Talk:Monastery of St. Catherine

Is there any reason that the monastery needs to have all this detail? I feel stuff like the Arabist government of Egypt recognizing its autonomy in a pattern of the Holy Mountain even when alternate Nasser threw out minorities just like in real life, celebrating Mohammad’s birthday and Ramadan (which the real life monastery most ‘’certainly’’ does not), and having a Catholic style coat of arms that uses words like “sable” is just a bridge too far. The Orthodox world does not do any stuff like this. Misterxeight 17:43, 24 October 2017 (PDT)

The MSC is not just a religious institution; it is also a civil entity. It has lay citizens. Certainly the monks don't celebrate the Muslim holidays, but then the monks don't celebrate ANY holidays. Holidays are for layfolk as a break from their work routine. It would hardly be politic to have only Christian holidays and not have any for the Muslim citizens to celebrate. Thus, there are civil holidays, Christian holidays, and Muslim holidays. Under the Fatimids a chapel in the monastery was converted into a mosque which is used even today as the house of worship by the Muslim citizens.Caeruleancentaur 07:41, 22 December 2017 (PST)

I can't speak for Charlie, but I don't think this is necessarily that big of an issue. W/r/t to Nasser somehow recognising the autonomy of St. Catherine, just chalk it up to fear of retribution from Greece or some other Orthodox country, or perhaps angering neighbouring Cyraenica. In all fairness though, we don't have to make it recognised by Nasser, we can just push back the date of the granting of autonomous status to sometime after the restoration of the Khedive (who I think is friendlier to Christians) and have it set up as a sort of "sorry we kind of tried to kill you" gift to make up for Nasser's xenophobia and racism. As for celebrating Mohammed's birthday and Ramadan, I suppose it's just necessary for the civil government of the monastery to recognise those holidays in order to keep the majority-Sunni civilian population happy. They're probably not celebrated in the monastery itself.

The monastery's autonomy does not date from any Egyptian government. It dates from the Emperor Justinian in 565 and ratified by Muhammad himself c.622 (Wikipedia:Ashtiname of Muhammad). I assume that the Ottoman government (from 1517) did surveys of their nation as was done *here*. The first survey (done *here* in 1527, and, I assume, in IB at some time) (Wikipedia:Egypt Eyalet 1527 to 1620) acknowledged the monastery's autonomy. Subsequent governments acknowledged the monastery's autonomy as it was not worth the trouble to do otherwise and might, indeed, cause trouble with other nations. Any local taxes raised in the MSC are for the use of the local citizens, but tourists with money must pass through Egyptian territory to get to the monastery. Any suppression of the monastery would result in loss of revenue to the local Egyptian population.

I agree about the coat of arms, though. I suppose we'll have to orthodox-ise that one, if not scrap the idea of a coat of arms altogether. I have no idea how Orthodox coats of arms work (or if the Eastern Orthodox even do that whole CoA business), but I'm sure we can find it somewhere on the Internets. Juanmartinvelezlinares 18:28, 24 October 2017 (PDT)

If one checks out "Martin's Ecclesiastical Heraldry", one can see that the Orthodox churches do, indeed, have coats of arms. There is nothing unorthodox about the coat of arms. The tricolor is that of the state flag of Egypt showing that the MSC remains a part of the Republic of Egypt. The burning bush, the very reason why the monastery exists, is sacred to Christians, Jews and Muslims. The cross symbolizes that the monastery is a Christian monastery; a Greek cross, not a Latin cross. There are two supporters. On the dexter side, the honorable side, is Moses, revered by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. On the sinister side is St. Catherine, the namesake of the monastery, honored by both the Greek and Latin Churches. Nothing unorthodox about that. Caeruleancentaur 08:25, 22 December 2017 (PST)

Father, I ‘‘really’’ have to protest; a pope’s not going to be the one choosing any archbishops for a place in the Sinai peninsula, and saying “the First Crusade attracted Christian pilgrims for the first time” is not factually accurate. I’d rather take this to the Facebook group since no one’s going to care enough to mediate.

I might have been rejected from the position of the caretaker of the Orthodox Church in IB, but I feel like a lot of this content is veering off into places that neither fit real life Orthodoxy or IB’s, which was never really changed before I joined in 2008 except for the batshit patriarchal president in 1980’s Russia that belongs more in an anime story than any serious alternate history. Misterxeight 22:23, 24 October 2017 (PDT)