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

I think that this only applies to the Antiochians in America. Don't you think?

No, unless you can show definitively otherwise.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I was looking on the AOCNA website and noted that the translation of the Synod's resolution posted there differs from the one on ocanews. The translation on antiochian.org adds the phrase "as his Auxillaries" after "bishops who assist the Metropolitan." This would seem to be a significant difference, at least if the term auxillary is being used in the sense it is traditionally understood here.

The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America has posted the text of the Synodal Resolution in English and Arabic (link [antiochian.org]). There are two versions in Arabic, one in which the word "Auxiliary" (in English) has been added in parenthesis after the phrase أساقفة مساعدون للمتروبوليت (asāqifah musāʿidūn lil-mitrūbūlīt "Bishops who assist the Metropolitan").

Both the English and the two Arabic versions appear to be signed and sealed by Patriarch Ignatius IV. I guess this makes the decision official, but I wonder which Arabic version should be considered the original? The whole thing is very odd, because the normal Arabic word for "auxiliary" is معاون (muʿāwin), not مساعد (musāʿid).

The English version and the Arabic version with "Auxiliary" added in parenthesis appear to have been faxed together (dated "Nov. 18 2005"!), whereas the Arabic version without "Auxiliary" added does not appear to be a fax. I tend to think that the version without "Auxiliary" must be the original, which must have been intended as a compromise solution, but instead turned out to be a meaningless fudge. The version with "Auxiliary" added must be a later attempt to clarify the decision in favour of Metropolitan Philip's interpretation.

I am amazed at the lack of clarity and transparency in this entire process. It seems that the existence of two Arabic versions of the Synodal Decision will only lead to more confusion and to an escalation of the crisis. This is extremely disappointing.

Dear Father Anthony,

Yes, I do indeed remember the reconciliation between the two Antiochian Orthodox Archdioceses in North America, and it is correct that Metropolitan Michael became Auxiliary to Metropolitan Philip. But I also remember being assured that this position had been created specifically for Metropolitan Michael to enable the reconciliation to go forward, and that this position would die with Metropolitan Michael.

Fr. Serge

Father Serge,

Though it may have been a creation for Archbishop Michael, you still have the example of how Antioch in recent times looks at those below the rank of Metropolitan to be those of less administrative importance. In other words, Metropolitan is superior in rank than Archbishop as far as Antioch is concerned.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

On the other hand, in practice in the Arabic-speaking Churches, every bishop is called Mutran. It's a fuzzy area of discussion.

Fr. Serge

It is being alleged without actually using the speciific terminology that either one or two of the documents are forgeries. If this is the case, this matter will be certainly escalating and I am sure some heads will be rolling.

http://www.ocanews.org/news/DidthePatriarchReallySayThat6.23.09.html

It does not make sense to have two different versions of the same synodal decision.

The fundamental question therefore is: Which Arabic version is the original decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch?

Until this question is answered, there will, quite understandably, be all kinds of speculation about forgery, cover-ups and conspiracies.

I personally find it very interesting that pages one and two of the PDF have a time/date stamp of Nov 18, 2005, while page 3 has no fax identification on it at all(possibly removed) and has a completely different letterhead. Something is definitely not right here.

Oddly enough, this aspect of the matter also resembles the debates surrounding the original Archdiocese of Toledo and Dependencies.

Fr. Serge

The Patriarchate of Antioch has released an online version of what was sent to the United States. It appears that the versions that have appeared on the Antiochian Archdiocese website, at least pages one and two are fake. Someone in Englewood should be ashamed at such an attempt at deception.

http://antiochpat.org/arabic/news/news.php?newsid=344&PHPSESSID=323aac757f22e193ba83f3a987a127cf

This was a surprisingly quick and blunt answer from the Patriarchate as to which Arabic version is the authentic one and which ones are fake. This is a positive development. The next step is to interpret the authentic decision correctly.

I would suggest that the phrase أساقفة يساعدون للمتروبوليت asāqifah yusāʿidūn lil-mitrūbūlīt does not mean simply "Bishops who assist the Metropolitan." The verb ساعد sāʿada on it is own means "help, aid, assist", but together with the preposition ل li the meaning is "contribute to, be conducive to." Therefore the meaning of the phrase seems to be not just that the Bishops assist the Metropolitan, but that they contribute (positively) to (the work of) the Metropolitan.

Crucially, it is clear that this phrase does not refer to the Bishops as Auxiliaries. In the Feb. 24, 2009 "decision" [orthodoxattorneys.org] as well as elsewhere in the patriarchal constitution/bylaws, the Arabic word for Auxiliary is معاون muʿāwin. Since this word is not used in the latest synodal decision, there can be no question that the Bishops are Auxiliaries.

[Linked Image] [antiochpat.org]

Sources:

Decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch, 17 June 2009 (authentic version) [antiochpat.org]

Exhibit 56 – bylaws amendment in Arabic: fax received from Fr. George Dimas – Feb 25, 2009 [orthodoxattorneys.org]

Wehr, Hans. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (Arabic - English). Ed. J. Milton Cowan. 4th ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Spoken Language Services, 1994.

What I think may be interesting is Metropolitan Philip's next move. I really do not think that he is going to be just simply accepting of this, or the backlash that I am sure will be coming at the upcoming archdiocesan convention next month. It will be indeed interesting to see how things unfold this summer.

This saga is getting more interesting by the moment. The official Antiochian Archdiocese apparently claims non-receipt of the documents (in other words is rejecting the faxed copies). In other words until receipt of actual documents with signatures, the Metropolitan does not feel bound to the synodal action.

http://www.antiochian.org/node/19926

Plus this choice tidbit from OCAnews:
http://www.ocanews.org/news/PhilipRefusestoAcknowledge6.24.09.html