www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West John Paul II & Karekin I...

In 1997, His Holiness John Paul II of the Catholic Church and His Holiness Karekin I of the Armenian Orthodox Church reached agreement on the documents of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (some 1,400 ago). Has there been any further advancements between these two sister Churches since then? How about between the Armenian Orthodox and the various Eastern Orthodox Churches? Thanks.

Dear IrishJohan,

An interesting issue!

The Armenian Orthodox (Apostolic) Church belongs to the Oriental Orthodox family of Churches, but it hasn't always walked "lock-step" with them on theological matters.

For example, for the longest time it did not recognize the sanctity of Severus of Antioch, a strong proponent of what Chalcedonians defined as "Monophysitism."

Being under fire, quite literally, from the Turks and the Azeris, having suffered a Genocide that took the lives of over a million of its people in the early part of this century, something the world has yet to even acknowledge (and Turkey never), the Armenian Church has walked a fine political and international line.

It is the only Eastern Church with more than one Patriarchate within the same ecclesial fold.

This Church's Patriarch-Catholicos signed an agreement regarding the union of the two Natures of Christ and there is no longer any disagreement on this point. A number of Armenian theologians protested this action by their Patriarch, but no schism developed over it. (A similar agreement was reached between the Pope and the Assyrian (Nestorian) Patriarch-Catholicos).

The Armenian Church is also a party to the ecumenical agreements and consultation between the EO and OO Churches, but movement there is very slow.

As Fr. Meyendorff and others have written, the chief concern for the Armenian Church is the maintenance of its autonomy and identity as such as a result of any ecumenical agreement.

This is what is keeping the Armenian Church from full integration with the Byzantine East or the Latin West, moreso than theological points, since these have been reduced to a small minimum.

Alex

The Armenian Apostolic Church is engaged in ecumenical dialogue with both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy. Alex has described well the state of affairs vis-a-vis Rome -- the main doctrinal issues remaining there appear to be (1) the status of the post-Chalcedonian councils and saints and (2) the pope issue.

The Armenian Church has participated in the ecumenical dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches as well. This dialogue is multilateral, with representatives of the main national churches of Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as all three pre-Chalcedonian Churches (the Armenians, the Copts and the Syrians). The dialogue itself has made very good progress on the theological front, with the patricipants from both sides indicating that all of the churches shared the same substantive faith, regardless of the disagreements about the formulation chosen at Chalcedon. Although this result has not been received officially by the participant churches, nevertheless the churches now commonly refer to each other as the two families of the Orthodox Church -- a very positive sign indeed and quite different from the way that either of them generally refers to the Roman Catholic communion at this time. The remaining issues appear to be: (1) status of councils after Chalcedon, (2) status of saints after Chalcedon and (3) fear among the OOs of Byzantinization, coupled with bad memories of the imperial times after Chalcedon.

My own guess is that the Armenians will enter communion with the Orthodox before they do so with the Latins because the most important thing to the Armenians (and the Copts for that matter) will be retaining their independence -- something that will be relatively easily facilitated in Orthodoxy, but which is a work in progress at this time in the Roman communion. The Armenian Church is a key national identifier for the Armenian people -- very similar in this regard to the Greek Orthodox Church for Greeks. That kind of ecclesiastical independence, I think, will be a critical distinction between Rome and Orthodoxy.

Other factors play a role as well, including (1) the fact that Orthodox Russia is the most important ally of the Republic of Armenia, (2) the fact that Orthodox Georgia is a critical neighbor of the Republic of Armenia and (3) the fact that Orthodox Greece and Greek Orthodox around the world generally have shown the greatest solidarity with the Armenians in their various disputes with the Turks and their Azeri relatives.

Brendan

[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

Dear Brendan,

May God bless the suffering Armenian people and raise them up and their Church!

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Is the Eastern Orthodox communion of Churches as keen about reuniting with *all* of Oriental Orthodoxy corporately at one time as the Catholic communion? Or would they also be open to reuniting with each Oriental Orthodox Church one at a time until all are reunited?

Also, there are not only three pre-Chalcedonian Churches...you forgot the Ethiopians, and even more importantly, the Indians. Just thought I'd get a little nit-picky. :p

I seriously doubt that the majority of Orthodox Churches (Possible with the exception of Constantinople) Are interested in reuniting with anybody, let alone Rome.

These are sad facts to face up to but, as a former Orthodox Christian, allow me to make the following observations.

In recent yeas, especially after the fall of communism, there has been an increasingly felt opposition to ecumenism from within many of the local Churches, especialy the Russians. Orthodox, as a whole, participated greatly in the movement for the reunion of Christianity since early this century when the Church was trying to do its best to move forward in numerous fields such as theology and liturgical renewal. Now however, perhaps on the heals of a renewed nationalism which has taken hold in some former eastern block countries almost to the point of paranoia, the Orthodox are starting to tone down all involvment with ecumenism and preach open hostility towards Rome to which the most conservative of their lot see as the "seat of antichrist".

THe anti-ecumenical movement, once confined soly to old calendarist "resistance" movements is now unfortunatly starting to mainstream do, in part, to the reasons that I have listed above. Orthodox nations (With the execption of the multi religious Ukraine) Are filled with as much anti western sentiment as the Islamic countries towards our western "decidence". Of course, it seems practically impossible for many Orthodox to distinguish sinful behavior common amongst all human societies, especially in times of moral decline, and the west to whom they like to blame as being the sole inventors of vice.

So, instead of working towards progressive steps to counter balance social ills, like those offered by the ecumenical dialogue, Orthodox seem to preffer to retreat into a mythical fantasyland of a 1000 years ago, complete with state Churches, Tsars, and rampant nationalism. The situation seems almost impossible for improvment since, so I hear, the younger generation of Orthodox clergy, such as in Greece and Russia, are raving anti-ecumenist and absolutly hate the Catholic Church to which they see as the new "Teutonic invaders". While there may be exceptions to this kind of attitude, from what my former Orthodox ears have heard, this is were that Church is headed for probably in the next decade or two.
If ecumenical endevors with the Orthodox collapse completely, one wonders where Rome will go from there? Surly if no union seems likely to ever occur, then will the Catholic Church just leave the Orthodox be, or do we break out the Transalpine Redemptorist and turn them loose to convert the east to our way of seeing things?

Only time will tell.

Robert K.

Mor --

The dialogue so far has been multilateral with all participants dealing with each other as one 'bloc'. I haven't seen any interest on the part of the EOs or the OOs to convert that to a series of bilateral dialogues.

I did think of the Indians and the Ethiopians, of course -- but I was thinking of the main OO jurisdictions. The Indians, in any case, are closely related spiritually to the Syrian Orthodox, as the Ethiopians are to the Copts (with noted differences, of course).

Robert K. --

"Now however, perhaps on the heals of a renewed nationalism which has taken hold in some former eastern block countries almost to the point of paranoia, the Orthodox are starting to tone down all involvment with ecumenism and preach open hostility towards Rome to which the most conservative of their lot see as the "seat of antichrist"."

In reality, things were going fine until what happened in West Ukraine in the early 90s. That's the real reason that there has been a pullback in the official dialogue, and why Emmitsburg was such a debacle.

"THe anti-ecumenical movement, once confined soly to old calendarist "resistance" movements is now unfortunatly starting to mainstream"

I don't think that this is accurate. I think that Russia is a special case because of the Ukranian situation, but I don't see any such hostility or negativity from within the Churches of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania or Antioch. And the Church of Greece, if anything, seems to be entering a thawing phase in its relationship with Rome. I think you're telescoping the Russian situation to all of Orthodoxy.

"If ecumenical endevors with the Orthodox collapse completely"

Unlikely -- more likely that things will limp along for a while.

"Surly if no union seems likely to ever occur, then will the Catholic Church just leave the Orthodox be, or do we break out the Transalpine Redemptorist and turn them loose to convert the east to our way of seeing things?"

So it is a Trojan Horse, then, is it? Ecumenical diaologue is fine and dandy but if that tactic doesn't work then we go back to straightforward proselytism and poaching? See, I, as an Orthodox, don't really think that's what Rome is doing -- that is, I'm willing to give Rome the benefit of the doubt on that score. But when I read what you have written, it makes me shudder, because it re-opens the possibility that all of this ecumenical dialogue really is just another tactic to bring the Orthodox under Roman submission -- that is, it is the carrot to the more aggressive stick.

Brendan

First let me just say, I have never met an Orthodox Christian who was against true ecumenism. What true Orthodox Chritians object to is syncretism (ie. the branch theory).

In addition, I have never heard an Orthodox Christian state he was opposed to Rome because of 'nationalism", or paranoia, but always because of the issue of errant faith.

And Brendan, if you don't think there is an issue of errant faith then I have an indulgence I want to sell you so you can obtain portions from the "treasury of merits".

Dear OOD,

Very funny, or not really . . .

If you can't be respectful of Catholic beliefs, I suggest you take it elsewhere.

I ask the Moderator to review OOD's post before we go any further.

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Yes, what happened in Ukraine in the 1990's has something to do with what happened there in 1946, I'm thinking of the L'viv Synod . . .

But today, the Russians simply won't give up on the idea that Ukraine and the Baltics are no longer their backyard, Church-wise and state-wise.

And they continue to cry "foul" and ask for the return of Ukrainian Catholic Churches that were forced to become Soviet Orthodox at gunpoint in 1946.

If they were rough on the Russians in 1991+, that was regrettable.

But if our beloved Russian Church says it wasn't complicit in the crimes against humanity the Soviet State committed in 1946, then it should be quiet about the property that same State took from defenceless people and handed over to it.

Those defenceless people are flexing their muscles now . . .

Alex

Of course Rome nowadays would let the Armenians join union with it without probably admitting or denying anything. Whether that can be called true union, I do not know; what I do know is that I have been communicated by the Armenian bishop in America, and that a Catholic priest I know celebrated liturgy with an Armenian bishop (not praying parts of the liturgy but was admitted to the sanctuary, given an epitrarchilion by the bishop, and then communicated with the others). If they came into union with Eastern Orthodoxy: would they really have that chance to do things like that anymore?

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Anastasios the Academician,

Well, I think I can top that!

When we rented our chapel to a Chaldean Catholic group, the priest regularly concelebrated with Assyrian ("Nestorian") priests!

He told me he didn't believe there was any impediment to such concelebration and that Nestorius was, after all, a Basilian too . . .

Our Basilian Fathers balked at that.

Nestorius is still not considered "rehabilitated" by us Ukie Cath'lics.

We're old fogies when it comes to ecumenism really - I think I like it that way.

Alex

You like it that way? You better hope that I don't change my name to Dioscoros and come up North looking for you... :p

Anastasios --

If that's the case, then why bother joining Catholicism? IOW, if the Armenians will allow sacramental sharing, and the Catholics wouldn't impose anything on the Armenians after joining up, what is the benefit of joining Catholicism?

My own view is that the Armenians would be subject to the same oversight, supervision and periodic interference as are the other Eastern Catholics if they were to become a part of the Roman communion -- under the current circumstances, I just don't see the Armenians doing that. My guess is that they either remain where they are (and where they've been for 1500 years already), or they restore communion with the Eastern Orthodox, because the latter would allow it to continue to be independent in a meaningful way. In any case, I don't think that the Armenians will be doing anything unilaterally -- even though the OO communion seems somewhat looser than even the Orthodox Church does, I highly doubt that the Armenians would do anything without the Copts and the Syrians (as well as the Indians and Ethiopians) also doing the same thing.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Probably not...besides, even assuming they forget the Copts for a minute, they wouldn't forget the Syrians...we're too close for that, even geographically. This brings me to a question that maybe you can answer for me. I was reading little synopses of the Eastern Churches on the CNEWA website, and under the Armenian Church, it said that the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin has authority over the Armenian Orthodox Christians in, among other places, *India*...do you know if there are Armenians in India? That was the first I ever heard of it.

As far as our being looser than the EOC, well, that's true in some instances. I have a story similar to that of Anastasios. Two, actually. One of them is rather simple, a visiting Indian RC priest was allowed into the altar by the Orthodox priest, and while he didn't concelebrate or anything, he was allowed to assist the priest by carrying a candle at the appointed times and other little things. It was cool.

The second story is with regard to an ordination I went to recently. The deacon in question was the son of the same Orthodox priest. His son went to Saint Vlad's near here, and so had a priest, a professor, and some seminarians come as guests...including a female seminarian (that'll be important soon). Well, right before the Liturgy began, the new deacon's father wanted the OCA priest to be in the altar with the five bishops, twenty or so priests, and all the deacons of our Church already in there. But he didn't feel right just taking the priest, and leaving the rest of the seminarians standing in a sea of Indians, I guess. So he asked the other seminarians to join the OCA priest. But then he felt bad that there was this one American girl standing in a sea of Indians on that side of the church. So what does he do? He has some of the altar boys remove one of the side altars where the OCA people are currently standing, thus "de-altaring" it, and then yanks the female seminarian in, since it's not "the altar" anymore. It was a temporary fix; after the Creed was sung and before the Anaphora began, the SVS people had to get out, the altar brought back (it is the anaphora, you know ), and life returned to normal. But I thought it was rather cool of the priest to do...perhaps some will say it was "unorthodox" to do so, but if five Metropolitans didn't complain one bit about it, then who is anyone else to complain?