You really can't use a protestant church anyway because they don't have an alter to use for liturgy. Now using it for a meeting you can use any place so it is not that big of a deal. Pray for me.
[quote author=Anba Bishoy link=topic=5640.msg75357#msg75357 date=1186711613] You really can't use a protestant church anyway because they don't have an alter to use for liturgy. Now using it for a meeting you can use any place so it is not that big of a deal. Pray for me.
[quote author=kerestina link=topic=5640.msg75352#msg75352 date=1186705472] can i ask then do you agree with copts utilising other churches ie. protestants?
yes u can and it's done all the time. we set up an altar and make t holy through the holy tablet aand pray a liturgy. the holy tablet placed on a table any where makes that table an altar of God. how do u think we do liturgies in retreats.
True i see what you mean but their churches are like a big room so why not go pray in a big room. Also there is nothing wrong with using there churches just do not take from their habits or way of doing things.
"The holy Synod has issued a decree that the Holy Coptic Orthodox Church may not be used for any other services or meetings except that of it's own or of any other Oriental Orthodox Church."
-The Holy Synod
But I'm a little confused abot the moqattam thing. Are you sure it's in our coc, or just anywhere in the mountain?
[quote author=PopeKyrillos link=topic=5640.msg75364#msg75364 date=1186718253] But I'm a little confused abot the moqattam thing. Are you sure it's in our coc, or just anywhere in the mountain?
that' what am still not sure of. because as Vassilios says, it's for Sat7. than now the idea is just a place to broadcast from...not necesserly prayer for them.
There seems to be nothing incorrect in allowing others to have the use of our buildings when we are not using them; but, of course, generally we should not be worshipping with them - although it is allowable on occasions (for example in the UK when we commemorate Armistice day on 11 November and remember the war dead).
Contrariwise, we often use Anglican premises in the UK. My own church at Babingley is on the Royal Estate at Sandringham and was formerly an Anglican chapel (http://www.britishorthodox.org/kingslynn.php) which we have exclusive use of, but which we needed the permission of the diocese to use; similarly at Mickfield in Suffolk where we are building up a congregation (http://www.britishorthodox.org/suffolk.php) we use a former Anglican Church which is now an ecumenical centre. I suppose what I am suggesting is that in areas where we are in a 'mission' situation, we depend on the goodwill of our fellow Christians for places to worship, so it seems only fair that, when the occasion arises, we extend the same goodwill to them.
[quote author=minagir link=topic=5640.msg75365#msg75365 date=1186719409] [quote author=PopeKyrillos link=topic=5640.msg75364#msg75364 date=1186718253] But I'm a little confused abot the moqattam thing. Are you sure it's in our coc, or just anywhere in the mountain?
that' what am still not sure of. because as Vassilios says, it's for Sat7. than now the idea is just a place to broadcast from...not necesserly prayer for them.
Look, they are praying from there!! Like I said before!!
[quote author=kerestina link=topic=5640.msg75352#msg75352 date=1186705472] can i ask then do you agree with copts utilising other churches ie. protestants?
If there are no Orthodox churches around, it is perfectly acceptable to use another building, such as the church of another denomination (provided no concelebration, etc. takes place).
There's a difference between defiling something holy and sanctifying something profane.
in my eyes here is the answer: [quote author=Anglian link=topic=5640.msg75373#msg75373 date=1186739609] There seems to be nothing incorrect in allowing others to have the use of our buildings when we are not using them; but, of course, generally we should not be worshipping with them
and Orthodox 11; my point was a) wen we have no availlable we are more than willing to use a protestant church space....but yet in our eyes we cant let them use our space......BUT in saying that id strongly note that the altar shud not be touched by any denomination...... and plus if the church was being used by others it'd be like hiring it out.....so realli no copt shud be there.....
BTW HAPPY BDAY ORTHO 11 lol God bless u mate ;)...
[quote author=PopeKyrillos link=topic=5640.msg75364#msg75364 date=1186718253] "The holy Synod has issued a decree that the Holy Coptic Orthodox Church may not be used for any other services or meetings except that of it's own or of any other Oriental Orthodox Church."
-The Holy Synod
That being said, having protestants or even catholics over to the church to pray shouldn't be allowed. HOWEVER, if there is another conference room or sunday school room in the building, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to use it.
Also, using other buildings to pray shouldn't be comparable to allowing other denominations come and pray in our church. This is true because their beliefs don't call for the church to be a holy place. To them, its just a building.
However, our churches have pictures that have been washed with the myron, and altars that have carried the body and blood of Jesus Christ. I remember Anba Yousef once saying that the church is an icon of heaven. How then can we allow other denomiations come and use this house of God to further benefit their relegious beliefs?
[quote author=kerestina link=topic=5640.msg75384#msg75384 date=1186751981] my point was a) wen we have no availlable we are more than willing to use a protestant church space....but yet in our eyes we cant let them use our space......
I understand the point you're making, and why that could seem somewhat hypocritical. This would certainly be the case if one believed Orthodoxy and heterodoxy to be on an equal footing. However, they're not. Orthodoxy is the Truth which comes from God, heterodoxy is when that Truth has been distorted by man (of course this should not be taken as a reflection of the adherants of any group).
Therefore, it is imho a positive thing when a Protestant church, community centre, school hall, etc. is used to worship God in Spirit and in Truth. But I cannot say the same when a church built and consecrated to the glory of God is used for something else (of course, there are exceptions).
We should be very thankful for the charity shown by those who are willing to offer us their facilities when we're lacking, and our attitude should be one of humble gratitude rather than arrogance. But I believe the best way to return the favour is to be a faithful and uncompromising witness to the Truth; to not seek praise from men, but the salvation of their souls.
and plus if the church was being used by others it'd be like hiring it out.....so realli no copt shud be there.....
You're still using the church for something less than (and to some extent, contrary to) its intended purpose.
I actually like that Idea of a All Christian Prayer Day we should do that. But just to clarify that is not what this Discussion is about, it is about others preaching in our churches and taking over as what some have stated. Which I am against, but I am with you on all Christians as one voice crying out to God.
[quote author=Anba Bishoy link=topic=5640.msg75454#msg75454 date=1186984128] I actually like that Idea of a All Christian Prayer Day we should do that. But just to clarify that is not what this Discussion is about, it is about others preaching in our churches and taking over as what some have stated. Which I am against, but I am with you on all Christians as one voice crying out to God.
lol, that's exactly what I mean. I don't KNOW why it's about others preaching in our churches since they do not. That's my point precisely.
Huh? How are we going to make the bottom line in who is a Christian and who is not in this day of multi-denominations? It sounds nice, but there is no way it could be realized. It gives rise to more questions than it answers our "needs" for unity.
We all believe that Christ is the son of God who died for us all on the wood of the Holy Cross and through Him and only Him can we obtain salvation;
I'm sorry, but belief in Christ alone is not grounds for classifying a person as Christian or not. Christianity is a package deal, and this package was set up by Christ, who handed it down to the Apostles, who preserved it in the Church. Let us remember Christ's own words on the matter:
[quote=Matthew 7:15-23]15. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17. In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20. Thus you will know them by their fruits. 21. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' 23. Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'
We are fully aware that even the demons know that Christ is the Son of God. However, we also know, that such knowledge is a cause for damnation for them, not salvation. So, just keep that in mind before you go around saying that, 'We're all Christian because we all believe in Christ'. Like Thomas says, we have no way of saying for certain who is and who isn't Christian.
I agree with Thomas and Kefas. The notion of an "all Christian" event implies that Orthodoxy is but one part of a much larger 'Christianity.' This is in itself a heresy.
Orthodoxy = Christianity, Christianity = Orthodoxy. The two terms are synonyms. That which is not Orthodox is not Christian, and that which is not Christian is not Orthodox.
While it is perfectly acceptable to use the term Christian to distinguish certain groups of heretics (e.g. Catholics, Protestants, Nestorians) from others who have strayed further (Muslims, Mormons, JWs), they are Christian only in so far as they are Orthodox. That is to say, they are Christian only to the extent to which they have kept Orthodox (correct) beliefs and practices.
That's not at all my point ::) I personally don't care about justifying other Christians and that wasn't my intention to unite us all under Christian for anything more than that simple truth; it is what it is and that is all. I was simply clarifying that the specific event which I mentioned that occurs at the specific monastery that this discussion has originated due to is not wrong for such reasons. I don't care whether or not we're different or if my wording was off; I'm not here to argue specifics. My point is quite simple; no meditation or contemplation. The only event at the monastery is not wrong because it's only prayer and that's that.
It is with extreme reluctance that I risk finding myself disagreeing with Κηφᾶς and Orthodox11, not least because if we are in disagreement, I have a feeling they are more likely to be getting it right! But perhaps I can essay a few lines to see if we are in fact disagreeing here?
Orthodox11 writes:
Orthodoxy = Christianity, Christianity = Orthodoxy. The two terms are synonyms. That which is not Orthodox is not Christian, and that which is not Christian is not Orthodox.
with which I find myself in entire agreement. But there are members of the Eastern Orthodox Church who would regard Copts as not Orthodox, even as there are those who would not regard the Catholic Church as Orthodox. I find it difficult to think that all Catholics are not Christians, and could not possibly take the view that Eastern Orthodox are not.
We in the Coptic Church have some disagreements with the Eastern Orthodox, and a few more with the Romans, but I would not put them on a par with the Protestant Churches. On another site of which I am a member, run by EO people, Copts are classed (along with Buddhists, Hindus, JWs and Mormons) as 'guests from another religious tradition'; as it is their forum one takes it with Christian resignation - but I am a guest from another 'Christian' tradition, and have never liked to ask whether the EO preferred designation is a euphemistic way of denying that I am a Christian in their eyes.
A Church that is Apostolic, Orthodox and sacramental is, perhaps, entitled to be regarded by other such Churches as 'Christian'.
But it may be that both Orthodox11 and Κηφᾶς actually included such a notion in what they were saying and I have not understood them aright? As I say, I have the most immense respect for you both, and wonder if we are in disagreement?
[quote author=Anglian link=topic=5640.msg75743#msg75743 date=1187638785] I find it difficult to think that all Catholics are not Christians, and could not possibly take the view that Eastern Orthodox are not.
I did not say that Roman Catholics are not Christians. What I did say was that they're only Christian to the extent that they are Orthodox - i.e. they're Christian with regards to that which unites us (orthodoxy), but unchristian in what divides us (heresy).
What this means in terms of the Catholic claim to 'Christianity' is, I believe, a fairly subjective matter based on how one uses this term.
On another site of which I am a member, run by EO people, Copts are classed (along with Buddhists, Hindus, JWs and Mormons) as 'guests from another religious tradition'; as it is their forum one takes it with Christian resignation - but I am a guest from another 'Christian' tradition, and have never liked to ask whether the EO preferred designation is a euphemistic way of denying that I am a Christian in their eyes.
With all due respect, I think you're reading too much into this, finding antagonism where none is intended. It was simply a decision made to ensure the EO Church remained the focus of an EO forum.
I think the reason "religious tradition" was used as opposed to having "Christian tradition" and "non-Christian tradition" was precisely to avoid having to further lable various traditions and cause further offense. One can still chose "Oriental Orthodox" when indicating religious affiliation.
A Church that is Apostolic, Orthodox and sacramental is, perhaps, entitled to be regarded by other such Churches as 'Christian'.
I would certainly agree with this. As for churches such as the Catholics, Anglicans or Lutherans, which are all Apostolic (atleast in the sense you seem to be using the term) and sacramental, but heterodox, I would reiterate what I said at the beginning of the post.
As I say, I have the most immense respect for you both, and wonder if we are in disagreement?
Much like Chalcedon, I presume it is semantics, not substance, over which we're in disagreement.
Thank you for your kindness in responding so carefully, and I think that we are not in disagreement in substance.
I suspect I just see more complexities in your statement
What I did say was that they're only Christian to the extent that they are Orthodox - i.e. they're Christian with regards to that which unites us (orthodoxy), but unchristian in what divides us (heresy).
because one of the things up for discussion here is who defines what is 'Orthodox'? My Roman Catholic friends are perfectly convinced they are orthodox and cannot understand a Church without their version of a Magisterium - even as I cannot understand how they can hold that their version was that of the early Church. But these are not things that pertain to salvation, and certainly not matters of heresy, so Christians ought to be able to hold different views without casting anathemata; not that you and I incline that way!
The Coptic Church tends to take the early Church as its model of Orthodoxy, and by that standard others elsewhere have 'added' doctrinal and dogmatic developments, which they see as just that - the Spirit working in the Church to bring us to new understandings of ancient Truths; those not privy to that tradition's working out of these things can react in a number of ways, but the most common seems to be a fairly defensive one - there is in parts of the EO community a deep suspicion of almost anything 'western', whilst 'scholasticism' seems to double as a term of abuse in some circles, especially those in which 'ecumenism' is regarded as a heresy in itself.
Of course, not all, or even a majority, perhaps, of Orthodox people feel this way, but there is not an equivalent to the Roman Magisterium to say to the world that this is a minority view which is not consistent with the spirit of Christian love. Rome can pronounce as the CDF has recently done, recognising the Orthodox Churches as 'sisters'; what is the Orthodox view of this, or of Rome? Indeed, is there an 'Orthodox' view, or just a series of uncoordinated responses, with each group making the response speaking on behalf of 'the Church'?
I agree that other Christians are that to the extent that they are Orthodox, it is who defines what that means that causes a little unease. I have yet to meet a Catholic, Lutheran or Orthodox (Oriental or Eastern) who did not make the claim that their yardstick was the one to use, since in their Church was to be found the 'fullness' of the Faith.
As an English poet commented a couple of centuries ago: 'Christians have burnt each other / quite persuaded, that all the Apostles would have done as they did'. If he'd only read Acts he'd have seen what the Apostles actually did; how good it would be if we could all do likewise.
But I have strayed beyond where I started, which was to thank you for such a good post - and hope I didn't spoil it by having this train of thought.
It is frustrating to me that it seems that intellectual capacity is needed to determine Orthodoxy, yet Orthodoxy is mystic and apophatic. What aggravates me persistently is the schism between Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox. It just further confuses me about the Church's role and ability to define faith. If indeed it was political agenda and sementics that played primary role in the division (and fail attempts at unity)of the Church, then how can we have any faith in the past Ecunemical Councils in its ability to define the Faith handed by the Apostles. I read the responses of orthodoxinfo.com/ecunemism/copts_orth.aspx and I just can not escape the notion that any visible Church could have complete fidelity to Apostolic Truth. To be blatant, I feel like an idiot in a chasm of mysticism. If there was anything more demoralising, its the eloquence of the EOC. Their documents are profoundly academic and paradoxically mystic. We have scarce notable modern Theologians to educate the English-speaking diaspora, that I have little faith in the ability of the Church to defend sound doctrine. How can "fullness" be found in the Church when the living fathers are at odds (they are human afterall) with the Apostolic fathers, for it is unreasonable to believe that inconsistency does not exist within any jurisdiction. Is not "fullness" found in the liturgy and Sacraments. Where is "all the fullness", and how can we see where it is vacant?
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5640.msg75777#msg75777 date=1187706176] I read the responses of orthodoxinfo.com/ecunemism/copts_orth.aspx
Although I disagree with much of what is said in this article, I think he hits the nail right on the head when he says: "Theologians and Churchmen who do not read the Fathers, who do not lead spiritual lives, and who see the union of men as something more important than our union with God in the unity of Faith have no business conducting dialogues between the [Eastern] Orthodox and the Copts. They are not acting in a spiritual way, and the results which they achieve will not be spiritual."
I am strongly in favour of dialogue between the EO and OO churches, and I want nothing more than for the rift between us to be healed. However, I agree that ecumenism far too often becomes the plaything of arrogant academics of little patience and spiritual merit, whereas Christ told us to "be seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you." (St. Matthew 6:33).
of course it is frustrating at times, but all of our senses come from Him, and all of them must be used in His service; that does not mean that we have to understand everything, because we obviously cannot comprehend the Incomprehensible and the Infinite; indeed, if we could, it would not be Infinite!
Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many others are very eloquent and in all these places are men and women of great piety and learning to be found; the same is true for the Coptic Church. Russia suffered greatly from seventy odd years of Communism; the Copts have had 1500 years of being persecuted and suppressed - the Spirit has maintained the Church through such trials; had He not, it would not have survived, for surely the gates of Hades have tried to swallow it?
As for the Ecumenical Councils, the three that we recognise certainly played a major part in establishing what was not Orthodox; the disagreements at Chalcedon were a tragedy, and what happened there, and at later councils, is why we do not accept that they were Ecumenical.
Orthodoxinfo likes to give the impression that it speaks for the Eastern Orthodox Church, but it does not, and its views on the Copts are, to put it mildly, lacking in scholarship and academic rigour. As we discussed earlier, all Churches have disputes - indeed Acts 15 discusses the first such dispute about how to interpret the Faith - as well as providing a model (which we have all failed to follow) of how to find a resolution.
I can't be sure, but it looks as though the passage cited by Orthodox11 from Orthodoxinfo is implying that those engaged in ecumenical dialogue between the EO and the OO are in some way unworthy so to do; if so this is a sad example of intolerance; if that is not what the first sentence quoted means, I can attach no other meaning to the paragraph. Too often the authors on that site seem to think they are in a position to pronounce on worthiness; may their presumption be forgiven.
Where is the fullness - in the Eucharistic encounter with the Risen Lord - where else would one find it?
Comments
ppl set up the altar every week.........
You really can't use a protestant church anyway because they don't have an alter to use for liturgy. Now using it for a meeting you can use any place so it is not that big of a deal. Pray for me.
[quote author=kerestina link=topic=5640.msg75352#msg75352 date=1186705472]
can i ask then do you agree with copts utilising other churches ie. protestants?
yes u can and it's done all the time. we set up an altar and make t holy through the holy tablet aand pray a liturgy. the holy tablet placed on a table any where makes that table an altar of God. how do u think we do liturgies in retreats.
-The Holy Synod
But I'm a little confused abot the moqattam thing. Are you sure it's in our coc, or just anywhere in the mountain?
But I'm a little confused abot the moqattam thing. Are you sure it's in our coc, or just anywhere in the mountain?
that' what am still not sure of. because as Vassilios says, it's for Sat7. than now the idea is just a place to broadcast from...not necesserly prayer for them.
Contrariwise, we often use Anglican premises in the UK. My own church at Babingley is on the Royal Estate at Sandringham and was formerly an Anglican chapel (http://www.britishorthodox.org/kingslynn.php) which we have exclusive use of, but which we needed the permission of the diocese to use; similarly at Mickfield in Suffolk where we are building up a congregation (http://www.britishorthodox.org/suffolk.php) we use a former Anglican Church which is now an ecumenical centre. I suppose what I am suggesting is that in areas where we are in a 'mission' situation, we depend on the goodwill of our fellow Christians for places to worship, so it seems only fair that, when the occasion arises, we extend the same goodwill to them.
In Christ,
Anglian
[quote author=PopeKyrillos link=topic=5640.msg75364#msg75364 date=1186718253]
But I'm a little confused abot the moqattam thing. Are you sure it's in our coc, or just anywhere in the mountain?
that' what am still not sure of. because as Vassilios says, it's for Sat7. than now the idea is just a place to broadcast from...not necesserly prayer for them.
Look, they are praying from there!! Like I said before!!
Don't use my name on this site please
can i ask then do you agree with copts utilising other churches ie. protestants?
If there are no Orthodox churches around, it is perfectly acceptable to use another building, such as the church of another denomination (provided no concelebration, etc. takes place).
There's a difference between defiling something holy and sanctifying something profane.
[quote author=Anglian link=topic=5640.msg75373#msg75373 date=1186739609]
There seems to be nothing incorrect in allowing others to have the use of our buildings when we are not using them; but, of course, generally we should not be worshipping with them
and Orthodox 11;
my point was a) wen we have no availlable we are more than willing to use a protestant church space....but yet in our eyes we cant let them use our space......BUT in saying that id strongly note that the altar shud not be touched by any denomination......
and plus if the church was being used by others it'd be like hiring it out.....so realli no copt shud be there.....
BTW HAPPY BDAY ORTHO 11 lol God bless u mate ;)...
I agree with Orthodox11 when he says: There is a lot of truth behind that statement.
"The holy Synod has issued a decree that the Holy Coptic Orthodox Church may not be used for any other services or meetings except that of it's own or of any other Oriental Orthodox Church."
-The Holy Synod
That being said, having protestants or even catholics over to the church to pray shouldn't be allowed. HOWEVER, if there is another conference room or sunday school room in the building, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to use it.
Also, using other buildings to pray shouldn't be comparable to allowing other denominations come and pray in our church. This is true because their beliefs don't call for the church to be a holy place. To them, its just a building.
However, our churches have pictures that have been washed with the myron, and altars that have carried the body and blood of Jesus Christ. I remember Anba Yousef once saying that the church is an icon of heaven. How then can we allow other denomiations come and use this house of God to further benefit their relegious beliefs?
Thank you
Bishoy
my point was a) wen we have no availlable we are more than willing to use a protestant church space....but yet in our eyes we cant let them use our space......
I understand the point you're making, and why that could seem somewhat hypocritical. This would certainly be the case if one believed Orthodoxy and heterodoxy to be on an equal footing. However, they're not. Orthodoxy is the Truth which comes from God, heterodoxy is when that Truth has been distorted by man (of course this should not be taken as a reflection of the adherants of any group).
Therefore, it is imho a positive thing when a Protestant church, community centre, school hall, etc. is used to worship God in Spirit and in Truth. But I cannot say the same when a church built and consecrated to the glory of God is used for something else (of course, there are exceptions).
We should be very thankful for the charity shown by those who are willing to offer us their facilities when we're lacking, and our attitude should be one of humble gratitude rather than arrogance. But I believe the best way to return the favour is to be a faithful and uncompromising witness to the Truth; to not seek praise from men, but the salvation of their souls. You're still using the church for something less than (and to some extent, contrary to) its intended purpose.
I actually like that Idea of a All Christian Prayer Day we should do that. But just to clarify that is not what this Discussion is about, it is about others preaching in our churches and taking over as what some have stated. Which I am against, but I am with you on all Christians as one voice crying out to God.
lol, that's exactly what I mean. I don't KNOW why it's about others preaching in our churches since they do not. That's my point precisely.
[quote=Matthew 7:15-23]15. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
17. In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20. Thus you will know them by their fruits.
21. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?'
23. Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'
We are fully aware that even the demons know that Christ is the Son of God. However, we also know, that such knowledge is a cause for damnation for them, not salvation. So, just keep that in mind before you go around saying that, 'We're all Christian because we all believe in Christ'. Like Thomas says, we have no way of saying for certain who is and who isn't Christian.
Orthodoxy = Christianity, Christianity = Orthodoxy. The two terms are synonyms. That which is not Orthodox is not Christian, and that which is not Christian is not Orthodox.
While it is perfectly acceptable to use the term Christian to distinguish certain groups of heretics (e.g. Catholics, Protestants, Nestorians) from others who have strayed further (Muslims, Mormons, JWs), they are Christian only in so far as they are Orthodox. That is to say, they are Christian only to the extent to which they have kept Orthodox (correct) beliefs and practices.
Orthodox11 writes: with which I find myself in entire agreement. But there are members of the Eastern Orthodox Church who would regard Copts as not Orthodox, even as there are those who would not regard the Catholic Church as Orthodox. I find it difficult to think that all Catholics are not Christians, and could not possibly take the view that Eastern Orthodox are not.
We in the Coptic Church have some disagreements with the Eastern Orthodox, and a few more with the Romans, but I would not put them on a par with the Protestant Churches. On another site of which I am a member, run by EO people, Copts are classed (along with Buddhists, Hindus, JWs and Mormons) as 'guests from another religious tradition'; as it is their forum one takes it with Christian resignation - but I am a guest from another 'Christian' tradition, and have never liked to ask whether the EO preferred designation is a euphemistic way of denying that I am a Christian in their eyes.
A Church that is Apostolic, Orthodox and sacramental is, perhaps, entitled to be regarded by other such Churches as 'Christian'.
But it may be that both Orthodox11 and Κηφᾶς actually included such a notion in what they were saying and I have not understood them aright? As I say, I have the most immense respect for you both, and wonder if we are in disagreement?
In Christ,
Anglian
I find it difficult to think that all Catholics are not Christians, and could not possibly take the view that Eastern Orthodox are not.
I did not say that Roman Catholics are not Christians. What I did say was that they're only Christian to the extent that they are Orthodox - i.e. they're Christian with regards to that which unites us (orthodoxy), but unchristian in what divides us (heresy).
What this means in terms of the Catholic claim to 'Christianity' is, I believe, a fairly subjective matter based on how one uses this term. With all due respect, I think you're reading too much into this, finding antagonism where none is intended. It was simply a decision made to ensure the EO Church remained the focus of an EO forum.
I think the reason "religious tradition" was used as opposed to having "Christian tradition" and "non-Christian tradition" was precisely to avoid having to further lable various traditions and cause further offense. One can still chose "Oriental Orthodox" when indicating religious affiliation. I would certainly agree with this. As for churches such as the Catholics, Anglicans or Lutherans, which are all Apostolic (atleast in the sense you seem to be using the term) and sacramental, but heterodox, I would reiterate what I said at the beginning of the post. Much like Chalcedon, I presume it is semantics, not substance, over which we're in disagreement.
Thank you for your kindness in responding so carefully, and I think that we are not in disagreement in substance.
I suspect I just see more complexities in your statement because one of the things up for discussion here is who defines what is 'Orthodox'? My Roman Catholic friends are perfectly convinced they are orthodox and cannot understand a Church without their version of a Magisterium - even as I cannot understand how they can hold that their version was that of the early Church. But these are not things that pertain to salvation, and certainly not matters of heresy, so Christians ought to be able to hold different views without casting anathemata; not that you and I incline that way!
The Coptic Church tends to take the early Church as its model of Orthodoxy, and by that standard others elsewhere have 'added' doctrinal and dogmatic developments, which they see as just that - the Spirit working in the Church to bring us to new understandings of ancient Truths; those not privy to that tradition's working out of these things can react in a number of ways, but the most common seems to be a fairly defensive one - there is in parts of the EO community a deep suspicion of almost anything 'western', whilst 'scholasticism' seems to double as a term of abuse in some circles, especially those in which 'ecumenism' is regarded as a heresy in itself.
Of course, not all, or even a majority, perhaps, of Orthodox people feel this way, but there is not an equivalent to the Roman Magisterium to say to the world that this is a minority view which is not consistent with the spirit of Christian love. Rome can pronounce as the CDF has recently done, recognising the Orthodox Churches as 'sisters'; what is the Orthodox view of this, or of Rome? Indeed, is there an 'Orthodox' view, or just a series of uncoordinated responses, with each group making the response speaking on behalf of 'the Church'?
I agree that other Christians are that to the extent that they are Orthodox, it is who defines what that means that causes a little unease. I have yet to meet a Catholic, Lutheran or Orthodox (Oriental or Eastern) who did not make the claim that their yardstick was the one to use, since in their Church was to be found the 'fullness' of the Faith.
As an English poet commented a couple of centuries ago: 'Christians have burnt each other / quite persuaded, that all the Apostles would have done as they did'. If he'd only read Acts he'd have seen what the Apostles actually did; how good it would be if we could all do likewise.
But I have strayed beyond where I started, which was to thank you for such a good post - and hope I didn't spoil it by having this train of thought.
In Christ,
Anglian
I read the responses of orthodoxinfo.com/ecunemism/copts_orth.aspx
Although I disagree with much of what is said in this article, I think he hits the nail right on the head when he says:
"Theologians and Churchmen who do not read the Fathers, who do not lead spiritual lives, and who see the union of men as something more important than our union with God in the unity of Faith have no business conducting dialogues between the [Eastern] Orthodox and the Copts. They are not acting in a spiritual way, and the results which they achieve will not be spiritual."
I am strongly in favour of dialogue between the EO and OO churches, and I want nothing more than for the rift between us to be healed. However, I agree that ecumenism far too often becomes the plaything of arrogant academics of little patience and spiritual merit, whereas Christ told us to "be seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you." (St. Matthew 6:33).
of course it is frustrating at times, but all of our senses come from Him, and all of them must be used in His service; that does not mean that we have to understand everything, because we obviously cannot comprehend the Incomprehensible and the Infinite; indeed, if we could, it would not be Infinite!
Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many others are very eloquent and in all these places are men and women of great piety and learning to be found; the same is true for the Coptic Church. Russia suffered greatly from seventy odd years of Communism; the Copts have had 1500 years of being persecuted and suppressed - the Spirit has maintained the Church through such trials; had He not, it would not have survived, for surely the gates of Hades have tried to swallow it?
As for the Ecumenical Councils, the three that we recognise certainly played a major part in establishing what was not Orthodox; the disagreements at Chalcedon were a tragedy, and what happened there, and at later councils, is why we do not accept that they were Ecumenical.
Orthodoxinfo likes to give the impression that it speaks for the Eastern Orthodox Church, but it does not, and its views on the Copts are, to put it mildly, lacking in scholarship and academic rigour. As we discussed earlier, all Churches have disputes - indeed Acts 15 discusses the first such dispute about how to interpret the Faith - as well as providing a model (which we have all failed to follow) of how to find a resolution.
I can't be sure, but it looks as though the passage cited by Orthodox11 from Orthodoxinfo is implying that those engaged in ecumenical dialogue between the EO and the OO are in some way unworthy so to do; if so this is a sad example of intolerance; if that is not what the first sentence quoted means, I can attach no other meaning to the paragraph. Too often the authors on that site seem to think they are in a position to pronounce on worthiness; may their presumption be forgiven.
Where is the fullness - in the Eucharistic encounter with the Risen Lord - where else would one find it?
In Christ,
Anglian