The difference between the Armenian Church and the Russian Orthodox Church • Orthodox portal

The Armenian Church is considered one of the most ancient Christian communities. Its origins begin in the 4th century. Armenia is the first country where Christianity was recognized by the state. But millennia have passed, and now the contradictions and differences that the Russian and Armenian Apostolic Church have are already visible. The difference from the Orthodox Church began to appear in the 6th century.

The separation of the Apostolic Armenian Church occurred due to the following circumstances. A new branch suddenly arose in Christianity, which was classified as heresy - Monophysitism. Supporters of this movement considered Jesus Christ to be God. They denied the combination of the divine and the human in him. But at the 4th Council of Chalcedon, Monophysitism was recognized as a false movement. Since then, the Apostolic Armenian Church has found itself alone, since it still looks at the origin of Christ differently from ordinary Orthodox Christians.

Main Differences

The Russian Orthodox Church respects the Armenian Apostolic Church, but does not tolerate many of its aspects.

Recognition of cathedrals. Since due to hostilities the Armenians could not get to the Council of Chalcedon, they completely ignored and did not support the Christian postulates that were adopted there. As a result, the Armenian Church recognizes only 3 cathedrals (there are 7 in total).
The AAC considers Christ to be an ethereal, incorruptible being who does not need food, drink or other needs. And the Russian Orthodox Church is based on the fact that Jesus had the same body as ordinary people.
Saints images. If you visit an Armenian church, you will see an almost complete absence of icons. Only in a corner of some churches there is a small iconostasis with images. There is an opinion that previously Armenian Orthodoxy took the side of the iconoclasts. Whether this is true or not is not known for sure. But one thing is true - Armenian Christians do not pray in front of icons. In private homes, believers pray to the crucifix.
Calendar difference. Russian Orthodox believers traditionally celebrate all major Christian dates according to the Julian calendar, and Armenians according to the Gregorian calendar. Accordingly, Easter or Christmas comes on different days for everyone.
The imposition of the cross. Armenians sign themselves with the sign of the cross, just like Russians, with three fingers, but the difference is that the cross is applied from left to right, and not vice versa.
Spiritual degrees and orders. There are 5 steps in the Armenian Apostolic Church. The highest is the Catholicos, followed in order of importance by the bishop, priest, deacon and reader. And in the Russian Church there are only 3 main orders - bishops, presbyters and deacons.
Matah. This ritual is performed only in the Armenian church. Literally it means “to offer salt.” According to this custom, anyone can give matah, that is, set a table for all those in need: the poor, the sick, etc. It is forbidden to invite relatives and rich people to this table.
Arachawork. This is a fast among Armenians, which begins 70 days before Easter and lasts 5 days.
In the songs and prayer words of the Armenian Apostolic Church, only one of the faces of the triune God is exalted, while the Russian Orthodox Church glorifies the entire Divine Trinity.
During Pentecost during Lent, Armenians are not forbidden to try cheese and eggs on Sundays.

Disagreement with Orthodoxy

At present, despite the friendly relations between the Orthodox and Armenian churches, there is no Eucharistic communion. This means that their priests and bishops cannot celebrate the liturgy together, and the laity cannot be baptized and receive communion. The reason for this is differences in creeds or dogmas .

Ordinary believers who do not study theology may not be aware of these obstacles or may not attach importance to them. For them, ritual differences, caused by history and national customs, are more important.

Dogmatic differences

In the 3rd-4th centuries, debates about faith were as popular as political battles are now. To resolve dogmatic issues, Ecumenical Councils were convened, the provisions of which shaped the modern Orthodox doctrine.

One of the main topics of discussion was the nature of Jesus Christ, who was He, God or man? Why does the Bible describe His sufferings, which should not be characteristic of the divine nature? For Armenians and Byzantines, the authority of the Holy Fathers of the Church (Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius the Great, etc.) was indisputable, but the understanding of their teaching turned out to be different.

The Armenians, along with other Monophysites, believed that Christ was God, and the flesh in which He dwelt on earth was not human, but divine. Therefore, Christ could not experience human feelings and did not even feel pain. His suffering under torture and on the cross was symbolic, apparent.

The teaching of the Monophysites was dismantled and condemned at the IV Ecumenical Council, where the doctrine of the two natures of Christ - divine and human - was adopted. This meant that Christ, while remaining God, took on a real human body at birth and experienced not only hunger, thirst, suffering, but also the mental anguish characteristic of man.

When the Ecumenical Council was held in Chalcedon (Byzantium), the Armenian bishops were unable to take part in the discussions. Armenia was in a bloody war with Persia and on the verge of destruction of statehood. As a result, the decisions of the Chalcedon and all subsequent Councils were not accepted by the Armenians and their centuries-long separation from Orthodoxy began.

The dogma about the nature of Christ is the main difference between the Armenian Church and the Orthodox Church. Currently, theological dialogues are ongoing between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church (Armenian Apostolic Church). Representatives of the learned clergy and church historians discuss what contradictions arose due to misunderstanding and can be overcome. Perhaps this will lead to the restoration of full communication between faiths.

Features of rituals

Both Churches also differ in their external, ritual aspects, which is not a significant obstacle to the communication of believers. The most noticeable features are:

The bread used for serving the liturgy among Armenians is unleavened, and the wine for communion is not diluted with water. In the Orthodox liturgy, only leavened bread and diluted wine are used.
Armenians cross themselves with three fingers from left to right, while Orthodox Christians cross from right to left.
Armenians celebrate Christmas and Epiphany on the same day, as was the case in ancient times. In the Orthodox calendar they are separated by Christmastide.
In an Armenian church, the altar is not fenced off with icons, and during worship, musical accompaniment (organ) is used.
Armenian hierarchs do not consider the origin of the Holy Fire to be divine, although they do not deny the miracles associated with this ceremony that occurred at different times.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, widower priests of the AAC have been allowed to marry a second time, and laity, as a last resort, have been allowed to get married on Saturdays and Sundays of Lent.

There are other features in worship, vestments of clergy and church life.

Armenian renegadeism

Armenians who wish to convert to Orthodoxy will not have to be baptized again. The rite of joining is performed over them, where a public renunciation of the teachings of the Monophysite heretics is expected. Only after this can a Christian from the AAC begin to receive the Orthodox Sacraments.

In the Armenian Church there are no strict regulations regarding the admission of Orthodox Christians to the Sacraments; Armenians are also allowed to receive communion in any of the Christian churches.

Relationships between churches

The Russian Orthodox Church considers the Armenian denomination, therefore people of this faith cannot be buried according to Orthodox customs, perform all the sacraments that Russian Christian Orthodoxy conducts, you cannot simply remember and pray for them. If an Orthodox person suddenly attends a service in an Armenian Apostolic Church, this is a reason for his excommunication from the Russian Christian Church.

Some Armenians take turns visiting temples. Today it is apostolic Armenian, the next day it is Christian. This cannot be done; you must decide on your faith and adhere to only one teaching.

Despite the contradictions, the Armenian Church forms faith and unity in its students, and treats other religious movements with patience and respect. These are the aspects of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Its difference from the Orthodox is visible and tangible. But each person has the right to choose for whom to pray and what faith to adhere to.

Any person with the slightest interest in history knows that the first country in the world to become Christian is Armenia. The teachings of Christ came to this earth already in the 3rd century AD. Since then, most representatives of the Armenian people have followed a unique brand of Christianity - the Armenian Apostolic Church, which differs from both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

However, there is only one global difference in these beliefs. The Armenians did not accept the decision of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which ruled that Jesus combines divine and human natures. From this moment on, representatives of the AAC reject this dogma, believing that the Savior can only have a divine nature.

In other respects, Armenian-style Christianity and Orthodoxy are quite similar, so representatives of these faiths often pray in each other’s churches, which is not prevented by either the AAC or the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is a very ancient Christian church, which has a number of features. There are many myths circulating around Russia about its essence. Sometimes Armenians are considered Catholics, sometimes Orthodox, sometimes Monophysites, sometimes iconoclasts. The Armenians themselves, as a rule, consider themselves Orthodox, and even a little more Orthodox than other Orthodox churches, which in the Armenian tradition are usually called “Chalcedonian”. But the truth is that there are three types of Armenian Christians: Gregorians, Chalcedonians and Catholics.

With Catholics, everything is simple: these are those Armenians who lived in the Ottoman Empire and who were converted to Catholicism by European missionaries. Many Catholic Armenians later moved to Georgia and now inhabit the regions of Akhalkalaki and Akhaltsikhe. In Armenia itself they are few in number and live somewhere in the far north of the country.

It’s already more difficult with the Chalcedonians. These include both Catholic Armenians and Orthodox Armenians. Historically, these are those Armenians who lived on the territory of Byzantium and recognized the Council of Chalcedon, that is, they were classical Orthodox. There were many Chalcedonians in the west of Armenia, where they built almost all the ancient churches. Several Chalcedonian temples are located in Northern Armenia. Over time, these people converted to Catholicism (which is essentially also Chalcedonianism) and almost disappeared from the face of the earth.

The Armenian Gregorians remain. This is a somewhat conventional term introduced for convenience. Let's talk about them in detail.

Armenian Christianity before 505

In the first centuries of our era, paganism reminiscent of Iranian was widespread in Armenia. They say that the conical domes of Armenian and Georgian churches are the legacy of that era. Christianity began to penetrate into Armenia very early, although it is not known exactly when and in what ways. At the end of the 3rd century, it was already considered a problem and was persecuted, but a man named Gregory managed to save King Trdat III from illness, for which he legalized Christianity, and Gregory the Illuminator became the first bishop of Armenia. This happened either in 301 or 314. It is generally believed that Armenia became the first state with the Christian religion as a state religion, although there is a suspicion that the state of Osroene was 100 years ahead of Armenia.

Ruins of the temple of Surb Harutyun (Resurrection), founded by Gregory the Illuminator in 305

In 313, an edict on freedom of faith was issued in the Roman Empire, in 325 the kingdom of Axum adopted Christianity, in 337 - Iberia, in 380 Nicene Christianity was declared the state religion in Rome, and all other Christian movements were recognized as incorrect. Somewhere simultaneously with Iberia, Caucasian Albania adopted Christianity - directly from Gregory the Illuminator.

In 354, the first church council (“Ashtishat”) was convened, which condemned the Arian heresy and decided to create monasteries in Armenia.

Thus, for the first 200 years of its existence, the Armenian Church was an ordinary Orthodox Church and the center of Christianization of Transcaucasia. Iran from time to time tried to return Armenia to Zoroastrianism and organized “peace enforcement operations,” and in 448, in the form of an ultimatum, it demanded to renounce Christianity. The Armenian reaction was so negative that in 451 Shah Yezigerd withdrew his demand, but there was no calm. In 451, Armenia lost the Battle of Avarayr and the country plunged into chaos for almost half a century. When relative calm came, it became clear that much had already changed in the Christian world.

Monophysitism and Nestrianism

While Armenia was at war with the Persians, a problem arose in Byzantium, known in science as the “Christological controversy.” The question of the relationship between the human and the divine in Christ was being resolved. The question was: by whose suffering exactly was humanity saved? The suffering of the Divine or the suffering of Humanity? Supporters of Patriarch Nestorius (Nestorians) reasoned like this: God cannot be born, suffer and die, therefore man suffered and died on the cross, and the divine essence remained separate in him.

This version immediately had many opponents, who, however, went to the other extreme: they declared that Jesus was only God, and that there was no human essence in him at all. This thesis about the one nature (mono-physis) of Christ came to be called monophysitism.

Any heresy is harmless while it exists in the form of abstract philosophy, but it is bad when consequences are drawn from it. From Monophysitism grew all of late totalitarianism, fascism, dictatorships and tyranny - that is, the philosophy of the superiority of the state over the personal. Islam is also monophysics in its purest form.

In 449, the Council of Ephesus dealt with Nestorianism, declaring Monophysitism the correct teaching. A few years later, the mistake was realized and in 451 the Council of Chalcedon was convened, which formulated a doctrine about the essence of Christ that would not deviate to the extremes of Nestorianism or Monophysitism. Orthodoxy is always a teaching about the middle. Extremes are more easily accepted by the brain and this is the reason for the success of all heresies.

And everything was going well, but the national factor intervened. Monophysitism was liked by the peoples of the Byzantine Empire as a “religion of opposition.” It quickly spread throughout all non-Greek areas: Egypt, Syria and Palestine. At the same time, Nestorianism spread to Persia and went further east to China, where the Nestorians built a church near Xi'an.

The split turned out to be deep and serious. Emperor Zeno, an immoral and not very thinking man, decided to simply reconcile everyone with everyone, abandoning the decision of the Council of Chalcedon, but not directly condemning it. The emperor outlined all this in a document known as the Henotikon of Zeno of 482.

When Armenia came to its senses a little after the Persian defeat, it had to somehow navigate the theological chaos. The Armenians acted simply: they chose the faith that Byzantium adhered to, and Byzantium in those years adhered to Zeno’s enoticon, that is, in fact, Monphysitism. In 40 years, Byzantium will abandon the enoticon, and in Armenia this philosophy will take root for centuries. Those Armenians who find themselves under the control of Byzantium will remain Orthodox - that is, “Chalcedonites”.

In 491, a council of churches of Transcaucasia (Vagharshapat Cathedral) met, which rejected the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon as too similar to Nestorianism.

Dvina Cathedrals

In 505, the First Dvina Council of Transcaucasia met. He once again condemned Nestorianism and adopted the document “Message of Faith,” which has not survived to this day. In this document, the churches of Armenia, Georgia and Albania condemned Nestorianism and extreme Monophysitism, recognizing moderate Monophysitism as the basis of their faith.

On March 29, 554, the Second Dvina Council met, which developed an attitude towards aftartodocetism (Julianism) - towards the doctrine of the incorruptibility of the body of Christ during his life. In 564, Emperor Justinian the Great tried to implement the same idea, but the Byzantine hierarchs opposed it. In Armenia, this Monophysite principle was nevertheless recognized. This was already very radical Monophysitism, and over time Armenia abandoned Julianism.

At the same council, it was decided to introduce into the prayer “Holy God, Mighty Holy One...” the addition “... crucified for us.”

Around 590, the Chalcedonian Avan Catholicosate was formed on part of the territory of Armenia. It did not last long and was soon liquidated by the Persians, but its trace remained in the form of the interesting Avan Cathedral.

The Third Dvina Council met in 609–610. Georgia at this moment was gradually returning back to Orthodoxy, and the Armenian church condemned these efforts. At the council, it was decided to interrupt communication with the Georgian church, not to go to Georgian churches and not to allow Georgians to take communion. So in 610 the paths of the Georgian and Armenian churches finally diverged.

What happened next

So, the Armenian Church was left in relative solitude - its like-minded people remained the churches of Caucasian Albania and the small Kakheti state of Hereti.
A strange thing happened in Armenia itself: from 630 to 660, its Catholicoses were the Chalcedonites Ezra and Nerses. It was under them that many famous temples were built - the Gayane Temple, Zvartnots and Ishkhan (in the Tao region). It was Nerses who rebuilt the Etchmiadzin Cathedral, built in 618, so it is possible that such a strange statement is made that this cathedral was built by the Orthodox. To the credit of the Armenian Church, it must be said that it gradually drifted from extreme Monophysitism to moderate, then to even more moderate. The Council of Manazkert in 726 condemned Julianism, and this radical Monophysite teaching was finally rejected. Unity with the Greek Church almost happened, but the Arab invasion prevented it. Gradually, the AAC became very close to Orthodoxy, but still did not take the last step and remained a non-Orthodox church. Subsequently, from time to time there were attempts at rapprochement with Byzantium, but each time they ended in failure.

Surprisingly, Armenia avoided Islamization and Armenian Christian Monophysites did not turn into Muslims, like many Monophysites in Palestine and Syria. Monophysitism is so close to Islam in spirit that the transformation occurs almost painlessly, but the Armenians avoided such a transformation.

In 1118 - 1199, Armenia gradually, piecemeal, became part of the Georgian kingdom. This process had two consequences. First: many Chalcedonian monasteries appear in Northern Armenia. Second: massive temple construction begins. More than half of all Armenian monasteries were built during this period - from the end of the 12th to the end of the 13th century. For example, the buildings of the Goshvank monastery were erected in 1191 - 1291, in the Haghpat monastery the main temple was built in the 10th century, and the remaining 6 buildings in the 13th century. And so on. The relationship between the Georgian and Armenian churches during this period remains not entirely clear. For example, how was being part of the Georgian kingdom combined with the decisions of the Dvina Council to stop communication between churches.

In 1802 - 1828, the territory of Armenia became part of the Russian Empire and this time the Armenian church was lucky. She was considered weak and in need of support, so she did not suffer the fate of the Georgian church, which practically ceased to exist as a result of the abolition of aufokephaly. They tried to confiscate church property in 1905, but this caused violent protests and the confiscations were stopped.

What now

Now in Orthodoxy it is customary to perceive Monophysitism as a teaching that has several gradations - from radical to liberal. The Armenian Church is classified as the latter - in it Monophysitism is weakly expressed, but still expressed. In turn, the AAC considers only radical monophysitism (the teachings of Eutyches and Julian), to which it really does not belong. AC calls his teaching “miaphysitism.” From a linguistic point of view, there is no difference. "Mono" and "Mia" in Greek mean the same concept in different genders.

If you call the Armenian religion Monophysite, then the Armenians will decide that they are accused of Eutychianism and will protest violently.

So:

According to the teachings of Orthodoxy, Christ had one hypostasis and two natures.

According to the teachings of miaphysitism, Christ had one hypostasis and one “divine-human” nature.

The reason for the disagreement is that Orthodox theology allows for many natures in one hypostasis, while Miaphysite theology believes that one hypostasis can have only one nature. So this is a very complex debate about the properties of hypostasis, the understanding of which requires some philosophical preparation.

In addition, Orthodox theologians do not really understand what “theanthropic nature” is. This is the main question of this discussion - can a divine-human nature exist in principle? Try to figure out for yourself who is right and who is wrong in this dispute. Maybe you can imagine a “single divine-human nature.” And the most interesting thing is that the doctrine of the divine-human nature is essentially even more non-Christian than Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Those asserted that humanity was saved by the suffering of either Man or God, but here it turns out that neither one nor the other took part in salvation, but that a completely separate, alien “divine-human essence” suffered.

The teaching of the AAC falls under the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils, and the teaching of the Orthodox Church falls under the anathemas of the Dvina Councils. This situation is somewhat painfully perceived by the Armenian consciousness, and even in glossy brochures for tourists I came across not very clear justifications for the Armenian faith. It sounded like this: we are considered - what a horror - Monophysites, but we are, in essence, good guys.

Material culture of the Armenian Church

There are many temples and monasteries in Armenia that are architecturally similar to Georgian ones, although the Armenian ones are in many cases larger. The domes of the temples have the same conical shape as the Georgian ones - this is considered a heritage of Zoroastrianism. Frescoes in temples are unpopular. If you see these, then there is a high probability that this is a Chalcedonian temple (for example, Akhtala). Contrary to popular belief, Armenia does not recognize iconoclasm. There are icons in Armenian churches, but in very modest quantities. But in Armenia it is customary to cover walls with inscriptions. Here in the temples there is always a huge number of texts - on every wall and on every stone. Armenian churches are the most “talking” temples in the world, competing in this parameter with Chinese ones. There is also a fashion to carve crosses on the walls of churches.

Elements of church material culture
Khachkars	Inscriptions	Crosses	Khachkar	Gavit

There are very few icons in Armenian churches, although they exist. According to the rules of the Armenian Church, the icon must be consecrated personally by the bishop, so there won’t be many of them. Talk about Armenian iconoclasm is a myth.

The most popular cult element is a carved stone cross called a “khachkar”. Around any Armenian temple there are such khachkars, sometimes in large quantities. The absence of a khachkar is also a sign of a Chalcedonian temple. But ordinary crosses, which can be seen on every hill in Georgia, are not common in Armenia. The most important architectural feature in Armenia is the gavits. This is a very strange design and it can only be found here.

Application . Since any Christian movement is based on the Creed, here is the Armenian one for general erudition.

և երկրի աներևույթների Արարչին: Եւ մեկ Տիրոջ` Հիսուս Քրիստոսին, Աստծո Որդուն, ծնված Հայր Աստծուց Միածին, այսինքն` Հոր էությունից: Աստված` Աստծուց, լ ույս` լույսից, ճշմարիտ pine - և երկրի վրա` երևելիներն ու անևերույթները: Որ The մարդացավ, ծնվեց կատարելապես Ս. Կույս ՄարիամիցՍ. Հոգով: Որով` ճշմարտապես, և ոչ կարծեցյալ կերպով առավ մարմին, հոգի և մի օրը Հրարություն առավ, նույն մարմնով բարձրացավ երկինք, նստեց Հոր աջ կողմո ւմ: մարմնով A ունի վախճան: Հավատում ենք նաև Սուրբ Հոգուն` անեղ և կատարյալ, որը խոսե ց Օրենքի, մարգարեների և ավետարանների միջոցով: Որն իջավ Հորդանանի վրա, քարոզեց առաքյալների միջոցով և բնակություն հաստատեց սրբերի մեջ: Հավ ատում ենք նաև մեկ, ընդհանրական և առաքելական եկեղեցու, մի մկրտության, ապաշխարությ ան, մեղքերի քավության և թողության: Մեռելների հարության, հոգիների և մա րbedding յանքի

We believe in one God the Father, Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, visible and invisible to all. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one being with the Father, through whom all things were created; For us people and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, became incarnate, became a man, born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, from whom he received body, soul and consciousness, and everything that is in man is true, and not only in appearance. He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven in the same body and sits at the right hand of the Father. And he who comes in the same body and in the glory of the Father will judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, uncreated and perfect, who spoke in the Law, the Prophets and the Gospels, who descended at the Jordan, who preached through the apostles and who lives in the saints. We believe in the One, Ecumenical, Apostolic and Holy Church, in one baptism of repentance, in forgiveness and remission of sins, in the resurrection of the dead, in eternal judgment of bodies and souls, in the Kingdom of Heaven and eternal life.

It is interesting that this Creed does not contradict the Orthodox in any way. But there is another one, the so-called “Extensive Symbol of Faith,” which says: “one face, one appearance, and united in one nature.” And this point is monophysite without any options.

How is the Armenian Gregorian Church different from the Orthodox Church?

Dear Anna, the Armenian Apostolic Church belongs to communities that are not too far from us, but are not in complete unity. Due to certain historical circumstances, but, however, not without some human sin, after the IV Ecumenical Council of 451, it found itself among those communities that are called Monophysites, which did not accept the church truth that in a single hypostasis, in a single person incarnate The Son of God combines two natures: the Divine and the true human nature, unmerged and inseparable. It so happened that the Armenian-Gregorian Church, which was once part of the united Ecumenical Church, did not accept this teaching, but shared the teaching of the Monophysites, who recognize only one nature of the incarnate God the Word - the Divine. And although we can say that now the severity of those disputes of the 5th-6th centuries has largely become a thing of the past and that the modern theology of the Armenian church is far from the extremes of Monophysitism, nevertheless, there is still no complete unity in faith between us.

For example, the holy fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, which condemned the heresy of Monophysitism, are for us holy fathers and teachers of the Church, but for representatives of the Armenian Church and other “ancient Eastern churches” they are either anathematized (most often), or at least not by doctrinal authority enjoying. For us, Dioscorus is an anathematized heretic, and for them, “like the father of saints.” At least from this it is already clear which traditions are inherited by the family of local Orthodox churches, and which are those that are called ancient Eastern. There are quite noticeable differences between the ancient Eastern churches themselves, and the extent of Monophysite influence is very different: let’s say, it is noticeably stronger in the Coptic churches (with all due respect to Egyptian monasticism, one cannot help but see a completely distinct Monophysite influence among the Copts, especially among modern Coptic theologians), and Its traces in the Armenian-Gregorian Church are almost imperceptible. But the historical, canonical and doctrinal fact remains that for one and a half thousand years there has been no Eucharistic communion between us. And if we believe in the Church as the Pillar and affirmation of the truth, if we believe that the promise of Christ the Savior that the gates of hell will not prevail against Her has not a relative, but an absolute meaning, then we must conclude that either one Church is true, and the other is not completely, or vice versa - and think about the consequences of this conclusion. The only thing that cannot be done is to sit on two chairs and say that the teachings are not identical, but in fact coincide, and that the one and a half thousand year divisions stem solely from inertia, political ambitions and reluctance to unite.

It follows from this that it is still impossible to take communion alternately in the Armenian and then in the Orthodox Church, and one must make a decision, and for this, study the doctrinal positions of one and the other Church.

Of course, it is impossible to formulate the theological doctrine of the Armenian Gregorian Apostolic Church in a short answer, and you would hardly expect this. If you are quite seriously concerned about this problem, then I refer you to: among the more serious modern theologians, priest Oleg Davydenkov and Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev on this topic.

Believers have not worn the Orthodox pectoral cross since the beginning of Christianity itself - in the first centuries of the birth of its faith, they were replaced by medallions with the image of the crucifixion. Christian As a symbol, the cross on people's necks only appeared in the 4th century. Despite the fact that the cross is a single sign of Christianity, differences in the meaning of the currents still exist.

Why is the Armenian Apostolic Church called Monophysite by the Orthodox?

Since questions are being asked, we will have to briefly explain why the Armenian Apostolic Church is called Monophysite by the Orthodox, and also comment on some of the statements of its defenders. But first, a couple of fundamental points:

. In addition to the part of the people belonging to the so-called Armenian Apostolic Church (hereinafter referred to as the AAC), part of the Armenian people for one and a half thousand years and up to the present moment belonged to the Orthodox Church. There is not a single moment in the past when there was not a group of Armenian Chalcedonites. Therefore, there is no factual basis for identifying the AAC with the entire Armenian people and perceiving the AAC faith as the only national Armenian faith.

. Personally, I deeply regret and mourn the division that exists between the Orthodox Church and the AAC, and I sincerely would like for a union to occur in truth.

Now about monophysics. In ancient times there were different movements of Monophysites, relatively speaking, moderate and extreme. The extreme followers of Eutyches, speaking about the one nature of Christ, practically denied the reality of humanity in Him, saying that when united, it dissolved in His divine nature like a drop in the ocean. Moderate Monophysites - for example, Sevirus of Antioch and others - condemned Eutychianism and taught that Christ had one nature, but humanity did not disappear, so that in some inexpressible way, during the Incarnation, one nature became composed of deity and humanity. This same teaching, as we will see below, continues to be followed by the AAC.

When representatives of the AAC protest against being called Monophysites, they proceed from the idea that only Eutychianism should be called Monophysitism. But this contradicts the history of the origin of the term itself. From the very beginning of its appearance, it was used equally in relation to both “extreme” and “moderate” supporters of the doctrine of the one nature of Christ, which is easy to verify by reading, for example, the “Guide” of St. Anastasia Sinaita or “Source of Knowledge” St. John of Damascus. This term was applied to all who taught the one nature of Christ.

Regarding the statements of AAC supporters: “we are not monophysites, we are miaphysites and don’t you dare confuse!”, it is worth, firstly, recalling that in Greek μόνο is translated as “one”, and μία as “one”, so it’s all the same what to say: “don’t dare call us one-nature people - we are one-nature people!” To put it mildly, it looks frivolous. Secondly, this idea is quite new. As far as I know, not a single conciliar document of the AAC uses the term “miaphysite.” On the contrary, 50 years ago, high representatives of the AAC themselves attributed the term “Monophysitism” to their tradition. For example, Archbishop Garegin Sargsyan, the future Catholicos of all Armenians, although he draws attention to the ambiguity of the term “Monophysitism,” nevertheless writes: “...We use this term [“Monophysitism”] for the anti-Chalcedonian movement, because it has become generally accepted in historical and theological literature" (Sarkissian, Karekin, Bp. The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church. New York, 1965. P. 46).

I would very much like the AAC not to be monophysite, but there are a number of significant reasons why we are forced to recognize it as such. I will briefly list them.

