Editing Manuel I Komnenos (section)

==Doctrinal controversies (1156–1180)==
[[Image:Johnchrysostom.jpg|thumb|A Byzantine [[mosaic]] of [[John Chrysostom]] from the [[Hagia Sophia]] (9th/10th century). The controversy of 1156–57 concerned the interpretation of John's liturgy for the [[Eucharist]], "Thou art He who offers and is offered and receives."]]

Three major theological controversies occurred during Manuel's reign. In 1156–1157 the question was raised whether [[Christ]] had offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world to the [[God the Father|Father]] and to the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]] only, or also to the [[Logos (Christianity)|Logos]] (i.e., to Himself).<ref name="K265-266">J. H. Kurtz, ''History of the Christian Church to the Restoration'', 265–266</ref> In the end a [[synod]] held at Constantinople in 1157 declared the doctrine of a single sacrifice to the Holy Trinity, producing a formula: "The precious blood of the Only Begotten was offered not only to the Father but also to the Son and the Holy Ghost, the one Godhead", despite the dissent of Patriarch of Antioch-elect [[Soterichos Panteugenos]], who was subsequently dismissed.<ref>Pavel Cheremukhin, "The Council of Constantinople, 1157, and Nicholas, Bishop of Methone".  "At the beginning of Mai's presentation of the acts of the Council, both opinions on the main issue – subsequently recognized as heretical and Orthodox – are formulated as follows: "In the reign of Manuel Komnenos, the doctrine expressed in the words: "Thou art the Offeror, the Offered, and the One Who receives" was widely discussed. Some (The heretical party) claimed that the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered to one Father and Spirit, but by no means to the sacrificing Word Itself, saying that if the latter is allowed, then the One Son of God will be completely divided into two persons, which division was introduced by the empty-mouthed Nestorius.” Others (The Orthodox), in agreement with the words of the mentioned prayer, claimed that "the offering was also to the Son Himself, i.e., to the One and Indivisible Being of the Beginningless Trinity."" https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Istorija_Tserkvi/konstantinopolskij-sobor-1157-goda-i-nikolaj-episkop-mefonskij/</ref><ref>Stone, D. (1909, reprinted 2006), pp. 163–164</ref><ref name="Stone"/>

Ten years later, a controversy arose as to whether the saying of Christ, "My Father is greater than I", referred to his divine nature, to his human nature, or to the union of the two.<ref name="K265-266"/> Demetrius of Lampe, a Byzantine diplomat recently returned from the West, ridiculed the way the verse was interpreted there, that Christ was inferior to his father in his humanity but equal in his divinity. Manuel, on the other hand, perhaps with an eye on the project for Church union, found that the formula made sense, and prevailed over a majority in a synod convened on 2 March 1166 to decide the issue, where he had the support of the patriarch [[Luke Chrysoberges]]<ref name="Stone"/> and later Patriarch [[Michael III of Constantinople|Michael III]].<ref>P. Magdalino, p. 279.</ref> Those who refused to submit to the synod's decisions had their property confiscated or were exiled.{{Cref|g}} The political dimensions of this controversy are apparent from the fact that a leading dissenter from the Emperor's doctrine was his nephew Alexios Kontostephanos.<ref name="M217">P. Magdalino, ''The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos'', 217</ref>

A third controversy sprung up in 1180, when Manuel objected to the formula of solemn [[abjuration]], which was exacted from Muslim converts. One of the more striking [[anathema]]s of this abjuration was that directed against the deity worshipped by [[Muhammad]] and his followers:<ref name="Hanson55">G. L. Hanson, ''Manuel I Komnenos and the "God of Muhammad"'', 55</ref>

{{quote | And before all, I anathematize the God of Muhammad about whom he [Muhammad] says, "He is God alone, God made of solid, hammer-beaten metal; He begets not and is not begotten, nor is there like unto Him any one."}}

The emperor ordered the deletion of this anathema from the Church's catechetical texts, a measure that provoked vehement opposition from both the patriarch and bishops.<ref name="Hanson55"/>