On the Primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch
“There is in Orthodoxy no one with an equivalent position to the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church,” Met. Kallistos Ware wrote. “His place resembles that of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the worldwide Anglican Communion.”
Much has been written about the nature of Constantinople’s primacy within the Orthodox Church. Most recently, the Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate published an essay titled, “What Does It Mean that the Ecumenical Patriarch is ‘First Among Equals’?” (The name of the author or authors was not given.) This essay contained many truths, but also a number of inaccuracies and even a few lies.
Rather than write a line-by-line rebuttal, we present the following five-point exposition on the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, making occasional reference to the Archons’ essay as well as other pro-Phanar sources.
It should be noted that the following is not meant as an attack upon the Ecumenical Patriarchate or His All-Holiness Bartholomew I, whom we hold in the highest respect. Rather, it is a critique of certain theories about the Constantinopolitan primacy, many of which are not even advanced by the Ecumenical Patriarch himself.
1. Constantinople’s primacy was (and is) based on its status as capital of the Roman Empire.
It is commonly understood that both the East and the West accepted the Pope of Rome as primus inter pares—“first among equals”—before the Great Schism. It is also widely known that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople assumed the role for the Orthodox Church following the Great Schism, which separated the Western patriarchate from the four Eastern patriarchates.
Few, perhaps, understand why Constantinople emerged as first among equals.
Until the middle of the fifth century, the honorary ranking of the patriarchates was as follows: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Constantinople did not appear in the original ranking, as it did not exist until A.D. 330. Then, in A.D. 451, the Council of Chalcedon added Constantinople to the list and make it second in rank:
For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops [of the Second Ecumenical Council], actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome [i.e., Constantinople], justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her…
This decision was protested by both Rome and Alexandria. Rome objected to the idea that its primacy was granted by the Church Fathers, believing their primacy to be ordained by God, while Alexandria (perhaps understandably) didn’t like getting bumped down.
Nevertheless, in the coming centuries, all of the local churches—including Rome and Alexandria—came to accept Constantinople’s status as the “second see.”
2. Constantinople’s primacy is not guaranteed.
In his well-known essay “First Without Equals”, Abp. Elpidophoros of America claimed that the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s primacy was somehow inherent to his office. To quote His Eminence: “If we are going to talk about the source of a primacy, then the source of such primacy is the very person of the Archbishop of Constantinople, who precisely as bishop is one ‘among equals,’ but as Archbishop of Constantinople, and thus as Ecumenical Patriarch is the first without equals (primus sine paribus).”
Yet, as we have demonstrated, Constantinople’s primacy was not assigned to it by the Church Fathers—much less by Christ, etc. Rather, the Fathers assigned the first place (primacy) to Rome, just as they assigned the second place to Constantinople. Constantinople then inherited or assumed Rome’s primacy when the Latin Church went into schism around the 11th century. Constantinople’s new primacy was confirmed by subsequent councils.
Moreover, the primacy of both Rome and Constantinople was explicitly tied to their status as the imperial capital. It had no other qualification per se.
Therefore, it is conceivable that a future Ecumenical Council or other movement of the Holy Spirit could result in another patriarchate replacing Constantinople as first among equals.
Again, we do not say this as a “dig” at the Ecumenical Patriarchate. We say it, rather, to dispel the notion that the Archbishop of Constantinople is, somehow, the source of his own primacy—a claim that Roman Catholics do not even make for the pope. It is entirely conceivable that Constantinople could lose its position as “first among equals,” just as Rome did.
3. The title ‘Ecumenical Patriarch’ has nothing to do with his status as first among equals.
The Patriarch of Constantinople came to be known as “ecumenical” in the sixth century, about five hundred years before it took Rome’s place as primus inter pares. The title simply reflected the fact that Constantinople was the capital of the Roman Empire.
The adjective “ecumenical” comes from the Greek noun oikoumenē, which refers to the entire inhabited world. It came to be synonymous with civilization and the Empire itself.
To be clear, then: the title Ecumenical Patriarch is not the “universal patriarch” in the sense of having jurisdiction over the entire Church, nor that primacy is inherent to the Great Church of Constantinople and/or its Archbishop.
4. The title of Ecumenical Patriarch does not convey any special power or authority.
St. Gregory the Dialogist (Pope Gregory I of Rome) famously misunderstood this title. He thought that the Ecumenical Patriarch was claiming to be a sort of “superbishop,” with jurisdiction over the entire Church. In a letter to St. John the Faster (Patr. John IV of Constantinople), he wrote:
I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others… You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."
But again, this was a simple misunderstanding. Neither St. John nor any of his successors claimed that their new title conveyed any unique status or power. St. Gregory’s successors understood this, and so the title Ecumenical Patriarch became commonplace long before the Great Schism.
5. The status of ‘first among equals’ is honorary and symbolic.
As the Archons point out, “There is and can be no ‘Orthodox Pope’; the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch within the Orthodox Church is immensely different from the Roman Catholic Church’s understanding of the authority of the Pope of Rome.”
The Archons continue: “The Ecumenical Patriarch… does not have immediate or jurisdictional authority over Patriarchs and bishops who are not within his canonical territory.”
Met. Kallistos Ware, of blessed memory, agreed that the Ecumenical Patriarch is not the “Orthodox Pope.” Rather, he said, the more apt comparison would be to the Archbishop of Canterbury. As he wrote in The Orthodox Church,
There is in Orthodoxy no one with an equivalent position to the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople is known as the ‘Ecumenical’ (or universal) Patriarch, and since the schism between East and West he has enjoyed a position of special honor among all the Orthodox communities; but he does not have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of Churches. His place resembles that of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Again, Constantinople’s primacy conveys no special power or authority within the College of Bishops.
6. Constantinople’s primacy is limited by the bishops’ equality.
The Archons write that the Ecumenical Patriarch has “the responsibility to grant autocephaly (independence) to regions that were previously part of other ecclesiastical jurisdictions.” This is the most brazen error in their essay.
Of course, if the Ecumenical Patriarchate could grant autocephaly to whomever he liked, this would contradict the Archons’ previous claim: that Constantinople “does not have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of Churches.”
Indeed, the Orthodox tradition does not recognize any bishop’s authority to unilaterally grant autocephaly to a local church. Such decisions are always made fraternally. They must be made (or at least confirmed) by the rest of the Orthodox communion. This precedent was set by the Third Ecumenical Council, which granted autocephaly to the Church of Cyprus.
In recent centuries, the Orthodox Church has taken a less formal approach to the granting of autocephaly. Oftentimes, the Mother Church will issue a tomos to one of its eparchies, creating a new local church. For example, in 1951, the Moscow Patriarchate granted autocephaly for the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.
Occasionally, an exarchate will declare its independence, and only decades later will the Mother Church recognize that self-declared autocephaly. This occurred most recently with the Macedonian Orthodox Church. The Macedonians declared their independence from the Church of Serbia in 1967; the Serbian patriarch did not issue a tomos of autocephaly for the Macedonians until 2022.
Of course, there have been times when Constantinople has initiated the creation of a new local church. For instance, the Ecumenical Patriarch issued a tomos of autocephaly to the Church of Greece in 1850. Yet, up to that point, Greece had been under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Therefore, granting the Church of Greece autocephaly did not constitute interference “in the internal affairs of other churches.”
By contrast, the Ecumenical Patriarch did not (as the Archons claim) have the right to grant autocephaly to the “Orthodox Church in Ukraine” in 2014. At that time, Ukraine was under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. It already had an autonomous local church: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Ukraine remains under the omaphor of the UOC’s primate, Met. Onuphriy of Kyiv. The creation of the OCU therefore constitutes interference “in the internal affairs of other churches” and was an act of schism.
Addendum: Sultans, Tsars, and the Phanar
Before closing, I would like to discuss a deeply problematic claim made by the Archons. The Archons claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch alone has the authority to grant autocephaly to a local church. At the same time, it claims that secular governments have the authority to canonically abolish local churches—an outrageous claim, but one that has sometimes been made by pro-Constantinopolitan sources.
For instance, the Archons claim Constantinople granted autocephaly to the Serbian Patriarchate in 1920. Yet the Church of Serbia has been autocephalous since 1219.
Now, it’s true that Sultan Mustafa III issued a fermen (decree) “abolishing” the Serbian Patriarchate in 1766. It’s also true that the Ottomans then placed Serbia’s Orthodox Christians under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. What happened in 1920? The Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate issued a decree recognizing and confirming the “reorganization” of the Serbian Patriarchate. Yet no one felt that the new canonical structure was in any way contingent upon Constantinople’s approval.
The Serbian Church does not accept the view that its patriarchate was re-established in 1920. This is not merely a point of national pride: to say that the Ecumenical Patriarchate “granted autocephaly” to the Serbian Church in 1920 would implicitly accept the Ottoman sultan’s authority to abolish Serbia’s autocephaly in 1766.
Later, the Archons explicitly claim that secular governments have the right to withdraw autocephaly from local churches—despite the claim that autocephaly can only be granted by Constantinople. To quote the Archons’ essay,
The Ecumenical Patriarch has granted autocephaly to the Church of Russia twice. The first time was in 1589, when the Patriarchate of Moscow was first established, over a thousand years after the Council of Chalcedon granted to the Church of Constantinople the responsibility to resolve ecclesiastical disputes. The Russian Czar Peter the Great abolished the Moscow Patriarchate in 1721. Nearly two centuries later, the Ecumenical Patriarchate once again granted autocephaly to the Church of Russia as the Patriarchate of Moscow was reestablished in 1917.
“Peter the Great abolished the Moscow Patriarchate in 1721.” The Archons accept this decision as valid and licit, such that Constantinople supposedly had to restore Russia’s autocephaly in 1917.
Again, nothing of the sort took place. Rather, in 1917, the All-Russian Sobor reorganized the Russian Orthodox Church as a patriarchate; the Ecumenical Patriarchate formally recognized and confirmed this action later that year. Again, no one felt that the Sobor’s decision was in any way contingent upon Istanbul’s approval.
Michael W. Davis is General Editor of the UOJ-USA. Follow him on Twitter and Substack.
