Apostalic Vs Orthodox

[GAH]

I was wondering if there was a short but simple explanation of what is "Apostalic" and what is" Orthodox." Are they the same? if not, what Are the differences.

[Boghos]

Definition: \Ap`os*tol"ic\, Apostolical \Ap`os*tol"ic*al\, a. [L.

apostolicus, Gr. ?: cf. F. apostolique.]

1. Pertaining to an apostle, or to the apostles, their times,

or their peculiar spirit; as, an apostolical mission; the

apostolic age.

 

2. According to the doctrines of the apostles; delivered or

taught by the apostles; as, apostolic faith or practice.

 

3. Of or pertaining to the pope or the papacy; papal.

 

{Apostolical brief}. See under {Brief}.

 

{Apostolic canons}, a collection of rules and precepts

relating to the duty of Christians, and particularly to

the ceremonies and discipline of the church in the second

and third centuries.

 

{Apostolic church}, the Christian church; -- so called on

account of its apostolic foundation, doctrine, and order.

The churches of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem

were called apostolic churches.

 

{Apostolic constitutions}, directions of a nature similar to

the apostolic canons, and perhaps compiled by the same

authors or author.

 

{Apostolic fathers}, early Christian writers, who were born

in the first century, and thus touched on the age of the

apostles. They were Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, and

Hermas; to these Barnabas has sometimes been added.

 

{Apostolic king} (or {majesty}), a title granted by the pope

to the kings of Hungary on account of the extensive

propagation of Christianity by St. Stephen, the founder of

the royal line. It is now a title of the emperor of

Austria in right of the throne of Hungary.

 

{Apostolic see}, a see founded and governed by an apostle;

specifically, the Church of Rome; -- so called because, in

the Roman Catholic belief, the pope is the successor of

St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and the only

apostle who has successors in the apostolic office.

 

{Apostolical succession}, the regular and uninterrupted

transmission of ministerial authority by a succession of

bishops from the apostles to any subsequent period.

--Hook.

 

 

\Ap`os*tol"ic\, n. [L. apostolicus.] (Eccl. Hist.)

A member of one of certain ascetic sects which at various

times professed to imitate the practice of the apostles.

 

 

 

\Or"tho*dox\, a. [L. orthodoxus, Gr. 'orqo`doxos;

'orqo`s right, true + do`xa opinion, dokei^n to think, seem;

cf. F. orthodoxe. See {Ortho-}, {Dogma}.]

1. Sound in opinion or doctrine, especially in religious

doctrine; hence, holding the Christian faith; believing

the doctrines taught in the Scriptures; -- opposed to

{heretical} and {heterodox}; as, an orthodox Christian.

 

2. According or congruous with the doctrines of Scripture,

the creed of a church, the decree of a council, or the

like; as, an orthodox opinion, book, etc.

 

3. Approved; conventional.

 

He saluted me on both cheeks in the orthodox manner.

--H. R.

Haweis.

 

Note: The term orthodox differs in its use among the various

Christian communions. The Greek Church styles itself

the ``Holy Orthodox Apostolic Church,'' regarding all

other bodies of Christians as more or less heterodox.

The Roman Catholic Church regards the Protestant

churches as heterodox in many points. In the United

States the term orthodox is frequently used with

reference to divergent views on the doctrine of the

Trinity. Thus it has been common to speak of the

Trinitarian Congregational churches in distinction from

the Unitarian, as Orthodox. The name is also applied to

the conservative, in distinction from the ``liberal'',

or Hicksite, body in the Society of Friends.

--Schaff-Herzog Encyc.

[GAH]

What does it all mean, Basil - Austin Powers

[addai]

Well being a Non Armenian here, but reading the different church writings online etc. I understand that the Armenian Church emphasizes the "Apostolic", because some people try to insinutate (possibly some Catholics), that the Church itself was started by St. Gregory the Illuminator. Who of course converted, officiallly speaking the nation of Armenia to being an official Christian Nation (beating Rome by 20 years). But some would like to imply that the Armenian Church did not really exist before then (implying it doesn't have true Apostolic Succession, and is less legitimate). So emphasiizng the term Apostolic is one way of dealing with this, besides citing Thadeus and Barnabas, along with the other nation saints, Mesrob, Vartan, Kriokor, etc.

[Teutonic Knight]

The one and only difference is that the Armenian Church is monophysite which I think is a HUGE mistake and the other Orthodox Churches are not.

If only the Armenian Church did not reject the Council of Chalcedon.

Despite this most Greeks, Russians, Serbs, Romanians etc. and Armenians still don't bother with this and do not differentiate much.

