OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 09:16:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Oriental Orthodox Ecclesiastical titles, terms, positions, etc.  (Read 10262 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 794


WWW
« Reply #45 on: April 04, 2009, 04:47:42 PM »

Personally, I don't know where you can start book-wise.  I'm no where near a Coptic Church or anyone knowledgeable I know at the moment to find some resources for you.   I wonder if someone else can help.  The best I can help you to start with is to email one of our bishops in the US and perhaps get more information from him.

HG Bishop David is also put as General Bishop of the Coptic Church in Cleveland.  Perhaps, if you go to the parish in Cleveland and interview one of the priests, you can also get a lot of information from them, perhaps even on where to start or how to contact the bishops in the US.

HG Bishop David:  http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/directory/church.php?show=123
HG Bishop Youssef:  http://www.suscopts.org/diocese/bishop/
HG Bishop Serapion:  http://www.lacopts.org/index.php/lacopts/contact/


H.G. Anba Youssef usually personally answers emails sent to the q&a email address that can be found on the www.suscopts.org website.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,210


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #46 on: April 04, 2009, 05:14:09 PM »


Now the discussion has been that this is traditionally where the whole idea of "auxiliary" bishop comes from, because chorepiskopi would be in charge of certain specific aspects of the ministry of a bishop of a city, like finances, or philanthrope, or etc.  Or they would be in charge of a city as I expressed above. 

So for you to say that this title still exists, and that they function in a specific sense (like an archbishop as described above) would for me logically mean that this ministry still exists, but in a totally different way before, and that it has evolved into its present form as you have it in the coptic church.  That would be a MAJOR MAJOR thesis and even a PhD idea...

Any further musings or etc. would be helpful for me on this one...

from

http://copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/7_priesthood.html

KHOORI-EPISCOPOS is a Greek word meaning ‘bishop’ or ‘villages’ or ‘fields’. He helps the bishop or metropolitan of the diocese in the service and visitation of the villages.

The rank of Khoori-episcopos (or the bishop or overseer) came to existence by the end of the third century AD in Asia Minor when the dioceses extended and their division was not preferred, so there existed an utmost need for the presence for the bishop to visit and care for them.

Members of the Nicene Council in 325 AD included 15 Khoori-episcopos from Asia Minor and Syria.

The rank of Khoori-episcopos disappeared from our Coptic church a long time ago, and was then revived by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III when he ordained some monks to the rank of Khoori-Episcopos to become assistants to some metropolitans and bishops who required them to care for the needs of the service in their large dioceses. His Holiness promoted most of them later on, to general bishops and bishops of dioceses.
The rank of Khoori-Episcopos is unclear in features and specifications, as some consider it a bishopric rank, and it is nearer to the bishopric rank than to priesthood.

Khoori-Episcopos is a word meaning ‘villages’.

The candidate of this rank bears the title ‘Anba’ which is given to bishops or higher.

His choice is fulfilled among monks, just like the bishops.

His crown is like the bishop’s with a very slight difference.

He has authority to ordain various ranks of deacons.

He is a member of the Holy Synod of the church, like the bishops.

His name is mentioned like the bishop, in all prayers and church hymns.

Before the Nicene Council, this rank was for the married, but the Nicene Council restricted it to monks, just like the bishops.

It seems that the rank ‘Khoori’ or ‘clergy’, present now in other fellow churches, which is equal to the rank of hegomen in our church, is derived from ‘Khoori-Episcopos.’

The fathers Khoori-Episcopos ordained by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, are ordained after the Reconciliation Prayer.

The Rite of ordination of Khoori-Episcopos was not found in the Ritual Books of the Coptic church, it was borrowed from the fellow Syrian church and needs to be Copticized.

Jonathan,

Is there any way you could make all of your statements and etc. more "academic"?  The only reason I am asking is because I plan on seriously taking this on as a project and would like to get whatever resources I can before I finish school. 

For example when you say that the "khori-episcopos was not found in theritual books of the coptic church, it was borrowed from the fellow syrian church" what does that mean?  What syrian church did you borrow it from?  Which text?  Is it in syrian, or any other language for that matter?  What do you mean by "it needs to be copticized"?? 

You can multiply these questions with everything you put above.  Realistically what i'm looking for here is some higher level academic comments and posts.  But of course you are ALWAYS welcome to post and add whatever you would like (per rules of the forum).  I got a lot out of what you said but I had like 10,000 questions more. 

Would you rather I ask the questions or would you rather elaborate? 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 794


WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 04, 2009, 09:14:21 PM »

Jonathan,

Is there any way you could make all of your statements and etc. more "academic"?  The only reason I am asking is because I plan on seriously taking this on as a project and would like to get whatever resources I can before I finish school. 

For example when you say that the "khori-episcopos was not found in theritual books of the coptic church, it was borrowed from the fellow syrian church" what does that mean?  What syrian church did you borrow it from?  Which text?  Is it in syrian, or any other language for that matter?  What do you mean by "it needs to be copticized"?? 

You can multiply these questions with everything you put above.  Realistically what i'm looking for here is some higher level academic comments and posts.  But of course you are ALWAYS welcome to post and add whatever you would like (per rules of the forum).  I got a lot out of what you said but I had like 10,000 questions more. 

Would you rather I ask the questions or would you rather elaborate? 

Sorry, I thought I was clear, that's a quote from the link at the top, it is from a book by H.G. Bishop Mettaous.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,210


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #48 on: April 04, 2009, 09:21:02 PM »

OK here we go.  If you could take a look at this and see if you catch any similarities, glaring differences, comments, etc.  Any help on this to make connections would be awesome.  All quotes are my personal notes from my Canon Law class - Dr. Lewis Patsavos

Quote
Auxiliary bishops are an anomaly but one that has existed since the 7th c. To repeat what has already been said, these auxiliary bishops have titles of onetime active sees that were abandoned by the bishops of that time and the flocks, for historical reasons.  The title has been retained and given to bishops who are at the disposal of provincial bishops or metropolitans, those who exorcize full Episcopal authority in diocese throughout the world.  The metropolis of Chicago is the only metropolis that has an auxiliary bishop.  This auxiliary bishop functions at the disposal of the metropolitan. He may not decide on his own to ordain someone or to consecrate a church, or anything like that, only with the permission of the bishop.  All the bishops that have titles of former sees do not exorcize authority freely.  

They only exorcize sacramental authority, and not administrative authority, and even the sacramental is only with permission of the bishop they are under.  The auxiliary bishops actually are successors to what are called “chorepiscopi” or the land bishops.  The land or outlying districts, suburbs, of major cities.  The early church foresaw bishops for those areas that may have had large populations of believers.  At the disposal of the bishop who would then authorize them to do whatever needed to be done in those outlying areas, but they could never do any of those pastoral tasks on their own.  

Quote
In  a sense the rights of bishops exist perpetually, in the instance of auxiliary bishops (especially).  We have auxiliary bishops today, but not as much as we had before.  Up until 1973 we had 1 bishop and 12 auxiliary bishops who were assigned to different sees where there are now metropolitans, but they held titles of once flourishing sees in the Middle East and etc.  This exists in the RC church as well.  It keeps alive the memory that indeed there were sees and who knows what will happen in the future.  
All they have is the title.  He cannot take on any authority, he has to be given authority by another bishop.  He doesn’t have a see of his own, only given the title of one.  

Quote
Question last class from [classmate X] = canon regarding a bishop who retains his authority even if he is displaced or removed b/c of historical circumstances.  A bishop without a flock is not a “real” bishop.  This anomaly afflicts the church, in a sense.  Auxiliary bishops have been very helpful in the life of the church and we in the US have 4 in the GOA.  Without those auxiliary bishops the metropolitans would not be able to adequately function, so they are providing an important service, but not a service foreseen by the office of bishop.  So the office of bishop becomes changed by these auxiliary bishops who have authority only given by the bishop above them.  So the church adjusts to needs.  Bishops appeared in the 7th or 8th c. when Christian communities were lost to muslim conquerors.  They didn’t want to give up those bishoprics in the hope of reclaiming those lands.  The unfortunate thing is that it reached the extent of abuse that it did in recent times, in the Greek archdiocese.  

In the synod we had one bishop of North and South America and then 12 auxiliary bishops, which is an abuse.  That was corrected.  It shows the church adjusting on the one hand and then other times accommodating itself to situations that need to change.  The RC church is facing the same situation.  The auxiliary bishops are successors of “core” bishops or “horepiskope” which we will talk about later.  Assigned for a specific ministry without the title of a see (development of core bishops).  

Quote
We have the exception of the auxiliary bishops.  If authorized, they may perform the sacraments, even ordination.  Priests cannot perform the sanctifying of the chrism and the ordination.  A bishop may perform all those acts.  An auxiliary bishop can perform them only if authorized.  Otherwise he is performing beyond what he is legally or canonically able to do.  

Quote
For aoristos presbyters and bishops, what about titular bishops?  What about a missionary church?  What about priests who are immediately swapped out?  How does this all work (Dan)?  Like everything in our canonical tradition, we have a general policy and THEN we have instances when that policy cannot be upheld (P).  You have the absolute teaching of the church on a particular matter.  Then there are the needs that require some kind of adjustment.  IN the case of the assignment of clergy, yes, we have these auxiliary bishops that do not conform to Canon 6 of IV.  However, at the time of IV, we did not have the large scale deportation and exile of populations b/c their territories were being overrun by non-believers.  The church is not going to be held captive by these situations either historical or political.  

So the church adjusts.  That is the saving grace of our church.  The ideal, the norm that you try to uphold.  Then when you cannot you make the necessary adjustments.  You do not ordain someone and then allow him to be at the whim of any bishop.  He is ordained by a particular bishop to whom he is then accountable.  That bishop must make certain that he is exorcizing ministry in the territory for which that bishop is responsible.  

You have the ideal, the absolute teaching on a matter.  Then you have the situations that arise in later years and etc.  The ability of the church to respond to them.  

Quote
Consequences of Episcopal ordination, a bishop must be ordained to a particular see.  No at large ordination for presbyters, so also no at large consecration of bishops.  Although we do have the anomaly of auxiliary bishops, which will be covered.  If you were to refuse an election, it would have to be looked in to.  Have there been canonical impediments?  In that case, if it is true, then it is not a canonical election and it will not be recognized.  If it is a result of factionalism, however, for example, and they refuse to accept the bishop, then it will not be accepted, and there would be probably a period of restoration of peace and order, and then the installation of the bishop.  In the same way that a civil officer or government would be supported by the body that elected him, in the same way the synod would support the election if canonical impediments were found.  All according to the procedures of the canons and the synod.  

Quote
Sanctifying authority.  All bishops share the same sanctifying authority.  Whether one is a bishop or a patriarch, they both exorcize the same sanctifying authority.  The difference is that the auxiliary bishop must be authorized to do so.  He may not on the basis of his consecration of his ordination, being a bishop.

Quote
The other thing is that chorepiscopi do not have a title of a see.  They are just known as chorepiscopos, which is also a bit anomalous b/c they should be bishops of an area.  The church is not imprisoned by tradition.  It may appear that way and some act that way, but from all these examples you have seen that the church in her history and centuries of practice has been able to conform to the needs of the times.  Especially in administration.  The church has been able to meet the needs.  From the synods, that fill the gaps from the last EC, to the auxiliary bishops and chorepiscopi who exorcize Episcopal authority, for whatever reasons, including financial considerations, b/c it is a financial issue to have a bishop with full Episcopal authority.  So if the needs of the diocese can be met with an auxiliary bishop who might not have the same expenses as a full provincial bishop, it can be introduced.  The church has been able to meet these needs.  

That's all I got for right now.  i'm gona try to look through some other books and write things down.  Let me know if you have any leads or ANYTHING that could be helpful in this.  thanks!  





Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,210


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 04, 2009, 09:22:00 PM »

Jonathan,

Is there any way you could make all of your statements and etc. more "academic"?  The only reason I am asking is because I plan on seriously taking this on as a project and would like to get whatever resources I can before I finish school. 

For example when you say that the "khori-episcopos was not found in theritual books of the coptic church, it was borrowed from the fellow syrian church" what does that mean?  What syrian church did you borrow it from?  Which text?  Is it in syrian, or any other language for that matter?  What do you mean by "it needs to be copticized"?? 

You can multiply these questions with everything you put above.  Realistically what i'm looking for here is some higher level academic comments and posts.  But of course you are ALWAYS welcome to post and add whatever you would like (per rules of the forum).  I got a lot out of what you said but I had like 10,000 questions more. 

Would you rather I ask the questions or would you rather elaborate? 

Sorry, I thought I was clear, that's a quote from the link at the top, it is from a book by H.G. Bishop Mettaous.

LOL!  It was clear, i'm just a dink.  thanks for the explanation! 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #50 on: April 05, 2009, 12:49:50 AM »

There is one thing I'm disputing with HG Bishop Mettaous.  Where does he get the idea that Nicea made the episcopacy only for celibate monks?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,210


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #51 on: April 05, 2009, 01:20:23 PM »

There is one thing I'm disputing with HG Bishop Mettaous.  Where does he get the idea that Nicea made the episcopacy only for celibate monks?

Hold on i'm trying to find the canon...nope didn't find anything doing a quick search.  this is one you're gona have to spend some time with.  Also an important question is WHICH Nicea b/c in the EO there is a second Nicea.  I'm not sure if the Coptic church has several Niceas or etc. 

Also I did find this though in my notes...

Quote
We have an example of a canon which does change an earlier canon.  Canon 12 of Penthekte introduces the celibacy of bishops.  This is a change from the practice which was confirmed by canon 5 of the Holy Apostles.  It takes action upon those clergy who, as it says, puts strict penances on those who leave their wives for celibacy = they don’t have the right to do that.  Now we have a later canon that says, up until now it was the practice for those seeking the episcopacy to be married, we now require something different. It is an introduction of a celibate episcopacy. 

Also as i'm reading through my canon law notes I see that the Council of Gangra and it's epilogue are very important to this topic, if you get some time to read it.  Apparently there are also 2 articles about it in the GOTR

Realistically speaking though I was always under the impression that bishops could not remain in the monastic life (have a geronda over them and etc) because of the conflict of interest/power.  (Canon II of The Three Canons of the Synod held in the Temple of Holy Wisdom)

[edited to add answers and etc.]
« Last Edit: April 05, 2009, 01:21:42 PM by serb1389 » Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,210


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #52 on: April 05, 2009, 05:51:41 PM »

There is one thing I'm disputing with HG Bishop Mettaous.  Where does he get the idea that Nicea made the episcopacy only for celibate monks?

I think I  found an answer...
Quote
That there followed a most beneficial custom in the Church of God for those intending to be ordained as bishops to become monks first and afterwards to become bishops, see in the footnote to Apostolic Canon  LI.

I hope this is it...although I don't really think that it is... (from THE 85 CANONS
OF THE
HOLY AND RENOWNED APOSTLES
TOGETHER WITH
AN INTERPRETATION OF THEM IN THE COMMON
DIALECT OF MODERN GREEK (circa 1800))
Quote
CANON LI (51)
If any Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon, or anyone at all on the holy list,
abstain from marriage, or meat, or wine, not as a matter of
mortification, but out of an abhorrence thereof, forgetting that all
things are exceedingly good, and that God made man male and
female, but blasphemously misrepresenting God’s work of creation,
either let him correct and purge his ways or let him be excluded from
the Church. The same applies to a layman.
(Apostolic Canon LIII; CanonXIII of the 6th Ecumenical Synod;
Canon XIV of Ancyra: Canons I, IX, XIV, XXI of Gangra;
Canon LXXXVI of Basil.)

Interpretation
All things are pure unto the pure in heart and conscience (Titus 1:15). “For every
creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it be received
with thanksgiving” (I Timothy 4:4); just as St. Paul says in particular, and there
is nothing that is common or “unclean of itself,” i.e., impure in respect of its
own nature and entity (Romans 14:14).

For this reason, too, the divine Apostles in their present Canon are at one in
ordaining that any bishop or priest or deacon, or anyone on the holy list of priests
and clergymen, who forgets that everything that God has made is very good, and
that God created man male and female (Genesis 1:27) and abstains from
marriage; and from the eating of meat, and from the drinking of wine, not by way
of mortification and temperance and discipline of the flesh,70 but because he
loathes them, and in this way blasphemes and misrepresents the work of God’s
creation by considering that it is unclean and bad.
Any such person, I say, must correct himself and learn not to loathe and shun these
things; and he should consider the fact that neither marriage, nor lawful intercourse
with a woman is harmful, nor is meat, nor wine, but only the misuse of them. If,
however, he fails to correct himself, let him be deposed, and at the same time be
excommunicated from the Church. Likewise let any layman be excommunicated
who should loathe these things.

Concord
In agreement also with their Canon LIII the same Apostles depose those in Holy
Orders who fail to eat meat on Feast Days, or to drink wine on such days, not for
the sake of mortification, but out of abhorrence or abomination. The Synod held in
Gangra on the other hand, even subjects to anathema those who disparage
matrimony and loathe a Christian woman who sleeps with her lawful husband
(Canon XIV) and particularly those who remain virgins, not for the sake of the good
of virginity itself but because they loathe lawful marriage (Canon IX); and also
anathematizes a woman who departs from her husband on the ground that she finds
marriage disgusting. (CanonXIV).

For this reason the Sixth Ecumenical Synod in its Canon XIII, to remain in full
force and effect and indissoluble; and that none of them are not to be forbidden the
Holy Orders simply because they have a lawful wife, seeing that, according to the
Apostle,“marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled” (Hebrews 13:4).
The synod held in Ancyra prescribes (Canon XII) that those priests and deacons
who do not eat meat, as a matter of temperance, ought to taste a little of it in order
to avoid rousing the suspicion that they loathe it, and then exercise temperance and
refrain from eating any more of it.

I'm not sure if this is it but I'm assuming that it is...



Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #53 on: April 05, 2009, 06:57:31 PM »

The Canon you provided smacks exactly the opposite of what HG Bishop Mettaous was claiming.  This is actually one of the reasons why I dispute it, especially for the sake of your academic needs.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2009, 06:57:50 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #54 on: April 05, 2009, 08:08:46 PM »

There is one thing I'm disputing with HG Bishop Mettaous.  Where does he get the idea that Nicea made the episcopacy only for celibate monks?

Hold on i'm trying to find the canon...nope didn't find anything doing a quick search.  this is one you're gona have to spend some time with.  Also an important question is WHICH Nicea b/c in the EO there is a second Nicea.  I'm not sure if the Coptic church has several Niceas or etc. 

Also I did find this though in my notes...

Quote
We have an example of a canon which does change an earlier canon.  Canon 12 of Penthekte introduces the celibacy of bishops.  This is a change from the practice which was confirmed by canon 5 of the Holy Apostles.  It takes action upon those clergy who, as it says, puts strict penances on those who leave their wives for celibacy = they don’t have the right to do that.  Now we have a later canon that says, up until now it was the practice for those seeking the episcopacy to be married, we now require something different. It is an introduction of a celibate episcopacy. 

I'd be interested to know more about the council of "Penthekte."  What is it?  Or is it a person who wrote some canons?  Where is it?  Is it a common tradition of both our churches, or only the EO's?

If what you're talking about is the Quintisext council, then that assumes that there were married bishops up until that time, which directly contradicts the claim that Nicea introduced celibate bishops (not to mention only an EO answer to the introduction of celibate bishops).

In the Coptic Church, I know of a bishop during Medeival ages named Isaac who was married and actually was seeking the papal seat at one time, but failed to get it, in which a monk from St. Macarius' Monastery was chosen instead (forgot the name).  This is according to Theodore Hall Patrick's summarizing work of the whole history of the Coptic Church.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2009, 08:13:42 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,966


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #55 on: April 05, 2009, 08:45:05 PM »

There is one thing I'm disputing with HG Bishop Mettaous.  Where does he get the idea that Nicea made the episcopacy only for celibate monks?

Hold on i'm trying to find the canon...nope didn't find anything doing a quick search.  this is one you're gona have to spend some time with.  Also an important question is WHICH Nicea b/c in the EO there is a second Nicea.  I'm not sure if the Coptic church has several Niceas or etc. 

Also I did find this though in my notes...

Quote
We have an example of a canon which does change an earlier canon.  Canon 12 of Penthekte introduces the celibacy of bishops.  This is a change from the practice which was confirmed by canon 5 of the Holy Apostles.  It takes action upon those clergy who, as it says, puts strict penances on those who leave their wives for celibacy = they don’t have the right to do that.  Now we have a later canon that says, up until now it was the practice for those seeking the episcopacy to be married, we now require something different. It is an introduction of a celibate episcopacy. 

I'd be interested to know more about the council of "Penthekte."  What is it?  Or is it a person who wrote some canons?  Where is it?  Is it a common tradition of both our churches, or only the EO's?

If what you're talking about is the Quintisext council, then that assumes that there were married bishops up until that time, which directly contradicts the claim that Nicea introduced celibate bishops (not to mention only an EO answer to the introduction of celibate bishops).

Penthekte (Greek) = Quintisext (Latin)
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,966


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #56 on: April 05, 2009, 08:49:16 PM »

There is one thing I'm disputing with HG Bishop Mettaous.  Where does he get the idea that Nicea made the episcopacy only for celibate monks?

Hold on i'm trying to find the canon...nope didn't find anything doing a quick search.  this is one you're gona have to spend some time with.  Also an important question is WHICH Nicea b/c in the EO there is a second Nicea.  I'm not sure if the Coptic church has several Niceas or etc. 

Also I did find this though in my notes...

Quote
We have an example of a canon which does change an earlier canon.  Canon 12 of Penthekte introduces the celibacy of bishops.  This is a change from the practice which was confirmed by canon 5 of the Holy Apostles.  It takes action upon those clergy who, as it says, puts strict penances on those who leave their wives for celibacy = they don’t have the right to do that.  Now we have a later canon that says, up until now it was the practice for those seeking the episcopacy to be married, we now require something different. It is an introduction of a celibate episcopacy. 

I'd be interested to know more about the council of "Penthekte."  What is it?  Or is it a person who wrote some canons?  Where is it?  Is it a common tradition of both our churches, or only the EO's?

I would disagree that the canon of Penthekte "introduces" a new practice of celibate episcopacy and separation of married clergy from their wives when consecrated as bishops; it only normalizes/standardizes it.  It was present before, but a few refused to follow. 

If what you're talking about is the Quintisext council, then that assumes that there were married bishops up until that time, which directly contradicts the claim that Nicea introduced celibate bishops (not to mention only an EO answer to the introduction of celibate bishops).

The EO's do not see any mandate from Nicea I (325) for celibate clergy... in fact, there was an infamous case of St. Paphnoutios (a celibate) advocating for the permission of married clergy when the case was argued.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 05, 2009, 09:14:20 PM »

I would disagree that the canon of Penthekte "introduces" a new practice of celibate episcopacy and separation of married clergy from their wives when consecrated as bishops; it only normalizes/standardizes it.  It was present before, but a few refused to follow. 

Interestingly enough though, this Quintisext canon did not limit the episcopacy to celibate priests, but asked those who aren't celibate to give up their wives to convents if they seek the episcopacy.  That's quite a harsh statement to make that seemed to solidify the celibacy of bishops, if not introduced it.

I always thought personally it was a slow evolution into celibate episcopacy for reasons that include larger responsibilities (thus less time to tend to families) and heir scandals.

Quote
The EO's do not see any mandate from Nicea I (325) for celibate clergy... in fact, there was an infamous case of St. Paphnoutios (a celibate) advocating for the permission of married clergy when the case was argued.

Precisely what I thought as well, although no one can confirm the story of St. Paphnute either.  Nevertheless, it would seem the Coptic Church had no canon of such either until after the certain Bishop Isaac.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2009, 09:16:18 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,966


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #58 on: April 05, 2009, 09:37:17 PM »

I would disagree that the canon of Penthekte "introduces" a new practice of celibate episcopacy and separation of married clergy from their wives when consecrated as bishops; it only normalizes/standardizes it.  It was present before, but a few refused to follow. 

Interestingly enough though, this Quintisext canon did not limit the episcopacy to celibate priests, but asked those who aren't celibate to give up their wives to convents if they seek the episcopacy.  That's quite a harsh statement to make that seemed to solidify the celibacy of bishops, if not introduced it.

I always thought personally it was a slow evolution into celibate episcopacy for reasons that include larger responsibilities (thus less time to tend to families) and heir scandals.

It was a slow evolution.  The canon refers to it implicitly, stating that it was a custom which some decided not to follow (i.e. some of the married folks did not separate with the wives going into monasteries), but was by the canon being mandated.

The EO's do not see any mandate from Nicea I (325) for celibate clergy... in fact, there was an infamous case of St. Paphnoutios (a celibate) advocating for the permission of married clergy when the case was argued.

Precisely what I thought as well, although no one can confirm the story of St. Paphnute either.  Nevertheless, it would seem the Coptic Church had no canon of such either until after the certain Bishop Isaac.

You're right - the story of St. Paphnoutios cannot be confirmed (at least not the 4th century bishop that the story revolves around.. there are other "St. Paphnoutios'" in the EO calendar), at least not in my experience.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2009, 09:37:32 PM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,210


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #59 on: April 05, 2009, 10:12:06 PM »

Mina,

Do you have any comments as to what I posted and any connections to how Khouriepiscopi function in the OO churches (coptic church)
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #60 on: April 08, 2009, 02:12:49 AM »

Mina,

Do you have any comments as to what I posted and any connections to how Khouriepiscopi function in the OO churches (coptic church)

I sorta mentioned something here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20297.msg306888.html#msg306888

The only Khouri-Episcopi I know was the French Orthodox one that worked directly with the Metropolitan.  I believe though he was later ordained bishop.  The purpose of that seemed like a partnership with the Metropolitan more than a "village bishop," or sort of like the right hand of the Metropolitan, but not the same as that of a fourth century khouri-episcopi which sounds like more in line with contemporary Coptic general bishops and some hegumens.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,210


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 08, 2009, 07:13:29 AM »

Mina,

Do you have any comments as to what I posted and any connections to how Khouriepiscopi function in the OO churches (coptic church)

I sorta mentioned something here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20297.msg306888.html#msg306888

The only Khouri-Episcopi I know was the French Orthodox one that worked directly with the Metropolitan.  I believe though he was later ordained bishop.  The purpose of that seemed like a partnership with the Metropolitan more than a "village bishop," or sort of like the right hand of the Metropolitan, but not the same as that of a fourth century khouri-episcopi which sounds like more in line with contemporary Coptic general bishops and some hegumens.

Do you think it's appropriate for me to call or e-mail the bishops you recommended, about this?  I feel awkward asking a bishop for help on something like this, but I am very serious about doing the research.  I'm gona hit up the Boston College libraries tomorrow about this and see what I can find in a preliminary search...but some direction would be phenomenal. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 794


WWW
« Reply #62 on: April 08, 2009, 08:08:28 AM »

Mina,

Do you have any comments as to what I posted and any connections to how Khouriepiscopi function in the OO churches (coptic church)

I sorta mentioned something here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20297.msg306888.html#msg306888

The only Khouri-Episcopi I know was the French Orthodox one that worked directly with the Metropolitan.  I believe though he was later ordained bishop.  The purpose of that seemed like a partnership with the Metropolitan more than a "village bishop," or sort of like the right hand of the Metropolitan, but not the same as that of a fourth century khouri-episcopi which sounds like more in line with contemporary Coptic general bishops and some hegumens.

Do you think it's appropriate for me to call or e-mail the bishops you recommended, about this?  I feel awkward asking a bishop for help on something like this, but I am very serious about doing the research.  I'm gona hit up the Boston College libraries tomorrow about this and see what I can find in a preliminary search...but some direction would be phenomenal. 

H.G. Anba Yossef is very approachable. I even know of one girl who met him on a monastery trip, slapped his hand, and said "hey, anba tomas". He replied "I'm bishop Youssef". A few weeks later there was a hurricane in the area and she sent him an email to the effect of "yo anba youssef, are you guys ok after the storm?" and he replied saying that yes thank you, they were Smiley
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,210


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #63 on: April 08, 2009, 08:27:09 AM »

Mina,

Do you have any comments as to what I posted and any connections to how Khouriepiscopi function in the OO churches (coptic church)

I sorta mentioned something here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20297.msg306888.html#msg306888

The only Khouri-Episcopi I know was the French Orthodox one that worked directly with the Metropolitan.  I believe though he was later ordained bishop.  The purpose of that seemed like a partnership with the Metropolitan more than a "village bishop," or sort of like the right hand of the Metropolitan, but not the same as that of a fourth century khouri-episcopi which sounds like more in line with contemporary Coptic general bishops and some hegumens.

Do you think it's appropriate for me to call or e-mail the bishops you recommended, about this?  I feel awkward asking a bishop for help on something like this, but I am very serious about doing the research.  I'm gona hit up the Boston College libraries tomorrow about this and see what I can find in a preliminary search...but some direction would be phenomenal. 

H.G. Anba Yossef is very approachable. I even know of one girl who met him on a monastery trip, slapped his hand, and said "hey, anba tomas". He replied "I'm bishop Youssef". A few weeks later there was a hurricane in the area and she sent him an email to the effect of "yo anba youssef, are you guys ok after the storm?" and he replied saying that yes thank you, they were Smiley

thanks!  i'm gona try to call tomorow.  Hopefully I can get that worked out and get started on this.  thank you all for everything!  if you think of any other details they would be most appreciated. 

Some angles I'm thinking of right now:

have any of you ever seen a khouri-episcopos serve a liturgy or any other service?  Was it different in any way?  Whom did he commemorate, himself, or the hierarch above him? 

I think i'll save my other questions for the bishop.  Thanks! 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Tags: Indian Orthodox Armenian Church proper titles proper greeting Coptic Orthodox Church bishops Syriac Orthodox Ethiopian Orthodox Church 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.13 seconds with 46 queries.