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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Moscow Patriarchate did the right thing by taking a tough stance towards the Patriarch of Constantinople.

It’s worth starting with the fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in fact, has long meant little and decides nothing in the Orthodox world. And although the Patriarch of Constantinople continues to be called the Ecumenical and the first among equals, this is just a tribute to history, traditions, but no more. It does not reflect the real state of affairs.

As recent Ukrainian events have shown, following these obsolete traditions did not lead to anything good - in the Orthodox world, the significance of certain figures should have been revised long ago, and without a doubt, the Patriarch of Constantinople should not bear the title of Ecumenical for a long time. For it has not been such for a long time - more than five centuries.

If we call a spade a spade, then the last truly Orthodox and independent Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was Euthymius II, who died in 1416. All his successors ardently supported the union with Catholic Rome and were ready to recognize the supremacy of the Pope.

It is clear that this was caused by the difficult situation of the Byzantine Empire, which was living out its last years, surrounded on all sides by the Ottoman Turks. The Byzantine elite, including part of the clergy, hoped that “foreign countries would help us,” but for this it was necessary to conclude a union with Rome, which was done on July 6, 1439 in Florence.

Roughly speaking, from that moment on, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, on completely legal grounds, should be considered apostate. So almost immediately they began to call him, and the supporters of the union began to be called Uniates. The last Patriarch of Constantinople of the pre-Ottoman period, Gregory III, was also a Uniate, who was so disliked in Constantinople itself that he preferred to leave the city at its most difficult moment and go to Italy.

It is worth recalling that in the Principality of Moscow the union was also not accepted and the metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus' Isidore was expelled from the country, who by that time had accepted the rank of a Catholic cardinal. Isidore went to Constantinople, took an active part in the defense of the city in the spring of 1453 and was able to escape to Italy after the capture of the Byzantine capital by the Turks.

In Constantinople itself, despite the ardent rejection of the union by some of the clergy and a large number of citizens, the reunification of the two Christian churches was announced in the Cathedral of St. Sophia on December 12, 1452. After that, it was possible to consider the Patriarch of Constantinople a protege of Catholic Rome, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople dependent on the Catholic Church.

It is also worth recalling that the last service in the Cathedral of St. Sophia on the night of May 28-29, 1453, passed both according to the Orthodox and Latin canons. Since then, Christian prayers have never sounded under the arches of the once main temple of the Christian world, since by the evening of May 29, 1453, Byzantium ceased to exist, St. Sofia became a mosque, and Constantinople was subsequently renamed Istanbul. Which automatically set off an impetus in the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

But the tolerant conquering sultan Mehmet II decided not to abolish the patriarchy and soon appointed one of the most ardent opponents of the union, the monk George Scholaria, to the place of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Who went down in history under the name of Patriarch Gennady - the first patriarch of the post-Byzantine period.

Since then, all the Patriarchs of Constantinople were appointed by the sultans, and there could be no question of their independence. They were completely subordinate persons, reporting to the sultans on affairs in the so-called Greek millet. They were allowed to celebrate a strictly limited number of holidays per year, use certain churches and live in the Phanar region.

By the way, this area is now under police protection, so the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople-Istanbul lives, in fact, on bird's rights. The fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch has no rights was proved more than once by the sultans, removing them from their posts and even executing them.

All this would be sad if the story did not take on a completely absurd look. After the Turks conquered Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarch Gennady appeared there, the Pope appointed the former Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus' Isidore to the same position. Catholic cardinal, if anyone forgot.

Thus, in 1454 there were as many as two Patriarchs of Constantinople, one of whom sat in Istanbul and the other in Rome, and both, in fact, had no real power. Patriarch Gennady was entirely subordinate to Mehmet II, and Isidore was the conductor of the ideas of the Pope.

If earlier the Ecumenical Patriarchs had such power that they could interfere in the family affairs of the Byzantine emperors - God's anointed ones - then from 1454 they became just religious functionaries, and even in a foreign country where Islam was the state religion.

