[Webmaster's note: This doctoral thesis is reproduced by kind permission of Mgr. Raheb. The material is copyright and may not be reproduced without permission from the author and translator.]
Archimandrite AbdallahRaheb, Doctor of Theology,
Licentiate in Philosophy,
Diploma in German Letters,
Professor of Ecumenical Sciences at the University of
ex-Superior General of the Order of Saint Basil of Aleppo.
This whole thesis is available for downloading as a single file Adobe Acrobat file (PDF). To download please click this link: Orthodox Antioch Union (676 KB).
Endnotes (partial from 1 to 300 -- containued on page 3, 301 to 515)
 These patriarchates officially kept ecclesiastical communion with the see of
Rome until 1054; they are four in number: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch
and Jerusalem after that of Rome. Cf. Council of Nicea I, canon 6; Council of
Constantinople I, canons 2 and 3; Council of Chalcedon, canon 28. The other
Orthodox patriarchs are later and were part of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople during the first millennium. Do not confuse these Orthodox
patriarchates properly speaking with those born after the Christological
heresies, Monophysism, Nestorianism and Monothelism. Properly understood these
patriarchates were not in ecclesiastical communion with the five patriarchal
sees of the first millennium, that is, neither with the see of Rome nor with
the four Orthodox Eastern sees. Very significant on this subject are the last
studies of W. DeVries on the structure of the Church after the Ecumenical
Councils of the first millennium: “Die Struktur der Kirche gemäss dem III.
Konzil von Konstantinopel (680-681),” in Volk Gottes, Freiburg Br. 1967, pp. 262-285; “Die Struktur der
Kirche gemäss dem II, Konzil von Nicäa (787),” in OCP, 33 (1967) 47-71; “Die Struktur der Kirche gemäss
dem IV, Konzil von Konsrantinopel (869-870),” in Archivium Historiae
Pontificiae 6 (1968) 7-24; Die Struktur der
Kirche gemäss dem Konzil von Chalkedon (451),” in OCP, 35 (1969) 63-122.
 This was the election of a “fully” Catholic patriarch, Cyril Tanas in
1724. Rome’s confirmation arrived
in 1729 after long deliberations. The pallium was only granted in March 1744.
Rome’s hesitation was due precisely to the less canonical or less evangelical
manner in which the election and consecration was done. Cf. SC, Greci
Melchiti, Miscellanea, “Causa dei Greci
Melchiti 1743.” Compare with the futile controversy (little informed on the
question) between P. Bacel and C. Bacha. Basel considered the election of this
patriarch as “anticanonical” and Bacha on the other hand affirmed its
canonicity, in EO 9 (1906) 283 and 10 (1907) 206.
 A week after the consecration of Cyril Tanas, this was the definitely Orthodox
candidate who was consecrated at Constantinople on September 27, 1724: its was
Sylvester the Cypriot who was juridically recognized by the Sublime Porte by
obtaining the firman. Cf. Rustum, pp.
143-151; Rabbath, II, pp.
415-420; C. Bacha, Histoire des Grecs Melkites (in Arabic), II, pp. 152-154.
 Cf. for example the sentiments of Rome on the subject of Metropolitan Germanos
of Aleppo (1776-1809), Patriarch Maximos III Mazloom (1833-1855) and Patriarch
Gregory Yousof (Sayour) (1864-1897).
Maximos Mazloom had to accept a forced residence in Rome from 1823 until
1831, and Gregory Yousof had the privilege of his head “shaded” by the foot of
Pius IX because he had resisted the promulgation of papal infallibility in
1870. Moreover Patriarchs Maximos IV and Maximos V suffered for it. Cf. Le
Lien (Bulletin of the Greek-Melkite
Catholic Patriarchate) 1969, Nos 3-4, 5-6; Voix de l’Eglise en Orient, Freiburg 1962; L’Eglise grecque-melkite
au Concile, Beirut 1967; Y. Congar, in Les
Eglises Orientales Catholiques, Paris 1970,
p. 14 (of preface); O. Rousseau, “Rome et l’Orient àVatican I,” in Irenikon 43 (1970) 430-431.
 Cf. for example W. De Vries, “Dei Haltung des Heiligen Stuhes (von Rom)
gegenüber den getrennten Hierarchen im Nahen Osten zur Zeit des Unionem” in Zeitschrift
für kath Theologie, 80 (1958) 378-409.
 Pope Gregory XV founded this Congregation at the beginning of 1622; its
principal goal was determined in the Encyclical of January 15, 1622 and the
Constitution of June 22, 1622: To keep the Catholic faith of the faithful, to
convert heretics, schismatics and infidels, and finally to prevent the progress
of heretical preachers. Cf. Collectanea I (a. 1622-1866), pp. 1-2.
 Cf. DThC, X, col. 1698 fol.; Musset I,
pp. 270 fol.; Will C., Acta et scripta quae de controversies
ecclesiae graecae et latinae saeculo XI composite exsrant, Leipzig 1861, pp. 168-178; Cf. also Fortescue A., The
Orthodox Eastern Church, London 1929, pp.
 According to Le Quien (Vol. II, p. 764) this patriarch of Antioch was Theodore
V; compare with the article “Antioche” in DHGE III (1924) col. 699 and 620-621.
 Cf. J. Nasrallah, Chronologie des Patriarches melchites d’Antioche de 1250 à
1500, Jerusalem 1968, pp. 28-31. The author affirms (p. 47): “it does
not seem possible for us to doubt the catholicism of the patriarchs of Antioch
and Alexandria from the 13th century to the 16th century
since H. Zayat published a series of texts coming from the Mamluke chancery.”
These texts appear in a book Les grecs-melkites dans l’Islam (in Arabic), Harissa 1953. But is it possible to
make such an affirmation without examining the kind of catholicism professed by
these patriarchs? If this issue was so simple, why then did the missionaries
have to work so long in the 17th century to be successful to a
partial union of the patriarchate of Antioch and a fleeting union of the
patriarchate of Alexandria? If it concerned the orthodox catholicism of the
first millennium, the issue would be easier to prove. But if it concerns the Roman Catholicism of the second
millennium, the Latin missionaries of the 17th century tell us about
the resistance of these patriarchates to this kind of catholicism. Cf. OCA, No. 181: “I patriarcati orientali nel primo
millenion,” Rome 1968.
 Cf. Vat. Arab. 48, fol. 68r-69r and 66r
where we find 2 original letters, and Vat. Arab 1482, fol. 1r-2v where we find the profession of faith.
Cf. also Oriente Cattolico,
Vatican 1962, p, 251. For the role of L. Abel in this affair, cf. Nasrallah, Chronologie
des Patriarcats Melchites d’Antioche de 1500 à 1634, Paris 1959, pp. 43-44. Cf., also DHGE, article “Abel” col. 70-71. On the subject of the
role of Cardinal G. Antonio Santoro, cf. J. Krajcar, “Cardinal Giulio Antonio
Santoro and the Christian East,” OCA,
No. 177, Rome 1966.
 It concerns the dynamic period of 1625, the date when the first Capuchin and
Jesuit missionaries arrived at Aleppo until 1724 when Cyril Tanas began the
juridically Catholic series of patriarchs of Antioch. Cf. De Vries, Rom und
die Patriarchate des Ostens, Freiburg 1963,
pp. 82 ff.
 Cf. Kilzi, “Life of Patriarch of Antioch Euthymios Karmeh the Hamawite written
by his disciple Patriarch Macarios of Aleppo” (in Arabic), in Al-Maçarrat, 1913, p. 41-42. Compare with Rustum, p. 49.
 Of which was the future founder of the Missionaries of Holy Savior Euthymios
Saifi, who had a decisive role in the ritual innovations and the propagation of
new ecclesiastical ideas on the patriarchate of Antioch. Cf. the letter
published by C. Bacha, Histoire des Grecs-Melkites, I, Saida 1938, pp, 466 ff. Compare with the article
“Euthyme Saifi” in DHGE 14
(1967), col. 64-74.
 Of which was the first juricically Catholic patriarch of Antioch, Cyril Tanas,
nephew of Euthymios Saifi. Cf. Musset II, p. 174’ article “Antioche” in DHGE, 3 (1924) col. 647; C. Bacha in EO, 10 (1907) 200-206.
 Cf. especially M. Ritter, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der
Gegenreformayion und de Dreissigjährigen Krieges, 3 vols., Stuttgart 1889-1907. One can get a very condensed general
idea of it in Nouvelle Histoire de l’Eglise, Vol. 3, Paris 1968, pp. 256-272 (by H. Tüchle). Cf.
also E. W. Zeeden, “Grundlagen der Konfessionsbildung im Zeitalter der
Glaubenskämpfle,” in Historische Zeitschrift, 185 (1958) 249-299.
 Cf. the glance on the political history of the 17th century in Musset, II, pp. 94-97.
Nasrallah, “Vie de la Chrétienté melkite sous la domination turque,” in Revue
des Etudes Islamiques, 80 (1948) 95-98.
Also C. A. Bouman, “Les Eglises de rite byzantin dans l’Empire Ottoman,” in Nouvelle
Histoire de l’Eglise, III, Paris 1968, pp.
 Cf. G. Hering, Oekumenesisches Patriarchat und europäische Politik (1620-1638), Weisbaden 1968. While the author is
content with the texts of the Archives of the Congregation for the Propagation
of the Faith (Propaganda) published by G. Hofmann (in O.C. 7 (1929) 55-72), this book shows a notable
scientific progress in the knowledge of this very complicated period of
religious and political history. Cf. on the subject of this deposition the
succinct relationship made by the secretary of the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith Ingoli in SOCG, vol. 20, fol. 71r (cf. also fol. 41r-47r); “Euthimio Archimandrita di
Constantinipoli da Roma con lettere generali dirette all’Ambasciator di
Francia, se n’andò à quella Città per procurare la depositione di Cirillo
(Lucar), ove assistendo al sudetto Ambasciatore, e cooperando à Hieracudio
Greco rinegato, e nermico di Cirillo et al Sboraschi Residente di Polonia,
ch’era dal medesimo Cirillo offeso; perche procurava di disturber la pace trà
turchi, e polachi. Si venne alla depositione di esso Cirillo (12 April 1623)
per mezzo di Marechusin primo Visir, e si passava anche più inanzi sin à
levarli la vita, se l’Archimandrita, che non voleva che si introducesse tal
costume d’uccidere li patriarchi, non s’opponeva…”
 Cf. in Grumel (Chronologie, p. 438) a list of the patriarchs of Constantinople
very precise for this period (1622-1672). Cyril I Lucaris, who attained the
patriarchal throne of New Rome 6 times, had to pay very dearly at each new
 To give only an example of voyages to Russia, cf. Nasrallah, Chronologie, pp. 46-50. We remark that the voyages of Joachim
Daou, Patriarch of Antioch (1580-Nov. 1592) and of Jeremiah, Patriarch of
Constantinople (then third time on this throne) resulted in the creation of the
Patriarchate of Moscow on January 26, 1589. These patriarchs had to be included
to the ambitions of their benefactor! Compare with the article “Antioche,” in DHGE, III (1924), col. 637-638.
 The popes themselves sometimes recommended to the Maronite patriarchs to ask
for aide from these princes. Paul V, for example, in 1610 exhorted Patriarch
John Makhlouf (1609-1634) to ask for help from Emir Fakhr-ed-Din II, to whom the
same patriarch had already addressed himself at his election in 1609. Cf. E.
Douaihy, History of the Times, 1095-1699
(in Arabic) Beirut 1951, p. 201. Also the Greek Patriarch Ignatios III Atieh
(1619-1634) was the protégé of this Druze emir. Cf. Chapter I of this study.
 A first attempt of the foundation of this Congregation took place at the time
of Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605). This is why the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith, founded definitively in 1622 (cf. note 6 of the
introduction), decided in its first gathering on January 6 of this year: “quod
scibatur Archiepiscopo Cosentino ut scripturas tempore Clementis 8 confectas
circa Propagationem fidei in simili Congregatione tunc temporis erecta, et apud
ipsum existents Secretario consignaret” (Acta, vol. 3, fol. 2r). Also this
first volume of the Acts of this new Congregation begins with number 3, by
attaching the Acts of the times of Clement VIII in order to make the first 2
volumes. But it has nothing.
 Cf. Kilzi, pp. 89 and 135; Macarios
of Aleppo, p. 626; Vat. Arab. 689, fol. 129; Radu, p. 38.
Macarios of Aleppo, pp. 626-627. It
appears that the candidates to the patriarchate were very numerous. The
Damascenes preferred the one who would promise to pay annually the deficit of
the tax required of the Christians by the Turks.
Macarios of Aleppo, p. 627: “7119 of the
creation of the world.” Compare with the article “Athanase II” in DHGE, vol. IV-V, col. 1369, where G. Levenq follows
Korolevsky in his article “Antioche” in the same DHGE III, col. 640, but without checking documents.
Korolevsky also put 1612 by making a mistake in the calculation, but he
indicates the year 7119. Levenq indicates very simply 1612. We know that the year 7119 of the
creation of the world would not correspond at all to the Christian year 1611
and never to 1612. Besides a colophon of Vat. Arab 401, fol. 172v gives us this date: mid-September
1020 H (=1611 AD).
Kilzi, pp. 46 and 84. Macarios
of Aleppo p. 627. It happened in the “third
year” of the episcopacy of Karmeh and not after 3 years of episcopacy. We do not see why Musset (II, p. 159) puts 1615 as the date of this event.
The dismissal of Karmeh whom Patriarch Athanasios II had wished to detain at
Constantinople seemed to have had financial reasons or even because of his
first contacts with the Franciscans of Aleppo. Likewise Cyril IV, brother of
Athanasios II, also had his quarrels with Karmeh, as we will see.
Kilzi, p. 84. This is the first official
contact between Karmeh and the patriarch of Constantinople, which we know about
from his biographer Macarios of Aleppo, who added for this occasion that “all
the people of Constantinople) marveled at his wisdom and intelligence.”
Macarios of Aleppo, p. 627; Kilzi, pp, 88-89; article “Antioche” in DHGE vol. 3, col. 640; Rustum, p. 37. Levenq in “Athanase II” cited above, has this take place in 1620. Even so he
cites Le Quien, Oriens Christianus,
1740, II, p. 771 (rather col. 772), in which we read: “Athanasius III vir, si
Jacobo Gualterio in chronologia ipsius credimus, apprimè catholicus, qui quum anno
1618 Antiochenae ecclesiae praeesset, anno
insequenti (i.e. 1619) vivere
desiit.” Concerning the Catholicism of this
patriarch, cf. C. Charon, “L’Eglise grecque Melkite Catholique,” EO 4 (1900-1901), p. 274; Gr.’Ata, The Greek
Melkite Catholics, Historical Handbook (in
Arabic), Beirut 1884, p. 19, where the author adds the existence of a
pro-Catholic synod in 1617. All this is based on a narrative of J. Gaulthier, (Tables
chronologiques de l’estat du christianisme,
Paris 1621, p. 848), that Le Quien cites unreservedly. The authentic documents
tell us only that Patriarch Athanasios II wanted to depose Metropolitan Karmeh
in 1614, most probably because of Karmeh’s philo-catholic tendencies. Moreover
in the same year (April 4, 1614) he had imprisoned in Damascus by Hafez Ahmad
Pasha two priests and three laity, all Maronites because they had followed the
Gregorian calendar adopted by their patriarchs since 1606. Athanasios II had
also suffered imprisonment. When released he went to Constantinople. Cf. Nasrallah,
Chronologie, p. 55. We can even compare
these two facts to see more clearly the reason of the complaint that he took to
Constantinople against Karmeh: Karmeh was not only in contact with the
Franciscans who were in Aleppo since 1571, but he was also the friend of the
Maronites. On this last point we could say that Karmeh collaborated with them.
Perhaps here there was a change with Athanasios II after his reconciliation
with Karmeh! But from there until the Roman conception of Catholicism in the 17th century there was a greater difference!
Kilzi, p. 89; Macarios of
Aleppo, p. 627; Vat. Arab, 689, fol. 129r. Death came during Lent of 1629.
Athanasios II was buried in the Monastery of Our Lady of Kiftin near Tripoli
(Syria). Cf. also C. Bacha, Extract of the Voyage of Macarios the
Aleppian, (in Arabic) Harissa 1912, p. 36.
He notes that Patriarch Athanasios II is called “Athanasios III” by Le
Quien (col. 772). C. Charon (= Korolevsky)
follows it in his article mentioned in EO as well as Rustum much
later (p. 37). But Charon corrected this in his article “Antioche” in DHGE III, col. 640 where we nevertheless find the wrong
designation of Kaftoun instead of Kaftin.
Vat. Arab. 689, fol.129v; Kilzi, p. 89; Macarios of Aleppo, p, 627; Rustum, p. 38; Ignatios Atieh was the secretary of Emir Fakr-ed-Din II before
becoming Metropolitan of Saida in 1605. This also explains the protection that
he had always found with this former patron. Cf. C. Bacha, History of
the Greek Melkites (Arabic) I, Saida 1938,
pp. 87-95; Nasrallah, Chronologie,
pp. 56-67. We see that the law of appeal to the Patriarch of New Rome was not a
legend, for the Damascenes no more.
the consecration Cyril IV, the Pasha of Tripoli, Ibn Sifa, forced Metropolitans
Simeon of Hama, Lazaros of Homs and Dionysios of Hosn to come, all three
finding themselves under his obedience. His bursar, the Greek Melkite Salomon
added a great role in this affair. Cf. Macarios of Aleppo, p. 627; Kilzi, p. 135; Vat. Arab. 689,
fol. 129rv. For the date of consecration we see that the year 1620, held to by
Korolevsky in his article “Antioche” of DHGE, has no foundation (it is the continuation of false
calculation, cf. previous footnote
 Cyril IV wanted to make the Damascenes obey by having his cousin George buy the
firman at Constantinople, and a decree of banishment to Cyprus for his
competitor Ignatios III. But the Damascenes did everything possible to support
Ignatios. Then Cyril IV addressed himself to the Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril
Lucaris (around the end of 1619), who wanted to reprimand the Damascenes by
exhorting them to accept Cyril IV as their patriarch. But the response of the
Damascenes only exasperated Cyril Lucaris: “we do not want Cyril IV,” they
wrote to him, “and we will not accept him as our patriarch. As for you, occupy
yourself in your own affairs. You do not have to oblige us or judge us in
anything.” Cyril Lucaris then recognized Cyril IV as Patriarch of Antioch by
concelebrating with him. Cf. Macarios of Aleppo, p. 629; Kilzi, p. 136; Rustum p. 38.
