The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople1

STEFANOS ATHANASIOU

A Religious Minority and a Global Player

Introduction In the extended family of the Orthodox Church of the Byzantine rite, it is well known that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople takes honorary precedence over all other Orthodox autocephalous and autonomous churches.2 The story of its origins is well known. From a small church on the bay of the Bos- porus in the fishing village of Byzantium, to the centre of Eastern Christianity then through the transfer of the Roman imperial capital from Rome to Constantinople in the fourth century, and later its struggle for survival in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. Nevertheless, a discussion of the development of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is required to address the newly- kindled discussion between the 14 official Orthodox autocephalous churches on the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in today’s Orthodox world. A recalling of apposite historical events is relevant to this discussion. As Karl Löwith remarks, “[H]istorical consciousness can only begin with itself, although its intention is to visualise the thinking of other times and other people. History must continually be recalled, reconsidered and re-explored by each current living generation” (Löwith 2004: 12). This article should also be understood with this in mind. It is intended to awaken old memories for reconsideration and reinterpretation.

Since the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has taken up the role of custodian of the Byzantine tradition and culture and has lived out this tradition in its liturgical life in the region of old Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire) and then of the Ottoman Empire and beyond. In the liturgical sphere, the Patriarchate, the main artery of the Orthodox Church, has retained its

1 Translated from the German by Hector Davie, Bern. 2 Even though the internal Orthodox primacy question has recently been an issue, particularly between the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Patriarchate of Moscow, as reflected by the correspondence between the Metropolitan of Prousa, Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, and the Metropolitan of Wolokolamsk, Hilarion Alfeyes, it cannot be compared with the ecumenical discourse on the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, since the Ecumenical Patriarchate has never claimed primacy of jurisdiction over the other autocephalous local churches but insists only on its primacy of honour within the Orthodox Church. Cf. Athanasiou 2014: 162-63. 215 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 26 (2016) 2 historical greatness ‘of long ago.’ True, this was greatly diminished under the political conditions of the Ottoman Empire and later in the Republic of Turkey. Even if the Patriarchate had a special political role during the Ottoman Empire within the Millet system, it was always subject to the Sultan, which led to the Patriarchs being appointed and dismissed by the sultan. Then the Ecumenical Patriarchate completely lost its political power with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the re-establishment of the Turkish state. Even if the Ecumenical Patriarchate has since achieved a global reach, especially through the Metro- politanates which it has established particularly in Western Europe, America, Asia, and Australia, it has only the status of a local Turkish organisation within Turkey.

It is, of course, not possible to present the entire history of the Ecumenical Pa- triarchate within the framework of one article, but four points from the almost two-thousand-year history of the Church of Constantinople are recalled, since each one, in its own way, was a turning point for the history of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and made the Patriarchate what it is today.

From Fishing Village to Imperial Capital The founding of the fishing village on the Bosporus with the name Byzantium can be traced back to Doric settlers, who are said to have founded the village around the year 658 BC (cf. the article “Byzantion” in Kahzdan 1991: 344). Byzantium, which grew to a small town, experienced a short name change around the year 196 AD, when it was renamed Augusta Antonina. It was only in the year 330 that it was renamed by Emperor Constantine the Great as part of the transfer of the capital from Rome to Nova Roma (New Rome) Byzantium. The name was laid down in a law. The general public, however, called it the ‘city of Constantine,’ i.e., Constantinople.3 So, in addition to the legally established

3 Socrates Scholasticus, The Ecclesiastical History, 1.16: “The Emperor Constan- tine having enlarged the Ancient Byzantium, calls it Constantinople. After the Synod the emperor spent some time in recreation, and after the public celebration of his twentieth anniversary of his accession, he immediately devoted himself to the reparation of the churches. This he carried into effect in other cities as well as in the city named after him, which being previously called Byzantium, he enlarged, sur- rounded with massive walls, and adorned with various edifices; and having rendered it equal to imperial Rome, he named it Constantinople, establishing by law that it should be designated New Rome. This law was engraven on a pillar of stone erected in public view in the Strategium, near the emperor’s equestrian statue. He built also in the same city two churches, one of which he named Irene, and the other The Apostles. Nor did he only improve the affairs of the Christians, as I have said, but he also destroyed the su- perstition of the heathens; for he brought forth their images into public view to ornament the city of Constantinople, and set up the Delphic tripods publicly in the Hippodrome. It may indeed seem now superfluous to mention these things, since they are seen before

216 THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE name of the city, New Rome, Constantinople was also used. In particular the formal name of the city, New Rome, would later also have ecclesiastical consequences and represent a turning point in church history.

