[quote author=minagir link=topic=5237.msg70917#msg70917 date=1179196162] not necessarily. thy're in unity in faith but not in rites and dogmas. 1 example is that they have diffrent liturgies.
All of the Eastern Orthodox Churches perform baptisms by full immersion three times as a standard practice. The Coptic Church, as far as I know, never receives someone from an EO Church via baptism; it is always done by Chrismation only.
According to H.H. Pope Shenouda among others, we share the same Orthodox faith. The difference lies only in an acceptance/rejection of certain Christological expressions, and of course, the acceptance/rejection of certain Councils as binding upon the whole Church.
Liturgical practice differs, yes. But that is not, and has never been, a reason for disunity. The Armenian Liturgy is not the same as the Ethiopian, which is not the same as the Syrian, which is not the same as the Coptic, etc. Yet all are one Church.
But many of them do not consider that we are Orthodox. When you press them, however, most of them can only say that they have been taught that we are 'monophysites'; when you press them to explain why they are taught that, many of them just repeat that is what they have been told.
I think the vast majority of people in the EO Church have simply never given the issue of Chalcedon (or any other Council for that matter) much thought, and are probably oblivious to it. Those who have heard about it will probably just have read a quick summary along the lines of "defended the faith against the monophysite heresy of Eutyches." Ask them who Disocoros is, they won't have a clue.
Chalcedon just isn't such a big deal in the EO Church as it is in the OO Church. For whereas Chalcedon is what separates the OO from the rest of Christendom, for the EO its much less significant - the Great Schism of 1054, for example, is of far greater importance. In many introductory books you will read things along the lines of "the Church was undivided for the first 1000 years."
I also disagree with those who wrongly lable Copts as monophysites without giving the matter any thought, but I do think your expectations of how much the average EO should know about the OO are perhaps a bit high.
Most Coptic priest and bishops I have met have been very open regarding the EO, and have even encouraged me to commune in their churches (which I declined to do), but I have read countless statements by priests in the Ethiopian Tewahedo Church condemning dyophysites as heretics who divided Christ like the Nestorians, etc. - so its by no means a problem of the EO alone.
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5237.msg70927#msg70927 date=1179234820] [quote author=minagir link=topic=5237.msg70917#msg70917 date=1179196162] not necessarily. thy're in unity in faith but not in rites and dogmas. 1 example is that they have diffrent liturgies.
All of the Eastern Orthodox Churches perform baptisms by full immersion three times as a standard practice. The Coptic Church, as far as I know, never receives someone from an EO Church via baptism; it is always done by Chrismation only.
According to H.H. Pope Shenouda among others, we share the same Orthodox faith. The difference lies only in an acceptance/rejection of certain Christological expressions, and of course, the acceptance/rejection of certain Councils as binding upon the whole Church.
All of the Eastern Orthodox Churches perform baptisms by full immersion three times as a standard practice. The Coptic Church, as far as I know, never receives someone from an EO Church via baptism; it is always done by Chrismation only.
That's true; but not in reverse, at least not for the Russians, who do not recognise our baptism.
According to H.H. Pope Shenouda among others, we share the same Orthodox faith. The difference lies only in an acceptance/rejection of certain Christological expressions, and of course, the acceptance/rejection of certain Councils as binding upon the whole Church.
Again, true, but I have yet to see a Russian patriarch take this view; is there one?
This
I think the vast majority of people in the EO Church have simply never given the issue of Chalcedon (or any other Council for that matter) much thought, and are probably oblivious to it. Those who have heard about it will probably just have read a quick summary along the lines of "defended the faith against the monophysite heresy of Eutyches." Ask them who Disocoros is, they won't have a clue.
is true, but doesn't stop many EO taking the view that it makes us schismatics.
I suspect that the OO are much less stressed by this and do think that the EO are Orthodox, if not in full communion; I have been told many times that the EO do not take this view.
I think some EO people, such as yourself, do take this more enlightened view, but it is at odds with EO ecclesiology - or so I have constantly been told. It makes me rather sad, since the Christological reasons are no longer (if they ever were) valid, and there are so many things in this world where Christians should be standing together.
Still, with more like you, Orthodox11, we shall get there.
[quote author=Anglian link=topic=5237.msg70931#msg70931 date=1179250711] That's true; but not in reverse, at least not for the Russians, who do not recognise our baptism.
If you're talking about the Moscow Patriarchate, to which most Russians (indeed most EO's) belong, they would receive Copts through Chrismation only.
The ROCOR have a general policy (though it is fairly recent) of baptising everyone outside the EO Communion, with the exception of certain schismatic Old Calendarist groups. I'm not sure, however, if they would require Copts to be baptised - I think that would depend on the individual priest. To be honest, I would be very surprised if they insisted upon baptism. Even when reading things by the more fanatical Old Calendarists, I have only heard them speak of Chrismation when receiving what they describe as "monophysites."
Again, true, but I have yet to see a Russian patriarch take this view; is there one?
I have yet to see a Russian Patriarch give any final statement regarding the OO. From what I hear they wish to review the Greek-Coptic dialogue of which they were not part before making any such statement.
This is true, but doesn't stop many EO taking the view that it makes us schismatics.
Well if schism is a breach in Communion, then I can't really see anything wrong with holding that view. If schism implies heresy, then such a view would be unfounded.
I suspect that the OO are much less stressed by this and do think that the EO are Orthodox, if not in full communion; I have been told many times that the EO do not take this view.
There are those who have very little understanding of the issues at hand and for this reason just assume that any Church calling itself Orthodox is Orthodox. Then there are those who, for the same reason, make the opposite assumption. Among laymen in both Churches, the former seems to be in the majority. Among clergy, it seems to vary greatly depending on jurisdiction and geographical location, etc.
I was having a chat with my hairdressor today, he said that his wife was never baptised, but they got married in a Church. He said that so long as one of the two is baptised, then its OK: the Catholic Church allows it.
[quote author=vassilios link=topic=5237.msg70934#msg70934 date=1179254312] I was having a chat with my hairdressor today, he said that his wife was never baptised, but they got married in a Church. He said that so long as one of the two is baptised, then its OK: the Catholic Church allows it.
sorry to say this but the catholic church allows anything. now i think it was clearly shown on this post what's right conserning marriage and baptism from other denomenations. so now it's the personas choice to apply with what's right or not. the church is not going to run after you to not marry somone.
I wonder if it is that, or whether it is simply that his Church is exercising an economy? We have to remember we don't know all the circumstances - but I am still, like you, a little surprised if it is as stated. But let us not rush to judgement.
Dear Orthodox11,
As ever, your posts are eirenic and kind in the best ways. Just because a split has lasted for a thousand years and five hundred on top of that does not, of course, make it permanent. I would hope that more of us will get to know what was discussed between our Churches - see http://www.orthodoxunity.org/ for the details.
The statement made by those involved that
"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)
has also been extended in Egypt to cover mixed marriages on this condition:
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 date.
Slow progress, but after so long, not as slow as all that. Let us pray that we might yet be one.
I would second what was just posted about the Armenian Liturgy and chanting; profoundly beautiful and deeply moving.
I recently went with other members of my Church to the first Oriental Orthodox Festival at the Coptic Cathedral in Stevenage in the UK, and as well as the Copts, there were members of the Syriac Church, as well as the Malankarans, the Armenians, the Ethiopians and the Eritreans; it was a wonderful demonstration of unity in diversity. We all ended up thinking that we hoped there would be a second one next year.
The new Coptic Cathedral of St. Georges' is a beautiful building, and +Angaelos is much to be praised for his initiative.
Comments
not necessarily. thy're in unity in faith but not in rites and dogmas. 1 example is that they have diffrent liturgies.
All of the Eastern Orthodox Churches perform baptisms by full immersion three times as a standard practice. The Coptic Church, as far as I know, never receives someone from an EO Church via baptism; it is always done by Chrismation only.
According to H.H. Pope Shenouda among others, we share the same Orthodox faith. The difference lies only in an acceptance/rejection of certain Christological expressions, and of course, the acceptance/rejection of certain Councils as binding upon the whole Church.
Liturgical practice differs, yes. But that is not, and has never been, a reason for disunity. The Armenian Liturgy is not the same as the Ethiopian, which is not the same as the Syrian, which is not the same as the Coptic, etc. Yet all are one Church. I think the vast majority of people in the EO Church have simply never given the issue of Chalcedon (or any other Council for that matter) much thought, and are probably oblivious to it. Those who have heard about it will probably just have read a quick summary along the lines of "defended the faith against the monophysite heresy of Eutyches." Ask them who Disocoros is, they won't have a clue.
Chalcedon just isn't such a big deal in the EO Church as it is in the OO Church. For whereas Chalcedon is what separates the OO from the rest of Christendom, for the EO its much less significant - the Great Schism of 1054, for example, is of far greater importance. In many introductory books you will read things along the lines of "the Church was undivided for the first 1000 years."
I also disagree with those who wrongly lable Copts as monophysites without giving the matter any thought, but I do think your expectations of how much the average EO should know about the OO are perhaps a bit high.
Most Coptic priest and bishops I have met have been very open regarding the EO, and have even encouraged me to commune in their churches (which I declined to do), but I have read countless statements by priests in the Ethiopian Tewahedo Church condemning dyophysites as heretics who divided Christ like the Nestorians, etc. - so its by no means a problem of the EO alone.
In XC
[quote author=minagir link=topic=5237.msg70917#msg70917 date=1179196162]
not necessarily. thy're in unity in faith but not in rites and dogmas. 1 example is that they have diffrent liturgies.
All of the Eastern Orthodox Churches perform baptisms by full immersion three times as a standard practice. The Coptic Church, as far as I know, never receives someone from an EO Church via baptism; it is always done by Chrismation only.
According to H.H. Pope Shenouda among others, we share the same Orthodox faith. The difference lies only in an acceptance/rejection of certain Christological expressions, and of course, the acceptance/rejection of certain Councils as binding upon the whole Church.
thanks for verifing.
All of the Eastern Orthodox Churches perform baptisms by full immersion three times as a standard practice. The Coptic Church, as far as I know, never receives someone from an EO Church via baptism; it is always done by Chrismation only.
That's true; but not in reverse, at least not for the Russians, who do not recognise our baptism. Again, true, but I have yet to see a Russian patriarch take this view; is there one?
This is true, but doesn't stop many EO taking the view that it makes us schismatics.
I suspect that the OO are much less stressed by this and do think that the EO are Orthodox, if not in full communion; I have been told many times that the EO do not take this view.
I think some EO people, such as yourself, do take this more enlightened view, but it is at odds with EO ecclesiology - or so I have constantly been told. It makes me rather sad, since the Christological reasons are no longer (if they ever were) valid, and there are so many things in this world where Christians should be standing together.
Still, with more like you, Orthodox11, we shall get there.
In Christ,
Anglian
That's true; but not in reverse, at least not for the Russians, who do not recognise our baptism.
If you're talking about the Moscow Patriarchate, to which most Russians (indeed most EO's) belong, they would receive Copts through Chrismation only.
The ROCOR have a general policy (though it is fairly recent) of baptising everyone outside the EO Communion, with the exception of certain schismatic Old Calendarist groups. I'm not sure, however, if they would require Copts to be baptised - I think that would depend on the individual priest. To be honest, I would be very surprised if they insisted upon baptism. Even when reading things by the more fanatical Old Calendarists, I have only heard them speak of Chrismation when receiving what they describe as "monophysites." I have yet to see a Russian Patriarch give any final statement regarding the OO. From what I hear they wish to review the Greek-Coptic dialogue of which they were not part before making any such statement. Well if schism is a breach in Communion, then I can't really see anything wrong with holding that view. If schism implies heresy, then such a view would be unfounded. There are those who have very little understanding of the issues at hand and for this reason just assume that any Church calling itself Orthodox is Orthodox. Then there are those who, for the same reason, make the opposite assumption. Among laymen in both Churches, the former seems to be in the majority. Among clergy, it seems to vary greatly depending on jurisdiction and geographical location, etc.
In XC
I was having a chat with my hairdressor today, he said that his wife was never baptised, but they got married in a Church. He said that so long as one of the two is baptised, then its OK: the Catholic Church allows it.
sorry to say this but the catholic church allows anything.
now i think it was clearly shown on this post what's right conserning marriage and baptism from other denomenations.
so now it's the personas choice to apply with what's right or not. the church is not going to run after you to not marry somone.
I wonder if it is that, or whether it is simply that his Church is exercising an economy? We have to remember we don't know all the circumstances - but I am still, like you, a little surprised if it is as stated. But let us not rush to judgement.
Dear Orthodox11,
As ever, your posts are eirenic and kind in the best ways. Just because a split has lasted for a thousand years and five hundred on top of that does not, of course, make it permanent. I would hope that more of us will get to know what was discussed between our Churches - see http://www.orthodoxunity.org/ for the details.
The statement made by those involved that has also been extended in Egypt to cover mixed marriages on this condition: Slow progress, but after so long, not as slow as all that. Let us pray that we might yet be one.
In Christ,
John
If you plan to go there sometime, please contact me and I will send you a book with the English translation and transliteration.
Michael
I recently went with other members of my Church to the first Oriental Orthodox Festival at the Coptic Cathedral in Stevenage in the UK, and as well as the Copts, there were members of the Syriac Church, as well as the Malankarans, the Armenians, the Ethiopians and the Eritreans; it was a wonderful demonstration of unity in diversity. We all ended up thinking that we hoped there would be a second one next year.
The new Coptic Cathedral of St. Georges' is a beautiful building, and +Angaelos is much to be praised for his initiative.
In Christ,
John