Apostolic churches. Armenian Apostolic Church and Orthodoxy

Beliefs about something that doesn't really exist big difference and, in the end, all the Churches talk about the same thing, to put it mildly, they are far from the truth. In fact, the Armenian Apostolic Church has serious reasons to claim that it has retained special fidelity to the apostolic tradition. Each Church has taken a special name for itself; the Armenian Church calls itself Apostolic. In fact, the name of each of the Churches is much longer than just Catholic, Orthodox, Apostolic. Our Church is called the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Holy Church (Orthodox - in the sense of the truth of faith). Look how many definitions there are, but we most often use one, the closest and dearest to us and the most characteristic.

For centuries, our Church has had to defend the purity of the dogmas of faith. In 451, not only the Armenian Church, but also other Eastern Orthodox Churches - Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian - did not accept the decision of the Council of Chalcedon, having significant dogmatic reasons. There were serious grounds for fears that Chalcedon was restoring what was condemned at the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus - primarily the heresy of Nestorius.

The main reason for the disagreement is that the Armenians preferred to remain faithful to the theological tradition of the Alexandrian school, founded by the great feat primarily of St. Athanasius the Great and Cyril of Alexandria. Only after the death of the latter was it possible to implement the decisions taken by the Council of Chalcedon. The cathedral was led not by clergy, but by Emperor Marcian himself and Empress Pulcheria. It must be admitted that Chalcedon only confirmed the already existing theological contradictions between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools. These differences had roots in different spiritual and cultural layers; they arose as a result of the collision of the holistic religious contemplation of the East and differential Hellenistic thinking, the unity and dualism of the confession of the Savior, the specific and generalized perception of the human reality of Christ.

The Armenians remained faithful to the decisions of the three Ecumenical Councils, which without distortion defined the faith coming from the apostolic period. We did not have an empire, we did not even have time for respite, forced to constantly fight for existence. We did not try to adapt Christology to imperial ambitions, to the service of empire. Christianity was the main thing for us, for the sake of it we were ready to give up what we had - this property was mainly life. As for the churches with which, unfortunately, we do not have Eucharistic communion, we must take from them all the best. There is a lot of good there, especially in Russian spiritual literature, in the amazing evidence of spiritual life. We have a special spiritual closeness with the Russian people. We constantly pray for the restoration of the Eucharistic unity of the Church of Christ. But until this happens, everyone must be in their own spiritual reality. This does not mean that we prohibit our believers from going to Russian Orthodox churches. Thank God, we are not characterized by such fanaticism. You can come in, light a candle, and pray. But during Sunday liturgy you must be in your Church.

Sometimes a dispute arises when Armenians themselves can prove that they are not Orthodox. This creates an absurd situation - the person actually claims that his faith is not true. Orthodox Christians in Russia do not consider Armenians Orthodox. The same is reflected in our theological tradition - we recognize the Orthodoxy of only five eastern churches - ours, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Indian-Malabar. The Chalcedonian Churches, from the point of view of the doctrine of the AAC, are not considered Orthodox. In our theological literature they are simply called the Greek Church, the Roman Church, the Russian Church, etc. True, we can also briefly call our Church Armenian.

Of course, the Churches have their official name, and in official relationships we call them what they call themselves. But, recognizing all the differences between us and the Orthodox Chalcedonians, we cannot shy away from the assertion that we have the Orthodox, in other words, the correct, true faith.

Father Mesrop (Aramyan).

From an interview with Aniv magazine

The Armenian Church is considered one of the most ancient Christian communities. Its origins begin in the 4th century. Armenia is the first country where Christianity was recognized by the state. But millennia have passed, and now the contradictions and differences that the Russian and Armenian Apostolic Church have are already visible. The difference from the Orthodox Church began to appear in the 6th century.

The separation of the Apostolic Armenian Church occurred due to the following circumstances. A new branch suddenly arose in Christianity, which was classified as heresy - Monophysitism. Supporters of this movement considered Jesus Christ. They denied the combination of the divine and the human in him. But at the 4th Council of Chalcedon, Monophysitism was recognized as a false movement. Since then, the Apostolic Armenian Church has found itself alone, since it still looks at the origin of Christ differently from ordinary Orthodox Christians.

Main Differences

The Russian Orthodox Church respects the Armenian Apostolic Church, but does not tolerate many of its aspects.

The Russian Orthodox Church considers the Armenian denomination, therefore people of this faith cannot be buried according to Orthodox customs, perform all the sacraments that Russian Christian Orthodoxy conducts, you cannot simply remember and pray for them. If suddenly Orthodox man will attend a service in the Armenian Apostolic Church - this is a reason for his excommunication.

Some Armenians take turns visiting temples. Today it is apostolic Armenian, the next day it is Christian. This cannot be done; you must decide on your faith and adhere to only one teaching.

Despite the contradictions, the Armenian Church forms faith and unity in its students, and treats other religious movements with patience and respect. These are the aspects of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Its difference from the Orthodox is visible and tangible. But each person has the right to choose for whom to pray and what faith to adhere to.

In 301, Armenia became the first country to adopt Christianity as a state religion. For many centuries there has been no church unity between us, but this does not interfere with the existence of good neighborly relations. At the meeting held on March 12 with the Ambassador of the Republic of Armenia to Russia O.E. Yesayan, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill noted: “Our relations go back centuries... The closeness of our spiritual ideals, the common moral and spiritual value system in which our peoples live are a fundamental component of our relations.”

Readers of our portal often ask the question: “What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Armenian Christianity”?

Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov,d Doctor of Theology, Head of the Department of Eastern Christian Philology and Eastern Churches of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological University answers questions from the portal “Orthodoxy and the World” about the pre-Chalcedonian churches, one of which is Armenian Church.

– Father Oleg, before talking about the Armenian direction of Monophysitism, tell us about what Monophysitism is and how it arose?

– Monophysitism is a Christological teaching, the essence of which is that in the Lord Jesus Christ there is only one nature, and not two, as the Orthodox Church teaches. Historically, it appeared as an extreme reaction to the heresy of Nestorianism and had not only dogmatic, but also political reasons.

Orthodox Church confesses in Christ one person (hypostasis) and two natures - divine and human. Nestorianism teaches about two persons, two hypostases and two natures. M onophysites but they fell to the opposite extreme: in Christ they recognize one person, one hypostasis and one nature. From a canonical point of view, the difference between the Orthodox Church and the Monophysite churches is that the latter do not recognize the Ecumenical Councils, starting with the IVth Council of Chalcedon, which adopted the definition of faith (oros) about two natures in Christ, which converge into one person and one hypostasis .

The name “Monophysites” was given by Orthodox Christians to the opponents of Chalcedon (they call themselves Orthodox). Systematically, the Monophysite Christological doctrine was formed in the 6th century, thanks primarily to the works of Sevirus of Antioch (+ 538).

Modern non-Chalcedonians are trying to modify their teaching, claiming that their fathers are unfairly accused of Monophysitism, since they anathematized Eutychus 1, but this is a change in style that does not affect the essence of the Monophysit doctrine. The works of their modern theologians indicate that there are no fundamental changes in their doctrine, no significant differences between the Monophysite Christology of the 6th century. and there is no modern one. Back in the 6th century. the doctrine of the “single complex nature of Christ” appears, composed of divinity and humanity and possessing the properties of both natures. However, this does not imply the recognition of two perfect natures in Christ - the divine nature and the human nature. In addition, monophysitism is almost always accompanied by a monophilite and mono-energist position, i.e. the teaching that in Christ there is only one will and one action, one source of activity, which is the deity, and humanity turns out to be its passive instrument.

– Is the Armenian direction of Monophysitism different from its other types?

- Yes, it’s different. Currently, there are six non-Chalcedonian churches (or seven, if the Armenian Etchmiadzin and Cilician Catholicosates are considered as two, de facto autocephalous churches). Ancients Eastern churches can be divided into three groups:

1) Syro-Jacobites, Copts and Malabarians (Malankara Church of India). This is the monophysitism of the Sevirian tradition, which is based on the theology of Sevirus of Antioch.

2) Armenians (Etchmiadzin and Cilician Catholics).

3) Ethiopians (Ethiopian and Eritrean churches).

The Armenian Church in the past differed from other non-Chalcedonian churches; even Sevier of Antioch itself was anathematized by the Armenians in the 6th century. at one of the Dvina Councils as an insufficiently consistent Monophysite. The theology of the Armenian Church was significantly influenced by aphthartodocetism (the doctrine of the incorruptibility of the body of Jesus Christ from the moment of the Incarnation). The appearance of this radical Monophysite teaching is associated with the name of Julian of Halicarnassus, one of Sevier’s main opponents within the Monophysite camp.

At present, all Monophysites, as the theological dialogue shows, come out from more or less the same dogmatic positions: this is a Christology close to the Christology of Sevier.

Speaking about the Armenians, it should be noted that the consciousness of the modern Armenian Church is characterized by pronounced adogmatism. While other non-Chalcedonian churches show considerable interest in their theological heritage and are open to Christological discussion, the Armenians, on the contrary, have little interest in their own Christological tradition. Currently, interest in the history of Armenian Christological thought is rather shown by some Armenians who consciously converted from the Armenian Gregorian Church to Orthodoxy, both in Armenia itself and in Russia.

– Is there currently a theological dialogue with the Pre-Chalcedonian churches?

- It is being carried out with varying success. The result of such a dialogue between Orthodox Christians and the Ancient Eastern (Pre-Chalcedonian) churches was the so-called Chambesian agreements. One of the main documents is the Chambesian Agreement of 1993, which contains an agreed text of Christological teaching, and also contains a mechanism for restoring communication between the “two families” of Churches through the ratification of agreements by the synods of these Churches.

The Christological teaching of these agreements aims to find a compromise between the Orthodox and Ancient Eastern churches on the basis of a theological position that could be characterized as “moderate monophysitism”. They contain ambiguous theological formulas that admit of a Monophysite interpretation. Therefore the reaction in Orthodox world there is no clear answer to them: four Orthodox Churches accepted them, some accepted them with reservations, and some were fundamentally against these agreements.

The Russian Orthodox Church also recognized that these agreements are insufficient to restore Eucharistic communion, since they contain ambiguities in Christological teaching. Continued work is required to resolve unclear interpretations. For example, the teaching of the Agreements about wills and actions in Christ can be understood both diphysitely (Orthodox) and monophysitely. It all depends on how the reader understands the relationship between will and hypostasis. Is the will considered as a property of nature, as in Orthodox theology, or is it assimilated into hypostasis, which is characteristic of Monophysitism? The Second Agreed Statement of 1990, which underpins the 1993 Chambesy Accords, does not answer this question.

With the Armenians today, a dogmatic dialogue is hardly possible at all, due to their lack of interest in problems of a dogmatic nature. After in the mid-90s. It became clear that the dialogue with the non-Chalcedonians had reached a dead end, the Russian Orthodox Church began two-way dialogues - not with all the non-Chalcedonian Churches together, but with each one separately. As a result, three directions for bilateral dialogues were identified: 1) with the Syro-Jacobites, Copts and the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, who agreed to conduct dialogue only in this composition; 2) the Etchmiadzin Catholicosate and 3) with the Ethiopian Church (this direction has not been developed). The dialogue with the Etchmiadzin Catholicosate did not touch upon dogmatic issues. The Armenian side is ready to discuss issues social service, pastoral practice, various problems of social and church life, but shows no interest in discussing dogmatic issues.

– How are Monophysites accepted today? Orthodox Church?

- Through repentance. Priests are accepted in their existing rank. This is an ancient practice; this is how non-Chalcedonites were received in the era of the Ecumenical Councils.

Alexander Filippov spoke with Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov.

I'm not God knows what kind of theologian.

Or rather, I am not a theologian at all. But every time I read in the blogosphere about the foundations of the Armenian church, the compiler, editor and a little author of the book “Applied Religious Studies for Journalists” begins to speak in me.

And now, in connection with the Christmas holiday, I decided to examine several of the most frequently encountered issues related to the Armenian Apostolic Church - the AAC.

Is the Armenian Church "Gregorian"?

Did the Armenians convert to Christianity in 301?

Is the AAC Orthodox?

Are all Armenians part of the AAC flock?

The Armenian Church is not Gregorian

The name "Gregorian" was coined in Russia in the 19th century, when part of Armenia was annexed to Russian Empire. It means that the Armenian Church originates from Gregory the Illuminator, and not from the apostles.

Why was this done?

And then, when the church originates directly from the apostles, this means that its origins go back directly to Christ. The Russian Orthodox Church can call itself apostolic with great stretch, because it is known that Orthodoxy came to Rus' from Byzantium, and relatively late - in the 10th century.

True, here the concept of the catholicity of the church comes “to the aid” of the Russian Orthodox Church, that is, its spatial, temporal and qualitative universality, which the parts possess to the same extent as the whole, that is, the Russian Orthodox Church, being one of the Orthodox churches, also seems to rise straight to Christ, but let’s not go too deep into theology - I noted this in fairness.

Thus, by making the Armenian church “Gregorian,” the Russian Empire (where the church was not separated from the state, and therefore the Russian Orthodox Church should have had all the advantages), seemed to deprive it of the grounds to elevate itself directly to Christ. Instead of Christ and his disciples-apostles, it turned out to be Gregory the Illuminator. Cheap and cheerful.

However, all this time the Armenian Church called itself the Apostolic Church (AAC), and it was and is called the same throughout the world - with the exception of the Russian Empire, then Soviet Union, well, and now Russia.

By the way, another misconception is connected with this, which has become very popular in recent years.

Armenians did not accept Christianity in 301

The teaching about the Son of God began to spread in Armenia in the first century, naturally, AD. They even say 1934, but I’ve seen articles that say it was apparently 12-15 years later.

And it was like that. When Christ was crucified, after which he died, resurrected and ascended, his disciples-apostles went to different lands to spread his teaching. We know that, for example, Peter in his travels reached Rome, where he died, and the famous Vatican Church of St. was built over his grave. Petra.

And Thaddeus and Bartholomew - two of the 12 first apostles - went to the northeast, to Syria, from where they soon reached Armenia, where they successfully spread the teachings of Christ. It is from them - from the apostles - that the Armenian Church originates. That is why it is called “apostolic”.

Both of them ended their lives in Armenia. Thaddeus was tortured: he was crucified and pierced with arrows. And it was on the very spot where the monastery of St. Thaddeus, or, in Armenian, Surb Tadei vank. This is in what is now Iran. This monastery is revered in Iran and thousands of pilgrims flock there every year. Relics of St. Thaddeus is kept in Etchmiadzin.

Bartholomew was also martyred. He brought the hand-made face of the Mother of God to Armenia and built a church dedicated to her. In 68, when the persecution of Christians began, he was executed. According to legend, two thousand Christians were executed along with him. Relics of St. Bartholomew is kept in Baku, since the place of execution was the city of Alban or Albanopol, which is identified as modern Baku.

So Christianity began to spread in Armenia in the first century. And in 301, King Trdat proclaimed Christianity, which had been spreading throughout Armenia for about 250 years, as the official religion.

Therefore, it is correct to say that the Armenians adopted Christianity in the middle of the first century, and in 301, Christianity was adopted in Armenia as the state religion.

Is the AAC Orthodox?

Yes and no. If we talk about the theological foundations of the teaching, then it is Orthodox. In other words, the Christology of the AAC, as current theologians claim, is identical to Orthodoxy.

Yes, because the head of the AAC - Catholicos Karekin II - himself recently stated that the AAC is Orthodox. And the words of the Catholicos are a very important argument.

No - because according to Orthodox doctrine, the decrees of the seven Ecumenical Councils that took place from 49 to 787 are recognized. As you can see, we're talking about about a very long history. The AAC recognizes only the first three.

No - because Orthodoxy is united organizational structure with their own autocephalies, that is, separate, independent churches. There are 14 recognized autocephalous churches, and there are also several so-called autonomous churches that are not recognized by everyone.

Why are the seven Ecumenical Councils so important? Because at each of them decisions were made that were important for Christian teaching. For example, at the first council they adopted the postulate that it was not necessary to observe certain Jewish rituals, at the second they adopted a creed (“creed”), at the third and fifth they condemned Nestorianism, at the seventh they condemned iconoclasm and separated the veneration of God and the worship of icons, and so on.

The Armenian Church accepted the decrees of the first three councils. The fourth ecumenical council, called the Council of Chalcedon, took place in 451. If you are familiar with the history of Armenia, then you will immediately remember that this year is known for the famous Battle of Avarayr, where Armenian troops led by Vardan Mamikonyan fought against Sasanian Persia for religious and state independence.

And since the clergy played the most important role during the uprising that ended with the Battle of Avarayr, as well as after it, the churchmen did not have the time or desire to send a delegation to the Ecumenical Council.

And this is where the problem turned out to be, because the Council adopted major decision about the essence of Christ. And the question was, is Christ God or man? If he was born of God, then, probably, he himself is also a god. But he was born from an earthly woman, therefore, he must be human.

One theologian, Nestorius from the city of Caesarea (Syria), argued that Christ is both God and man. These two essences coexist in one body due to the fact that it exists in two hypostases, which are in union and together create the “face of unity.”

And another - Eutychius from Constantinople - believed that Christ is God. And period. There is no human essence in him.

The Council of Chalcedon found a kind of middle line, condemning both the “right-wing” line of Nestor and the “left-wing opportunist” line of Eutyches.

The decisions of this council were not accepted by six churches: the Armenian Apostolic, Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox and Malankara Orthodox (in India). They began to be called “ancient eastern Christian churches", or "ancient Orthodox churches".

So, by this parameter, the AAC is an Orthodox Church.

All Armenians, by definition, are the flock of the AAC, just as all Jews are Jews.

This is also a misconception. Of course, the AAC is the largest and most influential church with two Catholicosates in Etchmiadzin and Lebanese Antelias. But she's not the only one.

There is an Armenian catholic church. In fact, this is a Uniate church, that is, a church that combines elements of Catholicism and the AAC, in particular, the Armenian rite of worship.

The most famous congregation of Armenian Catholics is Mkhitari with its famous monastery on the island of St. Lazarus in Venice. Churches and monasteries of Armenian Catholics exist throughout Europe, including in Rome and Vienna (oh, what a liqueur the Viennese Mekhitarists prepare...).

In 1850, Pope Pius IX established the Artvin diocese for Catholic Armenians. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the diocese disintegrated, leaving the flock in the care of the bishop who was in Tiraspol. Yes, yes, Moldavian and Romanian Armenians, just like Ukrainian ones, were also Catholics.

The Vatican even established an ordinariate for Catholic Armenians in Gyumri. In northern Armenia, Catholics are called “frang”.

There are also Protestant Armenians.

The Evangelical Armenian Church was established in Constantinople in the mid-19th century and now has parishes in the most different countries, uniting into three evangelical unions - the Middle East centered in Beirut, France (Paris) and North America(New Jersey). There are also many churches in Latin America, Brussels, Sydney and so on.

They say that Protestant Armenians are called “ynglyz,” but I haven’t heard that myself.

Finally, there are Muslim Armenians. A major event was recently held in Istanbul under the patronage of the Hrant Dink Foundation. scientific conference, dedicated to the Armenians who converted to Islam.

The Armenian Church is one of the oldest Christian communities. In 301, Armenia became the first country to adopt Christianity as a state religion. For many centuries there has been no church unity between us, but this does not interfere with the existence of good neighborly relations. At the meeting held on March 12 with the Ambassador of the Republic of Armenia to Russia O.E. Yesayan, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill noted: “Our relations go back centuries... The closeness of our spiritual ideals, the common moral and spiritual value system in which our peoples live are a fundamental component of our relations.”

Readers of our portal often ask the question: “What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Armenian Christianity”?

Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov, Doctor of Theology, Head of the Department of Eastern Christian Philology and Eastern Churches of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological University answers questions from the portal “Orthodoxy and the World” about the pre-Chalcedonian churches, one of which is the Armenian Church.

– Father Oleg, before talking about the Armenian direction of Monophysitism, tell us about what Monophysitism is and how it arose?

– Monophysitism is a Christological teaching, the essence of which is that in the Lord Jesus Christ there is only one nature, and not two, as the Orthodox Church teaches. Historically, it appeared as an extreme reaction to the heresy of Nestorianism and had not only dogmatic, but also political reasons.

Orthodox Church confesses in Christ one person (hypostasis) and two natures - divine and human. Nestorianism teaches about two persons, two hypostases and two natures. M onophysites but they fell to the opposite extreme: in Christ they recognize one person, one hypostasis and one nature. From a canonical point of view, the difference between the Orthodox Church and the Monophysite churches is that the latter do not recognize the Ecumenical Councils, starting with the IVth Council of Chalcedon, which adopted the definition of faith (oros) about two natures in Christ, which converge into one person and one hypostasis .

The name “Monophysites” was given by Orthodox Christians to the opponents of Chalcedon (they call themselves Orthodox). Systematically, the Monophysite Christological doctrine was formed in the 6th century, thanks primarily to the works of Sevirus of Antioch (+ 538).

Modern non-Chalcedonians are trying to modify their teaching, claiming that their fathers are unfairly accused of Monophysitism, since they anathematized Eutychus, but this is a change in style that does not affect the essence of the Monophysit doctrine. The works of their modern theologians indicate that there are no fundamental changes in their doctrine, no significant differences between the Monophysite Christology of the 6th century. and there is no modern one. Back in the 6th century. the doctrine of the “single complex nature of Christ” appears, composed of divinity and humanity and possessing the properties of both natures. However, this does not imply the recognition of two perfect natures in Christ - the divine nature and the human nature. In addition, monophysitism is almost always accompanied by a monophilite and mono-energist position, i.e. the teaching that in Christ there is only one will and one action, one source of activity, which is the deity, and humanity turns out to be its passive instrument.

– Is the Armenian direction of Monophysitism different from its other types?

- Yes, it’s different. Currently, there are six non-Chalcedonian churches (or seven, if the Armenian Etchmiadzin and Cilician Catholics are considered as two, de facto autocephalous churches). The ancient Eastern churches can be divided into three groups:

1) Syro-Jacobites, Copts and Malabarians (Malankara Church of India). This is the monophysitism of the Sevirian tradition, which is based on the theology of Sevirus of Antioch.

2) Armenians (Etchmiadzin and Cilician Catholics).

3) Ethiopians (Ethiopian and Eritrean churches).

The Armenian Church in the past differed from other non-Chalcedonian churches; even Sevier of Antioch itself was anathematized by the Armenians in the 4th century. at one of the Dvina Councils as an insufficiently consistent Monophysite. The theology of the Armenian Church was significantly influenced by aphthartodocetism (the doctrine of the incorruptibility of the body of Jesus Christ from the moment of the Incarnation). The appearance of this radical Monophysite teaching is associated with the name of Julian of Halicarnassus, one of Sevier’s main opponents within the Monophysite camp.

At present, all Monophysites, as the theological dialogue shows, come out from more or less the same dogmatic positions: this is a Christology close to the Christology of Sevier.

Speaking about the Armenians, it should be noted that the consciousness of the modern Armenian Church is characterized by pronounced adogmatism. While other non-Chalcedonian churches show considerable interest in their theological heritage and are open to Christological discussion, the Armenians, on the contrary, have little interest in their own Christological tradition. Currently, interest in the history of Armenian Christological thought is rather shown by some Armenians who consciously converted from the Armenian Gregorian Church to Orthodoxy, both in Armenia itself and in Russia.

– Is there currently a theological dialogue with the Pre-Chalcedonian churches?

- It is being carried out with varying success. The result of such a dialogue between Orthodox Christians and the Ancient Eastern (Pre-Chalcedonian) churches was the so-called Chambesian agreements. One of the main documents is the Chambesian Agreement of 1993, which contains an agreed text of Christological teaching, and also contains a mechanism for restoring communication between the “two families” of Churches through the ratification of agreements by the synods of these Churches.

The Christological teaching of these agreements aims to find a compromise between the Orthodox and Ancient Eastern churches on the basis of a theological position that could be characterized as “moderate monophysitism”. They contain ambiguous theological formulas that admit of a Monophysite interpretation. Therefore, the reaction in the Orthodox world to them is not clear: four Orthodox Churches accepted them, some did not accept them with reservations, and some were fundamentally against these agreements.

The Russian Orthodox Church also recognized that these agreements are insufficient to restore Eucharistic communion, since they contain ambiguities in Christological teaching. Continued work is required to resolve unclear interpretations. For example, the teaching of the Agreements about wills and actions in Christ can be understood both diphysitely (Orthodox) and monophysitely. It all depends on how the reader understands the relationship between will and hypostasis. Is the will considered as a property of nature, as in Orthodox theology, or is it assimilated into hypostasis, which is characteristic of Monophysitism? The Second Agreed Statement of 1990, which underpins the 1993 Chambesy Accords, does not answer this question.

With the Armenians today, a dogmatic dialogue is hardly possible at all, due to their lack of interest in problems of a dogmatic nature. After in the mid-90s. It became clear that the dialogue with the non-Chalcedonians had reached a dead end, the Russian Orthodox Church began two-way dialogues - not with all the non-Chalcedonian Churches together, but with each one separately. As a result, three directions for bilateral dialogues were identified: 1) with the Syro-Jacobites, Copts and the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, who agreed to conduct dialogue only in this composition; 2) the Etchmiadzin Catholicosate and 3) with the Ethiopian Church (this direction has not been developed). The dialogue with the Etchmiadzin Catholicosate did not touch upon dogmatic issues. The Armenian side is ready to discuss issues of social service, pastoral practice, various problems of social and church life, but shows no interest in discussing dogmatic issues.

– How are Monophysites accepted into the Orthodox Church today?

- Through repentance. Priests are accepted in their existing rank. This is an ancient practice; this is how non-Chalcedonites were received in the era of the Ecumenical Councils.

Alexander Filippov talked with Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov