O. N.
Izotova
Source: Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия
II: История. История Русской, 2019, Issue 91, pp. 11–27.
Abstract:
The article analyzes various aspects of patriarchal ministry in the collection
of letters of St. Theodore the Studite. St. Theodore’s statements about the
Pope of Rome and the four Eastern patriarchs are considered in light of various
scholarly opinions concerning St. Theodore’s role in affirming the primacy of
the Roman See and the system of the pentarchy. The view of St. Theodore as a
defender of the primacy of Rome proves to be unjustified, since neither the
addresses to the pope in the preambles of the letters nor the ornate praises
with which the Studite abbot honors him appear unique in comparison with St.
Theodore’s address to the other four patriarchs and with the traditional
designations of a patriarch in Byzantine epistolography in general. St. Theodore’s
special attention to the Roman and Jerusalem patriarchs also finds its
explanation in the historical context of the era: it was precisely from these
primates that St. Theodore could expect real help under conditions of
persecution by the iconoclast emperors. St. Theodore’s teaching on the
“five-headed (πεντακόρυφος) body of the Church” implies the special role
of the patriarchs, as heirs of the apostles, in resolving questions of faith.
The ministry of a patriarch is fundamentally distinct from the ministry of an
ordinary bishop, which St. Theodore understands above all in connection with
his flock and in the spirit of following the canons. The correction of a
patriarch who has fallen away from the faith is possible only through those
equal to him and is not subject to the will of the emperor or of all Orthodox
emperors. The college of patriarchs, the five heads of the Body of the Church,
constitutes an assembly independent of whose subjects they are in the earthly
dimension; its presence in the Church in fact guarantees the preservation of
the dogmas of the faith.
* * *
Despite the high level of development of epistolographic art
in the ancient and Byzantine world, and the large volume of preserved heritage
of this kind, [1] the letters of St. Theodore the Studite represent a very
remarkable phenomenon. This is one of the first collections at the end of the
so-called Dark Ages, a period of decline in Byzantine writing in general and
epistolography in particular. [2] In addition, as M. Mullett notes, it is
precisely the letters of the seventh–ninth centuries that may be called the
most “functional,” [3] that is, determined in their content directly by the
purpose of their composition and by the context of the era, rather than by an
exercise in rhetorical art, [4] which undoubtedly makes them a very useful
source for the study of this period.
The size of the collection also attracts attention. B. M.
Melioransky established, and this opinion is reproduced in Fatouros’s modern
critical edition, [5] that the collection originally numbered 1,124 letters.
This number is obtained by adding to manuscript Paris. 894 one further book
that has not come down to us: [6] one of the vitae of the venerable one, the
earliest of those preserved, the so-called Life B, [7] mentions five books of
the collection. Approximately half has survived—557 letters. [8]
The letters of St. Theodore often become a source in studies
on the history, canonical and doctrinal disputes of that time, the structure of
ecclesiastical administration, and monastic life. [9] Moreover, one may note
scholars’ special attention to St. Theodore’s statements about the Roman See,
as well as the fact that his name is not infrequently mentioned in connection
with the study of the system of the pentarchy. [10] Both of these points will
be considered in the present article within the framework of an analysis of
various aspects of patriarchal ministry in the letters of St. Theodore the
Studite.
The “Functionality” of the
Letters of St. Theodore the Studite
The above-mentioned statement by M. Mullett concerning the
“functionality” of the letters of St. Theodore stands in a certain
contradiction to the opinion of A. P. Dobroklonsky, the author of the classic
pre-revolutionary monograph on the Studite abbot, expressed with regard to a
point directly touching upon the subject of our study. For him, the epithets
used in relation to the Roman popes are merely a tribute to the tradition of
Byzantine epistolography. [11]
Dobroklonsky’s opinion makes one reflect on the extent to
which the praises expressed by him in his letters for the Roman,
Constantinopolitan, or Eastern patriarchs in general are an adequate expression
of the Studite abbot’s real concepts of patriarchal ministry. If these are
merely rhetorical embellishments, then they are of use to researchers rather as
examples from the history of language and etiquette.
It is perhaps impossible to answer the question of the
adequacy of the Byzantine letter to historical reality in a wholly negative
way. One should recall the approach of V. A. Smetanin, who distinguishes in a
letter, alongside the concrete information contained in it, a so-called
rhetorical formulary, not entirely comprehensible to modern readers and
containing hidden information. [12] This rhetorical part could have been taken
by the author of the letter from earlier epistolographers. After all, St.
Theodore the Studite himself, as G. Fatouros established and clearly
demonstrated, [13] widely used in his letters material from the letters of St.
Basil the Great, his favorite ancient writer. [14]
In the time of St. Theodore, and all the more in late
Byzantium, such imitation was a rule of good style in the writing of a letter.
[15] It served as a means of expressiveness and could be used throughout the
whole text; however, it was present to the greatest degree in the proemium, the
preamble of the letter, that is, in a certain sense, its most official part.
[16] In the event that a letter was addressed to so exalted a recipient as the
holder of a patriarchal throne, one should expect from the proemium the maximum
adherence to a hypothetical template. St. Theodore has letters addressed to the
Pope of Rome, to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and to the Eastern
patriarchs, which he begins with a set of forms of address that place the
correspondent quite highly. Selecting one of them, let us compare the
introduction to the letter with the preambles of epistles to patriarchs
belonging to other epochs of Byzantine history.
For comparison, let us take letters to the Roman and
Constantinopolitan patriarchs composed in the sixth century, which we have
taken from the third volume of the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils
edited by E. Schwartz, and an address to a patriarch from a thirteenth-century
model preserved in a collection of formularies created in Cyprus, under the
title “Letter to Some Patriarch,” that is, “to whichever patriarch you wish” (epistolē
pros patriarchēn, hoion theleis). [17]
|
Source
|
Address translated
|
|
Address to Patriarch John II
of Constantinople by the bishops of Second Syria, 519
|
To our master John, in all
things most holy and most blessed, father of fathers, archbishop and
ecumenical patriarch.
|
|
Address to Pope Agapitus from
the letter of the Eastern and Palestinian bishops in the acts of the Council
of Constantinople, 536
|
To our master Agapitus, in all
things most holy and most blessed, father of fathers, archbishop of Rome and
patriarch. [18]
|
|
Address to Pope Leo III from a
letter of St. Theodore the Studite, no. 33
|
To the most holy and most
preeminent father of fathers, Leo, my apostolic master. [19]
|
|
Address to the Patriarch of
Constantinople from the collection of Cypriot letters and acts
|
To the all-holy father of
fathers and head of all the patriarchal thrones, great hierarch and receiver
of the Orthodox faith of the Christians, and to me, in the Lord, master and
father and ecumenical patriarch. [20]
|
One can easily see that in the earlier letters the form of
address to the primates of different patriarchal thrones is of the same type,
and although in the later example this address becomes much more ornate,
certain constant elements may be observed. Letters from different epochs are
addressed to the “father of fathers (πατρὶ πατέρων),” “most holy (ἁγιωτάτῳ),”
“master (δεσπότῃ).” The Patriarch of Constantinople, both in the sixth and in
the thirteenth century, bears the title “ecumenical (οἰκουμενικός),” while the
fact that St. Theodore calls the Pope of Rome “most preeminent (κορυφαιότατος)”
has a parallel in a later letter, now with reference to the Patriarch of
Constantinople: he is called “head of all the patriarchal thrones (κορυφαίῳ τῶν
πατριαρχικῶν ἁπάντων θρόνων).” [21] As to the direct meaning of such titles,
there exists a whole spectrum of scholarly opinions: from their complete lack
of substantive content to an understanding of them as markers of social changes
in society. [22] While accepting in our study M. Mullett’s opinion that the
content of St. Theodore’s letters as a whole objectively reflects his
ecclesiology, we shall nevertheless acknowledge a certain formality in the
preambles of the letters, greater in comparison with their main content,
without, however, depriving the titles used by the venerable one of their
meaning.
The Correspondence of St.
Theodore the Studite with the Pope of Rome in 809
The Primacy of the Pope in St.
Theodore
In 809 a council took place in Constantinople at which the
full rehabilitation of Joseph of Kathara was confirmed; he had once celebrated
the second marriage of Constantine VI, which many contemporaries regarded as
unlawful. [23] St. Theodore, a fervent opponent of this decision, sent two
letters one after the other to Pope Leo III of Rome. [24] The purpose of St.
Theodore’s appeal, and that of his uncle St. Plato, whose name also appears in
the superscription of the second letter, to the Roman hierarch was to inform
him about the council that had taken place and to obtain the pope’s protection
in the situation that had arisen. From St. Theodore’s point of view, the pope
is the person to whom, as the successor (διάδοχος) of the Apostle Peter,
it is necessary to report any departure from Tradition in the Catholic Church (καινοτομούμενον
ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ). [25] The addressee is called “the most divine
head of all heads” (ἡ θειοτάτη τῶν ὅλων κεφαλῶν κεφαλή); in both letters
there is mention of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, or the keys of the
Gospel, granted to the Apostle Peter or directly to the pope. [26] Concerning
the participants of the council that restored Joseph to communion, the Studite
abbot remarks that, according to the ancient custom (τὸ ἄνωθεν κεκρατηκὸς ἔθος),
they could not have assembled even for an Orthodox council without notifying
the pope. [27]
In the same spirit are constructed the forms of address to
the pope in the superscriptions of both letters, which we have already partly
mentioned in the preceding subsection. They are addressed to the “most holy and
most preeminent father of fathers” (τῷ ἁγιωτάτῳ καὶ κορυφαιοτάτῳ πατρὶ
πατέρων), the apostolic pope (ἀποστολικῷ πάπᾳ), and the “angel-like,
most blessed, and apostolic father of fathers” (τῷ ἰσαγγέλῳ μακαριωτάτῳ καὶ ἀποστολικῷ
πατρὶ πατέρων). [28]
Even taking into account that the latter epithets, as we
have already seen, are merely official forms of address, the foregoing may seem
quite sufficient to convince one that St. Theodore represents an example of
such an Eastern Father of the Church upon whose ecclesiology the Catholic
doctrine of papal infallibility could later be based. These are precisely the
conclusions reached at the beginning of the twentieth century by S. Salaville:
from his point of view, St. Theodore’s teaching on the pope, his position in
the Church, and his jurisdiction is in all respects in agreement with the
decisions of the First Vatican Council and has nothing in common with the
theory of the pentarchy. [29] At approximately the same time, Orthodox scholars
were practically forced to justify themselves when encountering such
expressions in St. Theodore: Archpriest N. Grossu believed that the words used
by St. Theodore in relation to the popes were not mere courtesy, but evidence
of his recognition of a primacy of honor; [30] while A. P. Dobroklonsky, as has
already been said, found in these ornate doxologies only rhetorical
embellishments.
In later studies we encounter a more nuanced interpretation
of the indicated passages and close attention to the general tone of the
collection of letters. The famous German Byzantinist F. R. Gahbauer read the
letters of St. Theodore with the aim of studying the development of the theory
of the pentarchy, the position in the Church of all five patriarchs, and not
only that of Rome. This inevitably led to the fact that the focus of attention
was placed not only on the words addressed to the Roman primates, but also on
those addressed to the other patriarchs. St. Nikephoros of Constantinople, St.
