To the greatest extent these are matters of the normal ecclesiastical order, such as jurisdiction, intervention, accession, granting of privileges, supervision, ratification, enthronement, appointment of metropolitans, reprimands, excommunication or related threats, removals, as well as the organization of various types of economic activities together. with the resolution of their conflicts.

To a lesser extent, there are texts dealing with practical matters (eg marriages, sponsors at baptism) and moral issues (eg making wills, consanguineous women). The defense of the Orthodox faith before the West or Islam does not seem to be a priority in this period, unlike the first period after the fall.

However, the broader “ecumenical” role of the Patriarchate is characteristic, which in some cases goes beyond the borders of the Ottoman Empire and largely concerns the communities of the so-called “Orthodox diaspora”. In this way, the Patriarchate is trying to resolve issues relating to the Orthodox communities in Italy (Venice, Ancona, Akraganta), where many Orthodox have taken refuge, especially after the fall.

More important, however, is the broader role of the Patriarchate in relation to other ecclesiastical administrations under its jurisdiction. This concerns the monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai, as well as confirmation of the belonging of the provinces of Pekio and Serbia to the historical Archdiocese of Ahridon (September 1530), which for some time was autonomous through the mediation of the Ottoman authorities.

The latter case is very timely, given that in 2022 the Patriarchate of Constantinople granted autocephaly to the Church of North Macedonia under the name “Archdiocese of Ahridos” and that some problems arose regarding the role of the Serbian Patriarchate in this process.

Ivan IV “The Terrible”, Tsar “legally, but also ecclesiastical”

It is also indicative that already at that early time in the broader Orthodox body some ethnic differences were observed. Thus, the document (February 1541) forbids the settlement of Bulgarian monks in the Kutlumusi monastery on Mount Athos, which in the past withered and was revived only during the transition to the “imeter family”, i.e. Romans.” As is known, these intra-Orthodox divisions will intensify over time, especially with the explosion of nationalism in the 19th century.

Even more interesting in this regard are the relations of the Patriarchate with the nascent Russia of that time, both at the ecclesiastical and political levels, which subsequently developed into very complex and ultimately competitive relations.

Firstly, this is a document on the appointment of a new Metropolitan of Kyiv Joseph (autumn 1499), from which it is clear that the specified metropolis historically belonged to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Again, this is a very topical issue, given the proclamation of autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine by the Patriarchate in 2019, which had previously canceled the Synodal Act of Patriarch Dionysius IV of 1686, by which it was granted “under the oikonomy of the Kievan Metropolis under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The relations of the Patriarchate with the nascent Russia at that time, both at the ecclesiastical and political levels, developed into complex and ultimately competitive.

In political terms, relations with the powerful Ivan IV “the Terrible”, who at first was the Grand Duke (“Prince”) of Moscow (1533-1547), and later was proclaimed the first Tsar of All Russia, are important. (1547-1584). He makes various donations to the Patriarchate under Joasaph II, who thanks him, informs him of this, recognizes him as “crowned” Tsar of Russia “both legally and ecclesiastical” (c. November 1560), and also calls for further help. We are at the beginning of the second half of the 16th century, when, after the political legitimation of the tsars, relations between the Patriarchate and Russia will become even closer at most levels.

The hopes of the servile Orthodox for support and all kinds of help for Orthodox Russia in this context are self-evident. On the other hand, the latter is gradually beginning to challenge the Patriarchate and its excessive jurisdiction. After all, this is the period of nurturing the idea of ​​the “Third Rome”. Ivan IV himself even emphasized to the papal envoy Antonio Possevino that the Russians did not believe in the “Greeks” (= Byzantines), but in Jesus Christ, because they accepted the Christian faith much earlier than the Apostle Andrew, whom he passed through these regions on his way to Rome. In fact, a little later, in 1589, the Patriarchate of Constantinople would officially proclaim the Moscow Patriarchate – of course, with certain limits of canonical jurisdiction only in the Kingdom of Great Russia and the extreme northern regions.

The foregoing only gives an idea of ​​the enormous wealth of material that the editors painstakingly collected and carefully annotated, “dug up” in the archives and libraries of many countries. This is a very important contribution to the reconstruction of the Archives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the context of a broader and longer-term research program “Institutions and Ideology in Modern Greek Society, 15th-19th Centuries.” led by Dimitris Apostolopoulos, which resulted in many valuable publications. We hope that relevant research and publications will continue.

* Mr. Vassilios N. Makridis is Professor of Religious Studies (specializing in Orthodox Christianity) at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Erfurt (Germany).