The Armenian Genocide had quite an influence in the Mediterranean Area, not just on the Armenians, but also on the Coptics, Syrians, Greeks.
I agree about the Majlis il-milli as being part of the issue. The French and British Occupations, with their own flavors helped to establish the "elitists" in the Coptic Church, aka, 'arakhna'. There are still Coptics who follow the churches of the foreigners as an elitist's statement about the 'clean' approach to Christianity. That is why there is still an Anglican and Latin Rite (and Coptic Catholic) presence in Egypt.
I believe these issues are setting themselves in the diaspora with the adoption of "foreign" ways.
The Armenians when they came to North America went into the bosom of the Episcopalian Church (the local branch of the Anglican Church). It is because of this influence that there has been a great detriment to it in the diaspora. This infiltration of the virus has carried it to the halls of Etchmiadzin. Some very disturbing learned practices from the Episcopalians: term elections for the bishop in a diocese (if that is not politicizing to the hilt--I don't know what is), sunday school during the liturgy (badarak), the wayside of the Sacrament of Confession into a general confessional, etc. Because of this influence, it has carried to all of the continents of the Armenian diaspora. Monasticism is essentially extinct in the Armenian Church because of this.
I think from the elitists of the 19th and 20th century in Egypt, there was a thought to "westernize" the church to make it "cleaner and crisper" and to try to avert an entanglement to genocide. I also feel that the elitists were just as stupid as the Christians who are in the present day thinking that they would be able to negotiate a power presence in the government. The Christians thought that with the exit of the British, there would be a hegemony and the making of the church into a more "politically minded" instituation under the umbrella of the majlis. They thought this would be achieved through their new found enlightenment.
As a comment on Pope Yusab, there is plenty of supposition and presentation from that era that he was poisoned by his own people; whether they were the youth or even the elitists. I think that the radicalism of one's own children raising their hand against their own father has major consequences; whether by marching him to the monastery or even if poisoning was carried out. The Commandment requires us to honor our fathers.
As Fr. Peter has pointed out about the nuances of Canon Law, there is a certain leeway. Heresy is a different issue. I do not think anyone can point to the three papacies as having any aspect of heresy.
The Protestant influence is happening because of the "base of the pyramid". The first portion is the laity, the second portion is the diaconate. These two levels are the most populus and exert a great influence on the higher levels, not to mention the nagging aspect of children to their fathers. The ordination and consecration at the higher levels comes from the lower levels. For this reason, I have tried to champion the aspect of diaconal responsibility and service. It is the most critical portion of the pyramid. It provides the link between the major clergy and the laity. The deacons have to be servants, humility instructors (from example), janitors, secretaries, drivers, prayer leaders in the aspects of the Tasbeha and the Agbeya, the eyes and ears of the priest/bishop, the maintenance of the lists in the Church, etc.
Without this critical portion of the pyramid, there is a disconnect. However, the function of the deacon does not come from edicts and proclamations. It comes from a surrender of the microphone/ego and wishing to submit to being the one who is willing to "wash the feet of everyone".
I will say: an ailing and sickly diaconate means for an ailing and sickly church.
The grave danger continuing to face the Church is the widespread desire to be like others, and copy the practices and spirituality of Protestants and others, rather than finding our life in the ancient and authentic Tradition of our own local Orthodox Church and the wider Orthodox communion.
This certainly does not mean living in the past, or ignoring the need to engage in mission in the language of the people among whom we find ourselves. But it does mean seeking to be transformed ourselves by the ancient and authentic Orthodox spiritual Tradition.
It means the rejection of all that is not Orthodox, whatever our personal opinions about how useful or attractive it is to us. It means seeking to be a servant above all, not making excuses and spiritualising or moralising the requirements of our Faith.
I think there is a spiral and reverse spiral affect/effect with a circular twist in a lot of aspects in the ministry of the Church.
There is a necessity for spiritual investment and monetary investment in the Church by everyone.
Some of the reasons for the adoption by the Protestantism in a simplified fashion are as follows: 1. Elitists want the "western" 2. The poor are being served and placated by the Pentecostal type Protestants. 3. Youth--lack of discipline, want a loose association with God. 4. People want the easy way vs. the straight and narrow.
I believe the Church needs considerable resources. When speaking of having full-time deacons, you need money. No fullness of tithes means not enough resources.
People criticize priests for catering to the financially afluent, yet those same people do not take their responsibility to support the church, and the pressure is always on the priest to find ways to pay the bills. Maybe the priest would be less pressured and able to spend more time being a father.
Even Pope Kyrillos needed money to build the Great Cathedral and to put up buildings for the entire complex at Anba Rueiss. This was not just for a cathedral and residence, but buildings for a variety of services and especialy academia in the Centers of Higher Studies and the Seminary.
If everyone presented the full extent of their tithes (monetarily and spiritually) I do not think we would be having any of these discussions. The investment comes from making a contribution, as a priority, before standing in line to pick up the next gadget from Apple Computers.
I think there is too much bellyaching and too much bellydancing and not enough hard work. A proper deacon is not afforded/accorded the time for bellyaching and bellydancing.
Resources allow for more priests and churches to be built. More service...means more education and teaching...more teaching and education...better understanding congregation and clergy.
Its too simple, but it requires faith in presenting one's sacrifice to God.
I think there is too much bellyaching and too much bellydancing and not enough hard work. A proper deacon is not afforded/accorded the time for bellyaching and bellydancing.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12653.msg149421#msg149421 date=1324544586] There can be reasons for selecting a bishop. But what are they? And why in any situation should the selection of a monk be passed over?
Cultural precedence. The Coptic culture respects the bishops as an educated, proven father figure with authority while seeing the monk as one who should be worrying about his own salvation.
It's not a good reason but we can't dismiss its impact on the mind of the Coptic laity (and the Synod foremost). Social perception is the only reason I can see that can maintain such a popular belief with no real evidence. Even educated laity and bishops feel the monks should concern themselves with their private salvation foremost and leave shepherding the people to a special type of monk who has already proven himself as bishop.
I'm not sure I agree. For 2000 years all Coptic Orthodox bishops have been monks. It is only in the last century this has changed. Therefore it cannot be a feature of traditional Coptic culture to select a bishop as Patriarch. This is, in the Coptic context, a novelty.
Anyone who thinks that surely cannogt be considered to be thinking in accordance with the Coptic spiritual tradition. And if that is the case then they should be resisted not accommodated.
I've been watching this thread and I'm so happy Fr. Peter and others have spoken out in favor of looking at the monks of the Coptic Church for the future leadership. To me, it expresses a lack of faith when we say things like, "how can the monk know how to deal with such and such a problem, he's never been in any situation like that?" Well to be honest, some of the things Pope Shenouda has had to deal with were nearly impossible situations and he always seems to have the perfect answer. Why do you think that is? While taking nothing away from His Holiness, I would argue that this guidance is coming foremost from God, not from his experience as a bishop. God chose His leader and God is going to guide him for the benefit of His church.
The point has been made before but it bears repeating: By choosing from a leader from the monks, we reduce the thoughts of grandeur that would naturally be born in any leader. As Fr. Peter said, priests don't dream about being bishops because it is impossible for them. To even strengthen the point, I have seen people who have taken offense to the fact that certain priests have not been elevated to the rank of hegumen even after a number of years of dedicated, tireless, fruitful service. By eliminating the possibility it allows the leaders to make decisions with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It could be very tempting to make a decision and think how it could improve the person's popularity or "resume." By choosing from monks, the Church is choosing from people who wanted nothing to do with leadership, but have been called to leadership by God.
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=12653.msg149351#msg149351 date=1324472058] Everyone talks the talk, but their "ain't" no walk. All quack, quack, quack....
...I should have definitely read this before posting anything!! :o
I don't know if you can qualify Pope Cyril VI's papacy as the most successful era. What criteria are using? Lack of previous episcopacy?
This would have been enough, but it would not do justice to the greatness of Pope Cyril VI.
I meant to contrast the scandals of the uncanonical Popes with the Grace of God that worked though the only canonical Pope ordained in the 20th century, to show that it is not about personal qualities (which none of the uncanonical Popes lacked and which Pope Kyrillos possesed in abundance) but rather about the Spirit and its work in the obedient and humble. By that, I want to show why we should never ever again select a bishop to be a Pope. It is unfair to the bishop and disasterous for the Church.
He is the greatest in my opinion because of his accomplishments and because he turned the church around from an empty church with un-orthodox clergy and laity to a powerful Orthodox church on all aspects. But the greatest aspect of all: He was a true Father as St. Pishoy Kamel testified.
He was a visionary and because the Spirit dwelt in Him, many of his selections and decisions that were not understood at the time were validated years after.
The Patriarchate of the last canonical Pope definitely deserves to be researched in terms of the huge accomplishment it contained through the grace of God. Usually the only books that sell for Pope Cyril VI are about his miracles, but it is his Papacy that is really the most significant aspect of his life.
And besides, who do you think is worthy of challenging Pope Cyril VI? Is it Anba Youaness who finished his life irrelevant to the Copts, isolated in his Papal residence? Would it be Anba Macarius, who prayed day and night with tears to be taken from this world because he felt that God has abondoned him when he accepted the Patriarchate? Or is Anba Yousab your pick? Did I miss anybody else?
You think Pope Cyril VI's hand in hand march with President Abdel Nasser was not political?
It was not a hand in hand march. It was rather a father (like the Great Nasser used to call Pope Cyril VI) pulling his son after him in an unprecedented move that defies all protocols and isults the President.
Abona Rofael relates the story in this manner. President Nasser felt great pain in his shoulder and arm due to the illness he had. Pope Cyril VI, by the Spirit, felt his pain and took this courageous move to give the ailing President "energy" to continue the day. President Nasser was healed immediately and called H.H. afterwards to thank him. It was a lasting image for both muslims and christians, to show what a man of God does and how he acts without fear or political strings attached to his neck.
Nasser was not impressed by politics nor character. He was impressed by the sainthood of Pope Kyrillos. Their friendship started with very aggressive Nasser insulting the Pope, only to apologize for his transgression when the Pope healed the President's daughter from epilepsy.
The autocephaly promotion of the Ethiopian Church had plenty of political pressure. I don't think politics is as barren in the papacy of Pope Cyril VI as you may assume.
Not in this case.
Sometimes, historian and researchers cannot comprehend the supernatural and divine aspect of the Church, and I do not blame them for it is outside the scope of their research and not within their reach with human efforts. Therefore, any move by a saint is always attributed to politics.
It is hard to believe that the epislepsy of Mona Abd El-Nasser was politics, or that the sudden death of Anba Youaness, the Metropolitan of Giza who conspired to remove Pope Kyrillos from office, is politics.
The autocephaly of Ethiopia was the right move, and it was delayed for centuries. Consider sending a Coptic Bishop to head the BOC or FOC and eliminating their own from higher ranks. Why?
Playing politics is becoming a virtue for the priest or bishop, and one of the absolute requirements of the modern Coptic clergy. And it is very wrong, but at least let us maintain the image of the true saints clean from the stain of politics, because they were not politicians.
As long as we are discussing canons, there is an Apostolic canon that forbids any clergy from involving the contemporary political powers and government in ascending the priesthood ladder and excommunicates anyone who invokes earthly might and power to be ordained.
Politics and sainthood do not mix.
This is way too eerie. You must have invaded my mind. This is part of my conclusion on the 19th century papacy of Popes Cyril IV and Cyril V which I will present in Los Angeles this summer.
I am very interested in consulting your research for more information on the 19th century Coptic Church. I am interested in the Papacy of Cyrils IV and V. I will read the proceedings of the conference once finished.
Whoa. Also in my discussion on Pope Cyril IV. But obviously from 1820-1887, not 1928-1956.
You make me excited to read your research.
I was always led to believe in my youth through Sunday School Propaganda that he was a saint and Father of Reformation. Is he really? This iconoclast? A Pope who orders his deacons to sing "Ep'oro" for a printing machine, regardless of the genuity fo the invention at the time?
He might have been a good administrator, but a saint?
The same thing happened to Pope Cyril V by the Coptic elite (not the youth) who were fired up by allegations of financial incompetence, mishandling of Church property and waqf, alleged ignorance of Coptic clergy, disregard of the poor and abuse of clerical duties. Pope Cyril was deposed and sent to live in a monastery. His image would have been tarnished but the poor laity and the clergy backed the Pope against the Coptic communal committee (maglis al mili) and the Ottoman government. The Coptic elite continued such allegations and the committee was broken 4 times all the way up to the 1920's.
Interesting facts.
The Magles El-Meli was a recipe for disaster since its inception and a tool of the governments, except in the age of Nasser when he, the President, dissolved it for financial incompetence and because they proved to be traitors to their Pope.
Even now, with billionares like Tharwat Bassili dominating the Maglis El-Meli, void of spirituality but heavy in money, they usually deal with the Church as a business. Their influence is far reaching.For example, CTV, the coptic channel which Bassili owns and runs, is polishing one of the general bishops to be the next Pope.
Most of the church boards are smaller versions of maglis el-meli.
Because no one sees it as a scandal, especially since there is such a huge precedence in all Apostolic Churches
There is also huge precedence of Protestantism and simony in all Apostolic churches. It is not a popularity contest.
I am eager to read your research. What other periods in the Coptic Church are within your interests
RemnKemi:Even educated laity and bishops feel the monks should concern themselves with their private salvation foremost and leave shepherding the people to a special type of monk who has already proven himself as bishop.
Because they do not trust God but rely on arm of men. They are cursed.
ILSM:sunday school during the liturgy (badarak),
We do have this practice in many churches during communion, because the parents do not like to waste time after the liturgy. 3ady 3ani.
ILSM:Monasticism is essentially extinct in the Armenian Church because of this.
Maybe that is why they ordain bishops to the Patriarchate in the Armenian church. Who else will the ordain?
We have some monks left.
ILMS:As a comment on Pope Yusab, there is plenty of supposition and presentation from that era that he was poisoned by his own people; whether they were the youth or even the elitists. I think that the radicalism of one's own children raising their hand against their own father has major consequences; whether by marching him to the monastery or even if poisoning was carried out. The Commandment requires us to honor our fathers.
Nobody is condoning what happened, and there are nightmarish stories about what happened during the abduction.
But the whole moral is not the actions of those abductors who were nothing but rascals and proved in the course of their lives to have no idea about the Church (two became muslims), but the moral is that even a saintly and able bishop, who has proven his worth in his diocese, is left a prey for Satan when he breaks the canons and becomes empty of the Holy Spirit.
Let us remember: Anba Yousab was a saint before his Papacy.
The fruits of such Papacies are terrible. Contrast this to Pope Cyril VI.
He had a tyrant like Nasser to deal with, a communist police state, a growing fundamental muslim population, a very weak church, a despised office of Papacy by the Copts due to the infringements of the past, conspiracies from within and without and attempts of murder by his own bishops, a maglis meli who stopped financing the church and blocked all his initiatives, and prolific writers (one of them a bishop whose mission was supposed to educate the congregation) attacking him because of his lack of university education and what this bishop called "the baba el gahel". To borrow your words, some of his children raised their hand on their father. But the outcome was totally different with Pope Kyrillos.
No Pope goes through this and succeeds unless he is backed by the Holy Spirit. Nobody else did it in the 20th century, although they had more favorable conditions.
I will say: an ailing and sickly diaconate means for an ailing and sickly church.
You are totally right.
I prefer the analogy of a bishop standing on two legs (priesthood and deaconate) better than the pyramid structure. I am under the impression that deacons were traditionally not subject to priests as a rank, but only to the bishop. In Giza, this is the way it has been during the late Anba Domadius Episcopacy.
I believe the Church needs considerable resources. When speaking of having full-time deacons, you need money. No fullness of tithes means not enough resources.
We have the money. Plenty of it.
I do not think that the salary of a deacon will be a burden on the church. Any church in Canada commands a handsome amount of money every year that is being allocated to expanding the church, or building a new church just next to the old one, or renewing the bathrooms, replacing the tiles with ceramic and the ceramic with granite and the granite with crystallic floors, and so on and so forth. Money is never the problem, it is the lack of appreciation of this rank.
Forget the money issue:
Why do we have deacons in diapers? Shouldn't the rank of St. Stephen at least require potty-trained persons, 2 +yrs?
Why do we have smokers and junkies in this rank?
Why is every random uncle who happen to pass by the church offered the rank of deacon as if he is offered a can of Pepsi or a cigar?
The answer is: Because nobody respects this rank nor the church canons.
Comments
I agree about the Majlis il-milli as being part of the issue. The French and British Occupations, with their own flavors helped to establish the "elitists" in the Coptic Church, aka, 'arakhna'. There are still Coptics who follow the churches of the foreigners as an elitist's statement about the 'clean' approach to Christianity. That is why there is still an Anglican and Latin Rite (and Coptic Catholic) presence in Egypt.
I believe these issues are setting themselves in the diaspora with the adoption of "foreign" ways.
The Armenians when they came to North America went into the bosom of the Episcopalian Church (the local branch of the Anglican Church). It is because of this influence that there has been a great detriment to it in the diaspora. This infiltration of the virus has carried it to the halls of Etchmiadzin. Some very disturbing learned practices from the Episcopalians: term elections for the bishop in a diocese (if that is not politicizing to the hilt--I don't know what is), sunday school during the liturgy (badarak), the wayside of the Sacrament of Confession into a general confessional, etc. Because of this influence, it has carried to all of the continents of the Armenian diaspora. Monasticism is essentially extinct in the Armenian Church because of this.
I think from the elitists of the 19th and 20th century in Egypt, there was a thought to "westernize" the church to make it "cleaner and crisper" and to try to avert an entanglement to genocide. I also feel that the elitists were just as stupid as the Christians who are in the present day thinking that they would be able to negotiate a power presence in the government. The Christians thought that with the exit of the British, there would be a hegemony and the making of the church into a more "politically minded" instituation under the umbrella of the majlis. They thought this would be achieved through their new found enlightenment.
As a comment on Pope Yusab, there is plenty of supposition and presentation from that era that he was poisoned by his own people; whether they were the youth or even the elitists. I think that the radicalism of one's own children raising their hand against their own father has major consequences; whether by marching him to the monastery or even if poisoning was carried out. The Commandment requires us to honor our fathers.
As Fr. Peter has pointed out about the nuances of Canon Law, there is a certain leeway. Heresy is a different issue. I do not think anyone can point to the three papacies as having any aspect of heresy.
The Protestant influence is happening because of the "base of the pyramid". The first portion is the laity, the second portion is the diaconate. These two levels are the most populus and exert a great influence on the higher levels, not to mention the nagging aspect of children to their fathers. The ordination and consecration at the higher levels comes from the lower levels. For this reason, I have tried to champion the aspect of diaconal responsibility and service. It is the most critical portion of the pyramid. It provides the link between the major clergy and the laity. The deacons have to be servants, humility instructors (from example), janitors, secretaries, drivers, prayer leaders in the aspects of the Tasbeha and the Agbeya, the eyes and ears of the priest/bishop, the maintenance of the lists in the Church, etc.
Without this critical portion of the pyramid, there is a disconnect. However, the function of the deacon does not come from edicts and proclamations. It comes from a surrender of the microphone/ego and wishing to submit to being the one who is willing to "wash the feet of everyone".
I will say: an ailing and sickly diaconate means for an ailing and sickly church.
The grave danger continuing to face the Church is the widespread desire to be like others, and copy the practices and spirituality of Protestants and others, rather than finding our life in the ancient and authentic Tradition of our own local Orthodox Church and the wider Orthodox communion.
This certainly does not mean living in the past, or ignoring the need to engage in mission in the language of the people among whom we find ourselves. But it does mean seeking to be transformed ourselves by the ancient and authentic Orthodox spiritual Tradition.
It means the rejection of all that is not Orthodox, whatever our personal opinions about how useful or attractive it is to us. It means seeking to be a servant above all, not making excuses and spiritualising or moralising the requirements of our Faith.
There is a necessity for spiritual investment and monetary investment in the Church by everyone.
Some of the reasons for the adoption by the Protestantism in a simplified fashion are as follows:
1. Elitists want the "western"
2. The poor are being served and placated by the Pentecostal type Protestants.
3. Youth--lack of discipline, want a loose association with God.
4. People want the easy way vs. the straight and narrow.
I believe the Church needs considerable resources. When speaking of having full-time deacons, you need money. No fullness of tithes means not enough resources.
People criticize priests for catering to the financially afluent, yet those same people do not take their responsibility to support the church, and the pressure is always on the priest to find ways to pay the bills. Maybe the priest would be less pressured and able to spend more time being a father.
Even Pope Kyrillos needed money to build the Great Cathedral and to put up buildings for the entire complex at Anba Rueiss. This was not just for a cathedral and residence, but buildings for a variety of services and especialy academia in the Centers of Higher Studies and the Seminary.
If everyone presented the full extent of their tithes (monetarily and spiritually) I do not think we would be having any of these discussions. The investment comes from making a contribution, as a priority, before standing in line to pick up the next gadget from Apple Computers.
I think there is too much bellyaching and too much bellydancing and not enough hard work. A proper deacon is not afforded/accorded the time for bellyaching and bellydancing.
Resources allow for more priests and churches to be built. More service...means more education and teaching...more teaching and education...better understanding congregation and clergy.
Its too simple, but it requires faith in presenting one's sacrifice to God.
There can be reasons for selecting a bishop. But what are they? And why in any situation should the selection of a monk be passed over?
Cultural precedence. The Coptic culture respects the bishops as an educated, proven father figure with authority while seeing the monk as one who should be worrying about his own salvation.
It's not a good reason but we can't dismiss its impact on the mind of the Coptic laity (and the Synod foremost). Social perception is the only reason I can see that can maintain such a popular belief with no real evidence. Even educated laity and bishops feel the monks should concern themselves with their private salvation foremost and leave shepherding the people to a special type of monk who has already proven himself as bishop.
Anyone who thinks that surely cannogt be considered to be thinking in accordance with the Coptic spiritual tradition. And if that is the case then they should be resisted not accommodated.
The point has been made before but it bears repeating: By choosing from a leader from the monks, we reduce the thoughts of grandeur that would naturally be born in any leader. As Fr. Peter said, priests don't dream about being bishops because it is impossible for them. To even strengthen the point, I have seen people who have taken offense to the fact that certain priests have not been elevated to the rank of hegumen even after a number of years of dedicated, tireless, fruitful service. By eliminating the possibility it allows the leaders to make decisions with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It could be very tempting to make a decision and think how it could improve the person's popularity or "resume." By choosing from monks, the Church is choosing from people who wanted nothing to do with leadership, but have been called to leadership by God.
That's all.
Everyone talks the talk, but their "ain't" no walk. All quack, quack, quack....
...I should have definitely read this before posting anything!! :o
I meant to contrast the scandals of the uncanonical Popes with the Grace of God that worked though the only canonical Pope ordained in the 20th century, to show that it is not about personal qualities (which none of the uncanonical Popes lacked and which Pope Kyrillos possesed in abundance) but rather about the Spirit and its work in the obedient and humble. By that, I want to show why we should never ever again select a bishop to be a Pope. It is unfair to the bishop and disasterous for the Church.
He is the greatest in my opinion because of his accomplishments and because he turned the church around from an empty church with un-orthodox clergy and laity to a powerful Orthodox church on all aspects. But the greatest aspect of all: He was a true Father as St. Pishoy Kamel testified.
He was a visionary and because the Spirit dwelt in Him, many of his selections and decisions that were not understood at the time were validated years after.
The Patriarchate of the last canonical Pope definitely deserves to be researched in terms of the huge accomplishment it contained through the grace of God. Usually the only books that sell for Pope Cyril VI are about his miracles, but it is his Papacy that is really the most significant aspect of his life.
And besides, who do you think is worthy of challenging Pope Cyril VI? Is it Anba Youaness who finished his life irrelevant to the Copts, isolated in his Papal residence? Would it be Anba Macarius, who prayed day and night with tears to be taken from this world because he felt that God has abondoned him when he accepted the Patriarchate? Or is Anba Yousab your pick? Did I miss anybody else? It was not a hand in hand march. It was rather a father (like the Great Nasser used to call Pope Cyril VI) pulling his son after him in an unprecedented move that defies all protocols and isults the President.
Abona Rofael relates the story in this manner. President Nasser felt great pain in his shoulder and arm due to the illness he had. Pope Cyril VI, by the Spirit, felt his pain and took this courageous move to give the ailing President "energy" to continue the day. President Nasser was healed immediately and called H.H. afterwards to thank him. It was a lasting image for both muslims and christians, to show what a man of God does and how he acts without fear or political strings attached to his neck.
Nasser was not impressed by politics nor character. He was impressed by the sainthood of Pope Kyrillos. Their friendship started with very aggressive Nasser insulting the Pope, only to apologize for his transgression when the Pope healed the President's daughter from epilepsy. Not in this case.
Sometimes, historian and researchers cannot comprehend the supernatural and divine aspect of the Church, and I do not blame them for it is outside the scope of their research and not within their reach with human efforts. Therefore, any move by a saint is always attributed to politics.
It is hard to believe that the epislepsy of Mona Abd El-Nasser was politics, or that the sudden death of Anba Youaness, the Metropolitan of Giza who conspired to remove Pope Kyrillos from office, is politics.
The autocephaly of Ethiopia was the right move, and it was delayed for centuries. Consider sending a Coptic Bishop to head the BOC or FOC and eliminating their own from higher ranks. Why?
Playing politics is becoming a virtue for the priest or bishop, and one of the absolute requirements of the modern Coptic clergy. And it is very wrong, but at least let us maintain the image of the true saints clean from the stain of politics, because they were not politicians.
As long as we are discussing canons, there is an Apostolic canon that forbids any clergy from involving the contemporary political powers and government in ascending the priesthood ladder and excommunicates anyone who invokes earthly might and power to be ordained.
Politics and sainthood do not mix. I am very interested in consulting your research for more information on the 19th century Coptic Church. I am interested in the Papacy of Cyrils IV and V. I will read the proceedings of the conference once finished. You make me excited to read your research.
I was always led to believe in my youth through Sunday School Propaganda that he was a saint and Father of Reformation. Is he really? This iconoclast? A Pope who orders his deacons to sing "Ep'oro" for a printing machine, regardless of the genuity fo the invention at the time?
He might have been a good administrator, but a saint? Interesting facts.
The Magles El-Meli was a recipe for disaster since its inception and a tool of the governments, except in the age of Nasser when he, the President, dissolved it for financial incompetence and because they proved to be traitors to their Pope.
Even now, with billionares like Tharwat Bassili dominating the Maglis El-Meli, void of spirituality but heavy in money, they usually deal with the Church as a business. Their influence is far reaching.For example, CTV, the coptic channel which Bassili owns and runs, is polishing one of the general bishops to be the next Pope.
Most of the church boards are smaller versions of maglis el-meli. There is also huge precedence of Protestantism and simony in all Apostolic churches. It is not a popularity contest.
I am eager to read your research. What other periods in the Coptic Church are within your interests
We have some monks left. Nobody is condoning what happened, and there are nightmarish stories about what happened during the abduction.
But the whole moral is not the actions of those abductors who were nothing but rascals and proved in the course of their lives to have no idea about the Church (two became muslims), but the moral is that even a saintly and able bishop, who has proven his worth in his diocese, is left a prey for Satan when he breaks the canons and becomes empty of the Holy Spirit.
Let us remember: Anba Yousab was a saint before his Papacy.
The fruits of such Papacies are terrible. Contrast this to Pope Cyril VI.
He had a tyrant like Nasser to deal with, a communist police state, a growing fundamental muslim population, a very weak church, a despised office of Papacy by the Copts due to the infringements of the past, conspiracies from within and without and attempts of murder by his own bishops, a maglis meli who stopped financing the church and blocked all his initiatives, and prolific writers (one of them a bishop whose mission was supposed to educate the congregation) attacking him because of his lack of university education and what this bishop called "the baba el gahel". To borrow your words, some of his children raised their hand on their father. But the outcome was totally different with Pope Kyrillos.
No Pope goes through this and succeeds unless he is backed by the Holy Spirit.
Nobody else did it in the 20th century, although they had more favorable conditions. You are totally right.
I prefer the analogy of a bishop standing on two legs (priesthood and deaconate) better than the pyramid structure. I am under the impression that deacons were traditionally not subject to priests as a rank, but only to the bishop. In Giza, this is the way it has been during the late Anba Domadius Episcopacy. We have the money. Plenty of it.
I do not think that the salary of a deacon will be a burden on the church. Any church in Canada commands a handsome amount of money every year that is being allocated to expanding the church, or building a new church just next to the old one, or renewing the bathrooms, replacing the tiles with ceramic and the ceramic with granite and the granite with crystallic floors, and so on and so forth. Money is never the problem, it is the lack of appreciation of this rank.
Forget the money issue:
Why do we have deacons in diapers? Shouldn't the rank of St. Stephen at least require potty-trained persons, 2 +yrs?
Why do we have smokers and junkies in this rank?
Why is every random uncle who happen to pass by the church offered the rank of deacon as if he is offered a can of Pepsi or a cigar?
The answer is: Because nobody respects this rank nor the church canons.