/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>583478

The number one way to convert to any denom is to visit a service and ask a priest if you can convert. No advice given online will 100% match the situation at your local church

>>583478

The Monophysites have been known to rebaptize, so probably. But I would suggest against converting to them because they are heretics.

>>583480

But they're not Monophysites, didn't the Catholic Church make a joint statement with them and the Assyrian Church affirming shared Christology?

>which looks really awesome.

This is basically the only reason anyone joins to strange eastern churches. "If I can't understand anything they say then it's not as cucked as catholicism"

>dude monophysites it looks cool lmao

get the fuck out

>>583478

Why not Eastern Orthodox?

>>583484

Incorrect. There's plenty of decent arguments to become Eastern Orthodox instead of Roman Catholic. Immaculate Conception, the allowance of communion under one kind, papal infallibility, and original sin to name a few.

As far as Coptic goes however, I'm not sure there's a good reason.

>>583491

Yes there actually is since the Coptic Church is the most ancient and correct form of the faith.

First of all, and most importantly, we do baptisms right. Even the Eastern Orthodox screw up sometimes and on top of that they even accept heretical baptisms and don't properly baptize Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Second, we have true chrismation which no other Church has, not even the Eastern Orthodox.

Third, our celebration of the holy Eucharist is the most ancient and correct form.

I would highly encourage joining the Coptic or Ethiopian Church for the OP.

The English liturgy looks like it needs a little work but the could just be due to the individual priest presiding over it and the same could be said for other Orthodox churches.

>>583493

>the most ancient and correct form of the faith

What about Syrian Orthodox? All churches have probably had their fair share of innovation but for the Syriacs they have the liturgy of St. James as one possible facet of antiquity. There's also the language being closer to Jesus' believed native tongue but more closely related to the Babylonian dialect of Jewish Aramaic. West Syriacs as opposed to eastern Assyrians seem to have been more given to incorporate Hellenisms most notably in their script and Copts even more so.

>>583493

>we have true chrismation

>our celebration of the holy Eucharist is the most ancient and correct form

Please explain.

>>583493

>we do baptisms right. Even the Eastern Orthodox screw up sometimes

explain

>>583480

>>583481

am converting to coptic orthodox church

can confirm - not Monophysite or Dyophysite.

Just contact your local priest - http://www.scooch.org/explore/find-a-parish/

>>583493

R A R E F L A G

A

R

E

F

L

A

G

>>583481

we had a joint agreed statement too. I think it's miaphysite, not monophysite. Don't ask me to explain the differences.

But in any case the Coptic Church makes so many martyrs and lives the faith under such repression, the rest of us should so lucky to persist as they have.

>>584257

scooch

heh funny name

>>583478

Coptic Church was started by st. Mark, just like other Apostolic Churches were established by other Apostles. Our pope and the Coptic pope signed a declaration that if a person is converting from Catholicism to Coptic and vice versa, there is no need for re baptism. However, if you're a protestant they will probably re baptize you. I'd say just find the nearest parish on the internet and ask a priest during his office hours or after mass.

Anyway, it's an Apostolic Church and it's leaps and bound better than protestantism so I wish you luck.

>>585604

The majority of Coptic Bishops and priests still baptize Roman Catholics, it seems only Pope Tawadros II and some of his staunch supporters in the clergy accept Roman Catholic baptisms. But most other Coptic clergy would disagree and go ahead to baptize Roman Catholic converts.

>>585614

I don't even understand what's the sticking point regarding the validity. The Catholic Church has always held that if a baptism is done while saying the words 'I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost' is valid no matter who administers it. I'm not even sure the Church demanded Coptic converts to re baptized, I think the Copts on their side demanded re baptism from Catholic converts.

Nice! Good choice. Also, just confirming too as a non-Copt that they are not monophysites. They believe in something quite different from monophysitism, and their actual beliefs don't seem wrong to me. Also pre-Islamic Arab culture in general is pretty cool.

>>585620

It's mainly because Roman Catholics pour, they don't immerse. On the flip side, a lot of Coptic clergy will accept Eastern Catholic baptism because they immerse. Coptic clergy may not even necessarily view baptisms done in the Roman Catholic Church (and Protestant churches) as invalid, they just want to get the most proper form done so. So it's really conditional baptism when accepting Roman Catholic and Protestant converts just in case the Roman Catholic or Protestant baptism was invalid. The Catholic Church use to baptize nearly all Protestant converts before Vatican II due to similar reasoning.

>>585630

>The Catholic Church use to baptize nearly all Protestant converts before Vatican II

That's simply not true. Roman Catholics always held to Augustinian ecclesiology which includes a refusal to re-baptize even heretics. Protestants starting in the late 16th century did reject Catholic baptism though.

>>585637

Did you not read what I wrote?

The Catholic Church did not because they considered heretical baptisms invalid, but because there was always a bit of uncertainty regarding if the Protestant minister did the baptism correctly or not, it had nothing to do with it being a heretical baptism.

>>585637

I don't think Anglicans ever rejected Roman baptism?