It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
minasoliman said:HG Bishop Raphael once gave an interview and mentioned how much in the same way there was a time when the Church did not have deacons, but established it later, so there was a time when the Church did not have general bishops, and we established it.
HG Bishop Raphael once gave an interview and mentioned how much in the same way there was a time when the Church did not have deacons, but established it later, so there was a time when the Church did not have general bishops, and we established it.
qawe said:HG Bishop Raphael defending the concept of General Bishops: Watch from 14:47
HG Bishop Raphael defending the concept of General Bishops:
minasoliman said:I'd like to point out the amazing thing about Metropolitan John Zizioulas. He is actually a titular Metropolitan who is undermining his very own rank. So, it is possible to find a "general bishop" opposing "general episcopacy" once he is convinced of this.I think the problem is asking a general bishop in the Coptic Church if his rank is wrong. I think that is a question reserved for others since they are too shy to see this in themselves. Instead, they try to find a reason the Church allowed this rather than admit that this is a mistake.The problem HG Bishop Raphael is not realizing is that his interpretation that "Jesus did not tell the disciples to create deacons" and "a saint in the Church created general bishops" seems to put a certain infallibility on the establishment of ranks (once they're established, you can't remove them). The idea of the ranks of hegumens and metropolitans "cannot be removed" is a strange argument as well. First of all, they are only titles of honors, and not in the actual way as it was really used in the past. Second of all, they were used not as an elevation of rank, but an elevation of arbitration among equals. Third of all, if the Church can "add titles" within an ecclesiological rank, it can surely "remove them". However, it certainly sounds like a "bishop or priest" is not necessary then, since Christ did not create "bishops or priests", but "disciples and apostles." What prevents us from having female priests or a Protestantizing "clerical" system (or a Cardinal system of the Roman Catholics) if they do not take seriously the dogmatic nature of ecclesiology, or if they don't see ecclesiology as dogma? Why assume that because a saint did it that it is okay?If one reads Metropolitan John Zizioulas (as I am doing right now), one will start to be convinced from him, a bishop of an EO Church that takes metropolitans to be patriarchs that that practice also should not be done. It is quite an amazing thing that an EO bishop is starting to tell his fellow EOs we should go back to taking non-bishops to become patriarchs. Being the only Orthodox Church that keeps this strictly does not mean it should be allowed. It only means we have the freedom to change ecclesiology the way we feel is right to "adapt for changing times". I find that a troubling position. Jesus also did not tell people what type of music to use for liturgy, and even that we are strict on. How then can we be lenient on ecclesiological practices?
I'd like to point out the amazing thing about Metropolitan John Zizioulas. He is actually a titular Metropolitan who is undermining his very own rank. So, it is possible to find a "general bishop" opposing "general episcopacy" once he is convinced of this.
Ioannes said:After being part of the church for 7 years, I cannot understand why anyone would want to be Coptic Orthodox. Its an Egyptian church for Egyptians.
After being part of the church for 7 years, I cannot understand why anyone would want to be Coptic Orthodox. Its an Egyptian church for Egyptians.
mikeforjesus said:it may be unchristian to hurt people's feelings and take the place of God to say we know someone is not saved
it may be unchristian to hurt people's feelings and take the place of God to say we know someone is not saved
There are no boundaries between the dioceses in Britain, as HE Metropolitan Seraphim presides over a diocese that encompasses Britain, and the coptic bishops on the same island have jurisdiction on different parts of the same geographical area, all of them overlapping in a way or another.
In theory, as you said, this is not sound from an ecclesiastical point of view, but it is a reality that Fr Peter did not invent and has to work within the newly established and widely accepted rules. In this reality, the canon that forbids clergy from crossing over to other dioceses becomes meaningless, because you have no dioceses to begin with. There is a geographical area that is administered jointly by more than one bishop, all of them presided over by HH the Pope. So in essence, there is but one big diocese.
If you want to get really technical about it, you would have to cancel the appointment of the bishop of youth. It would be, under your definition of the canon, a clear overlap between his responsibilities to shepherd the Coptic youth all over the globe, a responsibility HG shares with all bishops in their respective dioceses. A bishop cares for all his sheep, youth among them.
But in reality, the youth bishophery has great contribution to the service of youth and canceling this great service for the sake of literal observation of a canon is in contradiction of the spirit of the canon.
As for canons in general, some are relevant and others are not. For example, the canons forbid the ordination of men born to a second marriage. I guess there was a certain stigma attached to second wives and her children at the time of formulating this canon.
If this canon was applied, one of the greatest Popes in the history of the Church, HH Pope Shenouda, would have been disqualified. His father married three times, and he is the son of the second wife. Because of the irrelevance of this canon, it is not anymore incorporated in the bylaws for the selection of the Pope.
The bylaws also do not make a prohibition against clergy moving across dioceses. I think three out of the last Popes, all holy men of God, were bishops before they were ordained Popes. Is this a violation of a canon and they should be excommunicated, or is the canon irrelevant and the Church moved on beyong its narrow application to fulfill a greater purpose? We do not really have to guess. The reality is that the Church, in her supreme wisdom, moved on.
The pattern of behavior here is not "ekonomia", but "the new normal". The slippery slope is not in my strict adherence for canonical ecclesiology, but for the nonchalant lack of awareness of this in our hierarchy.
I have no problem with some "uncanonical" practices for ekonomia. What is not clear is whether HH Pope St. Kyrillos started it as "ekonomia" or "a new normal". It seems the church today is interpreting this as the new normal, and this should warrant a very loud response.
At least Fr. Peter Farrington is aware of the problems of our present day ecclesiastical situation. So his transfer can be seen as ekonomia by him. But I cannot say the same for everything HH Pope Tawadros as "ekonomia", but I see a pattern of abuse of ecclesiology.
I am grateful for the unfailing prayers and support of so many people around the world. These prayers are entirely necessary to my service, and if I have ever written, or said, or recorded anything of any small value it is because of the grace of God which your prayers have asked for me.
As I have posted about a month ago, I have transferred from the jurisdiction of the British Orthodox diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Church, to the direct jurisdiction of His Holiness Pope Tawadros. This has been due to no personal preference, and even a few months ago I expected to continue as I had done for 21 years since I became Orthodox. But it has been due to a strong sense of the will of God made clear through various circumstances that could not be ignored.
My fervent hope and expectation is that I will be able to continue to engage in missionary work in the UK but in union with, and as a priest of, the Coptic Orthodox Church using the Coptic Orthodox rite in English.
At the moment I am waiting patiently to see what will be determined for me by the Church. Please pray that the will of God will be made known and that I can serve again as Our Lord wishes. There are others also, those I have been caring for, and some I have led into our Orthodox Faith over the last months and years, who are also waiting patiently with me for the will of God to be revealed.
I'm without financial support at the moment, except from a few dear friends. My household bills have not, unfortunately, gone away. Indeed they are mounting up and cannot be paid at present. So I am waiting, trusting in the Lord for his provision by your prayers. Please continue to pray for me and with me. I always need your prayers in every situation.
If you are able, and moved, to provide some support at this rather testing time, then your financial support is most gratefully received as if from God himself.
because you need the sacraments
Not saying they need to play Hillsong though I do not believe we need to attack people who do want to sing Hillsong songs but we need to admonish them according to what is proper for our church and even prevent them from playing it in church
Though they can maybe play it in private if they already heard it but we can give apologetics to explain which songs are theologically wrong because there are supposed to be people with such talents just like pope Shenouda wrote books on the priesthood and Jehovah's witness we can trust the church can teach us which songs are theologically right to sing in our church
Indeed we don't need more than the church to do the will of God and be saved but we must make sure we understand the saints teachings correctly by comparing it to what jesus taught
What do you guys think of protestants who have never heard or understood baptism and those who are actually baptised but not received laying of hands by those with authority for no one receives this honor to himself but those who are called just as Aaron was
We must teach orthodoxy as the way for we know where Christ is but we do not know where He is not people have to choose what they honestly believe is most right and I mean that seriously and you should never be settled somewhere you don't really think is right only God has the right to judge right now He did not come to judge the world but to save it
He has not given us special knowledge of others souls
Better not to judge any even non christians and leave it to others more qualified to instruct
but there may be no one willing to instruct so it is better you listen to jesus himself or otherwise not despise an imperfect preacher however the preacher is in danger himself if he acts foolish but I say this with attention and concern for the hearer himself
But it is unchristian not to love protestants and want them to be saved even if they have to be baptised again jesus said by this men will know you are my disciples if you have love for one another
Paul said whether in pretense or in truth I rejoice that the gospel is preached
It may be unchristian to hurt others feelings and take the place of God and say we know someone is not saved
What about people who have been born of water but not of the Spirit if to be born of the Spirit means believing in Jesus and not the holy oil (myron) I suppose God accepts whatever Faith the child has in Him but some do not have faith so it is important to teach them
God intends for people to teach the orthodox and not abandon them as some have a spirit to do which is probably why He made the priesthood I say this because jesus said to nicodemus are you the teacher of Israel and do not know these things and He would never send someone to preach who has no authority or signs if he was to claim to attack the ancient landmarks which our fathers have set but Gods prophets were from among his own brethren
we have to love God more than any other and be willing to choose Him even if someone related to us may not have we have to reserve the right for God to judge anyone if He finds it necessary
I guess we do know some peoples fate
We need to preach the truth if someone is welcoming to listen to you
As far as I experienced it God does not give you more than you can bear an antipsychotic made me suicidal but I stopped it there is always a way out
A suicide might be forgiven if he was insane but im not sure we can know if he is insane but there is a chance if he had a severe mental illness if people forced me to continue to take antipsychotics when it was hurting me for life and I commited suicide perhaps God would forgive me if I was pushed beyond what I can endure
I'm not sure anyone is insane and can not control his actions I think the church just said that out of pity but there may be some who are really insane
Woe to me if I work to make all men speak well of me for so did their fathers to the false prophets