PATRIARCHATE

Part I: Historical Developments

A patriarchate (Gr. πατριαρχεíα, Lat. Patriarchatus ) is a patriarch's office, see, reign, or, most often, the territory he governs. The number of patriarchates was in the course of time enlarged from the original three to five, and subsequent historical factors caused a multiplication of patriarchates.

The Three Patriarchs. The oldest Canon Law admitted only three bishops as having what later ages called patriarchal rights—the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. The successor of St. Peter held the patriarchate of Rome, or patriarchate of the West. Before the Council of Nicaea I (325) two bishops in the East had the same patriarchal authority over large territories, those of Alexandria and Antioch. It is difficult to say exactly how they obtained this position. The organization of provinces under metropolitans followed, as a matter of obvious convenience, the reorganization of the Empire made by Diocletian. In the new system the most important cities in the East were Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria. Consequently the bishop of Alexandria became the chief of all Egyptian bishops and metropolitans; the bishop of Antioch held the same place over Syria and at the same time extended his sway over Asia Minor, Greece, and the rest of the East. Diocletian had divided the Empire into four great prefectures. Three of these (Italy, Gaul, and Illyricum) made up the Roman patriarchate; the other, the East (Praefectura Orientis ), had five (civil) "dioceses"—Thrace, Asia, Pontus, the Diocese of the East, and Egypt. Egypt was the Alexandrine patriarchate. The Antiochene patriarchate embraced the civil Diocese of the East. The other three civil divisions of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus would probably have developed into separate patriarchates but for the rise of Constantinople.

Later it became popular to connect all three patriarchates with the Prince of the Apostles. St. Peter had also reigned at Antioch, and he had founded the Church of Alexandria through his disciple St. Mark. At any rate the Council of Nicaea in 325 recognized the supreme place of the bishops of these three cities as related to an "ancient custom" (c.6). Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the three old patriarchates, whose unique position and order were disturbed by later developments.

The Pentarchy: Five Patriarchates. When pilgrims began to flock to the Holy City, the bishop of Jerusalem, the guardian of the sacred shrines, began to be considered the head of more than a mere suffragan of Caesarea. The Council of Nicaea (325) gave him an honorary primacy, saving, however, the metropolitical rights of Caesarea (c.7). Juvenal of Jerusalem (420–458) succeeded finally, after much dispute, in changing this honorary position into official rule over a patriarchate. The Council of Chalcedon (451) severed Palestine and Arabia (Sinai) from Antioch and formed the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (sess. 7 and 8). Since that time Jerusalem has always been counted among the patriarchal sees.

The greatest change, the one that met most opposition, was the rise of Constantinople to patriarchal rank. Because Constantine had made Byzantium the "New Rome," its bishop, once the humble suffragan bishop of Heraclea, thought that he should become second only, if not almost equal, to the bishop of old Rome. For many centuries the popes opposed this ambition, not because any of them thought of disputing their first place, but because they were unwilling to change the old order of the hierarchy. In 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that "the Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome" (c.3). The popes (Damasus, Gregory the Great) refused to confirm this canon. Nevertheless Constantinople grew by favor of the emperor, whose centralizing policy found a ready help in the authority of his court bishop. The Council of Chalcedon (451) established Constantinople as a patriarchate with jurisdiction over Asia Minor and Thrace and gave it the second place after Rome (c.28). Pope Leo I (440–461) refused to admit this canon, which was made in the absence of his legates; for centuries Rome still refused to give the second place to Constantinople. It was not until the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) that the Latin patriarch of Constantinople would be allowed this place; in 1439 the Council of Florence was to give it to the Greek patriarch. Meanwhile, however, in the East the emperor's wish was powerful enough to obtain recognition for his patriarch; from the time of the Council of Chalcedon Constantinople was practically, if not legally, the second patriarchate. The new order of five patriarchs—Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem—known as the pentarchy, became in Orthodox ecclesiology an essential element of the constitution of the Church. (see rome, patriarchate of; constantinople, patriarchate of; alexandria, patriarchate of; antioch, patriarchate of; jerusalem, patriarchate of.)

Multiplication of Patriarchates. At the time of the Great Schism (1054) the great Church of the Empire knew practically these five patriarchs only, though "minor" patriarchates had already begun in the West. The Council of Constantinople IV (869) had solemnly affirmed their position (c.11). The schism, and further distinctions that would not have existed but for it, considerably augmented the number of bishops who claimed the title of patriarch. But even before the great schism, the earlier Oriental Orthodox Churches that separated from Constantinople on their non-reception of Chalcedon had resulted in the appearance of patriarchs as leaders of these churches.

Developments in the five traditional patriarchates occasioned by nationalist tendencies and schism have resulted in new patriarchates emerging. To be under a patriarch had come to be the normal, and apparently necessary, condition for any Church. Instead of being merely an honorable title for the occupants of the five ancient sees of Christendom (pentarchy), the name patriarch was looked upon as denoting the leader of a national church.

Bibliography: t. a. kane, The Jurisdiction of the Patriarchs of the Major Sees in Antiquity and in the Middle Age (Catholic University of America, CLS 276; Washington 1949). d. geanakoplos, A Short History of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (330–1990) (Brookline, MA 1990). k. ware, The Orthodox Church, rev. ed. (New York 1997).

[j. j. mcgrath/eds.]

Part II: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople

This entry deals with the origins, historical developments and nature of the office of Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the territory of the patriarchate, the synodos endēmousa, the subordinate officials and their duties.

Ecumenical Patriarch. Patriarch was a title of honor given at first to any bishop of advanced years or special dignity. In Justinian's legislation, patriarch takes on its technical sense, connoting a definite rank in the hierarchy, that of a chief bishop ruling over an extensive territory and subject only to the Patriarch of Rome. The designation "ecumenical" was employed in isolated cases in addressing Dioscurus of Alexandria, Pope St. Leo, and Acacius of Constantinople, but became the customary designation of the patriarchs of Constantinople after the Acacian schism. Scholars have reached no agreement on its meaning or original importance. It can be said only that as applied to the patriarch of Constantinople, it met with no objection until Popes Pelagius II (579–590) and Gregory the Great (590–604), who opposed it strongly and persistently; and it remained a bone of contention between Rome and Byzantium for centuries afterward. It was not made strict etiquette in communicating with a patriarch until the reign of the Patriarch photius (858–867; 877–886). The title was never used by the patriarch of himself, but only by others speaking to him or of him, until Michael I Cerularius (1043–58) placed it on his seal; and it finally became part of the official title under Manuel I (1217–22).

Synodos Endēmousa. The patriarch's rights were always intimately associated with the synodos endēmousa, and rested not on legislation either ecclesiastical or civil but on custom, to which according to Roman theory law was but the servant and supplement. During semi-Arian times the emperor would refer ecclesiastical matters to a synod of the many bishops in his retinue gathered under the presidency of the local ordinary. That this procedure would continue seems to have been taken for granted as something perfectly natural, e.g., by St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Ambrose, even after 381 when Theodosius the Great restored orthodoxy in the East and Constantinople became the permanent residence. Hence, from the very beginning we see St. John Chrysostom convoking the synodos endēmousa (literally, "stopping-over synod"). The bishops who were stopping over on business at Constantinople were called together into a synod by and under the patriarch to decide appeals either made directly to it or referred to it by the emperor from any part of the East regardless of patriarchal boundaries. About the 9th century membership in the synod was restricted to the metropolitans and autocephalous (i.e., exempt from the metropolitan) archbishops of the patriarchate, to whom were added the synod's five highest administrative officials.

Canonical Requirements and Other Formalities.

Since the time of Theodosius the Great, patriarchs were appointed by the emperor, but canonical traditions required certain formalities. In the earlier period, the patriarch was elected like any other bishop, but from about the end of the 9th century only the synod had the right of election; it nominated three candidates from whom the emperor chose one, or, if none pleased him, he selected another for the (automatic) approval of the synod. The successful candidate then received the same investiture as lay dignitaries from the emperor and was consecrated the following Sunday, always by the metropolitan of Heraclea. He held office for life and could be canonically deposed only by the synod; treason automatically terminated his tenure.

