Are the Orthodox united though?
Yes, of course we are.
What do you make of this dispute (an Egyptian dispute as well…which fits with this topic to at least some degree as it deals with Egyptian Christians)?:
For our Eastern Orthodox friends, the EOTC situation can be somewhat basically/imperfectly compared to the situation with ROCOR vis-a-vis the Russian Orthodox Church (though the EOTC one has not lasted nearly as long as the ROCOR situation, so we still have hope it could be solved, just as ROCOR is now in full union with the EO), in so far as the synod in exile was formed in opposition to the Church at home, which is perceived (rightly or wrongly; obviously the article you’ve linked has its own bias, as well) as being politically influenced in its decisions. This does not, however, impede our unity with the EOTC. It is rather an internal EOTC matter. We still commemorate the recently-enthroned Abune Matteous. An even worse situation exists in Eritrea, where the sitting “Patriarch” of the Church there, one Abune Dioskoros, was installed by what can only be called a puppet synod. The Coptic Church, for its part, refuses to recognize Abune Diskoros, and instead commemorates the proper Patriarch, Abune Antonios, who has been detained by the government for years now. Does this likewise mean that we are in schism from the Eritreans? Of course not. We are not obliged to recognize anyone who happens to call himself a patriarch.
We are still just as united as we ever were, though of course there are many people who do not like the current situation. I agree with them (schism is never a good thing), but we still know who the actual patriarch is (when HH Abune Paulos was alive, we commemorated him and not Abune Merkorios of the North American synod). There are always people who are unhappy with whatever choices is made. That doesn’t mean the Church is not united any more than various sedecavantists somehow “proving” that the Roman Church is not united.
What Egyptian dispute are you referring to? Deir el-Sultan in Jerusalem? That is essentially a land/property dispute involving the EOTC monks and Coptic monks and the Israeli state. The nature of the dispute is that some say that the monastery in question belongs to the Copts, and was essentially given illegally to the Ethipians by the Israeli authorities. Not being Coptic, Ethiopian, or Israeli myself, I just shake my head at the whole thing. We’re one church, after all…let’s stop this stupidity. This is the view of pretty much every Copt I’ve ever personally talked to about it. Some have even noted that this has hardened the Patriarchal line against Coptic visits to Jerusalem, which does indeed hurt us all, so it should be solved. It’s stupid that this kind of stuff continues, but realistically all kinds of stupid things happen among the churches in the Holy Land, such as the annual fights between the Armenians and the Greeks at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre).
Again, none of this rises to the level of disunity in the communion. The Copts and the Ethiopians are very much still in communion despite these essentially political squabbles, as sad and reproachable as they are.
