[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12653.msg149038#msg149038 date=1323885141] In a way, priests and bishops are not ordained properly. Please note that I am NOT saying that their ordination is not valid. Of course the ordination is valid, but in order to be done properly, someone who is cantor/psaltos must be tonsured reader/anaghnostos and then ordained sub-deacon, followed by deacon. Only a deacon (a 'real', full deacon and which some mistakenly call arshi-diakon) should be ordained to being a priest. If the priest is a celibate of course only then can he be made a bishop. I've never heard a layperson becoming a bishop in one shot.
Of course there are also loopholes. Our Coptic loophole is to call the cantor and reader as if they are 'deacon' and then ordain the candidate a priest. The Byzantines often use the loophole of ordaining the man a deacon for a few days or a few weeks and then ordaining him to be a priest! But at least he actually was a deacon.
All priests are elevated to the rank of Deacon before their ordination. Many Bishops do the ordination on separate days. However, due to the age of the Pope and therefore his intolerance for extended long services, they are ordained deacon before the liturgy, and Priest during the liturgy. Although this ordination takes place, they are supposed to spend a night as a deacon before elevation to the priesthood. I do not have the source for that, but I will look for it. In either case, the Coptic loophole is that of the Byzantines.
I am upset at this loop-holing. I don't like laws that make no sense, and are unnecessary. We are not Judaizers, and we do not do things for the sake of doing them. Every law has a practical reason. For example, the law against moving bishops and priests around is so that the congregation can have a father that is constant with them. The rule for only elevating Deacons into Priests is so that they have learned the liturgical services, and are well acquainted with the needs of the people, the theology of the church, and the Ecclesiastical jobs. Loop-holing is what the Jews did by making the law of no effect by the saying of the fathers. If someone tried to point out that this breaking the law was wrong, they would be told that they were pharisaic (I speak from experience). However, the reason I defend these laws is not because I like them, or because it is fun to have a game, but because it is needed.
The church is not a court dictating the laws, but rather should defend the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law of elevation of deacons to priests is to teach them all the above mentioned things.
Also, what do you guys think about ordination of "random uncles." I'm not trying to insult them, but do you think that ALL priests should go through seminary? I was struggling with doubt, and to get my answer, I looked through many priests who did almost nothing but confuse and annoy me. A few priests really had an understanding of the fathers, and I turned to a friend who is a theologian. Personally, I think that all priest should undergo a full course of seminary.
The holy and great synod refers to the council of Nicea. It is not your local church council or your assembly of believers in any place. It refer to the holy and great council of Nicea, and to make sure nobody in 2011 misunderstands the intention of the canon, they say: THIS DECREE.
Local church consensus is meaningless here for it contradicts an ecumenical council.
I think the text is clear and its application is even more obvious.
How is this relevant to the discussion. You raised the issue that the Church of Alexandria violated canon 15 of the Council of Nicaea. I have contested your allegation through explaining the wordings of the canon.
I did not assert that the canons of the council are not relevant to the Church of Alexandria. Rather, I contest your interpretation of the canon and its applicability to the incidents you brought up.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12653.msg149040#msg149040 date=1323888185] I was a Deacon for three weeks before my ordination to the priesthood after having been a Reader and then a Subdeacon for about seven years.
... As, in my opinion, Father, it should be! In a community such as the BOC the role of a sub-deacon is taken seriously, so, you must have had much time to learn and grow. I'm just a little concerned about those men who are chosen because they are "good and nice guys." That may have worked in the old church of Egypt where unlearned men could easily become priests, but in an increasingly atheistic world, and a world where we must be on the ball, we need learned people.
imikhail, Stavro's posts are entirely consistent with Orthodox tradition. It is entirely the case that normally no bishop should be moved to another see, and usually when this has happened it has created negative consequences.
BUT.... there are quite a few instances where this canonical position has been broken over the centuries and in different Orthodox communities and therefore it does not seem to me to be straightforward to simply say that it must never and has never happened.
This is to dispute an absolute application of the canonical position which Stavro has presented and not to dispute the canonical position itself which I believe Stavro has clearly described.
I did have the little booklet which Father Bishoy Kamel authored, but I can't find it at the moment. I think that this saintly priest explained his understanding of the canonical rules well.
As I say, I do not absolutise the application of a canon, and so I do not and cannot say that such a translation should never take place. But that does not mean that the canonical rules are not clear. It does also seem to me reasonable at least to say that if the canonical rules are modifed once in a great while it is perhaps understandable, but if the modification of the canons becomes a tradition itself then that is more problematic.
I think that we have been blessed by the pontificate of Pope Shenouda, may the Lord grant him many more years of service according to His will. But I rather hope that the next Patriarch will be a monk who we are not yet aware of.
Give your audience some credit. The Pope of Alexandria is most surely ordained and there is laying of hands as the central part of the ordaining liturgy. The most recent ordination of a Pope, is Pope Kyrillos.
The Pope is a bishop, and surely you do not contest the fact that a bishop is ordained. Maybe you do.
I am sorry I was not concise enough. I meant in the examples you brought up, he was not ordained. Pope Kyrollos was ordained since he was a priest; not of the Bishopric rank. However, if a bishop becomes patriarch, he is not ordained again as a bishop again.
Then I think that Stavro would ask how he becomes bishop of Alexandria?
I have my own understanding, but it is clear to me that such transfers should be exceptional and have been exceptional. I do not believe that they are entirely forbidden as Stavro does.
But having so many transfers in such a short period is certainly unusual.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12653.msg149043#msg149043 date=1323890890] imikhail, Stavro's posts are entirely consistent with Orthodox tradition. It is entirely the case that normally no bishop should be moved to another see, and usually when this has happened it has created negative consequences.
BUT.... there are quite a few instances where this canonical position has been broken over the centuries and in different Orthodox communities and therefore it does not seem to me to be straightforward to simply say that it must never and has never happened.
This is to dispute an absolute application of the canonical position which Stavro has presented and not to dispute the canonical position itself which I believe Stavro has clearly described.
Fr. Peter,
I did have the little booklet which Father Bishoy Kamel authored, but I can't find it at the moment. I think that this saintly priest explained his understanding of the canonical rules well.
As I say, I do not absolutise the application of a canon, and so I do not and cannot say that such a translation should never take place. But that does not mean that the canonical rules are not clear. It does also seem to me reasonable at least to say that if the canonical rules are modifed once in a great while it is perhaps understandable, but if the modification of the canons becomes a tradition itself then that is more problematic.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Canonical laws are not on the same level as Biblical ones. They were put down mainly for organization (yes there are others that deal with dogma) like this one that Stavro has raised. So, to say that the Church is in error or the papacy of a certain patriarch is or was un-canonical is, in my opinion, a haughty position that we often fall into.
We need to understand the spirit of the canons rather than simply judge others by them.
Allow me to ignore your future posts on these topics, because it seems to me that your perpetual state of Matania forces you to act in a certain way that compromises reason, logic and comprehension, and this state is agitated by the mention of anything that has to do with the scandal of 1971 and its beneficiaries.
So are you saying that the Pope Shenouda's Papacy is a scandal and there are beneficiaries of this scandal?
If that is really your position, then you really not need to ever ever ever take communion within the Coptic Church, unless you repent.
I don't think that you are appreciating the spirit of the canons, unless you also think it is problematic that an exceptional circumstance, the transfer of a bishop, has happened very frequently indeed in recent times.
This is not to make any comment about any particular patriarchate, especially that of our beloved father Pope Shenouda.
But the canons are not there to be ignored, and it is not according to the spirit of the canons to act as if they were not there. The canons Stavro has listed are entirely applicable to the selection as God wills of any future Patriarchs when God wills.
The spirit of the canon is found in the application of the canon. The safeguarding of the life of a local Church is only preserved in exceptional circumstances by the transfer of a bishop to another see. Almost universally, but not quite absolutely, the safeguarding of the life of a local Church is preserved by the consecration of a man who has not been promised to some other community.
So many exceptions in such a short period is not canonical. It may be exceptionally permissible, but certainly not as the normal case, and I see no reason why the canons should not be applied in future so that perhaps a presently little known but spiritual monk might be recognised.
One must keep in mind the great tragedies that the three Patriarchs lived through for which there was a fear that a monk out of the monastery would not be able to handle the situation, ie, Armenian Genocide, WWI, WWII. There was a fear that the Ottoman Turks would carry the same sword towards the Copts, also because the Copts gave shelter to the Armenians in the early portion of the 20th Century.
