We do need to have a serious discussion on ecclesiology, not just in our church, but in all churches. The EOs at least acknowledge the problem and are making it a deal to try to fix it. However, we as Copts seem numb to this problem. So long as our "bishop" is the bishop of Alexandria, it's okay for him to claim certain places as "archdioceses". All that creates is "micro-Vaticans" for the Coptic Pope all over the world.
Here's my desire. If His Holiness, due to political reasons, is not able to visit the US, particularly those who depend on him as "their bishop", then that only means he cares more about politics than about his children of "his extended diocese". I'm sad and frustrated to say this, but if he does not want to see us, I don't want to see him. Give us a diocesan bishop who we can officially call "Abba" and then His Holiness can enjoy his status to appease the Egyptian politicians.
If wisdom and vision means appeasing the political atmosphere over seeing those who you consider part of your "extended diocese", then it seems like the wisdom here is politicians are more important than the Church.
Let's not be blind followers of "wisdom and vision" here. As Pope, you make an impression. It should be a clear and unambiguous impression, and not undermine the intelligence of his flock.
You are not in his shoes. He may see a may bigger picture than you do and if you were to see with the same eyes then possibly your opinion would differ. You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect and understand your frustration. I am sure he does not undermine the intelligence of his flock, rather I believe he hopes his flock trusts his decisions.
In addition, Mina, every diocesan bishop must appease local and Egyptian politicians. It is not an exclusive duty for the patriarch.
Consider for a moment another scenario. My father and my brother live in Florida. I rarely see my father. It is not appropriate to say I will not want to see my father if he does not want to see me and visit me regularly. One could argue that my father made the political decision to appease my brother and not me. But this is a fallacy. Fatherhood is more than familiarity and proximity.
In addition, Pope Tawadros in many early interviews (viewable on Youtube) has already decided to increase the episcopal presence in the world by creating new diocese and sending bishops to every person and every monastery. Just because he has gotten to all areas, doesn't mean he does not care for his 'extended" flock.
I'm fine with him appeasing politicians, but not at the expense of keeping an ecclesiological aberration just to have a foothold in an area you're unable to visit. Don't keep areas you cannot visit as an extension of your diocese if you can't visit them for political reasons.
He went to Europe how many times? That does not give me the impression of a "busy" schedule. Europe shiba3o mino khalas.
Furthermore, theologically, to continue to make archdioceses out of places from the beginning is a complete aberration and abuse of the office of the papacy. Every place should have had a diocesan bishop yesterday.
My point is this. I have a bit of sympathy for how the Papacy developed and took over the Metropolitanate of Cairo. While consistently, I would also prefer that he restore the Metropolitinate and return to Alexandria (or vice versa and make the bishop of Cairo be the new norm of Papacy although that would seem impossible), I understand the reason of the development, which is the fact that he as Pope resides in Cairo now.
But he does not reside in Toronto or in NJ. Let's say we have a Coptic DIOCESAN bishop in Turkey, and Turkey and Egypt are enemies. It is forgiven that the Pope is unable to visit Turkey for political reasons because we have an equal to Pope, the bishop, whose importance is the highest in ecclesiology. St. Ignatius believed where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church, not a part of the Catholic Church, not another Catholic Church, but the fullness of the One Holy Catholic Church. By St. Ignatius' standards, Toronto and NJ are not Catholic Churches. It's like children who are fatherless.
But a general bishop is really just as good as a khouri-episcopos or even a hegumen. He is not really "a bishop" according to the ancient church. HH Pope St. Kyrillos did the right thing for not including general bishops in the Synod. HE Metropolitan Bakhomious in one of his interviews when he took over the church defended the idea that a general bishop can be chosen by almost saying that the general bishop has no real episcopal powers. The prayers for a general bishop is episcopal, but without an enthronement rite, he is of a "pending" status. It is therefore (should be) considered a rarity, not a commonplace as we are practicing now.
So going back to what I'm saying. You can't blame the hypothetical diocesan bishop of Turkey for political issues since he already resides in Turkey. And the people are cared for by the shepherd of their flock readily with no delay. He resides with his children, but Pope Tawadros does not reside in NJ. So he is abusing his power in NJ, and God forbid if Canada becomes a political enemy to Egypt, now he is unable to visit it! Forgive me for the harshness of my language, but it is a silly and useless practice, and goes against the theological traditions of the church.
"HH Pope St. Kyrillos did the right thing for not including general bishops in the Synod."
If, when you say 'general bishops', you mean Bishops Shenouda, Samuel, and Gregorios, they were most definitely members of the Synod. Evidence: "Attending the first meeting of the Holy Synod in March 1963, Bishop Shenouda put forward the following proposal: “With June 10th 1964, marking the 50th anniversary of the departure of St. Abraam of Fayoum (who departed on June 10th 1914), the Holy Synod should officially canonise this Holy Father, through whose prayers many miracles have occurred.” This proposal was immediately accepted by the Holy Synod with the support of Pope Kyrollos VI." Source: http://www.orthodoxebooks.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/The 30th Anniversary Of The Enthronement - Maged Attia.pdf (page 5)
That being said, your statement is correct in that Pope Kyrillos did not include general bishops AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM TODAY in the Holy Synod. The general bishops ordained by Pope Kyrillos were more similar to diocesan bishops than those ordained by Pope Shenouda. Thus their inclusion in the Holy Synod under Pope Kyrillos was more justifiable than under Pope Shenouda. Evidence: "The difference between general bishops in the time of Kyrillos VI and Pope Shenouda III is that general bishops today have limited rights in church laws (p. 275). [For detailed description of the episcopal reform see Wolfram Reiss: Neue Formen des Episkopats in der Koptisch-Orthodoxen Kirche in: Kohlbacher/Lesinski: Horizonte der Christenheit, Erlangen 1995, 550-560.]" ((I do so wish I had access to this article)) Source: http://www.arabwestreport.info/year-2002/week-46/23-renewal-coptic-orthodox-church-notes-phd-thesis-revd-dr-wolfram-reiss
In fact, whether the term "general" bishop was ever applied to describe bishops of non-geographical areas in the era of Pope Kyrillos is questionable. For example, the book mentioned in the first source above continuously refers to Bishop Shenouda as "Bishop of Education" unqualifiedly and never "General Bishop".
From what I understand, they had no voting power though. They were no different than notable priests (like the 2 hegumens "numbered" in the Synod) or theologians allowed to attend Synodal meetings, or at best khouri-episcopos.
The idea of general bishop was also proposed by HG the late Bishop Gregorious, when he was still a layman. That doesn't mean the proposal made him part of the Synod at that time, since he was not even a monk.
I feel compelled to express my disappointment and frustration regarding this matter, as well as add my support to minasoliman's valid and justified rebuttal regarding these disheartening circumstances.
I was most optimistic and joyous upon the election of HH Pope Tawadros, and though I felt that the gap left by the departure of HH Pope Shenouda was irreparable, I quickly saw wide open doors of opportunity for the hierarchical development of the churches in the diaspora. After fast forwarding nearly two years, that hope is (pretty much safe to say) gone.
I come from a church with no bishop. I come from an area where there is no bishop present even remotely nearby. We aren't just fatherless- we're stranded. We have a pope who is off visiting the shepherded flocks of Europe and Canada, and delaying his visit to the orphans. Credible speculation also reveals the overwhelming possibility of HH spending most of his time here in the states within the shepherded dioceses, and forsaking his own parishes, who have no other but him.
Furthermore, even if by some divine intervention we receive the blessing of welcoming our own bishop, will this be someone who speaks my language, and I can communicate with? I've never met a son who was unable to communicate with his own father, and I would be quite surprised if you could say otherwise. Zis is not inglesh, beriod. Needless to say, I'm cringing at the thought of new diocesan bishops being seated here while they are far from being fluent in english, and have absolutely no cultural relationship or shared cultural experiences with half of their congregation.
Well, my main issue is not so much where the bishop came from. Sometimes, you might get a bishop who knows very little English, but can be a very loving pastor to his flock with good spiritual and leadership qualities.
I agree with what you wrote, but I would like to make one comment. Although the archdiocese is canonical, I still believe the one in NJ is failing. I say this because before His Grace Bishop David was enthroned he gave a few lectures regarding his life, his ministry in the archdiocese, and how the diocese of NY/NE came about. In it he said due to the large number of churches covered by the Archdiocese(over 52) he could barely visit each church once a year, also add the weeks he was away in Egypt and such, some churches went 2 years with seeing a bishop. Hopefully I can find the video when I get home and send it. So although the archdiocese may be canonical, I still believe its not really succeeding. I'm sure with the formation of the NYNE diocese eases off that burden it is still hard for one bishop to shepherd/help shepherd that many churches.
Would it make sense to have General Bishops granted a Diocese even in the titular sense? The comparison with the other jurisdictions is very nice but do the Auxiliary Bishops of the other Orthodox jurisdictions have ability to manage the "auxiliary" dioceses of the mother Church? Isn't one of the issues of General Bishops the fact that they are unable to manage and direct the dioceses they're assigned to?
Excellent points. I think the archdiocese needs to incorporate smaller diocese into it (like the Greek Orthodox archdiocese of North America incorporates 8 metropolises in it) but this process usually takes 50 years or so. Maybe HH Pope Tawadros can use other means to lessen the burden on one bishop. This is in fact the main reason that auxiliary bishops were used through out antiquity. I don't recall seeing two auxiliary bishops in one diocese. But I guess he could have one bishop and one (non-episcopal) choriepiscopos or one hegumen priest secondary to Bishop Karas.
From the responses on this thread, it becomes a question of acceptance. If HH Pope Tawadros assigned a choriepiscopos or hegumen priest to assist Bishop Karas, will people accept the two as equal representatives of HH Pope Tawadros? Or will people feel that anything short of a diocesan bishop is a temporary solution at best? When the Archdiocese had monk priests as protosynkellos, they were not viewed in a favorable light.
Cyril,
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if auxiliary bishop can manage diocese in Egypt? Yes. HH Pope Tawadros was the auxiliary bishop for Metropolitan Bakhomius. In other churches, especially Roman Catholic, auxiliary bishops have the same episcopal duties as diocesan bishops. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by not being able to manage and direct the dioceses they're assigned to? Do you have any examples? Bishop Karas is able to manage and direct the North American archdiocese, as Bishop David and Bishop Sourial did before.
Hi Rem Thanks for clarifying this. I just heard that in NJ, Anba David wasn't able to directly manage things the way he can now as an Enthroned Bishop of a Diocese. Something along the lines that Churches in the Archdiocese could just write to HH and bypass Sayednas suggestions or pastoral decisions.
Also are mission churches under the direct supervision of the patriarchate and not under a diocese?
And what makes you think "bypassing Sayedna's suggestion or pastoral decisions" doesn't happen to diocesan bishops? It does.
As far as I know, all the "mission churches" are under the direct supervision of the archdiocese, with approval from the patriarchate. You can't have rogue mission churches without the Synod's approval. That is protestant heresy.
Thank you for your post. You bring up important points. But before I reply, I wanted to ask some questions.
1. When were "titular bishops" created and why? 2. When were vicars and auxiliary bishops created?
My reply will be, somewhat predictable, since I don't think the canons or the definition of chorepiscopos was convicing to my central argument. I will also not refuse to admit that there was an abuse of power by St. Basil in St. Gregory the Theologian's case (probably for the best, but it will still prove my case). I tend to see what the Coptic church is doing is taking one diocese (Alexandria) and expanding that diocese to include areas that do not even border it, let alone being thousands of miles away. This has no precedence at all in the Church. What I seem to get is not a father, but a deputy who will communicate my needs to my healthy and strong father who visits dioceses more than non-dioceses. And I will expand upon this as I get my hands on my computer later tonight or tomorrow.
Until then, I tend to use this article as a summary of my views:
I'm not sure I can answer when. The Wiki article on chorepiscopos says (at least for chorepiscopos), it was mentioned in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. I think the mechanism for titular bishops developed over time. Every time the sovereign ruler changed civil borders and certain cities lost civil importance, they lost ecclesiastical importance and were simply "vacant" over time. The mechanism to use defunct diocese for new areas seems to be a late development (probably 5th century on). But that still gives us a lot of evidence to support titular episcopacies. Vicars and auxiliary bishops were also developed over time. I couldn't find any historical examples earlier than the 14th century.
Regarding St Gregory Nazianzus, I think we have to place his history in proper time. His father Bishop Gregory the Elder ordained him presbyter. He fled to St Basil because he did not want to be ordained priest. St Basil told him to return to Nazianzus. St Basil ordained him bishop of Sasima in 372AD. (In 372AD Emperor Valens created the province Cappadocia Secunda with Tyana as the metropolis. Tyana had an Arian bishop Anthimus.) St Basil created this see to fight Arianism but also because it was a new province. St Gregory hated the city of Sasima and resented his father and St Basil for his ordinations as priest and bishop respectively. He wanted to live a contemplative life. He returned to Nazianzus in 372AD to help his dying father as auxiliary bishop. St Basil insisted that St Gregory return to Sasima but St Gregory had "no intention to be a pawn in Basil's interests". In 374, his father died. In 375AD, St Gregory retreated to a monastery for 3 years and in 378AD, St Basil died. On his death bed, St Basil recommended St Gregory be elevated to bishop of Constantinople, which occurred in 378AD after the death of the emperor.
As we can see, maybe one could argue that St Basil is at fault for creating a new diocese for a new city. However, I think it is more logical to see it as St Basil setting a precedent (which he did in many ecclesiastical and theological matters). What we can see above is that St Basil intended to make Sasima an extension of the Trinitarian party and a suffragan diocese for Cappadocia (I can't tell how far away Sasima was to Cappadocia. But I assume it wasn't that close). So while it is different than the general bishop practice now, it has a lot of similarities.
Additionally, I am having a bit of difficulty differentiating what you describe as the Coptic practice (i.e., expanding the diocese of Alexnadria to include areas that do not even border it with an administrative bishop) and what other Orthodox Churches have done (i.e., Russia claiming America as suffragan archdiocese in the OCA archdiocese, or Greece with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America with multiple metropolitans and suffragan diocese). In the case of Russia and Greece, both have their own synods but are subject to their mother synods. I guess there is a little more autonomy with the Russian and Greek American archdioceses than the Coptic archdiocese. If we compare this to the OO mother churches, we find something closer (i.e., an American metropolitan under the synod of Syria, Armenia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, etc)
"And what makes you think "bypassing Sayedna's suggestion or pastoral decisions" doesn't happen to diocesan bishops? It does."
That is an aberration. It shouldn't happen. The only authority (apart from God and an ecumenical council) above the diocesan bishop is the Holy Synod, not the Pope.
Yes. It is wrong but I wouldn't call it an aberration.
If you compare it to family practices, would you consider it an aberration? If a child bypasses his father's suggestions or decisions by appealing to the mother, is it normal behavior? Yes. Should it be done? No.
What about with the clergy? Have we not seen cases where a person who does not like the advise of his parents, attempts to go over their heads by appealing to his priest? Have we not seen cases where a person does not like the advise of his priest and goes over his head to the elder priest or a bishop? It should not be surprising that people go over a vicar general (head hegumen or general bishop) or even the diocesan bishop to the Pope. In this case, you are right that people like this are appealing to the wrong authority. But I wouldn't necessarily think it is an aberration. Maybe inappropriate behavior coupled with a misunderstanding of ecclesiology.
Sorry, my post will be longer than thought, but I wanted to point out that a bunch of assumptions need to be disavowed. A presbyter is in fact a "sub-bishop" based on the ancient model. They take the Eucharist the bishop prays over and continues the liturgy in their parishes (in fact, today's presbyters are quite close to the idea of chorepiscopos). That's why the canon says no chorepiscopos is necessary where there is a presbyter. It means functionally, a chorepiscopos is a presbyter with special permissions from the bishop, acting on behalf of the bishop.
The idea of titular and auxiliary bishops, as a rank on their own, rather than an addition to their established roles, is also an assumption you seem to make in your post as well. God willing, I hope tonight, I'll share my thoughts in full.
Also there is a canon that says a bishop, priest, or Deacon are not allowed to be ordained without assignment of a flock. The idea of titular bishops either: 1. Abuses this canon and tries to work around it 2. Breaks the spirit of the canon by making titular bishops
I highly doubt that titular bishops existed even before the Rome/Constantinople schism, let alone before Chalcedon. St. Gregory's case was that he became diocese of a marshland (according to St. Gregory's words), which also is an abuse of the canon. Now, that same diocese of Sasima became a titular title of honor for some bishops in the RC church.
When you think about it, the canons in its spirit have been violated. But if we justify those actions, then we can understand why we also justify the church's practices today.
You are misunderstanding me. All the examples you provide are an appeal to someone else who actually has authority. The Pope has no authority over a diocese that is not his own.
That is true. Even when a person complains to the Pope who is already in a diocese, the Pope cannot do anything unless the person leaves the diocese or a council of bishops rule against the bishop. A general bishop at will can be moved by the Pope.
Comments
As per normal
General bishops should be abolished. All bishops should be diocesan/enthroned.
See: http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/contemporary-articles/61-general-bishops-in-the-coptic-orthodox-church-and-the-orthodox-tradition
He went to Europe how many times? That does not give me the impression of a "busy" schedule. Europe shiba3o mino khalas.
Furthermore, theologically, to continue to make archdioceses out of places from the beginning is a complete aberration and abuse of the office of the papacy. Every place should have had a diocesan bishop yesterday.
But he does not reside in Toronto or in NJ. Let's say we have a Coptic DIOCESAN bishop in Turkey, and Turkey and Egypt are enemies. It is forgiven that the Pope is unable to visit Turkey for political reasons because we have an equal to Pope, the bishop, whose importance is the highest in ecclesiology. St. Ignatius believed where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church, not a part of the Catholic Church, not another Catholic Church, but the fullness of the One Holy Catholic Church. By St. Ignatius' standards, Toronto and NJ are not Catholic Churches. It's like children who are fatherless.
But a general bishop is really just as good as a khouri-episcopos or even a hegumen. He is not really "a bishop" according to the ancient church. HH Pope St. Kyrillos did the right thing for not including general bishops in the Synod. HE Metropolitan Bakhomious in one of his interviews when he took over the church defended the idea that a general bishop can be chosen by almost saying that the general bishop has no real episcopal powers. The prayers for a general bishop is episcopal, but without an enthronement rite, he is of a "pending" status. It is therefore (should be) considered a rarity, not a commonplace as we are practicing now.
So going back to what I'm saying. You can't blame the hypothetical diocesan bishop of Turkey for political issues since he already resides in Turkey. And the people are cared for by the shepherd of their flock readily with no delay. He resides with his children, but Pope Tawadros does not reside in NJ. So he is abusing his power in NJ, and God forbid if Canada becomes a political enemy to Egypt, now he is unable to visit it! Forgive me for the harshness of my language, but it is a silly and useless practice, and goes against the theological traditions of the church.
"HH Pope St. Kyrillos did the right thing for not including general bishops in the Synod."
If, when you say 'general bishops', you mean Bishops Shenouda, Samuel, and Gregorios, they were most definitely members of the Synod.
Evidence: "Attending the first meeting of the Holy Synod in March 1963, Bishop Shenouda put forward the following proposal:
“With June 10th 1964, marking the 50th anniversary of the departure of St. Abraam of Fayoum (who departed on June 10th 1914), the Holy Synod should officially canonise this Holy Father, through whose prayers many miracles have occurred.”
This proposal was immediately accepted by the Holy Synod with the support of Pope Kyrollos VI."
Source: http://www.orthodoxebooks.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/The 30th Anniversary Of The Enthronement - Maged Attia.pdf (page 5)
That being said, your statement is correct in that Pope Kyrillos did not include general bishops AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM TODAY in the Holy Synod. The general bishops ordained by Pope Kyrillos were more similar to diocesan bishops than those ordained by Pope Shenouda. Thus their inclusion in the Holy Synod under Pope Kyrillos was more justifiable than under Pope Shenouda.
Evidence: "The difference between general bishops in the time of Kyrillos VI and Pope Shenouda III is that general bishops today have limited rights in church laws (p. 275). [For detailed description of the episcopal reform see Wolfram Reiss: Neue Formen des Episkopats in der Koptisch-Orthodoxen Kirche in: Kohlbacher/Lesinski: Horizonte der Christenheit, Erlangen 1995, 550-560.]" ((I do so wish I had access to this article))
Source: http://www.arabwestreport.info/year-2002/week-46/23-renewal-coptic-orthodox-church-notes-phd-thesis-revd-dr-wolfram-reiss
In fact, whether the term "general" bishop was ever applied to describe bishops of non-geographical areas in the era of Pope Kyrillos is questionable. For example, the book mentioned in the first source above continuously refers to Bishop Shenouda as "Bishop of Education" unqualifiedly and never "General Bishop".
The idea of general bishop was also proposed by HG the late Bishop Gregorious, when he was still a layman. That doesn't mean the proposal made him part of the Synod at that time, since he was not even a monk.
Would it make sense to have General Bishops granted a Diocese even in the titular sense? The comparison with the other jurisdictions is very nice but do the Auxiliary Bishops of the other Orthodox jurisdictions have ability to manage the "auxiliary" dioceses of the mother Church? Isn't one of the issues of General Bishops the fact that they are unable to manage and direct the dioceses they're assigned to?
Thanks for clarifying this. I just heard that in NJ, Anba David wasn't able to directly manage things the way he can now as an Enthroned Bishop of a Diocese. Something along the lines that Churches in the Archdiocese could just write to HH and bypass Sayednas suggestions or pastoral decisions.
Also are mission churches under the direct supervision of the patriarchate and not under a diocese?
Thank you for your post. You bring up important points. But before I reply, I wanted to ask some questions.
1. When were "titular bishops" created and why?
2. When were vicars and auxiliary bishops created?
My reply will be, somewhat predictable, since I don't think the canons or the definition of chorepiscopos was convicing to my central argument. I will also not refuse to admit that there was an abuse of power by St. Basil in St. Gregory the Theologian's case (probably for the best, but it will still prove my case). I tend to see what the Coptic church is doing is taking one diocese (Alexandria) and expanding that diocese to include areas that do not even border it, let alone being thousands of miles away. This has no precedence at all in the Church. What I seem to get is not a father, but a deputy who will communicate my needs to my healthy and strong father who visits dioceses more than non-dioceses. And I will expand upon this as I get my hands on my computer later tonight or tomorrow.
Until then, I tend to use this article as a summary of my views:
http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/contemporary-articles/61-general-bishops-in-the-coptic-orthodox-church-and-the-orthodox-tradition
That is an aberration. It shouldn't happen. The only authority (apart from God and an ecumenical council) above the diocesan bishop is the Holy Synod, not the Pope.
The idea of titular and auxiliary bishops, as a rank on their own, rather than an addition to their established roles, is also an assumption you seem to make in your post as well. God willing, I hope tonight, I'll share my thoughts in full.
Also there is a canon that says a bishop, priest, or Deacon are not allowed to be ordained without assignment of a flock. The idea of titular bishops either:
1. Abuses this canon and tries to work around it
2. Breaks the spirit of the canon by making titular bishops
I highly doubt that titular bishops existed even before the Rome/Constantinople schism, let alone before Chalcedon. St. Gregory's case was that he became diocese of a marshland (according to St. Gregory's words), which also is an abuse of the canon. Now, that same diocese of Sasima became a titular title of honor for some bishops in the RC church.
When you think about it, the canons in its spirit have been violated. But if we justify those actions, then we can understand why we also justify the church's practices today.
You are misunderstanding me. All the examples you provide are an appeal to someone else who actually has authority. The Pope has no authority over a diocese that is not his own.