Who is the bishop of constantinople

According to Pavlov these prerogatives of honor for "both hierarchs Jerusalem and Constantinople little by little evolved into the prerogatives of power over ordinary Metropolitans: by way of custom for Jerusalem and by imperial legislation for Constantinople.

Canon 28 of Chalcedon speaks of the acknowledgment of inequality of honor of two named hierarchs that of Rome having the first place and Constantinople the second , however, according to Pavlov, it equated them in terms the rights of power, i.

This canon became the cornerstone in the matter of the elevation and prominence of the see of Constantinople. As the third level in Church, matters of its dioceses including judicial authority canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon the Patriarch of Constantinople in principle and according to canons stood on an absolutely the same level with his other brother-patriarchs.

However Canons 9 and 17 opened an alternative for the Patriarch of Constantinople, i. Thus the Council of Chalcedon established the patriarchs as a third administrative and judicial level within the Church: equal in authority but of different ranks of honor: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Canon 36 of the Council in Trullo ranks the patriarchs in the same sequence with respect to honor but completely equal in power. The last word in canonical legislation about the place of the Patriarch of Constantinople can be Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinople of This council.

In theory and according to canons, all five patriarchs were recognized as equal in authority among themselves. But this was not so in practice. Already in the 4 th century the Bishop of Rome begins to proclaim his pretensions of supreme authority over the whole Church, basing this on the imagined primacy of Apostle Peter over the other Apostles. In his turn, the Bishop of Constantinople, thanks to the political significance of his city, received certain prerogatives over the three Eastern patriarchs.

As a sign of these prerogatives and in distinction from other patriarchs, the bishop of the new capital already in the beginning of the sixth century, assumed the title of "Ecumenical" to which Pope Gregory the Great objected. In time, after the Muslims captured Jerusalem , Antioch and Alexandria , the Patriarch of Constantinople remained in fact the sole spiritual head in the Christian East and this to a certain extend equated the "ecumenical" Patriarch with the Pope of Rome.

This was done with the help of the "Household Synod" synodos endimus which assumed all the authority of the previous Ecumenical councils. This synod, under the chairmanship of the Patriarch, consisted of bishops and metropolitans who happened to be at the capital in connection with matters of their own churches, and such hierarchs would not infrequently remain there for a number of years enabling the Patriarch to assemble a synod at any time with a sufficient number of bishops. Thus, according to Ostroumov, Constantinople becomes the central point of Church life in the East and the Patriarch of the capital, with his "Household Synod", acquires a governing position in Church matters and exerts strong influence upon the other patriarchs and thus becoming the de facto highest level of appeal with respect to them.

During the time of Patriarch Photius an attempt was made to elevate the Patriarch of Constantinople over all the other patriarchs by way of secular legislation by means of an epanagoge of Emperor Basil of Macedon. In this document the Patriarch of Constantinople is distinguished from other Eastern patriarchs in that he is recognized as the first among them with the right to resolve any disputes in the other patriarchates. However these epanagoges in general, remained only on paper and did not acquire the force of law.

Nonetheless attempts were made to justify and affirm canonically the prominent status which the Patriarch of Constantinople occupied in fact thanks to the advantageous, for him, historical circumstances. All this, when combined with the epanagoge , resulted in the creation of the theory of Eastern Papism. On the basis of canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council the Byzantine canonists created a precise theory of the transfer of all the highest rights from the Roman bishop to Constantinople and the preposition "after" meta in the canon was interpreted in the chronological sense, i.

The theory of the "Byzantine pope" however, stood in opposition to the theory of the "five senses". According to this theory as proposed by Peter of Antioch, "There are five patriarchs established in the world by Divine grace: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Just as in the human body, governed by one head, five senses are active, so it is in the Church, the Body of Christ, governed by one Head, Christ Himself, five Patriarchs are established to govern various nations. It is interesting to note that in this comparison of the patriarchs with human senses, there is already a concept that all patriarchs are equal in authority and are not subordinate one to another but together are subjected to the one Head of the Church - Christ, thus they are completely equal in authority among themselves.

According to the canonist Balsamon, " The Patriarch of Constantinople retained his high status as Bishop of the capital even after the fall of Byzantium and the occupation of Constantinople by the Turks in Later, the patriarchs, during the Turkish yoke, not only preserved their authority within the Church but in the Berat of the Turkish sultans, as ethnarchs received secular authority over all Orthodox including the other Eastern patriarchs.

Troitsky summarizes the historical reasons which served to elevate the Patriarch of Constantinople over the other Eastern patriarchs:. The elevation of Constantinople as the capital of the Byzantine Empire.

The action of the Byzantine emperors, granting the Patriarch of Constantinople administrative and judicial rights within the whole empire. The presence of the "Household Synod" in Constantinople in which other patriarchs also participated and whose decisions were implemented by imperial authority.

The action of the Turkish sultan, making the Patriarch of Constantinople "millet-bashi" not only as the spiritual but the secular head of all the Orthodox subjects not excluding the other Eastern patriarchs as well. At the beginning of the 20 th century, the Church of Constantinople once again made an attempt to resurrect the idea of its authority over the whole Orthodox world, developing this trend on the basis of a newly conceived theory about the mandatory and exclusive subordination of the whole of Orthodox diaspora throughout the world to the Church of Constantinople.

In November of , Alexandria's quarrelsome young bishop, Athanasius, had an explosive encounter with Constantine in his new eponymous city of Constantinople. The meeting came about as part of the fallout from the Council of Tyre, which began meeting in the summer of that year to hear charges of misconduct against Athanasius.

The specific issues do not need to concern us here. Suffice it to say that, after despairing of his chances, Athanasius fled Tyre, probably in late September, and made his way to Constantinople, where he made a dramatic appeal to Constantine to protect him from his enemies.

Constantine had done so several times in recent years, but this time he insisted on first hearing the decision of the council.

According to Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis, writing about forty years later, Athanasius was stunned by this decision. Panarion In: The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis: selected passages. Philip R. New York: Oxford University Press, Constantine's reaction was swift: Athanasius was bundled aboard a freighter and sent to Gaul for the first of several exiles he would endure during his long career.

This confrontation raises questions about the behavior of both Athanasius and Constantine. Epiphanius was a strong supporter of Alexandria's bishop, and it is clear that he admired Athanasius for standing up to the emperor. But his brief account does little to explain either why Athanasius committed such a breach of imperial protocol or why Constantine reacted with such fury.

It was once popular to use theology to explain Athanasius' behavior. Arianism, the argument went, facilitated obedience because of its subordinationist theology.

But a true Nicene like Athanasius could not condone imperial interference in the affairs of the Church. But that argument is no longer credible, 6 6 It was once popular to say that Arianism facilitated obedience because of its subordinationist theology, whereas a true Nicene like Athanasius could not condone imperial interference in the affairs of the Church.

That argument is no longer credible. Something more than theology had to have been involved. Constantine's behavior is even more puzzling. In his case, the obvious answer is his famous temper, but such a solution trivializes the issue by making it no more than an insult to imperial majesty.

Athanasius unquestionably had violated court protocol, but Constantine had learned to endure far greater provocation during more than two decades of dealing with Christian bishops. It should have taken something more than rude behavior to make him react so vehemently. The explanation for his response lies in imperial ideology. When Athanasius claimed that God would judge between himself and the emperor, he effectively asserted a right to appeal.

The notion of appealing to a Higher Power is so well established in our cultural tradition that it is hard for us now to see that such an appeal at this time was not merely an affront; it was something that undermined centuries of Roman legal tradition.

According to that tradition, the emperor was the final authority for anything that happened in the empire. There was none of our distinction between "religious" and "secular" realms. If something needed to be negotiated with a Higher Power, the emperor was the only one who could make that decision, and only he, as pontifex maximus , would conduct the negotiation.

Yet Athanasius had not only questioned the emperor's judgment and authority, but even more, in saying that God would judge between the two of them he had asserted an unprecedented right to equality in the divine tribunal. How could Athanasius have been so reckless? It might be said that Constantine had no one but himself to blame. Ever since he assumed control of the Western empire in , Constantine had made a point of showing deference to the authority of Christian bishops.

Le dossier du Donatisme. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, Life of Constantine. Oxford: Clarendon Press , It could be said, therefore, that Athanasius had simply taken Constantine at his word. Constantine's reaction, however, suggests we should not make the same mistake.

It is not the first time Constantine had made such a claim. At roughly the same time that he was humbling himself to the bishops at Arles, Constantine wrote to his vicar in North Africa, Aelafius.

In this letter, Constantine referred to himself as the person to whom "the Highest Divinity" summa divinitate "has committed by his divine nod the government of all earthly things" cuius curae nutu suo caelesti terrena omnia moderanda commisit. In both of these statements, Constantine showed that he did not think adopting Christianity took anything away from the special relationship late Roman emperors were expected to have with divinity.

But how could he have been equally sincere in professing deference and at the same time asserting his priority? Here, the answer lies in an earlier period of Roman history. When the first of the emperors, Caesar's heir Octavian, took sole control of the empire, he successfully smoothed the transition by constructing a role for the Roman Senate in his system of governance.

By posing as nothing more than the "first man" princeps of that body, the first Augustus maintained the fiction of Senatorial control while at the same time gaining for himself a pool of seasoned administrators to help him run the empire. Let us suppose that, in labeling himself a "fellow bishop", Constantine aimed to replicate this system of governance in an age when religious authority outranked Senatorial prestige.

Like Augustus, Constantine can be called a hypocrite or a political genius, but either way we could then explain his reaction to Athanasius. Like Augustus's Principate, Constantine's new Christian empire depended on a tacit set of understandings, in which the emperor confirmed the prestige of the corporate body - in this case, the bishops rather than the senators - in return for voluntary restraints that bishops or senators placed on their own behavior.

