[Permission is granted to use, print, reproduce this article
provided the following acknowledgment is given: From
Window Quarterly 2, 1 (1991); ACRAG c. 1991.
***
SECTS IN ARMENIAN HISTORY
by Rev. Dr. Nerses V. Nersessian
Heresy is as old as Christianity. The Greek word haeresis
can be found not only in historian Herodotus (5th century
B.C.), but also in Thucydides (History of the Peloponnesian
War), and in both texts it signifies 'an act of taking'. In the
first century B.C., when Greek culture became fashionable
in the Roman world, the word had come to mean 'a choice'.
In the new environment of Rome, Cicero (106-43 B.C.),
Rome's greatest orator, endowed the word with a new
meaning. It no longer meant merely 'a choice', but rather 'a
sect' or 'a school of thought'. Thus it is not surprising that the
term haeresis acquired among the early Christians a
distinctive meaning. For them it served to distinguish the
other religious groups found on the Mediterranean littoral
from what they, as faithful followers of Christ, regarded as
the one true religion - the New Testament 'good news'. In
their vocabulary, 'heresy' was any doctrine, whether within or
outside the Christian community, which was evidently
irreconcilable with Christianity. The teachings of both the
Sadducees and the Pharisees is qualified in the New
Testament as haeresis, in contexts which involve opposition
to the apostles. The early Christian attitude to haeresis was
also at variance. St. Paul seems to be counselling moderation
in such doctrinal disputes and temporary indecision on some
points when he advises the Corinthians: 'There must be
factions (heresies) among you, in order that those who are
genuine among you may be recognized'. But this
pronouncement has a sequel in another Pauline Epistle, that
to Titus, which shows the apostolic Church in a less
conciliatory mood: "As for a man who is factious (heretical),
after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to
do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and
sinful; he is self-condemned," (3:10).
Initially the principle of consensus ecclesias was fully
endorsed by the Roman state. But the temper of the church
changed with the times. In the trinitarian and christological
disputes, formal anathemas were pronounced in ecumenical
synods against false or reputed false doctrines; in the same
centuries the papacy launched the darts and barbs of
excommunication against the Donatists and all who agreed
with their views. The crisis presented by the Arian heresy,
initiated a progressive sharpening of the Christian concept of
heresy. Arianism openly invaded Christian theology,
inaugurating a mode of attack that was to become more and
more common for heresy in subsequent centuries,
particularly where civilization had enabled some degree of
theological education to penetrate the lower social levels.
Arianism forced the Church to take more strenuous measures
to clarify doctrine and protect orthodoxy. These necessities
led to the involvement of the state in the definition and
proscription of beliefs. The conversion of Constantine, early
in the fourth century added a new element. The concern for
the unity of the Church in doctrine and organization brought
the emperor into Church matters, and established a bond
between Church and state and thus imposed a duty on
Christians to remain united for the good of the state. Thus
the Council of Arles of 314, in which the Donatist heresy
was condemned officially, was held to secure a
condemnation which was in the interest of both Church and
state in that it strove to ensure the civil and religious peace of
the Roman Empire. And the Council of Nicaea, summoned
to deal with the Arian heresy in 325, was presided over by
Constantine himself, and at his urging it strove mightily to
reach a solution that would ensure peace in Egypt and the
East. This meant that the Church was being drawn into the
orbit of the state and assuming obligations that pertained to
the state. Not without reason did early heresies and
opponents of the Church contend that from the days of
Constantine the body of the Church had been poisoned.
Later emperors sought to make the Church their servant and
their agent in a politic compromise with Arian doctrines.
After this episode, the leaders of the Church realized that, in
a state whose duty it was to protect the true belief, heresy
could not be tolerated. The Christological heresies of the
fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries (Nestorian, Monophysite,
and Monothelite doctrines) were accordingly marked by a
growth in the Church's disciplinary apparatus to deal with
opposition, and made heresy the active concern of an
increasingly powerful papacy. After the Council of
Chalcedon in 451 the emperors again sought to use the
Church to enforce their favorite doctrine or some irenic
compromise.
It is in the context of this introduction that I would like to
look at the role of the sects in Armenian church history and
the church's attitude towards sectarians throughout most of
its history. The origin of Christianity in Armenia has always
been a matter of acute controversy. This is not surprising for
there was no literature in the Armenian language during the
first four centuries and therefore we have no contemporary
written document concerning the beginning of Christianity in
Armenia. All the sources on the conversion date from the
fifth century. What is relevant to our purpose is that the
rapid advance of the Christian faith in the second and third
centuries paved the way for national acceptance of
Christianity as the official religion at the end of the third
(A.D. 287 or 289) or the beginning of the fourth century
(A.D. 314). The streams of Christian influence - the 'Greek-
type' from the north western borders and the 'Syrian-type '
from the south western borders - filtered into Armenia and at
first continued to coexist side by side all through the fourth
century. In addition paganism persisted long after the
adherence of Armenia to Christianity. The centuries old
institutions and traditions of Zoroastrians and Mazdeism
could not be eradicated overnight by a royal decree or by
anti-pagan measures taken by the State.
In the account of Aga-thangeghos on the conversion of
Armenia to Christianity, there is clear tendency to reduce the
importance of the previous religion and to make the
"conversion" appear total and sudden break with the ancient
faith. In reality, however, the establishment of a new faith
was more accurately a long process of transformation which
lasted until the end of the fifth century. The time of the
conversion is compressed to the period of St. Gregory's (the
Illuminator) missionary activity and the idea of a total
conversion is conveyed by stressing the unanimity with
which the nation embraces the new belief by employing
phrases like "the king, the nobles and the common people",
or "all the people and the king", where there is no question of
exceptions or opposition. This total change is allegorically
presented through the vision of Gregory with the image of
herds of black goats who pass through waters and thereby
turn instantly into white, shining sheep.
The conversion of Armenia was, in reality, more
complicated. On the one hand, there were Christians in
Armenia long before the missionary work of Gregory at the
beginning of the fourth century. On the other hand, some
early Armenian writers preserve accounts which point to a
strong influence of the pre-Christian religion long after the
official conversion of the country.
The great work of the conversion of Armenia to the Christian
faith, begun by Gregory, had been left unfinished in at least
one very important respect. Gregory had seen the desirability
to rendering the church of Armenia as soon as possible
independent of foreign missionaries, and had accordingly
established schools for the education of the people and for
the training of indigenous clergy. But, as there was no
Armenian literature or alphabet, he had not attempted to
translate into the language of the people the scriptures and
the service - books used in divine worship, 'Interpreters' were
in hand to explain to the people in the vernacular the
meaning of scriptures read in Syriac or Greek. This was a
temporary measure, and it worked fairly well for a time.
Following the death of Tiridates and during the persecution
under Merouzhan, Greek was entirely prohibited, while no
serious attempt was made to interfere with the use of Syriac.
The congregation accustomed to worship in Greek found
their clergy unable to interpret to them the Syriac scriptures.
The result was that the people left their churches, ignorance
of the doctrines of Christianity spread rapidly, and there was
a great danger that the people would in consequence either
lapse into their old pagan practices or at least be unable to
withstand the efforts of their conversion to Magianism made
by the Persian court. It was this state of affairs which offered
a fertile ground for numerous movements, anti-ecclesiastical
dissensions, and sects to come into existence. Sects like the
Manichaean, Messalian, Encratite, Montanist and
Novatianist, which flourished in Asia Minor between the first
and eighth centuries, found fertile ground in Armenia. This
situation is attested by Movses Khorenatsi who, reflecting
upon the period, comments in his History that 'the peace was
disturbed, chaos became rooted, orthodoxy was shaken, and
heterodoxy was established through ignorance'. Such a
situation prepared the ground for and facilitated the spread of
anti-ecclesiastical dissension referred to by historians with
the customary invectives and perorations as 'brigands',
'schismatics', opponents of sound doctrine', 'dissentient
tongues' who rise up in 'opposition to the wholesome
teaching'.
Energetic inquisitorial action was taken against the
Borborites in the Byzantine-controlled section of Armenia by
Mesrob Mashtots on the authorization of the catholicos
Sahak Partev. According to historian Koriwn , Mashtots had
little success in converting the Borborites; thereupon, with
the active aid of the Byzantine authorities, he turned to the
harsher methods of imprisonment and even torture. Since
the Borborites, despite these steps, remained unrepentant
they were branded with the 'sign of a fox', and finally
expelled from the land. During the period from 415-423
Mesrob Mashtots in his missionary work had to encounter
the Messalians, a pietistic mendicant sect, that had originated
in Mesopotamia around A.D. 300 and thence spread into
Armenia. The radical form of asceticism which they
preached maintained that the key to the problem of human
salvation was a complete break with the world: a denial of
literally every form of labor or activity that belonged to the
world. In A.D. 447, the Armenian council of Shahapivan for
the purpose of removing all the pagan survivals still
persisting in the life of the people, dealt predominantly with
moral questions, with the reformation of the church, which
had yet not been rid of the ancient pagan customs and
traditions. Some of the canons of the council are specifically
concerned with several sects. This process of reformation
was in actual fact put into motion by Mesrob Mashtots
himself. In his compilation of sermons called Yacha-
khapatoum (sermons to be repeated often) he sets into
motion a process that lead him directly to the urgent need of
inventing an Armenian alphabet. Tradition and doctrine in
primitive Christianity were transmitted primarily by
preaching, teaching and conversing. Writing and reading for
religious purposes, though not unknown, were much less
valued than oral communication. Reading, writing and
commenting upon sacred texts only became important when
internal controversies reached intolerable intensity. A
religion orally transmitted leaves no traces--until the written
phase is reached. The early translations of the Scriptures
mark the beginning to the written phase of Christianity. The
apostle authorship of Scripture was now the major criterion
of the church's authority. A systematic reading of the Bible
was to start in about the middle of the second century,
followed by house to house visitation by instructors reading
Christian texts aloud. 'The God-fearing man should consider
it a great loss if he does not go to the place in which they
give instruction, and especially if he knows to read' wrote
Hippolytus (c. A.D. 2l7). In the Yachakhapatoum sermons
(c. 43l) Mesrob Mashtots in his own words sets himself the
task not only unrestingly and unceasingly to teach and
enlighten the people, but also that the people themselves
have the opportunity to read and know. It was this
motivation that drove Mesrob to crown his missionary work
with the invention of the Armenian alphabet, followed by the
translation of the Scriptures, and finally in words of his
biographer Koriwn to "prepare diverse, easily understood and
gracious sermons, full of the light and essence of the
prophetic books and illustrations of the true evangelical
faith". The purpose of these sermons was "to make
intelligible even to fools and to those distracted by secular
things, to revive, to awaken, and to convince them of the
rewards that have been promised". For Mesrob Mashtots and
his disciples it was clear that unable to restrict theological
inquiry, theological discussions presupposed a good
knowledge of relevant texts.
In the context of the Byzantine Empire, followed by that of
the Arab Caliphate, two powerful movements namely the
Paulicians; and the Tondrakians played an important role
both religiously and politically. The appearance of the two
movements within the framework of medieval Armenian
religious and secular history should be seen as part of the
general revival, economic and cultural whose origins can be
discerned as early as the eighth century. The emergence of
the Paulicians on the eve of the Arab invasion of Armenia,
A.D. 640-42 and the emergence of the Tondrakians in the
840's were expressions of vitality arising in the new social
forms, and rise of cities, expending commerce. Religion
which had a great impact on daily life, and at the same time
the secularization of society forced movements like the
Tondrakians to advocate a return to apostolic times, the
preaching of poverty, the intention to free the church from its
enslavement to wordly ambition and wealth, protest against
the authority of the hierarchy, against the abuse of
sacraments, corruption among the clergy, are all factors
which could arouse the emotions and fervor of not only the
laity, but also of intellectuals like Grigor Narekatsi (945?-
1003) and Anania Narekatsi (10th century). The non-
theological aims of the movements inspired panic in the
hierarchy of the church and the secular rulers whose policies
towards the powerful neighbors were deemed unacceptable.
The hidden revulsion created by the rather cavalier attempts
to enforce religious conformity expressed itself through
various heterodox movements such as Paulicianism,
Tondrakianism, and Iconoclasm.
The persons who introduced Iconoclasm had no intention, I
am sure, of altering dogma: they were simply anxious to
correct what they saw as a devotional abuse. Only as the
dispute spread and deepened was theology dragged into it.
The use of icons penetrated Christian practice imperceptibly
and practically unopposed. The patristic tradition, explicit as
it was in condemning pagan idolatry, had almost nothing to
say about Christian imagery, which is why, it was never
censured by any council of the Church. By the eighth
century no one had any clear recollection of how or when the
use of icons had been introduced. So the Armenian
iconoclasts who sided with the Paulicians against the
Armenian Church did so not because of christological
differences but in protest against what they considered an
undue involvement of the Armenian hierarchy in the power
struggle between Byzantium and Persia over Armenia and a
corresponding neglect of its spiritual duties. The moderation
in the use of images in the church was based on the idea that
sanctity belonged to persons not to things. The Iconoclasts
saw in the religious images unlawful rivals to the Christian
ascetic. This dual protest against the secular clergy and
against holy images, turned the Armenian movement into a
sectarian movement which soon came to reject the
sacraments and thus failed in its attempt to capture the
Church. Church fathers Vrthanes Karthogh and Hovhannes
Mayragometsi considered the Armenian movement primarily
in the light of their hostility to images, ignoring totally the
movements emphasis on asceticism.
In the Kingdom of Cilician Armenia (1098-1375) Armenian
kings did try to achieve Cilician-Armenian ecclesiastical
identification in an attempt to secure union with the Roman
Catholic Church. The Union with Rome, inaugurated in
1184 by Pope Lucius III and consolidated by Celestine III in
1198, was implemented on the Armenian side largely for
political and diplomatic reasons by the ruling class in Cilicia,
and never commanded the adhesive of the majority of
Armenians living outside the Kingdom. The Latin
interference into Armenian affairs through the establishments
of the Fratres Unitores, Franciscan and Dominican missions
in Cilicia and Greater Armenia generated even greater ill-
will towards Rome. The decisions of the council of Sis
(1307) to force union/or accommodation with Rome which
was reconfirmed at subsequent councils at Adana 13l6 and at
Sis in 1342, resulted in recriminations, counter-council, civil
disobedience, governmental repression and schism. The
problem involved politics as well as religion. The union was
in the eyes of the clergy of Greater Armenia open to
question. While the government sought political advantages,
the clergy of the Gladjor University criticized the pro-
unionist party and rejected the Union with Rome. They did
this on theological grounds. Beginning with Nerses
Shnorhali (c. 1102-1173), the clergy of Greater Armenia--led
by powerful figures like Esayi Nchetsi (rector of Gladjor
University), David Sasnetsi, Stepannos Orbelian and others--
defied the Catholicos and the king and abandoned the Union.
Once again the Armenian theologians proved that, while they
were prepared to contemplate the mending of the rent in the
church, they needed assurances that its true Orthodox faith
is not compromised. The polemical and often repeated
sterile accusation that Armenians rejected the council of
Chalcedon--because " the defective rendering of Greek terms
into Armenian and the imperfect knowledge of the
proceedings of the council of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon
(451)"--was once again proved beyond any doubt to be
wrong. The arguments that recurred in the debates with the
Chalcedonian churches were repeated in the course of the
debates of the twelfth century, but which the Armenians
could not accept. The Greek Orthodox church also in 1282
renounced the Union of Lyons (1274).
The Armenian theologian and church historian Erwand
vardapet Ter Minassian in 1910 published a substantial
document called Hayots Ekeghetsou Veranorogutean
Khndire [The question of the renewal of the Armenian
church] in which he systematically considers the state of the
Armenian church on the question of doctrine, worship,
sacraments, and hierarchy. The interesting aspect of the
document is that after the first two installments had been
published in the official journal of the Etchmiadzin
Catholicate Ararat (May-June, 1908), on the instruction of
Archbishop Gevorg Sureniants, the remaining installments
were mutilated and never printed. An article rejected the
criticism levelled against the church was published by an
author calling himself "Batsakay Miaban" [absent member].
Erwand Ter Minassian then send a letter of complaint to the
newly elected Catholicos Ter Matheos II of Constantinople
(1908-19l0) requesting explanation for the imposition of
censorship upon his views (2nd June 1909). After the death
of Catholicos Matheos II, and with the election of Georg V
Sureniants (19ll-1930), this highly educated member of the
Armenian church, Erwand Ter Minassian, left the church for
secular life. The document itself and the suggestions it
contains for the "renewal" of the Armenian church is highly
unsatisfactory, coming from an intellectual of his standing.
The reforms postulated are those of a mind trained in the
western Protestant school of thought and on the face of it
totally rejectable. But it does raise fundamental religious
questions concerned with the individual conscience, society
in general, and even political life in all of its manifestations.
This living connection lends a particular social interest to the
study and understanding of sects.
The movements in the Armenian church were not all the
results of personality flaws or the voiced opinion of vain and
prideful men. Rather attempt by the church to accommodate
the teachings of the church to the prevailing thought forms
and cultural values of the society in which the church found
itself. These religious movements have been an integral part
of the Armenian church, and their growth is a phenomenon
which runs side by side with, often directly influencing, such
well-known developments as the rise of authority, the growth
of canon law, discipline, and the nature of church-state
relations.
=====================================
Postscript to "Sects in Armenian History"
Editors' Note: According to the order of their citation in the
article, presented here are a brief description of each sect or
movement.
Sadducees -- A Jewish political-religious sect during the time
of Christ. They rejected the oral tradition of interpretation as
developed among the Pharisees and accepted the written Law
only. They attacked the Apostles for preaching the
resurrection of Christ, since they did not believe in
retribution in an afterlife and in the resurrection of the body.
Pharisees -- A Jewish religious party. Unlike the Sadducees,
they interpreted the Mosaic Law according to its application
to different situations and regarded oral interpretation with
the same level as the written law. Christ repeatedly
denounced them for their mere external observance of the
Law, their formalistic precepts of it and their self-
righteousness.
Donatists -- (4th century) A schismatic movement in the
African Church, that separated from the catholic Church over
the issue of traditions, i.e. Christians who surrendered the
Scriptures when their possession was forbidden in the
persecution of Diocletian. Donatist held that the Church of
the saints must remain 'holy' and that sacraments conferred
by traitors were invalid.
Arianism -- (4th century) Originated by Arius, Bishop of
Alexandria--the heresy which denied the true Divinity of
Jesus Christ. The heresy taught that the Son of God was not
eternal but created by the Father from nothing as an
instrument for the creation of the world. Christ was not God
by nature, but a creature and his dignity as Son was bestowed
to him by the Father on account of His foreseen abiding
righteousness.
Nestorians -- Originated by Nestorius (d. c. 451) Bishop of
Constantinople--the false teaching that there were two
separate Persons in the Incarnate Christ, the one Divine and
the other Human, as opposed to the orthodox doctrine that
the Incarnate Christ was one Person, at once God and man.
Nestorianism was characterized by the rejection of the term
Theotokos (birth-giver-of-God) referred to the Virgin Mary.
Monophysites -- (Gk. 'one-nature') Monophysitism is the
doctrine that taught one Divine nature in the Person of the
Incarnate Christ, as opposed to the orthodox teaching that
Christ is Perfect God and Perfect Man in one Person. One of
the most extremists of monophysites was Eutyches (d. 454)
who was anathematized by the Church, including the
Armenian Church.
