Hello,
I am a Roman Catholic who is discerning marriage with a Coptic Orthodox woman. For a few reasons, we are thinking it more likely that our wedding would be in the Catholic Church than in the Coptic Church.
I have two questions on this for the forum members here:
1) If she marries in the Catholic Church, how will that affect her relationship with the Coptic Church? I assume that, as with Roman Catholics in civil “second marriages”, she will be seen as living in a state of obstinate grave sin, and thus will be a de facto excommunicate, which will bar her from receiving communion in the Coptic Church. Are there significant social stigmas attached to this? e.g., if we go to church on Christmas with her family, other than her not receiving communion, will it be awkward for her/us?
2) The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the sacraments from all Orthodox traditions as valid, as a consequence of which any Coptic Orthodox Christian may, canonically, partake of communion in a Catholic Church. This may sound like a silly question, but would my accepting initiation in the Coptic Church imply a rejection of my own Catholic beliefs? How offensive to the Coptic Church would it be for me to receive Coptic initiation and to wed in the Coptic church but then continue living as a Roman Catholic? (I assume that the answer is “deeply so”, but I wanted to float the question anyway.)
Thank you in advance for any considered responses. My exposure to Coptic Christianity has been a fascinating one; I hope that someday our divisions will soften.
Comments
Thank you for replying.
Regarding #1, are you sure that attendance at any Coptic liturgical service is forbidden for an excommunicate? I have attended Coptic services before; was I welcomed because I was merely an outsider—as opposed to being one who has deliberately rejected union with the Coptic Church? Or do you mean merely that “people will talk”, and a significant number of them may express disdain for her being there?
From my own Catholic perspective, our marriage in a Catholic church would not be a “workaround”, as our theology can perceive divine action in a marriage between a Catholic and a Christian of a different theological tradition. (Don’t shoot the messenger!) We also see the differences between our Church and yours as less substantial than many (most?) Copts seem to see them—ergo why we can permit all Orthodox to communion, even as we cannot extend the same welcome to Protestants.
An additional question, if I may: do Copts believe that anyone outside an Orthodox Christian tradition is damned, ipso facto?
I don’t know that Rome so much “considers some differences and ignores others” as that we acknowledge valid Apostolic succession in the Orthodox Churches in a way that Protestants cannot claim to have. I believe this is not new since the 20th century; for example, there was a motion among 19th-century Anglicans to assert that their clerical orders were just as valid per Roman standards as those of the Orthodox. (Rome didn’t think much of that idea, as you might imagine!)
For us, at least, a sacrament is a sacrament per its form merely. For example, I can baptize anyone, such as in a state of emergency, even regardless of whether they desire it or not. That’s definitely not normal for us :), but it’s consistent with the idea that the sacrament is efficacious independent of the individual’s action/thought or lack thereof: it’s God who works rather than we. Likewise, even as we see in Coptic Christianity discord on several areas of doctrine, the “matter” of the Apostolic succession is still there; likewise, ordinations, the Eucharist, and so forth.
@Zoxsasi: The differences are far more than just Filioque and purgatory; they include the nature of Petrine primacy, the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, and, of course, questions on the nature of Christ—the last of which also being a matter of discussion between Oriental and Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches. There are many on both sides who question whether the Chalcedonian schism’s actual theology was more a matter of semantics than of actual differences in dogma. Not being a theologian myself, I’m not competent to weigh in.
For the Chalcedonian Orthodox there is indeed a concept of Petrine primacy, but one more like "primus inter pares" rather than a juridical primacy as the Bishop of Rome currently exercises.
Do the Oriental Orthodox not profess any belief in Petrine primacy of any kind?
Rome asserts that the Orthodox hold sacramental validity because (as I understand) of valid sacramental form; specific doctrinal issues are a “sub”-issue. Per Rome, baptism is baptism, whether it originate from Coptic, Roman, Byzantine, or (“even”!) Protestant worship. The particulars of the relationship among the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity may be the subject of ongoing discussion, but the essential form of baptism in the Name of the Trinity is one that we share and through which the Holy Spirit works, independent of human endeavor or lack thereof. Likewise, there is an assertion of ordinational (sp?) validity via Apostolic succession, regardless of doctrinal issues that are more specific than the form of the sacrament implies.
St. Peter does hold an honorary veneration. Don't get me wrong. The grace he received however is not limited to Rome though. That's my point, and that's Eastern Orthodoxy's (or Byzantine) point as well. Eastern Orthodox theology has taught very similarly to what I teach. I recommend Fr. Laurent Cleenewerk's book "His Broken Body"
And, too, we consider the dogmatic differences to be of less grave nature than many Orthodox (perhaps especially the non-Chacedonians?).
On a sociological level, too, we probably are influenced by greater cultural proximity to newer Christian theological traditions that seem much further from us, on the whole, than the Eastern traditions are.
At the same time, we have strong disagreements with dogmatizing the idea that Rome is the leader. Rome is not the sole successor of the grace in St. Peter. Therefore, if we actively reject this dogma, it should make our sacraments invalid as well, since we openly defy the authority of that grace that validates even the form of our sacraments. But if our form is validated even if we reject Roman primacy, then it disproves the need to dogmatize the Roman primacy. If the dogmatic differences does not concern Rome, why does she insist we must accept her primacy? Why are you still a Roman Catholic?
I know many children of Catholic/Orthodox, and they grow up confused and not wanting to insult any of their parents, even if the parents don't mind. Some of them just give up and grow areligious. So I really want the couple in question to take seriously their beliefs. Oneness in marriage is not just one body and one spirit, but one mind as well, especially in the Church. Even if we have a sister church, to avoid church hopping, it's advisable that the couple choose the parish they serve in and become part of. My line of challenges to RomanNomad is in hopes that he sees it that way and help in having a discussion with his beloved on the church they need to choose.
My own belief is in the truth of all those things that the Church of Rome teaches to be revealed by God. That’s the same statement that people make when they are received into our Church. It does not imply that I think every word, or even every formal document, from the Pope or any other bishop is necessarily of that same doctrinal weight. I also believe the (less authoritative but still of great significance) teaching in our Catechism in #838:
are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic
faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the
successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in
a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches,
this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the
fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s
Eucharist.”
How close is “close enough”? Only God knows; however, based on the statement in our Catechism, Orthodox Christians are, from our perspective, pretty darn close. Of what salvific significance is it if I believe that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and from the Son versus from the Father alone, or that the Bishop of Rome is, by virtue of his office, Christ’s very Vicar on earth, as opposed to an honorary “first among equals”? Personally, I can’t see it as a “sine qua non” to be united on these matters, which seem, to laypeople, much more of theological than of practical, day-to-day import.
There are indeed practical concerns that we are still discussing such as some of those mentioned above: social stigmas in the Coptic Church, presentation of the faith to our children, etc.
I do need to pick up a copy of this:
http://www.usccbpublishing.org/productdetails.cfm?sku=097-4&disccode=web50
… which, going by the description, apparently signifies that the Syrian and Armenian Churches will accept a marriage with a Catholic. (I wonder what the other SCOOCH members had to say on that?)
Let me also add that I am bountifully grateful for the time and responses of everyone here.
To say that the Orthodox Churches are “pretty close” (my own paraphrase—the Catechism says it better) does not downplay the importance of the dogmatic differences. It merely seems to me to be saying that, out of the wide array of things on which Rome and the Orthodox Churches might disagree, the areas of actual disagreement are relatively small/few.
I spent a part of my early adulthood trying to verify religion empirically/historically. I eventually concluded that one can spend a lifetime studying theology but not necessarily growing any closer to God. We are given minds to seek God as the source and summit of all Truth, I believe, but at some point I think it simply becomes more important to focus on relationship than on specific “implementations” (e.g., “Filioque”). I am not competent to examine the merits or shortcomings of Oriental Orthodoxy’s theological disputes with other Christian traditions … and, really, I don’t think it would be gainful for me to devote myself toward that end. That’s not intellectual sloth so much as a recognition, after prayer and (what I think has been) God’s revelation to me in my own life, that my aptitudes in building up the Kingdom lie elsewhere. Christ’s universal call is to sainthood, not theological expertise.
I really do recommend picking up that book about intermarriage between Oriental Orthodox and Catholics. (I got a look at it today at a local library.) It’s quite clear that Copts are not part of such arrangements, but (more of relevance) it also discusses at length the many fruits of efforts at mutual understanding and reconciliation between Catholics and the various Eastern Orthodox Churches. Of particular note are the joint statements between Paul VI and Shenouda III: they clearly agreed that we worship the same Christ, and much more. You said I would have to renounce Catholic dogmas. I’m pretty sure that, if I publicly renounce my Catholic faith, that’s a de facto excommunication from the Church of Rome. :)
I did actually ask about that in my original post when I asked about taking Coptic initiation but still continuing to live as a Catholic. I would be willing to do that, except for that I don’t imagine that that’s compatible with the mind of the Coptic Church. Best-case scenario is that I would just be excommunicated, or at least be considered in a state of grave sin, for receiving Catholic communion, right? My suspicion is that, for every point that one side could make, a counterargument can equally be made. It basically has to be so, or else we’d have a much easier path to open communion. This is the kind of “digging” I did years ago. I can’t logically justify every aspect of why I or anyone else should be a Copt or a Catholic; what I can do is appreciate the beauty of Roman Christianity and teach it to others … which I think is much more effectively done through personal witness than through argumentation.
Would I rather, all things being equal, that my wife be a Catholic? Of course. But, all things are not equal, and people are not “modular” like that. I’ve been dating for long enough to know how remarkable this woman is. I actually turned down a very devout (and interested) Catholic woman for the relationship that I have now. Right, but “Christ’s true Church” isn’t necessarily one particular Apostolic Church. Even if we suppose the existence of a “white list” of Apostolic traditions that profess the fullness of faith insofar as God has revealed to us thus far, that doesn’t mean that Christ’s church doesn’t also subsist, in part, in other traditions of lesser (or even greater) theological divergence. I’d be interested to know what you think of Vatican Council II’s discussions of “one holy, (cC)atholic, Apostolic Church”.
Your reference to Luke 11:46 seems out of context … which raises my own “red flag”. ;-) Or, at least, it’s far from justified here that Rome is Pharisaical.