Theoretically, the structure of the Great Church (as the Greeks called the patriarchate, although the Great Church itself, Hagia Sophia, was no longer a Christian temple) did not change after the conquest. The Patriarch was still officially elected by the Holy Synod, consisting of his metropolitans, and the election was confirmed by the Sultan. Just as in Byzantine times, the secular ruler almost invariably pointed to the candidate whom he wanted to be elected; formally the old tradition of presenting him with three names, which in late Byzantium fell into disuse, was adopted. But the increase in the administrative duties of the patriarch inevitably led to changes. St. The Synod initially consisted only of metropolitans, although the highest patriarchal dignitaries probably also sometimes attended meetings. Soon after the conquest, they were officially added to them; There was a general increase in the constitutional importance of the Synod. He retained his right to depose the Patriarch by unanimous decision. In addition, patriarchal decisions were not valid if they did not have the support of the Holy Synod. The Patriarch became no more than its chairman. In theory, this was a revival of the democratic principles of the Church. In practice, this meant that even if a strong and popular patriarch did not encounter difficulties, then the patriarchal dignity could always be undermined. Although Turkish officials did not openly interfere in the internal affairs of the Church, they exerted all possible influence through intrigues with specific members of the synod. [263]

The highest dignitaries of the Great Church continued to bear the same titles as before the conquest and theoretically performed the same duties; But in practice, their responsibilities were expanded. Lawyers have now divided them into nine groups of five, known as pentads.

Previously, he was in charge of the patriarchal prison, and now he was responsible for church discipline. Shortly before the conquest, a sixth office was added to the first pentad, the protekdik, who was originally obliged to investigate and pronounce his judgment on all requests for justice and help brought before the patriarchal court, and after the conquest he became the chief judge. The great steward and the great sacellarius had a slightly higher position than their counterparts in the pentad. As a symbol of their special power, each of them carried a sacred banner during religious ceremonies.

In the second pentad, the protonotary and logothete assisted the chartophylax as his chief secretaries and keepers of the seal; Castrinsius acted as a personal assistant to the patriarch; the referendary carried out contacts between the patriarch and the secular authorities; The Ipomnimograph was the secretary of the Holy Synod, recording its sessions in the Patriarchal registers.

The rest of the pentads consisted of officials whose duties were purely ecclesiastical or purely liturgical. There were many other officials who were not given a place in the official lists of the pentads, but they were nonetheless important; This was especially true of the judges who worked in the premises of the protekdik and made decisions of secondary importance. All the main legal decisions were pronounced by the Patriarch at the sessions of the Holy Synod. [264]

Metropolitans and bishops had their own officials on the model of the patriarchal court. In the provinces, civil court cases were heard by the community, the dimogeronts. But cases of religious significance, such as marriages and inheritance, were heard in the bishop's court. In any case, there was a possibility of appeal to the patriarchal court. [265]

The most important difference that the new order brought to the patriarchal studies was that he was now engaged in a number of secular affairs. The Patriarch, as the head of the Orthodox Miletus, was to some extent the heir of the emperor. He was to become a politician capable of defending his people before the Sublime Porte, as the Sultan's government was now called. He had to use his religious authority to make sure that the Orthodox accepted the sultan's authority and refrained from disorder. Although he himself was not engaged in the collection of taxes, he had to answer to the sultan for the receipt of taxes. In addition, in practice, the new system introduced the Great Church into legal and financial activities to a much greater extent than it had been before. The patriarch not only had to have good financiers who would give him advice on raising taxes for the faithful and on all matters of spending, but also good lawyers versed in civil law. It was difficult and hardly very correct for the clergy to enter deeply into the study of civil law. Inevitably, the laity began to occupy administrative positions in the Church. In Byzantine times, the highest ecclesiastical positions were held only by clerics. It was now necessary to appoint secular judges, and they had to be given more power, because it was impossible to get the advice of a secular financier unless he held an official position. Lawyers were included in the lower pentads and gradually worked their way up to the highest positions. The first layman, the great Chartophylax, appeared in 1554, 101 years after the conquest, and the first layman, the great skeuophylax, ten years later. Until 1640, Protekdik was a priest, but until then almost all of his office was occupied by the laity. The laity had already begun to occupy other departments; Their influence increased. The office of the logothete, which from 1575 was often headed by laymen on an equal footing with priests, began to take over many of the duties previously performed by the great steward; in the seventeenth century, the logothete was called the great logothete and was part of the first pentad. The ecclesiarch, who was the first sacristan of the patriarchal church and was listed only in the eighth pentad, was usually a layman from the beginning of the seventeenth century and soon began to perform the functions of skeuophylax and bore the title of great ecclesiarch. A new supreme office, also occupied by the laity, appeared at the beginning of the sixteenth century, the great rhetorician, or official representative of the Great Church. These new or reformed offices owed their existence to the fact that they were considered "basiliki," royal, i.e., imperial, and the assistants of the patriarch in his role as ethnarch (head of the people) inherited the functions performed by the emperor. It is believed that the growing role of the laity in the Church was due to the influence of families from Trebizond, such as the Ypsilantis, who were resettled by the conquering sultan to Constantinople, for the Church of Trebizond used secular lawyers from a certain point. But, as the name "basilikos" indicates, this was an inevitable result of the expansion of patriarchal power. During the XVIII century, measures were taken to ensure that the power of metropolitans did not become weaker than the power of secular elders. [266] This developed further as the Ottoman Empire spread southward. During the 16th century, the sultan extended his possessions to Syria and Egypt, thus incorporating the lands of the Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem into the Empire. The Sublime Porte wanted the center to be in Constantinople – and the Great Church followed her wish. As a result, the Eastern Patriarchates were placed in an inferior position compared to Constantinople. The Eastern patriarchs theoretically did not lose any of their ecclesiastical rights or autonomy, and they continued to govern the Orthodox population within their thrones. But in practice it turned out that they could communicate with the Sublime Porte only through the intermediary of their Constantinople brother. When it happened that one of the patriarchal sees was vacant, it was the Patriarch of Constantinople who appealed to the sultan for permission to replace him; and since the sultan himself rarely showed interest in appointing a successor, it was easy for the Patriarch of Constantinople to secure the appointment of the candidate he considered suitable. The Eastern Patriarchates were comparatively poorer. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, despite the fact that his throne was the smallest, was the richest, because the glory of the Holy City attracted donations from all over the Orthodox world, and pilgrimages brought a steady income. The Patriarch of Antioch, whose residence since the Crusades had been Damascus, was the poorest and was heavily dependent on the Orthodox merchants of Syria, who were not always on good terms with the Greeks of Constantinople. The Patriarch of Alexandria was in a slightly better position, which was explained by the fact that a certain number of Greek merchants began to settle in Egypt after the Ottoman conquest. The Church of Cyprus retained its historical autonomy, but in fact during the Venetian rule on the island it depended on the support of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and even after the Turkish conquest, the influence of Constantinople remained paramount. The authority of the autonomous Archbishop of Sinai extended only to the monks of his monastery. [267]

The Slavic Orthodox Churches posed a big problem. It was usually convenient for the Turkish government to have them subordinate to Constantinople, although they retained their Slavic worship and customs. But at times the Turkish ministers dealing with Balkan affairs were forced to increase their autonomy. Until the eighteenth century, the patriarchate did not have a certain firm authority over them, and until then it had to fight against rising nationalism. The Russian Church was in a special position. It looked upon Constantinople with greater and more sincere respect than the Balkan Churches. But Russia was far away and enjoyed independence. It was inconceivable that a Russian ruler would allow his Church to be really dependent on a hierarch who was a servant of a non-Orthodox sultan. [268]

The structure of the hierarchy within the patriarchate remained the same as in Byzantine times; There were vicar archbishops who were directly subordinate to the patriarch, but usually there were metropolises dependent on the patriarch and bishops subordinate to the metropolitan. As in Byzantine times, bishops were elected by the priests of the diocese, the metropolitan by bishops, and the elections were approved by the patriarchate. Like Byzantine times, it was necessary to obtain the approval of the secular authorities. Representations were now made through the patriarchy of the Sublime Porte; The sultan issued a document known as a berat, by which the elected candidate was officially appointed to his see. In the case of bishops, these berats were usually simple documents that only announced the fact of election; But the berats, by which patriarchs and in some cases metropolitans were appointed, could contain not only the confirmation of certain rights of the throne, but also additional privileges or guarantees on the part of the secular authorities to protect the rights of the throne. For example, a berat issued to one of the Alexandrian patriarchs in the 18th century promises help against Roman Catholic propaganda in the provinces. Such berats are a certain historical evidence. Unfortunately, not many of them have survived. The earliest surviving one, which can be dated, appoints the Metropolitan of Larissa in 1604. It is possible that the rights and privileges mentioned in it were only ad personam, and that each newly appointed candidate was to be given a new berat. But the hierarch was given the same privileges as his predecessor, since he could be based on the berat in which they were listed. [269]

On the whole, at least in theory, the Orthodox Church of Constantinople withstood the blow of the Ottoman conquest better than could have been expected. Christians were not given the opportunity to forget that they were under the yoke. They could not build new churches without special permission, which was difficult to grant, except in cases where the intended site was in a purely Christian area. Permission had to be obtained for the restoration of churches; Not a single church could stand near Muslim shrines. Christians were required to wear clothes that differed from those of Muslims. With the exception of the patriarch, none of them could ride on horseback. No Christians were officially allowed to serve in the army, although in fact they were sometimes forcibly recruited to serve in the navy, and local Christian detachments, known as armatols, were formed in Christian areas. Christian families had to supply a forced tribute from their sons, who converted to Islam and joined the Janissary detachments. A Christian who had once converted to Islam, even if he was a child or a prisoner, was sentenced to death if he returned to his former faith. Every court case involving both a Christian and a Muslim was heard in a Muslim court according to the Koran; There were few Muslim judges who were ready to rule in favor of a non-believer. Finally, all the rights and privileges of Christians depended on the benevolence of the Sultan. Even firmans signed by the sultans, although it was customary for them to be based on those issued earlier, could be ignored. Court lawyers could declare that it was contrary to Muslim law and therefore became invalid. [270]

In spite of all this, in spite of the destruction and poverty that accompanied the fall of Constantinople, the Orthodox Miletus received a constitution that gave him the opportunity not only to exist, but also to increase his material well-being. The Greeks benefited from the city's revival that followed its conquest. At the time of the fall of Constantinople, its Greek population numbered no more than 50,000 people. Several thousand died during the siege and assault, several thousand were taken prisoner. But the conquering sultan not only left the Greeks a few quarters, but also encouraged the immigration of Greeks to the city. Sometimes immigration was forced. All the rich inhabitants of Trebizond were resettled in Constantinople. Others were resettled from Adrianople, others from, after the capture of the island in 1462; there is news of the resettlement of two thousand families from Argos. It is believed that by the middle of the 16th century, at least 30,000 Greek families lived in Constantinople. And if we assume that there were five or six people in each family – which may be a very small figure – the Greek population of the city increased to more than 150,000 and continued to grow; And in this business imperial capital, money capital was accumulating.

Many of the villages in the suburbs, especially on the European shores of the Bosphorus and the Sea of Marmara, were repopulated by Greeks. Some, such as Therapy or Yediköy, were almost exclusively Christian. [271]

The Sultan was wise enough to understand that the well-being of the Greeks would contribute to the well-being of the Empire. He wanted to provide them with a government that could provide for their needs without violating the privileges of the ruling Turkish race.

The constitution which he granted them was in force as long as they agreed to renounce political pretensions and to lead private lives within the limits they permitted. Meanwhile, their miletus was one, and they were guaranteed the freedom to worship. Indeed, in one respect they were treated better than could be expected. According to Muslim tradition, the Christians of the city taken by storm did not have the right to restore their churches. But in captured Constantinople they not only still owned the second largest church of St. Nicholas. Apostles, but also a number of churches in different parts of the city, especially in the Phanar and Petrion along the Golden Horn and in Psamathia on the Sea of Marmara. It seems that the rapid invasion of the Turkish army, which broke into the city, was seen as an act of voluntary surrender; therefore the churches were not confiscated. The Sultan had the tact to understand that if his Christian subjects were ready to accept his authority over them peacefully, they should leave the places of worship. [272]