Abbot Dionysius (Shlenov), Th.D.
Doctorate of Theology
dissertation, Moscow Theological Academy, 2026
The present study took shape over
the course of recent years, incorporating material from articles, papers, and
lectures, as well as experience gained through debates and discussions.
Naturally, as the conflict steadily intensified, the need for a systematic
study and comprehensive analysis of the causes that gave rise to it also
increased. Many years of studying the Byzantine patristic heritage—primarily in
the original language—enabled the author to make such an attempt and to focus
on a critique of the theory of the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople
from the standpoint of the Church’s conciliar structure. More recently, this
work was carried out while serving as superior of St. Andrew’s Stavropegial
Monastery in Moscow and as head of postgraduate studies at the Moscow
Theological Academy.
The systematic course of lectures
taught in the canon-law division of the master’s program at the Moscow
Theological Academy—“Equality and Primacy in the Church According to Greek
Primary Sources”—which covers both the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and
the texts of the Holy Fathers and Christian writers concerning the Church’s
conciliar structure, contributed to the preparation of this dissertation.
Papers and lectures on the
subject of the research were delivered at St. Andrew’s Monastery and the Moscow
Theological Academy. Off-site presentations were also given at other
educational institutions, both in Russia and abroad, including in the dioceses
of the Belarusian Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church. [3020] Owing to
time constraints, several of these off-site events were introductory in nature,
presenting only the most essential material.
Presentations before an audience
required taking account of the rapidly changing ecclesiastical situation and
drawing upon the most relevant materials, both scholarly and journalistic.
A significant place in the papers
was devoted to patristic ecclesiology, within which each of the Fathers, while
preserving the common leitmotif, introduced his own distinctive emphasis. Thus,
St. Athanasius of Alexandria taught of the “Catholic Church” as the Universal
Church, free from heresies, meaning by this not one of the Local Churches, but
the entire Church as a whole, in which the Local Churches are represented as
equal members of the one Body of Christ. St. John Chrysostom conveyed this same
meaning when he taught of the “commonality of the Churches” (τὰ κοινὰ τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν)
as a common spiritual heritage and a single foundation—something that pertains
not to one Local Church, but to all the Churches.
St. Ambrose of Milan, one of the
Latin Fathers of the period of the anti-Arian controversy, pointed out that in
Arian teaching the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Christ the Savior, was
diminished in comparison with the First Person, God the Father. In our own day,
the situation is even more grievous: Christ the Savior—the cornerstone and sole
Head of the Church—although not placed below God the Father, is effectively
equated with the “sole earthly head” of the Orthodox Church. This also entails
a diminution of God the Word, for, owing to the existence of an earthly head in
the Church, the Heavenly Head becomes less necessary. St. Ambrose wrote:
“The Church is the mother of the
living, which God built upon the highest cornerstone, Christ Jesus, in Whom the
whole building, being fitly framed together, grows into a temple (Eph. 2:20;
cf. 1 Pet. 2:6).” [3021]
Both an in-depth study and the
very act of turning to the teaching on the Church of the Holy Fathers cited
above, as well as of many others, provide a foundation for an objective
analysis of Constantinople’s new ecclesiology and demonstrate its untenability.
The principal aim of the
dissertation is to reveal the meaning of the conflict with the Patriarchate of
Constantinople and to show that, in this confrontation, the Russian Orthodox
Church is grounded in the tradition of the Church and the principles of patristic
theology. Summarizing the contents of the dissertation, we shall briefly
formulate its principal conclusions.
* * *
The theory of the primacy of
the Patriarch of Constantinople stands in profound contradiction to traditional
Orthodox conciliar ecclesiology and does not accord with the established
tradition of the Church.
The multifaceted analysis
conducted in the present study shows that the theory of the primacy of honor
and power is, in its essence, comparable to the theory of primacy in Roman
Catholicism. Although the primacy of the Roman pope is worldwide in character,
it theoretically remains intrajurisdictional. The primacy of the Patriarch of
Constantinople, however, is conceived as extraterritorial and
extrajurisdictional, and this directly harms the other Local Churches.
Advocates of the theory of
primacy rely upon the theology of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon,
which, after taking shape in the 1960s and 1970s, became the basis for the
development of their theological positions. Metropolitan John combined openness
to ecumenical dialogue with the principles of personalist philosophy and, in
light of these approaches, regarded the Patriarchate of Constantinople as the
principal bearer of the values of Orthodoxy in the modern world. His concept of
the monarchy of God the Father among the Persons of the Holy Trinity finds its
continuation in the idea of a special ecclesiastical-administrative role for
the Patriarch of Constantinople among the Local Churches—an idea that became
one of the principal theological leitmotifs of the theory of primacy.
Despite the outward diversity of
their themes and approaches, advocates of the theory of primacy adhere to
common principles and interpretations. For them, the primacy of the Patriarch
of Constantinople is an axiom, which gives them confidence in constructing
further theoretical structures. These structures, however, rest upon a false
foundation. Taken together, the arguments of Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos),
Metropolitan Gregory (Papathomas), Metropolitan Cyril (Katerelos), Archbishop
Makarios (Griniezakis), and the historians, canonists, and authors V. Feidas,
A. Massavetas, and A. Vavouskos permit the conclusion that the theory of
primacy constitutes a single, coherent system incompatible with the principles
of conciliar ecclesiology.
The theory of primacy, which
existed previously, received additional arguments intended to justify
Constantinople’s actions in 2018–2019. The publication The Texts Speak serves
as a kind of “manifesto” of the theory of primacy, attempting to provide a
justification for the uncanonical measures taken to incorporate the Ukrainian
schismatics. The trajectory of the original theses, as well as their subsequent
transformation, can be traced in the documents and statements of several
hierarchs of the Orthodox Church of Greece who, regrettably, became champions
of this theory in defiance of the traditional ecclesiastical order of their
numerous flock.
The findings of this dissertation
demonstrate that the theory of the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople,
especially in its modern expression, cannot be derived from the patristic
tradition, the canonical tradition, or the historical practice of the Orthodox
Church. All the sources examined in the present work—when interpreted correctly
in their historical and canonical context—confirm the principles of conciliar
ecclesiology and provide no basis for the theory of the primacy of the
Patriarch of Constantinople. In the concluding part of the work, eight
principal postulates of the theory of primacy are formulated and critically
examined. Their analysis permits the assertion that the primary aim of the
advocates of this theory is to provide a “theological” rationale and
justification for any uncanonical actions of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople. The essence of the theory of primacy lies not in the realm of
theology, but in the sphere of claims to power.
Conciliar ecclesiology affirms
that the highest authority in the Church is an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox
Council, founded upon the equality of the primates and the principle of
fraternal service, rather than upon individual authority. Conciliar ecclesiology
is not a concept of a lower order in relation to hierarchy. The Orthodox
hierarchy, which ascends to Christ as the sole Head of the Church, precludes
the possibility of attributing to any one primate a hierarchically superior
position in relation to the others.
The arguments advanced in
support of the theory of primacy rest upon arbitrary interpretations of
theological terms, texts, and canonical rules, as well as upon isolated
historical precedents that were conditioned by particular circumstances and do
not demonstrate the theory’s validity in the present day.
- The claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to a
special position in the Church as the supreme judge, possessing the
authority to receive appeals from members of other ecclesiastical
jurisdictions, are illegitimate.
Similar cases occurred in the
past. They were asserted most consistently by the See of Rome, which relied
upon certain canonical grounds—primarily in the early period—although these
claims were never recognized in their entirety in the Orthodox East. The Ecumenical
Council was traditionally regarded as the highest judicial authority in the
Church. The Patriarchs of Constantinople and the other Eastern primates
historically opposed Rome’s judicial primacy and rejected the very model of
ecclesiastical governance based upon the juridical supremacy of a single see.
The Eastern hierarchs adopted an
equally consistent position toward Constantinople’s immoderate claims to
primacy. A special place among them belongs to Patriarch Dositheos II of
Jerusalem—from the second half of the seventeenth to the beginning of the eighteenth
century—a renowned polemicist not only against the primacy of Rome, but also
against the primacy of Constantinople during the period when its initial
formulations and precedents were emerging. He consistently emphasized that the
authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople in judicial matters was confined
to the boundaries of his own jurisdiction and could not be extended to other
Churches. [3022]
The conciliar canons establish
the intrajurisdictional rights of the primate of the Church of Constantinople
as equal to, but not exceeding, the rights of the primates of the other Local
Churches. An expanded and distorted understanding of those same canons,
together with legal norms that were not received at the level of the universal
Church, falls outside the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church. The Eisagoge,
which expresses the ecclesiology of the Patriarch of Constantinople, was
neither received by the Church nor put into practice, unlike Justinian’s
Novella 123, which preserved conciliar equality.
The right of supreme judicial
authority within a particular Local Church—an independent jurisdiction—belongs
specifically to the primate of that Church.
- The attribution to the Church of Constantinople of
the exclusive status of “Mother Church,” and to its primate of supreme
authority over all the Local Churches, contradicts both the tradition of
the Church and historical truth.
Patristic ecclesiology throughout
the various eras—from the early centuries to the late Byzantine period—is
united in its foundation: the true Head of the Church is Christ the Savior.
Just as Christ is infallible, so too is the Church—the Body of Christ. The
members of this Body have different ministries, but these are equal in
significance. The members of the ecclesial Body may also be understood as the
Local Churches—holy communities called not to exercise headship over one
another, but to serve one another. “Vertical” administrative-hierarchical
relations are impossible among equal Churches; such relations exist only within
a Local Church.
“Mother Church” is an epithet
whose theological meanings were traditionally explained through the conception
of the one Universal Church. The motherhood of the Church corresponds to divine
fatherhood. The rare instances in which a particular Local Church was called
the Mother Church do not negate, but only emphasize, its universal character.
After the fall of Constantinople
in 1453, a number of special powers were delegated to the Patriarch of
Constantinople. This was an administrative decision: the patriarch-ethnarch
became the sole representative of the “infidels”—the Orthodox population of the
Muslim Ottoman Empire—as their spiritual head and leader. During the later
period of Ottoman rule, statements concerning the Church of Constantinople’s
special providential role began to appear with increasing frequency in its
official acts. The Patriarchate of Constantinople came to regard itself as
preeminent in the East, but this primacy was not universally recognized.
According to the principles of
conciliarity, the Local Churches are equal to one another, and among them there
are neither greater nor lesser Churches.
- The autocephalous Local Churches, which together
constitute the Universal Orthodox Church, possess equal rights regardless
of the date of their establishment or their statistical characteristics.
Autonomous Churches constitute an exception to this rule.
The term αὐτοκέφαλος itself—“independent”—emphasizes
the fullness of ecclesiastical authority and responsibility possessed by every
Local Church. The history of the term during the Byzantine and post-Byzantine
periods helps to clarify what Orthodox theologians and canonists understood by
this concept as applied to the Church’s structure.
A brief historical survey of the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries permits the conclusion that the
autocephalies granted during this period were full and complete. This meant
that each newly established Local Church entered the family of equal sister Churches,
thereby excluding any dependence upon the Local Church that had granted it
autocephaly.
- No primate of a Local Orthodox Church may regard
himself as possessing a higher degree of authority or a more perfect
dignity than the other primates. Clergymen may belong to different
hierarchical ranks, but within the same rank they are equal to one another.
The concept of “hierarchy” (ἱεραρχία),
which literally translated into Russian means “sacred order,” is one of the key
concepts in the doctrine of the Church. It is impossible to conceive of the
Church without hierarchy, just as it is impossible to conceive of a ship
without a crew and a helmsman to guide it.
The Dionysian corpus is of
essential importance for understanding the term “hierarchy.” According to this
teaching, the heavenly hierarchy consists of three orders, with three ranks in
each. Each rank occupies a particular level of the hierarchy, standing above or
below the others according to the degree of its proximity to God. From the
first and highest order, which is “purified, illumined, and perfected” by God
Himself—the “First Light”—illumination and spiritual knowledge are transmitted
to the lower ranks. The six-rank earthly hierarchy reflects and follows the
nine-rank heavenly hierarchy, differing in that its first hierarchical order
corresponds not to ranks, but to three Mysteries of the Church: Baptism,
Communion, and the consecration of Holy Chrism. The Dionysian corpus contains the idea not only of
hierarchy, but also of complete unity. The very raising of the question of a
hierarchy among patriarchs who belong to the same rank contradicts and is
foreign to the theology of the Areopagitica.
Equality is of fundamental
importance in establishing relations among the primates of the Local Orthodox
Churches. Under any other interpretation, the very meaning of both the heavenly
and the earthly hierarchy is abolished.
- The interpretation of the epithet “Ecumenical” (οἰκουμενικός)
as indicating the worldwide authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople
contradicts the principle of hierarchical equality within a single
ecclesiastical rank and is not supported by the history of the term’s
usage.
Originally, this epithet referred
to the confession of faith and the conciliar principle within the Church,
rather than to the hierarchs who represented her. The establishment of this
epithet with a different meaning is associated with the reign of Emperor
Justinian, who sought to emphasize the status of the Patriarch of
Constantinople as the bishop of the imperial capital. Because of Rome’s firm
opposition, this approach could not be implemented; and with the transition to
a new era, the designation itself provoked persistent rejection in the West and
in the other Eastern Patriarchates. Through historical inertia, the term became
established in the official titulature of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
The epithet “Ecumenical,” to
which advocates of the theory of primacy attach extraordinary importance, was
and remains merely an honorary title that cannot serve as proof of a special
hierarchical status for the primate of Constantinople.
- Ecclesiastical-administrative authority over the
diaspora cannot be concentrated in the hands of a single hierarch—the
primate of the Church of Constantinople.
The question of
ecclesiastical-administrative authority over the diaspora was first addressed
by Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451). At present, the stumbling block
is the expression “among foreign peoples” (ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς)
contained in Canon 28. In its original meaning, this expression indicated which
of the Local Churches provided pastoral care for the barbarian—that is,
non-Greek and foreign—peoples. At the time of the Council, those peoples who
did not belong to Greco-Roman culture were called barbarians. The dissertation
demonstrates that, in the complete wording of Canon 28, the reference was to
barbarians living within the boundaries of the three dioceses of Asia, Pontus,
and Thrace—that is, within the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, newly established in the fourth century—or in territories
immediately adjacent to them. Subsequently, as understood by the Byzantine
canonists of the twelfth century, the term also encompassed those peoples who,
as a result of missionary activity, entered its expanded jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, advocates of the
theory of primacy rely upon an expansive interpretation of the expression
“among foreign peoples,” which today has assumed a universal scope: the
Patriarchate of Constantinople claims authority over the entire worldwide
Orthodox diaspora. This does not correspond to the meaning established by the
Council of Chalcedon, which was never subsequently abrogated. To use this
formulation to justify rights of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the worldwide
diaspora is an impermissible innovation.
An examination of the question of
the diaspora in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries leads to the
same conclusion. The study demonstrates that the claims of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople to govern the Orthodox diaspora have never received universal
recognition, while the conception of Greek (Greek Orthodox) metropolitanates in
the diaspora as the only possible arrangement was and remains unfounded and
contrary to the canonical tradition.
Extraterritorial oikonomia,
exercised contrary to the canons of the Church, led not to the reconciliation
of the schismatics with the Church, but laid the foundation for open cruelty
toward members of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow
Patriarchate and for aggression against the faithful.
The Patriarch of Constantinople
does not possess the authority to restore schismatics belonging to another
jurisdiction. Still less does he have the right to receive into ecclesiastical
communion those who never possessed ecclesiastical orders conferred under the
proper canonical conditions.
In the relationship between akribeia
and oikonomia, akribeia—the strict observance of the canons—is
the norm, while oikonomia is the exception. Although intrajurisdictional
oikonomia is permissible when certain prerequisites are met, analogous
measures toward clergy of other jurisdictions, without the fulfillment of the
essential conditions, are unacceptable. The attempts of advocates of primacy to
justify Constantinople’s actions by precedents involving the exercise of
ecclesiastical oikonomia in the past are unfounded. A detailed
examination of these precedents reveals that heretics or schismatics were
restored by the same authority that had imposed the ecclesiastical censure upon
them and, most importantly, that their reception into ecclesiastical communion
was preceded by sincere repentance.
The Ukrainian schismatics who
passed under Constantinople’s omophorion not only failed to repent, but
continued their obstinate opposition to the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church
under the primacy of Metropolitan Onufriy (Berezovsky).
Nevertheless, this supposed
restoration took place, and the situation in Ukraine, which had been
conflict-ridden from the outset, deteriorated still further. In the second half
of 2024, a bill was introduced [3023] whose principal aim was to terminate the
activity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. The
canonical Church was given a final period of nine months in which to sever all
ties with the Russian Orthodox Church. [3024] This separation was to be
effected either through union with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine; through
recognition of dependence upon the Patriarch of Constantinople—to one degree or
another; or through the unilateral proclamation of complete independence, which
is fraught with the danger of schism and is uncanonical.
The adopted law was published on
August 20, 2024, under the title “On the Protection of the Constitutional Order
in the Sphere of the Activities of Religious Organizations,” No. 3894-IX. [3025]
The anti-Church law did not
produce an immediate result. The struggle to terminate the activity of the
canonical Church shifted from the legislative sphere to that of law
enforcement, and the conflict is currently at the stage of protracted judicial
and administrative proceedings.
On August 27, 2025, the State
Service of Ukraine for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience (DESS)
officially recognized the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as affiliated with the
Russian Orthodox Church. Under this decision, the Ukrainian Church was deprived
of the right to use state and municipal property. Two days later, on August 29,
DESS filed a lawsuit seeking a complete ban on the UOC (MP) throughout Ukraine.
The defense of the Ukrainian
Church adopted a strategy of procedural opposition that included numerous
petitions from thousands of the faithful. In November 2025, the Sixth
Administrative Court of Appeal in Kyiv denied the plaintiff’s request to freeze
the property of the UOC (MP). This decision was based on procedural violations;
however, the key determination concerning its ties with the Moscow Patriarchate
remains in force, while the legal conflict remains unresolved.
At the regional level, the
situation is developing along its own course. Thus, on February 26, 2026, the
Kyiv Regional Council effectively required district administrations to
facilitate the transfer of UOC (MP) communities to the OCU or to other jurisdictions
severing their ties with the Moscow Patriarchate.
According to DESS statistics,
approximately 1,378 religious communities transferred to the OCU between 2022
and 2025. The Ukrainian Church, however, maintains that decisions concerning
such transfers were often made without regard for the views of the parish
communities. The widely practiced “legal” seizure of churches simulates an
expression of the community’s will—when in fact it is the will of outsiders
participating in sham meetings—after which the “community’s decision” is
legalized through state registration.
The number of violent church
seizures is steadily increasing. Forcible takeovers involving organized groups
wearing balaclavas and camouflage have become commonplace. These groups employ
direct violence against clergy and parishioners using various special-purpose
weapons and devices, including gas pistols and smoke grenades. Such
administratively supported seizures take place with the connivance or
participation of law-enforcement agencies—the police and special units—which
not only fail to impede the perpetrators, but effectively legitimize their
actions. Church property is confiscated, rendering the churches unsuitable for
the celebration of divine services.
The seizure of the Cathedral of
the Archangel Michael in Cherkasy on October 17, 2024, became one of the most
striking acts of violence in the recent chronicle of events—events that have
already entered the history of the persecution of the Church.
Local attacks upon the Church by
hostile members of the public also continue. One example is a petition to
prohibit the use of sound-amplification equipment for broadcasting divine
services, submitted by a group of citizens in the city of Rivne in March 2026.
Criminal cases are being brought
against clergy of the UOC (MP) on charges of high treason, incitement of
hostility, denial of the Russian Federation’s military aggression against
Ukraine, and numerous other grounds. Among the most widely publicized precedents
have been the prosecutions of Metropolitan Arseny (Yakovenko), abbot of the
Holy Dormition Sviatogorsk Lavra in the Donetsk region, and Metropolitan Pavel
(Lebed), former superior of the Kyiv Caves Lavra. The conflict surrounding the
Kyiv Caves Lavra itself also remains far from resolved.
The cases of persecution of the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate are countless. The state
is systematically diminishing the influence of the canonical Church, pursuing a
policy aimed not only at its marginalization, but also at its effective
expulsion from the territory of Ukraine.
The adoption of the anti-Church
law and the aggressive actions directed against the clergy and faithful of the
canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church proved to be a clear manifestation of the
theory of primacy in practice.
Meanwhile, several Greek
theologians—advocates of the theory of primacy who attach particular importance
to the Council of Crete (2016)—attempt to blame the Russian Orthodox Church for
its refusal to participate in the Council and to shift onto it their own
responsibility for the subsequent tragic events.
However, the nonparticipation of
representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate in the Council of Crete was due to
several objective factors. It was evident from the Council’s agenda itself that
the Patriarchate of Constantinople expected all the Local Churches to recognize
certain claims of the theory of primacy—for example, its special role in
convening the Council and in the question of granting autonomy. The same
intentions could also be discerned in the events preceding the Council, the
most notable of which was the pre-council meeting of January 2016. The
dissertation demonstrates that throughout the entire period in which the theory
of primacy was actively promoted—from the 1920s through 2016—the Russian
Orthodox Church consistently demonstrated its adherence to conciliar
ecclesiology, and this position remained unchanged. Consequently, the promotion
of particular aspects of primacy at the Council of Crete in 2016 could not, by
definition, be accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church; its refusal to participate
was not a violation of the principle of conciliarity, but, on the contrary, its
consistent expression.
Having failed to obtain conciliar
support, the Patriarchate of Constantinople proceeded to take unilateral
measures. The extraterritorial and uncanonical oikonomia that it
extended to the Ukrainian schismatics was, in essence, a “cacodicy”—a
justification of evil as such.
No primate of a Local Church is,
or can be, endowed with such a degree of judicial and administrative authority
as would permit him to restore to the bosom of the Church persons who possess
neither the external nor the internal prerequisites for such restoration. This
assertion applies all the more to the Patriarch of Constantinople, whose
uncanonical actions became the cause of the present lawlessness.
The accusations against the
Russian Orthodox Church of the “heresy of ethnophyletism” and the “heresy of
the Russian World” are an attempt by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to
justify itself and to defend the theory of primacy.
- Advocates of the theory of primacy regard the
condemnation of the Bulgarians at the Council of Constantinople of 1872 as
one of two indisputable arguments for accusations of the “heresy of
ethnophyletism”—the predominance of national interests to the detriment of
doctrine and ecclesiastical unity. In the Council’s final decision, or Horos,
phyletism was allegedly classified as a heresy.
The dissertation offers the
author’s own translation of the conciliar Horos—as close as possible to the
Greek original—as well as translations of documents varying in tone from
moderate to severe. These materials make it possible to reconstruct the course of
the discussion that preceded the adoption of the conciliar decision. An
analysis of the sources reveals a substantial moderation of the Council
participants’ position, which was reflected in the text of the Horos.
The considerably more lenient attitude of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
toward the Bulgarian Exarchate during the subsequent period confirms this
conclusion.
The second argument advanced by
advocates of primacy is that the transfer of the Metropolis of Kiev in 1686 was
conditional rather than unconditional. The Russian Orthodox Church’s
disagreement with this approach is portrayed by advocates of primacy as an
unwillingness to make concessions because of its narrow national interests—to
the detriment of the interests of the Church as a whole.
In their view, the text of the
Charter of 1590 granting patriarchal status to the Russian Orthodox Church
contains a formulation describing the Patriarch of Constantinople as the head
of the primates of the other Churches. The presence of such a formulation in
the document’s original text, however, cannot be regarded as an indisputable
fact, since the relevant passage of the Greek charter was damaged and
subsequently restored by another scribe—whether correctly or not is unknown.
Nevertheless, relying upon this questionable foundation, the Patriarchate of
Constantinople is fully convinced that the 1686 decision transferring the
Metropolis of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate could be revoked at any time.
From its perspective, this is precisely what occurred in 2018–2019, when the
Metropolis of Kiev was removed from the jurisdiction of the Moscow
Patriarchate.
In contrast to Constantinople’s
position, the dissertation examines in detail the position of Patriarch
Dositheos II of Jerusalem—a Church historian and ecclesiologist who
consistently defended the equal standing of the Local Churches. Patriarch
Dositheos, who played a significant role in the events of that period, was
distinguished by his friendly attitude toward Russia and the Russian Church. [3026]
Advocates of the theory of primacy substantially distorted his position,
attributing opposite sentiments to him and constructing conclusions convenient
to themselves.
- The accusations against the Russian Orthodox Church
of the “heresy of ethnophyletism” are based entirely upon a substitution
of the actual meaning of the historical evidence, while the “heresy of the
Russian World” is, in essence, a false concept actively promoted both by
advocates of the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople—in order to
establish his primacy of power throughout worldwide Orthodoxy—and by
circles hostile to Russia and traditional Orthodoxy, for a whole range of
reasons.
Nevertheless, the untenability of
the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s approaches causes no sense of
contradiction among advocates of the theory of primacy. They fail to perceive
the ethnophyletism of Greek nationalism, which formed the basis of the Patriarchate
of Constantinople’s self-understanding during the Ottoman period and continues
to determine its policies in the twenty-first century. In promoting the idea of
the Greek world’s special mission as the “cradle” of worldwide Orthodoxy, with
the Church of Constantinople exercising a coordinating and dominant role, these
“fighters against an excessive national principle” in other Churches themselves
prove to be the foremost adherents of a skillfully concealed ethnophyletism.
The Russian World, which
possesses a genuine right to exist by virtue of its own identity, has
encountered a challenge from the Greek World, which remains captive to the
illusion of Hellenism—the phantom of a Byzantium that long ago ceased to exist.
The resulting boomerang is, in reality, becoming an instrument of
self-punishment, since extraterritoriality and ethnophyletism have proved
characteristic of the Greek World to a far greater degree than of the Russian
World. In other words, there is a profound distinction both between genuine and
false extraterritorial approaches and between genuine and false ethnophyletism,
and a clear boundary must be drawn between these concepts.
The theory of primacy is the
principal cause of the immense ecclesiastical division of the present day.
The dissertation demonstrates a
direct chronological and substantive connection between the intensified
promotion of the theory of primacy within the Patriarchate of
Constantinople—especially after the Council of Crete in 2016—and the emergence
of a schism that remains unresolved to this day and may lead to consequences
comparable to those of the Great Schism of 1054.
Extraterritorial oikonomia,
applied contrary to the canons of the Church, did not lead to the
reconciliation of the schismatics, but laid the foundation for open pressure
upon the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
The logic of the theory of
primacy, when carried to its extreme, enables its advocates to justify
unilateral actions regardless of their consequences for the faithful of other
jurisdictions; to support political forces conducting an aggressive campaign against
the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, including legislative prohibitions and
the physical seizure of churches; and to use accusations of the “heresy of the
Russian World” as an instrument of ideological struggle rather than of
theological criticism.
As demonstrated in the study,
none of these claims possesses a canonical foundation. Their implementation led
to the rupture of Eucharistic communion, the politicization of ecclesiastical
relations, and ultimately to a situation in which the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
found itself under threat of legislative prohibition—with the direct or
indirect support of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
The Russian Orthodox Church’s
defense of conciliar ecclesiology is vitally necessary for the entire Church,
which is always infallible.
The Russian Orthodox Church’s
position in defense of the conciliar equality of the Local Churches is neither
national egoism nor politics.
The Church, as the Body of
Christ, is infallible in her conciliar fullness; individual parts of her,
however, including patriarchal sees, can fall into error and depart from the
truth. History provides examples of individual Churches—including the Church of
Constantinople—supporting heresies or schisms and being restored to the truth
precisely by the conciliar mind of the Church.
The temporary weakening of
relations with some of the Greek-speaking Local Churches calls for greater
attentiveness, discernment, and zeal in matters of theological theory and
Christian practice. Scholarly theological and ecclesiastical-historical research
constitutes an essential means of correcting the present situation and
restoring unity and mutual understanding among the Local Orthodox Churches.
The present study concludes that
the theory of primacy, in its current manifestation, has led to situations that
can scarcely be characterized as anything other than a spiritual and physical
intrusion into the life of an entire Local Church. No theory claiming to belong
to the Orthodox tradition can justify this.
The real consequences of the
practical implementation of the theory of the primacy of the Patriarch of
Constantinople leave the Russian Orthodox Church no alternative but resolutely
to oppose and criticize this theory. Whatever the current objectives of the
individual Local Churches may be, the Russian Orthodox Church is defending a
truth of salvific significance for the whole of Orthodoxy.
* * *
Unlike advocates of the theory of
primacy, defenders of conciliar ecclesiology propose resolving the “Ukrainian
ecclesiastical question” at the level of the entire Church. A council of
primates must assume the peacemaking role in this conflict, together with a
return to jurisdictional boundaries that the Russian Orthodox Church could
accept as the party most severely affected by Constantinople’s uncanonical
measures. The practical implementation of the theory of primacy cannot be
accepted. In a disputed matter, the other side must also be heard; ignoring it
can lead only to a further deepening of the schism.
Among the critics of the theory
of primacy are more radical figures, such as Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis,
and less radical figures, such as Archbishop Anastasios of Albania and
Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos.
Although the number of
publications in defense of conciliar ecclesiology within the world of Greek
Orthodoxy has declined recently, this does not signify a change in positions or
approaches. The immense conflict remains unhealed and continues to receive neither
approval nor support from traditionally minded theologians and zealous
defenders of the truth.
The systematic analysis of the
theory of primacy presented in this study may serve as a reliable support for
defenders of conciliar ecclesiology, may be heard and accepted by the opposing
side, and may also provide guidance for those who are wavering or remain
undecided—both in the Greek world and throughout Orthodoxy.
The present study cannot be
called exhaustive: several of the topics raised require deeper theological
analysis and a broader patristic context. Research across a wide range of
fields may prove fruitful in overcoming the present situation within the
Orthodox Church.
One such avenue of research would
be a detailed analysis of every instance in which autocephaly or autonomy has
been granted. This would make it possible to develop and deepen the general
classification proposed in the present work, which already presupposes a
differentiated and, in certain cases, critical approach. A detailed examination
must also be undertaken of the precedents from Church history that advocates of
the theory of primacy invoke in their favor. Although considered in the present
work from a general perspective, they require separate and more thorough
analysis.
The “Ukrainian ecclesiastical
question” is closely connected with particular episodes in both Russian and
broader Slavic Church history. Owing to the vast amount of material, which lies
beyond the objectives of the present study, this historical context remained
outside its scope. In light of current ecclesiastical events, there is an
urgent need to return to this material and reconsider it more fully from a new
historical perspective.
The key points demonstrating the
inconsistency between the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s present claims and
its previous position require clarification and further detailed theological,
canonical, and historical study. Further research into the patristic heritage,
engagement with relevant aspects of theological scholarship, and inter-Church
theological discussions conducted in a spirit of conciliarity may lead to the
discovery of an answer. This would make it possible to substantiate the
principles of the Church’s conciliar structure in still greater detail and to
defend her teaching against distortions—in both theory and practice.
The prospects for future research
are not exhausted by these questions; only some of them have been identified
here. All these tasks are ultimately directed toward a single goal: to overcome
the exclusivity of one Church and return to the conciliar past.
In her tradition, the Orthodox
Church has never recognized the doctrine of a single “earthly head” of the
Church. Earthly power, privileges, and prerogatives are foreign to the nature
of the Church. The postulates of the theory of the primacy of honor and power
stand in direct contradiction to the Church’s teaching. Exaggerated conceptions
of a “supranational” Church of Constantinople—“ecumenical” or “worldwide,”
founded upon the Greek ethnos yet possessing no boundaries, unlike the other
Local Churches—contradict the spirit of conciliarity and sow discord, thereby
disrupting ecclesiastical unity.
The postulates of the theory of
primacy are prerequisites for the creation of a new type of Church—a church
under the sole authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople throughout the
entire Orthodox world.
* * *
The most important question
remains, and it may be formulated in different ways. What is to be done? Is
there any prospect of overcoming the present division? Is it possible to
restore unity between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople?
This question cannot be answered without first evaluating the position of each
side according to the principles of traditional theology, canon law, and the
objective history of Church and state in Byzantium and Russia. When one side is
profoundly in the wrong, the only way forward is to step back and reconsider
its unjust decision.
“The things which are impossible
with men are possible with God” (Luke 18:27). The Holy Fathers, martyrs, and
confessors were not afraid to defend the truth, regardless of threats and
trials. In the present age, the Russian Orthodox Church is compelled to defend
the truth under intense pressure from advocates of the theory of the primacy of
the Patriarch of Constantinople, with tragic consequences in Ukraine and
throughout the world. Yielding neither outwardly nor inwardly, she preserves
the tradition of Orthodoxy for the good of all Orthodox Christians. By
revealing and communicating the truth, there remains hope that it may also be
heard by the opposing side.
