Council of Constantinople (1872)

The council pronounced anathema on phyletism, which means the idea that ecclesiastical jurisdictions should be delineated not on territorial but national lines.

During the Tanzimat period, the Ottoman Sultan officially assigned the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople the role of representing the Rum Millet.

[1] In particular, Bulgarian nationalists strongly opposed the situation within the patriarchy, where the vast majority of bishoprics were held by Greeks, especially in Bulgaria.

[1] Between 1858 and 1860, the Greek National Assembly convened to address some of the contentious issues related to the Rum Millet, but these efforts did not yield results.

[1] After having his demands rejected, Metropolitan Hilarion of Makariopolis decided to enter into schism; he ceased commemorating the Patriarch of Constantinople during the Easter celebration in 1860.

[1] In reality, the intervention of external political actors displeased the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which would have preferred the issue to be resolved within an Orthodox framework.

[1] In 1872, the Holy Synod of the patriarchate decided to make one final attempt to resolve the crisis by proposing the creation of a Bulgarian exarchate.

[...] We repress, blame, and condemn phyletism, i.e., distinctions of races, disputes, emulation, and national divisions within the Church of Jesus Christ, as opposed to the doctrine of the Gospel and the sacred canons of our blessed fathers who support the Holy Church and maintain in good order the Christian community they guide on the path of divine piety.

Therefore, we declare schismatic and alien to the Orthodox Church of Christ all those who have separated themselves from the Orthodox Church, who have set up a separate altar, and who have formed a phyletic assembly; i.e., [the prelates whose names follow].The council considered phyletism and racism as "racial aggregations", "new glories", and "modern corruptions".

[14][34][35] Phyletism is generally considered to have increased throughout the 20th century despite the condemnation by the council,[36][37][38] especially in the ecclesiastical management of Eastern Orthodox communities in the diaspora.