Coptic Church & Ecumenical Movement - Saint Mina Coptic ...

feeling in themselves the pain of division and ceaselessly meditating on the prayer of
Christ “that they may all be one” (John 17:21). But this can only come about if
Christians live deeply the whole message of the gospel.
The preaching of this message, wrote the Cardinal Secretary of State, and the
encouragement of both clergy and laity to live it out fully, constitute an essential task
of the bishops. In this perspective, the nomination of a bishop, when it is required by
the pastoral needs of the faithful, is truly an act by which the Church shows its desire
to maintain and strengthen her faithfulness to Christ.
The Catholic Church receives with joy all the news concerning the vitality of the
Coptic Orthodox Church and rejoices in it. Likewise we would hope that the
nomination of a new Catholic pastor, who must see to the deepening of the faith of
the Catholics, might be thought of as being able to bring with it a greater
reconciliation among brothers, according to the will of Christ.
The Holy See, concluded Cardinal Villot, considers as positive the fact that the
Coptic Catholic Patriarchal Synod chose as patriarchal vicar the only Coptic Catholic
priest who was a member of the joint committee of the Catholic Church and the
Coptic Orthodox Church. Indeed, this choice seems to show a desire to further
tighten the different kinds of links that already unite Catholic Copts and Orthodox
Copts. Such is the election of a pastor who, whilst helping the Coptic Catholic
Patriarch to guide his flock, would also be sympathetic in heart and mind to dialogue
with his Coptic Orthodox brethren.
One important feature in the development of the dialogue is the work of the joint
committee drawn from our two Churches. In a meeting held in Vienna during
August 1976, certain recommendations were drawn up and submitted to the Catholic
authorities. Some of these recommendations were connected with the concern of the
Orthodox Copts to ensure that dialogue and mutual collaboration did not create
confusion among their faithful or open the way to an expansion of the Catholic
Church at the expense of the Orthodox.
These recommendations have been the object of an in-depth study on the part of the
Holy See. The Cardinal President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity
informed Bishop Samuel of our reactions in a letter written with the full agreement of
the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Eastern Churches.
In this letter the need was recognised for the theological dialogue to be directed
towards the re-establishment of full communion between our two Churches, without
it getting lost in purely academic exercises.
The Orthodox had the impression that since their dialogue was with the Catholic
Church, it was enough to have contact with the Church of Rome alone in order to
reach certain decisions. But Cardinal Willebrands pointed out that although the Holy
See remains the principal interlocutor, it is the local Church with its bishop that is
first of all responsible for the Christian life of the community. Doubtless the Holy
See can stimulate and coordinate this activity, encourage and guide it, or correct it
where there are abuses, but the Church of Rome does not at all take the place of the
local Church. The Church of Rome may favour certain concrete proposals; she may
246