I made the mistake of writing my reply on the iPhone and made a bit of a hash. Now its been promoted to limbo anyway but I'd like to express my thoughts even if they remain unanswered.
As I said , I've been 'baptised' three times in my life. Which is the valid one? Really I should have received Chrismation when I joined an Orthodox church since that is the procedure where I presently go. However, I was persuaded to be baptised in the monastery in which I attended catechumen classes.
So even a baptism 'in case the last one wasn't done right' will not do. The arguement 'one Lord, one faith. one baptism' and therefore if you were baptised in a church not in communion with the one you now wish to join then that baptism is invalid is a good one but nobody seems to hold it.
If I didn't read about 'other' Orthodox or have meetings with inspiring people who are not in communion with my church then this quandary would not arise.
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2012, 08:41:41 PM » Quote 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
My experiences of inter-Orthodox communion, etc. , confirm the cautious wisdom that sifaing has expressed. This requires me to uncomfortably disagree with the seeming too broad ecumenical brush that Fr. Peter seems to be using to blur the traditional and current lines between the many and varied “orthodox” jurisdictions. It is my sense that St. Theophilus would disagree with these versions of speculative, “non-judgmental love.” Jesus’s repeated final departing “commandment” to His frightened beloved disciples was: If you love Me, keep my commandments; ... the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in me; and ... that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do. John 14:15, 30, 31. Don’t God’s final Words, before His Incarnation, through the Prophet Malichi, say and mean the same cautions and “commandments?”
As an example of the many current seeming concrete divisions between the many and varied “divided” ecumenical “orthodox” jurisdictions, please carefully note the following excerpt, under the names of many prominent Eastern Orthodox bishops, priests and theologians, from the Introduction to the Orthodox Church in the loadly acclaimed : THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE.
Between the years 325 and 787, seven such Church-wide conclaves were held, all dealing first and foremost with some specific challenge to the Apostolic teaching about Jesus Christ. These councils, meeting in the cities of Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople, are known as the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
For the first thousand years of Christian history, the entire Church, save the heretics,(emphasis added) embraced and defended the New Testament Apostolic faith. There was no consequential division. And this one faith, preserved through all trials, attacks and tests, this Apostolic doctrine, was called “the Orthodox faith.”
The Orthodox Study Bible, 2008, xxii. I don’t have a copy of the earlier edition of the New Testament Orthodox Study Bible available now, but as I recall, these exceptional heretics were, therein, identified, under the names of many of these same “Who’s Who of Eastern Orthodox” theological notables, as Monophysites. Who could they be?
Are Copts and OO welcome to receive the sacraments at the former Russian Orthodox Church of Fr. Patrick’s Russian reader? I think all of this freelance, do it yourself “christian” (and feminist/ freudian) ecumenism is a slippery slope into a deep pit, which is becoming much harder to climb out of, by nearly all contemporary so-called “christian”/ orthodox churches. Please don’t tempt any struggling, sincere, traditional orthodox believers to taste this “new,” addictive forbidden (Catholic/ Anglican/ Protestant) fruit.
May God save a few of us from the U.S. Greek Orthodox (Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary and HG Kallistos Ware) seeming blind feminist infatuation with ordination of women to the orthodox priesthood.
And, please, don’t deprive the many Catholic and Protestant converts to the liberal Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions by abbreviated “economia” chrismation, the blessing of a (conditional?) full Coptic Baptism and annointing with real Myron and orthodox prayers, when they overcome all of the demonic (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc.) propaganda against our always challenged Holy Orthodox Coptic Church. I am also somewhat familiar with the seemingly similar modern challenges to our brother Ethiopean, Eretrean, Indian, and Syrian Orthodox Churches. Each compromise, by any of us, weakens the entire Orthodox Church of Christ. If we love Our Savior, and our fellows, we will keep His commandments, no matter what.
On this approximately 1950th anniversary of their martyrdom for Christ’s commandments, would SS Peter and Paul agree that all “so-called,” self-proclaimed Orthodox believers have the same orthodox faith that these Apostles taught and has been passed down to us? Confirming Holy Bible verses, only, please. Have you been to a modern, progressive Greek / Antiochian Orthodox (or Coptic) Church lately?
jonathon wrote: « Reply #14 on: July 07, 2012, 09:44:23 PM »
Quote from: sifaing on July 07, 2012, 09:34:14 PM 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.
jonathan: Have you read any Catholic related headlines in the secular press in the past 10, or 50, years? Is this gross general public Catholic immorality the fruit of legitimate orthodox christian sacraments? The PR firms who speak for Catholic leadership at all levels call this spiritual chaos, infallible developmental theology. Theology? Since when has Catholic militant arrogance been repentant? The Infallible Vicar knows no repentence, never. But hopefully before never. There are some very weird versions and ongoing “developing” practices of Catholic Sacraments since their notorious “misadventure” of Vatican II. I believe that some have called this the era of every priest being a Pope unto himself. No Rules.
[quote author=irishpilgrim link=topic=13480.msg157554#msg157554 date=1342006207] jonathan: Have you read any Catholic related headlines in the secular press in the past 10, or 50, years? Is this gross general public Catholic immorality the fruit of legitimate orthodox christian sacraments? The PR firms who speak for Catholic leadership at all levels call this spiritual chaos, infallible developmental theology. Theology? Since when has Catholic militant arrogance been repentant? The Infallible Vicar knows no repentence, never. But hopefully before never. There are some very weird versions and ongoing “developing” practices of Catholic Sacraments since their notorious “misadventure” of Vatican II. I believe that some have called this the era of every priest being a Pope unto himself. No Rules.
What has any of this got to do why anything?
To my knowledge, the Coptic practise in recent days has been to rebaptise Latin rite Catholics since they were not baptised by immersion, but NOT to rebaptise Eastern Rite Catholics, like Coptic Catholics, since they were Baptised properly. Even this is a departure from the traditional practise which be to not rebaptise at all. But it's far from the stance most people here are taking.
I'm not arguing that Catholics are not in error. I'm not arguing there hasn't been great corruption and wrong doing. That is different than saying they are unbaptised heathen.
People keep accusing me and Fr. Peter of making up our own rules by saying that EO are not received by Baptism. Yet it is clearly the historic practise of the Church, and those claiming that we are making up rules have yet to provide a single source demonstrating a published policy of the Coptic Orthodox Church that EO are to be received by Baptism. Rather, it is those who are insisting on rebaptism of even Eastern Orthodox who are relying on their own judgement, logic, and reasoning rather than submitting to the historic practise of the Church throughout the ages.
I'm trying to keep this brief if I may for my own clarification.
Part of the self identification of the EO church is that it is the Church of the Seven Councils. The OO churches accept only three councils. It seems to me that this fact cannot be waived aside. If I find it disagreable that there is a de facto division, that we are not in communion with one another, then we can simply ignore the divisions and say we're all Orthodox except for local, administrative differences or we can see them as something more serious.
I am still not clear. I see that the OO churches have lived without four of the seven councils accepted by the EO and even so they are close in theology. However, it would seem there can be no real communion until either the OO churches accept the same councils as the EO or the EO repudiate them. This is not going to happen.
It seems then that the Copts have every right to believe they are the Church of Christ along with the Armenians etc and the Byzantine tradition Orthodox have the same right to believe they are the Church. But they can't both be right.
This doesn't alter the fact that one or the other grouping may be Orthodox in some way just as in seventh century Britain the Celtic church had it's own life away from the European churches. They did in the end join in discipline with the rest of Europe and anyway they were never considered to be out of communion.
So I am baffled.
The Houses of Parliament is arranged so that opponents can face each other. Any any member who holds a different opinion from his party can't shuffle round and vote with the other side. He has to be seen changing sides. Similarly Christians need to accept that some group may be outside the Church of Christ but with status unknown except to God and if they want to join the others, through marriage or conviction, they have to make a public demonstration.
[quote author=aidan link=topic=13480.msg157558#msg157558 date=1342011729] I'm trying to keep this brief if I may for my own clarification.
Part of the self identification of the EO church is that it is the Church of the Seven Councils. The OO churches accept only three councils. It seems to me that this fact cannot be waived aside. If I find it disagreable that there is a de facto division, that we are not in communion with one another, then we can simply ignore the divisions and say we're all Orthodox except for local, administrative differences or we can see them as something more serious.
I am still not clear. I see that the OO churches have lived without four of the seven councils accepted by the EO and even so they are close in theology. However, it would seem there can be no real communion until either the OO churches accept the same councils as the EO or the EO repudiate them. This is not going to happen.
It seems then that the Copts have every right to believe they are the Church of Christ along with the Armenians etc and the Byzantine tradition Orthodox have the same right to believe they are the Church. But they can't both be right.
This doesn't alter the fact that one or the other grouping may be Orthodox in some way just as in seventh century Britain the Celtic church had it's own life away from the European churches. They did in the end join in discipline with the rest of Europe and anyway they were never considered to be out of communion.
So I am baffled.
The Houses of Parliament is arranged so that opponents can face each other. Any any member who holds a different opinion from his party can't shuffle round and vote with the other side. He has to be seen changing sides. Similarly Christians need to accept that some group may be outside the Church of Christ but with status unknown except to God and if they want to join the others, through marriage or conviction, they have to make a public demonstration.
Yes, we are not in communion. I won't debate here whether the only way to Communion is accepting he exact same councils, since that is outside the scope of a thread on how an EO is received in the Coptic Church... but I will say briefly that I do not believe this approach to be based on a proper Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology, one influenced by western views of conciliar infallibility and doctrinal development. If we come to agree today that we have the same faith, what need is there to worry about past councils? If the faith of Chalcedon was modified by the subsequent councils to route out the diophysitism there, then what need is there to force them to anathematize what they have already corrected? The christological argument has all but been settled, and it is other issues and hard-liners on each side that maintain the separation. I recommend reading Fr. Peter's book on Christology, you may be surprised by the early Church's approach to reconciliation is greatly different than what we imagine it might be based on the western ideas we're brought up with in Sunday school. The fathers were happy to receive anyone who would reject the errors of chalcedon without feeling the need to baptise them as if the sacraments of the other side were invalid--despite the fact that of course they were out of communion. There were attempts at reunion based on new joint declarations of faith, interpreting the past acceptably, rather than forcing one side or the other to abandon their tradition and accept the history of the other.
We are not in communion with the EO. They still consider us heretics which means we do not have the same faith.
The monks of Mount Athos, who control any lift of the anathemas, firmly believe of the two natures as expressed in Chalcedon and after. It is not merely a linguistic matter or an issue of semantics. There is a fundamental theological difference between our faith and theirs.
Thus we cannot say that we are in communion; meaning we do not profess of their baptism and the rest of their sacraments such as they do te same with our sacraments. Following, we do not believe in the same baptism and we do not have the sae Church.
This is why an EO cannot blindly be accepted in our Orienta Church.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157574#msg157574 date=1342049293] We are not in communion with te EO. The still considers heretics which means we do not have the same faith.
The monks of Mount Athos, who control any lift of the anathemas, firmly believe of the two natures as expressed in Chalcedon and after. It is not merely a linguistic matter or an issue of semantics. There is a fundamental theological difference between our faith and theirs.
Thus we cannot say that we are in communion; meaning we do not profess of their baptism and the rest of their sacraments such as they do te same with our sacraments. Following, we do not believe in the same baptism and we do not have the sae Church.
This is why an EO cannot blindly be accepted in our Orienta Church.
But this is your logic. Not the logic of the Church. For centuries after the division, we were not in Communion, because of a matter of faith, and yet reception was not by Baptism. Can anyone quote a source saying that the stance of the Coptic Church today has changed, and that reception is by Baptism, instead of just repeating that it doesn't seem right to you to receive by confession from a group that we aren't in Communion with?
"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)
...
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
Every indication is that the Coptic Orthodox Church accepts the Sacraments of the EO Church as valid, though we are not in Communion.
Those who are arguing that because we are not in Communion, we cannot consider their Sacraments valid, have yet to provide a single citation indicating that the Church shares their opinion, or a single example from history to show that that is a traditional understanding of the Church
If our Synod has concluded that their Sacraments are valid, and their Synod has concluded that our Sacraments are valid, what does it matter of many of the monks of Athos do not think our Sacraments are valid? How would that suddenly make our Synod wrong, make their Sacraments invalid, and force us to rebaptise them?
How can we accept their sacraments and say we are not in communion? By definition to be in communion is to accept the other side's faith. If I do not accept his faith, then how can I accept the sacraments that are built on a faith I reject?
Btw what you presented in the link above has nothing to do with the EO Church. The article only represents the Melkite church which has no existence outside Egypt.
to our EO brother, i sincerely hope that we have not upset you with all our discussion. I guess you need to speak to the priest at the OO church you would like to join. We love very much the EO church. However, sadly, because of the ongoing division, we are not in communion which makes our official relationships complex.
anyway, i just wanted to say, despite all our looong discussions.. we are brothers and sisters in Christ and it would be lovely to have you in our church :) (in whatever form that may happen)
i look forwards to a time when we will all worship God together, if it is not to be here on earth where we see things unclearly.. i am certain that in heaven we shall, joined with the holy angels be united in Christ in love!
If our EO brother can make it to England he will be made most welcome in my own congregation together with all the other EO who worship with us as One Orthodox Church in accordance with the teachings of our Fathers.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157585#msg157585 date=1342062692] How can we accept their sacraments and say we are not in communion?
That would be the definition of schism.
By definition to be in communion is to accept the other side's faith. If I do not accept his faith, then how can I accept the sacraments that are built on a faith I reject?
Is that the definition of communion? We were not in communion with the British Orthodox Church. H.H. Pope Shenouda did not rebaptise the British Orthodox when the entered Communion with us. Are Abba Seraphim and Fr. Peter unbaptised, godless heathen, due to an error by Pope Shenouda? If you say no, it was ok to enter into Communion with them once we agreed we have the same faith, then does that mean that their Sacraments suddenly became valid when we talked and agreed, or that in fact they were valid before agreement was reached? If so, what if a group of Baptists came to believe in the Orthodox faith, and practise it in their Church for a few decades. Could we then talk with them, agree we have the same faith, and accept them without giving them an Orthodox Baptism? Certainly not. It seems there's more to being in Communion than having the same faith, and more to the validity of Sacraments, of being the Church than being in Communion.
Do you really hold your understanding of ecclesiology (which seems to be an extreme form of the Western view rather than an Orthodox view), your logic, above the consistent actions of the Fathers for centuries?
Btw what you presented in the link above has nothing to do with the EO Church. The article only represents the Melkite church which has no existence outside Egypt.
The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria has nothing to do with the Eastern Orthodox Church?
The following opinion was found on orthodoxinfo.com:
The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox. Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy. Here is a place for true ecumenism. But despite the fact that the time seems ripe, we must still rest on the Providence of God and restore the Copts to Orthodoxy in a proper way. One cannot say that he is Orthodox simply because he believes correctly and recites the Creed. He must be received into the Church by Chrismation or Baptism. The fact that the Copts were once Orthodox, fell away, and have now come to right belief is neither here nor there. Grace does not withstand generations of heresy and separation from the Church.
Anyone who believes that the Orthodox Fathers were wrong in condemning the Monophysites, and that the Copts have always been Orthodox, is guilty of blasphemy against the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, which condemned the Monophysite heresy. He is also guilty of heresy, in that such a proposition presupposes not only that the Fathers of the Church were in error and that this error entered into the conscience of the Church, but that the Orthodox Church has for centuries been "divided" between the two "families" of right-believing Orthodox and the supposedly "right-believing" Copts. Moreover, such a view presumes that our Orthodox Fathers, ignorant of the truth, "divided" the Church over semantics and over word games.
Is this generally the opinion of the majority of the Eastern Orthodox about us?
Monophysites, or Non-Chalcedonians—Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssinians), and Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites—have, since the conclusion of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod, been viewed by the Orthodox Church as heretical groups [1]. That is, until this century due to the influence of ecumenism. This page is offered as a corrective.
Despite all the "scholarly discussion" trying to show that we are in fact "of the same Faith and Family as the Monophysites," the fact remains that these groups have not unreservedly accepted the Fourth through Seventh Oecumenical Synods (something which was required of them by the Orthodox participants in all prior reunion attempts throughout church history), nor have they decisively and conclusively renounced the teachings of Dioscoros, Severos, Eutyches, et. al. When those events occur (at the very least), union is imminent.
A Note to Coptic Christians: I occasionally receive emails expressing your frustation with being labeled as monophysite on this Web site. You are especially troubled by the article listed below entitled "Copts and Orthodoxy". You claim that you are "miaphysite", not monophysite. Your Christology is therefore supposedly Orthodox even though you do not accept the formulation agreed upon at the Council of Chalcedon (i.e., the Fourth Oecumenical Synod). In other words, "it is supposedly evident that nothing separates us in Faith, that the differences hitherto observed are due to a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the theological terminology, which the special theological experts now understand better than the holy Fathers, and that the original separation of the Non-Chalcedonians from the Church was due not to theological but to political reasons." [2] Thus you frequently demand that I remove these claims from my site.
To this I can only respond that, from the traditional perspective of the Orthodox Church, you are monophysite. This is how the Orthodox Church has always viewed the Coptic Church. In other words, to us your "miaphysitism" is essentially "monophysitism". Moreover, you have been wrongly led to believe—whether by your own teachers or by Orthodox ecumenists [3]—that the Orthodox Church has been mistaken, and that there's no reason for Coptic Christians to leave their church and be reconciled with Orthodox. Some Orthodox clergy and teachers will agree with you, but I am persuaded by the Saints and teachers whose writings are listed below. I believe they represent the true teaching of the Orthodox Church. Thus, it would seem we are at an impasse regarding your request.
