The recent declaration of Gregory of Narek as a Doctor of the Church universal raises important questions about ecclesial unity, ecumenism, papal authority, and the very nature of Christ. As one blogger* described the quandary:
The [Armenian Orthodox Church], the body to which Gregory belonged, has formally and persistently rejected the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, was not in communion with Rome during Gregory’s life, and highly venerates Gregory, who was (as Ann Barnhardt strongly emphasizes) a miaphysite. … So, a saint venerated in a fellowship that has for centuries rejected Chalcedon–a council universally binding on the Catholic Church–is considered a Doctor of the Catholic Church. Are there any other councils that one might reject while still enjoying exemplary ecclesial status–say, Trent or Vatican II?
*Full Disclosure: I am “one blogger,” but I want to open this discussion up to a wider audience. What does this portend for ecumenical relations? Were you already familiar with Gregory of Narek? (I was not.) Does this declaration deepen your sense of the word “Catholic”–or complicate it? What does this tell us about Pope Francis’s passion for the “ecumenism of blood” and how should we understand that phrase as Catholics?
I’d especially like to hear from Eastern Catholics or Eastern and Oriental Orthodox readers, if such there be.
We need to get this hammered out quickly, by the way, since Gregory’s memorial will be upon us February 27!  🙂
It is quite difficult to take seriously Gregory’s elevation; a doctor of the Church is an “ecclesiastical writer” who has “received this title on account of the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine.” (Cath. Encyc.) But what did Gregory write that is of importance? What was his doctrine? What advantage has the Church accrued from it? One might expect Francis to tell us, but nary a word so far. The whole thing looks more like a political move.
As far as politics and “optics” go, keep in mind that this comes only days after the 21 Copts were executed and only weeks before the centenary of the Turkish genocide of Armenians. At the same time, this was cause was afoot well before Francis was elected.
Was it afoot well before Francis was elected? Whence do we learn that? I haven’t seen that in any of the coverage.
I heard from a little birdie that Amato played a key role, so I looked into it. This is from 21 August 2011: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1349083?eng=y. What catches the eye is the timing, not the cause. As one friend put it, this is completely Ratzingerian in nature, but–I added–Bergoglian in display.
I have been thinking the same thing. Even some of the other Doctors of the Church added since Catherine of Siena don’t quite seem to fit the bill. When one thinks of how powerfully Augustine or Aquinas or Bellarmine have influenced the church with their doctrine…how do Hildegard, Brindisi, or John of Avila get placed on the same list? (Despite their personal excellence and holiness, which no one questions.) Even Therese of Lisieux, whom I love, seems an odd choice.
Yet this is the oddest to date. How are we supposed to simultaneously hold that Narek added “great advantage to the whole Church” while 99% of knowledgeable Catholics are saying “Narek who”?
I’ve got a copy of his prayer book arriving in a few days, so I’m willing to give him a fair shake and benefit from his praised writings, but I agree: this all seems pretty treacly, and only accelerates the trend you mention.
It wasn’t until researching this issue that I became truly cognizant that Benedict had made two new Doctors not so long ago. I’d heard it, of course, but it never sank in, mainly because so much NOISE has been coming out of Rome for so long.
Simmer down, guys. Less is more. Let’s have a year of getting to know the old Doctors before piling on new strangers. Hildegard von Bingen–we need another female Doctor, quick! John of Avila–we need a Doctor who was jailed by the Inquisition, sweet! (The curious Ratzingerian restoration of Rosmini and de Chardin, anyone?)
They don’t make doctors like they used to, I guess. Sigh.
Does the Church really have to do EVERYTHING so quickly these days? I’m convinced the V in V2 doubles for Velocity.
“Yet this is the oddest to date. How are we supposed to simultaneously
hold that Narek added “great advantage to the whole Church” while 99% of
knowledgeable Catholics are saying “Narek who”?”
Yes, because choosing Doctors of the Church should be on the basis of popularity.
St. Gregory of Narek, Doctor of the Church, pray for us!
The point is not popularity, but that it’s an open question how much of a teacher (doctor) Gregory has really been and ought to be for the Church as a whole. As things stand, he’s sort of the ACA of Doctors: we have to pass him to know what’s in there (i.e. how he can function as a universal teacher), care of the ongoing Project Saint All The Things.
IOW, let me ask you this: based on the logic of this elevation, what prevents Photius or Palamas … or even Arius or Nestorius… from being similarly honored? After all, this is not a formal canonization, nor an embrace of his christological or ecclesial defects, just a recognition of the reverence Gregory Narek enjoys in one “tile” of the Christian “polyhedron”, and a recognition of how he “enriches the theological dialogue” with the different-but-not-therefore-wrong-mmkay “perspective” he has of “the Great Tradition”? He’s a beautiful bird singing on one of the Church’s many “branches”, you see, so it behooves Rome to honor him as a sign of “unity in pluriformity”, right? Yay Anglicanism.
I’ve seen people argue that other saints didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception or papal infallibility as defined or in the official biblical canon, etc., but these are all red herrings, since those saints lived before having the chance to accept or reject a formal definition of the Magisterium. The Armenians are different, and Gregory was an Armenian. Sure, there have been some groovy joint statements, yet, strangely enough, no formal reunion with Rome, almost as if the current hierarchy believed that truth could be enjoyed in the abstract, devoid of real, visible union. One-ish, Holy, Pluriform and Synodal Church.
Not popularity. But membership, that would be nice.
I’m not sure whether the terms “Monophysite” and “Miaphysite” are interchangeable or whether there is a fine distinction (both “mono” and “mia” signify one). I do know, however, that scholars now generally agree that the difference between the Chalcedonian position (held by the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches in communion with Constantinople) and that of the Oriental Orthodox (Armenian Apostolic and Coptic Orthodox churches) was basically one of terminology, not theology. In the 4th and 5th centuries, the bishops and theologians lacked a standard philosophical vocabulary for resolving the controversy. Today both sides recognize the other’s Christology as orthodox, albeit formulated in different terms. A joint Christological declaration between the Catholic Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church was signed in 1996, effectively ending the dispute. The same holds for the “Nestorian” or Assyrian Church of the East: a joint declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church was signed in 1994. (Ephrem the Syrian is recognized as a saint and doctor, and he flourished after the Assyrian Church had cut itself off from Catholic unity.) That said, there remains the question of ecclesial communion. A post on Rorate Cæli (2/23) rightly notes that Gregory lived at a time when the Armenian Church was not formally in communion with Rome and Constantinople, but adds that “one cannot always speak straightforwardly of ‘schism’ and ‘heresy’ when dealing with the theological and ecclesiastical divisions of Christendom” in the first millennium.” Or indeed even the second millennium in some instances. Friendly relations between Orthodox and Catholics continued in some areas as late as the 18th century. Orthodox bishops occasionally invited the Jesuits to preach, hear confessions, and open schools in Orthodox lands. The two sides were (and remain) formally in schism but not always in practice.
If I may ask Father, how does it happen that today we look at such issues that divided us and are frequently discovering (most conveniently) that “both meant the same thing”? Maybe it is just me, but I find it awfully suspicious unless I am to believe that our ancestors were ignorant people who were just looking for reasons to disagree.
I feel that there were indeed real difference in thought, a difference so vast and dangerous to the faith that it was considered to be error/heresy. At the very least, it must be true that the language used by one side lends itself to a heretical interpretation. Either way, it would seem more prudent to correct the language than sign a joint declaration that we both mean the same thing.
Speaking of joint declarations, I believe there was one with Lutherans a bit before that too. But it would be blatant dishonesty to therefore say that Protestants never held a position that was in error in that regard. Actually, I am not even sure it can be said that they hold a Catholic view of salvation even now. The joint declaration, at least in the Lutheran case, feels like a completely political move that is devoid of any real basis. So maybe the 1996 one is just as dishonest. (Also, does the existence of a joint Lutheran declaration mean that we will see Luther or one of his learned followers given the title “Doctor of the Church”?)
But I do agree with what you said about friendly relations existing between Churches even in schismatic time periods.
“A number of things started raising this issue of justification again in my mind. One was this joint declaration where the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church had stated that the differences on justification weren’t that significant. I don’t in the end agree with what they said.” —Robert C. Koons
Fr. Kocik, I’m not finding information to support the claim that St. Ephrem belonged to the Assyrian Church, and in any case, he lived before Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, so I don’t see how his communion could have been schismatic from anything (unless the claim is that Ephrem didn’t even accept Nicea!). Could you provide more information about the schismatic provenance of St. Ephrem?
Fr. Kocik, I’m very sure, was thinking of St. Isaac the Syrian; ‘Ephrem’ was a slip.
But St. Ephrem is a good example on another issue that came up below; when he was named Doctor of the Church, he was hardly ever read in the West, and there were only a few scattered translations of a very small number of works in any language. Nonetheless, he was of extraordinary importance for Syriac liturgy and prayer.
Brandon, thank you, this comment helped something “click” for me.
My mistake. (Good catch, Elliot.) The Council of Ephesus took place in 431 — 58 years after Ephrem’s death. In his lifetime, the Assyrian/Persian “Church of the East” was not in schism. I did mean Ephrem (not Isaac), and I was mistaken.
I am an Armenian baptised and chrismated in the Armenian Apostolic Church and entered into the Roman Catholic Church about ten years ago. I am so happy that Gregory of Narek has become a Doctor of the church. Although I was drawn to become a Roman Catholic, I don’t feel a strong separation between the Armenian faith and the Roman Catholic in the actual community of believers, in the love of God which is tangibly present there. Thanks be to God for this blessing.
I am starting to think that this is like the canonization trend. Only thing that can be taken away from giving the title of “doctor” is that they made it to heaven (assuming it also is an automatic canonization). As for the value in the actual writings of that person or the value of the person’s life as an example to imitate, they are probably not the best examples one can provide as usual.
That seems to be the trend in the Church. More often, less than perfect writings, instructions, practices, and persons to imitate, are usually what we seem to receive since Vatican II (perhaps, including it too). Maybe it is God’s will.
I guess the positive way of looking at it is that at least we have someone more we know who we can ask to intercede on our behalf 🙂
intercede on our behalf, 😉
It seems that this figure is very important in the East. Might this be a case of our being Romano-centric in a sense? Perhaps we must consider giving ourselves an opportunity to “breathe with both lungs” as Saint John Paul II wished? (Stop and consider: Were it not for this “meddlesome” Polish pope, we likely would not be benefiting from St. Kolbe or St. Faustyna and the “Divine Mercy” at this time. The west tends to forget that it is not the center of the universe.)
Just as an aside: I’ve looked up his book of prayers and have found the meat I was seeking for my Lenten meditations: one can almost smell the incense off of these reverent and ascetic meditations.
Another aside: I can’t help but think that in our anti-ascetic and anti-reverent times, seeking greater unity and understanding with the East (Catholic and otherwise) might be just what the doctor ordered for both “sides.” Indeed, in my own field of music, it is the EAST which has given us the composers which have lead the way towards Roman Catholics also beginning to reclaim their religio-aesthetic heritage. Arvo Part may be Orthodox, but he was in the front row during Pope Benedict XVI’s last international meeting of artists.