True or not? Coptic Church is older than Catholic Church?

[truthseeker32]

I am a graduate student specializing in the development of the Church prior to the martyrdom of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD). I spend my days reading both primary and secondary sources pertaining to how early church communities were governed and what their relationships with other church communities were like. One of the primary sources I have spent the most time studying is Clement’s letter to the Corinthians (1 Clement). Upon careful examination of this letter, one finds a Roman Church that speaks not as an authority, but as a brother offering advice to another brother.

I can tell you that most scholars (Catholic scholars included (see Allen Brent)) will tell you that the papacy as Roman Catholics view it was not in place in the first 3 centuries of the church. This is one of the reasons the Roman Catholic Church relies on the concept of “development of doctrine.” If one believes that the seed of Papal Supremacy was in place from day one, but it had just not been fully developed, then the Roman Catholic claim seems more plausible. That being said, I have yet to find even the seed.

If anyone is interested in looking into specific passages to determine whether or not they offer actual evidence of Papal Supremacy I would be happy to converse.

 

[icamhif]

If anyone is interested in looking into specific passages to determine whether or not they offer actual evidence of Papal Supremacy I would be happy to converse.

Thank you, truthseeker

What is the Orthodox understanding of this statement by Irenaeus of Lyons:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” (Against Heresies III:3:2)

This quote is probably the main reason why I’m almost convinced of the RC view of the Pope.

I predict that this can go one of three ways:

1. Is this passage understood out of context? If so, how?
2. Is it a mistranslation or interpolation? If so, how do we know?
3. Was Iranaeus wrong? If so, then on what merit can we make that claim, considering that he was a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple of John)?

(Note: I’m so sorry if this has already been discussed many times, but I couldn’t find a discussion of this on this forum, even with the search feature)

 

[truthseeker32]

Thank you, truthseeker

What is the Orthodox understanding of this statement by Irenaeus of Lyons:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” (Against Heresies III:3:2)

This quote is probably the main reason why I’m almost convinced of the RC view of the Pope.

I predict that this can go one of three ways:

1. Is this passage understood out of context? If so, how?
2. Is it a mistranslation or interpolation? If so, how do we know?
3. Was Iranaeus wrong? If so, then on what merit can we make that claim, considering that he was a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple of John)?

(Note: I’m so sorry if this has already been discussed many times, but I couldn’t find a discussion of this on this forum, even with the search feature)

This passage from Irenaeus offers one of the best evidences for Rome’s position, but a few details reveal that this passage is not necessarily a defense of the Bishop of Rome’s supremacy.

First, whether or not this is an accurate translation has been disputed. The word that has been translated as “agree with” in the passage you quoted comes from the Greek word “convenire” which can also be translated as “convene with” or “convene at.” Translating the passage in such a way gives the passage w whole new meaning. Rather than claiming all should agree with Rome Irenaeus might mean to say that all churches should meet at Rome.

“Irenaeus says that every church must CONVENIRE AD Rome. Some persons have translated this as “agree with.” Now, taking the Latin Vulgate as a handy guide to popular Latin usage of the time, we see that (as in classical usage) CONVENIRE CUM normally means “agree with” (Mt 20:13), but that CONVENIRE AD means “resort to” or “assemble at”. It implies physical motion. Thus Mark 1:45 tells us that Jesus was in a deserted place “and they came to him from every quarter” (“et conveniebant ad eum undique”). A friend of a friend (no longer, alas, available for questioning) states that he has found 26 passages in the Vulgate where CONVENIRE AD X is used, and that in every instance the meaning is clearly that a group of persons assembled or gathered at some place X or in the neighborhood or presence of some person X. Hastily flipping through the pages of my Latin Bible (thank you, Evelyn Wood), I have found 21 such passages (the last two being instances where “ad” introduces a gerund of purpose), viz., Judg 20:11; 1Sa 22:2; 3Ki 8:2,5; Ezr 9:4; Dan 3:2; 1Ma 5:38,64; 7:12,22; 11:47; 15:10; 2Ma 14:16; Mt 27:62; Mk 1:45; 5:21; 6:30; 7:1; 10:1; Lk 8:4 (?); Ac 20:7; and 1Co 11:33. The reader can readily verify for himself that in every one of these passages, CONVENIRE refers to a physical coming together, not to an agreement. (If the reader also locates one or more of the five missing passages, I should like to learn of them. I suspect that the discrepancy is due to the fact that the Vatican revised the official text of the Vulgate around 1950, and that he was working from the older edition.)” (from: elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/christia/library/irenaeus.html)

Second, Irenaeus does not speak of the Bishop of Rome holding preeminence, but rather the Church of Rome. It is the church that has primacy. This fits the Orthodox understanding that Rome held primacy because it was located in the capital of the Western world and thus was responsible for Church-state relations.

Finally, it is important to consider why Irenaeus states that it is necessary to agree with Rome. He does not say “because the bishop is Peter’s successor” or “because of Papal Supremacy” but rather because the church of Rome (at the time) has preserved apostolic teaching.

In conclusion, when one encounters passages like this it is important to ask:

1. What did the original say?
2. What is the author arguing? Why does the author see Rome as prime?
3. Is the author’s view authoritative or just his personal opinion?

See the links below for a more detailed consideration.

orthodoxanswers.org/answer/26/
elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/christia/library/irenaeus.html

 

[livingwordunity]

And I said, “Unless God appoints someone and grants him universal authority to lead God’s people, kind of like how God did with Moses in the Old Testament. Moses is an example of how there was a precedent for God appointing one man to lead all of God’s people.”

But that only highlights these sort of questions. To whom or what is the charism of primacy given? Is primacy a function of the office of the papacy or of the episcopacy? If it is a function of the papacy, how does the episcopacy participate in Peter’s primacy and power, if at all? If it is that primacy is delegated to the local bishop, does this not indicate that the local Church cannot itself be called Catholic, since it is itself only a piece of a Church and not the entirety and fullness of the Church according to the whole? How could the bishop be compared to God the Father by St. Ignatius if his power and primacy is in fact delegated to him? These questions may seem obscure, but they reflect rather legitimate ecclesiological concerns which Orthodoxy has with the papacy.

The question behind these questions is this. What makes all these questions necessary? No one can deny that in Moses there is a clear and shining precedent for God giving universal authority to one man to be the supreme leader over all of God’s people. So, what justifies not taking Jesus’ words and actions at their face value when Jesus (God) gives the keys of authority to Peter alone, tells Peter alone to strengthen his brethren, tells Peter alone to tend Christ’s lambs and sheep, and changes Simon’s name to Cephas (Rock)?

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: “You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church.” (Source)

Of course, these three key verses (Matthew 16:18-19, Luke 22:32, John 21:17) are but the tip of the iceberg of evidence for the Primacy of Peter (linked list of scripture and ECF quotes). The evidence we call on spans all of salvation history going from the Old Testament and ending with what the Early Church fathers have said. So, it’s simply untrue when someone claims that Mathew 16 is all we have.

In the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we are told, “In those days Peter stood up among the brethren” (Acts 1:15), and he immediately led the Church in choosing a successor to the office which Judas had held. Yes these are things which are part of the larger role of the Church, but why does Jesus always only single out Peter and never singles out any of the other apostles when he says these things? Also, why did St. Ignatius of Antioch call the Church “the Catholic Church”, but never before the Schism is the Church ever called “the Orthodox Church”? And why are the four marks of the Church listed in the Creed as “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” rather than being listed as “one, holy, orthodox, and apostolic”?

The Acts of the Apostles records the travels of the apostles, and the last place mentioned on this journey happens to be Rome. “The following night the Lord stood by him and said, ‘Take courage, for as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome.’” (Acts 23:11) In that passage, God Himself gives a special significance to Rome. And St. Paul’s final destination in this book ends up being Rome. (Acts 28:14) Then the fist book after the Acts of the Apostles is St. Paul’s letter to the Romans.

 

[dzheremi]

What does any of this have to do with the age of the Coptic Church?

 

[livingwordunity]

Finally, it is important to consider why Irenaeus states that it is necessary to agree with Rome. He does not say “because the bishop is Peter’s successor” or “because of Papal Supremacy” but rather because the church of Rome (at the time) has preserved apostolic teaching.

That’s not what St. Irenaeus says in the quote. In the quote, he says that its because of its superior origin that all Churches must agree with Rome. And the Church at Rome can’t be separated from the authority of the Bishop of Rome who is also known as the Pope. All churches agreeing with the church at Rome or all churches agreeing with the bishop of Rome is saying the same thing.

“It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times… But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, ***because of its superior origin***, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.”

—St. Irenaeus
Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1-2, c. AD 190

It takes great feats of mental and linguistic gymnastics to interpret this St. Irenaeus quote in any other way than what is plainly obvious to anyone who reads it without the preconditioned assumption that Rome can not be right. When Catholics read the early Church fathers we don’t need any commentary because the ECFs support our position when they are allowed to speak for themselves.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It really depends on what you mean. The See of Rome was founded by St. Peter, the See of Alexandria(Coptic) was founded by St. Mark around the same time. In the Early Church, Rome was considered first, and Alexandria was considered Second. Alexandria, or at least part of it, broke communion with the rest of the Catholic Church around 454 AD.

The Church was in Rome before St. Peter and St. Paul - I believe both of them arrived in Rome around 57 AD. The Church was already awesome (See Romans ) and just got awesomer with with St. Peter .

 

[livingwordunity]

The Church was in Rome before St. Peter and St. Paul - I believe both of them arrived in Rome around 57 AD. The Church was already awesome (See Romans ) and just got awesomer with St. Peter .

 

[dzheremi]

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the Good News of God, which he promised before through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we received grace and apostleship, for obedience of faith among all the nations, for his name’s sake; among whom you are also called to belong to Jesus Christ; to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:

Keep being awesome! WOOOOOO!

 

[GaryTaylor]

I believe the Coptic Church dates 42-43, Rome is as suggested above, and would line up with the epistles, Saint Paul.

Amazing, Church’s within a decade or two of the Cross, still exist and still have the same tradition and scripture understanding. I find it an enigma that people miss that in Christianity.

Flight to Egypt is a mystery of the Church, those infants were the first martyred for Christ.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

 

[josie_L]

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.** I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.**" - Matthew 16:18-19

I said, “The “keys” of authority that Jesus gives to Peter is even acknowledged in Heaven.”

"but I [Jesus] have prayed for you [Peter] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." - Luke 22:32

"He [Jesus] said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, 'Do you love me?' And he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'" - John 21:17

I said, “Are we not Jesus’ sheep? I don’t understand how heaven and earth can be interpreted to mean not universal.”

**One replied with “Yes, absolutely I disagree. I am Orthodox. No one has universal authority but God.”

And I said, “Unless God appoints someone and grants him universal authority to lead God’s people, kind of like how God did with Moses in the Old Testament. Moses is an example of how there was a precedent for God appointing one man to lead all of God’s people.”**

I just remembered a statement from a Father of the East, St Ephraem (306 - 379 AD) which connects Moses to Peter via the Transfiguration:

And commenting on the Transfiguration he [Ephraem] speaks of Peter as “second Moses”

“There was both the prince of the Old and the prince of the New Testament confronting one another. There the saintly Moses beheld the sanctified Simon the steward of the Father, the procurator of the Son. He who forced the sea asunder to let the people walk across the parted waves, beheld him who raised the new tabernacle and built the Church.”

This was also remarked by St. Ephraem in one of his homilies:

“Simon my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you will I give drink to all peoples. Yours is the life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My instituition, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of My treasures. I have given you the keys of My kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures (Ephraem, Homilies 4:1)”

 

[icamhif]

This passage from Irenaeus offers one of the best evidences for Rome’s position, but a few details reveal that this passage is not necessarily a defense of the Bishop of Rome’s supremacy…

…In conclusion, when one encounters passages like this it is important to ask:

1. What did the original say?
2. What is the author arguing? Why does the author see Rome as prime?
3. Is the author’s view authoritative or just his personal opinion?

Thanks for the info, truthseeker! I will weigh the claims of both sides and come to my own conclusion.

 

[livingwordunity]

The Church was in Rome before St. Peter and St. Paul - I believe both of them arrived in Rome around 57 AD. The Church was already awesome (See Romans ) and just got awesomer with with St. Peter .

I agree. And, I want to post the part of Romans you are talking about because in post #29 dzheremi posted the first part of Romans chapter 1 in response to you but for some reason stopped just short at verse 7. So, here’s where St. Paul is basically talking about the awesomeness of the Church at Rome:

“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine.” - Romans 1:8-12