The Constantinople and Moscow divide. Troitsky and Photiades on the Extra-Jurisdictional Rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
Troitsky's Article on the Limits of Constantinople's Jurisdiction
Alexander G. Dragas
Troitsky began with the accusation that the heads of the five ancient Patriarchates, who " by force of circumstances were placed above others ," often fell into the temptation of worldly sin (Matt. 4: 3-10), when seeking to increase their power. He was encouraged, however, that the divinely given conciliar consciousness of the Church's Synods was able to curb these actions by stopping the likes of Rome (e.g. the Synod of Carthage) and Antioch (e.g. Canon 8 ECIII) from expanding their jurisdiction to the detriment of the other Churches. Nevertheless, he argued that these judgments were often ignored by Constantinople, which " often exhibited the tendency to put herself above the other autocephalous Churches, converting the primacy of honor, inherited from the Roman Church, into a primacy of authority. " 23 In this sense, he understood Constantinople's interventionist actions to be detrimental to the other Orthodox Churches, giving examples such as the repeated closing down of the Slavic Patriarchates in medieval times, and the Bulgarian and Antiochian schisms more recently. When looking at the case of Russia, Troitsky argued that Constantinople was initially unable to quell Moscow's rise to prominence whilst confined under Ottoman joke, although it immediately took the initiative to restrain Moscow once it " fell under difficult circumstances ". 24
Then, Troitsky went on to argue that Constantinople began to construct "novel theories" in order to reassert its dominance over the entire Orthodox world. These notions were backed by its claim to have jurisdiction over the entire " diaspora " (i.e. "dispersion"), 25 which encompassed all the territories outside the jurisdiction of each autocephalous Orthodox Church. He attributed the creation of this theory to Patriarch Meletios IV (Metaxakis) 26, whilst contending, by citing a couple of examples, that Meletios ' successors continued this practice as well. 27 Thus, he accused Constantinople of justifying this theory on the basis of Canons 2 ECII, 8 ECIII, and 28 ECIV, and therefore crafted his article to respond in kind. It is to these Canons that Troitsky turns, focusing briefly on Canons 2 ECII and 8 ECIII, and then directing his major polemic on Canon 28 ECIV, which Constantinople used to justify its jurisdiction over the bishops among the " barbarian lands " (ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς). 28
i ) Canon 2 ECII
"The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers." 29
His first argument comes after citing the letter of Patriarch Meletios II (Metaxakis) of Alexandria (7/5/1927) to Metropolitan Anthony, formally Metropolitan of Kiev as the presiding Hierarch of ROCOR. 30 In it, Meletios accuses Anthony of violating Canon 2 ECII after creating an independent Synod in Karlovtsy, which was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Serbia: " On the basis of that canon.you as bishops of the Russian Church do not have the right to meddle in episcopal jurisdictions outside the borders of your churches. " 31Troitsky disagreed with Meletios ' interpretation of the Canon, claiming the opposite through the following arguments:
This Canon does not mention Constantinople, nor does it grant any privileges over any other Church.
If the Canon is to be understood the way Meletios intended, then no Church, including Constantinople, could go beyond its borders to conduct missionary activity.
Patriarch Meletios quotes only the parts that do not have any relation to the question, whilst purposely omitting the last part of the Canon that allowed all Churches the ability to conduct missions: " But the Churches of God in the heathen nations (ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς ἔθνεσι) must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the time of the fathers. "
The Canon does not prohibit the expansion of a Church's jurisdiction outside its borders when it comes to missionary provinces, but is only concerned with maintaining the territorial integrity of established Churches. To support this view, Troitsky asserted that the " custom.from the time of the fathers " was understood by the medieval canonists Zonaras and Balsamon to allow a bishop from any province to visit another "heathen" province in order to strengthen the faith of its converts. 32
ii) Canon 8 ECIII
"Our brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all. Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood. Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect." 33
His second argument is once again directed against Patriarch Meletios and the "other Greek canonists" who accused the Russian Church of violating Canon 8 ECIII after it overstepped its jurisdiction through its intervention in Poland and Finland. 34 In this sense, Constantinople was arguing that only the bishop of Constantinople, and no other, could assume control over a province that was not his or that of his predecessors from the beginning. Again, Troitsky sees Constantinople in breach of the Canon arguing:
If Meletios ' argument were correct, then Constantinople too would not be able to overstep its jurisdiction as the Canon does not make an exception for it. Therefore, if Moscow is not permitted to have dioceses in Poland and Finland for being in another state, then neither is Constantinople for the same reason.
This Canon should be understood in its historical context, namely that: a) the Church of Antioch was stopped from asserting its authority over the autocephalous Church of Cyprus; and b) the boarders of each ecclesiastical territorial jurisdiction where delineated in one state (Byzantium).
Balsamon, citing Canons 2 ECII, 28 ECIV, 39 ECVI, interprets this to mean that " the Churches existing in the Roman Empire, except for only a few, were subordinate to the Constantinopolitan throne ". If, however, this interpretation were to be applied by Constantinople on a wider national scale (i.e. outside its jurisdiction), then this would violate this canon.
Constantinople has breached the canon by subjugating a province (Poland and Finland 35) that has belonged to Moscow for over one hundred years, even though Canon 17 ECIV only required thirty. 36 The same can be said of the situation in Western Europe where the Russians there went under Constantinople, even though this action was in breach of canon 17 since Moscow did not give letters of dismissal in the regard. In the first instance, the subjugation of these provinces is nullified by the Canon 8 ECIII, whereas in the second both the acceptor and accepted according to Canon 17 should have been deprived of their rank. 37
iii) Canon 28 ECIV
"Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians (ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς) , should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him." 38
Troitsky final and most elaborate arguments are waged against the extra-jurisdictional rights of Constantinople insomuch as, " the Greeks find the main 'proof' of their theory in the 28 th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, which indeed, mentions the rights of the Constantinopolitan Church. " Troitsky acknowledges that the Canon gave reference to Canon 3 ECII, which gave Constantinople the same rights of honor as those given to Rome, but argues that " it further defines the limit of her authority " to ordain only the Metropolitans in Asia, Pontus and Thrace, and the " bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians (ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς)." This led him to assert that the " defenders of the new (Greek Papalist) theory " interpret ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς in a politico-geographical sense to mean that Constantinople alone has jurisdictional authority over all churches outside the borders of existing Orthodox Churches, i.e. the Orthodox diaspora. It is on this basis, that Troitsky attempts to tackle these concepts to disprove them by looking at the terms diaspora and barbarian in various ecclesiastical writings. 39
a) The Term Diaspora
Troitsky began his quest to disprove this notion of the diaspora by pointing out that the term is used to denote 'dispersion' in early Christian literature. 40 On this basis, he argues that it is used erroneously in its modern context since, " by no means, does the terms ' diaspora ' have a geographical or political meaning, but rather a confessional meaning, and refers to the profession of faith of a minority, regardless of whether this minority lives within the borders of a certain state or outside of it. " 41
b) The Term Barbarian
In a similar manner, Troitsky then looks at the term 'barbarian', in the attempt to disprove Constantinople's interpretation of the Canon on etymological and grammatical grounds. His research yields that the terms 'barbarian' or 'barbarian peoples' (nations), which initially had a similar meaning in early ecclesiastical writings, later came to signify the barbarian peoples who had accepted Christianity within the Empire much later than the Romans and the Greeks. The fact that these 'barbarian' peoples were a minority (a diaspora), led the Church to formulate special prescripts through Canons 2 ECII and 28 ECIV, which sought to instruct and enforce some ecclesiastical order over them. The fact that the term was ultimately ethnographical rather than geopolitical in nature was also especially evident in the New Testament, where the term was used for all non-Greek and Latin speakers both within and outside of the Roman Empire 42, and in the Byzantine texts of the 4 th to 6 th century, where the term was used to denote foreigners both inside 43 and out 44 of the Roman Empire. In closing, he also adds that the term τὸ βαρβαρικὸν in the singular was used to denote the barbarian states outside the Roman Empire, in comparison to τὸ ἑλληνικόν, which was employed to distinguish the Greek world. 45
c) The Term Barbarian in Canon 28 ECIV
After conducting his research on the term barbarian, Troitsky then sought to see if its usage in Canon 28 could validate Constantinople's claims of having jurisdiction outside the borders of the established autocephalous Orthodox Churches. If the connotation of the term were politico-geographical (i.e. transcending the boundaries of Byzantium) then Constantinople's claims would be correct, but if it were ethnic (i.e. attributed to non-Greek Christians from within), then Constantinople's claims would be defunct. Troitsky argued the latter in an attempt to disprove what he considered was Constantinople's erroneous interpretation of the Canon through the following methodology; 1) the meaning and context of the term in Canon 28; 2) the context of Canon 28 in reference to Canon 2 ECII; 3) the interpretation of the Canon by the medieval canonists; 4) the historical application of the Canon throughout Constantinople's history. 46Points 1 and 2 can be summarized as follows:
The authors of the Canon intentionally wrote the plural ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς to signify barbarian peoples (not countries) in general, instead of the singular ἐν τ ῷ βαρβαρικῷ, which, as shown in his previous research on the term, denoted lands where barbarians rule (countries).
The Canon used the adjective βαρβαρικοῖς, but without an accompanying noun. If one were to connect this Canon with the phrase in Canon 2 ECII, " ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς ἔθνεσι," then, it becomes apparent that the missing noun 'peoples' (ἔθνεσι) should be applied in the same manner to Canon 28 since the former is grammatically consistent with the latter.
The Canon only speaks of people " of the dioceses aforesaid " (i.e. barbarian peoples in the dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Thrace), and not barbarian people in general. These dioceses, in turn, were inside the Byzantine Empire, although Troitsky admits that the dioceses had their own missions and provinces outside of it. The Canon, therefore, is not concerned with the boundaries outside the Empire, but seeks to subordinate to the Bishop of Constantinople, " the bishops living among the barbarians living within the ecclesiastical limits of the three dioceses regardless of whether these barbarians live in Byzantium or beyond it. "
Constantinople, which was initially a small territory whose Bishop was subject to the Diocese of Thrace, grew in stature once it became the capital of the Byzantine Empire (New Rome). On this basis, Canon 3 ECII made the Bishop of Constantinople equal in honor, but second in rank to the Bishop of Rome. The elevation of the Bishop of Constantinople, and his relationship with the Emperor eventually enabled him to have greater authority over the Metropolitans and Bishops within the three aforementioned dioceses. It is for this reason that Canon 28 ECIV reaffirmed his rights of honor, but also limited his authority from spreading beyond the jurisdiction of the three dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Thrace. Canons 9 and 17 ECIV likewise gave Constantinople the right of judgement only over these dioceses, much like the first Synod of Nicaea had sanctioned the subordination of several ecclesiastical provinces to the larger ecclesiastical centers of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. With this in mind, Troitsky then turns to the management of missions arguing that the central authority of each autocephalous Church had the right to conduct them around its territory. Thus, " with the subordination to the Constantinopolitan Bishop of the three dioceses, the central authority for them became the authority of this bishop, and the management of the missions in the diaspora of these and only these three dioceses was transferred to him ." 47
d) Interpretation of Canon 28 ECIV by the Medieval Byzantine Canonists
Troitsky's now turns to the medieval Byzantine canonists in support of his hypothesis. He begins by stating that the 12 th century canonists Alexis Aristenos 48, John Zonaras 49, Theodore Balsamon 50 as well as 14 th century Matthew Blastares 51, all understood the term Βαρβαρικοῖς in Canon 28 to represent the "Barbarian peoples" subject to the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace. In this sense, Constantinople was only given the right to ordain Bishops for the barbarian " diaspora " (foreigners) in these three dioceses, whereas the barbarian peoples in the neighboring dioceses remained under the jurisdiction of the other respective Orthodox Churches. For example, in Europe, both Aristenus and Zonaras ' limited Constantinople's ability to appoint bishops in the barbarian diaspora to Thrace (east of the city of Sardica) since the remaining dioceses were subject to Rome (Thessaly, Macedonia and Illyricum). In Pontus, Balsamon limited its barbarian diaspora from the Black sea to Trebizond and its inland. In Asia, it was limited to areas around Ephesus, Lycia and the surrounding area in Pamphylia, but could not ordain bishops in Anatolia since this right was given to the Bishop of Antioch alone. 52
e) Historical Application of Canon 28 ECIV
Troitsky makes his final argument by analyzing the application of Constantinople's prerogatives in a historical context. He argued that Canon 28 allowed Constantinople to govern the barbarian diaspora in its own jurisdiction (Asia, Pontus & Thrace), without restricting the other Orthodox Churches from having their own barbarian diaspora. In this sense Rome appointed bishops in partibus infidelium to most of Europe with the exception of Thrace, Alexandria to the countries south of Egypt, and Antioch to Georgia, Armenia, Persia, and Mesopotamia. 53 Constantinople's diaspora, on the other hand, was confined to Asia, Pontus and Thrace for a long time after the synod, much like it had been prior to it, as evidenced in the following:
Justinian's Civil Codex (534) : Only speaks of the Bishop of Little Scythia (cathedra in the city of Tomi), and the Bishop of Isauria in Isaurapolis as being under Constantinople shortly after the formation of Canon 28 ECIV. Canon 30 of Trullo calls these Churches 'Barbarian Churches'.
Justinian's Novel XI (535) : Emperor Justinian created a new autocephalous Church named Justiniana Prima to conduct missions among the barbarians in the Balkan Peninsula. This new Church subordinated the bishops of Sophia and Riparian Dacia, Preslav, Dardania, and upper Moesia under the new Archbishop in a territory that was roughly comprised of today's former Yugoslavia, Albania and Western Bulgaria.
Justinian's Novel CXXXI (545) : Justiniana Prima's territories were put back under the jurisdiction of Rome after the Pope protested that this new autocephaly was an infringement on his rights.
Justiniana Prima was closed in the 7 th century following the Slavic emigration to the region. Nevertheless, its Metropolitans (of Philippi, Thessalonica and Larisa) maintained their independence from Constantinople by forming new bishoprics for the Slavic Diaspora.
Constantinople's jurisdiction over the barbarian diaspora was limited to the nearby outskirts of Byzantium as clearly evidenced in the ancient lists of the dioceses under Constantinople in the writings of Epiph anius 54, De Boor 55, Leo the Philosopher 56 and Nilus Doxopatres 57. Troitsky does, however, acknowledge " that the second list mentions the whole Gothic metropolitanate, but, as was shown by V.A. Moshin, here we are dealing with a proposal and not with proven facts ". Having said this, he does nevertheless concede that both Leo the Philosopher and the above-mentioned canonical interpreters add the territory of the Russian Church to Constantinople, but argues that " in the first case we have a later interpolation, and in the second an obvious anachronism since there is ground to think that in the fifth century there existed Christianity on the territory of present-day Russia and, in any event, the Russian Church was at the beginning subjected to the Constantinopolitan Church not on the basis of the twenty-eighth canon of the Fourth Synod , but on the basis of the general principle by which newly-converted people are subordinated to those who converted them to Christianity - the Mother Church - until they acquire the needed requisites for autocephality. " 58
In his final observation, Troitsky argued that Constantinople's jurisdiction was not based on the prerogatives given to it in Canon 28 ECIV. On the contrary, history showed that its jurisdiction would expand in favorable circumstances, such as its expansion up to Dyrrachium (modern Durrës) after Emperor Leo III conquered Illyricum, or its expansion into central and Eastern Europe due to the zeal of its "Slavic missionaries". Likewise, its jurisdiction would detract under less favorable circumstances such as when its former non-Greek (i.e. Slavic) territories sought independence from Constantinople in the form of autocephaly. Furthermore, Troitsky asserted that the expansion of Constantinople's jurisdiction over the entire Orthodox diaspora was void since Constantinople had never used Canon 28 ECIV to claim the diaspora until the theory was created by Patriarch Meletios IV in 1922. The most poignant examples of the lack thereof can be found in the omission of the diaspora theory in the works of more recent authors such as the 19 th century Greek canonists of the Pedalion (1800), the Athenian Syntagma (1852-1859), or even in Archimandrite Callistus ' brochure titled The Patriarchal Throne and its Rights and Privileges Concerning the Other Orthodox Churches (Alexandria 1921), which makes no mention of the theory even though his brochure came out one year prior to its invention.
In conclusion, Troitsky sums up that Constantinople's novel theory over the Orthodox diaspora has no legal basis, as his thesis argued, in Canons 2 ECII, 8 ECIII, and 17 & 28 ECIV as argued by its protagonists. In this light, Constantinople's " arrogance of worldly powers, condemned by the canons," only harms the work of the Church, and therefore, " the sooner the conscience of the Ecumenical Church, illumined by the Spirit of God, condemns this papalistic and anti-canonical heresy, the better." 59
Here again is the theme of primacy of authority as repeated by the Karlovtsy scholars. See Troitsky, op. cit., p. 59
24 Interestingly, Troitsky, who was in Moscow at the time, does not attack the atheist soviet regime, which had devastated the Russian Orthodox Church up to that point. See Troitsky, op. cit., pp. 59-60.
25Troitsky references Canon 85 of Basil the Great.
26Meletios Metaxakis (1871-1935) was Metropolitan of Kition (1910-1918), Archbishop of Athens (1918-1921), Patriarch of Constantinople (1921-1923), and Patriarch of Alexandria (1926-1935)
27 For example, Troitsky cites two Constantinopolitan Patriarchal letters as evidence: 1) Epistle of Patriarch Basil II to the Metropolitan of Warsaw (12/12/1922), which aimed to show that Constantinople was intervening in Moscow's former territory of Poland; and 2) Letter of Patriarch Photius II to Patriarch Barnabas of Serbia (5/30/1931) where Constantinople claimed the diocese of Budapest as its jurisdiction instead of Serbia's, since Constantinople had jurisdiction over the diaspora (i.e. outside established Orthodox jurisdictions). See Troitsky, p. 60.
28Troitsky, op. cit., p. 67.
29Christian Classics Ethereal Library : http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iii.html
30 Metropolitan Anthony was the head of the ROCOR Karlovtsy Synod of which Troitsky was a central member.
31Troitsky, op. cit., pp. 60-61. Interestingly, the editors of the 1996 One Church journal add a footnote to support the autocephaly of the OCA stating: "Even on the basis of this canon, it is the Moscow Patriarchate which enjoys primary jurisdiction on the American continent for nowhere had Orthodoxy yet been established here until Russian clergy came to Alaska and San Francisco." See footnote 1 in Troitsky, p. 67 The authors claim of Moscow having jurisdiction over the entire American continent is quite misleading and very open to interpretation. The editors are correct in asserting that the Russian clergy were the first to establish Orthodoxy in Alaska (1794), but they were not to establish Orthodoxy in the United States since Alaska at that time was part of the Russian Empire. The Russian mission, however, did eventually relocate its diocese into US territory (San Francisco) after Alaska was sold to the United States in 1867. In contrast, the Greek Orthodox were the first recorded group to establish an Orthodox Church in the USA after they established the first Orthodox Church in New Orleans, Louisiana in 1864. What's more, the question of the establishment of Orthodoxy on the American continent is open to debate, especially when one considers that some historians have pointed that Greek sailors might have even brought Orthodox worship to the American Continent as early as the late 1700's. For Russian Orthodoxy in America see Constance J. Tarasar, Orthodox America 1794-1976 , OCA Department of History and Archives, New York 1975 and Mark Stokoe & Leonid Kishkovsky, Orthodox Christians in North America 1794-1994 , Orthodox Christian Publications Center 1995. For Greek Orthodoxy in America see Rev. George Pappaioannou, The Historical Development of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America , 1984 in F.K. Litsas (Ed.), A Companion to the Greek Orthodox Church (pp. 178-206), New York, N.Y (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America). "The Archdiocese of America," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review , 45 (2000), 193-306 and on the Greeks of Florida see:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050418154250/ http://web.classics.ufl.edu/CGS/florida_hellenism.htm (Retrieved February 2017) For a general account of Orthodoxy in America also see Thomas E. FitzGerald, The Orthodox Church , Prager, Westport Connecticut London 1998.
32 See Troitsky, op. cit., p. 61. For the interpretation of Zonaras and Balsamon see Athenian Syntagma II, pp. 171-172.
33Christian Classics Ethereal Library : http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xii.html
34 See Troitsky, p. 61.
35 Again, the Editor makes a point to add that this situation is also applicable to the Orthodox Church on the American Continent. See Troitsky, p. 62.
