Talk:Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople

message: Dogface, we do too call the EP the "Church of Constantinople."  See, for example, the [list] of Autocephalous Churches on the OCA website. If the EP prefers to not call itself that then someone should say so, but as far as I can tell pretty much everyone else does, so to say the term is "not used" isn't accurate. --Csernica 00:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Think thay may be usefull, and expecially if someone will make an article for each metropolis this could be both an information source and an external links reference ready to be put at the end of each article.
Archdiocese of Constantinople
http://www.patriarchate.org/
Metropolis of Rhodes
http://www.imr.gr/
Archdiocese of Crete
? http://www.iak.gr/
Archdiocese of America
http://www.goarch.org/
Archdiocese of Australia
http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/index.htm
Archdiocese of Great Britain
??? http://www.nostos.com/church/
Archdiocese of Italy
http://www.ortodossia.it/
Metropolis of Korea
http://orthodox.or.kr/english/e_main.htm
Metropolis of Canada
http://www.gocanada.org/
Metropolis of Argentina
??? http://www.saeamerica.org/en/omogeneia/
Metropolis of Central America
??? http://www.saeamerica.org/en/omogeneia/
Metropolis of New Zealand
http://www.imnz.org.nz/
Metropolis of Hong Kong
http://www.cs.ust.hk/faculty/dimitris/metro/hkmetropolis.html
Metropolis of France
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eglise.orthodoxe.grecque/
Metropolis of Germany
http://www.orthodoxie.net/
Metropolis of Austria
http://www.agiosgeorgios.at/
Metropolis of Belgium
http://www.eglise-orthodoxe.be/
Metropolis of Scandinavia
??? (see below)
Metropolis of Switzerland
???
Metropolis of Spain and Portugal
http://igrejaortodoxa.web.pt/
Church of Finland
http://www.ort.fi/
Church of Estonia
http://www.orthodoxa.org/
American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church
http://www.acrod.org/
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
http://www.uocofusa.org/
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada
http://www.uocc.ca/
Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America
http://www.goarch.org/en/otherpatriarchal/alb.asp
Russian Orthodox Archdiocese of Western Europe
http://www.exarchat.org/
Belorussian Orthodox Church in the world
http://www.goarch.org/en/otherpatriarchal/bel.asp
:Update: I have searched, but I can find no evidence of a Metropolis of Scandinavia. Both the Parish of the Protection of the Theotokos (Denmark) , St. Nicholas (Norway)  and the two churches of the Holy Transfiguration (Sweden;   (Stockholm) and  (Överkalix) belong to the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese of Western Europe (Constantinople Patriarchate). Valentinian (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I have two problems with this article.
1. It states that the Apostle Andrew was the founder of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. While it seems that the Orthodox regularly claim this, it appears that it is unfounded. For example, the Catholic Encyclopaedia says:
:In the fifth century we meet with a spurious document attributed to a certain Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre at the end of the third century, according to which the Church of Byzantium was founded by the Apostle St. Andrew, its first bishop being his disciple Stachys (cf. Romans 16:9). The intention of the forger is plain: in this way the Church of Rome is made inferior to that of Constantinople, St. Andrew having been chosen an Apostle by Jesus before his brother St. Peter, the founder of the Roman Church.
2. It doesn't cite its sources.
: FWIW, just because the CE says something doesn't make it true.  The anti-Orthodox POV of that publication is pretty explicit.  —Preost talk contribs 21:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it doesn't mean it's true, but it does represent a somewhat justified alternative viewpoint from a source of some repute (at the very least, it is cited as a source in other articles on the site). This article neither cites its sources nor acknowledges that there is some dispute on the matter. Hairouna 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and Contentions 

