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 the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in fact, has long been of little importance and decides 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As the latest Ukrainian events have shown, following these outdated traditions has not led to anything good - in the Orthodox world there should have been a revision of the significance of certain figures long ago, and without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 is from this moment that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, on completely legal grounds, should 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 Patriarchate of Constantinople could be considered a protege of Catholic Rome, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople dependent on the Catholic Church.

It is also worth recalling that the last service in the Cathedral of St. Sophia on the night of May 28-29, 1453, took place according to both Orthodox and Latin canons. Since then, Christian prayers have 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 patriarchate 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 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 the 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 it is necessary to convene an 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 tells us that if the powerful Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople tries to start such an event in Turkey, the matter for him will 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 up the situation in Ukraine, which threatened to develop into at least a 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 to demand from something like Orthodox priest, but 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 don’t take it according to rank, but in in this case one might say that you are taking 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.

Nowadays, a lot is changing on the political map of the world. For the first time in many years, the successors to the work of Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish state, were replaced by the Islamic Justice and Development Party. She also declares her commitment to the secular principles of Turkey, but it is obvious that changes are taking place in Turkey as well. The famous Turkish writer and publicist Khaldun Taner wrote: “What are we Turks? Some strange cross between a fez and a hat. The knot, the focus of the contradictions between Eastern mysticism and Western rationalism, part of one and part of the other.”

No matter how the Turkish hand reaches out again for the fez, banned by Ataturk in 1925. It is unclear how such a change of course will affect the process of Turkey's entry into the United Europe. Turkey is a member of NATO, the country was ruled by the military for many years, and this government was secular and pro-Western, but anti-Western and especially anti-American sentiments are very strong in the country. And recently, the Eastern adventure has made Turkey a global outcast. And thanks to the efforts of the Western world, good neighborly relations with Russia and seemingly strong economic ties were severed.

If the future of Turkey as part of Europe is unclear, then the future of the Patriarch of Constantinople does not seem mysterious. He will have to withstand pressure from the Turkish authorities. Not long ago, the Patriarch was already summoned to the prosecutor's office to testify in connection with his official statements that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has ecumenical status. And the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is allowed to reside in Turkey, is the object of local law, and Patriarch Bartholomew can be prosecuted in a criminal case based on Article 219 of the Turkish Criminal Code - “negligence in the performance of the duties of a clergyman,” which provides for imprisonment for a term of one month to year. Should not be given of great importance danger of imprisonment for the patriarch, but it should be noted that the Turkish authorities act in a completely legal way, and it will not be easy for the patriarch to defend his title, because he has no (other than historical) grounds for staying on the territory of the Turkish Republic.

The historical foundations are clear to everyone: Asia Minor once belonged to the Byzantine Orthodox kingdom. But in 1453, Byzantium, exhausted by internal strife and church intrigues with Catholics, fell. Although the church did not suffer particularly from this, and in a material sense even benefited, since the Patriarch of Constantinople became an ethnarch, as well as the heads of the Armenian, Jewish and other communities. That is, the patriarch began to have, in addition to church, also secular power over the numerous Greek people throughout the territory Ottoman Empire. But in the 19th century, relations between the Turkish government and the church began to deteriorate, because some patriarchs supported the liberation struggle of the Greek people. And relations were already deteriorating when, after the end of the First World War, Turkey was occupied by England, France, Italy and Greece. At that time, the then Patriarch of Constantinople Meletios Metaxakis, notorious in the Orthodox world as a reformer, declared that the Church of Constantinople no longer belonged to the Ottoman Empire, but belonged to Greece. During the same period, the Greeks conceived the idea that Istanbul was to become for them the “New Athens”. To implement it, they wanted to use Entente troops, believing that the occupation of the imperial capital would only be temporary, and after the withdrawal of troops, the capital would become Greek. But as a result of the bloody war, the Kemalists, supporters of Ataturk, won, the Greeks were expelled from the territory of Turkey, exchanging them for the Hellenic Turks, the history of the Ottoman Empire ended and the history of the secular Republic of Turkey began. In an exchange in February 1923, Patriarch Constantine VI was removed from Istanbul-Constantinople, and the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople actually ended, in addition, several thousand Orthodox Greeks remained in Turkey. But Western politicians sensed the benefits that could be derived from the presence of a Greek patriarch, burdened with titles but deprived of a flock, in the Muslim city of Istanbul and a few months later achieved the election of a new patriarch, Basil II.

“After this, the Lausanne Peace Treaty was signed, where the Turkish delegation insisted that the Patriarch of Constantinople remain only the leader of the Orthodox community in Turkey and not extend its jurisdiction to other countries, to which the consent of England and its Entente allies was obtained. This is recorded in the protocols of the agreement. The new republican leaders of Turkey did not want world powers to interfere in the internal affairs of their country because of the patriarch; at the same time, they did not want the Patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul) to interfere in the life of other countries and societies. This is enshrined in both international treaties and the internal legislation of our country,” says Deniz Berktay, a correspondent for the Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyet (“Republic”) in Ukraine. - The newspaper was founded by one of the comrades-in-arms of the founder of our republic Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) - Yunus Nadi - and adheres to the policy of Ataturk, who created a secular, not a religious state in Turkey. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, the Turkish leadership did not interfere in the affairs of the Phanar community, provided that its Primate did not interfere in the life of other countries and Orthodox Churches.”

Undoubtedly, the Western “friends” of Orthodoxy cared least about the church and, of course, did not and do not expect the return of Christianity to the territory of Asia Minor. Moscow Archpriest Vsevolod Shpiller wrote in 1953: “As for his (the Patriarch of Constantinople’s) position in Turkey, that is, in his diocese, it deteriorated catastrophically as a result of this game, and he, in essence, barely remained in Constantinople. But the ties with the Entente that formed in the last century (during the Russian-Turkish wars) were greatly strengthened, especially along the Masonic line. The Patriarch of Constantinople tried to rely on these connections for his claims during this period.” Western “friends” did not dream that church services would ever begin again in Hagia Sophia. How the Greeks and others dream about it Orthodox peoples. They understood how they could benefit from the creation of a controlled Orthodox Vatican in Turkey. And the “Vatican” did not hesitate, and immediately began to act. For example, in 1924 against Orthodoxy in Russia, when Patriarch Gregory VII was even invited by the Bolsheviks to replace the allegedly deposed Patriarch Tikhon. Later, the Americans began to manage this historical center of Orthodoxy.

After World War II, relations between the USSR and Turkey deteriorated noticeably. At that time, the positions of the leaders of the Turkish Republic coincided with the position of the United States. When the state policy towards the Church changed in the USSR and a new patriarch was elected, in the West this was regarded as new way strengthening the influence of the USSR on Europe and the East. The then Patriarch of Constantinople Maxim V spoke positively about the Greek communists, for which he was accused of friendship with the Soviet Union and propaganda of communism. Therefore, the leadership of Turkey and the United States forced him to leave his post in order to avoid conflicts.

And then, in 1949, Archbishop Athenagoras, managing director, was elected the new Patriarch of Constantinople Orthodox parishes in USA. After his election, he flew to Turkey on the personal plane of US President Harry Truman and immediately received citizenship. In one of his interviews, Athenagoras openly spoke about himself as a religious “component of the Truman Doctrine,” aimed against the spread of the influence of the USSR and communism in the Middle East and Europe. After this, American politicians began to interfere in the affairs of Turkey and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, focusing on the title “ecumenical” to strengthen the patriarch’s influence on the Orthodox communities of Europe and the Middle East and carry out their policies. That is, in essence, they used the Patriarchate of Constantinople (Istanbul) as a base for promoting their interests in the Middle East and Europe.

There was such a case. In 1967, the Turkish government wanted to check the finances of the Constantinople (Istanbul) Patriarchate. It was then that the United States was planning to transfer two warships to Turkey, and the condition for their transfer was the cessation of all financial checks of the Patriarchate. Which is what the government did. This is written in the memoirs of the then Turkish Foreign Minister Ihsan Sabri Caglayangil. Now there is a change in the consciousness of influential circles in Turkey in relation to the United States. It became obvious to everyone that they were applying for the position of world gendarme. Moreover, they want to use this position to their advantage. It’s no longer a secret that the power of the United States rests on unsecured pieces of paper worth a few pence. And in order for people to mistake these bills for hundred-dollar bills, you need to properly threaten the client with your fist. But a time comes when many peoples and states no longer like this.

With regard to the Patriarch of Constantinople, our country and especially the Russian Orthodox Church are in an ambiguous position. On the one hand, he is the head of the local Orthodox Church, on the other hand, he is becoming more and more interested in politics, and anti-Russian politics. To do this, he tries to play on the unhealthy nationalism of the Greeks, on the delusional great idea of ​​​​creating a Greek state within the borders of the Byzantine Empire. Passion for this idea had already led the Greek people to disaster in 1923, when, after the failure of the operation to capture Constantinople and other areas of Turkey, they were forced to leave Asia Minor. Anti-Russian sentiments also dictated the patriarch’s statements about the “Moscow - Third Rome” theory, as a crazy idea, interference in the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church in Estonia, England and Ukraine. The Patriarch of Constantinople believes that the ancient Kiev Metropolis is his jurisdiction! “Such activities of the Constantinople (Istanbul) Patriarchate harm the image of Turkey and complicate our international relations. We do not want the territory of the Turkish Republic to be the center of provocations against Orthodox countries Europe,” says Deniz Berktay in an interview with the Orthodox Ukraine newspaper.

Today in the Orthodox world the situation has worsened significantly in connection with the so-called Ecumenical Council. Firstly, this council is meeting without any necessity, and in ancient times councils were not convened without urgent need, especially ecumenical ones. Secondly, the aggravation of relations between East and West clearly indicates that this cathedral is “political”. Thirdly, doesn’t a child today know that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is supervised by the United States? And everyone knows about US interests in relation to Russia

Patriarch Bartholomew lured the Orthodox Churches, and, first of all, the Russian Church, into a kind of trap. It would seem that eternal conversations about the cathedral would continue for centuries, and everyone agreed to the draft documents, which, roughly speaking, “in Byzantine style,” were handed to the Local Churches. And everyone, without reading it carefully and without thinking about the consequences, willingly agreed on them, without counting on their application. Then, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, quite “Byzantine”, declared that since the projects were agreed upon by the bureaucrats, they would go into action regardless of whether the Local Church changed their mind about participating in the council or not. The Council is needed by the Patriarch of Constantinople in order to de facto establish himself as the head of the universal Orthodox Church, that is, the Eastern Pope, which neither the Russian Orthodox Church nor other Local Churches have ever recognized. The satanic character of such ecclesiology is clear to everyone. It is clear why the United States needs this: a blow to the Church is a blow to Russia. By avoiding participation in such a council, our Church avoided a schism. But the program continues...

Obviously, the “Byzantines” and the Americans took aim at Ukraine. The explosion of insane nationalism, the favorite weapon of the West, will lead to ecclesiastical madness. Some of the Ukrainian clergy, with joy, in order to get rid of the Muscovites, will rush under the omophorion of the Patriarch of Constantinople as “metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian and Thracian districts.” And in addition, “the bishops of the foreigners of the above-mentioned districts” will agree to be appointed “from the above-mentioned most holy throne of the most holy church of Constantinople” (28th canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council). When you need to achieve a political result, you can act as zealots of ancient statutes. To deal with the “barbarians” from Russia, we can recall the “pentarchy” dear to the Greek heart, according to the 28th rule of the Fourth Council (the Roman Church is mentioned there, but the Russian one is not).

Playing on the infringed Greek national feeling occupies not the last place in the anti-Russian and, in fact, anti-Orthodox ensemble. Alas, the Greeks demonize the Turks and cannot understand that the cause of the Byzantine catastrophe lies not in the Turks, but in internal sins: Uniatism, discord, etc. In this sense, Russia, which survived a similar catastrophe, but repented and managed to convert a significant, if not overwhelming number of Tatars and Mongols to Orthodoxy and was not fixated on the desecrated national feeling, revealed itself as the Third Rome, a sound about which the modern Greek does not want to hear. And the idea of ​​​​restoring the Second (old) Rome with the hands of hapless “barbarians” from Russia has long lived in Greek minds. The politicians from Constantinople and the forces behind them are trying to rely on it.

For Russians, eternally deprived of cunning diplomats defending national interests, all that remains is to stand in the Truth and for the truth, following the words of the great Russian saint Alexander Nevsky. And such a program has never failed Russia.

Sacred Tradition tells that the holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called in the year 38 ordained his disciple named Stachys as bishop of the city of Byzantion, on the site of which Constantinople was founded three centuries later. From these times the church began, at the head of which for many centuries there were patriarchs who bore the title of Ecumenical.

Right of primacy among equals

Among the heads of the fifteen existing autocephalous, that is, independent, local Orthodox churches, the Patriarch of Constantinople is considered “first among equals.” This is its historical significance. The full title of the person holding such an important post is the Divine All-Holiness Archbishop of Constantinople - New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch.

For the first time the title of Ecumenical was awarded to the first Akaki. The legal basis for this was the decisions of the Fourth (Chalcedonian) Ecumenical Council, held in 451 and which assigned the heads of the Church of Constantinople the status of bishops of New Rome - second in importance after the primates of the Roman Church.

If at first such an establishment met quite tough opposition in certain political and religious circles, then by the end of the next century the position of the patriarch was so strengthened that his actual role in resolving state and church affairs became dominant. At the same time, his pompous and verbose title was finally established.

The Patriarch is a victim of iconoclasts

The history of the Byzantine church knows many names of patriarchs who entered it forever and were canonized as saints. One of them is Saint Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, who occupied the patriarchal see from 806 to 815.

The period of his reign was marked by a particularly fierce struggle waged by supporters of iconoclasm - religious movement who rejected the veneration of icons and other sacred images. The situation was aggravated by the fact that among the followers of this trend there were many influential people and even several emperors.

The father of Patriarch Nicephorus, being the secretary of Emperor Constantine V, lost his post for promoting the veneration of icons and was exiled to Asia Minor, where he died in exile. Nicephorus himself, after the iconoclast emperor Leo the Armenian was enthroned in 813, became a victim of his hatred of holy images and ended his days in 828 as a prisoner of one of the remote monasteries. For his great services to the church, he was subsequently canonized. Nowadays, Saint Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople is revered not only in his homeland, but throughout the Orthodox world.

Patriarch Photius - recognized father of the church

Continuing the story about the most prominent representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, one cannot help but recall the outstanding Byzantine theologian Patriarch Photius, who led his flock from 857 to 867. After Gregory the Theologian, he is the third generally recognized father of the church, who once occupied the see of Constantinople.

The exact date of his birth is unknown. It is generally accepted that he was born in the first decade of the 9th century. His parents were unusually wealthy and well-educated people, but under Emperor Theophilus, a fierce iconoclast, they were subjected to repression and ended up in exile. That's where they died.

The struggle of Patriarch Photius with the Pope

After the accession to the throne of the next emperor, the young Michael III, Photius began his brilliant career - first as a teacher, and then in the administrative and religious fields. In 858, he occupied the highest position in the country. However, this did not bring him a quiet life. From the very first days, Patriarch Photius of Constantinople found himself in the thick of the struggle between various political parties and religious movements.

To a large extent, the situation was aggravated by the confrontation with the Western Church, caused by disputes over jurisdiction over Southern Italy and Bulgaria. The initiator of the conflict was Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, who sharply criticized him, for which he was excommunicated by the pontiff. Not wanting to remain in debt, Patriarch Photius also anathematized his opponent.

From anathema to canonization

Later, during the reign of the next emperor, Vasily I, Photius became a victim of court intrigue. Supporters of the political parties opposing him, as well as the previously deposed Patriarch Ignatius I, gained influence at court. As a result, Photius, who so desperately entered into the fight with the Pope, was removed from the throne, excommunicated and died in exile.

Almost a thousand years later, in 1847, when Patriarch Anthimus VI was the primate of the Church of Constantinople, the anathema from the rebellious patriarch was lifted, and, in view of the numerous miracles performed at his grave, he himself was canonized. However, in Russia, for a number of reasons, this act was not recognized, which gave rise to discussions between representatives of most churches of the Orthodox world.

Legal act unacceptable for Russia

It should be noted that for many centuries the Roman Church refused to recognize the threefold place of honor for the Church of Constantinople. The pope changed his decision only after the so-called union was signed at the Council of Florence in 1439 - an agreement on the unification of the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

This act provided for the supreme supremacy of the Pope, and, while the Eastern Church retained its own rituals, its adoption of Catholic dogma. It is quite natural that such an agreement, which runs counter to the requirements of the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, was rejected by Moscow, and Metropolitan Isidore, who signed it, was defrocked.

Christian patriarchs in an Islamic state

Less than a decade and a half has passed. The Byzantine Empire collapsed under the pressure of Turkish troops. The Second Rome fell, giving way to Moscow. However, the Turks in this case showed tolerance that was surprising for religious fanatics. Having built all the institutions of state power on the principles of Islam, they nevertheless allowed a very large Christian community to exist in the country.

From this time on, the Patriarchs of the Church of Constantinople, having completely lost their political influence, nevertheless remained the Christian religious leaders of their communities. Having retained a nominal second place, they, deprived of a material base and practically without a livelihood, were forced to struggle with extreme poverty. Until the establishment of the patriarchate in Rus', the Patriarch of Constantinople was the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, and only the generous donations of the Moscow princes allowed him to somehow make ends meet.

In turn, the Patriarchs of Constantinople did not remain in debt. It was on the banks of the Bosphorus that the title of the first Russian Tsar, Ivan IV the Terrible, was consecrated, and Patriarch Jeremiah II blessed the first Moscow Patriarch Job upon his accession to the throne. This was an important step towards the development of the country, putting Russia on a par with other Orthodox states.

Unexpected ambitions

For more than three centuries, the patriarchs of the Church of Constantinople played only a modest role as heads of the Christian community located within the powerful Ottoman Empire, until it disintegrated as a result of the First World War. Much has changed in the life of the state, and even its former capital, Constantinople, was renamed Istanbul in 1930.

On the ruins of a once mighty power, the Patriarchate of Constantinople immediately became more active. Since the mid-twenties of the last century, its leadership has been actively implementing the concept according to which the Patriarch of Constantinople should be endowed with real power and receive the right not only to lead the religious life of the entire Orthodox diaspora, but also to take part in resolving internal issues of other autocephalous churches. This position caused sharp criticism in the Orthodox world and was called “Eastern papism.”

Patriarch's legal appeals

The Treaty of Lausanne, signed in 1923, legally formalized and established the border line again educated state. He also recorded the title of the Patriarch of Constantinople as Ecumenical, but the government of the modern Turkish Republic refuses to recognize it. It only agrees to recognize the patriarch as the head of the Orthodox community in Turkey.

In 2008, the Patriarch of Constantinople was forced to file a human rights claim against the Turkish government for illegally appropriating one of the Orthodox shelters on the island of Buyukada in the Sea of ​​Marmara. In July of the same year, after considering the case, the court fully granted his appeal, and, in addition, made a statement recognizing his legal status. It should be noted that this was the first time that the primate of the Church of Constantinople appealed to the European judicial authorities.

Legal document 2010

Another important legal document that largely determined the modern status of the Patriarch of Constantinople was the resolution adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in January 2010. This document prescribed the establishment of religious freedom for representatives of all non-Muslim minorities living in the territories of Turkey and Eastern Greece.

The same resolution called on the Turkish government to respect the title “Ecumenical”, since the Patriarchs of Constantinople, whose list already numbers several hundred people, bore it on the basis of relevant legal norms.

The current primate of the Church of Constantinople

A bright and original personality is Bartholomew Patriarch of Constantinople, whose enthronement took place in October 1991. His secular name is Dimitrios Archondonis. Greek by nationality, he was born in 1940 on the Turkish island of Gokceada. Having received a general secondary education and graduated from the Khalka Theological School, Dimitrios, already in the rank of deacon, served as an officer in the Turkish army.

After demobilization, his ascent to the heights of theological knowledge began. For five years, Archondonis studied at higher educational institutions in Italy, Switzerland and Germany, as a result of which he became a doctor of theology and lecturer at the Pontifical Gregorian University.

Polyglot at the Patriarchal Chair

This person's ability to absorb knowledge is simply phenomenal. Over five years of study, he perfectly mastered German, French, English and Italian languages. Here we must add his native Turkish and the language of theologians - Latin. Returning to Turkey, Dimitrios went through all the steps of the religious hierarchical ladder, until in 1991 he was elected primate of the Church of Constantinople.

"Green Patriarch"

In the field international activities His All-Holy Bartholomew Patriarch of Constantinople has become widely known as a fighter for the preservation of the natural environment. In this direction, he became the organizer of a number of international forums. It is also known that the patriarch actively cooperates with a number of public environmental organizations. For this activity, His Holiness Bartholomew received the unofficial title - “Green Patriarch”.

Patriarch Bartholomew has close friendly relations with the heads of the Russian Orthodox Church, whom he paid a visit to immediately after his enthronement in 1991. During the negotiations that took place then, the Primate of Constantinople spoke out in support of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in its conflict with the self-proclaimed and, from a canonical point of view, illegitimate Kyiv Patriarchate. Similar contacts continued in subsequent years.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew Archbishop of Constantinople has always been distinguished by his adherence to principles in resolving all important issues. A striking example of this can be his speech during the discussion that unfolded in 2004 at the All-Russian Russian People's Council regarding the recognition of Moscow's status as the Third Rome, emphasizing its special religious and political significance. In his speech, the patriarch condemned this concept as theologically untenable and politically dangerous.

On May 22, the visit of Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople Bartholomew to Russia begins.

Patriarch Bartholomew the First, arriving on Saturday on an official visit to the Russian Orthodox Church, is the 232nd bishop in the ancient see of the once capital of the Byzantine Empire and, as such, “first among equals” among all the heads of the Orthodox Churches of the world. His title is Archbishop of Constantinople - New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch.

The direct jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople today includes only a few thousand Greek Orthodox who remain to live in modern Turkey, as well as much more numerous and influential Greek Orthodox dioceses in the diaspora, primarily in the United States. The Patriarch of Constantinople is also, by virtue of his historical position and the personal qualities of Patriarch Bartholomew, an extremely authoritative figure for all the Greek Orthodox Churches and the entire Hellenistic world.

IN last decades The Russian Orthodox Church has had a difficult relationship with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, mainly due to controversial issues of jurisdiction in the diaspora. In 1995, there was even a short-term break in Eucharistic communion (the joint service of the Liturgy) between the two Churches due to the establishment by the Patriarchate of Constantinople of its jurisdiction in Estonia, which the Moscow Patriarchate considers part of its canonical territory. Particularly important for the Moscow Patriarchate is the non-interference of Constantinople in the church situation in Ukraine, to which Patriarch Bartholomew was pushed by a number of Ukrainian politicians. After the visit to Istanbul in July 2009 of the newly elected Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church announced a radical improvement in relations and a new stage in communication between the two Churches. also in last years The process of preparation for the Pan-Orthodox Conference has intensified, which should resolve the organizational problems existing between the Orthodox churches of the world.

Patriarch Bartholomew (in the world Dimitrios Archondonis) was born on February 29 (according to the official website of the Patriarchate of Constantinople), according to other sources - on March 12, 1940 on the Turkish island of Imvros in the village of Agioi Theodoroi.

After completing his secondary education in his homeland and at the Zograf Lyceum of Istanbul, he entered the famous Theological School (Seminary) on the island of Halki (Heybeliada) in Istanbul, from which he graduated with honors in 1961, after which he immediately took monastic vows and became a deacon under named after Bartholomew.

From 1961 to 1963, Deacon Bartholomew served military service in the Turkish Armed Forces.

From 1963 to 1968 he studied canon law at the Ecumenical Institute in Bosse (Switzerland) and at the University of Munich. He holds a doctorate from the Gregorian University in Rome for his dissertation “On the Codification of Sacred Canons and Canonical Orders in the Eastern Church.”

In 1969, upon returning from Western Europe, Bartholomew was appointed assistant dean of the Theological School on the island of Halki, where he was soon elevated to the priesthood. Six months later, the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras elevated the young priest to the rank of archimandrite of the Patriarchal Chapel of St. Andrey.

