I hate to interrupt the fun you are having conspiracy mongering, trash-talking your own Church, and discrediting your Church's leadership on a public forum; However, I would like to take you on a small tangent, if you don't object:
Do you guys consider the patriarchs and catholicoi of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches to be invalid because they were bishops before being elected to their present offices?
This question was asked by HE Metropolitan Bishoy as a criticism to the anti-diocesan-bishops camp, to which HG Bishop Youssef replied that in such cases, while they are liable to invalidity, they have not been judged, and so they are valid. He gave te precedent of The Meletian schism, how despite the schism, all those ordained by Meletius were considered valid. Likewise, despite the history of simony and uncanonical practices, the orders are valid.
Second: To say that moving of bishops and metropolitans to the Patriarchate is un-canonical will make the current priesthood in the Church un-canonical.http://lacopts.org/orthodoxy/pope-of-alexandria/important-information-concerning-the-election-of-the-new-pope/can-a-diocesean-bishop-be-nominated-for-the-papacy/
We have a precedent in the case of Meletius who started a schism by ordaining bishops priests and deacons in areas not under his jurisdiction. The council of Nicaea ordered him to cease and desist without defrocking him. All the ordinations that he performed were recognized. In the same manner, all the ordinations performed by the 3 metropolitans who became Patriarchs are canonical according the ruling of the council of Nicaea.
Further, if someone contravenes a canon of the church he becomes liable to excommunication but is not excommunicated except he undergoes an ecclesiastical tribunal and is condemned.
Saint Cyril the Great always addressed Nestorius as Patriarch of Constantinople in spite of his heresy, and only after he was condemned and excommunicated did he treat him as a heretic.
In the same manner, those 3 metropolitans who became Patriarchs were not subjected to a tribunal, nor were they excommunicated, and so all their sacramental practices are valid.
We all know that during the papacy of these metropolitans many ordinations were performed by simony, but the church accepted these ordinations. And since none of these people were actually excommunicated, the church accepted all the ordinations that they performed.
However, does the fact that those who broke the canons in the afore mentioned examples were not put to trial and condemned, mean that the Church accepts simony? Of course not, but the sacramental practices they performed are canonical even though they were canon breakers.
This sounds harsh, but in no way meant to condemn our sister churches as heretical. We believe in certain principles, and we hope that if we succeed in keeping strict these principles, that we may be an example to other churches without condemnation, especially since this practice is extremely common now.
We as OOs have proven our diversity in many other issues. Many Copts do not find any other baptism besides OO and EO acceptable, and for the most part, Copts chrismate EOs (which had been proven to be unprecedented). We do not accept open communion or open marriages with anyone outside the Orthodox church. And we also are in communion with two churches that excommunicate each other (Syriac and Malankara Orthodox). We have a lot of issues that need to be addressed. To condemn our sister churches based on diocesan bishops is impractical. We acknowledge we are all imperfect, and we need to work on many of these issues together, hopefully soon.