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

Stuart is correct. But one should add that about 100 years ago the Arabs in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch managed to rid themselves of Greek dominance. Jerusalem, on the other hand . . .

Fr. Serge

The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America [antiochian.org] has released the text of a "Resolution affirming obedience to the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch of February 24, 2009 which normalized the status of Bishops across the entire See of Antioch." The text can be read in PDF format here [antiochian.org]. As has already been reported [ocanews.org], the resolution was signed by Metropolitan Philip, Bishop Antoun, Bishop Joseph and Bishop Thomas. Bishop Basil and Bishop Mark did not sign. Bishop Alexander also did not sign, but instead wrote: "This decision is already in effect and does not need my signature."

This resolution is inconsistent because, as Mark Stokoe points out, [ocanews.org] on the one hand it affirms the authority of the Holy Synod with regard to the Feb. 24 decision, but on the other hand it denies the authority of the Holy Synod to give the final approval to the archdiocesan constitution is valid. It does this by quoting the Pittsburgh Constition [orthodoxattorneys.org] and not the revised Damascus Constitution [orthodoxattorneys.org], which is the only version that has been officially approved by the Holy Synod and signed by the Patriarch. And this is despite the fact that Patriarch Ignatius IV wrote a letter [orthodoxattorneys.org] to Metropolitan Philip in 2006 insisting that the Damascus Constitution is the true, official constitution of the North American archdiocese.

The resolution also states that the hierarchs of the North American archdiocese met "in a duly convened meeting of the Archdiocesan Synod." However, both the Pittsburgh Constition [orthodoxattorneys.org] and the Damascus Constitution [orthodoxattorneys.org] define the "Local Synod" (Pittsburgh version) or "Archdiocesan Synod" (Damascus version) as consisting of the Metropolitan and the Diocesan Bishops (Art. IV, sec. 2). But since there are no longer any Diocesan Bishops, the Synod now only has one member left, i.e. the Metropolitan, and since I fail to see how one man on his own can constitute a synod, this means that the Archdiocesan Synod no longer exists in any meaningful way and therefore cannot be "duly convened." Thus, incredibly, the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America has been reduced to a state of complete confusion. How long will this sad state of affairs be allowed to continue?

Please follow the hyperlinks in this post to examine the sources.

Hi all ....
Would someone please briefly explain to me what this is about? I've been reading along with the posts, but being new, just don't get it.
Anyone? A plain and simple explanation for me? Many thanks.
abby
<*)))><

Dear Abby,

Even though I am a Roman Catholic and live in Norway, I have been following this crisis closely via the internet. I have been very interested in the Orthodox Churches for a long time and I want to know and understand as much as I can about them.

I will try to give a simple explanation of what has happened, as far as I can understand it myself. I am sorry I cannot explain it in just a few words, but please be patient with me.

So, here goes.

As you know, the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America is part of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, or the Church of Antioch. This Church is governed by the Holy Synod of Antioch, which usually meets in Damascus, Syria. The Holy Synod consists of Patriarch Ignatius IV and all the Metropolitan Archbishops of the Church of Antioch from around the world, including Metropolitan Philip, who is Archbishop of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. The other six Antiochian bishops in North America are not members of the Holy Synod.

Until 2003, Metropolitan Philip was the only pastor of this enormous archdiocese which covers all the United States and Canada. In other words, Metropolitan Philip was directly responsible for all the Antiochian Orthodox parishes and churches in the United States and Canada. To help him with this huge task, Metropolitan Philip had a number of auxiliary bishops (and of course also many priests and deacons). An auxiliary bishop is an assistant to another archbishop or bishop.

In 2003 the Holy Synod decided (Damascus Resolution) that the archdiocese should be divided into smaller dioceses, and that the auxiliary bishops should become bishops of the new dioceses. Instead of just assisting the metropolitan archbishop, the new diocesan bishops would be pastors of their own dioceses, with their own cathedrals, and they would be members of the Local Synod together with Metropolitan Philip.