In fact, the Patriarch of Constantinople had as much power as, for example, the Patriarch of Antioch or Jerusalem. That is, not at all. Moreover, if the sultan did not like the patriarch for some reason, then the conversation with him was short - execution. So it was, for example, with Patriarch Gregory V, who was hanged over the gates of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Phanar in 1821.

Total, what is obtained in the dry residue? And here's what. The Union of Florence effectively abolished the independent Greek Orthodox Church. In any case, the signatories of the union from the Byzantine side agreed with this. The subsequent Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, after which the Ecumenical Patriarch was entirely dependent on the mercy of the sultans, made his figure purely nominal. And that's why he could not be called the Universal. Because it cannot be called the Ecumenical Patriarch, whose power extends to the modest size of the Phanar district of the Islamic city of Istanbul.

From which a reasonable question arises: is the decision of the current Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I on Ukraine worth taking into account? Given at least the fact that even the Turkish authorities do not consider him the Ecumenical Patriarch. And why should the Moscow Patriarchate look back at the decisions of Bartholomew, who, in fact, represents no one knows whom and bears a title that can cause nothing but bewilderment?

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

Yes, the Eastern Roman Empire-Byzantium was and always will be our spiritual foremother, but the fact is that this country has long been gone. She died on May 29, 1453, but, mentally, according to the Greeks themselves, she died at the moment when the Byzantine elite concluded a union with Rome. And when Constantinople fell, it was no coincidence that many representatives of the clergy, both Byzantine and European, claimed that the Lord punished the Second Rome, including for apostasy.

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

If he really wants to show himself as a significant figure and solve a global, in his opinion, problem, then, according to the Orthodox tradition, an Ecumenical Council should be convened. This is exactly what has always been done, even more than one and a half thousand years ago, starting from the first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325. Conducted, by the way, even before the formation of the Eastern Roman Empire. Who, if not Bartholomew, does not know this, many centuries ago, the established order?

Since Ukraine haunts Bartholomew, let him hold the Ecumenical Council in accordance with the ancient tradition. Let him choose any city at his discretion: you can spend it in the old fashioned way in Nicaea, you can in Antioch, you can in Adrianople, and Constantinople is also suitable. Of course, the powerful Ecumenical Patriarch must provide the invited colleagues and persons accompanying them with accommodation, food, leisure and compensate for all expenses. And since the patriarchs usually discuss problems either for a long time or for a very long time, it would be nice to rent several hotels for three years in advance. Minimum.

But something suggests that if the powerful Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople tries to start such an event in Turkey, the case will end for him either in a madhouse, or in prison, or in flight to neighboring countries with a final landing in Washington.

All this once again proves the degree of power of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Who, despite his total inability to organize something more serious than a meeting with a couple of officials, considered himself such a significant figure that he began to actively shake up the situation in Ukraine, threatening to develop into at least a church schism. With all the ensuing consequences that Bartholomew does not need to describe, due to the fact that he perfectly understands and sees everything himself.

And where is the patriarchal wisdom? Where is the love for one's neighbor, to which he called hundreds of times? Where is the conscience, after all?

However, why demand from a Greek who served as an officer in the Turkish army? What to demand from a seemingly Orthodox priest, but who studied at the Roman Pontifical Institute? What can be expected from a man who is so dependent on the Americans that they even awarded him the Gold Medal of the US Congress for his outstanding services?

The Moscow Patriarchate is absolutely right to take tough retaliatory measures against the presumptuous Patriarch of Constantinople. As the classic said - you take on a burden not according to your rank, but in this case you can say - you take on a burden not according to your rank. And if it’s even simpler, then a hat is not for Senka. Not Bartholomew, who now cannot boast even a shadow of the former greatness of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and who himself is not even a shadow of the great Patriarchs of Constantinople, to solve the global problems of Orthodoxy. And even more so, the swaying of the situation in other countries is not due to the rank of this Senka.

It is clear and clear who exactly is inciting him, but a real patriarch would categorically refuse to sow enmity between fraternal peoples of the same faith, but this clearly does not apply to a diligent student of the Pontifical Institute and a Turkish officer.

