[quote author=vassilios link=board=4;threadid=4471;start=30#msg61884 date=1160421082] WOW! I had no idea!
ORTHODOX! I LOVE YOU!!!!
Here's the statement in English (just so you know you're not dreaming ;) )
Since the Holy Synods of both the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa have already accepted the outcome of the official dialogue on Christology between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the two official agreements: the first on Christology signed in June 1989 in Egypt and the second also on Christology and on the lifting of anathemas and restoration of full communion signed in Geneva 1990, in which it is stated that "In the light of our agreed statement on Christology..., we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of Apostolic tradition". It was agreed to have mutual recognition of the sacrament of Baptism, based on what St Paul wrote, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:5)
But since up until now we are waiting for the responses of the Holy Synods of some other churches in both families, the restoration of full communion is not yet reached between the two sides of the bi-lateral dialogue. And due to the pastoral consequences and implications caued by mixed Christian marriages between the members of the two Patriarchates of Alexandria, having the majority of their people living in the same countries. Those marriages being difficult to perform in both Churches at the same time or in concelebration. The result is that mant sensitivities are created between the two families of the partners of such marriage. Those sensitivities which can extend even after the marriage and may affect the relation between the two communities of churches.
For those mentioned reasons, the Holy Synods of both Patriarchates have agreed to accept the sacrament of marriage which is conducted in either Church with the condition that it is conducted for two partners not belonging to the same Patriarchate of the other Church from their origin. Both the Bride and the Groom should carry a valid certificate from his/her own Patriarchate that he/she has a permit of marriage and indicating the details of his/her marriage status up to date.
Each of the two Patriarchates shall also accept to perform all of its other sacraments to that new family of Mixed Christian Marriage.
It is agreed that the Patriarchate which shall perform the marriage shall be responsible for any marriage problems that may happen concerning this certain marriage, taking into consideration the unified marriage laws signed by the heads of Churches in Egypt in the year 1999.
Each Patriarchate shall preserve its right not to give its sacraments to any persons whom she does not find fulfilling its canons according to the Apostolic Tradition.
I disagree with Vasillios and Kristina123 in that I believe that Coptic is more than a mere language or
our history
. It is in fact the living present; but why?
As stated previously, the original church teachings and masses were written in Coptic. Masses are still said today, hymns sung and teachings taught. The language has not only snuck into our culture but became a permanent part of it, because as you may/may not know, the Coptic Church believes that you cannot separate heritage and doctrine, hence our divide with the Catholics over some of their recent changes. In second Vatican council, the Catholic Church decided to make certain cosmetic changes to the religion. Priests no longer faced the sanctuary, but faced the congregation, masses were allowed to be spoken in other languages (as opposed to being sung in Latin). Priests no longer have to wear their traditional garments when not praying the mass.
Our Coptic church has refused to follow suit except in the case of the translation of the mass, as it is important for people to pray the mass in a language they understand. We can't not make Coptic a priority. Vasillios said that the reason many of the hymns don't work in other languages si that they were originally composed in Coptic, which points to the level of integration of Coptic in our religion. We can't get rid of those hymns for more modern arabic/english/greek songs, the church says you can't.
If we translate all the masses and hymns into Coptic, why do we still need Coptic? The point is this:
You can choose how much you want to involve Coptic in your worship, but the fact remains that Coptic is part of worship in the Coptic orthodox church. Whether they realised (or not) the implications of inventing Coptic, it remains seen by the church that Coptic is an irremovable part of it's core. Whether you choose to explore it or ignore it, is up to you, but one thing you can't do is remove it.
I like and promote the idea that coptic should not be lost, and should still play a role in our church; but a small role role . This is perhaps where we differ??
I think its redundant, and i believe that the songs should be created that are orthodox in their theology yet suited to the language of the diaspora.
As for heritage. I'll have to disagree with u. It was our heritage for priests to grow their beards and where black clothes. My Coptic Orthodox priest was harassed on the metro because they thought he was a taliban (in France).
Which is more important: your heritage, or integrating into the environment/country you are in??? This isnt right, Coptic priests in the western socieites should not dress in a way that alienates them from those they are there to serve!!!!
Look: When our Lord said to His apostles to go and preach His death and resurrection, He gave them the ability to speak in tongues. To communicate with everyone. He didnt give the entire population of the world the ability to understand the aramaic / greek / hebrew languages that each apostle may have spoken! The Church was there to serve the population. Its NO service to us to have priests in France with long beards and black gowns... REALLY!!!!!!!
[quote author=vassilios link=board=4;threadid=4471;start=30#msg61931 date=1160490739]As for heritage. I'll have to disagree with u. It was our heritage for priests to grow their beards and where black clothes. My Coptic Orthodox priest was harassed on the metro because they thought he was a taliban (in France).
Which is more important: your heritage, or integrating into the environment/country you are in??? This isnt right, Coptic priests in the western socieites should not dress in a way that alienates them from those they are there to serve!!!!
Holy Tradition is from God, secular western society is from the other guy. So our loyalty is clearly to the former.
Scr apping things that have been part of our heritage since Old Testament times, especially in order to appease xenophobes on the metro, is just silly.
The Greeks and Syrians have done just that in America. It has done the Church there no favours what so ever.
So which is more important: preserving Apostolic teaching, or conforming to secular society (Rom. 12:2)?
especially the part about the beards. I mean, i'm looked at as muslim everywhere i go to, should i have a skin transplantation and colour my hair blond, because of xenophobia in the west??
if a priest wears a huge cross on his neck, its obvious that he is a priest, and because of his different appearence (so i heard) a lot of people start a conversation out of curiosity, and that is a good chance to spread faith in our western countries.
A complex question !! But think of my situation -- I love the Coptic Church and what it has to Share with us -- Yet I neither understand Arabic - let alone Coptic -- Can we not ensure that people like me are not alienated from all the Church has to offer? I think the Church in this day and age should strive to cater for all - because it has soooo much to offer. Do U wish it to go perhaps as the way Islam has developed with a very very select few actuaslly understanding what they actually are reading? Sorry - just me having a rant
No! I disagree with Orthodox. He is mixing cultural tradition with spiritual tradition.
and you are both under the impression that somehow shaving a beard and not looking like a taliban is to appease those who dislike the taliban??!! NO! Im not saying that. Im saying that as a priest he is there to serve the community. This will distance him from those whom he is charged to serve!!! SEE!!
Now, look, im going to answer all your points orthodox :
In the Coptic Church, before the Bible is read, the deacon has to read the psalms. There is the pslam for the bible of that day. How it happens (in our Church) is that a deacon will read a portion of the psalm, and another deacon will sing it. They'll continue this way, and until the deacon reading reaches the word "Alleluia" to terminate the psalm. I was asking myself , "why on earth does one deacon read, and then another deacon sing what the 1st deacon just read?" [now they don't do this often, but they do it if they ahve a LOT of time in the mass]. The Church mo3alim (teacher) said to me "Well, in Egypt, the head singer or teacher (il Mo3alim) was always blind. Someone had to read for him the psalm, and that way he could know the words to sing"; otherwise how else could he read the pslams??"
THis is England!!! NO ONE is blind!! WE STILL keep the same tradition that was put in place in Egypt whilst in England... does that make sense?!?!! Is that SPIRITUAL TRADITION???!!!!!!
Let me explain spiritual tradition, as you seem to be misled about this and have this confused with cultural tradition:
Spiritual Tradition is this:
Joseph, the son of Jacob, pharoah's wife wanted to sin with him. He said :"How can i commit this sin before the Lord?"
Oh? Who told him it was a sin???the 10 commandments came AFTER joseph!!! Moses was after joseph - n'est-ce pas?!!
This is known as SPIRITUAL TRADITION. Teachings were passed on by word of mouth and it was NOT written down. But taught through the tradition of teaching generation to generation. God's commandments were known to the people but it wasnt written down in stone until the time of moses.
CULTURAL TRADITION is: A priest wears black, and grows a beard has NOTHING to do with God's teaching or with spiritual tradition. They may have nice connotations, or meanings, but its NOT spiritual. Its cultural. Muslims also grow their beards!!! He didnt tell Aaron to grow a beard!!!! He didnt tell Aaron to wear black!!
One reason for them to have beards is that it was a sign of their fatherhood (being priests). Wearing black was that they were dead to the world. So... its all symbols, that don't apply. The same as us singing the psalms where one person reads and the other person sings it. The Psalms are good. However, the tradition in our church in reading it is not applicable and doing it shows lack of understanding in what U R doing!
[quote author=vassilios link=board=4;threadid=4471;start=30#msg61946 date=1160516409] No! I disagree with Orthodox. He is mixing cultural tradition with spiritual tradition.
I think you are the one guilty of this.
THis is England!!! NO ONE is blind!! WE STILL keep the same tradition that was put in place in Egypt whilst in England... does that make sense?!?!! Is that SPIRITUAL TRADITION???!!!!!!
That is a totally different issue, and one that I've never come accross.
This is known as SPIRITUAL TRADITION. Teachings were passed on by word of mouth and it was NOT written down. But taught through the tradition of teaching generation to generation. God's commandments were known to the people but it wasnt written down in stone until the time of moses.
Holy Tradition is not related only to moral precepts, nor does it exclusively refer to unwritten traditions. The Bible is a part of Holy Tradition, for example.
The idea of Tradition vs. Bible is a Catholic and Protestant one. The Greek word "paradosis" literally means to hand down. You can hand down both written and unwritten teachings.
Secondly, you err in the way you attemp to separate faith from the way in which it is expressed.
The Nicene Creed, for example, was not dictated to us by God; it does not feature in the Bible; it was not handed down to us by the Apostles.
Rather, it was formulated by a bunch of Bishops in the 4th Century, using their own words. However, the Creed reflects the faith which the Church has always held and which was handed down to us by the Apostles. As such, the Creed has been an integral part of Holy Tradition from the 4th century onwards.
Would you suggest that it would be OK to get rid of the Creed because certain people did not understand the word "omousios" (of one essence) and so it was alienating them?
CULTURAL TRADITION is: A priest wears black, and grows a beard has NOTHING to do with God's teaching or with spiritual tradition.
"Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron......they shall not shave their beard" (Leviticus 21:1,5)
"Ye shall not make a round cutting of the hair of your head, nor disfigure your beard" (Leviticus 19:27)
This is a divine commandment, given by God to Moses. It is one that Christ Himself would have observed.
Can you please point me to an icon of any Apostle (except when depicted as very young) that does not feature a beard?
This Old Testament tradition was carried on by the priesthood of the New Testament, and has been to this day.
To dismiss it as a cultural custom is just silly. The pagan Greeks shaved their beards, the pagan Egyptians shaved their beards, the pagan Romans shaved their beards.
In the ancient world, to have a beard was a sign that one was a Christian (or Jew)!
They may have nice connotations, or meanings, but its NOT spiritual. Its cultural. Muslims also grow their beards!!!
Islam is a spin-off of the Judeo Christian tradition. Are you suggesting that because Muslims are circumcised, this was not a commandment from God in the OT? Or just because Muslims abstain from pork, God did not command this in Leviticus 11?
He didnt tell Aaron to grow a beard!!!!
I refer you to the verse above which explicitly mentions "the sons of Aaron".
One reason for them to have beards is that it was a sign of their fatherhood (being priests). Wearing black was that they were dead to the world. So... its all symbols, that don't apply.
Again, you make a mistake in separating faith from how faith is expressed.
And anyways, priests in all cultures have always worn black cassocks. I know many Roman Catholics in France do. So how does wearing a black cassock alienate a priest from French society?
Even when, quite recently, Anglican and a few Catholic priests begun wearing suits and dog-collars, the color was still mostly black.
Orthodoxy by definition is traditional, as opposed to Catholicism which by definition is universal (look em up). This where we seem to be stuck! I haven’t been to France yet, but I wouldn't mind hearing a French mass. I sympathise with your thoughts on having the psalm read then sung (thank the Lord, we don't do that). That's not tradition of the fathers; it is the tradition of recent Egypt where a large number of head deacons are blind!!! BIG difference.
Remember, it's safer to be conservative, believe me. I grew up in Catholic schools all my life, in Egypt and abroad, and I admire the biggest church in the world. But when I was at school people didn't share my thought because they didn't see the uniqueness of the church. Priests were like ordinary people, dressed like them, except they were celibate. Masses was a bit of a lunch break where you get served free wafers (it's sad but some thought of it like that), and there was no mystery about the church. People would say why can't we modernise the church a little more, if we have already made priests wear normal cloth, why not ordain priestesses too? And if any one can serve communion, why can't we just have ministers. Imagine if you didn't have to fast to have communion, would you appreciate it as much. I don't blame them.
The Catholic Church has sacrifices some of its tradition for modernisation, and inturn people have sacrificed their faith because it wasn't as special...it evolved like everything else.
As for harassing the priests, my FOC sees it differently, he says that sometimes people acknowledge and respect him because they recognise him as a priest, other times they ignore him, other times they question him about his identity? If he didn't wear black and grow a beared, would any one know who he is or how special his job is?
I don't get it, how the French can harass some old man (in most cases) with a beard when he's got a BIG FAT CROSS hanging off his chest??? Maybe they’ll eventually find out and be attracted to his uniqueness.
I would had to see the coptic language disapear. How would we call our church Coptic Orthodox if we didnt have the language. Would you rather call yourself "Arabic Orthodox" I dont think so!!!!
It would be great if we can teach little kids Coptic lessons along with sunday school, not only would it keep the language alive but they would be fluent in coptic in the mass, the nxt generation will then have no problem performing the mass in coptic and beable to speak to each other in coptic too.
This might even bring us alot closer to the greek orthodox church and maybe unite the two churches, theoretically this would double the number of people in our church.
Seriously we need to organize a program to teach the nxt generation coptic, just like schools teach a second language so should we.
[quote author=drumaboy link=board=4;threadid=4471;start=30#msg61975 date=1160560501] I would had to see the coptic language disapear. How would we call our church Coptic Orthodox if we didnt have the language. Would you rather call yourself "Arabic Orthodox" I dont think so!!!!
Coptic is not just a language. Coptic simply means Egyptian. And so the Coptic Orthodox Church is quite simply the Orthodox Church of Egypt.
So if all Copts begun speaking Mandarin tomorrow, it would still be called the Coptic Orthodox Church, and not the Mandarin Orthodox Church.
Comments
WOW! I had no idea!
ORTHODOX! I LOVE YOU!!!!
Here's the statement in English (just so you know you're not dreaming ;) ) Signed by H.B. Pope Petros and H.H. Pope Shenouda
I disagree with Vasillios and Kristina123 in that I believe that Coptic is more than a mere language or . It is in fact the living present; but why?
As stated previously, the original church teachings and masses were written in Coptic. Masses are still said today, hymns sung and teachings taught. The language has not only snuck into our culture but became a permanent part of it, because as you may/may not know, the Coptic Church believes that you cannot separate heritage and doctrine, hence our divide with the Catholics over some of their recent changes. In second Vatican council, the Catholic Church decided to make certain cosmetic changes to the religion. Priests no longer faced the sanctuary, but faced the congregation, masses were allowed to be spoken in other languages (as opposed to being sung in Latin). Priests no longer have to wear their traditional garments when not praying the mass.
Our Coptic church has refused to follow suit except in the case of the translation of the mass, as it is important for people to pray the mass in a language they understand. We can't not make Coptic a priority. Vasillios said that the reason many of the hymns don't work in other languages si that they were originally composed in Coptic, which points to the level of integration of Coptic in our religion. We can't get rid of those hymns for more modern arabic/english/greek songs, the church says you can't.
If we translate all the masses and hymns into Coptic, why do we still need Coptic? The point is this:
You can choose how much you want to involve Coptic in your worship, but the fact remains that Coptic is part of worship in the Coptic orthodox church. Whether they realised (or not) the implications of inventing Coptic, it remains seen by the church that Coptic is an irremovable part of it's core. Whether you choose to explore it or ignore it, is up to you, but one thing you can't do is remove it.
Peace,
His son
I like and promote the idea that coptic should not be lost, and should still play a role in our church; but a small role role . This is perhaps where we differ??
I think its redundant, and i believe that the songs should be created that are orthodox in their theology yet suited to the language of the diaspora.
As for heritage. I'll have to disagree with u. It was our heritage for priests to grow their beards and where black clothes. My Coptic Orthodox priest was harassed on the metro because they thought he was a taliban (in France).
Which is more important: your heritage, or integrating into the environment/country you are in??? This isnt right, Coptic priests in the western socieites should not dress in a way that alienates them from those they are there to serve!!!!
Look: When our Lord said to His apostles to go and preach His death and resurrection, He gave them the ability to speak in tongues. To communicate with everyone. He didnt give the entire population of the world the ability to understand the aramaic / greek / hebrew languages that each apostle may have spoken! The Church was there to serve the population. Its NO service to us to have priests in France with long beards and black gowns... REALLY!!!!!!!
Which is more important: your heritage, or integrating into the environment/country you are in??? This isnt right, Coptic priests in the western socieites should not dress in a way that alienates them from those they are there to serve!!!!
Holy Tradition is from God, secular western society is from the other guy. So our loyalty is clearly to the former.
Scr apping things that have been part of our heritage since Old Testament times, especially in order to appease xenophobes on the metro, is just silly.
The Greeks and Syrians have done just that in America. It has done the Church there no favours what so ever.
So which is more important: preserving Apostolic teaching, or conforming to secular society (Rom. 12:2)?
Does one even have to give an answer?
especially the part about the beards. I mean, i'm looked at as muslim everywhere i go to, should i have a skin transplantation and colour my hair blond, because of xenophobia in the west??
if a priest wears a huge cross on his neck, its obvious that he is a priest, and because of his different appearence (so i heard) a lot of people start a conversation out of curiosity, and that is a good chance to spread faith in our western countries.
A complex question !! But think of my situation -- I love the Coptic Church and what it has to Share with us -- Yet I neither understand Arabic - let alone Coptic -- Can we not ensure that people like me are not alienated from all the Church has to offer? I think the Church in this day and age should strive to cater for all - because it has soooo much to offer. Do U wish it to go perhaps as the way Islam has developed with a very very select few actuaslly understanding what they actually are reading?
Sorry - just me having a rant
God Bless
Geraldine
and you are both under the impression that somehow shaving a beard and not looking like a taliban is to appease those who dislike the taliban??!! NO! Im not saying that. Im saying that as a priest he is there to serve the community. This will distance him from those whom he is charged to serve!!! SEE!!
Now, look, im going to answer all your points orthodox :
In the Coptic Church, before the Bible is read, the deacon has to read the psalms. There is the pslam for the bible of that day. How it happens (in our Church) is that a deacon will read a portion of the psalm, and another deacon will sing it. They'll continue this way, and until the deacon reading reaches the word "Alleluia" to terminate the psalm. I was asking myself , "why on earth does one deacon read, and then another deacon sing what the 1st deacon just read?" [now they don't do this often, but they do it if they ahve a LOT of time in the mass]. The Church mo3alim (teacher) said to me "Well, in Egypt, the head singer or teacher (il Mo3alim) was always blind. Someone had to read for him the psalm, and that way he could know the words to sing"; otherwise how else could he read the pslams??"
THis is England!!! NO ONE is blind!! WE STILL keep the same tradition that was put in place in Egypt whilst in England... does that make sense?!?!! Is that SPIRITUAL TRADITION???!!!!!!
Let me explain spiritual tradition, as you seem to be misled about this and have this confused with cultural tradition:
Spiritual Tradition is this:
Joseph, the son of Jacob, pharoah's wife wanted to sin with him. He said :"How can i commit this sin before the Lord?"
Oh? Who told him it was a sin???the 10 commandments came AFTER joseph!!! Moses was after joseph - n'est-ce pas?!!
This is known as SPIRITUAL TRADITION. Teachings were passed on by word of mouth and it was NOT written down. But taught through the tradition of teaching generation to generation. God's commandments were known to the people but it wasnt written down in stone until the time of moses.
CULTURAL TRADITION is: A priest wears black, and grows a beard has NOTHING to do with God's teaching or with spiritual tradition. They may have nice connotations, or meanings, but its NOT spiritual. Its cultural. Muslims also grow their beards!!! He didnt tell Aaron to grow a beard!!!! He didnt tell Aaron to wear black!!
One reason for them to have beards is that it was a sign of their fatherhood (being priests). Wearing black was that they were dead to the world. So... its all symbols, that don't apply. The same as us singing the psalms where one person reads and the other person sings it. The Psalms are good. However, the tradition in our church in reading it is not applicable and doing it shows lack of understanding in what U R doing!
No! I disagree with Orthodox. He is mixing cultural tradition with spiritual tradition.
I think you are the one guilty of this. That is a totally different issue, and one that I've never come accross. Holy Tradition is not related only to moral precepts, nor does it exclusively refer to unwritten traditions. The Bible is a part of Holy Tradition, for example.
The idea of Tradition vs. Bible is a Catholic and Protestant one. The Greek word "paradosis" literally means to hand down. You can hand down both written and unwritten teachings.
Secondly, you err in the way you attemp to separate faith from the way in which it is expressed.
The Nicene Creed, for example, was not dictated to us by God; it does not feature in the Bible; it was not handed down to us by the Apostles.
Rather, it was formulated by a bunch of Bishops in the 4th Century, using their own words. However, the Creed reflects the faith which the Church has always held and which was handed down to us by the Apostles. As such, the Creed has been an integral part of Holy Tradition from the 4th century onwards.
Would you suggest that it would be OK to get rid of the Creed because certain people did not understand the word "omousios" (of one essence) and so it was alienating them? "Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron......they shall not shave their beard" (Leviticus 21:1,5)
"Ye shall not make a round cutting of the hair of your head, nor disfigure your beard" (Leviticus 19:27)
This is a divine commandment, given by God to Moses. It is one that Christ Himself would have observed.
Can you please point me to an icon of any Apostle (except when depicted as very young) that does not feature a beard?
This Old Testament tradition was carried on by the priesthood of the New Testament, and has been to this day.
To dismiss it as a cultural custom is just silly. The pagan Greeks shaved their beards, the pagan Egyptians shaved their beards, the pagan Romans shaved their beards.
In the ancient world, to have a beard was a sign that one was a Christian (or Jew)! Islam is a spin-off of the Judeo Christian tradition. Are you suggesting that because Muslims are circumcised, this was not a commandment from God in the OT? Or just because Muslims abstain from pork, God did not command this in Leviticus 11? I refer you to the verse above which explicitly mentions "the sons of Aaron". Again, you make a mistake in separating faith from how faith is expressed.
And anyways, priests in all cultures have always worn black cassocks. I know many Roman Catholics in France do. So how does wearing a black cassock alienate a priest from French society?
Even when, quite recently, Anglican and a few Catholic priests begun wearing suits and dog-collars, the color was still mostly black.
So what's the problem?
U are soo coptic Orthodox!! OK.. u win.
Im sorry.
I dont want anyone harrassing my priest on metro stations!!
Orthodoxy by definition is traditional, as opposed to Catholicism which by definition is universal (look em up). This where we seem to be stuck! I haven’t been to France yet, but I wouldn't mind hearing a French mass. I sympathise with your thoughts on having the psalm read then sung (thank the Lord, we don't do that). That's not tradition of the fathers; it is the tradition of recent Egypt where a large number of head deacons are blind!!! BIG difference.
Remember, it's safer to be conservative, believe me. I grew up in Catholic schools all my life, in Egypt and abroad, and I admire the biggest church in the world. But when I was at school people didn't share my thought because they didn't see the uniqueness of the church. Priests were like ordinary people, dressed like them, except they were celibate. Masses was a bit of a lunch break where you get served free wafers (it's sad but some thought of it like that), and there was no mystery about the church. People would say why can't we modernise the church a little more, if we have already made priests wear normal cloth, why not ordain priestesses too? And if any one can serve communion, why can't we just have ministers. Imagine if you didn't have to fast to have communion, would you appreciate it as much. I don't blame them.
The Catholic Church has sacrifices some of its tradition for modernisation, and inturn people have sacrificed their faith because it wasn't as special...it evolved like everything else.
As for harassing the priests, my FOC sees it differently, he says that sometimes people acknowledge and respect him because they recognise him as a priest, other times they ignore him, other times they question him about his identity? If he didn't wear black and grow a beared, would any one know who he is or how special his job is?
I don't get it, how the French can harass some old man (in most cases) with a beard when he's got a BIG FAT CROSS hanging off his chest??? Maybe they’ll eventually find out and be attracted to his uniqueness.
Maybe!
His son
It would be great if we can teach little kids Coptic lessons along with sunday school, not only would it keep the language alive but they would be fluent in coptic in the mass, the nxt generation will then have no problem performing the mass in coptic and beable to speak to each other in coptic too.
This might even bring us alot closer to the greek orthodox church and maybe unite the two churches, theoretically this would double the number of people in our church.
Seriously we need to organize a program to teach the nxt generation coptic, just like schools teach a second language so should we.
I would had to see the coptic language disapear. How would we call our church Coptic Orthodox if we didnt have the language. Would you rather call yourself "Arabic Orthodox" I dont think so!!!!
Coptic is not just a language. Coptic simply means Egyptian. And so the Coptic Orthodox Church is quite simply the Orthodox Church of Egypt.
So if all Copts begun speaking Mandarin tomorrow, it would still be called the Coptic Orthodox Church, and not the Mandarin Orthodox Church.
Coptic means Egyptian CHRISTIAN or the original inhabitants of egypt.
You can also have Coptic Catholic, Coptic Adventists.
As soon as they converted to Islam or any other religion, those egyptian becase Arabs, and hence lost their coptic identity. Simple really.
Cheers,
His son