Armenian Orthodox

[Maximus]

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 sory 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

I appreciate your sentiments, Iconographer, but it is not unloving to disagree with those who oppose the faith.

No disagreement is pleasant, but we have not been called to always be pleasant.

 

[Michael G]

It is not unloving to disagree with those who are in heresey, but it is unloving to put ones tones in such a way as to cause more damage than good.

 

[MariaRegina]

We have to pray that more men and women of the caliber of St. Seraphim and St. Catherine of Alexandria be present to guide us.

Truly, we need to be purified ourselves before we talk of Christian unity.

 

[Polycarp1]

You haven't seen anything yet. If we had a Sodomite Homosexual Bishop like the ex-Episcopalians do, there would REALLY be some anethemas flying!

Thank God the Anglicans in the rest of the world had sense to do the right thing.

Educate me, kind sir: what do strict Orthodox of your persuasion understand the words of the Holy Apostle John in the third chapter of his first Epistle to call on Christians to do?

 

[Toney]

Brethren, The replies to my question regarding the Orthodoxy of the Armenian Church are most humbly appreciated. The response from orthedoxy, an Armenian, was most touching and painful -- painful to read cries of "condemning his beloved church."

Now comes my good Anglican brother, Polycarp, to defend the worldwide Anglican Communion from hurtful, noxious language.

Although I am unable explain it, for I am quite ignorant, not disappointingly, of the various issues that separate the Orthodox churches, I have a dear spot in my heart for the Ancient Church and for the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church, which I believe has a great role to play in these days.

Through my own research, I have learned that St Gregory the Illuminator had a vision of the Son of God striking the ground at Etchmiadzin, on the spot where the oldest cathedral in Christendom stands (AD 303). Would that He strike our hearts and perhaps our heads with a hammer and remind us to love one another.

Thank you for your patience with me. We experience the same unfortunate divisiveness at OBOB, the Catholic forum. On that score, we are One.

 

[Maximus]

It is well to remember that a number of saints have prophesied of an apostate church unity movement in the last days.

Those who would take a stand for the true faith will be villified as "divisive" and "unloving."

Good will be called evil and evil good.

 

[Maximus]

Now comes my good Anglican brother, Polycarp, to defend the worldwide Anglican Communion from hurtful, noxious language.

Your good Anglican brother would do better to defend the worldwide Anglican communion from itself.

Then there might be no cause for "hurtful, noxious language."

 

[MariaRegina]

May we be granted the grace of discernment in those last days, which I feel are upon us already.

 

[Maximus]

May we be granted the grace of discernment in those last days, which I feel are upon us already.

Amen!

I think you are right.

 

[Vahan]

Maximus The "Gregorian" or Armenian Church has been Monophysite ever since.

This should clarify the misunderstanding.

There are no significant differences between Roman Catholics and the Armenian Apostolic Church, which belongs to the group of churches called pre-Chalcedonian, in that they did not participate in the Council of Chalcedon which defined the doctrine of the two natures of Christ against the Monophysite heresy. Various common declarations, signed by the Pope and by Patriarchs of Armenia, state that the faith is the same and that Jesus Christ is “true God and true man.” Catholikos Karekin II, another precedent, allowed John Paul II to celebrate on the great open-air altar which had just been inaugurated in front of the Cathedral of the Holy See of Etchmiadzin.

I couldn't post the link to the website because I am new. If anyone wants it let me know.

 

[MariaRegina]

This should clarify the misunderstanding.

There are no significant differences between Roman Catholics and the Armenian Apostolic Church, which belongs to the group of churches called pre-Chalcedonian, in that they did not participate in the Council of Chalcedon which defined the doctrine of the two natures of Christ against the Monophysite heresy. Various common declarations, signed by the Pope and by Patriarchs of Armenia, state that the faith is the same and that Jesus Christ is “true God and true man.” Catholikos Karekin II, another precedent, allowed John Paul II to celebrate on the great open-air altar which had just been inaugurated in front of the Cathedral of the Holy See of Etchmiadzin.

I couldn't post the link to the website because I am new. If anyone wants it let me know.

Thank you for your post, Vahan

Do you attend the Apostolic Armenian Church? I've been to visit the one in Glendale, California. It has some beautiful icons.

Yours in Christ, our God,
Elizabeth

P.S. Happy feast day today -- its the feastday of the 40 martyrs of Sebaste, Armenia. Please visit our Saints of the Day thread in our new St. Athanasius Chapel.

 

[MariaRegina]

Dear Vahan

If you pm me, I can copy your site so that everyone can see the link.

 

[orthedoxy]

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?

Here is a quote from the council of Ephesus
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/... Cyril and accepted by the Council of Ephesus
“2. If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and is one Christ with his own flesh, and is therefore God and man together, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone divides in the one Christ the hypostases after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let him be anathema. “


Here is a link written by an Antiochian priest (Fr. Theodore is an Antiochian priest) http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article09.html
It disagrees with your view on the non Chalcedonians.

Here is a view from Greek Orthodox. http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/chalcedon_what_stake.shtml
It disagrees with your condemnation of the Armenian Church.
I don’t think your view represent all EO.
Let’s say Armenian Church want to join your church what part of the seven councils do we accept that we haven’t already?
Which pope does the Armenian Church have to go to?
I hope after all this you see Armenians are not monophysites we believe in two nature of Christ that is united in one nature.

 

[Vahan]

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.

To break it down more technically. To the Armenians God had one nature, which is God and man. The "Byzantines" broke it down to God nature and man nature. Which to the "Byzantines" would mean two natures. But to the Armenians it means one nature. If the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and the Armenian Church could reconcile the misunderstanding then what is there to explain ? If you would I can break down the psychology of these attributes more accordingly to the social idealogies of each group. I read some of the Council of Ephesus, and I can see where the misunderstandings are. And from my readings Armenians are Eastern Orthodox, but there is a seperation between the "Byzantines" and the Armenians. If you would like Maximus and Tikon I explain in further detail.

 

[St. Tikon]

I understand what you are saying perfectly. But for reunion to occur, The definition of Chalcedon would have to be accepted.

Jesus Christ had two natures. And two wills. He had all the attributes of God, and all the attributes of Man.

What I don't understand here, is if as some of the Armenians have claimed it is really semantics causing schism, then why not accept Chalcedon and be done with it!

 

[orthedoxy]

I think we have two defferent defenition of Orthodoxy.By "Orthodox" we mean the ancient faith of the Apostles, since the Orthodox Church can directly trace its line of succession back to the Apostles themselves. Thus, the Armenian Orthodox Church has retained the fullness of the revelation.

 

[Vahan]

What I don't understand here, is if as some of the Armenians have claimed it is really semantics causing schism, then why not accept Chalcedon and be done with it!

Here are some reasons why the Armenians do not need to accept the council of Chalcedon.

1) I have read the the Armenians were not invited to to council as well as not even knowing a council was going to be held. Secondly in order to be a universally accepted council it would have required the presence of the Armenian Church. When the Armenians were not at the council the universality of the council in some degree is broken and therefore not acceptable. Gods doesn’t work in the ”by the way “ or while you were out “ councils. It is unaccpetable for a council to say to the Armenian Church “by the way” “or while you were out” this is what you missed ,and have to accept it or get out, type of mentallity.
2) The Armenians were being persecuted, at the time of the council, because of their faith by the Persians . Basically the Persian King said denounce your faith, a I will let you live. As letters were sent west for help against the Persians, there was no reponse and the plea fell on deaf ears. So, what would you expect from our Christian Saints and Martyrs, they went on and fought the good fight and died for their faith. I would have thought the “council” would have had some consideration regarding having a council at this time.
3) After all this the Armenians held their own council at Dvin , called the Council of Dvin, regarding decisions made by the Chalcedonian council, I recommend that the “EO” read it.
4) And finally, if the Church of Rome and the Church of Armenia agree on the same faith , without the accepting the Council of Chalcedon I don’t see why can’t the “EO”. Additionally the Byzantine emperors, Zeno and Anastasius (Zeno was the emperor during the time the council of Chalcedon and Anastasius followed Zeno) showed support the Armenian Church after the Armeninas didn’t the attend the Chalcedonian council.

 

[MariaRegina]

Here are some reasons why the Armenians do not to accept the council of Chalcedon.

1) I have read the the Armenians were not invited to to council as well as not even knowing a council was going to be held. Secondly in order to be a universally accepted council it would have required the presence of the Armenian Church. When the Armenians were not at the council the universality of the council in some degree is broken and therefore not acceptable. Gods doesn’t work in the ”by the way “ or while you were out “ councils. It is unaccpetable for a council to say to the Armenian Church “by the way” “or while you were out” this is what you missed ,and have to accept it or get out, type of mentallity.
2) The Armenians were being persecuted, at the time of the council, because of their faith by the Persians . Basically the Persian King said denounce your faith, a I will let you live. As letters were sent west for help against the Persians, there was no reponse and the plea fell on deaf ears. So, what would you expect from our Christian Saints and Martyrs, they went on and fought the good fight and died for their faith. I would have thought the “council” would have had some consideration regarding having a council at this time.
3) After all this the Armenians held their own council at Dvin , called the Council of Dvin, regarding decisions made by the Chalcedonian council, I recommend that the “EO” read it.
4) And finally, if the Church of Rome and the Church of Armenia agree on the same faith , without the accepting the Council of Chalcedon I don’t see why can’t the “EO”. Additionally the Byzantine emperors, Zeno and Anastasius (Zeno was the emperor during the time the council of Chalcedon and Anastasius followed Zeno) showed support the Armenian Church after the Armeninas didn’t the attend the Chalcedonian council.

Dear Vahan:

As I read history (per Bishop Kallistos Ware) I was under the impression that the Byzantine Empire (including Rome) was having serious theological problems with heretics. The Armenians, true, were cut off. No one had emails and telephones. We have to realize that Christian Saints were being martyred by other Christians who had fallen into heresy. During the time when the Persians were attacking Armenia, the Northern Germanic Tribes were plundering Rome and all of Europe. These were dark times for the Church. Even today, we have Christians killing Christians in Africa. It's so very sad.


All we can do is pray for the grace of God to dwell in our hearts.

Lovingly yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

 

[Vahan]

Dear Vahan:

As I read history (per Bishop Kallistos Ware) I was under the impression that the Byzantine Empire (including Rome) was having serious theological problems with heretics. The Armenians, true, were cut off. No one had emails and telephones. We have to realize that Christian Saints were being martyred by other Christians who had fallen into heresy. During the time when the Persians were attacking Armenia, the Northern Germanic Tribes were plundering Rome and all of Europe. These were dark times for the Church. Even today, we have Christians killing Christians in Africa. It's so very sad.

The seperation was caused the by political agenda of the "Byzantines" , regarding the Armenians, not Theological or Doctornal. If you would like I can go into further details.

 

[St. Tikon]

The seperation was caused the by political agenda of the "Byzantines" , regarding the Armenians, not Theological or Doctornal. If you would like I can go into further details.

It was much more than political. Monophysite's do not believe in the Two Natures of Christ as defined at Chalcedon. Politics were always present in the Byzantine Empire, but this matter is strictly a question of religon. The Emperor Justinian in his wisdom wished the entire Orthodox World to conform to the formula of Chalcedon, and drove away any who would not.

The Holy Spirit guided the Council. If God didn't approve, then why are the Armenians unable to bring "Holy Fire" at the Holy Sepulcher?