The Question of the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop in the Correspondence of Pope Nicholas I (858–867) with Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople

Canon law began as sets of norms for the regulation of Christian conduct in the world and the relations of Christians with each other. These were based on principles derived from scripture, the influence of respected teachers such as St. Paul, the decisions of ecclesiastical assemblies called synods or councils, and papal decretals. These norms were called canons, rather than laws. The term canon translates the Greek κανών, meaning a carpenter’s straight-edge and, by extension, a guide or rule. Decretals, or letters, were responses of the pope to questions posed to him regarding Church doctrine. While relevant only to that particular circumstance, papal decretals, over time, came to be regarded as binding for all of Christendom. Church councils sought to standardize doctrine, liturgy, and legal norms by the collective decisions of assembled bishops, but regional ecclesiastical identities endured, particularly in the person of the independent local bishop governing his own church with its own customs, in the increasing distinction between clergy and laity, and in the development of a clerical hierarchy. Regional and local councils, presided over by bishops, could either adapt or repeat canons issued at ecumenical councils depending upon the needs. Collections of canons, always privately compiled—until the Liber Extra Decretalium of Pope Gregory IX (r. 1227–1241) in 1234—and adopted for use by regional churches, were arranged either chronologically according to the assumed dates of their texts or systematically according to topics treated. The Greek Christian church adopted the term nomocanon to designate its canons that were approved by the Byzantine emperor and thereby became νομοι, laws. The Latin Christian church called its laws ius canonicum as a parallel, but not dependent, legal system to the study of Roman law. The shift from collections of texts to a legal science—whereby one went to Bologna or Paris, for example, for the specific purpose of studying law—occurred during the classical period, from shortly before 1140 to 1375, beginning with the almost universal adoption of the work of the canonist Gratian, the Decretum. During this period—frequently referred to as the classical period—the doctrine of papal judicial supremacy emerged, and papal legal decisions became the primary source of canon law. In the law books produced during the classical period, canon law acquired a form and structured that remained in effect in the Roman Catholic Church until 1917–1918. Parts of it were adopted in other Christian confessions from the 16th century.

The article examines the views of one of the outstanding Greek theologians, Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos), as part of the “Theory of Primacy of Power” of the Patriarch of Constantinople in connection with the so-called Ukrainian question. After the Russian Orthodox Church broke off Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople in October 2018, Metropolitan Hierotheos outlined his theory on granting autocephaly from the position of the Church of Constantinople. This theory, in essence, is a distortion of Orthodox ecclesiology, since the institution of primacy violates equal relations between Local Orthodox Churches. At the beginning of the article, Metropolitan Hierotheos’s theory of an autocephalous Church is examined. His confidence in the special right of Constantinople to grant autocephaly is unfounded, since one Local Church is granted an excessive privilege that goes beyond its honorary rights and obligations. The Metropolitan’s theory of the gradual granting of autocephaly is examined in detail: 1) “by oikonomia” by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and then 2) “by akrivia”, by the All-Church Council. In any case, the Metropolitan supports the Patriarch of Constantinople in his actions leading to a schism, which complicates the possibility of restoring peace between the Local Orthodox Churches. In conclusion, the author summarizes: the anti-Russian rhetoric of Metropolitan Hierotheus testifies to his biased and unscientific approach to the history of Russia and the Russian Church. His distorted understanding of history allows him to “justify” the decisions of Constantinople, which radically violated peace and harmony in the Ecumenical Church.

The Photian Synod of Union of 879-880 Also in our days the relation between the Church of Rome and the other local Churches is a question of great actuality, not only in the ecumenical dialogue with the East, but even within the Roman Catholic Church itself. Many times the different understanding of this relation has been cause of misunderstanding and collision. One of such collisions happened at the time of Photius, patriarch of Constantinople. However, unity was restored at the so called Photian Synod of 879-880. Because of the actuality of this issue, and because modern historical research has shed new light on the work and personality of Photius, the author took this synod as object of a theological analysis, which he offered as his doctoral dissertation for the Oriental Institute in Rome. This first article gives the historical background, a short report of the sessions, and the acceptance by Pope John VIII of this unique case of a successful synod of union, and its fate in history. A following article will synthesize the conclusions of the theological analysis of this synod.

