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

There seems to be some action happening between the Patriarchate of Antioch and the bishops in question by way of a formal meeting. This was just published on the Antiochian Archdiocese website. I find it rather interesting that Metropolitan Philip is not going to be at the meeting.

Antiochian Archdiocese news release [antiochian.org]

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Thanks for posting this. There is more on this development at OCANews.org: Antiochian American Bishops Invited to Damascus [ocanews.org].

It seems there will be a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Antiochian Archdiocese at the end of this week, followed by a meeting between the Patriarch and the six North American Bishops in Damascus next week.

After that, the Holy Synod will meet for its regular Spring meeting on June 16. Metropolitan Philip will not participate in the meeting with the Patriarch next week, but will attend the Holy Synod on June 16.

Hopefully, when the Holy Synod meets on June 16, they will have all the relevant information and will, assisted by the Holy Spirit, be able to make wise decisions that may lead to an early end to this crisis.

The Archdiocesan Board of Trustees have now met and have refused to accept the Feb. 24, 2009 decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch, according to OCANews.org [ocanews.org]. Metropolitan Philip is said to have denounced the two Chancellors of the Archdiocese for disagreeing with him. Bishop Antoun is quoted as saying that he always regarded himself as an auxiliary Bishop and that, amazingly, he doesn't know the difference between an auxiliary Bishop and a diocesan Bishop (source [ocanews.org]).

Now we'll see what can be achieved by the upcoming meeting between the Patriarch and the six Bishops, not including Metropolitan Philip. Let us pray that the Patriarch and Holy Synod of Antioch be granted the wisdom to resolve this crisis, for the good of all.

http://www.ocanews.org/news/CalltoUnity5.29.09.html makes some serious charges against Met. +Philip

Looking at this from a great distance (geographically at least), my impression is that OCANews.org is doing Orthodoxy a great service by providing a measure of transparency, which I think is needed in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

OCANews.org seems prima facie to be quite reliable when it comes to the news that are posted there (after all it has to be or it would quickly be blown out of the water, at least figuratively speaking). It also contains some very intelligent comments.

However, any accusations that may be posted at OCANews.org should be viewed critically. They may be true or they may not be true. Only those with direct knowledge of these matters are in a position to judge.

Bishop Antoun states that he himself does not know the difference between an auxiliary bishop and a diocesan bishop? That explains a nickname he is sometimes given.

Fr. Serge

I recommend listing to Matthew Namee's interview with Bishop Basil [ancientfaith.com] on Ancient Faith Radio.

During the interview, which lasts about 13 minutes, Bishop Basil describes his recent meeting with Patriarch Ignatius IV and expresses his deep trust in his Beatitude and the Holy Synod of Antioch.

This may or may not be good news regarding the situation of the upcoming meeting of the Holy Synod of Antioch starting on June 16th. It seems Metropolitan Philip has suddenly become ill and has asked Bishop Joseph (Los Angeles) to represent him instead. Though he may be representing the Metropolitan, I do not think the bishop would be allowed to vote at the meeting concerning any actions since he is not an official member of the Synod, though his presence at the meeting would be noted in the official minutes.

Antiochian Archdiocese news release [antiochian.org]

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

ocanews.org has announced that the meeting of the Holy Synod ended earlier today with the release of a statement regarding the decision of February 24th. Unfortunately until an "official" English version of the statement can be had, they are not making any speculation to the content of it.


In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Let's hope and pray for a positive outcome - which to my mind includes the restoration of the rights of the bishops.

We are frequently told by Orthodox spokesmen that "all the bishops are equal." Apparently some are more equal than others.

Fr. Serge

OCANews.org reports (source [ocanews.org]) that the Holy Synod of Antioch has released a statement about the Feb. 24, 2009 decision:

An "Arab Original of the Decision" is also provided (link [ocanews.org]).

OCANews.org does not provide a source or link to an official website, so I don't think this news should be considered official yet.

I also wonder whether this is the whole decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch or just a statement summarizing the decision.

Unfortunately, the "careful and intentional wording" of this decision does not appear to make sense.

The synod affirms that "the nature of the Episcopate is one and the same to all those who are consecrated as bishops". This is a nice, pious idea, but it is the practice of this idea which appears to be in question.

The synod affirms that "all bishops of the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America are bishops who assist the Metropolitan". But the question is, quite simply, are bishops who bear titles in the USA and Canada suffragan to the Archdiocese, or are they auxiliaries to the Metropolitan? The statement does not address this key question.

And "any diocese of the one united Archdiocese, under any circumstances, cannot be considered [an] independent Archdiocese". A simple diocese is not an independent Archdiocese - but a simple diocese is indeed a diocese, and that is what is in question at the moment. The reference to "the one united Archdiocese" might be a subtle attempt to remind people of the division between the Archdiocese of Brooklyn and the Archdiocese of Toledo, but nobody seems to have suggested reviving that division, which arose from the difficult history of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America as well as from some quite specific circumstances in the nineteen-thirties.

"The Holy Synod of Antioch alone has the prerogative to establish Archdioceses in the See of Antioch." That is indeed the truth. But again, no one appears to be attempting to establish an additional Archdiocese in the Church of Antioch without reference to Patriarch and Holy Synod.

On the other hand, one might cogently ask for a clarification on this point: does the Church of Antioch use the term "Metropolitan" in the Greek sense or in the Slav sense?

Fr. Serge

I have to agree with Father Serge here. The wording of this carefully crafted statement says nothing in the way of clarification to the status of the bishops in question. I have read it over several times, and all it leaves me with is the same questions as I had before. It is time the Synod took a stand one way or the other. The uncertainty of the situation is only going to get worse unless they act definitively.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Father Serge,

If you recall when the Archdioceses of New York and Toledo were merged in the 1970s to form the present archdiocese, Metropolitan Michael Shaheen stepped aside voluntarily to become an auxiliary then, thus becoming Archbishop Michael. It would seem the model followed by Antioch is the Slavic one rather than the Greek.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+