Media monitoring: Archbishop of Telmis Job (Gecha): “autocephaly is a means of ensuring the unity of both the church within the state and between local churches.” Church and political epistemology

Dialogue on the granting by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church and the appointmentAndfor this purpose, its exarchs in Ukraine, opposition to this on the part of the Moscow Patriarchate and their break in concelebration with the hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate have recently been one of the main topics that continue to be discussed in Ukrainian society and the media. There are a lot of rumors and incompetent comments being spread. To find out first-hand what is really happening, we turned to a direct participant in this process - the famous Orthodox theologian and hierarch of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Archbishop Job (Gech) of Telmis (Geneva, Switzerland). He was born in 1974 in Montreal (Canada) into a Ukrainian emigrant family. Doctor of Theology, Professor at the Institute of Higher Studies in Orthodox Theology at the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambesy (Switzerland) and the Catholic University of Paris (France), permanent representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at the World Council of Churches in Geneva, co-chairman of the Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. With the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, he was one of the main speakers of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church in Crete on June 19 - 26, 2016. He speaks six languages: English, French, Greek, Ukrainian, Russian and Italian. He has a deep understanding of Ukrainian church history. He defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic “The liturgical reform of Metropolitan Cyprian of Kyiv (1330 - 1406).”

- Vladyka Job, as you know, the Ecumenical Patriarchate decided to send its representatives (exarchs) to Ukraine to negotiate with representatives of different parts of the Ukrainian Churches on the possible granting of autocephaly. However, the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate took this step extremely critically, declaring that this was an “illegal invasion of the canonical territory” of Moscow and even announced the termination of concelebration with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Please comment on how fair Moscow's statements are? Was the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate really illegal and non-canonical?

Archbishop Job: I would like to immediately reassure everyone that there was and is no talk of any “invasion into someone else’s canonical territory.” Moreover, it is not about creating a split or legitimizing it. On the contrary, as Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has repeatedly stated, the Church of Constantinople, as the Mother Church, strives to find optimal canonical ways to heal and overcome the existing church schism in Ukraine. It is for this purpose that representatives (exarchs) of the Ecumenical Throne were appointed to begin dialogue and search for such possible paths. For the state of division that has existed in the Ukrainian Church for almost 30 years is not natural. Thousands of Orthodox parishes and millions of Orthodox believers in Ukraine, through this schism, have all this time been outside unity with the Ecumenical Orthodox Church, deprived not only of Eucharistic unity with their Orthodox brothers in faith, but also deprived of the main thing - salvation in the bosom of the canonical Church. This, of course, cannot but cause pain and anxiety for the Mother Church.

All these years, the Church of Constantinople watched with pain as its daughter, the Ukrainian Church, suffered from internal division. The Ecumenical Patriarchate hoped that this problem would be cured by internal means and forces, constantly praying for this and never prayerfully forgetting about the long-suffering Ukrainian Orthodox people. But the events of the last 30 years, especially after 2014, clearly demonstrate that the Orthodox Church in Ukraine cannot independently cope with the problem of schism and unite with internal forces alone, since external political factors and influences stand in the way of this, in particular from the neighboring Russian states. And for the latter, apparently, the most important thing is not to promote the unification of the Ukrainian Church, but to maintain its political influence in Ukraine through the Church. Here we see other goals, the achievement of which requires the use of other means. This is probably why the Orthodox Church in Russia, under the influence of some political factors, does not have the opportunity to ensure the unity of the Orthodox believers of Ukraine, does not seek to conduct a dialogue with those who for some reason find themselves outside the canonical church fence, and therefore does not seek to find the optimal means of canonical oikonomia for the return of these faithful to the fold of the Universal Church. The latest statements of the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate only confirm this once again. For for the sake of their own political ambitions, they decided not only to break with part of the Orthodox flock in Ukraine, but also to break with Ecumenical Orthodoxy. This is very dangerous, sad and painful. After all, this is a non-canonical path that does not serve to heal the schism, but, on the contrary, contributes to the development of schism and schism.

We hope that this hasty and uncanonical decision of our Russian brothers will be canceled and dialogue will be restored, because it is impossible to cause a schism and tear apart the Body of Christ because of political ambitions. At the same time, in this situation, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the Mother Church, is all the more simply obliged to be with its Orthodox sons and daughters in Ukraine, who for almost 30 years have been constantly asking for canonical shelter and help overcome schism. This is her direct canonical responsibility as the Mother Church. It is precisely this concern for the fate and salvation of the Ukrainian Orthodox flock that prompted the latest decisions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to appoint its representatives (exarchs) in Ukraine, who on the spot could help begin an effective dialogue between various parts of the still divided Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

- Please tell me how historically and canonically justified is the decision of Constantinople to appoint its own exarchs in Ukraine? Were there already similar canonical-historical precedents? And again, isn’t this an “invasion of someone else’s canonical territory”?

Archbishop Job: Right away, in order to remove all speculation around artificial reproaches of “invasion of someone else’s canonical territory,” I note that the territory of Ukraine has never been the canonical territory of any other Local Orthodox Church, except the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Kiev Metropolis canonically and historically, from the moment of its creation from the time of the first Kyiv Christian princes Askold, Olga and Vladimir and for more than 700 years, was a metropolis within the Ecumenical Patriarchate. And even after the transfer in 1686 of part of the Kyiv See in the sub-Russian territories under the temporary guardianship (vicarateship) of the Moscow patriarchs, Ukraine always remained the canonical territory of the Church of Constantinople.

Regarding the historical precedents for the appointment of exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Ukraine, many such examples from history can be cited. In order not to go far, let us turn to the twentieth century that is closest to us. Since the lands of Galicia and Transcarpathia, even at the beginning of the twentieth century, were considered the canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, then a member of the Synod of the Russian Church, Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev (Khrapovitsky), in order to exercise guardianship over the Orthodox flock in these Ukrainian lands, wrote a request for permission and blessing to the Ecumenical Patriarchs , and even asked for this purpose to grant him the title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Galicia and Transcarpathia. And this Russian hierarch was endowed with this title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Galicia and Transcarpathia in 1910 by the charter of the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III. Later, this title of Exarch was confirmed for him by the Ecumenical Patriarch Herman V (1913 - 1918).

As we see, at the beginning of the twentieth century. The Russian Church itself asked to appoint its bishop as Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Ukrainian lands, and then she did not consider this “an invasion of someone else’s canonical territory.” Therefore, it is not clear on what basis has the Synod of the Orthodox Church in Russia now changed its position and is trying to deny the Mother Church the right to appoint exarchs to the territory that historically and canonically has always been the canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

It is worth adding here that the institution of exarchs (representatives) of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Ukraine has long had a stable tradition. When in 1596 part of the episcopate, headed by the Kyiv Metropolitan, fell into schism from the Church of Constantinople and entered into a union with Rome, two bishops remained faithful to Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Patriarchal Throne - Gideon of Lvov and Mikhail of Przemysl. Therefore, the Ecumenical Patriarch Meletius (Pigas) appointed Bishop Gideon (Balaban) of Lvov as his exarch in Ukraine and Locum Tenens of the Kyiv Metropolis. At the same time in Ukraine, Archdeacon Nicephorus (Cantacuzene) was also appointed exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, who presided over the anti-union Orthodox Council in Brest and contributed to the preservation of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. For this, he was accused by the union bishops and Polish authorities of spying for Turkey, which is why he was arrested and imprisoned in Malborg Castle, where he died in 1599. In 2001, the Synod of the UOC (MP) glorified this Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch as one of the holy martyrs. Therefore, we have not only historical precedents for the appointment of the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch to Ukraine, but also revered saints among them.

Another famous exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Ukraine was the successor of Gideon (Balaban) at the Lviv See - Bishop Jeremiah (Tisarovsky, +1641). Along with the title of Bishop of Lvov, Jeremiah inherited from Gideon the title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the position of locum tenens of the Kyiv Metropolitan See. From 1610, he remained the only Orthodox bishop in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for 10 years, until 1620, when Patriarch Theophan III of Jerusalem, with the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch, restored the Orthodox hierarchy in Ukraine and ordained the new Metropolitan of Kyiv Job (Boretsky). Since then, the Kyiv Orthodox metropolitans began to invariably bear the canonical title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, which they were obliged to bear even after the temporary transfer of the Kyiv see in 1686 under the temporary guardianship (vicerarism) of the Moscow patriarchs.

By the way, in addition to the rights of the exarch, the Ecumenical Patriarchs also granted at that time a number of Ukrainian monasteries and brotherhoods the status of stauropegia, that is, they transferred them to direct subordination to the Ecumenical Throne. In particular, stauropegies from the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine were used by the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra (from 1589), the Lviv Assumption Brotherhood (from 1589), the Kiev Epiphany Brotherhood (from 1620), the Manyavsky monastery (from 1620), the Lutsk Cross-Exaltation Brotherhood (from 1623 ). These acts of the Mother Church on patriarchal stauropegia in Ukraine were not repealed.

- Thank you, now it is clear that the appointment of exarchs in Ukraine is the canonical-historical prerogative of the Patriarch of Constantinople. But what did it all look like after 1686? Is it true that even after this date the territory of Ukraine was not “the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate”?

Archbishop Job: Exactly. Ukraine was and remained, even after 1686, the canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate alone. After joining in the middle of the 17th century. On the left bank of Ukraine, as part of the Moscow state, the Kiev Church found itself divided into parts between various warring countries (Russia, Poland and Turkey), which is why in Kyiv for a long time they could not choose a single metropolitan. In this difficult situation, the Ecumenical Patriarch, in order not to completely leave the Ukrainian flock without archpastoral care, part of the Kyiv Church in the territories subject to Russia in 1686 transferred under temporary guardianship (vicarship) to the Patriarch of Moscow, so that he could help establish in Kyiv and other dioceses of Left Bank Ukraine ( Hetmanate) metropolitan and bishops. At the same time, an important condition remained the requirement that the Kyiv metropolitans continue to remain autonomous from Moscow as exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarch and must remember his name at all services. That is, this was in no way a transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchs. Since such a transfer would be anti-canonical, since in the charter establishing the Moscow Patriarchate the limits of the canonical possessions of the Moscow Patriarchs were recognized within the boundaries of the Moscow State of 1589. And these borders did not in any way include the Kiev Metropolis, which included Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Poland under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

That is, it was similar to how 66 years earlier, in 1620, with the blessing of Patriarch Timothy II of Constantinople, Patriarch Theophan III of Jerusalem ordained an Orthodox metropolitan and bishops in Kyiv, that is, he restored the Orthodox hierarchy in Ukraine. But at the same time, we are not saying that since then the Kiev Metropolis has become dependent on the Jerusalem Patriarchate. The same thing happened in 1686. After all, in Constantinople they could not even think that the Moscow Church-daughters would violate the agreements and try to forcefully abolish the canonical jurisdiction of the Mother Church of Constantinople in Ukraine. Therefore, later, after the collapse of the Russian Empire, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in a separate tomos of November 13, 1924, in order to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Poland, was forced to declare the act of 1686 non-canonical and invalid.

- Was it easy to subordinate part of the Kyiv See to the Russian Church?

Archbishop Job: These actions constantly stumbled over the resistance of the Ukrainian Orthodox clergy. It is enough to recall such outstanding Ukrainian saints as Sylvester Kosov, Joseph Nelyubovich-Tukalsky, Varlaam Yasinsky, Joasaph Krokovsky, Varlaam Vonatovich, Theophylact Lopatinsky, Arseniy Matsievich, Varlaam Shishatsky and many others who suffered a lot from the uncanonical actions of the Russian government and the leadership of the Russian Church.

By the way, within the Left Bank part of Ukraine (Hetmanate), it was after the events of 1686 that such an intra-church movement as “wandering” or “wild priests” gained new strength. Its essence was that Ukrainian Orthodox parishes on the Left Bank, not wanting to recognize the power of the Moscow Patriarchate, invited priests ordained in the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the Right Bank of Ukraine or in Moldo-Wallachia to serve. Throughout the entire 18th century. Russian secular and ecclesiastical administrations brutally persecuted this movement and its representatives, catching and imprisoning such “non-canonical” priests. But despite this, until the very end of the 18th century. Believers from Left Bank Ukraine risked their lives to go to Moldo-Wallachia to receive priestly ordination from the bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, bypassing the Russian synodal administration. And the hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate have never actually refused such requests from Orthodox believers from Left Bank Ukraine.

A little-known fact - in 1724, Metropolitan George of Iasi, together with other Moldavian bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, without the consent of the Russian Synod, ordained Archimandrite Epifaniy, assistant and head of the office of Kyiv Archbishop Varlaam (Vonatovich), as Bishop of Chigirinsky. The letter presented by Epiphanius, written on behalf of Archbishop Varlaam to the Moldovan Metropolitan of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, indicated the dissatisfaction of Ukrainians with the withdrawal of the Kyiv Metropolis from the jurisdiction of Constantinople, the introduction of the “Spiritual Regulations” and synodal administration, as well as the reduction of the Kyiv metropolitans to the rank of archbishops.

Having received the ordination as Bishop of Chigirinsky from the hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Epiphanius returned to Ukraine, where he began active work and ordained 14 priests and deacons. He was arrested by Russian authorities several times, but each time he managed to escape from prison. It is known that he served within the Liberties of the Zaporozhian Army. During his next exile to Siberia in 1733, Bishop Epiphany, shackled in the forest, was repulsed from the guards by Russian Cossacks-Old Believers and hidden in the Gomel region, in Vetka. However, in February 1735, Russian troops, on the orders of Empress Anna Ioannovna, surrounded Vetka, and Bishop Epiphanius was again arrested. He died in the prison of the Kyiv fortress on April 1 of the same year, and was buried near the Church of St. Feodosia in the Kiev-Pechersk fortress.

Another interesting fact is that during 1759, in the Zaporozhye Sich, Bishop Anatoly (Meles) of Meletin, appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarch Kirill V, acted as an independent bishop, who, with the support of the Zaporozhye Cossacks and without the permission of the Russian Synod, led the Zaporozhye churches for a whole year and commemorated the Ecumenical Patriarchs. For this he was arrested by the Russian authorities and exiled to Siberia, where he served his sentence for about 9 years. According to many researchers, Bishop. Anatoly (Meles) tried to create a separate autonomous Cossack diocese in Zaporozhye under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

- It is very interesting. You also said that in 1686, only part of the Kyiv Church in the territories subject to Russia was transferred to the tutelage (vicerarism) of the Moscow patriarchs. But what was the situation in other Ukrainian lands that were not part of the Russian state?

Archbishop Job: Exactly. And this is a very important point, which for some reason everyone forgets when they talk about the act of 1686. Indeed, after the transfer of part of the Kyiv See in the sub-Russian territories under the temporary guardianship (administration) of the Moscow Patriarchs, in other territories of Ukraine that were not part of the Moscow state, Orthodox parishes and monasteries continued to remain under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. That is, the act of 1686 concerned the Ukrainian territories of the Hetmanate, which were temporarily part of the Russian state, and did not have a canonical influence on other Ukrainian territories, in particular Transcarpathia, Bukovina, Podolia, Galicia, Volyn, “Khan’s Ukraine” in the south and Crimea . All these territories continued to remain under the canonical omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

- Can you tell me more about this? Because this fact is almost never written about...

Archbishop Job: Yes. In fact, after 1686, significantly more Ukrainian lands remained under the direct jurisdiction of Constantinople. Thus, in particular, the Lvov diocese did not recognize the transfer to the temporary guardianship of the Moscow patriarchs. Since 1675, the Lviv Orthodox Archbishop was vested with the powers of administrator of the Kyiv Metropolis and the Kiev-Pechersk Archimandry under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. After 1686, the Lviv diocese remained under the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This status remained even after 1700, when Lviv Archbishop Joseph Shumlyansky, under pressure from the Polish authorities, transferred to the union, and the Lviv Orthodox diocese found itself in a widowed position. By 1708, the Lvov stauropegic brotherhood also maintained direct subordination to Constantinople until it was forced to accept the union. However, even after this, Orthodox parishes and monasteries in Galicia remained under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchs, entrusting temporary guardianship over them to the Bukovinian metropolitans, who were also part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The most famous monastic monastery and center of Orthodoxy in Galicia and the Carpathian region at that time was the Great Manyava Skete, whose brethren, until their violent liquidation in 1785 (that is, another 100 years after the events of 1686), remained faithful to the Ecumenical Patriarchal Throne.

There is one more important fact worth mentioning. On June 15, 1791, in Pinsk, on the territory of the Epiphany Monastery, a Local Council of the Orthodox clergy and believers of Western Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Poland was held, which went down in history as the “Pinsk Congregation”. 103 delegates from the Orthodox clergy, monasticism and laity took part in the work of the Pinsk Council. It was decided to restore autonomy under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Abbot Belsky Savva (Palmovsky) was elected temporary head of the Pinsk congregation. It was planned to convene a Synod, which would consist of one archbishop with the powers of a metropolitan and three bishops. Also, “permanent and basic norms and rules of organization” of the Orthodox Church of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were developed as an autonomous ecclesiastical jurisdiction, independent of the Russian Synod and recognizing the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch over itself. At a meeting on May 21, 1792, by a majority vote (123 votes in favor and 13 against), the Polish Sejm approved as a constitution the draft of a new organization of the Orthodox Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, proposed by the Pinsk Congregation, under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which was endowed with greater rights and freedoms. However, two new sections of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the liquidation of the Polish state led to the fact that the decision of the Pinsk Local Council and the Act of May 21, 1792 were practically never implemented in practice.

It is important to note that Orthodox Ukrainians in Bukovina, Transcarpathia and Galicia remained under the canonical tutelage of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for a long time. These lands became part of the Moscow Patriarchate only in the middle of the twentieth century during the years of the Soviet occupation of Western Ukraine, and their forced subordination to Moscow was never recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchal Throne.

- And you also talked about the jurisdiction of Constantinople within the framework of “Khan’s Ukraine” and Crimea. Can you tell us a little more about this?

Archbishop Job: Yes. The ancient Gothic and Kafa metropolis existed in Crimea until the end of the 18th century. remaining part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It consisted of Orthodox Greeks, Bulgarians, Ukrainians and other nationalities of the Crimea and the Black Sea region. It was liquidated by the Russian government in 1788 after the annexation of the Crimean Khanate. However, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has never recognized the legality of subordination to the Russian Synod and the liquidation of these historical metropolises in Crimea.

In addition, the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate invariably extended to Ukrainian Bukovina and the southern (so-called “Khan’s”) part of Ukraine, which was then officially under the protectorate of the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman Empire. Hetman Petro Doroshenko also tried to create a Ukrainian state under the protectorate of the Ottoman sultans, similar to how it was in Moldo-Wallachia. His like-minded person was the Kiev Metropolitan Joseph (Nelyubovich-Tukalsky), who advocated the preservation of the Kyiv Metropolis under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As a result of those attempts by Hetman Doroshenko, according to the Buchach Treaty of 1672, the entire territory of eastern and western Podolia (from Buchach to Bratslav) was ceded from Poland under the Sultan's protectorate. On the territory of Ukrainian Podolia from 1672 to 1699. As part of the Ottoman Empire, there was a Podolsk or Kamenets eyalet (Ottoman - “edge”) with an administrative center in the city of Kamenets (nene Kamenets-Podolsky). After the death of Metropolitan Joseph (Nelyubovich-Tukalsky), the Ecumenical Patriarch Jacob in August 1681 nominated Metropolitan Pankratius for the city of Kamenets, thus establishing the Kamenets Metropolis as part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (in fact, it existed until 1699).

Later, the borders of “Khan’s Ukraine” included Ukrainian lands between the Dnieper and Dniester, which were covered by the protectorate of the Crimean khans and Ottoman sultans. These lands were only nominally part of the Ottoman Empire; there were even no Ottoman settlements here, except for some cities in the south. After the defeat of Ivan Mazepa in the struggle for the independence of Ukraine and the destruction of the Zaporozhye Sich by Peter I, in the period 1711-1734, within the framework of “Khan’s Ukraine”, under the patronage of the Crimean Khan, in the Aleshki tract, opposite the modern city of Kherson, a new Zaporozhye Sich (the so-called Aleshkovskaya Sich), the clergy of which were also subordinate to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Since 1712, the Cossack possessions of the Aleshkovskaya Sich spread north to the left tributaries of the Dnieper - the Orel and Samara rivers. That is, all these territories of the modern south of Ukraine not only were not part of the Russian Empire, but also remained under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Therefore, the effect of the act of 1686 did not apply to them in any way.

The lands of "Khan's Ukraine" and Orthodox parishes and monasteries within its borders were part of the Braila Metropolis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Its center was first the city of Braila on the left bank of the Danube. In 1751-1789. The residence of Metropolitan Brail became the city of Izmail (now Odessa region, Ukraine). This metropolitanate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate belonged to the lands of Dobrudzha, Budzhaka, Bender, and after the signing of the Buchatsky Peace Treaty of 1672 - the Khotyn bishopric and all Orthodox territories and parishes of Right-Bank and Left-Bank Ukraine, which were under the protectorate of the Ottoman Empire, in particular, “Khan’s Ukraine”, Aleshkovskaya Sich and Orthodox communities located on the mainland territory of the Crimean Khanate.

From 1751 to 1773 In Izmail, the Brail Metropolitan Daniel had a see, who in church documents signed himself “Daniel, by the grace of God, Metropolitan of Proivlavia, Tomarovsky, Khotyn, of the entire coast of the Danube, Dnieper and Dniester, and of all Ukraine Khan.” Daniel's successors, Metropolitans Joachim (1773-1780) and Kirill (1780-1792), also signed this title. That is, this is already 100 years after the act of 1686.

After the second forced liquidation of the Zaporozhye Sich by Catherine II in 1775, many Cossacks moved to territories controlled by the Ottoman Empire, where they founded a new Transdanubian Sich on the banks of the Danube. It existed until the middle of the 19th century, and in ecclesiastical terms it recognized the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over itself.

As we can see, all these facts indicate that the act of 1686 concerned only the Left Bank part of Ukraine, which was then under the rule of Moscow and practically did not affect other Ukrainian territories.

- You said that after the first destruction of the Zaporozhye Sich by Russian troops in 1709, the Ukrainian Cossacks, which came under the protectorate of the Crimean Khan, returned to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. And how did the Ukrainian hetmans Ivan Mazepa and Philip Orlyk, who led this first Ukrainian emigration, feel about this?

Archbishop Job: They were among the first to return under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and with them the Cossacks. Despite the imposition of a non-canonical anathema by the Russian Church on Hetman Mazepa, representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not recognize it, because it was imposed for political reasons, as a means of political-ideological repression and did not have any religious, theological or canonical reasons. So, while emigrating to the city of Bendery, Ivan Mazepa freely confessed to the Orthodox priests of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It was they who admonished him on his deathbed and absolved him of his sins, and then performed the funeral service. His body was laid in the Orthodox church of the town of Varnitsa, which was under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and subsequently he was reburied in the city of Galati on the Danube, where in the central cathedral of the St. George's Monastery the local metropolitan served a funeral service for the deceased hetman. This metropolitan was a hierarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. So we can say that Ivan Mazepa died as a faithful Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate!

Very interesting and valuable in this regard is the historical document known as the first Ukrainian Constitution of April 5, 1710. It was a kind of constitutional pact between Hetman Philip Orlik, newly elected after the death of Mazepa, and the entire Zaporozhye Army. So, in the first paragraph of this first Ukrainian Constitution, obligations were spelled out to restore the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the Kyiv Metropolis and the titles of the Kyiv metropolitans as Exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchs. In particular, the constitution of 1710 states the following:

“The current newly elected Hetman, when the Lord God is strong and strong in battle, will help... to liberate our Fatherland, Little Rus', from the slave yoke of Moscow, has and will have to, first of all, take care and stand strong so that there is no heterodoxy in Little Rus', our fatherland , was not introduced from anyone... so that the single Orthodox faith of the Eastern confession, under the obedience of the Holy Apostolic Throne of Constantinople, would be forever established... And for even greater weight of the original in Little Rus', the Metropolitan See of Kyiv and for convenient affairs of spiritual management, has the same Clearly Majestic Hetman, after the liberation of the Fatherland from the yoke of Moscow, to celebrate in the capital of the Apostolic Constantinople, the Exarchical initial power, so that through it the continuity and obedience of children to the aforementioned Apostolic See of Constantinople, from which the preaching of the Gospel in the holy universal faith was rewarded with being enlightened and strengthened, was renewed "

So, as we see, in the Constitution of Hetman Pylyp Orlik and the Zaporizhian Army, the first paragraph, as a testament for all subsequent Ukrainian generations, swore an obligation to return the Kyiv Metropolis to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and restore the powers of the Kyiv metropolitans as Exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchs. Therefore, it is not surprising that modern Presidents of independent Ukraine have already tried and are trying to fulfill this covenant by initiating the resumption of dialogue with the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

- And already in our time, in particular in the twentieth century, did the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople extend to any territories of Ukraine?

Yes, in particular in Transcarpathia. And this is a very important point. After all, Transcarpathia is historically and canonically until the arrival of the Soviet occupation forces in the mid-twentieth century. canonically fell within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and this region has never been the “canonical territory” of the Moscow Patriarchate.

At the very beginning of the conversation, we already said how Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), a member of the Synod of the Russian Church, in order to exercise guardianship over the Orthodox flock in these Ukrainian lands, wrote in writing with a request for permission and blessing to the Ecumenical Patriarchs, and also asked for this purpose to be given to him title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Galicia and Transcarpathia. That is, the Synodal Russian Church itself recognized these Ukrainian lands as the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and one of its leading hierarchs used the title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Galicia and Transcarpathia.

On the basis of this historical and canonical law for Orthodox dioceses in the territory of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus occupied by Poland, the Ecumenical Patriarchate on November 13, 1924 issued a Tomos granting autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Poland. This Tomos abolished the act of 1686, which transferred the Kiev See under temporary guardianship (government) to the Moscow Patriarch. The Tomos of the Ecumenical Patriarch of 1924 claims that this accession contradicted the canonical rules and the Moscow Patriarchate did not fulfill the requirements stipulated in the act of 1686, according to which the Kiev Metropolis was to retain its rights of autonomy and canonical connection with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Thus, the autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland (and, in fact, Western Ukraine and Western Belarus) was proclaimed the successor to the historical autonomous Kiev-Galician Metropolis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. By the way, this included the Holy Dormition Pochaev Lavra, whose sacred archimandrite was considered the primate of the autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland, the Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland. During the German occupation, already in 1941, from part of the Western Ukrainian dioceses of the Orthodox Church in Poland, with the blessing of its primate, Metropolitan Dionysius (Waledinsky) of Warsaw, by Decree of December 24, 1941, the “Administration of the Orthodox Church in the liberated Ukrainian lands” was formed, headed by an administrator, Metropolitan Polycarp (Sikorsky) of Lutsk, who was the canonical bishop of the autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland. This administration is very often called the “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC)”, but this is not entirely true, because it was an expansion of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland in the German-occupied Ukrainian lands, based on the fact that the Church in Poland received autocephaly based on the Kyiv Metropolis. At the same time, Metropolitan Dionysius (Valedinsky) of Warsaw was proclaimed Locum Tenens of the Kyiv Metropolitan See, as the canonical Primate of the autocephalous Orthodox Church on the territory of Poland, Ukraine and Belarus, recognized by the Ecumenical Throne and other Local Orthodox Churches.

- This applies to Ukrainian Galicia, Volyn, Podolia and other lands. But let's return to Transcarpathia...

Archbishop Job: Here the situation developed somewhat differently. After the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ukrainian Transcarpathia fell under the rule of Czechoslovakia. And Orthodox parishes here were canonically included in the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for a short time at the beginning of the twentieth century. - Serbian Patriarchate. On March 4, 1923, the Council of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, headed by Patriarch Meletios IV, installed a former graduate of the Kyiv Theological Academy, Bishop Savvatiy (Vrabets, 1880-1959) as Archbishop of Prague and decided that the Orthodox parishes of Transcarpathia were within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Since then, the canonically Ukrainian Orthodox parishes of Transcarpathia have finally been assigned to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, where they were located until the arrival of the Soviet occupation forces.

On November 9, 1939, the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Archbishop Savvaty (Vrabets), reported to Archpriest. Mikhail Popov with a letter that he intends to consecrate him as a bishop or vicar general for Transcarpathia and Hungary. On September 26, 1940, Archbishop Savvaty (Vrabets) issued a decree according to which Archpriest. M. Popov was appointed Administrator of the Orthodox Church of Transcarpathia and Hungary under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and he was also granted the rank of protopresbyter. On October 5, 1940, in a letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch Veniamin, Archbishop Savvaty (Vrabets) asked to ordain Protopres. M. Popov as bishop for the Orthodox Church of Transcarpathia and Hungary under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, on May 30, 1942, the Germans arrested Archbishop Savvaty (Vrabets), he was in the Dachau concentration camp for 3 years (1942-1945). After his release, he was not allowed by the new occupation administration (now Soviet) to carry out his duties, because he refused to break with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Until the end of his life he was subjected to persecution and pressure from the communist regime, and died on December 14, 1959.

The fate of the Administrator of the Transcarpathian Diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Protopresbyter Mikhail Popov, was even more tragic. On June 13, 1944, he was arrested by the Nazis on suspicion of baptizing Jewish children. At the end of December 1944, Father M. Popov was sent to Germany for forced labor, but during transportation he managed to escape. At the beginning of April 1947, in Budapest, Father M. Popov was arrested by the Soviet NKVD authorities. On September 9, 1947, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison on charges of “anti-Soviet activities.” He was sent to a concentration camp in Vorkuta (Komi ASSR), where he probably died as a martyr for the faith of Christ.

- So it turns out that the canonical structures of the Patriarchate of Constantinople existed in Transcarpathia right up to 1946?

Archbishop Job: Yes, exactly until 1946. And they were forcibly annexed, with the help of the punitive organs of the NKVD, to the Moscow Patriarchate, and those who refused were repressed and destroyed as martyrs for the faith of Christ. And, what is important, Constantinople never, by any act, recognized the destruction by the communist regime in Transcarpathia of the diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its annexation to another jurisdiction. This annexation was uncanonical and violent. And this was not 300 years ago, but in 1946.

A kind of echo of Transcarpathia’s stay under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the autonomous Carpatho-Ruthenian Orthodox Diocese (American Carpatho-Ruthenian Orthodox Diocese), which has survived in the USA to this day and exists as part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Its primate is now Bishop Gregory (Tatsis) of Nyssa.

By the way, it was the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Archbishop Savvaty (Vrabets), on October 19, 1940, at the Kholm Council, together with Metropolitan Dionysius (Valedinsky) of Warsaw, who ordained Fr. Hilarion (Prof. I. Ohienko) as Bishop of Kholm and Podlaski, who later, in exile, headed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada, which is now part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Another outstanding Ukrainian church figure under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was Metropolitan Bogdan of Eucarpia (Shpilka; 1892 - 1965). A theologian by training, in the 1920s he He was engaged in teaching activities in Transcarpathia and was ordained here as a priest of the Ecumenical Patriarchate by Archbishop Savvaty (Vrabets) of Prague. In 1936, he was elected bishop of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America, which was under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Subsequently he became its metropolitan, and was the author of an Orthodox catechism in Ukrainian and English and polemical brochures. The UOC of the USA, which now operates in North America under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, is the heir to both the “Administration of the Orthodox Church in the liberated Ukrainian lands” Met. Polycarp (Sikorsky), and the UOC of America, Metropolitan. Bogdana (Hairpins). Another numerous Ukrainian jurisdiction under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the already mentioned UOC in Canada.

So, as we see, the extension of the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to Ukrainian territory and the Ukrainian diaspora has direct historical and canonical continuity. Therefore, all accusations against Constantinople of “invading someone else’s canonical territory” are unfounded here, since from 860 and 988, and from 1686 to 1946, Constantinople always had its own canonical structures in various territories of modern Ukraine. Therefore, it is important to talk not only about the act of 1686, but also about later precedents for the extension of the jurisdiction of Constantinople to various territories of Ukraine.

- How can we explain that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has now begun to remember that Ukraine historically was and is its canonical territory?

Archbishop Job: This is not entirely true. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has emphasized this more than once. Another thing is that while Ukraine was not an independent state and was part of the Russian Empire or the communist USSR, then talking about it was useless. It was a different matter when Ukraine gained state independence... Although, already in the very act of 1686 on the transfer of the Kyiv see to the temporary guardianship (administration) of the Moscow patriarchs, it was noted that the Kyiv metropolitans must recognize the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch and be sure to remember his name at all services and remain Exarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. And as already mentioned, the Tomos of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of November 13, 1924 on the granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Poland canceled this act of 1686 precisely because this accession contradicted the canonical rules and the Moscow Patriarchate did not fulfill the requirements stipulated in the act of 1686.

This position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on Ukraine remains unchanged to this day. In a letter to Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow dated January 10, 1991, Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitri wrote: “The Ecumenical Patriarchate recognizes only one canonical Orthodox Church within the boundaries of Your Holy Church established by the Patriarchal and Holy Synod of 1593.”

As is known, “within the boundaries established by the Patriarchal and Holy Synod of 1593”, only the north-eastern dioceses of the Moscow Kingdom (Muscovy) were recognized in the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, while the dioceses of the Kyiv Metropolis (Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Poland) “within those established by the Patriarchal and Holy Synod Synod of 1593 Borders” were included in the rights of expanded autonomy within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. That is, in fact, in the letter of the Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrius it was said that the borders of 1593 left the Kyiv Metropolis within the canonical boundaries of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The same position was presented by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at the recent Synaxis (Council of Bishops) in Constantinople on September 1-3, 2018. That is, nothing new is said here. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has stood in principle on the position that Ukraine has historically and canonically been and is its canonical territory, and continues to consistently stand on this. Therefore, the indignation of representatives of the daughter Russian Church regarding the position of the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, on this matter is unfounded. And we hope that after a deeper study of this issue, such unfair indignation will pass.

- Vladyka, with your help we have made a useful excursion into our forgotten historical past. But in conclusion, how, under the current circumstances, can the Ecumenical Patriarchate solve such a complex and confusing Ukrainian church problem?

Archbishop Job: Only through prayer, dialogue of love, observance of canons and restoration of historical justice. It is necessary to explore and rethink the past, get rid of artificial myths and distortions of history, correct the mistakes of the past, violation of canons and turn to face the truth. For, as the Holy Scripture says, only “by the work of righteousness will there be peace” (Isa. 32:17).

In my personal conviction, given the current situation in Ukraine, only granting the Orthodox Church in Ukraine canonical autocephaly can help overcome the problems and schisms that exist in it, reconcile, unite and bring it out of the terrible crisis state in which it has found itself over the past 30 years. And this would be the restoration of historical justice.

There is still a lot of work ahead. We are only at the beginning of this great historical process, on the path of which there are still many obstacles. The dialogue is just beginning. Nothing is being done in a hurry here.

And here there is a great responsibility and obligation on the part of the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Let me emphasize once again that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is obliged to take all possible measures in accordance with its canonical prerogatives in order to ensure church unity and prevent the continued presence of millions of Orthodox Ukrainian people outside the canonical Church. The role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is to serve the unity of the entire Orthodox Church, and not just some of its parts. And since the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is now divided into several parts, it is the duty of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the Mother Church, to find, by starting a dialogue, the optimal means of canonical oikonomia to restore unity.

