Coptic -- A teaching on the Our Father

No, they are not (as of yet :slightly_smiling_face: accepting the Pope) but if we want unity it surly can’t hurt us to grow in prayer together.

Of course, they are in formal schism, yet in reality their faith is immaculate and pure, and their sacraments are valid. Also, Coptic Catholic Church probably shares this with Coptic Orthodox Church- let us pray for unity of Churches, and let us also respect Coptic Catholic tradition, which Coptic Orthodox Church shares.

1 Like

Oh that’s true, they are very much like Eastern Orthodoxy in how they are communion of Churches… though also, their ecclesiology is a bit different and they do not tend to argue over some issues that trouble EO.

2 Likes

Well, there are Coptic Catholics. They even have their own patriarch. The current one is Ibrahim Isaac Sidrak. I am still very grateful for what we have in common with the Coptic Orthodox and other Eastern churches.

3 Likes

The OO’s has been in schism from the EOC since 451…
There is some inter-Communion between the Copts and the Antiochians where a local Church may not exist… Not for clergy, but for laity…

geo

1 Like

Original sentence was probably referring to EOC being in schism with Catholic Church since 1054.

1 Like

I don’t think so–the original topics is about the OO optics. Being in schism with EO and Catholic in 451 means the same things as the Orthodox and Catholic Church wasn’t yet engaged in a juvenile internecine squabble . . .

1 Like

And the women didn’t start it either. :no_mouth:

1 Like

While there’s a temptation to say, “if the western clergy had been married, too, maybe some sense would have been instilled!”–but this was bishops and patriarchs on each side that made the mess.

2 Likes

I agree - The poster seemed confused - But has no monopoly! And may have simply “mis-spoke”… Still no monopoly…

The Western Church was in full Communion with the Eastern Churches (Except with the OOC after 451) until 1054 - The OOC rejected the homo-ousios formulaic of the Creed, if I have it right, which the (4th?) Council decreed…

I think the OOC’s idea was that if the Persons of the Trinity were of one essence, they would have to be the same Person - Yet Christ said that John the Baptist is the Prophet Elijah… “…IF you can receive it…” So the formulaic is fraught with difficulties in our fallen human understanding - And Essence has two meanings… Aristotelian meaning core identity, and wealth, for in Greek, one’s ousia is his wealth - The essence of a king is his kingdom, etc…

geo

They were saying the exact same thing, in different words, and refused to listen to each other,.

Basically everything written about what the EO believe on the subject written by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox from the early fifth century until a couple of decades ago is just plain wrong.

The joint statement of the Rome and an EO church a decade or two ago can be fairly summarized as, “uhm, well, you see, they didn’t believe what we’ve been saying they did all this time, and vice versa. Uhh, never mind” :exploding_head::rage:

Cue Article 1 of Brest one more time . . .

2 Likes

Can you show how this was true?

geo

There was a joint statement after a discussion that lasted years. I don’t have a cite handy (and you can presumably google as well as I), but the gist was that they found themselves in what I call “violent agreement” . . .

There is no question that the EO and OO agreement is across the board, and that the schism only relates to a single issue… Antioch and the Copts were unable to figure out what all the fuss was about… Yet the Copts were unable to accept the 4th Council…

And as I recall, both sides, after agreeing to limited inter-Communion for the Laity, then did figure out what that issue was and still is… And I think it has to do with the movement in the Christian Faith from person as mask, which is old-Greek Neo-platonism, to person as hypostasis, which is the basis of self-responsibility… And the relationship of personal hypostasis as the foundational part of the soul to the ousia, which is the essence understood as the being of the soul…

It should be noted that the term ‘essence’ is a western term used as a gloss for ousia, and that ousia itself has two meanings in the Greek… I was hoping someone here might have thought their way through these matters - They go way deep…

geo

Odd that, given that the issue was discussed before they arrived, and without their explanation of what they were saying, relying only on their critics, and the council refusing to reopen for discussion, leaving the condemnation (for something they didn’t even believe!) in place . . .

:roll_eyes::thinking::exploding_head:

I am simply trying to understand their respective and conflicting original grasp of the issues as they were understood in their own terms… I cannot judge them apart from that…

geo

the very short version is that they were saying the same thing and it was a linguistic difference they never got past.

I’d suggest hunting down the joint statement itself, and if it’s too “deep” to initially process, looking for non-polemical commentary directly o it.

I have that part - My Coptic friend and I went through it - The question abides, however, as to the original divisor…

The joint statement failed to identify the original actual issue, and denied there was one of substance, but was simply a linguistic matter… Now that may be true, but 1500 years of non-Communion?? It just seems like there must be more than mere linguistic discontinuity… But what do I know?

Forgive me…

geo

Is it available online?

Maybe even in English?? :slight_smile:

geo

We’ll probably Neve have a “good” explanation the original split. Both sideswipe arguing against positions that the other didn’t even hold . . .

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.