 Macarios of Aleppo notes that the diocese of Aleppo was neutral before these
rivalries (Kilzi, p. 136). This is why
Karmeh, then Metropolitan of Aleppo, did not commemorate in his Divine Liturgy
either of the two competitors until the solution of the problem at the Synod of
Ras-Baalbek (June 1628). And it was only beginning August 6, 1629 that the
diocese of Aleppo began to insert the name of Ignatios III in its diptychs. Cf. Kilzi p. 141.
 George, the cousin of Cyril IV, took the road to Constantinople several times
to get the secular arms of the Turks to accept the rights of his cousin at
Damascus. The Damascenes had to pay so much (as did the Aleppians from 1624 to
1627) that they could no longer resist the pretensions of Cyril IV in 1627. Cf. Kilzi, pp. 139-140; Rustum, p. 38; Radu, p. 38.
 Cf. on this subject the precious work of G. Hering, Oekumenisches
Patriarchat und europäische Politik (1620-1638), Wiesbaden 1968. Cf. also SOCG, vol. 270, fol. 71r, fol. 139r, fol. 237rv and 240r; vol. 115, fol.
82r; vol. 117, fol. 5r; vol. 389, fol.274rv and 28er; vol.195, fol. 135r, fol.
448 and fol. 496r-497r. We find here very eloquent testimonies of what took
place at Constantinople in order to have philo-Calvinists or philo-Roman
 This explains the attitude of the bishops of the Patriarchate of Antioch who
were unanimously in favor of Ignatios III in June 1628.
 Cf. footnote 33 above. In fact Aleppo began to be harassed by the pretensions
of Cyril IV only beginning August 28, 1624, as we will see.
 Cf. Nasrallah, Chronolgie, pp. 57 ff; Kilzi, p. 84.
 Karmeh did not hesitate to say why he did not want to concelebrate with Cyril
IV; there were “two patriarchs” for the same patriarchate. Kilzi, p. 136.
 After the deposition of Cyril Lucaris on April 12, 1623, two patriarchs
succeeded on the throne of Constantinople, Gregory IV of Amasia (April 12-June
18, 1623) and Anthimos II of Adrinople (June 18- September 22, 1623). Supported
above all by the Ambassador of Holland to Constantinople, Lucaris occupied the
ecumenical throne again by pushing aside his competitors. Cf. Grumel,
Chronologie, p. 438; G. Hering, Op.
Cit., pp.433 and 425; W. De Vries, Rom
und die Patriarchate des Ostens, Freiburg
1963, p. 76. Cf. also footnote 18 and Acta, vol. 3, fol. 56r, 38r, 63v and 73r.
Macarios of Aleppo, p. 629, specifies
that Lucaris had shown joy on the arrival of Cyril IV of Antioch and that in
Moldavia and Valachia he was well received.
 This commandment of the sultan not only exasperated the clergy and faithful of
Damascus, already exhausted by the exactions that the Ottomans submitted them
to in order to allow Ignatios III as patriarch. Often all the clergy of
Damascus were hiding, so much so that no priest could be found to administer
the last sacraments to the dying (Macarios of Aleppo, p. 629). Thus Patriarch Ignatios III preferred to
remain near his protector Emir Fakr-ed-Din at Beirut o r Saida (Macarios
of Aleppo, p. 629; Kilzi, p. 136).
 Cyril Lucaris twice recognized the legitimacy of Patriarch Cyril IV of Antioch
by concelebrating with him and by the acceptance of his ecclesiastical
communion, despite the manifest opposition of the Damascenes and most of the
bishops of Antioch: the first time around the end of 1619 when he was Patriarch
of Alexandria, the second time in 1624 as Patriarch of Constantinople. Cf. Kilzi, p. 136; Macarios of Aleppo, pp. 628-629; J. Nasrallah, Op. Cit., pp. 56-57.
 This was the eve of the feast of the Finding of the Head of John the Baptist. Kilzi, p. 136; Macarios of Aleppo, p. 630.
 Macarios of Aleppo adds that the accommodations had been refused because the
episcopal residence was not yet finished (Kilzi, p. 137). But it is necessary to note that Karmeh wanted to know
nothing of Cyril IV who remained for him always a usurper of patriarchal
rights. Cyril VI resided with an notable of the Armenian Orthodox (Macarios
of Aleppo, p. 630).
 We understand by this the profound sense of the participation at the same table
of the Lord: to concelebrate was to recognize each other reciprocally as
members of the same ecclesial body with all the prerogatives that each
appropriated. We remark that Karmeh never solicited communion with Cyril IV,
while Cyril IV used all his means to have it with the local bishop of Aleppo.
 The same expression is used in Kilzi (p.
137) and Macarios of Aleppo (p.
630): “All those who hate Meletios are lined up (literally go: dhahaba) with
Cyril.” Knowing that Meletios Karmeh was a holy man conscious of his episcopal
duties, this hatred can be attributed to jealousy that provoked the goodness of
this bishop who worked day and night to translate and compose books of piety to
correct his faithful (cf. Kilzi,
pp. 46-47 and 81-88) and to lead a life of prayer and fasting as Fr. Besson,
S.J. also describes (pp. 23-24): “a very Catholic man and a very austere
life…,” perhaps even because of his relations with the Franciscans of Aleppo
(for the other missionaries were not there before 1625) as we will see.
 Macarios of Aleppo specifies that Cyril IV “seized the Church of Aleppo with
his revenue by doing all that he wanted” (Kilzi, p. 137).
 Kilzi, Ibid., and Macarios of
Aleppo, p. 630. Since November 15, 1624,
Karmeh no longer went to celebrate the Divine Liturgy at the Greek Church of
Aleppo. He only returned there on March 31, 1627 after his trip to
Constantinople. Cf. Kilzi, pp.
137-139. Between August 29 and November 14, 1624, while Cyril IV was in Aleppo
at the home of a notable Armenian, Karmeh went to celebrate the Divine Liturgy
during the week and Cyril IV on Sundays and feasts, Kilzi, pp. 136-137.
Kilzi, p. 137. We can note that the
concelebration of Cyril IV with the priests of Aleppo did not represent a true
problem for Karmeh, eparchial bishop of the place. The true problem was
recognizing Cyril IV not only as one of the bishops of the patriarchate, but
also as Patriarch of Antioch. And
Karmeh never wanted to recognize such.
 Simeon of Hama, Lazaros of Homs and Ignatios of Paneas. Cf. Kilzi, Ibid. By this act Patriarch Cyril IV wanted to show the
Aleppians that he was recognized as such by the other bishops of the
Patriarchate of Antioch. The first two bishops participated in the consecration
of Cyril IV in 1619 at Amioun. This is what makes us think that these two at
least were not forced by Ibn Sifa to consecrate him, since they came freely
then to Aleppo to concelebrate with him. Cf. footnote 31.
 With Macarios of Aleppo (p. 631) and Kilzi (p. 138) there is no trace of the work “kharaje”
that Nasrallah (Chronologie, p.
58) uses in a French translation of a passage from Magmu’ latif (A small collection). These 2 manuscripts literally
say “the money of twelve years” which we can consider as the patriarchal rights
on each diocese of the patriarchate. Besides, it was Cyril IV who exacted the
money and not the pasha!
 Cf. H. Laoust, Les Gouverneurs de Damas sous les Mamelouks and les premiers
Ottomans (1156-1744), Damascus 1952, pp.
Kilzi, p. 138; Macarios of
Aleppo, p. 631; Radu, p. 41. The first manuscript specifies that Karmeh
was forced to sign a document in which he would have been in accord to
concelebrate as we read in the same manuscript.
 Kilzi, Ibid.; Macarios of Aleppo, Ibid. A letter of Maronite Gaspar surnamed “Pellegrino,”
who was in Nicosia at this time, left us a very significant letter that relates
these facts. It is dated April 30, 1626 and is found in SOCG, Vol. 112, fol. 415r: “Alli 22 di Marzo (1626) ho
ricevuta una scritta da Roma alli 8 d’Ottobre 1625 per conto del Arcivescovo
d’Aleppo (Meletios Karmeh), il quale secondo che ho inteso non si sà dove si
trova perche un certo Greco prima Patriarca (Cyril IV Dabbas), ma dopoi non so
perche deposto, ha fatto tanto per mezzo de Turchi con li denari ch’ha rihavuto
il Patriarcato di Soria o come vogliono Antiocheno et senza andar prima à
pigliar il possesso in Damasco dove ordinariamente risedono li patriarchi
Grechi et rimover l’altro Patriarca
(Ignatios III Atieh, who was not then at Damascus but rather at Beirut!)
che ivi risiede et comanda a tutte le Chiese Greche do Soria; ha cominciato ad
esercitar la iurisdittione in Aleppo, dove gli hà costato piu mille reali oltre
le battiture et depositione et gli conviene andar nascosto fuggendo dove puo
meglio declinare il furor del detto Patriarca (;) pero penso ch’habbi il detto
Arcivescovo carestia di vivere, non che di pensar a me che poco so, e posso…”
Even if this letter lacks precise information, nevertheless it proves the facts
related in the Manuscript of Deir esh-Shir published by Kilzi and of which we
have taken many of the details. On Gaspar Pellegrino one should go to Chapter
III of this study where they will find the question of the relations of Karmeh
with the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.
Kilzi, pp. 138-139. For a bishop 54
years old to cry before the assembly of the faithful at the same cathedral, it
is necessary to presuppose that the vexations and the injustices overwhelmed
him so much that he could not control himself at all before the impartial judge
who is the people of God.
Kilzi, p. 139; Macarios of
Aleppo, p. 631; Radu, p. 41; Rustum (p. 39) places these events in 1628 while the first cited manuscript
clearly says that Karmeh left for Constantinople on March 10, 1626 and returned
to Aleppo March 30 7135 of the creation of the world (=1627 AD). Cyril I
Lucaris, who appeared twice in favor of Cyril IV of Antioch (end of 1619 at
Alexandria and 1624 at Constantinople), now proved to be in favor of Karmeh.
Cf. footnote 43. As the note of the Kilzi manuscript (p. 139)says, this was due
in support of “presents” there and to their disapproval of the conduct of Cyril
IV of Antioch. A testimony of Archimandrite Euthymios of Constantinople reveals
to us Lucaris’ attitude before 1626 toward this patriarch of Antioch: “Cyrillus
Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus…quendam alium Cyrillum nomine haereticum, haereticum iam ac vitae
dissolutissimae, instructum prius magis, quam erat haeresibus pluribus,
eiectoque legitimo Pariarcha (=Ignatios III Atieh) Antiochenae Ecclesiae
praefecit et confirmavit. Unde ad paesens duos Antiochenos Patriarchos una
Ecclesia habet…” (SOCG, vol. 270,
Kilzi, p. 139. The fact that Karmeh
returned to Aleppo by sea and passed by Cyprus makes us suspect that he paid a
visit to his friend, the Maronite priest Gaspar Pellegrino, who was at Nicosia
during that time and to where the letters of the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith to the Greek Metropolitan of Aleppo were sent. Cf.
Kilzi,Ibid.; Macarios of Aleppo, p. 631; Rustum, p. 39.
Kilzi, pp. 139-14; Macarios of
Aleppo, p. 631. In these two manuscripts we
find the same Arabic expression to describe the faithful of Damascus:
“Idmahalla Haluhom.” Exhausted, they could no longer resist the pretensions of
 Cyril IV lost his best friend Cyril Lucaris, who was very powerful at
Constantinople. Losing him and the civil support (after the death of Ibn Sifa
in 1624) and ecclesiastical support (after the attitude change of Lucaris in
1627), Cyril IV had only one solution: the legitimate voice of the synod. He
even proposed to the Druze emir that the one who would be deposed would only
have an eparchy, of which he could live. Kilzi, p. 140; Macarios of Aleppo,
p. 631, Radu, pp. 38-39; Vat.
Arab, 689, fol. 129v.
Kilzi, pp. 140-141; Macarios
of Aleppo, p. 631; Radu, p. 39.
 The date, June 1, 1628 is given to us by a manuscript, extracts of which H.
Zayat had published in his book: Histoire de Saidnaya, pp. 240 and 258. This date is proved by the
manuscript published by Kilzi,
(pp. 139-141) and by the second manuscript of Macarios of Aleppo (p. 631) where it is said that in October 7136 of
the creation of the world (=1627), Cyril IV was then at Aleppo. According to Kilzi (p. 140) we know that soon after he ran away “to
Damascus where he remained until Pascha” in the year 1628. The bishops who met
were eleven, without counting Ignatios III Atieh. Cf. the names of these
bishops in Nasrallah, Chronologie,
Kilzi, p. 141; Macarios of
Aleppo, p. 632; Radu, p. 39; Rustum, p. 39. It is necessary to note that Radu (p. 38) only repeats without verification the error
of DHGE, vol. III, col. 640 and
700, by simply reporting: “Cyril Dabbas, anti-patriarch, May 10/24, 1620
-1627.” No one can find any note on the date 7135 of the world (=1627 AD) that
the manuscript of Paul of Aleppo has, and which is manifestly false. Besides,
for this general part of the history of the Patriarchate of Antioch Paul only
copies his father, Patriarch Macarios of Aleppo. Cf. preceding note. Also Vat.
Arab. 689, fol. 129v also has the date 7136
of the world and not 7135.
Cyril IV was deposed for
two main reasons: he was consecrated patriarch without the consent of his
eparchy Damascus; he caused much damage and evil in the entire Patriarchate of
Antioch. Cyril IV was executed before the end of the synod that condemned him.
 This is not revealed to us by any of the manuscripts mentioned above. But it
comes only from an account given by Capuchin Andrien of Brousse, missionary at
Beirut, to the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, an account which
we will study later.
 According to Paul of Aleppo (Radu p.
38), the minutes of this synod are found in the patriarchal library and also
with him. Nasrallah (Chronologie,
p. 60) implies that these documents were lost in 1860 when the churches of
Damascus were ransacked. Rustum (pp. 40-43) had published the 20 canons, a manuscript of which H. Zayat said he
possessed (cf. his work: Histoire de Saidnaya, Harissa 1932, pp. 240 and 258; and Bacha, Voyage, p. 38). Another example of the year 1839 is
mentioned by C. Bacha, History of the Greek Melkites (in Arabic), I, Saida 1938, p. 88.
Rustum, pp. 40-41. We see that these
canons were inspired by the recent events in which Cyril IV Dabbas had relied
on Ibn Sifa of Tripoli in order to be consecrated patriarch. Compare with the
election and consecration of the first definitely “Catholic” patriarch in 1724.
Cf. on this subject J. Hajjar, Nouvelle Histoire de l’Eglise IV, Paris 1966, p. 247; C. Bacha, History
of the Greek Melkites (in Arabic) I, pp.
6-7 and 23; J. Nasrallah, S. B. Maximos IV et la succession
apostolique de siege d’Antioche, Paris
1963, pp. 57 ff; article “Antioche” in DHGE, III, col. 647; Musset, II, pp. 174-175; Bacha, Voyage, p. 48; S.C. Greci melchiti, Miscellanea “Causa
de Greci Melchiti 1743,” fol. 35v-38v.
Rustum, p. 41. In this canon appears
simony that the patriarch and bishops practiced in order to confer major orders
on clerics. This simony is considered by the fathers of the synod a sacrilege
worse than the treason of Judas Iscariot and the heresies of Apollinarius and
 This was practiced everywhere else at that time, but with more or less
regularity according to the needs and honesty of those who did it. For example,
besides the heresies attributed to Cyril I Lucaris, he was also held as a
simoniac. Cf. SOCG, vol. 270, fol. 139v:
“et anche vien tenuto per Simoniaco conferendo li vescovati e Beneficij
ecclesiastici e concendendo Brevi d’Indulgenze massime in Articolo Mortis per
denari…” In 1664 Maronite Patriarch George Bseb’eli (1657-1670) conferred
priestly ordination to a bigamist after having touched a sum of money. Cf. SOCG, vol. 240, fol. 35r and 110v.
Rustum, pp. 41-43. The 8th canon determined the qualities of the candidate for priesthood, the 9th prohibited illegitimate marriage, the 10th ordered the simplify of
festivities after baptism, the 11th determined the dowry in
marriages, the 12th prohibited priests getting drunk at wedding
receptions, the 13th prescribed that the ceremony of marriage only
take place inside the church, the 14th excommunicated those who
practiced magic, the 15th prohibited “mixed” monasteries, the 16th banished heretical books, the 17th rejected demanding money as
penance under the pretext of giving this money to the poor, the 18th prohibited wandering priests seeking money without the authorization of the
patriarch, the 19th prescribed dimissorial letters to ordinands and
the 20th rejected the so-called patriarchal vicars who were from the
 It is necessary to admit that many of these usages rejected by the synod are
still in practice today in the Near East. The secular neighborhood with
non-Christians could not have influence on Christian life just as it has on the
lives of the non-Christians.
 Cf. J. Nasrallah, “Vie de la Chrétienté Melkite sous la domination Turque” in Revue
des Etudes Islamiques, 90 (1948) 95-98.
(Extract, Paris 1949).
 It concerns the Capuchins of the old ecclesiastical Province of Touraine of
which Tours was the episcopal residence. It was Fr. Pacific of Provins who
prepared this mission. Cf. De Vries, Rom und die Patriarchate des Ostens, Freiburg 1963, p. 82. The secretary Francesco
Ingoli wrote: “cum proposuissem Relationem, datam à Patre Pacifico à Scala
(also called “Scaligero”) cappuccino Gallo circa populos Orientales, per quos
transivit in itinere suo Hierosollymitano, Sanctissiums (the pope), et Patres
decreverunt, ut infrà: primo quod sex capuccini mittantur ad Urbem Aleppi…” (Acta, vol. 3, fol. 27r).
 Cf. G. Goyau, “Une capitale missionnaire du Levant, Alep, dans la première
moitié du XVII siècle” in Revue d’histoire des Missions, XI, Paris 1934, pp. 161-186; C. De Terzorio, Le
Missioni dei Minori Capuccini, Sunto storico,
V, pp. 16 and 48; H. de Barenton, La France Catholique en Orient
Durant les trois derniers siècles, d’apres les documents inédits, Paris 1902, pp. 93 ff.
