Armenian Orthodox

[St. Tikon]

Wouldn't that mean you only became orthodox after the seventh council?
Armenians are orthodox because They accepted the original faith. Protestants are not considered orthodox because they have new teachings. Would you agree?

Rather than seeing the three as a point of division between the Armenians and Orthodox, I see them as common ground.
You still need to answer my question why is it ok to accept only seven and not three????

It seems to me that Maximus, and MYSELF have made it clear that Non-Chalcedonians are NOT ORTHODOX. How many times must he explain it. You either accept ALL 7 Ecumenical Councils or you DON'T. If you don't, then kindly refer to yourself as something else, because you are not EASTERN ORTHODOX.......

It seems to me that you are just trying to raise a "stink" here.
I would rather devote my time on this forum to more important endeavors than having to defend my Church from Non-Chalcedonians!

Go in Peace.

Tikon+

 

[Maximus]

orthedoxy: Rather than seeing the three as a point of division between the Armenians and Orthodox, I see them as common ground.
You still need to answer my question why is it ok to accept only seven and not three????

It is true that the first three councils are common ground between Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians.

We accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils because the Church teaches us that they are authoritative, infallible ecumenical councils of the Church. We have this on the authority of the Fathers and the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

We know that those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon and the succeeding councils - men like Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Peter Mongus, Severus of Antioch, etc. - were heretics who were condemned as such by the Fathers of the Church.

This is the Orthodox faith. Not everyone likes it. Some who say they are Orthodox would betray it in the name of a false unity, but they only betray and exclude themselves.

If you disagree, that is your prerogative. We do not judge you or speculate on your salvation. We simply profess what is true and hold to it.

 

[Oblio]

I'll repeat the OP !

Could somebody explain to me who the Armenian Orthodox are? I know nothing about them. What's their (brief) history, who are they, and who are they in communion with?

Thanks,
Moses

[moderator note]
BTW - non-Chalcedonians are welcome in this forum per the rules of CF.
[/note]

 

[St. Tikon]

I'll repeat the OP !



BTW - non-Chalcedonians are welcome in this forum per the rules of CF.

The issue here is that Non-Chalcedonians are NOT Orthodox.
I understand that they are welcome on this board, but that still doesn't make them Orthodox.

To put a little humor in this situation, I humbly submit the following:

From "Gone with the Wind"

Mammy: You and Miz Scarlett doan fool me for a second!
You iz mules in horse harness.
You can put jangly bridles and a fancy saddle on you but you iz
just MULES just the same!

(Intended solely as HUMOR, no offense intended to anyone)

 

[Oblio]

The issue here is that Non-Chalcedonians are NOT Orthodox.
I understand that they are welcome on this board, but that still doesn't make them Orthodox.

Perhaps I misunderstood your comment: Go in Peace.

I think for the purposes of this community we should agree (and that means all members of the TAW community) on nomenclature so we can discuss both with respect and without ambiguity. I agree that only canonical 'Eastern Orthodox' should be called Orthodox, but IMO (as a poster) I have no problem with calling our cousins Oriental Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox ... whatever. I think we all know what this means and that is that they are separate from Eastern Orthodox.

 

[St. Tikon]

Perhaps I misunderstood your comment: Go in Peace.

I think for the purposes of this community we should agree (and that means all members of the TAW community) on nomenclature so we can discuss both with respect and without ambiguity. I agree that only canonical 'Eastern Orthodox' should be called Orthodox, but IMO (as a poster) I have no problem with calling our cousins Oriental Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox ... whatever. I think we all know what this means and that is that they are separate from Eastern Orthodox.

Fair enough. I think that is certainly a peacemaker.

 

[The Prokeimenon!]

Wow... sorry folks... I didn't mean to start a riot Sorry if my post ruffled any feathers.

Moses

 

[orthedoxy]

By Orthodox I meant we held to the original faith we never changed since the council of ephesus if you think that we are not orthodox then you would have a problem with the early church till the 3rd council. You can have the word but the meaning belong to us.
You would not even consider RC as Orthodox because they've changed.

In the council of chelcedon the papal authority was established but Eo don’t accept that ,yet they say they believe in that council. Ask any RC if this is true the will confirm that.
Here is a link that shows the papal authority was established. http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ235.HTM
You can’t believe in the 4th council and reject that.

