Armenian Catholics

[Guest]

Window Quarterly

Vol. 2, No. 3, 1991

Copyright 1991

 

[Permission is granted to use, print, reproduce this article

provided the following acknowledgment is given: From

Window Quarterly 2, 3 (1991); ACRAG c. 1991.

 

***

 

THE ARMENIAN CATHOLICS

 

by Hovannes M. Khosdeghian

 

 

Presenting a historical outline of the Armenian Catholic

Church is difficult, for two reasons, a) because of the

paradoxical concept of the existence of an Armenian

"Catholic" Church per se, and because of the time span

that encompasses the history of this community.

 

Generally speaking, an Armenian's knowledge of this

community does not go beyond the fact that an Armenian

Catholic Church started to exist as a separate entity in the

mid 18th century. Even most scholars are not familiar with

the accurate chronology of events, nor they are familiar with

the figures who contributed to the establishment of a

separate hierarchy. At times, scholars do not even

acknowledge any real, objective, administrative causes that

led to the separation. They rather see it as the

institutionalization of the de facto differences that existed

between Armenians leaning towards western civilization and

culture and consequently towards the Church of Rome.

 

At this point it is necessary to distinguish between the

concepts of a hierarchical church and of the complex body of

beliefs normally -though not necessarily- associated with a

"church." To understand the processes that led to the

establishment of the Armenian Catholic Church as a separate

hierarchical structure, one must distinguish between the

administrative organization of a church and the church as the

"gathering of believers." For our purposes, we will use the

term "catholic," to indicate full communion with Rome. As

such, we could say that Armenian catholics existed for many

centuries prior to the establishment of a separate hierarchical

structure. However, it is extremely important to understand

these terms in their historical context, rather than their

normal dogmatic implications. This is a key premise of

discussion in this article.

 

HISTORY

 

Direct diplomatic relations between Armenia and the West

have been recorded in history from 1196-the coronation of

Levon as king of Cilician Armenia-to 1375, when the

kingdom of Cilician Armenia ended. Exposure to Europe of

the time was all pervasive, (exposure that was reflected in all

aspects of life, government, social structure, judicial system,

commerce) and the church of Armenia was not an exception.

Many liturgical practices and vestments that are still in use-in

both Catholic and Apostolic Armenian Churches-date from

this period.

 

Parallel to this socio-political development, a religious

"movement" was developed when western missionaries

preached in the heartland of historical Armenia. Dominican

friars preached in Armenia starting in the 13th century and

eventually were successful in establishing an archbishopric

(diocese) in Nakhijevan. However, they embraced the Latin

rite and translated it into Armenian. Similar missionary

activities were followed by the Franciscans. Later, in the

17th century, the Jesuits were active in Armenia Major-

though in a more moderate and far less fundamentalist

understanding of church unity.

 

In 1740, several bishops of the Armenian church gathered in

the city of Aleppo and elected Abraham Ardzivian,

Archbishop of Aleppo, as Catholicos of those who were

Armenian rite catholics. This election was the formal act of

establishing the Armenian Catholic Church with its own

hierarchy. In 1742, the election was validated by Benedict

XIV, the Bishop of Rome. There is no doubt that the bishops

who gathered in Aleppo intended to establish a separate

hierarchy to administer and to institutionalize the existing

catholic Armenian church. The abundant correspondence-

existing since the 1680s between Rome and the Armenian

prelates and priests-are evidence of the trend among certain

elements of the clergy-who were graduates of Roman

schools-to establish a separate hierarchy.

 

The cause of such a definitive move was a complex one.

 

Pope Gregory XIII (1572-1585), as part of his renewed

educational reorganization, planned the establishment of a

College in Rome for the education of the Armenian clergy.

While he was able to obtain the necessary funding-primarily

a major contribution by the king of Spain-his death prevented

the implementation of the project. However, Urban VIII

(1623-1644) revived Gregory's plan by incorporating it into a

larger institution, where clergy from all Eastern Churches

could be educated. Thus, he chartered the Pontifical

Urbanian University, where Armenians were given 25

scholarships, endowed with donations collected by Gregory.

Until 1887-when the Pontifical Armenian College was

established as a separate institution-Armenian clergy

received education in this setting, where they were imbued

with liturgical, canonical and doctrinal Latinism. This

development necessitated the 1740 Aleppo election and was

very significant to the missionary agenda of the Armenian

Catholic hierarchy. The center for intellectual preparation

for Armenian Catholic clergy was the Pontifical Urbanian

University.

 

The other cause responsible of the schism in the Armenian

Church was the practice of the Ottoman government, which

recognized nationalities based on religious affiliation. This

was a direct reflection of the Ottoman tribal order, according

to which, the gods of each family gave identity to each tribe.

This expedient policy-very useful in keeping large masses

divided and therefore checked-was the juridical and

administrative structure adopted by the Ottoman rulers to

govern their empire. Thus they recognized their Armenian

subjects by their religion, i.e.their "church."

 

Contrary to the views expressed by historians, it seems that

the dogmatic aspect of the issue presented a potential

negative impact. While for the Ottoman rulers, the term

"patriarch" did not have any ecclesiastical implication (it was

rather a transliteration of the Latin word patricius

(=government administrator), the Armenian Patriarchs of

Constantinople identified their status and administrative

capacity in terms of their personal belief and faith. Thus, as

long as a moderate person was the Armenian Patriarch, there

were no problems. But when extremists held the position or

led the "Patriarchal See," antagonism between apostolic

Armenians and "Romans" or "francs" erupted in all its

viciousness, sometimes culminating in physical persecution

and executions of the catholic leaders. Under the

circumstances, the Armenian catholics were not administered

justice by the Patriarchs of Constantinople. The more the

persecutions continued, the more catholic Armenians leaned

towards establishing a separate hierarchy and church-since

this was the only juridical way allowed to bypass the

Armenian Patriarch's jurisdiction.

 

The recognition of the Armenian catholic hierarchy by the

bishop of Rome was an expedient way to secure the

protection of Catholic powers of Europe, which in turn

presented enough political muscle to force the Sublime Port

in halting the persecutions against the "faithful." The

Armenian Patriarch obviously opposed such a move. But in

1829-under British and French pressure-with article 12 of the

Treaty of Edirne, the Ottoman Empire granted the status of

"nation" to the Armenian catholics [Katholik Millet.] After

the administrative separation of the two "nations," the only

ground uniting them was ironically-and seldom witnessed in

history-their common cultural and religious heritage. Both

"nations" dedicated themselves to cultivating and advancing

the knowledge of the same heritage.

 

THEOLOGY

 

Having set the historical context of the schism in the

Armenian Church, we should now outline the theological

aspect of the separation, i.e., doctrinal, liturgical, canonical,

and administrative differences.

 

Depending on the times, the doctrinal aspect of the schism in

the Armenian Church was treated and viewed differently.

Most notable, a list of "117 errors of the Armenian Church"

was compiled by a certain priest Nersess and divulged during

the tenure of pope John XXII. While this document does

not have any doctrinal or dogmatic weight today, it is a good

example that shows the degree of frictions of the time. In

fact, in 1341, Catholicos Mekhitar convened the council of

Sis to answer these accusations.

 

The main doctrinal problems that have been disputed during

the process of the Armenian Church schism could be

summarized in the following issues:

 

+Acceptance of the ecumenical councils that followed the

first three.

+Acceptance of the Chalcedonian definition of the

christological dogma.

+Acceptance of the Roman definition of the dogma on the

procession of the Holy Spirit.

+Acceptance of the Roman definition of rewards after death.

+Acceptance of the dogma of papal infallibility, as defined

during the

Council of Vatican I.

 

Interestingly, all but one of the above mentioned doctrinal

issues are concerned more about definitions than substance.

It is precisely for this reason that today they have been

abandoned and there are no serious dogmatic challenges

between the two sides. The only point that stirs controversy

is the issue of papal infallibility. Again, it is important to

note that the problem is not infallibility per se, but it is the

connection that western theologians make with the practice

of the Roman Church to centralized government, that

follows the model of absolute monarchy.

 

LITURGY

 

As for the liturgical aspects of the two churches, it has taken

a visible and palpable dimension. In the past liturgical issues

were as prominent as dogmatic issues. The following is a list

of the most important items that Rome demanded conformity

with:

 

+Mixing water in the wine, during the Divine Liturgy/Mass.

+The preparatory prayers of the Divine Liturgy up to the

Introit.

+The elevation, prior to the blessing of the people with the

consecrated wine and bread.

+The Minor Orders.

 

Starting in the 12th century, all these points were accepted by

the Armenian Apostolic Church. However, the practice of

mixing water with wine did not continue to our days.

Vestments and insignia were introduced in the same period,

and did not pose major problems. Later on, in the beginning

of the 18th century, Armenian catholic clergymen tried to

impose the use of Latin vestments, but did not succeed.

 

CANONS

 

Although not yet recognized, a far serious problem has come

to exist between the two churches in terms of church canons.

The Armenian Church, both Apostolic and Catholic, do not

have a systematic code of canon law.

 

There are various collections of canons which do not bear

any official authority, since the Armenian Apostolic Church

is not governed by them. The existence of this vacuum is

mainly due to the forced Constitution by the Muslim Sultans

of the Ottoman empire in western Armenia, and the Russian

Church Constitution (Bolojenia) imposed by the Czar in

Russian Armenia.

 

On the other hand, the Armenian Catholic Church has been

governed by the Roman Code of Canon Law, which in itself

negates some of the cardinal concepts that identify the

Armenian Church. For example, the hierarchical nature of

the communion in faith, the privileges of the Catholicos, and

the general philosophy of "freedom of movement," are not

defined in the Roman codes. As such, whether at the simpler

level of normative differences or the more complex issues on

the juridical-canonical level, the Armenian Apostolic and

Catholic Churches stand far apart.

 

There are still many important concepts which lack clarity

and understanding: for example, the issue of separation of

church and state, church and culture, church and nation,

church and man, etc. The Armenian Catholic Church

anchored in the Roman Code of Canon Law-a product of

modern jurisprudence-has maintained its status as a separate

entity for centuries. I believe, once the rigidity of the Roman

Code is successfully modified with the traditional Armenian

"warmth" and ethos, then we may have a good model for

flexible administration, which in turn will guarantee the

"normal" growth of the Armenian Church as a whole. Only

then we may have a mechanism capable of balancing the

abundance of genius in individuals and their integration in a

structure that will ultimately contribute to the growth and

spiritual welfare of the Armenian people.

 

***

 

 

EASTERN RITE CATHOLICS

 

ARMENIAN RITE: under 250,000, mostly in Lebanon and

Syria. There are communities in Iran, Iraq, Turkey,

Jerusalem and the United States.

Hierarch: John Peter XVIII Kasparian, Armenian Patriarch of

Cilicia (Beirut, Lebanon).

 

CHALDEAN RITE: just over 575,000 living mostly in Iraq,

but also found in Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt,Syria and

Jerusalem.

Hierarch: Raphael I Bidawid, Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon

(Baghdad, Iraq).

 

COPTIC RITE: there are about 170,000 living mostly in

Egypt, with some in the Holy Land.

Hierarch: Stephanos II Ghattas, Coptic Patriarch of

Alexandria (Cairo, Egypt).

 

LATIN RITE: estimated at about 670,000. Of these, 63,000

belong to the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem which covers the

Holy Land, Jordan and Cyprus. The others live in Saudi

Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait,

Lebanon, Syria, Turkey & Yemen.

Hierarch: Archbishop Michael Sabbah, Latin Patriarch of

Jerusalem (Jerusalem).

 

MELCHITE RITE: approximately 561,000, mostly in Syria

and Lebanon. They are also found in Egypt, Jordan,

Jerusalem, Kuwait and Iraq.

Hierarch: Maximos V Hakim, Melchite Patriarch of Antioch

(Damascus, Syria).

 

MARONITE RITE: by far the largest with 1.7 million, most

of whom live in Lebanon. There are some communities in

Syria, Egypt, Cyprus, and Holy Land.

Hierarch: Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir, Maronite Patriarch of

Antioch (Beirut, Lebanon).

 

SYRIAN RITE: total nearly 100,000; while most live in

Syria, there are communities in Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt,

Jerusalem and Turkey.

Hierarch: Ignatius Antoine II Hayek, Syrian Patriarch of

Antioch (Beirut, Lebanon).

 

Source: Catholic International, Vol. 2, No. 9, 1991.