coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

minasoliman

posted on Apr 29, 2007 - 09:42 PM

Dear Misteka,

That's assuming he is mixing politics and church (I hope this is a situation that is only centered around Deir el Sultan). But regardless, I look at it this way. I'm not going to rebel or "make a statement" by disobeying the Pope. Nothing the Pope commanded has really forced me to be a heterodox. This is not an essential part of the faith (which is why I also question the excommunication). It's okay to address the situation when you disagree with it. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong with questioning these specific actions of HH. I totally respect him in so many aspects, and I think he is a wonderful leader in these aspects, but when it came to this, obviously I disagree.

With this in mind, if it came out to indeed mixing politics and Church by actually supporting the Palestinian cause, then although I won't go to Israel still, my voice of dissent would be much stronger than it is now, and not just a simple forum discussion.

I think at the moment, since this is not a major matter of potential chaos in the Church, this is not a much-discussed issue (interestingly enough, it seems that most of the Church in the diaspora is surprised of this decision, as they never heard of it before). I have faith in the Synod that if the issue becomes quite chaotic, that they know what to do collectively.

And the worst thing that can happen is indeed the Church may crumble a bit or a lot, but the good thing is that this is not a first, and a crumbling Church can always rebuild herself by the grace of God learning from her mistakes, hopefully. We just have to do what's right, doing God's will at all times and in all places. Sometimes, it might actually take a crumbling Church to make her stronger.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

kastor999

posted on Apr 29, 2007 - 10:37 PM

WELL SAID SHENOUTE

Joined: Apr 21, 2003 | Posts: 51
Location: new jersey

Biboboy

posted on Apr 30, 2007 - 12:03 AM

Christ is risen,

Shenoute and kastor, I think this is an important topic to be aware of and discuss, so that's why it hasn't been locked. It's not a matter of objecting to the Pope's wishes, attacking our Church's authorities, or even starting a revolution within the Church. The posters in this thread who are questiong the Pope's orders stated that they have no such bad intentions against the authority of the Church. The thread is open in order to seek understanding, and there's nothing wrong with that. If it does turn out to go against Church authority (and hopefully it wouldn't), it will be locked, as the Disclaimer states.

minasoliman, I'm wondering if you considered what I said earlier concerning the difference between excommunication and anathema?

Sin -> excommunication
Heterodoxy -> anathema

If someone goes to Jerusalem in disobedience of Pope Shenouda and the Holy Synod, they're excommunicated. This is not the same as the anathema of heterodoxy.

This distinction, I guess, might help you figure out this conflict.

_________________
"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!

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 722

cyriliv

posted on Apr 30, 2007 - 01:51 AM

Christ is Risen

One question: This excommunication is only from the Church of Alexandria, correct? So, if I wished to go to the Holy Land (which I personally am ambivalent to), could I still commune in another Orthodox Church?

Indeed, He is Risen.
Kerellos

Joined: Mar 19, 2003 | Posts: 155
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Amir

posted on Apr 30, 2007 - 03:55 AM

Hello Mina,
I didn't skip your reasoning, sorry if it came out to seem like that. I think we can agree that our point of disagreement is on whether the pope is making a statement solely on the monastery or on the greater issue of Israeli oppression. My post wasn't written just to stir up a political discussion but to show why I thought it was clear that our position against visiting Israel is not entirely contingent on Israel's theft of our monastery, but rather on Israel's longstanding oppressive occupation. Let me state some reasons for my conclusion:

-When questioned about the monastery, the Pope in addition to stating the facts (that Israel went so far as to violate its own court rulings to engage in the theft) always brings up the greater issue of Israeli aggression.

-This article is the only one I've found mentioning an explicit contingency on the ban. It says that we do not visit East Jerusalem as long as it is under Israeli control. I think the article clearly makes "it" refer to East Jerusalem and not just one monastery in East Jerusalem.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... d%20Belief

-Our Church is not in the business of deception or making ploys. No question about it. That's not something a church leader is ever wont to do, it's such a minute possibility that it's not worth considering, in my opinion. So if the pope was only concerned with the wrongs against Copts (ie. the monastery) and not the wrongs against the indigenous population of the land and the sanctity of the Middle East in general, then the Pope would have made that explicitly clear instead of flanking this discussion with Israeli lawlessness.

