Skip to main content
×
Home

Church and State in the Byzantine Empire: A Reconsideration of The Problem of Caesaropapism

  • Deno J. Geanakoplos (a1)
Abstract

In the medieval theocratic societies of both the Byzantine East and the Latin West, where the influence of Christian precepts so strongly pervaded all aspects of life, it was inevitable that the institutions of church and state, of sacerdotium and regnum to use the traditional Latin terms, be closely tied to one another. But whereas in the West, at least after the investiture conflict of the eleventh century, the pope managed to exert a strong political influence over secular rulers, notably the Holy Roman Emperor, in the East, from the very foundation of Constantinople in the fourth century, the Byzantine emperor seemed clearly to dominate over his chief ecclesiastical official, the patriarch.

Copyright
References
Hide All

1. The literature on the relationship of Byzantine emperor and church, especially on the specific question of the term Caesaropapism is inadequate. A few authorities who support the thesis of a more limited imperial control over the church are: Ostrogorsky G., “Relations between Church and State in Byzantium” (in Russian), Annales de l'institut Kondakov, IV (1931) 121ff.; Dvornik F., “Emperors, Popes, and General Councils,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, no. 6 (1951) 123; Baynes N., “The Byzantine State,” Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1955) esp. 51ff.; Barker E., Social and Political Thought in Byzantium (Oxford, 1957) 92; Ensslin W., “The Emperor and the Imperial Administration,” Byzantium: An Introduction to East Roman Civilizatian (Oxford, 1948) ed. Baynes and Moss, esp. 275ff.; Hussey J., The Byzantine World (London, 1957) 21 etc.; Ph. Sherrard, The Greek East and the Latin West: A Study in the Christian Tradition (London, 1959) 26, 91.Alivizatos A., “Caesaropapismus in den byzantinischen Kirchlichen Gesetzen und den Canones,” Acts of XI International Byzantine Congress 1958 (Munich, 1960) 1520. Examples of scholars supporting the view of absolute imperial control over the church are: Jugie M., Le Schisme byzantin (Paris, 1941) 10 (“Caesaropapism incontestably should bear the chief responsibility for the preparation of the schism.”); Ch. Diehl, Byzantium: Greatness and Decline (New Brunswick, 1957) 29 (“The emperor was as absolute and infallible in the spiritual as in the temporal sphere.”); Diomedes A., “Source and Extent of Imperial Power in Byzantium” (in Greek), Byzantina-Metabyzantina, I (1949) 3969 (“He ruled the church as he ruled the state consecrating bishops.”); Anastos M., “Political Theory in the Lives of the Slavonic Saints Constantine and Methodius,” Harvard Slavic Studies, II (Cambridge, 1954) 13 (“The emperor was supreme on earth … and prevailed even in the formulation of dogma.”); Anastos, “Church and State during the First Iconoclast Controversy 726–87” Ricerche di storia religiosa I, 2 4, Studi in onore di G. La Piana (1957) 279ff. Cf also Dölger F., Byz. Zeit., 43 (1950) 146f., 38 (1938) 240, 36 (1936) 145–57. Vasiliev A., History of the Byzantine Empire (Madison, 1952) 258 writes: “Leo III's view was the accepted Caesaropapistic view of the Byzantine Emperors.” And now Pilati G., Chiesa e stato nei primi quindici secoli (Rome, 1961) uses the term Caesaropapism, 60, etc.

2. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. Cross (London, 1957) under “Caesaropapism” says that the term means absolute control over all aspects of the church “including matters (e.g., doctrine) normally reserved to ecclesiastical authority.” This is the interpretation of the term as used in this study.

3. In Barker E., Social and Political Thought in Byzantium (Oxford, 1957) 92.

4. Ibid., 96. Also cf. the famous novel of Justinian (In Barker, 75) which likewise emphasizes the concord between the two powers. And see a letter of John II Comnenus to the pope on the division of spheres (in Lampros S., Neos Hellenomnemon [in Greek] XI [Athens, 1914] 109–11).

5. Not all critics agree about Ceruiarius' actual intentions; it is sometimes said, perhaps not quite accurately, that he aspired to be a Byzantine Hildebrand. On this see the qualifying remarks of Hussey J., Church and Learning in the Byzantine Empire (London, 1937) 152–57 and esp. Michel A., Humbert und Kerullarios (Paderborn, 19251930); also Bréhier L., La schisme orientale du XIe siècle (Paris, 1899) (old but still useful); and Bury, “Roman Emperors,” in Selected Essays (Cambridge, 1930) 210–14.

6. See below, text and note 69.

7. See below text and note 50. This seems to have been demanded by the patriarch first from the Monophysite-leaning Anastasius in the late sixth century. On the insistence of certain later patriarchs on the moral fitness of the emperor for his office see below text and notes 31, 32.

8. See Balsamon , “In canonem XVI Concilii Carthaginiensis,” ed. MPG, vol. 138, p. 93 (cited in this respect by A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 470). In another passage Balsa- mon (in Rhalles and Potlis, Syntagma of Divine and Holy Canons [in Greek], IV, 544–45), says that “the power and activity of the emperor concern body and souls while the power and activity of the patriarch concern only the soul”

9. Balsamon's conclusion is that since a bishop can order priests and monks to engage in certain secular work, so all the more can the emperor do so, as he can nominate bishops (Rhalles and Potlis, II, 229). But note again this does not here refer to dogma. Cf. Zonaras, op. cit., III, 336.

10. Horos is the Byzantine term for the decision of an ecumenical council regarding dogma. See Alivizatos H., The Holy Canons (in Greek) (Athens, 1949) 21.

11. See Bréhier L., Diet. d'histoire et geog. eccl., IX, cols. 160–61.

12. John of Euchaita of the eleventh century speaks of both emporor and patriarch as “Christio - the anointed of the Lord,” (MPG, vol. 120, cols. 1163, 1183). See title 3, pt. 1, of Epanagoge (Barker, op. cit., 91): “The patriarch is a living animate image of Christ.” For Vlastares see Rhalles and Potlis, VI, p. 428, who calls the patriarch the “living icon of Christ.” I cannot find this term used of the patriarch in the earlier canonists and its use during the later centuries may therefore be meaningful with respect to the imperial-patriarchal power relationship. Also see Balsamon in Rhalles and Potlis, III, 44–45.

13. Cf. Bury , Selected Essays, 120–21, and Ensslin, “The Emperor and Imperial Administration,” 280.

14. On “Caesaropapism” and the Roman Pontifex Maximus see esp. Ostrogorsky, “Relations between Church and State in Byzantium,” (in Russian) 122f. Cf. Sherrard, Greek East and Latin West, 91f. For bibl. on Eusebius see below, note 18.

15. Title used by Balsamon, e.g., in Rhalles and Potlis, III 44 (christos Kyriou).

16. See Eusebius' Triakontaeterikos, pt. 1, 197, 11. 1–3, and pt. 3, p. 201, 11. 19–21, in Werke Eusebius, I (Leipzig, 1902) ed. by I. A. Heikel.

17. This celebrated phrase of course has been variously interpreted. See Straub J., “Kaiser Konstantin als episkopos, ton ektos,” Studüa patristica, I (1957), 678–95. See also the recent work of Demetropoulos P., The Faith of the Ancient Church as Canon of Life and the World (in Greek) (Athens, 1959) 52.

18. For a fine summary of certain aspects of Eusebius' political thought see Baynes N., “Eusebius and the Christian Empire,” Annuaire de l'institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales, II (19331934) 1318. Cf. Sherrard Ph., Greek East and Latin West (London, 1959) 92ff. Much fuller is Schwartz E., Kaiser Constantin und die christliche Kirche, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1936); also Cranz F., “Kingdom and Polity in Eusebius of Caesarea,” Harvard Theological Review, 45 (1952) 4766, and bibl. p. 48. And now cf. Congar Y., After Nine Hundred Years (New York, 1959) 1417.

19. Dölger F., review in Byz. Zeit. (1931) 449 of Ostrogorsky, “Church and State,” says: “The power balance of church and state was regulated according to the personalities who faced each other at various times.” For the celebrated Western phrase “Vicar of Christ” there seems to be no exact equivalent in Greek. E. Kantorowicz's suggestion, in a lecture, of Christomimetes (“imitator of Christ”) is good but with not the same emphasis. The term commonly used on imperial Byzantine bulls, Pistos Basileus, is probably more or less equivalent to “Defender of the Faith.”

20. For a general account of these clashes (in English) see Bury J., Later Roman Empire (London, 1923) and Later Roman Empire, 1st ed. (London, 1889). Constantius imposed Arianism during his reign, Zeno for a time leaned toward Monophysitism, and Heraclius imposed Monothelitism as a solution, while Leo III issued his edict outlawing the icons in 730 and Constantine V and Leo V continued this iconoclasticpolicy.

21. Bury , Later Roman Empire, 403, notes cogently that Basiliscus by his Encyclical and Zeno by his Henoticon, virtually “assumed the functions of anecumenical council.”

22. Ostrogorsky G., “Relations between Church and State” (in Russian), IV (1933) 121ff. (cf. Dölger review, Byz. Zeit., 31 [1931] 449) cites artistic evidence to show that in the earlier period the emperor was portrayed as the priest-king Melchisedek, but later artists presented the emperor and patriarch standing side by side as Moses and Aaron.

23. Cf. Hussey J., The Byzantine World, 9092. Cf. Moss H. review, in Journal of Ecclesiastical History (1960) 114 who favors the view of imperial absolutism over the church.

24. See above notes 3–4.

25. Phrase is from Ph. Sherrard, Greek East and Latin West (London, 1955), 93.

26. On tradition (paradosis) see Gavin F., Some Aspects of Contemporary Greek Orthodox Thought (London, 1923) 2530 and esp. Ch. Androutsos , Dogmatike of the Orthodox Eastern Church (Athens, 1956) 7ff.

27. Gasquet A., De l'autorité impériale en, natiêre rekgieuse á Byzance (Paris, 1879). Sherrard , Greek East and Latin West, 92.

28. See Dölger review, Byz. Zeit. (1931) 449. It is of significance according to Ensslin “The Emperor and the Imperial Administration,” 255, that in the ceremonial of the tenth century both emperor and patriarch paid each other the tribute of formal proskynesis.

29. Constantine Porphyrogenitus De ceremoniis (Bonn ed.) pt. 1, pp. 564–66. Pseudo-Codinus, De officiis, agrees (PG., 156, col. 116.17). On the arbitrariness of the emperor's choice of patriarch, see Laurent V., “Le rituel de linvestiture du patriarch byz. au debut du XVe siécle,” in Bulletin Sect. Hist. Acad. Roum., 28 (1947) 218–32. Also, Dölger , Byz. Zeit. (1931) 449f.; 28 (1947) 218–32. Cf. Bréhier L., “L'investiture des patriarches de Constantinople au Moyen Age,” Studi e Testi, no. 3 (Rome, 1946) 368–72, who points out that “not a single patriarch was chosen except by the emperor's will.” (Yet witness the case of 1450, see note 33 below). Bréhier says that the imperial power of selection had been recognized by custom, if not by juridical act, since the ninth and tenth centuries.

30. See Barker, op. cit., 8. Emperor Anastasius in 495 had a synod of bishops depose the patriarch Euphemius (Charanis P.Church and State in the Later Roman Empire [Madison, 1939] 27.) There is no canon or canonist's opinion explicitly stating the emperor had the right to depose a patriarch.

31. On Photius see Dvornik F., The Photian Schism, History and Legend (Cambridge, 1948). On Nicholas Mysticus, see Ostrogorsky, Byzantine State, 230–31.

32. On Cerularius see above, note 5. On Arsenios see Geanakoplos , Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West (Cambridge, 1959) 235, 272, etc.

33. See Bréhier , Cambridge Medieval History, IV, 624 and Pears E., The Destruction of the Greek Empire (London-New York, 1903) 202. Under the influence of the anti-unionist George Scholarios, the synod deposed the patriarch Gregory. It used to be thought erroneously that he was replaced by the monk Athanasius. See Ch. Papaioannou , “The Praktika of the alleged final synod in St. Sophia,” in Eccesiastike Aletheia (in Greek) XV (1896); and Gennadios of Helioupolis , “Was there ever a Patriarch Athanasios II? Orthodoxia (in Greek), XVIII (1943) 117–23.

34. Also Balsamon in Rhalles and Potlis, Syntagma ton Hieron Canonon (in Greek) (Athens, 1852) II, 23 (“It is given to the emperor to accomplish changes of episcopal sees.”) We should mention here also the emperor's authority, in practice, to control ecclesiastical property. But though in this respect the emperor usually secured his aims, the church's opposition could at times be very strong. Note for example Nicephorus Phocas' edict of 964 (following the example of Romanus Lecapenus) issued in the aim of curbing the increase in ecclesiastical property. This had to be withdrawn, however.

35. In a recent lecture (yet unpublished) Professor G. Florovsky set forth the view, certainly correct, that modern Western scholarly views on Byzantine conciliar theory have been shaped far too much by the influence of the theories of the Western Conciliar movement-theories of course alien to the Byzantine East. (He also mantains that the ecumenical councils are to be considered as ad hoc events rather than institutions.) See also Stephanides, “The Last Stage in the Development of Church-State Relations in Byzantium,” Ep. Het. Byz. Spoudon (1953) 2740.

36. See Geanakoplos D., “The Council of Florence and the Problem of Union between Greek and Latin Churches,” Church History (1955) text and note 91. Also Gill J., The Council of Florence (Oxford, 1959), 288.

37. On the non-ecumenicity of Lyons for the Greeks, who considered it a “Robber Council,” see Geanakoplos , Emperor Michael, 263ff.

38. See Geanakoplos , “Council of Florence,” text and notes 2529.

39. E.g., the ecclesiastical tomos henoseos of a council in 920, signed by the emperor, became part of the law of the land. (Grumel V., Regestes des actes du patriarchat de Constantinople, II, Reg. 669).

40. See text and notes 11 to 15.

41. See esp. Bréhier L., “Hiereus kai Basileus” (title in Greek), Memorial L. Petit (Bucharest, 1948), 4145. A Gasquet, L'autorité impériale, 50–55, refers to the emperor's “sacerdotal” character with respect to these privileges. Also Mitard M., “be pouvoir imperial an temps de Leon VI, le Sage,” Mélanges Diehl, I (1930) 219: “in certain respects he was a sacerdotal personnage.” See Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis, I, 621–22.

42. On the cutting of a certain amount of hair from the head of the Porphyrogenitus in his infancy, a kind of tonsure or a sort of koura see Bréhier, loc. cit., 42–43. Source is De Ceremoniis, I, 621–22.

43. Monnier H., Les Novelles de Leon le Sage (Bordeaux, 1923) 211ff. Also Ostrogorsky, Byzantine State, 215–16.

44. Androutsos, Dogmatike (in Greek), 52. The sole significant difference between Orthodox and Catholics is the exact moment the miraculous transformation into Christ's body and blood takes place. Yet the Eastern church objects to the Western Scholastic differentiation between accidents and substance.

45. Rhalles and Potlis, II, 467.

46. Rhalles and Potlis, II, 467. Cf. Balsamon, Ibid., IV, 544, which refers to dikir (two candles) not trikir (three candles). Dikir symbolizes the dual nature of Christ, trikir refers to the Trinity.

47. Greek priests are not anointed at ordination, there being merely a laying on of hands and prayer. This constitutes a sacrament, however.

48. The most important recent, authoritative works on this controversial question are by Ostrogorsky G., “Zur Kaisersalbung und Schilderhebung im spätbyzantinischen Krönungszeremoniell,” Historia, IV (1955) 246–56 (cf. Ostrogorsky , Byzantine State, 380) and the earlier article of Ostrogorsky and Stein E., “Die Krönungsordnungen des Ceremomenbuches,” Byzantion, VII (1932) 200, which affirms unction formed no customary part of the Byzantine coronation ceremony until the 13th Century. Cf. Brightman F., “Byzantine Imperial Coronations,” Jl. of Theological Studies, II (1901) 383ff. See also the very recent work of Christophiopoulou C., Election, Proclamation and Coronation of the Byzantine Emperor (Athens, 1956). Cf. Runciman S., Byzantine Civilization (New York, 1933), 66, who says however, that it was the Palaeologan emperors who introduced the Western custom of anointment. On the Western custom of royal anointment see Schramm P., A history of the English Coronation (Oxford, 1937), Chap. 1.

49. See esp. Sichel W., “Das byzantinische Krönungrecht bis zum 10. Jahrhundert”, Byz. Zeit., VII (1898) 548 and Stephanides B., Ecclesiastical History (in Greek) (Athens, 1948) 138, note 1, who believes anointment began probably under Basil I. Cf. also Ensslin , “The Emperor and Imperial Administration”, 273. A passage of Balsamon, in Rhalles and Potlis, IV, 544–45, seems to speak of emperors and patriarchs being anointed already in the 12th century (“as the emperors are, so are the patriarchs great in the ability to teach through the power of the holy chrism”.) But this is doubtless a metaphorical use of the term, since it is certainly clear that the patriarchs were never anointed. Also Kantocowicz E., Laudes regiae (Berkeley, 1946) passim.

50. Charanis P., Church and State in the Later Roman Empire. The Religious Policy of Anastasius I (Madison, 1939) 12.

51. Ostrogorsky , Byzantine State, 260 (source, Leo the Deacon, Bonn ed., 98f.)

52. Ostrogorsky , Byzantine State, 56; Bury, “Constitution”, 118; Charanis , “The Crown Modiolus once More”, Byzantion, XIII (1938) 337–81.

53. When a Protestant is converted to Orthodoxy he is not rebaptized but given the chrism. Greek priests cannot perform all the sacraments: they cannot ordain priests and only bishops have the right to bless the chrism of baptism, though priests can administer it.

54. Rhalles and Potlis, II, 467. See Ensslin, loc. cit., 275.

55. The minor orders of the Greek church (cantor, reader, etc.) may be considered clerics of a lower type, but since they must receive the heirothesia which the emperor did not (he was of course anointed), the emperor cannot even in this sense be considered a cleric. It might be noted that in contrast to the heirothesia of the lower orders, the higher order of clergy—deacon, priest, bishop—receive the heirotonia which is a sacrament. However, Diehl, Byzantium: Greatness and Decline, 29, calls the emperor a priest. Stephanides, Ecclesiastical History, 138 (quoting Demetrius Chomatianos, from Rhalles and Potlis, V, 428ff.) says the emperor could do anything in the church except administer the actual sacraments (“plen monon tou hierourgein”). But cf. Baynes N., “The Byzantine State”, Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1955) 49, who says (referring to the earliest Byzantine emperors): “it took the Christian Emperor many a year to learn he was not a priest”.

56. I agree with Ostrogorsky, Byzantine State, 218: “However strongly imperial influence might exert itself on the ecclesiastical organization, the Emperor is still only a layman … and can be merely the protector, not the head of the church”.

57. M. Anastos, “Political Theory in the Lives of the Slavic Saints”, 13, says that “in general the emperors prevailed even in the formulation of dogma”.

58. On the peculiarly Byzantine concept of oikonomia there is little written. See now Alivizatos H., Oikonomia and the Canon Law of the Orthodox Church (in Greek) (Athens, 1949). Dvornik , The Rhotian Schism, 8, 24, etc. Langford J., A Dictionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church (London, 1923) 47ff.Runciman , Eastern Schism, 5, calls oikonomia “elasticity in the interests of the Christian community”. Alivizatos, op. cit., shows oikonomia was “a way out of the anomaly created by and proceeding from the imposition of extreme severity and precision in observance of canonical order”. (We might possibly compare oikonomia to the principle of equity in civil law.) Oikonomia is, we may say, the relaxing of disciplinary canons—regarding performance of the sacraments but not dogma—for the benefit of the community, See Gavin F., Some Aspects of Contemporary Greek Orthodox Thought (London, 1936) 292. The Byzantine historians Pachymeres (Bonn) 387, and Gregoras (Bonn) 127, imply that the ecclesiastics of Michael Palaeologus' reign, disturbed over his unionist policy, believed that oikonmia did not, however, apply where dogma was involved, but only with respect to church organization.

59. See Androutsos , Dogmatike, 294ff., and the interesting points of view in Sherrard Ph., Greek East, 54ff. Also Gavin , Orthodox Thought 272ff. On the sacraments, Gavin, 305–75. Dyobouniotes C., The Dogmatics of Androutsos reviewed (Athens, 1907) thinks that the lower orders are sacramentalia. On sacramentalia, see also Gavin, 305.

60. The Epanagoge (Barker, op. cit., 90) reads that the emperor must maintain all that is contained in the Scriptures and all set down by the seven ecumenical councils and at Byzantine law.

61. See Androutsos, Dogmatike, 314ff., Gavin , Orthodox Thought, 278ff. The first mention in the East of seven saccraments was by the monk Job in 1270, and by Michael Palaeologus at the Council of Lyons in 1274 (Androutsos, 314). Peter Lombard and Pope Alexander III apparently first enumerated seven in the West.

62. Bury , Later Roman Empire, II, 375, 393.

63. See Ostrogorsky G., “Les débuts de la Querelle des images”, Mélanges Diehl I (1930) 238ff. Previously the date was considered to be 726 (Diehl , “Leo III and the Isaurian Dynasty”, in Cambridge Medieval History, IV, 9).

64. See Anastos M., “Justinian's Despotic Control over the Church as Illustrated by his Edict on Theopaschite Formula and Letter to Pope John in 533”, in Zbor, Bad. Viz. Inst. 312 (= Mélanges Oskogorsky, II [1964] 111.). Also see Alivizatos H., “Les rapports de la legislation ecclésiastique de Justinien avec les canons do l'église, Atti del congresso internazionale di diritto romano, II (Rome, 1935) 79ff.

65. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, passim.

66. Ibid., 270 and 274, which also cites Metochites G., Historia Dogmatica, in A. Mai, Patrum Nova Bibliotheca, VIII (Rome, 1871) 38.

67. Ducas (Bonn), 254 and 275.

68. Cf. Bury , Later Roman Empire, 403, who says that Basiliscus' Encyclical and Zeno's Henoticon assert the imperial right to dictate to the church and pronounce on doctrine. (“They virtually assumed the functions of an ecumenical council”.) Niectas (Bonn), 275, complains that the emperors set themselves up as “definers of dogma”.

69. For the list of nine powers (all pertaining to administration of the church and control over its prelates, administratively speaking), see Laurent V., “Les droits de l'empereur en matière ecclésiastique. L'accord do 1380–82”, Revue des etudes byzantines (19541955) 520. Cf. this article with B. Stephanides, “The Last Stage of the Development of Church-State Relations in Byzantium”, (in Greek), Ep. Het. Byz. Spoudon (1953) 29.

70. On Michael's persecution of the monks, clergy, and people see Geanakoplos , Emperor Michael, 264–76.

71. See Gill J., The Council of Florence, 384–85. Also Tomadakes N., George Scholarios and his Political Ideas (in Greek) (Athens, 1954). In the Acta Graeca, ed. J. Gill, pt. 2, 433, Emperor John VIII is quoted as saying that the emperor must follow the council's decision in dogma because he feels the council cannot err. (The Acta Graeca was pro-unionist.)

72. See Bury . Later Roman Empire, II, 383ff. (On Justinian's edict over the Three Chapters). Also Ibid., 381–83 (on Justinian's edict in 543 against the Origenists, but here he was influenced by the attitude of many ecclesiastics). See also Alivizatos H., Die Kirchliche Gesetzgebung des Kaisers Justinian I (Berlin, 1913).

73. On Basiliscus see Bury , Later Roman Empire, I, 403. On the other attempts to influence dogmatic formulation, ibid., passim.

74. Gill , Council of Florence, 349ff. Source is Ducas, 216.

75. On this see Geanakoplos , “Council of Florence”, text and notes 7284.

76. See Alivizatos H., “The Conscience of the Church” (in Greek) (Athens, 1954). Also Tsankov S., The Eastern Orthodox Church, trans. Lowrie D. (London, 1929) 9092. He says the highest authority in the church is the community of the church, not the bishops alone nor the clergy nor the laity alone. “The real guardian of piety is the body of the church, the people itself”. Zernov N., Eastern Christendom (New York, 1961) 231: “The Council's decisions require endorsement by the whole community”. This question of the conscience of the church was perhaps first put forth by the Russian scholar Chomjakov A. S. in several studies including L'église latine et le Protestantisme au point de vue de; l'église d'Orient (Lausanne, 1872). Some modern Greek theologians subscribe to the theory (see above); others would place the final authority in the clergy as successors of Christ: cf. P. Trembelas, “The Laymen in the Orthodox Church”, (in Greek), Ecclesia (1930) 385ff. and later issues. Also cf. Dyobouniotes in his dogmatic work. See finally Kotsones Io., The Position of Laymen in the Ecclesiastical Organism (in Greek) (Athens, 1956).

77. Ducas (Bonn) 216. Also cf. Gill , Council of Florence, 349.

78. See Anastos M., “Justinian's Despotic control over the Church” 111.

79. In 1721 Peter established a kind of “Spiritual Department” or Holy Synod to replace the old patriarchate. Peter tells us that this was established because the simple folk could not distinguish the spiritual from the sovereign power, believing the spiritual authority higher than the temporal.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Church History
  • ISSN: 0009-6407
  • EISSN: 1755-2613
  • URL: /core/journals/church-history
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 24 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 263 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.