Constantinople Attempted Union with Armenian Monophysites in 19th Century; Allowed Armenians to Take Communion in 1879

Arzobispo-Leonty-en-responso-cardenal
ROCOR and its Relations with the Roman Catholic Church
July 15, 2016
Nicaea_icon
Confession of Faith Approved by GOC (K), ROCOR (A), and Romanian True Orthodox Church
July 21, 2016

Constantinople Attempted Union with Armenian Monophysites in 19th Century; Allowed Armenians to Take Communion in 1879

greek and aremanisn clergy with Turkish mullah

The heresy of ecumenism extends back into the mid 19th century. The Ecumenical Patriarchate engaged in negotiations with the Armenian Monophysite Church in the 19th century, and, in the documents for establishment of a ‘communion agreement’, state that they ‘recognize’ the priesthood and mysteries of the Armenian Monophysites. This eventually led to a decision, sometime in between 1879-1885, by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, apparently, allowing Armenian Monophysites to take Communion from Orthodox priests if they didn’t have access to their own clergy! As always, it seems the Protestant English Establishment (Anglicans), were involved in this somewhere.

  • Marlon Scott

    Karekin Sarkissian, Prelate of the American Armenian Church:

    …we must try to understand what Chalcedon
    really meant to Christians in the eastern parts of the Byzantine Empire. In other words: what was the picture of Chalcedon in its historical and doctrinal setting of the fifth and the earliestyears of the sixth centuries? Because this question has generally been over- looked, a great deal of confusion has arisen from the fact that many of those who have dealt with the position of the Armenian Church in relation to Chalcedon have had in mind the Chalce- donian doctrine as understood to-day and the Council of Chalce- don as accepted at present by the greater part of Christendom. We must find, then, the Chalcedon of the period in which it was faced and dealt with by the Armenian Church. Finally, we must try to see the act of rejection through a careful scrutiny of the documents in the light of our study of the back- ground and the historical circumstances of the time. Then, we think, it will not be difficult to conclude that if the Armenians rejected the Council of Chalcedon it was not because:

    (a) They were deceived or misled.

    (b) They were unable to understand the doctrine of Chalcedon.

    (c) They were compelled by the Persians.

    (d) Their language was inadequate for an accurate rendering of the intricate meaning of the formularies.

    (e) They were victims of a false and unfortunate identification of the Chalcedonian doctrine with Nestorianism.

    Rather:

    (a) Their attitude was primarily religious and theological, not political.

    (fe) The rejection of the Council of Chalcedon did not happen suddenly or accidentally. There was a struggle within the Church before it took place.

    (c) The Armenians did not confound Nestorianism with Chal- cedon; but the two only became closely associated and Chalcedon only became of vital importance for the Armenian Church when the Nestorians themselves took it as a source of strength and as a vindication of the orthodoxy of their doctrinal position.

    (d] The rejection was a very natural and reasonable act, closely consistent with their doctrinal position, when seen in the context of their historical and theological tradition.

    These are the main points which will come up in the course of the present study and which we will try to substantiate by the ex- isting historical and theological evidence. (The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church)