Ecumenists before their time

 

Raymond Rizk
19/8/2024

During the Middle Ages, the Churches of the Middle East called constantly on the members of their communities to love each other, but spent their time criticizing other Christians and accusing them of heresy.
The Byzantine power, wanting to ensure the unity of the Empire, summoned several times the non-Chalcedonians (Armenians, ‘Jacobites’ and ‘Nestorians’) to meet with the Chalcedonians to achieve unity. But none of these meetings bore any positive fruit. And the persecution of non-Chalcedonians was resuming, thus increasing their desire of vengeance, their hatred and the refusal of others.
When the Christians were confronted with the Muslim invasion, the Miaphysite and ‘Nestorian’ communities welcomed the Arabs as liberators, when most of the Chalcedonians, being frustrated of no more belonging to the Roman Empire, were categorized as 'Melkites', i.e. ‘belonging to the King’ (of Byzantium). And when all Christians were considered by the Arab authorities as second-class citizens, paying heavy taxes (jizia), and wearing different clothes from the Muslim population, they never stopped plotting against each other to win the favor of the authorities.
We have to wait until the ninth-tenth centuries to hear dissonant voices that advocate rapprochement between Christians and consider that their differences did not affect the true faith, but was only in its formulation. Whereas all Oriental Churches discovered only in the twentieth century that they had the same faith, but expressed differently, some of the authors mentioned below had discovered this truth centuries earlier, and expressed tolerance and fear of dividing the one Church.
Among these authors, some relate to relations between the ‘Greeks’ and the ‘Latins’, while all others deal with relations between Chalcedonians Christians and Miaphysite Christians and members of the Church of the East. But all express tolerance in the dealing between Christians and express fear of dividing the one Church.

Eustathios the Monk

Not much is known much about him except that he was a Syriac, Chalcedonian or Jacobite, who lived in the early or mid-ninth century, and left a book of 436 pages in which he responds to an article glorifying the religion of Jews and Muslims and strongly criticizing Christianity. After describing at length the difference between the beliefs of the Melkites, Nestorians, and Jacobites, he ends by saying that “despite the apparent differences between these sects of Christianity, they are much closer than one might think... since the basis of faith lies in the fact that the God of the Christians is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. , the one God... and that the humanity and divinity of Christ are united, whatever the method used to describe this union... and that there is no significant difference between Melkites and Jacobites regarding this union”[1].

Patriarch Nicholas I (Mystikos) of Constantinople
(+925)
He is known to have been an advocate of peace and harmony, and when the Armenians, Georgians, Albanians were persecuted by the Arabs, he sent a letter to the Armenian Catholicos John VI (Draskhanakertsi)(+925), expressing his own sorrow and saying: “Although we are
physically far from you and our eyes have not seen the calamity of your people, we have heard of the terrible calamities that have befallen you, and we share your bitter weeping, and our soul and spirit have sunk in great sorrow... Your Holiness must first and every day pray,
asking for divine help. You must call out from the depths of your heart to the all-powerful God to pour His compassion and mercy upon your people... We have sent also letters to the leaders of Georgia, asking them to listen to your requests, forget your quarrels, and enter into a treaty of friendship and lasting peace between them and the princes of your peoples, so that they will unite and become one side in fighting their common enemy…
…Your Holiness must contribute to this unity through words, letters, missionaries, bishops, priests, and holy men, and to remove from among your flock the flame of evil hostility. May the peace of Jesus Christ be with you, and may your prayers filled with holiness obtain forgiveness for our shortcomings”[2].
He further is known to have said that members of various sects “must live in communion and brotherhood, for those who differ in their way of living, behavior, and religion are not necessarily enemies”[3], and “Even when faith separates us and raises a wall between us, the strength of thought, mind, behavior and the power of human feeling, in short, all these qualities that adorn and honor human nature, ignite, in those who possess the love of goodness, love for all who embody such qualities”[4].


Ali bin Daoud Al-Arfadi

The only thing known about him is that he was born in Syria, since his surname refers to Al-Arfad, north of Aleppo, and that he lived in the tenth century. He was a Jacobite, and is considered one of the first Christians to have an “ecumenical” spirit, as he emphasizes in his book[5], common matters between the Christian sects, and reduces the importance of differences, saying that Christians “disagree in words and agree in meaning”. He constantly reminds that the basis of the Christian faith is in love and humility. He wrote the following[6]:

“In spite of the splendor of the Christian religion, Christians have been afflicted by… Satan, that forced them to separate into the sect of the Nestorians, the group of the Melkites and the community of the Jacobites... Each of them has ignorant people and rioters, and claim disbelief on whoever opposes its faith. When I looked into this, with real consideration and with due diligence, I did not find any difference between them that would necessitate a conflict in religion or faith, nor did I see a belief that nullifies the faith

of its owner, nor a belief that invalidates the belief of the other. This is because they all… refer to the Gospel of God”.

“When I looked into their understanding of the Gospel, their faith in the Trinity, the central role given to the Eucharist, their acceptance of the Nicaean Creed, their belief in the Sacraments, I found their total agreement, and I understood that there is no difference or contradiction between them, as they emanate from the same source and the same faith”.

“They claim that the main difference between them refers to the union of Christ’s divinity with his humanity, but they are differing in wording and are agreeing in meaning…

They agree to the divinity of Christ our Lord and his humanity, and they acknowledge their unity and that there is no difference or separation between them… The one who believes in two hypostases admis the one who says one hypostasis in that he acknowledges the union. And the one who believes in one hypostasis acknowledges the one who says two hypostases by acknowledging the existence of Christ’s divinity and humanity without transformation or change. Likewise, the one who claims two natures acknowledges the one-natured person by his recognition of the union without separation between divinity and humanity. And the one who believes in one nature acknowledges the two natures through his acknowledgment of the existence in Christ of full divinity and full humanity”.

“They differ in words, but agree in meaning, and they all follow one faith, believe in one religion, and worship one Lord. There is no difference them, and there is no room for separation except when passion, fanaticism, and spirit of leadership prevail”.

“Jacobites make the sign of the cross with one finger…, to express the belief in one Christ who saved them on the Cross… Nestorians and Melkites make it with two, their purpose being to show their belief in the existence of divinity and humanity that were on the Cross without separation”.

“As to the differences in prayers, fasting, and ritual practices… they do not represent differences in faith… God has inspired to every people... what is appropriate for them for their country… The differences between Christians in these practices are similar to those who enter a city from different paths… Each of them chooses one road leading to the city. When they meet their purpose, they all gather in the city… Likewise, the difference between the Christians is only in words, not in meaning and faith, since their faith is one, and it is based on love and humility”.

“Whoever lacks love and humility has departed from the Christian religion and lost his faith... Praise be to God who... exalted the glory of His Cross among all nations, and made them respond to His call… urging them to tolerance, forgiveness, love, and humility”.


Bishop Sawiris, Bishop of Ashmunin, known as Ibn al-Muqaffa’ (+987)

He wrote about the dogmatical differences between the various Christian communities, and said that “the Jacobites, Nestorians, Melkites, and Maronites say that the Incarnation was achieved by means of an hypostatic union, but they only disagree about the manner of this union”[7]. He also mentioned the differences in the wording of the Creed, and said that “these differences do not entail a loss of meaning or a deviation from the true faith”[8].


Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (+1054)

He opposed Patriarch Michael Kerularios of Constantinople (+1059), by his irenic approach to Greek-Latin conflict of 1054, found himself in the role of an intermediary between eastern and western Christiandom. Patriarch Kerularius was accusing the Latins of a long list of errors[9]. Peter III made a precise distinction made between the relevant and the irrelevant differences between the Eastern and Western Christianity. Considering the Church unity as one of the ecclesiological imperatives, Patriarch Peter III dismissed most of the anti-Latin arguments of the period saying that “beards should be left to barbers”[10]m and sticking to the real dogmatic issues.


Nicetas of Nicomedia

He had a debate in Constantinople with Anselm of Haveberg[11] (+1158) in 1136. It seems he made positive statements showing his willingness to reach a joint understanding. He is said to have declared that “the Orthodox Church was ready to admit that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “thru” the Son and not “and” the Son, and this was not a change to the Creed, but its explanation”. He further said that Orthodox “do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy among the five sister Patriarchates, and they recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she separated herself by her own deeds, when she assumed a monarchy that does not belong to her office”[12].


Basil of Thessalonica (+1155)

Basil Achridenos played an intermediary role at the start of the pontificate of Hadrian IV (1154-1159). Two Greek documents testify to his irenic spirit: the interview with Anselm of Haveberg[13] (+1158) in 1155 and his response to a letter from the Pope Hadrian IV. The Pope and his Byzantine correspondent only have in view essentially the spiritual mission of the church. The metropolitan recognizes in the voice of the pope that of a father, of a pastor, of a leader of pastors, but is surprised by the comparison with the lost drachma and the lost sheep, applied to his Church, while it is established on the confession of Peter and offers the truly life-giving sacrifice, not that of the Law. However Basil, undoubtedly following his interview with Anselm, glimpses the fundamental unity around the Eucharist: sacrifice of the same Lamb and even priesthood in both Churches. He wants all Christians to work to remove all stumbling blocks from the road of unity.



Theophylact of Ohrid (+1108)

Theophylact responded to a request by his spiritual son to discuss certain charges against the Latin Church, only some fifty years after the exchange of anathemas between Rome and Constantinople in 1054. While firmly defending the Orthodox doctrinal position rejecting the Filioque, he writes with a tone of moderation rare for his time, urging from both sides a spirit of conciliation concerning matters of local custom. He opposes the idea of ​​schism and defends the Latins against unfounded accusations. He said:

“I call for tolerant and loving consideration of the so-called “errors” of the Latins, and argue that the rigid insistence of zealous theologians on correcting ecclesiastical and spiritual customs not practiced by the Orthodox Church comes either out of ignorance or self-love and esteem, that are grave errors leading to a much more serious offense: a division in the body of Christ. For him, the errors that require a response are only those which affect the dogmas of the Church...

… Since none of numerous errors that are usually brought forth against other Christians pertain to the very

essence of our faith, we hesitate to oppose them and thus disturb agitated souls, lest our love grows cold. This coldness, as we have already heard, has been first of all dealt on me in this present time which abounds in inequity. For we do not receive in a brotherly manner what has been presented by our brothers, but stand against them in opposition and each one of us strives to appear as one elbowing and pushing back his rival who is ahead of him; and we believe to be deemed wise in the presence of many and that it would be the ultimate divine doctrine if we should attach to our neighbors some heresy and to be men of vision if we should expose the dark-gleaming Lucifer… For if we do not receive in a brotherly manner what is said by our brothers, but stand against them in opposition, not deeming it right to be hurt by the different practices of others”[14].

His discourse shows that several decades after 1054, the year many consider to be the year of the ‘Great Schism’, there was no awareness of a total separation, and there was a trend not to insist on matters of local custom of the Latins, and to exert great efforts not to divide the Churches.


George Tornikès, Metropolitan of Ephesus (+1156)

He wrote a number of letters that the Emperor sent to

the Pope of Rome clarifying his position on the thorny matters between the two Churches. Seeking the unity of Christian Churches, he wrote: “By giving to the Jerusalem Church the title of Mother of the Churches... we do not mean that it is the reason for the existence of other Churches, but rather that it is the first appearing in time. No Church can consider that it has maternal status in relation to other Churches. The Church of God is a single Church subject to Christ, His sole Shepherd. It is not divided into parts and does not know the first, the second, the third, and so on, because where enumeration and pluralism enter, unity and specificity disappear, and there is no longer a single Church, but rather multiple Churches… …For us, there is only one faith, one baptism, one Church and one shepherd, because the one Spirit works in all the Churches that worship and glorify the one God. Just as the Holy Spirit, which descended in the form of tongues of fire upon the disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ and His holy apostles, was fully with everyone and did not descend partially on one of them and completely on the other, but rather resided equally among all, despite their division into different languages, so is the Church of Christ governed by the Holy Spirit. One and indivisible in all regions of the universe, as Christ’s saintly disciples preached the Gospel because Christ is also indivisible. For us, there is only one teacher, who is Christ, and not Paul, Apollos, or Cephas, because these did not shed their blood for us, but rather the God-Man who willingly died for us. Since the Teacher is one and the Spirit is one, where are the differences, superiority or inferiority?...
…The flock is the Church signified by Peter's vision. It embraces all nations, because Peter, after establishing the Church in Jerusalem, then in Antioch, preached everywhere; in the same way Paul, sent to the Gentiles, also preaches to the Jews. The Church is one because its one high priest is Christ, not Paul, Apollos or Cephas; it is one because, apart from the cornerstone, Christ, it has no other foundation nor other head... Since we form one body, we only have a head endowed with all the spiritual senses. We have only one master who teaches us and it is not the thrones that distinguish his disciples, but the fact of drinking from the same cup and receiving the same baptism. The (episcopal) seats derive their honor from secular powers. But we have only one high priest, one king, of whom the Church is the only holy people. Built on the one foundation, Christ, and seated on the stone, the confession of Peter, the Church prevails against hell. Although it happens that all the local Churches, one or the other, fall, they mutually rise again, without one having to glorify itself at the expense of the other, because the Catholic Church alone is unshakeable. Convinced that there is only one Church, not subject to man, but to Christ, we deplore the tearing of the tunic and the dispersion of the flock...


…”I mix my bread with my tears”[15] wondering how the Lord’s one garment was teared, his one body divided, and his one flock scattered. For this reason, I look with longing for the unity between God’s holy Churches... We must put aside every human consideration and rally only around the Apostles and Fathers. Then unity will occur and the members will be organically joined with each other... If we ignore every worldly consideration and make the Holy Spirit the mediator between us, the wound will be healed, and we will return to being one body. But if we put obstacles in the way, expand the causes of friction, and throw stumbling stones at each other, the responsibility for the injury and division will fall entirely on those who do so…

…May the God of peace, who unites all things and who has transformed the wall of hostility into a wall of reconciliation, and who has done everything to unite all, give His church His peace that surpasses all understanding…

…Some Latin intellectuals told me that adding “and the Son” to the emanation of the Spirit from the Father did not come with the intention of attacking the faith of the holy Fathers, but rather due to a weakness in the vocabulary of the language that confused the emanation of the Spirit and sending it to the world, and that the Latins believe that the Spirit emanates from the Father as His principle and that it was sent from the Son…

Since we do not exclude each other or prevent each other from entering each other’s Churches, but rather gather there for joint prayer, we are united. If there was disagreement regarding the bloodless Sacrifice, which we perform with leavened bread and you with unleavened bread, it would have not been possible for our priests to perform together the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God, and to share together the precious Body and Blood of the Lord. Therefore, I feel that the rift between us is small and that unity will be achieved easily when God allows us to meet...

…We should not be concerned with explaining the reasons for the schism that occurred between us... Rather, we should seek carefully to identify ways that can address it, and we should yearn for that with all our heart” [16].

Furthermore Tornikès claimed “if any of the patriarchates should be exalted above the others, it is the first and eldest, the Church of old Jerusalem, which had Christ himself as its bishop. However, if seniority is not to be accepted as constituting primacy, then the youngest one, Constantinople, should receive primacy, as several biblical examples show that the young deserves seniority over the elder”[17].



Bishop Nerses of Lambron (+1198)

Archbishop of Tarsus at the age of twenty-three, he was one of the advocates of restoring unity between the Byzantine Church and the Armenian Church. In the year 1179, he participated in the Hromkla Council, where the conditions for this unity were discussed, and where it was decided to proceed with its realization. But the death of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos, in the year 1180, and the lack of interest of his successors in the matter, caused it not to be realized.

Nerses sought also to restore unity with the Church of Rome, in the year 1198, but his premature death, at forty-five years old, disrupted the project.

He left the famous speech (Atenabanutyun), which he read at the Council of Hromkla, encouraging unity between the churches. He is known as ‘the second Paul of Tarsus’ because of his burning zeal for unity.

According to him, the dogmatic and ritual features of the Churches should not forbid ecumenical dialogue among them. The Greeks and Latins saw unity as liturgical uniformity and submission either to Roman Pope or to the Emperor. Instead, Nerses saw unity principally as unity in love for Christ. He believed that the obstacle to unity between Christians was not in theology or canon law, but in lack of brotherly love. He observed “traditions and feasts are fruits of love, not vice versa”[18].

He said: “Every Christian tradition is a fruit of people’s love for Christ. If you keep your tradition for the glory of God and receives the tradition of the other again for the glory of God, it is praiseworthy as you receive the same Christ through leavened or unleavened blessed bread”. Nerses addressed a group of Armenian Bishops, saying: “Let us pray in order that our Lord give tenderness, sweetness in greater abundance still, and that He develop on earth, by the dew of the Holy Spirit, this seed; perhaps, thanks to His power may we also produce fruits; so that we may restore the peace of the Church of Christ today in intention, tomorrow in fact”.


Nerses had a multicultural and multiethnic flock. But what mattered most to him was simply being a Christian: “All we Christians adore in diverse tongues one Jesus Christ and all we Christians are the one Church of Jesus Christ. When Christians pray in Spain, that prayer is for me too, for I am a Christian as they are; and when I am praying in Cilicia, my prayer is for them too, for they profess the same faith as I do… I am united by tradition to whoever bears the name of Christ as a crown of glory. All are in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is in all. Every Christian tradition is a fruit of people's love for Christ... If you keep your tradition for the glory of God and receives the tradition of the other again for the glory of God, it is praiseworthy as you receive the same Christ through leavened or unleavened blessed bread…''.

