Posted by from an Antiochian Priest
on 6/21/2009, 1:38 am
Analysis of the June 17 Decision
by an Antiochian Priest
Well, the Holy Synod has spoken. If you were like me, the first
response was probably something like this: “Eh? What does this mean?”
As Americans, we are used to very direct communication. In fact, many
foreigners are surprised that American English is capable of bearing
any subtleties at all. Yet, it does on occasion, and so we now have
to put on our thinking-caps to read this refined document.
Line 1 - “The Holy Synod of the See of Antioch, after long discussion
and deep deliberation of the Synodal decision of February 24, 2009,
Line 2 - and with the recommendations of His Beatitude, the Patriarch,
Line 3 - it affirms that the nature of the Episcopate is one and the
same to all those who are consecrated as bishops, the Holy Synod of
Antioch affirms and reminds that all bishops of the Antiochian
Archdiocese of North America are bishops who assist the Metropolitan,
and that,
Line 4 - furthermore, any diocese of the one united Archdiocese, under
any circumstances, cannot be considered independent Archdiocese.
Line 5 - The Holy Synod of Antioch alone has the prerogative to
establish Archdioceses in the See of Antioch. Issued June, 17, 2009.”
There are a number of interesting points to be gotten from this letter
with a little patience-
1. Line One - The February 24 Decision was clearly reconsidered during
the Holy Synod’s deliberations, meaning that it did not represent the
overall consensus of the Holy Synod. Many of us are certainly
comforted by this information, since it truly appeared to be confused
from the beginning. Thus, our confidence has reason to be restored in
the judgment of the Synod. Now all that’s left is to find out who
engineered the first meeting.
2. Line Two - The Holy Synod followed the leadership of Patriarch
Ignatius, whose ‘recommendations’ were followed in this statement.
That implies that the February 24 Decision, though signed by him, was
not something he was in agreement with, but signed given that the
majority at the meeting went with the proposed Decision. It shows the
Patriarch is willing to go along with decisions of a majority even
when he has personal reservations, something that all of us should
certainly appreciate.
3. Line Three - The affirmation to the equal nature of the Episcopacy
is important, because this means that all Bishops (be they
additionally given the rank of Metropolitan, Archbishop or Patriarch)
are genuinely equal.
a. They are not to be treated as hired hands or to be treated as ‘less
than’ any other Bishop (read Metropolitan, Archbishop or Patriarch)
since they all share a common nature. Now, if you are having problems
with this notion, apply it to the Holy Trinity, and it will make
sense: the Church teaches that to say that the Son is less than the
Father is the heresy of Monarchianism or, worse yet, Subordinationism.
Therefore, any interpretation that Holy Synod sanctioned the
‘demotion’ of the Bishops to auxiliary status is simply not true.
b. They also have certain canonical responsibilities as Bishops, given
that their Episcopacy is connected to the Dioceses which the Holy
Synod consecrated them to serve. The Episcopacy, according to the
Holy Canons, is inseparable from the Diocese, which is why the
innovation of the ‘auxiliary bishop’ still requires a name of a
defunct Diocese. Once the Bishop takes the title of the Diocese, he
cannot be separated from it and its duties without a proper canonical
process.
c. That ‘assisting the Metropolitan’ does not degrade their primary
Diocesan duties bestowed upon them by the Holy Synod that selected
them to serve the Dioceses whose names they bear.
4. Line Four - The Diocesan Bishops are expected to work together and
keep all the communities of the Archdiocese on the same track.
5. Line Five - Any changes to the Dioceses (such as the creation of
new Metropolitanates) are strictly under the control of the Holy
Synod.
So, what does all this mean on a practical level? Well, it means the
Holy Synod, in a very kind and gentle way, has guided the Archdiocese
back to where it was on February 23rd, 2009, and then added a great
deal more clarity as to how Metropolitan Philip and his ‘supporters’
are to treat the Bishops. Prior to the decision, the Metropolitan saw
the ‘Manual of Hierarchical Duties and Responsibilities’ as a fluid,
subject-to-constant-amendment document. After all, Metropolitan
Philip really saw himself as the ‘lone hierarch’ in North America, and
sought to co-opt a number of Metropolitans to give him back such a
standing.
The fact is that the Holy Synod all along never wanted to see
Metropolitan Philip acting as a single Bishop over all North America,
which is why THE HOLY SYNOD insisted on the creation of the Dioceses
and the change of status for the former Auxiliary Bishops into
Diocesan Bishops.
The next step for the newly-reaffirmed Bishops will be to return to
the next Eparchial Synod meeting with a commitment to make several
important reforms:
1. A complete overhaul of the Hierarchical Manual to conform with the
wishes of the Holy Synod of Antioch (to whom Metropolitan Philip has
loudly and repeatedly as of late sworn obedience).
2. The final adoption and implementation of the Damascus Constitution
in accordance with the wishes of the Patriarch and the Holy Synod.
3. A complete overhaul of the financial system of the Archdiocese,
complete with an independent audit and the establishment of Diocesan
budgets.
4. The formation of an Archdiocesan Council of Presbyters made up of
representatives from each of the Diocesan Councils to coordinate their
work.
5. A proportional system for equal representation on the Board of
Trustees from all the Dioceses (right now, the Board leans heavily
East and this needs to be amended so that it better represents the
entire Archdiocese and helps preserve the unity of the Archdiocese
that is of such grave concern).
There’s a lot of work here, but we can be glad that the Holy Synod of
Antioch has, once again, given us all a very special gift.
Responses:
