Author Topic: Demands of a Coptic Priest (Read 917 times)

Trinity · « **Reply #1 on:** September 10, 2007, 02:08:06 PM »

I don't know if there is something funny going on here, but I like this guy. He sounds more Christian than many Christians I know.

PinoyMonk · « **Reply #2 on:** September 10, 2007, 02:20:48 PM »

Trinity,

He is a Christian. He's a Coptic Orthodox priest! (I believe he's stationed here in America, actually.)

Pinoy Monk

Trinity · « **Reply #3 on:** September 10, 2007, 03:31:57 PM »

Never heard of them. How do they fit into the denominations?

PinoyMonk · « **Reply #4 on:** September 10, 2007, 05:26:08 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

Never heard of them. How do they fit into the denominations?

The Coptic Orthodox broke off in the early centuries. I couldn't even tell you which one. Currently, they're headed by their own "Pope" (Patriarch), of which the present one is named Shenouda III. The Coptic Church (prior to the schism, obviously) was founded in the first century when St. Mark the Apostle arrived in Alexandria (Egypt).

For centuries, the Coptic Orthodox have been accused by both Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Churches alike of being monophysites, but the current hierarchy of the Coptic Orthodox Church are calling this into dispute, saying that this has been a misnomer from the start. There was some mention that there has always been a misunderstanding of the diction. In all honesty, I haven't studied the matter in great depth, so I couldn't say much more on that.

Their monks still use the Coptic language (an ancient tongue that existed prior to Arabic), but my understanding is that Arabic now predominates in the liturgies. Again, you might want to check in on this matter.

Coptic Orthodox parishes were very rare in America as of 30 or so years ago. Then, more and more Coptic Christians immigrated, and the parishes began to grow. Many more were built. At the moment, only two major Coptic Catholic parishes exist in America. Many hope that a similar phenomenon will occur with the Catholic parishes: a huge growth. Others, who have heard Coptic chant, are not so ready for such a growth.

Does that adequately answer your question?

Pinoy Monk

Trinity · « **Reply #5 on:** September 10, 2007, 06:24:01 PM »

Yes. The only amazing thing is how much a person doesn't know. I have also heard of independents among the splintered Catholics. But I know nothing of them either.

PinoyMonk · « **Reply #6 on:** September 10, 2007, 06:45:42 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

Yes. The only amazing thing is how much a person doesn't know.

It is indeed amazing. I'm sure that left out quite a bit of material that ought to have been in that summary that I wrote for you. Perhaps a better educated individual could enlighten the both of us of some further details on the Copts?

Pinoy Monk

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #7 on:** September 11, 2007, 10:40:34 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

Yes. The only amazing thing is how much a person doesn't know. I have also heard of independents among the splintered Catholics. But I know nothing of them either.

I imagine the independent chapels vary in their views, and those views can be kind of strange.

The Eastern schismatics consist of communions called the Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine rite), Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syro-Malankara of India), and Assyrian Church of the East (Chaldean). There are most likely other splinter sects I imagine too.

Trinity · « **Reply #8 on:** September 12, 2007, 06:37:54 AM »

These are old splits, though, aren't they? As if the body of Christ could take off in different directions.

PinoyMonk · « **Reply #9 on:** September 12, 2007, 06:53:23 AM »

Quote from: Trinity

These are old splits, though, aren't they? As if the body of Christ could take off in different directions.

Yes, indeed. Alexandria (and a couple other sees) broke from Rome shortly after the Council of Chalcedon, to my understanding, and then Constantinople split around 1054. The other Byzantine Churches slowly broke off after that. A more formal schism with Russia, for example, didn't occur until after the Council of Florence. At that point, Roman appointed hierarchs in Russia attended the Council, agreed to the docuмents, and restored a full communion between Russia and Rome. Then, upon return to Russia, these clergy (and anyone who agreed with them) were persecuted by the Tsar.

I'm not entirely sure of the year that the Assyrian Church of the East broke off. I'm sure wiki would have it. =P

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #10 on:** September 12, 2007, 05:26:00 PM »

The schism of the Assyrian Church of the East happened in 431 as a result of that of Nestorianism, but subjection to Antioch and the West was renounced already in 410. There is also the Indian schismatic sect that is in communion with the Assyrian Church of the East that is called the Chaldean Syrian Church. I gathered the above from Wikipedia. There were those in Malabar, India though who returned to communion with Rome, and today they are the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church.

It is very tragic that even before the dawn of Protestantism so many had already left the Church, that is the Catholic Church, which is the only True Church.

Trinity · « **Reply #11 on:** September 12, 2007, 05:43:16 PM »

And here I was thinking that Protestantism was the original break. But the Protestants broke from a lot of things in the Catholic Church. I take it these other splits were just breaks from Rome and the Pope. Now we have the unbelievable scenario of Rome splitting from the Church.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #12 on:** September 12, 2007, 06:13:53 PM »

The thing is the Eastern schismatic churches would not have to change much if they converted back to the Catholic faith. That would be nice because they would be a great force against modernism taken together. They would simply have start believing in papal primacy of jurisdiction, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception for sure, and a few other doctrines. Also, they would have to give up devotion to some of their "saints," those who were definitely not in the Church after schism arose. Otherwise, their liturgies and any orthodox teachings they hold as well as any sound theology would be excellent to keep.