Metropolitan Bishoy of Damietta and the Byzantines

[qawe]

I have seen it claimed online that Met Bishoy revoked the EO-OO Agreed Statements on an unofficial, personal level just after signing them.

Can anyone confirm?

And in general, how do we reconcile his ecumenical activities with his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

If this thread gets dull, feel free to post any anecdotes/stories - shocking or otherwise - about this colourful figure of the Coptic Church.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

And in general, how do we reconcile his ecumenical activities with his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

What kind of ecumenical activities?  What is his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"? 

 

[Severian]

And in general, how do we reconcile his ecumenical activities with his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

What kind of ecumenical activities?

Activities of the ecumenical variety.

What is his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

His attitude towards Byzantine theology would be how he feels about the theology of those Churches which adhere to the Byzantine rite and hold the faith of the Byzantine empire.

 

[minasoliman]

Is there anything he wrote or said that seems to imply his revoking?

 

[qawe]

Is there anything he wrote or said that seems to imply his revoking?

Not that I'm aware of (although I don't read/watch HE much).  The person who claimed that was ReturnOrthodoxy on tasbeha.org IIRC.

But his attitude towards the Byzantines in general is well documented.

 

[minasoliman]

Well, there might be two main issues that His Eminence has beef with the EOs on:  theosis and prayers for the departed (and maybe a little bit on soteriology as well).  At the same time, he also wrote an article about how we should look past semantics and acknowledge that we may have misunderstood one another, an article that, given how uncompromising (to put it lightly) he seems to act in any controversy, sounds quite reasonable.

 

[Severian]

I know some things, but far too embarrassing to share in a public forum.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

And in general, how do we reconcile his ecumenical activities with his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

What kind of ecumenical activities?

Activities of the ecumenical variety.

What is his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

His attitude towards Byzantine theology would be how he feels about the theology of those Churches which adhere to the Byzantine rite and hold the faith of the Byzantine empire.

Non-answers. 

Or, as you might describe them, answers which are provided in order to give the appearance of having answered questions without actually having answered them at all. 

 

[qawe]

And in general, how do we reconcile his ecumenical activities with his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

What kind of ecumenical activities?

Activities of the ecumenical variety.

What is his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

His attitude towards Byzantine theology would be how he feels about the theology of those Churches which adhere to the Byzantine rite and hold the faith of the Byzantine empire.

Non-answers. 

Or, as you might describe them, answers which are provided in order to give the appearance of having answered questions without actually having answered them at all.

I'm not going to play your game, Mor.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

And in general, how do we reconcile his ecumenical activities with his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

What kind of ecumenical activities?

Activities of the ecumenical variety.

What is his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

His attitude towards Byzantine theology would be how he feels about the theology of those Churches which adhere to the Byzantine rite and hold the faith of the Byzantine empire.

Non-answers. 

Or, as you might describe them, answers which are provided in order to give the appearance of having answered questions without actually having answered them at all.

I'm not going to play your game, Mor.

What game?  I was asking serious questions. 

 

[peterfarrington]

His Eminence is presently in the UK taking part in the official dialogue between the OO and the Anglican Church.

 

[TheTrisagion]

His Eminence is presently in the UK taking part in the official dialogue between the OO and the Anglican Church.

To what end?

 

[Severian]

What sort of fruit can possibly come out of OO-Anglican dialogues?

 

[Mor Ephrem]

What sort of fruit can possibly come out of OO-Anglican dialogues?

[seriouscomment]Quite a bit.[/seriouscomment]

 

[Severian]

What sort of fruit can possibly come out of OO-Anglican dialogues?

[seriouscomment]Quite a bit.[/seriouscomment]

Please elaborate.

 

[TheTrisagion]

What sort of fruit can possibly come out of OO-Anglican dialogues?

[seriouscomment]Quite a bit.[/seriouscomment]

Please elaborate.

+1
I don't know much about these dialogues that take place between faith communities. What is the point of them? What do they hope to accomplish?

 

[wgw]

And in general, how do we reconcile his ecumenical activities with his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

What kind of ecumenical activities?

Activities of the ecumenical variety.

What is his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

His attitude towards Byzantine theology would be how he feels about the theology of those Churches which adhere to the Byzantine rite and hold the faith of the Byzantine empire.

Non-answers. 

Or, as you might describe them, answers which are provided in order to give the appearance of having answered questions without actually having answered them at all.

That sounds like my own rhetorical style. 

 

[Mor Ephrem]

What sort of fruit can possibly come out of OO-Anglican dialogues?

[seriouscomment]Quite a bit.[/seriouscomment]

Please elaborate.

[seriouscomment]We have an evangelical obligation to share the Orthodox faith with the non-Orthodox, Christian or not.  We have an evangelical obligation to correct error with truth.  We have an evangelical obligation to work toward bringing those who have drifted away back toward the fold.  As far as I can tell, there is no evangelical obligation to give up on a whole category of people as if they are hopelessly lost and not worth seeking out. 

If that's not enough (and, truth be told, it isn't for most of us, which only reveals our faithlessness), there are other short-term benefits to ecumenical interaction with the non-Orthodox. 

In countries where we are a minority and they are more established, such contacts are helpful for the growth of the Church and for the progress of the community: such contacts helped my own community in securing temporary and even permanent church homes as well as integrating into the greater societal fabric. 

Such contacts are also useful in terms of developing talent: I am friends with a handful of doctoral students whose education is being funded partly or entirely by the non-Orthodox, with no contribution from the Orthodox.  That is the continuation of a legacy that is over a hundred years old: we may reject their faith, we may resent their missionary activities among our own, but they are more willing to help us than we are to help them or even our own.  That extends beyond scholarships and grants and to actual charity. 

Ecumenical meetings often serve indirectly as a neutral zone for Orthodox to meet among themselves.  For example, for a long time now, the only place bishops and other leaders of the Malankara Orthodox Church could meet with counterparts in the Syrian Orthodox Church was at such meetings where both were guests of the non-Orthodox.  If we hosted, they wouldn't come.  If they hosted, we were not invited.  But when we were both guests, we met.  If there is progress in reconciliation today, it is not an exaggeration to claim that this is in part due to such "neutral" meetings.  I think that also holds true when it comes to inter-OO meetings and meetings between the OO and the EO: contacts that might otherwise not have happened did in fact happen in a no-pressure atmosphere, and those contacts have been and continue to be beneficial. 

I could go on, but this is enough.  Too often, we think of ecumenical activity only in terms of the worst aspects of the beliefs of the people we are engaging versus the best aspects of our own faith.  There's a lot more to it than that.  [/seriouscomment] 

 

[Severian]

^Ah, I see. Thank you. This is perhaps the best explanation on the subject I have ever heard.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

And in general, how do we reconcile his ecumenical activities with his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

What kind of ecumenical activities?  What is his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

[seriouscomment]Now that I have begun to use "seriouscomment" tags in order to make it abundantly clear when I am in fact asking a serious question or making a serious comment (and it seems to be working), I would appreciate if the questions above could be addressed.  [/seriouscomment]

 

[Severian]

And in general, how do we reconcile his ecumenical activities with his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

What kind of ecumenical activities?  What is his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

[seriouscomment]Now that I have begun to use "seriouscomment" tags in order to make it abundantly clear when I am in fact asking a serious question or making a serious comment (and it seems to be working), I would appreciate if the questions above could be addressed.  [/seriouscomment]

I think by "ecumenical activities" qawe is referring to the agreed statements/joint commission between our Orthodox Churches and the Byzantine Churches. As far as their theology goes, Met. Bishoy strongly opposed what he perceived to be Byzantine influences in the late Fr. Matthew the Poor.

 

[NicholasMyra]

Well, there might be two main issues that His Eminence has beef with the EOs on:  theosis and prayers for the departed

?

 

[minasoliman]

Nicholas,

Several years ago I came across a short article in a journal of the Coptic Church where it stated that this Church had decided to remove prayers for those held in hell from its service books, since these prayers “contradict Orthodox teaching”. Puzzled by this article, I decided to ask a representative of the Coptic Church about the reasons for this move. Recently I had the possibility to do so, and a Coptic Metropolitan replied that the decision was made by his Synod because, according their official doctrine, no prayers can help those in hell. I told the metropolitan that in the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church and other local Orthodox Churches there are prayers for those held in hell, and that we believe in their saving power. This surprised the Metropolitan, and he promised to study this question in more detail.

During this conversation with the Metropolitan I expressed my thoughts on how one could go very far and even lose important doctrinal teachings in the pursuit of correcting liturgical texts. Orthodox liturgical texts are important because of their ability to give exact criteria of theological truth, and one must always confirm theology using liturgical texts as a guideline, and not the other way round. The lex credendi grows out of the lex orandi, and dogmas are considered divinely revealed because they are born in the life of prayer and revealed to the Church through its divine services. Thus, if there are differences in the understanding of a dogma between a certain theological authority and liturgical texts, I would be inclined to give preference to the latter. And if a textbook of dogmatic theology contains views different from those found in liturgical texts, it is the textbook, not the liturgical texts, that need correction.

Source

We only have one Coptic Metropolitan right now who is involved in these ecumenical dialogues.  Hint:  the subject of the thread

the late Fr. Matthew the Poor.

Metropolitan Bishoy does have a very unhealthy obsession in opposing Abouna Matta al Maskeen, who I think is perhaps the most important Church father today that will come out to be the one all Coptic people in the future will use as a lesson that sometimes, the Pope can be wrong.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

And in general, how do we reconcile his ecumenical activities with his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

What kind of ecumenical activities?  What is his attitude towards "Byzantine theology"?

[seriouscomment]Now that I have begun to use "seriouscomment" tags in order to make it abundantly clear when I am in fact asking a serious question or making a serious comment (and it seems to be working), I would appreciate if the questions above could be addressed.  [/seriouscomment]

I think by "ecumenical activities" qawe is referring to the agreed statements/joint commission between our Orthodox Churches and the Byzantine Churches. As far as their theology goes, Met. Bishoy strongly opposed what he perceived to be Byzantine influences in the late Fr. Matthew the Poor.

[seriouscomment]But Met Bishoy is a signatory to the latest OO/Anglican agreed statement.  I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if his problem is with the EO in particular as opposed to Chalcedonians in general. 

In my own Church, there are some people who were or are involved in ecumenical dialogue who seem to have a particular difficulty with the EO, and it seems to be more of a reaction to difficult interactions with the EO and ascribing motivations to them than it is about their confession, which they freely admit is the closest of all Chalcedonian Churches to our own Orthodox confession.  [/seriouscomment]

 

[Severian]

Metropolitan Bishoy does have a very unhealthy obsession in opposing Abouna Matta al Maskeen, who I think is perhaps the most important Church father today that will come out to be the one all Coptic people in the future will use as a lesson that sometimes, the Pope can be wrong.

You are far more optimistic than I am. Lol.

Oh, and how dare you question our infallible Pope?!!!1!1!1!!!1!!!

 

[minasoliman]

Metropolitan Bishoy does have a very unhealthy obsession in opposing Abouna Matta al Maskeen, who I think is perhaps the most important Church father today that will come out to be the one all Coptic people in the future will use as a lesson that sometimes, the Pope can be wrong.

You are far more optimistic than I am. Lol.

Oh, and how dare you question our infallible Pope?!!!1!1!1!!!1!!!

Well, someone sent me a video of HG Bishop Raphael that does give me some hope.  As long as you have good patristic sources, what can possibly go wrong? (knocking on wood)

 

[qawe]

Metropolitan Bishoy does have a very unhealthy obsession in opposing Abouna Matta al Maskeen, who I think is perhaps the most important Church father today that will come out to be the one all Coptic people in the future will use as a lesson that sometimes, the Pope can be wrong.

You are far more optimistic than I am. Lol.

Oh, and how dare you question our infallible Pope?!!!1!1!1!!!1!!!

Well, someone sent me a video of HG Bishop Raphael that does give me some hope.  As long as you have good patristic sources, what can possibly go wrong? (knocking on wood)

@Severian



EDIT: here's the video for the benefit of other Arabic speakers https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nVkaLBVch44#t=3101

 

[kijabeboy03]

Well, there might be two main issues that His Eminence has beef with the EOs on:  theosis and prayers for the departed (and maybe a little bit on soteriology as well).  At the same time, he also wrote an article about how we should look past semantics and acknowledge that we may have misunderstood one another, an article that, given how uncompromising (to put it lightly) he seems to act in any controversy, sounds quite reasonable.

Why would prayers for the departed be an issue? Do Copts not pray for the dead??

 

[Severian]

Well, there might be two main issues that His Eminence has beef with the EOs on:  theosis and prayers for the departed (and maybe a little bit on soteriology as well).  At the same time, he also wrote an article about how we should look past semantics and acknowledge that we may have misunderstood one another, an article that, given how uncompromising (to put it lightly) he seems to act in any controversy, sounds quite reasonable.

Why would prayers for the departed be an issue? Do Copts not pray for the dead??

We do

 

[kijabeboy03]

What's the problem then?

Well, there might be two main issues that His Eminence has beef with the EOs on:  theosis and prayers for the departed (and maybe a little bit on soteriology as well).  At the same time, he also wrote an article about how we should look past semantics and acknowledge that we may have misunderstood one another, an article that, given how uncompromising (to put it lightly) he seems to act in any controversy, sounds quite reasonable.

Why would prayers for the departed be an issue? Do Copts not pray for the dead??

We do

 

[Severian]

^The debate is over whether or not said prayers change the eternal state of the soul being prayed for.

 

[Fabio Leite]

As far as I can tell, there is no evangelical obligation to give up on a whole category of people as if they are hopelessly lost and not worth seeking out. 

Actually there are lots of it.

But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say,
‘Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’
I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city.

Luke 10:10-12

10 Wherefore I was displeased with this generation, And said, They do always err in their heart: But they did not know my ways;

Hebrews 3

10 “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.

11 “Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’

12 “But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’

Matthew 25

24 I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’”

Luke 14

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Matthew 7:6

18 Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, 19 holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

1 Timothy

The key passage about dealing with heretics and heterodox though is, imo, this one:

And he sent messengers before his face. And having gone they entered into a village of the Samaritans that they might make ready for him.
And they did not receive him, because his face was {turned as} going to Jerusalem.
And his disciples James and John seeing {it} said, Lord, wilt thou that we speak {that} fire come down from heaven and consume them, as also Elias did?
But turning he rebuked them {and said, Ye know not of what spirit ye are}.
And they went to another village.

Luke 9:52-56

We know that Samaritans were used as an example of honest faith. We know that Jesus talked to them always giving a straight witness calling them out of their mistakes. And here we see not apostolic successors, but the Apostles themselves being overzealous - they would be called fanatics - because they wanted to see the samaritans destroyed. Jesus properly tells them that such extremes are demonic in nature, but He does not enter the Samaritan village with the Apostles.

Jesus teaching about the heterodox is very clear: because they are serious about their faith and many times even more faithful than those who are doctrinally correct, they are not to be treated as enemies of God. You can and should meet with them to deal about everyday things of life like doing business, but when meeting with them about theological issues, the witness has to be firm and outright: leave your mistakes and come to the fullness of truth.

The same rebuke to "fire from the sky" kind of zeal was expressed in another passage, the Parable of Tares, where Jesus affirm very clearly that any attempt at fixing the problem of coexistance of virtues and sins, correct and wrong doctrines, orthodoxy and heresy is doomed to failure because they will exist to the end of time when God Himself will set each apart (and not unite them).

The problem with unionist ecumenism is that because of praying for a fire from the sky to destroy the heretics, they argue that tare and wheat, samaritans and jews are deep down the same thing. But like the zealots, they are trying to fix a problem that Jesus said is not to be fixed and will not be fixed before the end of the world.

 

[FatherGiryus]

Well, there might be two main issues that His Eminence has beef with the EOs on:  theosis and prayers for the departed (and maybe a little bit on soteriology as well).  [snip]

While I'm not sure about the former, I was always under the impression that we were on the same page as the latter.

Can you explain this more?  How do OO understand prayers for the departed in a way different from EO?

 

[Mor Ephrem]

The key passage about dealing with heretics and heterodox though is, imo, this one:

And he sent messengers before his face. And having gone they entered into a village of the Samaritans that they might make ready for him.
And they did not receive him, because his face was {turned as} going to Jerusalem.
And his disciples James and John seeing {it} said, Lord, wilt thou that we speak {that} fire come down from heaven and consume them, as also Elias did?
But turning he rebuked them {and said, Ye know not of what spirit ye are}.
And they went to another village.

Luke 9:52-56

We know that Samaritans were used as an example of honest faith. We know that Jesus talked to them always giving a straight witness calling them out of their mistakes. And here we see not apostolic successors, but the Apostles themselves being overzealous - they would be called fanatics - because they wanted to see the samaritans destroyed. Jesus properly tells them that such extremes are demonic in nature, but He does not enter the Samaritan village with the Apostles.

Jesus teaching about the heterodox is very clear: because they are serious about their faith and many times even more faithful than those who are doctrinally correct, they are not to be treated as enemies of God. You can and should meet with them to deal about everyday things of life like doing business, but when meeting with them about theological issues, the witness has to be firm and outright: leave your mistakes and come to the fullness of truth.

The same rebuke to "fire from the sky" kind of zeal was expressed in another passage, the Parable of Tares, where Jesus affirm very clearly that any attempt at fixing the problem of coexistance of virtues and sins, correct and wrong doctrines, orthodoxy and heresy is doomed to failure because they will exist to the end of time when God Himself will set each apart (and not unite them).

The problem with unionist ecumenism is that because of praying for a fire from the sky to destroy the heretics, they argue that tare and wheat, samaritans and jews are deep down the same thing. But like the zealots, they are trying to fix a problem that Jesus said is not to be fixed and will not be fixed before the end of the world.

Hi Fabio,

While I don't share all your views on ecumenism, I do share some of the concerns underlying them.  Even so, I think you're allowing your opposition to ecumenism colour how you interpret the passages you cited in your post. 

Limiting myself to the "key passage" above, I think you are leaving out of your analysis an important point: the determination of Christ to go to Jerusalem to be received up.  This is how the story is introduced--which introduction you omitted--and his orientation toward Jerusalem is mentioned twice with the same words, almost as a formula.  Additionally, this story occurs more or less right after Luke's account of Jesus' teaching on the cross and the event the Transfiguration, where we are told Moses and Elijah spoke with him of his exodus which was to be accomplished in Jerusalem.  It happens after they "had come down from the mountain", and after Jesus' prediction of his betrayal and death, which is itself sandwiched between accounts of exorcism (cf. I John 3.8 ). 

I would suggest to you that your other passages can also be understood in context as being about at least a lot more than (if not about something else entirely from) Jesus' encouragement of Fabio in his disapproval for Brazilian ecumania. 

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Well, there might be two main issues that His Eminence has beef with the EOs on:  theosis and prayers for the departed (and maybe a little bit on soteriology as well).  [snip]

While I'm not sure about the former, I was always under the impression that we were on the same page as the latter.

Can you explain this more?  How do OO Copts understand prayers for the departed in a way different from EO?

Fixed.

 

[FatherGiryus]

Well, there might be two main issues that His Eminence has beef with the EOs on:  theosis and prayers for the departed (and maybe a little bit on soteriology as well).  [snip]

While I'm not sure about the former, I was always under the impression that we were on the same page as the latter.

Can you explain this more?  How do OO Copts understand prayers for the departed in a way different from EO?

Fixed.

OK, thank you... now you explain why it's fixed...  8)

 

[Fabio Leite]

The key passage about dealing with heretics and heterodox though is, imo, this one:

And he sent messengers before his face. And having gone they entered into a village of the Samaritans that they might make ready for him.
And they did not receive him, because his face was {turned as} going to Jerusalem.
And his disciples James and John seeing {it} said, Lord, wilt thou that we speak {that} fire come down from heaven and consume them, as also Elias did?
But turning he rebuked them {and said, Ye know not of what spirit ye are}.
And they went to another village.

Luke 9:52-56

We know that Samaritans were used as an example of honest faith. We know that Jesus talked to them always giving a straight witness calling them out of their mistakes. And here we see not apostolic successors, but the Apostles themselves being overzealous - they would be called fanatics - because they wanted to see the samaritans destroyed. Jesus properly tells them that such extremes are demonic in nature, but He does not enter the Samaritan village with the Apostles.

Jesus teaching about the heterodox is very clear: because they are serious about their faith and many times even more faithful than those who are doctrinally correct, they are not to be treated as enemies of God. You can and should meet with them to deal about everyday things of life like doing business, but when meeting with them about theological issues, the witness has to be firm and outright: leave your mistakes and come to the fullness of truth.

The same rebuke to "fire from the sky" kind of zeal was expressed in another passage, the Parable of Tares, where Jesus affirm very clearly that any attempt at fixing the problem of coexistance of virtues and sins, correct and wrong doctrines, orthodoxy and heresy is doomed to failure because they will exist to the end of time when God Himself will set each apart (and not unite them).

The problem with unionist ecumenism is that because of praying for a fire from the sky to destroy the heretics, they argue that tare and wheat, samaritans and jews are deep down the same thing. But like the zealots, they are trying to fix a problem that Jesus said is not to be fixed and will not be fixed before the end of the world.

Hi Fabio,

While I don't share all your views on ecumenism, I do share some of the concerns underlying them.  Even so, I think you're allowing your opposition to ecumenism colour how you interpret the passages you cited in your post. 

Limiting myself to the "key passage" above, I think you are leaving out of your analysis an important point: the determination of Christ to go to Jerusalem to be received up.  This is how the story is introduced--which introduction you omitted--and his orientation toward Jerusalem is mentioned twice with the same words, almost as a formula.  Additionally, this story occurs more or less right after Luke's account of Jesus' teaching on the cross and the event the Transfiguration, where we are told Moses and Elijah spoke with him of his exodus which was to be accomplished in Jerusalem.  It happens after they "had come down from the mountain", and after Jesus' prediction of his betrayal and death, which is itself sandwiched between accounts of exorcism (cf. I John 3.8 ). 

I would suggest to you that your other passages can also be understood in context as being about at least a lot more than (if not about something else entirely from) Jesus' encouragement of Fabio in his disapproval for Brazilian ecumania.

I know the passages refer to much more. My point is that Jesus did draw line in dealing with the heterodox, which existed in His time on Earth, like the samaritans, and that those passages do work as legitimate references to address the subject.

I also notice that Jesus teaching about heretics and even non-Jews (the equivalent of non-Christians) are far more nuanced than more zealous groups would like to admit but at the same time a bit less tolerant than most ecumenists would appreciate.

He was willing to acknowledge their faith, their character, to talk to them, to defend them from zealots, to grant them favors and even miracles, but when they got to strict theological discussions He was adamant on teaching them very clearly - and kindly - that they had to convert, even when divisions happened due to historical misunderstandings or human limitations. It is also very clear that He was far harsher with hypocrites who pretended to be "hyperdox Jews" than with the heterodoxes of that time.

That is what I try to stand for more or less succesfully depending on the occasion.

I liked the phrase "Brazilian ecumania".

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Well, there might be two main issues that His Eminence has beef with the EOs on:  theosis and prayers for the departed (and maybe a little bit on soteriology as well).  [snip]

While I'm not sure about the former, I was always under the impression that we were on the same page as the latter.

Can you explain this more?  How do OO Copts understand prayers for the departed in a way different from EO?

Fixed.

OK, thank you... now you explain why it's fixed...  8)

I don't really know a lot about the issue.  My sense is that this has less to do with standard prayers for the departed and more with the prayers "for those in hell" in services like that of Pentecost.  Is hell Hades or Gehenna?  Can prayer for people in Hades help save them?  What about prayer for those in Gehenna? 

The standard prayers for the departed in all OO traditions don't really make sense if there is not some possibility that those we pray for can be saved by them.  This issue seems to be about a very particular application of this principle, whether and to what extent it is possible, how it entered into the liturgical tradition if it is erroneous, whether or not to remove it, etc.     

 

[FatherGiryus]

I liked the phrase "Brazilian ecumania".

From Brazilian barbecue to Brazilian jui-jitsu to Brazilian waxing (let's not forget Brazilian off-duty cop videos), I'd say the 'Brazilian' and 'mania' are synonyms.    8)

 

[minasoliman]

Well, there might be two main issues that His Eminence has beef with the EOs on:  theosis and prayers for the departed (and maybe a little bit on soteriology as well).  [snip]

While I'm not sure about the former, I was always under the impression that we were on the same page as the latter.

Can you explain this more?  How do OO Copts understand prayers for the departed in a way different from EO?

Fixed.

OK, thank you... now you explain why it's fixed...  8)

Father bless!

The Coptic Church has went through a period of Patristic ignorance, adopting Latin theology, removing only those things perceived to be anti-Orthodox from Latins by using Reform theology.  Since St. Habib Girgis however, there has now been a "Coptic Renaissance" in many things, including liturgical rediscovery, theological rediscovery, etc.

HH Pope Shenouda was part of this revolution, but he inherited some of that previous pre-Habib theology that is not completely patristic.  And so using logic and interpretation from the Scriptures, along with an anti-Latin pre-supposition from whatever other Latin-influenced teachings he inherited (for instance, his views on salvation is very much heavily influenced by Anselm, i.e. the "infinite sin" idea), he perceived that praying for those in Hades would fall in general agreement with the Latin doctrine of purgatory, and wrote against it, even to the point of leading the Holy Synod to remove some liturgical areas that teach contrary to his own opinion on this issue.

I typed some more, but I thought the rest is unnecessary.  I think, if you like, I can just PM you some more info.