Following the adoption of the
discriminatory law against the canonical Church in Ukraine, a Statement of the
Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church was issued on August 22, 2024, [3027]
noting the personal responsibility of the Patriarch of Constantinople for the
ongoing lawlessness:
“In its scale and centralized
character, this measure may surpass all previous historical repressions against
the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, including the persecutions during the period of
the Union of Brest, and is comparable to such sorrowful historical precedents
as the persecutions in the Roman Empire under Nero and Diocletian, the
so-called dechristianization of France during the French Revolution of the
eighteenth century, the atheistic repressions in the Soviet Union, and the
destruction of the Albanian Orthodox Church by Enver Hoxha’s regime in the
1960s…
“It is with particular bitterness
that we must note the negative role of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople
and the hierarchs who share his views. Through their unilateral and hasty
actions, contrary to the spirit of the sacred canons, they have only deepened
the ecclesiastical schism in Ukraine rather than healing it. The leadership of
the schismatics recognized by the Phanar demanded with particular vehemence the
adoption of a law effectively banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Patriarch
Bartholomew, who had previously publicly approved the criminal prosecution and
arrest of its hierarchs and clergy, has now, like the high priests Annas and
Caiaphas, openly supported the actions of the state authorities, whose aim is
the crucifixion and destruction of the canonical Church in Ukraine. The
Patriarch of Constantinople thus bears personal responsibility for organizing
the persecution of the faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.” [3028]
What is the basis for such a
severe assessment of the position of the Church of Constantinople? Regrettably,
the position of Patriarch Bartholomew follows logically from the principal
postulates of the theory of primacy. It was as though the moment had arrived to
employ the resources of state power in Ukraine to destroy the country’s largest
and most traditional religious confession, which refused to accept the
uncanonical decisions of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Shortly before the
bill was adopted, Ukrainian President V. Zelensky—both personally and through
representatives of the OCU and the secular authorities—asked the Patriarch of
Constantinople for support in attaining Ukraine’s “spiritual independence.”
Patriarch Bartholomew blessed this “spiritual independence” (Greek: πνευματική
ανεξαρτησία), [3029] whose true objective is the prohibition of the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Shortly before the discriminatory
law was adopted, Patriarch Bartholomew met at the Phanar on August 13, 2024,
with Pseudo-Metropolitan Epiphany (Dumenko), Pseudo-Metropolitan Eustratius
(Zorya) of Bila Tserkva, and several laypersons bearing particular responsibility
for ecclesiastical policy in Ukraine. [3030] Soon after the law’s adoption, at
the Synaxis of the episcopate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople held on
September 1–3, 2024, the “ideology of the Russian World” was categorically
condemned. [3031] Patriarch Bartholomew has consciously embarked upon the path
of schism, which, through the potential consequences of the law of August 20,
2024, may reach its apogee throughout worldwide Orthodoxy and distort the
God-given unity of Christ’s Church for many years.
Meanwhile, the primates of
several Local Churches did not remain indifferent. In a synodal epistle,
Patriarch Porfirije (Prvoslav Perić), Primate of the Serbian Orthodox Church,
expressed his profound support for Metropolitan Onufriy. [3032] Patriarch John
X (Yazigi), Primate of the Orthodox Church of Antioch, sent a fraternal message
to Metropolitan Onufriy of Kiev. [3033] The Albanian Orthodox Church issued an
official statement calling for the repeal of the law banning the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church. [3034] Bulgarian Patriarch Daniil blessed the convening of a
conference in support of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church entitled “Blockading
Aggression against the Church—Defending Orthodoxy,” [3035] and personally
called upon the faithful to pray for her. [3036] The Church of Jerusalem [3037]
and the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia [3038] also spoke out
in support of the persecuted canonical Church in Ukraine.
On January 12, 2026, the Foreign
Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation issued a statement concerning
the destructive activity of the Patriarch of Constantinople. [3039] Though
severe in form, it was just in substance. This statement prompted a series of
responses united by a common confidence in the correctness of the theory of
primacy and in the extraterritorial activity conducted on the basis of that
theory. The Patriarchate of Constantinople stated in its response that attacks
of this kind “do not deter the Ecumenical Patriarchate from continuing its
ministry and ecumenical mission.” [3040] Metropolitan Apostolos of New Jersey
asserted that the Church of Constantinople, “by the sacred canons of the
Ecumenical Councils and according to the tradition of the Church, possesses the
primacy of service and sacrifice among the Orthodox Churches.” [3041] The
Organization for National and Religious Affairs decided to republish one of the
books justifying the implementation of the theory of primacy in the “Ukrainian
ecclesiastical question.” [3042] From the broad range of pronouncements and
statements, we shall cite the following words of Archbishop Elpidophoros of
America as characteristic of the theory of primacy:
“The canonical existence of any
Church or any ecclesiastical structure is granted solely by the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. That is why it is called the Ecumenical Patriarchate. We have the
supreme authority in the Orthodox Church—not, of course, in the same manner as
in the Roman Catholic Church, where the pope possesses supreme authority—but
there is a highest Orthodox authority governed by our own rules, in accordance
with the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, by which the canonical status of
autocephaly and patriarchal organization was granted even to the Russian Church
itself.” [3043]
From these and similar
statements, one may conclude that the theory of primacy is assuming
increasingly grotesque features that provoke rejection and revulsion. It is
evident that the conflict between the theory and practice of primacy, on the
one hand, and the Church’s traditional conciliar structure, on the other, has
reached an extreme level of tension. Without substantive answers to the
questions at issue, this conflict can scarcely be overcome in the foreseeable
future.
The principal conclusion of the
dissertation is that the implementation of the theory of the primacy of the
Patriarch of Constantinople amounts to nothing less than a rejection of the
Church’s canonical order and a distortion of conciliar ecclesiology. By
arrogating to itself the right to exercise headship over the Local Churches,
the Patriarchate of Constantinople initiated division and schism, inflicting
serious damage upon the ecclesiastical unity of worldwide Orthodoxy.
From the outside, it may appear
that the conflict between the Churches has external causes and arose from human
ambitions. However, as demonstrated in the dissertation, the implementation of
the theory of primacy entails a departure from traditional values and concepts.
The unity of the Church is a
precious spiritual treasure that must be carefully preserved by guarding
against divisions and attempts to exercise dominion over others. Relations
among the Local Churches must be patterned after the members of a body whose Head
is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Only adherence to the canonical foundations
and to conciliarity can preserve the Orthodox Churches in the unity commanded
by God.
Commenting on 1 Corinthians 1:2,
St. John Chrysostom observed: “Unto the Church of God. Not of this or that man,
but of God. Which is at Corinth… The Apostle Paul calls it the Church of God,
showing that it ought to abide in unity. For if it is God’s, it is united and
one, not in Corinth only, but throughout the whole world.” [3044]
Monk Antiochos (seventh century)
wrote: “It is pleasing to God to care for the unity of the Church, than which
there is nothing better among men.” [3045]
The late Byzantine dogmatic
theologian Monk Euthymios Zigabenos emphasized: “The Church is the name of
communion and unity.” “Κοινωνίας γὰρ ὄνομα καὶ ἑνώσεως ἡ Ἐκκλησία.” [3046]
Over the past several years,
several articles and publications addressing the pressing question of
ecclesiastical unity have appeared in Russian secular and ecclesiastical
scholarship. The Poznanie Publishing House has issued several books by both
Russian and foreign authors in defense of the position of the Russian Orthodox
Church. One of these authors, the specialist in Byzantine history P. V.
Kuzenkov, published a series of books, the latest of which is devoted to
clarifying the meaning of the concepts “prerogative” (πρεσβεῖα) and
“primacy” (πρωτεῖον) [3047]—and its conclusions do not favor the theory
of primacy. The works of Priest Pavel Ermilov, M. V. Graziansky, and other
members of the Center for the Study of Primacy at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox
University [3048] constitute an exceptionally valuable scholarly analysis of
the questions associated with the concept of “primacy.” [3049] These studies
have not yet been fully taken into account by the author of the present
dissertation. Nevertheless, direct recourse to the primary sources enabled the
author to form his own independent view of the theory of primacy as
incompatible with the tradition of the Church, both in the past and in the
present.
The expression of the Hieromartyr
Ignatius the God-Bearer, “presiding in love” (προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης), [3050]
which refers to the Church of Rome, may be interpreted as signifying a real
primacy according to the degree to which good works are performed—in other
words, with the emphasis not upon primacy, but upon love and good works. [3051]
In essence, any Church, even the youngest and smallest, may be “presiding in
love” if, during a particular historical period, she surpasses the others in
works of love. This is not an eternal and immutable authority of primacy, but
the possibility of becoming first through zeal for works of love. Emphasis upon
the spiritual and moral dimension of primacy makes it possible to avoid the
temptation of self-confidently claiming primacy without sufficient grounds.
Despite the somewhat diverse
character of the dissertation’s chapters, taken together they can provide an
overall understanding of what has occurred and what is now occurring. The work
of interpreting the situation continues at present, in the hope that both this
dissertation and further research in this field will help not only to establish
the fact of division, but also to understand its causes and, consequently, the
means of overcoming it for the sake of restoring ecclesiastical unity upon the
foundation of truth.
NOTES
3020. For
further details, see the itinerary of these trips in the following news
reports: “Lessons in Conciliar Ecclesiology in Several Dioceses of the
Belarusian Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church” (November 20, 2023). URL: https://andreevsky-monastery.ru/news/detail/uroki-sobornoy-ekklesiologii-v-ryade-eparkhiy-belorusskogo-ekzarkhata-russkoy-pravoslavnoy-tserkvi/;
“A Critique of the Theory of the Primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople in
Several Eastern Dioceses of the Belarusian Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox
Church” (March 19, 2024). URL: https://andreevsky-monastery.ru/news/detail/kritika-teorii-pervenstva-konstantinopolskogo-patriarkha-v-ryade-vostochnykh-eparkhiy-belorusskogo-e/;
“Visit to the Belarusian Exarchate” (February 10, 2026). URL: https://andreevsky-monastery.ru/news/detail/vizit-v-belorusskiy-ekzarkhat/.
3021.
Ambrose of Milan. Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke 2.86 //
CSEL. Vol. 32.4. Pp. 90:17–91:9.
3022. At the
round table “The Procedure for Appeals in the Orthodox Church Today,” held on
October 11, 2024, as part of the Pokrov Academic Conference, the paper “Appeals
in the Tradition of the Church and in the Present Day: An Introduction to the
Problem” was presented, setting forth arguments against the judicial primacy of
the Patriarch of Constantinople in the matter of receiving appeals.
3023.
Adopted by the Verkhovna Rada on August 20, 2024. See: “Rada Adopts Law
Permitting the UOC to Be Banned over Its Ties with Russia” (August 20, 2024).
URL: https://www.rbc.ru/politics/20/08/2024/66c460609a79473d49afccbf
3024. See:
Ibid.
3025. For a
detailed critique of the bill, see: Gotsopoulos, Anastasios K., Protopresbyter.
“Zelensky’s Expert Report as a Proposal for the Suicide of the Church in
Ukraine: A Critical Evaluation of the DESS Decree against the Church of
Ukraine” (January 9, 2025).
3026. To the
documents, quotations, and theoretical position of Patriarch Dositheos examined
in the chapter, it remains only to add that it would hardly be natural to
suppose that a man who personally conducted lengthy negotiations for the
publication of a collection of his own polemical manuscripts specifically in
Moscow held a negative attitude toward the Russian Church. On the fate of the
manuscripts and the negotiations, see in particular: Fonkich, B. L. Greek-Russian
Cultural Relations in the Fifteenth–Seventeenth Centuries (Greek Manuscripts in
Russia). Moscow, 1977. Pp. 205–211.
3027.
“Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church concerning the
Adoption by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of a Bill Aimed at the Elimination of
the Ukrainian Orthodox Church” (August 22, 2024). URL: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/6152918.html.
3028.
“Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church concerning the
Adoption by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of a Bill Aimed at the Elimination of
the Ukrainian Orthodox Church” (August 22, 2024). URL: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/6152918.html.
3029. “Ukrainian
Presidency: The Ecumenical Patriarch Supports Ukraine’s Spiritual Independence”
(August 13, 2024). URL: https://fosfanariou.gr/index.php/2024/08/13/oukraniki-proedria-o-ecum-patr-ypostirizei-pneumatiki-aneksartisia-oukranias/
3030. “The
Primate of the Church of Ukraine at the Ecumenical Patriarchate” (August 13,
2024). URL: https://fosfanariou.gr/index.php/2024/08/13/kiev-epiphanios-sto-ecum-patr/
3031. See:
“Communiqué of the Tenth Synaxis of the Hierarchy of the Ecumenical Throne”
(September 3, 2024). URL: https://fosfanariou.gr/index.php/2024/09/03/anakoinothen-synaxews-ierarxias-tou-thronou/
3032. Published
on August 23, 2024. See: “Support of the Serbian Orthodox Church for the
Canonical Church in Ukraine” (August 23, 2024). URL: https://spc.rs/podrska-srpske-pravoslavne-crkve-kanonskoj-crkvi-u-ukrajini/
3033. The
message was sent on Ukraine’s Independence Day, August 24, 2024. See: “The
Patriarch of Antioch Proposes the Convening of a Council on the Question of the
UOC” (August 24, 2024). URL: https://orthodoxostypos.gr/ο-πατριάρχης-αντιοχείας-προτείνει-τη/
3034. “The
Albanian Orthodox Church Calls for the Repeal of the Law Banning the Canonical
Ukrainian Orthodox Church” (August 28, 2024). URL: http://edinstvo.patriarchia.ru/db/text/6154812.html.
See the original statement of the Albanian Orthodox Church: “The Church of
Albania Regarding the Persecution of the Canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church by
Law 8371” (August 26, 2024). URL: https://orthodoxalbania.org/2020/en/2024/08/26/declaration/
3035. The
conference was held on August 26, 2024, in Sofia, Bulgaria. See: “International
Conference in Defense of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Held in Bulgaria”
(August 30, 2024). URL: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/6155214.html. See also the
report on the website of the Diocese of Lovech of the Bulgarian Orthodox
Church: “Participants in an International Conference Call for the Defense of
the Ukrainian Orthodox Church” (August 28, 2024). URL: https://www.predanie.bg/новини/акценти/2517-участници-в-международна-конференция-призоваха-за-защита-на-украинската-православна-църква
3036. The
appeal was made on August 26, 2024, following the Liturgy in the Church of St.
John of Rila in Pernik, Bulgaria. See: “His Holiness Patriarch Daniil of
Bulgaria Calls upon the Faithful to Pray for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church”
(August 30, 2024). URL: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/6155217.html. See also the
Bulgarian website: “‘Let Us Pray for the Survival of the Ukrainian Church,’
Metropolitan Daniil of Sofia and Patriarch of Bulgaria Urges in Pernik” (August
25, 2024). URL: https://www.bta.bg/bg/news/lik/731074-da-se-pomolim-za-otselyavaneto-na-ukrainskata-tsarkva-prizova-ot-pernik-sofiysk
3037. “The
Patriarchate of Jerusalem Calls upon the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to Repeal
the Anti-Church Law” (September 4, 2024). URL: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/6156336.html
3038. “The
Synod of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia Expresses Support
for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church” (September 6, 2024). URL: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/6157083.html.
See also the following publication in defense of the UOC: “Statement of the
Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia concerning
the Adoption of Law No. 8371 in Ukraine.” URL: https://www.eparchiapo.sk/sk/dokumenty/aktuality/spravodajstvo/vyhlasenie-posvatnej-synody-pravoslavnej-cirkvi-v-ceskych-krajinach-a-na-slovensku-k-prijatiu-zakona-c-8371-na-ukrajine
3039.
“Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople: ‘An Antichrist in a Cassock’”
(January 12, 2026). URL: http://www.svr.gov.ru/smi/2026/01/konstantinopolskiy-patriarkh-varfolomey-antikhrist-v-ryase.htm
3040. “Announcement
concerning the Statement of the Russian Agencies against the Ecumenical
Patriarch” (January 13, 2026). URL: https://ec-patr.org/anakoinosi-schetika-me-tin-dilosi-ross/
3041.
“Metropolitan Apostolos of New Jersey Expresses Support for the Patriarchate
and the Patriarch” (January 23, 2026). URL: https://fosfanariou.gr/index.php/2026/01/23/stirixi-neas-yerseis-sto-ecum-patr-kai-ton-patr/
3042. Angelopoulos,
A.; Karageorgoudis, E. The World of Orthodoxy amid Contemporary Geopolitical
Developments in Europe: The Metropolis of Kiev of the Church of Constantinople
(1686 AD), the Archbishopric of Ohrid, and the Metropolis of Skopje of the
Church of Serbia (1922, 2004 AD). Thessaloniki, 2019. (Theological and
Historical Library; Vol. 15). See: “The Foundation for National and
Religious Reflection Supports the Patriarch” (January 27, 2026). URL: https://fosfanariou.gr/index.php/2026/01/27/iethp-stirizei-ton-ecum-patr/
3043.
“Interview of Archbishop Elpidophoros of America with the Ukrainian Channel Viche”
(January 30, 2026). URL: https://fosfanariou.gr/index.php/2026/01/30/synentefxi-amerikis-elpidoforou-se-oukraniko-kanali/
3044. See:
John Chrysostom. Homilies on the First Epistle to the Corinthians
(Homilies 1–44), 1.1 // PG. Vol. 61. Col. 13:9–16.
“Unto the
Church of God. Not of this or that man, but of God. Which is at Corinth… He
calls it the Church of God, showing that it ought to be united. For if it is
God’s, it is united and one, not in Corinth only, but throughout the whole
inhabited world.”
3045. Monk
Antiochos. Pandect of Holy Scripture 80:2–3 // PG. Vol. 89. Col.
1673B:3–4.
“It is
pleasing to God to care for the unity of the Church, than which there is
nothing better among men.”
3046. See
Monk Euthymios Zigabenos’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:22: Euthymios
Zigabenos. Commentary on Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians
11.22:10–11 // Euthymios Zigabenos’s Interpretation of the Fourteen Epistles
of the Apostle Paul and the Seven Catholic Epistles, Now Published for the
First Time from an Ancient Manuscript, with a Prologue and Notes by Nikephoros
Kalogeras: in 2 vols. Vol. 1. Athens, 1887. P. 303.
3047. Kuzenkov,
P. V. “Prerogative” and “Primacy”: Toward an Explication of
Ecclesiastical-Canonical Concepts. Moscow, 2024.
3048. The
Concept of Primacy: Origins and Contexts (collective monograph) / Managing
editors: P. V. Ermilov and M. V. Graziansky. Moscow, 2022.
3049. Priest
Pavel Ermilov proposes abandoning the concept of “primacy” in favor of the
concept of “seniority.” See: Ermilov, P., Priest. “The Concept of ‘Primacy’ in
Light of Orthodox Ecclesiology.” Formal academic address delivered by Priest
Pavel Ermilov, Associate Professor at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University and
Candidate of Historical Sciences, on November 18, 2022, at the ceremonial
convocation marking the university’s thirtieth anniversary (November 18, 2022).
URL: https://pstgu.ru/actual/novomucheniki/ponyatie-pervenstva-v-svete-pravoslavnoy-ekkleziologii/
3050. Ignatius
of Antioch. The Seven Genuine Epistles (Middle Recension). Ep. 4p, 1:8
// SC. Vol. 10 bis. P. 106. Literally: “presiding in love.”
3051. A. L.
Dvorkin wrote in this vein in his Essays on the History of the Universal
Orthodox Church. See: Dvorkin, A. L. Essays on the History of the
Universal Orthodox Church. Moscow, 2020. Pp. 100–102.
Russian
source (pp. 1302-1337):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aNEDx7hcpLeVJ4lz4OjIiSMK9Y1Vgu-K/view
