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

Father Anthony,

I am sorry. Of course the number and location of Ukrainian Greek Catholic metropolitan sees in the world is off topic. My references to the Greek and Russian churches were also off topic.

However, what I was trying to do was to compare the usage of titles such as archbishop, metropolitan, and bishop in different churches and traditions in order to try to understand their respective functions better. In fact, it is very difficult to discuss the situation in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America without some understanding of the position of metropolitan provinces within a patriarchate, and of dioceses within a province. This is what I tried to illustrate in two of my latest posts. My suggestion is that both East and West need to rediscover the relationship between the different levels of authority in the Church, as described in the Ravenna document [vatican.va]: the universal level (the Petrine ministry and college of bishops), the regional level (patriarchs and metropolitans and their respective synods), and the local level (bishops and dioceses).

With regard to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, I think an understanding of these different levels of authority is necessary and relevant. Because the Antiochian Church in the Middle East through no fault of its own has been so much reduced in membership compared to what it once was, all that is left are metropolitan sees without any suffragans. In North America, however, the Antiochians did attempt in 2004 to create a metropolitan province consisting of several dioceses. Now of course this experiment came to an abrupt end on Feb. 24. As far as I can see, what happened on Feb. 24 was the result of a conflict between different levels of authority in the church: between the bishops and the metropolitan, and between the metropolitan synod and the patriarchal synod. It seems that since Metropolitan Philip couldn't get his metropolitan synod to do what he wanted, he effectively got the patriarchal synod to dissolve the metropolitan synod by dethroning all the other members, i.e. the diocesan bishops.

Therefore, I believe that we urgently need to understand the relationship between these different levels of authority in the Church, i.e. universal, regional and local. If we don't, we may see many more conflicts like the one in the Antiochian Archdiocese. Indeed, what makes the conflict in the Antiochian Church so painful is that it is an acute reminder of all the different conflicts that already do exist in Christ's Church. To solve or at least reduce these conflicts I think the Ravenna document [vatican.va], though perhaps not perfect, may at least turn out to be a useful starting point.

Latin Catholic:

Your breakdown shows the wide difference in understanding between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church. For the Orthodox, a Patriarch is not a regional authority. For the Orthodox, a Patriarch is on the same level as the Patriarch of the Wet, the Pope of Rome. For them, he is not a universal level that is above their Patriarchs or the heads of autocephalous Churches.

BOB

Bob, thanks for pointing this out. However, we may be veering off topic, so perhaps we should continue our discussion on this thread instead?

Another document which is interesting and relevant to the situation in the Antiochian Archdiocese is "The Role of the Protos or Primate in the Church of Greece" [orthodoxresearchinstitute.net] by Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens and All Greece, of blessed memory.

In this paper, which Archbishop Christodoulos delivered when he was still bishop of Demetrias, he explains the relationship between the bishops and the protos or primate, saying that "the 'First' bishop must not ignore the existence of the other bishops and should not abuse his authority by proceeding to actions which betray arbitrariness, high-handedness, and a despotic spirit of imposing one's will upon his brothers and concelebrants." In the Antiochian Archdiocese, the other bishops have certainly been ignored in a way that may be said to betray the kind of attitudes that Archbishop Christodoulos mentions.

The Archbishop goes on to state in his paper that "The authority of the Council or that of the First Bishop or Protos over the individual bishops cannot abrogate the primordial and inviolate jurisdiction of the bishop over the local Church, but ought to extend only to the supervision of episcopal actions and deeds, always on the basis of the sacred canons and the church laws." Nevertheless, the Holy Synod of Antioch has, summarily and without any canonical process (as Bishop Basil points out in a letter to Metropolitan Philip quoted here [ocanews.org]), cancelled the authority of the diocesan bishops over their local Churches by dethroning them and declaring them auxiliaries of the Metropolitan.

Archbishop Christodoulos is clear too in his paper that this kind of action "constitutes a dangerous alteration of Orthodox ecclesiology." When in his letter [antiochian.org] Metropolitan Philip calls the Synod's action a "narrow administrative decision," I think this phrase betrays precisely the "secular spirit and administrative principles foreign to canonical order" that Archbishop Christodoulos presciently warns against in his paper.

I don't want to draw any conclusions from all this, but I hope that somehow this crisis in the Antiochian Archdiocese can be solved. However, it seems to me that there is an urgent need for reform, redress of abuses, and perhaps a change of leadership.

* * * * *

Hat tip to Slavopodvizhnik for posting Archbishop Christodoulos' paper elsewhere on this forum!

I hope this discussion of the changes in the Antiochian Church continues and I now realise that my questions have not been well-phrased. I am aware that a diocese still exists when its Bishop falls asleep in the Lord! My concern is that enthroned diocesan Bishops have been deposed and power centralized in the person of the Metropolitan. Whatever the history of the church in the Middle East may be, is it canonical to depose Bishops who have loyally followed the canons, administered their dioceses in exemplary ways and done nothing to warrant any form of discipline?
I am deeply concerned that the Antiochian Church is placing itself outside the Holy Orthodox Church by a blatant disregard for Holy Tradition regarding the deposition of Bishops.
Should I be considering leaving my parish and worshipping in a non-Antiochian Church?
Given the holy fathers writings about the responsibility to remain in ones own parish and not leave for any frivolous reason, should I remain in patience and humility and obedience?

As far as I can tell, this is not canonical, though there seems to be some room for debate because of the uncertain status of the archdiocesan constitution which I understand was approved by the Holy Synod in a different form than the one adopted by the archdiocese. This could mean that it was the enthronement of the diocesan bishops by Metropolitan Philip which was uncanonical and that the bishops have been auxiliaries all the time. However, to me this is not a completely convincing argument.


Philaret,

Ultimately this is a question you should perhaps discuss with a spiritual father whom you trust.

Be assured, however, that the reason why I am posting on this topic is not because I want to drive anyone away from the Antiochian Archdiocese. On the contrary, I have always had a very good impression of the Antiochian Church. But I do think this is an important debate and I try to contribute as best I can, even though I am an outsider. For example, I think the paper by Archbishop Christodoulos [orthodoxresearchinstitute.net] has a lot of interesting things to say about the role of the primate which are extremely relevant here and now. The paper has added weight because it was written by an Orthodox bishop who went on to become primate of the Church of Greece.

Personally I don't think there is any danger that "the Antiochian Church is placing itself outside the Holy Orthodox Church," as you put it. We are talking about a possibly uncanonical decision of the Holy Synod, not heresy or schism. So, if you want my opinion, I think you should stay where you are and participate (respectfully, of course) in the debate within your archdiocese, at least until you know what the outcome of all this will be. Certainly, the upcoming archdiocesan convention this summer ought to be interesting, to say the least.

Latin Catholic - Thanks for your reply. You and others have helped me put this whole controversy in perspective. I have not yet spoken to my spiritual father about this and I now feel better able to express my concerns to him.
I must say I do have my doubts about achieving any clarification or change at the Archdiocesan convention. I understand it is tightly controlled and that debate about contoversial topics does not occur. I would be interested in hearing from people who have attended past conventions.

Nor is it accurate.
On the Patriarch's web site is this introduction:

It ends with the enacting clause:
Thus in accordance with Apostolic Canonn 34, Nicea I c. 6, etc. the document is valid.
http://antiochpat.org/english/news/news.php?newsid=66
http://antiochpat.org/english/news/news.php?newsid=67

It states:
The Patriarch, Holy Synod and the Diocese Bishops did this in accordance with canon law and the constitution.



I would second the remark about a spiritual Father.

I would also bring your attention to this in the constitution:

[quote=Philaret]Latin Catholic - Thanks for your reply. You and others have helped me put this whole controversy in perspective. I have not yet spoken to my spiritual father about this and I now feel better able to express my concerns to him.
I must say I do have my doubts about achieving any clarification or change at the Archdiocesan convention. I understand it is tightly controlled and that debate about contoversial topics does not occur. I would be interested in hearing from people who have attended past conventions. [/quote]

I've never been, but those who have tell me that this is going to have to be dealt with.

Does anyone have the answer to my question?

Blessings

As I understand it, in the Latin Church a diocesan bishop governs a diocese. An auxiliary bishop is a titular bishop who is appointed, with limited powers, to assist the diocesan bishop, and who does not govern a diocese except temporarily as an administrator during a vacancy. While the terminology may be different, I think the position of an auxiliary bishop is essentially the same in East and West.

The office of coadjutor bishop, as understood in the Latin Church (i.e. a titular bishop who is appointed, with wide powers, to assist the diocesan bishop and who has the right of succession on the death or resignation of the incumbent) seems to be largely unknown in the Eastern Churches. In fact, I have only ever heard about coadjutor bishops among the Armenians.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Malankara "equivalent" of the first would originally have been the "chorepiscopos", a role which currently is STRICTLY an honorary for distinguished priests but it doesn't enjoy the same powers today.
The latter, I've seen in the non-Catholic Malankara Churches titled "suffragan" or "Catholicos-designate".

Greetings to you all in Christ's Name!

I regret that my initial post on this wonderful forum is to express my deep sense of sadness regarding these recent events in the Antiochian Orthodox Church. It is especially troubling to see so many fine Bishops wrongfully deposed in the absence of any personal violations of either canonical law or secular law. It is as if they are being punished without proof of any personal or collective wrongdoing, and in a manner that I find to be extremely disrespectful of the offices to which they were formally elevated previously.

The unprecedented demotion of these bishops undoubtedly leaves them feeling a deep sense of ingratitude, humiliation and insult which essentially amounts to a public 'loss of face' without a justifiable cause. Ironically, it may well be a 'loss of face' which will ultimately be shared by those who are responsible for secretly initiating these decisions and then enforcing them in such a discourteous manner.

My prayers go out to all parties in this matter, in the hope that the Light of Christ's Love for us all will soon disperse the dark influence of personal or ethnic agenda priorities.

Cosmos +

A new document from Metropolitan PHILIP:

Metropolitan PHILIP's Reply to the Council of Presbyters [antiochian.org]

Metropolitan PHILIP's Reply to the Council of Presbyters of the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America
March 26, 2009

Protopresbyter Paul O'Callaghan and
The Council of Presbyters of the Diocese
of Wichita and Mid-America

Beloved in Christ,

Greetings and Blessings to you during this holy season of The Great Fast!

We have received and reviewed your letter dated March 17th, 2009 in which you pose fifteen questions related to the February 24th, 2009 decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch regarding the status of all bishops across the Holy See of Antioch. We will try our best to answer these questions as follows:

1. Are there any other diocesan bishops, outside our Archdiocese, that are affected by the Holy Synod's decision?

Answer: Yes. In the Patriarchate there are three bishops, the Bishop of Saydnaya, the Bishop of Qatana, and the Patriarchal Vicar. In addition, the Archdiocese of Akkar had the Bishop of Tartous and the Bishop of Marmarita & Al Hosn. The Bishop of Marmarita & Al Hosn was elected as Metropolitan for the Archdiocese of Western and Central Europe. The Bishop of Tartous was elected to succeed Metropolitan Paul Bendali in the Archdiocese of Akkar. He refused to have either diocesan or auxiliary bishops in his Archdiocese at this time.

2. There seems to be differences in tone and meaning between the Arabic original and the English translations of Articles 77 and 78. Can these be clarified?

Answer: The English translation was my best effort. If someone can produce a more accurate translation, this would be most welcome.

3. What were the intentions of the Holy Synod in formulating these amendments?

Answer: The intention was to have good order and consistency throughout the Holy See of Antioch by normalizing the status of all bishops.

4. Is the Pittsburgh Constitution binding, since it was duly approved and implemented by the legally binding decision made at special Archdiocesan Convention of July 2004?

Answer: The constitution is binding to the extent that it is consistent with the decisions of the Holy Synod of Antioch, which is the highest authority in the Church of Antioch. The Holy Synod has the prerogative to modify any decision that it had previously approved.

5. Since official Archdiocesan documents state that the provisions for self-rule, including those pertaining to the local synod of the Archdiocese, are irrevocable, as witnessed both by the Pittsburgh Constitution and the Patriarchal version of October 15, 2004, how can they be overturned by amendment of the Patriarchal by-laws?

Answer: We can find no language in any Constitution, or the original decision of the Holy Synod dated October 10, 2003 which indicates that the provisions of any constitution or by-laws are irrevocable.

6. Given that the granting of self-rule required that the Patriarchal Constitution be amended to reflect the self-ruled status of the North American Archdiocese, and that this constitution governs its by-laws, not vice versa, how could the Constitution be overturned by amendments of by-laws?

Answer: The Patriarchal Constitution was never amended to reflect self-rule status, so the February 24th decision is consistent with the current in-force Patriarchal Constitution.

7. What was the need, and why the urgency, for a special meeting of the Holy Synod of Antioch? Were constitutional procedures followed for the calling of that meeting?

Answer: At the October 7th, 2008 meeting of the Holy Synod in Damascus, His Beatitude appointed a special committee which included the Archbishops of Aleppo, Hama, Homs, and Akkar to study the question of the status of bishops across the See of Antioch, and to make a recommendation which would normalize that status. The meeting of February 24th, 2009 was convened to hear this recommendation and to act on it. The Patriarch may convene a meeting of the Holy Synod at any time that he sees fit.

8. Given the fact that the mechanism of resolution for possible problems or disagreements is specified in our Constitution as belonging to the Local Synod of Bishops, with right of appeal to the Patriarch and the Holy Synod, why were these amendments necessary?

Answer: The February 24th decision was not a result of any wrongdoing by any bishop. It was necessary to normalize the status of all bishops across the See of Antioch.

9. We are not aware of any study, investigation, or report containing information regarding concerns of disunity or other issues of disagreement within our Archdiocese. What was done by our bishops that precipitated the Holy Synod's decision? Did the Patriarch discuss these issues with our bishops when he visited in the fall of 2008?

Answer: Once again, our bishops did not do anything that precipitated this decision. It should not be viewed as a matter of discipline, since this was not the intention. To my knowledge, the Patriarch did not discuss this with our bishops during his visit in the Fall of 2008.

10. How can enthroned diocesan bishops be dethroned other than on specific canonical grounds?

Answer: To dethrone a bishop is to remove him from his episcopal throne. This has not been done. The status of the bishops has changed from diocesan bishop to auxiliary bishop.

11. If there is no local synod within our Archdiocese, in what way do we retain our status of Self-Rule?

Answer: Our Archdiocesan Synod remains in place. The February 24th decision made no mention whatsoever of self-rule, or a change in status of the Archdiocesan Synod.

12. If Bishop BASIL, for example, is no longer Bishop of Wichita, what is his current title?

Answer: Our bishops will carry the title Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of (name of Diocese). As an example, Bishop BASIL carries the title Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America.

13. How are we to understand the status of bishops who were not only enthroned but also consecrated for specific dioceses, if they are no longer bishops of those dioceses?

Answer: They are Auxiliary Bishops who are overseeing a Diocese on behalf of The Metropolitan.

14. Are the dioceses which were created at the time of our becoming self-ruled now reduced to regions?

Answer: No. The dioceses remain intact and they retain their current names.

15. We understand that the decree was sent for approval to all the members of the Holy Synod. Did they all respond? What were their responses?

Answer: We are not privy to the individual responses from each member of the Holy Synod. Suffice it to say that the decision was approved by a majority of the Holy Synod.

It is our prayer that the remainder of your Lenten journey will be greatly blessed.

Your father in Christ,

Metropolitan PHILIP

Cc: His Beatitude, IGNATIUS IV, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East
Bishop ANTOUN, Bishop JOSEPH, Bishop BASIL, Bishop THOMAS, Bishop MARK, Bishop ALEXANDER