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 Armenians did not accept the decision of the Chalcedonian council,
not because they were in sympathy with Eutychus’ doctrine, but because
the question did not concern them. Moreover some other questions
decided in that council were objectionable. “From the council of
Chalcedon to the death of Boniface II, bishop of Rome, was a period of
rivalry for sole dominion in the church between the patriarchs of Rome
and Constantinople. By the council they had been recognized as entitled
to higher honors than the rest. From that date it became an object
of ambition with both to secure, each for his own self, the admitted
title of sole superiority.”[57] Such being the case the decision of the
council of Chalcedon is like the Mohammedan creed, part truth and part
lie. The Armenians had already accepted the truth. They were satisfied
with the orthodoxy delivered to them by the teachings of the Apostles
and the three former councils, held at Nice A.D. 325; at Constantinople
A.D. 381; and at Ephesus, A.D. 431. The pity of it all is that the
Greek and Latin writers represented and condemned the Armenians as
Monophysites and the Armenian church was cut off from the Western
(Latin) and the Eastern (Greek) Churches.
The following is from the long defense and confession of the Synod
of the Armenian bishops who answered the Persian grand vizier,
Mihrenerseh, in A.D. 450, a year before the Council of Chalcedon: “He
(Christ) was in reality God and in reality man. The Godhead was not
withdrawn through the human nature, nor was the human nature destroyed
by his remaining God; but he is both one and the same.”
Another writer says: “It is now evident that the Armenian church, of
St. Gregory, wholly rejects the heresy of Eutychus, condemned by the
council of Chalcedon; and she does so as much as the Eastern (Greek)
church.”[58] Though this charge of heresy brought against the Armenian
church by the Greek and Latin churches was absolutely unfounded, yet
it was a fertile source of much trouble, oppression, persecution, and
bloodshed, and almost the sole occasion of the overthrow of the last
two Armenian dynasties.
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