-The notion of our monastery being analogous to Al Aqsa simply doesn't make much sense to me because for one thing the Pope doesn't usually mention al Aqsa in those articles. More importantly (as far as I am aware) Palestinian Muslims already control al Aqsa. So we can't be waiting for Muslims to get back what they already have. Rather the only thing we can be waiting for is for all Palestinians (Christians and Muslims alike) to get back their rightful property and for Israel to end the longest running military occupation in modern history.

Now, it's been stated multiple times that the Pope's stand on Israel can't be the real issue here because it would mean mixing politics with the Church... so I'd like to delineate one last thing. Anyone who knows me can attest to how I love secular societies. We can agree that it is wrong for the government to openly advocate one religion above others. But that is not the same as the Church speaking out against some clear social violation. I'd find it seriously problematic if the Church supported a political party or politician in a race, but this is not like that at all. Explain how this is different than our Church's social reaction to abortion or homosexual marriage, for example.

Countless religious denominations and clerics have spoken on an official capacity against the occupation without finding it as a contradiction in Church and State separation; including the World Council of Churches, Methodist, Presbyterian, United, Anglican who have all called for an economic boycott of Israel. Not to mention Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.

Joined: Jul 04, 2003 | Posts: 28
Location: Canada

Shenoute

posted on Apr 30, 2007 - 04:38 AM

My dear friend Bishoy,

that is exactly what is happening - objections against H.H.'s decision, and the questioning of H.H's position. It seems like a new trend these days is to question the validity of an authoritative figure and/or the decision.

Pray for H.H. Pope Shenouda III and his children the bishops, who strive to shepherd the flock of Christ in peace, and for the peace of the Coptic Orthodox Church of God.


Pray.

Joined: Apr 29, 2007 | Posts: 8
Location: Toronto, ON

minasoliman

posted on Apr 30, 2007 - 11:42 PM

Dear Bishoy,

I think I may have alluded to the argument, but in any case, let me explain what I think.

Before you explained it in that manner, I never really differentiated the two. What I do differentiate is "two types" of excommunication, one in which a priest has the duty to remit someone's sins so as not to partake of the Eucharist (in punishment of their sins) and one who teaches heterodoxy. Spiritual and dogmatic excommunications I suppose are analogous to what you define respectively as "excommunication" and "anathema."

With that in mind, very early in the thread, I said that the only rational I have with the issue if someone disobeys the Pope. As they say, "Ibn el Ta'a yi hil 3ali al baraka." And since the decision does not really affect my spirituality or Orthodoxy, then I feel it's better that we obey. Nevertheless, I wonder what exactly is the sin in going to a country for pilgrimage purposes? Why the excommunication? That's what bothers me. I'd respect the decision more if it was a call for a boycott, not an actual "Synodical ban".

Dear Amir,

I'm pretty confused. Earlier you agreed with me that no one should excommunicate based on these issues. Now, I'm not sure what you're arguing. It's different to have a political voice. But for this voice to turn into excommunication to anyone who disagrees, then that is what I call mixing politics with the Church.

For example, homosexuality is considered wrong in the Church, but some Orthodox Christians believe it is every person's right to whether they want to be homosexual or not, and not to make a political ban on their behavior. If the Pope disagrees, should he then excommunicate those Orthodox Christians for disagreement and disobedience?

In addition, the "article" that you gave is a poor one. It's only one paragraph, and it doesn't quote anything from what HH said.

For the reasons of the excommunication, I do believe it is Deir al Sultan, and that this quote most probably only relates, but not extends the excommunication, to unlawful Israeli occupation of the Palestinians. But what I argued is that since excommunication is involved, the quote indeed makes it seem like the excommunication is, as you say, for the Palestinian cause. To this, if a true intention, I consider this a mixing of politics and Church, and I would question the Pope's Orthodoxy.

As for the "ploy," I don't want to think of it as a ploy, but I did not want to remove it as a possibility, considering our position among the Muslims of Egypt. The reason why I said it might be a ploy is to the end that justifies the means of adding Muslim support to our cause, the end being pressuring the President of Egypt to help us regain our monastery back. I'm pretty much saying that this is a "political ploy" as many politicians do to get to their goal, and the way this has been explained to me by that monk Mena mentioned has these characteristics of a "political ploy".

As for Al Aqsa, there was an "Al Aqsa Intifada" that ended in 2005. I'm not sure if this end marks some sort of agreement towards the mosque, or if the mosque had nothing to do with it. I'll have to do some reading on it, but according to the monk Mena mentioned, the quote concerning our Muslim brothers seemed to have indicated relating our issues with Muslims' issue of Al Aqsa, or as that monk put it, their "mega-mosque".

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

bigpun230

posted on May 02, 2007 - 09:59 PM

i agree with mina soliman...very insiteful

Joined: Dec 22, 2006 | Posts: 38

Amir

posted on May 04, 2007 - 06:08 PM

From minasoliman:Earlier you agreed with me that no one should excommunicate based on these issues. Now, I'm not sure what you're arguing.

I said that I don't know much about excommunication (or rather, as much as most people who read these threads), but at first glance to me the means used by our Church in this case seems counter-intuitive. It's still quite muddled to me why/ when an excommunication "should" be used, and maybe as a result I don't instantly see why the means here are such a big deal considering the just ends.

My last post argued what I thought was the central issue in this discussion: what our Church's stand is actually about. I was saying that no such analogy can exist between Deir el Sultan and al Aqsa mosque because, among all those other reasons, the Palestinians have had full control over the mosque for quite some time (I don't think they've ever actually lost it). What they don't control is East Jerusalem along with the rest of the West Bank, and so that's the injustice we're in solidarity with.

The intifada didn't end in 2005, it's still happening now. And it's only relation to the mosque is because it started with Ariel Sharon's provocative trip to the al Aqsa site back in 2000, so I presume that's why they named it after the mosque.

Joined: Jul 04, 2003 | Posts: 28
Location: Canada

tonyhabibi

posted on May 05, 2007 - 02:17 AM

MEMRItv.org

Patriarch Shinoda III:
i have prevented the Copts from visiting Jerusalem because of my faith and for [various] reasons, and I don't care about the consequences. First of all, many Copts want to visit Jerusalem. If I permitted this, dozens of thousands would go.

Interviewer: They yearn to go to Jerusalem.

Patriarch Shinoda III: If dozens of thousands go to Israel, they will be influenced by the Israeli media, and we will not be able to prevent this. Who knows what ideas they will return with? That's one thing. In addition, this will revive Israel in terms of economy and propaganda. Israel will be the one to benefit from this, not them

_________________
( insert Cool Signature here , think original )

Joined: Apr 09, 2004 | Posts: 1220
Location: IN THE back of your mind .navagating through your heart , resting in your soul .

minasoliman

posted on May 07, 2007 - 06:21 AM

First of all, if I'm not mistaken, the Memri video shows that HH Pope Shenouda does not know what the Vatican issue about the "apology" is. If I'm not mistaken, the Vatican apologized for its European history of anti-Semiticism, and has nothing do with with the Jews spilling Christ's blood.

Second, while the interview sounds like it makes HH an anti-Israeli and an anti-Semite (since MEMRI really seeks nothing but showing the anti-Semitism that exists in Arabs), which I do have my deepest feelings that MEMRI may sometimes like to take things out of context, I'd like to read the whole context of the interview. What type of Israeli deceptive "media" is he worried about? Something against the Coptic Church or something against Arabic nationalism? Still, I hesitate to attack this because it has not shown what exactly is he afraid from Israeli media of.

Third, since there are "various" reasons, I'd like to know what they are, and the Coptic people I feel have a right to know what the reasons of excommunication may be. Before people will come and say "right?, this ain't no democracy," I think it's very important that when one gets anathematized from a heresy or excommunicated from spiritual conduct, that there are reasons, and these reasons should help us understand the position better, and perhaps support HH rather than accuse him of mixing politics with Church. You cannot punish someone who doesn't even know the reason of his crimes, and you can't expect to set a punishment if the reasons are not told or elucidated.

Dear Amir,

My last post argued what I thought was the central issue in this discussion: what our Church's stand is actually about.

This is quite interesting, and I hope this might take a new lead into the debate rather than beating on a dead horse.

What exactly does it mean to have a "stand in the Church?" For example, the Church's stand is to be against homosexuality, but is it to be against the laws of permitting homosexuality or "civil unions"?

I've alluded to this before, but I've never seen anyone really debate this one or perhaps challenge my premises.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748