Once enthroned, the patriarch became the head of the Orthodox Church of Byzantium. In time, his powers developed in connection with his presidency of the synod, and it is impossible to distinguish his personal rights from those exercised conjointly with it. Furthermore, the emperor had greater authority in all matters not requiring orders, though he always consulted the patriarch before publishing any ordinance affecting religion and always addressed it to him. Actually, the patriarch could at times wield tremendous influence, e.g., one of strong character, particularly a monk, confronting a weak ruler, especially if the Church was in a position to throw its weight to either of two evenly balanced political parties. In general, the emperor kept nearly complete control of ecclesiastical geography and the rank of sees (which determined the precedence of bishops), usually by suggestion to the synod and with the consent of the patriarch. After the quarrel over the tetragamy, marriage legislation was more and more reserved to the Church. The spiritual head enjoyed most independence in the liturgy and in the maintaining of ecclesiastical discipline. He also had the final say in the choice of metropolitans, picking from three candidates presented by the synod. From the 9th century he possessed the very important privilege of stauropegia (planting of the cross), i.e., the canonical establishment of a religious house; this also entitled him to approve of a proposed abbot and to collect the kanonikon, a sort of tribute. At about the same time he acquired the exclusive right to consecrate the chrism.

Officials. The officials of the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople were the officials of the patriarchate. In the middle and late periods, they were five: (1) megas oikonomos (grand manager), who controlled the entire property of the patriarchate, both cash and real estate; (2) megas sakkelarius and (3) ho sakkeliou, of whom the one had charge of all monastic establishments and the other, of all parish churches throughout the patriarchate, but their functions were frequently interchanged; (4) megas skeuophylax (grand sacristan), who took care of all precious possessions of the Church and acted as sacristan of Holy Wisdom with general supervision of the lands that furnished materials used in the liturgy (wheat, wine, oil, wax, etc.); (5) megas chartophylax (grand archivist), who, though he ranked fourth and was always only a deacon, had by far the greatest power, since he was the vice-patriarch and the real ecclesiastical governor of Constantinople; he controlled all access personal or by mail to the patriarch, determined the worthiness of all candidates for priesthood or episcopacy, tried all clergy (not bishops) guilty of any offense, determined freedom to marry, and, as archivist, also acted as chief canonist, issuing interpretations, in the name of the synod, that had force of law. These five highest dignitaries were known as the Exokatakoiloi and were comparable to the Roman Cardinals; they were members of the synod outranking the metropolitans. Originally they were all deacons, but subsequently many were priests. Another important functionary often mentioned in the sources was the apocrisiarius (Nuncio), a permanent representative that the patriarch kept at each of the other patriarchates. Metropolitans had permanent or temporary apocrisiarii in Constantinople, and each bishop with his metropolitan. From the earlier Byzantine period two offices ought to be mentioned: that of the archdeacon, head of the administration when all officials were deacons, later reduced to his purely liturgical duties, and the synkellos (cell-mate), second in rank to the patriarch and successor designate; later on, the term became a purely honorary title of bishops. All of these dignitaries had many minor officials under them and office help at their disposal.

Bibliography: l. brÉhier, Les Institutions de l'Empire byzantin (Le Monde byzantin 2; Paris 1949). f. dvornik, Byzance et la primauté romaine (Paris 1964); Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew (Cambridge, MA 1958). j. hajjar, Le Synode permanent dans l'Église byzantine des origines au XI ^e siècle (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 164; 1962). d. geanakoplos, A Short History of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (330–1990) (Brookline, MA 1990). k. ware, The Orthodox Church, rev. ed. (New York 1997).

[m. j. higgins/eds.]

Part III: Patriarchate in the Eastern Catholic Churches

Of the twenty-one Eastern Catholic Churches sui juris in communion with the See of Rome, six are patriarchal churches, i.e., they possess the ancient patriarchal form of ecclesial government with the highest and most comprehensive expression of self-government. These six Eastern Catholic Patriarch churches are, in order of precedence, dignity and honor:

1. the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East for the Maronite Church,
2. the Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria,
3. the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, Alexandria and Jerusalem for the Melkite Greek Catholic Church,
4. the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East for the Syrian Catholic Church
5. the Patriarch of Babylon for the Chaldean Catholic Church,
6. the Patriarch of Cilicia for the Armenian Catholic Church.

