Does the OO accept EO or RC Sacraments?

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Question is in the title.

Thanks

 

[dzheremi]

Question is in the title.

Thanks

What do you mean by 'accept'? If you mean 'partake in', the answer is no. We are not a Chalcedonian church, and hence are not to partake of the sacraments of the Chalcedonians, as doing so places one outside of the Church (no different than marrying a non-Orthodox, or going for confession to a heterodox priest, etc. -- all of these things are not to be done). There are limited exceptions where they make sense on the ground, but these are known to everyone of both churches to be just that. For instance, the Coptic community where I used to live in Albuquerque, NM was without its own priest to lead a proper Orthodox liturgy for some years, and so was granted with the full approval of the nearest Coptic Orthodox bishop and the nearest Greek Orthodox bishop the temporary permission to commune at the local Greek Orthodox Church in the city. Once we received our own priests to conduct our own rites, the agreement with the Greeks was rescinded. There is also the matter of the mutual recognition of mixed Greek-Coptic marriages and the baptism of resulting children by both the Egyptians and the Greeks within the Patriarchal territory of Alexandria proper, which is another matter of adapting to local circumstances which does not rise beyond that to make some kind of blanket statement on the sacraments of other churches. I'm told this allowance is due to the high number of such marriages in that city, as the ethnic Greek population is very low these days, and has been for several decades.

I know there are similar agreements between the Syriac Orthodox and the corresponding Antiochian Greeks in the Middle East, though I'm not sure exactly what they cover or the circumstances of their drafting. I'm assuming the civil war has something to do with it.

So the answer is still no, but we're not inflexible about it in the face of circumstances that might require us to come up with other solutions. The main point is that these agreements don't substantiate wider communion outside of these specific circumstances, nor do they pronounce Chalcedonian sacraments as a-ok in a more general sense. As my own priest once said when some of our people asked if he would commune the (Chalcedonian) Jordanian visitors who had been attending our liturgies for some months, we will not under any circumstances be communing Chalcedonians or communing with them barring clear orders from the bishops. (By which I assumed he meant the gathering of the bishops in the Holy Synod, because that's what would be required to make such a momentous decision. Agreements between bishops of the two communions at a diocesan level do not apply outside of the dioceses involved, since we don't have any such thing as universal jurisdiction by which any individual bishop can speak for the entire church like that.)

 

[The Liturgist]

I know there are similar agreements between the Syriac Orthodox and the corresponding Antiochian Greeks in the Middle East, though I'm not sure exactly what they cover or the circumstances of their drafting. I'm assuming the civil war has something to do with it.

The Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox Church, in Syria, have an extremely extensive intercommunion agreement which among other things precludes people from being received from one into the other and enables people to receive the Eucharist at either/or. You can read it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20110524004826/http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/19911112SOCRumOrthStmt.html

There exists a more limited intercommunion between the Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria.

Also, historically, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East, received converts between them based on simple confession of faith, as opposed to chrismation or baptism.

 

[dzheremi]

The Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox Church, in Syria, have an extremely extensive intercommunion agreement which among other things precludes people from being received from one into the other and enables people to receive the Eucharist at either/or. You can read it here: Statement on the Relations between the Eastern and the Syrian Orthodox Church - Nov 1991

There exists a more limited intercommunion between the Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria.

Also, historically, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East, received converts between them based on simple confession of faith, as opposed to chrismation or baptism.

Thank you for the link to the SOC-AOC statement. I'm surprised it is from that long ago.

As for receiving converts between them, you are correct in so far as the historical norm is concerned (that's how HH St. Pope Timothy II mandates that we receive converts from Chalcedonianism in his letters, and as he was the direct successor to our teacher St. Dioscorus, there can be no doubt that this represents the original way we dealt with this question), but as you probably already know (but the OP might not, so I'm repeating it here), about 200 years or so ago our approach in the Coptic Orthodox Church towards receiving Roman Catholic Chalcedonians in particular changed to reception via baptism. Some I've asked about this change say it was motivated by our increased contact with the Russians and Greeks at a time in the 1800s when it seemed like reunion between OO and EO in Egypt was about to happen (but of course it didn't), but I can't verify that because apparently the sources for this view are old Arabic manuscripts kept in Egypt from that time (correspondence and such, I take it) that I obviously don't have access to.

At any rate, this was only fixed/restored to the historical norm very recently, such that when I was received into the Church in 2012 it was via the full rite of baptism. Since then, an agreement has been reached between the two Popes Tawadros II and Francis that any converts between the two churches would be received by profession of faith. I remember here on CF at the time the good people over on OBOB were praising the declaration as a step forward in their efforts at ecumenism with the OO, without realizing that for us this was actually a step backwards -- that is to say, back to the position we have historically held.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thank you for the link to the SOC-AOC statement. I'm surprised it is from that long ago.

As for receiving converts between them, you are correct in so far as the historical norm is concerned (that's how HH St. Pope Timothy II mandates that we receive converts from Chalcedonianism in his letters, and as he was the direct successor to our teacher St. Dioscorus, there can be no doubt that this represents the original way we dealt with this question), but as you probably already know (but the OP might not, so I'm repeating it here), about 200 years or so ago our approach in the Coptic Orthodox Church towards receiving Roman Catholic Chalcedonians in particular changed to reception via baptism. Some I've asked about this change say it was motivated by our increased contact with the Russians and Greeks at a time in the 1800s when it seemed like reunion between OO and EO in Egypt was about to happen (but of course it didn't), but I can't verify that because apparently the sources for this view are old Arabic manuscripts kept in Egypt from that time (correspondence and such, I take it) that I obviously don't have access to.

At any rate, this was only fixed/restored to the historical norm very recently, such that when I was received into the Church in 2012 it was via the full rite of baptism. Since then, an agreement has been reached between the two Popes Tawadros II and Francis that any converts between the two churches would be received by profession of faith. I remember here on CF at the time the good people over on OBOB were praising the declaration as a step forward in their efforts at ecumenism with the OO, without realizing that for us this was actually a step backwards -- that is to say, back to the position we have historically held.

I am told it was always much easier to be received into the Syriac Orthodox Church vs. the Coptic Orthodox Church.

 

[dzheremi]

I am told it was always much easier to be received into the Syriac Orthodox Church vs. the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Makes sense. The Syriacs have always been found across a much wider geographic area than the Copts, and with such a large array of different Christianities among them (Oriental Orthodox, Nestorian, Eastern Orthodox via the Treaty of Turkmenchay that put many formerly Iranian Assyrians suddenly onto Russian territories, Protestants via the missionary work of the Presbyterians in Urmia in the late 1800s and the British among the St. Thomas Christians in India, and of course all the RC uniates), a person could go from one type to the other while still keeping their ethnolinguistic and historical background more or less intact. I have heard that Orthodox/Catholic mixed marriages are not unheard of in certain parts of India where maybe only part of a particular town or village converted, so already-established, centuries-old families were suddenly on 'opposing sides' of an ecclesiastical and theological divide. In some cases, the divide is not even that old, such as with regard to the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, which was only established in the 1930s, if I recall correctly.

 

[StephenMosesDioscorus]

The statement between His Holiness Pope Tawadros II, and Pope Francis, says "we, with one mind and heart, will seek sincerely not to repeat the baptism that has been administered in either of our Churches for any person who wishes to join the other. " 'We will seek' does not necessarily reflect a current reality. The normal method of receiving Chalcedonians (Byzantine and Latin) into the Coptic Orthodox church is still by chrismation, although some bishops still baptize converts from Roman Catholicism. The only statement the Coptic Holy Synod made was in regards to converts from the Byzantine church, that we would not rebaptize them. This agreement with Pope Francis was never accepted by the Synod.

Protestants are always received by baptism in the Coptic Orthodox Church

 

[StephenMosesDioscorus]

Thank you for the link to the SOC-AOC statement. I'm surprised it is from that long ago.

As for receiving converts between them, you are correct in so far as the historical norm is concerned (that's how HH St. Pope Timothy II mandates that we receive converts from Chalcedonianism in his letters, and as he was the direct successor to our teacher St. Dioscorus, there can be no doubt that this represents the original way we dealt with this question), but as you probably already know (but the OP might not, so I'm repeating it here), about 200 years or so ago our approach in the Coptic Orthodox Church towards receiving Roman Catholic Chalcedonians in particular changed to reception via baptism. Some I've asked about this change say it was motivated by our increased contact with the Russians and Greeks at a time in the 1800s when it seemed like reunion between OO and EO in Egypt was about to happen (but of course it didn't), but I can't verify that because apparently the sources for this view are old Arabic manuscripts kept in Egypt from that time (correspondence and such, I take it) that I obviously don't have access to.

At any rate, this was only fixed/restored to the historical norm very recently, such that when I was received into the Church in 2012 it was via the full rite of baptism. Since then, an agreement has been reached between the two Popes Tawadros II and Francis that any converts between the two churches would be received by profession of faith. I remember here on CF at the time the good people over on OBOB were praising the declaration as a step forward in their efforts at ecumenism with the OO, without realizing that for us this was actually a step backwards -- that is to say, back to the position we have historically held.

my response above ^

 

[dzheremi]

my response above ^

First, Christos Anesti/PiKhristos Aftonf!

It is wonderful to 'see' a new brother here. We are sadly very few on this website. I welcome your voice in our discussions, and I hope you will find your time here edifying.

Thank you for the additional information/correction. I was unaware that the agreement was not accepted by the Holy Synod. That does clarify matters somewhat, as I have heard that some bishops are still receiving converts from Roman Catholicism by the full rite of baptism (I haven't personally seen it, though).

I'm curious: What do you make of the letters of HH Pope Timothy II? They seem very clear (at least in the translations that I have read, since I don't know Syriac) that the reception of Chalcedonians who wish to return to orthodoxy is to be by profession of faith after an appropriate period of reflection, though I suppose that needs to be put into context for today's times (i.e., the division was obviously much newer then, so the Latins and Byzantines of that time were not necessarily the same as they are now, in terms of theology and practice).

On a personal level, I have always felt very blessed to have been received by the full rite of baptism. It was on the same day as the youngest member of our parish (a baby girl of 80 days) was baptized, so it was extra-special for everyone.

 

[StephenMosesDioscorus]

First, Christos Anesti/PiKhristos Aftonf!

It is wonderful to 'see' a new brother here. We are sadly very few on this website. I welcome your voice in our discussions, and I hope you will find your time here edifying.

Thank you for the additional information/correction. I was unaware that the agreement was not accepted by the Holy Synod. That does clarify matters somewhat, as I have heard that some bishops are still receiving converts from Roman Catholicism by the full rite of baptism (I haven't personally seen it, though).

I'm curious: What do you make of the letters of HH Pope Timothy II? They seem very clear (at least in the translations that I have read, since I don't know Syriac) that the reception of Chalcedonians who wish to return to orthodoxy is to be by profession of faith after an appropriate period of reflection, though I suppose that needs to be put into context for today's times (i.e., the division was obviously much newer then, so the Latins and Byzantines of that time were not necessarily the same as they are now, in terms of theology and practice).

On a personal level, I have always felt very blessed to have been received by the full rite of baptism. It was on the same day as the youngest member of our parish (a baby girl of 80 days) was baptized, so it was extra-special for everyone.

Khen Omethmi Aftonf! Please keep me in your prayers, for my repentance.

Yes, you’re right, the current Coptic practice of receiving chalcedonians doesn’t add up very well to what we have in our history, like what we read from St. Severus of Antioch. They were originally just received by confession of faith.

So in this regard I believe the Syriac church’s practice is more accurate, at least in regards to Roman Catholics.

