In the context of the institutional transformations that followed the conquest of Constantinople in 1204, Latin monastic communities often found themselves redefining their relationships with the various authorities that had divided the former territories of the empire. Among these, the Cistercian monastery of Santo Stefano represents an exceptional case in the monastic landscape of the Latin Empire. Founded by the Cistercians, close to the Franco-Papal coalition and hostile to the Venetian Patriarchate, it was largely inhabited by Venetian monks, supported by Venetian patrons, and located in a context strongly influenced by Byzantine customs. Its liminal position between patriarchal jurisdiction, Cistercian traditions, and Venetian political and economic interests placed it within a complex institutional network, making it a privileged laboratory for conflict between diverse and often conflicting norms. The most significant episode in this normative tangle was the controversy of 1223, when the Venetian Patriarch Matteo di Jesolo claimed the right to a third of all pious donations destined for the monasteries under his jurisdiction. The claim presents a clear case of the creation and contestation of norms. The Cistercians protested, invoking their traditions of exemption and appealing to papal authority. The response of Honorius III, who denounced the abuse without directly placing Santo Stefano in conflict with the Venetian patriarch, highlights the monastery's ambiguous position and the delicate nature of its institutional balance. This paper aims to demonstrate how an anomalous context—a Venetian Cistercian abbey in Constantinople—could generate normative clashes, disputes, and attempts at discipline by various competing authorities. It highlights how monastic norms were defined, negotiated, and adapted, revealing their intrinsically dynamic nature.