Stories of the Early Church. Level of governance: patriarch
How did several episcopal sees rise above the rest, why did the Church’s administrative map come to mirror that of the empire, and is the patriarchate a sacred form of Church governance?
In previous articles, we examined how the structure of Church governance developed and grew more complex – how an individual Christian community headed by a bishop gradually became an eparchy, and how several eparchies were eventually organized into a metropolis.
But the Church continued to grow and develop. Over time, issues arose that extended beyond the boundaries of a single metropolis. Disputes between metropolitans themselves had to be resolved, appeals heard, and dogmatic teaching formally affirmed. At the same time, the influence of certain sees grew so great that metropolitan status was no longer sufficient for them. Thus another level of Church governance gradually emerged – the patriarchal level.
The primacy of the ancient church sees
The acts of the First Ecumenical Council, held at Nicaea in 325, do not yet contain the word “patriarch.” But Canon 6 already recognizes the authority of certain sees extending beyond a single ecclesiastical province, or metropolis:
“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have authority over all these, since the same is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the privileges of the Churches be preserved.”
The Council of Nicaea did not create patriarchates. Rather, it recognized the already established special rights of the most influential sees.
Traditionally, the word “patriarch” referred to the founder or head of a family line. In the Bible, for example, the twelve sons of Jacob, from whom the twelve tribes of Israel descended, were called patriarchs. Among Christians, the word long remained an honorary designation without any particular administrative meaning.
By the fifth century, we already encounter the term “patriarch,” but its meaning was still more honorary than administrative. For example, in the acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, Leo of Rome is called “archbishop and patriarch of great Rome,” while the Council’s canons themselves still speak primarily of bishops and archbishops.
Only in the sixth century did the title “patriarch” become an established designation for the primates of the five major sees. Justinian’s Novella 123, issued on May 1, 546, explicitly lists the “archbishops and patriarchs” of Old Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
The limits of supreme authority
What, in practical terms, distinguished a patriarch from a metropolitan? There was no single list of patriarchal powers in the fourth and fifth centuries, but the general structure gradually became clear.
A metropolitan headed a single ecclesiastical province. He presided over the provincial council, participated in the appointment of bishops, and together with them adjudicated disputes within the province. Canon 4 of the Council of Nicaea (325) required the appointment of a new bishop to receive the metropolitan’s approval, while Canon 9 of the Council of Antioch (341) entrusted him with “the care of the whole province.”
A patriarch stood above several metropolises. Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451), for example, granted the Archbishop of Constantinople the right to appoint the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. Ordinary bishops, however, continued to be appointed by the metropolitan and the bishops of the respective province.
Even more important was the judicial function. A dispute between bishops was heard by the provincial council headed by the metropolitan.
But if the complaint concerned the metropolitan himself, there was a higher level of appeal – the patriarch.
By the sixth century, Justinian’s legislation explicitly stipulated that cases involving bishops were to be heard by the metropolitan, while complaints against a metropolitan and appeals against his decisions were to be heard by the patriarch.
The difference, therefore, lay primarily in the scope of authority. A metropolitan coordinated the bishops of one province; a patriarch coordinated the metropolitans of several provinces and served as their highest judicial authority. Yet he did not become the direct administrator of every eparchy. A bishop retained authority within his eparchy, a metropolitan within his province, while a patriarch was expected to act within the bounds of his broader jurisdiction and, as a rule, in a conciliar manner.
The influence of politics on authority
Neither Christ nor the apostles established patriarchates, much less drew up a list of future patriarchates and assigned them places in the diptychs. The five sees familiar to us rose to prominence gradually and for different reasons – some religious, others decidedly practical.
Among the religious factors one can name the antiquity of the community, apostolic origin, theological authority, and missionary activity. But the political and administrative factor was perhaps of even greater importance.
The ecclesiastical structure of the late Roman Empire largely mirrored its civil administration. The bishop of a provincial capital became the metropolitan, while the sees of the largest administrative centers gradually acquired influence over entire groups of metropolises.
This is understandable. Provincial capitals were home to government institutions, courts, schools, and major financial resources. Roads and trade routes converged there, and officials and petitioners traveled there. The bishop of such a city had far greater opportunities than the bishop of a small provincial town. And when political expediency called for the elevation of a particular see, religious considerations were generally set aside.
The contrast between Jerusalem and Constantinople is particularly revealing in this regard. Jerusalem was the city of Christ’s Crucifixion and Resurrection, the city of the apostles and the first Christian community. Yet because it had become a sparsely populated provincial town after enduring several wars and near-total destruction, its Christian community was incorporated into the metropolis of the more politically important Caesarea.
Constantinople presents the opposite case. Its see could not compare in antiquity with Rome, Antioch, or Ephesus. In all likelihood, it had no apostolic origin. The tradition that the See of Byzantium was founded by the Apostle Andrew the First-Called did not appear until the late seventh or early eighth century. Yet once the city became the eastern capital of the empire, the status of its bishop rose very quickly to almost that of the Bishop of Rome.
Ecclesiastical recognition of New Rome
In 381, the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople decreed: “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because this city is New Rome.”
The reason for Constantinople’s elevation could hardly have been stated more clearly: the city’s political status.
Seventy years later, Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon followed the same logic: the rights of the See of Constantinople were based on the fact that it was “the city of the emperor and the senate.” In other words, a change in the city’s political status brought about a change in its place within the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Nor did this mechanism apply only to the imperial capital. It also affected other, less important cities. The Church understood the dangers inherent in such a system.
Canon 12 of the same Council of Chalcedon records that certain bishops had appealed to the secular authorities and obtained imperial decrees dividing a single province into two, thereby seeking metropolitan status for themselves. The Council prohibited this practice.
Yet Canon 17 of Chalcedon (451) established the principle that ecclesiastical administration should take civil organization into account. Canon 38 of the Council in Trullo (691–692) formulated the principle even more explicitly: “The ordering of ecclesiastical affairs shall follow the civil and public arrangements.”
The fierce rivalry of the great sees
We should not imagine that relations among the patriarchates were always governed by love and Gospel humility. Both the rise of particular sees and the formation of their canonical territories sometimes unfolded amid fierce confrontation.
One striking example is the long rivalry between the sees of Alexandria and Constantinople. Constantinople’s rise after the imperial capital was transferred there deeply offended Alexandria, which had long been accustomed to holding first place in the East. By the early fifth century, their rivalry had entered a bitter phase.
In 403, Theophilus of Alexandria expelled a group of Egyptian monks. They went to Constantinople, where they found refuge with John Chrysostom and also appealed to the emperor against Theophilus. It is worth noting that an internal Church conflict was thus referred to a secular ruler for resolution. Summoned to answer the accusations, Theophilus arrived in the capital with thirty bishops and substantial funds for gifts to imperial officials. The gifts had their effect: Theophilus went from accused to accuser, and the notorious Synod of the Oak deposed not him, but John Chrysostom.
Theophilus’ successor to the See of Alexandria, Cyril, employed similar methods in his struggle against Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople. Historian Anton Kartashev described the confrontation as follows: “Both his uncle Theophilus and he himself [Cyril – Ed.] ruled for a combined total of about sixty years, waging war against Constantinople throughout that entire period and spending enormous sums on it.”
No less revealing was the prolonged confrontation between Jerusalem and Antioch. In 431, Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, who was formally still subordinate to the Metropolitan of Caesarea, was already claiming authority over all three Palestinian provinces of the Roman Empire, as well as Phoenicia and Arabia – territories belonging to the See of Antioch.
In 449, at the notorious “Robber Council,” he supported Dioscorus of Alexandria and participated in the deposition of Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople and Bishop Domnus of Antioch, whom he accused of interfering in the affairs of Phoenicia. Later, Photius, Bishop of Tyre, stated that he had signed the decree transferring Phoenicia to the See of Jerusalem under duress.
Yet only two years later, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Juvenal changed sides and opposed Dioscorus, whom he had previously supported.