The Bishop of Byzantium was not even a Metropolitan until the time of Constan- tine but merely a Suffragan of the Metropolitan of Heraclea in Thrace. “The close connection with the imperial court, however, very rapidly gave the bishop of the imperial capital such an increase in prestige and influence,” as Friedrich Heiler emphasises, and “that the Council of Constantinople (381) ... in Canon 3, accorded a place of honour immediately after the Bishop of Rome, on the grounds that Constantinople was the new Rome” (Heiler 1971: 44). Even though the repositioning of the Church of Constantinople within the Tetrarchy of the Patriarchal Churches at that time (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) led to protests, particularly in Alexandria and Rome, Constantinople, with the help of the imperial house, was able to secure second place in the Pentarchy.4

It was only with the promulgation of the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon that the See of Constantinople fully assimilated the regions of Asia Minor, Pontus, and Thrace into its sphere of jurisdiction. Likewise, the 9th canon of the same Council made the Church of Constantinople the final court of appeal in legal disputes in the eastern half of the empire. The 28th canon even went so far as to confirm Constantinople not only as the second place in the Pentarchy of the Patriarchates, as had been declared in Canon 3 of Constantinople I, but that Constantinople even had “equal honour” with the Church of Rome.5 Thus,

they are heard of. But at that time the Christian cause received its greatest augmentation; for Divine Providence preserved very many other things during the times of the emperor Constantine. Eusebius Pamphilus has in magnificent terms recorded the praises of the emperor; and I considered it would not be ill-timed to advert thus to them as concisely as possible.” 4 On the origins of the Pentarchy and its implementation in the Roman Empire, see Gahbauer 1993. 5 On the precedence of the Patriarchates with particular reference to the Petrine office, see Horn 1982. Horn mentions a factor in the rise of the Church of Constantinople which should not be underestimated. According to him, the charismatic figure of John Chrysostom as Archbishop of Constantinople was one of the most important factors in the later rise of Constantinople, and this was because, from the time of Chrysostom, Constantinople had already de facto acquired its later officially accorded rights. Horn writes in this respect, basing himself on Theodoret’s History of the Church: “At the end of his work Theodoret named the chief sees in a peculiar order: Rome-Antioch- Alexandria-Jerusalem-Constantinople. The downgrading of Alexandria after Antioch is certainly extraordinary, just at the moment when the Emperor had given the Bishop of Alexandria the presidency over the ecumenical synod. Constantinople still occupies fifth

217 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 26 (2016) 2

Constantinople was able to secure second place, not least because it was the New Rome and thus the continuation of the old. In this way, the city’s new name as the New Rome provided the basis for the elevation of the bishop’s chair of Con- stantinople to second place in the ecclesiastical order. Even the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451) refers to this line of thinking in its justification: Following in every way the decrees of the Holy Fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out—the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constan- tinople, new Rome—we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most Holy Church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The Fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the See of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the Most Holy See of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The Metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most Holy See of the Most Holy Church in Constantinople. That is, each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Con- stantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him. (Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon [451] quoted in Tanner 1990) The 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon conferred one additional prerogative on the See of Constantinople which has continued in the Constantino- politan Church to the present day: the prerogative of consecrating the bishops in “barbarian countries.” This referred to the territories which were not subject to any church of the Pentarchy and which lay outside the Roman Empire. Even though the Ecumenical Patriarchate still insists on this canon to solve the intra- Orthodox diaspora issue, the canon has been interpreted differently by many Orthodox churches. This has led to many Orthodox churches being found in the same area but under the jurisdiction of different Orthodox Churches.6 The

place, but the imperial city has already gained an exceedingly great importance for Theo- doret by the time of John Chrysostom. Chrysostom, according to his account, exercised his episcopal pastorate over all Asia, all Thrace and Pontus, and over the pagan Huns, Goths, and Scythians. In this description, the patriarchal position of Constantinople, as Chalcedon would characterize it, was anticipated to a great extent, even though the imperial city occupies only the fifth rank, and thus the canon of the Synod of Constantinople (381) relating to the precedence of the imperial city did not yet determine the order. More important, however, is the description of the activity of John Chrysostom as extending beyond the limits of the later Patriarchate” (Horn 1982: 93-94). 6 Only the Orthodox Churches of Alexandria, Jerusalem Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia give the Ecumenical Patriarchate the

218 THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Church of Constantinople enjoyed its position of honour7 until the fall of the imperial city in May 1453, playing an important role in the whole formation of Orthodox tradition and identity. Many Constantinopolitan traditions have been adopted throughout Orthodoxy—for example, the Liturgy of Chrysostom.

