The Byzantine Emperor as an Arbiter in the Conflicts of Monks, Both among Themselves and with Church Authorities

The article deals with the question of the legitimacy of the emperor’s intervention into disputes between monks and those of monks with church authorities. Three such cases have been chosen. The early Byzantine time is characterized by a conflict over Alexander Akoimetos, abbot from Syria. The conflict was resolved after the intervention of Empress Pulcheria. In the Middle Byzantine time, the arbiter in the monastic distribution was basileus John Tzimiskes, who resolved the disagreement between Athanasius of Athos and Athonite Kelliotoi on the acceptable way of life on Athos. For the late Byzantine time, the case of confrontation between Gregory Palamas and Barlaam of Calabria over the admissibility of isychast prayer practices and certain theological issues was taken. Emperor Andronicus III acted as the umpire there. What were the opinions of such behavior of the emperor? The emperor and the Church were assistants in the spiritual salvation of the subjects of the empire. However, the Church as a corporation and the Christians as subjects of the empire had to obey the emperor who had key administrative powers on many issues, including the convening of councils and the fight against heresies. Emperor Justinian, also a saint, had a new word in the relationship between the emperor and the Church. He declares the principle of “symphonia” of the priesthood and the kingdom. It was these principles that gave legitimacy to the intervention of the emperor into inter-monastic and inter-church disputes.