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

"Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of Wichita" - a "diocese" which has and will have no Ordinary. And this is someone's idea of good order?

Fr. Serge

I thought that normally each diocese would be governed by its own diocesan bishop, not by an auxiliary "on behalf of the Metropolitan." Yet Metropolitan Philip is saying that "[t]he February 24th decision was [...] necessary to normalize the status of all bishops across the See of Antioch." This talk of normalization is, sadly, beginning to remind me of the novel 1984 by George Orwell. In Orwell's novel, "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," and "Ignorance is Strength." Now the Holy Synod of Antioch has created a spectacularly abnormal situation, and Metropolitan Philip calls it normalization! Can he really be serious?

It is my understanding that the rank and status of fully enthroned Diocesan Bishops includes the power of an equal vote in the Synod. By demoting these Bishops to the status of Auxiliary Bishops, they are essentially reduced to the status of 'assistants' to Metropolitan Phillip, and thereby lose their voting power. As a result, only the Metropolitan retains a vote before the Synod, and all resistance or objection to his views and agendas as Head of the Archdiocese is effectively removed.

He is no longer "the first among equals", but is instead a "one man show" with no equal to oppose him, no need to discuss issues that arise, and no need to negotiate compromise. Thus, rather than "if you can't persuade them, negotiate with them", it now becomes "if you can't persuade them, get rid of them", or in other words, eliminate their power to oppose you. Oh, well, whatever works best is the way to go, right?

+Cosmos

Well, sounds like someone has been Archbishop too long. I am unhappy to hear of this news, but worse still, we're discussing this during Lent. Scarier.

I notice that people keep bringing up the situation in the U.S., but doesn't this recent decision of the Antiochian Orthodox Church affect the whole Church and not just those in the U.S.?

People keep going back to Metropolitan Philip, but the Synodal decision seems to not be directed specifically at America.

Is it possible that there is more going on here than just American ecclesial politics? I ask because I honestly don't know.

Peace and God Bless!

It seems that this decision mainly affects the Antiochian Archdiocese in North America.

However, I was struck by this part of Metropolitan Philip's answer:


This just doesn't make sense to me! How can a metropolitan refuse to have diocesan bishops within his "archdiocese" (i.e. metropolitan province)? Clearly, there is a seriously faulty ecclesiology at work here. Incredibly, it would seem that Metropolitan Philip simply does not understand either what constitutes a diocese or what a diocesan bishop is. A diocese is the Church in one particular place, and it is governed by a diocesan bishop. The office of diocesan bishop, therefore, is not some kind of honorary title that can be granted or withdrawn at will; it is the most fundamental office in Christ's Church.

I hope and trust that this letter from Metropolitan Philip is not representative of Orthodox ecclesiology.

Yes, certain Bishops in other jurisdictions outside of North America were also affected by these changes. Logic would suggest, however, that they may also be seen as "politically incorrect" threats by the Patriarchal Synod, just as the North American Bishops probably are.

If this is not the case, they may simply be the "collateral damage" in a hierarchical attempt to "cover the back door", so to speak, in order to avoid the appearance of a unilateral action focused solely on the Bishops of the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America.

In any case, I suspect that the Arab hierarchy within the upper echelons of the Antiochian Orthodox Church has always been a 'Good Ole Boy' club which shares an very different ethic point of view by comparison to bishops who are not members of the tribe.

And furthermore, as a general rule, people in positions of power and authority often believe that it is wise to err on the side of caution when dealing with matters of personal importance. At the end of the day, when considering all parties to the matter, who other than Metropolitan Philip stands to personally benefit the most from the changes that were made?

Nonetheless, having said all of the above, my comments and questions are admittedly hypothetical. I have no irrefutable proof regarding the underlying agenda priorities which precipitated these changes, and no way of knowing the core motives of those involved in the decision making process.

It is my fervent prayer, therefore, that the hurtful impact of such divisive actions will quickly be resolved through sincere fraternal reconciliation in the Light of God's Love for us all.

+Cosmos

Again, you're bringing up Metropolitan Phillip, yet the ecclesiology he's espousing (faulty though it may be) seems to be that of the Antiochian Orthodox Synod as well. It was their decision that has made this change, not the Metropolitan's, and his view on what a diocese is seems to match that of the Antiochian Orthodox Church at this time. Whatever persuasion he may have had in this change is irrelevant; this is a decision of the Antiochian Synod, not of the U.S. Dioceses. It just seems to me that we're making this too much into a local issue, when in fact it's a matter that goes to the very top, and covers the entire Antiochian Orthodox Church.

If we're going to be calling people out, we should start with the Patriarch of Antioch and the Synod which voted on this decision.

Peace and God bless!

Dear Admin:

If my posts are to be censored and deleted, I would appreciate receiving at least some brief notification of the reason in my message box, rather than continuing to wonder why they don't appear on the thread.

Thank you.

Christ is born. Glorify Him!

Cosmos

We should have just stopped discussions about this since this happened during Lent. Can we take a break from this and reconvene on talking about this after the Resurrection?

Collin,

No, since there is on-going open correspondence on the issue happening, it will be allowed to flow as new items are continuing to be published regarding it from official and unofficial sources that are verifiable. What will not be permitted is what has been listed in my post above.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Seeing that this was posted yesterday (16 / 29 March), methinks that Cosmos must be on a very Old Calendar indeed.

Fr David Straut

Either that or he is quite impatient!!

(--just some good natured teasing, dear Cosmos!!)

Alice

Dear Ghosty:

I guess this discussion is becoming quite complicated. This thread was of course triggered by the Decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch Regarding All Bishops (Feb. 24) [antiochian.org]. You're quite right that the Patriarch and Synod are responsible for this decision. We cannot know Metropolitan Philip's exact role in the decision-making process. Until we hear more from Damascus, I don't think there is much more to be said about the original decision itself.

We have also discussed Metropolitan Philip's Archpastoral Directive (Mar. 3), [antiochian.org] the Letter from Metropolitan PHILIP Regarding Decision of the Holy Synod (Mar. 4) [antiochian.org], and the Important Statement from the Clergy of the Greater Detroit Area (Mar. 6) [antiochian.org]. Furthermore, we have discussed some of the information and opinion provided by ocanews.org. [ocanews.org]

Currently, the main focus of the discussion seems to be the Letter from the Council of Presbyters of the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America (Mar. 17) [antiochian.org] and Metropolitan PHILIP's Reply (Mar. 26) [antiochian.org] to this letter. Naturally, this means that the focus at this moment is on Metropolitan Philip. But, again, you're right that we shouldn't forget how this whole crisis started and that it affects the whole Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.

* * * * *

Many have commented on the fact that it is Great Lent, and perhaps we shouldn't be discussing these matters at this time. However, looking at it from a slightly different perspective, it might be providential that this matter has come up now, during Great Lent, when we are more acutely aware of the need to keep the discussion within the bounds of Christian charity.

* * * * *

I certainly don't envy Metropolitan Philip his position at this time. This whole situation looks like a lose-lose proposition, meaning that it just makes everyone involved look bad.

In the past, however, the Church has been able to learn from the mistakes of her leaders and members. In fact, there have been many of those mistakes, but Christ does not abandon his Church despite all our failings. In this situation, too, there are important lessons to be learned for the future. Good may still come of all this, if this crisis leads to:

1. a better definition of the relationship between the mother church of Antioch and her daughters around the world, and of the relationship between the metropolitan and the bishops within the archdiocese (work which may perhaps start at the archdiocesan convention in the summer, but which obviously will not be finished there); and

2. renewed efforts to regularize the situation of the Orthodox Churches outside the national territory of the existing patriarchal and autocephalous churches (one of the aims of the elusive and much-discussed pan-Orthodox council).