Coptic Pilgrimages To Jerusalem, Relationship between the Coptic church and the Latin church

[yaoifunboi]

Setting: Historical fantasy (based on the real world, but magic works and my Copts have cat ears and tails due to their ancestor's reverence for cats) set in the Early Middle Ages. The novel I'm currently prewriting will be set in Germany and Scandianvia. It follows the kidnapping of a young, half-Coptic squire by vikings, and his father's quest to

Comments

[orange_fell]

I Google searched and found in a book result that Copts are mentioned as pilgrims to Jerusalem in a letter from the caliph Umar (Omar) written circa 637 CE, but "[f]rom the on, there are not many references to Coptic monks in or Coptic pilgrims to Jerusalem prior to the Crusades in the eleventh century." That's from Otto Friedrich August Meinardus, Two Thousand Years of Coptic History, Cairo, American University in Cairo Press, 2002, p. 137. So it seems like Coptic pilgrimage was fairly rare.

As for question 2, yes, medieval Catholics would not consider the Copts proper Christians. Even if an Egyptian moved to Francia (there was no "Germany" at the time) somehow, he would most likely be considered a heretic. Europeans were not exactly cosmopolitan people in the 9th century, and those who had made it to Jerusalem and back were few and far between. An Egyptian shepherd brought back by a Frankish prince to his homeland would probably be treated as an exotic curiosity, even more so if he looked part animal. Anyway, there being no Coptic churches in France/the HRE, your shepherd's father would never again have had a chance to practice his religion correctly, so he would probably have converted (even more likely since he married a Catholic).

[orange_fell]

*your shepherd's father

I meant, your shepherd, your main character's father.

Also, part of your problem Google searching might be really outdated terms and spellings. Oriental Orthodox? Moslem? More current are "Eastern Orthodox" and "Muslim."

[dustthouart]

No, Oriental Orthodox is 100% correct. The Oriental Orthodox are NOT the Eastern Orthodox. These are the English terms most commonly used today to differentiate between Orthodox Churches that accept or reject the Council of Chalcedon.

They would be considered Christians, certainly. Just heretics and schismatics. You can be a heretic and still be considered Christian. See the New Advent Encyclopedia for the Catholic view on such things. However it's possible that common people wouldn't get that--or perhaps would accuse a Copt (if there's cat ears, I assume they can be visibly identified as being such and nothing else) of being a Muslim (or Mohammedean, they would probably say at the time).

I'd also like to say that the difference in Christology between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians is really subtle theological stuff--any common, uneducated person of the time wouldn't grasp the fine differences. For the average person the big difference would be in the language of liturgy, and perhaps a sense of loyalty to one's heritage and the saints and martyrs of one's Church.

[orange_fell]

I said they wouldn't be considered proper Christians by Europeans, not that they wouldn't be considered Christians at all. But it looks like I messed up about the term "Oriental Orthodox," thanks for the information.

[transemacabre]

Medieval Christians often referred to Arabs and Muslims in general as Saracens (most common), Ishmaelites, or Agarenes (after Hagar, mother of Ishmael).

[yaoifunboi]

I found that book too. I guess my best bet is to track it down if I can. I may have to handwave it, and say that if there were Coptic pilgrims in the 600s and pilgrims in the 1200s then there must have been some in between.

[orange_fell]

Yes, there must have been some in between, but they would have been very rare. It's your judgment call as to keep the Jerusalem scenario; making your characters meet in Egypt would require far less handwaving.