<<
>>

the Christian doctrine about the state. Symphonic relations of Church and the State.

The history of many civilisations includes a huge layer of mutual relations of the state and the ecclesiastical authority. According to a number uchennyh during different historical epoch church as institute played important and not always an unequivocal role in a public life.

Each Christian state tried to find an ideal kind of mutual relations in the history with church which would consider specific models of that management and another and which would arrange both parties in the course of the further cooperation and achievement of social stability.

The question on character of mutual relations between church and the state in Byzantium is extremely important for understanding of essence and force of influence of religion on the public and political processes occurring in empire.

In the state and church union as it has developed in Byzantium and the countries of the western Europe, the church was historically more senior institute, than these states. This union was expressed by special acts. The church, not looking at full unity with the state, was independent public institute and its roots were not in the state, and in a society that has allowed it to stand in days of persecutions and to realise itself as independent institute of a civil society.

As known domestic lawyer G.V.Maltsev «a hypothesis of a religious origin of social norms marks and the right it is represented enough proved, leans against a solid scientific material, but to these subjects it is necessary concerns cautiously». The researcher recognises, that a religious way of the organisation of a society in history of some

Civilisations it was issued by the first, «as though laying a way the legal

- 3

To norms, foretelling and promoting their occurrence ».

Function of public stability of Christianity promotes stability of a society to that sakralizuet its norms and value.

Thomas Gobbs wrote, that «the Christian state and church - an essence same only in that case when we academic consider relations of the ideal Christian state

.... 4

Design and not which universal church organisation ».

TSitseron, wrote, that all basis of the Roman republic consisted in creation of two basic pillars of the Roman society which are Avgury and the Senate. According to TSitserona, the civil law and order was based on authority avgurov. Thus, the political system of the Roman republic was defined by religious authority avgurov and political authority of senators. TSitseronu echoes and Tit Libya, describing essence of the Roman statehood, too specifies, that the first and main institutes created Romulom, the founder of Rome, were avgury and the senate. Many researchers mark, as TSitseron, And Tit Libya put on the first place avgurov, instead of the Senate that shows a huge role of religion in a civil life of Romans.

According to this unwritten law the government should operate in a tandem with religious beliefs of the people. It is necessary to note that everything, the Roman posts and establishments, in Byzantium never actually were cancelled, and only transformed, in the consent with time requirements. [1 [2] [3]

The church in Byzantium became one of the main strongholds of the power, and the state aspired to create to it all necessary conditions for the

Activity. Church carried out legitimirujushchuju function, establishing rules which are necessary for the Byzantian social structure and has created preconditions of that the person carried out the civil duties, not breaking moral principles.

The phenomenon of the Byzantian empire consists that for rather short time interval the state has realised exemplary interaction of sacral institutes with the government which into practice other people and the states subsequently tried to put.

As has fairly noticed K.N.Leontev «Vizantizm there is, first of all, a special sort an erudition or the culture having the discriminating signs, the general, clear, sharp, conceptual beginnings and the consequences defined in history». [4]

The term "vizantinizm" designates all set gosudarstvennotserkovnyh relations and covers all scale of a public life of Byzantium, characterising Byzantian the civilisations special cultural-historical values a social system and a life, unlike other European states.

Since the very first moment of the existence the Christianity declares the universality, aspiring to become not only the world religion, but also a moral basis of a public life. As the Christianity has acted at once as religion universal, intended for all people and all people. And the Christian church embodied during a life of a word of the Christ: go to the world everything, propovedite the Gospel of all creature (Eves. From Mark. Gl 16). Rome considered «new religion» unacceptable and consequently tried to bar its distribution on all empire. After Milan Edikta in 313 year the public life cardinally does not vary, but the Christianity ceases to be persecuted religion. The Christianity insists on such relations with the state in which secular and sacral functions are not identified. And even there, where they long time were combined in

Large powers of the emperor, fathers of church always marked essential difference of these two institutes, and did not suppose thought on their merge, sharply condemning both forms of the given design (papotsezarizm and caesaropapism). The social doctrine of Christianity, let also not up to the end generated, begins with the moment when the new religion receives the legal status and the important public value, that is since the moment when there is a reconciliation between temporal power and Christianity, and Christians became actively involved in a political life of the state. Rannehristiansky apologists of II century (Kliment Alexandria, Irinej Lyons, Laktantsy, etc.) Pay huge attention to the state and public questions. And known Christian writer Tertullian becomes the first philosopher who treats Christian divinity in a context of the complete, imperial world outlook approach. The legal status of Christians in Roman empire has cardinally changed, when at the head of pagan empire there was an emperor - the Christian, and during board of emperor Justiniana there was a merge state and

7

The christian law.

In VI century when Byzantium worried the state and economic lifting, emperor Justinian has carried out reforming of all case of the Byzantian legislation, scale codification and processing of principles of the Roman Law has been spent. Transformations of all state system which was spent by the emperor, assumed streamlining of relations between church and the state. At active participation of emperor Justiniana the monument of the Byzantian legal thought which have received in history the name of "Short story" has been developed and published. In "short story" at number VI emperor Justinian has legally issued a role and a place of the emperor in a church life and a principle of the relation of the state and church which had in a political life [5]

Byzantium huge value. Here that he wrote in well-known VI th short story.

«Maxima quidem in hominibus sunt bona Dei a superna collata dementia sacerdotium et imperium, illud quidem divinis ministrans, hoc autem humanis praesidens ac diligentiam exhibens; ex uno eodemque principio utraque procedentia, humanam exbrnant vitam. Ideoque nihil am habemus soliicitudinem sic erit studiosum justi et laudandi imperatoribus, sicut sacerdotum honestas, conferens quum utique et pro illis ipsi semper Deo supplicent. Nam si hoc quidem incuipabile sit undique et apud Deum fiduciae plenum, imperium autem recte et compe-tenter exornent traditam sibi rempublicam, erit consonantia quaedambona, omne quicquid utile est humano generi. Nos igitur maxim circa vera Dei dogmat, et circa sacerdotum honestatem quam illis obtinentibus credimus, quia per eam maxima no-bis bona dabuntur a Deo et ea, quae sunt, firma habebimus et quae non-dum hactenus venerunt, acquiremus. Bene autem universa gerunturet competenter, si rei principium fiat decens et amirabile Deo. Hoc autem futurum esse credimus, si sacrarum regularum observatio custodiatur, quam justi et adorandi inspectores et ministri Dei tradiderunt apostoli et sancti patres custodierunt et explanaverunt ». (« The Greatest gifts Bozhii to the person granted Vyshnim by philanthrophy: Priesthood and the Kingdom. One serves things divine, another operates and cares of things human. Both that, and another occurs from same has begun and blagoukrashaet a human life. So about what so tsars as about honour of priests, and these - about tsars of the God ask ”are not baked. And further:" If the priesthood in all is faultless and is involved derznoveniem in the God, and the kingdom will be correct and properly to order the society handed over to it there will be a good certain consent ("consent" - in a Greek way "symphony".) Granting to mankind every possible advantage. Therefore we the greatest have care and about true Bozhiih doctrines, and about honour of priests. If they observe it, that, we are assured, chrez it great gifts we will receive from the God and that is, we will own reliably, and priobretem that is not reached yet. All will be safe and appropriate if only the business beginning is due and to the God kind »).