Appointment and Request for Communion with Rome. The appointment, jurisdiction, power and prerogatives of Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are determined by the code of canons of the eastern churches, title IV, "The Patriarchal Churches," canons 51–150. The synod of bishops of a patriarchal church elects the new patriarch (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium c.63), who, if he has been previously ordained a bishop, is enthroned upon the synod's acceptance of the election results (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium c. 75). The enthronement confers the office of patriarch on the successful candidate (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium c. 77 §1). He then sends a formal notification of his election to the Pope of Rome and the other five patriarchs of his election, and formally requesting ecclesiastical communion with their churches. As the highest form of self-government within the Eastern Catholic Churches, the appointment of a new patriarch does not require the confirmation of the Holy See, merely the notification of the election and a request for communion. However, until he receives the testimonial of ecclesial communion from the Pope of Rome, the newly enthroned patriarch can neither convene a synod nor ordain a bishop (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium c. 77 §2).

Governance of a Patriarchal Church. Following ancient canonical practice of the Christian East, all patriarchal churches, whether in communion with Rome or Constantinople, are not monarchical in leadership structure. Rather, in the spirit of ecclesial collegiality, leadership in all patriarchal churches is synodal, viz., a patriarch governing a patriarchal church together with a holy synod. Thus, the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium stipulates that the patriarch presides over his church together with the patriarchal synod, which holds the highest legislative, judicial and electoral power within a patriarchal church (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium c. 110). In addition to the patriarchal synod, there is also a permanent synod comprising the patriarch and four bishops that functions as an executive committee of the larger patriarchal synod (see Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium c. 115–121). The Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium also provides for a patriarchal convocation of all bishops and representatives from the clergy, all religious communities of men and women, institutions of learning and laity that is convoked every five years (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium cc. 140–145).

Territorial Jurisdiction. Every patriarch exercises supra-metropolitan authority (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium c. 56), but only within the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal church (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium c. 78 §2). Chapter 7 of title IV (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium cc. 146–150) regulates the jurisdiction of the patriarch and his patriarchal synod outside the traditional territorial limits of the patriarchal church. To illustrate: within the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal church, a patriarch has the power to ordain bishops without having to obtain the approval of the Pope of Rome. However, with respect to the appointment of bishops outside of patriarchal territory, the patriarch forwards a slate of three names to the Pope of Rome, who reserves to himself the power to appoint the bishop (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium c. 149).

As a rule, all legislation promulgated by a patriarchal synod has force of law only within the territorial limits of the patriarchal church (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium c. 150). There are three exceptions to this rule: (1) Liturgical legislation binds all members of a patriarchal church wherever they may be; (2) All legislation endowed with the force of law by the eparchial bishop becomes eparchial law, and (3) the Pope of Rome approves the legislation and grants it force of law throughout the world (see Codex Canonum Ecclesiarium Orientalium c. 150 pp. 2–3).

See Also: council of catholic patriarchs of the orient; code of canons of the eastern churches.

Bibliography: Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Latin-English ed. (Washington, DC 2001). j. chiramel, The Patriarchal Churches in the Oriental Code (Alwaye, India 1992). j. hajjar, "Patriarchal Synods in the New Eastern Code of Canon Law," Concilium 26 (1990) 88–97. j. d. faris, The Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance According to the "Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches" (Brooklyn, NY 1992). j. abbas, "Canonical Dispositions for the Care of Eastern Catholics Outside Their Territory," Periodica de re Canonica 86 (1997) 321–362.

[g. salem/eds.]

Part IV: Patriarchates in the Latin Church

Within the Latin Church, there is only one true patriarch who is vested with powers of governance and jurisdiction—the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. Indeed, the Patriarchate of Rome was one of the five historical patriarchates of the pentarchy.

Apart from the Roman Pontiff, all other patriarchates within the Latin Church are purely honorific, without any prerogative of power or jurisdiction (Codex iuris canonici c. 438). At present, the following Latin prelates hold the honorific title of patriarch with respect to their Sees:

Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
Patriarch of Venice
Patriarch of Lisbon
Patriarch of the East Indies
Patriarch of the West Indies

Canon 438 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law does make provision for the possibility of the Roman Pontiff granting special powers to a patriarch as "apostolic privilege," or that a patriarch may acquire such power by "approved custom."

[g. salem/eds.]