Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Greek Orthodox to Coptic Orthodox
I was asked by a Greek Orthodox Christian, "Is it difficult for a Greek Orthodox Christian to convert to Coptic Orthodoxy?"
When I asked what he meant, he said he meant the process of converting. I do not know how to reply.
Can someone, like Fr. Peter, please give me a true answer on this topic ASAP so I can get back to him? Thank you.
When I asked what he meant, he said he meant the process of converting. I do not know how to reply.
Can someone, like Fr. Peter, please give me a true answer on this topic ASAP so I can get back to him? Thank you.
Comments
I have a man who is Russian who is a Reader in my church. Eastern Orthodox are already Orthodox.
It would be necessary to ask why he wants to become particularly a member of your congregation. He can't really become a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church, as if that were different from being just Orthodox. He is already a member of the Orthodox Church.
As long as he does not embrace any heresy then there is no problem.
The Eastern Orthodox are Orthodox, and therefore cannot become Orthodox. And they certainly cannot become Coptic Orthodox, as if that were something different.
I have a Russian Orthodox Reader in my Church. He did not become Orthodox. He already was. He received a blessing to serve, and was ordained a Reader. I have many other Eastern Orthodox in my congregation. They also were already Orthodox.
There is communion between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox laity. This takes place everywhere, even at the hands of His Holiness Pope Shenouda.
The Eastern Orthodox are Orthodox, and therefore cannot become Orthodox. And they certainly cannot become Coptic Orthodox, as if that were something different.
I have a Russian Orthodox Reader in my Church. He did not become Orthodox. He already was. He received a blessing to serve, and was ordained a Reader. I have many other Eastern Orthodox in my congregation. They also were already Orthodox.
Does this mean that I can take communion in a GOC?
I know of Egyptian Christians who received communion in a Serbian and Russian Orthodox Church, for instance, because there were no Oriental Orthodox Churches available.
It is a fact that agreement has been reached which allows members of mixed marriages in Egypt to commune and receive all the sacraments in either Church. Therefore there CANNOT be a theological or ecclesiological impediment. It is a matter of organisation and politics. We can only ever allow our own faithful to receive the sacraments in an Orthodox Church, and therefore the Eastern Orthodox must be Orthodox.
If an Eastern Orthodox has such a view of the Oriental Orthodox that he wishes to receive communion then there is no theological impediment. He already believes as we do, and understands that we are entirely Orthodox. The firm tradition of our Orthodox communion insists that Eastern Orthodox should be received without any baptism or chrismation and that those in the order of priesthood should retain their rank.
It is a fact that agreement has been reached which allows members of mixed marriages in Egypt to commune and receive all the sacraments in either Church. Therefore there CANNOT be a theological or ecclesiological impediment. It is a matter of organisation and politics. We can only ever allow our own faithful to receive the sacraments in an Orthodox Church, and therefore the Eastern Orthodox must be Orthodox.
When was this agreement reached? Does this mean that we are really close to completely unifying both the EO and OO?
also you need permission from the priest or bishop of the other church.
in some eastern orthodox churches, you should confess each time you take Holy Communion.
it sounds heavy, but their confessions (e.g. in romania, where i went) are really short, like 5 minutes and often take place just before the start of the liturgy.
in the church i went to, there was a queue of people half an hour before liturgy and they go up to the priest, do a quick confession and then go back to where they were standing in the church. and then only those people that were in that queue can take Holy Communion. of course, other eastern orthodox churches may be different. also in romania, u had to buy a candle and give it to one of the deacons before taking Holy Communion (or after, i can't remember exactly)
it is not as private as in the coptic church (the next person in the queue is only 5 steps behind you, as compared to sitting in a different part of the church where he/she can't hear you) and you have to be well prepared to get all your sins out so quickly (or maybe it's just me that is so sinful i can't do it in 5 minutes!) i need a minimum of 15 minutes for confession, and have often taken longer.
so u would need a good reason to go to communion in an eastern orthodox church, and that is why you should discuss it with your priest.
