What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Armenian Christianity?

Why didn't Armenians convert to Islam?

An interesting question is why the Armenians, having lived for fifteen hundred years in a Muslim environment, were never Islamized? Like, for example, the Caucasian Albanians or the peoples of the North Caucasus?

Let's start with the fact that the Armenians adopted Christianity in 301 AD. Islam came to Armenia only at the beginning of the 7th century. Before that, Armenia’s neighbors were mainly Christian countries: Byzantium, Georgia, Caucasian Albania, and pagan Persia. This allowed Christianity to thoroughly strengthen among the Armenians.

In the 5th century AD, the Persian Sassanids tried to return Armenia to paganism, so on May 26, 451, a major battle took place on the Avarayr plain in Vaspurakan between the Armenian army under the command of Vardan Mamikonian and the Persians. It became one of the first battles in defense of the Christian faith in history. Neither side won, but the Armenians retained their apostolic faith.

Then began the Arab conquest of Armenia, which was part of the Muslim campaigns after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 AD. e. Fragmented and weakened Armenia was conquered already in 638-639. But even under Arab rule, Armenia retained the Christian faith.

Next were the Mongols, Seljuks, and the Ottoman Empire. But every generation of Armenians thought like this: “Christianity is the Motherland.” Losing the Christian faith for Armenians was tantamount to losing their homeland, culture and language.

Those Armenians who converted to Islam were essentially deprived of their Armenian ethnicity. All modern Armenians are descendants of those Armenians who did not convert to Islam. Until now, in Armenian society it is believed that Armenians can belong to any religious denomination except Islam. This is not a matter of religion, but simply a long cultural tradition of survival that has developed over one and a half thousand years of living in an Islamic environment.

Another reason for the preservation of the Armenian Christian faith was the Armenian alphabet. Even when some Armenian villages began to speak Arabic, Farsi or Turkish, the Armenians retained and wrote down most things in their own alphabet and language. The Armenians considered their alphabet sacred and divinely inspired, this helped them maintain the Christian faith.

Another factor is the widespread settlement of Armenians in Anatolia, Northern Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. Since the Armenians were dispersed, although there were those who converted to Islam, there were always those Armenians who did not take such a step.

Thirdly, this is an epic, historical memory. Armenians always remembered that they were Christians. And they developed a kind of defense against assimilation. It is difficult to find a time in history when Armenia was not a battlefield or border state between two warring powers.

Related materials:

• Who are Tajiks? All about Tajiks.
• “Black Garden”: how the collapse of the USSR began
• "Fergana Massacre" in 1989
• “TAJIKS. The oldest, ancient and medieval...
• 10 unexpected facts about Genghis Khan

For a calculator for calculating foam blocks, see this resource. Everything about a frame house can be found here https://stroidom-shop.ru How to rent a room in a communal apartment, see here comintour.net The most modern treatment for hernias

0

What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Armenian Christianity?

From March 16 to 18, 2010, at the invitation of the Primate of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians Gergin II, the official visit of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill to Armenia takes place.

The Armenian Church is one of the oldest Christian communities.
In 301, Armenia became the first country to adopt Christianity as a state religion. For many centuries there has been no church unity between us, but this does not interfere with the existence of good neighborly relations. At the meeting held on March 12 with the Ambassador of the Republic of Armenia to Russia O.E. Yesayan, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill Fr. Readers of our portal often ask the question: “What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Armenian Christianity”?

Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov, Doctor of Theology, Head of the Department of Eastern Christian Philology and Eastern Churches of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological University answers questions from the Orthodoxy and World portal about pre-Chalcedonian churches, one of which is the Armenian Church.
– Father Oleg, before talking about the Armenian direction of Monophysitism, tell us about what Monophysitism is and how it arose?

– Monophysitism is a Christological teaching, the essence of which is that in the Lord Jesus Christ there is only one nature, and not two, as the Orthodox Church teaches. Historically, it appeared as an extreme reaction to the heresy of Nestorianism and had not only dogmatic, but also political reasons.

