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

These developments are extremely interesting and not a little alarming. I cannot speculate on motives, but I can say that this move is strikingly at odds with Orthodox ecclesiology and the canons. Nonetheless, Orthodox ecclesiology is often out of whack with itself, its history, and the early canons, and often for long periods--cf. these developments with, e.g., the Russian Holy Synod set up by Czar Peter the Great in 1721, which was recognized by other Orthodox patriarchates as "their beloved brother in Christ"! For more on all this, see my article "A Diversity of Polities: Patriarchal Leadership in the Orthodox Churches" in THE JURIST 68 (2008): 460-496. One should also consult Nicholas Ferencz's book AMERICAN ORTHODOXY AND PARISH CONGREGATIONALISM (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006).

Sorry to disrupt the thread, but ...

Adam, good to see a post from you, it's been a while

Al, welcome to the Forum, it's always nice to have someone as well known as yourself join us

Many years,

Neil

May I suggest a further "narrow administrative decision" for the Holy Synod of Antioch to consider?

1. All Metropolitan Archbishops and Bishops above the age of 75 are automatically retired.

2. During the vacancy of the metropolitan see, the senior auxiliary bishop functions as locum tenens.

This will retire Metropolitan Philip and Bishop Antoun and make Bishop Joseph locum tenens, but it will not make much difference to the way the archdiocese operates, since most of the bishops will remain where they are...

I attend an OCA parish now, but my home parish is Antiochian, and I do keep up. The AOC has not abolished any fast.

This development disturbs me, but from what I have seen, it is far more complex than it may seem. We still don't know if this was +Philip or +Ignatius IV, or both. Until I know more, I am loathe to say much more than that I am concerned.

I attend an Antiochian parish and, since I just joined Byzantine Forum, I've missed much of the discussion about the recent changes. I am confused.
1. Can a diocese exist without a Bishop?
2. Is Metropolitan Philip now the Bishop of several dioceses?
3. Do Patriarchs, Holy Synods and Metropolitans have the authority to depose so many Bishops?
4. Is there any precedent for such a change?
5. Is it permissable to create a canon that contradicts previous canons and the decrees of Ecumenical Councils?
6. What are the other Patriarchs and jurisdictions saying about this change?
I might not have phrased some of these question properly. For example, I may be wrong in assuming that Bishops have been deposed but it certainly appears that way to me?

Philaret,

It appears that the AOA is now just a single diocese, that Metropolitan Philip is the sole bishop, and that all the other bishops in the AOA are now Philip's "auxiliaries" (whatever that is deemed to mean).

It remains to be seen what will develop from this situation. And I think that's the safest, most accurate, and most charitable thing than can be said for now.

-- John

John - Thank you for your reply. I need to be reminded of the importance of patience and charity. At the same time, I am concerned about the seemingly arbitrary and centralist nature of this change. The Orthodox Church has no supreme authority except our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, Who always emphasized the path of service and humility, not of personal power.

Is this not the normal way of that Patriarchate? I see that all the hierarchs with their own diocese are of the rank of Archbishop. So is this not a restoration of the norms that they follow. The alternative would be to make the other diocesan bishops in the USA to the rank of Archbishops and that would mess up the current structures they have in place between the USA church and the mother church.

I am still unsure of and disturbed by the recent changes in the Antiochian Church. This time I have only two questions.
Are Churches such as the Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek and so on under the authority of a Patriarch or Metropolitan and divided into dioceses that are headed by enthroned Bishops? If so, am I correct in saying that this is assumed to be the norm by all the Great Councils?

Middle eastern churches do things differently. We used to have the Maronite Archbishop referred to as the "Archbishop-bishop" the line being he had the personal title of Archbishop and was heading a diocese and there was also trouble when the Melkite bishop used the title of Archbishop. The RCs thought they were trying to outrank them while leading only a diocese with a handful of people. Thankfully that is all history now but drew my attention that those who had a diocese of their own in the Near and Middle East were all Archbishops with bishops assisting them.

Can a diocese exist without a bishop? Yes - it happens every time a bishop dies in office, and sometimes happens when a bishop retires.

In either case, there is a procedure (which can differ amongst the Local Churches) for choosing an Administrator for the "widowed" diocese. In some Local Churches, the process of electing a new bishop is quite complicated and therefore takes considerable time.

The administrator is supposed to keep things "ticking over", but not to act in such a way as to compromise the rights of the incoming bishop. However, if an administrator remans in office for more than one year, his rights increase.

Fr. Serge

There seems to be a lot of confusion about patriarchs, metropolitan archbishops and bishops.

Traditionally, this is how it works:

Each particular Church or diocese is governed by a bishop together with the venerable presbytery and diaconate in Christ.

Groups of dioceses make up provinces. The bishop of the most important see in the province is the metropolitan archbishop.

Furthermore, groups of provinces make up patriarchates. The bishop of the most important see in the patriarchate is the patriarch.

Finally, all the patriarchates make up the Universal Church. The bishop of the most important see in the Universal Church is the Bishop of Rome.

(Major archbishops function mostly like patriarchates, but the election of a major archbishop does need the confirmation of the Bishop of Rome.)

The trouble is that our Churches don't follow this tradition.

For sad and unfortunate historical reasons (i.e. the spread of Islam), the Middle Eastern Churches have been decimated and have lost most of their dioceses. All that is left are archdioceses and metropolitan sees. Thus, it seems that the Middle Eastern Churches have forgotten about the proper role of metropolitans and provinces altogether.

In the Greek Church, every diocesan bishop is called a metropolitan. This is not in accordance with the tradition. In the Russian Church, the titles of archbishop and metropolitan are merely honorific. This too is not in accordance with the tradition.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches does make provision for metropolitan archbishops and metropolitan synods within the territory of the patriarchal Church. Unfortunately, the only Eastern Catholic Churches where this seems to function properly are the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Catholic Churches. (The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has only one metropolitan see within the major archiepiscopal territory, though there are three more outside it.)

In the Latin Church, there is a difference between diocesan bishops and metropolitan archbishops. Unfortunately, the rights and duties of metropolitan archbishops are extremely limited, but at least metropolitans do exist.

So, in the Eastern Churches, I believe you should be rediscovering the respective positions of patriarchs, metropolitan archbishops, and bishops. And in the Latin Church, we need to rediscover the proper functions of metropolitan archbishops. (For instance, the metropolitan archbishop should be the main celebrant and consecrator at all episcopal ordinations within his province.)

Let us for a moment imagine a country where the majority of the people are Eastern Catholics. The capital of this country is the see of the Eastern Catholic patriarch in full communion with Rome.

The country is divided into civil and ecclesiastical provinces. Each province is divided into dioceses. The dioceses are headed by bishops. The provincial capital is the see of the metropolitan archbishop. All the bishops of the province make up the metropolitan synod under the presidency of the metropolitan archbishop.

In the province surrounding the national capital and patriarchal see, the patriarch functions as metropolitan archbishop, and the diocesan bishops have the title of archbishop because of their proximity to the capital.

All the bishops of the patriarchal church make up the patriarchal synod of bishops, which elects new bishops, perhaps from a list of candidates prepared by the metropolitan synod.

The patriarch ordains new metropolitans within the patriarchate, and the metropolitan ordains new bishops within the province. Ideally, no bishop is translated from one see to another. A newly elected patriarch, therefore, is ordained by the senior metropolitan. The newly ordained patriarch then goes to Rome to receive ecclesiastical communion and concelebrate with the Roman Pontiff.

Now, this is my vision of the exemplary Eastern Catholic Church. Unfortunately it does not exist. But it does illustrate the different roles of pope, patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops and bishops.

Where is the 3rd Metropolitan see outside Ukraine. Canada and the USA I know but whose got the 3rd?

The third metropolitan see ouside Ukraine is in Poland: the metropolitan see of Przemyśl-Warszawa [cerkiew.net]. It has one suffragan see, the eparchy of Wrocław-Gdańsk [cerkiew.net.pl].