Theodore’s opponent for many years, in the years of their common confession,
821, was deemed worthy of the address “divine and supreme summit of the sacred
heads” (ἡ θεία καὶ κορυφαία τῶν ἱερῶν κεφαλῶν ἀκρότης), and the
Patriarch of Jerusalem, for St. Theodore, is “first of the patriarchs, although
fifth in order” (πρῶτος πατριαρχῶν, κἂν πεντάζοις τῷ ἀριθμῷ). [31] Thus,
the exalted words with respect to the pope become merely a tribute to the
difference in position between the addressee of the letters, the Roman primate,
and the one who wrote them, a very authoritative figure, but only an abbot.
[32]
However, being a clergyman of the Catholic Church, Gahbauer
nevertheless seeks to find in the theory of the pentarchy of St. Theodore, as
he reconstructs it, exceptional powers belonging to the pope. A letter sent by
St. Theodore in 821 to Emperor Michael II, who had just ascended the throne,
contains an appeal to enter into communion “with the supreme one among the
Churches of God, Rome, and through her with the three patriarchs” (τῇ κορυφῇ
τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ Ῥώμῃ καὶ δι’ αὐτῆς τοὺς τρισὶ πατριάρχαις). [33] The
Studite abbot expects, following this letter, quite definite actions from the
emperor: his confession of the veneration of icons and, on that basis, the
beginning of negotiations with the Pope of Rome. Gahbauer, however, interprets
St. Theodore’s words as a description of the universal path of union with the
Body of the Church, which is accomplished through the visible head of this
Body, the Roman hierarch. [34]
St. Theodore’s intention to achieve reconciliation at that
moment also finds expression in a collective letter of icon-venerating bishops
and abbots to the emperor, where the Roman Church is again called “the most
preeminent of the Churches of God” (ἡ κορυφαιοτάτη τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ),
and the Apostle Peter is called its primate (πρωτόθρονος); its
explanation (διασάφησις) the emperor must accept according to the
“ancient, original, patristically transmitted tradition” (ἄνωθέν τε καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς
πατροπαραδότως ἐξεδόθη). [35] In harmony with these two statements is yet
another, earlier statement, from 819, from a catechetical letter of St.
Theodore. Here he speaks of the iconoclasts who, being in separation from the
head (κορυφαῖος) and the three patriarchs, are thereby separated also
from Christ, the Head of all the aforementioned primates. [36] Gahbauer also
cites this letter, yet not in support of the idea that the Head of the college
of patriarchs, and therefore of the Body of the Church, is Christ, but in the
sense of His correspondence, as invisible Head, to the visible head—the Roman
pontiff.
Also interesting is the observation of P. Karlin-Hayter: in
calling the pope the heir of Peter, St. Theodore is not so much concerned with
the status of the Roman See as he is legitimizing his own appeal to the pope.
[37] In addition, in the same work there are noted St. Theodore’s rather
unflattering words, spoken by him in a letter to a third party about the Pope
of Rome during the years of the same Moechian conflict: “But as for the pope,
what concern is it of ours whether he acts thus or otherwise?” (Περὶ δὲ τοῦ
πάπα, τίς ἡμῖν λόγος οὕτως πράσσοντος ἢ ἐκεῖνο). [38] This unexpected
phrase contrasts sharply with St. Theodore’s words about the pope as the
guarantor of the legitimacy of a council, the source of explanations on the
faith for the emperor, and the holder of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Letters to the Five Patriarchs
from Exile
The Pentarchy in St. Theodore
The appeal of St. Theodore the Studite to all four
patriarchs who were on their thrones at that moment is dated to 817–818. [39]
This is an entire series of letters belonging to his most fruitful period in
terms of letter-writing. [40] In connection with Emperor Leo V’s turn toward an
iconoclastic policy, the deposition of Patriarch Nikephoros, and then the exile
of the Studite abbot himself, which continued for a total of five years and
eight months, [41] he needed to unite and strengthen the ranks of his supporters,
including by means of written appeals to them, and to seek help in the critical
situation that had arisen in the Byzantine Church. The conditions of St.
Theodore’s imprisonment became considerably harsher in the winter of 817–818,
[42] and if the first letter to Pope Paschal could have been written before
this happened, the letters to the Eastern patriarchs already belong to 818.
Thus, on the one hand, we see that St. Theodore’s firmness
in confessing the veneration of icons was not shaken by the emperor’s pressure;
on the other hand, we may suppose that the attempt to appeal to the patriarchs
was a kind of gesture of desperation: seeing that the situation in the East was
not changing, he resorted to their intercession as a last resort. It is
interesting that St. Theodore does not know the name of any of the patriarchs
and uses only the title in addressing them. [43] Perhaps this ignorance is
present only because of the conditions of imprisonment and the uncertain
delivery times, [44] but it gives the series of “patriarchal” letters a certain
degree of abstractness, as an appeal to the college of patriarchs as a whole.
No separate letter was composed to the Patriarch of Antioch, but the marginalia
of one of the manuscripts of the collection of letters state that a copy of the
letter to the Patriarch of Alexandria was also sent to Antioch. [45]
The correspondence with the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch
of Jerusalem continued, since St. Theodore received a reply from them. The
second letter to the pope was sent soon afterward, in the same year 817, while
the second epistle to Jerusalem is dated indeterminately, 821–826. [46] The
letters open with addresses to St. Theodore’s high correspondents, similar to
those we have already seen in the letter to Pope Leo. For clarity, they too may
be compared in a table:
|
Letter
|
Address translated
|
|
Letter 271 to the Pope of Rome
|
To the in all things most
holy, great luminary, first hierarch, our lord and master, the apostolic
pope. [47]
|
|
Letter 272 to Pope Paschal
|
To the all-holy father,
ecumenical chief luminary, our lord and apostolic master, the pope. [48]
|
|
Letter 275 to the Patriarch of
Alexandria, also sent to Antioch
|
To the in all things most holy
father of fathers, luminary of luminaries, my most blessed lord and master,
Pope of Alexandria. [49]
|
|
Letter 276 to the Patriarch of
Jerusalem
|
To the in all things most holy
father of fathers, luminary of luminaries, my lord and master, Patriarch of
Jerusalem. [50]
|
As we see, the addresses to the Eastern patriarchs coincide
almost completely, and the superscription of the letter to the pope is also
very similar to them, except that he is called the “first hierarch” (ἀρχιερεῖ
πρωτίστῳ) and not the “luminary of luminaries” (φωστῆρι φωστήρων),
as are the Eastern patriarchs, but the “ecumenical luminary” (φωστῆρι οἰκουμενικῷ).
One may attach significance to this, or one may ascribe the difference in
titulature to rhetorical embellishments. In the second case, however, the word οἰκουμενικός
is present, a title which is associated to a greater extent with the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. [51] But St. Theodore calls Nikephoros of
Constantinople ecumenical only once, in a letter whose purpose was to convince
the recipient of the patriarch’s legitimacy after the end of the Moechian
schism. [52]
As for the main text of the letters, St. Theodore writes the
following concerning the position of the patriarchal sees. Pope Paschal is the
“apostolic head” (ἀποστολικὴ κάρα), the “key-holder of the Heavenly
Kingdom” (κλειδοῦχος τῆς οὐρανῶν βασιλείας), the “rock of faith, upon
which the Catholic Church has been built” (πέτρα τῆς πίστεως, ἐφ’ ᾗ ᾠκοδόμηται
ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία), “Peter himself, adorning the throne of Peter” (Πέτρος
γὰρ σύ, τὸν Πέτρου θρόνον κοσμῶν), [53] and the “successor of the chief of
the apostles” (διάδοχος τοῦ τῶν ἀποστόλων κορυφαίου). [54]
The Pope of Alexandria is the “apostolic summit” (ἀποστολικὴ
κορυφή), while the Patriarch of Constantinople is mentioned in the letter
to the Alexandrian primate as “our sacred head, equal in rank to thy
perfection” (ἡ ἱερὰ ἡμῶν κεφαλὴ καὶ ὁμοταγὴς τῇ τελειότητί σου). [55]
The Patriarch of Jerusalem is the “apostolic, most blessed
summit” (ἀποστολικὴ μακαριωτάτη κορυφή), and, as was already mentioned
at the beginning of the article, “first of the patriarchs, although fifth in
order,” since he governs the Church in the region where the earthly life of the
Lord Jesus Christ took place. He is called to become, for St. Theodore and his
companions, one of the twelve apostles. [56] In the second letter, St. Theodore
addresses the head of the Church of Jerusalem as one “presiding upon the
apostolic throne and representing, by lawful succession, the person of the
Brother of God” (τῷ ἀποστολικῷ βαθμῷ ὑπερανεστῶτες καὶ τὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοθέου δι’
ἐννόμου διαδοχῆς ἐπέχοντες πρόσωπον). [57] Nikephoros is called in the
letter to Jerusalem “our most preeminent hierarch” (κορυφαιοτάτου ἡμῶν ἀρχιερέως).
[58]
As we see, none of the patriarchs becomes someone
fundamentally different from the others. Even the title “κορυφαιότατος” or
“κορυφαῖος,” as well as “πρῶτος” or “πρώτιστος,” is not a prerogative of the
Pope of Rome and may be applied to any of the primates. At the same time, St.
Theodore’s attention to the Roman and Jerusalem hierarchs is evident. The
letters to them are much more florid and contain brief historical excursuses.
It was not difficult to notice that St. Theodore calls all the patriarchs
“apostolic,” but only Pope Paschal and Patriarch Thomas are designated as
successors of concrete apostles, those whom St. Theodore considers the first
bishops of these cities—Peter and James. Both of them are, each in his own way,
first in the college of patriarchs. To arrange the apostles according to some
rank was not at all St. Theodore’s aim or concern. To be convinced of this, it
is enough to read his letter to his spiritual child Hypatios, composed at the
end of 816, that is, shortly before the appeal to Pope Paschal: “Who among the
apostles is greater than Peter and John? But John allows Peter to speak
publicly, and Peter is silent when Paul speaks. Not so that someone might seize
the primacy (τὸ πρωτεῖον), but so that there might be benefit and order
preserved.” [59]
In addition, when analyzing the letters to Rome and to
Jerusalem, one should recall O. Keenan’s observation that it would be incorrect
to consider the pentarchy outside its historical context. [60] St. Theodore is
seeking real help in the danger to which the Orthodox faith is being subjected,
and to which he himself and the people for whom he was in fact the head and
symbol of resistance to the iconoclasts are being subjected. From whom can this
help come? First of all from the Pope of Rome, who is in an immeasurably better
position compared with the Eastern patriarchs, whose position under Muslim rule
was indeed very inconvenient for taking part in disputes of Church-wide scale.
At the same time, among the most important Eastern Churches,
the Church of Jerusalem shows itself to be the most active in the Iconoclastic
controversy. The first, and to this day the best-known, apology for the icon
consisted of texts written in the Church of Jerusalem: the Three Treatises
in Defense of the Veneration of Icons. Among the documents that figured at
the Seventh Ecumenical Council was a letter of Patriarch Theodore of Jerusalem,
also devoted to the defense of icons. St. Michael Synkellos of Jerusalem
confessed the veneration of icons before the emperor as an envoy of his
patriarch. [61] The well-known epistle of the Eastern patriarchs addressed to
Emperor Theophilos in 836 was likewise composed in Jerusalem. [62]
Of course, the life of the Church of Jerusalem at this time
remained very difficult. St. Theophanes the Confessor, in his Chronography,
speaks of the devastation of the monasteries of Palestine precisely on the eve
of the renewal of Iconoclasm in Byzantium. [63] In addition, there was already
a tendency for the patriarchate to shift to the Arabic language, which would
later make communication with Byzantine co-believers difficult. [64]
Nevertheless, in St. Theodore’s consciousness the Church of Jerusalem was still
an important participant in the dispute over the faith, as is confirmed by the
events and texts just enumerated. In calling the Patriarch of Jerusalem first,
St. Theodore reflects not only the history of the patriarchate, but also its
significance in the Christian world at the moment of the Studite abbot’s appeal
to the Jerusalem primate.
An interesting, though indirect, testimony in favor of such
an interpretation of St. Theodore’s words is contained in the last of his
ancient vitae, the so-called Life A. This vita is the fourth redaction of the
account of his life and struggles, created by the political figure and writer
of the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Theodore Daphnopates. Having at his
disposal the text of an already existing vita, and being familiar with the
collection of St. Theodore’s letters, Daphnopates inserts into his work a
mention of the saint’s appeal to the four patriarchs. This deed attracted the
attention of the hagiographer, an educated and high-ranking man who lived a
century later than his hero, as something worthy of notice. The Patriarch of
Jerusalem stands in Theodore Daphnopates’s list in second place after the Pope
of Rome, [65] which, as we see, is determined by the real role of this primate
in the current situation.
Several years after the epistles to the four patriarchs had
been sent, St. Theodore described the authority of the five patriarchs in a
letter to the sakellarios Leo. St. Theodore calls this authority five-headed (πεντακόρυφον
κράτος). [66] The word πεντακόρυφος, invented by St. Theodore to set
forth his ecclesiology as early as 819, is used twice in the collection of
letters in combination with the noun σῶμα. [67] Here St. Theodore speaks
of the five-headed Body of the Church, from which the iconoclasts have fallen
away. This image created by St. Theodore speaks most vividly of his
understanding of the pentarchy: the patriarchs, indispensable members of this
Body, head it. In the letter to the sakellarios Leo, the primates of the five
sees are listed in the more customary order, as this is done in Justinian’s
Novels, [68] beginning with Rome and ending with Jerusalem. [69]
The Patriarch as “Father of
Fathers”
The letter to Leo the sakellarios [imperial
treasurer], to which we have just turned, was written by St. Theodore in order
to explain to the addressee how the disputed question concerning the faith,
which the emperors were attempting to establish by their own authority, ought
to be resolved. It became something like a small treatise on the role in the
Church of the five patriarchs. [70] Besides introducing here the concept of the
five-headed Body of the Church, St. Theodore also explains in detail the functions
of the patriarchs.
St. Theodore here contrasts the authority of the patriarchs
with imperial authority, which judges concerning worldly matters. The
patriarchs are successors (διάδοχοι) of the apostles, from whom they
inherit the authority to bind and loose (Matt. 18:18). The patriarchs render
judgment concerning divine dogmas (παρὰ τούτοις τὸ τῶν θείων δογμάτων
κριτήριον).
Without the unanimity of the five patriarchs (ὁμονοούντων
τῶν πέντε πατριαρχῶν), a council discussing matters of doctrine is
impossible. [71] If the Eastern patriarchs are unable to be present at the
council, then, along with the lawful Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope of
Rome must be present at the council. In such a case, the authority of the
council will be confirmed (ᾧ τὸ κράτος ἀναφέρεται τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου),
that is, such a council will be legitimate. [72] A patriarch who has departed
from the faith—St. Theodore hypothetically proposes St. Nikephoros in this
capacity, whose faith, that is, the veneration of icons, the reigning Emperor
Michael II considers a heresy—must be corrected by the other patriarchs equal
to him (ὑπὸ ὧν ὁμοταγῶν), even if all the Orthodox emperors are against
him (πάντες οἱ ὀρθοδοξήσαντες βασιλεῖς).
Just as in the epistle to Leo the sakellarios,
patriarchal authority is considered in opposition to imperial authority in the
letter sent to Emperor Nikephoros I concerning the election of the patriarch in
806. St. Theodore expresses the hope for the election of a primate
corresponding to the virtue of the imperial office (κατὰ τὴν βασιλείαν ἀρετῆς),
fearing the unworthiness of the priesthood (ἱερωσύνη) in the event of an
incorrect choice of candidate for the patriarchal throne, [73] that is, he
applies the famous theory of the symphony of priesthood and imperial authority
of Justinian the Great [74] directly to the emperor and the patriarch. Let us
also note that the patriarch is always mentioned separately from the bishops
subordinate to him in cases where St. Theodore describes persecution against
the ecclesiastical community. Such an example may be found in the already
examined letter to Pope Paschal, or in the letter to the Augusta Theodosia, the
widow of Leo the Armenian. [75]
The ministry of an ordinary bishop is also described in
detail by St. Theodore and receives from him numerous praises on account of its
loftiness and difficulty. [76] St. Theodore reveals the role of the bishop
above all through the governance of a diverse flock, consisting of laypeople of
both sexes, of various professions and social positions, monastics, and clergy.
The bishop is the overseer (ἔφορος) of his flock, responsible (ὑπεύθυνος)
for its actions, an image (μίμημα) of Christ for it, a luminary (φωστήρ)
exposing its sins, a messenger (ἄγγελος) of God’s commandments, and the
greatest steward (οἰκονόμος μέγιστος), who must render an account for
it. [77]
A council of bishops, in St. Theodore’s opinion, is called
to “bind and loose” in the examination and preservation of the canons (ἐν τῷ
ἐρευνᾶν καὶ φυλακτικῷ τῶν κανόνων καὶ τὸ δεσμεῖν καὶ λύειν), for hierarchs
[78] have not been given authority to transgress the canons in any respect (ἐξουσία
τοῖς ἱεράρχαις ἐν οὐδενὶ δέδοται ἐπὶ πάσῃ παραβάσει κανόνος). [79] Although
St. Theodore applies these unflattering remarks to the council of fifteen
bishops so disagreeable to him, which for the first time, still under St.
Nikephoros, restored Joseph of Kathara to ministry, while, by contrast, he
writes very sympathetically about the authority of a council at which the
veneration of icons might be restored, one senses a substantial difference
between a council at which only St. Nikephoros is present and internal affairs
of the Church of Constantinople are decided, and a council at which the college
of patriarchs assembles and dogmas of the faith are discussed.
Very consonant with this are those standard addresses to
patriarchs which, as we have seen, St. Theodore uses, beginning his letters to
them with the words “father of fathers” (πατρὶ πατέρων) and “luminary of
luminaries” (φωστῆρι φωστήρων). They reflect the real position of the
patriarchs in relation to the rest of the episcopate.
It is precisely the patriarchs who are the heirs of the
apostles; in St. Theodore’s description, they are apostolic heads (ἀποστολικὴ
κάρα, ἀποστολικὴ κορυφή). This inheritance, as was said at the beginning of
this section, concerns authority in questions of doctrine, and also has its
historical dimension: St. Theodore describes the position of the Roman and
Jerusalem primates by turning to the tradition concerning the apostles who
founded these thrones, the Apostle Peter, the head of the apostles (τῶν ἀποστόλων
κορυφαῖος), the “key-holder of the Heavenly Kingdom” (κλειδοῦχος τῆς οὐρανῶν
βασιλείας), and the Apostle James, representing the person of the Brother
of God (τὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοθέου… ἐπέχοντες πρόσωπον). All these lofty words
refer not so much to the patriarchs themselves as directly to these apostles,
thus confirming the primacy of honor of one see or another. In this same key
one may also understand the designation of the Roman Church as the supreme one
among the Churches of God (κορυφῇ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ), or recall
that a similar title could at different times be applied to the patriarch
presiding in one or another independent Church.
Thus, the two dozen letters from the epistolographic
collection of St. Theodore the Studite to which we have turned in the present
article reveal their author’s understanding of patriarchal ministry as
something entirely special within the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In fact, only
the college of patriarchs is the guarantee of preserving the purity of the
faith. St. Theodore allows for the possibility of a return to lost Orthodoxy
within his own Church, should its lawful primate receive freedom; however, this
would be absolutely impossible if the legitimate patriarch were preaching
heresy or if some disputed question were present. Doubts concerning the
Orthodoxy of one of the patriarchs can be resolved only by those equal to him,
and not by the will of the emperor, or even by the agreement of all Orthodox
emperors. [80] The patriarchs constitute an assembly of the heads of the Body
of Christ’s Church, the “five-headed Body” (πεντακορύφου σώματος),
independent of whom they are subject to in the earthly dimension. It is
precisely with the patriarchal rank that the idea of apostolic succession is
connected; the ministry of the patriarch in fact has a certain parallel in
imperial ministry and is set forth by St. Theodore in aspects distinct from
those functions carried out by ordinary bishops.
St. Theodore’s reputation as a supporter of the primacy of
the Roman See, which later forced Patriarch Michael Keroularios to struggle
against the commemoration of the great abbot of the Studites, [81] proves to be
unjustified. Upon attentive reading of the collection of letters, all the
ornate words about the pope are easily explained by the history of this
important chief apostolic see, by the templates used in the superscriptions of
letters, and, finally, by their coincidence with the forms of address to other
patriarchs.
St. Theodore’s merits in the history of the formation of the
doctrine of the pentarchy are indisputable; at the same time, however, one may
note that for St. Theodore the pentarchy exists both in its, so to speak,
“theoretical” variant, where the five patriarchs occupy their places in the
order of primacy of honor, as this is fixed in Justinian’s Novels, and in its
“practical” variant, where the place of one see or another is determined by its
significance in the Orthodox world—not so much historical significance as
significance actual for the present moment.
In such a case, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the city in
which the Passion on the Cross and the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ
took place—himself an active participant in the Iconoclastic controversy and
the heir of representatives of the Church of Jerusalem who participated in it
no less actively—may prove to be first in the series of patriarchs, or at least
rise above the last place among the five. The primate of Rome, in turn, as the
person who at the given time can participate without hindrance in the work of
restoring Orthodoxy for the benefit of the Church, appears as the guarantor of
the legitimacy of an Ecumenical Council and the source of the union of those
who have fallen away with the Church, which is accomplished solely for her
benefit, and not for the sake of strengthening the authority, influence, or
extraordinary powers of one of the heirs of the apostles.
The article was
prepared within the framework of the project “The Status of the Primatial Sees
in Early Christian and Byzantine Tradition,” carried out with the support of
the PSTGU Development Fund.
1. A total of more
than 16,000 letters from Late Antiquity to the fourteenth century have been
preserved. See: Grünbart M. “From Letter to Literature: A Byzantine Story of
Transformation,” in Medieval Letters: Between Fiction and Document, eds.
Ch. Høgel and E. Bartoli. Turnhout, 2015, p. 291.
2. Grünbart M. Op.
cit. P. 292.
3. Mullett M. “The
Classical Tradition in the Byzantine Letter,” in Byzantium and the Classical
Tradition. University of Birmingham. Thirteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine
Studies, eds. M. Mullett and R. Scott. Birmingham, 1979, p. 86.
4. This, however,
cannot be said of the letters of St. Theodore’s contemporary, Ignatios the
Deacon: Ignatii Diaconi epistulae, ed. C. Mango. London, 1981 [= Corpus
Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 39]. Perhaps a more logical explanation of the
“functionality” of St. Theodore’s letters is the opinion of their editor, G.
Fatouros, who writes of two branches of the epistolographic tradition: letters
with practical significance and letters that influence the reader by their
literary component. See: Fatouros G. “Die Abhängigkeit des Theodoros Studites
als Epistolographen von den Briefen Basileios des Grossen,” Jahrbuch der
Österreichischen Byzantinistik, vol. 40, 1991, p. 61.
5. Theodori
Studitae Epistulae, ed. G. Fatouros. Berlin, 1992, p. 43*. The numbers of
the letters and the years of their composition cited in the article are given
according to this edition.
6. The number of the
last letter in this manuscript is 894.
7. Vita et
conversatio sancti patris nostri et confessoris Theodori praepositi Studitarum
conscripta a Michaele Monacho, in Patrologia Graeca, vol. 99, col.
264. The first, non-extant version may have been written by St. Methodios of
Constantinople: Krausmüller D. “Patriarch Methodius, the First Hagiographer of
Theodore of Stoudios,” Symbolae Osloenses 81, 2006, pp. 144–150, p. 145.
The vita designated in scholarship by the letter B was written by the monk
Michael in the second half of the ninth century, possibly after 868: BHG 1754;
Kazhdan A. P. A History of Byzantine Literature (650–850). St.
Petersburg, 2002, p. 306. Vita C (BHG 1755d) is a reworking of the preceding
vita by an unknown author, while Vita A (BHG 1755) is Theodore Daphnopates’s
reworking of Vita C in the tenth century.
8. Melioransky B. M. List
of Byzantine Charters and Letters. Issue 1 (Notes of the Imperial
Academy of Sciences. Historical-Philological Section). St. Petersburg,
1899, p. 15.
9. Alexakis A. “A
Florilegium in the Life of Nicetas of Medicion and a Letter of Theodore of
Studios,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1994, vol. 48, pp. 179–197; Pratsch Th.
Theodoros Studites (759–826): Zwischen Dogma und Pragma. Der Abt des
Studiosklosters in Konstantinopel im Spannungsfeld von Patriarch, Kaiser und
eigenem Anspruch. Frankfurt am Main, 1998 [= Berliner Byzantinistische
Studien, vol. 4]; Karlyn-Hayter P. “A Byzantine Politician Monk: Saint
Theodore Studite,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 1994,
vol. 44, pp. 217–232.
10. O. Queenan noted
the special role of St. Theodore the Studite in the formation of the idea of
the pentarchy: Queenan A. “The Pentarchy: Its Origin and Initial Development,” Diakonia,
1967, no. 2, p. 347.
11. Dobroklonsky A. P.
St. Theodore, Confessor and Abbot of the Studion. Part 1. Odessa, 1913,
p. 822.
12. Smetanin V. A. Byzantine
Society of the Thirteenth–Fifteenth Centuries. Sverdlovsk, 1987, p. 26.
13. The article
mentioned above is devoted to this: Fatouros G. “Die Abhängigkeit des Theodoros
Studites als Epistolographen von den Briefen Basileios des Grossen.”
14. St. Theodore cites
him in his letters about 200 times. See: Ibid., p. 62.
15. Grünbart M. Op.
cit., p. 299.
16. See examples:
Ibid., p. 302.
17. What is meant, of
course, is the unnamed Patriarch of Constantinople. See: Beihammer A. Griechische
Briefe und Urkunden aus dem Zypern der Kreuzfahrerzeit. Die Formularsammlung
eines königlichen Sekretärs im Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 367 [= Quellen
und Studien zur Geschichte Zyperns, vol. 57]. Nicosia, 2007, p. 329.
18. Acta
conciliorum oecumenicorum, vol. 3, ed. E. Schwartz. Berlin, 1940, pp. 90,
147.
19. Theodori
Studitae Epistulae, ed. G. Fatouros. Berlin, 1992, p. 91, hereafter Epistulae.
20. Beihammer A. Op.
cit., p. 158.
21. St. Basil the
Great already in the fourth century called the Pope of Rome “supreme” (τῷ
κορυφαίῳ) in relation to the bishops of the West. S. Basilii Magni
epistolae, in PG, vol. 32, col. 893. On the context, see: Zakharov
G. E. External Communication and the Theological Tradition of the Roman
Church in the Era of the Arian Controversies. Moscow, 2019, p. 65. The use
of this title both in relation to the Roman primate and in relation to the
Constantinopolitan primate fully corresponds to such a tradition: each of them
is indeed supreme or most supreme for the metropolitans and bishops of his own
patriarchate.
22. See the survey of
such points of view in Hatlie: Hatlie P. “Redeeming Byzantine Epistolography,” Byzantine
and Modern Greek Studies, 1996, vol. 20, pp. 213–248.
23. For details on the
decisions of the council, see: Afinogenov D. E. The Patriarchate of
Constantinople and the Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784–847). Moscow,
1997, p. 50.
24. Letters 33 and 34,
pp. 91–99.
25. Epistulae,
p. 91.
26. Epistulae,
pp. 91, 92, 94.
27. Epistulae,
p. 93.
28. Epistulae,
pp. 91, 94.
29. Salaville S. “La
primauté de saint Pierre et du pape d’après saint Théodore Studite,” Échos
d’Orient, 1914–1915, vol. XVII, p. 36.
30. Grossu N. S.,
Archpriest. St. Theodore the Studite: His Time, Life, and Works. Kiev,
1907, p. 804. Salaville is familiar with this work and interprets Archpriest
Nicholas’s opinion as consonant with his own conclusions.
31. Letters 276 and
423: Epistulae, pp. 410, 592.
32. Gahbauer F. R. Die
Pentarchietheorie. Ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur
Gegenwart [= Frankfurter theologische Studien, vol. 42]. Frankfurt
am Main, 1993, p. 105.
33. Letter 418: Epistulae,
p. 586.
34. Gahbauer F. R. Op.
cit., p. 111.
35. Letter 29 (Epistulae,
p. 601). In this epistle St. Theodore also affirms that the question of the
faith does not belong among those which his own primate is free to decide (πρὸς
τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἡμῶν ἀρχιερέως); however, this remark can quite well be
interpreted in favor of the collegial discussion of questions of faith.
36. Letter 410 (Epistulae,
p. 571).
37. Karlyn-Hayter P.
Op. cit., p. 226.
38. Letter 28, to
Basil the Monk (Epistulae, p. 78).
39. The letters to the
pope are sent in the name of a group of abbots headed by St. Theodore.
40. B. M. Melioransky
noted that the letters from the spring of 815 to the end of 818 constitute more
than half of all the surviving epistles of St. Theodore the Studite. Alongside
this assertion, however, he advanced the hypothesis that, of the total number
of letters written by St. Theodore, they constitute only one quarter. See:
Melioransky B. M. List of Byzantine Charters and Letters. Issue 1 (Notes
of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Historical-Philological Section). St.
Petersburg, 1899, p. 15.
41. Dobroklonsky A. P.
Op. cit., p. 802.
42. Dobroklonsky A. P.
Op. cit., p. 788.
43. The names appear
only in the repeated letters or were added by copyists.
44. Epistulae,
pp. 313–319*.
45. Epistulae,
p. 319*.
46. Epistulae,
pp. 316*, 432*.
47. Epistulae,
p. 399.
48. Epistulae,
p. 202.
49. Epistulae,
p. 206.
50. Epistulae,
p. 209.
51. On the history of
the title “ecumenical” in relation to the Patriarch of Constantinople, see:
Beck H. G. Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich.
Munich, 1959, pp. 63–64.
52. Letter 56, to
Abbot Anthony (Epistulae, p. 163).
53. Letter 271 (Epistulae,
p. 400).
54. Letter 272 (Epistulae,
p. 402).
55. Letter 275 (Epistulae,
pp. 406, 408).
56. Letter 276 (Epistulae,
pp. 409, 411, 412).
57. Letter 469 (Epistulae,
p. 672).
58. Letter 276 (Epistulae,
p. 411).
59. Letter 236 (Epistulae,
p. 370).
60. Queenan A. Op.
cit., p. 347.
61. The Life of
Michael the Synkellos: Text and Translation, in Cunningham M. B., The
Life of Michael the Synkellos [= Belfast Byzantine Texts and
Translations, vol. 1]. Belfast, 1990, p. 62.
62. Afinogenov D. E.
“The ‘Many-Fold Scroll’: The Slavonic Translation of the Epistle of the Three
Eastern Patriarchs to Emperor Theophilos,” Bogoslovskie trudy, issue 45,
2013, p. 238.
63. Theophanis
Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, vol. 1. Leipzig, 1883, pp. 484, 499.
64. Griffith S. H.
“The Monks of Palestine and the Growth of Christian Literature in Arabic,” The
Muslim World, 1988, vol. 78, p. 5.
65. Vita et
conversatio sancti patris nostri et confessoris Theodori praepositi Studitarum
conscripta a Michaele Monacho, in PG 99, col. 192.
66. Letter 478 (Epistulae,
p. 697). Written in the 820s.
67. Letters 406 and
407 (Epistulae, pp. 563, 565).
68. Novella 123, in Corpus
iuris civilis, eds. W. Kroll and R. Schöll, vol. 3. Berlin, 1895, p. 597.
69. Letter 478 (Epistulae,
p. 697).
70. This epistle,
together with the one addressed to his spiritual child Nicholas, no. 416, is
analyzed in detail in Gahbauer’s monograph mentioned above. See: Gahbauer F. R.
Op. cit., pp. 105, 106, 108.
71. St. Theodore also
states in the letter to his spiritual child Nicholas that the criterion of the
truth of a council is its acceptance by all five patriarchs: Letter 416 (Epistulae,
p. 582).
72. In the latest
edition of the Russian translation of the letters, this phrase appears
considerably more sharply: “…to whom belongs the supreme authority at an
Ecumenical Council” (The Works of St. Theodore the Studite, vol. 3.
Moscow, 2012, p. 562).
73. Letter 16 (Epistulae,
p. 47).
74. Novella 6, in Corpus
iuris civilis, eds. W. Kroll and R. Schöll, vol. 3. Berlin, 1895, p. 35.
75. Letters 271 and
538 (Epistulae, pp. 399, 812).
76. St. Theodore does
this in a letter to Bishop Anastasios of Knossos. See: Letter 11 (Epistulae,
p. 35).
77. Letter 11 (Epistulae,
p. 37).
78. A younger
contemporary of St. Theodore, St. Methodios of Constantinople, likewise applies
the concept of hierarchy to bishops, naming them separately from the
patriarchs—the heirs of the apostles—and thus follows St. Theodore’s ideas
concerning patriarchal ministry. See: Maksimovich K. A. “Patriarch Methodios I
(843–847) and the Theory of the ‘Pentarchy,’” in Twentieth Annual
Theological Conference of PSTGU: Proceedings. Moscow, 2010, pp. 176–177.
79. Letter 24 (Epistulae,
p. 66).
80. Letter 478 (Epistulae,
p. 697).
81. Grossu N. S.,
Archpriest. Op. cit., p. 808.
Russian source online:
http://vestnik1.pstgu.ru/pdf/files/article/ru/article_1782_date_1576760989.pdf
