|
1 members (San Nicolas),
201
guests, and
73
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,467
Posts417,239
Members6,106
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405 |
Bob,
the whole situation reminds me of the uproar over the lifting of the excommunication of the SSPX bishops. In that case the Holy See of Rome made public a canonical document without further comments or explanations, something which immediately led to controversy and misunderstandings.
Now the Holy See of Antioch too has made public a canonical document without further comments or explanations, something which immediately has led to controversy and misunderstandings.
Therefore, let us hope and pray that the Antiochian Archdiocese will soon be able to clarify and explain this decision.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,666 Likes: 7
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,666 Likes: 7 |
Wouldn't having one Metropolitan make it even easier for the Antiochians to transition toward one American jurisdiction? Instead of several eparchies having to agree, the Metropolitan can simply agree to join the other jurisdiction to create a united one...
any thoughts?
-- I wonder what the vote was like on this decision, who voted for and who against, and why...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Wouldn't having one Metropolitan make it even easier for the Antiochians to transition toward one American jurisdiction? Instead of several eparchies having to agree, the Metropolitan can simply agree to join the other jurisdiction to create a united one...
any thoughts? I think it will be seen as a step backwards. It was generally held that the raising of real territorial bishops (they had previously been auxiliaries) was a step forward for the AOA in terms of autonomy; and therefore a move forward for jurisdictional unity. I think this will be perceived as a reversal and a statement of continuing dependence on the mother Patriarchate, i.e. a centralization of power. What I have been able to read elsewhere is that everybody is confused, and nobody is happy about this. I also think this has the potential to touch off a schism, or at least a jumping off to other jurisdictions by some. That is never good for unity. In another thread it was discussed that jurisdictional unity is becoming less likely, and I would agree with that assessment.
Last edited by AMM; 03/04/09 01:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405 |
It was generally held that the raising of real territorial bishops (they had previously been auxiliaries) was a step forward for the AOA in terms of autonomy; and therefore a move forward for jurisdictional unity. AMM, I realize that I perhaps don't know enough about the constitution of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America to fully understand what is going on. Perhaps you or someone else could clarify? Are we talking about either a) Canonically established dioceses being suppressed and canonically enthroned bishops being deposed; or b) Auxiliary bishops having uncanonically usurped the position of diocesan bishops and now being reminded of their proper place?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
It was generally held that the raising of real territorial bishops (they had previously been auxiliaries) was a step forward for the AOA in terms of autonomy; and therefore a move forward for jurisdictional unity. AMM, I realize that I perhaps don't know enough about the constitution of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America to fully understand what is going on. Perhaps you or someone else could clarify? Are we talking about either a) Canonically established dioceses being suppressed and canonically enthroned bishops being deposed; or b) Auxiliary bishops having uncanonically usurped the position of diocesan bishops and now being reminded of their proper place? It is the former, sort of. I believe it was in 2004(?) that the then auxillary bishops were changed to diocesan bishops and enthroned as diocesan bishops. Now, the Holy Synod has decided to go back to the prior situation and only Metropolitan Philip has true authority. That our bishops are no longer enthroned bishops is symbolized in the fact that we are to no longer commemorate them in the liturgy (unless they happen to be present). Joe Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 528
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 528 |
New update: http://www.antiochian.org/node/18887March 4, 2009
Beloved Hierarchs and Clergy, Members of the Board of Trustees of the Archdiocese, Parish Councils and Faithful of this God-Protected Archdiocese:
Greetings and blessings during this Holy Lenten Season!
There have been some questions raised regarding the February 24th decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch which addressed the status of bishops across the entire See of Antioch. The purpose of this letter is to try to answer these questions so that confusion may be avoided.
The first question deals with whether or not I am supportive of the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch which was taken on February 24, 2009. I am supportive of this decision, for a simple reason. I am convinced that the institutional structure of our Archdiocese here requires it at this time. One of the greatest assets that we have been blessed with in this Archdiocese is our strong unity. We cannot take any chance that disunity would occur in the Antiochian Archdiocese. I believe that this decision supports maximum unity and guards against any fracture in the future. I approved the decision of the Holy Synod based on my background and personal experience. I came to this country in 1956 from a divided nation. I found in North America a divided Antiochian family: first between "Russy" and "Antaki", and second between New York and Toledo. I worked very hard to unite this family at the cost of blood and tears. I will guard this unity with my life and I will leave to our future generations a strong and unified Antiochian family in North America. If we do not learn from the mistakes of history, we will be condemned to repeat the same mistakes. In my judgement, the models of other Orthodox jurisdictions simply do not work, and the examples are numerous. Most importantly, I do not see the action of the Holy Synod of Antioch as making that much practical change in the way we operate. Most of the auxiliary bishops will remain where they are. The auxiliary bishops will administer the dioceses on behalf of the Metropolitan. It is now clear that in the few instances in which the Metropolitan disagrees with the action of a bishop, that the Metropolitan has the authority to reverse that decision. While we have vacancies in some of the dioceses, it is important that the Metropolitan have the flexibility of moving a bishop to a place where the best interests of the Archdiocese can be served.
The second question deals with the exact status of our bishops. The decision makes it very clear that our bishops within this Archdiocese will now be considered Auxiliary Bishops. But we need to focus on the practical application of that change, and not just a title. in due time we will begin the work of editing the "Manual of Hierarchical Duties and Responsibilities" so that these changes will be clear. The Archpastoral Directive of March 3, 2009 made it clear that the Metropolitan is to be commemorated in all divine services. The auxiliary bishop will be commemorated only in the case that he is present at the divine service.
The third question deals with the impact of this decision on the provisions of our Self-Rule as well as certain articles of our Pittsburgh Constitution.
Our Self-Rule status remains in effect with regard to the relationship of this Archdiocese to the Holy Synod of Antioch. The decision of the Holy Synod is a narrow administrative decision, addressing only the standing of bishops across the See of Antioch. As we know from church history, administrative structures come and go as the needs of the church change over time. As you are all aware, there are still some differences that exist between the Archdiocese Constitution that was approved in Pittsburgh, and the constitution that was proposed by the Holy Synod of Antioch as an alternative. These differences will be addressed with the Patriarch, myself, and the Holy Synod in due time.
I pray that you will all have a blessed Journey to the Empty Tomb.
Yours in Christ,
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
It's not clear on what canonical basis (if any) territorial bishops can be made auxiliaries overnight, or what the procedure is. Will the Metropolitan go around and uninstall bishops he installed? Who knows. Very bizarre, as is the letter posted above.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Deleted
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 03/04/09 02:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405 |
I think it is good that Metropolitan Philip so quickly has written to address some of the questions that have been raised. I also appreciate and sympathize with his deep concern for unity within the Antiochian Archdiocese. Of course, I am not Orthodox (confessionally speaking), so in a sense none of this is my business. However, as a Catholic I do care deeply about the Orthodox Churches and want to understand them as much as possible. As a Catholic, then, there are some things in Metropolitan Philip's letter [ antiochian.org] that I find hard to understand and which from an ecumenical point of view I think need to be clarified: Most importantly, I do not see the action of the Holy Synod of Antioch as making that much practical change in the way we operate. Most of the auxiliary bishops will remain where they are. The auxiliary bishops will administer the dioceses on behalf of the Metropolitan. What does this mean, exactly? I don't understand the concept of diocese here. I thought there was general ecumenical agreement that the local, particular Church is the diocese, headed by its own Bishop. In this new structure, who is the diocesan Bishop? Is the Metropolitan now Bishop of all the dioceses in North America, or are the dioceses vacant? Are the auxiliary Bishops assigned to a diocese or are they assigned to the metropolitan see? Most importantly, what is the function of the dioceses if they are not to have their own Bishops any more? The decision of the Holy Synod is a narrow administrative decision, addressing only the standing of bishops across the See of Antioch. As we know from church history, administrative structures come and go as the needs of the church change over time. I don't see how this can be described as "a narrow administrative decision." It seems to be quite a broad decision of some ecclesiological significance. After all, what would the Orthodox say if the Pope were to depose all the diocesan Bishops in the world except the Metropolitan Archbishops, and then make the Metropolitan Archbishops apostolic administrators of all the vacant dioceses, with the former diocesan Bishops as auxiliary Bishops? It would be seen as a pretty dramatic move, wouldn't it? It would change the way we looked at the concept of the local, particular Church, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Latin Catholic, I don't think anybody knows the answer to your questions. People are scratching their heads. Though instructed to read the letter during liturgy, I gather many priests declined to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405 |
AMM,
in that case, in a Lenten spirit I won't comment any more on this topic, at least not until there is new information.
I understand this must be a difficult time for many of you, but please don't lose heart.
Please pray for me as I will for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885 |
Sounds a bit like the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, where Bishops administer the districts the Archdiocese for the Archbishop.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212 |
I think that we shall look at the ancient unite Greek Antiochian Church in the past century to understand.
As far as I know three centuries ago all towns in Syria with a resident bishop were "metropolitan Sees". All town-bishops were metropolitans. The not-metropolitans-Sees were only titular Sees. Please correct me.
If I'm correct this reform is simply a return the the ancient use.
We can expect in the future the promotion to some American (auxiliary) bishop to metropolitan or the metropolitan in America shall be always only one?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
I understand this must be a difficult time for many of you, but please don't lose heart. I'm sort of in the same boat as you, seeing it is not my diocese. I do feel bad for people who I know that will be deeply troubled by this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,666 Likes: 7
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,666 Likes: 7 |
Seems to me that the Patriarchate has combined the various eparchies across the US and merged them into one, with a singular Metropolitan, the suppressed eparchial heads will function as auxiliaries to the singular eparch (the Metropolitan).
Many Latin dioceses function the same way, for example, Cardinal George is commemorated throughout Chicago, although he has 6 Vicariates with functioning auxiliaries throughout the Archdiocese.
|
|
|
|
|
