Topic: Did Judas Partake of the Eucharist According to OOxy?

[Severian]

I know Met. Bishoy wrote an article arguing that he did not. Is this the universal OO view?

[Salpy]

I don't know about any universal view, but I always thought he did not.  Didn't he leave before the Eucharist was given?

[Pan Michał]

It's difficult to tell - according to synoptics Judas betrayed Jesus before the Last Supper, but he was present during the Eucharist. Then we have relation of st. John saying that Judas leaved during the Last Supper.

And then we have Church Fathers saying that yes, Judas did partake of the Eucharist. But as far as I know there is no official statement of the Orthodoxy about the subject.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

The question is whether or not Judas merely received the bread in his hands or whether he actually ate it. I am not a Greek scholar. I looked up the word "receive" in my Strong's Concordance, and it seems to indicate that he merely took the bread but did not eat it. However, some biblical translations state that he did indeed actually eat the bread.

At first, one would think that it would be impossible for satan to enter someone's heart through the very bread that Our Lord blessed. It seems more plausible to assume that Judas took the bread but that satan entered his heart before he could eat it. But then we remember St. Paul's strong admonition to the Corinthians about not receiving the Sacraments in an uworthy manner, since doing so brings judgment upon ourselves (I Corinthians 11:29). And certainly Judas did not receive the bread from Our Lord in a worthy mannner.

So, my own humble conclusion - FWIW - is that it doesn't really matter whether or not Judas ate the bread. Our concern is to make sure that we avail ourselves of the Sacraments and that we do so in a worthy manner. ("Worthy" not in the since that we feel we deserve or have earned the right to receive Our Lord in the Mysteries, but "worthy" in the since that we have confessed our sins, repented, and remained within the fellowship of the Church.)


Selam

[LBK]

From the Matins of Great Friday (usually held on Holy Thursday evening):

At the Supper You nourished the Disciples and, knowing the plan of the betrayal, You exposed Judas during it. You knew he was incorrigible, but You wished to make known to all that You had been handed over willingly, that You might snatch the world from the Stranger. Long-suffering Lord, glory to You.

What was it, Judas, that made you into the betrayer of the Saviour? Did He separate you from the choir of the Apostles? Did He deprive you of the gift of healings? When He supped with them, did he thrust you from the table? When He washed the others’ feet, did He despise yours? Oh of how many good things have you become forgetful! Your ungrateful intent is condemned, while His measureless long-suffering is proclaimed, and His great mercy.

O how could Judas, once Your disciple, meditate betrayal against You! Treacherous and unjust, deceitfully he supped with You. He went and said to the priests, ‘What will you give me, and I will hand over to you that Man who breaks the Law and violates the Sabbath?’ Long-suffering Lord, glory to You.

[Jonathan]

Fr. Athanasius Iskander responds to "Did Judas Partake of Holy Communion?" by H.E. Anba Bishoy

http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy/36-fr-athanasius-responds-to-did-judas-partake-of-holy-communion-by-h-e-anba-bishoy

[Schultz]

Why does it matter?  Seriously?

[Jonathan]

Why does it matter?  Seriously?

I think it matters when some bishops want to read the Bible, apply their own understanding with reference to the fathers, and then teach their opinion dogmatically, sometimes to the extent of persecuting those who don't buy their "scholarship". We need to stand up to such corruption. I understand though what you mean, the issue itself doesn't matter to our salvation, it's just the attitude of those behind these "controversies" that needs to be resisted.

[jah777]

I realize that the OP is asking about the OO view, but for what it is worth, here are some quotes from our Fathers:

St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew 26:26-28
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LXXVIII.html

AH! how great is the blindness of the traitor! Even partaking of the mysteries, he remained the same; and admitted to the most holy table, he changed not. And this Luke shows by saying, that after this Satan entered into him, not as despising the Lord’s body, but thenceforth laughing to scorn the traitor’s shamelessness. For indeed his sin became greater from both causes, as well in that he came to the mysteries with such a disposition, as that having approached them, he did not become better, either from fear, or from the benefit, or from the honor….


St. John Chrysostom, Sermon on the Betrayal by Judas 1.6

Let no one…be a deceiver, no one full of evil, no one holding venom in his mind, lest his partaking lead to condemnation.  After Judas took what was offered, the devil hastened into him, not because the devil despised the Lord’s body but because he despised Judas for his shamelessness.  Thus you may learn concerning those who partake unworthily of the divine mysteries, that these especially are the ones the devil invades and enters at once, just like he did to Judas of old.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John

In haste Judas hurries away in obedience to the will of Satan.  Like one stung and goaded on to madness, he rushes from the house.  He sees nothing that can overcome his love of gain, and, marvelous though it is, we shall find him in no way benefited by the gift from Christ due to his irrepressible greed for money.

St. Jerome, Against Jovianus, Book II
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.II.html

In the Christian mysteries there is one means of sanctification for the master and the servant, the noble and the low-born, for the king and his soldiers, and yet, that which is one varies according to the merits of those who receive it. “Whosoever shall eat or drink unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Does it follow that because Judas drank of the same cup as the rest of the apostles, that he and they are of equal merit?

[orthonorm]

Why does it matter?  Seriously?

Wondered the same thing. I guess there are some controversies ripping through the OO world according to Jonathan.

[jah777]

Why does it matter?  Seriously?

In my opinion, it is very important, as the reception of the mysteries by Judas and the subsequent entry into him of Satan is an important warning regarding the need to approach the mysteries with the right disposition, in a spirit of true repentance.  Some unfortunately treat the mysteries as if they are inherently beneficial regardless of the state of our soul, such that we should commune regularly regardless of whether we are confessing, repenting, and properly preparing.  That Judas communed and then betrayed Christ shows us that the holy mysteries will not be of any benefit to us if we do not receive them properly.

[Jonathan]

Wondered the same thing. I guess there are some controversies ripping through the OO world according to Jonathan.

The controversy is this:

H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, teaches a number of things dogmatically, that are based on proof text from scripture, and occasionally proof text from the fathers. H.E. has not tolerance from any opinion different from his own, even in matters that are not at all (or should not be) dogmatic.

H.E. has an article on his website fighting for the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin (not a proper Orthodox doctrine under the same title).

H.E. has excommunicated a layman without trial for defending the proper Orthodox understanding from St. Athanasius, rather than original sin (laid out with arguments from the fathers, not just proof texts, so who is H.E. fighting against? a random layman? or the fathers?).

H.E. teaches dogmatically against the Assumption of the Virgin (which is not a dogma, and should not be elevated to the real of dogma either positively or negatively), and has called to changes to the liturgical books to suit his personal views, in over-reaction to the RC position of making the Assumption a dogma.

I believe H.E. was behind the excommunication of Dr. George Bebawi, without trial, or attempts at reconciliation. I don't remember for sure.

H.E. harasses good priests, interrogating at priests' conferences in order to find out who's speaking out against his points of view and shut them down.

H.E. is one of the leading candidates for the Papacy, and has written numerous articles defending his own candidacy for the papacy against those who call for obedience to Nicaea.

It seems the most embarrassing articles have been removed from H.E.'s website, but anyone who wants to know the truth about him need only read his writings: http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/english/ (though the worst articles are only on the Arabic side). Or read: http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy

H.G. Anba Serapion, H.G. Anba Youssef, and Fr. Athanasius seem to be the only ones with the courage to stand up to this bully, who persecutes good priests, and uses excommunication against those who speak out against his political power.

It doesn't matter if Judas partook or not in the grand scheme of things. What matters is to stand up to H.E., and say "anaxios, we do not want you to be our Pope, we do not accept your opinions as dogma, we do not hold you above the fathers, you cannot bully us, go back to your see and leave us alone".

Unfortunately H.E. is good at politics, at swaying people, at putting on a holy show, at gathering a following. No doubt H.E.'s defenders will jump in here, accuse me of slander, and praise H.E.'s saintliness. It doesn't matter. The truth is available to anyone who wants to read for themselves.

[WPM]

   
Did Judas Partake of the Eucharist According to OOxy?

I honestly would not know...

[Severian]

I realize that the OP is asking about the OO view, but for what it is worth, here are some quotes from our Fathers:

St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew 26:26-28
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LXXVIII.html

AH! how great is the blindness of the traitor! Even partaking of the mysteries, he remained the same; and admitted to the most holy table, he changed not. And this Luke shows by saying, that after this Satan entered into him, not as despising the Lord’s body, but thenceforth laughing to scorn the traitor’s shamelessness. For indeed his sin became greater from both causes, as well in that he came to the mysteries with such a disposition, as that having approached them, he did not become better, either from fear, or from the benefit, or from the honor….


St. John Chrysostom, Sermon on the Betrayal by Judas 1.6

Let no one…be a deceiver, no one full of evil, no one holding venom in his mind, lest his partaking lead to condemnation.  After Judas took what was offered, the devil hastened into him, not because the devil despised the Lord’s body but because he despised Judas for his shamelessness.  Thus you may learn concerning those who partake unworthily of the divine mysteries, that these especially are the ones the devil invades and enters at once, just like he did to Judas of old.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John

In haste Judas hurries away in obedience to the will of Satan.  Like one stung and goaded on to madness, he rushes from the house.  He sees nothing that can overcome his love of gain, and, marvelous though it is, we shall find him in no way benefited by the gift from Christ due to his irrepressible greed for money.

St. Jerome, Against Jovianus, Book II
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.II.html

In the Christian mysteries there is one means of sanctification for the master and the servant, the noble and the low-born, for the king and his soldiers, and yet, that which is one varies according to the merits of those who receive it. “Whosoever shall eat or drink unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Does it follow that because Judas drank of the same cup as the rest of the apostles, that he and they are of equal merit?

Thanks. That really helps a lot. And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

@Jonathan I agree that we need to stand up to H.E.'s wrong opinions. I am glad these Bishops and Clergy you mentioned are doing so. Hopefully in a few years, with our Church's Patristic revival, these heterodoxies within our Church will die out.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I don't know about any universal view, but I always thought he did not.  Didn't he leave before the Eucharist was given?

Can't it also be interpreted that the bread which Judas received was the Eucharist? After all, that consecrated bread is what caused Satan to enter into him, and in our Ethiopian Liturgy the priests declare that for those who partake unworthily the Eucharist is a curse of the fires of hell!

St. John Chrysostom, Sermon on the Betrayal by Judas 1.6

Let no one…be a deceiver, no one full of evil, no one holding venom in his mind, lest his partaking lead to condemnation.  After Judas took what was offered, the devil hastened into him, not because the devil despised the Lord’s body but because he despised Judas for his shamelessness.  Thus you may learn concerning those who partake unworthily of the divine mysteries, that these especially are the ones the devil invades and enters at once, just like he did to Judas of old.

Looks like Saint Yohannes Affework just might agree..

I do not, I am just speculating

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[jah777]

And then there is St. Cyril…

St. Cyril of Alexandria’s commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Book 9:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_09_book9.htm

For when He has dipped the sop, He gives it to Judas, thereby showing who it was that was eating His bread.  And He thus both removes the fear felt by the holy disciples, and seems to remind them of another prophecy, that runs thus: But it was even thou, O my companion, my guide, and mine own familiar friend: eating at the same board, thou didst make my food sweet to me: we walked in the house of God as friends. For there was a time when even the traitor himself was a companion and a familiar friend to the Saviour, eating at the same board with Him, and sharing in everything that is reckoned to denote true discipleship; inasmuch as he had his allotted portion among the other holy disciples, who, with their whole lives devoted to the Saviour, traversing in His company the length and breadth of Judaea, were zealous attendants on Him in all His mighty works, and hastened on all occasions to do whatever might redound to His honour and glory. And yet this familiar friend and companion exchanged the grateful service owed to One Who had so honoured him for slavery to disgraceful passions.

St. Cyril has many comments on relevant verses from the gospels of St. Luke and St. John, but I have not read anything from him in these commentaries that would suggest that Judas did not receive the mysteries.  The above excerpt indicates that Judas did receive the mysteries. 

[Severian]

^Thank you again, Jah777. Your posts have really helped me out a lot on this thread.

To my OO (specifically, Coptic) brethren: Why does Met. Bishoy seem to hold several theological opinions which are clearly against the teachings of the Fathers and the traditional beliefs of the Church?

And is he really a candidate for the Papacy? If so, this really worries me...

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

^Thank you again, Jah777. Your posts have really helped me out a lot on this thread.

To my OO (specifically, Coptic) brethren: Why does Met. Bishoy seem to hold several theological opinions which are clearly against the teachings of the Fathers and the traditional beliefs of the Church?

Its called synergy.  God's grace cooperates with individual human beings, flaws and all, and in this regard God respects our faults by allowing them because they are our own and part of ourselves.  God loves us, and love accepts fault while Grace gradually transforms it towards perfection, so that in Orthodox we are not perfect, we are in the process of perfecting.  Even a reverend Bishop is not perfect, Infallible clergy are for the scholastic Latins  

This is why we have several Bishops to consult a consensus of several opinions, and further, the very discussions are a dynamic action of the Holy Spirit, where God will reveal His truth through the layers of conversation and a communion with the Holy Spirit.  Sometimes our priests are blatantly wrong, and this is all the same the Grace of God that we will learn the Truth in confronting what seems to be their errors.  I came to Orthodoxy precisely because the clergy are the first folks to admit any faults and to humbly accept themselves equally as sinners as the rest of us.  Now if the Patriarch from the Seat of Saint Mark made these same declarations, I'd be a bit more concerned in truth, but while I adore His Grace Father Bishoy, excuse the cliche but the reverend father's words are not necessarily gospel.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[jah777]

That Judas received communion and afterwards departed before the completion of the meal is also used as a warning to those who might imitate him by receiving the mysteries in Church but departing before the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy.  For instance,

St. John Chrysostom, Homily on the Feast of the Epiphany

When you are invited to a meal, you must not leave before the others, even though you are satisfied before the others, and here while the awesome mystery of Christ is being celebrated, while the priestly functions are still continuing, you leave in the middle of it and exit? How can this be forgiven? How can this be justified? Judas, after receiving Communion at the Last Supper [Mystical Supper] that final night, departed quickly while the others remained at the table. Behold, whose example do they follow who hurry to depart before the final thanksgiving?

[Jonathan]

^Thank you again, Jah777. Your posts have really helped me out a lot on this thread.

To my OO (specifically, Coptic) brethren: Why does Met. Bishoy seem to hold several theological opinions which are clearly against the teachings of the Fathers and the traditional beliefs of the Church?

And is he really a candidate for the Papacy? If so, this really worries me...

I don't know His Eminence's background very well. But I would not be surprised if H.E. was not given sufficient training and resources before being thrown into the difficult task of being responsible for dialogue with the other groups, especially the Roman Catholics. It would be very hard to respond properly, to know what to argue against, and what to agree with without a very solid academic preparation. I cannot judge or fault H.E. for making errors in such a difficult role, with so little support. But, if there is insufficient humility, either through ignorance of what is proper, or through pride, to avoid the patriarchate rather than seeking it, and to be willing to dialogue with members of our own Church rather than rule so sternly, this I, and we all, have to say no to, while sympathizing with the hard conditions that probably lead here.

[Severian]

Fr. Athanasius Iskander responds to "Did Judas Partake of Holy Communion?" by H.E. Anba Bishoy

http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy/36-fr-athanasius-responds-to-did-judas-partake-of-holy-communion-by-h-e-anba-bishoy

Did H.E. respond? How do you think he will react? Forgive me if this question seems childish or silly. But, H.E. clearly holds to several views not only unfounded in, but completely contradicted by, the Patristic writings. This is a matter which touches my soul. How has H.E. responded to H.G. Bishop Youssef and Fr. Athanasius Iskander? Is he, as you say, "bullying them", as he has "bullied" others?

[copticboy7]

Is H.E. Bishoy the same who is quoted saying something about the damnation of Catholics and Protestants?

[Severian]

Is H.E. Bishoy the same who is quoted saying something about the damnation of Catholics and Protestants?

Supposedly, yes.

[Jonathan]

Fr. Athanasius Iskander responds to "Did Judas Partake of Holy Communion?" by H.E. Anba Bishoy

http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy/36-fr-athanasius-responds-to-did-judas-partake-of-holy-communion-by-h-e-anba-bishoy

Did H.E. respond? How do you think he will react? Forgive me if this question seems childish or silly. But, H.E. clearly holds to several views not only unfounded in, but completely contradicted by, the Patristic writings. This is a matter which touches my soul. How has H.E. responded to H.G. Bishop Youssef and Fr. Athanasius Iskander? Is he, as you say, "bullying them", as he has "bullied" others?

I did not say bullied *them*, I said reputation of bullying. What H.E. has interacted with these three I have no idea, besides the three statements H.E. has released (in Arabic only except for the first) on H.E.'s website. I think this statements speak for themselves. The 2nd one so far has been translated into English by the people behind canon15.ca, so you can check http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy

[Severian]

^Thank you. And for clarification, I never meant to say that you accused him of bullying *them*. I used the words "as you say" to indicate that I was using your vocabulary (I.e. "bullying"). Sorry, if you feel I misinterpreted you.

[Jonathan]

^Thank you. And for clarification, I never meant to say that you accused him of bullying *them*. I used the words "as you say" to indicate that I was using your vocabulary (I.e. "bullying"). Sorry, if you feel I misinterpreted you.

Sorry, misread you.

[Kerdy]

This is a question I never considered.  I think its ok to explore the possibilities, but caution should be exercised.

[Severian]

This is a question I never considered.  I think its ok to explore the possibilities, but caution should be exercised.

The principle here is that a Hierarch of our Church is teaching several beliefs which are contradictory to the teachings of the Fathers and is supposedly (I am not endorsing anything here as absolute fact) harassing Priests and Bishops who are teaching the Orthodox and Patristic view.

[jewish voice]

In my view he would of had to of eaten the" bread " If you look at how passover is done you take the bread you bless it and brake and then dip it into salt water and eat so if we would agree that this is the way it was always done then there would be no doubt about it Judas partook To me when I read about this and it's little bit of detail of it the only thing I saw different was the wording that Jesus used.

[minasoliman]

This is a question I never considered.  I think its ok to explore the possibilities, but caution should be exercised.

The principle here is that a Hierarch of our Church is teaching several beliefs which are contradictory to the teachings of the Fathers and is supposedly (I am not endorsing anything here as absolute fact) harassing Priests and Bishops who are teaching the Orthodox and Patristic view.

I think we need to pray for His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy, as he has clearly become quite troublesome in the election process, and has given himself an authority being an infallible interpreter and defender of the Orthodox faith.  His method of defining Orthodoxy is proof-texting the Scriptures, as well as seeming to take a semi-magical approach of Apostolic succession.  I think His Grace Bishop Serapion as well as His Grace Bishop Youssef takes a more sensible approach, with a certain amount of respect as well as warning.  Fr. Athanasius, while I agree with his articles, he seems to have a bit more of a confrontational tone (which I'm not saying is wrong or right, but with someone like His Eminence, who is known to have a high self-ego, you might need to take that sensible approach).  For instance, their graces have shown that the diocesan metropolitans who became Popes were very successful, righteous, and holy Metropolitans, who would seem quite qualified on a superficial basis, but when they became Popes, they put the Coptic Church through dark ages.  In this, you see that their graces are alluding to His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy as a great and holy bishop with well-to-do intentions, but should reconsider his seeking out the papacy before he spirals downward to a downfall.

With this in mind, I believe we even read St. John Chrysostom's homily quoted earlier here in one of the Good Friday hours in the Coptic Church, where he mentions Judas partaking of the Eucharist in condemnation of himself and without worth, and as a lesson to any of us who do not take the Eucharist seriously by constant repentance and spiritual preparedness, or else we would be like Judas, just as St. Severus teaches us in one of the Coptic Prayers of Reconciliation attributed to him:

Christ, our God, the fearsome and incomprehensible power of God the Father. O You, Who sit upon
the flaming throne of the Cherubim and are served by the fiery powers and You are a consuming fire, being God.

Because of the ineffable act of coming down and Your love to mankind, you did not   burn   the deceitful betrayer when he approached You.  But You greeted him with a kiss of friendship, drawing him to repentance and the comprehension of his audacity.

Make us also worthy, O our Master, in this fearful hour being in one mind, without anything of a divided heart, and the rest of the evils. That we may greet one another with a holy kiss;

And do not condemn us, if we are not entirely clean - as pleases Your goodness - from the filth of sin and deceit and the remembrance of evil, which brings forth death.

But You, in Your ineffable and undeclarable compassion, knowing the weakness and the drowning of our creation -
Wipe out every defilement of our transgressions, that this mystery, which is Your divinity, may not be a judgment
against us condemnation.

For even in approaching the Kiss of Peace with our brothers and sisters, we do so in righteousness and not imitate the unrepentant behavior of Judas here as well, so also we learn that we should not go with our hearts unrepentant to the Eucharist, as Judas did as St. John Chrysostom alluded to.

Nevertheless, because this is not a dogmatic issue, I would wish if His Eminence's opinion is his opinion.  I would not think it's wrong to believe Judas didn't partake of the Eucharist, but it is wrong to condemn others who don't believe in such non-dogmatic issues.  And for this, I hope we pray for him and pray for the Church as well in this pivotal moment in our history.

[Severian]

http://www.arabwestreport.info/year-2012/week-13/31-text-statute-patriarch-election

The above article says a Patriarch, among other things, must "be an Egyptian Coptic Orthodox Christian."

Does the Patriarch really have to be of Egyptian ethnicity? Throughout history several Syrian Orthodox Bishops have become Coptic Patriarchs and vice-versa (from what I have been told). Has the rule changed? Obviously, someone of Egyptian ethnicity is preferable with all the politics going on right now, but is it really a canon/rule? It also says that the voters have to be either Coptic or Ethiopian.

And if Met. Bishoy is really insistent on being a candidate for the Patriarchate, and if he succeeds, I fear he will walk in the same dark path as Pope Yusab II, who was likewise a Metropolitan-turned Patriarch.

[Jonathan]

According to Orthodoxy, to Christianity, to the canon law of the Church, no, the Patriarch can be of any ethnicity. St. Abram who moved the mountain with St. Simon was a Syrian, one of several Syrian patriarchs of Alexandria. St. Mark was not an Egyptian!

However, according to the current bylaws (from the 1950's, from the Egyptian state), only an Egyptian citizen of Egyptian parents may be selected. These absurd, unchristian bylaws also prevent non-Egyptian members of our own synod (such as H.G. Anba Macarius, whose monasticism is Egyptian, whose orders are Egyptian, who is a saintly bishop, but who is an Eritrean born in Eritrea) cannot vote! Members of our own synod bared from voting based on ethnicity! While Protestants who have nothing to do with our Church are allowed to vote because they are related to influential people and have government positions, and were born Coptic Orthodox. I sincerely hope that these absurd bylaws are corrected and brought into agreement with Orthodox practise by the Synod under the next Patriarch.

http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/other-references/43-statute-on-the-nomination-and-election-of-patriarch-for-coptic-orthodox-christians

http://www.arabwestreport.info/year-2012/week-13/31-text-statute-patriarch-election

The above article says a Patriarch, among other things, must "be an Egyptian Coptic Orthodox Christian."

Does the Patriarch really have to be of Egyptian ethnicity? Throughout history several Syrian Orthodox Bishops have become Coptic Patriarchs and vice-versa (from what I have been told). Has the rule changed? Obviously, someone of Egyptian ethnicity is preferable with all the politics going on right now, but is it really a canon/rule? It also says that the voters have to be either Coptic or Ethiopian.

And if Met. Bishoy is really insistent on being a candidate for the Patriarchate, and if he succeeds, I fear he will walk in the same dark path as Pope Yusab II, who was likewise a Metropolitan-turned Patriarch.

[Orthodox11]

However, according to the current bylaws (from the 1950's, from the Egyptian state), only an Egyptian citizen of Egyptian parents may be selected.

Much like the Patriarch of Constantinople has to be a citizen of the Turkish Republic.

[ialmisry]

The question is whether or not Judas merely received the bread in his hands or whether he actually ate it. I am not a Greek scholar. I looked up the word "receive" in my Strong's Concordance, and it seems to indicate that he merely took the bread but did not eat it. However, some biblical translations state that he did indeed actually eat the bread.

At first, one would think that it would be impossible for satan to enter someone's heart through the very bread that Our Lord blessed. It seems more plausible to assume that Judas took the bread but that satan entered his heart before he could eat it. But then we remember St. Paul's strong admonition to the Corinthians about not receiving the Sacraments in an uworthy manner, since doing so brings judgment upon ourselves (I Corinthians 11:29). And certainly Judas did not receive the bread from Our Lord in a worthy mannner.

So, my own humble conclusion - FWIW - is that it doesn't really matter whether or not Judas ate the bread. Our concern is to make sure that we avail ourselves of the Sacraments and that we do so in a worthy manner. ("Worthy" not in the since that we feel we deserve or have earned the right to receive Our Lord in the Mysteries, but "worthy" in the since that we have confessed our sins, repented, and remained within the fellowship of the Church.)


Selam

[Jonathan]

I don't know how it works for the EP.

My problem with the way the Copts do it is not with the fact that they must be an Egyptian citizen so much, as the way it fits into the bigger picture.

It should be that the members (especially presbyters) of the Church (Diocese) of Alexandria select a man who is a member of their own Church to become their bishop, and that bishop, as the bishop of alexandria, would be the Archbishop of Egypt, with of course the other bishops having veto rites on the people's selection. In that case, of course they have to be a citizen to be a member of the Church of Alexandria.

But we're pretending the Coptic Church is A catholic Church (which people think means a world-wide Church). And we're insisting that all Copts around the world should have a say in electing the Patriarch of Alexandria, and all monks and bishops who are Coptic are eligible to become Pope.

But the criteria is not just a member of the Communion, but ethnically Egyptian. So there are two or three laymen from my diocese who were selected to be voters. How they were selected is not at all transparent. But I could never be a voter (even if I was prestigious enough), because I am not ethnically Egyptian, despite the fact that we share the same Eucharist.

This is an absurde situation. It's not that I demand the right to vote, I don't think I should have it at all, I should have no say in who the bishop of Alexandria across the pond is. But to differentiate ethnically is not Orthodox. It is not right that the bishops in Sudan are allowed to vote if they are Egyptian born, but not if they are born Sudanese, despite the fact that there is no genetic difference, the Sudanese are just Copts who moved there over the last few generations. Most of the youth in my Church could never be eligible to vote because they were born in Canada, and don't have Egyptian citizenship. Even if I moved to Egypt and had kids there and they were citizens, and I  was a citizen, they could not vote or be Patriarch, because they are not ethnically "Coptic". So you have to be a citizen and have the "right blood".

The Coptic Church should decide if it wants to be a farce of a Catholic Church, being word-wide and going forth to make all nations Copts, in which case they should not regard citizenship or ethnicity in who can be a Patriarch or vote for one. Or they should be a proper Orthodox patriarchate, in which case they should consider trying to spread Orthodox Christianity around the world, rather than Copticism.

However, according to the current bylaws (from the 1950's, from the Egyptian state), only an Egyptian citizen of Egyptian parents may be selected.

Much like the Patriarch of Constantinople has to be a citizen of the Turkish Republic.

[Salpy]

However, according to the current bylaws (from the 1950's, from the Egyptian state), only an Egyptian citizen of Egyptian parents may be selected.

Much like the Patriarch of Constantinople has to be a citizen of the Turkish Republic.

The Armenians in Constantinople have the same restrictions.  It's the Turks' way of controlling things, as well as making it harder for the Armenians to find a good patriarch as their numbers there get even smaller than they already are.  Iraq has a similar law:  The Armenian Archbishop has to be an Iraqi citizen.  He might even have to be someone who was born there, but I can't recall.

The situation with the Copts in Egypt may be similar.  

[Jonathan]

...Nevertheless Metropolitan Pachomius has spoken strongly about the need for the bylaws to be amended by the new pope within the first year of assuming office and even of making it a requirement that nominees sign an agreement to that effect.

http://britishorthodox.org/glastonburyreview/issue-122-news-from-the-mother-church/

awesome

(the three non-Egyptian bishops: Metropolitan Seraphim of the British Orthodox Church, Bishop Athanasius of l’Eglise Copte Orthodoxe de France and Bishop Macarius of the Eritrean Orthodox Church in the diaspora, are not eligible to vote under the 1957 Bylaws which require all electors to be Egyptian citizens).

[copticyouth93]

Interestingly enough, HH Pope Shenouda did not consecrate icons of the Institution of the Eucharist if Judas was present; HH taught that the Last Supper and the Institution of the Eucharist were two separate events, and that Judas had departed prior to the Institution of the Eucharist.

[Severian]

Interestingly enough, HH Pope Shenouda did not consecrate icons of the Institution of the Eucharist if Judas was present; HH taught that the Last Supper and the Institution of the Eucharist were two separate events, and that Judas had departed prior to the Institution of the Eucharist.

Thanks for the interesting contribution. However, this is explicitly contrary to what the Fathers had to say on the matter. And unfortunately, many Copts are willing to unequivocally accept anything taught by H.H., no matter how correct or incorrect his views were.

[copticyouth93]

Severian, I was entirely unaware that the fathers taught otherwise with regards to this matter, until reading the quotes by St. John Chrysostom. Perhaps the Alexandrian fathers did not see eye to eye with the Cappadocians/Antiochene fathers regarding this matter?

[Severian]

Severian, I was entirely unaware that the fathers taught otherwise with regards to this matter, until reading the quotes by St. John Chrysostom. Perhaps the Alexandrian fathers did not see eye to eye with the Cappadocians/Antiochene fathers regarding this matter?

Saint Cyril the Alexandrian also teaches this.

[Melodist]

Interestingly enough, HH Pope Shenouda did not consecrate icons of the Institution of the Eucharist if Judas was present; HH taught that the Last Supper and the Institution of the Eucharist were two separate events, and that Judas had departed prior to the Institution of the Eucharist.

He is always depicted reaching across the table with his face turned sideways and no halo in ours.

[copticyouth93]

Severian, I was entirely unaware that the fathers taught otherwise with regards to this matter, until reading the quotes by St. John Chrysostom. Perhaps the Alexandrian fathers did not see eye to eye with the Cappadocians/Antiochene fathers regarding this matter?

Saint Cyril the Alexandrian also teaches this.

Do you have a source for that? Because to my surprise, even Fr. Matta supports the theory that Judas was not present.

[Melodist]

Saint Cyril the Alexandrian also teaches this.

Do you have a source for that? Because to my surprise, even Fr. Matta supports the theory that Judas was not present.

Reply 15 on this thread.

[Severian]

H.E. has excommunicated a layman without trial for defending the proper Orthodox understanding from St. Athanasius, rather than original sin (laid out with arguments from the fathers, not just proof texts, so who is H.E. fighting against? a random layman? or the fathers?).

How long was he excommunicated for, and do you know where I can read about this? This is truly disgusting.

BTW, Mina, I do plan on responding to your PM as soon as I have the time to sort through all of the information you provided me.