Armenian clergy close ranks against prime minister’s reform bid Cilicia and Etchmiadzin unite

Another development worth noting in the context of the growing conflict between Armenia’s ruling elite and the Armenian Church comes from Armenian media reports: “The Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia of the Armenian Apostolic Church has condemned the Armenian authorities’ campaign against the Church and expressed its support for the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin. The relevant statement was adopted following the sessions of the Religious and Political Councils of the Catholicosate’s Central Executive Board, held in Antelias under the leadership of Catholicos Aram I.”

The report continues: “The Catholicosate of Cilicia noted that interference in Church affairs violates Armenia’s Constitution. It emphasised that issues relating to the Church and clergy must be addressed in accordance with the Church’s statutes, and that the state has no legal grounds for interference. The Catholicosate strongly condemned the public handling of ecclesiastical matters.”

We do not claim to be experts on the complex phenomenon of resolving disputes between state and church in Christianity. However, we cannot ignore a glaring contradiction in the reasoning of the Armenian clergy. If, as they argue, the state has no right to interfere in church affairs, then the church certainly has no right to interfere in state affairs—especially given that, according to Armenia’s Constitution, the church is separate from the state.

How, then, can one explain, among other things, firstly, the political protests led last year by priest Bagrat Galstanyan, and secondly, his attacks on the prime minister’s private life? It seems that Galstanyan, having licked the wounds from his failed march on Yerevan—when, we should recall, he rubbed his feet raw—is once again eager for battle, like a bull fattened for the corrida.

However, these are just details. What truly matters is the essence of the conflict between Pashinyan’s team and the Armenian Church. The key point is that the Catholicosate of Cilicia has effectively rejected Prime Minister Pashinyan’s call for the election of a new Catholicos.

According to established church procedure, such an “impeachment” and the subsequent election require a decision by the Church’s National Ecclesiastical Assembly. This means a majority vote among the Etchmiadzin and Cilicia Catholicosates, as well as the Patriarchates of Istanbul and Jerusalem. The positions of three of these are already known: alongside Aram I, the Patriarch of the Istanbul Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church, Archbishop Sahak Mashalian, has also expressed his support for Garegin.

There may be several reasons for such a position, but the main one appears to be that the Catholicosate of Cilicia—like Etchmiadzin—considers Prime Minister Pashinyan and his team to be its existential enemy. Here's another excerpt from the Catholicosate’s statement as reported in the news: “Emphasising the principle of ‘One Nation, One Church,’ the Catholicosate of Cilicia will, as always, stand by the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin and reject all attacks against it. It is noted that, in light of the existential challenges and security threats facing Armenia, there is a need for a focused effort to counter the threats to the homeland’s existence.”

In other words, the Levantine clergy are openly labelling the current prime minister as an existential problem and a threat to Armenia’s national security.

Behind this euphemism lies a clear fear within the Armenian Church: the fear of losing its main source of power. That source is hatred. It is precisely through cultivating hatred toward Turks and Azerbaijanis that the Armenian clergy have managed to assert deep influence over large segments of Armenian society.

The unwillingness to pursue peaceful coexistence with Armenia’s Turkic neighbours is the very factor that unites all Armenian dioceses—despite the many internal contradictions—against the current prime minister. In fact, the Western dioceses may prove even more aggressive in this regard, precisely because they are distant from Armenian realities and more closely tied to foreign centres of power.

What’s more, the Armenian Church, as a unified institution, appears willing to sacrifice Armenia’s statehood itself on the altar of enmity with Türkiye and Azerbaijan.

As Azerbaijani historian and political analyst Rizvan Huseynov put it: "The Armenian Church is prepared to see Armenia destroyed as a political entity, as long as the Armenian people can continue to serve as a lever against their Turkic-Muslim surroundings. This is the Church’s role—to continuously prepare the Armenian people for sacrifice and then cry genocide. Once again, the Armenian Church is serving external interests and is ready to sacrifice the future of the Armenian people and Armenian statehood for their sake."

Pashinyan has failed to create a split within the Armenian Church, although it is more than likely that his envoys tried to persuade the patriarchs to strike a deal and get rid of the increasingly unpopular Garegin. But it seems that the grey-haired, grim-faced Armenian prelates have firmly settled into their distrust of the man in the cap.