Controversy of Fr. Zakaria's ministry



  • Safaa, what you said was about Fr. Zacharia right, because in my previous post I asked about Fr. Makari Younan.
  • It is the same situation with Makary Younan!!
  • [quote author=Safaa link=topic=2486.msg46707#msg46707 date=1138747775]
    It is the same situation with Makary Younan!!

    This is not true. Fr. Makari Younan is not suspended at all from the Church.  In fact, he's just healed someone blind last week. It was on national TV. He's still practicing, and he's still in Egypt.

    As for Fr. Zakaria Boutros, how did he convert a Coptic Church to a "pentecostal" institution??

    My friends used to go to his Church, and no one had any problems with him. On the contrary, the people there loved him. Had he been pentecostal in his praying style, they'd have not stood for it.

  • Fr. Zakaraia is a hero and loved amongst many Copts. There is NOTHING wrong with speaking the truth. Wasnt it H.H. who mounted a campaign against Matthew the poor? Was it not St. John Chrysostom who destroyed the temple of artemis, rather leveled it completely and it was never rebuilt. I cannot name the saints who have several writings with the beginning title of "Against...." Fr. Zakaraia is well within Orthodox doctrine doing what he is doing. I dont know how his teachings could be considered non-Orthodox LOL, its absurd.
  • seriously, you guys are sounding like muslims right now spreading rumors about how Fr. Zakari is excumminicated. How about you try to go to Egypt convert a bunch of Muslims and stay in the country for more than a year, yet an even more challenging one, staying alive for more than a year. Don't start talking lies about this holy man. Please research before you post contradicting material.
  • I dont think he is excommunicated, I actually do not know for sure. But he was sent into exile by the Pope, that I do know. In his book though he does mention how "certain people" tried to silence him.
  • edited January 2014

  • Not the biggest fan of Abouna Zakaria, but I just wanted to say that there is no such thing as "indirect excommunication." That is made up philosophy that does little more than oppress. And yes, many have resigned the priesthood (pastoral responsibilities.) Fr. Antonios Amin did so at the end of his life due to age. Fr. Micheal Robinson, and Fr. Martin Lee of the British Orthodox church have also resigned from pastoral responsibilities. All these off the very top of my head. So yes, priests may retire, and it does not "imply excommunication." What kind of ecclesiology is this lol

    I don't know what the problem with hating Islam and loving Muslims is. Islam is false. If it is false, it is in contradiction to the truth (Christ.) And as Christians we vehemently oppose, and hate all things which reject Christ as a liar! Can you love a philosophy that does not give God his due glory? I cannot, nor should I. Thus I hate Islam with the burning hot intesntiy of a thousand suns. As for Muslims, I love them as victims of a false belief. This is not to defend Fr. Zakaria (since I dislike his theology very much), but to say that if the only reason you don't like him is his lack of political correctness, then you need to re-analyze. Christ was politically incorrect, and I worship Him. Muslims can set the world in flames regardless. Shall we then stop preaching the gospel? What do you say about the Apostle Mark who destroyed Idols? Quite the politically incorrect man who had no care about "living in harmony" with heathen beliefs. 

    No-one writes their own biography? I guess you've never heard of the term "autobiography" before lol. Many people do that. Not because they think they are great, but because they feel God has done great things for them and they want to glorify him. 

    Still, he is not an Orthodox man. If he were to be excommunicated, I would support it, but it would require a fair trial. His teachings are wack and his ethos is unchristian. But his philosophy of hating the filth and disgust of the Islamic "faith" is justified.

  • edited January 2014

  • edited January 2014 need to take it easy a little. You are being defensive without being, in any way, constructive to help your argument. It also sounds that you have some 'inside information' that no one else has...yey--doesn't every egyptian out there. The fact that an email called 'copticleaks' exists and you referred to it (being yourself or a group of people) is just absurd in my opinion (thinking that it's like wiki-leaks but the coptic verison--lol). Like, as Christians, we are waiting for other humans to put our trust into other than God and those He represent Him on earth of clergymen.

    So let me say this, WE are going to stop talking about this Abouna Zakaria issue and all the 'politics' around it. You are welcomed to maybe get a vid or a sermon of his about theology and doctrine and speak against--this way it'll be part of comparative theology. But no more news about the person.
  • To be honest, it's ironic that people can have so much hatred-morphed judgment about people and still think they are validated since they have a lot of support from others. This is incorrect. Maybe Abouna has problems in his interpretations or contemplations or doctrines or theology, but that does not entitle anybody to display such hate to him...Christ never taught us that. Mahatma Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians." Why? Because of Christians who don't act like their Christ...which is precisely what has been going on throughout this whole thread.
  • Part 1

    While I understand what you meant by using Gandhi as an example of how Christians should behave, he is by far the worse example. Using Gandhi as an example of Christian behavior is like using Judas Iscariot as an example of Christian loyalty.

    Gandhi was a political, theological and social anarchist. By definition, an anarchist is one who opposes and wants to destroy any form of hierarchy. What Gandhi failed to recognize is that Christ is by His essence a high priest. Remember, the Greek word for priest is "iereus" which comes from the same root word, -iero, for hierarchy. A priest is a hierarch. Gandhi was completely against Christian hierarchy.

    The problem with Gandhi is that he saw Christ as a person who preached some sort of "kumbaya" peace. As long as the people lived in a kumbaya state, any Roman, ecclesiastical, and hierarchal overseer had no power. (This, by the way, is the identical motive behind the Protestant Reformation). Gandhi failed to see Christ as high priest of humanity and Lord over all angels and creation. God's very identity is hierarchal in nature. What Christ is and what Christ taught Christians and what Ghandi failed to see was not a peace-loving, anti-war figure, opposed to a hierarchal system, who taught his followers to simply to turn their cheeks in some sort of pseudo-pacifism. Christ taught his followers love, not pacifism. He taught to actively remove the leaven of the Pharisees (by the power of the Spirit). He taught his followers to reject any city or town that does not accept you and it will be eternal judgment for them. He taught his followers to follow their rulers and pray for them (1 Peter 2:13-17), not fight for anarchy.

    Also keep in mind, Gandhi like modern Islamists, associated the actions of a political body to Christianity. For Gandhi, British political oppression was a direct progeny of Christian behavior. Christians who oppress do not follow Christ. What he failed to see was the British government acted independently of Christian morals and doctrine. He blamed 19th century Christianity for Indian suppression. This is no different than the Islamists who blamed the Coptic Church for the removal of Morsi. 

  • edited January 2014
    Part 2

    For the record, RO didn't say he hated Abouna Zakariya. No one did. RO said he hates Islam the religion, not Muslims the people. People responded that hating a person or a religion is not Christian. Ironically, the Scriptures suggest the opposite. Acts 13:22 says, "He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’ " From this we infer that David followed God's own heart. David also writes in Psalm 119:113, "I hate the double-minded, But I love Your law." Here David says he hates double-minded people who oppose God's law. This is in fact another way of saying, we should hate "politically correct Christians who endorse a false religion". Moses writes in Deuteronomy 7:26, "Nor shall you bring an abomination into your house, lest you be doomed to destruction like it. You shall utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is an accursed thing." "Utterly abhor it" is completely synonymous with "hate it". Read Deuteronomy 13. God says, not only should you hate "A prophet or a dreamer of dreams" (sounds like Mohammed so far), "of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’" (the central claim of all false religions, including Islam)..."that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst." The underlined part is the core message of the story. Now in our age, we can't put people to death, nor do we have the authority to put followers of that "prophet or dreamer of dreams" to death; not because it is politically incorrect and illegal to commit murder - but because God said so in Matthew 26:52 and Matthew 22:21.  This does not preclude that we have to convict ourselves of sin for hating people who deliberately attack Christianity. 

    I personally prefer a "politically correct" approach at first. When that fails (and it often does), I see nothing wrong with hating Islam or Muslims who attack Christianity and attack the Truth. This also doesn't mean I am going to go out and attack Islam unless God instructs me, as He instructed the Moses, Joshua, David, Judas Maccabeus and the Israelites to destroy Sihon, Og and all kings who endorsed evil. If hating Islam or any other false doctrine that turns God's children away from God is unjustifiable and sinful, then all of these Biblical figures are condemned. This doesn't mean David and other biblical figures were infallible like God. It means, like Gandhi, our understanding of Christianity and God is skewed by the current political and theological milieu. 
  • Agreed, as usual with Remnkemi Chrysostomos!

    Also, to whoever wishes to even posit Christ being politically correct, I suggest a read through of Matthew 23. To assume that Christ is politically correct because he is perfect is flawed logic if I've ever seen it. If Christ is perfect, like we agree, that does not follow that he was thus politically correct since then you would have to assume the perfection includes political correctness. Rather, the proper logic dictates that since Christ was perfect (as we agree), and since Christ was not bound by political correctness (Mathew 23 as a single example), then perfection does not, in fact, necessitate political correctness. 

    And like Rem said, why is Ghandi even mentioned here? It seems that people worship a passive humanism more than Christianity itself. I don't much care for Ghandi's view of Christianity and Christian preaching. Ghandi may have been a political mastermind (which I certainly don't agree with) but he is not a theologian, a father, a clergy member, and his words certainly mean less than the dust under his feet when compared to the teachings and ordinance of Jesus our God!

    @coptsabroad, please repost your post. The problem is not with us rejecting your opinion (since your opinion is flawed, baseless, and diametrically opposed to Christian teaching, and historical practice). The problem is with your withdrawal from academic discussions and hiding behind a boldfaced and underlined smug comment. 

    As a side note, you list conflict of interest in the removal of your post... What is the conflict of interest? LOL. Conflict of interest had nothing to do with differing opinions of people. Wiki that phrase. 

  • Rem and RO,
    Clearly you both have misunderstood the point of my post was written very simply on purpose...I am not concrete. It was unnecessary that you each wrote lengthy responses which convoluted the context of my post. If you understood my point, then don't twist things out of proportion just because some detail is annoying you.
    In Christ,
  • I know many people who think he's doing a good job and many Copts that see him as a trouble maker.

    I know for a fact that he's not a trouble maker, on the contrary, but he has unwittingly made problems.

    He has united with Protestant groups, who also think of him and his faith as being heretical.

    If I did a survey, I'd say I've met more people opposing him than agreeing with him.
  • Andrew, 

    I;m not sure I misunderstood your post, and I'm not sure we are disagreeing on a minor thing here. I am saying that it is sometimes necessary to be accusatory in our apologetics. This is in an opposite direction to the philosophy you promote by referencing Ghandi. Maybe we can discuss what you see as us convoluting your post, and I will fix my post accordingly. Thanks. 


  • Guys,

    I just wish to add one important point here;

    His brother was savagely murdered by Muslim extremists when he was younger.

    Now - what should he do?

    The 3000 America lives who were lost as a result of 9/11 , many of these families have grown to hate Islam also. I think America, after 9/11, has started to hate Islam.

    I think even Muslims have started to hate it.

    But my point is this: he lost his brother because of their religion. He is convicted to do something. Therefore, I cannot judge him.

    But rather than become an enemy with Islamic extremists, where he'd have had the support of other Muslims , he has become the enemy of Islam in general.

    I say this: he was preaching against Islam before 9/11 happened, and it still happened. Our politicians who are atheist are telling us that Islam is a religion of peace.

    There's nothing for anyone to do or say: Islam is being exposed for what it is by those who practice it. The truth comes out in the end, even if you are silent.
  • Ray,
    I disagree though. Christ never taught us to accuse. Christ taught us to rebuke. There's a night and day difference between the two. One is meant almost as an advice but the other is a harsh disapproval. St. Macari the Great would rebuke his monks when he felt they were being vain, he wouldn't accuse them. Rebuke is used to reinforce humility while rectifying one and preventing that person from doing the same wrong in the future (this can be found throughout the Bible, as well as in Church history, monks would practice this to keep one another on the right path). Accusation, however, is a backfire, as it makes one proud in himself and confident since he thinks he is at a higher level since he has not committed any similar sin and feels he is in a position worthy of accusing the person he thinks is wrong and does not provide any resolution to the John 8:1-11. Christ never accused the adulteress: therefore, what position are we in to accuse anybody of anything? "“Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord." (Romans 12:9).

    By the way, you will never find a place in the Bible where it justifies accusation. Ever.

    So very simply, my point is to stop accusing/judging because Christ never advocated that. He advocated rebuking, as emulated by monks throughout history and we ought to learn from their example.

    I do not need to explain why I mentioned the Gandhi quote because it held a very simple message consistent with everything I just said.
  • edited January 2014

    [ REMOVED by Admin - I thought I made clear we won't tolerate these inside info?!]

    We just hope this will end this never ending debate

  • edited January 2014
  • Andrew, 
    I don't know how to make this sound like a gentle rebuke and not an accusation. Don't you think it's a little ironic that you accuse Ray and I for "clearly misunderstanding your post...twisting things out of proportion just because some detail is annoying us" and then turn around and say Christ never taught us to accuse? 

    Obviously, this comes down to definitions. You feel accusations is an action of pride and rebuke is an action of humility. Maybe. But do you have any support for this claim? There are two definitions of accuse: 1. Charge someone with a crime or offense and 2. Claim that someone has done something wrong. Obviously definition #2 can be done in humility. So your association of accusation and pride needs more qualification. It is not an absolute association as you claimed.

    Let's explore definition #1. Was Christ's action on those who bought and sold, moneychangers and the seat of those who sold doves in the temple an act of pride or an act of humility? I think we can all agree it was not a gentle rebuke. What about the accusations of the seven churches in Revelation 2? Was it a gentle rebuke? No. It was harsh. And in case anyone believes that God alone is allowed to accuse, St Paul instructs St Timothy in 1 Tim 5:19 "Do not receive the accusation against an elder except with two or three witnesses." It shows accusations, regardless of intent, is supported by witnesses. Now I assume, your claim was based on Jude 1:9, "Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” Here it seems St Jude is making a distinction between accusations and rebuking. However, Archangel Michael was not offering a humbling rebuke. Archangel Michael knew very well that reviling accusations against dignitaries was an enormous sin. Ironically, this is exactly what Gandhi did throughout his public career and it reinforces what I said about Gandhi. 

    Regarding the monks throughout history, you need to re-read history. It was the monks that accused Pope Theophilus of Alexandria for preaching an Origen understanding of an intangible God. It was the monks who accused Evagrius and other Origenists of heresy that forced Pope Theophilus to exile them to Constantinople and begin the whole fight with St John Chrysostom. It was St Shenouda the Archimandrite at the age of 80 that accused Nestorius of splitting Christ. It was the monks who accused Emperor Justinian for heresy. There are many stories of monks accused of various crimes brought by other monks. Many times these accusing monks falsely accused a fellow monk. This is what we should learn from these examples and stories. 

    Conclusion: An accusation only has to deal with a charge against someone who has done something wrong or illegal. It says nothing about the intent of the accuser. The Bible warns against false accusation, like Christ's accusation by the Sanhedrin to Pilate and Paul's accusation by the Jews to Agrippa. But the Bible also allows for true accusations if supported by witnesses. The Bible seems to view accusations against dignitaries differently than other accusations. 

    Regardless of the definitions of accusation and rebuke, I don't think I misunderstood your post at all. You wanted to use Gandhi's quote to show one doesn't behave like Christ when one claims to hate a religion or a person. Whereas it was Gandhi who had no idea what God's instructions for Christian behavior was. Gandhi's comment is an empty accusation. This doesn't mean we are allowed to behave un-Christ-like. It means we need to know how Christ instructed us to behave from His own words in the Gospels or in liturgical language, rather from any third party that does not support its claims.
  • edited January 2014

  • "By the way, you will never find a place in the Bible where it justifies accusation. Ever."

    "But woe unto youscribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. "But woe to youscribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" Matthew 23:13

    Sounds accusatory. 
  • Agreed with Rem! I'm just gonna make a T-shirt that has that splashed on the front in boldface LOL
  • Coptsabroad,

    I understand you are upset but try to be calm about this. From your first post, I also understood your message as some sort of Wiki leak type of site. I didn't even get to read your second post so I can't comment. Your last post clarifies that your website is not some sort of conspiracy, wiki-leak type of site but I wish you had posted this in your first post. No one is trying to be unfair. We just have a very short fuse when it comes to accusatory claims on the hierarchy. 

    Regardless of corroborating webistes, Mina, did clarify that he did not want to turn this into a political assassination on Fr Zakariya or any clergy. While we can entertain political discussions if it is secondary to a theological or church related issue, we do not want people to simply start threads or hijack threads to discuss their political views. Political threads get heated very fast. They tend to portray information as fact without evidence. 

    Your first post today was very insightful because you related to church documents. I would just suggest you collaborate a bit since I did not understand what exactly you were saying. 

    Please continue to contribute to the discussion with calmness and insightfulness.
  • edited January 2014
    Ray, I must disagree with you on this one. Although I may be mistaken, but this has always been my understanding that accusations are not acceptable. Let me share my thoughts.

     There is one judge, and only one judge, and that is Christ. Only He can accuse. His words are clear, "judge not and you shall not be judged." When we accuse, we put ourselves in a judging position. Of one with authority. Rebuking is a completely different story. "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching." Finding the right balance through these verses is essential and most definitely not quite as obvious as one might think. Rebuking teachings is what our fathers demonstrated. Not an accusation. Nestorius, if he willed to change his teaching, he may have not been viewed as a teacher of a heresy today. We are not judges and we cannot claim to have the authority to judge a person. We may, even must, on the other hand, reprove, rebuke and exhort teachings and actions.

    For the reference of  1 Tim 5:19 "Do not receive the accusation against an elder except with two or three witnesses." Let's keep going with the verse. "Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear." Clearly here we are speaking first of an elder who is doing a sin. And even the sin, we are told not to accuse unless several people are in agreement - and here we are talking about a sin. Something that would be clearly defined in the bible. Now at this point when something is well defined as wrong, an accusation may be made. However, teachings, methods, beliefs, are not accusations but rebukes. When we accuse, then something wrong must have been done. This wrong must be defined in a writing, otherwise we may possibly find ourselves acting as a judge when we are not one. I am not claiming this isn't what you are saying, we may possibly be completely on the same page here, but I thought clarifying could possibly be of use.
  • ShareThe Lord! Good to see you, and glad you commented. Come around more often my dude!

    I do not think that the judge's job is to accuse. An accusation is not a judgement. To accuse someone, for example, of preaching heresy, is not to judge him of being an evil person. We are indeed supposed to "accuse" in a sense. The term accusation carries a negative connotation, but going with the diction that Rem explained, I see it fit for us to accuse ie. to identify and notify of a problem. I agree that God is the judge, and that is why we should not say things like a person is bad Christian because he said something wrong. But that should not stop us from holding people responsible to their words and actions (I hope that makes sense.) So I am to accuse my Muslim brother of carrying a false faith. I am to accuse him of falling into destructive beliefs. I am to accuse him of believing lies. I am not, however, to say that he is not near the grace of God, or that he is a bad person. That is what a judge does. Even in a court of law, a judge does not accuse. The accuser does that. The judge analyzes the accusation. So if you take accusation in that context (of holding people accountable to what they believe in and what they preach) then an accusation is by no means a judgement. I hope that made sense. 

    One cannot rebuke without accusing. So to rebuke, there must be an accusation. Also, I am personally not speaking about Fr. Zakaria and accusing him (many reputable members of the Holy Synod have already done that so I wouldn't want to be redundant lol.) I am talking about my job of accusing muslims of believing falsehoods. Islam is well defined as wrong, and so my accusation would be (under your criteria) valid.

    As for Fr. Zakaria, his teachings and his falsehoods are well documented on video recordings. I have no interest in discussing them much because that would take forever. But you can watch a single episode of his, and you will have all the evidence you need LOL. Pick an episode, any episode. As regards Islam (I was initially defending my right to offend Islam and to accuse Muslims) I feel that since we both agree it is a false belief, we should accuse it and its followers of falsehood. We would further agree that the judgement should be left to God.

    Fr. Zakaria may have a heart of gold for all I know. And his attack on Islam is admirable as long as it is done with love for them, and with an Orthodox ethos. So he may be a great man. This will not stop me from asserting that he has said some deplorable things that he should be tried and held accountable for. 

    Love you dude, and I hope I made sense. 

  • edited January 2014
    Miss u too! 

    Understood and mostly agreed :) I guess in some sense it would be part of the rebuke. Since if we look at the definition of rebuking, my beloved google says: "an expression of sharp disapproval or criticism."
    In any case, the reason I linked accusation with judgement was that unless the accuser is basing his accusation on facts, then judgement may be present! It is like in court, the accuser sees certain evidences against the accusee. Thus, a plausible accusation follows. However, if he doesn't have certainty, and sees their is some evidence, yet enough but also motive, then at that point, would you agree there is judgement? I guess, to properly accuse from a biblical manner, one must be extremely wise, and like the verse says come with 2 or 3 other accusers, I suppose for the simple reason that we should protect ourselves from judgement. So, the accusation may not be in itself a judgement. However, the accusation may be steming from a judgement.
  • Totally agreed, SharetheLord! 
This discussion has been closed.