From “The Byzantine Forum”:
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/410745/Re:_St._Gregory_of_Narek_-_Doc
“A friend has sent me a convincing explanation.
When a church enters communion with Rome, as did part of the Armenian church, the Holy See accepts as valid all of its spiritual and theological patrimony, including canonizations, so long as there is no explicit contradiction with Catholic doctrine.”
This is what happened when the Armenian Catholic Church was formed, regarding St. Gregory and his work.
It would also explain the other cases mentioned in this thread.
“Also, it appears, St. Gregory was persecuted in life for defending the Council of Chalcedon, which would also count in his favour.
It sounds convincing to me! Any one disagree?”
“It is probably highly unlikely that St Gregory of Narek defended the Council of Chalcedon - possible, but highly improbable.”
Barring a reliable source, I think the claim to his Chalcedonian sympathies is bogus. He would not be venerated as a saint by the Armenian Church if he had been defending a theological formula they had condemned. This sounds like something cooked up in an effort to explain why Catholics were being allowed to venerate a schismatic/heretic as a saint. Especially in the years before V-II that sort of thing would have raised a lot of eyebrows.