MJ

It has to be borne in mind that, whereas all the works of the Armenian Church of an earlier time where composed in the learned language, The Key to Truth is not likely to have been written in any tongue except that which was spoken among the poorer country people to whom the great Paulician leaders addressed themselves. Certainly the use of the Armenian New Testament might impart slight classical tinge to their writings; but there was no other influence at work to produce such a result. Like the great heretical writers, who founded the vernacular literatures of modern Europe, Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, the unknown translators of the Provincial Testament of Lyon, so that the founders of the Paulician Church must have addressed themselves not to monks and learned men but to the common people. But if this be so, we cannot suppose The Key of Truth to have been written later than 850. The prayers in it remain pure and limpid examples of the classical speech; and it is natural that they should have most successfully resisted the vulgarizing influence of centuries of rude and untaught copyists. They seem to me to be older than the controversial chapters which accompany them, and to belong to the fourth and fifth centuries. He who considers in what form an English book, written in the tongue of the ninth century and transmitted almost ever since entirely by copyists who were ignorant and persecuted peasants, would have come down to the present age, has a right to pass a judgment on the The Key of Truth. The history of the sect as we read it fills us with just wonder that their book is not tenfold more corrupt and vulgarized than it is. There is constantly visible in it the hand of some eloquent and earnest writer, who know how to pen clear, bold, nervous, freely flowing and unembarrassed paragraphs in an age when, to judge by the works of Gregory of Narek and Gregory Magistros, the Armenian Church writers were about to reach the lowest level of obscurity and affection, or turgid pomposity and involution of phrase. On the whole, therefore, the evidence if the style is in the favor of, and not against an early date. But when we consider the contents we are obliged to refer the book to the ninth century at least. The exordium is unmistakably is from the pen of some great leader and missionary of the Paulician Church. Mark the words: “I have not spared to give unto you, my new-born children of the universal apostolic Church of Lord Jesus Christ, the holy milk, whereby ye may grow in faith.” He has been inspired by the Holy Spirit to reveal “the way, the truth, and the life” to those from whom till now the truth had been hidden by pedantry and deceit. He will with The Key of Truth open “the door of truth,” long since shut upon his flock by Satan. This exordium, almost Pauline in the mixture of tenderness and authority, bespeaks some great missionary and restorer of religion in Armenia. We have also hints of the cruel persecutions and vicissitudes which had to long delayed the appearance of a manual, to the composition of which “love of the truth of our Lord and zeal for the Holy Ghost, and the urgent entreaties of any believers had long since impelled him.” At least, in the response to the entreaties of many believers, and urged by supreme necessity, he has thrown aside all other interests of this transitory life in order to compose this humble and unpretentious book, which they are nevertheless to read and ponder unto the glory of Jesus Christ their mediator. All this presupposes a numerous body of believer looking up to one great teacher who has spent his life in ministering to them. The “supreme necessity” must surely have been the approach of ---------------------------- 10 See the excurses at the end of the appendices, in which I enter into a more technical discussion of the style of the book. --------------------------- fierce persecution and perhaps of death. The reference in the context to the transitoriness of our life implies as much. Who can this teacher have been? Gregory Magistros records that the ordinances of the Paulicians, whom A.D. 1042-1054 he drove out of the district of Tonrak and Khnus, had been drawn up for them 170 and 200 years before by Smbat, whom Gregory of Narek , c. 950, also accuses of being the founder of the sect. This Smbat seems from their accounts to have made Thondrak or Thonrak the focus from which his missionary efforts radiated. That he also died in this region, or that anyhow his tomb was there, may perhaps be inferred from the words of Gregory Magistros. It is almost certain that the district of Thonrak continued to be after his death the religious center of Paulicians, who on that account were called Thonraki or Thondraketsi by the Armenians, just as the boni homines of the South of France were called Albigeneses, from their association with Albi. If we may take the words of Magistros to imply that Smbat left writings regulating the faith and rites of his church, what more natural than to see in The Key of Truth one of these writings? It is even not rash to suppose that our Key of Truth was actually in the hands of Gregory Magistros; since this writer ascribes to the “accursed Smbat” the teaching that dogs and wolves appear in the form of priests, a tenet which is thoroughly in keeping with Chapter viii of the Key. We do not, it is true, find the exact words, but they may well have stood in the lost chapters. But after all we here are moving in a realm of surmise only, and we cannot assume as a fact, but only suggest as a hypothesis, that this Smbat was the author of The Key of Truth. Apart from the notices of Gregory of Narek and Gregory Magistros, we should be inclined to refer the work to Sergius, the great Paulician apostle of the ninth century, concerning whom we have many notices in the Greek writers of that and the two following centuries. Even if Smbat’s authorship be questioned, there can be no doubt that the Key accurately reflects the opinions and rites of the Paulicians of the four centuries, 800-1200. We may discount the falshood and ferocity of the orthodox or persecuting writers in their portraitures of those with whom they differed, and yet are struck by the agreement of the contents of the Key with the rites and beliefs of the Paulician Church as we can glean them from the writings of the John of Otzun in the eight, of Narekatzi in the tenth, of Aristakes and Paul of Taron and Magistros in the eleventh, of Nerses in the twelfth centuries. In the following summary of Pauliciantenets, as they may be gathered from the pages of the Key, we add continual references to the works of these contemporary Armenian writers. Thus the reader can himself make a comparison, and judge how closely The Key of Truth corresponds with their statements. ------------------------------- 11 See below, p. 148: “Smbat giving them their laws.” 12 See pp. 142, 145. 13 See pp. 126, 127, 129: “their founder Smbat.” 14 Cp. P. 146: “where the leaven of Sadduces was buried.” (To be continued?)

While I agree with the latest material of Khodja, I just wonder how many corners does his mouth have?

33 PRESENTS TO GIVE YOURSELF FOR HEALTH, HAPPINESS & MEANING 1. DRINK ONE QUART OF PURE WATER EVERYDAY 2. LOVE THYSELF AND OTHERS: USE POSITIVE AFFIRMATIONS 3. EAT A HEALTHY BREAKFAST WITH PROTEIN 4. FOLLOW YOUR SPIRITUAL PATH: MEDITATE, PRAY, WALK IN NATURE 5. EXERCISE YOUR BODY & SWEAT: MOVE FOR ONE HOUR, WALK, SWIM, BIKE, DANCE, SEX, ETC. 6. GET ENOUGH OXYGEN: BREATH DEEPLY, INTENTIONALLY & DIAPHRAGMATICALLY 7. SLEEP REGULARLY 8. EXPRESS YOUR EMOTIONS EVERY DAY: POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE 9. LAUGH & HELP SOMEONE LAUGH: LEARN JOKES & TELL THEM TO OTHERS 10. BE MINDFUL OF YOUR ENVIRONMENT: REARRANGE YOUR SPACE 11. HELP SOMEONE EVERYDAY: WHEN ONE HELPS ANOTHER BOTH ARE STRONGER 12. WEAR NATURAL FIBERS: COTTON, WOOL, ETC. 13. READ & WRITE EVERYDAY: KEEP A JOURNAL & A BOOK BY YOUR BEDSIDE 14. EAT LIVE FOOD MORE & MORE: FRESH FRUITS & VEGETABLES 15. GROW PLANTS & FLOWERS IN YOUR HOME 16. TAKE DAILY VITAMINS &/OR SUPPLEMENTS 17. GET PREVENTIVE THERAPIES: ENERGY, CHIROPRACTIC, MESSAGES 18. KEEP A LOG OF YOUR DREAMS & NIGHTMARES 19. GET A YEARLY CHECK UP (ENGAGE IN PREVENTIVE HEALTH) 20. APPRECIATE AESTHETIC BEAUTY: THEATRE, PLAY, EXHIBITS, CONCERTS.. 21. LOOK AT OLD PHOTOS 22. COMPLIMENT YOURSELF AND OTHERS 23. LOOK INTO THE HEART OF A FLOWER, LISTEN TO THE RAIN, CURL UP BEFORE AN OPEN FIRE, POP POPCORN, WATCH THE SUNRISE/SUNSET.. 24. TRY TO FEEL ANOTHER PERSON'S JOY (OR HURT) 25. VOLUNTEER SOME TIME TO A MEANINGFUL CAUSE 26. ALLOW YOURSELF TO MAKE MISTAKES & ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN YOU ARE WRONG 27. SURPRISE SOMEONE: A CHILD, A FRIEND, A LOVED ONE, EVEN YOURSELF 28. LET SOMEONE DO YOU A FAVOR; ASK & ACCEPT HELP FROM OTHERS 29. TAKE TIME TO TALK WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS, CHILDREN GOING TO SCHOOL, COLLEAGUES IN ELEVATORS, OLDER PEOPLE ON BENCHES.. 30. MAKE TIME TO HOLD A HAND, HUG A TREE, SMELL A FLOWER, FEED THE DUCKS 31. ALLOW YOURSELF TO MAKE ANOTHER MISTAKE 32. BE FORGIVING; ESPECIALLY FORGIVING TO YOURSELF 33. TREAT YOURSELF: BUY A TICKET TO A SPECIAL EVENT, BUY YOURSELF A GIFT, REREAD A FAVORITE BOOK, GET A MANICURE & A PEDICURE.. Dr. Anie Kalayjian, Professor of Psychology

quote:Originally posted by Aaron: ....MJ say something! Mary Christmas, Aaron.

Yes, he constantly writes materials that I find idiotic. I don't have as much time to be as subtle as I have been before - as simple as that. Besides, he doesn't deserve so much attention. One thing is obvious that he is angered because of being detoured by the committee, and not being invited to participate in its work, or not being consulted. As to the elaboration of my insight, I will do it at another time. Have to go, now.

The Key of Truth: Manual fo the Paulician Church of Armenia by Fred C. Conybeare Introduction At the end of the Russio-Turkish war in 1828-1829, a number of Turkish Armenians settled in the newly acquired Russian territory between Akhaltzik and Erivan, under the leadership of their bishop Karapet. In February, 1837, this bishop warned the Synod of the Orthodox Armenians in Edjmiatzin that in the village Arkhweli in the province of Shirak there where twenty-five families of refugees from the village of Djewiurm in the canton of Khnus, who were Thondraketzi or Paulicians of Tondrak or Thonrak. He complained that these heretics were carrying on a propaganda among the simple-minded neighbors, although in the presence of civil or ecclesiastical functionaries they feigned adhesion to the Orthodox Armenian Church. “Some of our villagers ,” he wrote, “inform us how they openly, in the presence of the simple-minded, deny that the saints help us, deny the value of fasting, the benefit of prayer, and the like… And although they have a priest, whom I saw in Khnus, and who is wholly without a knowledge of letters, he cannot lead them straight. Perhaps he does not care, for until now he keeps his peace.” The bishop then preys the Synod to send to Arkhweli a learned priest, to combat the spread of heresy. Two priests armed with authority were, in consequence of this representations, sent to the neighborhood, but they could get no other answer from the persons suspected than: “We are children of the Illuminator. ” However, others who had listened to their attacks on religion, admitted that a false elder, preaching the heresy, had appeared in Khnus, and had wished to enter their houses; but they averred that they had repelled him with anathemas. Five man pleaded they had received the false teaching not knowing that it was opposed to that of the Armenian Church, and sued for forgiveness. This was in April, 13, 1837. Not content with repressing the movement in Arkweli, the Holy Synod, through the Catholicos, made representations to the Bishop of Erzrum in Turkey, requesting him to send agents to Khnus, which was in his diocese, and where a priest since dead had spread the heresy. These agents where to root out the heresy, if it still survived there. The aid of the Russian government also was invoked in the person of Baron Posen, Governor of the Caucasus, to put down the heresies of Arkweli. The Governor in reply asked in what consisted the heresy of these villagers, and was informed that “they rejected the intersession of the saints and spurned their images, denied the value of fasts and the benefit of prayer, disbelieved in the immaculateness of the holy Virgin, Mother of God, repudiated the sacrament of baptism, and the rest.” ----------------------- 1. For most of the historical matter in pp. xxiii-xxviii I am indebted to an article published by M.A. Eritzean, of Tiflis, in the journal called Phords, Tiflis, 1880, under the title “The Armenian Tondraketzi.” 2. In general I shall drop the general termination -tsi, and speak of the Tonraki or Tondraki, though of coarse Tondraketzi is the only Armenian equivalent for a dweller in Tonrak. 3. See page 132 for the testimony of Aristaces to the fact that the Paulician Church was one with the Church founded by Grigor the Illuminator; and compare Grigor Mag[istros]., p. 147, “We are the tribe of Aram, and agree with them in faith.” --------------------------------- About the same time, and inhabitant of Gumri (now Alexandrapole) named Karapet Mkrttchean, in a death-bed confession, revealed to an orthodox priest that he, with six others, some with their households, and some apart, had joined the Tondraki sect, being converted by person from Arkweli which is in the neighborhood. His written confession was sent to the consistory of Erevan. He could read and write, and it runs as follows: “In 1837, at the feast of Transfiguration in the month of June, Kirakos of Giumru Oosababayean, after hearing George the elder of Arkhweli preach, renounced the holly faith, and also preached to me, Karapet, that Christ is not God. Through the preaching of Kirakos, Tharzi Sarkis with his family, Dilband Manuk, Grigor of Kajzwan with his household, Jagob Ergar, Avon of Kajzwan, and I, met in the room of Grigor of Kajzwan; and we took oath with one another not to diclose our secret to any. They in particular told me to inform no man of it. They 1. convinced me that Christ is not God; 2. made me blaspheme the cross, as being nothing; 3. told me that the baptism and holy oil of the Armenians is false; and that 4. we must re-baptize all of us on whose foreheads the sacred oil if the wild beast is laid; 5. The mother of God is not believed to be virgin, but to have lost her virginity. 6. We reject her intersession; and also 7. whatever saints there be, they reject their intersession. 8. They reject the mass and the communion and the confession, but say instead (I.e. to the orthodox): “Confess to your stocks and stones, and leave God alone.” 9. Moreover, those who choose to communicate eat the morsel and drink down the wine upon it, but do not admit the communion of the mass. 10. They say that we are the only true Christians on earth, whereas Armenians, Russians, Georgians, and others, are false Christians and idolaters. 11. On our faces we make no signs of cross. 12. Genuflexions are false, if made superstitiously. 13. During fasts they eat. 14. The canon-lore of the holy patriarchs they reject, and say that the councils of the patriarchs were false, and that their canons were written by the devil.” After making these confession, Karapet affirmed his penitence and sought forgiveness. Three other confessions were obtained about the same time, which we give in the order in which M. Eritzean has printed them. The following is the deposition of Manuk Davthean of Gumri, who could not write: - “In 1837, in February, during Shrovetide, on the first of the week, in the chamber of Grigor Kajzwan, I saw Tharzi Sargis reading the Gospel. First he read it, then he explained it. 1. He told us not to worship things made by hands; that is to say, images (or pictures) of saints and the cross, because these are made of silver, and are the same as idols. 2. Christ is the Son of God, but was born man of Mary, she losing her virginity, as it were by the earthly annunciation of Gabriel. 3. After suffering, being buried, and raising again, he ascended into heaven, and sat on the right hand of the Father, and is our Intercessor. ------------------------ 4. The word answers to Theotokos, and was conventionally used by these late Paulicians to denote the mother of Jesus. They of coarse reject the idea conveyed in it. 5. The text has holelen (? – MJ) = earthly, or made of dust; but hogelen =”spiritual” should perhaps be read. On the heresy involved, see below, p. cixxxvii. ------------------------- 4. Except Christ we have no other Intercessor,; for 5. the mother of God they do not believe to be virgin; nor 6. do they admit the Intercession of saints; 7. Neither are fasts ordained by of God, but prelates have ingeniously devised them to suit themselves; wherefore it is right to break the fasts as we will. When you go into church, pray only to God, and do not adore pictures. 8. In the time of baptism it is not necessary to anoint with oil, for this is an ordinance of men, and not of God. 9. You shall not commit sin: but when you have committed sin, whatever or no ye confess to priests, there is no remission. It only avails you, if you pour out your sins to God. 10. Genuflexion is unnecessary. 11. To say “Lord, Lord,” to priests is not necessary, but it is meet to say regularly that God and not man is Lord. 12. Nor it is necessary to go to places on vows. 13. Last of all he told me that Christ is not God, and then I understood the falsity of his faith. The third recantation written down was that of Avos Marturosean of Gumri, who could not himself write. He deposed that 1837 in February, in the chamber of Grigor of Kajzwan, he not only heard the teaching already detailed in the second recantation, but the following as well: -- 1. Ye shall keep the ten commandments which God gave to Moses. 2. Christ is not God, but the Son of God and our Intercessor, sitting on the right hand of God. 3. Ye shall know Christ alone, and the Father. All other saints which are or have been on the earth are false. 4. There is no need to go on vows to Edjmiatzin or Jerusalem. 5. Ye shall confess your sins in church before God alone. 6. The holly oil of Edjmitzin is false, nor it is necessary unto baptism; but whenever ye pour one handful of water over the catechumen, he is baptized. For Christ commended us to baptize with water. 7. Ye shall always go to church; and to the priest at the time of confession ye shall not tell your sins, for they do not understand. But talk to them in general sort of ways. 8. Always go to church, not that our kind considers it real; but externally ye shall perform everything, and keep yourselves concealed, until we find an opportunity; and then, if we can, we will return to this faith of ours. And we swear, even if they cut is to peaces, that we will not reveal it.” “Grigor of Kajzvan said as follows: “Behold, I am the Cross; light your tapers on my two hands, and give worship. I am able to give you salvation, just as much as the cross and the saints.” The forth confession referred to four of persons whose names are given in the first. Two of them could read. Kirakos Khosay Babayean, already mentioned, deposes in his own writing to the truth of the previous recantations, and attests that he learned of Tharzi Sarkis Haruthiunean; and the latter, also is writing, admitted all, and added that he had learned everything in 1835 from George the church-singer (or elder) of Arkhweli, who had in his possession a MS. Called The Key of Truth , in which “everything was written.” It was this George who taught that all are false Christians, except the Nemetzni who are true Christians. These revelations led to increased activity of the part of the Synod of Edjmiatzin. First representations were made to the Russian Governor of the Caucasus to put down the sectaries of Arkhweli, and also to suppress the newly-arrived German Protestant missionaries, with whose activity the recrudescence of ancient heresy was alleged to be continued. There werw thirty families of Paulicians in Arkhweli, who pretended that they had given up the heresy; and they had even built an orthodox church in their midst in order to avoid suspicion. Also, five of the inhabitants had drawn up a document, entitled, “About the causes of the heresy of the new Manicheans and their followers,” This they sent to the Government. In it was stated that “in the province of Khnus in the village of Djaurm (or Tschaurm) fifty-five years previously, a certain Armenian priest Ohannes (I,e, John) had joint the sect, and composed a book called The Key of Truth. This Ohannes, under pressure from the Osmanli Government, had afterwards, along with his companions, accepted Mohammedan faith.” Of this Ohannes we will give further details later from another source . It is enough here to remark that he was only the copyist, and not the composer of The Key of Truth, as his own colophon therein sufficiently proves. In June 1838, in consequence of fresh representations on the part of the Holy Synod of Edjmiatzin, the Governor of Tiflis ordered an inquiry to be opened in Arkhweli, to which Erevan consistory was invited to send a deputy who could speak Russian, and should be versed in the doctrines of the Orthodox Armenian Church. What came of this inquiry we do not know. In 1847, in consequence of fresh reports on the activity of the Paulicians of Arkhweli in baptizing and communicating the peasants, the Erevan consistory once more petitioned the Holy Synod to set the civil power in motion. It is to the credit of the latter synod that, before taking so extreme a step, they advised the consistory to replace the incompetent orthodox priest of the village with one who could preach and had zeal and intelligence. The consistory replied that there was no priest in the diocese possessing such qualifications. ( LOL…. As if taken from our days. – MJ). It appears notwithstanding that the civil power was once more invoked; for in the 1841 the military governor of Tiflis, General Praigon, ordered the local judge of Alexandrapol to decide the matter; and the latter had actually drawn up a voluminous report, when a general a general letter of amnesty was issued by the new Czar, April 16, 1841. In this amnesty the sectaries were included along with other offenders, and so gained a brief respite from the malice of their own countrymen. The Holy Synod, however, did not rest until in February, 1843, it procured that the sectaries should be excluded from the benefits of amnesty, and the judicial inquiry into their doings, after all, carried out. The result was that in 1845 the criminal court of Tiflis fined the sectaries accused forty rubles, ordered them to conform to the orthodox Armenian Church, and forbad their ministrant to call himself a deacon. The Synod represented that this punishment was quite incommensurable with the heinous character of the offenders; but their representation had no ---------------------------- 6. Cp. P. lxxil below. 7. That is the German Millennarists from Wurtemburg who were settled in the Caucasus in 1817. They chose the Caucasus because they believed that at the end of the world Christians would find a place of refuge near the Caspian. See Missionary Research in Armenia, by Eli Smith and H.G. O. Dwight. London, 1834. 8. These missionaries came from Basle, and, with the approbations of the Czar Alexander, settled in Shusha, a little south of the present city of Elizabetpol, in 1827. There they set up in Armenian and Tartar printing-press, which before long was forbidden. 9. See below, pp. lxxi, lxxii. ------------------------------- effect, and they do not seem to have since resumed these petty persecutions of their own compatriots. Perhaps one should be grateful to them for having, in coarse of the straggle in 1837, seized and kept safe until now the Paulician manual of which I proceed to speak in detail. The copy of the Key to Truth, now preserved in the Archives of the Holly Synod of Edjmiatzin, is a small octavo MS. On a paper, written neatly in what the caked nolergir (?- MJ) or a minuscule in Taron in 1782. Many leaves are missing, about 38 out of the 150 which the book originally contained. According to the “Acts of the Holy synod” they were torn out by George of Arkhweli, the owner of the book, when he found that he was detected and feared that it would be seized. The pages torn out were certainly those of which the contents were likely to give most offence. For the context shows that the lost leaves contained attacks on the abuses of the orthodox churches and doctrinal expositions, especially of the Christology of the sect. It is unfortunate that so much is lost, along with the liturgy of the mass which the copyist of 1782 also transcribed; the first half of the colophon is also lost. These lost portions, if we only had them, would’ve furnished decisive evidence in regard to a point which must be raised at the offset, namely this: Can this Key of Truth be regarded as a monument of the Paulicians of the eighth to twelfth centuries? That it was comprised long before 1782 is evident from the colophon, in which the copyist deplores the shortcomings, the faults of spelling, composition, and grammar in the book; and declares that they have all been introduced into it by unpractised copyists. He was conscious therefore that the work, before it reached his hands in 1872, had been handed down through at least several generations. The many omissions in the scripture citations plainly due to similar endings point to the same conclusion. The marginal notes in the book are written by a hand later than that which wrote the text. The citations of the scripture are in nearly all cases taken from the Amrenian Vulgate as it was completed soon after A.D. 400. What differences there are may be due to inaccurate copyists. The references to the chapters and verses of Stephanus – which are added after citations, sometimes in the text, sometimes in the margins, sometimes in both at once – were already given by the scribe of 1782, at which date printed copies of the Armenian New Testament containing the chapters and verses of Stephanus had long been in circulation in Armenia. Some copyists of the Key between 1680 and 1780 inserted these references; perhaps by way of shortening the work of transcription, for the text is often merely referred to and not copied out in full. Thus the colophon of 1872 at once disarms the criticism which would deny the book to be as old as the ninth century, because of the many vulgarisms of the text. These chiefly consist in a loose use of prepositions, such as would be most likely to creep in. Of the leading characteristics, however, which distinguish the modern dialects of Armenian from the old classical language there is barely any trace, as any one acquainted with them would be able to judge. Some of these characteristics, e.g. the lengthened form of verbs like karenam for karem already confront us in more popularly written books (like the Armenian version of the Geoponica)of the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries. The Key of Truthmust long precede the age. The use of the accusative of the relative pronoun sor[/i} (? –MJ) at the beginning of a new sentence, to connect it with what precedes, is very common in the Key, and at first sight modern; yet it is frequent in Zenob, who wrote about 800 A.D.a history of taron, the region in which Thondrak or Thonrak, a center of Armenian Paulicians , lay. This fact of near geographical origin of both books also explains the considerable resemblance of style between Zenob’s history and the Key. There are not a great many words in the Key foreign to classical Armenian of the fifth century; but what there are we find, with three or four exceptions, in writers of the eighth to the thirteenth centuries, particularly in Grigor of Narek of the tenth. This statement is based on study of nearly thirty such words. -------------------------- 10 See the excurses at the end of the appendices, in which I enter into a more technical discussion of the style of the book. -------------------------- (To be continued) [ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

I don't know anything about him. Whether I would like to say something after I learn about him, I don't know.

I think there is a potential of pretty interesting developments of regional collective security structures - something that Armenia has strived for close to a decade, now.

Wh00t, I am lucky enough to exist in a different domain, and not to come across (by my own choice) with idiots like the “Sassounians.” So he couldn’t have the opportunity to step on my toes. The tragedy of Armenians over the centuries has been having “leaders” like the “Sassounians,” who are parochial, unsophisticated “basturmadjies,” with certain means at their disposal to take their medieval bickering to the national stage. And the Armenian nation and the Armenian soil have suffered more than enough in the hands of such nincompoops. As far as your quotation of the Turkish member of TARC is concerned, I have tried to explain it at the time, but apparently it has not come across. Let me not violate the spirit of Christmas, and just say that if reading that quotation, you don’t understand that that statement alone has constituted a major victory for the Armenian TARC members, and has potentially advance the Armenian position to the next level, you should be blind. Most Armenians in your understanding of the term, have nothing to do with Armenia and Armenians. Their Armenianness is a superficial declaration, and if not for the Turks, they would not even feel an element of Armenianness. Try not to be with them – if you can.

quote:Originally posted by wh00t: This was one of the worst ideas the AAA has ever become involved with. Harut Sassounian should be commended for his valuable commentary. That's your opinion. However, as always, AAA is a much more professional, thoughtful, and useful. As to Sassounian, I think he is an average loud-mouth idiot. And that's my opinion. Marry Christmas, Wh00t.

Nothing.

Who Is Responsible For This Fiasco? a. The main culprits are the four Armenian members of TARC: Alexander Arzoumanian, David Hovhannissian, Van Krikorian, and Andranik Mihranian. Those who took the lead in the formation of TARC bear a higher degree of responsibility. Responsibility for what? First, this guy criticized TARC for initiating the dialog, now he holds them responsible for the failure of the initiative. b. The blame should be shared by the few Armenian groups and individuals that supported this misadventure, even though many of them were fooled into thinking that TARC was simply an attempt at "dialogue" between Armenians and Turks. So what was it, given that it was not done on behalf of the governments? How else does it qualify if not an attempt for dialog? c. The governing boards and the membership of these groups wrongly allowed a small clique of their leaders to support TARC without the knowledge or the approval of the majority of their members. Such negligent behavior on the part of the majority in these organizations made it possible for an autocratic minority to hijack and ruin a group's reputation. This is another lie, I think. The Armenian members of TARC have not participated in the initiative as representatives of whatever organizations, but as individuals, representing only themselves. I think the author of the article is deliberately misrepresenting the essence of the relationship in a very dishonest manner. d. A couple of Armenian newspapers, motivated by self-serving considerations, misled their readers by publishing ghost-written editorials favoring TARC. Who does Sasosunian think he is serving? e. The blame also goes to Armenian government officials who consciously or unconsciously handed over to the four Armenian TARC members the conduct of Turkish-Armenian relations. And who the hell is Sassounian to intervene in what the Armenian government thinks or does? a. The four Armenian members of TARC have already paid a hefty price by being discredited in the eyes of the entire Armenian nation. A couple of them will probably lose their leadership roles in their respective organizations. I don’t see any of the Armenian members being discredited in the eyes of "the entire nation." However, Sassounian is discredited in my eyes, for example. b. The organizations and individuals that backed TARC have also been tarnished. Some of these groups have lost both members as well as financial supporters. More specifically? c. The State Department, the Turkish government, and other foreign powers now know who NOT to deal with in future discussions involving Armenian issues. I guess they have to deal with the Sassounians, right? Isn’t this what the whole issue is about for the Sassounians? They think they are the ones to make decisions on behalf of the Armenian Nation, and some four people have dared to talk to the Turks without asking Sassounian’s permission. d) A growing number of Armenians are questioning the wisdom of those Armenian government officials who gave their tacit consent to the formation of TARC. How about those who have similar questions about the likes of Sassounian? What Lessons Should Be Learned From This Misadventure? a. Reconciliation with Turkey can only be achieved after the Turkish government recognizes the crime of its predecessor and makes appropriate amends for the grave damage caused to the Armenian nation. This is a totally different issue. It has nothing to do with the dialog, and with the searching of ways on how to accomplish the recognition and its consequences. b. Negotiations with Turkey can only be conducted from a position of strength, not weakness. Catering to the Turks or wining and dining them will not lead to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. The obvious exclamation is – what a moron. From the position of whose strength is he talking and what is the source of his strength? c. The Turks had agreed to join TARC not for the purpose of reconciling with the Armenians or recognizing the Genocide, but to scuttle the successful efforts that had led to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by a growing number of countries in recent years. If this is true, it is even worse for them. Only an idiot wouldn’t understand that the September 11th has dramatically changed the political landscape surrounding Turkey, and the natural implication of it was going to be Turkey’s hardening of its position. Additionally, it is going to harden the position of the US State Department. The greatest tragedy of the Armenian Diaspora is the having of such “banner carriers” as the Sassounians. d. Critical issues affecting the entire Armenian nation, like the Genocide or the Artsax conflict, should not be negotiated by a handful of individuals behind closed doors. Serious efforts should be made to include the major segments of the Armenian nation prior to sitting at the negotiating table with Armenia's enemies. e. Armenian organizations should no longer blindly add their signatures to any statement submitted to them by another group unless they can independently verify the alleged facts and arguments contained in that statement. In recent months, so many false representations have been made to the Armenian community that henceforth, all such claims have to be scrutinized before trusting their accuracy. When it comes to making critical decisions concerning the Armenian Nation, there is only one authority endowed with appropriate mandate – the government of the Republic of Armenia. And the government of the Republic of Armenia would be the last idiot “to include the major segments of the Armenian nation prior to sitting at the negotiating table with Armenia's enemies.” a. Those who were involved in this fiasco have to acknowledge their mistake. In their last statement, the Armenian members of TARC said that they "continue to believe" that contacts between Turks and Armenians "such as those which have been enabled through the TARC continue to be necessary." This statement may indicate that TARC is not fully dead and that its Armenian members and supporters have not learned their lesson. Given another opportunity, they will probably repeat their grave mistakes! There has been no mistake, here. The participants of TARC where brave people, TARC was the first initiative in a series of initiatives to come, I hope. TARC is not over, I think. It will change its shapes and forms, but the effort of improved dialog between Armenians and Turks will go on. Those who opposed to the dialog would be at liberty to not participate in such dialogs. b. Pan-Armenian consultations have to take place before embarking on solo adventures that involve the interests of the entire nation. There is no such thing as “pan-Armenian.” There is no “entire nation.” Most of those who would claim belonging to the “entire nation,” have nothing to do with it. These are people with lost identity, and the only thing that makes them to think that they have anything to do with the Armenian nation is their superstitious hate for the Turks. d. Armenian government officials have to think long and hard about the possible consequences of such private initiatives the next time someone approaches them with a similar half-baked idea. Briefly, Mr. Sassounian, get on with your life, and continue milking the fertile Armenian cows, and be satisfied. e. Those who irresponsibly aggravated the division within the Armenian community and caused such serious damage to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the retention of Section 907 have to prove in concrete actions, not just words, that they have made significant organizational changes that will preclude a small clique from embarking on an adventure that risks compromising the interests of the entire nation. It would also be welcome, if they would admit that it was wrong to attack the reputations of those who criticized TARC. It is so ridiculous to talk about the “divisions” amongst the Armenian community. Just when has the Armenian community not been divided? f. The transcripts of all TARC meetings should be made public to regain the trust and confidence of the Armenian community and learn valuable lessons as to what went wrong. If I where a TARC member, I would’ve said, “Just who the hell are you, Mr. Sassounian?” If Armenians both in Armenia and the Diaspora draw the appropriate lessons from this contentious experience and become more conscientious about the critical issues facing the nation, they would then be able stand up to their rights and not allow any one to manipulate their interests. The lesson from this is that people like the TARC participants will keep their efforts alive, and will continue not noticing the Sassounians, and their alikes. Just thought that I would post something in the Hye Forum, after being away for prolonged time. [ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Check all the subpages for fun: http://www.kenron.net

