Among the gifts which God bestowed upon mankind, in creating humanity in His Image and according to His Likeness, were those of creativity and intelligence. These divinely bestowed and intricately interrelated gifts permeated every aspect of the human experience. As God spoke all things into existence, Adam, being made in the Image of God, likewise expresses his intelligent and creative faculties through speech, being invited by God to name all the creatures in the Garden, and thus, in a sense, identify the nature and function of each.[1] Together with Eve, he is tasked by God to create life and perpetuate the race of humanity to fill the earth.[2] By the work of their hands Adam and Eve are also found as being intelligently creative: after their sin and fall, they knitted for themselves clothing from the leaves of the fig tree, to cover their shame.[3] For millennia thereafter and until today, humanity has continued to express its creativity and intelligence in both personal and societal advancement and progress. Thus, humanity’s acquired knowledge (ἐπιστήμη) naturally produced technologies — skills, or artistic crafts, as the Greek root word for “technology,” τέχνη, reveals — which in turn enabled people to accomplish their daily work and carry out the responsibilities and pleasures of life with more efficiency and ease. Along with remarkable advancement, new technologies brought excitement to the human experience. The harnessing of electricity, for instance, brought literal illumination to the world, enabling people to work, socialize, and enjoy their lives well into the hours of the night. With the remarkable growth of technology thereafter, in today’s world, one can receive, in an instant, live updates from every corner of the earth, interact and converse with loved ones across the globe, and even earn a living across oceans without leaving the comfort of his own home. What is more, with the recent introduction of new artificial generative “intelligence”[4] technologies, one can now outsource almost every aspect of thought, work, and even relation and socialization — even the most constitutive elements of humanity — to technology. Such technological proliferation must therefore be carefully examined, most especially from the vantage point of Faith and religious practice. The Church must articulate an ethic of artificial intelligence if she hopes in any way to safeguard her incarnate nature, and, by extension, her members, in a rapidly disintegrating discarnate culture. The development of the digital world and its various technologies is ushering in a change in consciousness. Timothy O’Malley remarks: “The logic of the machine is an anti-humanism, one marked by dispositions hostile to the act of contemplation whereby the human person perceives the created order as meaningful. It is a culture, acknowledged by Joseph Ratzinger in his Introduction to Christianity, not as logos, a receptive posture toward existence that sees all as a gift to first be received, but instead as techne: what matters is that which can be made, the practical, rather than the meaning of the created order.”[5] In his enlightening work Technopoly, Neil Postman identifies this new technological culture as having several characteristics: “It puts in place efficiency, interest, and economic advance. It promises heaven on earth through the conveniences of technological progress. It casts aside all traditional narratives and symbols that suggest stability and orderliness, and tells, instead, of a life of skills, technical expertise, and the ecstasy of consumption.”[6] While “digital technologies can increase our efficiency, boost our economy, and help us solve previously insurmountable problems,”[7] the modern digital world has initiated “a culture that is often marked by immediacy, by the ‘right now,’ and by the weakness of memory, and bringing about a lack of perspective and of a grasp of the whole.”[8] As every quiet moment becomes disturbed by the various digital stimulations at one’s disposal, it is evident that as exciting as these technological developments have made the world, they have in so doing likewise introduced interruption and incapacitation. Postman writes elsewhere: “The result is that we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death.”[9] A thorough understanding of this new digital landscape is therefore urgently necessary. The Media Landscape of Today’s World Over the course of history, the human experience unraveled slowly and arduously — that is, through much toil, time, effort, and, often, discomfort. Children were raised in a community-oriented culture and reared in an environment characterized by familial and ethnic intimacy. They received the experience of their family and immediate society gradually, in a living and deeply immersive way. It was a heritage which they both heard and saw, and which, when they learned and internalized it, was deeply formative on the personal level. Thus, as one manifestation of this culture steeped in orality, it was not uncommon for children to inherit their parents’ professions. The transition from orality to literacy was slow, even though writing “was and is the most momentous of all human technological inventions.”[10] Remarkably, as Walter Ong writes, the human mind is “relentlessly reflexive, so that even the external tools that it uses to implement its workings become ‘internalized’, that is, part of its own reflexive process.”[11] The technology of writing, “more than any other single invention…transformed human consciousness.”[12] He continues: “It initiated what print and computers only continue, the reduction of dynamic sound to quiescent space, the separation of the word from the living present, where alone spoken words can exist.”[13] In today’s media landscape, both orality and literacy are brought together to create an entirely new dynamic. While much of today’s communication happens within the realm of literacy, such as through books, emails, text messages, or similar mediums, orality being a part of today’s new tapestry is especially evident in emerging trends of communication: with the popularization of platforms and applications such as Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, FaceTime, and Zoom, people are able to communicate in purely oralate ways, albeit with the component of direct, or physical, person-to-person interaction severely diminished or entirely eliminated. Without the prerequisite of literacy, one can consume an abundance of information through purely visual or oralate means. However, while an inherent component of orality was its escapability, today, any experience can be recorded and stored for review and revisitation. Whereas in previous societies, one only knew what he could recall, the ability to record and store audio-visual experiences seemingly “solves” the memory problem, as it enables humanity to outsource its memory to an accessible and seemingly more reliable exterior source. Modern artificial intelligence technologies follow the same pattern — making it so that there is a diminishing need to rely on oneself to remember, internalize, learn, and preserve information, since these innovative technologies do those things for their users. Rather, quite simply, one can refer back to stored media or receive instantaneously generated data to access information as needed. Such capabilities have marked a complete departure from the intent of technology: new media are no longer merely extensions of the human experience, but transformative and generative of experience apart from human input. This kind of orality and literacy facilitated by artificial intelligence technologies diminishes the human experience: one does not need to internalize anything or utilize their intellectual faculties, and, what is more, one does not even need a community, or physical audience, with which to communicate.[14] Consequently, human dignity — indeed, humanity itself — is at stake: “The scientific term for humans, homo sapiens (‘wise man’), highlights the truth that intelligence is fundamental to man and inseparably woven into what it means to be human.”[15] As Romano Guardini points out in his Letters from Lake Como, proper culture, rather than being a blanket denial of creativity and innovation, is instead creativity and innovation that do not violate what it means to be human in the natural world. He notes several innovations that have assisted in human development without violating the natural order, contrasting them with many that disregard the natural order and are therefore disruptive to humanity.[16] This trend in innovation, he warns, which includes no concern for the natural order, is quickly taking the human away from humanity itself: “What takes place here is not human…it is not natural if we measure the natural by nature as it once was.”[17] Approaching Today’s Media Landscape Over the past several years, the proliferation and uptake of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has reached unprecedented levels. Between ChatGPT’s public release in November 2022 and March 2024, “the most common generative AI tools had been accessed more than three billion times by hundreds of millions of users each month.”[18] The introduction of various other generative AI platforms since that time will have undoubtedly augmented these rates and figures tremendously. As one staggering example, in a statement published on February 27, 2026, OpenAI, the organization behind ChatGPT, shared: “More than 9 million paying business users rely on ChatGPT for work, and startups, enterprises, and governments are building on the OpenAI platform to transform how their products and services are designed, delivered, and run…ChatGPT is where people start with AI, with more than 900M weekly active users, and we now have more than 50 million consumer subscribers.”[19] With the widespread adoption of these technologies, the central issue is no longer the availability and accessibility of artificial intelligence tools, but how these tools are leveraged. Ong notes: “Most people are surprised, and many distressed, to learn that essentially the same objections commonly urged today against computers were urged by Plato in the Phaedrus (274-7) and in the Seventh Letter against writing. Writing, Plato has Socrates say in the Phaedrus, is inhuman, pretending to establish outside the mind what in reality can be only in the mind. It is a thing, a manufactured product. The same of course is said of computers.”[20] The danger of artificial intelligence technologies, or any other technological tool, is not in their mere existence, but in how they are utilized in daily life. Plato once warned of the dangers of writing, but inevitably communicated his opinion and rendered it accessible through that very medium. It would similarly be superfluous to deny the realities of modern digital technologies: irrespective of their harmful effects, they exist and are being used today by millions of people. The Coptic Orthodox Church’s synodal body has acknowledged the reality of this problem and the necessity of its examination. In a statement issued on June 5, 2025, it noted the formation of a Synodal Committee for Media and Information in order “to develop a vision for spreading sound ecclesiastical teaching online, and increase the awareness of Church members and servants in the dioceses regarding internet technologies and AI, utilizing them to prepare engaging Sunday School lessons and sermons.”[21] While no specific guidance was offered alongside the dangerous recommendation to “utilize” generative technologies in such educative, exhortatory, and formational services as Sunday School,[22] the statement continued, acknowledging the Committee’s aim to “educate servants and youth on using AI with discernment and wisdom, and caution against sharing inaccurate theological or doctrinal content.”[23] In an earlier article, His Holiness Pope Tawadros II noted: “What concerns us in the scope of our service is that which is considered useful and how to benefit from all these scientific additions that may help or harm…Therefore, I call on all of our specialized children in the Coptic Church, in light of the reality of contemporary human technological development, to study, research, and innovate what can be practically beneficial from AI applications and practical church applications. The goal should be to determine what can be used in order to develop the service in an acceptable and practically useful manner. At the same time, we must remember that no matter what mankind makes of inventions and technologies, any invention or technology will always be insufficient in comparison to the human mind. Even if they are dazzling or very attention-grabbing, they cannot provide an actual ‘seed’ to mankind.”[24] The question of whether such tools as artificial intelligence should be used is no longer a relevant one. Rather, the primary concern today must be to define and elaborate how such tools can be used well. To safeguard against the harmful and destructive outcomes of digital illiteracy, especially given that the average person spends almost seven hours online every day,[25] an “education on the media”[26] is necessary. Understanding Today’s Media Landscape Heeding the advice of the Apostle Paul, the faithful Christian must “test everything[,] hold fast what is good, [and] abstain from every form of evil.”[27] By cultivating a careful, thoughtful, and meticulous digital literacy, the appropriate safeguards can render such dangerous tools advantageous for humanity, or, at the very least, not entirely destructive of it. Such work at the ecclesial level requires an intricate understanding of the framework, foundations, and aims of Christian ministry. At its heart, the work of the Church’s services is that of encounter. The minister, servant, or educator seeks to bring others into the knowledge of and relation with God in and through the Church. He extends the invitation of the Lord Jesus Christ to His disciples: “Come and see.”[28] This knowledge and relation is necessarily and primarily experiential. Marshall McLuhan, commenting on the emphasis often given to informational learning, reflects: “…to teach catechism as a given or as content is to limit oneself to only half of Christianity. The formal cause — the ground that is perceived unconsciously — is not words, but that part of the faith which operates in our lives. The two should be united.”[29] He continues: “In other words, if you read the Bible, how do you read it? Does it pass into your daily life? Only then do you get the message, that is, the effect. Only in that moment do medium and message unite.”[30] Timothy O’Malley concisely summarizes this inseparable interrelation of the informational and experiential components of ministry, writing: “Evangelization requires a contemplation of the Church’s narrative of salvation by believers, a self-examination of the interior life of those of us who are disciples of Christ, and an invitation offered to others to participate in that peaceful union of humanity and God enacted in the church’s life.”[31] He therefore asserts: “the mere memorization or knowledge of the church’s doctrine…should become incarnate in family life, in human work, in politics and society, in art and leisure.”[32] The primarily digital and virtual space to which people spend the majority of their time tethered today creates barriers to the sort of incarnate, living experience which the Church seeks to cultivate in her members. While the virtual realm surely retains certain advantages, such as facilitating opportunities and avenues for the message of the Church to be disseminated instantaneously and globally, it limits the sense of interconnectedness and belonging that only a living community can provide. Interaction in the online world is neither wholly personal nor fundamentally human and so cannot perfectly communicate the fullness of the Church. Further, the digital world stands in need of sanctification, and, similarly, cannot convey the sacredness and holiness of the Church: on the same devices, one may access the word of God or obscene material, and within some platforms such as Instagram or TikTok, both may be accessed indiscriminately and consecutively. The passive and leisurely modes of interactions on such platforms likewise impedes the active and willful intentionality that the Faith requires: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.”[33] In this sense, then, the online world falls short of being authentically Christian and cannot facilitate the full and sound delivery of the spirit, faith, and message of the Church. Thus, “the transition must be made from the individualistic and isolated world of [technology] to the ecclesial community.”[34] While digital technology can and should be utilized by Christians within the contexts of their various ministries, the message of the Gospel cannot be wholly contained within or relegated to the virtual world: “…we also need to be aware that the virtual world will never be able to replace the real world, and that evangelization will be able to make use of the virtual world offered by the new media in order to create meaningful relationships only if it is able to offer the personal contact which remains indispensable.”[35] The Christian message is one of personal encounter, and while it can certainly be proclaimed using a non-personal medium, it cannot simply reside in that space; rather, it must extend an invitation to the incarnate, tangible, and sacramental life of the Church.[36] Navigating Today’s Media Landscape Reliance on generative artificial technologies creates an additional degree of separation, giving rise to important implications at the anthropological and ecclesial levels. While digital technologies may be utilized to facilitate personal encounters, generative artificial intelligence technologies uproot every semblance of encounter. Learning ceases to carry its embodied character, as information and its articulation become completely external to the learner. As a result of a dependent reliance on generative AI technologies, such critical aspects to human cognitive development as encounter, wonder, and exploration are stunted, adversely affecting both one’s ability to acquire knowledge at the personal level, and the collective welfare of knowledge at the social level. In an insightful study titled AI, Human Cognition, and Knowledge Collapse, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers Daron Acemoglu, Dingwen Kong, and Asuman Ozdaglar conclude: “…the main motive for individual effort is often the acquisition of context-specific information, while the general knowledge an individual generates is primarily an externality. Consequently, better general knowledge in society is a complement to human learning effort, while better context-specific recommendations are substitutes. Because generative AI promises to provide this kind of context-specific information, it can be such a substitute, and reduce human effort. But then as lower human effort reduces the general knowledge-building, generative AI (especially agentic AI) can dynamically push a society towards lower effective information and even lead to a knowledge-collapse steady state.”[37] More simply, as Jeffrey Bishop remarks: “Technology has been used to off-load the hard work humans had to do, but we eventually become unable to do the off-loaded work…We may be offloading all of the high stakes and difficult problems to AI, and thus lose our ability to think critically.”[38] Without learning and practice, personal and social intellectual development is severely impaired. Clayton Chancey, an AI architect and the founder of Foray Consulting, a consultancy focused on AI systems and automations, wonderfully explains: “Because an AI’s output feels so human, we’re tempted to treat it like a person. This arises from our deeply ingrained human experience. We justifiably associate the typical outputs of an inner life — an intelligent argument or an emotive piece of writing — with the presence of that inner life itself. Throughout human history, the communication layer and the inner being have been inextricably linked. Now, for the first time, a machine can flawlessly replicate our communication without possessing any inner life. This creates a unique and subtle threat to human growth and even Christian discipleship, because both depend on genuine connection.”[39] Accordingly, the primary dangers of AI technologies regard their circumvention of the learning process. The virtue of Christian ministry, or of any discipline, is not in the final product as much as it is in the very process of learning and creating; the final product — whether it be a sermon, research paper, piece of artwork, Sunday School lesson, or any other outcome of thoughtful, human toil — is reflective of the learning process which is undergone and representative of the gifts, talents, and skills which one has received from God, cultivated, and refined through both time and effort. Chancey continues: “The goal isn’t merely an insightful analysis but a word from the Lord for his people. An AI can assist with parts of the academic task, but it’s categorically excluded from the prayerful, worshipful, Spirit-dependent reality of the process.”[40] To provide a simple example, if one is tasked with preparing a short paper on St. Athanasius the Apostolic, they can turn to AI and, given precise guidance and a specific prompt, receive a well-written and perhaps even factually correct essay. However, this approach renders the appropriate objective of the paper missed and its intended preparer impoverished. The aim, at least for the intellectually honest researcher, is not in the outcome of having a prepared paper, but to have understood, interiorized, and become edified by the time-consuming and arduous process of study so that it may bear fruit in his own life as well as in the lives of those engaging with and receiving that work. The complete reliance on AI in such a scenario not only diminishes one’s ability to think critically and develop a personal mastery and command of the subject, but also plunders the virtue and edification that are a necessary and natural product of its study on the part of both the researcher and the reader. This, however, does not necessarily preclude any use of AI in the preparation process. Rather, only after they have developed a thorough mastery of a subject are researchers equipped to “use AI in contexts where their expertise and judgement are sufficient to identify and remove biases.”[41] In the hands of a faithful Athanasian scholar, as opposed to a pseudo-scholar, AI technologies would be used much differently and with more restraint and control in the work of researching St. Athanasius due to the natural familiarity and proficiency that comes from a holistic engagement with the subject. The theoretical accuracy of the content, in this same example, deserves further examination. Since AI tools do not possess a consciousness, they do not think for themselves. Their outputs are simply an aggregation of a vast input of data: “we only get the linguistic average of what they have been trained on. The whole endeavor is designed to sandpaper down the sharper edges of controversial ideas and regress to the most comfortable, well-represented middle. It mistakes the common for the true and the frequent for the valid.”[42] This mechanism begs the question of alignment. In an article for Forbes, Mark Pittman advocated with strong enthusiasm that “[t]he rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is not just transforming industries; it’s reshaping the very fabric of knowledge in our world…AI is democratizing access to specialized knowledge and expertise.”[43] While at first glance, this democratization may seem appealing, one must consider what underpins this process: “The overwhelming majority of what the LLMs [Large Language Models] have been trained upon is Western, secular, and recent. The technology then takes the average of the semantic web of those words and draws conclusions.”[44] Herein lies an insidious danger: “Because the LLM can synthesize information from countless sources, its answers feel exhaustive and authoritative. This process creates a powerful temptation to outsource our thinking. For the user seeking counsel on life’s deepest questions, the LLM offers a shortcut that bypasses the difficult, essential work of wrestling with competing truth claims. It provides a pre-digested, averaged-out worldview that requires no personal conviction or intellectual struggle.”[45] The combination of divestment and fidelity on the part of the user, and bias on the part of the technology, threatens to intellectually oppress, or at least suppress, humanity and compromise the inherent freedom and creativity of the human person.[46] These attitudes towards AI technologies further evoke the unsettling imagery of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World: “As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.”[47] At the ecclesial level, the fidelity, trust, and consequent blind reliance afforded to AI technologies by users cannot be harmonized with the Christian worldview: “The more we rely on AI, the more we entrust ourselves to it, and the more we lose the ability to do things that are inherently part of being image-bearers.”[48] The Psalmist proclaims: “Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them.”[49] Moreover, due to AI technologies’ alignment biases towards popular opinion, the very vocation of the Christians — to be in the world but not of the world,[50] and to “not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of [their] mind”[51] — is endangered. In response to these threats, to borrow the words of Guardini, “what we need is not less technology, but more. Or, more accurately, we need stronger, more considered, more human technology.”[52] Guardini continues: “All of that is possible, however, only if living people first make their influence felt in the sphere of objective nature, if they relate this nature to themselves and in this way create a ‘world’ again.”[53] In light of these considerations, underlaying any sound utilization of artificial intelligence in the realm of the Church must be the understanding that “the work of teaching God’s Word is primarily a spiritual discipline and only secondarily an academic one…our preaching and teaching aren’t scalable products. They’re labors of love offered up to God and for the good of his people.”[54] Certainly, artificial intelligence can serve as a powerful tool in the hands of ministers, but it must not be in the generative sense. As instruments rather than agents, artificial intelligence technologies carry great and promising potential. Tony Reinke comments: “Our technologies can amplify our powers, but they can’t give us wisdom with those powers. As pastor Ray Ortlund says, ‘If we have technology but not wisdom, we will use the best communications ever invented to broadcast stupidity.’”[55] As it relates to content generation, “the church’s call is to lean ever more deeply into the one thing AI can never replicate: a human heart set aflame by God’s Spirit with the truth of God’s Word.”[56] Perhaps here, the famous insight of Father Bishoy Kamel, a renowned twentieth-century Coptic Orthodox saint, becomes relevant again, though in a renewed context: “People have heard enough about Christ; they rather need to see Him in our lives.”[57] With the mass adoption of generative AI technologies, there can be no shortage of words about the Lord Jesus Christ and His Body, the Church. But what is deficient in such words is the vivifying Holy Spirit who “apportions to each one individually as He wills.”[58] As the Lord Himself taught: “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.”[59] Due to the malleable and rapidly changing character of such digital technologies as AI, the urgent task of their consideration and mindful incorporation into Christian ministry is certainly complex. The work of defining an ethic of artificial intelligence must therefore begin with an examination and firm understanding of the basis, intention, goals, ethos, and telos of the Christian Church, and must be nourished at all times by critical analysis and a carefully reasoned and receptive discourse. By developing such a nuanced comprehension and thorough methodology, the means by which to navigate the intricate and dynamic nature of today’s digital landscape and its far-reaching implications can be realized for the Christian believer personally and for the Church collectively. — [1] See Genesis 2:19-20. [2] See Genesis 1:28. [3] See Genesis 3:7. [4] “‘Artificial Intelligence,’ however, is an apt term to describe the field because AI is not natural intelligence; it is a simulation of natural intelligence. As Joseph MacRae Mellichamp, emeritus professor of management at the University of Alabama, has said, ‘the ‘artificial’ in artificial intelligence is real, but the intelligence is not’” (Saverio Perugini, Artificial Intelligence Isn’t What You Think It Is, National Catholic Register: February 2026). [5] Timothy P. O’Malley, The Altar of Productivity and the Need for Contemplative Education, Church Life Journal: December 2024. [6] Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, 179. [7] Dicastery for Communication, Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media § 7. [8] Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, Directory for Catechesis § 368. [9] Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, 4. [10] See W.J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, 85, 115. [11] Ibid., 81. [12] Ibid., 78. [13] Ibid., 82. [14] “The screen, especially the digital devices of late modernity, foster dispositions that militate against wonder. We scroll the internet or TikTok feeds, not stopping to behold but consuming information as we move along. We do so privately, not as a wonder-filled community, but as those who are each beholding a private universe unfold before our eyes” (Timothy P. O’Malley, The Altar of Productivity and the Need for Contemplative Education, Church Life Journal: December 2024). [15] Saverio Perugini, Artificial Intelligence Isn’t What You Think It Is, National Catholic Register: February 2026. [16] See Romano Guardini, Letters from Lake Como: Explorations in Technology and the Human Race, 9-17. [17] Ibid., 73. [18] Alexander Bick, Adam Blandin, and David J. Deming, The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI, National Bureau of Economic Research: September 2024. [19] OpenAI, Scaling AI for everyone, OpenAI: February 2026. [20] W.J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, 79. [21] See Coptic Orthodox Church, Decrees & Recommendations of the Holy Synod Session, June 2025. [22] In his public teaching, Roman Catholic Pope Leo XIV insisted: “Like all the muscles in the body, if we do not use them, if we do not move them, they die. The brain needs to be used, so our intelligence must also be exercised a little so as not to lose this capacity…[T]o give a true homily is to share faith, [and artificial intelligence] will never be able to share faith…It is not you: if we are not transmitting the message of Jesus Christ, perhaps we are mistaken, and we must reflect very carefully and humbly about who we are and what we are doing” (Salvatore Cernuzio, Pope in dialogue with Rome’s priests: Be friends, beware of envy and the internet, Vatican News: February 20, 2026). [23] See Coptic Orthodox Church, Decrees & Recommendations of the Holy Synod Session, June 2025. [24] His Holiness Pope Tawadros II, Natural & Artificial, Al-Keraza Magazine: September 15, 2023. [25] See DataReportal, We Are Social, and Meltwater, Digital 2025 Global Overview Report: The Essential Guide to the World’s Connected Behaviours, 69. [26] See Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, Directory for Catechesis § 368. [27] 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22. [28] John 1:39. [29] Marshall McLuhan, The Medium and the Light: Reflections on Religion, 103. [30] Ibid., 104. [31] Timothy P. O’Malley, Liturgy and the New Evangelization: Practicing the Art of Self-Giving Love, 13. [32] Ibid. [33] Deuteronomy 6:4. [34] See Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, Directory for Catechesis § 372. [35] Pope Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini § 113. [36] See Noah Bradon, Communication Incarnate: A Sacramental Reflection, Doss Press: March 2025. [37] Daron Acemoglu, Dingwen Kong, and Asuman Ozdaglar, AI, Human Cognition, and Knowledge Collapse, Massachusetts Institute of Technology — Department of Economics: February 20, 2026. [38] Jeffrey P. Bishop, What Is Man That AI Is Mindful of Him?, Church Life Journal: February 2024. [39] Clayton Chancey, AI’s Usefulness and Its Dangers for Preachers, The Gospel Coalition: October 2025. [40] Ibid. [41] See David B. Resnik and Mohammad Hosseini, “The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool,” Springer, AI and Ethics, Volume 5 (2025), 1511. [42] Michael S. Graham, AI Christian Benchmark: Evaluating 7 Top LLMs for Theological Reliability, 46 (The Gospel Coalition: 2025). [43] Mark Pittman, AI And The Democratization Of Knowledge, Forbes: June 2024. [44] Michael S. Graham, AI Christian Benchmark: Evaluating 7 Top LLMs for Theological Reliability, 47 (The Gospel Coalition: 2025). [45] Ibid., 48. [46] Guardini remarks: “Only on the basis of consciousness can we freely lay hold of the world creatively to shape it” (Romano Guardini, Letters from Lake Como: Explorations in Technology and the Human Race, 26). [47] Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, xix. [48] Paul Quiram, AI: Automated Idolatry, Westminster Theological Seminary: June 2025. [49] Psalm 115:4-8. [50] See e.g., John 17:6-19. [51] Romans 12:2. [52] Romano Guardini, Letters from Lake Como: Explorations in Technology and the Human Race, 83. [53] Ibid. [54] Clayton Chancey, AI’s Usefulness and Its Dangers for Preachers, The Gospel Coalition: October 2025. [55] Tony Reinke, God, Technology, and the Christian Life, 223. [56] Clayton Chancey, AI’s Usefulness and Its Dangers for Preachers, The Gospel Coalition: October 2025. [57] See John Watson, The Transfigured Cross: A Study of Father Bishoi Kamel, Society of Coptic Church Studies, Coptic Church Review, Volume 23, Numbers 1 & 2 (Spring and Summer 2002), 22. [58] See 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. [59] Luke 6:45.

For well over a century, the Coptic Orthodox Church has undergone a remarkable internal renewal — one centered firmly on education. The revitalization of catechetical life, the expansion of theological instruction, and the establishment of seminaries both within Egypt and throughout the diaspora have together produced several generations of believers who are in many ways more actively engaged in ecclesial life and familiar to teaching than their predecessors — a transformation that stands among the most significant ecclesial developments in modern Coptic history. With this, however, new demands on ecclesial governance and pastoral care have arisen. The Church now finds herself in a position unforeseen by earlier generations, with a believing community stretching across the globe and in which theological awareness is widespread, access to teaching is immediate, and platforms of influence extend far beyond the boundaries of parish life. In this context, the question is no longer simply how to educate, or how to maintain extant ecclesial operations, but how to engage in healthy spiritual discernment in the sphere of ecclesial administration by identifying, forming, and entrusting those with the requisite intellectual, theological, and spiritual gifts and qualifications so as to ensure that the integrity of ecclesial instruction and governance is preserved. The roots of the present situation lie in the early twentieth century, in the movement associated with Saint Archdeacon Habib Girgis.[1] Confronted with widespread illiteracy, a dearth of theological instruction, and other similar problems, Saint Archdeacon Habib Girgis and his collaborators initiated what would become the Sunday School movement — a sustained effort to educate the laity and re-anchor the life of the Church in its theological tradition and liturgical life. Over time, this movement came to reshape the ecclesial landscape in its entirety. Under the leadership of Pope Shenouda III, education became a defining characteristic of Coptic identity, as His Holiness held robust and immensely popular weekly lectures, structured educational curricula, insisted to personally oversee the affairs of the Theological Seminary, and authored a staggering number of published theological works. Under his leadership, the Seminary further expanded its reach, extending beyond Egypt to the diaspora, to serve the Coptic communities that had come to be established in North America, Europe, and Australia. The success of this effort is evident. The average Coptic layperson today possesses a level of theological awareness that would have been exceptional a century ago. Doctrinal questions are more readily engaged, interest in theological subjects and facility with theological terminology are generally more prevalent, and the writings of the Fathers are more accessible than they have ever been. This ecclesial elevation in theological interest and literacy has unfolded alongside another development: a marked rise in general education among Copts, especially in the West. As immigrant communities established themselves across the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe, they came to be disproportionately represented in highly skilled professions.[2] This was driven by cultural priorities, migration patterns favoring the educated, and the demands of minority perseverance.[3] Thus, the Coptic faithful — particularly in the diaspora — are now among the most highly educated and professionally accomplished cohorts in their respective societies. Over the past sixty to seventy years, this combination of factors has come to produce a community whose members are not only religiously engaged, but also intellectually rigorous. They are trained to evaluate arguments, to demand coherence, to recognize depth, and to expect a high degree of operational clarity and systemic order, consistency, and accountability. This reality has implicitly altered the expectations placed upon ecclesial teaching and governance, and indeed all other aspects of the Church’s operations. Instruction that may have sufficed in a previous generation — informal, loosely structured, or merely contemplative — now often proves inadequate for an audience accustomed to disciplined inquiry and intellectual precision[4], and leadership characterized by assumptions of total trust, reverence for clerical authority, a cultural aversion to or lack of concern for transparency, and ambiguous or unpredictable operating philosophies represents not only a disconnect from modern communal realities and expectations, but also breeding grounds for suspicion and distrust, malpractice, and unfortunately, as has been seen with increasing frequency in recent years, scandal. In this milieu, the Church has come to be confronted not only with the task of preserving doctrinal and administrative integrity, but also of doing so at a level of intellectual and procedural seriousness commensurate with the formation of her people and the grave entrustment imparted to her by God.[5] In this respect, the challenge facing the Church today is not a dearth of members capable of rising to meet the demands of the time, as it was in the early days of Saint Habib Girgis, for instance, but is precisely that the rise in the general level of competence — both theological and professional — urgently necessitates a commensurate sharpening of the criteria for teaching and spiritual leadership along with its careful articulation and faithful application. Alongside this dual elevation — theological specifically and intellectual more generally — came geographic expansion. Beginning in the mid-twentieth century and accelerating thereafter, the Coptic Church established a global presence. Parishes that once numbered in the dozens grew into communities of hundreds or thousands. Dioceses expanded across entire regions and continents. This growth introduced structural challenges that bear directly on administrative practice, and most specifically on the question of qualification for teaching and shepherding the flock of Christ. In smaller communities, discernment of qualification and fitness for ordination and institutional empowerment was largely personal. Clergy and senior servants knew their congregants intimately, and so, barring instances of administrative malpractice or deception, the recognition of spiritual gifts and ecclesial qualification ordinarily occurred within the context of lived relations, and under ordinary circumstances, assuming pious intent and godly disposition, led to the sponsorship and empowerment of qualified individuals in the service of the Church. But in larger and more dispersed communities, this immediacy becomes difficult to sustain — interpersonal relations exist at further distance and with less intimate familiarity such that decisions regarding ordination and ecclesial sponsorship are made with less investigatory insight and firsthand information and educational and administrative responsibilities are delegated across broader networks. In such circumstances, discernment tends to rely more heavily on observable indicators such as level of secular education, apparent degree of ecclesial activity, reported reliability, and, increasingly, unexamined optics and mere communal visibility. The introduction of digital media has intensified this dynamic. Platforms such as Instagram, Youtube, SoundCloud, and Facebook have created new spaces of ecclesial engagement, assessment, and interaction. While these platforms have facilitated the spread of sound instruction and helpful information, and fostered community among the believers not only within their parishes and local communities, but also across continents and cultural barriers, they have also in many ways altered the conditions in which spiritual and doctrinal authority is perceived, and, by extension, who receives institutional sponsorship, deference, and legitimization. On such platforms, teaching can easily be disseminated widely and rapidly, with receptivity dictated by following and visual metrics, with little to no regard for the qualifications of the content creator; ecclesial interest and involvement often become a matter of appearances and performative engagement; and perceived reliability, faithfulness, and worthiness to be heeded and revered are dictated by visual markers and algorithmic indicators rather than sound discipleship, discernment of spiritual gifts, ascetical life, scriptural understanding, theological training, or liturgical formation.[6] In this manner, visibility is often accorded precedence over formation, and formal ecclesial recognition and empowerment can be achieved without spiritual struggle, theological examination, the requisite virtuosity, or liturgical experience, and even by those who, in manipulating leaders, cultivating strategic alliances, building brands for themselves, and engaging in other forms of self-furtherance, come to obtain such sponsorship in a manner that directly contradicts such essential and longstanding prerequisites for ecclesial service and legitimization.[7] Guest speakers at parish meetings and ecclesial conferences, for instance, are in many cases chosen not based on their degree of theological training, or discernment of their spiritual gifts and manner of life,[8] but by their online influence and the “viral” popularity of their social media content; candidates for priesthood often receive consideration and election due to their degree of social presence, communal likability[9], and parish visibility — a troubling concern when taken in the context of priestly ordination now predominantly being carried out in a largely arbitrary manner, absent a uniform, transparent, or theologically concerned process[10], most often by means of a popular vote[11]; and those entrusted and appointed to teach in the parishes often receive that grave responsibility with little to no consideration to their respective spiritual gifts or whether they have undergone formal theological training, but most frequently as a matter of course, as the next step in their expected trajectory of parish involvement, commencing in their childhood in Sunday School and culminating in the completion of some form of parish “pre-servants” curriculum and subsequent appointment to a position of teaching in some form in the Church. Especially in a time when artificial intelligence has come to be routinely utilized and so occasions significant doubt as to the originality of unreviewed written or published content, the trustworthiness of online material, and the legitimacy and integrity of digital personas and social media contributions, the implications of the foregoing state of affairs cannot be overstated. For a highly educated audience, this creates severe tensions, especially as to the integrity of ecclesial leadership, operations, education, discipling, and pastoral care most generally. As accessibility and digital influence increase, discernment becomes more difficult, with the faithful being exposed to a wide range of voices of which not all meet the intellectual or spiritual standards that their formation has conditioned them to expect or that the Church expects for them. A layered paradox therefore exists in the Church today. She has in many ways succeeded in elevating theological competence while her people have simultaneously attained high levels of general education. Yet these very successes, combined with the social and technological milieu in which the Church finds herself today, have made it more difficult to distinguish those who are truly called to shepherd and prepared to teach, and have heightened the consequentiality of ensuring the soundness of ecclesial operations and the fitness of ecclesial educators and shepherds according to the principles and practices delivered to and long employed by the Church for preserving the integrity of these central pillars of her functioning and wellbeing. For a community marked by high academic achievement and trained in rigorous disciplines, and for the Church properly understood more generally, the shortcomings of inadequate teaching caused by the promotion of unqualified educators, and of unsound pastoral care caused by the ordination of spiritually unqualified and theologically untrained shepherds[12], are not merely aesthetic, but are rather most substantive and consequential. For this reason, Saint Habib Girgis narrates, as pertains to the experience of the Coptic Church in his own lifetime: “If the leaders [the clergy] are weak, then how will they lead troops more advanced than them in education and knowledge? That resulted in misunderstandings between the two ranks — the clergy and the laity. The effect of this was the weakness of the ranks, and such an obstacle stood in the path of advancement and reform, since each rank did not understand the other.”[13] Superficiality, inconsistency, and imprecision are readily perceived, especially by a theologically familiar and intellectually sophisticated congregation.[14] Moreover, suspicion as to the integrity of ecclesial administration and disappointment with the quality of religious education carried out in the Church, when repeatedly confirmed in practice, occasions disillusionment by thoughtful believers who earnestly expect more of the Church, and renders religious education in the Church a matter of mere form and custom rather than the compelling and efficacious function it is intended to be to the end of engendering repentance, forming conviction, and inspiring hearers to true conversion of heart for the sake of their salvation. Fr. John A. McGuckin thus opines: “…our educational goals, as Orthodox Church-men and -women, [must] be no less strenuous than the goals of the other learned ones of our age…Mediocrity is not a reverent option, any more than it would be to settle for mediocrity in liturgical celebration: such a settlement becomes, de facto, sacrilegious.”[15] Consistent failure to meet the requisite standards in ecclesial instruction and leadership therefore risks not only misunderstanding, but also, more dangerously, silent disengagement, implicit distrust, and, most lamentably, outright apostasy, while occasioning a loss of the Church’s legitimacy amidst the many competing institutions and attractions vying for her members’ time and investment in today’s uncompromising marketplace of attention. And with time, what originally constituted the Church’s core functions — teaching and pastoring[16] — come to be viewed not with the reverence or care befitting them, but instead with disinterest, disdain, and even contempt, being trod underfoot, having lost their seriousness and dignity through the absence of a respectable and reverence-inducing standard of practice, to the spiritual and intellectual detriment of both the Church and those within her embrace. The irony in this, particularly with respect to education, is that the common justifications proffered for an “inclusive” and informal approach to the function of teaching in the Church produce over time a directly opposite outcome. The desire to maximize youth involvement in ecclesial life by promoting the majority of young men and women to teaching positions, and to facilitate interest and participation among them by building educative settings on guest-speaker or informal fellowship models, ultimately results in teaching that is substantively diluted, uncompelling, and often, by the very nature of the approach, unorthodox. In time, this leads to less involvement, conviction, and theological competence by the very people the system seeks to serve by conducting education in such a manner. This is not due to any scarcity of theologically trained and ecclesially qualified teachers, but instead an administrative philosophy that fails to appreciate the already perceptible longterm consequences of a well-intentioned innovation to the traditional practice of teaching in the Church. Needless to say, the Church possesses both a wealth of spiritually and theologically capable individuals and a sincere and demanding congregation, yet the structures for identifying and empowering the truly qualified have not always kept pace with the developments discussed thus far.[17] In such a context, the necessity of formal and sound theological formation, and of possessing a willingness to reevaluate and modify the Church’s present practices, becomes all the more pronounced. To the end of restoring seriousness and integrity to the office of the priest, and to religious education as it is carried out in the Church, especially at the parish level, the Church must look firstly to her formal educating institution — the seminary — as the proper starting point to addressing today’s pedagogical and pastoral needs. For this reason, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III writes: “it is necessary for the fathers, the priests, to be graduates of theological colleges, so that they may be knowledgeable in religious sciences. The priest must be a student of the Holy Scripture, studying it deeply with interpretation — especially from the sayings of the holy fathers — and a student of theological and liturgical sciences and Church history, from trusted sources.”[18] His teacher, Saint Habib Girgis, states the same with added force: “There is a grave danger in the ordination of someone who has not graduated from the Theological College. It is an impudence against truth that is illaudable, a resistance to religious reform and a blatant violation of divine laws that oblige a priest to be an erudite scholar in religious subjects, as well as other subjects—in order to perform his divine duty in a perfect way, and to perform his duty toward God and the community in the best way.”[19] The seminary is specifically designed to prepare ecclesial educators and shepherds for the requirements and expectations of those ministries[20], and when properly envisioned, supported, and operated, it is entirely unparalleled in its ability to accomplish those ends. This insistence arises from two converging needs: first, the internal need of the Church to preserve the integrity of her teaching and pastoring through structured, accountable formation, and second, the external need of meeting the intellectual standards of a highly educated laity who rightly expect clarity, coherence, and depth. The seminary exists precisely to address both goals. It forms its students according to the mind of the Church, grounding them in Scripture, patristics, liturgy, doctrine, and all other disciplines and concerns required by the ministry of the Church, while also cultivating within them habits of disciplined thought and careful expression. It provides not only information, but, more importantly, orientation — training to think, see, and understand ecclesially, with the proper framework for doctrinal instruction and pastoral practice, rather than in a merely analytical, or academic, fashion. For this reason, those who have undergone such formation ought to be afforded proper empowerment and deference. Where the Church has established means of preparation, it is only right that those who have submitted to and faithfully completed that preparation be enabled to put into practice, for the benefit of the Church, their training and preparation, being entrusted with corresponding responsibilities. To fail in this regard is to undermine not only the very existence and mission of the seminary, through the practical elimination of its central function in the life of the Church and her service, but also, tragically, even the very integrity and efficacy of the Church’s educative and convicting power. At the same time, in accordance with the scriptural mandate, not many among the flock should become teachers.[21] The increase in general competence — both theological and professional — does not imply a universal vocation to instruction. Rather, it intensifies the need to identify those who are specifically called and equipped to engage in the sensitive and consequential task of Christian education and ecclesial instruction for the doctrinal and spiritual formation of the believers.[22] Indeed, the more educated a community becomes, the more pressing it is that its teachers and leaders be duly qualified. A well-formed audience is not best served by a multiplicity of voices, but by clarity and singularity of spirit — by those who have received the spirit and teaching of Christ in discipleship and formal ecclesial training and who can therefore deliver and teach these with precision, depth, honesty, and humility, in wholehearted submission to and out of their personal, firsthand immersion in the teaching and life of the Church. Yet even as the necessity of proper seminary formation is affirmed, it must be equally emphasized that formal training alone is insufficient. The possession of a degree — even in theology — does not automatically render one fit to teach within the Church. And here the distinction between seminary training and academic study must clearly be understood.[23] The work of a seminary is to transmit to its students the spirit and substance of the Christian faith and to train them to serve God in the Church by teaching and discipling in accordance with that spirit and substance. On the other hand, the work of a theological school or college — academic theological institutions — is to train academically, that is, to deliver a certain caliber of knowledge and methodology to its students. Thus, while a theological school or college must operate with special consideration to higher degrees and for the purpose of graduating those students who meet certain academic competencies, a seminary operates toward different ends and with different considerations — namely, with consideration to the spiritual and theological integrity of its students and professors, the spirit which they possess, and their God-given gifts and talents, toward the end of preparing men and women to serve, in the capacities of teaching and pastoral care, in their respective churches, and to do so well, according to the mind and spirit of Christ.[24] For these reasons, while education is central in both sorts of institutions, its purposes, methods, and emphases vary according to the type of institution in which it is employed. The ethos of a theological school or college is thoroughly academic, while that of a seminary is thoroughly pastoral. One is informational, the other formational. One intends to graduate its students with certain tangible qualifications, appreciated and conferred in the form of academic degrees; the other intends to graduate its students with certain largely intangible qualifications — piety, theological soundness, intellectual humility, selflessness, wisdom in ecclesial administration, scriptural familiarity, liturgical and hymnological competency, homiletic proficiency, and other such qualities. The students of one maintain their relationship with their institution for the sole purpose of attaining the degree towards which they work, and that relationship therefore naturally ceases when the aim of their enrollment is accomplished by their attainment of that degree; the students of the other maintain a lifelong relationship of discipleship and sonship to their institution, as both a seminary and its students understand that the seminary is best served when its students remain involved in its operations, and its students are best served in maintaining their relationship with their seminary.[25] One seeks its students’ intellectual and academic advancement; the other, its students’ salvation and that of those whom they will serve.[26] It is therefore not higher theological education generally, but precisely seminary training, that is a necessary prerequisite for those who are called to teach in the Church and to shepherd the flock of Christ. But knowledge alone, and even formal seminary training, divorced from piety and virtue, remains vastly incomplete, and is quite prone to misleading and misguiding both its possessor and the one who is subjected to its influence. Any consideration of qualification must therefore give due and even superseding weight to the spiritual gift imparted upon the person by God, and to the life and understanding of the individual.[27] In this regard, discipleship, manner of life[28], submission to the sacramental and ascetical life of the Church, and adherence to sound doctrine are foundational, not secondary, considerations. Thus the believers generally, and those who administer the affairs of the Church particularly, must recognize that ecclesial qualification lies in the convergence of formation, faithfulness, virtue, and gift, while resisting two equal and opposite reductions: the elevation of appearances and visibility above substance, whether on the individual or institutional level[29], and the concern with credentials at the expense of doctrine and manner of life. In this light, the way forward in ecclesial governance and pedagogy requires the intentional refinement, and not the abandonment, of the structures that have brought the Church to this point. On the part of ecclesial leadership, spiritual discernment must be proactively and formally restored as a central practice, shaping how individuals are recognized, formed, and utilized in the service of the Church[30], and official, transparent ecclesial procedures, borne out of the Church’s tradition, history, and divine mission, must be reinstated and faithfully adhered to in the Church’s operations, particularly, insofar as this paper is concerned, in the areas of education and pastoral care. This entails both a renewed attentiveness on the part of clergy and servant leaders, in looking beyond visibility and activity to the deeper realities of life, doctrine, and character, and a recommitment to the empowerment and full integration of seminaries in the operations and administrative processes of the Church, both by properly funding seminary operations and by facilitating for their alumni meaningful opportunities and deference in the pastoral and educative functions of the Church. This further necessitates reconsideration of the way education is carried out at the parish level today, particularly in the West. What may have worked in times past in many ways no longer succeeds today. This is not to be interpreted as advocacy for shortened lectures, the utilization of artificial intelligence or other tools of attraction, or any other superficial means. Rather, the necessary correctives must arise at the methodological level, with the aim of facilitating the caliber of education and preaching[31] in the parish that convicts hearers, responds convincingly to inquirers and to contemporary challenges to the Faith, fierce and unrelenting as they are, sparks interest in the matters and substance of the belief in Christ, and inspires generation after generation to love the Lord with the whole heart and follow Him at any cost.[32] When now, in most instances, an impersonal conveyor-belt model governs qualification for teaching in Sunday School in most parishes, the implementation of effective and ecclesially-appropriate methods of instruction must involve a return to personal discipleship and formal theological formation for educators, with “pre-servants” programs being housed in the Seminary, ensuring that all parish educators throughout the diocese complete a single curriculum of education and receive a consistent spirit and teaching through the Seminary, such that they are able to deliver these to those they teach in a consistent, spiritually sound, and doctrinally respectable manner steeped in the life and tradition of the Church. When now teaching takes place by means of tens or even hundreds of teachers dispersed amongst a myriad of classrooms — or by rotating guest speakers or an informal discussion format in youth meeting settings — often utilizing curricula which employ outdated, uninformed, and culturally foreign educational models, a restructuring of Sunday School and educative settings more generally is necessary such that duly qualified teachers are granted to educate, whether within one parish or across parishes — eliminating resource and quality disparities between parishes — while complementary small-group activities, interpersonal mentorship programs, and smaller-scale educative dynamics led by those who do not formally teach are maintained so as to preserve their integral involvement in intergenerational parish relationships and active participation in the ministries of the Church. These recommendations are far from a novel idea for the Coptic Church, but instead represent a fundamental return to the original vision and model of the Sunday School movement as established by Saint Archdeacon Habib Girgis, who headquartered Sunday School in the Seminary[33] and operated it such that those seminarians who possessed the requisite gifts, qualifications, ecclesial life, and moral uprightness were either appointed as professors in the Seminary or commissioned to teach in the churches throughout Egypt, ensuring uniformity of sound doctrine and equal access by all to sound religious education regardless of each community’s resources or extent of educative capability. The operational modifications recommended herein are not impossible — for an intellectually and professionally eminent community such as is found in the Coptic Orthodox Church in the West, these recommendations are entirely feasible, merely requiring commitment, competent leadership, and coordinated execution at the diocesan level. On the part of the believers personally, moreover, a cultural shift is similarly necessary, wherein the faithful must learn to value intentional depth over immediacy, formation over social or online prominence, and faithfulness over familiarity, while holding their teachers and leaders accountable to the spirit and mandates of the Gospel and the tradition of the Church.[34] In a highly educated community, this is not an unreasonable expectation, but a natural extension of the intellectual seriousness and proven capabilities of the Church’s members.[35] Finally, on the part of those who are called to be ordained or to teach in any capacity in the Church, these must recognize the gravity of the work for which they are being considered, know themselves well, and possess the courage to, at the very least, submit to the necessary means of preparation prior to accepting the responsibility presented to them.[36] It is not sufficient to merely possess purity of intention or sincerity of heart when undertaking the ministry of Christ — indeed, throughout her history, the Church has suffered much from good intentions. Wisdom, discernment, courage, and humility are therefore uncompromisable prerequisites for the one who is to serve well the household of God. For this reason, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III asserts: “Many churches appoint people to ministry who were never prepared, and the result is that some of them fall into mistakes that are subject to reproach…If the servants are only good-hearted, but lack knowledge and wisdom, their preparation is not sound…they may fall into mistakes that trouble the ministry later on.”[37] In a world which struggles to maintain definitional truth and paradigmatic soundness amidst the proliferation of technological advances and digital life, the Church therefore stands at a critical nexus, with her ability to carry out her mission gravely requiring careful reexamination. The fruits of her educational revival, the intellectual maturation of her people and their rapid dispersion throughout the world, and the technological and societal realities of the day, have collectively engendered a context of both opportunity and challenge — a Church capable of engaging her tradition with depth, clarity, and confidence, but one which is called to recommit to ensuring that those entrusted with teaching and shepherding are prepared for the task not only in knowledge, but also in formation, calling, and life. If robust administrative processes and proper spiritual discernment are instituted and maintained in her governance and by her members, including seminary training being rightly upheld as a normative foundation for teaching and pastoring, teachers being selected not as a matter of routine but carefully, and appearances and accomplishments being consistently subordinated to spiritual authenticity, then the Church will both preserve the integrity of her teaching and life while meeting her people where they are, not by lowering expectations, but by fulfilling them through offering instruction, leadership, and operations that are at once intellectually rigorous, theologically faithful, and spiritually vivifying, to the glory of God and the salvation of souls. — [1] For a discussion of the origins of, and the challenges and circumstances encountered by, the Sunday School Movement in Egypt, see, generally Bishop Suriel, Habib Girgis: Coptic Orthodox Educator and a Light in the Darkness. St. Habib Girgis, in characteristic humility, pointed yet further back, to Pope Cyril IV, the Father of Reform, when discussing the educational reawakening of the Copts, yet lamented the unsatisfactory spiritual fruits that ultimately resulted from that initial undertaking: “The reform movement was begun by Pope Cyril IV, who was truly called the Father of Reform. When this great man sat on the patriarchal throne, he was full of zeal, enthusiasm and a strong resolve; he greatly desired to promote his people and achieve their advancement. He believed that the only way to achieve his goals was through learning…We have seen many of those who filled the highest positions, such as ministers, judges, lawyers, doctors, engineers, school principals, and others who know nothing about their religion or history, who perceive the characters of their language as cryptic signs. The result of all this is a loosening of the bonds — the loss of Coptic unity and the weakening of the Coptic spirit.” (Practical Methods of Coptic Reform, 7-8 (tentative English translation)). [2] See, e.g., Alber Fares, Exploring Coptic Heritage, Religion, Genetics, and the Genetic Influences on Educational Outcomes: A Study of Their Interconnections. Biomed J Sci & Tech Res 61(1)-2025. BJSTR. MS.ID.009543 (https://biomedres.us/pdfs/BJSTR.MS.ID.009543.pdf) (stating: “In Egypt and various locations with Coptic communities, such as Australia, Sudan, Canada, the United States, Great Britain, and several European countries including Germany and Austria…Copts tend to have higher educational achievements, a greater wealth index, and more vigorous representation in white-collar professions;” “The percentage of young Coptic students enrolling in graduate programs in the USA for healthcare professions, including medicine, pharmacy, and dentistry, has soared to an unprecedented 90% of the total Coptic student population. Other popular fields among these students are engineering, teaching, law, and psychology, which account for 9% of all young Copts. The remaining professions comprise just 1%.”). See also Migration Policy Institute, The Egyptian Diaspora in the United States (Revised May 2015) (https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/RAD-EgyptII.pdf) (finding, as to Egyptian immigrants in the United States generally: “Immigrants from Egypt in the United States and their children were substantially more likely than the U.S. general public to have completed a university degree, be employed, and have a professional or managerial occupation;” “Members of the Egyptian diaspora in the United States were more than twice as likely as the U.S. population to have earned a degree above a bachelor's. Among those in the U.S.-based Egyptian diaspora population age 25 and older, 26 percent held a master's degree, PhD, or an advanced professional degree compared to 11 percent of the U.S. general public. Another 38 percent of Egyptian diaspora members age 25 and older held a bachelor's degree as their highest academic credential versus 20 percent of the U.S. national population. Moreover, the Egyptian diaspora shows increasing educational attainment across generations, with a greater share of the second generation having bachelor's and advanced degrees than the first generation;” “Fifty percent of Egyptian diaspora members in the United States were in professional or managerial occupations, compared to 31 percent of the U.S. general public. These occupations include specialized fields (e.g. engineering, science, law, or education) as well as administrative and managerial jobs (e.g. finance or human resources). Although they were not the largest occupational group, physicians were overrepresented in the Egyptian diaspora compared to the U.S. labor force: 5 percent versus 0.5 percent.”). See also Jennifer M Brinkerhoff and Liesl Riddle, Coptic Diaspora Survey Project. General Findings: Coptic Diaspora Survey. ResearchGate, 3 June 2015. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.1729.8082 (https://www.copticorphans.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CopticSurveyWhitePaperReport2-2012.pdf) (reporting: “The findings suggest Coptic diasporans are relatively well-educated, with a wide range of occupations, a high percentage of professionals, and, on average, a fairly high household income. Eighty-nine percent of the sample completed a bachelor’s degree or higher (44% bachelor’s, 21% master’s, and 24% doctoral). The high education rates within the Coptic diaspora are not representative of the Coptic population remaining in Egypt, suggesting that many of those who could emigrate chose to do so;” “The sample represents a wide variety of occupations, with substantial proportions from the legal, medical, engineering and academic professions (51% combined). Over 53% of the sample reports annual household incomes of over $100,000, with 17% earning over $200,000 annually;” “51% of respondents are in the legal, medical, engineering, or academic professions. 19% are in the business professions, including 7% who are business owners or entrepreneurs;” “90% of respondents are college-educated, with 45% holding advanced degrees.”). [3] See, e.g. Fares, supra: “Copts have relatively higher educational attainment and wealth index due to Coptic Christianity’s emphasis on literacy and the fact that Coptic Christianity encouraged the accumulation of human capital. According to a 2016 Pew Center study on religion and education worldwide, approximately 26% of Copts earn a university degree from higher education institutions” (citing Cooperman A, Hackett C, Schiller A., Religion and Education Around the World. Pew Research Center (2016). [4] “It is a lamentable case, that in a message from the God of heaven, of everlasting moment to the souls of men, we should behave ourselves so weakly, so unhandsomely, so imprudently, or so slightly, that the whole business should miscarry in our hands, and God should be dishonoured, and his work disgraced, and sinners rather hardened than converted; and all this through our weakness or neglect! How often have carnal hearings gone home jeering at the palpable and dishonourable failings of the preacher!” (Richard Baxter, RP, 70-71). [5] See, e.g., Pope Shenouda III, The Work of the Priest from a Cultural, Doctrinal, and Theological Perspective, Public Lecture (February 24, 1997) (https://popeshenouda.org.eg/en/the-work-of-the-priest-from-a-cultural-doctrinal-and-theological-perspective/) (wherein His Holiness emphasizes that the rise in the believers’ degree of information necessitates a commensurate rise in the readiness of their leaders to address their questions and satisfy their intellectual standards). [6] “The Church cannot present us true leaders, counselors and reformers unless her leaders and pastors are specially trained to practice their lofty and critical roles…An engineer cannot take on this role without proper training in the faculty of engineering. The physician cannot be trusted over people’s bodies and souls unless he receives both theoretical and practical education in his faculty. The situation is similar also for a judge, lawyer, teacher, farmer and mechanic, as well as others who are comparable…Hence, a religious [educator] is not exempt from this….” (Habib Girgis, “al-Madrasah al-Iklīrīkiyah: Māḍīhā wa-ḥāḍirhā wa-mustaqbalahā” [The Clerical School: Its Past, Present and Future], al-Karmah [The Vine] 9.9 (1923): 464). Similarly, Saint John Chrysostom asserts: “People who are keen for athletic fitness need doctors and trainers and a careful diet and continual exercise and any amount of precautions. For the neglect of a small detail in these matters upsets and spoils the whole scheme. Then what about those whose vocation is to look after this Body which has to contend, not against flesh and blood, but against the unseen powers” (On the Priesthood, IV.2). [7] Hence His Holiness Pope Shenouda III insists: “The Church does not compete with the world in its projects, nor does it resemble the world in its methods. It places before itself the Apostle’s saying: 'Do not be conformed to this world’ (Romans 12:2).” The Priest Must Be Spiritual in His Goals and in His Style, published in Watani, September 24, 2006. As to the sorts of ambitious strategies employed by some, as described herein, Amma Theodora warns: “a teacher ought to be a stranger to the desire for domination, vain-glory, and pride; one should not be able to fool him by flattery, nor blind him by gifts, nor conquer him by the stomach, nor dominate him by anger; but he should be patient, gentle and humble as far as possible; he must be tested and without partisanship, full of concern, and a lover of souls” (Saying 5), and Amma Syncletica similarly advises: “It is dangerous for anyone to teach who has not first been trained in the ‘practical’ life. For if someone who owns a ruined house receives guests there, he does them harm because of the dilapidation of his dwelling. It is the same in the case someone who has not first built an interior dwelling; he causes loss to those who come. By words one may convert them to salvation, but by evil behaviour, one injures them” (Saying 12). John Cassian also writes that while such people “are eager to be set over their brethren, they are never subject to their elders themselves, and, with pride for their starting point, while they are quite ready to teach others they take no trouble to learn themselves or to practise what they are to teach: and so it is sure to end in their becoming, as the Saviour said, ‘blind leaders of the blind’ so that ‘both fall into the ditch’” (Conferences, 4.20). [8] As regards the moral uprightness required of the one who teaches the household of God, Saint Jerome illustratively insists that such a person be “blameless in life and lip. For a teacher loses all his influence whose words are rendered null by his deeds” (Letter to Oceanus, in NPNF Second Series, Vol. 6, p. 363). [9] “When teaching in church seek to call forth not plaudits but groans. Let the tears of your hearers be your glory” (Jerome, Letter to Nepotian, in NPNF Second Series, Vol. 6, p. 250). [10] “…the priesthood may justly accuse us if we do not rightly handle it. For it is not itself a cause of the evils already mentioned, but we, who as far as lies in our power have defiled it with so many pollutions, by entrusting it to commonplace men who readily accept what is offered them, without having first acquired a knowledge of their own souls, or considered the gravity of the office, and when they have entered on the work, being blinded by inexperience, overwhelm with innumerable evils the people who have been committed to their care” (Chrysostom, On the Priesthood III.10); “[N]one shall be made a priest but those of understanding, loving God, loving others, such as are able worthily to stand before the altar” (Athanasian Canons, sec. 4, p. 8). “You are to ordain bishops worthy of the Lord, and presbyters and deacons who are prayerful, righteous, meek, free from the love of money, lovers of truth, approved, holy, who do not discriminate among persons, who are able to teach religious truth and rightly divide the doctrines of the Lord.” (The Apostolic Constitutions, VII.II). “Let examination also be made whether he be unblameable as to the concerns of this life; for it is written: 'Search diligently for all the faults of him who is to be ordained for the priesthood’” (The Apostolic Constitutions, II.I.ii). [11] “…the majority of those who are under the preachers' charge are not minded to behave towards them as towards teachers, but disdaining the part of learners, they assume instead the attitude of those who sit and look on at the public games; and just as the multitude there is separated into parties, and some attach themselves to one, and some to another, so here also men are divided, and become the partisans now of this teacher, now of that, listening to them with a view to favor or spite…For the public are accustomed to listen not for profit, but for pleasure, sitting like critics of tragedies, and of musical entertainments…A preacher then should have loftiness of mind, far exceeding my own littleness of spirit, that he may correct this disorderly and unprofitable pleasure on the part of the multitude, and be able to lead them over to a more useful way of hearing, that his people may follow and yield to him, and that he may not be led away by their own humors, and this it is not possible to arrive at, except by two means: indifference to their praise, and the power of preaching well” (Chrysostom, On the Priesthood V.1). [12] “Tell me, where do you think all the disorders in the churches originate? I think their only origin is in the careless and random way in which the prelates are chosen and appointed” (John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, III.10). [13] al-Wasă'il al-amaliyah lil-işlahat al-Qibțiyah [The Practical Means Toward Coptic Reform: Hopes and Dreams], 2nd ed. (Cairo: Dãr Madăris al-Ahhad al-Qibțiyah, 1993), 10, in Bishop Suriel, Habib Girgis, 62. [14] Fr. John A. McGuckin, Education (Paideia) as Kerygmatic Value in the Orthodox Tradition, in Ann Mitsakos Bezzerides and Elizabeth H. Prodromou, eds., Eastern Orthodox Christianity and American Higher Education: Theological, Historical, and Contemporary Reflections, 58: “what being ‘learned’ means implies that our educational goals, as Orthodox Church-men and -women, will be no less strenuous than the goals of the other learned ones of our age — people who…set standards that we ought to look to constantly to see whether we are in the same league or not, whether we have sufficient resources to justify our claim to offer a serious high-quality educational experience wherever we are located on the educational horizon…” [15] Fr. John A. McGuckin, Education (Paideia) as Kerygmatic Value in the Orthodox Tradition, in Ann Mitsakos Bezzerides and Elizabeth H. Prodromou, eds., Eastern Orthodox Christianity and American Higher Education: Theological, Historical, and Contemporary Reflections, 58. [16] See Matthew 28:16-20; See also Malachi 2:7; See also His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, Comparative Theology 12-13 (stating: “Faith and doctrine were the task of the Church, represented by her councils and bishops, and were interpreted by the clergymen to the people. Preachers are not entitled to teach their own opinions on the subjects of faith and doctrine, but they must teach what is recorded in the Church doctrine entrusted to them…The Church, [which] has been alert over the faith, to maintain it, does not…give the authority of teaching to everyone, but examines the sayings of the teachers against the faith entrusted to the saints. Thus the saying of St. Paul the Apostle (Gal. 1:9) remains a fixed criterion. Sometimes the reason for an error in faith or teaching is due to mixing with different dogmas, or being influenced by them and their teachers, or by being disciples of such teachers or their writings. Sometimes the reason for an error in faith is due to one's sticking to one's own opinion, neither accepting any change nor obeying the Church.” [17] “Now formerly I used to deride secular rulers, because in the distribution of their honors they are not guided by considerations of moral excellence, but of wealth, and seniority, and human distinction; but when I heard that this kind of folly had forced its way into our affairs also, I no longer regarded their conduct as so atrocious. For what wonder is it that worldly men, who love the praise of the multitude, and do everything for the sake of gain, should commit these sins, when those who affect at least to be free from all these influences are in no wise better disposed than they, but although engaged in a contest for heavenly things, act as if the question submitted for decision was one which concerned acres of land, or something else of that kind? For they take commonplace men off-hand, and set them to preside over those things, for the sake of which the only begotten Son of God did not refuse to empty Himself of His glory and become man, and take the form of a servant, and be spat upon, and buffeted, and die a death of reproach in the flesh. Nor do they stop even here, but add to these offenses others still more monstrous; for not only do they elect unworthy men, but actually expel those who are well qualified. As if it were necessary to ruin the safety of the Church on both sides, or as if the former provocation were not sufficient to kindle the wrath of God, they have contrived yet another not less pernicious. For I consider it as atrocious to expel the useful men as to force in the useless. And this in fact takes place, so that the flock of Christ is unable to find consolation in any direction, or draw its breath freely” (Chrysostom, On the Priesthood III.15). [18] Among the Attributes of the Priest: Knowledge, published in El-Keraza Magazine, April 26, 2002. See also John Earle, Micro-cosmography, sec. 3, pp. 5-7 (“The good pastor is one that knows the burden of his calling and has studied to make his shoulders sufficient.”). [19] The Coptic Orthodox Seminary, 103, in Bishop Suriel, Habib Girgis, 168. [20] “Preparation for ministry is crucial because so many souls hang in the balance of its effectiveness” (Thomas Oden, Becoming a Minister, 150). [21] See James 3:1. Indeed, in light of the fearful and awesome work of the teacher of the Church, His Grace Bishop Gregorios of Higher Theological Studies was fond of saying: “The fire of persecution is, to me, preferable to the fire of the pulpit.” [22] “Glory be to You, O Lord! Glory to You! How vast is the depth of Your lovingkindness! How great the riches of Your forbearance! Men who on account of Your name have risen from insignificance and obscurity to positions of honor and distinction, use the honor they enjoy against Him who has bestowed it, do deeds of outrageous audacity, and insult holy things, rejecting and expelling men of zeal in order that the wicked may ruin everything at their pleasure in much security, and with the utmost fearlessness. And if you would know the causes of this dreadful evil, you will find that they are similar to those which were mentioned before; for they have one root and mother, so to say — namely, envy; but this is manifested in several different forms. For one we are told is to be struck out of the list of candidates, because he is young; another because he does not know how to flatter; a third because he has offended such and such a person; a fourth lest such and such a man should be pained at seeing one whom he has presented rejected, and this man elected; a fifth because he is kind and gentle; a sixth because he is formidable to the sinful; a seventh for some other like reason; for they are at no loss to find as many pretexts as they want, and can even make the abundance of a man's wealth an objection when they have no other” (Chrysostom, On the Priesthood III.15). [23] For a helpful discussion, see Lawrence P. DeBoer, Seminary and University: Two Approaches to Theology and Religion, in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume XXXII, Issue 4, October 1964, Pages 342–349. See also John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University. See also Downs, David J., Tina Houston-Armstrong, and Amos Yong, eds., Vocation, Formation, and Theological Education. Fuller Seminary Press, 2021. [24] “…it is no sufficient security for the Catholicity of a University, even that the whole of Catholic theology should be professed in it, unless the Church breathes her own pure and unearthly spirit into it, and fashions and moulds its organization, and watches over its teaching, and knits together its pupils, and superintends its action” (John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University, Discourse IX.2). [25] This was the model expertly employed by the Seminary in the time of St. Habib Girgis, whether with respect to his own initial appointment as lecturer there while still a student of the Seminary, or thereafter when he came to hold a leadership position therein and would routinely appoint alumni to various educative functions, whether within the Seminary or in associated positions in the Sunday School ministry, which was headquartered in the Seminary. See Bishop Suriel, Habib Girgis, 64. This approach was continued by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, in faithful discipleship to St. Habib Girgis. [26] “Education for the ministry of the church is done by and within the church as a worshiping, obedient, and redemptive community with an over-all evangelical purpose. When the scholarly study of religion takes place within the university it takes its place within a community dedicated to the expansion of knowledge and critical understanding. It needs no further justification or end” (Lawrence P. DeBoer, “Seminary and University: Two Approaches to Theology and Religion,” in the Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Oct. 1964), p. 344 — Oxford University Press). [27] “…it is assumed that the shepherd be good in administration and wise, able to manage the affairs of the Church with wisdom, to manage each soul with wisdom, and to manage relationships with outsiders and non-Christians with wisdom…it is not sufficient for the priest merely to be educated, but he must be apt to teach, capable of guiding others…” (His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, Among the Qualities of the Priest, published in Watani, June 25, 2006). [28] “…every prophet that speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one that speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he hold the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known.” (Didache, 11.8). Saint John Chrysostom further comments: “…the mass of people under government are generally inclined to regard the manners of those who govern as a kind of model type, and to assimilate themselves to them. How then could any one put a stop to their fury when he is swelling himself with rage? And who among the multitude would straightway desire to become moderate when he sees the ruler irritable? For it is quite impossible for the defects of priests to be concealed, but even trifling ones speedily become manifest. So an athlete, as long as he remains at home, and contends with no one, can dissemble his weakness even if it be very great, but when he strips for the contest he is easily detected. And thus for some who live this private and inactive life, their isolation serves as a veil to hide their defects; but when they have been brought into public they are compelled to divest themselves of this mantle of seclusion, and to lay bare their souls to all through their visible movements. As therefore their right deeds profit many, by provoking them to equal zeal, so their shortcomings make men more indifferent to the practice of virtue, and encourage them to indolence in their endeavours after what is excellent. Wherefore his soul ought to gleam with beauty on every side, that it may be able to gladden and to enlighten the souls of those who behold it. For the faults of ordinary men, being committed as it were in the dark, ruin only those who practise them: but the errors of a man in a conspicuous position, and known to many, inflicts a common injury upon all, rendering those who have fallen more supine in their efforts for good, and driving to desperation those who wish to take heed to themselves. And apart from these things, the faults of insignificant men, even if they are exposed, inflict no injury worth speaking of upon any one: but they who occupy the highest seat of honor are in the first place plainly visible to all, and if they err in the smallest matters these trifles seem great to others: for all men measure the sin, not by the magnitude of the offense, but by the rank of the offender. Thus the priest ought to be protected on all sides by a kind of adamantine armour, by intense earnestness, and perpetual watchfulness concerning his manner of life, lest some one discovering an exposed and neglected spot should inflict a deadly wound: for all who surround him are ready to smite and overthrow him: not enemies only and adversaries, but many even of those who profess friendship” (On the Priesthood III.14). [29] “Each man’s actual life, therefore, is that which decides what are his morals: for it is not by mere outside adornments, and fictitious virtues that the beauty of the truly honourable life is delineated, but by the deeds a man does: for they are the fruits of a mind that for the love of piety chooses a blameless life. It is by deeds, therefore, and not by outside shew, that we must see who is the man truly approved, and who is not so…We must decide, then, the character of the teacher, not by appearances, but by the acts of each one’s life” (Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Sermon XXXIII.9). [30] “To those, then, who are not gifted with the power of discernment, and are not inclined to knowledge, the word is not entrusted. Otherwise it would be like the ravens who imitate human voices, yet have not the slightest understanding of what they say” (Saint Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata (Miscellanies), VI.XII). [31] “[T]he priest [must] be satisfying to his people in terms of knowledge, with depth and spirituality in his sermons [and] richness and breadth of his information, so that they gather around him feeling that they benefit from him. Thus was the Lord Christ, the High Priest, thus were our fathers the apostles, and thus were the early bishops, the teachers of the Church” (His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, Among the Qualities of the Priest, published in Watani, June 25, 2006). Saint Cyril likewise states: “The Saviour has ordained as stewards, so to speak, over his servants — that is, over those who have been won by faith to the acknowledgment of His glory — men faithful and of great understanding, and well instructed in the sacred doctrines. And He has ordained them, commanding them to give their fellow-servants their allowance of food; and that not simply and without distinction, but rather at its proper season: by which is meant such food, I mean spiritual food, as is sufficient and fitting for each individual…Whoever therefore shall wisely in due season, and according to their need, divide to his fellow-servants their portion, that is, their food, very blessed shall he be…But if, He says, neglecting the duty of being diligent and faithful, and despising watchfulness in these things as superfluous, he let his mind grow intoxicated with worldly cares, and is seduced into improper courses, dragging by force, and oppressing those who are subject to him, and not giving them their portion, in utter wretchedness shall he be…For whosoever has done wrong to the glory of Christ, or ventured to think slightingly of the flock entrusted to his charge, differs in no respect whatsoever from those who know Him not: and all such persons will justly be counted among those who have no love for Him…If therefore he who feeds his flock loves it, then of course he that neglects it, and leaves the flock that has been entrusted to him without oversight, hates it: and if he hate it he will be punished, and be liable to the condemnation pronounced upon the unbelievers, as being convicted by the very facts of being negligent and contemptuous” (Sermon XCIII). Thus, ensuring the doctrinal and spiritual fitness and preparation of those who shepherd and teach the flock is not merely necessary out of concern for the Church, or for the believers, but also for the shepherd and teacher himself, lest he be found unable to perform well the functions entrusted to him by God through the Church, or unequipped to nurture and safeguard the sheep of Christ from the wolves of error, sin, and spiritual laxity that constantly assail them, to his own spiritual endangerment. Thus Saint John Chrysostom recommends: “Certainly anyone who is going to confer an appointment should make a careful inquiry; but the one who is to be appointed should be more careful still” (On the Priesthood, IV.1), and Pseudo-Clement warns: “Let us, therefore, fear the judgment which awaits teachers. For a severe judgment will those teachers receive ‘who teach, but do not’ (Matt. 23:3)…These, moreover, are like ‘the blind man who leads the blind man, and they both fall into the ditch’ (Matt. 15:14). And they will receive judgment, because in their talkativeness and their frivolous teaching they teach natural wisdom, and the ‘frivolous error of the plausible words of the wisdom of men’ (cf. Col. 2:8)” (Two Epistles Concerning Virginity, XI). [32] “…being faithful to our educational mission means that we see the pressing need today to tell the church's story afresh, tell it truly and energetically, tell it so that its living truth penetrates the surface sophistication of a highly literate contemporary audience, but one (sad to say perhaps unmatched in its illiteracy regarding religion. We do not need to worry about whether the message is relevant, or whether it still carries any power. These are the "things of the Spirit" that the Lord takes care of himself. We just have to tell the story faithfully and wisely. Then the Orthodox will shine again, not just as the "world's best-kept secret," and not as liturgically exotic blooms, but rather as the world's well of clean water. We need the passion of faith to tell the story energetically and prophetically, but we so very much need a lively domain of Orthodox higher education to be able to nurture storytellers who can recite the tale skillfully, evangelically, convincingly, and in ways that truly advance the church's kerygmatic mission, its Great Commission” (Fr. John A. McGuckin, Education (Paideia) as Kerygmatic Value in the Orthodox Tradition, in Ann Mitsakos Bezzerides and Elizabeth H. Prodromou, Eastern Orthodox Christianity and American Higher Education: Theological, Historical, and Contemporary Reflections, 76). [33] “Basing the formative work of the Sunday Schools at the seminary was a strategic move on Girgis’ part. The seminary was the heart of education in the Church, the place where future Coptic leaders — priests, deacons, and lay leaders — were formed” (Bishop Suriel, Habib Girgis, 64). [34] “…the church's record throughout its two millennia of history can show that it has always been (at least in the cases of its greatest and most spiritual teachers) one of the most profound forces for the education of a deep human civilization. It has loved learning. It has wanted to educate its people. It has told them luminous stories. It has produced countless books, at great cost of labor. It has loved (and invented) the codex. It has delighted in men and women of learning. But always, it has known where its learning was looking” (Fr. John A. McGuckin, Education (Paideia) as Kerygmatic Value in the Orthodox Tradition, in Ann Mitsakos Bezzerides and Elizabeth H. Prodromou, Eastern Orthodox Christianity and American Higher Education: Theological, Historical, and Contemporary Reflections, 61). [35] His Holiness Pope Shenouda III therefore advises: “In order for the priest to be able to satisfy his people with knowledge, he must first be filled with this knowledge…And in order to be filled, he must read much and study, and he must also have times for contemplation, so that from both he can offer spiritual nourishment to the people who listen to him…Coptic libraries are currently filled with books, and people read and their knowledge increases. The priest’s knowledge should be much greater than that of his people, and his level higher than their level, so that they may receive from him” (The Priest and Teaching, in al-Keraza Magazine, August 14, 1981). [36] “The duties of his office [Athanasius] discharged in the same spirit as that in which he had been preferred to it. For he did not at once, after taking possession of his throne, like men who have unexpectedly seized upon some sovereignty or inheritance, grow insolent from intoxication. This is the conduct of illegitimate and intrusive priests, who are unworthy of their vocation; whose preparation for the priesthood has cost them nothing, who have endured no inconvenience for the sake of virtue, who only begin to study religion when appointed to teach it” (Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 21.9). In light of the requirement of not only prerequisite theological study, but also the lifelong continuation of such study in the one ordained to the priesthood, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III teaches that “the priest must continually engage in study and research in all areas of religious sciences. For he is no longer responsible only for educating himself, but he is responsible for the entire people of his church — positively, to fill them with all knowledge, and negatively, to keep all doubts away from them…Do not think that theological study is required only as a qualification for the priesthood; rather, it is required even more after priestly ordination. What is required of the priest is far broader than the limits of academic curricula in theological colleges. Study in religious sciences has no end. What the priest encounters in questions may be something he never studied in his theological education, or something he once heard and forgot. Therefore, the priest must continue in a life of discipleship and never stop, but rather increase in knowledge day after day, especially since many servants in the Church are constant readers, and books have become very numerous. Some of what is written may raise many questions that require answers…He cannot fulfill this duty unless he is trusted regarding religious knowledge, is a servant of the word, and is able to satisfy his children with every kind of knowledge, answering every question convincingly. He also knows how to speak to each group of his people in the language that suits them, and becomes a sweet spring that overflows upon all…Such a priest, by his teaching, calls people to trust him and to respect his opinion and thought. They see that his teaching is not empty, but is based on the teaching of Scripture and the teaching of the great Fathers recognized in the Church as teachers” (The Priest as a Teacher and Preacher, in Watani, July 16, 2006). [37] His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, The Priest and Church Leadership, in al-Keraza Magazine, February 14, 1997. Further, His Holiness laments: “Believe me, the most dangerous thing confronting us now is Protestantism donning black turbans [i.e., appearing in the garb of Orthodox clergy] and working from within the Church. If a Protestant person came to you in an ordinary shirt and suit, perhaps you would not accept his words. But if he comes to you wearing a black turban, you say, ‘No, this is a priest.’ This is the most difficult thing we are facing right now — the people who adopt Western ideas and spread them inside the Church, and you find the same principles and the same ideas spreading within the Church” (Communion with God, Public Lecture, April 24, 1991, (Translation original)). — This publication complies with Doss Press' Original Human Authorship Policy, established on August 5, 2026.

[Scroll to the Original Arabic — انتقل إلى العربية الأصلية] In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — the One God. Amen. The Homily for the Feast of Nayrouz by Father Šams al-Ri’āsa Abū al-Barakāt, known as Ibn Kabar, Priest of the Hanging Church.[1] Glory be to God, to whom belongs glory and majesty, greatness and perfection, and eternity without end; who created the ages and the days, ordered the months and the years, appointed the luminaries for their orbits, and made the moon for the nighttimes, and the sun for dominion over the daytime. He inspires humanity with wisdom, bestows upon man the gifts of grace, embraces him with the hand of compassion, love, and mercy, and guides him to the paths of righteousness. He teaches him the sciences and literature, and grants him lofty knowledge — the least of which is the knowledge of arithmetic — as a perfection of his kind, demonstration of the aptitude of his nature, and confirmation of the exquisiteness of his creation and workmanship. Him we glorify with a glorification befitting His majesty, and we thank Him for the multitude of His favors, despite our thanksgiving being inadequate in comparison to the abundance of His generosity and gifts. We ask Him to guide our words according to the righteousness of his works for the preparation of His ultimate end — to aid the whole Christian people to reach the best of goals and obtain the utmost of their requests, and to spare them the afflictions of trials, according to His mercy, compassion, kindness, and favor, through the intercession of His saints and martyrs, righteous and chosen ones, and Apostles and Prophets. Amen. O righteous masters and honorable leaders, may God grant you many days such as this blessed day — having your sins forgiven, your benefactions overflowing with divine graces, and hastening on your steeds in the paths of righteous works. Know that the year which has passed from you has left you its treasures and taken leave of you in peace; the coming year has arrived bearing gladness and uprightness. The Nayrouz which has come upon you has arrived heralding for you prosperity, the excellence of works, and the attainment of the best hopes. It has prepared for you the removal of grievous calamities, the approaching of serene and joyful days, and your protection from the afflictions which, if not for the mercies of the Lord, would have brought destruction upon all creatures. So rejoice in the acceptable year of the Lord. Be glad for sight, O blind and captives of sin, and rejoice in healing, O brokenhearted. We must welcome this year with joy and gladness, by abandoning evil, cleansing ourselves from sin, sprinkling our hearts with the water of repentance before sprinkling our bodies. Let us emulate the patience and faith of Job and the integrity of his inner and outer life. Just as we have adopted his practice of sprinkling water upon the bodies, so also let us renew for ourselves the garments of virtue before renewing our outer garments, and let us be freed from all vices throughout the days, weeks, and months of this year. Let us offer to God — according to the measure of our ability — our firstfruits, tithes, and vows. Let us transfer our provisions to the eternal dwelling place, which is our final destination and place of return, by placing them in the hands of the needy and the palms of the poor, for through such hands we are assured of their arrival to that place and we see them laid up in the treasures of the Kingdom, where they are secure from the assaults of aggressors, the seizures of thieves and evildoers, the corruption of moths and rust, and the plundering of the oppressors and enemies, for where our treasures are, there also let our hearts be, as our Lord has commanded us. Such treasures increase our days and provisions; they obtain for us mercy beyond what we deserve. We reap the fruits of their planting speedily, and we shall find them stored up for us in the end. Let us join all this with thanksgiving, which preserves these blessings and spares us from that which provokes wrath. And what blessing is greater than steadfastness in the Faith, safety and bodily health, and our gathering together on this day in the holy Church of God to receive the oblation and be renewed in Jesus Christ, who has delivered us from the bondage of Satan! This is the joy befitting a Christian community, and in this manner ought the seasons of the faithful be received. *[2] So we are obliged to draw near to Him as much as we are able to offer Him praise and thanksgiving, and let each one of us turn toward Him with a sound heart and pure mind, for God Most High does not lay upon any of us a burden beyond our strength and ability, and does not desire anything except that we labor for our eternal life in all the days of our lives. Therefore, do works that are pleasing to Him, by which you may bring the ships of your souls safely to the shores of the seas of Paradise and its harbor, and through which your souls may attain to their fullest purpose and utmost desire, and He will shine upon you like the full moon and as the radiant sun and will cause you to dwell in holy dwellings which the Most High has founded and built. Receive, then, this year with the purest thoughts and desires, and offer within it the truest words and most righteous works. Persist in it with almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. Avoid in it everything which causes reproach: hatred, foolishness, and evil conditions that incur reproach. Acquire throughout its days the knowledge by which you may enlighten your inner sight, and gather in its weeks the various acts of worship by which you may distinguish your inner selves. As you love your own souls, so love those who are near and far from you. Mend the heart of the widow, the orphan, and the stranger. Receive the commands of your priests in God with hearing and obedience, and serve them with your souls and most precious possessions, for their service is the most profitable of all work. Deal with all people alike in justice and truth, with good deeds that are complete in their excellence. Seek your livelihood through lawful means, and avoid unlawful ways, for their fire is unquenchable and their fuel burns fiercely, but lawful provisions grow, thrive, and enable you to reach your goal. How joyful, then, is the one who prepares himself to receive these divine commandments with their overflowing blessings! And how wretched is he who transgresses them and prepares himself as fuel for that fire! How blessed is he who joins the righteous in beholding godly visions! And what perdition awaits him who sells himself for the unlawful dirham and dinar! Woe to him who breaks the covenants of God and his vows to Him; lamentation to him who neglects to present tithes and firstfruits. Fortunate is the one who prepares his table to feed the hungry and break his fast. What punishment awaits the one who does not love his brother as his own self and body! What torment awaits the one who does not believe the words of God Most High, but denies and rejects Him! Woe to the one who gives his body over to fornication and debauchery! How worthless is the portion of the one who bears false witness! Shame upon the one who scorns the rights of his parents, on the day of rising and resurrection! What sorrow awaits the one who dares to utter false oaths in his words! What trembling awaits the one who neglects repentance until the Angel of Death takes his soul! May God preserve you from being among such people, and far be it from you to walk these paths that lead to the most grievous perils. * May God Most High purify your days from every impurity, renew your years with gladness, multiply His blessings upon you, and continue His goodness towards you. May He grant you the safety of your lands and the increase of your provisions, complete for you the benefit of the flowing of your rivers, grant you long lives and the attainment of your highest aspirations, make prices affordable for you, and grant you the enjoyment of temperate air and fruitful harvests and crops. May He bless the crown of the year, fill the regions and lands with His blessing, and make every year that comes better for you than the one before it. * May He allow you to see many years like this glorious year and bring you to the fulfillment of your ultimate ends. May He preserve your memory within it as a good example, renowned in all places and lands and as a glorious history which surpasses the finest histories and the most excellent reports. * May He preserve for us the life of our father, the honored master and patriarch, Anba Kyrillos, who by the grace of God sits upon the throne of St. Mark. May the Lord God preserve him from enemies and adversaries, and have mercy upon us through the acceptance of his supplications, by the prayers of the saints and the entreaties of those who are pleasing to Him. Praise is due to God forever and unto the age of ages. Amen. — بسم الآب و الابن و الروح القدس الإله الواحد آمين. خطبة عيد النيروز للقس شمس الرئاسة أبو البركات الشهير بابن كبر كاهن الكنيسة المعلقة. المجد لله ذى المجد و الجلال. و العظمة و الكمال. و الديمومة بلا زوال. الذي خلق الدهور و الأيام. و رتَّب الشهور و الأعوام. و قرر الأنوار للأدوار. و جعل القمر لمواقيت الليل و الشمس لسلطان النهار.مُلهِم الإنسان الحكمة. و مُخصصه مواهب النعمة. و مكتنفه بكف التحنن و المحبة و الرحمة. و مرشده إلى طرق الصواب. و مثقفه بالعلوم و الآداب. و مفيده المعارف الجليلة التى من أدناها معرفة الحساب. تكميلاً لنوعه. و تبييناً لقبول طبعه. و تثبيتاً للطيف خَلقه و صُنعه. نمجده تمجيداً يليق بجلاله. و نشكره على عميم أفضاله. و إن قصّر شكرنا عن مزيد طوله و نواله. و نسأله أن يلهم كلامنا صلاح أعماله. و الإستعداد لمآله. و يبلّغ سائر الشعب المسيحي أفضل المآرب. و ينيلهم أقصى المطالب. و يكفيهم نوائب التجارب. برحمته و رأفته. و لطفه و منته. بشفاعة قديسيه و شهدائه. و أبراره و أصفيائه. و رسله و أنبيائه آمين. أيها السادة الأبرار. و الرؤساء الأخيار. بلّغكم الله أمثال هذا اليوم المبارك مغفورة خطاياكم. موفورة من النعم الإلهية عطاياكم. مسرعة فى سبل الأعمال البارة مطاياكم. إعلموا أن حولكم المتحوّل عنكم قد أودعكم نفائسه و ودعّكم بالسلامة. و عامكم المقبل قد وافاكم بالمسرة و الإستقامة. و نيروزكم القادم عليكم قد أقبل مبشراً لكم بالإقبال. و برِّ الأعمال. و بلوغ أفضل الآمال. و مهيئاً لكم بزوال الحوادث الشديدة. و دنوّ الأيام الصافية السعيدة. و حراستكم من العوارض التى لولا مراحم الرب لكانت للخلائق مبيدة. فأبشروا بهذه السنة المقبولة للرب. و أجذلوا أيها العميان بالنظر و المأسورين بالخطية و ابتهجوا بالشفاء يا كل منكسري القلب. و يجب علينا أن نتلقاه بالفرح و السرور. و الإقلاع عن الشرور. و التطهير من الآثام. و نَضْح القلوب ماء التوبة قبل رش الأجسام. و نتشبه بصبر أيوب و إيمانه. و إستقامة سره و إعلانه. كما أخذنا سُنَته فى نضح الماء على الأبدان. و نجدد فيه ملابس الفضائل قبل تجديد الأردان [3]. و نبرَر من الرذائل فى أيام هذا العام و أسابيعه و شهوره. و نقرّب إلى الله ما تصل إليه القدرة من بكوره و عشوره و نذوره. و ننقل فيه أزوادنا إلى دار المقام التي قصارانا [4] إليها. و مرجعنا إليها. و نرسلها على أيدي المحتاجين. و أكفِّ المساكين. فإنها على يد مثل هؤلاء نتحقق وصولها. و نتبيّن في كنوز الملكوت حصولها. و نأمن عليها من اعتداء المعتدين. و اختطاف السرَّاق و المفسدين. و فساد الأَرَضة و الصداء. و سلب المتغلبين و الأعداء. و حيث تكون كنوزنا. فلتكن هناك قلوبنا. كما أمرنا ربنا. فإنها تزيد في الأعمار و الأرزاق. و تنوّلنا من الرحمة فوق الإستحقاق. و نجتني ثمار غرسها في العاجل. و نجدها مذخورة لنا في الآجل. و نقرن ذلك بالشكر الذى يستديم هذه النعم. و يكفينا حدوث باعث النقم. و أية نعمة أعظم من الثبوت على الإيمان. و حصول الأمن و صحة الأبدان. و اجتماعنا فى مثل هذا اليوم في بيعة الله المقدسة لنوال القربان. و تجديدنا بيسوع المسيح الذى اعتقنا من عبودية الشيطان. فهذا هو الفرح اللائق بجماعة المسيحيين. و بمثله يجب أن تلقى مواسم المؤمنين. *[5] فعلينا أن نتقرّب إليه بما تصل قدرتنا إليه من حمده و شكره. و يتوجه إليه كل إنسان منا بسلامة صدره و طهارة فكره. فالله تعالى لا يكلّف أحداً منا فوق طاقته و قدره. ولا يريد منه سوى العمل لآخرته في جميع عمره. فاعملوا أعملاً مرضية توصل سفن أرواحكم إلى برور بحار الفراديس و ميناها. و تبلغ نفوسكم فيها أبلغ مقاصدها و أقصى مناها. و يشرق عليكم كالأقمار في كمالها و الشموس في سناها. و يسكنكم منازل مقدسة أسسها العليُّ و بناها. فتلقّوا هذا العام بأطهر الأفكار و الآمال. و قدموا فيه أصدق الأقوال و أبرَّ الأعمال. و واصلوه بالصِلات [6] و الصلوات و الصيام. و تجنبوا فيه كل ما يوجب التعنيف من الحقد و الغباوة و الأحوال الرديئة التي فيها الملام. و حصلوا في أيامه العلوم التي تنيرون بها بصائركم. و اجمعوا في جمعه متفرقات العبادات التي تميزون بها سرائركم. و كما تحبون نفوسكم فأحبوا البعيد و القريب. و اجبروا قلب الأرملة و اليتيم و الغريب. و قابلوا أوامر كهنتكم في الله بالسمع و الطاعة. و اخدموهم بنفوسكم و نفائسكم فخدمتهم أكسب البضاعة. و عاملوا الناس طرَّاً [7] بالحق و الإنصاف. و افعلوا معهم الأفعال الحسنة الكاملة الأوصاف. و استرزقوا من وجوه الحلال و تجنبوا جهات الحرام. فإن نارها لا تُطفَأ و حطبها شديد الإضطرام. و أما الرزق الحلال فينمو و يُمري و يخصكم ببلوغ المرام. فيا سعادة مَن استعد لقبول هذه الوصايا الربانية الزائدة النعم الغزار. و يا شقاوة مَن خالف و اعدَّ نفسه حطباً لتلك النار. و يا نعيم مَن لحق فى مشاهدة المناظر الإلهية بالأبرار. و يا جحيم مَن باع نفسه بالدرهم الحرام و الدينار. و يا ويل مَن أضلَّ بالقيام بعهود الله و نذوره. و يا عويل مَن اهمل إخراج عشوره و بكوره. و هنيئاً لمَن أعدَّ مائدته لاطعام الجائع و فطوره. و أي عقاب لمَن لم يحب أخاه مثل نفسه و جسده. و أي عذاب لمَن لم يؤمن بأقوال الله تعالى و كفر به و جحده. و الويل لمَن سلم جسده للدعارة و الفجور. و ما أبخس حظ مَن شهد شهادة الزور. و خزياً لمَن استخف بحق والديه في يوم البعث و النشور. و يا حسرة مَن تجرأ على الايمان الكاذبة في كلامه. و يا رجفة مَن غفل عن نفسه بالتوبة حتى قبضها ملك حمامه. أعاذكم الله من أن تكونوا من أولئك. و حاشاكم من سلوك هذه المسالك المؤدية إلى أشد المهالك. * فالله تعالى يصفي من الشوائب أيامكم. و يجدد بالمسرات أعوامكم. و يضاعف لديكم بركاته. و يتابع عليكم خيراته. و ينعم لكم بصيانة أوطانكم. و ازدياد أرزاقكم. و يكمل لكم المنفعة بجريان أنيالكم [8]. و يعطيكم أطول الأعمار. و يبلغكم أفضل الأوطار. و يرخص لكم الأسعار. و يمتعكم باعتدال الهواء و خصب الزروع و الثمار. و يبارك إكليل السنة و يملأ من بركته البقاع و الأراضي. و يجعل كل عام يأتي خيراً لكم من الماضي. * و يريكم أمثال هذه السنة السنية و يبلغكم فيها نهاية الأوطار [9]. و يُبقِى ذكركم فيها مثلاً حسناً مشهوراً في الآفاق و الأقطار. و تاريخاً مجيداً يتأرج [10] به أحسن التواريخ و أطيب الأخبار. * و يديم لنا حيوة أبينا السيد الأب البطريرك المعظم أنبا كيرلس. الجالس بنعمة الله على كرسي مار مرقس. الرب الإله يحفظه من الأعداء و المعاندين. و يرحمنا بمقبول دعواته بصلوات القديسين و طلبات المقبولين.و السبح لله إلى ابد الآبدين و دهر الداهرين آمين. — [1] (Tr.) مطبعة الكرمة بمصر، الجوهرة النفيسة في خطب الكنيسة (١٩١٤). The following is an original preliminary translation of Ibn Kabar’s homily on the feast of the Coptic New Year, as set forth in the cited publication at pages 1-6. It is presented here for the first time in English, along with the original Arabic text digitized and scanned for reference. The remaining footnotes hereafter are original to the source publication. [2] (Ed.) What is written here between the two asterisks is copied from the book of homilies which was printed by the old Coptic printing press. [3] (Ed.) جمع ردن و هو الكُم [4] (Ed.) غايتنا [5] (Ed.) ما ورد هنا بين نجمتين منقول من كتاب الخطب المطبوع بالمطبعة القبطية القديمة [6] (Ed.) العطايا [7] (Ed.) أجمعين [8] (Ed.) جمع النيل [9] (Ed.) المقاصد [10] (Ed.) الأرج توهج بريح الطيب — — Cover Image: 2H Media, The Hanging Church (2023). This publication complies with Doss Press' Original Human Authorship Policy, established on August 5, 2026.

There is a word carved within the history of the Egyptian desert: Ϣⲓϩⲏⲧ (Shiheet). The great basin that would become the heartland of Christian monasticism carried this profound name given to it by the early Coptic monks — Shiheet, known in Greek as Scetis, and today as Wadi El-Natrun. The Arabic translation of this name primarily reflects the physical landscape: a valley rich in natron, the salt that the ancient Egyptians used to preserve the dead. Yet, the older Coptic name reveals something far more striking. Shiheet means “the measure of the heart.”[1] Shiheet appears often in the Coptic Orthodox Church’s Synaxarium and is even mentioned in the Divine Liturgy, the central liturgical celebration of the Coptic Church, in connection to many saints, including, prominently, the Forty-Nine Martyrs, the elders of Shiheet (444 AD), who were massacred during a Berber raid on the monastic settlements of Scetis. As such, Scetis, or Shiheet, is situated not merely as a geographical location but as a theological landscape shaped by martyrdom, asceticism, and prayer. Few names capture the purpose of the desert movement more fittingly than Shiheet. Long before modern psychology developed its own language for studying the inner life, the Egyptian desert became one of Christianity’s earliest and most sustained traditions of systematic inward reflection. What the Desert Fathers built across three centuries of monastic silence and extraordinary discipline was one of the most rigorous cultivations of the human interior life the ancient world had ever attempted. What they built was a living school for the soul, sustained not primarily by abstract speculation, but by decades of disciplined prayer, ascetic practice, self-examination, and communal spiritual guidance. They went to the desert to find God. What they discovered along the way, and through that very pursuit, was the human person — thought by thought, temptation by temptation, struggle by struggle, and prayer by prayer. This is the very conviction with which St. Antony opens his third Letter, describing the soul made free through Christ as one that comes to know itself, “in its intellectual substance,” and insisting that self-knowledge leads directly to knowledge of the Creator’s workings: “The rational man who has prepared himself to be set free through the advent of Jesus, knows himself in his intellectual substance. For he who knows himself knows the dispensations of the Creator and all that He does among His creatures.”[2] The Desert Fathers were not constructing a theory of the mind in the modern scientific sense. Rather, they were engaged in a sustained phenomenology of the spiritual life: carefully observing how thoughts arise, how attention shifts, how desires mature into habits, and how the heart is gradually transformed. Their observations were theological in purpose and experiential in method, emerging from decades of disciplined self-examination within the unique environment of the desert. In this sense, the desert functioned not simply as a place of withdrawal but as a school of the soul, where the conditions of silence, solitude, and prayer made the hidden movements of the heart manifest. While they lacked the refinement of modern academic research, their words and examples nevertheless remain a clear and deeply relevant teaching about the interior life. If one wishes to take up the journey of Shiheet — that is, the true measuring, or balancing, of the heart — then the centuries of careful insights left by those men and women who abandoned ordinary pursuits to devote their lives to exactly that task deserve to be among his primary sources. In this series, therefore, the intersection of Coptic desert spirituality and modern understandings of the human mind will be explored. This first entry will introduce the significance of exploring Coptic desert spirituality in relation to the human person and why the wisdom of the desert remains invaluable today. Having this foundation, the specific insights of these teachers will then be explored further in relation to contemporary approaches to the study of psychology, in subsequent entries. Unlike the Desert Fathers and Mothers[3], whose goal was primarily and ultimately union and relation with God, the study and practice of psychology today is concerned with understanding the human mind and behavior through empirical observation and scientific inquiry. Although their aims are fundamentally different, both traditions approach the same human person from distinct vantage points. Bringing the two into conversation does not diminish either discipline, but rather allows each to illuminate dimensions of the human experience that the other, by its very nature, does not seek to address. Why did Christians go to the deserts of Egypt? The third century was a period of profound suffering for Christians in Egypt. The persecutions under Roman Emperors Decius (249-251 AD) and Diocletian (303-311 AD) devastated Christian communities, destroyed many churches and their liturgical and scriptural books, and claimed the lives of countless faithful.[4] Yet, while this red martyrdom of blood — the witness of those who confessed Christ until their death — became part of the identity of the early Egyptian Church, another form of martyrdom had always constituted the Christian tradition: the white martyrdom of ascetical life.[5] In one instance, the Apostle Paul exhorts the Hebrews, writing: “In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood” (Hebrews 12:4). Elsewhere, he advises the Corinthians with the imagery of asceticism — here, the exercise and training of athletes — by saying: “Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:24-27). Among those who heeded this scriptural advice and sought to practice it with complete devotion was a young Coptic Egyptian man, born around 251 AD in the village of Qiman al-‘Arus near modern-day Beni Suef, Egypt, named Antony. As he grew and became renowned for his asceticism, St. Antony quickly became regarded as the Father of Christian Monasticism, as countless men and women flocked to the desert to imitate his life through his guidance and teaching. In a remarkably short period of time, the life, teaching, and example of St. Antony deeply shaped generations of monks in both Egypt and beyond, even until today. St. Athanasius the Apostolic, the twentieth Patriarch of Alexandria and chief defender of Nicene Orthodoxy, knew Antony personally and later recorded his life in the Life of Antony, which he wrote shortly after St. Antony’s death in 356 AD.[6] This work quickly became one of the most influential writings in Christian history, spreading rapidly beyond Egypt and being translated into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Georgian, and Armenian within generations of its composition. Its account of St. Antony’s pursuit of God even affected Augustine of Hippo, who described, in his Confessions, the story of the Egyptian monk as being one of the influences that led to his conversion.[7] What made the Life of Antony so compelling to its diverse readers was not necessarily its descriptions of angelic encounters and demonic battles, though these appear in abundance throughout the work, but more importantly, its beautiful and gravitating portrait of an ordinary man who devoted his entire life to the pursuit of God and, through that pursuit, underwent a most profound transformation and gained an intimate understanding of God, and through Him, the human heart. St. Antony did not simply withdraw from the world; in the wilderness, he remained deeply concerned with the salvation of the world. The desert became for him the battlefield of interior warfare where he would struggle against the desires of the flesh and the movements of the mind and work towards the soul’s longing for God. St. Athanasius records that it was a dictum of St. Antony’s that “the soul’s energy thrives when the body’s desires are feeblest.”[8] This was not merely some rule of ascetic practice or a rejection of the body itself. Rather, it reflected decades of spiritual experience and watchfulness: an understanding that the state of the body, the discipline of desire, and the attention of the mind all shape the condition of the heart. St. Antony came to see how human desires and thoughts could either be purified and directed toward God or become obstacles that separate the soul from Him. From the very beginning, St. Antony’s journey into the desert unfolded through stages of deeper commitment and solitude. He first placed himself under the guidance of an experienced elder near his village, from whom he learned the basic principles and foundations of the ascetical life. He then gradually withdrew further into solitude, first to abandoned tombs on the outskirts of the inhabited world, then to an abandoned Roman fort where he remained enclosed for twenty years, and finally into the inner desert between the Nile and the Red Sea, near what is now the Monastery of St. Antony at Mount Colzim.[9] What may seem to be a gradual departure and withdrawal from society was in fact a deeper entry into the struggle of the heart. The silence of the desert enabled St. Antony to confront his thoughts, purify his desires, and seek restoration in undistracted communion with God. St. Athanasius notably records that when St. Antony finally emerged from his twenty-year enclosure, those who saw him were astonished; rather than appearing weakened or broken, he appeared renewed, “as Adam in Paradise, a man restored to his original glory.”[10] The Geography of the Heart St. Antony’s life inspired a movement of extraordinary scale and geographical scope. By the time he died, the desert surrounding the Nile valley had become a landscape of organized ascetic settlement. St. Athanasius memorably writes that St. Antony had made “the desert a city.”[11] Three locations in the Egyptian desert became the principal centers of this movement: Nitria, Kellia, and Scetis (Shiheet). Nitria, situated roughly sixty kilometers south of Alexandria, was the most accessible of the three and served as an entry point for new monastics. John Cassian, the monastic writer who transmitted much of Egyptian ascetic wisdom to the West, describes Nitria as containing at its height around 5,000 monks, with a bakery, physicians, and craftsmen operating alongside the cells of the solitary monks in a semi-organized settlement.[12] From Nitria, monks seeking greater solitude could withdraw another eighteen kilometers into the desert to Kellia, which translates literally to “the Cells.” At the deepest point of withdrawal lay Scetis, a full day’s journey from Nitria into the trackless Libyan wilderness, where the silence was almost absolute and only the most committed and capable of monastics ventured. It was in Scetis that St. Macarius the Great established his community around 330 AD, after perceiving the will of God and receiving the blessing of St. Antony. St. Macarius was born around 300 AD in the village of Shanshur in Lower Egypt to faithful parents, who instilled in him the virtues of the Christian way of life. He entered the monastic life as a young man, receiving the guidance of an elder, much like the experience of St. Antony, and eventually had the opportunity to become a direct disciple of St. Antony.[13] The two men met when St. Macarius made the arduous journey to St. Antony’s cell in the mountain. St. Athanasius records that when St. Antony first saw St. Macarius approaching, he welcomed him with great praise, saying to him: “Macarius, my child, you are blessed, just as your name means ‘blessed.’”[14] Recognizing St. Macarius’ maturity in the ascetical life, St. Antony placed the Great Schema upon him, the highest and most austere rank of monasticism, and entrusted him with greater responsibility before sending him back to Scetis. What St. Macarius built there would, over the next several decades, become one of the most influential spiritual schools in early Christian monasticism. St. Macarius served as spiritual father to over 4,000 monks drawn from Egypt, Greece, Ethiopia, Armenia, Nubia, Palestine, Gaul, and Rome. His community was international before the concept existed. The desert drew a remarkably diverse community from every corner of civilization and every walk of life: philosophers, peasants, princes, and even former bandits.[15] The monasteries he founded in Wadi El-Natrun stand to this day, continuously inhabited by Coptic monks for over sixteen centuries, and the Monastery of St. Macarius the Great remains one of the great living centers of Coptic monastic life. Among the great sayings and teachings of Abba Macarius, often repeated for its remarkable depth beyond its apparent simplicity, is his guidance to his disciples at the dismissal of the liturgy: “Flee, brothers!” One of the elders, puzzled, asked him: “Where can we flee to that is more remote than this desert?” St. Macarius placed his finger to his lips, then went into his cell, shut the door, and stayed there.[16] The flight he was prescribing was primarily of an inward character. What is the human person according to the Desert Fathers? Before one can approach the discoveries of the Desert Fathers about the interior condition, one must first understand how they viewed the human person more generally. The Coptic Orthodox Church, rooted in its Alexandrian theological heritage, understands the human person as a unity of body, soul, and spirit, which carries Trinitarian semblance as it appears in St. Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians: “May the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[17] These are not independent components of the person but inseparable dimensions of a single human being, each ordered toward communion with God. St. Athanasius, in his treatise, On the Incarnation, emphasizes that the human person was created in the Image and Likeness of God (eikōn kai homoisōsi), and that this Image was located not in the physical body but in the rational soul and its spiritual capacities (i.e., the capacity to know God, to participate in His life, and to grow into communion with Him).[18] St. Cyril of Alexandria, the great fifth-century patriarch, follows his predecessor closely, locating man’s true likeness to God not in his earthly form but in the rational and spiritual nature breathed into him: “Having sculpted man out of the soil, he made him into a rational creature, and, in order that he might replicate the rationality of his own nature, he immediately implanted within him an immortal, life-giving Spirit.”[19] The dignity of the human person, within the Coptic theological framework, is inseparable from the Divine Image after which he is made and to which he is called for relation and communion — the Creator Himself. This marks one of the most important differences between the Desert Fathers and modern psychology. Modern psychology often begins by asking how the mind works: how thoughts, emotions, memory, and behavior arise and interact. The Desert Fathers began with a different question altogether: what is the human person? Only after answering that question — understanding humanity’s origin, purpose, and calling in relation to God — did they then ask how the inner life functions. Within this theological framework, the Desert Fathers worked with a more precise vocabulary drawn from the Scriptures and from centuries of interior observation. Their writings were not attempts to construct an abstract theory of the human person, but efforts to understand how every dimension of human existence (e.g., body, soul, mind, desire, memory, and will) could be restored to its proper harmony in God. Unlike many modern approaches that examine cognition, emotion, and behavior as distinct domains of inquiry, the Desert Fathers approached the human person holistically. A thought could not be separated from desire, nor could desire be separated from the heart, nor the heart from one’s relationship with God. Every individual faculty of a person was understood in perfect relation with all the others. Their anthropology was therefore fundamentally integrative rather than compartmentalized. Important Terminology As this series ventures deeper into the interaction of the patristic tradition with modern psychology, three terms become important to define at the outset. The first is psyche, the “soul.” In the patristic tradition, psyche refers broadly to the animating principle of the person, encompassing the full range of human faculties: intellect, will, emotion, memory, and desire. John of Damascus, writing in the eighth century, defines it precisely in these terms: “The soul, accordingly, is a living essence, simple, incorporeal, invisible in its proper nature to bodily eyes, immortal, reasoning and intelligent, formless, making use of an organized body, and being the source of its powers of life, and growth, and sensation, and generation…”[20] Therefore, the soul is not understood as a separate substance imprisoned within the body, but as the animating principle of the whole person. The human person ultimately exists as a unity, where the spiritual and physical dimensions are deeply connected. The second, and perhaps most significant term, is nous, translated variously as “intellect,” “mind,” or “spirit,” though inadequately captured by any of these English terms. The compilers of the Philokalia, the great collection of patristic ascetic texts spanning the fourth to the fifteenth centuries, defined the nous as “the highest faculty in man, through which — provided it is purified — he knows God or the inner essences of created things by means of direct apprehension or spiritual perception.”[21] The nous is not the discursive, analytical mind that reasons, compares, and draws conclusions. Rather, it is the faculty of directing spiritual intuition, which the patristic tradition frequently describes as the “eye of the soul.”[22] Because the nous is the faculty by which the person perceives God, much of the ascetical life is directed not toward acquiring new knowledge, but toward purifying perception itself. In its healthy state, it perceives and turns toward God. In its disordered state, clouded by passions and desires, it perceives only the noise of its own distraction and loses this clarity. The third term is kardia, the “heart.” In the patristic and biblical tradition, the heart is not merely the seat of emotion. The heart is the center of a person, the place where nous and psyche meet, and the deepest point of the self where thought, desire, will, and spiritual life converge. This is the very point Nikiphoros the Monk draws out in his Philokalic treatise On Watchfulness and the Guarding of the Heart, turning to St. Antony the Great as his proof: when St. Antony perceived in prayer, from his mountain, that two traveling monks were dying of thirst far away, Nikiphoros explains that this was revealed to St. Antony alone because he kept his heart watchful — “Do you see how through watchfulness of heart St. Antony was able to perceive God and to acquire the power of clairvoyance? For it is in the heart that God manifests Himself to the intellect, first — according to St John Klimakos — as fire that purifies the lover and then as light that illumines the intellect and renders it godlike.”[23] When the Desert Fathers speak of “guarding the heart,” rooted in the scriptural command to “keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23)[24], they therefore mean something deeper and more comprehensive than emotional management. They mean attending to the source from which all thought, desire, and action flow, as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself said: “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34).[25] More than mere theological terminology, this vocabulary provides the conceptual framework through which the Desert Fathers interpreted every movement of the interior life. Thoughts, emotions, desires, temptations, virtues, and even suffering were not isolated experiences, but expressions of the condition of the whole person. Without this groundwork, many of the Fathers’ observations about the spiritual life become difficult to understand. With it, their later discussions of watchfulness, temptation, and healing emerge as parts of a coherent vision of what it means to be “human” altogether. Why the Fathers Studied Thoughts With this theological framework in view, one can begin to understand why the Desert Fathers developed such an intense, systematic focus on thoughts. The word they used to describe these interior movements was logismoi (λογισμοί). This term refers to the interior movements of the mind that arise before becoming explicit desires, decisions, or actions. The Desert Fathers observed, with remarkable precision, that the interior life does not simply happen to a person, but unfolds according to patterns and within the hidden places of the heart. For this reason, they did not treat thoughts as isolated mental events, but understood them as the beginning of a process that gradually shapes the whole person: A thought arrives. It lingers. It is either dismissed or entertained. If entertained, it provokes an emotional response. If the response is indulged, it leads to action. If the action is repeated, it forms a habit. If the habit is deepened, it shapes character. And character, for good or ill, is what a person becomes. Although separated from modern psychology by more than fifteen centuries, this sequence bears striking similarities to contemporary accounts of how repeated patterns of thought influence emotion, behavior, and habit.[26] It was an experiential observation, tested in the “laboratory” of the monastic cell, where silence and solitude removed many of the distractions that ordinarily conceal the movements of the heart. St. Antony is said to have known the condition of visiting monks’ souls before they spoke a word, having learned to read the movements of the inner life with extraordinary precision through years of vigilant self-observation.[27] The Fathers’ concern, therefore, was not simply the content of thoughts, but also the direction of attention. A passing thought held little significance unless it was received, entertained, and allowed to shape the heart. The ascetical life was consequently less about suppressing thought than about learning where to direct one’s attention. This is why watchfulness, nepsis, became central to the ascetic tradition. The monastic fathers were not attempting to eliminate every thought that entered the mind, nor did they believe that each carried the same weight. They instead sought to develop the discernment necessary to recognize what draws the person closer to God and what pulls the heart away from Him. Isaiah the Solitary, one of the earliest figures of the Philokalia, instructs the monk with characteristic directness that echoes Christ’s own teachings about the abundance of the heart in Matthew 12:34: “Stand guard, then, over your heart and keep a watch on your senses; and if the remembrance of God dwells peaceably within you, you will catch the thieves when they try to deprive you of it.”[28] The image of thieves is powerful in reflecting the subtle nature of inner struggles: the danger is not simply that destructive thoughts exist, but that, in the undiscerning person, they gradually become welcomed guests, entering quietly and deepening their hold when they are left unexamined. The Philokalia, which literally translates to “love of the beautiful” in Greek, was compiled precisely to transmit this tradition of interior watchfulness. Its editors, Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain and Makarios of Corinth, gathered texts spanning twelve centuries of ascetic wisdom, “collected with a view to purification, illumination, and perfection,” with the explicit goal of helping the reader “awaken and develop attention and consciousness, to attain that state of watchfulness which is the hallmark of sanctity.”[29] The Desert Fathers did not develop this interior science as an end in itself. They studied thoughts because they understood that the human person is transformed from the inside out. In other words, what one repeatedly attends to shapes what he desires, what he desires shapes what he practices, and what he repeatedly practices shapes the kind of person he ultimately becomes. For a tradition that understood the goal of human life as union with God, the interior life thus became the primary arena of both struggle and grace. The Ancient Desert and the Modern Mind At this point, one may wonder what relevance a fourth-century monastic community has for the modern person. The relevance, however, is much greater than one might anticipate. The Desert Fathers approached the same human reality from a different starting point. Before they were concerned with such questions as how the mind works or how suffering can be relieved, which comprise the common starting points for modern psychology, the Desert Fathers first contemplated and sought to discern the purpose for which the human person was created and what may prevent that person from becoming what God intended for them. The modern sciences of psychology and psychiatry have, in the last century, developed sophisticated tools for understanding the human interior, such as cognitive models of thought, neurobiological accounts of emotion, and behavioral frameworks for habit formation. These are real achievements which must be seriously considered and engaged with. At the same time, they do not address certain questions which are outside of their primary scope. While these disciplines might describe mechanisms, they struggle with meanings. By design, they primarily seek to explain how human beings think, feel, and behave, while largely excluding from their scope of concern questions of ultimate meaning, purpose, and destiny. The Desert Fathers began from the opposite end. Their lives were grounded in a clear sense of purpose and teleology. In other words, they began from the place of unwavering belief regarding what the human person was made for and where his journey ought to ultimately lead. Many of the practices they cultivated, such as watchfulness, discernment, self-examination, and the careful observation of thoughts, remain striking because they arose from centuries of sustained reflection on the human person through the lens of their spiritual and doctrinal convictions. Although these practices were developed within a theological framework, they reveal enduring insights into the patterns through which thoughts, desires, and habits shape human life. This does not mean the wisdom of the Desert Fathers should replace modern medicine or psychology. Human suffering exists on multiple levels, and physical, psychological, social, and spiritual realities cannot be isolated from each other. No single discipline is sufficient to account for every dimension of one’s suffering. A person struggling with depression, addiction, trauma, or mental illness may require clinical care, medical treatment, and professional support. Yet the desert tradition raises questions that remain deeply relevant. Beyond symptom relief, what does healing mean? What kind of person is one becoming? How do one’s repeated thoughts, desires, and choices shape their lived experience? As this series continues to unfold, the disciplines of theology and psychology will not be collapsed into one another. To do so would diminish both. Rather, it will place two rich traditions of reflection, practice, and study — one grounded in divine revelation, the practice of faith, and the ascetical experience, and the other in scientific investigation, academic rigor, and clinical observation — in conversation with each other. Where they converge, the convergence is illuminating. Where they differ, those differences are equally instructive and noteworthy. The Desert Fathers offer a vision of the human person grounded in meaning, purpose, and communion with God. Contemporary psychology offers increasingly sophisticated methods for understanding the mechanisms through which human beings think, feel, and behave. These traditions are not competitors. They ask different questions, employ different methods, and pursue different ends. Precisely because of those differences, however, each has something to illuminate in the other. The clinician does not render the Fathers obsolete. Contrarily, in and through the Coptic Orthodox tradition, within which the Desert Fathers are prominently found, one has access to a wealth of material that remains instructive, illuminating, and deeply relevant, though overlooked in today’s world — a heritage of profound reflection on the human heart. — [1] Wadi El Natrun, Wikipedia. The Coptic name for Scetis, Ϣⲓϩⲏⲧ (Šihēt), carries the meaning “measure of the heart” in Coptic etymology. The Arabic name Wadi El-Natrun, meaning “Valley of Natron,” reflects the geological significance of the region to ancient Egyptian embalming practice. [2] Antony the Great, Letter III, in The Letters of Saint Antony the Great, trans. Derwas J. Chitty (Oxford: SLG Press, 1975). [3] Throughout this series, the term “Desert Fathers” will be used as the conventional shorthand for this movement. Though grammatically masculine, the term is used here in its traditional, generic sense, encompassing the Desert Mothers (Ammas) as well, whose sayings and ascetic witness are preserved alongside those of their male counterparts in the tradition. [4] The Diocletianic Persecution (303–311 AD) was particularly severe in Egypt. The Coptic Orthodox Church numbers its calendar from 284 AD, the year of Diocletian’s accession, calling it the “Year of the Martyrs” (Anno Martyrum). See Aziz S. Atiya, A History of Eastern Christianity (London: Methuen, 1968), 25–29. [5] For the Egyptian monastic understanding of asceticism as a continuation of martyrdom, see Athanasius, The Life of Antony, trans. Robert C. Gregg (New York: Paulist Press, 1980), §§46–47. The terminology of “red martyrdom” and “white martyrdom” developed later in Christian tradition; see Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin Books, 1993), 23, where Ware describes “white martyrdom” as “a man’s abandoning everything he loves for God’s sake” and “red martyrdom” as “the endurance of a Cross or death for Christ’s sake,” quoting J. Ryan, Irish Monasticism (London, 1931), 197. [6] Athanasius composed the Life of Antony around 356–360 AD, during one of his periods of exile from Alexandria. See Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius: The Early Church Fathers (New York: Routledge, 2004), 1, 24. [7] Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), Book VIII.6. [8] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Life of Antony, trans. Robert C. Gregg (New York: Paulist Press, 1980), Section 45. [9] The Monastery of St. Antony at Mount Colzim, in the Eastern Desert near the Red Sea, is the oldest Christian monastery in the world still in continuous operation. [10] Athanasius, Life of Antony, Section 14. [11] Ibid. “From then on there were monasteries in the mountains and the desert was made a city by monks, who left their own people and registered themselves for the citizenship in the heavens.” [12] John Cassian, The Conferences of the Desert Fathers, trans. Edgar C. S. Gibson (Aeterna Press, 2015), Conference 18. See also Columba Stewart, Cassian the Monk (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 8–10. [13] Macarius the Great (c. 300–391 AD). See Tim Vivian, Saint Macarius the Spiritbearer: Coptic Texts Relating to Saint Macarius the Great; for his birthplace in Shanshur, Menufiya, see the Coptic Orthodox Synaxarium entry for 27 Baramhat (April 5). [14] See Tim Vivian, Saint Macarius the Spiritbearer: Coptic Texts Relating to Saint Macarius the Great, 162-172 (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011). [15] Monastery of St. Macarius the Great, Wadi Natrun, stmacariusmonastery.org, historical overview. [16] Apophthegmata Patrum, Macarius the Great, 16, trans. Benedicta Ward, SLG, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1975). [17] 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (RSVCE). [18] Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation (De Incarnatione), trans. John Behr (Yonkers: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), Section 3. [19] Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyra on the Pentateuch, Volume 1: Genesis, trans. Nicholas P. Lunn, intro. Gregory K. Hillis, Fathers of the Church 137 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2018), 56. [20] John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 12, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 9, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1899). [21] The Philokalia, vol. 1, ed. and trans. G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber and Faber, 1979), 362. [22] See, e.g., Diadochos of Photiki, On Spiritual Knowledge and Discrimination 71, in The Philokalia: The Complete Text, vol. 1, trans. G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber & Faber, 1979), where he writes, “The eye of the soul cannot be led astray...”; and Symeon the New Theologian, One Hundred and Fifty-Three Practical and Theological Texts 22–23, in The Philokalia: The Complete Text, vol. 4, trans. G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber & Faber, 1995), who refers to the “mind, or eye of the soul” and the “soul’s eye.” [23] Nikiphoros the Monk, On Watchfulness and the Guarding of the Heart, in The Philokalia: The Complete Text, vol. 4, trans. G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber and Faber, 1995), 194–197. Nikiphoros draws his account from Athanasius of Alexandria, Life of Antony, ch. 59. [24] Proverbs 4:23 (OSB). [25] Matthew 12:34 (OSB). [26] This parallel should not be understood as an equivalence between patristic ascetic theology and modern psychological theory, but as a similarity in their observations of the relationship between cognition, emotion, and behavior. See, for example, Aaron T. Beck, Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders (New York: International Universities Press, 1976), 5: “the way people construe themselves and their experiences determines their feelings and behavior.” Similarly, Albert Ellis opens his account of Rational Emotive Therapy by invoking the Stoic maxim of Epictetus, “Men are not disturbed by things, but by the views which they take of them,” a principle he takes as foundational to his own approach; see Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy (New York: Lyle Stuart, 1962), 54. For contemporary habit research, see Wendy Wood and David T. Neal, “A New Look at Habits and the Habit-Goal Interface,” Psychological Review 114, no. 4 (2007): 843–863, which describes habits as “learned dispositions to repeat past responses” (843). More recently, psychiatrist and neuroscientist Dr. Judson Brewer has described the same trigger-behavior-reward mechanism underlying the formation of addictive patterns and habits; see The Craving Mind: From Cigarettes to Smartphones to Love—Why We Get Hooked and How We Can Break Bad Habits (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017). [27] Athanasius, Life of Antony, Section 38. [28] Isaiah the Solitary, “On Guarding the Intellect: Twenty-Seven Texts,” in The Philokalia, vol. 1, trans. G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber and Faber, 1979), Text 22. [29] The Philokalia, vol. 1, Introduction, trans. G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber and Faber, 1979), 13–14. — Bibliography Primary Sources Antony the Great. The Letters of Saint Antony the Great. Translated by Derwas J. Chitty. Oxford: SLG Press, 1975. Apophthegmata Patrum. Translated by Benedicta Ward, SLG. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1975. Athanasius of Alexandria. On the Incarnation (De Incarnatione). Translated by John Behr. Yonkers: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2011. Athanasius of Alexandria, and Robert C. Gregg. The Life of Antony and the Letter to Marcellinus. The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1980. Augustine of Hippo. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Cassian, John. The Conferences of the Desert Fathers. Translated by Edgar C. S. Gibson. Aeterna Press, 2015. Kindle. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Glaphyra on the Pentateuch, Volume 1: Genesis. Translated by Nicholas P. Lunn. Introduction by Gregory K. Hillis. Fathers of the Church 137. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2018. Diadochos of Photiki, St. “On Spiritual Knowledge and Discrimination.” In The Philokalia: The Complete Text, vol. 1. Translated by G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware. London: Faber and Faber, 1979. Isaiah the Solitary. “On Guarding the Intellect: Twenty-Seven Texts.” In The Philokalia, vol. 1. Translated by G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware. London: Faber and Faber, 1979. John of Damascus, St. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Translated by S. D. F. Salmond. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 9, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1899. Nikiphoros the Monk. “On Watchfulness and the Guarding of the Heart.” In The Philokalia: The Complete Text, vol. 4. Translated by G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware. London: Faber and Faber, 1995. The Philokalia: The Complete Text. Vol. 1. Edited and translated by G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware. London: Faber and Faber, 1979. The Philokalia: The Complete Text. Vol. 4. Edited and translated by G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware. London: Faber and Faber, 1995. Symeon the New Theologian, St. “One Hundred and Fifty-Three Practical and Theological Texts.” In The Philokalia: The Complete Text, vol. 4. London: Faber and Faber, 1995. Secondary Sources Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius: The Early Church Fathers. New York: Routledge, 2004. Atiya, Aziz S. A History of Eastern Christianity. London: Methuen, 1968. Beck, Aaron T. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. New York: International Universities Press, 1976. Brewer, Judson. The Craving Mind: From Cigarettes to Smartphones to Love—Why We Get Hooked and How We Can Break Bad Habits. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017. Ellis, Albert. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart, 1962. Stewart, Columba. Cassian the Monk. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Vivian, Tim. Saint Macarius the Spiritbearer: Coptic Texts Relating to Saint Macarius the Great. Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. London: Penguin Books, 1993. Wood, Wendy, and David T. Neal. “A New Look at Habits and the Habit-Goal Interface.” Psychological Review 114, no. 4 (2007): 843–863. Websites Used “Wadi El Natrun.” Wikipedia. Monastery of St. Macarius the Great, Wadi Natrun. stmacariusmonastery.org — Bavly Halaka is a Coptic Orthodox Christian and a second-year medical student at Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine, where he is pursuing a career in addiction psychiatry. He holds an interest in the intersection of Coptic patristic theology and the modern sciences of the mind. This series explores how the Egyptian Desert Fathers understood the human person and what their insights continue to offer to contemporary disciplines of mental and behavioral health. Cover Art: Icon of the Forty-Nine Martyrs, the Elders of Shiheet at the Monastery of Saint Macarius in Wadi El-Natrun, Egypt — Photographed by Berthold Werner. DossPress.com is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press. This publication complies with Doss Press' Original Human Authorship Policy, established on August 5, 2026.

[Scroll to the Original Arabic Letter — انتقل إلى الرسالة العربية الأصلية] A Letter of His Holiness Pope Kyrillos the Sixth On the Occasion of the Feast of Nayrouz To their eminences, our beloved brothers the metropolitans, the bishops, and our sons the blessed clergy and the congregation of the See of St. Mark. Grace, peace, and blessing from God our Father, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit the Comforter, to all of us and all our children — men, women, young men, and young women. On September 11 of this year, our new Coptic year begins, 1686 of the pure martyrs, which is the first day of the month of Tute, [so called] in reference to the first astronomer who established the ancient Egyptian calendar which was used only by the Copts for a long period of time before any other calendar was known to the world after it in both East and West. Out of their appreciation for this scholar, the ancient Egyptians elevated him to the ranks of the gods. {1} So Thoth, or Tute, became the god of the pen, and the god of wisdom and knowledge, and his name was immortalized as the first month of the Egyptian, or Coptic, year. The origin of the Egyptian Coptic calendar was in 4241 B.C., that is, in the forty-third century B.C., when the ancient Egyptians observed the star Sirius, calculated the period between two of its appearances, and divided it into three major seasons (flooding, sowing, and harvesting), then into twelve months, each having thirty days. They added the remaining period, which was five days and a quarter, and made it a month which they called the Small Month. The Coptic year thus became 365 days in the common year and 366 days in the leap year. The Egyptian farmer observed this calendar because it corresponded to the agricultural seasons, and continues to observe it to this day. Towards the end of the third century A.D., the persecution of the Christians by the Roman emperor Diocletian began, and the emperor devised a meticulous plan to eradicate Christianity that was based on four points: (1) Killing the bishops and priests; (2) Destroying the churches; (3) Burning the holy books; (4) Expelling the Christians from governmental positions and permitting the shedding of their blood. The Copts in Egypt suffered the greatest severity of this persecution because Diocletian believed that the head of the serpent dwelt in Egypt. Therefore, he came personally and swore by his pagan gods that he would not cease from slaughtering the Christians by his own hand until the blood spilled by the Christians reached the knee of the horse. The emperor thus began to kill the Christians with his sword while riding on his horse, and it happened at sunset that the horse stumbled and fell to the ground, and the blood shed on the ground reached the knees of the horse. The emperor had grown weary and fatigued from slaughtering the Christians, and the sword had left marks and wounds in his hand, so he considered himself to have fulfilled his vow to the gods, and so he ceased his slaughter of the Christians. The number of Christians killed was estimated to have reached approximately 840,000 martyrs. As a result of the severity that the Christians in Egypt endured during the reign of this emperor, they decided to begin a new chapter in their history, dating it from the year 284 A.D., which was the year in which emperor Diocletian ascended the throne of the empire. On August 29 of that year, the first of Tute began for the first Coptic year. For this reason, the Coptic calendar is 284 years shorter than [the Gregorian calendar]. From this date onwards, the Coptic calendar became known as the calendar of the pure martyrs. Martyrdom for the sake of the Faith was and remains the glory of our people and a crown of pride for our Church such that she became known {2} in all the centuries as the Church of the Martyrs, and her history as the history of the martyrs. It was said by some historians that the number of the martyrs who were martyred in Egypt exceeded the number of Christian martyrs in the whole world, and the famous proverb was invented which says that it is easier to relocate a mountain from its place than to convert a Copt from his beliefs. It was also said that every inch of Egyptian soil has been watered by the blood of the martyrs. The Copts of Egypt are the descendants of the martyrs who willingly accepted death over renouncing their faith and Church, and who did not accept to waver from their faith, whether to the right or to the left. And our Church remained, in her doctrine, rites, and tradition — as some foreign historians have said — a unique image of ancient Christianity and as an ancient artifact testifying to the Apostolic Faith in its most ancient form. It is therefore our responsibility to preserve the glorious heritage, the deposit of the Faith by the Holy Spirit Who dwells in us, as Saint Paul the Apostle says, to hold fast to our faith, doctrine, heritage, and traditions, to not waver from our ancient beliefs, and to remain steadfast in them until the last breath. So our Savior said: “[H]old fast what you have until I come” (Rev 2:[25]). And those — from among our congregation and children — who have left their country for a distant country should not forget their first love for God, their Church, and their homeland, and should fortify themselves against every foreign spirit, the spirit of sin and evil, and should behave in a manner befitting of Christ with all godliness and reverence, and should pray for the peace of their Church and their country for their victory over all enemies hidden and manifest, and for the sake of the spread of the kingdom of Christ. Remember that we are suffering a great difficulty in Israel’s seizure of the Holy Lands and its anticipated plan of demolishing the temples and places of worship in order to build its Temple on their ruins — a situation which will definitely lead to an intense war. Pray that the Lord may avert the calamity and prepare deliverance and victory for the homeland, through the intercession of the pure Virgin Lady, Mary, who has been appearing on the domes of her church in Zeitun since April 2, 1968 and to this day, grieving over what is happening now in the Holy Lands, and appearing to be kneeling in prayer to impede, by her prayers, the evil sought by the enemies of peace; and through the prayers of Saint Mark the Apostle, whose relics’ return from Rome we celebrated on June 24, 1968 — a blessing for our country and our congregation. May the God of heaven protect you and build you up in spirit, soul, and body; and to His Majesty is due thanksgiving forever. Amen. {3} — This letter was first published by the Higher Committee for Sunday School, Sunday School Magazine: September 1969, pages 1-3. Translation Original. The original Arabic is presented below, with gratitude to Hanan Abdel-Malak and Iriny Doss for their assistance in digitizing the original letter. — رسالة صاحب القداسة البابا كيرلس السادس بمناسبة عيد النيروز إلى أصحاب النيافة إخوتنا الأحباء المطارنة والأساقفة وأبنائنا الإكليروس المبارك شعب الكرازة المرقسية. نعمة وسلام وبركة من الله أبينا وربنا يسوع المسيح والروح القدس المعزى لجميعنا ولجميع أبنائنا رجالاً ونساء وشباناً وشابات. فى الحادى عشر من سبتمبر هذا العام يبدأ عامنا القبطى الجديد لسنة ١٦٨٦ للشهداء الأطهار وهو اليوم الأول من شهر توت نسبة إلى العلامة الفلكى الأول ألذى وضع التقويم المصرى القديم الذى إنفرد به القبط فترة طويلة من الزمن قبل أى تقويم آخر عرفه العالم بعد ذلك شرقاً وغرباً. وتقديراً من المصريين القدماء لهذا العلامة رفعوه إلى مصاف الآله. {١} وصار تحوت أو توت هو إله القلم وإله الحكمة والمعرفة وخلدا إسمه على أول شهور السنة المصرية أو القبطية. كانت نشأة التقويم المصرى القبطى فى سنة ٤٢٤١ قبل الميلاد أى فى القرن الثالث والأربعين قبل الميلاد عندما رصد المصريون القدماء نجم الشعرة اليمانية وحسبوا الفترة بين ظهوره مرتين وقسموها إلى ثلاثة فصول كبيرة (الفيضان والبذر والحصاد ) ثم إلى إثنى عشر شهراً، كل منها ثلاثون يوماً وأضافوا المدة الباقية وهى خمس وربع يوماً وجعلوها شهراً أسموه بالشهر الصغير. وسارت السنة القبطية ٣٦٥ يوماً فى السنة البسيطة و ٣٦٦ يوماً فى السنة الكبيسة. وقد احترم الفلاح المصرى هذا التقويم نظراً لمطابقته للمواسم الزراعية ولا يزال يتبعه إلى اليوم. وفى أواخر القرن الثالث للميلاد ثار إضطهاد الإمبراطور الرومانى ديوقلديانوس على المسيحيين، ووضع الإمبراطور تخطيطاً محكماً لإستئصال المسيحية يقوم على أربع نقاط: (١) قتل الأساقفة والكهنة (٢) هدم الكنائس (٣)إحراق الكتب المقدسة (٤) طرد المسيحيين من الوظائف الحكومية وإباحة دمهم. وقد نال القبط فى مصر من هذا الإضطهاد أعنفه لأن ديوقلديانوس كان يرى أن رأس الحية كامن فى مصر ولذلك جاء بنفسه وأقسم بآلهته الوثنية أنه لن يكف عن ذبح المسيحيين بيده حتى يصل الدم المراق من المسيحيين إلى ركبة الحصان، وشرع الإمبراطور يقتل بسيفه المسيحيين وهو ممتط صهوة حصانه بيده، وحدث عند غروب الشمس أن كبا الجواد فوقع على الأرض فلحقت الدماء المسفوكة على الأرض ركبتى الحصان. وكان الإمبراطور قد كل وتعب من ذبح المسيحيين وترك السيف فى يده آثاراً وجرحاً فاعتبر نفسه أنه قد وفى بنذره للآلهة فكف عن ذبح المسيحيين، وقد أحصى عدد القتلى من المسيحيين فقيل أنه بلغ ٨٤٠٫٠٠٠ شهيد. ونظراً لفداحة ما تحمله المسيحيون فى مصر فى عهد هذا الإمبراطور فقد رأوا أن تبدأ فى تاريخهم حلقة جديدة، فأرخوا لسنة ٢٨٤ ميلادية وهى السنة التى اعتلى فيها الإمبراطور ديوقلديانوس عرش الإمبراطورية. ففى ٢٩ أغسطس من تلك السنة بدأ أول توت لسنة ١ قبطية ولذلك فإن التاريخ القبطى ينقص عن التاريخ الميلادى بمقدار ٢٨٤ سنة وصار التاريخ القبطى إبتداء من هذا التاريخ يسمى تاريخ الشهداء الأطهار. إن الاستشهاد من أجل الإيمان كان ولا يزال مجد شعبنا وإكليل فخار لكنيستنا حتى عرفت {٢} فى كل العصور بأنها كنيسة الشهداء، وصار تاريخها يعرف بتاريخ الشهداء. وقال بعض المؤرخين أن عدد الشهداء الذين استشهدوا فى مصر فاق عدد الشهداء المسيحيين فى كل العالم. وقد جرى المثل الشهير أن تحويل جبل من موضعه أسهل من تحويل قبطى عن معتقده. وقيل أيضاً أن كل شبر من تربة مصر قد روى بدماء الشهداء. فأقباط مصر هم نسل الشهداء الذين قبلوا الموت عن رضى زوّدا عن عقيدتهم وكنيستهم ولم يقبلوا أن يتزحزحوا عن إيمانهم يمنة أو يسرة وبقيت كنيستنا فى عقيدتها وطقوسها وتقاليدها - على قول بعض المؤرخين الأجانب - صورة فريدة للمسيحية الأولى وكأنها تحفة أثرية تتحدث عن الإيمان الرسولي فى أقدم صورة له. لذلك كان علينا أن نحافظ على التراث المجيد وديعة الإيمان بالروح القدس الساكن فينا على ما يقول مار بولس الرسول وأن نتمسك بإيماننا وعقيدتنا وتراثنا وتقاليدنا وأن لا نتزحزح عن مسلماتنا القديمة وأن نبقى عليها ثابتين إلى النفس الأخير. فقد قال مخلصنا ( الذى عندكم تمسكوا به إلى أن أجئ ) (رؤيا ٢-[٢٥]) وعلى الذين - من شعبنا وأبنائنا - ممن غادروا بلادهم إلى بلد بعيد أن لا ينسوا محبتهم الأولى لله ولكنيستهم ولوطنهم وأن يتحصنوا ضد كل روح غريب، روح الخطية والشر، وأن يسلكوا كما يحق للمسيح بكل تقوى ووقار وأن يصلوا من أجل سلام كنيستهم وبلادهم ونصرتها على كل الأعداء الخفيين والظاهرين ومن أجل إنتشار ملكوت المسيح واذكروا أننا نعانى محنة كبيرة باستيلاء إسرائيل على الأراضى المقدسة وبتخطيطها العتيد لتهدم المعابد ودور العبادة لتبنى هيكلها على أنقاضها الأمر الذى سيقود حتماً إلى حرب ضروس، فصلوا ليرفع الرب البلاء ويهيئ للوطن الخلاص والنصر بشفاعة السيدة العذراء الطاهرة مريم التى تتجلى على قباب كنيستها بالزيتون منذ الثانى من إبريل ١٩٦٨ وإلى اليوم حزينة على ما يجرى الآن فى البلاد المقدسة وتبدو راكعة مصلية لتدفع بصلواتها الشر الذى يريده أعداء السلام . وبصلوات القديس مرقس الرسول الذى احتفلنا فى الرابع والعشرين من يونيو سنة ١٩٦٨ برجوع رفاته المقدسة من روما بركة لبلادنا ولشعبنا. إله السماء يحفظكم ويبنيكم فى الروح والنفس والجسد ولعظمته تعالى الشكر دائماً آمين. {٣}

August 2, 1902 — Azer Youssef Atta is born in Damanhur, in the governorate of Beheira, to Youssef and Esther Atta — the third of six children and a member of a pious, ecclesial family — and baptized shortly thereafter at Saint Mary’s Church in Mahmoudeya, Beheira. 1907 — Azer accompanies his family in relocating to Tukh al-Nasara, Governorate of Menoufia, where they would reside until 1910. Here, he would complete his primary schooling and, notably, memorize the Gospel of John in its entirety. During these years, Azer and his family made a pilgrimage in November of each year to Ibyar for the festival of Saint Mina, where Azer would often be found foregoing the festivities taking place outside the church in order to attend the liturgical services — the beginnings of his intimate, personal, and lifelong relationship with Saint Mina, and already a clear indicator of not only his lifelong personal love for the altar, but also, more importantly, his sound spirituality, ecclesiology, and liturgical theology. 1910 — Azer and his family relocate once more, to Alexandria, where he would live until leaving the world for the monastery. This year, the Virgin Mary appears in Azer’s family home on Nile Street, “with her luminous garments and glittering crown,” healing a member of his family and leaving a lasting impression on his life such that he noted in 1968, in an interview with Akhbar Al-Youm newspaper, that the image of this visitation had always remained since the encounter “a source of radiant blessing in my family’s home. She instilled faith in our souls, and we all grew up with this love for her. This holy, blessed event has never left my mind.” [The front page of the May 11, 1968 Akhbar al-Youm newspaper, featuring an interview with Pope Kyrillos regarding the Zeitun Apparitions] 1920 — Azer completes his schooling and earns his baccalaureate. Shortly thereafter, he begins employment as an account manager with Thomas Cook & Son, a British company. Before beginning his shift every day, Azer would attend the morning prayers at Saint Mark’s Cathedral in Mahatet al-Ramleh, Alexandria. After work, he would visit his mentor, Archdeacon Iskander Hanna — who would ultimately prove instrumental in convincing Azer’s family to agree to his pursuit of the monastic life — for guidance. In the evenings, he would spend his time alone in his room, praying and reading the Scriptures, as he longed for the monastic life. [Azer Youssef Atta] June 1927 — Azer resigns from his position at Thomas Cook & Son. Upon being confronted by his older brother regarding this decision, he replied: “Which is preferable? A holy life and real internal happiness, or the suffering and painful life one must live in the secular world?” July 27, 1927 — Azer departs Alexandria to join the Baramos (Ⲡⲁⲣⲱⲙⲉⲟⲥ) Monastery, where he quickly becomes the disciple of Fr. Abdelmassih al-Masudi, a renowned scholar and saintly ascetic. During his novitiate, Azer undertook the most difficult and unpleasant tasks of the monastery with obedient gratitude, concern, and complete faithfulness — serving the elder monks, cleaning their cells, washing their clothes, and even carrying out the duties of the monastery kitchen. Amidst and despite these tasks, Azer diligently continued his prayers, study of the Scriptures, and daily liturgical practice. February 9, 1928 — At the request of his mentor, Fr. Abdelmassih, Azer publishes the first of what would ultimately total 23 volumes of a monthly theological periodical titled Harbor of Salvation, in which he presented various excerpts from Patristic and desert literature while contributing personal theological discourses and narratives containing either autobiographical notes or quotations from contemporary Christian writings. Every one of the fifty copies prepared of each volume was meticulously handwritten by Azer. February 24–25, 1928 — Azer is tonsured as a monk at the Baramos Monastery by the name Fr. Mina al-Baramosy, at the unanimous nomination of the monks and with the abbot’s approval. July 18, 1931 — Fr. Mina al-Baramosy is ordained to the presbyterate by Bishop Demetrius of Menoufia. At his ordination, as at his monastic tonsuring, he wept bitterly and openly, bringing all who were in attendance to tears. Upon being ordained, Pope Youannis XIX personally requested that Fr. Mina complete his forty days’ preparation at the Cathedral of Saint Mark in Alexandria, and to receive the oblation there. It appears that Fr. Mina underwent this period of preparation and instruction at the hands of Pope Youannis himself. 1931–1933 — Following Fr. Mina’s ordination, Pope Youannis requested that he undertake theological studies at the newly established Clerical College in Helwan — a request that arose from Pope Youannis’ convictions as to the importance of formal theological education for monks. Fr. Mina acquiesced out of obedience to the patriarch. During the period of his studies, in which he is noted to have been quite successful, Fr. Mina and his new friend, Fr. Kyrillos of the Monastery of Saint Paul the Anchorite, prayed every day the prayers of the raising of incense, the praises, and the Divine Liturgy, and even succeeded in having this schedule adopted as the official daily schedule of their theological school. At one evening raising of incense presided over by Fr. Mina at the School, Pope Youannis unexpectedly arrived and attended as Fr. Mina delivered the homily, which lasted a full hour. In light of the richness and power of that homily, Pope Youannis blessed Fr. Mina, praying that he would be “a pillar of the Church of God,” and expressed to the Dean of the School that he intended to ordain Fr. Mina to the episcopacy. Upon learning of this intention, in early 1933, Fr. Mina abruptly, immediately, and secretly left the School in the middle of the night, fleeing by train to the White Monastery of Saint Shenouda over 260 miles away. Shortly thereafter, by August 1933, he had returned to the Baramos Monastery, choosing the second of two choices presented to him by Pope Youannis after formally declining the episcopacy. December 1933/January 1934 — After several months of negotiation and debate between Fr. Mina and the monks of the Baramos Monastery, Fr. Mina finally obtains permission to commence the solitary life he had long desired, and departs the monastery for a cave he had previously discovered during the journey of his return to the monastery in mid-1933, which had been carved out by one Hegumen Sarabamon. Before departing, Fr. Mina promised his mentor, Fr. Abdelmassih al-Masudi, to return to the monastery each week for the liturgical prayers commencing on Saturday evening and concluding with the Sunday Liturgy. His first night in the cave was, in his own words, incredibly fearful, characterized by “terrible sounds and forceful earthquakes” brought about by the demons. Yet Fr. Mina describes that he felt God’s “invisible power” that night, so that the fear departed from him. At this cave, Fr. Mina continued in daily prayers, prostrations, and scriptural and patristic reading, and was once especially visited there by Pope Youannis, despite his being eighty years old, out of his desire to receive a “blessing from the cave that had become holy through the spiritual struggle of” Fr. Mina. April 4, 1936 — Fr. Mina the Solitary departs the Baramos Monastery on Lazarus Saturday to accompany and serve seven elderly monks in their expulsion from the Monastery, and takes up residence with them first at the Monastery of Archangel Michael in Old Cairo, and then in a two-story rented house nearby. Soon thereafter, Fr. Mina personally intercedes for them with Pope Youannis, who has mercy on them and permits their return to their Monastery. While Fr. Mina did not hesitate to take upon himself the responsibility of serving and defending the seven monks, this came at the cost of his beloved cave — a sacrifice that caused him much grief. June 1936 — As the seven monks return to their Monastery, Fr. Mina obtains permission from the pope to reside in a remote, abandoned windmill in the Eastern Mountain, on the outskirts of Old Cairo, discerning that he would “receive God’s comforting grace” there. He subsequently obtains special permission to reside there from the Director of the Arabic Antiquities Organization, as the place was a protected site, and signs a lease for the place on June 23, 1936, providing for a monthly rent of only half a piaster. While living at the windmill, Fr. Mina returned to the Monastery of Archangel Michael each Sunday to attend the Divine Liturgy, quietly leaving immediately after the conclusion of the service. Otherwise, his days began at 2 AM with the midnight watches of the Agpeya, followed by the midnight praises, baking the offertory bread, offering the morning raising of incense, and celebrating the Divine Liturgy along with those who would come to attend the prayers with him, whose numbers only increased in proportion to his spreading renown as a blessed, prayerful, and wonder-working monk. October 28, 1941 — Fr. Mina is evicted from the windmill by the governing authorities due to a purported archaeological excavation that, conveniently, was claimed to be required precisely beneath the windmill — which, it should be said, never actually occurred. From this day until late 1943, Fr. Mina was without a permanent residence, moving from place to place, including staying at the Monastery of Archangel Michael in Old Cairo and the Church of Saint Mary at Babylon in Old Cairo, and even having no choice, on at least one occasion, but to sleep on the pavement in front of a locked church. Late 1943 — Fr. Mina is appointed abbot of the Monastery of Saint Samuel by Metropolitan Athanasius of Beni Suef, and arrives there in late December of the same year to find it in severe disrepair. Yet Fr. Mina expressed that he perceived it as being, spiritually, indescribably beautiful and overflowing with blessings and grace. Fr. Mina immediately began the work of effectuating the necessary repairs and even expansions at the monastery and its off-campus center, until he had restored it and rendered it once again inhabitable. He then left there his disciple, Fr. Mina the Younger, to oversee the daily affairs of the monks (and eventually become its abbot in 1954), while he returned in early 1945 to reside in his windmill once again. From there, he cared for the monastery from afar, sending several letters to its monks and visiting them from time to time. Mid-1945 to Mid-1946 — After only residing at the windmill for a few months, Fr. Mina is evicted once again. He therefore again resorts to moving between the Monastery of Archangel Michael and the Church of Saint Mary at Babylon, and even, at one point, spends forty days with his family in Alexandria for lack of living accommodations. Amidst these relocations, he is appointed, against his will, the father confessor of the Saint Mercurius Convent in Old Cairo. Finally, in mid-1946, following a papal decree requiring all monks to return to their respective monasteries, Fr. Mina requests and is granted by Pope Yousab II official permission to pray at the Monastery of Archangel Michael in Old Cairo. 1947–1959 — In early 1947, while Fr. Mina was residing in a small room at the Monastery of Archangel Michael, he learns — possibly, according to his own vague words, from his dear friend, Saint Mina — that a neighboring property was for sale. Shortly thereafter, he succeeds in purchasing the property, and that at a 33% discount provided by its prior owner upon learning that it would be for Saint Mina. According to Fr. Mina, an old lady was present for the discussion and paid the required sum “on the spot.” And so commenced the construction of the Monastery of Saint Mina in Old Cairo, which was consecrated at the end of the same year by none other than Metropolitan Athanasius of Beni Suef, along with Metropolitan Abraam of Giza. It was in this place that Fr. Mina continued to carry out his customary schedule of daily prayers, beginning at midnight, while attending to the needs of the many students who, being attracted by his piety, simplicity, wisdom, and prayerfulness, began to gather around him and become his disciples. It is said that he only ventured beyond the gates of the Monastery once in over a decade, only to undergo a necessary appendectomy. Among the activities he either carried out or oversaw at the Monastery during this period were daily hymn and Coptic language classes for children, the assembling of a reference library, lectures for young adults, and even vocational training programs. He even built a boarding house on the property to host students coming to attend Cairo University from out-of-town, who were only accepted to reside there if they had a letter of recommendation from their parish priest and agreed to adhere to the monastery’s rules and attend the Divine Liturgy regularly. And so countless disciples, especially from among the well educated and spiritually sincere members of the Sunday School Movement, were attracted to Fr. Mina and became regular attendees and students at Saint Mina’s Monastery, finding in Fr. Mina acceptance and encouragement, much-needed guidance, a pious example, and heartfelt fatherhood — all of which they unfortunately often lacked in their home parishes — all while witnessing his life of unceasing prayer and the many signs God regularly performed at his hands there. These disciples included, most notably, Zareef Abdullah (a founder of the Sunday School Movement in Giza, and later ordained Fr. Boulos Boulos, the first member of the Sunday School Movement to be ordained to the priesthood), Waheeb Zaky (later Fr. Salib Suriel, a well-respected teacher of the Coptic Church in the twentieth century who had been a disciple of Fr. Mina since 1936, while he was still living at the windmill), Saad Aziz, who would be tonsured a monk by Fr. Mina himself on April 14, 1948 by the name of Makary at Saint Mina’s Monastery and eventually become Anba Samuel of Ecumenical and Social Services, Waheeb Atallah, who had initially become a disciple of Fr. Mina at the windmill and would ultimately become Bishop Gregorios of Higher Theological Studies, Coptic Culture, and Scientific Research, Abdelmessih Bishara, who would succeed Metropolitan Athanasius of Beni Suef as Bishop Athanasius of Beni Suef, Soliman Rizk, who would become Bishop Mina Ava Mina and ultimately be appointed abbot of the Monastery of Saint Mina that would one day be built by Fr. Mina after his enthronement as Pope Kyrillos VI, Mikhail Ibrahim, who would ultimately be ordained Fr. Mikhail Ibrahim, and countless other future clergymen and faithful servants of the Church. Perhaps foremost among the disciples of Fr. Mina at the Monastery of Saint Mina was a young member of the Sunday School Movement in Saint Anthony’s Church in Shubra, Nazir Gayed, who would eventually become Fr. Antonios al-Suryani, then Bishop Shenouda of Christian Education, and finally succeed his mentor in the papacy as none other than Pope Shenouda III. During these years, while within the gates of the Monastery of Saint Mina was a paradise of piety and prayer and a safe haven for many, outside grew, among certain ecclesial hierarchs and influential figures, especially within the patriarchate, animosity and disdain for Fr. Mina, leading to various attempts at thwarting his efforts, suppressing his growing influence, and even an attempt, foiled at the last minute, to kidnap him so as to forcibly remove him from the Monastery and isolate him from his many disciples. Despite these tribulations, Fr. Mina persisted unfazed in his life of solitude and ceaseless prayer, being supported firstly by God’s grace and secondly by the love of his disciples and the defensive interventions of his supporters from among the episcopacy, most especially Metropolitan Athanasius of Beni Suef. April 19, 1959 — Having been nominated to the papacy against his will and without his knowledge by Metropolitan Athanasius of Beni Suef, and having received the third-highest number of votes in the final election, Fr. Mina is selected by altar ballot as the 116th pope of Alexandria and patriarch of the See of Saint Mark. He learns of the announcement as he prays the Divine Liturgy at Saint Mina’s Monastery in Old Cairo and begins to weep, being heard praying, by those around him after the service: “I have always lived as a solitary, my God, and I would have continued to live and die solitary. But you have not wanted it. My God, may your will be done, for your will is impenetrable and you are mysterious, O Lord.” May 9, 1959 — Fr. Mina travels to the Baramos Monastery— his first time returning since he left it on April 4, 1936 — and thereafter visits the remaining monasteries of Wadi al-Natrun. At the Syrian Monastery, his disciple, Nazir Gayed, who had five years prior become a monk there under the name Fr. Antonios al-Suryani, is asked to deliver an address in his presence, during which Fr. Mina weeps openly. That evening, Fr. Mina returns to Cairo, where he is welcomed by thousands of believers, and arrives at the cathedral, where he prays the evening raising of incense, according to his custom, before retiring to his room. May 10, 1959 — At 2:30 AM, Fr. Mina requests that the guard of the papal residence open the doors of the church, where he prays, as a matter of course, the midnight and morning praises and morning raising of incense, before attending the early liturgy as a mere attendee, as he would pray the later Liturgy during his ordination to the papacy that very day. And so, only a few hours later, Fr. Mina is ordained Pope Kyrillos VI, weeping throughout the entirety of the ordination service and even asking Bishop Lucas of Manfalout to deliver his personal address to the congregation in his stead. Therein, Pope Kyrillos VI movingly expresses his sense of awe before the great responsibility with which he has been entrusted, his trust in God’s grace and support, his deep love for the flock, and his hope that the clergy and laity would work cooperatively with him for the edification of the Church of God. Among his concluding remarks, he says: “may we disappear that He may appear with His blessed glory. I ask the Lord that He may grant us all oneness of spirit and heart and thought, that we may work together with one mind and one will, that is the will of the Holy Spirit, Who has guided the Church throughout her long glorious history. And we have one holy goal: the glory of God and the service of Truth and the highest aspirations.” After the liturgy, Pope Kyrillos stands and refuses to sit, despite the heat of the day and the lengthy prayers that had just concluded, while he greets, one person at a time, the thousands in attendance at the blessed event — in stark contrast to the closed-door policies of his predecessor, who had installed iron bars on the windows of the patriarchate and erected a barricade there. Pope Kyrillos would henceforth become perhaps the most accessible patriarch in the Church’s storied history. Each day, following his usual morning prayers, which began at approximately three in the morning and concluded at around eight in the morning, he would meet with countless visitors amidst his other obligations — whether official meetings or other papal duties — until six in the evening, when he would “go to his work” of praying the evening praises and the evening raising of incense, after which he would continue to receive guests until about midnight. These visitors came to him for a multitude of reasons — personal and professional problems, guidance, complaints, demon possession, illnesses of various sorts, or merely to receive his blessing — and invariably found in him a patient smile, a listening ear, penetrating insight, timely austerity, clarity of mind, gifts of healing, prophecy, and exorcism, a warm sense of humor, and a gracious and fatherly heart that was all-encompassing. Meanwhile, the pope maintained his ascetical disposition and preference for silence — his food was almost entirely comprised of simple bread, spices, and cooked vegetables, and his clothing consisted of a coarse inner garment, a leather belt, the monastic Eskim, a lighter outer garment, an outer cassock, a shawl, and a tattered pair of shoes which he never exchanged or repaired. His sleep was short and interrupted, on a thin brass bed with a light covering regardless of the season, on which he slept in a rigid position on his side, with legs unbent. In all, a man of prayer, silence, and unfathomable simplicity, whose exalted rank paradoxically engendered within him an even deeper prayerfulness, humility, simplicity, patience, and life of asceticism, much to the dismay of many among the clergy and laity, who carried out a brutal campaign of hostility, slander, and defamation against him, especially during the early years of his papacy. June 7, 1959 — Pope Kyrillos consecrates the first bishop of his papacy, Metropolitan Basil IV of Jerusalem, a former student of Saint Archdeacon Habib Girgis who had gone on to earn a doctorate degree from the School of Theology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The See of Jerusalem had been vacant for three years, since the repose of its previous Metropolitan, James II of Jerusalem, in 1956, and so His Holiness made it a matter of urgent priority to consecrate a metropolitan for it immediately following his own consecration. Upon hearing of the pope’s intention to ordain him, Metropolitan Basil IV, then Hegumen Cyril al-Antoni, escaped and went into hiding, only to then relent and accept the ordination at the pleas of his personal acquaintances and upon discerning the will of God. June 22, 1959 — Pope Kyrillos VI journeys into the desert at Mariout, as one of his first official acts as patriarch, to consecrate the site, and initiate the (re)establishment of Saint Mina’s Monastery in the same desert where, until a millennium before, his shrine and monastery had attracted countless pilgrims from all over the Christian world. This had long been a desire and hope of Pope Kyrillos — in 1937, he had requested permission from Pope Youannis XIX to commence this project, only to be told, rather sarcastically, “have we finished rebuilding the cities to begin rebuilding the desert?” Then, in 1943, he had tried once more to obtain permission for the undertaking, only to once again fall short of success; and finally, in 1946, he had asked his brother Hanna to assist in obtaining the necessary clearances, again to no avail. This situation persisted until March 5, 1958, when, after the death of Pope Yousab II, the Maglis finally decided to rebuild Saint Mina’s Monastery. In correspondence written that night, Pope Kyrillos, then still Fr. Mina, elatedly declared: “I was so happy and glad for this news to the extent that I could not go to sleep before writing this letter. . .” In another letter prepared the same night, he wrote: “I plead to the almighty Lord Jesus to declare his will and grant me the desire of my heart, to see with my eyes the renovation of this monastery.” However, the issue of the Monastery would be cast aside amidst the climate of the day and Fr. Mina’s election and enthronement, until this fateful day when he arrived to the site in the desolate wilderness of Mariout to consecrate the place and commence the long-awaited restoration. Soon thereafter, on November 27, 1959, two days after the annual commemoration of the martyrdom of Saint Mina, Pope Kyrillos would return to celebrate a liturgy at the tomb of Saint Mina before driving to a nearby site and laying the foundation stone for what would eventually become the great Monastery of Saint Mina there. Upon his arrival that day, rain fell in that area, ending a longstanding drought. The project was met with woeful disdain at all levels, both inside and outside the Church — one western scholar comments, now, in hindsight, quite comically: “who, one wonders, will visit it? Who needs it?” And many Copts, even among the clergy, repeated the same bewildered phrase: “he is taking the money of the Copts and throwing it in the sand!” But Pope Kyrillos saw in the place what many if not all of his contemporaries failed to discern: a divinely ordained opportunity to revive the veneration of a long-forgotten and yet still entirely alive and active saint, and along with it the life of genuine prayer and sound monasticism practiced in public view, thereby inspiring to the same manner of life, with the aid of the multitude of miracles performed there, all who came to receive the blessing of the place, who had been largely deprived of the life of prayer and the experience of genuinely pious clergymen in the unfortunate decades preceding the papacy of Pope Kyrillos, due to the overwhelmingly weak and confused state of ecclesial life and administration during that period. June 29, 1959 — Only one week after his consecration of the site of the Monastery of Saint Mina in Mariout, as one of his first acts as patriarch, Pope Kyrillos declares the autocephaly of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and elevates its head, Abune Basilios, to the rank of Patriarch-Catholicos. In this step, Pope Kyrillos heals a decades-long dispute between the Coptic and Ethiopian Churches, wherein the Coptic Church had refused to grant independence to the Ethiopian Church. In immediately permitting the Ethiopian Church to receive its independence, Pope Kyrillos overturns over 1500 years of precedent wherein the Coptic patriarch retained the authority to nominate and consecrate the head of the Ethiopian Church. In so doing, he effectively salvages the relationship between the two Churches and inaugurates a new era of equality between them. October 12, 1959 — Pope Kyrillos secures a meeting with President Gamal Abdel Nasser with the help of an acquaintance after a tense five months wherein the president refused to visit the pope. Upon arriving to the presidential palace, Pope Kyrillos is met with antagonism and discourtesy by the president. Not feeling particularly welcomed, he abruptly concludes the brief meeting with the words: “enough. I leave you to God. I leave you to God.” He immediately leaves for the patriarchate, where he prays the evening raising of incense upon arriving before continuing his evening as usual and returning to his cell at midnight. Only two hours later, his acquaintance, who had initially arranged the aforementioned meeting, frantically knocks on the door of the patriarchate exclaiming that the president was calling for the pope immediately. After some hesitation, given the late hour, the attendant permitted the man to go himself to knock on the pope’s door. As they approached his room, and before they could knock, Pope Kyrillos opened the door already dressed in his patriarchal attire and made his way towards them, saying: “come, let us go quickly!” Upon arriving, this time to the president’s family residence, Pope Kyrillos exits the vehicle and says: “where is she?” It had happened that the president’s daughter had suddenly fallen ill the prior day, and no diagnosis could be found. Thus, the president felt in his heart that this was related to his disdainful conduct towards Pope Kyrillos and the pope’s rebuke. The pope, seemingly made aware by divine revelation of what had occurred, entered the home alone and prayed for the sick girl, and at once she was restored to perfect health. At the sight of his miraculously healed daughter, the president declared: “from this moment, I will call you my father, and in the future, do not go to the presidential palace, but rather when you meet me, you meet me in my own house. And these children are like your children. Pray for us just as you do for your family.” From then on, Nasser’s disposition towards the pope, and the Copts more generally, took a drastic turn. While previously he had been a negative critic of the Copts and largely uninterested in either their concerns or their newly enthroned pope, now, suddenly, he esteemed Pope Kyrillos greatly in the public eye and was favorable towards the Copts, with his children even contributing the monies for the purchase of the land that would ultimately become the Monastery of Saint Mina in Mariout. Even the president’s own family and closest circle were deeply puzzled by the special concern, admiration, and endearment Nasser exhibited towards Pope Kyrillos. This was, however, not surprising to the pope, who, upon being gently pressed on one occasion by Tamav Iriny, the late saintly abbess of the Monastery of Abu Sefein in Old Cairo, about the flattering words spoken to him by the president in a conversation between them that she had overheard, responded: “has God not shown him miracles?” October 26, 1960 — Pope Kyrillos visits Ethiopia for a two-week pastoral tour, the fourth such patriarchal visit in the previous 1500 years. He is hosted for the duration of his stay by Emperor Haile Selassie in his personal imperial residence, where Pope Kyrillos would casually interact with the lions on the property. This would be the first of two visits by Pope Kyrillos to Ethiopia. The trip concluded with a two-day pastoral visit to Eritrea. June 22, 1961 — At a Synodal meeting at which a certain bishop was to be examined for doctrinal issues, which bishop had also been issuing insulting and derogatory letters against Pope Kyrillos VI, the pope remarks: “do not mention any accusations against [the bishop] that are related to me. I forgive him and am forgoing my rights.” This was entirely in line with His Holiness’ invariable disposition towards those who defamed and derided him: immediate forgiveness and, often, a convicting quip indicative of his awareness of the person’s opposition. September 9, 1962 — Pope Kyrillos ordains Fr. Macarius al-Suryani, one of his longtime disciples, as Bishop Athanasius of Beni Suef and Bahnasa. Bishop Athanasius would oversee the same diocese that was before him shepherded by Metropolitan Athanasius, who had for many years defended Pope Kyrillos prior to his patriarchate, and who had even nominated him for the papacy. Bishop Athanasius was the first “Sunday School monk” ordained by Pope Kyrillos to the episcopacy, and would go on to serve the Church for almost forty years as a “model and epitome of a diocesan bishop.” September 23, 1962 — Pope Kyrillos summons Fr. Antonios al-Suryani, formerly Nazir Gayed (who, notably, had been a disciple of the pope since his days at the Monastery of Saint Mina in Old Cairo), urgently from his cave outside the Syrian Monastery. He sends to him Bishop Theophilus, the bishop of the monastery, to call him to the patriarchate. Upon arriving, in his sandy garments, he is met with interrogation by Pope Kyrillos regarding his attire and a recent incident at the Syrian Monastery before the pope asks him regarding the reasons for his purported “refusal” to work with him. Fr. Antonios wittily counters every suggestion by Pope Kyrillos that would have him leave his cave to return to the world in order to work with the pope. As he attempts to leave, Fr. Antonios performs a customary prostration before the patriarch, at which time, in the blink of an eye, Pope Kyrillos takes hold of his head with his unusually large hands and declares: “Shenouda, Bishop of Education!” Bishop Theophilus joins in the moment by likewise placing his hands on Fr. Antonios’ head, before Pope Kyrillos instructs Fr. Antonios that he is not permitted to leave the patriarchate until his ordination takes place the following Sunday, September 30, 1962. Fr. Antonios spends that week at the patriarchate deeply mournful, weeping bitterly and lamenting his impending ordination. In a letter he penned in response to one congratulatory correspondence following his ordination, he writes: “as a matter of fact, a letter of consolation, not of congratulation, was fit for the occasion. How can a monk be congratulated on leaving the calmness of the wilderness and abiding again amidst the disturbance of the city? . . . For me, indeed, it is a matter of shame. I remember that day of my consecration to the episcopacy with tears and lamentation.” September 30, 1962 — On the morning of the day appointed by Pope Kyrillos for the ordination of Fr. Antonios to the episcopacy, he escorts Fr. Antonios down a staircase of the patriarchate on the way to the church along with a group of those in attendance. Suddenly, he stops, standing still on the staircase for some time in deep prayer as those around them stand by perplexed. Then, just as suddenly, Pope Kyrillos exclaims: “go, get his brother! Quickly! Go, get his brother!” By his brother, Pope Kyrillos was referring to Fr. Makary al-Suryani, who was then serving as the patriarchal secretary. Ever since Pope Kyrillos was Fr. Mina at the Monastery of Saint Mina in Old Cairo, Fr. Makary had been his disciple, beginning as Saad Aziz — his name prior to tonsuring. He had even been ordained by Fr. Mina at that very monastery in 1948, as the first of the “Sunday School monks.” And so, upon being summoned, Fr. Makary comes down the stairs where the pope and Fr. Antonios stood, at which time the pope instructs him to “stand next to [his] brother.” And so that day, His Holiness ordains Fr. Antonios as Bishop Shenouda for the Theological College and Clerical Institutes, and Fr. Makary as Bishop Samuel for Ecumenical, Public, and Social Affairs. With these two brilliant men, Pope Kyrillos inaugurated for the first time in Christian history the position of the “general bishop” to oversee not a physical diocese, but a conceptual one. This reform in the functional structure of the episcopacy, especially in light of the eminent personnel carefully selected by Pope Kyrillos — including not only Bishops Shenouda and Samuel, but also Fr. Pakhom al-Muharraqi, previously Waheeb Atallah, a disciple of Pope Kyrillos since his time at the windmill, who would be ordained on May 10, 1967 as Bishop Gregorios of Higher Studies, Coptic Culture, and Scientific Research — would enable widespread and far-reaching reform, advancement, and ministry in every area of ecclesial significance both throughout Egypt and abroad. It is unsurprising that Pope Kyrillos empowered, sponsored, and chose for episcopal ordination such brilliant servants, all of whom possessing a sincere ecclesial spirit, to serve in these consequential roles — his administrative vision, in harmony with his spiritual disposition, was keen to empower those with the requisite spiritual and intellectual qualifications. As a well-known priest in his day, Fr. Youssef Asaad, summarizes: “[Pope Kyrillos] never worked alone, but always let others participate with him . . . If someone was celebrating the Liturgy in a way that was pleasing to the people, he rejoiced greatly, saying: ‘bring him to pray with me.’ If someone was talented in preaching . . . He would sit and listen to the homily like any other person in the congregation.” Indeed, Pope Kyrillos himself specifically expressed in his first homily, delivered at his ordination, that this would be his method (and, truly, ought to be the method of every genuine servant of God): “may we disappear that He may appear with His blessed glory.” Late 1962 — Metropolitan Youannis of Giza, who had been ordained in a questionable manner by the prior patriarch, embarks on a campaign to collect signatures in support of a petition to depose Pope Kyrillos, alleging that His Holiness was an uneducated man and overly preoccupied with prayer. Thus he travels throughout Egypt to gather signatures, turning many clergy and laity, as well as several bishops, against the pope. Upon being informed of the plot while praying the evening raising of incense at the cathedral in Alexandria, Pope Kyrillos addresses Saint Mark saying: “this will be the last time I come here to you . . . I will go to the desert and never return if this man’s project succeeds.” The next morning, Metropolitan Youannis is found dead at his residence, having mistakenly consumed, during a coughing fit in the middle of the night, a pesticide from a bottle inadvertently placed next to his medicine bottle on his nightstand. At his funeral, Pope Kyrillos was heard weeping: “all of this, for what? A few pieces of paper with signatures?!” For forty days after that metropolitan’s death, and despite his act of gross disloyalty, Pope Kyrillos commemorated him in every Divine Liturgy. And so it was with each of those who opposed and ridiculed him from among the clergy — with the passing of each of them, Pope Kyrillos would mourn the passing of “his son,” saying: “it is as if a part of my spirit has been taken from me.” Throughout his papacy, Pope Kyrillos kept closest to him those who opposed and challenged him, implicitly finding in them protection for his humility — even the letters found among his personal belongings after his departure were invariably those that insulted and defamed him. He did not keep even one fragment that expressed or contained the slightest hint of positivity or praise towards him, perfectly embodying the words of his teacher, Isaac the Syrian: “honor flees from before the man who runs after it; but he who flees from it, the same will it hunt down, and will become to all men a herald of his humility.” March 31, 1963 — Following the death of Metropolitan Youannis of Giza, Pope Kyrillos ordains another of his disciples, Fr. Mettias al-Suryani, as Bishop Domadius of Giza. While Metropolitan Youannis had long resisted Pope Kyrillos, and with him the entirety of the Sunday School movement, Bishop Domadius was a faithful disciple to Pope Kyrillos and a supporter of the Sunday School movement. His ordination would therefore prove instrumental in bringing the spirit and vision of the pope into Giza, opening up the diocese to the spiritual reform process taking place throughout the rest of Egypt during His Holiness’ reign. January 13, 1965 — Pope Kyrillos visits Ethiopia for the second time in order to preside over the Inaugural Oriental Orthodox Conference in Addis Ababa, becoming the first patriarch in history to visit the country twice. Upon disembarking his flight, he is greeted by a military salute and thousands of cheering believers along with Emperor Haile Selassie. Having brought with him the offerings and arrived fasting, his first words to the Emperor are: “I would like to go to the church to pray a Liturgy.” And so he first celebrates the Divine Liturgy before inaugurating the Conference. May 9, 1965 — Pope Kyrillos travels from Saint Mina’s Monastery in Mariout to Cairo to meet Nasser for the first time in several years. Beginning in early 1964, the Copts had begun once again to face institutional and governmental discrimination, with church building permits revoked, church renovations forcibly halted, and congregations being forcibly removed from their parishes. A church in Helwan Gardens was seized, and another was destroyed by a Muslim mob. While Pope Kyrillos repeatedly wrote to Nasser regarding these concerns, he received no response. And so, in March 1965, the Synod convened and requested of Pope Kyrillos that he go to the president directly. However, given the unpredictability of the situation and the fact that he had not spoken to the president in several years, he instead spent the entirety of Great Lent that year in Alexandria, before proceeding to celebrate the Pascha at his beloved Monastery of Saint Mina in Mariout. On the eve of the Feast of the Resurrection, Pope Kyrillos suddenly ordered that all visitors to the Monastery, even his own relatives, immediately depart, and that the Monastery’s generators be turned off. That night, he chose to forego attending the communal Festal liturgy in favor of celebrating a later candlelit liturgy, beginning at 1:30 AM, with only a few monks, throughout which he wept bitterly. Immediately after the conclusion of the service, Pope Kyrillos said to his disciple, Fr. Raphael Ava Mina, “my son, shouldn’t you go and feed the visitors?” Perplexed, Fr. Raphael responded: “what visitors? You sent them all home.” To this the pope remarked: “my son, shouldn’t you ask them first? The church is filled to the last space, there was not a single empty spot . . . may their prayers be with us.” He then turned towards the seemingly empty church and said: “go in peace, go in peace, remember us in your prayers,” before making the sign of the cross over the place and leaving. Having prayed the Feast with the spirit-borne believers, whom he and no one else in attendance could see, the pope’s prayers for the Church would soon be answered. The very next day, he was informed that Nasser requested a meeting with him, and so, on May 9, 1965, Pope Kyrillos travels to Cairo to meet him. At this meeting, Nasser informs him that he had not heard anything about him for some time, and that he had discovered that a certain minister had sabotaged the situation by preventing the pope’s correspondences from reaching the president. Nasser had discovered a dossier rife with the requests and concerns of the pope, and so called for the pope. Nasser immediately removed the obstructive minister and personally investigated and resolved each of the issues noted in the dossier, resuming the friendship between himself and Pope Kyrillos and even being the one to suggest that the pope consider building a new patriarchate instead of the “old cathedral” in Azbakeya, which was surrounded by markets and at that point in need of renovation. The Cathedral of Saint Mark and the Anba Rweiss Complex, built with the help of a substantial monetary contribution from Nasser’s government, would soon become that new patriarchate. July 24, 1965 — The foundation stone of the new cathedral is laid at a great celebration attended by Pope Kyrillos and Nasser, among many other believers and officials. April 24, 1967 — At the beginning of the Holy Pascha week, His Holiness Pope Kyrillos commences the process of preparing the Holy Myron (Chrism) by gathering the ingredients for the monumental occasion, which had only taken place 25 times prior in the Coptic Church’s history. In preparation for the event, His Holiness had commissioned Dr. Youssef Mansour to prepare a book on the Holy Myron, which research considered over nine manuscripts. For five days, in the early mornings throughout the Holy Pascha week, the Holy Myron was slowly prepared and consecrated, with the personal involvement of His Holiness and many of the Metropolitans and Bishops of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. All the books of the Bible were read audibly throughout the entire process of preparation. On the eve of Thursday of the Holy Pascha week, the Holy Myron was placed beside the altar, and on Covenant Thursday, after the prayer of the Ninth Hour, His Holiness prayed over the Holy Myron. At the conclusion of the Covenant Thursday service, the Holy Myron was moved to the balcony of the great sanctuary, where it stayed until the Feast of the Resurrection (April 30, 1967). On the Feast of the Resurrection, after the Divine Liturgy, the combination of the existing and new Holy Myron commenced, continuing daily until the process was completed on Tuesday, May 2, 1967. May 10, 1967 — Pope Kyrillos ordains Waheeb Atallah, who was his disciple since his days at the windmill, to the episcopacy as His Grace Bishop Gregorios of Higher Theological Studies, Coptic Culture, and Scientific Research, as well as His Grace Bishop Paulos for the diocese of Helwan and Massara. Later on the same day, Pope Kyrillos meets with Nasser in connection with various issues regarding the operations of al-Maglis al-Melli and related financial concerns. At this visit, Nasser congratulates His Holiness on the eighth anniversary of his ordination, at which time the pope curiously places his hand on Nasser’s chest, saying: “I place my hand on the hand of God, as it is written: ‘the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord.’” That night, a government official notifies Pope Kyrillos that Nasser’s chest pain had resolved the moment the pope touched his chest. Although Nasser had a history of cardiac issues, including a suspected heart attack in 1965, these were hidden from public knowledge and even Nasser’s own wife. Nevertheless, in his characteristic clairvoyance, Pope Kyrillos was seemingly aware of the president’s angina, and acted in his typical manner by subtly, without pomp or any degree of showmanship, healing the president. August 24, 1967 — Excavations on the new cathedral grounds begin. Only ten months later, on June 25, 1968, the new cathedral would be consecrated, during the year of the 1900th anniversary of the martyrdom of Saint Mark, in the presence of Pope Kyrillos, Nasser, Emperor Haile Selassie, several patriarchs, countless believers, government officials, and delegations from all over the world, and more than six thousand Egyptians and foreigners. The very next day, June 26, 1968, a relic of Saint Mark — which had been translated from Rome to Cairo the day before the cathedral’s inauguration and received at the airport by Pope Kyrillos himself along with Mar Ignatius Yacoub III and a great number of clergymen, several heads of religions and Christian denominations, and thousands of Egyptians, both Christian and Muslim — would be processed from al-Azbakeya to the new cathedral, where a Divine Liturgy would be prayed and a great celebration held, with the chest containing the relic being placed beneath the altar of the new cathedral. April 2, 1968 — The Marian Apparitions commence at the Church of the Virgin Mary in Zeitun, Egypt. One week later, on April 9, the Virgin appears there once again, and thereafter the apparitions become more frequent, occurring up to twice or more every week for several years, ending in 1971. Pope Kyrillos immediately forms a specialized committee headed by His Grace Bishop Gregorios to conduct a thorough and searching investigation, and on May 4, 1968, the Patriarchate issues an official statement confirming the validity of the apparitions. However, His Holiness does not personally attend the mass gatherings or otherwise make an effort to witness the apparitions firsthand. When asked about his absence, he noted the particular protocol applicable to his visit to any church, his desire not to influence the people regarding the apparitions, his intention to visit the church upon the completion of an icon for the church which he had commissioned depicting the Virgin’s apparition, and the fact that he had seen the Virgin Mary “since his youth,” including in her appearance and miracle in 1910 at his family’s home in Alexandria, an event which he stated “never left [his] mind.” He continued his response: “Now that millions have witnessed the apparition of the Virgin Mary above the Church of Zeitoun, and news of this apparition has spread from one end of the earth to the other . . . and witnesses have testified to this wondrous appearance, in this unique form in which she has never appeared before anywhere on earth . . . we bow down to God, praising Him for His support for us. . .” [The published statement of the Coptic Orthodox Church authenticating the Zeitun Apparitions] 1968–1970 — When not at his beloved Monastery of Saint Mina, Pope Kyrillos continues in his daily routine of rising in the early morning to pray the morning praises, morning raising of incense, and Divine Liturgy — even in the still unfinished cathedral, without windows or heating — before meeting with the multitudes of his spiritual children who would come to him, to hear their problems, bless them, and pray for them. He would then proceed to the church once more for the evening praises, evening raising of incense, and midnight praises before once again meeting his visitors until late in the night, when he would return to his room and shut his door. Throughout this time, his final illnesses had begun, causing him to sometimes carry out this daily routine amidst high fevers and other severe symptoms. May 1970 — Upon concluding a visit to the Monastery of Saint Mina, Pope Kyrillos bids the monks farewell with unusual tearfulness and great emotion. Overcome by tears, he confers with Hegumen Mina Ava Mina, the monastery abbot, before giving him monastic head coverings for each of the monks. He then proceeds to offer a special praise for Saint Mark and Saint Mina in both of the monastery churches, while holding an icon of Saint Mark which he had kept since his days of solitude in the desert. He then enters his car and attempts to smile at those standing by, but his tears continue to fall. This would be his final visit to his beloved monastery. June 1970–March 1971 — Pope Kyrillos begins to delegate tasks and entrust various duties to his disciples and certain priests and bishops. He arranges envelopes for the widows and brethren of the Lord, among whom were many he had supported in secret for many years. Meanwhile, his illness continues to worsen, and he is confined to bedrest against his wishes on several occasions, preventing him from attending the liturgical prayers he so dearly loved and so forcing him to hear these broadcast live from the church through speakers he had requested that his disciple, Fr. Raphael Ava Mina, set up for him in his room. He remained so attentive to the prayers, even in this state, that after they would conclude, when the celebrants would come to receive his blessing, he would urge them not to rush the service, gently correct them if they erred in pronouncing a word, and encourage them not to neglect to pray certain parts of the Liturgy, such as the Litanies after the Gospel, that some had become accustomed to skipping. As he had throughout his papacy, he would also frequently sit at his window, or on his balcony, listening to those below as they mocked or complained of him, and he would say to himself: “they are justified in what they say.” March 7, 1971 — Despite his ongoing illnesses, including a most recent bout of influenza, Pope Kyrillos insists to pray the Divine Liturgy, in direct contravention of his physicians’ orders. The following day, he invites his secretary into his room and solemnly advises him: “take care of the Church, Father; attend to its needs. . . May God be with you and attend to your affairs.” March 9, 1971 — At 5:30 AM, Pope Kyrillos hears the prayers through the speaker in his room before receiving his visitors. He comforts each of them as he had done with his secretary: “May God attend to your affairs.” After a few hours, His Holiness comes to the door to ask whether any visitors remained. He then raises his cross, looks around at those around him, and repeats again, “May God attend to your affairs,” before shutting the door of his room, at which time he becomes light-headed and collapses. A disciple assists His Holiness to his bed and calls for a physician — by the time he arrives, at 10:30 AM, Pope Kyrillos has already reposed in the Lord. At this time, those closest to His Holiness enter the room to find him wearing his coarse inner garment. They vest him in ornate liturgical vestments rarely worn by him, having not yet read his will, which required that he be buried in his simple garments. Upon examining his private desk drawers, they find letters rife with insults and derision — the only letters His Holiness, in his typical fashion, had deemed worthy of preservation. March 10, 1971 — The pure body of His Holiness is seated upon the patriarchal throne in the cathedral, on which he rarely sat during his papacy. Hundreds of thousands of mourners flock to the cathedral to receive the blessing of his body, and to bid farewell to their beloved father. Approximately seven thousand refuse to depart the cathedral, remaining there in a prayerful and tearful vigil until 5 AM the following day. March 11, 1971 — The body of His Holiness is prepared for his funeral. The papal staff is placed in his left hand and a cross in his right hand. The locum tenens, Bishop Antonios of Suhag, eulogizes His Holiness, and at the conclusion of the service, His Holiness is laid to rest beneath the cathedral. His body would ultimately be transferred, on November 23, 1972, to the Monastery of Saint Mina, which he willed to be his final resting place — the monastery where his body remains until this day. — “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.” Hebrews 13:7 — Sources: Daniel Fanous, The Silent Patriarch: Kyrillos VI (1902–1971). Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2019. John Watson, Abba Kyrillos: Patriarch and Solitary, Coptic Church Review, Volume 17, Numbers 1 and 2 (Spring/Summer 1996). Collected Egyptian Newspaper Articles relating to Pope Kyrillos VI (courtesy of Coptic Studies in Egypt): Part 1: 1959–1965 (121 pages); Part 2: 1966–2001 (150 pages). Magdi Guirguis & Nelly van Doorn-Harder, The Emergence of the Modern Coptic Papacy. The Popes of Egypt: A History of the Coptic Church and Its Patriarchs, Volume 3. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 2011. Edward Wakin, A Lonely Minority: The Modern Story of Egypt’s Copts. Revised edition, 2000. Nelly van Doorn-Harder, “Kyrillos VI (1902–1971): Planner, Patriarch and Saint,” Nelly van Doorn-Harder and Kari Vogt (ed.), Between Desert and City: The Coptic Orthodox Church Today. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock. Recorded interviews and lectures of the personal testimonies and eyewitness accounts of personal disciples and spiritual children of Saint Pope Kyrillos VI.

The words of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III on June 8th (Year Unknown) regarding the life of Saint Abraam, the Bishop of Fayoum and Giza — [The day] after tomorrow is the Feast of Saint Anba Abraam, Bishop of Fayoum. For this reason, there are people who travel tomorrow in order to go attend his Feast at Dayr al-Azab in Fayoum. The story of Saint Anba Abraam contains many exceedingly beautiful things, to which we must attend. The first thing regarding Anba Abraam that I wish to tell you is — there is not found an age [] devoid of saints. Meaning — I read a strange word by an orthodox writer, in his book titled Orthodoxy, [and] at the beginning of the book, he says that the Church lived fifteen centuries in the mire of ignorance, and in the depths of darkness. Of course, a difficult thing [to say]. No age [] has passed over the Church that did not have a light [] shining to the people. There is a verse that says: “God does not leave Himself without a witness.”[1] Meaning, for example — in the beginning of the nineteenth century, in the age of Pope Botros al-Gawli, and the governor Muhammad Ali, [recording cuts, but it is contextually likely that the missing statement is akin to “Anba Abraam was born”] and filled the world with sanctity and love and a good example for all. So do not pass an unjust judgment as to anyone. Perhaps God might use a monk in the life of solitude and contemplation and prayer, and perhaps He might use another monk in the life of service and guidance, as He used Anba Abraam, Bishop of Fayoum, while he was a monk, and filled the world with service and was a saint more righteous than hundreds of those who live as solitaries in the cells. In his age also many of his disciples were saints. The same pope who lived in his age was among the scholars of the Church and her saints, who was Pope Cyril V. What is the virtue that was found in Anba Abraam? The first virtue is the virtue of giving — the virtue of mercy; love for the poor. Anba Abraam, the Bishop of Fayoum, excelled in this matter to the furthest extent. The greatest thing in him [] was not that he merely gave [] — many people give — [] but that he gave to all, [he] gave all that he possessed, even if he had nothing left. Many give, but few give to all. Here is the distinguishing characteristic of Anba Abraam. And [as to] the one who gives to all, [this] signifies that he has died a complete death towards money and the love of money, and wealth and the love of wealth, and ownership and the love of ownership, [and] the world and the love of the world. The love of all things comes to have no value, meaning that money has lost its value in his sight, and [so also with] ownership generally. So it was possible for a poor man to approach him, and he would give to him all the money he had. Once, a governor visited him and gave him ten gold pound coins — he loved him, and left them for him. In the past, a gold pound coin was quite effective. A poor person [also] visited him, so he took the ten gold pound coins and gave them to that poor person. Ten gold pound coins today would equal four hundred [or] five hundred Egyptian pounds at least. Even if he did not have money, he would give anything [he had]. A poor woman visited him and he did not have any money, [so] he took the shawl that he was wearing and gave it to her. They brought to him a new cloth from which to make a new outer garment, and he gave it to [another] poor woman. Once, they brought him furniture for the diocesan headquarters [المطرانية], because its furniture was weak, and a woman came to him asking for a trousseau for her daughter, who was to be married, so he summoned a few cars and loaded up the headquarters’ furniture on them and they left, and the congregation came and found nothing. And once, at the beginning of his reign — the congregation could leave the funds with him — they wanted to renovate the headquarters because its structure was dilapidated, so they collected a hundred pounds — [equivalent] to more than a thousand now — and when they returned and asked him “Your Grace, where is the money, because the contractor is coming,” he told them “I have built above.” “Building above” meaning he lost the money — he spent it on the poor. So since that time they no longer gave him the funds whenever there was a project, because he would distribute any money with him. He was a man who kept nothing for himself, [] and he was generous in giving [] to a degree that pained the trustees or his employees, because he would squander everything. When he became the head of the Monastery of al-Muharraq, he would spend to a great extent. And despite their great love for him, and great respect for him, and belief in his great holiness, and their election of him as the head of the Monastery, they said that such a man would exhaust the Monastery’s funds, so they expelled him from the leadership because he would spend the money on the poor. He was not upset. In one instance, they took him to [serve as] trustee of the diocese of al-Minya — before he became a bishop, while he was a priest — and the headquarters was immediately transformed into a guesthouse for the poor and needy, and instead of being filled with noblemen and prominent people who would come to arrange the affairs [of the diocese], it became filled with the poor and underprivileged, so they sent him back to his monastery. The virtue of giving in him reached quite an unusual level in that he did not like to keep anything for himself. He loved to remain poor and to have nothing for himself; his furniture at the headquarters was simple, and his clothing was simple, and if they brought him anything, he would give it away to the people, and he remained this way. And some foreigners visited him and were amazed by his simplicity and learned a lesson.[2] What does it mean that they learned a lesson? Everyone can dress luxuriously, but few are those who prefer simplicity. The first thing for him was giving, and this is the first virtue in his life. The second thing was miracles. When our Lord found in him the love of the people and the willingness to give to the people, He entrusted to him another talent to give to the people — that is, the gift of healing and exorcising demons. Since his heart was gentle and merciful, and because when our Lord granted him a gift, he utilized it well, He gave him the gift of healing the sick in order for him to complete by it his merciful work. This kind man, who is remembered for mercy and giving, was also a man firm as to the matters of the Church. So among the famous things about him is that he despised divorce and did not agree to divorce anyone, carrying out the principles of the Bible that there be no divorce except in the case of adultery.[3] And he would identify with what is found in Malachi the prophet, when our Lord said “I hate divorce,”[4] and he never consented to a marriage that violated the canons of the Church. Saint Anba Abraam was also famed for humility — [he was] a humble man. The cantor, or master (عريف), of the church was praising, and it seems that he did not proceed in the tune [of the hymn] harmoniously with the others. So he alerted him to this issue and rebuked him for it. The following day, he did not find him in the church, [because he was] upset. So he told them, “let us go to where he is,” and he walked to his house and said to him, “I have sinned, my brother, toward you, do not be upset and come back to the church,” to the extent that the man wept when he saw the metropolitan coming to him all the way to his house to apologize to him, and apologizing to him over a matter in which he was right, in which he had not wronged him. He was a very humble man, and he preferred never to distinguish between rich and poor whatsoever. He would rebuke his chef when he would make one sort of food for the rich and another sort for the poor. [] So he mixed [both sorts of food] together and told him, “give them of this mixture, to the rich and the poor, everyone together. With us there is no such thing as rich and poor.” For this he was beloved, because he was a humble man and loved to live with the poor. He spent his whole life with only the rank of bishop, and when they wished to make him a metropolitan, he declined and was content with the rank of bishop. He was also renowned for prayer and worship, alongside his concern for the poor. It is said about him that he would shut himself in for days, during which he would not be seen, devoted to the work of prayer. And it is said that he would live among the spirit-borne, and sometimes he would spend a very long time in contemplating one phrase from the Psalms, or spend many hours in praying a single Psalm. He was a man of contemplation. This man was a great saint in his age, and until now the Church confesses his sainthood and some bishoprics build altars in his name. He bears witness to the fact that God does not leave Himself without a witness in any age, and that holiness is not confined to the fourth century, or the fifth, or the apostolic age, having ended at that time. Each age has its saints. — [1] Acts 14:17 [2] (Tr.) As one example, see S.H. Leeder, Modern Sons of the Pharaohs, 265-304. [3] See Matthew 5:32, 19:9 [4] Malachi 2:16 — To hear the original audio of this sermon, please visit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dad2B1cVHM

Series Introduction On an unassuming day in late May of the year 325 A.D., in the lakeside city of Nicaea, 318[1] bishops from all across the Roman Empire came together at the invitation of the Emperor in what would become one of the most venerated and consequential events in Christian history. Their convocation, necessitated by novel — and yet, upon closer examination, not entirely original — doctrinal contentions maintained by a popular and elderly Alexandrian presbyter, Arius, along with his supporters and fellow heretics, carried the potential for either vindication of the Faith delivered by Christ “once for all to the saints,”[2] or formal acceptance by the Church of an entirely heretical doctrinal framework. Despite the gravity of the Council of Nicaea, the first “ecumenical”[3] council in the Church’s history, and its central role in the eventual triumph of Orthodoxy over what amounted to a threatening and popularly attractive deviant dogmatic system, its historical background, doctrinal concerns, and subsequent legacy remain until today relatively obscure and unfamiliar to the average Christian. Indeed, besides perhaps limited superficial awareness of the occurrence of this council, and potentially also an association of the great Saint Athanasius with it, if even that, the ordinary believer is — and this is a disheartening and lamentable fact — woefully unaware of its monumental significance. In our humble effort to contribute to remedying the foregoing, especially on this 1700th anniversary of the Council, by providing a serviceable introduction to its history, import, and legacy, we will begin by providing an overview of the “makings,” character, and life of Saint Athanasius the Apostolic, whose theological acumen and spiritual prodigiousness became renowned even from a young age and proved timely — even divinely-prepared — for the ecclesial contentions of his lifetime. Abba Athanasius emerges from the doctrinal battlegrounds of the Nicene era as the victorious defender of Orthodox Christianity, one may add at great personal cost[4] and not without the invaluable assistance and support of several other faithful, pious, and theologically adept believers from among both the clergy and the laity, and his unshakeable personality, deep piety, and heartfelt defense of his Faith — rather than some theoretical set of impersonal dogmatic tenets — deserve careful attention, if only for the sake of spiritual edification and inspiration to piety and doctrinal concern. Having so introduced Athanasius, albeit in necessarily cursory fashion, we will proceed to highlight the theological, social, and ecclesial backgrounds and contexts that underpinned the subject theological dispute, along with a discussion of the catalyst behind it, Arius of Alexandria, his dogmatic ideas which later came to be collectively known as Arianism, along with its many variants, and his repeated clashes with the Alexandrian Church between 313 and 325 A.D. in the lead-up to the Council. Finally, we will dedicate the third entry of our series to a discussion of the aftermath of the Council, especially the chaotic and volatile period that lasted until approximately 381 A.D. and caused immense suffering to both the Church generally and Athanasius and his fellow supporters and defenders of Nicaea specifically. It is our hope that by God’s grace, this limited series will serve as a helpful introductory foray into the contentious world of fourth-century Christianity, and an inspiring and convicting opportunity for readers to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation not only of Saint Athanasius and his defense of the Faith against Arianism, but also of the truly nuanced and consequential nature of theological debate and the immense sacrifice the Fathers of the Church offered, due to their unwavering faithfulness, in order to preserve and deliver the Faith they had received and which they were entrusted by the Lord to uphold, proclaim, and transmit in His Church. The Makings and Character of Saint Athanasius the Apostolic It would doubtless be remiss, for our purposes, to commence our discussion of the Council of Nicaea and the Arian Controversy without first examining the makings and character of the man who emerged from that unenviable period as the Champion of Orthodoxy — Saint Athanasius the Apostolic. It would, without exaggeration, be impossible to either adequately capture the magnitude of the Church’s triumph over Arianism — which at one point had enamored and captivated almost the whole of Christendom — or elicit from this unfortunate period of the Church’s history perhaps any modicum of spiritual edification without properly understanding, inasmuch as we are able, the man who, against all odds and in opposition to, almost literally, the whole word, possessed the clarity of mind and soundness of understanding to be able to properly comprehend and synthesize what had been handed down in the Church from the beginning, had undergone the requisite education and training to be able to distinguish nuanced deviations from sound doctrine and respond to them clearly and forcefully, and stood firm, despite great personal loss, against a popular, attractive, and politically connected heresy. Indeed, to understand and appreciate the Nicene victory over Arianism, one must first understand and appreciate Athanasius. Athanasius was born to a pious and wealthy Egyptian Christian family in or around 298 A.D. He was baptized in his infancy, and it was his family that planted within him the seed of truth, nourished him in the Christian life, and facilitated the earliest and most important years of his physical, spiritual, and intellectual development. While we know little about his parents from his writings, we are certain that they routinely attended the liturgical services of the Church, bringing with them little Athanasius. He routinely attended Divine Liturgies, baptisms, weddings, and all other services in the Church, and, as we will see shortly, he was incredibly attentive during these, soaking in the prayers, hymns, readings, and ecclesial atmosphere since his infancy. It was therefore his family that constituted the first formative force that influenced his life, character, and thought. The liturgical experience, to which he was accustomed and in which he was raised, left an indelible mark on the life of our saint. It is clear from the historical data that Athanasius was quite familiar since a young age with the liturgical prayers of the Church. For instance, a famous story recorded about him by several early Christian historians tells that one day, Pope Alexander spotted young Athanasius playing with his friends by the seashore in Alexandria. As he watched them play, he recognized that they were acting out the liturgy of baptism, and so when he had called them over and investigated their play, he discovered that Athanasius, who fulfilled the role of the bishop in the act, conducted the rite precisely and with great enthusiasm and reverence.[5] But how could Athanasius do so without reference to the liturgical rubrics or texts unless he had memorized the prayer and rite of baptism, and how could he have done so if he had not already, despite his young age, attended many baptisms and paid close attention to and participated in the celebration? Athanasius did not abandon this liturgical mode of life as he grew; even after he became patriarch, he practiced the liturgical life faithfully, competently, and with great love and care. This is easily appreciated, for instance, in his recounting that, after he had already become the bishop of Alexandria, he was once in the church praying the Midnight Praises (Tasbeha), when at the time of the Second Canticle (Ϩⲱⲥ), more than five thousand guards seized upon the church to arrest him. As a faithful shepherd, Athanasius insisted that all those present first be permitted to depart unharmed; when all had departed, the guards entered the church to find it empty, with even Athanasius having managed to secretly flee.[6] All throughout his life, Athanasius was keen to observe the liturgical worship of his beloved Church, and the influence of that liturgical experience is clearly perceptible in the stories about him as well as his own writings. It suffices to read his beautiful Letter to Marcellinus on the Psalms to see how deeply and lovingly Athanasius approached the life of prayer and what great familiarity and facility he had with the Psalter, which was, of course, a main liturgical book both in the practice of the Egyptian churches and among the monastics in his day. Beyond liturgical worship, Athanasius was deeply influenced by the persecution that arose in his early youth. From the time that he was a young boy until his mid-teens, Athanasius lived through the so-called Diocletianic Persecution, which lasted from 303 A.D. until 313 A.D. Thus, Athanasius experienced the most severe era of early Christian persecution from when he was about five years old until he was about fifteen. He likely prayed in hiding along with his fellow believers during these years; perhaps he, like many other Christians, was forced to flee his home along with his family; and he saw at least some among his teachers, relatives, and friends martyred for the sake of Christ.[7] This experience, particularly during these formative years, left a profound mark on his spirituality, intellectual framework, and theological understanding, so much so that when writing his first great treatise, Against the Heathen and On the Incarnation, only a few years after the persecution ended — that is, when he was only about 18 or 20 years old — Athanasius considers as among the most powerful witnesses to the truth of the resurrection of our Lord, besides the purity and chastity of young Christian men and women, which he undoubtedly practiced and saw among his friends and fellow believers in his young age, the courage and peace of the men and women who went with joy to their martyrdom.[8] Had he not seen such men and women with his own eyes, or been educated by, or perhaps even related to, some of them, he would not have been able to speak with such force and in so moving a way about them, and he might not have appreciated the convicting power of their witness or its implications when understood in light of the sound Faith of Christ. And so Athanasius, having seen martyrdom up close and personally, was able to hold fast to the truth of Christ when faced with a new form of persecution and personal suffering for His sake. In addition to his upbringing by pious parents, liturgical practice, and experience of the Great Persecution, Athanasius was deeply influenced by his discipleship — to the renowned monastic elders of his day and to Pope Alexander himself — and especially the ascetical life with which he had through that discipleship been introduced and become quite accustomed. He enjoyed a close personal relationship with the great Abba Antony, even being within his inner circle and “pouring water on his hands,”[9] a sign of personal trust and close discipleship. He spent so much time with Antony, in fact, that when he was asked to write the account of that saint’s life, he was able to prepare his great work, The Life of Antony, predominantly from memory, but for supportive reliance on other disciples of Antony who had perhaps spent more time with him or had been present for events in his life for which Athanasius had been absent.[10] And Abba Antony, of course, deeply respected and loved his disciple Athanasius, to the point of leaving the inner mountain and traveling to Alexandria at the request of Athanasius and the other “bishops and all the brethren” to assist them in their opposition to Arianism[11] — one of only two or three times that Antony left the desert to visit the city after undertaking the monastic life — and bequeathing to him one of the only two garments he owned at the time of his departure.[12] Besides Antony, Athanasius was also well acquainted with Abba Pachomius, seeking even to ordain him to the presbytery, which ordination Pachomius famously refused by going into hiding until Athanasius agreed not to move forward with it.[13] And certainly Athanasius was closely acquainted and associated with many great monastics in his day, visiting the monasteries in a pastoral capacity, ordaining bishops from among the monks — for the first time in Christian history — in order to assist him, given their renowned theological training and intellectual prowess, in opposing Arianism and defending the Faith of Nicaea, and even being able to take refuge among the monks of the Egyptian desert during his third and fourth (of five) exiles, receiving during those exiles news of ongoing events and communicating with his flock through loyal and skilled messengers acting within an established and effective system of monastic communication. Of course, his discipleship to the great Pope Alexander, his predecessor in the papacy, is also well known. It was that patriarch who first “discovered” Athanasius, as mentioned above, and who facilitated his theological education in the School of Alexandria, ordained him when he was still in his early twenties to the diaconate due to his rare brilliance, spiritual and academic excellence, piety of life, and sincerity in discipleship, and granted him to accompany him to the great Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., and to participate there in defending the Faith against the Arians. In this manner, Athanasius was well-discipled — to spiritually faithful and theologically competent teachers and elders — and embodied the spirit of sound discipleship, and was therefore able to deliver the true faith and spirit of Christ to his own disciples and to the following generation of believers, both due to his personal receipt of that doctrine and spirit from those who held fast to, properly understood, and lived according to it and, as we will now see, also through his formal education and theological training. Beyond the aforementioned factors, and in tandem with them, Athanasius was influenced by his academic and theological training and study. As previously noted, Pope Alexander ensured that the young Athanasius obtained the highest caliber of education in his day, and in the information known of Athanasius’ life prior to his encountering Pope Alexander, it is likewise clear that his own parents emphasized his education in their own right when he was a young boy. Athanasius therefore benefitted greatly from a sound, well-rounded education, and was thus well trained in Greek philosophy, rhetoric, logic, grammar, literature, Greco-Roman religion, and other disciplines. It was this training, along with his mastery of the Scriptures, that ultimately proved most useful to him, enabling him to recognize, understand, and refute Arius’ doctrinal framework and theological misunderstandings, and persuade the believers of the truth and reasonableness of Orthodoxy, with not only scriptural arguments, but also by using philosophy, reason, and other pertinent disciplines.[14] The foregoing influences, great and impactful as they were in the life of the great defender of Orthodoxy, were, it must be said, insufficient on their own to produce the spiritually, intellectually, and doctrinally imposing, albeit physically unimpressive, Athanasius. Indeed, what bound these together and produced in Athanasius the unique, inspiring, and indefatigable heart, mind and spirit he possessed throughout his life were none other than, first, a profound knowledge and mastery of the Scriptures, and, second, an extraordinary and inextinguishable love for Christ. Athanasius was renowned for and deeply influenced by an encyclopedic knowledge of the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers who preceded him. He memorized the Scriptures, like many of the saints from the early Church until today, and this mastery of the Scriptures was key to his ability to correct and refute the Arians, since they relied on many verses and passages from the Scriptures, but taken out of context, interpreted inconsistently and disharmoniously with the patristic tradition, and used manipulatively — eisegetically — to further their arguments and agendas. Athanasius’ scriptural knowledge and understanding of the work of the saints and biblical interpreters who came before him — along with his faithful spirit — enabled him to properly understand the verses utilized by the Arians, correct, expose, and masterfully counter their manipulative and unfaithful usage of them, and thereby safeguard the believers from his time until today from the error of that ignominious heresy. Meanwhile, an illimitable and deeply personal love of Christ and the Church — a palpable piety and sincere theological humility — was perhaps the central driving force behind Athanasius’ impassioned, lifelong commitment to and defense of the Nicene cause and the extermination of Arianism. As one scholar summarized, “[i]t was not as a theologian, but as a believing soul in need of a Saviour, that Athanasius approached the mystery of Christ.”[15] And as another beautifully expressed: “Athanasius was on fire with the love of Christ . . . His love of Christ is the key to his whole life and also to his writings.”[16] Athanasius was therefore not, as some have come to conceive of theology, an academic or speculative theologian to whom matters of doctrine were objects of mere intellectual interest and theoretical contemplation. Rather, he was, in every respect, a “great Christian pastor”[17] to whom “Christianity is not a dead system of doctrine and statements of faith, but living faith in Jesus Christ.”[18] And so, despite the great difficulties he suffered at the hands of the Arians and their political and religious supporters, “[t]he glory of God and the welfare of the Church absorbed him fully at all times.”[19] The influences in the life, understanding, and character of this great saint — of which we have here spoken in cursory fashion and with words that of necessity fall short of conveying the full sense of his nobility and splendor — must be understood collectively. They worked together in him both to render him the saint that he became, by God’s grace and his own uncompromising conviction to the life with God until the last breath, and to enable him to defend the Faith of Christ and to overcome the monstrous threat of Arianism — one that could have eliminated sound Orthodoxy from the world entirely. As one considers Abba Athanasius, the insufficiency of words in adequately conveying to the reader even a glimpse of his greatness becomes obvious. And yet, despite that inadequacy, through them one immediately recognizes in him an awe-inspiring and decisive resoluteness worthy of wholehearted imitation.[20] He was in every respect human — having his share of flaws, weaknesses, and biases, as with any other person, but with a dynamic, enthusiastic, and active personality distinguished by deep piety, singularity of purpose, clarity of thought, unmistakable loyalty, uncompromisable dignity, infectious joy, and a lighthearted sense of humor. It was this Athanasius who, by God’s grace, would rise to the occasion of refuting and resisting Arius and his fellow heretics — from whom, as will be seen, there emerged in Athanasius’ lifetime several groups divided along various theological lines — and to whom Orthodox Christianity would forever be indebted as perhaps its greatest defender. — [1] Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History 3.31; Athanasius, Epistle to the African Bishops; Hilarius, Contra Constantium; Jerome, Chronicon; Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History 10.1. [2] Jude 3. [3] That is, universal, or having representation from, and applicability to, the entire [Christian] world (oikoumene). [4] See, e.g., Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History 10.15: “But he had such struggles to undergo in the church for the integrity of the faith that the following passage seems to have been written about him too: ‘I will show him how much he will have to suffer for my name.’ For the whole world conspired to persecute him and the princes of the earth were moved, nations, kingdoms, and armies gathered against him. But he guarded that divine utterance which runs: ‘If camps are set up against me, my heart will not fear, if battle is waged against me, in him will I hope.’ But because his deeds are so outstanding that their greatness does not allow me to omit any of them, yet their number compels me to pass over very many, and thus my mind is troubled by uncertainty, unable to decide which to keep and which to pass over. We shall therefore relate a few of the pertinent matters, leaving the rest to be told by his fame, which will, however, doubtless find itself recounting the lesser things. For it will discover nothing that it could add.” [5] For the complete telling of this account, see Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.15; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 2.17; Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History 10.15. [6] For the full account in Athanasius’ own words, see Athanasius, Apologia de Fuga 24. [7] See On the Incarnation 56. [8] Id. at 28, 48, 52. [9] See Life of Antony, Prologue. [10] Ibid. [11] Id. at 69-71. [12] Id. at 91. [13] The Bohairic Life of Pachomius 28. [14] It suffices to read his Against the Arians to see how well Athanasius comprehends these disciplines and capitalizes on his knowledge of them to pick apart Arius’ belief system and theological assertions. [15] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II.IV), xv. [16] Dominic Unger, “A Special Aspect of Athanasian Soteriology,” Franciscan Studies 6 (1946), 30. [17] W. Emery Barnes, “Athanasius” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings, gen. ed. Volume 2, 170-171. [18] Friedrich Lauchert, Die Lehre Des Heiligen Athanasius des Grossen (Leipzig: Gustav Fock Verlag, 1895), 12. [19] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II.IV), lxvii. [20] It was this sublime character of Athanasius that led St. Gregory of Nazianzus to declare: “In praising Athanasius, I shall be praising virtue. To speak of him and to praise virtue are identical, because he had, or, to speak more truly, has embraced virtue in its entirety.” (Oration 21.1). —

Introduction Digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality, and Social Media today predominate the non-physical online realm, transcending time and space and allowing for instantaneous communication and connectivity from any location globally. With this unprecedented technological proliferation, the notion of remoteness is quickly becoming obsolete, as even in the deserts, one can be completely engaged in and connected to a world of communication and information. Despite the overbearing inescapability of this modern immersive condition, the desert still lends her wisdom, for there can be found until today the richest Christian men and women following in the footsteps of those who have sought for centuries to fulfill through monasticism the high calling of Christianity. The founder of this monastic movement, Antony of Egypt, himself retreated to the desert in a quest to live out the Christian Faith in complete devotion, being convinced that the message of Christianity must be internalized and transfigured within himself so that he might fulfill the Lord’s command to be perfect. [1] Equipped with this conviction, Antony forsook all his possessions and began his long journey into the inner desert — a journey to perfect virtue and true Christlikeness — ultimately becoming the lamp of monasticism (as he is called in the Coptic Orthodox Tradition) and an example for all Christians. Antony recognized that Christianity properly lived requires unwavering personal devotion and complete integration into one’s life — the Christian is required to “put on Christ” (Romans 13:14) and not be “conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2). As online technological advancements continue to gain prevalence in people’s daily lives, imposing upon Christians a new “gospel,” a conscious consideration of the necessary features of the human experience according to the Christian framework is perhaps more necessary today than ever before. [2] Of these advancements, Artificial Intelligence, being by its very nature antithetical to and devoid of any measure of living experience, raises especially alarming concerns, particularly for evangelization and the Christian life. In contrast to several of those concerns, however, stands the life and standard of Antony, which remains until today a grounding example for Christian believers and emphasizes several features of the human experience which they must consciously guard within themselves in the face of the threats posed by these technologies. Encountering Antony of Egypt Journeying from his village to the desert, Antony sought to fulfill the calling of Christian discipleship to Christ, creating a balanced environment conducive to Christian formation [3] and not evading any component of the human experience. Athanasius’ description, in The Life of Antony , of Antony's emergence from the Roman fort in response to the demands of the masses depicts this state of balance that Antony achieved: “…Antony came forth as out of a shrine, as one initiated into sacred mysteries and filled with the spirit of God. It was the first time that he showed himself outside the fort to those who came to him. When they saw him, they were astonished to see that his body had kept its former appearance, that it was neither obese from want of exercise, not emaciated from his fasting and struggles with the demons: he was the same man they had known before his retirement. Again, the state of his soul was pure, for it was neither contracted by grief, nor dissipated by pleasure, not pervaded by jollity or dejection…No, he had himself completely under control — a man guided by reason and stable in his character.” [4] The balance of personal development with interpersonal communication and communal connection which Antony maintained deserves not only admiration, but also emulation, [5] for he became thereby the model of a complete Christian — “the man of God.” [6] Antony and the Self The primary resources pertaining to Antony — The Life of Antony , his sayings, and his letters — depict and emphasize the absolute necessity of sound identity formation in Christian experience, dependent upon scriptural internalization, virtue attainment, and enlightened self-understanding. This formation led Antony to order his life in submission to the Scriptures and thereby to become a conduit for the Lord to permeate the lives of his disciples. From a young age, Antony knew the Scriptures, contemplated upon them often, and took them personally. Upon hearing the Gospel being read in church shortly after his parents’ death, he submitted to its teaching and allowed it to radically transform his life. It was the Scriptures, after all, that initiated his journey into the wilderness. In his later encounters with demons, his mastery of the Scriptures is especially evident, as he used them as his shield to overcome demonic attacks. [7] His scriptural formation also flows seamlessly into his teaching: when many came to learn from him, he said to them, “The Scriptures are really sufficient for our instruction.” [8] Similarly, when asked what one must do “in order to please God,” he responded “…always have God before your eyes; whatever you do, do it according to the testimony of the holy Scriptures.” [9] His second letter, [10] moreover, is almost entirely formulated out of scriptural passages woven together. By thus internalizing the Scriptures, and that through memorization rather than relying on any exterior aids to merely read them, [11] Antony succeeded to embody them in his real lived experience. “[L]ike a wise bee,” [12] Antony built upon his scriptural grounding by cultivating within himself the good qualities he observed in virtuous people: “He observed the graciousness of one, the earnestness at prayer in another; studied the even temper of one and the kindheartedness of another…and in one and all alike he marked especially devotion to Christ and the love they had for one another.” [13] Understanding the necessity of good works, [14] he urgently worked to internalize and assimilate virtuous qualities in himself [15] rather than simply observing and admiring virtuous people. He would later teach his disciples: “Really, [virtue] is not far from us, nor is its home apart from us; no, the thing is within us, and its accomplishment is easy if we but have the will. Greeks go abroad and cross the sea to study letters; but we have no need to go abroad for the Kingdom of Heaven nor to cross the sea to obtain virtue.” [16] By pursuing virtue, Antony became a powerful witness to the Lord, so that those whom he imitated [17] identified him as “God’s Friend” even though he strove to surpass them in virtuosity. [18] His virtue thus became a powerful instrument of evangelization and exhortation, attracting many to the desert to encounter and imitate him. [19] Having learned the Scriptures and become virtuous, Antony recognized and frequently emphasized the importance of knowing oneself. Echoing the advice of Paul the Apostle to Timothy (1 Timothy 4:16), he advised his disciples to know themselves — at least six times in his first seven Letters — for “he who knows himself knows God and his dispensations for his creatures.” [20] He consequently identified any doctrinal or behavioral deviance from the Faith of the Church as a result of improper self-understanding and a failure to cultivate the fruits of the Spirit in oneself: “As for Arius…that man has begun a great task, an unsealable wound. If he had known himself, his tongue would not have spoken about what he did not know. It is, however, manifest, that he did not know himself.” [21] In knowing himself, moreover, Antony recognized his natural dependence upon his brethren in the Faith, and was for this reason deeply concerned with his neighbors in the world as they struggled against general laxity in spiritual life [22] and consequent heresy. He therefore takes up the medium of writing in order to exhort them to take personally and submit to the true Christian Faith: “I beseech you, my beloved in the Lord, who are joint heirs with the saints, to raise up your minds in the fear of God.” [23] Antony and Community Believing that “…he who loves his neighbor loves God, and he who loves God loves his own soul,” [24] Antony sought his salvation not only in the context of solitude, but also in that of interaction and communication with others. Upon commencing his monastic commitment, Antony first discipled himself to an elder, and sought to maintain this discipleship when he desired to venture deeper into the desert: “He met the old man referred to above [25] and begged him to live with him in the desert.” [26] Later, he would become a father and teacher to monks, [27] caring not only for their spiritual wellbeing, but also for their physical nourishment: “…seeing that people were coming to him again, he began to raise a few vegetables too, that the visitor might have a little something to restore him after the weariness of that hard road.” [28] Later, when he was ninety years old, Antony sought out Paul of Thebes, who had undertaken monasticism prior to him, and traveled to visit and converse with him. [29] Interestingly, the first question Paul asked Antony was “how fares the human race?” [30] While Antony and Paul retreated to the desert, seeking in its stillness to discern the voice of God, they nevertheless remained deeply connected to the city and community of believers, understanding, in Antony’s own words, that “our life and our death is with our neighbour.” [31] Evidently, Antony did not leave for the desert to escape from human interaction, but rather out of his longing for a deeply contemplative atmosphere, away from the distractions of the city, in order to live in complete relation with God, [32] recognizing that “silence is necessary for prayer and for effective communication.” [33] He therefore remained connected to and interested in the affairs of the city, saying to those who came to him, for example: “Be you, therefore, like children and bring to your father what you know and tell it, while I, being your senior, share with you my knowledge and my experience.” [34] Having heard of the spread of Arianism, Antony traveled to Alexandria to encourage the faithful in their defense of the orthodox Faith: “The entire city ran together to see Antony. Pagans, too, and even their so-called priests came to the church saying: ‘We would like to see the man of God’ — for so they all called him…and, indeed, as many became Christians in those few days as one would have seen in a year.” [35] At the time of the persecution under Maximin, Antony went again to the city, longing to suffer martyrdom, and “ministered to the confessors in the mines and in the prisons.” [36] His care for the edification and salvation of all is evident even in his interaction with Emperor Constantine, who had written to him. Although he “did not like to accept letters, saying that he did not know what to answer to such things,” he decided to write back to Emperor Constantine simply so that he could exhort him “not to think highly of the things of this world, but rather to bear in mind the judgment to come; and to know that Christ alone is the true and eternal King. He begged them to show themselves humane and to have a regard for justice and for the poor.” [37] The importance of interpersonal communication and community to Antony is therefore easily perceptible. Along with offering his guidance to the monastic community that was forming around him, seeking in the process to balance his social interaction with personal reflection, Antony communicated with Christian believers generally through visits and letters. In a word, having actively and intentionally submitted to and identified with the Christian message, Antony permitted it to mold him into an icon of the Lord Jesus, becoming in the process the image of what it means to be a truly living human, “the glory of God.” [38] His witness and life therefore became the inspiration for the monastic movement until today, converting and leading countless people into a deeper love of and life with Christ. Artificial Intelligence and the Human Experience Contrary to the immersive, incarnate, and deeply personal experience of Christianity as expressed and lived in the person of Antony of Egypt, modern technologies discarnate the human experience, being deeply formative and developmental, even at the neurological level. [39] Moreover, as Neil Postman points out: “Technology…carries with it a program, an agenda, and a philosophy that may or may not be life-enhancing and that therefore require scrutiny, criticism, and control.” [40] It is necessary, then, to examine the place of digital technologies in the human experience, especially as humanity furthers its dependence on such mediums. Indeed, “a discarnate world, like the one we now live in, is a tremendous menace to an incarnate Church.” [41] Artificial Intelligence and the Self Artificial Intelligence, more than the digital technologies that preceded it, is a deeply non-human technology, facilitating creation without human involvement and depriving products of the human element that was previously inherent to their production. Romano Guardini, in observing the rise of machine reliance, makes an important distinction: in times past, “people did, of course, use tools and aids in great numbers and with great delicacy. But these were only supports, extending the range of activity of natural human organs…and a limit was always set to make possible direct and living execution.” [42] With the availability of Artificial Intelligence, however, a human can simply command technology to produce a desired product, and within moments, that product is packaged together irrespective of that person’s knowledge, skillset, or experience, and without their contribution. Walter Ong comments: “Knowledge is hard to come by and precious, and society regards highly those wise old men and women who specialize in conserving it, who know and can tell the stories of the days of old. By storing knowledge outside the mind, writing and, even more, print downgrade the figures of the wise old man and the wise old woman, repeaters of the past, in favor of younger discoverers of something new.” [43] Because the need to internalize information is minimized by Artificial Intelligence, its user is made perpetually dependent upon it, rendering it the arbiter of truth, knowledge, and goodness: “The manner in which one asks a search engine, the algorithms of an artificial intelligence, or a computer for answers to questions that concern private life reveals that one relates to the device and its response with a fideistic attitude.” [44] Such technology therefore divests the human of humanity, substituting knowledge and firsthand experience with emptiness and reliance on exterior aids for information and fulfillment. Artificial Intelligence and Community Artificial Intelligence’s divestment of humanity’s humanity also carries communal consequences. As a powerful analytical tool, Artificial Intelligence introduces a novel way of thinking: “This knowledge does not inspect; it analyzes. It does not construct a picture of the world, but a formula. Its desire is to achieve power so as to bring force to bear on things, a law that can be formulated rationally. Here we have the basis and character of its dominion: compulsion, arbitrary compulsion devoid of all respect.” [45] Establishing a new primary residence for humanity within the virtual world and introducing a new role for humanity as spectator rather than creator, Artificial Intelligence threatens humanity’s very nature: “What takes place here is not human, at least if we measure the human by the human beings who lived before us. It is not natural if we measure the natural by nature as it once was.” [46] Having identified such trends in the early stages of the technological age, Guardini remarks: “A system of machines is engulfing life. It defends itself. It seeks free air and a secure basis. Can life retain its living character in this system?” [47] Only in the ecclesial community, “the place where the experience of God creates communion and the sharing of life,” [48] in the real, physical world, can life retain its living character. [49] Christianity, as experienced by Antony, is wholly concerned with reality, and is inherently meant for life — personal and communal experience. Through primarily physical means of encounter and perception, one most effectively “tastes” (Psalm 34:8) the Christian message and becomes transformed by it, allowing it to permeate his encounters with others. It was in this way that Antony succeeded to inspire others to venture deeper into the Faith. His effort in evangelization and exhortation flourished without the aid of any sophisticated technologies because it was purely and wholly incarnate. Michelle Borras identified that “since the Gospel is a message of the incarnate Love that alone saves, it can only be proclaimed adequately in an incarnate way…The Gospel must always have a ‘face.’” [50] Because Antony internalized the Christian message and lived through it, thereby allowing it to reflect the love of Christ to others, the Gospel in him indeed had a face — the face of Christ. Conclusion The monastic movement was inaugurated by Antony as Christian men and women imitated him by flocking to the desert to embody and live out the Christian message of discipleship to Christ. Understanding that the Faith must be taken personally, Antony and all who imitated him left the world for the desert in order to focus on fulfilling the divine commandments. Thus, in writing The Life of Antony , Athanasius exhorts his readers “to model [their] lives after his zeal” [51] and advises that his biography be read even to pagans. [52] Artificial Intelligence, being by nature an external and non-human tool of creation, is in contrast an obstacle to venturing into a personal and intimate relationship with God, developing within the human an authenticity-limiting exterior dependency in creativity, communication, and informational retention. Artificial Intelligence’s inability to capture or express human life and spirit is evident in a simple yet revealing exercise: when tasked with writing a doxology for Antony, ChatGPT produced a biographical, impersonal, and detached composition [53] in comparison to the personal and exhortatory doxology for Antony authored by Coptic Orthodox believers for liturgical prayer. [54] If we “hope for the word of God to dwell in us richly in the digital age,” [55] Artificial Intelligence and similar technologies must be thoroughly examined in light of the ethos of Christianity, with those among these technologies that do not comport with the Christian “spirit and life” [56] being actively guarded against, lest by becoming tools of evangelization and mediums for Faith delivery and formation, they compromise rather than uphold the message and spirit of Christianity. — [1] He reached this understanding through hearing the words of the Scriptures being read during the liturgical service: “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow Me” (Matthew 19:21); “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow” (Matthew 6:34). Antony understood these divinely-inspired words as being “directed especially to him” ( See Athanasius, The Life of Antony 2-3, in Robert T. Meyer, Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation, Volume 10: St. Athanasius: The Life of Saint Antony , 19-21). [2] Daniella Zsupan-Jerome notes: “After [the Word], communication of his good news becomes the Spirit-led task of the Church. This age-old mission to communicate is at the heart of the Church. From this perspective, the digital media are but the latest chapter in the long story of how the Church has gone about expressing this identity and mission to communicate” ( Connected Toward Communion: The Church and Social Communication in the Digital Age , 2). [3] Daniella Zsupan-Jerome offers a definition to Christian formation as being “part of the language of articulating the task of catechesis, the process by which believers are nurtured toward conversion of mind and heart to Jesus Christ” ( Ibid. , 10-11). [4] Athanasius, The Life of Antony 14 (Meyer, 32) [5] See Ibid. , Prologue (Meyer, 17) [6] See Ibid. , 93 (Meyer, 96) [7] See e.g., Ibid ., 6-7, (Meyer, 23-26) [8] Ibid. , 16 (Meyer, 33) Antony sought to understand the Scriptures even through personal encounters with the saints. When he found difficulty with a passage of Scripture, for example, he did not first seek to discover its meaning in books, but rather “went out into the desert…a long way off and stood there praying, crying in a loud voice, ‘God, send Moses, to make me understand this saying.’ Then there came a voice speaking with him” (Benedicta Ward, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers , 7 (Anthony the Great, Saying 26)). [9] Benedicta Ward, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers , 2 (Anthony the Great, Saying 3) [10] See Samuel Rubenson, The Letters of St. Antony: Monasticism and the Making of a Saint , 203-205 [11] “Again, he was so attentive at the reading of the Scripture lessons that nothing escaped him: he retained everything and so his memory served him in place of books” (Athanasius, The Life of Antony 3 (Meyer, 21)). In response to those who sought to discredit him for not receiving any schooling, Antony also said: “…one who has a sound mind has no need of letters” ( Ibid. , 73 (Meyer, 80)). [12] Athanasius, The Life of Antony 3 (Meyer, 20) [13] Ibid. , 4 (Meyer, 21) [14] See e.g. , Matthew 5:16; James 2:14-26; Titus 2 [15] See Athanasius, The Life of Antony 4 (Meyer, 21-22) [16] Ibid. , 20 (Meyer, 37) [17] See 1 Corinthians 11:1 [18] Athanasius, The Life of Antony 4 (Meyer, 21) [19] See e.g. , Ibid. , 46 (Meyer, 59-60) [20] See e.g. , Rubenson, 208 [21] Ibid. , 211 [22] “The Peace of Constantine, which brought about mass conversions, had the paradoxical effect of diminishing the lay contribution to the activity and holiness of the Church. Monasticism is a witness to this fact; for the monk is not a layman, and his status is to be explained as a reaction against the growth of mediocrity in the ranks of the simple faithful. The fervent part took its stand deliberately, and as an institution, over against the majority of the flock. This is no matter for surprise; the ideal conditions for a full Christian life do not coincide with taking things easy” (Henri de Riedmatten, “The Part of the Laity in the History of the Church” in Blackfriars , November 1958, Vol. 39, No. 464, p. 458). [23] Rubenson, 230 [24] Ibid. , 222 [25] See Athanasius, The Life of Antony 3 (Meyer, 20) [26] Ibid. , 11 (Meyer, 29) [27] Ibid. , 14 (Meyer, 32-33) [28] Ibid. , 50 (Meyer, 63) [29] See Jerome, The Life of Paulus the First Hermit [30] Ibid., 10 [31] Ward, 3 (Anthony the Great, Saying 9) [32] “This making a City of the Wilderness was no mere flight, nor a rejection of matter as evil…It was rooted in a stark realism of faith in God and acceptance of the battle which is not against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual things of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Derwas Chitty, The Desert A City , xvi). [33] Fr. Jonah Lynch, FSCB and Michelle K. Borras, Technology and the New Evangelization: Criteria for Discernment , 30 [34] Athanasius, The Life of Antony 16 (Meyer, 33-34) [35] Ibid. , 70 (Meyer, 79) [36] Ibid. , 46 (Meyer, 59) [37] Ibid. , 81 (Meyer, 87) [38] See Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.XX.VII [39] “Gutenberg attaches itself to the left hemisphere [of the brain]; the oral, the acoustic and consequently the electric, to the right hemisphere” (Marshall McLuhan, The Medium and the Light: Reflections on Religion , 52). [40] Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology , 185 [41] McLuhan, 50 [42] Romano Guardini, Letters from Lake Como: Explorations in Technology and the Human Race , 66 [43] Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word , 41 [44] Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, Directory for Catechesis 366 [45] Guardini, 44 [46] Ibid. , 73 [47] Ibid. , 49 [48] Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization , Directory for Catechesis 372 [49] Timothy O’Malley, emphasizing the importance of liturgical participation to evangelization efforts, writes: “Liturgical prayer is essential to the new evangelization. Precisely, because in every liturgical rite, we human beings return to our vocation as those made in the image and likeness of God. We are capacitated for the kind of self-gift, which comes to transfigure society. Those who return to our sacramental life should encounter there a beautiful and humanizing liturgy, one that elevates the desires of the human heart, allowing them to become an offering of love to the Father. We are immersed in a cosmos in which the primary narrative is not one of grasping, seizing, but the prodigal logic of self-gift. Lay communities, connected to parishes, may incarnate this liturgical life in concrete ways in cities and rural areas as we seek to manifest to the world that wisdom of a Catholic life, given over to the sacramental logic of the triune God” ( Liturgy and the New Evangelization: Practicing the Art of Self-Giving Love , 132). [50] Lynch and Borras, 27-28 [51] Athanasius, The Life of Antony Prologue (Meyer, 17) [52] See Ibid. , 94 (Meyer, 98) [53] The ChatGPT -produced doxology reads: “Praise be to Antony, the desert’s sage, whose wisdom guided countless souls on pilgrimage. In solitude he found divine embrace, a beacon of light for all seeking grace. With fervent heart and humble ways, he taught love, compassion, and righteous praise. In Egypt’s sands, his spirit soared high, a timeless legacy that will never die. Amen.” [54] “Remove from your hearts the thoughts of evil and the pretentious images that darken the mind. Contemplate with understanding the great miracles of our blessed father, my great lord Abba Antony — this is he who became our guide and harbor for salvation; he invited us with joy to the eternal life. The fragrance of his virtues delighted our souls, like the blossomed aroma in the Paradise. Let us truly be confirmed in the upright faith of the great Antony, proclaiming and saying: ‘I sought and I found; I asked and I was given; I knocked and I believed that it will be opened for me’ ( see Matthew 7:7-8; Jerome, The Life of Paulus the First Hermit 9 ). Hail to our father Antony, the lamp of monasticism; hail to our father Abba Paul, the beloved of Christ. Pray to the Lord on our behalf, O my masters and fathers who love their children, Abba Antony and Abba Paul, that He may forgive us our sins” (Coptic Doxology for St. Antony). [55] See Zsupan-Jerome, xv [56] See John 6:63 — This paper is an adaptation of course work submitted for “Evangelization, Media, & Technology,” offered by Dr. Brett Robinson in Summer 2023 at the University of Notre Dame. I express my gratitude to Dr. Robinson for his helpful guidance and encouragement, and wish to acknowledge his efforts in the preparation and delivery of this course, which provided the framework of this paper and many resources used throughout. — Cover Art: Gawdat Gabra, The Treasures of Coptic Art, 94 (Coptic Icon depicting the visit of St. Antony (left) to St. Paul of Thebes (Old Cairo, Monastery of St. Mercurius)).

The Discourse which Saint Athanasius, Archbishop of Rakote, pronounced concerning the passage in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, “The kingdom which is in the heavens is like unto a rich man, who came out in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.” The Lord says in the Gospel of Matthew: [1] The kingdom which is in the heavens is like unto a certain rich man, who came out in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. He made an agreement with the laborers [to pay them] a stater a day, [and] he sent them into his vineyard. He came out [again] at the third hour, and he saw others standing in the market, and they were idle. He said unto these others, “Go into my vineyard, and that of which you are worthy I will give unto you;” and they went in. He came out again at the sixth hour, and again at the ninth hour [and saw other laborers], and he did the same with these. When, however, he came out again at the eleventh hour, he saw others standing [in the market]. He said unto them, “For what reason do you stand in this place the whole day doing nothing?” They said unto him, “Because no man has hired us.” He said unto them, “Go into my vineyard.” Now let us inquire carefully, and let us learn what are these kinds of laborers, and what this vineyard is, and who is this master. In the first place, the Master in this vineyard is God the Father, who has governed His creatures (or, creation) from the beginning. And moreover, He speaks with them through the prophet who has made known to us that the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts is the House of Israel, and the men of Judah are the new and beloved plant. [2] The laborers whom He hired in the beginning are Moses, and Aaron, and Joshua the son of Nun. He called unto Moses in the land of Midian, saying, “Come, go down into Egypt, and you shall bring out My people from that land. And you shall labor in My vineyard in commandments, and decrees, and ordinances.” [3] And He covenanted with them for a stater, that is, Moses was to have the honorable rank of prophet, and Aaron was to hold the office of high priest over His people, and they were to serve [Him]. Those who were hired at the third hour were the Judges, whom He appointed to be over His people; “him of whom you are worthy will I give unto you.” They were not prophets, and they were not apostles, but they were those who were worthy of the title of ‘judge.’ Those who were hired at the sixth hour, and at the ninth hour, were Samuel, and David, and all the [other] Prophets. Samuel worked in the vineyard with a horn. [4] David transplanted a slip of the vine from the land of Egypt, and he cultivated it with the psaltery. Hosea found Israel to be like a vine in the desert in some respects, for he said, “Israel is a branch of a vine which is good, and his fruit is abundant.” [5] Those who were hired at the eleventh hour were the Apostles, whom He found to be idle the whole day. And they were idle in respect of the works of iniquity of all kinds, because no one had hired them, and the Devil could not hire them for the service of idols. He could not hire John the Baptist for the peddlers in the place of eating and drinking. Peter He could not hire for the service of unbelief. Andrew He could not hire in polluted marriage, and He could not make him to become the servant of a woman. For this reason he was called “Boanerges,” that is to say, “Son of the thunder of heaven.” [6] Therefore could no one hire them on earth to make them to work for him, and to give them wages according to what they were worth. Therefore were their wages abundant in the heavens. Therefore does the Savior say concerning all the Apostles, “O My Father, the men whom You have given Me from the world have I found to be chosen vessels.” [7] And again, “Of those whom You have given Me have I lost none,” [8] and, “No man is able to come to Me except through My Father, who has sent Me to draw him.” [9] Behold, these words make us to know that it is the Father who hires the laborers for His vineyard. Who is this Governor? I say, it is the Lord Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, in whose hand are all the possessions of God, which is a mystery. His power is in Israel and in the other nations, for He Himself said, “The Father loves the Son, and has given everything into His hand.” [10] The Son says, “To Him belongs the inheritance.” The Governor says, “It is He who gives wages unto those who labor, and the whole world is under His rule.” Therefore the key of David is in His hand, and He is the vine. [11] Therefore it is He who rejoices in all His creatures. He is the Bread. [12] Therefore it is He who gives meat and drink to all His creation. Now when the evening had come, the lord of the vineyard said unto his steward, “Call the laborers, give them their wages; begin with the last and continue until you come to the first; give unto each a stater.” [13] The Father said to the Son, “Either at the last day or today, You know [best], call the laborers and give them their wages, all the laborers who have labored for the race of men, give them the wages of their work.” Paul says, “Now certain men God placed in the Church, the first being the Apostles,” [14] unto whom He began to give [their] wages; and the second were the Prophets, et cetera . The first [laborers] came, thinking that they would receive more [than the others]. Hearken unto Him, for He said, “I say unto you, very many of the Prophets and Kings have desired eagerly to see the things which you see, and have not seen them.” [15] The stater which He gave unto them was the honor of Apostleship, and the Holy Offering. And, the Scripture says, when they had taken the stater, they murmured against the lord of the vineyard and said, “Why is it? These last have only labored for one hour, and yet you have paid them the same amount as you have paid to us.” Now, who are these who murmured and were envious of the laborers who came in last except the scribes and Pharisees, who had themselves been sent to labor in the vineyard? It is against these that the Scripture cries out saying, “Why have you burned up My vineyard? And why are the possessions plundered from the poor in your houses?” [16] For they themselves received the Law as the commands of angels, but they did not keep it, and they murmured against the Lord saying, “The disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast. [17] Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? They do not wash their hands when they eat their bread, [18] they eat, they drink, they make merry. Even the Apostles cut down the ears of corn [19] and eat before Your very face, and they wander about at large in the world.” It was these very men that murmured saying, “Why have Your disciples made the Sabbath to be of no effect?”, who were envious of these last who were the laborers in truth. And the lord [of the vineyard] made answer, and said unto one of them, “Friend, I have done you no injustice. Did I not agree with you for one stater? Take what is yours and depart.” [20] And who was it who made all these complaints? I say that it was none other than he unto whom it was said, “Friend, that for which you have come, do,” [21] that is to say, it was Judas, who betrayed the Savior, and who spoke with great murmurings saying, “Why did they not sell the ointment for three hundred staters and give them to the poor?” [22] If you did care for the poor, O betrayer, why did you steal their property from the money box of the treasury? Or was your eye evil because I am good? [23] Now because he was a wicked man he stole the money which was cast into it ( i.e. , the money box). And the Savior Himself was good to him, and He showed Himself long-suffering in respect of him, for He said unto him, “I have not the power to do what I wish with the offerings that they bring.” This was God’s defense of him: “I, who am God, have not the power to pay more wages than those which a man shall earn, and I judge those who shall work wickedness.” These are the testimonies, and the murmurings of Judas: he murmured with his tongue, and he was cruel and merciless in his heart. He was a wicked man in his soul, he was a thief with his hands, and he was shameless in respect of his eyes. And when they were eating, the Apostles watched that they might not let their hands touch those of the Savior in the bowl, for they were afraid, and said, “Who are we that we should eat with God?” But Judas, the man with no right perception, did not hesitate to put his hand into the bowl with the Savior, and he was eager to dip his piece of bread at the same time, and to eat before the Savior. The Savior said nothing in order that we might understand. When the disciples had asked Him, “Who, then, is it that shall betray You?” He gave them a sign of the lack of right perception in Judas, saying, “He who shall dip his hand with Me into the bowl first is he who shall betray Me,” [24] and He said unto him, “That which you shall do, do quickly.” [25] For the Savior made haste to work out the salvation of His creation on the Cross, according to the wish and commandment of His Father. You will not find that He put out of the way, or was careless about that for which He had come, or that He was afraid of death; but He made manifest His readiness for the Cross like a valiant martyr, and [as is fitting of] God who is without fear. Therefore did He urge Judas onward, saying, “That which you shall do, do quickly. Hasten onward, for all these created beings are hindered; they await you, and moreover, they await Me. Those beings who are in the heavens await Me, and those beings who are in the abyss and chaos await you. My Father is with Me, and He will help Me; the Devil is with you, and he stands by your side, at your right hand, and he will help you. Those who are in the gates which are in the heavens, that is, the holy angels, will crown Me, and the avenging powers are making Amente [26] ready for you.” And He urged him onward with these words, “Hasten, for I am ready for the whips (or, scourgings).” Rightly therefore did Esdras say, “The creature may not hasten more than the Creator.” [27] Now since Judas was he who should betray Him, why did He cry out to him, “Friend, I do you no injustice”? Though He said to him, “Your eye is evil, but I Myself am good,” the Savior did not withhold the speech of friendship from him until the hour in which he betrayed Him. He called him “friend,” but he thought of enmity. He gave him the bag that held the money, and he became a thief. He chose him as a disciple, but he meditated guile. He chose him as a man, but he became a devil. O Judas, what is it that you did? And what did you gain when you did betray the Lord? You wasted your life and lost this great honor — the glory of Apostleship. For who is above his lot? After the appellation of “Angel” comes the title of “Apostle.” Now a man hardly considers his son to be worthy to eat with him, yet it was a helpless servant who was made to eat with his God, and Jesus, our Lord, considered him to be worthy to do so. He ate with the tax-gatherers, and He drank with Judas, the lawless man, and a pestilent man reached out his hand with [that of] God. This wretched man lost his life, and accepted death for himself; he exalted himself above his worth, and he fell down on to the ground according to his worth. Jesus chose him with the Apostles, and he lost his Apostleship. He was chosen to be an heir, and he himself abandoned [his] inheritance. Now the Apostles were the heirs of the Savior, and they were the light of the world, but Judas did not wish to give forth light. They were the salt of the earth, but Judas did not wish to purge away what was polluted. They were those whom God set in the Church, but Judas did not wish to continue with them. Therefore he was removed from the measure of manhood, and he became the portion of the Devil. Woe to you, O Judas! In what did you benefit yourself? Better is Cain, who killed a man, than Judas, who killed God. Better is Saul, who hated a man, than Judas, who hated God. Better is the hardheartedness of Pharaoh towards the people than the hardheartedness of Judas towards God. Better is the deceit of Balaam than the wickedness of Judas. Better is the rebellious speech of Korah in the desert than the stiffneckedness of Judas in Jerusalem. Better is Achar (Achan), who stole the accursed thing, than Judas, who stole the gifts of charity. Better is the arrogance of Absalom in respect of David than the contumacy of Judas in respect of God. Better is the evil counsel to David of Ahitophel, who hanged himself and died, than the condemnation of Judas, who hanged himself and is in Tartaros [28] , against the Savior. Better, by far, are the cursings by Shimei of David than the scorn of the Savior by Judas. Of far less evil was the bloody murder by Joab, which he committed in sheer wickedness, than the murder by Judas, which he committed in pitilessness. Better is the love money by Gehazi, who became a leper, than the avariciousness of Judas, who went to destruction. The sin of Jeroboam was less than the wickedness of Judas, for Jeroboam [only] made false gods, but Judas rejected the True God. “Friend, I do you no injustice; take that which is yours and depart.” [29] O evil friend Judas, it was not the Savior who did you injustice, but you yourself; take your curse, and depart into Amente! Now with Judas being in this state, Matthias [30] entered in and received the blessing, and became a disciple of the Master in his stead. He became an Apostle, he preached, and he sent forth light into the countries [round about]. He made himself salt, and purified souls; he made himself a servant, and was in subjection to God; he became a beloved son of the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of all, the Lord of all, the Glory of all, who rules all, who shall judge all, who shows compassion upon all, who does acts of mercy to all, who sustains all, who destroys all, who transforms all, who makes all new, who makes all glad, and through whom all endures. And now, O man, come and embark in the ship of salvation, which is the faith of the Church. It has two steering oars, from which it is guided, and these are the Testaments, upon which, if you meditate, they will bring you to a good place for tying up your boat. It has a mast, which is the Cross of the Lord, and a rudder: these are your hands which are stretched out in prayer to God. It has a sail which bears it forward, that is the Power of God, which directs you into every good course. It has a guiding pole, which is the Bishop in the Church. It has a helmsman to steer it, who is Jesus, who directs the course of the universe. The sailors on board are the clergy who are in the Church and who minister. There is a cargo borne upon it, and these are the Christian people. You shall arrive in a port, in a fair haven, that is to say, the harbor of Jesus, which is the heavenly Jerusalem. You shall inherit the things promised by God, that is to say, His good things, and you shall rest yourself with your fellow citizens, who are the angels and all the saints. And now behold, O my brethren, we have passed the whole day in exercising ourselves in the word, so that we might at length set the matter, to which we put our hands, upon its feet. And now, let us give thanks unto God, and unto the Holy Spirit, who has opened for us our mouth in speech, and has put into our mouth the words, in order that we may say the things which the Logos has bestowed upon us, which will benefit greatly our own souls and the souls of those who hear us. Let us ascribe blessing to the Logos, who has blessed us with the Holy Spirit. It is He, moreover, who spoke saying, “When they speak with you, take no thought as to what you shall say, for it shall be given unto you in that hour what you shall say. For it shall not be you who shall speak, but the Spirit of our Father who shall speak in you.” [31] And now let us ascribe glory to God, God Almighty, who has sent unto us the King, the Christ, through whom we bless and praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit — the consubstantial Trinity, from all ages to all ages. Amen. — [1] Matthew 20:1-16 [2] Isaiah 5:7 [3] See  Exodus 3:10 [4] See  1 Samuel 16:13 [5] Hosea 10:1 [6] (Ed.) This could be a conflation of persons or a transcription error where the transcriptionist missed some line(s) where the speaker continues to name the disciples until he reaches James and John. The irregularity here is also acknowledged by the original translator, E.A. Wallis Budge, with a marginal note “ sic. ” and without further elaboration. [7] See  John 17:6 [8] John 17:12; 18:9 [9] John 6:44 [10] John 3:35 [11] See  John 15:1 [12] See  John 6:35 [13] See  Matthew 20:8 [14] 1 Corinthians 12:28 [15] Matthew 13:17 [16] Isaiah 3:14 [17] Matthew 9:14 [18] Matthew 15:2 [19] Matthew 12:1 [20] Matthew 20:13 [21] John 13:27 [22] Mark 14:5 [23] See  Matthew 20:15 [24] Matthew 26:23 [25] John 13:27 [26] Hades, or Sheol. [27] 2 Esdras 5:44 [28] Hades, or Sheol. [29] Matthew 20:13, 14 [30] Acts 1:26 [31] Matthew 10:19-20 — E.A. Wallis Budge, Coptic Homilies in the Dialect of Upper Egypt: Edited From the Papyrus Codex Oriental 5001 in the British Museum, 80-89,   226-234 (Minor adaptations to the original translation have been made, primarily modernizing archaic terminology for ease of reading).  To access the original: https://archive.org/details/coptichomiliesin00budgrich . DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

[In the Name of the Father,] the Son, and the Holy Spirit — one God. Amen. Glory be to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and always and unto the age of ages and eon of eons. Amen.  Our good God, we are between Your hands, You are the good Teacher, because You are God and we believe that You are God. We beseech You, O Lord, to teach us [] so that we may be perfect as You are perfect and holy as You are holy. O Creator of the universe and Renewer of the times, renew our hearts. O Satisfier of all with good things at all times, show us Your salvation, O our good Savior. O Keeper of the covenant and mercy, do not cast us off forever. Have mercy on us.  In the power of Your promise, O Lord, yes, in the power of Your promise, I open my mouth. O beloved, if ours is the principle about which our teacher Paul the apostle said, “for me to live is Christ,” [1] we know with full certainty that if we serve, it is not we ourselves who serve, but [we serve] through Christ who is ours, in Whom is our life. No one has served Christ except the one who has loved Christ, and no one can love Christ except the one who has first experienced His love. And if we have loved and experienced the love of God and His support for us, we would begin to love one another, and this is the sign that we love Christ: “By this they will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.” [2] If we loved one another, we would feel the responsibility that is on the shoulder of each one of us toward his beloved and toward his brother. If we loved one another, we would feel the responsibility that is on each one of us toward his brother whom he loves, and here begins the responsibility that prompts us to the service. And if we feel a responsibility that prompts us to the service, we must know the purpose for which we serve one another. If we knew the purpose, we would not get lost, and our service would not be unfocused, but our service would have a known purpose []. Do you know the purpose of the service? The purpose of our service to one another [] is not our service to one another first, but the primary purpose is that I serve for the salvation of my own soul first. And when I serve for the salvation of my soul, I have experienced salvation working within me and I have experienced the love of God, and thus I will declare it, as Christ said to the one whom He healed []: “Go and tell how much the Lord has done for you.” [3] Because if I have not experienced the work of God in me and the love of God in me, I cannot speak, and if I speak theoretically, there is no benefit. But if it is my life — if my tongue is silent and my life speaks — in this is the true benefit.  You want to serve and you want to tell your brothers about your experience — first, we said we cannot serve unless we love the Lord, and we cannot love our Lord unless we experience His love and His benefactions. Therefore we must sit and contemplate every morning and every evening before we pray; before we praise God, sit and contemplate the benefactions of God toward us — what goodness He has shown us — one by one, not cumulatively, because when we know the benefactions of God one by one, we will give thanks, and naturally man is a servant of benefaction. When we contemplate the benefactions of God, love — the love of God — will begin to work in our hearts and we will be occupied with the One who does good to us.  My beloved, if you want to serve, place your hand in the hand of everyone who unites with you in the purpose. The meaning now, the meaning of this word, is that you, O servant, let there be fellowship between you and your fellow servants in the one purpose, and everyone you see who serves for the right purpose, place your hand in his hand.  And what is the right purpose? The one you see serving himself first, searching within his soul for its salvation, the one you see searching in his labors to find rest — put your hand in his hand and be assured of him, because as he strives for the salvation of his own soul, if he experiences this salvation and receives it from God, he will declare it to others and will share with you in the service of others. This is the positive side, but there is also a negative side: do not interfere with the affairs of one who differs with you in the purpose, as this becomes a hinderance, because we want all people to fit our terms, and this is not right. Do not interfere in the affairs of the one you find differing with you in the purpose, but one thing only is upon you: that you pray for him. And when you pray for him, your prayer, emanating from a loving heart, will be answered and you will gain him, and then this difference will transform into agreement, and when we agree in the purpose, we place our hands in one other’s hands, and when we put our hands in one another’s hands, the work will succeed. If you say, “I will pray for him” — I do not say to pray for only the one with whom you differed, but at the same time do not deprive him of your service. Serve all lest you lose the purpose. You intended the salvation of your soul — this is the purpose, part of the purpose — and the second part is the salvation of your brothers because you have loved them, and the one who loves guides his brothers, whom he loves, to that which he has tasted and found sweet and pleasant and in which he has found strength and joy and delight. And do not have a purpose except the consecration of yourself first — your soul first — for its salvation. And when you consecrate your soul for its salvation, you will benefit your Church. You will begin to serve the Church because you will have reformed a member of the members of the Church. And if we served our souls and if each one reformed himself — we are many members in the Church — necessarily the other members would take from us [] and would gain and profit. Know that if you desire to serve the Church — you have served yourself and were able to experience the love of God and experienced that He is able to change your weaknesses into strength and grant you victory so that you may have triumph. Have you experienced? — then you will begin to consecrate your life to the service of the Church.  And consecrating your life to the service of the Church is not only for the small, but also for the great. Do not underestimate yourself [in teaching] an elder; I am not telling you to teach him with your tongue, but let him look to you and find you a good example. You, O small one, show him that you are not by yourself but by the power of God working in you, by Christ with whom you have fellowship, Christ [] who loved you and loves you. Christ loved you and loves you and loves all.  Let the [soul] of the [elder] be consecrated to this purpose, that he begins to save his soul; he will take you as an [] example, and in truth he will not take you as an example, but he will take Christ who is in you so that He will be in him also. And at the same time, consecrate yourself to building the small souls: build [them] to love the Church, teach [them] the right principles, teach [them] the golden rules, and make [them] feel the effect of the Church rites. Teach him. Teach him!  Beautiful is the name to which Sunday School was changed. I feel that the Holy Spirit was in this change of name, in their changing it to Ecclesial Discipline. Once we began to learn superficial teaching, we became weary, but when we were in the offices — and of course you do not know the offices [] of the masters and sages, in which was the strike of the [stick], the strike of the blind master, wondering where the strike would land, [and it would land] wherever it fell — once we stopped saying that we “learned the Arabic,” and long ago they would say “learned the Arabic” to mean “learned the Psalms.” Once we stopped memorizing the Psalms, and our psalms began to emerge from our own minds, in personal prayers, superficiality commenced. We desire, if we are to teach the young children, to teach them within the embrace of the Church.  Hear, O my brothers: the Sunday School teacher is found in two states — a good condition and a bad condition, far be it from all of you. He is a living example of prayer, so if he consecrates himself and his service first to the service of his own soul, he will [] become an example of prayer, or, far be it from you, an example of deadly stumbling to evil, God forbid.  You have a duty to follow the first example — in persevering in prayer and reading the Holy Bible daily, in the morning and the evening, not reading in order to teach people, but reading in order to teach us the way and guide our steps. Reading so as to act according to it, how to become an example of prayer.  Also sacrifice! Sacrifice for the sake of the name of Christ by which you are called! As to the name of Christ by which you are called, we say to Him regarding this name: “Have mercy on us for the sake of Your name which is called upon us.” [4] Meaning we intercede by the name by which we are called! [] Sacrifice for the sake of this name which is a cause of your salvation, which is an intercessor for you.  This is the positive side, and the other, which we do not want to do, is the negative side. Beware of that other side.  Beware of stumbling! How do you beware of this issue? Persevere in repentance! And what is the meaning of repentance? The mystery. The mystery of repentance, which is the mystery of confession. Examine yourself at the end of the day and examine yourself in the morning for every small and great thing. Have regret, and ask God to grant you a desire for repentance, so that you might be saved and so that you do not stumble or cause anyone to stumble. Because we must ask of God: please, cast away from us the evil spirit of stumbling; do not let us stumble because of anyone and do not let us cause anyone to stumble, because both are sin and both are a net that may ensnare us and others. May God save us from it.  Repent! If you feel defeated, repent! And if you feel weak, commune, because communion is placed on the altar to renew the strength of the believers, to renew the strength of those who approach and partake of it. The Fathers said that the Christian believer who does not commune for forty days becomes weak, and if he becomes weak, he is overcome, and if he is overcome, what will the result be? Joy? Of course not. But there will be grief. Approach! It happens that we do not approach unless we are worthy, but how are we worthy? We are worthy in that we know our sins, and we are worthy in being victors by repenting of [them] and forsaking [them], and so He grants us to approach the mystery so as to receive power, which grants us to walk in the procession of repentance; it grants us to walk, it supports us and helps us.  Hear! Hear! The saintly fathers said that prayer is the mother of the virtues. Therefore Christ said, “Pray always and do not lose heart.” [5] Prayer is the ladder to heaven, lifting you from below to above. Prayer is food for the soul, because it is the food of angels, so it becomes food for us, to satisfy us. The joy of the saints! O how joyful it is when a person has a friend and sits to speak with him! How much more when we all desire to speak to our Heavenly Father. Prayer is a son in the presence of his Father, speaking with Him; it is joy for the children. If we are children of God, we must always speak to our Father. Do not neglect it. When we neglect it, we become weary. Prayer also has an important point. Do not ask for matters to proceed and take place according to your desire — you must have a plan and faith that God knows more than you what is right for you. Can one know better than his father?  Listen, I will not forget a story related in front of me about an Arab man. This Arab had a son, and God blessed this son so he gradually rose in governmental positions until he became a counselor. He came to visit his father, [] but when his father learned that the son had come, he did not rise to meet him outside, because he knew that he was a good son. The father rose to meet the lost son because he wanted to [restore him], [6] but this Arab knew that his son was polite. He did not rise to meet him outside. The son entered to greet his father, and all who were present with his father stood because he was a high-ranking counselor. He first held his father’s hand, bent down and kissed it, and then greeted those present, and his father told those present to be seated but did not tell him to be seated, so he remained standing and refused to sit, until his father told him: “Praise God for safety, go inside and greet the rest of the family.”  My children, no matter how exalted the son becomes, he cannot rise above his father, and no matter how ignorant the father is, it is not possible for his son to boast over him in his knowledge. The eye cannot rise above the eyebrow ever. The eye is [prominent], and the eyebrow is barren, yet the eyebrow is above the eye. No matter how the son rises in knowledge and has honors and baccalaureates, and whatever else of the current sciences — which I cannot pronounce [] — no matter what the son achieves, and no matter how ignorant the father is of [basic things], absolve me, no matter how ignorant the father is of [basic things], still the son does not rise above the father ever.  Your Heavenly Father knows more than you, and knows what is best for you. [7] So do not ask for something according to your desire in prayer, but ask Him — express to Him your desire and thereafter place this desire before the will of God: “Let Your will and Your purpose be done, O God, our God, for You know what is best more than I do.”  Do not neglect reading the Bible, for the words of God themselves said about it that it is a lamp, [8] and Christ said it is life: “Search the Scriptures, for in them is life.” [9] Whoever does not read the Bible, my brothers, is like a man walking in the wilderness without knowing the path, without a map and without a guide. The guide in our life [is] the word of God which points us to what is right, points us to what is good, and thus you can guide others.  Do not read the Bible only to teach the children, or to teach others; read the Bible, the word of God, as a guide for yourself, as a teacher for yourself, as a mentor for yourself first. And when you read the word so that it guides you and teaches you, you will experience the power of the words working within you. And when you have experienced, you will hear the voice of Christ saying to you, “Go and tell how God worked in you.” With His word! It changed conditions, it changed the circumstances, and it can change and have an effective impact on the souls of others. You also have another thing upon you, O Sunday School teacher, or teacher of the School of Ecclesial Discipline. He who knows his own faults is not repulsed by the faults of others. Do you know why we are repulsed by the faults of others? Because we do not know our own faults. Examine yourself! Know your fault! You will find that the faults of others are no longer faults before you, but what you will find before you will be your own fault, and you will want to strive to correct it.  They presented the woman who was caught in that act to Christ because they had forgotten their sins and forgotten their faults, but they saw the fault of the poor, pitiable, defeated woman who was overcome by Satan, who was overcome by sin. [10] They presented her. They presented her in order to test Christ and try Him! But to those who came to test Him, He taught a useful lesson for their souls. He told them: “Carry out the Law, but whoever strikes her with the first stone should be without sin. Whoever among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” [11] And they began examining their own souls. Then the sin of the woman disappeared from before them, and one by one they quietly retreated.  []   And also, if we contemplate our sins, we are not repulsed at the sins of others, nor do we become upset with them. We become preoccupied with correcting our own souls, and the primary purpose is restored: what are we doing? Dedicating our service to correcting ourselves first.  Not only this, [but] if I know my sin, there is a benefit: I would not become repulsed at the sins of my brothers, and all my brothers will be beloved before my eyes as righteous people. But I will also hold myself accountable and judge myself regarding my sin, and whoever judges himself is never judged by anyone — even God does not judge the one who judges himself!  Whoever judges himself says to Him, “I have sinned! Have mercy on me! I am not worthy of standing between your hands!” He says, “[] I will not hold you accountable because you confessed and asked forgiveness; I will not judge you.” But we do not judge ourselves; rather, we judge others. And while we judge others, we judge our own souls with [their] condemnation from the mouth of God!  Know your sin and you will not be repulsed by the sin of others. Judge yourself so that you are not judged by others, even those whom you have wronged. When you say to him, “I have sinned, my brother, forgive me,” regardless of what may be in his heart from the effect of your wrong toward him, you will find him forgiving.  Also, do not think of the old sin, as thinking about it renews it for you. Know that the old sin that has passed, and about which you have confessed, and which has ended, and which has gone far from you, if it is renewed, it is Satan renewing it to tire you; he renews it so that you fall into it. Therefore, do not think of it; think of the new continually, and leave the old behind. “Forget what is behind and push toward what is ahead.” [12] Also, it is common for someone to insult you; think of your insulter — not that he is offensive; do not think he is offensive! Do not think that he casts words like stones, that wounded you or hurt you. No! — think of your insulter as having freed you from false glory, because false glory causes you to fall short of eternal glory. Whoever insults you and does not say a good word has prevented false glory from you. Therefore, you will attain perfect glory. The man came out to curse David the prophet, and David’s men were behind him. “An impolite man! Leave us to kill him!” “How? God has provided him to curse me! So that false glory does not affect me or deprive me of the perfect glory, the everlasting glory.” [13] If you want to be a servant of the word of the Lord, serving for the salvation of your soul first and for the salvation of others, know that when you justify yourself, you fall into the most evil of vices. Therefore, Christ did not forget to open our minds to this matter. If you do all righteousness, do not say, “I am righteous.” If anything is attributed to you, do not say, “I am righteous.” But “if you do all righteousness, say, ‘I am an unprofitable servant.’” [14] Who among us is without sin, dear ones? Tell me.  Leave aside the sins of times past; let us focus on the sins of today. And leave aside the sins from morning to evening; rather, let each of us merely contemplate how his thoughts were after eating, or while eating; how his thoughts were when he was sleeping a little at noon; how his thoughts were while he was coming to church now. If we think but a little, we will find that there were deviant thoughts.  Do yourself a favor, do not justify yourself, because if you justify yourself, this is a great sin. But say, “there is no servant without sin, and no master without forgiveness. Forgive me, O Lord!” [15] Many times do we sin by our breaths: perhaps you might wonder how we might sin by our breaths. We see someone who bothered us a little, or did something which, according to my thought, is unpleasant, and we cannot talk, so we [scoff or huff]. Meaning we find even with our breaths [means of committing sin].  Sin is sinful. [16] It softens and solidifies. Flee from it, my beloved. Do not hate trials. Do not think that life is easy. But rejoice in trials, because by your struggle against trials, and in trials, you draw near to God and worship [Him].  Many of us hate difficult circumstances and hardships, but hardships are exceedingly sweet! “Call me in trouble, and I will save you.” [17] You draw near to God in the hardship. The sailor does not know God except at the time of drowning. Here is drowning — hardships! Call Him! And there is a great difference between you and the sailor. The sailor guides a ship, but you guide your soul. The sailor guides the ship to the port, but you guide your soul to the harbor of salvation! There are many hardships, there are many waves, there are many whirlwinds, there is uncomfortable wind which causes you to hold the rudders of the ship and pull, there are many things. Rejoice at the existence of these hardships, and do not rejoice that these hardships will end. Look to God, and when you look to God, you will draw near to Him, and He is near to you. Know that if you desire to be in holiness and desire to be in perfection, holiness does not spring up except from the ground of humility. If you desire to be a saint, like God, humble yourself like God. “Learn from me; I am gentle and lowly [in heart].” [18] What a wonder! The God of gods became the Son of Man so as to become poor, the King of kings who extends His hand so as to satisfy every living thing with goodness, had no place to lay His head. Glory to You! Humble yourself, my beloved, and your holiness will appear, and you will be perfected in glory — the glory which will lift you up higher and higher, not only higher, not above the people, but there, to bring you to Heaven. Glory to You, Lord. Grant me! Grant me!  Also, a point that one of the brethren mentioned to me on our way here. Do not hate the sinner, because if you hate the sinner, you will not pray for him, and if you pray for him, our Lord will not hear. The Lord says: “Do you ask for your brother while your heart is black toward him?” If you will hate, hate the sin that holds your brother captive! Ask our Lord for your eyes to become cleansed [toward] your brother. But if you hate the sinner, then here the matter becomes, forgive me, that I hate myself, because am I righteous? I am not righteous, and if I am not righteous, why do I hate the sinner? As I seek salvation for myself from sin, so I should seek for my brother salvation from sin. Listen! Sometimes we have an opportunity to see people watching each other and criticizing each other. No, this is not love. O teacher of the schools of Ecclesial Discipline, it is not love to see two looking at each other and adding to each other’s sins, because you place your brother in a position of judgment and condemnation. And as you wish for your brother, so it will be for you. But rejoice when you see your brothers’ hearts changed, their thoughts aligned, their hands joined together as we said in the beginning. If you wish to serve, place your hand in the hand of everyone whose purpose aligns with your purpose. But whoever disagrees with you in purpose, leave him; do not interfere in his matters, only pray for him. []  If you have experienced the love of God, and if our Lord has supported you in times of difficulty, support others. Encourage with your prayers the righteous so he may increase in righteousness. As we say, “those who are upright, protect them.” [19] And should you only encourage the righteous? No, but also encourage the sinner with your prayers — “and those who are fallen, raise up.” [20] Do not say to the sinner, “your prayers are not accepted.” Let us pray to God! Tell him to pray, and if he says to you, “I am a sinner,” say to him: “Christ will rejoice to hear your voice, O sinner.” Tell him there is a popular song that says: “Come, O sinner, come, the door is open.” Yes, encourage him. Encourage him, and when you encourage him, he will open [his heart], you will [gain] him; he will not flee from you. Encourage the weary so that he may find rest by your prayers. Encourage the weak in soul — if you see that you are able — according to your ability. There are many weak souls. The Bible says: “We who are strong ought to bear the scruples of the weak.” [21] Not to become repulsed; if we are strong, if we have the ability, but do not [belittle him] — all are weak. Encourage the weak; encourage the weak in soul and he will be strengthened.  Do not cast behind you the one who is careless! Remind him of the Law of God! Encourage him to not be careless! [] Encourage the beginner, so that he may bear fruit. The one who begins anything is fearful. Many young people say: “[I] want to serve in Sunday School, but I am not able.” O, my son, you are not the one who serves, but God. For the sake of His children, He gives you the grace by which you can serve yourself and serve others. If there is someone carrying hatred in his heart and wants to take revenge, encourage him [to forgive] with your love. Do not distance yourself from him. No! Embrace him. Encourage him with your love, and within himself, though his heart is bad, when he finds someone embracing him, he begins to forgive — even the one he hates. O my brothers, the purpose of our service is the salvation of our souls and the salvation of others’ souls, because the Lord came not for the righteous but for sinners, the sinners “of whom I am chief.” [22] When we encourage the one who hates, [] the storm that came upon him will dissipate; because our heart is full of love [], he will become calm []. When you embrace the one who is vengeful, he will regret his sin.  I heard a story long ago that one of the foreign missionary woman was in Ismailia, and she was serving in the clinics — the clinics of free treatment that serve the poor like me. Perhaps one is not poor because he has no money, and perhaps another is poor because his soul loves money, so he loves what is free. People always love what is free. [] She began to go to these people, kiss them, and [speak with them] — “What do you have?” And she would go to this one and that one, and to the rude one [], speak with her, embrace her, and kiss her, in order to [encourage them], saying to them, “May God heal you, may Christ heal you.” One woman said to her: “You are an English woman and you love filth?” She said to her: “[] I was like them, and He embraced me in His bosom! See His love!” When you encourage the captive, he repents; he will find the goodness that is in your heart. The goodness that is in your heart will overwhelm him. They do not paint white beneath black, lest the black overwhelm the white. But you, when you draw near, oh white one, to the black one, God will grant your whiteness to affect the blackness and the blackness will lighten. Draw near and the power of God will work.  Do not see someone upset and not smile toward him. Offer a smile to the one who is downcast and you will find that he will be overcome — but do not smile mockingly; smile with love and you will find that he will smile. [] Listen! One was sitting in a group and sneezed, and found that the rest also sneezed. Why? What is the secret? There is a secret. Souls desire to become like one another. Smile toward the one who is burdened, whose countenance is burdened, and encourage the fearful by your smile so that he knows that [] no matter how many fears surround a person, “If God is with us, who can be against us?” [23] These fears cannot affect us. He is protecting us, we are in His bosom.  Encourage with your words — your words are important — your pleasant words toward the one who is in need of a word of compassion. [] Gladden the one who is depressed with a word of reassurance, that his is the gift of peace, the peace which cannot be granted by the world, but [which comes from] One alone: Jesus. [] And not only this — the matter is not only words and a smile — something theoretical — but we seek the practical matter: encourage everyone in need of service by working with him so as to win him; the issue is not only encouragement with words or a smile, or such things, but also with work. Stretch out your hand!  Someone carrying a bag, who is tired and frazzled and for whom the bag is too heavy — extend your hand! The bag with two handles is carried by two. “May I help you in carrying this basket? May I help you in carrying this bag?” Do not be sparing. Labor with him and help him. [] Even if you do not know him. He will know that in you there is a secret.  Do not flee from the one who seeks mercy from you. Draw near to him! [] If someone asks you for something, put your hand in your pocket, [] extend your hand with mercy! [] The Disciples shrunk back, they said to Him “there are only five loaves, but what can these do for this many people?” He said to them, “Do not be afraid; bring them.” [24] Give what you have, as much as you are able. When you give as much as you are able, give more than half an hour, give more and more.  Encourage. Encourage with your work, your hand and your pocket. Encourage with your money. [] [See] your table, there are no less than seven types [of food]. You may say, “How are there seven types?” I will count them for you.  [] Is there a table without bread? There is bread. Is there a table without salt? There is salt! Is there a table without tomatoes, without water? There is water! Here are three which do not leave the table, even if you are not wealthy. [] One has four types [of food] and another cannot find [food to eat]. [] There are many who are poor and needy, encourage them with the things that God has granted you, and when you encourage him, you will gain him.  Encourage from your heart every servant and those you serve. []  Lift your heart to God so that He may grant you the grace of service — the service of your own soul first. Lift your heart for the sake of your brother servants, so our Lord may grant them grace in the service of their own souls first, [] to save them, and of others also.  To Him be glory. To Him be majesty. To Him be worship now and forever.  — [1] Philippians 1:21 [2] John 13:35 [3] Mark 5:19 [4] See e.g. , The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil: The Commemoration of the Saints [5] Luke 18:1 [6] See  Luke 15:20 [7] See  Matthew 6:8 [8] See  Psalm 119:105 [9] See  John 5:39 [10] See  John 8:1-11; This was a common theme in the teaching and guidance of Fr. Mikhail Ibrahim. [11] John 8:7 [12] Philippians 3:13 [13] See  2 Samuel 16:5-14 [14] Luke 17:10 [15] See e.g. , The Hymns of the Great Lent Season in the Coptic Orthodox Church [16] See  Romans 7:13 [17] Psalm 50:15 [18] Matthew 11:29 [19] See  The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory: The Litanies [20] Ibid . [21] Romans 15:1 [22] See  1 Timothy 1:15; The Agpeya: The Conclusion of Every Hour [23] Romans 8:31 [24] See  Matthew 14:18; John 6:9 — To hear the original audio of this sermon, please visit: https://app.box.com/s/f1irtnalpi7kln27pnmrvboep9sh8bpa   Fr. Mikhail Ibrahim, born Mikhail Ibrahim Youssef in 1899 in Qafr Abdou, Quisna, Egypt, was raised in a devout household and formed deeply by the Church from a young age. He worked for many years as a police clerk before being ordained to the priesthood in 1951 to serve his home church in Qafr Abdou, after the departure of its priest. His civic life was characterized by integrity, seriousness, and zealous service wherever he was stationed; even then he was known for establishing spiritual communities and leading a pious and active ecclesial life.  He was well known even as a layman to many saints of his day, including St. Pope Kyrillos VI and His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, who related at his funeral that while residing at the Church of Saint Mina in Old Cairo as a layman himself, he would see him come to that church, prostrate himself outside at the front of the church, and again several times between the front door of the church and its altar before standing to pray in deep prayer.  After his ordination, he served his village in all humility and dedication before being caused to depart to Cairo, where he was brought into the service of the Church of Saint Mark in Shubra by its shepherd, Father Morcos Dawoud, which parish he continued to serve until his repose on March 26, 1975. His ministry in Shubra was marked by continued fruitfulness and expanding spiritual influence — he shepherded his parish with all purity and selflessness, was granted countless disciples, whom he guided with profound humility and wisdom, and was known for his seriousness, depth of prayer, simplicity, and complete dependence on God. Whenever anyone brought a problem to him, he would say, “let us pray, my son,” and assign a saint to handle the concern, and when anyone complained to him of having been wronged by another, he would simply respond, “this is Satan, my son, this is Satan,” in view of redirecting the complainant to discerning that sin originates from the devil and not from the one who sins, who is rather a victim enslaved by him — a common theme in his teaching. He was not a man of much public teaching — in fact, the translated homily and the corresponding Arabic recording herein represent the only known recorded lecture for Fr. Mikhail, despite his renown as a wise teacher and trusted counselor to many, including several of the Church’s saints of the twentieth century, in personal discipleship and confession.  Upon his departure, Pope Shenouda III, who was his disciple and son in confession for many years — and who officiated his funeral, at which he delivered a deeply moving eulogy, in which he called him a “profound guide,” “loving heart,” and “immense power” — requested that he be buried beneath the altar of the Great Cathedral of St. Mark, because, in his own words, “he was a public man who belongs to no single church, whose children are in every place and every village and every city, who should not be reserved for one place, but who should be buried [in the Cathedral], in a public place,” and, as His Holiness publicly admitted, he also privately wanted his pure body to remain near, as a support to him.   DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

H.H. Pope Shenouda III, 1989 In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: One God. Amen.  Being that this week is the Week of Prayer, I would like to speak to you about Prayer. Prayer according to its simplest meaning is a dialogue with God. But is it a dialogue of the tongue or that of the heart? Doubtless it is a dialogue of the heart. For this reason, the Lord Christ rebuked those who pray with their lips only, saying: “these people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me” (Matthew 15:8).  Thus, prayer is not merely words. Nor is it merely recitations or memorized utterances. But prayer is firstly the longing for God [] as David the Prophet says: “my soul longs for you, O God, as a thirsty land longs for water” (Psalms 143:6). And he also says: “O God, you are my God, my soul thirsts for you” (Psalms 63:1). And he says again: “as the deer longs” — the male deer which gallops quickly and tires [as a result] — “as the deer longs for the fountains of water, so my soul longs for You, O God.” (Psalms 42:1) The more your soul longs for God, and speaks to Him as a result of this longing, the more you feel that you are speaking to Him from your heart and benefit from prayer. [] For prayer is not merely a longing, but it is a longing that springs forth from love. Thus prayer begins firstly in the heart as love, is then elevated to the mind as thought, and finally the tongue utters it as word. But it is in the first instance love. Love! [David] tells Him, “Oh how beloved is your name, O Lord, for it is my meditation all the day” (Psalms 119:97). Out of his love for God, the name of God is on his tongue and mind all day long in meditation. He also says to Him, “in your name I will lift up my hands; my soul will be satisfied as with the richest of foods” (Psalms 63:4-5).  So prayer is satisfaction for the soul. Just as the flesh is nourished by food, so also the soul is nourished by being in the presence of God, and by conversing with God, and with the connection of the heart with our Lord. This is nourishment for the soul. If you pray and do not feel satisfied, then you are not truly praying. Prayer, as I have said, is love. Just as a droplet of water journeys until it pours into the great sea and unites with it, so also does the heart of man journey so as to unite with the heart of God and become joined to Him. And the first matter [here] is prayer. For this reason, prayer was said to be a golden bridge connecting the creature to the Creator. [] It was also said that prayer is likened to the ladder of Jacob which connected earth and heaven. Prayer was also said to be the language of the angels, or the praise of the angels.  Imagine — the Seraphim were standing before the throne of God saying, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth” (Isaiah 6:3), being satisfied with this love and their souls being satiated by it. This is prayer. Believe me, many claim that they converse with God while in fact they do not pray. They do not pray because they merely utter words without any feeling or emotion.  For this reason, prayer is connectedness [1] with God. [] In prayer you find a connection between yourself and God. You connect with God. As in the Divine Liturgy when we say, “stand [earnestly].” [2] You develop a connection between yourself and God such that you experience being in the presence of God. [] This is prayer. It is not mere words. You experience the presence of God and being with God, and the connection between you both.  Some think prayer to be words they utter or beautiful phrases they say. It is not so. I will give you an example. You see these lights — there are small bulbs and a large spotlight [] — imagine you have incredibly powerful lightbulbs — a bulb with the power of many volts — but it has no electric current running through it. What would be the benefit of this lightbulb to you? What is the benefit of a powerful lightbulb if the electric current is absent from it? In your prayers, you must feel this current running through your veins.  You feel pleasure in being with God [] so that even when you try to stop praying or cease from prayer, you find it difficult to do so. One stands to pray, and every time he tries to conclude the prayer, he says: “Lord let me spend some more time with You… [] a few more minutes… let me have some more time.” He is unable to leave Him! [] As it says in the Song of Songs, “I held him and would not let him go” (3:4). I can’t leave him! This is prayer.  This sort of prayer purifies the heart, [] because man, when he finds himself in the presence of God, is purified thereby. Even if a sinful thought comes to him, he is ashamed of it, saying: “My thoughts were just with God, how can I now mingle it with evil?” If any external warfare comes to him, you find him impervious to it, fortified by the inner purity which he obtains from prayer.  Deep prayer leads man to renounce the entire world, because after he finds himself in the presence of God, everything else becomes trivial in his eyes. For this reason, the Spiritual Elder [3] said: “the love of God alienated me” — that is, rendered me a stranger — “from mankind and the things of mankind.”  St. John of Assiut was once asked, “what is pure prayer?” He told them “it is death to the world,” meaning when one is praying, this world is wholly absent from his mind; because of his preoccupation with God, he no longer feels the present world.  Prayer is an honor for man — a great honor, for him to speak with God. There are many who occupy prestigious positions with whom you cannot speak. But God, out of His humility, permits you to speak with Him, even while He is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings and Creator of all. Thus, prayer is an honor with respect to man, and humility with respect to God. Of His humility He communicates with us. [] Do not dare to think that when you pray, you give to God anything at all — time, words. No. In prayer you receive and do not give. Just as we say to God in the Divine Liturgy, “You are not in need my worship, but rather I am in need of Your Lordship.” You need  to be found with God. You need  to speak with Him. You need  to receive from His love.  Imagine, regarding the pleasure of prayer, that David, when he prayed his psalms [] did not find the flute sufficient. We read in history that David had a large musical ensemble — a substantial chorus — one with a flute and one with a harp and another with an oud and another with stringed instruments and another with timbrels and another with cymbals and another with a trumpet — all of the musical instruments in his day, and sometimes the number would reach seventy people! And he prayed his psalms with the wondrous pleasure of music, and told them “Selah,” meaning “let us stop here and change the melody.” [] For this reason, sometimes prayer is a song sung by the soul to God. Imagine standing and singing to God! Where does this singing come from? For this reason he says, “sing to the Lord a new song” (Psalms 96:1). [] A song! One who rejoices in another — who loves another — and sings to Him. And God rejoices with this heart — this musical heart, in which one does not pluck the strings of the oud, but instead the strings of his heart, so that the words that spring from it are a beautiful song in the hearing of God.  See Miriam the Prophetess, the sister of Moses! She held the timbrel in her hand and sang to God! [] And we, do we not sing? We certainly sing! From this we see that our hymns are prayer. See the words, “Agios, Agios, Agios, Holy, Holy, Holy.” In joyful times we sing “Agios” to Him in a joyful hymn, and with melisma. And in mournful times, in the Passion Week, we sing “Agios” to Him in a mournful tone. And in Ⲕⲟⲓⲁϩⲕ we say it in a different way. And every time we say “Holy,” we say it to Him in a different way. The psalmody, is it not a prayer? But it is a song we sing to the Lord. We stand before God singing, rejoicing — one rejoicing greatly in God, and, seeing Him, sings for joy! []  For this reason we find praises — spiritual songs. The Bible says, “with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, making melody in your hearts to God” (Ephesians 5:19). [] Indeed, singing always springs forth from inner feeling. And we stand before God singing always: people rejoicing in God and singing to Him. How? When we come to read the gospel, we say it in a melody in the Church; when we come to read the Psalm, we sing it to Him. We have Psalms which, when the chanter stands to chant them, he says them with the fullness of love in his heart before God.  And the prayers and hymns of the Divine Liturgy are sung. For this reason, I am uncomfortable with those who rush through the Liturgy in a few minutes and without care for its hymns. No singing! What will God say to such people? “Is there no feeling? Do the strings of your heart not move?” In every word we say in the Liturgy, we sing. We sing before God, saying to Him: “Lord I am overjoyed in You [] and will sing to you all day and night!”  Long ago, each Psalm had its own hymn, and they said it in chant. Just like the hymns we have in the Second, Third, and Fourth ϩⲱⲥ. These are all Psalms. Here is the heart that prays.  But for one to pray with his tongue while his mind wanders in other things, where is the connection between him and God? Where is the dialogue between him and God? What is more, where is the etiquette of discussion between him and God? Do you speak to God while you are distracted, or while your senses are distracted; praying while looking here and there?  From here, prayer requires certain qualities so that it may be considered an acceptable prayer before God. There are prayers that are acceptable and those that are not.  To offer an acceptable prayer before God, the first point is to pray with understanding. While speaking, you understand the meaning of each word. You say, “Our Father who art in Heaven,” and every word is understood and has its depth, and is uttered in harmony between the tongue and the mind and the heart and the spirit and the flesh and the whole person. For this reason, you find in our hymns: “my heart and my tongue praise the Trinity” — “ⲡⲁϩⲏⲧ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲁⲗⲁⲥ.” []  Prayer does not only involve the tongue. Your tongue speaks, while your mind is occupied with the same words, while your heart experiences the same feeling, while your spirit calls to the Lord. And your body also participates: in kneeling with meekness, prostrating, lifting up your hands, your eyes directed upwards. In all of this, your body participates with your spirit. Thus, prayer encompasses the whole person: mind, heart, spirit, flesh, and tongue together.  For this reason, the one who prays often closes his eyes so as not to be distracted by or think about whatever is in front of him. He does not feel [] what happens around him. He leaves everything and devotes himself to God.  Prayer with understanding denotes meaning every word you say. For example, when you say to Him, “Thy kingdom come,” your mind should contemplate the meaning of the kingdom of God, how His kingdom rules over your heart, how His kingdom may spread among the people, how His kingdom may spread among those nations who do not yet know Him, how His kingdom may rule over the mind and heart and flesh and spirit, how His kingdom is the longing for the eternal kingdom. And you say the word “kingdom” as you find yourself entering into the deepest depths of this kingdom. Meaning every word; praying with understanding.  And if you pray with understanding, you will find that you also pray with concentration. [] Your mind will be occupied with the words, without deviation of thought or distraction. You will find yourself concentrating on the words and their meanings. You will pray with understanding, with concentration, and with depth, as David says, “out of the depths I have cried to You O Lord” (Psalms 130:1). Out of the depths! Out of the depths of my heart. Out of the depths of my mind. Out of the depths of my need for You. Out of the depths of my desires. Out of the depths in which I have fallen, I am lifted up to You and say: “Out of the depths I have cried to You, O Lord” (Psalms 130.1). You are in my inner depths, and I will to also reach Your depths.  The one who prays such prayer, which is with love and understanding, will necessarily also pray fervently. Because he pours himself out before God. See Hannah, who became Samuel’s mother. The Bible says that she “prayed a prayer” (1 Samuel 1.9-10). [] What does this mean? It was not just any prayer! [] She prayed a prayer which bore all the fullness of the meaning of the word. Her lips merely moved, as her heart was ablaze for God. To the point that Eli the Priest thought her to be drunk. Because she poured herself out as an offering before God. Imagine the term “pouring” himself out; a soul being “poured” out before God. I cannot find in the Arabic language words sufficient to express how one pours himself out, but you understand it. One who pours himself out before God. His soul is wrung out and he pours it into the hearing and heart of God, telling Him, “my very self is poured out before You.”  He who pours himself out before God does not have any awareness of his surroundings. If he is conscious of his surroundings, then his mind has become distracted and he is not poured out before God. The fervency of his prayer may be evident in his language, in his eyes, in his tears — from the extent of the fervency within him — in his love. He prays! You feel that this person prays.  You may find two priests standing before the altar praying the Divine Liturgy, but you feel that one is praying and one is not. He is not praying, he is only saying  the Liturgy. You may find two chanting a spiritual song, but only one chanting it from the depths of his heart so that you feel that he truly chants it, while for the other it is mere words. Words and musical melodies without spirit. [] She “prayed a prayer.” She poured herself out before God. Hannah. I read this very expression also concerning Elijah the Prophet in the fifth chapter of the Epistle of our teacher James. He says: “Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed a prayer that the heavens would not rain” (James 5:17). “Prayed a prayer” means not just any words. “Prayer” here means true prayer.  One might stand for fifteen minutes speaking, and the angels would say, “why isn’t this fellow praying?” You might say, “You see him speaking!” And they would say, “these are just words. There’s no prayer. It is only words but not prayer.” But there is another sort of person — when he stands up for prayer, you find that the twenty four priests from the Book of Revelation take the golden censers in their hands and retrieve the prayer and take it up with them ( see  Revelation 8:3). If you ask one of them why, he would say, “this is a prayer, I can’t leave it. I must store it in my golden censer and lift it up to God as a fragrance of incense.” The angels sitting in heaven would smell the sweet aroma of the incense coming from earth and ask, “what is this beautiful fragrance of incense?” And they would be told, “Oh, so and so is praying.” []  For this reason, just as God rejoices in our prayer, so also do the angels. They participate with us. [] They empower us in prayer, give us spirit, and take our prayers and ascend with them. Just as it was written about Jacob’s ladder, that there were angels ascending and descending on it ( see  Genesis 28:12). Ascending with the prayers from the earth, and descending with God’s response to them. The angels are always ascending and descending with our prayers.  The angels in heaven, when they hear someone praying, say to one another: “come, we have work today!” What is that work? “We will take [the prayers] and ascend and descend and connect heaven and earth!” Hence why it is said that prayer shakes the heavens. Not the earth. The heavens. The heavenly hosts. When a saint stands for prayer, they stand for prayer with him, participating with him, feeling that he is one of them — that he is one of the earthly angels from among the heavenly humans. Just like the angels. Or is prayer mere words? Does every person who says “I am praying” truly pray? No! What does “prayed a prayer” mean? It means not just any words. I would that you understand what prayer is and how to pray.  Do you realize that if we pray for oneness with this spirit, it would be accomplished immediately? Why? Because then souls are [truly] standing before God. God — what can I say, Lord? Just as He says in the Psalms, to the soul that pours itself out before Him in prayer, “turn your eyes from me, for they have overcome me” (Song of Solomon 6:5). [4] God says, “enough, I can’t withstand it any longer. Whatever you want I will give you. Enough.” How could God tell someone, “for your eyes have overcome me?” What is this [wonder]. In language I do not know an interpretation, but in the spirit we may understand its meaning. As it was said, “God was overcome by His compassion.” [5] Out of His love. He sees before Him a person who has been transformed into an angel on earth, speaking with Him in truth.  When God encounters hundreds of people, one of whom speaks to Him with a wandering mind, and another speaks to Him and then runs away, and another speaks to Him for a short while and then says “enough, I am bored of prayer,” and then finds one steadfast and speaking to Him with all love, He says “I can’t leave this person.” So what does He do? He grants that the Holy Spirit intercede for him with unutterable expressions, so that he is no longer praying but the Holy Spirit works in him and gives him the fervency ( see  Galatians 4:6). [] Just like one who says “heat up the car so it can run.” The Holy Spirit “heats up this car,” so it can run and ascend to the heavens.  There are those who have specialized in prayer. They have become specialists in prayer. Their work is prayer, such as the monks and solitaries and hermits. And there are those on earth who give to God some of their time, and there are those who give to God the leftovers of their time, and there are those who say to God, “go away for now and when it is more convenient I will call for you again,” as the [procurator, Felix,] told Paul (Acts 24:25).  For prayer to be accepted before God, it must also be offered with humility and lowliness of heart. Humility. Our Lord gave us an example in the prayer of the Pharisee and that of the tax collector. The prayer of the tax collector was accepted because it was offered with a humble heart, but the prayer of the Pharisee was not accepted. Not every prayer is accepted; the one who humbles himself before God[, that one’s prayer is accepted]. For this reason, you find some who speak to God with an unbefitting boldness, whereas we bow our heads and prostrate on the ground and sign the cross and ask Him to “make us worthy to say ‘Our Father.’” [] “I am not worthy to stand before You. Who am I? ‘I am a worm and not a man’ (Psalms 22:6), as David says. Who am I to put myself between the angels and archangels and the Seraphim and Cherubim to speak to You? Who am I? I am but dust! ‘I have taken it on myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes,’ (Genesis 18:27),” as Abraham the Father of Fathers said. For this reason the one who prays with humility prays with meekness.  One might say, “I am a son, and I have my rights as a son.” What rights are you speaking of, beloved? Are we discussing rights? Tell Him, “Lord, I am unworthy of anything. ‘I am unworthy to be called Your son’ (Luke 15:19). It is true that You have called me a son out of Your love, but I have not abided as a son. I am utterly cast down. How can I speak to You?” With lowliness of heart, one prostrates, one kneels, one lifts up his hands, and begins a beginning that evidences his humility before God. It is true that God called you a son. But does His calling you a son lead you to lose your meekness or respect for Him, or to pray with a prideful heart? All of this is unfitting. Do you need more [evidence] than the Cherubim and Seraphim? They stand before God praying. How? “With two wings they cover their faces, and with two they cover their feet” (Isaiah 6:2). They stand ashamed before God, covering their faces for their inability to look toward the great glory of God. [] For this reason, when the priest prays the Reconciliation Prayer in the Divine Liturgy, he holds a handkerchief [over his eyes], and so does the deacon across from him. Why? For their inability to lift their eyes toward God; ashamed before God and the divine glory, so they cover their eyes from the glory of God. But there is another who holds the handkerchief without understanding its meaning, [saying] “well, this is what they taught us in church.” As for the person who stands before God in meekness and lowliness of heart, God does not forget his lowliness of heart. He truly prays. He recognizes before Whom he stands. He is standing before the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. See Moses, after he spent some time with Him, how his face was so radiant that the people could not look to him when he came down [from the mountain]. And that only because he spent a little time with Him. John the Beloved, who leaned on His chest, when God appeared to him in the Book of Revelation, said, “I fell at his feet as one dead” (Revelation 1:17). Why? For the greatness of God.  Your love for God and favor with Him should not lead you to lose your meekness before God. Your favor [with Him] might otherwise lead you to merely say words, like the one who prays while seated at mealtime. “Why are you sitting, brother? To Whom are you speaking?” He says, “I’m sitting to eat.” Are you sitting to eat or sitting to pray? Whenever I am in a foreign country and they ask me to pray before eating, I stand and they all follow suit. They are used to praying over the meal while seated. Is there no respect when speaking to God? Stand before Him with meekness. Tell Him, “thank you Lord for granting me food for my body. Grant me also food for my spirit.” And pray from your heart.  Many in the church pray while seated, and if someone tells one to stand, he says, “stand? You forget that we’re in the twentieth century, the age of technology, which exhausts the flesh and robs us of our energy. Before, the people were strong and could stand, but now the people are tired.” Remain as you are, O tired one, and pray prayers that are as tired as you, which do not ascend to the heights. When you stand to pray while tired, God will grant you the strength and energy to stand, because as you give, so you receive, and you receive what you give and say to Him, “of Your own we have given You” (1 Chronicles 29:14). Prayer needs meekness; to stand before God meekly. But for the one who stands before God while his legs are moving, his hands are moving, his eyes are looking around, as if he is praying with a wind-up, this is not prayer. If this one stands in the army, and they tell him to stand still, he would. If one stands still before an officer or a sergeant, how much more should he do so before God? Pray with meekness, pray with concentration, pray with respect and reverence before God.  Pray also with faith. He says, “whatever you ask for in prayer will be yours, if you only have faith” (Mark 11:24). Many times one prays but does not believe that what he asks will happen. He just prays to fulfill the obligation. But without faith. We need people to pray with faith — faith that he stands before God, and that God will respond, and that God will respond with whatever is good, regardless of the outcome. [] Prayer with persistence, never tiring. This is prayer. [] Prayer before God with spirit and thought, with love and feeling, and with concentration. This is all regarding the depth of prayer.  The one who experiences the beauty and tastes the sweetness of prayer loves to pray at all times. He loves that his mind is preoccupied with God at all times. He never tires from prayer. He does not say: “I don’t have time.” How do you not have time? As I have said to some, “do you not have time? See David the Prophet. He was a king and commander in chief of the army and led the people and had a large family and difficult circumstances, but regardless, he prayed evening and morning and at noontime” ( see Psalms 55:17). And he told Him, “seven times every day I do I praise You for your righteous judgments” (Psalms 119:164). Only during the day? He also told him, “I remembered you on my bed,” (Psalms 63:6), when he came to sleep, and “in the morning watches [I sang to you]” (Psalm 5:3), [] and “my eyes stay open through the watches of the night that I might meditate on your word” (Psalms 119:148), [and] “at midnight I arise to praise You for your righteous judgments” (Psalms 119.62). And after all this, he tells Him: “O God, you are my God, early will I seek You. My soul thirsts for you…” (Psalms 63:1). After all this, your soul [still] thirsts for Him?  This is the one who wants to pray. He does not tire from prayer, he is patient, he prays with long-suffering, and whenever Satan says “enough,” he tells him, “depart from me, you have no business with me. This is between me and God.” [] — [1] Arabic: سلاه [2] lit. “stand intently/earnestly;” Arabic: نقف بإتصال [3] i.e. John of Dalyatha [4] In instances such as this, when His Holiness misremembers the source of a verse or passage, it is important to note that His Holiness, in his usual manner, delivers the majority of his homily from memory and without much, if any, reference to written materials). [5] See  Monday Ⲑⲉⲟⲧⲟⲕⲓⲁ, Fifth Part — To hear the sermon by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III in its original Arabic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIrTdvbo1Jg (Starting at 45:05 in the video)