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 Theological University, answers the questions of the Orthodoxy and World portal about 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 doctrine, 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 onophysite but they have fallen into 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 lies in the fact that the latter do not recognize the Ecumenical Councils, starting with the 4th Chalcedon, which adopted the definition (oros) of the two natures in Christ, which converge into one person and into 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 work of Severus of Antioch (+ 538).
Modern non-Chalcedonites are trying to modify their teaching, they argue that their fathers are accused of Monophysitism unfairly, since they anathematized Eutychus, but this is a change in style that does not affect the essence of the Monophysite doctrine. The works of their contemporary theologians testify that there are no fundamental changes in their doctrine, significant differences between the Monophysite Christology of the 6th century. and no modern. Back in the VI century. the doctrine of the “single complex nature of Christ” appears, which was composed of deity and humanity and possesses the properties of both natures. However, this does not imply the recognition in Christ of two perfect natures - the nature of the divine and the nature of man. In addition, Monophysitism is almost always accompanied by a Monophilite and Monoenergetic 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.– Does the Armenian direction of Monophysitism differ from its other types?
- Yes, it is different. There are currently six non-Chalcedonian churches (or seven, if the Armenian Catholicasates of Etchmiadzin and Cilicia are considered as two, de facto autocephalous churches). The ancient Eastern churches can be divided into three groups:
1) Syro-Jacobites, Copts and Malabars (Malankara Church of India). This is the monophysitism of the Severian tradition, which is based on the theology of Severus of Antioch.
2) Armenians (Etchmiadzin and Cilicia Catholicasates).
3) Ethiopians (Ethiopian and Eritrean churches).
The Armenian Church in the past differed from other non-Chalcedonian churches, even Sever of Antioch was anathematized by the Armenians in the 4th century. at one of the Dvina cathedrals as an insufficiently consistent Monophysite. The theology of the Armenian Church was significantly influenced by Aphthartodoketism (the doctrine of the incorruptibility of the body of Jesus Christ from the moment of the Incarnation). The emergence of this radical Monophysite doctrine is associated with the name of Julian of Halicarnassus, one of the main opponents of Severus within the Monophysite camp.
At present, all the Monophysites, as the theological dialogue shows, act from more or less the same dogmatic positions: this is a Christology close to the Christology of Severus.
Speaking about the Armenians, it should be noted that the consciousness of the modern Armenian Church is characterized by pronounced adogmatism. If other non-Chalcedonites of the church show considerable interest in their theological heritage and are open to Christological discussion, the Armenians, on the contrary, are little interested in their own Christological tradition. At present, 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 a theological dialogue with the Pre-Chalcedonian churches now?
- Conducted with varying degrees of 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 the Christological teaching, and also contains a mechanism for restoring communion 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 allow for a Monophysite interpretation. Therefore, the reaction in the Orthodox world to them is not unambiguous: four Orthodox Churches accepted them, some did not accept them with reservations, and some are fundamentally against these agreements.
The Russian Orthodox Church has also recognized that these agreements are not sufficient to restore Eucharistic communion, since they contain ambiguities in Christological teaching. Further work is required to eliminate ambiguous interpretations. For example, the teaching of the Covenants about wills and actions in Christ can be understood both diphysite (Orthodox) and monophysite. It all depends on how the reader understands the relationship between will and hypostasis. Is the will considered as an attribute of nature, as in Orthodox theology, or is it assimilated into a hypostasis, which is characteristic of Monophysitism. The Second Agreed Statement of 1990, which forms the basis of the 1993 Chambesia Accords, does not provide an answer to this question.
A dogmatic dialogue with the Armenians today is hardly possible at all, due to their lack of interest in problems of a dogmatic nature. After the mid 90s. it became clear that the dialogue with the non-Chalcedonites had reached a dead end, the Russian Orthodox Church began bilateral dialogues - not with all the non-Chalcedonian Churches together, but with each one separately. As a result, three directions for bilateral dialogues were determined: 1) with the Syrian-Jacobites, Copts and the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, who agreed to conduct a dialogue only in such a composition; 2) Etchmiadzin Catholicosate and 3) with the Ethiopian Church (this direction has not been developed). The dialogue with the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin 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 it does not show interest in discussing dogmatic issues.
– How are Monophysites accepted into the Orthodox Church today?
- Through repentance. Priests are received in their existing rank. This is an ancient practice, and this is how non-Chalcedonites were received in the era of the Ecumenical Councils.
Alexander Filippov spoke with Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov
Fragment of an article by VZ Hakobyan, Candidate of Historical Sciences.
The relationship between the ROC and the Russian state with the AAC changed at different stages and was often contradictory.
The dual attitude of Byzantium towards the Armenian civilization in general, and its Church, in particular, was introduced into the "caesar-papist" ( dependent on the imperial Byzantine Church)
Kievan Rus, where there were two centers (vertically - from top to bottom) of decision-making: princely (secular) and church. For secular authorities, which determined their attitude towards different peoples by their geopolitical significance for Russia, the Armenian factor until the 17th century. was irrelevant, since the Caucasian policy of Russia was only at the initial stage of formation. In this regard, the image of Armenia and its Church in Russia was created by the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). And this attitude, in turn, was formed under the influence of the Greek Church, for which the AAC was an obstacle in the struggle for the assimilation of the Armenian population of the Roman Empire.
Meanwhile, after the death of Byzantium (1453), the Armenian-Greek church disputes did not stop. The Ottoman government, without ceasing to pursue a policy of forcible Islamization and Turkization of the Christian population, could not but reckon with the rejection of this policy by the oppressed population. In an attempt to bring ethnic processes under state control, Sultan Mehmed II issued in 1476 a code of laws (“Kanun-name”), in which he established a special statute for non-Muslim religious communities. All Christian peoples were divided into two community-nations (“milleti”), Orthodox peoples (Greeks, South Slavs, etc.) were now considered as one community - “room milleti” (Roman, and in fact Greek, nation). It was led by the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople. The second community, the Armenian one, was also headed by the Armenian Patriarch, who was in Constantinople. Among the Jews, this role was performed by a Jewish rabbi. The head of the religious community in the Ottoman Empire was for his flock the arbiter of justice and an intermediary in relations with the highest imperial administration.
The Turkish government, with the help of the Patriarch of Constantinople, tried to extend its influence to Moscow, the only Orthodox state, and to prevent Russia from joining the European coalition against the Ottoman Empire. That is why, of the two Christian patriarchs, the Greek one enjoyed the special disposition of the Sultan. However, pursuing the “divide and rule” policy, the sultans often favored the Armenian patriarch, intensifying the jealousy of the Greek patriarch for the latter, and, as a result, the Greek hierarchs continued to accuse the Armenian Church of hereticism.
Thus, until the XVII century. including Moscow, which assumed the status of the Third Rome, could not but inherit such a segment of the Byzantine legacy as a negative view of the Armenian Church.
The attitude towards the AAC changed dramatically during the imperial period, when, on the one hand, the Armenian factor became relevant for Russia from a geopolitical point of view, and on the other hand, the ROC, which had merged with the state, had to determine its attitude towards the AAC from the position of a Caesarist state. And this position becomes positive. Peter the Great was little worried about the insignificant definitions in the interpretation of the nature of the Savior. It was important for him to advance the empire to the South, which was planned to be done using fellow Armenians, in whom Peter saw a reliable ally.
The new policy was expressed in the establishment in 1717 in Russia of the diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the center of which was Astrakhan, where there was a numerous Armenian colony that arose as early as the 13th century. In Astrakhan, Moscow and St. Petersburg, the construction of Armenian churches began, the registration of parishes.
After the death of Peter in the South, there is a weakening of foreign policy activity and, as a result, a temporary cooling in the AAC. Under Elizabeth, the attitude towards her was entrusted to the Synod. The latter, in relation to the AAC, again began to use the term "heresy". On January 16, 1742, the Empress issued a Decree on the abolition of Armenian churches in Russia.
With the accession to the throne of Catherine II, direct contacts are resumed between the Russian government and the Patriarchal throne in Etchmiadzin. On June 30, 1768, the Empress signed the Diploma sent to Catholicos Simeon Yerevantsi (1763-1780). It confirmed all the previous privileges in relation to the Armenians and their Church. The document reads: “We deign to the aforementioned Patriarch Simeon and the successors of his patriarch to the throne, who are found in our Russian Empire of the Armenian people and the law of people, due to spiritual circumstances and church rites, to have in their department, somehow it was before this.”
In 1768, Catholicos Simeon sent an embassy to St. Petersburg headed by Archimandrite David. The latter presented to the empress from the Armenian Church "the relics of the holy forerunner and baptist of the Lord, the holy martyr Ripsimia and the holy great martyr George .., part of Noah's ark." Ultimately, in 1773, the Empress restored the Russian diocese of the Armenian Church, which was headed by the prominent religious and public figure Joseph Argutinsky (1743-1801), who provided the Russian government with significant support in the annexation of the Crimea and the Caucasus. In connection with the resettlement of the Crimean Armenians to the Don in 1778 and the formation of several settlements, including the city of New Nakhichevan, this city becomes the largest center of the diocese, after which the diocese of the AAC in Russia will later be called.
A new stage in the policy of the Russian government towards the AAC begins during the annexation of the South Caucasus to Russia. As a result of the Russian-Iranian wars in the first third of the 19th century, Eastern Armenia (Karabakh, Yerevan, Nakhichevan) became part of the Russian Empire. As a result, the Etchmiadzin Patriarchal Throne ended up within the boundaries of the Russian state. On March 11, 1836, the government of Nicholas I adopted the "Regulations on the management of the affairs of the Armenian Gregorian Church in Russia", which provided the AAC with limited autonomy. At the time of the adoption of the Regulations, there were six dioceses of the AAC in the Russian Empire: Yerevan, Artsakh (Karabakh), Shirvan, Georgian, Bessarabia and Novo-Nakhichevan and Astrakhan. The last two dioceses were created in Russia proper.
The jurisdiction of the Bessarabian and Novo-Nakhichevan diocese passed Armenian churches located in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Little Russia, Crimea, Novorossia and the Don. The North Caucasus, the Volga region, Siberia and Central Asia remained under the jurisdiction of the Astrakhan diocese. Due to the fact that the diocese covered a vast territory, for the operational management of the Armenian churches of the Eastern Ciscaucasia, a subdivision of the Astrakhan diocese was created - the Kizlyar spiritual board, headed by a vicar.
In accordance with Art. 57 of the Regulations approved the structure of the dioceses of the AAC in Russia. They were headed by diocesan chiefs appointed "by the Sovereign Emperor from among the spiritual dignitaries of this confession." Diocesan chiefs “are determined and dismissed by the Highest Decrees. When they take office, they take an oath of allegiance to citizenship and service. In their activities they are "responsible" to the government and "their spiritual authorities" (Article 58). Within "the limits of their department, diocesan leaders consecrate the clergy to varying degrees, according to the Order of their Church" (Article 59). The regulation provided for the creation of “Armenian-Gregorian consistories” under each diocese, consisting of an archimandrite and three archpriests (or priests). They were chaired by the diocesan chief. Under the consi-story, an office was created (Articles 72-74).
The regulation contained a number of norms that contradicted the canonical structure and traditions of the AAC. The leadership of the Church was made dependent on the government. Thus, all the promises made to the church hierarchs, including Archbishop Nerses V Ashtaraketsi (elected in 1843 as Catholicos), about the independent status of the church were forgotten. In this regard, Catholicos Nerses V (1843-1857) tried to boldly defend the interests of the Church. On the contrary, Catholicos Matevos I (1858-1865) seemed to resign himself to the lowered status of the Church, which was not even in the Ottoman Empire.
In relation to the AAC, the tsarist government showed inconsistency. On the one hand, the geopolitical interests of Russia in the region forced the authorities to agree with the significant role of the Armenian Church in the public life of their people. But, on the other hand, the special status of the Church hindered the desire of the government to assimilate fellow believers. The confessional affiliation of the subjects of the Russian Empire actually determined the national one. In addition, the policy of the monarchy was influenced by the stateization of the Russian Orthodox Church. Some leaders of the Synod, when it was profitable, suddenly recalled the medieval theological “Greek-Armenian” disputes and tried to use elementary theological differences between the Armenian and Orthodox Churches as an excuse to abolish or limit the influence of the AAC.
In the early 60s, XIX century. together with the liberation of peasants from serfdom in the Russian Empire, a relatively liberal era begins in public life. In the same period, the role of the Armenian Church again increased in the development of the spiritual and cultural life of the people, to which Gevorg Kerestechyan, Patriarch of Constantinople (1813-1882), who was elected Supreme Patriarch of the Catholicos of All Armenians on September 17, 1866, and received approval from Emperor Alek - Sandra II. Having taken the name of Gevorg IV, the Catholicos begins to carry out deeds, for which he received the nickname of the Glorious. He managed to get permission from the government to open Armenian schools in places densely populated by Armenians, confirmation of the decrees of former emperors, which allowed churches to be erected and parish schools to be opened without hindrance.
The AAC was the main center of national enlightenment, a bastion against natural and consciously carried out assimilation. This role of the Church was well known not only by progressive thinkers, but also by some conservative metropolitan dignitaries. The latter sought to "bury" the independence of the Armenian Church by harsh administrative methods. But if for decades this was done gradually, step by step, then at the beginning of the 20th century. such a policy acquired an open and even aggressive character. The tsarist government, at the suggestion of the Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Plehve and the Caucasian governor G.S. Golitsyn, on June 12, 1903 adopted a discriminatory law “On the concentration of the management of the property of the Armenian Gregorian Church in Russia under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education, the funds and property of the aforementioned Church, which ensured the existence of the Armenian Gregorian church schools.”
On May 4, 1904, Plehve sent a secret circular to the leadership of the provinces and regions in the Caucasus. It stated: “By the highest command of October 1, 1903, a rule was established that, until the current laws on the management of the spiritual affairs of Christians of the Armenian Gregorian confession are revised, the spiritual authorities of this confession, when appointing diocesan vicars, members of consistories, the rector and pres- applicants of theological academies and seminaries, rectors of monasteries, as well as parish positions of rectors, deacons and clerks, were asked for consent: for vicars - the head of the Civil Division in the Caucasus, and for the rest - the governor or the corresponding official subject to the place of appointment " .
Specific instructions followed. In particular, it was instructed that “in case of detection of unauthorized appointment to such positions or admission to their temporary execution, take measures to prevent persons appointed outside the procedure established by the new law from exercising positions, with the removal of the appropriate subscription from them, and in case they fail to comply with the requirements of the local administration on this subject, report on their actions to the main Caucasian authorities.
The “school” problem here acted only as a cover, since the law encroached on most of the property of the entire Church, including all donations that, in the form of capital and real estate, came in favor of church institutions “nationalized” by the government. All classes of the Armenian society regarded the law as an act directed against the entire nation, which had always faithfully defended the interests of the Empire in the Caucasus. This was also the opinion of some far-sighted and liberal-minded Russian officials, who sharply opposed the measures proposed by Plehve and Golitsyn.
The authorities, inflicting a blow on the Armenian Church, counted on the traditional loyalty of the Armenians to the Russian emperor. Therefore, it was unexpected for her to take on a wide scale movement of all sections of Armenian society in defense of their Church and its (national) property. Despite the fact that the leadership of the Armenian Church at that time was more concerned about the events taking place in Western Armenia, which was part of the Ottoman Empire, where the Turkish government periodically carried out massacres of the indigenous population, Catholicos Mkrtich I Khrimyan (1821-1907) was the first raised his weighty voice in defense of the national Church. At that time, there was no end to the Armenian youth in the left parties. In Transcaucasia, in order to distract the Armenian people from speaking out in defense of their Church, the Armenian-Tatar massacre was provoked (then the current Azerbaijanis were called Caucasian Tatars).
By these and other ill-conceived actions, the government pushed the country towards revolution. The authorities began to realize this very belatedly, on August 1, 1905, Nicholas II signed a decree that actually repealed the law of June 12, 1903. In accordance with this act, the confiscated property was returned to the Church. The news of this was met with approval in the Armenian communities of Russia. The Catholicos sent a telegram to the emperor, expressing gratitude from all his flock and wishing "the speedy strengthening of the external world and inner peace."
The Armenian Church has more than once had to overcome the consequences of the “golitsyshtsin”, as well as the “unfortunate misunderstandings” that have repeatedly arisen. Nevertheless, these misunderstandings could not be compared with the bacchanalia that began after the October Revolution of 1917.
After the establishment of Soviet power, the AAC, like other religious organizations in Russia, was persecuted. In the 1920-30s. many clergymen, and especially representatives of the highest Armenian clergy, were repressed, as a result of which there was an almost complete liquidation of the structure of the Armenian Church on the territory of the RSFSR. Armenian churches in Armavir, Astrakhan, New Nakhichevan, Krasnodar, Stavropol, Holy Cross, Pyatigorsk, Grozny, Kizlyar, Mozdok and others were closed and then destroyed at different times. The surviving church buildings were turned into storage facilities.
The activities of the governing structures of the AAC on the territory of Russia were suspended. True, in 1962, at the Church National Council in Etchmiadzin, the Armenian churches were represented by two separate delegations: the diocese of Nor-Nakhichevan and the Moscow parish, the Soviet government, based on foreign policy interests, as well as with the aim of influencing the numerous foreign Armenian diaspora had to be relatively loyal to the AAC, the leadership of which was in Armenia in the city of Etchmiadzin. From 1955 to 1994, the AAC was headed by a prominent religious figure, Catholicos Vazgen I, despite the church schism, who enjoyed high authority in the Diaspora and was well known in the Christian world.
With the beginning of the collapse of the totalitarian system at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, religious life began to revive. Under the conditions of democratization of society, the ROC and the AAC, as well as all other church organizations, could determine their own life, without pressure from the state. Already the first steps of the leadership of the two Churches testified to the desire to establish truly fraternal relations.
Catholicoses Vazgen I, Garegin I (1995-1999) and Karekin II defined the intensification of dialogue with other Christian denominations for the unity of all Christians, especially Eastern Christians, which include both the Armenian and Russian Churches, as the most important task in their activities. . As early as August 30, 1992, in the Patriarchal Sermon to the Armenian People, Catholicos Vazgen I and Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia Garegin II emphasized: “History irrefutably testifies that the Christian Churches have always suffered from senseless inter-church strife, rivalry and the policy of proselytism. The page of "Byzantine disputes" in the book of life of the Christian Church has long been turned. The revival of the worst traditions of proselytism that have sunk into oblivion, fanning the flames of “Byzantine disputes” means that history has taught us nothing, and we do nothing to contribute to the unity of the Ecumenical Church of Christ and the common cause of enlightenment (by faith), which on the threshold of the 21st century is vitally important. significance for the fate of Christianity”.
The Armenian Church in the past, and especially in the present, considers it the most important task to educate its flock in love for the Russian Orthodox Church, which is dearest and closest to it among all the sister churches. Of paramount importance in their rapprochement were the regular meetings of the patriarchs of the Armenian and Russian Churches.
In January 1993, Catholicos Vazgen I visited Moscow and met with Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia, during which a joint statement was signed on the spiritual unity of the two Churches. The next step in strengthening this unity was the official visit to Armenia of Patriarch Alexy II.
On May 1, 1996, a solemn meeting of the two patriarchs took place in the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin. Catholicos Garegin I, in particular, noted: “Today, there is an urgent need for the development of fraternal relations between the two countries - the Russian Federation and the Republic of Armenia and our two Churches .. in order to withstand new tests in the conditions of independence in the period of formation democracy, trials that require our coordinated, coordinated actions. It is in what spirit and with what sincere thoughts we welcome you to this sacred and historical land and wish that during these two days of your stay with us, our Church and our people will taste your love and blessing, prayer and encouragement! May the Lord strengthen the Russian Orthodox Church and its believing people!
In response, the late Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II noted: “My heart fills with deep gratitude to God when I am on the sacred land of Armenia, where the preaching of the Word of God has sounded since ancient times. The Armenian Apostolic Church has a precious source of tradition for us, coming from the holy Apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew, St. Gregory the Illuminator and St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia... Centuries-old friendship, the roots of which date back thousands of years ago, binds the peoples and Churches of Armenia and Russia. We recall with gratitude the works of Armenian architects, whose skill adorned ancient Kiev with magnificent temples, and we sacredly honor the memory of the ascetics of faith and grace of the Armenian Church. For centuries, the Russian and Armenian Churches have shared with our peoples the joys and sorrows of a common historical destiny. The sons of the Armenian Apostolic Church worked hard for the good and prosperity of Russia, and many of them found shelter and protection there from the disasters that so often befell the long-suffering Armenian people... Bilateral fruitful cooperation between the Russian and Armenian Churches undoubtedly contributes to successful development of the theological dialogue between two closely related families-Churches”.
In the Cathedral of St. Etchmiadzin, the Catholicos of All Armenians, on behalf of the Armenian Church, solemnly handed over to Patriarch Alexy II the relics of the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called, which had been preserved in the Armenian Church for centuries. Patriarch Alexy II, accepting the relics of the Holy Apostle, uttered the following words: “Your Holiness! With a feeling of deep emotion, I accept from your hands, from the hands of the Primate of the Holy Armenian Apostolic Church, a particle of the relics of the Chief Apostle Andrew the First-Called. The apostle, who, according to Tradition, reached the borders of Russia and predicted the future of Christianity in Russia. In recent years, we have regained the relics of many ascetics of faith and deanery ... But the transfer by you of a particle of the relics of St. Apostle Andrew the First-Called is the pinnacle in this chain of gaining. We will reverently bring them to our land today for the worship of the believing people of our Church. And, praying before these holy relics and receiving prayer strengthening through the prayers of the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called, we will always remember with gratitude your spiritually invaluable gift. And, turning to the Lord in this touching and sacred moment, we ask the Lord Savior to keep the Holy Armenian Apostolic Church, its Primate, hierarchs, clergymen, believers and all the people of Armenia...”. The newly elected Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill has repeatedly spoken about the strengthening of fraternal relations between kindred Churches.
The fraternal relations that have developed between the two Churches have had a beneficial effect on the activities of the AAC in Russia. Back in August 1991, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation registered the Novo-Nakhichevan and Russian Diocese of the AAC (with its center in Moscow), whose divisions were vicariates. So, in the South of Russia, by decision of Catholicos Vazgen I, two vicariates were created: Rostov (uniting the church communities of the Rostov region and the Volga region) and North Caucasian (communities of the regions and republics of the North Caucasus).
On January 13, 1997, by a special Kontakion (Decree) of Catholicos Garegin I, the Diocese of the South of Russia of the AAC was formed, headed by Bishop Yeznik Petrosyan, Doctor of Theology. Since 1999 this diocese has been headed by Bishop Movses Movsesyan. Krasnodar was determined to be the center of the episcopal throne of the new diocese, to which the Armenian churches of the North Caucasus are subordinate. The Constituent Assembly elected a diocesan council, the highest body of this regional church association.
Thus, since 1997, two dioceses of the AAC have been operating in Russia: Nor-Nakhichevan and Russian (Moscow) and South of Russia (Krasnodar), in their church and communal life guided by diocesan charters, developed in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the AAC and with taking into account the laws on cults of the Russian Federation.
At the beginning of the new third millennium, the existing good relations between the Churches close to each other are filled with new content. This is especially felt in the activities of the Armenian dioceses in Russia. Almost all church events held in the Russian Federation were held with the joint participation of Armenian and Russian priests: consecrations of churches, anniversaries and memorable dates, peacekeeping missions, etc. Russian and Armenian clerics have always had a unified position on the problems of settling ethnic conflicts.
Many people from school know about the split of Christianity into Catholicism and Orthodoxy, as this is included in the course of history. From it we know about some of the differences between these churches, the prerequisites that led to the division, and the consequences of this division. But few people know what are the features of many other types of Christianity, which, for various reasons, separated from the two main currents. One of the churches that are close in spirit to the Orthodox, but at the same time, are completely separate, is the Armenian Apostolic Church.
The Orthodox Church is the second largest branch of Christianity after Catholicism. Despite the frequent misconception, the split of Christianity into Catholicism and Orthodoxy, although it has been brewing since the 5th century A.D. e., occurred only in 1054. 
The unofficial division of spheres of influence led to the emergence of two large regions of Europe, which, due to religious differences, took different paths of development. The Balkans and Eastern Europe, including Russia, fell into the sphere of influence of the Orthodox Church.
The Armenian Apostolic Church arose much earlier than the Orthodox. So, already in the year 41, it acquired some autonomy (an autocephalous Armenian church), and officially separated in 372 due to the rejection of the Chalcedon Ecumenical Council. Notably, this schism was the first major division in Christianity.
As a result of the Chalcedon Cathedral, four more churches stood out along with the Armenian one. Five of these churches are geographically located in Asia and northeast Africa. Subsequently, during the spread of Islam, these churches were isolated from the rest of the Christian world, which led to even greater differences between them and the Chalcedonian churches (Orthodoxy and Catholicism). 
An interesting fact is that the Armenian Apostolic Church became the state religion as early as 301, that is, it is the first official state religion in the world.
Common features
Despite such an early separation from the united Christian movement, there has always been a cultural exchange between the Armenian and Orthodox churches. This is due to the fact that the partial isolation of Armenia during the spread of Islam separated it from a significant part of the Christian world. The only "window to Europe" remained through Georgia, which by that time had already become an Orthodox state.
Thanks to this, one can find some common features in the vestments of clergymen, the arrangement of temples, and in some cases architecture.
Difference
Nevertheless, it makes no sense to talk about the relationship between the Orthodox and Armenian churches. It is worth at least remembering the fact that the Orthodox Church in our time is very heterogeneous in its internal structure. So very authoritative, practically independent of the Ecumenical Patriarch (the formal head of the Orthodox Church), is the Russian Orthodox, Jerusalem, Antioch, Ukrainian churches.
The Armenian Apostolic Church is one, even despite the presence of the autocephalous Armenian Church, because it recognizes the patronage of the head of the Apostolic Church.
From here you can immediately go to the question of the leadership of these two churches. So the head of the Orthodox Church is the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church is the Supreme Patriarch and the Catholicos of all Armenians.
The presence of completely different titles for the heads of the church indicates that these are completely different institutions.
It is impossible not to note the difference in the traditional architecture of these two churches. Thus, Armenian cathedrals imagine the continuation and further development of the traditional oriental school of construction. This was largely influenced not only by cultural background, but also by climate and basic building materials. Armenian churches, which were built in the Middle Ages, as a rule, are squat and have thick walls (the reason for this was that they were often fortifications).
Although Orthodox churches are not an example of European culture, they look completely different from Armenian ones. They usually stretch upwards, their domes are traditionally gilded.
Ceremonies differ radically, as well as the time of holidays and fasts at these churches. So, the Armenian rite has a national language, sacred books. It accepts a different number of people than in the Orthodox. Remarkably, the latter still does not have such a connection with the people, which is primarily due to the language of worship.
Finally, the most important difference, which was the reason for the Chalcedonian schism. The Armenian Apostolic Church is of the opinion that Jesus Christ is one person, that is, he has a single nature. In the Orthodox tradition, it has a dual nature - it combines both God and man.
These differences are so significant that these churches considered each other as heretical teachings, and mutual anathemas were imposed. Positive changes were achieved only in 1993, when representatives of both churches signed an agreement.
Thus, the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Orthodox Church have the same origins, and also differ to a lesser extent from each other than the Armenian from the Catholic or the Catholic from the Orthodox, in fact, they are different and completely independent spiritual institutions.
The influence of the Internet on a person
Types of seizures Tonic-clonic seizures in children
Profession Internet project manager
best remedy for prostatitis
Symptoms and treatment of mastopathy of the mammary glands