36 The Canon reads, " Outlying or rural parishes shall in every province remain subject to the bishops who now have jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops have peaceably and continuously governed them for the space of thirty years. But if within thirty years there has been, or is, any dispute concerning them, it is lawful for those who hold themselves aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the province. And if any one be wronged by his metropolitan, let the matter be decided by the exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as aforesaid. And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal example ." http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xvii.html
37 See Troitsky, op. cit., p. 62.
38Christian Classics Ethereal Library http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html
39 See Troitsky, op. cit., p. 62.
40In the Old Testament, the term is used for the Jews dispersed among the heathen (Deut. 30:3-4; Judith 5:19; Job 7:35 etc.). The term is also utilized in similar ways in the New Testament, although it is applied in three different ways ; to the Hellenes (John 7:34-35; John 12:20-29), to the Christians living among the Jews in the Diaspora (James 1:1), and to the Christian (elect) strangers dispersed in Asia Minor and the Asian part of the Roman Empire (1 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 11:13). His findings also reveal that both the early (St. Clement of Rome, Migne , PG 1, 200C, and in the Clementines, Migne, PG 2, 147A) and the later Christian writers (85 th Canon of Basil) use it the same way as the Old Testament. See Troitsky , op. cit., pp. 62-63.
41Troitsky , op. cit., p. 63.
42 The following Biblical examples are given in support of this claim: a barbarian in speech (1 Cor. 14:9-11); barbarians within the Roman Empire (Rom. 1:14); and barbarian peoples of Melita (Malta), even though they possessed Roman citizenship (Acts 28:1-4).
43 Canon 8 of Trullo. Maximos also adds Epistle to Diognetus, V. 4, Socrates XV. 36. See Maximos of Sardes, The Ecumenical Patriarchate. , op. cit., p. 220.
44 85 th Canon of St. Basil the Great, vidi Codex Justiniani XII, 36, 39. Maximos corrects Troitsky by saying it is Codex Justiniani XI, 36. See Maximos of Sardes, The Ecumenical Patriarchate. , op. cit., p. 220.
45Troitsky gives the example found in Canon 52 of Carthage, where the term τῷ βαρβαρικῷ παράκειται denotes a "barbarian land" on the border of Africa. See Troitsky , p. 63 The quote in question is « διὰ τὸ εἰς τὰ τέλη τῆς Ἀφρικῆς κεῖσθαι αὐτὴν καὶ ὅτι τῷ βαρβαρικῷ παράκειται ». See Ράλλη-Πότλη, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων (hence forth cited as Ralle-Potle), Ἀθῆναι 1852, II, p. 430.
46 See Troitsky op. cit. , pp. 63-64.
47Troitsky , op. cit., p.64.
48Aristenos writes : " To him (Bishop of Constantinople) are subjected only the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, and they receive consecration from him, as do also the bishops of the barbarians in these dioceses , because the dioceses of Macedonia and Illyricum, Thessaly and Peloponnesus, and of Epirus and the (barbarian) people in it (i.e. in this particular diocese) were at that time under the authority of the Roman bishop. " See Athenian Syntagma II, p. 286.
49Zonaras writes : The consecration of bishops among the barbarian people found in the aforementioned dioceses is given over to the Constantinopolitan bishop, because the rest of the dioceses, i.e. Macedonia and Thessaly, Helladia and Peloponnesus, the so - called Epirus and Illyricum, at that time were subjected to the bishop of Old Rome. " See Athenian Syntagma II, pp. 283-284.
50Balsamon writes : " The bishoprics among the barbarians are Alania, Rhossa, and others, since the Alanians belong to the Pontic diocese, and the Rhossans to the Thracian diocese. " See Athenian Syntagma II, p. 285.
51Blastares writes: " it is also permitted the bishop of Constantinople to consecrate bishops among the barbaric peoples bordering upon dioceses subject to him, such as the Alanians and Rhossans, since the first border upon the Pontic and the second upon the Thracian diocese. " See Athenian Syntagma IV, p. 257.
52Troitsky , op. cit., p.65.
53Troitsky , op. cit., p.66.
54See Migne, PG, 86, 1, 789.
55 See De Boor, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte , 1891, XII
56 See Athenian Syntagma V, 474-475
57 See Migne, PG, 132, 1097
58Troitsky , op. cit., p.66.
59Troitsky , pp. 66-67