by Dimitris Keramidas*
The question of primacy in the Orthodox Church remains one of the most widely debated issues, primarily concerning the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch within the family of Orthodox Churches. However, its implications extend beyond intra-Orthodox relations, influencing the broader ecumenical dialogue, particularly with the Catholic Church. In public discourse, primacy is often framed—rather simplistically—as a power struggle between the Churches of Constantinople and Moscow over leadership within Orthodoxy. However, the core issue extends beyond this narrative, touching upon how Orthodoxy understands and realizes ecclesiastical unity. At times, primacy is misleadingly equated with an Orthodox “papacy,” though such comparisons often stem from a misunderstanding of how primacy functions within the Catholic Church.
This discussion warrants a deeper examination, acknowledging that both Greek and international scholarship have extensively explored its theological, canonical, sociological, and ideological dimensions. Primacy has also been a key topic in ecumenical dialogues, particularly in Orthodox-Catholic discussions. Ultimately, the crucial question remains: Is primacy an essential component of the Church’s unity?
In the Orthodox Church, primacy is not understood as the absolute authority of a hierarch over other bishops, but rather as a primacy of honor (πρεσβεία τιμῆς). However, this primacy of honor is not merely a symbolic or decorative title; it is accompanied by specific responsibilities, including presidency, coordination, and judicial authority, particularly through the right of appeal (ἔκκλητον).
From a theological perspective, primacy is rooted in the Eucharist, where the role of the presiding bishop is revealed within the liturgical assembly. It is within the Eucharist that the bishop, as the celebrant, offers the bread and wine to God the Father, praying for their transformation into the Body and Blood of Christ. This liturgical act is not performed in isolation but within the living body of Christ, the Church. The Eucharist is the focal point of ecclesial unity, and through it, the new covenant between God and humanity, sealed by Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, is continuously made present and tangible.
Because the Eucharistic gathering is Christocentric, the one who presides—whether the bishop or, in his place, a presbyter—acts as an image of Christ (εἰκών τοῦ Χριστοῦ). Therefore, any authority the bishop exercises is Christocentric, not personal. His role does not derive from his individual talents, theological education, or legal jurisdiction, but from the fundamental ecclesial reality that “one” Eucharist requires “one” presiding figure. This presidency serves to unify the gathered faithful in the name of Christ, emphasizing that the Church’s unity is not imposed by institutional power but is expressed and realized sacramentally.
The community of believers encompasses a diversity of backgrounds—ethnic, racial, biological, generational, and social. However, to manifest its oneness in Christ, this diversity must be transcended. The bishop, as the focal point of Eucharistic unity, does not represent secular distinctions such as male versus female, ethnic or social divisions, but instead embodies the eschatological unity of all humanity in Christ. This unity is not achieved through worldly mechanisms but through Eucharistic love, which transforms the community from a merely human assembly into the living body of Christ.
In this way, primacy in the Orthodox Church is not about hierarchical dominance but about Eucharistic service—a ministry of spiritual fatherhood, liturgical presidency, and the preservation of ecclesial unity in the love of Christ.
From the early centuries of Christianity (as early as the 2nd century), the Church established a structure in which the “many” were represented by the “one”—namely, the bishop. This representation was not collective; not all members of the Church presided over the Eucharist, but rather a single person. However, it would be inaccurate to describe this as an episcopal “monarchy,” since no bishop can serve the Eucharist alone. The liturgy is fundamentally a communal act, requiring the participation of presbyters, deacons, and the faithful. Just as the “many” need the “one” to preside over the Eucharist, so too the “one” requires the presence of the “many” for the service to be truly an act of the entire people of God (λειτουργία as the work of the people).
Furthermore, since the authority of the “one” is Christocentric, the communion of the “many” reflects the Trinitarian communion. This idea is deeply rooted in Christ’s high priestly prayer: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John 17:21)
This principle, clearly evident at the level of the local Church (diocese), was canonically affirmed early on. The 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council is one of the many examples where the Church affirmed the principle of episcopal uniqueness—meaning that each city or community was to have one bishop. The Orthodox Church has never contested the role of the bishop as the unique head of a local Church.
However, differences exist among Orthodox Churches regarding the participation of the “many” in synodal proceedings. In some Orthodox traditions (e.g., Russia, Bulgaria, etc.), the laity plays a formal role in ecclesiastical governance—whether through participation in the election of bishops or even in the deliberations of Synods.
A particular point of debate arises concerning the representation of laypeople and monks in synodal proceedings. In some cases, they are represented not by their bishop but by other lay representatives, following a model more akin to parliamentary representation. This raises theological concerns: does this introduce secular principles into the synodal process, or does it reflect a legitimate ecclesial participation of the faithful?
A crucial aspect to highlight is that the organization of the Church at a regional or provincial level was already shaped in the early centuries following the “one – many” model. This structure led to the development of a form of primacy among Churches, reflecting their hierarchical organization within the broader Christian world.
Initially, each province of the Roman Empire had its own ecclesiastical center (Metropolis), where a Metropolitan bishop presided over the provincial synod. However, after the Fourth Ecumenical Council (5th century), this structure evolved into a more defined system, resulting in the establishment of five major ecclesiastical centers, known as the Pentarchy: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem.
The understanding of primacy developed differently in the East and the West. In the West, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was justified through a “divine” criterion, based on the belief that the Apostle Peter—considered by the Latin tradition as the “first” among the Apostles—had his successor in the Bishop of Rome. The Pope’s primacy was thus viewed as a divine mandate.
In contrast, in the East, the concept of primacy was shaped by historical and pragmatic factors. The Patriarchates of the East did not claim a primacy based on apostolic succession alone but on their political and administrative significance within the Roman Empire. The Archbishop of Constantinople, for example, was granted “primacy of honor” after the Bishop of Rome because his Church was located in the capital of the Empire, which was also the seat of the Emperor and the Senate.
This principle is explicitly stated in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils: Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council (381 AD) states: “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is the New Rome.” and Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (451 AD) further clarifies: “[The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council] awarded equal primacy to the most holy Throne of New Rome (Constantinople). They judged justly that the city honored with an emperor and a senate should enjoy the same primacy of honor as the ancient imperial city of Rome and should be magnified in ecclesiastical matters as it is second in rank after Rome.”
At first glance, the criteria for determining primacy—especially in the case of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch—may seem secular, as they were influenced by political significance rather than purely theological principles. However, the essential nature of primacy in the Church was never seen as merely a matter of political hierarchy.
As the late Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon pointed out, the Church never questioned the ecclesiological necessity of primacy at the inter-Church level. This means that just as in every local Church, the “first” (bishop) unites the “many” (faithful) in Eucharistic communion, so at a regional level, a “first” is needed to unite the “many” dioceses within a synod.
This fundamental principle remains accepted by all Orthodox Churches today. The Patriarchates, Autocephalous, and Autonomous Churches maintain a similar structure, with a “first” (Patriarch, Archbishop, or Metropolitan) presiding over the Synod of their respective Churches.
The central question that arises is this: how can the “one – many” model, which functions at the local and regional level, also be applied at a global scale?
In the Catholic Church, universal primacy—understood as the responsibility for maintaining the unity of the entire Church—has a strong theological foundation. However, in Orthodoxy, the issue is far more complex. The fundamental question remains: do the Orthodox Churches actually want a primacy that extends across the whole Church?
Logically, if primacy exists at the local and regional levels, it must also exist at the universal level. Otherwise, the absence of a unifying figure at the global level risks turning Orthodoxy into a loose federation of independent Churches, each developing a self-sufficient and sometimes self-referential identity. We see the consequences of this fragmentation today, where certain Orthodox Churches—rejecting the idea of a common primacy—have constructed nationalistic or ideological narratives that justify aggressive wars, demonize the West, or promote the supposed uniqueness of their own national Orthodoxy.
Another key aspect to consider is that, unlike in Catholicism, primacy in the Orthodox Church does not have an explicitly theological foundation. However, this does not mean that primacy lacks a theological explanation or canonical basis.
In the first millennium, the primacy of certain Churches was not dictated by secular power but was instead established through ecclesiastical legislation—particularly the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, which were recognized by all Churches. This means that primacy was always shaped by conciliar consensus, not by unilateral declarations or claims of authority.
Therefore, if some argue that the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has lost its significance—either because its historical context no longer applies or because it has weakened due to external circumstances (such as the fall of Byzantium)—then they must address two critical questions:
- Who, if not an Ecumenical Council, has the authority to redefine the “order” of primacy?
Since primacy in Orthodoxy has always been canonically defined, any attempt to alter it must come from a conciliar decision, not from unilateral claims by individual Churches.
- Can a Church claim primacy based solely on secular power or numerical superiority?
If primacy were to be redefined based on political influence or demographic strength, this would undermine the entire ecclesiological foundation of Orthodox unity. Historically, no single political entity has ever dictated the structure of the Orthodox Church, and no Orthodox primacy has ever been established through coercion or state dominance.
An even broader question emerges: is there today any political entity comparable to Byzantium that could serve as the unifying force for Orthodox Churches? Or have national states, with their competing interests, created an increasingly fragmented Christian world?
These questions are far too complex to be fully addressed within the limited scope of this text. However, an example of how primacy or presidency is exercised in the Church can be offered: the “first” must embody a consciousness of unity, a deep sense of ecclesial ministry and self-offering, and a spirit of understanding and cooperation with the “many.” Their leadership should not reinforce a “partial” identity—such as those shaped by national Orthodox Churches—but rather transcend such divisions, or call the Churches to do so, in order to express the universality of Christianity and the ecumenical nature of the ecclesial experience—the shared faith in the one and same Christ.
Therefore, the “horizontal” relationship of mutual understanding and cooperation among the local Churches must coexist with a “vertical” primacy exercised synodically—one that does not negate the ontological equality of the Churches but instead fosters unity and a shared witness to the Gospel. Structurally, this could take shape through a permanent Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, seated at the Phanar, with the participation of representatives from the other Orthodox Churches, including those from the diaspora. Such a body could facilitate inter-Orthodox dialogue on matters such as future autocephaly grants, liturgical renewal, and inter-Christian relations.
If the “first” Church, in accordance with canonical tradition, possesses specific privileges—such as coordination, presidency, and the right of appeal—these must always be exercised in consultation with the “many.” The ongoing institutional presence of Orthodoxy through the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as demonstrated by the Synaxes of the Orthodox Primates, could serve as a counterbalance to national-ecclesiastical narratives. It could act as a means of bridging differences, fostering greater cohesion, and emphasizing the universal character of Orthodoxy rather than reinforcing localized perspectives.
*Dr. Dimitrios Keramidas is a Dr of Theology and a Lecturer at St. Thomas Aquinas University (Angelicum) in Rome
Translated by: Konstantinos Menyktas