message: Hi, I think that I can say something about the apostle Andrew: 1) it is sure that the patriarchate was not founded by the apostle Andrew because in the first centuries of christian life Costantinople was but a part of Antioch patriarchate and it raised to the rank of an independent one, and after some even to the first of all orthodox patriarchates, only much time after this 2) the apostle Andrew can be considered on the other side as the founder of the costantinople first christian communities in the first century after chirst, starting an apostolic succession arriving to the patriarchate 3) we can probably have no scientific proofs about the fact that saint Andrew was really the founder of the first Costantinople communities, but it is a matter of fact that: the undivided church, of which also the western popes were between the most authoritative members before the schism of 1066, and its uninterrupted tradition, always accepted the apostolic origin of the see of costantinople as undoubted. At the time, the independent patriarchates were all and only the sees who could claim an apostolic origin, that is, Rome, first of all because founded by Peter, chief of the other apostles, and then exactly Antioch, Alexandria, Costantinople and Jerusalem 4) the consideration that the story of saint andrew was invented only to give the primate to costantinople at the place of rome is totally inconsistent, because, as i have said, peter was considered as the chief of the apostles by the undivided church, and rome the first apostolic see before costantinople, also in the eastern parts of the church, and that the date of foundation was not considered the most important thing (otherwise the first see should have been Jerusalem, and so nay neither rome nor costantinople). This fact makes me think that the catholic enciclopedia is generally inaccurate on this matter at all. the present orthodox church still consider costantinople as the first patriarchate only for the fact that rome separated and then is not part of the church anymore. For all the acts of the church done before the schism, rome is still considered as the first patriarchate even in the orthodox present church. 5) Specularly, and linking again to point 3, the present Roman catholic church also DOES still recognize the apostolic foundation of costantinople by Andrew because this was stated in all the general councils before the schism, in which the see of rome was present, and that it still recognizes as a still valid part of its history still to now. Controversies can sometime have been aroused but the official teaching of both the two churches still recognize its common origin, and it is therefore not the case, at least for what concern this matter, to have any other problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.54.65 (talk • contribs) 
# Please. It's "Constantinople". You keep leaving off the first "n". It's driving me nuts.
# The conventional date for the schism is 1054. 1066 was the year of the Norman conquest of England. But even 1054 is merely a convention. The events of that year did not significantly affect relations.
# The Popes of Rome were the most senior in rank and enjoyed a primacy in honor. They were not "most authoritative". This is precisely the bone of contention between East and West about the role of the Papacy, and it would be incorrect to assert only one side's version as fact in the article.
# Part and parcel with that is the idea behind the ranking of the various Patriarchates. In the Eastern view it had to do with the importance of the cities, not the Apostolic foundation of the churches as such. This is reflected in Canon 3 of I Constantinople, Canon 28 of Chalcedon, and Canon 36 of Trullo. None of these are accepted by Rome, but the clearly reflect the Eastern view of the matter, that Rome's primacy was due to its being the old capital of the Empire and not because its bishops are successors to Peter in any unique way. In fact, cities with churches of Apostolic foundation are fairly common in the East and not limited to the Patriarchates. (Read your Bible. A number are mentioned, and many others were not.)
# Nevertheless, your basic point that the claim of the church in Byzantium as having been founded by St. Andrew is on shaky ground is valid. It doesn't mean terribly much though, since this argument is no longer used as support for Constantinople's position. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentions 

message: I think the gigantic list of folks involved in the patriarchate should be significantly trimmed.  It would be better included in a "List of..." article, but I'm not sure that's really even warranted, either.  Perhaps a list of those on the holy synod might be sufficient.  —Preost talk contribs 23:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big list o' names 

message: Okay, I've significantly rewritten the article.  A lot could probably use references, to be sure.  I've undertaken this rewrite as part of the WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy Collaboration of the Month.  —Preost talk contribs 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big overhaul 

message: The correct Turkish name should be "Fener Rum Patrikhanesi" or "Istanbul Rum Patrikhanesi" --Hattusili 09:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the correct official name is "Istanbul Fener Rum Patrikhanesi". E104421 12:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the name used by Turkey and noone else in the world. Funny, but better keep this for "internal consumption"... Hectorian 14:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the name used by the patriarchy itself. E104421 14:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that it is good for Turkey's image to include the Turkish term Hattusili and E104421 proposed. It reveals that Turkey is the only state in the world not recognizing the ecumenality of the Patriarchate. So, I'm surprised they actually want this Turkish name to be there! Anyway! Their call!--Yannismarou 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi is actually *the* official name. The Fener name is unofficial. This name, despite common misunderstanding is not derived from, nor does it mean "Patriarchy of the Istanbul Greeks" as you seem to imply. Rum->Roman->Romanioi. This is the name used since the time of Mehmed II, who by the way also used among his titles, the title Kayzer-i Rum -> Caesar of the Romans. The Ottomans greatly supported the Patriarchy's claims to be the "true" Roman church. To pertain to "Rome" is not exactly a put down??? Anyway, the Patriarchy uses this title in Turkish. I also added a citation from historian Ilber Ortayli's book as he makes a reference to the official legal name. Free smyrnan 19:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish name 