quote:Originally posted by edward demian: A small protectorate could get away with alot more than Armenia. Why would one want to put money where one may get away with a lot of things?

From THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, from the birth of Christ to the 18th Century: including the very interesting account of the Waldenses and Albigenses By William Jones (1762-1843) PAULICIANS While the Christian world, as it has been the fashion to call it, was thus sunk into an awful state of superstition -- at a moment when "darkness seemed to cover the earth, and gross darkness the people" -- it is pleasing to contemplate a ray of celestial light darting across the gloom. About the year 660, a new sect arose in the east, under the name of PAULICIANS, which is justly entitled to our attention. It is much to be regretted that of this class of Christians, all our information is derived through the medium of their enemies. The two original sources of intelligence concerning them are Photius, b. 1. Contra Manichaeos; and Siculus Hist. Manicheor. and from them Mosheim and Gibbon have deduced their account of the Paulicians. The latter writer has entered far more fully into the subject than the former, and, what is singular enough, he has displayed more candor! I have collected from these two modern authors the concise account given as follows, and have aimed at impartiality.] In Mananalis, an obscure town in the vicinity of Somosata, a person of the name of CONSTANTINE entertained at his house a deacon, who, having been a prisoner among the Mahometans, was returning from Syria, whither he had been carried away captive. From this passing stranger, Constantine received the precious gift of the New Testament in its original language, which, even at this early period, was so concealed from the vulgar, that Peter Siculus, to whom we owe most of our information on the history of the Paulicians, tells us, the first scruples of a Catholic, when he was advised to read the Bible, was, "it is not lawful for us profane persons to read those sacred writings, but for the priests only." Indeed, the gross ignorance which pervaded Europe at that time, rendered the generality of the people incapable of reading that or any other book; but even those of the laity who could read, were dissuaded by their religious guides from meddling with the Bible. Constantine, however, made the best use of the deacon’s present -- he studied his New Testament with unwearied assiduity -- and more particularly the writings of the apostle Paul, from which he at length endeavored to deduce a system of doctrine and worship. "He investigated the creed of primitive Christianity," says Gibbon, "and whatever might be the success, a Protestant reader will applaud the spirit of the enquiry." [Decline and Fall, vol. 10, ch. 54.] The knowledge to which Constantine himself was, under the Divine blessing, enabled to attain, he gladly communicated to others around him, and a Christian church was collected. In a little time several individuals arose among them qualified for the work of the ministry; and several other churches were collected throughout Armenia and Cappadocia. It appears from the whole of their history to have been a leading object with Constantine and his brethren to restore, as far as possible, the profession of Christianity to all its primitive simplicity. Their public appearance soon attracted the notice of the Catholic party, who immediately branded them with the opprobrious appellation of Manichaeans; but "they sincerely condemned the memory and opinions of the Manichaean sect, and complained of the injustice which impressed that invidious name on them." [Gibbon, Ubi supra.] There is reason, therefore, to think, that they voluntarily adopted the name of Paulicians, and that they derived it from the name of the great apostle of the Gentiles. Constantine now assumed or received the name of Sylvanus, and others of his fellow laborers were called Titus, Timothy, Tichicus, etc. and as the churches arose and were formed in different places, they were named after those apostolic churches to which Paul originally addressed his inspired writings, without any regard to the name of the city or town in which they assembled for worship. The labors of Constantine -- Sylvanus, were crowned with much success. Pontus and Cappadocia, regions once renowned for Christian piety, were again blessed with a diffusion of the light of divine truth. He himself resided in the neighborhood of Colonia, in Pontus, and their congregations, in process of time, were diffused over the provinces of Asia Minor, to the westward of the Euphrates. "The Paulician teachers," says Gibbon, "were distinguished only by their scriptural names, by the modest title of fellow-pilgrims; by the austerity of their lives, their zeal and knowledge, and the credit of some extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit. But they were incapable of desiring, or at least of obtaining the wealth and honors of the Catholic prelacy. Such anti-christian pride they strongly censured." Roused by the growing importance of this sect, the Greek emperors began to persecute the Paulicians with the most sanguinary severity; and the scenes of Galerius and Maximin were re-acted under the Christian forms and names. "To their excellent deeds," says the bigoted [Roman Catholic] Peter Siculus, "the divine and orthodox emperors added this virtue, that they ordered the Montanists and Manichaeans (by which epithets they chose to stigmatize the Paulicians) to be capitally punished; and their books, wherever found, to be committed to the flames; also that if any person was found to have secreted them, he was to be put to death, and his goods confiscated. " A Greek officer, armed with legal and military powers, appeared at Colonia, to strike the shepherd, and, if possible, reclaim the lost sheep to the Catholic fold. "By a refinement of cruelty, Simeon (the officer) placed the unfortunate Sylvanus before a line of his disciples, who were commanded, as the price of their own pardon, and the proof of their repentance, to massacre their spiritual father. They turned aside from the impious office; the stones dropt from their filial hands, and of the whole number, only one executioner could be found; a new David, as he is styled by the Catholics, who boldly overthrew the giant of heresy." [Gibbon, ut supra.] This apostate, whose name was Justus, stoned to death the father of the Paulicians, who had now labored among them twenty-seven years. The treacherous Justus betrayed many others, probably of the pastors and teachers, who fared the fate of their venerable leader; while Simeon himself, struck with the evidences of divine grace apparent in the sufferers, embraced at length the faith which he came to destroy -- renounced his station, resigned his honors and fortunes, became a zealous preacher among the Paulicians, and at last sealed his testimony with his blood. [it has been already stated that we derive all our information concerning the Paulicians, through the medium of their adversaries, the writers belonging to the Catholic church. It should not, therefore, surprise us to find them imputing the worst of principles and practices to a class of men whom they uniformly decry as heretics. Mosheim says, that of the two accounts of Photius and Peter Siculus, he gives the preference for candor and fairness to that of the latter -- and yet I find Mr. Gibbon acknowledging, that "the six capital errors of the Paulicians are defined by Peter Siculus with much prejudice and passion" (Decline and Fall, vol. 10, ch. 54.) One of their imputed errors is, that they rejected the whole of the Old Testament writings; a charge which was also brought, by the writers of the Catholic school, against the Waldenses and others, with equal regard to truth and justice. But this calumny is easily accounted for. The advocates of popery, to support their usurpations and innovations in the kingdom of Christ, were driven to the Old Testament for authority, adducing the kingdom of David for their example. And when their adversaries rebutted the argument, insisting that the parallel did not hold, for that the kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world, is a very different state of things from the kingdom of David, their opponents accused them of giving up the divine authority of the Old Testament. Upon similar principles, it is not difficult to vindicate the Paulicians from the other charges brought against them; but to do that would require more room than can be here allotted to the subject.] During a period of one hundred and fifty years, these Christian churches seem to have been almost incessantly subjected to persecution, which they supported with Christian meekness and patience; and if the acts of their martyrdom, their preaching and their lives were distinctly recorded, I see no reason to doubt, that we should find in them the genuine successors of the Christians of the first two centuries. And in this as well as former instances, the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church. A succession of teachers and churches arose, and a person named Sergius, who had labored among them in the ministry of the gospel thirty-seven years, is acknowledged, even by their vilest calumniators, to have been a most exemplary Christian. The persecution had, however, some intermissions, until at length Theodora, the Greek empress, exerted herself against them, beyond all her predecessors. She sent inquisitors throughout all Asia Minor in search of these sectaries, and is computed to have killed by the gibbet, by fire, and by the sword, A HUNDRED THOUSAND PERSONS. Such was the state of things at the commencement of the ninth century. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/jones19.htm

… If the early Bagratuni Dynasty from 820-850 was hostile to Arab Khalifs, it was because latter hampered and curtailed the aspirations of Armenia after freedom, religious and political. For the same reason to the west of the Euphrates Paulicians were enemies of the Byzantines who persecuted, and friends of Arabs who protected, them. But the disasters which befell them in the west found their echo in Armenia Magna. And the persecution of the Empress Theodora, during whose regency (842-867) one hundred thousand of them were martyred, unquestionably weakened their influence further east. Smbat Bagratuni the Sparapet seems to have been the last of the petty Armenian dynasties who favored them. Local heads of the clans here and there, like the Wrwer [Latin –MJ], and man of Royal family like Mushel, continued here and there to take their part and share their sufferings. But they nowhere held the government in their hands; and from about the year 900 onwards they were outcasts, and their hands against every man’s. And such have ever since continued to be their fortunes. But it is against itself that a state or a church rejects the counsel of God: and Eastern Christianity, Greek and Armenian alike, is to this day bleeding from the wounds which, in its cruel persecutions of these early Puritans, it inflicted on itself. To us who are the hairs of the ages the truth of things is slowly unrobed; and there is an irony too painfully clear in the circumstance that in the chronicle of Aristakes the pages immediately following the two malignant chapters about the Paulicians, translated in my appendix, have for their topic the capture of the Royal city of Ani and the massacre of its inhabitants by Alp Arslan. As we read these dreadful pages, which tell us of the cruelties of the human wolf of the eleventh century, we assume to hear the shrieks and groans of miserable victims of human wolf of to-day, still ravening in the plains and valleys of Armenia. Fortune does not always smile on bigots and prosecutors; and Gregory Magistros had scarcely ended his harryings of his Paulician countrymen, had hardly concluded his bombastic recital of his exploits as a prosecutor, before the star of his country set in a mist of Tartars bloodshed and oppression out of which it was never again to emerge. Nor was retribution really less certain, if it was less swift, in the country west of Euphates. Pauliciansim was the natural faith of the hardy mountaineers of the Taurus; and in destroying them the blind fanaticism Byzantium destroyed its only bulwark against Saracen invasion. In the Greek borderlands, west of the Taurus and Euphrates, were encamped the Paulicians, opposing to the worldly orthodoxy of the empire, a genuinely apostolical Christianity founded on the Bible. Persecuted under the emperors of the seventh century, they enjoyed (in the eight) a through-going toleration, thanks to the wise policy of the Iconoclasts who followed. The brave bands of these Christian Maccabeans furnished a frontier-cordon against Islam as vigorous as it was indispensable. To strengthen the line of defense the extraordinary leadership of Sergius (about 800) [sergius was the leader of Paulicians – MJ] had done not a little. Yet the persecutions under the Caesers Michael I and Leo V [Leo V has been Armenian by ethnicity – MJ] drove a portion of them into the Arab domain. But when Theodora began her extraordinarily bloody persecution, this brave population was seized with universal despair. The commissioners sent to inquire into their faith rivaled in blood-thirstiness the officers of the Spanish inquisition. They were murdered, and the robber-incursions into the empire began. The sect found Karbeas, who had been a Roman officer, one who could lead them in the field as in the council-chamber; and from the frontier-fortress of Tephrike, like the later Waldesians against the Piedmontese, they waged a mist successful guerilla-war against the Empire1. Thephrike fell (873). But the backbone of Oriental Christianity was broken. What the Protestant Churches have achieved in Europe, that the Paulicians might have accomplished in the east. But from the ninth century onwards, wherever a Muslim met a Paulician, they met a friend; and the ultimate success of the most soldierly of the Mohammedan was assured. It is the Osmanly Turks that have proved themselves to be that race. The Key of Truth A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia By Fred C. Conybeare pp. lxxiv-lxxvi ----------------- 1. Translated from the ecellent "Abriss der Byzantischen Kaizergeschichte" in K. Krumbacher's Geschichte der Byzentinischen Literatur," 2nd Edition, p. 970. [ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

The original of the copy from which the following letter is printed by Father Basil Sarkisean1 in his volume of “Manichean Paulician Heresy” (Venice, 1893, in Modern Armenian), is preserved in a codex called the Book of Letters, which used to be in the library of the Fathers of Antony at Constantinople. This codex was written out in 748 of the Armenian Era = A.D. 1300, in Hromkla, by Thomas Vardapet, on charta bombycina, from an older copy which belonged to Gregory Vkayaser in the year 527 = A.D. 1079. The convent of Khjav, to the Abbot of which the letter was written, was very ancient, and was situated in the province of Mokatz. About the year 987 accusations where made against many Armenian monks and priests of being secret or open members of Tondraki sect. Among those accused was Gregory of Narek, the famous saint and author of book of devotions which is still in the hands of every Armenian priest. A council was held at Ani before which he was acquitted, and, to fully exculpate himself, he was forced to write the following letter to the Abbot of Kdjav, who notoriously leaned to the side of the heretics. Letter Of the Grecious Droctor Gregory of Narek, which he wrote to the celebrated convent of Kdjav, concerning the tenets of the cursed Tondraki, Ians and Iamres, who came in the guise of sheep, but within is a ravening wolf; who moreover by his fruits was made known to all. Him the holy doctor having heard of, wrote in order to liberate others from the evil tenets: - Lord Father2, I write this because an untrustworthy rumor of evil of tendency, -although those who heard it considered trustworthy, nor was there any ill-will to prejudice them – admits of no other means of contradiction. For I heard that the unmentionable and obscene lechery of the heresy of the cursed Tondraki sect is mentioned among your poise ones. And I was lost in astonishment at a statement so improper on the part of the enemies of God, who declare that you furthermore reported to Mushel , a learned man by repute, that you had been satisfied by ---------------- 1 Many of Father Sarkisean’s valuable notes I translate, adding his initials B.S. 2 Nothing more is known of this Abbot, nor do we know at all if any steps were taken inconsequence of to this letter to purge his convent of heresy (B.S). B.S. Conjectures that Mushel was i.q. Mushel Bagratuni Abasean, mentioned by the historian Asolik as a governor of Karse in 984. But as he was a Vardapet, I doubt this identification. In any case it was honored name in Armenia from the earliest times. It is written with a strong l answering to Greek lambda. Or translate “that you (and) specially Mushel … reported that.” ------------------ a bearer of letters whom you had sent that they (i.e. the Tondraki) are not alien to the apostolic tradition1 ; and that you are keenly desirous to share in their lot and associate yourself closely with those who have been cut off by the sword of the avenging heathen Amir2 Apl-Vard, who is in fact a rod of wrath in the hand of Lord Jesus. We learn from the same source that you ask, What writing directs any one to be anathematized ? asserting the marvelously composed letter of contradiction of our blessed Lord Ananias 3 , to be nonsensical or absurd, or spoken against God. Now, if all this has been inspired by you, - I omit to say agreed by you and (spare so to write) relished by you – than you have summed up in yourself the afore-written opinion that “their chosen food became loathing.” There is much that is divine and everything that is apostolical that is yet denied and abolished by them. Of divine ordinances, there is the laying on of hands4 as the Apostles received it from Christ. There is the communion in his body5 , as the Apostle defined it, saying: In eating the bread of communion, we receive and eat God himself, who was united in flesh. This communion-bread, before which we tremble, Smbat6 thought to be ordinary bread. And as for the birth through spiritual throes, I mean by water and Spirit, of which it was declared that it make sons of God, concerning this, he taught others that it consisted of mere bath water. And as to the exalted day of the Lord7, on which [the word of God] created the first light and perfected thereon the light off his rising, and prefigured by an economy the quickening light of his Advent, - this day, adorable for doth image, he has explained to them is to be counted just like any other days. Then among the observances which we know to have been repudiated as neither apostolic nor divine, [we know to be] the mysterious prayers of genuflexion8 , though the Creator of all, Jesus Christ, bowing bent the knee. We know that the Font is denied by them, in which Christ himself was baptized; that the communion of immorality, which Lord ---------------- 1 This testimony that the Abbot and Mushel had satisfied themselves after examination of Tondraki sect to be an apostolic church and to possess the apostolic tradition was a valid one, is both important and interesting. It is the claim which is made on almost every page of the Key. 2 This Amir cannot be identified with certainty. The reference proves that the Paulicians took the field against the Mahometan invaders, and were not spared by them. 3 This letter, written under compulsion of the Armenian Catholicos by Anaias of narek, Gregory of Narek’s uncle, is preserved but does not merit translation., being mere invective. Ananias was, like his nephew, accused of being a Tondraki or Paulician. 4 But we saw above that the prominent Armenian churchmen of the tenth century admitted that their heretical rivals had the true apostolical tradition. 5 The account preserved in the Key of the Paulician Eucharist is so fragmentary that it is not easy to say against what aspects of it Gregory of Narek directs his remarks. The grain of truth in them most be that the Paulicians rejected the orthodox sacraments in favor of their own. 6 Smbat (the same name as Sinbad) is stated below to have been the founder of the Tondraki Church. 7 The Key gives us no information as to how Paulicians regarded the Lord’s day. 8 We gather that the Paulicians preyed standing erect in the primitive Christian manner. The continuity of observance of their Church is strikingly illustrated by the fact that its modern adherents still forebid genuflexions, as we learn from the confession adduced in pp. xxv, xxvi of the Prolegomena. ----------------------- himself gave unto all, is denied. We know their filthy habit of lecherous promiscuity1 , where the Lord reproved and suppressed even a glance. We know that they deny the adored sign2 (i.e. the Cross), which God, made man, raised and carried on is shoulder as his own glory and authority. We know of their anthropolatrous apostasy, more abominable cursed than idolatry; of their self-conferred3 contemptible priesthood, which is a likening of themselves to Satan ; of their depreciation of the sacrament (lit.) of marriage , which our Lord, by his own miracles , and through his own God-bearing mother, prized and honored. This sacrament (lit. crown) they contemn, and reckon the mere fact of union in love with one another to be perfect love, and from God and pleasing to Christ; saying that God is love and desires the love union alone, and not the sacrament of marriage (lit. crown). I know, too, of their railing caviling of the first-fruits , which Able and Noe and Abraham and David and Solomon and Elias appointed to conciliate the Divine wrath. We know how they dare to call the head of their abominable sect a Christ ; of whom Christ testified beforehand, saying, There shall arise false prophets. And this is the meaning of the prophet’s saying: The fool said in his heart, there is no God. Such then are the apostolic men of your Mushel who examines and finds them to be people of unswerving faith. These, then, are they whom my father’s brother, a Vardapet of great acumen, closely investigated, as being himself an apologist of God. And he, like a learned champion, radically demolished the fabulous blasphemies of the lawless Tondraki sect; and had he not done so we should hardly known from report even the name of foul creatures, so insignificant is their fame. What gifts then of election have they seen in the abominable Kumbricus , what trace of good in Simon , or what hope to look forward to in the antichrist, or all of whom they are disciples? For, forgetful of the ineffable favors and kindness bestowed on them through the Passion, they call these their refuge though they have lied about the same. For they are packs of dogs and bands of thieves, troops of wolves and arrays of devils; tribes of brigands and masses weevils, ----------------- 1 Here the malice of the writer has to be discounted. It was the regular and the stereotyped charge against all heretics, even the purest in their lives. It, of coarse, refers to their denial that marriage was sacrament. 2 See the Key, p. 115. 3 The Armenian word is a compound and = xxxxxxx [something in Greek – MJ], “with one’s own hand.” See note 7, below. See the Key, p. 119. Perhaps the Key, p. 115, should be compared, where offerings of incense, candles, and victims are prohibited. The elect one, according the Key, was the image of Jesus Christ on earth, his office was to reproduce on earth the life and calling of Christ himself. See the Key, pp. 95 and 106. The same charge of pretending that he was Christ or the Holly Spirit was advanced against Sergius the Paulician, who is identified by Dr. Mkerttschian and the historian Tchamitch with Smbat. See also the Prolegomena, pp. lxi foll. The claim of those who used the Key and of him who wrote it was that the Paulician was the only true apostolic church. See above, note 1, p. 126, and Prolegomena, pp. xxxlil and xli. Why was Gregory so anxious to disclaim all knowledge of the sect? Because he was accused of belonging to it. Was the accusation true? Probably he had, at least in secret, once belonged to it, for his enemies nicknamed him ‘Apostate.’ Gregory glances at ‘Election’ and ‘Elect ones’ of the Paulicians. I.e. Mani called [something in Greek – MJ]. Gregory perhaps draws upon Photius or the Archelaus acts. In the Key Simon Magus is mentioned on pp. 91, 92. See the prayer in the Ordination Service in the Key, p. 108. ---------------------- hordes of savages and legions of crucifiers, congregations of evil ones and men of blood, swarms of poisonous snakes and herds of wild beasts, enemies of mankind, societies of wizards and heretics, the scorn not only of churchmen, but of heathen as well. For I must relate what a certain valiant man said, who destroyed and pout to infamous death their cursed ancestors. This is what he said to the second Iamres1 ‘If Christ rose on the third day, then since you call yourself Christ2, I will slay you and burry you; and if you shall come to life again after third days, then I will know that you are Christ, even if even though you take so many days over your resurrection. Now he was in close contact with them as a neighbor, and he had learned the story of the bitter phrensy of these offenders from many who had told him, and certainly believed3 in the true resurrection of Christ, and was making mock of them as proper objects of ridicule, when he left behind him the memory of this laudable saying. For it was God and no earthly being who raised up this idea in him, and it was providence which enjoined to reprove or destroy the wicked according to their wickedness; just as providence gave for food the terrible serpent of land,and chastised the Jews through the Chaldeans, and in judgment overwhelmed those who crucified Jesus, by the hand of Titus and Vespasian and Adrian, and reprimanded the Egyptian nation with twofold destruction by the hand of Cyrus. And he is said to have hung up in the dread oracular temple of Beliar himself the lance with which he smote them. Now the very devils knew God the only-born and confessed him to be judge of all; but the foul Smbat, a second Simon, allowed himself to be worshiped by his disciples, men rooted in bitterness and sowers of tares; just like that wizard of Samaria, and Montanus and Pythagoras the illiterate and heathen philosopher. I have set down a few points out of many, and I await your answer. For it is a leading principle of our Lord’s canon, which says: And by the words shalt thou be justified, and out of the works shalt thou be judged. But if you admire their writings4, we know that Satan too recited a psalm on the day of the temptation of the Savior of all. But unless you place on record a double curse and manifold anathema against their founder Smbat, and their dead and wizard-like cults and their profession of faith5; and unless you in writing declare that what they represent as good is mere ordure over and over, and find the same to be excess of apostasy, and intimate the same in your letter to me, which is the way in which it beseems you to clear your character and to get rid of the scandal and the prejudice: anyhow, know for certain that I have written entirely out of consideration for you good and peace and love. For if your citadel of refuge6 be betrayed by you, its own guardian, then of yourself will you become a traitor of your high office. And since this Mushel writes that he is a Vadapet7, you must arm a champion against the enemy and --------------------- 1 A sobriquet for Smbat. 2 .See above, note 7, p. 128. 3 Yet Gregory adduces this story by way of illustrating how the Tondraki were the scorn heathen as well as of churchmen. He was not ashamed to gloat over Mahometan mockery and murder of his own countrymen, and this although – as is clear from its context - the Paulicians had given their lives in order that to repeal the Mahometan invaders of Armenia. See the Prolegomena, pp. lxiii foll. 4 Or ore probably ‘grabanutiun [in Armenian – MJ] should be rendered “quoting of the Scripture.” 5 See the Key, pp. 93, 94 and 97. 6 i.e. the convent of the Abbot of which this letter is addressed. 7 Therefore Mushel was probably a doctor of the Armenian Gregorian Church. -------------------------- repair the breach that has been effected, and defend exposed places, and be light and salt and mentor to him that is in the dark, according to the divine canon. But if your light to be his thinking darkness, he is beyond doubt a viperous sorcerer and sensless giver of poison. For his science is not holpen by the finger of God, his voice is ill-starred and inspired by evil, and his report is deceitful – destroyer of peace. And now, with what conscience can he repeat the words: “Out of what writings can I anathematize one?” Paul anathematized even an angel that should think things alien to his gospel, and he did not scruple to repeat the anathema twice. And David cursed his transgressions and subscribed to reprimand. And the Lord saith of those who have deserted from the ranks and are altogether on his left hand: Depart from me ye cursed ones. And we received from the Council of Nice1, and learned an anathema on the vainglory of heretics, which is formally directed to be used twice over in the hymn of the confession of faith which follows after the reading of the gospel. An answer from the letters if Petros from Sahak prescribed forms of anathema against these excommunicated at Chalcedon. And there are the heads of Cyril of Alexandria’s anathema’s against Nestorius, and the Honoticon letter of the Emperor Zeno, which curses by name the utterly heretical sects. Now if we are by ordinance obliged to curse those whose shortcomings are but in part, how much more2 must we curse the manyfoldly heretical ranks of this congregation, which is cut of from Christ and united by bond with Satan. And now, Lord Abbot, take no offence at the terms of my letter, nor take unfeigned love as if it were hatred. For the love of Christ compels me to this, and we only desire you to be spotless. And do you order to be copied volumes3 full of learning which the father Ananias, with great care, wrote against these schismatics. ------------------------ 1 The anathema is still repeated by Armenians at the end of the Nicene Symbol. 2 This passage proves at least that Tondraki had nothing to do with Nestorians and other heretical sects enumerated in the Heneticon. See the Prolegomena. 3 This volume of Ananias is unfortunately lost. If it could be discovered, it might give valuable information. Nerses Shnorhali quotes it in his Epistola I (see Sancti Nersetis Clajensis Opera, vol. 1, pp. 58-64, Venice, 1823), but his citations, though valuable, hardly make up for the loss. Gregory Magistros, early in the eleventh century, also quotes this lost work of Ananias in his letter to the Patriarch of Edessa, which, along with the letter of Nerses Schnorhali, will be given in English below. Appendix I: The Key of Truth Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia pp. 125-130 By Fred C. Conybeare Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1898 [ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

The next message represents the renown letter by Grigor Narekatsi, to dismiss from him the suspicions of belonging to the Tondraki "sect." I had read about this letter in many places. Finally, it was possible to read it. The material below is entirely due to Fred Coneybeare - with all the footnotes. I have made only two or three (I think) technical comments, while initializing them. P.S. In the material below, Conybeare uses the epithet "heresy" to characterize Paulicians or the Tondraki. However, in the introduction of his book, he mentions that he is using the tem not in the sense of considering Paulicians and the Tondraki as a heresy, but just in the conventional historical sense, since historically these were qualified to be so. [ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Movses, do you remember who was Armen's contrabass player?

http://dir.yahoo.com/Entertainment/Music/A...rrison__George/

George Harrison has died yesterday. God bless his soul!

Yabadabadoo!!! Twice happy tonight! Got home between the trips, and a copy of the "Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia" translated by Fred C. Conybeare and published by The Clarendon Press in 1898 was waiting for me.

I also wonder which one is Khodja?

quote:Originally posted by Boghos: Interesting...I had never heard that Paraguay had recognized Karabagh. I strongly doubt in the vailidity of this info.

Yes, you are right, Raffi.