Any ideology hinting at the contradiction of the state and church are absolutely unacceptable not only for emperor Justiniana, but also for all that epoch. The emperor interpreted the powers in internal affairs [6]

Churches it is very wide. As archpriest Valentine Asmus «writes to the Kingdom care about honour of priests belongs, moreover, the kingdom cares about true Bozhiih doctrines while the priesthood should pray for all world and for tsars. Certainly, the pray here is understood extremely widely, as all divine service and sacral life of church» [7].

In a preamble of one short story mentioning a number of initial questions, the following substantiation is given to it: «For the kingdom which have received from the God the general supervision of all people, there is nothing inaccessible», - that is anything which are outside of its competence. [8]

As the ideal it is state - church relations are based on interaction also the embodiment of this model could arise only in the state recognising church by the important public institute. The classical Byzantian concept

Interactions between secular and the ecclesiastical authority is in the Byzantian legal monument "Epanagoge" (IX century): «the Imperial power and priesthood correspond between itself as a body and soul, and are necessary for a state system in the same way as a body and soul for high-grade human life. In their consent well-being of the state» also consists. [9]

The given political concept has received the name of "symphony" of church and the state. A core of this concept was mutual interaction of two institutes, without penetration of one power into sphere of the exclusive jurisdiction another. The Byzantian emperor is delivered at will Divine and symbolises the tsar heavenly. From the middle of VII century the title was fixed to emperors «the true tsar in the Christ and the emperor of Romans». [10]

The bishop and the priest are obedient to the governments as subject empires, instead of that the powers receive from it. In the same way and representatives of temporal powers obey decisions of church cathedrals, as the members of church searching in it of rescue. G osudarstvo at harmonious relations with religious institutes searches at them the spiritual help turned on achievement of tasks in view, serving, for the blessing of empire and its population. The church gets in the name of the state of the assistant in creation of the conditions approaching for missionary activity and for religious education of the flock, being simultaneously subject emperor.

According to the doctrine of "the symphony of the authorities», the church should support a kingdom, and other questions were considered not as the cores. In ordinary opinion including priesthoods, was considered if the empire the church will be lost also falls. After all the Christianity has arisen and has extended in Roman empire, and for Christianity the preferable form of government will always be the imperial power. In consciousness of Christians the empire was understood as the universal state, aspiring will extend on all world space. The empire is, first of all, an order and hierarchy, and, outside of empire - anarchy, chaos. Therefore the empire is a law, education and cleanliness of belief, and outside of empire - lawlessness, superstition and idolatry. In Christian outlook finding of absolutely legitimate power on the earth is possible only after mastering by its geopolitical centre.

At the given mutual relations between the political power and spiritual church hierarches and government officials get the double sanction - both from church, and from the state. Here from here originates, an anointing ceremony on a kingdom, from here and solemn imperial participation in erection ceremony in patriarchs. As the well-known Byzantian lawyer and the expert on christian law Feodor Valsamon wrote: «After all it is told, that it is necessary romeju to know laws and canons». Constantinople Patriarch Foty adhered to the given point of view also: «Observance of canons necessarily for any citizen, and

13

More necessarily it for this purpose who is invested by the power »more.

The Byzantian ideology about character of the world Christian kingdom goes back to the concept of bishop Evsevija Kesarijsky, one of the nearest advisers ravnoapostolnogo emperor Konstantin. Ideas of this father of church became the basic line of the Byzantian politiko-legal thought and have received the further development, even after empire disintegration. Bishop Evsevy considered the emperor, image of the tsar heavenly, but without a recognition reigning direct continuation of a deity or even the divine deputy. He suggests to see in this state system bogoustanovlennyj an order.

Proceeding from this doctrine, the emperor was not the carrier of divine charisma, or the person possessing sacral powers, and was only the deputy put by the God for organisation of terrestrial affairs. The god - pantokrator, the Almighty, and the emperor - kosmokrator, the governor of a terrestrial kingdom.

After coming into force Milan edikta 313 years Christians had an opportunity openly to practise the religion and to have the rights in full conformity with the state legislation, as well as other citizens of Roman empire. Further the rights and influence of Christian church start to develop promptly. The imperial power releases church clergymen from burden of all burdens of public duties, that it [11]

Has concentrated on «service to the God for the common good all citizens of empire», the state recognised a huge role of church in a public life, and began to allocate means from the state treasury for various needs of church activity.

All essence of the Supreme power it was reduced to that the emperor esteemed on itself, for attendant Bozhija operating in a tandem with church hierarchy. He realised itself(himself) the servant Divine, accepted gift of the absolute power to lead the citizens to acceptance of the Christian law. Some emperors named themselves «bishops of affairs external». This thought is explained by L.A.Tikhomirov, - «in consciousness of citizens of empire the emperor considered itself obliged to care of well-being of Christian churches, to observe of exact execution of church doctrines among the citizens, especially in the environment of priesthood, and to care of distribution

14

Christianities among pagans ».

So imperial service, not contradicting this doctrine, defined a religious vector of movement and for all other state processes.

Since time of board of emperor Justiniana,

The state policy in relation to Christian Church is guided by principles and ideas which are shown in all imperial decisions and are understood as a general course in the legislation. In empire the ideology starts to get accustomed, that the huge layer of powers vasilevsa consists in helping church with its activity, to protect it from heresy and splits. Also the state should fix powers of church on

Legislative level, thereby resulting the church policy in accord with the imperial beginning. On the basis of this position the temporal power seriously concerned religious disputes IV, V and VI centuries, and emperors [12]

Made huge efforts for the positive decision of these disputes, interesting all Byzantian empire. Emperors collected church cathedrals and allocated with legitimacy of their decision as to the standard expression of Christian dogma, thanks to this sanction of definition of church cathedrals got the status

Obligatory for all Byzantian citizens as the state laws, and the doctrines denied by church got to the category

The high treasons which are coming under to criminal prosecution.

The vigorous activity emperors and in sphere of church discipline differed. Possibility of monarchical participation in distsiplinarno -

Administrative affairs of church it has been put initially in pawn in Christian tradition, but only when there was a necessity to assign to decisions of the status of the state decisions already accepted by church. Emperors often abused the powers, including itself have the right to operate without blessing svjashchennonachalija, but also actively pressed on it, convincing to make new decisions. Thus the sacral party of the higher church hierarchy, remained always inviolable, after all with the autocephalous churches which were in structure of the Byzantian empire, remains right to establish to itself new charters and rules. But over decisions of these cathedrals there was a power vasilevsa to approve or deny decisions accepted on cathedrals, that is, to recognise or not as their equivalent to secular laws of empire and these to solve their viability not only for secular, but also for the christian law.