Perhaps our synods will address these issues, somewhere down the line, so that we have a uniform practice identical to our early fathers.

But, as to your original point, I agree with you. Not repeating chalcedonian sacraments imply we accept their validity.

However, as you know, in our tradition this is more implied than stated outright.

Keep me in your prayers. I need them!

 

[The Liturgist]

Khen Omethmi Aftonf! Please keep me in your prayers, for my repentance.

Yes, you’re right, the current Coptic practice of receiving chalcedonians doesn’t add up very well to what we have in our history, like what we read from St. Severus of Antioch. They were originally just received by confession of faith.

So in this regard I believe the Syriac church’s practice is more accurate, at least in regards to Roman Catholics.

Perhaps our synods will address these issues, somewhere down the line, so that we have a uniform practice identical to our early fathers.

But, as to your original point, I agree with you. Not repeating chalcedonian sacraments imply we accept their validity.

However, as you know, in our tradition this is more implied than stated outright.

Keep me in your prayers. I need them!

Welcome!

Are you aware of the 1991 ecumenical agreement between the Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox churches that establishes a limited intercommunion in the Middle East? Indeed one cannot convert from one church to the other, apparently, if I read the agreement correctly. When the Antiochian Metropolitan and Syriac Archbishop of Aleppo were abducted travelling together back to their city (which has sadly been ruined by the civil war, Old Aleppo was a beautiful place), both the Syriac and Antiochian churches prayed and continued to pray for both bishops.

Also, there is an agreement dating from the era of Pope Shenouda between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria which facilitates intermarriage between Copts and Alexandrian Greeks, and I believe it allows communion in either church for such married couples. I have also heard of Copts receiving the Eucharist at St. Catharine’s Monastery in Sinai, which represents almost all of the autonomous Church of Sinai under the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem (I think the Church of Sinai has a few chapels outside the walls of St. Catharine, but I have no idea what state they are in).

 

[The Liturgist]

Khen Omethmi Aftonf! Please keep me in your prayers, for my repentance.

Absolutely. Please pray for me as well.

It is wonderful to see two new Oriental Orthodox members who have recently joined, yourself and @coorilose of the Indian Orthodox Church. This takes us to four, including @dzheremi and @Pavel Mosko , who is a convert to the Coptic church who also interestingly was for a time a member of the Assyrian Church of the East, which in my experience does not have a good relationship with the Coptic church (probably because they venerate Nestorius, despite having discarded his Christology for a more sensible quasi-Chalcedonian model under Mar Babai in the early 6th century) although it does have a friendly relationship with the Syriac Orthodox Church.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Question is in the title.

Thanks

I've been out of the Coptic game for a decade, but to give the position of my Coptic Abouna of former years...


Abouna Salib was completely enthusiastic about the Eastern Orthodox, when I went out to lunch with him many years ago and was quizzing him about the fine details between the two Communions he said, "All Orthodox churches are the same", basically implying there are no serious differences between the two etc. Now if you know anything Church history, or the Coptic Hagiography (certain Coptic saints are unique, and some of them are lionized for standing up to imperial EO persecution) this is a bit of an oversimplification if you want to be really nitpicky. But I think, it did represent his personal position and that of the bishops he knew etc. basically, of being really enthusiastic about the EO. And this came out in other ways, like Bible classes sometimes reading EO books like Bishop Kallistos Ware's, "The Orthodox Way". But anyway, on the EO front a complete slam dunk as far as sacraments being recognized, the only thing that would shoot it down is the priest basically violating their own canon law or rubrics and not following their actual rite!



On the Catholic front things are not quite as positive but I think it would work probably for most things except Baptism (difference in Rite), assuming their is a good reason for it (the lack of EO or OO clergy in a region). IF for example there were no OO priests or EO churches in an area, or within reasonable driving distance (an hour or less time each way)., then I would see consent being given to receive Communion etc. (I say this based on basic pastoral care practices especially what use to happen long ago when people went war, especially among the Eastern Orthodox).

There are some notable "Devil in the Details in regard to things like Baptism, where the rites of the Copts are often very different than those of Roman Catholics, where I suspect anyone that was Latin baptized would get a Coptic Economía baptism, (the baptism would be redone just to make sure all the right boxes are checked just so the person is received in the Church the right way (Tripple immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost). If the person actually was baptized this way, I'm sure the baptism would be recognized, and they would simply be Chrismated (anointed with oil). ( I say this based on my own Coptic baptism, I was baptized in a Independent Lutheran Church (former Missouri Synod). I met the basic Coptic criteria except I was not triple immersed, and there was no anointing with oil afterward.)


I would add that while the Catholic Church is not as positive as the EO it is still seen pretty positively.
1) Young Coptic men would often find themselves an attractive Roman Catholic wife, when their local parishes had a shortage of eligible ladies. (These ladies however would have to become Coptic Orthodox for consent to be given for the marriage).

2) The Coptic art of Iconography had died out for centuries only to be brought back in recent decades, but Coptic churches often have a decent amount of Roman Catholic paintings, besides other art from the EO, in addition to the new Coptic iconography adorning the main Sancturary.

3) A certain minority of Coptic Orthodox are former Coptic Catholics that became Orthodox through marriage so there are friendly ties to Catholics of the different Catholic Churches.

 

[dzheremi]

I've been out of the Coptic game for a decade, but to give the position of my Coptic Abouna of former years...
But anyway, on the EO front a complete slam dunk as far as sacraments being recognized, the only thing that would shoot it down is the priest basically violating their own canon law or rubrics and not following their actual rite!

So...not a slam dunk, then?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

So...not a slam dunk, then

That comment was an afterthought based on websites of various "noncanonical" folks, that use to be listed on web sites GOARCH and the Orthodox Research Institute. They are not large in number compared to canonical places, but living in the west and free world you got to allow for fact that some folks that have an Orthodox name, and look Orthodox as far as EO, OO goes are not in Communion with the Apostolic Sees, and a smaller fraction may be taking big liberties with the rite itself. This kind of thing is especially found in Catholicism, post Vatican II, where all kinds of modernizations came in besides the Novus Ordo where you could have such extremes like puppet masses, rave masses etc. that Catholics coined a brand-new term to describe it, "Liturgical Abuse".

 

[RileyG]

Hypothetically speaking, all I will have to if, if I converted to OO, is receive the mystery of Chrismation to be a full member of the Church?

 

[The Liturgist]

Hypothetically speaking, all I will have to if, if I converted to OO, is receive the mystery of Chrismation to be a full member of the Church?

If you join the Syriac Orthodox, I think so. The Coptic Orthodox will rebaptize anyone not baptized by three immersions. By the way, if you joined the Eastern Orthodox, in theory you could convert to any Oriental Orthodox church without Chrismation.

Bear in mind that while they are in communion, the liturgy and praxis of each of the Oriental Orthodox churches is quite distinct.

 

[RileyG]

If you join the Syriac Orthodox, I think so. The Coptic Orthodox will rebaptize anyone not baptized by three immersions. By the way, if you joined the Eastern Orthodox, in theory you could convert to any Oriental Orthodox church without Chrismation.

Bear in mind that while they are in communion, the liturgy and praxis of each of the Oriental Orthodox churches is quite distinct.

Thanks for your response.

 

[Tigran1245]

As for the Armenian Church, we are allowed, if necessary, to receive communion in any other Apostolic Churches, including the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics.

Accordingly, both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can freely receive the Sacraments in the Armenian Church.

 

[The Liturgist]

As for the Armenian Church, we are allowed, if necessary, to receive communion in any other Apostolic Churches, including the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics.

Accordingly, both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can freely receive the Sacraments in the Armenian Church.

Good. Welcome to ChristianForums, its been about a year or so since we had an active member of the Armenian Church, so your presence is welcome.