Monothelites -- (Gk. 'one-will') A 7th century heresy
confessing only one will in Christ, as opposed to two wills,
Divine and Human. The heresy was of political rather than
of religious origin, being designed to rally the Monophysites
to the catholic Church.
Zoroastrianism - The dominant religion of Persia, especially
during the Sassanian dynasty (A.D. 211-640), is a system of
religious doctrine ascribed to Zoroaster. He taught that the
world was made by one 'Wise Lord' with the help of his Spirit
and six other divine spirits or attributes of God. These spirits
work against the Evil Spirit, who is also helped by six other
spirits and tempts man to wrong.
Manichaeans - Originated by Mani (c. 216-276), a Persian,
the sect is a mixture of Zoroasterianism, Gnosticism and
Christianity. Mani was a dualist and taught that the world
battled between the principles of spirit and matter, good and
evil, light and darkness, heaven and earth in which the
activities of a life-giving spirit, passionless Christ and
suffering Jesus are manifested. Manichaeism was spread
especially in the fourth and fifth centuries.
Messalians --Also known as the Euchites, is a pietistic
mendicant sect, originated in the Middle East (after the
middle of the 4th century). 'Messalians' is derived from a
Syriac word meaning 'praying people'. They believed that in
consequence to Adam's sin everyone had a demon
substantially united with his soul, and that this demon, which
was not expelled by baptism, was completely liberated only
by concentrated and ceaseless prayer. They also stressed the
efficacy of ascetic practice.
Encratites-- A term used to describe several groups of early
Christians who carried their ascetic practice and doctrine to
extremes which were in most cases considered heretical.
They commonly rejected the use of wine and flesh-meat, and
sometimes marriage.
Montanists - Originated by a 'prophet' Montanus--an
apocalyptic movement (latter half of 2nd century) that lived
in expectation of the speedy outpouring of the Holy Spirit on
the Church, of which it saw the first manifestation in its own
prophets and prophetesses. As such, it disallowed second
marriages, condemned the regulations on fasting as too lax,
imposing a discipline of its own, and forbade flight in
persecution.
Novatianists -- Originated by a Roman presbyter Novatian--
rigorist schismatics in the Western Church, who depreached
concessions to those who had compromised with paganism,
during the time of Pope Cornelius (c. 251). The movement
arose out of the persecution of Christians by Emperor Decius
(A.D. 249-50).
Borborites -- A libertine Gnostics sect which flourished from
the 2nd to the 5th centuries.
Paulicians -- The name of the sect is derived from Paul of
Samosata. A sect which professed a Dualistic doctrine,
distinguishing between the good God, the Lord of Heaven
and creator of souls, and the evil God, the Demiurge and
ruler of the material universe. Holding all matter to be evil,
they denied the reality of Christ's Body and of the
Redemption and considering Christ's most important work
His teaching. Paulicians repudiated the Old Testament and
held St. Luke and the Pauline Epistles in particular esteem.
The origins of the sect are obscure. It is believed that their
founder was Constantine of Mananali, who established a
Paulician community in Armenia under Constantius II (641-
68). In the 9th century they suffered persecution under
Emperor Leo the Armenian, and later by Empress Theodora.
Tondrakians -- Founded by a Smbat, the sect takes its name
from the village of Tondrak, Armenia (c. 9th century). The
Tondrakian heretics rejected the authority of the Armenian
Church's form of baptism, the eucharist and marriage.
Particularly, they did not admit such Orthodox practices as
fasts, the offering of sacrifice, ordination of priests and
celebration of holy days.
Iconoclasm -- (Gk. 'image-breaker') A major controversy on
the veneration of icons against the Greek Church (c. 725-
842), which was accused of worshiping 'idols'. The
controversy eventually became a political issue and is seen as
the last step towards the great schism between East and
West before the actual breach in the 11th century.