Orthodox Church

confesses in Christ one person (hypostasis) and two natures - divine and human.
Nestorianism
teaches about two persons, two hypostases and two natures.
Monophysites
fell to the opposite extreme: in Christ they recognize one person, one hypostasis and one nature . From a canonical point of view, the difference between the Orthodox Church and the Monophysite churches is that the latter do not recognize the Ecumenical Councils, starting with the IVth Council of Chalcedon, which adopted the definition of faith (oros) about two natures in Christ, which converge into one person and one hypostasis .

The name “Monophysites” was given by Orthodox Christians to the opponents of Chalcedon (they call themselves Orthodox). Systematically, the Monophysite Christological doctrine was formed in the 6th century, thanks primarily to the works of Sevirus of Antioch (+ 538).

Modern non-Chalcedonians are trying to modify their teaching, claiming that their fathers are unfairly accused of Monophysitism, since they anathematized Eutychus, but this is a change in style that does not affect the essence of the Monophysit doctrine.
The works of their modern theologians indicate that there are no fundamental changes in their doctrine, no significant differences between the Monophysite Christology of the 6th century. and there is no modern one. Back in the 6th century. the doctrine of the “single complex nature of Christ” appears, composed of divinity and humanity and possessing the properties of both natures. However, this does not imply the recognition of two perfect natures in Christ - the divine nature and the human nature. In addition, monophysitism is almost always accompanied by a monophilite and mono-energist position, i.e. the teaching that in Christ there is only one will and one action, one source of activity, which is the deity, and humanity turns out to be its passive instrument. – Is the Armenian direction of Monophysitism different from its other types?

- Yes, it’s different. Currently, there are six non-Chalcedonian churches (or seven, if the Armenian Etchmiadzin and Cilician Catholics are considered as two, de facto autocephalous churches). The ancient Eastern churches can be divided into three groups:

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).

The Armenian Church in the past differed from other non-Chalcedonian churches; even Sevier of Antioch itself was anathematized by the Armenians in the 4th century. at one of the Dvina Councils as an insufficiently consistent Monophysite. The theology of the Armenian Church was significantly influenced by aphthartodocetism (the doctrine of the incorruptibility of the body of Jesus Christ from the moment of the Incarnation). The appearance of this radical Monophysite teaching is associated with the name of Julian of Halicarnassus, one of Sevier’s main opponents within the Monophysite camp.

At present, all Monophysites, as the theological dialogue shows, come out from more or less the same dogmatic positions: this is a Christology close to the Christology of Sevier.

Speaking about the Armenians, it should be noted that the consciousness of the modern Armenian Church is characterized by pronounced adogmatism. While other non-Chalcedonian churches show considerable interest in their theological heritage and are open to Christological discussion, the Armenians, on the contrary, have little interest in their own Christological tradition. Currently, interest in the history of Armenian Christological thought is rather shown by some Armenians who consciously converted from the Armenian Gregorian Church to Orthodoxy, both in Armenia itself and in Russia.

– Is there currently a theological dialogue with the Pre-Chalcedonian churches?

- It is being carried out with varying success. The result of such a dialogue between Orthodox Christians and the Ancient Eastern (Pre-Chalcedonian) churches was the so-called Chambesian agreements. One of the main documents is the Chambesian Agreement of 1993, which contains an agreed text of Christological teaching, and also contains a mechanism for restoring communication between the “two families” of Churches through the ratification of agreements by the synods of these Churches.

The Christological teaching of these agreements aims to find a compromise between the Orthodox and Ancient Eastern churches on the basis of a theological position that could be characterized as “moderate monophysitism”. They contain ambiguous theological formulas that admit of a Monophysite interpretation. Therefore, the reaction in the Orthodox world to them is not clear: four Orthodox Churches accepted them, some did not accept them with reservations, and some were fundamentally against these agreements.

The Russian Orthodox Church also recognized that these agreements are insufficient to restore Eucharistic communion, since they contain ambiguities in Christological teaching. Continued work is required to resolve unclear interpretations. For example, the teaching of the Agreements about wills and actions in Christ can be understood both diphysitely (Orthodox) and monophysitely. It all depends on how the reader understands the relationship between will and hypostasis. Is the will considered as a property of nature, as in Orthodox theology, or is it assimilated into hypostasis, which is characteristic of Monophysitism? The Second Agreed Statement of 1990, which underpins the 1993 Chambesian Accords, does not answer this question.

With the Armenians today, a dogmatic dialogue is hardly possible at all, due to their lack of interest in problems of a dogmatic nature. After in the mid-90s. It became clear that the dialogue with the non-Chalcedonians had reached a dead end; the Russian Orthodox Church began two-way dialogues - not with all the non-Chalcedonian Churches together, but with each one separately. As a result, three directions for bilateral dialogues were identified: 1) with the Syro-Jacobites, Copts and the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, who agreed to conduct dialogue only in this composition; 2) the Etchmiadzin Catholicosate and 3) with the Ethiopian Church (this direction has not been developed). The dialogue with the Etchmiadzin Catholicosate did not touch upon dogmatic issues. The Armenian side is ready to discuss issues of social service, pastoral practice, various problems of public and church life, but shows no interest in discussing dogmatic issues.

– How are Monophysites accepted into the Orthodox Church today?

- Through repentance. Priests are accepted in their existing rank. This is an ancient practice; this is how non-Chalcedonites were received in the era of the Ecumenical Councils.

Alexander Filippov talked with Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov

Religious traditions of Armenians in Russia

Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC) ? one of the oldest Christian churches. In dogmatic and cult traditions it is very close to Orthodoxy. Christianity came to the historical territory of Armenia in the 2nd-3rd centuries. And at the very beginning of the 4th century. (301) it became the state religion. It was in this year that the temple was built in Etchmiadzin (near Yerevan), which became a cathedral, where the administrative and spiritual center of the AAC, its Theological Academy and Seminary are still located. Currently, the head of the church is the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II.

Until the middle of the 5th century. The AAC represented one of the branches of the united Christian church. However, defending the independence of Armenia from Byzantium, it separated from both the Eastern and Western churches.

Armenians are Monophysites. Monophysitism arose in the 5th century. in Byzantium, it defends the one divine nature of Christ. Armenians? one of the most dispersed peoples scattered throughout the world.

The largest Armenian diaspora in Russia has a history of more than two centuries. In 1779, by decree of Catherine II, a mass resettlement of the Christian population of the Crimean Khanate, mainly Greeks (18,407 people) and Armenians (12,598 people), was organized in the southern regions of Russia. The purpose of such an action? not only the weakening of the Khanate (in 1783 its territory was included in the Russian Empire), but also the settlement of the southern Russian steppes by people with extensive experience in agriculture, trade and crafts. According to the royal charter, the Armenian settlers in the lower reaches of the Don were allocated 86 thousand acres of land near the fortress of St. Demetrius of Rostov and was allowed to found one city and 5 villages. The settlers were also provided with certain benefits and privileges, in particular, exemption from state taxes and services for 10 years and from military service? for 100 years, the construction of churches was allowed, where church ceremonies would be carried out in accordance with their own laws and traditions, free trade within and outside the state; Armenians received the right to build factories, factories, and seaworthy merchant ships on their own. In the modern period, the migration of Armenians to Russia has intensified after the well-known tragic events for Armenians in Azerbaijan and the earthquake in Armenia in 1988. It was during this period that the number of Armenians in Russia increased several times: if, according to the 1989 census, 532 thousand Armenians lived in Russia, then already in 1993 this figure reached 1.5 million.

In conditions when Armenians find themselves literally scattered all over the world, it is the Armenian Church that plays a special role in the development of their spiritual and ethnic consciousness. Recently, Armenian prayer houses have opened in a number of places, for example in Krasnodar, Sochi, Adler, and land plots have been received in Adler and the village of Shaumyan for the construction of churches. In a number of large cities in southern Russia, local authorities, at the request of Armenian societies, have allocated land plots for the construction of new Armenian churches. Armenian cultural societies provide considerable charitable assistance, in particular to refugees, orphanages, and needy community members. Armenian church communities are registered in more than 10 cities of the Krasnodar Territory, which ranked first among the regions of Russia in terms of the number of Armenians, including in Armavir, Krasnodar, Novorossiysk, Adler, Sochi, and in the Armenian village of Gaikadzor. In the Rostov region. there is a cemetery church and the building of the monastery church of Surb Khach. This building houses the Museum of Russian-Armenian Friendship. Churches operate in the Armenian villages of the Don.

There are 27 AAC communities registered on the territory of Russia, which are part of the New Nakhichevan and Russian Diocese with its center in Moscow. Its head? Patriarchal Exarch Archbishop Tiran Kyureghyan.

Sources:

• Religions of the peoples of modern Russia: dictionary. - M., 1999. - see article. V. Khudaverdyan.

History of the Armenian Apostolic Church

During the Council of Chalcedon, held in 451, the dogma of the “two natures” of Jesus Christ was adopted. It says that the Savior is both God and man. He united two natures in one Person: divine and human. This is why Jesus Christ calls Himself the Son of God (John: 10, 36) and the Son of Man (Mark: 2, 10). As God, He performs miracles: He heals, resurrects, commands the elements of nature. And how does a Man sleep, eat, drink, experience hunger, endure suffering and death?

Representatives of the Armenian Church were unable to attend the Council of Chalcedon due to the war in their country. As a result, they did not accept the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus Christ. In their opinion, the Savior has only one divine nature, which completely replaced the human, and only mentally the latter can differ from the divine. As a result of a long discussion, the Armenian Apostolic Church completely separated from the Universal Church at the beginning of the 6th century. For many centuries, there have been attempts to establish dialogue between representatives of the Orthodox and Armenian Churches. The possibility of restoring Eucharistic communion between the two Christian Churches was considered. But it has still not been possible to reach a consensus.

Armenian Church and Orthodoxy

Are Armenians Orthodox or not? The Armenian Church itself considers itself Orthodox and is called the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Holy Church (Orthodox - in the sense of the truth of faith). Armenian Christians recognize as Orthodox Churches: Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Indian-Malabar.

The Chalcedonian Churches (which accepted the two natures of Jesus Christ as a dogma), according to the Armenians, are not considered Orthodox. They are simply designated by the Russian Church, the Greek Church, and so on. From the point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church, Armenians are considered “monophysites.” This is the name given to those who recognized the Divine nature of the Savior and fell into error (heresy). Accordingly, the Armenian Church does not belong to the Ecumenical Orthodox Church.

Monophysite heresy. Armenian Church

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

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.

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.

Armenian Church: differences from Orthodoxy

The Orthodox Church recognizes 7 Ecumenical Councils. Armenians - only the first 3 pre-Chalcedonian Ecumenical Councils: First (in Nicaea in 325), Second (in Constantinople in 381), Third (in Ephesus in 431). Accordingly, the Orthodox Church recognizes the divine and human nature of Jesus Christ, the Armenian only the divine.

In the Armenian Church there is a matah - a tradition that involves offering a gift to God through alms. This ritual most often takes place in the form of a large meal for the needy, poor and sick. It is prohibited to invite your loved ones to it. Matah is not a dogmatic establishment of the Armenian Church, but a pious tradition.

During the Liturgy in the Armenian Church, unleavened prosphora (Nshkhar) is used, in the Orthodox Church it is leavened.

Armenians cross themselves from left to right, while Orthodox Christians cross from right to left.

The Armenian cross is also different. You can rarely see the crucified Christ on it, but you can see leaves. They symbolize life conquering death through the Savior.

In Armenian churches there is no iconostasis and all sacred rites in the altar are performed in full view of those praying in the church, except for services during Holy Week. In Orthodox churches, the altar part is separated from the main part of the temple by the iconostasis. Also characteristic is the small number of icons in Armenian churches; home prayer is performed before the crucifixion. In Orthodox churches, images of God and His saints are especially revered. Therefore, there are often many different icons in churches.

If an Armenian priest is widowed, he is allowed to remarry. In Orthodoxy, a clergyman is allowed only one marriage.