The Rejection of the Chalcedonian Definition and the Historical Development of Armenian Christology in VII-X cc.

2. The Rejection of the Chalcedonian Definition and the Historical Development of Armenian Christology in VII-X cc.

In order to understand what has been discussed above, for the contemporary reading some historical remarks and details will be needed. In this case the historical significance of the doctrine of Christ in the Armenian tradition implies the necessary periodisation, i. e. the discernment of main historical moments or events which were decisive on the way of Armenian Christology’s “crystallization”. Hence, from the historical perspective we should first of all proceed by separating two main periods: a. pre-Chalcedonian and b. post-Chalcedonian. This division is due also to the documentary evidences on the formation and development of Armenian Christology[35]. The documents for the pre-Chalcedonian period were mainly preserved in the Book of Letters, representing the formation period of the Armenian Christology. There remain also some theological treatises from the same period (not included in the Book of Letters) which we had discussed above[36]. The group of documents, representing the pre-Chalcedonian period of Armenian Christology, was stretching between 431/432 and 451/452. As noted above, that earliest stage of formation or rather the doctrinal background of Armenian Christology had its roots in the theological heritage of Alexandria and Cappadocia[37], comprising meanwhile some important Christological terms and expressions from the Syriac speaking patristic tradition. Yet for the post-Chalcedonian period it is important not to lose sight of the “gradual” character of rejection of the council of Chalcedon[38]. The first attested explicit official-counciliar decision against Chalcedon appeared at the Second Council of Duin in 555, during the Catholicate of Nerses II Bagrevandatc’i (548-557)[39]. In all the previous official letters and documents (491-554) there is not any explicit rejection of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, but rather the confirmation of the Armenian position against Nestorius and his teachings. It is true especially for the second letter of the Catholicos Babgen I (507/508)[40] where the birth of Nestorian heresy was closely associated with the Council of Chalcedon[41], yet without any allusion to the anathematization or rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. On the other side at the same Council of Duin (506) the adherence to Henotikon became official[42]. It was perhaps one of the main reasons why the Armenian authors maintained the “position of absolute silence” on the issue of Chalcedon in the 5^th, and even at the beginning of the 6^th centuries.

After the condemnation of Chalcedon at the council of Duin in 555 the rejection of Chalcedonian formula fidei proved to be the official attitude. The new ecclesial and theological transformations appeared in the bosom of Transcaucasian churches. The division of Armenian and Georgian churches under the pretext of the Council of Chalcedon caused the new and even more rigid attitudes against the council of Chalcedon. In his letter to the Georgian Catholicos Kiwrion (595-610) the locum tenens Vrťanes Kerťoł (604-607) accused him of having received as orthodox the Tome of Leo and the council of Chalcedon[43]. Moreover, the newly elected Armenian Catholicos Abraham I (607-611) convened the new Council in Duin in 607 where, with the election of new Catholicos, the six new canons against the council of Chalcedon were inserted in the agenda of the same council[44]. In 608-609, after a certain period of discussions and correspondences with Kiwrion, Abraham I edited the official Encyclical, having excommunicated the Georgian Catholicos as adherent to the Council of Chalcedon and having described Chalcedon as “turning away from truth”[45].

The final condemnation and rejection of the council of Chalcedon by the Catholicos Abraham I was indeed the last point of what we called the “gradual” condemnation of Chalcedon in the Armenian Church. For the centuries to come the Armenian official position vis-à-vis the Council of Chalcedon remained without any changes or modifications. Nevertheless, the emergence of Monothelitism (Monoenergism) and the new context of Armeno-Syrian relations added some nuances and reformulations to the Christological position of the Armenian Church in the 7^th -8^th centuries. The union between the Armenian Catholicos Ezr (630-641) and the Emperor Heraclius (610-641) at the synod of Theodosiopolis (Arm. Karin) in 631-633 was based on the Monoenergist formula[46]. According to the historian Sebeos (VII c.), the official document signed by Heraclius himself and sent to the Catholicos Ezr, was “anathematizing Nestorius and all heretics; but it did not anathematize the council of Chalcedon”[47]. The successor of Ezr, Nerses III the Builder (641-661) retained the union until the council of Duin rejected it in 648-649. However, the issue of Armeno-Byzantine union was revitalized once more by the arrival of the Emperor Constans (641-668) to Duin in 654. The Catholicos Nerses III shared the communion with the emperor and again compiled with Chalcedon[48]. The union initiated by Heraclius on the base of the Monoenergist formula finally was abandoned forever when the Arab troops conquered Armenia and reversed the political situation in the region[49].

The Monoenergist discussions gave birth to the different anti-Monothelite and pro-Monothelite groups and schools in Armenia whose activities and positions were indeed beyond the traditional Christological position of Armenian Church. There are two important records on the Christological situation in Armenia, closely related to the famous council of Theodosiopolis: the letter (632/633) of Armenian vardapet (doctor)Maťusała (Methuselah) to the Emperor Heraclius[50] and the theological treatise of the nephew of Catholicos Ezr on his mother’s side, Tʼēodoros Kʼrťenawor (d. c. 680) against the disciples of the seventh-century Armenian controversial theologian, Yovhannēs Mayragomecʼi, adherents to the extreme branch of Julianism[51]. In these two documents were explained some objections with respect to the union of Theodosiopolis and were totally rejected the extreme expressions of some docetic conceptions concerning the body and humane nature of Christ.

