Was the Newest Doctor of the Church a Heretic? Evaluating St. Gregory of Narek’s Writings

Five years ago, I wrote an article asking whether St. Gregory of Narek (or Grigor Narekatsi, 950-1003), an Armenian monk, the then newly announced doctor of the Church, was a Catholic. The answer is clearly that he was not, making him the first non-Catholic doctor of the Catholic Church. The question now is whether or not he held to heretical Christological beliefs related to monophysitism, holding that Christ took his human nature into his divine nature, making them as one. Although it is common to call speak of the Oriental churches, including the Armenian Apostolic Church, as monophysite (holding that the two natures of Christ fuse into one), they refer to themselves as miaphysites, holding rather that the two are natures are joined as one, though without confusion. I excerpt some of his writing below that touch on the issue of the Incarnation (if you are inclined to skip over the history). My goal is not to reach any conclusion but to call for greater study and clarification on St. Gregory of Narek’s Christology.

Brief Historical Background

There were questions surrounding his beliefs on the Incarnation at the time he was named a doctor of the Church, though these were brushed off pretty quickly. He belonged to the Armenian Apostolic Church, which rejected the Council of Chalcedon (451), which had defined that Christ was one person in two natures, at its own Councils at Dvin in 506, 555, and 607. Chalcedon’s definition was seen to be too closely akin to the heresy of Nestorius, alleging that Christ was two persons, with miaphysites insisting that Christ was one and could not be divided. Admittedly, misunderstandings about language and political intrigue played a role in the schism, leading the Copts of Egypt, the Western Jacobite Syrians, and the Armenians to break unity with the Church of Rome and Byzantium.

It has to be said that it’s fairly curious that a non-Catholic could be venerated as a saint at all, let alone become a doctor of the Church. This came about through the complicated history of the Armenian and Catholic Churches, with various reunions happening across various geographical spaces (the Armenians used to be very spread out), picking up steam, however, in the 18th century. With the official recognition of an Armenian rite of the Church (and the same could be said of other rites), there was a reintegration of a lost tradition, including all that has happened in the meantime. Thus, St. Gregory of Narek, who has not been canonized, became venerated within the Catholic Church through its Armenian rite.

On December 13, 1996, Pope St. John Paul II issued a joint statement with Karekin I, the Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church, seeking to overcome the Christological division, noting the influence of “linguistic, cultural and political factors.” Their common declaration states simply:

Perfect God as to his divinity, perfect man as to his humanity, his divinity is united to his humanity in the Person of the Only-begotten Son of God, in a union which is real, perfect, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without any form of separation.

Although the two Churches can move forward with greater understanding, the declaration still leaves us to sort out the past.

Excerpts from St. Gregory of Narek’s Writing

In that effort, what should we make of St. Gregory’s writings? What do they tell us about his beliefs? We know him mostly as a poet, albeit a deeply theological one whose poems are prayers. His most famous work is a collection of 95 poems, known as Book of Lamentations (or Book of Prayers). Here is an excerpt from poem 75 on the beliefs of the Armenian Church:

One of the exalted, the awesome name, partaker of the same honor, the same ineffable nature, the same substance of three conjoined lights, perfection to which nothing can be added, of his own free will reverently loving the Father, whose likeness he bears, with the aid of the Spirit of Holiness, who humbled himself and descended to earth, without diminishing his inherent glory, to enter the maternal womb of the immaculate Virgin, Mother of God, in whom he grew the seeds of blessings in that radiant field of purity, combining with the most perfect divine essence in an unfathomable unity, in a permeating union, he miraculously combined into his divinity the breath of our existence.

In this way, with the irresistible reins of his guiding bridle, he calmed [any] unruliness and willingly submitted to the cross. He rose like the flower of the fruit-bearing tree of life upon the stem of immortality. He was wounded, died without separating his divinity from the flesh that is the same as ours and suffering forever with his physical body, inseparable from the essence of the creatorship within him he brought life out of the instrument of defeat.

Gregory clearly uses language that would be avoided by Catholics following Chalcedon, such as combining, while also affirming that his flesh was the same as ours (which would appear to counteract any real mixing). This may indicate a delicate balance or a simple difference in the understanding of terms. [Please see Dr. Papazian’s very helpful clarification on the use of the word “combining” in this translation in the comment section below.]

In another poetic work, his “Encomium of the Virgin Mary,” we see him again addressing the nature of the Incarnation, while speaking to Mary:

For your role in the fulfillment of the miraculous, amazing word, is told again and again; for you gave birth to the unique Firstborn, to the one of divine essence. . . . He was not only a man pairing off the two (natures) but also (a divine being) submerging himself into the heavier, ordinary element. And in the union of the (divine) Person with the flesh, he not only appropriated (it) in his appearance but he also brought (it) into conjunction with the Three (divine) hypostases without confusion. Through his birth, the only Son, who is worshipped eternally, appropriated the nature of our kind (and) and brought the unequal (nature) to the throne at the right hand of the loving Father most high.

And the Coexistent with the Father above, who dwelt in you, was from eternity; and the one who was born from you in a jointed body had his origin before the morning star; wherefore he conjoined his one jointed body with the divine nature in an inseparable way and appropriated the throne of his father David forever. . .

O graceful, your holy chest, with a four-string necklace of clear beads, is occupied by the Son, combining in his body the Spirit of God, the one essence that weaves the Three.

The Festal Works of Gregory of Narek (Liturgical Press, 2018), 295-96 (recension A); 311, 316 (both from recension B).

We have lost a number of Gregory’s works, including biblical commentaries, but we do have his commentary on the Song of Songs. Commenting on the verse, “You belly is like a heap of wheat ringed with lilies” (7:2), he points to our treasure being in earthen vessels, “bearing the weighty and unbearable,” to show God’s power all the more. This point draws him once again to speak of Mary and the Incarnation:

The frail nature of the Theotokos, too, became the vessel and bearer of the unbearable nature of God’s word, combined with the flesh that derived from her.

The Blessing of Blessings, Grigor of Narek’s Commentary on the Song of Songs, (Liturgical Press, 2008), 173.

What Do We Make of This?

I am not claiming that this cursory exposition of select texts serves as a smoking gun to declare that our newest doctor of the Church a heretic. I do, however, think that the question of his Christological beliefs is worth asking and investigating more thoroughly. It would be important to answer it to inform Catholics on how to read him, what to take from him, and whether or not they should approach his writings with any caution. It is clear that it is a complicated question, not only because of the Christological agreement signed by John Paul II (was this just a big misunderstanding?) but also because of the nuances of Gregory’s own thought.

His complicated views are on display in the only significant work currently available in English on Gregory: Michael Papazian’s The Doctor of Mercy: The Sacred Treasures of St. Gregory of Narek (Liturgical Press, 2019). Papazian summarizes Gregory’s approach to the Christological split:

We have already seen that Gregory, in agreement with the general ecclesiology of the school of Narek, identifies the apostolic church not only with those who profess miaphysite Christology and do not accept Chalcedon, but also with the Chalcedonian Church. Unlike some miaphysite Armenian theologians who equate Chalcedonianism with Nestorius’ heretical teaching, Gregory realizes that Chalcedonian Christology is within the sphere of orthodoxy. He praises the Chalcedonian emperors Basil and Constantine and recognizes them as defenders of the faith. The oil of Confirmation unites all Christians into one body throughout the world without regard for ethnicity. . . .

Although Gregory acknowledges the unity of the universal church, embracing both Chalecedonian and miaphysite communities, he does not venture into questions of jurisdiction and primacy.

pp. 179, 180.

To take a good angle on this, we could say that Gregory could look beyond the semantics and politics that divided Christians (not seeing them as real or substantial doctrinal differences). Given the Christological agreement signed by John Paul II, he could be considered a forerunner to eventual reunion. On the other hand, he could be seen as relativizing theological precision in an age that already thinks it no longer matters. That would seem to constitute the opposite of the witness expected from a doctor of the Church, who should serve as a reference of clarity on the teaching of the Church.

As a doctor of the Church, St. Gregory of Narek clearly has much to teach us. His poetry is deeply moving, speaking of the power of grace to transform our weakness. As we continue to unpack his legacy within the Catholic Church, however, we will also need to address his teaching on the Incarnation of Christ, clarifying any ambiguities.