Nestorianism and Chalcedon

The situation at the end of the nineteenth century can only be described as unsatisfactory, confusing, and misleading.

The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, by Karekin Sarkissian

To this point in his introduction, Sarkissian reviewed the understanding of the relationship of the Armenian Church to Chalcedon as of about 125 years ago.  He continues here with more recent scholarship, updating and clarifying this understanding.

The publishing of the Book of Letters in the first year [of the twentieth century] was the start of a new approach…

This book was a collection of letters and other valuable texts, entirely concerned with the relationship of the Armenian Church with the Syrian Churches.  These provided significant understanding of the Armenian Church and its engagement with Chalcedon. 

The trigger for Armenians to confront the Council was the acceptance of Nestorianism by the State of Persia.  Nestorianism was condemned in a synod in 506 that included the Armenians, Georgians, Albanians, and Orthodox Persians.  In this synod, these churches officially proclaimed the profession of faith of the Council of Ephesus – and, per Sarkissian, is the first time the Armenian Church officially rejected the Council of Chalcedon.

But what is the connection of Nestorianism to Chalcedon?

…the Henoticon of the emperor Zeno was recognized as the orthodox faith, and, therefore, the Council of Chalcedon was not officially condemned, but tacitly considered as an outcome of veiled Nestorianism, and consequently was to be despised by the orthodox Christians.

The Nestorians had seen Chalcedon as some sort of confirmation of their views.  A simple statement that might help bring some clarity as to why such confusion might have existed, from a brief post by William Hemsworth:

The council reiterated the two natures of Christ, which was a concern Nestorius had though he argued for it in a heretical manner.

This confusion was of decisive importance when it came to how the Armenian Church dealt with Chalcedon.  Not that the Armenians would come to confuse the decisions of the Council with Nestorianism, but that the doctrinal statements made such confusion possible – in other words, further clarity was required.

Keeping in mind that this official rejection was fifty-five years after the Council, Sarkissian offers that a thorough examination of the period of Armenian Church history in these years preceding the rejection is necessary:

…it seems to us that the rejection is not a clear-cut act of one moment, but rather the outcome of a process of theological thinking and orientation, and the early stages therefore have to be studied as much as the rejection itself.

What was the situation – historical and doctrinal – of the Armenian Church preceding this formal rejection and up to the time of rejection?  This is one question Sarkissian will attempt to work through.

Further, Sarkissian does not believe that it is appropriate to consider this entire question of rejection based on how Chalcedon is understood today.  What did Chalcedon mean to Christians at the time in the eastern parts of the Byzantine Empire?

…many of those who have dealt with the position of the Armenian Church in relation to Chalcedon have had in mind the Chalcedonian doctrine as understood today and the Council of Chalcedon as accepted at present by the greater part of Christendom.

We must find, then, the Chalcedon of the period in which it was faced and dealt with by the Armenian Church.

Conclusion

Sarkissian offers: the Armenian rejection of the Council was not because they were deceived or misled; not because they were unable to understand the doctrine; not because they were compelled by the Persians; not because their language was inadequate for the abstract terms; finally, not because they confused Chalcedon with Nestorianism.

Instead: the issues for the Armenians were primarily religious and theological; the rejection was not sudden or accidental; Chalcedon only became important to the Armenians when the Nestorians took it as a source of strength.

Ultimately, the rejection was a reasonable act, closely consistent with their doctrinal position.