Armenian catholic

[m_p_w]

Is there anyone on this forum who can describe the differences between Byzantines Catholicism and Armenian Catholicism? (I am sorry, but I haven’t seen any threads about Armenian Catholicism).

 

[Vico]

Is there anyone on this forum who can describe the differences between Byzantines Catholicism and Armenian Catholicism? (I am sorry, but I haven’t seen any threads about Armenian Catholicism).

Don’t know much. They do not generally use icons. They have a curtain instead of an iconostasis (icon screen) in front of the Holy Table. They celebrate the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Illuminator (Anaphora of Athanasius of Alexandria is currently in use). Unleavened bread. No water added to the wine. They use musical instruments.

 

[RCTechGeek]

One glaring difference is that Armenian Catholic Church came from the Armenian Apostolic Church, which is a non-Chalcedonian church. They also use classical Armenian as their liturgical language. Are you wanting to know about differences in the divine liturgy, or do you do you want to know about other things such as church teachings?

 

[m_p_w]

One glaring difference is that Armenian Catholic Church came from the Armenian Apostolic Church, which is a non-Chalcedonian church. They also use classical Armenian as their liturgical language. Are you wanting to know about differences in the divine liturgy, or do you do you want to know about other things such as church teachings?

Armenian Catholic liturgy, I was able to find on the website armeniancatholic.org and I take part in the Armenian catholic masses.

Church teachings (I am sorry, but I was not able to find anything online, and my Armenian catholics bishop seems to be annoyed when I ask him about this question; therefore, I was thinking if the forum can help me out ).
(I can not ask my family members who are Armenian catholics because they have passed away before I was even born )
Over here, you have understanding of catholic doctrine according to the Byzantine catholics vs Roman catholics
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=479837
I am trying to something similar for Armenian catholics vs Byzantine catholics (or vs Roman catholics)

 

[SyroMalankara]

As far as im aware, the Armenian Catholics mirror Armenian Apostolic Church, except for having communion with the Pope. The Churches ive attended even used the Soorp Badarak text from the Orthodox.

 

[MorEphrem]

As far as im aware, the Armenian Catholics mirror Armenian Apostolic Church, except for having communion with the Pope. The Churches ive attended even used the Soorp Badarak text from the Orthodox.

Depends what community. San Lazzaro degli Armeni in Venice is so pristinely Armenian down to the general absolution before communion the only thing that would indicate that they were Catholic was the episcopal commemoration during the anaphora. On the absolute converse, I visited an American parish called Sacred Heart - because of the community being established by 2nd and 3rd generation Armenian families from Lebanon it was the most deformed Eastern Catholic liturgy I’ve ever seen (coming from a Maronite…). There was no Armenian used, half Arabic, the lectionary and pre-Gospel sequence was Maronite actually and the entire Soorp Badarak lasted forty minutes on a Sunday (I’ve never been to an Armenian Apostolic liturgy under an hour and a half).

On topic, though, the difference between Armenians and Byzantines is their hailing patrimonies. The Byzantine tradition is from Constantinople while the Armenian tradition is from Armenia. Their liturgies are quite different (the Armenian liturgy is closer to the Syriac than the Byzantine liturgy in structure). Theologically (e.g. non-Chalcedonian Christology) and liturgical architecturally (e.g. sanctuary veil) they are clearly oriental, but with distinct similarities to the Latin Church (Orthodox included - e.g. Last Gospel, Renaissance miters, polyphony, etc.). A Melkite priest I know always like to say, “You can never tell an Armenian ‘that’s not part of your tradition’ because they take the best part of each one.”

 

[m_p_w]

OK, so now I have been to 3 different catholic churches
Roman,Armenian and byzantine.

I have noticed Armenians take some part of Roman practices and beliefs.
In my Armenian church, we have a confessional like in the Roman church.
Also “the confession of faith” in the Armenian Holy Mass is exactly the same as in the Roman (even though orthodox Armenians have a different one).

My point is that Armenian Catholics use catholic dogma to the last word, but they use the Armenian theology and traditions.

While byzantine catholic church does not fully use the catholic dogma (for example in byzantine confession of faith, the creed is generally said without the filioque), and it uses the byzantine theology and traditions.

What do you think? Do you think I am understanding the differences correctly? (I am still new to catholicism)

 

[SyroMalankara]

Thats not quite accurate.

Lets say some Armenian Catholic Churches havent yet recovered some practices that should mirror their sister Armenian Apostolic Church, while Byzantines generally moved in that direction 60 years ago.

 

[m_p_w]

Thats not quite accurate.

Lets say some Armenian Catholic Churches havent yet recovered some practices that should mirror their sister Armenian Apostolic Church, while Byzantines generally moved in that direction 60 years ago.

Correct me if I am wrong. As an Armenian Catholic can I mirror more Armenian Apostolic Church’s practices and beliefs? Even if my Armenian Church mirrors more the Roman Catholic Church’s practices and beliefs?

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’d go further and say you should, rather than may, except in instances where practices fell off due to instability, oppression, or lack of resources

 

[Wandile]

Belief should be the same as we share the same faith

 

[m_p_w]

I’d go further and say you should, rather than may, except in instances where practices fell off due to instability, oppression, or lack of resources

But, I am confused .
I mean look at it this way. The difference between the oriental eastern churches and catholic are great (alot greater than catholics vs orthodoxes) because oriental eastern churches recognize only the ecumenical councils up to the Council of Chalcedon (451) also in their creed they say that “holy spirit is uncreated” and roman catholics say “holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son”.
Byzantine catholics (and other eastern catholics which come from the orthodox churches) and orthodoxes say “holy spirit proceeds from the father”

Are you saying that I can believe in miaphysitism and that holy spirit is uncreated as Armenian Catholic? Furthermore, the difference between the Catholic and Apostolic Armenians is that Armenian Catholics recognize the pope as the head of the church, and Apostolic Armenians do not?

 

[SyroMalankara]

But, I am confused .
I mean look at it this way. The difference between the oriental eastern churches and catholic are great (alot greater than catholics vs orthodoxes) because oriental eastern churches recognize only the ecumenical councils up to the Council of Chalcedon (451)

There’s official recognition, and there’s unofficial recognition. Iconoclasm didn’t erupt in Byzantinum until the 700s, and the Nicaea II isn’t “offiically” recognized by the Oriental Orthodox, however the Spirit of the Council is accepted within the Oriental Orthodox Churches as they have never supported iconoclasm.

also in their creed they say that “holy spirit is uncreated” and roman catholics say “holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son”.

That’s nothing to schism over. Each of the Oriental Orthodox Churches have slight differences in their wording of the Creed, as do the Byzantine Catholics and Syriac Catholic or Chaldeans, etc.

Byzantine catholics (and other eastern catholics which come from the orthodox churches) and orthodoxes say “holy spirit proceeds from the father”

As do most Syriac Catholics, Malankara Syriac Catholics, Chaldean and Malabar Catholics, etc. Armenian Catholics should mirror the Armenian Apostolic Church on this.

Are you saying that I can believe in miaphysitism and that holy spirit is uncreated as Armenian Catholic?

Why not? Nothing unorthodox or uncatholic about miaphysitism.

Furthermore, the difference between the Catholic and Apostolic Armenians is that Armenian Catholics recognize the pope as the head of the church, and Apostolic Armenians do not?

That’s about it. The Armenian Apostolic Church highly respects the Catholic Pope, and treats him as St. Peter at any ecumenical gathering.

 

[m_p_w]

So, being eastern catholic is to mirror your sister orthodox (or oriental) church, but at the same to be in union with the pope, and realize that these small differences between us catholics is not the reason to divide.

So,
Armenian Catholic (also Apostolic) believes in miaphysitism and says “holy spirit is uncreated and perfect”.
Byzantine Catholic (also Orthodox) believes in dyophysitism and says “holy spirit proceeds from the father”.
Roman Catholic believes in dyophysitism and says “holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son”.

We still have the same faith because at the end, we believe in One Catholic(Universal) Holy Church, and these small differences are not the reason to divide and kill each other.

Am I understand this correctly?

 

[MorEphrem]

Am I understand this correctly?

Yes, but even the three different expressions pertaining to the Holy Spirit you cite are not mutually exclusive. It is simply orthodox to say the Holy Spirit is uncreated and perfect - one must profess that to be a Trinitarian Christian. Same with the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (procession and creation are not the same - St. Basil, the great Cappadocian Father, has an entire treatise against the Pneumatomachians - those who believe in the Spirit as created and subordinate to the two other Divine Persons, i.e. less than perfect). Not that I care to debate the Filioque, my own views aside, it is permission to be omitted in the Eastern Churches’ creed redactions. Therefore, this one example serves to demonstrate that there is nothing taught in one Apostolic Church that exclusively precludes the statement of another.

Likewise, the only difference between diophysitism and miaphyisitism, properly understood, is emphasis (though, as an oriental, I find it very often even the best trained diophyisite theologians slide into Nestorian tendencies).