Traditions of Selecting Coptic Patriarchs Over Two Millennia

JournalofCopticStudies 16 (2014) 139–153 doi: 10.2143/JCS.16.0.3066725

TRADITIONS OF SELECTING COPTIC PATRIARCHS OVER TWO MILLENNIA

BY SAAD MICHAEL SAAD, NARDINE SAAD RIEGELS AND DONALD A. WESTBROOK

Abstract From the earliest days of the Coptic Orthodox Church to the 2012 election of Pope Tawadros II, the methods of selecting 118 Coptic patriarchs have been mul- tifarious and in some aspects unique in the history of Christendom. Existing scholarship on the traditions of Coptic patriarchal selection often includes generalizations in place of rigorous statistical analysis. This study remedies the deficiency through historical and quantifiable analysis of the methods of patriarchal selection over the nearly two thousand-year history of the Coptic Orthodox Church. The following eight methods of selection were identified in order of frequency: consensus among clergy and laity, election by the presbyters of Alexandria, appointment by predecessor, election by laity acting alone, casting of lots among final nominees, governmental interference, divine appointment or vision, and election by bishops acting alone. Despite the variety of methods — and despite the social and political trials of the Copts — a democratic thrust has continued to exert itself, with the most recent patriarchal election being no exception. The study also includes critical examination of the current patriarchal election law, decreed in Egypt in 1957, which formalized casting of lots among the top three elected candidates.

Introduction

Throughout the history of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, the ordination of a new patriarch or pope has represented an inflection point in ecclesiastical life. The candidate chosen for the highest hierarchical office in a church can hold that position for decades and be instrumental in the theological and sociopolitical direction of the Christian community he oversees. The selection process, therefore, has been invariably subject to internal and external political and social forces, has varied widely among different churches, and has developed significantly over time. The two-millennia history of Alexandrian patriarchs is an important case in point that merits scholarly and ecumenical attention. It is important to understand the historical and theological dimensions of the office of Coptic patriarch that have influenced the process of his

997680.indb7680.indb 139139 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 140 S.M. SAAD – N.S. RIEGELS – D.A. WESTBROOK

selection. Copts trace the succession of their patriarchs back to Mark the Evangelist (Meinardus 1999: 28-9). Furthermore the Alexandrian patriarch, particularly in the first five centuries, played a major role in shaping Christianity through theological exposition and leadership in ecumenical councils. In addition the Coptic patriarch has served as the spiritual leader of the largest Christian community in the Middle East, one which has perennially been subject to religious and ethnic persecu- tion. During the past fifty years this role has expanded as the Coptic Church has increasingly become a global entity through immigrant com- munities worldwide (Saad 2010, Saad 2014). This study1 examines the selection methods of the 118 Coptic patriarchs and attempts to discover themes such as consensus and democracy as well as submission to the perceived will of God. For example, History ofthePatriarchs, one of the earliest pieces of Coptic historical literature available, makes repeated reference to consensus by ‘the people’ as a means by which patriarchs were chosen. The study also explores the current patriarchal election law, decreed in 1957, and critically discusses its contents in light of biblical, apostolic, patristic, and historical traditions that may support its philosophy and articles. Existing scholarship often includes generalizations about the traditions of Coptic patriarchal selection. This shortcoming is compounded by the fact that no work has so far addressed a topic of such enormous scope systematically, critically, and quantifiably. Therefore, this study puts forward an analysis supported by statistical and social scientific examination of the patriarchal selection methods. Were they simple or sophisticated, democratic or dictatorial, secret or transparent, clerical or congregational? How immune were the methods from political maneuvering and external forces?

Methodology of Research and Categorization

To achieve this task, we researched the selection methods of all 118 patriarchs and identified corresponding principles and traditions. We created eight separate categories for these methods, as displayed in Table 1 where the patriarchs are represented by their numeric succession. Not surprisingly, there were several patriarchal elections in which more than one

1 Preliminary findings of this study were published earlier (Saad and Saad 2001). Since then, further research and newer publications have broadened and improved the historical- statistical analysis, and expanded and refined the conclusions.

997680.indb7680.indb 140140 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 TRADITIONS OF SELECTING COPTIC PATRIARCHS 141

method was at play. Those cases are listed under the method decisively employed. In each of these cases, selection of the patriarch is to be dis- tinguished from the rite of ordination or consecration, which occurred by the laying on of hands after the selection process. The chief sources consulted were The CopticEncyclopedia(CE), now available as part of the web-based Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia at www.cgu.edu/cce; the Coptic liturgical book the Synaxarion (R. Coquin and A. Atiya, CE: 2171-90); HistoryofthePatriarchs, one of the most cited references of Coptic historical literature available (J.D. Heijer, CE: 1239-42); and the 3-volume series, ThePopesofEgypt, by Davis (2004), Swanson (2010), and Guirguis and van Doorn-Harder (2011). Due to limitations of available source materials, we could not determine the selection methods of 25 of 118 patriarchs nor could we discover any new selection method beyond our eight categories in Table 1. Often, biographies of the patriarchs do not mention how each was selected, and if mentioned the story is commonly simplified. This research is thus open to completion by others. Below are the highlights of our research findings for the 93 known elections.

Methods of Coptic Patriarchal Selection

Method 1: Election by Consensus Among Clergy and Laity

Of the 93 patriarchs with known methods of selection, 45 were ordained after a general consensus was achieved among the clergy and laity. In the sources, we find those elections described using the following generic statement: ‘the bishops, presbyters, and lay leaders unanimously chose [name].’ The details of the process were not usually recorded, and as expected they varied from one patriarch to another. The first three patriarchs elected by this method were Celadion, the ninth patriarch (157-167), Julian, the 11th patriarch (180-189), and Atha- nasius I, the 20th patriarch (328-373). Clearly then, it took many genera- tions to establish the tradition of general consensus and to make it as broad-based as the socio-political dynamic and transportation of the time allowed. One interesting dynamic in this evolution came as a result of the transi- tion of the patriarchal seat from Alexandria to Cairo. During the Fatimid period, especially during the second half of the eleventh century, presbyters and archons (lay leaders) in Alexandria and Cairo respectively “took

997680.indb7680.indb 141141 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 142 S.M. SAAD – N.S. RIEGELS – D.A. WESTBROOK

turns” in the selection of Christodoulus (1047-1077) and Cyril II (1078- 1092) (Den Heijer 2009: 24-42). During the first half of the 20th century, consensus was regulated through the creation of an electoral college composed of prescribed categories of voters, including bishops, priests and lay leaders. The chosen popes — John XIX, the 113th patriarch (1928-1942), Macarius III, the 114th patriarch (1944-1945), and Yusab II, the 115th patriarch (1946-56) — each won by a large margin.

Method 2: Election by the Presbyters of Alexandria

Until Demetrius I, the twelfth patriarch (189-231), the bishop of Alexan- dria was the only bishop in the whole of Egypt. He presided over a council of twelve presbyters, and when he died the twelve often elected a successor amongst themselves, after which the other eleven laid hands on him (M. Shoucri, “Patriarchal Election,” CE: 1911-2). This is consistent with early church literature that describes the presbyters of Alexandria playing a significant or even decisive role in the elections of most Alexandrian bishops, until the lay election of Alexander I, the 19th patriarch (312-326) (HPCCA 1:401-2).2 For centuries after that time, even in the presence of Egyptian bishops who ‘laid hands’ and ordained the Pope of Alexandria, literature suggests the presbyters of Alexandria still played a major role in electing him. That role gradually lessened after the patriarchal residence was transferred to Cairo during the eleventh century. However, there are only twelve une- quivocal cases of election by presbyters mentioned in the Historyofthe Patriarchs or The CopticEncyclopedia. The actual number may very well be greater than these confirmed cases, especially since this study was unable to discover the selection methods of 25 patriarchs, some of whom may have been primarily elected by the presbyters.

2 As Stephen Davis 2004: 135 writes, “In one of his letters, the church father Jerome (ca. 347-419/20) notes that, in the Alexandrian church, a group of presbyters used to elect the new bishop from their own ranks, and that this practice continued up until the time of Heracles and Dionysius … Some other sources suggest that presbyterial election of the Alexandrian patriarch may have continued into the early fourth century; however, it is certain that the practice must have been discontinued by the time Athanasius I was elected in 328.” Also see Davis 2004: 238, footnote 4. Haas 1997: 217-222 describes these pro- cesses along with the social and political background of patriarchal elections in the first five centuries.

