The Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, Archbishop Sahak II Mashalyan, recently put forward a new initiative. Amid the tensions between the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin and the Armenian authorities, he proposes creating a new synodal council that would also include those clergy who have aligned with the Prime Minister’s positions. According to the Patriarch, the Supreme Spiritual Council has lost its authority, and this initiative would restore the Church’s internal unity and create a platform for prudent resolution of issues. The step has elicited varied reactions in Armenia: some see it as an attempt to ensure unity, while many view it as a risk.
The Canonical Foundations of the AAC Exclude a Synodal System
Member of the Supreme Spiritual Council of the Mother See, Doctor of Law, Professor Gevorg Danielyan emphasizes: The canonical foundations of the Armenian Apostolic Church simply exclude a synodal system or the formation of a body based on its principles.
“The synodal principle of church self-governance has historically been implemented with the overt intention of placing intra-church self-governance in direct dependence on external forces. It is characteristic that the synodal system was introduced in 1807–1836 through the efforts of the Ottoman Empire, and in 1836–1917 — established in tsarist Russia by the so-called ‘Polozhenie’,” Danielyan noted.
According to him, the synodal system is essentially adapted not for self-governance, but for creating an imitation of a consultative body through which external forces impose direct dictation and control — a method used at the time by Turkey, and later by tsarist Russia, and this is a historical reality. Danielyan stresses that the synodal system also lacks any dogmatic or theological justification.
Is the Patriarch of Constantinople Driven by Personal Ambitions?
Editor-in-Chief of Istanbul’s “Zhamanak” newspaper Ara Kochunyan, in turn, emphasizes: “Acceptance of externally imposed directives in church or other matters would mean endangering the freedom of conscience and autonomy of the Church.”
According to Kochunyan, Patriarch Mashalyan’s initiative does not stem from either the governance system of the Armenian Apostolic Church or the spirit of the statement adopted by the Episcopal Assembly.
“I do not wish to exaggerate the issue, but at this moment the situation creates the impression that the Patriarch of Constantinople is guided by personal ambitions,” says Kochunyan, while at the same time expressing hope that, upon calmly reassessing the situation, the Patriarch will return to the field of normal relations.
He is convinced that the centuries-old bond between the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin and the Patriarchate of Constantinople cannot be broken. “The Patriarchal See of Constantinople has traditionally been under the spiritual protection of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, and breaking this bond would in practice mean exclusion from the fullness of the Armenian Apostolic Church. The Constantinople community is traditionalist and is unlikely to tolerate such developments,” Kochunyan noted.