I was reading a thread and someone mentioned how the catholic church has influenced our church. Then i remembered many things such as the ciborium (large dome canopy thing over the altar). can anybody think of any others and tell us about things that are distinctively coptic?
Comments
i. Several aspects of Roman Catholic theology
ii. The importance given to Augustine of Hippo
iii. Corruption of Coptic Orthodox art
iv. Hymnology as performance rather than as spiritual practice
v. Development of idea of sin as a list of things to avoid doing
vi. Possibly the development of clericalism AND anti-clericalism instead of spiritual fatherhood.
I am sure that others will be able to come up with other issues. And of course this says nothing of the baneful influence of Protestantism in some areas of the Church.
Father Peter
i. immaculate conception
ii. original sin
iii. introduction of Augustinian theology
It is often the case, it seems to me, that modern Coptic writers use Roman Catholic terms without fully adopting the Roman Catholic doctrine, and thereby causing a degree of confusion. Unfortunately some other modern Coptic writers also adopt the Roman Catholic doctrine as well which causes even more confusion.
Father Peter
It seems to me that among the most significant Roman Catholic intrusions into the Coptic Orthodox Church are:
i. Several aspects of Roman Catholic theology
ii. The importance given to Augustine of Hippo
iii. Corruption of Coptic Orthodox art
iv. Hymnology as performance rather than as spiritual practice
v. Development of idea of sin as a list of things to avoid doing
vi. Possibly the development of clericalism AND anti-clericalism instead of spiritual fatherhood.
I am sure that others will be able to come up with other issues. And of course this says nothing of the baneful influence of Protestantism in some areas of the Church.
Father Peter
Dear Father:
Thank you for this. I also suspect that Protestantism has had some unhealthy influence on our Church as well. Would you agree?
But we are against immaculate conception so how could the Catholic Church influence us with that???
P.P. for me
Ebnyasoo3
I did not really understand what you meant by corruption of the Coptic art?
God bless.
Ebnyasoo3
In the 16 years I have been a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church I have had many disagreements with Copts who believed with their whole heart in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and believed that to deny it was to not be Coptic Orthodox. I have found this to be a real issue.
And in terms of art, there is a valuable tradition of Coptic iconography, both in ancient times, and in the present. My small Church has many icons by Deacon Stephane Rene which are of the highest international quality. But it seems to me that many Copts seem to prefer what is, to my taste, the worst possible Roman Catholic inspired modern art. Even when I was in the Cathedral on my visit to Egypt the projector screens were all showing naturalistic pictures of a man whose face was covered in blood etc, and which had more to do with Mel Gibson than with traditional Coptic iconography. I have even purchased many Coptic liturgical books which have such Western Catholic art on the cover, instead of Coptic iconography.
This is what I mean.
God bless you
Father Peter
The problem was never Roman influence but has become and is Byzantine influence. Byzantine influence, specially after the unity talks, has crept into the Church and represents the real danger.
You find the youth now quoting John of Damascus, the heretic, with passion. They know, teach and memorize the writings of Maximus the Nestorian. When you mention Severus, the very man John the [Moderated: Don't use insulting language] of Damascus insulted with so much ignorance, they have the look of a deer in the light on their faces or, in some cases, they consider Severus a heretic and ascribe to him the very lies Chalcedonians do. This is the direct result of the unity talks and normalizing the Byzantine as Orthodox, when they are confirmed heretics.
There is also Protestant influence due to the presence of a maltitude of protestant Bishops and priests in the Church and being in leadership positions, but this is a hopeless case anyways. A prime example of Byzantine influence. Augustine is important and a true Father of the Church.
The fact that the Byzantine attacked him for political reasons to undermine the Roman church should not affect the position of Augustine in our Church. This is a Chalcedonian Byzantine influence and not a Roman one. We do not have statues in the churches to resemble Roman influence nor Roman paitings but we have ugly Byzantine drawings in every new Coptic church.
Many new churches here in Ontario, Canada, have adopted Byzantine style paintings instead of Coptic icons. Maybe it is a local practice in your area but should not be generalized as to represent a phenomena in the Coptic Church. Some songs - in arabic- have references to this dogma and should be eliminated. Never has the Coptic Church believed this heresy at any level.
You seem very aggressive, which is not helpful when posting on a public forum. I am not at all sure why you have chosen to take such a negative view of the conversations which our fathers the Bishops, and His Holiness himself, are engaged in with the Eastern Orthodox.
The danger with the contacts with the Eastern Orthodox are that the younger people, who do not have a solid grounding in our Oriental Orthodox tradition, is that they turn to the texts which are more easily available in English, which tend to be those of the Eastern Orthodox in many cases. I disagree with you in regard to your view of the Eastern Orthodox as 'confirmed heretics', this has not been my general experience, nor that of our bishops, nor His Holiness.
You do seem to consider that the bishops are unworthy of your respect, and you describe them as 'a maltitude of protestant Bishops and priests in the Church and being in leadership positions, but this is a hopeless case'. This is hardly an Orthodox point of view. It is setting your own opinions above those of the rest of the Church. You must be careful that what might be acceptable questions of certain responses to certain issues does not turn into a general contempt - which I am afraid is the point of view that comes across in your post, even if you do not mean it to.
If I might answer some of your points.
i. Augustine of Hippo is never mentioned in ANY patristic writing until the 14th century. He is therefore clearly NOT a father of either the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox. This is a matter of fact. St Cyril and St Severus etc etc do not refer to his writings at all. And indeed in all of his writings there is much which is to be criticised. It was he who first took the position of the filioique for instance. His teachings on predestination are the basis of Protestantism, and his views on grace are the opposite of the Orthodox. If he is venerated as a saint it is because of his penitence, but that is also affected by his previous adoption of Manichaeism, and suggests that he was rather unbalanced in his spirituality. He had a damaged view of sexuality for instance.
ii. The corruption of Coptic Art cannot be laid at the feet of the Eastern Orthodox. It is rather shameful of you to describe Eastern Orthodox icons as 'drawings'. The corruption of both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox iconography was due to Western influences. The pictures I have seen in Coptic use are Western and not Eastern Orthodox. Indeed Eastern Orthodox has seen a renaissance of true iconography, which the Coptic community has also experienced a little later. I have a beautiful Eastern Orthodox icon on my wall here at home next to a Coptic icon of St Severus. Both are true icons. Yet I have seen many modern pictures in use in the Coptic Church which are not icons at all.
iii. I do not believe I generalised and suggested that all Coptic hymnology is performance. But it is clearly an issue in some places. In Roman Catholic worship the practice of music and hymnody became more important than the participation of the congregation, and became a matter of skill in performance and not spirituality in practice. I see that this is an issue in some places. It derives from a Western view of measuring the value of an act of worship.
iv. I have said several times that in my time as a Coptic Orthodox I have very often had very heated discussions with Copts about the Immaculate Conception, and Original Sin, and very clearly there are Copts who DO believe both of these doctrines, therefore it is not correct to say that it has never been believed at any level. I have had such conversations so it is a matter of fact that it is believed.
You are free to express your disagreement with our bishops and Pope, but I will moderate your posts to remove obvious insults directed at our clergy or at the Eastern Orthodox. The very fact that you consider our clergy to be in error suggests that you need to proceed with caution. It is very rarely the case that we know better than everyone else.
Father Peter
Thank you very much for explaining more.
Please Pray for me,
Your son,
Ebnyasoo3
The Coptic Orthodox understand that 'immaculate conception' means the unique miraculous holy incarnation of Jesus Christ by Saint Mary when the St Archangel Gabriel announced it to her, as it was by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Father Peter, may be the people you spoke with were confused about its meaning?
GBU
im lost right now
I am not aggressive and please refrain from turning the discussion into a personal debate by taking the liberty of labeling others.
I am not politically correct and do not intend to be such, which does not go well with people who support the ecumenical heresy and false unions with the Byzantine. False ecumenists promote sweet talk on the expense of truth. An official dogma is not expressed in private sessions and in heated discussions, it is the truth that is practiced and part of worship and gets formulated officially in times of need to confirm the faith. You know this. Is Immaculate conception part of our worship? Did it intrude on our liturgical rites? Is it in our prayers? I was asking you to show examples of such intrusions on our faith. I am not challenging you but asking.
As for Original sin, explain what you mean by the expression for it might have different definitions. Again, I am asking and not challenging you. My issue is with your generalization. We are not perfect, we know it, but individual instances do not justify your generalization.
Note this: Influence from the outside is a function of your exposure to foreign resources. Young kids in our Church are not exposed to Catholicism as much as they are exposed to Byzantine resources. They are warned from Catholicism and the heresies of Rome are well refuted in our church, but they are invited to "Byzantinism" by the following un-orthodox major practices:
a) Proclaiming that Chalcedonions are Orthodox, therefore being defenseless against their practices and teachings
b) Group hugs and joint meetings between our clergy and self-proclaimed Byzantine so-called priest ranks in which they are received as Orthodox
c) Joint agreements
By normalizing the heretical Chalcedonians, we open the door for the their books to fill our libraries. Can you name a church that does not have books of John the dog of Damascus, or Maximus the Heretic, or even contemporary heretics like Hopko or Bulgakov. Now this is a general situation and not individual.
If you are concerned about hymnology, the isolated instances that you mentioned are attributed to the Byzantine, not catholics. Many of our youth attend their gatherings and so-called liturgies, and they are affected by the way they practice which is similar to your description. Praises of a heretical group can only be void of the Spirit. 1. What danger of contact with the Chalcedonians are you speaking of? Specify them and explain why you do not warn against them as well.
2. Your general experience is in direct contradiction with the experience of the Church for the past 16 centuries. You are definitely in opposition to Severus, Dioscoros, Boulos el Boushy and Severus of Ashmonin and many other saints. I wonder how you or anybody who is of the same position regarding the Chalcedonians can utter their names in the congregation of the saints or ask for their absolution in the "absolution of the servants" in the liturgy. I respect orthodox clergy and not ecumenical figures who have placed themselves under anathema. You do not seem to appreciate the Coptic Orthodox history that is defined by its rejection of heresies, among them Chalcedonian ones, otherwise why would you defend Chalcedonians and the association with them. The real issue is that you take the position of the Chalcedonians, who for political reasons have rejected the teaching of Augustine to attack the Latins. We are not concerned with either.
You appealed to the Pope and Bishops to validate your position regarding the ecumenical talks. The Pope exclusively refers to Augustine in all his writings. Do not adopt a double standard.
Many fathers are not mentioned in other writings, and they are nevertheless Fathers of the Church. We do not adopt the Chalcedonian definition of "Father'', which is rather academic and scholastic but void of truth. Yustus El-Antony is a Father of the Church, although he never uttered one single word. Holiness by justification and grace, and not empty rhetorics, is what defines sainthood and being a father in our Church. This applies to Augustine as well, who lived a saintly life after his repentence. The spirit is at work in his life, and it will not lead him to heresy. He is not the author of confusion.
The teachings that you find Augustine wrong about can be read in many ways. His writings were known to other Fathers and he was not anathemized for what is clearly heretical if intended as you presented it, because they understood his writings in the context they were written in and in reference to the heresies he refuted. His view on grace, for instance, are written to refute Pelagianism and should be read in such context. Which beautiful Eastern icon is this? Of Justinian Emperor or Leo of Rome?
Icons are written teachings, they express dogma and are not judged by the artistic guidelines but rather by the dogma they express. Because Chalcedonians are Nestorians and heretics, the teachings conveyed by their icons are heretical as well.
Any product of heretics is also heretical. That is OK and within your moderator privilages, noting that I do not insult any orthodox clergy.
Orthodoxy is not defined by your standards, they are defined by the Church as proclaimed by the TRUE Fathers like Dioscoros. I am not inclined to respect heretics - I refer to Chalceodnians - because you think they are orthodox. I chose the same words Athanasius used to describe Arians, Cyril used to describe Nestorians and the Lord Christ, above all, used to describe heretics in general. Another Byzantine influence .....
It is not rare, it is a frequent occurence when it concerns the truth ... and when you are truly Orthodox.
Have a nice day.
Deacon S. BeStavros
With best wishes I don't wish to engage in this thread with you. I do not think it would be helpful to you, me or others.
You may consider me whatever you wish. My own history online clearly shows where I stand.
Father Peter
you are right.
I wish you and yours the best.
Thank you for your posts. I realize the language you use may be too strong for some but I think it is important to air our differences rather than sweep them under the rug. I agree with the principle of the "churches" coming together to work on common concerns but I think the wholesale abandonment of our doctrine or the dilution of it with outside influences is a very bad thing. The Fourth Council cannot be canonized by our Oriental Churches in any way, shape or form without our Church falling into heresy and risking the total loss of our identity.
My best to you.
By speaking about the intrusion of the thought of Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception, Fr. Peter wasn't talking about the intrusion of these into our official dogma, but rather in the minds of the congregation. In most of these I don't think Fr. Peter was talking in any way about their intrusion in our official doctrines, but rather in the minds of people and the Congregation.
His Holiness rarely uses Theological quotes from St. Augustine, but rather quotes about spirituality. Augustine didn't have the correct view of Original Sin to say the least (If you want to talk about this further please PM me)
Also I would like to point out that we are in no way going to give up our faith at all. Why do you think unity has not yet happened. No one wants to be in communion with a church whose beliefs are in correct and no one wants to sacrifice the true beliefs. Both churches agree that we already know that in the large part we share the same faith and we need to look at what there may be a difference in to see if we are different in any way. We have already signed an agreed statement on our faith (see http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.php).
Now I'm not as knowledgeable about the differences of faith in Chalcedon except a little past the basics, but through reading this agreed statement can you find anything in it that we don't believe or that is incorrect. How does this not prove that our faith is the same at least in the present. We see in the statement that both families condemn the Nestorian heresies.
[hr]
I would also like to say as a message to all (this is directed at no one in particular as I am a large culprit of this myself), that we should never get so caught up in Theology, that we forget our relationship with God in any way. We must remember the importance of Theology. Why do you think St. Athanasius defended so vigorously against Arius. Why do you think the Divinity of Christ matters so much. It is because it affects the completeness of our relationship with God. If we are to say that Christ isn't divine it affects the economy of salvation and our relationship with God.
However if our relationship with God is weak, what will sound Theology do for us. It is like talking about what is needed to engineer a rocket to the moon. Yes that is very important, however if we don't get to the moon what does it benefit us. We must also remember the words of St. Paul: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal."
This is in no way reducing the importance of Theology, but rather emphasizing the importance of a relationship with God. We see that every great Church Father, had an excellent relationship with God. God to them was not merely that which is in theological books. God to them was real, and they had a relationship with him which is not describable through words. I cannot tell you how often I was so wound up in Theology that I had no time to spend time with God, and knew much about him, but did not know him. Theology is important in that it lets us know about Him whom we know. They say that when we pass on from this life it is as if we have a wedding and the Groom is God. It is important to know about him whom we are with, and to know him. This is not very different from two people preparing for marriage. Yes they know about each other, and if someone said wrong about their fiancee they'd correct them, but more importantly they know each other and have a relationship with each other.
I fear that we may, after having struggled so much in this life, tell God: ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’ and I fear that His response will be: ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’
Let us always remember our relationship with God and the importance of Love in the lives of us Christian.
(I'd also like to say that I just opened up El Maqar and Anba David quoted James 3:13
"Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom." )
Please pray for my weak self and that I may take what I have written into actions.