Permissions Icon Permissions. Article PDF first page preview. Issue Section:. You do not currently have access to this article. Download all figures. Sign in. You could not be signed in.
Find a copy in the library
Sign In Forgot password? Don't have an account? Sign in via your Institution Sign in. Purchase Subscription prices and ordering Short-term Access To purchase short term access, please sign in to your Oxford Academic account above. This article is also available for rental through DeepDyve. View Metrics. Email alerts New issue alert. Advance article alerts. Article activity alert. Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic. Citing articles via Google Scholar. Edited by Joseph R. I, Antelias, Lebanon , pp. Lazari in Insula, , pp.
The two above-discussed models of union were inherited from the Early Christian patristic tradition. Moreover, the Armenians themselves were fully aware of their Eutychian and Nestorian misuses as attested in the various documents of the Armenian Church We come now to another important theme in the Armenian Christology, i.
Paradosis › The Christology of the Armenian Orthodox Church
We will try to only indicate, without the possibility of analytic elaboration, some essential and major points in the theological Christological implication of these words. Talatinian, Il monofisismo nella Chiesa Armena : Storia et dottrina, coll. Orientalia Christiana Analecta , Rome , p. For the detailed analysis see Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev, op. I, Yerevan , pp.
In order to understand what has been discussed above, for the contemporary reading some historical remarks and details will be needed. In this case the historical significance of the doctrine of Christ in the Armenian tradition implies the necessary periodisation, i. Hence, from the historical perspective we should first of all proceed by separating two main periods: a.
This division is due also to the documentary evidences on the formation and development of Armenian Christology The documents for the pre-Chalcedonian period were mainly preserved in the Book of Letters, representing the formation period of the Armenian Christology. There remain also some theological treatises from the same period not included in the Book of Letters which we had discussed above As noted above, that earliest stage of formation or rather the doctrinal background of Armenian Christology had its roots in the theological heritage of Alexandria and Cappadocia37, comprising meanwhile some important Christological terms and expressions from the Syriac speaking patristic tradition.
For the further discussion see Henning J. Talatinian, op.
Abp. Petrosian on Armenian Christology
Idem, p. In all the previous official letters and documents there is not any explicit rejection of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, but rather the confirmation of the Armenian position against Nestorius and his teachings. On the other side at the same Council of Duin the adherence to Henotikon became official After the condemnation of Chalcedon at the council of Duin in the rejection of Chalcedonian formula fidei proved to be the official attitude. The new ecclesial and theological transformations appeared in the bosom of Transcaucasian churches.
The division of Armenian and Georgian churches under the pretext of the Council of Chalcedon caused the new and even more rigid attitudes against the council of Chalcedon. Moreover, the newly elected Armenian Catholicos Abraham I convened the new Council in Duin in where, with the election of new Catholicos, the six new canons against the council of Chalcedon were inserted in the agenda of the same council James Press, Jerusalem , p.
- Social Work, Law and Ethics (Student Social Work)?
- Abp. Petrosian on Armenian Christology | Christian Forums;
- Retirement, an Adventure. TWO. (The Retirement Adventure. Book 2)!
- Aint No Love.
Cyril of Alexandria p. Nevertheless, the emergence of Monothelitism Monoenergism and the new context of Armeno-Syrian relations added some nuances and reformulations to the Christological position of the Armenian Church in the 7th -8th centuries. Karin in was based on the Monoenergist formula According to the historian Sebeos VII c. However, the issue of Armeno- Byzantine union was revitalized once more by the arrival of the Emperor Constans to Duin in The union initiated by Heraclius on the base of the Monoenergist formula finally was abandoned forever when the Arab troops conquered Armenia and reversed the political situation in the region The Monoenergist discussions gave birth to the different anti-Monothelite and pro-Monothelite groups and schools in Armenia whose activities and positions were indeed beyond the traditional Christological position of Armenian Church.
Translation and Notes, coll. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. IV, Antelias-Lebanon , pp. Lazarus-Venice , pp. In some of dogmatic collections he was exalted as great theologian and hermit. However, thanks to his disciples, his name became associated with the docetic sect. Two other eminent Armenian Church leaders enclosed the process of crystallization and definite formation of the Armenian Christology in the 7th-8th centuries. Their theological activities were marked with the apologies and debates against the extreme julianistes, the Armenian aphtartodocets, the iconoclasts and the sect of Paulicians.
Armenian Catholicos St.
The works of all these theologians focused on the orthodox interpretation of the doctrine of Incorruptibility which subsequently applied also some details of liturgical polemics for the defense of Armenian traditional azymes practice during the Holy Liturgy Finally the Synod of Manazkert in , initiated by the Catholicos St. Although the main issue of the Council was the union of Armenian and Syriac churches, according to different historical records one could presume the assembled bishops tried also to resolve the theological problems raised by the pro-Monothelite parties Hence, the long way of discussions and debates on the Severian-Julianiste controversy was ended for the Armenians and Syrians at the Synod of Manazkert.
The admitted consensus obviously redirected both Armenian and Syrian Christologies to the common and mutually shared formula fidei. It is on the basis of the latter that the Armenians continued their own dialogue with Byzantines over the next centuries. Simpson ed.
The Armenian Church
Jahrhunderts: nach den armenischen und syrischen Quellen, Leipzig , p. II 3 fr. Chabot , Paris , pp. It is important also to mention that beside the Christological issues the response of Stephen opened a new liturgical topic in the history of Armeno-Byzantine quarrel, i. Over the next centuries the Armenian liturgical peculiarities, i.
For the simple body cannot be life giving, as attested by the Lord himself cf.
John …. It is thus the Word sent by the Father and accordingly it is His body we are sharing in communion. Yet, if the natures are divided, as you are insisting on, it is clear that those sharing His body in communion and eating the life giving body…. If one considers two divided natures in Christ, then the communion with God, according to Anania, will be impossible and will be deprived of its divino-human character In the next centuries the theological quarrels and debates between Armenians and Byzantines, regardless of their apologetical and polemical expressions, contributed largely to the creation of an atmosphere where both sides sought to continue the diachronous dialogue.
Later, in the 12th and 13th centuries the in-depth theological dialogues and correspondences began.
In fact, that was the time of close relationships between two Churches when not only the ecclesiastical authorities, but also Byzantine state were engaged in the realization of the mutual recognition of one and same Orthodox faith. First of all, the raise of Nestorians in the southern regions of Armenia and subsequently the schism between Armenian and Georgian Churches created a definite theological reaction against the Chalcedonian confession.
To the Chalcedonian interpretation of the union of two natures the Armenian theologians opposed their own Christological tradition. As patristic heritage approved by the authority of St. Moreover, there was not any need to change or to reinterpret it. It is noteworthy also that in the 7th-8th centuries the authority of St. We anathematize those who confess that Christ did not assume the human flesh from our corruptible and protolapsarian human nature, persisting that Christ rather assumed the prelapsarian human nature, i.
Canon VI. We anathematize those who do not confess the flesh of Christ incorruptible from His virginal birth for all time, not according to the nature, but rather in accordance with the unspeakable union. The glorification of human flesh assumed by Christ, according to the canons of Synod, was admitted only in accordance with the union of Divine and human natures. To explain the mode of union in Christ, St. Yet this is not according to the identification or in accordance with the one prosopon For if it were in this way, there would be neither the Incarnation of Word nor the deification of man theosis.
But the union of two natures as I stated in many passages was made in accordance with the unspeakable union of the Word with His body, as it was told by St. Erwand Ter-Minassiantz ,op. II 3, pp. Etchmiadzin , pp. The canons and the above cited passage were deeply marked by the reflections of St. He confirms indeed two sources of union and the unique subject of the attribution of these two subsistent entities at the same time. Ultimately, too, St. This idea was explained more expressively in the writings of Xosrovik.