Saint Dositheus of Jerusalem and Constantinople’s “Right of Appeal”

The following is a translation of the publication written by Hegumen Dionysius Shlenov. The true title is “Criticism of the extraterritorial appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople by St. Dositheus of Jerusalem.” In multiple of his academic writings, he calls Blessed Dositheus of Jerusalem by the title “Saint.” That includes not only this work, but also “Who is the head of the Church? To the Question of the Theory of Primacy,” “Is it possible to speak of a hierarchy among the Primates of Local Churches? The term ἱεραρχία in the Byzantine tradion,” and in the citations of “The expression ‘ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς’ in canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon and its interpretation.”

Abbot Dionysius Shlenov, Viceroy of Saint Andrews Stavropegial Monastery in Moscow and head of the Academic Library of the Moscow Theological Academy

This publication analyzes the history of the Church through the writings of Blessed Dositheus to address the claim that the Ecumenical Patriarchate can accept the appeals of clergy outside her jurisdiction and review the judgements against them. This topic is particularly relevant today given the current controversy pertaining to Constantinople’s claim to restore a group of defrocked clergy and set up a new Church structure in Ukraine.

Content
1. Introduction
2. Conciliar interpretation of canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon on appeal on the basis of ecclesiastical and imperial legislation
3. The main sources of supporters of the “primacy of honor and power”
4. Mistake of the Emperor’s Daughter
5. Addenda: Sources not mentioned by St. Dositheus
6. Results
Sources
Literature

Chapter 1. Introduction

At present, the issue of the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople as the primacy of honor or as the primacy of honor and power is especially topical [1]. The unity of world Orthodoxy, which has already embarked on a thorny path of disputes and divisions, depends on the solution of this issue. St. Dositheus II of Jerusalem Notaras [2] spoke out as a strong critic of the idea of ​​”primacy of honor and power,” which suggests the possibility of an extraterritorial appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople. This report will attempt to present his position.

St. Dositheus II of Jerusalem Notaras (1669–1707) is a traditional defender of Orthodoxy and its values ​​in dogma, canon and ascetic life. He belongs to the plentitude of the Jerusalem Patriarchs from among the Greeks, who from the middle of the 16th century maintained friendly ties with Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church [3]. Born in Greece, having received an excellent education in Constantinople, including through self-education, with a great love for learning foreign languages, he had the opportunity to get acquainted with the life of Christians in various regions of the vast Ottoman Porte. At a fairly young age, having become a high-ranking Jerusalem cleric, and then the Patriarch of Jerusalem, he was well aware of the realities of the life of this empire. Due to attempts on his life, the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus left Jerusalem in 1676. In the following decades, he stayed mainly in Wallachia and Moldavia (1677–1678, 1680, 1686–1687, 1689(?)–1692, 1697–1698, 1702, 1704–1705), spent most of 1681 in Georgia, from the end 1681 until September 1684 stayed in Constantinople.

Here is a fragment from the description of the activities on the patriarchal throne of the 20th century Greek patrolologist P. Christou: “While in Constantinople, he was taken by Patriarch Paisios of Jerusalem to serve and, gradually, occupying various ranks and positions, became Metropolitan of Caesarea, and at the age of twenty-eight, Patriarch of Jerusalem. Patriarch for about forty years, he became the greatest ecclesiastical figure in Orthodoxy in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Although he was not in Jerusalem but for four times, each time for a small number of months, he ruled the Church with amazing skill from Constantinople, which he made the center of his activities, or from other places. He quickly paid off the huge debt of the Patriarchate, reorganized the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher through canonical decrees that are still in force today, created a school and libraries in Jerusalem and in the Constantinople Compound of the All-Holy Sepulcher” [4]. This description shows that St. Dositheos was well aware of Church life in Constantinople and criticized firsthand the “primacy” of Church authority in the person of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which from his point of view was unacceptable.

St. Dositheus stood at the origins of higher spiritual and secular education in Russia. The Typographic School and the Hellenic-Greek Academy and the future Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, were, in fact, initiated by him, because he supported the founder of the Typographic School, Hieromonk Timothy, and sent the brothers Sophronius and Joannicius Likhudov to Russia [5]. He himself was for Greek education and against Western examples and patterns that began to be actively introduced in Russia from the beginning of the 18th century.

Patriarch Dositheus was engaged in extensive diplomatic [6], educational and publishing activities. Thus, in particular, in his “Tomos of Joy” (Τόμος χαρᾶς) [7] the Acts of the Sophia Council of 879–880 were published. He is the author of many books, his most important work is “The History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem” (῾Ιστορία τῶν ἐν ῾Ιεροσολύμοις πατριαρχευσάντων ) [8]. Although the title of this work indicates its historical character, it contains a lot of reasoning on the dogmatics and canons of the Church. One of the leading themes that St. Dositheus reveals in the “History” that this is a polemic with the defenders of papal primacy, and the echo of this polemic is the criticism of the extraterritorial appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Chapter 2. Conciliar interpretation of canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon on appeal on the basis of ecclesiastical and imperial legislation

• Wrongness of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 451

In the 4th book of the “History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem” there is a section “On what is contained in the act about Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus…” [9], namely, on the 19th act of the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, which reflected the discussion of the dispute between the bishops of Photius of Tyre and Eusebius of Berytus, which took place on October 17 or 20, 451. The essence of the dispute between the two bishops is as follows: Eustathius of Berytus captured 6 cities subordinate to the Tyre diocese [10]. The dioceses with centers in Tyre and Berytus were once a single province of Maritime Phoenicia, but it was Tyre that was its civil and ecclesiastical center, and its Bishop Photius could rightfully consider himself the first. In turn, Eustathius of Berytus (after 449), with the consent of Anatoly, Archbishop of Constantinople, and Maximus, Bishop ofAntioch, claimed the primacy. It got to the point where Bishop Photius ordained bishops in the cities of the province of Berytus, and Eustathius deposed them. The Council of Chalcedon decided to leave the primacy to the See of Tyre [11], that is, it acted contrary to the opinion of the Patriarch of Constantinople [12]. From this, Dositheus concludes: “It means that some people are engaged in myth-making in vain, claiming that the Patriarch of Constantinople received an appeal from the Council of Chalcedon throughout the Church, since the Council of Chalcedon destroyed it in the clearest and purest way and refuted it, as it was and as it will be said” [13].

This is an unusual view of the Chalcedon Synod. We know that the 28th canon of this Council is considered by modern canonists to be the tomos of the birth of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, while canons 9 and 17 of the same Council, which speak of an appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople, are regarded by a number of canonists and theologians as immeasurably expanding the rights of Constantinople. St. Dositheos refutes this approach, because he points to a specific case of the Patriarch of Constantinople being wrong in comparison with the opinion of the conciliar majority.

• Canonical teaching of St. Dositheus

A systematic criticism of the extraterritorial appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople is given in the 4th book of the “History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem” (beginning chapter 3, paragraph 15), where it is said from the beginning that “the Patriarch, like the Pope, cannot be greater in power another Patriarch, except only in honor” [14]. St. Dositheus affirmed the equality of the epithets of the Popes of Rome, the Patriarchs of Constantinople and other primates of the Churches of the Christian East: “the definition of Orthodoxy,” “the pillar of Orthodoxy,” “the stronghold of piety” [15]. It is significant that he first criticized the Roman primacy, and then the immoderate primacy of the Primate of Constantinople. These arguments turn out to be a kind of introduction to the main topic of the nature of the appeal.

Further, in the “History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem,” canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon are interpreted and it is determined what the right of appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople consists of [16]. St. Dositheus says that the clergy should turn to their bishop to resolve controversial issues, and secular judges have nothing to do with this [17]. He argues that “the Pope and other Patriarchs do not have (the right to accept) an appeal in parishes not subordinate to them” [18]. Previously, with a controversial issue, the clergy had to turn to their bishop, which is also confirmed by the legislation of Justinian, primarily by Novel 123, which will be discussed below. The condemning decision of the bishop can be carried out by the local secular ruler (archon) [19]. But it is the bishops, and not the secular rulers (archons) who “put an end” to the court case [20].

In accordance with the approach of Emperor Justinian, St. Dositheos, in turn, proposes the following sequence of appeals: a bishop, then a metropolitan, who administers the court with two assistant bishops, then higher in judicial Church matters is the Most Blessed Patriarch of a given diocese, who is the final judicial instance without the possibility of an appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch. And then the author writes: “Note that neither “The Basilika” nor Justinian specifically mentioned the Roman or Constantinopolitan Patriarch. And they were not named either the first or the last judges, or having an appeal from other Churches that are not subject to them” [21].

In the next section, the author continues to refer to imperial legislation, as is evident from the subheading: “That patriarchal criteria are not subject to appeal. And where should one begin to judge the guilt of bishops who oppose each other, as the novels of the kings declare in accordance with Church rules” [22]. “The Basilika, Justinian, and Leo the Wise proclaim in writing that the patriarchal criteria are not subject to appeal” [23]. The following is a quotation from the 123rd short story of Emperor Justinian according to the scheme: Bishop-Metropolitan-Patriarch. “A suitable Patriarch examines a solution…” [24]. So, St. Dositheus refers to Justinian, The Basilika, Leo the Wise, i.e. on secular legislation, which contains a number of important acts concerning the Church. At the same time, all legislation, both ecclesiastical and secular, is presented as an indivisible whole that supports the principle of catholicity and does not allow one to single out a primordial hierarch endowed with exclusive powers.

• Sources against the concept of extraterritorial appeal

We will try to list all the key sources for the implementation of the correct appeal in the Church within the framework of conciliar ecclesiology in chronological order.

The oldest document mentioned by St. Dositheus, turns out to be the canon 12 of the Council of Antioch (341):

“If any presbyter or deacon deposed by his own bishop, or any bishop deposed by a synod, shall dare to trouble the ears of the Emperor, when it is his duty to submit his case to a greater synod of bishops, and to refer to more bishops the things which he thinks right, and to abide by the examination and decision made by them; if, despising these, he shall trouble the Emperor, he shall be entitled to no pardon, neither shall he have an opportunity of defense, nor any hope of future restoration.”

This 12th canon of Antioch points to the council of bishops as the highest and final judiciary and nothing else. The Byzantine canonist Balsamon, interpreting this rule, tried to justify on its basis that not only the metropolitans, but also the Patriarchs were beyond the jurisdiction of the Emperor [25], although in reality the Emperors claimed to administer not only secular, but also spiritual court. Thus, different conclusions were drawn from the same rule: supporters of the exclusive rights of the Patriarchs tried to explain the independence of the Church from state power by this rule, while supporters of the conciliar principle in the Church emphasized the authority of the council as the highest judicial authority.

However, the greatest foundation for the whole ecclesiology of St. Dositheus turns out to be the 123rd short story by Emperor Justinian [26], which describes the movement of the appeal along the secular line to the Emperor [27] and along the Church line [28]: from the bishop to the metropolitan with two bishops, and then to the Patriarch of that diocese:

“But if at the same Council the bishops disagree with each other, either on Church law or on some other issues, let their metropolitan first judge this matter with two other bishops from the same Council, and if both the parties do not agree with his decision, then let the Most Blessed Patriarch of that diocese consider [the dispute] between them and make such a decision that corresponds to church canons and laws, after which neither side has the right to appeal against his decision. If an accusation against a bishop in any case comes from a cleric or someone else, first of all, the Reverend Metropolitan must consider this case in accordance with the sacred canons and our laws, and if anyone does not agree with his verdict, then the case should be submitted to the consideration of the Most Blessed Patriarch of that diocese, and he, in accordance with the canons and laws, let him bring it to completion. If a complaint is filed against a metropolitan either by a bishop, or by a clergyman or any other person, then let the Most Blessed Patriarch of that diocese judge the case in the same way. In all cases, bishops — whether they are accused before their metropolitan, or before the Patriarch, or before any other judges — are not required to provide surety or take a judicial oath, but they themselves must make efforts to clear themselves of the accusations raised” [29].

Obviously, in the 123rd short story, the general procedure for appeal is determined, where the highest and final judicial instance is the “Most Blessed Patriarch” (μακαριώτατος πατριάρχης) of the diocese. For St. Dositheus of Jerusalem, this indication is of decisive importance — as an immutable norm, reflecting the past, present and future.

Further, canon 36 of the Trullo Council confirms the secondary, and not the primacy, place of the Patriarch of Constantinople:

“Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after (μετά) it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem” [30].

In confirmation of his opinion, St. Dositheus referred to the interpretation of canon 36 of St. Nicephorus of Constantinople, who pointed out that Constantinople is not even second in honor after Rome. You need to rely on a time criterion. The conjunction μετά indicates time, not honor [31].

St. Dositheus mentions the “Nomocanon” attributed to St. Photius, as confirming the catholic structure of the Church. St. Dositheus uses the “Nomocanon” selectively. Thus, title 1 of chapter 4 is mentioned (“that the canons are expounded not by one bishop, but by commonality”) [32], and the 5th chapter with the text — indicating the special primacy of the throne of Constantinople [33 ]— is not indicated by him. However, the thesis in favor of the dominant position of Constantinople could be formulated by late Byzantine canonists.

St. Dositheus liked to refer to the Basilika [34] (3, 1, 35.36.38), which in the cited part completely reproduce the text of the 123rd short story of Emperor Justinian [35]. The most important thought: the appeal is made to the bishop, then to the metropolitan with two bishops, then to the Patriarch of the diocese, but not exclusively to the Ecumenical Patriarch. St. Dositheus put “The Basilika” in the first place as the most important source of imperial legislation, not paying attention to the chronological principle or the degree of originality, but taking into account the degree of authority and prevalence in Byzantium. Although the Basilika only repeated the 123rd short story of Emperor Justinian word for word, they were staged by St. Dositheus to the first place in the lists of sources of law as a generally accepted legislative code.

Finally, St. Dositheus also cites “The Isagoge,” a monument that has not passed the Church reception, in support of the position of the Patriarch of the Local Church’s lack of jurisdiction over the judiciary, although “The Isagoge” itself spoke of the lack of jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople himself. Literally St. Dositheus repeats the saying attributed to him by Leo the Wise, but only replacing the singular with the plural: “The Patriarchal criteria of appeal is not subject to and is not revised by others.” Indeed, in the 11th title of “The Isagoge,” the definition of appeal is given and exceptional cases are indicated, among which the first place belongs to the king, and the second to the Patriarch [36].

St. Dositheus, analyzing this phrase, compares the lack of jurisdiction of the Patriarch to another Patriarch with the lack of jurisdiction of the king: “This (that is, the patriarchal power) is judged anew by itself, like the royal (beginning)” [37]. “At the same time, note, firstly, that neither the so-called royal laws, nor any other of the Emperors, nor ecclesiastical canons , nor their chosen interpreters, have said that the Bishop of Rome or Constantinople is the first, or most extreme, or judge of judges. And secondly, that the criteria for Patriarchs are not revised, and they are not afraid of appeal, and are not subject to appeal” [38]. In this regard, St. Dositheus makes a general conclusion that if canons 9 or 17 of Chalcedon were for the special powers of Constantinople, then they would contradict themselves, church and imperial legislation [39].

However, in this case, the situation of uncertainty remains. In “The Isagoge,” it was precisely the Patriarch of Constantinople that could be meant (cf. the interpretations of the monk Matthew (Blastar) [40] and in the monument “On the Decision of the Patriarch” (De sententia Patriarchi)[41]), but since it is not directly mentioned about him, St. Dositheus under the name “Patriarch” understands any Patriarch of the Orthodox East (including the Patriarch of Moscow, who, having found himself in fifth place in the Diptych [42], seemed to fill the place of fallen Rome in the “God-Crowned Empire” [43]). This understanding is reflected in the plural formula offered by St. Dositheus: “The criteria of the Patriarchs are not subject to appeal” [44].

Chapter 3. The main sources of supporters of the “primacy of honor and power”

• “Manifesto” against the “new heretics” and conciliar theology

St. Dositheus was familiar with the unauthorized and expansive interpretations of the Byzantine canonists of the 12th century, primarily Aristinus, who was wrong in his broad understanding of canon 9 of Chalcedon [45]. The false interpretations of Aristinus are rejected, while the true ones are accepted (as in the interpretation of canon 6 of the First Council of Nicaea: “each Patriarch must be content with his privileges …” [46]).

It is important to pay attention to the “manifesto” of St. Dositheus against the “primacy of honor and power” with a source base [47]. Here, the supporters of the immoderate primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople are called “new heretics” [48], and a discussion is held with them on the basis of a textual analysis of older testimonies. It is pointed out that the “new heretics” can be not so much direct followers of the Patriarch of Constantinople, but also opponents of the Roman primacy (Protestant type?), who want to justify the primacy of Constantinople through confusion over the primacy of Rome. To the sources for the “new heresy” Dositheus refers to the place from the “Alexiad” by Anna Komnenos, the testimony of Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople, Nicholas of Methone, and Macarius of Ancyra, whose positions are analyzed in the following paragraphs.

The Russian translation of this polemical passage is as follows:

“The new heretics, opposing the infallibility of the Pope, say that no bishop was given by God or councils, since no Ecumenical Council can give its dignity to any person. When they interpret the real canons, they say that the judge of all the Patriarchs and the Pope himself is Constantinople, since no council has given a privilege to any other bishop. But it must be said that they speak well of the Pope, and we say the same thing above, in book two, speaking of the Synod of Sardica. And about Constantinople, being hostile to the Pope, they speak falsely and slander us, since even the Church of Constantinople itself did not and does not have such an opinion. And we don’t have or won’t have anything like that about her. And not only they, but also some others, opposing the monarchy of Rome, assert that the canons mean something like this, and as proof they present, firstly, the “Alexiad”, which in the first book of its history says that the Council of Chalcedon granted to Constantinople a universal appeal. Secondly, Jeremiah of Constantinople, in his letter to the Lutherans, says that since, in fact, our Church is the fatherland of Churches, and leads in knowledge, and is proud of its purity in the radiance of apostolic and patristic edifications, that she new received primacy in Orthodoxy and was placed as the head. And, thirdly, that Nicholas of Methone and Macarius of Ancyra call the exarch of the diocese of each patriarch, and that of Constantinople — the judge of all. And they try to establish their false invention on some perverse interpretations, as we say, and the Romans especially introduce such, so that they can say that this is what the easterners call Constantinople, and, however, only Roman is such, and that what was said about Constantinople is true, since he is the first judge, and the Roman one, however, is the last judge” [49].

The position of Nicholas of Methone and Macarius of Ancyra is based on the fact that they equate in the analysis of canons 9 and 17 of the exarch and the Patriarch of the exarchate: both occupy a rank lower than the ruler of the capital. In response, St. Dositheus gives eight definitions of an exarch and writes that the exarch in the rules of Chalcedon meant the metropolitan of each diocese. The statement that the Patriarch is an exarch is false. St. Dositheus believes that Chalcedon appointed three highest judicial instances: the exarch of the diocese, the diocesan council, and the Ecumenical Patriarch, but the latter has the highest judicial authority only over the bishops subordinate to him.

The final statement of St. Dositheus - only the Ecumenical Council, and not Rome or Constantinople, are the “natural and divine law” (Νόμος φυσικὸς καὶ θεῖος) of the Church [50].

• Nicholas of Methone as the “Areopagitic” theologian

The claimed identification of the exarch and Patriarch of the Local Church could not be found in the available writings of Nicholas of Methone. But what could be of interest to Nicholas of Methone to supporters of the primacy of honor and power? Nicholas of Methone [51] in the 4th word [52] sets out the doctrine of the Church hierarchy, which is one in the diversity of partial Churches 53 . The Patriarch of Constantinople turns out to be a hierarch par excellence, who “acts hierarchically everywhere” (πανταχοῦ ἱεραρχικῶς ἐνεργεῖν) [54]. Nicholas of Methone applies the Areopagite doctrine of hierarchy to justify his special authority. At the same time, he tries to convince the Byzantine emperor Manuel Komnenos that the exile of the first hierarch is not necessary, because, separated from the Church , he is not separated from the hierarchy as a living element, where, according to the theology of the Areopagite, light and knowledge are transmitted [55]. Obviously, he defended Patriarch Nicholas IV Mouzalon, who was deposed by Emperor Manuel as having no right to occupy the patriarchal throne a second time. It is noticeable that the Emperor has much more power than the Patriarch, i.e. in Byzantium at that time there was no symphony between the Emperor and the Patriarch. The Emperor could remove the Patriarch, the power of the Patriarch began to weaken from the time of “The Isagoge” by Leo the Wise, in which an attempt was made to elevate the patriarchal powers to the maximum.

• True and False Understandings of the Exarch of the Diocese

Macarius, Metropolitan of Ancyra [56] (May-August 1397 — Sept. 1405), who lived at the end of the 14th — beginning of the 15th centuries, found himself in opposition to both the Byzantine Patriarch and the Emperor. According to the description of St. Dositheus, he wrote about the exarchs as Patriarchs, which made it possible to substantiate the appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople of other Patriarchs. This approach was criticized not only by St. Dositheus, but also later St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite in “The Pedalion” [57].

Exarch according to St. Dositheus can be called such in eight senses:

1. “Having the primacy of honor, either from his own throne, or from virtue.”
2. “Having authority at the Ecumenical Councils.”
3. “The perpetrator or defender of any heresy.”
4. “The head of a certain unanimous system, for some reason hegumen.”Metropolitan of the diocese.”
5. “Metropolitan, that is, the first in the rank of metropolitans of each diocese.”
6. “Representatives of the Patriarchs.”
7. “Representatives of all Bishops.”

In canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon, “exarch” is mentioned in the 6th sense, namely as the first metropolitan [58]. Such a metropolitan is the “first judge” of the diocese.

The Council of Chalcedon, according to St. Dositheus, appoints three higher alternative courts: the exarch of the diocese, or the diocesan council, or the Ecumenical Patriarch. “And this is among the bishops subordinate to him, which is entirely clear” [59].

St. Dositheus quite thoroughly criticizes the identification of the exarch and Patriarch of the Local Church in 451 in 13 points [60]. So, the Metropolitan of Ancyra is wrong.

1. Firstly, he calls the Patriarchs exarchs, and the highest authority - the Patriarch of Constantinople. “This is contrary to Divine Scripture and canons, and royal decrees, and tradition, and the praxis of the Catholic Church” [61].
2. Secondly, he is also wrong in attributing such an approach to Justinian, while Justinian called “the parishes of the Patriarchs dioceses, but did not call the Patriarchs the exarchs of the dioceses” [62].
3. Thirdly, he is wrong in asserting that Constantinople, as a reigning city, had the right to appeal. In response to this, we point to the canons 2 and 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council, where the “primacy of honor” (canon 2) is not an appeal, but the highest criterion is the Ecumenical Council (canon 6) [63]. After all, only the Ecumenical Council is higher than the diocesan council.
4. Fourthly, canon 28 of Chalcedon placed the Constantinople in second place after the Roman, but the Roman does not have an absolute appeal in the Church, which means that the Constantinople does not have [64]. Constantinople at the Fourth Ecumenical Council was given only what had already been determined at the Second Ecumenical Council [65]. And the new privileges consisted only in the ordination of metropolitans and nothing else.
5. The Second Ecumenical Council, having given the “primacy of honor” to Constantinople, ordered to remain within its borders. And the Council of Nicaea spoke about the judicial powers of the eparchial council.
6. The Second Ecumenical Council did not give the diocesan council the “appeal and judicial review of the decision” that the diocesan council had. “But he said that if the eparchial council does not judge, then the diocesan council will judge” [66]. And canon 9 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council did not give the Patriarch of Constantinople an “appeal of the decision” that the diocesan council would make, but said about the possibility of appealing to the court of the highest instance — either to the exarch of the diocese (that is, the diocesan council), or to the Patriarch of Constantinople.
7. The word καταλαμβανέτω is interpreted as an opportunity to apply from the diocese of the Pope of Rome or any other Patriarch with an appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople. But it applies equally to the exarch. Although Bishop Epiphanius of Constantinople wanted to sit before Pope John, he was unable to do so. It was not the Patriarch of Constantinople who imposed penance on Pope Vigilius, but the Ecumenical Council. In the “battles” of St. Gregory the Dialogist and St. John the Faster and in many other cases, the Patriarch has never been higher than the Pope.
   
   So, only Nicholas of Methone, Macarius of Ancyra and the Alexiad speak of a general appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople [67].
8. Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council speaks only of the diocesan council and its authority. There is no other judge than the diocesan council and the exarch of the diocese, with the exception of the Ecumenical Council.
9. The thesis is criticized that if there is an Ecumenical Council, let him judge, and if not, let the Ecumenical Patriarch judge. However, he did not receive any answer to a similar request from Anatoly of Constantinople from the Council of Chalcedon. “And having labored much and said much, he did not receive a single word from him” [68]. “The goal of the above-mentioned canons (9 and 17) is that, in the absence of an Ecumenical Council, either the diocese or the diocesan judges… At the same time, the Great Patriarchal Council of the diocesan council was created, which did not cancel the diocesan council, but gave a place for those who wish” [69].
10. The Pope and the Church of Rome could not accept a general appeal to Constantinople in 451, since “a general appeal is the most impious deed and name” [70].
11. In being lower in rank than the Pope, he cannot have a greater “general appeal” than the Pope.
12. The Patriarch of Constantinople is the head of only those who obey him, but not all Churches. Stavropegial and extraterritorial consecrations are not possible. Not for the same primacy of Constantinople, to “be a tyrant in the Church, like the Pope” [71].
13. The statement that Constantinople has the privileges of ancient Rome is not true. In particular, the Patriarch of Constantinople could not inherit the primacy of Rome, because there is no answer to the question: where did Rome get its primacy from? It is also incorrect to base the right of appeal on the ground that the Archbishop of Ohrid could address Constantinople without going through Thessaloniki. This situation is historical, and Thessaloniki itself was subject to Constantinople.

Criticized identification of the exarch of the diocese with the Patriarch appeared in the Byzantine canonist Aristinus (12th c.) [72], whose interpretation could be known to St. Dositheus. Macarius of Ancyra continued the tradition of Aristinus, without taking into account the times and dates. In itself, the identification of the Patriarch with the exarch does not prove anything — St. Dositheus accepted this identification, but not at the time of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. However, St. Dositheus did not allow the identification of the exarchs with the five Patriarchs of the West and the East, but only with the Patriarchs who had the role of metropolitan (such as, for example, the Patriarch of Thessaloniki) [73]. In other words, he recognized the Patriarchs of the dioceses under Emperor Justinian [74], but did not recognize the Patriarchs as exarchs of the dioceses in 451. This means that he allowed the historical development of Church institutions, but was opposed to attributing features of another era to one era. Byzantine Church practice was based not on the canons, but on customary law.

• The Council as the highest court

There is no reason to speak of an appeal to Rome or Constantinople, but to the Council! The Council is “a natural and divine law in the Church, so that the entire community, being sinless, judges, pronounces a new judgment, and treats Popes and Patriarchs and every bishop and every Christian with reason. And Roman and Constantinople often sinned not only morally, but also in various heresies, namely: Arians, Doukhobors, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, and Iconoclasts, and they were judged and condemned by the Ecumenical Councils, like any other such who turned out to be a heretic” [75].

The entire 5th chapter is devoted to the appeal, which can be accepted by the Ecumenical Council. However, in this chapter the polemicist continues to criticize the more immoderate primacy of Rome.

Chapter 4. Mistake of the Emperor’s Daughter

Finally, one can analyze the evidence from the Alexiad [76], which is of an extremely general nature, but nevertheless important for the topic under discussion. Let us cite the fragment under discussion from the Alexiad, which St. Dositheus mentions but does not quote:

“After all, when the imperial power, the synclite, and all the administration from there passed to us, to our royal city [77], the hierarchical power of the thrones passed to us along with them. From the very beginning, the Emperors granted these privileges to the throne of Constantinople, and the Council of Chalcedon established the primacy of the Bishop of Constantinople and subordinated to him the dioceses of the whole world.”

(μεταπεπτωκότων γὰρ τῶν σκήπτρων ἐκεῖθεν ἐνθάδε εἰς τὴν ἡμεδαπήν τε καὶ ἡμετέραν βασιλίδα πόλιν καὶ δὴ καὶ τῆς συγκλήτου καὶ ἅμα πάσης τῆς τάξεως μεταπέπτωκε καὶ ἡ τῶν θρόνων ἀρχιερατικὴ τάξις· καὶ δεδώκασιν ο . aλκηδόνι σύνοδος εἰς περιωπὴν πρωτίστην τὸν Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἀναβιβασαμένη τ ὰς ἀνὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην διοικήσεις ἁπάσας ὑπὸ τοῦτον ἐτάξατο) [78].

Above in the “Alexiad” (1:13) there was a speech about the embassy of Henry IV to the Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand (1073–1085), headed by Bishop Roland in February 1076. At that time he was in Byzantium (after John VIII Xiphilinos 1064- 1075) Patriarch Cosmas I of Jerusalem (1075–1081), and after him Eustathius Garida (1081–1084). Thus, it was Cosmas the Jerusalemite who was the Patriarch who, one way or another, could be a direct example for the description of Anna Komnenos. His nickname “Jerusalemite” reflects his many years in Jerusalem and his love for the Church of Jerusalem, the most ancient apostolic Church. It was the Church of Jerusalem that was repeatedly set against the ambitions of Rome as an example of the true primacy of honor.

After criticizing the immoral behavior of Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand in relation to the ambassadors (“first he subjected them to inhuman tortures, and then cut their hair and shaved their beards: hair with scissors, beards with a razor. After these and other monstrous atrocities, surpassing barbarian ferocity, the Pope released ambassadors”). Anna points to the Patriarch of Constantinople as the leader from the Council of Chalcedon, who subordinated to him the dioceses of the whole world. Anna Komnenos, as it were, imposes the historical situation of the end of the 11th century, when Rome fell away, in the middle of the 5th century — not at all taking into account the authority and power of the Roman throne.

St. Dositheus criticizes this position as contrary to the tradition of the Church. According to the interpretation of St. Dositheus, Anna Komnenos cannot be considered a generally recognized authority. Before her, not a single saint and not a single historian accepted by the Church spoke of an extraterritorial appeal to Constantinople. Moreover, all the canons testified that the Patriarch of Constantinople occupies a position after the Roman one, and in the Alexiad, the Constantinopolitan one turns out to be higher than the Roman one. “Those who contradict the Ecumenical Councils should not be heard, but rejected” [79].

The Komneni themselves easily removed the Patriarchs and treated them very pejoratively, which can be seen, for example, from the attitude of Anna Komnenos herself towards the successor of Patriarch Cosmas I of Jerusalemite (1075–1081), Eustathius Garida, with whom she was familiar from the negative side even before the patriarchate [80] and during it (“The head of the Church was then Eustratius Garida, who detained Italians in the buildings of the Great Church in the hope of changing him for the better. But, as they say, he himself was more likely to partake of his wickedness than to turn the Italians to the true teaching; the latter completely won Garida over to his side”) [81]. Thus, the example of Eustratius Garida does not confirm the ambitious description of patriarchal privileges by Anna Komnena, who could have done it in the order of literary exaggeration.

An overview of the argumentation and part of the sources of opponents and supporters of the “primacy of honor and power” of the Patriarch of Constantinople as presented by St. Dositheus, basically according to the text of chapter 4 of book 4, is completed.

As a preliminary conclusion, it can be stated that St. Dositheus considered the idea of ​​a special primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople a provocation that undermined the essence of conciliar ecclesiology. He pays special attention to the legal concept of appeal, which in church practice is radically different from the appeal in the secular courts of Byzantium. If in secular legislation the Emperor himself or his representative turns out to be the pinnacle of the appeal process, then in the Church the highest judicial authority is the governing body of a particular Local Church, whether it be the Patriarch, the primate of a given Church, or a council chaired by him. Characteristically, very diplomatically and subtly, St. Dositheus attributed thoughts of excessive primacy to some unknown intruders, perhaps not wanting to openly confront the Patriarchate of Constantinople — the most important institution interested in its exclusive primacy.

Chapter 5. Addendum: Sources not mentioned by St. Dositheus

There are many other testimonies published in the 20th century, such as, for example, by J. Darruzes [82]. These texts, of course, were not taken into account by St. Dositheus. Among the texts published by J. Darruzes, there are texts in defense of the absolute appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople and texts refuting such an approach.

The treatise “On the Decision of the Patriarch” [83] belongs to the first group, in which the Patriarch of Constantinople is described as the highest judge. But here, in particular, the decision of Alexios Komnenos in favor of the Great Church was mentioned, continuing the line of Justinian on the jurisdiction of the Patriarch to the king, if the Patriarch does something wrong (Αὐτὸς μὲν γὰρ Ἰουστινιανὸς καὶ εὐθύνεσθαι τὸν πατριάρχην παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως διατάττεται ἐφ’ οἷς ἔξω τοῦ δέοντος διαπράξεται) [84]. The idea of ​​the jurisdiction of the Patriarch to the Emperor weakens the notion of his exclusive judicial powers and can be considered as one of the additional arguments by supporters of the conciliar structure of the Church.

The treatise “On the Privileges of Metropolitans” [85] and “Dialogue on the Deposition of Patriarch Nicholas IV” [86] belong to the second group .

The treatise “On the Privileges of Metropolitans” needs special consideration. In general, it corresponds to the position of Archbishop Demetrius Homaten of Ohrid (who could be its possible author), who was against the special privileges of the First Hierarch of Constantinople.

In the “Dialogue on the Deposition of Patriarch Nicholas IV” between Emperor Manuel Komnenos and Muzalon Nicholas IV, it is very clearly seen how the will of the Emperor dominated the trial of the Patriarch. The trial, in fact, ended with the deposition of the Patriarch with the consent of all the other bishops. Mouzalon occupied the chairs of the Archbishop of Cyprus (c. 1100 — c. 1110), where he was appointed by Emperor Alexios Komnenos, and Patriarch of Constantinople (December 1147 — March / April 1151). Around 1110, due to gross extortion from tax collectors, he was removed. After that, for 37 years he headed the capital’s monastery of Saints Cosmas and Damian, until in December 1147 Manuel I Komnenos offered him to take the patriarchal throne, which was vacated after the removal of Patriarch Cosmas II in February of that year. However, after 4 years, Emperor Manuel asked Nicholas to renounce the patriarchate on the basis that, having once renounced the bishopric, the clergyman rejects him forever. After a discussion that lasted several days, Nikolai was forced to retreat. A record of his conversations with the emperor on this matter has been preserved, namely, the “Dialogue on the Deposition of Patriarch Nicholas IV.” At the end of the dialogue, the emperor entrusted the solution of the issue to the bishops [87].

The symphony of the state and the Church gave way in this case to the idea of ​​dominance of the state, in the person of the emperor, over the Church, in the person of the patriarch. It was this case that Nicholas of Methon had in mind , defending the position of Patriarch Nicholas IV against the will of Emperor Manuel Komnenos. Defending the role of the patriarch, he transformed the meaning of the Areopagite doctrine of hierarchy in support of the principle of a higher hierarchy, not at the level of a number of equal hierarchs, but in relation to one person — the hierarch, in whose hands all church power is concentrated. St. Dositheus advocated a different principle.

Chapter 6. Results

St. Dositheus was a supporter of the conciliar structure of the Church without the principle of hierarchical relationships between the primates of the Local Churches.

To prove his position, he turned to the canons of the Ecumenical and Local Councils of the Church, as well as to the imperial legislation. From his point of view, the entire legal tradition supports the conciliar coexistence of equal Patriarchs as heads of the Local Churches, without the possibility of assigning special primacy to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The fundamental links in the chain of ecclesiastical appeal are: bishop — metropolitan with two bishops (diocesal court) — Patriarch of the diocese. This view is based almost exclusively on the 123rd short story of Emperor Justinian, which was repeated in the actual part of Basil. Citing this short story in the commentary section of canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon, St. Dositheus, in fact, offers an interpretation of Chalcedon through the prism of Justinian legislation. This legislation is inviolable, and no subsequent “innovations” can cancel or diminish its significance.

St. Dositheus knew “The Isagoge,” in which for the first time in legislation a view was expressed on the absolute nature of the power of the Ecumenical Patriarch. However, “The Isagoge” was not put into practice. Perhaps because of this, St. Dositheus does not directly refer either to “The Isagoge” or to the priest who depended on her. Matthew Vlastar, but only once mentioned the principle of non-jurisdiction of the Patriarch, attributing it directly to Emperor Leo the Wise — as part of the imperial legislation. One and the same emperor cannot contradict himself. If in “The Basilika” by Leo the Wise the 123rd short story of Justinian is quoted, then the formula of “The Isagoge” should be interpreted not in the sense of the exaltation of the First Hierarch of Constantinople, but in the sense of the lack of jurisdiction of all the Patriarchs of the Orthodox East (including among them, according to the concept of St. Dositheus, the Patriarch of Moscow).

The selective approach of St. Dositheus is especially noticeable in the example of the Nomocanon attributed to St. Photius, where the later texts of the Byzantine canonists-interpreters of the Nomocanon in defense of the special rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople are not taken into account. One way or another, this approach is quite characteristic, because an attempt to elevate the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the era of St. Photius was never accepted by the whole Church, which tremblingly kept St. Photius at the Great Sophia Cathedral of 879 — 880, the principle of the immutability of Church tradition and dogma in both big and small.

The texts of the supporters of the extraterritorial appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople selected by St. Dositheus are very characteristic. These are separate private opinions that cannot be correlated with Church legal tradition.

In other words, the conflict of different attitudes can be represented as follows. The 123rd short story of Justinian — versus “The Isagoge.” It seems that “The Isagoge” represented a stage in the further development of the practice, however, under the Emperors Alexios and Manuel Komnenos, the return to the legal tradition of Justinian shows a rather ambiguous trajectory.

• Sources

Alexius Aristenus. Scholia in concilia oecumenica et localia // Alexios Aristenos. Kommentar zur Synopsis canonum / ed. L. Burgmann, K. Maksimovič, E. S. Papagianni, Sp. Troianos. Berlin — Boston: De Gruyter, 2019. (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Neue Folge; Bd. 1). S. 21 — 214.

Anna Comnena. Alexias // Annae Comnenae Alexias / ed. A. Kambylis, D. R. Reinsch. Berlin — New York: De Gruyter, 2001. (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis XL/1). P. 5 — 505.

Athanasius Scholasticus. Novellae constitutiones // Das Novellensytagma des Athanasios von Emesa / ed. D. Simon, Sp. Troianos. Frankfurt am Main: Löwenklau Gesellschaft, 1989. (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte; Bd. 16.). S. 2 — 500.

Consilium Chalcidonense. Actio 19 de Photio et Eustathio // ACO. T. 2. Vol. 1 (3). P. 104 — 105.

Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decretal / ed. G. Alberigo. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006.

De privilegiis metropolitarum // Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie byzantine / éd. J. Darrouzès. Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1966. (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien; vol. 10). P. 116 — 158.

De sententia patriarchae // Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie byzantine / éd. J. Darrouzès. Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1966. (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien; vol. 10). P. 332 — 338.

Dialogus de depositione Nicolai IV patriarchae // Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie byzantine / éd. J. Darrouzès. Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1966 (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien; vol. 10). P. 310 — 330.

Δοσιθέου, πατριάρχου Ἰεροσολύμων Τόμος χαρᾶς. Θεσσαλονίκη: Εκδόσεις Βασ. Ρηγοπούλου, 1985.

Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δηληδέμος. Βιβλία Α´ — ΙΒ´. Τ. 1 — 6. Θεσσαλονίκη: Εκδοτικός Οίκος Β. Ρηγοπούλου, 1982 — 1983.

Epanagoge // Leges Imperatorum Isaurorum et Macedonum / ed. P. Zepos (post C. E. Zacharia von Lingenthal). Athens: Fexis, 1931 (Jus Graecoromanum; vol. 2). P. 236 — 368.

Flavius Justinianus. Novellae // Corpus iuris civilis. Vol. 3 / ed. W. Kroll, R. Schöll. Berlin: Weidmann, 1895 (repr. 1968). P. 1 — 795.

Matthaeus Blastares. Collectio alphabetica // Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων τῶν τε ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν συνόδων, καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἁγίων πατέρων / ἔκδ. Μ. Ποτλές, Γ. Α. Ῥάλλης. Τ. 6. Ἀθῆναι, 1859. Σ. 31 — 518.

Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus. Historia ecclesiastica // PG. T. 145 — 147. 145:560 — 1332; 146:9 — 1273; 147:9 — 448.

Nicodemus Hagiorita. Scholia in canones synodales // Πηδάλιον τῆς νοητῆς νηὸς τῆς μιᾶς ἁγίας καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς τῶν ὀρθοδόξων ἐκκλησίας / .ἔκδ. ἀρχιμ. Δορόθεος. Ζάκυνθος: Τυπογραφεῖο “Ὁ Παρνασσὸς” Σεργίου Χ. Ῥαφτάνη, 1864 (repr. Ἀθήνα: Ἐκδόσεις Παπαδημητρίου, 1957). Σ. 118 — 342.

Nicolaus Methonaeus. Orationes // Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη / ἔκδ. Ἀ. Δημητρακόπουλος. Τ. 1. Leipzig, 1866 (repr. 1965). Σ. 219 — 380.

Photius. Nomocanon [Sp.] // Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων τῶν τε ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν συνόδων, καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἁγίων πατέρων / ἔκδ. Μ. Ποτλές, Γ. Α. Ῥάλλης. Τ. 1. Ἀθῆναι, 1852. Σ. 5 — 335.

Максимович К. А. Новелла CXXIII св. императора Юстиниана I (527 — 565 гг.) «О различных церковных вопросах» (перевод и комментарий) // Вестник ПСТГУ I: Богословие. Философия 2007. Вып. 3 (19). С. 22 — 54.

Basilica // Basilicorum libri LX. Series A, vols. 1 — 8 / ed. H. J. Scheltema, N. van der Wal. Groningen: Wolters, 1:1955; 2:1956; 3:1960; 4:1962; 5:1967; 6:1974; 7:1974; 8:1988.]: 1:1 — 435, 2:439 — 842, 3:847 — 1236, 4:1241 — 1558, 5:1559 — 1944, 6:1945 — 2430, 7:2435 — 2726 (Scripta Universitatis Groninganae).

• Literature

Анастасий Гоцопулос, протопресвитер. Вклад в диалог по украинской автокефалии. М.: Познание, 2021.

Бернацкий М. Досифей II Нотара́ // ПЭ. 2007. Т. 16. С. 71 — 79.

Болотов В. В. Лекции по истории Древней Церкви. Т. 4. СПб.: Тип. М. Меркушева, 1918.

Дионисий (Шлёнов), игумен. Первенство Константинопольского епископа в Византии и Поствизантии: канонический и богословский аспект // Эстонская Православная Церковь: 100 лет автономии. Таллин, 2021. С. 50 — 82.

Каптерев Н. Ф. Сношения иерусалимского патриарха Досифея с русским правительством (1669 — 1707). М.: Тип. А. И. Снегиревой, 1891.

Лука, иеромонах. Права Церквей и единство Церкви / Пер. игумена Дионисия (Шлёнова). М.: Познание, 2021.

Луховицкий Л. В. Макарий, митр. Анкирский // ПЭ. 2016. Т. 42. С. 484 — 485.

Епископ Николай Мефонский и византийское богословие: сб. исслед. / [ред. П. В. Ермилов, А. Р. Фокин]. М.: Центр библейско-патрол. исслед.; Империум Пресс, 2007.

Петр (Л’Юилье), архиепископ. Правила первых четырех Вселенских Соборов / авториз. пер. с фр. под ред. протоиер. В. Цыпина. М.: Сретенский монастырь; МДА, 2005.

Рамазанова Д. Н. «История иерусалимских патриархов…» Досифея Нотара (Бухарест, 1715): бытование и перевод // Румянцевские чтения. 2011. Ч. 2: Материалы международ. науч. конф. (19 — 21 апреля 2011): [в 2 ч.] / Российская гос. б-ка; [сост. М. Е. Ермакова]. М.: Пашков дом, 2011. С. 56 — 60.