I wonder how he will feel if the religious turmoil caused by him turns into a big bloodshed in Ukraine? He must already know what religious strife led to, at least from the history of Byzantium, which was obviously not alien to him, and how many thousands of lives various heresies or iconography cost the Second Rome. Surely Bartholomew knows this, but continues to stubbornly stick to his line.

In this regard, the question arises by itself - does this person, the initiator of a very real split in the Orthodox Church, have the right to be called the Ecumenical Patriarch?

The answer is obvious and it would be very good if the Ecumenical Council would give an assessment of the acts of Bartholomew. And the status of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, based in the center of the Islamic metropolis, would also be a good idea to reconsider taking into account modern realities.

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

Not a single state in the world has done even a tenth of what Russia has done to preserve the Patriarchate of Constantinople. And to no other state the Patriarchs of Constantinople were so unfair as to Russia.

Resentment due to union

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

Relations especially escalated after the signing of the Florentine Union in July 1439 on the recognition by Constantinople of the primacy of the Roman Church. The Union made the deepest impression on the Russian clergy. Metropolitan Isidore, who strongly advocated union at the council, was expelled from Moscow.

After the overthrow of Isidore, Grand Duke Vasily II the Dark sent ambassadors to Greece with a request to appoint a new metropolitan. But when the prince found out that the emperor and the patriarch had indeed accepted the Union of Florence, he ordered the return of the embassy. And in 1448, the Council of Russian Pastors in Moscow elected Bishop Jonah of Ryazan and Murom, the first Russian patriarch, as the head of the Russian Church - already without the consent of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

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

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

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

Later, however, other considerations appeared in Moscow - they say, the death of Byzantium means not only the end of the old sinful world, but also the beginning of a new one. Moscow became not only the heir of the lost Constantinople, but also the "New Israel", the God-chosen state, called to unite all the Orthodox.

Elder Philotheus from the Pskov Savior-Eleazarovsky Monastery stated this thesis vividly and succinctly: “Two Romes have fallen, and the third stands, and there will be no fourth!”

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

But all these deeds of bygone days have nothing to do with the current conflict, because the current so-called. The "Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople" has practically nothing to do with the church of ancient Byzantium.

Usurpation of power in Constantinople

The history of the modern "Patriarchate of Constantinople" begins with the First World War, when in 1921, a certain Emmanuel Nicolaus Metaksakis arrived in Istanbul along with the troops of the British Empire - the Archbishop of Athens and the Greek Church, which acted in the United States among Greek migrants.

Patriarch Meletius IV of Constantinople.

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

Metaxakis held elections so that no one could accuse him of usurping the throne. But Metropolitan German Karavangelis won the election - 16 votes out of 17 were cast for him. Later, Metropolitan German recalled: “At night after the elections, a delegation of the National Defense Society visited me at home and began to ardently ask me to withdraw my candidacy in favor of Meletios Metaksakis ... One of my a friend offered me more than 10,000 lire in compensation…”

Frightened, Metropolitan Herman yielded.

And with the very first decree, the newly-made "patriarch" Meletios IV subjugated all American parishes and churches of the Athenian metropolis. Indeed, the "Ecumenical Patriarchate" cannot exist only at the expense of a few churches in Istanbul?!

Interestingly, when the rest of the Greek bishops found out about such arbitrariness of the newly-made "patriarch", Metaxakis was first banned from serving, and then completely excommunicated. But the "Ecumenical Patriarch" Meletius IV took and... canceled these decisions.

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

In particular, one of the first acquisitions of the newly-made patriarch was the former Warsaw Metropolis - all Orthodox parishes in Poland. Further, he took into jurisdiction the Revel diocese Russian Church- the new Estonian Metropolis. Tomos was also issued to the breakaway Ukrainian church.

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

Help for "upgraders"

Finally, in 1923, the discussion turned to the fragmentation of the church on the territory of Soviet Russia itself. It was about recognizing the “Renovators” – the so-called “Living Church”, created by agents of the OGPU under the project of Leon Trotsky to split and destroy the traditional Orthodox Church.

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

In response, angry Bolsheviks put pressure on the government of Kemal Ataturk, and soon Meletius IV was expelled from Constantinople. Gregory VII became the new patriarch, who even appointed his representative to Moscow to prepare the recognition of the new Russian Autocephalous Church. The Izvestiya newspaper rejoiced: “The Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, chaired by Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VII, passed a resolution on the removal of Patriarch Tikhon from governing the church as the one responsible for all church turmoil…”

True, Gregory VII did not have time to fulfill his promises - he died a few months before the appointed date of the "Ecumenical Council", at which he was going to issue a tomos.

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

So the recognition of the "renovationists" was forgotten both in Moscow and in the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Bartholomew against the Russian Orthodox Church

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

Patriarch Bartholomew (left) and Patriarch Alexy II.

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

After the restoration of Estonia's independence, the problem of two Orthodox churches arose. The fact is that at the end of April 1993, the synod of the Moscow Patriarchate restored the legal and economic independence of the Orthodox Church in Estonia (while maintaining the canonical subordination of the Russian Orthodox Church). But the “Stockholmites” were supported by the nationalist leadership of Estonia, which sought to break all ties with Russia. And the "Stockholm church", paying no attention to the act good will Patriarch Alexy II, issued a Declaration in which she accused Moscow of a variety of troubles and announced the recognition of a canonical connection only with Constantinople.

The letter of Patriarch Bartholomew I to Patriarch Alexy II was sustained in the same boorish tone, accusing the Russian Church, crucified and destroyed in the camps of the Gulag, of annexing independent Estonia: armies…”

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

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

Religious unrest in Ukraine

At first, the struggle unfolded in Galicia between the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox. Then the Orthodox themselves clashed with each other: the autocephalous UAOC against the Uniates. After that, the Uniates united with the autocephalous and declared a crusade against the "Muscovites" - the Orthodox of the Moscow Patriarchate. Each of these stages of the struggle was accompanied by bloody seizures of temples and battles between "true believers."

Mikhail Denisenko.

With the support of the West, the pressure on the Russian Church became so powerful that some Orthodox priests asked for a patriarchal blessing for a temporary transition to autocephaly in order to save parishes from Uniate aggression.

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

The "Permanent Conference of Ukrainian Bishops Outside of Ukraine", which unites the Ukrainian Orthodox diaspora in the United States and Canada, charged Filaret with 16 counts, including fraud and theft. It is possible that without the support of the authorities, the sect of the self-proclaimed “patriarch” would have simply self-liquidated, but the “orange revolution” of 2004 seemed to give Denisenko a second chance - at that time he did not get off the Maidan podium, demanding to drive the “Moskal priests”.

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

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

Petro Poroshenko and Denisenko.

Election move by split

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

“What is the Patriarchate of Constantinople?”

They say that a religious war is brewing in Ukraine, and this is due to the actions of some Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew? What really happened?

Indeed, the situation in Ukraine, already explosive, has become more complicated. The primate (head) of one of the Orthodox Churches - Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople - interfered in the life of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (a self-governing but integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church - the Moscow Patriarchate). Contrary to the canonical rules (immutable ecclesiastical legal norms), without the invitation of our Church, whose canonical territory is Ukraine, Patriarch Bartholomew sent two of his representatives, “exarchs,” to Kiev. With the wording: "in preparation for granting autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine."

Wait, what does "Constantinople" mean? Even from a school history textbook it is known that Constantinople fell a long time ago, and in its place is the Turkish city of Istanbul?

Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

All right. The capital of the first Christian Empire - the Roman Kingdom (Byzantium) - fell back in 1453, but the Patriarchate of Constantinople survived under Turkish rule. Since then, the Russian State has helped the Patriarchs of Constantinople a lot, both financially and politically. Despite the fact that after the fall of Constantinople, Moscow assumed the role of the Third Rome (the center of the Orthodox world), the Russian Church did not dispute the status of Constantinople as “first among equals” and the designation of its primates “Ecumenical”. However, a number of Patriarchs of Constantinople did not appreciate this support and did everything to weaken the Russian Church. Although in reality they themselves were representatives of only Phanar - a small Istanbul region, where the residence of the Patriarch of Constantinople is located.

