www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News St. Gregory of Narek - Doctor of the Church

And the Armenian Church will be canonizing the 1.5 million Armenian martyrs of the Genocide as Saints this year . . .

Any additional news of this anyone? Have they released any icons?

Alex

The text of the prayers which Otets Nastoiatel has referred to is on this site:

http://www.stgregoryofnarek.am/book.php

Alex

That explanation was given by the late Fr. Cyril Korolevsky (Eastern Churches Quarterly, July 1946, page. 394).

I had never heard that St. Gregory defended the Council of Chalcedon. Do you have a source?

Nothing concrete, no. A Brazillian friend on Facebook heard so from an Eastern Catholic priest he knows...

Wouldn't vouch for the info, just something I heard on social media.

But I believe Igor Pereira is a member of this forum, so he may be able to add something.

It is probably highly unlikely that St Gregory of Narek defended the Council of Chalcedon - possible, but highly improbable.

There were and are Armenian "Chalcedonian Orthodox" or, in other words, Armenians who accept the seven Ecumenical Councils (and who are not Armenian Catholics). In fact, St Paissy Velichkovsky, the great teacher of the Jesus Prayer, counted such "Chalcedonian Armenians" among his Orthodox disciples who belonged to ten specific cultural groups.

The explanation above, also as per Fr. Korolevsky, has to do with the process by which saints glorified by Orthodoxy continue to be honoured by Churches which have come into union with Rome.

It does NOT explain how someone like St Gregory of Narek can become a Doctor of the Catholic Church . . .

There is simply no precedent for this. That doesn't mean it is, in any way, illegitimate - only that there is no precedent for it.

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Churches do affirm their own Particular Doctors/Teachers who may or may not be shared by other Churches. Even within Oriental Orthodoxy, St Severus of Antioch, I believe, was not (until recently?) received into the calendar of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Alex

Thank you so much for pointing us to this site!
I know I'm a contrarian but why are my favorite Fathers all saints who were in communion with neither Old nor New Rome: Ephraim and Isaac the Syrians and Mar Jacop of Serug of the Assyrian Church of the East, Krikor Narekatsi and Nerses Shnorhali among the Armenians? Did I mention also that I'm fond of Mar Nestorius and Theodoret of Cyr, Theodore of Mopsuestia (the latter dear friends of St. John Chrysostom?

Bless, Father!

And I share your veneration of these Saints!

They exude a spiritual dynamism that is out of the ordinary - you are obviously someone with a great spiritual insight and charism yourself!

It is a privilege to know you here!

Alex

I believe that Mor Jacob of Serug belonged to what came to be called the Syriac Orthodox communion, as he wrote against the Nestorians and Chalcedonians in his memre, though I get the feeling from his poetry that he was a relatively unwilling disputant, dismayed by the whole controversy.

In any event, it is a joy for the great Armenian tradition to receive such recognition from Rome and for the world to get to know St. Gregory more.

I asked over at the OC.net Forum about St. Gregory of Narek defending the Council of Chelcedon. The reply was that it was very unlikely that he did since it's part of the ordination service for the priesthood to declare anathema the Tome of Pope Leo.
However, I saw this article today:
Catholic World Report: St. Gregory of Narek : Was the New Doctor of the Church Catholic? [catholicworldreport.com]
It contains the following quote:
The full context of that quote comes from this source:

I don't think the declaration of anathema is used universally, and the list has been adjusted throughout time:

http://www.stnersess.edu/resources-...f-ordination-to-the-holy-priesthood.html

There's a discussion here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=28605.0

Obviously, the Armenian Catholics don't have the same exact list/practice.

There some more interesting information here:
http://rbedrosian.com/Church/Sarkissian_Chalcedon.pdf

Well, the fact remains that St Gregory of Narek was not, and could not have been, in union with Rome during his life.

He would most certainly have considered the Council of Chalcedon heretical/Nestorian.

And as a Miaphysite, like all Miaphysites, he would have affirmed that Christ is both Divine and Human.

The rest is mental gymnastics that demonstrates the need for us to see other perfectly Orthodox Christological formulations outside of Chalcedon.

Alex

Yes, it seems that even among us who have brought ourselves to use "Miaphysite," we nevertheless have a problem of reflexively thinking the OO to have the true monophysitism of Eutyches. In any event, theologians don't always seem to have taken into account the different ways the same words are used by different Churches - most of the Christological controversies seem to be due to this. Whereas the heresy of Arius is clearly teaching something different than the orthodox Trinitarian faith, the different Christological parties were all attempting to teach the same thing - the perfect manhood and perfect divinity of Christ. That such an unfathomable mystery is "fathomed" in different formulations should surprise no one!

Very well said, sir!

I would only add that the Alexandrian Christological school emphasized, as stated in the Athanasian Creed, that there is "One Christ," while the Antiochian school emphasized/sought to safeguard our Lord's Divinity and Humanity in that Oneness.

Cheers, Alex

I don't know why this issue is so aggrandised, he has had cult for a while now.

It's one thing to have a cultus but quite another to be declared a Doctor of the universal Church.

That's why.

Alex