OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 21, 2014, 05:35:35 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: HH Pope Tawadros ordains 8 new bishops and enthrones 3 more  (Read 2342 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« on: June 18, 2013, 09:11:20 PM »

Perhaps, in keeping tabs of HH Pope Tawadros' ordaining practices, I will provide his previous ordaining activity recorded here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50434.msg894961.html#msg894961

I won't be as detailed as before, but perhaps sometime in the future, I could provide a detailed bio of each of the ordained...or someone else can do it for me  Wink

From:

https://www.copticworld.org/articles/2095/
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NYHwzegPvyk#t=3782s

The newly ordained consists of 3 general bishops enthroned into dioceses, 3 priest-monks ordained and enthroned into dioceses/monasteries, and 5 priest-monks ordained into the episcopacy as suffragans, being technically "general bishops".

On Saturday June 15th, the following 3 were enthroned:
HG Bishop Athanasius, a French (non-Copt) native and previously general bishop of the French Orthodox Church (a counterpart to the British Orthodox Church) enthroned as official bishop of the French Orthodox Church, successor to the late HE Metropolitan Marcos.
HG Bishop Damian, previously general bishop of Germany with its center in Hoxter enthroned as official bishop of the newly formed diocese of Hoxter and all Germany.
HG Bishop Saleeb, previously general bishop of Mit Ghamr in Egypt enthroned as official bishop of Mit Ghamr.

On Sunday June 16th, the following 8 were ordained:
Fr. Mikhael St. Antonios ordained and enthroned as HG Bishop Michael, bishop-abbot of St. Antonios' Monastery in Kroffelbach, Germany
Fr. Arsenious el Baramousy ordained and enthroned as HG Bishop Arseny, bishop of the newly formed diocese of the Netherlands
Fr. Oulogios el Anba Shenoute ordained and enthroned as HG Bishop Oulogios, bishop of St. Shenoute's Monastery, "The White Monastery"

Fr. Paula el Anba Shenoute ordained as HG Bishop Pavlos, general bishop of Greece
Fr. Louka el Baramousy ordained as HG Bishop Louka, general bishop of South France, Geneva, and Switzerland
Fr. Abanoub el Antony ordained as HG Bishop Abanoub, general bishop of Moqattam area in Cairo, Egypt
Fr. Mattaous el Baramousy ordained as HG Bishop Makary, general bishop of Shoubra area in Cairo, Egypt
Fr. Antonios el Shayeb ordained as HG Bishop Yousab, general bishop of Cairo "at large"
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 09:12:24 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.
Stavro
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 985


« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2013, 03:44:21 PM »

Quote
Fr. Paula el Anba Shenoute ordained as HG Bishop Pavlos, general bishop of Greece
Fr. Louka el Baramousy ordained as HG Bishop Louka, general bishop of South France, Geneva, and Switzerland
Fr. Abanoub el Antony ordained as HG Bishop Abanoub, general bishop of Moqattam area in Cairo, Egypt
Fr. Mattaous el Baramousy ordained as HG Bishop Makary, general bishop of Shoubra area in Cairo, Egypt
Fr. Antonios el Shayeb ordained as HG Bishop Yousab, general bishop of Cairo "at large"

General bishops everywhere ....  Grin

What is Cairo "at large"?
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
qawe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 126


« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2013, 07:17:18 PM »

Also I thought Bishop Marcos was already diocesan bishop of Shoubra...
At least he ordained 6 diocesan bishops and only 5 general bishops... some progress!
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 07:19:10 PM by qawe » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2013, 08:14:54 PM »

Quote
Fr. Paula el Anba Shenoute ordained as HG Bishop Pavlos, general bishop of Greece
Fr. Louka el Baramousy ordained as HG Bishop Louka, general bishop of South France, Geneva, and Switzerland
Fr. Abanoub el Antony ordained as HG Bishop Abanoub, general bishop of Moqattam area in Cairo, Egypt
Fr. Mattaous el Baramousy ordained as HG Bishop Makary, general bishop of Shoubra area in Cairo, Egypt
Fr. Antonios el Shayeb ordained as HG Bishop Yousab, general bishop of Cairo "at large"

General bishops everywhere ....  Grin

What is Cairo "at large"?

I know...tell me about it  Tongue

Unspecified location in Cairo (I'm guessing a personal assistant of HH)

Also I thought Bishop Marcos was already diocesan bishop of Shoubra...
At least he ordained 6 diocesan bishops and only 5 general bishops... some progress!
Shoubra burrough of Cairo and Shoubra el Kheima (right out of Cairo) are two different places.


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.
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 753


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2013, 09:28:06 PM »

So has the French Orthodox Church been demoted from an autonomous jurisdiction to merely a diocese if their Metropolitan bishop was replaced with a bishop?
Logged
qawe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 126


« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2013, 09:35:51 PM »

So has the French Orthodox Church been demoted from an autonomous jurisdiction to merely a diocese if their Metropolitan bishop was replaced with a bishop?

Can't a bishop head an autonomous jurisdiction?
In any case, aren't they theoretically the same thing?
Logged
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 753


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2013, 09:41:14 PM »

So has the French Orthodox Church been demoted from an autonomous jurisdiction to merely a diocese if their Metropolitan bishop was replaced with a bishop?

Can't a bishop head an autonomous jurisdiction?
In any case, aren't they theoretically the same thing?

It's not supposed to be some honorary title used for promotions...  A diocesen bishop is only the bishop of their own diocese. A Metropolitan is first and foremost the bishop of their diocese, but is also  supposed to be the senior bishop of a region, with the authority to convene a local Synod. Abba Seraphim has authority to convene the Synod of the British Orthodox Church... not that that means too much since they have no other bishops so it is really just the council of presbyters every bishop has... But there is a sense of independence there that is greater than a diocesen bishop who is a member of a synod, not a president, has. A feeling that the norm would be for there to be more than one bishop involved, as was the case when the French had two.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2013, 09:45:21 PM »

I don't think the Coptic Church has any functional difference between "autonomous" and "diocese" at the moment.  In fact, being a "Metropolitan" is honorary more than functional.  The most "functional" a "metropolitan" can have is have "general bishops" serve him when requested, such as the case of HH Pope Tawadros, who before his papacy, served HE Metropolitan Bakhomios.
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.
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 753


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2013, 09:54:38 PM »

While there is no ontological difference between a bishop and a metropolitan, both are the same in terms of their office as a bishop, of their fatherhood to their congregation, that is, to their diocese, yet for the sake of the unity of the Church the office of the Metroplitan has been given administrative authority through the canons of the Church.

The canons of Nicea, for example, show the importance of the office:

Canon 4:
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place.  But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.v.html)


The Archbishop is the bishop of the national capital, with presidency over the synod of all the bishops of the land, and the Metropolitan is the bishop of the regional capital, with presidency of the synod of all the bishops of the province...

Just giving it as an honorary title to a long serving bishop and then appointing a successor for the same diocese and making them a bishop rather than Metropolitan is a mockery, and taking something for the sake of good order and turning it into a political promotion. Either a city is a metropolis (great/large city), or it is not. If it is, then the bishop of that city is the bishop of a metropolis, or a metropolitan bishop.

I understand that as jurisdictions have (unfortunately) become tied to ethnicity rather than geographic region, in modern times in lands that are not traditionally Orthodox, the offices of Archbishop and Metropolitan bishop have shifted to be heads of synods whether their cities are the most prominent or not... and in traditionally Orthodox lands, some cities have shrunk, but the bishops of those cities have been left their historic titles out of respect for the historical role of that church/diocese... maybe confusing and not ideal, but understandable developments....

But for a traditional land like Egypt to make it just an honorary title seems like a lack of understanding of the order of the Church with not justification in terms of either historical use, canonical norms, or even pressing economical need.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 09:55:34 PM by Jonathan » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2013, 09:57:01 PM »

Quote
Fr. Paula el Anba Shenoute ordained as HG Bishop Pavlos, general bishop of Greece
Fr. Louka el Baramousy ordained as HG Bishop Louka, general bishop of South France, Geneva, and Switzerland
Fr. Abanoub el Antony ordained as HG Bishop Abanoub, general bishop of Moqattam area in Cairo, Egypt
Fr. Mattaous el Baramousy ordained as HG Bishop Makary, general bishop of Shoubra area in Cairo, Egypt
Fr. Antonios el Shayeb ordained as HG Bishop Yousab, general bishop of Cairo "at large"

General bishops everywhere ....  Grin

What is Cairo "at large"?

I know...tell me about it  Tongue

Unspecified location in Cairo (I'm guessing a personal assistant of HH)

Also I thought Bishop Marcos was already diocesan bishop of Shoubra...
At least he ordained 6 diocesan bishops and only 5 general bishops... some progress!
Shoubra burrough of Cairo and Shoubra el Kheima (right out of Cairo) are two different places.
Ah, indeed!  I remember taking the bus from school to Qanatir, seeing Shubra past Ramsiis, and then the refinery in Shubra al-Kheimah, marking the end of the city and the villages until Qanatir.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 10:10:07 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2013, 10:08:50 PM »

While there is no ontological difference between a bishop and a metropolitan, both are the same in terms of their office as a bishop, of their fatherhood to their congregation, that is, to their diocese, yet for the sake of the unity of the Church the office of the Metroplitan has been given administrative authority through the canons of the Church.

The canons of Nicea, for example, show the importance of the office:

Canon 4:
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place.  But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.v.html)


The Archbishop is the bishop of the national capital, with presidency over the synod of all the bishops of the land, and the Metropolitan is the bishop of the regional capital, with presidency of the synod of all the bishops of the province...

Just giving it as an honorary title to a long serving bishop and then appointing a successor for the same diocese and making them a bishop rather than Metropolitan is a mockery, and taking something for the sake of good order and turning it into a political promotion. Either a city is a metropolis (great/large city), or it is not. If it is, then the bishop of that city is the bishop of a metropolis, or a metropolitan bishop.

I understand that as jurisdictions have (unfortunately) become tied to ethnicity rather than geographic region, in modern times in lands that are not traditionally Orthodox, the offices of Archbishop and Metropolitan bishop have shifted to be heads of synods whether their cities are the most prominent or not... and in traditionally Orthodox lands, some cities have shrunk, but the bishops of those cities have been left their historic titles out of respect for the historical role of that church/diocese... maybe confusing and not ideal, but understandable developments....

But for a traditional land like Egypt to make it just an honorary title seems like a lack of understanding of the order of the Church with not justification in terms of either historical use, canonical norms, or even pressing economical need.
Not quite. The history etc. of Egypt didn't work the way in the rest of the Church.  Alexandria was pretty much the only metropolis, and the pope had spoken for it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 753


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2013, 10:14:15 PM »

While there is no ontological difference between a bishop and a metropolitan, both are the same in terms of their office as a bishop, of their fatherhood to their congregation, that is, to their diocese, yet for the sake of the unity of the Church the office of the Metroplitan has been given administrative authority through the canons of the Church.

The canons of Nicea, for example, show the importance of the office:

Canon 4:
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place.  But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.v.html)


The Archbishop is the bishop of the national capital, with presidency over the synod of all the bishops of the land, and the Metropolitan is the bishop of the regional capital, with presidency of the synod of all the bishops of the province...

Just giving it as an honorary title to a long serving bishop and then appointing a successor for the same diocese and making them a bishop rather than Metropolitan is a mockery, and taking something for the sake of good order and turning it into a political promotion. Either a city is a metropolis (great/large city), or it is not. If it is, then the bishop of that city is the bishop of a metropolis, or a metropolitan bishop.

I understand that as jurisdictions have (unfortunately) become tied to ethnicity rather than geographic region, in modern times in lands that are not traditionally Orthodox, the offices of Archbishop and Metropolitan bishop have shifted to be heads of synods whether their cities are the most prominent or not... and in traditionally Orthodox lands, some cities have shrunk, but the bishops of those cities have been left their historic titles out of respect for the historical role of that church/diocese... maybe confusing and not ideal, but understandable developments....

But for a traditional land like Egypt to make it just an honorary title seems like a lack of understanding of the order of the Church with not justification in terms of either historical use, canonical norms, or even pressing economical need.
Not quite. The history etc. of Egypt didn't work the way in the rest of the Church.  Alexandria was pretty much the only metropolis, and the pope had spoken for it.

Yes, Egypt was the exception, with a flatter hierarchy and more centralized around the Pope with little or no concept of provincial synods...

But it doesn't make any sense to try to extend that around the world outside of Egypt... One Pope of the whole world is more than enough...

Since the precedent was set in doing it right by having Metropolitans of the British Orthodox and the French Orthodox and granting them more autonomy than a typical diocese... to demote them and have just another Coptic diocese, that is geographically overlapping other Coptic diocese, is a step backwards. And promoting and demoting cities to Metropolis or not from one bishop to the next still doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

Logged
qawe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 126


« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2013, 12:40:48 AM »

So has the French Orthodox Church been demoted from an autonomous jurisdiction to merely a diocese if their Metropolitan bishop was replaced with a bishop?

Can't a bishop head an autonomous jurisdiction?
In any case, aren't they theoretically the same thing?

It's not supposed to be some honorary title used for promotions...  A diocesen bishop is only the bishop of their own diocese. A Metropolitan is first and foremost the bishop of their diocese, but is also  supposed to be the senior bishop of a region, with the authority to convene a local Synod. Abba Seraphim has authority to convene the Synod of the British Orthodox Church... not that that means too much since they have no other bishops so it is really just the council of presbyters every bishop has... But there is a sense of independence there that is greater than a diocesen bishop who is a member of a synod, not a president, has. A feeling that the norm would be for there to be more than one bishop involved, as was the case when the French had two.

What I was trying to say was that a diocese and an autonomous jurisdiction are practically the same - all dioceses are autonomous (in theory).
But I didn't know that a Metropolitan had the extra power to call a local synod, thanks for the info. (btw doesn't that make a Metropolitan identical to a Patriarch - with the only difference being honorific?)
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2013, 12:46:03 AM »

While there is no ontological difference between a bishop and a metropolitan, both are the same in terms of their office as a bishop, of their fatherhood to their congregation, that is, to their diocese, yet for the sake of the unity of the Church the office of the Metroplitan has been given administrative authority through the canons of the Church.

The canons of Nicea, for example, show the importance of the office:

Canon 4:
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place.  But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.v.html)


The Archbishop is the bishop of the national capital, with presidency over the synod of all the bishops of the land, and the Metropolitan is the bishop of the regional capital, with presidency of the synod of all the bishops of the province...

Just giving it as an honorary title to a long serving bishop and then appointing a successor for the same diocese and making them a bishop rather than Metropolitan is a mockery, and taking something for the sake of good order and turning it into a political promotion. Either a city is a metropolis (great/large city), or it is not. If it is, then the bishop of that city is the bishop of a metropolis, or a metropolitan bishop.

I understand that as jurisdictions have (unfortunately) become tied to ethnicity rather than geographic region, in modern times in lands that are not traditionally Orthodox, the offices of Archbishop and Metropolitan bishop have shifted to be heads of synods whether their cities are the most prominent or not... and in traditionally Orthodox lands, some cities have shrunk, but the bishops of those cities have been left their historic titles out of respect for the historical role of that church/diocese... maybe confusing and not ideal, but understandable developments....

But for a traditional land like Egypt to make it just an honorary title seems like a lack of understanding of the order of the Church with not justification in terms of either historical use, canonical norms, or even pressing economical need.

I agree with you.  But you know...just saying how the Coptic Church heirarchs seem to think today.  I'm just a bit distraught.  I'm not throwing "Axios's" like I used to.
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.
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 753


WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2013, 06:50:23 AM »


What I was trying to say was that a diocese and an autonomous jurisdiction are practically the same - all dioceses are autonomous (in theory).
But I didn't know that a Metropolitan had the extra power to call a local synod, thanks for the info. (btw doesn't that make a Metropolitan identical to a Patriarch - with the only difference being honorific?)

I don't think they should be the same thing... If one Coptic diocese had a different Liturgy than the rest that would be weird, at least... But the BOC uses a different Liturgy... a greater degree of independence.

It doesn't make a Metropolitan the same as a Patriarch...

For us and the Greeks, Patriarch >= Archbishop > Metropolitan.
For Russians, the meaning of the title Archbishop and Metropolitan are flipped.

So if you look at how the Antiochians works since they use the same naming conventions as us, they have a Patriarch in Antioch, and they have a Metropolitan in North America. Metropolitan Philip is president of the synod of about a dozen bishops the Antiochians have in North America, but is not equal to the Patriarch of Antioch, but is a member of the Synod of bishops of Antioch, under the Patriarch.

If you look at the OCA, they have a greater degree of autonomy from Moscow. They were made independent, so their primate is called a Metropolitan (keeping in mind that Russians switch it, so that's equivalent to an Archbishop to us). So the Metropolitan of the OCA is not a part of the Synod of the Moscow Church, they are the president of the Synod of North America, and the same as the Moscow Patriarch in that respect, though less in honour since a part of a smaller and younger church.

In most points of history the Coptic Orthodox Church only existed in Egypt, and consisted of the Archbishop of Alexandria, (whose historic titles include "Pope" and "Patriarch"), and the other bishops of Egypt, making up a Synod of the land of Egypt... but their number was in the order of a dozen, not 120.

Now we have Metropolitans as well. I'd be interested to know how the title was historically used in Egypt, but I have no idea. Imagine that we used it in a meaningful way that was consistent with how we've used it with the BOC and French though...

Say the Pope was actually Archbishop of Alexandria in reality (i.e. lived there and actively worked as the father of that Church). Now, you wouldn't make a bishop of Alexandria, and say "hey, you've been doing a good job for a while, let's make you Archbishop and give you the title Pope now"... as soon as they are ordained the bishop of Alexandria, they also receive the additional duties that go along with that archdiocese, namely being the Archbishop, or Pope and Patriarch of Egypt.

Now say the Pope wasn't actually the bishop of Cairo, then certainly the bishop of Cairo would be a Metropolitan bishop, there is no arguing that Cairo isn't a great city. They wouldn't be made a bishop, then later promoted to Metropolitan to recognize seniority in the Synod, they would be a Metropolitan bishop because they were the bishop of a Metropolitan city, just like the bishop of Alexandria is an Archbishop because they are bishop of an Archdiocese. Of course, there would be other bishops around Cairo as now, a bishop for Old Cairo, for Shoubra and for Shoubra el Kheima, etc. The Metropolitan of these bishops would be the Metropolitan of Cairo. The Archbishop of these bishops and their Metropolitan would be the Pope of Alexandria. In pastoral and local matters affecting Cairo, the bishops of Cairo and surrounding areas would meet as a local Synod. When discussing issues affecting the land, the bishops would meet in a great Synod under the Pope. When discussing issues affecting the whole world, they would meet in an Ecumenical Council, presided over in turn by the prominent Patriarchs, as happened at Nicea, Constantinople, and Emphasis...

Egypt has never had this structure. It has always been just the Archbishop of Alexandria and the rest... but that makes less and less sense as the Synod gets larger and larger, and covers the whole world.

So the French and the British were each given their own Metropolitan. The French had another bishop in their local Synod, the British have not so far. They were allowed great freedom in deciding their own matters, such as having their own Liturgy. If France was previously large enough to be a Metropolitan area with independence, then it doesn't make sense for their second primate not to have the same title and honour as their first did.

of course, the local Coptic bishops should be part of the Synod of France or Britain, under the Metropolitan there, not separate, parallel, and overlapping jurisdictions... but that's another issue.
Logged
qawe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 126


« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2013, 07:16:11 AM »


What I was trying to say was that a diocese and an autonomous jurisdiction are practically the same - all dioceses are autonomous (in theory).
But I didn't know that a Metropolitan had the extra power to call a local synod, thanks for the info. (btw doesn't that make a Metropolitan identical to a Patriarch - with the only difference being honorific?)

I don't think they should be the same thing... If one Coptic diocese had a different Liturgy than the rest that would be weird, at least... But the BOC uses a different Liturgy... a greater degree of independence.

But there's no such thing as a "Coptic" diocese, only an Orthodox diocese... As I know you'll agree
So thus it's perfectly normal for dioceses - even neighbouring dioceses - to use different liturgies depending on the part of the world they are in
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2013, 12:11:04 PM »

If you look at the OCA, they have a greater degree of autonomy from Moscow.

Autocephaly*.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
qawe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 126


« Reply #17 on: June 22, 2013, 08:32:47 PM »

If you look at the OCA, they have a greater degree of autonomy from Moscow.

Autocephaly*.

My point exactly - not all dioceses are autocephalous, but all dioceses ought to be autonomous.
Logged
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 753


WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2013, 09:51:32 PM »

There's no such thing as an autocephalous diocese by itself though. And it doesn't happen that neighbouring diocese have different rites (unless they're on a border). Each bishop has authority and responsibility to govern the worship in their church... but the normal way this is exercised is not be changing everything around in the Liturgy in their city, but by participating as one voice in a Synod of neighbouring bishops. They limit their freedom in love for the sake of unity and accommodation by cooperating with their synod under the guidance of the senior bishop of their land.

The Orthodox Church in a particular land is autocephalous if it is not governed the Synod of the Church of another land. But any such Autocephalous group of churches/dioceses must consist of a Synod of bishops, not a single bishop. Orthodoxy is living and must be shared back and forth between Churches, it does not exist in isolation. Today in North America we have great confusion because one jurisdiction has different rules for divorce than another, one receives by chrismation and one by baptism or confession, etc. Now imagine if these decisions were made at the diocesen level rather than synodically... it would be chaos, and disunity, rather than the unity in love that characterizes Christianity.

Of course there is such a thing as a Coptic diocese... that would be any Orthodox diocese in the land of Egypt Smiley And realistically, there are Coptic (and Greek, Russian, etc.) diocese throughout the world now. We can't talk about the Orthodox diocese of New Jersey. Would we mean the Coptic Orthodox archdiocese (I think they just added arch to their website to see if they could get away with it) of New Jersey, the Greek Orthodox diocese of New Jersey? Some cities half half a dozen bishops of various jurisdictions. Even if they agree to have their bishoprics in different cities or suburbs do there aren't two bishops of a given city, still the dioceses overlap and cover the same geographic region. It's wrong, it shouldn't be like that, but that is the way it is.

So how do we fix it? There are serious challenges, and no good and clean solutions. Certainly the pastoral needs of congregations have to be accommodated. But eventually, at some point, it has to normalize back towards there being only the One Holy and Catholic Orthodox Church in each land. One Synod that cares for all the Orthodox in that land, regardless of where their ancestors came from. How do we get there? It seems that the start is to have an Orthodox Church for that land, operating in parallel to the many other jurisdictions worshipping there. They aren't just going to go away. The idea is that over generations, the 3rd and 4th generation descendent of those immigrants will increasingly identify with the Church of their land, not their parents land, and will have the Church there to accommodate them. Maybe at some point the overlapping jurisdictions could even be folded in to it and any ethnic pastoral concerns handled appropriately within it rather than separately outside. Then we'd be back to Orthodoxy (in this matter).

So one the one hand, collapsing the French Orthodox and the British Orthodox into the Coptic Church and only having the Coptic Church in England and France seems like a great idea since it's one less jurisdiction, one less overlap... but really, it would be a step backwards, away from a single Orthodox church in a land, back towards ethnic definition and separation, and full governance by a foreign Church  overseas. Representing the French or the British as a diocese of the Copts overlapping all the Coptic dioceses in those lands, with a bishop given extra freedom, rather than as the Synod of that land with overlapping diocese to serve immigrants a tolerated necessary deviation for the sake of pastoral care, is certainly a step backwards.

(Not that that is where the Synod is going, I have no idea what the reasoning is, just that's why I originally wondered what the significance of not making H.G. a metropolitan is) (also of course ignoring all the additional difficulties of overlapping EO/OO in this discussion)
Logged
qawe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 126


« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2013, 10:12:54 PM »

So how do we fix it? There are serious challenges, and no good and clean solutions. Certainly the pastoral needs of congregations have to be accommodated. But eventually, at some point, it has to normalize back towards there being only the One Holy and Catholic Orthodox Church in each land. One Synod that cares for all the Orthodox in that land, regardless of where their ancestors came from. How do we get there? It seems that the start is to have an Orthodox Church for that land, operating in parallel to the many other jurisdictions worshipping there. They aren't just going to go away. The idea is that over generations, the 3rd and 4th generation descendent of those immigrants will increasingly identify with the Church of their land, not their parents land, and will have the Church there to accommodate them. Maybe at some point the overlapping jurisdictions could even be folded in to it and any ethnic pastoral concerns handled appropriately within it rather than separately outside. Then we'd be back to Orthodoxy (in this matter).

So one the one hand, collapsing the French Orthodox and the British Orthodox into the Coptic Church and only having the Coptic Church in England and France seems like a great idea since it's one less jurisdiction, one less overlap... but really, it would be a step backwards, away from a single Orthodox church in a land, back towards ethnic definition and separation, and full governance by a foreign Church  overseas. Representing the French or the British as a diocese of the Copts overlapping all the Coptic dioceses in those lands, with a bishop given extra freedom, rather than as the Synod of that land with overlapping diocese to serve immigrants a tolerated necessary deviation for the sake of pastoral care, is certainly a step backwards.

Agreed!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2013, 11:00:13 PM »

There's no such thing as an autocephalous diocese by itself though. And it doesn't happen that neighbouring diocese have different rites (unless they're on a border). Each bishop has authority and responsibility to govern the worship in their church... but the normal way this is exercised is not be changing everything around in the Liturgy in their city, but by participating as one voice in a Synod of neighbouring bishops. They limit their freedom in love for the sake of unity and accommodation by cooperating with their synod under the guidance of the senior bishop of their land.

The Orthodox Church in a particular land is autocephalous if it is not governed the Synod of the Church of another land. But any such Autocephalous group of churches/dioceses must consist of a Synod of bishops, not a single bishop. Orthodoxy is living and must be shared back and forth between Churches, it does not exist in isolation. Today in North America we have great confusion because one jurisdiction has different rules for divorce than another, one receives by chrismation and one by baptism or confession, etc. Now imagine if these decisions were made at the diocesen level rather than synodically... it would be chaos, and disunity, rather than the unity in love that characterizes Christianity.

Of course there is such a thing as a Coptic diocese... that would be any Orthodox diocese in the land of Egypt Smiley
Actually no.  There are a dozen or so Greek and Arab ones, and Sinai is in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

And realistically, there are Coptic (and Greek, Russian, etc.) diocese throughout the world now. We can't talk about the Orthodox diocese of New Jersey. Would we mean the Coptic Orthodox archdiocese (I think they just added arch to their website to see if they could get away with it) of New Jersey, the Greek Orthodox diocese of New Jersey? Some cities half half a dozen bishops of various jurisdictions. Even if they agree to have their bishoprics in different cities or suburbs do there aren't two bishops of a given city, still the dioceses overlap and cover the same geographic region. It's wrong, it shouldn't be like that, but that is the way it is.
Yes, that should be fixed.  We have enough bishops for all 50 states and the 13 provinces and territories of Canada.

So how do we fix it? There are serious challenges, and no good and clean solutions. Certainly the pastoral needs of congregations have to be accommodated. But eventually, at some point, it has to normalize back towards there being only the One Holy and Catholic Orthodox Church in each land. One Synod that cares for all the Orthodox in that land, regardless of where their ancestors came from. How do we get there? It seems that the start is to have an Orthodox Church for that land, operating in parallel to the many other jurisdictions worshipping there. They aren't just going to go away. The idea is that over generations, the 3rd and 4th generation descendent of those immigrants will increasingly identify with the Church of their land, not their parents land, and will have the Church there to accommodate them. Maybe at some point the overlapping jurisdictions could even be folded in to it and any ethnic pastoral concerns handled appropriately within it rather than separately outside. Then we'd be back to Orthodoxy (in this matter).
The OCA is somewhat set up that way.

So one the one hand, collapsing the French Orthodox and the British Orthodox into the Coptic Church and only having the Coptic Church in England and France seems like a great idea since it's one less jurisdiction, one less overlap... but really, it would be a step backwards, away from a single Orthodox church in a land, back towards ethnic definition and separation, and full governance by a foreign Church  overseas. Representing the French or the British as a diocese of the Copts overlapping all the Coptic dioceses in those lands, with a bishop given extra freedom, rather than as the Synod of that land with overlapping diocese to serve immigrants a tolerated necessary deviation for the sake of pastoral care, is certainly a step backwards.

(Not that that is where the Synod is going, I have no idea what the reasoning is, just that's why I originally wondered what the significance of not making H.G. a metropolitan is) (also of course ignoring all the additional difficulties of overlapping EO/OO in this discussion)
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,302


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2013, 01:43:34 PM »

i think pope tawadros' reorganisation of europe will lead to the more egyptian churches becoming more french, british, german or whatever and the british and french orthodox churches moving closer to them to help them with this.

just fast and pray (fast starts tomorrow, yay!) and i believe it will work out fine. it will take time, but i think we needed to make this move because there are masses more egyptians in europe than there ever were, and also now non egyptians are joining the coptic church as they find orthodoxy, so the needs of orthodox Christians in europe now are different than what they were 30 years ago when the few original coptic churches in western europe were set up.

i, personally, thank God every day for the arrival of the coptic orthodox in my country (and for the british orthodox and their union with alexandria) and i hope that with the right approach to reorganisation, we can also prepare for greater unity with the eastern orthodox churches in our lands.
Logged
Tags: Pope Tawadros bishops Ordination 
Pages: 1   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 0.122 seconds with 48 queries.