Coptic -- A teaching on the Our Father

  • Thread starter Thread starter Divine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Divine3

Guest

No, they are not (as of yet šŸ™‚ accepting the Pope) but if we want unity it surly canā€™t hurt us to grow in prayer together.
 
Divine3 said:
No, they are not (as of yet šŸ™‚ accepting the Pope) but if we want unity it surly canā€™t hurt us to grow in prayer together.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dominusvobiscum1 said:
A lot of people seem to think the Coptic Church is just one entity.
Click to expand...
Oh thatā€™s true, they are very much like Eastern Orthodoxy in how they are communion of Churchesā€¦ though also, their ecclesiology is a bit different and they do not tend to argue over some issues that trouble EO.
 
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.
 
Dominusvobiscum1 said:
OO have been separated from the Catholic Church since 451( the first real schism), and the Eastern Orthodox in 1054;
Click to expand...
The OOā€™s has been in schism from the EOC since 451ā€¦
There is some inter-Communion between the Copts and the Antiochians where a local Church may not existā€¦ Not for clergy, but for laityā€¦

geo
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Original sentence was probably referring to EOC being in schism with Catholic Church since 1054.
Click to expand...
I donā€™t think soā€“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 wasnā€™t yet engaged in a juvenile internecine squabble . . .
 
Divine3 said:
And the women didnā€™t start it either. šŸ˜¶
Click to expand...
While thereā€™s a temptation to say, ā€œif the western clergy had been married, too, maybe some sense would have been instilled!ā€ā€“but this was bishops and patriarchs on each side that made the mess.
 
dochawk said:
Being in schism with EO and Catholic in 451 means the same things as the Orthodox and Catholic Church wasnā€™t yet engaged in a juvenile internecine squabble . . .
Click to expand...
I agree - The poster seemed confused - But has no monopoly! And may have simply ā€œmis-spokeā€ā€¦ Still no monopolyā€¦

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 decreedā€¦

I think the OOCā€™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 Elijahā€¦ ā€œā€¦IF you can receive itā€¦ā€ So the formulaic is fraught with difficulties in our fallen human understanding - And Essence has two meaningsā€¦ Aristotelian meaning core identity, and wealth, for in Greek, oneā€™s ousia is his wealth - The essence of a king is his kingdom, etcā€¦

geo
 
George720 said:
I think the OOCā€™s idea was that if the Persons of the Trinity were of one essence,
Click to expand...
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, ā€œuhm, well, you see, they didnā€™t believe what weā€™ve been saying they did all this time, and vice versa. Uhh, never mindā€ šŸ¤ÆšŸ˜”

Cue Article 1 of Brest one more time . . .
 
There was a joint statement after a discussion that lasted years. I donā€™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 ā€œviolent agreementā€ . . .
 
dochawk said:
There was a joint statement after a discussion that lasted yearsā€¦
the gist was that they found themselves in what I call ā€œviolent agreementā€ . . .
Click to expand...
There is no question that the EO and OO agreement is across the board, and that the schism only relates to a single issueā€¦ Antioch and the Copts were unable to figure out what all the fuss was aboutā€¦ Yet the Copts were unable to accept the 4th Councilā€¦

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 isā€¦ 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-responsibilityā€¦ 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 soulā€¦

It should be noted that the term ā€˜essenceā€™ is a western term used as a gloss for ousia, and that ousia itself has two meanings in the Greekā€¦ I was hoping someone here might have thought their way through these matters - They go way deepā€¦

geo
 
Last edited:
George720 said:
Yet the Copts were unable to accept the 4th Councilā€¦
Click to expand...
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 didnā€™t even believe!) in place . . .

:roll_eyes:šŸ¤”šŸ¤Æ
 
dochawk said:
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 didnā€™t even believe!) in place . . .
Click to expand...
I am simply trying to understand their respective and conflicting original grasp of the issues as they were understood in their own termsā€¦ I cannot judge them apart from thatā€¦

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

Iā€™d suggest hunting down the joint statement itself, and if itā€™s too ā€œdeepā€ to initially process, looking for non-polemical commentary directly o it.
 
dochawk said:
the very short version is that they were saying the same thing and it was a linguistic difference they never got past.
Click to expand...
I have that part - My Coptic friend and I went through it - The question abides, however, as to the original divisorā€¦
dochawk said:
Iā€™d suggest hunting down the joint statement itself,
Click to expand...
The joint statement failed to identify the original actual issue, and denied there was one of substance, but was simply a linguistic matterā€¦ Now that may be true, but 1500 years of non-Communion?? It just seems like there must be more than mere linguistic discontinuityā€¦ But what do I know?
dochawk said:
if itā€™s too ā€œdeepā€ to initially process, look for non-polemical commentary directly o it.
Click to expand...
Forgive meā€¦

geo
 
Weā€™ll probably Neve have a ā€œgoodā€ explanation the original split. Both sideswipe arguing against positions that the other didnā€™t even hold . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top