www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Nestorian Churches and Monophysite Churches of the East

I don't know either. I just remember reading about the agreement with the Assyrian Church in the Latin Rite diocesan newspaper. However, my Latin Traditionalist friend went ballistic. He thinks it's one of the signs of the end times.

Dear ByzanTN,

You could tell your Latin traditionalist friend that Pope Honorius had been amenable to agreement with the "Nestorians" on the basis of Monothelitism.

And that was long before Pope John Paul II was ever on the scene!

The fact is that the Assyrians affirm orthodox Christology with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

What remains in the way of full unity between the Chalcedonian, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches is the socio-cultural weight of decades of separation and estrangement from one another.

Alex

Thank you very much for the references.

Reading them, my general impression was "duh! of course they have a valid Eucharist".

Which is more important:

A historic faith that has maintained belief in the Real Presence since the Last Supper?

Or a few specific words?

I'll be sure to bring this up next time I'm discussing things with some of my traditionalist friends. I'm sure they'll chalk it up to that wacky John Paul II.

Incognitus,

You could be right.

mardukm,

I had heard otherwise. Several years ago, the Coptic Catholic patriarch, Stephanos Ghattas II, stated in an interview that Pope Shenouda had declared Catholic sacraments to be invalid.
A Byzantine Catholic priest-friend of mine, who has contact with the Coptic Church, said to me that he heard the same thing, but I have been unable to get an official confirmation from the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Do you or anyone else have any further information about this declaration by Pope Shenouda?

I have no information about any specific declaration of Pope Shenouda, but the Coptic Orthodox regularly rebaptize Catholics who join them.
Incognitus

I don't think this is true. The Oriental Orthodox are a Communion of Churches. What Marduk (who, btw, is Coptic Orthodox) described above is certainly the case. The same holds true between the Latin and Armenian Churches.

May I also add that the Syrian Orthodox Church, another Oriental Orthodox Church, has the same official agreement with the Catholic Church - being allowed to receive the Sacraments in each others' Churches in cases of emergency.

BTW, we do believe the Sacraments of the Catholic Church are valid. HH Pope Shenouda never said such a thing. I mentioned it in passing to several Coptic Orthodox friends, and they said they could not believe the Pope would say such a thing. Some even surmised that the Catholic Patriarch may have had insincere motives for making such a false statement. Of course, I myself would wait for OFFICIAL sources before making judgment to see if the Catholic Patriarch actually said such a thing.

Blessings,

Marduk

Alex,

I would disagree greatly with calling Pope Honorius a monothelite. St Maximus the Confessor, probably the earliest major opponent to the monothelites, was given that charge. He pointed out that the text in question, however, is out of context.

The context was on the human nature of Christ, and was there a "good will" and an "evil will" within the humanity. This question not only was for Christ, but for humanity in general. The Pope rightfully said no, there is only one will. St Maximus therefore points out, the discussion on the human nature of Christ rightfully says there is one will in the nature.

The monothelite situation was more complex.

But I just like pointing this out, because many people confuse what Honorius said, and like many others (as we discussed) obviously miscommunication can make "legends."

I need to make a correction to my previous statement. The statement should have read "Pope Shenouda had declared Catholic baptisms to be invalid."

Patriarch Stephanos visted the Coptic Catholic parish in Los Angeles in August 1996. I myself visited the parish for the occasion in order to meet the patriarch.

After the celebration of the liturgy in honor of the Assumption of Our Lady, Patriarch Stephanos was interviewed for a local Catholic newsletter. I was allowed to be present for the interview. The interview was conducted in French between His Beatitude and the interviewer. There was a Coptic Catholic priest present to help in the translations when His Beatitude switched to speaking in Arabic.
During the interview, Patriarch Stephanos was asked about the state of relations with the Coptic Orthodox Church, he stated that Pope Shenouda (a few years before 1996) had declared Catholic baptisms to be invalid, and that this had strained relation between the two churches.
The following month, an article based on the interview was published, and the statement was printed.

As I also mentioned in my previous post, a Byzantine Catholic priest who has contact with the Coptic Orthodox Church, heard about this as well.

Just two weeks ago, I attended Sunday liturgy at the Coptic Catholic parish. During a converstion with one of the parishioners, I asked how relations between the Coptic Catholic and Coptic Orthodox were in Los Angeles. He stated that they were generally good, but there is a problem when it comes to marriages between a Coptic Catholic and Orthodox. The Coptic Orthodox priest will not conduct the marriage unless the Catholic is baptized!

This is not the first time that I have heard of Coptic Orthodox priests requiring that Catholics be re-baptized.

If the Coptic Orthodox Church recognizes the validity of Catholic sacraments, then why are there Coptic Orthodox priests requiring re-baptism of Catholics?

Because Copts beleive that baptism can only be valid if done by triple immersion and if done by a validly ordained priest. The high number of baptisms done by sprinkinling (which I understand is not generally acceptable by RC standards) or pouring, or the chrismation of Protestants, made Pope Shenouda worried about the form of baptism being used by Catholics.

anastasios

So then Pope Shenouda did in fact make that statement about Catholic baptisms being invalid?

Dear Friends,

I'm not sure, but this sounds to me to be a question directly impacting Coptic and Egytpian Catholics as opposed to Coptics and Catholics in general. There are probably some serious considerations and details we are not privy to which led the Coptic Pope to say such a thing (if he indeed said it).

I know the Armenian Catholics were proselytizing to such an alarming degree in Armenia that the Armenian Orthodox Archbishop Khajag Barsamian had to take his case directly to Rome to get the Armenian Catholics to back off. Perhaps something similar is going on there?

Stealing sheep (if this is what is happening) can certainly get a whole lot of bad blood going. Something the Egyptian Catholics are doing must have offended the Coptic Pope to prompt such a stance.

Ghazar

I am not aware of his saying this. He merely instituted the practice of baptising all Catholics because 1) it was unclear if they had been baptised properly (i.e. by triune immersion; if indeed they had been, then it would have been valid, but since this is not widely practiced in the Roman Church there is doubt for the Copts) and 2) because of proselytism.

anastasios

As far as I know. The reason why the Copts Baptize Catholics again (at least Latin Catholics) is not because of the "invalidity" of their Baptism but because the Canons of the Coptic Church state that Baptism by triple immersion is absolutely necessary to become part of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Regarding the Coptic Catholics, the "re-baptism" is probably due to the proselitism thing (just as the Russian Church eventualy became "traditionalist" in its antipathy toward Rome).

Now as some pointed out, other Non-Chalcedonian Churches do have intercomunion with Catholics and recognize their sacraments. An Armenian Apostolic told me it's not necessary to be re-baptized again to become part of their Church. The Syrian Orthodox in Argentina do allow their members to receive sacraments from Catholics.

So why do people complain about Latin legalism?

After all the Orthodox East can be as legalistic as the most traditionalist Roman Catholics.