Armenia, a martyr nation: A historical sketch of the Armenian people from traditional times to the present tragic daysGabrielian, Mugurdich Chojhauji
History
Armenia, a martyr nation: A historical sketch of the Armenian people from traditional times to the present tragic days
Gabrielian, Mugurdich Chojhauji
Armenia; Armenian question
“The monks or celibate priests are, I believe, always connected with
convents, they are known under the style of _Vardabets_ or doctors,
this title being attached to their individual names. They are governed
according to the rule of St. Basil of Cæsarea, the contemporary and
monitor of the Armenian pontiff, Nerses the Great (A.D. 340-374).
They do not practice the tonsure, and they wear their beards. They
are attired in long black robes with conical cowls.... At present
there are in all not more than some fifty Vardabets within the wide
limits of the Russian province (of Armenia). Of these about half
reside at Edgmiatsin.... All monks in Russian territory are ordained
at Edgmiatsin, and it is the custom for all bishops, whether in
Russian Armenia, or abroad, to be consecrated in the Church of the
Illuminator.”[56]
The Armenian church differs from that of Rome on the following points:
(1) It denies the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. (2) It has not
accepted the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon as ecumenic. (3) It
rejects the introduction of filioque into the creed, but admits that
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. (4) It rejects the Romish
doctrine of purgatory. (5) It rejects indulgences. (6) It has no
equivalent word for Transubstantiation. (7) It does not withhold the
Bible from the people, but encourages them to read it.
In the very year while the Armenians were alone fighting with the
Persians in defense of Christianity, and the verdant fields of
Ararat were dyed with the blood of the martyrs, the Greek and Latin
theologians were holding their council at Chalcedon, engaging the
influence of the Emperor to condemn Eutychus. He had gone to the other
extremity of the question with regard to the person of Christ, for
which Nestorius had been condemned in the previous council (at Ephesus
A.D. 431). The latter was supposed to teach two personalities in
Christ, on account of his emphasizing the distinctive characteristics
of Christ’s divine and human nature. Eutychus was condemned because
he made the divine nature of Christ to absorb his human nature, he,
therefore, was called a monophysite.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account