- Hello, i'm new here. I am Roman Catholic, recently i've been discussing various issues with a Coptic Catholic friend of mine. The differences are enormous, but i'm running into problems. I've done my homework can see how the Church of Rome wavered, but am short answers. I am having a hard time nailing down adament Coptic beliefs. As a semi-Roman Catholic I can tell you that we believe in Purgatory because of how we define salvation, and when it is attained. More elaboratly we believe salvation is not attained until after the works based judgment, because there are venial and mortal sins and salvation isn't attained until after death, Purgatory makes perfect sense. I realize that Coptics do not believe in Purgatory, but does this mean they believe in imputed justification, does it mean that regardless of what state of sin we die in we are saved like the Protestants, what happens if we die with un-deadly sin? I can't find how Coptics define salvation, justification, sanctification and various doctrines. If anyone can help me out it would be greatly appreciated.
Comments
I just want to make one comment, we don't believe venial and mortal sins as far as i am concerned(i could be wrong please someone correct me if i'm wrong) but that all sin leads to death, and that no one truly deserves salvation but through the grace of God we are given that oppurtunity to obtain it throught the sacrements of the church and what not.
I found an article that explains the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Coptic Orthodox view of purgatory and what the Copts believe in regards to all of that (article from the US Coptic Southern Diocese Website), since I don't know enough about this stuff: http://www.suscopts.org/literature/literature.php?subaction=showfull&id=1084916893&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3&;
For example, if you talk to a Protestant, they will usually ask you "when were you saved?" or i was saved on this day...
Salvations wasn't just the death of Christ but rather the process of becoming united with Him by inheriting the Holy Spirit. Also another purpose of Salvation is to be declared people of God.
The first step of this process is Sanctification:
We must show our faith by acting "soberly, righteously, and Godly" Titus 2:11-14
We also much Repent, be Baptized to really have the remission of sins, and finally receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
The second step is Justification:
In Christ we are forgiven and made righteous. We become divine through our "adoption".
Over all Orthodox Salvation is a process and the goal is Unity with God. This unity is possible because of Christ's death, and giving us the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We know that salvation is a continuous process from James 2 which tells us that faith without works is Dead.
Sorry if I sounded a bit repetitive, I tried to summarize my notes from a Dogma and Theology retreat I went on a few weeks ago=D Hope I helped.
This article is entitled Salvation in the Orthodox Concept.
http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/soterlecture8.pdf
- In Christ our Lord
The Coptic Orthodox Church has many detailed books on the various theological topics. No topic is left out as an issue. The Church resources to disseminate them are more limited than in the RCC. There is no formal catechism course as in the RCC. The Coptic Church has relied on a life process rather than memorizing facts. There are the Sunday School systems, youth meetings, retreats, the sacramental life, relation to a Father Confessor. These undertakings have pretty much disappeared in the RCC. The very heart of the RCC is being held ransom by Western Secularism. I dare say our communities in the Western Nations are starting to fall into that pit. Having gone to Catholic School as a youth, I noticed the kids memorized the catechism but were oblivious to the full life of things in the Church, i.e., The Holy Bible, the Holy Sacraments, the True Theology.
In the same manner as was mentioned: Salvation is a process. There are "moment" issues such as the Thief at the Right Side of Christ at the Crucifixion. Another example of God's Grace being delivered to overtake one's sinful state is that of the great St. Augustine (revered in the East and West). The tears and petitions of his mother touched God, and an opportunity for repentance was given. His penance was a process.
The purgatory issue has already been covered in the cited thread.
As a simple comment, and please do not go into it to much, the Coptic Church does not endeavor in extrapolating new ideas, dogmas, or doctrines. It relies on the sagacity of the initial Three Ecumenical Councils (Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus). The RCC has felt a need at times to try to "invent" things that do not necessarily pertain to the early teachings of the Church, i.e., purgatory, immaculate conception, infallability of the Bishop of Rome. These all have reasons for their entry into the RCC, but have no basis for the Eastern Churches.
There has been no need to come up with terms such as "transsubstantiation", because we do not know how the Holy Spirit makes the wine and water into the True Body and Blood of Our Lord. Yet, the RCC has felt a necessity to come up with some interesting terminology and explanation. It suffices sometimes to say that God Grants and we do not know how.
There is no need for "purgatory" in the Coptic Orthodox Church because for us it would negate the Salvation Process which is very much founded in the Holy Sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist.
The Concepts of Original Sin have been discussed in previous threads and that in itself resolves are dissociation with the concept of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.
The Concept of Co-Redeemer of the Virgin Mary, as it is evolving in the RCC, are completely outside of a possibility or thought for the Orthodox. There is only One Redeemer: Jesus Christ, Only-Begotten Son of the Living God.
In essence, and as an observation, from the layman's perspective the RCC has endeavored to read beyond and define beyond the spector of the Church Fathers. I do not include in that comment different pastoral issues that may arise for that matter social issues as they arise relative to the times as they relate technology, etc.
My comments are not meant to be offensive, but to put things into perspective that the Coptic Orthodox Church is faithful to a long lineage to the Apostolic Teaching. This does not mean by any means that the Coptic Church is immature or incapable of a developed theology. As I have said before, and in summary: "West does not necessarily mean right as a result of majority", "majority does not necessarily mean correct".
There are very specific aspects to salvation. Again, as was previously posted, refer to Pope Shenouda's book: "Salvation in the Orthodox Concept".
Sorry I made a mistake, the lesson was called Salvation in the Orthodox Concept, The reference is actually
"The Heresy of Salvation in a Moment" by H.H. Pope Shenouda III.
Sorry Ii worded my reply bad.
So at the end of the page here there are a bunch of articles concerning many of the topics that were asked about on this thread. They are specifically focused on the differences in views by the RCC and the OOC.
http://www.suscopts.org/literature/orthodoxfaith.html
- I've been reading a lot recently and have ran into a few problems with Roman theology. Many things i've had problems with but alway's fell back on the presumption that Rome is alway's infallible.
One of these things is transubstantiation. I never understood the neccesity of this definition. Consubstantiation was a result of transubstantiation not the other way around. Another thing is how do we know? Christ tells us it is literaly His body and Blood, how this happens is really of no relevance only the fact that it does happen.
Another thing is the bodyily assumption of Mary, which has 0 biblical basis but yet a dogma. It's based from the rationalization of Rome, which again kind of makes sense, but defeats Religious mystery and relies on human reasoning.
Another one is circular reasoning. Rome claims to Papal infalliblity (Church infalility in general) on interpreting the Bible but relies on the Bible to prove it's infallibility claim.
I've also been reading into the history that RC's are quick to quote and slow to actually look up. I'm in the Christology debates right now at the council of Chalcedon. Could someone explain the implications of Christ's nature being 2 distinct natures, or 1 united nature? I mean what difference does it make what impact does that have on soterology?
Thanks again these posts are really helping.
- In Christ
Thanks a lot for the replies. So in a nutshell you believe that sanctification is a process and justification is a one time event? On the immaculate conception I just want to point out that the RCC teaches that Mary the mother of God, was saved by God at birth. When she was born sinless God gave her that grace becoming her saviour. Salvation came a little different to her but she was saved by God none the less. I think the RCC gave us the immaculate conception dogma because of the two nature theory. When Jesus Christ has two natures, the divine didn't perfect His humanity, He could have inherited sin from Mary or 'original sin' so in order for Christ to be perfect Mary must have been perfect. Which leads me to my next question, what is your view on original sin? Jydeacon spoke breafly on it. RC's believe that the sin it's self is passed through the generations giving us a need for the saviour. Christ's 2 natures, the immaculate conception, Purgatory, and other doctrines build off of the foundational belief of original sin. Thanks for the answers they've helped a lot.
- In Christ our Lord
I can see how Immaculate Conception can build up in the original sin matter, but the rest of the dogmas are in fact different. First our view of the original sin is that we, as the seeds of Adam, we inherit the consequence of the original sin. Sin = Death as God said, and that is the consequence we had to deal with. Paradise was closed, and Hades was open for all, righteous and sinners. So that is the only thing we inherit from this act of the sin, not the literal act. Now to reverse this, all that have to be done is to open Paradise again and bring those who deserved to be in it from hell. Basically defeat Hades, the Devil, and crush death in it’s meaning, which is the wage of sin; which what our Lord Jesus Christ did.
I guess this was a quick point I thought to say. Please if there are any concerns to what I said, please post them.
Now Immaculate Conception is not he only doctrine that we, as Coptic Orthodox against. There are also Papal Infallibility and the Creed. One major one is the Papal Infallibility, because in a conversation I had with one of our Coptic bishops, he says that the catholic clergy deny compromising any of the dogmas before accepting this dogma, which is not acceptable at all, and we can give reasons why.
The Church of Rome believes that the Pope is infallible on matters on faith and morals. This is not the ability to be impeccable, or the ability to teach only things that are correct. Infallility is only the gift from the Holy Spirit that when the Bishop of Rome teaches on faith and morals he 'can not' preach error. The Holy Father does not have to mark things with infaliblity though. He does not have to teach on faith and morals, but if he does, he is preserved from error. The Church say's this is because the deposit of faith. If the Pope was to teach something on faith and or morals (infalibly) he can't make up new doctrines, he is very limited, and in fact very few things have been marked with infalliblity. He can't teach anything contrary to Scripture, Tradition, or the Church Fathers. So when Purgatory was defined infallibly it was not a new teaching, the concept was mearly named, and elaborated upon, the facts remaining the same. It's like a crystalizing element, the crystal grows clearer, and more eleborate though never changing it's nature.
- The problems. Rome quotes scripture to back up papal infalliblity i.e. primacy of Peter, Peter's authority, and some historical documents, if any post Chalcedonian councils or documents. Rome also claims to be the sole interpretor of scriptures lest we fall into personal interpretation as the Protestant brethren have demonstrated it's effects. Now if Rome is the only one that can interpret scripture, claims the infallibilty to do this, but relies on the scriptures to back up it's claims for infalliblity and peter's primacy the direct and inevetable result is circular reasoning. It's not a historical belief if you look it up, it's against the early teachings, which is why the oriental Churches split, and later the eastern churches did to.
- What are the implications though? If Rome is not infallible through it's papacy many of it's dogmas aren't neccesarily true, and if teachings are not true the very Church teaching these dogmas has fallen into error.
The more I read into these things, the harder it is to call my self RC.