While the situation regarding the Antiochians is strange, the underlying issues are the same--a lack of episcopal accountability. For most of the Church's history, there has been a kind of lay oversight of the Church hierarchy in the person of the monarch. The monarch, in his person, was a kind of representative of the laity. His authority was a check on the episcopacy; it prevented the bishops, in many cases, from contravening law and tradition. It is true, the authority that deals with bishops is a holy synod, but who called the synods--the emperor--he was the initiator of much action. And, also, one must not forget that the people were an ultimate authority. Who withstood efforts of bishops and emperors to impose heresy? The people--not only through passive resistance, but even to the point of violent opposition. Now, we are dealing with a power vacuum. Bishops who fear neither God nor holy tradition, who believe they are final authorities and that no one can judge them get away with a lot of things for which they would have been called to account in ages past. A bishop is bound by the holy canons and holy tradition and is answerable and accountable to the whole Church, not to God alone.