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

I don't have much to say about this right now. But I think that it is good to discuss this here. There may be many people who can't discuss this any place else. Also, discussions like the one we are having here could lead to clarification, which is a good thing. I think that as long as everyone is prudent and charitable, it will be fine.

Joe

There's a long thread about this on OrothodoxChristianity.Net, which in places has gotten fairly heated. I'm afraid I lost patience with one contributor, not because of what he said, but because of his repeated blatant disrespect for certain bishops. I think -- I hope -- we can discuss this without descending to the point of using nasty nicknames for ordained clergy.

My first parish was Antiochian, so I am following this closely. I fear, however, that the more I read, the muddier the issue becomes. Nothing I have seen proposed as a reason or motivation for this makes any sense. So rather than contribute my own ideas, or even develop ideas, I sit and read, and pray that this does not bring the AOCA crashing down.

That, my friends, particularly American friends, would be a great disaster. However one might feel about +Philip's methods, he has, for a half century, been the major force behind evangelization for Orthodoxy in America.

I have seen nothing from His Beatitude to suggest that +Ignatius IV would risk the destruction of what is his crown jewel, the AOCA, for political or monetary gain. I'm pretty cynical in my old age, but I'm not that cynical. Not, mind, that I couldn't see a Patriarch doing something like that -- just not +Ignatius IV.

So friends, I beg you, while we fast and pray during Great Lent, let us pray for our Antiochian brothers and sisters, and their clergy, from the parish priests to His Beatitude.

That's all I have to say. Now, I'll return to reading only on this issue.

Father Anthony:

Thank you for the clarification. It is appreciated.

Please accept my apology for stating in my posts what appear to be obvious factors to many of the Faithful within the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America regarding the recent changes discussed here.

As I clearly stated in a previous post, "....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."

In an effort to understand what has happened and why it has happened, we are essentially left with little more than rational conjecture, since those responsible are disinclined to openly clarify the issues which they raised by their actions. Thus, it seems to me that the immense outcry of indignation and critical speculation which the Holy Synod has received is the direct result solely of its own decisions and its own action initiative.

Even so, I shall refrain from further posts on this thread.

+Cosmos

The long promised Bright Friday meeting was held today. Included is an official and unofficial releases regarding the eventful meeting.

Antiochian Archdiocese news release [antiochian.org]

ocanews.org story [ocanews.org]

The Association of Orthodox Christian Attorneys [orthodoxattorneys.org] has produced a useful timeline of events [orthodoxattorneys.org] with an impressive collection of documents [orthodoxattorneys.org] regarding this sad and difficult situation. The timeline and documents are available on the association's resources page [orthodoxattorneys.org].

The timeline referred to above documents very carefully the whole process toward "self-rule," including the election and consecration of new bishops and their enthronement as diocesan bishops in accordance with the archdiocesan constitution. It shows what was said and done at different times during the process. The documents include the relevant legal texts, such as constitutions and bylaws, as well as articles, letters, bishops' official biographies, etc. The timeline discusses some of the material in footnotes but does not draw any direct conclusions from it.

This, then, is how I understand some of the more interesting points raised by the timeline of events, and the conclusion I have drawn from them:

• There were only nine signatures of synod members on the Feb. 24 decision by the Holy Synod. However, the bylaws of the Patriarchate require a majority of the synod members to be present for a synod meeting to be valid, and there are 20 synod members. Therefore, it seems the synod meeting lacked a quorum and was invalid.
• The Feb. 24 decision affects only the North American archdiocese: "The term 'bishops' in the Patriarchate's Bylaws has always been used to refer to 'auxiliary' or 'titular' bishops who are nothing more than administrative instruments of the Metropolitan in the region to which they are assigned and includes the Patriarchal Vicar" ("Timeline," p. 26, note 99).
• When the North American archdiocesan constitution introduced the office of "diocesan bishop," this was something new in the Antiochian Church, because no such office existed under the bylaws of the patriarchate.
• No changes were made to the bylaws of the patriarchate to reflect the new situation in North America. Therefore, the only authority for the existence of diocesan bishops is the archdiocesan constitution.
• Furtheremore, by approving the archdiocesan constitution, but not changing the patriarchal bylaws regarding bishops, the Holy Synod effectively exempted the North American archdiocese from this part of the bylaws.
• To conclude, it is difficult to understand how the Feb. 24 decision can be either valid (because of a lack of quorum) or relevant (because the archdiocese is effectively exempted from this part of the bylaws anyway).

Sources
A Timeline of Events [orthodoxattorneys.org] Related to Self-Rule in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Updated April 12, 2009. Accessed April 26, 2009 (with exhibits: 12.30 MB)
A Timeline of Events [orthodoxattorneys.org] Related to Self-Rule in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Updated April 12, 2009. Accessed April 26, 2009 (without exhibits: 321.34 kB)

Having read through the whole timeline now, I have to modify my opinion about this situation. I can't help feeling that the entire process toward autonomy/self-rule has been rather messy. The process seems to have started well, but then it began moving too fast, without waiting for approval by the Holy Synod of Antioch, something which obviously was needed for the new constitution of an archdiocese within the Antiochian Church.

After adopting the Pittsburgh Constitution in July 2004, the North American archdiocese did not wait for approval by the Holy Synod of Antioch. Instead, the archdiocese enthroned Bishop Joseph as Bishop of Los Angeles in September 2004. Only in October 2004 did the Holy Synod approve a revised version of the Constitution (the Damascus Constitution).

Since then, the North American archdiocese has never accepted the Damascus Constitution, but has insisted on the original Pittsburgh Constitution. The Holy Synod, on the other hand, has never amended the constitution and bylaws of the patriarchate to reflect either the Pittsburgh or the Damascus Constitution.

