Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Reinforcement Of Correct Deaconate Ranks
As you all know, in the vast majority of cases, the protocol for ordination of "deacons" to various ranks of the deaconate is not properly followed (to the best of my knowledge). Most kids are immediately ordained Epsaltos ("psalter") without having fulfilled the requirements laid down by the Church many years ago.
I think an interesting array of questions could be asked here:
Is the "lack of resources" (i.e. the lack of ordained Subdeacons and Deacons) the real reason that young children of five years old are herded into the altar for service?
Or is it a more global issue on the level of the Church that such ranks matter little these days?
Is this in itself a problem? Or is it merely the evolution of the Church and it's accommodation to suit the needs of our changing culture and society in the lands of the Diaspora?
Why is it that the clergy ordain less and less individuals to the higher ranks of Subdeacon and Deacon?
Does the organisation of the deaconate even matter? Does not God accept the service of young children who do not understand the real responsibilities that being a subdeacon entails?
What are the practicalities for enforcing the protocols on a wide scale once more? Is it even worth attempting or contemplating?
What do you think?
I think an interesting array of questions could be asked here:
Is the "lack of resources" (i.e. the lack of ordained Subdeacons and Deacons) the real reason that young children of five years old are herded into the altar for service?
Or is it a more global issue on the level of the Church that such ranks matter little these days?
Is this in itself a problem? Or is it merely the evolution of the Church and it's accommodation to suit the needs of our changing culture and society in the lands of the Diaspora?
Why is it that the clergy ordain less and less individuals to the higher ranks of Subdeacon and Deacon?
Does the organisation of the deaconate even matter? Does not God accept the service of young children who do not understand the real responsibilities that being a subdeacon entails?
What are the practicalities for enforcing the protocols on a wide scale once more? Is it even worth attempting or contemplating?
What do you think?
Comments
Why is it that the clergy ordain less and less individuals to the higher ranks of Subdeacon and Deacon?
I believe that the reason for this is not having the need for those ranks. Also, their requirements are much more strict than an epsaltos and an oghnostos (even thoo requirements for those 2 are already 'eased' these days). most of sub-deacons and deacons were needed to help give out the Blood and serve in the altar......giving out the blood is general done by a priest now, having an increase in the number of priests in a church these days.
It sort of boils down to money.... :-\
The deaconate is not only a liturgical service, but a full social service. If a diocese (or a large parish) can afford to pay for the sustenance of a deacon, then they could choose to ordain a deacon. The deacon, like the priests, have a role in serving the community, and so it becomes his full-time service and cannot be expected to work elsewhere to earn a salary.
I suppose that most dioceses see this role as being sufficiently covered by a larger number of priests. Then there's also the invention of the social services, as well as Sunday School education, etc. which are all being sufficiently run by laypeople. This in turn led to lack of need for deacons, and for liturgical purposes, the cantors and lectors are expected to lead the congregation in the hymnology and readings.
If we cannot have deacons at this time in the church, at least we should not abuse the title of deacon and stick to psaltos (not epsaltos..there is no such a thing) and anAghnostos (stress on the capitalized A (aghnostos sounds more like agnostic rather than reader). Whenever people ask me if I'm a deacon I say no I'm a reader and then I explain..
It just bothers me how I'm the same level as the little kids, and I know a lot of the church hymns! more than the lead deacon in my church (who doesn't even know how to read Coptic). I don't mean to sound boastful, but you're absoultely right, there needs to be some organization when it comes to ordaining deacons. They have whole list on Copticchurch.net on the requirements and responsibilities of each rank. I wish we followed it a little more.
The sub-diaconate and diaconate is much more of an 'inside the altar' service as opposed to outside the iconostasis chanting, which pretty much anyone can do since it is not an ordained rank...to make the point clear St. Ephrem the Syrian ordered the women of the parish to be the cantors (not ordained) while the men may serve at the altar as sub-deacons and deacons and it is still followed in their Syriac Orthodox ritual to this day.
Furthermore, the deacons historically had (and still do in certain dioceses) a very priestly role in the sense of educating and guiding the parishoners spiritually. They participate and direct events of the youth, the elderly, visit and commune the sick, etc. They do real service.
how many 'uncles' wearing a tonia could you go to for advice these days? More often than not, they wear their tonia and stand with folded arms leaning against the iconostasis not chanting a single note or hide away piously inside a dark corner of the haykal reading their own prayers from the agpeya. Whats the point? Has it just degenerated into mere tradition? Something that we got used to doing since childhood? When I see 60 'deacons' crowding the deacon pews on the bema (the raised stage before the altar), I usually refuse to serve as a deacon because I know that I will cause a hindrance to the order and beauty of the service rather than actually fulfill my intention to 'serve'...ironically deacon is a greek word which means servant! If you're not going to chant or serve at the altar or serve in some useful purpose, perhaps it is best NOT to wear your tonia that day. Can you tell that this is a subject I'm passionate about? :)
[quote author=peter_saad link=topic=12653.msg148593#msg148593 date=1323229764]
I feel like in some churches, they go by age. Only the elder men of the church are Ognostos rank. There are some old men who know absolutely nothing, and are Ognostos. There are some who don't even know Ekesmaraot.
It just bothers me how I'm the same level as the little kids, and I know a lot of the church hymns! more than the lead deacon in my church (who doesn't even know how to read Coptic). I don't mean to sound boastful, but you're absoultely right, there needs to be some organization when it comes to ordaining deacons. They have whole list on Copticchurch.net on the requirements and responsibilities of each rank. I wish we followed it a little more.
Maybe the sheer complexity and variety of hymns have something to do with it becoming the "deacon's job."
The Armenian Orthodox Church still maintains a church choir (made up of men and women) that is totally separate from the diaconate...
✞✞✞
However, as Christianity became freer within the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire under Constantine, the flourishing arts impacted the Church as well (iconography, music), so as the hymns and chants became more complex, there was a real need for a 'choir' I've read as early as the mid 3rd to early 4th centuries. I don't remember the source off the top of my head, but I read in 2 different books that originally, the choir/chanters were made up of including both men and women (although seperated on the north and southern sides of the church and this is how antiphonal chanting developed...one side sings a verse, the other side responds with the other verse. This is a common characteristic between byzantine and coptic chant). In the Greek (byzantine) church, the chanters have traditionally only been male and wear a black robe but have nothing to do with the altar service. Their sole job is to lead the congregation in the hymns and chants. In recent years, there has been a slight comeback of female chanters who also lead in singing the responses and hymns.
It seems that at some point in time, the Coptic church perhaps out of persecution and necessity, have merged all the 'jobs' together. It would seem logical and ordered if the difference could be identified as it once was, if not in Egypt, at least in North America.
As far as I know, in all ancient churches, at first, the hymns were simpler so they were congregational in nature; meaning that there was no choir at first.
However, as Christianity became freer within the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire under Constantine, the flourishing arts impacted the Church as well (iconography, music), so as the hymns and chants became more complex, there was a real need for a 'choir' I've read as early as the mid 3rd to early 4th centuries. I don't remember the source off the top of my head, but I read in 2 different books that originally, the choir/chanters were made up of including both men and women (although seperated on the north and southern sides of the church and this is how antiphonal chanting developed...one side sings a verse, the other side responds with the other verse. This is a common characteristic between byzantine and coptic chant). In the Greek (byzantine) church, the chanters have traditionally only been male and wear a black robe but have nothing to do with the altar service. Their sole job is to lead the congregation in the hymns and chants. In recent years, there has been a slight comeback of female chanters who also lead in singing the responses and hymns.
It seems that at some point in time, the Coptic church perhaps out of persecution and necessity, have merged all the 'jobs' together. It would seem logical and ordered if the difference could be identified as it once was, if not in Egypt, at least in North America.
Very fascinating. Thank you for that.
Could I ask you for some recommended links? Any sources on the formation and beginnings of early liturgical traditions and rites?
http://www.liturgica.com/html/litEOLitMusDev.jsp
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/early_christian_liturgics.htm
http://www.stanthonysmonastery.org/music/History.htm
Some of these sites deal specifically with byzantine chant but the early/basic history is still the same
This is just a basic overview but theres tons of books out there. A good one is An Introduction to Orthodox Liturgics by Alexander Schmemman.
http://www.monachos.net/content/liturgics/liturgical-studies/108-early-christian-and-byzantine-music-history-and-performance
http://www.liturgica.com/html/litEOLitMusDev.jsp
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/early_christian_liturgics.htm
http://www.stanthonysmonastery.org/music/History.htm
Some of these sites deal specifically with byzantine chant but the early/basic history is still the same
This is just a basic overview but theres tons of books out there. A good one is An Introduction to Orthodox Liturgics by Alexander Schmemman.
Once again, thank you. ;D
Poor dioceses in Egypt, with saintly bishops, have structured deacon ranks starting with one archdeacon. The archdeacon has greater responsibilities than any single priest or hegumen, overseeing ecclesiastical and social services in the whole dioscese.
On the other hand, the churches in Ontario, Canada, for example, are very rich in resources. A mega church in the GTA, for example, has over ten priests to serve its cluster of churches and also to continuously erect and maintain impressively built cathedrals. A deacon's salary will not wreck the ship. It is not the lack of money, it is the allocation of the money that is debated here. It is influenced by the following factors:
1) The absence of a saintly bishop who is divinely inspired as opposed to a business bishop. Sometimes, we do not have a bishop to begin with like Canada.
2) The total lack of appreciation of the rank of deacons, as manifested in the ordination of infants in diapers (real life examples available upon request) to the rank of epsaltos, fornicating youth to the rank of reader and the church's fat cats to higher ranks.
3) Total disregard of the Church canons regarding the ordination to different ranks, starting from the rank of Patriarch to the rank of reader. I do not expect people who knowingly or unknowingly violated the Church canons four times during the last century regarding the rank of Patriarch to think too much about who gets ordained to the rank of Reader.
Reinforcing the rank of Deacons has nothing to do with money.
Poor dioceses in Egypt, with saintly bishops, have structured deacon ranks starting with one archdeacon. The archdeacon has greater responsibilities than any single priest or hegumen, overseeing ecclesiastical and social services in the whole dioscese.
On the other hand, the churches in Ontario, Canada, for example, are very rich in resources. A mega church in the GTA, for example, has over ten priests to serve its cluster of churches and also to continuously erect and maintain impressively built cathedrals. A deacon's salary will not wreck the ship. It is not the lack of money, it is the allocation of the money that is debated here. It is influenced by the following factors:
1) The absence of a saintly bishop who is divinely inspired as opposed to a business bishop. Sometimes, we do not have a bishop to begin with like Canada.
2) The total lack of appreciation of the rank of deacons, as manifested in the ordination of infants in diapers (real life examples available upon request) to the rank of epsaltos, fornicating youth to the rank of reader and the church's fat cats to higher ranks.
3) Total disregard of the Church canons regarding the ordination to different ranks, starting from the rank of Patriarch to the rank of reader. I do not expect people who knowingly or unknowingly violated the Church canons four times during the last century regarding the rank of Patriarch to think too much about who gets ordained to the rank of Reader.
I am from this "mega church" you are referring too, and I support you one hundred percent.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Reinforcing the rank of Deacons has nothing to do with money.
Poor dioceses in Egypt, with saintly bishops, have structured deacon ranks starting with one archdeacon. The archdeacon has greater responsibilities than any single priest or hegumen, overseeing ecclesiastical and social services in the whole dioscese.
On the other hand, the churches in Ontario, Canada, for example, are very rich in resources. A mega church in the GTA, for example, has over ten priests to serve its cluster of churches and also to continuously erect and maintain impressively built cathedrals. A deacon's salary will not wreck the ship. It is not the lack of money, it is the allocation of the money that is debated here. It is influenced by the following factors:
1) The absence of a saintly bishop who is divinely inspired as opposed to a business bishop. Sometimes, we do not have a bishop to begin with like Canada.
2) The total lack of appreciation of the rank of deacons, as manifested in the ordination of infants in diapers (real life examples available upon request) to the rank of epsaltos, fornicating youth to the rank of reader and the church's fat cats to higher ranks.
3) Total disregard of the Church canons regarding the ordination to different ranks, starting from the rank of Patriarch to the rank of reader. I do not expect people who knowingly or unknowingly violated the Church canons four times during the last century regarding the rank of Patriarch to think too much about who gets ordained to the rank of Reader.
Stavro,
What are you referring to in point #3? What canons were disregarded in ordinating the Patriarch. . .4 times?!
This canon anathemizes any bishop / priest / deacon who is ordained twice to the same rank. The Canon anathemizes also those who knowingly laid their hand on him for ordination.
Meaning, if a person is ordained Bishop of Ontario, he cannot be re-ordained bishop / Patriarch / Pope of Alexandria or any other region /city in the world. Should he choose to disobey the canon, he faces a direct anathema together with the bishops who laid their hands on him.
With regard to the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Pope / Patriarch / Bishop of Alexandria are one and the same rank. When Pope Kyrillos, for example, and 113 of the 117 bishops of Alexandria were ordained, they were ordained BISHOPS of Alexandria. So no already ordained bishop can be ordained to the throne of Alexandria.
Canon # 15 of the Council of Nicea, 325 a.d.
Prohibits a bishop from leaving his episcopate to which he has been ordained to become the bishop of any other region or episcopate.
This canon was applied strictly 55 years after in the council of Constantinople, when St. Timothy of Alexandria initiated a motion to discuss the issue of St. Gregory the Theologian, who has moved from his epsicopate at Sasima to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, to fight heretics. He became the archbishop of Constantinople by the election of the Orthodox, without laying of hands.
The council issued a decree reinforcing Canon # 15 of Nicea and ordered one of the most holy theologians in the history of the Church to return to his former Episcopate and leave the Patriarchate. St. Gregory welcomed the decision as he felt the consequences of violating a church canon. A new Patriarch was elected instead of him.
Recent Violation:
In 1928, Bishop Youaness of Giza, a saintly man who exhibited many virtues during his episcopate, was elevated to the vacant throne of Alexandria in direct violation of Apostolic Canon # 48 and Canon # 15 of Nicea. The bishops of the Holy Synod laid their hands on him, putting them under the direct anathema of the canons.
This uncanonical ascension to the throne was widely criticised by many Copts, leading Hegumen Filotheos Awad to issue a book titled "The stumbling block of the Coptic Church in the 20th century".
The violation was repeated in the selection of Anba Dimitrius, bishop of Assiut, to the throne of Alexandria in 1942, and again in the papal elections of Anba Yousab, bishop of Gerga, in 1945. Both of them were bishops and abondoned their episcopate to take another in violation of Canon # 15 of Nicea.
It should be mentioned that in 1942 and 1945, there was no laying of hands. The bishops at the time did not want to subject themselves to anathema pronounced by Apostolic Canon # 48. Instead of a consecration liturgy necessary for ordaining any bishop or Patriarch, the very prayer that gives him the Holy Spirit necessary to carry out his divine duties, they invented what they called "Seating celebration", which consists of random prayers and gospel readings but without laying of hands. What a joke, as if the consecration liturgy of the bishop is just some pagan rites and is empty of any sacramental power.
I must say that the three bishops mentioned above, who took the throne of Alexandria in violation of the canons, led a very pious life before their ascension of the throne of Alexandria. Their Papacy was a complete failure and sent the Church in disarray.
The fourth violation came in 1971, when all the candidates to the Papacy were bishops. At the time, Priest Bishoy Kamel of Alexandria issued a letter condemning their candidacy and describing the 28 years between 1928 to 1956, the time when three bishops took the Papacy, as a time that Alexandria was without a Father or Bishop. He contrasts this situation with the Papacy of Pope Kyrillos, who was canonically ordained.
This canon anathemizes any bishop / priest / deacon who is ordained twice to the same rank. The Canon anathemizes also those who knowingly laid their hand on him for ordination.
Meaning, if a person is ordained Bishop of Ontario, he cannot be re-ordained bishop / Patriarch / Pope of Alexandria or any other region /city in the world. Should he choose to disobey the canon, he faces a direct anathema together with the bishops who laid their hands on him.
With regard to the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Pope / Patriarch / Bishop of Alexandria are one and the same rank. When Pope Kyrillos, for example, and 113 of the 117 bishops of Alexandria were ordained, they were ordained BISHOPS of Alexandria. So no already ordained bishop can be ordained to the throne of Alexandria.
Canon # 15 of the Council of Nicea, 325 a.d.
Prohibits a bishop from leaving his episcopate to which he has been ordained to become the bishop of any other region or episcopate.
This canon was applied strictly 55 years after in the council of Constantinople, when St. Timothy of Alexandria initiated a motion to discuss the issue of St. Gregory the Theologian, who has moved from his epsicopate at Sasima to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, to fight heretics. He became the archbishop of Constantinople by the election of the Orthodox, without laying of hands.
The council issued a decree reinforcing Canon # 15 of Nicea and ordered one of the most holy theologians in the history of the Church to return to his former Episcopate and leave the Patriarchate. St. Gregory welcomed the decision as he felt the consequences of violating a church canon. A new Patriarch was elected instead of him.
Recent Violation:
In 1928, Bishop Youaness of Giza, a saintly man who exhibited many virtues during his episcopate, was elevated to the vacant throne of Alexandria in direct violation of Apostolic Canon # 48 and Canon # 15 of Nicea. The bishops of the Holy Synod laid their hands on him, putting them under the direct anathema of the canons.
This uncanonical ascension to the throne was widely criticised by many Copts, leading Hegumen Filotheos Awad to issue a book titled "The stumbling block of the Coptic Church in the 20th century".
The violation was repeated in the selection of Anba Dimitrius, bishop of Assiut, to the throne of Alexandria in 1942, and again in the papal elections of Anba Yousab, bishop of Gerga, in 1945. Both of them were bishops and abondoned their episcopate to take another in violation of Canon # 15 of Nicea.
It should be mentioned that in 1942 and 1945, there was no laying of hands. The bishops at the time did not want to subject themselves to anathema pronounced by Apostolic Canon # 48. Instead of a consecration liturgy necessary for ordaining any bishop or Patriarch, the very prayer that gives him the Holy Spirit necessary to carry out his divine duties, they invented what they called "Seating celebration", which consists of random prayers and gospel readings but without laying of hands. What a joke, as if the consecration liturgy of the bishop is just some pagan rites and is empty of any sacramental power.
I must say that the three bishops mentioned above, who took the throne of Alexandria in violation of the canons, led a very pious life before their ascension of the throne of Alexandria. Their Papacy was a complete failure and sent the Church in disarray.
The fourth violation came in 1971, when all the candidates to the Papacy were bishops. At the time, Priest Bishoy Kamel of Alexandria issued a letter condemning their candidacy and describing the 28 years between 1928 to 1956, the time when three bishops took the Papacy, as a time that Alexandria was without a Father or Bishop. He contrasts this situation with the Papacy of Pope Kyrillos, who was canonically ordained.
Stavro,
That's some pretty heavy stuff! Why have the canons been disregarded in these cases? It doesn't make sense. Do you have any links to the info. you provided (e.g. Hegumen Filotheos Awad's book)?
just a correction to my post above. Pope 114 mentioned above is Pope Macarius III and not Demetrius.
As to the book authored by Hegomen Filotheos, it is out of print and I only have an old copy that I can try to pdf and send to you. I did not search on the net to find links to it, but will do once I get some time.
Regards.
"On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter."
I do not believe these were violations of the canon laws whatsoever.
The purpose of Canon 15 is to prevent clergy from moving around between churches without approval of the Church. The canon was to resolve the problem of "immigrating clergy". This happened with Origen and the Nitrian brothers.
What happened with the Popes of Alexandria has nothing to do with that. There was consent of the Church for the move of the Bishop from the one city to another. Notice the language of the canon as it says "If anyone" meaning one deciding on his own ....
As an application of this canon, a bishop or a priest cannot pray in a diocese that is not his unless he takes the approval of the diocese's bishop.
Hope this clears the confusion.
The argument is simple.
It is impossible to "ordain" a bishop to another Episcopate simply because no other laying of hands can occur, or the ordianed together with the assembly of bishop who ordained him are anathema as per the Apostolic Canons. If it still happens, then the bishop is excommunicated defacto and is no longer a bishop.This happened in 1928.
If they omit the ordination part, similar to what happened in 1942, 1945 and 1971, the bishop is simply not ordained bishop of the new Episcopate. It is not a promotion at work nor is it reassignment to another position. A bishop is gifted with the Holy Spirit to be a shephard at a certain place, and not any place, and he cannot obtain it twice for the same rank. It becomes a human effort according to the "wisdom" and human abilities of the ambitious bishop who is violating the canons.
It is for this reason that Priest Pishoy Kamel said in 1971: "From 1928 to 1956, Alexandrians were orphans without a Father, for Anba Youaness remained bishop of Giza, Anba Macarius remained bishop of Assiout, and Anba Yousab remained bishop of Gerga."
The Church is not a human organization like a company or a non-profit organization.
Review:
As I mentioned above, the canon was imposed on no other than St. Gregory the Theologian in 381 a.d., who moved from his small diocese to the Patriarchate of Constantinople with the consent of the local church and for a righteous cause, namely to fight the heretics. Such a move, as well-intended as it seems, was not condoned by the Church at all. Not even fighting heretics qualifies for this great violation of the canons, and they sent St. Gregory, the Theologian, who wrote the liturgy, packing to his diocese, to his delight.
The message is clear: No circumstances should ever make the Church violate its own divine canons. There is no room for private interpretation to allow a novelity, regardless of the personal qualities of the bishop who is running after the new position.
Another Historical Fact
Anba Michael I, Pope of Alexandria, refused to consent to the ordination of a bishop named Isaac to the Patriarchate of Antioch and issued an anathema against this bishop. This bishop had gained favour with the muslim governer by healing his son through prayers (so apparently, he led a pious life). When the Patriarchate of Antioch was vacant, this bishop, a healer, wanted to become the Patriarch. When he was ordained, he sent to the Pope of Alexandria a letter of fellowship, hoping to solidify his uncanonical position by gaining the favor of Pope Michael.
Upon receiving the letter, which contained also some harsh warnings by the muslim governer if the Pope failed to acknowledge Isaac's Patriarchate, the Pope gathered his synod and they issued an anathema against Bishop Isaac, citing the canons of the Church. When they were arrested to go before the muslim ruler to face their death, news came that Isaac had died.
The message is: No compromise. In fact, the synodal letter as reported in history books that was issued by the Coptic Church under Pope Michael I is very clear that such violation is a major one that no believer should consent to.
Modern Times:
In the modern times, and during the Papacy of Pope Yousab, Nazir Gayed (currently H.H. Pope Shenouda) was the chief editor of the magazine "madares el-a7ad" (Sunday School) and he (Nazir), wrote many articles attacking Pope Yousab for violating the canons of the Church by becoming a Pope and leaving his Episcopate. Nazir authored and edited many articles that dealt with this subject, showing from the history of the Coptic Church and the canons of the Church that the Pope's ordination is not canonical. Many other have joined forces with Nazir, but he was the most vocal voice among them in taking on Pope Yousab, and for a righteous cause.
In 1971, Priest Pishoy Kamel issued a letter, warning from the threat to the Church by the competing bishops who are ignoring the Church canons for their own ambitions.
Back to Deacons:
When the Church canons become irrelevant, and these canons govern all ranks, the rank of deacons will suffer as well.
I'm under the impression that you're hijacking this thread with a different, hidden agenda about the canons of episcopacy, which are being followed today by the same person you brought up in your example who criticized Pope Yousab.
http://www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea-canons.html#15 Which specific Apostolic canon are you referring to? Different circumstances and are irrelevant to the incidents you brought up. Again irrelevant to the incidents you brought up.
Can we expect a church that repeatedly violated the canons in the selection of its Patriarchs ( 4 out of 5 times within 43 years), to respect the canons in ordaining the deacons?
Can we expect the beneficiaries of these violations, who are now in positions of authority to ordain "lower" ranks such as deacons, to respect canons regarding "lower" ranks and enforce a spirit of obeying the church canons? May the Lord grant him many years and peaceful times.
If you are referring to the text of the canon, I am not sure which part of it you think strengthens your position. This one:
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall receive from anyone a second ordination, let both the ordained and the ordainer be deposed; unless indeed it be proved that he had his ordination from heretics; for those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot be either of the faithful or of the clergy. Without taking you step by step through the identical circumstances and obvious similarities, it is enough to say that all these cases, ancient and recent, represent violations of the Canon # 15, Nicea, and the Apostolic Canon mentioned above. What differs is how the Church dealt with the cases of St. Gregory and Antioch in the old times and the four recent violations.
If any exception based on holiness and saintly life would be made, it would have been granted to St. Gregory. If any circumstances would have allowed to suspend the canon, it would be heresy in the capital of the Empire and the Emperial court that requires an Orthodox saint like St. Gregory to take charge of this place, specially after the untimely repose of St. Basil.
Yet, an ecumenical council reinforces the canon and the operative of the law to make no exceptions. Then we differ. Thank you for your time and contribution.
The keyword here is anyone, not the Church consensus for such a move.
In St. Gregory situation, the people of the new diocese did not want him; meaning that the Church did not approve of the move. That is why he left.
In the case, of the Alexandrian pope, the people of Alexandria did want the pope and did not reject.
Again the key language of the canon, you think the Church had violated, says: "And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, ..."
meaning on his own without the consent of the Church.
If you still believe that this canon was violated, then explain how was the bishop who became patriarch of Alexandria moved on his own to become as such without the consent of the Church?
Local church consensus is meaningless here for it contradicts an ecumenical council.
I think the text is clear and its application is even more obvious. Give your audience some credit. The Pope of Alexandria is most surely ordained and there is laying of hands as the central part of the ordaining liturgy. The most recent ordination of a Pope, is Pope Kyrillos.
The Pope is a bishop, and surely you do not contest the fact that a bishop is ordained. Maybe you do. This is your own version of history which contradict the decree of the second ecumenical council which stated violation of the church canons as a reason to remove St. Gregory. He was popular in Constantinople and the people wanted him, but the church canons are not subject to a popularity vote. Although the people of Alexandria did not have a say whatsoever, the canons were still broken. Your interpretations of history and of any other church topic are tailored to suit your opinion, and they remain yours.
On a side note, the people of Alexandria did not elect anybody in 1928, 1942, 1945 and definitely not in 1971. In 1971, about 940 Copt were allowed to participate in the election. The rules that decided the electoral body were tailored and I do not think they reflect any consensus. Even among these 940, Bishop Samuel came in first with a landslide than his distant second, Bishop Shenouda. So your argument is that the church consensus takes priority over an ecumenical council, based on your skewed interpretation of the Nicea canons, and that the Pope is not ordained to begin with. Both wrong.
You are making things up like you did in the discussion about Abona Matta El-Maskin, which you did not revisit to clarify your accusations of heresy against the man. How did the Salafis and brotherhood sweep the egyptian elections?
It is irrelevant though. The fact is that in 1928, 1944,1945 and 1971 the canons were broken. Nazir Gayed, this young promising writer, attacked Pope Yousab left and right and with harsh words for this issue. Many have attacked the election of bishops like Priest Bishoy Kamel.
We can at least agree that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past that left Alexandria without a bishop for a collective 68 years and not allow bishops to be elected as Popes ever again, following the footsteps of Nazir Gayed in his youth.
Allow me to ignore your future posts on these topics, because it seems to me that your perpetual state of Matania forces you to act in a certain way that compromises reason, logic and comprehension, and this state is agitated by the mention of anything that has to do with the scandal of 1971 and its beneficiaries.
Of course there are also loopholes. Our Coptic loophole is to call the cantor and reader as if they are 'deacon' and then ordain the candidate a priest. The Byzantines often use the loophole of ordaining the man a deacon for a few days or a few weeks and then ordaining him to be a priest! But at least he actually was a deacon.