view of Canon Law) are hierarchs with the highest status on the territory of Ukraine
• Stavropegia is being restored (created), which, if the processes progress favorably, is only an administrative center, which can act as a body with the right to assemble a Council of the Ukrainian Church. In an unfavorable development of events, it can become the core of creating a church organization “from scratch,” leaving behind the ambitions of the 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, the Ukrainian local church, without additional decisions, is part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. After all, the cathedral was convened by decision of the exarchs and the Patriarch, on 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 (see In case of unfavorable developments - persistence in the ambitions of the local hierarchs), the creation of the church occurs through “gathering in parishes”.
• Monasteries (after consultation with abbots), cathedrals, church schools, seminaries, and individual parishes are declared stauropegia. Afterwards, an administrative structure is created from scratch - dioceses with an updated set of hierarchs.

It may be objected to me that the leaders of the UAOC and the UOC-KP will not agree to this. They will go for one simple reason: it will be very difficult for them to explain to their flock why, just yesterday, seeking to come under the wing of Constantinople, they suddenly changed their minds. And the conflict with the Ecumenical Patriarchate (given 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 your mind” subject to “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 happens 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 a local church, which “may receive a Tomos in the future” is one thing, but the transition to subordination to the canonical church, the first in the diptych, the oldest Orthodox Church, is a completely different matter.

Option 1. Everything goes according to plan

This option provides for the calm holding of the Council, the establishment of a 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 consecrated by the metropolitan (or the patriarch - depending on the decision of the Council). This newly created church, or rather its primate, will be granted a tomos of Autocephaly in the foreseeable future (perhaps even before the presidential elections).

Option 2. Bartholomew takes the jackpot

There will be a church in any case, but the 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 control of one of the largest church organizations. With proper development and a parade of parishes transferring 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 the rest of the world. Then you can talk with Lukashenko 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 Northwestern regions of the country). Lukashenko can calmly allow the presence of the universal patriarchy and even a repetition of 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 Russian Orthodox Church shrinks to 14-16 thousand parishes, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate expands to 20-21 thousand. Bingo!

This option, by the way, looks the most frightening for Moscow. Since quickly obtaining autocephaly does not strengthen Bartholomew, it does not allow him to quickly tear 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 Russian Orthodox Church will have time to regroup and try to maintain the maximum share of its current influence.

Another question arises: would Bartholomew consider such a situation more profitable. More precisely, whether Erdogan will consider such a situation more profitable. The Ecumenical Patriarchate 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 over the Muslim Crimean Tatars) may be too strong a temptation. After all, the most powerful (not respected, but strong) Orthodox Church in the world has very great political weight in Eastern Europe and 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 the very least, the abolition of the norm 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, he may be elected new patriarch from citizens of any other country who will simply leave Turkey, away from the annoying authorities.

Is the “Constantinople Option” dangerous for us? I don't think it's too much. The Turks are unlikely to be able to create a system of unity between the church and secular authorities - Erdogan is still an Islamist. That is, there will be cooperation, but not a “second Foreign Ministry.” Ukraine, due to its scale, will still gain significant independence and, perhaps, our hierarchs will play an important role in the first oldest Orthodox Church in the world. 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 Russian Orthodox Church or, to be precise, for Russian state, since it attacks the ideological myths of domestic and foreign policy, in the future it reduces the influence on vast regions (not only Ukraine).

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople visited Russia more than once. But in 2018, Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople was severed. What is the Church of New Rome - the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

A few words about historical role Patriarchate of Constantinople and its position in the modern Orthodox world.

Historical role of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

The creation of the Christian community and the episcopal see in Constantinople (before 330 AD - Byzantium) dates back to apostolic times. It is inextricably linked with the activities of the holy apostles Andrew the First-Called and Stachy (the latter, according to legend, became the first bishop of the city, whose Εκκλησία continuously increased in the first three centuries of Christianity). However, the flourishing of the Church of Constantinople and its acquisition of world-historical significance are associated with the conversion to Christ of the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine the Great (305-337) and the creation by him, shortly after the First Ecumenical (Nicene) Council (325), of the second capital of the Christianizing empire - New Rome, which later received the name of its sovereign founder.

A little more than 50 years later, at the Second Ecumenical Council (381), the bishop of New Rome received second place in diptychs among all the bishops of the Christian world, since then second only to the bishop of Ancient Rome in the primacy of honor (rule 3 of the aforementioned Council). It is worth noting that the Primate of the Church of Constantinople during the Council was one of the greatest fathers and teachers of the Church - St. Gregory the Theologian.

Soon after the final division of the Roman Empire into the Western and Eastern parts, another equal-angelic father and teacher of the Church, Saint John Chrysostom, who occupied the chair of archbishop in 397-404, shone with an unfading light in Constantinople. In his writings, this great ecumenical teacher and saint set out the true, enduring ideals of the life of Christian society and formed the unchangeable foundations of the social activity of the Orthodox Church.

Unfortunately, in the first half of the 5th century, the Church of New Rome was desecrated by the heretical patriarch of Constantinople Nestorius (428 - 431), who was overthrown and anathematized at the Third Ecumenical (Ephesus) Council (431). However, already the Fourth Ecumenical (Chalcedonian) Council restored and expanded the rights and advantages of the Church of Constantinople. By its 28th rule, the said Council formed the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which included the dioceses of Thrace, Asia and Pontus (that is, most of the territory of Asia Minor and the eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula). In the middle of the 6th century, under the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Justinian the Great (527-565), the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) was held in Constantinople. At the end of the 6th century, under the outstanding canonist, Saint John IV the Faster (582-595), the primates of Constantinople for the first time began to use the title “Ecumenical (Οικουμενικός) Patriarch” (while historically the basis for such a title was considered their status as bishops of the capital of the Christian empire - ecumene).

In the 7th century, the see of Constantinople, through the efforts of the crafty enemy of our salvation, again became a source of heresy and church unrest. Patriarch Sergius I (610-638) became the founder of the heresy of Monothelitism, and his heretical successors staged a real persecution of the defenders of Orthodoxy - St. Pope Martin and St. Maximus the Confessor, who were eventually martyred by heretics. By the grace of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, convened in Constantinople under the Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine IV Pogonatus (668-685), the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681) destroyed the Monothelite heresy, condemned, excommunicated and anathematized Patriarch Sergius and all his followers (including the Patriarchs of Constantinople Pyrrhus and Paul II, as well as Pope Honorius I).

Venerable Maximus the Confessor

Territories of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

In the 8th century, the patriarchal throne of Constantinople was occupied for a long time by supporters of the iconoclastic heresy, forcibly propagated by the emperors of the Isaurian dynasty. Only the Seventh Ecumenical Council, convened through the efforts of the holy Patriarch of Constantinople Tarasius (784-806), was able to stop the heresy of iconoclasm and anathematize its founders - the Byzantine emperors Leo the Isaurian (717-741) and Constantine Copronymus (741-775). It is also worth noting that in the 8th century the western part of the Balkan Peninsula (dioceses of Illyricum) was included in the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In the 9th century, the most prominent patriarch of Constantinople was the “new Chrysostom,” Saint Photius the Great (858-867, 877-886). It was under him that the Orthodox Church for the first time condemned the most important errors of the heresy of papism: the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit not only from the Father, but also from the Son (the doctrine of “filioque”), which changes the Creed, and the doctrine of the sole primacy of the Pope in the Church and the primacy ( superiority) of the pope over church councils.

The time of the patriarchate of Saint Photius was the time of the most active Orthodox church mission in the entire history of Byzantium, the result of which was not only the baptism and conversion to Orthodoxy of the peoples of Bulgaria, Serbian lands and the Great Moravian Empire (the latter covered the territories of modern Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary), but also the first ( the so-called “Askoldovo”) baptism of Rus' (which took place shortly after 861) and the formation of the beginnings of the Russian Church. It was the representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople - the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles missionaries, educators of the Slavs Cyril and Methodius - who defeated the so-called “trilingual heresy” (the supporters of which argued that there were certain “sacred” languages ​​in which only one should pray to God).

Finally, like Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Photius in his writings actively preached the social ideal of an Orthodox Christian society (and even compiled a set of laws for the empire, imbued with Christian values ​​- the Epanagogue). It is not surprising that, like John Chrysostom, Saint Photius was subjected to persecution. However, if the ideas of St. John Chrysostom, despite the persecution during his lifetime, after his death were still officially recognized by the imperial authorities, then the ideas of St. Photius, which were disseminated during his life, were rejected soon after his death (thus, adopted shortly before the death of St. Epanagogos and was not put into effect).

In the 10th century, the Asia Minor region of Isauria (924) was included in the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (924), after which the entire territory of Asia Minor (except Cilicia) entered the canonical jurisdiction of New Rome. At the same time, in 919-927, after the establishment of the patriarchate in Bulgaria, almost the entire northern part of the Balkans (the modern territories of Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, part of the territory of Romania, as well as Bosnia) came under the latter’s omophorion from the church authority of Constantinople and Herzegovina). However, the most important event in church history The 10th century, without a doubt, was the second Baptism of Rus', carried out in 988 by the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Grand Duke Vladimir (978-1015). Representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople played a significant role in the formation of the Russian Church, which until 1448 was in the closest canonical connection with the Constantinople patriarchal throne.

In 1054, with the separation of the Western (Roman) Church from the fullness of Orthodoxy, the Patriarch of Constantinople becomes the first in honor among all Primates of the Orthodox Local Churches. At the same time, with the beginning of the era of the Crusades at the end of the 11th century and the temporary expulsion from their thrones Orthodox Patriarchs Antioch and Jerusalem, the Bishop of New Rome begins to assimilate for himself an exclusive ecclesiastical status, striving to establish certain forms of canonical superiority of Constantinople over others autocephalous Churches and even to the abolition of some of them (in particular, the Bulgarian one). However, the fall of the capital of Byzantium in 1204 under the attacks of the crusaders and the forced movement of the patriarchal residence to Nicaea (where the patriarchs stayed from 1207 to 1261) prompted the Ecumenical Patriarchate to agree to the restoration of autocephaly of the Bulgarian Church and the granting of autocephaly to the Serbian Church.

The reconquest of Constantinople from the Crusaders (1261), in fact, did not improve, but rather worsened the real situation of the Church of Constantinople. Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259-1282) headed for a union with Rome, with the help of anti-canonical measures, handed over the reins of power in the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Uniates and committed cruel persecution of supporters of Orthodoxy, unprecedented since the time of the bloody iconoclastic repressions. In particular, with the sanction of the Uniate Patriarch John XI Veccus (1275 - 1282), there was an unprecedented defeat in history by the Byzantine Christian (!) army of the monasteries of Holy Mount Athos (during which a considerable number of Athonite monks, refusing to accept the union, shone in the feat of martyrdom). After the death of the anathematized Michael Palaiologos at the Council of Blachernae in 1285, the Church of Constantinople unanimously condemned both the union and the dogma of the “filioque” (adopted 11 years earlier by the Western Church at the Council in Lyon).

In the middle of the 14th century, at the “Palamite councils” held in Constantinople, Orthodox dogmas about the difference between the essence and energy of the Divine, representing the pinnacles of truly Christian knowledge of God, were officially confirmed. It is to the Patriarchate of Constantinople that the entire Orthodox world owes the rooting in our Church of these saving pillars of Orthodox doctrine. However, soon after the triumphant establishment of Palamism, the danger of a union with heretics again loomed over the flock of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Carried away by the annexation of foreign flocks (at the end of the 14th century, the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Church was again abolished), the hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople at the same time exposed their own flock to great spiritual danger. The weakening imperial government of the Byzantine Empire, dying under the blows of the Ottomans, in the first half of the 15th century again tried to impose subordination to the Pope on the Orthodox Church. At the Ferraro-Florence Council (1438 - 1445), all the clergy and laity of the Patriarchate of Constantinople invited to its meetings (except for the unshakable fighter against heresy, St. Mark of Ephesus) signed an act of union with Rome. Under these conditions, the Russian Orthodox Church, in pursuance of the 15th Rule of the Holy Double Council, broke the canonical connection with the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople and became an autocephalous Local Church, independently electing its Primate.

Saint Mark of Ephesus

In 1453, after the fall of Constantinople and the end of the Byzantine Empire (which papal Rome never provided the promised help against the Ottomans), the Church of Constantinople, headed by the holy Patriarch Gennady Scholarius (1453-1456, 1458, 1462, 1463-1464) threw off the bonds of the union imposed by heretics. Moreover, soon after this, the Patriarch of Constantinople became the civil head ("millet bashi") of all Orthodox Christians living in the territory of the Ottoman Empire. According to the expression of contemporaries of the events described, “the Patriarch sat as Caesar on the throne of the basileus” (that is, the Byzantine emperors). From the beginning of the 16th century, other eastern patriarchs (Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), in accordance with Ottoman laws, fell into a subordinate position to the persons occupying the Patriarchal throne of Constantinople for four long centuries. Taking advantage of this kind of situation, many of the latter allowed tragic abuses of their power for the Church. Thus, Patriarch Cyril I Lucaris (1620-1623, 1623-1633, 1633-1634, 1634-1635, 1635-1638), as part of a polemic with papal Rome, tried to impose Protestant teaching on the Orthodox Church, and Patriarch Cyril V (1748-1751 , 1752-1757) by his decision changed the practice of admitting Roman Catholics to Orthodoxy, moving away from the requirements established for this practice by the Council of 1484. In addition, in the middle of the 18th century, on the initiative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Ottomans liquidated the Pec (Serbian) Patriarchate and the Orchid Autocephalous Archdiocese (created during the time of St. Justinian the Great), which cared for the Macedonian flock.

However, one should not think at all that the life of the Primates of the Church of Constantinople - the ethnarchs of all Eastern Christians - was “truly royal” under Ottoman rule. For many of them, she was truly a confessor, and even a martyr. Appointed and removed at the discretion of the Sultan and his hangers-on, the patriarchs, not only with their positions, but also with their lives, were responsible for the obedience of the oppressed, oppressed, fleeced, humiliated and destroyed Orthodox population of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, after the start of the Greek uprising of 1821, by order of the Sultan’s government, fanatics belonging to non-Christian Abrahamic religions, on Easter Day, the 76-year-old elder Patriarch Gregory V (1797 - 1798, 1806 -1808, 1818 - 1821) was desecrated and brutally killed. , who became not just a holy martyr, but also a martyr for the people (εθνομάρτυς).

Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church

Oppressed by the Ottoman sultans (who also bore the title of “Caliph of all Muslims”), the Church of Constantinople sought support primarily from the “Third Rome”, that is, from the Russian state and from the Russian Church (it was the desire to gain such support that caused the consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II to establish in 1589 the patriarchate in Rus'). However, soon after the above-mentioned martyrdom of the Hieromartyr Gregory (Angelopoulos), the hierarchs of Constantinople made an attempt to rely on the Orthodox peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. It was at that time that the Orthodox people (whose representatives during the Ottoman period were integrated into the highest bodies of church government of all Eastern Patriarchates) were solemnly proclaimed by the District Council Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1848 as the guardians of the truth in the Church. At the same time, the Church of Greece liberated from the Ottoman yoke (the Greek Church) received autocephaly. However, already in the second half of the 19th century, the hierarchs of Constantinople refused to recognize the restoration of autocephaly of the Bulgarian Church (having come to terms with it only in the middle of the 20th century). Similar problems with recognition from Constantinople were also experienced by Orthodox Patriarchates Georgia and Romania. However, in fairness, it is worth noting that the restoration at the end of the second decade of the last century of a single autocephalous Serbian Orthodox Church did not encounter any objections from Constantinople.

A new, first in the 20th century, dramatic page in the history of the Church of Constantinople was associated with the presence of Meletius on Her Patriarchal Throne IV(Metaxakis), who occupied the chair of the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1921-1923. In 1922, he abolished the autonomy of the Greek Archdiocese in the United States, which provoked division in both American and Greek Orthodoxy, and in 1923, convening a “Pan-Orthodox Congress” (from representatives of only five Orthodox Local Churches), he carried out this unforeseen the canonical system of the Orthodox Church, the body decided to change the liturgical style, which provoked church unrest, which later gave rise to the so-called. "Old Calendar" schism. Finally, in the same year, he accepted schismatic anti-church groups in Estonia under the omophorion of Constantinople. But Meletius's most fatal mistake IV there was support for the slogans of “militant Hellenism”, which after Turkey’s victory in the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922. and the conclusion of the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923 became one of the additional arguments justifying the expulsion from the territory of Asia Minor of the almost two million Greek-speaking flock of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

As a result of all this, after Meletius left the department, almost the only support of the Ecumenical Patriarchal Throne on its canonical territory became the almost one hundred thousand Greek Orthodox community of Constantinople (Istanbul). However, the anti-Greek pogroms of the 1950s led to the fact that the Orthodox flock of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Turkey, as a result of mass emigration, has now, with a few exceptions, been reduced to several thousand Greeks living in the Phanar quarter of Constantinople, as well as on the Princes' Islands in the Sea of ​​Marmara and on the islands of Imvros and Tenedos in the Turkish Aegean. Under these conditions, Patriarch Athenagoras I (1949-1972) turned for help and support to Western countries, on whose lands, mainly in the USA, the overwhelming majority of the almost seven million (at that time) flock of the Church of Constantinople lived. Among the measures taken to gain this support was the lifting of anathemas imposed on representatives who separated from Orthodoxy in 1054 Western Church Patriarch Michael I Kirularius (1033-1058). These measures (which did not, however, mean the abolition of council decisions condemning the heretical errors of Western Christians), however, could not alleviate the situation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which was dealt a new blow by the decision taken by the Turkish authorities in 1971 to close the Theological Academy on the island of Halki. Soon after Turkey implemented this decision, Patriarch Athenagoras I died.

Primate of the Church of Constantinople - Patriarch Bartholomew

The current Primate of the Church of Constantinople - His Holiness Archbishop of Constantinople - New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I was born in 1940 on the island of Imvros, was consecrated bishop in 1973 and ascended to the Patriarchal throne on November 2, 1991. The canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople during the period of its administration of the Church did not essentially change and still includes the territory of almost all of Asia Minor, Eastern Thrace, Crete (where a semi-autonomous Cretan Church exists under the omophorion of Constantinople), the Dodecanese Islands, Holy Mount Athos (also certain ecclesiastical independence), as well as Finland (the small Orthodox Church of this country enjoys canonical autonomy). In addition, the Church of Constantinople also claims certain canonical rights in the field of administration of the so-called “new territories” - the dioceses of Northern Greece, annexed to the main territory of the country after the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. and transferred by Constantinople in 1928 to the administration of the Greek Church. Such claims (as well as the claims of the Constantinople Church to the canonical subordination of the entire Orthodox diaspora, which have no canonical basis at all), of course, do not find the positive response expected by some Constantinople hierarchs from other Orthodox Local Churches. However, they can be understood based on the fact that the overwhelming majority of the flock of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is precisely the flock of the diaspora (which, however, still constitutes a minority among the Orthodox diaspora as a whole). The latter also, to a certain extent, explains the breadth of the ecumenical activity of Patriarch Bartholomew I, who seeks to objectify new, non-trivial directions of inter-Christian and, more broadly, inter-religious dialogue in the rapidly globalizing modern world.

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople

The certificate was prepared by Vadim Vladimirovich Balytnikov

Some historical (including hagiographic and iconographic data) indicate the veneration of this emperor in Byzantium on a par with his namesake Constantine the Great.

It is interesting that it was this heretical patriarch who, with his “canonical answers” ​​(about the inadmissibility of Christians drinking kumys, etc.), actually thwarted all the efforts of the Russian Church to carry out Christian mission among the nomadic peoples of the Golden Horde.

As a result, almost all Orthodox episcopal sees in Turkey became titular, and the participation of the laity in the implementation of church governance at the level of the Patriarchate of Constantinople ceased.

Likewise, attempts to extend its ecclesiastical jurisdiction to a number of states (China, Ukraine, Estonia) that are currently part of the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate do not find support outside the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Information: In September 2018, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew made a statement before Synax about the intervention of the Russian Church in the affairs of the Kyiv Metropolis. In response to this, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church at an extraordinary meeting decided: “1. Suspend the prayerful commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople during the divine service. 2. Suspend concelebration with the hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. 3. Suspend the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in all Episcopal assemblies, theological dialogues, multilateral commissions and other structures chaired or co-chaired by representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. 4. Accept the statement of the Holy Synod in connection with the anti-canonical actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine.” The Russian Orthodox Church broke eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Greece is offended - Putin incited a “holy war”, as Greek media write ( see photo), between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church! It seems that the current rulers of the Russian state and the Church have decided to completely quarrel the Russians with all fraternal Orthodox peoples: http://www.zougla.gr/kosmos/article/ieros-polemos-1340393

At first, our blood Ukrainians were declared “enemies”, and already at the beginning of June 2016, the Levada Center was stunned by the data of the latest opinion poll, according to which the Russians allegedly gave second place in the list of “enemies” to... fraternal Ukraine - 48%?! However, why be surprised if quite recently Patriarch Kirill personally declared the war in Ukraine “sacred” (sacra bellum). August 14, 2014 at 19:55 Moscow time. a message from Patriarch Kirill (Gundyaev) to the Primates of the Local was published on the official websites of the Russian Orthodox Church MP and the DECR MP Orthodox Churches: “We cannot ignore the fact that the conflict in Ukraine has an unambiguous religious background. The Uniates and the schismatics who have joined them are trying to gain the upper hand over canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine. With the beginning of hostilities, the Uniates and schismatics, having received weapons in their hands, under the guise of an anti-terrorist operation, began to carry out direct aggression against the clergy of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the east of the country." , under the pretext of antiterrorist operation, began an outright aggression against the clergy of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the east of the country"): https://youtu.be/T40kkgM2MIE

Then the Bulgarians were offended when they became the object of general ridicule throughout the entire Orthodox ecumene due to the fact that the official statement of the Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (BOC), chaired by Patriarch Neophytos of Bulgaria on June 1, 2016, with the refusal to participate in the Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete was a far-fetched the pretext “they sat down wrong” coincided word for word with Patriarch Kirill’s letter to Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, addressed on the same day, June 1)))

This was reported by the Greek newspaper To Vima, whose message was translated into Bulgarian by the church online publication “Doors of Orthodoxy”, which expressed strong dissatisfaction with the fact that Patriarch Kirill not only duplicated a number of demands of the Bulgarians, but also pretended that he knew nothing about their speech )))

In the Churches of Constantinople and Greece, the self-recusal of the Bulgarians is directly linked to the “treachery” of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church: for example, Metropolitan of Ierapitna and Sitia Eugene Politis (Cretan Orthodox Church) stated that Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' “behaves like a king” and that he forced the Bulgarians boycott the Cathedral! Metropolitan of Messina Chrysostomos Savvatos (Greek Orthodox Church) on the air of Greek radio 9.84FM also expressed the conviction that it was the Moscow Patriarchate that specifically created the problem.

Now they have taken on the Serbs, whom the official Russian media vying with each other to accuse of almost treason and reproach them for “reconsidering their decision under pressure from the Phanar”?! Allegedly, it was “the statement of the Serbian Church that became one of the reasons for the refusal of the Moscow Patriarchate to send its delegation to the Council”: http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act =news &div =63407

Why take the blame for it when it was already known on the eve of the scandalous statement of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on June 13, 2016, with a refusal to go to the Pan-Orthodox Council that the primate Patriarch Irinej of the Serbian Church in his congratulations to Patriarch Bartholomew on the occasion of his namesake ( see photo) On June 11, 2016 (!) he assured the Ecumenical Patriarch that the Serbian Church will definitely take part in the Cretan Council!

Immediately upon his arrival in Crete on June 15, 2016, Patriarch Bartholomew I placed responsibility for the disruption of the Pan-Orthodox Council on the heads of “certain churches” who suddenly renounced their signatures on the general decision to hold the Council in Crete, adopted 5 months ago in Geneva “επισκιάζει η απόφαση ορισμένων εκκλησιών να μην προσέλθουν και να μην συμμετάσχου ν στην Αγία και Μεγάλη Σύνοδο . Η ευθύνη για την απόφαση τους, βαρύνει τας ιδίας τας εκκλησίας αυτάς και τους Προκαθημένους των, διότι μόλις προ πενταμήνου εις την Γενεύην, κατά την σύναξη των Ορθοδόξων Προκαθημένων, αποφασίσαμε και υπογράψαμε να έρθουμε τον Ιούνιο στην Κρήτη και να πραγματοποιήσομε αυτό το πολυχρόνιο όραμα που έχουμε όλες οι Εκκλησίες προς διακήρυξην και διαδήλωσην της ενότητας της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας και εις εξέταση και απόφαση,από κοινού, για τα προβλήματα, τα οποία απασχολούν σήμερα τον Ορθόδοξο κόσμο»: https://youtu. be/ lJKW5 LTws4 k

As the Greek media write, “Crete was chosen as a meeting place to meet the demands of the Russian Church, which did not want to come to Constantinople due to known problems in relations between Russia and Turkey. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew did everything possible for the participation of the Russian Church. Immediately upon arrival in Crete, the Ecumenical Patriarch again called on all “refuseniks” to come. Of course this won't happen. And it will not happen, because their refusal was caused not by spiritual, but by political and geopolitical reasons. In particular, it is obvious that Mr. Putin believes that holding such a Pan-Orthodox Church Council under the auspices of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is a defeat for the Kremlin in its competition with the West. Of course, as in many other lines of his behavior, he lacks seriousness, but this automatically deprives the church of seriousness, whose cornerstone is Truth, which, of course, has nothing to do with political and geopolitical rivalry. It is painful to see how the President of Russia, the Church and the people of the country do nothing to ensure the success of the Council by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and personally by Patriarch Bartholomew. For while the Ecumenical Patriarch advocates for the unity of the Orthodox, Mr. Putin and the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church will watch the course of events from afar”: http://www.ekirikas.com/%CF%84%CE%B1-%CF%80 %CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%87%CE%BD%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%8D%CF%84% CE%B9%CE%BD-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CE%B7-%CE%BC%CE%B5%CE%B3%CE%AC%CE%BB%CE%B7 -%CF%83%CF%8D%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%B4/

In an official statement, the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasized that the Holy Council in Crete “is the most important event Orthodox Church over the last 1300 years": http://www .real .gr /DefaultArthro .aspx ?page =arthro &id =514954&catID =3

At the same time, sources in the Greek Foreign Ministry informed the world media that the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Athens sent an oral note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs No. 1166 ... about the participation of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill in the Holy Council of the Orthodox Church. In particular, Mr. Kirill should arrive at Chania airport in Crete on Thursday 06/16/2016 on a special flight from Moscow and fly back on Sunday 06/26/2016 from the same airport" ...

Blog of the scientific team of the Andrei Rublev Museum.

Characteristics of men