The theory of Eastern papism in the latest Russian literature of canon law

Contents Section I Section II Section III Section IV Section T. Barsov, extraordinary professor of St. Petersburg. Theological Academy: “The Patriarch of Constantinople and his power over the Russian Church.” St. Petersburg, 1878 The poorer the Russian literature of canon law, the more permissible it is to express the desire that it not be enriched with products of dubious knowledge, designed for the complete ignorance or extreme undemandingness of the majority of readers. Let works on canon law appear in our country decades later, as long as each of them signifies a healthy, albeit unnoticeable, growth of science. Non multum, sed multum. What is least desirable in the literature of such a young science as our church law is to encounter such phenomena that, having the appearance of scientific works, are in fact only capable of spreading unprecedented errors where there was previously simple ignorance. Before us is a new book by a professor (if we are not mistaken, of canon law) at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy of Barsov, entitled “The Patriarch of Constantinople and his power over the Russian Church.” Both the title of the author and the very appearance of the book seem to vouch for its solidity. Interest in it is highly aroused by the first lines of the preface, which state: “The question of the Patriarch of Constantinople and his power over the Russian Church is one of the most important and essential subjects of the science of church law in general and Russian law in particular. This question, on the one hand, contains the essence of the development of the system of church governance in the East of the Christian Church, on the other hand, it contains the primary foundations for the governance of the Russian, domestic church. Meanwhile, this issue remains untouched in Orthodox literature - Greek and Russian; Likewise, Western - Catholic and Protestant - literature does not present research specifically devoted to this subject. This circumstance frees us from the need to explain why we settled on this subject and chose it as the topic for our essay.” So, we are offered a book that deserves the full attention of readers, not only for the importance of its content, but also for its originality. He willingly agrees with Mr. Barsov that the subject he has chosen is very important in the science of church law; but, we admit, we were greatly puzzled by the categorical statement that this issue not only “was not touched upon in Orthodox canonical literature - Greek and Russian,” but did not cause “special research” in the West either. Which of the canonists and theologians is unaware of the works of Bingham, Thomassin, Lequesne, Peter de Marchi, Dupin and the newest: Maassen, Hefele, Pichler, Hergenröter and others, who, at least, warned Mr. Barsov in the awareness of the importance of the subject “he chose as the topic for his work”? It cannot be said that in Russian literature “the question of the Patriarch of Constantinople and his power under our church remained untouched.” The first half of this topic was thoroughly developed in the works of our famous canonist, the late Rev. John 1, second in the “History of the Russian Church” by the Reverend. Macarius and, partly, in Solovyov’s “History of Russia”. But... let's turn to Mr.'s book itself. Barsova; maybe it really is such that it will make us forget all the previous literature on the subject - both Russian and Western. Mr. Barsov’s work is truly original, but not in the sense of independence of research, which was difficult to demonstrate on such a hackneyed topic, but according to the new canonical theory that is carried out in it and which is already hinted at by the words of the preface: “the question of the Patriarch of Constantinople contains the essence of the development of the system of church government in the East” 2 . We do not find another, more suitable name for this theory, as the theory of Eastern papism. The first, predominantly canonical, part of the work is devoted to its development and justification, the content of which, in the words of the author, is: “the gradual emergence of patriarchal power in the Christian Church and, in particular, the foundation of the establishment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as well as other, particular subjects that are directly included in the general issue and explain various aspects of the institution under consideration, such as: the gradual expansion of the advantages of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the extreme exaltation of his department, the special differences of this hierarch among other patriarchs and the advantages of his department, the position of the same hierarch and his department in the east of the Christian Church, the composition of the administration of the Patriarch of Constantinople” (preface, p. X). The main subjects of the author's research are the facts of canonical legislation, which expressed the gradual development of the power of the patriarchs in general and that of Constantinople in particular. On these cardinal points in the first part of Mr. We will mainly focus on Barsov. Likewise, in relation to the second part, which reveals “the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Russian Church,” we will limit ourselves only to issues of special interest to the canonist, although, unfortunately, the author for some reason chose to work here almost exclusively in favor of church history, and only to a very small extent for the science of canon law. The oldest canonical basis for the power of the patriarchs is usually found in the 6th canon of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council. “Let the ancient customs adopted in Egypt, and Libya, and Naples be preserved,” says the council, “so that the bishop of Alexandria has power over all these, as is customary for the bishop of Rome. Likewise in Antioch and in other regions (καὶ ἑν ταις ἃλλαις ἐπαρχὶαις) may the advantages of the churches be preserved.” This rule, as Ziegler rightly notes, has long been the subject of such diverse interpretations that a special book could be written about it, as well as about the literature of the issue. But for Mr. Barsov, “the true meaning of the rule is so clear” that he does not find it necessary to “disassemble” the interpretations caused by it, but directly adheres to the opinion that he recognizes as “currently dominant in science.” This opinion, as stated by Mr. Barsov, is that “the Council of Nicea did not mean ordinary metropolitans, who (sic) were the hierarchs of the main cities of a region, or province, and not actual patriarchs, who were the hierarchs of the main cities of entire districts or dioceses (as Barsov did everywhere), embracing several metropolitan areas, or civil provinces, but meant those hierarchs who, not using even during the Council of Nicaea the title of patriarch, nevertheless, their position elevated them above ordinary metropolitans and approached the patriarchs in their advantages” (p. 11). The scientists who gave such an explanation of the Nicene canon “dominance in science” (Massen, Hefele, Hergentröter, etc.), and after them Mr. Barsov, argue in this way: 1) the council specifically speaks about the hierarchs of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, therefore, it distinguishes them, by rights of power, from ordinary metropolitans, about whom certain decisions have already been made in previous (4 and 5) rules of the same council (p. 11 and 14); 2) the district of each of the hierarchs named in the 6th Nicene canon undoubtedly embraced several provinces (civil), therefore, it also contained several metropolises (ecclesiastical). If our canonist had tried to check these arguments against first-hand sources, or at least taken into account the objections of other scientists (especially Beveridge and Pichler), who look at the matter differently, he would probably have been convinced that the issue is not so easily and simply resolved. Interpreters of this canon generally have not sufficiently weighed or tendentiously explained the fact that the council clearly establishes a distinction between the bishops of Rome and Alexandria on the one hand, and the bishops of Antioch and other elder hierarchs on the other. The first two differed from their brothers - regional and provincial metropolitans - in that they had under their authority (ἑξονσία) not one, but several civil provinces, in which they were the only metropolitans. Namely: the Roman bishop, as explained in the Latin translation of the Nicene canon, belonging to one of the members of the council - the Carthaginian bishop Caecilian, had in his charge the loca suburbia 4, by which it is customary to mean the ten Italian provinces subordinate to the Vicario Urbis 5; Alexandrian, by direct order of the council itself, extended its power to three provinces: Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis. That within the jurisdiction of the first hierarch there were no regional or provincial metropolitans, with bishops (suffragans) subordinate to them, those scientists who follow Mr. Barsov agree with this. 6 4 On the contrary, the existence of metropolitans in the provinces of the Alexandrian bishop seems to Mr. Barsov so “undoubted” that, citing evidence related to this, he does not even pay attention to the doubts of his authorities. Thus Maassen, to whom, by the way, our author refers here, directly states that the testimony of St. Epiphanius (late 4th century) about the Egyptian bishop Meletius (late 3rd century), whom he calls archbishop, does not have any evidentiary force in relation to the present issue. In Mr. Barsov’s book, this skeptical review is omitted, and only the argumentation based on the assumption of the complete reliability of Epiphanius’s news about Meletius 7 is retained. But even with this assumption, the testimony of Epiphanius, as Pichler thoroughly objects, would lead to the exact opposite conclusion: “for,” says the named scientist, “at the time of Meletius, the name of archbishop was not yet in use, but only metropolitan. Why did Epiphanius, to designate metropolitan dignity, use the name of archbishop, which had previously only been appropriated (by St. Athanasius) to the bishop of Alexandria and by which Epiphanius himself calls the local bishop Peter, with a significant explanation: “all Alexandrians (i.e. Egyptian) churches stand under one bishop, one of the subordinates of Alexandria is called, like this latter, an archbishop, and serves as proof that there were no metropolitans in Egypt at that time,” and that, we add, in the sources of Epiphanius Meletius was not called by this name, which was never adopted by ordinary metropolitans. Decisive significance in relation to this issue is attributed (Maassen, Hefele, etc.) to the testimony of Synesius, bishop of Ptolemais (5th century), which is also cited by Mr. Barsov (p. 13, note 3). But even here it would not hurt to listen to Pichler’s objections. “Sinesius,” he says, “reports the news that St. Athanasius of Alexandria moved Bishop Siderius to Ptolemais to govern the metropolitan church (τὴν μητροπολίτιν ἐκκλγησίαν). Ptolemais was the main city of the Pentapolis and, at the time of the Council of Nicaea, a political metropolis. Synesius himself, already a hundred years later (410 - 431) after the aforementioned council, was the Metropolitan of Ptolemais, and about him, even more rightly than about Epiphanius, it can be said that in relation to his church he expressed himself in the language of his time. What he says about preserving the rights of his metropolitanate (τά μητρῶα τῆς πóλεως σίκαια) does not eliminate the objection that in the time of Athanasius, i.e. 100 years earlier, under μητροπολίτις ἐκκλησία could mean the church of the political metropolis.” To these objections let us add an indication of the indisputable fact that the bishop of Alexandria, even in later times, when he was undoubtedly already a patriarch, retained the right to ordain all bishops in general (that is, not only metropolitans, but also their suffragans) in all cities and regions subordinate to him 9 . Does not this fact serve as eloquent evidence of the previous relationship, when the hierarch of Alexandria was the only metropolitan for all the Egyptian provinces, or, in the words of the 6th Nicene canon, “had authority over them all”? The order of church administration in those countries of the Christian East, to which the Council of Nicaea indicated with the words: “in Antioch and other dioceses,” developed differently. There were no metropolitans here whose power would extend over several civil provinces; at least if the council assumes, as a general rule, that each province has its own metropolitan (rights 4 and 5), then this assumption can only apply to the churches of the Eastern, Asian and Thracian dioceses. The metropolitans of the regions and provinces that were part of these dioceses were, without a doubt, as independent of one another, as were the bishops of Rome and Alexandria. But a relationship of eldership (τὰ πρεσβεῖα) had long been established between them, based both on the comparative antiquity of their churches and on the political importance of the cities in which their sees were located. In both respects, the oldest of all the metropolises of the East was Antioch: that is why it alone is named by name in the resolution of the Council of Nicea that in all (eastern) regions “the advantages of churches should be respected.” These were the same advantages that in the 7th Nicene canon were granted to the bishop of Jerusalem, and in the 3rd of the second ecumenical council - to the bishop of Constantinople, i.e. the advantages of honor, not power. The power of the metropolitans, defined in the previous (4 and 5) Nicene canons and expressed primarily in the right to appoint bishops of their region, and now, after the formal recognition of the advantages of the seniority of some metropolitan sees, remained on the same basis, which is confirmed in the further words of the Nicene canon that occupies us: in general, let it be known: if anyone without the permission of the metropolitan will be installed bishop, about such a great council determined that he should not be a bishop. Mr. Barsov explains these words differently. He sees in them a “hint” of the special power of the Bishop of Antioch (?), which allegedly consisted in the fact that he “as the church exarch of the diocese appointed regional metropolitans and approved the election of bishops appointed by the subject regional metropolitans” (p. 14). The author does not indicate what exactly this hint is hidden in and where this hint is visible; but it hastens to explain that “with this addition, the council makes it clear that even when expanding the benefits of the highest metropolitans listed in its canon (meaning, not just the one of Antioch?), the rights of ordinary metropolitans must be inviolably respected” (how – “inviolable” if the right to approve candidates for ordinary episcopal sees is not given to the regional, but to the highest diocesan metropolitan?). Instead of getting confused in arbitrary conjectures and interpretations, the author would do better if he paid attention to the following circumstance, in view of which the true meaning of the Nicene canon is revealed with all clarity and without any exaggeration. 15 years after the publication of this canon, and Antioch, the seat of one of the metropolitans with the supposed rights of the highest administrative power, there was a council, which, for its part, issued several rules on regional church government and, therefore, had every reason to, in one respect or another, expose the special advantages of the Bishop of Antioch, supposedly approved for him by the Council of Nicaea. But we find nothing of the kind in the Antiochian decrees; on the contrary, having generally confirmed the ancient rights of metropolitans (rights 9, 19 and 20), the council also grants each of them a new right - to constitute a “great council” (μεγονα σύνοδος), that is, to increase the personnel of their regional council (σύνοδος τἢς ἐπαρχίας) through the invitation of bishops from the neighboring metropolitan region and thus decide in the final instance both administrative (law 13) and judicial (law 12 and 14). Where is the chief metropolitan of an entire district (diocese) with the same power over ordinary (regional or provincial) metropolitans that these latter had over their suffragan bishops? The silence of the council about these main metropolitans seems all the more strange since they were a relatively new phenomenon in the sphere of local church government. The indicated rules of the Council of Antioch in many respects would have served for Mr. Barsov as the best commentary on the corresponding definitions of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381). In its 2nd canon, this council says: Regional bishops (τούς ὑπἐρ διοίκησιν ἐπισκóπου) may not extend their authority to churches outside their region, and may not mix churches; but, according to the rules, let the Alexandrian bishop govern only the Egyptian churches; let the eastern bishops rule only in the east, preserving the advantages of the Antiochian church, recognized by the Nicene rules; also let the bishops of the region of Asia rule only in Asia; Let the Pontic bishops have jurisdiction only over the Pontic region, and the Thracian bishops over only Thrace. Without being invited, bishops should not go beyond the boundaries of their area for ordination or any other ecclesiastical order. “In this rule,” explains Mr. Barsov, - The Council of Constantinople clearly indicates both the limits of control of the oldest hierarchs (?), and the boundaries of these limits (what are “the boundaries of limits”?), as well as the position of authority and mutual relations of the named hierarchs. To indicate precisely the limit of this administration, the council uses the expression διοίκησις - district, in the sense of a collection of several provinces, or regions. And the council numbers five such districts with complete separation: Egypt, the churches of which should be governed by the Alexandrian hierarch; The East, where the advantages of the Church of Antioch must be preserved among the commanding bishops; dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, of which in the first the “superior position” over the metropolitans should belong to the Ephesian hierarch, in the second - to the Caesarea, in the third - to the Heraclian (pp. 17 and 19). A “clear” indication of the last three hierarchs and their “leading position” in their dioceses. Barsov found, of course, not in the canon itself, which does not mention these hierarchs at all, but in other “sources”, mainly in Maassen, who argues as follows: Ephesus was the main city of the Asian diocese, Caesarea - Pontic, Heraclius - Thracian; ergo - the metropolitans of these cities had power over other metropolitans of their dioceses 10. It is assumed, therefore, that it is undoubted and does not require proof that the political significance of the named cities was fully consistent with their ecclesiastical significance. The meaning of the rule is indeed clear, but not from the side from which Mr. Barsov illuminates it. The Council primarily intends to establish the extreme limits of the legitimate and expedient participation of bishops in general and metropolitans in particular in the affairs of other churches. To do this, he applies to church administration the division of the East (in a broad sense) existing in state administration into five districts (dioceses): Egyptian, Eastern (in a narrow sense), Asian and Thracian. In the Egyptian diocese, as we already know, there was only one metropolitan - the Bishop of Alexandria: the cathedral only mentions him in its canon; the rest, in all likelihood, had as many metropolitans as each province (ἐπαρχία); that is why the council is expressed in the plural “bishops of such and such a diocese.” Only when mentioning the eastern bishops is it added that they “preserve the advantages of the Antiochian church, recognized by the Nicene rules.” The Council of Constantinople, like the Council of Nicea, is not included in the immediate definition of these advantages; but in view of some instructions contained in the acts of the council, it can be stated with complete certainty that even now the oldest bishop of the eastern diocese enjoyed only the advantages of honor, and not power. Thus, in its letter to the Roman Church, announcing the installation of Flavian as Bishop of Antioch, the Council of Constantinople calls the region of this hierarch with the general name of the metropolitan region - ἐπαρχία and clearly distinguishes it from ἀνατολικὴ διοίκησις 11. In the same message, Mr. Barsov would have found a completely reliable, so to speak, authentic interpretation of the entire resolution on dioceses and dioceses set out in the 2nd Canon of the Council. “Regarding local government in churches,” wrote the fathers of the council, “the ancient law and definition of St. father in Nicea, so that in each diocese the diocesan (regional) bishops perform the ordination, inviting, if they want and find it useful, neighboring bishops 12. The first part of this news, obviously, fully corresponds to the last words of the canon: “the affairs of each region (καθ’ ἑκἀστην ἐπαρχίαν) will be regulated by the council of the same region, as determined in Nicaea”; echoing (“by inviting neighboring bishops”) conveys the meaning of the previous conciliar resolution on dioceses, and conveys it in such a way that it leaves no room for speculation about the existence or establishment again of metropolitans with supreme power over the entire diocese. Each regional council (and metropolitan) is given the right to invite bishops from neighboring regions and thus constitute that “greater council” about which the Antiochian rules speak and which in the 6th canon of the Council of Constantinople itself is called the “council of bishops of the diocese” (σύνοδος τῶν τῆς διοικὴσεως ἐπίσκόπων). It goes without saying that at these councils the oldest metropolitan in the diocese occupied the presiding position and generally enjoyed special influence, which little by little gave him the corresponding rights of supreme power. A new title has appeared in the nomenclature of church hierarchical ranks: ἔξαρχος τῆς διοκήσεος. G. Barsov assures that this title was already in the 4th century. was so common in the East that it almost at the same time did not penetrate into the West, where, however, it was rejected by one of the African councils, namely the Council of Hippo in 393 (pp. 22 – 23). But this cannot be believed for the simple reason that the word exarch belongs only to the Greek translation of the rules of African councils, which did not appear before the end of the 6th century 13; in the Latin original it is princeps (sacerdotum). Closer to the truth would be the assumption that the title did not appear before the corresponding rank in the church hierarchy. Indeed, we find the first example of its use in the acts of the Council of Antioch in 445: the Antiochian bishop Domnus, usually called (in statements by other members of the council) archbishop 14, was once named exarch of the diocese. This circumstance is very significant. The last title undoubtedly indicated the special rights of power of the Antiochian hierarch, which ordinary metropolitans did not have; but the first, in all likelihood, was a simple distinction of the oldest metropolitans in those three dioceses, which by the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451) were subject to the “Archbishop of New Rome,” but in fact and partly on the basis of imperial laws had long been under his jurisdiction. Thus, the era of the final establishment of the power of the patriarchs in general almost completely coincides with the era of the formal establishment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in particular. A characteristic feature of the canonical legislation, which elevated the bishop of Constantinople to the rank of patriarch, is that he is constantly placed in parallel with the Roman bishop, the oldest hierarch in the entire Christian world, and his see, as located in the new capital of the empire, in New Rome, is recognized as second after the see of Old Rome. This is already expressed in Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, which, as noted above, granted the Bishop of Constantinople so far only “the advantages of honor according to the Roman Bishop.” The Council of Chalcedon repeated the same thing in essence, in its famous 28th canon, from which, in fact, the canonical existence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople begins. Here are the true words of the council: “In everything, following the definitions of St. father and recognizing the now read rule of one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops who were in the cathedral in the days of the pious memory of Theodicius in the reigning city of Constantinople, New Rome, the same thing we determine and decree about the benefits of the most holy churches of the same Constantinople, New Rome. For the fathers gave decent advantages to the throne of ancient Rome: since it was the reigning city. Following the same impulse, one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops granted equal advantages to the most holy see of New Rome, righteously judging that the city that had received the honor of being the city of the king and the synclit and had equal advantages with the old royal Rome would be exalted in ecclesiastical affairs likewise, and would be second after it.” This was actually the motive for the further decree set out in the same canon - about the subordination of three dioceses with their metropolitans to the “Archbishop” of Constantinople. In fact, it seemed incongruous that the hierarch, who occupied the second place of honor in the order and representation of the universal hierarchy, did not have corresponding rights and advantages. But Mr. Barsov found in this motive the main basis for a new canonical theory, which, we repeat, cannot be called otherwise than the theory of Eastern papism. The author develops this theory in parallel with the explanation of the conciliar canons, starting from Chalcedon and ending with Constantinople 879. In the quoted words of the Chalcedonian canon, Mr. Barsova sees “an interpretation of the 3rd rule of the Second Ecumenical Council, and, moreover, an interpretation in the sense of a new resolution” (p. 54); namely: “with the expression “equal advantages” (ἴσα τἀ πρεσβεια) the assemble recognized the hierarch of Constantinople, as the hierarch of New Rome, in all (?) equal to the patriarch of ancient Rome and assigned to the see of the former the same meaning, honor (?) and dignity that the see of the latter enjoyed. In the words: “and in church affairs he will be exalted likewise” (καὶ ἐν τοἴς ’εκκλησιαστικοῖς, ὡς ’εκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι) the council expressed that the throne (cathedra) of New Rome and its hierarch should receive the same broad and comprehensive significance in the affairs of the Christian Church as the cathedra and the hierarch of ancient Rome already enjoyed... With the remark “and there will be a second after him” (δεύτεραν μετ’ ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν) the council showed that the see of Constantinople, given the equality of its advantages with the Roman one, should be second, and not the first, which (sic) remains the Roman see, the second - in order of counting, but not in relation to dignity, so that and the hierarch of Constantinople should be second only to the Roman one with respect only to order and place, and not to influence on the affairs of the church” (p. 55). If we present the meaning of the Chalcedonian canon in this way, then of course it will be impossible not to see in it, in comparison with the Constantinople canon, a new - and one must agree - rather confusing and illogical regulation. In fact, on the one hand, the bishop of Constantinople is placed on the same line as the Roman bishop, as a completely equal and equal hierarch, on the other hand, he receives second place in the order of the universal hierarchy, without, however, any derogation in his honor or power, and only for the sake of counting, by necessity, to distinguish No. 1 from No. 2. Who would, according to the requirements of common sense, assert that the first in the rank of the church hierarchy is higher than the second, and the second is lower than the first? (as the famous Greek canonist Zonara asserts), Mr. Barsov will object: “such argumentation resembles a technique, as if someone, on the basis of a person’s inability to pronounce two words at once, completely, or because of the impossibility of putting two objects on the same point, would (sic) both belittle the meaning of the word spoken second after the first, and humiliate the dignity of another object that does not stand on the same point with the first” (p. 59). To avoid such a methodological error, our Russian canonist argues in such a way that from his arguments comes something similar to the answer that smart children give to the question about the superiority of dad or mom: both are better. Let us assume that only the indicated need for a separate account when comparing two completely equal honorable and equal hierarchs forced the council to give one of them first place, and the other second place. Why, however, was this seemingly physical necessity canonically expressed in such a way that the bishop of Constantinople once and for all got second place, and not first place? Apparently, Mr. Barsov did not think of this simple question, and therefore could not understand the motive by which the Greek canonists, when explaining the 28th Chalcedonian (and 3rd Constantinople) canon, paid such serious attention to the meaning of the preposition μετἁ in the words δευτέραν μετ’ ἐκείνην ὑπαρχουσαν. Some of them are precisely those who, like Mr. Barsov, recognized the Patriarch of Constantinople not only as equal in rights, but also equal in honor with the Pope of Rome, already by the requirement of logical necessity, they should have understood the preposition “by” in the historical sense, that is, in the sense of indicating the later origin and rise of the See of Constantinople, placed by the Council of Chalcedon on the same line with the Roman See 15. Others (Zonara and Balsamon) interpreted this pretext in the dridical sense, that is, in the sense of belittling, lowering (ὑποβιβασμός) the bishop of Constantinople over the Roman bishop based on the advantages of honor. Our canonist recognizes these interpretations as “a vain play with the pretext μετα” and, in their place, proposes the following supposedly serious consideration: “Both the first and second hierarchs can be completely equal and enjoy the same meaning both in the circle specially assigned to each, and in the entire space of their competence (i.e. again in that same “circle”?); but when combined together, for the sake of order and consistency (that means, not for arithmetic calculation alone?) one must become first, the other second, however, with the fact that the voice and orders of both remain completely equal and unambiguous in church affairs” (this is a completely different question: and all the patriarchs, as we will see below, were equal in this respect). It is enough to compare the interpretations of Byzantine canonists of the 12th century. with the explanations of the St. Petersburg professor of canon law, in order to see on whose side the reproach for “vain play” with words should fall. In fact, the first of the above Greek interpretations is superior to the explanations of Mr. Barsov, at least in its logic: “for,” notes the old scholastic, “to recognize someone at the same time as equal and second in honor means to assert absurdity” (τὸ δὲ ἰσζειν ἃμα καί δευτερεύειν τῇ τιμῇ ἀσμβατόν τε καί καί άδιανόητον). And this is precisely what Mr. asserts. Barsov with his theory about the equality of two hierarchs, of which one (certainly Roman), “for order and consistency” in their co-presence, should occupy first place, and the other (certainly Constantinople) should occupy second place. Whoever of two equal persons always and in everything de ure takes a step forward must be thought of as a person who has the advantage of honor. The Eastern Church has always given this priority (primatus honoris) to the bishop of Rome over all the hierarchs of the Christian world. There is no need for us to expand on this hackneyed topic; It is enough to note only, to understand the meaning of the Chalcedonian canon, that it, together with the recognition of the inequality of honor of the two hierarchs named in it, completely equalized them in terms of power, i.e., subordinated three dioceses to the bishop of Constantinople, with the right to ordain the local metropolitans, call them to councils, judge, etc.; in a word, he recognized him as the same patriarch as the pope. That is why, motivating its ruling on this subject with the words of the Canon of Constantinople, the Council of Chalcedon introduced new expressions here: “one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops have granted equal advantages to the most holy see of the new Rome,” and “in ecclesiastical affairs let (the new Rome) be exalted like that” (ancient). These increases seem significant in the sense that the new patriarch, in terms of the territory given to him, really surpassed the other patriarchs of the East and stood closest to the Pope. The Chalcedonian decree was repeated almost verbatim in the 36th rule of the Trullo, fifth-sixth ecumenical council (692), with only the following addition: after that of Constantinople, let the throne of the great city of Alexandria be listed, then the throne of Antioch, and after them the throne of the city of Jerusalem. It seems that what could be simpler and clearer than the true meaning of this rule? If two ecumenical councils (Constantinople and Chalcedon) changed the previous order of the highest hierarchical sees, placing the one of Constantinople in second place, if then this changed order was confirmed by the law of Justinian with the explanation that the archbishop of New Rome, occupying second place after the pope, should have the advantage of honor (προτιμᾶσθαι) over other patriarchs (cf. in Barsov ast. 104), then all that remained was to supplement the previous canonical and civil legislation on the entire subject with a numerical calculation of all five patriarchal thrones in the established order of their relative honor and dignity. This is what the Trullo Cathedral did. But Mr. Barsov, meaning “that by the time of the said council, the hierarch of Constantinople,” “thanks to the conquest of the Christian East by the Saracens” (p. 103), had managed to significantly extend his influence to other eastern patriarchates and to some extent subordinate the course of church affairs in them to his supervision,” and that, on the other hand, “the council does not condemn this, therefore, recognizes this order of things as correct, expedient and legal,” “allows further expand the meaning of the Trullian decree and say that it posited and allowed only two centers of supreme, individual church power: the hierarchs of ancient and new Rome and, moreover, with completely equal and majestic rights” (p. 108). Due to the strength of such a “distributive” interpretation, the above words of the Trullian canon about the other three patriarchs “do not contain the idea of ​​their equality, in terms of rights and advantages of power, with the first two hierarchs” (p. 109). It is clear that Mr. Barsov adheres to a special, hitherto unknown and untested rule of canonical interpretation: “what the canon does not directly prohibit, it legitimizes.” With this rule, you can “extend” the meaning of any law to any limits. In the present case, our canonist extended his interpretation, firstly, to the point of obvious contradiction with himself. In fact, when interpreting the Chalcedonian canon, which gave the Patriarch of Constantinople second place in Rome, it turned out that there was no diminishment of the honor and power of one hierarch over another; on the contrary, now, thanks to the “free” interpretation of the Trullian canon, in which only the remaining three patriarchs are counted, the opposite result is obtained, namely, that these latter, in their rights and advantages, are not equal to the first two, although at the same time de jure they are not subordinate to them (p. 109). Secondly, Mr. Barsov’s broad interpretation turns out to be completely incompatible with the canonical views of the Trullo Council itself. The Council did not find it possible at all to limit the hierarchical rights of the departments due to the fact that they fell under the dominion of infidels (rights 37 and 39), which means that in principle it rejected the force of those facts that inspired our canonist with his “extensive interpretation” (see p. 103). The last word of the canonical legislation, which raised the Patriarch of Constantinople to the same level with the Pope of Rome, Mr. Barsov recognizes the following rule of the Council of Constantinople in 879: The Holy and Ecumenical Council determined: if any of the Italian clergy, or laity, or bishops, living in Asia, or in Europe, or in Libya, were subjected to either the bonds of excommunication from the sacraments, or expulsions from their rank, or anathemas from the most holy Pope John: the same will be from the most holy Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, but are subject to the same degree of church punishment, that is, they will either be deposed, anathematized, or excommunicated. And whichever clergy, or laity, or bishop or priest Photius, our most holy patriarch Photius, to any extent, subjected to excommunication, or deposition, or damnation, may the most holy Pope John, and with him, the holy Roman Church of God recognize as being under the same condemnation. Moreover, in the privileges belonging to the Holy See of the Roman Church and its chairman, there will be absolutely no innovation, either now or in the future” (right 1). The very wording of the rule shows that it had the significance of a temporary measure aimed at ending the then disagreements between Rome and Constantinople: each of the reconciling hierarchs undertakes to recognize all the actions of the punitive power of the other, committed by him over his clergy or laity, wherever they are. This was actually the application to this case of the basic church rule, expressed by the first ecumenical council (Rule 5). But at the end of the peace terms between the pope and the patriarch, a significant addition was made about the inviolability of the benefits of the Roman throne - and now for the future. This is the simple and direct meaning of this rule. But Mr. Barsov sees in it something like an amicable division of the highest spiritual power over the entire Christian world between two hierarchs. “In this canon,” he says, “we see new confirmation that the Roman and Constantinople hierarchs, whose sees represented the focal points of church government - the first in the West, the second in the East of the Christian Church, were such high bodies that their power, strength and influence, with the mutual communication of East and West, had the same meaning and the same effect in all localities and in relation to all members of the church union” (p. 114). Mr. Barsov apparently found an indication of such a volume of power for both hierarchs in the words of the canon about those condemned by the pope in Asia, Europe and Libya (Egypt), but he lost sight of the fact that we are talking specifically about Italian clergy and laity, who, according to the general rules of church structure, were exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of their own (i.e. Roman) high priest; in the same way, the expressions of the canon about clergy or laity, anywhere subject to ecclesiastical punishment from Patriarch Photius, can only apply to persons under the authority of this patriarch, but accidentally located in another church district. As for the author's further reasoning, we resolutely refuse to find any basis for them or even a remote reason in the words of the Constantinople rule. For example: “We will not go beyond the limits of the decree of the canon in question; on the contrary, we will only convey it in full, what meaning can it (?) have if we add that the named hierarchs and their departments should have enjoyed an equal position in all other church affairs and issues. By this we want to say that for the legality and force of any general church decree and order, the participation and consent of the two oldest hierarchs of the Christian Church: Roman and Constantinople and their cathedras were necessary, so that what was decreed and done without their participation could not have legal force. Continuing our thought further (so, the author himself admits that he is busy with the free flow of his thoughts on the surface of the rule being explained), we must add that what is undertaken and proposed by one hierarch and at his department must first be discussed and approved by another hierarch and at his department in order to obtain a legitimate action for the common benefit "(and other patriarchs must unquestioningly accept what the two elders decide?) In the end Mr. Barsov declares the Patriarch of Constantinople, on behalf of the local council of 879, “the representative of the entire east of the Christian Church” (p. 116), or, what is also the second pope. “Such a position of both hierarchs,” the author thoughtfully concludes his ranting about the Constantinople canon, “was the extreme moment in the development of the centralization of church power, beyond which began the area of ​​absolutism, so contrary to the spirit and idea of ​​the Christian church. That is why the same canon in question, having recognized the highest and equal position for both hierarchs, added in conclusion: so that “in the privileges belonging to the Holy See of the Roman Church and its chairman, no innovation is allowed, either now or in the future.” With this addition, the canon said that the advantages of both sees (why both, when the council speaks only of the Roman one?) have reached the apogee of their development, so that any further expansion of their advantages will cross the line of legal moderation” (p. 117). If the author had looked into the original (Greek text) of the rule here, he would have seen that the above increase has a completely different meaning, namely, as noted above, he spoke about the inviolability of the special advantages of the Roman see, compared with the Constantinople. Here are the original words of the canon: ‘Ρωμαίων καμία ἐκκληςίας καί τῷ ταύ της προέδρῳ τὸ σύνολον καινοτομουμένων. In the Book of Rules, the last word is translated: “let there be no innovation,” which, according to the interpretation of Mr. Barsov (taken, tacite, from Archimandrite John), means: “no expansion or addition.” In the language of canonical legislation, the verb καινοτομέω is usually used in the meaning: to change something recognized as unchangeable, to violate. Most often, this verb and its derivative adjective ἀκαινοτόμητος are found in cathedral rules that speak about the inviolability of church dogmas, canons or someone else’s rights, for example: ἀκαινοτόμητόт τε καὶ απαράτρωτον φυλάττειν τὴν παραδοθεῖσαν πίστιν (Tr. 1); (right 2); ὥστε ἀκαινοτόμητα διαφυλαχθῆναι τὰ... προνομία - a place completely parallel to the words of the Constantinople canon and translated in the Book of Rules: “may the advantages be preserved unchanged” (right 39). Valsmon, probably more familiar than Mr. Barsov with the canonical terminology of his language, setting out the meaning of the last words of the Constantinople canon, says: “since one of the Italian (members of the council) objected that the present definition tends to limit the special advantages of ancient Rome due to the management (of both departments), it was added that the advantages and honor of the Roman primate for the future should remain unchanged.” (ἀκαινοτόμητα). It is remarkable that our canonist, in the form of a commentary on this rule, cites (according to Hefele’s German translation) an excerpt from the very acts of the council, proving that this rule was proposed by the papal legates themselves, and proposed precisely with the reservation: “without violating the advantages of the Roman Church and its bishop” (p. 113). But the passion for the favorite theory of Eastern papism was so strong that the author, “extending” his thought “to the front,” obviously “forgot the back.” Having finished with the canons, Mr. Barsov considers it necessary to briefly outline the essence of his views on the Patriarch of Constantinople and does this in two places in his book (namely: pp. 138 - 142 and pp. 232 - 234). The speech is already in a purely philosophical tone. “The basis for the rise of the See of Constantinople and the expansion of the advantages of its hierarch,” the author reflects, “were based on legal and true principles... In fact, if we begin to determine the meaning and purpose of the rise of the See of Constantinople from the point of view of history, we will have to admit that it was a completely natural phenomenon of those existing conditions (philosophers ex professo are unlikely to be satisfied with the phrase “the phenomenon of conditions”) in which this see was located, representing everyone church relations in the East" (p. 138). Of course, it was ist wirklich, ist vernünftlich: if the Byzantine bishop became the first Eastern Patriarch, then there were undoubtedly sufficient reasons for this. But the papacy, even the newest one, the infallible papacy, from a historical point of view, also seems to be a completely natural phenomenon. What follows from this for “understanding the meaning and purpose of the elevation of the See of Constantinople,” equal in concept to the Roman one? It only follows that one phenomenon will need to be recognized as historically complete, the other as stopped at the lowest moment of its development. “In the same way,” Mr. Barsov continues to philosophize, “if we look at the same subject from a canonical point of view, we will be forced to agree that the rise of the See of Constantinople (implied: on the same line with the Roman See) was reflected in the church’s inherent ideas: the idea of ​​order and harmony in its relations, also the idea of ​​a gradual and consistent, in a word, complete development of the church form of government” (ibid.). We admit frankly: we do not find any meaning in these phrases, neither canonical nor philosophical. First of all, it is difficult to understand what the author actually means here by the canonical point of view. If he hints at positive canon law, then we have already seen that it has nothing in common with the author's original views on the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople. If we are talking about a fundamental canonical point of view, which is given in the dogmatic teaching about the essence of the church and the foundations of its external structure: then, as is known, neither the papacy nor the patriarchate has a genetic connection with this teaching. So, it remains to admit that in the present case our canonist is simply a theorist. But even from a theoretical point of view, it is not clear why “the final moment of the church’s consistent implementation of the idea of ​​order, harmony and completeness in its governance” (p. 140) should be seen in the establishment of not one, but two completely “identical” bodies of the highest church government. The first, undoubtedly, would be more consistent with the abstract idea of ​​“order, harmony and completeness in church government.” This is exactly what Catholic theologians and canonists argue, wanting to theoretically justify the system of papal monarchism. But for the Orthodox canonist, “the idea of ​​order and harmony in church government” is realized: fundamentally - in the divine institution of the episcopate, historically - in various bodies of the highest church administration, which do not have the character of canonical necessity. Until now, the author has dealt with the general idea of ​​the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the East, trying to establish it on canonical grounds, or justify it with facts from church history 16. But this general idea, of course, could not remain only an abstract principle of church legislation, but had to be expressed in the positive rights and advantages of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which would truly distinguish him from other patriarchs and compare his significance in the East with the significance of the Pope in the West. Mr. Barsov devotes a special chapter (IV) to the consideration of these rights and advantages, which is actually an extensive commentary on several decrees allegedly contained in the “Eclogue of Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymus” (p. 186). In fact, these decrees do not belong to the Eclogue (which the professor of canon law could get acquainted with even from the Slavic translation found in our printed Kormcha), but to another, later monument of Byzantine legislation - the Epanagoge of Basil the Macedonian (c. 883) 17 . Let us describe descriptively the concept of the patriarch in general, Epanagogue continues: “The throne of Constantinople, adorned with the royal dignity of the city (βασιλειᾳ ἐπικοσμηθεὶς, which Mr. Barsov translates as “decorating the capital”), was established by the first conciliar definitions, following which the divine (i.e. e. imperial) laws prescribe that disagreements arising under other thrones should be brought to the consideration and judgment of this throne. The care and concern for all metropolises, bishoprics and churches... lies with the local patriarch; but the primate of Constantinople was also granted in the areas of other thrones, where the consecration of the church has not yet been completed, to give stauropegia” (Epanag. tit. III, cap. 9 - 10; cf. Barsov, pp. 186 - 187). So, according to the definitions of Eapanagoga, the Patriarch of Constantinople differs from other Eastern patriarchs in three advantages: 1) he is recognized as the first of them; 2) has the right to accept appeals on cases decided in any other patriarchal district, and 3) “gives stauropegia in the areas of other thrones.” Without going into a closer examination of these advantages for now, we consider it necessary to first point out the following two circumstances, unknown to Mr. Barsov, but very important in relation to the question of the historical and legal meaning of the above-mentioned resolutions of the Epanagogue. Firstly, Epanagog, according to a thorough guess from its publisher 18, was not officially published and remained only a draft. In any case, its peculiar decrees about the patriarch in general and the Patriarch of Constantinople in particular were not accepted either into the code of current laws of the Byzantine Empire published by Leo the Philosopher (in the so-called Basilicas, or Royal Books), or into the canonical code of the Eastern Church, which was recognized by the so-called Photius Nomocanon. Secondly, the editorship of the articles of the Epanagogue on patriarchal power, in all likelihood, belongs to Patriarch Photius 19, who is not without reason reproached for an exaggerated view of the significance of his see 20. Already these circumstances prompt us to treat with some distrust the attempt to present, on the basis of the Epanagogue, a complete “legal image” of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as “the oldest primate of the Christian Church” (p. 187). If Epanagogue speaks about the primacy of the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople, then we can understand her words only in the sense of the conciliar canons we have considered, to which she herself refers. Of course, Mr. Barsov also interprets these words in favor of his theory of Eastern papism; however, in the present case, our canonist is limited to only repeating some fragments of this theory, such as the following: “the Patriarch of Constantinople, as the primate of the entire Orthodox East, enjoyed the right of supreme church government”; “his department was the center to which (sic) the most important matters from all over the east flocked and received resolution” (p. 188). The repetitions this time were not without contradictions. Thus, on the previous pages of his work, where the equality and equality of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Pope of Rome was proven, the author insisted that “the actual unevenness of honor of both (sic) sees and the actual influence of their hierarchs on the affairs of the church were not a consequence of the inequality of their authority (of course, de jure), but depended on extraneous reasons” (precisely because the Pope in the West did not have rivals and “was not subject to the various movements of state power,” p. 141). Here, “extraneous reasons” (namely, the successive enslavement of the Orthodox East by the Saracens, Crusaders and Turks), which placed the three Eastern patriarchs in virtual dependence on the Constantinople one, are cited as proof of the inequality of their authority (again de jure, since the “right of supreme church administration” in the entire East was given by the author to one Constantinople hierarch). Thus, two opposite conclusions are drawn from identical premises. To accept the latter view as the canonical dogma of that time was all the more strange on the part of the author, since he himself further refers to the famous treatise of Balsamon “On Patriarchal Advantages,” written precisely with the aim of proving that the patriarchs enslaved by the infidels still remain patriarchs, i.e., the same spiritual rulers of the parts of the Christian world entrusted to them, like the primates of the Church of Rome and Constantinople. The external splendor of the departments of the first two patriarchs, in the opinion of Balsamon, does not detract from the internal authority and importance of the other three, who are completely equal to them 21. G. Barsov, putting forward a new theory about the two heads of the church, should have proven that the old theory about the five patriarchs, developed by the famous Greek canonist, as “the five senses of the church body,” no longer expressed the general canonical view of the Greek church of that time. But the fact of the matter is that this cannot be proven; for Balsamon's theory is based not only on the metaphorical comparison of the church with the human body, but also on the positive definitions of canon law, which served as the basis for this comparison. The entire treatise of Balsamon is nothing more than a commentary on rules 36 and 37 of the Trullo Council, of which the first, as we have seen, affirms the equality and, therefore, mutual independence of the five patriarchal thrones, the second does not allow the restriction of anyone’s hierarchical rights “due to enslavement from infidels.” The idea of ​​the first rule, as an unchangeable dogma of church law, was subsequently repeated in the East both in symbolic or confessional books 22 and in the official editions of the canonical code itself 23. The second advantage of the Patriarch of Constantinople, indicated in the Epanagoge - the right to accept appeals from decisions of metropolitan courts of another patriarchate - is usually derived from the Council of Chalcedon, which in its 9th and 17th canons, establishing the final authority of the ecclesiastical court, addresses the appeal “either to the exarch of the diocese, or to the throne of the reigning Constantinople.” In these rules, according to the interpretation of Mr. Barsov, the council granted the Constantinople hierarch the highest judicial power over the highest church officials in controversial cases, and established his see as the highest tribunal of the intermediate court for perplexed (?) cases throughout the east, just as it is granted to the Roman bishop in the west by the Sardician canons” (p. 61). Let us note first of all that the author did not pay due attention to the dividing particle used by the council and, as a result, incorrectly conveyed the grammatical meaning of the Chalcedonian decrees: the council only equates the Patriarch of Constantinople, in terms of judicial power, with the exarchs of dioceses, and does not establish his see as the “highest tribunal” in the entire East. Further, Mr. Barsov lost sight of the fact that at the time of the publication of the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in question, the bishop of Constantinople was not yet an exarch of the diocese and, therefore, did not yet have certain boundaries for his activities as a judge equal to the exarch. He could only be such a judge “by right of preliminary action” (ex jute praeventionis), i.e. in cases where the parties agreed to bring their case for a final decision not to the local exarch, but to the “throne of the reigning city.” It goes without saying that such cases were submitted to the consideration of the bishop of Constantinople most often from the three dioceses closest to his see (Thracian, Asian and Pontic), which, as noted above, were actually already under his authority long before the Council of Chalcedon. Only the bishops of eastern Illyricum were obliged, according to the law of Honorius and Theodicius of 421, to submit their controversial cases to the decision of the capital hierarch and his σύνοδος ἐνδηοῦσα 24. Such were the judicial rights of this hierarch at the time of the publication of Rules 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon. But now, under special circumstances, in a special and, as it were, extraordinary meeting, the same council issues an additional decree, which formally subordinates three dioceses to the jurisdiction of the “Archbishop of New Rome”, as one ecclesiastical region, one ecclesiastical diocese. How did this later resolution relate to the previous rules of the same council? Obviously, he turned the former privilege of the capital bishop into the ordinary right of an exarch and, in this sense, abolished it. True, the council itself did not correct the original edition of its previous decrees; nevertheless, the sources of church law closest to his time leave no doubt that the 9th and 17th Chalcedonian canons now have the following meaning: the right of final decision in ecclesiastical judicial matters in each diocese (patriarchy) belongs exclusively to the local patriarch. This is the law of Justinian of 530, set out in detail and interpreted with great exaggeration by Mr. Barsov (pp. 188 – 196). Establishing the order of church-judicial instances, the law prescribes: “not a single clergyman should be accused directly before the patriarch, but, in accordance with sacred laws (i.e., conciliar canons), first - before the local bishop, an appeal from the court of which goes to the metropolitan, and from here - to the patriarch of the diocese, and here the case receives a final decision, not subject to appeal. It is allowed to turn to the patriarchs, bypassing the intermediate authority, only with requests for the appointment of a special court in a well-known case. In this case, if one of the parties is dissatisfied with the verdict of the judges appointed by the patriarch, the appeal goes directly to the high priestly throne” (ἐπὶ τὸν ἀρχιερατικὸν). “The whole difficulty of correctly interpreting this law,” says Mr. Barsov, “lies in understanding the last expression: ἀρχιερατικὸς θρόνος, by which some mean exclusively the see of Constantinople, while others, on the contrary, generally mean the local patriarch” (p. 192). The author, apparently, was ready to accept the latter opinion, especially in view of the fact that in the nomocanon of Photius (tit IX, cap. 1) the controversial expression ἀρχιερατικὸς θρόνος is replaced by the indisputable πατριάρχης 25. But since “such an opinion turns out to be contrary to the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon and the Eclogue” (read: Epanagogi), it was decided to interpret the Justinian law in favor of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Having set himself such a goal, our canonist obviously placed himself in the famous circulus vitiosus: the meaning of the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon and Epanagoge, requiring explanation from other sources of Byzantine law, suddenly turned into a means of understanding the meaning of these latter. As a result of this logical metamorphosis, the following interpretation is obtained: “this law allowed the bishops to directly appeal to the throne of the reigning city in displeasure, since the case had already been considered on the spot by judges appointed from the patriarch, at the request of the plaintiff... The fact that these judges, although at the request of the plaintiff, were appointed by the local patriarch and, therefore, from the persons whom the patriarch trusted more than others, as well as the fact that the unsatisfactory Their decisions for one of the parties presupposed their partiality for the interests of the other, both circumstances, presenting the local patriarch to some extent interested in the matter, obviously could no longer help but instill in the side dissatisfied with the decision some distrust in the patriarch himself. Therefore, the law, with its inherent legitimacy, does not turn anyone dissatisfied with the decision to the court of the local patriarch, but directs him to the throne of the reigning city” (pp. 194 – 196). Great: what if the local patriarch was the Patriarch of Constantinople himself? According to Mr. Barsov’s interpretation, it turns out that in this case, too, one should have appealed to another patriarch, “not interested in the matter”; otherwise the law would lose its “inherent legality.” Thus our canonist becomes entangled in the web of his own argumentation! Meanwhile, the meaning of the law, clear both in itself and as stated in the Photius nomocanon, is placed beyond any dispute and doubt by the later (123rd) novella of Justinian, which in the same way knows only two instances of the church court in the affairs of bishops: the metropolitan and the (local) patriarch 26. Of course, even after the Council of Chalcedon, there were repeated cases of resolution at the See of Constantinople of controversial and other cases that had already been considered by regional councils of another patriarchate - thanks precisely to this circumstance, that in the capital there were always a sufficient number of metropolitans from different dioceses so that for each case a σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα could be drawn up. Naturally there was a desire to raise this practice to some legal or canonical beginning. And for this purpose it was closest to use: firstly, the above-mentioned law of Honorius and Theodosius (421), by which eastern Illyricum (then still belonging to the district of the Roman bishop) was in a certain respect subject to the jurisdiction of the hierarch of Constantinople 27; secondly, by the 9th and 17th canons of the Council of Chalcedon, which, remaining in their original edition and after the publication of the 28th canon and compared with this latter, naturally received the meaning that the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to accept appeals from other patriarchal districts. The first was done in the Epanagoge of Basil the Macedonian (in the compilation of which, as indicated above, the participation of Patriarch Photius 28 should be allowed; the last - in the anonymous (and unknown to Mr. Barsov) scholium to the 9th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which is first found in the canonical collection of Simeon the Magister, but almost belongs to the same Photius, a contemporary of Simeon 29. The fate of the Epanagoge we are already partly aware; as for the scholia, the idea expressed in it found few followers. In the 12th century we find it in Aristinus’s interpretation of the 9th rule of the Council of Chalcedon and in the work of Nilus Doxopatra “on the order of patriarchal thrones” (τάξις τῶν). πατριαρχιῶν θρόνων). The latter, presenting the Patriarch of Constantinople as the full heir to the advantages of the Pope of Rome, who separated from the unity of the Universal Church, says among other things, just as the Bishop of Rome once had the right to accept appeals from the court of other patriarchs, so the Bishop of Constantinople, who has received the advantages of the Roman Pope, can review and cancel the sentences of the other three patriarchs 30 . Macarius of Ancyra went even further (c. half of the 15th century); he claims that the Council of Chalcedon gave the throne of Constantinople the right to accept appeals even from within the diocese of the Pope 31. But the thought of the five patriarchs still remained the general canonical dogma of the church. The most authoritative interpreters of the canonical code, Zonara and Balsamon, do not know anything about the advantages of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which the Epanagogue and the old scholium provide him with. On the contrary, Zonara, as if criticizing this scholia and Aristin, in his interpretation of the 17th rule of the Council of Chalcedon says: “The Patriarch of Constantinople is not appointed judge over all metropolitans in general, but only over those subordinate to him; for he cannot bring to his court the metropolitans of Syria, or Palestine and Phenicia, or Egypt, against their will; but the metropolitans of Syria are subject to the court of the Patriarch of Antioch, the Palestinians - to the court of the Patriarch of Alexandria, from whom they receive ordination and to whom they are subordinate” (see Barsov, p. 198). Likewise, Balsamon, in many places in his commentary, expresses the general idea that each patriarch is the final judge in his diocese and that their decisions are no longer subject to appeal 32. But, if you believe Barsov, “The Ruler (XIV century), without expressing any hesitation on the present issue, definitely says that the Primate of Constantinople has the right to observe disagreements arising within other thrones, correct them and pronounce the final judgment” (pp. 198 – 199). But turning to Vlastai himself, we find that in the place to which Mr. Barsov refers, he does not express any of his personal opinions, but simply writes out the title of Epanagoge “about the patriarch” 33. Mr. Barsov could have discerned his personal understanding of the decree contained here on the right of the Patriarch of Constantinople to decide in the final instance cases that arose “under other thrones” from another place where canonical and civil definitions about the advantages of the see of New Rome are set out 34 . Here, Blastar, by the way, cites the law of 421 on Illyricum, already known to us, and makes a reference to that chapter of his Syntagma, which contains an extract from Epanangoga: it is clear that he understood only in the sense of this law and from it made the corresponding decree contained in a later source. “According to Vlastar,” continues Mr. Barsov, - the Patriarch of Constantinople Nilus (1378 - 1378) himself discussed the rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople, when, instructing the Metropolitan of Thessalonica regarding patriarchal rights (de juribus patriarcharum), he proved to him that both the church canons, which were approved by the laws of the most pious sovereigns, and since that time the current custom established that appeals should be filed patriarchs and especially the Patriarchs of Constantinople. At the same time, the patriarch, in support of his thoughts, cites the very decree of the Eclogue (read: Epanagoge), which, in the sense of the current law, was placed in his Syntagma by Vlastar” (p. 199). And here the testimony of our canonist is not entirely accurate. Patriarch Nil proved only that he had the right to accept appeals on all cases decided by the metropolitan court in his diocese, and not only on some of the most important ones, as the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, subordinate to him, tried to prove. 35 The Patriarch used the Decree of Epanagoga only as evidence a priori: “if we have the right to do this (i.e. accept appeals) in other districts, then how can we not be authorized to do so in our own? 36. From here, of course, it would be hasty to conclude that the patriarch recognized the first right of his see as indisputable as the last. In any case, the fact that the decree of Epanagoge was adopted in the Syntagma of Vlastari and hence, in all likelihood, cited in the charter of Patriarch Nile, did not inform him of the meaning of the “current law” in the Greek Church. At least, the official scholiast of the Constantinople Pidalion denies with the same decisiveness the right of his patriarch to accept appeals from other patriarchal districts, with which our Russian canonist tries to prove it 37. This circumstance speaks even more strongly against Mr. Barsov, that in his own words, “with the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, the predominant importance of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the entire east not only did not weaken, but was even more strengthened, due to the fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople, having his residence in the seat of the government of the Sultan, was and is in the eyes of the latter the spiritual representative and, together with the head of the Christian Orthodox population of the Turkish Empire” (p. 131). Apparently, the old canonical dogma was tenacious if it retained its force and even found direct protection in the official edition of the canonical code of the Eastern Church, despite the circumstances that gave the Patriarch of Constantinople the full opportunity to become what Mr. Barsov makes him - the supreme judge for the entire Orthodox East (ibid.). About the third advantage of the Patriarch of Constantinople - the right to establish stauropegia - Mr. Barsov says: “At a time when other patriarchs enjoyed the right to give stauropegia only within their districts, the Patriarch of Constantinople, according to the laws of the Ecologist Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymus (read: Epanagogi Basil the Macedonian), could distribute stauropegia and subordinate monasteries to his power, churches and houses of worship and outside their district throughout the east” (p. 201). From what source this unique resolution was included in the Epanagogue is unknown to us and Mr. Barsov does not explain; but there is no doubt that it stands here completely alone and has not found an echo either in later legislative acts or in the writings of authorized canonists. Balsamon, in other respects a zealous champion of the prerogatives of the throne of Constantinople, speaks of the right of stauropegia as a common advantage of all five patriarchs, and significantly adds: “none of the patriarchs is given the power to send stauropegia to the region of another patriarch, nor to take his clergy, so that the rights of the churches do not mix.” The scholiast Pidalion argues in a similar way: “metropolitans and archbishops,” he says, “are subordinate to the patriarchs, so that all of them, being in the districts of the patriarchs, raise their name in sacred services; therefore, the patriarchs exercise the right of stauropegia in the metropolises and archdioceses under their control, so that their name is remembered in these stauropegies.” All this is known, however, to Mr. Barsov (see ibid.). Nevertheless, in the present case he prefers to follow, without any reservations or explanations, Vlastar alone, or, whatever the matter, the same Epanagoge, which Vlastar literally repeats (and does not “paraphrase”). What this canonist himself believed to be the existing and valid right of stauropegy of the Patriarch of Constantinople can be seen from another place in his Syntagma, which Mr. Barsov also cites, although - it should be noted - he cites it in the wrong form, according to a corrupted reading by Lequesne 38. Here is an exact translation of the original words of Vlastar: “one Patriarch of Constantinople has been granted, on the basis of a long-standing custom, to give stauropegia” (έκ συνηθείας ἐφεῖται μακρά, σταυροπήγιά τε διδόναι, that Leken reads: έκ συνηθείας ἐφεῖται μακρά σταυροπήγια διδόναι, and Mr. Barsov translates “to give extensive stauropegia”) and to enjoy honor and commemorate his name not only in the villages acquired by him, anywhere, in his own property and in the estates of the monasteries subordinate to him (οὐ μόνον ἐφ’ οῖς κέκτηται ἰδίοις χωρίοις ὁπουδήποτε κειμένοις καὶ τοῖς κτήμασι τῶν ὑποκειμένων τούτῳ μοναστηρίω that Mr. Barsov is translated extremely confusingly: “not only in his own villages located in different places, acquired, or in his own villages and in the surrounding villages of the monasteries subordinate to him, but also within his metropolises, wherever he was invited by the builder of the church.” It is clear that the right of stauropegy is limited here for the Patriarch of Constantinople to the boundaries of the metropolises subordinate to him and seems to be his exclusive right only in relation to the metropolitans, who could not perform any pontificate in the bishoprics subordinate to them. It should also be added that in the present case Vlastar does not express his personal opinion, but makes (unnoticed by Mr. Barsov) an almost verbatim extract from Balsamon’s interpretation of the 12th rule of the Sardica Council 39, which means that he fully follows the generally recognized authority of his predecessor, from which he also extracts the above words about the ownership of the right of stauropegy to all patriarchs and the impossibility of any of them to act with this right within the limits of another 40 . Neither here nor there does Vlastar dare to oppose Balsamon to the authority of Epanagoge, which, however, would be absolutely necessary if the latter were then recognized as the “current law.” In particular, it would be necessary to correct the statement of the former canonist that the right of stauropegy belonging to the Patriarch of Constantinople is affirmed on a long-standing custom: “no,” Blastar had to object, not on custom, but on direct and well-known law.” So, the “legal image of the Patriarch of Constantinople” drawn by Mr. Barsov cannot in any way be recognized as true and authentic. He presents us with something completely alien to Orthodox canon law - a Byzantine pope, and not the first of four equal patriarchs of the East. The only difference between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the expression of his superiority of honor over the other three was and is the title of ecumenical, first formally accepted by Patriarch John the Faster (at the end of the 6th century) and forever retained by his successor. The history and interpretation of this title occupy a special (III) chapter in Mr. Barsov’s book. It goes without saying that here, too, the author found quite a few reasons for development and reasons to reinforce his theory. “This title,” he says, “was adopted by the Patriarch of Constantinople, established his attention to the priority position of this hierarch in the Christian Church and served to express the special rights of his power. There is no doubt that the adoption of this title by the Patriarch of Constantinople was influenced: partly by the desire to further equalize this patriarch in position and advantages with the Pope of Rome (is it possible to compare “even more” when the Council of Chalcedon, according to the interpretation of Mr. Barsov, “completely and in everything” equalized both hierarchs?), partly by the intention to prevent the possibility of the Pope of Rome claiming dominance in the Christian Church” (by providing such opportunity for the Patriarch of Constantinople?). “This is the meaning of the title universal,” continues Mr. Barsov, - the best way to explain is the opposition that the popes showed to the use of this title, who, striving to expand and consolidate their influence over the entire Christian world, naturally could not tolerate their rivals and allow anything condemning their desire; That’s why they armed themselves against the title “ecumenical,” which, with all its moderate understanding, contained the idea of ​​​​the superior position of the Patriarch of Constantinople compared to the Roman ruler” (pp. 181 – 182). So, if you believe Mr. Barsov, already in the 6th century there was a struggle over the question: where should the papacy be - in Rome or Byzantium? The initiative of the question obviously belonged to the latter, for the title “ecumenical”, with its most moderate understanding, “contained the idea of ​​​​the superiority of the Bishop of Constantinople over the Bishop of Rome.” On the other hand, it is not clear from anywhere that this title was actually a reaction or “condemnation” of the beginning absolutism of the power of the real pope; on the contrary, the author’s previous research shows that the situation was completely the opposite: it was the claims of the Patriarchs of Constantinople to primacy in the Christian Church that attracted the popes “to acquire for the Roman See such advantages as would darken the shine of the ecumenical title” (p. 174). So, in contrast to this title, the popes took upon themselves the title, humble in appearance, but immeasurably prouder in its inner meaning, of “servant of the servants of God” (p. 168) 41 ; Following this, they insisted before Emperor Phocas on the publication of a law “on the primacy of the Roman bishop over the entire church” (p. 169). All this forces Mr. Barsov to pronounce the following judgment on the meaning of the struggle that the Roman popes introduced because of the title “ecumenical”: “this struggle, apparently undertaken in the interests of protecting the internal freedom of the church and with the aim of counteracting the seeming absolutism of its power, was accompanied by the fact that the popes, striking in the face of the Patriarchs of Constantinople what seemed to them: pride and arrogance, the desire for dominance over the entire church, imperceptibly, but already in in fact, they themselves were carried away by these properties and infected their department with them” (pp. 152 – 153). However - suum cuique, Mr. Professor! Why is there only apparent evil on one side, and real evil on the other? Is it only because one strove for dominance unsuccessfully, while the other, carried away by the challenging example of its rival, went towards the same goal with greater success? It is clear that the author revolves in a circle of contradictions, from which he thinks in vain to escape with the help of various reservations, mitigations and concessions. The meaning of the entire chapter on the title of the Patriarch of Constantinople can be briefly expressed in the following points: 1) “although this title expressed the idea of ​​​​the superiority of the Patriarch of Constantinople over all the highest hierarchs (not including the Pope), however, it served as an expression of only the apparent desire for dominance over the entire church”; 2) “although the evil that “infected the Roman see” had its source in Byzantium, the blame for this evil lies entirely with the popes.” Already these logical properties of Mr. Barsov’s research show that he could not cope with the history of the subject, which, of course, had its own and certainly reasonable logic. Having examined the new canonical theory put forward by Mr. Barsov in its essential features and foundations, we will move directly 42 to the second part of his work, which depicts “the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Russian Church.” It has already been noted above that this part is of very little interest to the canonist. So, for example, an entire chapter (VI), devoted to resolving controversial issues about the beginning of Christianity and the first church hierarchy in Russia, obviously belongs to the history of the Russian church, and not to canon law. Historians, in all likelihood, will not find here either independent research or new conclusions, which are only possible in independent work 43 . And for the canonist, a general indication of the indisputable fact that the Russian Church originated from the Greek is sufficient. Due to this fact, the dependence of the newly planted church on its planter (the metropolis in the broad sense of the word) was naturally established. G. Barsov rightly disagrees with the Greek canonists of the 12th century. Zonaro and Balsaon, who found the basis for this dependence in the 28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon, which granted the Patriarch of Constantinople the right to ordain bishops in foreign settlements (ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικоῖς) on the territory of the dioceses subordinate to him (p. 365 and in more detail, p. 443 – 446): the literal meaning of the rule does not allow such an interpretation. But, on the other hand, one cannot agree with our canonist if, without seeing any legal moment in the fact of the origin of the Russian Church from the Constantinople (p. 364), he puts forward the following thesis: “the subordination of the Russian Church to the throne of Constantinople was not approved by any canonical act and was established on one moral, mutual trust” (p. 484), so that, “when discussing this subject, there cannot be and there is no talk about any canonical foundations” (p. 483). This is incorrect, firstly, canonically: for according to the basic principles of church structure, established in the first three centuries of Christianity and then repeatedly confirmed at councils, the origin of one church from another was necessarily accompanied by the legal consequence that the first, as a colony (ecclesia filialis), came under the authority of the latter, as its metropolis (ecclesia matrix, μητρόπολις), without consent which, expressed formally or in fact, this power could not cease. Thus, although there was no special canonical act on the subordination of the Russian Church to the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople, nevertheless this relationship rested on a positive canonical basis, that is, on the entire set of conciliar rules that determined the rights of church metropolises. Secondly, it is historically incorrect: both churches very often and decisively expressed mutual distrust, but the dependence of one of them on the other remained on the same basis. We find evidence of this in abundance in the book of Mr. Barsov himself. So, on the Russian side, it is enough to point to well-known examples of the local installation of metropolitans, in addition to the Patriarch of Constantinople (pp. 448 - 456), on the Greek side - to the letter of Patriarch Philotheus to Metropolitan Alexy, which, among other things, says that the patriarch and his synod are recognized as “completely unusual and not entirely safe for the church” (οὐδὲν ῆν σύνηθες διόλου ἢ ἀσφαλές τοῦτο τῇ ἐκκλησία) to ordain metropolitans in Rus' from the parish Russians and that the installation of Alexy was allowed only as an exception to the general and, on future tense, an invariably obligatory rule, according to which only clergy of “the God-glorified and happy Constantinople” should be ordained to the Russian metropolitanate (pp. 468 – 469). G. Barsov quite rightly calls this decree “offensive” for Russians in general and their natural shepherds - in particular, nevertheless, he finds it possible, several pages later, to speak of “mutual trust” of both churches as the only basis for their legal relations (p. 484). Nothing shook the confidence of the Russian Church in the Greek Church as much as the Florentine Union, however, even after that, despite the actual establishment of the autocephaly of our metropolis, we continued to feel dependent on Constantinople and urgently asked for a letter of confirmation from there to be sent to us for the right to local appointment of metropolitans. Just as Mr. Barsov’s views on the basis of the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Russian Church are vague, so are the concepts about the very content of this power, about the functions in which it was manifested, so confusing and uncertain. The author’s thought wanders in the mass of historical material, collected second-hand (mainly from the “Histories” of the Eminence Macarius and Solovyov) and mechanically placed under the headings “The Russian Church, as the metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and its see” (Chapter VI), “Russian metropolitans and their dependence on the Patriarch of Constantinople” (Chapter VIII), “Participation of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the affairs of the Russian Church” (Chapter IX). Even at the first glance at these headings, one cannot help but notice that they are not derived from a general logical principle, they cover one another and can easily lead to partial repetitions. This is what actually happened. For example, the facts of the division of the Russian metropolis are presented in equal detail under the first and second heading (cf. pp. 393 - 404 and pp. 500 et seq.). Chasing about various historical details, most of which have a very distant relation to the main topic - “the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Russian Church” 44, the author either completely loses sight of it, or only casually and lightly touches on issues of high interest from an ecclesiastical legal point of view. For example, he does not say a word about the monetary tribute that Russian metropolitans were obliged to send annually to Constantinople. On the question of the influence that the Byzantine emperors had on the Russian church, thanks to its dependence on the local patriarchs, we find in Mr. Barsov’s thick book only the following precise remark: “it must be added that, given the importance that the Byzantine emperors enjoyed in the affairs of the church, they had a decisive influence on the appointment of metropolitans”; thus, Russian metropolitans “were elected in Constantinople and appointed by the patriarch under the influence of the Greek emperors” (pp. 447 – 448). And that's all! Meanwhile, there is no doubt that the Byzantine emperors considered themselves to have the right to treat the Russian Church in the same way as any other metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In theory, this right was affirmed on the idea of ​​a Christian world-powerful Roman empire, the head of which, as the anointed of God, is the supreme patron of the Universal Church in all its parts, wherever he is (that is, even outside the empire) 45 . The practical implementation of this right was facilitated by the fact that the “ecumenical” patriarch himself, in many respects, was under the authority of the emperor. Thus, on the general principles of Byzantine church-state law, the emperors: firstly, at the very establishment of the Russian metropolis, indicated its place or “rank” among other metropolises subordinate to the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople, and then promoted or demoted it in this rank 46 ; secondly, they issued laws both on the division of the Russian metropolis into two, and on the restoration of its former unity; thirdly, they approved candidates elected by the patriarch and his synod, or sent from Rus', to the local metropolis. In all the most important acts of the patriarchate on the affairs of the Russian church, it is certainly mentioned that the decree or order contained here took place with the consent or on the direct order of the “highest and holy autocrat” (τοῦ κρατίστου καὶ ἁγίουμου αὐτοκράτορος). In general, the patriarchs, obedient instruments of imperial policy, did not miss an opportunity to present in the eyes of the Russians all manifestations of the power of their “tsar” over our church as something absolutely necessary, as an integral element of Orthodoxy itself. In this regard, the letter of Patriarch Anthony, written around 1393 to Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, is extremely remarkable. The patriarchal ambassadors, returning to Constantinople from Rus', reported that the Grand Duke did not allow the Metropolitan to commemorate the “divine royal name in church diptychs” on the grounds that the Russians “have a church, but do not have a king and do not want to know” (λέγεις, ὅτι εκκλησίαν ἔχομεν ἡμεῖς, βασιλέα δέ οὔτε ἔχομεν, οὔτε λογιζόμεθα). The Patriarch recognizes this as a grave sin and inspires the Grand Duke: “The holy king occupies a very important position in the church (πολύν τόπον ἔχει εἰς τὴν εκληκσίαν); he is not like other princes and sovereigns. The kings from the beginning established piety throughout the entire universe; the kings convened ecumenical councils and approved by their laws, for constant observance, what was decreed by the councils about right dogmas and what the divine and sacred canons say about Christian community life; the kings labored a lot against heresies; They, together with the councils, established the order of the bishop's dioceses. For all this they have great honor and a high place in the church. And although, by God's permission, the infidels constrained the power of the king and surrounded his capital, yet to this day the king is installed by the church according to the same rite and with the same prayers, and is anointed by the great world as king and autocrat of the Romans, that is, all Christians (χειροτονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν ‘Ρωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν). In every place where Christians are named, all patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops remember the name of the tsar, which was never honored by any of the other princes and local rulers. Even the Latins themselves, who have no communication with our church, show him the same honor and submission that they showed in the old days, when they were united with us; Orthodox Christians are even more obliged to do this. And if the infidels surrounded the king’s capital, then Christians should not despise him for this; on the contrary, let this very thing teach them humility and make them think that if the great king, lord and chief of the universe (ὁ τῆς οἰκοθμένης κύριος καὶ ἅρχων), endowed with such power, is placed in such a cramped position: what can various other locals endure? rulers and petty princes?.. So, my son, it is not good that you say: “we have a church, not a king.” It is impossible for Christians to have a church and not have a king. For the kingdom and the church are closely united and in communion and cannot be separated from each other. Only those kings are rejected by Christians who were heretics, armed themselves against the church and tried to introduce corrupt dogmas, alien to the teachings of the apostles and fathers. And my highest and holy autocrat, by the grace of God, is the most Orthodox and most faithful sovereign, champion, defender and avenger of the church, and it is impossible to be a bishop and not remember him. Listen to the Supreme Apostle Peter, who said in the first conciliar epistle: “Fear God, honor the king,” he did not say “kings,” so that someone would not think about those who are called kings among different nations, but “king,” showing that there is one universal king. And what king (does the apostle command to honor)? - then still wicked and persecutor. But as a saint and apostle, foreseeing in the future that Christians will have one king, he teaches to honor the wicked and the Orthodox. And although some other Christians have adopted for themselves the name of king, all of this is contrary to nature, lawlessness has adopted for themselves the name of king, but all of this is contrary to nature, lawless and is the work of tyranny and violence. For what fathers, what councils, what canons speak about other kings? But everything, both above and below, speaks of the natural king, whose laws are in force throughout the entire universe, and his name alone is remembered by Christians everywhere, and no one else 47 . And such and such an act completely escaped the attention of Mr. Barsov! Although the Patriarchate of Constantinople survived the empire, but - and this is very significant - its power over the Russian Church did not survive the empire. How the dependence of the Russian metropolis on the “ecumenical” patriarch ceased, Mr. Barsov tacite writes about this from the “History of the Most Reverend. Macarius" the following information: "the Florentine union and the fall of Tsar-grad are the events that by themselves led the Russian church to freedom and independence from the Patriarch of Constantinople. Constrained in his position, the Patriarch of Constantinople could not, even if he wanted, protest against this liberation, and even more hope for its success. Therefore, instead of any opposition, the then Patriarch Gennady himself turned to Russia with a request for alms and asked to be sent to Russia with a request for alms and asked to send a grand ducal ambassador to Constantinople. In response to this appeal of the patriarch, Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, indeed, sent his ambassador Ivan Vladimirovich to Constantinople with letters and alms, and then twice, on behalf of the prince and metropolitan, the Kirillo-Belozersky abbot Cassian traveled there with instructions “about church correction.” The result of these embassies and travels was that the Patriarchs of Constantinople and others with him, taking into account the plight of their country and the difficulty for Russians to contact Constantinople on church affairs, granted Russian metropolitans with a special charter the right to receive ordination from the council of Russian hierarchs, and at the same time legalized that the Russian metropolitan was considered in honor above all other metropolitans and took a place in the hierarchy Russian Church after the Patriarch of Jerusalem. With this act, the Russian Church gained independence from the Patriarch of Constantinople, and its metropolitans, having begun to receive decisions from the Council of Russian Hierarchs, became independent (αὐτοκέφαλοι) in the management of their church with the Council of Russian Hierarchs” (pp. 571 – 573). All this, we repeat, is an extract from the “History of the Russian Church” by the Very Reverend. Macarius (see vol. VI, pp. 20–23); but complete histories of any subject are written, of course, not in order to resolve special questions related to the same subject; rather, on the contrary: the historian of the whole has the right to expect help from specialists in depicting particulars. The information presented about the beginning of the autocephaly of the Russian Church has recently been rightly questioned. In an excellent article about. Nikolaevsky “On the Establishment of the Patriarchate in Russia” presents the following considerations on this important issue: there are no direct indications that the Eastern Patriarchs (and especially Gennady of Constantinople) sent us a special letter formally recognizing the independence of the Moscow Metropolitan. If such a letter had really been sent, then, in all likelihood, it would not have been slow to spread in Russia; Meanwhile, it is still unknown and has not been preserved either in the original or in copies. Maxim the Greek, a well-known fighter for the norm of relations between Russians and the East, at the Moscow Council of 1525 openly stated that he was looking for the basis on which Russian metropolitans were installed not according to the previous custom of the patriarch; he inquired a lot about the blessed charter that the Constantinople Patriarch supposedly gave to the Russians for this purpose, until now he had not seen this charter, and he thinks that Russian metropolitans are appointed this way out of pride and arbitrarily; and it is not clear that the fathers of the council raised any serious objections to the words of Maximus 48 . Historians, in support of the idea of ​​sending a patriarchal letter for the establishment of an independent Russian metropolitanate, usually refer to one place from the news of Philaret’s installation of the Russian patriarchate, which directly states that the Eastern patriarchs not only sent a special message, which once and for all allowed the Russians to appoint a metropolitan for themselves, without intercourse with the East, but also determined the rights of the Russian metropolitan: “It is judged by the saintly honor that (him) the Metropolitan will be preferred above all others, and when the whole universal council takes place, he will have a presiding position that is superior to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem” 49 . But this proof should lose its force, because the evidence given, literally repeated in Nikon’s Helmsman of 1653 (fol. 10 50), taken from such sources about the beginning of the patriarchate, which directly breathe with a tendentious character, are imbued with the desire to elevate the significance of the Russian patriarchate, which directly breathe with a tendentious character, are imbued with the desire to elevate the significance of the Russian patriarchate, and many of whose historical indications relating to the structure of the patriarchate in Russia are not justified by undoubted data.” Thus, Patriarch Jeremiah, at the beginning of negotiations with the Russian government on this subject, agreed only to the installation of the same autocephalous metropolitan for our church as we were delivering to Ohrid (in Bulgaria). In general, in the authentic acts relating to the establishment of the Russian patriarchate, where the Moscow Metropolis is spoken of, there is no mention of the letter of the Eastern Patriarchs, in which they would express their consent to its independence and put it in first place after the Jerusalem Patriarchate; here it is noted only in general terms that “at the request of the kings and great princes of Moscow and on the advice of the ecumenical patriarchs, metropolitans in the Russian kingdom began to be appointed for themselves by the archbishops and bishops and the entire consecrated council of the Russian kingdom” 51 . Likewise, neither the letters of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1590, nor the acts of the Council of Constantinople of 1593, which approved the patriarchate in Russia, make any mention of the previous recognition of the independence of the Moscow Metropolis. “Based on all independent data,” concludes Fr. Nikolaevsky, - one might think that the independence of this metropolis was not officially recognized by the special literate eastern patriarchs, or one patriarch Gennady; the latter had to come to terms with the accomplished fact against their will and due to insurmountable historical circumstances” 52. It seems to us that the question, so firmly posed in the work, in which it is included only occasionally, should have taken one of the most prominent places in the historical and canonical study “On the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Russian Orthodox Church.” For our part, we note that the conclusion about. Nikolaevsky is confirmed by consideration of the circumstances under which it took place and which, at first, accompanied the actual liberation of the Russian Church from subordination to the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople. There is no doubt that under Metropolitan Jonah († 1461), relations with Constantinople on the issue of formal recognition of the independence of the Russian metropolis were not crowned with success. Otherwise, there would be no need to resort to such an extraordinary and, we must agree, non-canonical (cf. Apostle 76; Antioch. 23) method of electing a successor to Jonah, as appointing him (Theodosius) by a special letter from the metropolitan himself. Equally, there would be no need, at the time of the installation of a new metropolitan, to write a special apology for the autocephaly of the Russian Church under the title “The Word chosen from St. writings in Latin, and a legend about the compilation of the Latin (Florentine) osmago collection and about the eruption of Sidor the charming and about the installation of metropolitans in the Rusty of the land.” Here, the right of Russian bishops to elect and install their own metropolitan, in addition to the Patriarch of Constantinople, is asserted solely on the fact of the Union of Florence, in which we saw the betrayal of the Greeks to ancient Orthodoxy and the main reason for the fall of Constantinople itself 53 . However, already under Metropolitan Theodosius, quite active relations between the Russian Church and the East began again, namely with the Jerusalem Patriarchate. The facts relating to the history of these relations are extremely significant. In 1462 or 1463, the elderly Patriarch of Jerusalem Joachim undertook a trip to Russia to collect alms, but on the way he fell ill and sent in his place his protosyncellus Joseph with letters to the Grand Duke, the Metropolitan and to the entire Orthodox Russian people. The Patriarch instructed the Metropolitan, among other things, to ordain the aforementioned Joseph as Metropolitan of Caesarea Philippi - an example unprecedented in the history of our church and, of course, allowed not only to win over the Russians with greater generosity, but also so that it would most solemnly express recognition, on the part of one of the highest hierarchs of the East, of the canonical legality of the new order of church affairs in Rus'. Even more unusual is the content of Joachim’s letters to the Grand Duke and to all Russians: they resemble papal indulgences. The Patriarch “forgives” and releases the Grand Duke and the entire Russian people not only from “sins” in general, but also from some kind of “church connection” or “prohibition” 54. Why were such certificates needed? Where and by whom was the church ban imposed on the Russians? Has it come to a formal break between Moscow and Constantinople? True, in 1454 we see in Rus' some “Metropolitan of Constantinople” Ignatius, but he, as can be judged from the chronicle information, stays away from Moscow and collects alms only in Pskov and Novgorod.” Even though around the same time the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan more than once sent ambassadors to Constantinople “for church reform,” nothing is known about the result of these embassies. They also talk about the response letter of Metropolitan Jonah to the Patriarch of Constantinople Gennady Scholarius (1453 - 1459), a message testifying to the good relations between our metropolitanate and the patriarchate; but “this letter has been preserved without a beginning and without meaning, by which of our metropolitans 55 and to which of the patriarchs it was written.” The publishers, by hunch, took it to Metropolitan Jonah and addressed it to Patriarch Gennady, whereas, in view of the above facts, it can more likely be classified as one of the documents on the relations of the Grand Duke and Metropolitan Theodosius with the Patriarch of Jerusalem. In a word, we assume that the rapprochement with distant Jerusalem was caused by a break with Constantinople and that the above-mentioned letters of Patriarch Joachim gave rise to the later legend and sending by the Eastern patriarchs of a special letter, recognizing the autocephaly of the Russian metropolis. And it’s remarkable: in Nikon’s edition of the legend about the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia, the news of the sending of the mentioned letter is stated as follows: “for this purpose (i.e., as a result of the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks), the patriarchs agreed with a single message with the four patriarchs, and by the consent of the metropolitan and Russian metropolitans from the Palestinians, the patriarchate had power, and for the sake of no one to come to the Russians metropolitan to Constantingrad, but with their own bishops the election of a metropolitanate will be created" 56 . Likewise, in our days, the Patriarch of Jerusalem recognized the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Church, contrary to the definition of the Council of Constantinople. However, we are only posing the question in the hope that it will provoke one answer or another from researchers who are more inclined to work from first-hand sources than Mr. Barsov. In 1864, A. Zernin’s master’s thesis “On the attitude of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Russian hierarchy” was published. Noting it as the only “printed brochure” in Russian literature on the subject of his voluminous book, Mr. Barsov laconically notes: “we do not attach to this reasoning the significance of scientific research in the issue raised by him and considered by us” (introduction, p. I, note). It is doubtful that anyone, except Mr. Barsov himself, would decide to give preference to a new book over an old brochure. We mean not only his “Experience of a course in church jurisprudence”, but also the scientific articles published in the “Orthodox Interlocutor”, mainly for 1858. We consider it necessary to make a reservation that we recognize Mr. Barsov’s theory as a new phenomenon only in Russian canonical literature; and in Western literature it was expressed and developed already in the 17th century. We find it, for example, in the writings of the learned Archbishop Peter De Marchi, whose influence generally had a rather strong impact on Mr. Barsov’s book (See De concordia sacerdotii et imperii lib I, cap. IV sq. and special treatise: De constantant. pstriarchatus institutione. – Op. ed. Neapoli. 1771 m. V. p. 103–215) Versuch einer pragiuat. Geschichte der kirchl. Verfassungsformen, s. 167 – 168. See Maassen, Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur d. canon. Rechts B. I, s. 11. Richter, Lehrbuch Kirchenrechts, 8-te Auflage, § 14, not. 4. Maassen, Primat des Bischofs von Rom und die alten Patriarchalkirchen, s. 12; cfr. s. 121–122. "Wenn die Nachrichten des heil. Epiphanius über den Meletius," says Maasen, "als zuverlässig betrachtet werden könnten, so würde durch sein Zeugniss bewiesen sein, dass schon vor dem Concil von Nicaea in den ägyptischen Ländern Mitropoliten existirten... Da aber die Glaubwürdigkeit des Berichtes des heil. Geschichte der kirchl. Trennung zw. d. Orient und Occident, V. I, s. 110 –111. See Beveregii, Annot. in 4 can. nicaen.; Maassen, op. cit., p. 24. Harduin, Acta Concil. t. I, p. 825: οἵ τε τῆς ἐπαρχίας (Syriac) καί τῆς ἀνατολικῆς ὴ διοίκησες συνδραμόντες (ἐπίσκοποι), κανονικῶς ἐχειποτόνησαν. Ibid. p. 824: παλαιός τε, ὡς ἴστε, θεσμὸς κεκράτηκε καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἐν Νικαία πατἐρων ὅρος, καθ’ ἑκἀστην ἐπαρχίαν τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας, καὶ εἴπερ ἐκεῖνοι βούλοιντο, σὺν αὐτοῖς τοὺς ὁμόρους πρὸς τὸ σύμφερον ποιεῖσθαι τὰς χειροτονίας. These rules, known in canonical collections under the name “rules of the Council of Carthage” (419), are not yet found in the oldest Greek collection belonging to John Scholasticus (VI century). See Hardwin in Acta Coucil, t. II, p. 589 – 591. This interpretation belongs to the ancient anonymous scholastic, which Aristin used, but which remained unknown to Mr. Barsov (Pitra, Juris eccles. graec. hist, et monum. t. II, p. 645. Compare Barsov ast. 31). Facts in themselves, of course, do not express actual law. In general, we are dealing with Mr. Barsov not as a church historian, but as a canonist. However, justice requires noting that he often treats the facts of history in the same way as the canons, that is, he forces them to speak in favor of his theory. For example, Mr. Barsov laconically explains the fact that all Eastern patriarchs recognized the formal and final division of churches by saying that “the Eastern patriarchs were already accustomed to subordinating the fate of their churches to instructions from Constantinople,” and therefore the volentes nolentes “followed the invitation of Cerularius” (p. 130). And Peter of Antioch with his well-known protests against the intolerance of Cerularius, on the one hand, and with a solemn statement about the importance and legitimacy of the only reason for the break with Rome (filioque) on the other? The original Eclogue and Epanagogue is published in Collectio librorum juris graeco-romani ineditorum, ed. Zachariae. Lipsiae, 1852. Slavic translation of the first - in Kormchay, ch. 49. Zachariae, Geschichte des griech. – rom. Rechts, 2-te Auflage, s. 14, 63 – 64. In the lists of one Byzantine legal compilation, published by Tzacharie under the name “Epitome” and containing extracts from the Epanagoge, precisely two articles from title II, which set out the decisions “about the king” (περὶ βασιλἑως), a note was made against these articles: Φωτίου (Zachariae, Ius graeco-romanum t. II, p. 291). Hence, it is likely that the next title “about the patriarch,” which by its very content and wording reveals the author to be a spiritual person, comes from the same Photius. Zachariae, Coll. libr. jur. grace. inedit. p. 56; Wed Hergenröther, Photius II, 588 – 589). See Hergenröthern, Photius III, 339, etc. Ζύνταγμα, t. IV, p. 544 οὐδέ τις, says Balsamon, κανόνων τόπον κληρωσάμενος πρότερον, τοῦ δευτέρου καὶ τοῦ μετ’αὐτὸν ὡς ὑπερφέρων καταλαζονεύεται. That is, “whoever of the most holy patriarchs, according to the definitions of the divine canons, received first place, should not be flatteringly extolled as superior to the second and those following him.” Thus, in the well-known confession of faith of Hieromonk Mitrofan Kritopulus, later Patriarch of Alexandria, we read: πατριαρχῶν, ὡς ἀληθῶς χριστιανικοῖς ποιμέσι προήκουσα. Οὐδεὶς γὰρ τούτων κατεπαίρεται τῶν ἄλλων, οὐδὲ καθόλου κεφαλὴ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀξιοῖ τις ἐκείνων καλεῖσθαι. See Kimmel, Monum. fid. eccles. orient. t. II, p. 209. We mean the famous Pidalion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. See scholium to canon 9 of the Council of Chalcedon. The circumstances of the publication of this law are described in detail by Gergenrotor; see Photius I, 46 – 48; Wed in Barsov, p. 45. Σύνταγμα t. I, p. 165: ’Ο δἐ πατριάρχης ἀκροᾶται τῆς ἐγκλὴτου τῶν ἐξ ἐπιτροπῆς αὐτοῦ δικασἀντων ἐπισκόπων, ἢ μητροπολιτῶν. This story, by the way, is set out in the famous “collection of 87 chapters” extracted by Patriarch John Scholasticus from Justinian’s short stories for church practice (chapters 57 and 58). And this law, adopted into the Code of Justinian, was included in various collections designated specifically for church consumption, for example, in the so-called. Collectio tr patrita (Voelli et Justelli, Biblioth. jur. canon. vet. p. 1243) and in the nomocanon in the XIV titles, known since the 9th century under the name of Photius (tit. VIII, cap. 5; tit. IX, cap. 1). The Epanagogue directly refers to the “divine laws” as the source of his statement about the judicial power of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and it is enough to compare this decision with the law of 421 to be convinced of the origin of the former from the latter: Epinagogue: Οἱ θεῖοι νόμοι καὶ τὰς ὑπὸ τοὺς ἑτέρους θρόνους γινομένας ἀμαισβητήσεις ὑπὸ τὴν ἐκείνου προστάττουσιν ἀναφέρεσθαι διάγνωσιν καὶ κρὶσιν (tit. III, cap. 9). Law of 421: ’Ιλλυπικᾠ οὐ δεῖ τέμνεσθαι παρὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινοπόλεως (Photii Nomocan. tit. VIII, c. 1). See Voelli et Justelli op. cit. p. 721. The idea that this scholium belonged to Patriarch Photius involuntarily comes to mind in view of the following circumstance. In his polemical treatise against the Roman primacy entitled Πρὸς τοὺς λέ γοντας ὅτι ἡ ’Ρώμη πρῶτος θρόνος, Photius expresses an opinion completely parallel to the content scholium and the above point of the Epanagoge, namely: Εἰ δὲ λέγεις, ὅτι ἡ ’εν Ζαρδικῇ (σύνοδος) διατάσσεται τὸν ’Ρώμης ἐξετάζειν τὰς τῶν ἑτέρων ἐνοριῶν ψήφους πολλαχὅθεν ἔχει τὸ εὐκατάλυτον. Πρῶτον μὲν, ὅτι τοπικὴ οῦσα ἀνατέτραπται ὑπὸ τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς δ΄ συνόδου αὕτη γὰρ τῷ Κωνσταντινοπόλεως ἀρχιερει μᾶλλον τὰς ἑτέρων κρίσεις ἐξετάζειν ἀπένειμεν. See Valetta, Επιστολαὶ Φωτὶου, p. 567 – 571; Σύνταγμα, IV, 409 – 415. Cf. Hergenröther, Photius, III, s. 170 – 172. See Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notitae episcopatuum, ed. Parthey, s. 292. See Allatii De consens. 1. I, cap. XVIII, § 2 (ed. 1748, p. 267 – 268). See, for example, his interpretation of the rules: apostle. 31, Chalcid. 9, Antioch. 12. This extract is given in Chapter. 8, letters II. – See Σύντ. VI, 428 – 429. It is in ch. 11, letters E. – Ibid. p. 260. Οποθδάζεις μὲν γὰρ ἀποδεῖξαι,” he wrote to his metropolitan, “ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἄδεια τῷ ?? τοὐτο καὶ τοὺς κανόνας προφέρεις καὶ τὴν ἐξήγησιν τοῦ περιττοῦ (Apostolic Law 34: μηδέν τι πράττειν περιττὸν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνου, i.e. e. Metropolitan, γνώμης) καὶ τὰ λοιπά. Miclosich, Acta Patriarhatus Cpl. t. II, p. 40. Jbid: εἰ γοῦν ἐν ταῖς ἐπαρχίας ἔχομεν ἄνειαν τοιαῦτα ποιεῖν, πῶς ἐν τῇ ὑμετέρα τοῦτο οὐκ ἴξοιμεν. See scholium to canon 9 of the Council of Chalcedon. Oriens Chrictianus, t. I, p. 117. It is remarkable that, next to Lequin, Mr. Barsov quotes the Athenian Syntagma (vol. VI, p. 84) and “Jus graeco-romanum Tsacharie (vol. III, p. 599, not. 1), which contain the correct reading. Why, however, was preference given to Lequesne? Because, of course, “extensive stauropegia” (μακρὰ σταθροπήγια) is more favorable to the theory of our canonist than “long-standing custom” (ἐκ συνηθείας μακρᾶς). Σύνταγμα t. III, p. 265: ἐγχώριος ἐπίσκοπος ἐνεργεῖ τἀ ἀρχιερατικὰ δίκαια ἀπὸ μακρᾶς δἐ συνηθείας, βεβαιωθείσης πολλάκις συνοδικῶς, ὁ θρόνος τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως σταυροπὴγιά τε δίδωσιν εἰς πάσας τὰς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν (i.e. to all the possessions of churches), καὶ ἀναφορὰν ἔχει οὐ μόνον ἐν τούτοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐφ’ αῖς ἔχει ἀκινήτοις κτήσεσιν ὁ πουδήποτε. Τινὲς δὲ λέγουσι, τὸ αὐτὸ δίκαιον ἔχειν τὸν αὐτὸν ἅγιον θρόνον, οὐ μόνον εἰς τὰς διαφερούσας τούτῳ κυριαρχκῷ δικαίῷ ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς τὰ ἀκίνητα τῶν ὑποκειμένων, ὁπουδόποτε διακείμενα. It is known that this title is an allusion to the words of the Savior: “Whoever wants to be your first must be a servant of all.” That is, without stopping at Chapter (V) “On the Patriarchal Synod and the Patriarch’s closest assistants in governance” - for the simple reason that this chapter, compared with Chizhman’s work Die Synoden und die Episcopal-Ämter in der morgenländ, Kirche (Wien, 1867), gives the impression of a bad copy of the masterful original. As an example of how the author deals with the most difficult questions of the original Russian church history, we point out the following resolution of the question of the famous “Korsun priests” of the newly baptized Vladimir. Referring to Polish historians (Dlugosz, Mechovit and Staryikovsky), who see in these “priests” the entire clergy of the Korsun church, together with the local bishop who baptized the Russian prince, Mr. Barsov declares: “we especially like this testimony, since it completely simply and clearly resolves the issue of the Russians borrowing their first hierarchy” (pp. 355 – 356). It is customary not to argue about personal tastes, but it is also customary not to give them a place in resolving scientific issues. Such, for example, is the question of the origin and fate of the Galician metropolis (pp. 377 - 392). This theory was developed with particular completeness by two Greek canonists - Balsamon and Dimitri Khomatinov (see Picher Geschichte d. kirchl. Nrennung zw. Orient und Occident. D. I. s. 415 - 515). Wed. Also given below in the text is an excerpt from the letter of Patriarch Anthony. See Parthey, Hieroclis Synecdemus et notitiae, under the index under the word ‘Ρωσία. Without going, like Mr. Barsov, into investigations or, more precisely, into repeating other people’s investigations on the question of when exactly the Russian metropolis was included in the list of metropolises subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, we only note that the author incorrectly claims that in the list compiled by Nilus Doxopater (c. half of the 12th century) “the Russian metropolis is not named” (p. 368, note 1); on the contrary, Doxopatra directly says: and makes it clear that this metropolis, as the youngest and most distant from Constantinople, occupied the last place in the official list. Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, ed. Miklosich et Müller, t. II, p. 190 – 192. “Histor. Rus. Church" Rev. Macaria, vol. VI, p. 182. Additional to Act. History, vol. II, p. 189. Not quite literally; There is one important option, which will be discussed further. With further evidence from Fr. We cannot agree with Nikolaevsky. It is he who says: “in the conciliar charter of 1589, signed by Patriarch Jeremiah and Job, it is even said that the order of Russian metropolitans accepting blessings from the Patriarch of Constantinople has been unshakably maintained to this day.” The charter says: “before our forefathers... accepted the holy and immaculate faith, and the installation of the first thrones, the new miracle workers Peter and Alexy... and others from the Holy Patriarch of Kostiantinople, New Rome, including the Almighty God with mercy and the Most Pure Mother of God, and to this day we unshakably hold” (Collected state charters and dog. vol. II, p. 96). The relative “yezhe” can also refer to faith and the church (of Constantinople); but the logical meaning of the words will be the same: “we remain in the union of faith with the Greek Church.” There is no indication of the ongoing procedure for Russian metropolitans to accept blessings from the Patriarch of Constantinople. Christ. Thurs. 1879, Aug.-Sept., p. 17, note. 1; Wed Sept.-Oct., p. 396. See my “Critical experiments on the history of the ancient Greek-Russian polemics against the Latins,” pp. 106 – 107. The very text of the “Tale” is in “Ist. liter. Review of ancient Russian fields. writings against the Latins” by A. Popov, pp. 360 – 395. Here are the true expressions of the letter to the Grand Duke: “we have you blessed by God and forgiven, and even according to your dignity, you still have you, unlike others, your humility, your nobility is forgiven from the authority and grace that teaches it (read: power and grace) from the Most Holy and Life-Giving Spirit, permission to bind;... to have our humility, your dominion is forgiven in all church prohibitions You fell with insolence and you transgressed the commandments of your father.” (A.I. Vol. I, No. 72). The expressions are very strong! For letters to all Russians, see Ist. Russian Cer. Macarius, vol. VIII, p. 351, note, 443. Macarius, East. Ross. Cer., vol. VI, p. 21, note. 21. In Philaret’s edition of the same legend, the matter is presented differently: “and thus, by one letter, the four patriarchs agreed, and by agreement, they received metropolitan power from the Greek patriarchs, and especially from the Constantinople, no one else”, etc. (Additional to the Act. Histor., vol. II, no. 76, p. 189). It would be necessary to find a common source for both editions in order to correctly judge their mutual relationship and the comparative reliability of the contradictory news contained in both. You might be interested in: