Who is the Head of the Church? On the Theory of Primacy

Philology of the Moscow Theological Academy, head of the postgraduate program, Hegumen Dionysius (Shlenov), examines the issue of the admissibility of the primacy of the person in the earthly Church. Based on the concepts of hierarchy, the primacy of the person as the first hierarch of the Church, first in the diptychs, seems not only admissible, but also necessary. Historically, the Patriarch of Constantinople (especially after the Council of Chalcedon in 451) had the primacy of honor in the East, but not the primacy of honor and power, which, especially after the fall of Rome in 1054, began to be considered unacceptable. Using individual precedents of the manifestation of the primacy of honor and power on the part of the Patriarch of Constantinople, his supporters are trying to justify the justice of the extraterritorial decision to create the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which essentially became the cause of a schism among the Orthodox Churches. As is known, the Russian Orthodox Church categorically disagreed with this approach. The extent to which her decision is justified can be seen from a review of the ideas about the head (κεφαλή) of the Church in the biblical and patristic tradition.

Quoted from a publication on the Bogoslov.ru portal.

In the modern world, the Orthodox Church has to endure a number of challenges, the purpose of which is to disunite its unity both from the outside and from the inside. The key issue is the question of primacy. D. Shabanov in his 2011 publication indicated the general historical-canonical and literary context for this issue [1], which, however, acquired particular relevance and topicality after the unilateral granting of the tomos to the Ukrainian schismatics and the subsequent chain of events [2]. Metropolitan John of Pergamon (Zizioulas) is probably the greatest ideologist-theologian of the primacy of Constantinople with the utmost exaggeration of its earthly component [3].

Is the first in honor also the first in power? Is it possible to apply the principle of hierarchy to the relationships between the Primates of Local Churches? Who is the head of the Church and how acceptable is this title?

We will try to answer these questions by examining the teaching on the head of the Church in the Byzantine tradition. Who is the head of the Church (or the church as a local community)? According to the theology of Apostle Paul, it is Christ the Savior – for the whole Church; according to the 34th Apostolic Canon, it is a bishop – for a particular community; according to the title of the Roman popes – the Roman Pope as the head of the churches under his jurisdiction; according to some modern theologians of the Patriarchate of Constantinople – the Ecumenical Patriarch in relation to his potential worldwide “super-jurisdiction”. Obviously, somewhere in this list a period should be put, but where?

Exaggerated idea of the rights of the primate bishop

Unfortunately, in the East, especially after the fall of Rome, along with ideas about the conciliar structure of the Church, ideas about the primacy of honor and power of the Primate of Constantinople began to take shape. Especially in the minds of some modern Constantinople theologians and canonists, he is not “first among equals” (primus inter pares), but “first without equals” (primus sine paribus).

This concept is based on:

· exaggerated interpretation of the 9th, 17th and 28th rules of the Council of Chalcedon. As is known, the “barbarians” mentioned in the 28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon began to be understood by Byzantine canonists of the 12th century as peoples Christianized later than the 5th century, namely the Alans and Russians[4]. This expanded interpretation gradually became the basis for the idea of the Bishop of Constantinople as a hierarch possessing the “primacy of honor and power”;

· the theory of “two authorities”, first clearly reflected in the “Isagoge” (mid-880s);

· the real rise of Constantinople among the Eastern patriarchates, beginning with the era of St. Photius the Great, which took place in Byzantium, which at that time really existed and preserved the tradition of Orthodoxy;

· polemics with the primacy of Rome after its apostasy – not only in the denial of this primacy, but also in its copying and continuation already on the territory of the Orthodox East;

· further legislative acts and regulations after 1054 – ecclesiastical and imperial – emphasizing the special rights of the head of the Byzantine Church[5], which, however, were not adopted by a council at the pan-ecclesiastical level;

· The defense of the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople as the head of the Church – both in individual medieval treatises and monuments[6], and by modern theologians and canonists of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

What are the individual canonical acts that served as prerequisites for the theory of the primacy of honor and power? Let us cite individual little-known examples in addition to the more well-known ones.

Under Patriarch John VIII Xiphilinos, a decision was made (March 14, 1072)[7] on the possibility of electing and ordaining bishops in the capital of Byzantium, and not in their metropolises[8].

Patriarch George II Xiphilinos (acts of 1191, 1197) and St. Germanus II of Constantinople (1232) emphasized the importance of the patriarchal stavropegia, whose clergy were to commemorate Ecumenical Patriarch and pay him kanonikon[9]. At the same time, the monasteries and parishes subordinate to them were to remain under the jurisdiction of the local bishop[10].

In the 16th century, the Patriarch of Constantinople Mitrofan III issued an indulgence on paper to Hieromonk Joseph “… in what he, as a man, sinned in deed, word, thought, and in all his feelings, and if he was under a curse <…> <…> or in some other sins, as a man, and himself, being at various times, fell, he himself confessed this to his spiritual fathers and accurately fulfilled the rule prescribed by them. From all this guilt and bonds we have him free by the almighty power and grace of God…” (Document of 1571. More precisely, the document was created in April 1567)[11]. It is obvious that in the matter of indulgences or permission letters, the Primates of the Local Churches[12], primarily of Constantinople, began to copy a similar practice of the Roman Church, although without extremes.

Each of these acts is explained by the realities of their time. With a limited interpretation, taking into account the real existence of the Byzantine Empire, it was permissible to stipulate some of the privileges of the capital’s hierarch, but without providing any categorical theological basis for them.

At the end of the 20th – beginning of the 21st century, the situation changed radically and became more radical. On September 18, 2022, Patriarch Bartholomew prayed in the Anglican Church of St. Helena in Constantinople/Istanbul for the “supreme head” or “supreme ruler of the Church”[13], obviously implying himself as such a head – which is confirmed by a number of his own statements.

Thus, on June 12, 2022, a solemn service took place in Constantinople between the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew and the Primate of Ohrid Stefan [14]. In his speech, the Ecumenical Patriarch himself outlined his exclusive rights as the head of the Church. All the main ideas of this speech had been expressed before, but they were heard in such a concentrated and ecclesiastical-canonical form for the first time. According to this speech, the Ecumenical Councils and the “divine fathers” gave the Ecumenical Patriarch special ecclesiastical-canonical authority (appeal and right of judgment) in relation to other Local Churches in the East.

“(The Divine Fathers) placed on the seemingly small shoulders of the Archbishop of Constantinople the cross of sacred-canonical control over the Lord’s Body in the East, namely, to judge the bishops of the Universe…” [15].

“The Great Church of Constantinople is the mother, the nurse, the feeder and the testator for each of her children”[16].

“The newly created and newly organized Churches feel that by reinterpreting or, rather, destroying the truth, they can establish new principles and perspectives in the Church”[17].

“The Archbishop of Constantinople is not only a one-time administrator, but, according to canonical obligation and unwavering duty, he is the one who constantly watches over the welfare of the holy Churches of God”[18].

It turns out that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the one who has the exclusive right to create Local Churches and control their activities. This text does not use the term “head”, but its content is disclosed in detail. “The head” in this concept is not the first among equals, but the first with the help of historical equals (the ancient patriarchates of the East and the Archdiocese of Cyprus) and without equals (all Local Churches except for the remnants of the ancient Pentarchy and the Church of Cyprus).

At the beginning of 2023, these views became even more acute. Thus, Archbishop Makarios of Australia at a meeting of the clergy called for avoiding the heresy of “unilateral authority” (αίρεση της “μονοπρόσωπης αυθεντίας”). Anyone who protests and does not agree with the general opinion of the church on another issue falls under this category. Those who disagree with the Church’s policy towards the Ukrainian schism are not just truth-seekers or even schismatics, but heretics![19]

On the eve of the Triumph of Orthodoxy on March 3, 2023, in his greeting to the head of the Cypriot Orthodox Church, George, the Ecumenical Patriarch declared the need to preserve the “canonicity of the canonical tradition of the Church, the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and centuries-old church practice” as his sacred duty[20], calling those who disagree with this approach under the influence of “extra-church principles” (εξωκκλησιαστικαί αρχαί), obviously referring to the Russian Orthodox Church and its traditional conciliar position[21].

These radical views are a persistent leitmotif of the new ideology of the Phanar. The current Metropolitan Gregory (Papafomas), in his dissertation defended at the Sorbonne in 1996, formulated the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which stands in stark contrast to the call for other Local Churches to remain within their national territories[22]. According to the “pre-jurisdictional right,” everything that does not jurisdictionally belong to other Local Churches belongs to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who can share it temporarily or even permanently with the Churches obedient to him.

Hieromonk Nikita of the Pantocrator Monastery[23] tries to show through skillful dialectics that, in addition to Christ as the Head of the the Church also needs an earthly head[24]. In particular, he writes: “…It is important that he (that is, the Ecumenical Patriarch. – I.D.) received these rights alone, he did not demand them, but the Ecumenical Council gave them to him, and, unfortunately, anyone who doubts them doubts the decisions of many God-bearing fathers who decreed this. And all this is the fruit of the Holy Spirit, Who is the perfect God, and what God has done is perfect and does not need to be corrected. It cannot become better. If we interfere, it can only become worse.”

Other terms, expressions and thoughts of the supporters of such a theory in general and in particular emphasize the thesis of this actual and very serious superiority of the Patriarchs of Constantinople[25].

From more ancient texts, one can cite the vivid speech of Nikita of Amasea in defense of the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople as the head of the Church of Constantinople. The Patriarch of Constantinople is the “first bishop” who shepherds the universe[26]. “The City and the Church are subject to him as the head”[27]. However, the author defended only the weak power of Patriarch Theophylact (933-956) from the excessive omnipotence of the metropolitans under his jurisdiction and nothing more[28].

The anti-union Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, in his polemics with the primacy of Rome, exaggerated the Council of Chalcedon and the judicial powers of the Patriarch of Constantinople back in the second half of the 13th century: according to Patriarch Joseph, the Council of Chalcedon “… is later than the Council of Sardica, and ecumenical, and amazing, and famous, and confirmed by the sign and miracle of the all-famous great martyr Euphemia, which has a special exclusivity above all the Ecumenical Councils. So, this Holy and Ecumenical Council, famous, great, more numerous than others, gives me the primacy of appeal among all the Churches, although I (the patriarch) of Constantinople” [29]. Obviously, in this self-exaltation he copied the ambitions of the Roman popes of his time and the previous era, who (as, for example, in the exposition of John Beccus) claimed primacy and a special right to accept appeals [30].

Naturally, such inflated ideas about the “primacy of honor and power” cause opposition and a desire to understand and find the truth. Let us try to consider the ideas about the bishop as the head of the Church in the Byzantine tradition [31].

Let us consider the following topics:
Christ as the head of the Church.
The 34th Apostolic Canon: the bishop as the head.
Criticism of Western primacy (headship) in the Orthodox East.
Lists of ranks of holiness and hierarchy.
Hierarchy and holiness.
Historical generalizations.
Criticism of the primacy of honor and power.

1. Christ as the head of the Church

According to the theology of Apostle Paul, “head” is one of the names[32] of Christ the Savior: Christ is “the head of every man,” and God is the “head” of Christ Himself (see 1 Cor. 11:3). God the Father placed His beloved Son Christ the Savior above all, the head of the Church (Eph. 1:22). Christ is the head of the body of believers, which consists of different members (see Eph. 4:15-16; Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:27).

The most key place in Apostle Paul about the primacy of Christ in relation to the Church: as the husband is the head of the wife, so Christ is the head of the Church (see Eph. 5:23). Christ is the head of the body of the Church (Col. 1:18), and also the head of all principality and power (Col. 2:10).

All of these texts use the word κεφαλή “head” (corresponding to the Hebrew ראש with the meanings “head; leader; beginning”).

The true Head of the Church is Christ the Savior. It is He who governs it. The Head of the Church – Christ the Savior – shows an example of meekness, patience, forgiveness. He washes the feet of the disciples, He says that He came not to be served, but to serve others (see Matt. 20:17). It is He who is the True Primate of the Church (hierarch, deified and divine man, expert in all sacred knowledge – according to a special definition from the Areopagite Corpus) [33]. Earthly authority, earthly power, earthly advantage, earthly privileges – the worldly side, completely unacceptable in the relations of Local Orthodox Churches.

This teaching about Christ as the Head of the body of the Church or as the Head of the Church is the cornerstone of ecclesiology, because the Church is the treasury of faith, the keeper and interpreter of Divine Revelation in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Due to the fact that the Church is the Body of Christ, the Head of which is Christ, it is the Church that is infallible[34]. Infallibility is a property of God[35], all Three Hypostases of the Holy Trinity, including the Second: Christ is “infallible in knowledge,” according to the Macarius Corpus[36]. “Grace”[37] and “Divine justice”[38] are also “infallible.” According to patristic teaching, God is also the “Infallible Judge” and the “infallible eye”[39].

Thus, the teaching about Christ as the Head of the Church is very closely connected with the concept of Divine infallibility, which is granted to the Church as a divine-human organism. Due to this, any leadership and leadership in the Church was conceived by the holy fathers as an imitation of Christ – and as receiving of the power that belongs to Christ the Savior, and as a delegation of it to those who will use it according to their rank and for the good.

Based on the theology of the Apostle Paul, St. John Chrysostom wrote: “…we have become one Church, constituting the united members of one head, and have appeared as one body; if what has happened is neglected, everything [will be] neglected and destroyed”[40].

“…[Christ] is first everywhere; first on high, first in the Church; for He is the Head; first in the resurrection”[41].

2. 34th Apostolic Canon: Bishop as Head

Even in ancient times, the primacy and leadership of everything by Christ the Savior did not exclude the possibility of a certain primacy in the church hierarchy.

The 34th Apostolic Canon (4th century) speaks most of all about the primacy of honor of the bishop as a special principle: “The bishops of every nation must know the first of them, and recognize him as the head (emphasis added. – I.D.), and do nothing beyond their authority without his discretion: each one must do only what concerns his diocese and the places belonging to it. But let the first do nothing without the discretion of all. For thus there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through Christ (διὰ Χριστοῦ) in the Holy Spirit” [42].

The 34th Canon contains a deep symmetry between the primacy of a bishop in his church and the conciliar adoption of all decisions, including the participation of the first bishop. The bishop must be recognized “as the head”, but not as the head of the entire Church, but only of the diocese entrusted to him.

Later in the Byzantine tradition, one can find many references to the 34th Apostolic Canon, which was understood not only in the context of the realities of the time of the creation of the Apostolic Canons (4th century), but also universally.

The 12th-century Byzantine canonist John Zonaras attributed the first part of the 34th Canon (the reference to the bishop as head) to “the primate bishops in each diocese, that is, the bishops of the metropolises”[43]. At the beginning of his interpretation, he wrote: “As bodies move incorrectly, or even become completely useless, if the head does not maintain its activity in a healthy state; so the body of the church will move disorderly and incorrectly, if the primate member in it, occupying the place of the head, does not enjoy the honor due to it”[44].

This principle of primacy, taken by itself, could mean primacy in the entire Universal Church, but from further explanation it is clear that Zonaras understands the 34th rule as speaking not of one first bishop, but of a number of first ones – in the spirit of the conciliar structure of the Church. In fact, he understands it in the sense that is found in the clarified version – in the 9th rule of the Council of Antioch in 341: “The bishops in every province must know that the bishop – the Primate of the metropolis takes upon himself the care of the entire diocese by virtue of the fact that all who have [any] business flock to the metropolis from everywhere. Therefore it was decided that he should have first place in respect of honor, and the other bishops should do nothing superfluous without him, according to the ancient current canon of our fathers <…> but each bishop should have power over his parish <…> and show care for the entire region subordinate to his city… But nothing more should be attempted to be done without the bishop of the metropolis, and also for him without the opinion of the others”[45].

Aristinus proposed a more general and vague understanding, allowing an even higher level of ecclesiastical authority and governance over bishops and metropolitans, namely the patriarchal one. After briefly retelling the 34th rule: “Without their primate, bishops do nothing except the affairs of each one’s own domain, and the primate without them does nothing, for the sake of proper unanimity”[46], he offers the following interpretation: “Neither bishops nor metropolitans, without the consent of their primate, should do anything that exceeds their authority, for example, elect bishops, conduct research on new dogmas, or alienate any church property; but they should do only what pertains to the domain of each and the places subordinate to him; but the primate cannot do anything like this without their knowledge; and in this way the definition of unanimity will be observed”[47].

From Aristinus’ interpretation, it is impossible to conclude that there is a single primate in the Church, since he says: “… without the consent of his primate…” (τὸν ἑαυτῶν πρῶτον). This means that each community of metropolitans has its own primate, that is, the patriarch, the head (Primate) of the Local Church. Aristinus also drew attention to the 9th rule of the Council of Antioch as clarifying the 34th Apostolic[48].

Theodore Balsamon also interpreted the 34th rule in general in the same way, understanding the primate bishop as the “ordained one”, and the governed as the “ordained” by him. He also writes specifically about the “primates” in the plural[49].

Subsequently, another Byzantine canonist, Hieromonk Matthew Blastares, understood the “head” of the Church, mentioned in the 34th canon, to be the primate metropolitan[50] – just like Zonaras. At the same time, in other places Matthew Blastares wrote that the Patriarch of Constantinople should have judicial primacy (see, for example, only reference to the 9th rule of the Council of Chalcedon[51]), but only within the boundaries of his patriarchal domain, like any other patriarch[52].

According to the interpretation of the 34th Apostolic Rule according to the “Slavic Kormcha”, the head bishop is the “eldest” metropolitan, or archbishop, who, as indicated after the metropolitan, means not exclusively the archbishop of Constantinople, but any of the archbishops in the general composition of the church hierarchy[53].

In the late Byzantine patristic and literary tradition, the 34th rule confirmed the conciliar structure of the Church.

Hieromonk Hierotheus referred to the 34th rule as confirming the need for a heretical Roman pope to listen to the conciliar multitude that denounces him, and to urgently repent[54].

Barlaam of Calabria, during his stay in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, will use this rule for polemics with the papal primacy. In his “Treatise on the Primacy of the Pope”, he, referring to the 34th rule, shows that the Church has a conciliar principle and there is no talk of any privileges even for a throne that has special historical significance, like the Roman one.

St. Nilus Cabasilas in his anti-Latin treatise “On the Procession of the Holy Spirit” cites the 34th Apostolic Rule to confirm the conciliarity of the Church and to indicate the inadmissibility of introducing the Filioque. He says that the conciliarity of the Eastern patriarchates allows them not to deviate from the correct teaching and to preserve the truth unchanged.

In the interpretation of the 34th Apostolic Rule by St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, complete harmony can be seen. He writes: “Due to the fact that the metropolitan listens to the opinion of the bishops, priests, and deacons subordinate to him, and also due to the fact that they also listen to the metropolitan, the principle of mutual obedience is realized and harmony and love are truly realized”[55].

Meanwhile, in modern times, the theologians of the Phanar understand the 34th canon in the sense of the primacy of Constantinople. Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, the author of the “Eucharistic ecclesiology of primacy” (εὐχαριστιακὴ ἐκκλησιολογία τοῦ πρωτείου)[56], saw in the 34th canon the key basis for the idea of visible primacy in the earthly Church[57]. He compares the primacy of the bishop at all levels of the church hierarchy to the primacy of the First Hypostasis of God the Father among the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity[58]. It turns out that the 34th rule is, first of all, important because it teaches about the first among the first, which, however, does not correspond to the Byzantine tradition.

Metropolitan John Zizioulas also writes that, based on the 34th rule, one can affirm the key role of the chairman of the Ecumenical Council in holding the Council. Without the first patriarch (that is, the Patriarch of Constantinople), the Council cannot take place[59].

According to Metropolitan John, the 34th rule must be implemented at all levels – episcopal, metropolitan and patriarchal – based on the principles of triadology[60].

The church structure after the Great Schism of 1054, as he claims, is such a structure in which the Patriarchate of Constantinople has among the other patriarchates of the Orthodox East not only the primacy of honor, but also the primacy of responsibility, that is, to put it in other words, the primacy of power. Canon 34 explains, from his point of view, this very hierarchical and not so conciliar model[61].

For Zizioulas, in the end, the primacy of the first among the first at the highest patriarchal level turns out to be a very urgent and relevant idea, which is expressed in his words: “It seems that even in the Orthodox Church there really is no simple primacy of honor”[62].

In Zizioulas’s system of argumentation, it is clearly indicated that canonics (the doctrine of primacy) is inseparable from dogmatics (ecclesiology). In this way, he implies that the doctrine of primacy (as an expanded understanding of the 34th rule) is part of church dogma and is inseparable from it[63]. Desiring to defend the doctrine of primacy in this way, he simultaneously does it considerable damage: correct dogma is beautiful, while incorrect dogma is subject to criticism and refutation!

A similar understanding was expressed, for example, by Archpriest George Tsetsis, with whom Bishop Athanasius (Evtich) (July 8, 1938 – March 4, 2021) categorically disagreed[64].

Bishop (now Metropolitan) Cyril of Avid connects the 34th rule with the concept of an appeal to Constantinople, that is, he sees in it an indication of the exclusive rights of the Constantinople throne[65].

V. Fidas wrote that the “canonical institution of the First” is “beautifully expressed by the 34th rule of the Holy Apostles.” “In his commentary on this rule, the authoritative canonist I. Zonaras also beautifully demonstrates the ecclesiological importance of the exclusive role of the First for the harmonious functioning of the entire church body.”[66] However, the further quotation from Zonaras[67] is merely a retelling of the 34th rule and nothing more.[68]

In an article defending the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine,” L. Patsavos also refers to the 34th rule as a rule that supports the principle of the extraterritoriality of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.[69]

It turns out that the modern Constantinople theologians began to defend what their predecessors had refuted. It was as if the course of tradition had changed, to the point of completely changing its direction. It is obvious that the harmony between conciliarity and primacy was distorted in the direction of absolute primacy on earth, which “in word and deed” came into conflict with the evangelical primacy, ideally represented in the image and example of Christ the Savior.

A broader than the exegesis of the 34th rule, the topic “The Bishop is the Head of the Church” in Byzantine literature shows that the bishop was understood as a spiritual mentor and leader. There are very few cases where the right of the bishop-head to judge outside his diocese was discussed.

A presbyter says to Abba Evagrius in his cell, where he was laboring: “We know that if you were in your own country [Constantinople], you would be a bishop and head, but now you sit here as a foreigner”[70]. From Evagrius’s answer it is clear that he prefers monasticism to episcopacy: “You have spoken truly, Father. However, I have spoken once and will not add a second time”[71]. It seems that a simple answer is given in the spirit of monastic renunciation, but it shows, on the one hand, confirmation of the direct meaning of the 34th Apostolic Canon (local bishop = head), and on the other, the priority of holiness over hierarchical rank. To be holy is more important than anything else. And this same principle was also decisive in the church hierarchy.

In the golden age of patristic writing (5th–7th centuries), there are few references to a bishop as the head of the Church (or ecclesiastical order). In the “Apostolic Constitutions” bishops are even advised to lead, and not be led: any bishop must be a “head”, and not a “tail”[72].

In the late Byzantine monument Morean Chronicle, “all bishops” are called “heads”[73], as is also implied by Patriarch Callistus III[74].

3. Criticism of Western Primacy (Headship) in the Orthodox East

The Roman popes began to call themselves heads of all Local Churches, beginning, at least, with the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Deacon Paschasin, the representative of the Roman Pope St. Leo, called him “the head of all churches” at the Fourth Ecumenical Council[75]. This formulation generally corresponds to the position of St. Leo, Pope of Rome, and his envoys, who, as is well known, presented to the members of the Council a falsified text of the 6th rule of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (325) with the addition: “The Roman Church has always had primacy” (Ἡ ἐκκλησία Ῥώμης πάντοτε ἔσχε τὰ πρωτεῖα)[76].

In the self-awareness of the Roman Church, especially after the schism of 1054, it was and remained the generally recognized “head and mother and teacher”, even in the era of the Council of Ferrara-Florence[77].

The Church of Constantinople, like the Patriarch of Constantinople, was also called the “head”, as, for example, in the words of St. Nikon the Black: “… The Great Church, that is, the patriarchate, the head of all churches and monasteries…”[78] – obviously within the framework of its jurisdiction.

From the point of view of Orthodox polemicists, in the case of papal primacy, the epithet “head”, as a synonym for primacy, is rejected. According to John Eugenicus (mid-15th century), the Pope, calling himself “the head of the whole Church”, is in a daring state of mind[79]. In the event of repentance, he will be able to become the “head of the Western churches” and the first “in rank” in comparison with the Eastern ones, but nothing more[80].

Patriarch Meletius Pigas of Alexandria (August 5, 1590 – September 13, 1601)[81] denounced the tyranny of the Roman popes, who claimed to be the “only beginning and head of the Church”[82]. “The Gospel truth knows one catholic Head of the Catholic Church, preaching one Christ…”[83]

The teaching about the pope as the head of the Church distorts the entire ecclesiology, for it comes into direct contradiction with the teaching about Christ as the Head of the Church[84].

Christ is the Head, while the Primates of all the Local Orthodox Churches are “heads” with a small letter[85]. The only Head of the Church is Christ, and the patriarchs are like many heads[86].

The teaching about the primate bishop, as a special head or mother, was criticized in most detail by St. Dositheus (Notara)[87], Patriarch of Jerusalem. There is no third head between Christ as the Head and the bishop as the head[88] — and the Pope of Rome, who claims to be such a “third head,” must be rejected[89]. Christ is the “special Head” of the Ecumenical Council[90]. Thus, not the Pope, but Christ is the Head of the Church[91].

Criticism not only of the Pope of Rome, as claiming primacy, but also of the Patriarch of Constantinople is a clear leitmotif in St. Dositheus. Neither of them has the right to claim the title “Ecumenical” in the absolute sense of the word[92].

The title “head” eventually became part of the titles of the Patriarchs of Constantinople in the Byzantine era — especially in the 2nd millennium[93]. However, they were especially “sensitive” to it, since the Pope of Rome’s self-designation as “head” was considered unacceptable by them. This is precisely the criticism that the Byzantine Patriarch Theodore II Irinikos (1214–1216) made[94].

In late Byzantine theology, it was considered acceptable to call the patriarch the head, but only as an image of the true Head – Christ the Savior[95].

St. Dositheus of Jerusalem called the Ecumenical Council “head” of both the popes and all the patriarchs[96]. All the patriarchs are “heads and archpastors”[97], or, according to another formula, “… the five patriarchs are one head…”[98].

4. Lists of ranks of holiness and hierarchy

In St. Dositheus – in a polemic with the papal primacy – one can find the most complete list of sacred ranks and epithets within the Church:

Rulers (Ἡγεμόνες);
Exarchs (Ἔξαρχοι);
Chiefs (Ἄρχων – Ἄρχοντες);
Primates (Προεστῶτες);
Chairmen (Πρόεδροι);
Soborians (Σύνεδροι);
Lamps (Φωστῆρες);
Free (Ἀπόδεσμοι);
Torches (Πυρσοί);
Pillars of Truth (Στύλοι τῆς ἀληθείας);
Fathers of Bishops (Πατέρες τῶν Ἐπισκόπων);
Fathers of fathers (Πατέρες πατέρων);
Educators of the Universe (Οἰκουμένης Παιδευταί);
Foundation of Churches (Ἑδραίωμα τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν);
Supreme Ones (Κορυφαῖοι);
Preachers to the people (Δημαγωγοί);
Statement (Στερέωμα);
Architects (Ἀρχιτέκτονες);
Support (Ἔρεισμα);
Chapters (Κεφαλαί);
Rules of faith (Κανόνες πίστεως);
Primates, and teachers, and the eyes of the whole universe Ὀφθαλμοί);
Fruitful and nourishing of the universe (Καρποδόται τρέφοντες τὴν Οἰκουμένην);
Features of the Church (Χαρακτῆρες τῆς Ἐκκλησίας);
Great wrestlers (Μεγάλοι ἀνταγωνισταί);
Great bishops (Μεγάλοι Ἐπίσκοποι);
New Apostles (Νέοι Ἀπόστολοι);
Equal to the Apostles (Ἰσαπόστολοι);
General shepherds of the universe (κοινοὶ τῆς Οἰκουμένης Ποιμένες);
Providers and Representatives (Προμηθεῖς καὶ Προστάται);
Mouth of the Church (Στόμα Ἐκκλησίας);
Great Fathers (Μεγάλοι πατέρες);
Zeal of faith (Ζῆλος πίστεως);
Impregnable towers (ἀκαθαίρετοι Πύργοι);
Foundation of the teachings (Βάσις δογμάτων);
The unbreakable rock of faith (Πέτρα πίστεως ἄῤῥηκτος);
Sources of piety (Πρόβολοι εὐσεβείας);
Archpastors (Ἀρχιποιμένες);
Great Archpastors (μεγάλοι Ἀρχιποιμένες);
Wise shepherd leaders (σοφοὶ Ποιμενάρχαι);
Definition of Orthodoxy (Ὅρος ὀρθοδοξίας);
Guardians and cultivators of the vineyard (Φύλακες καὶ Ἀροτῆρες τῆς Ἀμπέλου);
Indestructible towers (ἄσειστοι Πύργοι);
Organizers of the Apostolic Face (Κοσμήτορες ἀποστολικῆς χορείας);
Bishops by the autocracy of the Word (Ἀρχιερεῖς αὐτουργίᾳ τοῦ Λόγου);
Successors of the Apostles (Ἀποστόλων Διάδοχοι);
Rulers over the entire universe (ἐπὶ πᾶσαν Ἄρχοντες τὴν Οἰκουμένην);
The foundation of the Church, and the rulers, and the rule
The heirs of the throne of Christ on earth, like the rock of confession – Peter – on which Christ established His Church ὡς Πέτρος Πέτρα ὁμολογίας, ἐν ᾗ ἔπηξεν ὁ Χριστὸς τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν αὐτοῦ);
Pillar of Orthodoxy (Στήλη Ὀρθοδοξίας);
Most Reverend (Πανοσιώτατοι);
Most Beatitudes (Μακαριώτατοι);
Holiness (Ἁγιώτατοι);
Saints (Ἅγιοι);
Light (Φῶς);
Salt (Ἅλας);
The great priests who together received from God the guidance of all λαβόντες);
Great Teachers of the Church (μεγάλοι τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Διδάσκαλοι);
Apostolic men (ἀποστολικοὶ Ἄνδρες);
Apostolic priests (ἀποστολικοὶ Ἱερεῖς);
Apostolic Face (ἀποστολικὴ Χορεία);
From the apostolic authority the face (ἐξ ἀποστολικῆς αὐθεντίας Χορεία);
Fathers of Christians (Πατέρες τῶν χριστιανῶν);
Prophetic men (προφητικοὶ Ἄνδρες);
Wise diviners of the ineffable (τῶν ἀποῤῥήτων σοφοὶ Ὑποφῆται);
God-bearing (Θεοφόροι);
God-inspired (Θεόπνευστοι);
God-speaking (Θεόφθογγοι);
Lords of all (Δεσπόται πάντων);
Worthy of apostolic authority (τῆς ἀποστολικῆς αὐθεντίας Ἄξιοι);
Teachers of teachers (Διδάσκαλοι Διδασκάλων);
Shepherds of shepherds close to Paul (Ποιμένες Ποιμένων Παύλῳ παραπλήσιοι);
Supreme, like the other apostles (Κορυφαῖοι ὡς ἄλλοι Ἀπόστολοι);
Supreme among the fathers (Κορυφαῖοι τῶν πατέρων);
Teachers of the Catholic Faith (Διδάσκαλοι τῆς καθολικῆς πίστεως);
Organs of the Holy Spirit (Ὄργανα τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος);
Treasure of the Church (Θησαυρὸς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας);
Lord (Κύριοι);
Leaders (Καθηγεμόνες);
Fathers and teachers of the Universal Church
Lights of lights (Φῶτα τῶν φώτων);
Common fathers of the universe (κοινοὶ Πατέρες τῆς Οἰκουμένης);
Most Divine (Θειότατοι);
Godly (Θεοτίμητοι);
Most Pious (Εὐλαβέστατοι);
Most beloved of God (Θεοφιλέστατοι);
In all things most holy (τὰ πάντα ἁγιώτατοι);
Good Shepherds (ἀγαθοὶ Ποιμένες);
Most Reverend (Ὁσιώτατοι);
Most Honorable Ones (Αἰδεσιμώτατοι);
Most Holy Ones (Ἱερώτατοι);
Lords and lords (Κύριοι καὶ Δεσπόται);
Adored bishops (προσκυνητοὶ Ἐπίσκοποι);
Servants of the servants of God (δοῦλοι τῶν δούλων τοῦ Θεοῦ);
Bishops of the Universal Church (Ἐπίσκοποι τῆς καθόλου Ἐκκλησίας);
Servants of God (λειτουργοὶ Θεοῦ);
Good servants (Ἀγαθοὶ θεράποντες);
Glorious and honorable fathers (Ἔνδοξοι καὶ Ἐπίσημοι πατέρες);
Farmers (Γεωργοί);
Blessed Ones (Μακάριοι);
Great Ones (Μεγάλοι);
Digging up, uprooting and planting (κατασκάπτοντες, ἐκριζοῦντες καὶ καταφυτεύοντες);
Defenders of the Apostolic Doctrines
Those who appeared as abbots of the Churches by election of Divine grace (ψήφῳ τῆς θείας χάριτος ἀναφανέντες Ἡγούμενοι τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν)
Salvation of Christians (Σωτηρία τῶν Χριστιανῶν);
Miracle Workers (Θαυματουργοί);
Legislators who received power from the apostolic authority ἐξουσίαν);
Rulers of the priesthood (Ἄρχοντες Ἱερωσύνης);
The least heads of the Churches, co-reigning with Christ (ἐλάχιστοι τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν Πρόεδροι, συμβασιλεύοντες τῷ Χριστῷ)[99].

Saint Dositheus of Jerusalem explains where he got such a large number of church titles and names: from the minologies, the writings of the holy fathers and the acts of the councils[100]. The title of “head” occupies 20th place in the list of 109 names. Some of the titles obviously repeat Divine names (“lights”, “salt”), others are characteristic ranks of holiness (fathers, apostles) or ranks of the church hierarchy (most holy, primates, exarchs).

This list contains high epithets that can be applied not only to bishops, but also to other pastors who are most suitable for the episcopal service. Each of these high titles has its own history: some appeared in ancient times, others entered the episcopal title in the 2nd millennium, before or after the fall of Constantinople. Each title presupposes high service – in deed, word, thought – for the spiritual enlightenment and care of God’s flock.

The main meaning of all the titles is to point to the teachers of holiness in accordance with the patristic ideas about hierarchy. Ideally, representatives of the hierarchy – and especially the highest – should themselves reach those spiritual heights to which they must lead others. All these titles are, in essence, Christ-imitating, as can be seen in the example of the title “miracle worker”[101] or “head”.

Also noteworthy is the fact that we have before us a mixed list of ranks or titles of holy people and hierarchical positions. This phenomenon is also characteristic of more ancient similar (albeit significantly shorter) lists. Thus, the “Apostolic Constitutions” lists ranks of the church hierarchy and holiness in a total of 16:

saints;
patriarchs;
prophets;
righteous;
apostles;
martyrs;
confessors;
bishops;
presbyters;
deacons;
subdeacons;
readers;
choristers;
virgins;
widows;
laypeople[102].

St. John Chrysostom urged not to name children after their ancestors: father, mother, grandfather, great-grandfather, but after the righteous, martyrs, bishops and apostles[103]. It is obvious that bishops are listed among the three ranks of holiness not simply as officials, but as holy people – hierarchs.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, among other things, called the apostles and bishops “the dogs of the Lord” as “guardians of the intelligible flock”[104].

And St. Epiphanius of Cyprus lists bishops, along with anchorites, in the list of the most important groups of clergy and saints within the Church[105].

Thus, the most detailed list of ranks of hierarchy and holiness, compiled by St. Dositheus, excludes the idea of one primate in the Church, but emphasizes the idea of the Areopagite hierarchy, in which representatives of one rank are extremely equal in honor and do not differ from each other in special authority and power[106].

5. Hierarchy and holiness

The emphasis on the holiness of the hierarchy is also confirmed by the patristic exegesis of Acts 20:28:

… take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the Church of the Lord and God, which He purchased with His own blood.

In this verse, the Apostle Paul, addressing the elders from Ephesus who arrived in Miletus at his invitation, called them overseers/bishops of the Church. By overseers/bishops the Holy Fathers and Christian writers understood:

priests or pastors, extremely selfless and sacrificial, as, for example, St. Basil the Great[107];
bishops[108];
holy and God-bearing fathers. Thus, St. Nicephorus of Constantinople wrote about the saving dogmas of “our venerable and God-bearing fathers, whom the Holy Spirit appointed for a time to shepherd His Church and govern it”[109].

Exegesis of the verse Matthew 10:40 – Whoever receives you receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me… (ὁ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς Ἐμὲ δέχεται καὶ ὁ Ἐμὲ δεχόμενος δέχεται τὸν ἀποστείλαντά Με) – is just as multifaceted. In the literal understanding, this verse referred to the apostles[110]. In spiritual and contemplative exegesis, it could point to the virtue of obedience[111], and also refer to individual groups of believers or ranks of the church hierarchy: monks[112], priests[113], or holy people in general.[114] Saint Gregory Palamas interpreted it this way: “‘He who receives you receives Me,’ says the Lord. Not about all at once, but about one of all.”[115] The connection between a bishop and Christ, as well as the connection between a bishop and the Church as the Body of Christ, is very great. With this approach, a bishop cannot but be a saint, or at least strive for holiness, because a bishop, as the head of a small body of the Church, by definition must be as close as possible to his high calling. The idea of a bishop’s holiness is very clearly reflected in the prayer for ordination to the episcopacy, which is cited by Saint Serapion of Thmuis.[116] And Patriarch Gregory III Mamma applied the verse of Matthew 10:40 to every bishop: “We call every bishop a successor of Christ and the one who sits on my chair Christ and God. For He says: He who receives you receives Me (Matt. 10:40), and: He who hears you hears Me (Luke 10:16)”[117].

This seemingly random mixture in the lists and variants of exegesis makes one think about the essence. Is it possible among all the saints to single out one who would be holier than the rest and could be called the imitator of Christ the Savior par excellence? If the answer to this question is negative, one can ask a similar question in relation to the hierarchy. Yes, the hierarchy is a hierarchy in order to indicate the subordination of junior ranks to senior ones, but its true center, according to the fairly generally accepted theology of the Areopagites, is Christ the Savior, who, according to the interpretation of the scholar René Roque[118], acts as a double mediator or head – both of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (the Mediator between the ecclesiastical and heavenly hierarchy), and of the heavenly (the Mediator between the heavenly hierarchy and God the Father). Can there be a most important one next to Him Who is the true way and the truth and the life (John 14:6) and the Light?

6. Historical generalizations

1. The title “head” in the sense of absolute leader and spiritual ruler refers primarily to Christ the Savior – as the “head of the Church”, according to the theology of the Apostle Paul (see: Eph. 1:22; 5:23; Col. 1:18).

2. In the Orthodox tradition, the Church as the Body of Christ, with the Head Jesus Christ, was the bearer of Divine infallibility, which further strengthened the title “Head” as the spiritual apogee of such infallibility.

3. The title of the bishop “head” in the 34th Apostolic Canon (4th century) became, on the one hand, a direct indication of the special Christ-imitating character of episcopal authority, following the example of the apostolic, and on the other hand, emphasized his leadership role in the local church among the bishops and clergy subordinate to him – in organic combination with their conciliar opinion.

4. The formation of the metropolitan and patriarchal system of Church governance led to the clarification and multidimensional use of the title “head” in relation to the level of episcopal, metropolitan and patriarchal governance in the East. In the West, it was easier for the Popes, as the sole rulers of the Western Church, to call themselves heads, or rather, head – in each specific case.

5. The omnipotence of the Popes, acceptable, but sometimes overly ambitious, created a dangerous precedent and example for the Patriarchs of Constantinople, who, after the apostasy of the Western part of Christianity in 1054, found themselves first “in honor” in the tetrarchy of the Eastern patriarchates (but theoretically feeling themselves members of the Pentarchy in the hope of Rome’s repentance).

6. The main pathos of the Eastern polemicists against the papal primacy, who constituted a decisive majority in the East, consisted in the polemic with the remaining and increased claims of the Roman popes to primacy, the right of appeal and the first place in the Diptychs of the Roman Popes. In the event of the repentance of the latter, it was theoretically permissible to grant them or return the primacy of honor in the diptychs, while the appeal was not considered by them (although the Roman popes wanted to receive it, seeing in it a real manifestation of the primacy of power).

7. As a result of the polemic with the Western primacy, two directions or two tendencies arose, which later turned out to be quite independent and not dependent on the original impulse:

Representatives of the Eastern Local Orthodox Churches began to place special emphasis on the conciliarity and equality of such Churches, which allowed them to oppose the primacy of Rome with a principle directly opposed to this primacy. Within the framework of this approach, fundamental for the Orthodox tradition, with the categorical exclusion of the principle of omnipotence, it was possible to speak only of the primacy of honor in the Diptychs (although in reality, stronger and more independent Churches, due to political factors, could have temporary practical advantages) as the only theoretical difference between the churches, both ancient and formed at the end of the 1st and in the 2nd millennium.
The Patriarchate of Constantinople, as the first in honor and the only one on the territory of Byzantium, independent until a certain time, and also as the one that remained first after Rome and, therefore, in the role of the heir not only to the criticized primacy, but also to the right of appeal, began to increasingly copy the ambitions of the Roman Church – both for the sake of real needs and based on exorbitant ambition. However, these aspirations of the Constantinople throne were limited. The period after the fall of Constantinople from 1453 allowed the Patriarchs of Constantinople to add to their existing claims to primacy of power real secular powers granted to them by the Turkish regime (for which they had to pay with freedom and excessive compromise – this is very clearly seen in relation to the liberation movement in Greece in the 1820s).

In 1923, the Patriarch of Constantinople Meletius (Metaxakis) tried to compensate for the loss of power within the Turkish state by expanding the jurisdictions on the world stage (primarily at the expense of individual parts of the former Russian Empire). Finally, in 2018, the unilateral granting of the Tomos to the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” contrary to the position of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is legal in this territory, marked the practical implementation of the theoretical primacy that had been developed in previous decades by the best Constantinople theologians, such as Metropolitan John Zizioulas, and canonists, such as Metropolitan Gregory (Papafomas).

8. Modern canonists and theologians of the Phanar have tried to skillfully justify the need for the power of the first in the earthly Church as absolute – not subject to any revision. This justification turned out to be extremely cunning and difficult to expose. Thus, without the “first”, it is impossible to hold – from their point of view – an Ecumenical Council. It would seem that this “first” (that is, the Patriarch of Constantinople) plays only an organizational role at this Council, but the organizer turns out to be the head, the leader and, in fact, the ruling person, “hierarchically” greater than all the other primates, between whom their own rather significant hierarchical gradations arise (the division into members of the Pentarchy and the Local Churches created in the Balkans). However, the Ecumenical Council is the bearer of the infallible divinely revealed truth. It is precisely this that is the highest criterion on earth – in its divine-human and synergistic structure. Can such an organ really have another ruling person besides God Himself?

7. Criticism of the primacy of honor and power

The primacy of Constantinople turns out to be greater than the primacy of Rome, because its ideologists actually lay claim to absolute universality (without diplomatically invading directly into the jurisdiction of Rome, which is a model for them, but has not yet reunited with them).
The primacy of honor has its basis in the conciliar canon of the Church, and the primacy of power in the East comes from temporary practice and “customary law”, not received by other Local Churches or accepted partially, but in any case not by all.
Primacy is not another organic side of conciliarity, but comes into strong and insurmountable contradiction with the principle of conciliarity.
The polemic with Roman ambitions and distortion of doctrine has become a tradition for the Orthodox East, which has preserved its methodology with a special emphasis on the immutability of tradition, to which nothing can be added and from which nothing should be subtracted.
The principle of immutability of tradition obliges not to introduce a new generally accepted canonical norm of primacy (as Metropolitan John Zizioulas introduces it), which, if consistently implemented, leads to a schism, although in itself it can be considered a heresy (if, according to Metropolitan John, canonicity follows or should follow from dogmatics).
The canonical teaching on the necessity of the first in honor and authority in the earthly Church, to which the new theology in the Patriarchate of Constantinople gravitates, comes into categorical contradiction with Christology, which was noted by Orthodox polemicists primarily in relation to papal primacy.
Criticism of the papal primacy is also criticism of the Eastern primacy in essence. The absence of a triadological or Christological heresy does not justify the idea of the excessive primacy of the Phanar, which in itself, in terms of the totality of its consequences for Orthodox unity, represents a dark page in the history of the Church as a whole.
The lack of reflection among the Constantinople canonists and theologians and the unwillingness to reconsider the theory of primacy indicates, among other things, their free approach to tradition – in some ways rejected, in some ways overly strongly interpreted by them – which, nevertheless, retains its life-giving force and significance – according to the theory and practice of the Local Orthodox Churches (including many believers of the Greek Orthodox Church, who understand the “lawlessness” of arbitrariness concentrated in the hands of one person).

Conclusion

Is this article not exaggerated in the pathos of denying the obvious and significant? It seems that the observations are drawn from reliable sources, important and authoritative for Byzantium itself. The final conclusion: the primacy of honor and power contradicts the very tradition of the Orthodox East.

The term “head” itself can be used by a leader of any rank, but if this term is understood in an absolute sense, it can and does become a barrier between the believing soul and Christ, who showed the whole world a true example of humility and greatness – for all the remaining times.

________________

References:

Acta Concilii Florentini. Latinorum responsio ad libellum a Graecis exhibitum circa purgatorium ignem // Documents relatifs au concile de Florence La question du purgatoire a Ferrare, Documents I–VI / éd. L. Petit. Paris: Firmin-Didot et Companie, 1920. (PO; vol. 15, fasc. 1). P. 80–107.

Acta Concilii secondi Lugduno. Apologia Josephi patriarchae // Dossier grec de l’Union de Lyon (1273–1277) / éd. J. Darrouzès, V. Laurent. Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1976. (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien; vol. 16). P. 135–301.

Alexius Aristenus. Scholia in canones apostolorum // Alexios Aristenos. Kommentar zur Synopsis canonum / hrsg. L. Burgmann, K. Maksimovič, E. S. Papagianni, Sp. Troianos. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2019. (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte: Neue Folge; Bd. 1). S. 2–20.

Alexius Aristenus. Scholia in concilia oecumenica et localia // Alexios Aristenos: Kommentar zur Synopsis canonum / hrsg. L. Burgmann, K. Maksimovič, E. S. Papagianni, Sp. Troianos. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2019. (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte. Neue Folge; Bd. 1). S. 21–214.

Apophthegmata patrum (collectio alphabetica) // PG. T. 65. Col. 72–440.

Athanasius. Expositiones in Psalmos // PG. T. 27. Col. 60–545, 548–589.

Athanasius. De virginitate [Sp.] // Λόγος σωτηρίας πρὸς τὴν παρθένον / ed. E. von der Goltz. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905. (TU. N. F; Bd. 14). S. 35–60.

Basilius Caesariensis. Regulae morales // PG. T. 31. Col. 692–869.

Basilius Caesariensis. Constitutiones asceticae [Sp.] // PG. T. 31. Col. 1320–1428.

Callistus I Patriarcha. Vita Gregorii Sinaitae // Kallistos I Patriarch von Konstantinopel. Leben und Wirken unseres unter den Heiligen weilenden Vaters Gregorios’ des Sinaïten / hrsg. H.-V. Beyer. Ekaterinburg: Izdatel’stvo Ural’skogo universiteta, 2006. (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geistesgeschichte; Bd. 2). S. 106–226.

Callinicus III Patriarcha. Narratio brevis // Καλλινίκου γʹ Πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Τὰ κατὰ καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἐξορίαν ἐπισυμβάντα καὶ ἔμμετροι ἐπιστολαί / ἔκδ. Ἀ. Τσελίκας. Ἀθήνα: Μορφωτικὸ Ἵδρυμα Ἐθνικῆς Τραπέζης, 2004. Σ. 79–269, 271–429.

Catena in Acta (catena Andreae) (e cod. Oxon. coll. nov. 58) // Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum / ed. J. A. Cramer. Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1838. (Hildesheim: Olms, r1967). P. 1–424.

Chronicon Moreae (recensio Π) // The Chronicle of Morea / ed. J. Schmitt. London: Methuen, 1904. P. 3–597.

Concilium universale Chalcedonense anno 451 // Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum (ACO). T. 2.1.1–2.1.3 / ed. E. Schwartz. Berlin: De Gruyter, T. 2.1.1–2.1.2: 1933; T. 2.1.3: 1935 (T. 2.1.1–2.1.2: r1962; T. 2.1.3: r1965). T. 2.1.1: P. 3–32, 35–52, 55–196; T. 2.1.2: P. 3–42, 45–65, 69–163; T. 2.1.3:3–136.

Constitutiones apostolorum // Les constitutions apostoliques: in 3 vols. / ed. B. M. Metzger. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1985, 1986, 1987. (SC; vol. 320, 329, 336). Vol. 1: P. 100–338. Vol. 2: P. 116–394; Vol. 3: P. 18–310.

Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Expositio in Psalmos // PG. T. 69. Col. 717–1273.

Dionysius Areopagita. De ecclesiastica hierarchia // Corpus Dionysiacum II: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia, de ecclesiastica hierarchia, de mystica theologia, epistulae / ed. G. Heil, A. M. Ritter. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 22012. (PTS; Bd. 67). S. 61–132.

Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Αʹ–Βʹ [libri 1–2] // Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου: ἐν Ϛʹ τ. / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δεληδέμος. Τ. Αʹ. Θεσσαλονίκη: Ἐκδοτικός Οἶκος Βασ. Ρηγοπούλου, 1982. Σ. 35–519.

Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Γʹ–Δʹ // Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου: ἐν ϛʹ τ. / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δεληδέμος. Τ. Βʹ. Θεσσαλονίκη: Ἐκδοτικός Οἶκος Βασ. Ρηγοπούλου, 1982. Σ. 3–492.

Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Εʹ–Ϛʹ // Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου: ἐν ϛʹ τ. / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δεληδέμος. Τ. Γʹ, Θεσσαλονίκη: Ἐκδοτικός Οἶκος Βασ. Ρηγοπούλου, 1982. Σ. 9–452.

Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Ζʹ–Ηʹ // Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου: ἐν ϛʹ τ. / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δεληδέμος. Τ. Δʹ, Θεσσαλονίκη: Ἐκδοτικός Οἶκος Βασ. Ρηγοπούλου, 1983. Σ. 9–477.

Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Θʹ–Ιʹ // Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου: ἐν ϛʹ τ. / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δεληδέμος. Τ. Εʹ, Θεσσαλονίκη: Ἐκδοτικός Οἶκος Βασ. Ρηγοπούλου, 1983. Σ. 9–681.

Gregorius III Patriarcha. Responsio ad epistulam Marci Ephesii (ex variis sanctorum sententiis) // PG. T. 160. Col. 111–204.

Gregorius Palamas. Epistulae // Ἐπιστολαί / ed. N. A. Matsoukas (Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ συγγράμματα / ed. P. K. Chrestou. T. 2. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1966. Σ. 315–547).

Epiphanius. Panarion (= Adversus haereses) // Epiphanius. Ancoratus und Panarion: in 3 Bde. / hrsg. K. Holl. Bd. 3. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1933. (GCS; Bd. 37). S. 2–229, 232–414, 416–526.

Euthymius Zigabenus. Commentarius in Pauli epistulam ad Ephesios // Ἐυθυμίου τοῦ Ζιγαβηνοῦ Ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὰς ΙΔ ́ἐπιστολὰς τοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου καὶ εἰς τὰς Ζ ́καθολικὰς νῦν πρῶτον ἐκ παλαιοῦ χειρογράφου ἐκδιδομένη μετὰ προλόγου καὶ σημειώσεων ὑπὸ Νικηφόρου Καλογερᾶ: ἐν β ́τ. Τ. Β ́. Ἐν Ἀθήναις: Τύποις Ἀδελφῶν Περρή, 1887. Σ. 1–68.

Hierotheus Hieromonachus. Orationes // Ὁ Ἱερομόναχος Ἱερόθεος (ΙΓʹ αἰ.) καὶ τὸ ἀνέκδοτο συγγραφικὸ ἔργο του / ἔκδ. Ν. Χ. Ἰωαννίδης. Ἀθήνα: Ἐκδόσεις Π. Κυριακίδη, 2003. Σ. 99–203.

Joannes VIII Xiphilinus, Patriarcha. Decretum syn. de episcoporum electione // Bibliothèque de l’Escorial. Cod. R. II. 11. (Revilla 030). Fol. 270v–271.

Joannes Apocaucus. Notitiae et epistulae // Bees N. A. Unedierte Schriftstücke aus der Kanzlei des Johannes Apokaukos des Metropoliten von Naupaktos (in Aetolien) (Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher. 1971–1974. № 21. S. 57–160).

Joannes XI Beccus. Epistula ad papam // Dossier grec de l’Union de Lyon (1273–1277) / éd. J. Darrouzès, V. Laurent. Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1976. (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien; vol. 16). P. 479–485.

Joannes Chrysostomus. In Acta apostolorum (homiliae 1–55) // PG. T. 60. Col. 13–384.

Joannes Chrysostomus. In epistulam ad Colossenses (homiliae 1–12) // PG. T. 62. Col. 299–392.

Joannes Chrysostomus. De inani gloria et de educandis liberis // Jean Chrysostome. Sur la vaine gloire et l’éducation des enfants / ed. A.-M. Malingrey. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1972. (SC; vol. 188). P. 64–196.

Joannes Eugenicus. Antirrheticus adversus decretum Concilii Florentini // John Eugenikos’ Antirrhetic of the decree of the Council of Ferrara-Florence / ed. E. Rossidou-Koutsou. Nicosia (Cyprus): Research Centre of Kykkos Monastery, 2006. P. 3–153.

Ps.-Macarius. Sermones 30–64 (collectio B) // Makarios/Symeon Reden und Briefe: in 2 Bde. / hrsg. H. Berthold. Bd. 2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973. (GCS). S. 3–219.

Marcus Eremita. De lege spirituali // Traités I / éd. G.-M. de Durand. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1999. (Sources chrétiennes; vol. 445). P. 74–128.

Matthaeus Blastares. Collectio alphabetica // Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων τῶν τε ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν συνόδων, καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἁγίων πατέρων: ἐν ϛ ́τ. / ἔκδ. Μ. Ποτλής, Γ. Ἀ. Ραλλής. Τ. ϛ ́. Ἀθήνῃσιν: Ἐκ τῆς Τυπογραφίας Γ. Χαρτοφύλακος, 1859. Σ. 31–518.

Maximus Planudes. Oratio in sancto Arsenio Autoriano (e cod. Patm. gr. 366) (Dub.) // Νικόπουλος Π. Γ. Ἀνέκδοτος λόγος εἰς Ἀρσένιον Αὐτωρειανόν, πατριάρχην Κωνσταντινουπόλεως // Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν. 1981–1982. T. 45. Σ. 449–461.

Meletius Pegas Patriarcha. Epistulae (e cod. Patr. Alex. gr. 296) // Methodios. Letters of Meletius Pegas, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria // Ekklesiastikos Pharos. 1970–1975 (r1976). P. 17–365.

Nicephorus I. Epistula ad Leonem III papam // PG. T. 100. Col. 169–200.

Nicetas Amasenus. Oratio de suffragiis // Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie byzantine / éd. J. Darrouzès. Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1966. (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien; vol. 10). P. 160–174.

Nicodemus Hagiorita. Pedalion. Scholia in canones apostolorum // Ἀγαπίου Ἱερομονάχου και Νικοδήμου Μοναχοῦ. Πηδάλιον τῆς νοητῆς νηὸς τῆς μιᾶς ἁγίας καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς τῶν ὀρθοδόξων ἐκκλησίας. Ἀθήνα: Ἐκδ. Παπαδημητρίου, 121896). Σ. 1–117.

Nicolaus Catascepenus. Vita sancti Cyrilli Phileotae (e codice Athonensi Caracalli 42) // Sargologos E. La Vie de Saint Cyrille le Philéote moine byzantin (†1110). Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1964. (Subsidia hagiographica; vol. 39). P. 43–264.

Nicon Nigri Montis. Canonarium vel Typicon // Hannick C. Das Taktikon des Nikon vom Schwarzen Berge: Griechischer Text und kirchenslavische Übersetzung des 14. Jahrhunderts: in 2 Banden. Freiburg im Breisgau: Weiher, 2014. (Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes; vol. 62.1–2). Bd. I: S. 2–622; Bd. II: S. 624–1000.

Serapion Thmuitanus. Euchologium // Johnson M. E. The Prayers of Sarapion of Thmuis: A Literary, Liturgical, and Theological Analysis. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1995. (OCA; vol. 249). P. 46–80.

Theodorus II Irenicus Patriarcha. Epistula ad papam (e cod. Urbani 32, ff. 185v–191) // Cataldi Palau A. Una «Lettera al Papa» di Irenico, Cartofilace della grande chiesa (Teodoro Irenico, Patriarca di Constantinopoli 1214–1216) (Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata (Nuova Serie) 1994. № 48. P. 76–87).

Theodorus Studites. Sermones Catecheseos Magnae // S. Patris Nostri Theodori Studitae Magnae Catecheseos Sermones / ed. J. Cozza-Luzi. Vol. 1. Roma: Bibliotheca Vaticana et Typi Vaticani, 1888. (Nova Patrum Bibliotheca; vol. 9/2). P. 1–217 (Cat. 1–77).

Theoleptus Philadelphiensis. Orationes // Sinkewicz R. E. A Critical Edition of the Anti-Arsenite Discourses of Theoleptos of Philadelpheia (Mediaeval Studies. 1988. № 50. P. 52–95).

Typicon monasterii Theotoci Bebaias Elpidos (sub auctore Theodora Synadena) // Delehaye H. Deux typica byzantins de l’époque des Paléologues. Brussels: Académie Royale de Belgique, 1921. (Mémoires: Second series; vol. 8). P. 18–95.

Матфей Властарь. Алфавитная синтагма // Собрание по алфавитному порядку всех предметов, содержащихся в святых и божественных канонах, составленное и обработанное смиреннейшим иеромонахом Матфеем, или Алфивитная синтагма Матфея Властаря / пер. с греч. свящ. Н. Ильинского. Симферополь: Таврическая губернская тип., 1892. (Алфавитная синтагма иеромонаха Матфея Властаря: Канонические правила и гражданские законы о Церкви. Москва: [Б. и.], r2006).

Постановления Апостольские. Сергиев Посад: Свято-Троицкая Сергиева Лавра, 2006.

Правила святых апостол и святых отец с толкованиями: в 2 т. Т. 1. Москва: Сибирская Благозвонница, 2011.

Правила святых Поместных Соборов с толкованиями. Москва: Паломник; Сибирская Благозвонница, 2000.

________________

Bibliography:

Василик В. В., протодиак. Богословские аспекты учения о первенстве в Церкви. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://pravoslavie.ru/122683.html (дата обращения 14.10.2022).

Грацианский М. Экклесиологические историки современных претензий Константинополя на первенство в Православной Церкви. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://pravoslavie.ru/119735.html (дата обращения 15.10.2022).

Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. Эпитет свт. Николая θαυματουργός в греческой литературной традиции // Метафраст. 2019. Т. 1. № 1. С. 19–34.

Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. Первенство Константинопольского епископа в Византии и Поствизантии: канонический и богословский аспект // Эстонская Православная Церковь: 100 лет автономии. Таллин: [Б. и.], 2021. С. 50–82.

Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. Выражение «ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς…» 28-го правила Халкидона и его интерпретации. [Доклад на конференции Богословской комиссии «Мировое Православие: первенство и соборность в свете православного вероучения». 17 сентября 2021 г., Храм Христа Спасителя (Москва)]. [Электронный ресурс]. Ч. 1. URL: https://bogoslov.ru/article/6170883; Ч. 2. URL: https://bogoslov.ru/article/6170934 (дата обращения 15.10.2022).

Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. Критика экстерриториальной апелляции Константинопольскому патриарху свт. Досифеем Иерусалимским // Міжнародная науковая конференція «Соборність Церкви: богословські, канонічні та історичні виміри». [11 листопада 2021 р.]. Київ, 2021. https://andreevsky-monastery.ru/blog/detail/kritika-eksterritorialnoy-apellyatsii-konstantinopolskomu-patriarkhu-svt-dosifeem-ierusalimskim/ (дата обращения 15.10.2022).

Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. Можно ли говорить об иерархии среди Предстоятелей Поместных Церквей? Термин ἱεραρχία в византийской традиции // Богословский вестник. 2022. № 4 (47). С. 103–130.

Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. Предисловие к книге монаха Серафима (Зисиса) «Внутритроичная монархия Отца и новоявленный монарх экклезиологии Фанара». Москва: Познание, 2022.

Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. В поисках подлинной каноничности: по поводу терминов συνεδαφικότης и πολυαρχία в «новой» экклезиологии митр. Григория (Папафомаса) // Конференция Санкт-Петербургской академии «Епископ в жизни Церкви: богословие, история, право» 15 марта 2022 г. (готовится к публикации).

Ермилов П. В. Происхождение теории о первенстве Константинопольского патриарха // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2014. Вып. 1 (51). С. 36–53.

Кобеко Д. О. Разрешительные грамоты иерусалимских патриархов // Журнал министерства народного просвещения. 1896. Ч. 305 (июнь). С. 270–279.

Лапидус И. Э., прот. Некоторые канонические аспекты действий Патриарха Константинопольского Варфоломея (Архондониса) на Украине на рубеже 2018–2019 годов // Богословский вестник. 2019. № 3 (34). С. 218–246.

Лебедев А. П. История Греко-восточной церкви под властью турок: От падения Константинополя (в 1453 г.) до настоящего времени. Санкт-Петербург: Изд. Олега Абышко, 2012. (Библиотека христианской мысли. Исследования).

Лука Григориатский, иером. Права Церквей и единство Церкви / пер. игум. Дионисия (Шлёнова). Москва: Познание, 2022.

Новиков А., прот. Первенство в Церкви: примат чести или примат власти? [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.rus-obr.ru/ru-club/4184 (дата обращения 15.10.2022).

Понятие первенства: Истоки и контексты: Коллективная монография / отв. ред.: П. В. Ермилов, М. В. Грацианский. М.: Изд. ПСТГУ, 2022.

Серафим (Зисис), мон. Внутритроичная монархия Отца и новоявленный монарх экклезиологии Фанара. Москва: Познание, 2022.

Троицкий С. О границах распространения права власти Константинопольской Патриархии на «диаспору» // ЖМП. 1947. № 11. С. 34–45.

Христофор (Даниилидис), митр. Место Вселенского патриарха в Православной Церкви (статья 1924 г. в переводе с франц.). [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://pravlife.org/ru/content/mesto-vselenskogo-patriarha-v-pravoslavnoy-cerkvi (дата обращения 14.10.2022).

Цыпин В. А., прот. Протоиерей Владислав Цыпин об истории первенства власти в Церкви и конфликтах современности. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://bogoslov.ru/article/6171330 (дата обращения 14.10.2022).

Ульянова А. О. Трактат Никиты, митрополита Амасийского, как источник по истории Константинопольского патриархата во второй половине X века // Причерноморье в Средние века. 2011. Вып. 8. С. 36–49.

Шабанов Д. Римский примат в византийском богословии архиерейского первенства. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://bogoslov.ru/article/1876128 (дата обращения 14.10.2022).

Hartmann W., Pennington K. The History of Byzantine and Eastern Canon Law to 1500. Washington, (D. C.): Catholic University of America Press, 2012. (History of Medieval Canon Law; vol. 4).

Oikonomidès N. Un décret synodal inédit du patriarche Jean Xiphilin // Revue des études byzantines. 1960. Vol. 18. P. 55–78.

Patsavos Lewis J., Dr. The Role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Granting Autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine: A Canonical Perspective // The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ukraine Autocephaly: Historical, Canonical and Pastoral Perspectives / ed. E. Sotiropoulos. [No City]: Order of Saint Andrew the Apostle, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, May 2019. P. 66–72.

Roques R. L’Univers dionysien. Structure hierarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1954.

Zizioulas J. D., Metropolitan. One and the Many: Studies on God, Man, the Church, and the World Today / ed. G. Edwards. Alhambra (Ca.): Sebastian Press, 2010. (Contemporary Christian Thought Series; no. 6).

Αθανάσιος, επ. εφησυχάζων Ερζεγοβίνης. Ο 34ος Αποστολικός Κανών και ο πατήρ Γεώργιος Τσέτσης. [28 Φεβρουαρίου, 2010]. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://amethystosbooks.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/ο-34ος-αποστολικός-κανών-και-ο-πατήρ-γεώ/ (дата обращения 15.10.2022).

Θερμή υποδοχή του Αρχιεπισκόπου Κύπρου από τον Οικουμενικό Πατριάρχη στο Φανάρι. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://fosfanariou.gr/index.php/2023/03/03/thermi-ypodoxi-arxiepiskopou-kyprou-sto-fanari/ (дата обращения 3 марта 2023 г.)

Καραλῆς Γ. Ζηζιούλας τοῖς οἰκείοις συντέθνηκε δόγμασι. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://orthodoxostypos.gr/ζηζιούλας-τοῖς-οἰκείοις-συντέθνηκε/ (дата обращения 26 февраля 2023 г.)

Κυρίλλου,᾽Επισκόπου Ἀβύδου. Ἡ Ἔκκλητος πρός τό θρόνο τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://ec-patr.org/vydoy-kyrilloy-kklitos-pros-to-throno-t-s/ (дата обращения 06.11.2022).

Μαξίμου, μητροπ. Σάρδεων, Τὸ Οἰκουμενικὸν Πατριαρχεῖον ἐν τῇ Ὀρθοδόξῳ Ἐκκλησίᾳ. Θεσσαλονίκη: Πατριαρχικὸν Ἴδρυμα Πατερικῶν Μελετῶν, 1989. (Ἀνάλεκτα Βλατάδων; τ. 52).

[Μακάριος, αρχιεπ.] Αυστραλίας Μακάριος προς ιερείς: Αποφύγετε την αίρεση της «μονοπρόσωπης αυθεντίας». [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.romfea.gr/oikoumeniko-patriarxeio-ts/arxiepiskopi-australias/55380-afstralias-makarios-pros-iereis-apofygete-tin-airesi-tis-monoprosopis-afthentias (дата обращения 2 марта 2023 г.)

Μπούμης Π. Ι. Βασικές κανονικές αρχές επιλύσεως του ουκρανικού ζητήματος. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/24892-basikes-kanonikes-arxes-epiluseos-tou-oukranikou-zitimatos (дата обращения 15.10.2022).

Νικήτας Παντοκρατορινός, ιερομόναχος. Η αδελφική συνάντηση στο Αμμάν και η Ιερά Παράδοση της Εκκλησίας. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://fanarion.blogspot.com/2020/03/blog-post_92.html (дата обращения 19.10.2022).

Οἰκουμενιστικὴ συμπροσευχὴ διὰ τὴν «Ὑπερτάτην Κεφαλήν»! (24 Σεπτεμβρίου 2022). [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://orthodoxostypos.gr/οἰκουμενιστικὴ-συμπροσευχὴ-διὰ-τὴ/ (дата обращения 18.10.2022).

Οικουμενικός σε Αχρίδος: «Εμπιστευθείτε καρδιακώς την Μητέρα Σας Εκκλησία». [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/50605-oikoumenikos-se-axridos-empisteftheite-kardiakos-tin-mitera-sas-ekklisia (дата обращения 18.10.2022).

Η οικονομική συμβολή του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου στον αγώνα κατά της πανδημίας // http://fanarion.blogspot.com/2020/04/blog-post_4.html#more (дата обращения 15.10.2022).

Ξεξάκης Ν. Ὀρθόδοξος δογματική: ἐν 3 τ. Τ. 1. Ἀθῆναι: Ἔννοια, 2006.

Φειδάς Β. H Συνοδική Πράξη του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου (1686) και η Αυτοκεφαλία της Εκκλησίας Ουκρανίας. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://orthodoxia.info/news/h-συνοδική-πράξη-του-οικουμενικού-πατρ/ (дата обращения 06.11.2022).

_______________

Notes:

[1] См.: Шабанов Д. Римский примат в византийском богословии архиерейского первенства. URL: https://bogoslov.ru/article/1876128. См. также: Христофор (Даниилидис), митр. Место Вселенского патриарха в Православной Церкви (статья 1924 г. в переводе с франц.). URL: https://pravlife.org/ru/content/mesto-vselenskogo-patriarha-v-pravoslavnoy-cerkvi; Троицкий С. О границах распространения права власти Константинопольской Патриархии на «диаспору» // ЖМП. 1947. № 11. С. 34–45; Цыпин В. А., прот. Протоиерей Владислав Цыпин об истории первенства власти в Церкви и конфликтах современности. URL: https://bogoslov.ru/article/6171330; Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. Первенство Константинопольского епископа в Византии и Поствизантии: канонический и богословский аспект // Эстонская Православная Церковь: 100 лет автономии. Таллин, 2021. С. 50–82; Василик В. В., протодиак. Богословские аспекты учения о первенстве в Церкви. URL: https://pravoslavie.ru/122683.html; Ермилов П. В. Происхождение теории о первенстве Константинопольского патриарха // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2014. Вып. 1 (51). С. 36–53; Новиков А., прот. Первенство в Церкви: примат чести или примат власти? URL: https://www.rus-obr.ru/ru-club/4184; Лапидус И. Э., прот. Некоторые канонические аспекты действий Патриарха Константинопольского Варфоломея (Архондониса) на Украине на рубеже 2018–2019 годов // БВ. 2019. № 3 (34). С. 218–246; Понятие первенства: Истоки и контексты: Коллективная монография / отв. ред.: П. В. Ермилов, М. В. Грацианский. Москва, 2022.

[2] См. книгу в защиту соборного устройства Церкви: Лука Григориатский, иером. Права Церквей и единство Церкви / пер. игум. Дионисия (Шлёнова). Москва, 2022.

[3] Cм. особо сборник его статей: Zizioulas J. D., Metropolitan. One and the Many: Studies on God, Man, The Church, And the World Today / ed. G. Edwards. Alhambra (Ca.), 2010. (Contemporary Christian Thought Series; 6). См. особо: Idem. Primacy in the Church: An Orthodox Approach // Idem. One and the Many. P. 262–273; Idem. Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology // Idem. One and the Many. P. 274–287. См. также ключевой труд, обосновывающий особое главенство Константинопольского Патриархата в Церкви: Μαξίμου, μητροπ. Σάρδεων. Τὸ Οἰκουμενικὸν Πατριαρχεῖον ἐν τῇ Ὀρθοδόξῳ Ἐκκλησίᾳ. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1989. (Ἀνάλεκτα Βλατάδων; 52). См., в частности: Zizioulas J. D., Metropolitan. Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology. P. 274–287, где 34-е Апостольское правило называется «золотым правилом богословия первенства». См.: Ibid. // Op. cit. P. 284.

[4] См.: Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. Выражение «ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς…» 28-го правила Халкидона и его интерпретации. [Доклад на конференции Богословской комиссии «Мировое Православие: первенство и соборность в свете православного вероучения». 17 сентября 2021 г., Храм Христа Спасителя (Москва)]. Ч. 1. URL: https://bogoslov.ru/article/6170883; ч. 2. URL: https://bogoslov.ru/article/6170934.

[5] Церковные законодательные акты принимались постоянным собором – так называемым «си́нодос эндиму́са» (σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα), все более и более усиливавшим свои позиции. Как указывает ведущий знаток церковного права С. Траянос, деятельность «синодос эндимуса» рассматривалась в Византии как возможность продолжать законодательную активность после эпохи Вселенских Соборов в двух областях: брачного права и церковного администрирования и каноники. См. подробнее: Hartmann W., Pennington K. The History of Byzantine and Eastern Canon Law to 1500. Washington (D. C.), 2012. (History of Medieval Canon Law; 4). P. 163–165.

[6] Яркий пример: Nicetas Amasenus. Oratio de suffragiis // Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie byzantine / éd. J. Darrouzès. Paris, 1966. (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien; 10). P. 160–174. См. на рус. яз.: Ульянова А. О. Трактат Никиты, митрополита Амасийского, как источник по истории Константинопольского патриархата во второй половине X века // Причерноморье в Средние века. 2011. Вып. 8. С. 6–49.

[7] Joannes VIII Xiphilinus, Patriarcha. Decretum syn. de episcoporum electione // Bibliothèque de l’Escorial. Cod. R. II. 11. (Revilla 030). Fol. 270v–271; Oikonomidès N. Un décret synodal inédit du patriarche Jean Xiphilin // REB. 1960. Vol. 18. P. 57–59.

[8] См. подробнее: Hartmann W., Pennington K. The History of Byzantine and Eastern Canon Law to 1500. P. 167–168.

[9] Ibid. P. 173.

[10] Ibid. Особые «царские» монастыри должны также оставались в управлении местного епископа.

[11] Ключевая статья Ф. Илиу 1983 г.

[12] Иерусалимские патриархи стали давать разрешительные грамоты с XV в. См., например: Кобеко Д. О. Разрешительные грамоты иерусалимских патриархов // ЖМНП. 1896. Ч. 305 (июнь). С. 270–279; Лебедев А. П. История Греко-восточной церкви под властью турок: от падения Константинополя (в 1453 г.) до настоящего времени. Санкт-Петербург, 2012. (Библиотека христианской мысли. Исследования). С. 599.

[13] Οἰκουμενιστικὴ συμπροσευχὴ διὰ τὴν «Ὑπερτάτην Κεφαλήν»! (24 Σεπτεμβρίου 2022). URL: https://orthodoxostypos.gr/οἰκουμενιστικὴ-συμπροσευχὴ-διὰ-τὴ/.

[14] Οικουμενικός σε Αχρίδος: «Εμπιστευθείτε καρδιακώς την Μητέρα Σας Εκκλησία». URL: https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/50605-oikoumenikos-se-axridos-empisteftheite-kardiakos-tin-mitera-sas-ekklisia.

[15] И далее о безграничности, то есть экстерриториальности Константинопольского Патриархата: «…и определили исключение удивительное, но, как показала практика Церкви, прекрасное, мудрое и святое по отношению к ее устройству в пределах границ. Без такового определения границ многогранность церковной жизни была бы смертельной и возникающие в определенные времена и сроки вопросы становились бы все хитросплетеннее и больше».

[16] Οικουμενικός σε Αχρίδος: «Εμπιστευθείτε καρδιακώς την Μητέρα Σας Εκκλησία». URL: https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/50605-oikoumenikos-se-axridos-empisteftheite-kardiakos-tin-mitera-sas-ekklisia.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] [Μακάριος, αρχιεπ.] Αυστραλίας Μακάριος προς ιερείς: Αποφύγετε την αίρεση της «μονοπρόσωπης αυθεντίας». (2 марта 2023 г.) URL: https://www.romfea.gr/oikoumeniko-patriarxeio-ts/arxiepiskopi-australias/55380-afstralias-makarios-pros-iereis-apofygete-tin-airesi-tis-monoprosopis-afthentias.

[20] Θερμή υποδοχή του Αρχιεπισκόπου Κύπρου από τον Οικουμενικό Πατριάρχη στο Φανάρι. [3 марта 2023 г.]. URL: https://fosfanariou.gr/index.php/2023/03/03/thermi-ypodoxi-arxiepiskopou-kyprou-sto-fanari/.

[21] Там же.

[22] Подробнее: Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. В поисках подлинной каноничности: по поводу терминов συνεδαφικότης и πολυαρχία в «новой» экклезиологии митр. Григория (Папафомаса) // Конференция Санкт-Петербургской академии «Епископ в жизни Церкви: богословие, история, право» 15 марта 2022 г. (готовится к публикации).

[23] См.: Νικήτας Παντοκρατορινός, ιερομόναχος. Η αδελφική συνάντηση στο Αμμάν και η Ιερά Παράδοση της Εκκλησίας. URL: http://fanarion.blogspot.com/2020/03/blog-post_92.html.

[24] Cм.: Ibid.

[25] В комментариях к документу о благотворительной деятельности Константинопольской Патриархии (Η οικονομική συμβολή του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου στον αγώνα κατά της πανδημίας. URL: http://fanarion.blogspot.com/2020/04/blog-post_4.html#more) от 1 апреля 2020 г. архимандрит Иоаким (Икономикос), священнопроповедник митрополии Кооса и Нисиры, написал: «Великая Церковь в Константинополе еще раз показала, что является Матерью-Церковью, которая заботится о Своих чадах, и что наш Патриарх господин Варфоломей является выразителем этого Материнства, как Вершина Православия и Ипат (то есть Правитель. – И. Д.) Народа» (Για μια φορά ακόμα η Μεγάλη Εκκλησία της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως έδειξε ότι είναι η Μητέρα Εκκλησία που νοιάζεται για τα παιδιά Της, και ο Πατριάρχης μας κύριος Βαρθολομαίος, εκφραστής αυτής της Μητρότητος, ως Κορυφή της Ορθοδοξίας και Ύπατος του Γένους).

[26] Nicetas Amasenus. Oratio de suffragiis // Archives de l’Orient Chrétien. 10. P. 170:9–11.

[27] Ibid. 10. P. 168:19–20: «…Τέως γοῦν ἡ Πόλις αὐτῷ ὑπόκειται καὶ ἡ Ἐκκλησία ὡς κεφαλῇ».

[28] См.: Ульянова А. О. Трактат Никиты, митрополита Амасийского, как источник по истории Константинопольского патриархата во второй половине X века. С. 36–38.

[29] Acta Concilii secondi Lugduno. Apologia Josephi patriarchae // Dossier grec de l’Union de Lyon (1273–1277) / éd. J. Darrouzès, V. Laurent. Paris, 1976. (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien; vol. 16). P. 227:14–20: «Αὕτη τοίνυν ἡ ἁγία καὶ οἰκουμενικὴ σύνοδος, ἡπεριβόητος, ἡ μεγίστη, ἡ πολυπληθεστέρα πασῶν, ἐμοὶ δίδωσι τὰ τῆς ἐκκλήτου πρεσβεῖα πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, εἴπερ ἐγὼ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως».

[30] Joannes XI Beccus. Epistula ad papam // Archives de l’Orient Chrétien. 16. P. 481:10–15.

[31] Для раскрытия темы важно изложить святоотеческое учение об епископе и отдельно об иерархии. См.: Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. Можно ли говорить об иерархии среди Предстоятелей Поместных Церквей? Термин ἱεραρχία в византийской традиции // БВ. 2022. № 4 (47). С. 103–130; Международная научно-богословская конференция «Священная иерархия в жизни Церкви». Конференция посвящена 75-летию Святейшего Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла. 11 ноября 2021 г., Сретенская духовная семинария (готовится к публикации).

[32] См. другие имена в пояснении Евфимия Зигабена: Euthymius Zigabenus. Commentarius in Pauli epistulam ad Ephesios 2, 20:14–16.

[33] Dionysius Areopagita. De ecclesiastica hierarchia 1, 3 // PTS. 67. S. 66:4–5: «…ἱεράρχην ὁ λέγων δηλοῖ τὸν ἔνθεόν τε καὶ θεῖον ἄνδρα τὸν πάσης ἱερᾶς ἐπιστήμονα γνώσεως…».

[34] Ξεξάκης Ν. Ὀρθόδοξος δογματική: ἐν γ ́τ. Τ. Α ́. Ἀθῆναι, 2006. Σ. 158.

[35] См.: Athanasius. Expositiones in Psalmos. Ps. 10 // PG. 27. Col. 93B:14 – C:2.

[36] Ps.-Macarius. Sermones 30–64 (collectio B). Sermo 37, 1, 3:4 // Makarios/Symeon Reden und Briefe: in 2 Bde. / hrsg. H. Berthold. Bd. 2. Berlin, 1973. (GCS). S. 51:19.

[37] Ps.-Macarius. Sermones 39, 3, 1:3–4 // Makarios/Symeon Reden und Briefe: in 2 Bde. / hrsg. H. Berthold. Bd. 2. Berlin, 1973. (GCS). S. 14–15.

[38] Marcus Eremita. De lege spirituali 55:2: «…ἀλάθητος ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη».

[39] Theodorus Studites. Sermones Catecheseos Magnae. Catechesis 4 // Nova Patrum Bibliotheca. 9/2. P. 12:31–36.

[40] Joannes Chrysostomus. In Acta apostolorum 24, 4 // PG. 60. Col. 190:43–45.

[41] Joannes Chrysostomus. In epistulam ad Colossenses 3, 2 // PG. 62. Col. 320:20–22.

[42] Греч. текст и слав. перевод см.: Правила святых апостол и святых отец с толкованиями: в 2 т. Т. 1. Москва, 2011. С. 90–91. Текст правила в более позднем греческом издании: Constitutiones apostolorum 8, 47:119–125 (Can. 34) // SC. 336. P. 284.

[43] Рус. пер.: Правила святых апостол и святых отец с толкованиями. Т. 1. С. 91.

[44] Там же.

[45] Ср. в слав. переводе: «В каждой области епископам должно ведати епископа, в митрополии начальствующего, и имеющего попечение о всей области, так как в митрополию отовсюду стекаются все, имеющие дела. Посему рассуждено, чтобы он и честью преимуществовал, и чтобы прочие епископы ничего особенно важного не делали без него, по древле принятому от отец наших правилу, кроме того токмо, что относится до епархии, принадлежащей каждому из них, и до селений, состоящих в ее пределах. Ибо каждый епископ имеет власть в своей епархии, и да управляет ею, с приличествующею каждому осмотрительностью, и да имеет попечение о всей стране, состоящей в зависимости от его града, и да поставляет пресвитеров и диаконов, и да разбирает все дела с рассуждением. Далее же да не покушается что-либо творити без епископа митрополии, а также и сей – без согласия прочих епископов». (Правила святых апостол и святых отец с толкованиями. Т. 1. С. 163–164).

[46] Alexius Aristenus. Scholia in canones apostolorum 32:1–3. См. также греч. текст и рус. перевод: Правила святых апостол и святых отец с толкованиями. Т. 1. С. 92.

[47] Alexius Aristenus. Scholia in canones apostolorum 32:4–9. См. также греч. текст и рус. пер.: Правила святых апостол и святых отец с толкованиями. Т. 1. С. 92.

[48] Alexius Aristenus. Scholia in concilia oecumenica et localia. Concilium Antiochenum 5, can. 9. Рус. текст: Правила Святых Поместных Соборов с толкованиями. Москва, 2000. С. 164.

[49] Вальсамон: «Порядок поддерживает все – и небесное, и земное. Посему и настоящее правило определяет, чтобы рукоположенные воздавали честь рукоположившим. Ибо сии суть первенствующие (πρῶτοι) и главы их. Посему-то и определено по общему мнению, чтобы все выходящее из круга дел, принадлежащих к каждой епархии, относящееся к общему церковному устройству и почитаемое превышающим власть отдельного епископа, не производилось без ведома первенствующих. Впрочем, и самому первенствующему не дано права делать что-либо таковое без ведома его епископов; ибо таким образом, говорит, будет соблюдаться среди них единомыслие и любовь к Богу. Так изъясняется это правило. Для объяснения выражения «превышающее власть» (τὰ περιττά) скажи, что многие города, остающиеся без епископов вследствие нашествия язычников, по благоусмотрению поручаются другим епископам. Итак, первенствующий епископ, под ведением коего состоят эти города, подвергнется обвинению, если сделает распределение их без ведома своих сослужителей. Таковы действия, превышающие власть, и о них дает определение правило. Но скажи, что воспрещение первенствующему епископу делать что-нибудь без ведома его епископов разумеется не обо всем, что он имеет делать, а только об одном превышающем власть (τὰ περιττά). Ибо если скажешь это, то рукополагающий будет поставлен ниже рукополагаемого, так как ему возбранено будет совершенно делать что-либо без ведома своих подчиненных, а для них необходимо присутствие первенствующего только в делах, превышающих их власть, что неуместно» (Правила святых апостол и святых отец с толкованиями. Т. 1. С. 92–93).

[50] «34-е правило святых Апостолов епископам каждого народа повелевает делать особо дела подведомых им Церквей и прочих мест, а при возникновении чрезвычайного вопроса (каковой приходится возбуждать обыкновенно редко), относящегося к общему состоянию Церкви, потребуется ли, например, исследовать догматы, или рукоположить архиерея туда, где его прежде не было, или исправить общее заблуждение, или что-нибудь подобное, в таком случае епископам должно знать первенствующего у них митрополита и почитать его яко главу тела Церкви, – и, собравшись вместе, рассуждать о подлежащих предметах и принимать мнение, всеми признаваемое за лучшее. Впрочем, и митрополиту не должно, по злоупотреблению честью, превращать оную в преобладание и без общего согласия своих сослужителей делать что-либо из сказанного выше, – но (должно) чтобы судили об общих делах, быв связуемы единомыслием и любовию, ибо таким образом (действий) они будут общим примером для подведомого им народа и прославится Бог чрез Сына во Святом Духе: поелику Сын явил имя Отца и людям установил закон любви, а Дух чрез Апостолов просветил языки. С сим правилом во всем согласно, хотя не в словах, но по мысли, и 9-е прав. собора Антиохийского». См.: Matthaeus Blastares. Collectio alphabetica ε 11:1–23. Ἀποστόλων λδʹ. Рус. текст приводится по: Матфей Властарь. Алфавитная синтагма Ε, 11 (Апостольское 34-е правило) // Собрание по алфавитному порядку всех предметов, содержащихся в святых и божественных канонах, составленное и обработанное смиреннейшим иеромонахом Матфеем, или Алфавитная синтагма Матфея Властаря / пер. с греч. свящ. Н. Ильинского. Симферополь, 1892. (Алфавитная синтагма иеромонаха Матфея Властаря: Канонические правила и гражданские законы о Церкви. Москва, r2006). С. 190.

[51] См.: Matthaeus Blastares. Collectio alphabetica δ 7, bis:59–74. Συνόδου τετάρτης θʹ. Рус. пер.: Матфей Властарь. Алфавитная синтагма Δ, 7 (9), 9-е правило Халкидонского Собора // Указ. соч. С. 157.

[52] См.: Matthaeus Blastares. Collectio alphabetica δ 7, bis:77–96. Καρθαγένης ιεʹ. κηʹ. ρκεʹ. ρδʹ. λʹ. Рус. пер.: Матфей Властарь. Алфавитная синтагма Δ, 7 (9), 17-е правило Халкидонского Собора // Указ. соч. С. 156.

[53] Славянская кормчая, толкование на Апостольское 34-е правило: «Без воли всех епископов и старейший епископ да нетворит ничтоже. Без своего старейшаго ничтоже да творят епископи: но токмо в своем приделе кождо. И старейший же без онех ничтоже творит, полезнаго ради всем соединения. Толкование. Не подобает епископом, кроме воли своего старейшаго, рекше без воли своего митрополита, или архиепископа, творити излише ничтоже, ни епископа поставити, ни о повелениих, ни о правилах новых стязатися, ни продати, ни отдати церковных неких вещей. Но токмо достойная комуждо в своих пределех правити и в сущих под ними странах и в селех. Но ни старейший же, рекше, митрополит, или архиепископ, без воли всех епископов не может ничтоже таковаго творити. Сице бо творяще вси, соединения и любве заповедь соблюдут». (Правила святых апостол и святых отец с толкованиями. Т. 1. С. 93).

[54] Hierotheus hieromonachus. Orationes 3:1286–1292 // Ὁ Ἱερομόναχος Ἱερόθεος (ΙΓʹ αἰ.) καὶ τὸ ἀνέκδοτο συγγραφικὸ ἔργο του / ἔκδ. Ν. Χ. Ἰωαννίδης. Ἀθήνα, 2003. Σ. 207.

[55] Cм.: Nicodemus Hagiorita. Pedalion. Scholia in canones apostolorum. Canon 34:24–32 // Ἀγαπίου Ἱερομονάχου και Νικοδήμου Μοναχοῦ. Πηδάλιον τῆς νοητῆς νηὸς τῆς μιᾶς ἁγίας καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς τῶν ὀρθοδόξων ἐκκλησίας. Ἀθήνα, 121896). Σ. 37.

[56] Скончался 2 февраля 2023 г. На фоне многочисленных хвалебных статей в адрес Константинопольского богослова см. статью с критикой взглядов митр. Иоанна: Καραλῆς Γ. Ζηζιούλας τοῖς οἰκείοις συντέθνηκε δόγμασι. https://orthodoxostypos.gr/ζηζιούλας-τοῖς-οἰκείοις-συντέθνηκε/ (26 Φεβρουαρίου 2023), где обоснованно используется данная характеристика.

[57] «Может ли быть единство Церкви без первенства на местном, региональном и вселенском уровнях в экклезиологии общения? Мы верим, что нет. Ибо именно через “главу”, “первого”, “многие” – будь то отдельные христиане или Поместные Церкви – могут обрести единый голос» («Can there be unity of the Church without primacy on the local, the regional, and the universal level in an ecclesiology of communion? We believe not. For it is through a “head,” some kind of “primus,” that the “many” – be it individual Christians or local Churches – can speak with one voice». Zizioulas J. D., Metropolitan. The Church as Communion // Idem. One and the Many. P. 55–56).

[58] «Я полагаю, что здесь в опасности оказывается, ни больше ни меньше, надлежащее равновесие между христологией и пневматологией, между елиным и многим, между любовью и свободой, между единым Богом Отцом и другими Лицами Святой Троицы. Правильный взгляд епископа связан с правильной верой Церкви во всех ее основных аспектах» («I believe that what is at stake here is nothing less than the proper balance between Christology and Pneumatology, between the one and the many, between love and freedom, between the one God the Father and the other Persons of the Holy Trinity. The right view of the bishop is related to the right faith of the Church in all its basic aspects». Zizioulas J. D., Metropolitan. The Bishop in the Theological Doctrine of the Orthodox Church // Idem. One and the Many. P. 250). См. также: Серафим (Зисис), мон. Внутритроичная монархия Отца и новоявленный монарх экклезиологии Фанара. Москва, 2022; и предисловие к данной книге игум. Дионисия (Шлёнова).

[59] «Патриарх может созвать собор и установить его повестку. Его присутствие является непременным условием всех канонических обсуждений, таких как выборы епископов и т. п. Это означает, что собор не может функционировать без своего главы; многие без единого немыслимы. Таким образом, «первый» придает собору богословский статус, а не просто честь» («The patriarch can convoke the synod and set its agenda. His presence is a sine qua non condition for all canonical deliberations, such as the election of bishops, etc. This means that the synod cannot function without its head; the many without the one are inconceivable. Thе primus therefore gives theological status to the synod, and not simply honor». Zizioulas J. D., Metropolitan. The Institutions of Episcopal Conferences: An Orthodox Reflection // Idem. One and the Many. P. 258).

[60] «Правило (34) довольно показательно заканчивается ссылкой на Святую Троицу, тем самым косвенно указывая на то, что канонические положения такого рода не являются вопросом простой организации, но имеют богословскую, поистине триадологическую основу» («The canon (34), significantly enough, ends with reference to the Holy Trinity, thereby indicating indirectly that canonical provisions of this kind are not a matter of mere organization but have a theological, indeed a triadological, basis». (Zizioulas J. D., Metropolitan. Primacy in the Church: An Orthodox Approach. P. 269).

[61] «Это первенство иногда называют “первенством чести” – обманчивый термин, поскольку, как мы уже отмечали, это не “почетное” первенство, а то, которое включает в себя реальные обязанности и ответственность, хотя и при только что упомянутых условиях» («This primacy is sometimes called “primacy of honor”, a misleading term since, as we have noted, it is not an “honorific” primacy but one that involves actual duties and responsibilities, albeit under the conditions just mentioned». Ibid. P. 270).

[62] «There seems, in fact, not to exist, even in the Orthodox Church, “a simple primacy of honor”» (Zizioulas J. D., Metropolitan. Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology. P. 277).

[63] См.: Ibid. P. 278–279.

[64] Αθανάσιος, επ. εφησυχάζων Ερζεγοβίνης. Ο 34ος Αποστολικός Κανών και ο πατήρ Γεώργιος Τσέτσης [28 Φεβρουαρίου, 2010]. URL: https://amethystosbooks.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/ο-34ος-αποστολικός-κανών-και-ο-πατήρ-γεώ/.

[65] См.: Κυρίλλου, ᾽Επισκόπου Ἀβύδου, Ἡ Ἔκκλητος πρός τό θρόνο τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. URL: https://ec-patr.org/vydoy-kyrilloy-kklitos-pros-to-throno-t-s/; Публикация начинается со следующего утверждения: «Апелляция Первопрестольной Константинопольской Церкви является исключительной прерогативой Константинопольского престола…» (The petition of appeal (ἔκκλητος) to the First-Throne Church of Constantinople refers to the exclusive prerogative of the Throne of Constantinople to deal with…).

[66] См.: Φειδάς Β. H Συνοδική Πράξη του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου (1686) και η Αυτοκεφαλία της Εκκλησίας Ουκρανίας (Рус. пер. названия: Фидас В. Синодальное деяние Вселенского Патриархата (1686) и автокефалия Украинской Церкви). URL: https://orthodoxia.info/news/h-συνοδική-πράξη-του-οικουμενικού-πατρ/.

[67] Φειδάς Β. H Συνοδική Πράξη του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου (1686) και η Αυτοκεφαλία της Εκκλησίας Ουκρανίας (Рус. пер. названия: Фидас В. Синодальное деяние Вселенского Патриархата (1686) и автокефалия Украинской Церкви). URL: https://orthodoxia.info/news/h-συνοδική-πράξη-του-οικουμενικού-πατρ/; «Он ясно отмечает, что “как тела движутся неправильно, или даже и совсем делаются бесполезными, если голова не сохраняет своей деятельности в здоровом состоянии; так и тело церкви будет двигаться беспорядочно и неправильно, если первенствующий в нем член, занимающий место головы, не будет пользоваться подобающею ему честью. Посему настоящее правило повелевает, чтобы первенствующих епископов в каждой епархии, то есть архиереев митрополий, прочие епископы той же епархии почитали главою и без них (=Первых) не делали ничего такого, что имеет отношение к общему состоянию церкви…”» (Ράλλης Γ., Ποτλὴς Μ. Σύνταγμα. ΙΙ. Σ. 45. Рус. пер.: Правила святых апостол и святых отец с толкованиями. Т. 1. С. 91)».

[68] Профессор канонического права Афинского университета П. Бумис понимает 34-е правило более умеренно и по-соборному: как регламентирующее возглавление Поместных Автокефальных Церквей их Предстоятелями. См.: Μπούμης Π. Ι. Βασικές κανονικές αρχές επιλύσεως του ουκρανικού ζητήματος. URL: https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/24892-basikes-kanonikes-arxes-epiluseos-tou-oukranikou-zitimatos.

[69] «…The pastoral care for those territories beyond the geographical boundaries of the other local (autocephalous) Churches…» (Patsavos Lewis J. The Role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Granting Autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine: A Canonical Perspective // The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ukraine Autocephaly: Historical, Canonical and Pastoral Perspectives / ed. E. Sotiropoulos. [No City]: Order of Saint Andrew the Apostle, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, May 2019. P. 68).

[70] См.: Apophthegmata partum (collectio alphabetica). De abbate Evagrio 7 // PG. 65. Col. 176A:9–11.

[71] Ibid. Col. 176A:13–14.

[72] Constitutiones apostolorum 2, 14:70–77 // SC. 320. P. 178. Рус. текст: Апостольские постановления 2, 14 // Постановления Апостольские. Сергиев Посад, 2006. С. 30.

[73] Chronicon Moreae (recensio Π). L. 2441–2445 // The Chronicle of Morea / ed. J. Schmitt. London, 1904. P. 165:41–45.

[74] Гонители Церкви: ноги хотят стать головами – епископами (Callinicus III Patriarcha. Narratio brevis 1, 9:1087–1094).

[75] Concilium universale Chalcedonense // ACO. 2, 1, 1. P. 65:17–21.

[76] В дальнейшем латинском переводе: Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum. См. подробнее: Грацианский М. Экклесиологические историки современных претензий Константинополя на первенство в Православной Церкви. URL: https://pravoslavie.ru/119735.html.

[77] См.: Acta Concilii Florentini. Latinorum responsio ad libellum a Graecis exhibitum circa purgatorium ignem 16 // PO. 15. Fasc. 1. P. 97:26–30.

[78] Nicon Nigri Montis. Canonarium vel Typicon 20, 48:5–10.

[79] См.: Joannes Eugenicus. Antirrheticus adversus decretum Concilii Florentini 31 // John Eugenikos’ Antirrhetic of the Decree of the Council of Ferrara-Florence / ed. E. Rossidou-Koutsou. Nicosia (Cyprus), 2006. P. 143:10–13; Ibid. P. 143:20–144:1.

[80] Ibid. P. 148:18–149:7.

[81] Ср. полемику с римским учением о первенстве: Meletius Pegas Patriarcha. Epistulae (e cod. Patr. Alex. gr. 296) 201:374–378.

[82] Meletius Pegas Patriarcha. Epistulae (e cod. Patr. Alex. gr. 296) 137:70–73.

[83] Ibid. 137:92–96.

[84] Ibid. 239:20–25.

[85] Ibid. 243:35–40.

[86] Ibid. 201:389–396.

[87] Ср.: Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Βʹ // Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου: ἐν ϛʹ τ. / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δεληδέμος. Τ. Αʹ. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1982. Σ. 492:11–18. См.: Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. Критика экстерриториальной апелляции Константинопольскому патриарху свт. Досифеем Иерусалимским // Міжнародная науковая конференція «Соборність Церкви: богословські, канонічні та історичні виміри». [11 листопада 2021 р.]. Київ, 2021. https://andreevsky-monastery.ru/blog/detail/kritika-eksterritorialnoy-apellyatsii-konstantinopolskomu-patriarkhu-svt-dosifeem-ierusalimskim/.

[88] Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Δʹ // Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου: ἐν ϛʹ τ. / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δεληδέμος. Τ. Βʹ. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1982. Σ. 301:30–302:4.

[89] Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Εʹ // Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου: ἐν ϛʹ τ. / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δεληδέμος. Τ. Γʹ. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1982. Σ. 110:3–5.

[90] Ibid. Σ. 349:7–9.

[91] Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Ζʹ // Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου: ἐν ϛʹ τ. / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δεληδέμος. Τ. Δʹ. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1983. Σ. 45:1–5.

[92] Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Ιʹ // Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου: ἐν ϛʹ τ. / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δεληδέμος. Τ. Εʹ. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1983. Σ. 253:18–254:2.

[93] См.: Joannes Apocaucus. Notitiae et epistulae. Epistula 57:2–5.

[94] Theodorus II Irenicus Patriarcha. Epistula ad papam (e cod. Urbani 32, ff. 185v–191):12–18.

[95] Maximus Planudes. Oratio in sancto Arsenio Autoriano (e cod. Patm. gr. 366) (Dub.) 22:6–13; Ibid. 22:13–17.

[96] См.: Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Δʹ // Op. cit. Τ. Βʹ. Σ. 320:24–31.

[97] Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Ζʹ // Op. cit. Τ. Δʹ. Σ. 181:19–23.

[98] Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Θʹ // Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου: ἐν ϛʹ τ. / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δεληδέμος. Τ. Εʹ. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1983. Σ. 21:22–25.

[99] Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου Ιʹ // Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου: ἐν ϛʹ τ. / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δεληδέμος. Τ. Εʹ. Σ. 458:30–460:26.

[100] Ibid. Σ. 460:1–6.

[101] Θαυματουργοί. См.: Ibid. Σ. 459:35. См. также: Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. Эпитет свт. Николая θαυματουργός в греческой литературной традиции // Метафраст. 2019. Т. 1. № 1. С. 23–24.

[102] Constitutiones apostolorum 8, 12:285–290 // SC. 336. P. 202. Рус. текст: Апостольские постановления 8, 12 // Постановления Апостольские. Сергиев Посад, 2006. С. 215.

[103] Joannes Chrysostomus. De inani gloria et de educandis liberis. L. 648–653.

[104] См.: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Expositio in Psalmos LXVI, 24 // PG. 69. Col. 1156A:6–10.

[105] Epiphanius. Panarion (= Adversus haereses) // GCS. 37. P. 339:5–10.

[106] Подробнее см.: Дионисий (Шлёнов), игум. Можно ли говорить об иерархии среди предстоятелей Поместных Церквей? Термин ἱεραρχία в византийской традиции // БВ. 2022. № 4 (47). С. 103–130.

[107] См.: Basilius Caesariensis. Regulae morales 80, 16 // PG. 31. Col. 865:23–31.

[108] См.: Catena in Acta (catena Andreae) (e cod. Oxon. coll. nov. 58) // Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum / ed. J. A. Cramer. Vol. 3. Oxford, 1838. (Hildesheim, r1967). P. 337:33 – 338:3.

[109] Nicephorus I. Epistula ad Leonem III papam // PG. 100. Col. 192:9–14.

[110] Callistus I Patriarcha. Vita Gregorii Sinaitae 1:15–21.

[111] См.: Basilius Caesariensis. Constitutiones asceticae (Constitutiones monasticae) [Sp.] 22, 2 // PG. 31. Col. 1404C:2–8; Typicon monasterii Theotoci Bebaias Elpidos (sub auctore Theodora Synadena) 5 // Delehaye H. Deux typica byzantins de l’époque des Paléologues. Brussels, 1921. (Mémoires: Second series; 8). P. 40:15–19.

[112] Nicolaus Catascepenus. Vita sancti Cyrilli Phileotae (e codice Athonensi Caracalli 42) 47, 10:19–24.

[113] Theoleptus Philadelphiensis. Orationes 1:151–157.

[114] Athanasius. De virginitate [Sp.] 22:12–14; Nicolaus Catascepenus. Vita sancti Cyrilli Phileotae (e codice Athonensi Caracalli 42) 12, 2:12–14.

[115] Gregorius Palamas. Epistulae 8, 11:29–31.

[116] Serapion Thmuitanus. Euchologium 14:1–10.

[117] Gregorius III Patriarcha. Responsio ad epistulam Marci Ephesii (ex variis sanctorum sententiis) // PG. 160. Col. 200A:15 – B:4.

[118] См.: Roques R. L’Univers dionysien. Structure hierarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys. Paris, 1954.

Korean Diocese
of the Russian Orthodox Church

Official site

Who is the Head of the Church? On the Theory of Primacy