I don't know what you're talking about. His Eminence Metropolitan Athanasius is still within the Coptic synod.xOrthodox4Christx said:I asked a similar question about the French Orthodox Church. Didn't get an answer.
He's talking about the WRO under Archbishop German of Saint-Denis. I don't know the exact reasons for their separations, but canonical confusion and hierarchal misbehaviour separated them. Just like, sadly, the Portuguese Catholic Orthodox Church.minasoliman said:
Agreed. I myself am privy to what happened, and I think it best we not disclose them for the forseeable future.GregoryBOC said:The separation of the British Orthodox Church from the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria was an action of the then Primate of the British Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Seraphim, without consultation with or the approval of the Synod of the British Orthodox Church. I was, at the time, a member of the Synod and Chancellor of the British Orthodox Church. I only found out about the break, after the event, via a posting on Facebook. I only subsequently became aware of the real (as contrasted with the public) reasons for what happened, and obtained copies of all the relevant documents. I was, indeed, lied to about what had happened. I have chosen, thus far, not to make the real reasons for the break public out of pastoral concern for those indirectly and inadvertently involved. Only one of the Priests at the time has followed Metropolitan Seraphim into his uncanonical situation. With one of my fellow Priests from that time, I have been involved in trying to provide pastoral support to those who were, and are still, traumatised by the events.
I appreciate that there are those who have a genuine interest in the separation of the British Orthodox Church from the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, as opposed to some worldly enthusiasm for ecclesiastical gossip.
As a church historian, I had long been working on a scholarly history of the British Orthodox Church (making use of its internal archives) from its origins up to and beyond its union with the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate (for which union I was present in Cairo), I accept that recording the historical facts is critical. However, for the present, my commitments as a church historian must take second place as my responsibilities as a pastor.
At some time in the future, I may feel justified in telling the whole story. At present, I do not.
Fr Gregory Tillett
+1Father Peter said:As has been said, there is no great benefit to anyone in speaking in any detail about why the bishop of the British Orthodox Church led a very few people out of canonical Orthodoxy. Most of us remained Orthodox, and had always intended to be Orthodox above all else. Most stayed in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. It is enough to say that it was not due to any negative attitude from the Coptic Orthodox Church. Indeed, since becoming a priest directly under His Holiness Pope Tawadros, in the Patriarchal Diocese, and serving in the Diocese of the Midlands, my experience has been entirely positive, and an overwhelming and unforeseen blessing.
What excites me is the future. I think there will soon need to be the development of more missions and more parishes; there are also converts to the Syriac and Ethiopian churches, and probably the Armenian church as well. I would like to see work done on coordinating the reception of converts into the OO churches, increased liturgical concelebration, and also, perhaps, a system whereby clergy could be trained to serve the liturgy in multiple rites, as many as all four of our rites if they could handle it, and thus be available to serve small isolated ethnic communities and mission parishes, basically being loaned from their "home jurisdiction" to other jurisdictions as needed to help alleviate the priest shortage (which in the Syriac Orthodox Church is a limitation in my diocese at least; some churches have only monthly or occasional services due to the lack of a full time priest, and I believe the Copts have the same problem).Father Peter said:I am so happy to have found such kindness and generosity in the wider Coptic Orthodox community in which I now serve. I am blessed beyond measure in the priests who I count as brothers and friends in my service in Manchester, Liverpool and Stoke on Trent. I am fortunate to be in the care of two wonderful bishops in different ways, Bishop Angaelos and Bishop Mina. I view the time I spent in the British Orthodox Church to have been a necessary means of arriving where I am now. And I do not regret my experiences and service with so many people over the years. I still pray for many people every day. But I am very grateful to God indeed for the place I find myself now. It was unimaginable to me a few years ago. And I am well aware of all the problems our community faces, and all the things that are frustrating and disturbing. But I still choose to be committed 150% to this family in Christ.
Thank you Alpha60, I will resist the urge to enquire further.Alpha60 said:Suffice it to say, qawe. what actually happened had nothing to do with the BOC's vagante mentality or claims of apostolicity deriving from Fr. Jules Ferette; it was simply dark and evil.
The only thing I think we should say about the separation is that it was not driven by any kind of theological dispute, even if the BOC might say otherwise (I recall they tried to spin it as Alexandrian interference on their worship or some nonsense, which was absolutely not the case). The theology and liturgy of the BOC was not the issue.
Ah, my mistake: it was Metropolitan Seraphim's cousin, and not his uncle, HG Hugo de Wilmott-Newman, who ordained HG Richard, Duc de Palatine, who then did the bulk of the work of forming the Ecclesia Gnostica.GregoryBOC said:The claim that “Metropolitan Seraphim is the nephew of the founder of the Ecclesia Gnostica in the US” is blatant nonsense, regardless of who that “founder” is claimed to be (I assume that the reference is to the self-styled “Richard, Duc de Palatine”, born Ronald Powell).