- Jul 1, 2023
- 155
- 48
- Country
- Russian Federation
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
There is information in the English-language Internet that the Armenian Apostolic Church accepted the heresy of Julian of Halicarnassus, but then repented and accepted the teaching of Severus at the Council of Manazkert in 726. For instance, Fr. VC Samuel in his book about Chalcedon writes that the Armenian Church split from the Oriental Church and condemned St. Severus for a couple of centuries.
All this is a lie from beginning to end. As a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church, it is very important to me that people speak correctly about my Church. Therefore, in this publication I will try to correctly present the history and teaching of the Armenian Church.
The teaching of the Armenian Church differs from the teaching of both Severus and Julian. Severus insisted that the Flesh of Christ is corruptible, like that of all people. For him, the Flesh of Christ was inglorious and imperfect from the Virgin until the Resurrection, and only after the Resurrection was it glorified and became incorruptible. He recognized that Christ is sinless and has no sinful passions, but in all other respects, according to Severus, Christ was like an ordinary man before the Resurrection. This position clearly contradicted the Holy Scripture. This is evidenced by the Apostle Paul: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8). If, as Severus insists, the Flesh of the Lord was corruptible before the Resurrection, then it means that the apostles in the upper room did not taste the Sin-Atoning and Life-Giving Flesh, but imperfect, inglorious and corruptible Flesh. In Severus’ anthropological defense, one notices an extreme desire to bring the God-man closer to “ordinary people,” which is how he understood our consubstantiality with Christ.
Therefore, Severus was anathematized by the Armenian Church. The Dvin Council of the Armenian Apostolic Church in 607 decreed:
"In the past, the Holy Fathers and Orthodox Vardpets, with terrible anathemas, rejected and eliminated all heretics: and Savvelius, and Arius, and Eunomius, and those like them, and Paul of Samosata, and Theodore, and Diodorus, and the unremembered Nestorius and Theodoret, and Eutychius, and Severus, and Andrew, and those associated with them, and Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and those associated with them, and the lawless Council of Chalcedon and the vile Tomos of Leo."
And this anathema has not been lifted or cancelled anywhere.
The teaching of corruption was categorically rejected by the holy fathers of the Armenian Church. According to the teaching of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Flesh of Christ is suffering and mortal, but not corruptible. The Flesh of the Lord is incorruptible until the Resurrection: "Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life" (John 6:54). The Word of God took on not the original nature of Adam, but our corruptible nature - corruptible flesh, sinful soul and spirit, and, having united them with Himself, separated sin from the soul and spirit, and corruption from the flesh. And Christ in the incarnation (not after ressurection) became as incorruptible as Adam before the fall. Saint Grigory of Tatev writes:
"He did not take the first nature of Adam, but took our corruptible one from the family of Adam and, uniting it with Himself, transferred it to the first innocent and incorruptible nature of Adam."
As much as the fathers of the Armenian Church shunned Severus' teaching about "corruption", so they were wary of docetism (phantasm, illusion) hidden in Julian's teaching about "incorruption". And the dispute of the Armenian Fathers was not with Julian himself, but with the extreme followers of his teaching. In any case, Julian's writings do not contain that crude Docetism, which his opponents often talk about, who accused him of turning the sacrament of Redemption into a kind of "fantasy and dream vision" with his teaching about the natural "corruption" of the Savior's flesh. Julian's system about the "incorruption" of the Flesh of Christ is connected not with his understanding of God-human unity, but with his general anthropological assumptions. Julian considers the primordial nature of a person to be "incorruptible", non-suffering and immortal, free from the so-called "unreprehensible passions" (i.e. weak and "suffering" states in general). The fall significantly and hereditarily damages human nature, it becomes weak, mortal and corruptible. In the incarnation, God the Word perceives the nature of the original Adam, "passionless" and "incorruptible", therefore he becomes the New Adam. That's why Christ suffered and died "for the sake of reconciliation", according to God's will, "in the order of a miracle". However, the suffering and death of Christ were real and real, not an "opinion" or "phantom". But they were free, because it was not the death of a "corrupt" and "passionate" (suffering) person. The divine unity of Julian presents itself more narrowly than Severus. He refused to distinguish "natural qualities" in God's human synthesis. In the incarnation of the Word, the "incorruption" of the perceived flesh is secured by such a close union with the Godhead that in suffering and death it was removed by a kind of God's providential concession. Another of Julian's followers thought that this humanity, transfigured and deified in God-human unity, could no longer be called "creature". These followers of Juliana also appeared in Armenia. Judging by the struggle that the Church had with the "fantasists", it is possible to conclude that the roots they planted were deep. The unity of God and man in Christ was exaggerated by the "fantasists" to such an extent that the human being was immersed in the Godhead and was considered almost annihilated. For them, the human in Christ is not real, but a ghostly phenomenon. There is an obvious kinship with the Christological perception of Apollinaris and Eutychius (anthropological minimalism). It seemed to them that Christ really could not thirst, crave, suffer... Christ was not incarnated by the Virgin, but in the Virgin, and this incarnation for them was a kind of "mask" with which the Word of God appeared.
