In 301, Armenia became the first country to adopt Christianity as a state religion. For many centuries there has been no church unity between us, but this does not interfere with the existence of good-neighborly relations. At a meeting on March 12 with the Ambassador of the Republic of Armenia to Russia O.E. Yesayan, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill noted: "Our relations go back centuries ... The closeness of our spiritual ideals, a single moral and spiritual system of values in which our peoples live, are a fundamental component of our relations."
The readers of our portal often ask the question: “What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Armenian Christianity”?
Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov,d Doctor of Theology, Head of the Department of Eastern Christian Philology and Eastern Churches of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Theological University answers the questions of the portal "Orthodoxy and the World" about the pre-Chalcedonian churches, one of which is Armenian Church.
- Father Oleg, before talking about the Armenian direction of Monophysitism, tell us about what Monophysitism is and how did it arise?
- Monophysitism is a Christological teaching, the essence of which is that in the Lord Jesus Christ there is only one nature, and not two, as the Orthodox Church teaches. Historically, it appeared as an extreme reaction to the heresy of Nestorianism and had not only dogmatic but also political reasons.
Orthodox Church confesses in Christ one person (hypostasis) and two natures - divine and human. Nestorianism teaches about two persons, two hypostases and two natures. M onophysites they went to the opposite extreme: in Christ they recognize one person, one hypostasis and one nature. From a canonical point of view, the difference between the Orthodox Church and the Monophysite churches lies in the fact that the latter do not recognize the Ecumenical Councils, starting with the 4th Chalcedonian Council, which adopted the doctrine (oros) of two natures in Christ, which converge in one person and in one hypostasis ...
The name "Monophysites" was given by Orthodox Christians to the opponents of Chalcedon (they call themselves Orthodox). Systematically, the Monophysite Christological doctrine was formed in the 6th century, thanks primarily to the works of Severus of Antioch (+ 538).
Modern non-Chalcedonites are trying to modify their teaching, claim that their fathers are accused of Monophysitism is unfair, since they anathematized Eutychus 1, but this is a change in style that does not affect the essence of the Monophysite doctrine. The works of their modern theologians indicate that there are no fundamental changes in their doctrine, significant differences between the Monophysite Christology of the 6th century. and there is no modern one. Back in the VI century. there appears the doctrine of the "single complex nature of Christ", composed of deity and humanity and possessing the properties of both natures. However, this does not imply the recognition in Christ of two perfect natures - the nature of the divine and the nature of man. In addition, monophysitism is almost always accompanied by a monophilic and monoenergetic position, i.e. the teaching that in Christ there is only one will and one action, one source of activity, which is deity, and humanity turns out to be his passive instrument.
- Does the Armenian direction of Monophysitism differ from its other types?
- Yes, it is different. Currently, there are six non-Chalcedonian churches (or seven, if the Armenian Echmiadzin and Cilician Catholicosates are considered as two, de facto autocephalous churches). Ancient Eastern churches can be divided into three groups:
1) Syro-Jacobites, Copts and Malabarians (Malankara Church of India). This is the Monophysitism of the Severian tradition, which is based on the theology of Severus of Antioch.
2) Armenians (Echmiadzin and Cilician Catholicasats).
3) Ethiopians (Ethiopian and Eritrean churches).
The Armenian Church in the past differed from other non-Chalcedonian churches, even Sevir of Antioch itself was anathematized by the Armenians in the 6th century. at one of the Dvina cathedrals as an insufficiently consistent Monophysite. The theology of the Armenian Church was significantly influenced by aftartodoketism (the doctrine of the incorruptibility of the body of Jesus Christ from the moment of the Incarnation). The emergence of this radical Monophysite teaching is associated with the name of Julian of Halicarnassus, one of the main opponents of Severus within the Monophysite camp.
At the present time, all Monophysites, as the theological dialogue shows, act from more or less the same dogmatic positions: this is a Christology close to the Christology of Severus.
Speaking about Armenians, it should be noted that the consciousness of the modern Armenian Church is characterized by pronounced adogmatism. While other non-Chalcedonian churches show considerable interest in their theological heritage and are open to Christological discussion, Armenians, on the contrary, have little interest in their own Christological tradition. At present, interest in the history of Armenian Christological thought is shown rather by some Armenians who have deliberately converted from the Armenian Gregorian Church to Orthodoxy, both in Armenia itself and in Russia.
–
Is there a theological dialogue with the Do-Chalcedonian churches now?
- Conducted with varying degrees of success. The result of such a dialogue between Orthodox Christians and the Ancient Eastern (Do-Chalcedonian) churches was the so-called Chambesian agreements. One of the main documents is the Chambesian agreement of 1993, which contains an agreed text of Christological teaching, and also contains a mechanism for restoring communication between the "two families" of Churches through the ratification of agreements by the synods of these Churches.
The Christological teaching of these agreements aims to find a compromise between the Orthodox and the Ancient Eastern Churches on the basis of a theological position that could be characterized as "moderate Monophysitism." They contain ambiguous theological formulas that admit of Monophysite interpretation. Therefore, the reaction in the Orthodox world to them is not unambiguous: four Orthodox Churches accepted them, some accepted them with reservations, and some were fundamentally opposed to these agreements.
The Russian Orthodox Church has also recognized that these agreements are insufficient for the restoration of Eucharistic communion, since they contain ambiguities in Christological teaching. Further work is required to eliminate ambiguous interpretations. For example, the doctrine of Agreements on wills and actions in Christ can be understood both in a Diphysite (Orthodox) and Monophysite manner. It all depends on how the reader understands the relationship between will and hypostasis. Is the will considered as belonging to nature, as in Orthodox theology, or is it assimilated into the hypostasis, which is characteristic of Monophysitism. The second Agreed Statement of 1990, which underlies the 1993 Chambesian Accords, does not answer this question.
