Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Bishop Bishoi of Damietta being attacked
  • Dear friends,

    I've just come across this link which is spreading lies about our Church and our Bishop.

    http://orthodoxwiki.org/Bishoy_(Nicola)_of_Damietta

    The author(s) are accusing our bishop and patriarch Pope Shenouda III of saying that Catholics nor Protestants are saved.

    Did anyone hear anything of this sort????

    I listened to the tape and I heard nothing of the sort!

    What is going on? Why is our Church being attacked by the EO?
  • He seems like a nice guy on cyc but I believe the accusations against him and many members here are partially true he held these views in the past
    Because it is true heterodox who despise the truth and condemn orthodox may not be saved if they know what they are doing
    That is those who have not been preached the truth and shown its truth and reject it are being saved
    But many Protestants have not been called by God to join orthodoxy yet as evidenced by the lack of skillful or wise labourers
    No one reveals the truth to them remember God is a just judge
    The same goes with orthodox who know Gods will but reject it
    who know what they are doing when they try to give advice that they know is not practical so as to stop someone from doing Gods will to shut him up and do not want to see Gods kingdom come on earth when they do not want others to repent and be saved
    But after all I am not the judge but God is I may interfere in Gods business if I try to seek repentance of those outside the church without the churches approval but I may have had  my or a FOC approval if I was patient with him but I doubt I would now I would stop but I feel those people need honest people like me who care for them and maybe for me not to always insist they become orthodox if I myself can not prove it
    Pope Shenouda III was once on tbn and he kissed some Protestants like the man with no arms and legs nick vujicic

    By despising those who are not saved you may lose your own salvation I.e if you despise orthodox because they won't do what you want because you despise authority if they had the authority you may not be saved

    Bishop Yousseff is a nice man I have contacted him often by email and yet he still posted the below in the link. I also do not want people joining other churches as they may be spiritually dangerous and we can not watch over them and shephard them with the gifts given to the church if that is the reason Bishop Yousseff says these things. He has not changed orthodox doctrines I see through my email contact with him. But he still shows love to me

    http://returntoorthodoxy.com/bishop-youssef-true-christian-unity/
  • I just read the history on the article. These were written by Dr George Bebawy. He was excommunicated from the Church ages ago.

    Why is he writing these things against the Church. They are CLEARLY untrue!
  • They are not untrue. Bishop Bishoy of Demiette said on public television that only oriental Orthodox will be saved. I wil find you the link.

    Before anyone goes around throwing things about Dr. George, I would do some research into what it is exactly that caused his excommunication, and make a honest decision as to whether what you have been told about him is true or not. I speak with him often, and can tell you that he is nothing short of a true Orthodox theologian. He is highly misunderstood.

    In essence, the words of Dr. Bebawi in this regard are not untrue. And supposing he was a heretic (which I can assure he is anything but) what reason would that give you to assuming that he is incorrect in stating a fact of history (that Bishop Bishoy did this?) Does a person's theological views make him a liar in every regard? Nope!

    I will try to find the video of Bishop Bishoy saying it. It was on YouTube a while back. I remember watching it and being very upset, but I can't find it right now. Ill get it for you.

    Ray
  • [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166389#msg166389 date=1383145637]
    They are not untrue. Bishop Bishoy of Demiette said on public television that only oriental Orthodox will be saved. I wil find you the link.

    Before anyone goes around throwing things about Dr. George, I would do some research into what it is exactly that caused his excommunication, and make a honest decision as to whether what you have been told about him is true or not. I speak with him often, and can tell you that he is nothing short of a true Orthodox theologian. He is highly misunderstood.

    In essence, the words of Dr. Bebawi in this regard are not untrue. And supposing he was a heretic (which I can assure he is anything but) what reason would that give you to assuming that he is incorrect in stating a fact of history (that Bishop Bishoy did this?) Does a person's theological views make him a liar in every regard? Nope!

    I will try to find the video of Bishop Bishoy saying it. It was on YouTube a while back. I remember watching it and being very upset, but I can't find it right now. Ill get it for you.

    Ray
    [/quote]

    Ray,

    This is clearly a polemical issue. Let's be righteous in this at least. I'm not going to judge Dr Bebawy until I know all the facts. I'm not sure why he was excommunicated - that doesn't concern me, or ANYONE.

    What concerns me is what is being said about our Bishops and our Church.

    I do not EVER recall H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy ever saying that the only people who will ever be saved are Orthodox. How can he say that? The EO brigade whom Dr Bebawy is obviously close with are accusing us of monophysism heresy. We are not saved in their eyes.

    It is unorthodox if not downright unchristian to go off and start saying different denominations are saved or not saved. I highly doubt that Metropolitan Bishoy said that. If he did, where is the proof???

    If you are in contact with Dr Bebawy, please inform him that what he is doing is NOT doing our Church any favours - at all!!
  • Zoxa,

    I'm being pretty righteous by coming here and defending a man who is seen as Satan's older and more evil brother. This is as honest as I can be.  What is being said about Bishop Bishoy is nothing short of what Bishop Bishoy himself said. I would not be adamant that he said it were it not for the fact that I heard it come from his own mouth in an interview with Amr Adib.

    If it bothers you to hearthis about the Bishop of our church, then the only thing I ca do is apologize that it bothers you. I cannot, however, attack Dr. Bebawi as having fabricated these lies, since, as I told you, I heard it with my own two ears.

    Dr. Bebawy is not in close relations with those who say that the Coptic church is unorthodox. Although hurt by the Coptic church hierarchs many times, Dr. Bebawi continues to defend the Orthodox church of the Copts, and has openly insulted those EO who call us heretics. When asked why he does not "forsake the heretical Copts" his answer was, "I am a Copt which means two things: 1) I belong to a people who's faith in God is their life and 2) I have never seen prayers deeper than the Coptic weekly Psalmody." So if you are trying to infer that Dr. Bebawi is some traitor and is working with the EO to insult the Copts, I suggest you listen to one of his lectures in which he is clearly speaking about his love to the Coptic church, and tradition.

    I am happy you admit that it is unOrthodox and unChristian to say that other denominations will not be saved. We can agree to this regard, and the stage is set for me to only show you one video, which I will find at earliest convenience (my arabic reading/writing is not up to par with my understanding). I have already told you, I will find the clip for you.

    LOOOOL. Dr. Bebawi is not doing our church any favors? Do you know what this man does? Zoxa, I love you, and would only advise you to not speak of what you do now know. Dr. Bebawi is a tireless man of God who, although a man with his own faults, continues to love and serve the Coptic church by whatever means he can. Exposing heirarchs with angry ideas and unchristian attitudes (not against HEM Bishoy who I can agree may very well be a holy man) may be part of that package. Maybe? Just Maybe?

    Ray
  • The following is not the video, but its one of the ones I could find. I hope you can understand arabic in here, and there is some rhetoric.

    Essentially, Abouna Matta el Meskeen recounts walking into a church and asking "Will the Protestans and Catholics not be saved?" To which people responded, "they will not be saved." Abouna Matta then said that this beliefe that they will indefatigably not be saved is "the greatest disaster." Bishop Bishoy then attacks Abouna Matta for insinuating that the Catholics and Protestants may be saved.

    I will find you  more direct video as well.
  • Yet another one where he receives a question. He begins to read the question, and when the question come to the part that says, "You say that the other denomination are not entering heaven" and he interrupts his reading and asserts, "Yes, they are not entering" and a bunch of people clap.



    He is correct in saying that the Protestants are not at all OK in their heretical theology. But to say that no other denominations are entering is absolutely incorrect. (Please refer to what you had previosuly said about saying that)

    Ray
  • [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166393#msg166393 date=1383150643]
    Yet another one where he receives a question. He begins to read the question, and when the question come to the part that says, "You say that the other denomination are not entering heaven" and he interrupts his reading and asserts, "Yes, they are not entering" and a bunch of people clap.



    He is correct in saying that the Protestants are not at all OK in their heretical theology. But to say that no other denominations are entering is absolutely incorrect. (Please refer to what you had previosuly said about saying that)

    Ray
    [/quote]

    Dear Ray,

    In the video, H.E. Bishop Bishoy is talking about protestants.. not Catholics. He is even answering protestants on behalf of Catholics who are attacking our Churches saying that we worship icons, bread etc... he even says it :"They say about us that we are putting our God in an oven".

    Indeed, its wrong still to say that someone isn't going to heaven, but then the Bible does say that ANYONE who takes from words of this book, it will be taken from him the measure from Paradise."

    So , in a way, I cannot really blame H.E Bishop Bishoy.

    Protestants are destroying our Church. More than Islam ever could.

    They are negating and bringing to NULL the Sacraments of Baptism and especially the Eucharist.

    If you are a fan of Abouna Matta El Maskeen; his entire theology is based on the need for the Eucharist as opposed to Catholic Medieval Theology that is based more on Divine Justice. Christ came to give us His life THROUGH the Holy Communion. Its our entire Raison d'être as Christians: To partake of these life giving sacraments - the sacraments that Protestants are destroying and mocking.

    He then says in the tape/video: if you tell me that they are NOT Christian - then OK.. I won't judge them; but if they are Christian, and they say they are Christian, then they should be judged accordingly - (i.e. they ought to know better!).

    But NOWHERE does he say that Catholics are not saved.

    I agree, it is not wise to go and say this person/that person is saved or not, its very unorthodox.


    Sir - our Brothers the Catholics SHOULD BE THANKING H.E. Bishop Bishoy, not going off on a tangent and rebuking him; he is defending their Church too!

    Protestants are causing havoc in our Church.

    As a Coptic Christian, what would be the judgement of ANYONE, any priest, deacon, or servant who goes out of his/her way to tell people NOT to have Holy Communion? What is their fate?
    What if they, whilst being in the Church, make people doubt in their faith and that they are partaking of these Holy Mysteries?? What then?

    What sin is that? They are lost and leading others also into perdition! Its only logical that their salvation would be questionable.

    Now, there are protestants, who are BORN protestant, etc, and they are not evangelising all over the world to avoid the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

    Ray, I've met so many evangelical christians (SO MANY) - who have told me that their entire focus is leading people away from the Orthodox & Catholic Churches. I told one guy "Surely there are people out there who are lost... who do not know God, why not bring them into knowledge that God does exist?".

    He said "No. The Orthodox & Catholics are worshipping idols and bread.. we must stop them - they  (we!) are not saved".

    This isn't just 1 or 2 people, its a lot of them.
  • The teaching errors of George Habib Bebawi:

    ملخص لأخطاء الدكتور جورج حبيب بباوى التعليمية

    1- الادعاء بأن الإنسان يمكنه أن يصير أقنوماً باتحاده بسائر أعضاء الكنيسة، وأن البشر لهم جوهر واحد مثل الأقانيم فى الثالوث.

    2- الادعاء باتحاد الطبيعة الإلهية بالطبيعة الإنسانية فى سائر المؤمنين مثل اتحاد اللاهوت بالناسوت فى السيد المسيح والقول بأن هذا الاتحاد يتم بحلول الروح القدس فى الإنسان .

    3- الادعاء بأن الإنسان لا يستطيع أن يفهم علاقة الكنيسة بالمسيح إلا من خلال فهمه لعلاقة الرجل بالمرأة فهماً كاملاً ناضجاً.

    4- مهاجمة السلطان الكهنوتى وسلطان التعليم فى الكنيسة.

    5- مهاجمة كل معتقدات الكنيسة الأرثوذكسية بصفة عامة مدعياً أن التعليم حالياً بالكنيسة هو تعليم غير مسيحى.

    6- مهاجمة مدارس الأحد مع الادعاء بأنها تعلم الأطفال تعليم غير مسيحى.

    7- مهاجمة الصوم أو التحريض على عدم الالتزام بالصوم الذى وضعته الكنيسة.

    8- مهاجمة سر الإفخارستيا حسب معتقد الكنيسة فى الوقت الحاضر مع الادعاء ببطلان تعليم التحول الجوهرى تحت أعراض الخبز والخمر.

    9- مدح تعاليم أوريجانوس خاصة فيما يختص بخلاص الشيطان.

    10- التحريض على قبول فكرة الزواج المختلط من غير المسيحيين والتشكيك فى أهمية صلوات الإكليل.

    11- التحريض على حضور أفلام عالمية فيها نوع من الشذوذ. والتشجيع على قراءة كتب غير روحية.

    12- الهجوم باستمرار على العظات والتعليم الذى يقال فى الكنائس.

    13- مهاجمة فكرة إيفاء العدل الإلهى بالصليب ورفضه فكرة العقوبة فى كثير من التعاليم.

    14- الادعاء بعدم معرفة مصير غير المؤمنين.

    15- الادعاء بعدم أهمية حالة الإنسان الروحية فى وقت انتقاله من العالم.
  • [quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=14699.msg166395#msg166395 date=1383156412]
    The teaching errors of George Habib Bebawi:

    ملخص لأخطاء الدكتور جورج حبيب بباوى التعليمية

    1- الادعاء بأن الإنسان يمكنه أن يصير أقنوماً باتحاده بسائر أعضاء الكنيسة، وأن البشر لهم جوهر واحد مثل الأقانيم فى الثالوث.

    2- الادعاء باتحاد الطبيعة الإلهية بالطبيعة الإنسانية فى سائر المؤمنين مثل اتحاد اللاهوت بالناسوت فى السيد المسيح والقول بأن هذا الاتحاد يتم بحلول الروح القدس فى الإنسان .

    3- الادعاء بأن الإنسان لا يستطيع أن يفهم علاقة الكنيسة بالمسيح إلا من خلال فهمه لعلاقة الرجل بالمرأة فهماً كاملاً ناضجاً.

    4- مهاجمة السلطان الكهنوتى وسلطان التعليم فى الكنيسة.

    5- مهاجمة كل معتقدات الكنيسة الأرثوذكسية بصفة عامة مدعياً أن التعليم حالياً بالكنيسة هو تعليم غير مسيحى.

    6- مهاجمة مدارس الأحد مع الادعاء بأنها تعلم الأطفال تعليم غير مسيحى.

    7- مهاجمة الصوم أو التحريض على عدم الالتزام بالصوم الذى وضعته الكنيسة.

    8- مهاجمة سر الإفخارستيا حسب معتقد الكنيسة فى الوقت الحاضر مع الادعاء ببطلان تعليم التحول الجوهرى تحت أعراض الخبز والخمر.

    9- مدح تعاليم أوريجانوس خاصة فيما يختص بخلاص الشيطان.

    10- التحريض على قبول فكرة الزواج المختلط من غير المسيحيين والتشكيك فى أهمية صلوات الإكليل.

    11- التحريض على حضور أفلام عالمية فيها نوع من الشذوذ. والتشجيع على قراءة كتب غير روحية.

    12- الهجوم باستمرار على العظات والتعليم الذى يقال فى الكنائس.

    13- مهاجمة فكرة إيفاء العدل الإلهى بالصليب ورفضه فكرة العقوبة فى كثير من التعاليم.

    14- الادعاء بعدم معرفة مصير غير المؤمنين.

    15- الادعاء بعدم أهمية حالة الإنسان الروحية فى وقت انتقاله من العالم.
    [/quote]

    Well, I guess that explains perhaps why he's been excommunicated.

    I really don't want to start demonising or criticising anyone openly here in a public forum. Its not right. They are not here to defend themselves anyway. I think it is pretty obvious still, at this stage, that the comments he's put on OrthodoxWiki against our Church are unfair.

    My suggestion is that, as a Christian, given Bebawy's comments are already now on the internet ; and certain segments of our EO brothers are using it against us, we need to respond. Well, H.E. Metropolitan really needs to respond to all this.

    Its a very foolish situation to be in.

    Ray, also context is important: my initial remark was whether it was true that H.E Metropolitan Bishoy said that protestants & catholics are saved:

    From hearing the tape, its clear that he's talking about those who attack our sacraments. So far, this has all been hearsay; H.E. needs to respond officially (no interviews, no tape recordings, but in writing).

    Its a huge shame this situation. Its very very sad; as if the Coptic Church needs this right now?!!


  • [quote author=dthoxsasiPhilanethrope link=topic=14699.msg166394#msg166394 date=1383154523]
    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166393#msg166393 date=1383150643]
    Yet another one where he receives a question. He begins to read the question, and when the question come to the part that says, "You say that the other denomination are not entering heaven" and he interrupts his reading and asserts, "Yes, they are not entering" and a bunch of people clap.



    He is correct in saying that the Protestants are not at all OK in their heretical theology. But to say that no other denominations are entering is absolutely incorrect. (Please refer to what you had previosuly said about saying that)

    Ray
    [/quote]

    Dear Ray,

    In the video, H.E. Bishop Bishoy is talking about protestants.. not Catholics. He is even answering protestants on behalf of Catholics who are attacking our Churches saying that we worship icons, bread etc... he even says it :"They say about us that we are putting our God in an oven".

    Indeed, its wrong still to say that someone isn't going to heaven, but then the Bible does say that ANYONE who takes from words of this book, it will be taken from him the measure from Paradise."

    So , in a way, I cannot really blame H.E Bishop Bishoy.

    Protestants are destroying our Church. More than Islam ever could.

    They are negating and bringing to NULL the Sacraments of Baptism and especially the Eucharist.

    If you are a fan of Abouna Matta El Maskeen; his entire theology is based on the need for the Eucharist as opposed to Catholic Medieval Theology that is based more on Divine Justice. Christ came to give us His life THROUGH the Holy Communion. Its our entire Raison d'être as Christians: To partake of these life giving sacraments - the sacraments that Protestants are destroying and mocking.

    He then says in the tape/video: if you tell me that they are NOT Christian - then OK.. I won't judge them; but if they are Christian, and they say they are Christian, then they should be judged accordingly - (i.e. they ought to know better!).

    But NOWHERE does he say that Catholics are not saved.

    I agree, it is not wise to go and say this person/that person is saved or not, its very unorthodox.


    Sir - our Brothers the Catholics SHOULD BE THANKING H.E. Bishop Bishoy, not going off on a tangent and rebuking him; he is defending their Church too!

    Protestants are causing havoc in our Church.

    As a Coptic Christian, what would be the judgement of ANYONE, any priest, deacon, or servant who goes out of his/her way to tell people NOT to have Holy Communion? What is their fate?
    What if they, whilst being in the Church, make people doubt in their faith and that they are partaking of these Holy Mysteries?? What then?

    What sin is that? They are lost and leading others also into perdition! Its only logical that their salvation would be questionable.

    Now, there are protestants, who are BORN protestant, etc, and they are not evangelising all over the world to avoid the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

    Ray, I've met so many evangelical christians (SO MANY) - who have told me that their entire focus is leading people away from the Orthodox & Catholic Churches. I told one guy "Surely there are people out there who are lost... who do not know God, why not bring them into knowledge that God does exist?".

    He said "No. The Orthodox & Catholics are worshipping idols and bread.. we must stop them - they  (we!) are not saved".

    This isn't just 1 or 2 people, its a lot of them.
    [/quote]

    Agape, Zoxa,

    Lets keep the love here. Firstly, it speaks about "no other denominations entering." then he proceeds to attack the Protestants. I am OK with the "attacking the protestant" part, but where he says that no other denomination will be found in heaven is the part in which he (by association) attacks the Catholics as well. I hope that makes sense.

    I am not sure that I disagree with you regarding the sacraments Zoxa! Heaven forbid that I should speak ill of those mysteries or that I should allow anyone to speak ill of them! I am not condemning Bishop Pishoy at all. He is correct in attacking the protestants for that. Please understand that all I am saying is that saying that other denominations will not enter heaven (and then having your congregation laugh at a statement like that) is not the best thing to be doing. It will never save souls. We need to be wise with our words.

    He doesn't specify Catholics, but he says "no other denomination." That is a blanket statament that includes the catholics.

    So brother, I agree with you. the protestants must be stopped and rebuked, and exposed for their malicious lies. This is a must, and anyone who knows be that I am unappologetically blunt in calling protestants heretics and unchristian. But the statement, "No other denomination shall enter heaven" is not a statement for any human being to speak. EVER.

    Agape, Sherene_maria

    I know things get sour between you and I, so I wont drag this on. I will merely say that I sat with Dr. Bebawi, and I asked him about this very list, and he explained each of his positions on these matters to me. Some of them are bare lies, some of them are misunderstandings, and some of them are misrepresentations. However, Dr. George frequently asks me not to stand up too strong for him (for fear that I should get in trouble) so I won't. God be with you, and I hope that we can keep things respectful this time.

    Zoxa,

    If those things were true, that would justify his excommunication. I would be willing to speak in PM with you about the points (but I don't want to derail a thread, or speak about things that may be confusing for younger viewers).

    I am still looking for the Amr Adeeb interview where he even says the EO are not saved. I can;t seem to find it, but I will continue to search. As regards the EO attacking our church, I don;t see how this is an attack against our church. Countless EO heirarchs believe only they are saved. This doesn't differ much from Bishop Pishoy. So if an EO ever wants to say that about  our church, remind them that mount athos is a breading ground for anti-ecumenical hate as well.

    Context is important, but there is no context here. Yes, he was speaking about the denial of the sacramants, but he also made an INDEFATIGABLE statement that "no other denomination will enter." Then he proceeded to speak about those who deny sacraments.

    Zoxa, I am a huge fan of Abouna Matta, and so I must say that Abouna Matta was close in ecumenical relations! For example, he recounts two stories of Catholic Saints appearing to him. Padre Pio, and St. Theresa of Liseux. So I must say that he would have no problem believing Catholics may be in heaven. The catholics are another denomination, and so, he would have no problem believing that another denomination would enter heaven. Please note then, my dear friend, that although Abouna Matta was a Eucharistic theologian (as you specified) he never dared say that a denomination is not able to be in heaven. He would defend the Eucharist till blue in the face, but never make a statement that other denominations are damned.

    I hope my point is a little clearer. I must get back to studying.

    Ray
  • [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166397#msg166397 date=1383159951]

    Lets keep the love here.

    [/quote]

    There's love bro.


    ... but where he says that no other denomination will be found in heaven is the part in which he (by association) attacks the Catholics as well. ...


    That's how you've taken it. I'd say, if I were a peacemaker, I'd not take it like that. If I happened to not like Bishop Bishoy, and I wanted to find a reason to hate him, I'd take it like that...
    Sure, it could be taken that way, but then it could be taken about Johavah's witnesses and other heretical groups also.


    I am not sure that I disagree with you regarding the sacraments Zoxa! Heaven forbid that I should speak ill of those mysteries or that I should allow anyone to speak ill of them! I am not condemning Bishop Pishoy at all. He is correct in attacking the protestants for that. Please understand that all I am saying is that saying that other denominations will not enter heaven (and then having your congregation laugh at a statement like that) is not the best thing to be doing. It will never save souls. We need to be wise with our words.

    Please see my answer above.


    He doesn't specify Catholics, but he says "no other denomination." That is a blanket statament that includes the catholics.


    Its strange how two people can listen to the same speech and one gets the wrong end of the stick, and not the other. Why? Am I searching to find faults with him? Or am I just listening to someone I happen to respect?


    So brother, I agree with you. the protestants must be stopped and rebuked, and exposed for their malicious lies. This is a must, and anyone who knows be that I am unappologetically blunt in calling protestants heretics and unchristian. But the statement, "No other denomination shall enter heaven" is not a statement for any human being to speak. EVER.


    Then give him credit, because doing so is not easy. I wouldn't have done it.

    Protestants have taken from us MANY Orthodox faithful. That's OK... but they are teaching them that the Eucharist is wrong. That's the entire purpose of our life.. that's the source of our Life IS in the Eucharist. As a Bishop responsible for his flock, its not easy. Its a hard job. How do you answer this, and yet reconcile such issues with your innate need to live in peace with others??



    I know things get sour between you and I, so I wont drag this on. I will merely say that I sat with Dr. Bebawi, and I asked him about this very list, and he explained each of his positions on these matters to me. Some of them are bare lies, some of them are misunderstandings, and some of them are misrepresentations. However, Dr. George frequently asks me not to stand up too strong for him (for fear that I should get in trouble) so I won't. God be with you, and I hope that we can keep things respectful this time.


    That's great. I just heard a talk by him on youtube. Its quite funny actually.. very interesting fellow, I must admit. I know Anba Bishoy can be tough; and there could be a personality clash here. Anba Bishoy is someone who is tasked with responding to situations as they arise - daily situations, Church business, Church affairs... etc..

    This is my simple psychoanalysis on both personalities (ME Bishoy and Dr Bebawi):

    Dr. Bebawi is a theologian who responds to issues philosophically, existentially, and theologically. The two will clash. One is trying to solve Church problems that he's aware of using responsible behaviour & logic, the other is using philosophical ideals and feeling.

    For example: People think they are eating Divinity. We've been through this. Bishop Bishoy & Pope Shenouda both respond and say that you are not eating Divinity. The response from them is direct, its logical and its contained for a specific issue within the Church that has come their way.

    Someone like Bebawi, on hearing this, would most likely respond and argue that you are taking the Divine nature from the Eucharist - and complain that they have gone into heresy. Of course such a topic of discussion, even the words, will cause excommunication (at the best!).

    It would be wise for any Metropolitan to be concerned with teaching, not creating responses to heresies. We don't need to respond to anything. We should only teach. responding to a heresy, we end up over-compensating and find ourselves unwittingly in another heresy.



    I am still looking for the Amr Adeeb interview where he even says the EO are not saved. I can;t seem to find it, but I will continue to search. As regards the EO attacking our church, I don;t see how this is an attack against our church. Countless EO heirarchs believe only they are saved. This doesn't differ much from Bishop Pishoy. So if an EO ever wants to say that about  our church, remind them that mount athos is a breading ground for anti-ecumenical hate as well.

    well said!




    Zoxa, I am a huge fan of Abouna Matta, and so I must say that Abouna Matta was close in ecumenical relations! For example, he recounts two stories of Catholic Saints appearing to him. Padre Pio, and St. Theresa of Liseux. So I must say that he would have no problem believing Catholics may be in heaven. The catholics are another denomination, and so, he would have no problem believing that another denomination would enter heaven. Please note then, my dear friend, that although Abouna Matta was a Eucharistic theologian (as you specified) he never dared say that a denomination is not able to be in heaven. He would defend the Eucharist till blue in the face, but never make a statement that other denominations are damned.


    If they appeared to him it means ONE thing:

    It means that we should not focus on the laws or dogmas of the Church so much, but rather be concerned about a relationship with Christ. Why do I say that?

    Because as a Coptic Christian, we are taught that our Church has never changed. We've never innovated, we are the ultimate truth. Given that Catholic saints appeared to him would mean that God isn't about having the ultimate truth. He's about living in Truth, and in Holiness.
    That's what counts.

    And I'm saying this simply because that's the attitude we all should have had at the beginning - it should have been the attitude the Church had towards Fr Matta, it should have been the attitude the Bishops had towards one another in Chalcedon, it should have been the attitude they should have had in 1054, and throughout the Church history, even amongst ourselves.

    Does knowing the truth help? Or does having unity with Christ help you? Is the truth - its purpose to unite with Christ? Or is holding onto the truth - focusing on it, attacking with it, and contemplating on the truth of our faith aimed at us having degrees in theology?

    There should have been a bit more simplistic (humble) approach to differences between our understanding of the truth and theology. The Coptic Church was dealt many harsh blows by other Churches, and I feel its taking it out on her children sometimes. We ought to correct each other's ignorance with so much humility, because its not knowledge that saves us. Its not knowledge in these matters that leads us to Christ. Its engagement in the Eucharist and the Divine Mysteries that knowledge cannot give you.

    Knowledge doesn't make the bread & wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Does it? There's no chemical theory, reaction that I need to understand for that to happen. Is there?

  • Regarding the excommunication of Dr. Bebawy, the proper procedures for a trial were not followed.

    The accused needs to be summoned and given a chance to defend himself / herself in front of a tribunal that the accuser and accused agree upon. If the judicial panel is hard to agree upon, and will most probably default anyways to the Synod, at least the first part of the trial procedure should have been satisfied. The church cannot accept that her trials are less fair and transparent than the world. 

    This procedure was respected with Arius, Nestorius, Paul of Samosata, and in the modern time with Atef Aziz. Why was Dr. George not treated in a similar manner?

    My personal opinion is that Dr. George is very educated, has immense knowledge in theology and ecclesiastical disciplines, is very patristic in his teachings and is a very able teacher. What is different about him than other academics is that he always insists that academic knowledge without practice has no meaning in Orthodoxy. I can say that he is an ascetic and a man of the church. Similarities with Origen are striking. 

    My take on Dr. Bebawy is that he is bitter from the Coptic Church and the clergy, and he tends to generalize and put them all in one basket. It taints his view regarding the authority of the clergy and church rules. So among the teachings listed above as errors he taught, the ones pertaining to these areas might be true. Is it grounds for excommunication though?

    Some of errors listed above condemn the accuser and not Dr. George. Many of his teachings are for sure against the modern theological trends in the Coptic community. It is alien to most of us and might be considered a novelty by many. It is not. It is the Orthodox Faith as taught by the fathers but many of us might not have practiced it for some time now.

    One the accusations is funny, No. 11, in which it is claimed that Dr. Bebawy incites "others" to watch movies with "perverse / homosexual" content and encourages others to read non-spiritual books.
    The second part would condemn the entire world to excommunication. The first part seems far-fetched.
  • [quote author=Stavro link=topic=14699.msg166401#msg166401 date=1383174952]
    One the accusations is funny, No. 11, in which it is claimed that Dr. Bebawy incites "others" to watch movies with "perverse / homosexual" content and encourages others to read non-spiritual books.
    The second part would condemn the entire world to excommunication. The first part seems far-fetched.
    [/quote]

    LOL! His Holiness Pope Shenouda was quoted as saying that he read all the books he could. Dostoevsky, Sherlock holmes, etc. Non-spiritual enough. that list is nothing but a demonic tarnishing of a holy man's name.

    Ray
  • Zoxa,

    I would respond, but I;m not sensing it going anywhere. I think I;ve made my point clear, and I think that your responses are less than satisfactory to convince me. But we will pray for both HEM Bishoy, and Dr. GHB! As for those reading this thread, they can read both of our posts, and make their own conclusions.

    Ray
  • [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166403#msg166403 date=1383176647]
    Zoxa,

    I would respond, but I;m not sensing it going anywhere. I think I;ve made my point clear, and I think that your responses are less than satisfactory to convince me. But we will pray for both HEM Bishoy, and Dr. GHB! As for those reading this thread, they can read both of our posts, and make their own conclusions.

    Ray
    [/quote]

    No worries Ray,
    I really admire that you are defending a man like this - who has been excommunicated, no one knows exactly why, and the way has been less than transparent.

    If ME Bishoy did indeed say that Catholics are not saved - that is an issue. I do not know.

    My responses are less than satisfactory? Thanks bro... well toz, Im just trying to be a peacemaker ;-P

    OK.. wait a sec: Can you do me a favour? Can you kindly tell him to change the stuff about Catholics. Other denominations do not necessarily mean catholics. I will in exchange ask HEM Bishoy to clarify his position officially on this.

    Then I will ask HEM Bishoy to explain why G.H.B is excommunicated? What for?

    Sherene Maria : I really think the accusations are so far fetched, that I do myself find them hard to believe.
  • Forgive me, Zoxa,

    I don't mean to say that your answers are anything short of honest, detailed, thorough and intelligent. I meant to say that I am unconvinced by them (for other reasons). Forgive me if I misspoke.

    I would not open the Dr. GHB issue with HEM Bishoy. He will tell you his view which (as a mortal man) are subject to fault. You cannot expect to know the truth if you only speak to the accuser, and never ask the accused (remember the story of Susana in the OT.) Sadly, this man is left to rot, since no-one asks him anything. We have forgotten his basic human dignity and right to defend himself against his attacks. But a man like Dr. George seldom needs our help. If indeed he is working God's will God will defend him.

    Yes. The accusations are simply inconsistent with a man of any academic stature, let alone a man who was the personal disciple of Pope Kyrollos. This article may be of some interest (even if only for literary pleasure): http://www.roadtoemmaus.net/back_issue_articles/RTE_38/With_the_Dessert_Fathers_of_Egypt.pdf

    Thank you very much Zoxa!!!

    Ray
  • [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166411#msg166411 date=1383212510]
    Forgive me, Zoxa,

    I don't mean to say that your answers are anything short of honest, detailed, thorough and intelligent. I meant to say that I am unconvinced by them (for other reasons). Forgive me if I misspoke.

    I would not open the Dr. GHB issue with HEM Bishoy. He will tell you his view which (as a mortal man) are subject to fault. You cannot expect to know the truth if you only speak to the accuser, and never ask the accused (remember the story of Susana in the OT.) Sadly, this man is left to rot, since no-one asks him anything. We have forgotten his basic human dignity and right to defend himself against his attacks. But a man like Dr. George seldom needs our help. If indeed he is working God's will God will defend him.

    Yes. The accusations are simply inconsistent with a man of any academic stature, let alone a man who was the personal disciple of Pope Kyrollos. This article may be of some interest (even if only for literary pleasure): http://www.roadtoemmaus.net/back_issue_articles/RTE_38/With_the_Dessert_Fathers_of_Egypt.pdf

    Thank you very much Zoxa!!!

    Ray
    [/quote]

    You are welcome Ray. Im sorry if I also seemed judgemental.

    I cannot defend our Bishop if he has said anything like this.

    But you know what? This should still be hidden. Let's say a bishop says something stupid - or wrong, or he grows old and forgets the basics of his faith - we should hide these failures, not keep recordings of them on youtube!

    Anyway, God bless you
  • I don't know much about this situation and I'm willing to be taught by all of you, my learned brothers.  Based on what I've read here, however, and in an interview with and some discussions about Dr. George posted on orthodoxychristianity.net, I have some questions:

    1.) It seems that he spent a relatively short amount of time in the Coptic Orthodox Church (having joined it as an adult convert) before leaving for other communions.  Why did he join first the Anglican and then the Eastern Orthodox Church?

    2.) Did the Coptic Orthodox Holy Synod excommunicate him or did he excommunicate himself by joining another church? (I see that some here - including my brother Ray who knows I love him dearly and truly - object to the term "excommunicate himself", but I would say respectfully that if a person did leave our Communion for another, there is no other way to describe it.)

    3.) A poster on orthodoxchristianity.net says that Dr. George is now Eastern Orthodox and that:

    he makes it pretty clear that he acknowledges Chalcedon as Orthodox and sees it as a great tragedy that his church rejected it.


    This is confirmed in the interview, where Dr. George declines to call St. Dioscoros a saint and says that St. Dioscoros was "wrong in rejecting Chalcedon".  I don't know much about his beef with H.H. Pope Shenouda of thrice-blessed memory or H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, but this is not Orthodoxy.

    I haven't been able to track down any of Dr. George's English lectures or writings online yet.  All the links to them I could find are dead.  All the live links are unfortunately in Arabic, and I can't read those.  I'll keep searching.  Can anyone help me out?  Does he attack our Church's right-minded rejection of Chalcedon anywhere else?

    4.) The link to his interview with the Eastern Orthodox publication I mentioned is here: http://www.roadtoemmaus.net/back_issue_articles/RTE_38/With_the_Dessert_Fathers_of_Egypt.pdf In it, they also ask him:

    Dr. George, thank you for these wonderful accounts. How should we
    look at the grace that God has given to the Coptic monks and laity, although
    they don’t have the fullness of Orthodoxy?


    and he fails to correct this lie, acknowledging wrongly that our Church "lacks the fullness of Orthodoxy" in his reply.  Again, I don't know much about his situation, but it seems from this that he is a convinced Chalcedonian now who regards the Eastern Orthodox Church as having the fullness of Orthodoxy and ours to be lacking in it.

    In the same interview, he ascribes the language of our Liturgy to a de facto adoption of the decisions of Chalcedon - not St. Cyril's teachings - and feeds into the triumphalistic attitude of the EO interviewer feeling very superior to our Coptic Church.

    In this interview, he never declares emphatically that the Coptic Church is and always has been Orthodox, even in the face of several questions impugning our Orthodoxy.  In fact, he even hedges around a direct question about this while implying that some Copts might be Orthodox while others are definitely Eutychian!

    In the discussion about this article on orthodoxchristianity.net, Fr. Peter, whom we all admire and respect says:

    I have unfortunately read articles by him which are erroneous and bitter and with which I cannot agree. I don't consider him Orthodox unfortunately, just as the fact that Rowan Williams can write interesting things about Orthodoxy doesn't make him Orthodox.


    Another poster notes that in one of his lectures Dr. George says that as a Coptic deacon he chose to commune Mennonites.  I hope this isn't true.  Please tell me he isn't one of these deluded people who buys into the "it's all Christianity" nonsense.

    Ideally, I would like to read his extant English works for myself, but failing that, I know Fr. Peter is a scholar I can trust.  Furthermore, I see in the interview his pro-Chalcedonian/anti-Coptic leanings (by anti-Coptic, I mean that he is against our rejection of the council, not Copts as a people). 

    Can anyone explain this for me?  What is truly the situation with this man?  If he truly believes what he's saying in this interview, it seems that he is where he belongs, in the EO Church.  Again, I don't know much about him or his situation, but I really don't like the way he impugns the Orthodoxy of our Church in this interview.

    As to Protestants entering Paradise, it is not for me to judge whether those who are truly ignorant of Orthodoxy stand or fall before their Master, but I will not say that those who actively work to lead others out of the One True Orthodox Church or to inject their falsehoods into it are doing God's will.  May God have mercy on them and lead them to the Truth as embodied in the One True Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church.

    Asking Your Prayers,

    A.N.
  • 1.) It seems that he spent a relatively short amount of time in the Coptic Orthodox Church (having joined it as an adult convert) before leaving for other communions.  Why did he join first the Anglican and then the Eastern Orthodox Church?


    He joined it at thirteen years old, under the fatherhood of the great Pope Kyrollos the sixth. He did not join the Anglican communion. He was sent to study in Cambridge (blessed by H.H. Pope Kyrollos) and then because there was no Coptic church there at the time, he was advised to pray with our friends the Russians. Excommunicated from our church without fair trial (a very surprising fact) he found himself at loss. Needing a job, he took the Blessing of the great Metropolitan Antony Bloom to work for the Anglican seminary. I can back up these statements. This is a letter by Metropolitan Anthony Bloom to Pope Shenouda interceding for Dr. George saying that he deserves a fair trial, is not a heretic, and did not join the Anglican communion. Of course, lies continue to circulate about him, but God speaks for those who are oppressed.

    2.) Did the Coptic Orthodox Holy Synod excommunicate him or did he excommunicate himself by joining another church? (I see that some here - including my brother Ray who knows I love him dearly and truly - object to the term "excommunicate himself", but I would say respectfully that if a person did leave our Communion for another, there is no other way to describe it.)


    I love you more, brother! He did not join any communion outside the Orthodox one. As an ecumenist, I do not see a problem with joining the Russian church because there was no Coptic Church available there at the time. What is he supposed to do? But he does not reject the teachings of the Coptic Orthodox Church. So he did not forsake the Coptic church. For proximity reasons (and since he as well as I see them as equally Orthodox) he attended the church services of the Russian Orthodox Church.

    3.) A poster on orthodoxchristianity.net says that Dr. George is now Eastern Orthodox and that:

    Quote
    he makes it pretty clear that he acknowledges Chalcedon as Orthodox and sees it as a great tragedy that his church rejected it.

    This is confirmed in the interview, where Dr. George declines to call St. Dioscoros a saint and says that St. Dioscoros was "wrong in rejecting Chalcedon".  I don't know much about his beef with H.H. Pope Shenouda of thrice-blessed memory or H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, but this is not Orthodoxy.

    I haven't been able to track down any of Dr. George's English lectures or writings online yet.  All the links to them I could find are dead.  All the live links are unfortunately in Arabic, and I can't read those.  I'll keep searching.  Can anyone help me out?  Does he attack our Church's right-minded rejection of Chalcedon anywhere else?


    Dr. George does, in fact, see the denial of Chalcedon as being a tragedy. But how is this any worse than the general mind of ecumenists today (of which I am one?) For example, Pope Shenouda as well as the Synod during his time signed that we had a common faith throughout all the years since Chalcedon. Logically speaking, if we had the same faith, then the rejection of a council that had proper faith is a tragedy. Not that the Copts are wrong in their theology. Stavro, a staunch anti-ecumenist who I greatly respect, would most likely agree with me. One cannot be an ecumenist, and not believe that the rejection of Chalcedon was unfavorable since it separated what we believe to be one faith. I hope that makes sense. So if Dr. George is wrong for saying we should not have rejected Chalcedon, then throw Anba Bishoy himself in that same category for saying that we have shared the same faith since Chalcedon in a joint commission (of course, only to unofficialy withdraw that very statement soon after.)

    4.) The link to his interview with the Eastern Orthodox publication I mentioned is here: http://www.roadtoemmaus.net/back_issue_articles/RTE_38/With_the_Dessert_Fathers_of_Egypt.pdf In it, they also ask him:

    Quote
    Dr. George, thank you for these wonderful accounts. How should we
    look at the grace that God has given to the Coptic monks and laity, although
    they don’t have the fullness of Orthodoxy?

    and he fails to correct this lie, acknowledging wrongly that our Church "lacks the fullness of Orthodoxy" in his reply.  Again, I don't know much about his situation, but it seems from this that he is a convinced Chalcedonian now who regards the Eastern Orthodox Church as having the fullness of Orthodoxy and ours to be lacking in it.

    In the same interview, he ascribes the language of our Liturgy to a de facto adoption of the decisions of Chalcedon - not St. Cyril's teachings - and feeds into the triumphalistic attitude of the EO interviewer feeling very superior to our Coptic Church.

    In this interview, he never declares emphatically that the Coptic Church is and always has been Orthodox, even in the face of several questions impugning our Orthodoxy.  In fact, he even hedges around a direct question about this while implying that some Copts might be Orthodox while others are definitely Eutychian!



    Maybe not in this interview, but I attended a symposium with him last year where, surrounded by EOs, he emphatically insulted them saying The Coptic church has always been Orthodox. You guys just like to throw names around to feel special (or something funny to that effect.) The reality, however, is that he is right in stating that some Copts can be Eutychian. He is not saying that the Coptic church embraces Eutychianism, but that there are people who indeed have bought into a Eutychian understanding (I can explain this one in more detail privatley since it is very controversial.) Also, remember that Dr. George is not attacking the history of the Coptic church. He has serious reserves to the way the church has explained theology under Bishop Pishoy and Pope Shenouda. It is this which he speaks about when he says that the Coptic church is in error. He speaks about what he considers the errors of HHPS3. But he defends to the death the legitimacy and beauty of the Coptic church.

    Another poster notes that in one of his lectures Dr. George says that as a Coptic deacon he chose to commune Mennonites.  I hope this isn't true.  Please tell me he isn't one of these deluded people who buys into the "it's all Christianity" nonsense.

    Ideally, I would like to read his extant English works for myself, but failing that, I know Fr. Peter is a scholar I can trust.  Furthermore, I see in the interview his pro-Chalcedonian/anti-Coptic leanings (by anti-Coptic, I mean that he is against our rejection of the council, not Copts as a people). 

    Why did he commune Mennonites? There must be a why question asked. You should ask him. His answer will help a little. Fr. Peter is certainly a man worth great amounts of trust, but I have spoken to Fr. Peter (very briefly) about Dr. George, and he doesn't seem all that upset with Dr. George. But I would rather let him speak for himself, rather than me misinterpreting him.  I think you should read his works and analyze them. The most I have found in them is strong opinions, and audacity in portraying them with a little bit of a "shock" factor. Never heresy! Never rejection of true Dogma!

    Can anyone explain this for me?  What is truly the situation with this man?  If he truly believes what he's saying in this interview, it seems that he is where he belongs, in the EO Church.  Again, I don't know much about him or his situation, but I really don't like the way he impugns the Orthodoxy of our Church in this interview.


    I can agree that the tone of this interview is unfavorable. But what do you expect when the church officials who are known for their theological expertise reduce discussion with Doctor George to "he promotes homosexual movies" or "he says to read non-spiritual books" (although that was a crime.) What this man has seen from some heirarchs would be enough to send a world into a frenzy. He has been called heretic, and worse (without one shred of evidence mind you) and been denied the right to a trial. If he has any disfavor the Coptic church (which in my personal discussions with him, I can say he does not) then it is only because he is a human who's name has been run into dirt and mire.

    As to Protestants entering Paradise, it is not for me to judge whether those who are truly ignorant of Orthodoxy stand or fall before their Master, but I will not say that those who actively work to lead others out of the One True Orthodox Church or to inject their falsehoods into it are doing God's will.  May God have mercy on them and lead them to the Truth as embodied in the One True Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church.


    1) Good, you cannot say who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Someone send the Memo to HEM Bishoy. No one is saying Protestantism is to be tolerated. But we are saying you cannot condemn anyone or anything to hell. It's not His job to condemn to hell. He isn't even secretary of the Synod anymore. Let alone the secretary of the Heaven-Hell comity.

    2) As an ecumenist, I believe the EO are as Orthodox to the OO, so I will withhold saying "Amen and Amen" to your final line. I will say that the one true church is the Apostolic church which has Proper Doctrine, Proper Practice, and Apostolic Descent. The OO have that. The EO (as I believe) have that.

    Bishop Pishoy recently posted on his website another attack of Dr. George. That seems like a lot of free time wasted. Dr. George is older than 70! He lives in an obscure part of the world trying to enjoy the rest of his life. Leave the dude alone. Stop the witch-hunt.

    Ray

  • Brother Ray,

    Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply.

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166431#msg166431 date=1383520822]He joined it at thirteen years old, under the fatherhood of the great Pope Kyrollos the sixth. He did not join the Anglican communion. He was sent to study in Cambridge (blessed by H.H. Pope Kyrollos) and then because there was no Coptic church there at the time, he was advised to pray with our friends the Russians. Excommunicated from our church without fair trial (a very surprising fact) he found himself at loss. Needing a job, he took the Blessing of the great Metropolitan Antony Bloom to work for the Anglican seminary. I can back up these statements. This is a letter by Metropolitan Anthony Bloom to Pope Shenouda interceding for Dr. George saying that he deserves a fair trial, is not a heretic, and did not join the Anglican communion. Of course, lies continue to circulate about him, but God speaks for those who are oppressed. [/quote]

    Thank you for this clarification.  I am a little confused though.  Unless I'm reading the interview wrong, it seems to say he met H.H. Pope Kyrillos VI at the age of 18, not 13.  Dr. George says:

    I became Christian because I met a very saintly man, a hermit
    who settled on the eastern side of Old Cairo. People helped him to build a
    hermitage and a small chapel dedicated to St. Menas, after whom he was
    named. He later became the Coptic Patriarch, Kyrillos VI.I first met Father Menas when I was eighteen, in the Church of St. Menas, where a Coptic Christian friend took me.


    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166431#msg166431 date=1383520822]I love you more, brother! He did not join any communion outside the Orthodox one. As an ecumenist, I do not see a problem with joining the Russian church because there was no Coptic Church available there at the time. What is he supposed to do? But he does not reject the teachings of the Coptic Orthodox Church. So he did not forsake the Coptic church. For proximity reasons (and since he as well as I see them as equally Orthodox) he attended the church services of the Russian Orthodox Church.[/quote]

    Brother, I can agree so long as we are both declaring that economia permits us to commune in EO Churches if none of our own are within a reasonable distance with permission from our bishops, not that we are free to commune in EO churches on our own before communion has been officially re-established.  Since the former seems to be the case in this instance, no problem.  Again, thanks for the clarification.

    What's weird is that it seems he started by attending an EO Church in Britain because of reasons having to do with distance and then became EO once he was excommunicated from the Coptic Orthodox Church?  Is this accurate?  The interview makes it seem as if he made a choice to become a communicant of the EO Church because he realized that the Coptic Church was lacking in the fullness of Orthodoxy.  If this is not the case, it seems that Dr. George is allowing the RTE interviewer to manipulate his words to say the least.

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166431#msg166431 date=1383520822]Dr. George does, in fact, see the denial of Chalcedon as being a tragedy. But how is this any worse than the general mind of ecumenists today (of which I am one?) For example, Pope Shenouda as well as the Synod during his time signed that we had a common faith throughout all the years since Chalcedon. Logically speaking, if we had the same faith, then the rejection of a council that had proper faith is a tragedy. Not that the Copts are wrong in their theology. Stavro, a staunch anti-ecumenist who I greatly respect, would most likely agree with me. One cannot be an ecumenist, and not believe that the rejection of Chalcedon was unfavorable since it separated what we believe to be one faith. I hope that makes sense. So if Dr. George is wrong for saying we should not have rejected Chalcedon, then throw Anba Bishoy himself in that same category for saying that we have shared the same faith since Chalcedon in a joint commission (of course, only to unofficialy withdraw that very statement soon after.) [/quote]

    Here, for the first time we disagree.  I agree that the Eastern Orthodox of today are fully Orthodox because of the corrections made at II & III Constantinople, but I do not believe that Chalcedon itself was representative of the Orthodox Faith, nor do I see it as the work of the Holy Spirit.  It accepted the Nestorian documents known as the Three Chapters, later anathematized by the EO at II Constantinople.  It also unjustly deposed SAINT Dioscoros.  It is inaccurate and ahistorical to say that he “rejected” the council, but rather the council falsely accused, abused, imprisoned, tortured and deposed him, chiefly because of the vengeful Leo of Rome and Pulcheria.  Here, it seems Dr. George is making hay for the hardliners among the Chalcedonians who consider us, and St. Dioscoros, to be monophysites.  For H.H. Pope Shenouda III, H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, or me, your weak servant, to say that both families of Orthodoxy share the same Faith is not the same as saying that we should have accepted this council, which violently deposed our beloved Pope and Patriarch and led to our persecution.

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166431#msg166431 date=1383520822]Maybe not in this interview, but I attended a symposium with him last year where, surrounded by EOs, he emphatically insulted them saying The Coptic church has always been Orthodox. You guys just like to throw names around to feel special (or something funny to that effect.) The reality, however, is that he is right in stating that some Copts can be Eutychian. He is not saying that the Coptic church embraces Eutychianism, but that there are people who indeed have bought into a Eutychian understanding (I can explain this one in more detail privatley since it is very controversial.) Also, remember that Dr. George is not attacking the history of the Coptic church. He has serious reserves to the way the church has explained theology under Bishop Pishoy and Pope Shenouda. It is this which he speaks about when he says that the Coptic church is in error. He speaks about what he considers the errors of HHPS3. But he defends to the death the legitimacy and beauty of the Coptic church.[/quote]

    Again, it seems like Dr. George is providing fodder for hardline Chalcedonians to characterize us as monophysites.  Saying that “some Copts” can be Eutychian is like saying “some Eastern Orthodox” can be Nestorian.  Of course, there are uneducated in both camps who might inadvertently articulate those Christologies, but here the interviewer is plainly taking advantage and – not being an ecumenist like yourself – is not making it out as if both families are Orthodox, but rather that they are Orthodox and we are not.  It is surprising to me that a man who is as educated as Dr. George is allowing him to get away with this false characterization, must less seemingly endorsing it.  Again, I don’t know much about Dr. George, but I don’t like this interview at all.  It is far from the ecumenism you endorse, Ray, and rather makes it seem like we are on the outside knocking on the door of Orthodoxy only to be admitted by our EO brethren when we endorse their council which deposed and abused our saints and endorsed Nestorian documents they themselves later anathematized.

    As far as going against our late and beloved Pope, it seems from this interview that he goes further than that, basically stating that we began to decline after we were separated from the EO, basically adding oxygen to the ridiculous POV of the interviewer who feels we are “lacking the fullness of Orthodoxy” while they have it.


    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166431#msg166431 date=1383520822]Why did he commune Mennonites? There must be a why question asked. You should ask him. His answer will help a little. Fr. Peter is certainly a man worth great amounts of trust, but I have spoken to Fr. Peter (very briefly) about Dr. George, and he doesn't seem all that upset with Dr. George. But I would rather let him speak for himself, rather than me misinterpreting him.  I think you should read his works and analyze them. The most I have found in them is strong opinions, and audacity in portraying them with a little bit of a "shock" factor. Never heresy! Never rejection of true Dogma! [/quote]

    Ray, how can I ask him?  If you know why he did it, would you please tell me, even privately?  I can’t see a reason at all.  Communing EO under economia is one thing, communing those without a priesthood who reject the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not something I can see under any circumstances.  If ecumenism means accepting the EO as Orthodox, I can get with it.  If it means pretending we can be one church with the Protestants while they remain Protestant, that's satanic.

    As far as reading his works, please tell me where I can find them in English.  Links or emailed documents would be most welcome.


    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166431#msg166431 date=1383520822]I can agree that the tone of this interview is unfavorable. But what do you expect when the church officials who are known for their theological expertise reduce discussion with Doctor George to "he promotes homosexual movies" or "he says to read non-spiritual books" (although that was a crime.) What this man has seen from some heirarchs would be enough to send a world into a frenzy. He has been called heretic, and worse (without one shred of evidence mind you) and been denied the right to a trial. If he has any disfavor the Coptic church (which in my personal discussions with him, I can say he does not) then it is only because he is a human who's name has been run into dirt and mire. [/quote]

    Again, brother, I respectfully disagree.  I don’t know if this man is being mischaracterized or not.  I’ve never read any of the documents you’re speaking of and I don’t know about the controversy as I’ve said.  That said, for the sake of argument, if someone is slandering you, why add fuel to the fire by making statements against your estranged Church and allowing others with an agenda to push to make it out to be heretical?


    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166431#msg166431 date=1383520822]1) Good, you cannot say who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Someone send the Memo to HEM Bishoy. No one is saying Protestantism is to be tolerated. But we are saying you cannot condemn anyone or anything to hell. It's not His job to condemn to hell. He isn't even secretary of the Synod anymore. Let alone the secretary of the Heaven-Hell comity. [/quote]

    Brother, again, I don’t know much about this controversy, but is Dr. George one of the people who frequently writes against H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy online and rallies people against him?  If so, is it fair to say the “persecution” is unfortunate and not merely one-sided?

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166431#msg166431 date=1383520822]2) As an ecumenist, I believe the EO are as Orthodox to the OO, so I will withhold saying "Amen and Amen" to your final line. I will say that the one true church is the Apostolic church which has Proper Doctrine, Proper Practice, and Apostolic Descent. The OO have that. The EO (as I believe) have that. [/quote]

    I can agree with this, considering that the EO corrected the errors of Chalcedon at their post-Chalcedonian councils.

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166431#msg166431 date=1383520822]Bishop Pishoy recently posted on his website another attack of Dr. George. That seems like a lot of free time wasted. Dr. George is older than 70! He lives in an obscure part of the world trying to enjoy the rest of his life. Leave the dude alone. Stop the witch-hunt.[/quote]

    Again, I don’t know much about this controversy, but I pray for peace in the Church and among Orthodox Christians.

    Pray for me, your weak brother.  You know, it is actually painful for me to disagree with you about anything? ;D  I'm truly sorry we disagree about anything at all, but I believe we can speak the truth to one another with love.
  • [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166431#msg166431 date=1383520822]
    1) Good, you cannot say who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Someone send the Memo to HEM Bishoy. No one is saying Protestantism is to be tolerated. But we are saying you cannot condemn anyone or anything to hell. It's not His job to condemn to hell. He isn't even secretary of the Synod anymore. Let alone the secretary of the Heaven-Hell comity.[/quote]
    I want to put another view into this statement. I will preface it by stating I don't want to defend Dr George or Metropolitan Bishoy, but I am seeking clarity.

    If Christ Himself says “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again” in John 3:3, we can at least emphatically proclaim that no one born again will go to heaven. Sure divine providence may allow exceptions. But it is clear that one is allowed to say those who are not born again can't go to heaven. It is now a matter of what born again means. Looking at more scripture, we can emphatically say born again means believe and be baptized: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16. Belief without baptism is inadequate as seen in the previous passage but also in Acts 8:36. After the eunuch believed, he said “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” It is important to note belief and baptism without the Spirit is also inadequate. Simon the Sorcerer was baptized by Philip in Acts 8:13. But the Apostles sent Peter and John to the Samaritans "because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." Acts 8:16-17. It is therefore impossible to be born again without baptism with Holy Spirit through the Apostles. Since the majority of Protestants do not believe in sacraments and do not believe in Apostolic succession, why can't one emphatically say "Protestants who do not believe and do these things will not be saved or go to heaven or see the Kingdom of God"?

    The only issue left is what is meant by "other denominations". Surely it must mean anyone who does not believe in God, or does not believe in the Church, or does not believe in baptism with the Spirit, or does not believe in Apostolic succession, or one who has aligned allegiance to a heresy. If we take this all together, I don't see why it is wrong for a bishop to say these things. It is his job to make sure parishioners believe in Orthodoxy, regardless if he is no longer the secretary of the Synod or even the bishop of that parish.

    Now, he may have done it in poor taste. He did not really expound on his words. But in his defense, he said this to a congregation in Egypt who understand things differently than those outside of Egypt. We, as internet Coptic theologians, scrutinize things differently than the simple parishioner and it is not fair to judge Metropolitan Bishoy's words outside of its context and situation. A simple interjection to a question on other denominations may have been wholly appropriate at that time to engage the audience in introductory theology. It's not fair to spin a person's words for polemic gain. Otherwise, we will be doing exactly what the interviewer was doing to Dr George, as AntoniosNikolas clearly illustrated.

    I guess I did defend both Dr George and Metropolitan Bishoy. ;D


    Bishop Pishoy recently posted on his website another attack of Dr. George. That seems like a lot of free time wasted. Dr. George is older than 70! He lives in an obscure part of the world trying to enjoy the rest of his life. Leave the dude alone. Stop the witch-hunt.

    You and I have been attacked and called heretics many times. There is no such thing as living in an obscure part of the world trying to enjoy life. Even the Gospels and our hymns corroborate this. As long as one practices philosophy and theology, one will be subject to the attacks of opposing opinion. Often these attacks are witch-hunts but they are also the normal consequence of sticking your head out to express an opinion.
  • [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=14699.msg166437#msg166437 date=1383584004]
    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166431#msg166431 date=1383520822]
    1) Good, you cannot say who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Someone send the Memo to HEM Bishoy. No one is saying Protestantism is to be tolerated. But we are saying you cannot condemn anyone or anything to hell. It's not His job to condemn to hell. He isn't even secretary of the Synod anymore. Let alone the secretary of the Heaven-Hell comity.[/quote]
    I want to put another view into this statement. I will preface it by stating I don't want to defend Dr George or Metropolitan Bishoy, but I am seeking clarity.

    If Christ Himself says “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again” in John 3:3, we can at least emphatically proclaim that no one born again will go to heaven. Sure divine providence may allow exceptions. But it is clear that one is allowed to say those who are not born again can't go to heaven. It is now a matter of what born again means. Looking at more scripture, we can emphatically say born again means believe and be baptized: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16. Belief without baptism is inadequate as seen in the previous passage but also in Acts 8:36. After the eunuch believed, he said “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” It is important to note belief and baptism without the Spirit is also inadequate. Simon the Sorcerer was baptized by Philip in Acts 8:13. But the Apostles sent Peter and John to the Samaritans "because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." Acts 8:16-17. It is therefore impossible to be born again without baptism with Holy Spirit through the Apostles. Since the majority of Protestants do not believe in sacraments and do not believe in Apostolic succession, why can't one emphatically say "Protestants who do not believe and do these things will not be saved or go to heaven or see the Kingdom of God"?

    The only issue left is what is meant by "other denominations". Surely it must mean anyone who does not believe in God, or does not believe in the Church, or does not believe in baptism with the Spirit, or does not believe in Apostolic succession, or one who has aligned allegiance to a heresy. If we take this all together, I don't see why it is wrong for a bishop to say these things. It is his job to make sure parishioners believe in Orthodoxy, regardless if he is no longer the secretary of the Synod or even the bishop of that parish.

    Now, he may have done it in poor taste. He did not really expound on his words. But in his defense, he said this to a congregation in Egypt who understand things differently than those outside of Egypt. We, as internet Coptic theologians, scrutinize things differently than the simple parishioner and it is not fair to judge Metropolitan Bishoy's words outside of its context and situation. A simple interjection to a question on other denominations may have been wholly appropriate at that time to engage the audience in introductory theology. It's not fair to spin a person's words for polemic gain. Otherwise, we will be doing exactly what the interviewer was doing to Dr George, as AntoniosNikolas clearly illustrated.

    I guess I did defend both Dr George and Metropolitan Bishoy. ;D


    Bishop Pishoy recently posted on his website another attack of Dr. George. That seems like a lot of free time wasted. Dr. George is older than 70! He lives in an obscure part of the world trying to enjoy the rest of his life. Leave the dude alone. Stop the witch-hunt.

    You and I have been attacked and called heretics many times. There is no such thing as living in an obscure part of the world trying to enjoy life. Even the Gospels and our hymns corroborate this. As long as one practices philosophy and theology, one will be subject to the attacks of opposing opinion. Often these attacks are witch-hunts but they are also the normal consequence of sticking your head out to express an opinion.
    [/quote]

    Very well stated.  I agree.
  • Why was Dr Bebawy excommunicated for? It makes no sense? What does he say about that?
  • [quote author=AntoniousNikolas link=topic=14699.msg166433#msg166433 date=1383527693]
    Here, for the first time we disagree.  I agree that the Eastern Orthodox of today are fully Orthodox because of the corrections made at II & III Constantinople, but I do not believe that Chalcedon itself was representative of the Orthodox Faith, nor do I see it as the work of the Holy Spirit.  It accepted the Nestorian documents known as the Three Chapters, later anathematized by the EO at II Constantinople.  It also unjustly deposed SAINT Dioscoros.  It is inaccurate and ahistorical to say that he “rejected” the council, but rather the council falsely accused, abused, imprisoned, tortured and deposed him, chiefly because of the vengeful Leo of Rome and Pulcheria.  [/quote]
    Everything you said about Chalcedon is true. But Constantinople II and III did not correct Chalcedon. It is true that the 7th council anathemized the Three Chapters, but it did not correct Chalcedonian theology. In fact, it reiterated the condemnation of Chalcedon. The mere fact that Constantinople III writes "We detest and anathematize Arius and all the sharers of his absurd opinion; also Macedonius and those who following him are well styled "Foes of the Spirit" (Pneumatomachi). We confess that our Lady, St. Mary, is properly and truly the Mother of God, because she was the Mother after the flesh of One Person of the Holy Trinity, to wit, Christ our God, as the Council of Ephesus has already defined when it cast out of the Church the impious Nestorius with his colleagues, because he taught that there were two Persons [in Christ]. With the Fathers of this synod we confess that he who was incarnate of the immaculate Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary has two natures, recognizing him as perfect God and perfect man, as also the Council of Chalcedon hath promulgated, expelling from the divine Atrium [ aulhs ] as blasphemers, Eutyches and Dioscorus; and placing in the same category Severus, Peter and a number of others, blaspheming in divers fashions. [/quote]
    To put Dioscorus and Severus in the same sentence and category with Eutyches is to completely ignore any rational, logical or fair sentence. Rather, the 7th council reaffirmed Chalcedon, not corrected Chalcedon.

    This pervading condemnation of Dioscorus and Severus, in my opinion, is more related to Constantinople II and III then it is related to Chalcedon. Because the latter councils reaffirmed unjust condemnation, this reaffirmation pervaded into the EO conscious. That is why you will be hardpressed to find an EO believe the OO are Eutychian AND exonorate Sts Dioscorus and Severus. The average EO (not the hardliners) believe the OO claim the same faith but refuse to exonerate our saints or avoid calling us monophysites. The EO have been conditioned to uphold the condemnation of our saints even though they acknowledge a common Christology because of the later councils, not necessarily Chalcedon itself.   


    I can agree with this, considering that the EO corrected the errors of Chalcedon at their post-Chalcedonian councils.

    Nope. They corrected some and introduced more errors in the post-Chalcedonian councils.

    Pray for me, your weak brother.  You know, it is actually painful for me to disagree with you about anything? ;D  I'm truly sorry we disagree about anything at all, but I believe we can speak the truth to one another with love.

    Me too. It really is painful to disagree with RO. He has that effect on people.
  • Hi, Remnkemi,

    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=14699.msg166440#msg166440 date=1383590981]
    Everything you said about Chalcedon is true. But Constantinople II and III did not correct Chalcedon. It is true that the 7th council anathemized the Three Chapters, but it did not correct Chalcedonian theology. In fact, it reiterated the condemnation of Chalcedon. The mere fact that Constantinople III writes "We detest and anathematize Arius and all the sharers of his absurd opinion; also Macedonius and those who following him are well styled "Foes of the Spirit" (Pneumatomachi). We confess that our Lady, St. Mary, is properly and truly the Mother of God, because she was the Mother after the flesh of One Person of the Holy Trinity, to wit, Christ our God, as the Council of Ephesus has already defined when it cast out of the Church the impious Nestorius with his colleagues, because he taught that there were two Persons [in Christ]. With the Fathers of this synod we confess that he who was incarnate of the immaculate Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary has two natures, recognizing him as perfect God and perfect man, as also the Council of Chalcedon hath promulgated, expelling from the divine Atrium [ aulhs ] as blasphemers, Eutyches and Dioscorus; and placing in the same category Severus, Peter and a number of others, blaspheming in divers fashions.

    To put Dioscorus and Severus in the same sentence and category with Eutyches is to completely ignore any rational, logical or fair sentence. Rather, the 7th council reaffirmed Chalcedon, not corrected Chalcedon.[/quote]

    I agree with all you've said concerning the personal condemnation of our beloved fathers St. Severus and St. Dioscoros by these councils.  This is unjustifiable, though it may be explainable.

    My take is that there were always at least two Christological strains in the Chalcedonian camp right from the start.  On the one hand, we have Leo of Rome and his close ally the unrepentant Nestorian, Theodoret.  On the other we have the Greek fathers who were generally more sympathetic to the formula of St. Cyril.  Many of them were hesitant to endorse Leo's Nestorian Tome, but politics make for strange bedfellows, and some of them had a vested interest in seeing Alexandria weakened and our beloved pope and patriarch St. Dioscoros denigrated.  Others were strong-armed by the empress and her allies.  I see II and III Constantinople as a triumph of the Greek strain of Chalcedonian Christology, that articulated in the symbolum of the synod, and a backing off of Leo's borderline Nestorianism and the overt Nestorianism of his Eastern allies.

    I think that the Chalcedonians painted themselves into a corner with the condemnation of our fathers at Chalcedon, one they couldn't back off from in their later councils without admitting that Chalcedon was a mistake and was not the work of the Holy Spirit.  In this context, while they backed off theologically speaking from some of the errors of the council, they had to insist on its infallibility in other respects, including its unjust condemnation of our fathers.

    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=14699.msg166440#msg166440 date=1383590981]
    This pervading condemnation of Dioscorus and Severus, in my opinion, is more related to Constantinople II and III then it is related to Chalcedon. Because the latter councils reaffirmed unjust condemnation, this reaffirmation pervaded into the EO conscious. That is why you will be hardpressed to find an EO believe the OO are Eutychian AND exonorate Sts Dioscorus and Severus. The average EO (not the hardliners) believe the OO claim the same faith but refuse to exonerate our saints or avoid calling us monophysites. The EO have been conditioned to uphold the condemnation of our saints even though they acknowledge a common Christology because of the later councils, not necessarily Chalcedon itself.[/quote] 

    This is a good point.

    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=14699.msg166440#msg166440 date=1383590981]Nope. They corrected some and introduced more errors in the post-Chalcedonian councils.[/quote]

    Could you elaborate on these new errors?

    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=14699.msg166440#msg166440 date=1383590981]Me too. It really is painful to disagree with RO. He has that effect on people.
    [/quote]

    Yeah, we can all agree that Ray's a great guy!  ;D

    [quote author=dthoxsasiPhilanethrope link=topic=14699.msg166439#msg166439 date=1383585392]
    Why was Dr Bebawy excommunicated for? It makes no sense? What does he say about that?
    [/quote]

    I'd like to know too.  Apparently, there's much more to it than the theosis thing.  I wish I could read the Arabic list of charges leveled against him posted by sherene_maria.
  • Thank you for this clarification.  I am a little confused though.  Unless I'm reading the interview wrong, it seems to say he met H.H. Pope Kyrillos VI at the age of 18, not 13.  Dr. George says:

    Ukhtate, I misread :D Thank you much for the correction.

    Brother, I can agree so long as we are both declaring that economia permits us to commune in EO Churches if none of our own are within a reasonable distance with permission from our bishops, not that we are free to commune in EO churches on our own before communion has been officially re-established.  Since the former seems to be the case in this instance, no problem.  Again, thanks for the clarification.

    What's weird is that it seems he started by attending an EO Church in Britain because of reasons having to do with distance and then became EO once he was excommunicated from the Coptic Orthodox Church?  Is this accurate?  The interview makes it seem as if he made a choice to become a communicant of the EO Church because he realized that the Coptic Church was lacking in the fullness of Orthodoxy.  If this is not the case, it seems that Dr. George is allowing the RTE interviewer to manipulate his words to say the least.


    So as not to derail the thread much, I will not expound much on the topic of the EO and the OO. We can, if you would like, have another thread about this topic. I feel as though recently, we have all been getting better at speaking with each other (as this thread has shown) and that it may be a fruitful discussion. So I will analyse this in a separate thread. You make some interesting points that we could and should study together :D As for Dr. George, after moving and being forced to commune with the EO (for proximity reasons, and since he believes they are equally Orthodox) he was excommunicated and told that :he had excommunicated himself by himself." I adressed how this "excommunication" is bogus in light of how he didn't deny the Coptic church (since he still loves and quotes its rights, as well as defends its validity with adamant love) and since there was no trial (I feel the need to stress that even Arius got a trial.)

    It is far from the ecumenism you endorse, Ray, and rather makes it seem like we are on the outside knocking on the door of Orthodoxy only to be admitted by our EO brethren when we endorse their council which deposed and abused our saints and endorsed Nestorian documents they themselves later anathematized.

    I agree. I dislike this tone of this specific interview. I don;t know, but I can tell you that the reason I defend Dr. George so much is specifically because of how much he loves the Coptic church. Seeing him defend our validity in front of a panel of EO theologians brought tears to my eyes. I can only hope that you could find a way to experience that side of him. I cannot comment much on the interview. But I will be speaking with him tomorrow, and so I can try to get you some insight on that specific interview.

    Ray, how can I ask him?  If you know why he did it, would you please tell me, even privately?  I can’t see a reason at all.  Communing EO under economia is one thing, communing those without a priesthood who reject the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not something I can see under any circumstances.  If ecumenism means accepting the EO as Orthodox, I can get with it.  If it means pretending we can be one church with the Protestants while they remain Protestant, that's satanic.

    As far as reading his works, please tell me where I can find them in English.  Links or emailed documents would be most welcome.


    I don't recall him communing Mennonites (I was only saying that the best thing to do is go straight to the source.) But I should ask you to consider one thing... He was a deacon (distributes the blood only) and so how could he commune anyone without the priest first giving the body (and being communed the blood by Dr. George.) This is just a question that comes to my mind before even speaking a word to Doctor George. I;m wondering how true this statement is, and what there is behind it.

    My point is this, though. Nick, if you heard that I communed heretic, I know that your love is so deep, you would question the fact, and lovingly ask me. I only ask for the same love and respect to be afforded a holy man like Dr. George (not specifically from you, but from those who continue to insult the poor man.)

    Brother, again, I don’t know much about this controversy, but is Dr. George one of the people who frequently writes against H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy online and rallies people against him?  If so, is it fair to say the “persecution” is unfortunate and not merely one-sided?


    Dr. George is an academic. He writes theological articles. Theological things may be implied in the article as to the dangers of those who believe or disbelieve certain things, but he does not say that Bishop Bishoy is a promoter of homosexual movies, or that reading secular books is somehow wrong. Again, these are low blows, and are not something I would expect to be spoken out of a 15 year old on tasbeha.org, let alone the ex-secratary of the Most Holy Synod. That is depressing. He does not attack his mother church. This interview also smells a little fishy. I cant explain the reason this interview is fishy in private. Message me and remind me.

    Again, I don’t know much about this controversy, but I pray for peace in the Church and among Orthodox Christians.

    Pray for me, your weak brother.  You know, it is actually painful for me to disagree with you about anything? ;D  I'm truly sorry we disagree about anything at all, but I believe we can speak the truth to one another with love.


    Certainly, let us pray for peace. Let us pray for fairness, transparency, and the end of a civil war that places the church in a compromising position in the eyes of her youth. What a pity it is to see this civil war, when we could lovingly exhort, pray, and live through Christ.

    My dearest brother Nick! Since the moment you and I have started speaking you have shown yourself to be a capable theologian, a spiritual man, a lover of the Church, an adorer of God, a golden tongued teacher. It is hard for me to disagree with you. I truly mean that. Of course we can disagree. We may disagree on this issue, but I would first doubt the Orthodoxy of St. Athanasius before I doubted yours! I would doubt St. Antony's love of God before I doubted yours! I would doubt the stalwart preaching of St. Paul before I doubted yours. I love you, and hope that our friendship only grows through these disagreements that go to show that the path to God is an Orthodox path of love unbounded by the mere frugal political opinions.

    God Bless you!

    Ray
  • Rem,

    I miss you dude! Good to hear your voice again (or rather, read your words.)

    I would love to further discuss the EO/OO conundrum (what came first the O or the OO or the EO or the EEEOOOOEEOO) but dude, this stuff can get exhausting, and I have some rough exams. So I will read everything you write. It might just take me time to respond to all of them because I would like to ensure that my responses can even touch the hem of the garments your responses are adorned with. Your responses are always very intelligent and well thought out. I would have to match that in order to respect your intelligence and that takes some time for a 20 year old hahaha

    Me too. It really is painful to disagree with RO. He has that effect on people.


    You flatter me! Rem! Not many people have disagreed with me as much as you, and have remained such close friends, and brothers. We disagree often, but you have never let it happen that you and I stop being friends. You have never insulted, never hated, never offended. You speak the truth in love, and that effect is comforting. It comforts me to know that we have people like you in our Church who will always be there to teach, and exhort people like me who are often not level-headed. Disagreeing with you is as hard as disagreeing with St. Cyril (minus the fact that he was a pretty scary guy). It is difficult to disagree with you because you are a capable theologian who is always loving, and always honest. What more can be said but for me to say that I love you as my brother, friend, and teacher (yes, I read your posts from the past for kicks some times lol).

    Axios Axios Axios: Remnkemi Pi Remnkimi! (HAHA I made a funny)

    Ray
  • Old Ray McDonald had a farm, EEEOOOOEEOO  ;D
    HAHA I made a funny too.

  • [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166442#msg166442 date=1383623725]
    So as not to derail the thread much, I will not expound much on the topic of the EO and the OO. We can, if you would like, have another thread about this topic. I feel as though recently, we have all been getting better at speaking with each other (as this thread has shown) and that it may be a fruitful discussion. So I will analyse this in a separate thread. You make some interesting points that we could and should study together :D [/quote]

    Great idea, Ray.  By all means let us start this thread.  We can all learn from each other.  It's funny, I was beginning to feel like a bit of a hardliner on Chalcedon talking to you, and then our dear brother Remnkemi swept in like an eagle and made me feel like a moderate! ;D

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166442#msg166442 date=1383623725]As for Dr. George, after moving and being forced to commune with the EO (for proximity reasons, and since he believes they are equally Orthodox) he was excommunicated and told that :he had excommunicated himself by himself." I adressed how this "excommunication" is bogus in light of how he didn't deny the Coptic church (since he still loves and quotes its rights, as well as defends its validity with adamant love) and since there was no trial (I feel the need to stress that even Arius got a trial.)[/quote]

    I see your point.  I'm just trying to understand the situation from the outside, not knowing any of the parties involved personally.  It seems - from what I've read here - that what started as a simple and temporary situation and an example of economia granted by St. Pope Kyrillos VI became a permanent situation for Dr. George when he was excommunicated and the EO continued to admit him to the Chalice.  If God, in His mercy, is sustaining him through them, so be it.  Such is the love of our merciful God.  All I'm saying is, although I also consider the EO of today to be Orthodox, I'm not free to walk up the block to the Greek Church and commune like I am at the local Ethiopian or Armenian Church.  None of us have that right until Communion has been officially re-established (which I pray it soon will be).  I know some Copts who think they can do this, but I think they are treading on dangerous ground and need to confer with their spiritual fathers.

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166442#msg166442 date=1383623725]
    I agree. I dislike this tone of this specific interview. I don;t know, but I can tell you that the reason I defend Dr. George so much is specifically because of how much he loves the Coptic church. Seeing him defend our validity in front of a panel of EO theologians brought tears to my eyes. I can only hope that you could find a way to experience that side of him. I cannot comment much on the interview. But I will be speaking with him tomorrow, and so I can try to get you some insight on that specific interview.[/quote]

    I defer to your judgment, since you know the man personally and I trust you.  We can all agree the interview was detrimental to our Church, but I make no judgments in my weakness against Dr. George personally.

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166442#msg166442 date=1383623725]
    I don't recall him communing Mennonites (I was only saying that the best thing to do is go straight to the source.) But I should ask you to consider one thing... He was a deacon (distributes the blood only) and so how could he commune anyone without the priest first giving the body (and being communed the blood by Dr. George.) This is just a question that comes to my mind before even speaking a word to Doctor George. I;m wondering how true this statement is, and what there is behind it.[/quote]

    Again, this is wise counsel.  Maybe he never communed them at all.  This was reported by a poster on another forum who said that Dr. George admitted this in one of his lectures.  Since I can't find the lecture, I honestly don't know for sure, though I am inclined to take the brother at his word.

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166442#msg166442 date=1383623725]
    My point is this, though. Nick, if you heard that I communed heretic, I know that your love is so deep, you would question the fact, and lovingly ask me. I only ask for the same love and respect to be afforded a holy man like Dr. George (not specifically from you, but from those who continue to insult the poor man.)[/quote]

    Agree 100%.  This is the right course of action: give the brother the benefit of the doubt.

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166442#msg166442 date=1383623725]This interview also smells a little fishy. I cant explain the reason this interview is fishy in private. Message me and remind me.[/quote]

    Again, we agree.  I've read other RTE interviews I thought were fishy as well, like the one with the former Rasta who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy Fr. Deacon Michael Wilson.  You can see my commentary on that here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=54521.0

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166442#msg166442 date=1383623725]Certainly, let us pray for peace. Let us pray for fairness, transparency, and the end of a civil war that places the church in a compromising position in the eyes of her youth. What a pity it is to see this civil war, when we could lovingly exhort, pray, and live through Christ.[/quote]

    Amen.  May all heresies and corrupt dissensions which currently bedevil our Church - particularly the influence of Evangelical and Charismatic Protestantism - cease.

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166442#msg166442 date=1383623725]My dearest brother Nick! Since the moment you and I have started speaking you have shown yourself to be a capable theologian, a spiritual man, a lover of the Church, an adorer of God, a golden tongued teacher. It is hard for me to disagree with you. I truly mean that. Of course we can disagree. We may disagree on this issue, but I would first doubt the Orthodoxy of St. Athanasius before I doubted yours! I would doubt St. Antony's love of God before I doubted yours! I would doubt the stalwart preaching of St. Paul before I doubted yours. I love you, and hope that our friendship only grows through these disagreements that go to show that the path to God is an Orthodox path of love unbounded by the mere frugal political opinions. [/quote]

    Please beg St. Anthony, St. Athanasius, and St. Paul the Apostle to pray for your wretched brother.  I don't think we really disagree on the subject of Dr. George, I just don't know much about him and am trying to find out more.

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14699.msg166442#msg166442 date=1383623725]God Bless you![/quote]

    And you too, my dearest brother.


Memorial for HH Pope Shenouda

Share |