My question relates to the churches in NJ:
1) is General Bishop Karas commemorated in the Hiteniat even if he is not present in the liturgy?
2) if a more senior bishop is visiting, eg HG Bishop Youssef, who gets mentioned first - Bishop Youssef or Bishop Karas?
2. Diocesan bishops are considered senior to general although I have seen general bishops commemorated out of respect of age, nothing more.
Are you sure about #2?
It doesn't quite make sense, since if an old general bishop gets enthroned he will suddenly leap ahead of all the younger diocesan bishops who were enthroned before him. Surely then the date of ordination to bishop (as opposed to date of enthronement, or whether he is enthroned in the first place) is the proper marker of seniority?
Note: when I say old and young of course I don't mean biological age, I mean time since ordination
Also, what about metropolitans vs diocesan bishops?
And no, we don't commemorate HG Bishop Karas if he is not present in the parish. Simply because he is technically not "our bishop"
Actually, I believe that Ibrahim Ayad was correct in his ordering, as Bishop Mattaos has the Great Eskeem, and thus is mentioned directly after HH the Pope, even before the bishop of that particular diocese.
"So why is a diocese bishop mentioned if he is not physically present?" Simple. Because he is the bishop of that church. A general bishop, however, cannot never be the bishop of a parish (as long as he remains general), as he is not actually seated.
If Drew and Mina agree, that must be the consensus patrum of tasbeha.org! :)
However, if we accept this, then this opens the door to the ordering adopted by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Synod_of_the_Coptic_Orthodox_Church
Under wikis system, Bishop Abanoub comes before Bishop Moussa! What do u think?
So Bishop Moussa comes before Anba David?
Cos that would contradict Mina and Drew.
Also, what does everyone think of the order provided by Wikipedia?
So you'll be the go to guy if we need HG's answer :D
You mean 'no' right?
What about Metropolitans that wear the eskeem?
The Coptic is 'ethronos' though, which translates to throne not seat. While they may have seats in the Holy Synod, they certainly don't have thrones.
Just because 'beloved of Christ' is not appropriate, does not mean that 'confirm him on his seat' is correct. Both practices seem wrong.
1. Pope and Patriarch as Bishop of Alexandria
2. Metropolitan of Jerusalem
3. Metropolitans and Bishops who hold the Great Eskeem
4. Abbots of Monasteries
5. Diocesan Metropolitans
6. Diocesan Bishops
7. General Bishops
Thanks for adding another version to confuse us all :)
Where does the bishop of that PARTICULAR diocese that is being prayed in fit into this? Between 5 and 6? And if he is a metropolitan, between 4 and 5?
And obviously the ordering within each of these categories is by date of ordination as a bishop (of whatever kind), not the date on which they entered that category?
Furthermore, for the ordering WITHIN category 3: is it first abbots of monasteries, then diocesan metropolitans, then diocesan bishops, then general bishops? Or is it just by date of ordination as a bishop (of whatever kind)?
Also Re: the Great Eskeem - obviously someone can hold the Great Eskeem as a monk, and then be ordained a bishop, and not be able to keep up with its requirements. In that case, I assume he will be considered as a normal non-Eskeem bishop in the above list. So how do you know if a bishop CURRENTLY holds the Great Eskeem? Is it something they wear? If so, do they always wear it? If they don't always wear it, then we're back to where we started, how do you know?
1. Logically the bishop of the diocese would be number 2 as after the Patricarch everyone else is a guest praying with his permission although nobody would dare put a bishop before a Metropolitan these days. I think in historical times we did not have the issues of bishops traveling and gathering in one place so freely.
2. Abbots of Monasteries (apparently) always come first and this is even evident in the last years of ordinations where it has been Abbot of a Monastery, Diocesan and then General all individual and swearing different oaths according to their bishopric.
3. If a monk who became a bishop retired from the Eskeem when being ordained then he would only be a bishop and no longer considered a person of the Eskeem. I have never heard of this happen but I suppose not impossible. The crosses of the Eskeem are always worn underneath their clothing so you would never know from their outward appearance.
1. Isn't the patriarch also praying with the bishop of the diocese's permission? Should we then mention the bishop of the diocese before the patriarch?!
2. That's very interesting, but I think you have misunderstood what I was originally asking (if you want to re-read what I was asking in my post you can, but it's probably too subtle a point not worth anyone's time).
3. Thanks. Is there a list of the bishops who have the Great Eskeem?
This raises a few other questions:
4. What if a bishop is abbot of a monastery and also a diocesan bishop, eg HG Bishop Youssef or HG Bishop Serapion? Is he considered an abbot of a monastery or diocesan bishop in the order you provided?
5. The authenticity of having a bishop of a monastery in the first place. I started a thread relating to this, but it hasn't received any replies: tasbeha.org/community/index.php?p=/discussion/15334/bishops-of-monasteries
I am surprised the concept has not received as much criticism as general bishops.
I understand that but it does not answer my question.
"The concept of general bishops without seats is relatively new anyway so obviously it would make sense that they wouldnt say confirm him on his throne"
"I will ask him and see when and who gave him the instruction."
Thanks please keep us updated.
Link isn't working.