. Council resolutions. At the Second Council of Dvina in 555, the Council of Chalcedon and its supporters were anathematized. The Council of the AAC in 584 and the Council in 607 confirmed this decision and also condemned and anathematized the Chalcedonian creed. The Dvina Cathedral of 720 repeated the same thing. And in 726, at the Council of the Apostolic Church in Manazkert, the following doctrine was formulated: “If anyone does not confess the one nature of the incarnate God the Word according to the ineffable union in the Divinity, which is from Divinity and humanity ... - let him be anathema.” The definitions of these councils remain in force to this day and have not been revised or repealed by the Armenian Church.

. Liturgical practice. Until this day, every priest of the AAC anathematizes the Tomos of St. Leo of Rome and the entire “host of Dyophysites,” which refers to members of the Orthodox Church. During the ordination, the bishop, using the liturgical book “Mayr Mashtots,” lists a list of heresies and heresiarchs, asking, among other things: “Are you anathematizing... Leo, and the tomos written by him, dividing one into two?” To which the protege, raising his hands, replies: “I deny and anathematize,” and at another point he says: “I anathematize all heretics and a host of diophysites.” In addition, in the modern practice of the AAC, at the beginning of the morning service, the priest reads the Long Creed, which says: “We believe... in God the Word... who descended into the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, received from her blood, and united him with His Divinity... [[we confess in Him ]one face, one appearance, and united in one nature.”

. Texts of modern theologians. In the book “Christology of the Armenian Church” by Archbishop Yeznik Petrosyan, published in Etchmiadzin in 1995, the teaching of the AAC is stated as follows: “by union, one must confess only One nature - Divine, consisting of the inseparable unity of two essences - perfect Divine and perfect human natures.”

Since the AAC still teaches in the same way as the ancient Monophysites, and rejects the Council of Chalcedon in the same way as the ancient Monophysites, it is called Monophysite, as Archbishop Eugene of Vereisky, rector of the MDA, recently recalled.

The statements of the supporters of the AAC that they supposedly should not be called Monophysites, since only Eutychians should supposedly be called that way, and they supposedly follow the wording of St. Cyril of Alexandria, exposes their poor knowledge of the subject. Since the Eutychians also referred to the same phrase of St. Kirill. But just as the AAC considered the Eutychian understanding of this phrase erroneous and anathematized, so the Orthodox Church considers the understanding of this phrase offered by the “moderate” Monophysites to be heretical. As for the teaching of St. Kirill and his Orthodox understanding, I recommend reading the recent article by priest Sergius Lysy “Main issues of polemics with representatives of the AAC” on Bogoslov.ru. Let me just remind you that St. Cyril accepted the Dyophysite confession of faith of St. John of Antioch, which neither the Eutychians nor moderate Monophysites like the AAC agreed to do. Which deprives them of the moral right to claim that they allegedly adhere to his theology.

Finally, briefly about why the Church designated the teaching about the one nature of Christ as an error, a heresy. The very doctrine of incarnation means that God the Word, the second from the Trinity, became incarnate, that is, took on human nature. And, if we say that He still has one nature, and not two: divine and human, then we have only three options. 1. This one nature is only divine, and the incarnation was, as it were, illusory, which is the heresy of docetism. 2. Either this one nature is human, and Christ was not God then, which, of course, is also a heresy. 3. Or, as the Monophysites say, in Christ there was one complex, composite nature, consisting of Divinity and humanity. But in this case, this means that Christ is no longer consubstantial, that is, he does not have the same nature with the Father, because the nature of God the Father is a divine nature, and not a complex divine-human one. And Christ is not consubstantial with His Mother, the Mother of God the Virgin Mary, and with us, too, in humanity, because we do not have this complex divine-human nature, but we have simply human nature. Thus, Christ turns out to be equally alien to both the Father and us humans. This opinion is clearly erroneous, with which the holy fathers could not possibly agree. St. John of Damascus, in particular, writes that in this case Christ would have neither divinity nor humanity and could not be called either God or man, but only Christ. And the name Christ itself in this case would be the name not of a person, but of a special nature, consisting of two natures. This runs counter to the original faith of the Church and, in particular, to the Creed adopted at the First Ecumenical Council, which states that Christ is consubstantial with the Father.

Differences of the Catholic Cross

The Catholic cross is not similar to the Orthodox one both in its canonical interpretation and in its form. Among Western Christians, the cross of honor is a four-pointed one with a crossbar larger than the horizontal vertical crossbar.

Among Catholics, the figure of Jesus on the cross on Christ is either absent altogether, or another interpretation is shown, where the body of the martyr has already sagged, the head has drooped and traces of Orthodoxy remain. blood, on the contrary, shows Christ as the triumph of the personification of the Divine principle over death. There are other differences associated with the figure of the Savior, such as the number of nails in the body or the position.

tassels can be easily recognized as a Catholic cross by the Latin inscription “INRI” above the head of Christ and the absence of the words “Save and Preserve” on the reverse side.

Armenian Differences cross

The Armenian cross also differs in originality of religious interpretation from the Christian sign. Thanks to the exclusive use of plant elements, it is difficult to confuse it with anything else. By refusing to place the body of the emaciated Christ and Christographs, the Armenians transformed the torture instrument into a symbol of rebirth.

Square or elongated crosses are richly decorated with carved Etos. figures and rays extending from the tree itself, and many decorative nuances, and vines from the ribbon. That is why it is impossible and sometimes even inappropriate to call the cross otherwise as “Blooming”.

Differences between the “Old Believer” cross

Old Believers profess Orthodoxy in its original and primordial form and exclusively recognize the eight-pointed figure, permissibly inscribed in the four-pointed one. Unlike Catholics, who can “depict” the body of Old Believers, they never place the holy image of Christ on their vests. So the cross becomes an icon, and icons, according to their beliefs, are very undesirable to remove from time to time. While the eye is like a cross to show in public More.

It is impossible that the memory of the crucifixion in use or the dead still living body of the Savior is considered by the Old Believers to be a re-crucifixion. In the same way, on the crossbar of the short title, instead of the words of the killers of the IHHI “saint,” “TSR SLVI” is drawn, which means the Tsar “stands for Glory.”

Traditionally, on the Old Believer cross there are only “ІС”, “ХС”, and on some, called “Golgotha crosses”, you can see a hill with a skull and the inscriptions “GG”, “GA” and “MLR B”. The Reverse side does not demonstrate “Save and preserve,” but prayer and definite words are considered a mandatory element on it.

At the troparion stage of its history, Christianity was divided into many different currents and directions. Moreover, differences can be observed not only in the external image and body meaning of the crosses.

The Holy Armenian Church, like other ancient Orthodox Churches, confesses our Lord Jesus Christ as true and perfect God and true and perfect Man, who in the incarnation took on our nature from the Mother and became in everything like us, except for sin. In the context of Archbishop Vereisky’s answer, we see that he does not attribute to the AAC the denial of true humanity (as the apologists of Greek Orthodoxy have falsely taught throughout the centuries). His mistake lies elsewhere. For Bishop Eugene, as a person ignorant in matters of theology, there is no other idea of Christology other than the opposition of Monophysitism to Dyophysitism, and therefore his logic is that if you are not a Dyophysit, then you are a Monophysit. Accordingly, by the same vicious logic, if you do not accept the Council of Chalcedon, then you are no longer Orthodox. The faith of the Russian Orthodox Church does not allow the recognition that there is another faith, professed by the entire Ecumenical Church both before Monophysitism and before Dyophysitism. According to the famous anti-dyophysite formula of Saints Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, “one nature (mia physis) of God the Word incarnate,” Orthodox Christological teaching is called miaphysitism. This formula does not say that Christ is only God, but that He is one. There is nothing in common between the Orthodox teaching of our Holy Church and the Greek heresy of Monophysitism. Our faith is the faith of the great Fathers of the Church of the pre-Chalcedonian era and the truly Ecumenical Councils. Monophysitism, which professes only the divine nature in Christ, is a heresy invented by the Constantinople monk Eutyches (or attributed to him by the Chalcedonites) and condemned by the AAC back in 506 at the First Dvina Council. The essence of the confrontation between the ancient Orthodox Churches and the Churches of the Greek and Latin traditions is not so much in Christological differences, but in the fact of our rejection of their Council of Chalcedon. The Chalcedonites present their council as convened against Monophysitism, and therefore, they believe, whoever does not accept Chalcedon is a Monophysite. In fact, the Council of Chalcedon was convened to sanctify the Dyophysite teaching of Pope Leo, which in itself rejected the Miaphysite Orthodox teaching of the great Cyril of Alexandria, and therefore the Third Ecumenical Council. That is, by rejecting Chalcedon, we do not accept Monophysitism, but reject Dyophysitism. Monophysitism and Dyophysitism are two heretical extremes, which even the Chalcedonites themselves realized, which is why already at their Fifth Council they restored the Miaphysite Orthodox teaching of Saints Athanasius and Cyril. But, unfortunately, Archbishop Vereisky does not know this. Blaspheming the Armenian Church for rejecting a council alien to it, Bishop Eugene himself falls under the anathemas of his Fifth Council, cursing everyone who does not profess the Miaphysite Orthodox faith of the Holy Fathers: “If anyone does not accept the expression “the union came from two natures, from Divinity and Humanity “or “the one nature of God the Word incarnate” in the understanding of the teaching of the Holy Fathers, that is, that from the Divine and from the human nature, after the union according to the Hypostasis took place, one Christ appeared; but if by these expressions he attempts to introduce the concept of one nature or essence of the Divinity and the flesh of Christ, let him be excommunicated from the community of the faithful. For, speaking about the Hypostatic union of the Word and the Only Begotten Son, we do not believe that some kind of confusion of natures occurred; rather, we believe that the Word was united with the flesh, so that each nature remained what it was. That is why there is One Christ, God and Man, and the same One who is consubstantial with the Father in His Divinity is consubstantial with us in His Humanity. For the Church of God rejects and anathematizes both those who carry out division or separation into parts, and those who introduce confusion into the mystery of the Divine Incarnation.” Anathemas of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. II Council of Constantinople. 8th session (2 June 553)

In this anathematism of the Fifth Byzantine Council (except for some nuances not related to the topic of Monophysitism) the teaching of the Armenian Church is almost perfectly presented, but the paradox of the situation is that the Chalcedonites themselves do not believe

Monophysite heresy. Armenian Church

Orthodox doctrine confesses in Christ two perfect and distinct natures, human and Divine.
At the same time, we believe in the one Person of Christ the Savior, who in His Hypostasis or Personality united two natures. By nature or essence we mean a single generalizing and species-forming principle. Hypostasis or person is a specific individual who has special features unique to him. The doctrine of the God-manhood of Christ is catholically dogmatized and is considered immutable for all Orthodox Christians. The adoption of the dogma was preceded by years of fierce theological polemics, the Nestorian error, the Monophysite heresy and church unrest, the result of which was a schism that separated part of the Ancient Eastern churches from Orthodoxy. Let's take a closer look at these events.

At the beginning of the 5th century, the minds of Eastern theologians were concerned with the question of the fullness of the Divine and human natures of Christ. The teaching of the Archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, appeared, claiming that the Virgin Mary gave birth not to God, but to an ordinary person, into whom God entered at the moment of birth. According to Nestorius, it turned out that the unity of the Savior’s personality was only visible, external, but in fact, two personalities lived separately in Christ, human and Divine. These personalities were divided among themselves, the Divinity lived in a person, as in a vessel or temple.

The consequence of Nestorius’ error was the denial of the God-manhood of Christ, the belittlement of His saving feat, because since Divine and human unity did not exist, it means that human nature did not receive the gift of deification and salvation. In 431, the Third Ecumenical Council condemned the teachings of the Archbishop of Constantinople as heresy.

Nestorius's main opponent was St. Cyril of Alexandria. He formulated the doctrine of the hypostatic unity of the human and divine natures of Christ, of their mutual communication and mutual penetration. Unfortunately, his teaching contained insufficient precision of terminology; he did not make a distinction between the concepts of “nature” and “hypostasis”. In addition, he introduced the expression “the one nature of God the Word, incarnate,” which was subsequently reinterpreted by heretical fanatics in the context of the exclusivity of the Divine nature of the Savior.

Among the fanatical followers of the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria later and the Monophysite heresy was born. In an effort to protect the Orthodox world from the extremes of Nestorius’ theology, the Monophysites fell into the opposite extreme. If the Nestorians considered Christ a man, belittling His Divine dignity, the Monophysites, on the contrary, taught about the Divinity of the Savior, to the detriment of His humanity. The Monophysites called the Savior a man, but they did not consider the human principle to be independent and full-fledged.

Despite the fact that the Third Ecumenical Council condemned Nestorius, the Council failed to fully disclose the doctrine of the Face of Christ. 20 years later, the Fourth Ecumenical Council exposed the Monophysite heresy, but again no clear definition was given in the understanding of the single Hypostasis of the Savior, whether this is the single Hypostasis of God the Son or whether it is a Hypostasis that appeared through the union of two hypostases, human and Divine. The understatement of the wording gave the Monophysites a reason to mistakenly interpret the oros of the IV Council in the Nestorian style and declare it heretical.

In the 5th century, the Monophysite heresy spread rapidly, aided by unsuccessful attempts by theologians of that time to combine the idea of a single Hypostasis of Christ with the idea of the fullness of the two natures of the Savior. The fullness of nature also implied a separate personality inherent in this nature. Therefore, the recognition of the two full-fledged natures of Christ meant, in the opinion of the Monophysites, the recognition of the two personalities of the Savior, which threatened to deviate into Nestorianism. From the Orthodox point of view, the Monophysite belittlement of the human nature of Christ was a denial of His consubstantiality with the human race and devalued the saving feat of the God-man, and this already led to Eutychianism, the extreme trend of the Monophysite heresy.

The solution to the problem of the fullness of the two natures of the Savior was the introduction of new theological terms in the 6th century. Through the works of the great theologians of their time, John the Grammar of Caesarea, Leontius of Byzantium, and Leontius of Jerusalem, such concepts as “enhypostasis” or “enhypostatic essence (nature)” appeared. With the help of these terms, it was possible to formulate the doctrine of the possibility of the existence of complex hypostases consisting of several natures. Each of them should not at all have its own hypostasis, but can manifest itself as part of a single complex person. For example, the human hypostasis consists of two natures, spiritual and physical, each of which separately cannot exist independently. So in Christ, the human hypostasis existed not as an independent person, but as an enhypostasis. “We say that the humanity of the Savior did not exist in its own hypostasis, but from the very beginning exists in the hypostasis of the Logos, since “He, having taken (the flesh) into his own Hypostasis, endowed it with a face” (St. Leontius of Jerusalem). The human hypostasis received its Self, became a person in the Person of Christ, He lived and acted through the Divine and through our human nature, which is consubstantial with us.

Alas, it was not immediately possible to heal the church schism caused by heresy. For decades, the Eastern and Western churches were torn apart by turmoil. The heretics were supported by some emperors. Attempts were made to reconcile the Orthodox and Monophysites through compromise and force. Unfortunately, over time, political motives were added to the doctrinal disagreement. The outskirts of the Byzantine Empire sought to separate from it and become independent, both territorially and religiously, the Monophysite heresy was used as a pretext for secession.

It is worth saying that Monophysitism consisted of several movements, whose representatives differed in both extremely radical views (Eutychianism) and moderate ones (Severianism). The Eutychians professed two natures in Christ before the Incarnation and one single nature after it. The Severians recognized in Christ one hypostasis, consisting of two sides, human, consubstantial with us, and Divine. They placed the human side in a position subordinate to the Divine. Over time, the Monophysite movement split into many sects, the errors of which took on completely absurd forms. Thus, the Afartodocetes considered the Body of Christ to be incorruptible, and the Agnoites argued that Christ might not have known some things, just as ordinary people do not know.

Most of these religious movements, confused in the intricacies of their doctrine, collapsed in the 6th century. But some of the moderate Monophysite trends still exist. These include those who did not recognize the decisions of the IV Ecumenical (Chalcedonian) Council and some Ancient Eastern churches that retained apostolic succession. We call them the Oriental Family of Old Orthodox Churches. These are the Armenian Gregorian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syro-Jacobite Church, etc.

In conclusion, I would like to touch in a little more detail on the doctrine of the Armenian Gregorian Apostolic Church, which is close to us in spirit. The Armenian Church, although it does not recognize the acts of the IV Chalcedonian Ecumenical Council, at the same time, it does not consider itself Monophysite, condemning the extreme manifestation of Monophysitism - Eutychianism.

The main difference between the doctrine of the Armenian Church and the Orthodox is the confession by the Armenians of one common and united theanthropic nature of Christ and one will, while the Orthodox confess the two natures of the Savior, “unfused, unchangeable, inseparable, inseparable” (Chalcedonian oros) united in His Person and two wills, Divine and human, not contradicting the Divine, but in harmony with it. In addition to doctrinal differences, there are also some ritual differences between us. For example, Armenians cross themselves from left to right, while we usually make the sign of the cross from right to left.

Despite dogmatic errors, it would be wrong to call representatives of the Armenian Church Monophysites. Monophysitism is the denial of Christ’s consubstantiality with us in humanity. The Armenian Church, like the Orthodox Church, does not doubt the God-manhood of Christ; it recognizes the Savior as both the true God and consubstantial with us, a full-fledged man.

Since the 5th century we have not had Eucharistic communion with the Armenian Church, that is, we cannot receive communion with the Armenians from the same cup. Armenians who wish to begin the Orthodox Sacraments must first undergo a special rite of joining. There are three types of rites of joining, through Baptism, through Confirmation and through Repentance.

The joining of Armenians is carried out by the third order, through Repentance. The third rite is performed over all representatives of those Christian movements among whom the apostolic succession of ordination was preserved, but their doctrine to some extent deviated from the Orthodox. The sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation of such church communities are considered valid within the bosom of the Orthodox Church.

I would like to hope that over time, dogmatic obstacles with our Armenian brothers in Christ will be overcome and the centuries-old church schism will be healed.

Irina Praslova

Similar

The realities of our life

Friends and enemies

How do the Armenian and Georgian Churches differ from the Russian Church?

1) Syro-Jacobites, Copts and Malabarians (Malankara Church of India). This is the monophysitism of the Sevirian tradition, which is based on the theology of Sevirus of Antioch.

2) Armenians (Etchmiadzin and Cilician Catholics).

3) Ethiopians (Ethiopian and Eritrean churches).

ARMENIANS

- the descendants of Togarmah, the grandson of Japheth, call themselves Hayki, after Hayki, who came from Babylon 2350 years before the birth of Christ.
From Armenia they subsequently scattered throughout all regions of the Greek Empire and, according to their characteristic spirit of enterprise, became members of European societies, retaining, however, their outward type, morals and religion. Christianity, brought to Armenia by the Apostles Thomas, Thaddeus, Judas Jacob and Simon the Canaanite, was approved in the 4th century by Saint Gregory the “Illuminator”. During the IV Ecumenical Council, the Armenians separated from the Greek Church and, due to national enmity with the Greeks, became so separated from them that attempts to unite them with the Greek Church in the 12th century remained unsuccessful. But at the same time, many Armenians, under the name of Armenian Catholics, submitted to Rome. The number of all Armenians extends to 5 million. Of these, up to 100 thousand are Armenian Catholics. The head of the Armenian-Gregorian bears the title of Catholicos, is confirmed in his rank by the Russian Emperor and has a see in Etchmiadzin. Armenian Catholics have their own Archbishops, who are supplied by the Pope of Rome
and the Georgian Orthodox Church

(officially:
Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church
; Georgian -
autocephalous local Orthodox Church
, having the sixth place in the diptychs of the Slavic local Churches and the ninth in the diptychs of the ancient Eastern patriarchates.
One of the oldest Christian churches in the world
. Jurisdiction extends to the territory of Georgia and to all Georgians , wherever they lived. According to legend, based on an ancient Georgian manuscript, Georgia is the apostolic lot of the Mother of God. In 337, through the works of Saint Equal-to-the-Apostles Nina, Christianity became the state religion of Georgia. The church organization was within the boundaries of the Antiochian Church (Syrian). In 451 , together with the Armenian Church, did not accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon and in 467, under King Vakhtang I, became independent from Antioch, acquiring the status of an autocephalous Church
with its center in Mtskheta
(the residence of the Supreme Catholicos).In
607, the Church accepted the decisions of Chalcedon, breaking with the Armenians
.

The head of the Georgian Church bears the title :
Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia, Archbishop of Mtskheta-Tbilisi and Metropolitan of Pitsunda and Tskhum-Abkhazeti (now Ilya the Second)
Orthodox churches are located all over the world, but we will list countries where Orthodoxy is practiced by more than 80% of the population. These are small countries such as Montenegro, Greece, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria. Within the CIS - these are Ukraine and Belarus, South Ossetia and Moldova. Russia is the largest Orthodox country in the world, and the Orthodox churches there are experiencing new development.

History of the Church in Armenia

Before the adoption of Christianity, paganism reigned in the ancient state on the banks of Sevan, leaving scant monuments in the form of stone sculptures and echoes in folk customs. According to legend, the apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew laid the foundation for the destruction of pagan temples and the establishment of Christian churches in their places. can be distinguished in the history of the Armenian Church :

1st century: the sermon of the apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew, which determined the name of the future Church - Apostolic.
Mid-2nd century: Tertullian mentions “a large number of Christians” in Armenia.
314 (according to some sources - 301) - martyrdom of the holy virgins Hripsime, Gaiania and others who suffered on Armenian soil. The adoption of Christianity by the King of Armenia Trdat III under the influence of his servant Gregory, the future holy Enlightener of Armenia. Construction of the first Etchmiadzin temple and establishment of the patriarchal throne in it.
405: creation of the Armenian alphabet for the purpose of translating the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books.
451: Battle of Avarayr (war with Persia against the introduction of Zoroastrianism); The Council of Chalcedon in Byzantium against the heresy of the Monophysites.
484 - removal of the patriarchal throne from Etchmiadzin.
518 - division with Byzantium in matters of religion.
XII century: attempts to reunite with Byzantine Orthodoxy.
XII - XIV centuries - attempts to accept a union - to unite with the Catholic Church.
1361 - removal of all Latin innovations.
1441 - return of the patriarchal throne to Etchmiadzin.
1740 - separation of the Syrian community of Armenians, whose religion became Catholicism. The Armenian Catholic Church has spread throughout Western Europe and has parishes in Russia.
1828 - entry of Eastern Armenia into the Russian Empire, new name “Armenian-Gregorian Church”, separation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which remained on the territory of the Ottoman Empire.
1915 - extermination of Armenians in Turkey.
1922 - the beginning of repression and the anti-religious movement in Soviet Armenia.
1945 - election of a new Catholicos and gradual revival of church life.

Georgia and Armenia

In the above states, they follow the dogmas and institutions of faith that Russia professes. But there are countries that a long time ago broke away from the general trend for political reasons. This masked and continues to hide the separatist sentiments of the heads of these states.

How the Catholic and Orthodox Churches Divided

The Western Church, centered in Rome, began to decline. As a result of the barbarian invasions, the economic and cultural level began to decline, while in the eastern part of the empire everything was on the rise. And the East began to overtake the West. The famous saying Ex orient lux says that enlightenment, new ideas and revelations came from the East. But they had no actual religious differences. How did the Catholic and Orthodox churches differ? Ten accusations were brought by Catholics against Orthodox Christians. Here are three of them that are most understandable to anyone:

Allows marriage to those who serve in the church.
According to the creed, the Holy Spirit comes only from the Father.
Newborns are baptized only on the 8th day.

Among the smaller differences they included the conduct of services in Greek, later in the Slavic language, and the growth of hair on the head and chin of priests. In turn, the Orthodox made eleven accusations, among which are the following:

Wearing rings by bishops, their going to war.
Baptism is performed not in three immersions, but in one.
In churches, the Cross of the Lord and the faces of saints are depicted on the floor, and the laity walk on them.

They also disapproved of monks shaving and conducting services in Latin.

Hierarchical structure

The head of the Armenian Church is the Catholicos. The name of this title comes from the Greek word καθολικός - “universal”. The Catholicos heads all local churches, standing above their patriarchs. The main throne is located in Etchmiadzin (Armenia). The current Catholicos is Karekin II, the 132nd head of the church after St. Gregory the Illuminator. Below the Catholicos are the following sacred degrees:

Bishops whose power is limited to geographical regions - dioceses. There are as many bishops in the church as there are dioceses.
Priests serving in parishes. If the highest degrees are held exclusively by monks, then the priest can be married, but he is ordained only after the birth of a son.
Hieromonks are unmarried priests who have taken a vow of monasticism. They can receive the academic degrees of archimandrite and proto-archimandrite, which give them the right to teach and preach.
Deacons and readers who assist priests in performing divine services and in the economic affairs of the parish.

Schism of the Orthodox Church

In Russia, as in the Byzantine Empire, there was a tradition: the church did not interfere in the affairs of secular authorities, and the secular - in church affairs.

From a modern point of view, after the introduction of Patriarch Nikon’s reforms, a kind of civil war began in Russia. First, he brought the liturgical books to the Greek canons. But the schism itself began in 1653, when the rules for conducting services were changed:

Three fingers were required to make the sign of the cross. They could not forgive the patriarch for this. According to adherents of the old faith, God was shown an indecent figure of three fingers.
The spelling of the name Jesus has changed.
The number of prosphoras during mass was reduced.
At the liturgy, bows to the ground were replaced by bows from the waist.
The religious procession walked towards the sun.
“Hallelujah” began to be sung three times.

After this, for a long time the country plunged into the abyss of a religious war, which was fought fanatically on both sides. But the schism served to weaken church power, which was finally dealt with by Peter I.

The path of the Russian Church

Orthodox churches abroad did not carry out much missionary work. They were immersed in their own affairs.

Today, the Russian Orthodox Church is actively emerging from the shadows in which it remained throughout the 20th century, strengthening its positions, building new churches, restoring old ones, but, as in the West, many new, and most importantly young, parishioners do not appear in it.

Author Topic: What is the difference between the Armenian, Georgian and Russian Orthodox churches (Read 47222 times)

0 Users and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

»
Orthodox doctrine »
Fundamentals of Orthodoxy. Dogmas of the Orthodox Faith (Moderators: Alena Evgenievna, Sergey Karinsky, lelek, Mikhail Eduardovich Krupnyak, Mikhail Levitin) »
How do the Armenian, Georgian and Russian Orthodox churches differ?

The page was generated in 0.096 seconds. Requests: 21.

In the CIS countries, most people are familiar with Orthodoxy, but know little about other Christian denominations and non-Christian religions. Therefore, the question is: “ What is the difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church?” ” or, more simply, “the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy” - Catholics are asked very often. Let's try to answer it.

First of all, Catholics are also Christians . Christianity is divided into three main directions: Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism. But there is no single Protestant Church (there are several thousand Protestant denominations in the world), and the Orthodox Church includes several Churches independent of each other.

Besides the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), there is the Georgian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Romanian Orthodox Church, etc. The Orthodox Churches are governed by patriarchs, metropolitans and archbishops. Not all Orthodox Churches have communion with each other in prayers and sacraments (which is necessary for individual Churches to be part of the one Ecumenical Church according to the catechism of Metropolitan Philaret) and recognize each other as true churches.

Even in Russia itself there are several Orthodox Churches (the Russian Orthodox Church itself, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, etc.). It follows from this that world Orthodoxy does not have a single leadership. But the Orthodox believe that the unity of the Orthodox Church is manifested in a single doctrine and in mutual communication in the sacraments.

Catholicism is one Universal Church. All its parts in different countries of the world are in communication with each other, share a single creed and recognize the Pope as their head. In the Catholic Church there is a division into rites (communities within the Catholic Church, differing from each other in forms of liturgical worship and church discipline): Roman, Byzantine, etc. Therefore, there are Catholics of the Roman rite, Catholics of the Byzantine rite, etc., but they are all members of the same Church.