The Historical Situation Post-Chalcedon

The persecution started in 451, being well planned and carefully prepared between 449 and 450. … it was directly connected with the very existence of the Armenian people as such.

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

The first decade between Ephesus and Chalcedon was marked with the exchange of various letters, previously examined.  The second decade of this period was a relatively peaceful one for Armenia in its relationship with Persia.

In 439, Sahak, the patriarch, died.  A few months later, the other large figure in Armenian theological life, Mashtots, died as well.  In the decade that followed, the orthodoxy established at Ephesus was firmly established within Armenia.  Within Armenia itself, a council was held, aimed at removing the remaining pagan customs and traditions within the country.

This peace, though, was not maintained.  The Persian king saw the free exchange between Armenia and Byzantium as a threat.  Hence, the persecution noted above.  The year 451 is known to Christians as the year of Chalcedon.   It is also known to Armenians as the year of the battle of Avarayr – a battle between Armenia and Persia, a battle lost by Armenia and celebrated by Armenians still until today, as even in defeat, it set the groundwork for the continuation of the nation and the Christian faith as they understood it.

Keeping in mind that Armenia geographically stood in between two great empires, Byzantium and Persia, it also geographically stood in between the Christology of Ephesus and Nestorianism.  Unlike the Greek Christian world, it had no emperor to defend it – either physically or theologically.

Following this battle came years of attempts at de-Christianization by the Persians toward the Armenians.  In the years following 451, various Armenian patriarchs at times would be favorable to the Byzantine, at other times to the Syriac.  Any Hellenophile patriarch was seen with suspicion by the Persians, and loyalty was questioned.

Despite the turmoil and unrest, some theological work is found.  P’arpeci would write to an Armenian noble regarding the grounding of his faith in the face of persecution.  It isn’t clear for what he was being persecuted, but given his response, it appears the issue was on this dividing line between Alexandria and Antioch.

He lists those with whom he holds deep affection: Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, and St. Gregory, the first patriarch of the Armenian Church (who was a Cappadocian father before the more well-know fathers who hold this title).  He lists none favorably that held an Antiochene Christology.  Instead, he lists those whom he rejects: Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches among these. 

There were still those present in Armenia – priests, monks, bishops – that held to an Antiochene view.  The soil was fertile, as Persia could accept any move that separated Armenia from Byzantium.  In the second half of this fifth century, a serious push was made to bring Armenia to the Nestorian side.  The Armenians resisted this with an unyielding opposition.  Between the acceptance of the Council of Ephesus and the rejection of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (whose person was at this time still in good standing with the Church), the source of this unyielding position was clear. 

In any case, in such unrest serious theological work took a second seat to survival of the nation.  Only in 485 was there relief, and complete freedom of worship was gained.  It was following this, in the period 485 – 505, that Armenia could fully grapple with Chalcedon.

A curious note: this grappling was done without naming Chalcedon directly.  Sarkissian attributes to the overall general discredit with which the council was held through much of Christendom.  I recall from other work I have done that controversy over Chalcedon carried on for decades, in some ways not resolved for much of the Church for over one hundred years (other than those which remained opposed to it, such as the Armenians and Copts).

Conclusion

And in this grappling, by early in the sixth century, the Armenians would conclude that there was too much Nestorius in Chalcedon.  They were not alone: after all, even the Nestorians were pleased with this council. 

Surely the Nestorians were preaching the duality of Christ’s nature.  Chalcedon had distinguished very sharply between the two natures.  Therefore, to refute one of these two doctrines implied necessarily the rejection of the other. 

In any case, even at this juncture the Armenians had not formally rejected Chalcedon, merely because it had not been put forward to them to accept or reject. 

But their doctrinal attitude was already formed.  The rejection of the Council would follow as a natural consequence, as we shall see.

Before coming to this formal rejection, Sarkissian will examine the doctrinal background.  As you all know, I find the nuance in this doctrinal discussion the most difficult to grasp, but in the next post I will present Sarkissian’s views as well as I am able.