With the Armenians today, a dogmatic dialogue is hardly possible at all, due to their lack of interest in problems of a dogmatic nature. After in the mid-90s. it became clear that the dialogue with non-Chalcedonian churches had reached a dead end, the Russian Orthodox Church began bilateral dialogues - not with all non-Chalcedonian Churches together, but with each one separately. As a result, three directions for bilateral dialogues were determined: 1) with the Syro-Jacobites, Copts and the Armenian Cilician Catholicosat, who agreed to conduct a dialogue only in this composition; 2) the Echmiadzin Catholicosat and 3) with the Ethiopian Church (this direction did not receive development). The dialogue with the Echmiadzin Catholicosat did not touch on dogmatic issues. The Armenian side is ready to discuss issues of social service, pastoral practice, various problems of social and church life, but does not show interest in discussing dogmatic issues.
- How are Monophysites accepted into the Orthodox Church today?
- Through repentance. Priests are accepted in their existing dignity. This is an ancient practice, as was accepted by non-Chalcedonites in the era of the Ecumenical Councils.
Alexander Filippov spoke with Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov.
Parishioners of the Armenian "church"
Armenian Gregorian Apostolic Church "(AGATs)(hereinafter - author's emphasis, - note. ed.) is one of the communities that call themselves Christian. But let's see if she rightly bears this name.
We often hear that the Armenians were the first to accept the faith of Christ at the state level. But how did this happen? Despite the acceptance of the true doctrine from the Jerusalem and Byzantine Churches, the AGATS did not remain his confessor. In addition, edicts that fully legalized Christianity were issued during the same period in the Roman Empire. Therefore, AGATS has no cause for exaltation.
For many centuries there has been no church unity between representatives of this “church” and Orthodox Christians. This does not exclude good-neighborly relations, however, the schism and heresies of the AGATs are contrary to the principle of preserving unity of faith, transmitted to us by the apostles, and the indication of the word of God: One God, one faith, one baptism(Ephesians 4, 5). Since the IV century, the AGATS separated from the entire plenitude of the most ancient Orthodox Local Churches (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, etc.), adopting - first through a misunderstanding, and then consciously - the Monophysite, Monothelite and Miaphisite heresies. This disease has not been cured to this day: we cannot pray and receive communion together with AGAC members- until the true doctrine of God is restored in it.
Unfortunately, ordinary Armenians, often far from the subtleties of theology, become hostages of this misfortune - heresy and schism. They should know that it is impossible to be both Orthodox and numbered among the Armenian "church", just as it is impossible to simultaneously be saved and lost, truthful and a liar. It is imperative to make a choice between life and death, truth and falsehood.
ON THE MONOPHYSICAL HERESY IN GENERAL AND DELUSIONS OF THE ARMENIAN "CHURCH" IN PARTICULAR
A) THE HERESY OF MONOPHYSISISM
Before talking about the Armenian direction of Monophysitism, let's talk about what kind of heresy it is and how it arose.
Monophysitism- this is a false teaching about Christ, the essence of which is that in the Lord only one nature, and not two, as the Word of God and the Orthodox Church teach.
The Orthodox Church confesses in Christ one Personality(Hypostasis) and two natures - Divine and human, those who are indivisible, inseparable, inseparable, unchanging. Monophysites (including AGATs) in Christ recognize one Person, one Hypostasis and one nature. As a result, they reject the Ecumenical Councils, starting with the Fourth (and there were seven of them, as you know).
B) FAKE TEACHING AGATS
For this reason, AGATS members do not accept, insult and consider many Orthodox saints to be heretics. Monophysitism is not only a complete denial of the real human flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, but also any, even the slightest shift or skew from the human nature of Christ towards His Deity. AGATS, after many hesitation, inclined towards the heresy of Monophysitism, which for them consists not in denying the fact of the Incarnation, but in persistent insistence on the absorption by the Divinity of Christ of His human nature - which is blasphemy against the Lord and a heretical teaching. For this reason, neither the symbol of the Armenian faith, in which the Incarnation is Orthodox, nor the statements of individual Armenian "theologians" about the presence of flesh in Christ have any meaning.
It is noteworthy that the AGATs does not have any officially approved, at least succinct, presentation of the foundations of the doctrine. It uses three symbols of faith: 1) short, used in the rite of publicity; 2) middle - in the order of the "divine liturgy" and 3) lengthy, read by the "priest" at the beginning of the morning "service". Phrase from the third long character "One Face, one look, and united in one nature" It is completely heretical, and any lie and heresy is from the devil, and its acceptance for Christians is unacceptable, especially in matters of confession. This heresy leads to a lie about the God-man Christ, to the idea of the impossibility of imitating Him - after all, He is supposedly to the greatest extent God, and humanity is swallowed up in Him. That is, the humiliation of the human nature of the Savior for believers also destroys the motivation to imitate Christ.
One delusion naturally led to others. Thus, AGATS finally recognized the veneration of icons only in the XII century; during the "sacred rite" the Armenians still use unleavened bread according to the Jewish custom and make animal sacrifices (so-called "matah"). In addition, they eat cheese and dairy food on Saturday and Sunday during fasting. And from 965 AGATS began to "re-baptize" people who were passing into it from Orthodoxy.
The main disagreements between the Armenian "church" and Orthodoxy are as follows:
The AGATS recognizes the Body of Christ not as consubstantial with human flesh, but "Imperishable and impassive, and ethereal, and uncreated and heavenly, who did everything that is characteristic of the body, not in reality, but in imagination ”;
AGATS believes that in the act of Incarnation the Body of Christ “It turned into the Divine and became consubstantial with Him, disappearing in the Divine, like a drop in the sea, so that after this two natures no longer remain in Christ, but one, completely Divine”. She confesses in Christ two natures before the Incarnation, and after that - a single complex one, in which both the Divine and the human were supposedly united.
In addition, Monophysitism is almost always accompanied by Monothelite and Monoenergetic heresies, that is, teachings that in Christ there is only one will and one action, one source of activity, which is the Divine, and humanity is only His passive instrument. It is also an impious blasphemy against the God-man Jesus Christ.
C) DIFFERENCES OF ARMENIAN MONOPHYSIS AND ITS OTHER VARIETIES
The AGATS doctrine has its own characteristics, differences from the doctrines of other Monophysite "churches".
Currently, there are three directions of Monophysitism:
1) the Syroyakovites, Copts and Malabarians of the Severian tradition;
2) AGATS (Echmiadzin and Cilician Catholicasats);
3) Ethiopian and Eritrean "churches".
AGATs differs from the rest of the non-Chalcedonian Monophysites in that one of the Monophysite heresiarchs, Sevir of Antioch, was anathematized by the Armenians in the IV century as an insufficiently consistent Monophysite. Aftartodoketism (the heretical teaching about the incorruptibility of the Body of Jesus Christ from the moment of the Incarnation) also had a significant influence on the "theology" of the AGATs.
Unfortunately, interest in the history of Armenian Christological thought today is mainly shown by people who consciously switched from AGATs to Orthodoxy, both in Armenia itself and in Russia.
D) IS A THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE WITH AGATS POSSIBLE?
The theological dialogue of the Orthodox Church with the AGATs today is seen as hopeless, since its representatives show no interest in dogmatic issues and determined to discuss only issues of social service, pastoral practice, various problems of social and church life. Sadly, but true: AGATS placed itself outside the Church of Christ, turning into a self-isolated and one-national "church" that has communion in faith only with other heretical Monophysite false churches.
REFERENCE ABOUT CHRISTIANITY IN ARMENIA
A) HISTORICAL INFORMATION
In 354, the first Council of the Armenian Church was held, condemning Arianism and reaffirming adherence to Orthodoxy. In 366, the Church of Armenia, which until then was in canonical dependence on the Caesarean See of Byzantium, received autocephaly (independence).
In 387, Great Armenia was divided, and its eastern part in 428 was annexed to Persia, and the western part became a province of Byzantium. In 406, Mesrop Mashtots created the Armenian alphabet, which made it possible to translate divine services, the Holy Scriptures and the works of the Church Fathers into the national language.
Representatives of the Armenian Church attended the First and Second Ecumenical Councils; they also made decisions of the Third. But now the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which took place in 451 in Chalcedon, passed without the participation of the Armenian bishops, and for this reason they did not know exactly the decisions of this Council. Meanwhile, Monophysites arrived in Armenia, spreading their delusions. True, the decisions of the Council soon appeared in the Armenian Church, but due to ignorance of the exact meaning of Greek theological terms, the Armenian teachers fell into an unintentional mistake. As a result, the Armenian Council in Dovin in 527 decided to recognize one nature in Christ, and thus unambiguously placed the AGATS among the Monophysites. The Orthodox faith was officially rejected and condemned. So the Armenian "church" fell away from Orthodoxy. However, a significant number of Armenians remained in communion with the Ecumenical Church, having passed into the subordination of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
In 591, due to the attack of the Persians, Armenia was divided. Most of the country became part of the Byzantine Empire, and in the city of Avan (which was located northeast of Yerevan, and now became part of it) was formed Orthodox Catholicosat.
He was opposed Catholicosate Monophysite, located in Dovin, on the Persian territory, and the Persians artificially supported it, fearing the reunification of the local Armenians with the Byzantine Orthodox Armenians (however, many Orthodox Armenians also lived on the Persian territory).
During the Byzantine-Persian War of 602-609, the Orthodox Catholicosate was abolished by the Persian invaders. Monophysite Catholicos Abraham initiated the persecution of the Orthodox, forcing all clerics to either anathematize the Council of Chalcedon, or leave the country.
However, the repression failed to eradicate the Orthodox faith among the Armenians. In 630, the Karin Council was held, at which the Armenian Church officially returned to Orthodoxy. But after the Arab conquests in 726, the AGATs again fell away from the Ecumenical Church into Monophysitism. Orthodox Armenians again began to move to the territory of Byzantium, under the omophorion of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Those who remained in the regions of Armenia bordering on Georgia ended up in the jurisdiction of the Georgian Church. In the 9th century, the population and princes of the Taron region, as well as the majority of the population of the Tao and Klarjeti regions, were Orthodox.
Through the efforts of Saint Photius of Constantinople and Bishop of Harran Theodore Abu Kurra under Prince Ashot I in 862 at the Shirakavan Cathedral Church of Armenia returned to Orthodoxy again, however, 30 years later, by the decision of the new Catholicos Hovhannes V once again deviated into monophysitism.
In the XI century in Armenia the number of departments in communion with Constantinople is increasing, in this period Orthodoxy began to predominate among the Armenians. After the invasion of the Seljuk Turks in the second half of the 11th century, Orthodox Armenians found themselves under the jurisdiction of the Georgian Patriarch, and after a century and a half their bishops are already referred to and perceived as Georgian.
The last attempt to return the Armenian "church" to Orthodoxy was made in 1178. At the Council convened by the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, its hierarchs recognized the Orthodox confession of faith, but the death of the Emperor prevented their reunification with the Church of Christ.
In 1198, the alliance of the papal crusaders with the Armenian King of Cilicia led to the conclusion of a union between the heretical Roman Catholic and Armenian "churches". This union, which was not accepted by the Armenians outside of Cilicia, ended with the split of the Armenian "church", as a result of which the "Armenian Catholic Church" emerged. But the bulk of the Armenians living in Armenia still belong to the AGATs.
B) THE REASON OF THE AGATS DECLINED IN THE HERESY
Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov), bishop in the Caucasus, knew perfectly well the state of affairs in the Armenian "church" and the views of the Armenians, gravitated towards Orthodoxy. He said with great regret and sorrow that the AGATS was in many ways close to the Orthodox Church, but did not want to abandon the heresy of Monophysitism that divides us. There is only one reason for this - pride, incredibly strengthened over the centuries of wrongful confession and because of the mono-nationality of the Armenian "church". The latter brought to the AGAC the conviction of the national exclusiveness of its members, contrary to the Gospel teaching. The falsity of this proud worldview is stated in Scripture: There is no Greek, no Jew, no circumcision, no uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but Christ is all and in everything(Col. 3, 11).
The ecumenical teacher and saint John Chrysostom testifies: “Making divisions in the Church is no less evil than falling into heresy<…>... The sin of schism is not washed away even by martyr's blood. " Therefore, we are waiting for the return of our Armenian brothers from the sin of heresy and schism in the unity of faith (see: Eph. 4, 5).
CONCLUSION
So, AGATS refers to communities that are not in unity with the Orthodox Church. After the Fourth Ecumenical Council, because of the rejection of the church truth that in the one Hypostasis, in the one Person of the incarnate Son of God, two natures - the Divine and the human - were inseparably and inseparably united, she turned out to be among those false churches that are called Monophysite. Once a part of the one universal Church, AGATS accepted the false teaching of the Monophysites, recognizing only one nature of the incarnate God the Word - the Divine. And although we can say that now the acuteness of theological disputes of the 5-6 centuries has largely receded into the past and that the modern “theology” of the Armenian “church” is far from the extremes of Monophysitism, nevertheless, there is still no unity in faith between us.
So, the Fathers of the Fourth Chalcedonian Ecumenical Council, which condemned the heresy of Monophysitism, for us, Orthodox believers, are the saints of God and teachers of the Church, and for the representatives of the AGATS and other "ancient Eastern churches" - persons are either anathematized (which is most often), or, at least least, not possessing doctrinal authority. And on the contrary, the heresiarch Dioscorus is for us a blasphemer, and for the Armenians - “like a holy father”. Even from the above example, it is already clear which traditions are followed by the family of Local Orthodox Churches, and which - by false churches, called "ancient Eastern". Yes, there are quite significant differences between these “non-Chalcedonian churches”, and the degree of Monophysite influence on their dogma is not the same (it is much stronger in the Coptic “churches” and almost imperceptible in the AGATs). However, the historical, canonical and doctrinal fact remains that for one and a half thousand years there has been no Eucharistic communion between us. And if we recognize the Church as a pillar and assertion of truth, if we believe that the promise of Christ the Savior that the gates of Hell will not prevail against her has not a relational, but an absolute meaning, then it is necessary to conclude that either one Church is true, but the other - heretical, or vice versa - and think about the consequences of this conclusion. The only thing that should not be allowed in any way is attempts to confirm the truth of both the Orthodox Church and the AGATs, arguing that although their teachings are not identical, in fact they supposedly coincide and the reason for the 1,500-year division is, as it were, only in human inertia, political ambitions and unwillingness to unite.
In conclusion, let us note that Armenians living or temporarily staying in Russia cannot take communion alternately in the “churches” of the AGATs, then in Orthodox churches. They need to carefully examine the doctrinal positions of the AGATS and the Orthodox Church and make their choice.
Hieromonk Demetrius,
inhabitant of the monastery of the Holy Cross Hermitage (Sochi)
The overwhelming majority of the population of Armenia are Christians of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which is legally assigned the status of the national church of the Armenian people. There are also believers of the Russian Orthodox Church in Armenia, Muslims, Jews and representatives of other confessions. Including the so-called religious minorities.
Islam in Armenia was spread mainly among Azerbaijanis and Kurds, but as a result of the Karabakh conflict, most Muslims were forced to leave the country. The largest Muslim community, including Kurds, Iranians and people from the Middle East, is currently preserved only in Yerevan. Most of them are Shafi'i Sunnis. Among the Kurds, a fairly significant community is formed by the Yezidis, whose religious beliefs include elements of Zoroastrianism, Islam and animism.
The constitution guarantees freedom of religion, incl. the right to profess any religion or not to profess any.
Peculiarities
Until the middle of the 5th century. The Armenian Apostolic Church represented one of the branches of the united Christian Church. However, striving to consolidate its independence from Byzantium and not recognizing the decisions of the IV (Chalcedonian) Ecumenical Council (451), the Armenian Apostolic Church actually separated from both the Eastern and Western Churches.
The Armenian Church is also different from the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches. She belongs to the category of the so-called Monophysite churches. Whereas the Orthodox - to the Diophysite. Diophysites recognize in Christ two principles - human and divine; monophysites are only divine. Regarding the seven sacraments, the Armenian Church adheres to special rules. Namely: at baptism, the infant is sprayed three times and immersed in water three times; chrismation is associated with baptism; only pure unmixed wine and fermented (yeast-free) bread soaked in wine are used in the sacrament; only clergy gather together immediately after death.
Armenians believe in saints, but do not believe in purgatory. Armenians observe fasts also strictly, but they have fewer holidays. The main prayer accepted in the Armenian Church is Ayr Mer (Our Father), it is read in the ancient Armenian language.
The Catholicos is elected at the Echmiadzin Synod, where deputies from all Russian and foreign Armenian dioceses are invited, and is approved by a special letter from the Sovereign Emperor.
The Catholicos lives in Echmiadzin, where every Armenian should go at least once in his life. Armenian archbishops and bishops can only be ordained by a Catholicos. The secular clergy can only marry once; a second marriage is not permitted.
The related Monophysite churches of the Armenian Apostolic Church are Coptic (Egypt), Ethiopian and Jacobite (Syria).
History of religion
The Sacred Tradition of the Armenian Church says that after the Ascension of Christ, one of his disciples, Thaddeus, arrived in Great Armenia with a Christian sermon. Among the many who were converted to the new faith by him was the daughter of the Armenian king Sanatruk - Sandukht. For confessing Christianity, the apostle, along with Sandukht and other converts, was martyred by the order of the king in Shavarshan.
Some time after preaching in Persia, the Apostle Bartholomew arrived in Armenia. He converted to Christianity the sister of King Sanatruk - Vogui and many nobles, after which, by order of Sanatruk, he was martyred in the city of Arebanos, which is located between the lakes of Van and Urmia.
In the 1st century, the spread of Christianity in Armenia was facilitated by a number of external and internal factors. So, for example, at that time Christianity became widespread in the neighboring countries of Armenia: Cappadocia (present-day Georgia), Osroeni, trade, political and cultural ties, with which they created favorable conditions for the spread of Christianity in Armenia.
In addition, in the I-III centuries, Lesser Armenia was politically part of the Roman province of Cappadocia, and it is quite natural that Christianity could spread through Lesser Armenia to Greater Armenia.
Armenia became the first country in the world to adopt Christianity as a state religion, long before Byzantium and Georgia. This happened in 301, during the reign of Tsar Trdat III, thanks to the activities of Gregory I the Illuminator. In 302, Gregory I the Illuminator became the First Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians. Later he was canonized. The church began to be called by the name of Gregory I - Armenian-Gregorian.
In 303, the Echmiadzin Cathedral (near Yerevan) was built, which to this day remains the religious center of all Armenians and the seat of the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of all Armenians (except for a short period of the XIV-XV centuries).
The Bible was translated into Armenian in the 5th century.
Armenian Apostolic Church
The head of the Armenian Apostolic Church is the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians (currently Garegin II), whose permanent residence is in Etchmiadzin.
He is the supreme spiritual leader of all believing Armenians, the keeper and protector of the faith of the Armenian Church, its liturgical rites, canons, traditions and unity. Within the canonical limits, he is endowed with full authority in the management of the Armenian Church.
Echmiadzin is the spiritual and administrative center of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Here, since the 7th century, there are two monasteries of St. Hripsime and St. Gayane, which are classical monuments of Armenian architecture. The Theological Academy and the Seminary are also located in Echmiadzin.
Geographically, the Armenian Apostolic Church is spread throughout the world, but is united in its doctrinal principles. Under the influence of political and economic factors, part of the Armenian population, starting from the 9th century, was forced to periodically leave the country and seek refuge in foreign countries.
Thus, as a result of historical conditions in the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Jerusalem and Constantinople Patriarchates and the Cilician Catholicosate (Great House of Cilicia), which is currently located in Antilia (Lebanon), were formed. These three bishops' chairs are “spiritually” under the jurisdiction of Echmiadzin, but they enjoy internal administrative autonomy.
Became the first Christian state in the world.
According to the published data of the 2011 census of Armenia, 92.6% of the country's population belongs to the Armenian Apostolic Church, 1.0% of the population belongs to the Protestant Armenian Evangelical Church, 0.5% belongs to the Armenian Catholic Church, 0.3% to the denomination of Jehovah's Witnesses (which differs from both traditional Christian churches and Protestant ones), 0.25% of Orthodox Christians, 0.1% belong to the spiritual Christian denomination Molokans, and an unknown number of Christians in the census data are classified as "other" (total 0, 26% of the country's population), which, in addition to Christians, includes Muslims, Jews and a number of other non-Christian religions. Thus, slightly less than 95% of the country's population is Christian.
The Armenian Apostolic Church is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which also includes the Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syrian and Malankara Orthodox Churches.
Among a number of national minorities, there is a high degree of religious assimilation, as 77% of Greeks in Armenia belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church, 57% of Ukrainians, 41% of Russians and Georgians, 34% of Assyrians belong to the same church. There is also a steady downward trend in the number and proportion of national minorities who are traditional bearers of those confessions that are not traditionally spread among ethnic Armenians.
Yezidism
During the census, the Yezidis were classified as an independent ethnos, and their traditional religion appears in the officially published census materials under the name "Sharfadi". Of the 35,308 ethnic Yezidis, 69% (24,518 people) belong to the Sharfanid religion, in addition, 31% of ethnic Kurds (682 people) belong to the Sharfanid religion. In total, 25,204 followers of the Sharfanid religion live in Armenia (0.83% of the country's population). Yezidis mainly live in the villages of the Ararat Valley, northwest of Yerevan. On September 29, 2012, the Yezidi temple "Ziarat" was solemnly opened in the Armavir region of Armenia. It is the first temple built outside of the Yezidis' ancestral homeland of northern Iraq, designed to meet the spiritual needs of the Yezidis in Armenia.
Judaism
There are 3 thousand Jews living in Armenia, mainly in Yerevan.
Islam
Followers of Islam live in Armenia, this religion is professed by Kurds, Persians, Azerbaijanis and other peoples. There is a mosque for Muslims in Yerevan.
Today, the community of Muslim Kurds in Armenia numbers several hundred people, most of them live in the Abovyan region, a certain number of Muslim Azerbaijanis live near the eastern and northern borders of Armenia in rural areas. About 1,000 Muslims live in Yerevan - Kurds, Persians and people from the Middle East.
Paganism
According to the 2011 census, 5,434 followers of paganism live in the country. The overwhelming majority of the citizens of Armenia, who were counted as pagans in the census, belong to ethnic Yezidis (3624 people, or 10% of the total number of ethnic Yezidis), and also to ethnic Kurds (half of the total number of ethnic Kurds in Armenia, or 1068 people, are recorded as pagans).
Among ethnic Armenians, 734 people, or 0.02% of all ethnic Armenians in the country, indicated themselves as pagans. Gethanism is a neo-pagan religious movement that recreates the traditional pre-Christian religion of the Armenians. Founded by the Armenologist Slak Kakosyan on the basis of the writings of the famous Armenian nationalist Garegin Nzhdeh. Neo-pagan rituals are regularly held at the Garni temple. The head of the pagan communities of Armenia is the priest Zohrab Petrosyan. The exact number of followers is unknown. Armenian neo-paganism has a certain popularity, in particular among supporters of ultra-right and nationalist movements. The followers of Hetanism were prominent Armenian politicians Ashot Navasardyan, the founder of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia, and Andranik Margaryan, the country's former prime minister.
Freedom of religion in Armenia
Official statistics
| Nationality | Population total | Having a religion | Armenian apostolic | Evangelical | Sharfadinskaya | Catholic | Jehovah witnesses | Orthodox | Pagans | Molokans | others (including Muslims, Jews) | Have no religion | Refused to answer | Didn't specify religion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armenia (total) | 3 018 854 | 2 897 267 | 2 796 519 | 29 280 | 25 204 | 13 843 | 8 695 | 7 532 | 5 434 | 2 872 | 7 888 | 34 373 | 10 941 | 76 273 |
| Armenians | 2 961 801 | 2 843 545 | 2 784 553 | 28 454 | 0 | 13 247 | 8 581 | 3 413 | 734 | 0 | 4 563 | 33 254 | 10 086 | 74 916 |
| Yazidis | 35 308 | 33 772 | 3 597 | 532 | 24 518 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 3 624 | 0 | 1 461 | 413 | 547 | 576 |
| Russians | 11 911 | 11 078 | 4 899 | 150 | 0 | 336 | 37 | 2 798 | 0 | 2 755 | 103 | 325 | 132 | 376 |
| Assyrians | 2 769 | 2 556 | 935 | 47 | 0 | 11 | 14 | 601 | 2 | 0 | 946 | 162 | 20 | 31 |
| Kurds | 2 162 | 2 098 | 180 | 42 | 682 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 068 | 0 | 124 | 29 | 18 | 17 |
| Ukrainians | 1 176 | 1 121 | 674 | 10 | 0 | 44 | 8 | 360 | 0 | 19 | 6 | 34 | 8 | 13 |
| Greeks | 900 | 838 | 692 | 6 | 0 | 24 | 2 | 109 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 41 | 9 | 12 |
| Georgians | 617 | 401 | 253 | 10 | 0 | 23 | 4 | 93 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 183 |
| Persians | 476 | 401 | 27 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 358 | 17 | 36 | 22 |
| other | 1 634 | 1 393 | 661 | 29 | 1 | 143 | 6 | 150 | 6 | 98 | 299 | 64 | 51 | 126 |
| refused to answer the question about nationality | 100 | 64 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 17 | 18 | 1 |
Write a review on the article "Religion in Armenia"
Notes (edit)
Links
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
An excerpt characterizing Religion in Armenia
The French colonel could hardly restrain a yawn, but he was courteous and, apparently, understood the full significance of Balashev. He led him past his soldiers by the chain and said that his desire to be presented to the emperor would probably be immediately fulfilled, since the imperial apartment, as far as he knew, was not far away.They drove past the village of Rykonty, past the French hussar hitching posts, sentries and soldiers saluting their colonel and examining the Russian uniform with curiosity, and drove to the other side of the village. According to the colonel, the division chief was two kilometers away, who would receive Balashev and escort him to his destination.
The sun had already risen and shone merrily on the bright greenery.
They had just left the inn on the mountain, when a group of horsemen appeared to meet them from under the mountain, in front of which a tall man in a hat with feathers and black hair curled up to his shoulders, in a red robe and long legs protruding forward, like the French ride. This man rode at a gallop towards Balashev, glittering and fluttering in the bright June sun with his feathers, stones and gold braids.
Balashev was already two horses away from a horseman in bracelets, feathers, necklaces and gold galloping towards him with a solemn theatrical face, when Yulner, a French colonel, respectfully whispered: "Le roi de Naples." [King of Naples.] Indeed, it was Murat, now called the King of Naples. Although it was completely incomprehensible why he was the king of Naples, they called him that, and he himself was convinced of this and therefore had a more solemn and important appearance than before. He was so sure that he was really a Neapolitan king that when, on the eve of his departure from Naples, during his walk with his wife through the streets of Naples, several Italians shouted to him: “Viva il re!” [Long live the king! (Italian)] he turned to his wife with a sad smile and said: “Les malheureux, ils ne savent pas que je les quitte demain! [Unhappy, they do not know that I am leaving them tomorrow!]
But despite the fact that he firmly believed that he was a Neapolitan king, and that he regretted the grief of his subjects who were abandoned by him, recently, after he was ordered to enter the service again, and especially after a meeting with Napoleon in Danzig, when the august brother-in-law said to him: "Je vous ai fait Roi pour regner a maniere, mais pas a la votre" for a business he was familiar with and, like a racked, but not overweight, fit horse, sensing himself in a harness, he played in the shafts and, discharged as brightly and expensively as possible, cheerful and contented, galloped, not knowing where and why, along the roads Poland.
Seeing the Russian general, he threw back his head with hair curled up to his shoulders in a royal, solemn manner and looked inquiringly at the French colonel. The colonel respectfully conveyed to His Majesty the importance of Balashev, whose name he could not pronounce.
- De Bal macheve! - said the king (with his decisiveness overcoming the difficulty presented to the colonel), - charme de faire votre connaissance, general, [very nice to meet you, General] - he added with a royal gracious gesture. As soon as the king began to speak loudly and quickly, all the royal dignity instantly left him, and he, without noticing himself, switched to his characteristic tone of good-natured familiarity. He put his hand on the withers of Balashev's horse.
- Eh, bien, general, tout est a la guerre, a ce qu "il parait, [Well, general, things seem to be heading for war,] - he said, as if regretting a circumstance that he did not could judge.
- Sire, - answered Balashev. - l "Empereur mon maitre ne desire point la guerre, et comme Votre Majeste le voit," Balashev said, using Votre Majeste in all cases, [The Russian Emperor does not want her, as your majesty please see ... your majesty.] With the inevitable the affectation of the increased frequency of the title, referring to the person for whom the title is still news.
Murat's face beamed with stupid contentment as he listened to monsieur de Balachoff. But royaute oblige: [the royal title has its own responsibilities:] he felt the need to talk with the envoy of Alexander about state affairs, as king and ally. He dismounted from the horse and, taking Balashev by the arm and moving a few steps away from the waiting retinue respectfully, began to walk back and forth with him, trying to speak meaningfully. He mentioned that the Emperor Napoleon was offended by the demands for the withdrawal of troops from Prussia, especially now that this demand had become known to everyone and when the dignity of France was insulted by this. Balashev said that there was nothing offensive in this demand, because ... Murat interrupted him:
- So you think the instigator is not Emperor Alexander? He said unexpectedly with a good-natured stupid smile.
Balashev said why he really believed that Napoleon was the initiator of the war.
- Eh, mon cher general, - Murat interrupted him again, - je desire de tout mon c? Ur que les Empereurs s "arrangent entre eux, et que la guerre commencee malgre moi se termine le plutot possible, [Ah, dear general, I wish with all my heart that the emperors finish the affair among themselves and that the war, started against my will, end as soon as possible.] - he said in the tone of the conversation of servants who wish to remain good friends, despite the quarrel between the masters. questions about the Grand Duke, about his health and about the memories of the fun and amusing time spent with him in Naples. waving his right hand, he said: - Je ne vous retiens plus, general; je souhaite le succes de vorte mission, [I do not detain you any longer, general; I wish your embassy success,] - and, fluttering with a red embroidered mantle and feathers and shining jewels, he went to the retinue, respectfully awaiting him.
Balashev drove on, according to Murat, assuming very soon to be introduced to Napoleon himself. But instead of a quick meeting with Napoleon, the sentries of the infantry corps of Davout again detained him at the next village, as in the front line, and the aide-de-camp of the corps commander escorted him to the village to Marshal Davout.
Davout was Arakcheev of the Emperor Napoleon - Arakcheev is not a coward, but just as serviceable, cruel and unable to express his devotion other than cruelty.
In the mechanism of the state organism, these people are needed, just as wolves are needed in the organism of nature, and they always exist, always appear and hold on, no matter how incongruous their presence and proximity to the head of government seem. Only this need can explain how the cruel, who personally tore out the mustache of the grenadiers and who could not endure danger due to weakness, the uneducated, non-courtier Arakcheev could hold on in such strength with the chivalrous noble and gentle character of Alexander.
Balashev found Marshal Davout in the barn of a peasant hut, sitting on a barrel and busy with writing (he checked the scores). The adjutant stood beside him. Perhaps a better place could be found, but Marshal Davout was one of those people who deliberately put themselves in the darkest conditions of life in order to have the right to be gloomy. For the same, they are always hastily and stubbornly busy. “Where is there to think about the happy side of human life when, you see, I am sitting on a barrel in a dirty barn and working,” said the expression on his face. The main pleasure and need of these people is that, having met the revitalization of life, throw this revival in the eyes by singing gloomy, stubborn activity. This pleasure gave himself Davout when Balashev was brought in to him. He went even deeper into his work when a Russian general entered, and, looking through his glasses at Balashev's lively, under the impression of a beautiful morning and conversation with Murat, he did not get up, did not even move, but frowned even more and grinned viciously.
Noticing an unpleasant impression on Balashev's face, Davout raised his head and coldly asked what he needed.
Assuming that such a reception could have been made to him only because Davout does not know that he is the adjutant general of Emperor Alexander and even his representative before Napoleon, Balashev hastened to announce his rank and appointment. Contrary to his expectations, Davout, having listened to Balashev, became even harsher and rougher.
- Where is your package? - he said. - Donnez le moi, ije l "enverrai a l" Empereur. [Give it to me, I will send it to the emperor.]
The readers of our portal often ask the question: "What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Armenian Christianity?"
Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov, Doctor of Theology, Head of the Department of Eastern Christian Philology and Eastern Churches of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Theological University, answers the questions of the Orthodoxy and Peace portal about the pre-Chalcedonian churches, one of which is the Armenian Church.
- Father Oleg, before talking about the Armenian direction of Monophysitism, tell us about what Monophysitism is and how did it arise?
- Monophysitism is a Christological teaching, the essence of which is that in the Lord Jesus Christ there is only one nature, and not two, as the Orthodox Church teaches. Historically, it appeared as an extreme reaction to the heresy of Nestorianism and had not only dogmatic but also political reasons.
Orthodox Church confesses in Christ one person (hypostasis) and two natures - divine and human. Nestorianism teaches about two persons, two hypostases and two natures. M onophysites they went to the opposite extreme: in Christ they recognize one person, one hypostasis and one nature. From a canonical point of view, the difference between the Orthodox Church and the Monophysite churches lies in the fact that the latter do not recognize the Ecumenical Councils, starting with the 4th Chalcedonian Council, which adopted the doctrine (oros) of two natures in Christ, which converge in one person and in one hypostasis ...
The name "Monophysites" was given by Orthodox Christians to the opponents of Chalcedon (they call themselves Orthodox). Systematically, the Monophysite Christological doctrine was formed in the 6th century, thanks primarily to the works of Severus of Antioch (+ 538).
Modern non-Chalcedonites are trying to modify their teaching, claim that their fathers are accused of Monophysitism is unfair, since they anathematized Eutychus, but this is a change in style that does not affect the essence of the Monophysite doctrine. The works of their modern theologians indicate that there are no fundamental changes in their doctrine, significant differences between the Monophysite Christology of the 6th century. and there is no modern one. Back in the VI century. there appears the doctrine of the "single complex nature of Christ", composed of deity and humanity and possessing the properties of both natures. However, this does not imply the recognition in Christ of two perfect natures - the nature of the divine and the nature of man. In addition, monophysitism is almost always accompanied by a monophilic and monoenergetic position, i.e. the teaching that in Christ there is only one will and one action, one source of activity, which is deity, and humanity turns out to be his passive instrument.- Does the Armenian direction of Monophysitism differ from its other types?
- Yes, it is different. Currently, there are six non-Chalcedonian churches (or seven, if the Armenian Echmiadzin and Cilician Catholicasates are considered as two, de facto autocephalous churches). Ancient Eastern churches can be divided into three groups:
1) Syro-Jacobites, Copts and Malabarians (Malankara Church of India). This is the Monophysitism of the Severian tradition, which is based on the theology of Severus of Antioch.
2) Armenians (Echmiadzin and Cilician Catholicasats).
3) Ethiopians (Ethiopian and Eritrean churches).
The Armenian church in the past differed from the rest of the non-Chalcedonian churches, even Sevir of Antioch itself was anathematized by the Armenians in the 4th century. at one of the Dvina cathedrals as an insufficiently consistent Monophysite. The theology of the Armenian Church was significantly influenced by aftartodoketism (the doctrine of the incorruptibility of the body of Jesus Christ from the moment of the Incarnation). The emergence of this radical Monophysite teaching is associated with the name of Julian of Halicarnassus, one of the main opponents of Severus within the Monophysite camp.
At the present time, all Monophysites, as the theological dialogue shows, act from more or less the same dogmatic positions: this is a Christology close to the Christology of Severus.
Speaking about Armenians, it should be noted that the consciousness of the modern Armenian Church is characterized by pronounced adogmatism. While other non-Chalcedonian churches show considerable interest in their theological heritage and are open to Christological discussion, Armenians, on the contrary, have little interest in their own Christological tradition. At present, interest in the history of Armenian Christological thought is shown rather by some Armenians who have deliberately converted from the Armenian Gregorian Church to Orthodoxy, both in Armenia itself and in Russia.
- Is there a theological dialogue with the Do-Chalcedonian churches now?
- Conducted with varying degrees of success. The result of such a dialogue between Orthodox Christians and the Ancient Eastern (Do-Chalcedonian) churches was the so-called Chambesian agreements. One of the main documents is the Chambesian agreement of 1993, which contains an agreed text of Christological teaching, and also contains a mechanism for restoring communication between the "two families" of Churches through the ratification of agreements by the synods of these Churches.
The Christological teaching of these agreements aims to find a compromise between the Orthodox and the Ancient Eastern Churches on the basis of a theological position that could be characterized as "moderate Monophysitism." They contain ambiguous theological formulas that admit of Monophysite interpretation. Therefore, the reaction in the Orthodox world to them is not unambiguous: four Orthodox Churches accepted them, some did not accept them with reservations, and some are fundamentally opposed to these agreements.
The Russian Orthodox Church has also recognized that these agreements are insufficient for the restoration of Eucharistic communion, since they contain ambiguities in Christological teaching. Further work is required to eliminate ambiguous interpretations. For example, the doctrine of Agreements on wills and actions in Christ can be understood both in a Diphysite (Orthodox) and Monophysite manner. It all depends on how the reader understands the relationship between will and hypostasis. Is the will considered as belonging to nature, as in Orthodox theology, or is it assimilated into the hypostasis, which is characteristic of Monophysitism. The second Agreed Statement of 1990, which underlies the 1993 Chambesian Accords, does not answer this question.
With the Armenians today, a dogmatic dialogue is hardly possible at all, due to their lack of interest in dogmatic problems. After in the mid-90s. it became clear that the dialogue with non-Chalcedonian churches had reached a dead end, the Russian Orthodox Church began bilateral dialogues - not with all non-Chalcedonian Churches together, but with each one separately. As a result, three directions for bilateral dialogues were determined: 1) with the Syro-Jacobites, Copts and the Armenian Cilician Catholicosat, who agreed to conduct a dialogue only in this composition; 2) the Echmiadzin Catholicosat and 3) with the Ethiopian Church (this direction did not receive development). The dialogue with the Echmiadzin Catholicosat did not touch on dogmatic issues. The Armenian side is ready to discuss issues of social service, pastoral practice, various problems of social and church life, but does not show interest in discussing dogmatic issues.
- How are Monophysites accepted into the Orthodox Church today?
- Through repentance. Priests are accepted in their existing dignity. This is an ancient practice, as was accepted by non-Chalcedonites in the era of the Ecumenical Councils.
Alexander Filippov spoke with Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov