Rejection

Therefore we conclude that in the Council of Dowin (506/8) there is the first official and formal rejection of the Council of Chalcedon by the Armenian Church.

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

This council is over fifty years after Chalcedon.  As an aside, there are others who believe that Chalcedon was formally rejected by the Armenians only in the Second Council of Dowin (Dvin) in 554.  However, one way or the other, the Council was officially rejected. 

NB: I include several endnotes in this post (my last on Sarkissian’s book), which provide some detail regarding various doctrinal issues at stake in this entire conversation.  So the post will run long, but I believe the notes will bring some clarity. 

Sarkissian sees the rejection as a process, one which culminated in the aforementioned Council in 506/8.  He considers this the most decisive step.  He begins by examining two documents (I believe the first written in 506, the second in 508), the first of which is a “Letter from the Armenians to the Orthodox in Persia.”

It is a letter from Armenians to Armenians, specifically to all Armenian clergy and laypeople living under Persian rule.  It is sent by Babgēn, the Armenian Archbishop, and twenty diocesan bishops – each one named individually. 

The purpose of the letter: some people came to Babgēn, saying they were from Persia.  They came seeking assurance that their faith was the same as that held by the Greeks, Armenians, Georgians, and Albanians. 

They held to the true faith, that of the 318 ancient Fathers (referring to the Nicene Council), the faith which the whole world accepted.  From the letter, citing the testimony of those who came to Babgēn:

“This faith was held in concord by our country and there appeared no impurity at all until he twenty-seventh year of the reign of Peroz”

Which would be the year 484, the year of a council in Persia that is described as “the evil leaven which was hidden within unholy people.”  They began to trouble the pure faith of the true Trinity, supporting the teachings of Nestorius, Diodore, and Theodore. 

They came for support, for the witness of divine Scripture, such that the traditions of the Holy Fathers might stand firm.  The archbishop confirms that the Nicene faith is accepted, and no definition of faith other than this can be accepted. 

After this, the Nestorians are condemned by Babgēn; they teach that God the Word, was two sons: one, God the Word, and the other, Jesus, a mortal man born of Mary. 

“Again they assert that it is right to separate and to say openly perfect God and perfect man… [thus] the man who received the grace was honoured and wrought miracles and wonders by the Word of God who descended from heaven and dwelt in him, that is to say, in Jesus…”

Babgēn offers the answer to the question raised by these Persian Armenians:

“As you wished to learn from us about these things, we signify to you that we the Greeks, the Armenians, the Georgians, and the Albanians did never accept and will never accept these blasphemies.”

As an aside, a note on this list of four Churches: the Greeks, as we know today, accepted the Council of Chalcedon, yet they are listed here.  It should be remembered that for about one hundred years following Chalcedon, there was great debate and disagreement about the decisions of the Council.  Many emperors made attempts to bring reconciliation, most famously Emperor Zeno and his Henoticon.  Keep in mind that it was from Constantinople and Melitene (both Greek) where Armenians sought support against Nestorius and Theodore.

As for the Georgians, about one hundred years later, they did accept the Council of Chalcedon.  The Albanians here were the Albanians of the Caucasus, basically present-day Azerbaijan. 

Returning to Sarkissian: Once again, the 318 that met at Nicaea are affirmed, but also the 150 who met at the third council (Ephesus, where Nestorius was condemned). 

Following this is a second letter with the same title: “Letter from the Armenians to the Orthodox in Persia.”  This letter was written because a priest, Simon, came to Armenia to say that the issues were not settled, and the opponents of the orthodox faith did not accept the first letter.

…on the contrary, those opponents, the Nestorians, renewed their attacks and once more troubled the holy Church, this time “being strengthened by the Council of Chalcedon.”

There is this regular return to this point: the Nestorians found support in Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo (see note 3 below).  Regarding the Armenians: Yes, Christ was truly man and at the same time God, but the Armenians do not divide Him in any way; Scripture doesn’t offer anything on exactly how this union is so.

Following, a list of those that the Armenians consider heretics: Nestorius, Arius, Theodore, Diodore, Theodoret, Eutyches, and Ibas, among others (including Eutyches makes clear that the Armenians rejected two sides of Christological error; see note 4 below).  The Holy Fathers are Ignatius of Antioch, Athanasius, Basil of Cappadocia, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, and others. 

Do not be shaken or scandalized by the heretics, Babgēn offers, but if any of them return to the holy faith, accept them because the door of God’s mercy is always open.

In these two letters we have an official declaration of the Armenian Church, a conciliar act, a decision taken by the supreme authority of the Church.  The Catholicos, along with the bishops and the feudal princes were acting together.  It is possible that in the first council, Zeno’s Henoticon (see note 2 below) was considered; the Armenians were favorable to it.  In any case, the Nestorians were strongly opposed to this document.

The position of the Armenian Church is clear: It is anti-dyophysite in its basic principle and anti-Nestorian in its outward expression. 

Yet, the Nestorians took strength from Chalcedon.  What could this mean to the Armenians, who have been living on the fault line between the Greek and Syriac, the Alexandrian and Antiochene, and the Crylline and Nestorian theologies and expressions of Christology? 

If the Nestorians were for it, either Orthodox Christendom had to be against it, or the language required meaningful clarification.  I am not qualified to state if the Armenians were right or wrong in their Christological doctrine, however it does seem clear that clarification would be necessary if those considered heretical agree with the outcome of an ecumenical council – an outcome precisely on the topic for which the heretics were condemned.

