The Council of Constantinople was a pan-
Eastern Orthodox council held in
Constantinople between August 29, 1872, and September 16, 1872, in response to the schism within a part of the
Bulgarian ecclesiastical hierarchy. All the Eastern Orthodox
patriarchs of the time participated in it. The council pronounced
anathema on
phyletism, which means the idea that
ecclesiastical jurisdictions should be delineated not on territorial but national lines. The council also condemned racism.
The council is recognized as authoritative within the entire Eastern Orthodox Church.
During the 19th century, the
Ottoman Empire faced challenges, notably with the independence of
Greece.[1] In 1856, the Ottoman Empire attempted reforms in its governance system. During the
Tanzimat period, the
Ottoman Sultan officially assigned the
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople the role of representing the
Rum Millet.[1] This sparked a crisis within the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as dissenters opposing the Ottoman Empire and the state of affairs within the Rum Millet could now consider the patriarch and the patriarchy directly responsible since he became their official representative.[1]
In particular,
Bulgarian nationalists strongly opposed the situation within the patriarchy, where the vast majority of bishoprics were held by
Greeks, especially in
Bulgaria.[1] They were also in conflict with the Greeks over financial matters concerning the payment of debts to the Ottoman Sultan.[1] Between 1858 and 1860, the
Greek National Assembly convened to address some of the contentious issues related to the Rum Millet, but these efforts did not yield results.[1]
Conflict and schism
After having his demands rejected, Metropolitan
Hilarion of Makariopolis decided to enter into schism; he ceased commemorating the Patriarch of Constantinople during the Easter celebration in 1860.[1][2] Up until this point, he had been the bishop appointed by the patriarchate in one of its Bulgarian-language parishes in
Constantinople.[1] He presented himself as the 'leader of a de facto-created Bulgarian church' and was swiftly deposed by Patriarch
Joachim II.[1] Two of the Bulgarian bishops who followed him were also deposed, namely Paissy of Plovdiv and Auxentius of Durrës.[1]
Between 1860 and 1866, numerous negotiations were initiated between the two parties, but they led to no resolution. Furthermore, the arrival of the new Russian ambassador,
Ignatiev, further complicated the matter.[1] This move toward independence was also supported by the
Grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire,
Ali Pasha Rizvanbegović.[1]
In reality, the intervention of external political actors displeased the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, which would have preferred the issue to be resolved within an Orthodox framework.[1] The patriarch contemplated convening an ecumenical council to address the Bulgarian question. In 1868, Ali Pasha encouraged Bulgarian bishops to secede from the patriarchate; three of them joined the already deposed bishops, and other bishops who had joined the schismatic Bulgarian Church in the meantime.[1]
In 1872, the Holy Synod of the patriarchate decided to make one final attempt to resolve the crisis by proposing the creation of a Bulgarian exarchate.[1] However, the proposal included
political autonomy for the
Bulgarians, which displeased the
Ottoman Empire, leading to the prohibition of the proposition.[1] The rebellious Bulgarian bishops then decided to elect their own exarch,
Anthim I.[1][3]
Council
To address this situation,
Anthimus VI of Constantinople decided to convene a council involving the other Orthodox patriarchates.[2] The council took place in the
Saint George Cathedral of Constantinople between August 29, 1872, and September 16, 1872.[2] In addition to the
patriarchs of Alexandria,
Antioch, and
Jerusalem, the
Archbishop of Cyprus attended, and the council was joined by twenty-five metropolitans and bishops, including two former patriarchs of Constantinople.[2][4] The position opposing the Bulgarian Church and
phyletism quickly gained the majority of bishops and participants.[2][5] However, Patriarch
Cyril II of Jerusalem fled at the end of the first session, as he did not wish to conflict with Russian interests, among other reasons, given his extensive lands in the
Russian Empire.[2][6]
After deliberations, the council chose to condemn the Bulgarian schism completely.[2][7][8] According to the council, the rebellious bishops adhered to a new heresy within the Orthodox Church,
phyletism, meaning nationalism applied within the Orthodox Church.[9] In particular, the council was greatly troubled by the fact that the schismatic bishops had attempted to create parallel ecclesiastical hierarchies exclusively for Bulgarians, while Orthodox bishops were already present in those areas, such as Constantinople. The council saw this as a violation of
Orthodox canonical law[2][7][9][10] and an
ecclesiologicalheresy.[9][11] The general idea of phyletism is that ecclesiastical jurisdictions should be based not on territorial but on national lines.[11][12][13] In its proclamation of faith (oros), the council declared:[14][15][16]
[So,] The ethnic egoism that will develop in each of the "national" Churches will stifle religious sentiments to such an extent that it will hardly be permitted for one of these Churches to watch over and cooperate with the other as Christian duty requires. [...] and the dogma of the Church being "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" receives a mortal blow. [...]
We repress, blame, and condemn
phyletism, i.e.,
distinctions of races, disputes, emulation, and
national divisions within the
Church of Jesus Christ, as opposed to the doctrine of the
Gospel and the
sacred canons of
our blessed fathers who support the Holy Church and maintain in good order the Christian community they guide on the path of divine piety. II. We declare, in agreement with the sacred canons, those who admit this phyletism and dare to establish new phyletic assemblies based on this principle as real schismatics, alien to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Therefore, we declare
schismatic and alien to the Orthodox Church of Christ all those who have separated themselves from the Orthodox Church, who have set up a separate
altar, and who have formed a phyletic assembly; i.e., [the prelates whose names follow].
The council considered phyletism and racism as "racial aggregations", "new glories", and "modern corruptions".[17] Racism was thus also targeted and condemned by the council.[17][18][19][20][21]
Consequences
Although the schism persisted, after this council, the position of the rebellious bishops and their Church became complicated.[3] Despite achieving independence, they remained separated from the other Orthodox Churches for 70 years.[3] In 1945, an agreement was reached between the
Patriarchate of Constantinople and the
Bulgarian Exarchate to resolve the issue and reintegrate the Bulgarians into the Eastern Orthodox Church.[3][22]
Phyletism is generally considered to have increased throughout the 20th century despite the condemnation by the council,[36][37][38] especially in the ecclesiastical management of Eastern Orthodox communities in the
diaspora.[38][39]
^
abcdefghMelloni, Alberto; Danaise, Davide (2016). The great councils of the Orthodox Churches: decisions and synodika. Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta. Turnhout: Brepols publishers.
ISBN978-2-503-52529-7.
^Meyendorff, John; Meyendorff, Jean; Lossky, Nicolas (1995). L' Église orthodoxe: hier et aujourd'hui (Nouvelle éd., revue et augm ed.). Paris: Éditions du Seuil. pp. 149–151.
ISBN978-2-02-023537-2.
^Höhne, Florian; Meireis, Torsten, eds. (2020). Religion and neo-nationalism in Europe. ethik und gesellschaft (1st ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
ISBN978-3-8487-6414-3.
^Serrano, Silvia (2018). Orthodoxie et politique en Géorgie postsoviétique. Meydan. Paris: Éditions Karthala.
ISBN978-2-8111-2556-1.