.png "English"){kind=small}
DR. LEWIS J. PATSAVOS, ''The Role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Granting Autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine: A Canonical Perspective'', in The
Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ukraine Autocephaly, Evagelos Sotiropoulos,
Editor, May 2019, ORDER OF SAINT ANDREW THE APOSTLE, ARCHONS OF THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE, pp. 66-72.
It is said that privilege/prerogative brings with it responsibility and that the recipient thereof is doubly responsible to speak the truth in love. It is in this spirit, therefore, that the present response is given to the question regarding the granting of autocephaly (self government) to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine (OCU) by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the person of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Much has been said and written about this granting of autocephaly from a political, theological, historical, and geopolitical dimension. What follows is the canonical perspective of this issue, which is also the origin and basis of the claim of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to intervene in instances such as this. History affirms that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has a particular responsibility to strengthen the unity of the local Orthodox Churches and to coordinate their common witness. At the same time, it has a specific responsibility to care for the faithful in lands beyond the established borders of the other Autocephalous Churches. This is a ministry of service to the entire Church which the Ecumenical Patriarchate undertakes in accordance with the canons, often under difficult circumstances.
Regrettably, statements and claims related to the recent granting of autocephaly to the OCU, widely distributed, have been made which are contested. In fact, they misinterpret the canonical prerogatives and distort historical facts related to the distinctive ministry of the Ecumenical Throne. Worse still, they have done little to advance the cause of Orthodox unity and the witness of the Church today.
Principles of Ecclesiastical Organization
The Church, chiefly through the Ecumenical Councils, has established significant principles of ecclesiastical organization. These principles are expressed in the canons of Ecumenical and Local Councils and in subsequent historical practices, which have been sanctioned by the Church. These principles support the proclamation of the Gospel and strengthen the good order of the Church. The Ecumenical Patriarch has been accorded specific prerogatives of witness and service from the time of the fourth century. This was a period when the Church was able explicitly to provide for canonical structures following the period of great persecution of the first three centuries. These prerogatives form the basis for his ministry to the entire Orthodox Church and distinguish the responsibilities of the Ecumenical Patriarch from other bishops. They clearly accord to him a primacy (first ranking status) among the bishops of the Church. This primacy of service brings with it significant authority and responsibilities. There are those who challenge the leadership and responsibilities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. They challenge the interpretation of one of the most important canons establishing this leadership, canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon (451), and related canons and practices. In order to appreciate properly the significance of this canon, it must be interpreted in the light of other canons and practices of the Church at that time. It is far from being irrelevant as some claim. Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (381) acknowledged that the Bishop of Constantinople enjoys “prerogatives of honor” ( presveia times ). By recognizing that the Bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) ranked after the Bishop of Old Rome, a parallel between the primatial (first ranking) positions of these two bishops was affirmed. At the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, the privileges of the Bishop of Constantinople received further elaboration especially in canons 9 and 17. These canons stated that disputes in local churches could be appealed to Constantinople. Canon 28 of Chalcedon continued to draw a parallel between Old Rome and New Rome and reaffirmed the decision of 381. Canon 28 of Chalcedon stated that the Bishop of Constantinople had “equal prerogatives” (isa presveia) to those of Old Rome. Over two hundred years later, the distinctive position of Constantinople was also reaffirmed by canon 36 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council
“in Trullo” (692).
Furthermore, canon 28 of Chalcedon explicitly granted to the Bishop of Constantinople the pastoral care for those territories beyond the geographical boundaries of the other local (autocephalous) Churches. Their bishops are not permitted to minister beyond these limits. The Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381) in canon 2 clearly states: “Bishops should not invade churches beyond their boundaries for the purpose of governing them…” This principle is also reflected in canons 6 and 7 of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (325) and in Apostolic Canons 14 and 34, also dating from the fourth century. The Church invested only the Bishop of Constantinople with the responsibility to organize ecclesial life in the places not under the care of other local (autocephalous) Churches. This is reflected, for example, in the missions to the Goths and Scythians in the fifth century. The pastoral and missionary activities inaugurated by St. John Chrysostom while Patriarch of Constantinople is especially instructive in this regard. One must also take note of the missionary activity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Central and Eastern Europe from the ninth century under Patriarch Photios and later on through the sixteenth centuries. In these cases, it acted to spread the Gospel in territories beyond the boundaries of other local Churches. This is when Christianity, due to the missionary efforts of the Church of Constantinople, was first brought to the Kyiv an Rus’ (forerunners of the modern people of Russia and Ukraine) circa 988. The Ecumenical Patriarchate granted autocephalous status to the Church of Russia in 1591, which was reaffirmed by a synod in 1593. In the Tomes (official church documents) recognizing this status, the jurisdiction of the Church of Russia was clearly defined. This practice was followed in the Tomes of Autocephaly for all subsequent Autocephalous Churches which were granted their status by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and confirmed by the assent of the other Autocephalous Churches. History bears this out, as attested to by innumerable examples of initiative undertaken by the Ecumenical Throne to exercise leadership for those local Churches prevented by circumstances from doing so. In this capacity, at various times in history, it has elected patriarchs for other Sees when asked, acted as arbitrator in disputes between Sister Churches, deposed controversial patriarchs and metropolitans beyond its territory, and served on many occasions up to the present as mediator in resolving issues of pan-Orthodox concern. In our own day, initiatives of the Ecumenical Throne, with the collaboration of other Autocephalous Churches, have led to significant accomplishments in the life of the Orthodox Church. Among them are the revitalization of the Church of Albania (1992); arbitration in disputed patriarchal elections in the Churches of Bulgaria (1998) and Jerusalem (2005); and facilitating the orderly succession of the Archbishop of Cyprus (2006), to name just these few. Especially important for the well-being of world Orthodoxy has been the role of the Ecumenical Throne in convening since 1961 the series of pan-Orthodox conferences and other gatherings in preparation for the Holy and Great Council which took place in Crete in 2016. Although all the Autocephalous Churches participated in the preparatory meetings leading up to the Council, four of them unfortunately chose not to take part in it. Besides challenging the role of the Ecumenical Throne to initiate the process leading to pan-Orthodox unity, some also contest the conviction that this and similar privileges are timeless. They thereby render the context for resolving, as in the past, contemporary issues such as the apparent impasse of pan-Orthodox unity meaningless. What is needed in this debate is a reminder of the wise words of Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis of blessed memory (in his classic study, The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, Thessaloniki 1976, 236): “The Patriarch of Constantinople rejects any plenitudo potestatis ecclesiae(“claim of universal authority”) and holds his supreme ecclesiastical power not as episcopus ecclesiae universalis(“Bishop of the Universal Church”), but as Ecumenical Patriarch, the senior and most important bishop in the East. He does not wield unrestricted administrative power. He is not an infallible judge of matters of faith. Always the presupposition of his power is that in using it he will hold to two principles: conciliarity (adherence to the authority of councils) and collegiality (collaborative role with fellow bishops) in the responsibilities of the Church and non-intervention in the internal affairs of the other churches...”
With these observations in mind, the following must be noted with regard to the distinctive primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Firstly, all of the Autocephalous Churches recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as the ‘first bishop’ of the Church. He has specific responsibilities for coordinating a common witness among the Autocephalous Churches. As such, he exercises this ministry first of all in relationship with the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Patriarch is the president of this Synod. He does not act over or above the other bishops. According to the Orthodox perspective, primacy involves conciliarity. He always acts together with the other bishops of the Patriarchal Synod. Likewise, in his relationship with other Orthodox primates, he is honored as the protos , the first Bishop of the Church. This position gives him the special responsibility for identifying issues requiring the attention of the entire Church and for convening appropriate meetings to address these issues. When the Orthodox primates meet in a Synaxis (assembly of bishops), the Ecumenical Patriarch is the presiding bishop of that meeting.
Conclusions
It is the firm conviction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that it possesses distinctive prerogatives to serve the unity and witness of the entire Orthodox Church in accordance with the canons and
praxis of the Church. Since the fourth century, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has acted in accordance with the canons to maintain
and strengthen the “unity of spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4.3)
among the Autocephalous Churches. Directly related to the situation at hand are the canons mentioned in this brief overview. Although they deal with specific situations of their time, they nevertheless safeguard principles which constitute the basis of permanent aspects of our canonical tradition. Canon 28 of Chalcedon confirms what in practice was already in progress at that time– a primacy of honor among equals for the Bishop of Constantinople, expressed in a way which reflected this reality. One might also consider canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325) or 39 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” (692) among others. In the first instance, an established order of church government is confirmed; in the second, an adjustment of church order is made to accommodate a special need. In both instances, principles are provided which reveal the manner in which the Church expresses herself in different situations. They are principles which are central to the way in which the Orthodox Church governs herself and are timeless in their application. It is praiseworthy that much is made of Orthodox unity and the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in achieving it. This is good and hopeful, in view of the fact that it keeps alive and at the forefront of our concerns the quest for this noble goal. At the same time, however, it raises, once more, the issue about the way in which this unity should be achieved. At the center of this discussion is our Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the understanding of its role in initiating the process of the goal towards unity. Would that all, both clergy and laity of all the Autocephalous Churches, might fervently pray for unity at this time of crisis and commit to words and deeds of healing and reconciliation so that our good and loving God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, be honored and glorified now and forever.
*See Lewis J. Patsavos,Regrettably, statements and claims related to the recent granting of autocephaly to the OCU, widely distributed, have been made which are contested. In fact, they misinterpret the canonical prerogatives and distort historical facts related to the distinctive ministry of the Ecumenical Throne. Worse still, they have done little to advance the cause of Orthodox unity and the witness of the Church today.
Principles of Ecclesiastical Organization
The Church, chiefly through the Ecumenical Councils, has established significant principles of ecclesiastical organization. These principles are expressed in the canons of Ecumenical and Local Councils and in subsequent historical practices, which have been sanctioned by the Church. These principles support the proclamation of the Gospel and strengthen the good order of the Church. The Ecumenical Patriarch has been accorded specific prerogatives of witness and service from the time of the fourth century. This was a period when the Church was able explicitly to provide for canonical structures following the period of great persecution of the first three centuries. These prerogatives form the basis for his ministry to the entire Orthodox Church and distinguish the responsibilities of the Ecumenical Patriarch from other bishops. They clearly accord to him a primacy (first ranking status) among the bishops of the Church. This primacy of service brings with it significant authority and responsibilities. There are those who challenge the leadership and responsibilities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. They challenge the interpretation of one of the most important canons establishing this leadership, canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon (451), and related canons and practices. In order to appreciate properly the significance of this canon, it must be interpreted in the light of other canons and practices of the Church at that time. It is far from being irrelevant as some claim. Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (381) acknowledged that the Bishop of Constantinople enjoys “prerogatives of honor” ( presveia times ). By recognizing that the Bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) ranked after the Bishop of Old Rome, a parallel between the primatial (first ranking) positions of these two bishops was affirmed. At the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, the privileges of the Bishop of Constantinople received further elaboration especially in canons 9 and 17. These canons stated that disputes in local churches could be appealed to Constantinople. Canon 28 of Chalcedon continued to draw a parallel between Old Rome and New Rome and reaffirmed the decision of 381. Canon 28 of Chalcedon stated that the Bishop of Constantinople had “equal prerogatives” (isa presveia) to those of Old Rome. Over two hundred years later, the distinctive position of Constantinople was also reaffirmed by canon 36 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council
“in Trullo” (692).
Furthermore, canon 28 of Chalcedon explicitly granted to the Bishop of Constantinople the pastoral care for those territories beyond the geographical boundaries of the other local (autocephalous) Churches. Their bishops are not permitted to minister beyond these limits. The Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381) in canon 2 clearly states: “Bishops should not invade churches beyond their boundaries for the purpose of governing them…” This principle is also reflected in canons 6 and 7 of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (325) and in Apostolic Canons 14 and 34, also dating from the fourth century. The Church invested only the Bishop of Constantinople with the responsibility to organize ecclesial life in the places not under the care of other local (autocephalous) Churches. This is reflected, for example, in the missions to the Goths and Scythians in the fifth century. The pastoral and missionary activities inaugurated by St. John Chrysostom while Patriarch of Constantinople is especially instructive in this regard. One must also take note of the missionary activity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Central and Eastern Europe from the ninth century under Patriarch Photios and later on through the sixteenth centuries. In these cases, it acted to spread the Gospel in territories beyond the boundaries of other local Churches. This is when Christianity, due to the missionary efforts of the Church of Constantinople, was first brought to the Kyiv an Rus’ (forerunners of the modern people of Russia and Ukraine) circa 988. The Ecumenical Patriarchate granted autocephalous status to the Church of Russia in 1591, which was reaffirmed by a synod in 1593. In the Tomes (official church documents) recognizing this status, the jurisdiction of the Church of Russia was clearly defined. This practice was followed in the Tomes of Autocephaly for all subsequent Autocephalous Churches which were granted their status by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and confirmed by the assent of the other Autocephalous Churches. History bears this out, as attested to by innumerable examples of initiative undertaken by the Ecumenical Throne to exercise leadership for those local Churches prevented by circumstances from doing so. In this capacity, at various times in history, it has elected patriarchs for other Sees when asked, acted as arbitrator in disputes between Sister Churches, deposed controversial patriarchs and metropolitans beyond its territory, and served on many occasions up to the present as mediator in resolving issues of pan-Orthodox concern. In our own day, initiatives of the Ecumenical Throne, with the collaboration of other Autocephalous Churches, have led to significant accomplishments in the life of the Orthodox Church. Among them are the revitalization of the Church of Albania (1992); arbitration in disputed patriarchal elections in the Churches of Bulgaria (1998) and Jerusalem (2005); and facilitating the orderly succession of the Archbishop of Cyprus (2006), to name just these few. Especially important for the well-being of world Orthodoxy has been the role of the Ecumenical Throne in convening since 1961 the series of pan-Orthodox conferences and other gatherings in preparation for the Holy and Great Council which took place in Crete in 2016. Although all the Autocephalous Churches participated in the preparatory meetings leading up to the Council, four of them unfortunately chose not to take part in it. Besides challenging the role of the Ecumenical Throne to initiate the process leading to pan-Orthodox unity, some also contest the conviction that this and similar privileges are timeless. They thereby render the context for resolving, as in the past, contemporary issues such as the apparent impasse of pan-Orthodox unity meaningless. What is needed in this debate is a reminder of the wise words of Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis of blessed memory (in his classic study, The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, Thessaloniki 1976, 236): “The Patriarch of Constantinople rejects any plenitudo potestatis ecclesiae(“claim of universal authority”) and holds his supreme ecclesiastical power not as episcopus ecclesiae universalis(“Bishop of the Universal Church”), but as Ecumenical Patriarch, the senior and most important bishop in the East. He does not wield unrestricted administrative power. He is not an infallible judge of matters of faith. Always the presupposition of his power is that in using it he will hold to two principles: conciliarity (adherence to the authority of councils) and collegiality (collaborative role with fellow bishops) in the responsibilities of the Church and non-intervention in the internal affairs of the other churches...”
With these observations in mind, the following must be noted with regard to the distinctive primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Firstly, all of the Autocephalous Churches recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as the ‘first bishop’ of the Church. He has specific responsibilities for coordinating a common witness among the Autocephalous Churches. As such, he exercises this ministry first of all in relationship with the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Patriarch is the president of this Synod. He does not act over or above the other bishops. According to the Orthodox perspective, primacy involves conciliarity. He always acts together with the other bishops of the Patriarchal Synod. Likewise, in his relationship with other Orthodox primates, he is honored as the protos , the first Bishop of the Church. This position gives him the special responsibility for identifying issues requiring the attention of the entire Church and for convening appropriate meetings to address these issues. When the Orthodox primates meet in a Synaxis (assembly of bishops), the Ecumenical Patriarch is the presiding bishop of that meeting.
Conclusions
It is the firm conviction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that it possesses distinctive prerogatives to serve the unity and witness of the entire Orthodox Church in accordance with the canons and
praxis of the Church. Since the fourth century, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has acted in accordance with the canons to maintain
and strengthen the “unity of spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4.3)
among the Autocephalous Churches. Directly related to the situation at hand are the canons mentioned in this brief overview. Although they deal with specific situations of their time, they nevertheless safeguard principles which constitute the basis of permanent aspects of our canonical tradition. Canon 28 of Chalcedon confirms what in practice was already in progress at that time– a primacy of honor among equals for the Bishop of Constantinople, expressed in a way which reflected this reality. One might also consider canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325) or 39 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” (692) among others. In the first instance, an established order of church government is confirmed; in the second, an adjustment of church order is made to accommodate a special need. In both instances, principles are provided which reveal the manner in which the Church expresses herself in different situations. They are principles which are central to the way in which the Orthodox Church governs herself and are timeless in their application. It is praiseworthy that much is made of Orthodox unity and the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in achieving it. This is good and hopeful, in view of the fact that it keeps alive and at the forefront of our concerns the quest for this noble goal. At the same time, however, it raises, once more, the issue about the way in which this unity should be achieved. At the center of this discussion is our Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the understanding of its role in initiating the process of the goal towards unity. Would that all, both clergy and laity of all the Autocephalous Churches, might fervently pray for unity at this time of crisis and commit to words and deeds of healing and reconciliation so that our good and loving God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, be honored and glorified now and forever.
Primacy and Conciliarity: Studies in the Primacy of the See of Constantinople and the Synodical Structure of the Orthodox Church,
Brookline, 1995
