Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Coptic Orthodox vs Greek Orthodox?
I had a conversation with a priest from a greek orthodox church and he asked me what church I went to, I told him I go to a coptic orthodox church. He told me that the coptic church back than was ex communicated from the orthodox church based on a certain confusion between the churches. He said the copts used to believe that Jesus and God and the holy spirit were just one and not 3 combined in one. He also stated thats why the copts used to make the sign of the cross with one finger and not like the other orthodox churches with 3 fingers combined in one. It seems confusing to me does anyone have information about this subject and the history so that we may get a clear understanding of this whole situation. Does anyone have clear documented information about this whole situation and the status now, cause this seems like a big deal to be excommunicated from the orthodox church.
Thanks
C
???
Thanks
C
???
Comments
And truthfully, i have no idea what he meant by 3 in 1 and 3 COMBINED in 1, is there really a difference? i dont think so. It all started at the council of chalcedon, where we split, and after that issue was finally resolved, more issues sprung up. So since 451 the oriental orthodox church has not considered easterns to be apostolic and right, and vice versa.
-Pete
This topic can get very confusing and very heated. I hope my explanation helped. If others who understand this much better than I do can help, it would be greatly appreciated.
-Pete
PK
The really sad thing is that we are christians divided among christians. So if christians do this to eachother, then what would the rest fo the religions do? >:(
-Pete
This priest you have spoken to is not only ignorant of our faith(both present and historical), but he also ignorant of the very historical event that divided us in the first place. First of all, our division was over Christology and not Trinitarianism. So this priest exposes an ignorance of church history. He seems to be referring to the heresy of Sabellianism which considers the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit indistinguishable according to personhood or hypostasis, as they constitute one person together. Our church has never believed such a thing, and furthermore has never been misunderstood as believing such a thing in history. The Coptic Church vigorously fought against Sabellianism in the third and fourth centuries; Trinitarianism was simply never an issue with the Church of Alexandria (i.e. the Coptic Church) in the Orthodox world.
As Kbibo8 has stated, the division revolved around a Christological matter, and he has probably explained it as simply, generally and concisely as can be. If you find anything confusing, then ask questions so we know what it is exactly that you don’t understand; be specific as to what you’re not getting so we can provide you with the answers your looking for. :)
Do you have more information?
I think it is mainly a political thing and it should not get between us sharing the sacrements with our brothers and sisters who share the same faith as us. I consider all our differences too minor to be significant. Most of the differences sound to me like two different ways of saying the same thing
I guess my question would be if we are not in communion and we are ex-communicated than are we still in the right calling ourselves orthodox and being able to convert communion on the holy altar being that we are ex-communicated from the other orthodox churches and not in communion?
???
Dear Conqueror - your question seems to presuppose that Eastern Orthodoxy is correct and if we were excommunicated from them, then we must not be orthodox. However, I do not think this is a proper reading of the situation. As others have said, many view the separation as for political or semantic reasons.
At the time of the division, both sides believed they were in the right and the only protectors of the "True Faith" - Orthodoxy.
I am saddened by the situation, because Our Lord Jesus Christ left only one Church, yet we as humans (not directed at an individual, just humans/society in general)- in our weakness - seem intent on doing everything we can to destroy and divide the one Church. Look at the hundreds (thousands?) of denominations that consider themselves Christians.
I pray that one day we will be able to unite together again to experience the one Church.
For more information on the Unity discussions, here are two websites:
http://www.britishorthodox.org/2church.php
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/
I also have included below a question and answer from Bishop Youssef of the Coptic Orthodox Dioces of the Southern US on this topic.
God bless,
Eric
----
What are the reasons that the oriental Orthodox Churches are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches?
The Oriental Orthodox Churches mentioned here and including the Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Armenian, and the Indian Churches are very close to the Eastern Orthodox churches, but not in full unity with them. The faith is the same but division came because of a misunderstanding that occurred among the church members at the council of Chalcedon. The Coptic Church was misunderstood at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. The Coptic Church was accused of following the teaching of Eutyches, who believed in Monophysis. This doctrine maintains that the Lord has only one nature; the Divine nature only. The Coptic Church refuses and rejects the teaching of Eutyches and believes that our Lord Jesus Christ is perfect in His divinity and perfect in His humanity. His divinity parted not from His humanity not for a single moment nor a twinkle of an eye. Therefore, our church believes in Miaphysis and it was clear that the council of Chalcedon had not been held to discuss a dogmatic creed but for political reasons. Pope Leo of Rome wanted to declare himself as supreme over all the churches of the world including the church of Alexandria. Perhaps the Council of Chalcedon understood the Church correctly, but they wanted to exile the Church, to isolate it and to abolish the Egyptian, independent Pope, who had contended that Church and State should be separate. Despite all of this, the Coptic Church has remained very strict and steadfast in its faith. Whether it was a conspiracy from the Western Churches to exile the Coptic Church as a punishment for its refusal to be politically influenced, or whether it was just misunderstanding, the Coptic Church has always felt a mandate to reconcile semantic differences between all Christian Churches. Today, dialogues are taking place between the Oriental and the Eastern Orthodox churches to get into full unity and communion together since actually the faith is the same.
As you stated, conquerers question does make the baseless presupposition that our Orthodoxy is determined by our relationship with the Eastern Orthodox, as if they are the standard criteria. The fact of the matter is, that it is the complete converse. Our Church’s ex-communication of Chalcedon, and hence the Eastern Orthodox church was valid and justified; the Eastern Orthodox church’s ex-communication of our church was false, and hence rebounds upon them.
The Oriental Orthodox Church is The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox may be recognised as presently Orthodox in faith and praxis, but they nonetheless remain in schism, and hence outside of the canonical bounds of the One True Church - The Oriental Orthodox Communion.
Mo·noph·y·site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nf-st)
n. Christianity
An adherent of the doctrine that in the person of Jesus there was but a single, divine nature. Coptic and Syrian Christians profess this doctrine.
It says the coptics profess of this doctrine. How weird when I thought we dont.
Even though our Christology makes perfect sense, (and I invite you to test me on that one) you must remember that correct Orthodox Doctrine is not about what is coherent or rational, for many heresies are coherent and logical as theories, but that does not make them necessarily true.
Indeed, if you were to consider all the heresies merely as theoretical ideologies, you will find that they make sense in and of themselves and may even be alot easier to understand than the Truth. Take for example the heresy of Arianism which denies the Trinity. It certainly makes sense to acknowledge a unipersonal God, and is alot easier for the simple intellect to grasp then the notion of a tri-hypostatic being (The Trinity), but this is the beauty of Orthodox Truth. It encpasulates the Mystery of the Infinite Creator, without falling into reductionism whereby things are oversimplified to the extent that the Eternal Truth is compromised.
True Orthodox Christology is by nature paradoxical. Yet as St Cyril's Christology reveals, this paradox is dogmatic - to compromise the apparent paradox would be to compromise the Truth of the Incarnation - which is essentially how the Christological heresies of Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism came into being.
Who do you think knows better concerning what the Coptic Church believes; the Coptic Church herself or some stupid dictionary?
Iqbal I agree with you that we are protecting the one True Faith. I was trying to say, probably poorly, that at the time of the Schism a Coptic Orthodox would say what you said; however, a Greek Orthodox would say the same thing.
I am not trying to argue that both are right. I was trying to suggest to Conqueror that we never believed that we were UN-orthodox.
To Conqueror - regarding the Nature of Christ (which my knowledge of is very limited, so if I am inaccurate in anything I say someone please correct me) the Eastern Orthodox argue that we are Monophysite,which is why they believe we fell into heresy. Especially here in America, Eastern Orthodoxy has been available much longer - Greek and Russian Orthodox for example, so many websites and articles list us as monophysite and I believe this is just a matter of considering the source of the information, ie the Eastern Orthodox describing us to someone.
I hope this helps.
Here is a link to an article by Bishop Youssef and in it he discusses the Nature of Christ and whether we are Mono or Miaphysite.
www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/christlecture2.pdf
By the way, thank you for bringing this discussion up. I think it is an important question, and I agree with the poster that more of us should be aware of these issues. I also agree with the poster who said that possibly 95% of those who attend Church are unaware of these issues. However, that could be a danger. This is the dogma of the Church and if we forget it then how can we maintain, as Iqbal, states that we are the One True Church.
I hope some of this has been helpful and if I have offended anyone please forgive me.
God bless,
emiles
(You can find more about this specific issue in this article: http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article01.html)
In any event, even once the division was more clearly recognised each side would ofcourse have claimed an exclusive right to Orthodoxy, obviously, for why would anyone be in a church that they thought was unorthodox? That doesn’t make sense. We should note, that not all Eastern Orthodox (EO) have this conception of us anymore. Many of them have come to acknowledge that we share the same Orthodox doctrine, and this point is made at the very website you initially recommended to conquerer : www.orthodoxunity.org, which contains the joint agreements and declarations between highly respected authoritative figures of both Communions.
However, there are those ignorant EO's who persist in misrepresenting us. As you said however, when learning about our own Church's faith and history, we do not listen to the slander and propoganda of what others say, especially when it is not grounded in any historical fact.
you must remember that correct Orthodox Doctrine is not about what is coherent or rational
So then what is it about? Just whoever is 'coptic' has the right opposing view?
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=2793;start=15#msg43114 date=1132806604]
It certainly makes sense to acknowledge a unipersonal God
I'm sorry but i disagree with this, and i personally think beleif in the trinity is clearly and logically scriptural
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=2793;start=15#msg43114 date=1132806604]
this is the beauty of Orthodox Truth. It encpasulates the Mystery of the Infinite Creator, without falling into reductionism whereby things are oversimplified to the extent that the Eternal Truth is compromised.
By orthodox truth you mean coptic orthodox truth? (since we are not in communion with many orthodox churches)
I'm not a theologian but from what i know of the bible and the church fathers is that God can not be comprehended or understood by humans, so on issues which were not explained to us through God, I would have to say that they are 'assuptions' of His nature and can not be clearly defined as 'truth' , since there are many apostolic churches, all with opposing views.
I'm sorry, maybe its that i dont have a deep enough understanding on this topic, but if so then i would love to learn more. But so far to me, all i can see is many apostolic churches following scripture and tradition and all claiming to have the 'truth' while all have differing views!
The essential point that I was making is: just because something is theoretically coherent or logical as a concept, does not make it true; and furthermore, many of the Orthodox Truths are difficult to grasp, and don’t make sense to much people anyway – this does not mean they are not true. The Oriental Orthodox Church is a communion of the churches listed above. These local or ethnic churches constitute The One Holy Universal Orthodox Church. All other churches have cut themselves off from this body and hence are by definition heretical and/or schismatic. A church’s validity is not confirmed simply by its having Apostolic roots. Just because a church is ancient and has a history of being in communion with the Orthodox Church, does not make it part of the Orthodox Church at present. For example, as with the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics have also cut themselves from The Church. By doing so, the validity of their Apostolic succession ceases, since they have fallen or deviated from the Truth. That is why they oppose the views of The One True Church – The Oriental Orthodox Church. It is they who are making assumptions and errors, which is why they oppose us who hold to the revealed Tradition of the Church.
A church’s validity is not confirmed simply by its having Apostolic roots. Just because a church is ancient and has a history of being in communion with the Orthodox Church, does not make it part of the Orthodox Church at present. For example, as with the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics have also cut themselves from The Church. By doing so, the validity of their Apostolic succession ceases, since they have fallen or deviated from the Truth. That is why they oppose the views of The One True Church – The Oriental Orthodox Church. It is they who are making assumptions and errors, which is why they oppose us who hold to the revealed Tradition of the Church.
I'm sorry, this sounds very biased and i still don't get it. So its no longer Apostolic roots, scripture and tradition that validate a church, its just if they are in communion with the Coptic church?
Everyone that has seperated from the oriental orthodox church has seperated from truth and Apostolic succession why? Just because we are the Oriental Orthodox church so that must mean we are the truth?
All of the other churches claim that we are the ones with heresy and we split from them! In the Council of Chalcedon schism we were the minority! I have seen a diagram of a tree showing church history and all the branches that have broken off, however i've seen three of them in three different churches, and guess what? every church puts itself in as the trunk with all the other churches braking off!
non-theological issues, such as "unfortunate circumstances, cultural
differences and the difficulty of translating terms." It is debated whether
the opposition to Chalcedon was out of a Christological issue or an attempt
to assert Coptic and Syrian identity against the Byzantine." This is a quote from a coptic Priest (Fr. Matthias F. Wahba) regarding the council of Chalcedon
I would have to take the side that these splits were due to political issues and that it has nothing to do with the oriental churches' "eternal truth" in dogma or theology.
And to prove this, i am a copt living in Australia, you know if i am to visit Africa i am in communion with the Greek orthodox church? And if i become a member of the church of Antioch i will be then in communion with both the coptic and Greek churches in Australia! sounds very political to me! (These have been explained to me by coptic church priests and i did not make them up)
For a very short treatment on the issue of ecclesiology, you can start reading here: http://www.suscopts.org/literature/orthodoxfaith.html Tradition is encompassed by the One True Church alone. At 451 A.D. the Chalcedonian church (i.e. the now Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches as well as all other churches that subsequently split off from them) discontinued being part of the Church, and hence they discontinued continuance of that Tradition. Tradition is a living thing; it is not static – it is not stuck in time, and it continues, even until today. They accepted councils which are not part of Church Tradition (Chalcedon, Constantinople 553 etc.) – they thence started their own independent tradition in deviation of the True Tradition which continues to live on in The One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church – The Oriental Orthodox Church. Communion is ofcourse central in definition to The True Church. That is after all, what The One Apostolic Orthodox Church is, and how it is identified - by true praxis and ecclesiology centered in true Eucharistic communion.
This is the very reason why we are not allowed to commune in any other church unless it be an Oriental Orthodox church. You can read more on this issue here, where I debated a so-called Copt who was quite ignorant of the Church's teaching on the matter:
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=2173 It’s common sense. If I say X, yet you say Y, we cant both be right. Tradition has always maintained X since the Apostolic era. In the fifth century, the Chalcedonian church deviated from X, therefore they deviated from Tradition. They furthermore imposed a false-ex-communication and hence essentially ex-communicated themselves; they were also ex-communicated by us.
I suggest you study Ecclesiology – which is the doctrine of the Church. A valid act of ex-communication separates one from true Eucharistic communion, and renders them outside the church until they repent of their errors. The Chalcedonian church did not repent of the error of Chalcedon, until now, therefore inter-communion has not been restored, and they continue outside of the canonical bounds of the True Church. Who cares what other churches claim?! They are mere claims not grounded in any fact. If I tell you that you are short, fat and bald, what does this mean if it is not grounded in any fact? It is just a baseless unwarranted claim.
You're really not making any relevant or valid point here. So what? This doesn’t prove anything regarding the fact we were in the right. Guess what, Christ and His followers were the minority within Judaism when they broke off from it. Does this mean our Lord, God and Saviour, and His Holy Apostles were wrong, and the Jews were right? So what? You consistently bring up irrelevant points that prove absolutely nothing. Everyone subjectively claims to have the truth, obviously. But what exactly does this obvious observation prove? Does it mean that truth doesn’t exist? No. Does this mean that the truth cannot be objectively determined? No. I’ve read Fr. Wahba’s article. What is your point? It doesn’t matter what the reasons were for the schism; the fact is there was a schism, and as it was the Chalcedonian church that compromised and deviated from the established Alexandrine Christological Tradition of that time, and as it was on behalf of the Chalcedonian church that Rome and Constantinople’s political motivations were central to the schism, and as it was on behalf of the Chalcedonian church that they ex-communicated themselves, and were ex-communicated by us, that they are the schismatic party. I am a Copt living in Australia, and I am telling you that is a big fat lie, whoever told this to you. If you are a Copt, you may only commune under the Coptic Patriarchate, or at any other church in communion with her: Syrian, Indian, Armenian, Ethiopian, or Etrirean. Our church neither permits you to commune at a Greek church, nor does the Greek church allow you to commune with them. What is it that you don't understand about the fact our church has ex-communicated them?
This is BASIC ecclesiology. Again I urge to read this thread right here: http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=2173
Concentate on my first post where I quote a previous patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church who explicitly deals with this issue. You are misinformed, and as you are evidently not very learned on this particular matter, I urge you to quit persisting in confidence in what you are saying, for by the Church's standards, such thinking is wrong - it is un-Orthodox. Again, NONSENSE. The Antiochene Orthodox Church is a Chalcedonian Orthodox Church. If you were to join this church you would cease to be a Copt and no Coptic priest will admit you to communion. I challenge you to tell me the priests' name; I will go to whicever church in Sydney he belongs, and you can meet me there and we will ask him concerning this issue together. It’s a challenge.