Цыпин В., прот. Вселенский IV Cобор [Халкидонский] // ПЭ. 2005. Т. 9. С. 597 — 616.

Яламас Д. А. Иерусалимский патриарх Досифей и Россия. 1700 — 1706 гг. По материалам Российского государственного архива древних актов. Часть 1 (1700 г.) // Россия и Христианский Восток. Вып. IV — V. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2015. C. 593 — 647.

Χρήστου Π. Κ. Εκκλησιαστική γραμματολογία. Πατέρες και θεολόγοι του χριστιανισμού. Τ. Β´. Θεσσαλονίκη. Εκδοσεις «Κυρομάνος», 1991.

См., в частности, ряд публикаций: Лука, иером. Права Церквей и единство Церкви / пер. игумена Дионисия (Шлёнова). М., 2021; Анастасий Гоцопулос, протопресвитер. Вклад в диалог по украинской автокефалии. М., 2021; Дионисий (Шлёнов), игумен. Первенство Константинопольского епископа в Византии и Поствизантии: канонический и богословский аспект // Эстонская Православная Церковь: 100 лет автономии. Таллин, 2021. С. 50 — 82.

См. о нем: Бернацкий М. Досифей II Нотара́ // ПЭ. 2007. Т. 16. С. 71 — 79.

Начиная с первого Иерусалимского патриарха из числа греков, Германа I (1537 — 1579).

Χρήστου Π. Κ. Εκκλησιαστική γραμματολογία. Πατέρες και θεολόγοι του χριστιανισμού. Τ. Β´. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1991. Σ. 292.

См. подробнее: Бернацкий М. Досифей II Нотара́ // ПЭ. 2007. Т. 16. С. 75.

См.: Каптерев Н. Ф. Сношения иерусалимского патриарха Досифея с русским правительством (1669 — 1707). М., 1891; Яламас Д. А. Иерусалимский патриарх Досифей и Россия. 1700 — 1706 гг. По материалам Российского государственного архива древних актов. Часть 1 (1700 г.) // Россия и Христианский Восток. Вып. IV — V. М., 2015. C. 593 — 647.

Одно из современных изданий: Δοσιθέου, πατριάρχου Ἰεροσολύμων Τόμος χαρᾶς. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1985.

Современное греческое издание: Δοσιθέου Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Ἱστορία περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων, ἄλλως καλουμένη Δωδεκάβιβλος Δοσιθέου / ἔκδ. Ἐ. Δηληδέμος. Βιβλία Γ´ — Δ´. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1982.См.: Рамазанова Д. Н. «История иерусалимских патриархов…» Досифея Нотара (Бухарест, 1715): бытование и перевод // Румянцевские чтения — 2011. Ч. 2: Материалы международ. науч. конф. (19 — 21 апреля 2011): [в 2 ч.] / Российская гос. б-ка; сост. М. Е. Ермакова. М., 2011. С. 56 — 60.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 1, 16 // Op. cit. Σ. 307 — 309.

Cм.: Consilium Chalcidonense. Actio 19 de Photio et Eustathio // ACO. T. 2. Vol. 1 (3). P. 104 — 105.

Болотов В. В. Лекции по истории Древней Церкви. Т. 4. СПб., 1918. С. 301.

Цыпин В., прот. Вселенский IV Cобор [Халкидонский] // ПЭ. 2005. Т. 9. С. 613. См. также анализ архиепископа Петра (Л Юлье), который подчеркивал, что Халкидонский Собор вынес решения не только несогласные с волей патриарха Анатолия, но и против императора Феодосия II (Петр (Л’Юилье), архиеп. Правила первых четырех Вселенских Соборов / авториз. пер. с фр. под ред. протоиер. В. Цыпина. М., 2005. С. 306 — 307).

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 1, 16 // Op. cit. Σ. 309.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ, 3, 15 // Op. cit. Σ. 382 — 384.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 1, 15 // Op. cit. Σ. 307.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ, 4 // Op. cit. Σ. 385 и далее.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ, 4, 2 // Op. cit. Σ. 389 — 390.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 2 // Op. cit. Σ. 390.

Согласно «Василикам» 3, 1, 35 и 123-й новелле Юстиниана.

Делается ссылка на: Василики 3, 1, 36.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 2 // Op. cit. Σ. 390.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ, 4, 3 // Op. cit. Σ. 390 и далее.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 3 // Op. cit. Σ. 390.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 3 // Op. cit. Σ. 391.Со ссылкой на: Новеллы кн. 3, новелла 2. Ср.: Athanasius Scholasticus. Novellae constitutiones 3, 1 // Das Novellensytagma des Athanasios von Emesa / ed. D. Simon, Sp. Troianos. Frankfurt am Main, 1989. (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte; Bd. 16.). S. 38:18. «Пусть судятся у митрополита, при слушании двумя епископами собора. Если же он не будет согласен с их судом, компетентный патриарх да исследует решение, не испугавшись апелляции» (δικαζέσθωσαν μητροπολίτῃ, συνακροωμένων δύο ἐπισκόπων τῆς συνόδου. Θατέρου δὲ μὴ στοιχοῦντος τῇ τούτων κρίσει, ὁ ἁρμόδιος πατριάρχης ἐξετάσει τὴν ψῆφον μὴ δεδιὼς ἔκκλητον).

См. толкование Вальсамона, где обсуждается вопрос подсудности самого патриарха царю и приводятся разные точки зрения. Canones Concilii Antiocheni // Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων τῶν τε ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν συνόδων, καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἁγίων πατέρων / ἔκδ. Μ. Ποτλές, Γ. Α. Ῥάλλης. Τ. 3. Ἀθῆναι, 1853. Σ. 146 — 150.

Flavius Justinianus. Novella 123 // Corpus iuris civilis. Vol. 3 / ed. W. Kroll, R. Schöll. Berlin: Weidmann, 1895 (repr. 1968). P. 594 — 625. Рус. пер.: Максимович К. А. Новелла CXXIII св. императора Юстиниана I (527 — 565 гг.) «О различных церковных вопросах» (перевод и комментарий) // Вестник ПСТГУ I: Богословие. Философия 2007. Вып. 3 (19). С. 22 — 54.

Flavius Justinianus. Novella 123, 21 // Op. cit. P. 610:5 — 9.«Если же епископ будет судить <тяжбу> между некими лицам по императорскому приказанию или распоряжению судьи, то апелляция должна подаваться императору (ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν) или тому, кто поручил <епископу рассмотрение> дела».

Flavius Justinianus. Novella 123, 21, 2 // Op. cit. P. 611:5 — 9.«Если же дело будет церковным, пусть гражданские начальники не имеют никакого касательства к расследованию, но преосвященные епископы пусть в соответствии с канонами доведут это дело до завершения».

Flavius Justinianus. Novella 123, 22 // Op. cit. P. 611:13 — 612:6.

Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum quinisextum (691/2). Canon 36 de honore patriarcharum // Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decretal / ed. G. Alberigo. Turnhout, 2006. P. 255.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 3 // Op. cit. Σ. 393.

См.: Photius. Nomocanon [Sp.] 1, 4 // Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων τῶν τε ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν συνόδων, καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἁγίων πατέρων / ἔκδ. Μ. Ποτλές, Γ. Α. Ῥάλλης. Τ. 1. Ἀθῆναι, 1852. Σ. 42.

См.: Photius. Nomocanon [Sp.] 1, 5 // Op. cit. Σ. 42 — 43.

Basilica // Basilicorum libri LX. Series A, vols. 1 — 8 / ed. H. J. Scheltema, N. van der Wal. Groningen: Wolters, 1:1955; 2:1956; 3:1960; 4:1962; 5:1967; 6:1974; 7:1974; 8:1988.]: 1:1 — 435, 2:439 — 842, 3:847 — 1236, 4:1241 — 1558, 5:1559 — 1944, 6:1945 — 2430, 7:2435 — 2726 ([Scripta Universitatis Groninganae).

Basilica III, 1, 35 = Novella 123, 19. Basilica III, 1, 36 = Novella 123, 20. Basilica III, 1, 38 = Novella 123, 22.

См.: Epanagoge 11, 4 — 7 (особо 6:1 — 2) // Leges Imperatorum Isaurorum et Macedonum / ed. P. Zepos (post C.E. Zacharia von Lingenthal). Athens, 1931. (Jus Graecoromanum; vol. 2). P. 260.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 4 // Op. cit. Σ. 394.

Ibid.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 4 // Op. cit. Σ. 394. А 8-е правило ΙΙΙ Вселенского Собора запрещало вступать в противоречие с определёнными постановлениями, и как противоречащие они оказались бы недействительными.

Matthaeus Blastares. Collectio alphabetica δ, 7:150 // Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων τῶν τε ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν συνόδων, καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἁγίων πατέρων / ἔκδ. Μ. Ποτλές, Γ. Α. Ῥάλλης. Τ. 6. Ἀθῆναι, 1859. Σ. 218.

De sententia patriarchae // Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie byzantine / éd. J. Darrouzès. Paris, 1966. (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien; vol. 10). P. 333 — 334.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Ι´ // Op. cit. Σ. 221.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος ΙΑ´ // Op. cit. Σ. 14:35.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 3 // Op. cit. Σ. 390.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 3 // Op. cit. Σ. 393.

Ibid.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 5 // Op. cit. Σ. Σ. 395 — 396.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 5 // Op. cit. Σ. 395 и далее

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 5 // Op. cit. Σ. 395 — 396.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 5 // Op. cit. Σ. 405.

См. о нем: Епископ Николай Мефонский и византийское богословие: сб. исслед. / [ред. П. В. Ермилов, А. Р. Фокин]. М., 2007.

Nicolaus Methonaeus. Orationes 4 // Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη / ἔκδ. Ἀ. Δημητρακόπουλος. Τ. 1. Leipzig, 1866 (repr. 1965). Σ. 266 — 292.

См., например: Nicolaus Methonaeus. Orationes 4 // Op. cit. Σ. 281.

Nicolaus Methonaeus. Orationes 4 // Op. cit. Σ. 292:6.

См.: Nicolaus Methonaeus. Orationes 4 // Op. cit. Σ. 281.

См.: Луховицкий Л. В. Макарий, митр. Анкирский // ПЭ. 2016. Т. 42. С. 484 — 485.

Прп. Никодим Святогорец писал об упразднении должности экзарха диоцеза после IV Вселенского Собора, значит, экзарх диоцеза не тождественен патриарху. См.: Nicodemus Hagiorita. Scholia in canones synodales 4, 17 Ἑρμηνεία. L. 21 — 22 // Πηδάλιον τῆς νοητῆς νηὸς τῆς μιᾶς ἁγίας καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς τῶν ὀρθοδόξων ἐκκλησίας / .ἔκδ. ἀρχιμ. Δορόθεος. Ζάκυνθος: Τυπογραφεῖο “Ὁ Παρνασσὸς” Σεργίου Χ. Ῥαφτάνη, 1864 (repr. Ἀθήνα: Ἐκδόσεις Παπαδημητρίου, 1957). Σ. 118 — 342.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος 4, 4, 7 // Op. cit. Σ. 398.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος 4, 4, 7 // Op. cit. Σ. 399.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος 4, 4, 7 // Op. cit. Σ. 397 и далее.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος 4, 4, 7 // Op. cit. Σ. 399.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος 4, 4, 7 // Op. cit. Σ. 399.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος 4, 4, 7 // Op. cit. Σ. 400.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος 4, 4, 7 // Op. cit. Σ. 401.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος 4, 4, 7 // Op. cit. Σ. 402.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος 4, 4, 7 // Op. cit. Σ. 403.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος 4, 4, 7 // Op. cit. Σ. 404.

Alexius Aristenus. Scholia in concilia oecumenica et localia 9, 9:9 — 14 // Alexios Aristenos. Kommentar zur Synopsis canonum / ed. L. Burgmann, K. Maksimovič, E. S. Papagianni, Sp. Troianos. Berlin — Boston, 2019. (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Neue Folge; Bd. 1). S. 88.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Ι´ // Op. cit. Σ. 221.

Ср. аналогичную интерпретацию:Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus. Historia ecclesiastica 17, 8 // PG. 147. Col. 237, 240A.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 7 // Op. cit. Σ. 405.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 6 // Op. cit. Σ. 396 и далее.

В 330 г. св. император Константин устроил столицу Византии в Константинополе.

Anna Comnena. Alexias 1, 13, 2:4 — 10 // CFHB. Series Berolinensis XL/1. P. 44:18 — 24.

Dositheus. Δωδεκάβιβλος Δʹ 4, 6 // Op. cit. Σ. 396.

Согласно свидетельству Анны Комниной, до патриаршества Евстафий проживал близ храма Св. Софии в Константинополе и «прикидывался» святым человеком — «притворяясь в добродетели» (καὶ ἀρετὴν δῆθεν ὑποκρινόμενος) (Anna Comnena. Alexias 3, 2, 7:3 — 5 // Op. cit. P. 94 — 95).

Anna Comnena. Alexias 5, 9, 5 // Op. cit. P. 167:94 — 98.

Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie byzantine / éd. J. Darrouzès. Paris, 1966. (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien; vol. 10).

De sententia patriarchae // Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie byzantine / éd. J. Darrouzès. Paris, 1966. (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien; vol. 10). P. 332 — 338.

De sententia patriarchae // Op. cit. P. 338:9 — 10.

De privilegiis metropolitarum // Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie byzantine / éd. J. Darrouzès. Paris, 1966 (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien; vol. 10). P. 116 — 158.

Dialogus de depositione Nicolai IV patriarchae // Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie byzantine / éd. J. Darrouzès. Paris, 1966 (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien; vol. 10). P. 310 — 330.

«Царь: Вам знатокам канонов и церковных обычаев решение даю» (Βασιλεύς. Ὑμῖν τοῖς ἐπιστήμοσι τῶν κανόνων καὶ τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἐθῶν τὴν ἀπόφασιν δίδωμι). (Dialogus de depositione Nicolai IV patriarchae // Op. cit. P. 328:34 — 35).

Troparion of Blessed Dositheus — Tone 1

When thou didst inherit the Throne of the Mother Church, / the Holy Apostle James didst thou imitate / in calling the Church to one accord / to expel the errors arising from Calvin the Most Wicked one, / and protecting the Orthodox from across the whole world, / thy divine illumination saw them set free from the enemy. / Wherefore, O Blessed Dositheus, // We entreat thee to pray that our souls be saved.

Kontakion o f Blessed Dositheus — Tone 8

Let us hymn the luminary of the Man-Befriending God, / the pious protector of the faith, / who didst follow the footsteps of the Holy Hesychasts, / who art honored as the Guardian of the Lord’s Sepulchre, / who fought the darkness of error. / His wisdom spread to men as fire through leaves. / Therefore seeing him adorn the Heavens as he adorned the Church, / we keep his holy memory. / Him do we beseech to intercede for us, // that our souls find mercy!