Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/487

 HOLY

429

HOLY

and titular bishops, chorepiscopi, and archimandrites. Bishops from outlj-ing provinces always had business at the patriarchal city. The presence of the imperial court naturally helped to attract ecclesiastical persons, as well as others, to Constantinople. The Arab and Turkish conquests in Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor added further to the numljer of idle bishops at court. Refugees, having now nothing to do in their own sees, kept their title and rank, but came to swell the de- pendence of the oecumenical patriarch. So from the fifth century there was always a number of suffra- gans and titular bishops who established themselves permanently at Constantinople. Again, it was natu- ral that these people should justify their presence and spend their time by helping the patriarch to ad- minister his vast province and by forming a consulting synod always at hand to advise him. So at Constan- tinople, as at Rome, there was a kind of permanent synod, at first informal, then gradually recognized in principle. This was the " present synod ", " synod of inhabitants" (crvvoSos ivS-qiiovaa), that became for many centuries an important element in the govern- ment of the Orthodox Church. As far back as the Council of Chalcedon (451) its existence and rights had been discussed. At that council Photius, Bishop of Tyre, asked the question: "Is it right to call the assembly of dwellers in the imperial city a synod?" Tryphon of Chios answered: " It is called a synod and is assembled as such. " The Patriarch Anatolius said: "The assembly" (he avoids calling it a synod) "forti- fies from on high the most holy bishops who dwell in the mighty city when occasion summons them to dis- cuss certain ecclesiastical affairs, to meet and examine each, to find suitable answers to questions. So no novelty has been introduced by me, nor have the most holy bishops introduced any new principle by assem- bUiig according to custom" (Mansi, VII, 91 sqq.). The council then proceeded with the business in hand without expressing either approval or dislike of the permanent synod at Constantinople (Kattenbusch, "Konfessionskunde", I, 86). Such was very much the attitude of the Church generally as long as the Endemiisa Synod lasted. It in no way atTected the legal position of the Patriarch of Constantinople, nor was it in any sense a government of his patriarchate by synod. In this case too, as at Rome, the consulting synod had no rights. The patriarch governed his subjects as autocrat, had the same responsibilities as other patriarchs. If he chose to discuss matters be- forehand with " the most holy liishops who dwell in the mighty city" that proceeding concerned no one else. So the Endemusa Synod continued to meet reg- ularly and became eventually a recognized body. So little did the patriarchs fear a lessening of their au- thority from it that it was to them rather an additional weapon of aggrandizement. There was a certain splendour about it. The oecumenical patriarch could contemplate the college of cardinals marshalled around the Western throne with greater complacency when he remembered his aytdnaroi. ivbri^iovvm iTTl(XKOTToi, Much more important was the fact that his orders and wishes could be constantly announced to so many obedient retainers. And bishops from outlying parts of the patriarchate who spent a short time at Con- stantinople, approached their chief through the sjmod; they too were invited or commanded to attend its sessions as long as they were in the city. So they heard the patriarch's addresses, received hfs commands, and carried back to their distant homes a great rever- ence for the lord of so many retainers. Kattenbusch considers the Endemusa Synod an important element in the patriarch's advancement. " He conceived the brilliant idea of organizing these bishops into a Synod so that with their help he could interfere in almost any circumstances of all dioceses and eparchies with a certain appearance of authority" (loc. cit., 86). The Endemusa Synod was abolished only in quite recent

times as part of the general reorganization of the patriarch's ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction since the hatti-humayun of 1856.

This permanent synod then may be considered as a kind of predecessor of the modern Orthodox Holy Synods. It had accustomed people to the idea of such assembhes of bishops and made the acceptance of the new synods among so conservative a folk as the Or- thodox possible. But the present Holy Synods are in no sense continuations of the Endemusa. In spite of a general hkeness there is this fundamental differ- ence between the old synods and the new ones: the Endemusa had no sort of jurisdiction; it was simply a consulting body, itself entirely subject to the mon- arcliical patriarch. The modern Holy Synods, on the other hand, are the supreme lawgiving authorities over their Churches; they have absolute authority over every metropolitan and bishop. Laws in Churches that have such synods are made, not by the will of an autocrat, but by a majority of votes in synod. It is in short — what the older Church never dreamed of — government Ijy Parliament.

The beginning of Holy Directing Sjmods was made by Peter the Great for the Church of Russia. The Russian Synod is the oldest, and the example was followed long afterwards by other Orthodox Churches. Peter the Great (1689-1725), as part of his great re- form of the empire, set about reforming the national Church too. This reform w-as openly, frankly, in the direction of subjecting the Church to the State, that is to himself. His modern and liberal ideas never went to the length of modifying his own absolute authority. His idea was rather that of a paternal tyranny: he meant to use his rights as autocrat in order to force German and Western principles and improvements on an unwilling people, for their own good. So the rigidly conservative Russian found himself in the difficult position (not the only case in history) of being bitterly opposetl to the autocrat's liberalism while basing his opposition on the principle of autocracy. The clergy — always conservative, es- pecially in the Orthodox Churche-s — had already long led this opposition to the rationalist " German tsar". Then the tsar set to work to crush their power by reforming the Church and making it a department of the State.

The Church of Russia in the first period (988-1589) had formed part of the Byzantine Patriarchate. By the sixteenth century Russia had become a great em- pire, whereas Constantinople was now in the hands of the Turks. So the Russians, especially their tsar, thought that such a dependence no longer suited the changed conditions. Feodor Ivanovitch (1584-1598) wrote to Jeremias II, Patriarch of Constantinople (1572-1579, 1580-1584, 1586-1595), demanding recog- nition of the indepentlence of the Russian Church. Jeremias, though unwilling to lose so great a provdnce, understood that he had no chance of resisting the tsar's demand, made the best of a bad business, and comforted himself by accepting a heavy bribe. It was the first of a long series of dismemberments of the Byzantine Patriarchate. Jeremias's successors have often had to submit to such losses; in modern times they have not even had the comfort of a bribe. So in 1589 the metropolitan See of Moscow became an independent patriarchate. The Orthodox rejoiced; the new patriarchate was admitted everywhere as fifth, after Jerusalem, leaving the first place to Constanti- nople; they explained that now the sacred pentarchy, the (not really very) ancient order of five patriarchs, was restored;" Moscow had arisen to atone for the fall of Rome. The restored pentarchy was not destined to last very long. From 1589 to 1700 the Russian Church was ruled by the Patriarch of Moscow. In 1700 Adrian, the last patriarch, died. Peter the Great had already conceived the idea of hisHolySynod, so, instead of allowing a successor to be appointed, he