HH Kyrillos VI is the one that instituted the "General Bishop" concept with the ordinations of: Bps. Samuel, Gregorious, and Shenouda, and others.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12653.msg149052#msg149052 date=1323893370] I don't think that you are appreciating the spirit of the canons, unless you also think it is problematic that an exceptional circumstance, the transfer of a bishop, has happened very frequently indeed in recent times.
This is not to make any comment about any particular patriarchate, especially that of our beloved father Pope Shenouda.
But the canons are not there to be ignored, and it is not according to the spirit of the canons to act as if they were not there. The canons Stavro has listed are entirely applicable to the selection as God wills of any future Patriarchs when God wills.
The spirit of the canon is found in the application of the canon. The safeguarding of the life of a local Church is only preserved in exceptional circumstances by the transfer of a bishop to another see. Almost universally, but not quite absolutely, the safeguarding of the life of a local Church is preserved by the consecration of a man who has not been promised to some other community.
So many exceptions in such a short period is not canonical. It may be exceptionally permissible, but certainly not as the normal case, and I see no reason why the canons should not be applied in future so that perhaps a presently little known but spiritual monk might be recognised.
I am not saying canons are irrelevant.
There are certain people who are attacking the papacy of Pope Shenouda citing canons and by doing so they destroy the Church from within.
We need not take the canons to the letter and treat it as if the Church somehow strayed because some canon is broken. If we are going to that extent and have that view, then we are doomed. Yes, I will repeated it again, If we are going to that extent and have that view, then we are doomed.
There are numerous canons that we do not follow. Let me give a simple example, shall we call our worship invalid because we do not follow canon 20 of Nicea. The list is lengthy.
We should be very careful on how we talk about the canonicty of any given situation within the Church because the enemies of the Chuech do take advantage of the simple to stir them against the Church. This is certainly evident with the various groups that rose against Pope Shenouda and against how he was elected through the altar lot.
It may be a whole lot easier for everyone if you simplify the conversation with an analogy.
A bishop is given the care of a diocese. When ordained to serve the diocese, it is as analogous to getting married to that diocese. Just as with the canons against divorce within marriage is held by the church, in the same way a bishop cannot divorce his diocese and move to another one.
So to put canon #15 of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea in perspective, a bishop who is ordained to a diocese cannot be ordained or moved to another diocese, as that would be analogous to adultery. For that reason, no man can attempt to divide the two who became one (the bishop and his diocese). It may worth noting that this canon applies to priests and deacons as well.
In the case of H.H. Pope Shenouda, though, the canon has not been neglected, as he was not ordained a bishop over a diocese, but a service as a "General Bishop" (an invention of Pope Kirollos VI, to avoid the uncanonical procedures of his predecessors).
[quote author=Biboboy link=topic=12653.msg149058#msg149058 date=1323895577] It may be a whole lot easier for everyone if you simplify the conversation with an analogy.
A bishop is given the care of a diocese. When ordained to serve the diocese, it is as analogous to getting married to that diocese. Just as with the canons against divorce within marriage is held by the church, in the same way a bishop cannot divorce his diocese and move to another one.
So to put canon #15 of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea in perspective, a bishop who is ordained to a diocese cannot be ordained or moved to another diocese, as that would be analogous to adultery. For that reason, no man can attempt to divide the two who became one (the bishop and his diocese). It may worth noting that this canon applies to priests and deacons as well.
In the case of H.H. Pope Shenouda, though, the canon has not been neglected, as he was not ordained a bishop over a diocese, but a service as a "General Bishop" (an invention of Pope Kirollos VI, to avoid the uncanonical procedures of his predecessors).
I appreciate your perspective Biboboy.
However, to call the previous patriarchs adulterous is not at all appropriate.
Canon 15 was addressing a problem of moving clergy without authorization. This prevented bishops from accepting priests without prior consent of their bishops as had happened with Origen. It is an organizational canon.
To use this canon to attack the Church, the clergy, and the whole system is absurd. In such a case, we the laity call the Church leaders breakers of the Church law as if they have committed a heresy. WE NEED TO BE A BIT HUMBLE.
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12653.msg149038#msg149038 date=1323885141] I've never heard a layperson becoming a bishop in one shot. Ummm... Pope Demetrius. Although the Synaxarium states "they held him and kept him until the departure of Abba Yulianus, whereupon they finished the prayers of ordination over him and he was filled with heavenly grace", it is not clear if they ordained him deacon, then priest, then bishop. The story implies he was ordained patriarch immediately. But it wouldn't really matter since Pope Demetrius was ordained before the Council of Nicaea and the canon didn't exist then.
It is, however, interesting that Pope Demetrius condemned Origen for transferring jurisdictions and coming under the bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem. So even before the Canon 15, it must have been relevant back then too.
It is, however, interesting that Pope Demetrius condemned Origen for transferring jurisdictions and coming under the bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem. So even before the Canon 15, it must have been relevant back then too.
Good point Remenkimi.
Canon 15 solidified the Church attitude towards migrating clergy. Before the canon, some adhered to the Tradition, some did not, so the canon put the non-adherence to rest.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=12653.msg149039#msg149039 date=1323886178] Also, what do you guys think about ordination of "random uncles." I'm not trying to insult them, but do you think that ALL priests should go through seminary? I was struggling with doubt, and to get my answer, I looked through many priests who did almost nothing but confuse and annoy me. A few priests really had an understanding of the fathers, and I turned to a friend who is a theologian. Personally, I think that all priest should undergo a full course of seminary.
ReturnOrthodoxy
RO, funny you should ask this. I am preparing a presentation on Pope Cyril IV and the educational system of the 19th century relating to hymns. This was in fact the main sticky point among the opposing factions: The evangelical missionaries and elite laity who insisted on a renewal renaissance and higher religious education of the clergy (mimicking the Protestant pedagogic system) vs. The clergy and the "old school traditionalists" who had no problem with the system in place that has been working for hundreds of years.
Unless we understand the sociological and political milieu and the prejudices of historians and observers, there will be no good answer. Like any other conflict, one party wants to change a fault calling their opponents ignorant, while the other party calls the other ignorant for not recognizing their prejudices. In your example, one would have to define what is actually wrong with "a random uncle" becoming priest without seminary education and what benefit will seminary education give to the priest and to the congregation he serves. This is not an easy question to answer. People simply ignore the question or voice their biases. They pick a side and find fault with the opponent's argument without recognizing the faults in their arguments.
The average person will definitely say all priests should attend seminary, as they do in the Catholic church. My grandfather was priest at 19 years of age under Pope Cyril V and served the Church for 56 years. He did not attend any seminary and I don't believe he had a college education. But I can tell you that nearly all the priests of the area took him as their father of confession, both in Egypt and the US. Would seminary education have made him a better priest? I don't know. But I can't say he is defective in any way because I do not believe seminary education is a contingent requirement of a good priest (And I'm not saying this because I knew him personally)
This is not to say that I would advocate ordination of laity without any college or seminary education. I wouldn't. There are other important reasons to enforce a policy of college and religious education. I'm just saying we tend to pick sides, old school vs. modernity, republican vs. democratic, foreign education vs. local education, Protestant/Catholic education vs. Coptic vs. government education, and so on. And then we don't really have a solid reason why we picked that choice and yet criticize all who oppose us.
Remenkimi, you make a good point that seminary is not 'required' to make a good priest but at the same time, your grandfather and other priests decades and centuries back lived within a completely different socio-religious, political context. Back then, it was more of a homogenous people; it was Egyptians in Egypt. The village mentality was all that was necessary and perhaps crucial in maintaining communal and religious unity to the Coptic or Orthodox way of life back then.
Today however, and especially in the lands of immigration as we call it, can we really afford to keep on pretending we are in Egypt? We are constantly bombarded by atheists and ex-Christians who attack the Church and Christ, and who have no real understanding of our Church or of the Fathers who actually did understand it. Thats why, more than ever, I think we do need to be educated in an academic way about our faith and about other subjects as well with which we can tie it all together. The Church Fathers were not brilliant because they prayed on their knees for hours...thats what made them holy. But what made them brilliant was their desire and love of study and knowledge whereby they extracted wisdom. They lived in times when the Arians and others attacked the faith and they stood up to them through rhetoric and proper understanding. If a priest has it, he's got it; if not, no amount of studying in a seminary will make him a true father.
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12653.msg149098#msg149098 date=1323958850] Remenkimi, you make a good point that seminary is not 'required' to make a good priest but at the same time, your grandfather and other priests decades and centuries back lived within a completely different socio-religious, political context. Back then, it was more of a homogenous people; it was Egyptians in Egypt. The village mentality was all that was necessary and perhaps crucial in maintaining communal and religious unity to the Coptic or Orthodox way of life back then. If this village mentality was so homogenous and acceptable, why did the Christian Missions come to Egypt to "reform" the Copts? It was ok for the clergy and poor people. It was not ok for the Coptic wealthy elite (the arakhon) and foreign visitors and foreign society.
Today however, and especially in the lands of immigration as we call it, can we really afford to keep on pretending we are in Egypt?
You are alluding to my point. Egypt is different than Western society. Coptic education in Egypt should be different than Coptic education in the US and Europe. But it's not because emigrated parishioners nowadays want to be Egyptians in the US and Europe and not American or European. So both the education and the "type" of clergy has not kept up. This is of course a different subject, since I was talking about 19th century Coptic society.
Thats why, more than ever, I think we do need to be educated in an academic way about our faith and about other subjects as well with which we can tie it all together.
You are assuming that anyone who enters a seminary, be it Coptic or Catholic or Protestant, will have received the education to fit atheists and other trouble makers. I'm not so sure. I can parallel this to medicine. If 4 years of education in the medical or dental field were enough, there would be no need for continuing education and no need for specialization. But most of what doctors and dentist do are learned after medical and dental school. The same applies to clergy.
But what made them brilliant was their desire and love of study and knowledge whereby they extracted wisdom.
You are again assuming that the only type of Church father that fought the Arians and heretics were formally educated. This is not entirely the case. St Antony was not educated but he outwitted Greek philosophers. St Shenute had all out war against the pagans and Nestorians, battling them both in rhetorical writings and physical attacks. And the Origen controversy, exacerbated by Pope Theophilus and the 4 Tall Brothers, were subject to the scrutiny from the monks of Egypt (who we know that most monks did not have formal education). In addition, there are stories of St Samuel the Confessor, St Daniel of Scetis, St Macarius Virtues, St Paul of Tammah's Principles, and so on who fought heretics but were not educated. What you did say correctly is that all of these fathers have a love of study, knowledge and wisdom, just not formalized education but Biblically based wisdom.
I am not a fan of seminary education. It is not traditional at all, and takes the one who might be a worthy priest out of the congregational context where he has shown himself a servant.
But I do absolutely believe in solid and continuing education of the whole Church. Of course there could and should be residential courses etc, distance learning, highly skilled teaching priests who travel around etc etc.
But the role of a priest is to be pastor before teacher. There should always be mature and selfless proper deacons who can also serve in teaching with the pastor. And the level of knowledge required to teach a congregation properly is not that of a PhD.
The problems we face are not due to lacking very well educated priests, though that is a truth. The problem is that we lack well educated laity. To be well educated does not mean to have been seminary educated. It means to know and love the Scriptures and the Fathers.
Continuing education and love of the Scriptures and Fathers is what we need.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12653.msg149099#msg149099 date=1323962547] If this village mentality was so homogenous and acceptable, why did the Christian Missions come to Egypt to "reform" the Copts? It was ok for the clergy and poor people. It was not ok for the Coptic wealthy elite (the arakhon) and foreign visitors and foreign society.
I was talking about the Copts in Egypt, not the exterior influences such as the western Christians who came later. As for the wealthy elite, you raise a good point, but I do not know much about 19th century Coptic history as do you :)
You are assuming that anyone who enters a seminary, be it Coptic or Catholic or Protestant, will have received the education to fit atheists and other trouble makers. I'm not so sure. I can parallel this to medicine. If 4 years of education in the medical or dental field were enough, there would be no need for continuing education and no need for specialization. But most of what doctors and dentist do are learned after medical and dental school. The same applies to clergy.
I don't think this alone will allow them to do so just that the more we know about how our church fathers thought and what they taught, it will help us better understand and reply to what others have to say. For example, some people don't understand why we do the sign of the cross or how the burning bush is a symbol of the Virgin Mary. If someone has never read on it or it was never taught orally, what comes to his mind is just speculation rather than deeper meaning of what was handed down to us.
But what made them brilliant was their desire and love of study and knowledge whereby they extracted wisdom.
You are again assuming that the only type of Church father that fought the Arians and heretics were formally educated. This is not entirely the case. St Antony was not educated but he outwitted Greek philosophers. St Shenute had all out war against the pagans and Nestorians, battling them both in rhetorical writings and physical attacks. And the Origen controversy, exacerbated by Pope Theophilus and the 4 Tall Brothers, were subject to the scrutiny from the monks of Egypt (who we know that most monks did not have formal education). In addition, there are stories of St Samuel the Confessor, St Daniel of Scetis, St Macarius Virtues, St Paul of Tammah's Principles, and so on who fought heretics but were not educated. What you did say correctly is that all of these fathers have a love of study, knowledge and wisdom, just not formalized education but Biblically based wisdom.
Good point again. Thats very true, it wasn't just the philosophers or the extremely educated ones who rebuttled the heretics. However, what has survived in writing such as the Creed and the other patristic writings has come mostly from those who were educated. I am not disparaging the monastic wisdom which comes through deep prayer, contemplation, and revelation from God. I guess we need to find a balance between the 2. Also, if we then come to the conclusion that seminaries are not useful or important, then there has to be another effective method by which one can learn more on his/her faith as Fr. Peter suggested. Quoting Fr. Peter, I agree completely that
Continuing education and love of the Scriptures and Fathers is what we need.
. I was only emphasizing that our clergy should also be in the know regarding the Fathers and not just the Scriptures since theologically we interpret the bible in the light of the Fathers.
It's amazing how the topics keep changing on this thread.
I for one, I'm all for the mandatory seminary education of people who are called to the priesthood. Just as I expect my family doctor do have successfully completed her M.D. before she checks on my physical health conditions, I also expect the priests to have successfully completed their M.Div. or D.Min. before they engage themselves in pastoring to the people's mental and spiritual health.
While the priests-to-be are training in seminary, they are also engaged in working for their livelihood and serving in church. So I don't understand why some people think that by getting a seminary education, that would affect the service of the priest-to-be. One can still choose priests who are actively serving and are spiritual, while at the same time getting their education.
The number of instances where a seminary education of priests would've served them and the church well are just innumerable. I'm personally tired of witnessing these scenarios happen (whether in person, or through Internet media): 1) In youth meetings, where priests or other servants (who are encouraged by the priests) are spitting out nonsense from Joyce Meyer, Pat Robertson, Billy and Franklin Graham, Rick Warren... just to name a few. I can assure you that the "spirituality" written there is just too shallow. An Orthodox seminary education would prove useful in showing what Orthodox spirituality holds, how it's relevant to today's society and how to engage with more understanding with the liturgical life of the church. There is currently an abundance of literature from Orthodox sources, both ancient and contemporary, so they are without excuse. 2) The sermon as a "show" of intelligence. I have personally heard many priests who put together sermons that are given the authority of St. John Chrysostom or St. Athanasius or St. Cyril with a random quote here and there. In all the cases, I could instantly note when a quote is truly taken out of context and misses the mark of what the original author intended (sometimes going to the exact opposite opinion), or, more commonly than the former, the quote is falsely attributed to one of those saints (i.e. they found that quote on the internet and thought that it was really St. John Chrysostom who said it, but in fact he never wrote it). An education in Patristics, and a thorough reading of their works, would eliminate the need to pull out random quotes with falsely attributed authority. 3) The heresies of the clergy. Also related to a misreading and misunderstanding of the Patristics authors, based on random, out of context quotes. This one is serious, and the church is currently living in deep heresy, and no one is doing anything about it. The only way to end this is to enforce seminary education. 4) It is extremely embarrassing to find Coptic Orthodox clergy so ignorant of their own history, theology, and spirituality, when a first-year undergraduate student in the Study of Religion department knows the difference between Anselmian Substitutionary Atonement and St. Irenaeus' Recapitulation. Then, when this person visits a Coptic ORTHODOX church, she hears a bishop preaching Anselm. 5) It is even MORE embarrassing when you see any Roman Catholic priest more educated in theology than any Coptic priest. They don't just know their history and theology, but they are able to think through the theology with appropriate theological methods, and apply them pastorally. Why, even the Coptic Anglican priests in Egypt can be thoroughly more Orthodox in their writings than Coptic Orthodox clergy.