 De Vries, op. cit., p. 82. The entire
house of the Carmelites served mainly as a hospice for their missionaries who
went to Bassora in Persia. Cf. Acta,
vol. 3, fol. 15r: “equatuor Patres… una cum alio viro optimo à Civitate
Venetiarum cito discessuri errant, navigaturi in Aleppum, et inde transituri in
Persiam ad fidem catholicam propagandam.” The stable mission of the Carmelites
at Aleppo was not yet founded. Cf. the decree of foundation in Acts, vol. 3, fol. 233v: “ut facilius, et commodius
missionarij Persiae, et Bassorae
ad loca eis destinata se transferre possint, S. Congregatio censuit
constituendum esse in Aleppo Syriae hospitium pro Carmelitis discalceatis, in
quo semper duo fraters degerent, qui missionnarios praedictos euntes et
redeuntes in eo reciperent.” The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith
recommended the Carmelites to the French and Venetian Consuls at Aleppo.
 The first two Jesuits, Gaspar Manilier and John Stella, arrived in Aleppo
around the end of July 1625 (on July 16 they were at Alexandretta). But the
Franciscans, installed there since 1571, prohibited them to administer the
sacraments and even to say Mass in the chapel of the French Consul or in the
Maronite church. It was especially Franciscan Father Adrian of Barbantia who
waged war with them by accusing them to the Ottomans as “nemici del gran Turco,
perturbatori degli stati, venuti da paesi nemici.” The qadi of Aleppo ordered
them to leave Aleppo in 3 days. The two Jesuits left to Alexandretta after
spending more than 3 months in Aleppo. There they were incarcerated. When
released they had to leave to Malta from where they took the route to
Constantinople to get authorization from the sultan. On April 21, 1627 they
were definitely installed at Aleppo. Cf. SOCG, vol. 195, fol. 159r-167r:
“Relatione della missione d’Aleppo della compagnia di Giesù. Sall’anno 1625,
insino al fine dell’anno 1629.” This account was made by J. Queyrot on December
 Cf. SOCG, vol. 196, fol. 76r-77v: letter
of Fra Egide de Loches, superior of the Capuchins at Saida (October 7, 1627);
vol. 197, fol. 55r-57v: “Brevis descriptio locorum Missionis Capucinorum
provinciae Britannicae in paribus Syriae et Palestinae.” After the foundation
of a residence in Saida and another in Beirut, these British Capuchins also
founded a third in Tripoli (1634), a fourth in Damascus (1637) and a fifth in
Abbay (1645). G. Hering (Oekumenisches Patriarchat…, Wiesbaden 1968, pp.
153-154) confused Touraine Capuchins and British Capuchins. Those of Toruraine
only had a residence in Aleppo Syria. Cf. SOCG, vol. 196, fol. 109v.
Acta, vol. 7, fol. 90v: “Referente eodem
Emin. D. Card. Ubaldino instantiam, quam per Missionarios capuccinos Aleppi
faciebant Patriacha Antiochenus Graecus, eiusque complices episcopi sacerdotes,
diaconi pro absolutione à Censuris et dispensatione ab irregularitate incursis
ob assassinium mediantibus percunijs per Turcas commissum in Personam
Patriarchae itidem Antiocheni (Cyril IV Dabbas) in Patriarchatu Antiocheno
graeco competitoris: Sac Congregatio censuit, non esse petitioni oratorum annuendum, nisi prius cum Sancta Romana Ecclesia uniantur iuxta praescriptum Sac. Conc. Florentini et postea
Sanctitati Suae supplicent.” Note that the “Oratores” were not the Greeks but
the Capuchins, and the Congregation for the Propagation of Faith understood
that they were the Greeks themselves! Cf. the content of the account of
Capuchin Adrian of Brosse in: SOCG,
vol. 195, fol. 266v. Also it did not concern the Capuchins of Aleppo who had
never know Patriarch Ignatios III Atieh because he was always in or around
Beirut near his protector Fakhr-ed-Din II (cf. Kilzi, p. 142; SOCG, vol. 195, fol. 266r). We must certainly excuse the confusion of the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on this subject, for Aleppo was
the center of all the missions in the Near East and all that was done in other
small villages of Syria could be easily attributed to Aleppo! This is why we
believe necessary the control of what came to be reported in the Acts from the
“Scritture Originali” which were
often more precise. But this confusion persisted in an inexcusable manner among
some of our specialists in this matter who were content nearly always with the
Acts of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith without any control with
the original documents. In fact C. Korolevsky made a typewritten directory (of
which the first owner is J. Nasrallah) titled: Index des documents
concernant l’histoire des Patriarcats Melkites renfermés dans les Archives de
la Sacrée Congrégation de la Propagande. M.
Roncaglia made a copy of the part concerning “the Franciscans and the
Greek-Melkite Catholics” and published it under his name in Studia
Orientalia Christiana, Collect. No. 2,
Cairo 1957, pp. 121 ff. The only historical confusion that Korolevsky committed
in his cited Index (not in his article “Antioche” DHGE, col.640) was taken by
Roncaglia who seems to have not known either Cyril IV Dabbas or Ignatios III
Atieh. In fact he wrote: “the Melkite Patriarch Cyril IV Dabbas, having put to death by the Turks his competitor
Igantios III Atieh, requests absolution from Rome… These facts are reported by
a letter from the Capuchins of Aleppo.” We see that these 3 lines continue 4
historical mistakes: it was Ignatios III who had his competitor put to death
and not the contrary; by the soldiers of the Druze Emir Fakhr-ed-Din and not by
the Turks; it was the missionaries who asked for the authorization to absolve
while the patriarch made no official request, and these facts are reported by a
Capuchin of Beirut, Adrian of Brosse, and not by the Capuchins of Aleppo. J.
Nasrallah (Notes et documents,
pp. 125-126) denounces the plagiarism and corrects only the first of the 4
 Adrian of Brosse wrote to the Congregation (without date): “Essendo duoi
Competitori per rispetto del Patriarcato d’Antiochia, liquali havesserono dato
dinari per il detto patriarcato, secondo l’usanza dè Greci, si litigano il
spazzo d’un anno (rather 7 years, cf. Radu, p. 38) con scisma grande in quella
natione, alcuni vescovi, Sacerdoti ed altri d’una parte ed altri dell’altra,
vedendo il presente patriarca (i. e. Ignatios III Atieh) che non poteva
surmontare ne vincere il suo competitore per rispetto dè amici potentissimi che
teneva, procura col i suoi dal far amassare, e diederono diece mille ducati al
principe di Syria (i.e. Fakhr-ed-Din II) il quale lo mando chiamar in Damasco,
ed il detto competitore (mortuo) (sic) dubitando dell’intentione del detto
principe, non volse andare, ma il principe mando al Bascia di Damasco che li
mandasse o per amore o per forze, e fu fatto come ordinava, ed il detto
competitor caminando per strada per venir trovare il principe, gli soldati
del detto principe l’amassarono; e questo
fu dopo havere tentato ogni maniera del far’amassare come io ho visto per
lettere scritte di quello chi tiene hogie la Sedia patriarcale; fato conosciuto
da tutte natione, e per l’estessa ragione il detto patriarca non po habitare
piu in Damasco come soleva, per che la sorella del mortuo s’e fatta Turcha e
maritata con uno potente di Damasco il quale voglie amassare questo e vindicarsi
della sudetta morte. Ed hogie si é qualche dispositione alla
conversione del detto patriarca e sono
molti vescovi e sacerdoti liquali sono in la stessa dispositione liquali hanno
stati compagni nella procuratione della morte del sudetto competitore” (SOCG, vol. 195, fol. 266r).
 Cf. SOCG, Vol. 195, fol. 268:
“Considerata circa simoniam Graecorum” that the Capuchin Adrian of Brosse wrote
to the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to show how the Greeks
bought the patriarchal charge from the infidels. The Congregation meeting 144
(in presence of the pope) of July 5, 1631 also had a word to say on this point:
“referente eodem Em. D. Card. Ubaldino Instantiam Missionariorum Capuccinorum
Aleppi (rather Capuchin Adrian of Brosse, missionary in Beirut), ut aliqua
provisio fieret in Patriarchatu Antiocheno Greco (and not of the Greek
“Nation!”) ne ecclesiastici ob solvendas Turcarum angarias cogantur vendere
Sacramenta, et dignitates ecclesiasticas. Sac. Congregatio dixit prius agendum
esse de eorum unione” (Acta, vol.
7, fol. 91r).
 Cf. footnote 79. We can clearly see that it only related to “arrangement” that
the Capuchin Adrian had sounded out with the prelates. But it would be better
to be covered with the personal arrangement for the request of absolution of
 Fr. Ingoli, Secretary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith
commented on this request in writing: “Di due case consulta il Padre Andriano
la Sac. Congregazione per potere senza errori provedere alla salute di molte
anime. Il primo è del patriarcha d’Antiochia de Greci… Parendoli (i.e. to Fr. Adrian)
che quando voglia unirsi colla Sede Apostolica (of Rome) colli vescovi
partecipi in quel fatto, si possa con esso lui e colli detti vescovi et altri
ecclesiastici dispensare, essendovi probabile speranza che per mezzo logo
s’uniranno li popoli al detto patriarcha e vescovi soggetti; essendo li popoli
soliti di seguitar li loro prelati (this is the impression of Ingoli and not
the post-Florentine experience!), comme le pecore il pastore… Non videtur
concedenda gratia nisi totus patriarchatus redeatur ad unionem cum Sta. Romana
Ecclesia, et hoc quoad forum externum et internum. Quoad vero ad iternum tantum
non videtur deneganda, si ei uniantur cum Santa Romana Ecclesia, et velint
recipere paenitentias salutares, easque graves attenta delicti gravissimi
qualitate” (SOCG, vol. 195, fol. 268v).
 Adrian pf Brosse also gave very interesting considerations on this subject:
“Considerata, circa illa quae possunt opponi, ne concedatur authoritas
dispensandi super Irregularitate in casu particulari proposito:
1) Ad id quod potest dici,
quod sit homicidium voluntarium. R.: verum esse, licet non manu propria,
aliena, tamen mediante pecunia turcis data, perpetratum.
2) Quod sit manifestum et publicum.
R.: primo respectu patriarchae Graecorum (i.e. Ignatios III Atieh) talem
rumorem in partibus illis universalem esse; neminem tamen de hoc testificare
posse certo. Secundo respectu Episcoporum, Sacerdotum, diaconorum etc esse
occultum; qui, enim tale homicidium procuraverint, et cum dicto Patriarcha
convenerint ignorantur; quosdam vero tantum suspicari non est dubium.
3) Quamvis in detrimentum
Sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae verti videatur si tales homicidae acceptentur. R.:
potius gloriae illi fore; si consideretur quod a Schismaticis extra ipsam
Ecclesiam tale homicidium perpetratum fuerit, et cum, veniam talis praediciti,
in sua Ecclesia non esse arbitrati sint, ad S. Pontificem tamquam Vicarium
Christi, et ad matrem, Ecclesiam recurrunt, ut illos culpam agnoscentes et veré
poenitentes recipiat, et ob seclus commissum, misericorditer indulgeat. Si
dicatur quod tantum ad Missionarios recurrant. R.: illos nihil aliud in persona
Missionariorum, quam S. Pont. considerare, et ad salutem suarum animarum procurandam
misso arbitrantes, omnrm authoritatem a S. Pont. ipsis concessam, ad id
4) Bonum et utilitas indé
proveniens attendatur; quia licet reunio totalis ob id non fiat; cum illa ijs
diebus tam cito non possit fieri, tamen, inde successione temporis, labore
Missionariorum, auxiliantibus Episcopis et conversis, et Deo iuvante, speratur.
Quod si talis authoritas non concedatur, erit dictae reunioni impedimento” (SOCG, vol. 195, fol. 267r). We see that the entire
question revolves around “authority” which the Capuchins wanted to have beside
the local ecclesiastical authority!
 In fact we see no trace of this question in the Archives of the Congregation
for the Propagation of the Faith after that date!
 It goes without saying that it was often the missionaries who went before the
desires of the non-Catholic prelates to attract to the union by permitting them
books printed in Rome, subsidies, etc… and even absolutions! In fact in
everything that Adrian of Brosse wrote to the Congregation for the Propagation
of the Faith we see nowhere that Patriarch Ignatios III Atieh or one of his
prelates requesting an absolution from Rome!
Kilzi, p. 141. It was the day after the
re-entry of Karmeh to Aleppo after the Synod of Ras-Baalbek. Since 1619 neither
of the 2 competitors were commemorated officially in the eparchy of Aleppo.
 Cf. the account of Fr. Adrian of Brosse, footnote 79.
 Fakhr-ed-Din II was put to death at Constantinople in 1635. Cf. A. Ismaïl, Histoire
du Liban du XVII siècle à nos jours, I,
Paris 1955, pp. 5 ff; A. Al-Khalidi, Lebanon at the Time of
Fakhr-ed-Din II Maanide (in Arabic), Beirut
1936, pp. 32ff; E. Douaïhy, History of the Times: 1095-1699 (in Arabic), Beirut 1951, pp. 201-229.
Kilzi, p. 142; Radu, p. 40; Macarios of Aleppo, p. 632; Vat. Arab. 689, fol. 129v.
 Nasrallah (Chronologie, p. 62) gives a
poetic description of it: “which was the astonishment of the partisans of
Fakhr-ed-Din by recognizing in their victim the former secretary and protégé of
their master! Some among them who were Christians recognized their patriarch.”
In Macarios of Aleppo (p. 632), Kilzi (p. 142), it concerns a not specified “certain
people” who killed Ignatios III. In Vat. Arab. 689 (fol. 129v) and Radu (p. 40), it was the Druze
who did it.
Vat. Arab. 689 (fol. 130v) gives 7142 of
the creation of the world for the date of his death and counts 7 years of the
patriarchate (since the Synod of Ras-Baalbek in June 1628), thus it is the year
1634 AD. Radu (p. 40) gives 7143
of the creation of the world as the date of death (according to Manuscript
6016 of the National Library of Paris) and
7142 (according to Manuscript 33 of the Asiatic Museum of Leningrad). We clearly see that 7143 is without doubt wrong
because it corresponds to the period from September 14, 1634 to September 13,
1635. We know that on May 1, 1634 Karmeh had already been consecrated Patriarch
of Antioch after the death of
Ignatios III Atieh (Kilzi, p.
142). Macarios of Aleppo (p. 632)
speaks of a 14 year patriarchate and of 7141 as the date of death for Ignatios,
which corresponds to 1633 AD. Moreover, we know that the successor of Ignatios,
the Metropolitan of Aleppo, Karmeh, was already at Damascus for consecration on
April 23, 1634 (Kilzi, p. 142).
We have to remember the distances and the manner of communications in that era:
news of the death had to arrive from Beirut to Damascus; the Damascenes had to
decide on the candidate: they had to reach Aleppo to convince Karmeh to come
with them; then again go from Aleppo to Damascus. Considering all these factors
we see that the date of the death of Patriarch Ignatios III could only have
been after January 1634. Compare with Nasrallah (Chronologie, p. 62) who puts it in April 1634and Korolevsky
(article “Antioche” of DHGE, col.
640) “around April 1634!”
 Cf. Collectanea I (a. 1622-1866), pp.
1-2: “la cura della fede cattolica, essendo intorno ad essa due opere
necessaire, l’una di conservarla né fedeli constringendoli etiandio con pene a
ritenerla fermamente, l’altra di spargerla e propagarla negl’infedeli… hora che
per divina misericordia pare, che si aprano pet tutta la christianità di ampie
porte alla conversione degli eretici et infedli… consideri attentamente tutto
quello, che potesse utilmente farsi, cosi per la conversione degli heretici, o
scismatici, o di altri infideli, come per ritenere i popoli che maggiormente
non s’infettassero, et insieme per impedire i progressi ai ministri e
predicatori heretici…” (Litterae Encyclicae S.C. de Prop. Fide 15
Ianuraii 1622, ad omnes Nutios Apostolicos).
 Cf. K. As-Salibi, “The Maronites” (in Arabic) in Documents An-Nahar, Beirut 1970, pp. 15-16. The union of the Maronites
with Rome, according to this Lebanese author, took place around 1180 after
intermittent connections since 1099. De Vries (p. 76) gives 1180 as the date for the formal union
of the Maronites with Rome (cf. Migne, Patrologia Latina, 201, 855-856). With precision K. As-Salibi
describes the dissentions between the two partisans of this union: one
pro-unionistic part and another anti-unionistic, at least between 1180 and 1283
(op. cit., pp. 18-22). Compare
with Dib, Histoire de l’Eglise Maronite, Beirut 1962, pp. 19-58. Cf. also K. As-Salibi, “The Maronite Church
in the Middle Ages and Its Union with Rome,” Oriens Christianus 42 (1958) 92-104. According to these writings we see
that it was not only westerners who only spoke about the late union of the
Maronites with Rome!
 Cf. the account of the Milanese priest Leonard, sent by Pope Gregory XV August
2, 1622 with a bull to the Maronite Patriarch John Makhlouf (1609-1634), in: SOCG, vol. 196, fol. 56v. The patriarch complains “de
Gesuiti, che habbino contro ogni verità in voce et nelle stampe chimata la
natione de Maroniti Heretica.” In 1629 Capuchin Adrian of Brosse, missionary in
Beirut, in a letter dated November 10, 1629 to the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith, enumerated the “depraved” rites of the Maronites of
which he had not written “senza il comandamento della Congregazione) (SOCG, vol. 115, fol. 281r). Also on July 14, 1683 the
complaints of the Maronite Victor Accurensis were examined at the
Congregation’s general meeting 179 (in presence of Pope Urban VII): “Vittorio
Accorense Maronita espone humilmente à Vostra Santità com’alcuni Auttori latini
han scritto, e srampato, che I Maroniti sono heretici Dioscoriani, Montoliti
(for “Monoteliti”), et anco Nestoriani; è stato forzato comporre un libro, de
duabus in Christo naturis…: SOCG,
vol. 393, fol.187r).
 Soon the missionaries began to for a bishop for the Latins especially in
Aleppo. In 1645 we find a residential Latin bishop designated for this city “ob
mercatores in ea degentes, vel ad illam confluentes!” Cf. SOCG, vol. 196, fol. 89r; vol. 197, fol. 47r.
 G. Strinopoulos, “Die Beziehungen der Orthodoxen Kirche zu den anderen Kirchen”
in Ekklesia, Leipzig 1939, Band X (45)
114-159. Cf. particularly the chapter “Calvinismu als Orthodoxie” in G. Hering,
Oekumenisches Patriarchat und europäische Politik (1620-1638), Wiesbaden 1968,
pp. 176-206. Compare with SOCG, vol.
270, fol. 237rv, and vol. 398, fol. 274rv.
 This is what Capuchin John Chrysostom of Angers reported to Cardinal Borgia in
a letter written at Aleppo on December 28, 1629: “Quello ch’o io gia scritto
alla Sacra Congregazione che quasi l’unica strada di ridurre gli scimatichi è
di predicarai Maroniti, petche il piu grand errore di questo paese è
l’ignoranza laquale cacciata sarebbono convertiti, e quando si predica in una
chiesa di Christiani o Maroniti o Grechi o Armeni o Suriani concorrono gli
altri anco alla predica… e pian piano insinuare ne i
loro animi la salutare dottrina della S. Chiesa” (SOCG, vol. 115, fol. 325v.
 It is true that most of the Christians of Syria understand Arabic. But among
the Armenians there are those who only know Armenian (even today!), among the
Greek Melkites those who only know Greek, among the Nestorians those who only
know Chaldean… Besides, even if the Syrians, Maronites and Greek Melkites are
of the same race, it is also necessary to take account of the Armenian nation,
the Nestorian nation and the Hellenic colony who each have its own particular
customs and mentality. For what concern the Greek Melkites, cf. C. Karalevskji
(Korolevsky), “L’origine ethologique des Melkites” in EO, 11 (1908) 82-89, and also the same author in DHGE, vol. III, col. 585-589
 Besides the spiritualities and devotions proper to each religious order
represented by these missionaries, do not forget the difference of intellectual
preparation proper to each order and the rivalries particularly between the
missionaries of French and Spanish origin. For the majority among them see the
affirmation of De Vries, op. cit., p.
83: “Die Missionare kamen durchweg ohme jede spezielle Vorbereitung in den
Nahen Osten” without forgetting those who followed the course of the
controversy at Rome.
 In fact they were in the Holy Land and in Beirut since the 13th century and in Aleppo since 1571. Cf. article “Beyrouth” of DHGE, 9, col. 1324-1325; Goluboviteh, series I, vol. II,
Quaracchi 1913, p. 264; compare with DThC, vol. X, col. 1881 and 1973. At Saida they were intermittently the
chaplains of the French consuls until 1626 when the Capuchins replaced them:
cf. SOCG, vol. 196, fol. 76r-77v.
In Tripoli they claimed their former rights usurped by the Capuchins who
founded a residence there in 1634: cf. Acta, Congregation meeting 127 of March 13, 1668, fol.
 Concerning the Jesuits see footnote 76. A quarrel between the Capuchins and the
Franciscans was also set off on the occasion of a sermon by Capuchin Father
Agathange at the Maronite Church of Aleppo where the faithful were dismissed by
the Franciscans and the preacher remained all alone in the church! Cf. SOCG, vol. 15, fol. 273r, 278v 313rv. Another quarrel
began between the 2 branches of this same order of St. Francis on the subject
of the chapel of the French consul in Saida (cf. SOCG, vol. 196, fol. 122r-123r), and on the subject of
the administration of the sacraments at Tripoli (cf. Acta of the year 1668, fol. 35rv, cited in the previous
 For example the doctor of the Venetian consul at Aleppo, Louis Ramiro, who was
at the same time “consultor” (responsalis) of the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith for the missions of Syria, wrote to this Congregation
in April 1629: “per mantenere questa concordia (among the missionaries of
Aleppo) sarebbe bene di dar la cura della Nation Greca alli padri Gesuiti,
dell’Armenia alli capucini, delli
Nestoriani à Minori Osservanti e de Giacobiti et altre nationi alli
Carmelitani Scalzi…” (SOCG, vol. 196,
fol. 5r), also the meeting of the Congregation itself (cf. Acta, general meeting of November 30, 1629, fol.
 Cf. SOCG, vol. 115, fol. 289r, 299v.
Capuchin John Chrysostom of Angers wrote from Aleppo on November 12, 1629: “che
diranno gli Scismatichi e Infedeli, qual essempio a loro se veddano esser
gelosia tra gli religiosi!” (Ibid.,
 Metropolitan of Aleppo Meletios Karmeh himself asked the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith, sending Fr. Thomas Obicini de Novare, as well as
other experts in the Greek and Arabic languages (SOCG, vol. 181, fol. 35r). Even Patriarch of Antioch
Euthymios III the Chiot called Fr. Jerome Queyrot to Damascus for the teaching
of the Greek language (SOCG, vol.
196, fol. 44r).
 The Franciscans, who were in Aleppo since 1571, had a lot of relations with
Metropolitan Karmeh since his accession to the episcopate in 1612. And it was
with the custodian of the Holy Land who was visiting Aleppo that he sent his
delegate, Protosyncellos Absalon to Rome in 1621, as we will see in the next
 This could be noted in most of the letters that this metropolitan sent to Rome.
See, for example, the letters contained in SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 35v and 43 v; vol. 181, fol. 35r and 36r.
Kilzi, p. 42 and p. 144; Vat.
Arab. 689, fol. 130v; Radu, p. 40. Karmeh was not Aleppian as Korolevsky
(Korolevskij) says in his article “Antioche” in DHGE, III, col. 639-640. This error was corrected by J.
Nasrallah in his article “Euthyme II Karmé” in the same DHGE col. 53. Rustum (p. 44) puts the date of Karmeh’s birth in 1586! This has no
Kilzi, pp. 42-43. His biographer and
disciple, Macarios of Aleppo,
adds that Karmeh “was elected for God from the womb of his mother.” His father
was killed by thieves when he was traveling from Tripoli to Hama.
Ibid. This Barlaam became a monk of St.
Sabas in Jerusalem and then later from St. Sabas to Jassy that Macarios of
Aleppo visited on January 25, 1653, cf. Radu, p. 4, p. 160 ff.
 The date of Karmeh’s entrance to the monastery is also unknown. We only know
that he entered there “when he attained the height of his youth.” Moreover the Vat.
Arab. 401, fol. 172v has a colophon by the
hand of Abdel-Karim Ibn al-Khouri al-Hamawi that ends the transcription of the
book “Spiritual Paradise” (in Arabic) on February 17, 7112 (1604) in the
Monastery of St. Michael in Jerusalem. This shows us the imprecision of the
data of Macarios of Aleppo for the first period of the life of Karmeh. In fact,
according to the biographer of Karmeh, he had been ordained a deacon at the age
of 29 (which corresponds to the year 1601) after having spent two years at St.
Sabas Monastery! (Kilzi, pp.
43-44). The presence of Abdel-Karim Karmeh at St. Michael Monastery in
Jerusalem in February 1604 leads us to think that it was his entrance to the
monastery that took place when he was 29 and not his diaconate. Besides,
Macarios of Aleppo had only known his teacher Karmeh from Aleppo where Macarios
became a priest in the first decade of the 17th century. It is from
the accounts of his teacher that he wrote this biography after his accession to
the patriarchate in 1647 (cf. Kilzi,
p. 144). Thus some confusion could well have slipped in particularly in the
period when Macarios of Aleppo did not live near his teacher. Cf. DHGE, 14 (1967), col. 35. St. Michael Monastery was an
annex to the great Monastery of St. Sabas described by Paul of Aleppo! (Radu, p. 49).
 This is Archbishop Simeon ibn al-Qalla, who in 1619 was one of the three bishop
consecrators of Cyril IV Dabbas as Patriarch of Antioch, and one of the bishops
who went to Aleppo in 1625 to celebrate Pascha with this same patriarch whom
Karmeh had never recognized as the true patriarch. Cf. Kilzi, pp. 135 and 137; Vat. Arab. 689, fol. 129r; Macarios of Aleppo, p. 628. He was also present at the Synod of
Ras-Baalbek which condemned his friend Cyril IV. Cf. the preceding chapter.
 Macarios of Aleppo does not specify but he says that Karmeh served his bishop
“many years” (“muddat kathirat”) after his diaconate (Kilzi, p. 44).
 We see that Karmeh had been at Hama at least until 1605, as well as the 2 years
he spent in Jerusalem. Thus the “very sure” suppositions of Korolevsky on his
accounts of Karmeh in Aleppo with the representative of Pope Gregory XIII,
Leonard Abel, have no historical foundation. Cf. his article “Antioche” in DHGE, III, col. 439-441; and Gatti-Korolevskij, I
riti e la chiese Orientali, I, Genova 1942,
pp. 430-440. Moreover Karmeh was only 13 years old in 1585, date of the visit
of L. Abel to Aleppo! Cf. article “Euthyme II Karmé” in DHGE, 14 (1967) 55.
 Macarios of Aleppo recounts that “this year a vizier went to Aleppo to fight
the Persians” (Kilzi, p. 45). This vague
note does not allow us to find the exact date of the coming of Karmeh to
 Since 1597 Aleppo only had a patriarchal administrator in the person of the bishop of Marmarita, Simeon. Cf. Kilzi, p. 45. Nasrallah in “Euthyme II Karmé” (DHGE, 14, col. 53) affirms: “after the death of Simeon,
former bishop of Marmarita, transferred around 1590 to the see of Aleppo,
Aleppo was without its pastor.” This appears to us as an erroneous fact because
the Archbishop of Aleppo, Macarios Ibn Khalaf, only died in 7104 of the
creation of the world (i.e. 1596 AD) and Simeon the bishop of Marmarita was
named patriarchal vicar of Aleppo by Patriarch Joachim Ibn Ziade (1593-1603) in
1597 (and not 1590!). Simeon remained at Aleppo 15 years and at the election of
Karmeh he retired in his own eparchy where he died. Cf. Kilzi, Ibid.; Macarios of Aleppo, p. 625.
Kilzi, p. 46; Rustum, p. 44; Vat. Arab. 689, fol. 130v; Radu, p. 40. Karmeh, whose name was Abdel-Karim, took the
name Meletios, the name of the saint of the day.
 This is what Fr Jerome Queyrot reported several years later when he arrived in
Aleppo. He knew Greek very well but he could no longer preach there in this
language as he had done in Smyrna. Karmeh himself wrote to the Congregation for
the Propagation of the Faith in October 1631: “we have translated the
Euchologion from Greek into Arabic because there are among us priests who do
not understand Greek…” (SOCG, vol. 180,
fol. 75r). What to say at that time for the people.
 Cf. article “Abel;” in DHGE, I, col.
70-71; “Euthyme II Karmé,” art. cit.,
col. 55; Oriente Cattolico, Vatican
1962, p. 251; Nasrallah, Chronologie,
pp. 43-44; Rustum, pp. 27-30;
Bacha, Voyage, pp. 33-35; Rabbath, I, pp. 183-186.
 The profession of faith of Michael Sabbagh, made at Aleppo in May 1585,
constituted also a persuasive argument for Jesuit Father Possevino, delegate of
Pope Gregory XIII to Tsar Ivan III, cf. Musset, II, p. 48.
 Cf. Chapter 1 of this study; Kilzi, p.
84; Macarios of Aleppo, p. 627.
 Cf. Chapter II of this study. Comparing the reforms made by Karmeh at Aleppo (Kilzi, pp. 46-47; 81-85) and the decisions of the Synod of
Ras-Baalbek (Rustum, pp. 39-43),
we could not affirm that it was Karmeh who was the first promoter of these
reforms in the Patriarchate of Antioch.
 A manuscript of this Typicon of St. Sabas is found in the Library of Deir
esh-Shir (without a number), described by Kilzi (pp. 87-88). Cf. Rustum,
pp. 44-45. For the other liturgical books see Charon (Korolevsky), Histoire
des Patriarcats Melkites, III, Rome 1911,
pp. 47-54; J. Nasrallah, “Euthyme II Karmé (1572-1635), patriarche melchite.
Son oeuvre littéraire et liturgique” in POC, 9 (1959), pp. 25-30; L. Cheikho, Catalogue
of Manuscripts of Arab Christian Authors since Islam (in Arabic), Beirut 1924, pp. 34-35; al-Maschreq, p. 683 and 1936, p. 374; P. Sbath, Al-Fihris, II, Cairo 1939, manuscripts 1733-1744; G. Graf, Geschichte
der christlichen arabischen Literatur, II,
Vatican 1947, pp. 496 and 631-633; as well as III, Vatican 1949, pp. 91-93. On
the original compositions of Karmeh see article cited “Euthyme II Karmé” in DHGE, col 54, as well as the same author, Histoire
de Movement littéraire dans l’Eglise Melchite du V au XX siècle, vol. 4, Ottoman Period 1516-1900, Bk. 1
(1516-1724), Louvain-Paris 1979, pp. 70-86.
 They were there since 1571. Cf. “Alep” in DHGE, II, col. 104.
Archives Vat., Fonds Borghèse, series
II, vol. 403, fol. 173-174. Cf. cited article “Antioche” of DHGE, col. 639.
 This is revealed to us in the letter of Karmeh which Protosyncellos Absalon
carried to Pope Paul V in 1621: “We have sent a letter to Your merciful “part”
in which we give you the situation of the Christians in the Arab countries as
well as their manner of instruction, professors and books. And we have informed
Your Lord that we need professors who know Arabic and Greek to teach science to
the children of the Christians and to assist us in the translation of books
from Greek to Arabic so that we follow the religion according to the Orthodox
books” (translated verbatim from the original Arabic letter in SOCG, vol. 181, fol. 35r).
 Cf. Collectanea, I, pp. 5-6. There even
was a bull of Pope Paul V relative to this teaching, op. cit., Ibid., Acta,
3 Congregation meeting 8 of June 3, 1622, fol. 11r.
 “Your letter of mercy has reached us, in which it is said that you will
accomplish our desire, and we thank the almighty God for your goodness and
piety, by comparing your letter to the dove who announced to Noah in former
times in the ark; in fact it announces the end of the deluge and this is the
end of ignorance and of tyranny” (translation of Arabic: SOCG, vol. 181, fol. 35r).
 Thomas Obicini de Novare (1585-1632) was sent to the Holy Land in 1612. He then
worked among the Nestorians and was elected guardian of Jerusalem in March
1620. In June 1621 he was in Aleppo where he knew Metropolitan Karmeh and from
where he left immediately for Rome with Karmeh’s delegate. Cf. S. Raimondo,
“L’Unione della Chiesa Caldeea nell’opera del P. Tommaso Obicini da Novara,” in Studia Orientalia Christiana, collectanea no.
5, Cairo 1960, p. 367; art. cit.
“Euthyme II Karmé” in DHGE, col.
55 (where this Franciscan is called: “Tomaso Obicini da Novaro”). The letter
addressed to Pope Paul V (who was no longer alive at the time of the arrival of
its bearer in Rome in March 1622) was written in Arabic and bore the signature
of Meletios Karmeh, Metropolitan of Aleppo (cf. The first part of this letter
in footnotes 127 and 129): “…But you understand some expenses are necessary for
professors whom you will send and for the cost of Arabic books as well as for
copyists who would transcribe the Arabic and Greek because everything needs
money. And we have sent to Your generous part our brother the monk (“raheb”)
Thomas the Guardian and our brother the hieromonk Protosyncellos Absalon. If
you accept him, deign to give your servants annual alms… which would be
transmitted by our brother Thomas the Guardian by creating him steward in this
charitable affair, so that he would receive the money and pay it (to the copyists),
because he is a good and active man, knowledgeable in Arabic literature and
intelligent: he sows love in the hearts of the Christians and everyone loves
him… Thus be the head and he will be “the hands” and your servant the dust on
the feet, and also we will be a perfect person in Christ” (SOCG, vol. 181, fol. 35r).
 Congregation meeting 5 of April 11, 1622 was occupied with the mission of
Absalon. The rescript foresaw two points: “1. quod dentur quidam libri arabici,
qui impressi reperiuntur in Bibliotheca Vaticana, et quod de re huiusmodi
agatur cum illmo Bibliothecario. 2. Quod pro nunc eidem Oratori dentur scuta
25, et postea viaticum cum dono Imaginum pro Archiepiscopo” (Acta, vol. 3, fol. 7). Congregation meeting 7 of May 13,
1622 has for result: “fuit expeditus Pater Absalon Orator Archiepiscopi Aleppi
(Karmeh), eique fuerunt decreta 50 scuta pro viatico, et loco imaginum fuit
dictum ut emerentur tria corpora Conciliorum Generalium Graecorum et aliqui
patrum Graecorum codices ut posset secum ferre hos libros simul cum 50
doctrinis christianis arabicè impressis habitis ab illmo Bibliothecario” (Ibid., fol. 11r).
 Bellarmine’s catechism was published in Arabic the first time in 1613, A second
edition was made by the printing press of the Congregation for the Propagation
of the Faith in 1627, one year after its foundation: this was the first Arabic
book produced by this press. Cf. P. Raphael, La Rôle du college Maronite
romain dans l’Orientalisme aux XVII et XVIII siècles, Beirut 1950, pp. 65-69.
 Besides the letter addressed to the pope, Absalon also carried an oral message
for the printing of some Arabic books and especially the Bible, the translation
of which Karmeh wanted to unify because partial versions were found in the east
here and there. On this subject a letter addressed to the cardinals of the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith had to be written by Absalon
himself with the assistance of Thomas Obicini de Novare who accompanied him. It
was thus that the request of Karmeh was examined at the Congregation meeting 7
of May 13, 1622 (cf. SOCG, vol. 382,
fol. 52r and 59v). It was Cardinal Ubaldini, prefect of the province of Syria
(12th province of the earth, according to the divisions of the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith of March 8, 1622: cf. Acta, vol. 3 fol. 3r-5v), who exposed it: In ea
(=Congregation of May 13, 1622) fuit primo proposita per Card. Ubaldium
necessitas et utilitas impressionis Bibliae in lingua Arabica pro Christianis
Orientalibus et pro Infidelibus videl. Gentilibus et Maumetanis, nam Orientales
Christiani aut non habent biblia ob ompressoriae artis defectum in illus
partibus, aut si habent, cprrupta sunt et heresibus scatent. Gentiles autem et
Maumetani, si Biblia impressa haberent, ea legendo non mediocriter ad Dei veri
cultum, et christianae fidei susceptionem disponerentur.