997680.indb7680.indb 142142 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 TRADITIONS OF SELECTING COPTIC PATRIARCHS 143

Method 3: Appointment or Endorsement by Predecessor

There are nine cases in which a candidate became patriarch on the basis of his predecessor’s appointment, recommendation, or implicit support. The first case was that of Anianus, the second patriarch (68-85). St. Mark needed to ordain a trustworthy and faithful leader to care for the newly founded church of Alexandria while he went to preach in other regions. Such was the apostolic practice (1 Timothy 1:3, 2 Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5). The second case was that of Peter I (300-311) who was chosen by his predecessor Theonas (282-300) (HPCCA 2:45). The son of an Alexan- drian priest, Peter and his parents were under the personal and pastoral care of Bishop Theonas (HPCCA 1:207), and church tradition holds that Peter was closely and personally connected to Theonas, often referred to as “Peter’s father” and as “the one who raised him” (D. B. Spanel and T. Vivian, “Peter I,” CE: 1943-7). Also worthy of note is Peter II, the 21st patriarch (373-380), who was designated by his eminent predecessor Athanasius I (A. Atiya, “Peter II,” CE: 1947). There are six other cases in which the predecessor’s recommendation or implied support strongly influenced the election. A deathbed wish by the patriarch would bring a candidate forward, who would then be considered among other nominees. Many candidates were also the disciples of the previous patriarch. Because of their close relationship, they gained high visibility and experience in papal affairs, which was often taken as an implicit endorsement of their candidacy. Such circumstances gave them an advantage over other candidates and helped foster a general consensus. For example, Benjamin I, the 38th patriarch (622-661), served Andronicus (616-622), which paved the way for his own election to the patriarchate (C.D.G. Muller, “Benjamin I,” CE: 375-7). However, a predecessor’s appointment or endorsement of a candidate has not been employed since the selection of Gabriel V, the 88th patriarch (1409-1427), over six centuries ago (K. Samir, “Gabriel V,” CE: 1130-3), suggesting that this was antithetical to the spirit of democracy prevalent in the Coptic Church.

Method 4: Election by Laity Acting Alone

When the apostles asked the community to select seven deacons — ‘Therefore, friends, select from among yourselves seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this task’ (Acts 6:3, NRSV) — they set a principle for Coptic elections for

997680.indb7680.indb 143143 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 144 S.M. SAAD – N.S. RIEGELS – D.A. WESTBROOK

all ranks of the clergy throughout history. The earliest case is Abilius, the third patriarch (85-98), who, according to tradition, was ordained by the Apostle Luke only some fifty years after the apostles began the tradition that the people select and the hierarchy ordains (HPCCA 1:149).3 There are seven other incidents in the literature in which the new patriarch was elected by the people, apparently without clerical participation. Not surprisingly, they occasionally chose a layman or deacon, rather than a monk or priest. One example is John VI, the 74th patriarch (1189-1216), who was a layman (S.Y. Labib, “John VI,” CE: 1341-2). In a few cases, the literature specifically mentions it was the archons of the church rather than the ‘people’ who elected the patriarch. In fact, the most significant period involving this method came in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the Coptic archons were the defacto leaders of the community. As such, they were in positions to decisively influence the patriarchal selection outcome (Guirguis in Guirguis and van Doorn-Harder 2011: 37-40).4 One remarkable case concerns Peter VI, the 104th patriarch (1718-1726), who was “handpicked” by an archon named Lutfallah Abu Yusuf on the basis of his admiration of Peter’s austerity and asceticism as a monk at the Monastery of Saint Paul (Armanios 2011: 34-5). 5

Method 5: Casting Lots among Final Nominees

The casting of lots as a selection method for clergy finds support in the Bible, writings of the church fathers, and contemporary scholarship. Archbishop Basilios, for example, has argued that Jerome understood and appreciated that the word clergy is an etymological derivative from the Greek cleros, which means “lot, or inheritance” (“Priesthood,” CE: 2015-6). More recently, Dennis MacDonald supports the view that the tradition of casting of lots, as first described by the Apostle Luke in Acts 1, was in fact inherited from Jewish and Hellenistic traditions, where it was often used for the purposes of fairly distributing property and selecting priests and magistrates (2003: 107-19). Of course casting of lots is a feature of both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament (Leviticus 16:8,

3 If Luke was indeed the one who laid hands on Abilius, as reported in the Apostolic Constitutions (Book VII), then the apostolic example of election by laity was adhered to more frequently than commonly thought. 4 For more on this unique and transitional period, see Guirguis 2000. 5 The decisive influence of one person on the outcome of a patriarchal selection is not limited to Method 4 (laity acting alone). Another example is Cyril III as described under Method 6 (strong intervention by government).

997680.indb7680.indb 144144 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 TRADITIONS OF SELECTING COPTIC PATRIARCHS 145

Joshua 7:14, 1 Samuel 14:42, Jonah 1:7, Proverbs 16:33 and 18:18, 1 Chronicles 26:13, Luke 1:9, John 19:24, and Acts 1:23-26). According to the Book of Acts, Peter addressed Jesus’ disciples, con- sisting of about 120 “brothers and sisters,”6 and called for an election process to determine whether Matthias or Joseph would replace Judas and become the twelfth apostle. The process culminated with a casting of lots (Acts 1:15-26). In so doing, the early Christian leadership set a precedent for some Coptic patriarchal elections. There were at least seven incidents in which a lot was cast among final nominees. The earliest application of this method was for the fourth patriarch, Cerdo (98-109), who was ordained only some 65 years after the apostles cast their lot for Matthias. Cerdo’s selection by casting of lots is described in the History ofthePatriarchsand clearly understood as a process guided by God’s will as carried out through his earthly representatives, the priests and bishops (HPCCA 1:150).7 Although it is quite possible that casting of lots was used in a few of the 25 unknown cases, the second instance does not appear in the literature available to this study until six centuries later with John IV, the 48th patriarch (775-799). In his case, the casting of lots came as the result of exasperation when supporters of the three patriarchal candidates would not budge (HPCCA 4:381-2; S.Y. Labib, “John IV,” CE: 1338-9). For Michael V, the 71st patriarch (1145-1146), the casting of lots was con- ducted in the absence of a clear choice (S.Y. Labib, “Michael V,” CE: 1615-6). Mark Swanson notes that one of the clearest documented statements regarding casting of lots to select a patriarch as an established tradition came in 1216-1217 when the method was proposed (but not used) to decide among contenders after the death of John VI (2010: 86-88). One of the candidates was Da’ud al-Fayyumi, who would later become Cyril III (1235-1243), and is presented below as an instance of governmental interference in the selection of a patriarch. This tradition was formalized in the 1957 patriarchal election law upon which Pope Cyril VI (1959-1971),

6 The Today’s New International Version (TNIV) uses the phrase “brothers and sisters” (Acts 1:16) while other translations, such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and New King James Version (NKJV), employ “men and brethren.” Both arguably acknowledge the role of women in the nomination process to select a new apostle. 7 Historiographically it should be noted that this reference from the History of the Patriarchs (Volume I) represents an eleventh century account of a first century event. The sources used in its construction, however, are presumably much earlier, even if their exact provenance is unknown.

997680.indb7680.indb 145145 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 146 S.M. SAAD – N.S. RIEGELS – D.A. WESTBROOK

Pope Shenouda III (1971-2012), and Pope Tawadros II (2012-present) were elected. In each of these cases, a lot was cast among three final candidates after their names were placed on the altar as part of a Eucha- ristic service.

Method 6: Governmental Interference

Since the Christianization of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, and continuing after the Arab conquest of Egypt in 639 AD, confirmation of the selection of the patriarch by the ruler of Egypt has been a matter of formality (M. Shoucri, “Patriarchal Election,” CE: 1911-2). Although the government usually did not interfere with the church in its internal affairs, it has on occasion extended its authority in the matter of patriarchal selections to a variable degree. There are six selections of patriarchs in which the government or a ruler had a definite influence, if not outright imposition, on the outcome of the election. For example, Dioscorus II, the 31st patriarch (515-517), was first installed under the auspices of government authorities but later had a more proper ecclesiastical enthronement (E. Hardy, “Dioscorus II,” CE: 915). One of the most egregious and well-known of these scenarios involved Cyril III Ibn Laqlaq, the 75th patriarch (1235-1243). His candidacy was disputed by most bishops, clergy, and archons, so he resorted to political maneuvering, gift giving in al-Kamil’s court, and to connections with Ibn al-Miqat, the Coptic chief scribe of the sultan. The ruler also had an interest in the gridlock. After 19 agonizing years, Ibn Laqlaq and the ruler eventually prevailed when only two bishops were still alive to per- form the ordination. He was obliged to pay back the ruler in gold, and as a consequence resorted to simony and taxations on his flock (S.Y. Labib, “Cyril III Ibn Laqlaq,” CE: 677; Werthmuller 2010: 57-60). Another egregious example of governmental interference came in the cases of John VII, the 77th patriarch (1262-68 and 1271-93), and Gabriel III, the 78th patriarch (1268-71). It appears that Gabriel was selected by casting of lot in 1261, but the result was overturned by the wazir after he received a five-thousand dinar bribe. When John was unable to secure payment of a fifty-thousand dinar fine imposed by the Mamluk sultan on the Coptic community, the wazir removed John and recalled Gabriel to be consecrated in 1268. However, Gabriel was also unable to pay the massive fine, so the wazir removed him and recalled John, who again served as patriarch until 1293 (Swanson 2010: 97-100).

997680.indb7680.indb 146146 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 TRADITIONS OF SELECTING COPTIC PATRIARCHS 147

If rulers had little or no influence in selecting most of the patriarchs, some rulers later entertained removing the patriarch and creating harsh conditions for his return. The occasionally sore relations of Pope Shen- ouda III with both Presidents Anwar Sadat (1970-81) and Hosni Mubarak (1981-2011) is a case in point. Although Sadat’s appointment of Shenouda as patriarch in 1971 was considered by the church as a mere formality, Sadat decreed on 5 September 1981 to put the patriarch under house arrest in a monastery and appoint a five-bishop Patriarchal Council to oversee the church. Sadat was assassinated on 6 October 1981 and Mubarak succeeded him. It took more than three years to negotiate conditions for Shenouda’s return to his papal seat, which included his acceptance of a fresh appointment by Mubarak rather than a reversal of Sadat’s decree. In addition, the patriarch acquiesced to a number of conditions for his release, such as regular trips to the monastery, vacating Cairo on Fridays (the Muslim holy day), and agreeing not to protest against the government. The last rendered the Copts without an ecclesiastical advocate for human rights (Watson 2000: 116, 147).

Method 7: Divine Appointment, Vision, or Sign

Historically, advocates of this method have appealed to the report by Luke that as the apostles and brethren ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2, NRSV).8 Accordingly, Coptic tradition holds that St. Mark the Apostle was led by the Holy Spirit to establish the Alexandrian church and be its first patriarch. The most famous example of a divine vision leading to patriarchal selection is that of Demetrius I, the twelfth patriarch (189-231). The story is that Bishop Julian (180-189) had a dream in which an angel foretold that his successor would bring him grapes the next morning, all the more improbable because they were out of season. Demetrius, a farmer, found grapes and took them to Julian on his deathbed, and was soon after consecrated (A. Atiya, “Demetrius I,” CE: 891-3). The nomination of Kha’il I, the 46th patriarch (744-767), was made following a dream by a deacon. The deliberating bishops, clergy, and archons in Alexandria considered

8 Incidentally, this passage has often been cited in support of the patriarch’s unilateral appointment of bishops and, in turn, of bishops’ own appointment of priests.

997680.indb7680.indb 147147 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 148 S.M. SAAD – N.S. RIEGELS – D.A. WESTBROOK

his candidacy because their earlier deliberations on other names could not procure unanimity (S.Y. Labib, “Kha’il I,” CE: 1410-2). In the case of Benjamin II, the 82nd patriarch (1327-1339), a prophecy by St. Barsum al-Eryan (died 1317) supported his nomination. Thus, there was no opposi- tion from the clergy or the laity (S.Y. Labib, “Benjamin II,” CE: 377-8). Finally, interpretation of an event as a divine sign led to the selection of the 64th patriarch. The still undecided electing council in Alexandria received news that a rich merchant donated money to the ruler, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (r. 996-1021), to secure a decree appointing him patriarch. A humble priest, acting as a servant to the electing council, went to retrieve a jar of vinegar from the top of the church where the meeting was held. Coming down the ladder, he slipped and fell but the jar did not break and its contents were not spilled, which the bishops saw as a miracle and sign for them to elect him. They hastened to consecrate the priest before the merchant arrived from Cairo with the caliphal decree, and the cleric became the famous Pope Zacharias (1004-1032). In retaliation, the ruler decreed the destruction of churches throughout the country, imprisoned Zacharias for three months, and even twice ordered him thrown to the lions. Each time, however, the “saintly patriarch” was miraculously saved (HPEC 2.2:174-228; S.Y. Labib, “Zacharias,” CE: 2367-8).

Method 8: Election by Bishops Acting Alone

The only case in the literature available to us in which the bishops elected the patriarch with no indication of participation by either the presbyters or laity is that of Yusab I, the 52nd patriarch (830-849). While implementation of this method is an apparently singular instance in the Coptic Church, it has become the dominant tradition in other Christian traditions, such as the Roman Catholic Church where cardinal electors convene a papal conclave to elect the next pope.

Discussion of the 1957 Patriarchal Election Law

Possibly inspired by the spirit of the 1952 Egyptian revolution in which young army officers toppled the monarchy, certain reform-minded leaders in the Sunday School Movement became openly adversarial against several conservative bishops, prompting the Holy Synod to eliminate the possibility that one of the movement’s candidates become pope after the death of Yusab II in November 1956. Because the three Sunday School

997680.indb7680.indb 148148 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 TRADITIONS OF SELECTING COPTIC PATRIARCHS 149

candidates who emerged then were born in 1919, 1920, and 1923, and each had less than nine years of monastic experience, the Holy Synod was motivated to change the election law to limit nominations to those older than 40 years who have been monks for at least 15 years (Guirguis and van Doorn-Harder 2011: 58, 127). Another motivation came when it was clear that various parties within the Coptic Community would not accept the process of a simple majority electoral election prescribed by the existing law unless their nominee was guaranteed victory. The Holy Synod and the General Community Coun- cil sought to diffuse the situation and foster unity within the church by reintroducing casting of lots as the final step of the selection process. The new law was decreed by President Gamal Abd el-Nasser on 3 November 1957 (Saad 2014: 89). Under this law, the candidates are democratically nominated and elected throughout the process.9 A candidate is nominated through endorsement by a minimum of six members of the Holy Synod, or by twelve members or past members of the General Community Council (mostly lay members). Each nominator can make no more than two endorsements [Article 4]. Then, a Nomination Committee, chaired by the locumtenens(acting patriarch) and composed of nine bishops and nine members of the Gen- eral Community Council, determines a semi-finalist list of a minimum of five and a maximum of seven candidates. Part of its duty is to review the qualifications of the nominees and objections made against them [Article 6]. An electoral college — which in the 2012 election consisted of 2,410 Copts — ranks the semi-finalists. The electors are selected from, among others, the priests and archons of all dioceses (with higher quotas from Alexandria and Cairo), members of the General Community Coun- cil, former and present Coptic ministers, current members of parliament, and a representative group from Ethiopia [Article 9]. Finally, after a spe- cial celebration of the Eucharist, a lot is cast among the top three finalists [Article 18]. At its inception, the 1957 law was met with strong resistance, especially from the lay-led Sunday School Movement whose candidates were excluded. Some objectors even demanded a popular vote by all Copts in place of the electoral college system. In 1957-58, the resistance was so strong that first implementation of the law took about 18 months while

9 Complete translation of the law is given by Meinardus 1970: 128-38.

997680.indb7680.indb 149149 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 150 S.M. SAAD – N.S. RIEGELS – D.A. WESTBROOK

the patriarchal seat was vacant. The resistance reemerged during the 1971 and 2012 elections (M. Shoucri, “Patriarchal Election,” CE: 1911-2). Yet another objection came from the theological intelligentsia, who argued against the casting of lots. Their rationalization was that the apostles only resorted to casting lots because they had not then received the Holy Spirit (since Pentecost in Acts 3 followed the casting of lots in Acts 1) while present-time electors have received the Holy Spirit. Despite the above resistance and objections, the majority of Copts continue to support casting of lots as a means for divine providence to inter- vene (Watson 2000: 45-6, 52). They also embrace it based on scriptural references (as discussed above under Method 5), as well as the conviction that the Holy Spirit is at work in events as was the case through prophets and apostles before Pentecost (e.g. Genesis 1:2, Genesis 6:3, Exodus 31:3, Psalm 51:11, 1 Samuel 10:6-7, Isaiah 42:1, 2 Peter 1:21, and John 20:22). The charisma and success of Pope Cyril VI, chosen by casting of lots while he ranked third in elections, and Pope Shenouda III and Pope Tawadros II while each ranked second in their elections, lent additional legitimacy to the method and testimonials of its efficacy in the minds of the Copts.10 Moreover, the Coptic populace was deeply engaged in the 2012 patriarchal election and believed they had an influence in its course and outcome. For instance, the majority of Coptic believers responded to the church’s call for three periods of fasting and prayers, each three days long. Public critique of the candidates played a large role in various decisions of the Nomination Committee, including the preclusion of diocesan bishops from the semi-finalist list.

Conclusion

This study on Coptic patriarchal selection methods illustrates the charac- teristics and diversity of a predominately democratic tradition practiced in the Coptic Orthodox Church since its earliest days. The many methods that have been employed to select the patriarch have differed according to historical, political, and social circumstances. Remarkably, the principle of consensus at some level is a common thread among the majority of the 93 patriarchal selections known to the authors. This longstanding

10 Casting of lots is a recognized method even in constitutions and laws of many countries and organizations.

997680.indb7680.indb 150150 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 TRADITIONS OF SELECTING COPTIC PATRIARCHS 151

Coptic tradition evolved from Biblical and apostolic sources as well as from the church’s own senses of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Based on our findings, which form a framework open to refinement as more sources are discovered,11 the selection method employed most often was consensus among clergy and laity, applied in forty-five cases. Seven other methods were sporadically employed between one and twelve times each. Evidently, with the exception of casting of lots which continues to the present day, these infrequent methods do not represent consistent or dominant traditions; at best, they were pragmatic responses to circumstances, and at worst were unorthodox practices that did not survive the tests of orthodoxy, democracy, and the trials of church history. Notably, the most undemocratic methods — appointment by predecessor, interference by the government, and bishops acting alone — have not been practiced for several centuries. For reasons discussed above, the 1957 law represents a sophisticated and transparent process of nomination and election by clergy and laity. To make the law even more democratic, Pope Tawadros II appointed a committee to study and recommend amendments to the law soon after taking office in 2012. On 20 February 2014, the Holy Synod approved the committee’s new draft. The proposed changes concern qualifica- tion criteria for the candidates, Nomination and Election Committees, and electors, and inclusion of women religious, all ordained priests, and Community Councils from all dioceses in the electoral college. Previ- ously such inclusion has been by the good will of the Election Com- mittee or diocesan bishops, who collectively select the majority of electoral representatives. Pope Tawadros’ initiative to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the 1957 law itself reflects the democratic impulse within the Coptic patriarchal election process, which extends back two thousand years. Despite its limitations, the current patriarchal law and the proposed changes pre- serve and affirm the democracy of the church and its practices. Indeed, it is likely that the Coptic Orthodox Church — rightly described as the oldest democratic institution in Egypt — will continue to amend itself toward more fully including its members in the selection of its heir to St. Mark’s ecclesiastical office.

11 Remarkably, 13 of the 25 cases unknown to the authors are concentrated in the years 1349-1634. These 13 are among the 16 patriarchs numbered 84-99. Future research at the Coptic Patriarchal Library and Egyptian monasteries may uncover their selection methods.

