The Attitude of the Great Fathers of 4th and 5th Centuries Toward Emperor

7/30/2019 The Attitude of the Great Fathers of 4th and 5th Centuries Toward Emperor

1/30

THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF 4TH AND

5TH CENTURIES TOWARD EMPEROR AND POLITICAL

AUTHORITIES


2/30


3/30

Dimitrios G. Porpatonelis

THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREATFATHERS OF 4TH AND 5TH

CENTURIES TOWARD EMPEROR

AND POLITICAL AUTHORITIES

POURNARAS PUBLICATIONS

THESSALONIKI


4/30

Publish editor:

Dimitrios G. Porpatonelis

Pournaras Publications

Castritsiou 12, 54623 Thessaloniki

Tel. 0030 2310.270.941 FAX 0030 2310228.922

e-mail: [email protected]

ISBN: 978-960-242-510-7

2013, Dimitrios Porpatonelis - Panagiotis P. PournarasAll Rights Reserved.


5/30

This work is devoted to

my parents and my teachers


6/30


7/30

Contents

Abbreviations 13

Introduction 17

FIRST SECTION

AN APPROACH ACCORDING TO MANUSCRIPTS.

CHAPTER 1

The Roman background. 23

CHAPTER 2.

Constantine the Great. The interactions start. 29

2.1 The meeting between Athanasius and Constantine. 31

CHAPTER 3.

Constantius. Some ambiguous attestations. 35

3.1 Athanasius stance toward Constantius. 36

3.1.1 The peaceful style of the Apology to

Constantius. 36

3.1.2 Athanasius aggresiveness according to his

epistle to monks. 38

3.2 The posterior evaluation of Constantius from

Gregory the Theologian. 44

3.2.1 Gregorys references on his writing


8/30

Against Julian. 44

3.2.1.1

443.2.1.2 Constantius personality. 45

3.2.1.3 Constantius philanthropic attitude

toward to Julian. 47

47

3.2.1.4 The transition of his attitude during

his presence in Constantinople. 48

CHAPTER 4.

Julian. 51

4.1 The Gregorys impeachment against Julian. 53

4.1.1 The Gregorys general views about the

kingdoms institution and political authorities. 53

4.1.2 The intensity of the characterizations. 57

4.1.3 The writings goal justifies its sharpness. 62

4.2. Cyril of Alexandria. His posterior aggression

against Julian. 66

CHAPTER 5

Valens and his behaviour on behalf of the Arians doctrine. 71

5.1 Basil the Great and Valens. Dogma and church policy. 72

5.1.1 The Basils collaboration with the political

authorities. 72

5.1.1.1 73

5.1.1.2. The union of the two worlds

(heaven and earth) revealed by Basils letters

to local authorities. 75

5.1.2 The Churchs troublesome situation. 79

5.1.3. States and priests responsibility. 81

5.1.3.1 The negative participation of the


9/30

Emperor and the political authorities. 82

5.1.3.2 The accountability for the suffers to

the ecclesiastic persons. 845.1.3.3 The Churchs homogenization

influences the political tactic. 86

5.2 Gregory the Theologian and Valens. A different

approach. 91

5.2.1 St. Gregorys attitude toward to Valens

through his letters. 91

5.2.2 References to Valens after his death. 94

CHAPTER 6

Theodosius the Great. 99

6.1 Gregory the Theologian and Theodosius. Their

epical collaboration. 100

6.1.1 Gregorys attestations about Theodosius. 101

6.1.2 Gregorys stance regarding the interference

of state on church issues. 102

6.2 John Chrysostom and Theodosius. Political and

spiritual authority as a union. 106

CHAPTER 7

Arcadius. 115

7.1 John Chrysostom and Arcadius. Chrysostoms

condemnation from Church. 116

CHAPTER 8.

Theodosius the Young. 123

8.1 Cyril and Theodosius the Young. Their struggle

against Nestorians heresy. 125

8.1.1 The 3rd Ecumenical Council through its

records. 125


10/30

8.1.2 Unto Theodosius. 129

8.1.2.1 Personal letters. 129

8.1.2.3 The other references. 1348.1.2.3.1 Homilies. 134

8.1.2.3.2 Epistles. 136

CHAPTER 9

Church and Emperor according to the church historians. 139

9.1 The Emperors decision related to councils function. 140

9.1.1 Pious Emperor and orthodox council. 144

9.1.2 Pious Emperor and heretical council. 146

9.1.3 Heretic Emperor and pious minority. 148

9.1.4 Heretic Emperor and heretic council. 148

9.2 The union in Empires life. The theocratic and

hierarchical character of an Emperor. 152

SECOND SECTION.

