Sergey Troitsky

This article constitutes the second and final part of a historical and canonical study devoted to relations between Church and State in the Byzantine and Orthodox tradition. Sergey Troitsky successively examines the theory of "symphony" as formulated in Justinianic legislation, the contradictory notion of the "Christian State," and then the theory of imperial unction developed by Theodore Balsamon in the twelfth century. The author shows that this last theory, circumstantial in origin and doctrinally unfounded, legitimized a caesaropapism whose harmful effects spread throughout Byzantium, Serbia, and Russia up to the imperial period. The principal contribution of the article lies in a rigorous critical analysis of the canonical and historical foundations of caesaropapism, clearly distinguishing the Orthodox ecclesiological norm from its successive political distortions.

This article by the canonist and theologian Sergey Troitsky, professor at the University of Belgrade, examines the question of the relationship between ecclesiastical power and political power in the Orthodox tradition. Proceeding through a rigorous study of canonical, scriptural, and patristic sources, the author refutes the thesis that the interference of Byzantine emperors in Church affairs constitutes a norm of divine law. He demonstrates that neither Holy Scripture, nor the canons, nor the Church Fathers provide a foundation for caesaropapism, and that the notion of the imperial "epistemonarque" is of pagan origin. The main contribution of the article is to clearly distinguish between historical fact and canonical norm, thereby establishing that theocracy and caesaropapism belong to two logics incompatible with Orthodox ecclesiology.

This article sets out the canonical principles governing the structure of the Orthodox Church, drawing on the work of canonist Sergey Troitsky. Belonging to the field of ecclesiological and canonical study, it examines three fundamental dimensions: the internal organization of local Churches, the nature of relations between sister autocephalous Churches, and the articulation of the principles of territoriality and nationality. The central idea is that ecclesiastical authority resides in the collegial episcopate as a whole, and not in an individual primate, which excludes any hierarchy of power among patriarchates. The theological contribution of the article is to demonstrate, with canonical sources in support, that the primacy of honor of the Patriarch of Constantinople confers no superior jurisdiction, and that the dissensions within the Orthodox diaspora call for a common conciliar solution rather than subordination to a single local Church.