Abp. Petrosian on Armenian Christology

[rakovsky]

Hello! Dzheremi had recommended a month or so ago that I should ask about the following issue in this section, and especially look for an Armenian's comment about it. After thinking about it, I think his advice was good and decided to post this.

A leading Armenian Archbishop, Petrosian, wrote a dissertation approved by the Armenian Church and published in book form as:
Yeznik Petrosian, Christology of the Armenian Church, Echmiadzin, 1995.

In the essay he contrasts belief that Christ is in two natures with belief that He is in only one nature. The essay was translated from Armenian into Russian by an Armenian EO, Fr. Tigry, and received many critical commentaries by Russians on the Russian "Scientific Theological Portal", particularly regarding Page 87 and regarding a later section "The teaching of the Armenian Church about Jesus Christ the Son of God.": http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/510783.html

An acquaintance from the Armenian Church, Sarkis, was nice enough to copy and send me the Armenian original for [only] page 87 of Abp. Petrosian's book. That page covers sections 2., 3., and the beginning of 4., which I translated from Russian as follows:

2. Speaking of two natures and one person in Christ, one must specify, that this person - is God or Man, or a God-man? If it is the Divine Person, as the Christian Church accepts, then the human nature becomes personless. And since the human nature cannot be personless, then until the nature becomes a person, it doesn't have a real and perfect existence. If we confess in Christ a perfect human nature, we are required to confess also a human person, by which we will receive two natures - two persons. And since acceptance of two natures is a heresy, then in confessing one person, it is necessary to confess one nature, arising out of the ineffable and unfused union of the perfect divine and perfect human natures.

3. One of the fundamental principles of Christian teaching is that through the incarnation of God, man deified. This truth can never be reconciled with the teaching of two natures. Accepting in Christ two natures, we will be forced to confess that the human nature of Christ was not deified, but remained human.

4. One of the foundational principles of the Christian teaching is that God the Word descended to earth, in order with His death to conquer death and save humanity. But, however, God cannot die. For Him to die, He must be joined with a human body, as John the evangelist says. When [ie. "If"] we confess in Christ two natures (and two actions), it turns out, that the crucified and dying does not become a divine nature, but a human one. How can the death of a simple man save all of humanity?

Page 87 in the original Armenian is here:

Question 1: Is my translation of Page 87 correct?

Question 2: Do you have access to the book in question? If so, could you send the pages covering what I translate from "The teaching of the Armenian Church about Jesus Christ the Son of God", below? Would you be able to say whether my translation is correct?

"The teaching of the Armenian Church about Jesus Christ the Son of God."

We present an explanation of the Christology of the Armenian Church, relying on the results of our studies and the labors of St Nerses Shnorali (+1173), based on the conviction, that in the 12th century the Armenian Christology was minted with finality and St. Nerses Shnorali adequately expressed it in his works.

...

Saying this, we don't think that the human nature was swallowed by the Divine or two natures mixed between each other. According to St. John Odznetsi, when we say that The united nature of God incarnated, we don't understand it to be that one of the natures excluded another or they dissolved one into the other, "then there would not be any nature". We say two natures, on one hand to show an indivisible unity of the two natures, on the other - to focus on the fact that because of the connection with the divine Logos, the perfectly human nature became divine. Accordingly, based on the union we must confess only one nature - the divine one, consisting of an indivisible unity of the two essences/substances - the perfectly divine and perfectly human natures. (Put in bold by the translator Fr. Tigry)

Namely with this nature Christ was born, grew up, was crucified, baptized, worked miracles, suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose and ascended. From the fact of the divinization of the human nature of Christ it's wrong to conclude as if Christ's body became heavenly, supernatural, and Christ in notion experienced human passions and actions. if the body of Christ is called divine, heavenly, life giving, then it has in meaning Its (the body's) unity with the Divine Logos, by the reason that the Divine Logos was called earthly, mortal. Christ experienced all human passions and actions besides sin, according to His wish and will. Human passions were experienced not by the human body, but Christ himself, with all of His essence/substance. On the Cross suffered not only the body of Christ, but Christ Himself.

As you might guess, the first main weakness is that I am not translating this directly from Armenian, but rather from Fr. Tigry's translation into Russian. The second main weakness is that the two lengthy quotes I've given from Page 87 and from "The teaching of the Armenian Church" section are from the Conclusion and are probably fleshed out in much more detail in the body of the book. So it would be helpful to have the book's body itself on the topic, or an Armenian's explanation of the body of the book, in order for readers to see in more detail what the author Abp. Petrosian means.

 

[RaphaCam]

Hi, rakovsky. I have a question about this excerpt:

"One of the fundamental principles of Christian teaching is that through the incarnation of God, man deified. This truth can never be reconciled with the teaching of two natures. Accepting in Christ two natures, we will be forced to confess that the human nature of Christ was not deified, but remained human."

I see miaphysites stress the total subordination of Christ's humanity to His divinity, but how right is he to say that we put our feet in our mouth when conciling the Chalcedonian dogma and the deification of Christ's humanity in His incarnation, in a scale from Baloney to Kinda?

 

[rakovsky]

Hi, rakovsky. I have a question about this excerpt:

"One of the fundamental principles of Christian teaching is that through the incarnation of God, man deified. This truth can never be reconciled with the teaching of two natures. Accepting in Christ two natures, we will be forced to confess that the human nature of Christ was not deified, but remained human."

I see miaphysites stress the total subordination of Christ's humanity to His divinity, but how right is he to say that we put our feet in our mouth when conciling the Chalcedonian dogma and the deification of Christ's humanity in His incarnation, in a scale from Baloney to Kinda?

Hello, Rapha!

I am looking for Armenians, or at least Oriental Orthodox, to give their understanding of this passage, and it would be even better to have an Armenian say whether my own secondhand translation is correct.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

You know Rakovsky, I also post on OCNet, I prefer not to say who my username is there, but I do recall we had a major debate over this in the private forum, and the consensus was the translation of Archbishop Petrosian you relied on was not entirely accurate.

But I also recall posting over there to the effect that it doesn't matter; if some random OO bishop happens to say something that can be read as Monophysite, it is no differemt than the numerous instances where EO clergymen including bishops have used language that one might argues sounds Nestorian.

I myself am an avid Theopaschite. I reject absolutely Chalcedon without the Theopaschitism of Constantinople II. I also reject Mar Barbai the Great; he was the Nestorian Patriarch who expressed almost precisely the doctrine of the Tome of Leo, amd he emphatically rejected any form of Theopaschitism.

For me, this is as bad as Nestorius.

You, being Eastern Orthodox, believe Jesus Christ is the Mother of God, right? So if Mary is the Theotokos, then how can we not possibly also day that God was crucified for us?

I remain Oriental Orthodox, and have not become Chaldean or Antiochian, because I believe it is logically impossible to embrace "Theotokos" while rejecting the Theopaschite clause of St. Peter the Dyer. If Mary gave birth to God, God was also crucified.

I think this is related to the Lutheran idea of Communicatio Idiomatum.

 

[rakovsky]

You know Rakovsky, I also post on OCNet, I prefer not to say who my username is there, but I do recall we had a major debate over this in the private forum, and the consensus was the translation of Archbishop Petrosian you relied on was not entirely accurate.

But I also recall posting over there to the effect that it doesn't matter; if some random OO bishop happens to say something that can be read as Monophysite, it is no differemt than the numerous instances where EO clergymen including bishops have used language that one might argues sounds Nestorian.

I myself am an avid Theopaschite. I reject absolutely Chalcedon without the Theopaschitism of Constantinople II. I also reject Mar Barbai the Great; he was the Nestorian Patriarch who expressed almost precisely the doctrine of the Tome of Leo, amd he emphatically rejected any form of Theopaschitism.

For me, this is as bad as Nestorius.

You, being Eastern Orthodox, believe Jesus Christ is the Mother of God, right? So if Mary is the Theotokos, then how can we not possibly also day that God was crucified for us?

I remain Oriental Orthodox, and have not become Chaldean or Antiochian, because I believe it is logically impossible to embrace "Theotokos" while rejecting the Theopaschite clause of St. Peter the Dyer. If Mary gave birth to God, God was also crucified.

