I heard it said that there was a document from Pope John Paul II and Coptic Pope Shenouda saying that the doctrinal differences between the Coptic/ Oriental Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were only differences of language, not of substance. I’m not sure what the document is called, if anyone has a reference that would make this thread much clearer.
Does this mean that the only obstacle to union now is that the Copts have their own Pope? Is it likely that when the Copts are looking for a successor to Pope Shenouda they might come back into full union instead?
I don’t think we Copts have the same level of motivation as the Assyrians. The Assyrians in population were far out numbered by their Chaldean counterparts. By a figure of 3 to 1. (I heard figures as 250k Assyrians vs. 750 k Chaldeans in Iraq).
As I can personally testify being in Assyrian church can be a lonely business. Having so few people world wide who share your beliefs. Not to mention the Nestorian heretical specter hovering over your head. Anyway I think there was a lot of pressure to join a larger body/ Communion over the years. Especially recently with all the persecution and chaos in that part of the world.
In contrast the Coptic church is millions strong. It far out numbers its Catholic counterpart by I think 50 to 1. or more. It is a member of larger Communion the Oriental Orthodox. While there are some EO hardliners that beat the monophyte drum, it also is more times then not recognized as being “Orthodox” by its EO counterparts. And it shares activities with them. This is especially true for the youth, who frequently take part in fellowships, sporting events and prayer meetings with Greek Orthodox.
In short I just don’t think there is the motivation there to unite. I also think there is another factor at work. As this article mentions
Reviving an Ancient Faith
christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/december3/2.38.html
QUOTE
The internal differences are not limited to Shenouda and Matta. The Egyptian press frequently reports many other intrachurch differences. Issues often arise over the pope’s authority. Pope Shenouda once described himself as the father of the church. Just as children have to obey their father, he explained, so the children of the church have to obey him. Many do. But not all.
Shenouda’s influence has been dominant since 1985. The balance has tilted in the direction of his style of church government. Religion scholar Wolfram Reiss, whose research on Coptic reform was published in the German journal Studies in Oriental Church History, believes Shenouda’s greatest influence on the church is in nominating so many new bishops and creating new dioceses.
Shenouda often subdivides a diocese into smaller parts after its bishop dies. Bishops, in Shenouda’s view, should be closer to the priests and believers. Some dioceses, such as in the Sinai, are extremely small. But Reiss concluded, “The bishops prior to 1971 all represented large bishoprics, which gave them strength and influence. A larger number of bishops in smaller bishoprics increases the power of the patriarch to an extent no patriarch has enjoyed in centuries.”
QUOTE
As this article indicates I think our Patriarch has been moving in the direction of becoming stronger in his office, and much more papal. So I see this as going in the opposite direction of unification with Rome. Unlike what the article insinuates this is also not a new developement when you consider other things out of history. Especially the dependance of the Ethiopian church for many centuries. IF I recall the Coptic Pope appointed the Ethiopian patriarch for many centuries.
)!