Further, Nerses integrated Armenian, Greek, and Latin rites into one ecumenical liturgy. He created this synthesis for pastoral reasons. He regarded himself as an ecumenical local pastor for all Christians: Armenians, Copts, Greeks, Latins and Syrians, and used to say: “For me, the Armenian is as the Latin and the Latin as the Greek, and the Greek as the Egyptian and the Egyptian as the Syrian”. His liturgical commentary embodies what he taught and believed: a local united Church with an ecumenical liturgy. A liturgy that is both diverse and united. Seven Hundred before the Ecumenical liturgy of the World Council of Churches Lima Conference in 1982, Nerses of Lampron had composed it. If Lima was a theological document, Nerses' liturgy was a lived theology.


Jacobite Patriarch Michael the Great (+1199)

In the year 1168, he made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and stayed for an entire year in Antioch. Byzantine Emperor approached him, seeking to restore communion between the two Churches, but he did not respond to his repeated requests, and he refused to go to Constantinople because he did not trust the “Greeks”.

He recorded in his Chronicle[19] events related to one of the meetings between Chalcedonians and Miaphysites, that explain why they were fruitless. He said:

“The Armenian Catholicos wrote to me, saying: “The Emperor of the Greeks asks us to do ten things, five of which are related to doctrine, and five to customs. As for the five related to doctrine, they are: that we recognize two natures, two wills and two actions in Christ; that we recognize, in addition to the first three Councils, the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh Councils; to refrain from adding “He who was crucified for us”, at the end of the Cherubim’s praise. As for the matters related to customs, they are: we should celebrate Christmas with the other Christians; we shall put water in the Holy Cup, use olive oil to make the Chrism, pray in churches, and perform the Sacrifice publicly. It seems to me, for the sake of peace, that we can modify customs and speak of two natures, as Gregory the Theologian teaches. But we cannot cancel the phrase “He who was crucified for us,” nor can we anathemize our saints”.

As for the Emperor’s message to Patriarch Michael, it said: “If you come to the meeting, you will be able to say what you please. You will not encounter anything that humiliates or insults you. Rather, you will be received with dignity and be allowed to return to your throne. If Your Holiness does not accept our faith, she will remain in her faith”.

The Patriarch replied: “We do not reject unity, but rather we desire it very much, if it is established with people who do not change the teachings of the Fathers, and who acknowledge with Athanasius and Cyril the nature of the Incarnate Word"[20].

Gregory Bar Hebraeus (+1286)

Bishop in 1246 at only twenty years of age. Primate (Maphrian) of the East in 1264, the highest position in the Jacobite Church after the Patriarch. He became one of the leading intellectuals of his time, and the greatest scholar of the Syriac Miaphysite Church throughout its history. At his death, all the Christians of the region mourned him, not only by men of his own Church, but also by Nestorians, Armenians, and Chalcedonians.

In some of his theological writing, Bar-Hebraeus made what has been described as "ecumenical gestures" towards other Christians. He may have realized that Christians under Muslim rule gained nothing from disunity, and he considered all religious debates among Christians as futile, and advised that disputations about the person and natures of Jesus Christ should be set aside, while the doctrines of the Nicene Creed should be accepted by all.

He wrote: “The necessity forced me to argue with men of opposing beliefs, Christians or outsiders, and to base the debate on logical analogies and objections. After studying this topic for a sufficient period of time and contemplating it carefully, I was convinced that the quarrel between Christians is not based on truth, but only on words and terminology. They all believe that our Lord Christ is perfect in Godhead and also perfect in humanity; truly God and truly man, in two natures without confusion nor separation. The union does not nullify the distinctiveness of each nature. Instead, the properties of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one person. As for the type of the union, some call it nature, others hypostasis or person. When I saw that Christian people, despite their differences on the surface, agree completely on the basic faith, I eradicated hatred from the depths of my heart and neglected ideological debate”[21].


Saliba, Ibn Youhanna of Mosul

Priest of the Church of the East, he lived in Mosul in the first quarter of the fourteenth century, then he moved to Cyprus and wrote an article addressed to Western Christians (that is, for him, the Greeks and Latins) whom he met there, entitled “A Message of guidance to love, the fruit of religion and belief”[22] in which he called for the unification of Christians. He said we are united because “we have one God Father and one Savior who redeemed us from sin with His pure blood, and saved us from the captivity of Satan, death, and sin”[23]. “We also have the same sacraments, the Holy Baptism and the Eucharist, to which Christ has linked hope, love, and faith, and has made all of us equal with no fanaticism, prejudice, or inclination towards whims”.

“The only differences are those caused by the distance of our countries and the difference in languages. No one can take pride or consider himself superior over anyone else, unless with his righteous deeds”[24].

“We have the same customs and the same Fathers… We do venerate the writings of Western Fathers such as Gregory the Theologian, Gregory (Nyssa), Evagrius, Theodore the Studite, John Chrysostomos and Basil the Great, as we find their knowledge, virtue and faith conforming to our own faith, that was transmitted to us by the Holy Apostles Mar Addai, Mar Mari and Mar Thomas… And we are confident that you too are often using the sayings of Syriac Fathers”[25].

“Divisions are the work of Satan who, not able to corrupt the basis of our faith, nor to change an iota in it, has spread hatred and suspicion between the believers”[26].

“We ask God to remove, from His Church and His flock, discord and evil hatred caused by Satan, and to spread love among the baptized ones, and to strengthen all the sects of the Christian faith in compassion and love”[27].


[1] The Book of Eustace the Monk, edited by Reem Saeed Burnham, doctoral dissertation, p. 11. Translated from Arabic by the Author.

[2] Nicholas I, Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters. Greek Text and English Tr. by R. J. H. Jenkins and L. G. Westerink (Washington, D.C., 1973). Translated from Arabic by the Author.

[3] Migne 121, 29. Translated from Arabic by the Author.

[4] op. cit. 28. Translated from Arabic by the Author.

[5] “Kitab Ijtima’ al amana wa ‘ounsor ad diyana wa fakhr al ortodocsia al Majida”,The Book of unanimity of Christian Faith and pride of glorious Orthodoxy, French tr. By G. Troupeau, Revue Parole de l’Orient (Melto), no. 5, Kaslik, 1969,

[6] Op. cit. 1-11. This text and the ones following are translated from Arabic by the Author..

[7] Letter to Abi al Youmn ibn Mina, chapter 11. Translated from Arabic by the Author.

[8] Kitab Mousbah al ‘akl, chapter 9. Translated from Arabic by the Author.

[9] Several lists of such errors have circulated in the Twelfth Century, written specially by Nicetas Seides, John of Claudiopolis, Pseudo-Photios, Constantine Stilbes, Meletios Homologetes and others. These lists reappear nowadays in Orthodox intolerant zealeous circles.

[10] P. G. t. CXX, col. 797-800.

[11] He was sent by the Holy Roman Emperor to Constantinople in 1136 to seek an alliance with the Byzantines.[6] in the hope of a Byzantine alliance. He held theological discussions with Nicetas of Nicomedia,[7] an account of which he wrote later as his Dialogues (Antikeimenon), at the request of Pope Eugenius III (1145-1153). His account tended to play down the theological differences. He returned to Constantinople in 1154 and participated in a theological debate with Basil, metropolitan of Thessalonica.

[12] P. G. 188, 1219-1220.


[14] P. G. 126, 222-254.

[15] Psalm 102 : 9.

[16] Georges Tornikes, Letters and Orations, ed. and Fr. tr. J. Darrouzes, George and Demetrios Tornikes, Lettres et Discours, Paris, 1970, no. 30, pp. 324-335, 328-331.

[17] op. cit.

[18] The text and those following are taken from Gregory Shokhikyan in The "first ecumenist"?: perhaps an Armenian bishop from the 12th Century, May 30, 2022.


[20] The Chronicle, op. cit. 19, chap. 5. Translated from Arabic by the Author.

[21] The Book of the Dove, chapter 4. Translated from Arabic by the Author.

[22] Joanna Maria Genazza, Revue Parole de l’Orient, 22, 1997.

[23] op. cit.2, 1, 14-17. This text and those following are translated from Arabic by the Author.

[24] op. cit. 2, 1, 18-20, 27-29.

[25] op. cit. 2, 32 ; 3, 39 et 42.

[26] op. cit. 3, 2, 65-67.

[27] op. cit. Conclusion, 157-161.

المشاركات الشائعة