Christological Position of the Armenian Church

3. Christological Position of the Armenian Church

The Christological trends in Armenia in the course of their accelerated transformations may be described within the framework of changing and précising positions with regard to some important Christological notions. First of all, the raise of Nestorians in the southern regions of Armenia and subsequently the schism between Armenian and Georgian Churches created a definite theological reaction against the Chalcedonian confession. To the Chalcedonian interpretation of the union of two natures the Armenian theologians opposed their own Christological tradition. As mentioned above, it was deeply marked by the Cappadocian Father’s interpretation, namely the theories of “mixis” or krasis”. In his Encyclical letter bishop Movses of Cʼurtav (VII c.) criticized the Chalcedonian reformulation of what he had found in the writings and letters of the blessed fathers concerning the “krasis”: “…and once I had seen and read the letters of the blessed vardapets, which were about the wonderful mixture and the ineffable unity, I saw that all had been transformed into such blasphemies”[63]. As patristic heritage approved by the authority of St. Gregory himself, the theory of “commixture of two natures” represented for the Armenians an orthodox way of christologizing. Moreover, there was not any need to change or to reinterpret it. In this respect the “Seal of Faith”, a patristic florilegia composed by the Catholicos Komitas Ałceci (615-628) retained the orthodox interpretation of “mixis”-“krasis”[64]. Moreover, in his “Letter to the Persian Christians” he defined it as a correlation of mortality and immortality: “…and He joined the mortal with immortal, the corruptible and the mortal with His immortal Divinity. He joined and mixed, having transformed them into incorruptibility”[65]. It is noteworthy also that in the 7^th-8^th centuries the authority of St. Gregory the Illuminator, regarding the theological implication of the “commixture of natures”, was decisive[66].

Yet, the most important Christological debate and central topic in the 7^th-11^th centuries was the tenet of the incorruptibility of Christ’s flesh. As already mentioned, it was broached at the council of Manazkert in 726 with a view to renew the relations with the West Syrian Church under Patriarch Athanasius III. The council found the theological consensus, expressed more clearly in the III and VI canons:

“Canon III. We anathematize those who confess that Christ did not assume the human flesh from our corruptible and protolapsarian human nature, persisting that Christ rather assumed the prelapsarian human nature, i.e. the nature Adam had before the fall, the immortal, incorruptible and innocent nature.

Canon VI. We anathematize those who do not confess the flesh of Christ incorruptible from His virginal birth for all time, not according to the nature, but rather in accordance with the unspeakable union. We anathematize also those who claim that the flesh of Christ was corruptible, imperfect and not yet glorified till the Resurrection, and then incorruptible, perfect and glorified after the Resurrection”[67].

The glorification of human flesh assumed by Christ, according to the canons of Synod, was admitted only in accordance with the union of Divine and human natures. To explain the mode of union in Christ, St. Yovhan Odznecʼi mentions also the famous expression of St. Gregory the Illuminator upon the “commixture of natures”: “Hence, summing up one could say that Jesus Christ has one nature and one prosopon. Yet this is not according to the identification or in accordance with the one prosopon[68]. For if it were in this way, there would be neither the Incarnation of Word nor the deification of man (theosis). But the union of two natures (as I stated in many passages) was made in accordance with the unspeakable union of the Word with His body, as it was told by St. Gregory the Illuminator: “For He was united to the flesh by nature and commixed the flesh to his divinity”. We thus dare to confess the one nature of Christ in accordance with that unspeakable union and inexpressible commixture…”[69].

The canons and the above cited passage were deeply marked by the reflections of St. Yovhan Odznecʼi’s teacher, Tʼēodoros Kʼrťenawor. In his theological treatise against the fantasists, he argues that “Christ assumed human nature like ours, endowed with a rational mind and soul in which he conquered corruption and death, also growing in stature as a man…”[70]. One could to some extent find Severian arguments in the reflections of Tʼēodoros, given the fact that he underscores the role of will in the fall of Adam, excluding thus the physical transmission of the sin by the flesh per se[71]. Nevertheless, underscoring the lack of any confusion in the union, Tʼēodoros definitively rejects the Severian emphasis on the natural corruptibility of the flesh[72]. St. Yovhan Odznecʼi in his turn considers the expressions “from two natures (ek duo physeon)” and “one nature” (mia physis) both insufficient if one takes them separately[73]. He confirms indeed two sources of union and the unique subject of the attribution of these two subsistent entities at the same time. Ultimately, too, St. Yovhan Odznecʼi reminds that Christ is one in accordance with the union, and this is not because of any fusion, but rather because of the divine character of His body by means of union. This idea was explained more expressively in the writings of Xosrovik. The latter accepts both the human and the divine qualifiers: “We are persuaded that one could equally mention human and divine qualifiers. For example, the flesh of Lord is human by its nature, yet it is divine by the union. Hence, in this manner could be qualified both the passible and mortal, the impassible and immortal, being thus perfectly unified in the one…”[74]. That is, the flesh of Christ, having become divine by the union, does not belong to man, but rather to the Word. Yet, be it said, any kind of confusion could never be taken place, for although the Godhead is the proper nature of Christ from all eternity, the manhood is the assumed reality in accordance with the time.

The theological clarifications of St. Yovhan Odznecʼi and Xosrovik contributed largely to the orthodox interpretation of Severian and Julianiste conceptions of Christ’s incorruptibility. It would not be exaggerated to assert that their works were the milestones on the long way of Armenian Christology’s development. Resuming the main ideas and propositions of these two eminent Armenian theologians we can thus underscore some important Christological statements which became decisive for the further generations of Armenian vardabets (doctors) and theologians.

a. The union of Divine and human natures is inexpressible and unspeakable, remaining per se a mystery for the human rational mind. There could not be any place for confusion or separation.

b. The human nature of Christ is not impersonal; it supposes the real, concrete party of the human nature, i. e. the concrete person.

c. According to the orthodox conception, Christ has one nature in accordance with the union, and two natures, in accordance with the Divine and human natures.

d. The flesh of Christ was incorruptible from its birth. All the qualifiers regarding to the flesh of Lord, like “divine”, “heavenly”, “immortal” etc. should be interpreted only in accordance with the union.

⇐ Предыдущая 1 2 345 Следующая ⇒