Two other eminent Armenian Church leaders enclosed the process of crystallization and definite formation of the Armenian Christology in the 7^th-8^th centuries. Their theological activities were marked with the apologies and debates against the extreme julianistes, the Armenian aphtartodocets, the iconoclasts and the sect of Paulicians. Armenian Catholicos St. Yovhan Odznecʼi (717-728) with his collaborator Xosrovik Tʼargmanič and St. Stepʼanos Siwnecʼi (Stephen, Bishop of Siwnikʼ, c. 685-735)[52] played the decisive role in the formation of Armenian Christology, having opened equally the door to the further dialogues both with Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches. The works of all these theologians focused on the orthodox interpretation of the doctrine of Incorruptibility which subsequently applied also some details of liturgical polemics for the defense of Armenian traditional azymes practice during the Holy Liturgy[53]. Finally the Synod of Manazkert in 726, initiated by the Catholicos St. Yovhan Odznecʼi and Syrian patriarch Athanasius (724-740), solemnly proclaimed the doctrinal union of Armenian and Syriac Churches which were hitherto in constant contradictions regarding the doctrine of Incorruptibility. Although the main issue of the Council was the union of Armenian and Syriac churches, according to different historical records one could presume the assembled bishops tried also to resolve the theological problems raised by the pro-Monothelite parties[54]. In the ten canons, established by the Fathers of Synod, a full half must have been interdictions against the different docetic fractions, issued from the disciples of Mayragomecʼi, canons sixth and ninth target possibly the Severian positions, and finally fourth and fifth are the sanctions against those dividing the union[55]. Hence, the long way of discussions and debates on the Severian-Julianiste controversy was ended for the Armenians and Syrians at the Synod of Manazkert. The admitted consensus obviously redirected both Armenian and Syrian Christologies to the common and mutually shared formula fidei. It is on the basis of the latter that the Armenians continued their own dialogue with Byzantines over the next centuries.

In the 8^th-11^th centuries Armenian Church entered into a more intense and decisive period of relationships with the Byzantine Orthodox Church[56]. This new dialogue inachevé started by the Letter of Germanos, Patriarch of Constantinople (c.655-c.740/750), brought to Armenia by Stephen of Siwnikʼ. The Letter of Germanos (preserved only in Armenian) and the response of Stephen of Siwnikʼ were indeed the most significant sources on the newly initiated theological dialogue in the 8^th century. It is important also to mention that beside the Christological issues the response of Stephen opened a new liturgical topic in the history of Armeno-Byzantine quarrel, i.e. the Armenian liturgical tradition of pure wine of chalice and its rejection by the Quinisexte Council of Trullo in 692[57]. Over the next centuries the Armenian liturgical peculiarities, i.e. the use of azymes and pure wine of chalice during Divine Liturgy were discussed as closely connected with the Christological position of the Armenian Church. The “liturgical argument” for the Christological explorations soon became almost the most applied counter-argument for the Armenian theologians so as to defend the doctrine of incorruptibility. The Christological transformation of the noted “liturgical argument” was insistently approved in the theological reflections of the 9^th-10^th-centuries authors. To mention briefly some examples, we will refer to the works of Sahak Vardapet (called also Mruť, IX c.) and Anania Naregac’i (X c.).

In his theological letter, composed as response to the letter of Patriarch Photius to the Armenian Lord Ašot, Sahak stands firm on the traditional usage of the “commixture of natures”: “…while offering the life giving sacrifice, we recognize it as the Body and the Blood of Christ in the way that it does not belong to any simple man. For the simple body cannot be life giving, as attested by the Lord himself (cf. John 6:63)….It is thus the Word sent by the Father and accordingly it is His body we are sharing in communion. Yet, if the natures are divided, as you are insisting on, it is clear that those sharing His body in communion and eating the life giving body….will share and eat only the human flesh, and that is horrible even to admit…”[58]. In the apology of Anania Naregac’i, “The Root of Faith”[59], the liturgical signification of the doctrine of incorruptibility is treated to a large extent. “How shall I show you the greatness of the Lord’s body”, argues Anania, “but only in the light of the undivided and unconfused union”[60]. The body of Christ is therefore resulting from the unconfused union, for “it is only by the mean of that body that we can have communion with God”[61]. If one considers two divided natures in Christ, then the communion with God, according to Anania, will be impossible and will be deprived of its divino-human character[62].

In the next centuries the theological quarrels and debates between Armenians and Byzantines, regardless of their apologetical and polemical expressions, contributed largely to the creation of an atmosphere where both sides sought to continue the diachronous dialogue. Later, in the 12^th and 13^th centuries the in-depth theological dialogues and correspondences began. In fact, that was the time of close relationships between two Churches when not only the ecclesiastical authorities, but also Byzantine state were engaged in the realization of the mutual recognition of one and same Orthodox faith.

⇐ Предыдущая 1 234 5 Следующая ⇒