Patriarch and Ethnarch With the fall of Constantinople on 29 May 1453, the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Archbishop of Constantinople changed from ecclesiaastical leader to ethnarch, that is, the ecclesiastical and political leader of the Orthodox millet in the Ottoman Empire. Although the Sultan was the political leader of the Ottoman Empire, the Ecumenical Patriarchate—the Ecumenical Patriarch— was responsible for internal affairs in the Orthodox millet (the Rum Millet), which naturally meant that the Patriarch was responsible to the sultan for his millet. With this political arrangement, it was easy in the 18th and 19th centuries within the millet system of the Ottoman Empire to promote nationalism, especially with regard to the framework of the dissemination of the national ideals that arose from the French Revolution. This led to the millets being viewed, in effect, as separate nations. In this respect, political movements in the millets—in this case, in the Orthodox Rum Millet of the Ottoman Empire— dreamed of an independent state from the end of the eighteenth century.8 Al- though the early revolutionary movements in the Orthodox millet insisted on not privilege of incorporating the Orthodox Church in “barbarian countries,” which the Ecu- menical Patriarchate understands as all those countries which are not traditionally Ortho- dox. All other Orthodox churches (Antioch, Moscow, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Georgia) decided, especially in the 20th century, to establish their own metropolitanates in Western Europe, America, and Australia, which were not subject to the Ecumenical Patriarchate but to the respective Orthodox Church that founded them. 7 Except, of course, for the time of the Franconian occupation of Constantinople (1204-1261), which was not only painful to the Orthodox Church but also to the entire Eastern Roman population, and so weakened East Rome-Constantinople that it fell to the Ottoman Muslims in 1453. 8 I refer here only to the Greeks in the polyethnic Orthodox millet because, as Ioannis Zelepos emphasises (2002: 44-45): “Greeks and/or graæcophones enjoyed a privileged position in the political order before the others, for they dominated the Patri- archate of Constantinople and the higher clergy. An important role was played by the Phanariots, a Constantinopolitan financial elite who, in addition to their financial suc- cesses, succeeded in placing even the highest offices in the Ottoman State hierarchy under their control from the beginning of the eighteenth century. Greeks and/or graæcophones had great significance for the Ottoman and southeast European economy, and the Greek language, in its vernacular form, was the lingua franca of trade in this region. In this context, the existence of Greek communities in the trade metropolises of Central Europe should be mentioned. These exchanged not only money but also intellectual currents and

219 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 26 (2016) 2 including religion as an identity factor in their ideological and political structures of a new Greek state, following the model and the ideas of the French Revolution, they had to face reality, according to Ioannis Gregoriades. The Or- thodox faith was so deeply anchored among the people of the Orthodox millet that a “new Greek national identity” could not be thought of without the Ortho- dox faith (cf. Gregoriades 2015: 46-58).

This is also the reason why Gregoriades insists in his work that the “great ethnarch” and saint of the Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregorios V, was hanged by the Turks on the Easter night of 10 April 1821: not because of his support for the Greek revolution but because he could not bring the revolutionary currents in his millet under control (Gregoriades 2015: 54-56). Gregori- ades also attempts to support his theory with the Paternal Instruction, a writing from 1798 by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Anthimos.9 The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, who at that time resided mainly in Constantinople, was very critical of the revolutionary ideas of the French Revolution and above all of the idea of the formation of a new nation (Gregoriades 2015: 46-58). He would not have published these critical opinions without ‘spiritual’ permission, at least from his political head, the Ecumenical Patriarch. This makes Gregori- ades’ theory plausible. The Orthodox clergy’s fear of the ideas of the French Revolution in relation to the Orthodox Church probably led to the clergy being critical of the revolutionaries. By means of the fatal punishment of the Ecumen- ical Patriarch Gregory V, the Ecumenical Patriarch, as ethnarch, was shown to be completely answerable to the Ottoman leadership.

