Posted by from OCANEWS.org on 5/17/2009, 2:12 pm, in reply to "Read the entire opinion here Part I"
Board Administrator
...continued...
IV. THIS OPINION IS NOT CHANGED BY THE APRIL 24, 2009 LOCAL SYNOD
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING OBEDIENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HOLY
SYNOD OF ANTIOCH OF FEBRUARY 24, 2009.
On April 24, 2009, the Local Synod of the Archdiocese of North America met.
During that meeting a resolution was signed by four members of the Local Synod
“affirming obedience to the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch of February 24, 2009". The question becomes what effect if any does that "resolution" of the four bishops have on the status of the Archdiocese's bishops in North America?
For the reasons stated above, it is clear that the "resolution" was ill-advised and
would have no effect on the status of the diocesan bishops. Even assuming the
decision of the Holy Synod was valid, for the reasons set forth above, it would not be
applicable to bishops in North America. Moreover, an act by the Local Synod that
would contradict the Archdiocese Constitution, without amendment of the Constitution, would not only be an unconstitutional, and therefore an invalid act, but equally important would violate the sacred duties of the members of the local Synod who share the responsibility to maintain the trust placed in them by the clergy and laity of the Archdiocese, that they would uphold and protect the Constitution of this Archdiocese.
Indeed, that is a requirement of all members of the Board of Trustees who take such an oath administered by the Metropolitan Primate.
In examining the April 24th resolution, it is premised upon the fact that the
Archdiocese receives its ecclesiastical authority to act as a self-ruled Archdiocese from the Holy Synod of Antioch and that Metropolitan PHILIP is a member of that Synod and serves under a canonical praxis issued by the Patriarch. More importantly, it refers first and foremost to the Archdiocese Constitution. In referring to the Archdiocese Constitution, the April 241h Resolution would have been acting properly.
Unfortunately, the Local Synod appears to have ill-advised. The analysis of
whether a decision of the Holy Synod applies to this Archdiocese would not examine
just one section of the Archdiocese Constitution. There are other sections of the
Constitution that must also be considered otherwise the analysis falls to the criticism
that it has taken a provision out of context.
That the Archdiocese Constitution provides that the Archdiocese receives its
ecclesiastical authority to act as a self-ruled Archdiocese from the Holy Synod of
/\ntioch and that Metropolitan PHILIP is a member of that Synod and serves under a
canonical praxis issued by the Patriarch, are essentially non-issues and do not provide a basis for concluding that the February 24th Holy Synod decision has any bearing to this Archdiocese. No one would dispute either that the Constitution so provides or that the Holy Synod granted self-rule to this Archdiocese or that the Metropolitan serves under a canonical praxis issued by the Patriarch.
That the Metropolitan serves under a canonical praxis issued by the Patriarch
does not in any way affect the Self-Rule granted by the Holy Synod. In like manner, the fact that he is a member of the Holy Synod of Antioch does not affect the grant of selfrule.
Thus, neither of those two facts can serve as a basis for contending the February
24th decision applies to this Archdiocese.
Moreover, the fact that the Holy Synod irrevocably granted self-rule to this
Archdiocese is precisely one of the reasons why the February 24th decision is
inapplicable. Unless self-rule was attempted to be annihilated by the Holy Synod of
Antioch, and even the Local Synod's resolution would appear to contradict such an
interpretation, then for the reasons stated above in Section II the decision does not and cannot apply.
Reliance on Article 1, Section 2 Paragraph B of the Archdiocese Constitution as
a basis to claim this Archdiocese is bound by the February 24th decision is inapposite
for several reasons: First, the paragraph itself reads: This Archdiocese was granted its ecclesiastical authority to function as a self-ruling Archdiocese from the HolySynod ..."
It should be noted first that the word "granted" was specifically debated and the
past tense specifically chosen by the General Assembly to emphasize the past and
irrevocable decision of the Holy Synod to grant self-rule. As to the future, if
“ecclesiastical authority to function as a self-ruling Archdiocese" has any meaning, it comes first and foremost from Art. IV Section 2: "The Local Synod,
comprised of the Metropolitan and the Diocesan Bishops shall be the governing ecclesiastical authority of the Archdiocese."
As noted above by its irrevocable grant of self-rule to this Archdiocese, the Holy
Synod of Antioch irrevocably placed restrictions on its ability to affect the governance
and internal structure of this Archdiocese. That governance has been irrevocably
delegated to this Archdiocese ecclesiastically through the Local Synod comprised of the Metropolitan and the Diocesan Bishops. Any change in that would require a clear statement by the Holy Synod abrogating the Resolution on Self-Rule which Metropolitan PHILIP has said such abrogation did not occur.
More importantly, it would require a complete revision of the Archdiocese
Constitution since we would no longer have a functioning Local Synod in terms of real governance and we would no longer have Diocesan bishops or the ability to elect new bishops. Such changes would occur only when and if such amendments were duly passed by a General Assembly of the Archdiocese as provided in the Archdiocese Constitution and as confirmed by the Metropolitan.
As Metropolitan Philip has stated in his letter of February 11, 2005 to the
Patriarch: "According to our registered constitution, neither the Holy Synod, nor the
Metropolitan, nor the Local Synod can impose any amendment to the constitution
without the approval of clergy and laity, i.e., the General Assembly of the
Archdiocese."
While the members of the Local Synod could express their obedience to the
February 24th decision, assuming it was valid, such expression would only mean that it might have validity in other archdioceses of the Patriarchate and not in North America.
As noted above, not even our own Local Synod can impose any amendment to our
Constitution on its own. Indeed, as members of our Local Synod, the better choice of
action would have been to point out the fact it could have no application to North
America. After all, the members of the Local Synod as well as the Board of Trustees
are duty bound to protect and defend our Constitution and to act in accordance with it.
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons stated above, the February 24th decision is not a valid
decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch. Moreover, even if were, it would have no effect on our Archdiocese since it wasn't intend to apply to our Archdiocese and if it was intended, it would not apply because it is inconsistent with, negates, and would violate the irrevocable Resolution on Self-Rule, the Archdiocese Constitution and the
Archdiocese Articles of Incorporation, filed with the State of New York. Unless properly amended, these documents cannot be overridden and the February 24,2009 decision is inapplicable to the Self-Ruled Archdiocese.
Pursuant to the Constitution, all members of the Board of Trustees including the
clergy and the hierarchs have an obligation to insure that the Archdiocese Constitution and Articles are protected. A constitution defines certain rights and privileges and obligations, these apply to the entire church population including the laity. It is incumbent upon all members to insure that these provisions are not violated even if one disagrees with them.
There is an element of trust that is underlying the role of a member of the Board
of Trustees (and a member of the General Assembly) whether the person is a hierarch, priest, or member of the laity. That trust is that the member will act in the best interests of the Archdiocese and follow the dictates of the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution.
If the members do not act to protect the Constitution and the self-rule as defined
therein, then they will have violated that trust. The consequences, among others, will
be a legitimate lack of trust by clergy and laity in the leaders of this Archdiocese. That would be tragic.
In Christ
Robert A Koory Charles R. Ajalat
Chancellor Chancellor
Responses:
