The author examines the question of who has the right to convoke a Pan-Orthodox Council with references to contemporary historical circumstances. He proves that this right never exclusively belonged to the Patriarch of Constantinople, technically the first among equals, and this was accepted by some among Greeks. The attempt to grant this right to the Patriarch of Constantinople stems from the situation shaped just after the fall of the Russian Empire when a battle for primacy started to unfold. On the other hand, the idea of a collective convocation of a future Pan-Orthodox Council developed during the first half of the twentieth century. In spite of this, representatives of the Orthodox Churches agreed in 1968 that the right to convoke the hypothetical council did indeed belong to the Patriarch of Constantinople but always with prior agreement of the chief hierarchs of other autocephalous churches. The author shows that this decision was reached as a type of temporary compromise solution rather than a logical conclusion of previous discussions.

Keywords: Pan-Orthodox Council, Ecumenical Council, PanOrthodox Conference, Patriarch of Constantinople, Right to Convoke a Council.

The idea of calling a new Ecumenical Council began in the second half of the 19th century. In early December 1868, Patriarch Gregory VI of Constantinople announced a decision to bring the Greek-Bulgarian conflict to trial

page 308
The Ecumenical Council 1 and soon sent out a lengthy letter to the primates of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches calling for them to participate in the "council of the whole Church" (της καθολοκ εκκλησιας σuνοδος) 2. It was this initiative that Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin)wrote enthusiastically about:

The Ecumenical Council... This word was finally announced both in the oral conversation and in the printed speech! The Ecumenical Patriarch demands an Ecumenical Council to resolve the Bulgarian issue!! ...Of course, the Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church will not take place in any way, but it is already good that the Patriarch said this word. I can imagine how frightened the "nashi" were when they heard that they would be drawn to the Ecumenical Council! ...God only wish that the Ecumenical Council could be organized! But-alas-he will not get a job 3.

Indeed, despite the willingness of all churches to participate in such a council, it was the Russian Church that opposed its convocation, and its voice was crucial in many respects.4 Patriarch Gregory, meanwhile, tried to obtain permission from the Ottoman government to convene an Ecumenical Council, intending to appeal again to the Russian Synod in case of the highest permission, but, having been refused, informed the primates of the autocephalous churches of his failure and abdicated in protest. The Council eventually took place in 1872, but instead of being "ecumenical", it was declared "great local", and its decisions were not recognized by the fullness of Orthodoxy.

Occasionally, the theme of the Ecumenical Council arose in 1890 in the midst of the conflict between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Sultan's government, caused by the Phanar's defense of its own privileges, as well as the rights of the oppressed pravoslav-

1. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Tomus 45: Synodi Orientales, 1860-1884. Parisiis, 1911. pp. 217-218.

2. Ibid., pp. 221-250.

3. Correspondence of Antonin (Kapustin) with Count N. P. Ignatiev, 1865-1893 / Prepared by K. A. Vakh. Moscow: Indrik, 2014. pp. 135-136: Letter to Archimedes. To Antonin Ignatiev, dated January 5, 1869.

4. See: Epistles of the Most Holy Primates of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church to His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory and the Synod of Constantinople, concerning the Greek-Bulgarian Church Question. 1869. N 9. pp. 355-361.

page 309
population. Patriarch Dionysius V threatened the government to convene an Ecumenical Council, but this time it did not even reach out to the Orthodox churches, as was the case under Patriarch Gregory VI. 5 Once again, the theme of the council was heard in the mouths of Greek, and now Romanian and Serbian hierarchs after the First World War. In 1920, the official publication of the Church of Constantinople published a report about the upcoming convocation of a"Pan-Orthodox Ecumenical Council", 6 and in the summer of 1923, the so-called "Pan-Orthodox Congress" held in Constantinople on the initiative of Patriarch Meletios IV decided to mark the celebration of the 1600th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council with church-wide events, including the convocation of a " Pan-Orthodox Council". The initiative of convocation (πρωτοβοκλι^ 5;) was entrusted by the congress participants to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Based on this decision, Patriarch Gregory VII of Constantinople announced the convocation of an Ecumenical Council on the day of Pentecost in 1925. The Council was constantly postponed until it finally became clear that in the current ecclesiastical and political situation it could not take place. In 1930, however, it was possible to hold meetings of the Preparatory Inter-Orthodox Commission, following the results of which Patriarch Photius II of Constantinople announced the convocation of a General Orthodox Pre-council on the day of Pentecost in 1932, but this pre-council was never destined to take place. In 1947, the initiative to hold the council was taken over by the Russian Church, whose attempt to hold a Pan-Orthodox conference in Moscow to begin with was thwarted by several Greek churches who refused to take part in it. On December 31, 1950, the Ecumenical Council was initiated by Patriarch Christopher of Alexandria, and in February 1951, Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople proposed to resume the work of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference. However, the turning point was the Pan-Orthodox Meeting of 1968, held in the suburb of Geneva - Chambesy, at which the procedure for preparing the Council was approved. It was then that " representatives of the Local Orthodox

5. See: Russia and the Orthodox East: the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the late 19th Century. Letters of G. P. Begleri to Professor I. E. Troitsky. 1878-1898 / Podgot. L. A. Gerd. SPb.: Publishing House of Oleg Abyshko, 2003. pp. 186, 190.

6. 'Εκκλησιαστ 53;κη 'Αληθεια. 1920. Σ. 158.

page 310
In the spirit of brotherhood and Christian love, the churches have reached a unanimous decision on the convocation of the Great Pan-Orthodox Council."7. The current Council is being prepared on the basis of these and subsequent agreements.

Reviewing the history of attempts to hold a general council of the Orthodox Church in the 19th and 20th centuries, it is easy to see that, in addition to various external reasons that prevented its convocation, there was also an important internal difficulty, namely, the lack of agreement between all Orthodox churches on the procedure for convening the council and on who should convene it in the new historical situation. In theoretical terms, this question, as it turned out, was not so obvious. There were also differences of opinion, especially in the understanding of the role of State power in the convocation of the General church council.

