Election of a patriarch among the Syro-Persian Nestorians and Copts

[The intervention of state power in the church sphere in the matter of electing the highest hierarchical persons quite by chance bore fruit in the Monophysite environment]. It happened in Egypt. After the death of Patriarch Zechariah (Jan. 4, 1032), Egyptian Christians (Monophysites) had difficulty choosing a patriarch. Then the Egyptian vizier, Ali bnu-Ahmad Mujibu-d-daulat, who was favorably disposed towards Christians and extremely efficient, suggested that Christians should do as Christians do in Baghdad. Near Baghdad was Seleucia, where the residence of the Syrian Catholicos was located. The matter was about the practice of the Nestorians. They did it this way. Of all the persons who had the right to vote, 100 people were chosen, from these 100 - 50, from 50 - 25, from 25 - 10, from 10 - 3. Of these three, one was chosen in a special way. The choice was left to God. Each person's name was written on a special ticket; on the fourth, the name of Jesus Christ was written. Then the tickets were rolled up and placed on the throne. The liturgy was celebrated, and after it they sent a child, from whom one could not expect treachery. He brought out a ticket, and if the name of any candidate was on it, then he was recognized as elected; if there was the name of Christ, then this meant that Christ still remains the good shepherd of the dowager church and none of the three candidates is pleasing to Him. So this was repeated another and third time, until the choice fell on one specific person. This time the Copts did not take advantage of the vizier's proposal, but subsequently they had to turn to this method and practice it quite often. The name of this method is haykalîyah - altar. After the death of Gabriel II, the Copts had difficulty in electing his successor. Most were inclined to elect a monk of the monastery of St. Macarius Yunis (John), son of Kidaran, an eloquent, educated, personable man. When they wanted to dwell on it, a message was received from Abu Yusuf (Joseph), who strictly warned not to get carried away by appearance, but to pay attention to character, for woe to the church that puts in charge a person who does not know how to govern himself. We decided to turn to the haikaliya method. Everyone signed their consent, except for the monk of the Makariev Monastery, Michael. Everyone thought that he was a zealous partisan of Younis and therefore did not want to agree to his removal. Three candidates were chosen: John from the monastery of St. John, Sulayman - from the monastery of al-Baramus, and the third - Michael. The lot fell on Michael. Then it became clear why he didn’t sign up. The son of poor parents, he did not receive any education and did not know how to write, and therefore could not subscribe to the conciliar decision on choosing a bishop according to the “haikaliyya” (altar) method. This time the instructions of Providence were respected sacredly. They looked at Michael as God's chosen one. Since he did not know how to read Coptic, he learned by heart the liturgy of Basil V. and after that was ordained patriarch (in 1145). It is highly characteristic that such a practice developed in the Syro-Persian Church. None of its historians describe it in detail, and therefore we do not know that hayqaliyya was practiced here in exactly the form as described by Mujibu d-daulat. The main idea of ​​the form he described is the consistent replacement of direct elections with mediocre ones. 100 people were directly elected, who were given the right to actively elect candidates from among them. These 100 people decided the issue of choice. Moreover, the number of voters gradually decreased. This is the best practice. The direct election of one person over the entire country would rarely promise success. Residents of, for example, Nisivina know very well the worthy people in Nisivina, but do not know the worthy people in Arbela, and vice versa. How to choose one worthy one from these unknown persons? It is much more expedient to choose your worthy persons as voters, obliging them to do everything possible for them to elect the most worthy as Catholicos. It is not particularly surprising if the method, in its own way, is very good, and was invented by Persian Christians. Need is a great teacher and makes us pray to God. Christians have always lived here between a rock and a hard place. The Persian kings knew about the existence of the Christian church. Although there was no constant persecution, it could begin at the first whim. I had to behave carefully, not to give rise to persecution. The Shah could propose a candidate; it would be very dangerous to refuse him. It was natural for the Syrians to adhere to the method of election by lot, which protected their ecclesiastical freedom. They could say that election did not depend on their will. They can only include the person proposed by the Shah among the candidates. This practice remained firmly in place. When the Catholicos died, then in the “city of peace” - Baghdad, faithful people, doctors and scribes, gathered together and invited presbyters and deacons to a meeting. They sent news to the bishop of Kashkar and called on him to temporarily rule the Seleucia church. It should be noted that the administration of the Persian church was structured according to the following scheme. There were six metropolitan districts under the authority of the Catholicos. At the same time, he was the ruler of a vast diocese called “Beth Armaie” (“house of the Arameans” of the Syrians). Under his authority there were 12–13 bishops, among whom the bishop of Kashkar took precedence: he was called “the head of the bishops” or “the son of his right hand” (Catholicos), probably due to the fact that he stood on the right side during services and in church affairs was, so to speak, his right hand. After the death of the Catholicos, he was recognized as his locum tenens. If the Kashkar department was not occupied, then the locum tenens passed in turn to the lower departments, and so on until the junior bishop of Kasre. The locum tenens conducted all affairs, but did not appoint bishops, did not wear a staff (it was considered inconvenient to use it in a foreign area) and a birun (a vestment resembling an omophorion). He acted as locum tenens for 3 months and prepared the ground for the election, then invited metropolitans and bishops to the council. Usually the Catholicos was ordained by the Metropolitan of Bet Lapata 1). The Persian church was so well equipped. Questioning the Lord by lot was also practiced in Russia, for example, in Novgorod. The lot was drawn by a boy or a blind man. When evaluating this method of election, you need to pay special attention to the fourth ticket. It contains a deep religious and moral meaning. Firstly, this expresses a strong belief that God will not leave, but will show a worthy successor; secondly, humility. Tsar Zinon demanded a miracle: the writing of the candidate’s name by the hand of an angel on paper, placed in a sealed envelope. But here no such supernatural action was required. Then: here they believe that the Lord, through the use of lots, can indicate a worthy candidate, but they understand perfectly well that not one of the proposed candidates may turn out to be pleasing to God. The fourth ticket taken out with the name of Christ will indicate this. Where this fourth ticket was not there, it was as if they forced God: “whether you want it or not, but one of these three.” Nothing was developed in the Greek Church until the very end of the Byzantine period 1 . Wed. V.V. Bolotov, From the history of the Syro-Persian Church. Excursion B. The most ancient metropolises in the Persian Church. Christ. Reading, 1899.1, 346–349 (separate reprint, 51–54). A.B. You might be interested in: