Hey you guys, the following are quotes from someone who used to be coptic orthodox and then became coptic catholic instead, please comment if you have any info..
So what began my journey to Catholicism? It was a very simple, almost imperceptible change in the Coptic Liturgy – the removal of the phrase “head of the Apostles” from the title of Sts. Peter and Paul. I wanted to find out the reason for the change, so I investigated the Church Fathers. What began as a PURELY academic exercise into the phrase “head of the Apostles” in the early Church eventually blossomed into a realization, and finally full acceptance, of the Truth taught by the Catholic Church.
For instance, with regards to the papacy, no matter what papal issue began the discussion (or argument), it always came down to an argument to which I had no response, “You believe in the apostolic principle of collegiality [i.e., a juridical body with a juridical head]. What makes you think the principle should stop at the level of Patriarchate? Why should it not apply to the Church as a whole, instead of just local Churches?” (Of course, I admit that such rhetoric would fail to convince an Eastern Orthodox who has a different ecclesiological paradigm).
For example, re: the Immaculate Conception. I once told a Catholic friend (before my translation), “If the IC deprives Mary of the ability to sin, then it deprives her of free will.” He responded, “Jesus did not have the ability to sin. Do you claim as well that Jesus had no free will?” This was irrefutable logic, in my mind’s eye. I often use that rhetoric myself nowadays, always with the same result – either acknowledgment, or silence.
I already had an answer for this one, I cannot understand how someone can find this irrefutable logic, but anyways here goes:
The question:“Jesus did not have the ability to sin. Do you claim as well that Jesus had no free will?”
is paradoxal in intself, just like the question: "Can God make a stone so heavy, that even He can't lift it?" Jesus didn't sin, because He was God, (and man too of course), sin is what drives us away from God, when we sin we brake God's rules, sin leads to death, because God is Life, and thus it's only logic that sin, which is being far from God would lead to death!
So God cannot sin because He is God, He's good, He's life...
I don't know what the catholics say to the verse where Mary says about Jesus: my Saviour...
I can see no other explanation to it than the fact that she needed saving, also I thought this whole dogma came after the 'apparitions' in Lourdes.
The reason I put apparitions between ' ' is that if we don't believe that St Mary told Bernadette that she was immaculately conceived, then why should we believe St Mary appeared there in the first place!!! But anyways, there were many who got healed in Lourdes, but I just thought that maybe God wouldn't dissapoint people who came to be healed there with the intercessions of His holy Mother, the Theotokos... even if she didn't really appear there.
Ok please tell me what you think
God bless you
I’ve also been asked how I feel about the Liturgical changes in the Western Church. Shouldn’t this have been a sign for me that the Catholic Church was betraying its Traditions and prevented me from becoming Catholic? This, again, demonstrates a similarity between the Coptic and Catholic paradigms. To Copts, the bishops are the guardians of our souls, as indeed Scripture states, and it is within their authority to bind and loose to determine the ways and helps by which we are divinized; the form of the Liturgy is under the purview of the bishops. The Liturgy, for Copts, like the Catholics, is intended primarily to draw us closer to Christ, the summit of the Liturgy being the Eucharist, all other elements of the Liturgy regarded as a means to prepare ourselves for or to properly meditate upon the Eucharist. Given these two elements, I as a Copt have really no business judging the Liturgy of the Westerns. IF I was to judge them, I would judge them based on the two criteria above – 1) were changes to the Liturgy made by the proper authorities; 2) Are the changes made to permit or enhance union with Christ? I find the Western Catholic Church has met both criteria (of course, notwithstanding particular elements in a Mass or Liturgy that are absolutely required for Mass/Liturgy to be valid). Sensationalist accusations of a local church doing this or that in the Liturgy are obviously not the fault of the Catholic Magisterium, since these occur at a parish level (i.e., these extreme practices were not instituted by the local bishop).