Creedal Controversies among Armenians in the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Empire


In the late seventeenth century along the lines of European confession-building and Ottoman sunnitization, the Armenian Apostolic Church initiated the reshaping of its orthodoxy in the face of growing Tridentine Catholicism. Through the contextualization of the polemical writing attributed to the famed Constantinopolitan Armenian erudite Eremia Čʻēlēpi Kʻēōmiwrčean, this article discusses the ways of detecting “bad innovations” in the doctrine and practice of Armenian communities in the Ottoman realms, and the doctrinal instruments used for enforcing “pure faith” towards social disciplining of the Apostolic Armenians.

Christian Churches, reveals an important case of entangled histories in the early modern era. 8 One should exercise caution when engaging with the theory of confessionalization as formulated by Reinhard and Schilling and its implications for the Armenian communities living in very different conditions in the Ottoman and Safavid realms. One can speak of the processes of confession-building or re-articulation of doctrine and practice, especially among the Armenian communities in the Ottoman Empire. However, Armenians never underwent confessional processes like Europe, particularly with the emergence of Protestantism in the sixteenth century. Armenian confessional developments fail to fit in the timeline of the confessional age-the late 1540s-1700 and 1520s-1731/32, as suggested by Reinhard and Schilling.9 Before the schism in the Armenian community of Lvov (1625-1630), relatively peaceful cohabitation with Tridentine missionaries prevailed in both Ottoman and Safavid parts of Armenia. As demonstrated by John Flennery and Christian Windler, the relationship between the Armenian clergy and missionary orders in Safavid Persia perfectly fit in the frames of "good correspondence."10 The vector of Armenian confession-building was internal rather than external, directed against the "inner confessional enemy"-the Catholic Armenians. The confessional consciousness of Armenian Apostolic clergy was triggered in the face of conversions to Catholicism.11 Therefore, it seems that confession-building processes in Armenian communities began in the early seventeenth century and lasted till the second half of the eighteenth century. Given that the Armenian Apostolic Church strove to reaffirm and reshape its miaphysite (or non-Chalcedonic) faith through the preservation of traditions rather than to build 8 For recent scholarship, see Ovidiu Olar, "'Io se puotesse reformare la mia chiesa, lo farei molto volentieri…' Kyrillos Loukaris and the Confessionalization of the Orthodox Church The term "Apostolic" has come into regular use in later centuries. For this period Lusaworčʻadawan from the insiders' perspective and Gregorian from the outsiders' perspective was a common use. However, here I circulate "Apostolic" to distinguish between miaphysite and Catholic Armenians. date of Easter, referred to as cṛazatik ("curved Easter").17 At that time the confessional quarrels over the "curved Easter" reached their climax, giving rise to a number of anecdotes among the Armenians and Greeks.18 In fact, the litigations between the Greeks and Armenians were for the domination over the sites of the Copts, Ethiopians, and Syriac Orthodox in Jerusalem, which were under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Church. Years later, in 1656, with the help of their Constantinopolitan allies, the Greeks succeeded in obtaining a permission from grand vizier Boynuyaralı Mehmed Pasha for the appropriation of an Ethiopian church of Abba Abraham that used to be under Armenian jurisdiction.
The Ethiopian dominions in Jerusalem, but also the Armenian Convent of Saints James.20 Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi was accused of disobedience and persecuted during this process, escaping to Aleppo. Afterwards, he was further detained by the ruler of Damascus, Teyar Oğlu, then transferred to Bursa, from where he escaped but was apprehended again and brought to face Köprülü Mehmed Pasha. He was finally released thanks to the intervention of Xoǰa Ṙuhiǰan and Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean. It was not until 1659, through the mediation of Köprülü Mehmed Pasha's kahya ("chamberlain"), that Ełiazar resumed the rights of the Armenians to the Saints James Convent.21 In light of the aforementioned events in 1656, Eremia Čʻēlēpi composed his Vičabanutʻiwn Yunacʻ. Jˇatagovutʻiwn Haykakan Ekełecʻwoy (Polemics with the Greeks or Vindication of the Armenian Church) known also as the Apology of the Rites of the Armenian Church-a work that has remained hitherto unpublished. 22 We know little about Eremia's polemical treatise: he mentions once his piece "on the Greeks," but he might probably be referring to his Vipasanutʻiwn Aṙman Surb Gēorg Ekełecʻwoy (Narrative on the Takeover of Saint Gēorg Church from the Greeks) penned in 1677.23 20 According to a well-known anecdote this convent was granted to the Armenians in Jerusalem by the prophet Muhammad Both writings reflect primarily on issues of orthopraxy within the Armenian Church. The Apology is the first document in Armenian officially testifying the existence of crypto-Protestant Armenians in Constantinople in the late seventeenth century.38 It is also a set of questions and answers on the "true faith" collected by Eremia from the representatives of various religious groups.
In contrast, Response with God's help is a set of rhetorical questions and arguments, which Eremia himself addressed to Sukʻias, the prelate of Bursa, accusing him of planting "precarious" novelties into the minds of the Apostolic faithful. Sukʻias-Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi's desciple and loyal assistant-was advocating against the recital of the Nicene Anathema (incipit: "As for those who say") during the Divine Liturgy, which was the ancient custom of the Armenian Church. It provoked Eremia to rebuke Sukʻias for a "bad innovation" aimed at ruining the liturgical traditions and the reputation of the Apostolic Church. 38 It is worth noting that the scholarship on Protestants and Armenians has focused on the work of nineteenth-century missionaries, and this earlier phase is in need of further research. Careful examination of manuscripts demonstrates these three individuals to be the same person. Two arguments support this assumption. First is the poem dedicated to the Holy Virgin (incipit: Iskuhi Astuacacin, Surb Koys) preserved in the collection attributed to Sukʻias Vanecʻi, which also appears under the name of Sukʻias Prusacʻi, and Sukʻias Tʻokʻatʻecʻi.41 Second, is the unique dating system used in the poems and colophons found under the name of either Sukʻias Prusacʻi, Vanecʻi or Tʻokʻatʻecʻi. He writes the date, for instance, as ԱՌԱՃԻԼ (1+1000+1+100+20+30=1152 +551=1703), which was not the common pattern of indicating a date according to the Armenian Era-otherwise it would be ՌՃԾԲ (1152+551=1703). This numbering is unique across the three figures, and therefore this particular system supports the assumption that under all three names, the same Sukʻias is arguably to be recognized as the same scribe.
A theologian and a poet, vardapet Sukʻias was also a masterful scribe, commissioner, owner, donator and dedicatee of a multitude of manuscripts copied in Jerusalem, Bursa, Tigranakert and elsewhere affixed with his personal seal with the inscription "Sukʻias theologian vardapet."42 In the colophon to a manuscript copied in 1674 in Jerusalem and sealed by Sukʻias, the latter calls himself Tʻokʻatʻecʻi and mentions his father's and grandfather's names-Sargis 39 The copyist of a Girkʻ harcʻołacʻ [Book of Questioners] (J619) reports in 1721 that he has copied it from the sample of Sukʻias, the archbishop of Bursa. In fact, Sukʻias is rarely called a bishop or an archbishop in the manuscripts, but rather "a theologian vardapet" or "a philosopher vardapet" that underlines him to be famous for his education and theological knowledge. and Tʻoros Tʻokʻatʻecʻi, a proof that he came from Tokat (Eudokia).43 In most of the manuscripts he is called "theologian vardapet Sukʻias," whereas in his tałs ("poems") and colophons he frequently refers to himself as "worthless and sinful Sukʻias."44 He was confusingly called Sukʻias Vanecʻi because in two of his poems he mentions the city of Van in "Kurdistan" as the locus for some of his poems, which reveals him having spent some time in Eastern provinces of the Empire. The scribe of a Maštocʻ ("Ritual Book") informs us that the nickname of Sukʻias Prusacʻi was Karčahasak, meaning "of short height." Here his fame of being "a vardapet of vardapets" is also noted.45 Vardapet Sukʻias is said to have been born in 1636. At the end of a poem which dates from 1702, he mentions that he is sixty-six years old.46 He was Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi's student and protégé, who frequently accompanied him during his travels. In his Diary, Eremia remembers him as "vekil [deputy] of vardapet Ełiazar" only once while describing the trip to Galata and Balat in 1653.47After his release and dispatch to Jerusalem in 1659-to assume the office of the Patriarch's vekil as well as to receive Saints James Convent back from the Greeks-Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi conceived and carefully executed a plan to establish an anti-Catholicosate of Jerusalem. His aim was to detach the Armenian prelacies in Ottoman provinces from the pontifical seat of Ejmiacin, then under the control of his arch-rival, Catholicos of all Armenians Yakob iv Jˇułayecʻi (1655-1680 1680, Sukʻias was again in Jerusalem: his name appears in the list of the monks of Saints James, along with Nahapet Edesacʻi, deacon Nersēs and many others.61 A number of manuscripts found in the library of Saints James Convent include his seal, suggesting that Sukʻias engaged himself in commissioning, copying and collecting the writings of church fathers and notable theologians, such as Philo of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nisa, pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite and others. Sukʻias was respected by many famous clerics, such as Yovhannēs Mułnecʻi, Martiros Kafacʻi, Sargis Tʻekʻirtałecʻi, who sent their respect and brotherly love to him through letters to Ełiazar, while he was in Aleppo and Jerusalem.62 In the letters his name appears right next to Ełiazar's name proving him to be the erespʻoxan ("deputy") at Saints James Convent. Sukʻias had a great deal of influence on his patron Ełiazar. In 1667 Apro Čʻēlēpi wrote a secret letter to Sukʻias in Aleppo threatening to block allow the interference of the established peace, otherwise it "would not be good" for him, for "kurb-i sultan ateş-i suzan" ("being close to the sultan is being close to the fire")."63 Apparently, Apro alluded to the long awaited truce of 1667 between Martiros Kafacʻi and Ełiazar. The latter was invited to Constantinople or to Bursa-whichever city he preferred-to confirm and strengthen the reconciliation of the sides.64 According to the content of Apro's letter, Sukʻias was the one to persuade Ełiazar to embark on this journey-further evidence of the influence Sukʻias had over his patron and power he possessed in the eyes of others.
When Catholicos Yakob Jˇułayecʻi passed away in 1680, the ecclesiastical council decided to invite Ełiazar to assume the pontifical throne in Ejmiacin, and thus to put an end to the schism of the Armenian Church. Ełiazar accepted the offer, headed to Constantinople and from there to Ejmiacin in 1682. We find Sukʻias together with the chronicler Minas Hamtʻecʻi (later Patriarch in Jerusalem), Nahapet Edesac'i (later Catholicos) and vardapet Nikołayos accompanying Ełiazar on his journey. The date of Sukʻias's consecration as bishop and prelate of Bursa has not been established. Most probably it was after 1682. What we know for certain is that he was already holding this office from 1691-1695, when Eremia composed polemical writing against him. He was the very archbishop of Bursa who buried the body of a neo-martyr named Nikołayos Prusacʻi, executed by the Ottomans in 1694 upon the sham accusation of apostasy.68 Importantly, in the martyrology of Nikołayos, Sukʻias acts as the impresario of the martyr-to-be. He is the one who sent off a certain priest to jail to encourage Nikołayos to take the "crown of martyrdom."69 When exactly Sukʻias Prusacʻi had grown into a pro-Catholic agent is murky. He was still the prelate of Bursa in 1704, when Eremia's brother Komitas Churches on the grounds of preservation of the doctrine and the rite of the Armenian Church.77 Sukʻias's collection included also homilies on the refutation of mixed chalice and purgatory, which testifies to his orthodoxy from the point of view of the Armenian Apostolic Church. In one of his theological poems Sukʻias transmitted the doctrine of the Armenian Church into versed form. In fact, it is "the canon of the orthodox faith" in rhythm and metrics, without any trace of "schism." 78 Speaking on the procession of the Holy Spirit, Sukʻias puts forth a formula acceptable to both the Apostolic and Catholic Armenians: "Is not teeming as created, but [is] processing // Holy Spirit moved from the Father (in)to the Son unchanging."79 The poem is an acrostic dedicated to his "beloved Ğendi Zade Nimetullah Çelebi" (Łēntizatē Neymēt'ulah Č'elepi)-a nobleman in Aleppo.80 And again, Sukʻias's friendship with converted Komitas Kʻēōmiwrčean and Minas Hamtʻecʻi, who were suspected of holding pro-Catholic views, suggests his being quite open to Catholicism. On the other hand, his close connections to such conservative clerics and laics as Ełiazar and Eremia, and his commissioning of non-Chalcedonic theological codices, prove his support of the non-Chalcedonic faith. Even though Ełiazar, like both his predecessor on pontifical throne Yakob Jˇułayecʻi and successor Nahapet Edesacʻi, were at times accused of dubious attitude towards Catholics, it was rather a political choice rather than personal disposition. Since these choices never affected the doctrine and practice of the Armenian Church, Eremia rejects the tiniest possibility of Sukʻias's "bad innovation" to be inherited from Ełiazar.81 Eremia's relationship with Sukʻias Prusacʻi has never been fully studied. Eremia had intimate acquaintance with Sukʻias as he used to be Ełiazar's student and frequently spent time with both of them in Constantinople, Bursa, Jerusalem and elsewhere.82 Apparently, like Ełiazar, Sukʻias was welcomed in the house of the Kʻēōmiwrčean family, for Martiros and Komitas Kʻēōmiwrčeans were closely related to him. However, their ostensibly amicable relations did not hinder Eremia from rebuking Sukʻias for the prohibition of the Nicene Anathema, which he considered a transgression against the Apostolic rite.
The date of Sukʻias's death remains obscure. Two manuscript colophons copied in 1721-1734 from his personal codices mention neither his life nor death. The only hint is found in the collection of his poems, where the last-a poem of penitence, death and its desperation-is dated to 1707.83 One of the most learned and influential agents of the Armenian Church in the confessional age found himself in deep depression towards the end of his life. Upon Sukʻias's passing his memory fell into oblivion overshadowed by the fame of his patron Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi. If not for Eremia Čʻēlēpi's polemic piece, we would likely never learn much about him or be able to detect confessional ambiguity behind his exterior orthodoxy. Moreover, Sukʻias's attempts to infuse a "novelty" into the practice of the Armenian Church would have remained totally unknown. Before turning to the analysis of the arguments that Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean set forth against the "novelty" imposed by Sukʻias, it is important to trace the causes that prompted Eremia to insist on the recitation of the Nicene Anathema.

Creedal Controversies among Armenians: The Causes Analyzed
In his letter to the friends in Supposedly Xoǰa Malxas opened a discussion about the "valid" confession of faith. Eremia, who was trying to evade provocative questions and to keep the peace between the arguing parties, suddenly stepped in claiming that true belief had already been formulated in the Nicene Creed, and anything else is considered dubious: Տուաւ սահման սուրբ հաւատոյն, Ի մեծ ժողովն սուրբ Նիկիոյն, Հաւատամք ի մի Աստուած զնոյն, Ընդհանուր ազգք ընդունելոյն [The] definition to holy faith was given, In the great holy Council of Nicaea, The same "We believe in One God" Accepted by all the nations.86 Eremia reproaches his friends in Rodosto for not having paid decent heed to his son vardapet Grigoris's preachings, instead every illiterate laic imagined himself a theologian. Eremia even humors Xoǰa Malxas for his name ("makas"-scissors in Turkish), for his vulgarity and ignorance and expresses his preoccupation about the growing attention to Malxas being an attack on the real teachers of the faith. This incident in Rodosto reveals that by 1692 debates on confessional topics had gradually become part of everyday life. Society had become more sensitive to the issues related to "true" confession of faith and more and more laymen, in particular, the xoǰas, had become integrated into theological discourse. Such intense discussions brought about acute creedal controversies among diverse clusters of society, such as how Eremia begins his letter to Rodostians with the quote from the Gospel of Matthew "blessed are the peacemakers" (Mat. 5:9).87 Creedal controversies within Armenian communities of the Ottoman Empire were intensified due to the abundance of diverse creeds and confessions of faith circulating among Armenians in this period that were generated 86 Kʻēōmiwrčean, Ōragrutʻiwn. Appendix, 548. Here and elsewhere in the text the word "nation" signifies "religious community" (millet). 87 The biblical verse from Matthew will later become an epigram for many polemical writings composed against Catholics and vice versa in the early eighteenth century such as During this period, various types of medieval confessions and creeds were circulating within the Armenian theological community. Apart from the most authoritative liturgical version of the Nicene Creed, there was a confession of faith formulated in the thirteenth century by Vardan Arewelcʻi (d. 1271) upon the request of Catholicos Konstandin Barjrberdcʻi (1221-1267) against Byzantine duophysites. However, this confession never gained so much popularity so as to be recited in the churches.93 Since the fourteenth century the Armenian Church has favored a creed attributed to Grigor Tatʻewacʻi (1346-1409)-the pinnacle of Armenian scholastic thought-structured in a way so as to oppose the Dominican Unitor Friars and Muslims in Eastern Armenia. It incorporated the Nicene Creed with the important amendments emphasizing the doctrines of the Trinity against the Seljuk Muslims.94 Grigor Tatʻewacʻi's creed also included: the procession of the Holy Spirit solely from the Father against the Filioque (procession also from the Son); the one nature of Christ against the duophysites; His real body "from the blood of Holy Mother of God" against the phantasists; his immaculate and virgin birth; his perfect Deity and perfect Humanity; and the Harrowing of Hell and the eternal punishment of the sinful. In a fifteenth-century manuscript, the scribe calls this particular creed "the true confession of faith of the Armenian Church," while its articles are described as "the gradations of faith through which we ascend to God with one footstep."95 The variants of Grigor's creed became extremely popular in the age of confessionalization. Due to its popularity it was included in collections such as the confessions of faith assembled by Marquise de Nointel, where there is an 93 The profession of faith attributed to Vardan Arewelcʻi is structured in a way so that each rubric of it starts with "We believe" (Credimus  Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, 'ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν' καὶ 'πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν' καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας, φάσκοντας εἶναι ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.
