Court Affirms Armenian Apostolic Church’s Right to Self-Governance, Lifts Restrictions on Mother See
An Armenian court has dismissed the lawsuit filed by defrocked former Bishop Gevorg Saroyan, now known as Arman Saroyan, who sought reinstatement as Primate of the Diocese of Masyatsotn after being removed from office by His Holiness Karekin II, Catholicos of All Armenians.
The decision, announced by attorney Ara Zohrabyan, represents a significant legal victory for the Armenian Apostolic Church and its longstanding position that ecclesiastical appointments and dismissals fall exclusively within the authority of the Church, rather than the jurisdiction of secular courts.
The Court of General Jurisdiction of Armenia’s Armavir Province, presided over by Judge Edgar Hovhannisyan, terminated the civil proceedings initiated by Saroyan, who had sought to invalidate the Pontifical Decree removing him from his position and to compel his reinstatement.
In its ruling, the court upheld the central legal argument advanced by the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin: the appointment and removal of diocesan primates constitute an exclusive prerogative of the Catholicos of All Armenians and are inseparable from the Church’s internal governance and religious autonomy.
The court determined that such matters are governed by the canonical laws of the Armenian Apostolic Church and are not subject to adjudication through ordinary civil proceedings.
Importantly, the court also lifted the previously imposed interim restrictions that had prevented the Mother See from fully implementing its decisions concerning the administration of the Diocese of Masyatsotn.
Those restrictions had become the basis for criminal proceedings against Catholicos Karekin II and six bishops, who were accused of obstructing the enforcement of a judicial order. The dismissal of the underlying civil case and removal of its interim measures raise significant questions about the continued legal basis and justification for those criminal proceedings, although the decision does not itself automatically terminate them.
Court Recognizes Church’s Canonical Independence
The ruling draws a fundamental distinction between ordinary employment relationships and the spiritual authority exercised within a religious institution.
The appointment, removal, and ecclesiastical standing of clergy cannot be treated simply as employment matters subject to government supervision without regard for the Church’s religious laws and traditions.
The court also reportedly considered the episcopal oath signed by Saroyan upon his consecration. In that oath, he pledged lifelong fidelity to the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, obedience to the Catholicos of All Armenians and his lawful successors, and adherence to the canonical discipline of the Church.
The significance of that oath underscores the religious and institutional nature of the dispute, distinguishing the position of a bishop from that of an ordinary employee.
Broader Implications for Church–State Relations
The case unfolded amid escalating tensions between the government of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and the leadership of the Armenian Apostolic Church. The government’s involvement in matters surrounding the removal of Saroyan, and the subsequent criminal proceedings against senior Church leaders, have raised serious concerns about state interference in ecclesiastical affairs.
The court’s decision represents an important affirmation of the principle that religious institutions possess the constitutional right to administer their internal affairs independently of political authorities.
For the Armenian Apostolic Church, whose spiritual and national role extends across Armenia and the worldwide Armenian Diaspora, that independence is particularly consequential.
While the legal confrontation between the government and the Church is far from resolved, the dismissal of Saroyan’s lawsuit establishes an important boundary: the authority to appoint or remove a diocesan primate belongs to the Church’s own spiritual hierarchy, not to the state.
The ruling marks a significant development in the defense of the Armenian Apostolic Church’s canonical authority and institutional independence at a time when both have faced unprecedented political and legal challenges.