I hasten to remind you, however, what the "Copts and Orthodoxy" article states in all sincerity: "We deeply respect and admire Coptic piety. Many Copts far exceed Orthodox in their dedication to God and fidelity to their faith. But our respect must not impede us from telling them the truth, bringing them into the Church properly, and offering them bread, rather than the stone of cheap ecumenical politics." Dear Coptic Christians, you are very close to us! Unity is a desirable thing! But such unity can only come about with your full acceptance of all seven Oecumenical Synods.
Are you really willing to come to terms with the traditional position of the Orthodox Church? If so, you should read Father John McGuckin's masterful study St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy : Its History, Theology, and Texts. As Daniel Larison noted in his blog:
The most significant consequence of Fr. McGuckin's book, from the perspective of the Orthodox Church and all Chalcedonian Christians, is that it should demonstrate once and for all in a convincing and largely non-polemical way that the post-451 extreme Cyrilline (i.e., monophysite) reading of Cyril and reaction against Chalcedon were theologically misguided and wrong on their own Cyrilline terms. As much as some modern Orthodox and other scholars attempt to sidestep or massage this truth, either with recourse to excusing error on the grounds of confused terminology or by catering to anti-Chalcedonian sentiments with the use of euphemistic names such as Oriental Orthodox or 'miaphysite' rather than monophysite, it seems inescapable that to reject Chalcedon is to turn against the true meaning of Cyril's Christology and no amount of monophysites' invoking Cyril or repeating his sayings formulaically is going to change that.
This need not be taken principally as ridicule or as an attack, but as a call to all those who honour the memory and theology of St. Cyril to recognise his true meaning and grant that Chalcedon is not only compatible with Cyrilline confession but, in a sense, necessary for the defense of St. Cyril's doctrine. Accepting Chalcedon and the Councils that affirm its decrees does honour to St. Cyril, and persisting in schism out of a misunderstanding of his teachings is senseless. Perhaps by elucidating the matter clearly and plainly, Fr. McGuckin's study will help facilitate an understanding of the imperative for the non-Chalcedonian churches to return to Orthodoxy, if perhaps for no other reason than their commitment to the tradition of St. Cyril.
Please do not place your trust in the writings of "Orthodox" ecumenists, whose views will only confirm you in your errors....
I ask why the owners of this orthodox information cite are allowed to publically publish such opinions without the review of their clergy, particularly their bishops and patriarch, unless their heirarchy do indeed concur with what is being said.
If what is said above is truly objectionable to the Eastern Orthodox, should they not correctly censure this author as he is subject to their ecclesiastically?
If they permit him to publically teach the world these opinions, does that not mean that they espouse them and agree with what is being said above? If this is true, and they consider us heretics at the hierarchical levels, how do we then commune with them or them with us?
[quote author=metouro link=topic=13480.msg157601#msg157601 date=1342097128] The following opinion was found on orthodoxinfo.com:
The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox. Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy. Here is a place for true ecumenism. But despite the fact that the time seems ripe, we must still rest on the Providence of God and restore the Copts to Orthodoxy in a proper way. One cannot say that he is Orthodox simply because he believes correctly and recites the Creed. He must be received into the Church by Chrismation or Baptism. The fact that the Copts were once Orthodox, fell away, and have now come to right belief is neither here nor there. Grace does not withstand generations of heresy and separation from the Church.
Anyone who believes that the Orthodox Fathers were wrong in condemning the Monophysites, and that the Copts have always been Orthodox, is guilty of blasphemy against the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, which condemned the Monophysite heresy. He is also guilty of heresy, in that such a proposition presupposes not only that the Fathers of the Church were in error and that this error entered into the conscience of the Church, but that the Orthodox Church has for centuries been "divided" between the two "families" of right-believing Orthodox and the supposedly "right-believing" Copts. Moreover, such a view presumes that our Orthodox Fathers, ignorant of the truth, "divided" the Church over semantics and over word games.
Is this generally the opinion of the majority of the Eastern Orthodox about us?
No. This is one opinion with no weight. Even if they were wrong about us, and mistakenly thought that we were heretics in the past, that would not make them heretics, it would just mean they are mistaken about us. So it wouldn't require us to baptise them to receive them. In fact, even those who believe this strongly about us, still receive us by Chrismation, not as unbaptised.
[quote author=metouro link=topic=13480.msg157603#msg157603 date=1342098017] I ask why the owners of this orthodox information cite are allowed to publically publish such opinions without the review of their clergy, particularly their bishops and patriarch, unless their heirarchy do indeed concur with what is being said.
If what is said above is truly objectionable to the Eastern Orthodox, should they not correctly censure this author as he is subject to their ecclesiastically?
If they permit him to publically teach the world these opinions, does that not mean that they espouse them and agree with what is being said above? If this is true, and they consider us heretics at the hierarchical levels, how do we then commune with them or them with us?
Of course. Anyone can publish anything. How man articles by Copts do you see online with no episcopal approval. How many conflicting and wrong opinions do people post on website without being censured? Don't trust something you read on the internet as an official position unless it's posted on an official website and signed by a group of bishops.
Even if they did believe that we held the eutychian heresy, why would that mean we would have to Baptise them? Them being wrong about us being Orthodox wouldn't make them unorthodox, just mistaken about us.
We are not in Communion. Largely because despite all the dialogue and agreement, there are still hard-liners on both sides, like the one you post above. If we were to rush too quickly towards Communion, then people like that would be offended and go into schism themselves. Hatred and propaganda has been preached on both sides for a very long time. It takes time to overcome that.
I personally am not in favour of reunion for a few reasons. One of them is that the EO more freely allow divorce, and allow marriage to Protestants. If someone were to go to our Church and ask to marry a Protestant, they'd be told no. If we were in Communion, they could just go to the Greek Church down the street, marry the Protestant, come back, and we could say nothing. But this doesn't make them unbaptised, it just means they have a wrong practise.
So, regardless of what they think about us, and regardless of differences in practise, there is only one Church, and we can't say that either group is outside it, so there is no legitimate reason to receive from one side of the schism to the other by baptism. You may say no, they are heretics, they follow chalcedon. They have cleaned up the mistakes of Chalcedon and come back to an Orthodox understanding, but even if that was not the case, there would still only be one Church. For the centuries after Chalcedon, when there certainly were Christological disputes, our fathers received those coming over from the Chalcedon party not as unbaptised heathen, but as penitents. They did not rebaptise them, even when the Empire was actively persecuting anti-chalcedonians. Certainly we are on better terms today, and have come much closer in our understandings of Christology, so why would we now rebaptise them?
The owners of the orthodox[mis]info site are not properly Orthodox but belong to various extremist schismatic groups. Their opinions are their own.
I am presently in a serious and detailed discussion of Christology with very serious and tradtional Eastern Orthodox and we have been able to discover that our faith is entirely the same. As our bishops have already stated.
The EO have rejected communion with the Oriental as a result of the debates that went during the 90's. We signed the agreement, but when the Ecumenical Patriarch took it to the monke of Athos, they rejected the agreement and affirmed our heretic status according to their Church.
We are not in communion .. Whomever thinks that on their side is heretic according to the monks of Athos who hold the seal of any communion.
In summary, they reject our faith, and we reject theirs.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157611#msg157611 date=1342132322] The EO have rejected communion with the Oriental as a result of the debates that went during the 90's. We signed the agreement, but when the Ecumenical Patriarch took it to the monke of Athos, they rejected the agreement and affirmed our heretic status according to their Church.
We are not in communion .. Whomever thinks that on their side is erotic according to the monks of Athos who hold the seal of any communion.
In summary, they reject our faith, and we reject theirs. This is not the opinion of the most traditional and erudite of our Bishops and theologians. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to state that the Athonites have control of the anathemas held by the EO Church. There have been times where the EP of the EO Church has actually been at conflict with the Athonites. This summary does not fully and accurately reflect EO-OO relations.
Jonathan does have a point regarding marriage to the heterodox within the EO Church. However, I have heard of Syriac and Malankara Orthodox clergy communing heterodox and marrying them to Orthodox Christians within the Church. This problem is not only plaguing their Church, but ours as well.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157611#msg157611 date=1342132322] The EO have rejected communion with the Oriental as a result of the debates that went during the 90's. We signed the agreement, but when the Ecumenical Patriarch took it to the monke of Athos, they rejected the agreement and affirmed our heretic status according to their Church.
We are not in communion .. Whomever thinks that on their side is erotic according to the monks of Athos who hold the seal of any communion.
In summary, they reject our faith, and we reject theirs.
So... we're not in Communion, which everyone knows. Where is your proof that the Church's policy is to receive them by Baptism?
