Hi,
I'm hoping for Fr. Peter to answer this, as I'd like the view of the CoC.
If other christian denominations do not have our baptism, and are required to be re-baptised when becoming Orthodox, does that mean that their current baptism is not valid in God's eyes? Would they therefore be in risk of not going to heaven because they were not baptised in the "Orthodox" Church?
Also, I'd like to know:
a) If we do not (as a Church) acknowledge the Catholic marriage - then does the CoC see all marriages outside of its Church as adultary? For example - if a Coptic married a catholic in the Catholic Church, the Coptic Church does not recognise this marriage. In fact, it would be to the extent that the Coptic man/woman who married in the Catholic Church, would not be allowed to have communion because they are living in "sin".
So, does the CoC see all Catholic marriages as people living in adultary until they all decide to get married in the CoC?
b) If catholics are going to heaven, where Coptic saints are and where the Coptic Righteous are going, then does that mean that the division between us is irrelevant?
I have more questions concerning this issue, but please let me know what you thoughts are on this.
Thanks
Comments
i. Are those who are not baptised in the 'Orthodox' Church not going to heaven? We must remember that the Coptic Orthodox Church is merely a local community of the wider Orthodox Church. There are other Orthodox Churches which do accept the baptism of the Roman Catholics and who receive Roman Catholics by chrismation and not by baptism. Indeed in the earlier period of the history of the Coptic Orthodox Church those who were members of the Church of the West (which later became the Roman Catholic Church) were received by prayers and not even by chrismation. They were part of the Imperial Church which our fathers St Timothy and St Severus among others left instructions about how they should be received. It is clear that they understood that the majority of the faithful of the Imperial Churches were not deeply versed in the matters of Christological controversy and should be received as easily as possible if it was clear that they did not hold onto any definite heresy. Even priests and bishops from the Imperial Church were received by a confession of faith and renunciation of heresy, and their orders were accepted and could be exercised after a period of probation.
This being so, it seems clear to me that even the members of the Imperial Church, after the separation of the Churches, were still considered Christian and even Orthodox, though there were some issues in which the Fathers considered they were in error. Their baptism was considered Christian, and it was understood that much of their teaching was also Orthodox. Of course there was those teachers and leaders in the Imperial Church who proposed what was understood as heresy and their case was rather different.
What changed then? Well of course the Islamic conquest brought about an isolation of the various local Churches and the Coptic Church had very little contact with the Imperial Church, let alone the Roman Church, for centuries. I cannot imagine that many Roman Catholics found their way to Egypt and asked to be received into the Church between 800 AD and the advent of Roman Catholic missionaries in the 16th century. Indeed between these two dates the Church in the West had changed. It had become separated from the Eastern Imperial Church, and had developed some new teachings and practices. For instance, baptism had always been practiced by immersion, except in extreme circumstances as the canons allowed. But in the West it slowly became normal for baptism to be by affusion. In fact it was England which remained one of the last places which still practiced the baptism of infants by immersion in medieval times. Likewise the Western Church insisted on the celibacy of priests, and on the communion in one kind, and introduced wafers as a means of communion. These were all changes which were resisted by the conservative nature of English society at the time, but by the 14th century were essentially universal in the West. There had also been an iconoclastic movement in the empire of Charlemagne during the 8th-9th centuries, and the Roman Church had continued the attitude of Leo of Rome and came to understand itself as the ultimate authority over the Church.
Why do I recount all of this? Well it seems to me that the Roman Church which the Coptic Orthodox Church met when it started to come back into the remembrance of the West was a different Church to that which it had dealings with in the 5th and 6th centuries. And when it came back into contact with the Coptic Church it was as a missionary organisation which sought to bring the Churches of the East under the control and authority of the Church of Rome. Indeed there is of course a Coptic Catholic Church which is the fruit of missionary activity generally among Coptic Christians and not among Egyptian Muslims or unbelievers.
How does the Church respond? It is worth noting that the same questions have been raised among the Russian Orthodox. During times of relatively good relations with the Roman Catholic Church those who wish to become Orthodox are received by chrismation, and when relations are tense, or the Roman Catholic Church is seen as seeking to gain members from the local Orthodox Church then reception is often by baptism.
In relation of the Coptic Orthodox Church I believe there are several issues which are mutually inter-related. This is actually a subject I had planned to contact H.E. Bishoy about in relation to his own opinion.
i. The Roman Catholic Church baptises by affusion rather than immersion and this may be seen (I do tend to see it so) as being an un-canonical form of baptism which fails to properly conduct the sacrament.
ii. There are a variety of non-Orthodox doctrines which the Roman Catholic Church has adopted and which might be seen as negating the proper performance of the sacrament. These include Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception and the Filioque.
iii. There may also be a tension between the Roman and Coptic Churches because of the activity of the Roman Catholic Church directed at Coptic Orthodox which means that their sacraments are interpreted as being negated by anti-Orthodox activity.
Now all of these seem to me to be reasons which have some force towards rejecting the Roman Catholic baptism, but other Orthodox Churches do receive Roman Catholic baptism as being acceptable. Therefore it seems to me that the present rejection by the Coptic Orthodox is a matter of order in the Church and not of dogma. And as far as I can see, those who do receive Roman Catholic baptism wish to complete and perfect it by an Orthodox chrismation.