After Patriarch Demetrius ascended the throne of Constantinople in 1972, the Personal Patriarchal Office was formed. Archimandrite Bartholomew was invited to the position of head, who on December 25, 1973 was consecrated bishop with the title Metropolitan of Philadelphia. His Eminence Bartholomew remained in the position of head of the chancellery until 1990.

From March 1974 until his ascension to the Ecumenical Throne, Bartholomew was a member Holy Synod, as well as many synodal commissions.

In 1990, Bartholomew was appointed Metropolitan of Chalcedon, and on October 22, 1991, after the death of Patriarch Demetrius, he was elected Primate of the Church of Constantinople. The ceremony of his enthronement took place on November 2.

Patriarchal residence and Cathedral in the name of the Holy Great Martyr George the Victorious are located in Phanar - one of the districts of Istanbul (in the Orthodox tradition - Constantinople).

Patriarch Bartholomew I speaks Greek, Turkish, Latin, Italian, English, French and German languages. He is one of the founders of the Law Society of the Eastern Churches and for a number of years was its vice-president. For 15 years he was a member and 8 years deputy chairman of the “Faith and Church Order” commission of the World Council of Churches (WCC).

Patriarch Bartholomew I is known for his active participation in various activities aimed at protecting the environment, thanks to which he received the unofficial title of “green Patriarch”. It regularly organizes international seminars to discuss ways to mobilize all possible means to achieve harmony between humanity and nature. In 2005, Patriarch Bartholomew I for his services in protecting environment was awarded the UN Prize "Fighter for the Protection of Planet Earth".

Patriarch Bartholomew I - Honorary Member of the Pro Oriente Foundation (Vienna), Honorary Doctor of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Athens, Moscow Theological Academy, Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Crete, Department of Environmental Protection of the University of the Aegean (Lesbos), University of London, Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium) , Orthodox St. Sergius Institute (Paris), Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Eze-en-Provence (France), University of Edinburgh, Holy Cross Theological School (Boston), St. Vladimir Theological Academy (New York), Faculty of Theology of the University of Yass (Romania), five departments of the University of Thessaloniki, American universities Georgetown, Tuft, Southern Methodist, Democritus University of Xanthi (Greece) and many others.

Previously, Patriarch Bartholomew visited the Russian Orthodox Church in 1993 (Moscow, St. Petersburg), in 1997 (Odessa), in 2003 (Baku), twice in 2008 (Kyiv; Moscow - in connection with the burial of Patriarch Alexy II) .

The material was prepared based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources

List of apostles, bishops and patriarchs of Antioch with years of reign: Contents 1 Early period 2 From 331 to 358 Arian archbishops ... Wikipedia

The list includes Orthodox ("Greek") bishops and patriarchs of Alexandria (see Patriarch of Alexandria, List of Coptic Patriarchs). Years of reign are given in brackets. Contents 1 Bishops of Alexandria (42,325) ... Wikipedia

Main article: Patriarch of the city of Jerusalem and all Palestine Contents 1 Jewish bishops of Jerusalem 2 Bishops of Aelia Capitolina ... Wikipedia

List of popes buried in St. Peter's Basilica. Marble slab at the entrance to the sacristy in St. Peter's Basilica ... Wikipedia

List of popes buried in St. Peter's Basilica. Marble slab at the entrance to the sacristy in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican List of popes, divided by period, with annotations and indication of periods of reign. Note: Only in 384... ... Wikipedia

Bishops of Jerusalem No. Name. years 1 Apostle James, brother of the Lord until 62 2 Simeon, son of Cleopas 106 107 3 Just 111 ??? 4 Zacchaeus??? ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Intercession Cathedral (meanings). This term has other meanings, see St. Basil's Church. Orthodox Cathedral Cathedral of the Intercession Holy Mother of God, which is on the Moat (Temple of Basil... ... Wikipedia

Wikipedia has articles about other people named Joachim. Joachim III Ἰωακεὶμ Γ΄ Μεγαλοπρεπής Patriarch Joachim III ... Wikipedia

Fourth Council of Constantinople Date 879 880 Orthodoxy is recognized Previous Council Second Council of Nicaea Next Council Fifth Council of Constantinople Convened by Basil I Presided over Number of those gathered 383 bishops... ... Wikipedia