The universal patriarchy recognised such relations quite comprehensible and even necessary. The imperial power as the main patron and the benefactor of church, together with ohranitel it from external attacks, got even the special religious sanction of the christian laws and duties - in a ceremony of a sacred anointing. All pomestnye cathedrals began the activity with declaration

«To the emperor-high priest many summer» for its patronising

23

Position to church. According to well-known Byzantian jurist Feodora Valsamona: «Governors, as well as bishops, should be considered as pastors owing to granted by it pomazanija the sacred world. From here also there is a right of pious emperors, like priests, is moral to edify the citizens. The power of the emperor is stretched, as well as on soul, and on a body of its citizens whereas the priest is only the spiritual instructor». [13]

The proved possibility of intervention of the emperor in church internal affairs was firmly expressed by archbishop Dmitry Homatin: « Moving of bishops from chair on chair very often occurs on will of the tsar if it is necessary for the common good. Because vasilevs which is considered the higher observer of a universal order, costs above definitions of church cathedrals and it allocates with their validity. It is the higher ecclesiastical authority and the legislator in the relation to an internal life of Christian clergy. The emperor had powers to act as the arbitrator in disputes between church hierarches, bishops and clergymen and to appoint the candidates to vacant episcopal chairs. The Byzantian emperor had a possibility personally to grant to episcopal chair, advantage mitropolii, and a bishop to ennoble to level of the metropolitan. The emperor in church questions possesses large powers, except only possibilities of fulfilment of sacral religious rites, in the rest the governor gets all others arhierejskie possibilities that gives to imperial decisions a validity of canons. As the divine status (pontifex maximus) was fixed to ancient Roman emperors, and the Byzantian governors get the same force and authority through a ceremony of a sacred anointing. [14]

Archpriest George Florovsky adheres to more critical point of view concerning powers of the Byzantian emperor in especially church affairs. In church he considers certain acts of the emperors, concerning putting in order erroneous and frankly harmful. Its thought that the church has a force never is characteristic to obey imperial pressure: «it is necessary to notice scandalous abuse of authority Byzantian basilevsov. But, on the other hand, it is necessary to notice, that governors never achieved success, trying to go against church dogmas. The church in Byzantium was strong enough to resist to pressure of the imperial power. The temporal power did not manage to impose church the compromise with arianami, reconciliation with monofizitami, ikonoborchestvo, the union with Rimo-Catholic

17

Church ».

In the Byzantian history emperors often by means of canons and cathedral decisions, set rate and directed development of the positive legislation which was included gradually and into the internal church environment. If there was a need in the imperial decision of a church problem basilevsy all power of the political power solved it, appointing one persons and deposing others. For example, one of three universal

Teachers Grigory Bogoslov, in the letters writes to the governor: «to You

18

It is known, that you have erected me to chair contrary to my will ».

The given understanding of imperial powers leaves, that the bishop is above the flock, and the emperor as an external bishop costs both above clergy, and above the people of the empire. That is, the emperor is obliged to carry out supervision of activity of all representatives of the secular and spiritual power and spheres of a public life of the population, except sphere spiritually - sacral. Including behind activity of bishops and iereev, [15 [16]

Except the internal maintenance of their divine service powers directed on fulfilment of a divine liturgy. The given sphere and sphere of church dogmas - the only thing that does not enter into jurisdiction bogoustanovlennoj temporal power of the orthodox monarch.

Mutual relations of the state and church in the Byzantian civilisation cause till now many disputes. Probably, it occurs from desire of some persons to divide concept of Christianity and the state, to make their incompatible. The people adhering to the given point of view, actually do not understand force and value of religious norms in a society life.

The new religion in the Byzantian empire should as to serve for organisation of a national life, as well as pagan religion in Rome and Greece. As soon as people started to accept Christianity, they started suit at once the life according to this belief. The same problems had both the Church, and the State, which purpose was to create conditions at which it was possible safely, without rigid confrontation with the pagan world, to lead a Christian way of life.

Recognition of the sacred rights of church, inclusion of norms of the christian law in the legislation of the state it that, first of all, distinguishes an essence of the Byzantian empire from other types of the states. So, for example, Fathers of the Carthago Cathedral in 104 canon have written down: «to Imperial philanthrophy predlezhit to care, that Kafolichesky Church, blagochestnoju utroboju to their Christ given birth, by a belief fortress brought up, it has been protected them

19

Prothinking ».

L.A.Tikhomirov notices, that installation of mutual relations between church and the state was difficult, and was spent with a different share of success and with the big number of difficulties. The basic problem consisted that correct forming of mutual relations of the secular and spiritual power, [17] consists not in any legally fixed definition of the mutual rights and duties of these two institutes inherently absolutely different and independent from each other. Such legal document if is possible, as between two independent parties at all does not solve the main problem, voluntary organic interaction of church and state. [18]

G osudarstvo has the interests in all spheres of a public life and at times these interests contradict a moral position of church on problems to which moral standards, basically are difficult applicable. And the church cannot refuse the moral principles everywhere where only there are public human mutual relations.

Therefore throughout all history of the Byzantian empire there were collisions of these two institutes. To prevent them by acceptance of regulatory legal acts it is impossible, and to solve in practice probably only the compromise on each arising problem, with reciprocal concessions. The given practice of concessions generates the christian law and the state laws on religious questions, but also by means of these is standard legal acts cannot be prevented all cases of collisions. As a result, the symphony of mutual relations of religious institutes and the state depends, on the one hand, on desire spiritual and temporal powers in mutual cooperation, and on the other hand, from the state will to give a place to spiritual influence of religion and great value of church activity, that as the state requirement of the imperial power should be executed without prekoslovija.

As a result of these problems, in history there were some forms of forming tserkovno - the state relations. The western Europe was won by the concept of submission of temporal power spiritual. The essence of this concept consists that the Roman bishop has the absolute power over all Universe. The Pope grants powers to temporal powers, and those being vassals of a throne of apostle Peter, submit to church not only in religious, but also in secular affairs. The temporal power, cannot interfere with any religious affairs, and oppress interests of church. The laws published by temporal power if they contradict a church position, can be not recognised by the Roman Holy See. The temporal power, in case of insubordination to requirements of the Roman throne, can be without serious consequences displaced with peredacheju to its other person. [19 [20]

In Byzantium all was differently. Emperors did not apply for domination in church, and saw itself in a role of the Divine attendant, the deputy operating in one key with Christian canons. In the Byzantian empire the opinion dominated, that the emperor is a bishop on foreign affairs (episcopus laicus). Thus, the emperor was present on a cathedral not as the head and as the servant of church - in particular, it, financed carrying out of a cathedral and incurred transport and other expenses of participants of a church cathedral. An essence of this idea, professor Kurganov writes, consists in

The volume, that the emperor is obliged to care of the world and prosperity in church and in

22

The empire.

Already by time of board of emperor Justiniana in empire the concept about interaction between the imperial power and Christian church has been generated. Emperor Justinian in the foreword to 6th Short story of the monument of the Byzantian right, devoted just the symphonic relation, two branches of the power writes: «the Good fortune of the supreme granted to people two great gifts - priesthood and a kingdom. The church aspires to please the God, and the tsar thinks of other human mutual relations». [21] It is echoed also by sacred Feodor Studit which wrote: «G ospod has presented us Christians

Two greatest gifts - priesthood and a kingdom thanks to which the terrestrial life is carried out like heavenly ». Emperor John Komnen wrote to Pope G onoriju:« During all time of the board I absolutely recognised two facts: the first is the spiritual power with which the Christ has awarded the pupils and apostles as with the indestructible blessing thanks to which they by the divine right possess the power over all people. And the imperial power similar to it, leading affairs terrestrial and possessing on a divine establishment the absolute power in the area. These two pillars dominating over a human life, are separated and is sharp

24

Differ from each other ».

As writes L.A.Tikhomirov: This unity is reached by absolute accord and not the contradiction among themselves secular laws of the state and church canons. The fourth universal cathedral has made the decision, that the laws contradicting church canons, do not possess a validity. Emperor Justinian has made the decision, that everything forbidden or resolved by rules of universal cathedrals, thereby is authorised or it is forbidden by the state law. It is necessary to notice, that all definitions of universal cathedrals subscribed and authorised personally by the emperor so, most likely in them hardly something could contradict a government position. [22 [23]

The church always saw in the imperial power of the ally, recognised its supernatural establishment, recognised the imperial power not as autocratic formation, and as divine formation which should submit to requirements of Christian apostolic church. Thanks to it, the imperial power was never idolised, and was not extolled, and the Byzantian emperor participated in religious sacraments as the simple layman and is never personal them made. But

The church could to sing and eulogise in a certain case concrete blagovernogo the emperor or the empress as the pious defender and the adherent of church in this or that concrete situation, and even to erect it in a rank of the sacred. As it was with emperor Konstantin Velikim or empress Elena. There are also negative examples where the church, on the contrary, saw in emperors of enemies and persecutors as it was during board Konstantin Pogonata and Lion Isavra.

All fathers of church remained true to the doctrine of independence of two authorities - secular and spiritual, they aspired to that the church and empire have kept the existence in the world, but would come to the balanced condition between itself.

Symphonic interaction of these two authorities fathers of church saw in various jurisdictions of these two institutes. State and church spheres of activity different, but in common both branches of the power operate in a tandem, in case of infringement of the general coordination of actions, all symphony is broken. At such relations between church and the state, duplication of functions of two institutes that leads to increase in uncooperative altitudes between them turns out. That the similar has not occurred, the Byzantian emperors often operated as defenders of Christian belief, rendering to church the protection in its struggle against external enemies. This church activity of emperors has brought Churches the conclusive help on the enormous value during an epoch of Universal Cathedrals which were assembled by emperors.

But, along with positive sides, the union of church with the state should have and negative consequences. Wordly customs began to get more actively into a church life, negatively changing behaviour of clergymen and cooling belief, and diligence to ascetic making and charity and mercy affairs.

Church hierarches to use began often a compulsion element

For realisation of the personal ambitions. In Byzantium it to make it was

30

Very easily, in connection with the large powers even in affairs civil and judicial where they could appeal against sentences of vessels, free advance in a municipal government of the necessary people. Though the apostolic rule at number 81 directly establishes: «it is not necessary to a bishop to press in national managements», and in the sixth rule it is spoken so, «yes the bishop up does not take wordly cares». [24 [25]

In the Eclogue - the code of the Byzantian legislation published at direct participation, the emperor of the Lion III Isavra it is noted «We try to serve the God, granting to us a power sceptre. With this weapon we care of the people charged to us that it grew in the world and prosperity. It we wish to restore justice in ours

27

Empires ».

Many experts noticed, that in the tendency to finding of the enormous pseudo-spiritual power in episcopate hands danger of default of the direct duties was always concealed. Because with acquisition of political influence the church became similar to temporal power, adopting all negative sides of last. In case of church a problem consisted in penetration of wordly principles into charters of an intrachurch life. The expression found it in that, direct arhierejskaja activity was perceived only as tradition. With full possession of sacral functions a bishop accepted an image of the bishop of the state religion (since IV century), possessing the big power, bishops often contrasted with its state policy.

Certainly, mutual relations of two kinds of the power within preservation of stable system could be the most different, and throughout history between them occurred friction or frank enmity. Despite the fact that what, the church has own management personnel

And unique internal structure, nevertheless main principle of the Byzantian statehood, consisted in autocracy, and excluded existence possibility in one empire of the several independent authorities which were giving rise to precedent «the states in the state». For this reason the ecclesiastical authority in Byzantium could not be absolutely independent of the state intervention. It is necessary to notice, that some representatives of church wished merge secular and the ecclesiastical authority, in the name of the emperor, referring on the principle which has been put in pawn in the old testament «mountain to a kingdom which many operate»!

But in collision cases between the church and positive legislation the church followed a rule, that the state laws concede in a validity to the decisions accepted on church cathedrals. Feodor Valsamon the famous Byzantian lawyer and the canoniste, and subsequently, the patriarch Antioch, marks this thesis in many places of the interpretation of the nomocanon of patriarch Fotija. It proves it that at canons the double sanction - from cathedral opinion of church and on behalf of the state whereas the validity of laws of the state is based only on authority of the monarch. «Therefore, - writes Valsamon, - in case of disagreements between secular and the ecclesiastical authority, the decision should remain behind canons, instead of behind laws». The Byzantian lawyer of XIV century Matfej Vlasatar in the work devoted initial writes the rights, that the empire has accepted spirit and initial ideas

Valsamona, and the political power in Byzantium never from them legally and

28

Did not refuse.

In too time and church never demanded powers over that has been fixed by the government. If the higher church hierarchy throughout many centuries was capable to keep the exclusive right behind itself in tserkovno-administrative affairs and even [26]

Stretched the activity for limits of the direct appointment, knowing affairs administrative and civil, and in some cases and criminal it was made from the direct consent of temporal power which at any moment could deprive church of these privileges.

In days of emperor Konstantin the church has been declared by the institute having the right to especial protection of the political power. The emperor has assigned protection of interests of church to itself as on the representative of the higher authority. For church it had enormous value. It meant, that the temporal power to aspire to co-operate with church over realisation of its difficult functions, to try to help it the state power. It was a birth of symphonic relations of the state and church which in the future will be fixed both in the imperial legislation and in decisions of universal cathedrals.

The main principles of the Byzantian right defining mutual relations between clergy and the imperial power consisted that the tsar as the Supreme power in empire is the higher defender and the representative of church in sphere state and a positive law. But as a whole, as the layman it submits to church rules on the same level with all citizens. Thus the reigning person of duties has more, and its responsibility before the God for moral and fair service many times over above. Clergy as citizens of the Caesar and citizens of empire, are obliged to observe the state legislation. Representatives of the government, being Christians and members of church, are obliged to observe and honour precepts Bozhii, to participate in a liturgical life only in the volume provided by rules of church.

At the given symphony the imperial power directs all political will on object in view achievement - all state resources to support church in its mission on mankind rescue. One of the main conditions of rescue church

Considers obedience, and sacrificial service for the blessing I reign also to the native

33

To fatherland, that completely coincides with an empire government program aspiring to spiritualise all spheres of the state and public life.

The concept of the symphony of two authorities has apprehended Christian outlook on state and church relations. General idea of the concept is mutual understanding in temporal power and clergy relations. In the western Europe this doctrine has undergone to serious changes that has poured out at first in sharp increase in political power of the Pope. Reaction to this strengthening, became protestantizm and a Calvinism, and subsequently and the liberal concept more and more popular in the modern world as attempt to supersede church from a public life. It has occurred through otpadenija churches from the state, sharp change of Christian scientific thought, as a result of become comprehensible liberal ideology.

The doctrine of the symphony of the authorities has taken in Byzantium a predominating place in the tserkovno-state mutual relations. It has received disclosing in the imperial legislation and creations of fathers of church, in works of the Byzantian lawyers and in legislative monuments of the Byzantian right. In the Byzantian mentality secular and sacral, spiritual and terrestrial accurately differed. [27 [28] Byzantines compared the state to a live being in which is spiritual and corporal. «As the state is similarity of the person it consists of various bodies and in it the pivotal are the tsar and the patriarch on whom all other parts of an organism depend - in a legal monument of IX century"Epanagoge"was written: the World and well-being of citizens depend, first of all, on solidarity

- ~ 30

The imperial power and the spiritual power of church ».

Indissolubly existence and interaction of the secular and spiritual power allows to distinguish the doctrine of the symphony of the authorities from other kinds of state-church relations. The symphony essence consists in mutual cooperation, without unilateral penetration of one party into area of the exclusive competence another.

Fathers of Church saw the indirect theocracy in model of the symphony, after all thanks to this cooperation the government gets the universal religious doctrine justifying its board in outlook of Christians of all empire. This basic moment, according to fathers of church distinguishing Christian empire from pagan because ancient Roman empire was expensive only to citizens of Rome, and idea of universal Christian empire applies for the world domination in traditions of Christian universality capable to accept in itself all people of the earth.

That fact, that a principle of "the symphony of the authorities» in the Byzantian history was often broken and plunged to attacks from the imperial power, does not break the general accord of these two authorities. After all the church always remained, is subordinated to state legal system. But attempts to influence the power became and in the opposite direction. For example, political claims of influential patriarchs (Foty, Mefody) have provoked opposite reaction from the imperial power. Nikolay Mistik patriarch Michael has undergone persecution when has tried to influence a political situation as the regent, has been deposed, when he has tried to influence a state policy frankly.

Considering historical mutual relations of the state and church it is necessary to notice that fact, that these institutes by the nature initially are alien formations under the relation to each other. From a position of temporal powers, the religion has with the state the [29] identical problems expressed in construction on the earth of an ideal Christian kingdom, a prototype of a kingdom of heaven, and these institutes are equally important, because lead to achievement of this ideal. From the Christian point of view, the state - the same formation «the fallen, perishable» the world, as well as all the others though and it is much more important. But, as a result of indissolubility of problems, the important joint cooperation, the state is a necessary condition of a human hostel, in summary also rescue. As Alexander Shmeman wrote protopresviter, highly appreciating a state role «After all the state is engaged ohraneniem Christian doctrines and to prosecutions of heretics. The church together with the state directs to a public life according to

32

Divine precepts ».

It is necessary to underline, that the given outlook dominated in Byzantium on all extent of its historical existence. G lavnaja the essence of this or that teoretiko-legal concept is comprehended through other understanding of the primary source, the priorities differently placed in it. There is one more version of a translation of the story of emperor Justiniana: «the Greatest gifts Bozhii given to people by the higher philanthrophy, is a priesthood and a kingdom. The first serves affairs Divine, the second cares affairs human. Both occur from one source and harden a human life. Therefore tsars more care of piety of clergy which from its part constantly prays for them to the God. When the priesthood besporochno, and a kingdom uses only legitimate authority, between them there will be a kind consent and everything, that is the kind

33

And useful, it will be granted mankind ».

Thus, the treatment of the doctrine of "the symphony of the authorities», occurring of JUstinianovoj short stories was reduced to the basic thesis: [30 [31]

Mutual relations state and the ecclesiastical authority should be in a harmony condition.

The second idea of the concept of "the symphony of the authorities» consisted in the statement: the higher spiritual and temporal power the emperor in which person the policy of two kinds of the power will be adjusted possesses. The given thought is confirmed also with the separate thoughts which belonging JUstinianu and have been put forward by him at various times: «There is nothing above and svjatee imperial majesty», creators of the right considered, that the monarchical will is effective as law ». Hence, board Justiniana time posessed definitive end of working out of the concept of the Divine origin of the imperial power within the limits of the doctrine to" the symphony of the authorities ».34

The problem of favorable coexistence of the state with the religious organisations was staticized with the advent of the second treatment of the concept. Church, as the special organisation of people connected by the general religion, an overall objective, which - rescue of the souls. Since the moment of the occurrence the main affairs of church were divine service, missionary work and moral improvement of the parishioners. And the state role in these questions was reduced to a minimum. There was a collision not characteristic for the pagan countries. In a society life there was an area which is not subject to the state. But the imperial power all the same considered the decision of these problems as the prerogative, not wishing to miss reins of government in this area. Increase of negative moods in sphere of a spiritual life should is inevitable to find a way out of obviously accruing opposition of church and the state. After all, churches as to community of believing citizens of empire, it was necessary to enter certain relations with different groups of people including with the state bodies. And there was a problem of interaction of these two institutes - churches and the states.

Fathers of Church considered, that the concept to "the symphony of two authorities» most full corresponds to a Christian ideal. The important line of the given concept is that in it there is no accurate side between the state and church jurisdictions. Representatives of church always underlined the practical importance of the given concept, understanding its weak, in many respects the foggy theoretical party, however allowing to find a way out of the difficult situations arising during the various historical periods. The given system demands intellectual perfection from both authorities, from this follows, that the symphony fragile enough design. The more deeply the government through realisation administrative and legislative leadership gets into christian law area, the the central principle of division of the ecclesiastical authority from state owing to what, sharp changes towards "caesaropapism" are observed is more strongly broken. And on the contrary, the more the state powers appears at representatives of the ecclesiastical authority, the such relations to "papotsezarizmu" are closer. After all at presence at representatives of church of powers of the government leads to that the spiritual power gets properties of a secular element. This cooperation has led to close mutual relations of the political power and priesthood, in such areas as the judiciary and lawmaking.

Slowness of adaptation of the imperial legislation to many church problems in all spheres of a public life have led to that the church itself began to accept the certain norms concerning both civil matters, and brachno-family. Gradually the church began to acquire the own civil legislation, and attraction to legislative process of Fathers of Church symbolised

- 35

Unity of Christian empire. [32]

Eventually the christian law began to develop and norms of own legal proceedings, especially still great emperor Konstantin has equalised in a validity the diocesan court with the secular. Thus sentences arhierejskogo vessels remained categorical. Probably, someone also considers, that thus emperors built in the spiritual courts the general court system. But the higher ecclesiastics had an element of influence on the population. And and, not all fathers of church were very glad to it, and anybody from them is unknown to what has become famous for the judicial business, preferring to transfer civil cases in the state courts, following words of the Christ from the Gospel From Onions when it have asked to resolve dispute on the inheritance «Who has put Me to judge or divide you?» . Fathers of church considered, that similar powers can distract bishops from the main functions. Especially fathers of church gave as much honour and attention to court institute, as well as kingdom institute. Speaking about importance of the judiciary, they gave such words from 18 psalms: « That more impatiently, than gold also that is more sweet, than honey »and in the same place find the answer"courts Gospodni"on interpretation of fathers of church it is a condition of presence Divine which is called« courts G ospodni »when a certain sentence expresses how to establish the truth in human relations and consequently according to fathers of church if the people lose courts, it means not only to judges which not pravosudno judge, it will be bad, and it will be bad to all people, all statehood. This one of the pivotal functions of the state to provide the citizens with court. Not without reason Fathers of Church notice, that these words are told by prophet David who was the soldier, the tsar and the organizer of the state, and he perfectly understood that« courts Gospodni are more sweet some honey and vozhdelennej gold ».

In the theory of power of clergy should be limited to sacral functions and in some cases educational, but in the Byzantian history the role of representatives of church was huge, in many respects

Thanking, just the concept operating in practice «symphonies of two

39

The authorities ». In the basis of the Byzantian, politiko-legal concept the ideology about necessity and Bogodannosti two institutes of the power« the states and churches », necessary for construction uniform Christian a kingdom on the earth laid.« Understanding high value of universal church, empire was considered in the opinion of the citizens as reflexion of a heavenly kingdom ». [33 [34] [35] [36] [37] As historian A.V.Kartashyov« Byzantium with triumph wrote has shipped in kreshchenskuju a font all bases of the statehood, the Christianity has seen in empire of the mighty assistant for achievement of a kingdom of heaven ». All tradition of cathedral self-management of Christian churches has promptly changed and has accepted conditions is religious friendly to it of the Christian state. Having granted to Christian religion the legal status, emperor Konstantin Veliky has given it the status of imperial religion in which head stood itself basilevs. It has accepted a rank of the Christian emperor in the name and the title agios has assigned to it at legislative level. In the middle of X century in Byzantium there is a church sacrament of an anointing on a kingdom which has symbolically transformed legitimacy of the come to the throne emperor.

Already in culture of ancient Israel the state is understood not simply as necessary public institute, but somewhat as divine or a theocratic establishment. The term "theocracy" designates such form of government at which the power source is the God, and the power is concentrated in hands of representatives of spiritual estate.

The direct theocracy provozveshchaetsja to Israel through prophet Moiseja during an outcome from Egypt. But the people Israeli wished to see at the head not judges and prophets, and the tsar like other people then G ospod has granted it the right

To choose to itself the tsar, replacing, thus, changing the direct power of the God on the power through the intermediary. Because, that instead of the God the people the person, the main idea about a divine origin of the power not began to operate

39

Has changed.

The Byzantian emperors considered the board distinct from ancient Roman or even Ancient Greek traditions (though from pagan titles, such as "blagochestivejshy", "pravdoljubivyj" and many others, did not refuse), and the kingdom understood as direct continuation of an antiquated monarchy.

It is important to notice, that in the Holy Writ the monarchist system even if it was a question about impious Navuhodonosore or antiohe Epifane was never condemned. But the interesting moment consists that novozavetnaja church, as well as antiquated Israel, accurately distinguish the form of the imperial power from its maintenance. So, the same Caesar or antiohu Epifanu needs to submit not because they are spread by the Lord on a kingdom or are intermediaries between the God and people, that is why that they all the same tsars of other people. That to the pagan tsar to become the presents a Christian sovereign to it it is necessary to accept a christening, and publicly ispovedat the new religion.

In the Byzantian empire the tsar and the priest were considered as two pillars on which all system of the Byzantian society keeps. The given point of view was put forward by the Christian writer of IV century Evsevy Kesarijsky which considered, that Roman empire, having accepted Christianity, became direct continuation tsarstvija heavenly. The tsar the unique and visible head and state and the ecclesiastical authority for they do not depend from each other owing to various methods of action. Various methods of action do not mean difficulties, but on the contrary mean the symphony of the state and church which are two pillars of a society - such is the basic state ideology of Byzantium. So, the primary goal of temporal power [38]

From the religious (Christian) point of view consists in creation of conditions for

40

Successful church activity - mankind rescue.

The emperor was the head of all political system of the Byzantian empire. This principle should be justified and from the point of view of a theological science. The imperial power it was perceived as the power by the God given, that is blest the emperor has received names "kosmokratora" the director of affairs terrestrial. Fathers of church always underlined high responsibility of the emperor before the God, first of all, putting personal morals of the governor which should show itself a kind example for kind Christians and citizens of empire. The first attempts of formation of an image of the Christian governor can be found out in creations Avgustina Avrelija and sacred John Zlatousta.

Sacred John Zlatoust in the head of a corner puts ethical value of self-control of the tsar: «That is the true tsar who overcomes pride, ljubostjazhanie and srebroljubie, submits to precepts Bozhiim, preserves the reason and does not allow to get to itself into soul seeds of passionate entertainments. Such person is worthy, to be the governor of empire, the people, armies, cities as the one who has subordinated passion of the flesh to the spirit, toi and would correct people in the spirit of Christian virtue. The same who ostensibly operates people, and, actually is the slave to a sin and entertainments, not

41

Can consult and with the power ».

Blissful Avgustin, on the contrary urges to be the governor wise and fair, and describes a moral image of the emperor in the words which are one of the most powerful Christian manuals to the emperor.

«The emperor costs on a high place in church hierarchy», writes Antony IV, the patriarch Constantinople, - «It is distinct from others [39 [40]

pomestnyh princes and lords. Tsars have hardened and have approved piety on all

42

To the earth ».

It was peculiar though to follow certain moral values not only in the Byzantian Empire, but also it is inherent both to other cultures and civilisations as it is frequent emperors and mismatched the status of the righteous person.

Only in case of correct understanding of the symphony of the authorities, the church serves a society, instead of the state which should assist only. Each of the symphony parties serves in the Byzantian political tradition to one society as the image. Cooperation is concordant with the point of view of Fathers of Church traditional system of relations, disappearance which will be brought by negative consequences which will create interosculation of two authorities according to Maxim Ispovednika «one party in the same definitions and principles another». On the other hand fathers of church notice, that more often power abusing in Byzantium contrary to rules was made from the state which perceived itself at metaphysical level. In the given situations religious consciousness of citizens neglect to impose caesaropapism under a Christianity mask. For such situations Athanasius Aleksandrijskim had been developed the concept (servility) which has reached and till our times.

Creations of fathers of church serve as decision attempts politikopravovyh problems. A red thread in their works, there passes a theme of the relation church and the government. Many of them aspired to find the ideal of the given relations, and some of them even put forward own concepts, like emperor Justinianu which has definitively formulated it in VI century. «Priesthood (sacerdotium) and a kingdom (imperium) - the highest talents given by the God to mankind. The first power serves Divine, last operates and manages terrestrial affairs. If [41] church clergy is pious and is in obedience to the God, and the kingdom correctly and with skill operates the society entrusted to it then there is a blest harmony. [42 [43]

The emperor Justinian who has fixed this principle at the state level, never executed it to the full, actively

44

Interfering with church internal affairs.

Considerable quantity of researchers of Byzantium come to conclusion, that no interaction in a reality existed, the ecclesiastical authority always was in submission of the imperial power. One of such sceptically adjusted to system «symphony of the authorities» thinkers was Vladimir Solovev who considered, that in Byzantium the empire has suppressed in itself church. Its works «Vizantizm and Russia», «Great dispute and the Christian policy» are devoted a theme of interaction of church and the state, the analysis of influence of Byzantium to Russia.

But all the same the church in Byzantium was unique institute which along with the state had own controls and followed in the policy to own interests. One more bright, discriminating line of church from all state bodies was that the emperor did not have means and possibilities it to abolish. As the history has shown, the church could continue existence and after monarchy falling, and basically after liquidation of the Byzantian empire as that. And all autocephalous churches which were in the Byzantian empire, have kept the existence up to now. Thereby confirming the point of view of fathers of church about the Divine establishment of both institutes, but about them inoprirodnosti, the church scoops a source of the power and life not from the state, with its device of suppression, and can resist to it somewhat. Church, in history of Byzantium always

Was on the leading parts of a public life and the empire army has played brighter and important role, than. The church throughout history criticised board, expressed the civic stand, influenced public opinion, defended it. Fathers of church directly stated time and again to emperors the disagreement. For example, prelate Athanasius Aleksandrijsky wrote to the emperor: «do not aspire to manage churches, do not learn us to our business, learn at us is better to run business! The god has given you the terrestrial power, he has entrusted us church. Any person encroached on your power, would sin against the Divine precept, and you should be afraid, when incur affairs church, to appear the originator of the big crime». [44] cases when patriarchs or other church hierarches did not render to emperors any honouring Are known and even refused in wedding or blessing, and at times at all not recognising their legitimate sovereigns.

We can see a similar example of firmness in a life sacred Amvrosija Mediolansky. After emperor Feodosy has severely finished with revolt in Saloniki, and has come to a cathedral where led service sacred Amvrosy a bishop has not admitted it to sacraments and has expelled from a temple. Amvrosy has separated the emperor from participation in a liturgy to a public repentance. The authority of a bishop was that, that the emperor has been forced to obey.

Sacred prepodobnomuchenik archbishop Andrey Kritsky answers tsar Konstantin to the persecutor ikonopochitanija: «do not give My God that I have renounced my Christ, you the tsar would be engaged in military science and people management is better, than to drive the Christ and its servants» [45].

Byzantium, certainly, very many has adopted at Rome, both positive, and negative. Being, new Rome Byzantium

Adopts also the form of government, and almost worship the emperor. But in Byzantium the given practice quickly has come to naught, because of the big influence of church and initial norms in a life romejskogo societies where it is unacceptable to do the live person honour like the God. This question also has pushed off Ancient Rome and Christianity on uncompromising struggle in which Christians shed blood, defending a place of the higher sudii for the God, instead of for the emperor of Roman empire.

Such fathers of church specified in it, as John Zlatoust, Maxim Ispovednik and John Damaskin in the works. They convinced the emperor to solve external problems of empire and to pay the attention to the economic party of an internal life of empire, and questions of belief and dogmatic disputes to leave the representative on that to persons from among priesthood.

Eventually emperors have acquired the given rule: in the beginning of the Byzantian history son Konstantin Velikogo tried to correct church («the Will of the emperor, should become the law for church»). Already its successor emperor Gratsian has lost the status «Pontifex Maximum», and emperor Valentinian publicly declared: «In affairs of church I the usual layman». The emperor in Byzantium was the full participant of church cathedrals, but only in quality «a bishop on foreign affairs». It collected, financed cathedrals and was present on them, occupying the chair, but under decisions of cathedrals the tsar had no vote.

And nevertheless an accurate side between church and the state was not. Set of emperors in particular JUstinian, Nikifor I, Stefan, Feofil, Irakly I and many called themselves «seminary students in the power». The long antagonism against the splits supported by reigning persons and heresies (monofizitstvo, nestorianstvo, arianstvo, ikonoborchestvo and monofelitstvo) shows negative consequences of these epoch for church history. On orthodox divine services [46]

The emperor appeared in vestments and with mitroj, and was outwardly similar to the bishop. Really, in history of the Byzantian Empire there is a considerable quantity of examples chelovekougodija and servility of bishops before emperors and their officials.

Often church hierarches tolerated rather rough and dirty passions, that who carried to porphyry or have been invested by the big power, for the sake of strengthening or preservation of the power. Emperors it skilfully used all, collecting cathedrals and appointing there the necessary people, banished the objectionable. And, certainly, a negative consequence had a large quantity of cases of intervention of monarchs in internal affairs of the church, concerning and dogmatic persons, and simply church administration.