And those who say 'there once was when he was not,' and "before he was begotten he was not," and 'that he came to be from things that were not,' or "from another hypostasis or substance," affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration-these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.107 The Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς ἤ τὸ πνεῦμα το ἅγιον, ἢ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὐποστάσεως ἢ ουσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι ⟨ἢ⟩ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ αποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία, ἡ μήτηρ ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν. καὶ πάλιν ἀναθεματίζομεν τοὺς μὴ ὁμολογοῦντας ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν καὶ πάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις τὰς μὴ ἐκ ταύτης τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως οὔσας.112 And those who say that there was a time when the Son was not, or when the Holy Ghost was not, or that either was made of that which previously had no being, or that he is of a different nature or substance, and affirm that the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are subject to change and mutation; all such, the catholic and apostolic church, the mother both of you and of us, anathematizes. And further we anathematize such as do not confess the resurrection of the dead, as well as all heresies which are not in accord with the true faith.113 The Armenian liturgical version of the Nicene Creed, though not identical, largely follows Epiphanius's enlarged variant. It retains the Anathema and adds to it a doxology attributed to Grigor Lusaworičʻ' (Gregory the Illuminator). In the age of confessionalization this version was frequently called the Creed of Lusaworičʻ-an allusion to the narrative, according to which Grigor Lusaworičʻ's son Aristakes brought its Greek original from Nicaea, while Grigor Lusaworičʻ rendered it into Armenian. According to the narrative he also translated the Nicene Anathema, which is as follows: As for those who say "there was a time when the Son was not", or "there was a time when the Holy Spirit was not", or that "they came into being out of nothing"; or who say that "the Son of God or the Holy Spirit are of a different substance" and that "they are changeable or alterable," such do the catholic and apostolic holy Church anathematize:

Doxology by Grigor Lusaworičʻ:
Իսկ մեք փառաւորեսցուք, որ յառաջ քան զյաւիտեանս, երկիրպագանելով Սրբոյ Երրորդութեանն եւ միոյ Աստուածութեանն Հօր եւ Որդւոյ եւ Հոգւոյն Սրբոյ, այժմ եւ միշտ եւ յաւիտեանս յաւիտենից, ամէն: As for us, we shall glorify him who was before the ages, worshipping the Holy Trinity and the one Godhead, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and always and unto the ages of ages. Amen.114 Another anecdotal narrative circulating in the Armenian Catholic circles up to the nineteenth century suggests that all the amendments to the Armenian liturgical version of the Nicene Creed, including the addition of the third article on the Holy Spirit promulgated at the Council of Constantinople, were made later by the Armenian Catholicos Nersēs.115 Adding "novelties" to the Creed was not unprecedented in the Armenian ecclesiastical tradition, thereby justifying supplementation of the Fillioque to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed decreed at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439).116 In his reply to an unknown addressee upon the request to explain the origin of the Armenian liturgical version of the Creed, a Constantinopolitan Armenian Catholic priest writes: Later he includes this version in his catechism compiled for an Armenian Catholic priest Tʻadēōs Hamazaspean by having changed the archaic wording "նոյն ինքն ի բնութենէ հոր" ("of the same nature of the Father") that stood for the Greek term homousion (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί), to "նոյն ինքն համագոյակից հոր" ("consubstantial with the Father"), as well as adding "որ ի հօրէ և յորդւոյ բղխի" ("ex Patre Filioque") in due place.118 Apparently Eremia was driven by interest in preservation of the "Armenianness" of the Catholic Armenians along with their confessional affiliation. Therefore, he capitalizes on the Nicene Creed to prove ethnic identity to be more important Piromalli's faith. According to Daranałcʻi the only way to unmask Piromalli was to make him recite the Nicene Creed. Reaching the Anathema, Piromalli's refusal to recite "As for those who say" was considered apostasy from the perspective of the Armenian ecclesiastical traditions. Piromalli was expelled and banned from preaching in Armenian churches.122 It seems that the recital of the Nicene Anathema was not considered challenging for Armenian-Catholics, partly because of its inclusion into missals and catechisms, and partly because of their intimate familiarity with the rule of prayer of the Armenian Church. That said, in his letter from 1751 the Catholic Armenian priest from Mekhitarist order Gēorg Ayntʻapcʻi (d. 1794) informed his flock in Engür (Ankara), that before he arrived in Rome he thought that "apart from the anathema there are no schismatic rites in our nation."123 In Rome he learned about other "schismatic" elements of the Armenian Apostolic rite, hence, exhorted his flock to give up communicatio in sacris with Apostolics.124 In the eyes of Eremia Čʻēlēpi, the banning of the recitation of the Nicene Anathema was not a matter of orthodoxy, but rather of orthopraxy. The 1690s were the years when Catholic Armenian priests would abstain from officiating in Catholic churches. They had to undergo the communicatio in sacris with the Armenian Apostolics, while clandestinely preaching and propagating Catholic ideas to the Apostolic faithful. On these grounds, Eremia Čʻēlēpi assumed that the preacher, be he a crypto-Catholic or an Apostolic, should follow the rule of prayer of the Armenian Church if he preaches from its pulpits. From Eremia's point of view the recital of the Nicene Anathema was absolutely necessary for it was not only a yardstick for "Armenianness," but also the proof of the ancient roots of the Armenian liturgical tradition, and the mark of the continuity in its practice. The prohibition of Nicene Anathema by Sukʻias Prusacʻi triggered Eremia Čʻēlēpi's vocal criticism. He started a campaign against the "bad innovations." The concept of religious "innovation" resonated across confessional boundaries in the Ottoman context at this time, as Muslims themselves, particularly in Constantinople, repeatedly clashed (sometimes violently) over the definition of "tradition" and accused each other of bid`a, meaning harmful "innovation,"  (1582-1635).126 The clashes between the "puritan" followers of Kadizade Mehmed and various other Muslims, often with affinities for Sufi rituals and beliefs, incited Katib Čʻēlēpi (1609-1657), a renowned Ottoman scholar, to reproach the Kadizadeli for the "spread of the extremist notions and provoking the people"-labelling the attempts to uproot established innovations in the community as stupidity.127 Along the lines of the "purification" movement of Ottoman Sunnis that found its expression in refutation of "bad innovations" (bid`a), the reshaping of tradition in line with "pure doctrine" and "correct conduct" grew into a common discourse in the Ottoman Christian milieu. As Eugenia Kermeli argues, "the Greek Orthodox scholars committed to the spirit of Renewal (ανακαίνιση), and challenged by Reformation and Catholicism, endeavored to redefine orthodox tradition in a sectarian manner, distinct from the Protestants and Catholics."128 Redefining of the tradition was not accepted by conservative Orthodox theologians and was labeled as "bad innovation" (καινοτομία). Eremia's exploration of "bad innovation" (bid`a) in polemics with Sukʻias acquires great importance as it explicitly reveals deep engagement of Armenians with common processes in the Ottoman Empire.
The term "innovation" was more common for early modern Armenian theological vocabulary. Medieval Armenian authors, especially Eastern theologians, would opt for other words to point to the deviations from "orthodox" doctrine and practice. For instance, the twelfth-century polemicist Połōs Tarōnacʻi uses the word bałbanjankʻ ("idle talk") when he criticizes the Latin  Tatʻewacʻi (1346-1409), who lived on the relative verge of early modern era, utilized the word molorutʻiwn ("error") for Filioque and for other "heretical" doctrines. 130 Tatʻewacʻi lists not only the "errors" of the Latins and Byzantines, but also of Muslims. 131 The Armenian word norajevut'iwn ("innovation") appears in the Mistagogy of the Cilician theologian Nersēs Lambronacʻi (1153-1198). He applies it to the rigorist, conservative conduct of Eastern Armenian vardapets, branding such rigorism as "neopraxy" ("novelty in practice"). 132 The term acquires new connotation in the Ottoman context, where norajevutʻiwn ("bad innovation") was first explored by the Patriarch of Constantinople Grigor Kesaracʻi. In his letter from 1630, addressed to the monks in Ejmiacin, he warns them against the Roman Catholic faith by calling it norajev banicʻn ev nor ałandoyn ("novel words and new heresy") and by considering it the revival of "the same Byzantine duophysit heresy."133 From the seventeenth century onwards "bad innovation" becomes closely connected with the concept of bid`a, denoting not only a schismatic doctrine, but also an incorrect conduct and transgression against canonical practice.

Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean's Arguments against Sukʻias Prusacʻi
In banning the recitation of the Nicene Anathema, Sukʻias Prusacʻi might have been affected by the Jesuit propaganda in Bursa, which provoked immediate reaction in Armenian ecclesiastical circles, given that from 1612-1613 onwards, the prelacy of Bursa had become an influential center of Anatolia, housing a vast Armenian population.134 As a catechist, Eremia was perfectly aware that the Nicene Anathema was an essential part of practice, even in Armenian Catholic missals. Thus, the abolition of its recital by Sukʻias could pose a real threat to the orthopraxy of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Against Sukʻias's "precarious novelty," Eremia polemicized in forty-one clauses. His polemics was informed by both social and confessional realities of his day, reflecting a view of the secular Armenian community. Eremia imparts first-hand information about the nuances of confessional switches, and the ambiguities and ignorance of confessional matters among his fellow Armenians. His main preoccupation seems to be the reputation of the Armenian Church. Eremia feared that the discontinuation of the recitation of the Anathema would call ridicule and outrage upon the Armenians, exposing the Armenian Church tradition on the whole as erroneous.135 For Eremia, the "pure doctrine" was rooted in the teachings of the Universal Church Fathers and decrees of the first Ecumenical Council that the Armenian Church had uninterruptedly preserved. Everything outside of these theological parameters was considered norajevut'iwn ("bad innovation"), and was i čʻarēn ("from evil").136 Eremia defined "bad innovation" as not something to be found exceptionally in doctrinal deviations from "true faith." For him, "bad innovation" referred to the disciplinary aspects of communal life. Eremia condemned Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi for the discord in the Armenian Church he brought about by having attempted to establish anti-Catholicosate driven solely by his egoistic ambitions. Above all, Eremia was concerned about the chain-reaction in the diffusion of "innovation": if it infected the community in Bursa, it would soon reach Constantinople, Edirne and other cities. His trepidation was hiding far behind his anticipation of the possible discord in the community. The unpleasant memories of the great turmoil in times of Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi were still fresh, and a new discord would shake the very grounds of ecclesiastical life of the Armenians, should Sukʻias's teachings against Anathema be diffused. In view of this, Eremia recalled the turmoil in Jerusalem, hence, reproaching Sukʻias for imitating his patron's controversial behavior, and appealing to him to disseminate peace instead of discord.
According to Eremia, Sukʻias's position was even at odds with "pure" Roman Catholics-as they too agreed on the Armenian custom of reciting the Anathema to be useful in terms of definition of the "heresy." His arguments were saturated with Catholic sources, in particular, with passages from the treatise of Teatine missionary to Armenia Clemente Galano (d. 1666), whose words Eremia quotes to demonstrate the wide acceptance of the recital of the Anathema. In his two-volume bilingual edition about the history and doctrine of the Armenian Church, Galano attempts to prove that the Armenian and Latin Churches were united from Christianity's inception, but afterwards Armenians deviated from "true faith." In his attempt to correct the "errors" that the Armenian Church was accused of in a Medieval anti-Armenian source, Galano singled out the recitation of the Nicene Anathema to be a useful tradition to oppose the Arian heresy.137 Eremia likened the Nicene Anathema to one of the most important hymns or šarakan's of the period "O, marvelous patriarchs" dedicated to the 318 Fathers of the First Nicene Council. Originally at the end of this hymn the fourth-and fifth-centuries heresiarchs like Arius and Nestoruis are anathematized. In the confessional age the Council of Chalcedon, the Tome of Pope Leo I and the Catholic doctrine of Filioque were added to the text of anathema, the samples of which are preserved in many printed Hymnaries from the period.138 Еremia further argues that the recitation of the Аnathema "As for those who say" should not be prohibited on the grounds that it was compiled in the fourth century and had lost its relevance. He pointed to the pan-Christian liturgical elements, contemporary with the Nicene Anathema, such as the renunciation of devil during the Baptism, the dismissal of catechumens before the Eucharist, and the doxology "Glory in the Highest" established in the first centuries of Christianity's history.139 Eremia was practical in his arguments: if those three ancient elements of Divine Office were complied with within the churches of all confessions, then the Nicene Anathema had the right to be recited in the Armenian Church, as the ancient unchangeable rule of prayer protected throughout centuries being the marker of confessional identity. According to Eremia, all the Catholicoi, including Sukʻias's patron Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi, had been reciting the Anathema.140 Eremia's polemics against Sukʻias succinctly illustrates the confessional dynamics of the Armenian communities of the late seventeenth century. He describes the populace as ignorant of doctrinal matters, hence, the social disciplining was possible mainly through practice and ritual. At the behest of his son vardapet Grigor, Eremia attempted a popularization of certain sermons by rendering them into Armeno-Turkish. Since 1679 he had rendered sermons about Transfiguration, Passion of Christ, the Virgin Mary, Holy Communion, et cetera. These sermons attempted to achieve fuller integration of the commoners into the doctrinal nuances preached from the stages of churches.141 According to Eremia, the populace would perceive whatever was preached by priests from the bemas of churches as the ultimate truth and could easily be led astray from the orthodox practice. The recitation of the creedal Anathema was an irreplaceable means for social disciplining; the commoners were periodically repeating the formula of the orthodoxy and listening to the refutation of the heresy even if they did not exactly understand its meaning. Armenian confession-building went hand in hand not only with Christian confessionalization, but also with Muslim "sunnitization" policies. In Christian milieu priests and pastors became powerful figures in internalization of the "true faith." Similarly, mosque preachers acquired great authority in Ottoman Muslim society as an instrument of the internalization of Sunni doctrine and practice formulated on the pages of 'ilm-i hāls ("state of faith").142 Although 'ilm-i hāls had been designed to avert both doctrinal and behavioral deviations from the "pure path," the "heresy" could more likely be detected in practice. Likewise, from Eremia's point of view, the "heresy" on a demotic level, could occur only in practice: it might be found in the altered order of hymns, or in the altered position of hands (with arms spread or raised), in the way doxology was chanted (concordant or voice by voice), in covered or uncovered head.143 Practice was a touchstone for conversion; the severity of the Lent and the length of the Liturgy in the Armenian Church could steer the faithful toward more tolerable Roman Catholic rites. Eremia complains that in the minds of commoners the orthodoxy was measured per wealth and authority of a respective church. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church seemed more orthodox to wealthy Armenians: "Does not credibility of Easter belong to them, who possess so many kingdoms and wisdom?"144 With all his innate aptitude to peaceful cohabitation Eremia's approach was explicitly confessionalized: equalization to the "confessional others" through the facilitation of the rites was an unacceptable course for the Apostolic Church. The dividing line with other Christian confessions had to be drawn through the upholding of odd elements in traditions, such as Nicene Anathema.
It is unclear whether Eremia's arguments affected Sukʻias's further course of action. The absence of sources does not allow us to trace their future contact. All we know is that Eremia passed away shortly after composing his polemical piece, while a decade later Sukʻias sheltered Eremia's martyr-to-be brother Komitas Kʻēōmiwrčean-a persecuted convert to Catholicism.

In Lieu of a Conclusion
The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries marked the summit of the confessional age for the Armenians in the Ottoman and Safavid realms while Europe was long integrated into the process of confession-building stimulated by the emergence of Reformation and, consequently, counter-Reformation. indoctrination. The time, when the mutually accepted practice of "good correspondence" shaped the relations between the Armenians and Catholics had ended. Now, the relationship within and between confessions was driven by the need to delineate the doctrinal borders of a respective Church. In the early 1600s, when Discalced Carmelites, Capuchins, Dominican Friars and Augustinian missionaries from Goa were preaching among Armenians of Safavid Persia, the cases of communicatio in sacris were allowed for both sides as the evidences of irenic acts and the articulation of Christians' unity in God. Decades later, however, with the intensification of Jesuit propaganda resulting in growing conversion of the Armenians to Catholicism, the incidents involving communicatio in sacris with the converts incited outrageous intracommunal debates in Constantinople. To address the issue, the Armenian Church authorities had to make attempts to redefine the boundaries of the Armenian orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The political and territorial constrains became decisive factors in tackling the issue: having the spiritual center and head of the church-the Catholicos of All Armenians-in the territory of rival Safavid Persia, in Ejmiacin, the prelacies in Ottoman lands found themselves in a complicated situation when it came to the elaboration of new ecclesiastic policy. Though autonomous under the rule of Sultans, they formally depended on Ejmiacin's decisions not only in doctrinal matters, but also in Armenian Church politics, specifically with European countries and Roman Curia. The Catholicoi had to continuously dispatch their legates to the Ottoman Empire where their presence and demeanor had become the cause of constant discontent of Constantinople's social elite. The plan to establish an anti-Catholicosate or, more precisely, a new Catholicosate for the Western prelacies of the Armenian Church carried out by Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi, was fueled with the desire to gain independence from Ejmiacin in decision-making and in acting accordingly with the Ottoman Empire's religious politics for its Christian subjects. On the other hand, it would jeopardize the integrity of the Armenian Apostolic Church and might lead to confessional assimilation, should Western prelacies happen to actually acknowledge the primacy of Rome. Therefore, when Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi was elected the Catholicos of All Armenians in Ejmiacin, he still made attempts to keep a close watch on the doctrinal and behavioral deviations in the Constantinople community with the assistance of such go-betweens as Eremia and Sukʻias.
Third, if he accepts the prayers articulated by them through the Holy Spirit, hence, he is obliged to accept "As for those who say" as well.  Seventh, is it that through a Synod, the abolition of this [Anathema] occurred, so that he dared proclaim it in the city? We have not heard of that Synod! And he does not reveal the cause to the public, [to prove], that due to this very reason, it is not of consequence to recite "As for those who say." Eighth, and there are five hundred clerics197 among our nation. Which one of them accorded with him in their words? Or perhaps they scribbled letters to him to abolish [recitation]? Let him show it to us! Ninth, and he has been hitherto reciting it himself as he learned and heard in this manner. So, now who influenced him not to recite [this]? Is it possible, that the angel of the Almighty manifested through a vision,198 or perhaps he ascended to the havens and heard the angelic tongues,199 or perhaps a messenger [and] new prophet200 taught [it to him]?
Tenth, it has been observed in Ejmiacin and Jerusalem and all the monasteries to this day, and no one has made up his mind to abolish it. Hence, it is obvious that [this] innovation is part of [his] arrogance, that is to say, he imagined himself more knowledgeable and wiser than all others.
Eleventh, that the ones, who are willing to read [it]; they all become wise [by means of] all writings of erudition. If he desires to boast to the peasants that he has read more than the others, first he has to prove it in public with the testimonies from the writings, and then take the confidence to abolish anything from the Hours,201 since that is a public matter, as well as ecclesiastical. Thirteenth, the perfect answer is that it has been articulated in consequence of the vice of Arius and his equals. Therefore, the Holy Church anathematizes them hitherto. And if one does not accept it [by saying], "Let "As for those who say" not be recited," then who will he turn into?
Fourteenth, the Creed,202 articulated by 318 Holy Fathers,203 was a way to succinctly enclose the definition of faith. And at the end of it [the Creed] they put this seal of ours, so that those who say so and so, are not accepted by the Church, and that he [Arius] is worthless and external to the mother, [that is the] Holy Church-not [as] a stepson, but an alien. Although he [Arius] claims himself to be begotten of the Church, he is a heretic and adversary of the Holy Gospel, since he does not confess the Son and the Holy Spirit [to be] of the very same nature with the Father, and does not confess the Spirit and the Son consubstantial204 with the Father. For our Lord Word of God, while revealing himself incarnated, proclaimed himself coequal, consubstantial, [and] coessential with the Holy Spirit, proclaimed himself of the very nature and the very essence with the Father, that is "Go, baptize all the nations in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (cf. Math. 28:19). Thus, it makes clear, that if there appear alterable and mutable people, who say "There was a time"205 and so forth; they will be [considered] heretics,206 infidels, Arians. Hence, [the like of them] are anathematized with body and soul, by the Holy Church, resembling the wind that disperses the dust on the surface of the world.
Fifteenth, if he [Sukʻias] argues that there are no Arians nowadays, but [since] this was articulated against Arius and his partisans at one time, therefore it is of no consequence to recite [it any more]. Yet I say, your word[s] are true indeed, that our Fathers sealed [this] up, and confined [it] to be observed the same way as the Creed is observed