The Constantinople and Moscow divide. Troitsky and Photiades on the Extra-Jurisdictional Rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

PART III

Professor E. Photiades' response to Professor S. Troitsky's article 60
Alexander G. Dragas

i) The Context and Purpose of Troitsky's Article

Professor Photiades starts with a general observation regarding Professor Troitsky's article. He states that it was written in the aftermath of territorial changes in Central Europe and especially in certain Russian lands, following WW1. These changes, he points out, necessitated a new reorganization and change in the administration of certain sections of the Orthodox Church in these territories which were procured by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, since there was no organized and recognized autocephalous Church in them. Troitsky's aim, he says, was to contest the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over these lands and especially over the Orthodox diaspora and Orthodox missions in general. More specifically he targeted the actions taken by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in establishing - beginning in 1923 and subsequently - the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Poland and the autonomy of the Orthodox Churches of Estonia, Finland and Czechoslovakia, and the Russian Province in Western Europe. Troitsky accused the Ecumenical Patriarchate of being infected by a sort of " typhus of worldly power " which made the Ecumenical Patriarchs of the 20th century - starting with Meletius IV, whom he blames as being the cause and creator of this anomaly - seize the opportunity to extend its jurisdiction beyond its own territories at the expense of the other Orthodox Churches. He based his contention on church Canons and scholia of ancient canonists, whereby he believed that he exposed the claims of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of extended jurisdiction as counterfeit and uncanonical. 61Photiades also notes that this is not the first time that Troitsky deals with this issue. He had also raised it when he was a refugee in Yugoslavia, on the occasion of the action of the Russian Metropolitan Eulogius (he actually refers in a footnote to his publication Tcherkovna jourisdiktchija nad diasporom, Beograd, 1932). For Photiades Troitsky's contentions constitute a misinterpretation of the Canons which distorts the truth to the detriment of the First Throne of the Orthodox Churches. 62

ii) The Scope of Photiades' Response

To demonstrate this adjudication, Photiades turns to a full examination of the relevant Canons and to an elaboration of their meaning through specific examples of their concrete applications in the history of the church. As he puts it, his response to Troitsky's challenge is to recall briefly the canonical basis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's establishment and growth in order to show; a) why Troitsky's misinterpretation of the Canons distorts the truth to the detriment of the First Throne of the Orthodox Churches; b) why the other Orthodox Churches do not have the canonical right to interfere in the administration of the Orthodox in Europe; and c) why only the Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne had the canonical right to declare the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Poland and to organize on the principles of autonomy the Orthodox Metropolises that were found outside the Orthodox Russian Church after WW1. 63

I. The canonical basis of the extra-jurisdictional rights of Constantinople

iii) Canon 3 ECII

First , he recalls that the position of the Bishop of Constantinople was defined by Canon 3 ECII, which ascribed to him " seniority of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is New Rome ." 64 It was on this basis, he goes on to stress, that the Bishops of Constantinople presided in Synods in the East, whether general or local, and ordained several Eastern Bishops and even Metropolitans just as the Bishop of Rome did in the West. Photiades documents several specific examples involving the Bishops of Constantinople of this period: Nektarios, Sissinios, Nestorios, John Chrysostom, Atticos and Proclos, which, he states, clearly demonstrate that the Bishop of Constantinople exercised patriarchal rights on the dioceses of Pontos and Asia much earlier than ECIV. 65

iv) Canon 28 ECIV

Second , he states that this application of Canon 3 was fully recognized at the ECIV at Chalcedon and was canonically sanctioned and extended by its Canon 28. 66Photiades also documents that the stipulation of Canon 28 that the bishop of Constantinople would only ordain the Metropolitans and not the bishops of the Metropolises that were under him, i.e. those of Pontos, Asia and Thrace, represented a diminution of his rights which was due to the intervention of Leo of Rome as Patriarch Anatolios of Constantinople revealed. But the compensation for it was the right explicitly accorded to the bishop of Constantinople to have extra-jurisdictional rights for ordaining all bishops in the barbarian territories beyond the boundaries of his own Metropolises.

v) Canons 3ECII, 28 ECIV and 36 ECVI

Third , Photiades recalls Canon 36 ECVI, which combines and supplements the rights and prerogatives that were sanctioned by Canons 3 ECII and 28 ECIV. 68 All these Canons (3, 28 and 36), says Photiades, specify the administrative authority (τὴν διοικητικὴν ἐ ξουσίαν) of the Bishop of Constantinople, but he is quick to point out, that there are also other Canons, which were stipulated to specify his juridical rights (τὰ δικαστικὰ δικαιώματα) in the Church as a whole, namely, Canons 9 and 17 ECIV.

vi) Canons 9 and 17 ECIV

Fourth , Photiades explains that Canons 9 and 17 ECIV state that the Bishop of Constantinople is the final court of appeal for all disputes and problems among clergy, including bishoprics and metropolises. 69Canon 9 refers to political differences and disputes between clerics, cleric and bishop, cleric or bishop and metropolitan, and orders that all these cases " should be adjudicated. by the Exarch of the prefecture (παρὰ τῷ Ἐξάρχῳ τῆς διοικήσεως ) or by the thone of the royal city of Constantine ." 70 Canon 17 refers to differences in certain eparchial boundaries, and stipulates, that, " if one is unjustly treated by its own metropolitan, then its case should be adjudicated by the Exarch of the Prefecture or the Throne of Constantinople as it was already stipulated ." 71 Photiades explains that Exarch here means the Patriarch and cites as evidence i) Justinian's Novel 123, Ch. 22 and ii) the appeal of Ibas of Edessa to his Exarch in Act 10 of ECIV, because both of them identify the Exarch with the Patriarch. 72

vii) The Canonists

To explain further these juridical rights of the Bishop of Constantinople Photiades also recalls Alexios Aristenos' scholion and interpretation, which states that " the final appeal is referred to the patriarch of Constantinople - a privilege that was given to no other Patriarch, neither by canons, nor by laws, namely, that a metropolitan of another patriarch can be ultimately judged by no one else, save the Patriarch of Constantinople. " 73 Indeed, it was in accordance with Canon 9 ECIV that the emperors Leo and Constantine ordered: " That the judgment of the Patriarch of Constantinople is not subject to a higher appellate authority, nor could it be revised by any other; for all ecclesiastical criteria are from this one, and in this one they are resolved and to this one they return; besides, this one is not from another nor related to another; because this is the primary principle." This, says Photiades, is the interpretation of this Canon adopted by the great scholars Beveridge, Hefele and Leclercq. 74

viii) Canon 9 ECIV and Canons 3 and 5 of Sardica

There are two more issues that Photiades brings up at this point. The first issue is Leclercq's comparison of the appellate jurisdiction accorded to the patriarchal Thrones of Constantinople and Rome. He says that they are not the same in weight and content because Canon 9 ECIV (related to Constantinople) is issued by an Ecumenical Synod and is not the same with Canon 3 of the local synod of Sardica (related to Rome). The former grants the Patriarch of Constantinople the right to adjudicate appellate cases by himself, whereas the second grands the Pope of Rome the right to appoint adjudicators who would deal with appellate cases. Besides, Canon 5 of Sardica stipulates that the Throne of Rome should not adjudicate anything without referring it to the throne of Constantinople as well. So, Photiades recalls this enhancement of the superiority of the Throne of Constantinople by recalling Justinian's Novel 130, which states, among other things, that " The canonical disputes that arise in the entire Illyricum should not be determined without the opinion of the Archbishop of Constantinople and his Synod, which has the privileges of the ancient Rome. " 75 He also refers here to the attempt of Zosimus of Rome to forge the Canons of Nicaea in order to enhance his appellate rights over the disputes in Carthage, and how his forgery was exposed through the use of the archives of the Churches of Alexandria and Constantinople. 76

ix) The Meaning of Ecumenical Patriarch

The second issue that Photiades elucidates here is the historical use and meaning of the titles of Exarch , Archbishop and Patriarch , and how they evolved in the history of the Church and especially in the Church's synodical procedures. 77 He focuses on the title Archbishop and Ecumenical Patriarch , which was granted to the Archbishop and Patriarch of Constantinople John II in 518-519. To bring out the actual meaning of this title he engages in a discussion of the disputes raised between East and West concerning this title, citing an impressive array of scholarly witnesses. 78 His conclusion is a statement from Professor Kartaschoff: " The examples that I mentioned in my book are sufficient for the recognition of the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople in our Orthodox East, not only as an archaeological event of the past, but as a living and active principle ." 79Thus, Photiades stresses the primatial and superior position of the Patriarch of Constantinople amongst the Eastern Patriarchs and Presiding Hierarchs of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches, which entailed, he says, not only privileges but also duties. These included his care for all in the Church, his involvement in the needs of the local Churches for the building up and training of the Christian people, and his intervention for restoring canonical order wherever it was shaken or violated. History has shown that the Ecumenical Patriarch has always employed these duties and privileges in ways that bring out solutions and secure the stability and integrity of the Most Holy Orthodox Churches in every locality. To demonstrate this claim more concretely, Photiades produces specific examples from the history of the Orthodox Church, some before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks (1453) and some during Turkokratia - obviously to decry the view that Constantinople lost its primatial rights after its capture by the Turks:

x) Historical Application of the Ecumenical Prerogatives

a) Examples before 1453 : The first one is the solution provided by the Synod of Constantinople already in 394 to the dispute between bishops Agapios and Bagadios over the bishopric of Bostra, which belonged to the jurisdiction of Antioch. 80 For many others like this one, he recalls Anatolios of Constantinople's statement before more than 600 bishops at ECIV about the established custom of bishops sojourning in the great City bringing up many of their ecclesiastical problems to the Standing (Ἐνδημοῦσα) Synod of Constantinople and getting canonical solutions.

As conspicuous examples of this custom, Photiades mentions those connected with the Regulations on Marriage issued under Patriarch Sisinnios II (10 th c.) and the Regulations on Fasting under Patriarch Ioannes Xiphilinos (11 th c.) which became law for the entire Orthodox Church. 81 Another such example is the defrocking of bishop Ioannes of Amathous in Cyprus by a Constantinopolitan Synod under Patriarch Lukas I Chrysoverges (12 th c.); 82 and yet another, Patriarch Kallistos I's calling to order the Archbishop of Ternovo and All Bulgaria (1355), who, having been honored by the Synod of Lampsakos (1234) under Patriarch Germanos II, through receiving the title of Patriarch, but without being lined up (enumerated) with the other Patriarchs and commemorated in the diptychs, tried to acquire high-handedly full patriarchal rights and defy the jurisdiction over him of the Patriarch of Constantinople. 83

b) Examples after 1453 : In regard to the period of Turkokratia, Photiades speaks of a plethora of examples of specific actions taken by the Patriarchs of Constantinople in fulfilling their duties and privileges for the good of the Orthodox Churches everywhere. Such examples, he says, are presented in the second volume of Πατριαρχικὰ Ἔγγραφα of the Archivist of the Ecumenical Throne and later Metropolitan of Berroia, Cyzicos and Caesarea, Kallinikos Delikanes. They relate to dogmas, holy traditions and canonical ecclesiastical regulations that concern the entire body of the Orthodox Church, and especially to important matters that concern this or that Autocephalous Orthodox Church. This is particularly the case with the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem (including the Archdiocese of Sinai), and Cyprus, spanning the period 1574-1863.

As exceptional, important examples of this period, Photiades mentions the election of the Metropolitan of Aleppo under Patriarch Paisios II, as recorded in a memorandum which exalts the Patriarch of Constantinople for his care not only for his own but also for all Churches in exercising his prerogatives, granted to him by Ecumenical Synods and Royal decrees. 84 Another example is also connected with the Metropolis of Aleppo and specifically with the election of its Metropolitan Philemon by the Ecumenical Patriarch to whom this Metropolis was ceded for a time by Silvester of Antioch because of exceptional problems. Both in the memorandum of this case (1757), as well as in the Act of the return later of the Metropolis of Aleppo to the Patriarchal Throne of Antioch under Patriarch Samuel I (1766), the Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople is praised as the common Mother of all the Churches everywhere, who takes care of the needs and problems of all the Churches, since it was invested with appropriate rights and privileges. 85 Photiades adds another conspicuous memorandum related to the election of Patriarch Daniel of Antioch (1767) which similarly exalts the exceptional role and importance of the Ecumenical Throne. 86 The final and most important examples that complete professor Photiades' array of evidence for the extended jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Throne in the Orthodox Church as a whole bring him to his explicit response to Troitsky's unjust accusations against the Ecumenical Throne:

The first example is the 1663 Tome of the four Patriarchs of the East, Dionysios III of Constantinople, Paisios of Alexandria, Makarios of Antioch and Nektarios of Jerusalem, which they issued as a response to 25 questions submitted to them by the Church of Russia. Photiades cites the questions and answers nos. 8, 21 and 22 which are relevant to his answer to Troitsky's claims:

Question 8 : Whether every judgment of other churches is referred to the Throne of Constantinople to adjudicate and whether every ecclesiastical dispute receives its final answer by this Throne?

Answer: This privilege belonged to the Pope before he was split from the catholic Church through arrogance and self-willed mischief; but after his split, all matters of the Churches are referred to the Thone of Constantinople and all decisions are issued by this Throne, since he has equal primatial rights with the Old Rome according to the Canons. That this privilege has been transferred to the Ecumenical Throne, can be ascertained in many ways, and not least by the scholia of the great Legal authorities. and from the canonist Balsamon who says " that what has been legislated especially about the Pope is not only his privilege, but is understood to be also applicable to the Bishop of Constantinople ;" since, however, the Bishop of Rome has split himself from the catholic Church this legislation and privilege is referred only to the Ecumenical Throne . Then, if it happens that the rest of the Patriarchs give their consent, to any major issue that is determined by the Ecumenical Throne, the decision taken will be unalterable.

Questions 21 and 22 : If a metropolitan or patriarch, being liable, is to be judged by the bishops who are under him. and if, becoming unbridled, he runs to an arbiter with their decision, what should be done?

