«Ուղղափա՞ր է Հայ Եկեղեցին»

The article by Karen Aghekyan and Giovanni Guaita is devoted to the question of the theological and terminological status of the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC) in the context of its self-definition as "Orthodox" and its relationship to the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and other Christian confessions.

Introduction and Methodology
The material takes the form of a dialogue between the journal's editor, K. Aghekyan, and the Italian specialist in the history and theology of the Eastern Churches, G. Guaita. The starting point is the concept of the "axis of reference" — an external object against which a community compares and defines itself. The authors trace the historical shifts of such an axis for the AAC: Byzantine Orthodoxy, then Rome, Protestantism in the nineteenth century, and, after the Armenian Genocide and the formation of the Spyurk (diaspora), Orthodoxy once again — now in its Russian form, which makes the topic especially relevant today.

Key Proposition
The central thesis of the dialogue is the distinction between the narrow (Slavic-Russian) and broad (Greek, Western) meanings of the term "orthodoxy." Guaita insists that, from a theological point of view, Armenians are Orthodox, since joint commissions of theologians in the twentieth century recognized the identity of the Christological faith of the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches, differing only in formulations.

Terminological Aspects
The key self-designations of the AAC are discussed:

"Ուղղափառ" (Orthodox) — indicates fidelity to the apostolic faith, rather than resemblance to the Greek-Slavic tradition;
"Apostolic" — emphasizes the continuity of apostolic succession and spirit;
the historical designation "Gregorian" is regarded as incorrect and reminiscent of names given to heresies after their founders.

Practical and Sociocultural Issues
Aghekyan emphasizes the risks associated with using the term "Orthodox" in relation to the AAC in the conditions of the diaspora, especially in the post-Soviet space: the blurring of confessional boundaries leads to assimilation, the baptism of Armenian children in the ROC, and the loss of one's own tradition, despite the formal tolerance of the hierarchies but the wariness of ordinary clergy. Guaita objects that renouncing the self-designation "Orthodox" out of fear of assimilation is tantamount to an actual renunciation of the faith, and that genuine Christian unity implies diversity, not uniformity.

Discussion of Catholicity
A separate topic is the comparison of the terms "catholic" and "orthodox": Guaita shows their original semantic coincidence (going back to patristic writings and to the historical self-designation of the ROC as "catholic"), while Aghekyan points to the pragmatic function of abandoning this designation — the desire to distinguish itself from Catholicism.

Conclusion
The dialogue concludes that, theologically, the AAC has every right to be called Orthodox by virtue of the identity of its faith with the Chalcedonian Churches; however, the practical use of this term in the diaspora requires caution: preserving the self-designation "Apostolic" appears to be the optimal way to simultaneously affirm the orthodoxy of the doctrine and protect the confessional and national identity of Armenians from assimilation.