I think this is related to the Lutheran idea of Communicatio Idiomatum.

Hello, Paul!
One of the main reasons why I am posting here is, as Dzheremi suggested to me earlier, to see if an Armenian can clear up the translation question that you raised.

Orthodoxy does accept that Mary is the Mother of God. You asked about Peter the Fuller's Theopaschite clause for the Trisagion: "if Mary is the Theotokos, then how can we not possibly also day that God was crucified for us"? This is a good question.

My thinking is that, as you suggested, this by itself can be a logical statement. St. Cyril stated that God died in the flesh, and St. Cyril's statement has been accepted and used by EOs, so by extension I think that this can be simplified to "God died", that is, he experienced death.

But a statement's meaning also depends on intent and how it is read. Take for example a statement that in the mystical supper Jesus' body is only given and eaten in a heavenly, spiritual manner. It's true that Orthodox approach the chalice with a spiritual attitude forgetting about earthly cares, and Paul said that we should not treat the bread like ordinary food to satiate hunger. But the problem is that these italicized words were commonly used by Reformed Protestants like Cranmer to imply that Christ was not actually in the bread, and our "eating" of him is only metaphorical and spiritual, not physical directly. This was a major conflict between the Lutherans and Catholics on one hand and Cranmer and Reformed on the other when the passage was written. There are other examples where phrases can mean things very differently in various situations.

Likewise, linguistically the phrase "God was crucified" could be taken to mean 1. God died in the flesh, or someone who denied Christ that Christ retained both an identifiable divine nature and a specifically identifiable human nature could mean it as 2. reflecting their idea that Christ-God's person no longer included a non-divine human nature, and as such that it was "God who died in the divine nature", as opposed to the human nature in particular. The reason that the council rejected this formula in the Trisagion by the nonChalcedonian Peter the Fuller was because they believed that Peter the Fuller added it intending to affirm the second option above in accordance with his rejection of Chalcedon.

The EOs, in the vein of Leo's Time and St. Cyril's letter exonerating John of Antioch, like to make clarifying statements such as: He suffered, being man, but rose, being God. EOs don't deny that God suffered in the flesh, but they saw the clause in question as being intended against them.

The Quinesext Council said:

Canon LXXXI.
Whereas we have heard that in some places in the hymn Trisagion there is added after “Holy and Immortal,” “Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us,” and since this as being alien to piety was by the ancient and holy Fathers cast out of the hymn, as also the violent heretics who inserted these new words were cast out of the Church; we also, confirming the things which were formerly piously established by our holy Fathers, anathematize those who after this present decree allow in church this or any other addition to the most sacred hymn; but if indeed he who has transgressed is of the sacerdotal order, we command that he be deprived of his priestly dignity, but if he be a layman or monk let him be cut off.

On another note, I don't believe that every canon of every ecumenical council must be affirmed to accept a council. So for me, Canon LXXXI is not crucial. I don't consider it a key issue that should keep EOs and OOs apart, and would be fine with OOs disregarding it. But to answer your question, the statement in itself could be OK depending on the interpretation, it's an issue rather of intent behind why it was added and what it was meant to imply.

In any case, I have written this to answer your question. My main purpose in this thread is to hear from Armenians themselves what the right meaning of Abp Petrosian's words is once I've posted the Armenian text. If you want to talk more about the Theopaschite issue, it's OK with me, I just think it's better for a separate thread.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi Rakovsky. I believe you and I discussed this matter in private a little while ago, though I cannot remember the results.

But I agree with our friend Paul Yohannan above that this is not something to worry about, even if there is somehow less precise language in the passage, either in the Russian translation or the original Armenian. Bishops are, after all, still human beings and not immune from speaking or writing without maximum clarity, and that this can be a source of confusion, especially when those from outside the Church (like EOs looking at the OO Church) read them.

As to the supposed problem of saying that Jesus Christ our God was crucified and died on the cross...I don't see the problem. I really don't. We all agree that He did. Maybe Chalcedonians have problems with saying God was crucified, and would prefer to say that He died "in His human nature" or something, but I hope then that they would note that this is a problem that they have made for themselves by unnecessarily separating the natures in the first place. It is not a problem for us, as we do not have this dichotomy of "which nature is doing which thing" in the first place. Think of how strange it would sound to say "Christ's human nature slept" or "Christ's human nature walked", or "Christ's divine nature healed the sick" or some such. I do not know any OO person -- from bishop on down -- who would not say that He ate or slept as is proper to humanity and performed miracles as is proper to divinity, but then the problem between our two churches has never been in identifying that He is both God and man -- it really has been between those who will handle the natures separately, as in the Tome of Leo, and those who will not (us).

As our holy father among the saints HH St. Severus of Antioch famously wrote: "For how will anyone divide walking upon the water? For to run upon the sea is foreign to the human nature, but it is not proper to the divine nature to use bodily feet. Therefore that action is of the incarnate Word, to whom belongs at the same time divine character and human, indivisibly."

This indivisible union certainly must also exist upon the cross, as in all places. In the Syrian Fraction of my own Coptic Orthodox tradition, we make a point of saying of His crucifixion that in being sacrificed "His soul parted from His body, while His divinity in no way parted from His soul or from His body". This being the case after/as a result of His crucifixion, how could we then dare to say that somehow the divinity must have left Him during it, as it is not proper to God to suffer or to die? I thought that was the whole point?!

No doubt there are many finer points of theology that I am not understanding, God help me. But this is what I have been taught, and not from one-page translations through three languages, but in the holy Orthodox Church of God (not to disparage what you have, Rakovsky, but they are not the same in terms of the approach; you are looking from the outside as a philologist or something, not an Armenian Apostolic Christian or other OO Christian). It's in our prayers and our liturgies and everything. I don't think you can be Orthodox without this belief.

 

[dzheremi]

P.S.- Also regarding the supposed 'addition' of Peter the Fuller, it is confirmed by both EO sources and OO sources (Ephrem of Amida, who was Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch, 527-545, and OO historian and biographer Zacharias of Mytilene 465-c.536) that this phrase was included as part of the common tradition of the people of Syria without respect to their status vis-a-vis Chalcedon, and that its origins actually stretch back to before Chalcedon ever happened, from the time of at least Patriarch Eustathios (325-330). What the Byzantines objected to since long ago is that this understanding of the hymn is alien to the tradition of Constantinople (this is mentioned in part three of Ps. Dionysius of Tel-Mahre's Chronicle, for instance, which covers the riots that happened after it was introduced there). I don't have any problem with that, as I don't have any problem with the fact that different traditions arise in different places. I just want to point out that all this later stuff about how it's supposedly heretical and all that nonsense is really just typical anti-OO polemic that has very little basis in history or reality, and basically amounts to some Byzantines conflating their own Constantinoplitan tradition with Orthodoxy itself...not for the first time, either. It's pretty funny, though, in this case, since Constantinople itself wasn't even founded until 330, so they're essentially arguing that a tradition developed in a place that didn't exist yet must be the (only) true one, and the earlier tradition must somehow be a later and false tradition cooked up by the dirty, dirty monophysites because it differs from that of Constantinople.

But again, their own historical patriarchs apparently disagree with them, so it's their matter to sort out. When I've brought that fact up here (I think here; maybe on OC.net, too), the response has generally been "Ephrem of Amida isn't a saint, and our saints wrote against it, so he doesn't count", basically.

Well that's convenient.

 

[rakovsky]

Hello, again, Dzheremi and Paul!

Thank you for your replies. I sympathize what you said here:

Hi Rakovsky. I believe you and I discussed this matter in private a little while ago, though I cannot remember the results.

But I agree with our friend Paul Yohannan above that this is not something to worry about, even if there is somehow less precise language in the passage, either in the Russian translation or the original Armenian. Bishops are, after all, still human beings and not immune from speaking or writing without maximum clarity, and that this can be a source of confusion, especially when those from outside the Church (like EOs looking at the OO Church) read them.

I replied about the question of the Trisagion here:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/discussion-on-the-trisagion-and-peter-the-fuller.7938861/

Peace.