Content provided in partnership with

Ecumenical Trends in the Armenian Church

Ecumenical Review, The, Jan, 1999

From its very origins in the early centuries of the Christian era, the Armenian church conceived of itself as an integral and inseparable part of the body of Christ. Those familiar with the early stages of the Armenian church know that, as Christianity spread in Armenia, the church remained in close association with the Christian communities of neighbouring countries, particularly the Syriac, Greek, Georgian and Persian churches. Centres of Christian thought and missionary expansion -- such as Caesarea in Cappadocia, Antioch, Nisibis, Edessa, Melitene, Alexandria, and later Constantinople -- were closely associated with, and made an impact on, the formation of the Armenian tradition, particularly in religious, theological and cultural aspects. This relationship continued to the end of the fifth century, known as the "golden age" of Armenian history.

After the start of the 6th century, the Armenians decided not to adhere to the council of Chalcedon, which adopted the Tome of Leo as the fundamental document of Christological dogma, together with the formulation known as the "Chalcedonian definition". The dispute begun at the council of Chalcedon (AD 451) marked the first shock of division in the Christian church, which deepened in the course of the 5th and 6th centuries. Even so, the witness of the Armenian church was not carded on in isolation from the rest of Eastern Christendom, and its trend of openness to communication continued. Despite times of bitter controversy and confrontation, relations were pursued with the Greek and Georgian churches, with the Byzantine patriarchate of Constantinople and with Syriac communities. Later still, in the wake of the Crusades, the relationship extended to the Latin church in Rome. Certainly, some geographical regions in Armenia lived under the Greek Orthodox (Chalcedonian) influence, which was exercised by the Byzantine emperors, sometimes by force. There were also theological trends in Syrian Christianity -- namely the "Severian" (after Severus of Antioch; a kind of moderate monophysitism) and "Julianist" (after Julian of Halicarnassus; also known as Aphthartodocetic) Christological schools -- which were echoed in parts of Armenia.(1) But on the whole, the Armenian church maintained its anti-Chalecedonian orientation unaltered, and its independence and integrity were unshaken.

Presented below are several illustrations of the inter-ecclesiastical, ecumenical trend in the Armenian tradition.

* At the beginning of the 7th century, authoritative quotations supporting the Armenian Orthodox stand against Chalcedonian Christology -- culled from almost fifty church fathers of both the universal and the Armenian churches -- were collected in a florilegium of patristic texts entitled Gnik Havatoy ("The Seal of Faith"). Karapet Ter-Mkrtchian, the great German-educated Armenian scholar, who discovered and edited the manuscript in the early part of our century, remarked on the theological richness of this document and its significance in the early ecumenical dialogue:

   The Seal of Faith florilegium is a monument for the dogmatic position of
   the Armenian church, which reached its ultimate degree of development at
   the beginning of the 7th century, and which was afterwards maintained and
   reconfirmed, after long struggles and waverings, at the beginning of the
   8th century.(2)

The entire volume eloquently bears witness to an ongoing ecumenical trend in Armenian theology.(3)

* A rich theological inheritance has come to us from the 8th-century figure St Stephen of Siunik (Stepanos Siunetsi), in the form of his translations of and commentaries on the writings of pseudo-Dionysius.(4) Through Siunetsi, the corpus ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite -- including such works as "The Divine Names", "Mystical Theology" and "The Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy" -- made an impact in the post-Chalcedonian theological debates. Interestingly, both sides of the debate, the so-called "dyophysites" and the "monophysites", recognized these texts as authoritative and supportive of their respective positions.(5)

* Even after the 8th century, relations with the Syrian church went on without interruption. The two churches often faced similar challenges and endured similar internal conflicts. The reconciling role played by the Armenian catholicos John of Odzoun (Hovhannes Otsnestzi) during the council of Manzikert in the 8th century was an important landmark in the ecumenical relationship between the two churches. Later, in the 12th and 13th centuries, when the Armenian church entered an intense and decisive period in its relationship with the Byzantine church, the Syrians joined the discussions alongside the Armenians, as partners sharing the same christological position. Indeed, the two churches were closely associated throughout the 12th and 13th centuries, not only on matters of doctrine but also and more importantly on the cultural level. The great figures of the Syriac church, such as Michael the Syrian (Michael the Great) and Gregory Bar Hebraeus, exchanged correspondence and ideas with their counterparts in the Armenian church, such as Catholicos Nerses IV Bahlavouni (Nerses the Gracious) and Krikor Tegha.

Ecumenical Trends in the Armenian Church

Ecumenical Review, The, Jan, 1999

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Reference

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference