Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

St. Gregory Of Narek - Newest Doctor Of The Church


Luigi

Recommended Posts

truthfinder

I was going to reply to this last week, but lost the chance.

If anyone is curious, my priest is not in favour of St. Gregory of Narek being named a doctor of the Church.

​Pray tell...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nihil Obstat

​Pray tell...

​Not a whole lot to tell. Fr. M said that even though he was probably quite holy, and probably in heaven, the fact that he belonged to a formally monophysite Church makes him being a doctor rather problematic. Showed the progression between sentimentalism and simple relativism, and contrasted it with the necessity of being faithful to the doctrines of the Church.

And then Murray spent all evening checking if any of us are monophysites. :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Not a whole lot to tell. Fr. M said that even though he was probably quite holy, and probably in heaven, the fact that he belonged to a formally monophysite Church makes him being a doctor rather problematic. Showed the progression between sentimentalism and simple relativism, and contrasted it with the necessity of being faithful to the doctrines of the Church.

And then Murray spent all evening checking if any of us are monophysites. :|

​I see this as setting a precedent for honoring and perhaps even canonizing non-Catholics. Remember, the great anniversary of the Reformation is just around the corner, and in the spirit of Ecumenism, we will want to reconcile and recognize saints in other denominations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nihil Obstat

​I see this as setting a precedent for honoring and perhaps even canonizing non-Catholics. Remember, the great anniversary of the Reformation is just around the corner, and in the spirit of Ecumenism, we will want to reconcile and recognize saints in other denominations. 

​Yuck. I sure hope that is not the case. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Yuck. I sure hope that is not the case. :)

​Me too, brother, we'll have to wait and see. I'm sure something very special is ahead for us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

truthfinder

​Not a whole lot to tell. Fr. M said that even though he was probably quite holy, and probably in heaven, the fact that he belonged to a formally monophysite Church makes him being a doctor rather problematic. Showed the progression between sentimentalism and simple relativism, and contrasted it with the necessity of being faithful to the doctrines of the Church.

And then Murray spent all evening checking if any of us are monophysites. :|

​K, that's what I assumed would have been the probable objection.  And to the latter, I just snorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why is he a Doctor? 

​Because he wrote a book about prayer. Mystical relationship with God. It was one of the earliest works on prayer. ABOUT prayer. Not just a book OF prayers. 

Basically the same reason Teresa of Avila is a Doctor of the Church. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This puzzled me too.  (I don't object but I did find it curious.)

As far as I can tell, this is possible because a branch of the Armenian Church came into full communion with the See of Rome in the 18th century.  So there is now an Armenian Catholic Church (similar to Maronites, Melkites, Byzantines, etc.)  When that happens, you get to bring your old saints along with you.  So that's why Gregory counts -- he was already on the list of Catholic saints before this.  And while he's the first Doctor of the Church in that situation, there are other Catholic saints on the books in a similar situation.  Isaac the Syrian lived and died in the Nestorian church.

Also, the Oriental Orthodox Churches aren't quite monophysite but "miaphysite" and while I for one can't parse through all the distinctions here, in the 1980s Pope John Paul II issued a joint declaration with an Oriental Orthodox patriarch declaring that this is basically two ways of saying the same thing, the differences between the churches were far more cultural and political than theological, and the miaphysite/diaphysite ways of expression should not be considered barriers to unity.

Meanwhile, it is also relevant that none of Gregory's writings deal with monophysitism, miaphysitism, or any other sort of physitism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...