When Athanasius, like the occasional misguided Senator in the Principate, failed to distinguish between courtesy and power, Constantine had no choice but to act. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, Now, however, Athanasius was not only claiming the right to appeal but also implying that he and the emperor would be on equal footing in that supreme venue.

That, in a nutshell, is the revolutionary difference brought about by Constantine's empowerment of the Christian clergy. This encounter at the end of his reign brings into stark relief the challenges Constantine faced in trying to forge a leadership role for himself in the Christian hierarchy.

Given the requirements of late Roman imperial ideology, his role would have to be one that maintained the emperor's special relationship with divinity in a way that everyone in the empire could acknowledge - the consensus omnium that was considered essential for that relationship to be effective.

But Constantine also needed to adapt this ideology to conform to the unique requirements of Christian leadership if he was going to be able to assert his right to supervise their activities. The most famous event of his reign - the Vision of the Cross that he experienced prior to his success at the Milvian Bridge in - needs to be read in this context. The vision story was as much a foundational event for Constantine's regime as the Battle of Actium had been for Augustus, and so far as I can tell Constantine never tired of talking about it.

The earliest possible time would have been subsequent to Constantine's defeat of the eastern emperor, Licinius, in ; a later date, in or , is even more likely. A huge body of scholarship has been devoted to this one, admittedly fascinating, event in Constantine's long reign, but for present purposes it is only necessary to consider how the vision story helped establish Constantine's credentials in a Christian context.

Its function was to provide a segue by means of which he could transfer the charismatic qualities of his office into his new religion. It shows that Constantine's intent was lay claim to an epithet that had been claimed by the recipient of a similarly famous vision, St.

Paul 2 Tim. See: Urk. Nor is this the only echo of Paul in Constantine's narrative. Like the Thirteenth Apostle, Constantine's conversion came through a vision experienced on a journey, as a result of which, like Paul, he could claim to have received instruction at no human hands, but instead to have been taught directly by God.

For Paul, cf. Galatians Even his claim to be "bishop of those outside" could be read as part of this narrative, for just as Paul claimed to be "Apostle to the Gentiles" so Constantine now claimed to be the apostle to "those outside" the Church. His planning even extended to his burial, for in placing himself in the center of markers for the Twelve Apostles, Constantine created a physical space for himself in their number.

Just what he intended by this symbolism is still debated. To Cyril Mango , p. To others, he was merely seeking their protection. Whatever his intentions, they were undoubtedly controversial, since the mausoleum was relocated during the reign of his son, Constantius II.

His intentions were realized in the posthumous title of Isapostolos , "equal of the Apostles". The vision story thus is indicative of the means Constantine had devised to make his authority palatable to the church. His goal evidently was to do so by becoming the Man of God. To the late William Frend, Constantine's gambit was completely successful. Garden City, N. Y: Anchor Books, Frend was not wrong in terms of the ultimate standing Constantine achieved in both Christian and Byzantine history.

But one reason I chose to begin with the encounter between Athanasius and Constantine was to suggest that the transition, while possibly smooth, was not as seamless as Frend's comment would have us believe. Confirmation comes from an unlikely direction. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea's Life of Constantine de vita Constantine , hereafter VC , completed shortly after Constantine's death in , is the single most important written source for that emperor's actions and intentions.

It is heavily panegyrical in its approach, intent on portraying Constantine as the ideal Christian emperor. Doubts about its authenticity were cleared up by A. Jones and T. Skeat , p. More recent scholarship has focused on Eusebius's methods and goals. See esp. See further n.

If anyplace, we should expect to find the parallels between Constantine and Paul in this work, and they indeed may be found in several places. But they are never more than implicit: Eusebius himself never overtly made this connection, even though it is in the first book of this work that we find the most obvious parallel - Eusebius' account of Constantine's miracle VC 1. How should we explain this omission? Eusebius has been the subject of intense study, especially in recent decades, as a result of which he has emerged as a far more subtle thinker, but overall a less influential figure than once believed.

In the VC he cast himself so effectively as Constantine's spokesman that for centuries his statements about Constantine's policies and intentions were considered authoritative, identical to Constantine himself. But scholars no longer take seriously his pretensions to such intimacy, 15 15 For recent examples, see SINGH, , p. For earlier views, D. WEBB , p. For this reason, Eusebius' decision not to pursue Constantine's very obvious interest in comparison with St.

Paul indicates that he had some difficulty with it. If so, then looking at his writings on Constantine with this problem in mind can provide a way to separate the agendas of the emperor from that of his biographer.

It will also show that Eusebius developed an alternative to Athanasius' confrontational style that in the long run might have been a more effective means of curbing imperial pretensions. Upon his return, he convened a council which illegally deposed Saint Paul, and the emperor banished him from the capital. In place of the saint they elevated Eusebius of Nicomedia, an impious heretic.

Archbishop Paul withdrew to Rome, where other Orthodox bishops were also banished by Eusebius. Eusebius did not rule the Church of Constantinople for long. When he died, Saint Paul returned to Constantinople, and was greeted by his flock with love.