Sed aliqui Card. moverunt
difficultatem, quod qua ratione prohibuit regula quarta Indicis in Ecclesia
Occidentali Biblia Sacra in Vulgari lingua ne ignari lectores per eorum lecturam
pervertantur potius quam instruantur, eadem ratione non debent Biblia Sacra in
Arabica aedi lingua maximè cum Orientales sint Occidentalibus rudiores (good
compliment!). Verum replicatum fuit quod illa Ecclesia quae linguam latinam non
callet, non debet carere Bibliis Sacris maximè in idiomate ultissimo, ut est
Arabicum. Quod omnes fere Orientales loquuntur et intelligunt. Quamobrem cum
patres non convenirent, et multi dicerent difficultatem propositam gravissimam
esse, communi consensu decretum fuit ut formaretur dubium super hoc, an videl.
liceat edere Biblia Sacra in Arabica lingua, et si liceat, an expediat, et quod
dubium transmitteretur per manus in alia Congregatione maturius discutiendum” (Acta, vol. 3, fol. 10v).
 This was the message that Protosyncellos Absalon had to take to his bishop
Karmeh as well as the decisions of the Congregation meeting 8 of June 3, 1622:
“Circa dubium de editione Bibliorum Arabicorum, quod similiter per manus fuerat
transmissum ex varjis resolutioibus Congregationum Inquisitionis, et Indicis,
quas retulit Ill.mus Millinus S. Con. decrevit posse, et debere Biblia Sacra benè correcta pro Ecclesijs Orientalibus imprimi.
Quia fuit relatum huiusmodi
Biblia iam impressa fuisse in Leida à Thomas Erpenio, S. Congregationi placuit
literas ad Nuncium Belgij dare, quibus ei praeciperetur, ut aliquos codices
Romam mitteret ad eos conferendos cum Vaticano; et ut curaret, ne venderentur,
usquequo codices praedicti per deputatos à S. Congregatione probarentur. Et
insuper fuit R.mo Vives iniunctum, ut idem Serenissimae Infantae Belgij
Circa studium linguae
Arabicae facta relatione per ill.um Ulbaldinum, S. Cong. decrevit, quod
Guardianus Hierosolim (Th. Obicini de Novare) in Montis Aurei Monasterio
linguam Arabicam doceret Theologos suae Religionis per Generalem seligendos, et
per S. Cong. approbandos iuxta ordinationem Conc. Viennenis et Bullae fel. dec.
Pauli Papae V.
Decretum etiam fuit quod
omnibus Generalibus Religionum intimetur, vel scribatur, ut Vienesi Concilio et
Bullae f. P. Pauli Papae V de studijs linguarum in suis monasterijs erigendis
pareant saltem in Monasterijs, seu conventibus Romae constitutis, idque
efficiant, perficiantque per totum mensem Octobris presentis anni 1622. Quod
Card. Zoller scribat Haebipolim (= Würzburg in Germany) pro Iuvene calente
varias linguas, et praesertim Arabicam, ut Romam veniant (sic for “veniat”),
suosque libros secum deferat, cui assignabuntur scura 10 pro quolibet mense, et
scuta centum pro Viatico” (Acta, vol. 3,
fol. 11v-12r). We can only say that Karmeh’s delegate had the power to throw a
bomb as part of the Congregation to assign everywhere the promotion of the
teaching of the Arabic language and particularly the printing of the Arabic
 This letter was addressed to “seven responsible columns of the Religion and the
seven stars of the Congregation of the Faith, the Lord Cardinals Salui,
Ludovisi, Ubaldini, Barberini, di Santa Susanna, Bardini and Millini, as well
as to other stars Lord Cardinals of the Congregation of the faith, responsible
for the Christian Churches” (SOCG, vol.
181, fol. 36r). Karmeh emphasized to them the reception of the message that
Protosyncellos Absalon gave with the Greek and Arabic books sent by the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Ibid.).
 Gaspar al-Gharib was known in Rome by the name “Gasparo Pellegrino” (a
“figurative” translation of his name!) when he was a student at the Maronite
College. He even signed his letters “Gasparo Pellegrino Maronita” (SOCG, vol. 112, fol. 415r). In the catalogue of students
of this college he was known by the name (Perregrinus) (cf. Vat. Lat. 5528, fol. 31v). He was one of the first 2 students
of the Maronite College in Rome when not officially erected. He arrived in Rome
June 8, 1579 and the college itself was only founded March 12, 1584. At his
arrival he already knew Greek and Syriac which he had learned in Cyprus where
he was born. In Rome he learned Latin, Italian and Arabic. Cf. P. Raphaël, op.
cit., pp. 55-58. Compare with Nasrallah, Notes
et Documents, p. 135 in footnote.
 The one who accompanied Karmeh’s delegate to Rome in 1622. Cf. footnote 130. On
April 25, 1622 he was already named professor of Arabic in Rome “ad docendam
linguam arabicam Patribus Theologis suae Religionis, et alijs Regularibus
volentibus eam addiscere” (Acta, vol. 3,
fol 9r). Compare with P. Raphaël, op. cit., p. 65 where he was named as such only in 1623! The nomination was
reconfirmed June 3, 1622 (Acta,
vol. 3, fol. 11v). Karmeh asked the Congregation for him in these words: “We
ask you to send (in the company of Fr. Gaspar) our brother and dear father, the
monk Thomas, Guardian of Jerusalem, because he is a good man, perfect and loved
by all the Christians (of Aleppo)” (SOCG, vol. 181, fol. 36r).
 Since Greek was no longer used in practice in Syria in the 17th century, it was however necessary for the translations that Karmeh intended to
make from Greek to Arabic, and for some Greek speakers who were also there to
supervise the Arabic speaking Orthodox who would be more flexible to
understanding with the “Franks!”
 At that time Karmeh was 51 years old (he wrote in 1623) and Gaspar al-Gharib
was over 60. In fact Gaspar arrived at Rome in 1579 at the age of 17. Cf. Vat.
Lat. 5528, fol. 31v, and footnote 136
 The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith had purchased the Greek books
requested by Metropolitan Karmeh to send to him and “Gasparo Maronitae scribi
mandavit, ut ad eundem Archiepiscopum se transferret, fratem autem Thomam Romae
detinendum pro studijs Arabicis censuit, Biblia vero arabica melius Romae expurgari posse dixit per Archiepiscopum Damascenum
Maronitam, et alios à Congrgatione iam deputatos, quam per Archiepiscopum
Aleppi, et dominum Gasparum, et fratrem Thomam” (Acta, vol. 3, fol. 57r). The commission for the Arabic
translation of the Bible was composed of the titular Archbishop of Damascus,
Serge Rizzi (remained in Rome from 1606 until his death in 1638): cf. P.
Raphaël, op. cit., p. 95), with
Fr. Thomas Obicini de Novare, Fr. Hilarion Rancati and Maronite Victor
Accurensis (cf. Acta, vol. 3,
Congregation meeting 18 of November 5, 1622, in presence of Pope Gregory XV).
The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decided on September 4, 1623
to have another Maronite, Gabriel Sionite, come from Paris to assist them in
this work (cf. Acta, vol. 3, fol.
54v). The commission began to meet twice a week at the beginning of December
1624 but without Gabriel Sionite who remained in Paris (Ibid., fol. 164v).
 It was Congregation meeting 44 of October 3, 1625 (and not of October 30 as
Nasrallah states in Notes et Documents,
p. 135), that examined this question by urging the discalced Carmelite Fathers
who went to found a hospice in Aleppo “ut dicto Archiepiscopo praesto essent,
eumque in catholicis dogmatibus instruerent iuxta illius petitionem” (Acta,
vol. 3, fol. 269r), what Karmeh had never requested for himself, one who was
very learned in “Orthodox-Catholic” doctrines!
 The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith communicated its new
decisions of the Congregation meeting of October 3, 1625 to Fr. Gaspar of
Nicosia and to Metropolitan Karmeh by the letters written on the following
October 8. It sent everything to Fr. Gaspar, who on April 30, 1626, responded to
the Congregation informing it of the painful situation between Karmeh and
Patriarch Cyril IV Dabbas who was in Aleppo. Cf. SOCG, vol. 112, fol. 415r; see the first chapter of this
 As we saw in chapter II, this was in 1625. Driven out 3 months after their
arrival, the Jesuits returned here permanently on April 21, 1627.
 Cf. all of Chapter I of this study. Cyril IV was killed in June 1628.
 Cf. Kilzi, p. 138; Macarios of
Aleppo, p. 631.
 Kilzi, ibid.; Macarios of Aleppo, ibid., Radu,
p. 41; SOCG, vol. 112, fol. 415r.
Kilzi, p. 139; Macarios of
Aleppo, p. 631; Radu, Ibid.; Note here the flexibility that Cyril I Lucaris
began to show towards the Roman Church after it sent him Canacchio Rossi to
Constantinople. Cf. Acta, vol. 4,
Cong. Meeting 56 of May 4, 1626. Between 1625 and 1626 there were very serious
talks on the union, not only with the Patriarch of Constantinople but also with
that of Alexandria and of Jerusalem. Cf. Acta, vol. 3, fol. 266r, 282v-283r; vol. 4, fol. 166r.
Most probably because of these new dispositions of the Orthodox patriarchs,
Karmeh had convinced the prelates of Constantinople concerning his relations
with Rome and the Latin missionaries of Aleppo.
 Returning to Aleppo, Karmeh passed through Cyprus where he probably met
Maronite Gaspar al-Gharib, whom he had requested of the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith to help him in the translation of the Bible at Aleppo.
Cf. Kilzi, p. 139; Acta, vol. 3, fol. 57r and 268v.
 Cf. the original letter in SOCG, bol. 181, fol. 20v and 22r. A Latin version is
found in the same volume, fol. 21r. This letter persuaded the Congregation for
the Propagation of the Faith to send to Karmeh some copies of the Arabic gospel
printed at Rome in 1591 (Cf. Acta, vol.
4, fol. 291v).
 Karmeh began his letter by kissing “the apostolic feet and proud hands” of the
Holy Father Urban VIII (cf. Ibid.).
 Moreover in all his correspondence with Rome we see no mention of the Jesuit
fathers while his relations with them were very frequent.
 Cf. SOCG, vol. 270, fol. 237v where the
Greek Archbishop of Naxos, Jeremiah Barbarigo wrote to Arcudius dated August
12, 1627 on the subject of Cyril Lucaris: “i poveri Padri Gesuiti non puo ne
vedere ne sentire.” See De Vries,
p. 76. J. Besson (p. 24) is clear
on this point: “it is necessary to remark also that the Patriarch of
Constantinople had corrected him from using a Frank religious to teach the
Greeks in his episcopal home; this great man (Karmeh) always even to himself,
did not let the children of the Greeks take instruction from the Father
(Queyrot) in our house.” This is
what came after the closing of the school opened by Karmeh, as we will see.
 Cf. “Relatione della missione d’Aleppo della compagnia de Gesu. Dell’anno 1625
insino al fine dell’anno 1629” in SOCG,
vol. 195, fol. 159r-167r, particularly fol. 166r.
 On May 12, 1629 Karmeh wrote a letter addressed to the cardinals of the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in which he proposed that they
send someone to the east to purchase the various versions of the Arabic Bible
which were found, one in Tripoli, another in Beirut, a third at Damascus, the
fourth in Egypt, the fifth at Sinai and the sixth in Jerusalem, while he
himself possessed a seventh copy. Thus his thinking was to compare them to make
one good Arabic version which could replace all these more or less erroneous
versions (SOCG, vol. 181, fol. 208r).
This letter was not written at Aleppo because Karmeh only returned there August
5,1629 (Kilzi, p. 141). It is
necessary to note that he again asked for Fr. Thomas Obicini de Novare who,
nevertheless had rejected in January 1627 to go to Aleppo “ob infirmam eius
valetudinem” (Acta, vol. 4, fol.
180r). The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded to Karmeh
through the intermediary of his archdeacon Michael: “della Biblia Arabica dirà
à Monsignor Arcievescovo che non
occore far li diligenti ch’egli scrive. La Sac. Congregatione fà far la Vulgata
cioè la latina antica l’Oriente habbia la medesima parola di Dio che usa et
adopera questa chiesa Romana che per special perogativa annessali N. S. Giesu
Christo non puo errare…” (writing of Ingoli in SOCG, vol. 180, fol.97v).
Ibid., fol. 92r and 9r of which a Latin
version is found in the same volume, fol. 90r cf. also fol. 86r-88r.
 Note that the Arabic copies of the New testament sent by the Congregation for
the Propagation of the Faith in September 1627 only arrived in Aleppo ruined by
the waters of the sea (cf. Acta, vol. 6,
SOCG, vol. 189, fol. 87v. Note that it
was about this Archdeacon Michael when Fr. François Marie de Paris wrote to
Aleppo on October 21, 1628, who had had a discussion of the subject of
Purgatory “cum quodam Archidiacono Graeco, cuius literas Arabicè scriptas ad S.
Congregationem misit” (Acta, vol.
6, fol. 303r).
 Ingoli, Secretary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, wrote
to him after Congregation meeting 113 of August 7, 1629 (in presence of Pope
Urban VIII): “la Santità di N. S. hà sentito parlar contento dell’affetto che
V.S. mostra verso questa S. Sede e la S. Congregazione, volendo ch’ella tratta
volontieri con li pardi capucini Missionarij e con questa Chiesa Romana…” (SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 97v).
 The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith sent him (Acta, vol. 6, fol. 315v) “Avicenam Arabicum, et Evangelia
Arabica, et Genadium. Ac Concilium florentinum.” The secretary Ignoli gave him
this recommendation: “Ella farà ogni diligenza per tirar alla Santa Unione la
sua Natione” (SOCG, vol. 180,
 The letter bears the date of the 2nd decade of December 7138 of the
creation of the world which corresponds to the year 1629 AD (cf. SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 95 r), but the Latin translation’s
date is 70138! (Ibid., fol. 93v).
 The response to the letters of Archdeacon Michael written in April 1629 was
sent to the Capuchin John Chrysostom of Angers who received it on the following
September 14 and delivered it to whom it was addressed (cf. above footnote 161;
also SOCG, vol. 115, fol. 325r-326r).
Michael’s letter of the 2nd decade of December 1629 is found in SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 96r, a Latin translation of which
(fol.93r) bears this indication which reveals the sentiments of the translator
(?): “quoniam praemium huius epistolae totum est adulatorium et pharisaicum
ideo relictum est.” It was this translator who also wrote at the end: “die
decembris anno 70138 Patris nostri Adami” (sic) for the Arabic original which
had “2nd decade of December 7138 of the creation of Adam.” The
secretary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Ingoli, took
the note of the translator (Ibid.,
fol. 94v, 95v, 96v): December 70138 ab Adamo”(!).
 Archdeacon Michael showed his astonishment to this fact and added that none of
the Aleppians could understand “why the Venetian consul had disobeyed his
orders to the pope,” and prohibited the Capuchins from going to preach among
the Maronites! (SOCG, vol. 180, fol.
964). Even Louis Ramiro, consulter of the Congregation for the Propagation of
the Faith and doctor of the Venetian consul at Aleppo, lost his function as
consul through the instigation of the Franciscans ( Cf. SOCG, vol. 115, fol. 300r-307r and vol. 196, fol. 118r),
who called him “Explorator Apostolicus, ac Reipublicae Venetae rebellis” (Acts, vol. 4, fol. 278v).
 Cf. for example the letters of Capuchin John Chrysostom of Angers, superior of
the Capuchins in Aleppo, of November 12 and December 29, 1629 in SOCG, vol. 115, fol. 276r and fol. 273r. Cf. also: Acta, vol. 7, fol. 76r.
SOCG, vol. 115, fol. 289r. It concerns
most probably Greek Metropolitan Meletios Karmeh, Cyril, bishop of the
Jacobites, and the bishop of the Armenians, all at Aleppo (cf. Ibid., fol. 275v and Acta, vol. 8, fol. 45r).
 Secretary Ingoli wrote to Carmelite Prosper of the Holy Spirit after the
Congregation meeting 124 of June 15, 1630: “che faccia veder la dottrina
Christiana Arabica dal Mutran Carme (=Karmeh) l’Arcivescovo d’Aleppo e dal Sig.
Archidiacono Michele con pregarli che scrivino al loro senso in materia della
frasi arabica usata dal traslatore et insieme li preghi anche à riveder gli
evangeli arabici, et se nella lingua vi sarà alcun errore, overo nel’ortografia
li notino, accio si possa far il “corrige errata” in 400 e più volumi, ch’hà
copie la Sac. Congregazione” (SOCG, vol.
115, fol. 340v). On this occasion, the Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith insisted on sending him the Arabic book of Avicenna which it had promised
to Archdeacon Michael (Acta, vol.
7, fol. 75rv).
 The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith sent Karmeh some volumes of
the Arabic gospel in September 1627 (cf. Acta, vol. 4, fol. 291v). But Capuchin John Chrysostom of Angers informed
the Roman Congregation that these volumes were destroyed by the waters of the
sea (cf. Acta, vol. 6, fol.
302v). At the Congregation meeting 112 of August 7, 1629 (in presence of Pope
Urban VIII) it was decided to send a copy to Archdeacon Michael (Ibid., fol. 315v).
 In a letter (undated) arriving to the Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith on February 20, 1631, and addressed to Cardinal Ludovisi, Karmeh also
wrote that he had never received the books promised by the Congregation.
However, he manifested his joy on the subject of the Arabic Bible which would
be printed in Rome. Karmeh preferred to have the text of this edition in both
Greek and Arabic. (Cf. SOCG, vol. 180,
fol. 35v and 66v; Latin version: fol. 57rv and 36rv). It was in another letter
of mid-October 1631 that Karmeh emphasized reception of the books sent by the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Ibid., fol. 75r).
Ibid., also the Latin version of this
letter (fol. 74r) which contains some mistranslations.
 Letter addressed to Cardinal Borgia bearing the date of mid-October 1631 (Ibid., fol. 75r).
 Besides sending him the Greek Bible with a Greek dictionary, the Congregation
for the Propagation of the Faith “iussit ad eundem Archieposcopum scribi, ut
Horologium, et Eucologium graeca, et arabica ad Urbem transmittat, et quod
graeca illa potissimum transmitti curet, quae fuerint an iquiora ut possint
revideri, et imprimi in Arabica lingua iuxta illius petitionem” (Acta, vol. 9, fol. 63v-64r).
 Cf. Nasrallah, Notes et Documents, p.
134; Gatti-Korolevskij, I riti e le Chiese Orientali, I Genova 1942, p. 502.
 In the Archives of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith are found
4 or 5 of these mentioned chapters with a very beautiful Arabic script in black
and red punctuation separating the verses (SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 67r-72v). According to the Acts of this Congregation
we see that Karmeh had only translated these 5 chapters of Genesis while
correcting the New Testament (cf. Acta, vol. 7, fol. 130v). Compare with Nasrallah, Notes et
Documents, p. 136: “in his humility Karmeh
also assisted in the version of the Sacred Bible which was preferred to his
version that never saw the day.” Besides we do not know of any manuscript copy
of this one (!). We do not see on what Nasrallah bases his statement, writing
in DHGE, 16 (1967), col. 55:
“Before 1622 Karmeh completed the translation of the Bible. He requested a
publication of this at Rome in the same year.” If he had completed it before
1622, why did he ask in 1623 for Fr. Thomas Obicini de Novare and Fr. Gaspar
al-Gharib to assist in this translation! (Cf. SOCG, vol. 181, fol. 36r). On the other hand Gabriel
Sionite was never part of the Roman commission for the Arabic Bible (cf. P.
Raphaël, op. cit., p. 78).
 Karmeh notes that Fr. Agathange “carries with him the Vulgate of the Hebrew
Bible” (SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 69r).
 It is necessary to admit the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith had
already decided to publish the book of genesis on December 5, 1631 (in the
presence of the pope), adding to it the variations of the Babylonian,
Alexandrian and Antiochian texts in a final appendix. And instead of 2 columns,
Greek and Arabic, as Karmeh requested, it decided to print the Vulgate text
with the Arabic text. We saw that the Congregation sent Karmeh the 5 chapters
of the Bible out of courtesy and intended to change nothing that the Roman
commission did for the Arabic Bible. It is necessary to note that the members
of this commission knew all the languages required for this translation, except
 Cf. Acta, vol. 8, Congregation meeting
157 of April 26, 1631, fol. 63v in which it was decided to send him a Greek
dictionary with the Greek Bible. Cf. footnote 176.
SOCG, Ibid., “…e di più non è bene
apportarsi tanto dalle traslationi Alessandrina, et Antiochena per esser molto
SOCG, vol. 293, fol. 488r-489v: “Discorso
à N.S. Papa Urbano intorno alla traslatione della Vulgata in Arabico, e delle
persone ch’attendono a quest’opera. Del Sefretario Ingoli” (cf. fol. 490v).
 This concerns the Polyglots Bible that Cardinal de Perron and M. de Thon
intended to publish at Paris and which Michel Le Jay with Antoine Vitré brought
to a good end in 1645. Note that this edition began to be published at Paris in
March 1628. See the contribution of Gabriel Sionite to this Polyglots Bible of
Parish in : P. Raphaël, op. cit., pp. 78-84.
 Ingoli, secretary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, gives
five reasons, cf. SOCG, vol. 293, fol.
 “Perchè se si manda la Volgata nostra in Oriente senza dubbio s’estingueranno
le sei traslationi arabiche pienne d’errori” of which Karmeh had informed the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in his letter of May 12, 1629 (SOCG, vol. 181, fol. 208r: cf. above.)
 “Il quale hebbe un poco digusto” (SOCG,
vol. 104, fol. 243r).
 “Ma colle ragioni de. V. Signoria Em.ma
è restate sodisfatto” (Ibid.). By this
we see that the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith wanted to
persuade Karmeh that the Arabic translation of the Vulgate was the best one
could have, and for want of other means he had to accept it despite the
contribution that he wished to make for this translation, thanks to his vast
knowledge of Greek and Arabic.
 Cf. Kilzi, p. 142; Macarios of
Aleppo, p. 632; Radu, pp. 40-41.; Vat. Arab. 689, fol. 139v.
 His quarrels with Cyril IV Dabbas because of his favorable attitude to the
Latin missionaries was well known. It was even known in Cyprus (SOCG, vol. 112, fol. 415r). Even Cyril I Lucaris took him
back again because he employed Fr. Queyrot to teach in his own home (Besson, p.
 Cf. the testimonies of Macarios of Aleppo and Jesuit Father Queyrot on the
holiness of this Greek prelate (Kilzi,
pp. 42-47, 81-84, 142-143); SOCG,
vol. 195, fol. 165r-167r).
 This is a religious-political rivalry which remains a little in the blood of
 Macarios of Aleppo does not specify the name of those who consecrated him: “and
the archbishops consecrated him patriarch May 1,” 1634 (Ibid.). Karmeh took the name Euthymios. Rustum (p. 43)
calls him Euthymios III and assigns him “1635-1636” as duration of his
 See above, particularly Acts, vol. 3,
fol. 7r and 11r.
 In May 1633, Isaac Shiadraoui (or Sciadrensis) was in Aleppo as his letter
written in Aleppo on May 3, 1633 to the Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith reveals to us: “Io al presente mi ritrovo in Aleppo per far la visita,
rappacificare et rimediare à certi disordini et inconvenienti che occorsero
questo anno nel nostro popolo (maronita), si come feci un’altra volta quattro
anni fà…” (SOCG, vol. 103, fol. 191r).
Note at that time there were no residential bishops there for the Maronites.
Cf. for example the letter of recommendation of the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith to Maronite Patriarch George Amira (1634-1644) in
order that he (Amira) concede to Isaac, bishop of Tripoli “residentiam in
Aleppo, aut Damasco aut Barutti, aut in alio loco ubi sunt maronitae ne
inutiliter tempus transigat!” (Acta, vol. 10, fol. 343v-344r: Congregation meeting 210 of November 12, 1635).
 Very probably this expedition was prepared to Aleppo before the accession of
Karmeh to the patriarchate, particularly after the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith had accepted to have the Euchologion and Horologion published
in Arabic (cf. Acta, vol. 8, fol.
63v-64r). But the delegates lasted leaving Damascus while Karmeh was already
patriarch, since he remained in Damascus after his patriarchal consecration and
his delegate, Protosyncellos Pachomios, traveled to the patriarchal residence of Damascus (Cf. SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 41r).
 In fact before the Congregation meeting of January 7, 1635, secretary Ingoli
wrote: “il Patriarcha d’Antiochia ha mandato a Roma per far l’unione” (SOCG, vol. 195, fol.38v.
 Although some historians wanted to minimize the value of this first secretary
of the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, one could not
praise his vast knowledge on all the historical and ecclesiastical questions of
the east, in which few of his successors could equal him. The scholarly remarks
that he wrote on the back of letters he received demonstrate this erudition.
Cf. for example J. Grisar, “Francesco Ingoli über die Aufgaben des kommenden
Papstes nach dem Tode Urbans VIII” in Archivium Historiae Pontificiae, Rome, 5 (1967), pp. 289-325; J. Metzler, “Francesco
Ingoli und die Indianerweihen” in Neue Zeitschrift für
Missionswissenschaft, 1969, pp. 262-272.
 These are the remarks that Ingoli wrote on the subject of the request made by
the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch for the printing of the Euchologion and
Horologion In Arabic (SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 46v).
 “Hora fatto patriarca d’Antiochia, (Euthymios Karmeh) hà preso alla mano di
stampare l’Euchologio de greci et il loro Horologio traslato in arabo e
corretto con antichi manuscritti, con molta diligenza e fatica de 15 anni,
sperando con darne copie stampate à tutte le sue chiese di affetionar li suoi
Arcivescovi, vescovi, e sacredoti e li popoli alla santa Unione. Questo negotio
importa grandemente, perchè questo patriarcha è quello, che veramente si puo
dire patriarca d’Antichia, perchè succede à
quelli che intervennero ne generali concilij, essendo gl’altri de marnoniti,
Giacobiti e Nestoriani più tosto Nazionali, che Generali” (Ibid.). Note that the Nestorian Patriarchs never bore the
title of Antioch.
 This distinction, which appears to us very important to understand the
Christian east and to continue a fruitful dialogue with the Orthodox properly
speaking (cf. our Introduction) had not been respected at Vatican Council II
which placed all the patriarchs on one level without distinction (cf. “Orientalium
Ecclesiarum,” no. 8: “Patiarchae
Ecclesiarum Orientalium licet alii aliis tempore posteriors, omnes tamen
aequales sunt”!). Compare with de Vries (op. cit., p, 287) which shows how “für den Kardinal
Ledochowski war der melkitische der einzige, Patriarcha Maior,” among the
patriarchs united with Rome. However it is necessary to admit that Vatican II
could have done differently without creating useless disputes.
 “Di più essendo li popoli dell’Asia senza studi, non si puo trovar miglior modo
per farli unire, che corregerli loro libri cultici, e stamparglieli perchè
s’aboliranno li manuscritti che costano tanto, e col tempo restandoli li
stampati corretti, ed instruiti nella dottrina christiana senza entar in
dispute di quello che non sanno più dell’Heresia loro, sarà fatta l’unione et
guarita, senza pericolo d’alcun di loro” (SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 46v). It is necessary to say that the secretary Ingoli
was very optimistic! But his method was also followed after three and a half
centuries of “mission,” in order to enter after Vatican Council II into the
phase of “ecumenism” with the separated Christians.
 “Questo patriarca d’Antiochia è quell Meletio già Arcivescovo de Melchiti
d’Aleppo, ch’hà per lo spatio di 10 anni (rather 15 ans: cf. Congregation
meeting 5 of April 11, 1622 where it concerns his delegate at Rome,
Protosyncellos Absalon), trattato colla Sac, Congregazione, e colli suoi
missionarij mostratosi inclinato all’unione” (SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 49v). Ingoli seems to have forgotten
the relations of this Metropolitan of Aleppo with Pope Paul V before the
definitive foundation of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in
1622 (cf. above).
 The question of the Holy Places tormented the entire East in the 17th century, prolonging the harmful effects of the Crusades of which we suffer
today with the presence of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. On this question
see the brochure prepared by the Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of
Antioch: “Catholicism ou latinisme,”
Harissa 1961 (particularly pp. 20-78). On our question of the 17th century, see Musset, II, pp.
181-188; OC, no. 84 (1933). Cf. also SOCG, vol. 149, fol. 240r-241r; vol. 195, fol. 82r where we read the
“ricordi del Padre Vandsome per Terra Santa”: Piacere a V.S. Ill.ma e R.ma
ricordarsi di… rappressentare al Em.mo Signor Cardinale nostro prottettore che
per rimediare prontamente e facilmente alli presenti travagli di Terra Sanra
bisognavia ordinare a corsarij di Fiorenza e di Malta di far ogni diligenza di
pigliar in mare o in terra alcune persone notabile di quei paesi vicino
Gierusalem a quali no ’srà dato esperanza d’altro recotto ne ranzone se no’ la
restitutione delli luoghi Sartti usurpati dalli greci…” Compare with fol. 93r,
94r, 94r-97r and 103r of the same volume.
 “Parere del segretario Ingoli del modo che s’hà da tenere per ordinare le
represalie contro li Greci Scismatici: Mi pare che sia necessario di far sapere
la resolutione presa circa le Represalie (cf. The Decree of the Congregation
for the Propagation of the Faith of November 21, 1634 in the meeting held in
the presence of the pope: SOCG, vol.
195, fol. 71rv) alli due Patriarchi Cyrillo di Constantinopoli e à Theofano di
Gierusalemme… che risponderanno circa la restitutione de Santi Luoghi… si darà
ordine alli Vascelli de Principi christiani che li spoglino (the Greeks) di
quanto ritroveranno nelli loro Vascelli e li vadino anche ad infettare nelle
loro habitationi sinche si faccia detta restitutione… Bisognarebbe quando non
s’havessero gl’intoppi detti di sopra, eccettuare li Studditi delli due
Patriarchi Alessandrino et Antiocheno, perche oltre non esser concorsi
all’usurpatione dei Santi Luoghi, il Primo s’è portato bene in material di
Religione recusando d’unir il suo Patriarchato cogl’heretici di settentrone
(i.e. the Calvinists), com’era invitato dall’Ambasciatore d’Hollanda ad
istigationi di Cyrillo (Lucaris). Il Secondo (i. e. Euthymios Karmeh) ha
mandato a Roma per far l’unione, e sempre è stato con buona dispositione verso
questa Santa Sede, et hà favoriti li nostri Missionarij mentre era Arcivescovo
d’Aleppo” (SOCG, vol. 195, fol.
 Again Ingoli notes this in SOCG, vol. 180,
fol. 39r and vol. 395, fol. 295r and 296v. The letters themselves, all three
written in Arabic, are found in vol. 180 of SOCG (fol. 41r, 42r and 43r) with
their Italian translation (fol. 52r-53r; 47r-48r, 55v). The restoration of the
Arabic letters was made since one part of one letter was glued to a part of
another letter! Seeing the deteriorated state of these letters we had great
difficulty reconstituting the original.
Karmeh addressed himself to the pope in these word: “Hadrat Sayydi dhou-erraï-essahih
al-Baba Urbano Wakil Rabbina wa Sayydina Yasu’a al-Masih” (to my Orthodox
Master Pope Urban. Steward of our Lord Jesus Christ). Cf. SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 43v.
Ibid. We see that Karmeh had never
interrupted his relations with Rome since his accession to the episcopate in
1612 (with Paul V) until his death as Patriarch of Antioch.
Ibid., fol. 42r. Cf. also the Italian
version (fol. 47r-48r of the same volume).
 This letter begins with these words: “From the poor servant Euthymios to our magnificent
Master and to the excellent Holy Congregation with the Lord Cardinals, may God
perpetuate their goodness” (Ibid., fol.
414 in Arabic).
 The Italian translation has this meaningless word: “l’impressione d’alcuni
libri ecclesiastici, de quali è fondamento e base Christo!” It is clear that in
the original Arabic it concerns the foundation and base of the Church and not
books! (“Taba’ baad Kutob li Kanissat al-Masih alladhi houa Yasouha”: Ibid.) Compare
with the Italian translation fol. 42r of the same volume.
 Cf. footnote 200 above. Isaac Shiadraoui, student of the Maronite College in
Rome since 1603, was consecrated bishop of Tripoli in 1629 and sent on a
mission to Aleppo. The second mission to Aleppo form 1633-1634 was concluded
with his departure to Rome with the delegate of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of
Antioch. It is interesting to note that P. Raphaël, who chanted the glory of
the Maronite Nation in his pamphlet “Le rôle du Collège Maronite Romain dans
l’Orientalisme aux XVII et XVIII siècles”
(Beirut 1950) says not one word about this serious mission which this Maronite
bishop made (cf. pp. 102-105). Besides even his predecessors (De La Roque, J.
Assemani, Debs, Cheikho and Chebli) did not know about this affair (op.cit., p. 105).
SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 41r. It is
interesting to know that it was the Capuchin Michel de Rennes who composed the
dedication of these 2 books in Latin which was then translated into Arabic:
“S.mo D. N. Urbano Octavo Communi omnium credentium parenti, Pontifici O.M. et
universalis Ecclesiae praesuli.
… hoc tandem opus meae sub
Suavissimo Ecclesiae Romanae Iugo obedientiae singularisque benevolentiae
argumentm, nec non urbanitatis erga me tuae oviculam gregis tui monimentum, sed
et meorum primitias ac primordia studiorum, tibi meo communique omnium
credentium parenti toto cordis ac mentis affectu dico, dedico conferoque; tibi
inquam. mortalium Dignissime, quippe qui Christi Domini Sacerdotum omnium
principis personam praefers, qui Beatissimi Petri Ecclesiae clavigeri, tum in
aperiendis tum in claudendis Ianuis coelestibus, sive ligando sive solvendo
vices geris, qui, denique (ne longius prosequem) coeterorum Apostolorum
potestate praevales, privilegiis gaudes, autoritate superemines…” (SOCG, vol. 196, fol. 205v).
SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 41e. Karmeh
proposed here among other things the kind of paper, the color of the text, the
manner of binding the books, etc…
 This is the letter of Patriarch George Amira read at the Congregation meeting
208 of September 24, 1635 (in presence of pope) which reveals to us that this
Maronite bishop “sine licentia Patriarchae eiusdem nationis nuperrime defuncti
(i.e. John Makhlouf) Roman venit.” The Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith had decided to dismiss “quamprimum dictum Archiepiscopum Cypri (rather:
Tripoli) Isaac, et etiam Georgium Maronium Archiepiscopum Cyopri ad eorum
residentias” (Acta, vol. 10, fol.
 Cf. H. Zayat, The Greek Melkites in Islam (in Arabic), Harissa 1953, p. 75; Revue de l’Eglise Grecque Unie, 2 (1890), pp. 409-410. It is sufficient knowing as
if “allied with the Franks,” that is to say the westerners, in order to merit
 “Isac Sciadrense Arcivescovo di Tripoli di Soria espone humilmente a V.
Eminenza com’in virtù delle lettere della S. Congegazione de Propaganda Fide
Eutimio Patriarca d’Antiochia della Natione de’ Greci hà commesso all’oratore,
che portasse seco certi libri d’orationi ecclesiastiche trasferite dal Greco in
arabico per stamparle in Roma ben corrette in lingua arabica con speranza
d’unirsi non solamente il soddetto Patriarca ma tutto il suo grege alla sede
Apostolica (of Rome) come dalle qui accluse lettere, e dal Monacho (Pachomoios)
che percio col oratore è stato mandato…” (SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 46r). It was on the back of this account (fol. 46v)
that secretary Ingoli notes: “questo patriarcha è quello, che veramente si puo
dire patriarcha d’Antiochia…” (cf. footnote 206 above).
 Cf. Acta, vol. 10, fol. 174rv:
“referente eodem Em.mo D. Card. Barberino instantiam R.mi D. Isaac
Archiepiscopi Tripolis Syriae Nationis Maronitarium, et Patris Pachomij Nuntij
Euthymij Patriarchae Antiocheni antea Meletij Archiepiscopi Aleppi, ut
Euchologium et Horologium Graecorum è greca lingua in Arabicam translata
imprimerentur, et impressa ad praefatum Patriarcham transmitterentur, quia cum
illis sperabat suos Archiepiscopos, Episcopos et Sacerdotes ad Unionem cvum
S.R. Ecclesia perducere. Sacra Congregatio petitioni eorum annuendum sese
censuit, et P. Vincentium Richardium Theatinum, et Patrem Philippum Guadagnolum
deputavit ad examinandos praedictos duos libros prius in latinum transferendos,
ut possint cum Graecis exemplaribus conferri, et ab erroribus, si opus fuerit,
expurgari” (cf. also SOCG, vol.
180, fol. 49v).
Acta, vol. 10, fol. 207r-208r; SOCG vol.
180, fol. 39r, and vol. 395, fol. 295r and 296v. We note that even the Capuchin
Bonaventure de Loudes sent letters of recommendation on the subject of this
mission. This is what was reported to the Congregation meeting 201 of February
28, 1635: “retulit idem Em.mus D.mus Card. Caponius literas Patris Bonaventurae
Capuccini Missionarij in Aleppo de R.mo Isaac Tripolitano Archiepiscopo, et de
Patre Pachomio misso ab Euthimio Patriarcha Antiocheno Graeco, quorum negotia,
de quibus in alij huius Sac. Cong.nis Decretis, commendabat” (Acts, vol. 10, fol. 187v).
 “Il patriarcha Euthimio d’Antiochia hà mandato qui il padre Pachomio suo
Arciprete com ordine ch’in nome suo s’unisca colla Sede Apostolica (of Rome)
con accettar il sacro Concilio di Fiorenza e per segno gli hà dato il suo
signillo, accio dopo haver sottoscritta tal accettatione, la sigilli col detto
suo sigillo, sul qual in Arabico sono scritte queste parole Euthimius
Nelle lettere che`scrive
detto patriarcha à V. Santità, et alla Sac. Congregazione non dice cosa alcuna
di questo particolare, credo perche hà dubitato, che le lettere non capitassero
in man de Turchi, approva pero per uno suo Nuntio, e messo il detto padre
Pachomio, il qual asserisce, che il patriarcha gl’hà detto, che tutto cio, che
dirà il papa e la congregazione ch’egli faccia lo sottoscriva in suo nome, e lo
sigilli col suo sigillo, et in particolare, che dica che accetta il Concilio di
Pero è necessario, che V.
Santità dia qualche ordine per far qualch’atto publico d’ll’unione di questo
patriarcha guadagnato dalli missionarij d’Aleppo, accio il detto padre Pachomio
lo porti seco e glielo faccia ratificare.” This is what secretary Ingoli had
prepared (cf. SOCG, Ibid.) for Cardinal
Caponni. We see in it the role that Ingoli played in all the works of the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith even if the final decision
depended on the pope and cardinals!
 “Tractetur de modo faciendo in recipiendo praedictum Patriarcham ad Unionem, et
de actu publico per illum Patrem Pachomium, nominee memorati Patriarchae
faciendo” (SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 40r;
compare with Acta, vol. 10, fol.
ut Unio p.ta et receptio praefati Sac Concilii canonicè a memorato Patre
Pachomio, huic quo supra, fiant, Congregationem particularem instituit coram
Em.mo D.no Card. de Cremona habendam, cum Em.mis D.mis Cardinalibus Ginetto et
Antonio, et RR. PP. Magistro Sac. Palatij, Herera, Horatio Justiniano, et P.
Vincentio Richardio Theatino” (Ibid.).
 It concerns Abbot Hilarion Rancati, Cistercian, was part of the commission for
the Arabic Bible, Cf. Raphaël, op. cit.,
Acta, vol. 10, fol. 270r-271r:
“Introductis in Congregationem R.mo D. Isaac Archiepiscopo Tripoplis Syriae
Nationis Maronitarium, et P. Pachomio S.ti Basilij monacho eiusdem Patriarchae
Archipresbytero audiaque iterum eadem instantia per praefatum Archiepiscopum et
Monachum latius explicata, et per Sigilli eiusdem Patriarchae exhibitionem, et
ostensionem confirmata; quo dixerunt, se uti Nuntios eius speciales, et cum
sigillo predicto more orientalium mandato speciali aequivalente, unionem
praefatam, quoquomodo admissa fuerit, eiusdem Patriarchae nominee facturos, et
sigillo p.to munituros.”
 “ Congregatio dimissis praefatis Nuntijs post maturam deliberationem censuit,
non praemissa per eumdem Patriarcham Catholicae fidei professione, et non
exhibitis eius literis specialibus, aut saltem credentialibus ut in Unione
Iacobitarum observatum fuit in Sacro Concilio Florentino, instantiam praefatam
non esse admittendam” (Acta, vol. 10,
fol. 271r). According to the example of the union with the Jacobites that the
Congregation also wanted to follow in the case of a completely Orthodox
patriarch, we see how the distinction between Orthodox and pre-Chalcedonian
began to die out in the western vision of the Church: all that was eastern knew
heresy, a profession of catholic faith was then necessary and imposed on all
easterners without distinction, while since the pontificate of Gregory XIII
(1572-1585) there was a profession of faith proper to the Greeks and one proper
to all other easterners. Cf. De Vries, Rom und die Patriarchate des
Ostens, Freiburg 1963, pp. 308-309.
 “Propterea scribendum esse eidem Patriarchae, ut iuxta morem, et consuetudinem
hactenus in S.R.E. observatam, prius professionem iuxta formulam, pro
orientalibus nuper editam, faciat, praesentibus duobus, aut tribus missionarijs,
aut Religiosis familiae Hiersolomytanae; eamque propria manu subscribat, et
transmittat, cum suis literis vel specialibus super Unione, vel credentialibus
ad p.tum Archiepiscopum, aut eundem Patrem Pachomium, cum similibus literis ad
Urbem denuo mittat” (Acta, vol. 10, fol.
271rv). For the recently edited formula cf. Acta, vol. 8, fol. 232rv and 235v. This formula was also
imposed little by little on the Italo-Greeks of Ancones (July 30, 1635: Acta, vol. 10, fol. 280r) and on the Greek Patriarchs of
Constantinople, Athanasios Patellaros and Cyril of Berrhea (November 17, 1635: Acta, vol. 10, fol. 347r and 348r).
 “S. Congregatio censuit ad Unionem p.tam postquam facta fuerit, conservandam
necessarium esse, ut aliquot Iuvenes Syri (Greek rite) à praefato Patriarcha,
eiusque successoribus mittendi, in aliquot Collegio Romae instruantur, et bene
instructi, Patriam remittantur, ad iuvandos suos, Unionemque manutenedam” (Acta, vol. 10, fol. 271r).
Ibid., fol. 287r: S. Congregatio
probavit et iussit…” Cf. also SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 54.
 Ingoli notes in SOCG, vol. 180, fol.
51rv: “non si puo dar sodisfattione al sud.o Patiarcha, se prima non s’emendano
li greci (i.e. the Euchologion and Horologion) che hanno molti e gravi errori
come si vede dalla censua venuta di Spagna…” Here this concerns the complaints
of some Latin bishops against the Italo-Greeks and the Italo-Albanians who
lived in the Kingdom of Naples and of Sicily. These complaints were taken to
Rome by the king of Spain, Philip IV, sovereign of the kingdom there also. (Cf.
Nasrallah, Notes et Documents, p.
134). Congregation meeting 200 of January 19, 1635 (cf. Acta, vol. 10, fol. 174r) had appointed Father Vincent
Richard and Philip Guadagnolo “ad examinandos praefatos duos libros prius in
latinum transferendos, ut possint cum graecis exemplaribus conferri, et ab
erroribus, si opus fuerit, expurgar.” The special Congregation meeting of July
26, 1635 (cf. Acta, vol. 10, fol.
271v) “mandavit R.mo Isaac
Archiepiscopo (Maronite of Tripoli), ut Euchologium, et Horologium Graecorum in
lingua Arabica, à praefato Patriarcha transmissa, ut imprimerentur typis
Arabicis, in Latinum transferat, ut possint corrigi in pertinentibus ad fidem
catholicam, iuxta eiusdem Patiarchae instantiam, et deinde imprimi iuxta Decretum
in Sac.. Congregatione de Prop. Fide editum.”
 It is Ingoli who notes (SOCG, vol. 180,
fol. 51rv): “poiche in emendar li codici greci, e poi accomodar, e stampar gli
arabici si anderà gran tempo, e forse non se ne vedrà mai il fine, se si
piglierà la strada solita delle Congregazione, come s’è visto nel rispondere al
libro dogmatico de Persiani, che mai colla Cong.ne ordinata si terminava, s’il
Padre Filippo Guadagnolo non si poneva già à far egli prima la risposta, e poi
farla rivedere: la quale essendo riuscita cosi felicemente come s’è visto pare
che si potrebbe tener la medesima strada circa questi libri…” Thus Ingoli, who
was already secretary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith for
13 years, had anticipated the sad end of the Arabic Euchologion which only saw
the light of day in 1851, not
according to Karmeh’s translation, but that of the Greek “Catholic” Euchologion
published for the first time in 1754 under Benedict XIV! Cf. Nasrallah, Notes
and Documents, pp. 131-135; compare with C.
Korolevsky (Karalevskij), Histoire des Patriarcats Melkites, III, Rome, 1911, pp. 48-50; J.B.Darblade,
“L’Euchologe arab-melchite de Kyr Mélèce Karmet,” in POC, 6 (1956), pp. 28-37.
 This concerns the Greeks who were under the Latin jurisdiction, and who also
used the Greek language in their religious ceremonies.
 “Negli euchologij greci stampati in Venetia si contengono dell’eresie, molte
cerimonie giudaiche, si leggomo le orationi de Padri Santi Greci alterate e
diversi troparij et orationi de moderni Schismatici et heretici, e molti altri
particolari degni d’emendatione…” (Ingoli wrote this in SOCG, Ibid.).
 The response was prepared by Ingoli in these word: “A Monsignor Euthimio
patriarcha d’Antiochia della natione greca, Dal Padre Pachomio Arciprete di.
V.S. si sono ricevute Sue lettere insieme coll’Euchologio et Horologio Arabici
che Ella desidera che si stampino; s’è dato ordine à Monsignor Isaac
Arcievescovo di Tripoli, che li trasferisca in latino, accio si possino da
nostri theologi rivedere et emendare se sarà di bisogno nelle materie
pertinenti alla fede cattolica” (SOCG,
vol. 180, fol. 56v).
 Pachomios only left Rome after the Congregation meeting 206 of July 30, 1635 which took place
in the presence of Pope Urban VIII (cf. Acta, vol. 10, fol. 287r). For the Arabic Pentateuch cf. Acta, vol. 7, fol. 150r-151r; vol. 8, fol. 215v-216r.
This Arabic version had nothing to do with the new Arabic version of the first
5 chapters of Genesis made by Karmeh in 1632 (cf. above, particularly SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 63v). This same Congregation meeting
decided that “Pentateuchum praefatum esse mittendum Prientales partes, ut
antequam ulterius in impressione praefactorum Bibliorum Arabicorum procedatur,
experientia fiat, an Ecclesiae Orientales illum recipiant” (Acta, vol. 10, fol. 288v).
 Cf. above his letters to Popes Paul V and Urban VII.
 Cf. H. Zayat, The Greek-Melkites in Islam (in Arabic), pp. 74-78; Revue de l’Eglise Grecque Unie, 2 (1890), pp. 409-410.
 Cf. for example SOCG, vol. 270, fol. 3v
in which Ingoli notes concerning Cyril I Lucaris: “Ha accusato al Gran Visir
l’Arcivescovo di Smyrna che fù poi carcerato e l’Arcivescovo d’Edessa… Hà
avvellentati, et annegati da 6 Metropoliti” most of whom appeared inclined to
union with Rome. Also see the end of Cyril II of Berrhea in SOCG, vol. 119, fol. 36r.
 Cf. above, the first trip of Karmeh to Constantinople to defend himself before
Timothy II against the accusations of the Patriarch of Antioch, Athanasios II
Dabbas, who wanted to depose him from the see of Aleppo (Kilzi, p. 84).
 It is only Paul of Aleppo who used this expression (Radu, p. 42): “Marad Maïn Mash’hour” while his father,
Patriarch Macarios, only speaks of a grave illness (Macarios of
Aleppo, p. 632; Kilzi, p. 143) in order not to attract the anger of the
Greek-speaking people of his patriarchate or those of other Greek
patriarchates. H. Zayat (op. cit.,
p. 79) refers to a document of a Jacobite who affirmed quite simply that
Patriarch Karmeh had been poisoned. Jesuit Father John Amieu also affirms this
public opinion of his times (Rabbath, I, pp. 397-398) and that the successor of Karmeh, Euthymios III,
feared having the same death as his predecessor if he declared his union with
Rome (Rabbath, I, p. 402).
Capuchin Michael of Rennes also affirms that Patriarch Euthymios III had told
him: “nisi vererer Constantinopolitanum patriarcham et alios refragantes palam
profiterer me Romanae subiectum Ecclesiae, Swd id si publicassem nec decem
mille aurei hanc professionem essent solvendo, ipse autem non ignorat idcirco
venenum suo propinatum fuisse predecessori, hoc est patriarcha Carmi” (SOCG, vol. 20, fol. 28v). also Cf. vol. 196, fol. 212v
and vol. 119, fol. 112r. All this could strengthen the thesis of H. Zayat (op.
cit., p. 78-80), even if Fr. Pachomios and
the brother of Patriarch Karmeh said nothing about the circumstances of this
provoked death (cf. SOCG, vol.
180, fol. 101r and 99r).
Kilzi, p. 143; Macarios of
Aleppo, p. 632; SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 99r. Korolevsky (“Antioche” in DHGE, col. 641-642) takes pleasure in recounting a
history copied from Le Quien (col. 772): Patriarch Karmeh “was on route when
the pasha of Damascus, before demanding of Euthymios II (Karmeh) a sum which he
had to pay, forced him to retire at Aleppo where he renounced the patriarchate
and designated a Greek hieromonk of Chios as his successor…” This account has
no foundation (cf. preceding footnote). Macarios of Aleppo mentions no trip of
Karmeh to Aleppo after his elevation to the patriarchate (Kilzi, p. 143; Macarios of Aleppo, p. 632) and Thalget, brother of the deceased
patriarch, affirms that Karmeh died in Damascus and not in Aleppo (SOCG,
Ibid.). Besides, Korolevsky seems to have
ignored the “provoked illness” of the patriarch!
 “S. Congregatio doluit de morte praefati Euthymij, quia sperabat eo mediante,
nationem Graecorum Syriae, et convicinarum Provinciarum cum Sede Apostolica (of
Rome) unitam iri” (Acta, Ibid.).
 Pachomios left Rome after the Congregation meeting 206 of July 30, 1635 (cf. Acta, vol. 10, fol. 287r) and his trip back to Damascus
lasted six and one half months (cf. letter of Pachomios to the Congregation for
the Propagation of the Faith in SOCG,
vol. 180, fol. 101r). Thus he reached Damascus around mid-February 1636 while
Patriarch Karmeh died on January 1, 1635 (cf. footnote 249).
Even Ingoli wrote on the
back of Thalget’s letter: “questo patriarcha Euthimio d’Antiochia mando il suo
Arciprete per far l’unione colla Sede Apostolica (Rome) conforme al Sac.
Concilio Fiorentino, fù aggiustata quest’unione con detto Arciprete che fu
spedito inditro con li ricapiti necessarij, e mentre era in viaggio mori questo
patriarcha…” (SOCG, vol. 180, fol.
108v). We see that there were more than 13 months between the death of
Patriarch Euthymios II Karmeh and the return of Pachomios to Damascus. Thus the
letter of Pachomios dated March 19, 1636 could not have been written “before
the death of Meletios” (rather Euthymios), as J. Nasrallah wrote (Notes
et Documents, footnote on p. 131)! Besides
the copies of the Arabic Pentateuch which had been sent to Tripoli, Aleppo and
Egypt in view of an examination, were brought by Pachomios himself (Acta, vol. 10, fol. 271v) and the responses of those who
had to examine them were awaited. This is why Euthymios III the Chiot
(successor of Karmeh) did not want to respond to the letters of Rome until
having received the response of the examiners. J. Nasrallah avoided speaking of
this in DHGE, vol. 16 (1967),
col. 56, but unfortunately he commits another confusion by writing: “the latter
(Karmeh) did not respond immediately, for he waited for other letters from Rome
(letter of Pachomios to Cardinal Fr. Barberini, published by H. Zayat in Histoire
de Saidnaya, 171) (sic), and he died
meanwhile.” In fact Karmeh could not have responded because he was dead (13
months before the return of Pachomios to Damascus)! And the letter of Pachomios
mentions no expectation of “other letters from Rome!” And this letter was
addressed to Fr. Ingoli and not to Cardinal Fr. Barberini! Cf. the original
letter in SCOG, vol. 180, fol.
101r and its Italian version in the same volume, fol. 101r.
 In fact he never hid his desire for union with Rome until his death (Cf. Rabbath, I, pp. 410-402). And his last will and testament
which Thalget, brother of Patriarch Karmeh, mentions in his letter to the pope,
examined at the Congregation meeting 222 of November 11, 1636 (cf. SOCG, vol. 180, fol. 99r).
Ibid.” “My brother, Patriarch Euthymios
of Antioch, who was the Metropolitan of Aleppo had been quickly suffering from
“the arrow of death” and was taken into the neighborhood of the Lord of
creation on January 1, 1635 AD at Damascus-Sham, ‘may Your holy head remain
saved.’ And he sent to Your servant in his testament that I announce to Your
Holiness his death, praying you to remember him in your Divine Liturgy and
asking Our Lord Jesus Christ in your prayers that he receive him in his hands
and pardon him his sins and guilt” (literally translated from the original
 Cf. footnote 252. Pachomios was at the point of arriving at Rome.
SOCG, Ibid.: “questo patriarcha si puo
credere piamente che sia salvo: perche diede piena autorità ad detto Arciprete
di accettare il concilio de “Fiorenza.” Note that, according to Ingoli,
acceptance of the Council of Florence by an Orthodox suffices to be saved!
 Cf. above. But Isaac probably did not have the necessary time to accept it (cf.
Nasrallah, Notes et Documents, footnote
Rabbath, I, p. 401. P. Besson (p. 24) calls him “a very Catholic man and recounts
how “the archbishop (Karmeh) and the fathers (Jesuits) argued about the price
of abstinence, with this difference nevertheless, that this virtuous prelate
supported for many years, which our missionaries did not suffer for so long a
time.” Patriarch Macarios of Aleppo (Kilzi, pp. 143-144) wrote that at the death of Karmeh “all the faithful wept
in an indescribable manner and that his tomb produced various kinds of miracles
and cures even until our day” (in 1670). Capuchin Michael of Rennes wrote in
1641: Karmeh “erava Vescovo Catholico, et con quanto zelo haveria procurator
l’ogmentatione (sic) della chiesa romana se non fusse stato prevenuto della
morte sei (rather 8) mesi doppo che fu creato Patriarcha Antiocheno” (SOCG, vol. 196, fol. 205r). The secretary of the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith wrote on October 27, 1640: “il
metran Carme finalmente si fece e mori catholico” (SOCG, vol. 119, fol.67v).
Cf. also the judgment of this same secretary in footnote 261. Even the
Dominican scholar Le Quien (col. 773) affirmed: “Charme Romanam in Syria
communionem fovens…” Nevertheless, Karmeh was in good relations with the other
Orthodox bishops of Antioch and even with the Patriarch of Constantinople to
whom he had recourse twice! He never made the profession of faith imposed by
 In 1622. Cf. above. On the precedents of this Congregation, also see V. Peri,
“La Congregazione dei Greci (1573) e I suoi primi documenti,” in Studia
Gratiana, 13 (1967), pp. 129-137.
 “Fra tutte le città dell’Imperio Orientale soggette al dominio turchesco,
Aleppo celebre per il traffico; mà non meno hà da stimarsi dà mercantanti (sic)
evangelici, che da quelli del secolo, per l’opportunità che vi è d’impiegarsi
al guadagno dell’anime” (J. Queyrot in his “Relatione della missione d’Aleppo
della Compagnia di Giesù. Dall’anno 1625 insino al sine dell’anno 1629,” in SOCG, vol. 195, fol. 159r).
 J. Besson wrote in 1660: “I consider in this large number of two hundred
thousand souls, that the city of Aleppo has forty thousand Christians, namely:
five thousand Armenians, ten thousand Greeks and 10 thousand Syrians as well as
Nestorians or Maronites” (p. 37).
 Cf. De Vries, Rom und die Patriarchate des Ostens, op. cit., p. 83: “Die
Missionare kamen durchweg ohne jede spezielle Vorbereitung in den Nahen Osten.”
 On these quarrels see the preceding chapter. In general the quarrels took place
between the Franciscans on one side and the other missionaries on the other
side. A résumé of these quarrels are found in SOCG, vol. 197, fol. 50r-51v.
 Cf. the letter of Capuchin John Chrysostom of Angers of December 28, 1629 in SOCG, vol. 115, fol. 325r-326r.
SOCG, vol. 196, fol. 118r: “l’ingiusta
persecutione fatta dal suddetto frà Francesco (Guaresmi, Guardian of Aleppo) al
Ramiro, che con tanta fedeltà, e`senza offesa della Religione francescana hà
servito da 3 anni incirca, con sua spesa e`fatica la stessa Sac.
Congregazione.” This Louis Ramiro presented his resignation in 1631 (cf. Acta, vol. 7, fol.94v) and was replaced by Gaspar della
Chiesa (cf. Acta, vol. 8, fol.
128v). The “Responsalis” of Aleppo informed the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith about the situation of the missions in the entire Near
 Cf. the account of Louis Ramiro of the month of April 1629 in SOCG, vol. 196, fol. 5rv. Cf. also, vol. 115, fol. 237rv.
It concerns the peace after the sad events of the installation of the Capuchin,
Jesuits and Discalced Carmelites in Aleppo. Cf. Besson, p. 19; SOCG, vol. 386, fol. 54r, fol. 131rv, and fol. 240r.
 Cf. Acta, vol. 7, 147r-149v and 152rv; SOCG, vol. 196, fol. 5rv. Capuchin John Chrysostom of
Angers was against the idea of the division of Eastern rites among the various
religious orders. On November 12, 1629 he wrote to the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith” “E stato alter volte proposto alla Sacra
Congregazione per tratener la pace di dividere tra gli missionari le sette (!)
come la setta di Nestoriani ai R.P. Osservanti, gli Greci o Armeni ai Capucini.
Ma questo non mi pio parer buono, primo perche, benche par la gratia d’Iddio tutte le nationi siano
affettionate a noi, nondimento si trovera tra gli Grechi verbi gratia un uomo
piu inclinato a praticar con noi e un altro inclinato a loro, o l’uno o l’altro
sara forzato di communicar della sua salute contra la sua inclinatione, secondo sarebbe dare piu gran cagione alle contentioni, perche
l’uni direbbono forse come gli Corintij, Ego sum Pauli, Ego Appolo, Ego vero
Cepha, tertio e principalemente
perche non nasce il divortio della practica co I schismatichi ma d’un altra
banda (the Franciscans!) che si copre del pretesto di lughi Santi e che mancano
le lemosine al S.mo Sepolcro alla proportione che si fanno a noi” (SOCG, vol. 115, fol. 276r; Cf. Acta, vol. 7, fol. 10v). We see how for this mission
superior all the easterners were heretics of the same standard and even formed
 In fact, even after 100 years of common work, some were for Cyril Tanas and
others for Sylvester of Cyprus. Cf. Musset,
II, pp. 173-176: “In Aleppo the election of Sylvester had been welcomed with
favor even by some missionaries” (p. 175, see also the very significant
 Cf. the résumé on this question
made by Ingoli according to several letters that he had received between
December 1629 and January 1630 (SOCG,
vol. 115, fol. 312rv): “Li padri Giesuiti si portano da veri missionarij
attendendo alle loro funtioni, ma li Carmelitani e Capuccini volendosi
intromettere nella Natione Maronita contro gl’ordini del Patriarca che vuol che
soli li minori Osservanti ne habbino cura, turbano ogni cosa, et avenue un
giorno, che volendo predicare un cappuccino (Fr. Agathange) in arabo nella
Chiesa de’Minori Osservanti piena di Maroniti, questi in essecutione
dell’ordine del Patriarca si partirno dalla Chiesa, e lascciarno il cappuccino
solo.” (Cf. also fol. 285r-333v of the same cited volume).
 Cf. above. See especially SOCG, vol.
115, fol. 273r (it is Capuchin John Chrysostom of Angers who wrote on December
29, 1629): “in quel caso ha grand interesse per la salute delle anime, e per
l’esaltatione della S.ma Chiesa di tener mano forte accio non si taglino le
speranze che davano notre missioni a tutta la Christianità, che senza dubio
sono tagliate se si levi a nostril Missionarij l’autorita di predicar secondo
l’intento di Padri Osservanti come appare per i loro fatti in Baruth e monte
Libano e in questa Citta…” (cf. fol. 278v of the same volume).
 “1) Quello ch’io gia scritto alla Sacra Congregazione che quasi l’unica strada
di ridurre gli schismatichi è di predicar ai Maroniti, perche il piu grande
errore di questo paese è l’ignoranza laquala cacciata sarebbeno convertiti. E
quando si predica in una Chiesa di Christiani o Maroniti o Grechi o Armeno o
Suriani concorrono gli altri anco alla predica… e pian piano insinuare ne i
loro anima la salutare dottrina della S.ma Chiesa.
2) E da considerar che gli
P. Osservanti passano in questi parti solo per tre anni ciascuno e per un cosi
piccolo pezzo di tempo sdegnano d’affaticarsi nel imparar la lingua Arabica, e
cosi restano gli poveri Maroniti tanto ignoranti che non sanno niente delle
cose della Santa Fede.
3) Che la divisioni fatta
in questo caso è un piccolino fuoco nel suo principio ma che puo infiammarsi
fin a far un Incendio d’un nuovo scisma…, che qualche Maroniti poveri dicevano
noi non simo tanto bene del Papa quanto del Patriarca… Gli Grechi si confermano
nella loro setta (!) dicendo dove è Dio Lui è la Carita, Dio dunque non è con
questi poiche non hanno carita tra loro… L’Arcidiacono Greco il S.r Michail
Chamas (cf. above his letters to the Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith) disse quelli che hanno posto tal impedimento non possono essere
Cattolichi anzi non sono Christiani.” (Ibid.,
fol. 325v; Acta, vol. 7, fol.
76r: Congregation meeting 124 of June 15, 1630).
 For the good reason that the other Christians of Aleppo did not want to go to
the homes of the Greek Orthodox (Ibid.,
fol. 166v): “Se i Patri fuora della casa del Metropolita greco, e ch’havessero
una propria, gli altri christiani, massime i Maroniti e gli Armeni mandarebbero
ancor da loro I suoi figliuoli, il che non faranno mentre staranno dove
 The school in Karmeh’s home was opened on January 15, 1629 and closed its doors
before May 8, 1630 (cf. SOCG, vol. 115,
fol. 336r and vol. 195, fol. 166r; compare with Nasrallah, Notes et
Documents, p. 136). Concerning the
interritual school of 1633 see the letter of Fr. Jerome Queyrot of December 26,
1636 in SOCG, vol. 195, fol.
Ibid., fol. 167r: “Aggiungo per
conclusione che il Metropolita di questi Greci essendo di buona mente, e
desiderando di veder la sua chiesa proveduta di persone letterate, e mostrando
di far conto della dottrina de’Padri a cui di quando in quando egli propone
dubii intorno alle cose appartenenti alla coscienza domandano il parer loro,
cio agevolerà non poco la santa impressa della reduttione di questo popole
all’ubbidienza della S. Chiesa Romana.”
Ibid., fol. 164r: “”I padri Giesuiti ad
Aleppo hanno disingannato molti togliendo loro certe opinioni erronee, che per
l’ignoranza grande che prima regnava in questi parti, … s’erano abbarbicate ne’
loro fievoli intelletti, come per esempio, ch’ogn’uno puo salvarsi nella sua
religione Iddio non havendo creato gli uomini per dannarli; ch’egli è lecito…
fuor di necessità, e utilità di praticare con tutte le persone di qualsi voglia
religione, ch’egli è lecito di tenere e leggere ogni sorte di libri; che la
potestà del Papa non si stende sopra le chiese et i fedeli di Levante.”
Ibid., fol. 598v-599r: “Gia i nostri
Scolari sono arrivati al numero di quarantatre di diversi riti e nationi,
Maroniti, Greci, Armeni e Francesi; nell’ammaestramento de’ quali c’impieghiamo
due Sacerdoti della Conpagnia che qui siamo, e n’aspettiamo di giorno in
giornio un tezo che il Nostro R.P. Generale hà ordinato che si mandi quanto
prima, e quando sarà venuto pensiamo di dividere la nostra Scuola in quattro
ordini o classi di modo c’haverà
forma d’un picciol Collegio principiata… e cosi si potrebbe fare una quinta
classe (by making an Armenian language professor come), alle quali dopo alcuni
anni con l’aiuto e favore di Sua divina Maestà e dell’Eminenze Vostre potrebbe
aggiungersi una scuola di Filosofia, et un’altra di casi di coscienza per aiuto
di quelli che saranno chiamati da Dio per servido nello stato Ecclesiastico…”
 To speak only of the formal union of the Greek Patriarchate of Antioch with
Rome in 1724, see for example DHGE 16
(1967) col. 64-65 and the work of T. Jock, Jésuites et Chouérites, Central Falls (USA) 1939, pp. 11-14.
 For example the first Greek patriarch of the “catholicized” series of Antioch,
Cyril Tanas, who was the student of the Roman College of the Congregation for
the Propagation of the Faith. Cf. Musset,
II, p. 174.
SOCG, vol. 115, fol. 275r: “interrompiamo
quel studio (of the Arabic language) alle volte per praticar con gli
sciasmatici e veramente troviamo gran dispositione in loro per la fede
cattolica perche mi paiono piu fuora della chiesa per Ignoranza che per
militia, piu materialmente che formalmente. Non sapendo quello ch’é da credere
credono tutto quello che sono insegnati da loro padri, ma havemo Esperienza che
facilmente crederanno la salutare dottrina della S.ma Chiesa Romana quando
l’insinuaremo nei loro spiriti non disputando ma insegnando senza controversia
la loro Ignoranza nelle prediche e esortationi, credo che assai di loro gia
sono senza nessumo errore per questo espediente e si trovano catolici senza
sapere esser stati convertiti.”
SOCG, vol. 104, fol. 216r: “Do conto
anchora à V.S.R.ma come un missionario, taccio il nome per buono respetto, hà
comunicato in questa pasqua (1634) molte persone le quali se bene sono di
natione greca, non dimeno sono catholiche…”
 On the origin of the conflict see SOCG,
vol. 197, fol. 463r where the French ex-consul of Saida, Baptiste Tarquet,
wrote to the cardinals of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to
show how since 1616 he was served by a Maronite priest, then a Franciscan and
finally by a Capuchin for his chapel.
SOCG, vol. 196, fol. 122v-123r: “detti
padri Capucini (of Saida) havendo publicato i Scriptis una indulgenza, e nella
carta di detta indulgenza, che affissero sopra la porta della Chiesa di Sayda
vi erano scritte queste parole quelli che volean prendere detta indulgenza gli
era necessario che si confessassero da detti Padri Capucini, e non da altri…!”
Ibid., fol. 76r: “cum de Vestro mandato
ad has Infidelium partes iam ab anno et fere medio advenerim, multos sane
nominis christiani perfidos inimicos reperi: multos tamen inveni qui vestros
missionarios tanta cum animi acerbitate affigunt uti Patres de Observantia
illis infectantur… Quid illic ab ipsis Patribus passi sumus, testis est Deus,
testes Angeli, testes catholici, testes schismatici, testes et ipsi Mahometani,
qui se nunquam tam ipios homines videlicet palam et pubice profetibantur.” Fr.
Egide was destined for the mission in Egypt and replaced by another Capuchin
(cf. Acta, vol. 7, fol. 88r).
 It was Adrian pf Brosse, missionary in Beirut who wrote on November 10, 1629:
“Manda una lettera per il cardinale (prefect of the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith), et alcune ceremonie di Maroniti vedute colli proprij
occhi, con avvertir, che non si sappia, che vengono da capucini essendo
chiamati da’padri osservanti li spioni dell’attivita de’ Maroniti e cosi
potrebbe nocere grandemente se si sapesse quello che non havrebbe scritto senza
il Comandamento della Congregazione la qual mi comanda, che cerchi un libro di
dette ceremonie, et usanze, ma non l’ho potuto havere” (SOCG, vol. 115, fol. 281r). It is this same missionary
who arrived in Rome before March 27, 1631 (cf. Acta, vol. 7, fol 39r) for certain requests in the name
of the Capuchins of Syria (Ibid.,
fol. 73r-74v: Congregation meeting 141 of May 31, 1631). He also had asked the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith for authority to absolve
Patriarch Ignatios III Atieh and his accomplices in the cooperation of the
killing of Cyril IV Dabbas (see above, Chapter II). Adrian of Brosse had little
after returning to Syria with 8 other companions (cf. Acta, vol. 7, fol. 132v).
 Note that this was not Patriarch Euthymios II Karmeh who “took Fr. Queyrot with
him to Damascus” as Korolevsky affirms in his article “Antioche” of DHGE, III, col 641. But it was Euthymios III the Chiot who
did it long after the death of Karmeh as we will see (cf. Besson, p. 68; Nacchi, Lettres édifantes et
curieuses écrites des missions étrangères,
I, Toulouse 1810, p. 132; SOCG,
vol. 196, fol. 44r; compare with Musset, II, p. 61 in footnote and DHGE, vol. 16 (1967), col. 57). Since Saida depended then on the pasha of
Damascus (until 1660), it is very clear that a reciprocal ecclesiastical
influence could easily be exercised in these two cities which would last for a
long time after.
Macarios of Aleppo, p. 632; Kilzi, p. 143; Le Quien, II, col. 773. Le Quien notes the source of his
error by calling this patriarch Eutychios: this was the catalogue of Assemani.
Rabbath, I, p. 401, repeats the same mistake by adding another to it: for him
Meletios was only a deacon before becoming patriarch while Macarios of Aleppo
had known him as papas! Historical mistakes of this kind are unfortunately
repeated in some recent publications: cf. for example, Leslie Cole, “The
Melkite Church: A Historical Survey” in Chrysostom, vol. II, No. 7 (1970), p.
102. Meletios of Chios went to the Monastery of St. Sabas in Jerusalem at the
request of Euthymios II Karmeh in order to decorate the Church of Damascus with
icons. And it was Karmeh himself who gave him the name Euthymios before dying (Radu, p. 42). The circumstances of the death of Karmeh
called for the choice of a patriarch of Hellenic origin (cf. above, Chapter
III, footnote 248)! Karmeh was conscious of it when he recommended him to the
Greeks of Damascus: “Elect this Chiot to be patriarch after me; you could not
have anyone better” (Rabbath, I,
p. 401. J. Queyrot regretfully wrote on December 26, 1636: “Un Monaco che non
ha altra qualità o perfettione più eminente che il saper dipegnere viene a
esser creato Patriarca Antiocheno”! (SCOG, vol. 195, fol. 599r).
 The ordainers were Philotheos, Metropolitan of Homs, Simeon, Metropolitan of
Saidnaya and Joachim, Bishop of Zabadani (Macarios of Aleppo, p. 632). It was not Karmeh himself who performed
the chirotonia as Paul of Aleppo affirms (Radu, p. 41). Macarios of Aleppo, who knew of him more
than his son Paul (who was 8 years old in 1635 and who learned these facts from
his father), expressly distinguishes the designation of Meletios of Chios by
Karmeh and his chirotonia by the three mentioned bishops (Kilzi, p. 143 and particularly Macarios of
Aleppo, p. 632). Moreover, Paul of Aleppo
makes another error by putting the date Kanoon-al-awwal 7142, which corresponds
to December 1633 AD, a date when Karmeh himself could not have become
patriarch! Compare with DHGE,
vol. 3 (1924), col. 642, and vol. 16 (1967), col. 57.
(partial from 1 to 300 -- containued on page 3, 301 to 515)
in this site do not necessarily represent Phoenicia.org nor do they necessarily reflect those of the various authors, editors, and owner of this site. Consequently, parties mentioned or implied cannot be held liable or responsible for such opinions.
Contact: Salim George Khalaf, Byzantine Phoenician Descendent
Salim is from Shalim, Phoenician god of dusk, whose place was Urushalim/Jerusalem
"A Bequest Unearthed, Phoenicia" — Encyclopedia Phoeniciana