Should We Stop Using Coptic?



  • I’m not blaming anyone for anything. If we have an objection to how any diocese is functioning, we can approach our bishops. But in the end of the day, we must obey the directives of our hierarchs. Our hierarchs in Canada and America currently have agreed to the benefit of having mission parishes in their respective dioceses.
  • dear estaphanos philipos,
    we love coptic. even those of us who have come from outside the church.
    we also love translation into languages people understand.
    we love to welcome people in our churches.
    we love the old uncles and aunts who are not culturally similar to us.
    we are richer for knowing them and making a loving effort to communicate.

    do you have a problem with coptic?
    i get the impression you have suffered from negative experiences with this language.
    i hope you did not have too many problems and that God will help us all overcome the difficulties of life.
    having some difficulty is normal, and i hope it can lead us to get closer to God and to learn how to love those who are different.
  • dear Maoosta. The reason I keep responding to these posts is because I have far too much time on my hands. I have no problem with Coptic, at all. On the contrary, I recognize it as the language of our saints. I just don't see a real reason to criticize what any Coptic parishes are doing in terms of language, so as to make participating in liturgy easier to people who didn't grow up going to Coptic class. I think there are some Indian and Ethiopian parishes doing the same, in making everything English, so as to help those who otherwise would struggle to get by. In a diocese, it's nice to have a variety of parishes that complement each other. That seems to be the opinion of Bishops in US and Canada
  • @EstephanosPhilipos...that's the opinion of "some" of the bishops and a very few numbered priests in the US and Canada. Let's not generalize things. 
  • Sure. I know that is the case in the Coptic diocese of Mississauga, Vancouver, and Western Canada. As well, it is the case in the diocese of California, and the diocese of the southern US.
  • I’m going to stop commenting on this thread. My position is that any language or combination of languages is acceptable for Orthodox Divine Liturgy and that there is no reason to criticize mission parishes. Anyone is free to disagree. What I’m saying isn’t dogma. I’m just saying that I support how things function in the dioceses that I’ve mentioned, as well as in more areas in North America that are directly governed by our Patriarch. As long as we agree with Orthodox dogma, and submit to the bishops who oversee us, that’s all that matters, in the end of the day.
  • Wait up Mina, let me see this!
    What’s going in mississauga??
  • @EstephanosPhilipos...thanks for your participation though. I believe we all agree to some certain extent.

    I do have to clear up something though:
    "as well as in more areas in North America that are directly governed by our Patriarch."

    That is not an accurate statement. While the Pope is generally responsible to the churches in the Archdiocese of North America, and all its regions, His Holiness does not have direct day-to-day access to those churches--it's the priests that do so. And while major life-changing decisions make their way back to HH, it's the priest that presents everything to HH since, and this is a good thing, our Pope is a very considerate leader--He will not enforce a decision without considering all factors. For example, the Pope spoke against using the term "mission church" 5 years ago as a result of the "land of immigration" convention of 2015 in Egypt....yet some still throw that word around lightly since it was once used to attract attention. 

    So you see, we go back to bias advice that make their way to the leaders.
  • edited December 2020
  • all churches are / should be mission churches.
    i don't recall our Lord saying that only some of us should go into all nations baptising ppl in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
  • I didn't expect this discussion to have a page number at the bottom of it!
    Thank you all for your insights. I've been reading them and wanted to give the following responses:
    1- @minatasgeel and @EstephanosPhilipos brought up a critical point, that while the decisions are made by our leaders, the decisions themselves are influenced by those they lead and serve.
    2- @mabsoota I agree with you wholeheartedly! I don't like the idea that some churches aren't "mission churches" (whatever that means). 

    As I read the thread, I was correct in assuming there's a lot of pro-Coptic(language) sentiment on this forum. But if there was no good reason for people to be against Coptic(language), then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'll create a new thread for this so as not to make this 4 pages long, but I have 2 follow-up questions:
    1- What does an effective, comprehensive Coptic and Hymns curriculum look like? 
    2- How do we convince people who are anti-Coptic(language) that this^ solution is better than the (almost definitely easier) "just go to all English" solution?

    (if admin wants to close this thread for posterity, I'm not against it, but I'll be moving this to a new thread)
This discussion has been closed.