It was there that his long dispute with Antioch was also settled. By agreement with Bishop Maximus of Antioch, Jerusalem received all three Palestinian provinces while relinquishing its claims to Phoenicia and Arabia. This established the territory of the future Patriarchate of Jerusalem.
These are only a few examples. History shows that the patriarchal system was not established all at once in a finished form, nor did it emerge in an atmosphere of brotherly love. It developed gradually through custom, decisions of councils and emperors, compromises, and conflicts among the sees themselves – conflicts that, incidentally, continue to this day.
Independent ancient ecclesiastical regions
Gradually, in the fourth to seventh centuries, the pentarchy took shape, by which was meant the special position of the five largest patriarchal sees. At the same time, there was no "council of five" or similar body that would be granted powers of authority. The chronology of the creation of the pentarchy can be summarized as follows:
- in 325, the Council of Nicaea mentions the special rights of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch and the special honor of Jerusalem;
- in 381, Constantinople receives second place in honor after Rome;
- in 451, it acquires concrete supra-metropolitan powers, and Jerusalem receives the three Palestinian provinces;
- in the sixth century, Justinian's legislation directly singles out five patriarchal sees;
- at the end of the seventh century, Canon 36 of the Council in Trullo establishes in the eastern canonical tradition their sequence: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem.
Yet the Church was never limited to the pentarchy. The most obvious example is the Church of Cyprus, whose establishment involved the Apostles Barnabas, Paul, and John Mark (Acts 13:4–12; 15:39). By the fourth century, several episcopal sees already existed there and independently elected their own metropolitan. In 367, the renowned theologian Epiphanius of Cyprus became metropolitan.
In the fifth century, however, the See of Antioch attempted to bring Cyprus under its authority on the grounds that the island had become part of the imperial Diocese of the East, whose capital was Antioch. This story, too, abounds in intrigue and appeals to the powerful of this world, but the Cypriots ultimately succeeded in defending their independence.
The Third Ecumenical Council (431) confirmed the independence of the Church of Cyprus and, in Canon 8, established a general prohibition against encroaching on another Church’s territory, lest “the arrogance of secular power creep in under the pretext of sacred ministry.” The Church of Cyprus did not receive patriarchal status, yet neither was it incorporated into any of the five “principal” sees.
Another example is Georgia. By the end of the fifth century, Kartli had its own catholicosate and self-government, although historians still debate whether the Georgian Church of that period can be described as fully autocephalous.
Perhaps the most interesting – and rather exotic – example is the independent Archdiocese of Justiniana Prima.
It was established in the Balkans in 535 by order of Emperor Justinian, in a city that he himself had founded and named after himself. The explanation for why it was created, remained outside every patriarchate, and enjoyed independence is remarkable: in Novella 11 of his famous Code, Justinian wrote that he simply wished to elevate his native region.
There are other examples of independent ecclesiastical structures that belonged to none of the five patriarchates.
The human factor in church history
The patriarchal system, as a distinct level of governance above the metropolitan level, emerged relatively late. It is not of apostolic origin and developed under the influence not only of religious factors but also of political and administrative ones. At certain periods in history and under certain circumstances, the patriarchal structure helped resolve conflicts and formulate commonly accepted doctrine. Yet its negative aspects cannot be ignored: struggles for power, disputes over territory, arguments over which see ranked higher, and so on.
The greatest danger for the Church, however, arises, in our view, when patriarchal authority, the system of the pentarchy, or particular patriarchates begin to be sacralized – when historically developed forms of administration are endowed with a sacred character.
In the 11th century, for example, Patriarch Peter III of Antioch wrote: “By divine grace it has been ordained that there should be five patriarchs throughout the whole world.” He compared the five patriarchal sees to the five senses of the human body: just as there can be no sixth sense, in his view, there should be no sixth patriarch.
At various points in history, people have surrounded particular patriarchates with an aura of sacred authority and used it to justify claims to universal power or worldwide jurisdiction. Recognition of the authority of a particular patriarch has often been presented as a criterion for belonging to the Church of Christ. This has been especially evident in the cases of the Churches of Rome and Constantinople. In the next articles in our series on the early Church, we will examine the history and status of these sees in greater detail.