The philological analysis of a scriptural or patristic text is the proper starting-point for its theological study and interpretation. Here are the principal conclusions of the syntactic and stylistic analysis of the famous text of S. Irenaeus: 1. The hanc enim ecclesiam is the Church of Rome, which is mentioned immediately before (3,3,2a). This is demanded a) by the deictic reference normally inherent in hic as adjective to the object last named, and b) by the explanatory significance of enim . 2. Necesse est expresses the obligation arising from the nature of things; in this case, from the constitution of the Church. Its subject in omnis Ecclesia , where omnis has both its collective and its distributive value: i. e. all the local Churches together and every one in particular. The expression necesse est convenire makes of the Church of Rome the centre of gravity and the key to unity of the whole Church. 3. The antecedent of the adjectival relative clause in qua etc. is the Church of Rome. This is demanded a) by the immediate context, b) by the text itself, c) by the function of the phrase hoc... fideles , d) by the necessity of avoiding a tautology, and e) by the stylistic devices employed. 4. The phrase ab his qui etc. is comparative in significance. 5. The whole period is built up in accordance with the rules of rhythmic prose as regards a) the beginning, b) the end of each member and phrase, and c) the number of syllables. Its stylistic structure is made up of two members: I) Ad hanc... fileles , and II) In qua... traditio . Each member is divided into four phrases. 6. Syntactically, they are both members of a single period: stylistically, they have their own substantive character and independence. This is shown a) by the beginning of each member; b) by the total parallelism in the structure of the final phrases, with the adjectival relative clause between the demonstrative adjective ( eos, ea ) and the antecedent ( fideles, traditio ); c) by the symmetrical parallelism of the two members, so that all their phrases can be superimposed; d) by the identical alternation of accented and non-accented syllables in the final clausulae, absent at the end of the six remaining phrases; and e) by the equality or quasi-equality of syllables (isocratic school) of the first member, not to be found in the second (demosthenic school). All this being so, one of the two members cannot depend upon an element present only in the other; that is to say, the relative in qua has as its antecedent, not omnis Ecclesia in 3,3,2b, but Romae Ecclesia in 3,3,2a, through the intermediary of hanc Ecclesiam in 3,3,2b. 7. Here, then, is the translation of the passage according to the syntactico-stylistic requirements and the genius of the Spanish language: For with this Church (of Rome), on account of its supreme principality, all the Church must concur, that is, the faithful from (on) every side. It has always conserved the apostolic tradition better than the (faithful, Churches) on every side. In a second article, entitled The 'Principalitas' and the 'Principatus' of the Episcopal See of Rome and its Bishop , I shall sketch the semantic field of principalitas, literally translated here by 'principality', and its theological result (the Primacy of the Pope).

The philological analysis of a scriptural or patristic text is the proper starting-point for its theological study and interpretation. Here are the principal conclusions of the syntactic and stylistic analysis of the famous text of S. Irenaeus: 1. The hanc enim ecclesiam is the Church of Rome, which is mentioned immediately before (3,3,2a). This is demanded a) by the deictic reference normally inherent in hic as adjective to the object last named, and b) by the explanatory significance of enim. 2. Necesse est expresses the obligation arising from the nature of things; in this case, from the constitution of the Church. Its subject in omnis Ecclesia, where omnis has both its collective and its distributive value: i. e. all the local Churches together and every one in particular. The expression necesse est convenire makes of the Church of Rome the centre of gravity and the key to unity of the whole Church. 3. The antecedent of the adjectival relative clause in qua etc. is the Church of Rome. This is demanded a) by the immediate context, b) by the text itself, c) by the function of the phrase hoc... fideles, d) by the necessity of avoiding a tautology, and e) by the stylistic devices employed. 4. The phrase ab his qui etc. is comparative in significance. 5. The whole period is built up in accordance with the rules of rhythmic prose as regards a) the beginning, b) the end of each member and phrase, and c) the number of syllables. Its stylistic structure is made up of two members: I) Ad hanc... fileles, and II) In qua... traditio. Each member is divided into four phrases. 6. Syntactically, they are both members of a single period: stylistically, they have their own substantive character and independence. This is shown a) by the beginning of each member; b) by the total parallelism in the structure of the final phrases, with the adjectival relative clause between the demonstrative adjective (eos, ea) and the antecedent (fideles, traditio); c) by the symmetrical parallelism of the two members, so that all their phrases can be superimposed; d) by the identical alternation of accented and non-accented syllables in the final clausulae, absent at the end of the six remaining phrases; and e) by the equality or quasi-equality of syllables (isocratic school) of the first member, not to be found in the second (demosthenic school). All this being so, one of the two members cannot depend upon an element present only in the other; that is to say, the relative in qua has as its antecedent, not omnis Ecclesia in 3,3,2b, but Romae Ecclesia in 3,3,2a, through the intermediary of hanc Ecclesiam in 3,3,2b. 7. Here, then, is the translation of the passage according to the syntactico-stylistic requirements and the genius of the Spanish language: For with this Church (of Rome), on account of its supreme principality, all the Church must concur, that is, the faithful from (on) every side. It has always conserved the apostolic tradition better than the (faithful, Churches) on every side. In a second article, entitled The 'Principalitas' and the 'Principatus' of the Episcopal See of Rome and its Bishop, I shall sketch the semantic field of principalitas, literally translated here by 'principality', and its theological result (the Primacy of the Pope).

The main subject of debates among contemporary theologians has been the recent split within world Orthodoxy caused by the granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine by the Patriarch of Constantinople. The escalation of the tension within the family of the Orthodox autocephalous churches on the subject of autocephaly and its proclamation continues to be destructive to the unity and conciliarity of Orthodoxy. As this article will discuss, the Ecumenical Patriarchate assumes the role of the centre of the unity of the Orthodox Church and the ecclesiastical motherhood of the contemporary local autocephalous Orthodox Church. She is the “Mother birth giver” and the source of apostolic succession of all the recognized autocephalous churches in the last two centuries. Internally, the Ecumenical See has assumed the role of the faithful guardian of the Ecumenical Councils, based on which she consolidates the internal life of Orthodoxy. As the Mother Church with the authority to grant autocephaly to the local Orthodox churches, including the most recent, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, she solidifies her position and the inner life of Orthodoxy and responsibility delivered to her by the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

The autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church was recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on April 25, 1885. The issue of the relations between Romanian Church and Ecumenical Patriarchate was raised by the clergy and lay deputies at the legislative and consultative assembly (ad-hoc divan) of the Principality of Moldavia in the autumn of 1857. In the state-building programme and memoranda addressed to the representatives of the Great Powers, there were presented historical and canonical arguments in favour of the inherent independence of the Romanian Church, and the repeated violations of its rights by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. According to the demands of the Romanian ecclesiastical and political elites, the hierarchical relations between Romania and Constantinople should have been built on the basis of the model of relations established between the Patriarchate and the new church of the Greek state. The unification of the Romanian Principalities in 1859 and the creation in 1862 of a unified political and administrative system also made the ecclesiastical unification of Romania necessary. Thus, on December 3, 1864, an Organic Decree was promulgated on the establishment of a central synodal body, supplemented by the Regulation on the election of members of the General Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church and the internal regulations of this General Synod. The adoption of the Synodal law meant not only church unification, but in essence an affirmation of church independence or autocephaly. This chapter focuses on the issue of the church reform introduced during the formation and consolidation of the modern Romanian state. The dispute between the institution of the Church and the state led to the subordination of the former to national political power and at the same time to its autonomy in relation to foreign ecclesiastical authority. We show the efforts of the Romanian Orthodox hierarchs and politicians aimed at establishing correct canonical relations with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, while avoiding the isolation of the Romanian Church from other autocephalous Orthodox Churches.

These were of two types: ecumenical councils, with representatives from all five patriarchates, whose decisions were binding on the entire church, and local councils, whose decisions were binding only on the patriarchate of Constantinople.

This article offers a possible answer to ecumenism's problematical question as to how to arrive at a common theological language in which the particular Christian traditions can recognise themselves. Drawing upon insights from thinkers such as Mikhail Bakhtin and Anton Ugolnik, it proposes that the language of the on-going Dialogue of Love between the Church of Rome and the Patriarchate of Constantinople makes it possible to recognise the language of the other as a possible system of expression of the meta-language of Revelation.

The struggle for primacy in the Universal Church was first started between Rome and Alexandria, but in the middle of 5th Century it was Constantinople that became the most important rival of Rome. The increasing position of the Constantinopolitan bishop was caused by the fact that at the turn of the 4th century the city became capital of the Empire. So, it was the emperor’s interest to give to the bishop of their capital the same rights as those of the bishops of the Old Rome. The growing importance and authority of Constantinopolitan bishops reflected the needs and natural evolution, so it was easily accepted in the Eastern part of the Empire. It was confirmed by the decisions of the two ecumenical councils and by imperial legislation. Hence, the bishops of Constantinople became the most impor­tant ones in the East. They rejected papal aspirations to control the whole Church. Popes opposed the growing authority of their rivals in Constantinople. They started to act as St. Peter’s successors and tried to obtain independence from secu­lar authorities. Despite their efforts, the importance of bishops of Constantinople was still increasing. The argument concerning the title of „ecumenical patriarch” was a part of that struggle. Its beginning dates back to the year 483 when pope Felix protested against addressing Accacius, the bishop of Constantinople „ecu­menical”. The argument became even more fierce during the pontificates of Pelagius II and Gregory the Great. They both fought against the title used by the patriarchs of Constantinople – John IV the Faster and Cyriacus. Gregory translated the controversial title as „universalis” or „solus” and tried to mount an alliance to fight it. He appealed to Eutychios, the patriarch of Alexandria and to the patriarch of Antioch – Anastasios. The predecessor of the latter, patriarch also named Gregory, just like the pope, did not take part in the argument, but he was in a way cause the cause of it, as the title had been used in the documents from just his trial that were sent to Rome. For Gregory using the title in relation just to the patriarchs of Constantinople sounded diminish­ing for other bishops. According to the pope, using the title by the patriarchs of Constantinople implied that they would subject other patriarchs and consequently would demand power over the whole Church. Gregory counted that due to that, other patriarchs, particularly those of Antioch and of Alexandria would support him in the argument. He kept writing to both Eulogius and Anastasius. He relied on them the more that he knew both personally and with Eulogius he was even befriended. To his disappointment, both patriarchs kindly refused their support. The problems they had were more important than the question of someone’s title. They felt they might need support from the Byzantine emperor as well as from the patriarch of Constantinople in the struggle with heretics on their own territory and absolutely did not feel threatened by the growing position of the fellow-bishop. Besides, it seems they quite did not understand what the whole problem was about. Consequently, the lack of support from eastern patriarchs and the negative opinion of emperor Maurice resulted in Gregory’s defeat in the argument.

This chapter investigates perfection of Holy Scripture. It debates the perfection of Holy Scripture only with respect to its content, both absolutely or in itself and in relation and opposition to the unwritten traditions. For the rules and marks, Robert Bellarmine puts forward outside Holy Scripture are doubtful, as Scripture alone is the most reliable indicator of right and wrong in all the things one must believe and keep. For everyone who together with the Roman church, which claims for itself an unbroken succession from the apostles, errs in thinking that Holy Scripture does not contain everything that is necessary for salvation, can be deceived easily in the following aspect also: that some other doctrine which actually did not emanate from the apostles is apostolic. Even the papal teachers admit that the church of that time was misled by its own teachers in these matters. Keywords: Holy Scripture; papal teachers; perfection; Robert Bellarmine; Roman church; salvation; unwritten traditions

This article presents an analysis of the church-historical grounds for the termination of Eucharistic communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople that took place in 2018. In this paper, this topic is considered through the prism of domestic research. The study of the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople moves in several thematic directions: doctrinal, church-historical, geopolitical. The novelty of the analysis is the attempt to systematize modern Russian research and trace the links between current approaches and the pre-revolutionary academic tradition. The historical and canonical dominance of the Patriarchate of Constantinople over other Local Churches did not lead to doctrinal supremacy. Many ecclesiastical-legal judgments that have come out of the modern research environment can conditionally be attributed to two theoretical models of the dispensation of Ecumenical Orthodoxy. Based on the analysis of the historical precedents of the “Phanariotic” foreign policy, most historians and canonists came to the following disappointing conclusions: the diplomatic strategy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was based on considerations of political pragmatism and personal gain, and was not guided by the fundamental principle of “inter-Orthodox solidarity”. The experience of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the previous two centuries, as well as contemporary events, lead to an important conclusion: it is necessary to strengthen the research direction in the field of Inter-Orthodox relations, which includes a spectrum of church-historical, church-legal, ecclesiological, geopolitical issues.

The Christian Church in Indonesia often faces challenges in fully including people with disabilities—both in worship, ministry, and faith communities. This article aims to develop a theological framework for disability that moves from a paradigm of mercy to a paradigm of active participation, with the conceptual foundation that all human beings—including people with disabilities—are imago Dei (the image of God). Using a practical-contextual theology approach, this research examines the local church context in Indonesia, analyzes biblical literature and Christian theological traditions, and examines field studies on inclusion in worship and ministry for congregations with disabilities. The results of the study indicate that in many church communities, people with disabilities are still treated merely as objects of mercy or altruistic service, rather than as subjects of faith with equal rights and responsibilities. This is rooted in the paradigm of normalism and the social stigma against “disability.” Through biblical reading (including stories of Jesus involving people with disabilities) and theological reflection on the imago Dei, this article asserts that people with disabilities must be seen as full participants in worship, church life, and missionary service. The proposed theological framework consists of three main components: recognition of dignity, active participation, and community transformation. First, the recognition of dignity means that people with disabilities possess spiritual dignity and identity in Christ that is not diminished by physical or mental conditions. Second, active participation requires changes in church structures, liturgy, and ministries so that inclusivity becomes real—not merely symbolic. Third, community transformation focuses on renewing congregational culture to truly embrace diversity as part of the body of Christ. These findings confirm that disability theology is not merely a social or pastoral theme, but an integral part of Christian theology that reflects the reality of salvation and an inclusive community of faith. Thus, the local church in Indonesia is invited to reject passive compassion and replace it with a theological and practical commitment to true inclusion. This article contributes to the development of a practical theology oriented toward justice, participation, and human dignity in diverse ecclesial contexts.

The author writes about the seventeen busts of the church hierarchs painted in the central part of the altar area above the figures of officiating Church Fathers. Starting from the north side, there are depictions of St. Dionysios, St. Hierotheos, St. Michael the Confessor, St. Eutychios, St. Paul the Confessor, St. Germanos, St. Tarasios, St. Methodios, St. James the Brother of God, St. Silvester, St. Clement of Rome, St. Metrophanes, St. John the Almsgiver, St. Meletios, St. Epiphanios, St. Andrew of Crete and St. Amphilochios. The fact that the central position in the frieze of busts is occupied by St. James Adelphotheos points to the significance of Jerusalem, James' devotion to Christ and the aposties' decision to elect him as the first bishop of Jerusalem. Other monuments of Byzantine painting are mentioned in which an important role was attached to this bishop. The grouping of the Constantinopolitane patriarchs around St. James Adelphotheos (St. Germanos, St. Tarasios, St. Methodios) is considered in the context of the victory over the iconoclasts, after 843. Among them is the patriarch of Constantinople, St. Paul the Confessor, while on the other side St. Metrophanes is painted. This article also contains an excursus about St. Germanos of Constantinople, with a description of his cult in the region of Prespa. Author mentions that among the popes, St. Clement of Rome was widely revered in the Ohrid diocese, by virtue of the fact that St. Clement of Ohrid received the same monastic name as that Roman pontiff, and also because of the transfer of his relics from Cherson in the Crimea to Rome, by the brothers from Thessalonica, SS. Cyril and Methodios. The author refers to the figures of St. Michael the Confessor and St. Eutyhios, expressing the assumption that St. Michael, bishop of Synada, was painted alongside of St. Eutyhios, patriarch of Constantinople, in the effort to preserve the memory of the painters of the Ohrid church, Michael Astrapas and Eutychios. In medieval art, the image of St. Michael of Synada is painted only in the illustrated calendars (May 23r ), while St. Eutyhios of Constantinople appears in the compositions of the 5 Ecumenical Council. The Athenian hierarchs, St. Dionysios and St. Hierotheos have their place because they took part in the burial of the Blessed Virgin, and they are also depicted in the Assumption of the Virgin, in the same church. The other painted hierarchs - patriarch of Alexandria John the Almsgiver, patriarch Meletios of Antioch, as well as the aforementioned hierarchs were at the head of the old and renowned Christian centres - Cyprus, Crete and Iconium. This principle of the arrangement was almost always applied in the churches after the victory of the iconophiles, and can be seen in full in the altar of St. Sofia in Ohrid. Of the hierarchs outside the altar space, next to the altar chancel on the northern wall of the church, there are presentations only of St. Clement of Ohrid and St. Constantine Kabasilas, as the representatives of the Ohrid church. The endeavour of the painters to illustrate the unity and ecumenical nature of the church in the Christian world is evident. In that respect, analogies are highlighted with the choice and presentations of the leaders of the Christian cathedrals in the altar of St. Sofia of Ohrid, about which A. Grabar and S. Radojcic have given thorough accounts. .

CHURCH AND CHURCHES ‘One of the greatest challenges facing the Church today is that of maintaining a healthy balance between the universal expression of the faith of the Church and the particular expression of that faith in each local Church. When the scale tips too far, the whole Church, inseparably universal and local, suffers.’ This warning comes from a Roman Catholic commentator, aware of a danger which arises even within a church which is visibly already a single communion. But it arises, too, and more challengingly, in the case of the relation between Church and churches where all are not in communion, and that is the problem to which this book is chiefly addressed. In the foregoing introductory remarks we have been asking what the Church is for and where it is going. We now need to ask in what form or forms, and by what manner of life, it is going to be itself and do its work. The World Council of Churches embraces as ‘churches’ ecclesial entities which St Paul would not have recognised as churches in the same way as he did ‘the church of Corinth’, ‘the church of Rome’. The crucial difference between the usage of St Paul and speaking of, for example, a ‘Methodist church’ or an ‘Anglican church’ is that he understood the local churches he knew to be simply the one Church of Christ meeting in that place.