www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy Coptic Divine Liturgy

Has anyone here ever been to Divine Liturgy in a Coptic Orthodox Church?

I ask because there is a Coptic Orthodox parish in my town whose liturgy I would like to observe some Sunday morning. My curiosity is peaked because the schedule reads as follows:


Saturday: Vespers @ 7:00-7:30pm; Evening Praise @ 8:45-10:00pm
Sunday: Divine Liturgy @8:30am-12:00noon


8:30am until noon? Can that be right?

What liturgy do they use that is three and a half hours long?

I have visited the church on one occasion already; I attended their Saturday Evening Praise service, and that was pretty fascinating. All worshipers removed their shoes before entering the chapel and the men and women sat separately, on opposite sides of the center aisle. The women played finger cymbals and triangles during the service.

If their evening prayer service in the small chapel was so intriguing, I can only imagine what their Eucharistic liturgy in the main church must be like.

Maybe the have orthros before...

I went once during the week. I missed the beginning so I don't know how long it was. They filled (FILLED!) the room with so much incense smoke that despite me standing at the back, my wife could still smell it on me five hours later.

Yes, indeed, the Coptic Liturgy can be that long.

Many years,

Neil

I'm informed by a Coptic priest that whilst 830-noon is certainly feasible, the priests in the stricter parishes will get there about 5am to prepare.

The Liturgy is "that long" because it is comparatively "unreformed" compared to the Byzantine or Latin. The current Byzantine would used to have been much longer, but has been shortened over time for pastoral reasons. Also, Cotpic singing is very slow. How many syllables are there to Amen? 200 in fasting seasons?

My word. To think that we Roman Catholics get antsy if Sunday Mass goes beyond 45 minutes.


It's interesting that you say so because during the Evening Praise service I attended at this church, the chant was very rapid, so much so that this Roman Catholic accustomed to lethargically-recited public prayers had trouble keeping up (the text of the service was projected onto a screen set up in front of the iconastasis). Not that I particpated in the chanting, mind you, being completely unfamiliar with it, but even so, the prayers were chanted at a velocity that seemed almost indecent to Western ears.

It was fascinating, however, particularly when the finger cymbals and triangles came into play (which wasn't constant, but only at certain points during the service). Does anybody know anything about the significance of these instruments played by the female worshipers in the pews? I wonder if the same thing occurs during the Sunday Divine Liturgy.

I look forward to returning to this church; they were very warm and welcoming at my first visit and I enjoyed being with them.

The Coptic Orthodox parish in Altoona, PA, carries the text of the Divine Liturgy on its website if you'd care to read through it.

www.stminacopticorthodoxchurchofaltoona.com/ [stminacopticorthodoxchurchofaltoona.com]

RI,

What Church are you planning on visiting? If it's the one in North Tonawanda, I might be able to connect you with a member there; Adele is in charge of their Campus Ministry outreach at UB, he is a wonderful man.

Ed

Erie Byz:

What a small world. Yes, St. Mary and St. Moses the Black in NT, and yes, Adele is a wonderful man; I had the pleasure of meeting him at my first visit there. It was he, in fact, who found this bewildered Roman Catholic looking for the entrance to the church, and guided me to the lower level chapel where the Evening Prayer service was held. Before the service he offered me a tour of the main church, however, and I was fascinated.

At any rate, Adele could not have been friendlier or more welcoming. I look forward to returning. I nearly went to their Vespers service this evening, in fact, but remembered that I had some last minute Father's Day shopping to attend to. One of these Sundays I'd like to experience their Divine Liturgy. Perhaps next week.

I have been to the Coptic Liturgy a couple of times. Two words describe it: Long and Coptic. The language was Coptic and it lasted for about 4 hours. Most people come in towards the end and only stay for an hour.

Long and Coptic! LOL. Okay, well, that's succinct enough. I'm intrigued. Is it considered "kosher" for worshippers to arrive so late? I'm intrigued by the phenomenon of late arrivals at liturgy.

In the Roman Catholic Church it's common enough to see individuals arriving late here and there. I was at an Antiochian Orthodox Church last Sunday, however, and the number of people who arrived late surprised me. When the service began, the church was only about 1/3rd full. But people trickled in as the liturgy went on...lots of people...up to the priest's homily. Then, once the priest finished his homily, a crowd of about 25 people walked in. By the time of Communion, the church was full!

For all interested, St. Mary and St. Moses Coptic Church is hosting an Egyptian Fesitval Sept 8-9. Here is a link [buffalonews.com] to the Buffalo News article about it.

In regards to the length of liturgies, a ROCOR parish I regularly attended began all Sunday services at 9 am (Orthros) and Liturgy ended usually about 12:15 pm - longer if it was a feast day of unusual significance for the parish or a Great Feast.

I don't think most other Orthodox have regular Sunday services of this length, but I have only been to ROCOR and OCA parishes for Liturgy.

I attended a Coptic Orthodox liturgy in Jersey City forty years ago. I arrived at 10:20. Service was already under way. It ended at 2:00 p.m. When the young hieromonk greeted me at the end, I apologized for my lateness and asked when it began. He explained that since it was a great feast day (Holy Cross) they had begun a six. "Six o'clock in the morning", I gasped. "No," he smiled, "six o'clock last night." Now that's what I call an All-night Vigil! God bless and defend our Coptic brethren. He is already prospering the works of their hands!

That's great, thanks! I seldom read local news so I missed that, but now it's on my calendar. I've been wanting to visit St. Mary & St. Moses again, and this festival (which I never even knew they hosted) will be a perfect opportunity for that.

Well, I know that in the Western Church, the only liturgies (Masses) that are that long are the Easter Vigil and Palm Sunday, everything else is about an hour tops. I'm sure the same could be said about the Byzantine Rite churches, maybe a little over an hour, but even so. Haven't really attended too many Orthodox Divine Liturgies, though, although I did accidentally walk into a vespers/evening praise service at an Egyptian Festival once at St. Mark's Coptic Church. I thought it sounded great when I heard the end of it.

Well, I've done it. Last Sunday I attended the Divine Liturgy of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Amazing. I was utterly fascinated by the service.

The first thing that struck me was how young the congregation was. So many twentysomethings, teens, and children, many of them in active liturgical roles at the altar. I was at first perplexed at the sight of so many young people on the altar vested in white robes and deacon stoles, until it was explained to me afterwards that the Copts have various degrees of diaconate, and only the highest degree implies the equivalent of what we consider Holy Orders in the West. It was somewhat odd, nevertheless, to encounter a seven year old deacon!

Having been to Evening Praise at this church before, I was prepared for a shoeless congregation. Well, most of them were, at any rate; not all. One of the acolytes was completely barefoot. I was intrigued by the priest's headdress, called the "crown", which is shaped more or less like a Roman Catholic bishop's miter, only with a long white sheet hanging down from the back of it. The priest (who wielded a thurible fairly constantly) wore a vestment that was like an alb, but with embroidery; there was nothing like a chasuble worn over it. He also wore white slippers, as did some of the other liturgical ministers (others were simply unshod...like much of the congregation).

The hospitality I experienced was like the warm and welcoming hospitality I have experienced at other Orthodox churches I have visited, only more so. No fewer than five worshippers approached me during the (lengthy) service to bring me a service book and to offer to help me to follow along. I explained that it was my first time, and I really just wanted to look and listen. There was so much activity at the altar that the last thing I wanted was to bury my nose in a service book and miss it all.

I was surprised to discover that the Coptic Orthodox, unlike other Orthodox, exchange the "holy kiss" or "kiss of peace" with one another, as we do in the Roman Catholic Church. They do so by clasping their hands together (as they do in India when greeting one another, for example), kissing their fingertips, and then clasping the hand of the worshipper they are greeting. They then kiss their own fingertips a second time. The gesture is much more successful at expressing the notion of a "holy kiss" than is our contemporary Roman Catholic handshake (or wave, as is now so often the case). It's also a rather more touching gesture.

Incense is something that we do not get to experience often enough in the contemporary Roman Catholic Church. Having been attending Eastern liturgies routinely, now, for several months, I find myself disappointed by the lack of fragrance in the temples of my own Church whenever I attend Mass during the week. At this Coptic liturgy, the incense was fairly non-stop, and at one point it mingled with the aroma of cooking rising up from the church hall in the lower level. It began to seem as if one could actually taste the liturgy.

Although I was not surprised to find that Coptic Orthodox women cover their heads in church, I was not prepared for the sea of white lace mantillas on the right side of the aisle (women and men sit apart from one another, on opposite sides of the aisle). It looked at a glance like First Communion day at a Roman Catholic church.

The priest delivered his homily in English first, then again in Coptic. The liturgy, itself, was in both English and Coptic. The Middle Eastern style chanting was mezmerizing. Cymbals were employed to embellish the chant. Communion is a two-part affair. First, the Precious Body of Christ is distributed, then the congregation lines up a second time to receive the Precious Blood. They line up again after the service is over to receive blessed non-Eucharistic bread.

After the service, the priest delighted the congregation with letters from non-Copts who had attended the parish's Egyptian Festival held the previous weekend. They wrote to send donations and to express their satisfaction with the festival, most of them remarking on the interesting presentations about Coptic Orthodoxy that were offered in the church. Evidently, the church raised a very respectable amount of money during the festival.

When the service was completed, I left and walked out to my car. It's what Catholics do after Sunday worship...we rush out to our cars and go home (or go out for brunch). No. They were't having any of that. One of the deacons (Adel, whom I had met before) rushed out of the church after me (in his socks) and insisted that I come back inside to join everyone for lunch in the church hall and to meet the pastor. The pastor, Father Mark (a young man, like most everyone else there) was ordained by the late Pope Shenouda III specifically for this parish. The Pope of Alexandria is, in fact, this congregation's bishop. That surprised me, as did the revelation that Coptic priests, for the most part, are not seminary educated.

The entire experience, from beginning to end, was a delight. For me, the most touching moment of all, however, came with an introduction to a parish youth minister in the church hall before lunch. Upon being told of my Roman Catholic affiliation, this young man became very animated, asking me, "can you tell me, please, when these divisions between our churches will finally cease?" I was overjoyed to hear him express so vocally the very same question that was in my heart throughout the liturgy. "While our leaders may acknowledge divisions," I responded, "I perceive no separation at all bewteen you and me; as far as I can tell, you and I belong to one and the same Church." He heartily seconded my opinion and we embraced.

It all brought home to me what a sad and appalling nonsense the divisions between Orthodox and Catholics are. What does it all mean anymore when an Orthodox Egyptian-American and a Catholic Irish-American frankly and instantly recognize one another as brothers? What does it all mean when a Roman Catholic attends a 3 hour long Orthodox liturgy and completely forgets that he isn't in one of his own churches? We all celebrate, liturgically, the Body and Blood of the Lord; we all have the true priesthood, the true sacraments, and the apostolic succession. We all worship the Triune God and venerate the Mother of God and all the saints. Our churches are similarly appointed and richly embellished with sacred art. So the Orthodox erect their screens (iconostases) in front of their altars, and the Roman Catholics erect theirs (reredos) behind. Our differences are nothing compared to what we have in common. I should be able to communicate and even to fulfill my Sunday obligation at that Coptic church. They should, likewise, be free to worship and communicate at our Catholic churches.

Let the theologians quibble over the precise way in which the Holy Spirit proceeds. No, better yet, let them be quiet. Who cares? No matter what they decide to be in obstinate disagreement over with respect to such things, those Coptic Orthodox are my brothers...and I am their brother. We are not divided. Our apparent divisions, I am convinced, are merely illusions. Our brotherhood in Christ, on the other hand, is quite obviously real.

Roman,

First of all, thanks for sharing this!

The part about seminary education was of interest to me, as I am becoming increasingly convinced that our seminary system more closely resembles the training methods used by the Pharisees and Sadducees than it does the Apostles at the feet of Our Lord.

As our beloved JP2 said, "What unites us is far greater than what separates us, because what unites us is nothing less than Christ Himself."

Our brother StuartK once pointed out on this forum that during the height of the Arian controversy, even though the bishops were publicly condemning each other, the faithful were, for the most part, maintaining good relations amongst each other. I think this can and should be a model for Christians today.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I am reluctant to post this ... (it's never stopped me before - so what the hell)

COPTIC CHRISTIANS ARE NOT ORTHODOX

They are Monophysites and therefore heretical

I am sure that their liturgies are beautiful - I've been to one of the greatest Coptic Churches in the world in Cairo - but they are not in union with the Orthodox = let alone Roman Catholics.


Their mysteries are invalid - If they joined an Orthodox Church they would need to be Baptised and Chrismated as if they were never christian - they would need to be re catechized and re eductated. I believe the same holds true in the Roman Catholic theology.

I personally believe that they are christians with a great story to tell but their denial of 4 of the 7 major ecumenical councils is troubling and problematic -

I wish them all the best as they are severely persecuted by Muslims in Egypt and around the world - as are Serbian Orthodox and many other Orthodox Christians.

May God save their souls from the ravages of the muslim hoardes.

You should have stuck with your reluctance, as your post is wrong on multiple points.

The Coptic Orthodox are most certainly not heretical monophysites. Their Cyrillian christology (miaphysitism) was not what was condemned at Chalcedon. Rather, it was the Eutychian brand of monophysitism that denied the full humanity of Christ. The Oriental Orthodox have never denied that Christ is fully human. Furthermore, their sacraments are valid, from the Catholic perspective. The Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of the sacraments of the Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

Do you mind presenting the difference between a pharisee style education, vs. that of the apostles? Many thanks, Deacon Richard.

Lester.

They are not orthodox.

As an exercise - ask the major Orthodox Bishops in SCOBA to answer whether the Coptic Christians are Orthodox.

As an answer to your post ... monophysite is apparently out of "fashion"

Quote

However, the Council (Chalcedon) is not accepted by several of the ancient eastern churches, including the Oriental Orthodox of Egypt, Syria and Armenia, and the Assyrian Church of the East. The Oriental Orthodox teach 'one nature' in Christ, composed of both Godhead and manhood. Misrepresented as a denial of his true humanity, this used to be denigrated as the heresy of Monophysitism, though now the neutral terms Miaphysite and Miaphysitism are widely preferred.

I would argue that this still qualifies as heretical - even in the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes, they are Orthodox. Here is a direct quote from the First Agreed Statement [orthodoxunity.org], in 1989, between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox:



You would get a wide variety of answers of private Bishops. Why don't you ask if Catholics are orthodox? I am sure you would get a wide variety of answers.



Then Pope John Paul the II is a heretic for signing a joint statement with the Coptic Orthodox Pope saying that the two Churches agree on Christology [orthodoxwiki.org].

Well, truth be told, even though the COC is governed by its own Pope, which is all right, I do think that this is one of the few Orthodox Churches that does that I know of. All the others are governed by Metropolitan Archbishops, if I'm not mistaken.

Lester,

Well, if you think about it, the Apostles were essentially apprenticed to Our Lord, and learned primarily by observing Him, as well as by living and working with Him. The education of the Pharisees and Sadducees, on the other hand, was much more like what we know today as a formal education.

Before the advent of the seminary system, parishes functioned in much more of an apprenticeship model than would later be the case. Parishioners really saw themselves as disciples, and everyone had a role in the parish's work. Candidates for minor orders would be chosen from among them, some of whom would then go on to become candidates for Major Orders. (Granted, the system didn't always work well in practice, but when it didn't work it was the bishop's job to intervene and deal with the abuses.)

While some formal education in theology can undoubtedly be of benefit, the seminary system ipso facto made such education a necessary condition for orders, placing it ahead of all other considerations. At this point in my journey, I am inclined to think that this was a major factor in the loss of the idea that the parish was a place where the Church's life could be lived to the full (or that ordinary lay people could live it to the full).


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I don't know why people make a deal of this. The use of the term pope by the Coptic Orthodox is quite different from the understanding of the term pope in its Roman Catholic context. For the Coptic Orthodox, that title functions much like that of "patriarch". It does not suggest anything like the role of the Pope of Rome as one who holds universal jurisdiction and is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

If you reject the Coptic Orthodox as orthodox on the basis of their rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, then how do you, as a Catholic, not reject the Eastern Orthodox as orthodox on the basis of their rejection of the councils that followed the Second Council of Nicea?

As to your suggestion that the term monophysite is out of fashion, I have no problem applying it to those who actually hold to the brand of monophysitism that was addressed at Chalcedon, i.e., Eutychianism, which denies that Christ possesses a humanity consubstantial with our own. The Oriental Orthodox do not teach that, and they never have. If their christology is heretical, then so is the christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, because his christology is the christology of the Oriental Orthodox.

Finally, you assert that christology of the Oriental Orthodox is heretical even from the point of view of Roman Catholicism. The common christological statements between Rome and the Oriental Orthodox make that position very difficult for faithful Catholics to take.

I love it when Catholics under the Pope - contrained by severe rules and regulations and even more councils to define God go to extremes measures to not adhere to historical facts.

Once upon a Chalcedon time - there was a division - a serious division - back when they called them MonoPhysites.

Some say it was political - some say it was a difference in communication. Whatever it was - they parted ways they felt is was serious enough to part and they are not reunited despite what a few renegade Bishops might put down on paper.

If there is UNION UNITY COMMUNION then tell me brothers - what do we do with the words of the Ancient Fathers who rejected this?

Do we honor the same saints who (according to each --- Coptic and Orthodox) departed from one another? Who gets honored? Who gets honored more? Which saints are acceptable to either branch?

Who was right? The Copts or the Orthodox?
If Copts were right and the other wrong - then it's all backwards and the Orthodox should be seeking unity and union.
So it is the Orthodox problem and not the Coptic problem to even try to unite.

How do we honor the saints and Holy Ancient Fathers who at a MAJOR ECUMENICAL COUNCIL decided that one part of chrittianity was heretical to the point of ex communication and development of Dogma and doctrine? Do we pray one weekend for the Monophysites and the next for the true expression of the nautre of Christ?

One other problem is to refute what the Ancient Fathers decreed in the Councils - I believe it is the heresy of blasphemy to do so (you can look that up).

In addition do heretics who after many many centuries (1989) finally say - (oh it's really just semantics - these are just words we departed on ) and do they automatically get accepted back into the fold as if there was never a problem? Ia there a problem?

Does this 1989 statement override the council of Chalcedon or is it blasphemy to talk in opposition to our Holy Fathers of the Church?

Why don't we - at the same time - just dispense with all the rules dogma doctrine of any and all Christian religions and just call everyone Christian and just accept everything that everyone teaches? - kind of like a modern Christian - Love in - kind of NEW AGE RELIGION!

(actully I am more for that than against it)

If you want me to say I love Coptics then OK - I love Coptics
I view them with the upmost regard (which is all that letter said in 1989) and that they worship Christ the best way they know how as I try to do. I'll do you even better than that I have 2 or 3 Coptic Oriental Christian friends who I actually know and have met with and have had dinner with them in their homes in Egypt itself. I am not a Coptic Basher - they are truly being persecuted in Egupt and elsewhere and they have a stronger faith than I could ever muster.

Maybe I'm wrong - maybe I'm right ... I'll let you know in the afterlife - when all of you can jeer at me (me being in hell) as you are all seated by The Father - making sure you know I'm wrong about everything all the time.

I was wrong to suggest a survey among Bishops. A Bishop alone cannot - I say again CANNOT change church dogma with one letter.

The truth (according to the ecumenical councils and dogmatic theology of Orthodoxy as practiced by Greek, Russian, Antiochian Orthodoxy etc. ) is this - Coptic Orthodox are not Orthodox because they have for many thousands of years (almost) denied the 2 natures of Christ (for whatever reason).
They are christian - they are holy people - they are loving.

Coptic Catholics - are Catholic however.

May God watch over the Coptics - both Oriental Christian and Catholic may He protect them from the Muslims and may he admit them all to heaven before me (if it is possible for me to go in at all) as I am an unworthy servant and unchristian for pointing this out (I mean that in all sincerity)

Thank you.

I also wanted to address Pope John Paul II statement.

Can a Pope override an ecumenical council?

Then a more serious question - Can a Pope override an ecumenical council of a church who holds him as heretical in almost all matters not just a statement of Coptic Christology?

As Holy and as important as Pope John Paul II is to the christian world - and Catholics who hold him in very high regard. The Orthodox believe that all Popes are heretical - that the entire church is heretical.

Please don't excoriate me about this - I am just stating what I know about Orthodox.

(please note - this is a statement - it is not MY belief)

John

I love it when Catholics who don't like what comes out of Rome call a pope a "renegade bishop."

As for being accused of ignoring history, I won't just sit back and take that. I have an M. Div. and a Th.M. in historical theology, with a focus in patristics. I have studied the christological controversy. I have studied both the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon. I have not ignored history, and I don't think the others disagreeing with you in this thread have ignored it either.

The Council of Chalcedon was called to address the teachings of the monk Eutyches, who denied the full humanity of Christ. Those who did not accept the Council of Chalcedon and became what we know as Oriental Orthodox never taught that. They adhered, and still do, to the christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and that of the Council of Ephesus. They were unable to reconcile that christology with the Tome of Leo and the Definition of Chalcedon, which they believed to tend towards Nestorianism. They did not then, nor do they today, deny the humanity of Christ. Like St. Cyril, they speak of "one nature of the Word of God Incarnate." This formula, even though it speaks of "one nature," does not deny, as you claim, the two natures of Christ. They affirm the unity of the divinity and the humanity of our Lord "without separation, without confusion, and without alteration." In all honesty, it is difficult for me to understand how it is not obvious that the christology of the Oriental Orthodox, while using its own theological terminology, is the same as that of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

A final point. These lines "Maybe I'm wrong - maybe I'm right ... I'll let you know in the afterlife - when all of you can jeer at me (me being in hell) as you are all seated by The Father - making sure you know I'm wrong about everything all the time," do nothing to advance the conversation; rather, they are destructive and it would have been better had they not been written.

Your schooling does not intimidate me.

You should know what the argument is.

You did nothing to answer some serious questions - which are real

Who do we honor as Saints? How do we merge?

Are the Coptics going to adhere to the remaining ecumenical councils?

One more oint ... now that my blood is boiling again.

Are Coptics - Eastern Orthodox - adhering to the Holy Tradition of Orthodoxy (all 7 Ecumenical Councils)

Has this christology you point out really been resolved between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Coptics? Where - who?

The only thing presented so far is that they wish to be in Union but that union (with Orthodoxy) does not exist brother.

If it does - then please prove it to me.

Well stated.

I recommend to our brother, Haydukovich, to engage in some serious study on this issue. You should at least read the summaries of the Catholic - Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox - Oriental Orthodox dialogues.

The Oriental Orthodox are not heretical. From the Catholic perspective, they are welcome to worship in Catholic Churches and take the Sacraments (though they are always recommended to form their own parishes).

No one in this thread is claiming that the Coptic Orthodox are in communion with the Eastern Orthodox. I have never claimed that. The Coptic Orthodox are part of a communion commonly called Oriental Orthodox. I am well aware that they are not a part of the Eastern Orthodox communion of churches.

I did not point out my schooling to attempt to intimidate. However, I felt it necessary to respond to your claim that those who disagree with you in this thread are ignoring history. I have five years of graduate theological study. That is not to say that I'm automatically right and those who disagree with me are automatically wrong, but it ought to count for something. I certainly put in a great deal of reading, writing, and thought, and no doubt I will spend the rest of my life paying off the debts I've accumulated in order to obtain my theological education. Again, I'm not putting this out there to intimidate, but to demonstrate that I'm not operating in ignorance of the history or the important theological questions.

As to the questions of who are honored as saints, how we merge, and are the Coptic Orthodox going to adhere to the other councils, I agree that they are important questions. However, those are questions that, if there is to be a restoration of communion, will be resolved by the bishops of the various churches. Not by me, and not by you.

Thank you ... I stand corrected.

I will study more - and I thank all who engage in these discussions.

There is much to learn - especially by listening.

John

Thanks, for this .

Yeah...so any way, the food served after the liturgy was really good. "Boy, you monophysites really know how to cook a lamb," I told them.

How many who say the Copts are heretical have attended Coptic Liturgy or Morning/Evening prayer? There is no chance that anyone who has prayed with a Copt, Syriac, Armenian, etc will claim they are heretics, let alone less Orthodox than the Constantinopolitan Orthodox. In fact, much of the earliest division had to do with Byzantine Imperial aspirations! If anything, one should claim the EO deviated from the common Orthopraxis of Antioch/Alexandria/etc by imitating the richer, more political Byzantines (aka Eastern Romans).

Well, they certainly aren't of the same Rite of the Slavic Orthodox Churches (Serbian, Romanian, Belorussian, Macedonian, Russian, Ukrainian, etc...), to be sure.

Is the the seasoning that the Monophysites use ... it is actually 2 natures of seasonings in one bottle - creating it's own nature!

Is that what you really said, RI?


I find those two of the most hateful posts I've read on this forum. I've nothing more to say, and do not wish to see a reply.

Yes, they are not humorous at all.

Then close your eyes. I believe that just about anyone (apart from you, evidently), following this thread, would read in my earlier post nothing but the most positive and glowing review of an experience with the Coptic Orthodox at one of their liturgies. Would it not utterly beggar belief, then, to suppose that I would subsequently, for no reason, post something hateful about them?

Clearly, the little quip I made was by way of poking fun, not at the Copts, but at the wild debate tangent that ensued in reaction to my post, as to whether or not the Coptic Orthodox are monophysite heretics!

For heaven's sake.

I am sorry to offend

I was trying to make light of the situation and did not mean anything derogatory.

My response was to try and dispell the animosity that was taking over - and probably by my own fault and my own making - by digging my heals in on this issue without open mindedness.

If I was insensitive I apologize. I was trying to make friends with Roman Interloper by joking - and I guess this issue is a very sensitive issue.

I have come to a new undoerstanding though my interactions on this website and my discussions with my fellow travelers and Christian Brethren about the Coptic position thanks to Anthanasius and Nelson and others on this site and I especially apologize to them and all participants on this discussion - as I was trying to finish this thing - make light of it - and move on in brotherly love.

Please pray for me that I stay on this path- of being in Brotherly Love and not so polemic that I close my mind to the Children of God - both Christian and non Christian - Coptic and Muslim Catholic and Orthodox Right and Wrong. Lord keep a watch on my mouth ... put a lock upon the doors of my lips.

John Haydukovich

I, too, joke with my dear friend Very Rev. Vardabed Daniel (Findikyan) by telling him that I prefer Georgian cognac to Armenian because the latter leaves a monophysite aftertaste! Actually the non-Chalcedonian Churches prefer to use the term Miaphysite (echoing St. Cyril) to the odious 'monophysite' label. In any event, as the agreed statements with the Holy See testify the pre-Chalcedonian and non-Chacedonian Christologies are perfectly orthodox (capitalize the 'O' if you wish)!

LOL. Then I'd say something that, mmm, those Miaphysites really know how to roll a very tasty grape leaf with ground lamb and rice in it. The pickling vinegar that they use has to be the best on the planet (probably it's olive oil-based, but not sure).

I suppose they can say, you Nestorians sure know a good thing when you taste it!

Here's an image of the church, incidentally...

http://www.buffalocopts.org/OurChurch.htm

The iconostasis is temporary. I was shown the plans for the permanent iconostasis (which is being created in Egypt) and it will be quite magnificent. Very traditional, in dark wood, in keeping with the traditional architecture of the building.

The entire sanctuary of the church, as a matter of fact...which was formerly comprised of a large baptismal pool and a pulpit when the building was a Protestant church...is currently in the process of being completely renovated, redecorated, and refitted to make of it a fitting space for the celebration of the Orthodox liturgy.

When all is said and done, the holy table will be moved back to where the baptismal pool once was. The new iconostasis will likewise stand further back. The floor of the altar has been raised, so the new iconostasis will loom taller than the current one does.

A great concave apse wall has been built in front of the window you see in the photo above/behind the altar, and that apse wall will be adorned by an Egyptian artist with a mural of a crowned and enthroned Jesus Christ the Pantocrator. The transformation will be spectacular when everything is finished. I can hardly wait to see it when it's all done.

This church really is, in every way, a delightful treasure to have in a town like Tonawanda, New York, which is very much a typically humble, vanilla, American suburban residential community devoid of anything exotic or exquisite.

More and more I'm beginning to see how blessed I am to live in an area of New York State that boasts such an impressive array of Catholic, Orthodox, and other Apostolic churches. We've got Maronites, Copts, Greeks, Ukrainians, Russians, Serbians, Macedonians, Antiochians, Polish Nationals, enough Romans to conquer the ancient world...and heaven only knows who else. I am told there are one or two other Apostolic churches in Niagara Falls that are neither Catholic nor Orthodox that I have yet to encounter. It will be interesting to find out one day what that's all about.

Well, RI, here's a picture of a chapel in the COC by us, and I'm not sure what to make of the iconistas here, it's probably permanent, considering Pope Shennouda III consecrated it, but haven't seen photos from in the big church itself:

http://www.stmarkcoccleveland.org/i...amp;layout=blog&id=39&Itemid=192

EDIT: Oops, take that back, I also found a page with the Church pictures, too, mainly of the ceilings, but I see a little bit of the iconistas in there, but all in all looks great.

http://www.stmarkcoccleveland.org/i...amp;layout=blog&id=38&Itemid=191