I have recently heard from two separate members of the clergy that the Greek Melkite Patriarch Theodore II has said somewhere that should ecumenical discussion eventually lead to full communion (as we certainly hope) he would 'renounce' the title of Patriarch of Alexandria in deference to Pope Tawadros (or whoever is the Coptic Pope at that point in time).
Can someone verify this claim and LEAD ME TO A SOURCE OR ARTICLE WHERE IT HAS BEEN STATED?
Furthermore, I am confused as to what would happen to him personally. He is still, after all, a member of the clergy, and lets be honest, a man of this humility is what is historically required for a hierarch in the church. What would happen to him?
My suggestion was to give him some sort of honorary title like Catholicos, till he be reposed in the Lord, and after that there would be no ordination of Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria, and we would take responsibility for their congregation. Am I mistaken?
Comments
Wow ..... So the Greek Theodore will give up his congregation in Africa and hand them over to the care of the Coptic Patriarch. Glory be to God!
The Greek have virtually no existence in Egypt or Africa. They are less in numbers than any minority , Christian or not. They never had any real presence, rejected by the Copts since Chalcedon. Did you expect the Coptic Patriarch to abdicate for the sake of a non-Copt?
And of all places, in Egypt? Hah.
Consider this :
We have bishops in Italy. They actually have considerable number of Copts they serve there. The Coptic bishops in Italy have a reason for their existence there.
Regardless, it would be so ridiculous to tell the Pope of Rome that we will leave Italy for him, in case of unity with the Latins.
Alexandria has one Patriarch. He comes from the ranks of the Coptic Church, the Church who serves the 20 millions indigenous people of Egypt.
[edited by admin]
My dear brother. I say this out of affection and love but you sincerely lack love, my brother. Forgive me.
Pray for me
I will not be responding further on this thread.
Forgive me if I have been an obstacle.
Pray for me
@ Remnkemi
Thank you for your educated post. Thank you as well for defending my style. I did not expect it, to be honest.
While there are many interpretations for any event in history, the facts remain unique.
The discussion, as far as I understand the OP, is about the situation after the unity with the Chalcedonians is made official. This entails admitting their priesthood, but it will not change history.
I do not see that Greek or Chalcedonians have any moral or legitimate ground to claim one inch of Egypt because of the below facts.
1) Between Chalcedon and the Arab invasion, all their Patriarchs appointed by the Emperor have been rejected by the Copts, the dominant group in Egypt at the time and to this day.
2) The congregation of the Chalcedonians was mainly an assembly of the Imperial envoys, politicians, Byzantine garrison and mercenaries. These were the occupation forces of Egypt and the persecution army of the Church. The Chalcedonian Patriarch often acted as the religious and military leader, two in one package, persecuting the Copts (Killing millions) and led the efforts to destroy their faith.
3) The Greek / Byzantine Patriarchs were involved in deplorable activities, such as slave handling. Arabic resources state that Cyrus (El-Mekawkas) sent two noble and beautiful Coptic girls, Mareya El-2ebteyah and her cousin, to Muhamed, as a token of friendship. They were sent as sex slaves. Cyrus castrated their male cousin and sent him along with the girls. This is the caliper of the Greek Patriarchs in Egypt.
4) After Islam, the Byzantine population disappeared from Egypt and the East Mediterranean, because the armies of the Byzantine Empire that constituted the Byzantine congregation were expelled from Egypt by the Arabs. There are no records of any significant presence of any Greek or Chalcedonians population after the Arab invasion. The Patriarchs were sent from Constantinople, never Copts, and were used by Islamic rulers as a thorn in the side of the Coptic Church. Their role was of an ambassador and not religious shepherd.
5) The Chalcedonian population increased in the 19th and early 20th centuries with the waves of immigration from the Balkan, Greece and Turkey, mainly due to the wars in Europe, their persecution at the hands of Turks and partially due to the great economy of Egypt that the dynasty of Muhamed Ali established. The Chalcedonian Patriarch suddenly had a population, but of foreigners. They left in the 50’s and 60’s, and only very few stayed. They are not integrated with the Coptic population, except when married into Coptic families.
My question is: How do the Chalcedonian clergy, Patriarch, priest or deacon, claim any legitimacy for their presence in Egypt? Not connected by race, no shared heritage and their participation in our history is one of atrocities, racism and demoralization of Egypt.
I personally think that the Greek have no intention to claim Alexandria or Egypt if a unity occurs. There is nothing attractive about Egypt for Greeks. Egypt is under political pressure and will be dragged in regional conflicts in the near future. The Copts are under persecution all the time.
They are using their non-existence in Egypt as a bargain card to lay hand on the attractive dioceses, where the Copts have succeeded to establish themselves while the Greek and Chalcedonians totally failed. North America, South America and growing super power India are prime examples of the attractive areas.
If they mention Alexandria, we should tell them to give over Greece.
[edited by admin]
I used your original post to criticize the attitude of the Copts towards this “issue”. It has nothing to do with your inquiry and I am not assuming any position on your behalf. I am happy that you recognize the atrocities of Chalcedon though. Not so many Copts are able to do the same.
@ mrpete33
I love you too, brother.
Discernment is the mother of all virtues. Love without discernment and knowledge is lust. What I see among Copts is a lust for unity, characterized by a lack of wisdom and the inability to assess the future ramifications of unity on the Copts
How have the Chalcedonians failed in North America? They seem to be going rather well.
And how have the Copts established themselves in India? Wouldn't this be uncanonical since there is already an Indian Oriental Orthodox Church?
perhaps patriarch theodorus 2nd (EO) is aware of the history and planning to change things.
personally, i don't think patriarch theodorus 2nd (OO) is naive enough to let significant power over egyptians pass over to greece or turkey.
@ Qawe<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Do not see
how the Greeks are doing well in North America. Given the length of their
presence in this region, and the emptiness of their churches compared to the
Coptic Church, they are doing miserable.
The best
among the Chalcedonians are the Russian-speaking churches, but it is also
relative to the rest of their pool. At least they have a few congregants less
than 40 years of age.
If this
ever imminent unity happens, it will involve all branches of Orthodox churches
who reject the robber synod of Chalcedon. India is our sister Church as you
know. Chalcedonians will love to have a presence in a rising nation. At least I
think so.
I have waited all week for others on the site to correct your highly insulting language and obvious unchristian behavior, but the responses so far have seemed to tolerate your ridiculous posts. You have crossed the line here in many ways, and this reflects very badly on our entire community if not corrected, especially at a time when we are closer to unity as never before.
I will not even address your points and accusations, before you edit all the offensive language (if that is possible).
Forgive me for the strong response.
[ edited by Admin ]
Stavro, consider that we are forgiving you by deleting your text...what's better than that?!
Better than
what, admin?
[ It was me, minatasgeel. I don't know. What's better then forgiveness?! Also, you should welcome our new Global Moderator: RamezM ]
Mina,
Good old days on coptichymns.net. I am politically correct now. J
You have
been at the receiving end of some of my choicest posts. You dished out some
good stuff as well. You do not go away…. Rocky Balboa style. This is a compliment,
in case you are wondering.
My
participation in this thread is not to refute any unity talks or ecumenical
efforts. I am done with this subject. For all practical reasons, the dominant majority
of Copts are already united with all Chalcedonians (Byzantine, Latin and
Protestants).
My posts
are focused on the outrageous claims of the Greeks to the See of St. Mark, should
this unity become official. I cannot even challenge this audacious claim
without being called anti-Semitic “anti-unitic” and lacking love. It is easier to
attack Israel on Fox news than to show disagreement with the actions of the
Chalcedonians on a Coptic site.
[edited by admin]
Minatasgeel,
Thank you for the clarification. I see. The discussion boards lose their
purpose when the posts are edited arbitrarily.