www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy Coptic Divine Liturgy

Well, I know that in the Western Church, the only liturgies (Masses) that are that long are the Easter Vigil and Palm Sunday, everything else is about an hour tops. I'm sure the same could be said about the Byzantine Rite churches, maybe a little over an hour, but even so. Haven't really attended too many Orthodox Divine Liturgies, though, although I did accidentally walk into a vespers/evening praise service at an Egyptian Festival once at St. Mark's Coptic Church. I thought it sounded great when I heard the end of it.

Well, I've done it. Last Sunday I attended the Divine Liturgy of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Amazing. I was utterly fascinated by the service.

The first thing that struck me was how young the congregation was. So many twentysomethings, teens, and children, many of them in active liturgical roles at the altar. I was at first perplexed at the sight of so many young people on the altar vested in white robes and deacon stoles, until it was explained to me afterwards that the Copts have various degrees of diaconate, and only the highest degree implies the equivalent of what we consider Holy Orders in the West. It was somewhat odd, nevertheless, to encounter a seven year old deacon!

Having been to Evening Praise at this church before, I was prepared for a shoeless congregation. Well, most of them were, at any rate; not all. One of the acolytes was completely barefoot. I was intrigued by the priest's headdress, called the "crown", which is shaped more or less like a Roman Catholic bishop's miter, only with a long white sheet hanging down from the back of it. The priest (who wielded a thurible fairly constantly) wore a vestment that was like an alb, but with embroidery; there was nothing like a chasuble worn over it. He also wore white slippers, as did some of the other liturgical ministers (others were simply unshod...like much of the congregation).

The hospitality I experienced was like the warm and welcoming hospitality I have experienced at other Orthodox churches I have visited, only more so. No fewer than five worshippers approached me during the (lengthy) service to bring me a service book and to offer to help me to follow along. I explained that it was my first time, and I really just wanted to look and listen. There was so much activity at the altar that the last thing I wanted was to bury my nose in a service book and miss it all.

I was surprised to discover that the Coptic Orthodox, unlike other Orthodox, exchange the "holy kiss" or "kiss of peace" with one another, as we do in the Roman Catholic Church. They do so by clasping their hands together (as they do in India when greeting one another, for example), kissing their fingertips, and then clasping the hand of the worshipper they are greeting. They then kiss their own fingertips a second time. The gesture is much more successful at expressing the notion of a "holy kiss" than is our contemporary Roman Catholic handshake (or wave, as is now so often the case). It's also a rather more touching gesture.

Incense is something that we do not get to experience often enough in the contemporary Roman Catholic Church. Having been attending Eastern liturgies routinely, now, for several months, I find myself disappointed by the lack of fragrance in the temples of my own Church whenever I attend Mass during the week. At this Coptic liturgy, the incense was fairly non-stop, and at one point it mingled with the aroma of cooking rising up from the church hall in the lower level. It began to seem as if one could actually taste the liturgy.

Although I was not surprised to find that Coptic Orthodox women cover their heads in church, I was not prepared for the sea of white lace mantillas on the right side of the aisle (women and men sit apart from one another, on opposite sides of the aisle). It looked at a glance like First Communion day at a Roman Catholic church.

The priest delivered his homily in English first, then again in Coptic. The liturgy, itself, was in both English and Coptic. The Middle Eastern style chanting was mezmerizing. Cymbals were employed to embellish the chant. Communion is a two-part affair. First, the Precious Body of Christ is distributed, then the congregation lines up a second time to receive the Precious Blood. They line up again after the service is over to receive blessed non-Eucharistic bread.

After the service, the priest delighted the congregation with letters from non-Copts who had attended the parish's Egyptian Festival held the previous weekend. They wrote to send donations and to express their satisfaction with the festival, most of them remarking on the interesting presentations about Coptic Orthodoxy that were offered in the church. Evidently, the church raised a very respectable amount of money during the festival.

When the service was completed, I left and walked out to my car. It's what Catholics do after Sunday worship...we rush out to our cars and go home (or go out for brunch). No. They were't having any of that. One of the deacons (Adel, whom I had met before) rushed out of the church after me (in his socks) and insisted that I come back inside to join everyone for lunch in the church hall and to meet the pastor. The pastor, Father Mark (a young man, like most everyone else there) was ordained by the late Pope Shenouda III specifically for this parish. The Pope of Alexandria is, in fact, this congregation's bishop. That surprised me, as did the revelation that Coptic priests, for the most part, are not seminary educated.

The entire experience, from beginning to end, was a delight. For me, the most touching moment of all, however, came with an introduction to a parish youth minister in the church hall before lunch. Upon being told of my Roman Catholic affiliation, this young man became very animated, asking me, "can you tell me, please, when these divisions between our churches will finally cease?" I was overjoyed to hear him express so vocally the very same question that was in my heart throughout the liturgy. "While our leaders may acknowledge divisions," I responded, "I perceive no separation at all bewteen you and me; as far as I can tell, you and I belong to one and the same Church." He heartily seconded my opinion and we embraced.

It all brought home to me what a sad and appalling nonsense the divisions between Orthodox and Catholics are. What does it all mean anymore when an Orthodox Egyptian-American and a Catholic Irish-American frankly and instantly recognize one another as brothers? What does it all mean when a Roman Catholic attends a 3 hour long Orthodox liturgy and completely forgets that he isn't in one of his own churches? We all celebrate, liturgically, the Body and Blood of the Lord; we all have the true priesthood, the true sacraments, and the apostolic succession. We all worship the Triune God and venerate the Mother of God and all the saints. Our churches are similarly appointed and richly embellished with sacred art. So the Orthodox erect their screens (iconostases) in front of their altars, and the Roman Catholics erect theirs (reredos) behind. Our differences are nothing compared to what we have in common. I should be able to communicate and even to fulfill my Sunday obligation at that Coptic church. They should, likewise, be free to worship and communicate at our Catholic churches.

Let the theologians quibble over the precise way in which the Holy Spirit proceeds. No, better yet, let them be quiet. Who cares? No matter what they decide to be in obstinate disagreement over with respect to such things, those Coptic Orthodox are my brothers...and I am their brother. We are not divided. Our apparent divisions, I am convinced, are merely illusions. Our brotherhood in Christ, on the other hand, is quite obviously real.

Roman,

First of all, thanks for sharing this!

The part about seminary education was of interest to me, as I am becoming increasingly convinced that our seminary system more closely resembles the training methods used by the Pharisees and Sadducees than it does the Apostles at the feet of Our Lord.

As our beloved JP2 said, "What unites us is far greater than what separates us, because what unites us is nothing less than Christ Himself."

Our brother StuartK once pointed out on this forum that during the height of the Arian controversy, even though the bishops were publicly condemning each other, the faithful were, for the most part, maintaining good relations amongst each other. I think this can and should be a model for Christians today.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I am reluctant to post this ... (it's never stopped me before - so what the hell)

COPTIC CHRISTIANS ARE NOT ORTHODOX

They are Monophysites and therefore heretical

I am sure that their liturgies are beautiful - I've been to one of the greatest Coptic Churches in the world in Cairo - but they are not in union with the Orthodox = let alone Roman Catholics.


Their mysteries are invalid - If they joined an Orthodox Church they would need to be Baptised and Chrismated as if they were never christian - they would need to be re catechized and re eductated. I believe the same holds true in the Roman Catholic theology.

I personally believe that they are christians with a great story to tell but their denial of 4 of the 7 major ecumenical councils is troubling and problematic -

I wish them all the best as they are severely persecuted by Muslims in Egypt and around the world - as are Serbian Orthodox and many other Orthodox Christians.

May God save their souls from the ravages of the muslim hoardes.

You should have stuck with your reluctance, as your post is wrong on multiple points.

The Coptic Orthodox are most certainly not heretical monophysites. Their Cyrillian christology (miaphysitism) was not what was condemned at Chalcedon. Rather, it was the Eutychian brand of monophysitism that denied the full humanity of Christ. The Oriental Orthodox have never denied that Christ is fully human. Furthermore, their sacraments are valid, from the Catholic perspective. The Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of the sacraments of the Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

Do you mind presenting the difference between a pharisee style education, vs. that of the apostles? Many thanks, Deacon Richard.

Lester.

They are not orthodox.

As an exercise - ask the major Orthodox Bishops in SCOBA to answer whether the Coptic Christians are Orthodox.

As an answer to your post ... monophysite is apparently out of "fashion"

Quote

However, the Council (Chalcedon) is not accepted by several of the ancient eastern churches, including the Oriental Orthodox of Egypt, Syria and Armenia, and the Assyrian Church of the East. The Oriental Orthodox teach 'one nature' in Christ, composed of both Godhead and manhood. Misrepresented as a denial of his true humanity, this used to be denigrated as the heresy of Monophysitism, though now the neutral terms Miaphysite and Miaphysitism are widely preferred.

I would argue that this still qualifies as heretical - even in the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes, they are Orthodox. Here is a direct quote from the First Agreed Statement [orthodoxunity.org], in 1989, between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox:



You would get a wide variety of answers of private Bishops. Why don't you ask if Catholics are orthodox? I am sure you would get a wide variety of answers.



Then Pope John Paul the II is a heretic for signing a joint statement with the Coptic Orthodox Pope saying that the two Churches agree on Christology [orthodoxwiki.org].

Well, truth be told, even though the COC is governed by its own Pope, which is all right, I do think that this is one of the few Orthodox Churches that does that I know of. All the others are governed by Metropolitan Archbishops, if I'm not mistaken.

Lester,

Well, if you think about it, the Apostles were essentially apprenticed to Our Lord, and learned primarily by observing Him, as well as by living and working with Him. The education of the Pharisees and Sadducees, on the other hand, was much more like what we know today as a formal education.

Before the advent of the seminary system, parishes functioned in much more of an apprenticeship model than would later be the case. Parishioners really saw themselves as disciples, and everyone had a role in the parish's work. Candidates for minor orders would be chosen from among them, some of whom would then go on to become candidates for Major Orders. (Granted, the system didn't always work well in practice, but when it didn't work it was the bishop's job to intervene and deal with the abuses.)

While some formal education in theology can undoubtedly be of benefit, the seminary system ipso facto made such education a necessary condition for orders, placing it ahead of all other considerations. At this point in my journey, I am inclined to think that this was a major factor in the loss of the idea that the parish was a place where the Church's life could be lived to the full (or that ordinary lay people could live it to the full).


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I don't know why people make a deal of this. The use of the term pope by the Coptic Orthodox is quite different from the understanding of the term pope in its Roman Catholic context. For the Coptic Orthodox, that title functions much like that of "patriarch". It does not suggest anything like the role of the Pope of Rome as one who holds universal jurisdiction and is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

If you reject the Coptic Orthodox as orthodox on the basis of their rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, then how do you, as a Catholic, not reject the Eastern Orthodox as orthodox on the basis of their rejection of the councils that followed the Second Council of Nicea?

As to your suggestion that the term monophysite is out of fashion, I have no problem applying it to those who actually hold to the brand of monophysitism that was addressed at Chalcedon, i.e., Eutychianism, which denies that Christ possesses a humanity consubstantial with our own. The Oriental Orthodox do not teach that, and they never have. If their christology is heretical, then so is the christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, because his christology is the christology of the Oriental Orthodox.

Finally, you assert that christology of the Oriental Orthodox is heretical even from the point of view of Roman Catholicism. The common christological statements between Rome and the Oriental Orthodox make that position very difficult for faithful Catholics to take.

I love it when Catholics under the Pope - contrained by severe rules and regulations and even more councils to define God go to extremes measures to not adhere to historical facts.

Once upon a Chalcedon time - there was a division - a serious division - back when they called them MonoPhysites.

Some say it was political - some say it was a difference in communication. Whatever it was - they parted ways they felt is was serious enough to part and they are not reunited despite what a few renegade Bishops might put down on paper.

If there is UNION UNITY COMMUNION then tell me brothers - what do we do with the words of the Ancient Fathers who rejected this?

Do we honor the same saints who (according to each --- Coptic and Orthodox) departed from one another? Who gets honored? Who gets honored more? Which saints are acceptable to either branch?

Who was right? The Copts or the Orthodox?
If Copts were right and the other wrong - then it's all backwards and the Orthodox should be seeking unity and union.
So it is the Orthodox problem and not the Coptic problem to even try to unite.

How do we honor the saints and Holy Ancient Fathers who at a MAJOR ECUMENICAL COUNCIL decided that one part of chrittianity was heretical to the point of ex communication and development of Dogma and doctrine? Do we pray one weekend for the Monophysites and the next for the true expression of the nautre of Christ?

One other problem is to refute what the Ancient Fathers decreed in the Councils - I believe it is the heresy of blasphemy to do so (you can look that up).

In addition do heretics who after many many centuries (1989) finally say - (oh it's really just semantics - these are just words we departed on ) and do they automatically get accepted back into the fold as if there was never a problem? Ia there a problem?

Does this 1989 statement override the council of Chalcedon or is it blasphemy to talk in opposition to our Holy Fathers of the Church?

Why don't we - at the same time - just dispense with all the rules dogma doctrine of any and all Christian religions and just call everyone Christian and just accept everything that everyone teaches? - kind of like a modern Christian - Love in - kind of NEW AGE RELIGION!

(actully I am more for that than against it)

If you want me to say I love Coptics then OK - I love Coptics
I view them with the upmost regard (which is all that letter said in 1989) and that they worship Christ the best way they know how as I try to do. I'll do you even better than that I have 2 or 3 Coptic Oriental Christian friends who I actually know and have met with and have had dinner with them in their homes in Egypt itself. I am not a Coptic Basher - they are truly being persecuted in Egupt and elsewhere and they have a stronger faith than I could ever muster.

Maybe I'm wrong - maybe I'm right ... I'll let you know in the afterlife - when all of you can jeer at me (me being in hell) as you are all seated by The Father - making sure you know I'm wrong about everything all the time.

I was wrong to suggest a survey among Bishops. A Bishop alone cannot - I say again CANNOT change church dogma with one letter.

The truth (according to the ecumenical councils and dogmatic theology of Orthodoxy as practiced by Greek, Russian, Antiochian Orthodoxy etc. ) is this - Coptic Orthodox are not Orthodox because they have for many thousands of years (almost) denied the 2 natures of Christ (for whatever reason).
They are christian - they are holy people - they are loving.

Coptic Catholics - are Catholic however.

May God watch over the Coptics - both Oriental Christian and Catholic may He protect them from the Muslims and may he admit them all to heaven before me (if it is possible for me to go in at all) as I am an unworthy servant and unchristian for pointing this out (I mean that in all sincerity)

Thank you.

I also wanted to address Pope John Paul II statement.

Can a Pope override an ecumenical council?

Then a more serious question - Can a Pope override an ecumenical council of a church who holds him as heretical in almost all matters not just a statement of Coptic Christology?

As Holy and as important as Pope John Paul II is to the christian world - and Catholics who hold him in very high regard. The Orthodox believe that all Popes are heretical - that the entire church is heretical.

Please don't excoriate me about this - I am just stating what I know about Orthodox.

(please note - this is a statement - it is not MY belief)

John

I love it when Catholics who don't like what comes out of Rome call a pope a "renegade bishop."

As for being accused of ignoring history, I won't just sit back and take that. I have an M. Div. and a Th.M. in historical theology, with a focus in patristics. I have studied the christological controversy. I have studied both the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon. I have not ignored history, and I don't think the others disagreeing with you in this thread have ignored it either.

The Council of Chalcedon was called to address the teachings of the monk Eutyches, who denied the full humanity of Christ. Those who did not accept the Council of Chalcedon and became what we know as Oriental Orthodox never taught that. They adhered, and still do, to the christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and that of the Council of Ephesus. They were unable to reconcile that christology with the Tome of Leo and the Definition of Chalcedon, which they believed to tend towards Nestorianism. They did not then, nor do they today, deny the humanity of Christ. Like St. Cyril, they speak of "one nature of the Word of God Incarnate." This formula, even though it speaks of "one nature," does not deny, as you claim, the two natures of Christ. They affirm the unity of the divinity and the humanity of our Lord "without separation, without confusion, and without alteration." In all honesty, it is difficult for me to understand how it is not obvious that the christology of the Oriental Orthodox, while using its own theological terminology, is the same as that of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

A final point. These lines "Maybe I'm wrong - maybe I'm right ... I'll let you know in the afterlife - when all of you can jeer at me (me being in hell) as you are all seated by The Father - making sure you know I'm wrong about everything all the time," do nothing to advance the conversation; rather, they are destructive and it would have been better had they not been written.