It should be noted that the Ecumenical Patriarchate (or the Orthodox Church as such) had lost its judicial and political powers with the foundation of a Greek state, as also happened later. To this day, as a remnant of this period, the Ecu- menical Patriarch is also titled Patriarch of the Ethnos (the Nation). The founding of the Modern Greek state in 1821, and its slow expansion to its present size, meant a loss of jurisdiction for the Ecumenical Patriarchate (see Leustean 2014: 42-47). When Prince Otto of Bavaria became king of Greece after the Greek Revolution, he caused the Autocephalous Church of Greece to be founded in 1833 with the support of Theoklitos Farmakidis. This practice of autocephaly was severely criticised by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It was not until 1850 that, by the declaration of the “Tomos of the Autocephaly of the Church of Greece,” the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognised the separation of the liberated territories of the Neo-Greek state, which have also officially obtained their au- tonomy since then.

political ideas.” On the situation in the Orthodox millet and nationalism in the Balkans see also Roudometof 2001. 9 On the Paternal Instruction by Patriarch Anthimos see Clogg, 1969. 220 THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE

The Greek example was later followed by other ‘Orthodox nations’ in the Bal- kans, which restricted the territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the territory of Turkey to a few Greek regions. After the political reunion of the Hepanisa (the Ionian Islands) in 1864, church unity also followed, through a subsequent decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Patriarchate also partly lost the territories of Thessaly and Epirus to the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece, when these areas fell to Greece in 1882, forcing the patriarchate to abandon these territories. This time, however, the Ecumenical Patriarchate retained the privilege of spiritual supremacy over the 36 Metropolitanates that were handed over to the Church of Greece in the newly conquered territories (the New Lands). However, this is currently only apparent in the liturgy and worship activities of the 36 Metropolitanates, who pray for the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Synod of Greece, as opposed to the 46 Metropolitanates not belonging to the ‘New Lands,’ i.e., previously belonging to the Church of Greece, which therefore commemorate only the synod of the Church of Greece in their liturgy. Likewise, when a new metropolitan from the ‘New Lands’ is to be chosen, the Synod of the Church of Greece must send a list of the eligible candidates to the Ecumenical Patriarchate before the election, with the Pa- triarchate retaining the right to remove candidates.

However, this does not apply to the 46 Metropolitanates of the so-called ‘Old Greece.’ Even today, there are five jurisdictional units on Greek territory as a consequence of historical events and the resultant jurisdictional privileges of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Greece. These are: 1) the Church of Greece (Old Greece), 2) the New Lands, which are spiritually under the Ecumenical Patri- archate and jurisdictionally under the Church of Greece, 3) the semi-autonomous Church of Crete, which has its own synod which is directly accountable to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 4) the Dodecanese (the Twelve Isles in the Ae- gean on the eastern edge of Greece next to Turkey), directly under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and 5) the monastic republic of Athos, which has its own autonomous leadership but is also accountable to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

It is thus very clear that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has lost important territories in recent European history since the establishment of the national states in the Balkans, which, of course, has also led to a drastic reduction of the faithful. This problem would be exacerbated by further historical developments.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Turkey The Ecumenical Patriarchate found itself in a new situation with the establishment of the Turkish Republic after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 1923. The millet system was dissolved. The consequence of this was that the Ecumenical Patriarchate completely lost the political rights it had enjoyed until

221 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 26 (2016) 2 then. In addition, through various pogroms against Orthodox believers, who were now predominantly considered Greeks and not just members of the Rum Millet, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has had to witness their slow emigration to Greece and Europe and beyond. With the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and the founding of states in the Balkans and Turkey, nationalism had won completely. However, with the Treaty of Lausanne between Turkey and Greece in 1923, this also led to an exchange of people, where the only criterion for defining nationality was religious affiliation (cf. Ladas 1932). Thus, all Orthodox Chris- tians of Turkey were compulsorily moved to Greece, and the Muslims who were in Greece to Turkey. The only exceptions were the Muslims of West Thrace and the Orthodox of Constantinople. The ethnicisation of religion meant that the Pa- triarchate was now seen as a Greek parasite in Turkey, which would be brought up in every dispute between Greece and Turkey. This was especially evident in the nationalisation of ecclesiastical property but also in the enforcement of nu- merous state controls and restrictions on the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarch had to be a Turkish citizen under the laws of the Turkish state of 1923 and 1970 and to have done military service in Turkey. He must also have served as a priest in Turkey. In any election of a Patriarch, it was now insisted that the list of candidates for election had to be sent to the mayor of Istanbul who had the right to remove candidates. The compulsory closure of the priestly seminar of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the island of Chalki in 1971 by the Turkish state also made the training of Orthodox clergy in Turkey im- possible, creating the danger that the Ecumenical Patriarchate would also lose its successors. Thus, the Patriarchate has had to fight for its existence.

The non-recognition of the title of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Ecumen- ical Patriarch by the Turkish state on the grounds that it is not ecumenical but a local patriarchate confined to Turkey has resulted in the global function of the Ecumenical Patriarchates being permanently questioned. In the past, the Patri- archs themselves were often denied access to Turkey, or it was made difficult for them to leave Turkey. The recognition of the problem by the European Com- mission for Democracy and Justice analysed the situation of the Ecumenical Pa- triarchate on 15 March 2010 as follows: Although important for symbolic reasons, and as a matter of principle, the lack of recognition by the Turkish authorities of the ecumenical nature of the Patriarchate is in itself of limited substantive significance. The Patriarchate is faced with other challenges of a more factual and specific character, which to some extent can be seen as indirectly linked to the issue of ecumenicalism. A basic challenge to the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the gap between the home basis of the institution and its transnational role. On the one hand, the Patriarch is a spiritual leader to hundreds of millions of Orthodox believers abroad. At the same time, the number of Greek Orthodox in Turkey has been gradually dwindling, and today by some estimates stands at a mere 2500 people. The challenges are increased by the requirement under Turkish law that the Patriarch and the metropolitans must be Turkish citizens—combined with the fact that the government in 1971 shut down the

222 THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Heybeliada Orthodox theological college (the Halki seminar), thereby depriving the Pa- triarchate of the only seminar in Turkey for educating clergy. The combined effect of this is that it may be difficult for the Patriarchate to survive as an institution in the long run.10 The European Council in 2010 also stressed this point in one of its resolutions: 19.2. (to) recognise the legal personality of the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarchate in Is- tanbul, the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul, the Armenian Catholic Archbishopric of Istanbul, the Bulgarian Orthodox Community within the structures of the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarchate, the Chief Rabbinate, and the Vicariate Apostolic of Istanbul; the absence of legal personality which affects all the communities concerned having direct effects in terms of ownership rights and property management; 19.3. (to) find an agreed solution with the representatives of the minority with a view to the reopening of the Heybeliada Greek Orthodox Theological College (the Halki Sem- inary), inter alia, by making official in writing the proposal to reopen the seminary as a department of the Faculty of Theology of Galatasaray University, in order to initiate gen- uine negotiations on this proposal; 19.4. (to) give the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul the freedom to choose to use the adjective ‘ecumenical.’ (Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resol- ution 1704 [2010]) The global recognition by international political institutions and governments of the problems of the Ecumenical Patriarchate gives hope for its further presence on the Bosporus, one ensured since the 4th century, if not earlier. The world community must certainly bear this responsibility. The Ecumenical Patriarchate undoubtedly hopes for this recognition of its historical course and its plans for World Orthodoxy in the future. The 83 Metropolitanates stretching round the world which are either indirectly or directly subordinate to the Ecumenical Pa- triarchate of Constantinople play an important role, as these extend the arm of the Ecumenical Patriarchate throughout the world.

On the level of World Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople also plays an important role as primus inter pares. Through its permanent at- tempt to make World Orthodoxy speak with one voice, the Ecumenical Patriarchate seeks to be conscious of its role as first among equals among the Orthodox Churches in the 21st century and to fill them with life. Even if there are protests from other Orthodox local churches, the synaxes of the Orthodox leaders of the Autocephalous Churches and other Pan-Orthodox bodies have always been summoned by the Ecumenical Patriarch, which undoubtedly under- scores the historical role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

10 See the European Commission for Democracy through Law 15 March 2010 Opinion no. 535/2009:101.

223 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 26 (2016) 2

Conclusion The Ecumenical Patriarchate today includes metropolitanates and local churches in Europe, America, Asia and Australia11 and participates in all ecumenical for- ums. There is no doubt that the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in matters of ecumenism is a historical fact, which is exemplified by the spirit of Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III in his letter of 1902 to all the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches—a spirit that calls for dialogue between confessions and peoples. Fol- lowing this spirit, the Ecumenical Patriarchate was a forerunner and founding member of the World Council of Churches and was active in all bilateral dia- logues with other Christian churches in the inner-Orthodox world. At the level of interreligious dialogue, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is also a pioneer in the Orthodox Church and is more generally involved in the dialogue between cul- tures and peoples (see Maximus of Sardes 1976). The present Patriarch, Bartholomew, was also recognised as the ‘Green Patriarch’ for his ecological work, which has brought him great prestige at an international level (cf. also Chryssaygis 2003).

The Ecumenical Patriarchate will need to actively contribute from almost two thousand years of experience to the preservation of peace and interpersonal re- lations in the world if it is to maintain its global role in the future. The refugee crisis, the polarisation between East and West, the decline in human rights even in our modern democratic Western societies, the secularisation of the Church and of allegedly ‘Christian’ Europe are points where the Ecumenical Patriarch- ate will have to intervene if it is to maintain its global position. The unity of the Orthodox Church at the world level will also play an important role here, which the Ecumenical Patriarchate take seriously since this will not only be a contribution to the preservation of East-West dialogue but also the basis for the Ortho- dox Church as a whole being seen as an important partner in the context of world conflicts. In doing so, the Ecumenical Patriarchate will have to fulfil its role as primus inter pares both humbly and deliberately. The historical responsibility for the preservation of the Orthodox Church, its tradition and theology, and for its development for the future, in addition to the political problems that the Pa- triarchate has had for centuries, will be important future tasks which must not be neglected or underestimated.

The Orthodox Church as a source of historical experiences with Islam will have to play an important role in the dialogue of the ‘Western world’ with Islam. Moreover, the theological-mystical experience of the Orthodox Church in the context of global secularism can make an important ecclesial contribution to re- communicating Christian ideas of hope through the ineffable mystery of God.

11 Africa falls under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria. 224 THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE

LITERATURE Athanasiou, Stefanos. (2014). “Primat der Demut als Primat der Liebe, Der wahre Primat im Leben des Bischofs.” In: Michaela C. Hastetter et al. (eds.). Dienst und Einheit, Reflexionen zum petrinischen Amt in ökumenischer Perspektive. Festschrift für Stephan Otto Horn zum 80. Geburtstag. Sankt Ottilien: EOS Verlag. Pp. 162-76. Chryssavgis, John. (2003). Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew. Cambridge: Eerdmans. Clogg, Richard. (1969). “The Dhidhaskalia Patriki (1798): An Orthodox Reaction to French Revolutionary Propaganda.” Middle Eastern Studies 5: 87-115. Gahbauer, Ferdinand. (1993). Die Pentarchie-Theorie: Ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Frankfurter Theologische Studien 42. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Jozef Knecht. Gregoriades, Ioannis N. (2015). Θρησκεία και Εθνικισμός σε Ελλάδα και Τουρκία, Μία Ιερά Σύνθεση (Belief and Nationalism in Greece and Turkey, a Holy Synthesis). Thessaloniki: Epikentro. Heiler, Friedrich. (1971). Die Ostkirchen, Neubearbeitung von Urkirche und Ostkirche, Munich/Basel: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag. Horn, Stephan Otto. (1982). Petrou Kathedra: Der Bischof von Rom und die Synode von Ephesus (449) und Chalcedon, Paderborn: Verlag Bonifatius-Druckerei. Kazhdan Alexander (ed.). (1991). The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. Leustean, Lucian. (2014). Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century South Eastern Europe. New York: Fordham University Press. Löwith, Karl. (2004). Weltgeschichte und Heilsgeschehen: Die theologischen Voraussetz- ungen der Geschichtsphilosophie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Maximus of Sardes. (1976). The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church. Freiburg: Herder Roudometof, Victor. (2001). Nationalism, Globalization and Orthodoxy: The Social Ori- gins of Ethnic Conflict in the Balkans. London: Greenwood Publishing Group. Socrates Scholasticus. The Ecclesiastical History. Transl. S. Bagster. Revised, with Notes, by The Rev. A.C. Zenos, D.D. http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0380-0440,_Socrates_Scholasticus, _Historia_ecclesiastica_[Schaff],_EN.pdf. Tanner, Norman (ed.). (1990). Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. Zelepos, Ioannis. (2002). Die Ethnisierung griechischer Identität 1870-1912. Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag.

225