Pashkov Dmitry, archpriest

Pentarchy of patriarchates in the time of emperor Justinian i: prerequisites

Abstract

The article discusses the motives of Emperor Justinian to form the supermetropolitan authority of the fi ve patriarchs. In the 4th — 6th centuries when this highest level of church power was gradually forming, there was no “organic metaphysics” of the five major sees; accordingly, the author of the article points at the relativism of the use of the term “pentarchy” for the early Byzantine period of church history. This idea is confirmed by the attitude of Justinian to the most prominent sees; the number of incumbents he addresses his constitutions to changes from one to fi ve, while four of them presided over the Ecumenical Council. The emperor’s rule-making and administrative methods towards the major sees cannot be explained by the seeming aimlessness of his ecclesiastical policy. Justinian is aware of the actual structure of the imperial Church that had already developed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. In addition, he avoids obvious blunders of his predecessors Zeno and Anastasius, who tried to make the Church agree on compromise with anti-Chalcedonites by means of extending infl uence over a single patriarch, while separating him from his bishops and other patriarchs. Justinian learns from previous experience of Emperor Leo I and, probably, of Pope Felix III who considered the model of a one-time, “horizontal” consensus of catholic bishops to be essential for reaching an agreement in the whole Church. On the contrary, Justinian could also be infl uenced by the idea of Pope Gelasius, who denies the need for such a consensus, thus the following constitutions of Justinian established equality of the five patriarchal thrones. The author of the article also pays attention to Justinian’s ideas on the exceptional nature of his law-making powers that made him feel free to form the church government of superior rank.

Keywords

pentarchy, Emperor Justinian I, patriarchates, Council of Chalcedon, See of Rome, ecclesiology, imperial legislation on the Church

References

1. Barmin A. V. (2018) “Nikita Seid”, in Pravoslavnaya Enziklopediya, 49, pp. 564–568 (in Russian).
2. Barmin A. V. (2019) “Petr III, Patriarkh Antiochiyskii” [Petros III, Patriarch of Antioch], in Pravoslavnaya Enziklopediia, 2019, 55, pp. 694–697 (in Russian).
3. Baus K., Beck H.-G., Ewig E., Vogt H. J. (1982) Die Kirche in Ost und West von Chalkedon bis zum Frühmittelalter (451–700). Freiburg, Basel, Wien.
4. Beck H.-G. (1980) Geschichte der orthodoxen Kirche im byzantinischen Reich. Göttingen.
5. Blaudeau Ph. (2019) “Entre tradition et innovation ecclésiologique. L’idée pentarchique de Justinien” in Theologie zwischen Tradition und Innovation / La théologie entre tradition et innovation. Fribourg, pp. 61–74.
6. Bondatch A. G. “Pentarchiia I Moskovskii patriarkhat” [Pentarchy and the Patriarchate of Moscow] (https://bogoslov.ru/article/1881917#_ftn1 (18.10.2020)).
7. Chrysos E. (1969) “I ekkliastiki politiki tu Justinianu kata tin erin peri ta tria kefalaia ke tin 5 Ikumenikin Sinodon” [Justinian’s ecclesiastical policy during the «Three Chapters» controversy and the fifth Ecumenical Council], in Analekta Vlatadon, vol. 3, Thessaloniki (in Greek).
8. De Halleux A. “L’institution patriarcale et la pentarchie. Un point de vue orthodoxe”. Revue théologique de Louvain (3e Année), 1972, vol. 2, pp. 177–199.
9. Gahbauer F. (1993) Die Pentarchietheorie. Frankfurt-am-Main. Joannou P.-P. “La législation impériale et la christianisation de l’empire romain (311–476)”. Orientalia christiana analecta, 1972, vol. 192.
10. Feidas B. (2002) Ekkliastiki istoria [Church history], vol. 1, Athens.
11. Feidas B. (1969) O thesmos tis pentarkhias ton patriarkhon. Proipothesis diamorfoseos tu thesmu (ap arkhis mekhri to 451) [The institution of the pentarchy of the patriarchs. Prerequisites of the formation of the institution (from the beginning to 451 A.D.]. Athens (in Greek).
12. Feidas B. (1977) O thesmos tis pentarkhias ton patriarkhon. Istorikokanonika provlimata peri tin liturgian tu thesmu [The institution of the pentarchy of the patriarchs. Historico-canonical problems related to the functioning of this institution]. Athens (in Greek).
13. Gratsianskiy M. V. (2016) Imperator Justinian Velikii i nasledie Chalkidonskogo Sobora [Emperor Justinian the Great and the legacy of the Council of Chalcedon]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Gratsianskiy M. V. “Papa Gelasii I (492–496) i ego ekklesiologicheskie vozzreniya” [Pope Gelasius I (492–496) and his ecclesiological views]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I, vol. 65, pp. 25–41 (in Russian). doi: 10.15382/sturI201665.25-41
15. Gratsianskiy M. V. (2015) “Prichiny I obstoiatel’stva nachala «Akakianskoi skhizmy» (484 g.)” [Cause and Circumstances of the Beginning of the «Acacian Schism» (A.D. 484)] in Iresiona. Antichnyi mir I ego nasledie, vol. 4, pp. 188–200 (in Russian).
16. Maksimovich K. A. (2018) “Nil Doksopatr” [Neilos Doxopatros], in Pravoslavnaya Enziklopediia, vol. 51, pp. 166–167 (in Russian).
17. Meier M. (2003) Das andere Zeitalter Justinians. Kontingenzerfahrung und Kontingenzbewältigung im 6. Jahrhundert n. Göttingen.
18. Morini E. (2003) “Roma e la pentarchia dei patriarchi nella percezione dell’oriente greco tardoantico e medioevale”, in Forme storiche di governo nella Chiesa universale. Giornata di studio in occasione dell’ultima lezione del prof. Giuseppe Alberigo (a cura di Paolo Prodi). Bologna, pp. 27–41.
19. Schwartz E. (1960) “Zur Geschichte der alten Kirche und ihres Rechts” in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, Berlin.
20. Schwartz E. (1934) “Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma” in Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abteilung. Neue Folge, vol. 10, München.
21. Sieben H. J. (1979) “Die Konzilsidee der Alten Kirche”, in Brandmüller W. (ed.). Konziliengeschichte. Reihe B: Untersuchungen. Padeborn, München, Wien, Zürich.
22. Sil’vestrova E. (2007) Lex generalis. Imperatorskaya konstitutsiia v sisteme istochnikov greko-rimskogo prava V–X vv. n.e. [Lex generalis. An imperial constitution and the system of sources of Roman law in the 5th –10th centuries A.D.]. Moscow (in Russian).
23. Troianos S. (1964) I ekkliastiki dikonomia mekhri tu thanatu tu Justinianu [Ecclesiastical proceedings in the period up to the death of Justinian]. Athens (in Greek).
24. Troianos S. (1971) “Die Sonderstellung des Kaisers im früh- und mittelbyzantinischen kirchlichen Prozess”, in Byzantina, vol. 3, Thessaloniki, pp. 69-80.
25. Troianos S. (1991) “Nomos und Kanon in Byzanz” in Kanon: Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für das Recht der Ostkirchen, vol. 10, Wien, pp. 37-51.
26. Zakharov G. E. (2019) Vneshnyaya kommunikatsiya i bogoslovskaya traditsiya Rimskoi Tserkvi v ehpokhu arianskikh sporov [External communication and theological tradition of the Roman Church in the period of the Arian controversy]. Moscow (in Russian).
27. Zakharov G. E. “Poslanie Rimskogo sobora Confi dimus quidem v kontekste vzaimootnoshenii Tserkvei Zapada i Vostoka v 70-e gg. IV v.” [The Roman synodal letter Confi dimus quidem in the context of relations between the churches of East and West (370–379)]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II, vol. 71, pp. 7–20 (in Russian).

Information about the author

Pashkov Dmitry, archpriest

Academic Degree: Master of Ttheology;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow, 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Th eology;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0129-9548;
Email: papadimitrios1@gmail.com.