Read also:

Professor Vladislav Petrushko: "The Patriarch of Constantinople provokes the Pan-Orthodox Schism" The decision of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to appoint two Americans as his "exarchs" in Kyiv...

- That is, the Patriarchs of Constantinople have opposed the Russian Church before?

Unfortunately yes. Even before the fall of Constantinople, the Patriarchate of Constantinople entered into a union with the Roman Catholics, subordinating itself to the Pope of Rome, trying to make the Russian Church Uniate as well. Moscow opposed this and temporarily severed relations with Constantinople while it remained in union with the heretics. Later, after the liquidation of the union, unity was restored, and it was the Patriarch of Constantinople who, in 1589, elevated the first Moscow Patriarch, St. Job, to the rank.

Subsequently, representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople repeatedly struck at the Russian Church, beginning with their participation in the so-called “Great Moscow Cathedral” of 1666-1667, which cursed the ancient Russian liturgical rites and sealed the schism of the Russian Church. And ending with the fact that in the troubled years for Russia in the 1920s and 30s, it was the Patriarchs of Constantinople who actively supported the theomachist Soviet government and the Renovationist schism it created, including in their struggle against the legitimate Moscow Patriarch Tikhon.

Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Tikhon. Photo: www.pravoslavie.ru

By the way, at the same time, the first modernist reforms (including the calendar reform) took place in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which called into question its Orthodoxy and provoked a number of conservative splits. In the future, the Patriarchs of Constantinople went even further, removing anathemas from Roman Catholics, and also began to perform public prayer actions with the popes of Rome, which is strictly prohibited by church rules.

Moreover, during the 20th century, very close relations developed between the Patriarchs of Constantinople and the political elites of the United States. Thus, there is evidence that the Greek diaspora of the United States, well integrated into the American establishment, supports the Phanar not only financially, but also lobbying. And the fact that the creator of the Euromaidan, and today the US ambassador to Greece, is putting pressure on Mount Athos (canonically subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople) is also a significant link in this Russophobic chain.

"What connects Istanbul and "Ukrainian autocephaly"?"

- And what do these Modernist Patriarchs living in Istanbul have to do with Ukraine?

None. More precisely, once, until the second half of the 17th century, the Church of Constantinople really spiritually nourished the territories of Southwestern Rus' (Ukraine), which at that time were part of the Ottoman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. After the reunification of these lands with the Russian Tsardom in 1686, Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople transferred the ancient Kievan Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate.

No matter how Greek and Ukrainian nationalists try to dispute this fact, the documents fully confirm it. Thus, the head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) of Volokolamsk, emphasizes:

We have recently done a lot of work in the archives and found all the available documentation on these events - 900 pages of documents in both Greek and Russian. They clearly show that the Kievan Metropolis was included in the Moscow Patriarchate by the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the temporary nature of this decision was not specified anywhere.

Thus, despite the fact that initially the Russian Church (including its Ukrainian part) was part of the Church of Constantinople, over time, having received autocephaly, and soon reunited (with the consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople) with the Metropolis of Kiev, the Russian Orthodox Church became completely independent, and no one has the right to encroach on its canonical territory.

However, over time, the Patriarchs of Constantinople began to consider themselves almost “Eastern Popes”, who have the right to decide everything for other Orthodox Churches. This contradicts both canon law and the entire history of Ecumenical Orthodoxy (for about a thousand years now, the Orthodox have been criticizing Roman Catholics, including for this papal "primacy" - illegal omnipotence).

Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople. Photo: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com

Does this mean that each Church owns the territory of some country: Russian - Russia, Constantinople - Turkey, and so on? Why then is there no independent national Ukrainian Church?

No, this is a serious mistake! Canonical territories take shape over the centuries and do not always correspond to the political boundaries of one or another modern state. Thus, the Patriarchate of Constantinople spiritually nourishes Christians not only in Turkey, but also in parts of Greece, as well as the Greek diaspora in other countries (at the same time, in the churches of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, like any other Orthodox Church, there are parishioners of different ethnic origins).

The Russian Orthodox Church is also not the Church of exclusively modern Russia, but of a significant part of post-Soviet space, including Ukraine, as well as a number of far-abroad countries. Moreover, the very concept of "national Church" is an outright heresy, conciliarly anathematized in the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1872 under the name "phyletism" or "ethnophyletism". Here is a quote from the decision of this Council of Constantinople almost 150 years ago:

We reject and condemn tribal division, that is, tribal differences, national strife and disagreements in the Church of Christ, as contrary to the Gospel teaching and the sacred laws of our blessed fathers, on which the Holy Church is established and which, decorating human society, lead to Divine piety. Those who accept such a division into tribes and dare to establish on it hitherto unprecedented tribal assemblies, we proclaim, according to the sacred canons, alien to the One Catholic and Apostolic Church and real schismatics.

"Ukrainian schismatics: who are they?"

What is the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate", "Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate" and "Ukrainian Autocephalous Church"? But there is also the "Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church"? How to understand all these UAOC, CP and UGCC?

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, also called "Uniate", stands apart here. It is part of the Roman Catholic Church in the center with the Vatican. The UGCC is subordinate to the Pope, although it has a certain autonomy. The only thing that unites it with the so-called "Kyiv Patriarchate" and "Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church" is the ideology of Ukrainian nationalism.

At the same time, the latter, considering themselves Orthodox Churches, in fact are not. These are pseudo-Orthodox Russophobic nationalist sects, dreaming that sooner or later the Patriarchate of Constantinople, out of antipathy towards the Moscow Patriarchate, will grant them legal status and coveted autocephaly. All these sects became more active with the separation of Ukraine from Russia, and especially in the last 4 years, after the victory of Euromaidan, in which they actively participated.

On the territory of Ukraine there is only one real, canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (the name "UOC-MP" is widespread, but incorrect) - this is the Church under the leadership of His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine. It is this Church that owns the majority of Ukrainian parishes and monasteries (which schismatics so often encroach on today), and it is she who is a self-governing but integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The episcopate of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (with a few exceptions) opposes autocephaly and for unity with the Moscow Patriarchate. At the same time, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church itself is completely autonomous in all internal matters, including financial.

And who is the “Kyiv Patriarch Filaret” who all the time opposes Russia and demands that same autocephaly?

Read also:

“Patriarch Bartholomew is three times worthy of judgment and defrocking”: Patriarchate of Constantinople dances to the tune of the USA Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople is going to aggravate the conflict with the Russian Orthodox Church on...

This is a disguised impostor. Once, in the Soviet years, this native of the Donbass, who practically did not know the Ukrainian language, was indeed the legitimate Metropolitan of Kiev, a hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church (although in those years there were many unpleasant rumors about the personal life of Metropolitan Filaret). But when he was not elected Patriarch of Moscow in 1990, he held a grudge. And as a result, on the wave of nationalist sentiments, he created his own nationalist sect - the "Kyiv Patriarchate".

This man (whose name on the passport is Mikhail Antonovich Denisenko) was first defrocked for causing a schism, and then completely anathematized, that is, excommunicated from the Church. The fact that the False Philaret (he was deprived of his monastic name 20 years ago, at the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997) wears patriarchal robes and periodically performs actions identical to Orthodox rites, speaks exclusively of the artistic abilities of this already elderly person, as well as - his personal ambitions.

And the Patriarchate of Constantinople wants to give autocephaly to such characters in order to weaken the Russian Church? Will Orthodox people follow them?

