From the report of the Directorfor the temporal affairs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Anthony (Packanich) at the International Scientific Conference «Conciliarism of the Church: theological, canonical and historical dimensions».

In recent years, the debate about the relationship between the conciliar principle and primacy in the Universal Church in orthodox theology has noticeably intensified. Today, the hierarchs and theologians of the Patriarchate of Constantinople statetheir special view of primacy, which attracts serious criticism from other Local Churches.

In a fairly clear form, this conception of primacy is set forth in a number of speeches by Patriarch Bartholomew, and in a number of official documents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and in publications of hierarchs and theologians of the Church of Constantinople (such as, for example, Metropolitan John (Zizioulas), Archbishop Elpidophoros (Lambriniadis), Archimandrite John (Manussakis), etc.).

The new conception of primacy is based on the idea that primacy at the all three levels of church life (diocesan, local and ecumenical) has the same nature. It is typical for these theologians to draw a direct analogy between ecclesiasiology and triadology. As in the Holy Trinity there is the primacy of God the Father (the monarchy of the Father), so at all levels of church life there must necessarily be personal primacy. At the diocesan level, the ministry of the bishop is a reflection of the Father's monarchy, at the local level – the ministry of the primate of the Local Church, and at the ecumenical level — the ministry of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. From this it is concluded that primacy at the ecumenical level cannot be represented by any institution (i.e. a Council). It must necessarily be embodied in a person. Even when an Ecumenical Council gathers, it necessarily pulls a hierarch who leads its work. Therefore, even an Ecumenical Council becomes impossible without personal primacy.

As we had seen, in the statements of the Ecumenical Councils, of course, there is a teaching about the primacy of certain thrones in the Universal Church. However, first of all, this primacy is clearly referred to only as the primacy of honor, but not as the primacy of power. In addition, the fathers of both the Second and Fourth Ecumenical Councils clearly say that this primacy is conditional upon the political rise of Constantinople. In other words, upon the source of the special honor that the Constantinople Throne was honored with, is the decision of the Ecumenical Council. Exactly the Cathedral gives advantages to one or another hierarch.

However, adherents of the theory of the special rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople look at things differently. For example, Archbishop Elpidophoros directly writes that the teaching that the first hierarch of the Universal Church receives his powers from the Council is equivalent to the statement that the source of the Father's monarchy is the Son and the Holy Spirit. From the point of view of Archbishop Elpidophoros, the idea of the Council as a source of supreme authority in the Church can lead to a wrench of the dogmatic teaching about the Holy Trinity. Archbishop Elpidophoros insists that primacy in the Universal Church has exceptionally divine sanction. In addition, it is not only the primacy of honor, but it’s also the primacy of special power. Therefore, the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Universal Church is not the first among equals, but the first without equals.

Such an understanding of primacy produces also a special view of the system of Local Orthodox Churches. Today Patriarch Bartholomew quite consistently criticizes the idea that World Orthodoxy is a family of equal autocephalous Churches. He considers this point of view to be a "Protestant idea". In one of his interviews in 2020 Patriarch Bartholomew even invoked the call for a revision of the Orthodox teaching about the Church in order to purge it of such protestant influences: "We, the orthodox christians, must subject ourselves to self-criticism and revise our ecclesiasiology if we do not want to become a federation of Protestant-type churches." Patriarch Bartholomew pointed out quite clearly an alternative to such an allegedly protestant view of the Church: "We must admit that in the indivisible Ecumenical Orthodoxy there is one "First", not only in honor, but also the "First" with special duties and canonical powers entrusted to him by Ecumenical Councils."

The special powers that the Patriarch of Constantinople is trying to acquire for himself are, first of all, the exclusive right to grant autocephaly to other Local Churches, the same exclusive right to accept appeals from clerics of other Local Churches against judicial decisions taken in these Churches and the right to exercise spiritual guidance for the entire Orthodox diaspora. The Patriarch of Constantinople insists that he has a special extraterritorial jurisdiction, and that he is actually the head of the Universal Church. This, for example, is explicitly stated in the Tomos on granting autocephaly to the so-called "Orthodox Church of Ukraine".

The position of the Russian Orthodox Church is fundamentally different. On December 25, 2013, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted the document "The Position of the Moscow Patriarchate about the issue of primacy in the Universal Church." This document emphasizes that primacy at the diocesan, local and ecumenical levels has different sources and different nature. The source of the primacy of a bishop in his diocese is "apostolic succession which is communicable through ordination." The source of primacy at the level of the autocephalous Church is "the election of the first bishop by a Council (or Synod) with the fullness of church authority." And what about the primacy at the level of the Universal Church, its source is "the canonical tradition of the Church, recorded in the sacred diptychs and admitted by all autocephalous Local Churches." The canons do not vest any power on the first bishop in the Universal Church. Thus, both the nature of primacy at different levels of church life and the functions of bishops, which are granted with primacy, are different.

The document fundamentally rejects the idea of having a certain "Ecumenical Bishop" with special powers in the Church. From the point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church, the primacy of the honor of the Patriarch of Constantinople provides, for example, that during the general divine services of the Primates of Local Churches, he is given the right to lead them. Representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople also have the right to preside at inter-church forums. Thus, the primacy of honor is an analogue of the diplomatic protocol, which regulates communication between Local Churches, but does not cut some Churches above the others.

This document of the Russian Orthodox Church triggered a negative reaction from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Both Patriarch Bartholomew himself and other bishops of the Church of Constantinople continue to insist on the special primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch's authority.

The attempts of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to implement its special powers in practice have repeatedly led to conflicts in the relations between the Local Churches. And today's stubborn crisis in World Orthodoxy is caused by the flagrant interference of the Patriarch of Constantinople in church life in Ukraine. Moreover, the Church of Constantinople substantiates its intervention with the same special powers allegedly which it has.

We must say with all responsibility that the doctrine of primacy in the Universal Church, as formulated today by the theologians of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, is unacceptable to us. We see that this teaching has become a serious menace to the unity of World Orthodoxy today. Moreover, the implementation in practice of such an understanding of primacy leads to the undermining of the conciliar principle in church administration.

It is very significant for us that Patriarch Bartholomew consistently rejects all proposals for a conciliar discussion of the difficult situation that has developed in Ukraine. For example, in 2019, the direct call of the Primate of the Tirana, Durrës and All Albania, Archbishop Anastasios, to gather a Synaxis of the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches to find ways out of the crisis was rejected by the Patriarch of Constantinople. The initiative of the Patriarch of Jerusalem to meet the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches in Amman in 2020 also was not supported by the Patriarch of Constantinople.