Coptic / Roman Catholic marriage

Hello,

I am a Roman Catholic who is discerning marriage with a Coptic Orthodox woman. For a few reasons, we are thinking it more likely that our wedding would be in the Catholic Church than in the Coptic Church.

I have two questions on this for the forum members here:

1) If she marries in the Catholic Church, how will that affect her relationship with the Coptic Church? I assume that, as with Roman Catholics in civil “second marriages”, she will be seen as living in a state of obstinate grave sin, and thus will be a de facto excommunicate, which will bar her from receiving communion in the Coptic Church. Are there significant social stigmas attached to this? e.g., if we go to church on Christmas with her family, other than her not receiving communion, will it be awkward for her/us?

2) The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the sacraments from all Orthodox traditions as valid, as a consequence of which any Coptic Orthodox Christian may, canonically, partake of communion in a Catholic Church. This may sound like a silly question, but would my accepting initiation in the Coptic Church imply a rejection of my own Catholic beliefs? How offensive to the Coptic Church would it be for me to receive Coptic initiation and to wed in the Coptic church but then continue living as a Roman Catholic? (I assume that the answer is “deeply so”, but I wanted to float the question anyway.)

Thank you in advance for any considered responses. My exposure to Coptic Christianity has been a fascinating one; I hope that someday our divisions will soften.
«1

Comments

  • Hey Roman,

    Welcome to the forum.

    This is an interesting case you have here but it looks like you know enough already about the step that you and significant other are trying to take. Here are my own comments For:

    1) Your assumption is right--she will be considered in that state....but I feel like you are undermining (1) the importance of 'receiving communion' in the Church (let me add to that, the attendance to any liturgical service in general), and (2) the social affect of such a state on the sinful person. Unfortunately, Egyptians are not the best people to deal with converts within the church community, that being said, dealing with someone that they know is not supposed to be there to start with, there will be more eyes staring and more words said. I realized that I've said, that a person in such a state shouldn't be in church to start with. This is true because, I cannot commit a sin, and I know I am sinning, yet still go to church and act like nothing is happening. This is very similar to, and I hope you don't take offense to this, a homosexual couple attending church regularly. They are sinning, and continue to sin, and know their sin, yet they are still there with no plans or commitment to stop that sin.

    2) A canonized Coptic Orthodox priest will NOT wed you, or (just to be more general), allow you to partake of any of the sacraments, if you are not a Coptic Orthodox Christian in baptism and faith, or a member of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches.

    One more thing to add....why find "work-around" to avoid the current rules?! The two churches do not have the same faith and are separate. And to tell you the truth, I don't see a way of union between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church any time soon, except through a miracle from heaven, by God. You two are both of different faith. Find the true faith, and be faithful to it. Do not believe it, but also live it....and one important way to do is to partake of the sacraments. But to truly do that, you have to do them in the faith that you chose and not the other. Be true to yourself, be true to your faith, be true to your God and your understanding of him, be true to your church, and then be true each other (order matters :))
  • I want to second Mina's suggestions and plead to you that this is an opportunity to investigate what the differences are and why the division matters between the two churches.  If we were united, the situation would be much easier for you.  But we are not.  We are cordial with each other, but we still have serious dogmatic divisions with each other.  I would say that if you are going to marry someone of a different Church not in unity with your's, why don't you take the time to consider getting to know the Church a lot more deeply.  I'm sure you learned about the Church a bit, but what about the history of the division?  What about the various beliefs that we as Orthodox reject?  Don't you think this would help make your relationship much more fruitful if you desire to be faithful to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church through marriage?
  • Hi minatasgeel,

    Thank you for replying.

    Regarding #1, are you sure that attendance at any Coptic liturgical service is forbidden for an excommunicate? I have attended Coptic services before; was I welcomed because I was merely an outsider—as opposed to being one who has deliberately rejected union with the Coptic Church? Or do you mean merely that “people will talk”, and a significant number of them may express disdain for her being there?

    From my own Catholic perspective, our marriage in a Catholic church would not be a “workaround”, as our theology can perceive divine action in a marriage between a Catholic and a Christian of a different theological tradition. (Don’t shoot the messenger!) We also see the differences between our Church and yours as less substantial than many (most?) Copts seem to see them—ergo why we can permit all Orthodox to communion, even as we cannot extend the same welcome to Protestants.

    An additional question, if I may: do Copts believe that anyone outside an Orthodox Christian tradition is damned, ipso facto?
  • Regarding #1, are you sure that attendance at any Coptic liturgical service is forbidden for an excommunicate? I have attended Coptic services before; was I welcomed because I was merely an outsider—as opposed to being one who has deliberately rejected union with the Coptic Church? Or do you mean merely that “people will talk”, and a significant number of them may express disdain for her being there?

    Sadly to say, the rules against nonbelievers attending liturgical services have been twisted and excused to allow many these days....but,according to church doctrine, you may be there for specific parts and not for others. For example, within the Liturgy, only the believers should be in church from the beginning of the Orthodox Creed till the end. The preceding parts of the liturgy are really for everyone who is interested in the church. 
    To add to that, and answer your question, yes, people will talk and many will express disapproval.

    From my own Catholic perspective, our marriage in a Catholic church would not be a “workaround”, as our theology can perceive divine action in a marriage between a Catholic and a Christian of a different theological tradition. (Don’t shoot the messenger!) We also see the differences between our Church and yours as less substantial than many (most?) Copts seem to see them—ergo why we can permit all Orthodox to communion, even as we cannot extend the same welcome to Protestants.

    Your marriage in the Catholic Church would not be a work around, but it would be a separation from our Church and you are back to point one. When I meant by work around is the fact that you are trying to find a way for this marriage to work, despite the reality--you are of separate beliefs and those are not the same. considering some of the differences between the churches and ignoring other is nothing less then what the Protestants did back in the reformation....accepting some of the doctrines and terminating many many others. It's puzzling for  me to know that the Catholic Church does that. It simply causes more feuds than resolving any issues.


    An additional question, if I may: do Copts believe that anyone outside an Orthodox Christian tradition is damned, ipso facto?

    Please do not ask me that and expact a simple set in stone answer...that is the golden question that everyone wants to know the answer to. We believe, that the Orthodox Church, catholic and apostolic, presents the true faith that is the Truth of the Holy Trinty, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and His  Economy to save the world and all that pertains to it. Anyone outside that belief is considered a non-believer. As for him being "damned" or not, God only knows. 
  • Unfortunately, what Minatasgeel mentioned is true. 

    However, I go to a Coptic Orthodox Church where the priest allows catholics to have the Holy Communion. Its the French Orthodox Church that is under the Patriarchate of Alexandria and H.H Pope Tawadros II.

    My suggestion is this: why not get married in the Orthodox Church? Become Orthodox yourself, and then go to the Catholic afterwards?

    Now this is my personal opinion: This is completely stupid that the Coptic Orthodox Church considers a coptic christian as living in sin if they marry in the Catholic Church. That's just dumb (in my opinion!). 

    You fell in love with a woman because of her faith and its the same Christ, the same Holy Spirit that you see in each other, and the Church is telling you that you are heretical unless you get married in the Coptic Church. 

    If you left the USA, or went to Europe, you'd see that our priests are WAY WAY WAY  WAAAAYYYYY more open minded about this than our American counterparts. 

    My opinion is this: Go for it. There are theological differences between us, but ultimately, I dont see how these differences will affect your marriage. We don't believe in purgatory, nor accept the Filoque. That's it. Are these two issues going to affect your marital life?? Seriously???
  • @Zoxsasi...I have to totally disagree. Unfortunately, we DO NOT have the same faith as the Catholics. We don't really believe in the same Christ since our views of His nature are not the same. This just something general without considering a lot of other theological differences (if you would like to know all of them, search other posts or I can dig around for some books for you). These theological differences may not affect your marriage but they will affect your salvation. If marriage does not bring your closer to God or if it takes you away from Him, which is a step against your salvation, than it is from the Devil...a bit harsh to say, but in reality it's true.

    Now let me add something about all those that say: because you love someone, nothing should stop you from being with them. To me, that's a demeaning statement towards us, Christians. A person's priority should always be God. LOVE can never, ever, ever, surpass its Creator, which is God Himself (nothing is greater than the love between the Father and the Son). I believe the true God is found in Orthodoxy and it is clear from His commandments that believing in Him and being with Him must be our only goal in life. If marriage does that, than it needs to be within the limits He placed (either directly or indirectly through His Apostles). 

  • minasoliman:

    I don’t know that Rome so much “considers some differences and ignores others” as that we acknowledge valid Apostolic succession in the Orthodox Churches in a way that Protestants cannot claim to have. I believe this is not new since the 20th century; for example, there was a motion among 19th-century Anglicans to assert that their clerical orders were just as valid per Roman standards as those of the Orthodox. (Rome didn’t think much of that idea, as you might imagine!)

    For us, at least, a sacrament is a sacrament per its form merely. For example, I can baptize anyone, such as in a state of emergency, even regardless of whether they desire it or not. That’s definitely not normal for us :), but it’s consistent with the idea that the sacrament is efficacious independent of the individual’s action/thought or lack thereof: it’s God who works rather than we. Likewise, even as we see in Coptic Christianity discord on several areas of doctrine, the “matter” of the Apostolic succession is still there; likewise, ordinations, the Eucharist, and so forth.

    @Zoxsasi: The differences are far more than just Filioque and purgatory; they include the nature of Petrine primacy, the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, and, of course, questions on the nature of Christ—the last of which also being a matter of discussion between Oriental and Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches. There are many on both sides who question whether the Chalcedonian schism’s actual theology was more a matter of semantics than of actual differences in dogma. Not being a theologian myself, I’m not competent to weigh in.
  • edited January 2015
    @RomanNomad...Apostolic succession means nothing if what the Apostles have set, preach and handed down is not the faith and doctrine believed and lived...we are moving away from your question and getting into comparative theology...and it looks like you know a little more than the average Catholic or Copt....I like that :-)
     
  • I would say that it is important to concentrate on Petrine primacy. By the fact that you belong to the Church of Rome, I could understand how you can be accepted to have valid sacraments for extreme circumstances. But for Churches which reject Petrine primacy, don't you think that makes Petrine Primacy moot and unnecessary if Rome accepts their sacramental validity, especially since it seems to affirm not Petrine validity alone, but overall Apostolic validity, which Orthodox claim is important to begin with?
  • edited January 2015
    @minasoliman Now I'm curious.

    For the Chalcedonian Orthodox there is indeed a concept of Petrine primacy, but one more like "primus inter pares" rather than a juridical primacy as the Bishop of Rome currently exercises.

    Do the Oriental Orthodox not profess any belief in Petrine primacy of any kind?
  • Well overall Apostolic validity is Petrine authority given to all Apostles, bishops and presbyters, who received the keys. It's not limited to one person in Rome, nor should there be any dependency to him, despite the important historical role it played. Alexandria, Antioch, Armenia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Malankara are all equally important and hold equally Petrine authority. If we depended on Rome, why does Rome continue to say we hold sacramental validity?
  • edited January 2015
    “All Apostles, bishops, presbyters” … hmm? That doesn’t seem to be the Byzantine perspective; they seem to hold that the successor to Peter holds at least an honorary, if not juridical, position among brother bishops. And then there is the Gospel, “Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock …”

    Rome asserts that the Orthodox hold sacramental validity because (as I understand) of valid sacramental form; specific doctrinal issues are a “sub”-issue. Per Rome, baptism is baptism, whether it originate from Coptic, Roman, Byzantine, or (“even”!) Protestant worship. The particulars of the relationship among the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity may be the subject of ongoing discussion, but the essential form of baptism in the Name of the Trinity is one that we share and through which the Holy Spirit works, independent of human endeavor or lack thereof. Likewise, there is an assertion of ordinational (sp?) validity via Apostolic succession, regardless of doctrinal issues that are more specific than the form of the sacrament implies.
  • edited January 2015
    - "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (verses 15-18)

    - "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock."(Matthew 7:24-25)

    - Saint Paul is clear in 1 Corinthians 3:11 "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

    - "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man." (Psalm 118:8). Like David said, "The Lord is my rock" (Psalm 18:2) "And who is a rock, except our God?" (Psalm 18:31).

    "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:19-22)
  • That sounds even worse! Because if form matters, not Apostolic succession or Petrine primacy, what is the point of the divisions they make over the Petrine Primacy? Why can't we unite without claiming which city should rule the Church?

    St. Peter does hold an honorary veneration. Don't get me wrong. The grace he received however is not limited to Rome though. That's my point, and that's Eastern Orthodoxy's (or Byzantine) point as well. Eastern Orthodox theology has taught very similarly to what I teach. I recommend Fr. Laurent Cleenewerk's book "His Broken Body"
  • @minasoliman: Form determines the validity of the sacraments per se but is not the summation of all ecclesiological matter. The Roman position is that while the dogmatic differences are of serious concern, they are not per se a determinant of sacramental validity. The Protestant churches are different, as I understand it, because of broken Apostolic succession.

    And, too, we consider the dogmatic differences to be of less grave nature than many Orthodox (perhaps especially the non-Chacedonians?).

    On a sociological level, too, we probably are influenced by greater cultural proximity to newer Christian theological traditions that seem much further from us, on the whole, than the Eastern traditions are.
  • edited January 2015
    I have no qualms with the fact that in my interactions with many Christians, I feel a lot closer to a Catholic than to a Protestant. At the same time, even you mentioned Protestants are different due to a broken Apostolic link (and open defiance really to that link). Their form should not matter if there is no Apostolicity.

    At the same time, we have strong disagreements with dogmatizing the idea that Rome is the leader. Rome is not the sole successor of the grace in St. Peter. Therefore, if we actively reject this dogma, it should make our sacraments invalid as well, since we openly defy the authority of that grace that validates even the form of our sacraments. But if our form is validated even if we reject Roman primacy, then it disproves the need to dogmatize the Roman primacy. If the dogmatic differences does not concern Rome, why does she insist we must accept her primacy? Why are you still a Roman Catholic?
  • Forgive my response for its naivety. I assure you I'm not trying to make a self righteous blind claim that would demonize those taking part in the discussion on Petrine primacy etc. It was once a large topic of discussion for me and it may very well be important. However, I see a problem (on a very personal level) with this being a huge deciding factor of the unity of the faith of millions of people. In a simple enough manner, isn't this really an opposition to St. Paul exhortation again saying I am of Paul/Cephas/Apollo? I understand the issue of Petrine Primacy very well, but for two souls who are in love and who clearly have a heart for christ (as is shown in this man's reluctance to leave the Catholic church or the very fact that marriage to him is not a prelude to sex but a unity that should be "discerned") what difference does it make if my guy in a big funny hat is less special than your man in a small tight cap? 

    Im not at all making a point by saying this, nor am I belittling the question. Im just asking if it is less of an issue to be fought over. 

    Ray
  • Well, that is essentially the point of the discussion. For Rome, it does matter that you are "of Cephas". It would seem to me two people who are in love see no essential reason for the Churches to be divided, given what they believe. So the question I want them to take seriously what exactly do YOU believe. Not what you know the Church believes, but if you're convinced of the beliefs. So I am challenging the belief of the Petrine Primacy based on its futility in comparison to the fact that they see our Orthodox churches with sacramental validity. In this case, I don't see the reason why each (future) spouse would remain in one another's church. It would be easier (and wiser) to be one in all things, including the Church they will become part of and are convinced of its Orthodoxy.

    I know many children of Catholic/Orthodox, and they grow up confused and not wanting to insult any of their parents, even if the parents don't mind. Some of them just give up and grow areligious. So I really want the couple in question to take seriously their beliefs. Oneness in marriage is not just one body and one spirit, but one mind as well, especially in the Church. Even if we have a sister church, to avoid church hopping, it's advisable that the couple choose the parish they serve in and become part of. My line of challenges to RomanNomad is in hopes that he sees it that way and help in having a discussion with his beloved on the church they need to choose.
  • Ah, Ok. Thank you for that clarification, Mina. 

    Raymond
  • @minasoliman: The fact that Rome accepts Orthodox sacraments does not mean that Rome thinks the Orthodox are “peachy” in all ways in relation to the faith; it merely reflects an acknowledgement that those things that we believe determine the essential “stuff” of the sacrament are common to Rome as well as the Orthodox Churches.

    My own belief is in the truth of all those things that the Church of Rome teaches to be revealed by God. That’s the same statement that people make when they are received into our Church. It does not imply that I think every word, or even every formal document, from the Pope or any other bishop is necessarily of that same doctrinal weight. I also believe the (less authoritative but still of great significance) teaching in our Catechism in #838:

    “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who
    are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic
    faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the
    successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in
    a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches,
    this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the
    fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s
    Eucharist.”

    I believe that a soul most perfectly disposes itself to salvation by living in accordance with the Christian faith as taught by the Church of Rome, including those in common with other Christian traditions (the Trinity, the Creed, the Bible, etc.) as well as her particular doctrines such as purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, and moral teachings like that contraception and in-vitro fertilization are disordered (and sinful) by nature.

    How close is “close enough”? Only God knows; however, based on the statement in our Catechism, Orthodox Christians are, from our perspective, pretty darn close. Of what salvific significance is it if I believe that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and from the Son versus from the Father alone, or that the Bishop of Rome is, by virtue of his office, Christ’s very Vicar on earth, as opposed to an honorary “first among equals”? Personally, I can’t see it as a “sine qua non” to be united on these matters, which seem, to laypeople, much more of theological than of practical, day-to-day import.

    There are indeed practical concerns that we are still discussing such as some of those mentioned above: social stigmas in the Coptic Church, presentation of the faith to our children, etc.

    I do need to pick up a copy of this:
    http://www.usccbpublishing.org/productdetails.cfm?sku=097-4&disccode=web50

    … which, going by the description, apparently signifies that the Syrian and Armenian Churches will accept a marriage with a Catholic. (I wonder what the other SCOOCH members had to say on that?)
  • edited January 2015
    Although Minatasgeel probably describes the attitude a Coptic priest would take concerning this issue, it doesn't necessarily mean that ANY of this is correct!!!

    He says that 2 people (catholic and coptic) could get married yet these differences may not affect their marriage, but will affect their salvation. THIS IS NONSENSE!!!!!!

    Are you telling me that the only people going to heaven are Coptic Orthodox Christians?!! 

    Seriously!??

    This is fanatism par excellence.

    Im in no way blaming Mina for his response. He is simply a messenger of what certain priests think. But this doesn't make it right!!
  • edited January 2015
    @Zoxasasi....happy Sunday to you
    I'll be direct and I expect direct answers....

    Although Minatasgeel probably describes the attitude a Coptic priest would take concerning this issue, it doesn't necessarily mean that ANY of this is correct!!!

    No. This is my view, and this is the general view of the Church. It probably is a coptic priest view too but in any case, I believe it's "correct." If there is something specific that you think is wrong, I'd like for you to provide with a priest or a bishops answer against what I have said. NOT YOUR OPINION, but a priest or a bishop because in reality, we can argue as much as we want through our opinions.
    Zoxsasi said:

    He says that 2 people (catholic and coptic) could get married yet these differences may not affect their marriage, but will affect their salvation. THIS IS NONSENSE!!!!!!
    So which exactly is "nonsense"???
    Zoxsasi said:

    Are you telling me that the only people going to heaven are Coptic Orthodox Christians?!! 
    Seriously!??
    This is fanatism par excellence.
    Tell me EXACTLY, where in all of my comments did I say that "that the only people going to heaven are Coptic Orthodox Christians"??? I am not waiting for your words, I am expecting a quote if my comments above.
    Zoxsasi said:

    Im in no way blaming Mina for his response. He is simply a messenger of what certain priests think. But this doesn't make it right!!
    I will be nice today, it being the Lord's day and not comment on how offensive this statement is. 
  • edited January 2015
    lol Mina,

    I said clearly that your comment reflects the Church and probably a few priest's opinion too. You are probably just echoing the general view of the Synod - not that I agree entirely with it.

    Correct me if i'm mistaken here, but you said in one of your posts that the differences (between Orthodox and Catholics) can hinder salvation; hence my response is simple: are you saying therefore that ONLY Coptic Orthodox Christians are going to heaven? 

    Here's what I read from your post

    " These theological differences may not affect your marriage but they will affect your salvation. If marriage does not bring your closer to God or if it takes you away from Him, which is a step against your salvation, than it is from the Devil...a bit harsh to say, but in reality it's true."

    You stated that these theological differences will affect your salvation. Salvation to us means eternal life. Hence, you are saying (unless I misunderstood) - that Catholics are not going to heaven. Then marriage with a Catholic is from the Devil.
    Yes, its very harsh, and I disagree with it. 
  • Zoxsasi said:

    lol Mina,


    I said clearly that your comment reflects the Church and probably a few priest's opinion too. You are probably just echoing the general view of the Synod - not that I agree entirely with it.

    Correct me if i'm mistaken here, but you said in one of your posts that the differences (between Orthodox and Catholics) can hinder salvation; hence my response is simple: are you saying therefore that ONLY Coptic Orthodox Christians are going to heaven? 

    Here's what I read from your post

    " These theological differences may not affect your marriage but they will affect your salvation. If marriage does not bring your closer to God or if it takes you away from Him, which is a step against your salvation, than it is from the Devil...a bit harsh to say, but in reality it's true."

    You stated that these theological differences will affect your salvation. Salvation to us means eternal life. Hence, you are saying (unless I misunderstood) - that Catholics are not going to heaven. Then marriage with a Catholic is from the Devil.
    Yes, its very harsh, and I disagree with it. 
    Aha. So you don't agree with the view of the Church. That's clear enough. Thanks.

    Now concerning salvation. What I said means EXACTLY what I said and what it sounds like as you read. You are just making conclusions on your own.....which is not new to you at all habibi :-)

    I'll clarify something to you, JUST FOR YOU sada2ni....When i said, "theological differences," I didn't refer to what we believe, or what the catholics believe or what the Protestants. I meant, that any theological differences may not affect a marriage per se, but it they will sure affect your salvation, as a human being, despite what salvation are you looking for out of whatever church or even faith.

    Now if you don't think that a marriage affect your salvation or, just to be more general, your connection to God, now that's another topic.
  • edited January 2015
    Mina basha,

    1. I am aware that certain elements in the Coptic Church think that there is no salvation outside the Coptic Church. I wholeheartedly disagree with this point of view. 

    2. If I understood you correctly, which I think I have, you are saying that marriage between a Coptic and a Catholic may affect one's salvation simply because of the theological differences between them. 

    I believe that marriage, in general, can cause more problems than good - whether the pair are Coptic or Coptic/Catholic. 

    Mina - your statement is a bit incomprehensible:

    "I didn't refer to what we believe, or what the catholics believe or what the Protestants. I meant, that any theological differences may not affect a marriage per se, but it they will sure affect your salvation, as a human being, despite what salvation are you looking for out of whatever church or even faith."

    This makes no sense. If you think that someone believing in purgatory is not saved, or someone believing in Immaculate Conception is not saved, then I would disagree with you. 

    If you said that someone may not be saved if they do not accept Christ, I could agree, but to be so pedantic as to suggest that someone who is catholic is not saved is beyond comprehension. Why I should be forgiven if I understood you this way, is because I have a tape recording of Metropolitan Bishoy who alluded to the same idea who thinks that anyone outside the Coptic Church is not saved either. 

    If this is not what you are saying - great. If it is what you are saying, i disagree. 

    May I just add that the probability of anyone Coptic finding a spouse who is Coptic OUTSIDE of Egypt is so small that I think you'd be stupid not to consider marriage with a Catholic. If the Coptic Orthodox Church closes the doors on such relationships, then honestly, I'd recommend that the Coptic Orthodox Christian LEAVES the Orthodox Church and goes to the Catholic. Its never healthy to be in an environment, religion, cult, or society where people are fanatical.
  • Ana mish Basha, and Bek :-).....since I just discovered that I comment in a whole new language that everyone may understand in this world except you Zoxsasi. 

    To not let you continue in your usual hijacking process of discussions that is clouded with misunderstandings, I will stop arguing here. But Zoxasi, I will delete any future comments you put on this discussion.
  • @minatasgeel, in your view, per the teachings of the Coptic Church, is there salvation for non-Coptic Oriental Orthodox Christians? (Now I am simply curious.) What of those whose views on marital unions with the Catholic Church are more permissive?

    Let me also add that I am bountifully grateful for the time and responses of everyone here.
  • I kind of answered this already in my own view and it is what I was taught:

    An additional question, if I may: do Copts believe that anyone outside an Orthodox Christian tradition is damned, ipso facto?

    Please do not ask me that and expact a simple set in stone answer...that is the golden question that everyone wants to know the answer to. We believe, that the Orthodox Church, catholic and apostolic, presents the true faith that is the Truth of the Holy Trinty, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and His  Economy to save the world and all that pertains to it. Anyone outside that belief is considered a non-believer. As for him being "damned" or not, God only knows. 

    What of those whose views on marital unions with the Catholic Church are more permissive?

    I can't speak for any one else or other Churches, even for our orthodox churches.

    I should of posted this from the beginning, but here is HG BIshop Youssef answer to when asked about your situation: http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1186
  • edited January 2015
    To best put it, "we know where the Church is, we don't know where it isn't."  If we know where the Church is, we are convinced of its truth, we don't agree with intermarriages with other churches or faiths that disagree with the truth.

    With the Roman Catholic Church, it is the idea of dogmatizing certain things that at worst are heretical and at best are unnecessary to our salvation.  I would personally take the view that there are things dogmatized by the Roman Catholic Church (most importantly the Papal Petrine Primacy) that is unnecessary for our salvation, and should not be required for other churches to confess and accept (which is why I don't have a problem with taking a Roman Catholic in on a mere confession of faith, so long as he/she renounces those dogmas).  We still have our sacraments and our clerical system that has Apostolic succession.  To require that this succession be connected to and submission to Rome is an "unnecessary burden" (Luke 11:46).  To add to that, the Roman Catholics think our sacraments are valid based on the Catechism itself, so what's the point of the Papal primacy?  Why bother?  Even you said on a layperson practical basis that there's not really much there, so the question to you is what's the point of both spouses staying in both churches if you see the Orthodox Church as sufficient in and of itself salvificly(sp?)?  I think the Catechism contradicts itself by saying on the one hand that they disagree with Orthodox Churches for rejecting Catholic dogmas, but on the other hand, they seem pretty close to being of the fullness of communion with the Catholic Church.  As an Orthodox, I find a very serious inconsistency with this, and a red flag that is akin to "having your cake and eating it".

    The reason I challenge you is to see if maybe you can be convinced that you do need to be in the same church, rather than complicating things in the future for yourself and for your children.  To me, it's not about salvation outside the Church vs. in the Church.  It's about how practical you can be.  We are a strict Church.  She will be excommunicated if she decides to marry outside the Church (and I am not one who disagrees with that either to be quite honest).  So you need to examine the two faiths and see which one you are convinced with.  If your fiancée-to-be was Syrian/Indian/Armenian Orthodox, I think it would be different, and there's some marital leniency (although I have heard some of them don't like that leniency either).  The African churches (Coptic/Ethiopian/Eritrean) are not lenient, and I agree with the strictness.

    So if she gets excommunicated if she marries in your church, but you won't get excommunicated if you join our church, so then why the headache?  I want you to examine why we reject certain Roman Catholic dogmas and see for yourself if you're still convinced to stay as a Roman Catholic.  Maybe your significant other needs to also learn about Roman Catholicism and see if she is still convinced to stay Orthodox or to move over.  Christ taught us that we should love Him above all else (hyperbolically, He commanded that we hate our loved ones and love Him).  This includes obedience to His Church.  The issue of the Church should be resolved before even thinking about marriage, in my humble opinion, and for practical purposes as well, not merely for salvific reasons.

    Notice in my message, I'm not advocating that you break up.  I think it's a beautiful thing that a couple falls in love and really considers that this love be rooted in Christ.  That's why I also want you to consider it being rooted in Christ's true Church, and you need to be honest with each other and have long discussions and research on Christ's true Church.
  • @minasoliman: I don’t seem to be communicating effectively on this: it is not the same thing to acknowledge Orthodox sacraments as valid and to assert that there is no difference in (what we might call) “salvific potential”. We definitely do believe that acknowledging the Immaculate Conception, for example, conduces to salvation. We would assert no difference in “salvific potential” with, say, the Maronite Church because they are in dogmatic union with us.

    To say that the Orthodox Churches are “pretty close” (my own paraphrase—the Catechism says it better) does not downplay the importance of the dogmatic differences. It merely seems to me to be saying that, out of the wide array of things on which Rome and the Orthodox Churches might disagree, the areas of actual disagreement are relatively small/few.

    I spent a part of my early adulthood trying to verify religion empirically/historically. I eventually concluded that one can spend a lifetime studying theology but not necessarily growing any closer to God. We are given minds to seek God as the source and summit of all Truth, I believe, but at some point I think it simply becomes more important to focus on relationship than on specific “implementations” (e.g., “Filioque”). I am not competent to examine the merits or shortcomings of Oriental Orthodoxy’s theological disputes with other Christian traditions … and, really, I don’t think it would be gainful for me to devote myself toward that end. That’s not intellectual sloth so much as a recognition, after prayer and (what I think has been) God’s revelation to me in my own life, that my aptitudes in building up the Kingdom lie elsewhere. Christ’s universal call is to sainthood, not theological expertise.

    I really do recommend picking up that book about intermarriage between Oriental Orthodox and Catholics. (I got a look at it today at a local library.) It’s quite clear that Copts are not part of such arrangements, but (more of relevance) it also discusses at length the many fruits of efforts at mutual understanding and reconciliation between Catholics and the various Eastern Orthodox Churches. Of particular note are the joint statements between Paul VI and Shenouda III: they clearly agreed that we worship the same Christ, and much more.

    So if she gets excommunicated if she marries in your church, but you won't get excommunicated if you join our church, so then why the headache?
    You said I would have to renounce Catholic dogmas. I’m pretty sure that, if I publicly renounce my Catholic faith, that’s a de facto excommunication from the Church of Rome. :)

    I did actually ask about that in my original post when I asked about taking Coptic initiation but still continuing to live as a Catholic. I would be willing to do that, except for that I don’t imagine that that’s compatible with the mind of the Coptic Church. Best-case scenario is that I would just be excommunicated, or at least be considered in a state of grave sin, for receiving Catholic communion, right?


    I want you to examine why we reject certain Roman Catholic dogmas and see for yourself if you're still convinced to stay as a Roman Catholic.  Maybe your significant other needs to also learn about Roman Catholicism and see if she is still convinced to stay Orthodox or to move over.  Christ taught us that we should love Him above all else (hyperbolically, He commanded that we hate our loved ones and love Him).  This includes obedience to His Church.  The issue of the Church should be resolved before even thinking about marriage, in my humble opinion, and for practical purposes as well, not merely for salvific reasons.
    My suspicion is that, for every point that one side could make, a counterargument can equally be made. It basically has to be so, or else we’d have a much easier path to open communion. This is the kind of “digging” I did years ago. I can’t logically justify every aspect of why I or anyone else should be a Copt or a Catholic; what I can do is appreciate the beauty of Roman Christianity and teach it to others … which I think is much more effectively done through personal witness than through argumentation.

    Would I rather, all things being equal, that my wife be a Catholic? Of course. But, all things are not equal, and people are not “modular” like that. I’ve been dating for long enough to know how remarkable this woman is. I actually turned down a very devout (and interested) Catholic woman for the relationship that I have now.


    Notice in my message, I'm not advocating that you break up.  I think it's a beautiful thing that a couple falls in love and really considers that this love be rooted in Christ.  That's why I also want you to consider it being rooted in Christ's true Church, and you need to be honest with each other and have long discussions and research on Christ's true Church.

    Right, but “Christ’s true Church” isn’t necessarily one particular Apostolic Church. Even if we suppose the existence of a “white list” of Apostolic traditions that profess the fullness of faith insofar as God has revealed to us thus far, that doesn’t mean that Christ’s church doesn’t also subsist, in part, in other traditions of lesser (or even greater) theological divergence. I’d be interested to know what you think of Vatican Council II’s discussions of “one holy, (cC)atholic, Apostolic Church”.

    Your reference to Luke 11:46 seems out of context … which raises my own “red flag”. ;-) Or, at least, it’s far from justified here that Rome is Pharisaical.


Sign In or Register to comment.