Can I choose to believe certain beliefs of other Christian churches?

edited December 1969 in Coptic Orthodox Church
(When I say Christian Churches, I'm referring to the ones Christ founded on Peter and the Apostles (Catholic & Orthodox)).

I find this strange... was it just a coincidence that every Christian in Egypt at the time of the Council of Chalcedon agreed together and disagreed with everyone else (non-Egyptians) about the things discussed in that council? Or how in the East-West Schism, everyone in the East just so happened to have the same opinion, while everyone in the West had another?

The answer to me seems that whatever people have learned within a culture will seem more "right" than what others learned. But what about the bishops in those councils? Did they happen to agree with each other simply because they were from the same place? Or maybe it was better communication between them compared to others... maybe that's the reason for some of these schisms.

Anyways, if I want to, lets say, believe in mortal and venial sins, can I choose to do so, while still being a Coptic Christian?

A side question: do the Patriarchs of Rome, Alex, Jerusalem, etc all have some sort of annual meeting or something? If not, WHY?

Comments

  • the answer is very simple......
    There are those strayed from the faith.....we, as the Church of Alexandria led by Pope Dioscoros, choose NOT to follow them. Read the history behind the Council of Chalcedon (search in the forum) to find the details. The DETAILS will also answer the questions about the bishops.


    A side question: do the Patriarchs of Rome, Alex, Jerusalem, etc all have some sort of annual meeting or something? If not, WHY?

    Well i don't think they ALL DO as Patriarchs, but in ways of unity, their bishops do. Of course they have their normal visits to each other normally.
  • I guess I do need a history lesson.

    But I still think that every aspect of the Coptic faith being correct, while the aspects of other churches (Catholic/Orthodox) that do not agree are incorrect seems a little... iffy.

    I mean, these church were founded by the Apostles who had the Holy Spirit descend on them. Surely they were not founded in vain.

    If we want unity, we should not label others as "incorrect" in our minds, but be humble in reaching one conclusion (IMO).
  • history lession (edited from my previous post in may):

    "until the year 451, the churches were all together. everyone was catholic and orthodox and very very evangelical (spreading the good news about Jesus). there were some heretics, like arians, and they were put out of the church but everyone else agreed. in those days it was dangerous to be a Christian so there were not many people who attended church just to look good.

    later, it became a bit safer to be a Christian. so people started having too much power in the church. the church leaders of the churches in syria, egypt, palestine/israel and the place that are now greece and turkey had too much power and started to argue among themselves and fight about who was the strongest. they also fought about who could explain God the best (in other words, who was the best theologian).
    there was a very very big argument. it is impossible to know what really happened in 451 because all the historical documents are biased, blaming one side or the other.
    the church split into the oriental orthodox churches (today these are coptic, syriac, indian orthodox, armenian, and ethiopian (the eritrean church is part of the copitic church)) and the rest of the churches (today these are the eastern orthodox, catholic and protestant churches).

    recently, in 1990, the heads of all the orthodox churches (eastern and oriental) agreed that they basically believe the same thing and they all did some wrong things in the past.
    we don't yet have full communion (i can't take holy communion in the russian or greek orthodox churches, for example) but we are working on this.

    in 1056, there was another big split. in those days the roman empire was very powerful and split into 2 parts, eastern (based in constantinople, now istanbul) and western (based i rome). basically the church got too close to power and got involved in political fighting. the church in rome (now catholic) said they were the most important and the church in constantinople (now greek orthodox) said they were 'the new rome' and therefore the most important. so the catholic church then split from the eatern orthodox churches. the oriental orthodox churches were not involved in this split.

    after this lots of bad things happened in the churches, like the crusades, for example. the crusades weren't all wrong, for example if a turkish warrior is going to kill your family and you are a greek farmer who is a Christian, it is normal to defend your family and fight. but in the crusades, priests told people you could force someone to become a Christian by threatening to kill them. this is very bad. most of the ordinary people did not have access to a Bible in a language they could understand, so they just did whay they were told by their leaders. also, at one point, the greek orthodox Christians and catholic Christians were fighting each other. this is terribly wrong.

    after this, in the eastern orthodox (russian, greek etc) and catholic churches the priests became more and more detached from the general people and people started treating them as much more superior to ordinary people, and just did exactly what they said. the people were made to feel very sinful and, as a result, did not take communion very often. as the communion service (liturgy) became more elaborate, like a show in a king's palace, the people felt more and more distant, until most of the prayers in the liturgy were quiet ones at the altar with the people straining to look or giving up and failing to understand what happened.

    by the 1500s the situation was so bad in the catholic church, that priests were only giving absolution after confession if people gave them money and they had total power over the people. one catholic priest in germany was upset about all this and decided it needed to change. his name was martin luther. he wrote to the catholic patriarch (pope) and basically told him off. the patriarch was not terribly impressed, and after they tried to resolve their differences in writing, martin luther got thrown out of the catholic church. in his beliefs and practices, he was very catholic (at this time they were still very similar to the orthodox churches), just he was brave enough to ask for change. lots of people left the church with him, so he continued to serve them as their priest. he did not want to start a new church. i think if he had been in egypt he would have been a good coptic priest. but he was not succesful in improving the catholic chuch, so he started the first protestant church. 'protestant' comes for the word to 'protest', complain. recently the catholic church apologised for throwing him out of the church.

    the protestant churches that came after martin luther did have a lot of non-orthodox teaching, for example that the holy communion (body and blood of our Lord) was just a symbol and people did not have to take communion so much. they also said that anyone can ordain a priest, not just a patriarch or bishop.

    the catholic church also started to also preach new ideas, for example that the virgin mary never had the ability to sin and she was like this from the time of her conception in the womb of her mother. this remains the main difference between the catholic and orthodox churches to this day.

    in modern times, Christians from all the different churches have started to study their history and ask themselves how everything went so wrong and to cry to God for mercy and guidance. i believe God is shaking up his church and teaching people how they can be truly one in Him. many people in europe and north america, from other Christian groups and people who are atheists are joining the orthodox churches. in north america the antiochian orthodox churches (similar to syriac orthodox but in the eastern orthodox group) are growing and in some places there are few people who speak arabic as there are so many converts (from atheism) and new members who used to go to different churches.

    i believe it is very important we understand our theology and don't compromise on the Christian message for the sake of the appearance of unity. unity that does not come form a deep understanding of God and the power of His Holy Spirit is not true unity and will not last. however, it is also important that we don't label Christians from other groups as heretics, they may just be using different words for the same idea or they may have split off from an orthodox church group for a good reason (like martin luther). so we can only really come to a conclusion after detailed and humble discussion with other churches.
    for example, did you know that the arabic translation of the Bible that is in common use (the one quoted in the agpeya and holy week books) was translated from the hebrew and greek by two european protestant missionaries who had learned arabic? so it's important not to criticise someone until you have had long discussions with them to find out not only their theology but their motives and way of life."


    i understand your questions, and i think i am fairly open-minded, like you, but when i read coptic theology, time after time, it makes more sense than anything else.

    and the patriarchs and bishops have loads of meetings all the time, they are really woking hard on these issues, may God guide them and us into all truth.


  • mabsoota you said
    recently, in 1990, the heads of all the orthodox churches (eastern and oriental) agreed that they basically believe the same thing and they all did some wrong things in the past.
    we don't yet have full communion (i can't take holy communion in the russian or greek orthodox churches, for example) but we are working on this.


    I don't get it .how can you work on having a full communion from a different church .I do not believe that other "christian" churches believe what we believe.what is there to work on ?
  • [quote author=axum link=topic=8424.msg107989#msg107989 date=1259363302]


    mabsoota you said
    recently, in 1990, the heads of all the orthodox churches (eastern and oriental) agreed that they basically believe the same thing and they all did some wrong things in the past.
    we don't yet have full communion (i can't take holy communion in the russian or greek orthodox churches, for example) but we are working on this.


    I don't get it .how can you work on having a full communion from a different church .I do not believe that other "christian" churches believe what we believe.what is there to work on ?


    the statement above reflect the relationship between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Church only.....not the rest of those who are Christians (ie Catholics all the churches within and all the protestants).

    You can search about this in the right sources. Also this refers to the core and basic beliefs of the orthodox churches and not the general rites and tradition of theirs.
  • thanks for answering, minagir  :)
    this is a good link for info
    www.orthodoxunity.org
Sign In or Register to comment.