SCIENTIFIC AND THEOLOGICAL APPROACH OF THE

SUBJECT

CHAPTER 1

King and priest in Byzantium. 163

The problematical character of the subject. 163

1.1 Historical and theological perspectives. 164

1.1.1 The two influential streams. 164

1.1.1.1 Hellenistic influence. 164

1.1.1.2 Jewish influence. 167

1.1.2 Polarity and union 168

1.1.2.1 The disruption of the powers in West

and the degradation of the Eastern despotism. 168

1.1.2.2 Union in the East. 171


11/30

1.2 Hellenic bibliography. 179

1.3 The model of the fathers. 183

1.3.1 The evaluation of the previous research. 184

1.3.2 Constructing the fathers model. 186

ibliography 193


12/30

Abbreviations

PG Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series

Graeca, v. 161, Parisis 1857-1866,

J.P.Migne.

SC Sources Chrtiennes, H.de Lubac-

Danilou, Les Editions du Cerf, Paris1942.

, ,

,

,

,

.

.

Hymn of Christmas Vesper


13/30


14/30

FIRST SECTION

AN APPROACH ACCORDING TO MANUSCRIPTS.


15/30

Introduction

he issue regarding the relationship between State

and Church constitutes a very significant and de-

terminate factor affecting the formation of the Orthodox

self-consciousness. Various approaches have been pro-

nounced from time to time and the contemporary theo-logical research has dealt with this subject extensively.

My occupation with the literature-grammatology of the

church Fathers led to the ascertainment that there is not

a macroscopic research of the patristic writings, referred

to the particular issue regarding the Greek or Orthodox

Theology. There are corresponding researches in theforeign bibliography, nevertheless are old and represent

different theological directions. Thus, I considered pur-

posive to approach the issue of relations between state

and Church through the research of the great Eastern

Fathers of the 4th

and 5th

centuries. The current work is

a theological-historic research and its goal is to study

this relationship according to the historic, theological

T


16/30

and social conditions of the searched period. Thus, I

take under consideration all the creases of this season

and I intend to present the patristic approach of this

subject.

The 4th

and 5th

centuries are an epoch in which

Church crosses from a persecutions period to its pro-

tection, happened by political authorities and especially

by the imperial principle. During this season, the Chris-

tianitys foundations were set by the action of the ecu-menical church teachers. Nevertheless, Byzantine Em-

pire also formed its functions principles. These two re-

alities were joined, interacted and create the Byzantine

culture. I am going to search this period historically,

theologically and socially drawing conclusion from the

vivid scriptures of great Fathers.

I consider helpful to begin with a synoptic survey

regarding the operation of the Romans Empire during

the primary three centuries. The first Chapter is intro-

ducing in order for the reader to be normally introduced

in the issue and reveals the continuation of the classic

Roman Empire to Byzantine. In the main part the re-

search of particular writings follows. The classification

was according to Emperors figures and after according

to writing texts of church Fathers. In some cases it re-

gards summoning of texts due to they were written the

same period or present a united comprehension of the

researched issue. The chosen methodology had as invio-

lable basis the research of scriptures and the conclusion,


17/30

drawn by their studying. Before studying the particular

writings the consideration of the supportable bibliog-

raphy was necessary aiming for me to approach those

writings according to conditions of this epoch and the

particular features of each Father. Then, the research

pursued and an effort to record all the relevant refer-

ences was attended regarding the searched theme. In

that way, the relevant writings of saint Athanasius, Bas-

il the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostomand Cyril of Alexandria were researched. The materials

classification pursued according to Emperors figure in

order to be avoid the repetitions and retrogression. For

more total enlightenment of the church contemporary

conditions I add a chapter examining the approach of

the church historians Theodorete of Cyrus, Sozomenus

and Socrates, who wrote works, related to this period.

The next part attempts to present aspects of the investi-

gation so far regarding kings role as priest. I limited to

bibliography aiming to present the patristic approach of

the current issue and I passed over the innumerous

books referring to this issue historically through other

paths of investigation and figures. Finally, concluding

my research I attempt to form a model basing to the

conclusion of this writings research exclusively and I

criticize the model, suggested by previous bibliography.

I owe warm thanksgiving to my advisor Mr.

Arabatzis Christos, professor of Grammatology and

Church History of the Theologys department of


18/30


19/30

CHAPTER 1

The Roman background.

he three first centuries constitute the historical peri-

od in which the new message of Gospel diffused in

the universe. This conveyance of message affected on

the political, religious and philosophical contexts of thisperiod. The life and the special characteristics of the

Roman Empire created the appropriate circumstances in

order for the Christian Faith to be propagated, devel-

oped and founded.1

The three first centuries is usually

named as a period of persecutions. Nevertheless, except

for persecutions taken place occasionally, in this periodChurch was born. The political situation in Rome is

closely connected with the cultural one. The monarchic

model, formed during the three initial centuries, is di-

rectly connected with the appliance of Imperium

1 Regarding the Christianitys development during this season from a

sociologic point of view see also Stark, .

T


20/30

Romanum. State, religion, philosophy are interacted

during this period and they normally set the foundations

of the afterwards monarchic instruction of Roman Em-

pire, Christianized after the 3rd

century. This Chapter

constitutes an introduction focusing on how the political

system of the 4th

century was formed when Constantine

set Christianity as the official state religion.

The huge area of the Empire created many prob-

lems regarding the Empires administration. The gov-ernance of this chaotic state, performed by the well-

known Roman Council (Singlet) could not correctly

manage the new conditions. There was a natural weak-

ness of the institutions leading to political, financial and

ethical decline. With Octavians enthronement in the

half of the 1st

century there happened a radical differen-

tiation of the Empires life. It formed a new shape to the

political authorities giving them a monarchic orienta-

tion. In that way, Emperor acquires the absolute power.

This new monarchic governance was maintained after

many adventures. The reorganization, occurred by Dio-

cletian, constituted the culmination of the Romes mo-

narchic functioning.2

Simultaneously, a unified ideal conviction was cul-

tivated which quickly constituted the flag of the Roman

2 About the institutional changes and the authorities concentration to

the Emperors figure see also ,, vol. . p. 42-43.


21/30

culture,Imperium Romanum3. Its prevalence founded on

the unity of the structure, the pilgrimage of the Emperor

as God, the expanded possibility of communications.

Moreover, the religious freedom was developed by the

propulsion of the religious independence (anex-

ithriskeia). The mosaic of the nation, belong to Rome,

brought its own religious ideals, which could not be

supplanted; there always was the presupposition for the

nations to consider the Roman Emperor as God. Theimposed state worship essentially was the respects

demonstration and the devotion to Romes Gods, espe-

cially to Emperor. It was a sample that nations abided to

laws and its purpose was to function as a unified factor

of this cultural mosaic.

State union and religious life had one center, the

Emperor. The union between state and religion was the

tenacious power joining the multiple cultural-religious

trends. Thus, it was imposed with a sense of obligation

and law punished its violation. Simultaneously, the reli-

gious independence was cultivated. Some religious

trends were persecuted by state only when they con-

flicted to the Emperors worship. Thus, Christianitys

remarkable attitude developed regarding to the Emper-

ors worship. From one side Christianity accepted the

Emperors eminent role offering him honors as the

3 The evidences about how the Imperium Romanum was applying after

unifying the world and its interaction with Christianity are derived from

, , p. 64-68


22/30

highest political factor, but from the other side it did not

acknowledge him as God. Christians desired the good

relations with Empire, they respected the Emperor but

not as God. Their behavior regarding social life rein-

forced the Empires unified orientation but it confronted

to Emperors worship as God. Every admission of Em-

peror as an incarnated God stimulated the Christians

religious consciousness who demonstrated conviction

leading them to martyrdom. They served its purpose butthey rejected the concept of its deification. Thus, some-

one could observe many variety attitudes during the

primary three centuries regarding the Christianitys per-

secution or its tolerant confrontation from Emperors.

In Rome, the sense of the Emperor-God was culti-

vated as the master of the universe, as superior of every

man, as someone who had dressed the divine glory and

acting as worlds savior. All this conception purposed to

union and the nations inmost desire for peace. Its key-

stone was the Emperors figure.

In this union, Christianity developed and expanded.

The increased ecumenical culture gave to Christians all

the appropriate conditions to evangelize the message of

salvation, a message naturally ecumenical. The nations

union was the forerunner of the Churchs united body.

Thus, Christianity did not fight it. In contrary, it adopt-

ed it and reformed it by replacing the unified power

from the Emperors worship to Christs worship, the

King of kings. This replacement happened using as a


23/30

tool the Hellenistic culture. Both Roman Empire and

Judaism were Hellenized. Christianity took advantage

of the Greek-Roman culture and transformed them radi-

cally. Its astounding assimilating power included every-

thing. It rejected nothing. It introduced everything. But

it reformed them and fermented them creating the

Greek-Christian culture. The start happened during the

Hellenistic period due to the union of the known world.

It continued during Roman years due to the stabilitysourcing from the political power through the Emper-

ors worship and ended to the Christian state, inaugurat-

ed by Constantine the Great and continued by his suc-

cessors. Eusebius created a portrait of king-priest by

describing Constantines personality and differentiated

Emperors conception from incarnated God (Roman

perception) to priest- Emperor, as a delegate of the in-

carnated Logos.4

Emperor was not the Word himself but

he was a notable figure having a particular relationship

with Him. In the new Christian state, king keeps on to

perform a mediate role between state and religion, a

role, which had inherited from the three previous season

ofmperium Romanum. His authority sprung from God,

he was His delegate on the earth and he was assigned to

4 About the new model, created by Eusebius, and generally the kings

perception as Gods icon on the earth see also Runciman, Theocracy, p.

5-25. This comprehension remained alive during the whole period of

Byzantine Empire despite the observed differentiations. Furthermore,

regarding the fall in 1453 this theory prevailed in the sense that God

punished the Emperor due to his unfaithfulness.


24/30

protect people. His goal was to create and maintain an

earthly kingdom, imitation of the heavenly one. The

theocratic comprehensive of Byzantine polity was a

simple conception. Nevertheless, many various situa-

tions appeared during its actualization. The factors be-

low were contradicted: A. the Hellenic culture and its

philosophical view, B. the Roman law, C. the percep-

tions sprung from the Emperors worship as God D. the

church hierarchy which was responsible to manage thechurch issues, the limit and the way of kings interfer-

ence.5

There was not a distinction regarding the func-

tion of Church and state; this factor resulted to a dy-

namic interaction. The description about how Emperor

acted in the Eastern Empire after Constantine the Great

and how it was adapted in relation with the ecumenical

and apostolic ordering of Church, constitutes the main

concern of the current research.

5 See also Runciman, Theocracy, p. 3-4.


25/30

CHAPTER 2.

Constantine the Great. The interactions

start.

onstantine, after his victory toward Likinius in 324,

remained the single governor of the vast Roman

Empire. He had to face both external and internal ene-

mies. Regarding the intrinsic ones, the Christianitys

predomination as the official religion of the Empire did

not only constitute a cohesive tie but simultaneously

some factions were appeared threating its peace and

concord. Due to reasons above, Constantine took specif-

ic measures, he transported the Empires center from

the Rome to Byzantium erecting a new capital, Constan-

tinople. This city was founded as the new capital of the

Christian Empire and was adorned according to the

Christian ideal. He decided the assemblance of the

Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 aiming for the

Churchs internal division due to the Arian heresy to be

C


26/30

restored.6

Constantine military reinforced the borders

and after great victories he achieved to strengthen his

prevail toward the external enemies. Furthermore, he

reorganized the imperial establishment introducing new

dignities and institutions and setting the base of the mo-

narchic administration, lasted for the next centuries. He

took social measures trying to limit the outspread of the

large agricultural properties and other measures reduc-

ing the urban occupations abandonment. Constantinecorroborated the Church financially and granted it judi-

cial qualifications.7

His church policy concerned more about concord

6 Tower has drawn the conclusion that church had absolutely compliant

under the Emperors will. Commenting Constantines statement that he

owns the jurisdiction for those outside the Church, he asserts Constan-tine performed the protagonist role for all issues. Every Emperor would

not logically let self-governed such a large faction of his citizens, the

Christians, without controlling the clergys decisions. The priests aspi-

rations for Church power, the need of the Churchs guidance according

to states advantages and the Christians fear about returning in the

persecutions previous situation lead to absolute compliance of the

Church under the Emperor. Church charged with political jurisdictions

(i.e, judicial operation) and this evolvement resulted its secularization

and the reduce of its clearly spiritual character. Tozer, Church and em-pire, p. 52-71.

7 Constantine visioned a universal Empire embracing all humanity. He

wanted to set as groundwork of his vision the Christian Faith. Accord-

ing to these reasons, he took those measures and created a model,

which never disappeared; only after 11 centuries when Constantinople

was conquered by Ottomans. All these measures, applied by him, creat-

ed a theocratic system. For an extended analysis about this theocratic

system see also Runciman, Theocracy.


27/30

and not dogmatic rightness. Thus, although he had ap-

plied the decrees of the First Ecumenical Council decid-

ing the Arius banishment, he brought back Arius in his

position two years later in 327. He did not acquire com-

petent dogmatic knowledge in order to comprehend the

dogmatic differentiations and understand the complicat-

ed issues; thus, he took care of the peace and harmony.

The Arian influences were increased during his kingship

until his death in 337. Constantine baptized Christian,foreboding his death, and died in Nicomedia in 22 May

of 337.

The capitals transportation to Constantinople was

a determined point of the Romans history. Constantine

endeavored to set the principles of the new Empires

life attempting to change all its sections; Eusebius, the

church historian, created the theoretical bases of this

grandiose edifice through his historiography. There are

many interesting researches examining this versatile

subject and presenting their aspects about this great

transition, happened in Constantines kingdom. The

present research, dealing with the Fathers attitude to-

ward Emperors, is limited to the Athanasius writings. It

is not expanded to this versatile and important issue be-

cause it constitutes a different search area.


28/30

2.1 The meeting between Athanasius and

Constantine.

Athanasius was blamed many times unjustly. These ac-

cusations mostly were personal attacks of Arian bish-

ops. These bishops remarkably influenced Constantine

through his sister Constantia and Eusebius. Athanasius

knew the Constantines piety and frame up of his ene-mies. Due to these reasons, he addresses him an apolo-

gy apologizing for the mendacious accusations; he pro-

nounces his appreciation to the kings figure and his re-

spect to the kingdoms institution;8

Furthermore, he asks a councils summon in order

to be judged about the attributed charges. According to

his apology, Athanasius appears resorting to Constan-

tine and asking him his right to apologize in a council.

8 I quote the Athanasius view from his work regard-

ing the kingships establishment. His attitude toward the Emperor is not

occasional but it is an extension of Kings verified role, performed in

order to defense the Orthodox Faith. Athanasius the Great,

, 10.2.3 -3.1.


29/30

In his work , Athanasius suddenly

came forward mounted Constantine in the middle of the

road, after he had repeatedly attempted to meet him un-

successfully in his imperial courtyard.9

Moreover, he

recourse to him, accompanied with a bishops team,

aiming to refute the decisions of the Tyros synod.10

Knowing Constantines piety and his devotional dispos-

al, Athanasius endeavored to reduce the effect, which

his Arian surrounding had on him. Thus, he communi-cates with him and enlightens him about church is-

sues.11

Constantines ignorance regarding dogmatic issues

raised many problems to Athanasius and was an obsta-

cle against the right Faiths prevalence. Constantine

admitted and instituted the decrees of the First Ecumen-

ical Council in Nicaea and he exiled Arius. Neverthe-

less, the unawareness of the Arianisms danger and his

surroundings influence resulted his revulsion; he ac-

cepted Arius entrance in the Church again after he had

signed a Faith confession. Constantine mainly cared of

the concord of the church corps and he could not realize

the importance the meaning of the dogmatic variances;

9 Athanasius the Great, , 86.6.1 -9.1

10 Athanasius the Great, , 86.1.1 -2.1.

11 The Arians influence to Constantius finally caused the Athanasius

banishment by the charge that he intercepted the weats transportation

from Alexandria to Constantinople.


30/30

consequently, he allowed the florescence of the Arian

heresy, which became especially obvious after his

death. The Emperors potentiality to interfere in church

issues is characteristic in Arius case. Although Con-

stantine had stated that leave Church to decide about its

internal questions through its councils, he did not hesi-

tate to restore Arius and impose his communion with

the rest Church again. This interference happened in

cognizant of his action; according to the church histori-an Socrates, Constantine knowingly interfered and over-

looked the councils decision because he thought his

action would have contributed to the church harmony.

Constantine had the self-consciousness he was the

Gods instrument and tried to correspond in this role

interfering to church subject.

The Attitude of the Great Fathers of 4th and 5th Centuries Toward Emperor

Documents

Transcript of The Attitude of the Great Fathers of 4th and 5th Centuries Toward Emperor