Peace and Grace
My understanding is that most of the Eastern Orthodox churches have not signed the agreement yet, including the Russians. Therefore, we are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. In other words (for most) they need to be re-baptized, since we cannot accept their baptism because they don't accept ours.
That being said, we have limited communion with some of the churches that belong to that family...Namely the patriarchate of Alexandria and Antioch. The agreement is since they accept our baptism, and we accept their baptism, then mixed marriage can occur in the church of the couple's choosing, but then they must continue in that church. We don't have this agreement with any of the other churches in that family.
Some may argue that this is just political and we need to get over our differences. I believe that this has been entrusted in the hands of the theologians involved in the dialogues. We need not make our own rules and jump the gun. When the churches come out officially and say we are in communion, then we can do whatever we want, but for now, let us keep things simple and as they are so as not to cause more confusion.
In Christ
Hello all,
Peace and Grace
My understanding is that most of the Eastern Orthodox churches have not signed the agreement yet, including the Russians. Therefore, we are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. In other words (for most) they need to be re-baptized, since we cannot accept their baptism because they don't accept ours.
That being said, we have limited communion with some of the churches that belong to that family...Namely the patriarchate of Alexandria and Antioch. The agreement is since they accept our baptism, and we accept their baptism, then mixed marriage can occur in the church of the couple's choosing, but then they must continue in that church. We don't have this agreement with any of the other churches in that family.
Some may argue that this is just political and we need to get over our differences. I believe that this has been entrusted in the hands of the theologians involved in the dialogues. We need not make our own rules and jump the gun. When the churches come out officially and say we are in communion, then we can do whatever we want, but for now, let us keep things simple and as they are so as not to cause more confusion.
In Christ
Not being in Communion does not mean they don't accept our baptism or that we don't accept theirs. Never in the history of the Church has schism been treated in such a way.
We rebaptise Protestants, because they did not receive Baptism from a priest. Even if you take a strict line that there can be no intercommunion, there is not a need to rebaptise. Reception is either by Chrismation, or by confession. Many, many priests and bishops though will commune the other side as long as they don't hold heresy. Priests will not be communed, because that would be interfering in the hierarchy of each other's structures, which are still separate. But laity frequently intercommune in many places.
Fr. Peter is speaking from a faith point of view. However, when it comes to marriage specifically a Greek Orthodox must belong to the Coptic Church. This has nothing to do with faith but for organizational matters.
By your logic, we don't need to baptize catholics because, after all, they were baptized by priests.
And when it comes to communion and confession and chrismation...I don't know what you are trying to say. But Communion simply means were are able to partake of the same sacraments, All the sacraments. Last I checked, Baptism was a sacrament.
IMikhail,
I know Fr. Peter is speaking from a faith POV. I agree with him on that. But when it comes to official protocol, the churches have not come to a definite agreement yet. So I think we shouldn't make up our own protocols.
Jonathan,
By your logic, we don't need to baptize catholics because, after all, they were baptized by priests.
And when it comes to communion and confession and chrismation...I don't know what you are trying to say. But Communion simply means were are able to partake of the same sacraments, All the sacraments. Last I checked, Baptism was a sacrament.
IMikhail,
I know Fr. Peter is speaking from a faith POV. I agree with him on that. But when it comes to official protocol, the churches have not come to a definite agreement yet. So I think we shouldn't make up our own protocols.
Yes, it is wrong to rebaptise Catholics. This is something that has only happened in the last 50 years. It is not at all the historic norm. Many clergy have expressed their distast at this wrong practise.
Apart from that issue, ot being in Communion means that we are not allowed to have Communion in each other's Churches. It is not the same as not recognizing the validity of each other's Sacraments. Throughout the history of the Church, there have been many schisms. Being in schism means being out of Communion. And yet people received from schismatic groups have never been rebaptised. Do you have any evidence of EO being received in the OO Church, or v.v., by baptism, or is this just what you feel should happen based on your own logic? I have never heard of such a thing.
Not baptizing is wrong.
What individual priests think is not my concern. This is the official position of the church including what I said about E.O.
I know E.O who were baptized into Coptic church.
But our individual experiences is useless. It is the source from where we get the information. So please check the credentials of your sources. This is a principle in all of life and should very well be applied here.
I will not post again about this topic publicly. It will get too big. I think the main points have been said. If you would like you can PM me.
Take care
Our greatest Fathers considered it a grave sin to chrismate those coming from Eastern Orthodoxy, and were appalled at the idea that such a person should be baptised.
Certainly no Eastern Orthodox were even chrismated until recently.
Our Synod says of the Eastern Orthodox..
We have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.
But even before this recognition of a common faith there was no practice of chrismating, let alone baptising Eastern Orthodox. My sources are authoritative. They are the great saints and fathers, and the canons of our own local Orthodox Church.
for purpose of sacraments, especially marriage, one has to belong to the Coptic Church.
Fr. Peter is speaking from a faith point of view. However, when it comes to marriage specifically a Greek Orthodox must belong to the Coptic Church. This has nothing to do with faith but for organizational matters.
This is clearly not true. It suggests that the Coptic Orthodox Church is different from all other Orthodox Churches. If an Indian Orthodox wishes to marry a Coptic Orthodox Christian there is no problem. She or he would not have to be a member of a Coptic Orthodox congregation. Indeed if an Indian and a Coptic Orthodox Christian were to be living in Syria for some time and attended a Syrian Orthodox Church then they could be married in a Syrian Orthodox Church.
There is only ONE Orthodox Church. Dividing the One Church by ethnicities and language instead of only by location is not Orthodox. All that matters is the faith.
How does a person who is Orthodox join the Coptic Orthodox Church, other than by attending services and participating in the life of a local congregation? What more can be given to one who has already received the Holy Spirit? Is there a rite for Copts who move and join a different congregation, or do they just join in the life of the new congregation? Of course this is what happens.
There is ONE Church.
I would like to ask people to refer to current practices, rather than their own understandings or experiences as saifaing pointed out.. there are rules set out as mentioned above by both imikhail and saifaing...
Oujai
I am reporting the teaching of our great saints and Fathers, and the constant practice of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria.
The modern practice of chrismating Eastern Orthodox is a very recent practice indeed and it is incompatible with the Tradition.
It is the current practice to allow the singing of Protestant songs. Is this to somehow take precendence of the Tradition of the Church because it is a current practice.
St Severus, the luminous star of the East, made it clear that those who chrismate Eastern Orthodox are engaged in an entirely illegitimate practice. We know that even in the 19th century there was no chrismation of Chalcedonians. Therefore it is a modern practice without basis in the Tradition. That it is current in a few places does not make it valid.
DEar all,
I would like to ask people to refer to current practices, rather than their own understandings or experiences as saifaing pointed out.. there are rules set out as mentioned above by both imikhail and saifaing...
Oujai
What source has been quoted indicating that there is an official stance requiring EO's to be rebaptised?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157441#msg157441 date=1341713641]
for purpose of sacraments, especially marriage, one has to belong to the Coptic Church.
Fr. Peter is speaking from a faith point of view. However, when it comes to marriage specifically a Greek Orthodox must belong to the Coptic Church. This has nothing to do with faith but for organizational matters.
This is clearly not true. It suggests that the Coptic Orthodox Church is different from all other Orthodox Churches. If an Indian Orthodox wishes to marry a Coptic Orthodox Christian there is no problem. She or he would not have to be a member of a Coptic Orthodox congregation. Indeed if an Indian and a Coptic Orthodox Christian were to be living in Syria for some time and attended a Syrian Orthodox Church then they could be married in a Syrian Orthodox Church.
There is only ONE Orthodox Church. Dividing the One Church by ethnicities and language instead of only by location is not Orthodox. All that matters is the faith.
How does a person who is Orthodox join the Coptic Orthodox Church, other than by attending services and participating in the life of a local congregation? What more can be given to one who has already received the Holy Spirit? Is there a rite for Copts who move and join a different congregation, or do they just join in the life of the new congregation? Of course this is what happens.
There is ONE Church.
Dear Fr. Peter,
I understand that you may not be familiar with the Egyptian laws. If an Ethiopian wants to marry an Egyptian, he has to become Coptic, his religious affiliation must be changed. This protects him from the government changing his religion to Islam.
This is necessary because the Ethiopian Church does not have a "structure" under the Egyptian law. The same is true for the Greek Orthodox, unless they belong to the Melkite Church in Egypt. This has nothing to do with faith but has to do with dealing with the Egyptian government.
I understand what you are referring to, but there are realities that we have to live with.
Anyways...
We are not talking about laws of Egypt, or marriage between members of the same orthodox family. This has nothing to do with the discussion.
We are talking about communion between the oriental orthodox family and the eastern orthodox family. And whether baptism or chrismation (confirmation) is necessary.
As of now, no agreement has been reached as to how unity will occur. Also, not all the members of the eastern orthodox signed the agreement of faith. Therefore, we don't have the same faith because they haven't declared it. There are exceptions two of whom I have mentioned who do agree with our faith and so there is some kind of limited communion with them. However, there can't be this same kind of communion with all because they haven't accepted the agreement of faith.
Full communion has not been reached with those mentioned because the agreement from the beginning was that communion would occur between the two families as a whole and not between separate members so as not to cause confusion.
Regarding what was quoted by St. Seuerus, it could very well mean not to chrismate chalcedonians because their baptism is invalid. So please provide the entire excerpt so we can all benefit and not to take anything out of context.
Also, from a Coptic church history viewpoint, there were hardly any communication between the oriental and eastern orthodox up until the nineteenth century. Even when talks did start in the 19th century, there was no agreement reached nor any declaration of common faith, nor any process about how communion would be reached. If there was, then seine please provide the documents to prove it. I'm not challenging anyone, I really don't know if there is anything out there or not. I'm just speaking from background knowledge.
The other thing is...
How can we accept the eastern orthodox that still call us heretics. Even within the EO family there are different factions and they call each other heretics. So who's right? Who do we accept?
The point is the process is too cplicated. This is why I advocate that we follow the position of the church and not make up or own rules.
Communion has not been reached, period. In fact we are not even close according to the people that represent our church in the dialogues.
Sorry for rambling on.
My views are known. I believe they are the authentic Orthodox Tradition.
The argument merely seems to be that we are not in Communion, therefore we cannot receive sacraments in their Church, therefore someone coming to our Church is not considered to be Baptised, so they must be baptised. This is patently absurd.
The fact that I cannot take my son to be Baptised in an EO Church, because we are in schism, does not mean that we consider the EO to be unbaptised! The fact that we may not receive sacraments from them, is not at all the same thing as saying that we believe that they are not actually receiving the Sacraments themselves in their Church.
I cannot take my son to be baptised there, but if one of them comes to us, in truth, they have been baptised. Their sacraments are illicit to us because we are in schism, they are not invalid.
If you want to convince me that there is an official policy of the Coptic Orthodox Church that EO are received by Baptism, you must show me a source for that, not just tell me that we are not in communion, which I very well know already.
In the Creed, we confess ONE Baptism.
On the 29th of Hathour, we read about the importance of not repeating baptism: a woman was taking her children to Alexandria to be baptised by St. Peter the seal of the martyrs. The sea was rough, and she feared they would parish on their journey. So she baptised her children herself. When they survived their journey, she took them to St. Peter to be baptised. The water "solidified as stone". St. Peter asked her what had happened, and she told him, and he informed her that the Church proclaims that there is only one baptism, and it cannot be repeated. The woman was no priest, and had no authority to baptise, but the Lord accepted it, and St. Peter accepted it.
Throughout history, Eastern Orthodox have been received by confession, not by Baptism. Later, the practise arose of receiving them by Chrismation. It is only in the past few decades that some bishops have required reception by baptism, in rare cases. This is wrong, and I have not heard of it happening recently. I sincerely hope that this wrong practise has been done away with. The Church has always received schismatics without rebaptising them.