So... according to you, we signed the documents, their Patriarch was on board, but they didn't proceed because of resistance from Athos, which thought we aren't Orthodox. Ok. So if we were willing to agree, how do you get from that that they are unbaptised heretics? You take the opinion of the monks of Athos above the opinion of our own Synod that was willing to sign?
Even if there is still need for dialogue before full Communion is appropriate, even though we are not in Communion, as we all know, how does this lead you to believe that they must be received by Baptism? Have they become heretics since the centuries after Chalcedon when each side received people coming from the other as penitents and not as unbaptised? Are all the bishops today who have received EO without Baptism ignorant and in need of enlightenment by your logical proofs? Where is your source saying that the method of reception is by Baptism?
You just keep saying we're not in Communion, so they have to be Baptised. Everyone knows we're not in Communion. Where is your source showing an official policy of receiving the by Baptism? Were are your sources showing our bishops today, or fathers through the centuries saying their Sacraments are invalid, or treating them as such? You have your own idea of how the Church works in your mind, and you are reasoning yourself how things should work, rather than looking at what the consistent practise of the Church has been. You have offered nothing to explain how your convictions can stand against the clear historical practise of receiving Chalcedonians into our Communion without rebaptising, or the modern bishops who continue this practise. You've just offered your own reasoning of how you feel it should work, without even attempting to explain why you feel that if we are not in Communion, then they are unbaptised, something that no Church has ever taught.
I'm a little bit surprised by the direction this thread took, and I'm not saying it as a judgment. I am pointing some things out in case I am misunderstanding comments or persons. :)
It seems like people are make de facto statements very authoritatively, but without anything to back them up patristically, whether ancient or modern, other than Fr. Peter and Jonathan. As mentioned there are a lot of things that have changed in recent history or have local variations, but we have to go back to what Orthodoxy teaches, not our own opinions.
It also seems to me that there was some condescension or disrespect toward Fr. Peter, and I hope that I am misunderstanding. I am not sure how many of you are aware that on this topic, there is probably nobody in the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate (of which the BOC is a part) more qualified to speak on this matter than Fr. Peter. His website, orthodoxunity.org is considered practically "the" reference on this issue, and his understanding of Post-Chalcedonian history and Theology can hardly be rivalled by anyone in our Church. Yet, his opinions were treated as though they were by some person off the street who knows nothing of ecclesiology. I don't know Fr. Peter other than by some e-mails, but I just thought I would mention it, because almost everyone with interest in this subject has either been reading his work on it or been contacting him directly for probably about a decade or so! :)
The most surprising thing, though, seems to be our understanding of "the Church". It really comes off here as though some people understand the Coptic Orthodox Church to be different than the Orthodox Church, or as though it's a special Church that needs special membership within Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy, regardless of what culture we come from. We have a rich heritage and history in the Alexandrian patriarchate, but I am no "more" Orthodox than a Syrian, or Eritrean. There is not a special membership when we intermarry between our churches. It might be wiser for raising a family to stick to one parish and become a local member of that parish, but it's not a different Church. To talk of our church as being somehow above Orthodoxy is really...not Orthodox. I hope that I am misinterpreting, and maybe this is worthy of discussion on another thread, but I wanted to point it out, especially if this is a thread being read by members of other families within the Orthodox Church. The Coptic Church has no belief that we are a different Church than any in the "one, holy, universal and apostolic church".
An aside: When I was living abroad for a season and had no Oriental Orthodox Church available, I went to a Greek Church and stood at the back. The priest came to me at the end of Liturgy and asked about me, I told him that I was a Copt, expecting to be thrown out. The priest embraced me, welcomed me, and told me that his bishop informed him of our mutual agreements on communing one another where we don't have services. He told me to take the blessings of my FOC, and that he would be happy to give me of the Eucharist. He told me that he was treated the same by the Ethiopians when he was in a similar situation. Over the four months I had Eucharist at his hands. I used to be very anti-Chalcedonian (I still have some reservations), but i told him that his love showed me that there is hope for restoration. When he found out that I was ordained a reader just before I left, he was adamant that I read in the Church before leaving. It sounds like Fr. Peter is doing the same in his parish. Bishop Samuel of blessed memory, was apparently the one who pioneered these agreements in the 60s and 70s, though I have found very little writing about the specifics of these. It was told to me by some people who lived in Europe and the USA during those times.
I hope I have not offended and welcome discussion.
If we are in true communion withe the EO as some claim, then no one would need the permission of his FOC to take communion there.
We are different Curches with different faiths. They have anathemas against us. If clergy take it upon themselves to ignore these anathemas, hen they put themselves above and in place of the Church.
Anathemas are not mere formalities but a declaration of a separation between the two Families.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157624#msg157624 date=1342150871] If we are in true communion withe the EO as some claim, then no one would need the permission of his FOC to take communion there.
+Irini nem ehmot
Dear imikhail,
I'm not sure if you have heard the expression "in economia" before, but that is why it's permitted under specific circumstances. His Holiness Pope Shenouda was aware of and was okay with these things in economia. In situations in which one church has nothing, this is done and is actually a very regular practice. I have not seen anyone state anywhere in this thread that they believe we are in "full communion" with the EO, so I think we are all on the same page. I would also hope that none of us think that our own personal opinion would be above the authority of the Bishops who authorised such practices!
Feel free to discuss this with your Bishop if you have one, and I would be surprised if he does not say exactly what several have expressed on this thread already. :) I will not try and persuade you with what I have received the blessings of both priests and Bishops on, and the Lord will judge them on their own conscience and adherence to the spirit of the canons.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13480.msg157606#msg157606 date=1342106925] The owners of the orthodox[mis]info site are not properly Orthodox but belong to various extremist schismatic groups. Their opinions are their own.
I am presently in a serious and detailed discussion of Christology with very serious and tradtional Eastern Orthodox and we have been able to discover that our faith is entirely the same. As our bishops have already stated.
May the Lord continue to bless Your Reverence's efforts and use Your Reverence to reunite the Orthodox Church(es). I pray that others like Your Reverence, particularly bishops in the Holy Synod can push for unity with the same eloquence and knowledge as we see the Lord has granted Your Reverence.
[quote author=fortunatus link=topic=13480.msg157619#msg157619 date=1342143774] +Irini nem ehmot
I am not sure how many of you are aware that on this topic, there is probably nobody in the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate (of which the BOC is a part) more qualified to speak on this matter than Fr. Peter. His website, orthodoxunity.org is considered practically "the" reference on this issue, and his understanding of Post-Chalcedonian history and Theology can hardly be rivalled by anyone in our Church. Yet, his opinions were treated as though they were by some person off the street who knows nothing of ecclesiology. I don't know Fr. Peter other than by some e-mails, but I just thought I would mention it, because almost everyone with interest in this subject has either been reading his work on it or been contacting him directly for probably about a decade or so! :)
Reverend Father Peter for Patriarch! Who's with me?
Joking [partially] aside (I do wish control of the Church was given to somone of His Reverence's ability to moderate and teach),
How can we as a Church push for His Reverence to have further input and control and steering and progression of the dialogue to bring about fruitful discussions. By fruitful, I mean concrete steps for realy communion in the near future as opposed to the stagnation of the last 22 years as a result of the resistance of those on Mount Athos?
As a side note, one of our deacons jestfully suggested that on the night before the feast day of Pope Leo, a couple of our deacons, dressed in their tunics, should enter a hard-line chalcedonian church through the church roof and descend stealthfully on ropes, take the icon of Pope (St.) Leo and replace it with an Icon of St. Dioscorus. We would secretly then videotake the reaction of others. But, that would not be conducive to unity.
[quote author=fortunatus link=topic=13480.msg157625#msg157625 date=1342151794] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157624#msg157624 date=1342150871] If we are in true communion withe the EO as some claim, then no one would need the permission of his FOC to take communion there.
+Irini nem ehmot
Dear imikhail,
I'm not sure if you have heard the expression "in economia" before, but that is why it's permitted under specific circumstances. His Holiness Pope Shenouda was aware of and was okay with these things in economia. In situations in which one church has nothing, this is done and is actually a very regular practice. I have not seen anyone state anywhere in this thread that they believe we are in "full communion" with the EO, so I think we are all on the same page. I would also hope that none of us think that our own personal opinion would be above the authority of the Bishops who authorised such practices!
Feel free to discuss this with your Bishop if you have one, and I would be surprised if he does not say exactly what several have expressed on this thread already. :) I will not try and persuade you with what I have received the blessings of both priests and Bishops on, and the Lord will judge them on their own conscience and adherence to the spirit of the canons.
Pray for me.
Out bishop, bishop Youssef, does not permit EO members to fully participate in the Church's sacraments till they become Oriental Orthodox.
By the way, what I have stated in posts are not personal opinions but are based on the dialogues we have had with the EO and what transpired as a result.
#1: No disrespect to Fr. Peter, Sorry if you have been offended.
#2: The only source that was provided was a quote by St. Severus which may be understood differently, ( I already replied to it).
#3: My source and iMikhail sources is the same person who represents the Coptic church in dialogues. There are no written sources because the dialogues decisions have not been published. Abba Bishoy is the only bishop who has any authority about this stuff because he is co-president of the dialogues.
#4: We have already mentioned that the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Antiochian Orthodox are exceptions to what we are saying. We have special protocols with them, so let's not bring them up again, ok?
About Baptism: The way the sacrament is done or what is said, or even who does it, has nothing to do with if it is valid or not when we are talking about those done outside of the OO communion. The validity is not in the words, not in the immersion or the sprinkling. Unfortunately, this is what the Catholic church believes and thus they believe anyone can baptize, and not just clergy. For us, it is about the faith into which you are baptized. There are perceptions we have the same faith (which could very well be true), however, it has not been declared or agreed upon officially by both families as agreed upon in the dialogues. There are people working on this, so let's not make rash decisions and keep it to those appointed.
Thanks for your time.
Honestly, I really hope no one is getting offended, we are having a professional discussion. Fr. Peter's work is greatly appreciated, but there are more sides to the story. It seems to me that we are now saying in the BOC this happens or this doesn't happen. I'm sorry, but last I checked, the BOC is a member of the coptic orthodox church and the only difference should be in culture, not in policy. So what the COC does in regards to this matter, the BOC should be doing.
Comments
As I said , I've been 'baptised' three times in my life. Which is the valid one? Really I should have received Chrismation when I joined an Orthodox church since that is the procedure where I presently go. However, I was persuaded to be baptised in the monastery in which I attended catechumen classes.
So even a baptism 'in case the last one wasn't done right' will not do. The arguement 'one Lord, one faith. one baptism' and therefore if you were baptised in a church not in communion with the one you now wish to join then that baptism is invalid is a good one but nobody seems to hold it.
If I didn't read about 'other' Orthodox or have meetings with inspiring people who are not in communion with my church then this quandary would not arise.
God bless you people.
As an example of the many current seeming concrete divisions between the many and varied “divided” ecumenical “orthodox” jurisdictions, please carefully note the following excerpt, under the names of many prominent Eastern Orthodox bishops, priests and theologians, from the Introduction to the Orthodox Church in the loadly acclaimed : THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE.
Between the years 325 and 787, seven such Church-wide conclaves were held, all dealing first and foremost with some specific challenge to the Apostolic teaching about Jesus Christ. These councils, meeting in the cities of Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople, are known as the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
For the first thousand years of Christian history, the entire Church, save the heretics,(emphasis added) embraced and defended the New Testament Apostolic faith. There was no consequential division. And this one faith, preserved through all trials, attacks and tests, this Apostolic doctrine, was called “the Orthodox faith.”
The Orthodox Study Bible, 2008, xxii. I don’t have a copy of the earlier edition of the New Testament Orthodox Study Bible available now, but as I recall, these exceptional heretics were, therein, identified, under the names of many of these same “Who’s Who of Eastern Orthodox” theological notables, as Monophysites. Who could they be?
Are Copts and OO welcome to receive the sacraments at the former Russian Orthodox Church of Fr. Patrick’s Russian reader? I think all of this freelance, do it yourself “christian” (and feminist/ freudian) ecumenism is a slippery slope into a deep pit, which is becoming much harder to climb out of, by nearly all contemporary so-called “christian”/ orthodox churches. Please don’t tempt any struggling, sincere, traditional orthodox believers to taste this “new,” addictive forbidden (Catholic/ Anglican/ Protestant) fruit.
May God save a few of us from the U.S. Greek Orthodox (Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary and HG Kallistos Ware) seeming blind feminist infatuation with ordination of women to the orthodox priesthood.
And, please, don’t deprive the many Catholic and Protestant converts to the liberal Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions by abbreviated “economia” chrismation, the blessing of a (conditional?) full Coptic Baptism and annointing with real Myron and orthodox prayers, when they overcome all of the demonic (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc.) propaganda against our always challenged Holy Orthodox Coptic Church. I am also somewhat familiar with the seemingly similar modern challenges to our brother Ethiopean, Eretrean, Indian, and Syrian Orthodox Churches. Each compromise, by any of us, weakens the entire Orthodox Church of Christ. If we love Our Savior, and our fellows, we will keep His commandments, no matter what.
On this approximately 1950th anniversary of their martyrdom for Christ’s commandments, would SS Peter and Paul agree that all “so-called,” self-proclaimed Orthodox believers have the same orthodox faith that these Apostles taught and has been passed down to us? Confirming Holy Bible verses, only, please. Have you been to a modern, progressive Greek / Antiochian Orthodox (or Coptic) Church lately? jonathan:
Have you read any Catholic related headlines in the secular press in the past 10, or 50, years? Is this gross general public Catholic immorality the fruit of legitimate orthodox christian sacraments? The PR firms who speak for Catholic leadership at all levels call this spiritual chaos, infallible developmental theology. Theology? Since when has Catholic militant arrogance been repentant? The Infallible Vicar knows no repentence, never. But hopefully before never. There are some very weird versions and ongoing “developing” practices of Catholic Sacraments since their notorious “misadventure” of Vatican II. I believe that some have called this the era of every priest being a Pope unto himself. No Rules.
jonathan:
Have you read any Catholic related headlines in the secular press in the past 10, or 50, years? Is this gross general public Catholic immorality the fruit of legitimate orthodox christian sacraments? The PR firms who speak for Catholic leadership at all levels call this spiritual chaos, infallible developmental theology. Theology? Since when has Catholic militant arrogance been repentant? The Infallible Vicar knows no repentence, never. But hopefully before never. There are some very weird versions and ongoing “developing” practices of Catholic Sacraments since their notorious “misadventure” of Vatican II. I believe that some have called this the era of every priest being a Pope unto himself. No Rules.
What has any of this got to do why anything?
To my knowledge, the Coptic practise in recent days has been to rebaptise Latin rite Catholics since they were not baptised by immersion, but NOT to rebaptise Eastern Rite Catholics, like Coptic Catholics, since they were Baptised properly. Even this is a departure from the traditional practise which be to not rebaptise at all. But it's far from the stance most people here are taking.
I'm not arguing that Catholics are not in error. I'm not arguing there hasn't been great corruption and wrong doing. That is different than saying they are unbaptised heathen.
People keep accusing me and Fr. Peter of making up our own rules by saying that EO are not received by Baptism. Yet it is clearly the historic practise of the Church, and those claiming that we are making up rules have yet to provide a single source demonstrating a published policy of the Coptic Orthodox Church that EO are to be received by Baptism. Rather, it is those who are insisting on rebaptism of even Eastern Orthodox who are relying on their own judgement, logic, and reasoning rather than submitting to the historic practise of the Church throughout the ages.
Part of the self identification of the EO church is that it is the Church of the Seven Councils. The OO churches accept only three councils. It seems to me that this fact cannot be waived aside. If I find it disagreable that there is a de facto division, that we are not in communion with one another, then we can simply ignore the divisions and say we're all Orthodox except for local, administrative differences or we can see them as something more serious.
I am still not clear. I see that the OO churches have lived without four of the seven councils accepted by the EO and even so they are close in theology. However, it would seem there can be no real communion until either the OO churches accept the same councils as the EO or the EO repudiate them. This is not going to happen.
It seems then that the Copts have every right to believe they are the Church of Christ along with the Armenians etc and the Byzantine tradition Orthodox have the same right to believe they are the Church. But they can't both be right.
This doesn't alter the fact that one or the other grouping may be Orthodox in some way just as in seventh century Britain the Celtic church had it's own life away from the European churches. They did in the end join in discipline with the rest of Europe and anyway they were never considered to be out of communion.
So I am baffled.
The Houses of Parliament is arranged so that opponents can face each other. Any any member who holds a different opinion from his party can't shuffle round and vote with the other side. He has to be seen changing sides. Similarly Christians need to accept that some group may be outside the Church of Christ but with status unknown except to God and if they want to join the others, through marriage or conviction, they have to make a public demonstration.
I'm trying to keep this brief if I may for my own clarification.
Part of the self identification of the EO church is that it is the Church of the Seven Councils. The OO churches accept only three councils. It seems to me that this fact cannot be waived aside. If I find it disagreable that there is a de facto division, that we are not in communion with one another, then we can simply ignore the divisions and say we're all Orthodox except for local, administrative differences or we can see them as something more serious.
I am still not clear. I see that the OO churches have lived without four of the seven councils accepted by the EO and even so they are close in theology. However, it would seem there can be no real communion until either the OO churches accept the same councils as the EO or the EO repudiate them. This is not going to happen.
It seems then that the Copts have every right to believe they are the Church of Christ along with the Armenians etc and the Byzantine tradition Orthodox have the same right to believe they are the Church. But they can't both be right.
This doesn't alter the fact that one or the other grouping may be Orthodox in some way just as in seventh century Britain the Celtic church had it's own life away from the European churches. They did in the end join in discipline with the rest of Europe and anyway they were never considered to be out of communion.
So I am baffled.
The Houses of Parliament is arranged so that opponents can face each other. Any any member who holds a different opinion from his party can't shuffle round and vote with the other side. He has to be seen changing sides. Similarly Christians need to accept that some group may be outside the Church of Christ but with status unknown except to God and if they want to join the others, through marriage or conviction, they have to make a public demonstration.
Yes, we are not in communion. I won't debate here whether the only way to Communion is accepting he exact same councils, since that is outside the scope of a thread on how an EO is received in the Coptic Church... but I will say briefly that I do not believe this approach to be based on a proper Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology, one influenced by western views of conciliar infallibility and doctrinal development. If we come to agree today that we have the same faith, what need is there to worry about past councils? If the faith of Chalcedon was modified by the subsequent councils to route out the diophysitism there, then what need is there to force them to anathematize what they have already corrected? The christological argument has all but been settled, and it is other issues and hard-liners on each side that maintain the separation. I recommend reading Fr. Peter's book on Christology, you may be surprised by the early Church's approach to reconciliation is greatly different than what we imagine it might be based on the western ideas we're brought up with in Sunday school. The fathers were happy to receive anyone who would reject the errors of chalcedon without feeling the need to baptise them as if the sacraments of the other side were invalid--despite the fact that of course they were out of communion. There were attempts at reunion based on new joint declarations of faith, interpreting the past acceptably, rather than forcing one side or the other to abandon their tradition and accept the history of the other.
The monks of Mount Athos, who control any lift of the anathemas, firmly believe of the two natures as expressed in Chalcedon and after. It is not merely a linguistic matter or an issue of semantics. There is a fundamental theological difference between our faith and theirs.
Thus we cannot say that we are in communion; meaning we do not profess of their baptism and the rest of their sacraments such as they do te same with our sacraments. Following, we do not believe in the same baptism and we do not have the sae Church.
This is why an EO cannot blindly be accepted in our Orienta Church.
We are not in communion with te EO. The still considers heretics which means we do not have the same faith.
The monks of Mount Athos, who control any lift of the anathemas, firmly believe of the two natures as expressed in Chalcedon and after. It is not merely a linguistic matter or an issue of semantics. There is a fundamental theological difference between our faith and theirs.
Thus we cannot say that we are in communion; meaning we do not profess of their baptism and the rest of their sacraments such as they do te same with our sacraments. Following, we do not believe in the same baptism and we do not have the sae Church.
This is why an EO cannot blindly be accepted in our Orienta Church.
But this is your logic. Not the logic of the Church. For centuries after the division, we were not in Communion, because of a matter of faith, and yet reception was not by Baptism. Can anyone quote a source saying that the stance of the Coptic Church today has changed, and that reception is by Baptism, instead of just repeating that it doesn't seem right to you to receive by confession from a group that we aren't in Communion with?
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Pastoral_Agreement_between_the_Coptic_Orthodox_and_Greek_Orthodox_Patriarchates_of_Alexandria_(2001)
Specifically: ... Every indication is that the Coptic Orthodox Church accepts the Sacraments of the EO Church as valid, though we are not in Communion.
Those who are arguing that because we are not in Communion, we cannot consider their Sacraments valid, have yet to provide a single citation indicating that the Church shares their opinion, or a single example from history to show that that is a traditional understanding of the Church
If our Synod has concluded that their Sacraments are valid, and their Synod has concluded that our Sacraments are valid, what does it matter of many of the monks of Athos do not think our Sacraments are valid? How would that suddenly make our Synod wrong, make their Sacraments invalid, and force us to rebaptise them?
Btw what you presented in the link above has nothing to do with the EO Church. The article only represents the Melkite church which has no existence outside Egypt.
Fr Thomas Hopko - Part 2 - Faith and Church Unity
to our EO brother, i sincerely hope that we have not upset you with all our discussion. I guess you need to speak to the priest at the OO church you would like to join. We love very much the EO church. However, sadly, because of the ongoing division, we are not in communion which makes our official relationships complex.
anyway, i just wanted to say, despite all our looong discussions.. we are brothers and sisters in Christ and it would be lovely to have you in our church :) (in whatever form that may happen)
i look forwards to a time when we will all worship God together, if it is not to be here on earth where we see things unclearly.. i am certain that in heaven we shall, joined with the holy angels be united in Christ in love!
God be with you and guide you.
How can we accept their sacraments and say we are not in communion?
That would be the definition of schism. Is that the definition of communion? We were not in communion with the British Orthodox Church. H.H. Pope Shenouda did not rebaptise the British Orthodox when the entered Communion with us. Are Abba Seraphim and Fr. Peter unbaptised, godless heathen, due to an error by Pope Shenouda? If you say no, it was ok to enter into Communion with them once we agreed we have the same faith, then does that mean that their Sacraments suddenly became valid when we talked and agreed, or that in fact they were valid before agreement was reached? If so, what if a group of Baptists came to believe in the Orthodox faith, and practise it in their Church for a few decades. Could we then talk with them, agree we have the same faith, and accept them without giving them an Orthodox Baptism? Certainly not. It seems there's more to being in Communion than having the same faith, and more to the validity of Sacraments, of being the Church than being in Communion.
Do you really hold your understanding of ecclesiology (which seems to be an extreme form of the Western view rather than an Orthodox view), your logic, above the consistent actions of the Fathers for centuries? The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria has nothing to do with the Eastern Orthodox Church?
The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox. Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy. Here is a place for true ecumenism. But despite the fact that the time seems ripe, we must still rest on the Providence of God and restore the Copts to Orthodoxy in a proper way. One cannot say that he is Orthodox simply because he believes correctly and recites the Creed. He must be received into the Church by Chrismation or Baptism. The fact that the Copts were once Orthodox, fell away, and have now come to right belief is neither here nor there. Grace does not withstand generations of heresy and separation from the Church.
Anyone who believes that the Orthodox Fathers were wrong in condemning the Monophysites, and that the Copts have always been Orthodox, is guilty of blasphemy against the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, which condemned the Monophysite heresy. He is also guilty of heresy, in that such a proposition presupposes not only that the Fathers of the Church were in error and that this error entered into the conscience of the Church, but that the Orthodox Church has for centuries been "divided" between the two "families" of right-believing Orthodox and the supposedly "right-believing" Copts. Moreover, such a view presumes that our Orthodox Fathers, ignorant of the truth, "divided" the Church over semantics and over word games.
Is this generally the opinion of the majority of the Eastern Orthodox about us?
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/copts_orth.aspx
And continues similar rhetoric here http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/copts_orth.aspx
by saying...
Monophysites, or Non-Chalcedonians—Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssinians), and Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites—have, since the conclusion of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod, been viewed by the Orthodox Church as heretical groups [1]. That is, until this century due to the influence of ecumenism. This page is offered as a corrective.
Despite all the "scholarly discussion" trying to show that we are in fact "of the same Faith and Family as the Monophysites," the fact remains that these groups have not unreservedly accepted the Fourth through Seventh Oecumenical Synods (something which was required of them by the Orthodox participants in all prior reunion attempts throughout church history), nor have they decisively and conclusively renounced the teachings of Dioscoros, Severos, Eutyches, et. al. When those events occur (at the very least), union is imminent.
A Note to Coptic Christians: I occasionally receive emails expressing your frustation with being labeled as monophysite on this Web site. You are especially troubled by the article listed below entitled "Copts and Orthodoxy". You claim that you are "miaphysite", not monophysite. Your Christology is therefore supposedly Orthodox even though you do not accept the formulation agreed upon at the Council of Chalcedon (i.e., the Fourth Oecumenical Synod). In other words, "it is supposedly evident that nothing separates us in Faith, that the differences hitherto observed are due to a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the theological terminology, which the special theological experts now understand better than the holy Fathers, and that the original separation of the Non-Chalcedonians from the Church was due not to theological but to political reasons." [2] Thus you frequently demand that I remove these claims from my site.
To this I can only respond that, from the traditional perspective of the Orthodox Church, you are monophysite. This is how the Orthodox Church has always viewed the Coptic Church. In other words, to us your "miaphysitism" is essentially "monophysitism". Moreover, you have been wrongly led to believe—whether by your own teachers or by Orthodox ecumenists [3]—that the Orthodox Church has been mistaken, and that there's no reason for Coptic Christians to leave their church and be reconciled with Orthodox. Some Orthodox clergy and teachers will agree with you, but I am persuaded by the Saints and teachers whose writings are listed below. I believe they represent the true teaching of the Orthodox Church. Thus, it would seem we are at an impasse regarding your request.
I hasten to remind you, however, what the "Copts and Orthodoxy" article states in all sincerity: "We deeply respect and admire Coptic piety. Many Copts far exceed Orthodox in their dedication to God and fidelity to their faith. But our respect must not impede us from telling them the truth, bringing them into the Church properly, and offering them bread, rather than the stone of cheap ecumenical politics." Dear Coptic Christians, you are very close to us! Unity is a desirable thing! But such unity can only come about with your full acceptance of all seven Oecumenical Synods.
Are you really willing to come to terms with the traditional position of the Orthodox Church? If so, you should read Father John McGuckin's masterful study St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy : Its History, Theology, and Texts. As Daniel Larison noted in his blog:
The most significant consequence of Fr. McGuckin's book, from the perspective of the Orthodox Church and all Chalcedonian Christians, is that it should demonstrate once and for all in a convincing and largely non-polemical way that the post-451 extreme Cyrilline (i.e., monophysite) reading of Cyril and reaction against Chalcedon were theologically misguided and wrong on their own Cyrilline terms. As much as some modern Orthodox and other scholars attempt to sidestep or massage this truth, either with recourse to excusing error on the grounds of confused terminology or by catering to anti-Chalcedonian sentiments with the use of euphemistic names such as Oriental Orthodox or 'miaphysite' rather than monophysite, it seems inescapable that to reject Chalcedon is to turn against the true meaning of Cyril's Christology and no amount of monophysites' invoking Cyril or repeating his sayings formulaically is going to change that.
This need not be taken principally as ridicule or as an attack, but as a call to all those who honour the memory and theology of St. Cyril to recognise his true meaning and grant that Chalcedon is not only compatible with Cyrilline confession but, in a sense, necessary for the defense of St. Cyril's doctrine. Accepting Chalcedon and the Councils that affirm its decrees does honour to St. Cyril, and persisting in schism out of a misunderstanding of his teachings is senseless. Perhaps by elucidating the matter clearly and plainly, Fr. McGuckin's study will help facilitate an understanding of the imperative for the non-Chalcedonian churches to return to Orthodoxy, if perhaps for no other reason than their commitment to the tradition of St. Cyril.
Please do not place your trust in the writings of "Orthodox" ecumenists, whose views will only confirm you in your errors....
If what is said above is truly objectionable to the Eastern Orthodox, should they not correctly censure this author as he is subject to their ecclesiastically?
If they permit him to publically teach the world these opinions, does that not mean that they espouse them and agree with what is being said above? If this is true, and they consider us heretics at the hierarchical levels, how do we then commune with them or them with us?
The following opinion was found on orthodoxinfo.com:
The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox. Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy. Here is a place for true ecumenism. But despite the fact that the time seems ripe, we must still rest on the Providence of God and restore the Copts to Orthodoxy in a proper way. One cannot say that he is Orthodox simply because he believes correctly and recites the Creed. He must be received into the Church by Chrismation or Baptism. The fact that the Copts were once Orthodox, fell away, and have now come to right belief is neither here nor there. Grace does not withstand generations of heresy and separation from the Church.
Anyone who believes that the Orthodox Fathers were wrong in condemning the Monophysites, and that the Copts have always been Orthodox, is guilty of blasphemy against the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, which condemned the Monophysite heresy. He is also guilty of heresy, in that such a proposition presupposes not only that the Fathers of the Church were in error and that this error entered into the conscience of the Church, but that the Orthodox Church has for centuries been "divided" between the two "families" of right-believing Orthodox and the supposedly "right-believing" Copts. Moreover, such a view presumes that our Orthodox Fathers, ignorant of the truth, "divided" the Church over semantics and over word games.
Is this generally the opinion of the majority of the Eastern Orthodox about us?
No. This is one opinion with no weight. Even if they were wrong about us, and mistakenly thought that we were heretics in the past, that would not make them heretics, it would just mean they are mistaken about us. So it wouldn't require us to baptise them to receive them. In fact, even those who believe this strongly about us, still receive us by Chrismation, not as unbaptised.
I ask why the owners of this orthodox information cite are allowed to publically publish such opinions without the review of their clergy, particularly their bishops and patriarch, unless their heirarchy do indeed concur with what is being said.
If what is said above is truly objectionable to the Eastern Orthodox, should they not correctly censure this author as he is subject to their ecclesiastically?
If they permit him to publically teach the world these opinions, does that not mean that they espouse them and agree with what is being said above? If this is true, and they consider us heretics at the hierarchical levels, how do we then commune with them or them with us?
Of course. Anyone can publish anything. How man articles by Copts do you see online with no episcopal approval. How many conflicting and wrong opinions do people post on website without being censured? Don't trust something you read on the internet as an official position unless it's posted on an official website and signed by a group of bishops.
Even if they did believe that we held the eutychian heresy, why would that mean we would have to Baptise them? Them being wrong about us being Orthodox wouldn't make them unorthodox, just mistaken about us.
We are not in Communion. Largely because despite all the dialogue and agreement, there are still hard-liners on both sides, like the one you post above. If we were to rush too quickly towards Communion, then people like that would be offended and go into schism themselves. Hatred and propaganda has been preached on both sides for a very long time. It takes time to overcome that.
I personally am not in favour of reunion for a few reasons. One of them is that the EO more freely allow divorce, and allow marriage to Protestants. If someone were to go to our Church and ask to marry a Protestant, they'd be told no. If we were in Communion, they could just go to the Greek Church down the street, marry the Protestant, come back, and we could say nothing. But this doesn't make them unbaptised, it just means they have a wrong practise.
So, regardless of what they think about us, and regardless of differences in practise, there is only one Church, and we can't say that either group is outside it, so there is no legitimate reason to receive from one side of the schism to the other by baptism. You may say no, they are heretics, they follow chalcedon. They have cleaned up the mistakes of Chalcedon and come back to an Orthodox understanding, but even if that was not the case, there would still only be one Church. For the centuries after Chalcedon, when there certainly were Christological disputes, our fathers received those coming over from the Chalcedon party not as unbaptised heathen, but as penitents. They did not rebaptise them, even when the Empire was actively persecuting anti-chalcedonians. Certainly we are on better terms today, and have come much closer in our understandings of Christology, so why would we now rebaptise them?
I am presently in a serious and detailed discussion of Christology with very serious and tradtional Eastern Orthodox and we have been able to discover that our faith is entirely the same. As our bishops have already stated.
We are not in communion .. Whomever thinks that on their side is heretic according to the monks of Athos who hold the seal of any communion.
In summary, they reject our faith, and we reject theirs.
The EO have rejected communion with the Oriental as a result of the debates that went during the 90's. We signed the agreement, but when the Ecumenical Patriarch took it to the monke of Athos, they rejected the agreement and affirmed our heretic status according to their Church.
We are not in communion .. Whomever thinks that on their side is erotic according to the monks of Athos who hold the seal of any communion.
In summary, they reject our faith, and we reject theirs.
This is not the opinion of the most traditional and erudite of our Bishops and theologians. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to state that the Athonites have control of the anathemas held by the EO Church. There have been times where the EP of the EO Church has actually been at conflict with the Athonites. This summary does not fully and accurately reflect EO-OO relations.
Jonathan does have a point regarding marriage to the heterodox within the EO Church. However, I have heard of Syriac and Malankara Orthodox clergy communing heterodox and marrying them to Orthodox Christians within the Church. This problem is not only plaguing their Church, but ours as well.
The EO have rejected communion with the Oriental as a result of the debates that went during the 90's. We signed the agreement, but when the Ecumenical Patriarch took it to the monke of Athos, they rejected the agreement and affirmed our heretic status according to their Church.
We are not in communion .. Whomever thinks that on their side is erotic according to the monks of Athos who hold the seal of any communion.
In summary, they reject our faith, and we reject theirs.
So... we're not in Communion, which everyone knows. Where is your proof that the Church's policy is to receive them by Baptism?
So... according to you, we signed the documents, their Patriarch was on board, but they didn't proceed because of resistance from Athos, which thought we aren't Orthodox. Ok. So if we were willing to agree, how do you get from that that they are unbaptised heretics? You take the opinion of the monks of Athos above the opinion of our own Synod that was willing to sign?
Even if there is still need for dialogue before full Communion is appropriate, even though we are not in Communion, as we all know, how does this lead you to believe that they must be received by Baptism? Have they become heretics since the centuries after Chalcedon when each side received people coming from the other as penitents and not as unbaptised? Are all the bishops today who have received EO without Baptism ignorant and in need of enlightenment by your logical proofs? Where is your source saying that the method of reception is by Baptism?
You just keep saying we're not in Communion, so they have to be Baptised. Everyone knows we're not in Communion. Where is your source showing an official policy of receiving the by Baptism? Were are your sources showing our bishops today, or fathers through the centuries saying their Sacraments are invalid, or treating them as such? You have your own idea of how the Church works in your mind, and you are reasoning yourself how things should work, rather than looking at what the consistent practise of the Church has been. You have offered nothing to explain how your convictions can stand against the clear historical practise of receiving Chalcedonians into our Communion without rebaptising, or the modern bishops who continue this practise. You've just offered your own reasoning of how you feel it should work, without even attempting to explain why you feel that if we are not in Communion, then they are unbaptised, something that no Church has ever taught.
