A second Armenian church: bridge or wound.
Armenian Catholics describe their church as Armenians in communion with the wider church; Armenian Apostolic writers have described the union of 1742 as a division worked by missionaries in a nation that could not afford one. Both churches buried their dead together in 1915, and both say so.
The Catholic Armenian community formed under Latin missionary influence in Aleppo, Constantinople and Cilicia from the seventeenth century, and the Ottoman authorities long refused to recognise it as separate from the Apostolic millet, which put its members in a difficult legal position until an Armenian Catholic millet was granted in 1830. Apostolic Armenian historiography treats the union as a wound inflicted on a small nation by outsiders; Armenian Catholic historiography treats it as a legitimate choice made under persecution from both sides. The two churches are not in communion and are not at war. Their bishops appear at each other's funerals and their laity intermarry freely.
The same ground, other faiths
claims that share this one's ideasSign in to open the first thread. Everything here is attributed.