As mark a number of the western thinkers, behind priesthood there were only sacral functions, and with introduction of a rank of an anointing the sacral status was got also by the emperor. It is wrong to believe, that in empire with thousand-year history model of mutual relations of the state and church all time remains invariable. In history of the Byzantian empire there were various historical epoch, the imperial dynasties, the different political tendencies depending on many internal and external factors. And the personal factor of persons were on a throne also played the big role in a religious life of empire. After all it is necessary to recognise and considerable number of cases and opposite behaviour of the true bishops courageously resisting to numerous infringements and abusings, the mighty of this world, despite all consequences personally for itself. The history has kept these names, since John Zlatousta, Maxim Ispovednika, Mark Efesskogo and many other things which were not frightened of possible undesirable consequences.

Benevolent mutual relations of church and the state proceeded on all extent of existence of Byzantium, in a sphere of education, spiritual and patriotic education, in the various

Charitable actions, in which church quite often uchuvstvovala together

47

With the imperial house. The church always remained on the state party during time popular uprisings, and called the flock for obedience to the existing authorities. In functions and problems of orthodox church in empire, the duties connected with increase of formation and morals in a society, also close work with condemned for criminal offences, election of the higher officials of empire, supervision of execution of laws by public authorities etc. «entered Such duties of a bishop, - A.I.Nikolin writes, - though contradicted Church rules (by 81 apostolic rule «it is not necessary to a bishop or presviteru to press in national managements»). But, on the other hand, they gave the chance to ecclesiastical authorities to help more actively requiring, to protect driven, to support any truth, using for this purpose and authority of the government ». Often higher church hierarches took part in management of empire. The Constantinople patriarch was considered as the second person in the Byzantian vertical of the power. Often patriarchs incurred regentstvo at minor tsarevitches. Besides, anybody and never took away the rights from church, to carry out the moral criticism of the government.

Sometimes the ecclesiastical authority justified the concessions to emperors in morals questions to keep in inviolability church to the dogmatic person both the sacred legend. And very often such compromises were necessary. For example, patriarch Tarasy in the end of VIII - the beginning of IX century though has not blest illegal (fourth) marriage of emperor Konstantin Porfirorodnogo, but also have not separated it from church, being afraid of new occurrence ikonoborcheskogo movements, only recently

49

Come to the end. [47 [48]

As a whole it was wise, though and ostrozhnoe arhipastyrskoe the decision. Though even on this decision of ecclesiastical authorities were dissatisfied, led by Saint Feodorom Studitom which demanded more rigid decision on this problem, acted with open criticism of the patriarch, however not what sanctions on behalf of the spiritual power has not followed.

In history of Byzantium of such situations when the church became in awkward position and made a compromise with the authorities, was much, and more often the given compromise position caused discontent in the people, for example, when business concerned political intrigues, revolts of regicides, repeated marriages and many other things. Certainly, all it lowered authority of church in the opinion of the people. But also the church position also was justified, after all conceding to emperors in morals questions, the church kept the world in a society and church. Because the Byzantian history knows examples when the church hard line on the given questions embittered the emperor, and it displaced lawful patriarchs, putting on their place arian or monofezitov, and heretical dogma proclaimed for official religion.

About it is state - church relations arisen in Byzantium it is considered to be, that up to falling of Constantinople the church kept and had actively right to criticise a policy of the emperor. The opinion of church was the main spokesman of a voice of a society, limiting the absolute power of the monarch necessity to adhere to Christian virtues. The reason on which Churches Fathers had a possibility to criticise the monarchic power in empire, consisted that the political life was accompanied by frequent revolutions and восстаниями.50

The concrete criticism of emperors or other persons in the government of empire did not mention the essential parties of operating political system. In Byzantium the principle of the imperial power, was never called into question, including its universal model of the political system. [49 [50]

The politiko-legal thought in Byzantium was not limited only to political questions - views about sense and an essence of the imperial power, achievement of an ideal of the Christian state, intense relations between temporal power and spiritual. The enormous place in church activity was occupied with educational activity of Fathers of Church, in questions of concerning marriage and family relations the church role was more states, a legal status of women, justice and charity themes, ethics of labour relations, a role of customs and traditions in a public life, world and war questions, correct forming of relations with representatives of other cultures and creeds. These questions were not especially political and dared in the spirit of tradition and did not bear in itself those discussions which bore questions on essence of the power and church supervision of the power. Ideas of Fathers of Church on these problems have not received due discussion which would allow to allocate them from spiritually-religious sphere in sphere of politiko-ethical problems. Certainly, affected tradition Byzantian religious culture: a basis which constituted a monkhood and products of monks which was considered as the higher spiritual authority on questions of a Christian public life, setting reference points for which Christians followed.

Proceeding from it, it is possible to draw a conclusion, that whatever historical epoch changed the state course, in Byzantium the ideology about accord as about ideal relations between church and temporal power predominated. The position of historian Alexey Nikolina is interesting: «the History of Byzantium is a history of the country for which formation and strengthening of the tserkovno-state relations had defining value. Perhaps, it is more in one Christian state to them it was not given such value. Anywhere it is so much work of the state thought is not has left on construction of the given mutual relations. And anywhere a mutual relation problem

The states and churches it has not been solved more successfully. The Byzantian experience is a practical experience of interaction, sorabotnichestva two authorities ».51

The doctrine of "the symphony of the authorities» became, on a being, the political doctrine of the Byzantian empire, and in the future the main Christian principle, a desired ideal of mutual relations of the state and church. In history of Byzantium not always it was possible to construct harmonious mutual relation of church and the state. More often emperors imposed churches the conditions, that in practice was a celebration of ideology of caesaropapism. There were moments when the spiritual power in the name of patriarchs tried to rise at the head of temporal power, realising on practice an ancient Judaic theocratic principle of the power. But in any case the doctrine «Symphony of the Authorities» remained the basic vector in state and church relations. The doctrine «Symphony of the Authorities» is an essence of the Byzantian politiko-legal ideology.

<< | >>
A source: Ketsba Bath Igorevich. the Doctrine of Fathers of Church in politiko-legal thought of the Byzantian empire. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws Moscow - 2015. 2015

More on topic the Christian doctrine about the state. Symphonic relations of Church and the State.:

  1. Mark Efesskogo's Polemic and Feolipta Filadelfijsky with the Roman church about mutual relations of church and the state.
  2. 1.2. The Byzantian right as a basis is state the church Relations.
  3. Christian sources of church rhetoric and gomiletiki
  4. State sanktsionirovannost and security of church rules.
  5. the Recognition the state church dogmatic persons, morals and canons as unconditional moral and legal authority.
  6. § 3. The state and the state off-budget funds: the form and an order of mutual relations
  7. John Zlatousta's Doctrine about the State and the Power.
  8. § 3.1. The right and the state in the pure doctrine about the right
  9. §1. The Government and state system forms In G.F.Shershenevich's doctrine
  10. Chapter 2. State problems in G.F.Shershenevich's doctrine