Answer: The decision of the Ecumenical Throne and the Patriarchs, which is issued against him in writing, and whatever else appears to be lawful and according to the Canons as it has been already said, and since the Ecumenical Throne has this prerogative according to the Canons, will be maintained, and there is no further arbitration left for this case." 87

The second example Photiades cites is a statement from the Tome of the foundation of the Patriarchate of Moscow which was signed by Patriarch Ieremias of Constantinople, Joakim of Antioch, Sophronios of Jerusalem and 81 Metropolitans in order to show the exceptional and leading position of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the chorus of the Presiding Hierarchs of the Orthodox Churches: ". so that he (the Patriarch of Moscow) may have the Apostolic Throne of Constantinople as his head, like the rest of the Patriarchs ." 88

xi) The Ecumenical Patriarch's True Historical Profile

At this point, Photiades acknowledges that certain Russian canonists (Souvorov, Pavlov, et al.) and historians, unable to assess this multifaceted activity of the Patriarch of Constantinople, spoke of an Eastern Papism and accused the Ecumenical Patriarch of trying to impose a papal authority in the East. Such, he says, has been recently the position of Professor Troitsky, who has spoken with easy-going conscience of New Rome's " sin of worldly power ," because of the latest activities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Western Europe and the Diaspora. The fact is, says Photiades, that what Constantinople did was nothing else but a simple continuation of what it had always done in the past in exercising its duties and prerogatives since its inception. How wrong Troitsky and those others who expressed such views have been could be clearly seen if due consideration would be paid either a) to the Act of Patriarch Neophytos VII, which placed again the Metropolis of Aleppo under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchal Throne of Antioch, 89 or b) to the Sigillion of Patriarch Gerasimos II concerning this matter, 90 or even c) to the Ecumenical Patriarch's rebuke of Gregory of Aleppo who failed to commemorate the name of Patriarch Silvester of Antioch after the return of his Metropolis to the Antiochian Patriarchate, but commemorated instead the Ecumenical Patriarch. 91 The relevant texts which Photiades cites regarding these three cases stress: a) the Ecumenical Throne's intolerance of those who exceed their rights out of avarice and act and speak unjustly (ἀφαιρεῖν ἐκείνων τὰ δίκαια καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἀδικοῦντα, οὐχ ὅπως πράττειν, ἀλλ οὐδὲ ἀκούειν ἀνέχεται); b) the Ecumenical throne's blameless behavior towards the other patriarchal and apostolic thrones, inasmuch as it does not take away from them what the laws have granted them, nor does it allow them to act beyond their boundaries, but takes special care for their rights and needs through collaboration with them (μήτε τὰ ἐκ τῶν νόμων προσήκοντα ἐκείνοις ἀφαιρούμενος, μήτε ὑπὲρ τοὺς ὅρους πράττειν ἀξιῶν, ἀλλὰ μάλιστα πρὸς τὰ δίκαια καὶ τὰς χρείας ἐκείνων. συναντιλαμβανόμενος) and c) the Ecumenical throne's readiness to repudiate those actions that are out of place and inappropriate as ignoring expressed synodical decisions and instructions (ἄτοπα καὶ παράλογα πράγματα ἔξω τῆς συνοδικῆς ἀποφάσεως καὶ παραγγελίας). 92 So, Photiades concludes that the Ecumenical Patriarch has never tried to diminish the rights of the other Churches, neither did he ever allow the others to do so.

As conspicuous evidence for this, Photiades adduces the condemnation by the Ecumenical Patriarchs Methodios II, Iakovos I, Kallinikos II and Gabriel III, issued at the request of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, of the repeated attempts of the Archbishops of Sinai to be freed from the canonical jurisdiction over them of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem. His citation from the Synodical Letter of Patriarch Iakovos I, issued in the year 1687 describes the unshakeable position of the Ecumenical Throne towards the other Orthodox Churches: ". it is aligned with the canon and order of the Apostolic Church that was handed down from ancient times, by being determined to preserve unbroken the privileges of the Churches that exist everywhere, in accordance with the Apostolic prototypes and the synodical and canonical terms and stipulations of the divine fathers, and in accordance with the canonical power with which the Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople has been enriched, as well as with the matters that are put before it for adjudication, or for restraining the irregularities that occur in the Churches of God in other territories, and for reforming such matters with the view to restoring order. " 93

II. Response to Troitsky's arguments about Canon 28 ECIV

Photiades turns next to Troitsky's "bitter scholia," as he qualifies them, regarding Canon 28 ECIV, which were aimed, he says, at limiting the meaning and scope of this Canon towards securing the right of intervention in the ecclesiastical affairs of the Orthodox in Europe and in the other, and especially the newer Slavic Churches, which were of particular concern. He focuses on Troitsky's claim that the phrase ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς has no geopolitical sense and, therefore, it does not refer to an Orthodox diaspora, found outside the boundaries of states where Orthodox Autocephalous Churches exist and where Constantinople has the right of jurisdiction according to Canon 28.

i) Τὰ Βαρβαρικά , Geopolitical and Ecumenical, not Ethnological

In his response, Photiades first observes that to back his claim Troitsky attempts to clarify the meaning of the terms "diaspora" and "barbarian" in ecclesiastical usage although the term "diaspora" is not mentioned in Canon 28. As for the phrase " ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς..." of Canon 28, it should not be understood as implying βαρβαρικο ῖς ἔθνεσι - as some, including professor Troitsky, believe, on the basis of Canon 2 ECII, which explicitly states: that the Churches of God that are situated in territories belonging to barbarian nations must be administered in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers. Photiades explains that this Canon refers to those Churches that existed in the barbarian nations outside the Byzantine state, i.e. among peoples who had not yet been fully Christianized, but observed barbarian customs of behavior since they had not yet been familiarized with the Greek language and civilization, "where perhaps there were not enough Bishops to form a Synod" which would lead them according to the decisions of Nicaea. 94Furthermore, Photiades explains, on the basis of Zonaras and Balsamon, that through Canon 2 the Fathers of ECII complemented Canons 6 and 7 ECI, which had specified the jurisdictions of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Thus, Canon 2 ECII, specified the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Asia, Pontos and Thrace, prohibiting them from intruding into the churches beyond their jurisdiction, i.e. in churches existing in the barbarian nations , beyond their borders , unless they were invited in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers. 95 ECIV modified Canon 2 ECII by issuing Canon 28 which specified the boundaries of the jurisdiction of the Throne of Constantinople, placing under it the previously self-governed ecclesiastical dioceses of Pontos, Asia and Thrace, as well as those Churches existing in the barbarian nations which according to Canon 2 lay beyond the boundaries of the aforementioned dioceses. By using, however, the more general term ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς without the specification ἔθνεσι of Canon 2, Canon 28 ECIV pointed generally to all the Churches beyond the boundaries of the Byzantine State because it used the term τὰ βαρβαρικά topographically like the synonymous term τὸ βαρβαρικόν. Indeed, this is the meaning given to this term in the well-known Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods of E.A. Sophocles, and the same is confirmed in Canon 30 ECVI which includes the Churches in Russia and Alania among the barbarian ones. 96

In light of the above explanations, Photiades concludes that no other Churches, except the Church of Constantinople, possess the canonical right to assist in the administration of Christians found in places lying beyond the specified boundaries of their jurisdiction. This, he repeats, is the clear import of Canon 2 ECII, to which he also adds Canon 8 ECIII which explicitly states: " that none of the Bishops most beloved by God shall take hold of any other province that was not formerly and from the beginning under him, but if anyone has taken hold of any and placed it under him forcefully, he shall return it to its rightful owner ." 97 His reason for citing Canon 8 ECIII is that it was used along with Canon 2 ECII by professor Troitsky who "wrote frivolously and disrespectfully about the ever-memorable Patriarch Meletios, who made good use of these two Canons in censuring the Russian Hierarchs outside Russia for intruding into episcopal jurisdictions, lying outside the boundaries of the Russian Church: He actually cites the Letter of Patriarch Meletios of Alexandria dated 22/5 July 1927, 98 cites Troitsky's four criticisms and provides his four responses to them.

ii) Patriarch Meletios' Letter to Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev

Photiades does not discuss the Letter of Patriarch Meletios. The fact that he cites the whole of it means that it speaks for itself. A brief description would suffice for our purposes here. The first paragraph is extremely important, because it supplies the data which called for the composition of this letter. These data are: a) the Letters and Encyclicals sent to Patriarch Meletios from Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev and the Russian Hierarchs sojourning with him in Karlovtsy, dated 28 August 1926, regarding their discordance with Metropolitan Evlogy and their decisions against him, and b) Metropolitan Evlogy's Letters who placed his own case and that of the other Russian Hierarchs under the judgment of Patriarch Meletios.

There follows the immediate reaction of Patriarch Meletios: i.e. the summoning of his Synod of Hierarchs to examine this case using as criterion the sacred Canons. Then the content of this examination, is described in terms of two crucial questions that need to be answered: a) What is the position of Russian Hierarchs meeting in Karlovtsy and presenting themselves as a Ruling Synod for all the Russian Orthodox throughout the world, judged according to the Apostolic and Synodical Canons? And b) What is the canonical value of the decisions, both administrative and juridical that were taken by this Synod regarding Metropolitan Evlogy?

The paragraph that follows acknowledges the tragedy that befell the Holy Church of Russia since 1919, which led to the separation of some of their Hierarchs from their flock, who, as they were pursued, found themselves not only outside their provinces but also outside the Russian Church, and who, after several wanderings settled in Karlovtsy of Yugoslavia on the territory of the Serbian Church. These Hierarchs first appeared as a kind of Hierarchical Conference, but gradually they were developed into a Hierarchical Synod of the Russian Church Outside the Russian Borders (ὑπερόριος ρωσσικὴ ἐκκλησία).

Then the Letter produces the canonical verdict through a series of observations. There is no canonical Church outside its borders (ὑπερόριος), which could have a Synod ruling it. The Canons and the ages-long praxis of the Church know only of, " Churches within borders " (ὅρια Ἐκκλησιῶν), and of orders of the Fathers, " not to remove eternal borders which our Fathers have laid " , and also of threats of sacred Canons against those, " who dare to do ordinations outside the borders of their own ordination " (Apostolic Canon 35). However, the Letter acknowledges that the term, " church outside its borders " (ὑπερόριος ἐκκλησία) does appear in the Canons. There is the case of Canon 2 ECII, but this contradicts the case of the Russian Bishops in Karlovtsy. These Bishops are 'retired' from their charges (σχολάζοντες) and, as such, are condemned by Canon 16 of Antioch. The Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch are obliged to operate within their specified borders, but the Russian Bishops in Karlovtsy have assigned to themselves a synodical jurisdiction extended locally over the five continents. They recall Canon 39 ECVI, which relates to the Archbishop John of Cyprus and his people who were forced into exile at the time of Justinian II, to justify their action but this is not the same with their case. It could, perhaps be applicable to these Russian Bishops in Karlovtsy, if the Patriarch of Serbia had given them the entire Sirmian region to administer as an eparchy of its Patriarchate, for in this case their case would to some extent match the case of the exiled Cypriots.

The final point in answer to the first question is the confusion that an hyperorios Russian church would inevitably create world-wide, because it would lead to the development of as many hyperorios orthodox churches as there are autocephalous ones, i.e. Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Albanian, Syrian, Polish, Ukrainian, Palestinian, Egyptian, namely, a multi-jurisdictional ethnophyletist diaspora, which would share the same territory.

The second answer regarding Evlogy is brief and consists of five succinct points: 1) that the self-named "Hierarchical Synod of the Russian Church Abroad" is uncanonical, as standing up against the Apostolic and Synodical Canons and Praxis of the Church. 2) The Most Blessed Patriarch of Serbia has the right to recognize the right of the Russian Metropolitans and Bishops to teach and liturgize only within the Serbian territory. 3) That the aforementioned have no authority to ordain and enthrone Hierarchs in the barbarian lands and generally outside Russia in the Provinces which are canonically placed under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as in Europe, where there is already a canonical Hierarchical Authority, legally established. 4) The aforementioned Synod has no right to call Metropolitan Evlogy to offer an apology and to judge or acquit him, having been placed under the Synod of the region to which the land ecclesiastically belongs. 5) The Metropolitan Evlogy has uncanonically settled in Paris, because there was already lawfully installed in it another Orthodox Hierarch.

iii) Troitsky's Charges Against Patriarch Meletios

Troitsky's contentions about the Canons mentioned by Meletios are as follows:

1) That Canon 2 ECII, which entirely prohibits any hyperorios activity, does not exempt the Patriarch of Constantinople for it does not even make any mention of him.

2) That this Canon, as cited by Patriarch Meletios, has purposefully not included the last part of it because allegedly it had to do with the Churches of God in the barbarian nations.

3) That if this Canon comprised only those things that were mentioned by Patriarch Meletios, then, no Church, not even Constantinople exempted, could engage in missions outside its borders, which, of course would contradict the well-known command of the Lord to the holy Apostles "to go and teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19 and Mark 16:15).

4) That Canon 8 ECIII, does not exempt Constantinople either, for it specifies a principle that is enforced on all the Churches, and by that same token - so prof. Troitsky presumes - if the Russian Church cannot have provinces in Poland and Finland, for the reason that these are found in another state, then, neither can the Church of Constantinople have such provinces, because it too is found in another state. 99

iv) Photiades' Counter-Arguments Against Troitsky

1) Canon 2 ECII does not exempt Constantinople from the principle it lays down, inasmuch as no such exception was envisaged. Indeed, neither the ever-memorable Patriarch appealed to such an exemption.

2) Patriarch Meletios did not leave out in his Letter to the Russian Bishops in Karlovtsy the last paragraph of Canon 2 purposefully as prof. Troitsky presumes, because allegedly it would have weakened his thesis; but because this paragraph had no relation to the activities of the Russian Hierarchs outside their territory and without borders in a canonical territory of another jurisdiction.

3) Troitsky is wrong in pointing to the last paragraph of Canon 2 as granting freedom for missionary activity to all the Churches according to the Lord's well-known commandment. Even if Canon 2 were to be considered without taking into account that what it stipulates about activities allowed in the Churches of God in barbarian nations was modified by being placed under Constantinople through Canon 28 ECIV, the paragraph in question in no way awards the right of such hyperorios activity to all the Churches. According to the official canonists Zonaras and Balsamon such a right was awarded only to certain churches neighboring barbarian areas which included Christian populations that had moved there and needed to be organized and taken care of, and therefore did not envisage missionary work among unbelieving barbarian nations. This is similar to the case of the Russian Hierarchs who came out of their Church as refugees in Europe and therefore had to be organized by their neighboring Churches, as Patriarch Meletios had pointed out. It seems, says Photiades, that the canonist professor Troitsky forgot that a Bishop exercises his triple authority, priestly, didactic and administrative only inside the province which has been allotted to him, and not outside it, and that he only does what is assigned to him by the ruling Bishop of his area. Photiades also elaborates the tradition that the missionary activity of the Church was not open to everyone, but to the Apostles and to their chosen successors who went to preach in different regions, and that eventually through the Ecumenical Synods, ECI, ECII and ECIV the world was spiritually distributed into five Patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, each one taking care of its own region through its Protos. However, ECIV allotted to the Patriarch of Constantinople besides its own region the administration of the churches in the various nations so that he in collaboration with the others the unity of the Church might be preserved and the Christian faith might not be harmed

