No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ultramontane Efforts in the Ottoman Empire during the 1860s and 1870s
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 May 2018
Abstract
The attempts of Pope Pius IX to restrict the ecclesiastical rights of the Armenian Catholics with his bull Reversurus (1867) led to the Armenian schism in 1871. A factor which was decisive for the development of the relationship between the Armenian Catholic Church and the Ottoman empire, under whose rule the Church existed, was the influence of other powers. This article analyses the background of this relationship and its significance for the Armenian schism. For this purpose, first, the ecclesiastical rights of the Armenian Catholic Church during the period before the publication of Reversurus and their relation to the internal policy of the Ottoman empire are outlined. Second, the influence of the domestic and foreign policy of the Ottoman state on its relationship with its Armenian Catholic subjects is elucidated. In this way, it is shown that the historical background of the Armenian Catholic Church and the internal political circumstances of the Ottoman empire were intertwined and shaped the relationship between the Armenian Catholics and the Ottoman state. Despite this, relations between the Ottoman empire, the Holy See and other European empires came to exercise a predominant influence, leading by the end of the 1870s to the Armenian Catholic Church's enforced acquiescence in ecclesiastical change.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 2018
References
1 Since the Russo-Turkish War of 1828–9, Armenian territory had been split between the Ottoman and Russian empires. In the 1860s, there were about 27,000 Armenian Catholics in Constantinople and its surroundings, 8,000 in Syria, Mesopotamia and Armenia Minor, 12–14,000 in Austria, 28,150 in Russia, and smaller communities in Italy and elsewhere: Hergenröther, Joseph, ‘Die Rechtsverhältnisse der verschiedenen Riten innerhalb der katholischen Kirche’, Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht 7 (1862), 169–200Google Scholar, at 174.
2 For this process, see Atՙanasean, Xačՙik, Varkՙ Abraham-Petros A. Arciwean katՙołikosi (Beirut, 1959), 183–96Google Scholar.
3 The General Councils of Latin Christendom from Constantinople IV (869/870) to Lateran V (1512–1517), CChr.COGD 2/ii, 1224–59.
4 This tradition goes back to the mother Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, founded in 301. For more about it, see Nersoyan, Tiran, Armenian Church Historical Studies: Matters of Doctrine and Administration, ed. and intro. Nerses Vrej Nersessian (New York, 1996)Google Scholar.
5 CChr.COGD 2/ii, 1212–18.
6 Pius V, ‘Revocatio facultatis quomodolibet concessae Graecis Latino ritu, & Latinis Graeco more celebrandi Missas, & divina Officia’, 20 August 1566, in Tomassetti, Aloysius et al., eds, Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum romanorum pontificum, 27 vols (Turin, 1857–85), 7: 473–5Google Scholar.
7 ‘De ritibus Orientalium conservandis, de celebratione in eccl. alius ritus et Kalendario Gregoriano. Benedictus XIV, Allatae, 26. Julii 1755’, in Theodor Granderath and Gerhard Schneemann, eds, Acta et decreta sacrorum conciliorum recentiorum: Collectio Lacensis, Auctoribus presbyteris S. J. e domo B. V. M. sine labe conceptae ad Lacum, 7 vols (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870–90), 2: 534–7.
8 The preservation of the Armenian Church tradition was closely connected with the national character of the Armenian Catholic Church: Zekiyan, Boghos Levon, L'Armenia e gli armeni. Polis lacerata e patria spirituale: la sfida di una sopravvivenza (Milano, 2000)Google Scholar.
9 The Roman Catholic church historian Klaus Unterburger explains the background of this policy: While the Oriental churches believed that they could thus preserve their ecclesiology, Rome understood by ‘privileges and rights’ something which might be revoked by the popes at any time: Unterburger, Klaus, ‘Internationalisierung als Bedrohungsszenarium des forcierten Ultramontanismus. Die Weichenstellungen an der päpstlichen Kurie in den 1860er-Jahren und das Apostolische Schreiben Reversurus’, IKZ 106 (2016), 236–49Google Scholar, at 236–7.