The Coptic Church is in a sad state. Seminary education for all clergy is a must. It is their duty to get that education, and to apply what they've received from the Church by teaching what they've received in the Church. The ignorance, superstition, and stubbornness are destroying all of God's people.
i mostly agree with father peter, except to say that i think SOME form of education is very important, and candidates for priesthood must be able to show that they are knowledgeable. official seminary education risks being too dry and academic, however i would expect a priest to have read widely about the orthodox church fathers and to be able to explain most of the Bible in a way that helps the average enquirer who comes to his church. i would not expect all priests to be able to enter an academic debate with every passing PhD theology student but i would expect them to be able to teach that student about how to be close to God and how to improve his/her spiritual life. i would not expect all priests to have written loads of articles on orthodoxy like father peter, but i would expect them to be able to read and understand these articles and to apply them to our lives (to teach us about humility, prayer, repentance etc.)
there is nothing about any seminary education that guarantees the sincerity and compassion of the priest. only the Holy Spirit can do this by advising the bishop on who to ordain. may we all pray daily for our clergy and support them in whatever way we can in their difficult job.
[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=12653.msg149114#msg149114 date=1323985328] official seminary education risks being too dry and academic, however i would expect a priest to have read widely about the orthodox church fathers and to be able to explain most of the Bible in a way that helps the average enquirer who comes to his church. i would not expect all priests to be able to enter an academic debate with every passing PhD theology student but i would expect them to be able to teach that student about how to be close to God and how to improve his/her spiritual life. i would not expect all priests to have written loads of articles on orthodoxy like father peter, but i would expect them to be able to read and understand these articles and to apply them to our lives (to teach us about humility, prayer, repentance etc.)
there is nothing about any seminary education that guarantees the sincerity and compassion of the priest. only the Holy Spirit can do this by advising the bishop on who to ordain. may we all pray daily for our clergy and support them in whatever way we can in their difficult job.
OK people, take it from a former-seminarian. Last May, I graduated from a Greek Orthodox seminary. I didn't get a PhD or an MDiv but I got a BTh which is a Bachelor of Orthodox Theology, and let me tell you I don't regret one moment of it. Sure, there were some dry spots but thats not the theology thats just life! What people don't understand is that seminary doesn't 'entitle' you to serve as a priest. At the end of the day, its God's will for your life or not. Seminary training allows you to research and live Orthodoxy on a daily basis. We started with Matins or Divine Liturgy in the chapel followed by breakfast with the Dean and Archbishop. Following our morning classes we had lunch and we all pitched in to clean up afterwards. Then after our evening classes we had free time and Vespers or Compline. Our profs taught us soo much on the richness and depth of Orthodoxy: about what each church father said and did because of how much he loved his faith; we learned about the symbolism of the rites and what our church fathers were thinking when they penned our amazing liturgies! Heck, we were even taught how to properly cense the altars and icons and in which order. So, no, seminary life is definitely NOT boring. While I'm applying to other schools right now not in the theology dept, I what really actually prefer to continue on and take my Masters of Divinity and in fact I was invited by a few seminaries to do so, but I have to put my plans on hold for the time being. What gets me the most is when Coptic priests refer to "our Coptic faith"...I didn't know we believed in Egypt lol.
And like I said earlier, if you throw away seminary education, what other form of educating clergy is left?? Practically, with a priest's busy schedule, I don't think he'd have much time at the end of the day left to study what the Donatists or the Pnevmatomachoi taught. Let's all go sing Protestant songs instead!
I believe that the most important thing we lack these days, especially in the Coptic Church, is discipleship. Whether or not there is a seminary education, if there is no discipleship then there is no true Christianity.
Posts # 35, 37 and 40 by His Reverence Father Peter and post # 43 by Biboboy represent my point of view more accurately and much more eloquently. Thank you.
I will comment on the following paragraphs as it represents an opportunity for further interesting discussion:
Biboboy:In the case of H.H. Pope Shenouda, though, the canon has not been neglected, as he was not ordained a bishop over a diocese, but a service as a "General Bishop" (an invention of Pope Kirollos VI, to avoid the uncanonical procedures of his predecessors).
Anba Shenouda was ordained, as per the words spoken by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of Pope Kyrillos, and afterwards written in the Patriarchate ordination documents, as Bishop of Education. This comprises Sunday School and The School of Theology. The word "General" was not used at the time.
While this bishophery has no geographic boundaries, it has intellectual and institutional boundaries. It is still an Episcopate and still binds the bishop to it. The analogy of marriage is still the best to illustrate this relation.
The designation of "General Bishop" came only later with the Papacy of Anba Shenouda. I am not sure what this rank means and why it is necessary, and whether such rank ever existed in the Church.
For example, why are all the secretaries of the Pope "general bishops"?
Why is Bishop Macarius (a great saintly man who could have been the next Pope, but ma3lesh) the general bishop of Menia, and not the bishop himself? How canonical is having two bishops in the same Episcopate like in Menia?
It seems to me like a way to circumvent canons and as St. Pishoy Kamel wrote in another context: "Who are we kidding? God, ourselves or the others?"
Regardless, it is impossible to have a general bishop become a Patriarch because he cannot be ordained again and cannot obtain the gift of the Holy Spirit necessary to carry out the divine duties of the office. It becomes a "promotion".
The problem is that years of lack of education has led the Copts to unnecessarily adapt this faulty position as the norm and defend the "general bishops" rights to compete for the Alexandrian throne, as we experience now.
HR Fr.Peter: I have my own understanding, but it is clear to me that such transfers should be exceptional and have been exceptional. I do not believe that they are entirely forbidden as Stavro does.
To avoid being a "slave" of the canons but rather a "servant" of the canons, I try to find the reason for any canon and "measure" (the greek word kanōn) church ordinations in the light of the canon.
For example, when the canons list a certain age for priesthood and another for bishophery, the reason is that a person should be mature and established in the faith for long enough in order to empty himself and be a vessel of the Spirit.
If an idnvidual achieves this level of spirituality at an age younger than the ordination age, he has satisfied the requirements of the canon but maybe not the text of the canons. Athanasius, Cyril and Severus are prime example of such alterations of the canons, and even St. John the Divine and St. Mark were probably teenagers when ordained Apostles.
But then again, we have seen puffed up young bishops and priests in our modern age that make the enforcement of the canonical age for ordination a must, unless we have an Athanasius at hand.
In the case of the Patriarch's ordination, such luxury of expanding on the law is not available, simply because a Patriarch does not become a Patriarch unless he is ordained and obtains the gift of bishophery from the Holy Spirit through the laying of hand from the Bishops. The gift of bishophery is bound to the Episcopate of original ordination and is not universal.
Even in the death of the Patriarch, in which case the longest serving bishop assumes the position of "Acting or In-Place of Patriarch" to administer the affairs of the Patriarchate until a lawful Patriarch is elected. This longest serving bishop is never ordained Patriarch nor assumes the title of "Patriarch". The latest recorded long period of such transitions is 3 years from 1956 to 1959. They were, by the way, crappy years as the 28 years that proceeded them.
I do not think (at least hope not) that the church will allow a deacon to raise the offerings and perform the priestly duties, although he might be saintly and pious. He can definitely read the rites and perform them with excellence, know the priests prayers and follow them word by word, but he has not Holy Spirit that work in him or through him to carry out such divine duties. It is even scary to think about it.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=12653.msg149296#msg149296 date=1324402863] So what about the Patriarch of Alexandria?
Stavro, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems your position is that no bishop, whether one ordained to a diocese or one ordained to a service, can become patriarch without violating Canon 15. I don't have enough knowledge of canon law and canonicity, I can offer the following discussion.
Nearly every Apostolic diocese has ordained their patriarchs from their respective Synod of bishops. Roman Catholic: Pope Benedict 16 was Archbishop of Munich Pope John Paul II was auxillary bishop Krawko in 1958 and Archbishop of Krawko Poland in 1964
Ecumenical, See of Constantinople Pope Bartholomew was ordained Metropolitan of Philidelphia 1973 before his ordination in 1991 Pope Demetrius was ordained Metropolitan of Imvros, Greece before his ordination in 1972 Pope Anethegoras was ordained Metropoltian of Corfu in 1922 before his ordination in 1948 Pope Sophronius III was ordained Ecumenical Patriarch in 1870 and before that he was Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria 1863-1868 Pope Cyrill I Lucaris was also Patriarch of Alexandria from 1601-1620 and then Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople 5 times from 1620-1638.
Russian Orthodox Pope Kirill I (current pope) was previously ordained Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad in 1984 before his ordination in 2009. Alexy II was previously ordained Bishop of Tallinn and Estonia in 1964 before his ordination in 1990 Pimen I was previously ordained Metropolitan of Leningrad and Ladoga in 1961 before his ordinatin in 1971
Syrian Orthodox Mar Ignatius Zakka Iwas was previously ordained metropolitan bishop of Mosul in 1963, then transferred to Bishop of Baghdad in 1969 and another diocese in Australia in 1978 before becoming patriarch in 1980 Mar Ignatius Yaqub III was previously ordained Metropolitan of Beirut and Damascus in 1950 before becoming patriarch in 1957
Armenian Catholicos of Cilicia Aram I was ordained bishop of Lebanon in 1980 before he became Catholicos in 1995 Karekin II was ordained bishop in 1964 until he became Catholicos of Cilicia in 1983. He was then elected Catholicos of All Armenians, Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin in 1994.
I only picked two or so patriarchs from each see, but if you research each see, you'll find nearly all patriarchs were chosen from the bishop. We can conclude that none of the Apostolic churches believed they were violating Canon 15 by electing patriarchs from the Synod of Bishops.
To extend the argument, Biboboy said Canon 15 also applied to priests and deacons. If this is true then ordained monk-priests like Pope Cyril VI would be in violation of Canon 15. In addition nearly all the bishops were ordained priests first in all Apostolic Churches. Again, I'm not sure how Canon 15 applies.
I will agree with you that the term "general bishop" is very loosely defined. The term seems to be contradictory to the marriage parallel. It's like being married but not to someone specifically. But I am still not sure if "general bishop" also violates Canon 15. I leave this to others more versed in canon law and theology.
I just wanted to offer my 2 cents on the discussion.
Of the churches you mentioned, only the Armenian and Syrian concern me. You are right, they have adapted the system of consecration of bishops to their Patriarchate for a long time. I am not sure why and when the switch from Tradition occured, but it is nevertheless a violation of the canons.
The Ethiopian and its offspring, the Eritrean Church, only consecrate monks to the order of Patriarchate. This was a condition set by Pope Kyrillos VI as a pre-condition to grant them independence in the 1960's. This condition was enforced by the Coptic Church, only for the Coptic Church to contradict her own terms a few years later.
Before the four contested Papacies we are discussing, and for 113 Patriarchs (Kyrillos 6th included), the Coptic Church has always ordained individuals who are hegumens or less in rank.
To extend the argument, Biboboy said Canon 15 also applied to priests and deacons. If this is true then ordained monk-priests like Pope Cyril VI would be in violation of Canon 15. In addition nearly all the bishops were ordained priests first in all Apostolic Churches. Again, I'm not sure how Canon 15 applies.
Deacons and Priests are indeed not allowed to be "reassigned" around to different churches (practically violated in the past 40 years), but it applies to the same rank and not to ordination to an Episcopate. My understanding is: A priest can be ordained bishop in another Episcopate, and a deacon could be ordained priest in another diocese, but a priest should not permanently move from one church to another outside his diocese (or even away from the church he was ordained for).
There would not be any reason to prevent a worthy deaon from priesthood or a priest from the Espicopate, as the gift of each rank is different and the individual would not have despised his previous consecration.
The current canonical Patriarch of Eritrea (currently in exile) was a bishop. The current Patriarch of Ethiopia was an Archbishop (for all of North America).
Comments
In a way, priests and bishops are not ordained properly. Please note that I am NOT saying that their ordination is not valid. Of course the ordination is valid, but in order to be done properly, someone who is cantor/psaltos must be tonsured reader/anaghnostos and then ordained sub-deacon, followed by deacon. Only a deacon (a 'real', full deacon and which some mistakenly call arshi-diakon) should be ordained to being a priest. If the priest is a celibate of course only then can he be made a bishop. I've never heard a layperson becoming a bishop in one shot.
Of course there are also loopholes. Our Coptic loophole is to call the cantor and reader as if they are 'deacon' and then ordain the candidate a priest. The Byzantines often use the loophole of ordaining the man a deacon for a few days or a few weeks and then ordaining him to be a priest! But at least he actually was a deacon.
All priests are elevated to the rank of Deacon before their ordination. Many Bishops do the ordination on separate days. However, due to the age of the Pope and therefore his intolerance for extended long services, they are ordained deacon before the liturgy, and Priest during the liturgy. Although this ordination takes place, they are supposed to spend a night as a deacon before elevation to the priesthood. I do not have the source for that, but I will look for it. In either case, the Coptic loophole is that of the Byzantines.
I am upset at this loop-holing. I don't like laws that make no sense, and are unnecessary. We are not Judaizers, and we do not do things for the sake of doing them. Every law has a practical reason. For example, the law against moving bishops and priests around is so that the congregation can have a father that is constant with them. The rule for only elevating Deacons into Priests is so that they have learned the liturgical services, and are well acquainted with the needs of the people, the theology of the church, and the Ecclesiastical jobs. Loop-holing is what the Jews did by making the law of no effect by the saying of the fathers. If someone tried to point out that this breaking the law was wrong, they would be told that they were pharisaic (I speak from experience). However, the reason I defend these laws is not because I like them, or because it is fun to have a game, but because it is needed.
The church is not a court dictating the laws, but rather should defend the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law of elevation of deacons to priests is to teach them all the above mentioned things.
Also, what do you guys think about ordination of "random uncles." I'm not trying to insult them, but do you think that ALL priests should go through seminary? I was struggling with doubt, and to get my answer, I looked through many priests who did almost nothing but confuse and annoy me. A few priests really had an understanding of the fathers, and I turned to a friend who is a theologian. Personally, I think that all priest should undergo a full course of seminary.
ReturnOrthodoxy
I did not assert that the canons of the council are not relevant to the Church of Alexandria. Rather, I contest your interpretation of the canon and its applicability to the incidents you brought up.
I was a Deacon for three weeks before my ordination to the priesthood after having been a Reader and then a Subdeacon for about seven years.
... As, in my opinion, Father, it should be! In a community such as the BOC the role of a sub-deacon is taken seriously, so, you must have had much time to learn and grow. I'm just a little concerned about those men who are chosen because they are "good and nice guys." That may have worked in the old church of Egypt where unlearned men could easily become priests, but in an increasingly atheistic world, and a world where we must be on the ball, we need learned people.
ReturnOrthodoxy
BUT.... there are quite a few instances where this canonical position has been broken over the centuries and in different Orthodox communities and therefore it does not seem to me to be straightforward to simply say that it must never and has never happened.
This is to dispute an absolute application of the canonical position which Stavro has presented and not to dispute the canonical position itself which I believe Stavro has clearly described.
I did have the little booklet which Father Bishoy Kamel authored, but I can't find it at the moment. I think that this saintly priest explained his understanding of the canonical rules well.
As I say, I do not absolutise the application of a canon, and so I do not and cannot say that such a translation should never take place. But that does not mean that the canonical rules are not clear. It does also seem to me reasonable at least to say that if the canonical rules are modifed once in a great while it is perhaps understandable, but if the modification of the canons becomes a tradition itself then that is more problematic.
I think that we have been blessed by the pontificate of Pope Shenouda, may the Lord grant him many more years of service according to His will. But I rather hope that the next Patriarch will be a monk who we are not yet aware of.
I have my own understanding, but it is clear to me that such transfers should be exceptional and have been exceptional. I do not believe that they are entirely forbidden as Stavro does.
But having so many transfers in such a short period is certainly unusual.
imikhail, Stavro's posts are entirely consistent with Orthodox tradition. It is entirely the case that normally no bishop should be moved to another see, and usually when this has happened it has created negative consequences.
BUT.... there are quite a few instances where this canonical position has been broken over the centuries and in different Orthodox communities and therefore it does not seem to me to be straightforward to simply say that it must never and has never happened.
This is to dispute an absolute application of the canonical position which Stavro has presented and not to dispute the canonical position itself which I believe Stavro has clearly described.
Fr. Peter,
I did have the little booklet which Father Bishoy Kamel authored, but I can't find it at the moment. I think that this saintly priest explained his understanding of the canonical rules well.
As I say, I do not absolutise the application of a canon, and so I do not and cannot say that such a translation should never take place. But that does not mean that the canonical rules are not clear. It does also seem to me reasonable at least to say that if the canonical rules are modifed once in a great while it is perhaps understandable, but if the modification of the canons becomes a tradition itself then that is more problematic.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Canonical laws are not on the same level as Biblical ones. They were put down mainly for organization (yes there are others that deal with dogma) like this one that Stavro has raised. So, to say that the Church is in error or the papacy of a certain patriarch is or was un-canonical is, in my opinion, a haughty position that we often fall into.
We need to understand the spirit of the canons rather than simply judge others by them.
If that is really your position, then you really not need to ever ever ever take communion within the Coptic Church, unless you repent.
This is not to make any comment about any particular patriarchate, especially that of our beloved father Pope Shenouda.
But the canons are not there to be ignored, and it is not according to the spirit of the canons to act as if they were not there. The canons Stavro has listed are entirely applicable to the selection as God wills of any future Patriarchs when God wills.
The spirit of the canon is found in the application of the canon. The safeguarding of the life of a local Church is only preserved in exceptional circumstances by the transfer of a bishop to another see. Almost universally, but not quite absolutely, the safeguarding of the life of a local Church is preserved by the consecration of a man who has not been promised to some other community.
So many exceptions in such a short period is not canonical. It may be exceptionally permissible, but certainly not as the normal case, and I see no reason why the canons should not be applied in future so that perhaps a presently little known but spiritual monk might be recognised.
HH Kyrillos VI is the one that instituted the "General Bishop" concept with the ordinations of: Bps. Samuel, Gregorious, and Shenouda, and others.
I don't think that you are appreciating the spirit of the canons, unless you also think it is problematic that an exceptional circumstance, the transfer of a bishop, has happened very frequently indeed in recent times.
This is not to make any comment about any particular patriarchate, especially that of our beloved father Pope Shenouda.
But the canons are not there to be ignored, and it is not according to the spirit of the canons to act as if they were not there. The canons Stavro has listed are entirely applicable to the selection as God wills of any future Patriarchs when God wills.
The spirit of the canon is found in the application of the canon. The safeguarding of the life of a local Church is only preserved in exceptional circumstances by the transfer of a bishop to another see. Almost universally, but not quite absolutely, the safeguarding of the life of a local Church is preserved by the consecration of a man who has not been promised to some other community.
So many exceptions in such a short period is not canonical. It may be exceptionally permissible, but certainly not as the normal case, and I see no reason why the canons should not be applied in future so that perhaps a presently little known but spiritual monk might be recognised.
I am not saying canons are irrelevant.
There are certain people who are attacking the papacy of Pope Shenouda citing canons and by doing so they destroy the Church from within.
We need not take the canons to the letter and treat it as if the Church somehow strayed because some canon is broken. If we are going to that extent and have that view, then we are doomed. Yes, I will repeated it again, If we are going to that extent and have that view, then we are doomed.
There are numerous canons that we do not follow. Let me give a simple example, shall we call our worship invalid because we do not follow canon 20 of Nicea. The list is lengthy.
We should be very careful on how we talk about the canonicty of any given situation within the Church because the enemies of the Chuech do take advantage of the simple to stir them against the Church. This is certainly evident with the various groups that rose against Pope Shenouda and against how he was elected through the altar lot.
A bishop is given the care of a diocese. When ordained to serve the diocese, it is as analogous to getting married to that diocese. Just as with the canons against divorce within marriage is held by the church, in the same way a bishop cannot divorce his diocese and move to another one.
So to put canon #15 of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea in perspective, a bishop who is ordained to a diocese cannot be ordained or moved to another diocese, as that would be analogous to adultery. For that reason, no man can attempt to divide the two who became one (the bishop and his diocese). It may worth noting that this canon applies to priests and deacons as well.
In the case of H.H. Pope Shenouda, though, the canon has not been neglected, as he was not ordained a bishop over a diocese, but a service as a "General Bishop" (an invention of Pope Kirollos VI, to avoid the uncanonical procedures of his predecessors).
It may be a whole lot easier for everyone if you simplify the conversation with an analogy.
A bishop is given the care of a diocese. When ordained to serve the diocese, it is as analogous to getting married to that diocese. Just as with the canons against divorce within marriage is held by the church, in the same way a bishop cannot divorce his diocese and move to another one.
So to put canon #15 of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea in perspective, a bishop who is ordained to a diocese cannot be ordained or moved to another diocese, as that would be analogous to adultery. For that reason, no man can attempt to divide the two who became one (the bishop and his diocese). It may worth noting that this canon applies to priests and deacons as well.
In the case of H.H. Pope Shenouda, though, the canon has not been neglected, as he was not ordained a bishop over a diocese, but a service as a "General Bishop" (an invention of Pope Kirollos VI, to avoid the uncanonical procedures of his predecessors).
I appreciate your perspective Biboboy.
However, to call the previous patriarchs adulterous is not at all appropriate.
Canon 15 was addressing a problem of moving clergy without authorization. This prevented bishops from accepting priests without prior consent of their bishops as had happened with Origen. It is an organizational canon.
To use this canon to attack the Church, the clergy, and the whole system is absurd. In such a case, we the laity call the Church leaders breakers of the Church law as if they have committed a heresy. WE NEED TO BE A BIT HUMBLE.
I've never heard a layperson becoming a bishop in one shot.
Ummm... Pope Demetrius. Although the Synaxarium states "they held him and kept him until the departure of Abba Yulianus, whereupon they finished the prayers of ordination over him and he was filled with heavenly grace", it is not clear if they ordained him deacon, then priest, then bishop. The story implies he was ordained patriarch immediately. But it wouldn't really matter since Pope Demetrius was ordained before the Council of Nicaea and the canon didn't exist then.
It is, however, interesting that Pope Demetrius condemned Origen for transferring jurisdictions and coming under the bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem. So even before the Canon 15, it must have been relevant back then too.
Canon 15 solidified the Church attitude towards migrating clergy. Before the canon, some adhered to the Tradition, some did not, so the canon put the non-adherence to rest.
Also, what do you guys think about ordination of "random uncles." I'm not trying to insult them, but do you think that ALL priests should go through seminary? I was struggling with doubt, and to get my answer, I looked through many priests who did almost nothing but confuse and annoy me. A few priests really had an understanding of the fathers, and I turned to a friend who is a theologian. Personally, I think that all priest should undergo a full course of seminary.
ReturnOrthodoxy
RO, funny you should ask this. I am preparing a presentation on Pope Cyril IV and the educational system of the 19th century relating to hymns. This was in fact the main sticky point among the opposing factions: The evangelical missionaries and elite laity who insisted on a renewal renaissance and higher religious education of the clergy (mimicking the Protestant pedagogic system) vs. The clergy and the "old school traditionalists" who had no problem with the system in place that has been working for hundreds of years.
Unless we understand the sociological and political milieu and the prejudices of historians and observers, there will be no good answer. Like any other conflict, one party wants to change a fault calling their opponents ignorant, while the other party calls the other ignorant for not recognizing their prejudices. In your example, one would have to define what is actually wrong with "a random uncle" becoming priest without seminary education and what benefit will seminary education give to the priest and to the congregation he serves. This is not an easy question to answer. People simply ignore the question or voice their biases. They pick a side and find fault with the opponent's argument without recognizing the faults in their arguments.
The average person will definitely say all priests should attend seminary, as they do in the Catholic church. My grandfather was priest at 19 years of age under Pope Cyril V and served the Church for 56 years. He did not attend any seminary and I don't believe he had a college education. But I can tell you that nearly all the priests of the area took him as their father of confession, both in Egypt and the US. Would seminary education have made him a better priest? I don't know. But I can't say he is defective in any way because I do not believe seminary education is a contingent requirement of a good priest (And I'm not saying this because I knew him personally)
This is not to say that I would advocate ordination of laity without any college or seminary education. I wouldn't. There are other important reasons to enforce a policy of college and religious education. I'm just saying we tend to pick sides, old school vs. modernity, republican vs. democratic, foreign education vs. local education, Protestant/Catholic education vs. Coptic vs. government education, and so on. And then we don't really have a solid reason why we picked that choice and yet criticize all who oppose us.
Does this make sense?
Today however, and especially in the lands of immigration as we call it, can we really afford to keep on pretending we are in Egypt? We are constantly bombarded by atheists and ex-Christians who attack the Church and Christ, and who have no real understanding of our Church or of the Fathers who actually did understand it. Thats why, more than ever, I think we do need to be educated in an academic way about our faith and about other subjects as well with which we can tie it all together.
The Church Fathers were not brilliant because they prayed on their knees for hours...thats what made them holy. But what made them brilliant was their desire and love of study and knowledge whereby they extracted wisdom. They lived in times when the Arians and others attacked the faith and they stood up to them through rhetoric and proper understanding.
If a priest has it, he's got it; if not, no amount of studying in a seminary will make him a true father.
Remenkimi, you make a good point that seminary is not 'required' to make a good priest but at the same time, your grandfather and other priests decades and centuries back lived within a completely different socio-religious, political context. Back then, it was more of a homogenous people; it was Egyptians in Egypt. The village mentality was all that was necessary and perhaps crucial in maintaining communal and religious unity to the Coptic or Orthodox way of life back then.
If this village mentality was so homogenous and acceptable, why did the Christian Missions come to Egypt to "reform" the Copts? It was ok for the clergy and poor people. It was not ok for the Coptic wealthy elite (the arakhon) and foreign visitors and foreign society. You are alluding to my point. Egypt is different than Western society. Coptic education in Egypt should be different than Coptic education in the US and Europe. But it's not because emigrated parishioners nowadays want to be Egyptians in the US and Europe and not American or European. So both the education and the "type" of clergy has not kept up. This is of course a different subject, since I was talking about 19th century Coptic society. You are assuming that anyone who enters a seminary, be it Coptic or Catholic or Protestant, will have received the education to fit atheists and other trouble makers. I'm not so sure. I can parallel this to medicine. If 4 years of education in the medical or dental field were enough, there would be no need for continuing education and no need for specialization. But most of what doctors and dentist do are learned after medical and dental school. The same applies to clergy.
You are again assuming that the only type of Church father that fought the Arians and heretics were formally educated. This is not entirely the case. St Antony was not educated but he outwitted Greek philosophers. St Shenute had all out war against the pagans and Nestorians, battling them both in rhetorical writings and physical attacks. And the Origen controversy, exacerbated by Pope Theophilus and the 4 Tall Brothers, were subject to the scrutiny from the monks of Egypt (who we know that most monks did not have formal education). In addition, there are stories of St Samuel the Confessor, St Daniel of Scetis, St Macarius Virtues, St Paul of Tammah's Principles, and so on who fought heretics but were not educated. What you did say correctly is that all of these fathers have a love of study, knowledge and wisdom, just not formalized education but Biblically based wisdom.
But I do absolutely believe in solid and continuing education of the whole Church. Of course there could and should be residential courses etc, distance learning, highly skilled teaching priests who travel around etc etc.
But the role of a priest is to be pastor before teacher. There should always be mature and selfless proper deacons who can also serve in teaching with the pastor. And the level of knowledge required to teach a congregation properly is not that of a PhD.
The problems we face are not due to lacking very well educated priests, though that is a truth. The problem is that we lack well educated laity. To be well educated does not mean to have been seminary educated. It means to know and love the Scriptures and the Fathers.
Continuing education and love of the Scriptures and Fathers is what we need.
If this village mentality was so homogenous and acceptable, why did the Christian Missions come to Egypt to "reform" the Copts? It was ok for the clergy and poor people. It was not ok for the Coptic wealthy elite (the arakhon) and foreign visitors and foreign society.
I was talking about the Copts in Egypt, not the exterior influences such as the western Christians who came later. As for the wealthy elite, you raise a good point, but I do not know much about 19th century Coptic history as do you :) I don't think this alone will allow them to do so just that the more we know about how our church fathers thought and what they taught, it will help us better understand and reply to what others have to say. For example, some people don't understand why we do the sign of the cross or how the burning bush is a symbol of the Virgin Mary. If someone has never read on it or it was never taught orally, what comes to his mind is just speculation rather than deeper meaning of what was handed down to us. Good point again. Thats very true, it wasn't just the philosophers or the extremely educated ones who rebuttled the heretics. However, what has survived in writing such as the Creed and the other patristic writings has come mostly from those who were educated. I am not disparaging the monastic wisdom which comes through deep prayer, contemplation, and revelation from God. I guess we need to find a balance between the 2. Also, if we then come to the conclusion that seminaries are not useful or important, then there has to be another effective method by which one can learn more on his/her faith as Fr. Peter suggested. Quoting Fr. Peter, I agree completely that . I was only emphasizing that our clergy should also be in the know regarding the Fathers and not just the Scriptures since theologically we interpret the bible in the light of the Fathers.
I for one, I'm all for the mandatory seminary education of people who are called to the priesthood. Just as I expect my family doctor do have successfully completed her M.D. before she checks on my physical health conditions, I also expect the priests to have successfully completed their M.Div. or D.Min. before they engage themselves in pastoring to the people's mental and spiritual health.
While the priests-to-be are training in seminary, they are also engaged in working for their livelihood and serving in church. So I don't understand why some people think that by getting a seminary education, that would affect the service of the priest-to-be. One can still choose priests who are actively serving and are spiritual, while at the same time getting their education.
The number of instances where a seminary education of priests would've served them and the church well are just innumerable. I'm personally tired of witnessing these scenarios happen (whether in person, or through Internet media):
1) In youth meetings, where priests or other servants (who are encouraged by the priests) are spitting out nonsense from Joyce Meyer, Pat Robertson, Billy and Franklin Graham, Rick Warren... just to name a few. I can assure you that the "spirituality" written there is just too shallow. An Orthodox seminary education would prove useful in showing what Orthodox spirituality holds, how it's relevant to today's society and how to engage with more understanding with the liturgical life of the church. There is currently an abundance of literature from Orthodox sources, both ancient and contemporary, so they are without excuse.
2) The sermon as a "show" of intelligence. I have personally heard many priests who put together sermons that are given the authority of St. John Chrysostom or St. Athanasius or St. Cyril with a random quote here and there. In all the cases, I could instantly note when a quote is truly taken out of context and misses the mark of what the original author intended (sometimes going to the exact opposite opinion), or, more commonly than the former, the quote is falsely attributed to one of those saints (i.e. they found that quote on the internet and thought that it was really St. John Chrysostom who said it, but in fact he never wrote it). An education in Patristics, and a thorough reading of their works, would eliminate the need to pull out random quotes with falsely attributed authority.
3) The heresies of the clergy. Also related to a misreading and misunderstanding of the Patristics authors, based on random, out of context quotes. This one is serious, and the church is currently living in deep heresy, and no one is doing anything about it. The only way to end this is to enforce seminary education.
4) It is extremely embarrassing to find Coptic Orthodox clergy so ignorant of their own history, theology, and spirituality, when a first-year undergraduate student in the Study of Religion department knows the difference between Anselmian Substitutionary Atonement and St. Irenaeus' Recapitulation. Then, when this person visits a Coptic ORTHODOX church, she hears a bishop preaching Anselm.
5) It is even MORE embarrassing when you see any Roman Catholic priest more educated in theology than any Coptic priest. They don't just know their history and theology, but they are able to think through the theology with appropriate theological methods, and apply them pastorally. Why, even the Coptic Anglican priests in Egypt can be thoroughly more Orthodox in their writings than Coptic Orthodox clergy.
The Coptic Church is in a sad state. Seminary education for all clergy is a must. It is their duty to get that education, and to apply what they've received from the Church by teaching what they've received in the Church. The ignorance, superstition, and stubbornness are destroying all of God's people.
official seminary education risks being too dry and academic, however i would expect a priest to have read widely about the orthodox church fathers and to be able to explain most of the Bible in a way that helps the average enquirer who comes to his church.
i would not expect all priests to be able to enter an academic debate with every passing PhD theology student but i would expect them to be able to teach that student about how to be close to God and how to improve his/her spiritual life.
i would not expect all priests to have written loads of articles on orthodoxy like father peter, but i would expect them to be able to read and understand these articles and to apply them to our lives (to teach us about humility, prayer, repentance etc.)
there is nothing about any seminary education that guarantees the sincerity and compassion of the priest. only the Holy Spirit can do this by advising the bishop on who to ordain.
may we all pray daily for our clergy and support them in whatever way we can in their difficult job.
official seminary education risks being too dry and academic, however i would expect a priest to have read widely about the orthodox church fathers and to be able to explain most of the Bible in a way that helps the average enquirer who comes to his church.
i would not expect all priests to be able to enter an academic debate with every passing PhD theology student but i would expect them to be able to teach that student about how to be close to God and how to improve his/her spiritual life.
i would not expect all priests to have written loads of articles on orthodoxy like father peter, but i would expect them to be able to read and understand these articles and to apply them to our lives (to teach us about humility, prayer, repentance etc.)
there is nothing about any seminary education that guarantees the sincerity and compassion of the priest. only the Holy Spirit can do this by advising the bishop on who to ordain.
may we all pray daily for our clergy and support them in whatever way we can in their difficult job.
OK people, take it from a former-seminarian. Last May, I graduated from a Greek Orthodox seminary. I didn't get a PhD or an MDiv but I got a BTh which is a Bachelor of Orthodox Theology, and let me tell you I don't regret one moment of it. Sure, there were some dry spots but thats not the theology thats just life! What people don't understand is that seminary doesn't 'entitle' you to serve as a priest. At the end of the day, its God's will for your life or not. Seminary training allows you to research and live Orthodoxy on a daily basis. We started with Matins or Divine Liturgy in the chapel followed by breakfast with the Dean and Archbishop. Following our morning classes we had lunch and we all pitched in to clean up afterwards. Then after our evening classes we had free time and Vespers or Compline. Our profs taught us soo much on the richness and depth of Orthodoxy: about what each church father said and did because of how much he loved his faith; we learned about the symbolism of the rites and what our church fathers were thinking when they penned our amazing liturgies! Heck, we were even taught how to properly cense the altars and icons and in which order. So, no, seminary life is definitely NOT boring.
While I'm applying to other schools right now not in the theology dept, I what really actually prefer to continue on and take my Masters of Divinity and in fact I was invited by a few seminaries to do so, but I have to put my plans on hold for the time being.
What gets me the most is when Coptic priests refer to "our Coptic faith"...I didn't know we believed in Egypt lol.
And like I said earlier, if you throw away seminary education, what other form of educating clergy is left?? Practically, with a priest's busy schedule, I don't think he'd have much time at the end of the day left to study what the Donatists or the Pnevmatomachoi taught. Let's all go sing Protestant songs instead!
I believe that the most important thing we lack these days, especially in the Coptic Church, is discipleship. Whether or not there is a seminary education, if there is no discipleship then there is no true Christianity.
Posts # 35, 37 and 40 by His Reverence Father Peter and post # 43 by Biboboy represent my point of view more accurately and much more eloquently. Thank you.
I will comment on the following paragraphs as it represents an opportunity for further interesting discussion: Anba Shenouda was ordained, as per the words spoken by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of Pope Kyrillos, and afterwards written in the Patriarchate ordination documents, as Bishop of Education. This comprises Sunday School and The School of Theology. The word "General" was not used at the time.
While this bishophery has no geographic boundaries, it has intellectual and institutional boundaries. It is still an Episcopate and still binds the bishop to it. The analogy of marriage is still the best to illustrate this relation.
The designation of "General Bishop" came only later with the Papacy of Anba Shenouda. I am not sure what this rank means and why it is necessary, and whether such rank ever existed in the Church.
For example, why are all the secretaries of the Pope "general bishops"?
Why is Bishop Macarius (a great saintly man who could have been the next Pope, but ma3lesh) the general bishop of Menia, and not the bishop himself? How canonical is having two bishops in the same Episcopate like in Menia?
It seems to me like a way to circumvent canons and as St. Pishoy Kamel wrote in another context: "Who are we kidding? God, ourselves or the others?"
Regardless, it is impossible to have a general bishop become a Patriarch because he cannot be ordained again and cannot obtain the gift of the Holy Spirit necessary to carry out the divine duties of the office. It becomes a "promotion".
The problem is that years of lack of education has led the Copts to unnecessarily adapt this faulty position as the norm and defend the "general bishops" rights to compete for the Alexandrian throne, as we experience now. To avoid being a "slave" of the canons but rather a "servant" of the canons, I try to find the reason for any canon and "measure" (the greek word kanōn) church ordinations in the light of the canon.
For example, when the canons list a certain age for priesthood and another for bishophery, the reason is that a person should be mature and established in the faith for long enough in order to empty himself and be a vessel of the Spirit.
If an idnvidual achieves this level of spirituality at an age younger than the ordination age, he has satisfied the requirements of the canon but maybe not the text of the canons. Athanasius, Cyril and Severus are prime example of such alterations of the canons, and even St. John the Divine and St. Mark were probably teenagers when ordained Apostles.
But then again, we have seen puffed up young bishops and priests in our modern age that make the enforcement of the canonical age for ordination a must, unless we have an Athanasius at hand.
In the case of the Patriarch's ordination, such luxury of expanding on the law is not available, simply because a Patriarch does not become a Patriarch unless he is ordained and obtains the gift of bishophery from the Holy Spirit through the laying of hand from the Bishops. The gift of bishophery is bound to the Episcopate of original ordination and is not universal.
Even in the death of the Patriarch, in which case the longest serving bishop assumes the position of "Acting or In-Place of Patriarch" to administer the affairs of the Patriarchate until a lawful Patriarch is elected. This longest serving bishop is never ordained Patriarch nor assumes the title of "Patriarch". The latest recorded long period of such transitions is 3 years from 1956 to 1959. They were, by the way, crappy years as the 28 years that proceeded them.
I do not think (at least hope not) that the church will allow a deacon to raise the offerings and perform the priestly duties, although he might be saintly and pious. He can definitely read the rites and perform them with excellence, know the priests prayers and follow them word by word, but he has not Holy Spirit that work in him or through him to carry out such divine duties. It is even scary to think about it.
So what about the Patriarch of Alexandria?
Peace.
So what about the Patriarch of Alexandria?
Stavro, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems your position is that no bishop, whether one ordained to a diocese or one ordained to a service, can become patriarch without violating Canon 15. I don't have enough knowledge of canon law and canonicity, I can offer the following discussion.
Nearly every Apostolic diocese has ordained their patriarchs from their respective Synod of bishops.
Roman Catholic:
Pope Benedict 16 was Archbishop of Munich
Pope John Paul II was auxillary bishop Krawko in 1958 and Archbishop of Krawko Poland in 1964
Ecumenical, See of Constantinople
Pope Bartholomew was ordained Metropolitan of Philidelphia 1973 before his ordination in 1991
Pope Demetrius was ordained Metropolitan of Imvros, Greece before his ordination in 1972
Pope Anethegoras was ordained Metropoltian of Corfu in 1922 before his ordination in 1948
Pope Sophronius III was ordained Ecumenical Patriarch in 1870 and before that he was Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria 1863-1868
Pope Cyrill I Lucaris was also Patriarch of Alexandria from 1601-1620 and then Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople 5 times from 1620-1638.
Russian Orthodox
Pope Kirill I (current pope) was previously ordained Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad in 1984 before his ordination in 2009.
Alexy II was previously ordained Bishop of Tallinn and Estonia in 1964 before his ordination in 1990
Pimen I was previously ordained Metropolitan of Leningrad and Ladoga in 1961 before his ordinatin in 1971
Syrian Orthodox
Mar Ignatius Zakka Iwas was previously ordained metropolitan bishop of Mosul in 1963, then transferred to Bishop of Baghdad in 1969 and another diocese in Australia in 1978 before becoming patriarch in 1980
Mar Ignatius Yaqub III was previously ordained Metropolitan of Beirut and Damascus in 1950 before becoming patriarch in 1957
Armenian Catholicos of Cilicia
Aram I was ordained bishop of Lebanon in 1980 before he became Catholicos in 1995
Karekin II was ordained bishop in 1964 until he became Catholicos of Cilicia in 1983. He was then elected Catholicos of All Armenians, Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin in 1994.
I only picked two or so patriarchs from each see, but if you research each see, you'll find nearly all patriarchs were chosen from the bishop. We can conclude that none of the Apostolic churches believed they were violating Canon 15 by electing patriarchs from the Synod of Bishops.
To extend the argument, Biboboy said Canon 15 also applied to priests and deacons. If this is true then ordained monk-priests like Pope Cyril VI would be in violation of Canon 15. In addition nearly all the bishops were ordained priests first in all Apostolic Churches. Again, I'm not sure how Canon 15 applies.
I will agree with you that the term "general bishop" is very loosely defined. The term seems to be contradictory to the marriage parallel. It's like being married but not to someone specifically. But I am still not sure if "general bishop" also violates Canon 15. I leave this to others more versed in canon law and theology.
I just wanted to offer my 2 cents on the discussion.
Of the churches you mentioned, only the Armenian and Syrian concern me. You are right, they have adapted the system of consecration of bishops to their Patriarchate for a long time. I am not sure why and when the switch from Tradition occured, but it is nevertheless a violation of the canons.
The Ethiopian and its offspring, the Eritrean Church, only consecrate monks to the order of Patriarchate. This was a condition set by Pope Kyrillos VI as a pre-condition to grant them independence in the 1960's. This condition was enforced by the Coptic Church, only for the Coptic Church to contradict her own terms a few years later.
Before the four contested Papacies we are discussing, and for 113 Patriarchs (Kyrillos 6th included), the Coptic Church has always ordained individuals who are hegumens or less in rank. Deacons and Priests are indeed not allowed to be "reassigned" around to different churches (practically violated in the past 40 years), but it applies to the same rank and not to ordination to an Episcopate. My understanding is:
A priest can be ordained bishop in another Episcopate, and a deacon could be ordained priest in another diocese, but a priest should not permanently move from one church to another outside his diocese (or even away from the church he was ordained for).
There would not be any reason to prevent a worthy deaon from priesthood or a priest from the Espicopate, as the gift of each rank is different and the individual would not have despised his previous consecration.
The current Patriarch of Ethiopia was an Archbishop (for all of North America).