The cited article from the Pillar Catholic portal reports on the criminal prosecution of Karekin II, Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church, by the secular government of Armenia. It frames the conflict as a constitutional crisis between a “secular republic” and a “national church,” notes the Oriental Orthodox communion’s separation from Catholicism since 451, and speculates on a potential Vatican mediation role under “Pope Leo XIV.” The article’s underlying thesis is that this dispute represents a normal, if tense, relationship between church and state in a pluralistic society—a thesis that collapses under the weight of integral Catholic doctrine.
The Armenian Apostolic Church: A Schismatic Structure Outside the True Church
The Armenian Apostolic Church is not a “church” in the Catholic sense. It is a schismatic communion that rejected the Council of Chalcedon (451), a dogmatic council defining the two natures of Christ. Pre-Vatican II theology, following St. Robert Bellarmine and the unanimous consent of the Fathers, holds that schismatics are outside the Church and possess no jurisdiction. The 1917 Code of Canon Law (Can. 1324) and the Syllabus of Errors (§15-18) condemn any notion that non-Catholic assemblies have a right to exist or that their leaders have legitimate authority. The article’s neutral description of the Armenian Apostolic Church as “one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches” with “9 million members” is a modernist, indifferentist presentation that contradicts the Catholic dogma: “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” (Outside the Church there is no salvation). The Armenian Apostolic Church, by persisting in schism, is a sect, not a church, and its “Catholicos” holds no legitimate pastoral office.
Secularism Condemned: The State’s Pretension to Judge the Church
The Armenian constitution declares the republic “secular” and mandates the separation of Church and state. This is precisely the error condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (§55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”). The article presents this secular framework as a given, a neutral backdrop. In reality, it is a manifestation of the “laicism” and “secularism” that Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, called a “plague” that “poisons human society.” The state’s opening of a criminal case against a religious leader for “obstructing justice” is an intolerable usurpation. Quas Primas states unequivocally: “The state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations… it cannot depend on anyone’s will.” When the state presumes to arrest a bishop for exercising ecclesiastical authority—even a schismatic bishop—it violates the divine order. The article’s neutral tone on this point reveals its naturalistic, modernist assumption that the state has supreme authority in temporal matters, a direct contradiction of the social reign of Christ the King.
The “National Church” Heresy: A Denial of the Catholicity of the True Church
The article notes that Armenia’s constitution recognizes the Armenian Apostolic Church “as a national church, in the spiritual life of the Armenian people.” This concept of a “national church” is a condemned error. The Syllabus of Errors (§37) anathematizes: “National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established.” The true Church is catholic (universal), not national. Any church that identifies itself with a single ethnicity or nation is a human construct, a rejection of the universality of Christ’s redemption. The Armenian Apostolic Church’s very identity as the “national church of Armenia” is a symptom of its schismatic nationalism, contrary to the Catholic principle that the Church is “the Kingdom of Christ on earth, intended for all people of the whole world” (Quas Primas).
Ecumenical Delusions: The Vatican’s Illegitimate Dialogue
The article mentions Pope Leo XIV’s meetings with Karekin II and suggests the Vatican could mediate. This is a profound scandal. The pre-conciliar Church, as defined by Pius IX’s Syllabus (§18: “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion…” – condemned) and Pius X’s Lamentabili (Proposition 65: “The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament cannot be at all tolerated” – directed at non-Catholics), held that dialogue with schismatics and heretics is illicit unless it aims at their return to the one true Church. The 1996 “common declaration” between John Paul II and Karekin I, cited in the article, is a modernist document that treats schism as a mere “semantic” difference, thereby relativizing dogma. This is the very “indifferentism” condemned in the Syllabus (§16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation”). The Vatican’s engagement with the Armenian Apostolic Church is not a noble peace effort; it is an apostate betrayal of the exclusive claims of the Catholic Church.
Modernist Language and Omissions: The Silence of the Supernatural
The article’s language is dripping with modernist assumptions. It speaks of “Church-state showdown,” “constitutional separation,” “reform roadmap,” “financial transparency,” and “political opposition.” Not once does it mention: the state of souls, the sacraments, heresy, schism, the duty of the state to profess the Catholic faith, or the final judgment. This is the hallmark of the “naturalistic” religion of the Antichrist. The entire conflict is framed in purely sociological and political terms. The Catholic perspective, from Quas Primas, would ask: “Is the Armenian state officially consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus? Does its legislation conform to the Ten Commandments? Are its rulers bound to publicly obey Christ the King?” The article’s silence on these supernatural realities is not neutrality; it is an implicit denial of the kingship of Christ over all nations.
The “Pope Leo XIV” Mirage: Usurpation in Action
The article refers to “Pope Leo XIV” as if he were a legitimate pontiff. According to Catholic doctrine before 1958, a pope must be a Catholic in full communion with the See of Peter, professing the integral faith. The line of antipopes from John XXIII through Francis has promulgated heresies (especially in ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality) and thus, by the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine (quoted in the Defense of Sedevacantism file), have ipso facto lost the papacy. The “Pope Leo XIV” (Robert Prevost) is a manifest heretic and an antipope. His meetings with a schismatic “Catholicos” are not acts of a Vicar of Christ but of a modernist agent facilitating the “ecumenical project” condemned by Pius X as “the synthesis of all heresies.” The article’s treatment of this figure as a legitimate pope is a fundamental error that invalidates its entire framework.
Confrontation with Pre-1958 Doctrine: A Complete Rejection
1. **On Church and State:** Quas Primas (1925) teaches that “the state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations… it cannot depend on anyone’s will” and that rulers have the “duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him.” The Armenian state’s secular constitution and its prosecution of a religious leader are direct violations of this doctrine. The article presents the secular state’s actions as legally legitimate.
2. **On Schism and Dialogue:** The Syllabus of Errors (§15, 16, 18) condemns the idea that any religion can lead to salvation and that Protestantism (and by extension, any non-Catholic sect) is an acceptable form of Christianity. The article’s neutral presentation of the Armenian Apostolic Church as a legitimate Christian body is condemned by this dogmatic teaching.
3. **On the Kingship of Christ:** Quas Primas states that Christ’s reign “encompasses all men” and that “the state is happy not by one means, and man by another; for the state is nothing else than a harmonious association of men.” The Armenian state’s refusal to recognize Christ as King and its claim to supreme authority over even ecclesiastical matters (as in the criminal case) is the very secularism Pius XI lamented. The article ignores this central Catholic political doctrine.
4. **On the Immutability of Doctrine:** Pius X’s Lamentabili (Proposition 58: “Truth changes with man, because it develops with him…”) condemns the modernist idea that doctrine evolves. The article’s implication that the “1996 common declaration” represents a development or deepening of understanding between Rome and Armenia is a modernist error. Catholic doctrine on schism is immutable: schismatics are outside the Church and must return to it unconditionally.
Conclusion: A Symptom of the Apostasy
This article is a perfect specimen of the post-conciliar, modernist mindset. It treats:
– A schismatic sect as a legitimate “church.”
– A secular, atheistic state order as a neutral framework.
– A heresiarch antipope as a respected head of the universal Church.
– Political power struggles as the primary reality, with the supernatural order relegated to silence.
Every omission—the absence of talk about the sacraments, grace, heresy, the duty of Catholic states—is a denial of the integral Catholic faith. The conflict in Armenia is not a “Church-state showdown” in the neutral sense the article suggests. It is a clash between a secularized, apostate state and a schismatic, nationalistic religious body, both operating entirely outside the supernatural order established by Christ. The only “role for the Vatican” in a true Catholic sense would be for the legitimate (pre-1958) hierarchy to excommunicate both parties for their respective errors (secularism and schism) and to preach the Social Reign of Christ the King as the only solution. The article’s failure to even consider this exposes its complete theological and spiritual bankruptcy.
Source:
Why is there a Church-state showdown in Armenia? (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 16.02.2026