[1] The election of a Catholicos of All Armenians has always aroused a great deal of interest in Armenian circles, since the clergyman bearing that title is not only the head of a church but also the symbol of an ancient legacy, as well as of the unity and nationhood of a Christian people. The Catholicos of All Armenians is not merely the pastor of an anonymous flock of Christians, but the spiritual leader of all Armenians--who made up the first nation in the world to adopt Christianity as its state religion, and who still comprise a Christian nation today.
The Catholicos of All Armenians represents the Apostolic succession in Armenia, where through a line of bishops succeeding each other the ministry of the Christian Church, assigned to the Apostles by Jesus Christ, has been transmitted to the present. It is inconceivable to imagine a Church of Armenia without the office of "chief bishop" or "catholicos of Armenia." Without the episcopate, the Christians of Armenia would be under the jurisdiction of a neighboring see; without it Armenia would have become a missionary field for the Byzantine or the Syriac churches, and Armenian Christianity today would not have a distinct identity. On the other hand, it stands to reason that the Christians in Armenia, having acquired an identity (as did happen at some point in the remote past) would definitely feel the urge to set up a distinct see of their own. Historically, the identity of Armenian Christianity became apparent from the time when Christians were still a persecuted minority in Armenia. Eusebius of Caesarea, the father of church history, informs us that in the mid-third century the Christians in Armenia had a bishop named Meruzanes. Dionysius, a renowned church father and bishop of Alexandria, wrote a letter, "On Repentance," to those in Armenia (2). The name Meruzanes, the Grecized form of the Armenian name Mehruzhan, was in wide circulation among the members of the Artsruni clan, and clearly indicates that the bearer of that appellation was of Armenian origin. From Eusebius' passing statement [2] about him, it is also obvious that he was the spiritual leader of the Christians in Armenia who invited upon himself and his flock the attention of a church father living in distant Egypt. There is also no reason to think that he was the first bishop of Armenia. His existence in Armenia in the mid-third century as well as early references in Syriac sources to Christian activity in southern Armenia suggest that Meruzanes was preceded by other bishops. Current tradition in the early fifth century, when Armenian literature began, traced the origins of the Apostolic succession in Armenia back to the first century, to the Apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew. The circulation of the Armenian translation of the Doctrine of Addai--which concerns the conversion of King Abgar of Edessa--from a Syriac original, and the composition of an Armenian "Life of St. Thaddeus" indicate the popularity and emergence of the doctrine of the Apostolic succession in fifth-century Armenia, but tell us nothing about bishops of the pre-Gregorid period. A medieval list containing several names, and others preserved in a few late medieval historical works, have been shown to be early fourteenth-century fabrications (3). The information of Eusebius, however, is in all likelihood authentic, since his lifetime (c. 260-340) would have made him a late contemporary of Bishop Meruzanes/Mehruzhan. We are, however, absolutely in the dark about the circumstances of Meruzanes' ascent to the episcopal throne. The earliest account of such an ascension is related in the dramatic story of St. Gregory the Illuminator.
Then king Tiridates, with his wife, queen Ashkhen, and his sister Khosrovidukht, ordered a gathering to be summoned of all his [3] army. And straightway from every region, following his command, they came to the rendezvous at the city of Vagharshapat in the province of Ayrarat; the king also journeyed thither. The whole army came together, and the magnates and prefects, provincial governors, dignitaries and notables, leaders and nobles, princes and freemen, judges and officers, and they mustered before the king (4).Agathangelos further states that "the king held a council with them all," that is to say, the soldiers as well as their leaders and proposed to make Gregory their pastor. Gregory at first rejected the king's offer, arguing that the office of guide and intermediary between God and men was very sublime, deserving someone worthy of it:
But Gregory would not agree to accept the honor of the high priesthood, saying: "I am unable to undertake this because of its immeasurable height. For this honor of the glory given by Christ of being guide and intermediary between God and men is ineffable. But let them seek and find one who is worthy (5).At that point both Trdat and Gregory had separate visions. Trdat was told by an angel to hasten to have Gregory ordained a bishop, and Gregory was urged not to persist in rejecting Christ's command:
However, there then appeared a wonderful vision from God to the king; he saw the angel of God speaking to him and saying: "You must without delay have Gregory ordained to the high priesthood, so that he may illuminate you by baptism." Similarly the vision of God's angel appeared to Gregory to prevent him from persisting in this matter: "For this," he said, "has been commanded you by Christ." Then he was convinced and straightway said: "May God's will be accomplished" (6).From Agathangelos' account one gets the impression that Gregory was appointed as chief bishop at an annual gathering of the royal and the feudal detachments under the command of the nobility. The king, reinforced by the presence of the queen and his sister, is said to have urged those present to appoint Gregory as the spiritual head of the kingdom:
[4] The king held a council with them all, urging them to become heirs to good works: "Come," he said, "let us hurry to make as our pastor Gregory, this guide of our lives given us by God, so that he can illuminate us with baptism and as a teacher of the law renew us by the sacrament of God our creator" (7).Although there is no indication that the magnates and the army gave their approval to the king's choice, the fact that Trdat held a council with the nobility points to an early fourth-century tradition or practice whereby the king of Greater Armenia proposed the name of the first candidate for the office of chief bishop of Armenia, and the nobility as well as the soldiery gathered at the army camp in Vagharshapat somehow expressed their consent after which the designated person was then sent to Caesarea to be ordained a bishop (8).
[5] Pseudo-P'awstos first refers to the role of the princes in the electoral process only after Husik's death, when it was realized that there were no available candidates from the house of Gregory, He states: "At that time the king and the princes and the whole of the realm took counsel as to whom they might find worthy of the dignity [of the office of the chief bishop]" (14). The choice of the princes was a certain elderly bishop called Danie'l, but the process through which he was designated was clearly not an election. Pseudo-P'awstos says that the feudal lords "took counsel, and persuaded the king to summon the elder Danie'l to his camp so that they might establish him as their chief spiritual-leader and install him on the patriarchal throne" (15). From this it becomes clear that the council of the feudal lords was not an electorate. It merely advised the king to come to a decision and carry out his will. The same process led P'ar'e'n to ascend the throne of chief bishop, since unlike Danie'l, he accepted the king's offer: "At that time they deemed worthy a certain priest named P'ar'e'n from the district of Tar'on...And so they summoned him to the king, and the king sent him out with gifts and letters-patent" (16).
Pseudo-P'awstos emphasizes the role of the council-of-the-realm at the time of the appointment of Shahak, a bishop from the south and a descendant of Bishop Aghbianos--who was a contemporary of St. Gregory--as chief bishop of Armenia. He states:
Then, at that time, the council-of-the-realm deliberated as to who should hold the patriarchal kat'olikate. Then, since there was no one worthy of this dignity from the house of Grigor, they designated a certain Shahak from the house of the descendants of Bishop Aghbianos (17).The designation in Shahak's case differed from the earlier ones, as it involved a clergyman who was neither from nor affiliated with the house of St. Gregory. Bishop Danie'l, though not related to St. Gregory by blood, had been a pupil of his (18), and P'ar'e'n, who was a priest from the great martyrium of St. John in Tar'on (19), was somehow connected with Gregory's family (20) or was probably a protege of his, since Gregory himself had built the martyrium and established priests there (21). It is obvious that the transfer of the office of the chief bishop from the family of St. Gregory to that of Aghbianos required serious deliberation on the part of the king and his magnates. Aghbianos, the first of a line of bishops from Manazkert in the south, had originally been a pagan priest.
[6] The return of the family of St. Gregory to the office of chief bishop of Armenia once again brought together "the mightiest nahapets of every clan and house--the lords with contingents and banners--all the satraps, naxarars, and azats, the chieftains and princes, the commanders and wardens-of-the-marches," who "assembled in council before King Arshak in one unanimous agreement: that they might come together, consider and take counsel about their spiritual leader: namely, who might be worthy to sit on the patriarchal throne and shepherd Christ's rational flock" (22). The assembly of the magnates "unanimously raised a shout and called out: 'Let Nerse's be our pastor!'" In this situation as well, the final decision to force Nerse's to join the ranks of the clergy came from the king. It was at this time that we also hear about the participation of bishops in the appointment of a new chief bishop (23):
Then the mightiest princes gathered together so that they might take the much desired Nerse's and go [to the place] where it was the custom to consecrate the patriarch. And many Armenian bishops also assembled before the king over this matter and to counsel with the unanimous consent of all that he be chosen; [for] it was pleasing to all that he be placed on the leading throne. With the unanimous agreement and consent of all--the bishops, the king, and the whole of the realm--[the following] set forth and went...(24)After King Arshak deposed Nerse's as chief bishop of Armenia, he set up a certain Ch'unak. Pseudo-P'awstos informs us of the following:
But the holy katholikos Nerse's never saw again the face of King Arshak up to the day of his destruction. And instead of Nerse's, a certain Ch'unak by name was appointed in his place as the head of the Christians... Then the king gave the order to summon all the bishops of the realm of Armenia so that they would come to ordain Ch'unak to the katholikate of Armenia. But not a single one of them agreed to come except only for the bishops of Aghdznik' and Korduk', who came and ordained Ch'unak in accordance with the command of the king (25).In Classical Armenian, the third person plural of the verb--'to appoint' in this case--is frequently used in an impersonal way, and translating it in [7] English in a passive form is appropriate. From the context it is clear that the designation of Ch'unak was made by the king. This practice is even more apparent in the case of Husik II, whom King Pap designated as chief bishop. "After the death of the patriarch Nerse's," says Pseudo-P'awstos, "King Pap installed Bishop Yusik, who was a descendant of Bishop Aghbianos of Manazkert. [The King] ordered him to assume the position of patriarch and to rule in the place of the one whom he had killed, and so he replaced him" (26).
Pseudo-P'awstos says nothing about the election of the three chief bishops--Zawen, Shahak II and Aspurak--who succeeded Husik II (27). His remarks in Book V, 29 make it clear that these prelates were considered to be court bishops who merely had "authority to bless the bread at the royal court" and "sat higher and blessed the king's bread" (28). This leaves little doubt that they were also designated by the king. The circumstances that led St. Sahak the Parthian to the throne of chief bishop of Armenia, however, would have been different, since he was a legitimate heir of the Gregorid dynasty and not a substitute.
The designation of the fourth-century catholicoi, according to the accounts of Agathangelos and Pseudo-P'awstos proceed as follows:
St. Gregory: designated by King Trdat III;Can the accounts of Agathangelos' and Pseudo-P'awstos' regarding the fourth-century catholicoi be accepted as historically accurate? As these [8] authors composed their histories in the 460s and 470s, they were not eyewitnesses to the events that they described; however, they were closer in time to the fourth century than other medieval Armenian writers. Both of these historical works are based on oral traditions and therefore probably preserve recollections of actual events from the fourth century. One should not read Agathangelos and Pseudo-P'awstos with undue literalness, but their statements about the process of designating chief bishops warrant some attention because of the non-canonical nature of the appointments.
St. Aristake's: designated by King Trdat III;
St. Vrt'ane's: presumably designated by King Khosrov II;
St. Husik: presumably designated by King Tiran;
St. Danie'l: designated by King Tiran at the advice of the magnates. Danie'l refused the offer;
P'ar'e'n: designated by King Tiran at the advice of the magnates;
Shahak: elected by the council-of-the-realm and the king;
St. Nerse's: elected by the council of magnates with the consent of King Arshak;
Ch'unak: designated by King Arshak;
Husik II: presumably designated by King Pap;
Zawen: presumably designated by the king;
Shahak: presumably designated by the king;
Aspurak: presumably designated by the king;
St. Sahak: circumstances of designation unknown.
On the basis of the cited passages and others, it has been argued that throughout the fourth century the chief bishops of Armenia were designated by the king and the magnates, since pagan traditions still prevailed in Armenia and prevented the Armenian nobility from learning about and venerating the ecclesiastical traditions in the Christian world, where bishops usually elected their metropolitan bishops (29). The earliest Christian traditions about the election of bishops and prelates were articulated in canon four of the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), which serves as the basis for the traditional electoral process in the early Christian Churches. The canon states:
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishopsl also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan (30).Though we learn from Agathangelos that St. Aristake's, the chief bishop of Armenia, participated in the Council of Nicaea (31), the canons of this Council remained unknown to the Armenians, until a group of Armenian priests, sent to Constantinople to acquire religious texts, returned home with them and those of Ephesus in the early 430s. One of these priests was the writer Koriwn, whose biography of St. Mesrop Mashtots' is our source for the following information:
Then they [Eznik, Koriwn and their two companions] came to the land of Armenia, having brought authentic copies of the God-given book and many subsequent traditions of the worthy church fathers, along with the canons of Nicaea and Ephesus, and placed [9] before the fathers the testaments of the Holy Church which they had brought with them (32).Even if the Nicaean canons had been previously introduced to the Armenians, the Armenian tradition--that is to say, the hereditary nature of the episcopate and the designation of the chief bishop by the king--predated the Council of Nicaea. The remarkable feature of the fourth-century Armenian episcopate was that the office of chief bishop and also that of the suffragan bishop was hereditary. By the fifth century, when the Second Apostolic Canons attributed to Clemens--the seventieth canon of which forbids hereditary offices in the Church (33)--were made available in Armenian, the Armenian tradition was well established and the feudal families had no wish to alter it. Had this not been so, the participants in the Council of Trullo in 692 would not have stated the following in canon XXXIII:
Since we know that, in the region of the Armenians, only those are appointed to the clerical orders who are of priestly descent (following in this Jewish customs); and some of those who are even untonsured are appointed to succeed cantors and readers of the divine law, we decree that henceforth it shall not be lawful for those who wish to bring any one into the clergy, to pay regard to the descent of him who is to be ordained; but let them examine whether they are worthy (according to the decrees set forth in the holy canons) to be placed on the list of the clergy, so that they may be ecclesiastically promoted, whether they are of priestly descent or not...(34)The establishment of Christianity as the state religion of Armenia came about at an early stage of the development of the Christian church. The Christian missionaries who came to Greater Armenia from the south and the west could not have brought with them clearly defined institutions, canons or rules, since the latter were, for the most part, instituted during the course of the fourth, fifth and later centuries. The practices, customs and rites of the church had not yet been canonized. The church in Armenia liberally adapted itself to the local feudal setting and adopted local institutions. Since the conversion of the royal family and the Armenian armies were directly responsible for the Christianization of the Armenian state, the church became a part and parcel of the ruling [10] establishment. In discussing the role of the pre-Christian and Christian clergy in Armenia, N. Adontz makes the following astute observation:
The judicial power or the administration of justice lay in the hands of the Magians or of the clergy in general. With the conversion of the country to Christianity, this passed to the Church, and belonged to the bishop in each province. The authority of bishop Danie'l of Tar'on is defined by Faustus as that of...the office of great justiciar, or high justice. Both the interference of the clergy in political affairs and its great importance in both Armenia and Persia is partly explained by the fact that it served as a judicial institution (35).Unlike their counterparts in the West, the bishops in Armenia were actually members of the nobility. Each clan designated one of its own cadets as its family bishop. Thus the bishop of the Mamikonean clan was actually a prince of the Mamikonean house.
The office of high justice of Armenia was one of the most important services or offices of the kingdom. This as well as other services were entrusted by the king to important feudal families--usually related to the royal dynasty through intermarriage. The offices were held in hereditary succession. For example, the office of the supreme command of the army was held by the Mamikonean clan. The original appointments of clans to the offices were made by the kings (36). Thereafter, each clan, and each family within the clan, preserved its hereditary right to the high offices.
It is important to remember this background information about the nature and structure of Armenian feudalism in order to appreciate fully King Trdat III's designation of Gregory as the first chief bishop of Armenia and his arrangement so that Gregory's two sons were brought to Armenia from Cappadocia. It is obvious that the office of high justice, like all the other offices, was officially given by the king. The Gregorid family was the designated holder of that office. It is also quite clear from P'awstos that the king was also responsible for supervising the smooth transition of authority to the successor of the deceased chief justice. Because of the hereditary nature of the office, if an heir apparent existed, there was no need to designate him: he simply took over for his deceased father.
Unlike the other feudal families, however, the ranks of the Gregorids were thin and the family could not always supply suitable candidates for the sublime office of chief bishop. This caused serious problems, and was [11] partially responsible for the development of the type of an electorate that became traditional in the Armenian Church. The scarcity of candidates from the Gregorid house forced the king to hold council with the nobles in the immediate service of the kingdom and with other magnates from all over the realm. Deliberations were much more in demand when there was a possibility of transferring the office of chief bishop to a family other than that of the Gregorids. The involvement of representatives of all the feudal clans of Armenia in such deliberations also required the presence of the clan bishops as well. These meetings--which included the magnates and the bishops as well as the king--served as precedents for the Armenian Church councils, which first began to convene in the fifth century. Such mixed councils replaced the council of bishops that existed at St. Nerse's' time (37).
The sources emphasize that the agreement among the participants was always unanimous in deciding who should rule as chief bishop. In a feudal context, no one could object to the hereditary right of an heir. But when there was no heir, either the decision of the king prevailed, so that no objections could be raised, or the magnates serving on the king's council had to be unanimous in their choice. Yet we know that the king's will did not always prevail, especially when he trampled on feudal hereditary rights. On at least one occasion, we saw that when King Arshak tried to impose his candidate (namely Ch'unak) who was unacceptable to the magnates, the bishops--obviously supported by their clans--refused to take part in the ordination. This indicates that the same feudal law and tradition which prevailed in the land guided the rules for designating the chief bishops of Armenia.
Return to Historical Sources Menu
Return to History Workshop Menu