A bishop told me that if there is NO Coptic Church in the land you are living in, then at that time you are allowed to go to the Catholic Church and have communion. But if there is a church, it is forbidden.
I know a priest that went to the RC (before he was a priest) and was part of the RC as there were no Coptic Churches in the entire land.
catholics can't currently take communion with us, the bishops continue to meet to discuss different points of doctrine, but so far the orthodox church does not allow inter-communion.
[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=8994.msg112210#msg112210 date=1269205303] catholics can't currently take communion with us, the bishops continue to meet to discuss different points of doctrine, but so far the orthodox church does not allow inter-communion.
Oh, its just a few years ago, a clergyman (Coptic) told me it was ok to go to the RC etc as there were no Churches in the city I was in. Perhaps all that's changed now?
no, it's not changed, bishops sometimes allow inter-communion in special situations like yours. strictly speaking, any priest advising you should clear it with a bishop (as far as i understand) this requires the next question; surely if it's ok sometimes, it's ok always? it's a good question, but our bishops are working on it and until we hear otherwise, we should get permission from our bishop to take communion in a catholic church. the catholics are less strict on this issue than us. we have to wait for intructions from our bishops. may God guide them as they go about this very big and important task of discussing doctrine with catholic Christians.
[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=8994.msg112210#msg112210 date=1269205303] catholics can't currently take communion with us, the bishops continue to meet to discuss different points of doctrine, but so far the orthodox church does not allow inter-communion.
Mabsoota, it seems that thre is really not that great a difference (if any) between the OO miaphysitic Christology and the EO and RC doctrine of hypostatic union. is there a difference? and is this the main issue which prevents the two churches from freely recieving communion at one another's churches, or are there other issues, too?
wow, gracia, u have been studying, i'm impressed! i think (i'm a bit out of my depth here..) the doctrine if the nature of Christ is very similar, but the Catholics have the doctrine of purgatory (we don't) and they believe saint mary was conceived in some special way without the tendancy to sin, like other people (the doctrine of 'original sin' is in itself a big issue, basically we orthodox describe it differently). so they use the same term 'immaculate conception' for saint mary and also for Jesus.
we think the virgin (still a virgin, she was the 'door in the east' described in ezekiel 44:2) saint mary was very special and the first among the saints, but she started off just like us. there are some other issues too, (i didn't finish reading the catholic shorter catechism) but i think these are the main 2. these are why i joined the orthodox and not the catholic church, although i believe we will reach a greater understanding in the future, by God's grace.
No they cannot, for us (Coptic) we can only take communion at a Coptic Church, Syrian Orthodox, Indian Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Armenian Orthodox.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112228#msg112228 date=1269271421] No. I dont know why anyone would want to partake in what these other churches consider "communion", it would be heresy if done knowingly.
Ultimately, despite the division between the OO and the RC, the OO still considers acknowledges that it IS the body of Christ on the Roman Catholic altar. Its not a question of heresy, its a question of: There's no Coptic Church in my area, in my city, or my Country, so I'll have to partake from the Catholic.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112228#msg112228 date=1269271421] No. I dont know why anyone would want to partake in what these other churches consider "communion", it would be heresy if done knowingly.
actually RC belief in communion is a lot more serious than ours. They believe in literal transformation of the bread and wine into Body and Blood.
It is also our faith that the bread and wine become truly the body and blood of Christ. The difference is that in the East we have not engaged in philosophical consideration of how that might take place, yet it has always been our faith. It is truly the body and blood of our Lord which is on the altar.
This would explain what i mean: (http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=157&catid=136) Question: What is the nature of the Eucharist? Catholics believe a molecular change happens to the bread and wine as the priest blesses it; and it literally becomes Christ's body and blood that must be locked in a box for protection from corruption, mold, and viewing. Martin Luther saw this as superstitious, unscientific, and a mishandling of God's word. All Protestants seem to follow his line of view that communion with the Lord happens when we have prepared ourselves in repentance; laying aside burdens at His altar. Then in partaking of the elements, they become His Blood and Body within us, Consubstantiation versus Transubstantiation. What have the Copts written on this?
Answer:
[li]For the first thousand years of Christian history, the holy gifts of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ were received as just that: His Body and Blood. The Church confesses that Eucharist is a mystery: The bread is truly His Body, and that which is in the cup is truly His Blood. However, one does not know to be able to explain how they have become so. It is a mystery. The eleventh and twelfth centuries brought about the scholastic era, the Age of Reason in the West. The Roman Church, which had become separated from the Orthodox Church, was pressed by rationalists to define how the transformation takes place. They answered with the word transubstantiation, meaning a change of substance. The elements are no longer bread and wine; they are physically changed into flesh and blood. Thus the sacrament, which is to be accepted by faith, was subjected to a philosophical definition. This second view of the Eucharist, the consubstantiation of Martin Luther, was unknown to the ancient Church. Our Orthodox Church teaches that the material elements of the Eucharist (bread and wine) become grace-filled by the calling of the Holy Spirit. We call the Eucharist "the mystical Supper." What the priest and the believers partake of is mystically the real Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and wine.[/li]
[quote author=minagir link=topic=8994.msg112242#msg112242 date=1269300709] This would explain what i mean: (http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=157&catid=136) Question: What is the nature of the Eucharist? Catholics believe a molecular change happens to the bread and wine as the priest blesses it; and it literally becomes Christ's body and blood that must be locked in a box for protection from corruption, mold, and viewing. Martin Luther saw this as superstitious, unscientific, and a mishandling of God's word. All Protestants seem to follow his line of view that communion with the Lord happens when we have prepared ourselves in repentance; laying aside burdens at His altar. Then in partaking of the elements, they become His Blood and Body within us, Consubstantiation versus Transubstantiation. What have the Copts written on this?
Answer:
[li]For the first thousand years of Christian history, the holy gifts of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ were received as just that: His Body and Blood. The Church confesses that Eucharist is a mystery: The bread is truly His Body, and that which is in the cup is truly His Blood. However, one does not know to be able to explain how they have become so. It is a mystery. The eleventh and twelfth centuries brought about the scholastic era, the Age of Reason in the West. The Roman Church, which had become separated from the Orthodox Church, was pressed by rationalists to define how the transformation takes place. They answered with the word transubstantiation, meaning a change of substance. The elements are no longer bread and wine; they are physically changed into flesh and blood. Thus the sacrament, which is to be accepted by faith, was subjected to a philosophical definition. This second view of the Eucharist, the consubstantiation of Martin Luther, was unknown to the ancient Church. Our Orthodox Church teaches that the material elements of the Eucharist (bread and wine) become grace-filled by the calling of the Holy Spirit. We call the Eucharist "the mystical Supper." What the priest and the believers partake of is mystically the real Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and wine.[/li]
The only difference between us and the Catholics is that, as Fr. Peter said, they have tried to "scientify" what happens to the bread and wine when it becomes the Body and Blood, whereas Copts have always just avoided this and confessed it as a mystery.
And for Copts, IT IS the true Body and True Blood of Christ.
The Catholics Worship the Eucharist, and so do we. The Catholics pray to the Eucharist, and so do we. The Catholics lock up the Eucharist in a box so that people can come to Church and pray to it, (i.e. Christ's Body is present) - and we do not. We do not for a good reason. Its judaic in its essence.
My Coptic Orthodox Kholagy says clearly: that the Bread and Wine become TRUE Body and TRUE Blood.
So, for you, Mina - you don't believe in a literal transformation?
I do.
Anyway, what bothers me about the RC communion is the following:
* The Eucharist should not be left over in a box overnight. * Why is it the priest(s) bless one wafer and then give the congregation to eat from another? I mean, they are not sharing in the SAME bread that was blessed in that mass. They are eating separate wafers. * Wafers: Now, I know in essence, a wafer IS like bread to the RC, but, Christ took bread, not a wafer. * In Orthodox Catholic Churches, they give the blood with the Body, but not in all.
Other than that, we were taught in Sunday School that the CoC does believe that THIS IS the real True Body and True Blood of Our Lord on the Catholic Altar.
Going back to the 1st question:
I would not go to a Catholic Church and have Holy Communion if my Coptic Church is close by. There's no point. However, I would go to the RC if I was living in a country where there were absolutely NO orthodox churches within 150 km radius. I didnt have a car, that would be much less. That's me personally. But, in each case, I would ask a priest/bishop.
I wouldn't go to the RC if I was living in a foreign country for a 2 weeks, but not having the Holy Communion is dangerous, especially for more than 3 weeks.
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=8994.msg112237#msg112237 date=1269293547] [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112228#msg112228 date=1269271421] No. I dont know why anyone would want to partake in what these other churches consider "communion", it would be heresy if done knowingly.
Ultimately, despite the division between the OO and the RC, the OO still considers acknowledges that it IS the body of Christ on the Roman Catholic altar. Its not a question of heresy, its a question of: There's no Coptic Church in my area, in my city, or my Country, so I'll have to partake from the Catholic.
I dont believe that for a second, regardless of what bishop says so, our early church fathers would not have allowed communion with heretics. Unless of course you change the definition of what a heretic is, which is what we see happening now, then I guess it would be ok. But in reality it is heresy no matter how much anyone believes that "it is Christ on the altar", it doesnt necessarily make it true.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112262#msg112262 date=1269347919] [quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=8994.msg112237#msg112237 date=1269293547] [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112228#msg112228 date=1269271421] No. I dont know why anyone would want to partake in what these other churches consider "communion", it would be heresy if done knowingly.
Ultimately, despite the division between the OO and the RC, the OO still considers acknowledges that it IS the body of Christ on the Roman Catholic altar. Its not a question of heresy, its a question of: There's no Coptic Church in my area, in my city, or my Country, so I'll have to partake from the Catholic.
I dont believe that for a second, regardless of what bishop says so, our early church fathers would not have allowed communion with heretics. Unless of course you change the definition of what a heretic is, which is what we see happening now, then I guess it would be ok. But in reality it is heresy no matter how much anyone believes that "it is Christ on the altar", it doesnt necessarily make it true.
Ionnes,
Holy Communion is a sacrament. Do you agree?
Do you agree that marriage is also a sacrament?
It means for you, every person who has been married in the Roman Catholic Church is living in adultery unless they are married in the CoC. That's essentially what you are saying.
Why would marriage be a valid sacrament in your eyes (if performed in the RC), but not Holy Communion.
If our Pope goes and makes someone a bishop - and that bishop all of a sudden believes in Purgatory, does it mean that when He does a Holy Mass, and blesses the Bread and Wine, then that is NOT the Body and Blood of Christ on the altar??
Anyway, concerning what I said - take it up with my Church - That's where I got the info. The CoC does believe that IS the real Body and Blood on the Catholic Altar.
Ionnes, you don't agree that it is the body and blood on the altar even if the holy synod agrees that it is??? I'm sorry but who are you to question the bishops? you always seem to be against everyone and everything that isn't part of the COC like some sort of Nazi. And even your previous posts with fr peter i'm sorry to say was very rude. So u don't like people from other religions and you cant respect the priests and bishops within your own religion either? something just doesn't add up there. I think you should just settle down mate and stop talking for a while.
It is very clear to me that if we continue this ecumenical mess, we will destroy our church. St Cyprian's idea of church unity is beautiful. In order for a "church" to be legitimate the layperson needs to be in communion with a priest, that priest must be in communion with a bishop who is in communion with all other bishops. Meaning they all need to be in agreement in order for the church to be legit. If we are not in agreement with our church fathers on this subject then how can we even consider ourselves a church? Rome left the grace of the Holy Spirit in the true church in pursuit of worldly ideas of church government and power.
Because they perform the sacraments does not automatically make them part of the same church, would that mean that protestant churches are the same, atleast those that practice the sacraments? Many heretics have practiced the sacraments throughout our history, as a matter of fact there are still nestorian churches, shall we receive communion there because they practice the sacraments? Mt 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
St John Chrysostom, clearly one of my all time favorite saints, speaks of this in his homily on the Gospel of Matthew LXXVI. He relates this to St Pauls epistle to the thessalonians (2 thess. 2:7) in which he speaks of the "mystery of iniquity" or "lawlessness" being at work. Meaning that satan and his minions were already at work, working to usher in the antichrist. Chrysostom explains that because of the signs and the working of iniquity many of the elect will indeed fall in to apostasy (2 Thess. 2:3). This also shows that Christ is correct in saying: "When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth" Luke 18:8.
It seems to me, while we do not have a doctrine or any kind of dogma supporting infallability, that we practice it more faithfully than anything else. I have all the respect in the world for priests and bishops, that does not mean that nobody can question them. Questioning established church doctrine and history is one thing, questioning the person for their actions is another. So while you feel it is ok to receive communion in a roman church, your church fathers disagree with you.
[quote author=Pi Onkh link=topic=8994.msg112267#msg112267 date=1269351753] Ionnes, you don't agree that it is the body and blood on the altar even if the holy synod agrees that it is??? I'm sorry but who are you to question the bishops? you always seem to be against everyone and everything that isn't part of the COC like some sort of Nazi. And even your previous posts with fr peter i'm sorry to say was very rude. So u don't like people from other religions and you cant respect the priests and bishops within your own religion either? something just doesn't add up there. I think you should just settle down mate and stop talking for a while.
Again, I do not follow the doctrine of papal infallability. I am certainly allowed to question priests or bishops when it comes to a topic such as this, especially when the early church fathers do not agree. Something doesnt add up? Yes your right, it doesnt. I never said I dont like other people from other religions, my parents are protestant. And I am sorry you feel my posts to Fr. Peter were rude, maybe I should learn to type less aggressively, but Fr. Peter contradicted not only the early church fathers but great theologians like Fr Mikhail E Mikhail or even Matthew the Poor.
Believe me, I am well within my rights. Just because I question someone doesnt automatically mean I hate them or dislike them in any way. St. Athanasius was a Deacon and he questioned, and attacked, the bishops of his day. He was then ordained a priest so that he could defend the faith at Nicea. I am not comparing myself to the Great Saint Athanasius. I am showing the reality that it is clearly alright to question when a leader is clearly in opposition to our churches foundation.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8994.msg112239#msg112239 date=1269296552] I am not sure what you mean.
It is also our faith that the bread and wine become truly the body and blood of Christ. The difference is that in the East we have not engaged in philosophical consideration of how that might take place, yet it has always been our faith. It is truly the body and blood of our Lord which is on the altar.
Father Peter
Ioannes,
There is nothing in this statement (above) that is incorrect or in contradiction with any Church father.
Do you not believe that it IS the Real Body and Blood?
Ioannes, are you a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church or the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, or the Eritrean Orthodox Church?
I know that you were converted to Orthodoxy recently in Ethiopia, but it was not clear from your earlier post whether you then became a member of the EOTC or the COC.
If you are in the COC, which Diocese are you in? What is your bishop's opinion of the Roman Catholic and Byzantine eucharist?
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=8994.msg112254#msg112254 date=1269328656] So, for you, Mina - you don't believe in a literal transformation?
It's not only a matter of a belief but also if you can prove that belief. We believe that this is a MYSTERY (the quote of HGB Youssef explains that as i posted before). We don't know how It is or how this happens but it does. But it the same time we will never know this materially and will never let anyone try. That's our belief as the Coptic Orthodox Church--that's my belief.
But to go as far as saying this substance changes into this--meaning defining the heavenly mystical meaning into worldly materially way, cannot be acceptable. It's like defining" the Trinity and not symbolizing.
[quote author=minagir link=topic=8994.msg112279#msg112279 date=1269367684] [quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=8994.msg112254#msg112254 date=1269328656] So, for you, Mina - you don't believe in a literal transformation?
It's not only a matter of a belief but also if you can prove that belief. We believe that this is a MYSTERY (the quote of HGB Youssef explains that as i posted before). We don't know how It is or how this happens but it does. But it the same time we will never know this materially and will never let anyone try. That's our belief as the Coptic Orthodox Church--that's my belief.
But to go as far as saying this substance changes into this--meaning defining the heavenly mystical meaning into worldly materially way, cannot be acceptable. It's like defining" the Trinity and not symbolizing.
Hi Mina,
Im afraid you've really lost me. But I would like to stress that we do, as a Church, believe we are partaking of True Body and True Blood.
It is not entirely clear to me what the view of the wider Oriental Orthodox communion is now, and has been in the past, with regard to the Roman Catholic mass.
I do note a few things which suggest what the authoritative view of our Orthodox Church might be in regard to the Roman Catholic Church in general and their eucharist in particular...
i. In 1973 His Holiness Pope Shenouda met with Pope Paul VI. They issued a joint statement in which His Holiness Pope Shenouda makes and agree with the following comment.
The divine life is given to us and is nourished in us through the seven sacraments of Christ in His Church: Baptism, Chrism (Confirmation), Holy Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony and Holy Orders.
This seems to me to show that he is expressing the view that the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church are indeed sacraments. The 'us' in this joint statement must include both the Coptic Orthodox and the Roman Catholic communities in the minds of His Holiness Pope Shenouda and Pope Paul VI who signed it.
ii. In 1971 Pope Paul VI met with the Syrian Patriarch Mar Ignatius Jacob III. On this occasion Pope Paul VI was addressed in the following manner.
May almighty God continue to sustain Your Holiness in good health and strength of spirit to carry on the great work of the Church in the world, to the glory of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
They also signed the following agreed statement which seems to speak clearly of the view of the Roman Catholic community as a true Church.
The Pope and the Patriarch have recognized the deep spiritual communion, which already exists between their Churches. The celebration of the sacraments of the Lord, the common profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God made man for man's salvation, the apostolic traditions which form part of the common heritage of both Churches, the great Fathers and Doctors, including Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who are their common masters in the faith all these testify to the action of the Holy Spirit who has continued to work in their Churches even when there have been human weakness and failings.
iii. In 1984 Patriarch Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas met with Pope John Paul II and they issued the following agreed statement. This first excerpt speaks of the two communities as sister Churches.
..giving thanks for this glorious opportunity which has been granted them to meet together in His love in order to strengthen further the relationship between their two sister Churches, the Church of Rome and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.
This second excerpt states that the sacraments are held in common by the Syrian and Roman Catholic communities.
Sacramental life finds in the Holy Eucharist its fulfiment and its summit, in such a way that it is through the Eucharist that the Church most profoundly realizes and reveals its nature. Through the Holy Eucharist the event of Christ's Pasch expands throughout the Church. Through Holy Baptism and Confirmation, indeed, the members of Christ are anointed by the Holy Spirit, grafted on to Christ; and through the Holy Eucharist the Church becomes what she is destined to be through Baptism and Confirmation. By communion with the body and blood of Christ the faithful grow in that mysterious divinization which by the Holy Spirit makes them dwell in the Son as children of the Father.
The other Sacraments, which the Catholic Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch hold together in one and the same succession of Apostolic ministry, i.e. Holy Orders, Matrimony, Reconciliation of penitents and Anointing of the Sick, are ordered to that celebration of the holy Eucharist which is the centre of sacramental life and the chief visible expression of ecclesial communion.
This third excerpt provides for isolated members of either community to receive the sacraments in a church of the other communion.
It is not rare, in fact, for our faithful to find access to a priest of their own Church materially or morally impossible. Anxious to meet their needs and with their spiritual benefit in mind, we authorize them in such cases to ask for the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick from lawful priests of either of our two sister Churches, when they need them.
iv. In 1970 Patriarch Vasken of the Armenians met with Pope Paul VI. They also issued an agreed statement which speaks of a recognition of a common life and sacraments.
..we hope that a closer collaboration will develop in all possible domains of the Christian life. Prayer in common, mutual spiritual aid, joint efforts to find really Christian solutions to the problems of the world today, will be precious means in the service of this search for a full unity so greatly desired.
This search accomplished together, this collaboration must be based on the mutual recognition of the common Christian faith and the sacramental life, on the mutual respect of persons and their Churches.
v. In 1996 Patriarch Karekin of the Armenians met with Pope John Paul II. They issued a joint statement which included the following thoughts.
First of all they describe a spiritual communion between the Armenian and Roman Catholic communities.
Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I recognize the deep spiritual communion which already unites them and the Bishops, clergy and lay faithful of their Churches. It is a communion which finds its roots in the common faith in the Holy and Life-giving Trinity proclaimed by the Apostles and transmitted down the centuries by the many Fathers and Doctors of the Church and the Bishops, priests, and martyrs who have followed them.
They also speak of 'the reality of this common faith in Jesus Christ and in the same succession of apostolic ministry'.
vi. In 1997 Patriarch Aram of the Armenians met with Pope John Paul II. Another joint statement was issued, describing in part a community of faith which we already experience.
This communion of faith, already affirmed in recent decades by their predecessors during their meetings, was solemnly reaffirmed recently at the meeting of His Holiness John Paul II with His Holiness Catholicos Karekin I. Today the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Peter, and the Catholicos of Cilicia pray that their communion of faith in Jesus Christ may progress because of the blood of the martyrs and the fidelity of the Fathers to the Gospel and the apostolic Tradition, manifesting itself in the rich diversity of their respective ecclesial traditions. Such a community of faith must be concretely expressed in the life of the faithful and must lead us towards full communion.
vii. In 2009 the meeting of the INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION FOR THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCHES met to consider NATURE, CONSTITUTION AND MISSION OF THE CHURCH, under the co-chairmanship of HE Metropolitan Bishoy. The joint document issued by the commission included the following statements.
The Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church share the following constitutive elements of communion: they confess the Apostolic faith as lived in the Tradition and as expressed in the Holy Scriptures, the first three Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea 325 – Constantinople 381 – Ephesus 431) and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed[1]; they believe in Jesus Christ the Incarnate Word of God, the same being true God and true man at the same time; they venerate the Holy Virgin Mary as Mother of God (Theotokos); they celebrate the seven sacraments (baptism, confirmation/chrismation, Eucharist, penance/reconciliation, ordination, matrimony, and anointing of the sick); they consider baptism as essential for salvation; with regard to the Eucharist, they believe that bread and wine become the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; they believe that the ordained ministry is transmitted through the bishops in apostolic succession; regarding the true nature of the Church, they confess together their belief in the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”, according to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
The commission also expressed a rejection of proselytism between Orthodox and Catholic communities, expressing the view that the movement of Christians from one communion to another for reasons of personal conscience and freedom is one thing, but actively seeking to recruit from the other communion is rejected. They say,
We reject all forms of proselytism, in the sense of acts by which persons seek to disturb each other’s communities by recruiting new members from each other through methods, or because of attitudes of mind, which are opposed to the exigencies of Christian love or to what should characterize the relationships between Churches. Let it cease, where it may exist. Catholics and Orthodox should strive to deepen charity and cultivate mutual consultation, reflection and cooperation in the social and intellectual fields.
The members of this commission, representing all of our Orthodox Churches, also state that,
'full communion is the ultimate goal of the ecumenical work of all our churches'.
Yet the commission is realistic and is aware that a full communion has not been attained, and is dependent on an expression of a shared faith. But the Roman Catholics are not rejected as heretics, rather the view is expressed that we are growing in a clarity of understanding of each other which will lead, as God wills, to a restoration of such communion. They say,
Eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion are intrinsically related to one another. Therefore, as long as fundamental disagreements in matters of faith persist and the bonds of communion are not fully restored, celebrating together the one Eucharist of the Lord is not possible. Fortunately, through ecumenical dialogue, significant progress has been made between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches toward a common understanding of the constitutive elements of faith, particularly in the area of Christology. Though the full consensus in matters of faith, which would allow a common celebration of the Eucharist, has not yet been reached, these developments in doctrinal understanding hold the promise of further convergence and deserve appropriate attention.
viii. The meeting of the commission in 1979 issued the following agreed instruction.
It is strongly urged that there be avoided all words, articles, homilies, instructions and attitudes which wound each other's Churches, in their leaders or in their faithful.
It also issued the following agreed statement.
In our second report we stated that the union we envisage is a real one, a communion in faith, in sacramental life and in the harmony of mutual relations between our two sister Churches in the one People of God. The process by which this union is to be achieved is that two Apostolic Churches, equally and with mutual respect, come into full communion again on the basis of the faith, the traditions and the ecclesiastical life of the undivided Church of the first four and a half centuries. Such a communion once achieved, there will be but one Coptic Church under the leadership of the one Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark. Since this unity would be a full communion, the richness of the Christian traditions existing in Egypt would find clear and legitimate expression within the structure of this one Coptic Church for the enrichment of all. Furthermore this one Coptic Church would be in full communion with the other Christian Churches and in particular with the Church of Rome.
ix. 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.
x. In 1983 the The Official Oriental Orthodox-Roman Catholic Consultation in the United States issued a joint statement on the Eucharist which seems to indicate an acceptance of the reality of the eucharist in each communion. It says,
# We agree that in the Eucharist the Church assembled is carrying out the injunction of the Lord to do what he did in the Last Supper, in commemoration of him.
# We agree that just as bread and wine became Christ's body and blood at the Last Supper, so do bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ when the Eucharist is celebrated by our Churches.
# We agree that the power of the triune God effects the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Traditionally, this has been attributed either to the Word or to the Spirit.
# We agree that the exercise of this divine power most properly is attributed to the Holy Spirit as source of God's action and grace in the Church. This corresponds well with the Spirit's role as life-giver, as overshadower in the incarnation, as sanctifier who sanctifies the bread and wine, become the body and blood of Christ, so that it sanctifies us when we receive it.
# We further agree that the consecration of the elements is effected through Christ, the risen Lord, true God and true man, who operates through the Spirit in the life of the Church. This corresponds well with Christ's role in the Last Supper.
I shall stop here, although there does seem to be a great deal more material which supports Zoxasi's post in regard to the Orthodox view of the Roman Catholic communion. It would seem that the Orthodox Churches do accept to some degree the sacramentality of the Roman Catholic Church, refer to her as a Sister Church, speak about the need to continue working towards complete ecclesial and eucharistic communion, and some of the Orthodox Churches do allow a degree of intercommunion, and intermarriage. In all cases it seems to me that the formal and authoritative view of the various Synods of the Orthodox Churches, including our own Coptic Orthodox synod, is that the Roman Catholic Church should not be subject to 'words, articles, homilies, instructions and attitudes which wound each other's Churches'. At present there is no need to add my own opinions. It is enough for us to perhaps consider the views of our bishops, Pope and patriarchs, and reflect on their own positive views on the Roman Catholic communion without ever minimising the issues which remain to be discussed and resolved.
Nobody realizes that St Pope Kyrillos was vehemently opposed to ecumenism. I would expect Fr Peter to know this, being that he is well read, either that or just ignorant of the past. FACT Fr Peter you are wrong and are clearly ignorant of Coptic history and this is why I am so direct with you, you have said many things that contradict the early church fathers, I cannot stand aside while you spout liberal non sense.
Just out of curiosity, for me personally, which part of the phrase "We partake of the True Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ" is incorrect?
For me personally, Im not at all suggesting anyone should go to the RC to have communion. That's something personal with your FoC. All I'm saying is that it is the Body and Blood of Christ ON the Catholic Altar.
Again, you did not answer my question:
The millions of Catholics who got married in Catholic Churches: are they living in adultary because they didnt get married in an Orthodox Church - as you only believe in the Orthodox Sacraments?
Does God look at all those Catholic marriages as adultery? Do you think?
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112289#msg112289 date=1269380322] Nobody realizes that St Pope Kyrillos was vehemently opposed to ecumenism. I would expect Fr Peter to know this, being that he is well read, either that or just ignorant of the past. FACT Fr Peter you are wrong and are clearly ignorant of Coptic history and this is why I am so direct with you, you have said many things that contradict the early church fathers, I cannot stand aside while you spout liberal non sense.
I am not sure what 'liberal nonsense' you are referring to? I have just spent an hour or so researching the references I provided above from His Holiness Pope Shenouda, H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, our Holy Synod, Patriarchs Karekin, Aram, Zakka Iwas and many others. Indeed I refrained from doing anything much than posting what these Fathers have written. So if what I have written is liberal nonsense then I do not see how you can avoid accusing all of these Fathers of teaching liberal nonsense?
It would be a help to know if you are Coptic Orthodox, Ioannes? or belong to one of the sister Churches. I do find it hard to believe that a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church would read all of these statements made by our bishops and patriarchs and then accuse me of 'spouting liberal nonsense'.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112289#msg112289 date=1269380322] Nobody realizes that St Pope Kyrillos was vehemently opposed to ecumenism. I would expect Fr Peter to know this, being that he is well read, either that or just ignorant of the past. FACT Fr Peter you are wrong and are clearly ignorant of Coptic history and this is why I am so direct with you, you have said many things that contradict the early church fathers, I cannot stand aside while you spout liberal non sense.
Ioannes regardless of whether you believe Father Peter is right, show some respect. You're tone of voice is not needed and should not be so vagrantly rude. How long have you been in the Coptic church to say you know for a fact that HH Pope Kyrillos was against anything? Did you meet him? Did you know him personally? Do you have direct quotes from a RELIABLE book or source saying that HH said such things? If so then show them, if not then don't bring it up. Times are different from times. We may be having discussions but what makes you think the COC will be able to accept what the RC does without them recalling some of their beliefs such as the immaculate conception. Don't be so quick to attack.
[quote author=jydeacon link=topic=8994.msg112298#msg112298 date=1269381826] [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112289#msg112289 date=1269380322] Nobody realizes that St Pope Kyrillos was vehemently opposed to ecumenism. I would expect Fr Peter to know this, being that he is well read, either that or just ignorant of the past. FACT Fr Peter you are wrong and are clearly ignorant of Coptic history and this is why I am so direct with you, you have said many things that contradict the early church fathers, I cannot stand aside while you spout liberal non sense.
Ioannes regardless of whether you believe Father Peter is right, show some respect. You're tone of voice is not needed and should not be so vagrantly rude. How long have you been in the Coptic church to say you know for a fact that HH Pope Kyrillos was against anything? Did you meet him? Did you know him personally? Do you have direct quotes from a RELIABLE book or source saying that HH said such things? If so then show them, if not then don't bring it up. Times are different from times. We may be having discussions but what makes you think the COC will be able to accept what the RC does without them recalling some of their beliefs such as the immaculate conception. Don't be so quick to attack.
I agree with JY,
Fr. Peter doesn't deserve that tone. He's only copy and pasting from Church fathers. I mean, he takes time just to do that. I agree also with Fr. Peter: If he is providing references and you refute them, then you are refuting the references also. This is obviously interesting to discuss this; but to make attacks Ioannnes like this isn't right.
Just relax man... I know you are a die hard orthodox guy, and that's great... but - all this means nothing if we insult each other with our knowledge.
Yes, you are quite right that the COC and other Churches are careful to present the issues which are outstanding in these conversations. These include Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Primacy etc etc.
But what I do take from all of these documents from which I quoted, is that generally there is a very positive attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church by all of the member Churches of our Orthodox communion, and that though we are not in ecclesial and eucharistic communion, nevertheless our bishops are committed to doing all that is necessary and possible on our part to work towards such communion without diminishing our own Faith.
Certainly here in the UK there are very warm relations between the bishops of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including HG Bishop Angaelos and HE Metropolitan Seraphim, and many of the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, and it is a blessing to me to be the Co-Secretary of the Catholic-Oriental Orthodox Forum, and to take notes and minutes as the bishops of the Oriental Orthodox Churches here in the UK discuss things with leading Roman Catholic bishops. Such fellowship does not damage our own Church, but enables us to bear witness, as well as to genuinely find ourselves meeting with Roman Catholic men and women of faith.
Comments
I know a priest that went to the RC (before he was a priest) and was part of the RC as there were no Coptic Churches in the entire land.
catholics can't currently take communion with us, the bishops continue to meet to discuss different points of doctrine, but so far the orthodox church does not allow inter-communion.
Oh, its just a few years ago, a clergyman (Coptic) told me it was ok to go to the RC etc as there were no Churches in the city I was in. Perhaps all that's changed now?
this requires the next question; surely if it's ok sometimes, it's ok always?
it's a good question, but our bishops are working on it and until we hear otherwise, we should get permission from our bishop to take communion in a catholic church.
the catholics are less strict on this issue than us.
we have to wait for intructions from our bishops.
may God guide them as they go about this very big and important task of discussing doctrine with catholic Christians.
catholics can't currently take communion with us, the bishops continue to meet to discuss different points of doctrine, but so far the orthodox church does not allow inter-communion.
Mabsoota, it seems that thre is really not that great a difference (if any) between the OO miaphysitic Christology and the EO and RC doctrine of hypostatic union. is there a difference? and is this the main issue which prevents the two churches from freely recieving communion at one another's churches, or are there other issues, too?
i think (i'm a bit out of my depth here..) the doctrine if the nature of Christ is very similar, but the Catholics have the doctrine of purgatory (we don't) and they believe saint mary was conceived in some special way without the tendancy to sin, like other people (the doctrine of 'original sin' is in itself a big issue, basically we orthodox describe it differently). so they use the same term 'immaculate conception' for saint mary and also for Jesus.
we think the virgin (still a virgin, she was the 'door in the east' described in ezekiel 44:2) saint mary was very special and the first among the saints, but she started off just like us.
there are some other issues too, (i didn't finish reading the catholic shorter catechism) but i think these are the main 2. these are why i joined the orthodox and not the catholic church, although i believe we will reach a greater understanding in the future, by God's grace.
No. I dont know why anyone would want to partake in what these other churches consider "communion", it would be heresy if done knowingly.
Ultimately, despite the division between the OO and the RC, the OO still considers acknowledges that it IS the body of Christ on the Roman Catholic altar. Its not a question of heresy, its a question of: There's no Coptic Church in my area, in my city, or my Country, so I'll have to partake from the Catholic.
No. I dont know why anyone would want to partake in what these other churches consider "communion", it would be heresy if done knowingly.
actually RC belief in communion is a lot more serious than ours. They believe in literal transformation of the bread and wine into Body and Blood.
It is also our faith that the bread and wine become truly the body and blood of Christ. The difference is that in the East we have not engaged in philosophical consideration of how that might take place, yet it has always been our faith. It is truly the body and blood of our Lord which is on the altar.
Father Peter
(http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=157&catid=136)
Question: What is the nature of the Eucharist? Catholics believe a molecular change happens to the bread and wine as the priest blesses it; and it literally becomes Christ's body and blood that must be locked in a box for protection from corruption, mold, and viewing. Martin Luther saw this as superstitious, unscientific, and a mishandling of God's word. All Protestants seem to follow his line of view that communion with the Lord happens when we have prepared ourselves in repentance; laying aside burdens at His altar. Then in partaking of the elements, they become His Blood and Body within us, Consubstantiation versus Transubstantiation. What have the Copts written on this?
Answer:
[li]For the first thousand years of Christian history, the holy gifts of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ were received as just that: His Body and Blood. The Church confesses that Eucharist is a mystery: The bread is truly His Body, and that which is in the cup is truly His Blood. However, one does not know to be able to explain how they have become so. It is a mystery.
The eleventh and twelfth centuries brought about the scholastic era, the Age of Reason in the West. The Roman Church, which had become separated from the Orthodox Church, was pressed by rationalists to define how the transformation takes place. They answered with the word transubstantiation, meaning a change of substance. The elements are no longer bread and wine; they are physically changed into flesh and blood. Thus the sacrament, which is to be accepted by faith, was subjected to a philosophical definition.
This second view of the Eucharist, the consubstantiation of Martin Luther, was unknown to the ancient Church. Our Orthodox Church teaches that the material elements of the Eucharist (bread and wine) become grace-filled by the calling of the Holy Spirit. We call the Eucharist "the mystical Supper." What the priest and the believers partake of is mystically the real Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and wine.[/li]
This would explain what i mean:
(http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=157&catid=136)
Question: What is the nature of the Eucharist? Catholics believe a molecular change happens to the bread and wine as the priest blesses it; and it literally becomes Christ's body and blood that must be locked in a box for protection from corruption, mold, and viewing. Martin Luther saw this as superstitious, unscientific, and a mishandling of God's word. All Protestants seem to follow his line of view that communion with the Lord happens when we have prepared ourselves in repentance; laying aside burdens at His altar. Then in partaking of the elements, they become His Blood and Body within us, Consubstantiation versus Transubstantiation. What have the Copts written on this?
Answer:
[li]For the first thousand years of Christian history, the holy gifts of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ were received as just that: His Body and Blood. The Church confesses that Eucharist is a mystery: The bread is truly His Body, and that which is in the cup is truly His Blood. However, one does not know to be able to explain how they have become so. It is a mystery.
The eleventh and twelfth centuries brought about the scholastic era, the Age of Reason in the West. The Roman Church, which had become separated from the Orthodox Church, was pressed by rationalists to define how the transformation takes place. They answered with the word transubstantiation, meaning a change of substance. The elements are no longer bread and wine; they are physically changed into flesh and blood. Thus the sacrament, which is to be accepted by faith, was subjected to a philosophical definition.
This second view of the Eucharist, the consubstantiation of Martin Luther, was unknown to the ancient Church. Our Orthodox Church teaches that the material elements of the Eucharist (bread and wine) become grace-filled by the calling of the Holy Spirit. We call the Eucharist "the mystical Supper." What the priest and the believers partake of is mystically the real Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and wine.[/li]
The only difference between us and the Catholics is that, as Fr. Peter said, they have tried to "scientify" what happens to the bread and wine when it becomes the Body and Blood, whereas Copts have always just avoided this and confessed it as a mystery.
And for Copts, IT IS the true Body and True Blood of Christ.
The Catholics Worship the Eucharist, and so do we.
The Catholics pray to the Eucharist, and so do we.
The Catholics lock up the Eucharist in a box so that people can come to Church and pray to it, (i.e. Christ's Body is present) - and we do not. We do not for a good reason. Its judaic in its essence.
My Coptic Orthodox Kholagy says clearly: that the Bread and Wine become TRUE Body and TRUE Blood.
So, for you, Mina - you don't believe in a literal transformation?
I do.
Anyway, what bothers me about the RC communion is the following:
* The Eucharist should not be left over in a box overnight.
* Why is it the priest(s) bless one wafer and then give the congregation to eat from another? I mean, they are not sharing in the SAME bread that was blessed in that mass. They are eating separate wafers.
* Wafers: Now, I know in essence, a wafer IS like bread to the RC, but, Christ took bread, not a wafer.
* In Orthodox Catholic Churches, they give the blood with the Body, but not in all.
Other than that, we were taught in Sunday School that the CoC does believe that THIS IS the real True Body and True Blood of Our Lord on the Catholic Altar.
Going back to the 1st question:
I would not go to a Catholic Church and have Holy Communion if my Coptic Church is close by. There's no point. However, I would go to the RC if I was living in a country where there were absolutely NO orthodox churches within 150 km radius. I didnt have a car, that would be much less. That's me personally. But, in each case, I would ask a priest/bishop.
I wouldn't go to the RC if I was living in a foreign country for a 2 weeks, but not having the Holy Communion is dangerous, especially for more than 3 weeks.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112228#msg112228 date=1269271421]
No. I dont know why anyone would want to partake in what these other churches consider "communion", it would be heresy if done knowingly.
Ultimately, despite the division between the OO and the RC, the OO still considers acknowledges that it IS the body of Christ on the Roman Catholic altar. Its not a question of heresy, its a question of: There's no Coptic Church in my area, in my city, or my Country, so I'll have to partake from the Catholic.
I dont believe that for a second, regardless of what bishop says so, our early church fathers would not have allowed communion with heretics. Unless of course you change the definition of what a heretic is, which is what we see happening now, then I guess it would be ok. But in reality it is heresy no matter how much anyone believes that "it is Christ on the altar", it doesnt necessarily make it true.
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=8994.msg112237#msg112237 date=1269293547]
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112228#msg112228 date=1269271421]
No. I dont know why anyone would want to partake in what these other churches consider "communion", it would be heresy if done knowingly.
Ultimately, despite the division between the OO and the RC, the OO still considers acknowledges that it IS the body of Christ on the Roman Catholic altar. Its not a question of heresy, its a question of: There's no Coptic Church in my area, in my city, or my Country, so I'll have to partake from the Catholic.
I dont believe that for a second, regardless of what bishop says so, our early church fathers would not have allowed communion with heretics. Unless of course you change the definition of what a heretic is, which is what we see happening now, then I guess it would be ok. But in reality it is heresy no matter how much anyone believes that "it is Christ on the altar", it doesnt necessarily make it true.
Ionnes,
Holy Communion is a sacrament. Do you agree?
Do you agree that marriage is also a sacrament?
It means for you, every person who has been married in the Roman Catholic Church is living in adultery unless they are married in the CoC. That's essentially what you are saying.
Why would marriage be a valid sacrament in your eyes (if performed in the RC), but not Holy Communion.
If our Pope goes and makes someone a bishop - and that bishop all of a sudden believes in Purgatory, does it mean that when He does a Holy Mass, and blesses the Bread and Wine, then that is NOT the Body and Blood of Christ on the altar??
Anyway, concerning what I said - take it up with my Church - That's where I got the info. The CoC does believe that IS the real Body and Blood on the Catholic Altar.
I think you should just settle down mate and stop talking for a while.
Because they perform the sacraments does not automatically make them part of the same church, would that mean that protestant churches are the same, atleast those that practice the sacraments? Many heretics have practiced the sacraments throughout our history, as a matter of fact there are still nestorian churches, shall we receive communion there because they practice the sacraments? Mt 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
St John Chrysostom, clearly one of my all time favorite saints, speaks of this in his homily on the Gospel of Matthew LXXVI. He relates this to St Pauls epistle to the thessalonians (2 thess. 2:7) in which he speaks of the "mystery of iniquity" or "lawlessness" being at work. Meaning that satan and his minions were already at work, working to usher in the antichrist. Chrysostom explains that because of the signs and the working of iniquity many of the elect will indeed fall in to apostasy (2 Thess. 2:3). This also shows that Christ is correct in saying: "When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth" Luke 18:8.
It seems to me, while we do not have a doctrine or any kind of dogma supporting infallability, that we practice it more faithfully than anything else. I have all the respect in the world for priests and bishops, that does not mean that nobody can question them. Questioning established church doctrine and history is one thing, questioning the person for their actions is another. So while you feel it is ok to receive communion in a roman church, your church fathers disagree with you.
Ionnes, you don't agree that it is the body and blood on the altar even if the holy synod agrees that it is??? I'm sorry but who are you to question the bishops? you always seem to be against everyone and everything that isn't part of the COC like some sort of Nazi. And even your previous posts with fr peter i'm sorry to say was very rude. So u don't like people from other religions and you cant respect the priests and bishops within your own religion either? something just doesn't add up there.
I think you should just settle down mate and stop talking for a while.
Again, I do not follow the doctrine of papal infallability. I am certainly allowed to question priests or bishops when it comes to a topic such as this, especially when the early church fathers do not agree. Something doesnt add up? Yes your right, it doesnt. I never said I dont like other people from other religions, my parents are protestant. And I am sorry you feel my posts to Fr. Peter were rude, maybe I should learn to type less aggressively, but Fr. Peter contradicted not only the early church fathers but great theologians like Fr Mikhail E Mikhail or even Matthew the Poor.
Believe me, I am well within my rights. Just because I question someone doesnt automatically mean I hate them or dislike them in any way. St. Athanasius was a Deacon and he questioned, and attacked, the bishops of his day. He was then ordained a priest so that he could defend the faith at Nicea. I am not comparing myself to the Great Saint Athanasius. I am showing the reality that it is clearly alright to question when a leader is clearly in opposition to our churches foundation.
I am not sure what you mean.
It is also our faith that the bread and wine become truly the body and blood of Christ. The difference is that in the East we have not engaged in philosophical consideration of how that might take place, yet it has always been our faith. It is truly the body and blood of our Lord which is on the altar.
Father Peter
Ioannes,
There is nothing in this statement (above) that is incorrect or in contradiction with any Church father.
Do you not believe that it IS the Real Body and Blood?
I know that you were converted to Orthodoxy recently in Ethiopia, but it was not clear from your earlier post whether you then became a member of the EOTC or the COC.
If you are in the COC, which Diocese are you in? What is your bishop's opinion of the Roman Catholic and Byzantine eucharist?
Father Peter
So, for you, Mina - you don't believe in a literal transformation?
It's not only a matter of a belief but also if you can prove that belief. We believe that this is a MYSTERY (the quote of HGB Youssef explains that as i posted before). We don't know how It is or how this happens but it does. But it the same time we will never know this materially and will never let anyone try. That's our belief as the Coptic Orthodox Church--that's my belief.
But to go as far as saying this substance changes into this--meaning defining the heavenly mystical meaning into worldly materially way, cannot be acceptable. It's like defining" the Trinity and not symbolizing.
[quote author=Zoxsasi link=topic=8994.msg112254#msg112254 date=1269328656]
So, for you, Mina - you don't believe in a literal transformation?
It's not only a matter of a belief but also if you can prove that belief. We believe that this is a MYSTERY (the quote of HGB Youssef explains that as i posted before). We don't know how It is or how this happens but it does. But it the same time we will never know this materially and will never let anyone try. That's our belief as the Coptic Orthodox Church--that's my belief.
But to go as far as saying this substance changes into this--meaning defining the heavenly mystical meaning into worldly materially way, cannot be acceptable. It's like defining" the Trinity and not symbolizing.
Hi Mina,
Im afraid you've really lost me. But I would like to stress that we do, as a Church, believe we are partaking of True Body and True Blood.
I do note a few things which suggest what the authoritative view of our Orthodox Church might be in regard to the Roman Catholic Church in general and their eucharist in particular...
i. In 1973 His Holiness Pope Shenouda met with Pope Paul VI. They issued a joint statement in which His Holiness Pope Shenouda makes and agree with the following comment.
The divine life is given to us and is nourished in us through the seven sacraments of Christ in His Church: Baptism, Chrism (Confirmation), Holy Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony and Holy Orders.
This seems to me to show that he is expressing the view that the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church are indeed sacraments. The 'us' in this joint statement must include both the Coptic Orthodox and the Roman Catholic communities in the minds of His Holiness Pope Shenouda and Pope Paul VI who signed it.
ii. In 1971 Pope Paul VI met with the Syrian Patriarch Mar Ignatius Jacob III. On this occasion Pope Paul VI was addressed in the following manner.
May almighty God continue to sustain Your Holiness in good health and strength of spirit to carry on the great work of the Church in the world, to the glory of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
They also signed the following agreed statement which seems to speak clearly of the view of the Roman Catholic community as a true Church.
The Pope and the Patriarch have recognized the deep spiritual communion, which already exists between their Churches. The celebration of the sacraments of the Lord, the common profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God made man for man's salvation, the apostolic traditions which form part of the common heritage of both Churches, the great Fathers and Doctors, including Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who are their common masters in the faith all these testify to the action of the Holy Spirit who has continued to work in their Churches even when there have been human weakness and failings.
iii. In 1984 Patriarch Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas met with Pope John Paul II and they issued the following agreed statement. This first excerpt speaks of the two communities as sister Churches.
..giving thanks for this glorious opportunity which has been granted them to meet together in His love in order to strengthen further the relationship between their two sister Churches, the Church of Rome and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.
This second excerpt states that the sacraments are held in common by the Syrian and Roman Catholic communities.
Sacramental life finds in the Holy Eucharist its fulfiment and its summit, in such a way that it is through the Eucharist that the Church most profoundly realizes and reveals its nature. Through the Holy Eucharist the event of Christ's Pasch expands throughout the Church. Through Holy Baptism and Confirmation, indeed, the members of Christ are anointed by the Holy Spirit, grafted on to Christ; and through the Holy Eucharist the Church becomes what she is destined to be through Baptism and Confirmation. By communion with the body and blood of Christ the faithful grow in that mysterious divinization which by the Holy Spirit makes them dwell in the Son as children of the Father.
The other Sacraments, which the Catholic Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch hold together in one and the same succession of Apostolic ministry, i.e. Holy Orders, Matrimony, Reconciliation of penitents and Anointing of the Sick, are ordered to that celebration of the holy Eucharist which is the centre of sacramental life and the chief visible expression of ecclesial communion.
This third excerpt provides for isolated members of either community to receive the sacraments in a church of the other communion.
It is not rare, in fact, for our faithful to find access to a priest of their own Church materially or morally impossible. Anxious to meet their needs and with their spiritual benefit in mind, we authorize them in such cases to ask for the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick from lawful priests of either of our two sister Churches, when they need them.
iv. In 1970 Patriarch Vasken of the Armenians met with Pope Paul VI. They also issued an agreed statement which speaks of a recognition of a common life and sacraments.
..we hope that a closer collaboration will develop in all possible domains of the Christian life. Prayer in common, mutual spiritual aid, joint efforts to find really Christian solutions to the problems of the world today, will be precious means in the service of this search for a full unity so greatly desired.
This search accomplished together, this collaboration must be based on the mutual recognition of the common Christian faith and the sacramental life, on the mutual respect of persons and their Churches.
v. In 1996 Patriarch Karekin of the Armenians met with Pope John Paul II. They issued a joint statement which included the following thoughts.
First of all they describe a spiritual communion between the Armenian and Roman Catholic communities.
Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I recognize the deep spiritual communion which already unites them and the Bishops, clergy and lay faithful of their Churches. It is a communion which finds its roots in the common faith in the Holy and Life-giving Trinity proclaimed by the Apostles and transmitted down the centuries by the many Fathers and Doctors of the Church and the Bishops, priests, and martyrs who have followed them.
They also speak of 'the reality of this common faith in Jesus Christ and in the same succession of apostolic ministry'.
vi. In 1997 Patriarch Aram of the Armenians met with Pope John Paul II. Another joint statement was issued, describing in part a community of faith which we already experience.
This communion of faith, already affirmed in recent decades by their predecessors during their meetings, was solemnly reaffirmed recently at the meeting of His Holiness John Paul II with His Holiness Catholicos Karekin I. Today the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Peter, and the Catholicos of Cilicia pray that their communion of faith in Jesus Christ may progress because of the blood of the martyrs and the fidelity of the Fathers to the Gospel and the apostolic Tradition, manifesting itself in the rich diversity of their respective ecclesial traditions. Such a community of faith must be concretely expressed in the life of the faithful and must lead us towards full communion.
vii. In 2009 the meeting of the INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION FOR THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCHES met to consider NATURE, CONSTITUTION AND MISSION OF THE CHURCH, under the co-chairmanship of HE Metropolitan Bishoy. The joint document issued by the commission included the following statements.
The Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church share the following constitutive elements of communion: they confess the Apostolic faith as lived in the Tradition and as expressed in the Holy Scriptures, the first three Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea 325 – Constantinople 381 – Ephesus 431) and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed[1]; they believe in Jesus Christ the Incarnate Word of God, the same being true God and true man at the same time; they venerate the Holy Virgin Mary as Mother of God (Theotokos); they celebrate the seven sacraments (baptism, confirmation/chrismation, Eucharist, penance/reconciliation, ordination, matrimony, and anointing of the sick); they consider baptism as essential for salvation; with regard to the Eucharist, they believe that bread and wine become the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; they believe that the ordained ministry is transmitted through the bishops in apostolic succession; regarding the true nature of the Church, they confess together their belief in the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”, according to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
The commission also expressed a rejection of proselytism between Orthodox and Catholic communities, expressing the view that the movement of Christians from one communion to another for reasons of personal conscience and freedom is one thing, but actively seeking to recruit from the other communion is rejected. They say,
We reject all forms of proselytism, in the sense of acts by which persons seek to disturb each other’s communities by recruiting new members from each other through methods, or because of attitudes of mind, which are opposed to the exigencies of Christian love or to what should characterize the relationships between Churches. Let it cease, where it may exist. Catholics and Orthodox should strive to deepen charity and cultivate mutual consultation, reflection and cooperation in the social and intellectual fields.
The members of this commission, representing all of our Orthodox Churches, also state that,
'full communion is the ultimate goal of the ecumenical work of all our churches'.
Yet the commission is realistic and is aware that a full communion has not been attained, and is dependent on an expression of a shared faith. But the Roman Catholics are not rejected as heretics, rather the view is expressed that we are growing in a clarity of understanding of each other which will lead, as God wills, to a restoration of such communion. They say,
Eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion are intrinsically related to one another. Therefore, as long as fundamental disagreements in matters of faith persist and the bonds of communion are not fully restored, celebrating together the one Eucharist of the Lord is not possible. Fortunately, through ecumenical dialogue, significant progress has been made between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches toward a common understanding of the constitutive elements of faith, particularly in the area of Christology. Though the full consensus in matters of faith, which would allow a common celebration of the Eucharist, has not yet been reached, these developments in doctrinal understanding hold the promise of further convergence and deserve appropriate attention.
viii. The meeting of the commission in 1979 issued the following agreed instruction.
It is strongly urged that there be avoided all words, articles, homilies, instructions and attitudes which wound each other's Churches, in their leaders or in their faithful.
It also issued the following agreed statement.
In our second report we stated that the union we envisage is a real one, a communion in faith, in sacramental life and in the harmony of mutual relations between our two sister Churches in the one People of God. The process by which this union is to be achieved is that two Apostolic Churches, equally and with mutual respect, come into full communion again on the basis of the faith, the traditions and the ecclesiastical life of the undivided Church of the first four and a half centuries. Such a communion once achieved, there will be but one Coptic Church under the leadership of the one Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark. Since this unity would be a full communion, the richness of the Christian traditions existing in Egypt would find clear and legitimate expression within the structure of this one Coptic Church for the enrichment of all. Furthermore this one Coptic Church would be in full communion with the other Christian Churches and in particular with the Church of Rome.
ix. 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.
x. In 1983 the The Official Oriental Orthodox-Roman Catholic Consultation in the United States issued a joint statement on the Eucharist which seems to indicate an acceptance of the reality of the eucharist in each communion. It says,
# We agree that in the Eucharist the Church assembled is carrying out the injunction of the Lord to do what he did in the Last Supper, in commemoration of him.
# We agree that just as bread and wine became Christ's body and blood at the Last Supper, so do bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ when the Eucharist is celebrated by our Churches.
# We agree that the power of the triune God effects the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Traditionally, this has been attributed either to the Word or to the Spirit.
# We agree that the exercise of this divine power most properly is attributed to the Holy Spirit as source of God's action and grace in the Church. This corresponds well with the Spirit's role as life-giver, as overshadower in the incarnation, as sanctifier who sanctifies the bread and wine, become the body and blood of Christ, so that it sanctifies us when we receive it.
# We further agree that the consecration of the elements is effected through Christ, the risen Lord, true God and true man, who operates through the Spirit in the life of the Church. This corresponds well with Christ's role in the Last Supper.
I shall stop here, although there does seem to be a great deal more material which supports Zoxasi's post in regard to the Orthodox view of the Roman Catholic communion. It would seem that the Orthodox Churches do accept to some degree the sacramentality of the Roman Catholic Church, refer to her as a Sister Church, speak about the need to continue working towards complete ecclesial and eucharistic communion, and some of the Orthodox Churches do allow a degree of intercommunion, and intermarriage. In all cases it seems to me that the formal and authoritative view of the various Synods of the Orthodox Churches, including our own Coptic Orthodox synod, is that the Roman Catholic Church should not be subject to 'words, articles, homilies, instructions and attitudes which wound each other's Churches'.
At present there is no need to add my own opinions. It is enough for us to perhaps consider the views of our bishops, Pope and patriarchs, and reflect on their own positive views on the Roman Catholic communion without ever minimising the issues which remain to be discussed and resolved.
Father Peter
Just out of curiosity, for me personally, which part of the phrase "We partake of the True Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ" is incorrect?
For me personally, Im not at all suggesting anyone should go to the RC to have communion. That's something personal with your FoC. All I'm saying is that it is the Body and Blood of Christ ON the Catholic Altar.
Again, you did not answer my question:
The millions of Catholics who got married in Catholic Churches: are they living in adultary because they didnt get married in an Orthodox Church - as you only believe in the Orthodox Sacraments?
Does God look at all those Catholic marriages as adultery? Do you think?
Nobody realizes that St Pope Kyrillos was vehemently opposed to ecumenism. I would expect Fr Peter to know this, being that he is well read, either that or just ignorant of the past. FACT Fr Peter you are wrong and are clearly ignorant of Coptic history and this is why I am so direct with you, you have said many things that contradict the early church fathers, I cannot stand aside while you spout liberal non sense.
I am not sure what 'liberal nonsense' you are referring to? I have just spent an hour or so researching the references I provided above from His Holiness Pope Shenouda, H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, our Holy Synod, Patriarchs Karekin, Aram, Zakka Iwas and many others. Indeed I refrained from doing anything much than posting what these Fathers have written. So if what I have written is liberal nonsense then I do not see how you can avoid accusing all of these Fathers of teaching liberal nonsense?
It would be a help to know if you are Coptic Orthodox, Ioannes? or belong to one of the sister Churches. I do find it hard to believe that a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church would read all of these statements made by our bishops and patriarchs and then accuse me of 'spouting liberal nonsense'.
Father Peter
Nobody realizes that St Pope Kyrillos was vehemently opposed to ecumenism. I would expect Fr Peter to know this, being that he is well read, either that or just ignorant of the past. FACT Fr Peter you are wrong and are clearly ignorant of Coptic history and this is why I am so direct with you, you have said many things that contradict the early church fathers, I cannot stand aside while you spout liberal non sense.
Ioannes regardless of whether you believe Father Peter is right, show some respect. You're tone of voice is not needed and should not be so vagrantly rude. How long have you been in the Coptic church to say you know for a fact that HH Pope Kyrillos was against anything? Did you meet him? Did you know him personally? Do you have direct quotes from a RELIABLE book or source saying that HH said such things? If so then show them, if not then don't bring it up. Times are different from times. We may be having discussions but what makes you think the COC will be able to accept what the RC does without them recalling some of their beliefs such as the immaculate conception. Don't be so quick to attack.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112289#msg112289 date=1269380322]
Nobody realizes that St Pope Kyrillos was vehemently opposed to ecumenism. I would expect Fr Peter to know this, being that he is well read, either that or just ignorant of the past. FACT Fr Peter you are wrong and are clearly ignorant of Coptic history and this is why I am so direct with you, you have said many things that contradict the early church fathers, I cannot stand aside while you spout liberal non sense.
Ioannes regardless of whether you believe Father Peter is right, show some respect. You're tone of voice is not needed and should not be so vagrantly rude. How long have you been in the Coptic church to say you know for a fact that HH Pope Kyrillos was against anything? Did you meet him? Did you know him personally? Do you have direct quotes from a RELIABLE book or source saying that HH said such things? If so then show them, if not then don't bring it up. Times are different from times. We may be having discussions but what makes you think the COC will be able to accept what the RC does without them recalling some of their beliefs such as the immaculate conception. Don't be so quick to attack.
I agree with JY,
Fr. Peter doesn't deserve that tone. He's only copy and pasting from Church fathers. I mean, he takes time just to do that. I agree also with Fr. Peter: If he is providing references and you refute them, then you are refuting the references also. This is obviously interesting to discuss this; but to make attacks Ioannnes like this isn't right.
Just relax man... I know you are a die hard orthodox guy, and that's great... but - all this means nothing if we insult each other with our knowledge.
Yes, you are quite right that the COC and other Churches are careful to present the issues which are outstanding in these conversations. These include Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Primacy etc etc.
But what I do take from all of these documents from which I quoted, is that generally there is a very positive attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church by all of the member Churches of our Orthodox communion, and that though we are not in ecclesial and eucharistic communion, nevertheless our bishops are committed to doing all that is necessary and possible on our part to work towards such communion without diminishing our own Faith.
Certainly here in the UK there are very warm relations between the bishops of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including HG Bishop Angaelos and HE Metropolitan Seraphim, and many of the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, and it is a blessing to me to be the Co-Secretary of the Catholic-Oriental Orthodox Forum, and to take notes and minutes as the bishops of the Oriental Orthodox Churches here in the UK discuss things with leading Roman Catholic bishops. Such fellowship does not damage our own Church, but enables us to bear witness, as well as to genuinely find ourselves meeting with Roman Catholic men and women of faith.
Father Peter