.png "English"){kind=small}
The Exclusive Privilege of the Ecumenical Throne to Adjudicate Various Disputes beyond the Limits of Its Jurisdiction
By: Bishop Kyrillos of Abydos
The Ekklitos (appeal) to the First-Throne Church of Constantinople concerns the privilege of the Throne of Constantinople to engage in, to judge, and to resolve various disputes and issues when they arise beyond the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. This privilege is founded in the Holy Canons and also in our two-thousand year canonical tradition which unquestionably asserts and authentically interprets the letter and the spirit of the Holy Canons. Furthermore, it is attested to by the documents of civil law and well-known interpreters and commentators of the Holy Canons. However, all these are demonstrated unquestionably and over time by canonical praxis, such as is revealed in the sources. The timeless testimony of canonical praxis renders the privilege of hearing appeals undeniable.
It is known that in canons 6 and 7 of the 1st Ecumenical Council (1), out of all the ecclesiastical thrones, the council set apart the thrones of Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, and Jerusalem and gave them seniority, recognizing their spiritual brilliancy and considering them to be authentic bearers of the ecclesiastical tradition. The same took place for the Throne of Constantinople in the following 2nd Ecumenical Council (2) with canon 3. This seniority was not simply a rendering of honor, but it was connected to an exercise of power – jurisdiction in specific geographical areas which were determined with precision during the 4th Ecumenical Council. The 4th Ecumenical Council, however, did something else of great importance: It granted to the Throne of Constantinople the same seniority (3) with that of the Throne of Rome. The Throne of Rome excelled the other thrones because, at the basis of canons 3, 4, and 5 of the Council in Sardica (4), it had the right to accept appeals for differences which arose out its own geographical jurisdiction. With canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council, the Throne of Constantinople obviously acquired a similar privilege. However, this particular privilege was clearly given to the throne of Constantinople by canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon (5). The flexible practice of appeal whether to Rome or to Constantinople was in force until the 9th century, more specifically, until the Synod of 879/880 under Photios (6) with whom the Throne of Rome was only responsible for the cases that arose in the West, while the Throne of Constantinople was responsible for the arising differences in the East.
While Zonaras (7) speaking concerning seniority makes mention of the “privileges or the exemption”, Balsamon (8), interpreting canon 5 of Sardica, stresses that the right of receiving an appeal was not held solely by Rome, but also Constantinople. Aristenos (9) makes mention of one exclusive privilege of Constantinople which is not given to none of the other Patriarchs, to rectify situations – arising differences in the other Patriarchates. Zonaras (10), in his commentary on canon 17 of the Council of Chalcedon, indicates that a Metropolitan of another jurisdiction could not be subjected against his will to the judicial jurisdiction of Constantinople. This self-evidently certainly means that he could be subjected to the judgement of Constantinople, if he desires it. This demonstrates the canonical practice.
Other than the documents of the Byzantine chronologists, it is worth mentioning also the following documents:
The Epanagoge of Law (11) (9th century) expressly recognized the right of the Throne of Constantinople to accept appeals.
Matthew Blastares (12) does the same (14th century) in his significant work “Σύνταγμα κατά Στοιχεῖον”.
The Synodical Letter (13) of the Patriarchs of the East of the year 1848. The Patriarchs of the East not only established the privilege of accepting appeals as a fact, since Constantinople was the seat of an empire, but also to its Synod “Seniority”, in other words, recognizing its seniority.
Beyond the above abbreviated record of the privilege of the Throne of Constantinople to hear appeals from important documents and commentators of the Canons, the timeless canonical practice bears witness to and reaffirms irrefutably the same even as a customary practice before Chalcedon (451).
Illustrative Examples:
In 394, the deposition of the bishop of Bostron, Bagadios, who was subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, was adjudicated in Constantinople with the presence also of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem (14).
Proclos of Constantinople (434-446) adjudicates the election of Alexander, bishop of Antarados, to be canonical (15). The case had been brought forward to Constantinople from the same Alexander.
The Nomocanons of Photios (9th century) recognizes Constantinople as the head of all the Churches of the East (16).
Patriarch Lukas Chrysoverges (1157-1170) nullified the deposition of the bishop of Amathous who fled to Constantinople (17).
Patriarch Kallistos I of Constantinople (1355) indicates to the Archbishop of Tirnovo the right of Constantinople to adjudicate questions of the other Patriarchates (18).
Patriarch Kallistos (1356) does the same in his letter to the Patriarch of Antioch invoking the Holy Canons (19).
Patriarch Neilos (1382) in his letter (20) to the Archbishop of Thessaloniki, canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon are mentioned.
At the Synod of 1663 under Patriarch Dionysios III, the Patrairchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem acknowledge together the right of Constantinople to accept appeals (21).
Patriarch Dionysios of Constantinople (1672) deposes the Patriarch of Antioch, Kyrillos, after a request by the Metropolitans of the Patriarchate of Antioch (22).
The same Patriarch acquits the defendant, Archbishop Nikeforos of Cyprus, after his apology in front of the “Ecumenical Criterion”, in other words, the Throne of Constantinople (23).
Patriarch Paisios II confirms the deposition (24) of Metropolitan Gerasimos of Chalepion following the request and with the presence of the Patriarch of Antioch, Sylvester (1746).
A series of Patriarchs of Constantinople of the 18th century condemn, after an appeal by Patriarchs of Jerusalem, the effort of the Archbishops of the Holy Monastery of Sinai to be released from the canonical and spiritual supervision of the Throne of Jerusalem (25).
Patriarch Anthimos of Constantinople (1872) following a request from the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher, confirms the deposition (26) of Patriarch Kyrillos of Jerusalem from the throne.
When the Patriarchate of Moscow gave autocephaly to the Church of Poland in 1949, while the Patriarchate of Constantinople had already given them autocephaly in 1924, Patriarch Athenagoras indicated with his letter (27) to the Patriarch of Moscow that it is the exclusive privilege of the Throne of Constantinople to deal with matters outside its own jurisdiction. An expression of this privilege is the reception of autocephaly in the Church of Poland (and later, in 1990, the Church of Georgia).
Patriarch Maximos of Bulgaria was directed (28) to Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople due to a schism that had been created then in Bulgaria. A “Meizon Synod” (Major Synod) was called under the presidency of Patriarch Bartholomew in Sofia for the handling of the problem.
When the Synod of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem declared Patriarch Irenaios deposed (2005), the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher asked Constantinople for the confirmation of this decision from the Throne of Constantinople. He called together a Synod of the heads of the Churches which confirmed the decision (29).
All of the above undoubtedly demonstrate that the Throne of Constantinople constitutes, as its place among the Orthodox Churches, the apex, the “Ecumenical Criterion”, for the resolution of differences which occasionally exacerbate and distort the local Orthodox Churches. The Throne of Constantinople never perceived its privilege to accept appeals as an opportunity for absolute Primacy, but rather as a dutiful meeting of severe issues with the exclusive purpose of treating injuries to the Church for the restoration of peace and for canonical order. In this sense, the appeal is nothing other than a safety mechanism devised according to Divine Providence and deposited by the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils to ensure peace and unity between the Orthodox Churches.
2 Ρ.Π. Β’, 173
3 Ρ.Π. Β’, 280-281.
4 Ρ.Π. Γ’, 233-234, 238, 239-240.
5 Ρ.Π. Β’, 237, 258-259.
6 Mansi, ACO 17A, 497.
7 Ρ.Π. B’, 173.
8 Ρ.Π. Γ’, 242.
9 Ρ.Π. B’, 240.
10 Ρ.Π. B’, 260
11 I. Zepos – P. Zepos, Jus Graecoromanum II, 242-243.
12 Ρ.Π. ΣΤ’, 429.
13 Ι. Καρμίρης, Τά Δογματικά καί Συμβολικά Μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, Β’, Ἀθῆναι 1953, 916.
14 V. Grumel, Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarchat de Constantinople, Vol. I, Fasc. I. Paris 1972, N. 10.
15 V. Grumel, Les Regestes, N. 88.
16 Ρ.Π. A’, 42.
17 V. Grumel, Les Regestes, N. 1097.
18 F. Miklosich – I. Müller, Acta et diplomata Graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, Tom. I, Vienne 1860, 438.
19 F. Miklosich – I. Müller, Acta, I, 380.
20 F. Miklosich – I. Müller, Acta, I, vol. 2, 40.
21 Κ. Δελικάνης, Πατριαρχικά Ἔγγραφα, Γ’, 102-103.
22 Κ. Δελικάνης, Πατριαρχικά Ἔγγραφα, Β’, 59-164.
23 Κ. Δελικάνης, Πατριαρχικά Ἔγγραφα, Β’, 557-559.
24 Κ. Δελικάνης, Πατριαρχικά Ἔγγραφα, Β’, 190.
25 Κ. Δελικάνης, Πατριαρχικά Ἔγγραφα, Β’, 377-381,387, 410-422, 455.
26 Χρυσ. Παπαδόπουλος, Ἱστορία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων, Θεσσαλονίκη 2010, 837 ἑξ.
27 Βλ. Ὀρθοδοξία 25 (1950) 129-130.
28 Βλ. Ὀρθοδοξία 5 (1998) 620-621.
29 Βλ. Ἐκκλησία 82 (2005) 556-557.
(Translation by: Deacon Bartholomew Mercado)