4) In regard to Canon 8 ECIII, Photiades agrees that it does not exempt the Patriarch of Constantinople. Nevertheless, he does administer the ecclesiastical communities and provinces outside the boundaries of the other autocephalous Churches, not because he is exempted from the principle laid down by this Canon, but because all these are found in its canonical territory, which was specified by the newer Canon 28 ECIV. He would have trespassed Canon 8 ECIII, if he sought to obtain provinces within the canonical territory of the other three Apostolic and Patriarchal Thrones of the East, or in the region of the newer Autocephalous Churches which were released by him. It should be noted, however, that there are some of the newer Churches, and not so much the venerable Apostolic and Patriarchal Thrones, do engage in such hyperorious (beyond limits) activities, although they owe their historic existence to the canonical actions of this very Church of Constantinople.

III. Regarding the autocephaly of the Church of Poland

i) The Actual Case of the Church of Poland

The Final section of Professor Photiades' response to Professor Troitsky's essay deals with the issue over the Church of Poland, which provides the opportunity for discussing briefly but comprehensively the parallel issues over the Churches of Bulgaria and Serbia, and very briefly of the Churches of Greece, Romania, Albania and Iberia (Georgia). The issue over Poland is outlined as Troitsky's objection to the autocephaly granted to the Polish Church by the Ecumenical Patriarchate after the liberation of Poland following the end of WW1 as already noted at the beginning of this essay. Troitsky raised two problems, first that the necessary conditions for organizing the autocephaly of this Church after the liberation of Poland were not met, and second that the autocephaly was declared by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and not by the Russian Church as the Mother of the Church of Poland. For Troitsky, political independence could in no way grant the right to that part of the Russian Church in it to organize its autocephaly. The only criterion for such a development should have been the good or the benefit of the Church.

Photiades argues against the first point by recalling Canon 17 ECIV, which states, " that if any city has been renovated by royal authority, or has been built anew again, pursuant to civil and public formalities, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes be followed ;" and also Canon 38 ECVI, which speaks about cities being renovated and renewed, and should also enjoy an appropriate position in their ecclesiastical order as well, by having it upgraded to bishoprics, archbishoprics or metropolises, after becoming severed from its ruling bishop. Finally, the history of the acquisition of autocephaly by the particular autocephalous Churches and the published official acts of the Church, clearly show that political independence, although not a necessary prerequisite for ecclesiastical independence, is a contributing factor towards ecclesiastical autocephaly. On this Photiades cites here three directly relevant scholarly studies, 101 but he also turns to two conspicuous examples, the cases of the Bulgarian and the Serbian autocephalies, which not only put the record straight on the issue raised by Troitsky, but also demonstrate the real and crucial role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in settling canonically the ecclesiastical affairs of the Orthodox Churches.

ii) The Example of the Bulgarian Church's Autocephaly

The Bulgarian Church received, lost and re-received its independence several times due to political changes in that department of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It became semi-independent under Joseph at the Synod of Constantinople of 869-870, when Rome finally withdrew its claims over it. It received autonomy in 932, under Tzar Peter (927-960), son of Symeon (893-927), following the peace settlement of Bulgaria with the Byzantine empire. It lost its autonomy after the dissolution of the Bulgarian state, following the victory of the Byzantine emperor Nikephoros II and his son Ioannes Tsimiskes (during 965-971) over the Bulgarians, when Boris II placed his crown on the altar of St. Sophia and became Magistros and the self-proclaimed Patriarch Damianos revoked his arbitrary patriarchal title at Dorystolon. 102 When Bulgaria was liberated by Tzar Asan II (1218-1241), the Bulgarian Church was acknowledged as an autonomous Archdiocese under Patriarch Germanos II (1235), but lost its autocephaly when Bulgaria lost its political independence at the end of the 14 th century. When in the second half of the 19 th century the Bulgarian Church broke away from the Ecumenical Patriarchate and was self-declared autocephalous before the declaration of Bulgaria as an independent state, it was condemned as schismatic by the Great Synod of 1872 as introducing the principle of ethnophyletism into the ecclesiastical order, but in 1945 the schism was lifted and the Bulgarian Church was recognized by Constantinople as autocephalous.

iii) The Example of the Serbian Church's Autocephaly

The Serbs received first baptism by the Church of Constantinople in the 7 th century under the emperor Heracleios and then again in the 9 th century under the emperor Basil the Macedon. 103 When they gained independence under Stefan Nemanja, his youngest son Sava became first Archbishop of the Serbian Church which received autonomy from Constantinople in 1219. This situation continued until 1346 when at the prompting of the new Serbian leader Stefan Dusan, who established an independent state of Serbia, an arbitrary synod of the Serbian Church raised Archbishop Ioannikios of Pec to the status of Patriarch. The schism that ensued, following the rejection of this synod and the excommunication of Dusan by Patriarch Kallistos of Constantinople (1350-1354), ended 30 years later, when the Serbian despot Jovan Uglesi declared invalid the decisions of the Synod of 1346, restored the rights of the Patriarchate of Constantinople over its Metropolises in Macedonia which had been usurped in Dusan's empire and asked Constantinople to restore relations. Patriarch Philotheos II of Constantinople (1364-1376) lifted the anathema and the Serbian Church regained its previous status. The Serbian Church became canonically autocephalous in the 19 th century after the treaty of Berlin, which declared Serbia an independent state, through the Tomos of the Patriarchate of Constantinople that was issued on October 20 th 1879. The correspondence between the Serbian hegemon Jovan Obrenovitch and the Metropolitan Michael of Belgrade and the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III indicates most eloquently the importance in granting autocephaly of the political independence of the land in which the Church filing for autocephaly is found. Photiades adds here that the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Romania and Albania all received their autocephaly from Constantinople after they found themselves within an independent state. On the contrary, the Orthodox Church of Iberia, which was autocephalous since the 11 th century, ceased to be so, when it was fully incorporated into Russia in 1783, even though its autocephaly was of a very limited status.

iv) The Same Basic Procedure was followed in the Case of the Polish Church

In light of all the above, Photiades returns to the case of the autocephaly of the Orthodox Polish Church in order to show that the same basic procedure was followed. The Polish Government, he informs, in consideration of the tragic events of the recent past for the Polish State, due to the ecclesiastical dependence of part of the citizens of Poland on the ecclesiastical authority of a foreign country, and also of the decision of the Meeting of the Bishops on the 14 th of June 1922 to proceed with the organization of the Orthodox Church along the lines of autocephaly, took the required steps towards the Ecumenical Patriarchate requesting that it becomes autocephalous. It was on this clear basis that the Ecumenical Patriarchate acting dutifully granted the request of the Polish Church and raised its status to a Patriarchate as it had done with several other Orthodox Churches in the past.

