Which Orthodox church to join

[Sevag]

Re: Which Orthodox church to join

You neeed to read up on some Armenian history. Cilicia was the last armenian kingdom and it changed its religion to basicaly catholisism so the western states would help it against the muslim invading hoards. Of coarse the west abandoned Cilicia and it was overrun by the mamlukes from egypt. This is a good example of how the west has always betrayed the armenian people and should not be trusted today either. If you believe in the mumbojumbo called religion then the true church is the Etchmiadzin because it did not deviate from original practices to appease anyone.

Are you 100% sure of this? Do you have a valid source that states that?
As far as I know, all those pro-catholic changes were cancelled after the fall of the kingdom.

[EuroArmenian]

Re: Which Orthodox church to join

Yeah, I know the Copts say Chalcedon was a matter of translation, but then an other argument from the Oriental/miaphysite perspective is that Chalcedonian dyophysite are closer to Nestorianism, which I do not know much about. Do you know why?

I'm new here, and I see this post is two years old, but I'll reply anyways. No, there is no connection with Caldenonian churches with nestorianism whatsoever. Moreover, the Armenian Apostolic Church agreed with the Caldenonian Churches about the nature of Christ, and even though earlier they were stounch "monophysites" they are now called "miaphysite". Never earlier in history they used this term, but only "monophysite", and when they saw they went wrong they started using the term "miaphysite".

[Eddo211]

Re: Which Orthodox church to join

Welcome to the Hyeclub EuroArmenian....

[londontsi]

Re: Which Orthodox church to join

I'm new here, and I see this post is two years old, but I'll reply anyways. No, there is no connection with Caldenonian churches with nestorianism whatsoever. Moreover, the Armenian Apostolic Church agreed with the Caldenonian Churches about the nature of Christ, and even though earlier they were stounch "monophysites" they are now called "miaphysite". Never earlier in history they used this term, but only "monophysite", and when they saw they went wrong they started using the term "miaphysite".

Hello EuroArmenian

Are you able to give any dates or reference any synod where these decisions were taken.

I was taught at school the Armenian Church was monophysite.
In any event never fully understood the concepts nor did I want to go deep into theology.

.

[Etchmiadzin]

Re: Which Orthodox church to join

I'm new here, and I see this post is two years old, but I'll reply anyways. No, there is no connection with Caldenonian churches with nestorianism whatsoever. Moreover, the Armenian Apostolic Church agreed with the Caldenonian Churches about the nature of Christ, and even though earlier they were stounch "monophysites" they are now called "miaphysite". Never earlier in history they used this term, but only "monophysite", and when they saw they went wrong they started using the term "miaphysite".

That doesnt make any sense if the Armenian church agreed with the Chalcedonian churches about the nature of christ why would they be "staunch" monophysites which are viewed as heresey by both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. I thought that the Armenian Church disagreed about the nature of christ and therefore were labeled as monophysites but the Armenian church position was that they did not agree with the Chalcedonian churches but that doesnt make us monophysite.
The Chalcedonians view was that Jesus had 2 natures human and divine. Monophysite that he had 1 nature only divine or a synthesis of divine and human and Miaphsyite which is what the Armenian church calls itself that Jesus was both divine and human united in one nature.

[londontsi]

Re: Which Orthodox church to join

That doesnt make any sense if the Armenian church agreed with the Chalcedonian churches about the nature of christ why would they be "staunch" monophysites which are viewed as heresey by both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. I thought that the Armenian Church disagreed about the nature of christ and therefore were labeled as monophysites but the Armenian church position was that they did not agree with the Chalcedonian churches but that doesnt make us monophysite.
The Chalcedonians view was that Jesus had 2 natures human and divine. Monophysite that he had 1 nature only divine or a synthesis of divine and human and Miaphsyite which is what the Armenian church calls itself that Jesus was both divine and human united in one nature.

It is difficult to understand the difference between Mono-physite and Mia-phsyite
Both words literally mean the same thing.

They are both derived from Greek, "mono" means “only one” like mono-yios meaning only son, while "mia" simply means one.

.

[EuroArmenian]

Re: Which Orthodox church to join

@londontsi, @Etchmiadzin...

The Severian Monophysites, who promoted the "monophysitismus nominalis" (i. e. nominal monophysitism, as it is called by the Catholic theologians) had acctualy the same belief in two natures of Christ as did the Catholic Church, but they rejected the Chalcedon because they thought it promotes Nestorianism and contradicts the teachings of Cyrill of Alexandria. Moreover, the position of Catholic theology (G. S. Assemani, E. Renaudot, Martin Jugie) says that this sort of monophysites was in conflict with the Catholic Church only because of name, but not the dogma itself. Therefore François Nau suggested they should be called diplophysites, and not monophysites. I myself agree with another theologian, Joseph Lebon, who said that monophysites (the Severians) made a mistake by translating the word "φύσις" (fisis) as "person" insted of "nature".

The nominal Monophysites were really firm in their belief that the Christ had one nature, even though they acctualy recognised the exsistance of two "unmixed, unconverted, undivided, inseparable" natures - like the Chalcedonians did. They just refused to admit that Christ acctualy has two natures because such consent would "negate their monophysitism", as said by Leontius of Jerusalem. Never earlier was the term "miaphysite" used, but only "monophysite", therfore, once nominal monophysites saw they went wrong, the term "miaphysite" was created to soften the condemnation by the Chalcedonians.

@londontsi - the nominal Monophysites condamned the real Monophysites ("monophysitismus realis"), who were followers of (saint) Eutichius. The real Monophysites claimed there is one nature of Christ which is mixed nature of God and human, while nominal Monophysites (i. e. Mihaphysites) claimed there are rather two natures "unmixed [...]" in one nature. That is the difference, though indeed "mono" and "mia" have the same meaning.

[EuroArmenian]

Re: Which Orthodox church to join

Though, the term "monophysite" is gone now in modern theology books, you can still find it in late 20th century books and is used by some "extreme" theologians who want to derogate the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church has a "soft" point of view regarding the miaphysites, as they recognised their beliefe is orthodox (as writen by theologians I mentioed above). Morevoer, the Catholic Church celebrated some miaphysite writers like Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite as they considered his writings are orthodox.

[EuroArmenian]

Re: Which Orthodox church to join

I have observed catholics and they are pretty funny. A catholic will sin like crazy then go confess and feel all better about it. Basically do whatever you want but as long as you confess and apologize then your good.

The Oriental Orthodox Christians confess as well... so... :/