Unfortunately, a significant part of the population of Ukraine is poorly versed in the intricacies of canon law. And therefore, when an elderly man with a gray-haired beard in a patriarchal headdress says that Ukraine has the right to a “single local Ukrainian Orthodox Church” (UPOC), many people believe him. And of course, the state nationalist Russophobic propaganda is doing its job. But even in these difficult circumstances, the majority of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine remain children of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

At the same time, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople never formally recognized Ukrainian nationalist schisms. Moreover, relatively recently, in 2016, one of the official representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (according to some sources, a CIA agent and at the same time the right hand of Patriarch Bartholomew), Father Alexander Karloutsos, said:

As you know, the Ecumenical Patriarch recognizes only Patriarch Kirill as the spiritual head of all Rus', which means, of course, Ukraine.

However, lately Patriarch Bartholomew has intensified his activities to destroy the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church, for which he is doing everything to unite nationalist sects and, apparently, after their oath to him, provide them with the coveted Tomos (Decree) on Ukrainian autocephaly.

"Tomos of autocephaly" as an "axe of war"

- But what can this Tomos lead to?

To the most terrible consequences. Ukrainian splits, despite the statements of Patriarch Bartholomew, this will not heal, but will strengthen the existing ones. And the worst thing is that it will give them additional grounds to demand from the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church their churches and monasteries, as well as other property. During recent years dozens of Orthodox shrines have already been seized by schismatics, including with the use of physical force. In the event of the legalization of these nationalist sects by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, a real religious war could begin.

- What is the attitude of other Orthodox Churches towards Ukrainian autocephaly? Are there many of them?

Yes, there are 15 of them, and representatives of a number of them have repeatedly spoken out on this matter. Here are just a few quotes from the primates and representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches on Ukrainian issues.

Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa Theodore II:

Let's pray to the Lord, who does everything for our good, who will guide us on the path to solving these problems. If the schismatic Denisenko wants to return to the bosom of the Church, he must return to where he left.

(that is, to the Russian Orthodox Church - ed.).

Patriarch of Antioch and All the East John X:

The Patriarchate of Antioch acts jointly with the Russian Church and speaks out against church schism in Ukraine".

Primate of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church Patriarch Theophilos III:

We most categorically condemn the actions directed against the parishes of the canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine. It is not in vain that the Holy Fathers of the Church remind us that the destruction of the unity of the Church is a mortal sin.

Primate of the Serbian Orthodox Church Patriarch Irinej:

A very dangerous and even catastrophic situation, probably fatal for the unity of Orthodoxy [is the possible] act of honoring and restoring schismatics to the rank of bishops, especially arch-schismatics, such as the “Kiev Patriarch” Filaret Denisenko. Bringing them to the liturgical service and communion without repentance and return to the bosom of the Russian Church, from which they renounced. And all this without the consent of Moscow and coordination with them.”

In addition, in an exclusive interview with the Tsargrad TV channel, the representative of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, Archbishop Theodosius (Khanna), gave an even clearer description of what is happening:

The problem of Ukraine and the problem of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine is an example of the interference of politicians in church affairs. Unfortunately, this is where the realization of American goals and interests takes place. US policy has targeted Ukraine and the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Church has always historically been together with the Russian Church, has been one Church with it, and this must be protected and preserved.

"Who are these strange 'exarchs'?"

But let us return to the fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople sent two of his representatives, the so-called "exarchs", to Ukraine. It is already clear that this is illegal. And who are they, and who will receive them in the same Kyiv?

These two people, quite young by episcopal standards (both under 50), are natives of Western Ukraine, where nationalist and Russophobic sentiments are especially strong. Even in their youth, both found themselves abroad, where they ended up as part of two semi-schismatic jurisdictions - the UOC in the USA and the UOC in Canada (at one time these were Ukrainian nationalist sects, which were granted legal status by the same Patriarchate of Constantinople). So, a little more about each.

1) Archbishop Daniel (Zelinsky), cleric of the UOC in the USA. In the past - a Uniate, in the rank of a Greek Catholic deacon, he transferred to this American Ukrainian nationalist "Church", where he made a career.

2) Bishop Hilarion (Rudnik), cleric of the UOC in Canada. Known as a radical Russophobe and supporter of Chechen terrorists. Thus, it is known that “on June 9, 2005, while in Turkey, where he was an interpreter during a meeting between Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, he was detained by the Turkish police. The bishop was accused of traveling on forged documents and being a "Chechen rebel". Subsequently, this figure was released, and now, together with Archbishop Daniel (Zelinsky), he became the "exarch" of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Ukraine.

Of course, as "uninvited guests", they should not even be accepted in the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Poroshenko and his entourage will be accepted and, apparently, solemnly, at the state level. And of course, the leaders of pseudo-Orthodox sects will turn to them with joy (and maybe bow). There is no doubt that it will look like a nationalist farce with an abundance of “zhovto-Blakit” and Bandera banners and cries of “Glory to Ukraine!”. To the question of what relation this has to patristic Orthodoxy, it is not difficult to answer: none.

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

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

The historical role of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

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

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

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

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

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

Saint Maxim the Confessor

Territories of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

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

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

The time of the Patriarchate of St. Photius was the time of the most active Orthodox Church mission in the entire history of Byzantium, which resulted not only in the baptism and conversion to Orthodoxy of the peoples of Bulgaria, the Serbian lands and the Great Moravian state (the latter covered the territories of modern Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary), but also the first ( the so-called "Askold's") the baptism of Russia (which took place shortly after 861) and the formation of the beginnings of the Russian Church. It was the representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople - the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles missionaries, enlighteners of the Slavs Cyril and Methodius - who defeated the so-called "trilingual heresy" (the supporter of which claimed that there were some "sacred" languages, in which only one should pray to God).

Finally, like St. John Chrysostom, St. Photius in his writings actively preached the social ideal of Orthodox Christian society (and even compiled for the empire a code of laws imbued with Christian values, the Epanagoge). It is not surprising that, like John Chrysostom, Saint Photius was persecuted. However, if the ideas of St. John Chrysostom, despite persecution during his lifetime, after his death were nevertheless officially recognized by the imperial authorities, then the ideas of St. Photius, which were disseminated during his lifetime, were rejected shortly after his death (thus, accepted shortly before the death of St. Epanagoge and not entered into force).

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

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

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

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

Saint Mark of Ephesus

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

However, one should not at all think that the life of the Primates of the Church of Constantinople - the ethnarchs of all Eastern Christians - was "truly royal" under Ottoman domination. For many of them, she was truly a confessor, and even a martyr. Appointed and dismissed at the arbitrariness of the sultan and his hangers-on, the patriarchs, not only by their position, but also by their lives, were responsible for the obedience of the oppressed, oppressed, robbed, humiliated and destroyed Orthodox population of the Ottoman Empire. So, after the start of the Greek uprising of 1821, on the orders of the Sultan's government, fanatics belonging to non-Christian Abrahamic religions, on Easter Day, 76-year-old elder Patriarch Gregory V (1797 - 1798, 1806 -1808, 1818 - 1821) were brutally murdered. , who became not only a holy martyr, but also a martyr for the people (εθνομάρτυς).

Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church

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

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

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

Primate of the Church of Constantinople - Patriarch Bartholomew

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

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople

The certificate was prepared by Balytnikov Vadim Vladimirovich

Some historical (including hagiographic and iconographic data) testify to the veneration of this emperor in Byzantium along with Constantine the Great, who was named after him.

Interestingly, it was this heretic patriarch who, with his “canonical answers” ​​(about the inadmissibility of Christians drinking koumiss, etc.), actually thwarted all the efforts of the Russian Church to carry out a Christian mission among the nomadic peoples of the Golden Horde.

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

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

Reference: In September 2018, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew addressed the Synax with a statement about the interference of the Russian Church in the affairs of the Kyiv Metropolis. In response to this, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church at an extraordinary meeting decided: “1. Suspend the prayer commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople at the service. 2. Suspend concelebration with the hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. 3. Suspend the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in all Episcopal assemblies, theological dialogues, multilateral commissions and other structures chaired or co-chaired by representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. 4. To accept the statement of the Holy Synod in connection with the anti-canonical actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine.” The Russian Orthodox Church has severed Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.