Surely you are aware of all the rites in communion with Rome? Armenian rite is among them.
Posted on 02/23/2015 5:01:49 PM PST by NRx
Pope Francis has declared Gregory of Narek to be a "Doctor of the Church." This is one of the highest honors conferred by the Catholic Church on saints. Only a handful have been so honored. The only problem is that as far as I am able to tell, Gregory of Narek was not Catholic. He was a monk of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which is part of the non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox) communion. The Armenian Church has not been in communion with the Pope of Rome since at least the sixth century. The very small Armenian Catholic (Eastern Rite) Church did not come into existence until many centuries after St. Gregory's death. Clearly this man was an Oriental Orthodox saint.
So, what's going on?
Alas there is not a shred of evidence suggesting Gregory was Catholic. In fact based on his biography I think it entirely possible he may have lived his entire life without ever meeting one. Still, speaking for the loyal opposition, the honor is appreciated.
On a side note, though I really don’t like them, I think will apply caucus tags to these kinds of posts from now on. It’s getting difficult to have an adult conversation around here.
Surely you are aware of all the rites in communion with Rome? Armenian rite is among them.
Sorry, there was no Armenian Catholic Church for at least six centuries after St. Gregory reposed. He was a cleric and monastic in the Armenian Apostolic Church.
Source?
He died at least a hundred years before even the Crusaders went through part of Armenia.
http://www.cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=62&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1
Nevertheless it is in communion with Rome NOW!
LOL. No, the ACC is in communion with Rome now. The Armenian Apostolic Church is not. The guy was/is Oriental Orthodox, unless you are adopting that crazy Mormon post-mortem conversion thing.
“On a side note, though I really don’t like them, I think will apply caucus tags to these kinds of posts from now on. It’s getting difficult to have an adult conversation around here.”
I’ve come to the same conclusion.
Do all Catholics have this opinion of the Pope?
Surely, you jest.
So it is written, so it is done. Another great Catholic saint has been honored with the title Doctor of the Church.
Welcome to Free Republic.
Eastern Saints should not surprise anyone. The Catholic Church accepts the Eastern Churches as fully valid Churches in Apostolic Succession. If St. Gregory of Narek had ever expressed schismatic views, the Catholic Church would not venerate him as a saint.
I apologize. It was a dumb question. However, I read some of the comments by many Catholics on this forum and wonder.
And here I thought islamism was the enemy.
Think this is bad, wait till you figure out Saint Augustine confessed every aspect of TULIP (both Luther and Calvin relied on Augustine heavily in their work). Nobody questions his Catholic bonafides.
Only the Real Genuine TrueTM Catholics.
YOU’RE BACK.....YAHOO!!!!
Sorry, no L and P for St Augustine. also, no double predestination.
Like voting, those reading are less thrilled with him than most Popes.
You sure? Here is Augustine, without commentary:
From Chapter 98 "Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace":
“And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for “He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens.” And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, who “being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: “What shall we say then?” he says: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, not of works, but, of future works, and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, God forbid; that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this, and says: “For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” “ (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace.)
Interpretation of the Expression in I Tim. 2:4: “Who Will Have All Men to Be Saved”:
“Or, it is said, “Who will have all men to be saved;” not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by “all men,” the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances,—kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, “For kings, and for all that are in authority,” who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,” that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” [I Tim. 2:1-4]. God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: “Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb” [Luke 11:42]. For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by “every herb,” every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by “all men,” every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if “He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth” [Ps. 115:3]. as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done.” (Augustine, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 103. Interpretation of the Expression in I Tim. 2:4: “Who Will Have All Men to Be Saved”.)
On the interpretation of the verse: Joh_6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
"Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him. Noble excellence of grace! No man comes unless drawn. There is whom He draws, and there is whom He draws not; why He draws one and draws not another, do not desire to judge, if you desire not to err.” (Augustine, Tractate 26)
On the Gift of Perseverance, exclusive to the Elect:
"... the human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but obtains freedom by grace; when the feeling of delight has been imparted through. the same grace, the human will is formed to endure; it is strengthened with unconquerable fortitude; controlled by grace, it never will perish, but, if grace forsake it, it will straightway fall; by the Lord's free mercy it is converted to good, and once converted it perseveres in good; the direction of the human will toward good, and after direction its continuation in good, depend solely upon God's will, not upon any merit of man. Thus there is left to man such free will, if we please so to call it, as he elsewhere describes: that except through grace the will can neither be converted to God nor abide in God; and whatever it can do it is able to do only through grace. "(Augustine, Aurelius. Augustine's Writings on Grace and Free WIll (Kindle Locations 45-46). Monergism Books. Kindle Edition.)
“But of such as these [the Elect] none perishes, because of all that the Father has given Him, He will lose none. John 6:39 Whoever, therefore, is of these does not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these. For which reason it is said, They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us. 1 John 2:19”. (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints)
"But you write that "these brethren will not have this perseverance so preached as that it cannot be obtained by prayer or lost by obstinacy." In this they are little careful in considering what they say. For we are speaking of that perseverance whereby one perseveres unto the end, and if this is given, one does persevere unto the end; but if one does not persevere unto the end, it is not given, which I have already sufficiently discussed above. (On the Perseverance of the Saints, Ch. 11)
“I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling.” (Augustine, ibid)
"Will any one dare to say that this perseverance is not the gift of God, and that so great a possession as this is ours in such wise that if any one have it the apostle could not say to him, 'For what hast thou which thou hast not received?'[ 2] since he has this in such a manner as that he has not received it?" To this, indeed, we are not able to deny, that perseverance in good, progressing even to the end, is also a great gift of God; and that it exists not save it come from Him of whom it is written, "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." (Augustine, Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 10)
“And further, should any one be inclined to boast, not indeed of his works, but of the freedom of his will, as if the first merit belonged to him, this very liberty of good action being given to him as a reward he had earned, let him listen to this same preacher of grace, when he says: “For it is God which works in you, both to will and to do of His own good pleasure;” (Php 2:13) and in another place: “So, then, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy.” (Rom 9:16) Now as, undoubtedly, if a man is of the age to use his reason, he cannot believe, hope, love, unless he will to do so, nor obtain the prize of the high calling of God unless he voluntarily run for it; in what sense is it not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, except that, as it is written, “the preparation of the heart is from the Lord?” Otherwise, if it is said, “It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, because it is of both,” that is, both of the will of man and of the mercy of God, so that we are to understand the saying, “It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy,” as if it meant the will of man alone is not sufficient, if the mercy of God go not with it—then it will follow that the mercy of God alone is not sufficient, if the will of man go not with it; and therefore, if we may rightly say, it is not of man that wills, but of God that shows mercy, because the will of man by itself is not enough, why may we not also rightly put it in the converse way: “It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills,” because the mercy of God by itself does not suffice? Surely, if no Christian will dare to say this, “It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills,” lest he should openly contradict the apostle, it follows that the true interpretation of the saying, “It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy,” is that the whole work belongs to God, who both makes the will of man righteous, and thus prepares it for assistance, and assists it when it is prepared.” (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 32)
I can keep hitting with more, if you like. Just give the word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.