Shaping sacramental authority: «The power to bind and loose» as a subject of discussion between the Byzantine Church hierarchy, monasticism, and the state (11th–12th centuries)

The paper examines the situation of growing attention to the practices of confession, which took place at the turn of the 10^th–11^th centuries and which lasted until the end of the 12^th century. The purpose of the article is to identify the features of the statements by representatives of the Middle Byzantine canonical thought and discover methods (concepts, categories, hierarchical systems) by which they integrated the phenomenon of secret confession into a complex system of relationships in Byzantine society, and to evaluate their compatibility with the discourse of the time. The article consists of two parts which trace the situation during the 11^th and 12^th centuries, respectively. Each of these is further divided into two sections: in the first one the positions of the main authors of the period are described, while in the second they are analyzed and provided with historical contextualization. Part One compares historical narratives concerning the development of the institution of confession developed by three authors: St. Symeon the New Theologian, Patriarch John IV the Oxite of Antioch, and ex-chartophylax Nicephorus. It turns out that all three see the situation in a similar way, although they differ in their evaluation of it. The juxtaposition of these stories and their historical context allows us to conclude that the interests of the state and church authorities coincided on the issue of regulating confessional practices. This part serves as context for the subsequent assessment of the views of 12^th-century authors. Part Two of the article describes and examines the phenomenon of a significant increase of the occurrence of the concept of «power» (ἐξουσία) in texts containing reflections on confession. The positions of key 12^th-century church canonists are analyzed: Alexius Aristinus, John Zonaras, Theodore Balsamon, and Anonymous, the author of an unpublished commentary on Nomocanon contained in the Codex Sinaiticus 1117. Their ideas about how the «power to bind and loose» arises, exists, and is transmitted in the Church are reconstructed. The correlation of these ideas with the discussions of the 11th century allows us to assert that although Balsamon’s model was the most detailed, it also turned out to be the least organic to the views of its time, which predetermined its fate. In conclusion, a connection is made with the subsequent late Byzantine period, in which the ideas of the previous time were partly adopted and partly abandoned.

1. Anashkin, A. V. (2013). Kanonicheskie “Otvety” patriarkha Konstantinopol’skogo Nikolaia Grammatika (1084–1111): soderzhanie, istochniki, istoriia teksta [The canonical “Replies” by the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas III Grammatikos (1084–1111): Content, sources, history of the text]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta, Ser. 3: Filologiia, 2013(2, no. 32), 87–113. (In Russian).

2. Angold, M. (1995). Church and society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081–1261. Cambridge Univ. Press.

3. Barringer, R. J. (1979). Ecclesiastical penance in the Church of Constantinople: A study of the hagiographical evidence to 983 A. D. (Doctoral Thesis, Univ. of Oxford).

4. Beihammer, A. (Ed.) (2007). Griechische Briefe und Urkunden aus dem Zypern der Kreuzfahrerzeit. Die Formularsammlung eines königlichen Sekretärs im Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 367. Zyprisches Forschungszentrum. Ministerium für Erziehung und Kultur

5. Bocheński, J. M. (1974). Was ist Autorität? Einführung in die Logik der Autorität. Herder.

6. Brown, P. (1935). The world of Late Antiquity: AD 150–750. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

7. Cozma, I. (2017). A historical and canonical analysis of the answers of Patriarch Nicholas III Grammatikos to the Athonite monks. Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 83, 253–276.

8. Cupane, C., Hunger, H., Kislinger, E., & Kresten, O. (Eds.) (2001). Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, Part 3. Ed. und Übers. der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1337–1350. Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

9. Gautier, P. (1969). Le Chartophylax Nicéphore. OEuvre canonique et notice biographique. Revue des études byzantines, 27, 159–195.

10. Gautier, P. (1975). Réquisitoire du patriarche Jean d’Antioche contre le charisticariat. Revue des études byzantines, 33, 77–132.

11. Grumel, V. (1989). Les Regestes des actes du Patriarcat du Constantinople, Vol. 1, Pt. 2: Les regestes de 715 a 1043 (2nd ed.). Institut français d’études byzantines.

12. Holl, K. (1898). Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt beim griechischen Mönchtum: Eine Studie zu Symeon dem Neuen Theologen. J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.

13. Kanaeva, E. (2022). Shepherd, physician and intercessor: The specialization of different types of authority in the Church in the context of practices of confession in Byzantium (III–X centuries). Filosofiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki = Philosophy. The Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 6(4), 36–60. https://doi.org/10.17323/2587-8719- 2022-4-36-60.

14. Kanaeva, E. Yu. (2024). “Udaliaiushchie ot sebia Dukha ne imeiut, konechno, etoi vlasti”: k voprosu o priniatii ispovedi v ranne- i srednevizantiiskii periody [“Those who repulse the Spirit from themselves do not, of course, have this power”: Some considerations on the issue of confession in the early and middle Byzantine periods]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato- Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta, Ser. 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 113, 32–50. https://doi.org/10.15382/sturI2024113.32-50. (In Russian).

15. Krausmüller, D. (2016). “Monks who are not priests do not have the power to bind and to loose”: The debate about confession in eleventh-and twelfth-century Byzantium. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 109(2), 739–767. https://doi.org/10.1515/bz-2016-0018.

16. Papagianne, E., & Troianos, S. (1989). Die kanonischen Antworten des Nikolaos III. Grammatikos an den Bishop von Zetunion. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 82, 234–250.

17. Purpura, A. M. (2018). God, hierarchy, and power: Orthodox theologies of authority from Byzantium. Fordham Univ. Press.

18. Smirnov, S. I. (1906). Dukhovnyi otets v Drevnei Vostochnoi Tserkvi: Istoriia dukhovnichestva na Vostoke [Spiritual father in the ancient Eastern Church: History of spiritual guidance in the East]. Pravoslavnyi Sviato-Tikhonovskii Bogoslovskii institut. (In Russian).

19. Suvorov, N. (1906a). K voprosu o tainoi ispovedi i o dukhovnikakh v vostochnoi tserkvi [On the question of secret confession and confessors in the Eastern Church] (2nd ed., rev. and enl.). Pechatnia A. I. Snegirevoi. (In Russian).

20. Suvorov, N. (1906b). Ob”em distsiplinarnogo suda i iurisdiktsii tserkvi v period vselenskikh soborov [The scope of disciplinary court and Church jurisdiction during the ecumenical councils period] (2nd ed., enl.). Pechatnia A. I. Snegirevoi. (In Russian).

21. Troianos, S. N. (2017). Die Quellen des byzantinischen Rechts. De Gruyter.

22. Turner, H. J. M. (2009). The epistles of St. Symeon the New Theologian. Oxford Univ. Press.