Topic: Coptic Pope

[sprtslvr1973]

Can somebody please explain the difference between the Roman Pope and the Coptic one?

[Orthodox11]

One is the Patriarch of Rome, the other is the Patriarch of Alexandria. Our Patriarch of Alexandria (Theodoros II) also carries the title Pope.

[militantsparrow]

One is the Patriarch of Rome, the other is the Patriarch of Alexandria. Our Patriarch of Alexandria (Theodoros II) also carries the title Pope.

The Coptic Pope doesn't have the same understanding of his primacy though, does he?

[Father Peter]

The Coptic Pope is the senior bishop of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, and is a patriarch bishop. The word 'Pope' only means 'father'. There is no sense in which the Coptic Pope accepts or teaches the Roman Catholic doctrines of papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction.

Father Peter

[militantsparrow]

The Coptic Pope is the senior bishop of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, and is a patriarch bishop. The word 'Pope' only means 'father'. There is no sense in which the Coptic Pope accepts or teaches the Roman Catholic doctrines of papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction.

Father Peter

Thank you, Father Peter. I hope the OP doesn't mind if I hijack the post with my own question.

What is the OO historical opinion/view/understanding of the Primacy of Rome?

[Father Peter]

The primacy is one of honour only, and depends on the Orthodoxy of the holder of the see of Rome.

As far as I can see Leo of Rome had already gone beyond such ideas of fraternal primacy, and was the first bishop of Rome to attempt to impose a universal jurisdiction and the first to teach the filiioque.

When St Dioscorus became Pope of Alexandria, Leo sent him a letter instructing him that he must change the practices in Alexandria so that they exactly followed those of Rome. Such primacy was never accepted. Likewise, when he issued his Tome and expected that it would simply be accepted as the final word on the matter since issued by the bishop of Rome, it was in fact criticised because it did not seem to express a Cyrilline Christology.

There was a sense that Rome should have borne witness to the Apostolic faith, and when it did it could expect to hold a primacy of honour, but if it did not hold to the Apostolic faith then any sense of primacy was redundant.

During the persecution of the Church under Justin and Justinian, St Severus was effectively, and in terms of spiritual authority, the primate of the non-Chalcedonian communion and when in exile in Egypt was considered the de facto primate of Egypt as well as Syria, being looked on as the leader of the non-Chalcedonian communion.

It seems to me, as a personal opinion, that in some sense the primacy has a charismatic element and is not bound to a particular see but is a charism of the Holy Spirit which becomes manifest when the primacy is needed for the sake of the Church.

Father Peter

[militantsparrow]

The primacy is one of honour only, and depends on the Orthodoxy of the holder of the see of Rome.

As far as I can see Leo of Rome had already gone beyond such ideas of fraternal primacy, and was the first bishop of Rome to attempt to impose a universal jurisdiction and the first to teach the filiioque.

When St Dioscorus became Pope of Alexandria, Leo sent him a letter instructing him that he must change the practices in Alexandria so that they exactly followed those of Rome. Such primacy was never accepted. Likewise, when he issued his Tome and expected that it would simply be accepted as the final word on the matter since issued by the bishop of Rome, it was in fact criticised because it did not seem to express a Cyrilline Christology.

There was a sense that Rome should have borne witness to the Apostolic faith, and when it did it could expect to hold a primacy of honour, but if it did not hold to the Apostolic faith then any sense of primacy was redundant.

During the persecution of the Church under Justin and Justinian, St Severus was effectively, and in terms of spiritual authority, the primate of the non-Chalcedonian communion and when in exile in Egypt was considered the de facto primate of Egypt as well as Syria, being looked on as the leader of the non-Chalcedonian communion.

It seems to me, as a personal opinion, that in some sense the primacy has a charismatic element and is not bound to a particular see but is a charism of the Holy Spirit which becomes manifest when the primacy is needed for the sake of the Church.

Father Peter

Thank you for taking the time to respond, Father Peter.

[Father Peter]

No problem.

I am interested in developing my own thoughts about primacy and the Roman views of primacy. I am certainly not fixed in my thoughts, although I do know that I think the Roman view was in error from very early on while also being generally ignored by all those who could. I do think that it is a topic that does need a proper study from the Orthodox point of view - not that I am anyone to provide it of course.

Father Peter

[deusveritasest]

During the persecution of the Church under Justin and Justinian, St Severus was effectively, and in terms of spiritual authority, the primate of the non-Chalcedonian communion and when in exile in Egypt was considered the de facto primate of Egypt as well as Syria, being looked on as the leader of the non-Chalcedonian communion.

Was there a recognized Patriarch of Alexandria at this time?

[deusveritasest]

Can somebody please explain the difference between the Roman Pope and the Coptic one?

According to order of primacy of honor offered at Nicaea I and Constantinople I, it could be said that the Coptic Pope is the first in honor among the Oriental Orthodox bishops.

However, that is the maximum amount of regard that would be given him.

With regard to the African Oriental Orthodox, the Copts, Ethiopians, and Eritreans, he is generally recognized as having a "spiritual supremacy" even among the Ethiopians and Eritreans who are recognized as autocephalous.

With regard to the Copts, he is jurisdictionally the head bishop of their church.

There is absolutely no concept of universal jurisdiction or infallibility with respect to the Coptic Pope. Furthermore, even some of the prerogatives which the EP seems to be claiming nowadays are dismissed as having no place in the OO tradition.

[deusveritasest]

What is the OO historical opinion/view/understanding of the Primacy of Rome?

He was certainly recognized as having that primacy of honor. It is possible that he had some sort of prerogatives of presidency and appeal. But beyond that, nothing.

And at that, it would appear that this position essentially terminated in about 450.

[Alpo]

With regard to the African Oriental Orthodox, the Copts, Ethiopians, and Eritreans, he is generally recognized as having a "spiritual supremacy" even among the Ethiopians and Eritreans who are recognized as autocephalous.

What that means in practice?

[ialmisry]

The primacy is one of honour only, and depends on the Orthodoxy of the holder of the see of Rome.

As far as I can see Leo of Rome had already gone beyond such ideas of fraternal primacy, and was the first bishop of Rome to attempt to impose a universal jurisdiction

No, Pope St. Victor tried in the end of the second century, in setting the date of Pascha. He was rebuked by the entire Church. Btw, the date set by the Pope of Alexandria was the one eventurally adopted in Riome (who then sent a Crusade to enforce it on Ireland).

and the first to teach the filiioque.

Where did he teach the filioque?

When St Dioscorus became Pope of Alexandria, Leo sent him a letter instructing him that he must change the practices in Alexandria so that they exactly followed those of Rome. Such primacy was never accepted. Likewise, when he issued his Tome and expected that it would simply be accepted as the final word on the matter since issued by the bishop of Rome, it was in fact criticised because it did not seem to express a Cyrilline Christology.

Leaving aside the question of following St. Cyril's Christology, neither the Council of Chlacedon nor the EO accepted the Tome as the final word since Rome issued it: it was examined, and the Council wrote its own definition.

There was a sense that Rome should have borne witness to the Apostolic faith, and when it did it could expect to hold a primacy of honour, but if it did not hold to the Apostolic faith then any sense of primacy was redundant.

During the persecution of the Church under Justin and Justinian, St Severus was effectively, and in terms of spiritual authority, the primate of the non-Chalcedonian communion and when in exile in Egypt was considered the de facto primate of Egypt as well as Syria, being looked on as the leader of the non-Chalcedonian communion.

It seems to me, as a personal opinion, that in some sense the primacy has a charismatic element and is not bound to a particular see but is a charism of the Holy Spirit which becomes manifest when the primacy is needed for the sake of the Church.

Father Peter

[Father Peter]

You are incorrect in your comment about Ireland.

The South Irish bishops held a synod in the early part of the 7th century and decided to send to Rome to get advice about the calculation of Pascha. They then adopted the advice and instruction they receieved without any coercion. The Northumbrians adopted the Roman paschal calculation after the discussion at Streanshalch, and those few who did not wish to adopt it emigrated to North Ireland under the leadership of Colman, including some of the English.

A generation or so later, still without coercion, the North Irish all seem to have adopted the Roman/continental paschal calculation, and this was so even in the community which Colman had established.

Iona was one of the last places to hold out for the insular calculation and in the time of the brilliant and outstanding abbot St Adomnan, he kept the Roman pasch while most of his community still kept the insular custom. It was not long afterwards that even Iona kept the Roman pasch with everyone else.

There was no coercion, and there was no crusade.

Father Peter

[militantsparrow]

You are incorrect in your comment about Ireland.

The South Irish bishops held a synod in the early part of the 7th century and decided to send to Rome to get advice about the calculation of Pascha. They then adopted the advice and instruction they receieved without any coercion. The Northumbrians adopted the Roman paschal calculation after the discussion at Streanshalch, and those few who did not wish to adopt it emigrated to North Ireland under the leadership of Colman, including some of the English.

A generation or so later, still without coercion, the North Irish all seem to have adopted the Roman/continental paschal calculation, and this was so even in the community which Colman had established.

Iona was one of the last places to hold out for the insular calculation and in the time of the brilliant and outstanding abbot St Adomnan, he kept the Roman pasch while most of his community still kept the insular custom. It was not long afterwards that even Iona kept the Roman pasch with everyone else.

There was no coercion, and there was no crusade.

Father Peter

Excellent clarification, Fr. Peter.

[deusveritasest]

With regard to the African Oriental Orthodox, the Copts, Ethiopians, and Eritreans, he is generally recognized as having a "spiritual supremacy" even among the Ethiopians and Eritreans who are recognized as autocephalous.

What that means in practice?

Honestly, I don't know much about it. I hadn't run across the phrase "spiritual supremacy" until recently and am having a hard time understanding it. My guess is that it's some sort of honor whereby Alexandria is looked to as having some loose leadership role as an adviser and locus of unity because Alexandria is the mother see of all the African OO.

FYI, as a counterpart, this is not exclusive to the African OO, rather Antioch is said to have a "spiritual supremacy" over the West Syrian rite OO, and Etchmiadzin is said to have a "spiritual supremacy" over the Armenians, even over Cilicia.

[Salpy]

A polemical post was split off and put here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30365.0.html

[Ioannes]

A polemical post was split off and put here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30365.0.html

OMG, no offense Salpy.

[Salpy]

No problem.  When you get into the private forums, you'll see why it fit better there.   

[PSFam]

As an aside, pope is an honorific for the bishop of Alexandria and is tied to that see so any bishop of Alexandria is automatically pope, but not necessarily patriarch. In theory the Patriarch does not have to be the bishop of Alexandria but in practice they are the same.

[deusveritasest]

In theory the Patriarch does not have to be the bishop of Alexandria

Could you elaborate?