It is for this purpose that the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate sent its envoys (exarchs) to Ukraine so that in a frank dialogue with all parties to the conflict they would help them find a common language and come to an agreement. After all, the Body of Christ cannot be divided. It belongs to Christ, and not to Moscow, Kyiv or anyone else. There cannot be a Church of the “Russian world” or any other. All who sincerely strive to be with Christ have the right to belong to the Universal Church as the mystical Body of Christ, regardless of national or political convictions and preferences. It's time to stop all those imperial political speculations and ambitions. The reality is that there are millions of Orthodox believers in Ukraine who will never go to Moscow again. This is clear to everyone. And not to let them through this to Christ, to excommunicate them and deprive them of salvation, is not Christian, non-canonical. We must look for other acceptable ways to solve this problem, using church canons, economy and love.

It is very unfortunate that representatives of the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate are so far refusing to dialogue with representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and other parts of the Ukrainian Churches. Statements about the refusal of such fraternal meetings and dialogue, blackmail with Eucharistic unity and a ban on concelebrating with the hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate only drive them into a dead end and further worsen their canonical position.

I hope that this is only temporary and that our brothers from the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate will understand the error of this path and open their hearts to dialogue and fraternal unity in Christ. So are representatives of other parts of the Ukrainian Churches, which for various reasons are not yet in unity with Ecumenical Orthodoxy. After all, unity in Christ should be our main goal. Christ Himself bequeathed this: “That they all may be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us” (John 17:21). And “therefore everyone will know that you are Mine.” disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

As His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew said on this occasion: “The Ecumenical Patriarchate is obliged to remind everyone of the conciliarity and universal character of the Church, proclaiming the spirit of reconciliation, which overcomes conflicts and serves the unity of Orthodoxy.” I believe that dialogue is the only right way. After all, as the holy Apostle Paul bequeathed: “There must also be differences of opinion among you, so that those who are most skillful may be revealed among you” (1 Cor. 11:19). And as St. Augustine wrote: “In the main thing there is unity, in the secondary thing there is freedom, in everything there is love.”

The interview was recorded by Igor Mirevsky,

Cerkvarium: Vladyka, the Moscow Patriarchate insists that only the canonical part of a Church can ask for autocephaly, and everything else is “legalization of schism.” But all the newest autocephalies arose as a result of separation exclusively from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and this was very difficult and painful. Are there any generally accepted rules regarding how, who and when can ask for autocephaly? After all, Constantinople has the most experience in this matter.

Archbishop Job: If you study the history of the Orthodox Church from texts and documents, and not from created myths and false historiography, it is clear that absolutely all modern autocephalies were proclaimed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Even if we take the history of the Orthodox Church in Russia, we see that its autocephaly was self-proclaimed in 1448, when Metropolitan Jonah was elected in Moscow independently, without the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It is interesting to emphasize that The Tomos of autocephaly was never given to the Orthodox Church in Russia! In 1589-1590, Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II simply normalized the situation, raising this see to patriarchal dignity, despite the fact that the Moscow bishop was allowed to “be called” a patriarch, provided that he must remember the Ecumenical Patriarch and consider him “as his head and first ", as stated in the charter.

The later autocephalies, which were proclaimed in the 19th and 20th centuries, were all proclaimed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Greece (1850), in Serbia (1879 and raised to the patriarchate in 1922), in Romania (1885 and raised to the patriarchate in 1925), in Poland (1924) , in Albania (1937) in Bulgaria (1945 and raised to the patriarchate in 1961), in Georgia (1990), and in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (1998). Each of these proclamations was associated with a political factor, and autocephaly was proclaimed as a way to ensure the unity of the Church both within each of these countries and the unity between the Local Churches.

Apart from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in the history of the Orthodox Church no other Local Church has proclaimed autocephaly. True, the Orthodox Church in Russia can claim that it proclaimed the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Georgia (1943), in Czechoslovakia (1951), and in America (1970), but these autocephalies were not recognized by the fullness of the Orthodox Church, because the Orthodox The Church in Russia does not have such a prerogative to grant autocephaly. Therefore, these three Churches themselves turned to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the provision of a Tomos of autocephaly. Over time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate normalized the situation by proclaiming the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Georgia (1990) and in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (1998).

Archbishop Job: In my opinion, yes! If autocephaly had been proclaimed in Ukraine immediately after the declaration of its independence in 1991, 30 years of painful and harmful schism that began in 1989 could have been prevented. And this was the position of the entire episcopate of the UOC-MP, which decided immediately after the declaration of independence of Ukraine at its council in November 1991: “the council believes that the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will help strengthen the unity of Orthodoxy in Ukraine and eliminate the autocephalous schism that has arisen; to counteract Uniate and Catholic expansion, will serve to reconcile and establish harmony between currently warring faiths, to unite all nationalities living in Ukraine, and thereby contribute to strengthening the unity of the entire Ukrainian people.” This resolution is signed everyone without exception the then bishops of the UOC-MP, including Bishop of Chernivtsi and Bukovina Onufry - the current Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine. By the way, they often forget (or deliberately hide) that the so-called “Kharkov Cathedral”, who elected Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) of blessed memory to the Kyiv Metropolitan See in place of Philaret (Denisenko), repeated this position, addressing Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow in 1992 with the following words: “We are confident that the vital question of gifting The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of canonical autocephaly, with the help of God and the efforts of the new Primate, will successfully advance in the unity of the entire Ukrainian flock with new energy, with new strength in the bright hope that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will receive the desired canonical autocephaly in the near future.”

Cerkvarium: The Russian Orthodox Church constantly accuses Constantinople of the “heresy of papism.” But within the Moscow Patriarchate itself, the doctrine of the “Third Rome” is very popular, according to which the Russian Orthodox Church itself should take first place in the Diptych. What can Constantinople do with these imperial ambitions of the Russian Church?

Archbishop Job: The theory of Moscow as the “third Rome” is neither an ecclesiological doctrine nor a prerogative of canonical (church) law. This myth was invented by the Pskov elder Philotheus at the beginning of the 16th century. But the Orthodox Church does not live by myths. The history of the Orthodox Church does not know the “first” and “second” Rome, but only the “old” (Rome) and the “new” (Constantinople). There is no third place here. The Orthodox Church lives, in addition to the Holy Scriptures, on the basis of the doctrine and canons of the Ecumenical Councils. It clearly and clearly states that only these two historical departments received special rights and prerogatives during the time of the Ecumenical Councils. Which Orthodox Christian today can claim to have supreme power over the Ecumenical Councils in order to change their decisions? In fact, every Orthodox bishop, during the confession of faith before his episcopal consecration, promises to always observe not only the doctrine but also the church rules of the Ecumenical and local councils that oblige him.

Cerkvarium: Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) of Volokolamsk said in one of his interviews: “Unlike the Roman Church, in the Orthodox Church there has always been another system of local Orthodox churches, each of which is independent and no one is subordinate to each other.” And at the same time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is placed on the same level as others. How correct is this understanding of the system of local churches? What are the limits of interference by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the affairs (problems) of other local churches?

Archbishop Job: Regarding the accusation by some people of Constantinople of the “heresy of papism,” it must be recalled that in the Holy Scriptures, the Apostle Paul compares the Church of Christ to a body, of which Christ is the president, and of which we are members (see Eph. 5:23, 30; Col. 1:18). But for us, Orthodox, the Church is not something abstract, like Protestants, but something very concrete - a divine-human organism consisting of specific people. Therefore, according to Orthodox church law, the head of the local Church is a specific person - a bishop. And according to the 34th Apostolic Canon, the bishops of the regional Church must recognize whoever is first among them, and recognize him as their head, and do nothing important without his knowledge. This rule has always been applied to the Universal Church, because our Orthodox Church is unique, it is the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,” and not some kind of confederation of separate independent churches, as we see in Protestantism. Because the Church one, one body - the body of Christ - then in Her there is one head. The Church is not a multi-headed monster! Therefore, in the charter by which the Moscow see was raised to the level of patriarchs in 1590, it is said that the Moscow bishop must recognize the Apostolic See of Constantinople as “its head and first,” as other Orthodox patriarchs do. To renounce this means not only to lose these privileges that were given to the Moscow See by the patriarchal acts of Constantinople, but also to depart from the Orthodox teaching about the Church in accordance with the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Scriptures.

Cerkvarium: What special privileges or functions does the Ecumenical Patriarch have within the framework of coordination?

Archbishop Job: The Ecumenical Patriarch is not just one of the patriarchs in the Orthodox Church. He is not only “first among equals.” By the way, the Latin formula “primus inter pares” is not found anywhere in Orthodox church law, where, on the contrary, it speaks of “seniority of honor” (prezvia timis), which indicates hierarchy or at least order. Having this “seniority of honor” according to the sacred canons, the Ecumenical Patriarch, as the “head” and “first” in the Orthodox Church, must ensure the unity of the Local Churches and coordinate them. This was visible in the twentieth century in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church and in the coordination of Local Churches in inter-Christian dialogue at the world level. Based on its role - to ensure the unity of the Local Churches and coordinate them, the Ecumenical Patriarchate proclaims the autocephaly of the new local Churches, as has already been said. In addition, according to the 9th and 17th canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Ecumenical Patriarch has the right to accept appeals (ekkliton) from clergy and bishops (including other Local Churches). He also has the right to establish stauropegias (including on the territory of other Local Churches).

Cerkvarium: To what extent can we trust the speakers of the Russian Orthodox Church that they have mass support for their position on Ukraine among the primates and episcopates of other Local Churches? How can one interpret the statements of the heads of other Greek churches regarding the fact that Ukraine is the exclusively canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church? Is there a pan-Orthodox consensus on this matter?

Archbishop Job: In your question, the main thing is to distinguish between two things: firstly, the recognition of the UOC-MP, headed by Metropolitan Onufry of Kyiv and All Ukraine, and secondly, the issue of jurisdiction over Ukraine. Regarding the first point, it is clear that among the three Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine at the moment (UOC-MP, UOC-KP and UAOC), only the UOC-MP is recognized by the Church as universal Orthodoxy, since it is part of the Moscow Patriarchate, which received its canonical status from the Ecumenical Throne and being in unity with all local Orthodox Churches. The other two groups, starting in 1989, broke away from the Moscow Patriarchate, and are therefore considered a schism (schism) and are not recognized by any local Orthodox Church.

Regarding the second point, it must be emphasized that church jurisdiction over Ukraine belongs exclusively to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. When the Orthodox Church in Russia received the status of a patriarchate in 1589-1590, the Metropolis of Kiev (in the Polish-Lithuanian state, with a see in Kyiv) remained under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. After the left-bank Ukraine was annexed to the Muscovite state after the Pereyaslav Rada (1654), at a time when there were constant wars between Turkey and the Muscovite state (since 1676), and after the Kiev See, which remained vacant for a long time (since 1681), the Patriarch of Moscow illegally installed Gideon Svyatopolk-Chetvertinsky at the request of Hetman Ivan Samoilovich (in 1685), then finally, in 1686, the Patriarch of Moscow received from the Ecumenical Patriarch Dionysius IV only permission to consecrate the Metropolitan of Kyiv, who had to continue to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch and remain his exarch. It turns out that due to political circumstances, the Kiev Metropolis fell only into the administration of the Orthodox Church in Russia, but there was not a single transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to Moscow in 1686, as, by the way, the Tomos on the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Poland (1924) emphasizes. It says that this autocephaly is granted “listening to the loud voice of the canonical duty that is imposed on our Holy Ecumenical Throne by caring for the Holy Orthodox Churches, which are in a difficult situation; seeing that history also testifies in favor of this (after all, it is written that the alienation from our Throne of the Metropolis of Kiev and the Orthodox Churches of Lithuania and Poland dependent on it, as well as their integration into the Holy Church of Moscow, from the very beginning were not carried out at all in accordance with the legal canonical prescriptions; also, what was jointly declared regarding the complete ecclesiastical self-sufficiency of the Kyiv Metropolitan, who bore the title of Exarch of the Ecumenical Throne, was not observed."

Based on this, since Ukraine is no longer today part of the Russian Empire (and the Soviet Union), and since it has been undergoing a church schism for almost 30 years, due to which millions of people are outside the canonical Church, and with which the Orthodox Church is still in Russia (i.e. the Moscow Patriarchate) is unable to cope, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is obliged to take appropriate measures in accordance with its prerogatives in order to ensure church unity. At the same time, it should be emphasized that he does not interfere in the affairs of someone else’s local Church, but acts on his canonical territory - on the territory of the Kyiv Metropolis.

Cerkvarium: Concerning the constant threats of disruption of Eucharistic communion. Let’s imagine that Ukraine receives autocephaly, and the Russian Orthodox Church does not recognize it. What's next? As Callistus (Ware) said, one cannot “abuse the Eucharist,” that is, blackmail with the cessation of Eucharistic communion. How can a break in Eucharistic communion affect the ecclesiastical identity of the Russian Church?

Archbishop Job: I agree with Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia regarding the “abuse of the Eucharist.” It is necessary to stop Eucharistic communion for important, dogmatic reasons, and not because of whims. We often hear threats from representatives of the Orthodox Church in Russia that a schism will come worse than in 1054. Anyone who knows church history well knows that the so-called great schism of 1054 is also a big myth. The anathematization of each other by Rome and Constantinople was the result of the unsuccessful decision to end the Eucharistic communion between the two Churches at the beginning of the 11th century due to the addition of the “filioque” in the Creed. Because of this addition, Constantinople suspected that Rome had changed its faith. The question was dogmatic. Therefore, by the way, today the dialogue that is being conducted between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church is a dialogue of a theological nature. Now, regarding the issue of schism and autocephaly in Ukraine: everyone knows that this problem is not a theological issue, and there is no need to accuse anyone of heresy. Therefore, threats to break Eucharistic communion if Ukraine receives autocephaly are most likely an abuse of the Eucharist.

Cerkvarium: Moscow also threatens that if Ukraine is granted autocephaly, there will be almost a bloodbath here. Does Constantinople have a plan on how to build an autocephalous Ukrainian Church peacefully and without war? How to prevent the narrowing of religious rights and freedoms of those who want to remain subordinate to Moscow, and how to prevent a total redistribution of church property?

Archbishop Job: As Metropolitan Emmanuel of Gallia recently emphasized in an interview, “The Ecumenical Patriarchate does not threaten and is not under threat. Mother Church has shown that she cares about reconciling disputes and overcoming schisms and in no case wants new ones to appear.” Autocephaly of Ukraine is proposed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate not as a weapon for war, but as a medicine to cure the church schism that has been going on for almost 30 years. As we mentioned, this medicine was offered to the Moscow Patriarch by the entire episcopate of the UOC-MP back in 1991 and 1992. As we have shown, during the twentieth century, the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the basis of his prerogatives, always ensured the unity of the local Orthodox Churches, and therefore proclaimed a series of new autocephalies as a way to ensure the unity of the Church both within each new local Church, and the unity between all Local Churches. The role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is to serve the unity of the Orthodox Church.

Cerkvarium: The Russian Orthodox Church insists that granting autocephaly to Ukraine is an undermining of pan-Orthodox unity. Isn’t refusal to take part in the Pan-Orthodox Council an undermining of such unity?

Archbishop Job: Today, in the Orthodox Church, they very often talk about conciliarity, forgetting that there is no conciliarity without primacy. Unfortunately, many Orthodox Christians, in the fight against papism, borrowed Protestant arguments and completely abandoned primacy. But the sacred church canons clearly state that there can be neither a Synod (or Council) without the first, nor a first without the Synod (Council). This is very well formulated in the 34th Apostolic Canon, which says that bishops must recognize the one who is first (protos) among them and consider him the head (mullet) and not do anything important without his consent, but the first cannot do anything do without everyone's consent. “For in this way there will be unanimity (homonia), and God the Lord will be glorified by the Holy Spirit.” But within the framework of conciliarity, church canons emphasize that the first (protos) has the responsibility to convene a Synod (or Council), while the others have the obligation to take part in it. For example, the 19th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council emphasizes that bishops who ignore the convening of the Synod without reason must be corrected. Today, the refusal in the Orthodox Church to recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as the “first” and as the “head”, and to assert that the Orthodox Church is not the only Church, but rather some kind of confederation of independent local (or even national) Churches, contradicts precisely the spirit of Orthodox ecclesiology and conciliarity, and therefore they do not help in any way to come to unanimity, to resolve conflicts and to heal schisms, but on the contrary, it contributes to the fragmentation of Orthodoxy and the worsening of conflicts and schisms.

Cerkvarium: Thank you, Master!

Archbishop Job (Gechya), in which he raised the issue of the schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy and the prospects for overcoming it. As we wrote earlier, all hopes of the Kyiv Patriarchate for recognition by the Patriarchate of Constantinople have been completely dispelled.

Interview or sticky web?

The interview was composed quite slyly. Instead of questions, Tatyana Derkach expressed some kind of subjective thesis, presented in the form of a fact, which clung to some question that played the role of a “locomotive”. Thus, the answer should seem to confirm the entire thesis. Something like this: aliens are negatively affecting the Earth’s climate, we all know about it, but what do you think about today’s bad weather? Answer: yes, the weather is disgusting. The reader gets the impression that along with the confirmation of bad weather, the presence of a negative influence of aliens on the Earth's climate is also confirmed.

The interview turned out to be quite strange, since Bishop Job’s answers sometimes did not coincide with the direction of the statement, veiled as a question. In other words, Derkach spoke about one thing, and Gecha began to answer about something else, which in no way confirms that he agreed with Derkach’s theses.

For example, Derkach claims that the UOC considers dialogue with the UOC-KP to be fundamentally impossible (which is a lie), and asks his guest how justified this is from a Christian point of view. Naturally, the bishop replies that dialogue is always justified. However, this answer does not mean that he also believes that the UOC refuses dialogue with the Kyiv Patriarchate. The scope of his answer is limited to indicating the possibility of dialogue.

Derkach’s dirty manipulations make a disgusting impression. Reading her questions, you feel like you are getting dirty in a sticky substance or like a cobweb is sticking to your head, which you want to quickly brush away. A gullible reader may not notice the logical gaps in Derkach’s questions and may not immediately understand what’s going on.

In addition, Derkach made mistakes regarding the use of religious concepts. The word “eschatological” (which the journalist used in relation to critics of the Cretan Council) does not carry a negative connotation in theology. She probably confused it with the term "apocalyptic." Well, this only indicates the low level of religious literacy of the interviewer.

What, in essence, did Archbishop Job (Gecha) say?

Firstly, the Kyiv Patriarchate should not expect separate recognition, since the Patriarchate of Constantinople can only recognize the united Orthodox Church in Ukraine. The same applies to the UAOC. Phanar has stated this several times, and Gecha only confirmed what was said earlier:

“It is important to emphasize, and this is a canonical principle, that in one territory there can be only one Church. Of course, two autocephalous churches cannot be on the same territory at the same time. And for the voice of autocephaly, the unity of the Church is required. That’s why we need to work on this whole thing.”

“As we talk about Ukrainian food, we talk about the Church globally. It’s not just one part or the other, but the nutrition is seen as a whole.”

Secondly, the representative of Patriarch Bartholomew lifted the curtain on the discussion about the mechanism for granting autocephaly. The trends in this discussion confirm the need for the consent of all Local Orthodox Churches to grant autocephaly, as well as the fundamental consent of the Mother Church. Considering that the Kiev Patriarchate has managed to create a negative history of relations with many Local Churches, it is unlikely that they will sympathize and make any concessions. The most acceptable scenario for the completeness of Orthodoxy in relation to the UOC-KP is “Bulgarian”. That is, first of all, the repentance of the schismatics, and only after that consideration of the remaining nuances.

Conclusion: recognition of the Kyiv Patriarchate will not happen on its own! Not in the fall, not next year, never!

Elephant in a china shop

Another thesis of the Phanar representative was the assertion that the Church of Constantinople is the Mother Church for Ukrainian Orthodoxy, and Ukraine is the “canonical territory” of Constantinople. Allegedly, it was on this basis that autocephaly was granted to the Polish Church (which originates from the Kyiv Metropolis).

A violent reaction to these words of Job (Gech) is inappropriate, since he did not say anything new. Constantinople has spoken in this vein before, however, this is the subjective opinion of the Phanar itself, and many Local Churches and church hierarchs do not agree with this.

There are significant objections to this interpretation of the canons. Firstly, within what boundaries does Gecha mention Ukraine? When the Kiev Metropolis was transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate, the Ukrainian territories did not include a significant part of modern Ukraine. Many dioceses were already created within the Russian Orthodox Church. That is, the Russian Orthodox Church is really the Mother Church, at least for these dioceses. On what basis does Constantinople claim something it never created? This is the purest example of proselytism and building on “someone else’s foundation.”

Secondly, does the UOC recognize the Church of the former Constantinople as its Mother Church? No one can dictate who she recognizes as her “mother.”

Let us repeat, for almost 400 years the Phanar had no real influence on Ukrainian Orthodoxy. I wonder how many centuries must have passed to understand the absurdity of claims to “motherhood”? According to the logic of the representative of Turkish Orthodoxy, it does not matter how much time has passed. This indicates an exclusively legal understanding of “motherhood,” but not an ontological, that is, real one. In our opinion, such scholasticism is unacceptable in Orthodoxy, since it contradicts the living church spirit and reality.

Unfortunately, the actions of Constantinople are like the actions of a bull in a china shop. His interference in the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church always ended tragically. Bishop Job mentioned the granting of autocephaly to the Polish Church in 1924, but kept silent about the historical background of this event.

Why didn’t Job (Gecha) tell how the Bolsheviks used the Patriarch of Constantinople? Why didn’t he say that he supported the Russian schismatic renovationists? Didn’t he tell you how Constantinople participated in discrediting the canonical Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Tikhon? Why did he remain silent about these shameful pages in the history of “New Rome”?

In this context, mentioning the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople Meletios (Metaxakis) and his successor Gregory VII in a positive way is simply impossible. These hierarchs were “renovationists” and actively worked for the split and destruction of Orthodoxy. One can recall the attempt to convene the Renovationist Pan-Orthodox Council in 1923 and 1925. Fortunately, the efforts of Constantinople failed, but they brought significant discord into the life of Orthodoxy. Isn't it very similar to the modern situation?

Taking advantage of the fact that Patriarch Tikhon was under arrest, Gregory VII “granted” a tomos of autocephaly to the Polish Church, whose primate was Metropolitan Dionysius (Valedinsky). Subsequently, Metropolitan Dionysius actually collaborated with the Germans, who first arrested him, but then released him. In 1948, he repented and accepted legal autocephaly from the hands of the Russian Orthodox Church. Therefore, the assertion that it was Constantinople that granted autocephaly to the POC is quite dubious.

Now try to evaluate the actions of Metropolitan Dionysius in relation to Ukrainian Orthodoxy: during the period of Nazi occupation, he attempted to create an autocephalous Ukrainian church in the “liberated territories” (this is the wording he used), probably considering Hitler a “liberator”, or acting at the behest of the Germans .

The leader of the schism was Polycarp Sikorsky. In 1944, all the Polikarpovites, including Petlyura’s nephew Mstislav Skripnik, fled abroad (Skripnik first to Berlin), mainly to the USA and Canada. There they formed a number of non-canonical parishes. In the early 90s, “Polikarpovets” Mstislav Skrypnyk will take part in a new split in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Other representatives of the former self-saintly and Polycarpian parishes in the USA and Canada will also support and fuel the schism.

This is the echo of the rude actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople several decades later. In some respects, Phanar is also to blame for the split in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Therefore, Constantinople’s attempts to “help” the Ukrainian Church again cause concern: all its “good” intentions subsequently “cough up blood.” All flirtations with schismatics inspire them to violence against the UOC. Archbishop Job (Geche) should have understood this.

However, what can you expect from a man who failed as archbishop of the Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe. On November 28, 2015, at a meeting of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, a decision was made to remove Archbishop Job (Gechi) from the administration of the Archdiocese of Orthodox Russian Churches in Western Europe. Gecha's two years at the head of the Archdiocese were accompanied by constantly emerging crisis situations. Therefore, one can only consider Vladyka Job as a “crisis manager” for Ukrainian Orthodoxy with a good imagination.

Church and political epistemology

Archbishop Job mentioned the problem of awareness of church and political events in Ukraine. In this regard, I recall the pressure on the UOC regarding the interpretation of political processes in Ukraine. For some reason, Ukrainian officials believe that the Church, whose separation from the state is enshrined in law, should express some political theses and confirm political assessments of what is happening.

Fine. Let's say. Why then not ask the same Job (Gece) a question about how Patriarch Bartholomew evaluates the attempted coup in Turkey, in his home country. Why has he still not condemned the alleged author of the rebellion, Gülen, and why has he not supported the legally elected government? Or, conversely, why didn’t you condemn Erdogan’s “gangster” regime and the repression of thousands of fellow citizens? Intuition suggests that Bartholomew will not even say “know comments” to such a question, but will simply turn around and leave.

Or let's ask Serbian Patriarch Irinej a question, how does he assess the events of the 90s in Yugoslavia? Was it genocide of Croats, Bosnians and Albanians by the Serbs? Or, conversely, was it a fight against separatists who wanted to destroy the country? Is Kosovo Serbia for Patriarch Irenaeus, or is it no longer?

It is quite obvious that no sane hierarch will give a sharp and unambiguous political assessment of such events, but will speak out in the spirit: “We are against violence, we are for peace and reconciliation between peoples or members of society.” And it is right! In the Serbian Church, for example, one of the hierarchs (Bishop Artemij) was excommunicated from the Church for his nationalist pro-Serbian position on Kosovo!

Because in the modern world, even political experts find it difficult to understand the essence of social processes, let alone an ordinary person or a representative of the Church. What should the Church rely on in its assessments of events in the country? To the statements of politicians? To messages from TSN or other media? Or maybe refer to a post by some blogger on the Internet? Nowadays, it is very difficult to separate fact from interpretation. And the Church must in this case resort to more general statements so as not to make a mistake. After all, the cost of a mistake can be very high.

We think that any believer who lives an intense spiritual life will understand what we are talking about. The Church is not of this world. Her existence is eschatological, rooted in eternity. Therefore, the Church cannot throw itself headlong into the pool of political passions, but must always remain aloof and observe sobriety and caution. Time passes, political and historical assessments change, but the Church must be above this process. And this is precisely what should be the criterion of trust in the Church.

She can only speak out regarding the general moral component of social processes, but not play the role of a political expert. Moreover, the Church should not give Manichaean assessments, where reality is divided into black and white, into Isengard and Mordor, into people and barbarians. In reality there is no absolute good and absolute evil. These are metaphysical categories. The whole world lies in evil, and there is not a single person who has not sinned. There is not a single country in the world that has not made political mistakes.

Church hierarchs should not be involved in dirty political games. The Church influences politics in only one way - by repeating God’s Commandments: “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not steal,” “thou shalt not bear false witness,” etc. And how to apply these commandments in a specific situation should be prompted by the conscience of every believer. Even if the Church uses some expressions that can be understood as political statements, this does not mean that these expressions are identical to concepts from the political science dictionary. For example, we can talk about a civil war purely after the fact - given that citizens of the same country are fighting for both sides. One can, of course, find fault with the legal or political science aspects of such an assessment, but the Church does not approve either legal or political science assessments, only general semantic and universal human ones.

P.S

The interview with Job (Gechya) demonstrated a certain degree of Phanar’s readiness to influence the situation in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. However, this influence will not be in the format in which the schismatics and the Ukrainian authorities wanted to see it. It is also time for the Kyiv Patriarchate to understand that it is necessary to stop the hysteria around the UOC and establish a normal and constructive dialogue. Any attempts to put pressure on the UOC are futile. On the side of the UOC are the majority of Local Orthodox Churches. And Patriarch Bartholomew alone will not be able to solve the problem.

On November 1, 2013, the General Assembly of the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe of the Ecumenical Patriarchate elected Archimandrite Job (Gecha) as the new Archbishop of Eucarpia. He was elected in the first round and received 109 out of 191 present. 40 delegates cast a blank or invalid ballot. Other candidates were Archimandrite Vissarion (Komzias) (33 votes) and Hieromonk Mikhail (Anishchenko) (9 votes).

Archimandrite Job, in the world Igor Vladimirovich Gecha, was born on January 31, 1974 in Montreal (Quebec, Canada). Graduated from the Institute of St. Andrew in Winnipeg and the University of Prov. Manitoba (Canada) (1996). Ryasophorus (09/28/1996). Hierodeacon (09/29/1996). Moved to France. He became a monk at the monastery of St. Anthony the Great in France (Metochion of the Athos Simon-Peter Monastery) (05/27/1998). Archdeacon (1999). In 2003, he transferred from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada under the omophorion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the Exarchate-Archdiocese of Orthodox parishes of the Russian tradition in Western Europe under the omophorion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Hieromonk (06/20/2003). Graduated from the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. He serves at the Sergievsky Metochion in Paris. In 2003, he defended his doctoral dissertation in theology at the Paris Catholic Institute and the St. Sergius Institute on the topic “The Liturgical Reform of Metropolitan Cyprian of Kyiv.” Teacher of church history and church charter at the St. Sergius Institute (professor since 2004). Dean of the parishes of the Archdiocese in Spain (2003-2004). Member of the editorial board of the diocesan journal "Diocesan Bulletin of the Archdiocese of Orthodox Russian Churches in Western Europe" (EVAPRTSZE) and its French-language edition "Messager diocesain: Archeveche des eglises orthodoxes russes en Europe Occidentale" (2003-2006). Hegumen (01/09/2004). Archimandrite (07/18/2004). Member of the Diocesan Council of the Archdiocese (2004-2010). Member of the commission for relations with the Moscow Patriarchate (2004). He taught liturgy at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute, at the Institute for Higher Studies of Orthodox Theology at the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambesy-Geneva (Switzerland) and at the Catholic Institute in Paris. From December 2005 to December 2007 Dean of the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. Member of the St. Irenaeus group of international dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church (2003). Member of the Committee for Dialogue of the Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic Church in France (2005). Member of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC) (2006). Member of the Kyiv Religious and Philosophical Society. Member of the Society of Oriental Liturgy.

Text 2003
http://theolcom.ru/ru/text.php?SECTION_ID=28

Hieromonk Job (Gecha)

REFLECTIONS OF A.V. KARTASHEV ON THE ROLE OF THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THEIR REFLECTION IN THE WORKS OF MODERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGIES

Ignorance or forgetting of history often leads us to repeating the mistakes of the past. The purpose of this report is to recall the positions of Professor A.V. Kartashev, set out in one, very forgotten, article about the special role of the Patriarch of Constantinople in universal Orthodoxy, and show the reflection of his theses in the works of modern Orthodox theologians. This brief reminder of history will help us, I hope, to better understand the structure of the Orthodox Church today.

Reflections by A.V. Kartashev on the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople
In an article published in 1936 in Warsaw entitled “The Practice of the Appellate Law of the Patriarchs of Constantinople”1, church historian Anton Vladimirovich Kartashev sets out his position regarding the authority and special role of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Orthodox world, based, in his opinion, on the law of appeal, which is the exclusive privilege of the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

Obviously, this privilege stems from the fact that from the time Constantine founded the new capital of the empire, the position of the Archbishop of Constantinople under the emperor made him the “ecumenical” patriarch, that is, the patriarch of the “empire,” placing him in second place in the system of the pentarchy. Very soon the Archbishop of Constantinople receives in the East the right of appeal, similar to that which the Pope had in the West. Kartashev recalls many historical facts that show that in case of disputes, not only dioceses and metropolises that canonically depended on it, but also autocephalous Churches turned to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Kartashev distinguishes three periods in the practice of appellate law in Constantinople: the period before the Council of Chalcedon, then from Chalcedon until the fall of Constantinople, and the period after the fall of Constantinople.

1. From Constantine to the Council of Chalcedon (451)

Kartashev emphasizes the fact that the presence of the Archbishop of Constantinople in the capital of the empire made him equal to the emperor and placed him in second place in the pentarchy system, as indicated by the 2nd rule of the Second Ecumenical Council (381). Thus, the Archbishop of New Rome found himself in the diptych immediately after the Archbishop of Old Rome. At a time when the Church suffered from internal division caused by the spread of Arianism, not only the dioceses subject to Constantinople, but even the Apostolic See of Antioch turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople to restore peace and tranquility. That is why, as Kartashev points out, the Patriarch of Constantinople Nektarios used his right to accept appeals, acting not dictatorially, but taking advantage of the council convened in 394 in Constantinople, which was attended by Patriarchs Theophilus of Alexandria and Flavian of Antioch.

As Kartashev explains, it was precisely because of this authority of Constantinople, undeniable already in the 4th century, that St. John Chrysostom, alien to the love of power, preserved this order of the imperial Church, which, however, became the reason for the unfair opposition towards him, and then his exile and premature death.

In 399 he received a complaint from the Asian bishops against the Ephesian exarch. He also received complaints against the Patriarch of Alexandria from the bishops of Palestine, Phenicia and Syria. Atticus (405-425), one of Chrysostom's successors on the ecumenical throne, continued to use the right of appeal, extending his power to the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, Thrace, Illyricum and about. Crete.

Kartashev also says that Nestorius (428-431), then occupying the ecumenical throne and using the right of appeal, accepted the complaint of the Alexandrian clergy against their bishop, St. Kirill. According to Theodoret of Cyrus, Nestorius behaved as “chairman of the entire empire”2.

Patriarch Proclus (444-446) extended his jurisdiction to the dioceses of Thrace, Asia and Pontus and, himself ordaining the bishops of Ephesus, Caesarea and Ancyra, accepted the appeal from the bishops of the Antiochian district. For example, when Irenaeus, despite his bigamy, was elevated to the see of Tyre, the bishops of the Antiochian Patriarchate asked for confirmation of this decision by Proclus of Constantinople.

Karatashev also reminds us that when Flavian (446-449) occupied the throne of Constantinople, he received an appeal from the Edessa clergy, who challenged the heresy of Bishop Iva of Edessa. This issue was examined by a commission, and Flavian took measures approved by the emperor. The adopted decision was then presented to the Council of Chalcedon. Possessing the same right to accept appeals, Flavian received a complaint against Dioscorus of Alexandria from the Antiochian exarch Domnus.

2. The period from the Council of Chalcedon to the Ottoman enslavement (1453)

Kartashev emphasizes the importance of the Council of Chalcedon, which “canonized” the appellate law of the See of Constantinople in the 9th, 17th and 28th rules. At the head of the imperial administrative system was the emperor, on the left was the praetorian prefect, and on the right was the archbishop, whose privileges extended to the entire empire. After Chalcedon, in the Code of Emperor Justinian, the Ecumenical Patriarch is called “the head of all other Churches”2.

Kartashev also points out that in the 7th century. parts of the Georgian and Armenian Churches were subordinate to the See of Constantinople and that subsequently, thanks to the missionary activities of Constantinople, new Churches were created: Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, Wallachian. In parallel, under the pressure of Islam, the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem are experiencing a real decline.

Kartashev emphasizes that in the 9th century. the appellate law of the Patriarchs of Constantinople finds its definition in the Epanagoge of Emperor Basil the Macedonian (886).

It is based on ancient practice: “The See of Constantinople, which adorns the capital, is recognized as the first in conciliar decrees, following which divine laws command that disagreements arising under other sees be brought to the attention of and submitted to the judgment of this throne. Each patriarch is responsible for the care and concern of all metropolises and bishoprics, monasteries and churches, as well as the court and consideration and resolution of cases; but the Primate of Constantinople is also given the right, within other departments... to consider and correct disagreements arising within other departments.”

Matthew Blastar (d. 1350), interpreting this imperial decree, writes in his Syntagma (VI, 429): “The Primate of Constantinople had the right to observe disagreements arising within the boundaries of other thrones, to correct them and pronounce the final judgment "

Kartashev also gives examples of the use of appellate law by Constantinople during the Monophysite turmoil, which was followed by the Council of Chalcedon. Martyrius of Antioch turned to Gennady of Constantinople regarding his competitor in the department - the Monophysite Peter Gnofevs. Later, Peter nevertheless captured the See of Antioch, but was then overthrown by a council convened in Antioch. This decision was confirmed by Patriarch Akakios of Constantinople. Subsequently, Emperor Zeno deprived the Antiochians of the right to elect their first hierarch and ordered a candidate to be appointed to Antioch in Constantinople.

Kartashev also recalls the intrigue that arose during the reign of Emperor Anastasius (491-518) and Patriarch Macedonius II (496-511), when the Monophysite monks of the Mayum monastery, led by Sevier, filed a complaint against the Jerusalem Patriarch Elijah. Despite the fact that this intrigue led to the deposition of Patriarch Macedonius and the seizure of the See of Antioch by Sevirus, it indicates that the monks of the Jerusalem Patriarchate appealed to Constantinople2.

Under Emperor Justinian (527-563), Patriarch Theodosius of Alexandria (a moderate Monophysite) complained to Patriarch Mina (536-552) about the extreme Monophysites of Alexandria. Mina convened a council, at which even Theodosius himself was condemned and deposed. Subsequently, Patriarch John III Scholasticus of Constantinople replaced Patriarch Anastasius of Antioch with Gregory. The same Gregory later turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople John IV the Faster to justify his actions, but John the Faster did not heed his justifications and condemned him at his council.

From the second half of the 7th century. the spread of Islam in the East contributed to the strengthening of the position and role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. After the Persians captured Antioch in 611, patriarchs began to be elected to this see in Constantinople. This practice continued when, under Emperor Nikephoros Phocas in 970, Antioch was again annexed to the Byzantine Empire. After the capture of Antioch by the Crusaders, the Antiochian patriarchs lived near Constantinople, and only in 1263 did the Turks allow the Orthodox patriarchs to return to their see. The Jerusalem Patriarchate found itself in a similar situation. The Holy City was taken by the Arabs in 638 and then by the Crusaders in 1099. During this period, the Patriarchs of Jerusalem lived and were elected in Constantinople.

3. The period from the Ottoman yoke to the present day
As Kartashev explains, it is difficult to talk about the appellate right of the Ecumenical Patriarchate during the Ottoman enslavement, since during this period this patriarchate included the entire Eastern Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople became in the Ottoman Empire the representative of all rum mileti, that is, all Orthodox Christians. It follows from this that during the period of Ottomanocracy, the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria were completely dependent on Constantinople. This political situation entailed a sharp centralization of church administrative control. This was especially expressed under the Patriarch of Constantinople Samuel (1763-1774), who abolished the Serbian Patriarchate and the autocephaly of Ohrid.

It is even more difficult to talk about the appellate right of the Patriarchate of Constantinople during this period in relation to the “non-Greek” Churches liberated from the Ottoman yoke, since this liberation was accompanied by the self-proclamation of autocephaly, which, most often, was also a desire for independence from the Greek-speaking world.
However, even during this period we find many examples of conversions to Constantinople. When at the beginning of the 19th century. The election of patriarchs to the See of Alexandria resumed (which had not yet been observed at the end of the 18th century), and church life began to be disturbed by the struggle between various parties. One of these discords arose when Nikanor was elected patriarch. Archbishop Eugene wanted to become an epitrope (administrator of affairs), but Nikanor's party elected the monk Nile. After appealing to Constantinople, Sophronius was sent from there to Alexandria.

Similar cases occurred in the Patriarchate of Antioch. When Patriarch Macarius left behind a successor, Cyril, at the same time Neophytos was elected by the Synod of Constantinople. Cyril turned to Constantinople, where his rank was recognized. In another case, the clergy of Aleppo wanted to elect monk Athanasius as their bishop, whose candidacy was rejected by Patriarch Kirill. The Patriarch of Constantinople elevated Athanasius to the rank of metropolitan, and Cyril was deposed.
Similar cases occurred in the Jerusalem Patriarchate. In 1872, at the outbreak of the Bulgarian schism, Patriarch Cyril II, who had restored the normal way of life of the Jerusalem Church and lived within the boundaries of his see, had quarrels with the Hellenists. Then the Holy Sepulcher Brotherhood, with the assistance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, overthrew him from the pulpit. However, the Arab party, which did not want to accept his successor Procopius, appealed to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Procopius was forced to resign from the see.

Archbishop Kirill of Sinai, who did not want to have a connection with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was supposed to appoint him as abbot of the monastery, turns to the Patriarch of Constantinople with a request that he make the appointment.

And finally, Kartashev recalls that the Russian Church, after the election of Patriarch Tikhon in 1918, complained to the Patriarch of Constantinople about the episcopate of the Georgian Exarchate, which had separated from it. For its part, the Georgian Church appeals to Constantinople with a request to recognize the restoration of its autocephaly. In 1922-1923 The Moscow Patriarchate is again appealing to Constantinople in connection with the activities of the renovationists.

Having recalled all these historical circumstances, Kartashev comes to the following conclusion: “The above series of examples, which do not pretend to be exhaustive, we believe are sufficient to recognize the primacy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in our Eastern Orthodoxy, not only as an archaeological fact of the past, but also as a living, active principle. The only question is its correct interpretation and application to overcome the abnormal disunity of individual national Churches.”

At the beginning of his article, Kartashev regrets the emerging tendency, especially among the Slavic Churches, to reduce the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch to a possible minimum due to national (or ethnophyletic) predilections. In his opinion, awareness of this role is especially necessary in our time, when organized, coordinated activity of the entire Orthodox world is becoming increasingly necessary.

The right of appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch in the works of modern theologians
The concept of the right of appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch, developed in the works of A.V. Kartashev, is mainly based on the 9th and 17th rules of the Council of Chalcedon. Subsequently, these two rules were used to justify the intervention of the Ecumenical Throne in jurisdictional conflicts between Orthodox Churches, as well as to prove the right of the Patriarch of Constantinople to care for the Orthodox Churches throughout the world. These rules have been interpreted and used differently by modern Orthodox theologians.

Let us first recall the basis of these rules. If there is a disagreement between two clerics, they must turn to their bishop, who will judge them. If a clergyman has a disagreement with his bishop or with any other bishop, he must turn to the metropolitan presiding over the district synod. If there is disagreement with the metropolitan of a given district, he must turn to “the exarch of the diocese or the throne of reigning Constantinople” (9th canon of the Council of Chalcedon).

1. Thesis of S. Troitsky
In his article entitled: “On the meaning of the 9th and 17th canons of the Council of Chalcedon” (JMP. 1961. No. 2. pp. 57-65), canonist S. Troitsky responded to the article of Kartashev, whom he considered “ ideologist of the Paris schism” (By “Paris schism” he means the Exarchate of Russian parishes in Western Europe under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate).

Trinity says that the term “exarch” contained in these canons and translated by Dionysius the Less into Latin with the word primas, served Pope Nicholas I to prove to Emperor Michael III his right to judge the universal Church. According to Trinity, these rules were not only at the origins of Western papism, but also of what he calls “Eastern papism.” He also believes that the correct interpretation of these two canons is very relevant, “since the incorrect interpretation of these canons leads to an incorrect understanding of the structure of the Orthodox Church and can cause a violation of the canonical relationships between the Orthodox autocephalous Churches.”
Interpreting these canons, Troitsky believes that they relate exclusively to disputes between clergy regarding civil law and violations of common law, and not to church litigation. In conclusion, he says: “Since the 9th canon of the Council of Chalcedon speaks of the jurisdiction only of civil, and not ecclesiastical cases, and does not speak of appeal, this canon cannot in any way serve as evidence of the appellate right of the Patriarch of Constantinople in matters of an ecclesiastical nature.”

2. Answer of Metropolitan Maximus of Sardis
Metropolitan Maximus of Sardia refuted Trinity’s thesis. He explains that the term tgraura contained in the 9th canon does not refer exclusively to civil law, as Trinity argued, but that it can denote a quarrel, case, discrepancy or litigation in the broad sense of the word. For example, he cites the 15th rule of the Council of Carthage, where this term is used to refer to church quarrels3. Metropolitan Maxim also draws attention to the inaccurate interpretation of the term proteron and points to poor knowledge of the Greek language, which misled Trinity and did not allow him to understand all the textual subtleties.

Metropolitan Maxim draws attention to the expression “to the exarch of the diocese or to the throne of the reigning Constantinople.” He believes that the difference between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the exarch of the diocese gives the latter greater authority, since it gives him the right, unlike other exarchs, to accept complaints from bishops and clergy who are not subordinate to his see.
Metropolitan Maxim makes a conclusion, insisting on recognition of the provision on the appellate right of the Patriarch of Constantinople, expressed by Kartashev, and formulates it in eight points:

1. the dominant position of the Bishop of Constantinople in the Christian East, due to his location in the capital, in the heart of the empire, similar to the position of Rome in the West;
2. his position as the head of the metropolitan Church, constantly in communion with the emperor and his court, gives him a right that exceeds the limits of his canonical jurisdiction;
3. often bishops visiting the capital on pressing issues took advantage of this to get advice from the patriarch; this was the reason for the creation of the Permanent Synod in Constantinople;
4. Gradually this Synod began to deal with issues that were beyond the power of the synods in the provinces to resolve;
5. The 9th and 17th canons of the Council of Chalcedon do not establish a new practice, but are the result arising from a previously existing practice;
6. Metropolitan Maximus believes that the right of appeal to Constantinople, mentioned in these canons, should be understood in the sense that the exarchs, that is, the patriarchs of these territories, were unable to find the necessary solution to controversial issues that would satisfy the warring parties;
7. Thus, according to Metropolitan Maximus, by these canons the See of Constantinople was established as the highest ecclesiastical court for the Christian East - in the same way as the canons of the Council of Sardica established in Rome the highest ecclesiastical court in the West;
8. However, Metropolitan Maximus emphasizes that this privilege of Constantinople in no way allows it to interfere in the affairs of other patriarchates and that the Ecumenical Throne can only use this right when the parties quarreling among themselves turn to it.

This last remark seems to us very fair.

3. Commentary by Archbishop Peter (L’Huillier)
Without referring to Kartashev’s article, Archbishop Peter L’Huillier examines and summarizes the controversy surrounding the appellate law of the See of Constantinople. He comments on the 9th canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Agreeing with Metropolitan Maxim that this canon does not fall exclusively under the court of civil law (contrary to what the outstanding Russian canonist Troitsky thought), he believes, however, that this rule does not give the ecumenical right (to extend power to the entire Universe) to the Constantinople patriarchate, which he subsequently appropriated and which allows him to intervene in jurisdictional conflicts between Orthodox Churches4.

Following J. Darrouzes, L’Huillier also points out the doubts that exist regarding the term “exarch” used in this canon5. Using the arguments of V. Fidas, L’Huillier thinks that the term “exarch” was subsequently replaced by the term “patriarch”6. Consequently, in the case of litigation between a bishop and a clergyman, the litigants can appeal, according to their wishes, to the exarch of the diocese or to the See of Constantinople. L’Huillier recalls, however, that, according to Muller, the following circumstance must be taken into account: when there is an exarch in the region, it is necessary to turn to him, and not to the throne of Constantinople; one should contact Constantinople only in the absence of the exarch7.

He concludes by saying that “Müller's reading provides a satisfying connection to the canon in its entirety. Other readings lead to understandings that are either arbitrary or involve unlikely anachronisms.”8

Thus we can summarize L'Huillier's position. The latter believes that the head of each autocephalous Church has the right to accept the appeal of the clergy of his Church and that such an appeal is the last possible appeal, since the Patriarch of Constantinople does not have the right of power over the entire Universe.

4. Father Alexander Schmemann and the issue of “neopapism”
The justification of the appellate law of Constantinople by the 9th and 17th canons of the Council of Chalcedon led, as we saw in Trinity, to accusations of the Ecumenical Throne of “Eastern papism”. On this occasion, Fr. Alexander Schmemann made several comments in an article entitled “The Ecumenical Patriarch and the Orthodox Church”9.

This article was a response to the message of Patriarch Athenagoras on the Week of Orthodoxy in 1950, which served as a reason for accusing the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the “heresy of neo-papism.” This article is about. Alexandra provoked a reaction from the canonist Troitsky, expressed in another article entitled “Ecclesiology of the Parisian Schism”10 (we will not analyze it here, since the analysis of this article would take us beyond the scope of our topic).

In his article about. Alexander Schmemann argues that we cannot in any way accuse the Ecumenical Patriarch of “papalism” in the sense in which the Vatican understands it, since the See of Constantinople does not claim either a divine institution, or ecumenical supremacy, which implies the subordination of all other Churches to it, or any infallibility. He recalls that the 34th Apostolic Canon, which says that “the bishops of every nation must recognize the first of them,” applies to the heads of the Orthodox Churches. He believes that supporters of “absolute autocephalism” reproach the Ecumenical Throne for heresy, which wants to fulfill this purpose on the scale of world Orthodoxy.

Father Alexander understands the See of Constantinople as the center of world Orthodoxy in the spirit of the 34th Apostolic Canon. This is the center that should oversee the unity of the Orthodox Church, but this in no way means that the various autocephalous Churches should be subordinate to it.

He writes: “The unity of the Church, its fullness, which resides holistically and indivisibly in every Church, in every place, is revealed and realized in the unity of all among themselves. And this universal union also requires a universal center, a universal First Hierarch. And who, if not him, will take care of this unification, testify to this unity, and initiate the healing of diseases? The Orthodox Church has always had such a center, and still has it now - in the See of Constantinople.”

Thus, Fr. Alexander Shmeman expresses in his article what was put forward by A.V. Kartashev’s idea that for the Orthodox Church it is necessary to have coordination between the various Orthodox Churches and that this role must be taken on by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and fulfilled in the spirit of the canons.

Position of Archbishop George (Wagner) regarding the diaspora
Archbishop George (Wagner) inherited the thought of A.V. Kartashev regarding the right of appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople and applied it to the difficult issue of the diaspora. This use of appellate law to prove that the See of Constantinople has jurisdiction over the Diaspora is sometimes quite original in relation to the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon used as an argument, where such jurisdiction is based on the understanding of “dioceses among the barbarians.”

During the congress in Amiens in 1977, dedicated to the issue of the diaspora, Archbishop George expressed the opinion that responsibility for the Orthodox diaspora lies especially with the Church of Constantinople. He referred, like Kartashev, to historical conditions that favored the fact that the See of Constantinople found itself in a special position in relation to other sees - for the purposes of diakonia: “It is here that the special responsibility that belongs to one local Church among all others - the Ecumenical Patriarchate - must manifest itself . The special canonical and historical position of the Church of Constantinople imposes on it the honorable responsibility and service of intercession for all other Orthodox Churches”11. Thus, the primacy belonging to this see is not the primacy of power or honor, but the primacy of the gospel diakonia, according to the word of Christ: “Whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave” (Matthew 20:27).

Archbishop Georgy also reminds that the appeal of Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievsky) to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which the Russian canonist Troitsky initially regarded as a “Paris schism,” is also based on the law of appeal: “Metropolitan Eulogius addressed the Church of Constantinople. This was an event of decisive importance." Then he, in the same direction as Kartashev, justifies this right: “The right of such an appeal to Constantinople is based on the special position of this Church (3rd rule of the Third Council and 28th rule of the IV Ecumenical Council), prescribed by the holy canons ( 9th and 17th rules of the IV Ecumenical Council) and church practice."

We could object to Archbishop George that the application of the 9th and 17th rules of the Council of Chalcedon to the diaspora is completely unjustified and unfair, since the context of this problem does not concern litigation between clergy, the resolution of which belongs to the local bishop or metropolitan. However, Archbishop George’s point of view seems interesting in the sense that each Local Church establishes its own jurisdiction in the diaspora, which, therefore, becomes a “land of litigation.” If a problem of this kind cannot be resolved to this day, it is because it exceeds the powers of one patriarchal or regional synod and needs to be resolved at the pan-Orthodox level.

Appellate law according to Archimandrite Gregory (Papatomas)
The issue of the right of appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople was raised recently in the writings of Archimandrite Gregory (Papatomas), who, surprisingly, does not mention the 9th and 17th Chalcedonian canons at all.

In his article on “Various methods of jurisdictional administration of the Patriarchate of Constantinople”12, Archimandrite Gregory speaks of the emergence of “appeal law” (eccleton), formulated regarding appeals to the Bishop of Rome by the 3rd, 4th and 5th canons of the Council of Sardica (343) on the basis previous practice. In his view, the right of appeal follows from the fact that this primus was the bishop of a city of great importance, that he was protos (first) in the patriarchal system, and that he occupied the first position in the diptychs.

According to Archimandrite Gregory, after the church schism in 1054, the right of appeal passes to the next patriarchal see - to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who from that time occupies first place in the diptychs. He believes that the period of Ottoman enslavement only strengthened this role, since during this time the patriarch became an intermediary between the Christian population and the Turkish authorities.

It is worth noting the conclusion made by Fr. Gregory regarding this special right of the Patriarch of Constantinople: “The canonical way of implementing the ekklekton by the Patriarch of Constantinople stems from his original patriarchal qualities; the meaning of its establishment may one day be reduced to non-existence. However, since 1054 he canonically exercises this ecclesiastical right by succession in the Orthodox Church.”

Consequently, the appellate right of the Patriarch of Constantinople is not a right emanating from the latter’s nature, but a right conferred on him in view of his special position as primus inter pares. This is not an ontological right, but a “physiological” one, emanating not from his department, but from his position (rank). To the extent that the diptych is a system and not an institution, the positions (ranks) may change, and therefore this right may pass to another department if the Ecumenical Council ever revises the order of the diptychs.

Conclusion
In conclusion of this report, it seems important to us to recall some, in our opinion, fundamental theses regarding the appellate law of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

1. As was well shown by church historian A.V. Kartashev, the right of appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople dates back to the time of the founding of Constantinople as the imperial capital by Constantine in the 4th century. Under these conditions, the capital's bishop became the emperor's interlocutor in church affairs, which gradually turned the capital's patriarch into the patriarch of the “empire” (universal).

2. From this time on, this right was used in relation to the more ancient sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, which were never under the canonical jurisdiction of the See of Constantinople. This right of appeal, established by the 9th and 17th canons of the Council of Chalcedon, made of Constantinople in the East what Rome was in the West, with its inherent similar right, established by the 3rd, 4th and 5th canons of the Council of Sardicia.

3. It seems to us that the concept of the law of appeal is based on the practice of the law of appeal to the metropolitan, established by the 37th, 38th and 139th canons of the Council of Carthage (419), and is their development. These canons affirm the principle that in the event of litigation with a bishop, one should turn to the first of them in a given area, that is, to the metropolitan. Consequently, the 9th and 17th canons of the Council of Chalcedon (451) only adopted the already existing practice, adding to it that in the event that the metropolitan cannot resolve the litigation, it is necessary to turn to the court of the first between the metropolitans, that is, to “ exarch" or patriarch. In accordance with this principle, one can reach the first of the heads of the Churches.

4. It is very important to note that this right is applied not in a monarchical, but in a conciliar sense. This is the fundamental difference between the papacy (where the pope perceives himself as the supreme bishop with ecumenical jurisdiction) and the ecumenical patriarch as primus inter pares, exercising his right of appeal in cases of litigation.

5 It is also necessary to keep in mind, on the one hand, the consequences of Turkish enslavement, and on the other hand, the consequences of the emergence of national movements in the 19th-20th centuries, which appeared due to both the strengthening of the position of the Ecumenical Chair and the existing tendency to deny the special role associated with this position. This fact raises the following question: Can such appellate law be applied in a different geopolitical and historical context?

6 It must also be recalled that the concept of appellate law comes from the order of diptychs, which have their basis in the pentarchy, which is a system and not an institution. Consequently, appellate law, as well as diptychs, are functional categories (system) and do not have any special nature (institution). The right of appeal belongs to the See of Constantinople not by nature, but by position in the diptychs. Consequently, this is not an ontological right, but a “physiological” or functional one, which could at some point pass to another department if the Ecumenical Council revises the order of the diptychs.

7. Seventy years after the publication of the article by the great Russian theologian and historian A.V. Kartashev, we can only wish with him for better interaction between the Orthodox Churches. Passions of a national or phyletic nature, which lead to tension and complications in relations between Local Churches and to various problems arising today in the Church (such as the conditions for the granting of autocephaly, the Orthodox diaspora and the issue of diptychs), as well as the process of globalization and technological and biological progress They force us to wish, together with the great Kartashev, that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, using the right of appeal, will serve to better coordinate the activities of the entire Orthodox world.

8. This role, belonging to the first among equals, is, of course, diakonia. It is about service, not kingship. Therefore, the right of appeal must be used in the spirit of evangelical love, embodying the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave” (Matt. 20:27).

1. Kartashev A.V. Practice of appellate law of the Patriarchs of Constantinople. Warsaw, 1936. P. 19. This article was translated into Greek in 1948 by Professor Photiades.

2. Ibid. P. 7. “Omnibus rebus ecclesiasticis prospicientes et praecipue iis, quae competunt sacrosanctae magnae ecclesiae huius felicis urbis nostrae omniumque matri quae caput est reliquarium omnium...” Cod. Just. I, 2, 24 (C.O.C. II, 17).

3.Maximus, Metropolitan of Sardes. The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church. Analecta Vlatadon. 24. Thessaloniki, 1976. P. 187 (=Le patriarcat oecumenique dans I’Eglise orthodoxe. Paris, 1975. P. 233
4.P. L'Huillier. The Church of the Ancient Counciles. The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils. Crestwood, N.-Y., 1996. P. 230

5.J. Darrouzes. Documents inedits d'ecclesiologie byzantine. Paris, 1966. P. 79. L’Huillier. P. 231-232.

6.P. L'Huillier. P. 232. Wed. summary of the theses of V. Fidas in: Maximus, Metropolitan of Sardes. Op. cit. P. 194-196; criticism of Metropolitan Maxim - on p. 196-198.

7. K. Miiller. Kirchengeschichte. 1. Tubingen, 1929. P. 656-658. L'Huillier. P. 233.

8.P. L "Huillier. P. 236.

9. Prot. Alexander Shmeman. The Ecumenical Patriarch and the Orthodox Church // Church Bulletin of the Western European Orthodox Russian Exarchate. 1951. No. 28. pp. 3-12
10. Troitsky S. Ecclesiology of the Parisian schism // Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. 1951. No. 7-8. pp. 2-25
11. Georges Wagner. Droits et devoirs de 1'Eglise de la diaspora // Le messager orthodoxe. 1977. No. 77. P. 11.
12. Grigorios Papathomas. Les differentes modalites d’exercice de la juridiction du Patriarcat de Constantinople // Istina. 1995. No. 40. P. 369-385.

***
The stated position reduces the special privileges of the Patriarch of Poland only to the right to receive an appeal - at the request of the disputing parties. Well, how Gazprom suddenly decides to sue Ukraine in London or Stockholm - which does not mean that the Russian Federation is the jurisdiction of these courts.

One thing is unclear: to start “arbitration”, the desire of only one of the parties, the plaintiff who filed the appeal, is sufficient, or is the consent of the defendant also required? Kpl's position, it seems to me, is the first option.

In 2003, Job made this report in Moscow, in the presence of many distinguished hierarchs and theologians of the Russian Orthodox Church. For some reason there were no shouts about the heresy of papism in response. Which does not mean that the listeners agree with the conclusions of the report. But it’s just that the culture of internal church discussion, which had not yet been completely killed, did not suggest that any “not our” point of view should be branded to the maximum as heresy.