Coptic Catholics

[Not David]

What's the difference with the Oriental Orthodox?

 

[HTacianas]

What's the difference with the Oriental Orthodox?

They are non-Chalcedonian, meaning they do not accept the Council of Chalcedon. Oddly, the Council of Chalcedon rejected the teachings of Nestorius, but those who rejected the Council did so because they thought the Council was too Nestorian. Go figure.

The schism between the Oriental Churches and the orthodox Churches is due mostly to differences in language. They all agree in principle, but it's difficult to translate the canons of the Council into other languages. Dyophisitism doesn't translate well into Syriac.

 

[Not David]

They are non-Chalcedonian, meaning they do not accept the Council of Chalcedon. Oddly, the Council of Chalcedon rejected the teachings of Nestorius, but those who rejected the Council did so because they thought the Council was too Nestorian. Go figure.

The schism between the Oriental Churches and the orthodox Churches is due mostly to differences in language. They all agree in principle, but it's difficult to translate the canons of the Council into other languages. Dyophisitism doesn't translate well into Syriac.

Thanks, I was talking about the Coptics who are in communion with Rome though.

 

[“Paisios”]

What's the difference with the Oriental Orthodox?

They are non-Chalcedonian, meaning they do not accept the Council of Chalcedon. Oddly, the Council of Chalcedon rejected the teachings of Nestorius, but those who rejected the Council did so because they thought the Council was too Nestorian. Go figure.

The schism between the Oriental Churches and the orthodox Churches is due mostly to differences in language. They all agree in principle, but it's difficult to translate the canons of the Council into other languages. Dyophisitism doesn't translate well into Syriac.

Aren’t the Coptic Orthodox part of Oriental Orthodoxy, and Coptic Catholics a separate entity in communion with Rome, much like other Eastern Catholic rites?

(Please correct me if I am wrong - I put the question mark because I am unsure.)

 

[dzheremi]

They are non-Chalcedonian, meaning they do not accept the Council of Chalcedon. Oddly, the Council of Chalcedon rejected the teachings of Nestorius, but those who rejected the Council did so because they thought the Council was too Nestorian. Go figure.

The schism between the Oriental Churches and the orthodox Churches is due mostly to differences in language. They all agree in principle, but it's difficult to translate the canons of the Council into other languages. Dyophisitism doesn't translate well into Syriac.

No. That is not the case. Many of our honored and holy fathers (distinctly OO saints, like HH Mor Severus of Antioch) wrote in Greek, and Greek is a perfectly fine language in which to express anti-Chalcedonianism, and remained so for many centuries after the schism until it was mostly replaced by other languages. For an academic-level reference on this (though it mostly concerns the Copts in particular), please see Maged S.A. Mikhail From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt.

Additionally, Syriac was the language of the Chalcedonians in many regions, as evidenced by the manuscripts you can find in the Holy Land and Egypt written in this language belonging to the Chalcedonian Church, and the fact that the distinctly Chalcedonian variety of Aramaic -- called variously in the linguistic literature Christian Palestinian Aramaic or Melkite Aramaic -- is attested to from about the 5th century AD to the 13th century. Even the word 'Melkite' (used at the time to mean "adherent to Chalcedonianism", not the later distinct Greek Catholic Melkite church) itself comes from the Syriac malkoyo (ܡܠܟܝܐ), meaning 'imperial, royal', because it was applied as a slur towards those Syriacs who had adopted the Chalcedonian confession by the people who also spoke that language who did not adopt that confession.

 

[dzheremi]

Aren’t the Coptic Orthodox part of Oriental Orthodoxy, and Coptic Catholics a separate entity in communion with Rome, much like other Eastern Catholic rites?

(Please correct me if I am wrong - I put the question mark because I am unsure.)

Yes. The relationship of the Coptic Catholics to Coptic Orthodoxy or the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy is, I would imagine, exactly the same as that of the various Byzantine Catholics to their Eastern Orthodox mother churches; they have accepted Rome's innovations in theology, ecclesiology, and so on, and hence are not a part of Orthodoxy anymore, but a part of Rome. They are a separate church.

 

[HTacianas]

Believe me I have nothing against my "desert cousins". The Oriental Churches have lived on the frontiers of Christianity for two thousand years now.

 

[buzuxi02]

Coptic Catholics are such a small group maybe 2 parishes. Their existence is a reflection of the arrogance of Rome. They have installed a Coptic catholic Patriarch of Alexandria based Abraham Sidrak for this inposter sect.

 

[Not David]

Coptic Catholics are such a small group maybe 2 parishes. Their existence is a reflection of the arrogance of Rome. They have installed a Coptic catholic Patriarch of Alexandria based Abraham Sidrak for this inposter sect.

Also, kind of a fake union since they claimed to be Orthodox in communion with Rome which is a paradox because either they accept Rome's dogmas or they don't and they are tricking the Roman Catholics.

 

[Not David]

Yes. The relationship of the Coptic Catholics to Coptic Orthodoxy or the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy is, I would imagine, exactly the same as that of the various Byzantine Catholics to their Eastern Orthodox mother churches; they have accepted Rome's innovations in theology, ecclesiology, and so on, and hence are not a part of Orthodoxy anymore, but a part of Rome. They are a separate church.

What innovations if I might ask?

 

[dzheremi]

Believe me I have nothing against my "desert cousins". The Oriental Churches have lived on the frontiers of Christianity for two thousand years now.

I don't believe that you do, HTacianas. Sorry if it came off otherwise, as that wasn't my intention.

It is still factually incorrect to say that the split was a matter of one side speaking Syriac, though. There were those on both sides who spoke and wrote in Syriac, Greek, Armenian, Coptic, etc. Nascent ethnic nationalism is an explanation those on both sides of the schism eventually came up with later, and though it is not without reason (statements like the following by Armenian Catholicos Movses II in 591 could certainly be used as evidence of a distinctly 'Armenian' view of things, particularly as their brothers the Copts and the Syriacs use leavened bread: "I will not cross the River Azat nor will I eat the baked bread of the Greeks or drink their hot water"), it certainly cannot be said to be the main cause of the schism itself. Heck, as late as the fifteenth century we have Arab-Muslim sources like Al Maqrizi (in his News of Egypt), who is somewhat unique for actually noting some of the differences between the two main Christian communities in Egypt (most Muslim writers don't bother with distinctions within the various non-Muslim communities, either then or now), actually claiming to have met Copts there who were fluent in Greek as well as Coptic. I have my own doubts about that claim as a linguist (the Coptic language was probably dead as a native spoken language by the fifteenth century, and the extent to which people knew Greek was probably also quite low and its use similarly restricted), but it's still evidence of a kind that the Copts in some sense saw themselves as part of the Hellenic world, and did not develop a "Copts vs. Greeks" mindset until later than is often supposed (and it's often very weak at the individual level, anyway; where I came from the Copts and the Greeks got along better than any other two groups, to the point where friends from my Coptic parish encouraged me to go to the local Greek church so that I could meet all of their friends and see how the Greeks "do Orthodoxy"). That is Coptic historical revisionism, which I'm sad to say is certainly a thing. Maged S.A. Mikhail addresses it in his book, and you can also find out the actual details of language use as relates to the period in other academic works, like The Multilingual Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the 'Abbasids, edited by Arietta Papaconstantinou.

 

[dzheremi]

What innovations if I might ask?

They are required to be Chalcedonian in Christology (which is an innovation relative to the perspective of their mother churches), to believe in all the Roman Papal heresies (universal jurisdiction, infallibility, the Pope as the 'Vicar of Christ', etc.), to thereby abandon the conciliar church model (I'm sure they have synods, but these would all answer to the Roman Pope), etc.

I don't know if they are also compelled to adopt the distinctly Latin Catholic festivals whose theology is contrary to Orthodoxy (since, again, they're not a part of it anymore anyway, so why would that be a constraint), but to the extent that they probably do so in an effort to be "more Catholic than the Pope", that's also an indication of where they are relative to us (far, far away; in another church/communion). I should say here that I've never interacted with any Coptic Catholics except online (they're hard to find, as there are hardly any in the world to begin with), but I have seen some of their celebrations from their cathedral in Egypt which were on YouTube, and I showed them to an older Maronite friend I had who knows his history and he was pointing out things left and right that they borrowed pretty transparently from the Maronites, so it's debatable how distinctly Coptic they might be even as they ape our church as best they can, just like how the Maronites themselves would have a hard time claiming to be a heavily Syriac Church (not that many do, from what I've seen) next to the Syriac Orthodox Church from whom they have taken many prayers via Mor Jacob of Serug and others.

 

[☦Marius☦]

The biggest difference is obviously our 100+ years of separation. However theologically I personally think there is still much that would keep the two from uniting

For instance if you look at Coptic Icons of Christ you can often see Christ blessing with one finger instead of two crossed. This is a distinction of monophysetic theology.

In my opinion experience speaking to copts, there is more varience in belief due to less dogma being developed over the centuries and a few less councils. Copts do not focus as much on Icons as we do die to no 7th council.

No offense to our Coptic friend here but I still find monophysism to be dangerous. You can get fee different results coming close to either Christilogical modalism where Christ switches between his divine and human natures, or that he is a separate being or species because of the lack of hypostatia in relation to his union. This would make theosis quite different. There are writers much better than I on explaining the differences between monophysism and diophysism, but I think the beliefs that originally split us are still there.

 

[dzheremi]

The biggest difference is obviously our 100+ years of separation. However theologically I personally think there is still much that would keep the two from uniting

For instance if you look at Coptic Icons of Christ you can often see Christ blessing with one finger instead of two crossed. This is a distinction of monophysetic theology.

In my opinion experience speaking to copts, there is more varience in belief due to less dogma being developed over the centuries and a few less councils. Copts do not focus as much on Icons as we do die to no 7th council.

No offense to our Coptic friend here but I still find monophysism to be dangerous.

So do we, this is the Oriental Orthodox board, and we are NOT monophysites.

Chalcedonians, please respect where you are right now and do not post things like this. This is not TAW, and your observations and speculations are not our faith.

You can get fee different results coming close to either Christilogical modalism where Christ switches between his divine and human natures, or that he is a separate being or species because of the lack of hypostatia in relation to his union. This would make theosis quite different. There are writers much better than I on explaining the differences between monophysism and diophysism, but I think the beliefs that originally split us are still there.

All of the things you describe here are heresies. Again, these are not our faith, and whatever writers you are thinking of don't matter. Look at the prayers of our liturgies, our Agpeya, the Midnight Tasbeha, and so on. These are the testament to our Orthodox Christian faith.

Any future attempts to spread Chalcedonian misunderstandings as though these are our faith will be reported as a violation of the rules governing the confessional forums. I do not come to TAW and argue that the Tome of Leo is crypto-Nestorian or whatever. I will thank you to grant my confession the same courtesy, even if you disagree with it or what you've decided it is.

 

[TheLostCoin]

No. That is not the case. Many of our honored and holy fathers (distinctly OO saints, like HH Mor Severus of Antioch) wrote in Greek, and Greek is a perfectly fine language in which to express anti-Chalcedonianism, and remained so for many centuries after the schism until it was mostly replaced by other languages. For an academic-level reference on this (though it mostly concerns the Copts in particular), please see Maged S.A. Mikhail From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt.

Additionally, Syriac was the language of the Chalcedonians in many regions, as evidenced by the manuscripts you can find in the Holy Land and Egypt written in this language belonging to the Chalcedonian Church, and the fact that the distinctly Chalcedonian variety of Aramaic -- called variously in the linguistic literature Christian Palestinian Aramaic or Melkite Aramaic -- is attested to from about the 5th century AD to the 13th century. Even the word 'Melkite' (used at the time to mean "adherent to Chalcedonianism", not the later distinct Greek Catholic Melkite church) itself comes from the Syriac malkoyo (ܡܠܟܝܐ), meaning 'imperial, royal', because it was applied as a slur towards those Syriacs who had adopted the Chalcedonian confession by the people who also spoke that language who did not adopt that confession.

While this is 100% true, different regions (and different time periods) of Christendom used the same words to mean different things in Greek.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria and Eutyches both used "one nature of the Word" to mean two different things, and Saint John Cassian and Nestorius used "in two natures" to mean two different things.

This makes looking at the texts of the Church Fathers a pain by the way.

 

[TheLostCoin]

What innovations if I might ask?

On paper, they have to accept Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the authority of the Roman Magisterium, Purgatory, Filioque, the Council of Chalcedon and the subsequent Ecumenical Councils of Rome, the Immaculate Conception, Augustinian and specific scholastic interpretations of Original Sin - the Sacraments and Sacramentals - Grace - Salvation - the Beatific Vision - etc.

The whole idea is that the Copts can keep their liturgical traditions and even certain theological traditions, but there is an adherence to the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[dzheremi]

While this is 100% true, different regions (and different time periods) of Christendom used the same words to mean different things in Greek.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria and Eutyches both used "one nature of the Word" to mean two different things, and Saint John Cassian and Nestorius used "in two natures" to mean two different things.

This makes looking at the texts of the Church Fathers a pain by the way.

Yes. This underlines my overall point that it was not a difference in language, as the poster was suggesting, but a difference in meaning/understanding/philosophical and hence theological tradition(s).

 

[TheLostCoin]

In honesty, while I think that the Coptic Catholics hold to heresy, I still have sympathy for them. It's like the movie ending of The Graduate, where the bride runs away from the middle of the wedding with her true love, creating scandal by violently disrupting the Wedding, against the pure disdain of the family, and then they get on the bus with looks of uncertainty and even regret, refusing eye contact with each other.

They, along with the other unestablished (pretty much everyone except the Maronites, Melkites, Ukrainians, Ruthenians, and maybe Chaldeans) Uniates (not using that as a slang word for the record, which it often is used as), have turned away from their own families into something they saw (rather immaturely and based on, preliminary, political and material gain) as better, but with the current state of Rome and it's official view of Ecumenism, they're existence is really unwanted, and they have received little support from Rome in allowing their Church to grow.

As I've pointed out before, in the case of the Russian Greek Catholic Church (as I'm really interested in the Russian Tradition within Eastern Orthodoxy), Rome will not give them any Bishops because of Ecumenism with the Russian Orthodox Church, and they have to awkwardly hang around Latin or Ruthenian Bishops who may or may not be indifferent towards their existence.

 

[dzheremi]

Well yeah...I've heard (though I don't really know or care) that the same kind of concerns vis-a-vis the Coptic Orthodox Church drive a lot of the Coptic Catholic Church's actions or lack thereof. It must be an interesting situation for them, as the fellow Christians who they would usually be encouraged to convert to the Catholic Church can point to various things that they have preserved that the Coptic Catholics have not (e.g., uniquely Coptic monasticism; the Catholics instead of have foreign 'religious orders' like the Franciscans), and the obvious reliance of the Coptic Catholics on the Coptic Orthodox tradition to retain any sense of Coptic identity that the Catholic faction may have (read: there have not developed any uniquely Coptic Catholic saints, feasts, etc.), which leaves the Catholic faction at a distinct disadvantage when actually explaining why or for that matter how it is that the Coptic Catholic Church is the true continuation of the indigenous faith of Egypt, rather than the Orthodox Church to which well over 90% of all Christians in Egypt belong. Even the first man to leave Orthodoxy for Catholicism, who was thus elevated to lead the Coptic Catholic Church (at a time when previous Catholic missionary work had yielded about 2,000 followers total who had no church of their own), one Anba Athanasius of Jerusalem, very quickly thought better of his decision and returned in repentance to Orthodoxy.

It's a tough sell indeed, and predictably most aren't interested. Same with the Ethiopians and the Armenians. (The Syriacs are a bit of a different story since they're fragmented into so many different churches, some of which were given new ethnoreligious identities upon union with Rome; also the Eritreans are different, because the colonial influence of the Italians affected them much more strongly than the Ethiopians, so Catholicism is more popular among them, but still it's only 4.6% of Eritrea, compared to 0.7% in Ethiopia.)

 

[TheLostCoin]

Yes. This underlines my overall point that it was not a difference in language, as the poster was suggesting, but a difference in meaning/understanding/philosophical and hence theological tradition(s).

While I love Saint Cyril (at the time of this posting, my profile picture is a statue of Saint Cyril impaling Nestorius) and his theology to death - seriously, reading his Gospel commentaries are beautiful - I absolutely hate the fact that he uses "physis" to mean both "hypostasis" and "ousia" depending on the context, which only created a lot of confusion that still lasts to this day.

Nestorius was actually initially confused at Saint Cyril's criticisms, because to him it sounded like he was stating a belief in Apollinarianism by professing Miaphysitism.

Which, even though Nestorius was a visious enemy of Christ, the phrase "One Incarnate Nature of the Word" did in fact come from Apollinarius, as I've read in several scholarly publications (for Cyril thought that the phrase came from a document of Athanasius in the Alexandrian libraries, but it was actually a document from Apollinarius), but Cyril boiled the blasphemy of it away and made it something pure to drink - as both the Oriental Orthodox communion professes (of course) and the Eastern Orthodox communion professes (via the 5th Ecumenical Council, which states explicitly that the Miaphysitism of Cyril is an Orthodox formula of the Faith which wasn't abrogated by Chalcedon).

Still, it's this linguistic confusion why many Eastern Orthodox - indeed, even some Oriental Orthodox - think that the Oriental Orthodox communion holds to an explicit belief in Monophysitism.