To note, Leo’s Tome addresses the heresy of Eutyches but says nothing regarding Nestorius.  This does not necessarily mean support of Nestorius.  However, given the concerns raised by the Armenians and given the language in the Tome of two natures, it is easy to see why this absence would raise concerns even further.

In any case, there was still no complete exposition of the Christological doctrine of the Armenian Church by this time.  However, the following can be said:

·         The Armenian Church placed a strong emphasis on the Council of Nicaea.

·         They accepted the first three ecumenical councils.

·         They held an unyielding opposition to the Antiochene / Nestorian theologians.

·         They fully appropriated the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, as embodied in the Twelve Anathemas (note 1) and Zeno’s Henoticon.

·         They explicitly rejected the Council of Chalcedon.

Conclusion

But this was a beginning, not the end.  It was just the first step for the Armenian Church in its doctrinal disputes of a most difficult sort.  Further, it greatly impacted Armenian history, as it separated the Armenians from Byzantium and its emperor.

History tells us most eloquently how disastrous have been the consequences of the division of Eastern Churches because of the Council of Chalcedon and other factors of non-theological nature.  Isolation has resulted in hard, staunch, exclusive, unyielding attitudes which have led to the dislocation and decomposition of the Eastern Christian world and have impaired its integrity and solidarity.

The self-defensive, self-justifying tendency and method, with the natural implication of mutual condemnation, have prevailed in the conversations that have taken place.

And still today.

Note 1

The Twelve Anathemas, authored by Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius and presented at the Council of Ephesus (431).  I note items 2 & 3: 

2. If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema.

3. If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connexion alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let him be anathema.

Note 2

Some background on the Henoticon (482), a complete text of which apparently has not survived:

In 482 Emperor Zeno, with the support of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, issued an imperial edict called the Henotikon (coming from the Greek word meaning “unity” or “union”), which was designed to bring reconciliation between those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon and those who rejected it. The Henotikon strongly affirmed the first three Ecumenical Councils, avoided any mention of one or two natures in Christ, and anathematized “anyone who has held or holds any other opinion, either now or at any other time, whether at Chalcedon or at any synod whatsoever.”

The Henotikon mollified the moderate Monophysites, who continued to stay in communion with the Chalcedonian Byzantines—for as yet there had been no actual schism in the Church. But it infuriated the Roman Church, since it certainly did place a question mark over the Council of Chalcedon, at which the Tome of their beloved Saint Leo was so influential. In 484 Pope Felix of Rome (r. 483–492) excommunicated all the Churches of the East on account of their acceptance of the Henotikon. This began the so-called Acacian Schism between Rome and the East, which lasted until 518.

This is thirty years after Chalcedon, demonstrating the continuing disagreements over that council.  Note that it avoided any mention of the number of natures in Christ – certainly the sticking point for Armenians.  Better to stay silent on a topic that is not made clear in Scripture.  Yes, he is God-man, but exactly how?  Understanding this is beyond our ability and not revealed by the Holy Spirit in Scripture.

Further:  Did the Armenian Church, and other Churches we now refer to as Oriental Orthodox (e.g., Coptic, Ethiopian, etc.), leave the club, or were they kicked out?

Note 3

The Tome of Leo, accepted at Chalcedon (451).  The language of two natures is utilized often in this document.  Agree with the Armenians or not, this is why they rejected the Tome and the Council of Chalcedon – it sounded too Nestorian, as can be seen in the next note.

Note 4

Regarding Nestorius and Eutyches – representing two extremes regarding Christology:

"Nestorianism" refers to the doctrine that there are two distinct hypostases in the Incarnate Christ, the one Divine and the other human. The teaching of all churches that accept the Council of Ephesus is that in the Incarnate Christ is a single hypostasis, God and man at once. That doctrine is known as the Hypostatic union.

Nestorius's opponents charged him with detaching Christ's divinity and humanity into two persons existing in one body, thereby denying the reality of the Incarnation. It is not clear whether Nestorius actually taught that.

According to Nestorius, all the human experiences and attributes of Christ are to be assigned to 'the man', as a personal subject distinct from God the Word, though united to God the Word from the moment of conception. The fathers of the Synod of Constantinople argued that in opposition to this Eutyches had inverted the assertion to the opposite extreme, asserting that human nature and divine nature were combined into the single nature of Christ without any alteration, absorption or confusion: that of the incarnate Word. Although this accorded with the later teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, Eutyches was accused of having gone beyond Cyril in denying that Christ was "consubstantial with us men", by which he did not intend to deny Christ's full manhood, but to stress His uniqueness.

The confusion on this topic is clear: Nestorius was deemed in error on one side, Eutyches on the other side.  The Armenians condemned both.  But the teaching of Eutyches was in accord with Cyril of Alexandria, whom the Armenians accepted – it’s just that Eutyches went too far.

I have to say, the wisest thing I have read about this entire controversy is in reading that the Armenians believed it should not be examined any farther than what has been revealed in Scripture – for which the Armenians found support in the first three councils.

Epilogue

If I can find an accessible book, I will look at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.  It occurred one hundred years after Chalcedon, and was an attempt to reconcile the two sides.  Here is Wikipedia on this council; I won’t insert anything here; this post is too long already.  But a glance at it suggests the topic is worth considering.