At today's press conference where architectural historian and researcher squared off with Father Vahram Melikyan, who heads the Public Information Department of Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, reporters peppered the clergyman with questions on the Church's priorities regarding the construction of new churches or the preservation of those in need.

Here's some of the heated give and take that took place.

Today, outside of Yerevan, there are 5th and 7th century churches in terrible shape but that embody a great cultural value. And new churches are being built right alongside them. Why doesn't Etchmiadzin repair the old ones?

We should separate the two issues – construction of new churches and the repair of existing historical churches. Resources allocated for the one can never be redirected to the other. They are separate matters and must be view independently. In other words, those accusations now being voiced have no basis in reality.

What is the position adopted by the Church and not some patron or benefactor? Is the priority given to the repair and renovation of the old churches or the construction of new ones? For example, was priority given to the construction of the St. Anna Church in downtown Yerevan, where there is no actual need for another church and not to the, say, renovation of Haghartzin or Sanahin?

This is the principle. The Holy See is pursuing the construction of new churches in locales where there is a perceived need. For example, if Tbilisi has 98 churches and, in addition to them, the Holy Trinity Cathedral was also built, the most magnificent and tallest cathedral in the region, then, in my estimation, having only 15 churches in Yerevan, a city with a population of only 100,000 less is not sufficient. There are neighbourhoods in Yerevan that have no church at all. These areas thus are turned into lairs for a whole host of other religious groups and sects.

As to the historical monasteries, they are another issue and elicit the same attention of Etchmiadzin and are allocated all possible resources. We attempt to collaborate with international and Armenian organizations and government agencies for their improvement and preservation.

So which is given precedence by Etchmiadzin, the old or new?

Both are and there is no real difference when it comes to the construction of new churches or the preservation of older ones.

Can it be that the Holy See, the Catholicos, doesn't have the power to convince potential benefactors that they should be spending their millions of dollars on the renovation of places like Haghartzin and Sanahin and not on new church construction in downtown Yerevan?

Each individual that expresses a willingness to do charitable work must make that decision. The Holy Father presents a variety of potential projects to the benefactor that they can support and sponsor.

In cases where it is appropriate, we do direct benefactors who, say, want to build a church in a certain Yerevan neighbourhood, in the town of Sevan, or say in Dilijan, places where churches already exist, to allocate their funds towards the renovation of this church or that monastery.

But you cannot always convince a benefactor to change their mind. In the end, some people have taken a vow, a sacred oath, to perform a certain task and we must respect their wishes.

In other words, if a rich benefactor expresses a sacred wish then he or she can build a church wherever they want to in Yerevan and without taking into account the views of residents?

No; not wherever they want.

That's how it turns out though.

No it doesn't turn out like that. People express a desire to build a new cathedral and others want to renovate Noravank. The Holy Father offers them options accordingly. There are many neighbourhoods in Yerevan lacking a church but the land has been allocated for that purpose. So a church just can't be built anywhere one wishes. It's not like a church can be built in your backyard, no matter how much you want one.

It's just that we want the Church to have the final say and not the benefactor. Etchmiadzin should be in a position to tell potential donors that their resources will be put to better use by renovating our historical sites than building new churches.

For the Church to have that leverage you people must support the church and help strengthen it rather than organizing such discussions that only serve to discredit it and spread absurdities.