10 For example, there were moves towards union between the Armenian Catholics and the Armenian Apostolic Church during the early nineteenth century (especially in 1810, 1817 and 1820): Artinian, Vartan, The Armenian Constitutional System in the Ottoman Empire, 1839–1863: A Study of its Historical Development (Istanbul, 1988), 34–6.Google Scholar The Armenian Catholic patriarchate sometimes made decisions which provoked protest from Rome, such as the decision in 1861 of Patriarch Grigor Pētros VIII (1844–66), to appoint the abbas generalis of the Armenian Catholic order of Antonians as archbishop of the diocese of Antiochia. For Rome's countermeasures, see Bzommar, Les Archives du Couvent Notre Dame de Bzommar [hereafter: BZ], Les Archives du Couvent d'Antonins [hereafter: ACA], Box 6, Ṙap̕ayēl Miasērean to an unknown recipient, 30 June 1866. In addition, the Roman Catholic church historian Theodor Granderath suggested that over the course of time the Oriental churches were growing increasingly autonomous, and that the popes began to consider it their duty to change the mode of election and so to limit the independence of these churches. In this interpretation, the Armenian Catholic denial of the pope's rights to intervene in this question amounted to a denial of his primacy: Theodor Granderath, Geschichte des Vatikanischen Konzils, ed. Konrad Kirch, 3 vols (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1903–6), 2: 327.
11 Beydilli, Kemal, II. Mahmud devriʹnde katolik Ermeni cemǎati v kilisesiʹnin taninmasi (1830) / Recognition of the Armenian Catholic Community and the Church in the Reign of Mahmud II (1830), ed. Tekin, Şinasi and Tekin, Gönül Alpay, Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 27 (Cambridge, MA, 1995)Google Scholar.
12 The Ottoman empire was divided into different classes: the ruling class (Òsmani), servants of the sultan (Askerî) and subjects (Reâyâ); the Reâyâs had to pay high taxes, unlike the Askerîs: Faroqhi, Suraiya, Kultur und Alltag im osmanischen Reich. Vom Mittelalter bis zum Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts, 2nd edn (München, 2003), 72–3.Google Scholar In addition, the Ottoman government practised a theocratic system, in which the Armenians were treated as Gavurs (unbelievers): Merten, Kai, Untereinander, nicht nebeneinander. Das Zusammenleben religiöser und kultureller Gruppen im osmanischen Reich des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 2014), 402Google Scholar.
13 For more about the Tanẓīmāt reforms, see Jung, Dietrich, ‘Staatsbildung und Staatszerfall. Die osmanische Moderne und der europäische Staatenbildungsprozess’, in Clemens, Gabriele, ed., Die Türkei und Europa (Hamburg, 2007), 57–78Google Scholar.
14 Ibid. 65.
15 BZ, ACA, box 2, ‘Harazat t‛argmanut‛iwn ardaradat patuirank‛nerun, or Mēčlisi Ahk‛eami Atliyēyin xorhərdacut‛eambə grvec‛an, ew Ark‛ayakan hramanawn al hratarakvec‛an’, 18 February 1846.
16 BZ, ACA, box 2, ‘T‛argmanut‛iwn kayserakan xat‛t‛i hiwmayunin or 1856 p‛etrvar 6in kardac‛vec‛aw barjragoyn duṙə’.
17 Lynch, H. F. B., Armenia: Travels and Studies, 2 vols (London, 1901), 2: 446–67Google Scholar (App. I).
18 Despite the fact that in theory there was one Armenian Catholic Church with one patriarch, the archbishop primas was in fact more than an archbishop. Being appointed by the pope, he could act autonomously and was seen thus as another head alongside the patriarch. In addition to this, the fact that he had jurisdiction over the capital and its surroundings magnified his role.
19 These bishops had some autonomy within their dioceses, but they stood under the immediate primacy of the patriarch.
20 Gazer, Hacik Rafi, ‘Bibliographie’, IKZ 106 (2016), 323–8Google Scholar, at 324.
21 For instance, the abbot general of the Armenian Catholic order of Antonians received the right to hold office for life and to head the diocese of Antiochia without permission from Rome. These decisions, which were supported by the Armenian Catholic patriarch, met with protest from the Holy See: see Mariam Kartashyan, ‘Das armenische Schisma, seine transnationalen Auswirkungen und seine Rolle für die Beziehungen zwischen Armeniern, Altkatholiken und Anglikanern, in den 1870er Jahren’ (PhD Dissertation, University of Bern, 2016), 68–9. Beside the increasing autonomy, the relation to other non-Catholic Christian communities was another problem for the Holy See. Since the beginning of the nineteenth century there had been moves within the Ottoman empire to unite the Catholic and the Apostolic Armenians, which were criticized by the Holy See: ibid. 66–7; see also n. 10 above.
22 For instance, the Melkite patriarch Gregory II Youssef (1864–97) complained of a lack of church discipline within the Eastern churches: Granderath, Geschichte des Vatikanischen Konzils, 1: 55. Granderath notes that the election of the bishops in the Eastern rites sometimes contravened the regulations governing the process: ibid. 2: 327.
23 Granderath and Schneemann, eds, Collectio Lacensis, 2: 568–73.
24 Palčean, Ałek‛sandr, Patmut‛iwn kat‛ołikē vardapetut‛ean i hays ew miut‛ean noc‛a ənd hṙomēakan ekełec‛woy i p‛lorentean siwnhodosi (Vienna, 1878), 177Google Scholar.
25 Because of the political importance of the capital, the transfer of the seat to Constantinople may be understood as a particular ecclesio-political strategy of Pius IX.
26 Hasun tried to consolidate power, holding the office of patrik together with that of patriarch: Yovsēpՙ Askerean [Pōynuēyrean, Pōłos], Hasunean kՙałakՙakanutՙiwn: Eresun ew hing ameay patmutՙiwn Ger. Hasunean Anton vardapetin, skseal i kՙahanayutՙenēn minčՙ. cՙpatriarkՙutՙiwnn (Tiflis [Tiblisi], 1868), 503–4Google Scholar.
27 Pius IX, ‘Litterae apostolicae de dogmatica definitione immaculatae conceptionis Virginis Deiparae’, in Corpus actorum RR. Pontificum, Pii X Pontificis Maximi acta, 2 parts in 9 vols (Graz, 1971; first publ. 1857), 1/i: 597–619.
28 Pius IX, ‘Quanta cura’, ibid., 1/iii: 687–700.
29 Pius IX, ‘Syllabus complectens praecipuos nostrae aetatis errores qui notantur in allocutionibus consistorialibus in encyclicis aliisque apostolicis litteris sanctissimi domini nostri Pii Papae IX’, ibid. 701–17.
30 The Oecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church from Trent to Vatican II (1545–1965), CChr.COGD 3, 206–12.
31 The main protagonists of this protest were the monks of the Order of Antonians.
32 The reaction of the uniate Chaldeans, Maronites, Melkites and Syrians to this question will be described in my forthcoming article, ‘Die Kirchenpolitik des römischen Stuhls während des Zusammenbruchs des Kirchenstaates (bis 1870)’, IKZ 108 (2018). Jakub Osiecki shows that there were also protests against the pope's supreme jurisdictional power among Armenian Catholics in Artvin in the Russian empire, lasting until the beginning of the twentieth century: Osiecki, Jakub, ‘The Catholics of the Armenian Rite in Armenia and Georgia (1828–1909)’, IKZ 106 (2016), 295–319Google Scholar.
33 After election, the Armenian patriarch would be confirmed in office by the sultan through an official berât (licence): Cobham, Claude Delaval, The Patriarchs of Constantinople, intro. Fortescue, Adrian and Duckworth, H. T. F. (Cambridge, 1911), 36–7.Google Scholar
34 Anon., ‘Constantinopel’, Deutscher Merkur 5 (1874), 71.
35 Gazer, ‘Bibliographie’, 326.
36 Winfried Baumgart, ‘Der Friede von Paris 1856. Studien zum Verhältnis von Kriegführung, Politik und Friedensbewahrung’ (Habilitation dissertation, University of Bonn, 1970; publ. München, 1972).
37 For more on this subject, see Geyer, Dietrich, Der russische Imperialismus. Studien über den Zusammenhang von innerer und auswärtiger Politik 1860–1914, Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft 27 (Göttingen, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
38 I have explained the reasons for this in much greater detail elsewhere: Kartashyan, Mariam, ‘Die Rolle der europäischen Imperialmächte für den Verlauf des armenischen Schismas (1871–1879/1881)’, IKZ 106 (2016), 273–94Google Scholar, at 278–87.
39 Ōrmanean, Małak‘Ia, Azgapatum, ed. Karapetean, Tigran and Ačēmean, Šahē, 3 vols + 1 register vol. (Ēǰmiacin, 2001–2), 3: 4962Google Scholar.
40 BZ, ACA, box 23, portfolio 26, Pōłos Pōynuēyrean, “Ōragrut‛iwnk‛”; box 174, portfolio Əntrut‛iwn Yakob Pahtiareani, Yovsēp‘ Šišmanean, [report about the elections], 12 February 1871; see also Ōrmanean, Azgapatum, 3: 4961.
41 According to Herman Schwedt, the main reasons for the schism were the development of European Catholicism and the religious and social conflicts of the Armenian Catholic community in the Ottoman empire: Schwedt, Herman H., ‘Weit hinten in der Türkei. Der Papst und das Schisma der armenischen Katholiken (1870–1888)’, IKZ 106 (2016), 250–72Google Scholar, at 272.
42 For more details about French and German interference, see Kartashyan, ‘Die Rolle der europäischen Imperialmächte’, 284–7.
43 For more, see Kartashyan, ‘Das armenische Schisma’, 146–205.
44 Unterburger shows that the internalization of the anti-ultramontane movements was seen as a threat in Rome: Unterburger, ‘Internationalisierung als Bedrohungsszenarium’, 248.
45 Vienna, Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Gesandtschaftsarchiv Konstantinopel, box 288, portfolio 1, no. 18, Gyula Andrássy to Zichy zu Zich, 25 April 1874.
46 See Berlis, Angela, ‘Ignaz von Döllinger and the Anglicans’, in Brown, Stewart J. and Nockles, Peter B., eds, The Oxford Movement: Europe and the Wider World 1830–1930 (Cambridge, 2012), 236–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 237.
47 In a previous article, I analysed the reasons for the shift in Western policy. My aim was to show that the Western powers played a decisive role in the duration and conclusion of the Armenian schism: Kartashyan, ‘Die Rolle der europäischen Imperialmächte’, 287–92.
48 Pflanze, Otto, Bismarck, 2 vols (München 2008), 2: 51–4Google Scholar.
49 See the complaint of the French chargé d'affaires in Constantinople: La Courneuve, Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Centre des Archives diplomatiques de La Courneuve, Correspondance politique Turquie, Mik. P 724, vol. 407, fols 258v–259v, Charles de Moüy to Louis Decazes, 31 January 1877.
50 Berlin, Politisches Archiv, Auswärtiges Amt, Auswärtiges Amt des deutschen Reiches 1870–1945, 12409b, A 1090, ‘Die türkischen Finanzen. Am Schlusse des Finanzjahres 1872/73’, 13 March 1873.
51 He became known as the ‘red sultan’ for his oppression and massacres of Christians, especially Armenians, during his time in power: see, for example, S. V. Bedickian, The Red Sultan's Soliloquy, transl. Alice Stone Blackwell (Boston, MA, 1912).
52 ‘Der Berliner Vertrag von 1878. Faksimile aus dem Reichsgesetzblatt’, in Geiss, Imanuel, ed., Der Berliner Kongress 1878. Protokolle und Materialien (Boppard am Rhein, 1978), 369–407.Google Scholar
53 Schwedt shows the role of the Holy See's flexible church policy, which developed a strategy of gradual action in order to solve the Armenian question. One important step was the challenge to the Armenian Catholic patriarch Hasun, whose strategy was one of the main reasons for the conflict, to retreat from his position in 1880: Schwedt, ‘Weit hinten in der Türkei’, 250–72, at 268–9.
54 BZ, ACA, box 38, portfolio 19, Pōłos Pōynuēyrean, ‘Tesutՙiwnkՙ’.
55 Kartashyan, ‘Die Kirchenpolitik des römischen Stuhls’, offers a fuller discussion.