Is a Catholic Christian allowed to take communion at a Coptic Church?

[sifaing]

Hello All,
This is my first, and probably the last time replying on this forum.
However, I feel like I can't go on reading and not say anything.

Forgive me, I have sinned.  Fr. Peter please absolve me to speak.

It seems that Ioannes is stuck on the whole Eucharist Issue.

Let's clear up some points.  The reason I know the following information is because I personally know one of the people that represents our church in these dialogues.

It is true that Pope Shenouda did sign an agreement with Pope Paul VI as was mentioned before.  By the way, it wasn't just Pope Shenouda, but the whole delegation that was with him who are experts on theology and rituals.

The statement was previously stated, so I will not repeat it.
But it said something to the effect that both the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church believe that the saving effects of the cross are delivered to us through the seven sacraments.  Namely, Baptism, Chrismation, Repentance and Confession, Holy Eucharist, Priesthood, Unction of the Sick, and Holy Matrimony.

The statement also agreed on other things such as Christology.

Anyways, concerning the sacraments, all the agreement said is that we agree that without the Sacraments there is no salvation and that these are the seven Sacraments of the church.  Both sides never agreed on how the sacraments should be carried out.  We never said that we will accept their Eucharist, or baptism.  In fact, the Church Orthodox Church doesn't accept any of the sacraments of the Roman Catholic church.

Now we have to understand what happened after this agreement was signed. 
The Roman Catholic church is obviously also in dialogue with other churches.  They also signed an agreement with a Nestorian Church, (I don't know specifics).  Once this occurred, our agreement with them became NULL AND VOID. 
So, all in all, it has no significant these days since it is as if it never happened. 

Now concerning the Holy Eucharist specifically and that the RC church's use of unleavened bread.  Ioannes, you are correct in saying that the four accounts of the Gospel all say "Artos" and not "Azymos".  Artos specifically refers to leavened bread and Azymos specifically refers to unleavened bread (A=without, Zymos=enzyme).  In fact, this is one of the main points of dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic churches.  We are requiring that they use leavened bread because they are using unleavened bread for the wrong reasons.  Their reasoning behind it is that since Christ celebrated the passover with the disciples on the same night that he instituted the Eucharist, then there is no way that He could have found any leaven to make the bread with.  However, we have to correct answer, and it is outside the scope of this topic to try to explain.

I don't know much about the Armenian Church.  I do know that they use unleavened bread, and it has been that way since the very beginning even before the RC church started to use unleavened bread.  In other words, the RC church at one point did use leavened bread.  I THINK (only my opinion) the reason the Aremenians are allowed to use it is because they have some belief that leaven represents sin.  The scriptures did say to get rid of the leaven of the pharisees.  Anyways, I'm not too sure and I will be asking experts soon about this topic.

Now concerning Dialogues in general:  Regardless of what the WCC website says, we know we may never reach Unity.  Although it would be nice.  However, I want to assure you we will NOT give up anything concerning the True Faith and Holy Tradition.  By the way, once in one of Pope Shenouda's sermons on Wednesday, He was asked what is the current status on the dialogues between the churches and if any agreement has been reached.  His answer was basically, what are we going to agree on?  We will never agree with purgatory, or immaculate conception, or unleavened eucharist, or Sprinkling Batism, etc....  Also, We all know how firm Bishop Bishoy, one of the people that always presides over these dialogues, is and how strong his faith in our church is.
So be assured that the church is in good hands.

I think this is all I want to say.
Please pray for me.

   
 

[Father Peter]

Thank you for posting some useful comments.

Although the relationship with the Catholic Church did rather grow cool after they signed an agreement with the Assyrian Church of the East, nevertheless it has continued and become more frutiful in recent decades, and is now carried out by all of our Oriental Orthodox Churches together in dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, just as all of our Orthodox Churches carry out a joint dialogue with the Byzantine Churches.

Let me repost again a statement from the 'The Principles for Guiding the Search for Unity between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church', the following statements were agreed.

We are two Apostolic Churches in which, by virtue of the Apostolic succession we possess the full sacramental life, particularly the Eucharist, even if Eucharistic communion has not yet been achieved between us in so far as we have not completely resolved the divergences among us.

This does seem to me to speak very clearly of some degree of mutual recognition of a genuine sacramental life in each community. Certainly in the distant past the sacraments of the Catholics WERE accepted by our Orthodox Church, since they were considered the same as the Byzantine community in terms of relations with us. It is at some point in the intervening centuries that a greater distance developed - not least because for centuries it must have been unknown and almost impossible for a Roman Catholic to ever visit Egypt, though in fact in 1442 a Coptic delegation attended the Western Council of Florence, and it seems for a hundred and fifty years or so there was a loose contact between the Coptic and Roman Churches, which could well be studied further. My guess is that the most recent attitudes towards the Roman Catholics developed as a result of their proselytism among Copts and their setting up a separate Church in Egypt. This would naturally be seen as an hostile and un-Churchly act.

Father Peter

[dthoxsasiPhilanethrope]

During the WWII, Germany occupied Poland and divided it into East and West. Hitler assigned 2 Generals to ethnically cleanse Poland. He told them: "I want these people, this country to be German. I don't CARE how you do it (what methods/treatment you use), but JUST DO IT!".

The General of the West side of Poland started to get everyone and filter them: If they had blue eyes, if their noses were the right size, if they had blonde hair - if they could look German/Arian.
Those that didn't fit into this structure were thrown into the gas chambers.
It was a long and painful process for the Polish and the Germans. (Especially the Polish!!).

The General of the East side of Poland gathered everyone together and he spoke to them saying: "You are now German".

When it comes to Unity of the Church, something our salvation depends on (and others!), and the future of the civilised Christiandom world, I would prefer that our Church behaves like the German General of the East side of Poland:

Is the bread leavened or unleavened.
When you were baptised, did the priest dip your head IN the water, or just above the surface
Did all the water fall on your face, or just on your head.
When you confessed, Did the priest hold the cross and say "Hail mary" or did he say "our father".
When you got married, were you wearing the crowns of marriage, or did the bride's hair get in the way and so crowns couldn't be used.

Perhaps unity should not be taken this simply, but i would still prefer that we didnt treat other churches to the point of being THIS pedantic. Its a DISGRACE, ITS A SCANDAL that the Body of Christ is divided this way - and all we are interested in is acting as Quality Assurance Teams for God.

God asked us to be united, He didnt mention "how" - its up to us to do the "How" - and in doing so, in uniting, we are causing much pain and misery to others.

Finally, I would be REALLY careful about using Fr. Matta Al Maskeen as an example for our Church. His ideologies and contemplations were openly and publicly criticised by the Church Synod. H.G. Metropolitan Bishoy did not hesitate to repudiate his works, nor chasten anyone who even supported him. Some rich Coptic doctor from Alex complained/wrote an article attacking the Church over how she dealt with Fr. Matta Al maskeen, and he was quickly quietened.

[dthoxsasiPhilanethrope]

Thank you for posting some useful comments.

Although the relationship with the Catholic Church did rather grow cool after they signed an agreement with the Assyrian Church of the East, nevertheless it has continued and become more frutiful in recent decades, and is now carried out by all of our Oriental Orthodox Churches together in dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, just as all of our Orthodox Churches carry out a joint dialogue with the Byzantine Churches.

Let me repost again a statement from the 'The Principles for Guiding the Search for Unity between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church', the following statements were agreed.

We are two Apostolic Churches in which, by virtue of the Apostolic succession we possess the full sacramental life, particularly the Eucharist, even if Eucharistic communion has not yet been achieved between us in so far as we have not completely resolved the divergences among us.

This does seem to me to speak very clearly of some degree of mutual recognition of a genuine sacramental life in each community. Certainly in the distant past the sacraments of the Catholics WERE accepted by our Orthodox Church, since they were considered the same as the Byzantine community in terms of relations with us. It is at some point in the intervening centuries that a greater distance developed - not least because for centuries it must have been unknown and almost impossible for a Roman Catholic to ever visit Egypt, though in fact in 1442 a Coptic delegation attended the Western Council of Florence, and it seems for a hundred and fifty years or so there was a loose contact between the Coptic and Roman Churches, which could well be studied further. My guess is that the most recent attitudes towards the Roman Catholics developed as a result of their proselytism among Copts and their setting up a separate Church in Egypt. This would naturally be seen as an hostile and un-Churchly act.

Father Peter

Sorry, I posted same time as you.

Well said Fr. Peter. This means at LEAST we must respect their sacraments. Because of their apostolic succession, they are capable of administering the 7 Church sacraments.

[Ioannes]

I am not keen on being part of the WCC, as Fr. Mikhail has told me, to witness to them. This doesnt really make sense, we do not agree with their goals so we should not be a member. I dont agree with masonic goals, so I should not become a member so I can share Orthodoxy with them.

Zoxasi, we should be very hard headed and never waiver, we should always question what is going on. We should not question it to the point of madness but we have to remember that the devil seeks to destroy us and the church. The body of Christ (Orthodoxy) may be divided on some opinions of people, but by doctrine, dogma, liturgy etc, we are united. You and others may not believe this, I know Fr. Peter does not, but I do not recognize anyone outside the Orthodox church as a Christian, and I think it would be mad to do so.

Back on topic, I am glad sifaing pointed this out to me, I will have to do some more research on the matter but always thought that we recognized their Eucharist as legitimate. Simply put it is not acceptable to receive communion in the Roman church under any circumstances.

[Ioannes]

If anyone would like, I have the recording of Abouna Raphael, I believe, talking about how the russian patriarch went to great lengths to try and get Pope Kyrillos to have dialogue. I dont think I can upload it here, but email me: Tewahdo@gmail.com and I will send you a copy.

[aidan]

Please check this web site out http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/.

If you read a little you will find that Ioannes views are mirrored by many EO people. The website is run by Patrick Barnes who wrote The Non-Orthodox, holding exactly what Ioannes claims, except he is a  Chalcedonian and looks on non-Chalcedonians as lacking in fulness.

I came into Orthodoxy with all this (the above web site was mainly responsible for my conversion) but when the monks at the monastery I was baptised in (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) found all kinds of reasons for not joining with (Moscow Patriarchate) when it was appropriate to do so, some of the reasons they gave (oft banded 'masonic','KGB',cosying up to Catholics) just don't amount to anything provable or serious enough to warrant not being in communion, and to an outsider there are zero differences in doctrine or church discipline.

So there are people similar to you, Ioannes,in EO churches. I would ask you to hold back from what you say until you find a certain wrong doing then protest loudly.

Excuse my contribution. Intellectually a bit lame but I do implore the Copts not to go down the 'old-calendarist' road where you have several different Orthodox churches not in communion with one another and, in some cases, claiming the others have no grace.

I pray for blessed Holy Week ahead for us all.

[Ioannes]

Aidan, you are correct. I am about as hard headed as they come. While I won't claim that the EO are heretics, I do crticize dangerous beliefs. I do not disagree with dialogue, it is actually very important. My main concern are things such as the WCC or the staggering amount of Copts here in America mixing Protestantism and Orthodoxy.

I have gone too far at times, many times actually. I have insulted Fr Peter instead of respectfully disagree with him. I think we should concentrate on our church in these perilous times.

For all those who reprimanded me in defense of Fr Peter you were correct in scolding me. If I could, I would cut out my tongue and cut off my hands, that punishment would not be sufficient. Forgive me.

[dthoxsasiPhilanethrope]

Tell me, how do you all feel when you hear the Greek Orthodox Church looks at you ALL (you being Coptic) as heretics?

How does it make you feel if I told you our own Coptic Priest took a group from his parish to Greece on a pilgrimage - and when he went to pray a mass in St. John's Grotto in Patmos, he was told to leave. He was thrown out of the grotto, and given a table instead to pray the mass. The Greek priest then told him "I hope one day you will find the 'TRUE' faith".

How does all that make you feel?

I was told by a Catholic Priest who was EXCOMMUNICATED himself that my faith (Coptic) is heretical. Its very humiliating.

Its humiliating to respect their sacraments, to respect their Church, to respect their priesthood, and to be told that our faith is heretical (for me personally).

"Excuse my contribution. Intellectually a bit lame but I do implore the Copts not to go down the 'old-calendarist' road where you have several different Orthodox churches not in communion with one another and, in some cases, claiming the others have no grace."

I agree Aiden.

We all believe we are the "True" Bride of Christ, and everyone else is an imposter.

Why, even Ioannes believes that EVERY SINGLE catholic who got married in the Roman Catholic Church is living in adultery (with their husbands and wives). REMARKABLE!!

I told some protestant lady that St. Mary appeared in Zeitoun - and the response I got was :"NO SHE DID NOT APPEAR!" - people are so confident in their ignorance, and we behaving like them also amongst our Orthodox peers.

Christianity isn't any more a religion - its like different companies competing for the same contract. We are competing against one another, showing the world the mistakes of each of the competition, to only advance our own agenda.

Ioannes, I do not believe that the Roman Catholics, when they get married, are living in adultery. Not at all. Thinking this way only breeds disrespect and disrespect causes humiliation.

[Ioannes]

Zoxasi,
           I am sorry you feel this way. I mean no disrespect to you or any Catholics. I know several Catholics myself and would never do anything to purposely hurt them. I am not God so I cannot judge this, I am going by what information we have at this present moment. Knowing that they are outside the true church of Christ I have to draw this conclusion. I believe if we start accepting that, then its only a matter of time until we accept something even more unacceptable. Please do not take this as a direct attack against all catholics, I am sure many of them are good and faithful people who have no clue what their leaders have done, and hopefully that is what God looks at. Trust me, my parents are protestant and I see people die every day that are un-Orthodox, I dont say any of this with pleasure.

As for the Greeks, many of them do view us as heretics. I have many Greek friends that understand we are not. It does not offend me too much, you have to remember they are protecting their faith and I can respect that zeal. I feel we need to strengthen ourselves and let God sort it all out. One of our deacons actually did go to patmos, I dont think he received communion but was there for a service and didnt have any problems.

Zoxasi, I pray that you can forgive me for my immaturity and absurdity. I hope you can understand this hardlined position that I take is only because I love this church so much. I am a weak and pitiful man, and you are correct I am ignorant. Please, I beg of you forgive me for offending you.

Actually, everyone I ask your forgivness for embarassing Orthodoxy, and Christ Himself.

[minatasgeel]

OK.....i have heard Ioannes's recording of Fr. Rafael the disciple of Pope Kerrelos VI...and as i expected, the general saying of "Pope Kerrelos refusing unity" is a misunderstanding of the whole story that Fr. Rafael is saying. I can translate the audio track but that would take a while.

The summery of the story:
The church of Syria (probably the Syriac church) was fully united with our Church. The pope of that church and our Pope had a meeting scheduled, in the other church headquarters. A day before our pope was leaving, he decided NOT TO. the day after, that is the day of the meeting, it was reported in the newspapers that there became a separation between the 2 churches. So our pope's decision to not go was good (that's the miracle into all of this, the pope being Pope Kerrelos VI). After that, since the separation  was like done unprofessionally on paper and not in person the pope simply didn't bother thinking to unite again....keep in mind that is is all based on the political separation and not any specifics in the faith. What proves that is this was with the Syriac Church, one of our sister churches.

The generalization of Pope Kerrelos VI hating unity based on this recording is very immature. Why were we united with the Syriac church to start with if hh hated unity?! You might say that "but abouna rafael said something about the pope of rome inviting the pope"....ok. as i understand it from the recording, what abouna is trying to tell us is that the pope didn't accept any invite back to speak to the Syriac Church....and not specificly any other church. remember that Pope Kerrelos never said "NO" for invitations but rather "we are busy"....if Pope Kerrelos wanted to take a strong stand against this unity he would of.

[aidan]

Pardon my thick headedness, Minagir, but I didn't understand why this was a miracle.

Could you explain at length please. Sounds intriguing.

[aidan]

Can I just say that there is 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If churches are not in communion with one another both can be wrong vis a vis a visible representation of Christ, but both can't be right. Unless we adopt the view that the Church is inter denominational- a protestant view, we must see our church as the One. The others can be connected in some way to the Body of Christ perhaps in ways we can't see.

Is this fair?

[Father Peter]

Hi Aidan

I am not sure I agree, simply because there have been so many schisms in Church history, even those lasting hundreds of years, which have been resolved without any party being required to accept that it was not the Church, and generally all that happens is both parties enter communion.

If there was a strict understanding that to be out of visible communion is to cease to be the Church then this historical practice could not be the case. It seems to me that at some level the Church is manifest as the faithful community gathered around its bishop - in the Ignatian model. There may be all manner of reasons why a bishop falls out of communion with other bishops - I am thinking of political reasons for instance - yet if the bishop has not ceased to maintain the faith then it does not seem to me that the bishop and his community cease to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church even if there is a visible breach in communion.

I don't think this means that it is necessary to accept a denominational model, rather it requires us to accept that formal, visible unity is not the absolute representation of the mystical unity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church is not in communion with the Malankara Indian Orthodox Church at present, yet both communities have the same faith and are entirely Orthodox. The breach in communion between them is essentially about the issue of whether or not the Indian Church should be under the immediate or spiritual jurisdiction of the Syrian Patriarchate. Now the other Oriental Orthodox churches maintain a communion with both Churches, but if there was an Emperor who insisted that the Indian Orthodox be shunned then would this mean that the Indian Orthodox actually ceased to be Orthodox? I am not at all sure that would be correct.

When the Georgian Church entered into communion with the Byzantine Church after 150 years of rejecting Chalcedon. So no-one alive in the Georgian Church when it entered communion with the Byzantine Church had ever been in a Church that was not Oriental Orthodox and anti-Chalcedonian, indeed none of those who were reunited could have had parents or grandparents who went back to 451 and Chalcedon. Yet there were no baptisms, not ordinations or consecrations. It just entered into communion with the Byzantines and broke communion with our Oriental Orthodox communion.

After the 5th Byzantine Council in 553 AD some Western communities broke communion with Rome and continued in schism until about 700 AD, at which time they also reunited without any baptisms or ordinations or consecrations. They were received as a community that was still part of the Church.

Likewise the Acacian Schism between East and West lasted from 484 AD to 519 AD. Yet when it was resolved there were no baptisms, ordinations or consecrations.

Therefore it does not seem to me that Church History allows us to conclude that a breach in communion necessarily requires either that one party ceases to be the Church, or that we open the door to denominationalism. It seems rather that we must accept that schism can take place BETWEEN members and communities of the one Church, and are a manifestation of the human, weak and failing element in the Church.

This says nothing about groups that enter schism and then become heterodox. But it is clear that even in regard to the Byzantine Church, our Fathers, such as St Severus and St Timothy, both treated the Byzantine Church as heterodox, while also receiving folk into communion from the heterodox Byzantine Church as being sacramentally Christian and not requiring any baptism, or chrismation, or ordination. Indeed in the discussions which took place between our Fathers at this time, and representatives of the Byzantine Church, it is clear that in fact neither side considered the other as entirely devoid of sacramental grace, even while also considering the other group to be heterodox. What they required was that the other side either accept or reject Chalcedon, what was never demanded was that the other side be treated as non-Church and be baptised, chrismated, ordained and consecrated but that the other side submit to a particular theological view and be reconciled.

This history only seems to me to help us address some issues with regard to the Byzantine Church, and by extension to the Catholic and perhaps the ACE. It says nothing about those more distant groups of Christians. It seems to me that history does not teach us that division should be accepted but rather that the history of schism WITHIN the Church provides us with the possibility of reconciliation and reunion and must encourage and inspire us, in some circumstances, to continue to work for such reconciliation. It does seem to me that we should not simply treat the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as always being coterminous with our own communion. There are, it seems to me, just too many examples of human weakness introducing a division that has no theological or spiritual basis.

I hope it is clear that I am not talking about the great number of groups of Christians we see today, but that very small number of groups which we see the Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic communities separated into both now and in the past.

God bless

Father Peter

[minatasgeel]

Pardon my thick headedness, Minagir, but I didn't understand why this was a miracle.

Could you explain at length please. Sounds intriguing.

ignore the miracle part I am talking about. It's not the argument that Ioannes is using here.