In 2004, the archdiocesan convention in Pittsburgh wrote a constitution (the Pittsburgh Constitution) for the archdiocese reflecting the new situation. From now on, there would be a Local Synod consisting of Metropolitan Philip and the new diocesan bishops, and they would decide important matters together. The Metropolitan and diocesan bishops would each be responsible for their own part of the United States and Canada, but Metropolitan Philip would of course be first among equals.

Later that year, the Holy Synod of Antioch approved a revised version of the Pittsburgh Constitution. This revised version is referred to as the Damascus Constitution. This is where things started to go wrong, unfortunately. According to Metropolitan Philip, the Pittsburgh Constitution is the real and true constitution of the archdiocese. According to Patriarch Ignatius IV, it is the Damascus Constitution which is the real and true constitution. So far there has been no agreement on this matter.

On Feb. 24 this year, the Holy Synod of Antioch decided that in the Church of Antioch there are only metropolitan archbishops and auxiliary bishops. There is no room for any diocesan bishops in between. It is hard for me to understand how the Holy Synod could make this decision, because after all the same Holy Synod decided back in 2003 that there should be diocesan bishops in North America at least. And once someone has been made a diocesan bishop in the correct and proper way, he has both rights and duties, and he cannot just be removed from his office without cause. Bishop Basil wrote two letters to Metropolitan Philip to ask for explanations and to say how upset he was about the decision.

Even so, on April 24 this year, Metropolitan Philip, Bishop Antoun, Bishop Joseph and Bishop Thomas all signed their names to a declaration or resolution that they will obey the decision of the Holy Synod that there are no diocesan bishops, only auxiliary bishops in the Church of Antioch. Bishop Basil, Bishop Mark and Bishop Alexander did not sign.

The problem is that these six bishops were in fact appointed as diocesan bishops by the Holy Synod of Antioch. They were installed as diocesan bishops in their own cathedrals in different parts of the United States and Canada. But now, without giving any explanations or reasons and without even mentioning the bishops by name, the Holy Synod of Antioch has decided that the bishops are suddenly no longer pastors of their own dioceses, but assistants to Metropolitan Philip. No wonder some of the bishops refused to sign their names to prove their obedience to this decision!

It is difficult to know what exactly lies behind these problems, but I think this is all very bad for Orthodoxy in America. It is also difficult to guess what will happen next, but clearly there is now so much confusion and unhappiness about this situation that something will have to be done about it. I hope and pray that somehow the problems will be solved in a way that everyone can accept, so that everyone can concentrate again on what is really important: the proclamation of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation of souls.

Sources

Here are some of the more important sources:

Damascus Resolution, 2003 [orthodoxattorneys.org]

Pittsburgh Constitution, 2004 [orthodoxattorneys.org]

Damascus Constitution, 2004 [orthodoxattorneys.org]

Letter from Patriarch Ignatius IV, 2005 [orthodoxattorneys.org]

First letter from Bishop Basil to Metropolitan Philip, Feb. 25, 2009 [orthodoxattorneys.org]

Message from Metropolitan Philip, Feb. 26, 2009 [orthodoxattorneys.org]

Letter from Metropolitan Philip to Bishop Basil, Feb. 27, 2009 [orthodoxattorneys.org]

Archpastoral Directive, March 3, 2009 [orthodoxattorneys.org]

Second letter from Bishop Basil to Metropolitan Philip, March 3, 2009 [orthodoxattorneys.org]

Letter from Metropolitan Philip, March 4, 2009 [orthodoxattorneys.org]

Resolution of April 24, 2009 [antiochian.org]

Websites

This website has posted a timeline and lots of documents about the situation under current events on their resource page: http://www.orthodoxattorneys.org/resources.html

This website (originally set up in response to problems in the Orthodox Church in America [oca.org]) is bringing a lot of news and commentary about the situation: http://www.ocanews.org/

Latin Catholic ... I can't tell you how much I appreciate your taking the time to answer this for me ... now I'm beginning to understand what everyone is talking about. I am printing out your reply to me and also in the process of checking the various sources you listed at the end of your response.
Again, many, many, thanks .... I am humbled.
abby
<*)))><

No problem! I'm glad if I have been of some help

I too was starting to feel that things were getting rather complicated, and that writing a short summary of the case might be useful. I trust that if I have made any mistakes in my summary, our friends on this forum will be able to help with corrections.

LC,

Thank you. When I saw amber's query yesterday morning I was too sleep deprived to offer a good answer, but intended to post a caution that anyone answering do so in an understandable fashion.

We too often forget that sometimes a question is just that and not intended as an invitation for a full-blown 'mind meld' (a la Mr Spock) - a technique that has scared away more than one newbie.

You did a nice job - thorough without becoming bogged down in minutiae - and appropriately addressing the real concerns, without being polemical.

Many years,

Neil

The website ocanews.org has published the text of the legal opinion of the chancellors (i.e. attorneys) of the Antiochian Archdiocese regarding the Holy Synod's Feb. 24 decision and the Local Synod's Apr. 24 resolution. As is well known, the Feb. 24 decision claims to "normalize" the status of all Bishops across the Holy See of Antioch as Auxiliary Bishops; the Apr. 24 resolution declares "obedience" to this decision.

The legal opinion of the chancellors, Robert A. Koory and Charles R. Ajalat, is that the Holy Synod's Feb. 24 decision is "invalid," "inapplicable," and "inconsistent" with the grant of self rule and the archdiocesan constitution. The Local Synod's Apr. 24 resolution was "ill-advised" and has no effect. The opinion was apparently requested by some members of the archdiocesan board of trustees.

The chancellors argue, among other things, that the Holy Synod's Feb. 24 decision was invalid because of the absense of a quorum. However, even if the decision were valid, they argue that it would still not apply to the North American Archdiocese. The chancellors point out that the Holy Synod itself has granted self rule and approved the archdiocesan constitution. Furthermore diocesan bishops have been elected, consecrated and enthroned in accordance with the constitution (regardless of the dispute over which version of the constitution applies). Logically, all of these formal actions cannot be made void by a mere change to the patriarchal bylaws without any specific reference to the North American archdiocese, constitution or bishops. As the chancellors point out:

The chancellors end their opinion with a call to the members of the board of trustees of the archdiocese to protect the archdiocesan constitution and articles of incorporation, and not violate the trust that has been placed in them.

The whole opinion can be read here: http://www.ocanews.org/news/ChancellorsLetter5.17.09.html

Yes, and with that statement, battle lines have now been drawn.

Not only have battle lines been drawn, but Metropolitan Philip has been left in an unenviable position of his own devising, defending a position which by careful reasoning has been shown to be both absurd and foolish.

All the Holy Synod of Antioch now has to do is to declare that the Feb. 24 decision was never intended to affect the North American archdiocese and that the decision has been misrepresented by Metropolitan Philip, who wasn't even present at the synod meeting. (I assume that the question of the absence of a quorum will be quietly swept under the carpet.)

There is an element of Greek tragedy to all this. I think Metropolitan Philip will be remembered as a brilliant and much-loved, but tragically flawed character.

I think history will be kinder to +Philip, although this scandal will certainly be a black mark. One may indeed take issue with some of his policies, but he has in other ways been arguably the most courageous and foresighted Orthodox bishop in the New World. As he seems to have negated what he's been working toward for over forty years with this last fiasco, I think +Jonah is ready to step into his shoes.

I agree with this statement 100%

His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah will face a tough challenge in presenting his case to those Orthodox Christians in the USA who are strongly supportive of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

We shall see how it pans out.

See ocanews.org for a detailed analysis of the document purporting to reduce the status of the Antiochian bishops; the analysis is done at the request of the Archdiocesan Board of Trustees and has been carried out by the Chancellors of the Archdiocese. It blows the attempt to reduce the Antiochian bishops out of the water.

Fr. Serge

To quote Mr. Spock, "Fascinating."

This appears to be the first real litmus test of "self-rule" by the AOC.