Troitsky's objection that this should have been done by the Russian Church as the mother of the Polish Church from which it was separated is not supported, says Photiades, by any Canon or other regulation of the Orthodox Church. On the contrary the Apostolic Canon 34 which specifies the hierarchical relation of bishops and their mutual interdependence, indicates that for any separation of the body of Bishops it should be the Mother Church that decides, and if the Mother Church is not in a position to express freely its opinion, for a particular or any other reason, then, it is the first throne of the Orthodox Churches, the Church of Constantinople, that can fulfill this duty because she possesses the indisputable right to take care of the needs of the holy Churches of God anywhere. Indeed, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, did have this right in the case of the Orthodox Church in Poland, and all the more so, inasmuch as this Church, after the redrawing of the borders of Russia at the end of WW1, found itself once again within Constantinople's canonical jurisdiction, according to Canon 17 ECIV and Canon 38 ECVI, as well as St. Photios' well-known apophthegm: " τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ καὶ δὴ τὰ περὶ τῶν ἐνοριῶν δίκαια συμμεταβάλλεσθαι εἴωθε πρὸς τὰ δίκαια τῶν πολιτειῶν." 104

v) The Justification of Constantinople's Extra-Jurisdictional Activities

So, it was not "a sickness of secular power," nor a tendency to extend its jurisdiction to the detriment of other Orthodox Churches," concludes Photiades, obviously echoing the accusations of Troitsky, but the well-meant interest (benefit) of the holy Churches of God everywhere that guided the actions and the entire activity throughout the ages of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, this "God-protected center" - θεοστήρικτον τοῦτο κέντρον - as the deeply-thoughtful Constantine Oikonomos expressed it, in which all the Orthodox Churches under heaven, that have been established in various realms, coinhere and are held together, and form the undivided body of the one, holy, eastern and apostolic Church, "whose head is Christ". 105 This understanding, says Photiades, has been most eloquently described by many Orthodox and non-Orthodox researchers and he ends with an appropriate statement of Professor I. Sokoloff of the Theological Academy of Petrograd:

" The Ecumenical Patriarchs throughout the period since the Conquest have provided help and succor to the other Orthodox Churches of the East when they were in difficult circumstances.. It is worth remarking that the Patriarch of Constantinople's leading position among the coequal Orthodox Patriarchs of the East aroused no fear in the other Patriarchs, as they were all convinced that none of the Ecumenical Patriarchs were motivated by the idea of acquiring absolute power in the Orthodox Church by lessening or neutralizing the canonical prerogatives and privileges of the other patriarchal thrones, and that their autocephaly stood in not the slightest danger. As primi inter pares, the Patriarchs of New Rome looked after the stability of the other thrones of the East and never neglected to invoke the willing collaboration and solidarity of their co-equal brothers in Christ, making them participants in the administration even of the affairs of the Ecumenical throne..

In general, there was complete reciprocity between the Patriarchs of the Orthodox East, complete mutual love, brotherly respect and spiritual unity and rapport. Talk of papacy in the Orthodox East is thus quite out of place; the Patriarchs of Constantinople, who have occasionally been erroneously accused of papist tendencies, never aspired to absolute domination in the Eastern Orthodox Church. They were always motivated by fraternal love and solitude in their relations with the other Patriarchs of the East. There never has been and there will never be a papist spirit in the Orthodox Church. " 106

General Conclusions

Our presentation and analysis of these two articles clearly shows that the dispute between Troitsky and Photiades, although it appears to be about the interpretation and application of certain key Canons relating to the structures of the Church, is in the last analysis an attempt on the part of the Russian Church, to change the traditional primacial position of the Church of Constantinople, which has been the stabilizing factor in the conciliar unity of the Orthodox Churches. This is why although there is an impressive array of important Canons in the apostolic and conciliar tradition of the Church that are used in this debate, namely, Canons 2 ECII, 3 ECII, 8 ECIII, 28 ECIV, 9 ECIV, 17 ECIV, 36 ECVI and 39 ECVI, it is Canon 28 ECIV which is the focal point in the Russian arguments against the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. What was first discussed in the first part of this essay is confirmed by the analysis of the other two parts, namely that the dramatic trials of the Russian Church since the second half of the nineteenth century have been the source of many problems for that great Church which have inevitably affected the entire Orthodox Church. However, the Ecumenical Patriarchate continues to apply the conciliar tradition uninterruptedly as was recently witnessed by the Great and Holy Council of 2016, thereby strengthening the Pan-Orthodox efforts to meet the challenges of the Orthodox Church today.

In light of the above, and for the sake of clarity, we need to make a few observations and pinpoint to a number of specific conclusions. Clearly the extensive and objective description of the ecclesiastical juxtapositions of the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow, which were based respectively on the accredited professors Photiades and Troitsky , fully expose the reasons for fanning again the flames over the issue regarding the limits of employing canonical jurisdiction on the part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople also outside the territorial limits of Asia, Pontos and Thrace, described by the celebrated canon 28 ECIV (451). However, this particular Canon also assigns to the Patriarch of Constantinople the right to ordain the bishops in the barbarian lands (ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς ) of the above-mentioned regions. On the other hand, this assignment, which constitutes the stormy petrel of contemporary conflicts, is imprecise from the point of view of terminology, even in the Greek original, and this is why its interpretation troubled as much the distinguished Byzantine canonists and legal experts of the 12 th century (John Zonaras, Theodore Balsamon and Alexios Aristenos), as also the contemporary canonists and ecclesiastical historians.

So, the crucial ecclesiastical issue of their juxtapositions has to do with whether those ordained in the barbarian lands by the Patriarch of Constantinople are bishops within the territorial limits of the three regions of his canonical jurisdiction (Asia, Pontos and Thrace) or outside them. Professor Troitsky and the canonists of the Patriarchate of Moscow hold the view that the bishops in the barbarian lands (ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς ) are bishops within the territorial limits of the three above-mentioned regions, invoking the basic canonical principle of territorial limits of ecclesiastical jurisdictions, as well as the imprecise or equivocal interpretation of the controversial phrase by the afore-mentioned renowned Byzantine interpreters of the Canons. Indeed, it is for this reason, so they argue, that they connect the phrase ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς with the term nations (ἔθνη ) within the three regions. On the contrary, professor Photiades and the Canonists of the Patriarchate of Constantinople defend the view that the bishops ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς , who are ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople according to Canon 28 are outside the limits of the three regions of his canonical jurisdiction, also invoking the imprecise or equivocal interpretation of the controversial phrase of the Canon by the three afore-mentioned renowned Byzantine interpreters, as well as the ages-long ecclesiastical implementation of this Canon. This is indeed why they connect the term ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς with the term territories (ἐδάφη), lying outside these three regions.

The main reason for rekindling the issue of the interpretation of Canons 9, 17 and 28 ECIV was, on the one hand the acceptance, as we saw, by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in the decade of 1930s, into its ecclesiastical jurisdiction the important Russian and Ukrainian communities of the Diaspora in Western Europe and North America, which were cut off from the Patriarchate of Moscow; and on the other hand, the new reality of world order that resulted after WW2 (1939-1945) for the Orthodox Church, namely, the subordination of almost all the autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches under the dynastic control of the communist establishments which became dependencies of the Soviet Union (Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Albania, Georgia, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Estonia and Latvia). It is quite obvious, then, that the new reality made much more necessary the revision on the part of the Soviet Government of its quite hostile attitude against the Patriarchate of Moscow, which had been already mitigated after 1943 (the meeting of the locum-tenens of the patriarchal throne Sergius with Stalin and Molotov), since its contribution to strengthening the patriotic sentiments of the Russian people during the period of the war had been officially recognized. 107

Consequently, the request for filling the patriarchal throne which had been vacant for about twenty years (1925-1943) was approved, with Sergius becoming the first Patriarch, while George Karpov, the trusted adviser of Stalin, organized the new leadership mission of the Moscow Patriarchate not only in inter-orthodox relations, but also in wider inter-church relations with the rest of the Christian world. In this new context, the successor of Sergius on the patriarchal throne of Moscow, Patriarch Alexy I, attributed to his election a pan-orthodox character (1945), while in 1948 convened in Moscow a great Inter-Orthodox Meeting of representatives from almost all the autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches, under the pretext of celebrating the alleged 500th anniversary of the independence of the Russian Church from the Ecumenical Patriarchate (1448-1948), but also with the obvious purpose to project, or even to impose the new leadership role of the Moscow Patriarchate not only in inter-orthodox but also in inter-church relations.

It was in such a spirit that the Inter-Orthodox Meeting was projected in season or out of season as a sort of 'Ecumenical synod,' but the organization, the selection of the topics, the measureless statements and the general atmosphere were aimed directly or indirectly at challenging the established traditional role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in inter-orthodox and in inter-church relations. It is quite characteristic that this Meeting on the one hand deplored any initiatives towards strengthening relations with the Roman Catholic Church and ordered the immediate elimination of Uniatism in all the Orthodox Churches under communist regimes (1948), and on the other hand condemned the participation of Orthodox churches in the World Council of Churches (WCC), apparently because the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek-speaking Orthodox Churches were founding members of it (1948). Consequently, as a fictitious theological pretext, the Meeting projected the alleged inadequacy of the premises and the criteria of the constitution of the WCC with regard to the acquisition of membership, since the decision of the Meeting stressed with special, indeed, emphasis "the reduction of the conditions and terms for unity to a mere recognition of the Lord, which allegedly downgraded the Christian faith to such an extent as to become acceptable even to demons" (Jam. 2, 19). 108

It is, therefore, for obvious reasons, that the Moscow Patriarchate recruited Professor Troitsky to challenge the ages-long established tradition of the leading role of the Ecum enical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, as it was also for apparent reasons that the Ecumenical Patriarchate commissioned Professor Photiades to refute the unfounded, anyway, positions of Troitsky. The detailed, then, juxtaposition of the two sides of arguments for both Canon 28, and for the Canons 9 and 17 ECIV (451) permit the following objective findings not only for the methodology but also for the content of the debates:

First , that the obviously reasonable concentration of both sides on the term barbarian- βαρβαρικά , which is connected with the term nations - ἔθνη (Troitsky), or with the term territories- μέρη - ἐδάφη (Photiades), is not sufficient for a convincing support of the one or the other interpretation, i.e. based on the differentiation of "nations " or " territories. " Obviously, it was ignored or underrated by both teachers, that the term barbarian (τὸ βαρβαρικόν, or τὰ βαρβαρικά) was established in the Protocol of the administrative geography of the Roman Empire to denote the boundaries outside of the regions of provinces, namely, the areas north of the Danube and the Rhine or of the regions beyond the Euphrates in Asia, thereby excluding the uncritical association of their term with the cultural identity of nations , since the Persians, for example, excelled in culture among the peoples of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire.

Second , that the fundamental canonical principle of the territorial description of ecclesiastical jurisdictions was overlooked, but this defeats the hypothesis of Troitsky which integrates the bishops of barbarian "nations" into the territorial regions, of Asia, Pontos and Thrace, even with the incorrect understanding of his purposeful interpretation of the Canons 9, 17 and 28 ECIV of the three eminent interpreters (Zonaras, Balsamon and Aristenos). The Byzantine interpreters use the principle of territorial proximity or affinity (συμπαράκεινται) to indicate the connection of the Russians with the administrative region of Thrace, or the Alani of Caucasus with the administrative region of Pontus, which excludes the hypothesis of Professor Troitsky and confirms the opinion of professor Photiades. Besides, the existence of barbarian dioceses in the provinces of the three regions of the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople would have been canonically unthinkable, and therefore there is no related evidence in the Τακτικά (Notitiae episcopatuum ), or other related sources.

Third , that neither was the " primacy of honor " of the Patriarchate of Constantinople taken into account, although it was recognized by Canon 3 ECII (381) and provided the archbishop of Constantinople with the canonical privilege of synodal activities beyond the limits of its own territory even before the acquisition of the broadest territorial jurisdiction of Asia, Pontos and Thrace and the Canons 9, 17 and 28 ECIV (451), as it was already pointed out, in connection with the reference that was made to the convocation of the great Synod of Constantinople (394), with representatives from almost all major Churches of the East.

Fourth , that it was not duly assessed that this privilege not only was strengthened by Canon 28 ECIV, but that it was sanctioned without oppositions in subsequent ecclesiastical practice until today, and this why the Church of Russia, for example, repeatedly appealed to the Constantinople Patriarchate in order to deal with serious internal issues, such as the installation and the abolition of the Moscow Patriarchate (1589, 1590, 1593, 1720), or the manner of adjudicating the crisis related to Patriarch Nikon of the Moscow (1663-1666, etc.). This ecclesial practice, which stemmed from the primacy of honor of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, was constantly expressed by its relations with the other patriarchates of the East, namely, by the continuous confirmation of their conformity with it in matters of faith and canonical order. 109

Fifth , that it was not duly taken into account that this ecclesiastical activity was also officially recognized by the Byzantine State and was consolidated by the civil legislation both through the New Laws (Novellae ) of Justinian (Novellae VI, CIX, CXXI ​​etc.) and also through the famous Epanagoge or Introduction of the Law of Basil the Macedon (867-886) and more particularly through the relevant entitlement- τίτλος III " Regarding the Patriarch (Περὶ τοῦ Πατριάρχου)." This entitlement-τίτλος recognizes the already established canonical right of the Patriarch of Constantinople not only to receive appeals- τὸ ἔκκλητον from the other patriarchates of the East, but also to intervene on matters of faith or canonical order. The specific entitlement of the Epanagoge , which was also integrated into the canonical tradition, and was applied with impressive consistency and continuity in the Orthodox Church, expressly states that "the throne of Constantinople, decorated with royal splendor, was elevated to the position of first throne by synodal votes, which, were followed by the divine laws, should order the disputes of the other thrones (= Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) and that they should be examined and adjudicated only by this throne (= Constantinople)" (title III, paras. 9-10).

Certainly, the confrontations of Constantinople and Moscow during the period of ideological and religious confusion of the first decade (1945-1955) after the end of WW2, eased up after Stalin's death (1953). Indeed, although during this brief period the confrontations were charged with a host of uncanonical activities, nevertheless the arrogant fantasies of the provocative decisions of the Inter-Orthodox Meeting of the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate (1948) proved to be not only utopian but also dangerous for the Russian Church itself. Thus, the Moscow Patriarchate, just as all the other autocephalous or autonomous Orthodox Churches under communist regimes, realized what the situation really was and left the Meeting in Moscow abandoning its decisions (1948), this became apparent, on the one hand by their eager response to the invitation of the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras to participate in Pan-Orthodox Conferences and to strengthen the Inter-Orthodox and Inter-Church relations in confronting common problems (Rhodes 1961, 1963, 1964, Chambésy 1968), and on the other hand by their official request to be accepted as members of the WCC unconditionally (New Delhi 1961). Consequently, the long preparation throug h the Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conferences (1976, 1982, 1986, 2009, 2015) of the issues of the agenda and the convocation of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (Crete, June 2016) restored the canonical order in the internal operation of the Orthodox Church. 110

60 See Ἐμμανουὴλ Φωτιάδης, Ἑξ Ἀφορμῆς ἑνὸς Ἄρθρου (On account of an Article), Ὀρθοδοξία 23, 1948, 210-40. Troitsky, (" O granitchach raspostradenija prava vlasti Konstantinopolskoj Patriarchii na 'diaspora " (The Limits of the Authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Diaspora), Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate No 11, 1947, pp 34-45.

61 Op. cit., p., 210.

62 Ibid.

63 op. cit., pp. 211-2.

64 op. cit. p. 212. For Canon 3 see Ralle-Potle, op. cit., I p. 173.

65 For a full discussion of this see op. cit., pp. 212-213.

66 For the text of Canon 28 see Ralle-Potle, op. cit., II, pp. 280-281.

67 For details see op. cit., p. 215 and footnotes 18 and especially 20.

68 op. cit., p. 213. For Canon 36 see Ralle-Potle, op. cit. II p. 387.

69 op. cit., pp. 216-217.

70 Ralle-Potle, op. cit., II p. 237.

71 Ralle-Potle, op. cit., II, pp. 258-259.

72 Mansi, Concilia Ampl. Collectio VII, 237.

73 Ralle-Potle, op. cit., II, p. 240.

74 Beveridge, Συνοδικόν, vol. II., Hefele, Histoire des Conciles , trad. par Leclercq, B2, p. 794.

75 See Ralle-Potle, VI, op. cit. pp. 259, 260.

76 See Photiades' essay, op. cit. p. 218.

77 Here he turns to accredited scholars like Ivan Andreeff (Konstantinopolskie Patriarchi ot vremeni Chalki donskavo Sobora do Fitija , Sergeif Posad, 1895), Th. Zahn (Forchungen zur Geschichte des neuetestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur , III, Erlangen 1884) and W. Moeller (Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte , Freiburg I, 1889).

78 He cites Pichler, Hergenröther, Gelzer, Ziegler, Andreeff, Barsov, Vailhé.

79 A. Kartaschoff, Praktika appelatchionnavo prava Konstantinopolskich Patriarchof , Warszawa, 1936, p. 19.

80 Migne, PG, cxxxviii, clms. 449-453, cxix, 821-825.

81 Ralle-Potle, op. cit. V, p. 41ff, and V, 51-56.

82 Ralle-Potle, op. cit. III, 324.

83 Miklosich et Müller, Acta Patriarcatus Constantinopolitani , A, 438, clxxxvi. Also, Archim. K. Δελικάνη, Πατριαρχικῶν ἐγγράφων Τόμος Γ´, Κωνσταντινούπολις, 1905, p. 1046-1047.

84 Archim. K. Delikanes, op. cit. Tomos II, p. 189.

85 For the relevant memoranda see Delikanes, op. cit. Tomos II, 200-1 and 210.

86 Ibid. pp. 212-213.

87 M. Gedeon, Κανονικαὶ Διατάξεις , τόμος α ´, 341-366 and Delikanes, op. cit. III, pp. 93-118.

88 Delikanes, op. cit., III, p. 25.

89 Ibid. III, p. 217.

90 Ibid. II, p. 220.

91 Ibid. II, p. 191

92 Ibid.

93 Ibid., p. 403.

94 Photiades cites Hefele, Duchesne and Abbé Fleury, see p. 226 and refers to Ralle-Potle, op. cit., II 170 concerning Canon 2 ECII.

95 Ibid. pp.170-172.

96 Ralle-Potle, op. cit., II, pp. 369-371

97 Ralle-Potle, op. cit., II, p. 203.

98 See his present article, Ἐξ ἀφορμῆς.. op. cit. footnote 56, pp. 228-231, reprinted from Πάνταινος 1927, ππ. 514-516: « Μελέτιος ἐλέῳ Θεοῦ Πάπας καὶ Πατριάρχης τῆς Μεγάλης Πόλεως Ἀλεξανδρείας καὶ πάσης γῆς Αἰγύπτου, Ἀριθμ. 1551, Τῷ Ἱερωτάτῳ Μητρ o πολίτῃ Κιέβου κ. Ἀντωνίῳ καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ Ρώσσοις Ἀρχιερεῦσι χαίρειν ἐν Κυρίῳ..." For an English translation of this Letter and a fuller discussion of Troitsky' objections, see Maximos of Sardes, The Ecumenical Patriarchate. , op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 225-227.

99 See S. Troitsky, op. cit. pp. 36-37.

100 See footnote 59 on p. 232 and Ralle-Potle, op. cit., II, pp. 170-171.

101 I. Pavlov, Istoritcheskija analogii k voprosou ob Aftokefalii Pravoslavnoj Grouzinskoj Tcherkvi, Journal I protokoly zasjedanij pradsobornavo prisoutstvija , Petrograg 1907, III, p. 231; M. Zyzykin, Aftokefalia I zasady jej zastosowania , Warszawa, 1931, pp. 10-22; and A. Lototchky, Aftokefalia, zasady Aftokefalji , Warszawa, 1932, p. 158.

102 E. Goloubinsky, Kratjij otcherk istorii pravoslavnych Tcherkvej Bolgarskoj, Serbskoj, Rsumynskoj ili Moldo-Valaschskoj , Moskva, 1871, p. 38.

103 Goloubinsky, op. cit., pp. 443-447.

104Βαλέττα, Φωτίου Ἐπιστολαί , Λονδῖνο, 1864, p. 162. See also Ἡλιουπόλεως Γενναδίου, « Τὸ Αὐτοκέφαλο ἐν τῇ Ὀρθοδόξῳ Ἐκκλησίᾳ », Ὀρθοδοξία , ἔτος ε ´, τεῦχος 50 ον, 28 Φεβρουαρίου 1930, p. 38-39.

105 See Photiades' article, op. cit., p. 238 footnote 68.

106 I. Sokoloff, "On the Administration of the Church of Constantinople and the Rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate," Church News (The Periodical of the Holy Synod of Russia) 1904. For the full Greek text, see Photiades' present article, op. cit., pp. 238-240. For an English translation of the full text see Maximos of Sardes, The Ecumenical Patriarchate. , op. cit., pp. 298-299.

107 See V.I. Phidas, Ecclesiastical History (in Greek), op. cit., p. 470.

108 See V.I. Phidas, Ecclesiastical History (in Greek), op. cit., pp. 472 f. See also Viorel Ioniţă, Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: The Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Meetings since 1923 until 2009 , Institut for Ecumenical Studies, University of Fribourg, Switzerland, Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag Basel, 2014, ch. VI (The Orthodox Conference in Moscow 1948 ) pp. 31-37, and the Resolutions adopted by the Orthodox Conference in Moscow, pp. 114-122.

109See Maximos of Sardes, The Ecumenical Patriarchate. , op. cit., pp. 279-287 for the relationship of the Patriarchate of Constantinople with the Eastern Patriarchates (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), and pp. 287-293 for the relationship of the Patriarchate of Constantinople with the Patriarchate of Moscow.

110 See V.I. Phidas, Ecclesiastical History (in Greek), op. cit., p. 474.