I'm a little bit surprised by the direction this thread took, and I'm not saying it as a judgment. I am pointing some things out in case I am misunderstanding comments or persons. :)
It seems like people are make de facto statements very authoritatively, but without anything to back them up patristically, whether ancient or modern, other than Fr. Peter and Jonathan. As mentioned there are a lot of things that have changed in recent history or have local variations, but we have to go back to what Orthodoxy teaches, not our own opinions.
It also seems to me that there was some condescension or disrespect toward Fr. Peter, and I hope that I am misunderstanding. I am not sure how many of you are aware that on this topic, there is probably nobody in the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate (of which the BOC is a part) more qualified to speak on this matter than Fr. Peter. His website, orthodoxunity.org is considered practically "the" reference on this issue, and his understanding of Post-Chalcedonian history and Theology can hardly be rivalled by anyone in our Church. Yet, his opinions were treated as though they were by some person off the street who knows nothing of ecclesiology. I don't know Fr. Peter other than by some e-mails, but I just thought I would mention it, because almost everyone with interest in this subject has either been reading his work on it or been contacting him directly for probably about a decade or so! :)
The most surprising thing, though, seems to be our understanding of "the Church". It really comes off here as though some people understand the Coptic Orthodox Church to be different than the Orthodox Church, or as though it's a special Church that needs special membership within Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy, regardless of what culture we come from. We have a rich heritage and history in the Alexandrian patriarchate, but I am no "more" Orthodox than a Syrian, or Eritrean. There is not a special membership when we intermarry between our churches. It might be wiser for raising a family to stick to one parish and become a local member of that parish, but it's not a different Church. To talk of our church as being somehow above Orthodoxy is really...not Orthodox. I hope that I am misinterpreting, and maybe this is worthy of discussion on another thread, but I wanted to point it out, especially if this is a thread being read by members of other families within the Orthodox Church. The Coptic Church has no belief that we are a different Church than any in the "one, holy, universal and apostolic church".
An aside: When I was living abroad for a season and had no Oriental Orthodox Church available, I went to a Greek Church and stood at the back. The priest came to me at the end of Liturgy and asked about me, I told him that I was a Copt, expecting to be thrown out. The priest embraced me, welcomed me, and told me that his bishop informed him of our mutual agreements on communing one another where we don't have services. He told me to take the blessings of my FOC, and that he would be happy to give me of the Eucharist. He told me that he was treated the same by the Ethiopians when he was in a similar situation. Over the four months I had Eucharist at his hands. I used to be very anti-Chalcedonian (I still have some reservations), but i told him that his love showed me that there is hope for restoration. When he found out that I was ordained a reader just before I left, he was adamant that I read in the Church before leaving. It sounds like Fr. Peter is doing the same in his parish. Bishop Samuel of blessed memory, was apparently the one who pioneered these agreements in the 60s and 70s, though I have found very little writing about the specifics of these. It was told to me by some people who lived in Europe and the USA during those times.
I hope I have not offended and welcome discussion.
pray for me,
fortunatus
+Pray for me
We are different Curches with different faiths. They have anathemas against us. If clergy take it upon themselves to ignore these anathemas, hen they put themselves above and in place of the Church.
Anathemas are not mere formalities but a declaration of a separation between the two Families.
If we are in true communion withe the EO as some claim, then no one would need the permission of his FOC to take communion there.
+Irini nem ehmot
Dear imikhail,
I'm not sure if you have heard the expression "in economia" before, but that is why it's permitted under specific circumstances. His Holiness Pope Shenouda was aware of and was okay with these things in economia. In situations in which one church has nothing, this is done and is actually a very regular practice. I have not seen anyone state anywhere in this thread that they believe we are in "full communion" with the EO, so I think we are all on the same page. I would also hope that none of us think that our own personal opinion would be above the authority of the Bishops who authorised such practices!
Feel free to discuss this with your Bishop if you have one, and I would be surprised if he does not say exactly what several have expressed on this thread already. :) I will not try and persuade you with what I have received the blessings of both priests and Bishops on, and the Lord will judge them on their own conscience and adherence to the spirit of the canons.
Pray for me.
The owners of the orthodox[mis]info site are not properly Orthodox but belong to various extremist schismatic groups. Their opinions are their own.
I am presently in a serious and detailed discussion of Christology with very serious and tradtional Eastern Orthodox and we have been able to discover that our faith is entirely the same. As our bishops have already stated.
May the Lord continue to bless Your Reverence's efforts and use Your Reverence to reunite the Orthodox Church(es). I pray that others like Your Reverence, particularly bishops in the Holy Synod can push for unity with the same eloquence and knowledge as we see the Lord has granted Your Reverence.
+Irini nem ehmot
I am not sure how many of you are aware that on this topic, there is probably nobody in the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate (of which the BOC is a part) more qualified to speak on this matter than Fr. Peter. His website, orthodoxunity.org is considered practically "the" reference on this issue, and his understanding of Post-Chalcedonian history and Theology can hardly be rivalled by anyone in our Church. Yet, his opinions were treated as though they were by some person off the street who knows nothing of ecclesiology. I don't know Fr. Peter other than by some e-mails, but I just thought I would mention it, because almost everyone with interest in this subject has either been reading his work on it or been contacting him directly for probably about a decade or so! :)
Reverend Father Peter for Patriarch! Who's with me?
Joking [partially] aside (I do wish control of the Church was given to somone of His Reverence's ability to moderate and teach),
How can we as a Church push for His Reverence to have further input and control and steering and progression of the dialogue to bring about fruitful discussions. By fruitful, I mean concrete steps for realy communion in the near future as opposed to the stagnation of the last 22 years as a result of the resistance of those on Mount Athos?
As a side note, one of our deacons jestfully suggested that on the night before the feast day of Pope Leo, a couple of our deacons, dressed in their tunics, should enter a hard-line chalcedonian church through the church roof and descend stealthfully on ropes, take the icon of Pope (St.) Leo and replace it with an Icon of St. Dioscorus. We would secretly then videotake the reaction of others. But, that would not be conducive to unity.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157624#msg157624 date=1342150871]
If we are in true communion withe the EO as some claim, then no one would need the permission of his FOC to take communion there.
+Irini nem ehmot
Dear imikhail,
I'm not sure if you have heard the expression "in economia" before, but that is why it's permitted under specific circumstances. His Holiness Pope Shenouda was aware of and was okay with these things in economia. In situations in which one church has nothing, this is done and is actually a very regular practice. I have not seen anyone state anywhere in this thread that they believe we are in "full communion" with the EO, so I think we are all on the same page. I would also hope that none of us think that our own personal opinion would be above the authority of the Bishops who authorised such practices!
Feel free to discuss this with your Bishop if you have one, and I would be surprised if he does not say exactly what several have expressed on this thread already. :) I will not try and persuade you with what I have received the blessings of both priests and Bishops on, and the Lord will judge them on their own conscience and adherence to the spirit of the canons.
Pray for me.
Out bishop, bishop Youssef, does not permit EO members to fully participate in the Church's sacraments till they become Oriental Orthodox.
By the way, what I have stated in posts are not personal opinions but are based on the dialogues we have had with the EO and what transpired as a result.
#1: No disrespect to Fr. Peter, Sorry if you have been offended.
#2: The only source that was provided was a quote by St. Severus which may be understood differently, ( I already replied to it).
#3: My source and iMikhail sources is the same person who represents the Coptic church in dialogues. There are no written sources because the dialogues decisions have not been published. Abba Bishoy is the only bishop who has any authority about this stuff because he is co-president of the dialogues.
#4: We have already mentioned that the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Antiochian Orthodox are exceptions to what we are saying. We have special protocols with them, so let's not bring them up again, ok?
About Baptism:
The way the sacrament is done or what is said, or even who does it, has nothing to do with if it is valid or not when we are talking about those done outside of the OO communion.
The validity is not in the words, not in the immersion or the sprinkling. Unfortunately, this is what the Catholic church believes and thus they believe anyone can baptize, and not just clergy.
For us, it is about the faith into which you are baptized. There are perceptions we have the same faith (which could very well be true), however, it has not been declared or agreed upon officially by both families as agreed upon in the dialogues. There are people working on this, so let's not make rash decisions and keep it to those appointed.
Thanks for your time.
Honestly, I really hope no one is getting offended, we are having a professional discussion. Fr. Peter's work is greatly appreciated, but there are more sides to the story. It seems to me that we are now saying in the BOC this happens or this doesn't happen. I'm sorry, but last I checked, the BOC is a member of the coptic orthodox church and the only difference should be in culture, not in policy. So what the COC does in regards to this matter, the BOC should be doing.