It seems then that there is a sense in which the Orthodox communion both receives the faith of ordinary Roman Catholics and also considers that it is sacramentally deficient in some sense, and make good this deficiency either by baptism or chrismation. I think that this case illustrates the limits of our human judgement. It is not easy, or indeed proper, to say where the limits of the Church are, since being rooted in God the Church stretches out in an unknown manner to all those who are seeking God. The Church seems to have made a deliberate choice NOT to make absolute judgements, even when local councils have made local decisions for particular times and places. It is the teaching of the Fathers that even the baptism of clear heretics may be received as a true baptism and perfected in the Orthodox Church. Yet it is also the teaching of the Fathers that local Churches and bishops must make these judgements for themselves and in their own circumstances.
In the wider sense we might ask - what is the state of those who love Christ and are outside the visible bounds of Orthodoxy? I wonder for myself if they are like catechumens who have received the grace of the oil of the catechumenate and have been exorcised, yet they are not yet fully members of the Church. It could not be said that they do not belong, they do belong and their names have been written in the register of catechumens. Yet there is also a sense in which they do not yet completely belong. Is this it? I am starting to think it is a useful way of understanding the love and faithfulness of many Christians outside our visible boundaries.
This says to me that we must redouble our efforts to share our Orthodox faith with all those around us, not because they are completely without hope, but because God wishes to bless them completely and fully with all that he promises within the visible community of his Church.
2. Marriage is first of all a human institution created by God. It is rooted not in the Church but in God's word in Genesis -
Gen 2:21-24 Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.
Therefore all marriage is sacred, and is in the purpose of God. In whichever culture a marriage takes place, when it is the joining of a man and a woman in an intentional relationship then it is marriage.
The Christian sacrament of marriage adds a blessing and a grace to the marriage of Orthodox Christians. That it is an addition to the human institution of marriage may be seen from the fact that in the beginning of the Church marriage continued to be contracted in a formal, secular context, and the parties to the marriage would then go to Church and have their marriage blessed. It was only with the institutionalisation of the Church within the state, from the time of Constantine onwards, that marriage became de facto a Christian ceremony, rather than a secular ceremony which was blessed by the state. Indeed there are still many situations in the world where Christians have to conduct a secular, official marriage for the sake of the law and society, and then a Christian ceremony to bless the marriage.
Therefore the marriages of Roman Catholics are not adulterous, and they are looked on with favour by God, and we may believe that as Roman Catholics ask God to bless a marriage so he will not be hard-hearted and will grant a blessing. Yet we might also believe that the sacramental blessing given within an Orthodox context is more complete and creates a greater possibility for the transformation of those who participate in it.
When a non-Orthodox married couple become Orthodox together then it is appropriate that their marriage be blessed by a participation in an Orthodox form of sacramental prayer, but they are not considered 'not married'. They are considered as 'not blessed in an Orthodox sacrament'. This is not the same at all. There is a proper order of things in all Churches, and it is part of the order of things that a married couple should have their marriage blessed in an Orthodox ceremony as soon as possible, and this is often/usually at the same time that the couple become Orthodox, or the non-Orthodox member of the marriage becomes Orthodox.
3. It may be that there are Roman Catholics in heaven, and that some people who are formally Orthodox are not. These things are in the judgement of God. It is good to consider whether we ourselves will be in heaven. Certainly all Roman Catholics deserve to be admitted to heaven before me, since I have received such grace and blessing and have squandered it.
Nevertheless your question is valid - is the division between us irrelevant? I would say that at the level of bishops and priests dealing with the formal matters which divide Orthodox and Roman Catholic, the division is relevant and is being addressed. My own bishop, Abba Seraphim, is part of the Catholic-Oriental Orthodox Forum in the UK which discusses those issues which divide the Churches. It is necessary that the bishops teach that which is healthy and wholesome, and that the priests echo that teaching. Therefore it is proper that the Church leadership should address those matters which are divisive and make clear the Orthodox position.
Yet, at the level of the life of the faithful in both communities there is much scope for fellowship in service and in all those things which are held in common and are permitted by our bishops. We must therefore ask ourselves, and ask our priests and bishops, how far can we share our life in Christ with those of the Roman Catholic communion, and how far must we exercise a reserve?
If our Orthodox Church is a spiritual hospital, and if the life and teaching of our Church is spiritual medicine then we must wish to share that with all who love Christ, and not withdraw ourselves into an inward-looking huddle. But if we have medicine to share then we will also wish to preserve it from adulteration and will wish to reject those false medicines which might cause harm.
So the division is important, but it must not be treated as absolute. There is much that can be learned from all those who love Christ, if we learn with discretion, but there is also much which we must seek to share, if we really do believe that Christ has joined us to himself in his Body, the Church.
I hope some of this answers some of your questions and is helpful
Father Peter
I believe the Orthodox church accepts baptism by 'sprinkling' in exceptional cases but it should not be the norm.
However, I asked a priest how it would be performed in the Russian church for an adult who had no previous experience of Christian rites. The answer was not forthcoming so I'm hoping it would usually be the strict form of baptism
You seem to have a very compassionate view about the differences between us and the RC, which I think is very healthy. Its not fanatical at all. However, I do hope you realise that the CoC will excommunicate a person if he marries a catholic IN the Catholic Church.
The title of my thread - is not "Are Catholics going to heaven" but rather - "its obvious that they are going to heaven" so to excommunicate our members if they become part of this Church seems quite severe.
As you say, if it is an issue at the Bishopric level, why are we involved? Are we theologians to honestly know or even care whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or Just the Father? I'm not trivialising the importance of knowledge - but I'm asking whether or not we were called to be Theologians. Not everyone can understand theology, and as you put it, it should be something the Bishops ought to deal with - yet we, as Coptic Christians, seem to be systematically paying the price for.
The CoC works wonderfully if it exists in a Country. It doesnt seem to be practical if it doesnt exist. Some options are the RC, and yet the advice given to us by our Bishops and priests is to abstain from going (to an RC) until you find a CoC.
Given everything you've written, I see that we were one Church, and the division should be addressed at the Ecumenical Level; yet we are paying for this division at the Congregational level.
You know H.H was on TV a few days ago being interviewed by a muslim journalist. The journalist asked him about politics. H.H said "I do not get involved in politics". Then the journalist said "Well, you said you will ex-communicate Copts who go to Israel on pilgramages, surely that is a political statement?"
The Pope said "well, yes, it is political, but I don't want them to go so that they do not become brainwashed by Israeli propaganda".
Well.. there's something really odd here: Why are we being used as pawns for the Church to appease others? In the same vein why also are we being used as pawns for differences between 2 Churches that doesnt concern us. We are NOT theologians.
Surely St Peter was of the RC? The RC's dogma changed since the time of St Peter, does it mean that we all suffer because of that?
At the end of the day, I wish to ask you some personal advice:
Do you think, Fr., that by going to the RC to have communion when there is no CoC then that it would be OK?
A couple of points.
Even though I do believe that the matter of formally dealing with the divisions between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches is something that must be dealt with in an 'ecumenism from above', nevertheless I do also believe that on a local level there must be an 'ecumenism from below' in which members and priests and bishops of both communions do meet and have fellowship as far as is possible, bearing in mind the present state of relations between the communions.
This means, as far as I understand things, that the faithful should be having such relationships of warm fellowship at a local level that they urge the priests and bishops to work towards unity, while the efforts of the bishops in open and positive dialogue with the Roman Catholic hierarchy encourage the faithful to reach out in such fellowship.
Nevertheless, it is a matter of fact that there are doctrinal and practical issues which cause there to be a separation between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church and these cannot be ignored by the faithful, anymore than by the episcopate. It is a matter of fact that some of the issues are of importance and prevent us saying that the Roman Catholic Church is entirely Orthodox. This produces several proper responses from the priesthood and episcopate.
i. It must be made clear to Orthodox faithful that the Roman Catholic Church is deficient in a variety of aspects and that it would be dangerous to consider that the two communions are simply the same, but with different names.
ii. It must be made clear to the Roman Catholic faithful that the Orthodox Church is not simply a more exotic form of Roman Catholicism, but that in the integrity of its patristic Tradition it challenges the Roman Catholic tradition at several important points.
iii. It must be made clear that the sharing of communion is not simply a matter of friendship. We are not able to say 'I like you so come to communion', since it does not belong to us. Rather we believe that the communion in the Orthodox mysteries must be guarded for the sake of the honour of the one who offers himself, and for the sake of those who come to receive. Wrong belief or heterodoxy can be as much an impediment to receiving communion as a known sin, and the priests and bishops have a responsibility to be cautious in regard to both conditions.
As you say, I do believe that the Church is one, and is not coterminous with any individual community, but I also believe that the one Church is the Orthodox Church. I do not believe that the Church is simply an amalgamation of all those who call themselves Christian, nor do I believe that all Christian traditions are equally right. The Church is Orthodox and if Roman Catholics are Christian it is because of that which they confess which is Orthodox - which means truly Christian - not because of those matters in which they are in error. It is not possible for an Orthodox to simply consider that it does not matter which community he attends, since by turning from a commitment to an Orthodox community to one that is less than Orthodox he does himself harm.
Now I know that was not your question. You asked if it was acceptable to receive communion in a Roman Catholic Church if a CoC one was not locally available. I do not believe that this is appropriate. Perhaps a different Father who knows your situation, as I do not, would give different advice, but in general I do not believe this is appropriate. As I have written in another post, I would first of all counsel that a person find any other Oriental Orthodox church to worship at and receive communion, then to find an Eastern Orthodox Church to worship at and possibly receive communion, then to find a traditional Roman Catholic Church and not receive communion.
In such circumstances I would urge a person to travel as far as necessary perhaps 4 times a year to recieve communion in a CoC Church. But there would also be scope to begin a Coptic prayer group and try to invite a priest to come and celebrate locally as well.
In terms of Christian fellowship, a mature Coptic Orthodox might find blessing in meeting with a variety of other Christians, but this could also be confusing for a less mature Orthodox and might cause them to fall away from their Orthodox faith into error. I do not believe that people are generally being used as pawns in an ecumenical conflict. The Fathers of the Church always warned their children from associating with the heterodox for their own good. It becomes very easy for the faithful to slip into a sense of not thinking that the issues which separate the Churches are not important - they are. Indeed if I tell my children not to do something and they don't understand why, it does not mean they are pawns in my own power games, it just means that I am better able to see how they might come to harm than they are, and as they grow older they are more able to understand why I have set certain boundaries for their own good.
St Peter was not a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church was not formed until many, many centuries later. St Peter was an Orthodox apostle, and Roman Catholicism has fallen away from Orthodoxy over the past millenia. Not so far that she cannot be restored. Not so far that we cannot recognise much that is good in all that she teaches. But far enough that it is proper to set boundaries of behaviour for the faithful of the Orthodox Church, for their own well-being in this case.
As to the excommunication of those who become Roman Catholic or marry a Roman Catholic. I find this equally comprehensible. In the case of marriage, the Church seeks to preserve its children from being bound in complex and difficult relationships. And there are difficulties in such relationships. The excommunication is both a warning and a discipline. A warning so that those who are considering such an inappropriate relationship might be caused to stop and think, and a discipline because if such a marriage takes place then it is because the Orthodox party has ignored and rejected the counsel of the Church. He or she is free to do so. Orthodoxy should not be a prison, but by doing so they set themselves outside the Church.
To choose to become a Roman Catholic is also to choose to deny many important teachings of the Orthodox Church and to accept errors. It would be like someone who is a member of the Labour Party in England asking why he should be denied membership of the Labour Party if he also wished to become a member of the Conservative Party. You cannot be both. It is not possible to be both Roman Catholic and Orthodox. It is possible to be a Roman Catholic who is becoming Orthodox, or a Roman Catholic who is sympathetic to and interested in Orthodoxy, or a Roman Catholic who has no clear understanding of those issues which are in error and is therefore functionally closer to Orthodoxy. But it is not possible to be an Orthodox who is becoming Roman Catholic because this involves the acceptance of error and the rejection of truth.
When I meet Roman Catholics I see them as spiritual people made in the image of God and I deal with them as people, and usually enjoy their company and learn from them. But Roman Catholicism is a system of belief, and I have a great many issues with it as a system and believe it is deficient. It seems to me to be entirely proper for the Church to warn her members about these issues, and to make clear that the various Christian Traditions are not interchangeable, they are rather more or less Orthodox, and to knowingly choose a lesser Orthodoxy is harmful.
The ban on travel to Israel is a different matter.
I hope some of this helps, at least in understanding my own position.
Father Peter
then to find an Eastern Orthodox Church to worship at and possibly receive communion
Father Peter,
The Oriental Church has not yet been formally reunited with the Eastern Orthodox Church (although I believe we have come to an agreement on the nature of Christ); therefore, I do not think it is appropriate [yet] to receive communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church.
QT,
H.H. Pope Shenouda was recently asked during his Wed. meeting to build a church in Alaska. The person was saying that the closest COC was in Seattle, Washington, which was too far. HH replied, why did you move there in the first place if there is no church there? Then he said that the person, because of their decision, will have to travel to the far church as often as they can.
I also know a family who moved to a state becuase of a job, but the state has no church so they go to a different state (3 hours away), spend Sat. night in a hotel, attend the Sunday liturgy, and go home.
Just some relevant experiences.
It is a matter of fact that many Oriental Orthodox are blessed by their priests and bishops to receive communion at an EO Church, indeed many Ethiopians do so. It is not ideal but at the level of the laity, rather than the clergy, it is reasonably common. There has always been a difference between the meaning of clergy communing together and lay people. Indeed the Syrian Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox in the Middle East commune each other and concelebrate, and the CoC and the Greek Church of Alexandria also allow intercommunion in some cases. It does not seem to me that isolated individuals should be left without nourishment simply because the episcopal dialogue is taking so long, and it also seems to me that the facts show that the clergy of both communions regularly pray liturgically together as a witness to the sense that we already do consider each other Orthodox to all intents and purposes. This is not to say that I would think it appropriate for someone close to an Oriental Orthodox Church to receive communion in an EO Church.
I have to say that on the one hand there is value in moving to be near a Church, but on the other hand, how will the gospel be spread if people are not encouraged to strike out into the spiritual wilderness. I would expect a committed Orthodox living in Alaska to seek to find all the other Oriental Orthodox in the area and arrange some common prayers, and for any priests of any of the Churches to visit and celebrate the liturgy. I hope that we can increasingly discover that the Oriental Orthodox communion is ONE Church, and not isolate ourselves within our own various liturgical cultures.
I would be interested to know what sort of distances, and in which country, QT is describing his problem. Certainly in the UK I think that an Oriental Orthodox Church must be within 2 hours driving of everyone except those living in the far north of Scotland, and generally only an hour max.
Father Peter
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8035.msg103545#msg103545 date=1243414795]
then to find an Eastern Orthodox Church to worship at and possibly receive communion
Father Peter,
The Oriental Church has not yet been formally reunited with the Eastern Orthodox Church (although I believe we have come to an agreement on the nature of Christ); therefore, I do not think it is appropriate [yet] to receive communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church.
QT,
H.H. Pope Shenouda was recently asked during his Wed. meeting to build a church in Alaska. The person was saying that the closest COC was in Seattle, Washington, which was too far. HH replied, why did you move there in the first place if there is no church there? Then he said that the person, because of their decision, will have to travel to the far church as often as they can.
I also know a family who moved to a state becuase of a job, but the state has no church so they go to a different state (3 hours away), spend Sat. night in a hotel, attend the Sunday liturgy, and go home.
Just some relevant experiences.
Gentlepeople,
(good to see you by the way User00!)...
I don't think you are appreciating the full scope of the problem:
One needs more than a CoC and Holy Communion.. one needs good Christian Fellowship. I feel that this is so important. If I said to myself " I am Coptic..and my Faith is the true faith, and I will not pray with Catholics" then I'll find myself as one lonely Christian. ANd what if there was a Church there? With Copts ?? and what if they were all illegal immigrants that didnt know anything about anything?? and just caused problems??
Do you know - there's a Coptic Church in a city that I went to where the priest had to employ a security guard with a massive guard dog to keep an eye on the people because of all the fights that went on there.
What do you think the inside of the Church was like? Do you think there could be fellowship there? Is Christ what I have in common with these people ? Or do we find ourselves uniting over being Egyptian?
I'm not saying ALL Coptic Churches are like this.. but they can be... I've been in many where the priests didnt even speak a word of French or English because there was no need to - the congregation (a large percentage of them) seemed to be there illegally.
Its not generally a house of prayer.. it seems more like a social club in some parts.
At the end of the day, do these differences between us and the Roman Catholics are really so important that we shouldnt have communion there??
If there are problems in CoC congregations then they need to be dealt with. We cannot use those as excuses to allow further mistakes to be made. At a personal level we must remember that we are Orthodox Christians, Christians who live according to the true Christian Tradition, and we must be careful, even as we fellowship with Christians from other traditions, that we are not confused or subverted in our Orthodox Faith.
If our Churches have problems, then at the least we should pray and fast for their health and wellbeing, for the priest and the faithful who worship there. As far as possible we should seek to become active members of those congregations so that as we see what is weak and failing we can be used by God to bring strength and wholeness. This is not easy. It requires sacrifice. But the Church is not essentially about me, or about the experience of any particular person. It is a family and we don't easily abandon family however hard it gets.
(That is not an absolute. Sometimes there is a need to leave a situation. But it should only be after much soul-searching and prayer).
Father Peter
Yes, the differences are so important that you should not have communion there, and it is the responsibility of the priests and bishops, and the responsibility of each of us as we become mature Christians to both be aware of the reasons why we may not have communion, and also do the most we can to pray that those reasons may be resolved in God's will, and also to fellowship with Roman Catholic Christians as far as is possible.
If there are problems in CoC congregations then they need to be dealt with. We cannot use those as excuses to allow further mistakes to be made. At a personal level we must remember that we are Orthodox Christians, Christians who live according to the true Christian Tradition, and we must be careful, even as we fellowship with Christians from other traditions, that we are not confused or subverted in our Orthodox Faith.
If our Churches have problems, then at the least we should pray and fast for their health and wellbeing, for the priest and the faithful who worship there. As far as possible we should seek to become active members of those congregations so that as we see what is weak and failing we can be used by God to bring strength and wholeness. This is not easy. It requires sacrifice. But the Church is not essentially about me, or about the experience of any particular person. It is a family and we don't easily abandon family however hard it gets.
(That is not an absolute. Sometimes there is a need to leave a situation. But it should only be after much soul-searching and prayer).
Father Peter
thanks so much for giving a clear statement for this issue. Many don't care. Many care but then think that they can fool God.
So Catholics are allowed to commune with us as long as they are confirmed with the Holy Chrism? Re-baptism is not necessary? I have posted many times regarding this issue and have heard many different answers. My mother who was born and raised Catholic was baptized by immersion in the Catholic faith, and received only Holy Confirmation (Myron) upon marriage to my father who was Orthodox. The one officiating the wedding ceremony was a respectable bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Church. On the contrary here in the states I have seen many Catholics rebaptized in order to commune and marry in our church? What is the official position of the Orthodox Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church? Many Thanks.
Christ is Risen!
I am not sure that there is an 'official' position, not least because within the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church there is a great discretion allowed to the bishop.
Personally I believe that the main issue that the CoC has with the Roman Catholic baptism is its form, and if the form of immersion is followed then it seems that there is a willingness to receive by chrismation rather than baptism. Since most Roman Catholics are not baptised by immersion this seems to be a stumbling block in terms of reception at present in the CoC.
In other Orthodox Churches a Roman Catholic would never be baptised, therefore it seems to me that it must be a matter of pastoral order rather than dogma. The Roman Catholic rites of initiation are not, in my view, exactly equivalent to the Orthodox rites, and therefore require 'completion' on reception into Orthodoxy, and this is where variant practices are seen among all Orthodox - EO as well as OO. Is the non-Orthodox rite completed by a conditional baptism, or by chrismation, or is it not understood as a proper baptism at all. There is a variety of views even within Orthodox Churches - such as the Russian, and within the CoC, though presently this tends to be very strict about the form of the previous baptism.
Personally I am not so definitely concerned about the form of Roman Catholic baptism, since it seems to me to have a sacramental intent, but it would be much better all round if the Roman Catholics reverted to their previous practice of baptism by immersion. I know that in the practice of my own bishop a Roman Catholic would be baptised, not least for the sake of their future experience of the CoC. I know of some converts, not in the UK, who have been challenged by some CoC clergy because they were received into the CoC by chrismation by another CoC bishop.
This is something that I need to email H.E. Bishoy about. It is still not clear to me 100% if the issue is the form of Roman Catholic baptism, the various doctrinal issues within Roman Catholicism, the presence of Roman Catholic mission among Coptic Orthodox - or a mixture of all three.
Father Peter
However, what about Christian fellowship at least?
on another note, I'm thinking that what if someone Orthodox finds themselves "better Christians" in the Catholic Church? Wouldn't that be a good reason to at least change? What if someone finds themselves so "not at peace" in the Coptic Church, but can really pray and enjoy the mass in the Catholic. I think this is personal and it is the decision of the person.
But you say that the differences are so important that they shouldnt have communion, yet - what if these differences aren't so important to us? Such differences don't affect our salvation. Christ didnt say unless you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father then you are saved. Its at a level where.. it doesnt make a difference - would you agree?
For example: the Catholics believe in purgatory. But yet they insist on having repentance and confession to be saved. Well.. if one was catholic, and repented and confessed his sins, his belief in purgatory shouldnt affect his salvation so long as he has repented, confessed and had the Holy Communion.
Another example: If they believe that Saint Mary IS the Immaculate Conception. Well.. how does that affect their salvation? They don't worship her and they ask for her intercessions... so, what effect is that on their salvation?
Do you see my point of view at least?
I see that these differences do not affect our salvation. For example: A Coptic Christian may THINK that we worship Saint Mary as he's growing up as an Orthodox Christian. His/her belief may not be correct, yet he is in the "correct" faith. So - surely that is the same as someone catholic ?? Their faith may not be 100% correct, but because they have the essential sacraments, then this is the most important thing.
I'm in now way disputing this - I'm just not sure whether or not I've explained this clearly.
If these things are not important to you then that is the case.
I am a priest, and a student of our Fathers. I can do no more than watch over those Coptic Orthodox in my care.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I must bear in mind the teaching of the Fathers and of the Church.
Father Peter
We shall pray to God in spirit in TRUTH. Therefore, the spiritual and theological background is very important.
Yes, I do believe we have the right faith. We never changed since the apostlic times. However, do you understand my point of view at least?
If catholics ARE going to heaven, what effects did worshipping God in "our" brand of Truth benefit us more than them - when worshipping Him in the Orthodox "truth" means I could suffer from being away from much needed Christian fellowship.
You seem to be ignoring what I have said several times.
There is a place for Christian fellowship with Roman Catholics. I am not sure why you are writing as if I or anyone has said there should be no fellowship.
But if you wish to be Orthodox rather than Roman Catholic then you must seek to be formed within an Orthodox context. If you are not sure how the differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy can lead to the creation of a deficient spiritual practice then I strongly advise you to speak with your own priest. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not interchangeable even if God in his mercy is generous.
Father Peter
much like the name of Christ has power and can be used by anyone, yet they have not recieved any kind of authority to use it. this is how i personally view our current situation. we are following orders and acting on Christs authority and the others, while well meaning, have gone far astray with their own desires as to what God wants. so while the catholic church believes in the sacraments they too have gone astray and are acting outside the authority of Christ so in my opinion need re-baptism. how can a priest acting on his own will baptize?
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8035.msg103572#msg103572 date=1243526177]
Are you saying that you are in a place where there are no Orthodox Churches at all? Or within any travelling distance?
So, actually, i was speaking generally. .. but personally, thank God, I go to a Coptic Church.. its within easy distance. No.. I understood what you said. In fact, that's why I said you seem very compassionate in your views...
Most priests don't even recommend that..
Even Greek Orthodox !! perhaps I wasn't clear; and maybe we are getting many topics mixed up at the same time. I feel that there was a time when I was extremly remote from any orthodox Church, and I regret not going to a Catholic Church sooner as the fellowship would have been beneficial.
That is the first notion: Being raised Orthodox, it was not with the same open-mindedness as yourself. Not that we were taught anything against the Catholics... but I loved my CoC too much to even bother with them.
However, there was a time when I really needed good Christian friends and there was no Coptic Church, so I ended up going to the Catholic when push came to shove.
I'd have gone sooner if I was encouraged by Coptic people.. but they'd just prefer you don't go to the RC.
That was the 1st point, and perhaps it is in a more personal context.
Anyway - the 2nd point is in a general context (and its a point I'm just making generally)...
If Catholics are going to heaven, to the Coptic Heaven.. so long as we know our faith very well.. is communion in that Church so bad? Especially if we believe that it really is the Body & Blood of Christ?
You are asking if I do not see the importance of the differences? And that if I don't see how important the differences are - then I should consult my FoC?
Well, at the end of the day, if 2 lanes lead to the same destination, then does it matter which lane you take, especially if one of them is closed for you??
Does that make sense Fr? I am NOT trivialising the differences between us. All I am saying is - are these differences impacting our salvation if we chose to ignore them?
Im not talking about the Anglicans, the Protestants, the 7th day Adventists, the Mormons, the Cults, the Presbyterians etc..
I'm talking about the R.C.
Many thanks anyway for your reply.
God bless
Father Peter
How do you know the two roads lead to the same destination?
It is indeed possible for a Roman Catholic to be Orthodox despite their Roman Catholicism, and if they are then God will have mercy I am sure. It is indeed possible for an Orthodox to fail to live according to their Orthodoxy, and God will judge them.
But to leave Orthodoxy for Roman Catholicism strikes me as being sinful and dangerous.
To be in one place and to be moving towards that which is best is one thing. This leads me to conclude that those Evangelicals, Protestants and Roman Catholics who are living out the Orthodox faith as they understand it are united with us in some way.
But to turn from that which is best, and to willingly embrace error must be a dangerous thing indeed.
Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not two roads leading to the same place. It is only that which is Orthodox within all other Christian traditions which is salvific. The rest is error, confusion, delusion and leads away from God.
Father Peter
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8035.msg103581#msg103581 date=1243540427]
Hi
How do you know the two roads lead to the same destination?
Well.. I did this survey... and we found that 30% of French Roman Catholics were in Heaven.
OK. seriously. This is how I know that we both go to the same Heaven:
a) they have the sacraments
b) they are the same sacraments as us.
c) The Holy Spirit really works in them.
d) The fruits of the Holy Spirit are very much evident in them.
Look at Mother Theresa? She's definately in Heaven!
But more than all this is: Before the schism, we both shared the same saints.. so, after the schism, the dogmatic changes should not impact the sanctity of the sacraments nor the importance of faith without action. We know that faith without action is pointless.
So, they don't have the correct faith, but have the correct sacraments and if they do good deeds, that puts them in a very strong position near us. I think God will judge people according to the content of their heart. For example, if I INSIST that the Coptic Dogmas are wrong and preach something incorrect, God will judge me according to the agenda I've set out in my heart. But if I happen to be Catholic and I'm not really a theologian to know the difference, God cannot judge me according to what I'm ignorant of. Wow.. you are a die hard Orthodox priest! That's good to see!! I'm glad to see that. Yes.. you are are totally correct here. But, I'm not suggesting to TURN away from it. Not at all. But if we know what these differences are, then we can take steps towards enjoying more the Roman Catholic Church. For example: I was dead scared to go to any Catholic Church, and hear ANY catholic sermon when I was younger because I felt that I could hear something heretical.
But when I grew older and understood what the differences were, it made it easier to enjoy some unity/fellowship with them.
We are talking about theological differences... things that are ABOVE and beyond us.. we are not theologians. Leaving the Coptic for the Protestant faith would be dangerous because now, I'm depriving myself of Sacraments. They have no sacraments nor priesthood. So, you are saying that they do not lead to the same place; which means that Catholics don't go to the Coptic Heaven?
If that is the case, then why do you suggest fellowship with them?
Gosh... that sounds quite harsh Fr.
I have to say that the view that the Roman Catholics have the same sacraments as us, though they have different doctrines, is a Roman Catholic doctrine itself. The Coptic Orthodox Church does not accept the baptism of Roman Catholics, nor does it believe that the mass is the same as the Liturgy.
I am sure that God works among Roman Catholics, I know that he does, but that does not mean that I believe he works in the Roman Catholic Church in the same way. I know that he also works among Evangelicals. Yet again, not in the same way as in Orthodoxy.
I will say it again, that which is true in all Christian movements is Orthodox, that which is not true leads away from God. There is much in Roman Catholicism which is not true, and it is not the case that theology is above everyone's heads. In fact theology is in the very spiritual air we breathe, and if the theology of a group is wrong then the spirituality is wrong, even if the lay people do not know it.
When things go wrong in Coptic Orthodoxy it damages people, but when it goes wrong it is because some in the Church are failing to live up to what Coptic Orthodox should truly be teaching. But when people live out the fulness of Roman Catholicism things go wrong, because Roman Catholicism is in error. The great Roman Catholic saints are those who have failed to accept all that Roman Catholicism demands.
I must also say that the idea that a Church which fell into heresy in the past must still be considered to be a true Church is not one that the Church recognises. The Roman Church did fall into error and this has affected the spiritual life within it. Yet there is the gracious activity of God there, and so we fellowship with that which is true and with those who love that which is true, even while being aware that there is a danger there for Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike.
To be becoming Orthodox within Roman Catholicism is possible and because of that we confess that God is at work within Roman Catholicism, but to be becoming Roman Catholic from an Orthodox position is harmful because it is choosing that which is less and it is a giving up that which is the fulness.
Roman Catholicism - as a system of belief - is error, yet not all Roman Catholics embrace that system fully and in the measure they are not spiritually formed by that error they are Orthodox.
A belief in purgatory, a belief in merits, a belief in indulgences, a belief in papal infallibility, a belief in universal papal jurisdiction, a belief in the immaculate conception, a belief in the requirement of a celibate clergy, a belief in communion only in one kind, the veneration of statues, the abandonment of fasting, the use of the imagination in prayer, baptism by affusion, the separation of baptism and chrismation, the Augustinian view of grace, the Roman Catholic ecclesiology...and I have not even mentioned the filioque.
In fact there are many more matters of significant difference, and I say this as a priest who enjoys fellowshipping with Roman Catholics and derives a great deal of benefit from their interest in Oriental Orthodoxy. Within Roman Catholicism there is a narrow Orthodox way, and I am glad to meet those who are on it, indeed there is such a narrow way in most Christian traditions, but in Orthodoxy it encompasses the whole of our spiritual tradition.
Father Peter
I've seen this in the Protestant Church.. its so much full of emotion.
I think prayer is a serious subject. I'm not saying they don't take it seriously, but... it is funny when you stand next to them and you hear them say "Dear Daddy in heaven".
I mean.. i've actually heard that. And they are dead serious...
Another bunch of Catholics wanted to thank God for a great day.. so they began to applaud in the Church to God. Yeah.. its a bit strange.. but what can u do?
Thanks anyway for your answer.
I was told grace was simply put: God giving Himself to us, what was St. Augustine's view?
Thanks, Gb
I have spent many years in and out of the RCC. The clarity of Orthodox teaching was a joy to me when I came across it as unique. I am happy, for the first time in my life, with a religion. Our Saviour has become a powerful part of my life for the first time.
All the dear Catholics I know have a religion which is an integral part of wordly life despite the teaching on abortion, contraception and marriage. A famous Russian hierarch who died over 70 years ago said the difference between western confessions and Orthodoxy was not so much doctrinal as a loss of belief in self denial and asceticism in general in favour of programmes to improve the world. The late Pope of Rome, John-Paul, once congratulated his flock on surviving the 'rigours of Lent'. In Roman Catholicism there are no rigours for most people. For reasons never explained you are not really expected to do any real fasting etc and they thereby lose a huge blessing.
Before we get into discussing the Augustinian view of grace may I just thank Fr Peter for his clear account as to how Orthodoxy differs from Roman Catholicism.
I have spent many years in and out of the RCC. The clarity of Orthodox teaching was a joy to me when I came across it as unique. I am happy, for the first time in my life, with a religion. Our Saviour has become a powerful part of my life for the first time.
All the dear Catholics I know have a religion which is an integral part of wordly life despite the teaching on abortion, contraception and marriage. A famous Russian hierarch who died over 70 years ago said the difference between western confessions and Orthodoxy was not so much doctrinal as a loss of belief in self denial and asceticism in general in favour of programmes to improve the world. The late Pope of Rome, John-Paul, once congratulated his flock on surviving the 'rigours of Lent'. In Roman Catholicism there are no rigours for most people. For reasons never explained you are not really expected to do any real fasting etc and they thereby lose a huge blessing.
Yes, it would be a shame to abandon Orthodoxy for catholicism.. its not a step in the right direction. There's no debate there.
And yes, Fr. Peter's efforts in explaining are commendable indeed.
However, I did appreciate his view that we can at least have some sort of fellowship. And even when I am amongst catholics in any fellowship, I make it clear that I am Orthodox - but I respect their differences with ours. I don't go and preach to them that Saint Mary was not born Immaculate etc.. but I just try to focus on what we have in common.
For me, the principal is to grow spiritually, and having good Christian friends is quite important. We may be denied this in some parts of the world. We cannot have good Coptic friends.
I remember one Church i went to, the Coptic youth would go to strip bars after their "Friday meetings" - I mean - are these people you really want as friends?
My options were to chose the least of 2 evils.. The Coptic Youth (and I'm happy to share with u some examples of this type), or Good Catholic Youth.. I chose Good Catholic Youth.
Father Peter
I have watched the baptism that our church conducts and I have always seen our priest pour the water over the babys' head .Does it mean he is conducting it wrongly.I belong to the orthodox tewahdo church btw.Thanks in advance .
baptism by affusion,
Father Peter
I have watched the baptism that our church conducts and I have always seen our priest pour the water over the babys' head .Does it mean he is conducting it wrongly.I belong to the orthodox tewahdo church btw.Thanks in advance .
That's a good question. I'm quite suprised.
Fr. Peter - if this is not the correct way, then does the baby have to re-baptised?
Thanks also in advance
I find it most surprising indeed. Do we have some video anywhere of an Ethiopian Orthodox baptism? Is the practice different in Africa to in the US or other Western countries?
Baptism by affusion, which is a definite pouring of water not simply a sprinkling, is allowed by the canons in certain circumstances but not in the normal way of things. If it is normal for Ethiopian baptisms to be by affusion then I wonder where that tradition came from since even in the West baptism was by immersion until the medieval period.
Anyhow, I think I'd like more information before saying anything else.
Father Peter
If this is typical then it is very different from the Western forms of affusion which may be criticised for lacking a sense of being 'baptised-plunged-immersed' in water. The priest in this video is careful to make sure that the whole body of the infant is doused in water, and this seems to me to be much more essentially the form of an immersive baptism.
In Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism a child is almost always fully clothed when baptised, and the affusion is actually only a sprinkling of water on the forehead, or at most a pouring of water on the forehead. This seems very different to the form of baptism seen in the video.
Father Peter