www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Antiochian Bishops Reduced to Auxiliary Status

I don't think this can be good:

http://www.antiochian.org/node/18867

The action also seems rather "Papal" for lack of a better term in my opinion.

Whoops, mispelling in the title.

That doesn't seem to be in line with the canons... or at least my limited understanding of the canons. I wonder what drove this action.

I don't know what this means either. Their web site still states "The Self Ruled..." so that has not changed.

nun Alexandra

I know I said I wasn't going to get into conroversy, but as an Antiochian this directly affects me. I'll just say that there are many people (including clergy) who are unhappy about this.

Joe

No Catholic canon de facto makes every bishop an Auxiliary under a Metropolitan. Don't pin this one on the Catholics.

I wasn't, forgive me because I think you misunderstood my comment. There is a tendency in Orthodoxy I think to attack that which smacks of "Papacy", but to tolerate "Papacies" within if that makes sense. I don't think the Pope could get away with such an action as it so happens (reducing standing bishops to auxiliaries). More irony I suppose.

What's unclear to me is if there are even still dioceses.

That is the interesting canonical question. If all bishops were auxiliary, and after reorganization all dioceses reduced to "provinces" or whatever constituents of a metropolia, this would legally place all of the property, finances, etc. now directly under the Metropolitan. Could this have been part of the reason? I don't think issues with individual persons like Bishop Demetri alone would have caused something of this magnitude.

Yup. At least, Catholic ruling bishops of dioceses can ordain priests, establish parishes, consecrate chrism, and even excommunicate people without asking for approval either from Rome or their Metropolitan Archbishop.

Amazingly they aren't even commemorated in the liturgy unless they happen to be there it seems:

http://www.antiochian.org/node/18883
* The clergy should commemorate the Metropolitan in all divine services.
* The clergy should commemorate the auxiliary bishop when he is present at the divine service.

I quote articles 76 and 77:

I have the following comments:

1. In article 77 the antecedent of the pronoun "their" ("هم") (plural) is not immediately apparent, i.e. it is not clear to whom "their" refers. However, it is possible that "their" might refer to "the Metropolitan" ("المتروبوليت") (singular) in article 76.

2. If "their" does refer to "the Metropolitan," the Antiochian See clearly has a very different concept of auxiliary Bishops compared to the Catholic Churches.

3. All the Catholic Churches (both Latin and Eastern) distinguish between diocesan/eparchial Bishops and auxiliary Bishops. A diocesan Bishop (e.g. the Bishop of Van Nuys or the Bishop of Biloxi) is the Ordinary of his particular Church (diocese/eparchy), subject to the strictly limited authority of the Metropolitan (e.g. the Metropolitan Archbishop of Pittsburgh or the Metropolitan Archbishop of Mobile), who is himself the diocesan Bishop of the metropolitan See.

4. An auxiliary Bishop, on the other hand, is a Bishop who assists a diocesan Bishop in the government of his particular Church (diocese/eparchy).

5. What this decree effectively says is that only the Metropolitan Archbishop is a true diocesan/eparchial Bishop, and that only metropolitan Sees are true particular Churches. But that seems to be a very strange definition of a Metropolitan Archbishop and of a particular Church, as it leaves room for no other diocesan/eparchial Bishops at all, only auxiliary Bishops.

Thus, to sum up, it seems to me that the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch has a very confused idea of both Arabic/English grammar and what constitutes a particular Church.

I might add that since "[a]ll bishops within the Antiochian See are auxiliary bishops," and since a Metropolitan is also a bishop, it follows that all Metropolitans are auxiliary bishops too.

Surely, this is just nonsense!?

Or, to put it differently, surely this is a piece of very badly drafted canonical legislation?

wow...all I can say is "wow".

What might this mean for the future of the Church in North America? Does this not reduce these bishops to administrators and not true pastors?

Why not simply reinstitute the role of "chorbishop" and make the Metropolitan sole bishop in North America? It seems defacto that is where things stand right now...

I think it's more of an internal issue of the AOA.

Well, the Antiochenes have been surprising us a lot, these past few years...

1) Approving the Novus Ordo celebrated ad populum as an Orthodox liturgy (in the Philippines and in one parish in the US)

2) Abolishing the fasts of the Paschal season

3) Mandatory simplifications and abbreviations in the Divine Liturgy (from what I've read in some liturgical fora)

I'm not Orthodox but I think I'm one of those Catholics who feel uneasy when they see a major Orthodox Patriarchate making concessions to modernity and innovation.