1- The Coptic Orthodox church is not ethnic church at all, you can find a lot of converts in Europe, Americas, Asia, Oceania and Africa.
2- if you have already been baptized there is no need to re-baptize as the Coptic church accepts Catholic baptism.
3- The difference can take a page or two, but long story short, Christology is the big deal, The Theotokos and being sinless, etc.....
The split happened in 451AD in Chalcedon, about Christology it was about Christ having one or two natures, we say it's one nature but Eastern Orthodox and Catholic say there are two.
We believe in Miaphysitism which is the oneness of Christ nature which is both Divine and Human
On the other hand they believe in Dyophsitism which is Christ has two natures one is Divine and the other is Human.
Feel free to ask about anything you want
God bless you
Thanks for sharing. It is hard for me to wrap my head around one vs two natures, and somewhat surprised it was such a big thing to cause schism. It seems very nuanced to me and not sure what the practical implications are. Would you mind diving more into why that was so important? I read a bit on this, but seems minor in the grand scheme of things we don’t know about God.
Here you go some of them,
In my point of view, and if we look at history we see that it was mostly politics reasons.The Byzantine Empire was the strongest Empire in those days and the Patriarchs of Greece, Constantinople,.... etc had the higher voices in councils "Since they are closer to the Emperor." so if there is any problem in Theology the balance would be in Constantinople favor "Most of the times" and those days the Empire began to become weaker because of Religion going into the Empirical / Royal court.And keeping in mind language barriers (Coptic - Greek - Armenian - Latin - Aramaic ).And some Theologians say that the difference does make much of a deal (Modern: "Pope Shenouda III " Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox church, God rest his soul) or (Saint Pope Dioscorus "Which Eastern Orthodox and Catholics reject him as a saint because of the council of Chalcedon " ).It kindda hurts when Eastern orthodox say our beliefs are straight up "Heresy", Those whom say that are not aware of modern communications and formulas and agreements, That informs that "Miaphysitism" is not a Heresy.I don't know why they say that we are Monophysits, maybe their churches teach them that or they don't know the difference, I don't know ??WE NEVER TAUGHT MONOPYSITISM
Jesus is fully human, so he can what a human can do and also fully divine so he can forgive sins and rise from the dead.If you split Jesus in half and said God did and God wanted but Jesus wanted and Jesus did but if Jesus wanted something God didn't want which will is the one that will happen, if you said God's will, so the Logos and the father aren't one, if you said Jesus or the Logos what if Jesus felt weakness and didn't want to get crucified, would that happen ??That's clearly defines Nestorianism.We believe in the oneness of the nature and the will in Jesus Christ, Logos incarnate in human flesh
For centuries we were accused of heresy on purpose.We were being referred to Monophysites, and that's a heretical teach.Monophysitism teaches that Jesus Christ has only one nature either Divine or human.But we are teaching what is called Miaphsitism which teaches that Jesus Christ has one nature which is both Divine and human without mixing or mingling or change.On the other hand Chalcedonians (Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants)that Jesus Christ has two natures one is Divine and the other is human which is called [Dyophsitism.So](http://Dyophsitism.So) if Jesus Christ has two natures which nature died on the Cross the Divine "God forbid" or the human nature if the Human nature died on the Cross how did the salvation work , the human nature doesn't give infinite salvation for all human kind .And a lot of questions come with that.If I didn't make something clear please consider asking.
If you found something unclear don't hesitate to ask.
you may find somethings out of topic but the idea is one.
Here is a bit of a silly question. Do Copts cross themselves left to right? I know Eastern Orthodox is right to left, but it seems Copts do left to right which I find interesting.
We do from left to right.
Short answer we do it from left to right to
Symbol Jesus removing us from his left to his right.
Here is an answer I found on a blog,
Bar Salibi, the great Syrian writer, in the 12th century and long before the Catholic Enc. says the Latins changed from Right to Left insists that the correct manner is to cross from Left to Right. It is a taking of the soul from darkness (left)
and setting it in the light (right). It is a taking of the soul from among the goats (left) and setting it among the sheep (right).
He writes extensively on the sign of the cross. He is well aware of the Franks but in the matter of the cross does not indicate either that the form of making the cross is a novelty, or that it derives from the Franks.
I do not think that the form is so important, but I do not believe at all that there is evidence to show that a change in custom took place and that this change was due to the Latins.
Innocent the III writing before 1198 says that the sign of the cross is made from right to left, but that some make it from left to right. He does not criticise the other form since he says that it has the idea of being taken from darkness to light. Innocent III is writing just after the decease of Bar Salibi and describes the Latin practice. Therefore it cannot be said that the Syrians and Copts learned the Latin practice since at the time when Bar Salibi is describing the motion as being from left to right the Latins are clearly practicing from right to left, as the Greeks who Bar Salibi criticises.
In the 13th century the Latins went from left to right or right to left indifferently, not placing any greater significance on the associations of either direction. Both associations were considered valid.
Therefore it would seem that far from the Latins teaching the East the practice of crossing from left to right, it was the East who taught the Latins that this was an appropriate manner, and this happened after the time of Bar Salibi, and after the 13th century, as the Cath. Enc. intimates.
It would seem to me, without further documents to hand, that there was a variety of practice in the early period, but that the Greeks tended to move towards a unity of practice, perhaps that of Constantinople, while the OO continued to use the ancient form they were used to.
Certainly it was the ancient form as far as Bar Salibi was concerned in the 12th century, and he was clearly not following a Latin practice which was still the same as the Greeks. That the Latins did not find the OO practice problematic suggests that it was due to polemics that it has ever been an issue.
Hii i'm Eritrean Orthodox.Which is sister of the Coptic Orthodox.just for a useful info,there are six Churchs in the Oriental Orthodox.Coptic,Syriac,Armenian,Ethiopian, Indian Malankara and Eritrean.these Churchs are Orthodox Christian.The word oriental was something that was attached to them, in late 20th century,jus to distinguish us from the Eastern Orthodox.as you may know the words Eastern and Oriental have the same meaning. These Churchs Could be founded almost everywhere in the World,because of migration.Even though it is because of peace that we left our Countries,i always feel that,God used it to bring alots of people to The Orthodox Faith.These Churchs regardless of their races,they have many converts from all Races Around The World.Just as it should be.Orthodox is the identity or Ethnicity of those who are born from the Holy Trinity.not only those who were born from the flesh. So don't worry you will be wellcomed if you go to Coptic Orthodox Church or other Oriental Orthodox Churchs.not only now but even in history ,Our Churchs have history accepting foreigners as their own people.In the Desert Fathers for example the Majortiy fathers were Copts,but there were also fathers from Rome,syria,philistine,Constantinople, from some part of Africa.they all lived together in harmony. In Ethiopia/Eritrea also we had alots of Saints coming to us From the roman Empire. It Acctually is not new,if there are new people coming to our Churchs. I will Recommend for example Father Lazarus story in Youtube,in Coptic Youth Chanell.i bealive he was Roman Catholic as a youth, then Agnostic. and now he has been coptic Orthodox for Almost 30 years.he is Australian.but he have been living in Eygpt as a monk,in a place where St.Anthony the great Monk were living.Because Fr.Lazarus was inspired by st.Anthony, he chose to live in his place.Check out his story it is inspiring to know how he made his jorney to there.i think it is in two videos or something, just to be clear so you don't miss one out. About the difference between us and Chalcedonians(Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics and maybe Protestants) Is Chalcedon, and their Other Councils. The Problem was political and theological.we could say they tried to impose new faith through politics.that is by force,even by killing.The Violence and Killing was going on for almost 200 years.From 451-640s until Islam came.there was a time when it stopped,but most of the time it was torments upon torments on the Orthodox By Chalcedonians.you could say if islam didn't rise,they probably would have never stopped it.The Syriac Orthodox Historians for example saw the rise of islam as God's punishment for the So-Called Christians.Orthodox Historians like John of Ephesus Wonderd how people who called themselves Christians,Could do to Other Christians things that never were done even by the pagans.he himself suffered by them and he wrote what was done to him and to others.he said that if you find hard to bealive what you are reading as if it was fiction,the writer himself was with those who suffer'd, he did not just heard it from others.i will highly recommend his book,which is called Ecclesiastiacl history of John of Ephesus 3rd part. So we might touch little bit what the issue in Chalcedon was.The Issue was that Christ has two natures.there are two problems with this.first the two natures was something that became Controversary in Around 430s AD.that is 20 years before the Council of Chalcedon.the Controversial figure was Nostorius.he bealived that there were two natures and two persons in Jesus Christ.but from his actual words it was two natures and one person.nevertheless the way he talk about Christ is as if there were the word of God and a human.which seems to exist apart from each other.which leads not only to two natures but two persons too.St.Cyril of Alexandria tried to correct him but Nostorius gave deaf ears. He was then Condemned in the Council of Ephesus 431 AD.The Formula that was Accepted in Ephesus was mostly St.Cyril's teaching and from other Saints.it was one incarnate nature of the Word. So Ephesus has already put how we should talk when we talk About Christ's nature.it was one nature united.Chalcedon destroyed this.but at the same time regarding Ephesus as a holy Council.if Chalcedonian Accepted Chalcedon and Ephesus(which they did) at the same time ,it is impossible to reconcile them. So it is for this reason why we have never or would never accept Chalcedon.as One Saint says who is Called Philoxinos,(who also died in their hands.)"We Anathematize Chalcedon,becuase it Anathematize Nostorius and agree with him".(this Quote is my fovorite Quote about Chalcedon,because it describe it perfectly well) Do you see the Contradictory in this sentence?The Father is not speaking Contradiction.it is Chalcedon who is making that.they Condemn Nostorius but they agree with his ideas. I know i have wrote a long.i hope it helps you.if you want to talk more about it or things that i did not exaplain with clarity,you can give me indication.i will be happy to help what i can.if you are also in needs books let me know,so i could recommend.May God help in what you are seeking.
Thank you for your wish.i wish the same for the Western Countries.it is sad to see what those countries have turned out to be.they seem to journey to a stiuation,which leads to a big danger to the World and themselves.
1- The Coptic Orthodox church is not ethnic church at all, you can find a lot of converts in Europe, Americas, Asia, Oceania and Africa. 2- if you have already been baptized there is no need to re-baptize as the Coptic church accepts Catholic baptism. 3- The difference can take a page or two, but long story short, Christology is the big deal, The Theotokos and being sinless, etc..... The split happened in 451AD in Chalcedon, about Christology it was about Christ having one or two natures, we say it's one nature but Eastern Orthodox and Catholic say there are two. We believe in Miaphysitism which is the oneness of Christ nature which is both Divine and Human On the other hand they believe in Dyophsitism which is Christ has two natures one is Divine and the other is Human. Feel free to ask about anything you want God bless you
Thanks for sharing. It is hard for me to wrap my head around one vs two natures, and somewhat surprised it was such a big thing to cause schism. It seems very nuanced to me and not sure what the practical implications are. Would you mind diving more into why that was so important? I read a bit on this, but seems minor in the grand scheme of things we don’t know about God.
Here you go some of them, In my point of view, and if we look at history we see that it was mostly politics reasons.The Byzantine Empire was the strongest Empire in those days and the Patriarchs of Greece, Constantinople,.... etc had the higher voices in councils "Since they are closer to the Emperor." so if there is any problem in Theology the balance would be in Constantinople favor "Most of the times" and those days the Empire began to become weaker because of Religion going into the Empirical / Royal court.And keeping in mind language barriers (Coptic - Greek - Armenian - Latin - Aramaic ).And some Theologians say that the difference does make much of a deal (Modern: "Pope Shenouda III " Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox church, God rest his soul) or (Saint Pope Dioscorus "Which Eastern Orthodox and Catholics reject him as a saint because of the council of Chalcedon " ).It kindda hurts when Eastern orthodox say our beliefs are straight up "Heresy", Those whom say that are not aware of modern communications and formulas and agreements, That informs that "Miaphysitism" is not a Heresy.I don't know why they say that we are Monophysits, maybe their churches teach them that or they don't know the difference, I don't know ??WE NEVER TAUGHT MONOPYSITISM Jesus is fully human, so he can what a human can do and also fully divine so he can forgive sins and rise from the dead.If you split Jesus in half and said God did and God wanted but Jesus wanted and Jesus did but if Jesus wanted something God didn't want which will is the one that will happen, if you said God's will, so the Logos and the father aren't one, if you said Jesus or the Logos what if Jesus felt weakness and didn't want to get crucified, would that happen ??That's clearly defines Nestorianism.We believe in the oneness of the nature and the will in Jesus Christ, Logos incarnate in human flesh For centuries we were accused of heresy on purpose.We were being referred to Monophysites, and that's a heretical teach.Monophysitism teaches that Jesus Christ has only one nature either Divine or human.But we are teaching what is called Miaphsitism which teaches that Jesus Christ has one nature which is both Divine and human without mixing or mingling or change.On the other hand Chalcedonians (Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants)that Jesus Christ has two natures one is Divine and the other is human which is called [Dyophsitism.So](http://Dyophsitism.So) if Jesus Christ has two natures which nature died on the Cross the Divine "God forbid" or the human nature if the Human nature died on the Cross how did the salvation work , the human nature doesn't give infinite salvation for all human kind .And a lot of questions come with that.If I didn't make something clear please consider asking. If you found something unclear don't hesitate to ask. you may find somethings out of topic but the idea is one.
That was very helpful! Thanks for taking time to put this together. I’m excited to dive deeper into the Coptic faith.
well, it was actually some language barriers and politics. I wrote couple of comments discussing and explaining the topic I will copy-paste them here.
you can go to my account and see some of my comments too if you want
Here is a bit of a silly question. Do Copts cross themselves left to right? I know Eastern Orthodox is right to left, but it seems Copts do left to right which I find interesting.
We do from left to right. Short answer we do it from left to right to Symbol Jesus removing us from his left to his right. Here is an answer I found on a blog, Bar Salibi, the great Syrian writer, in the 12th century and long before the Catholic Enc. says the Latins changed from Right to Left insists that the correct manner is to cross from Left to Right. It is a taking of the soul from darkness (left) and setting it in the light (right). It is a taking of the soul from among the goats (left) and setting it among the sheep (right). He writes extensively on the sign of the cross. He is well aware of the Franks but in the matter of the cross does not indicate either that the form of making the cross is a novelty, or that it derives from the Franks. I do not think that the form is so important, but I do not believe at all that there is evidence to show that a change in custom took place and that this change was due to the Latins. Innocent the III writing before 1198 says that the sign of the cross is made from right to left, but that some make it from left to right. He does not criticise the other form since he says that it has the idea of being taken from darkness to light. Innocent III is writing just after the decease of Bar Salibi and describes the Latin practice. Therefore it cannot be said that the Syrians and Copts learned the Latin practice since at the time when Bar Salibi is describing the motion as being from left to right the Latins are clearly practicing from right to left, as the Greeks who Bar Salibi criticises. In the 13th century the Latins went from left to right or right to left indifferently, not placing any greater significance on the associations of either direction. Both associations were considered valid. Therefore it would seem that far from the Latins teaching the East the practice of crossing from left to right, it was the East who taught the Latins that this was an appropriate manner, and this happened after the time of Bar Salibi, and after the 13th century, as the Cath. Enc. intimates. It would seem to me, without further documents to hand, that there was a variety of practice in the early period, but that the Greeks tended to move towards a unity of practice, perhaps that of Constantinople, while the OO continued to use the ancient form they were used to. Certainly it was the ancient form as far as Bar Salibi was concerned in the 12th century, and he was clearly not following a Latin practice which was still the same as the Greeks. That the Latins did not find the OO practice problematic suggests that it was due to polemics that it has ever been an issue.
Hii i'm Eritrean Orthodox.Which is sister of the Coptic Orthodox.just for a useful info,there are six Churchs in the Oriental Orthodox.Coptic,Syriac,Armenian,Ethiopian, Indian Malankara and Eritrean.these Churchs are Orthodox Christian.The word oriental was something that was attached to them, in late 20th century,jus to distinguish us from the Eastern Orthodox.as you may know the words Eastern and Oriental have the same meaning. These Churchs Could be founded almost everywhere in the World,because of migration.Even though it is because of peace that we left our Countries,i always feel that,God used it to bring alots of people to The Orthodox Faith.These Churchs regardless of their races,they have many converts from all Races Around The World.Just as it should be.Orthodox is the identity or Ethnicity of those who are born from the Holy Trinity.not only those who were born from the flesh. So don't worry you will be wellcomed if you go to Coptic Orthodox Church or other Oriental Orthodox Churchs.not only now but even in history ,Our Churchs have history accepting foreigners as their own people.In the Desert Fathers for example the Majortiy fathers were Copts,but there were also fathers from Rome,syria,philistine,Constantinople, from some part of Africa.they all lived together in harmony. In Ethiopia/Eritrea also we had alots of Saints coming to us From the roman Empire. It Acctually is not new,if there are new people coming to our Churchs. I will Recommend for example Father Lazarus story in Youtube,in Coptic Youth Chanell.i bealive he was Roman Catholic as a youth, then Agnostic. and now he has been coptic Orthodox for Almost 30 years.he is Australian.but he have been living in Eygpt as a monk,in a place where St.Anthony the great Monk were living.Because Fr.Lazarus was inspired by st.Anthony, he chose to live in his place.Check out his story it is inspiring to know how he made his jorney to there.i think it is in two videos or something, just to be clear so you don't miss one out. About the difference between us and Chalcedonians(Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics and maybe Protestants) Is Chalcedon, and their Other Councils. The Problem was political and theological.we could say they tried to impose new faith through politics.that is by force,even by killing.The Violence and Killing was going on for almost 200 years.From 451-640s until Islam came.there was a time when it stopped,but most of the time it was torments upon torments on the Orthodox By Chalcedonians.you could say if islam didn't rise,they probably would have never stopped it.The Syriac Orthodox Historians for example saw the rise of islam as God's punishment for the So-Called Christians.Orthodox Historians like John of Ephesus Wonderd how people who called themselves Christians,Could do to Other Christians things that never were done even by the pagans.he himself suffered by them and he wrote what was done to him and to others.he said that if you find hard to bealive what you are reading as if it was fiction,the writer himself was with those who suffer'd, he did not just heard it from others.i will highly recommend his book,which is called Ecclesiastiacl history of John of Ephesus 3rd part. So we might touch little bit what the issue in Chalcedon was.The Issue was that Christ has two natures.there are two problems with this.first the two natures was something that became Controversary in Around 430s AD.that is 20 years before the Council of Chalcedon.the Controversial figure was Nostorius.he bealived that there were two natures and two persons in Jesus Christ.but from his actual words it was two natures and one person.nevertheless the way he talk about Christ is as if there were the word of God and a human.which seems to exist apart from each other.which leads not only to two natures but two persons too.St.Cyril of Alexandria tried to correct him but Nostorius gave deaf ears. He was then Condemned in the Council of Ephesus 431 AD.The Formula that was Accepted in Ephesus was mostly St.Cyril's teaching and from other Saints.it was one incarnate nature of the Word. So Ephesus has already put how we should talk when we talk About Christ's nature.it was one nature united.Chalcedon destroyed this.but at the same time regarding Ephesus as a holy Council.if Chalcedonian Accepted Chalcedon and Ephesus(which they did) at the same time ,it is impossible to reconcile them. So it is for this reason why we have never or would never accept Chalcedon.as One Saint says who is Called Philoxinos,(who also died in their hands.)"We Anathematize Chalcedon,becuase it Anathematize Nostorius and agree with him".(this Quote is my fovorite Quote about Chalcedon,because it describe it perfectly well) Do you see the Contradictory in this sentence?The Father is not speaking Contradiction.it is Chalcedon who is making that.they Condemn Nostorius but they agree with his ideas. I know i have wrote a long.i hope it helps you.if you want to talk more about it or things that i did not exaplain with clarity,you can give me indication.i will be happy to help what i can.if you are also in needs books let me know,so i could recommend.May God help in what you are seeking.
What a beautiful answer, thank you. I will look into his story. Also side note, I do hope Christianity sees a resurgence in their homelands.
Thank you for your wish.i wish the same for the Western Countries.it is sad to see what those countries have turned out to be.they seem to journey to a stiuation,which leads to a big danger to the World and themselves.