Heretics are received, in some cases by Baptism. For example, if someone is baptised in the name of Jesus rather than a proper trinitarian baptism, they will be baptised. Many Protestants do not really baptise. They believe it is just a public proclamation of faith, with no effect. They are going through the motions, but they have no intention of baptizing as we understand it, of regenerating, of admitting to the mystical Body of Christ, the Church. This is what I meant before by those who do not have the priesthood, those who do not have a sacramental view are not really intending to baptised, so it makes perfect sense to say that they have not been baptised, they have had an empty ritual, and Baptism must be given.
Each bishop decides how to receive those of other Christian groups. The bishops may discuss and agree together on a common policy. But this need not be the case. For example, a bishop in a region where Catholicism is heavily mixed with local pagan or tribal religions may insist that converts from Catholicism are received by baptism, while a bishop in a region with more normal Catholics may receive them by Chrismation.
I know that there is an agreement between the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate and the Greek Orthodox patriarchate in Alexandria regarding intermarriage: that it will not be hindered, but the couple will choose one Church in which to worship as a family and raise children. This is prudent, as going to separate rites and not going to Church together weakens a family. I have not seen it said that that agreement requires the party going to the other Church to be received by Baptism. If it does, I would be very interested in knowing this, but I would still believe it to be wrong.
That Ethiopians marrying in a Coptic Church must be registered with the government as members of that local Coptic Church in order to avoid bad consequences with Egyptian civil law is neither here nor there. The Ethiopians who attend a Coptic Church in North America and have their children baptised there, and commune there weekly are members of that Church, on the member list, fully participating in the life of the parish. They were not baptised, or chrismated, or anything to become members. It is one Church.
Eastern Orthodox were always received by confession. Meaning if they renounce chalcedon, and confess the Orthodox faith, they are admitted to confession. No need to rebaptised. Look up Fr. Peter's book, it gives proof of this from history. This does not mean that we are in communion, or ignoring that fact that we are not in communion, it is the normal way in history how someone left the Chalcedonian Communion and entered the anti-Chalecdonian Communion, by rejecting the error of Chalcedon, and entering that Communion. They are not unbaptised heathen without grace, they are people on the other side of a schism, returning to communion by rejecting the council that divided us.
If someone is coming from the Greek Church because of the corruption there, I hope that they will not accept corruption here by agreeing to engage in blasphemy by being baptised twice. If someone is coming for the sake of a girl, I hope they will not blaspheme to be with a girl. If there are still bishops who, either through sincere ignorance, our because of political motives, are requiring EO to be received by Baptism, I hope that they are corrected.
I can tell you for a fact that there were Copts, attending a Greek Orthodox Church because there wasnt a Coptic church nearby. The diocese bishop was shocked, forbade it, and started a Coptic Community Church there that has flourished.
But how is this relevant to how an EO would be received in the Coptic Church? That fact that one bishop refused his flock from communing at an EO Church when there was no OO Church around (though other bishops have allowed it), is just part of us not being in Communion, which everyone agrees is the case. It doesn't imply anything about how an EO would be received. It certainly doesn't indicated that they would be received by baptism.
I don't really want to continue participating in this thread.
My views are known. I believe they are the authentic Orthodox Tradition.
Same here.
I wasn't suggesting anything except encouraging people to be familiar with what happens in Egypt.. that's all
Oujai
When the Russian monastery church I attended went into schism I looked into the 'other' Orthodox. So here are the conditions for Communicating with them:
British Orthodox- no conditions for Orthodox people
Copts (Bishop Angaelos)- Chrismation
Copts (priest)- prudential baptism
Ethiopians (baptism)
I can see that it's a good thing we don't encourage people to chop and. Hangs congregations so I'm quite happy with the conditions whatever they are and for whatever reason. The only thing is that I'm not going to undergo any form of baptism
.