The Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin Decides to Respond to Government-Affiliated Statements: The First Step Has Been Taken
The escalating situation around the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin in recent days is entering a new phase. A sharp Facebook post by monastic Hieromonk Asoghik Karapetyan confirms that Etchmiadzin is cautiously beginning to respond to the sensational document circulating in the media. This refers to the information spread today by government-affiliated media outlets, according to which a dozen bishops and archbishops issued a joint statement harshly criticizing the Catholicos. Specifically, in the document, a group of high-ranking clergymen leveled sharp criticism against the Catholicos of All Armenians, claiming that the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin did not accept the expert examination of the videos circulated regarding Archbishop Arshak and thereby “protected” him.
Despite this statement being circulated by more than a dozen media outlets, no bishop publicly addressed it or confirmed that the signature on the document was theirs throughout the day. Only Bishop Serovbe Isakhanyan, Primate of the Armenian Diocese of Germany, announced that his name appeared in the document without his knowledge.
Towards the end of the day, the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin somewhat broke its silence by stating that the document contains “distortions” and that additional clarifications will follow after internal discussions. It is against this backdrop that Hieromonk Asoghik has made two posts on Facebook. This seems to be the first clear signal from the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin: the silence surrounding the internal church crisis is breaking down. Although he reacted clearly and sharply to the press statements, it is evident that the issue of unity within the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin has turned into an open, public controversy.
Nevertheless, the authenticity of the circulated statement remains the main question. If it is confirmed, the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin will face a serious internal church crisis. If it is denied, other questions will arise: how and for what purpose was the document prepared, and why was it circulated through a number of political circles?