DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Antiochian Patriarchate reorganizes North American Archdiocese

**medifastwoman** · 03-17-2009, 09:44 PM

There is only one pertinent question here. All the rest is tittle tattle. CANONICALLY under what circumstances and according to what process may a diocesan bishop be reassigned to auxiliary status in the jurisdiction of another bishop?

Of course this presupposes that there is a canonical basis for an auxiliary bishop in the first place. As we know the practical situation on the ground in Church history has sometimes been arguably at variance with the canons but for good reason.*

Extra-canonically or canonically there may be good reasons for the Holy Synod's GLOBAL decision ... but I am not privy to those "good reasons." One thing of which I am sure is that canon law is not my strong point. Can anyone enlighten?

May I ask what is the significance of the name "Archdiocese"? (I don't think it's a concept that we have in the Russian church). Is it a single diocese? If so, then should it not just have a single ruling bishop, with vicar/auxiliary bishops if he needs them? If this is the case, then is not the Antiochian church in North America, Australia, or elsewhere where it is termed an "archdiocese", is a single diocese? I know that I speak as somebody without direct experience of the inner-workings of the Antiochian church but it seems to me that what the Holy Synod of Antioch has done is to institute a canonically more regular situation. That being the case, may I ask what the situation was before the recent change? Was the archdiocese carved up into smaller areas, each with its own bishop functioning as a ruling bishop and being commemorated as such in this quasi-diocesan area? If that was so, it seems to me that the Synod had two choices to regularise this situation: a) make these smaller areas real dioceses and make the local bishops proper ruling bishops of these dioceses or b) emphasise that the archdiocese is a single diocese and restore its hierarchy to a form in keeping with this, with one ruling bishop, with auxiliaries if needed. It seems that they have opted for the second.

All of what I have said above is based on an understanding of an archdiocese being one diocese so plase do forgive me if I have misunderstood. I simply don't understand the distinction that is being drawn by this term and would be grateful for any explanation.

In Christ,
Michael

03-17-2009, 09:44 PM	#30
medifastwoman Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 490 Senior Member	There is only one pertinent question here. All the rest is tittle tattle. CANONICALLY under what circumstances and according to what process may a diocesan bishop be reassigned to auxiliary status in the jurisdiction of another bishop? Of course this presupposes that there is a canonical basis for an auxiliary bishop in the first place. As we know the practical situation on the ground in Church history has sometimes been arguably at variance with the canons but for good reason.* Extra-canonically or canonically there may be good reasons for the Holy Synod's GLOBAL decision ... but I am not privy to those "good reasons." One thing of which I am sure is that canon law is not my strong point. Can anyone enlighten? May I ask what is the significance of the name "Archdiocese"? (I don't think it's a concept that we have in the Russian church). Is it a single diocese? If so, then should it not just have a single ruling bishop, with vicar/auxiliary bishops if he needs them? If this is the case, then is not the Antiochian church in North America, Australia, or elsewhere where it is termed an "archdiocese", is a single diocese? I know that I speak as somebody without direct experience of the inner-workings of the Antiochian church but it seems to me that what the Holy Synod of Antioch has done is to institute a canonically more regular situation. That being the case, may I ask what the situation was before the recent change? Was the archdiocese carved up into smaller areas, each with its own bishop functioning as a ruling bishop and being commemorated as such in this quasi-diocesan area? If that was so, it seems to me that the Synod had two choices to regularise this situation: a) make these smaller areas real dioceses and make the local bishops proper ruling bishops of these dioceses or b) emphasise that the archdiocese is a single diocese and restore its hierarchy to a form in keeping with this, with one ruling bishop, with auxiliaries if needed. It seems that they have opted for the second. All of what I have said above is based on an understanding of an archdiocese being one diocese so plase do forgive me if I have misunderstood. I simply don't understand the distinction that is being drawn by this term and would be grateful for any explanation. In Christ, Michael
	Quote