[addai]

The one and only difference is that the Armenian Church is monophysite which I think is a HUGE mistake and the other Orthodox Churches are not.

Have you ever heard of the "Oriental Orthodox" Churches? There 4 others in fact, 6 total if you count Eritrea seperate from Ethiopia.

 

Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian) Aremian Apostolic Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Eritrean ORthodox Church, and Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch

 

There's other so called "momophyte" churches out there as well. Infact, the Ethiopians in terms of numbers are quite big. At least 26 million people or so, last time I checked

[Teutonic Knight]

Have you ever heard of the "Oriental Orthodox" Churches? There 4 others in fact, 6 total if you count Eritrea seperate from Ethiopia.

 

Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian) Aremian Apostolic Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Eritrean ORthodox Church, and Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch

 

There's other so called "momophyte" churches out there as well. Infact, the Ethiopians in terms of numbers are quite big. At least 26 million people or so, last time I checked

That's an artificial title, it all came to be because of Nestorianism...

Most likely the Church will drop that in the near future and unite with the Orthodox Churches. This discussion is quite a hot topic these days at Echmiatsin.

[addai]

hhhhhmmmmm well what would that mean exactly in "uniting". Would they simply formerly "Accept" the seven Ecumenical counsels (Which I don't think would be a bad thing). Or would they have to conform in all the other ways? As far as rite etc. goes? One thing I like as an outsider, visiting the Armenian Church is how interesting and distinctive it is. Some of the Byzantinized churches seem pressed out of the same mold, (iconostasis, same liturgy, icons etc.). In fact, all the Non-Chalcedonian churches are more distinctive than the Fully Concilliar ones. I like the national character and personality of them that shines through. I would hate for your churches heritage to be lost by becoming just another Byzantine franchise.

[Teutonic Knight]

hhhhhmmmmm well what would that mean exactly in "uniting". Would they simply formerly "Accept" the seven Ecumenical counsels (Which I don't think would be a bad thing). Or would they have to conform in all the other ways? As far as rite etc. goes? One thing I like as an outsider, visiting the Armenian Church is how interesting and distinctive it is. Some of the Byzantinized churches seem pressed out of the same mold, (iconostasis, same liturgy, icons etc.). In fact, all the Non-Chalcedonian churches are more distinctive than the Fully Concilliar ones. I like the national character and personality of them that shines through. I would hate for your churches heritage to be lost by becoming just another Byzantine franchise.

"Armenian Church" is not that different from the "Byzantine Church" don't forget that the overwhelimg majority of Armenians were Byzantines.

Where do you think 20 Armenian Emperors and over 80 Generals in the Empire came from?

Not to mention that Armenian was techniclly the second most spoken language in the glorious Eastern Roman Empire.

The national character in the Church that you speak of which comprises of a) pagan symbols, animals etc. which where used initially to attract pagans to Christianity (and it worked) and Cilician art

That's never going to go away, don't worry about that.

Dropping the so called "Oriental" crap and re-joining with what you call the "Byzantine Churches" is what's going to happen, it's just the acceptance of the Chalcedonian position which holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. the Church is going to remain the Armenian Church just like there is a Greek Church, a Serbian Church, Bulgarian Church etc.

 

All the Armenians I know, are Armenian Orthodox and not monophysite. It's only a matter of time.

 

Back in the good old days the Empire tried to reconcile in the form of monothelitism but the majority rejected it anyway, the Church had more power with the majority being Chalcedonians of course.

[addai]

I don't have a problem with Chalcedon for or against. I'm Oriental Orthodox, because I was part of an east Syrian (Nestorian) church for a while, but also studied East Orthodox theology. And found the Armenians a good place to be. But I'm inclined to eventually go "Full concilliiar" just because after being with a narrow sect, It's really good to have Catholicy and affiliation with a large body of believers world wide. Besides that in reading East Orthodox books on theology, I really can't find anything wrong with it. It's generally well thought out, defended, articulated, supported etc. The main objections I think over Chalcedon were the "behind the scenes stuff", as far as the emperor, and how it was conducted. Although I've heard some good arguments how Chalcedon is re-instuting Nestorianism etc.

 

I do like the Soorp Badarak quite a bit, that is very different than the Eastern churches. Things like the curtain, instead of the iconstasis, those metal fan instruments (don't know the name), the kiss of peace, the organ music by Komatas etc. All that and more really gives your Church a lot of Character. And I hope would all be retained.

[gamavor]

I have wrote (though not extensively) on this subject long time ago. My knowledge doesn’t allow me to go on to details, but I can assure you that in her teachings Armenian Orthodox Apostolic Church (that is the full name) is not monophysite. That is a very common misunderstanding and unfortunately it is still in circulation not only among lay people but also among clergy. The formula adopted by the Armenian Church is the one of Cyril of Alexandria. Note that the Council of Chalcedon pronounced clearly that Cyril is most orthodox. The Armenian Church adhered to the view that Jesus Christ is ONE Person and has, in the concrete reality, ONE nature in which the DIVINE nature and the HUMAN nature are UNITED or made ONE. St. Nersess the Graceful – 1173 further elaborated on the issue saying that there is not much difference between “two natures, divine and human, united without confusion, without change, without division, without separation” and “one nature, divine and human”. Both parties agreed that Jesus Christ is One Person and that He is God and Man. More over, the Armenian church vehemently condemned Arians (not to be confused with Aryans ) , Nestorians, Apollinarianism and other –isms that were “fashionable” at that time.

Interestingly, the Armenian church had never had problems with other churches with regard to Holly Trinity. The only issue of controversy with the Eastern Orthodox was the unleavened bread and red wine, not mixed with water. They accused us of following the Jewish ways, but after all although not a Jew, Jesus himself was raised in a Jewish environment, and this was the way he did it.

I do believe that rejection of Chalcedon was not merely theological issue. Neither for the Armenians, nor for the Romans and Greeks.

First of all, Christianity is monotheistic. We believe in One God…. (see the Nicean creed). Secondly, I think both Romans and Greeks were inclined to think and perceive Jesus as multitude due to their pagan multy-theos pagan believes. Such statement might be naïve but, not overlooked. Opposite to that, Armenians prior to become Christians were pagan, but monotheistic. They believed in supremacy of One God - Sun, Fire, Light. The concept of multiple gods was long abandoned.

Thirdly, there were very clear political reasons. The influence of Roman Empire (culturally and politically) was ever growing. Armenian clergymen were scared of that influence and tried to keep their status and independence (and their administrative “chairs” and benefits. Being the first “official” Christians, Armenians thought that their supremacy in the field of Christian establishment would be endangered, and probably to certain extend rejection of Chalcedony was just act of pretense, kind of “Who are you to tell me what is right and what is wrong”, which for good or worst is still very popular as an attitude among many even lay Armenians .

There were also political reasons. Armenia was involved in imminent war against Persia. Much needed help from our Christian brothers was denied. At that time Attila was knocking on the door of Rome and preparing to invade the East. Armenians realized that if they accept Chalcedony, due to the strong Byzantium influence Armenian people would be gone. Today, most probably we all would have been Greeks. Greek and Syrian languages were in circulation along with Armenian. Indeed, few centuries later, after the Seljuk Turks invasion the first independence movements among Christians were marked with struggles for Autonomous Churches. Armenians were spared that struggle, because they were recognized different from East Byzantium Orthodoxy.

Edited October 27, 2003 by gamavor

[Sasun]

Interesting...

[hagopn]

First of all, Christianity is monotheistic. We believe in One God…. (see the Nicean creed). Secondly, I think both Romans and Greeks were inclined to think and perceive Jesus as multitude due to their pagan multy-theos pagan believes. Such statement might be naïve but, not overlooked. Opposite to that, Armenians prior to become Christians were pagan, but monotheistic. They believed in supremacy of One God - Sun, Fire, Light. The concept of multiple gods was long abandoned.

I will have to refresh my mind o this topic prior to digging too deeply into it, but the quote above is one that as definite truth to it, at least according to the interesting research done recently by Hovik Nersesian ("Zradashtutyan Bnorran@", _Alik_ - I can't remember which issue) on the comparison he did on the native Armenian religious practices and Zoroastrianism.

 

He loosely names the Armenian religion in the Achaemeneid post-Yervanduni period as "Mihrism," entirely due to the fact that Mihr was deemed the "God of Light and of (Spiritual) Purity." Unlike the Zoroastrian pantheon, which had an "equally formidable dark deity as that of the light," the "Mihrism" rejected the notion of an "equally powerful satanic force" to that of the "Ararich." How, is it asked, can the Creator create his equal opposite?

 

His theory is that Armenian folklore retains the old beliefs in some form where the "dark forces" are insignificant and defeatable "tzruks" and "devs" that are temporary lapses in human consciousness in the archtypical sense.

 

In contrast, the Christian "pantheon" (yes, it has a pantheon - two equals, good and bad, make two) created in people's minds an "equally powerful foe" to the "Lord," namely the "virtually indomitable and equally omniscient and omnipresent satan." This aspect was unknown in pre-Christian Armenia and was utterly rejected by later anti-Grigorian Armenian sects, among them the Pavlikian, Tondraketsi, Vavernatsi etc. Arianism (were they perhaps the "Arortik/Arevortik," followers of the mysterious "Arianus" that Islamic history relates to us?) also rejected this notion, and was also condemned as a heresy. To this day, absolutist and fundamentalist Christians and Theologers tout these ideas (of there not being an "indomitable, but instead a defeatable series of "devs") as a "satanic" ideology implanted in people's minds by "satan himself."

 

In my ("quasi-heretic") opinion, the Armenians of old were absolutely correct!

 

NOTE: The "Arianism" was a distinct sect that did indeed reject the idea of this "dualist" universe where "good and evil" were on equal footing and were in an eternal conflict. Ironically the warning issued was that of "You reap what you sow;" Meaning that if you sow a belief in people's minds that Evil is as powerful (and more so, due to its subversive methods) as Good, then you will be paving the way toward evil for most, since most people, unprepared for life, are prone to selfishness... Go figure!

[gamavor]

Interesting. If "Devs" in ancient Armenian means 'dark force', then no wonder where the word 'devil' comes from.

 

Devs - Devil - Diavol

 

Oops, where is Arpa?

Edited November 27, 2003 by gamavor

[hagopn]

But, sersiously....

 

Dia-volos is supposedly the antonym to Sym-volos....

 

I think, though, there might be a correlation between the number two, "dia" (thia), and the concept of "dev, daeva."

[hagopn]

I forgot to add:

 

Since the old Armenian religion refused to accept "evil" to be on equal footing as the "Ararich," the it WAS in fact a TRULY monotheistic religion. That, perhaps, is the greatest irony of all.

 

The "pantheon" as described by the Christian zealots was merely a "layer of sub-deities" that were the path to the actual essence of the "Ararich." In effect, it's almost the same ideology as the Vedic religion as outlined in the Bhagavad Gita, at least as it was described by Georges Dumezil.

[gamavor]

The logical construction behind the understanding that Jesus was perfect man and God in the same time comes from his last days on Earth, namely the Crucifixion.

Before his departure he uttered the words 'Father, Father, why you abandoned me' and then 'Into your hands I commend my Spirit'

The opponents of the understanding that He was Son of God say "If he was God how come He suffered on the Cross?" Hence, they reject his Divine nature. The other extreme were the so-called monophysits who claimed that He was God and rejected his suffering from a different perspective. Both groups failed to understand his Human suffering as a physical body, and the resurrection as a Divine victory over the physical death.

 

The pagan explanation above, as I said is naive, but it helped people to understand the nature of God, since prior to that most gods and goddesses were half human-half gods. The only difference was that gods were drinking fruit juices while humans were indulging themselves with alcohol.

[hagopn]

Well, I disagree with your conslusions about "pagans."

 

There were "pagans" (non-Chrsitians) who were in fact more monotheistic in their ultimate convictions than the Christians themselves.

 

They, in reference to Armenians (and all "Aryan" religions) ultimately did believe that there can only be one "Ararich," and in fact the "pantheon" were merely the many "earthly" manifestations of the same "Ararich."

 

Christianity is actually nothing but a rehashed version of old religion, but with the argumentation that more closely matches, ironically, Zoroastrianism! Christianity is NOT monotheistic. It is inherently DUALISTIC due to the simple fact that it creates in the believer's mind this "equally omnipotent omniscient protagonist of Evil, that of Satan." Armenians rejected this idea before Grigor burned their temples and texts. As I explained, Armenians downgraded "evil" to a series of "devs" and "tzruks", very much so defeatable, and very much so mortal.

 

They were actually extremely sophisticated in their psychological and theological interpretation. They attributed the quality of "ultimate mystery" to the "Ararich" as being evident in all of nature.

 

The divergence among differing "pagan" systems of beliefs occurs when "the opposite of creation," as in Greek, "that of Chaos versus Cosmos," or "Evil versus Good," etc, is regarded as "equal in essence, power, and potency." Armenians clearly rejected this, and this is all too evident in their folklore as well.

 

The "half-human, half-god" deal was only true in post-Homeric Greece, and it was Hellenistic distortion of the Artashesian dynasty that "put Anahit" for example, in "human form." It is highly doubtlful that this was the case prior to the Hellenistic destruction of pre-Homeric religions both in Greece and in the "Orient."

 

The Sumerian model that prevailed in the entire Mesopotamia until Christianity and Islam was most probably also not the one adopted by Armenians.

Edited November 27, 2003 by hagopn