Coptic Christians, with pope, and very long history?

  • Thread starter Thread starter upbeatjonm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ll take your word for it, as the Contendings of the Apostles is apparently not digitized, or at least not anywhere that I can find it.
Click to expand...
Found it on Google Books (didn’t come up until I put in the author, for some reason), though the link does not work for me. It just sits there, loading. Don’t know why that is. But if others want to try for it, it’s there under E.A. Wallis Budge.
 
mardukm said:
Do a google search on “Coptic History of the Patriarchs” and read about the Tradition of the Coptic Church for yourself.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I have but I haven’t seen anything in the same words as you put it( St Mark was sent by St Peter FROM Rome) so if it is there please share it with us.
 
Ignatios said:
I have but I haven’t seen anything in the same words as you put it( St Mark was sent by St Peter FROM Rome) so if it is there please share it with us.
Click to expand...
Severus Al-Ashmunein "History of the Patriarchs":
And the Holy Ghost appeared to Peter, and commanded him to go to the cities and villages which were in that country. So Peter, and Mark with him, went to the district of Bethany, and preached the word of God; and Peter remained there some days. And he saw in a dream the angel of God, who said to him : «In two places there is a great dearth». So Peter said to the angel : «Which places meanest thou?» He said to him : «The city of Alexandria with the land of Egypt, and the land of Rome. It is not a dearth of bread and water, but a dearth arising from ignorance of the word of God, which thou preachest». So when Peter awoke from his sleep, he told Mark what he had witnessed in his dream. And after that Peter and Mark went to the region of Rome, and preached there the word of God.

And in the fifteenth year after the Ascension of Christ, the holy Peter sent Saint Mark, the father and evangelist, to the city of Alexandria, to announce the good tidings there, and to preach the word of God and the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom is due glory and honour and worship, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, the one God for ever. Amen.
Click to expand...
Read in larger context here. I take the sequencing of events in the text to be indicative of the temporal sequence of events, though as you can see it is not explicitly stated that St. Mark was sent from Rome, only that he was sent after he had preached with St. Peter in Rome.
 
dzheremi said:
Read in larger context here. I take the sequencing of events in the text to be indicative of the temporal sequence of events, though as you can see it is not explicitly stated that St. Mark was sent from Rome, only that he was sent after he had preached with St. Peter in Rome.
Click to expand...
That is precisely what I have learned from reading that text, and that is why I asked Marduk to present us with his “version”, I didn’t remember how it was worded but I remember that it was not as Marduk’s stated it, but I gave him the benefit of doubt and gave him chance to prove his words and the results were as I suspected.
thank you and GOD bless you †††
 
PART I
CHAPTER I. ---- SAINT MARK.
In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, the One God.
The first biography of the history of the holy Church. The history of Saint Mark, the Disciple and Evangelist, Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, and first of its Bishops 20.
…
"And these two brothers had a cousin, the wife of Simon Peter, who became the chief of the disciples of the Lord Christ; and the said John whom they had surnamed Mark, used to visit Peter, and learn the Christian doctrines from him out of the holy Scriptures. " …

And after his Ascension into heaven, Mark went with Peter to Jerusalem, and they preached the word of God to the multitudes. And the Holy Ghost appeared to Peter, and commanded him to go to the cities and villages which were in that country. So Peter, and Mark with him, went to the district of Bethany, and preached the word of God; and Peter remained there some days. And he saw in a dream the angel of God, who said to him : «In two places there is a great dearth». So Peter said to the angel : «Which places meanest thou?» He said to him : «The city of Alexandria with the land of Egypt, and the land of Rome. It is not a dearth of bread and water, but a dearth arising from ignorance of the word of God, which thou preachest». So when Peter awoke from his sleep, he told Mark what he had witnessed in his dream. And after that Peter and Mark went to the region of Rome, and preached there the word of God.
And in the fifteenth year after the Ascension of Christ, **the holy Peter sent Saint Mark, the father and evangelist, to the city of Alexandria 21, to announce the good tidings there, and to preach the word of God **

peace
 
Ignatios said:
That is precisely what I have learned from reading that text, and that is why I asked Marduk to present us with his “version”, I didn’t remember how it was worded but I remember that it was not as Marduk’s stated it, but I gave him the benefit of doubt and gave him chance to prove his words and the results were as I suspected.
thank you and GOD bless you †††
Click to expand...
You should really try to read more contextually instead of just picking out little snippets out of texts to try to prove something to yourself.

If you continued reading into Chapter 2, you would have discovered that St. Mark came to Alexandria to establish Churches there FROM Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
You should really try to read more contextually instead of just picking out little snippets out of texts to try to prove something to yourself.

If you continued reading into Chapter 2, you would have discovered that St. Mark came to Alexandria to establish Churches there FROM Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I provided a link to the larger context. I do not think it is fair, therefore, to accuse anyone here of “picking little snippets out of texts to try to prove something” – it is plainly not explicitly stated therein that he went directly from Rome to Alexandria. That is only by inference. What is explicitly stated is that St. Mark went to Pentapolis first and after a while there the Holy Spirit appeared to him and said: «Rise and go to the city of Alexandria, to sow there the good seed which is the word of God». This timeline (St. Mark to Pentapolis, then to Alexandria) jibes with the secondary sources I presented the other day. I can only guess that St. Peter’s role in sending St. Mark is not emphasized therein because there is no need to highlight it in order to substantiate a particular ecclesiology, in contrast to the RC position (see Hazcompat’s intervening post). We already recognize St. Peter’s role in many things, as in teaching St. Mark Christian doctrine as per the Synaxarium, etc.

In light of that, the use of the phrase “in order to prove something to yourself” in reference to someone else is a little odd. 😛
 
dzheremi said:
I provided a link to the larger context. I do not think it is fair, therefore, to accuse anyone here of “picking little snippets out of texts to try to prove something” – it is plainly not explicitly stated therein that he went directly from Rome to Alexandria. That is only by inference.
Click to expand...
I never said he went directly from Rome to Alexandria. What did I write that could cause you to think that?🤷 All I said was that St. Peter SENT him FROM Rome, and there is sufficient explicit proof for that statement. It is the truth of THAT statement that Ignatios implied I fabricated.

St. Peter had a revelation from God to Christianize Alexandria and Rome (chapter 1).

St. Peter and St. Mark went to Rome first (chapter 1).

In the Fifteenth year after the Lord’s ascension - which puts it during the reign of the emperor Claudius, the time which Tradition states St. Peter was indeed at Rome - St,. Peter sent St. Mark to Alexandria (chapter 1).

St. Mark went from Rome to Alexendria through Pentapolis (chapter 2).

What part of that direct testimony from the History is not evident to any reader? St, Peter sent St. Mark FROM Rome. That’s what I stated. It’s what Ignatios denied.
I can only guess that St. Peter’s role in sending St. Mark is not emphasized therein because there is no need to highlight it in order to substantiate a particular ecclesiology, in contrast to the RC position (see Hazcompat’s intervening post). We already recognize St. Peter’s role in many things, as in teaching St. Mark Christian doctrine as per the Synaxarium, etc.
Click to expand...
There was a purposeful current within Coptic Orthodoxy to distance itself from its Petrine relationship in the 20th century. It culminated in the removal of the phrase “heads of the Apostles” as the Traditional descriptive of Sts Peter and Paul from the Coptic Liturgy sometime in the 1970’s. That is probably why “St. Peter’s role in sending St. Mark is not emphasized.”
In light of that, the use of the phrase “in order to prove something to yourself” in reference to someone else is a little odd. 😛
Click to expand...
He’s denying something that is plainly evident. For whatever reason, I do not know.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
I never said he went directly from Rome to Alexandria. What did I write that could cause you to think that?🤷 All I said was that St. Peter SENT him FROM Rome, and there is sufficient explicit proof for that statement. It is the truth of THAT statement that Ignatios implied I fabricated.
Click to expand...
Alright. Maybe I missed something in the discussion between you and Ignatios. My apologies. This is not such an important point to me anyway, so I’ll let it go.
There was a purposeful current within Coptic Orthodoxy to distance itself from its Petrine relationship in the 20th century. It culminated in the removal of the phrase “heads of the Apostles” as the Traditional descriptive of Sts Peter and Paul from the Coptic Liturgy sometime in the 1970’s. That is probably why “St. Peter’s role in sending St. Mark is not emphasized.”
Click to expand...
This, however, I will not let go. I don’t know when you last attended a Coptic Orthodox liturgy, but as far as I can tell there is no such purposeful distancing from the role of Peter in the liturgy. In my personal copy of the liturgy of St. Basil (printed July 1992, long after the 1970s when this distancing is supposed to have occured), the Fraction for the Apostles’ Fast reads in part as follows:

“As for Peter and Paul, foremost among the apostles, the shadow of the one was healing the sick, whereas handkerchiefs and aprons of the other caused disease to depart and evil spirits to go out. And after they preached the gospel of the kingdom, and taught the nations, they shed their blood for Your name’s sake, and received the crown of apostleship and that of martyrdom.” (emphasis added)

That doesn’t seem like distancing from anything, and in fact uses language very similar to what you claim has been discarded. I would not be surprised if the difference in wording were simply a matter of a variant translation of the same source text, as I think this was the first unified translation produced by the committee apointed by HH Pope Shenouda III for use in the English-speaking world. This is the only translation I have at the moment, but anyway…I do not agree with your charge, and neither does the text agree with your charge. I have not seen any other minimizing of Peter’s role in any other aspect of the Coptic liturgy as far as I have been exposed to it in an actual Coptic Orthodox church, either.
 
upbeatjonm said:
The Coptic Christians are in the news these days, in Egypt, with their “pope” who just died.

I did a little research on them, and they trace their roots back to the early first or second century founded by Mark the Evangelist.

That makes them almost as old as the Catholic Church? I didn’t realize that, as they are never mentioned as one of the original churches.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is East and West. The Coptic/Catholic and Coptic/Orthodox are as old as the Catholic Church.

The Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West are the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and I admit that Baptized Protestants are part of the OHCAC in some mysterious way. Christianity is the OHCAC. Jesus is the same, yesterday today and tommorrow. The bride of Christ is the Church. The body of Christ is the Church. The Church is as old as it is unfortunately severed by humanity not by it’s divinity. It is the Holy Spirity that leads to all truth and that is why the Oriental Orthodox seeks to unite with Rome, The Eastern Orthodox and Rome are discussing unity and that is why there is an Anglican ordinate in texas uniting Anglo-Catholics.🙂
 
Cavaradossi said:
Those sort of talks mean very little. If you were perhaps able to show evidence that many Oriental Orthodox bishops are of the opinion that union with Rome is necessary, then you could provide more substantial evidence for your claim.
Click to expand...
How did you happen to weave the word “necessary” into the conversation.

In response to that I would say the Master has uttered 'that they may all be one"…🙂

Recall that David wanted to be Priest/King to undo the Tower of Babel and the Curse of the Golden Calf. Are we to believe that Our Priest King Christ himself wants us to resort to the Tower of Babel again?
 
CopticChristian said:
How did you happen to weave the word “necessary” into the conversation.

In response to that I would say the Master has uttered 'that they may all be one"…🙂
Click to expand...
Replace necessary with ‘desirable’ or ‘possible’ or any other verb which makes sense and my statement still stands. Joint commissions really do not count much towards communion. They are a good start, but that doesn’t automatically translate to ‘seeking union’.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Whats the latest, have you heard? The article is a bit dated.
Click to expand...
The latest is that the Body of Christ is the Church. Jesus wants his children to be one. Christ is timeless. His children are disobedient and are descendants of Adam.
 
CopticChristian said:
The Catholic Church is East and West. The Coptic/Catholic and Coptic/Orthodox are as old as the Catholic Church.

The Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West are the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and I admit that Baptized Protestants are part of the OHCAC in some mysterious way. Christianity is the OHCAC. Jesus is the same, yesterday today and tommorrow. The bride of Christ is the Church. The body of Christ is the Church. The Church is as old as it is unfortunately severed by humanity not by it’s divinity. It is the Holy Spirity that leads to all truth and that is why the Oriental Orthodox seeks to unite with Rome, The Eastern Orthodox and Rome are discussing unity and that is why there is an Anglican ordinate in texas uniting Anglo-Catholics.🙂
Click to expand...
If I may, I would like to say a few words on this. I take this is your opinion but I do not believe this is the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox or of the Catholic Church. I imagine that this is not the teaching of the Oriental Orthodox either.

For the Eastern Orthodox, they teach and believe that the communion of the autocephalous churches that are in full communion with each other are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that was founded by Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church believes that all the 23 catholic churchs that in communion with the Bishop of Rome are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that was the one that was founded by Christ and the same one that was mentioned by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Now we do view that the Orthodox churchs as valid but because of the schism are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. We believe that these churchs were* a part of * the Catholic Church before the schism and now are in some way linked to the Catholic Church because of the imperfect communion we have.

Hope this helped.
 
Art321 said:
If I may, I would like to say a few words on this. I take this is your opinion but I do not believe this is the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox or of the Catholic Church. I imagine that this is not the teaching of the Oriental Orthodox either.

For the Eastern Orthodox, they teach and believe that the communion of the autocephalous churches that are in full communion with each other are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that was founded by Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church believes that all the 23 catholic churchs that in communion with the Bishop of Rome are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that was the one that was founded by Christ and the same one that was mentioned by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Now we do view that the Orthodox churchs as valid but because of the schism are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. We believe that these churchs were* a part of * the Catholic Church before the schism and now are in some way linked to the Catholic Church because of the imperfect communion we have.

Hope this helped.
Click to expand...
I believe that there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Hope this helps.🙂
 
CopticChristian said:
I believe that there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Hope this helps.🙂
Click to expand...
Amen, Amen, Amen

peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top