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

Katherine

posted on Oct 23, 2007 - 12:38 AM

Hey everybody,

As I was sitting in my Western Civilization lecture today, my professor said something really interesting. She said that in the Coptic Church, Pontius Pilate is a canonized saint. Is that true? Because to me, he seems like quite the coward as he opts to simply wash his hands of Christ's case despite not seeing anything wrong with him.

Also in the creed we say, "And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate..." which doesn't exactly have positive connotations to it. And Luke 23:12 mentions the following verse: "And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves" so he isn't exactly keeping the best of company either.

If somebody could clarify this for me, I'd really appreciate it.

Cheers,

Katherine

Joined: Apr 28, 2006 | Posts: 51

Mina88

posted on Oct 23, 2007 - 12:53 AM

A saint?! I don't think so. How could he be saint? Did your professor tell you where she get this info from?

_________________
"Remember God's beautiful promises, and you will find comfort in your distress."
(Pope Shenouda III)

Pray for me.

Joined: Nov 18, 2003 | Posts: 117
Location: United States

Biboboy

posted on Oct 23, 2007 - 01:16 AM

Agape,

There are 2 conflicting accounts of Pontius Pilate's end: one story says that he died a Christian martyr, and this story comes from a 4th century apocryphal gospel called the "Gospel of Nicodemus" (which includes the "Acts of Pilate"); and the other story says he committed suicide, and the source of this story is the Church historian Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 2.7.1).

Pilate is canonized as a saint in the Ethiopian Church, not the Coptic Church. Some people still refer to the Ethiopian Church as the Coptic Church, but that's inaccurate - and that's not just since the schism, but it's because the Ethiopian Church has its own traditions that are very different from the Coptic Church.

_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).

"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.

In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 758

HonoringGod

posted on Oct 23, 2007 - 02:11 AM

http://coptichymns.net/module-library-v ... id-40.html
This link talks about the judgement of Christ. It shows that Pilate did not acually give the sentence of death. He only gave the jews the ability to sentence Christ. As you have read Christ accepted pilates judgement for it was right.
As Biboboy said we do not believe he is a saint. He, like many others, had a purpose in life. His purpose was to give the good judgement. We dont know what happened to him, whether he commited suicide or died a martyr. We cannot add him to the saints until his story is determined, which will most likely never happen.

Joined: Nov 17, 2003 | Posts: 41
Location: Southern Cal

Peter

posted on Oct 23, 2007 - 03:59 AM

Like Biboboy said only in the Ethiopian tradition.

In many older books/sources you will find the Ethiopian Church referred to as the Coptic church mainly because it was not granted autocephaly until 1959 relying on Alexandria for their patriarch and bishops. So in essence it was a jurisdiction within the Coptic church. So while not wholly accurate to refer to it as the Coptic church it is not completely wrong either.

Joined: Mar 18, 2003 | Posts: 461
Location: Jersey City, NJ

hany58

posted on Oct 23, 2007 - 04:17 AM

Hi All,
Pilate is not considered as a saint in our church at all, maybe in the athiopian church, but not the coptic orthodox church, I heard a sermon by HH Pope Shenouda and he was talking about Pilate, he said that Pilate was afraid to say the truth and feared to judge correctly, he is not a saint in our Coptic Orthodox Church, I have never heard from any priest about Pilate being a saint in our church,

In Christ

Hany

Joined: Mar 21, 2007 | Posts: 235

Iqbal

posted on Oct 24, 2007 - 12:37 AM

When we use the term 'church' to denote 'the Coptic church' vs. the 'Ethiopian church', and as such, 'my church' vs. 'their church', respectively, we are using the term in a very artificial and relative manner.

I wonder if there is really any truth in saying that Pontius Pilate is not a member of 'our Church' if we are to use the term in its more absolute and essential sense? "THE Church' after all is not, in its essence, divided along jurisdictional or cultural or geographical boundaries, but defined invisibly by the common communion of members dispersed throughout the world, with the One Head--Jesus Christ. As departed members of any given church remain members of that church, it generally goes without saying that any saint of any given church that we are in communion with, is by default a 'saint' of our church, though they are not commemorated in our diptychs or to be found in our Synaxarium. The Ethiopians, in essence, commune with Pilate, and we in turn commune with the Ethiopians and thereby with all their members of whom Pilate is one.

Ofcourse, one can say that the Ethiopian commemoration of Pilate is mistaken, innocent and noble, yes, but ultimately, mistaken, but until our churches rectify this issue once and for all, I don't think we can oversimplify it by falling back on the fact 'our church'--church being used in the loose sense--does not commemorate Pilate, because essentially, it does, albeit indirectly through communion with the Ethiopian church.

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 153

mikokiko

posted on Oct 24, 2007 - 04:29 AM

Iqbal, with all due respect the Ethiopian Church is in communion with the Coptic Church, but there is a reason why they are Ethiopian and we are Coptic. They have their own traditions which we do not adhere to, and we have ours. Part of this tradition is the fact that they believe Pontius Pilate to be a Saint. We do not believe so, and we in fact condemn him for at least what we know of him from the Holy Scriptures.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1350

Iqbal

posted on Oct 24, 2007 - 11:21 AM

Mikokiko,

there is a reason why they are Ethiopian and we are Coptic.

Ah...okay.....do you care to actually address the point of my post, which concerns the wider implications of this particular Ethiopian 'tradition' in light of our ecclesiological and Liturgical presuppositions? The distinction between the 'Ethiopian' and 'Coptic' church is ultimately relative and artifical (as I explained in my previous post), hence appeal to that distinction and the principles that undergird it do not resolve the contradiction provoked by consideration of the more essential and core ecclesiological characteristics, which are expressed through the Liturgical Life of the Church, and which ultimately define us as 'One Church.' Please read my post more carefully; thank you in advance.

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 153

mikokiko

posted on Oct 24, 2007 - 04:01 PM

I understood your whole position and I mostly agree with it. My only objection is that of contradiction. I do not understand how we can commune with Pontius Pilate simply because one of our sister churches has canonized him, while we remain condemning him and not venerating him as the Ethiopians do. How can we be communing with him then?

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1350

Iqbal

posted on Oct 24, 2007 - 04:56 PM

Because Pontius Pilate is effectively a member of the Ethiopian Church, which we are in communion with, by virtue of their commemoration of him. They express their communion with Pilate through their commemoration of him, and we in turn commune with the Ethiopians...the logical consequence is obvious. It's not merely a case of the Ethiopians adhering to a peculiar historical tradition of Pilate, it's a case of Ethiopians effectively receiving Pilate as a member of the Church upon consideration of that tradition.

Either there is a defect in the Ethiopian witness to the person of Pontius Pilate, or there is a defect in the witness of the Coptic Church; but the difference of positions cannot be reconciled so long as the Coptic Church and the Ethiopian Church are in communion and hence effectively and substantially 'ONE CHURCH'. It is a general principle that a Saint of any of our sister Churches is a Saint of 'our Church' when 'our Church' is taken in its substantial sense of 'the Body of Christ to which we belong' and not the artificial sense of 'the body of believers temporarily defined along jurisdictional boundaries.' Neither our Diptychs, nor the Synaxarion are intended to be exclusive in so far as who is and isn't a Saint (they're not 'closed canons' so to speak); only definitive.

Nevertheless, given the insignificant implications of this glitch to the practical life and Dogma of our churches, we are probably best to just leave Pilate's fate and legacy in the hands of God, especially if any attempt to confront the situation head on has the potential to cause scandal or divisiveness between our two churches.

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 153

Peter

posted on Oct 24, 2007 - 08:27 PM

Being in cummunion with another church, I believe is a little is a bit more nuanced than simple transitivity or reciprocity. An example is the Ethiopian canon, the have have the "loosest" biblical canon of any of the Apostolic churches. Despite being in communion with them, we do not accept their canon. It is not unheard of historically of a person being accepted within one jurisdiction and yet excommunicated in a another, admittedly more out of political reasons than any other.

Iqbal, I agree with you that we are all one Church and the use of my church versus your church is artificial but necessary to denote tradition/practices unique to those churches despite them being one Church.

Joined: Mar 18, 2003 | Posts: 461
Location: Jersey City, NJ

Iqbal

posted on Oct 25, 2007 - 02:50 AM

From Peter:Being in cummunion with another church, I believe is a little is a bit more nuanced than simple transitivity or reciprocity. An example is the Ethiopian canon, the have have the "loosest" biblical canon of any of the Apostolic churches.

Communion is an expression of unity between persons. I am talking about communion with a body as being an expression of reception of the human members of that body; not automatic reception of any and every peculiar "tradition" or "custom" of that body. If the Ethiopians merely regarded as authentic a text which related the story of Pilate in a favourable light and stopped at that, then there would be no real difficulty. The difficulty arises from their commemorating Pilate and hence communing him as a member of the Church.

It is not unheard of historically of a person being accepted within one jurisdiction and yet excommunicated in a another, admittedly more out of political reasons than any other.

I am not saying it is unprecedented, I am simply saying that it is a contradiction; it's a problem. An even greater problem which I think, unlike the issue concerning Pilate, must be addressed ASAP, is the issue of the Armenian anathema that remains against St Severus of Antioch. There has been no official revocation of it since its official administration.

necessary to denote tradition/practices unique to those churches despite them being one Church.

It's not necessary in any sense; just convenient. The various differences between our churches, including the canon, are based on historical contingencies; they do not arise out of any significant difference in the essential witness of our churches to Christ since those varying canons ultimately attest to the same understanding of Christ and are interpreted in light of Christ--the canonical setting of the Scriptures is not self-interpreting.

Scriptural canons, in my opinion as formed after formal study of the meaning and purpose of a canon of Scripture for the early Church, were shaped according to historical contingencies (the very existence of a Scriptural canon was the result of historical contingencies!). The scope of any given canon in the early Church, even that of St Athanasius, or that confirmed by any council, has no timeless significance; no absolute or necessary character. It is in my opinion that our Church would benefit greatly by revisiting the scope of its canon and enriching it by broadening it further.

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 153

minasoliman

posted on Oct 25, 2007 - 03:24 PM

I thought the issue of St. Severus was solved at the council of Dvin between the Syrians and the Armenians, which by logic may extend to all OO's.

Is there still an anathema against St. Severus, or was that council just affirming their anti-Julianistic dogma?

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1789

petertheodore

posted on Oct 25, 2007 - 04:49 PM

Hi Mina

I also thought that the issue had been dealt with centuries ago.

There was certainly an element of Julianism in the Armenian community, as there was even more so in the Coptic community, but I understood that very early on the Armenian Church accepted the Orthodox view.

Peter

Joined: Dec 02, 2003 | Posts: 434
Location: England

minasoliman

posted on Oct 26, 2007 - 12:32 AM

Yes indeed. I used to be a Julianist until I studied Church history. There is a problem with the Sunday Schools I attended in teaching Christology, if not others. In fact, an Anselmian side of Christology seems to have a heavy leaning on Julianism if not understood properly.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1789

Iqbal

posted on Oct 26, 2007 - 02:03 PM

The latest Armenian council to deal with the issue of Julianism vs. Severian Orthodoxy was a joint Synod between the Armenians and Syrians in the year 719 A.D.: The Council of Manazkert. Here, a list of 10 anathemas, designed to refute the teachings of BOTH Julian and St Severus, were drawn. There's a catch here though...Neither St Severus, nor Julian, are mentioned by name. It's quite clear, however, that anathema 6 was drawn with St Severus in mind. Personally, I am having difficulty trying to determine whether that anathema, in light of the anathema intended to refute Julianism, actually DOES, in essence, refute St Severus' Christology, or whether it refutes what may be said to be a variant of anti-Julian Christology that St Severus himself never actually held to. If the latter turns out to be the case, then these anathemas represent the Armenian Church aligning themselves with St Severus' Christology, albeit anonymously in light of their clear intention to anathematise his teachings.

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 153

petertheodore

posted on Oct 26, 2007 - 10:50 PM

Hiya

Can you post the text of the anathema in question?

Thanks

Peter

Joined: Dec 02, 2003 | Posts: 434
Location: England

Iqbal

posted on Oct 27, 2007 - 04:44 AM

Hi Peter,

I will have to email you directly on this one. The anathemas in question have been unofficially translated for me from the Armenian by an acquaintence and I am not sure that he would be comfortable that I release his translation publically.

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 153

petertheodore

posted on Oct 29, 2007 - 12:38 AM

No probs

But I also see that there is a paper in the Journal of Theological Studies (IIRC) on the same council.

Do you have access via University?

Peter

Joined: Dec 02, 2003 | Posts: 434
Location: England

tonyhabibi

posted on Oct 29, 2007 - 01:31 AM

Pontius Pilates wife is a saint in our church . .... correct ?

I just want to say , how do we elect someone to be a saint in our church ?

_________________
( insert Cool Signature here , think original )

Joined: Apr 10, 2004 | Posts: 1322
Location: IN THE back of your mind .navagating through your heart , resting in your soul .

Iqbal

posted on Oct 29, 2007 - 04:07 AM

From petertheodore:No probs

But I also see that there is a paper in the Journal of Theological Studies (IIRC) on the same council.

Do you have access via University?

Peter

Yeah, I have electronic access to JTS. Email me the details of the article and i'll download it and send you a copy.

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 153

minasoliman

posted on Oct 29, 2007 - 07:04 AM

From Iqbal:From petertheodore:No probs

But I also see that there is a paper in the Journal of Theological Studies (IIRC) on the same council.

Do you have access via University?

Peter

Yeah, I have electronic access to JTS. Email me the details of the article and i'll download it and send you a copy.

If you don't mind, can you forward this article you'll download to me as well?

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1789

petertheodore

posted on Oct 30, 2007 - 11:22 AM

There are two papers which look relevant, so if you are able to access them that would be interesting for some of us.

S. Peter Cowe
Armenian Christology in the seventh and eighth centuries with particular reference to the contributions of Catholicos Yovhan jnec‘I and Xosrovik T‘Argmani‘
J Theol Studies 55: 1-54.

R. W. THOMSON
AN ARMENIAN LIST OF HERESIES
J Theol Studies XVI: 358-367.

Let us know if you can get these.

Best wishes

Peter

Joined: Dec 02, 2003 | Posts: 434
Location: England