Since the attempt of Patriarch Gregory VI to organize an Ecumenical Council failed primarily because of the opposition of the Ottoman government to its convocation, it is quite understandable that Associate Professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy T. V. Barsov's reasoning about the "need for joint participation in the convocation of ecumenical councils" of the church and state becomes quite understandable:

The question of who has the legal right to convene an ecumenical council is, at first glance, a complex and two-sided question, concerning the rights of the Church and the political power of society... According to the theory of the rights of the Church as a separate spiritual society on earth... It is necessary to recognize the general conclusion that the Church of Christ must be independent in the organization of its own affairs, orders and institutions... But in the absence of the Church as a moral kingdom, one supreme ruler, a visible, sole head, in whose rights and authority, as if in a common center, all its functions converged and united, who alone, by his authority, as an outwardly indicative principle, would dictate in advance the meaning and determine the legal outcome for every manifestation of ecclesiastical power. in the absence, on the one hand, of such a ruler, as well as, on the other, in the absence of an external, legal right in the Church as a spiritual society, according to which the orders promulgated by it would be made together positive and legally binding

7. Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1968, No. 10, p. 33.

page 311
laws... of necessity, as if by itself, the order of its complete improvement becomes more complicated, and a kind of unavoidable conditions and needs appear, which make the general improvement of the Church the subject of attention of its entire society, and introduce it into the immediate concerns of the authorities ruling the state... In short, for the Church - as long as it remains a spiritual kingdom, is in union with human society, and receives all its members from it - it is inevitable that outside authorities will participate in its affairs... From the point of view of such general, unavoidable mutual relations between the Church and the State, one can easily understand the necessity of their joint participation in the convocation of ecumenical councils. In a general sense, they are convened according to the needs of the Church, but not without the assistance of the authorities of the state.8
Over time, when the Russian Church began to feel the wary attitude of the state authorities towards ecclesiastical conciliar initiatives, the role of the secular authorities in the convocation of councils gradually began to be rethought in the direction of its weakening. A typical example is the reasoning of K. F. Zaprudsky, which is almost forty years away from the words of Barsov quoted above:

In principle, the question we have raised is not difficult to solve, since, on the one hand, the ecumenical council is an ecclesiastical organ... on the other hand, since the church in the period we are considering existed as an independent society, having its own government, different from the civil one, it is clear that the right to convene ecumenical councils should have belonged to the ecclesiastical authority... But the convocation of councils, which belonged de jure to the ecclesiastical power, passed to the civil power and was de facto established behind it... Apparently, such a transfer of rights by one power into the hands of another seems strange... But let us recall that there was no visible supreme head in the church who could direct all the manifestations of church thought and life, and from whom, therefore, we should have expected an order to convene an ecumenical council. Dad? But he was only the oldest, though endowed with some advantages, primate of the church, but not the supreme head. His voice was only that of a concelebrant, and his decision was the same as that of a concelebrant.

8. Barsov T. On Ecumenical Councils: Concerning modern phenomena in the general life of Christian Churches and interpretations of literature. 1869. N 9. pp. 410-412.

page 312
just a tip. Even the primates of the Eastern churches would not have allowed a commanding order from the Roman See for the convocation of an ecumenical council, especially since the popes have been strongly asserting their claim to primacy in the church since the 4th Ecumenical Council, and such a fact as the convocation of the council would undoubtedly have reinforced their importance. We repeat that there was no such person in the church who could issue an order to convene an ecumenical council. Only the common voice of the primates of the main churches-the patriarchs - could replace it, but here the inconveniences came from the other side: it took a long time to reach a general agreement on the convocation of the council... But all these inconveniences, which were difficult to resolve when a council was called by the ecclesiastical authority, were easily eliminated when the civil authority assumed this right: the emperor replaced the visible head on whose behalf the order for the convocation of the council was to proceed... Considering all these conveniences, the church, although it did not formally transfer its right, did not protest when Constantine the Great took upon himself the task of convening the first ecumenical Council; his example, as further imperial decrees show, served as a model for subsequent emperors and, thus, the right to convene ecumenical councils,which was, so to speak, the inalienable property of the church de jure, due to completely accidental reasons, passed to the civil power and was established de facto9
In the above quotation, it is worth paying attention to the author's statement that the convocation of the Ecumenical Council should be carried out "by the common voice of the primates of the main churches - the patriarchs." In fact, these words anticipated the decisions taken at the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference in Geneva in 1968, according to which the preparation of the Pan-Orthodox Council is carried out jointly by all autocephalous churches. As Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) stated at the time, insisting on the need to reach a consensus on all issues related to the preparation of the council, "it seems to me that no other procedure is possible, since it will not be pan-Orthodox, it will not be authoritative, and therefore it will not be possible to reach a consensus on all issues related to the preparation of the council.-

9. Zaprudsky K. The Ecumenical Council. Historical and Canonical Etude, Moscow, 1906, pp. 26-28.

page 313
children and perspective"10. It is easy to see that it took more than half a century to make these decisions. And all this time it took to realize that other approaches, to use the words of Metropolitan Nicodemus, had no prospects.

One of these dead ends turned out to be the popular idea that the Ecumenical Council should be convened, as before, by the Orthodox monarch. Of course, this opinion was especially popular in Russia, where it was believed that in the current situation only the Russian tsar was entitled to convene a council. As a typical example, we can cite the discussion that unfolded between the Orthodox publicist N. N. Durnovo and the Slavophile A. A. Kireev in 1898 on the pages of the journal "Russian Labor". The starting point for it was two speeches by Metropolitan Vladimir of Moscow (Bogoyavlensky), in one of which the future hieromartyr noted that "there are aspirations to convene an Ecumenical Council in the air", and in the other - that the Russian Church, and "not the Greeks", should respond to the main challenges facing world Orthodoxy. Durnovo was critical of the Metropolitan's statements:"For the first time, we Russians heard an authoritative word from the mouth of the Moscow archpastor, that in matters of Orthodoxy we were ahead of the Greeks and that we became their teachers." "As for the convocation of the Ecumenical Council," Durnovo continued, " by virtue of church canons, only the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople can convene it. But is it in Turkey's interest to allow the Patriarch to convene such a council? ...Given the current state of church affairs, an ecumenical Council is unthinkable, and our Russian ecclesiastical department can hardly wish for it."11. A. A. Kireev reacted to Durnovo's note, which touched, in particular, on the topic of convocation of the council. In his opinion, the revival of cathedral life "largely depends on Russia." "Only it can convene an Ecumenical Council, despite any difficulties. If comparatively weak, materially and politically, Russia of the half of the seventeenth century could have succeeded in having Eastern patriarchs come to the council, then is modern Russia really more powerful than the rest of the world?-

10. Speech of Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad and Novgorod, head of the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church, at the I-V Pan-Orthodox Meeting in Geneva on June 10, 1968 / / Metropolitan Nikodim and Pan-Orthodox Unity / prot. V. Sorokin, comp. St. Petersburg: Knyaz-Vladimirsky Sobor Publishing House, 2008. p. 71.

11. Durnovo N. N. Metropolitan Vladimir, the Ecumenical Council and the primacy of the Russian Church. December 23, 1898. p. 7.

page 314
Isn't Russia capable of achieving much more?" Kireev refuted Durnovo's claim that the right to convene the council belongs to the Patriarch of Constantinople:

The venerable author believes that, by virtue of the church canons, the Ecumenical Council can only be convened by the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is not true; the patriarch gathers only the local councils of his local Church; the Ecumenical Councils were assembled by the emperors... If Mr. Durnovo thinks that the Patriarch of Tsaregrad, as bishop of the "new Rome", should also enjoy the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome, i.e., be primate of the Church, preside over and preside, inter pares, at an Ecumenical Council, yet this primacy does not give him the right to convene an Ecumenical Council (a right which he never had before). Bishop of Rome). The duty of convening the council, of course, is assigned by fate to the Russian Tsar, not only as the closest legal successor of Konstantin Palaiologos, through Sofia Fominichna, but also as the owner of the only powerful Orthodox state. 12
In his reply to Kireev, Durnovo was forced to admit that he was wrong and make a reservation:

The venerable author is right when he says that the Ecumenical Councils were called by the Byzantine emperors, who had all the more right to do so, since all the five patriarchies were then part of the empire. Now this right has undoubtedly passed to the powerful Autocrator of all Russia, to which neither the kyriarchs of the Eastern autocephalous churches nor the sovereigns who rule over Orthodox states and peoples will object. However, without the consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople, an ecumenical" Orthodox " Council is unthinkable.13
It is also worth paying attention to the authoritative opinion of A. Sturdza expressed at the beginning of the XIX century about the inevitable collegiality in the convocation of the council. Sturdza considered it" absurd " to grant the right to convene a council to one of the primates of the churches and believed that, in the absence of a single Orthodox emperor, the right to convene a council should not be granted to any of the primates of the churches.-

12.Russkiy trud [Russian labor]. January 9, 1899. p. 2.

13. Durnovo N. N. What is to be done before the Ecumenical Council? (Answer to A. A. Kireev) / / Russian work. January 30, 1899. p. 9.

page 315
Therefore, the Ecumenical Council should be called together by the monarchs of the main Orthodox countries:

The right to call [general councils], as the church annals show, has always belonged only to the monarch's authority... No department has ever been granted such powers, but in any case, their exercise would require an official act of granting such powers, through recognition by the entire universal Church... If we are talking about a meeting of Churches... then the right to convene an Ecumenical Council for this purpose cannot belong to any separate department, because it would be absurd for one of the parts to simultaneously exercise the presidency and arbitration functions. This would be the overthrow of the very foundations. Therefore, it is obvious that a truly ecumenical council can only take place as a result of an agreement between the main Christian monarchs (les principaux monarques de la Chretiennete)14.

However, after the fall of the Russian Empire and the departure of the last powerful Orthodox autocrat from the historical scene, the church consciousness faced a serious challenge. It became clear that the tsarist power, from which one could expect the convocation of the council, no longer exists. Serbian or Romanian Orthodox monarchs, although mentioned among the possible initiators of the convocation, clearly did not have sufficient status. The initiator of the council had to be sought within the Church itself.

It could be assumed that instead of the emperor, the primate hierarch, the Patriarch of Constantinople, is entitled to convene the council. But for a number of reasons, the main ones of which were expressed by Sturdza, such an opinion was not taken seriously for a long time. Even in the Greek community, where this idea should have found strong support, the sole right of the Patriarch of Constantinople to convene a council was not particularly recognized.15 Just give a few examples.

14. Stourdza, A. (1816) Considerations sur la doctrine et l'esprit de l'Eglise orthodoxe, pp. 114-116. Weimar.

15. What can we say about the Bulgarians, who even in the event of settling their relations with the Church of Constantinople threatened not to recognize such a right for the Patriarch of Constantinople, seeing in such claims a manifestation of "Greek megalomania". Размишления върху единството на Христовата църква и необходимостта от вселенски събор. Пловдив, 1901; Георгиев Н., свещ. Всеправославниятъ вселенски църковенъ събор и Българската църква. Kyustendil, 1925.

page 316
In 1920, one of the ideologists of the new deal of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, E. Lukaras, published an interesting article entitled " What is the role of the future Patriarchate of Constantinople?". Lukaras considered it part of his "program" to grant the Patriarch of Constantinople the right to convene pan-Orthodox conferences and an Ecumenical Council:

The Patriarch of Constantinople, as the highest administrative authority, will be the most appropriate figure for convening pan-Orthodox meetings to discuss and resolve issues of external and internal life related to Orthodoxy... After the formation of a certain church unity and prior long-term study and discussion at theological conferences of issues falling within the competence of the councils, the Ecumenical Patriarch will be able to convene an Ecumenical Council.16
Characteristically, Lukaras writes about this in the future tense and dreamily remarks: "This is it... the role that we dream of and flatter ourselves that it will be reserved for the Ecumenical Patriarchs in the future."

Then, the very attempt of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to convene a council in 1925 caused considerable controversy among the primates of other churches. Patriarchs Photius of Alexandria, Gregory IV of Antioch, and Damian of Jerusalem, who did not recognize the decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923, came up with a counter-initiative to hold a council in Jerusalem in 1924. Then Serbian Patriarch Dimitri proposed to hold a council in 1925, but in a Niche, and the synod of the Romanian Church discussed the issue of holding an Ecumenical Council in Bucharest. Commenting on the initiative of the three patriarchs, the hierarch and future Patriarch of the Church of Alexandria, Metropolitan Christopher of Leontopol, explained: "The three patriarchs agreed and wrote to each other... to his brother in Christ, the Ecumenical Patriarch, to convene a council. They did so not because none of them possessed the same honor, dignity, and authority in the Church as the Ecumenical Patriarch, but because, in the absence of an Orthodox emperor... it was necessary to increase the prestige of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and especially at a time when

16. Λοκκαρας 'Ε. Ποιον το ρολον τοκ μελλοντος Οικοκμενικ 59;κ Πατριαρχει&# 959;κ // Πανταινος. 1920. Σ. 577-578.

page 317
it is being belittled from all sides. That is why the three patriarchs appealed to the Ecumenical Patriarch... although they themselves or one of them could have called a council. " 17
Serious discussions around the sole right of the Patriarch of Constantinople to convene a council have also developed in the Church of Greece. After receiving an official notification from the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1924 about the convocation of an Ecumenical Council, the Greek government formed a special commission to discuss issues related to the participation of the autocephalous Church of Greece in the future Ecumenical Council. On March 6, 1925, the Athens newspaper Politia reported on the results of the second meeting of the commission. The report stated that the commission considered four issues, including the question "who should convene the Ecumenical Council". In this regard, it was briefly noted: "All previous Ecumenical Councils were convened each time by the Byzantine emperors. Now the question of who owns the right to convene is quite complex and needs to be studied scientifically. " 18
D. Balanos, a professor at the University of Athens, also confirmed the lack of evidence of popular ideas about the right of the Patriarch of Constantinople to convene an Ecumenical Council.19 In an article in the Anaplasis newspaper of March 15, 1925, Balanos shared his doubts about the need to convene an Ecumenical Council and noted that many fundamental issues related to its organization could hardly be easily resolved. Among the six such questions, Balanos first mentioned the question " who will convene the Ecumenical Council and by what right will it replace the emperor who convened the council in Byzantine times?"20 Shortly thereafter, the official publication of the Church of Greece, Ecclesia, published a note by the Dean of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Athens, G. Papamichael, in which the author noted that"whether this is an Ecumenical, Local or Pan-Orthodox Council, the decision to convene it would sooner or later have to be taken by the entire Orthodox Church" .21
17. Πανταινος. 1924. Σ. 643.

18. Ζο ζητημα της σκγκλησεως της Οικοκμενικ 51;ς Σκνοδοκ // Πολιτεια. 6 Μαρτιοκ 1925. Σ. 9.

19. Μπαλανος Δ. Σ. Ειναι αναγκαια και σκοπιμος η σuγκλησις οικοκμενικ&# 951;ς σκνοδοκ; // 'Αναπλασις. 15 Μαρτιοκ 1925. Σ. 73-77.

20. Αuτοθι. Σ. 76.

21. Γ. Π. Προσκνοδικα // 'Εκκλησια. 28 Μαρτιοκ 1925. Σ. 98.

page 318
A little later, Metropolitan Filaret (Vafidis)of Didymotikha, a member of the government commission, shared the results of a "scientific study" of the issue22. The author's argument about who owns the right to convene a council is as follows::

Since the councils of dioceses were called by the primate metropolitans, exarchs of dioceses and patriarchs, while local and diocesan councils were called by the metropolitans of ecclesiastical regions, and the endimus councils in Constantinople were called by the then metropolitan patriarchs, it would be logical for Ecumenical councils to be called by the one who holds the primacy of honor among Christian patriarchs... namely, the Pope. However, we see that the seven Ecumenical Councils were convened without the participation of the popes, and all the councils were called by the Byzantine emperors. The right to convene Ecumenical Councils belonged to the Byzantine emperors... So, it is known for certain that in the ancient Church the Ecumenical Councils were called by the Byzantine emperors, and now the question arises: if now there is a need to convene an Ecumenical Council, who should have the right to convene it? We believe that since there is no single tsarist power and a single state covering the entire Orthodox Church, and on the other hand, there has been a schism and division of the Eastern and Western Churches, this right passes to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as the first in rank among the other patriarchs and autocephalous churches of the Eastern Orthodox Church23.

There is no need to explain at length that there is a logical contradiction in this argument: the author first recognizes that the right to convene a council has never belonged to the Patriarch of Rome as the first bishop, and then declares that now such a right should belong to the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first bishop. Metropolitan Philaret was not the only one who argued that the Patriarch of Constantinople should replace the emperor. Archimandrite Hippolytus (Michaelides)expressed the same idea earlier in the official journal of the Jerusalem Patriarchate: "There can be no challenge-

22. Φιλαρετος , μητρ. Διδκμοτειχ οκ. 'Ολιγα τινα περι σκνοδων και δη των οικοκμενικ ων // Γρηγοριος ο Παλαμας. 1925. Σ. 491-519.

23. Αuτοθι. Σ. 495-496, 498.

page 319
but the fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right [to convene the council] as the first in rank among the primates of the Orthodox autocephalous Churches " 24.

Despite the stated intention to conduct a "scientific study of the issue", the Synod of the Church of Greece was content with such declarations and soon confirmed its initial decision not to interfere in the convocation of the council and to follow the instructions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in everything.25 However, the non-Greek churches tried to draw attention to the fact that the convocation of an Ecumenical Council is the work of the entire Church, which means that for its success, the council must be prepared jointly. This opinion was expressed by Patriarch Dimitry of Serbia, who in a letter to the primates of the autocephalous churches called for a pre-conciliar preparatory meeting and noted::

In order for both the convocation and the work of this Ecumenical Council to lead to a useful result, it is necessary that all the local Orthodox churches make a decision, prepare and determine the following: an acceptable date and venue, the procedure for convocation, the form of representation, the composition of the council, the program of work, the order of discussion and decision-making on certain issues, the method of making conciliar decisions together, and so on. 26

The first Congress of Orthodox Theology in Athens in 1936 was the next significant milestone in understanding the question of who owns the right to convene an Ecumenical Council. One of the sections of the congress was devoted to various issues related to the preparation of the council and, in particular, who should convene and preside over such a council. It followed from the speeches of the section participants that the issue was still considered open at that time and there was no generally accepted solution. For example, Professor A. Alivizatos of the University of Athens once again asked the question, "who should and can assume the role of the Byzantine emperor?". Alivizatos did not attempt to answer this question, confining himself to the statement that "the formal and technical aspect of the convocation of the general council falls under the responsibility of

24. 'Ιππολκτος, αρχιμ. Περι σκνοδων οικοκμενικω ν // Νεα Σιων. 1924. T. 19. Σ. 610.

25. Πανταινος. 1924. Σ. 782; 1925. Σ. 550-551.

26. Πανταινος. 1925. Σ. 370-371.

page 320
on the Church " 27. Professor of Sofia University S. Tsankov also limited himself to one statement of the question: "As for the question of the right of convocation... If the first seven Ecumenical Councils were called by the emperors, then there is no doubt that the first seven Ecumenical Councils were called by the emperors... Now it is rightly recognized that, given the significantly changed relations between the state and the Church (better to say, states and Churches), the initiative and decision to convene an Ecumenical Council can be exclusively the work of the Church. The difficulty that arises here is only one: can any Church take such an initiative?.. How should such a decision be made? Is it the voice of the majority of Churches? Or the consent of all the Churches?"28. Regarding the council's chairmanship, Tsankov's opinion was also ambiguous: "The council will obviously be presided over by a senior or senior in rank... among the primates of Churches, or as the council itself will determine " 29.

A rather lengthy and complex discussion on how the presidency of the Ecumenical Council should be distributed was made by Professor F. A. Shishkin of the University of Belgrade. What is it?:

The ecclesiastical and political decline of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which followed the fall of the Roman Empire, was interrupted by a brief flourishing of the Balkan Peninsula during the period of Turkish rule, but continued with a non-stop decline in size during the emergence of independent Christian Balkan states in the 19th century and the subsequent formation of new autocephalous Churches, caused significant damage to the ecclesiastical and political influence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and created a very delicate ecclesiastical and political situation in the Orthodox Church, namely, the lack of an indisputable ecclesiastical and political authority that could take over the leadership of the permanent central collegial body of the Church that is being formed to respect the rights and interests of Orthodox Churches and effectively organize it

27. Alivisatos, H. (1939) "Ist die Einberufung einer okumenischen Synode moglich?" in Alivizatos (ed.) Proces-verbaux du premier Congres de Theologie Orthodoxe a Athenes, 29 Novembre - 6 Decembre 1936, p. 259. Athenes.

28. Zankow, S. (1939) "Die prinzipiellen Schwierigkeiten der Abhaltung eines okumenischen Konzils", Ibid., p. 275.

29. Ibid., p. 277.

page 321
activity. Since the only person entitled to preside over the Ecumenical Council - the Roman emperor, who embodied in his person not only the idea of the identity of faith and empire, but also the idea of ecumenicity-disappeared, and in his place there did not arise another equivalent and competent person, then, taking into account the political heterogeneity of the Orthodox world, the leadership of the general Council of by a council of the Orthodox Church, ipso jure may belong exclusively to the ecclesiastical authority. Since the Orthodox Church does not have any single ecclesiastical-legal or ecclesiastical-political structure, the presidency can logically be recognized exclusively for the totality of individual Churches that make up the Orthodox Church, or rather, their primates, or, in other words, a collegial presidium should now take the place of the previously monarchical presidency members of which would exercise the chairmanship functions alternately. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, as the highest bishop in the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church, should take the place of president, and the primates of other Orthodox Churches should take the place of vice-presidents.30
Finally, the representative of the Romanian Church, Professor V. Shesan of Chernivtsi University, explicitly stated that all Churches should convene the council together:

The convocation of an ecumenical and pan-Orthodox council can only be carried out, taking into account the nature of these purely ecclesiastical institutions... bishops as successors of the apostles... And now the four ancient patriarchs, in good agreement with each other and with the new patriarchs, all together, as an organically unified convener of an ecumenical or pan-Orthodox council, will set the time, place and program of the councils to be convened!31

Apparently, none of the participants in the congress spoke in favor of the right of the Patriarch of Constantinople to convene a council. On the contrary, the idea of collective initiative in church-wide issues has become increasingly clear.

30. Granitch, F. (1939) "Das Problem der Einberufung der okumenischen Synode", Ibid., pp. 285-286.

31. Sesan, V. (1939) "Die Einberufung einer okumenischen Synode", Ibid., pp. 296-297.

page 322
Heated discussions about the right to convene a council broke out after the Russian Orthodox Church came up with a project for an Ecumenical Council in Moscow in 1947. In April of this year, Patriarch Alexy I of Moscow sent an invitation to the heads of autocephalous churches to come to Moscow to participate in the "meeting of primates". Metropolitan Dorotheos of Prinkiponis, who temporarily ruled the Church of Constantinople at that time, said in response to a letter from Patriarch Alexy that "the question of convening a pan-Orthodox conference... It has always been in the sphere of direct ecclesiastical activity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate", and therefore the initiative of the Russian Church violates "the canonical order observed in our holy Orthodox Church since ancient times".32
This response was met with bewilderment in Moscow. The very initiative of Patriarch Alexy indicated that the Russian Church was not ready to accept the exclusive right of the Patriarch of Constantinople to convene pan-Orthodox conferences. The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate delicately pointed out this point: "Addressing the Churches of Constantinople and Greece... Those who did not take part in the Conference on Ecclesiastical Issues are confronted with the sad phenomenon of misunderstanding the holy canons and traditions of the Orthodox Church."33 Professor S. V. Troitsky also spoke out against the assumption by the Church of Constantinople of the exclusive right to convene pan-Orthodox conferences.

The Russian canonist wrote: "According to the canons of the Orthodox Church... The head of any autocephalous Church has the right, if necessary, to invite bishops of other Churches, and not only for a conference, but also "for ordination or some other order", and Sister Churches usually willingly responded to such invitations... But now the Greek hierarchs are rebelling against papism... another papist theory is being developed that only the Patriarch of Constantinople can invite representatives of other Churches to the meeting. " 34 In another article Troitsky

32. 'Ορθοδοξια. 1947. Σ. 161-165.

33. Buevsky A. On the anniversary of the Meeting of Primates and Representatives of Orthodox Churches in Moscow (1948-1949) / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1949. N 8. P. 23.

34. Troitsky S. V. Where and what is the main danger? // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1947, No. 12, p. 33.

page 323
he analyzed in detail the pamphlet of Metropolitan Herman of Oenos, a member of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople, 35 who "tried to justify by canons the exclusive right of the Patriarch of Constantinople to convene pan-Orthodox councils":

If Metropolitan Herman wants to raise the question of the right to convene a pan-Orthodox or ecumenical council, it must be said that this issue is not solved as easily as he thinks. First of all, none of the three rules mentioned by him contains a single word about the right to convene an ecumenical or any other council. The Metropolitan deduces this right of the Patriarch of Constantinople from the privilege of honor granted to him by these rules, but the correctness of such a conclusion is refuted both by the text of these canons and by the history of the Church. All these rules give the first place in honor not to the bishop of Constantinople, but to the Bishop of Rome, and, consequently, if the primacy of honor gave the right to convene an ecumenical council, the Pope would convene the ecumenical councils. Meanwhile, no Ecumenical Council was convened by the pope, just as it was not convened by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and all Ecumenical Councils were convened by the Byzantine emperors... At present, when in many countries the Church is separated from the state, neither the canons nor the practice of the ancient Church can serve as a precedent, and the question of the right and procedure for convening an ecumenical or pan-Orthodox council must be resolved based on the Orthodox dogmatic teaching about the structure of the Church. According to this teaching, the only bearer of power in the earthly Church is its entire episcopate, whose will is expressed by its organs - councils and synods, and in the inter - council period-the first bishops of autocephalous Churches... As long as the conscience of all Orthodox Churches grants the Patriarch of Constantinople the privilege of honor, the right of pre-emptive initiative in this matter belongs to him. However, he can call such a council not suo jure, but as an expression of the will of the majority of the Orthodox episcopate, making sure, through an exchange of messages, that the other Orthodox Churches or their majority consider the convocation of the council necessary. But if the Patriarch of Constantinople, who has not exercised this right for a number of centuries, continues to be in such a position that he cannot use it, and the majority of autocephalous Churches will find co-operation with him. -

35. Γερμανος, μητρ. Αινοκ (1948) Ζο Οικοκμενικ ;ον Πατριαρχει ;ον και η αρμοδιοτης ; αuτοκ προς σκγκλησιν πανορθοδοξ ;ων σκνοδων. 'Αθηναι.

page 324
If the council is deemed necessary, then an ecumenical or pan-Orthodox council can also be convened by the Patriarch of Alexandria or another Patriarch of the next rank, even without the participation of the Patriarch of Constantinople (which, of course, is highly undesirable).36.

Later, Metropolitan Herman published another article in which he defended the exclusive competence of the Patriarch of Constantinople to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council.37 A sharp reaction to it appeared in the Beirut Orthodox newspaper Al-Harakat (in the September 19, 1953 issue). The author of this article wrote: "The Metropolitan of Oenos declares that the right [to convene an Ecumenical Council] has been acquired only by the Ecumenical Patriarch and that no other patriarch has the right to convene such meetings. However, let us ask ourselves: where in the Gospel or in what ecclesiastical work was such a right granted exclusively to the Ecumenical Patriarch, so that it turned out that the interests and urgent needs of world Orthodoxy were entrusted to the discretion of one Ecumenical Patriarch? Where it is established that no other patriarch, in particular, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church... can't call such a council?"38. The author described the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as "racist".

An inconsistent and ambiguous position on this issue was taken by Patriarch Christopher of Alexandria, who, on the one hand, "resolutely rejected the exclusive right of the Ecumenical Patriarch to convene pan - Orthodox conferences,"39 and, on the other, considered the head of the Russian Church "not qualified to convene such a meeting."40 In the 1920s, he also expressed his opinion that the Ecumenical Patriarch should not

36. Troitsky S. V. Let's fight together with danger / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1950. N 2. pp. 39-40.

37. Γερμανος, μητρ. Αινοκ. 'Ανταπαντησ ις εις τον Καθηγητην Ζροιτσκι, επιβεβλημε νη διασαφησις επι κανονικων θεματων αναφερομεν ων εις τας δικαιοδοσι ας τοκ Οικ. Πατριαρχει οκ // 'Ορθοδοξια. 1953. Σ. 5-43.

38. Quoted from the English translation contained in the archive collection of the U.S. State Department (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Department of State Records. 782.00/4-2054: Article in Al Harakat Criticizing Oecumenical Patriarch).

39. See: Karpov's report to Stalin on the discussion in the church press concerning the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch. December 14, 1949 / / Power and the Church in Eastern Europe. 1944-1953 / Edited by T. V. Volokitina, Vol. 2. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2009, p. 324.

40. Letters of Patriarch Alexy I to the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars - Council of Ministers of the USSR, 1945-1970, ed. by N. A. Krivova, ed. in vol. 1, Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2009, p. 280.

page 325
the idea that the council should be convened by the ancient Eastern patriarchs in a single coordinated act, but in the 1950s he took the sole initiative to convene the council and sought support for his initiative from the Moscow Patriarchate.

Later, the Russian Church formulated its own position on the issue of the right to convene a council. This happened after the decision of the Holy Synod in 1961 formed a theological commission to develop issues included in the list of topics of the future Pan-Orthodox Council. The draft resolution documents prepared by the commission were approved and approved at the Synod meeting on March 20, 1969 "as an opinion of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate". On the issue of the Ecumenical Council, the approved documents stated the following::

The entire episcopate is the sole bearer of the highest authority in the earthly church, whose will is expressed by its organs-councils, and in inter-council times-the primates of autocephalous churches together with Synods. Therefore, an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Council can be convened on the initiative of each primate of the Orthodox autocephalous Church, in agreement with all other autocephalous churches. The theory of the exclusive competence of the Patriarch of Constantinople to convene councils has no canonical and historical basis. The convocation of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council, as a preparatory body for the Pan-Orthodox and Ecumenical Council, and the convocation of the Pan-Orthodox Council belong to the Pan-Orthodox Conference. The initiative of an autocephalous Church to convene a Pan-Orthodox or Ecumenical Council does not prejudge the question of the place of its convocation. A council may be convened in any church that has the greatest capacity to do so. The Patriarch of Constantinople, as the first in the diptych, or, in the absence of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the first in honor (in the diptych) among the council fathers, opens the Pan-Orthodox Council, presides over it and closes it.41
An ecumenical council may be convened: a) by decision of a pan-Orthodox body, b) on the initiative of any local autocephalous church with the consent of other autocephalous churches. Definitions concerning the convocation of the Ecumenical Council and its organization,

41. Metropolitan Nicodemus and Pan-Orthodox Unity ... pp. 195-196.

page 326
They are adopted by a Pan-Orthodox Conference, in which all local Orthodox churches should be invited to participate and at which the majority of them should be represented. The order of work of the Ecumenical Council is established by the Ecumenical Council itself.42
As we can see, the Synod of the Russian Church supported the view that"the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Council belongs to the Pan-Orthodox Conference." But by the time the Synod approved this decision, it had already lost its significance, since shortly before that, representatives of the Russian Church had compromised and signed other decisions that differed from the opinion proposed by the theological commission at the synod.

As already noted, a series of unsuccessful attempts to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council led the Orthodox churches to abandon further unorganized initiatives and search for a reliable way to hold it. Such a breakthrough was made at the Pan-Orthodox Meetings of the 1960s, when representatives of the autocephalous churches agreed on the collegial preparation of the council and approved a clear procedure for joint work. It would seem that after so many years of discussions, the long-awaited words should have appeared in the conciliatory documents that the council is convened "by a common voice of the primates" or "by a Pan-Orthodox conference". However, the documents of the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Conference of 1968 contain a completely different wording: "When all the preparatory work is completed in accordance with the above procedure, the Ecumenical Patriarch, in agreement with the Primates of other Local Orthodox Autocephalous Churches, will convene the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church."43 You can explain as much as you like that in this case the Patriarch of Constantinople acts "on behalf of the entire Orthodox completeness", but the fact remains: at the general church level, it is recorded that it is the Patriarch of Constantinople who convenes the council. So unexpected was the outcome of the discussions of the first half of the twentieth century.44
42. Metropolitan Nicodemus and Pan-Orthodox Unity ... p. 120.

43. Scobey G. H. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church // Church and time. 2002. N 19. P. 88.

44. Later, the right to convene Pan-Orthodox Meetings by the Patriarch of Constantinople was established in the "Rules of Procedure for Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Meetings", approved at the Third Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Meeting (Chambesy,

page 327
Knowing the history of the issue, it is difficult to understand why the Pan-Orthodox Conference abandoned the long-matured idea of a" collegial convocation " and adopted an opinion that caused so much confusion, and at the beginning of the XIX century was called absurd. In any case, the recognition of the right of the Patriarch of Constantinople to convene a council was a challenge for the entire Orthodox ecclesiology, since, as the Archpriest rightly pointed out in 1960, the Patriarch of Constantinople was not a member of the Orthodox Church. Nikolai Afanasyev, "if the autocephalous churches recognized the right of the Patriarch of Constantinople to convene a council, they would automatically recognize his primacy in the Orthodox Church." 45 Today's disagreements over the role and advantages of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Orthodox Church, which have emerged in the inter-Orthodox dialogue, are closely related to the decisions of the 1960s. It is no coincidence that the document on primacy in the Church, adopted by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2013, states that "the content of this primacy is determined by the consensus of the Local Orthodox Churches, expressed, in particular, at pan-Orthodox meetings on the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church." 46 While the Russian Church consistently considers the decisions of the 1960s as a compromise working model for real pan-Orthodox interaction, Greek theologians present these decisions as a church-wide recognition of the unconditional leadership of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Orthodox Church and make this a far-reaching idea.-

October 28-November 6, 1986), and the right to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council by the Patriarch of Constantinople and his presidency was confirmed at a meeting of Primates and representatives of Local Orthodox Churches held on March 6-9, 2014 in Istanbul. The "Epistle of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches "states:" The Holy and Great Council will be convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch... The Ecumenical Patriarch will preside over the Council " [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3599975.html, accessed from 15.12.2015]. A similar decision was made at the Meeting of Primates of Local Orthodox Churches in Chambesy on January 21-28, 2016: "Holy and Great Council... It is convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch... The Ecumenical Patriarch is the Chairman of the Council's sessions" ("Rules of Procedure for the organization and work of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church") [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4361369.html, accessed: 30.01.2016].

45. Afanasyev N., prot. The Church that presides over Love // He is. The Church of God in Christ: Collection of articles / A. A. Platonov, V. V. Aleksandrov, comp. Moscow: PSTGU, 2015. p. 554.

46. Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on primacy in the Universal Church [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481089.html, accessed from 15.12.2015].

page 328
further conclusions. That is why it is necessary either to develop other models of inter-Orthodox interaction, which is hardly feasible in the current situation, or to call a spade a spade and not give working inter-Orthodox agreements the status of ecclesiological teaching.

Bibliography / References

Afanasyev N., prot. The Church that presides over Love. The Church of God in Christ: A collection of articles / A. A. Platonov, V. V. Aleksandrov, comp. Moscow: PSTGU, 2015, pp. 542-600.

Leopards T. About Ecumenical councils concerning modern phenomena in the common life of the Christian Churches and sects literature // Christian reading. 1869. N 9. pp. 378-417.

Buevsky A. On the anniversary of the Meeting of Primates and Representatives of Orthodox Churches in Moscow (1948-1949) / / ZHMP. 1949. N 8. pp. 14-24.

Power and the Church in Eastern Europe. 1944-1953 / Edited by T. V. Volokitina, Vol. 2. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2009.

Georgiev N., svesh. Всеправославниятъ вселенски църковенъ събор и Българската църква. Kyustendil, 1925.

Durnovo N. N. Metropolitan Vladimir, the Ecumenical Council and the primacy of the Russian Church. December 23, 1898. pp. 6-7.

Durnovo N. N. What is to be done before the Ecumenical Council? (Answer to A. A. Kireev) / / Russian work. January 30, 1899. pp. 9-12.

Zaprudsky K. The Ecumenical Council. Historical and Canonical Etude, Moscow, 1906.

Metropolitan Nikodim i Vsepravoslavnoe edinstvo [Metropolitan Nikodim and Pan-Orthodox Unity] / Prot. V. Sorokin, sost. SPb.: Knyaz-Vladimirsky Sobor Publishing House, 2008.

Correspondence between Antonin (Kapustin) and Count N. P. Ignatiev. 1865-1893 / Prepared by K. A. Vakh. Moscow: Indrik, 2014.

Letters of Patriarch Alexy I to the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars - the Council of Ministers of the USSR. 1945-1970 / Edited by N. A. Krivova, ed. in Vol. 1. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2009.

Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on primacy in the Universal Church [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481089.html, accessed from 15.12.2015].

Epistles of the Most Holy Primates of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church to His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory and the Synod of Constantinople on the Greek-Bulgarian Church Issue / / Christian Reading. 1869. N 9. pp. 355-361.

Russia and the Orthodox East: The Patriarchate of Constantinople in the late eleventh and tenth Centuries

Letters of G. P. Begleri to Professor I. E. Troitsky. 1878-1898 gg. / Podgot. L. A. Gerd. SPb.: Publishing House of Oleg Abyshko, 2003.

Scobey G. H. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church // Church and time. 2002. N 19. pp. 54-199.

Troitskiy S. V. Let's fight together with danger. 1950. N 2. pp. 36-51.

Troitsky S. V. Where and what is the main danger? // ZHMP. 1947. N 12. pp. 31-42.

page 329
Semenov St., prot. Размишления върху единството на Христовата църква и необходимостта от вселенски събор. Plovdiv, 1901.

Γερμανος, μητρ. Αινοκ (1948) Ζο Οικοκμενικ 59;ν Πατριαρχει&# 959;ν και η αρμοδιοτης αuτοκ προς σκγκλησιν πανορθοδοξ 69;ν σκνοδων. 'Αθηναι.

Γερμανος, μητρ. Αινοκ. 'Ανταπαντησ ις εις τον Καθηγητην Ζροιτσκι, επιβεβλημε νη διασαφησις επι κανονικων θεματων αναφερομεν ων εις τας δικαιοδοσι ας τοκ Οικ. Πατριαρχει οκ // 'Ορθοδοξια. 1953. Σ. 5-43.

'Ιππολκτος, αρχιμ. Περι σκνοδων οικοκμενικ&# 969;ν // Νεα Σιων. 1924. T. 19. Σ. 605-620.

Λοκκαρας 'Ε. Ποιον το ρολον τοκ μελλοντος Οικοκμενικ 59;κ Πατριαρχει 59;κ // Πανταινος. 1920. Σ. 575-579.

Μπαλανος Δ. Σ. Ειναι αναγκαια και σκοπιμος η σuγκλησις οικοκμενικ&# 951;ς σκνοδοκ // 'Αναπλασις. 15 Μαρτιοκ 1925. Σ. 73-77.

Φιλαρετος, μητρ. Διδκμοτειχ ;οκ. 'Ολιγα τινα περι σκνοδων και δη των οικοκμενικ ων // Γρηγοριος ο Παλαμας. 1925. Σ. 491-519.

Afanas'ev, N., prot. (2015) Tserkov' Bozhiia vo Khriste: Sbornik statei [The Church of God in Christ: collected articles]. Moscow.

Alivisatos, H. (1939) "Ist die Einberufung einer okumenischen Synode moglich?" in H. Alivizatos (ed.) Proces-verbaux du premier Congres de Theologie Orthodoxe a Athenes, 29 Novembre - 6 Decembre 1936, pp. 256-264. Athenes.

Balanos, D.S. (1925) "Einai anagkaia kai skopimos e sygklesis oikoymenikes synodoy" [The convocation of the ecumenical council is needed and wanted], Anaplasis, 15 Martioy 1925, pp. 73-77.

Barsov, T. (1869) "O vselenskikh soborakh: Po povodu sovremennykh iavlenii v obshchei zhizni khristianskikh Tserkvei i tolkov literatury" ["On the ecumenical councils: contemporary trends in the life of Christian churches and in the literature"], Khristianskoe chtenie 9: 378-417.

Buevskii, A. (1949) "K godovshchine Soveshchaniia Predstoiatelei i Predstavitelin ei Pravoslavnykh Tserkvei v Moskve (1948-1949 gg.)" ["For the anniversary of the conference of the heads and the delegates of the Orthodox Churches in Moscow (1948-1949)"], Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii 8: 14-24.

Durnovo, N.N. (1898) "Mitropolit Vladimir, Vselenskii sobor i pervenstvo russkoi Tserkvi" [Metropolitan Vladimir, the Ecumenical council and the priority of the Russian Church], Russkii trud, 23.12.1898, pp. 6-7.

Durnovo, N.N. (1899) "Chto predstoit ispolnit' do Vselenskogo Sobora? (Otvet A. A. Kireevu)" [What must we accomplish before we can have the Ecumenical council?], Russkii trud, 30.01.1899, pp. 9-12.

Filaretos, metr. Didymoteichoy (1925) "Oliga tina peri synodon kai de ton oikoymenikon" ["About the council and particularly about the Ecumenical councils"], Grigorios Palamas, pp. 491-519.

Georgiev, N., sveshch. (1925) Vsepravoslavniiat' vselenski ts'rkoven' s'bor i B'lgarskata ts'rkva [The Pan-Orthodox Ecumenical Church Council and the Bulgarian Church]. Constantinople.

Gerd, L.A. (ed.) (2003) Rossiia i Pravoslavnyi Vostok: Konstantinopol'skii patriarkhat v kontse XIX v. Pis'ma G. P. Begleri k prof. I. E. Troitskomu. 1878-1898 gg. [Russia and the Orthodox East: Ecumenical Patriarchate at the end of the XIXth century. G. Begleri's Letters to Prof. I. E. Troitsky]. Saint-Petersbourg.

page 330
Germanos, metr. Ainoy (1948) To Oikoymenikon Patriarcheion kai e armodiotes autoy pros sygklesin panorthodoxon synodon [The Ecumenical Patriarch and his stance concerning the convocation of Ecumenicals councils]. Athenai.

Germanos, metr. Ainoy (1953) "Antapantesis eis ton Kathegeton Troitski, epivevlemene diasaehsis epi kanonikon thematon anaferomenon eis tas dikaiodosias toy Oik. Patriarcheioy" ["An objection against Prof. Troitsky and his declaration concerning some canonical questions and the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical patriarch"], Orthodoxia, pp. 5-43.

Granitch, F. (1939) "Das Problem der Einberufung der okumenischen Synode", in Alivizatos (ed.) Proces-verbaux du premier Congres de Theologie Orthodoxe a Athenes, 29 Novembre - 6 Decembre 1936, p. 283-287. Athenes.

Ippolytos, archim. (1924) "Peri synodon oikoymenikon" ["On the ecumenical councils"], Nea Sion 19: 605-620.

Krivova, N.A. (ed.) (2009) Pis'ma patriarkha Aleksiia I v Sovet po delam Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi pri Sovete narodnykh komissarov - Sovete ministrov SSSR. 1945-1970 gg. [The Letters of Patriarch Alexy I to the Council for Russian Orthodox Church affairs being attached to the Council of People's Commissars - the USSR Council of ministers. 1945-1970]. Moscow.

Loykaras, E. (1920) "Poion to rolon toy mellontos Oikoymenikoy Patriarcheioy" ["What is the role of the ecumenical patriarch in the future?"], Pantainos, pp. 575-579.

Poslaniia Sviateishikh pervostoiatelei Pravoslavnoi Kafolicheskoi Vostochnoi Tserkvi k ego Sviateishestvu Vselenskomu patriarkhu Grigoriiu i konstantinopol'skomu Sinodu, po povodu greko-bolgarskogo tserkovnogo voprosa [The Letters of the Most Holy Heads of Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church to his Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory and to the Synod of Constantinople concerning the GreekBulgarian Ecclesiastical question] (1869), Khristianskoe chtenie 9, pp. 355-361.

Pozitsiia Moskovskogo Patriarkhata po voprosu o pervenstve vo Vselenskoi Tserkvi [Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church] [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481089.html, 15.12.2015].

Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Tomus 45: Synodi Orientales, 1860-1884. Parisiis, 1911.

Semenov, St., prot. (1901) Razmishleniia v'rkhu edinstvoto na Khristovata ts'rkva i neobkhodimostta ot vselenski s'bor [Some reflections on the unity of the Church of Christ and the need for an Ecumenical council]. Plovdiv.

Sesan, V. (1939) "Die Einberufung einer okumenischen Synode", in H. Alivizatos (ed.) Proces-verbaux du premier Congres de Theologie Orthodoxe a Athenes, 29 Novembre - 6 Decembre 1936, pp. 288-297. Athenes.

Skobei, G.N. (2002) "Mezhpravoslavnoe sotrudnichestvo v podgotovke Sviatogo i Velikogo Sobora Vostochnoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi" [Inter-Orthodox collaboration in preparation for the Holy and Great council of the Eastern Orthodox Church], Tserkov' i vremia 19: 54-199.

Sorokin, V. (ed.) (2008) Mitropolit Nikodim i Vsepravoslavnoe edinstvo [Mitropolitan Nikodim and Pan-Orthodox unity]. Saint-Petersbourg.

Stourdza, A. (1816) Considerations sur la doctrine et l'esprit de l'Eglise orthodoxe, Weimar, 1816.

Troitskii, S.V. (1947) "Gde i v chem glavnaia opasnost'?" [Where and in what is the main danger?], Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii 12: 31-42.

Troitskii, S.V. (1950) "Budem vmeste borot'sia s opasnost'iu" [We will struggle against adversity together], Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii 2: 36-51.

page 331
Vakh, K.A. (ed.) 2014) Perepiska Antonina (Kapustina) s grafom N. P. Ignat'evym 1865-1893 [The correspondence between Antonin (Kapustin) and Count N. P. Ignatyev. 1865-1893]. Moscow.

Volokitina, T.V. (ed.) (2009) Vlast' i Tserkov' v Vostochnoi Evrope. 1944-1953 gg. [Power and the Church in Eastern Europe. 1944-1953]. Moscow.

Zankow, S. (1939) "Die prinzipiellen Schwierigkeiten der Abhaltung eines okumenischen Konzils" in H. Alivizatos (ed.) Proces-verbaux du premier Congres de Theologie Orthodoxe a Athenes, 29 Novembre - 6 Decembre 1936, p. 269-283. Athenes.

Zaprudskii, K. (1906) Vselenskii sobor. Istoriko-kanonicheskii etiud [The Ecumenical council. A historical-canonical study]. Moscow.

page 332

Permanent link to this publication: