The Eucharist

edited December 1969 in Faith Issues
The Catholic churches official teaching is that the Bread and the Wine actually become the Body and Blood of Christ.  What is the Coptic view on the Elements??

Taylor
«1

Comments

  • Dear Taylor,

    The Orthodox teaching is that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Our Lord, but unlike the Catholics we do not presume to say how that happens; in other words we do not believe in transubstantiation in the way Roman Catholics define it. We accept, humbly, that this is a great mystery, and that there are many things that our feeble minds cannot understand about the ways of God.

    But we most fervently believe that when we receive the body and blood of Our Lord, we receive Him in us, to our salvation.

    If you have access to any of Pope Shenouda's writings on this it will give you the fullest information.

    In Christ,

    John
  • Hi Taylor, i have this book that explains the Liturgy in its entirety and what everything symbolizes. you can ask for this book in a coptic church library. or you can order it here: https://www.orthodoxbookstore.org/product.details.aspx?productid=1592 it is a wonderful book and explains in detail what is going on from vespers to the end of the liturgy. and it looks exactly like the photo in the link i provided.
  • The book can be found here as a PDF format:
    The Spirituality of the Rites of the Holy Liturgy.

    great book i myself have read.
  • Yes it truely is a great book, i not only recomend this book for Taylor but for everyone who is interested in learning about our liturgy in depth.
  • Hi to everyone. I am new. I am actually Catholic, not Coptic and have registered with this website to learn more about your church. I am not out to convert anyone nor be converted - as I see it we are all Christians with some difference in doctrine.

    Is that how the Coptic Church sees it? I am pretty sure that your Patriarch was at Pope John Paul's funeral, was he not? Or was he? His picture looks like one of the eastern church's representatives.

    The Catholic Church, even though there is some difference in how the bread and wine become or are the Body and Blood of Christ, as we say, The Real Presence, has ordained Orthodox Christians taking Communion in the Catholic Church. Protestants are requested not to, as are those of non-Christian faiths although they are welcome at Mass. Does your church consider this ok? That a Catholic is close enough in doctrine to take the Eucharist in your church, or would that be a problem? I am just curious.

    I so far am really pleased and impressed from having read through several threads. Very thoughtful and Biblical answers and questions. I hope no one minds me being here. I like being here.

    God bless.

    byrdele
  • [quote author=byrdele link=topic=5423.msg73193#msg73193 date=1182712539]
    Does your church consider this ok? That a Catholic is close enough in doctrine to take the Eucharist in your church, or would that be a problem? I am just curious.


    Catholics are not permitted to receive the Holy Eucharist in an Orthodox Church. Primarily this is due to what we regard as heretical teachings on issues such as the filioque, ecclesiology, mariology, soteriology, etc. not to mention the state of obvious schism that exists as a consequence of these heresies.

    A 'similar' view of the Eucharist is not a reason to Commune those outside of the Church of Christ, something forbidden by Her canons.

    Hope that helps
  • Dear byrdele,

    First, let me add my welcome; it is good to have you here, and the spirit in which you come is one of Christian fellowship.

    For many of us the divisions in the Church are a sign of the fact that we are, indeed, all sinners; but they are divisions, and until the Spirit heals them, they do divide us at the Eucharistic feast; which is no reason that they should divide us elsewhere.

    Through the Ecumenical movement, our various churches have been able to talk together and discover what we have in common; and in day to day situations when it comes to things like helping the poor and the sick, we can, and do, work together in His name.

    But there are, as Orthodox11 rightly points out, big differences between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox; indeed, there are differences between his Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox family of Churches of which the Coptic Church is part, and, generally speaking (except where local arrangements allow), Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do not take communion in the Church of the other family. This is because for us, as for the Roman Catholics, the Eucharistic feast is the point at which the Church encounters the Risen Lord - and those who do not hold the same beliefs about the nature of Christ or on other doctrinal issues, are not in our Church.

    To many outside the Church, or to many Protestants with a different understanding of the significance and nature of the Eucharist, that seems a very bad thing, as though we are rejecting them. We are not, we are simply saying that they are not in our Church, and that since we believe that the Eucharistic feast is where we, the body of the Church, receive the body and blood of Our Most Blessed Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, only those who believe as we do can do so. But we offer the fellowship of the antidoron, or blessed bread, afterwards.

    I hope this helps a little.

    In Christ,

    Anglian
  • I understand why I would not be permitted Communion and am not offended by it at all. I realise the similarities do not mean "the same". Just as the Lutherans are pretty close to us on the Eucharist, believing that the Spirit of the Body and Blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist, it is not the same as believing in the Real Presence and so they could not take Communion in our church. As was said, all are welcome to church, but simply must refrain from the taking of the Eucharist. I would not, believing as I do now, take it in a Protestant Church at all because, for me, that would profane the teachings of the Church. I do not believe it profanes the Protestants - they do not believe in the Real Presence so they are simply acting within their beliefs.

    I do have some questions per the reasons: mariology was mentioned. As Catholics we consider her Queen of Heaven and part of the Communion of Saints, who are still alive in Christ but now perfected. We ask them to pray for us (some Catholics actually do pray to them although that practice crept and the Church is definitely trying to stamp it out as heresy - not many modern Catholics, but some). We regard her as the Mother of God or "Godbearer", the Russian Orthodox term for that is "Bogomateri". So how do you view her? We also see her visits to this world as only representing her Son, such as in Guadalupe in Mexico, her visit brought thousands of converts to the Church and helped in healing the rift caused by the Spanish invasion of Mexico. In another one, in Latvia, there was a lovely woman sitting on a rock and crying. Some people asked her why, she was in the middle of an agricultural field, and she responded that where once people worshipped her son they were now using for agriculture. Sure as shooting, the people started digging and the remains of a church was found. So they began worshipping again - I am not sure of the whole story, but I think they'd gone lax in their worship in general. I am not saying this to convince anyone, but just to shed more light on what we believe and I am interested in what you believe either in common or in contrast.

    On ecclesiology, I am assuming that you consider yourself the Church of Christ and as having the full truth and so do we :). Am I correct in that assumption, since ecclesiology means "study of the church"? I realise that you consider us the schismatics, not vice versa.

    And the filoque, where we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son in the Nicene Creed - am assuming you say simply "From the Father", correct?

    Anyway, this explanation has been most illuminating. Thanks.
  • [quote author=byrdele link=topic=5423.msg73227#msg73227 date=1182763063]
    I understand why I would not be permitted Communion and am not offended by it at all. I realise the similarities do not mean "the same".


    Even if Catholics refrained, as do the Orthodox, from trying to explain the way in which the bread and wine become the very Body and Blood of Christ by using the term transubstantiation, and held a position identical to Orthodoxy in every way, this would still not be grounds for inter-communion.

    Our participation in the most pure Mysteries of Christ is not based only on how we view this single sacrament, but our relation to the Apostolic Faith in its entirety and whether or not we belong to the Church of Christ.

    We cannot receive Christ whilst denying who He is (heresy). Nor can we enter into communion with those we have separated ourselves from (schism).

    Again, this is not said to offend, by to clarify our position.


    I do have some questions per the reasons: mariology was mentioned......So how do you view her?

    With respect to mariology I was thinking specifically of the notion of the Immaculate Conception, which we wholly reject. This idea also propagates a legalistic concept of original sin which we do not adhere to either.


    On ecclesiology, I am assuming that you consider yourself the Church of Christ and as having the full truth and so do we :).

    Your assumption is right ;) we do consider ourselves the Church of Christ, posessing the fullness of truth. However, we have a very different ecclesiology to that of the Roman Catholic Church.

    We have no single supreme head over the entire Church like the Pope of Rome in Catholicism, and certainly not an infallible one. The Catholic Church is a monarchy, the Orthodox Church is conciliar.


    And the filoque, where we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son in the Nicene Creed - am assuming you say simply "From the Father", correct?

    This is correct.
  • Hi Orthodox11.

    I am not offended if you consider me in heresy about many religious issues, or if you even consider me in full heresy. Many people are afraid to you the "h" word, but you are just, from your viewpoint, calling a spade a spade. Some more liberal Catholics right now are up in arms about Pope Benedict's pulling back the restrictions on when and whom and where a Tridentine Mass can be said. They are upset about the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. I know the differences in the Novos Ordo and the Tridentine could get another conversation going, which is not my intent. The theology of the Liturgy is still the same (in the Roman rite - we actually have many rites). But a lot of Jews do not see the prayer as anti-semitic, which it is certainly not. It is a prayer of love. I have had Muslim friends who saw me as a heretic and I appreciated their concern in handing me literature. It also gave me the chance to hand them literature :).

    I have, since I asked you for an explanation, and thanks for providing it, gone through an article on comparative theology: Coptic vs. Catholic, and found an old thread with many of you in it explaining the many differences between us, as you said, the Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, The difference in the Nicene Creed, the differences in Baptism and then Confirmation where you annoint the newly baptised in the many specified places on the body, our belief in Purgatory and etc. I know also that you, as monophysites, consider duophysitism to be heretical. That last one was very interesting for me, as I studied Russian and thus Russian Orthodoxy to an extent and they are duophysites. Peter the Great wanted a new Patriarch who was more amenable to his desires, so he replaced the one who was there and started a whole campaign of New Believers over Old Believers, and this included how to cross oneself. The Orthodox had been doing it with 2 fingers, to emphasise their belief in the dual nature of Christ, whereas the new way demanded 3 fingers to emphasise the Trinity. Sounds a bit off the subject, but I assumed, and wrongly, that all Orthodox believe in the dual nature and have been proven wrong. Just for anyone's interest, if you look at some of the Russian icons before Peter, they show Christ holding up 2 fingers... another fact just in case of interest - even though they were persecuted mainly for a political cause (as is often the case), the Old Believers still exist, albeit in small numbers.

    Anyway, back to the subject. I am not offended and I do understand why it would be impossible for me to receive the Eucharist in your church from a Coptic perspective. Likewise, even if I were allowed to receive, I would not be able to do so out of conscience from a Catholic perspective. I think the agreement might be with the Greek church, although I am not sure. I know I received at a Russian Orthodox Church once, but don't know if it was kosher now that I look back on it. The priest knew his tiny flock, and knew I didn't belong to it and still gave me Communion. That might be due to the fact that they are duophysites as well as we are.

    Interesting conversation. Thanks. 



  • I know also that you, as monophysites, consider duophysitism to be heretical.

    This is a big subject, but I just felt the need to say that we are not monophysites, but actually miaphysites. We basically believe the same as Eastern Orthodox regarding the nature of Christ, we only word it differently. As for us, we use the formulation of St Cyril the Great that Christ was perfectly man and perfectly God, being the incarnate Word of God, having one nature out of two that united perfectly without mingling, confusion or alteration.

    Any of the scholars here, you can correct me anytime ;)
    I'm sure there's much more to say on this subject.
  • Dear byrdele,

    Hos Erof is quite correct; we have always rejected the term monophysite; we are indeed miaphysites, which is one reason the Coptic Church never had the dispute over Monothelitism which the Chalcedonians had; I think we would also (most of us) agree that Orthodox11 and the Eastern Orthodox are not diophysites. The linguistic and political differences at Chalcedon went a great way to causing the split; but ti should not be forgotten that during the next century and a half, many attempts were made to heal it; and had it not been for the Arab conquests, who can know what would have happened?

    What we do know is that over the last fifty years as it has become possible to engage in renewed dialogue, the EO and the OO have discovered how much they hold in common, and that much progress towards unity has been made; we also know there is much more ground - not least ecclesiologically, to make up.

    Can I also thank Orthodox11 and yourself for providing a model of Christian forbearance and love in your discussions - so very refreshing and encouraging, and from the bottom of my heart, I would like to thank you both.

    In the next post I shall try, as well as I can, to deal with the very interesting issues you raise.

    In Christ,

    John
  • [quote author=byrdele link=topic=5423.msg73277#msg73277 date=1182802293]
    They are upset about the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. I know the differences in the Novos Ordo and the Tridentine could get another conversation going, which is not my intent. The theology of the Liturgy is still the same (in the Roman rite - we actually have many rites). But a lot of Jews do not see the prayer as anti-semitic, which it is certainly not. It is a prayer of love.


    We have had similar calls from more liberal quarters demanding that the prayers of Holy Week (probably the most beautiful in the whole liturgical year) be revised so as to not offend Jews.


    I know also that you, as monophysites, consider duophysitism to be heretical. That last one was very interesting for me, as I studied Russian and thus Russian Orthodoxy to an extent and they are duophysites. Peter the Great wanted a new Patriarch who was more amenable to his desires, so he replaced the one who was there and started a whole campaign of New Believers over Old Believers, and this included how to cross oneself. The Orthodox had been doing it with 2 fingers, to emphasise their belief in the dual nature of Christ, whereas the new way demanded 3 fingers to emphasise the Trinity. Sounds a bit off the subject, but I assumed, and wrongly, that all Orthodox believe in the dual nature and have been proven wrong. Just for anyone's interest, if you look at some of the Russian icons before Peter, they show Christ holding up 2 fingers... another fact just in case of interest - even though they were persecuted mainly for a political cause (as is often the case), the Old Believers still exist, albeit in small numbers.

    The term 'monophysite' is a reference to the heresy preached by Eutyches that was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon. However, it is wrongly assumed by many that it is therefore the position held by all who rejected Chalcedon.

    In reality, the Coptic Church also condemns Eutyches and the monophysite heresy, insisting that Christ was fully human and fully divine. Where non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians differ is on the issue of terminology, with the former rejecting the term "two natures in one person", insisting rather on the term used by St. Cyril the Great, which declares Christ to be of one composite nature (mia physis). They are therefore more appropriately called miaphysites as John stated.

    As for what you say about the Russian Church. The reforms basically just conformed to the Greek practice, with the three first fingers held together to represent the Trinity and the remaining two fingers pressed against the palm to represent Christ's humanity and divinity (so this aspect was not actually lost).


    I think the agreement might be with the Greek church, although I am not sure. I know I received at a Russian Orthodox Church once, but don't know if it was kosher now that I look back on it. The priest knew his tiny flock, and knew I didn't belong to it and still gave me Communion.

    The stance of the Eastern Orthodox Church regarding the communing of Catholics is as I've stated above.

    That might be due to the fact that they are duophysites as well as we are.

    To my knowledge there has never been a dispute between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox regarding the nature of Christ after the incarnation. However, I have heard certain Oriental Orthodox suggesting that Catholics have a pseudo-Nestorian understanding of the Chalcedonian terminology, whereas the Eastern Orthodox are viewed more favourably in this respect.

    I don't know enough about the Catholic interpretation of Chalcedon to judge whether or not this is correct, but I do remember Vladimir Soloviev in his famous defense of the papacy suggesting St. Cyril's "one (mia) nature of the incarnate Logos" was an unintended error, something the Eastern Orthodox certainly do not believe since St. Cyril was both the standard against which Leo's Tome was judged at Chalcedon and was further ratified by the 5th Ecumenical Council.
  • Dear Orthodox11,

    I have a question that is related to the topic in a way. What is the position of Our Coptic church in regards to the apparitions of The Blessed Virgin to Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes,France?
  • [quote author=Hezekiel link=topic=5423.msg73292#msg73292 date=1182818495]
    I have a question that is related to the topic in a way. What is the position of Our Coptic church in regards to the apparitions of The Blessed Virgin to Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes,France?


    Hi,

    I do not believe the Church has any official position on the Lourdes apparition as such. The fact that the blessed Theotokos is supposed to have revealed Herself as "the Immaculate Conception" would be a cause to view it suspiciously since this is a concept the Church of Christ rejects.

    That being said, it is always possible that the apparition was genuine but that "Immaculate Conception" did not refer to the aforementioned heresy, but rather Her immaculate conception of God the Word by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

    But, like I said, I do not believe the Church has any official stance since.
  • Dear Orthodox11,

    An interesting point. I have not seen any official position taken by the Coptic Orthodox Church on this.

    If the 'Immaculate conception' refers to the conception of Our Lord we have no problem, as you say; if it is the RC version, then we would obviously reject it.

    In Christ,

    John
  • Dear Othodox11,

    Thank you, you have answered my questions very well and very much in depth. It's not that I have any desire to test anyone or take the Eucharist in any other church than my own. I was just curious and you satisfied my curiousity.

    God bless.

    byrdele
  • Dear Orthodox11,

    I don't know enough about the Catholic interpretation of Chalcedon to judge whether or not this is correct, but I do remember Vladimir Soloviev in his famous defense of the papacy suggesting St. Cyril's "one (mia) nature of the incarnate Logos" was an unintended error, something the Eastern Orthodox certainly do not believe since St. Cyril was both the standard against which Leo's Tome was judged at Chalcedon and was further ratified by the 5th Ecumenical Council.

    This one keeps doing the rounds, although as long ago as the nineteenth century, St. Cyril's English translators, P.E. and E.B. Pusey cast real doubt as to whether St. Cyril did make an error. I append below a rather lengthy quotation from them which considers the argument in more depth than many here will want; but you and I (and others) rather enjoy this, so I hope we might crave indulgence.

    The little treatise or rather Confession of S. Athanasius from which S. Cyril cites in his Book against Theodore is put by Montfaucon, S. Athanasius' Editor, among the dubia. Montfaucon's grounds for doing so are twofold; 1, that the very famous expression, One Incarnate Nature of the Word, seems to contradict what S. Athanasius says in other writings; 2, that the treatise was objected to by Leontius of Byzantium, at the beginning of the seventh Century. Of the first ground of doubt, no one but a student of S. Athanasius has any right to speak. The second dwindles to nothing. Leontius says, "They [the party of Severus, the ... Bishop of Antioch] put forward another passage as S. Athanasius', from his treatise on the Incarnation. It is on this wise, 'And that the Same is Son of God after the Spirit, Son of man after the flesh; not that the one Son is two natures, the one to be worshipped, the other not to be worshipped, but One Nature Incarnate of God the Word.' To this we say, that first it in no wise opposes us, for neither do we hold two natures, one to be worshipped, the other not, but we hold One Nature Incarnate of God the Word. Next it is not S. Athanasius'. For when they are asked by us, where it is, and cannot easily shew it, in their perplexity they put forward some small treatise, about two leaves, in which this passage is: but it is evident to all, that all S. Athanasius' writings are very large.

    "But what can we say, when they put forward blessed Cyril, citing this against Theodore, as being S. Athanasius?' To this we say, that it does indeed lie in the blessed Cyril's utterings against Theodore, yet it is an old error. For Dioscorus succeeding blessed Cyril, and finding his works, would perchance not have minded adding what he pleased: we might even conjecture that the blessed Cyril did not cite it against Theodore; and that it is so, is clear from this. For Theodoret speaking in behalf of Theodore, overturning all the passages which blessed Cyril cited against him from the holy Fathers, has no where mentioned this. To this they say that Theodoret passed it over craftily: for not able to answer it as patent, he of purpose passed it by. To this we say that so far from passing it by if it had been there, when S. Cyril said elsewhere, One Nature Incarnate of God the Word, if he had known that this passage had been put by blessed Cyril as cited from S. Athanasius, he would not so unlearnedly have said, 'Who of the Fathers said, the One Nature Incarnate of God the Word?'

    But they say again that he knew so certainly that it was said by S. Athanasius that he said, 'As the Fathers have said.' To this we say that every one is anxious to shew that the Fathers said what he says, if not word for word, yet in sense." It is clear that no serious objection could be founded on a treatise or Confession of Faith being short, and that the fact of one's opponent passing over an objection would be no proof that the objection, which is confessedly there, was not made. The remainder of Leontius' objection lies in the, "perhaps Dioscorus added something."

    This confession was very well known by S. Cyril; for besides citing it here, he cites (as Montfaucon observes) almost the whole of it in the beginning of his Treatise de recta Fide to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina, to shew that S. Athanasius used the term, Mother of God; S. Cyril also cited two pieces it, to shew that in his eighth chapter in which he says, that 'Emmanuel must be worshipped with one worship, he had but said what S. Athanasius too had said. In all three citations occur the words, One Nature Incarnate of the Word, and in the case of S. Cyril's defence of his eighth chapter, the whole passage is extant in the latin translation (believed to be by S. Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator) which leaves no room for possible monophysite insertion: besides that the citation forms an integral part of S. Cyril's Defence of his chapter.

    It is then proved that the words were cited as S. Athanasius' by S. Cyril, the same S. Cyril who had had his own mind moulded and taught by the writings of S. Athanasius, and who in A. D. 431, produced from the archives, probably of his own Church of S. Mark, an authentic copy of S. Athanasius' Letter to Epictetus. If this Confession is not genuine, it is but an illustration of how, being but men, we make mistakes in what we know best.

    Montfaucon sums up, "I would not venture to say whether the extracts were added in the writings of Cyril after his decease or whether before Cyril a little book of this sort was made up and ascribed to Athanasius."

    Rather disappointingly, that simply leaves us in doubt, but I am with professor McGuckin, who rather takes the view that even if it was spuriously attributed to St. Athanasius, it is entirely Orthodox - not everything heretics write being, of necessity, heretical!

    As it is St. Cyril's anniversary tomorrow, this is an opportune time to raise his great name.

    In Christ,

    John

  • Oh, you know how I got mixed up on whether Catholics take or do not take the Eucharist in an Orthodox church? When I first came back to Catholicism, someone who usually did not know his head from a hole in the ground told me that. Also I got mixed up because in the Catholic Church, Orthodox are invited to take the Eucharist. I realise that most Orthodox would not want to, but I guess we're more concerned with the recognition of the Real Presence, even though your recognition of the Real Presence is a bit different from ours (since we believe in a moment of Transubstantiation and you do not).

    We do draw the line - we're not laid back and letting everyone come up and participate. It is drawn right where I said. No one else receives. Although some famous Protestants have received (George Bush, Tony Blair, etc.), they should not have and it is against Church teaching.

    Ok, enough on that subject for me. I will just read the posts for a while.
  • Dear Orthodox,

    I do believe that Our Blessed Mother did appear to St Bernadette at Lourdes.Whether our church recognises that or not is ,of course, entirely another matter. But my question is,assuming that the apparition were true, why should we doubt the way the Blessed Mother made herself known to a poor peasant girl? In other words, how do we know that the "immaculate conception" is referring to the Birth of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit? If that were so, shouldn't the Mother of God say " I am the mother of the immaculate conception", rather than, "I am the immaculate conception". Doesn't the "I" refers to her in this case. Where am I going wrong?

    regards
  • [quote author=Hezekiel link=topic=5423.msg73403#msg73403 date=1182885118]
    Dear Orthodox,

    I do believe that Our Blessed Mother did appear to St Bernadette at Lourdes.Whether our church recognises that or not is ,of course, entirely another matter.

    But my question is,assuming that the apparition were true, why should we doubt the way the Blessed Mother made herself known to a poor peasant girl? In other words, how do we know that the "immaculate conception" is referring to the Birth of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit?


    Simply put, if the 'immaclate conception' in this case does not refer to the conception of God the Word, but rather to the Catholic heresy, then there is no way the apparition was genuine. The most pure Theotokos would never advocate heresy, nor does the Church of Christ err in Her teaching.

    So if 'immaculate conception' refers to the Catholic heresy, Bernadette was either lying, mistaken or deceived.


    If that were so, shouldn't the Mother of God say " I am the mother of the immaculate conception", rather than, "I am the immaculate conception". Doesn't the "I" refers to her in this case.

    Not necessarily. I don't see this as being any different from saying "I am the Virgin Birth", which would be entirely appropriate. But this is fairly superflous unless one accepts the Lourdes apparition.
  • Simply put, if the 'immaclate conception' in this case does not refer to the conception of God the Word, but rather to the Catholic heresy, then there is no way the apparition was genuine.

    For you to claim,that the apparitions were not genuine,because the concept of "the immaculate conception" does not sit well with you is downright dumb.I suggest to you,that you read what has really taken place in Lourdes,France. Do you think Miracles and unexplainable appartions take place only in the Coptic orthodox faith?

    So if 'immaculate conception' refers to the Catholic heresy, Bernadette was either lying, mistaken or deceived.

    You make it sound as if it is only ,the Orthodox church that overflow with Saints . The Catholic church  and other churchs that are not in full communion with the Coptic church do also have as many Saints as the sand in the beaches. Again to claim that a saint of God in the calibre of Bernadette must have been lying about the apparitions is yet another example of the contempt that you have against other orders and denominations of Christianity.

    Come back to your senses.
  • [quote author=Hezekiel link=topic=5423.msg73452#msg73452 date=1182974092]
    For you to claim,that the apparitions were not genuine,because the concept of "the immaculate conception" does not sit well with you is downright dumb.


    If I was suggesting that it couldn't have happened because of my personal and fallible opinion regarding the RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, then yes it would be pretty stupid.

    However, this has absolutely nothing to do with my personal opinion, which is entirely irrelevant, but with that of the Church of Christ, which rejects this teaching.

    I think you will find that throughout the centuries visions, miracles, appearances of angels and saints, etc. have NEVER been accepted without question, which would be a rather reckless approach.

    The authenticity of such an event is always examined based on whether or not it is in keeping with the faith of the Church, which is the Body of Christ, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, against which the gates of Hades will never prevail.


    Do you think Miracles and unexplainable appartions take place only in the Coptic orthodox faith?

    Miracles and unexplainable apparitions can happen wherever God so desires. They can happen to those within the Orthodox faith, or to Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and pagans.

    There are numerous examples of all these things: Christ appeared to Saul when he was persecuting the Church and to Emperor St. Constantine among others. One example I always remember is that of the imam at the mosque next to the church where St. George's relics are kept who is said to have fallen off his roof and been saved by St. George, for which reason the blessed martyr is considered holy also among Muslims in that area of Palestine.

    So no, I was not suggesting apparitions could only happen to Orthodox Christians. What I did say, however, was that such an apparition should only be accepted as genuine if it is consistent with the teachings of the holy Church.


    You make it sound as if it is only ,the Orthodox church that overflow with Saints . The Catholic church  and other churchs that are not in full communion with the Coptic church do also have as many Saints as the sand in the beaches.

    While there are certainly many blessed people who have lived their lives outside the embrace of the Church of Christ, I would refrain from attributing to them the title 'saint' since this is a term used precisely to refer to those who are part of the Body of Christ.
  • Hi Orthodox11,

    I have a question for you. Does the Coptic Church believe that non-Orthodox who claim to be Christians, who stake their salvation upon the Blood of Jesus Christ, and that non-Orthodox self-proclaimed Christians (like me) can go to heaven? I realise a big part of your (the Coptic Church's answer) will be based on how we see the nature of Christ, as One or Dual. This is not a challenge, just a curious question. I know you'll tell me exactly as your Church sees it without worrying about offending me, because you are very forthright and will state what you believe is the truth no whether it might offend or not, which I like. Besides, I am not easily offended.

    Thanks.

    God bless.

    byrdele
  • [quote author=byrdele link=topic=5423.msg73501#msg73501 date=1183056713]
    I have a question for you. Does the Coptic Church believe that non-Orthodox who claim to be Christians, who stake their salvation upon the Blood of Jesus Christ, and that non-Orthodox self-proclaimed Christians (like me) can go to heaven? 


    I would recommend this answer by a Russian Archimandrite:
    http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/metphil_heterodox.aspx

    The article ends with the following words of St. Theophan the Recluse:
    "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins...."


    I realise a big part of your (the Coptic Church's answer) will be based on how we see the nature of Christ, as One or Dual.

    I do not believe this is a particularly central issue regarding the salvation of the heterodox, especially since recent dialogue has shown this to be an issue of semantics more than substance.
  • Dear Orthodox11,

    An interesting answer, but given the view which that website takes of the Coptic Church, not one that could be recommended without some hesitation here, surely?

    For many modern people St. Theophan's advice would be easier to bear if there were not those in his Church who gave the impression that they know the answer but don't like to give it for fear of giving offence in the modern age.

    I suspect you and I have the same view of this, but from another site where we correspond, we know that we are not always joined by others in this view. In the end it is God who knows, because it is He who decides; whether any of us is happy with this is beside the point - since He is the only Just Judge.

    Of course, a Christian life lived within the canons of the Church is, we believe, a better way of living your life, and a good preparation for the hereafter, and we do believe that wrong belief has consequences which are not desirable; but, fortunately for all of us, He judges us.

    In Christ,

    Anglian
  • [quote author=Anglian link=topic=5423.msg73550#msg73550 date=1183126417]
    An interesting answer, but given the view which that website takes of the Coptic Church, not one that could be recommended without some hesitation here, surely?


    Just to clarify, my recommendation was of Metropolitan Philaret's answer, and not of the entire website.

    Essentially this is a question to which there are as many answers as there are people in both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches.

    Some will answer that salvation is open to everyone outside the Church, others will take St. Cyprian's 'ouside the Church there is no salvation' literally and say all those not in communion with the Church are damned to hellfire. Others (and this is the view I am inclined to take) say that while the fullness of faith, the lifegiving Sacraments, and all the other tools of salvation are found only in the Orthodox Church, God desires the salvation of all men and will act accordingly in His great mercy.
  • Good replies, everyone.  God does do the judging, thank goodness we are not responsible for that.

    Although I consider anyone a Christian who believes in the atoning sacrifice on the Cross, that we are cleansed by His Blood and that this is through His grace, I go along with the "God judges, so don't worry about it." I have great friends who are, admittedly, not Christians. I pray for them and I can't say they are going to hell, because I don't know what will take place between them and God, especially as they meet death. Some people have told me that is a cop out, but I don't think so. It's not my business and it should not be. God is so far beyond us that how can we understand His ways? Yes, you're right, He has given us guidelines and tools (and of course, we agree to disagree as to which church has them) but for those Christians outside those tools and guidelines, we accept them as Christians.

    My husband is not a believer. I do not worry about him going to hell. I pray for him constantly, though. But I don't know what will happen between him and God when his time has come. I hope to God that he does convert - it is my greatest desire after wanting to please and love God.

    Thanks for the answers!

    God bless,

    byrdele who is off to Ireland tomorrow! Catch you all in a week!
  • weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee finally i can post a message.
    All this trouble just to post once and maybe never again.

    Anyways.

    About the Eucharist.

    The RC believe that when the priest says Take eat This is my body, you know the rest, that is when the gifts are actually changed into the actual body and blood.
    However in the Orthodox church this is not so as St Nicholas Cabisilas says its when the Holy Spirit comes down and changes the gifts as no person in the Trinity glorifies themselves.
    So for example St Epiphanius of Cyprus he always saw the Holy Spirit come down like a tongue of flame and fly around the altar and then jump into the chalice AND thats when the gifts are changed.

    As for Lourdes, and the west in general.
    You don't test anything to see if their source is good or bad.
    Read the desert fathers they say this about demonic delusion.

    In the Eastern Orthodox all these apparitions hardly gets made publicised so much like in the west because the clergy needs to look into the matter first. Even then if it is true it is known by word of mouth.
    In the west like in Lourdes and Fatima Virgin Mary appears the people automatically think its a miracle and without knowing it they could be lead astray.

    Also St Nikitas of the Kiev Caves he became a recluse as he wanted so and when an "angel of God" appeared along with the voice of "Christ" he was taken into the vision immediately and in the end he became the devils toy and he was so badly tempted he lost the ability to speak for 2 years and the brother monks had to teach him how to eat!!!!

    so thats the difference between Orthodox and other Christian sects attitudes towards appearances of anyone.
    Also in the west only they go crazy over Jesus appearing in a muffin or something stupid like that.
  • Hi, Kusanagi! Pleased to meet you.

    You covered all my questions in one posting - that is pretty good.

    Not to preach, just explain.

    About apparitions - the RC Church checks everything out very carefully now. And I mean everything. Some of the saints who were enrolled in the canons are no longer enrolled, including St Christopher. There might have been a Christopher and the story about him carrying the weight of the world as he carried the Christ child over the river might be true, but as there is no evidence to his existence and local authorities were enrolling this and that person willy nilly into the canons, the Church has an office which has the most unpleasant of tasks - researching everything and making sure it's true. There are Catholics who are angry about the removal of Christopher from the Canons, but to me, the office is just doing its job. The same is about Marian apparitions. They are not recognised as true at first and sometimes are never recognised. Several things, I do believe, must be involved. Her appearance is one that brings people closer to God. As at the wedding feast, when she told the servants (when the wine had run out) "do whatever He tells you". That is her message to us now. There was one in Latvia in which a lovely woman was crying - oh, I told his one. Anyway, it led back to people placing God first in their lives. Also miracles, such as at Lourdes. Not many occur, but they do occur. The person who is spontaneously healed must have loads of documentation by doctors stating his illness and the severity thereof, the illness' entire history, and then documentation and follow-on by doctors for the next 5 years. In fact, the Church encourages that non-Catholic and even non-Christian doctors participate - there has to be documentation from numerous doctors.

    I agree with you about seeing apparitions in a muffin. I find this very offensive. A sandwich supposedly with the face of Mary sold on ebay for an enormous amount of money! The Church definitely does not recognise these hoaxes. There is a woman in western part of the US who claims to have had apparitions of Mary, and the Church has told her that she is wrong, after research, and told her to stop. Unfortunately, many Catholics today are not as obedient as they once were and she continues on. Apparitions are only part of the Church. The Church is about believing that Christ died for your sins and that, with Him, you are resurrected into a new life by grace through your faith and works. By obeying Him, which is to believe (which automatically leads to good works as we believe, unlike the Protestants, that the two cannot be separated [they believe that works is the evidence of faith. Sounds like splitting hairs until an incident between my Protestant brother whom I thought was very sound in his faith went completely lax on the "evidence" of his faith concerning our needy mother... when I was Protestant, I got lax on it too, it's too easy] and also in our church, as well as yours, to use the sacraments we've been given to help us).

    Apparations to us are more like icing on the cake, not the cake itself. If we follow the apparitions that closely we miss the point - "Do whatever He tells you." At least, that is what we believe. People who look for apparitions behind every corner remind me of Protestants who let themselves be guided by Scripture sola and by signs of God around every corner - they look for the burning bush and if they don't find it, they stagnate. I am not saying this of all Protestants, of course, there are many who live out lives of solid faith. My brother is one of them and I once was too - always looking for signs and wonders, "laying down of fleeces" (you probably know, but this was done by a prophet in the old testament. He laid down a fleece twice, once asking that it be dry despite the morning dew and once asking that there be no morning dew but that the fleece be wet to make sure he was following God. We're not supposed to do this except in dire emergency, in the passage where the prophet is doing it, he apologises to God both times and begs forgiveness [it is considered "testing" God) but God, of course, understood his duress and was benevolent and the rest is history. I made one of the worst mistakes of my life going on fleeces. God speaks to me, as I believe He does us all, through Scripture, Church teachings from more knowledgeable people, precedents in our churches and I really believe He gave us common sense and gut instinct for a reason. When I follow all of those, including what people around me say, depending on the person and of course weighing their statements in with everything else, that is when I truly focus and follow Him).

    Hope that helps. I realise that many of you cannot take the apparitions seriously becasue in your belief that Mary was not born without sin and our belief that she was. That's fine, like I say, they are the icing on the cake.

    About the Eucharist, we also believe that it is a miracle of the Holy Spirit. Where we take our belief is that when Christ held up the bread and wine and said the famous words. We do believe we are eating the flesh of the Resurrected Christ. We call it the Mystery of the Mass - even though we believe that the Holy Spirit does the work (you can say God does the work, as He is three in one), that even though it is through a priest, as confession is heard through a priest but is actually aimed toward God (working in reverse) that it is a mystery and that we don't understand it and are not meant to understand it, as if we understood the mysteries of God our brains would implode. It's impossible and, you probably will agree with me on this, I find it refreshing and comforting to know that I will never understand my God until, with God's grace, I am with Him. I realise that it is much different from the way you believe and I don't knock what you believe, I am just explaining that the Catholic attitude about it is just as awestruck as is yours.

    Thanks for the imput.

    God bless.

    byrdele 
Sign In or Register to comment.