B
bpbasilphx
Guest
I found this on the web site of an Armenian Church in North Carolina.
Please note the passage I emphasized at the end:
The main difference between the Byzantine tradition, also known as Chalcedonian churches, and the Armenian Church, (together with other non-Chalcedonian churches) has been on the issue of Christology, i.e., the dogma related to Christ’s Divine and Human natures. Abp. A. Keshishian writes, “the Christology of the Armenian Church is fundamentally in line with the Alexandrian Theological School. In fact, the Cyrillian formula of ‘One Nature of the Incarnate Word’ consititutes the foundation stone of her Christology. [It should be noted that] first, ‘One Nature’ is never interpreted in the Armenian Christology as a numerical one, but always a united one. This point is of crucial importance [for the Armenian Church] particularly in its anti-Eutychian and anti-Chalcedonian aspects. Second the term ‘nature’ (ousia, in Armeian bnut’iun) is used in Armenian theological literature in three different senses: (a) as essence, an abstract notion, (b) as substance, a concrete reality, (c) as person. In the context of anti-Chalcedonian Christology ‘one nature’ is used in a sense of ‘one person’ composed of two natures.”
Excuse me, but isn’t this “anti-Chalcedonian Christology” PRECISELY what Chalcedon said?
:banghead:
(It feels SOOOO good when you stop!)
Please note the passage I emphasized at the end:
The main difference between the Byzantine tradition, also known as Chalcedonian churches, and the Armenian Church, (together with other non-Chalcedonian churches) has been on the issue of Christology, i.e., the dogma related to Christ’s Divine and Human natures. Abp. A. Keshishian writes, “the Christology of the Armenian Church is fundamentally in line with the Alexandrian Theological School. In fact, the Cyrillian formula of ‘One Nature of the Incarnate Word’ consititutes the foundation stone of her Christology. [It should be noted that] first, ‘One Nature’ is never interpreted in the Armenian Christology as a numerical one, but always a united one. This point is of crucial importance [for the Armenian Church] particularly in its anti-Eutychian and anti-Chalcedonian aspects. Second the term ‘nature’ (ousia, in Armeian bnut’iun) is used in Armenian theological literature in three different senses: (a) as essence, an abstract notion, (b) as substance, a concrete reality, (c) as person. In the context of anti-Chalcedonian Christology ‘one nature’ is used in a sense of ‘one person’ composed of two natures.”
Excuse me, but isn’t this “anti-Chalcedonian Christology” PRECISELY what Chalcedon said?
:banghead:
(It feels SOOOO good when you stop!)
Indeed, your sentence above (highlighted) is absolutely true. THAT is the basis for the common Christological statements between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches.