Posted on 02/24/2015 10:27:51 AM PST by NYer
Ping!
I don’t want to be nit picky, but are you allowed to put a Catholics Only sign on a discussion when the subject of the article was not Catholic?
Ping the Kardashians!
Unfortunately, the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t recognize these Church Father additions. The entire Church needs to be in on decision process
As Ann Barnhardt has recently noted:
Gregory of Narek, while certainly a very holy man, was outside of communion with Rome, and also was a heretic, namely a Miaphysitite...
Miaphysitism holds that Christ has only one nature, which contains both a divine “character” and a human “character”. Miaphysitism is the heresy held by what are referred to today as the “Oriental Orthodox” churches, which includes among others the Armenians and also the Copts in Egypt...
While there have been and are holy people in these “Oriental Orthodox” churches, and let us certainly put at the head of that list for purposes of this explanation both Gregory of Narek AND the 21 Coptic martyrs who died on the Libyan beach just last week with the Most Holy Name of Jesus on their lips, we cannot permit sentimentality to subvert truth...
Source: http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/02/24/the-first-commandment-is-first-for-a-reason/
Could it be possible that with the Christians in the Middle East under attack from a violent resurgent Islam, this should come as no surprise.
Respectfully, you are mistaken. There was no Armenian Catholic Church until around 700 years after Gregory died. He was a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church which is part of the Oriental Orthodox communion. They have not been in communion with Rome since AD 554. As for the rest of your comment, you need to take that up with the Pope.
I don’t understand. The pope honors a person and you somehow have a problem with that. Why?
On the contrary, I am delighted that Gregory is being honored. My only objection is to efforts being made to pretend he was Catholic.
St. Gregory of Narek is venerated as a saint both in the Catholic Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church
That’s fine, and as far as it goes, completely true. Who the Catholic Church chooses to venerate as a saint is its own business. But there is a fine distinction between venerating him, and his actually being Catholic.
Why would anyone not in communion with the Catholic Church be designated a "Doctor of the Church" (a title previously bestowed upon defenders of doctrine)? Isn't it reasonable to wonder why Francis would name a new Doctor who is not in communion with those great defenders of Catholic orthodoxy who have already been designated Doctors of the Church, such as Athanasius, Basil the Great, Aquinas, Augustine and Teresa of Avila?
St. Thomas Aquinas (Doctor of the Church): "Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches". Shouldn't believing whatever the Church teaches be a basic prerequisite for the title, "Doctor of the Church"?
St. Gregory was born in 950 AD. IIRC, at that time, there was only one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I’m sorry, but that’s simply inaccurate. In the tenth century the schism with the non-Chalcedonians was already close to 400 years old. The Armenian Church was, and is, Miaphysite in its doctrine.
When a church enters communion with Rome, as did part of the Armenian church, the Holy See accepts as valid all of its spiritual and theological patrimony, including canonizations, so long as there is no explicit contradiction with Catholic doctrine.
This is what happened when the Armenian Catholic Church was formed, regarding St. Gregory and his work. Also, it appears, St. Gregory was persecuted in life for defending the Council of Chalcedon, which would also count in his favour.
The Definition of Chalcedon:We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
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.