Rejecting Chalcedon

[Yovhan Mandakuni, a fifth-century author] must be regarded as the first churchman in authority to have rejected the Council of Chalcedon.  The occasion which caused that rejection was most probably the promulgation of Zeno’s Henoticon. 

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

The Henotikon ("act of union") was a Christological document issued by Byzantine emperor Zeno in 482, in an unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the differences between the supporters of the Council of Chalcedon and the council's opponents (Non-Chalcedonian Christians).

This act failed to satisfy either side.

I have previously written on the Council of Chalcedon, from the point of view of one in a Church that has rejected it: The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, by Fr. V. C. Samuel (these posts can be found here).  This current book is authored by an archbishop in the Armenian Church (who later became Catholicos of All Armenians), Karekin Sarkissian.  (It was published in its first edition in 1965, and, therefore, will not reflect any newer findings – if any.)

His examination will look at the theological history, which is my main focus regarding this book (I will not attempt to parse out the nuances of the different Christological views, merely presenting these as presented in the book); but he also examines the events and disagreements in light of the situation, political and otherwise, of Armenia, especially relative to other Christian bishoprics and also its neighbors – Byzantine and Persian, for example.  This latter aspect is also of interest to me for a couple of reasons.

First, it provides an examination into how outside factors have influenced the formed theological views of a Church – any Church in Christendom, and, second, Armenia is regarded as the first nation to embrace Christianity – both legally and nationally, in 301 AD, well before Rome and Constantine.

It is now generally recognized that the attitude of the Armenian Church to the Council of Chalcedon determined not only its doctrinal position within the whole Christian world, but also, and at the same time, immensely affected the political life of the Armenian people.

Keeping in mind – only until “modern” times, beginning in the West, there was no concept that religious, political, community, and personal life were somehow separate spheres.  The course of Armenian Church history – and, therefore, the history of the Armenian people especially during the fifth through twelfth centuries – was deeply affected by the division and separation caused by this topic.

Frankly, almost all of its a history of tragedy – even until today.  Remarkable that, as a people, Armenians have survived, given the neighborhood: Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Seljūk, Tatar, and Turkish invasions.

Sure, many of these decidedly not Christian.  But what of the Byzantines?

…the Byzantine emperors regarded the rejection by the Armenians of the Council of Chalcedon as a sign, if not of hostility, at least of a diminishing loyalty to the imperial throne. …the doctrinal attitude of the Armenian Church had immeasurable consequences not only for the Armenian people, but for the whole Byzantine empire as well.

Much of Armenian literary and religious history of the sixth through eighth centuries is focused precisely on the matter of the Council of Chalcedon: doctrinal controversies, dissensions, negotiations. They would stress the real unity of Christ’s natures, while, at the same time, strenuously avoid any idea of confusion or incompleteness.

All of this confusion is compounded by the reality that the Armenian Church was never even directly involved in any of the Chalcedonian controversies of the time.  The fifth century is considered a Golden Age for Armenians; the use of this terms reflects the reality that some of the most profound periods of Armenian history are driven by tragedy and loss.

The downfall of the Arsacid Kingdom (428), driven by a political crisis due to the partition of Armenia between Byzantium and Persia (approx. 387/390); the persecution by Mazdean Persians (Zoroastrian) – celebrated by Armenians on the commemoration of the loss to the Persians at the Battle of Avarayr (451, the same year as Chalcedon).

And during this same fifth century: the invention of the Armenian alphabet, the translation of the Scriptures, the liturgical literature and the early Armenian Church Fathers, the flowering of Armenian literature more broadly, and the creation of a national solidarity.

So, back to Chalcedon – in the middle of this Armenian century of both turmoil and flowering:

They had no representative in the Council of Chalcedon itself.  There is no evidence either for any invitation to them from the emperor or the bishop of Constantinople.

In this introductory chapter, Sarkissian examines the question: How, when, and why did the Armenian Church, formally and officially, for the first time, reject the Council of Chalcedon?

Sarkissian begins with a look at the traditional view – basically a view held until the end of the beginning of the twentieth century.  For example, until the year 490 – almost forty years after the Council – the confusing reports regarding the Council had not yet reached Armenia.  Even if these had arrived, the situation of the nation was not one where any of this could be thoughtfully considered: persecutions and tribulations at the hands of the Persians.

Further, the Nestorians were seeing in Chalcedon a victory for their doctrines: both Eutychians and Nestorians were claiming, for different and opposite reasons, that Chalcedon reaffirmed Nestorian Christology. 

Nestorian Christology promotes the concept of a prosopic union of two persons (divine and human) in Jesus Christ, thus trying to avoid and replace the concept of a hypostatic union of two natures.

As such news trickled into Armenia, the bishops were perplexed – they didn’t hear good things about the Council from anyone on any side of any relevant issue (keeping in mind the Armenians were not represented at the Council).

Which comes to Zeno’s edict: it only raised confusion – many bishops signed it, hence it appeared to the Armenians that it was a valid representation of the decisions of the Council.  A synod of local bishops was called, to include the Georgians, the Caucasian Albanians, and some from Byzantine Armenia in order to assess the situation. 

The confusion in the edict – it did not explicitly endorse Chalcedon – caused these bishops to reject the Council.  Later the same year, the new emperor, seeing the great confusion caused by the Council, prohibited all discussion of it.  To the Armenians and others, this raised the question: if the Greeks themselves do not accept the Council which they convened, why should we?

Sarkissian summarizes the views of the pre-twentieth century historians and theologians regarding the Armenian rejection of the Council; as you will see, some conclusions are inherently contradictory.  I will summarize these:

1)      The Council was formally rejected at the end of the fifth century; also, the Council was rejected at the beginning of the sixth century.

2)      The Armenians accepted the doctrines of Dioscorus and Eutyches; also, the Armenians rejected these doctrines.

3)      The Armenians were both represented at the Council and not represented at the Council.

4)      The Persians forced the Armenians to reject the Council in order to stand against the Byzantine Empire.

5)      They didn’t understand the true meaning of the Tome of Leo.

6)      They confused Chalcedonian Christology with Nestorian Christology.

Basically, the situation at the time could only be described as confusing.

Conclusion

In the next post, I will come to the more current view (again, keeping in mind that this book was published sixty years ago).  New document discoveries and new examination of previously known documents have shed light that brings further clarity to the question: how, when, and why did the Armenians reject the Council of Chalcedon?

With all of this said, at some point the confusion likely would have come to an end.  Yet, to this day, the Armenian Church rejects Chalcedon.  Why?  On what basis?  These are questions that I expect will be answered as I progress through the book.