Thus it seems clear that the North American archdiocese in fact does not have a constitution that is fully agreed by both the archdiocese and the Holy Synod. It also seems clear that it was a serious mistake to implement the new diocesan structure and to enthrone diocesan bishops until an agreed text of the archdiocesan constitution was formally approved by both the archdiocese and the Holy Synod of Antioch, and until the constitution and bylaws of the patriarchate had been duly changed to reflect the new situation in North America.

In conclusion, there are clearly faults on both sides. On the one hand, the Feb. 24 decision by the Holy Synod is hard to undertand, may be invalid, and does not seem to have been a prudent one. On the other hand, it appears that the North American archdiocese under Metropolitan Philip has been trying to force the hand of the Holy Synod for some years now by creating a fait accompli, i.e. by implementing the new diocesan structure before the full legal framework was in place, including a mutually agreed archdiocesan constitution and relevant changes to the constitution and bylaws of the patriarchate.

In other words, Metropolitan Philip and the North American archdiocese have been going too fast for the Holy Synod since 2004, and now the Holy Synod has finally brought them to a screetching halt.

Source
A Timeline of Events [orthodoxattorneys.org] Related to Self-Rule in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Updated April 12, 2009. Accessed April 26, 2009

I think I should title this, "sometimes it's good to be new and dumb."
I am new to Orthodoxy, having just been chrismated several weeks ago, and I have no idea what ya'll are talking about. I just know that I've found the "pearl of great price" ... indeed the ancient Christian Church, the Church founded by Christ and the Apostles. That's all I need to know.
abby
<*)))><

Indeed, it is. Praise God, and welcome!

(Actually, the whole issue makes no sense, and the more that comes out the less sense it makes, so be glad.)

Resurrectio Domini, spes nostra

Abby, congratulations! I don't want to detract from your joy.

This is a canonical and constitutional crisis, not a theological one. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are what they are, despite any human failings. And that's important to know, because sadly there will continue to be human failings from time to time.

rwprof, the issue does indeed make sense (i.e. it is not something that is meaningless and can just be ignored), and it is worth engaging with in a careful, deliberate and rational manner. Therefore, it is important that people should study this matter and ask serious questions. The resources are there. Do please read them and make up your own mind about them.

If there is one thing we have learnt over the years in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, it is that pretending there are no problems won't make the problems go away.

Thank God that our hope is in the resurrection of the Lord, not in the plots and schemes of men!

Actually no, it doesn't make any sense at all, if you have paid attention to the AOCA, Metropolitan Philip, and +Ignatius IV, which I have, since my original parish was Antiochian (still is, but I no longer live there). It's in direct opposition to forty years of history, and I suspect that I pay closer attention to this than most here, at any rate. And the supposed explanations, always put forth by outside commenters, make even less sense than demoting the bishops to auxiliaries did, or +Philip's "clarification" statements. The only thing I've seen that makes any sense, and the source is questionable, is that +Philip has not been himself since his last stroke, and has been behaving in many ways contradictory to what he always did. Like I said, that source is questionable, so I take that with a grain of salt.

I'm patiently waiting for something to come out that will make this clear. I'm not hopeful, however.

Thank you, rwprof, that's interesting. I admit I am only an outside observer, but I have done my best to learn about the facts of the matter. I agree with you that things don't make sense in that some of things that have happened are very difficult to explain and therefore don't seem quite rational.

Metropolitan Philip is an old man and it may be that he has not been himself lately, but how does this explain the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch? I still think that the "self-rule" issue has been handled badly, and that this is at the heart of the problem. After all, there are autonomous Churches of Crete and Finland. Why should it be so difficult to agree on a constitution for the North American archdiocese?

Well, if there is any indication, he did say that his translation of whatever documents was the best there is. He did mention that anyone else is welcome to translate the documents from the original Arabic if they could do better.

Is it only in the US that native born pairishioners eventually want to break from the patriarchates and be autnonomous, or does this happen in other countries as well? Is this because of severe cultural misunderstandings and the innate American reflex against the perceived or real injustice of ethnic glass ceilings?

I know there're cultural biases against Americans that cause jealousy and misunderstandings, so I wonder if this might be the cause of friction betweeen patriarchates and American Orthodox.

Ultimately, I think joining the Eastern Churches-Orthodox or Catholic- is always a culture shock and that non native converts need to have their eyes opened beforehand to the good and bad sides of that reality.I don't think most 3+ generation native born Americans can truly handle the fact that there is an ethnic glass ceiling in some churches. That fact needs to be made clear to converts beforehand so they can decide whether or not they want to or are able to suck it up and deal with it. Some cross/inter cultural consultants might come in handy too.

If health problems aren't an issue, the Patriarch must feel extraordinarily threatened to take such a drastic step to save face. Maybe he needs to be assured that he isn't being threatened and called out.For the sake of unity will it kill American Antiochans to back down some and simply accept the patriarch's decree humbly even if it is unusual? Just asking.

"Is it only in the US that native born pairishioners eventually want to break from the patriarchates and be autnonomous, or does this happen in other countries as well? Is this because of severe cultural misunderstandings and the innate American reflex against the perceived or real injustice of ethnic glass ceilings?"

The Melkite Greek Catholic Church exists because a large faction the predominantly Arab-speaking faithful of the Church of Antioch got tired of having Greek patriarchs foisted on them by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (which made, or at least approved, all such appointments under the Ottoman millet system). A more recent example would be resistance to the continual appointment of ethnic Greeks to the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem.