In 449 St Hovsep of Armenia wrote that Christ's "nature is 1 and not 2." The Armeian Orthodox repeatedly condemned Chalcedon throughout the centuries being very informed after about 500AD regarding the happenings of the Council. The read the writings of Sts Timothy and Philoxenos, champions of Orthodoxy. St Gregory of Tatev read the entire corpus of John of Damascus and still disagreed with his Christology, he refuted Chalcedonianism in his "Book of Questions." The Armenian priests are required to anathematize "all the ranks of Dyophysites" the day before their ordination in the Rite of the Calling to the Priesthood.
@@Janine11155 of course I know what it means. That's because I read Armenian Christological works from the greatest Armenian Church Fathers, like St John of Odzun, St Stephen of Siwnik, and St Gregory of Tatev. It doesn't matter if the particular word used is "physis," "hypostasis," "kyono," "qnomo," "ousia" or whatever word in whatever language you would like to fill in. What matters is the mereological aspect of Christology which they defended. They taught that Christ is 1 x from 2 x's, so that after the union of 2 x's there is no more duality in any way. It is actually a Chalcedonian distraction to make the conversation about word-games. The Armenian Orthodox Fathers didn't write Christology in a geopolitical vacuum. They wrote it in the context of the Council of Ephesus and continuing adherence to it. That's why they condemned duality after the union of 2.
@@dioscoros You're speaking of the union within Christ which is still of both fully divine and fully human as the Armenian Church teaches, just as it calls the Virgin Mary Asdvadzazin meaning Theotokos following Cyril of Alexandria
@@Janine11155 yes, but St Grigor Tatevatsi explains in depth in the Book of Questions as to what exactly this union means, what it must entail, and why all Dyophysite expressions are necessarily heretical and fall under the condemnations of the Council of Ephesus. Check these two parts which don't do justice to the brilliance of St Gregory's explanations: "And others-such as the Chalcedonians, the cursed Leo, Flavianus, and their associates-declared one person, but two natures, two wills, and two operations in Christ. These do not confess unity in substance or nature, but in person only. But person without nature is merely a simple noun, like Son, or Christ, or Jesus. Now, these say that the noun is one, but they gather in this one noun two substances; that is, God and human. And they say one person, one Son, one Christ, and so on. As if the Word and the human are divided by substance and nature but are one by sonhood. For the Word is called Son, as the human is called Son. And the Word is called Christ, and Jesus, and Lord, and God. Likewise, the human is called Christ, and Jesus, and Lord, and God. Thus, they unify in name and sound, but divide and separate in reality and nature. Then, therefore, by confessing the sonhood and the noun to be united, they mislead the simpleminded [people]. And they deny and avoid the true unity. And these are those anathematized by the Holy Spirit at the Council of Ephesus and in other places, and are anathematized by the Holy Church." - St Tatevatsi, Girk Harc'manc' "Likewise are the new schismatics, Chalcedonians, the forerunners of Anti-Christ, the followers of Nestorius the damned, and Leo the sacrilegious." - ibid
Bishop Daniel explained very clearly that the intentions of Chalcedon were not to confirm or vindicate Nestorius but were rather seen that way by the Nestorians, and this was the root of objection. I think this discussion muddies the waters further regarding the false "monophysite" accusation.
In 449 St Hovsep of Armenia wrote that Christ's "nature is 1 and not 2." The Armeian Orthodox repeatedly condemned Chalcedon throughout the centuries being very informed after about 500AD regarding the happenings of the Council. The read the writings of Sts Timothy and Philoxenos, champions of Orthodoxy.
St Gregory of Tatev read the entire corpus of John of Damascus and still disagreed with his Christology, he refuted Chalcedonianism in his "Book of Questions."
The Armenian priests are required to anathematize "all the ranks of Dyophysites" the day before their ordination in the Rite of the Calling to the Priesthood.
Do you know the Armenian word that you are reading translated as "nature" and what it means to Armenian theologians? I doubt it
@@Janine11155 of course I know what it means. That's because I read Armenian Christological works from the greatest Armenian Church Fathers, like St John of Odzun, St Stephen of Siwnik, and St Gregory of Tatev. It doesn't matter if the particular word used is "physis," "hypostasis," "kyono," "qnomo," "ousia" or whatever word in whatever language you would like to fill in. What matters is the mereological aspect of Christology which they defended. They taught that Christ is 1 x from 2 x's, so that after the union of 2 x's there is no more duality in any way. It is actually a Chalcedonian distraction to make the conversation about word-games.
The Armenian Orthodox Fathers didn't write Christology in a geopolitical vacuum. They wrote it in the context of the Council of Ephesus and continuing adherence to it. That's why they condemned duality after the union of 2.
@@dioscoros You're speaking of the union within Christ which is still of both fully divine and fully human as the Armenian Church teaches, just as it calls the Virgin Mary Asdvadzazin meaning Theotokos following Cyril of Alexandria
@@Janine11155 yes, but St Grigor Tatevatsi explains in depth in the Book of Questions as to what exactly this union means, what it must entail, and why all Dyophysite expressions are necessarily heretical and fall under the condemnations of the Council of Ephesus. Check these two parts which don't do justice to the brilliance of St Gregory's explanations:
"And others-such as the Chalcedonians, the cursed Leo, Flavianus, and their associates-declared one person, but two natures, two wills, and two operations in Christ. These do not confess unity in substance or nature, but in person only. But person without nature is merely a simple noun, like Son, or Christ, or Jesus. Now, these say that the noun is one, but they gather in this one noun two substances; that is, God and human. And they say one person, one Son, one Christ, and so on. As if the Word and the human are divided by substance and nature but are one by sonhood. For the Word is called Son, as the human is called Son. And the Word is called Christ, and Jesus, and Lord, and God. Likewise, the human is called Christ, and Jesus, and Lord, and God. Thus, they unify in name and sound, but divide and separate in reality and nature. Then, therefore, by confessing the sonhood and the noun to be united, they mislead the simpleminded [people]. And they deny and avoid the true unity. And these are those anathematized by the Holy Spirit at the Council of Ephesus and in other places, and are anathematized by the Holy Church."
- St Tatevatsi, Girk Harc'manc'
"Likewise are the new schismatics, Chalcedonians, the forerunners of Anti-Christ, the followers of Nestorius the damned, and Leo the sacrilegious."
- ibid
Bishop Daniel explained very clearly that the intentions of Chalcedon were not to confirm or vindicate Nestorius but were rather seen that way by the Nestorians, and this was the root of objection. I think this discussion muddies the waters further regarding the false "monophysite" accusation.