997680.indb7680.indb 151151 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 152 S.M. SAAD – N.S. RIEGELS – D.A. WESTBROOK

TABLE 1 – Tally of Patriarchal Selections

Selection Method Sub-total Patriarchal Order 1 Consensus Among Clergy 45 9,11,20,22-24,28,36,37,42,43,45, and Laity 47,51,53,54,55, 61,62,63,66-69, 72,73,76,80,81,83,87,95,100- 102,106-115 2 Presbyters of Alexandria 12 5-8,10,13-16,18,25,34 3 Appointment or Endorsement 9 2,17,21,38-40,49,50,88 by Predecessor 4 Laity Acting Alone 8 3,19,44,70,74,77,103,104 5 Casting of Lots 7 4,48,71,105,116-118 6 Governmental Interference 6 27,31,33,41,75,78 7 Divine Appointment, Vision, 5 1,12,46,64,82 or Sign 8 Bishops Acting Alone 1 52 Unknown to Authors 25 26,29,30,32,35,56-60,65,79,84- 86,89-94,96-99 Total 118

Bibliography

Armanios, Febe. 2011. CopticChristianityinOttomanEgypt. New York. Atiya, Aziz S., ed. 1991. TheCopticEncyclopedia. New York. Now available at the Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia (www.cgu.edu/cce). CE = Coptic Encyclopedia. See Atiya. Davis, Stephen J. 2004. TheEarlyCopticPapacy:TheEgyptianChurchandIts LeadershipinLateAntiquity. Cairo. Den Heijer, Johannes. 2009. “Wadi al-Natrun and the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria.” In: Maged S.A. Mikhail and Mark Moussa (eds.)Chris- tianityandMonasticisminWadial-Natrun. Cairo, 24-42. Haas, Christopher. 1997. AlexandriainLateAntiquity:TopographyandSocial Conflict. Baltimore. Guirguis, Magdi and van Doorn-Harder, Nelly 2011. The Emergence of the ModernCopticPapacy:TheEgyptianChurchanditsLeadershipfrom theOttomanPeriodtothePresent. Cairo. Guirguis, Magdi. 2000. “Atharal-arakhina‘alaawda‘al-qibtfil-qarnal-thamina ‘ashar.” AnIsl34, 23-44. HistoryofthePatriarchsoftheCopticChurchofAlexandria[HPCCA]. Edited and translated by B.T.A. Evetts. PatrOr1.2, 1.4, 5.1, 10.5. Paris 1904- 15.

997680.indb7680.indb 152152 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33 TRADITIONS OF SELECTING COPTIC PATRIARCHS 153

HistoryofthePatriarchsoftheEgyptianChurch (HistoryoftheHolyChurch) [HPEC]. Edited and translated by O. H. E. Burmester et al., 3 vols. Textes et Documents de la SAC 2.1-3, 3.1-3, 4.1-2. Cairo 1943-74. Meinardus, Otto F. A. 1970. ChristianEgypt:FaithandLife. Cairo. —. 1999. TwoThousandYearsofCopticChristianity. Cairo. MacDonald, Dennis R. 2003. DoestheNewTestamentImitateHomer?Four CasesFromtheActsoftheApostles. New Haven. Saad, Saad Michael and Saad, Nardine M. 2001. “Electing Coptic Patriarchs: A Diversity of Traditions.”BulletinofSaintShenoudatheArchimandrite CopticSociety 6, 20-32. Saad, Saad Michael. 2010. “The Contemporary Life of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the United States.” StudiesinWorldChristianity16, 207-25. —. 2014. “The Modern Period (1952-2011): An Era of Trials, Tribulations, and Triumphs.” In Lois Farag (ed.) TheCopticChristianHeritage:History, Faith,andCulture. London, 87-102. Swanson, Mark N. 2010. TheCopticPapacyinIslamicEgypt,641-1517. Cairo. Watson, John H. 2000. AmongTheCopts. Brighton, UK. Werthmuller, Kurt. 2010. CopticIdentityandAyyubidPoliticsinEgypt,1218- 1250. Cairo.

Saad Michael Saad Nardine Saad Riegels Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia [email protected] Claremont Graduate University [email protected]

Donald A. Westbrook Department of Religion Claremont Graduate University [email protected]

997680.indb7680.indb 153153 113/02/153/02/15 09:3309:33