› ›

Fr Peter Transfers From British to Coptic Church

qawe
in Coptic Orthodox Church
http://returntoorthodoxy.com/peter-farrington-transfers-british-coptic-church/

We pray for the success of Fr Peter’s new ministry within the Coptic Church, and that he may continue to be a strong voice in the defence of Orthodox worship and spiritual practice, even as we are called upon to “inculturate” the faith in our Orthodox mission work.



For some time Father Peter has been conducting an energetic missionary ministry to support those seeking to learn more about Orthodoxy, especially centred on missions in Stoke-on-Trent, Swindon and Windsor. He has also served in Egypt and the Diocese of Milan. Having expressed the conviction that his future ministry should now be within the wider Coptic Church, he has requested to be released into the direct jurisdiction and care of His Holiness Pope Tawadros and to be obedient to His Holiness in regard to his future service. Accordingly Abba Seraphim signed a canonical release dated 3 July and commended Father Peter to the oversight of H.H. The Pope.

«1

Comments

  • TITLTITL
    We're lucky to have him!
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    May God strengthen him and multiply his service!
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    I dont understand why the need to transfer? The fact that we use the term "transfer" implies that he's changing churches and we're not One Church with the British Orthodox Church.

    The only way for this to make any sense is if Fr Peter's congregation were completely Coptic/Egyptians and he just has to change bishops. 

    I sort of liked the idea that we are One Church with the British Orthodox Church. Is this not the case anymore??
  • qawe
    edited July 2015
    Zoxsasi said:

    I dont understand why the need to transfer? The fact that we use the term "transfer" implies that he's changing churches and we're not One Church with the British Orthodox Church.


    The only way for this to make any sense is if Fr Peter's congregation were completely Coptic/Egyptians and he just has to change bishops. 

    I sort of liked the idea that we are One Church with the British Orthodox Church. Is this not the case anymore??
    Zoxasi, in the strictest sense of the term, a "Church" means a "diocese".  The two Churches are in communion, just like all the OO dioceses across the world.  If someone moves from one of the Coptic Churches (dioceses) to one of the Armenian Churches (dioceses) are they changing Churches? Yes or no (depending on what sense you are using the word "Church").  But are they moving dioceses? Yes.  That's all Fr Peter is doing - he's moving dioceses.  I don't see how that changes the relationship between us and the British Church.

    I do agree with you that it is wrong to have 2 dioceses in the same geographical location, but this is not a unique problem between the Coptic and British Churches  - this anomaly is across all of the lands of immigration.

    This is a very heavy, but a good introduction to ecclesiology: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/media/documents/ecclesiology.pdf (it is by no means an uncontroversial view, but one has to start somewhere)
  • ReturnOrthodoxyReturnOrthodoxy
    Im a little confused. Who's his Bishop? The article says he will be under the supervision of the patriarchate. But this form of ecclesiastical structure is something Fr. Peter was always against...
  • qawe
    ReturnOrthodoxy said:

    Im a little confused. Who's his Bishop? The article says he will be under the supervision of the patriarchate. But this form of ecclesiastical structure is something Fr. Peter was always against...

    He changed from Met Seraphim to Pope Tawadros.

    He's just a priest, he hasn't got the ability to force Pope Tawadros to enthrone a bishop in the unincorporated part of the UK.  Fr Peter's move has no bearing on whether Pope Tawadros chooses to do this in the future, so I don't see how Fr Peter's actions in any way hinder the implementation of his preferred (Orthodox) ecclesiological model.
  • TITLTITL
    ReturnOrthodoxy said:

    Im a little confused. Who's his Bishop? The article says he will be under the supervision of the patriarchate. But this form of ecclesiastical structure is something Fr. Peter was always against...

    Wait. Is that not your website, RO? I always thought it was..
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    I wonder if this means the Pope might send him to other areas, like the U.S. or Canada.
  • qawe
    minasoliman said:

    I wonder if this means the Pope might send him to other areas, like the U.S. or Canada.

    WOW!!!! I hadn't thought of that.  Certainly some very exciting possibilities ahead!
  • ReturnOrthodoxyReturnOrthodoxy
    qawe said:

    ReturnOrthodoxy said:

    Im a little confused. Who's his Bishop? The article says he will be under the supervision of the patriarchate. But this form of ecclesiastical structure is something Fr. Peter was always against...

    He changed from Met Seraphim to Pope Tawadros.

    He's just a priest, he hasn't got the ability to force Pope Tawadros to enthrone a bishop in the unincorporated part of the UK.  Fr Peter's move has no bearing on whether Pope Tawadros chooses to do this in the future, so I don't see how Fr Peter's actions in any way hinder the implementation of his preferred (Orthodox) ecclesiological model.
    Im not speaking in terms of enthroning a Bishop in the UK (other than the great ones they already have.) Im speaking as a matter of principle. Fr. Peter is an outspoken voice for proper ecclesiology, but for him to be some sort of mobile priest operating under the patriarchate is too reminiscent of the General Bishopric that he opposes. 
  • qawe
    edited July 2015
    ReturnOrthodoxy said:

    qawe said:

    ReturnOrthodoxy said:

    Im a little confused. Who's his Bishop? The article says he will be under the supervision of the patriarchate. But this form of ecclesiastical structure is something Fr. Peter was always against...

    He changed from Met Seraphim to Pope Tawadros.

    He's just a priest, he hasn't got the ability to force Pope Tawadros to enthrone a bishop in the unincorporated part of the UK.  Fr Peter's move has no bearing on whether Pope Tawadros chooses to do this in the future, so I don't see how Fr Peter's actions in any way hinder the implementation of his preferred (Orthodox) ecclesiological model.
    Im not speaking in terms of enthroning a Bishop in the UK (other than the great ones they already have.) Im speaking as a matter of principle. Fr. Peter is an outspoken voice for proper ecclesiology, but for him to be some sort of mobile priest operating under the patriarchate is too reminiscent of the General Bishopric that he opposes. 
    I don't understand what this has got to do with General Bishops.

    In any case, are you suggesting that it is wrong for any priest to serve in an ecclesiologically anomalous situation?  Even while he was serving in the British Church, there was an ecclesiological anomaly in that its jurisdiction overlapped with that of several other Orthodox jurisdictions.  Now I know he has moved into an even more ecclesiolgoically anomalous position, but this anomaly was not of his own making.  Also, sometimes there is a need to create further anomalies in order to fix existing ones (e.g. the creation of the OCA as an extra jurisdiction may one day yield fruit as One Church in one place).  If Fr Peter with all his experience is able to serve in Canada and US and strengthen them in their Orthodoxy and their mission, then this will make it easier for Pope Tawadros to enthrone bishops there (Orthodox congregations are more likely to tolerate bishops being enthroned over them).
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    edited July 2015
    ReturnOrthodoxy said: qawe said: ReturnOrthodoxy said:Im not speaking in terms of enthroning a Bishop in the UK (other than the great ones they already have.) Im speaking as a matter of principle. Fr. Peter is an outspoken voice for proper ecclesiology, but for him to be some sort of mobile priest operating under the patriarchate is too reminiscent of the General Bishopric that he opposes. 


    I thought the same thing when I read the news. Ironically, qawe's position that "sometimes there is a need to create further anomalies in order to fix existing one" is very reminiscent of my position on Canon 15 of Nicaea and the controversy we had in 2012 when Pope Tawadrous (and other diocesean bishops) were nominated for the patriarchate. My position went even farther in claiming that the election of the Pope from among diocesean bishops was not even an anomaly to begin with but a different interpretation of Canon 15. I also posited that Canon 15 was ratified to both limit     and allow the transfer of bishops (including diocesean bishops), PRIESTS, and deacons to other jurisdictions where needed. Those who opposed the transfer of diocesean bishops saw Canon 15 exclusively as a law to limit the transfer of clerics. It seems now that same alternative interpretation of Canon 15 is being used in defense to move Fr Peter. 

    Thus, "proper ecclesiology" does allow for general bishops, "mobile priests", "titular bishops", and clerical transfer to different jurisdictions. It really has very little to do with anomalies. It has to do with different Orthodox interpretations of what normal and proper is. 

    I guess this is my way of saying "I told you all I was right". 
    :D
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Well, we don't know why or what lead to this decision. Granted, it is leading all of us to be curious, including me, but I avoided asking. I suppose we'll have to wait and see how this pans out.
  • qawe
    @Remnkemi

    Priests are transferred between dioceses ALL the time.  I don't think it's fair to lump this with episcopal transfers.
  • qawe
    "Working on memorising the Anaphora and Fraction from the Coptic Orthodox Liturgy of St Basil in English."
    - Fr Peter

    https://www.facebook.com/abouna.farrington/posts/10152901009775588
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    qawe, I'm lumping all priest transfers with episcopal transfers, as Canon 15 did. And you're missing my point. There is nothing wrong with lumping priest transfer to episcopal transfers since I believe neither are aberrations or anomalies. 
  • mikeforjesusmikeforjesus
    edited July 2015
    That is great news for us 
  • ReturnOrthodoxyReturnOrthodoxy
    Im saying there is a problem with the transfer of Bishops AND of priests. And just like Fr. Peter supported my view when it opposed the seating of a Bishop as Patriarch, Im sure hell respect the fact that I hold the same principle regarding his "transfer."

    Ray
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited July 2015
    As much as I agree with you, what exactly is he transferring to?  From the Church in Great Britain to the Church in Great Britain?  And the canons allow transfers for rare purposes.  What purpose this is, we do not know.
  • qawe
    What purpose this is, we do not know.


    Isn't it obvious though?  The British Church is tiny, and is (unfortunately) largely ignored by Copts.  Fr Peter's talents are grossly under-utilised there - because they have smaller numbers and very few resources, and because they don't have the problems with Orthodox praxis and "mission" that we have in the Coptic Churches    .

    btw Mina, I just looked at the Nicaea Canon, it does not allow for any exceptions, you must be thinking of the earlier Apostolic Canon.

    Nicaea Canon 15
    "ON account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter."
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Yes, I meant the Apostolic Canon. I don't know. Perhaps his transfer has the goal of making the Coptic and the British into one conglomerate diocese in the future? If you think about it, the next generation of Copts and Brits will for all intents and purposes have the same culture.
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    qawe wrote "btw Mina, I just looked at the Nicaea Canon, it does not allow for any exceptions, you must be thinking of the earlier Apostolic Canon."

    You have the right canon in mind and the right text/translation. But look at some additional information given by L'Huiller summarizing the famous 12th century canonist Balsamon and the 14th century German bishop Matthew Blastares (whom Hefele quotes frequently in his History of the Councils.)
    "Eustathius, an important person in the council, had himself been transferred not long before from the see of Boerrhea to that of Antioch, with the approval of the bishops at the Council of Nicea. Were they contradicting themselves in this case? The question needs to be asked differently. First of all, let us not forget that written church law was only in its beginning stage; consequently, we must not expect to find answers for all sorts of questions. Much later, Balsamon introduced distinctions which Matthew Blastares would pick up and which would become from then on classic: (1) the word μετάθεσις (translation) was used to mean the transfer, decreed by an authoritative synod, of a bishop from one see to another which was canonically vacant. Balsamon justified this kind of transfer on the basis of canon 15 of the Holy Apostles, which says the following:

    No bishop should be permitted to abandon his own community (παροικίαν) to take possession of another even if he is constrained by many people, unless he has a serious reason which forces him to do so, for example, if he can be more useful in this other community for the interest of religion (λόγω εύσεβείας). In this case, he cannot make the decision himself; he can only agree with the judgment and the fervent imploring of many bishops." (’Huiller, Peter, Abp. “Section 2: The Canons of the Council, Canon 15 (The Council of Nicea).” The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996. 70-4.)

    So you can see that even Nicaea requested and approved the transfer of bishops even though they wrote this canon. It must therefore mean that the Canon in question does allow for exceptions as long as the bishop is not abandoning his diocese and there is a request for the transfer from other bishops. It can't be a self-motivated transfer. 

    There is also Canon 5 of Chalcedon. And while we don't subscribe to Chalcedon or their canons officially, it illustrates the unofficial stand of the Coptic Church which adds a second condition for a legitimate priest transfer: written approval of the original bishop. It says, "Priests and deacons or, in general, any member of the clergy who have the audacity, not considering the fear of God and not knowing the Church’s rule, to abandon their churches, must not under any circumstances be received in another church but by all means must be forced to return to their proper communities, and if they refuse, they are to be properly excommunicated. In addition, if anyone dares to take someone who is under the authority of another bishop and to ordain him in his own church without the consent of the bishop in whose clergy he was enrolled, let the ordination be regarded as null."
    There are more examples of bishop transfers (legitimately done at the request of other bishops) and there are plenty of examples of self-motivated uncanonical transfers and there are plenty of examples of bishops, clerics and laymen refusing to transfer. What is important is that Canon 15 explicitly wanted to stop "the great disturbances and discords that occur". It doesn't mean every transfer (if done legitimately) created a great disturbance and discord. Fr Peter's transfer is clearly legitimate because it is (1) not self-motivated, (2) at the request of another bishop (Pope Tawadros) for the greater good of the Church, (3) has the written approval of Metropolitan Seraphim. 

  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    RO is correct about one thing. If you consider the transfer of bishops uncanonical, then you must consider the transfer of priests, especially Fr Peter's, uncanonical. 

    Concerning the BOC in general, whether one considers it a separate category within the Coptic Church or no different than a large metropolitan of the Coptic Church is up for debate. But even if the BOC is no different than any other diocese within the Coptic Church, then there is still a right and wrong way to transfer priests (as described above). 
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    You make a good assessment of the canon law. I accept there are exceptions to the rule at times. Given our diocesan ambiguities at the moment, it seems reasonable to consider that the strict views of Fr. Peter in no contradicts his transfer.
  • RamezM
    I agree with Rem on this, but just a couple of notes on the commentary from Archbishop L'Huiller:

    Matthew Blastares was not a German anything. He was a 14th century Byzantine canonist. Together with Theodore Balsamon and John Zonaras, he represents the traditional interpretation tradition of Byzantine Canon Law. Which brings me to the next point, just food for thought:

    This commentary above is one of thousands in which Byzantine post-Chalcedonian scholars comment and interpret the application of canons of ecumenical councils which we uphold (Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus). These later interpretations are considered very weighty if not authoritative in the Byzantine churches. They are certainly instructive for us, in the very least giving us an idea of how these canons were interpreted or understood in a later epoch. However, can we go as far as to accept these late Byzantine interpretations without further thought? Is this necessarily how the Oriental churches or even the Coptic Church understood and applied these canons? Just a thought...


  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    My mistake with Mattew Blastares. I mixed him up with Hefele.

    You make a good point about Byzantine scholars/canonists. Their interpretations of the councils in not necessarily coincidental with Oriental interpretations. However, I don't know of any ancient or modern Oriental canonists that we can examine. (I wonder if there is a super theologian/librarian who might shed light on Oriental sources concerning applied canon law!!) So in the absence of any Oriental sources, what else can we rely on other than Byzantine and Latin sources? 
  • KahanKahan
    What diocese is Fr Peter transferring to or from? It seems to me that there are no rigid boundaries in Britian between one Orthodox diocese and the other to warrant an appeal to canons.

    There is some confusion in my mind about the whole situation of how dioceses are divided between Orthodox churches. In many areas in Europe and North America, a geographical area is overseen by the Coptic, British, Ethiopian, Armenian, Greek, Russian etc along ethnic lines. I think this is not a sound model.

    The Church should fix this first before we go into details of priest transfers.

    In addition, did any of you consider the issue of resources that are needed to support priests? Please think about the situation in practical terms rather than appealing to ancient irrelevant theories.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    minasoliman said:You make a good assessment of the canon law. I accept there are exceptions to the rule at times. Given our diocesan ambiguities at the moment, it seems reasonable to consider that the strict views of Fr. Peter in no contradicts his transfer.

    By the way, I meant to say "in no     way contradicts his transfer".  Forgot the "way".
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Kahan,

    There are rigid boundaries between one Orthodox diocese to another. It is called proper ecclesiology. It may have been interpreted differently by different hierarchs at different times because of oikonomia, but this in no way means there aren't any actually boundaries that warrant clear application of the canons. 

    Regarding overlapping geographic diocese based on ethnic lines, well that is  called improper ecclesiology. It happens because it is needed but it is an aberration. It would be impossible to "fix" this improper ecclesiology unilaterally without a pan-Orthodox medium (usually an ecumenical council of some sort or local or regional councils that attempt to fix it at local level). But if we wait for the whole Orthodox world to fix this, then we would be waiting for near eternity. That is just the sad fact about it. 

    Practical reasons to do something does not trump Orthodox ecclesiology. The ends do not justify the means, if the means requires some sort of illegal or uncanonical practice. Our time tested Orthopraxis is not "ancient irrelevant theories". Modernity done haphazardly without keeping true to our Orthodox past is called Protestant reformation, no matter how reasonable or logical it may seem to modernists.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Very true...very often we have people who take matters into their own hands who end up Protestantizing the Church than allowing the Holy Spirit to organically evolve in the cultural context it is placed in.
Sign In or Register to comment.