 

[St. Tikon]

By Orthodox I meant we held to the original faith we never changed since the council of ephesus if you think that we are not orthodox then you would have a problem with the early church till the 3rd council. You can have the word but the meaning belong to us.
You would not even consider RC as Orthodox because they've changed.

In the council of chelcedon the papal authority was established but Eo don’t accept that ,yet they say they believe in that council. Ask any RC if this is true the will confirm that.
Here is a link that shows the papal authority was established. http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ235.HTM
You can’t believe in the 4th council and reject that.

As a matter of fact, here are some quotes that prove otherwise:

Pope Gregory the Great (590–604 A.D)
"Universal Pontiff" a profane title

For, as your venerable Holiness knows, this name of Universality was offered by the holy synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve(2). But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title; since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this, far be it from the mind of a Christian, that any one should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honour of his brethren. While, then, we are unwilling to receive this honour when offered to us, think how disgraceful it is for any one to have wished to usurp it to himself perforce.

Wherefore let not your Holiness in your epistles ever call any one Universal, lest you detract from the honour due to yourself in offering to another what is not due.


Pope Gregory the Great criticizes use of the title "Universal Bishop"
and denies Peter was a "Universal Apostle".

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord's voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep (John xxi. 17). To him it is said, Behold Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for thee, Peter, that they faith fail not. And thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (Luke xxii. 31). To him it is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven (Matth. xvi. 18).

Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!

As you can see, this was written after Chalcedon. Your information is flawed!

 

[Toney]

May I a Roman ask a question of my Eastern brethren? The Armenian Church is monophysite, I believe. Forgive my ignorance, I truly would like to learn. Is their position on the nature of Christ reconcilable with Orthodoxy, as defined herein?

 

[St. Tikon]

May I a Roman ask a question of my Eastern brethren? The Armenian Church is monophysite, I believe. Forgive my ignorance, I truly would like to learn. Is their position on the nature of Christ reconcilable with Orthodoxy, as defined herein?

No, it isn't. They do not accept the Eccumenical Council of Chalcedon, therefore, they cannot be Orthodox.

God Grant that they will some day!

 

[Maximus]

No, it isn't. They do not accept the Eccumenical Council of Chalcedon, therefore, they cannot be Orthodox.

God Grant that they will some day!

I would add that they (the Armenians and all Non-Chalcedonians) also do not accept the ecumenical councils that followed Chalcedon. According to at least one Non-Chalcedonian leader (Metropolitan Mar Gregorios of the Syrian Orthodox Church of India), the Non-Chalcedonians have an even bigger problem with the Sixth Council (Constantinople, 680-681).

That council dealt with the Monothelite heresy, which said that Christ had only one will, the divine. The Sixth Council declared that our Lord, being fully human as well as fully divine, has two wills: one fully human and one fully divine. His human will submits to or concurs with His divine will.

One of the logical consequences of Monophysitism is Monothelitism, so, naturally, the Non-Chalcedonians cannot accept the findings of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

If you are interested in this subject here is a good article on it in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The struggle against Monothelitism cost Pope St. Martin I his life and St. Maximus the Confessor his tongue, right hand and, ultimately, his life, as well.

BTW, my avatar is an icon of St. Maximus the Confessor.

 

[Polycarp1]

Wow -- the anathemas are flying here!

As an Anglican, I have no desire to get involved (though our church prominently reprints Act V of Chalcedon, the issue at hand, as the first great "historical document of the Church" besides the Creeds).

I interject only that the Assyrians, the last gasp of Nestorianism, do continue to exist. There are only about 120,000 of them left (and those figures are from before the two Gulf Wars) but they do remain in existence.

 

[Maximus]

Wow -- the anathemas are flying here!

As an Anglican, I have no desire to get involved (though our church prominently reprints Act V of Chalcedon, the issue at hand, as the first great "historical document of the Church" besides the Creeds).

I interject only that the Assyrians, the last gasp of Nestorianism, do continue to exist. There are only about 120,000 of them left (and those figures are from before the two Gulf Wars) but they do remain in existence.

There are no anathemas "flying" here. They were pronounced a long time ago.

It would be dishonest for us to pretend that there is unity among all those who call themselves Christians or that all who are called by that name are Orthodox.

 

[orthedoxy]

As a matter of fact, here are some quotes that prove otherwise:

Pope Gregory the Great (590–604 A.D)
"Universal Pontiff" a profane title

For, as your venerable Holiness knows, this name of Universality was offered by the holy synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve(2). But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title; since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this, far be it from the mind of a Christian, that any one should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honour of his brethren. While, then, we are unwilling to receive this honour when offered to us, think how disgraceful it is for any one to have wished to usurp it to himself perforce.

Wherefore let not your Holiness in your epistles ever call any one Universal, lest you detract from the honour due to yourself in offering to another what is not due.


Pope Gregory the Great criticizes use of the title "Universal Bishop"
and denies Peter was a "Universal Apostle".

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord's voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep (John xxi. 17). To him it is said, Behold Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for thee, Peter, that they faith fail not. And thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (Luke xxii. 31). To him it is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven (Matth. xvi. 18).

Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!

As you can see, this was written after Chalcedon. Your information is flawed!

Here is a quote from the sixth council:
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3

Your quote only proofs you don’t believe in the council of Chalcedon. So welcome aboard brother.

 

[St. Tikon]

Here is a quote from the sixth council:
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3

Your quote only proofs you don’t believe in the council of Chalcedon. So welcome aboard brother.

I believe what Pope Gregory said. And I don't understand your meaning.
These quotes were AFTER Chalcedon.....

 

[St. Tikon]

Wow -- the anathemas are flying here!

As an Anglican, I have no desire to get involved (though our church prominently reprints Act V of Chalcedon, the issue at hand, as the first great "historical document of the Church" besides the Creeds).

I interject only that the Assyrians, the last gasp of Nestorianism, do continue to exist. There are only about 120,000 of them left (and those figures are from before the two Gulf Wars) but they do remain in existence.

You haven't seen anything yet. If we had a Homosexual Bishop like some other group does, there would REALLY be some anethemas flying!

 

[orthedoxy]

I would add that they (the Armenians and all Non-Chalcedonians) also do not accept the ecumenical councils that followed Chalcedon. According to at least one Non-Chalcedonian leader (Metropolitan Mar Gregorios of the Syrian Orthodox Church of India), the Non-Chalcedonians have an even bigger problem with the Sixth Council (Constantinople, 680-681).

That council dealt with the Monothelite heresy, which said that Christ had only one will, the divine. The Sixth Council declared that our Lord, being fully human as well as fully divine, has two wills: one fully human and one fully divine. His human will submits to or concurs with His divine will.

One of the logical consequences of Monophysitism is Monothelitism, so, naturally, the Non-Chalcedonians cannot accept the findings of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

If you are interested in this subject here is a good article on it in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The struggle against Monothelitism cost Pope St. Martin I his life and St. Maximus the Confessor his tongue, right hand and, ultimately, his life, as well.

BTW, my avatar is an icon of St. Maximus the Confessor.

Armenians always believed the same thing, that is what was defined in the council of Ephesus one nature 100% God 100% man. The Catholic encyclopedia is not correct it labels us as Eutichians.
Here is an article I hope everyone would read it and understand it before condemning us. http://www.paonline.com/ahanna/html/Christology.htm
That's like condemning you for being Nestorian because you believe in two natures like Nestorian.
I think it’s a misunderstanding of what Armenian believe that led to this discusion.
Here is a link that was given to me by my Catholic friends. http://www.stjohnsarmenianchurch.org/Featured Articles/NewsArticles/11-10-2000.htm
They told me if anyone condemn the Armenians you show them this

 

[Maximus]

Well, I read the Council of Ephesus and could not find where it says our Lord Jesus had only one nature. Maybe I missed something. If so, perhaps you could point it out by providing a quote and a session and paragraph number.

Since Chalcedon both condemns Nestorius and affirms the Council of Ephesus (431), it can hardly be Nestorian itself, now can it?

 

[Michael G]

Brothers, let me just add that above all things we must have Christian love for all other Christians, whether they be in full Communion with the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Church, or wether they be in some sort of heresy. The anathemas may have at one time been given, but it does no good for any of us to further the problem. Being Orthodox is not about being "more Orthodox than you," but rather being Orthodox is about humble submission to the Ancient Apostolic Faith and the love of the Trinity. Let us be careful to make sure our love of the Trinity is passed on to our brother Orthodox Christians and to all other Christians who in some way fall short of communion with us.
Peace,
Michael