The Armenian Fathers teach that innocent passions are not the result of the Fall, but were given to Adam from the beginning of creation. Moreover, they will potentially remain in our nature even after resurrection. Therefore, when Christ perceives the incorruptible nature (as in Adam) - his sufferings are not ghostly and specially given by God, but completely natural.
Both heresies of Severus of Antioch and Julian of Halicarnassus were anathematized at the Council of Manazkert. We are interested in 6 anathema of the Council .
6. If anyone does not affirm Christ's flesh as incorrupt from <His birth> from the Virgin until eternity, not according to nature, but according to the ineffable union, but rather affirms that it is corruptible and inglorious and imperfect until the resurrection and then after the resurrection became incorrupt and glorious and perfect, let him be anathema.
"According to nature" in Armenian tradition means before the union, and "according to the ineffable union" means after union (for instance, we say about "2 natures according to nature and 1 nature according to the union" (St. Hovanes of Odzun)). After the union, Christ cannot be said in any sense as a corruptible one, but only as an incorruptible one.
The reconciliation of Armenians and Syrians took place at this Council. Despite the fact that the Syrians confessed the position of Severus of Antioch, the union took place after long disputes. The Syrians accepted all the canons of Manazkert with difficulty and remained dissatisfied with the results of the Council. Despite the anathemas, the teaching of Severus about corruption was preserved by the Syrian Church. And the Armenian Fathers, who were at the Council, continued to lead a polemic with the Syrians even after the Council. One of them was Khosrovik Targmanich, who took part in the Council (his name is preserved in the Acts of Manazkert in the chronicles of Michael the Syrian). His letters against the Severians and Julianists have been preserved and are an example of Armenian Christianity.
In the future, the Syrians distorted the canons of the Manazkert. So, the 6th canon edited by Mikhail the Syrian looks like this:
6. Everyone who confesses that Christ’s flesh is corruptible, inglorious, and imperfect after the union and states that it was corruptible, inglorious, [and] imperfect from His conception to the resurrection, in a sense other than that employed by the prophets, apostles, Fathers and teachers, and that [only] after the resurrection is it incorruptible, glorious and perfect, let him be anathema.
So, this anathema can already be interpreted in the sense of Severus of Antioch. More details about this can be found in the article of S. Peter Cowe "Doctrinal Union or Agreement to Disagree? Armenians and Syrians at the Synod of Manazkert (726 CE)".
To conclude, I'd like to sayn that, despite the difference in the quality of Christ's body and the status of Severus of Antioch, the Armenian Church has full communion with other Oriental Orthodox Churches.
All this is a lie from beginning to end. As a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church, it is very important to me that people speak correctly about my Church. Therefore, in this publication I will try to correctly present the history and teaching of the Armenian Church.
The teaching of the Armenian Church differs from the teaching of both Severus and Julian. Severus insisted that the Flesh of Christ is corruptible, like that of all people. For him, the Flesh of Christ was inglorious and imperfect from the Virgin until the Resurrection, and only after the Resurrection was it glorified and became incorruptible. He recognized that Christ is sinless and has no sinful passions, but in all other respects, according to Severus, Christ was like an ordinary man before the Resurrection. This position clearly contradicted the Holy Scripture. This is evidenced by the Apostle Paul: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8). If, as Severus insists, the Flesh of the Lord was corruptible before the Resurrection, then it means that the apostles in the upper room did not taste the Sin-Atoning and Life-Giving Flesh, but imperfect, inglorious and corruptible Flesh. In Severus’ anthropological defense, one notices an extreme desire to bring the God-man closer to “ordinary people,” which is how he understood our consubstantiality with Christ.
Therefore, Severus was anathematized by the Armenian Church. The Dvin Council of the Armenian Apostolic Church in 607 decreed:
"In the past, the Holy Fathers and Orthodox Vardpets, with terrible anathemas, rejected and eliminated all heretics: and Savvelius, and Arius, and Eunomius, and those like them, and Paul of Samosata, and Theodore, and Diodorus, and the unremembered Nestorius and Theodoret, and Eutychius, and Severus, and Andrew, and those associated with them, and Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and those associated with them, and the lawless Council of Chalcedon and the vile Tomos of Leo."
And this anathema has not been lifted or cancelled anywhere.
The teaching of corruption was categorically rejected by the holy fathers of the Armenian Church. According to the teaching of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Flesh of Christ is suffering and mortal, but not corruptible. The Flesh of the Lord is incorruptible until the Resurrection: "Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life" (John 6:54). The Word of God took on not the original nature of Adam, but our corruptible nature - corruptible flesh, sinful soul and spirit, and, having united them with Himself, separated sin from the soul and spirit, and corruption from the flesh. And Christ in the incarnation (not after ressurection) became as incorruptible as Adam before the fall. Saint Grigory of Tatev writes:
"He did not take the first nature of Adam, but took our corruptible one from the family of Adam and, uniting it with Himself, transferred it to the first innocent and incorruptible nature of Adam."
As much as the fathers of the Armenian Church shunned Severus' teaching about "corruption", so they were wary of docetism (phantasm, illusion) hidden in Julian's teaching about "incorruption". And the dispute of the Armenian Fathers was not with Julian himself, but with the extreme followers of his teaching. In any case, Julian's writings do not contain that crude Docetism, which his opponents often talk about, who accused him of turning the sacrament of Redemption into a kind of "fantasy and dream vision" with his teaching about the natural "corruption" of the Savior's flesh. Julian's system about the "incorruption" of the Flesh of Christ is connected not with his understanding of God-human unity, but with his general anthropological assumptions. Julian considers the primordial nature of a person to be "incorruptible", non-suffering and immortal, free from the so-called "unreprehensible passions" (i.e. weak and "suffering" states in general). The fall significantly and hereditarily damages human nature, it becomes weak, mortal and corruptible. In the incarnation, God the Word perceives the nature of the original Adam, "passionless" and "incorruptible", therefore he becomes the New Adam. That's why Christ suffered and died "for the sake of reconciliation", according to God's will, "in the order of a miracle". However, the suffering and death of Christ were real and real, not an "opinion" or "phantom". But they were free, because it was not the death of a "corrupt" and "passionate" (suffering) person. The divine unity of Julian presents itself more narrowly than Severus. He refused to distinguish "natural qualities" in God's human synthesis. In the incarnation of the Word, the "incorruption" of the perceived flesh is secured by such a close union with the Godhead that in suffering and death it was removed by a kind of God's providential concession. Another of Julian's followers thought that this humanity, transfigured and deified in God-human unity, could no longer be called "creature". These followers of Juliana also appeared in Armenia. Judging by the struggle that the Church had with the "fantasists", it is possible to conclude that the roots they planted were deep. The unity of God and man in Christ was exaggerated by the "fantasists" to such an extent that the human being was immersed in the Godhead and was considered almost annihilated. For them, the human in Christ is not real, but a ghostly phenomenon. There is an obvious kinship with the Christological perception of Apollinaris and Eutychius (anthropological minimalism). It seemed to them that Christ really could not thirst, crave, suffer... Christ was not incarnated by the Virgin, but in the Virgin, and this incarnation for them was a kind of "mask" with which the Word of God appeared.
The Armenian Fathers teach that innocent passions are not the result of the Fall, but were given to Adam from the beginning of creation. Moreover, they will potentially remain in our nature even after resurrection. Therefore, when Christ perceives the incorruptible nature (as in Adam) - his sufferings are not ghostly and specially given by God, but completely natural.
Both heresies of Severus of Antioch and Julian of Halicarnassus were anathematized at the Council of Manazkert. We are interested in 6 anathema of the Council .
6. If anyone does not affirm Christ's flesh as incorrupt from <His birth> from the Virgin until eternity, not according to nature, but according to the ineffable union, but rather affirms that it is corruptible and inglorious and imperfect until the resurrection and then after the resurrection became incorrupt and glorious and perfect, let him be anathema.
"According to nature" in Armenian tradition means before the union, and "according to the ineffable union" means after union (for instance, we say about "2 natures according to nature and 1 nature according to the union" (St. Hovanes of Odzun)). After the union, Christ cannot be said in any sense as a corruptible one, but only as an incorruptible one.
The reconciliation of Armenians and Syrians took place at this Council. Despite the fact that the Syrians confessed the position of Severus of Antioch, the union took place after long disputes. The Syrians accepted all the canons of Manazkert with difficulty and remained dissatisfied with the results of the Council. Despite the anathemas, the teaching of Severus about corruption was preserved by the Syrian Church. And the Armenian Fathers, who were at the Council, continued to lead a polemic with the Syrians even after the Council. One of them was Khosrovik Targmanich, who took part in the Council (his name is preserved in the Acts of Manazkert in the chronicles of Michael the Syrian). His letters against the Severians and Julianists have been preserved and are an example of Armenian Christianity.
In the future, the Syrians distorted the canons of the Manazkert. So, the 6th canon edited by Mikhail the Syrian looks like this:
6. Everyone who confesses that Christ’s flesh is corruptible, inglorious, and imperfect after the union and states that it was corruptible, inglorious, [and] imperfect from His conception to the resurrection, in a sense other than that employed by the prophets, apostles, Fathers and teachers, and that [only] after the resurrection is it incorruptible, glorious and perfect, let him be anathema.
So, this anathema can already be interpreted in the sense of Severus of Antioch. More details about this can be found in the article of S. Peter Cowe "Doctrinal Union or Agreement to Disagree? Armenians and Syrians at the Synod of Manazkert (726 CE)".
To conclude, I'd like to sayn that, despite the difference in the quality of Christ's body and the status of Severus of Antioch, the Armenian Church has full communion with other Oriental Orthodox Churches.
Last edited:
