Abstract (may include machine translation)
The main issues in Byzantine political theology have a theological grounding. The vision of
Novel 6 of Justinian offered a lasting formula for the relationship between the Emperor and the Church, different from the Western foundational text, the Letter of Pope Gelasius to Emperor Anastasius. The persistence of the formula can be seen even at the end of the fourteenth century in the strange letter of Patriarch Anthony IV to the Grand Prince of Moscow, defending the office of the emperor. In opposition to a large part of the scholarly literature, this essay attempts to offer reasons why the Byzantine emperor did not have a sacerdotal character and why he was no absolute ruler of the Church’s spiritual mission. Instead of the modern term “separation of powers”, the Byzantine idea was based on the division of offices and their inseparable conjugated role, implying a principled cooperation and symphony with eschatological implications. Hence, the Western conflict about investiture and its central allegory of the “two swords” did not emerge in the Byzantine discourse, albeit the Western debate was known in imperial circles. The two offices remained conjoined in the East. Therefore, there could be only one “sword”, as shown in the conflict between Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos and Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos. The role of Melchizedek cannot be used to justify the priestly role of the emperor.
Novel 6 of Justinian offered a lasting formula for the relationship between the Emperor and the Church, different from the Western foundational text, the Letter of Pope Gelasius to Emperor Anastasius. The persistence of the formula can be seen even at the end of the fourteenth century in the strange letter of Patriarch Anthony IV to the Grand Prince of Moscow, defending the office of the emperor. In opposition to a large part of the scholarly literature, this essay attempts to offer reasons why the Byzantine emperor did not have a sacerdotal character and why he was no absolute ruler of the Church’s spiritual mission. Instead of the modern term “separation of powers”, the Byzantine idea was based on the division of offices and their inseparable conjugated role, implying a principled cooperation and symphony with eschatological implications. Hence, the Western conflict about investiture and its central allegory of the “two swords” did not emerge in the Byzantine discourse, albeit the Western debate was known in imperial circles. The two offices remained conjoined in the East. Therefore, there could be only one “sword”, as shown in the conflict between Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos and Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos. The role of Melchizedek cannot be used to justify the priestly role of the emperor.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 23-59 |
Journal | Études byzantines et post-byzantines |
Volume | V |
Issue number | XII |
State | Published - 2023 |