Byzantine Clergy: Patriarchs, Bishops, Monks, Ermits and holy men

Byzantine Clergy, minature collage of saints, processions and holy men

The Byzantine clergy were key figures in the religious, political, and cultural life of the Byzantine Empire, serving as spiritual leaders, advisors, and administrators. From the Patriarch of Constantinople to the local parish priest, the clergy played a crucial role in shaping and preserving the Orthodox faith and the traditions of the Empire. They were also deeply involved in the many religious controversies that rocked the Empire, from the iconoclast controversy to the theological debates over the nature of Christ, and their positions and actions often had far-reaching political and social consequences. We will explore the various positions and people that made up the Byzantine clergy, and their impact on the history and legacy of the Byzantine Empire.

The Patriarch of Constantinople, head of the Byzantine Clergy.

From the obscure Bishop of Byzantium to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

In the beginning, the Bishop of Byzantium was a mere suffragan of the Metropolis of Heraclea of Thrace. However, the city’s refoundation as Constantinople and its subsequent elevation to the new imperial capital, coupled with the acceptance of Christianity, propelled its Bishop to the forefront. John I, who was appointed in 428, became the first Bishop of Constantinople to be bestowed with the title of Patriarch. This title was formally recognized by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which established the Pentarchy, or the five great Sees of the Christian Church. Rome was ranked first, followed by Constantinople in second place, with the remaining three Sees being Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria.

While the importance of the patriarch was primarily attributed to its position as the capital of the empire, prestigious origins for the See were sought. Consequently, the tradition developed that Saint Andrew, one of the Apostles, had been the first Bishop of the Church of Byzantium.

The competition with Rome.

This situation created a competition between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome. Although the Byzantines recognized an honorary preeminence for the See of Saint Peter, they could not conceive of the Church without the Empire. Consequently, they viewed Constantinople as the only truly ecumenical See, a perspective contested by the Popes. As Rome was under the jurisdiction of the Byzantine Empire until the 8th century, the competition remained relatively subdued. However, the tension escalated in the following centuries, culminating in the Schism of 1056.

The Patriarch as the Head of the Clergy.

The Epanagoge, one of the law codes of Basil I compiled circa 885, clearly states the Byzantine position: “The Patriarchal See of Constantinople, as illustrated by the Empire, has been elevated to the first rank by the decisions of the councils. Consequently, the sacred laws ordain that matters concerning other sees be submitted to the judgment and decision of the See of Constantinople.” The same code also stipulates: “The patriarch is the living image of Christ: his actions and his words express the truth.”

The Patriarch as a man of the Emperor.

The Patriarch of Constantinople was a major political actor, promoted by the emperor, but with the condition of controlling him. The choice of the Patriarch was therefore crucial. Theoretically, the patriarch is elected by the metropolitans and the suffragans of the patriarchate. The fiction of the elective system is maintained: when the seat is vacant, the permanent synod of Constantinople meets in Hagia Sophia. This synod is composed of the metropolitans present in the capital, but also of the highest dignitaries of the Church of Constantinople and of representatives of the emperor. Soon, it limits itself to drawing up a list of three names, among which the emperor chooses. In the rare case that the emperor’s candidate is not on the list, the Emperor can refuse it as many times as necessary.

Occasionally, the fiction is not even maintained, and several emperors have been arbitrarily appointing a patriarch. Cedrenus recounts that, on his deathbed, Basil II appointed and had Alexios of Stoudios enthroned on the same day, without consulting any ecclesiastical authority. In other cases, a close relative is elevated to the dignity: Theophylact Lecapenus, son of Emperor Romanos I, became Patriarch at the age of 16 and exercised part of his 23-year patriarchate while his father ruled the Empire. Anyone could be appointed: although it is theoretically forbidden, 13 laymen became Patriarch, among whom is Photios.

In the Byzantine conception, the Patriarch is almost a functionary like the others. The official nomination at the palace comes first and leaves no ambiguity: “The divine grace and my imperial majesty which results from it promote you, the very pious N…, patriarch of Constantinople.” Only after comes the episcopal consecration, delivered by three bishops including the metropolitan of Heraclea of Thrace.

Consecration of the Patriarch Polyeuctus in 956, depicted in the Madrid Skylitzes Manuscript from the 12th century.

Who were the Patriarchs?

In principle, the new Patriarch cannot already be a bishop, because the transfer from one episcopal seat to another is forbidden. The bishop is married to his church, his community. In fact, anyone could be appointed. Although it is theoretically forbidden, 13 laymen became Patriarch, among whom is Photios. In these cases, the nominee would receive in a few days, or even in one, all the ecclesiastical grades before being consecrated as Patriarch.

Indeed, until the 10th century, the emperors did not hesitate to choose for this post one of their close collaborators, a high official. This was the case with Tarasios, who re-established the images at the second council of Nicaea, of his successor Nikephoros, or of Photios. Sometimes, a close relative of the imperial family was elevated to the dignity: Stephen I was only 19 years old when he was appointed Patriarch by his brother Leo VI in 886, and Theophylact Lecapenus, son of Emperor Romanos I, became Patriarch at the age of 16 and exercised part of his 23-year patriarchate while his father ruled the Empire.

From the 13th century onward, the Patriarch is always a former monk. The latter have acquired a decisive importance in the Byzantine Church. However, the Patriarch is not in a more favorable position, and remains the right-hand man of the emperor. When the latter opposes the monks, for example, by moving closer to Rome, the Patriarch is forced to follow despite the monastic opposition that often pushed him to the patriarchal throne.

Power struggles and occasional conflicts with the Emperors.

However, the relationship between the Patriarchs and the Byzantine Emperors was complex and sometimes fraught. While often subject to the Emperor’s will, the Patriarchs were not always aligned with the imperial authority, and also had a duty to uphold the teachings and traditions of the Church. Sometimes, this led to conflicts with the sovereign. During the Iconoclast Controversy, the Patriarchs Germanus I and Nikephoros were iconophiles (in favor of icons) and resisted the Emperors Leo III and Constantine V’s efforts to suppress icons. In 906, Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos opposed the marriage of Emperor Leo VI (886-912) to his fourth wife, Zoe Karbonopsina, as the Church’s canons forbade a man from marrying more than three times. During the late Byzantine era, Patriarchs opposed the idea of the Union of the Churches to end the Schism, going against the politics of several emperors of the time.

Nonetheless, the balance of power was rarely in favor of the Patriarchs. In case of conflict, the emperor always finds a compliant synod to depose the Patriarch, even if he is recalled a few years later. Through the permanent synod, the emperor also exercises a decisive influence in the choice of the holders of the episcopal and metropolitan seats, particularly the most important ones. The same is true for the designation of the Patriarchs, often virtual, but sometimes for Antioch under Byzantine domination, and for Jerusalem.

The organisation of the Patriarchate.

Hagia Sophia, byzantine church in Constantinople — The Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (today Istanbul) was the Great Church of the Byzantine capital and the cathedral seat of the Patriarch.

The cathedral seat of the Patriarch is the Great Church of Constantinople, Hagia Sophia, built by Emperor Justinian in the 6th century. It was located next to his palace, library, and a fully-fledged administration, similar to the Pope’s in Rome. This administration was led by a sort of prime minister, called a syncellus until the 11th century, and a chartophylax from the 12th century onwards. Belonging to this circle was almost necessary to reach the highest positions. Thus, of the 51 secular priests who became patriarchs, not less than 40 had been employed at Hagia Sophia.

The patriarch possesses the right of stavropegion, which means the privilege of founding any new church in any of the patriarchates. In his own jurisdiction, his court judges all cases involving clerics or those with religious significance, such as matrimonial disputes.

Metropolitan and bishops.

In the Byzantine dioceses, the metropolitans (Byzantine term for archbishops) and bishops had the same powers as the patriarch in his patriarchate.

They are appointed by the patriarch and primarily have an evangelical role. Saint John Chrysostom summarizes their duties as follows: “the feeding of the poor, the support of the wronged, the care of strangers, the guardianship of orphans, the defense of widows, and the supervision of virgins,” which is echoed by Kekaumenos in the 11th century and Joseph Bryennios in the 15th century. The Epanagoge reminds us that the power to interpret and judge also belongs to the bishops in the dioceses, for all bishops are equally successors of the Apostles and each local church is a perfect emanation of the universal Church. This is a major feature of Byzantine ecclesiastical organization: bishops have great latitude in their judgments, which allows for greater flexibility in conquered territories. Thus, under Basil II, the Archbishop of Bulgaria enjoyed practically complete autonomy in his archdiocese, except for the recognition of the higher authority of the patriarch.

However, practice sometimes differs, and not all bishops are faultless. Patriarch Athanasius, at the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th centuries, was concerned about the excesses of non-residence: many bishops had developed the habit of residing in Constantinople, merely visiting their diocese from time to time to collect its revenues. Often, their lives in the capital were not exemplary. Athanasius wrote in a letter: “I beg you, do not imitate certain individuals who content themselves with bearing the title of shepherds and care very little about their flock and pastoral duty, but who only dream of a well-stocked table, gentle-paced mules, a soft and effeminate existence, vain glory, the world, its pleasures, and the desire to amass money” (translation by R. Guilland). He also accused these same bishops of staying in Constantinople for political purposes, to seize every opportunity to make and unmake patriarchs – it must be said that he himself had bitter experience of this when he was deposed before being reinstated.

On the fringes of the Byzantine clergy: ascetics, hermits, and other holy fools

During the Byzantine era, especially at its beginning, many individuals were seeking spiritual excellence and striving to imitate the life of Christ. This often involved retreating from the world and leading an ascetic lifestyle.

Ascetics were individuals who sought to draw closer to God by leading lives of renunciation and personal discipline. They could live in monastic communities, but many preferred to live as hermits in solitude and settled in remote places, such as the deserts of Egypt or the mountains of Syria. Byzantine ascetics were often venerated for their piety and wisdom and were considered powerful intercessors with God.

The “holy fools” were individuals who adopted strange, even scandalous behavior, in order to renounce their own will and submit entirely to God. They could, for example, walk naked in public, insult the authorities, or feign mental illness. The “holy fools” were often misunderstood and persecuted, but some have been venerated as saints after their death.

Although these different types of ascetics were on the fringes of the Byzantine clergy, they had a profound influence on the religious life of the Empire. However, during the middle and late Byzantine periods, most of these movements were integrated, in one form or another, into regular monasticism.