Why is the Coptic Pope based in Cairo and not Alexandria?
Shouldn't the Coptic Pope be based in Alexandria, seeing as we call the His Holiness the Pope of "Alexandria"? And the Coptic Church is called the Church of "Alexandria"? I know there exists the Historical Cathedral of St. Mark in Alexandria but why is the Pope based in the Cathedral in Cairo?
Why and when did this change occur?
The change as made when Cairo became the capital of Egypt. As for when was it done, i'll leave that to someone else to find.
Cairo was built in second half of the 10th century, by the Fatimite Khalif El-Muez LeDin Allah (later baptized in the monastery of Abu Seifen after the Mukatam miracle).
It was built in place of existing "cities" like El-Fustat and El-Kata'3, which were more of camping sites of the islamic armies and the residence place of the arab rulers, and had been the center of political power since the arab invasion.
Cairo became the capital of the Fatimite State in North Africa and the Levant and as such of increasing political importance, which led the 70th Pope Gabriel II (known as Ibn Turek) to officially annex Cairo to Alexandria under his jurisdiction in his papacy (1131 -1145 a.d.). Pope Gabriel II annexed Cairo after the death of her Bishop, Youaness Ibn Senhout.
There are indications that Pope Gabriel II was not the first Pope to try to move to Cairo, but he was the first successful Pope in his attempt.
The residence of all subsequent Popes has been a church in Cairo.
Interestingly enough, the famous theologian and Bishop Boulous El-Boushy in the 13th century, is sometimes referred to as Bishop of Cairo (Egypt) or Babylon (the ancient fortress near Cairo). It is not known whether Babylon was considered outside the geographic limits of diocese of Cairo, but is not likely. It is equally unlikely that Pope Kyrillos III would give up any territory to another bishop, even if it his close friend.
The same is with patriarch of Serbia.
In middle ages his see was town of Pec but when the Turks invaded Serbia after several centuries the see was moved. And that happend two times.
Now Serbian patriarch in his title has that he is archbishop of Pec, but he resides 500km north, in Belgrade.
Several dioceses of Serbian church also in their name has one see, but bishop resides in another.
I believe the Pope is stretched too thin. Covering Cairo, Alexandria, all the areas in the States without a diocesan Bishop seems to be too much. It would seem very difficult if not impossible to provide effective oversight with such a wide span of control.
But the pope is not alone. In the US, he has a patriarchal exarch for North America through Bishop David, a patriarchal exarch for the Eritreans in the US through Bishop Macarius, a suffragan diocese of Virgina through Bishop Michael, and 2 diocese with their respective bishops. He also has general bishops doing work in the US.
In Cairo, there are 12 general bishops who are either suffragan bishops or assistants to the patriarchal throne in Cairo. He also has a patriarchal vicar in Cairo through Hegumen Sergios Sergios.
"Stretched too thin" is a very subjective quality. What exactly is too thin? Are 5 bishops in the US not enough that Pope Tawadros is doing the work himself? Praise God who sent us a shepherd with such vigor and enthusiasm and heart. May God give our pope the strength to do His will always, regardless of where the pope resides.
Complex issues and decisions have still required the involvement of the Pope in some of the areas that you mention that are technically in the Pope's diocese but overseen by bishops.
Sometimes the bishops may even defer the issue entirely to the Pope and ask the church in question to take the issue up with the Pope directly. In the meantime the bishops may avoid visiting or contacting the church in question to avoid getting involved in a situation they feel should only be addressed by the Pope.
Here is where situations can deteriorate. By the time a church is able to actually contact and communicate with the Pope, months if not years usually pass and situations can spiral out of control. A simple issue that could have been resolved with early intervention can be disastrous if left to fester. And this has happened more than once.
HG Bishop Youssef and I believe HG Bishop Serapion visit each church in their diocese at least twice a year if not more and are in constant contact with priests and congregation. They are able to keep tabs on the churches in their diocese. They also have the authority to address issues and make decisions complex or otherwise. I am not so sure the churches in the areas you mention benefit from the same type of regular oversight and ability to sucessfully resolve problems swiftly.
HH Pope Tawadros has shown wisdom in his managerial style and I am confident he will structure church leadership in a way that is most effective - not necessarily the way it was in the past. Just as HH Pope Shenouda showed wisdom in assigning diocesan bishops such as Bishop Serapion and Bishop Youssef, I am sure HH Pope Tawadros will continue to structure leadership effectively.
I think people's issue is that these bishops are all general bishops, and so the Pope is the ultimate diocesan bishop. Since these general bishops cannot ordain their own priests and thus have their authority derived from the Pope, this effectively gives the Pope control over them, giving him control of the Holy Synod (he can count on the votes of the general bishops under his control), and thus moving towards a Roman Catholic monarchal model of the papacy. In ancient times, the bishop of Alexandria was first among equals in Egypt, and still only had one vote in the Synod. Now he effectively has the votes of 30 general bishops plus himself.
Note: this is not personal, I am not saying that Pope Tawadros, or any other previous popes were wrong, I'm just saying that the principle is wrong.
You are right, but it is clear that this will be the hierarchy model for the foreseen future of the Coptic Church.
i have to ask...what would those 'votes' of the general bishops count towards?! ya3ny isn't each of them STILL have their own voice and authority as a bishop in the holy synod. if each diocese only have one bishop vote int he Holy Synod....what about the dioceses that are being broken up more and more through the years as the congregation increases.....is that 'vote' broken up into little parts to?!
Theoretically the general bishops have their own vote of course, but realistically and practically they are not going to go against the Pope, as he is their boss (you do what your boss tells you). It is unheard of until now for a bishop to have a boss.
I don't get the second part of your statement. If dioceses are being broken up, it means that more diocesan bishops are being ordained, and I can see no reason why a full diocesan bishop shouldn't have a vote.
so it's not that a bishop has a vote, it's a diocese bishop.....kool!!!
Actually, in regards to the magisterial model of the Catholic church, I actually heard Metropolitan Pachomious actually say that our church legislation was governed by the magesterium! I was extremely upset that because of the model of leadership which we have experienced, even the teaching of the church fathers has changed to a western ideology.
I see exactly what you are saying but I think it will be different with HH Pope Tawadros. You see, Pope Shenouda ordained myriads of bishops, in some cases general bishops and in some cases he split up other dioceses. He typically ordained people who he knew that their line of thinking was more similar to the "Sunday School movement." This is the first thing. Secondly, most Bishops whom he ordained were his children, or became his children, and felt a deep sense of duty/fidelity to him, not wanting to upset/diagree with him. So yes, Pope Shenouda's synod was clearly a magesterium, and as the head of the magesterium, he had control over the synod.
And I also agree that general bishops should not be given a vote in the synod. Who are they representing? Themselves? Scripture and tradition in the Orthodox church have always grown out of community. But where is the community in Anba Labomba who takes care of the Pope's limousine having a vote in the synod? He represents no-one. If he does represent a group of people, why not just give him the diocese?
This is of course, my opinion.
Qawe, I think your statement is your opinion. But if you think it is fact then the burden of proof is on you to verify its veracity. Do you have any actual evidence that no general bishop would ever or has ever disagreed and voted against the Pope? Do you have any actual evidence that no diocese bishops has ever consistently voted with the pope simply because they did not want to disagree with the pope? You might be correct about general bishops. But we should avoid generalization without actual evidence.
I agree with you that realistically, no one will publicly disagree and fight against the Pope. However, the Synod is neither setup as a pure democracy, nor a a tyrannical monarchal aristocracy. In a democracy, theoretically each person has equal weight in a vote and they are always free to express their views. A monarchal aristocracy, on the other hand, cares nothing for individual freedom. There is no voting in a monarchy. If it was, what's the point of voting at all? The same is true for the Synod. What is the point of voting, if all the bishops were not encouraged to express their views and opinions in ecclesiastical matters through their vote?
(you do what your boss tells you).
I own a business. I am the boss in my office. I can tell you for sure, I would fire an employee who is just a "yes man" and hire someone who has the confidence and courage to keep me inline for the wellness of the business. Any boss will tell you, unless you work in a crappy job that requires no thinking, no good business just wants to mindless employees. They want people who can increase production. They want a person who takes initiative, thinks for themselves and finds solutions (even if it is not what the boss normally expects).
It is unheard of until now for a bishop to have a boss.
Is it unheard of that a bishop is part of a hierarchal system where he is equal among brothers yet all are servants to Christ? Has not Christ been the boss (called Master in liturgical and scriptural language) of all the bishops all along?
Effective leadership brings many moving parts inline to one direction. The moving parts choose not to challenge their leader in every decision if there is positive results. The only ones who question a leader or a leader's system, are (1) those outside the system and (2) those who see negative results or failure. Are we outside the Synod's system or jurisdiction? Is the Synod failing in their job to shepherd Christ's people? Then why do we really care how general bishops vote?
Thank you Remnkemi for your non-polemical reply (not that I expected a polemical reply from you.
However, the Synod is neither setup as a pure democracy, nor a a tyrannical monarchal aristocracy. In a democracy, theoretically each person has equal weight in a vote and they are always free to express their views.
Why should every bishop not have equal weight in a vote? Are they not equal?
What is the point of voting, if all the bishops were not encouraged to express their views and opinions in ecclesiastical matters through their vote?
As a vestige of the past, when bishops were encouraged to express their views and opinions. There is no point in voting if there is a monarchal papacy.
Of course Christ is the head of the church including the bishops. That is what I am arguing for, against what has happened in that we have moved towards the Roman Catholic model where the Pope is the Head of the Church, being Christ's representative on Earth.
You mention 'equal among brothers'. How are they equal if a general bishop cannot ordain priests?
While the Pope is the leader, insofar as he is the chair of the Synod, he is not the decision maker, as is suggested in the bolded part of your post. As first among equals, his position is analogous to that of the See of Rome in the early Church. Thus, he is not their leader in the context of making decisions, such that an opposing opinion should be deemed a 'challenge'.
You are a lot more thoughtful and philosophical than me, so it is possible that I may have misunderstood some of your points. If so, please forgive me.
Qawe, sorry for the late response. Let's discuss this more.
Theoretically, every bishop or every citizen of a governing body should have an equal vote. But no actual democratic system is setup this way. Why? Problems arise. Look at the US presidential process. Every American citizen over 18 is allowed to vote. But the President is not elected by popular votes. He is elected by the electoral college - who legally can vote against their respective popular vote. It has happened about 150 times in the past for many reasons. If the President was elected by popular vote only, a large state with many territories but few people will be counted as a small state with many people. So the founding fathers choose to construct a system whereby each state is represented by an electoral college, regardless of territory. This system makes some states more influential than others. Are not all states equal to the federal government? Yes, in honor but not in particular situations where blind equality would cause problems.
I think the Synod has established a similar hierarchical system. All bishops are equal in honor but not in duties. The general bishop system was assumingly setup to avoid certain problems. Regardless of how fair or untraditional this general bishop system is, it is the system in place. It is still a "democratic" theocratic system (better than a lot of other systems out there). I understand many feel the system will inevitably transform into a theocratic electoral college like the Roman Catholic Church. Probably not. But even if it were to become reality, what is the harm if the system works? What is the harm if changing our system brings better results? If the Synod allows these changes, it must be for a good reason. I would go so far and say unless these changes result in heresy (which by definition is a failed system) it is the Holy Spirit who wants the changes.
This is assuming there is a monarchical system in place. During the nomination process, Bishop Paula interviewed then Bishop Tawadros and specifically wanted him to comment on this misconception. Pope Tawadros' response was along the lines of "There is no competition. There is no 'my way or the highway.' The Pope is servant before he is master." (I'm paraphrasing a few interviews).
Sometimes bishops who discuss their dissatisfaction on certain matters will address it privately with the patriarch. If an amicable solution is not achieved in private, I think any bishop would vote against the majority if this said bishop had valid concerns (ie, pertaining to the specific issue of the vote). I think any bishop is encouraged to express his concerns. I think the majority of issues are resolved privately and when a vote is required in the synod, there is usually no disagreement. I may be naive, but I think this is what has routinely happened in the past.
When Christ chose His disciples, he gave them all equal authority to loose and bind people's sin. There's the equality. However, Christ didn't let all 12 disciples lean on His chest. He gave all His disciples the power to see signs and wonders along with all the people, yet He chose three to see Him transfigured into light. There are so many examples of "preceived favoritism" which isn't favoritism at all. It's a foreshadowing of a hierarchical system of duties and glories. In 1 Corinthians 15, St Paul further stresses this "unity with distinction" in glory and duties. "All flesh is not the same flesh [distinction], but there is one kind of flesh of men [unity], another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies [unity]; but the glory of the celestial is one [distinction], and the glory of the terrestrial is another [distinction]." There is unity and distinction. Both celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies are both created bodies. But there is distinct glory for each. There is distinction because the role of each is needed in God's divine providence. This is what St Paul meant when he said, "However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual." Again, a hierarchical system (in this case, a chronological hierarchy) is setup with a purpose. What is that purpose in this case? "As we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man." The prior duty of earthly life is to lead to death which leads to spiritual eternal life. There is a distinction in duties.
Does this mean we are moving to a system where the Pope is the head of the Church? No. It will never happen in the Orthodox Church. But we should not discourage a system of solidarity with distinction because it is biblical and traditional.
I didn't use the proper words to express my thoughts. My comments were not meant to imply the leader has exclusive decision making authority. Actually, the opposite is implied. Let me put it this way. Leadership by definition is a process where decisions are catalyzed into positive change and improvements. The leader brings about change. His authority as a leader, depending on the hierarchical system again, may or may not involve exclusive or absolute decision making. Most leaders, at least for corporations, simply propose an idea and the board of directors has the final authority for the decision. This leader may not even be part of the board but he is the catalyst that brings about the change. What I meant to focus on was effective leadership. If that leader is really, really effective the board will choose not to challenge the requested change. That doesn't mean the board relinquished decision making authority. It doesn't mean that a challenge to the proposed plan is seen as a challenge to authority. It doesn't mean that any opposing opinion is a challenge to the leader. It simply means the board of directors is so attuned with the leader that they always agree.
The bolded section excluded the first part of the sentence that confirms this line of thought: "The moving parts choose not to challenge". It doesn't mean the moving parts have lost their authority or that any opposition challenges the validity of the leader. The leader will always be the leader if he is effective in bringing positive improvements.
I am the least of all of you. I come here to learn from all of you. There is no need to apologize for constructive criticism and open discussion.
My prayers are for our church and leadership that it continues in peace delivering us to Christ through the Holy Spirit.