Coptic Orthodox coming into communion with St Peter

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The Patriarchate was called one of the sees of St. Peter, along with Rome and Antioch, by a Roman Pope no less if memory serves correct. By that admission, you would already be in communion with St. Peter.

I know that you do not intend this as a serious argument, but I would like to address it anyway since it is relevant to the thread topic (“coming into communion with St. Peter”). It would be a mistake to read very much into this letter whatever way about papal primacy beyond what it actually says. Here are a few points that may or may not be relevant to this question.

(1) Gregory says that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch together form one see, not that they are independently three sees of Peter. If one were not in communion with all three, he would not be in communion with the see of Peter in the way which Gregory is speaking.

(2) He is speaking figuratively since three bishops are obviously not literally presiding over the same see. He is speaking of their common Petrine origin. Peter is metaphorically presiding over his see (which is not literally one see, but made up of the three original patriarchates) “in the persons of his successors.”

(3) He is emphasizing the dignity of Peter above the other Apostles (e.g. Andrew). “Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority…”

(4) He is not by saying that they are “see of one” saying that they are the same in rank, dignity, Petrineness or whatever mark you want to use. Notice when he blesses the Alexandrian Church, he says, “I have however sent you, as a small blessing from the Church of Saint Peter who loves you…” Conversely, when he speaks of the blessing given to him from Eulogius, he says, “Moreover I have received the blessing of the holy Evangelist Mark, according to the note appended to your letter.” If he were writing the letter to insist that they were equally successors of Peter, this would have been a good place to clarify that his blessing was equally from Peter or from the Church of Peter.

Without knowing the context, we cannot read into this very much. Let me offer two radically different possibilities, neither of which are likely, for the sake of example. Maybe Gregory was miffed at Eulogius asserting himself among the successors of St. Peter because Gregory thought that he alone was the successor of St. Peter, and he tried to placate Eulogius in a tactful way by subtly asserting his primacy as seen in (4). On the other hand, maybe nothing should be read at all into (4) and maybe Gregory was insisting that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were all exactly equal in every respect.

Neither of these are likely. There is no reason to assume that Gregory is being sarcastic in what he said, even if he held to a full-blown modern conception of the papal office. Neither would it make sense for Gregory to assert Rome, Alexandria and Antioch are all exactly equal, since it is attested that they were ranked first, second and third respectively. In sum, I would not produce this letter as a proof of papal primacy, but I would not use this to deny it either, nor to deny that the bishop of Rome was successor of Peter in a preeminent way.

The full text of the letter is here.

newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

 

[Zekariya]

Copts rebaptizing Catholics is a modern thing and has nothing to do with the Filioque:

(3) It is only in the most recent times that Catholics have been required to be baptised on their reception which is an innovation and contrary to the teaching of our holy Fathers.
Source: britishorthodox.org/4181/british-orthodox-submission-to-the-holy-synod-on-catholic-baptism/

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Blind Didymus,

The Coptic Orthodox Church has always followed the practice of re-baptising anyone who was baptised by a group which did not have a correct view of the Godhead, even if the formula of the baptism was valid. Unfortunately, Coptic view of the filioque clause is that it changes who God is, thus giving the impression that Catholics worship a different deity. (Note: I realise that this is a mistake on the part of the Copts due to their misunderstanding of the filioque.)

The theology of filioque has never been an issue with the COC. It was not an issue at Florence (the only ones of the OO communion to have concerns over it were the Syrians, but the explanations of the Latins had satisfied the Syrians at Florence). It was not an issue in the (about) 100 years of intercommunion between Latin missionaries and the COC in Egypt during (IIRC) the 17th - 18th centuries (a unique establishment which was eventually ended by the Pope of Rome). It has never been brought up in the several OOC-CC colloquies. When I was in the COC, the only concerns I’d heard was over the idea that the Pope of Rome attempted to unilaterally make a change for the entire Church universal (which actually never happened). I do know that in more recent documents (perhaps since the late 1990’s) the matter has come up in Synodal documents, but I am not aware that it is over the theology per se, but merely the addition, as explained above. The notion that the theology of filioque is questionable might be due to EO influence as a result of closer contact with the EO (particularly their Alexandrian Patriarchate) since the 1990’s.

I have heard a few theories about when rebaptism started:
(1) It has always been so because of the filioque issue. This is not likely, since filioque has never historically been an issue between the COC and CC;
(2) Some claim that it began at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries when the Coptic Catholic Patriarchate was established. The theory claims that Catholics started to rebaptize the Coptic Orthodox who came into communion with Rome. As a reaction, the COC (it is claimed) started to rebaptize Catholics. Given that Rome has historically been the stiffest opponent to any sort of rebaptism (vid., the controversy with St. Cyprian), I think it is safe to throw that theory out the window;
(3) Some claim it began when the COC became founding members of the World Council of Churches, and since the CC would not join — well. . .

I believe it began only after the Christological Agreement between the ACOE and the CC in the mid-1990’s. Met. Bishoy was the main hierarch spearheading talks with the ACOE, and when those talks broke down (because the ACOE refused to anathematize Nestorius by name), I believe he took that rather personally. And when the ACOE and the CC actually reached a Christological agreement – well, you can imagine how he must have felt. It is interesting that Met. Bishoy has been the leading voice in the rebaptism matter. Seriously, if the COC had been rebaptizing Catholics for a very long time (as some claim), the CC would have made a stink of it long ago. But news about the rebaptism issue bet the CC and COC is really very recent.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Thanks for the heads up with the messages. When I’m busy, I rarely look at my e-mails or PM’s. I’ll take the time to look over my e-mail and PM’s this weekend.

 

[PJM]

=coptsoldier;11636842]Hello all,

Im a coptic orthodox christian who is very passionate about reunification. Due to recent stands by the coptic synod it has, with great sorrow, pushed me into the confirmation of a need to come into reunification without my beloved Church. The coptic church has started the practise of rebaptising catholics who convert. This goes against everything I believe in.

As well, I believe the nicene creed, where we say and in one holy catholic church. This had made me realiaw the true need of the see of st peter, as around him church unity resides. Otherwise it turns into factional war.

I was wondering whether I am the first to make this journey, or whether others here have done also. Please remember me at divine liturgy, and in your intercessions to the All-Holy Theotokos.

In Christ Jesus,

Coptsoldier

WILL DO:thumbsup:

If we can be of assistance please ask,

God bless you brother!
Patrick

 

[Nestor_kea]

Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.

Interesting… I mean strange. Serious, poem, hyperpolite?

Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.

If this would not be starting with “whatever good I hear of you” I would read it “now I am stopping to be hyperpolite.”

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Copts rebaptizing Catholics is a modern thing and has nothing to do with the Filioque:

(3) It is only in the most recent times that Catholics have been required to be baptised on their reception which is an innovation and contrary to the teaching of our holy Fathers.
Source: britishorthodox.org/4181/british-orthodox-submission-to-the-holy-synod-on-catholic-baptism/

Thank for the correction. Please forgive my error. Think I recall who told me this though unsure about the possibility of contacting him about this mistake. Taking this into consideration, it may be quite likely that it was due to the influence of EO thought upon this person that he had informed me as he did.

Thank you also to Marduk for another beneficial history lesson. Your theory seems likely although I am not convinced that’s the only reason the talks with the ACOE broke down. In my review of the documents (of which I have only read some), it seems as though the Copts had difficulty comprehending the perspective of the ACOE in the terms which the latter explained it.

 

[dzheremi]

If you read over the history of the meetings at the monastery in the mid-1990s (before the talks were ended), it is obvious that the two groups had different agendas from the get go. The Copts thought that they were meeting to convince the ACoE to cease veneration of Nestorius, Theodore, et al. as a precondition for eventual union/communion, whereas the ACoE…I don’t know. I’ve only ever read it from the Coptic side, but what is recorded there from the ACoE side seems like they were completely blindsided, as though they thought the meeting wouldn’t involve that matter. I can’t remember exactly who said it, but the quote that sticks out in my mind was something like “Just as we do not ask the Copts to anathematize Cyril, we do not anathematize Nestorius” (or some such; it’s been a while since I looked over any of this). So they thought we could play nice together and just ignore the fact that central theologians in both traditions were in direct conflict. I don’t really know why they thought that, but given that difference in perspective I’m really not surprised that the talks led to nothing, and were eventually scrapped.

 

[jimmy]

It’s sacrilegious, and Protestants re-baptize too!

Obviously you think that, because you think you have a valid baptism. The Copts obviously don’t think so.

 

[Peter_J]

Obviously you think that, because you think you have a valid baptism.

hmmm … I don’t know why you say “Obviously …” Personally I would never claim that it’s sacrilegious but I do believe we Catholics have valid baptism.

 

[josie_L]

The Catholic Church does not “rebaptize” those who have “been validly baptized but chose to do this as a public declaration of their acceptance of and into the Roman Catholic faith.” If this was actually done, it was a grave error.

Absolutely!

 

[josie_L]

Obviously you think that, because you think you have a valid baptism. The Copts obviously don’t think so.

I don’t think, I know, i.e., it has already been stated that re-baptism is not practiced by all Copts (not even sure if the majority are doing it, i.e., re-baptizing Catholics). So who are you to say “The Copts obviously don’t think so” as if they were all united on this issue?

p.s. Would you be okay if we started re-baptizing Copts?

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think, I know,

Let me put it to you this way: Have you ever heard an Anglican say that it is “sacrilegious” for us Catholics to reordain ex-Anglican ministers?

 

[jimmy]

hmmm … I don’t know why you say “Obviously …” Personally I would never claim that it’s sacrilegious but I do believe we Catholics have valid baptism.

It is a matter of perspective. The Copts think Catholics are heretics with a faulty Christology. So they don’t accept our baptism. You can call it sacrilegious or what ever, but that really doesn’t say anything. The Copts obviously don’t agree. They don’t accept the Catholic idea.

To be offended by the Coptic practice seems to imply a relativist perspective. It is to assume that we all agree that we are on equal ground. But we all know that isn’t the case on either side. From the Catholic side the Copts are at the very least schismatics, from the Coptic side Catholics are heretics. Being offended by the Copts is like a Lutheran being offended that he can’t participate in the Eucharist at a Catholic Church.

 

[jimmy]

I don’t think, I know, i.e., it has already been stated that re-baptism is not practiced by all Copts (not even sure if the majority are doing it, i.e., re-baptizing Catholics). So who are you to say “The Copts obviously don’t think so” as if they were all united on this issue?

p.s. Would you be okay if we started re-baptizing Copts?

You know by faith. And the Coptic bishop who would rebaptize you would know you are a heretic ( from his perspective), which is often equivalent to apostasy or the denial of Christ, especially when it is associated with Christology.

It would seem more honest to me if Catholics started rebaptizing Copts. With the modern idea fostered by pastor aeternus the lines have become blurred. But we all know the lines are still there. I am no traditionalist, but in many ways I sympathize with them. We all know that ECNS is still the teaching of the CC.

Peter J’s response expresses the whole of my point. Should an Anglican be offended by our denial of their sacraments?

 

[dzheremi]

I was the one who had mistakenly written that not all Copts do it because I had remembered incorrectly that the British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate had begun accepting Catholic converts without baptism. But those posts (as well as the post where I corrected my error, with linked reference to the letter from the BOC to the Holy Synod in Egypt stating their view that this is the practice that the Church should return to, as it is our historic practice; another user has subsequently linked to that same document, so I will not do so again here) were taken out of the thread by the moderator, so perhaps Josie L didn’t see them.

If that is the case: No, Josie L., I am sorry for misleading you earlier due to my own mistake, but it is not true that some Copts don’t baptize Catholics. Apparently all do, even though (personal opinion time) none should, since our historic practice is to accept all Chalcedonians the same (without baptism, with confession of faith, etc.). To the extent that we have moved away from the historic practice of our fathers, it is because of increased understanding of the differences between different groups of Chalcedonians (i.e., RCs and EOs) that have led recent popes to conclude that we cannot treat Catholics as we do Eastern Orthodox, as Catholics are even farther away from the true faith (not just in Christology, but in ecclesiology, soteriology, etc.). Again, I do not think this is the right thing to be doing, but I do understand the motivations behind doing it, and hope you do now, too. In light of the idea that in accepting baptism we are accepting also particular dogmas of a given communion (see HG Bishop Youssef on that here), there can be no such thing as accepting the baptism of another communion with whom we are dogmatically disunited on so many issues. (And, since I can sense you thinking it, why then do we apparently accept EO baptisms when we are not united on matters of Christology? Honestly, you got me…this is precisely why I’m against carving up the Chalcedonians in this way, and really do think that a confession of faith is perfectly acceptable, since it is what you are accepting by becoming Orthodox that I care about, not what you might’ve accepted before when baptized into a heterodox confession…but still, I am obedient and can only hope that the Synod sees the wisdom in the BOC’s very reasonable and historically consistent suggestion.)

 

[coptsoldier]

I know of coptic priests who would only chrismate the catholic. But this is rare

 

[Peter_J]

Being offended by the Copts is like a Lutheran being offended that he can’t participate in the Eucharist at a Catholic Church.

Well, there are different variations of the meaning of “offended”. I think it’s understandable for Anglicans to be offended, in a certain sense of the word, but ex-Anglicans ministers being reordained if/when they join the Roman Communion … but can also think of Anglicans getting a little carried away (IMO) in their complaints about it.

 

[twf]

Well, there are different variations of the meaning of “offended”. I think it’s understandable for Anglicans to be offended, in a certain sense of the word, but ex-Anglicans ministers being reordained if/when they join the Roman Communion … but can also think of Anglicans getting a little carried away (IMO) in their complaints about it.

It is also important to analyze each individual case on its own terms. The Anglican Ordinariates, for example, were established at the request of groups of Anglicans seeking full communion with Rome - not the other way round. But I am not sure if your analogy is 100% accurate. Rome has definitely ruled that Anglican orders are not typically valid - this has been the position of the Catholic Church for well over a century. The Copts, on the other hand, traditionally did not re-baptize Catholics, and others within their own communion (Syriacs, Armenians) explicitly recognize our baptism…so I am not sure if it is exactly the same situation.

 

[Peter_J]

Rome has definitely ruled that Anglican orders are not typically valid - this has been the position of the Catholic Church for well over a century.

This is a common misconception. You’re right about the over-a-century part (Apostolicae Curae was 1896) but the position only says that the original Anglican orders were lost. In other words, we can definitely say that if Anglicans have valid orders, it is through the Old Catholic lines of succession. (Anglicans and Old Catholics came into full communion in the early 20th century, but I forget when exactly.)

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

That kind of exception is presumably why he said that Anglican orders are not “typically valid.”