coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

SherryMikhail

posted on Aug 24, 2010 - 10:45 AM

Hey all!!

Okay, I have a question that has been on my mind possibly since 2005 as I recall writing down this question on a paper while at school so I can remember to ask! I didn't remember to ask until now lol.. I think mainly because I always thought it was a stupid or childish question.

Why is it that the catholics are on pope number 266 and we're on 117?

According to these 2 links comparing the two, "Pope" Peter was pope from the year 32 AD and St. Mark was pope from 43AD (I thought he was pope from around 60-63 AD?). I find this funny because St. Peters papacy started before St. Mark yet they managed to reach 266! Seriously, don't get how short their papacy's were so short lol!. Also why was their so many "vacant" times in our papacy list towards the recent ones more...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Co ... Alexandria

Thanks guys, I hope we can learn something new
What's also funny is that I just had an exam on comparative theology at the theological college and one of the questions asked why catholics claimed St. Peter as their first pope.. I just wrote (Matt 16:18). EPIC FAIL hehe

_________________
Saint Mark Coptic Orthodox Cathedral Sydney, Australia

"Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth" - Ec 12:1

Joined: Jun 04, 2004 | Posts: 659
Location: St Marks Cathedral, Sydney Australia

Truth.Seeker

posted on Aug 24, 2010 - 04:08 PM

Perhaps Catholics generally picked older men to be their Popes. Something to look into.

As for your exam question, the answer would be "because he was". It's like asking the Copts why St. Mark was their first Pope. If that's the best our theological colleges can do, things don't look too bright.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

mikokiko

posted on Aug 25, 2010 - 01:47 AM

Because he was one of the first to preach there, and the one to establish the Church in Rome (as one of the leaders of the Apostles)? Your answer does not seem totally wrong though. And yeah, I've always wondered the same. But I think what Truth.Seeker said might be true. They selected their popes when they were far older.

I have another quick question, that is a bit off-topic, but crossed my mind the other day. Who was our longest reigning pope, and for how long, and how long ago did he reign?

Thanks

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1341

Truth.Seeker

posted on Aug 25, 2010 - 04:34 PM

St. Peter was considered to be the first Pope of Rome long before the Church in Rome started making its papal claims in any significant way (it really started with the Tome of Leo in 448/449). Historical sources listed St. Peter as the first Pope of Rome long before then. That's why Matthew 16:18 is not the correct answer - the Catholic Church did not invent that St. Peter is its first Pope so it can claim papal infallibility. We can disagree with papal infallibility without disagreeing with historical facts.

Some trivia: You'll be interested to know that the Antiochian Orthodox Church also claims St. Peter as its first Pope ... that should raise an eye-brow or two.

Miko - I think it was Pope Cyril V: 1874-1927. 52 years.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

asinner

posted on Aug 27, 2010 - 01:45 PM

Hello,

In regards to the "Supremecy" of saint Peter lets take a look at Bishop Youssef of the SUS's answer

http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=622&catid=366

Quite simply, supremecy of St. Peter is nowhere biblicaly and is simply inccorect. Also think of this: At the first council of Jerusalem in the year 50 AD was headed by the bishop of Jerusalem St. James, yet it was also attended by St. Peter. Had he been supreme, he would have presided, yet it was not so. Supremecy did not exist within the apostles.

As for the papacy of the Church of Rome, i find something about it that has raised some question for me. Romans 15:20 has St. Paul saying,

"It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation." NIV

So Basically St. Paul was saying that he only preaches where no one else had preached before. The letter in which he wrote this was to the Romans -how ironic. So basically, if he had not preached where christ was already preached, and he evidently preached to the Romans (he wrote an epistle to them) then Christ must not have been preached to the Romans. Thus he was the first apostle to bring Christianity to rome.

In XC
-Raymond

_________________
-He that sins

A member of the HCOC (The Heritage of the Coptic Orthodox Choir)
HCOC-SING IT! LIVE IT! LOVE IT

OH YE DRY BONES, HERE THE WORD OF THE LORD! (Ezekiel 37:4)

Joined: Sep 14, 2004 | Posts: 313
Location: mrs.sauga

CopticSoldier

posted on Aug 27, 2010 - 02:55 PM

From asinner:Hello,

In regards to the "Supremecy" of saint Peter lets take a look at Bishop Youssef of the SUS's answer

http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=622&catid=366

Quite simply, supremecy of St. Peter is nowhere biblicaly and is simply inccorect. Also think of this: At the first council of Jerusalem in the year 50 AD was headed by the bishop of Jerusalem St. James, yet it was also attended by St. Peter. Had he been supreme, he would have presided, yet it was not so. Supremecy did not exist within the apostles.

As for the papacy of the Church of Rome, i find something about it that has raised some question for me. Romans 15:20 has St. Paul saying,

"It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation." NIV

So Basically St. Paul was saying that he only preaches where no one else had preached before. The letter in which he wrote this was to the Romans -how ironic. So basically, if he had not preached where christ was already preached, and he evidently preached to the Romans (he wrote an epistle to them) then Christ must not have been preached to the Romans. Thus he was the first apostle to bring Christianity to rome.

In XC
-Raymond

Hi Mate,

I hate to dispute with a noble Bishop but there is some weighty patristic evidence against this.

In the very book where the Apostolic Succession doctrine is first formed and defined for us (St Irenaeus's against heresies) it is recorded that both St Paul and St Peter founded the Church in Rome.

God bless,

CS

_________________
Email me: droo@coptichymns.net

Joined: Jan 25, 2004 | Posts: 828
Location: Melbourne, Australia.

Truth.Seeker

posted on Aug 27, 2010 - 04:12 PM

Just to clarify - most of asinner's post has nothing to do with Bishop Youssef's thoughts on the subject. Asinner just gave the link to Bishop Youssef and then wrote his (asinner's) thoughts. Asinner is wrong when it comes to what he said about Rome and Sts. Peter and Paul, but that is not something that Bishop Youssef said. Just follow the link and read the webpage.

Can we please pause before we start disagreeing with Bishops and make sure we know what we are disagreeing with?

asinner - it's good practice to differentiate between what you say personally and what an authoritative source says if you start out by referencing him.

Thanks.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

CopticSoldier

posted on Aug 28, 2010 - 08:26 AM

From Truth.Seeker:Just to clarify - most of asinner's post has nothing to do with Bishop Youssef's thoughts on the subject. Asinner just gave the link to Bishop Youssef and then wrote his (asinner's) thoughts. Asinner is wrong when it comes to what he said about Rome and Sts. Peter and Paul, but that is not something that Bishop Youssef said. Just follow the link and read the webpage.

Can we please pause before we start disagreeing with Bishops and make sure we know what we are disagreeing with?

asinner - it's good practice to differentiate between what you say personally and what an authoritative source says if you start out by referencing him.

Thanks.

Hi Truth.Seeker,

Thank you for this very sobering reminder.

God bless,

CS

_________________
Email me: droo@coptichymns.net

Joined: Jan 25, 2004 | Posts: 828
Location: Melbourne, Australia.