The Armenian and the Roman Catholic Churches in the Last Three Centuries

In Armenian history, the Cilician period is known as the time when relations with Western Christianity, and therefore with the Roman Church, became more intense. Roughly speaking, we can identify four main tendencies in this relationship beginning in the fourteenth century. These tendencies coexisted and challenged one another within the Armenian Church, with the balance of power varying depending on time and place, and with no clear demarcation lines. The present article focuses primarily on historical matters. If the historical events considered here have or may have any theological implications, this is a subject for scholarly and theological research, which is beyond the scope of this paper. It should also be noted that the purpose of the present research is not to delve into historical details or provide a report on events. Rather, the aim is to gain a deeper understanding of, and provide an explanation for, the general trends, basic dynamics and inner dialectics of the relationship between Armenian and Roman Christianity over the centuries. The paper mainly focuses on more recent times, especially Mkhit‘ar and his Mkhit‘arist (Mekhitarist) Congregation, and the unique ecclesiology that inspired Mkhit‘ar. This often caused him and his successors trouble with Rome, as their ecclesiology seemed far from the rigorous vision of a fully “orthodox” Catholic ecclesiology at that time. It is worth noting that Mkhit‘ar’s ecclesiological vision survived mainly in the Venetian branch of his order. However, the dedication to preserving and promoting the Armenian language and culture has always been the basis and inspiration for both branches’ apostolate. It may be presumed that the difference in ecclesiological vision and approach was one of the reasons for the 1773 separation, when a group of monks first went to Trieste and then to Vienna. However, reliable studies on this subject are lacking. Due to his ante-litteram ecumenical vision of inter-Church relations, Mkhit‘ar did not agree with the creation of a distinct Armenian Catholic Patriarchate, which would definitively seal the demarcation line between the two main tendencies within the Armenian Church. Therefore, when Benedict XIV established the Armenian Catholic Patriarchate of Cilicia, Mkhit‘ar immediately ordered his disciples not to discuss the matter further under threat of canonical sanctions. Nonetheless, following the failure of the union attempts of 1809 and 1820 due to opposition from the extremist factions on both sides, the Mkhit‘arists of Venice also presented the necessity of a distinct Armenian Catholic Hierarchy in the Ottoman capital and empire to the Sublime Porte. Otherwise, the Armenians who had united with Rome risked being Latinised, since they were unable to attend Armenian churches due to the prohibition of communication in sacris . As Cardinal Willebrands clearly pointed out in his masterful speech in 1977, this was indeed the objective of Latin missionaries working in the Middle East: the Latinisation of Armenians in communion with Rome, mainly for poor economic reasons. The article concludes with a brief overview of the significant educational and cultural contributions made by both branches of the Mkhit‘arist Order to the Armenian nation.