www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Council of Florence/Armenians

Dear Brendan,

Glad to have you back! Where the heck were you?

Getting back to this matter, the Monks of Mt Athos and other Orthodox Christians have a slightly less ecumenical few of the Oriental "Monophysites" as you know.

Which is the more general view within Orthodoxy? Could you offer any insight as to why the Athonites and others think that Orthodoxy is being sold down the river here?

Have a great weekend.

Alex

Just out of curiosity, when anyone happen to know if the same goes for the Assyrian Church of the East?

From what I understand, in essence they are in agreement with the Catholic Church, and vice versa, but how about the Orthodox Church?

In Christ,
Mike (poor sinner)

The Assyrian Church of the East is part of that which broke with the other christian church in Efesus.
The original "nestorianism" was abandonned by that church one or two centuries ago. They say that their old nestorian terminology about Our Lady ("christotokos" instead of "Theotokos")was not well understood by the other christians who thought that according to their usage Our Lady wasn't the mother of God but the mother of Christ only.
It's said the assyrians did never break communion with the Roman Patriarchate, they rejected the byzantine hierarchy and the terminology of the council. So the assyrian church has had better relations with Rome than with the Orthodox Church.
The Assyrian Church is now almost fully orthodox and in proccess of union with their Catholic counterpart (the Chaldean Church).
The Assyrian Chuch has participated in some ecumenical forums with the orthodox churches of Iraq but hasn't discused doctrine or religious affairs with them formally. Some orthodox churches are very "severe" with the non-chalcedonean or non-ephesine churches.

Dear Mike,

As jc Lev states, there has been a lot of progress with the Church of the East, and their Christology is in full agreement with that of the other Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

They deny that they were ever Nestorian, which could be the case, theological research in common will establish this.

They still do maintain the title of "Christotokos" for the Mother of God which should not be an obstacle since this "Nestorian" term is used in the Byzantine liturgical tradition as well.

The Oriental Orthodox Churches still regard the Church of the East with some suspicion and some of them don't believe that Church has ceased being "Nestorian."

Everything really hinges on what they mean by the two "prosopa" in Christ. There is certainly nothing in their liturgy which would suggest they are Nestorian.

I know a Chaldean priest who used to use our Ukrainian Catholic college chapel for his services. He regularly invited Assyrian priests to concelebrate with him, which they did. The Pope has been so open to the Assyrian Church that everything is going very well in the unity department!

The Chaldean priest in question used to really get our Basilian priests in an uproar when he regularly told them that Nestorius was himself of the Basilian Order, which, of course, he was.

The Assyrian Church venerates "St Nestorius, St Theodore of Mopsuestia and St Diodore of Tarsus" and other Assyrian saints. Interestingly, their liturgy always refers to them as having been "persecuted for the truth."

And, of course, it has been discovered that Nestorius agreed with St Flavian of Constantinople (the one that got slugged by St Dioscoros). The point is, the Copts always believed that the Roman and Byzantine Churches were, at this time, heretically "Nestorians" themselves.

Alex




[This message has been edited by Orthodox Catholic (edited 06-04-2001).]

Stuart's claim that the Armenians actually broke communion over the Council of Florence (1439) is incorrect. It is mistaken because the Armenians were never in communion with Rome. There were limited forms of pastoral unity between churches but these were never full communion.

Lets set the historical record straight. I draw from the following sources which comprise both scholarly treatments of the topic and original primary source documents.
S. Der Nersessian, "The Kingdom of Cilician Armenia," The History of the Crusades. ed. setton vol 2:630-59; Thoriani Disputationes cum Armeniorum Catholico. PG 133: 120-298; L. Arpee, A History of Armenian Christianity. 140-48; A. Ter-Mikelian. Die Armenische Kircke in ihren Beziehungen zur byzantinischen. IV: 82-105; Recueil des historiens des croisades: Documents Armeniens. 2 vols; A.P. Atamian. "Cilician-Roman Church Union," Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Ed. Strayer, vol. 3:394-95.

As these authorities and the original documents establish, there are only _two_ times when the Armenian Church was in negotiations to establish full communion with anyone. Only one time was by its own initiative. The other time it was forced to by Rome. First, during the patriarchates of Lucas Chrysoberges and Michael III in the 1150s to 1180, the Armenian Church was negotiating full communion with Constantinople under the Armenian catholicus Nerses IV (1166-73) and his successor, catholicus Gregory IV (1173-93). The plan for full communion was theologically complete but still had some jurisdictional disagreements to work out so it was not ratified by the Armenian Synod of Bishops in the Synod of 1179. The Armenian Church was still working with Constantinople under catholicus Nerses of Lambron to establish full communion at the Synod of Tarsus in 1196. Again, disagreements over jurisdictional matters prevented it from being ratified at the Synod. Due to a series of political and military developments leading up to and including the Fourth Crusade (1204), neither the Byzantines nor the Armenians were able to meet again to work out the remaining issues. Since Armenia found itself in an increasingly precarious position with only Norman Crusaders as military allies, some relations with Rome developed (what these were exactly I'll return to later). The only other time the Armenian Church was involved in any discussion about full communion, it was under duress at Florence (1439). Between these two events, more out of political expediency, the Armenian Church had limited forms of pastoral unity (involving last rites, intermarriage, and other pastoral matters) with Latin churches and Rome, but not full communion. While full communion with Rome was a royal objective of the Armenian court, it was vigorously opposed by the Armenian Church. I turn to sketch in the details of this history now.

Again, due to the military situation, Armenian increasingly finds itself with the Normans as military allies. Within this historical context, we find two kinds of "union" activities. First, due mainly to intermarriage, the Armenian hierarchs agreed to extremely limited forms of pastoral unity but not to communion with Rome. Meanwhile, the Armenian court sought to tighten the bonds between Armenia and the West by full communion. Since most of the Armenian laity and hierarchs (including the catholicus) strongly opposed the _royal_ policy of union with Rome, the catholicus was excluded from participating in and in signing any and all formal statements of union with Rome (See Atamian above). Thus the formal declarations by the royal Armenian court of full union with Rome at the Council of Tarsus in 1198, again at Sis in 1307, and Adana in 1316 had to be re-affirmed because such statements were repeatedly objected to and recognized as not valid by the majority of Armenian hierarchs, the Synod, and laity. Besides latinization and eclesiastical colonialism, the core of the Armenian Church's opposition to such statements of union was papal pretensions. There is a fairly famous event that illustrates this and is much discussed in the secondary literature (academic discussions). As a little background, first, the Armenian Church held to the traditional and patristic view that patriarchates are collegial (as is the episcopacy they are a part of and not above), mutually answerable
to each and all other patriarchates, and that none had universal jurisdiction (contrary to the post-Cluniac pretensions of a papacy developing a status that increasingly departs from apostolic and catholic tradition). Secondly, the Latins already mistakenly viewed the East through the stereotype of caesaro-papism where it is believed emperors/kings controlled eastern churches. So, having the expectations stemming from this mistaken stereotype, in 1216 at Acre, a papal legate was surprised to learn that the Armenian Church did not consider itself in communion with Rome (despite what the Armenian court said) and that the core issue was the Armenian Church's rejection of papal claims to primacy as a departure from apostolic, patristic, and conciliar traditions that comprised catholic tradition. We have the original document where the Armenian hierarchs tell this papal legate (again, in 1216), "whence does the Church of Rome derive the power to pass judgment on other apostolic sees while she herself is not subject to their judgment? We ourselves have the authority to bring you to trial, following the example of the apostles, fathers, and councils, and you have no right to deny or usurp our authority" (see Documents Armeniens, above, vol 1;697). The Armenian Church's opposition royal backed union with Rome became so intense that the last six pro-Latin catholicoi were assasinated. As several scholars have noted, this strong ecclesiastical and popular opposition to royal attempts at union with Rome, having become something close to a civil war, helped accelerate the fall and demise of the Cilician kingdom. Becoming aware of this opposition, by the 1350s Rome decides negotiations are hopeless and results to force and conspiracy. Meanwhile, in 1356, a Rome created and backed the Congregation of the Fratres Unitores of Greater Armenia is founded. Research has shown that the majority of the small Armenian delegation to Florence (1439) were Roman moles leveraged by this Roman backed FUGA into being members of the delegation. Thus, the delegation was under suspicion from the start and its agreements at Florence were rejected by the Armenian Synod in 1441. Since the kingdom was long gone (Cilicia fell in 1375), the only force of national unity left was the Armenian Church
and Rome's conspiratorial subterfuge through FUGA were even more intensely resented when the Synod rejected Florence in 1441. It was during this same period that the catholicate's see was returned to its original home at Echmiatdzin to become the unifying center of Armenian identity and culture while Rome's FUGAites were apparently assasinated (we know some die mysteriously - that they were assasinated is a historical hypothesis).

Dear Thomas,

This is all most fascinating!

However, I don't believe, and correct me if I'm wrong that Stuart ever intended to claim what you say he has.

Stuart's sense was more in terms of "alienation" rather than trying to affirm that "full ecclesial communion" was ever achieved.

Your post certainly demonstrates the tendencies, owing to social and political circumstance, among the Armenians to look westward - as their Catholicos is doing today.

Once before on this forum I hypothesized that it is more likely, given Armenia's history, that the Armenian church will join with Rome than with any other patriarchate.

More importantly, what is missing from your post is your own assessment of Florence and your views on its relative success or failure as a unification venture.

Alex





[This message has been edited by Orthodox Catholic (edited 06-15-2001).]

A note to all participants:

Please the "Reply w/Quote" button only if you really need to quote the post you are responding to. Having all the unnecessary text in every thread only makes the thread longer, wastes server space and lengthens download times for those with slower modems.

The preferred method of replying to a post is with the "Post Reply" button at the top and bottom of each thread.

Thank you!

Dear Administrator,

As I am the main culprit in this, please accept my apologies together with my attestations that I won't do this in future.

Alex

Did I miss Stuart's claim to which our friend, Thomas Mether, corrected? Was it on another thread?

Joe

JC Lev posts:

>>The copts and the ethiopians are almost entirely monophisite, although I'm sure that the faithful don't care about the difference between one or two natures, councils,etc. They just want to survive. The priests use very old manuscripts and are not well prepared.

Why is the catholic church so weak there?[/B][/QUOTE]<<


Because the Catholic Church is not needed or wanted there!


Maybe the Ethiopian and Coptic Orthodox should send missionaries to neo-pagan
Europe?


Sincerely in Christ,

Vasili


(BTW: Relations between the Egyptian Coptic Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria are more than excellent. Coptic bishops are members of the Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria. And I understand relations between Moscow and the Armenian Church are very cordial. That makes sense, since for both religious and geo-political reasons, Armenia and the Armenian Church can only benefit from stronger fraternal relations with the Russian Orthodox, with whom they have strong historical ties. Brenden (as usual) is correct.)


There is good news in Christendom.



[This message has been edited by Vasili (edited 06-15-2001).]

Dear Vasili,

Yes, but . . .

The Greek Church relations with the Alexandrian Churches are excellent, but there are those in the Greek Church who feel the Ecumenical Patriarch is "selling out" to the "Monophysites," especially Mt. Athos and the Old Calendarists.

The Armenians have good relations with the Russians and with the Pope and anyone else for that matter.

They are very protective of their Church and culture and efforts to link them with other Church families are "iffy" because they prefer to maintain their complete independence.

There are RC relief efforts in Ethiopia, mainly from Italy, which the Ethiopians do appreciate. One Italian nun who has worked with the poor has been called a "trouble-maker" by the Marxists.

But the poor she helps call her "mother."

Alex

Although I haven't had the chance to check on the Armenians, Copts, and Ethiopians, I cannot but strongly agree with you regarding the Assyrian Church of the East (ACE). Declarations on a common christological understanding were signed between the ACE and the RCC rejecting the charge of Nestorianism, as well as between the ACE and the EOC. The ACE's website provides very good material on this which can be found here:

Relations between the ACE & RCC: http://www.cired.org/cat.html

Relations between the ACE & EOC: http://www.cired.org/east.html

This is an interesting article explaining from the ACE's view the reasons for the centuries-old misunderstanding:

Is the Assyrian Church of the East Nestorian? http://www.cired.org/east/nest.html

Finally, I highly recommend the Real Audio of their Liturgy, which is "hauntingly" beautiful!

Enjoy!

Pax Christi,
John

Alex,


Mount Athos and the Old Calendarists really have no representation within or influence upon the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria. The Ecumenical Patriarchate still has strong fraternal bonds with the Coptic Patriarchate.


The Greeks have been sending medical teams to Ethiopia for many years and many Greeks seem to have a special bond with the Ethiopians and the Ethiopian Church. Ethiopian Orthodox clergy, seminarians and laity study theology, medicine, etc., in Greece, but the Greek Orthodox Church in Ethiopia has no missionary intentions and it doesn't have, unlike the Catholic Church, a history of attempting to subvert the autonomy of the Ethiopian Church. ( Remember the Portuguese? The Ethiopian Orthodox do.)


Armenia?


I still believe Brenden is correct in his analysis and most of my Armenian neighbors agree with him. Practically speaking, if Armenia is attacked by its more fanatical Muslim neighbors, the Vatican can pray; the Russians can pray and send tanks.

Like you imply, it is all about survival.

Any questions?

Sincerely in Christ,


Vasili

Dear Vasili,

Yes, but . . .

The Ecumenical Patriarch's relations with the Oriental Orthodox Churches are praiseworthy, at least from my vantage point.

I was simply pointing out that not everyone in the Orthodox Church, jurisdiction or influence notwithstanding, shares that view.

Ecumenism is still a sore point with many Orthodox. Just view Robert Sweiss's comments about the 7 Ecumenical Councils et al. It is not as "rosy" as you imply, but one would wish it so!

As for the Armenians, yes they like Russian tanks.

But survival, as you underlined, is important and this has led the Armenians to create and foster alliances not only on the military front, but also on the spiritual front.

The Armenian Patriarch-Catholicos was very open to the Pope and this even caused Armenian clergy to protest his apparent willingness to accept "dyophysite" terminology.

The Armenians have also had a unique position within the family of Oriental Orthodox Churches to which they belong. Formerly, they never accepted Severus of Antioch as a saint, for example.

The Armenian Church will maintain cordial relations with the Russian Church and nation, especially when the prospect of tanks are involved.

Most other former Soviet bloc nations are afraid of both the Russian tanks and Russian Imperialism of which the Russian Church has been an all too willing partner with the State in the past and continues as such in the present.

Alex

Alex,

The majority...the vast majority of Orthodox...favor re-union with the Oriental Orthodox...certainly many more than favor union with Rome.


The Serbian Orthodox; Bulgarian Orthodox; Macedonian Orthodox; and White Russian Orthodox all have strong fraternal ties to the Russian Orthodox, and the Serbs and Bulgarians still consider the Russians liberators of their nations.


It was the great Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria who, at a conference of the WCC, took his fellow Orthodox participants aside and beseeched them to concentrate on building bridges between the two great Orthodox families....FIRST!
Many important Chalcedonian Orthodox leaders have taken his advice.


In the case of the Orthodox Copts and the Greek Alexandrians, this effort makes all the sense in the world since they share over 2,000 yrs., of common Greco-Egyptian history and the Copts certainly deserve a place of honor in the history of Hellas and Hellenism.


Sincerely in the Christ of the Old Believers,

Vasili