AND WHO WILL DEFROCK THE CATHOLICOS?
Story from Lragir.am News:
Published: 13:06:47 – 21/03/2011
We, the undersigned – clergy and laymen alike from the Republic of
Armenia, the Mountainous Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the
Armenian Diaspora – feel it important to express our concerns
regarding he recent dictates from the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin
involving the defrocking of certain clergy. Henceforth, we would like
to bring to light the content and due process of these dictates.
Specifically we would like to highlight the legitimacy of certain,
specific words and terminology used for all these defrockings, which
occurred under the name (and order) of the Patriarchal verdict
(`Hayrapetakan tnorinum’). First of all, what does Patriarchal verdict
(`Hayrapetakan tnorinum’) mean? Neither the will of the Church nor of
the Council of Bishops are included in this expression.
In reality, a Patriarchal verdict is an action by which the Catholicos
becomes an absolute leader, with unlimited powers in disregard to the
existence of any other canonical authority. However, Neither the
Armenian nation nor the Armenian Apostolic Church, knowing human
weakness, have ever granted such `absolute powers’ to anyone.
Controversially, one needs to first consider the word defrocking
(`Karqaluydz’) in Armenian. In reality, that word has never existed in
classical Armenian language.
Therefore, the word `defrocking’ in Armenian has been added at a late
period. Neither the `Haikazyan dictionary, the Norayr Puizandatsi’s
reviewed version of the classical Armenian dictionary, nor the
Peshtemaldjyan’s classical Armenian dictionary published in
Constantinople in 1884, include the word `defrocking’. Interestingly
enough, the word `resignation from the Order’ (`Karqatogh’) exists in
the Grabar of the Golden Age, but not `defrocking’ (`Karqaluydz’),
because our church fathers of the époque had determined that a man
cannot deprive any other man from the grace granted by God. Although
we will return to the aforementioned topic, we would like to focus on
an important principle of Church doctrine which states that an
ordination of a priest is a grace granted by God, and because of this
fact, it is irrevocable.
According to the Church’s understanding, the true priest is Jesus
Christ `…He was priest of God Most Eternal’ (Genesis 14:18). Jesus
Christ is the true priest: who offers the sacrifice, He who is
sacrificed, and He who receives the offer of sacrifice. Hence, this is
the reason why Jesus Christ is named the highest priest and not the
Catholicos nor Supreme Patriarch or any other colorful title-holder.
The Church teaches that priesthood, as in Jesus Christ’s example, is a
vocation established directly by Him in the New Testament. Therefore,
objectively it cannot be subordinate to the ordaining Bishop nor can
it depend upon the resolve of any spiritual or lay authority.
According to the Church, the priest’s ordination is established by
God’s sacrament and not by the rules of man, which can easily be
revoked or reversed.
If we refer to the `Book of Ordination’ (`Tzernadrutyan Mashtots’), on
the basis of which Armenian priests are ordained, we will see that the
vocation of a priest and the granting of graces are by God. So that,
the bishop who ordains or carries out the ordination rite, is simply
performing an official function.
Translating from the `Book of Ordination’, we would like to highlight
a few examples from the prayers and hymns. During the ritual of a
priest’s conferment, the ordaining bishop reads the following advice:
`Our Lord Jesus Christ says the following: No man can come to me,
except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and every man who comes
to me, I do not expel him’.
This means that the Lord is calling the devoted clergyman to the
Ministry of His church, promising not to expel him. No ordinary person
(including the Catholicos) who gives himself divine attribute has the
right or the power to defrock (i.e., expel) a devoted priest from the
church. The Order of clergyman is a sacred mission. The candidate is
ordained by the Holy Spirit as a priest, becoming the people’s
shepherd, Apostles’ fellow, worthy of salvation, and Christ’s heir.
God’s bestowed ministry is sacred and inspiring.
Henceforth, this Order cannot be compared to any secular tasks. The
Ministry of the clergyman is not the same or does not have the same
relationship between a business owner or employer and an employee,
where the employer appreciates or disapproves of the employee. Let us
remember that the candidate consecrated from a deacon to a priest, and
the sanctification of the Calling in him is God the Holy Spirit, and
not the ordaining bishop.
`Almighty Lord God … You bestowed your saints the honor and glory. You
granted in your faithful the grace of the prophecy. You gave to the
people the honor of priesthood. You chose the holy apostles. And in
the Holy Catholic Church, You established orders in different
directions …’
As per this prayer, God is always the only Authority as initiator,
granter, benefactor and bestower of grace. In comparison to other
churches and Christian doctrines, perhaps this is one of the principal
features and spiritual highlights of the Armenian Church’s theological
tradition. During the ordaining ceremony of a priest, one of the most
distinguished hymns festively sung by the deacons is the interceding
prayer directed to Almighty and miraculous God, with three verses
specifically dedicated to the consecrated candidate clergyman on whose
behalf the following request is made:
`Oh Great, Almighty and miraculous God…, we beseech you to raise in
the world the order of priesthood with holy servants and with the
congregation of the holy creed of the church, we beseech……and
furthermore (the name) for the servant, whom you have chosen and
called to the order of priesthood, protect and help him in everything,
we beseech… …Keep him brave and pure in the order of priesthood, with
the patronage of Your mighty hand, from evil temptations, visible and
invisible enemies, we beseech.’
One needs to be blind, not only by vision but also intellectually, not
to see (or to deny) the fact that it is as clear as the sun. In the
`Book of Ordination’ (`Tzernadrutyan Mashtots’), the prayers indicate
that God is the one and only authority who can grant the right to
celebrate and to sanctify, through the salvation of His Son and the
Holy Spirit.
No one can officially revoke an ordinary person’s baptism for whatever
reason, and in essence tell that person that s/he is no longer a
Christian, after that person has been legitimately baptized. No one
can tell a confirmed believer that s/he is denied of the graces
granted to him/her by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, neither a bishop nor
a patriarch nor a Catholicos has the right to defrock an ordained
priest for administrative, organizational or `political’ reasons. Most
importantly, it is unacceptable to place a priest in the lay category
by defrocking him through a `patriarchal order’ (`Hayrapetakan
tnorinum’), by saying: `The defrocked priest, therefore, is classified
into the lay category and re-named into his baptismal name.’If the
ordained priest has accepted the Holy Spirit by the rite of
ordination, has become God’s accomplice, and the minister of the
church, how can he be removed from his priestly order? How can he be
denied his ordained name? And how can he be forced to join the lay
category? It is in a way good that in the recent declarations of the
Holy See, the defrocked priest can be called by his baptismal name and
not by his passport name. Otherwise, we would have the impression that
through the `patriarchal order’, the `defrocked priest’ is not only
being stripped of his ordained name, but also denied of all his
Christian roots and character.
As aforementioned, the word `defrocking’ (`Karqaluydz’) does not exist
in classical Armenian; but `resignation from the Order’ (`Karqatogh’),
does. One can be `Karqatogh’ when he resigns from the Order
voluntarily. Henceforth, an important theological question asks: does
the resigned priest keep his ordination after his resignation or not?
According to the church’s doctrine, the answer is `yes’. For example,
in the event of an emergency when a priest is not available and there
is a need for baptism (i.e., a non-baptized person on his/her deathbed
wanting to be christened), if a resigned (`Karqatogh’) priest is
available, then his baptism is legitimate for the church. Another
example of an emergency situation could be while during a crisis
(i.e., a natural disaster) a couple would like to share their vows and
a resigned priest blesses them in the name of the Holy Trinity, the
marriage is considered legitimate for the church. In retrospect, when
a resigned priest decides to return to the church and pursue his
vocation as a priest after regretting his departure, the authority of
the church does not `re-ordain’ him due to the fact that he is already
ordained.
In this case, the church grants him a short and simple blessing and
accepts him back to the church because in the eyes of God he has
always remained a priest. In other words, the ordination of a priest
is a one-time event and cannot be repeated. Unfortunately in recent
years, after priests have voluntarily resigned from the order,
immediately a `defrock’ order had been issued by the Holy See in the
name of the Catholicos. This, in reality, is paradoxical. There is one
and only reason the church can justify defrocking a priest: heresy.
For instance, when a priest denies the principal creed of the
Christian faith, such as the story of Arius (325 A.D.) `who disagreed
with doctrine of co-equal Trinitarianism, a Christology representing
the Father and Son (Jesus of Nazareth) as ‘of one essence’
(consubstantial) and coeternal’. Another example, when someone like
heretic Nestorius (431 A.D.) rejects the Virgin Mary as Theotokos,
`Mother of God.’
In fact, immediately before a priest’s ordination, the candidate
officially denounces all the heresies mentioned in the Book of
Ordination by proclaiming the `Anathema’ against them. In the event of
an ordained priest falling into new or old heresies, and if he does
not repent his actions despite the church’s warnings, he essentially
`defrocks himself’ because he opposes the church’s dogma and against
his own consciousness. Therefore, the church simply proclaims the
unquestionable fact in the form of defrocking.
During the past 10 years of HH Karekin II’s reign, many deacons,
priests, celibate priests, bishops and archbishops have been defrocked
by `patriarchal order’ (`Hayrapetakan tnorinum’). None of these
`orders’ include heresy as the reason to defrock. In contrast, the
`orders’ draw on flimsy accusations of failure and sinful behavior:
`For disobedience’ (Archbishop Tiran Kyoureghyan), `Request to leave
his Ministry’ (Archbishop Ananya Arapadjyan and Archbishop Asoghik
Aristakesyan), `voluntarily leaving the Ministry’ (Fr. Zohrap
Kostanyan and Fr. Xoren Zaqaryan); `Not following regulations to
pursue the vow of submission’ (Fr. Garegin Harutyunyan and Fr. Norayr
Simonyan); `In contradiction of a priest’s lifestyle and regulations’
(Fr. Petros Ezekyan); `For disobedience’ (Fr. Eprem Sargsyan); `By the
request of the Primate to defrock the priest since he has asked for
it’ (Fr. Ruben Eghyazaryan); `Request to leave his Ministry’ (Fr.
Vazken Nanyan); `Denouncing his vows’ (Fr. Hovhannes Mayilyan);
`According topersonal request’ (Fr. Arshen Sanossyan); `Against his
spiritual vocation’ (Fr. Mxitar Saribekyan); and so on. We can
continue with these listings and reasonings. None of these can be
justified under canonical law of the Church.
Furthermore, it needs to be noted that no patriarch in the Armenian
Church’s history has ever defrocked any and so many priests for
non-heretical reasons or offenses as has been done by HH Karekin II.
The only exception has been during the pontifical period of HH Vasken
I (during the Soviet era) where he was obliged to `officially dismiss’
all those priests who escaped or defected from the Soviet Union to the
West. According to HH Karekin II, however, every clergyman is subject
to defrocking except for himself. Finally, the ordaining of the
Catholicos is conducted by 12 bishops in order to glorify and
invigorate the ceremony. In fact, according to the canon law of the
Armenian Church, 3 bishops are needed to ordain a Catholicos and
ensure its legitimacy. As an example, in 1956 HH Zareh I Payaslyan was
ordained as Catholicos of the Holy See of Cilicia by one Assyrian and
two Armenian bishops. In fact, an ecclesiastical paradox exists in the
Armenian Church: how can 3 bishops ordain a Catholicos (who is above
their rank) but a thousand bishops cannot ordain a celibate priest (a
`Vardapet’ who is below their rank) into a bishop like themselves? `A
right’ should be based upon truth and justice. If 3 bishops can ordain
a Catholicos, can’t they also defrock a Catholicos under the same
legitimate right? This question is reasonable and valid. Otherwise,
who will defrock the Catholicos …?
Council of Dignity of the Armenian Apostolic Church
From: A. Papazian
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/society21110.html