A question on Coptic Baptism

[fliesnow]

Most of you have probably seen an article like this within the last few days:

ncronline.org/news/world/pope-francis-and-coptic-pope-agree-not-re-baptize

which is probably in reference to this section of their joint declaration:

1. In obedience to the work of the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies the Church, keeps her throughout the ages, and leads her to full unity — that unity for which Jesus Christ prayed: Today, we, Pope Francis and Pope Tawadros II, in order to please the heart of the Lord Jesus, as well as that of our sons and daughters in the faith, mutually declare that 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. This we confess in obedience to the Holy Scriptures and the faith of the three Ecumenical Councils assembled in Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus. We ask God our Father to guide us, in the times and by the means that the Holy Spirit will choose, to full unity in the mystical Body of Christ.

Source

My question is: Why would we have been re-baptizing in the first place? From what Coptic rubrics I can find, they appear to use the Trinitarian formula, which means the Church should find them valid. Why would we insist on re-baptizing someone who is baptized validly?

On the other hand, if their baptisms are invalid, then why would we accept them now?

 

[PluniaZ]

I think the Catholic Church has always accepted Coptic baptism.

This could be a far bigger deal from the Copts’ perspective - this might be the first time the Copts are officially accepting Catholic baptism. But I don’t know for sure.

 

[Duane1966]

Most of you have probably seen an article like this within the last few days:

ncronline.org/news/world/pope-francis-and-coptic-pope-agree-not-re-baptize

which is probably in reference to this section of their joint declaration:

Source

My question is: Why would we have been re-baptizing in the first place? From what Coptic rubrics I can find, they appear to use the Trinitarian formula, which means the Church should find them valid. Why would we insist on re-baptizing someone who is baptized validly?

On the other hand, if their baptisms are invalid, then why would we accept them now?

We did not re-baptize, if the Trinutarian formula is used. Many Orthodox do not recognize Roman Catholic baptism, and such was the case with the Coptic Church.

 

[twf]

We DIDN’T re-baptize Coptic Orthodox converts to Catholicism. The statement is simply diplomatically written. The Coptic Orthodox didn’t necessarily accept our baptism previously. Praise God this has (apparently) been resolved.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Coptic Orthodox clergy typically never accepted baptisms done outside of the Oriental Orthodox Church, and that even included baptisms from the Eastern Orthodox Church. I think this stems from the ancient Alexandrian tradition on the re-baptism of heretics. I don’t think it was ever the official Coptic Orthodox position but it was certainly popular among Coptic Orthodox clergy to re-baptize those outside of Oriental Orthodoxy. Looks like today that’s not going to be happening much anymore within the Coptic Orthodox Church. On the other hand, the Catholic Church has always accepted Coptic Orthodox baptism as valid and never had them re-baptized.

 

[twf]

Has this statement been ratified by the Coptic Synod? Or does the Pope have the authority to bind the Coptic Church to this decision?

 

[adamhovey1988]

We DIDN’T re-baptize Coptic Orthodox converts to Catholicism. The statement is simply diplomatically written. The Coptic Orthodox didn’t necessarily accept our baptism previously. Praise God this has (apparently) been resolved.

 

[Duane1966]

We did not re-baptize, if the Trinutarian formula is used. Many Orthodox do not recognize Roman Catholic baptism, and such was the case with the Coptic Church.

Errrr, that should read Trinitarian. If the Trinutarian formula was used, then I am all for re-baptizing.