The official forums of the Coptic Media Network, focusing on Coptic hymns, Orthodoxy, spirituality, friendship, and member experiences.
Post new topic This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
posted on Apr 17, 2007 - 10:40 PM
+Pi`<rictoc aftwnf!,
Hey Misteka,
I have no idea; I haven't been on regularly in awhile. 
Please, pray for me.
_________________
Agapy,
Vortounatoc
Amyn, Maren a;a!
Administrator for Content, Newsletters, and the Book Exchange
coptichymns.net
- a taste of what is Coptic ...
Questions? Comments? E-mail or PM me!
Need help? - Post here. Comment or criticism? - Use our Feedback Form
posted on Apr 18, 2007 - 02:45 AM
Fortunatos,
Great Post!
I was doing a little search on Deir el Sultan, and there some ambiguous information about it. Does anyone have a "Coptic side" to the story? I've been reading a [perhaps] one-sided Ethiopian view of the situation that voiced both dissent with Israel for mistreating the monastery and those who reside in it, and the Coptic Church for their "manipulations" in trying to take over the monastery.
Here's the link that was provided by ethiopianorthodox.org
http://www.geocities.com/lmak27455/Ethi ... index.html
God bless.
PS There's a Greek Orthodox who mentioned that he knows a Copt in Ohio who's currently excommunicated for going to Israel. I don't know whether he has Egyptian national citizenship or not, but the argument to "protect the flock" is still a weak one on that regard, and even on the regard that they do actually go even if they live in Egypt, imo.
PSS Interestingly enough, Israel is treating the Ethiopian monks the same way Egypt is treating Copts and their churches, unless I'm wrong.
PSSS One more...Someone told me that this is a conflict simply arose after the Ethiopian Church received autocephaly, where Ethiopian monks were there all the time, but it was just a matter of authority, not kicking monks out (although clearly, mistreatment of the monks is evident according to the Ethiopian Church).
posted on Apr 18, 2007 - 03:02 AM
I was wondering if the copticpope.org website is planning an english translation in the Holy Synod rulings. I mean el Keraza is in English, but the Holy Synod to me is nothing but some secret society that only Arabic-reading people can understand unless explained to us Arabic-ignorant people. 
I remember when I was stopped for speeding in NY, they gave me a chart that shows the accuracy of the "meter" that the cop used to clock my speed. Looking at it was like reading a different language, and they expect someone like me to understand it? And who am I to question it? If the Judge said it was okay, then I can't disagree with the Judge, right?
posted on Apr 18, 2007 - 03:57 AM
From minasoliman:I was doing a little search on Deir el Sultan, and there some ambiguous information about it. Does anyone have a "Coptic side" to the story? I've been reading a [perhaps] one-sided Ethiopian view of the situation that voiced both dissent with Israel for mistreating the monastery and those who reside in it, and the Coptic Church for their "manipulations" in trying to take over the monastery.
I stumbled across this story, published in Al-Ahram in May 2002, so it's quite recent. It's an interesting read:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/584/feature.htm
_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).
"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.
In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member
+ To Protect and Preserve +
HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!
Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!
posted on Apr 18, 2007 - 04:08 AM
+Pi`<rictoc aftwnf!
Mina, Long time, mon frere. And Misteka, I missed you, too. :p
lol, I am agog that you would speed, Mina.
Anyway, on to the post:
Re: Coptic side to the story...
Mina, from the same monk that told us about the fact that heads of state should interfere, it was also told us that the monastery was granted to the Ethiopians in exchange for passage way through Ethiopia. During the Suez conflict, they could not pass through Egypt, which had significant impact on trade routes for them. So , they struck a deal with Ethiopia: deir el-Sultan for land passage. Their logic was "since Egypt took the Canal, we'll take Deir el-Sultan"n.
Prayers, please.
_________________
Agapy,
Vortounatoc
Amyn, Maren a;a!
Administrator for Content, Newsletters, and the Book Exchange
coptichymns.net
- a taste of what is Coptic ...
Questions? Comments? E-mail or PM me!
Need help? - Post here. Comment or criticism? - Use our Feedback Form
posted on Apr 19, 2007 - 07:45 PM
From Biboboy:Christ is risen,
If you were the Pope, what would you do?
+++
Truman, your answer is in Matt. 18:15-20, and 1 Cor. 11:27-32. There's more that could be written and provided on this topic alone, but this is sufficient for now.
Sorry, but I do not see anywhere in these scriptures that give a single person or group of people the right/authority to ban Holy Communion except in the most liberal interpretation.
Again, we are told to examine ourselves to judge worthiness.
blessings,
Truman
posted on Apr 20, 2007 - 10:49 PM
Hello,
This is an interesting topic, and I've only had a chance to skim what has been said thus far so forgive me if I repeat something that has already been stated.
It seems that a lot of people take this issue viscerally, and I'm not wholly certain why. I suspect it is because many Copts living in the West do not see the Israeli state in the same light as those living in the Middle East and the rest of the world do.
However, if there is a new point I can offer to the discussion it is this: there are MANY religious denominations, including Muslims, Buddhists, Christians and even some Jews, who have spoken out against the long-standing actions of the Israeli government. One notable example is the Anglican Church which has called for a complete divestment from Israel. Bishop Desmond Tutu--- a truly remarkable role model--- who faced a similar situation of state-sponsored oppression and misery in South Africa noted the many similarities between apartheid South Africa and Israel, and he called for the same treatment of Israel. In my mind I can think of two notable exceptions to the religious denominations which have stood against the Israeli-led aggression in the Middle East. One is many of the Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews--- who are zionists for obvious reasons. The other are Christian Evangelicals in the US and Canada, who seem to me to simply falling in line with the stand taken by their political base. If I was to venture a guess as to why some Copts I know are supportive of Zionist policies it would be because they're in political harmony with the Christian Right on some social topics so they've adopted the others. But as many people in this thread have said, it's important for us to recognize how much time and energy our Church leaders would have devoted to the issue before making a decision. I propose that considering the Israeli issue outside of these two lenses (zionist Jews and the zionist Christian Right) may help us appreciate how the decision was made.
While I am always wary about the mixing of "Church and State," I think there is a big distinction between a religious authority speaking out about some social issue and a political authority invoking religion in his/ her position--- the latter being more problematic in my opinion. Consider when a number of social elements (from religious groups to private businesses to governments) boycotted apartheid South Africa and how stopped the longstanding oppression carried out by a Western supported client government against the indigenous majority. The fact that most of the world has recognized the analogous situation present in Israel shouldn't make us so upset that our church and country feel the same way.
EDIT: Also! I forgot to mention that I think Fortunatus is amazing beyond any parallel. I hope that anyone who missed it would go back and read what he wrote.
posted on Apr 21, 2007 - 12:02 AM
Ummm...I really would like to know what kind of treachery and atrocities the Israelis or their government or army has committed except the act of self-defense against the rampant anti-semitic terrorist attacks of the Middle East?
They need to be a little aggresive dont forget they are surrounded by a bunch of HOSTILE ARABS!!!!!!!!!!!
And by the way Amir, the reason that you mention of why some Copts support the Zionists is not really accurate. I know of a lot of people who support them, like my own father, because they are sick and tired of the rutheless muslims who rule the Middle East. Finally the Jews have come to set up a democratic state where everyone is looked as equals, and where corruption is hard to find, unlike the rest of the Arab world.
posted on Apr 21, 2007 - 12:10 AM
Dear Amir,
The issue of Israel that you presented, in my personal opinion, is extremely one-sided and far from the truth. As I have said in one of my earlier posts, both Israeli side and the Palestinian side are equally guilty.
I wish to find in any Palestinian a Gandhi, a Nelson Mandela, or a Martin Luther King. The more Palestinian terrorists get their way, the more it solidifies the Israeli approach that is so similar to what other unfair countries did. I understand that Palestinians have no financial support, but I believe that all these examples around the world that attest to fighting power of fire with peaceful confrontations rather than fighting fire with more fire showing how powerful the world, even the US, will then respect your needs for independence. Even George W. Bush alluded to his sympathies to the Palestinians at one point in his career, but they just keeping ruining that mental "innocence" image that we always request from them, and it's sad to say that the Palestinians as a whole never even tried to voice their issues themselves other than in physically aggressive means. Until then, the attitude towards either some Palestinians and Israelis that are directly or indirectly involved with these brutal acts that BOTH of them do are outward animal-like, and does not deserve the right for anyone to choose sides (not to mention the cultural and religious influence brought along with both sides as well) regardless of how you're treated by anyone of them.
So, I caution against anyone looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a one-sided lens.
With this in mind, I don't think it's right to excommunicate anyone just because Israelis did something similarly that they do to Palestinians. Consistency shows that you are indirectly supporting Palestinian inhumane actions against Israelis. (There are actions that Palestinians have done against Christians that I myself am ambivalent to whether a "Palestinian state" should be created.) I think people who are supporters of Zionists need to realize the guiltiness of Israel (since they have already realized the guiltiness of Palestine), but I think we need the rest of the world to realize the guiltiness of Palestine and the pressure Israel is under. This is a complicated issue, and it should never be this easy.
So, in the end, it is unfair to compare Israel to South Africa because really, it is hard to find anyone good enough in Palestine to stand against the vociferous sheikhs and imams who call for death to Israel rather than a peaceful coexistence, like those in South Africa rightly did (and sadly really, it lead many people to consider that both of them are animals, let them kill each other and finish each other off).
With that being said, I think it is also well established that the excuse of "safety" for excommunication is not only a poor excuse, but something even His Holiness did not say, and therefore unfounded. I think the debate probably centers on Deir el Sultan. Like I said before, if HH really developed an excommunication based on his political beliefs AGAINST Israel, then I am to question his authority, and he is probably very careful to not allude to that.
God bless.
posted on Apr 21, 2007 - 02:45 AM
mikokiko
that was by far the most ignorant , one sided post i have ever read in my entire life when concerning polotics . to claim that israel is innocent , is sheer insanity on your part .
honestly i also once thought that israel was innocent , .... until i read , and saw with my own eyes .
U.s media distorts the image of the real Israel , i just did a 10 minute presentation in my college about this .
However i dont think your really interested ini debating the crimes of israel . so ill just leave this post now saying , your completely wrong in your opinion about israel . Israel , and palistinians are guilty . 100 % .
And i can prove israel is wrong 100 % .
stop watching bill oriely .
_________________
( insert Cool Signature here , think original )
posted on Apr 21, 2007 - 03:04 AM
Ok, tony, please don't put words in my mouth. Where in my post did I say anything about the Israeli's being innocent? I only gave reasons for some of Israel's main motives, I never dismissed them as an innocent country. Re-read my post. It's just so disapointing to see that so many Copts fall for some of the beliefs that Muslims hold on Israel; that's what I call Islamic influence. That's why I am bringing in a different view here because very few people have had anything good to say about Israel. Let's not be very biased here, the terrorism and attack on Israel in the Middle East is IMMENSE!!! They are going to have to defend themselves in some ways. Maybe you should go see what some of the people who were victims to some of the wars against Israel and some Palestinians have to say like Walid Shoebat and Christian Lebanese Briggette Gabriel. Then maybe youll change your mind a little bit. And lets not call any country 100% at fault here, nobody can be 100% at fault or 100% not at fault, I agree both countries share in the percentage. But Palestine shares in it mostly.
posted on Apr 21, 2007 - 03:17 AM
Tony,
As wrong as I think Mikokiko is, dude--- that's a very disrespectful way of responding. Remember what PaulS wrote earlier on about conducting ourselves as Christians during a discussion.
Mikokiko,
I respectfully disagree about the Middle East, and I'd be willing to discuss why though I think this particular thread might not be the best place for it. (I might be wrong?)
Mina,
I'm sorry if my post came out as one-sided and biased. While I think it's fair to say that I've drawn a set of conclusions on the topic, I've personally tried to seek out an equal set of opinions and writings from every side on the issue. If you'd like to discuss this further (ie. recommend to me other books, journalism, whatever) maybe we can pm each other or email or something along those lines.
My purpose wasn't to start a discussion on who is to blame for the occupation of the holy land (because I assumed that it was already clear that the occupying power is to blame), but just to offer the notion that religious authority habitually speaks out against oppression and that it is an accepted opinion among many religious denominations, human rights groups, NGOs, and pretty much most countries with the notable exception of the US that the Israeli occupation is an act of extreme and unjustifiable oppression.
On a side note, I think there have been a wealth of pacifists, activists, and truly remarkable Palestinian leaders who are analogous to Mandela but who aren't yet publicly recognized as such--- or at least consistently overshadowed. It's interesting that Western nations regarded Mandela and his followers as terrorists before the 80s. I guess my greater point about South Africa was to illustrate that our Church isn't alone among Christians around the world: that Desmond Tutu, a Christian cleric who experienced the worst of Apartheid, has identified the occupation as a de facto apartheid and has called for complete divestment from the Israeli state.
From minasoliman:With this in mind, I don't think it's right to excommunicate anyone [for visiting Jerusalem]
My personal opinion: I entirely agree. I will be the first to admit that I don't know much as you all do about Church doctrine and the specific conditions of excommunication (which is why I like to read and learn from these discussions and articles from time to time), but an excommunication in this case is prima facie counterintuitive to me.
Having said that, I read some of the links you posted about what the Pope has said in interviews: about how he wants Christian and Muslim brothers to walk to Jerusalem hand in hand when the occupation is over. I think that's beautiful. Every Palestinian I know personally (and by the by, most Arabs I know-- Christians and Muslims alike) feel the same way and nothing makes me happier than knowing our church agrees.
Goodnight,
Amir
posted on Apr 23, 2007 - 03:13 AM
Having said that, I read some of the links you posted about what the Pope has said in interviews: about how he wants Christian and Muslim brothers to walk to Jerusalem hand in hand when the occupation is over. I think that's beautiful. Every Palestinian I know personally (and by the by, most Arabs I know-- Christians and Muslims alike) feel the same way and nothing makes me happier than knowing our church agrees.
Earlier, I've alluded to that quote "Christian and Muslim brothers..." in a sarcastic way. Although I still don't like it, I can see it interpreted in another way. Perhaps, it's a political ploy to the Muslims in Egypt to grant us more protection and less distrust, but not to be intended in that political manner when excommunication is the reason. Of course, it still bothers me even if that's the case because, for one thing, this indicates that HH is actually deceiving Muslims into what the Coptic Church's position on Israel is (which is that it is a political nation, and it has (should have) NO position), which is totally political and should have nothing to do with excommunication. Perhaps, the intention of that quote is to relate to the Israeli persecution that shows no boundaries between Christians and Muslims among Palestinians, between the mosques and the churches (Al Aqsa and Deir el Sultan), which superficially, may show "beauty" on account of Egyptian or human unity, but certainly problematic, since it deceives Egyptian Muslims into thinking that it is part of Church dogma and spirituality to condemn Israel by not going to their country for pilgrimages to avoid any distrust from the Muslims.
But even if if HH did not intend it to deceive them, another reason the quote causes a problem to me is a possible shaky and disastrous outcome. What if Israel improves relationship with the Coptic Church, grants Copts the right to the monastery, and even offers financial support to update it, clean it, and fix it, but does not do the same for the Muslims for their own mosque? In that case, either HH has held the Church liable in its relationship with the Muslims in Egypt especially if there is technically no more reason for the excommunication or if excommunication still stands, it would reveal disastrous intentions of political mingling with Church spirituality and dogma in that quote.
It's noble to voice concern (even do something) about any crimes made against any humanity around the world, but I would have refrained from making the analogy of Deir el Sultan to Al Aqsa and of Christian and Muslim "brothers," especially if excommunication is involved. I believe the quote isn't "beautiful" but careless.
God bless.
posted on Apr 23, 2007 - 04:02 PM
Mina, maybe we're looking at this the wrong way.
What if the Pope truly doesn't want people to go to Israel because of Deir Sultan. In addition, he feels it's imperative to view Muslims as our brothers because quite frankly, they live with us in Egypt. And HH wants people to respect our brothers.
So we have an Israeli government who refuses to abide by its own Supreme Court and we have our Muslim brothers suffering (that's not to say they are not at fault. Everyone knows that. But nonetheless, they are still brothers. And in the spirit of love for our brother, we stand by him regardless of his "sins"). The average Copt feels no love to Muslims. In fact, many have disowned any "familial" relationship with them. It is similar to disowning your own brother or sister. (Maybe it's justifiable, but it is definetly not love). So HH, as spiritual leader, wants Copts to learn love rather than anger. He wants to fight for our monestary (regardless of whether the average Copt feels this is worth the fight or not). So he strongly recommends people to publicly show their love for Muslims and publicly acknowedge Israel's wrongdoing. In addition, along with the Synod, he places a ban on Israeli tourism. But people ignore his reasons, feel they know more, feel he is overstepping his fatherly duties and go visit Israel. The only punishment he is allowed and he is authorized to do is to excommunicate those who disobeyed.
When I was growing up and I did really bad things, Abouna banned me from taking communion (excommunicated me) only because I insisted I didn't do anything wrong. And he banned me from communion until he felt I repented. It took months for me to realize I was soooo incredibly wrong.
I believe the same thing happened here. HH wants the monestary back and he wants us to respect our Muslim brothers. When people didn't listen then he enforced the excommunication - in that order. It was a reaction to people's disobedience. It had nothing to do with lying to Muslims. And whether or not he did lie to Muslims is not something we can ascertain without judging him. God knows his heart and God will judge him accordingly. Our speculation only fuels the sin of judging others and pride.
George
posted on Apr 23, 2007 - 04:11 PM
Hey Everyone,
Can someone summerize this topic for someone like me (who hasn't been following it). Your posts seem to go all over the place and I have no way of finding out this topic is about.
It really caught my attention when I noticed that you guys are well over 100 posts.
George Mekhaiel
posted on Apr 23, 2007 - 06:26 PM
Dear George,
I really am looking at all possibilities here. I never looked anything the "wrong way" since that post was speculative on the the possible reasons why HH said that. I even said "But even if HH did not intend..." I don't (shouldn't) exclude any human being from my love, and I'm sure HH is doing the same. But what HH said (possibly said, I still hope he didn't say that, and Al Ahram sometimes does shoddy journalism) even if it's out of love still makes it a careless quote. Even if unintentionally, now the excommunication has to extend towards those who visit until Al Aqsa is restored as well, at least that's what Muslims should expect, and I won't blame them if that's what they expect because of that quote.
So for consistency's sake, if we are to get Deir al Sultan back with all her glory, and yet Muslims are still mistreated, are you suggesting that it's okay to continue excommunications simply because Muslims are our brothers? For one thing, have we forgotten the Egyptian Jews that were kicked out? But for another, this is an unprecedented event, and would have to basically lead us, for consistency's sake, on excommunications around the world of persecutions against people that are considered "brothers." I have equal sympathy to many Israeli Jews that have families that are killed by the stupid and irrational actions of suicide bombers (that is not the "freedom fighting" many Arabs propagandize). Therefore, perhaps, it's my duty as an American Orthodox Christian to call for the excommunication of those who support the Palestinian cause because my innocent Israeli Jewish "brothers" are being killed left and right, women and children included, and I can't forget that (after all on a side note, it's HH's choice that the Coptic Church is not limited to any nation, but ecumenical, and for him to do or say something like this assumes that a Coptic Orthodox should have a nationalistic loyalty to Egypt, regardless of what my government believes, as part of my faith and spirituality, to enforce some sort of "civic duty" to a country that I am not loyal to as part of the rules of the Church!).
It's okay if HH has a huge distaste towards Israel and her government, but to extend this to Copts for excommunicatory purposes changes the quote that he said (if he said it). If it wasn't for excommunication, I wouldn't heavily criticize that quote.
It had nothing to do with lying to Muslims. And whether or not he did lie to Muslims is not something we can ascertain without judging him. God knows his heart and God will judge him accordingly. Our speculation only fuels the sin of judging others and pride.
The quote that HH said makes the excommunication indirectly involving ourselves with the Muslim cause, even if unintentionally. Like I said before, he may have not intended to deceive (I never said "lie"), but once someone opens their mouth, it opens of door of judgment they bring upon themselves, and this quote still carries with it dangerous outcomes of an unrealistic unity with Muslims.
It's one thing to recognize love to our Muslim brothers, and to enforce some sort of private confession father excommunication for the unChristian behavior some Copts have against Muslims. It's another thing to already have an excommunicatory ban on Copts due to Deir el Sultan and making a nationalistic analogy to Al Aqsa, which is what the quote exactly did.
This is what HH allegedly said: "We will not enter Jerusalem again, until we go hand-in-hand with our Muslim and Arab brothers." I think it's important to read this quote again, and think about it in light of excommunication and possible future implications. As the quote unintentionally implies, until Al Aqsa is restored as well as Deir al Sultan, Copts will be excommunicated if they go to Israel. We now find ourselves supporting a heterodox as well as an Orthodox cause that includes excommunication.
God bless.
posted on Apr 27, 2007 - 09:22 PM
Maybe I’m still not thinking straight because of all the exams I just finished… but I don’t understand much of what is being said anymore.
It's another thing to already have an excommunicatory ban on Copts due to Deir el Sultan and making a nationalistic analogy to Al Aqsa, which is what the quote exactly did.
1. I thought al Aqsa mosque was already under Muslim control… am I wrong on that? Anyways, these posts are the first time that I’ve heard of an analogy between the two, I don't really see how that quote does that. From what I understood, the Pope is against the Israeli occupation of the Holy Land and all the injustices that have come as a result thereof--- not just the confiscation of a single holy site.
2. Why exactly are you assuming that the Pope is being duplicitous? It’s fine to disagree, but what’s the deal with raising doubts on his intentions. I don’t think there’s a possibility that he’d use this or any other issue as a “ploy” or “to deceive.”
So for consistency's sake, if we are to get Deir al Sultan back with all her glory, and yet Muslims are still mistreated, are you suggesting that it's okay to continue excommunications simply because Muslims are our brothers?
3. Yes of course. But I think this discussion is starting to get framed incorrectly. Israel doesn’t discriminate, occupy and categorically oppress just the Palestinian Muslims, but all Palestinians. It didn’t just sporadically restrict access to a couple of holy sites, but it habitually puts most of the religious sites in danger or under lock-down because of their own policies. It hasn't invaded, at one point or another, just one of its neighbors to illegally steal land, but all of its neighbors. The issue isn’t that the Pope is favoring the Muslim over the Jew or anything like that. It’s that he’s of the opinion shared by countless Christians, Muslims, and Jews around the world: namely, that Israel’s unlawful and unjustifiable occupation of the Holy Land should stop immediately. I don’t think this stand is (a) that controversial around circles outside of the US and Israel and (b) contingent on our monastery or their mosque (which I think they have control over anyways).
I have equal sympathy to many Israeli Jews that have families that are killed by the stupid and irrational actions of suicide bombers (that is not the "freedom fighting" many Arabs propagandize). Therefore, perhaps, it's my duty as an American Orthodox Christian to call for the excommunication of those who support the Palestinian cause because my innocent Israeli Jewish "brothers" are being killed
4. This is a silly dichotomy. Aside from the fact that the conflict is entirely asymmetrical, being against the occupation doesn’t mean being an apologist for the death of innocent Israelis. Again, think of South Africa. Nelson Mandela lead one of many groups that violently resisted the Apartheid. That didn’t make the Apartheid regime any more supportable, especially because the violence was a direct product of disenfranchisement. It was clear that once the State-sponsored terrorism ended, then the resistance groups would go away. And that’s exactly what happened.
The same will likely happen in Palestine. I have no idea how it can be reasoned that an American Christian (or anyone) should call for excommunication of Palestinian supporters. If anything, Americans should think a little more wisely because they’re in the best position to precipitate the end of this conflict: specifically by pressuring their government to end its indiscriminate support for Israeli aggression against Arabs.
Peace,
Amir
posted on Apr 28, 2007 - 06:20 AM
Dear Amir,
If I'm not mistaken, we were arguing the quote itself, and not the whole issue. You have completely misunderstood and probably skipped over a few of my reasonings about the quote.
1. Then if he is addressing a political position over the issue of the safety of the Palestinians, then you have my utmost disrespect to the decision, because that is truly mixing politics with Church. I think really what he is showing is the issue of Al Aqsa. Apparently, according to what I hear, it seems to me that HH is relating to the Muslims by what happened to the Copts at Deir Al Sultan. If it was for Palestinian safety, as you seem to imply, then we've got issues.
2. I never assumed the Pope was "duplicitous." I never assumed anything. I gave possibilities. In fact, I even gave the possibility of the best of the Pope, that he may indeed have great intentions for the quote, but the quote in and of itself was a bad one. That is what I said and argued.
3. If that is the case, then HH has no authority to excommunicate Copts for such a political position. What you are saying is that HH is therefore mixing politics with spirituality, and that is what I think others have tried to stay away from in the debate earlier in the thread. The debate was focused on Deir al Sultan, and you still come back to the Israeli-Palestinian issue the cause of the excommunication.
4. Let's put aside all debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I gave my opinion, and I don't think any of what you said changes what I said. But besides the fact, I agree for one thing that HH should have a political position, be it for or against Israel. What I am arguing through the last 6 or 7 pages of this thread is to use his power as the Pontiff of a Church to excommunicate anyone who disagrees and disobeys. That is the issue. It's not about politics, it's about excommunication.
With that in mind, I understand you agree that there should be no excommunication. Therefore, I'd like to center the discussion around that, not around the political situation in Palestine. If it wasn't for excommunication, I wouldn't be so vociferous over the matter.
God bless you. 
posted on Apr 29, 2007 - 01:14 AM
Amir, I said that the Patriarch was duplicitous.
Minasoliman, well said. Totally agree.
I was thinking further about this recently and I felt that this whole excommunication actually calls into question something else.
What is obedience? Should we obey blindly? What if our Patriarch is saying one thing and the canons, Scripture, etc say another thing? Is the Patriarch making us choose? Isn't this in effect a moral dilemma? Despite history, the Way has always preached a separation between Church and the world.Even history itself has shown, irrespective of God's abundant mercy and grace that always saves the Church in the end, that the minute patriarchs and ecclesiastical leadership get caught up in politics, the Church suffers.
So, now this is us ignoring both history and the wisdom of the Church. Isn't this self-imposed death?
Mina Demian.
Return to the Forum Index
Powered by the coptichymns.net Network of Coptic Hymns and Coptic Orthodox Sites.
| Total | Daily | ||
| Topics: | 7190 | 3.99 | |
| Users: | 6120 | 3.40 | |
| Posts: | 60540 | 33.60 | |
| macarius323 | |
| mikhail90 |
290 unlogged users and 2 registered users online now.
Already a member? Log in above.
Not a member? Register your unique identity to participate more fully in our site!