message: Regarding the administrative and legal jurisdiction of milletbasi -- 
"..The famous millet system, developed in the main for the govenance of the Greek and Armenian communities, was extended in similar form to the Jews. According to this system, as interpreted at that time, each of the religious communities of the empire was organized internally, subject to its own laws in matters of religion and personal status, administered under the authority of its own religious chief." Lewis, Bernard, "The Jews of Islam", p.125-126 
"..They were ... organized into millets or nations, self-governing communities preserving their own laws and usages under a religious head responsible to the central power for the administration and good behaviour of his people." Lord Kinross, "Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire (1977)"  , p. 112-113
"The patriarch's temporal duties and his power had by the eighteenth century become immense. He was the millet bashi (head of the millet) and ethnarch (secular ruler) of the Orthodox population. Since he was a high official in the Ottoman government and part of the askeri bureaucratic class, he was entitled to a standard with two horsetails (an Ottoman governor or general had three, the sultan six). The patriarch was responsible to his ruler for the behaviour and loyalty of his flock. He was also given important duties connected with tax collecting and the maintenance of public order. His judicial functions were particularly significant for the Christian population. The church had full jurisdiction over a wide range of affairs, including matters relating to marriage and the family and, in practice, commercial cases involving only Christians. Although criminal cases, such as murder and theft, were theoretically under the control of the Muslim judicial system, the Orthodox courts often handled these as well as long as no Muslim was involved. In administering justice the church based its decisions on canon law, Byzantine statutory law, local customs and church writings and traditions. Ecclesiastical courts could hand out penalties such as imprisonment, fines and exile, along with the denial of the sacraments and excommunication." Jelavich, Barbara, “History of the Balkans, 18th and 19th Centuries” (1983),  p.52
I consider these, which I did take out the trouble of typing in as well as citing, to be sufficient. Please remove the citation needed link -- actually citing particularly the Jelavich source would be useful. --Free smyrnan 06:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: After the Fall of Constantinople - Citations 

message: Does my Church actually allow all these languages? I mean all the Churches I've been to have only been said in Greek, only the homily was in English, which was said by a younger priest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.63.161 (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Languages

message: :Image:Constantinople seal.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Constantinople seal.gif

message: The article states that it is based in part on another Wiki, in direct violation of policies on reliable sources and verifiability. I'm not sure what to do about that short of gutting the article and starting over. Feedback and suggestions are welcome. Pairadox (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OrthodoxWiki as a source 

message: Isn't it a violation of NPOV to redirect here from "Patriarchate of Constantinople", when there is also an existent Armenian Church of Constantinople that has a Patriarch and a historical Latin Church of Constantinople as well? Deusveritasest (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems pretty clearly in keeping with standard practice since it's by far the most common usage. As a similar example, Pope is about the Roman Catholic leader, despite there also being a Coptic Pope, among others. --Delirium (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriarchate of Constantinople 

message: It seems that in the 4th century jurisdiction in the Church was moving towards numerous provinces being subject to the capital of the diocese (eg: Diocese of Asia, Diocese of Thrace, etc.), with the head Metropolitan of the Diocese being called an Exarch. It is my understand that the Metropolitan of Ephesus was the Exarch of all the Diocese of Asia. However, this article, by stating that Byzantium was once under the jurisdiction of Ephesus, seems to suggest that Ephesus' jurisdiction was at one point even more extensive simply than the Diocese of Asia, given that Byzantium was part of the Diocese of Thrace rather than the Diocese of Asia. Can someone explain what is going on with this? And could perhaps sources be cited showing that Ephesus' jurisdiction extended beyond Asia Minor? Deusveritasest (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That was what I would have understood to be the situation. But I thought I saw other sources indicating that Ephesus had jurisdiction over Constantinople. I am wondering if there is substance to this claim. Parallel to this issue is the fact that certain sources labelled Ephesus as a Patriarchate that was later replaced by Constantinople. I am very curious as to why this article originally claimed that Constantinople was at one point subject to Ephesus. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to the Metropolis of Ephesus 

message: Since Jesus was only 4 years old at this time, how could Christianity exist?
Where would the citation of this be?
24.38.96.66 (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: does it say it existed from the first year of the first century? The church of Constantinople claims that Stachys_the_Apostle was their first bishop, from 38 to 54.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.37.41.63 (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Christianity in Byzantium existed from the 1st century" 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Pammakaristos Church Istanbul.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Ever since a series of edits in August 2009 , which copy-pasted large amounts of text into it, this article has had sections with broken/missing references (apparent footnote numbers, in plaintext, like "[28]", "[29]" etc., but without actual footnotes), especially in the sections on "Iconoclast controversy" and "Great Schism of 1054". These passages were apparently copied over mechanically from the articles East-West Schism (stage of the article around that time: ) and/or Constantinople#Iconoclast controversy.
The article is badly in need of somebody taking the time to go through those old revisions and see if the references can be rescued from them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-pasted sections, broken footnotes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140719151021/http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchate/patriarchs to http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchate/patriarchs
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122074418/http://todayszaman.com/news-233079-commander-opposed-halki-seminary-reopening-over-fears.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-233079-commander-opposed-halki-seminary-reopening-over-fears.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :File:Constantinople coat of arms.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
-- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for File:Constantinople coat of arms.PNG