"The Intertwining of Crowns: Christian and National"

The article "Interlacing Crowns: The Christian and the National" continues a discussion on the relationship between the confessional identity of the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC) and the commonly accepted terminology of "Orthodoxy," a discussion begun earlier in a conversation with Giovanni Guaita. Participating in this new exchange are Hieromonk Ghevond Hovhannisyan (Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem) and Alexander Kananyan, with K. Agekyan serving as moderator.

Introduction and Methodology
The material is structured as a dialogue in which theological, terminological, and practical aspects of the question are examined in turn: can and should the AAC be called "Orthodox" in the sense in which that word is used within the Byzantine tradition?

Theological Position
Hieromonk Ghevond distinguishes between a narrow (historical, patristic) and a broad (confessionally exclusive) understanding of "Orthodoxy":
• The AAC possesses all the classical properties of the Church — Unity, Catholicity, Apostolicity, Holiness — which constitute its genuine orthodoxy.
• After the Council of Chalcedon, the term "Orthodoxy" became a marker of belonging to a particular Christological tradition distinct from the Armenian one.
• Ascribing this term to the AAC in its narrow sense would effectively erase Christological and cultural differences and would create fertile ground for believers to imperceptibly renounce their own heritage.

Terminological Analysis
Alexander Kananyan develops the problem on a historical-philological plane:
• He shows that the concept of "orthodoxy" historically claimed to be a common property of all apostolic Churches — including the Catholic, Nestorian, and even the Armenian Catholic hierarchy.
• He traces the evolution of Catholic terminology in relation to the Eastern Churches — from "schismatic Greeks" to "separated brethren" and further to "Orthodox" after the Second Vatican Council — as an example of a politically conditioned change of language.
• He notes the existence of parallel transcriptions of one and the same concept (cafolic/catholic, Կաթողիկէ/կաթոլիկ) as an instrument of confessional demarcation.

The National-Religious Aspect
Both authors point to the practical consequences of terminological unification for the Armenian diaspora, especially in Russia:
• The absence of Armenian patristic literature in Russian pushes believers who call themselves "Orthodox" toward assimilating exclusively the Russian theological tradition.
• The conflation of confessional and national identity ("Orthodoxy" as a national trait of Russians) leads to the gradual loss of Armenian identity among the descendants of assimilated believers.
• Recognition of identity with Byzantine Orthodoxy would be perceived by society as an implicit admission of the inferiority or "error" of the AAC.

Conclusion
The article's key conclusion is that the AAC's refusal to adopt the self-designation "Orthodox" is not a departure from the true faith, but rather serves as a protective mechanism for preserving its own Christological, liturgical, and national identity. Terminological precision is regarded as a condition for counteracting the spiritual and national assimilation of Armenians, above all under the conditions of the diaspora.