Talk:Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople

Untitled
Dogface, we do too call the EP the "Church of Constantinople." See, for example, the [list] of Autocephalous Churches on the OCA website. If the EP prefers to not call itself that then someone should say so, but as far as I can tell pretty much everyone else does, so to say the term is "not used" isn't accurate. --Csernica 00:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sources and Contentions
I have two problems with this article.

1. It states that the Apostle Andrew was the founder of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. While it seems that the Orthodox regularly claim this, it appears that it is unfounded. For example, the Catholic Encyclopaedia says:


 * In the fifth century we meet with a spurious document attributed to a certain Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre at the end of the third century, according to which the Church of Byzantium was founded by the Apostle St. Andrew, its first bishop being his disciple Stachys (cf. Romans 16:9). The intention of the forger is plain: in this way the Church of Rome is made inferior to that of Constantinople, St. Andrew having been chosen an Apostle by Jesus before his brother St. Peter, the founder of the Roman Church.

2. It doesn't cite its sources.


 * FWIW, just because the CE says something doesn't make it true. The anti-Orthodox POV of that publication is pretty explicit.  &mdash;Preost  talk  contribs  21:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I know it doesn't mean it's true, but it does represent a somewhat justified alternative viewpoint from a source of some repute (at the very least, it is cited as a source in other articles on the site). This article neither cites its sources nor acknowledges that there is some dispute on the matter. Hairouna 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently someone has now removed ther remarks about the Apostle Andrew, but now there is no history here at all. Surely we can add some citable history: if there is contention, we should cite the contending sources. - Jmabel | Talk 20:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Contentions
Hi, I think that I can say something about the apostle Andrew: 1) it is sure that the patriarchate was not founded by the apostle Andrew because in the first centuries of christian life Costantinople was but a part of Antioch patriarchate and it raised to the rank of an independent one, and after some even to the first of all orthodox patriarchates, only much time after this 2) the apostle Andrew can be considered on the other side as the founder of the costantinople first christian communities in the first century after chirst, starting an apostolic succession arriving to the patriarchate 3) we can probably have no scientific proofs about the fact that saint Andrew was really the founder of the first Costantinople communities, but it is a matter of fact that: the undivided church, of which also the western popes were between the most authoritative members before the schism of 1066, and its uninterrupted tradition, always accepted the apostolic origin of the see of costantinople as undoubted. At the time, the independent patriarchates were all and only the sees who could claim an apostolic origin, that is, Rome, first of all because founded by Peter, chief of the other apostles, and then exactly Antioch, Alexandria, Costantinople and Jerusalem 4) the consideration that the story of saint andrew was invented only to give the primate to costantinople at the place of rome is totally inconsistent, because, as i have said, peter was considered as the chief of the apostles by the undivided church, and rome the first apostolic see before costantinople, also in the eastern parts of the church, and that the date of foundation was not considered the most important thing (otherwise the first see should have been Jerusalem, and so nay neither rome nor costantinople). This fact makes me think that the catholic enciclopedia is generally inaccurate on this matter at all. the present orthodox church still consider costantinople as the first patriarchate only for the fact that rome separated and then is not part of the church anymore. For all the acts of the church done before the schism, rome is still considered as the first patriarchate even in the orthodox present church. 5) Specularly, and linking again to point 3, the present Roman catholic church also DOES still recognize the apostolic foundation of costantinople by Andrew because this was stated in all the general councils before the schism, in which the see of rome was present, and that it still recognizes as a still valid part of its history still to now. Controversies can sometime have been aroused but the official teaching of both the two churches still recognize its common origin, and it is therefore not the case, at least for what concern this matter, to have any other problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.54.65 (talk • contribs)


 * 1) Please. It's "Constantinople". You keep leaving off the first "n". It's driving me nuts.
 * 2) The conventional date for the schism is 1054. 1066 was the year of the Norman conquest of England. But even 1054 is merely a convention. The events of that year did not significantly affect relations.
 * 3) The Popes of Rome were the most senior in rank and enjoyed a primacy in honor. They were not "most authoritative". This is precisely the bone of contention between East and West about the role of the Papacy, and it would be incorrect to assert only one side's version as fact in the article.
 * 4) Part and parcel with that is the idea behind the ranking of the various Patriarchates. In the Eastern view it had to do with the importance of the cities, not the Apostolic foundation of the churches as such. This is reflected in Canon 3 of I Constantinople, Canon 28 of Chalcedon, and Canon 36 of Trullo. None of these are accepted by Rome, but the clearly reflect the Eastern view of the matter, that Rome's primacy was due to its being the old capital of the Empire and not because its bishops are successors to Peter in any unique way. In fact, cities with churches of Apostolic foundation are fairly common in the East and not limited to the Patriarchates. (Read your Bible. A number are mentioned, and many others were not.)
 * 5) Nevertheless, your basic point that the claim of the church in Byzantium as having been founded by St. Andrew is on shaky ground is valid. It doesn't mean terribly much though, since this argument is no longer used as support for Constantinople's position. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename/move proposal

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Moved. "Orthodox Church of Constantinople" quite uncommon; "Church of Constantinople", as noted below, could be another reasonable possibility. —Centrx→talk &bull; 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is the more common name for this church. &mdash; Preost talk contribs 20:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? I've heard "Church of Constantinople" or "Ecumenical Patriarchate". Even if I've ever heard it put together this way -- and I haven't -- "Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople" seems redundant. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why redundant? Ecumenical was an addition to the existing title of the patriarch rather than a replacement for of Constantinople.  The title eventually came to refer to the patriarchate itself.  In any event, I'd certainly settle for Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Orthodox Church of Constantinople sounds like something an academic made up.  &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Ecumenical" designates the Patriarch of the Imperial City, thus implying "Constantinople". I think "Church of Constantinople" ought to be acceptable though -- what was the local church called before its bishop was raised to Patriarchal rank? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support the move. This institution is clearly far better known under that name or just the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I'd prefer the first name since it seems more "encyclopedic" and is used by the Church itself on its official webpage. ("Orthodox Church of Constantinople" is fine as a redirect, but I've never heard it before.) Valentinian (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support and comment. As a Greek i've never heard the term "Orthodox Church of Constantinople"... Also, according to my knowledge, regarding the foreign (apart from turkish) media, i have always heard/read the term Ecumenical Patriarchate. I am not sure if the best move would be Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople or Ecumenical Patriarchate (both terms are used in greek-i'm mentioning greek, cause it has been the official language of it-but the second one has been and still is, by far the most common). And if we take a look on what both terms mean, we can easily understand which is the "correct" (grammatically speaking): Ecumenical Patriarchate, cause no other orthodox patriarch uses the title "Ecumenical"-so, it is just a pleonasm to say "[...] of Constantinople"...(but i'd prefer this instead of the current title). Lastly, to user TCC: the Catholic Church was called "Patriarchate of the West" (at the time when the Ecumenical Patriarch was called "Bishop of Byzantium"), but noone can even imagine a move for the respective article or for the Pope... --Hectorian 00:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your point. First, the Pope only picked up the title "Patriarch of the West" in the 7th Century, long after Byzantium had ceased to be be called by that name. Second, the name of the Church of Rome has never officially been "Patriarchate of the West", whatever he may have been called by his eastern colleagues. Just ask any Roman Catholic who actually knows his history. Third, you don't appear to be responding to anything I said.


 * However, you do give me the opportunity to mention a concern I have with the proposed move. It identifies the Church of the city with the person of the EP. Imagine (to continue your analogy with the west) if Pope redirected to Roman Catholic Church. Is there no history of the Church of Constantinople that can be told apart from that of the Patriarchate itself? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Patriarchate does not usually refer to the person, but rather to the body, as is the case with all the ancient patriarchates of the Orthodox Church. Patriarch and patriarchate are two different words in Greek, just as they are in English.  &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 02:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it will be a problem in practice. The Patriarch and Patriarchate are two different things, so as I see it "Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople" (or whatever title this page will end up with) should describe the institution, its structure and history (in short; a parallel to the Holy See article). "Bartholomew I" should describe the current Patriarch, "Eastern Orthodoxy" should be a description of the faith, its history and its main parallels and differences with the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Once this material becomes more developed (and it is currently incredibly underdeveloped) I think that'll solve the converns mentioned. The institution of the Partiarchate has a long history which needs a better description. For one thing, I can't imagine any institution this old completely unchanged throughout history, and I'd expect we could find information on a few power struggles with either emperors or sultans - just to name the two examples that immediately jump to my mind. A bit of information on the two patriarchs accused of being either Lutheran or Calvinist would probably go here as well. I think the main problem is that these articles are still so incredibly short and underdeveloped. Valentinian (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good argument for joining WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy! :)  &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 12:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I suppose that aside from the implied redundancy the only trouble I have with the idea is that the name doesn't apply in all historical periods. Even after the city was renamed Constantinople, its bishop was not immediately accorded Patriarchal rank, and "Ecumenical" came even later. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a concern, sure, but I can't really think of any other term that would suffice on par with the "Holy See" in Rome. The early Popes were originally little more than bishops of Rome, but they're still grouped along with Pope Benedict. My 2 cents would say that we should use the most recent name, but of course provide enough redirects to take care of e.g. the Bishops of Byzantium. The other concerns you mention (former titles, fewer powers, lesser status, former relation to other branches of the church (both in East and West)) look to me more like material belonging to article space, where is should be spelled out clearly that the current situation is only the last link in a long chain of devolopments. I think (hope) this would solve the problem. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Big list o' names
I think the gigantic list of folks involved in the patriarchate should be significantly trimmed. It would be better included in a "List of..." article, but I'm not sure that's really even warranted, either. Perhaps a list of those on the holy synod might be sufficient. &mdash; Preost talk contribs 23:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Big overhaul
Okay, I've significantly rewritten the article. A lot could probably use references, to be sure. I've undertaken this rewrite as part of the WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy Collaboration of the Month. &mdash; Preost talk contribs 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Turkish name
The correct Turkish name should be "Fener Rum Patrikhanesi" or "Istanbul Rum Patrikhanesi" --Hattusili 09:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the correct official name is "Istanbul Fener Rum Patrikhanesi". E104421 12:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the name used by Turkey and noone else in the world. Funny, but better keep this for "internal consumption"... Hectorian 14:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the name used by the patriarchy itself. E104421 14:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Used by the patriarchate in what context? Miskin 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the attested name and definition. Miskin 20:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it is good for Turkey's image to include the Turkish term Hattusili and E104421 proposed. It reveals that Turkey is the only state in the world not recognizing the ecumenality of the Patriarchate. So, I'm surprised they actually want this Turkish name to be there! Anyway! Their call!--Yannismarou 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi is actually *the* official name. The Fener name is unofficial. This name, despite common misunderstanding is not derived from, nor does it mean "Patriarchy of the Istanbul Greeks" as you seem to imply. Rum->Roman->Romanioi. This is the name used since the time of Mehmed II, who by the way also used among his titles, the title Kayzer-i Rum -> Caesar of the Romans. The Ottomans greatly supported the Patriarchy's claims to be the "true" Roman church. To pertain to "Rome" is not exactly a put down??? Anyway, the Patriarchy uses this title in Turkish. I also added a citation from historian Ilber Ortayli's book as he makes a reference to the official legal name. Free smyrnan 19:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

After the Fall of Constantinople - Citations
Regarding the administrative and legal jurisdiction of milletbasi --

"..The famous millet system, developed in the main for the govenance of the Greek and Armenian communities, was extended in similar form to the Jews. According to this system, as interpreted at that time, each of the religious communities of the empire was organized internally, subject to its own laws in matters of religion and personal status, administered under the authority of its own religious chief." Lewis, Bernard, "The Jews of Islam", p.125-126 ISBN 0-691-00807-8

"..They were ... organized into millets or nations, self-governing communities preserving their own laws and usages under a religious head responsible to the central power for the administration and good behaviour of his people." Lord Kinross, "Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire (1977)" ISBN 0-688-08093-6, p. 112-113

"The patriarch's temporal duties and his power had by the eighteenth century become immense. He was the millet bashi (head of the millet) and ethnarch (secular ruler) of the Orthodox population. Since he was a high official in the Ottoman government and part of the askeri bureaucratic class, he was entitled to a standard with two horsetails (an Ottoman governor or general had three, the sultan six). The patriarch was responsible to his ruler for the behaviour and loyalty of his flock. He was also given important duties connected with tax collecting and the maintenance of public order. His judicial functions were particularly significant for the Christian population. The church had full jurisdiction over a wide range of affairs, including matters relating to marriage and the family and, in practice, commercial cases involving only Christians. Although criminal cases, such as murder and theft, were theoretically under the control of the Muslim judicial system, the Orthodox courts often handled these as well as long as no Muslim was involved. In administering justice the church based its decisions on canon law, Byzantine statutory law, local customs and church writings and traditions. Ecclesiastical courts could hand out penalties such as imprisonment, fines and exile, along with the denial of the sacraments and excommunication." Jelavich, Barbara, “History of the Balkans, 18th and 19th Centuries” (1983), ISBN 0-521 27458-3 p.52

I consider these, which I did take out the trouble of typing in as well as citing, to be sufficient. Please remove the citation needed link -- actually citing particularly the Jelavich source would be useful. --Free smyrnan 06:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Languages
Does my Church actually allow all these languages? I mean all the Churches I've been to have only been said in Greek, only the homily was in English, which was said by a younger priest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.63.161 (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The prevailing Orthodox practice is to recite the liturgy in the language of the congregation: Arabic in Syria, English in England, French in France. Familiar exceptions are the Slavonic churches, whose liturgies are usually in Old Slavonic (not modern Russian, Serbian, Czech, Bulgarian, etc.) and the Church of Greece, which is in Koine Greek, i.e. the language in which the New Testament was originally written. But the difference from modern idiom is not, in these cases, great enough to prevent the worshippers from understanding what's being said. The usual practice of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, most of whose parishes continue to celebrate the liturgy in Greek and most of whose members speak English or Spanish as their first language, is the big exception. Tom129.93.17.174 (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Constantinople seal.gif
Image:Constantinople seal.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OrthodoxWiki as a source
The article states that it is based in part on another Wiki, in direct violation of policies on reliable sources and verifiability. I'm not sure what to do about that short of gutting the article and starting over. Feedback and suggestions are welcome. Pairadox (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriarchate of Constantinople
Isn't it a violation of NPOV to redirect here from "Patriarchate of Constantinople", when there is also an existent Armenian Church of Constantinople that has a Patriarch and a historical Latin Church of Constantinople as well? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems pretty clearly in keeping with standard practice since it's by far the most common usage. As a similar example, Pope is about the Roman Catholic leader, despite there also being a Coptic Pope, among others. --Delirium (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Relation to the Metropolis of Ephesus
It seems that in the 4th century jurisdiction in the Church was moving towards numerous provinces being subject to the capital of the diocese (eg: Diocese of Asia, Diocese of Thrace, etc.), with the head Metropolitan of the Diocese being called an Exarch. It is my understand that the Metropolitan of Ephesus was the Exarch of all the Diocese of Asia. However, this article, by stating that Byzantium was once under the jurisdiction of Ephesus, seems to suggest that Ephesus' jurisdiction was at one point even more extensive simply than the Diocese of Asia, given that Byzantium was part of the Diocese of Thrace rather than the Diocese of Asia. Can someone explain what is going on with this? And could perhaps sources be cited showing that Ephesus' jurisdiction extended beyond Asia Minor? Deusveritasest (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, Byzantium was once under the jurisdiction of Heraclea, not Ephesus (see "Part I : A Short Story" from "The Ecumenical Patriarchate : A History of Its Metropolitans with Annotated Hierarch Catalogs" by Demetrius Kiminas, 2009, Borgo Press —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.154.2.3 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That was what I would have understood to be the situation. But I thought I saw other sources indicating that Ephesus had jurisdiction over Constantinople. I am wondering if there is substance to this claim. Parallel to this issue is the fact that certain sources labelled Ephesus as a Patriarchate that was later replaced by Constantinople. I am very curious as to why this article originally claimed that Constantinople was at one point subject to Ephesus. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Christianity in Byzantium existed from the 1st century"
Since Jesus was only 4 years old at this time, how could Christianity exist? Where would the citation of this be? 24.38.96.66 (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC) mpau0516
 * does it say it existed from the first year of the first century? The church of Constantinople claims that Stachys_the_Apostle was their first bishop, from 38 to 54. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.41.63 (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

300 millions
Yeah, it's written on the internet so it must be right? The introduction says it's one of the orthodox churches, and the info panel says the territory is Turkey (75 million people, at least 95% muslim) and a few others. 300 million people is the total of all orthodox people worldwide. The main orthodox church is the church of Moscow, which rules over Russia and most of the former soviet republics (millions of Ukrainian orthodox people recognize the authority of Moscow instead of Kiev). So in a nutshell, CBS wrote something outrageously stupid that needs to be reconized as so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.41.63 (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Read what the intro says again, slowly and carefully: "It is headed by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, who has the status of "first among equals" among the world's Orthodox bishops. The current patriarch, and spiritual leader of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians". Constantinople is the senior Orthodox see, and that is why it is recognized by everybody (except Turkey) as "Ecumenical". Constantine  ✍  07:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * take a few minutes to read the word "equals". The title "primus inter pares" is purely honorary and does not imply any kind of spiritual leadership. Contrary to the idiotic statement you just put back, the patriarch of Constantinople has absolutely no spiritual authority over the patriarch of Moscow or over Russian orthodox people since 1448, and other patriarchates became independent earlier. You are in blatant contradiction with the rules of neutrality for denying this.

To complete your little propaganda within wiki, I suggest you to urgently correct the article about "Full Communion", especially the sentence "[Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches] too consider full communion an essential condition for common sharing in the Eucharist. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, as first among equals among the Eastern Orthodox autocephalous churches and their spiritual leader, though not having authority similar to that of the Pope, serves as their spokesman. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.41.63 (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you calm down and stop with stupid accusations of propaganda and bias against someone you don't even know? Comparing the Pope's authority with that an Orthodox hierarch is pointless. "Spiritual leader" can mean a whole lot of things, from the Pope who has his own state and absolute control over his church and flock to the Dalai Lama or the patriarch of Constantinople who have limited to none. The patriarch of Constantinople may have a minuscule flock, but he is, to the world at large, the head of Orthodoxy. That doesn't mean that he can command the other Orthodox patriarchs or churches to do or not do something, but it means that he represents the world's Orthodox Christians. Neither Moscow nor Jerusalem nor Alexandria nor anyone else have his status and prestige. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, the whole world sees it that way. That is why he receives head of state honours, that is why he gets to visit the White House, that is why the Ukrainians made the whole "royal reception" back in 2008. Because Moscow may be the 900-pound gorilla of the Orthodox world, but Constantinople has a spiritual authority that commands respect (far) beyond the size of its flock. Constantine  ✍  20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS, just to dispel your obvious prejudice, neither the Orthodox Church nor any church or other organized religion are "my" church. I am agnostic. Constantine  ✍  20:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only agree with what you're saying from "Neither Moscow" till "size of its flock". And what you're saying here is that the patriarch of Constantinople is the main representative of the 300 million followers of the Eastern Orthodox Church, that he serves as their spokesperson during his meetings with world leaders. A business leader leads. A military leader leads. A religious leader leads. And a representative represents. That's 2 different things, that's all I'm saying.
 * With all her prestige, Queen Elizabeth doesn't lead much, besides her own family and maybe the Church of England (or is that the guy from Canterbury, I'll let you check that). But she does represent England, the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth when meeting world leaders. If you went to edit the page about Elizabeth II and started to write that she is the leader of the United Kingdom, someone would have to tell you that you're wrong. You can either write that the patriarch of Constantinople is the religious leader of a few thousand Eastern Orthodox, mainly in Turkey (low figure resulting from what is now called ethnic cleansing, if I understood anything about the history of Turkey in the early 20th century), or that he is the representative of the 300 million followers of the Eastern Orthodox Church, or both, but please just avoid confusing notions.
 * Wow, that was a lot of efforts for something really simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.41.63 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How does the Queen, holder of a first and foremost secular office, compare with the patriarch, who is exclusively a religious, i.e. a "spiritual" figure? The Queen is the nominal head of the Anglican Church, but no British monarch ever claimed to be a religious leader. It is far more a nominal title than an active religious function. And in her secular role, she shares power with parliament and an all-powerful prime minister. Bartholomew on the other hand is sole master of his own house, even if that house is smaller than the Queen's. IMO, by definition, the chief religious figure representing a particular denomination is its "spiritual" leader. To what degree that leadership is transformed into power or "executive" authority is a different question: a figurehead patriarch or caliph or lama or archbishop or rabbi is still a "spiritual leader" insofar as his position on top of the hierarchical pyramid gives him unique authority. While I appreciate the point you're trying to make, I think you are splitting hairs and confusing "leadership" with "control". The Catholic Church may be more centralized than the Orthodox one, but even the Pope is not an absolute ruler: every leader, even the likes of Louis XIV or Stalin, have had to take into account the desires, interests and opinions of their subordinates to a greater or lesser degree. In the words of Jim Hacker, "It's the people's will. I am their leader; I must follow them." Still, one thing is clear: for the Orthodox churches that are in communion with each other, the patriarch of Constantinople is the supreme authority on religious affairs. No separate church, not even the Russian one, can change doctrine or declare another church autocephalous and be accepted by all others. So yes, IMO the Ecumenical Patriarch is the closest thing the Orthodox have to a unifying authority, hence a "spiritual leader"... Constantine  ✍  15:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK you're too thick, I give up, take out the NPOV thingy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.41.63 (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging in reasoned and civil argument... Constantine  ✍  17:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah well I really tried to make a very simple point: Leaders lead, representatives represent. I gave a simple example: Elizabeth II represents the United Kingdom but she is not the leader of the UK. I clumsily mentioned the Church of England, and as a result, you took this example, twisted it with what is I hope a massive dose of bad faith, and affirmed for the umpteenth time that "leading" and "representing" is the same thing, and now that leadership is an illusion. Are you for real? Well maybe there is only one word in Greek for "leading" and "representing", I have encountered stranger linguistic factoids, but in the languages I know "leading" and "representing" are quite distinct notions, and this distinction has nothing to do with splitting hairs. If the patriarch of Constantinople were the leader of all the Eastern Orthodox Church, he could take some leadership decisions : tell the patriarch of Athens to close a monastery that he considers professes heresy, he could tell the patriarch of Moscow to reorganize his dioceses, he could get a particular Bulgarian pope promoted to bishop. He can do nothing of that. Yes he's a representative of all 300 millions, no he's not their leader. Regarding declaring churches autocephalous, I didn'texactly understand at which point the P of C gave his benediction to the newly autocephalous church of Bulgaria, back in the 10th century. You'll surely explain that (yeah hey just in case, that's irony, the fact that Bulgars became autocephalous was a result of Bulgars winning a war against Byzantium).
 * Here's a better example: The president of Italy represents Italy, but his actual role is so limited that you cannot say he's a "leader" of Italy. He however represents Italy when meeting with world leaders. You want a "spiritual" example: Islam has no leaders. Ha, I wanted to give you some cool examples about the grand mufti or Ayatollah or Whatnot of Baghdad / Mecca / Wherever being religious leader in their country and because of their prestige beyond their borders represent all the sunnis / shias / wahhabites / sufists ... but I had to stop reading at the first line of Islamic_religious_leaders (Oh no I'm not making corrections there). Oh well... thank you for reminding me why I stayed away from editing wikipedia all these years (I was on the French wiki which had NPOV issues much more serious than that). Anyway you're the regular editor, you probably know how to get a third opinion. Ha, get a third opinion from a Russian, for the lulz. He'll just ask you if you're out of you're mind or if it's Greek humour. The fact that you guys shake your head for "yes" confuses most other people about what you actually mean. Maybe you're actually saying since the beginning that you agree with me and I'm just not getting it.--2.37.41.63 (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah all my examples of the powers the P of C doesn't have that I gave are executive powers, I'm not religious so examples of spiritual leaderships are hard to think of. Here's one: if some spiritual dispute arose, all the Patriarchs would have to gather in a council and discuss it. It's quite possible that because of his prestige, the P of C would be listened to more carefully than the P of Bulgaria despite having much fewer followers, but I wouldn't bet that he would have more authority, in such a council, than the 900-pound-gorilla. So what spiritual leadership are you talking about?--2.37.41.63 (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please tell me exactly who you consider to be a "spiritual leader", because by your arguments you have disqualified all religious figures who do not run their religions like the Communist Party. The Pope himself has trouble getting bishops to toe the Vatican's line and has to work up compromises, and if the PoC cannot sack a Greek or Serbian bishop, that is because they are - I repeat - administratively autonomous. And of course political powers from the Middle Ages to today override the PoC's wishes. He is no political leader to fight back with armies, he is a religious one, and in Orthodox tradition, the religious always yields before the secular. Or do you think that the Archbishop of Athens or the Patriarch of Russia would be obeyed by a recalcitrant remote monastery if their respective state apparatuses were not willing to back them up? Before bringing the light to the benighted, inform yourself on how Orthodoxy works, because you clearly don't know anything about it. It is extremely decentralized and no one individual has the power you seem to think of when you hear "leader". I repeat, you confuse administrative power as expressed in the Church hierarchy with "spiritual" leadership. You essentially repeat the old question "how many divisions has the Pope?", to which the correct answer is "it does not matter". "Spiritual leadership" is something far closer to the Roman concept of auctoritas rather than a CEO's or president's power, as you imply by insisting on terms like "making leadership decisions". And again you mix things up by comparing political figureheads of modern states with religious leaders: the PoC does not share his position or authority with anyone, he is the Ecumenical Patriarch, period. And as a religious leader, he is the spiritual head of Orthodoxy, unless you wilfully ignore two millennia of history and popular perceptions (and go ahead and ask a Serb or Bulgarian or a Russian and let's see what they tell you). Even the self-declared "Third Rome" recognized Constantinople's pre-eminence. It is the PoC who conducts the dialogue with the Vatican, he "represents" Orthodoxy, he sanctions new autocephalous churches. The Church of Greece declared itself autocephalous in 1833 for political reasons, but was it canonically recognized by the other churches prior to the PoC's recognition in 1850? No. The Bulgarian Exarchate was created in 1872 for political reasons, but did it enter into communion until recognized by the Patriarch in 1945? No. If the PoC were no "leader" as you imply, then its canonical recognition or non-recognition would be irrelevant too. It isn't however (see the ass-licking Bartholomew received in Kiev in 2008 for the exact same reason), because Constantinople is the mother church and focal point of Orthodoxy. Constantine  ✍  23:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's three things about what you said, another point showing the PoC is no leader, and short comments:
 * -1:Finally!!! you've decided to make a relevant point, with Bulgaria and Greece! Houray, I'll drink to that! The hell with checking if it's accurate (for example did the PoC have any choice but accept a de facto situation?), I'll just celebrate the fact that you've brought something relevant.
 * -2:Concerning the dialogue with the Vatican, yes the PoC has an accepted role of representative of the whole Eastern Church given by his "primus inter pares" status. I've wrote that about 3 times already.
 * -3:The reason Kiev kissed the ass of the PoC is political. Ukraine is politically torn (with catastrophic economic consequences) between russophilia (East and Crimea) and russophobia (rest of the country). In 2008 the president was the russophobe Yuschenko. In this context taking distance with Moscow, in any possible way was considered good. Thus the ass-kissing of the PoC, seen as a counter-influence to the Patriarch of Moscow, to which are affiliated millions of Ukrainians. Making a big show of the PoC, telling people he's the true leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church, served the political purpose of reducing the influence of the Patriarch of Moscow, who is tightly related to the Kremlin.
 * -4:For a person to be a leader, he needs his role to be recognized by the people he predends to lead. Otherwise he's no leader but just delusional. The patriarchate of Moscow has a page listing members of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The page about the PoC is here: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/134487.html . Since your Russian isn't great, I'll help: The page says that the PoC pretends to a leading role, on the basis of the 28th canon of the council of Chaceldon (the 4th ecumenical, that lead to the schism with the Oriental Orthodoxy - Copts etc. -... the 28th canon was rebuted by the Pope). The 900 pounds gorilla continues by saying (resumed translation) "but even if this leading role was true at the time, it was related to the status of Byzantium as the capital of the Empire and therefore is not relevant today". I'll let you translate the short conclusion: "Таким образом, Константинопольский Патриархат не имеет особых прав на Церкви в рассеянии. Он имеет такие же права на епархии диаспоры, как и прочие Поместные Церкви. "
 * I don't think the denial of the PoC's leadership could be any clearer.
 * -5:You wrote "go ahead and ask a Serb or Bulgarian or a Russian and let's see what they tell you". I did ask a Russian if the PoC was the leader of the EOC, he laughed, saying "да нет, наверное!" (yes no, probably), how should I interpret that? (Ha I'm teaching you an important phrase in Russian, you'll thank me later).
 * You also wrote "Even the self-declared "Third Rome" recognized Constantinople's pre-eminence", I think I've pretty much answered to that in -4.
 * -6:We won't agree so why don't you bring a third opinion already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.41.63 (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Just to add: Actually the Patriarchate of Moscow is the only authority recognized in full communion in Ukrainian and the majority of Ukrainians are still affiliated to it. The self-declared autocephelous Patriarchate of Kiev /Kiiv is not recognized by the Churches in full communion, and is just one of those churches resulting from a national schism. Also, when Batholomey came to Ukraine, it has been perceived by followers of the P of M as an unwelcome agression of the authority of the PoM ("Такую поездку без приглашения Московского Патриархата, канонической территорией которого является Украина, согласно церковным канонам, следует считать беспрецедентным вторжением на каноническую территорию Московского Патриархата", - говорится в заявлении Союза православных граждан Украины, переданном в четверг в "Интерфакс-Религия"., July 3rd 2008). I found that on www.dobroeslovo.ru — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.41.63 (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At last indeed! We're moving from making irrelevant comparisons with secular leaders to some actual issues. On 2 and 3, I don't think I ever implied anything different, but we interpret their importance in a different light. On 2, the PoC represents the OC in a dialogue that is first and foremost doctrinal, religious, i.e. "spiritual". On 3, I am aware of the political nature and the divisions in the Ukraine, but that doesn't diminish the fact that it was the PoC's support that Yuschenko tried to win, because he is the only one who stands above even Moscow. On 4, yes, I know what Moscow thinks. We both know that Moscow would like nothing more than be elevated to lead the OC, and one wouldn't expect them to say anything else in their website. It is not a WP:RS except as an indication of their own viewpoint. I can equally well use the CoP's website to support the exact opposite. The question is what the world at large and the other dozen OCs do:
 * "enabling the Russian patriarch to challenge Constantinople 's Patriarch Bartholomew for leadership of the world's 250 million Orthodox." Notice the "challenge", not "replace" or "cast down" or anything else.
 * "Indeed, it is interesting to note that when Constantinople convoked a meeting of Orthodox hierarchs ... was an expression of acknowledgment of the ecclesiastical authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
 * "The archbishop of Constantinople is the Byzantine and ecumenical patriarch (ie, of the entire Byzantine empire) and the first prelate of the Eastern Orthodox Churches"
 * The ecumenical patriarchate owes its prestige today, therefore, not to the fact that it exercises ecclesiastical jurisdiction over less than two million of the faithful (nearly half of whom are in America), but to the primacy of honor ... Basically, his authority consists of the right of initiative, which the other patriarchates acknowledge as belonging to the ecumenical patriarch in matters of common concern...
 * The list can go on for ever, but the general thrust is clear and I have yet to see a (non-Moscow Patriarchate) source reject it: Notwithstanding Moscow's objections and pretensions, the PoC is the senior Orthodox religious figure and is recognized as such by the other churches and the world at large. The Orthodox Church is highly decentralized and riven with rivalries, but in so far as it possesses a common centre that can take initiatives representing the whole Church, Constantinople is it. Now my argument is simple: A religious leader is first and foremost a "spiritual" leader. It follows that the PoC is the OC's senior "spiritual leader"... Whether that translates into "authority" to tell the individual churches what to do is a red herring, given the decentralized nature of the OC. Until the day that Moscow is given precedence and, more importantly, manages to assert tis authority over the other OCs, that will remain so, no matter the numbers. The PoC's leadership may be informal, it may be as a focal point for otherwise independent churches, but it is there. That is why his title remains still "ecumenical", why he has jurisdiction over Orthodoxy outside Europe and the Middle East and all the other regional and national non-autocephalous churches.
 * And I am still waiting for you to bring me an example for your model "spiritual leader", because your argument is essentially that the PoC does not command absolute obedience over the whole Orthodox world and he cannot move unilaterally, hence he cannot be a "leader". I've tried to explain that to expect such a thing of any body, much less the institutionally fragmented OC, is fantasy. I sure as heck I cannot think of any religious, political or philosophical movement that doesn't have internal differences running the gamut from disagreements and power struggles to full rifts and rebellions. In any ideological movement however, the guy who sits on top and has the ultimate arbitrating right (and the CoP has it, at least in theory) is regarded as the leader. You equate "leadership" with a monolithic Führerprinzip, and that, frankly, is nonsense. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you happy? Took us a while to this "disputed leadership" formulation. Your formulation is quite good, the only thing is that if you want to use the present perfect in "the Ecumenical Patriarchate has enjoyed the status", you should add "since the council of Chalcedon", or "since 451". Without this precision, the correct tense is the present simple. http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html (end of the page, "USE 2 Duration From the Past Until Now (Non-Continuous Verbs)"). At least I've learned a lot about the history of Orthodoxy in the process, it was kinda fun, and the article improved in the process. Sorry for getting a bit rough and frustrated during this discussion, it wasn't necessary (Side-effect of getting used to people who refuse to admit the sky is blue). Looking forward to bother you again for hours next time you misplace a coma.
 * On what you wrote above, I think the Patriarch of Moscow is also the leader in China and Japan, so in some parts of the non european world, besides the Russian diaspora. And for an example of non monolithic spiritual leader, here's an interesting one I hope: Osama Bin Laden. as I understand he gave orders to a small crew, but he was a spiritual leader for (too many) thousands of (crazy) people all over the world (who really believe that by killing people they're defending Islam and the poor against the oppression of the Western crusaders): if he had said that Nicaragua was an enemy of Islam, thousands of people would have started to burn Nicaraguan flags, and, following his spiritual lead, would have organized some attacks against this country. Of course the Christian leaders of 21st century are not that crazy (Crusades were a long time ago) but that is an example of spiritual leadership: telling people what is good and what is bad. Very religious Catholics listen to the pope when he says that they shouldn't read the da Vinci code, coz it's evil (actually just a very dumb remix misunderstanding Foucault's Pendulum). The question about the spiritual leadership of the PoC, besides the denial of Moscow, is,among others, here: if the PoC says "people shouldn't see this new, unholy movie", will this be relayed by other Patriarchs to their bishops, then to their popes, then to their followers?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.41.63 (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah last thing. By saying that PoC stands above PoM you're presenting the PoC's view. The PoC stands against the PoM (and vice-versa). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.41.63 (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, thankfully the present Patriarch does not go for indexes of forbidden books or movies. The Church of Greece did this in the past (Last Temptation of Christ), with mixed results. To my knowledge, religious people in Greece at least will follow the Patriarch's lead on religious issues. Comparing present-day mainstream Orthodoxy with a fundamentalist Islamic group is rather a stretch: Bin Ladin is leader, as you said, of a tiny group of crazy people. He does not represent nor "lead" Islam as a whole in any way. On the last comment, no, I am presenting universal opinion and ecclesiastical canon law. The PoM disputes the validity of the PoC's right to preside over Orthodoxy under present circumstances, but it does not (yet) claim that same right for itself, because then we would have a schism. On the Council of Chalcedon, I removed it because at least until 1054, when the Church was still one, Rome was regarded as the "first among equals", with Constantinople "equal-but-junior" to Rome. So while the basis of the patriarchate's claim dates to 451, the actual status has varied over time. I'll try to find an acceptable formula to state this. Constantine  ✍  11:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes the comparison is a bit of a stretch, but not that much. I thought about it because I just saw the only good report I've seen about those crazy people. This 25' report is available in English here http://www.france24.com/en/20110615-reporters-al-qaeda-asian-soldiers-osama-bin-laden-raid-terrorism-south-east-asia-umar-patek-jemaah-islamiah-jihadists . Bin Laden was leading Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and other leaders run autocephalous Al Qaeda groups, such as AQ in Maghreb, and Jemaah Islamiya. And their organizaion is based on religion. So the organization is comparable, with one undisputed leader who could point his finger to one particular country or group and be followed by all the sympathizers. So he represented all the Muslim people crazy enough to believe in this West oppressing Islam rethoric, and had hundreds of thousands of sympathizers, we'll see if the new leader of AQ does as well (as bad). The only difference is that they are totally crazy and that their view of religion is criminal, but they obviously disagree with this fact. As you can see in the report, there are in Southeast Asia alone not just a few, but hundreds of willing suicide bombers and tens of thousands of sympathizers. And many more in other regions.
 * Yeah banning books and movies is not very relevant in the 21st century, I'm just not so familiar with religion and with what a religious leader has to lead. So... if the PoC said that during the mass, the priest should turn himself toward the followers, would priests in Bulgaria do it? What if he said that people receiving the Eucharist should say alleluya / make the cross sign twice instead of once... / What would happen if he declared Cuba an enemy of Orthodoxy? Maybe a better question: if the PoC rejoined the Roman Catholic Church in full Communion (with the filioque out of the way and active negociations on the subject, that could happen before 2054...), would the Patriarch of Albania follow? --2.37.41.63 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We are moving into WP:FORUM territory here, but here is my opinion: if the PoC accepted Union of the churches, it would depend on the terms and circumstances. If the Pope conceded the filioque, infallibility and the claim to be master of the Church, then I think all official churches would follow. In reality, any agreement would be based on compromise and leave the more staunchly Orthodox in uproar. Frankly, given the bad blood between Catholics and Orthodox, not to mention the vastly divergent liturgical and administrative practices and pure differences in mentality, any deal would provoke resentment and resistance. But that is to be expected, in as much as every deal with a "hereditary enemy" in history has provoked accusations of treason and selling off to the enemy and cause some groups to split off. Ideologies, whether religious or political, are based on purity, so any compromise or even a concession of detente is anathema to the fanatics. That's when you get people like the monks in Greece who consider Bartholomew a traitor for even speaking with the Pope, or bin Ladin, who wished to "fight back" and restore an imagined past purity. That's why the comparison isn't really valid. The PoC has to maintain a balance between various interests and opinions, while bin Ladin and his likes represent a fanatic fringe group. It is far easier to completely dominate a few dozen people than to lead/guide a flock of millions. Constantine  ✍  12:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy-pasted sections, broken footnotes
Ever since a series of edits in August 2009 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecumenical_Patriarchate_of_Constantinople&diff=309829148&oldid=309404571], which copy-pasted large amounts of text into it, this article has had sections with broken/missing references (apparent footnote numbers, in plaintext, like "[28]", "[29]" etc., but without actual footnotes), especially in the sections on "Iconoclast controversy" and "Great Schism of 1054". These passages were apparently copied over mechanically from the articles East-West Schism (stage of the article around that time: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East%E2%80%93West_Schism&oldid=310477119]) and/or Constantinople.

The article is badly in need of somebody taking the time to go through those old revisions and see if the references can be rescued from them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140719151021/http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchate/patriarchs to http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchate/patriarchs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122074418/http://todayszaman.com/news-233079-commander-opposed-halki-seminary-reopening-over-fears.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-233079-commander-opposed-halki-seminary-reopening-over-fears.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Constantinople coat of arms.PNG
File:Constantinople coat of arms.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)