[Saduyre9de]

I share both Joshua's and Owen's sentiments. Absolutely we should pray, watch our motives. However, I don't see a contradiction between prayer and inquiry. May the Lord protect us and keep us in His peace.

Owen: the questions you pose are most pertinent in my estimation : "What is the New Testament/Patristic teaching on ecclesiastical authority? Conciliarity? What is the Patristic witness as to the proper relationships between the faithful and the ecclesiastical leadership? Whenever there is a controversy among bishops, are the laity innocent bystanders? What is our role, if any?"

I do not know all the answers to these questions, but I do know this: we are not subjects. We play an active role, we are together the Body of Christ. Is this role confined to mere prayer? I would think not, as the Body consists of the different parts working together in communion with each other. We are not passive recipients of information, just as our Blessed God invites us to active participation in His Divinity by grace.

We aren't mere subjects, by any means and part of that is demonstrated by the very fact that the priest (and bishop when serving) faces the same way during most parts of the divine Liturgy as we do.

But they are our leaders. They are not infallible, and so they should certainly be held accountable, especially in issues of morals and doctrine. But in issues of administration, I don't know about that. This is where, in the end, one decision needs to be made and the bishop is the one charged to make that decision. Certianly there are better decisions than others, and a bishop could make a poor decision. But that is his to make. It's not to say we can't offer perspective and a wise bishop would certainly strive to understand administrative issues from all angles.

In the end, in issues like these (i.e. jurisidcitional organization), it is most Christian and virtuous and proper that we trust in the decisions of our bishops and humble ourselves before these decisions even if they don't fit our personal ideal of hwo things "should be". So, yes, in this particular situation our rolw is confined to "mere prayer" and might I add "in humility". That's not to say that we cannot or should not inform ourselves to understand the decisions. Inquiry is good (which is what 70% of this thread is). But doubt in one's bishop over these issues is, in my opinion, a road that can lead to nothing good for our souls and for the Church. I've been Orthodox only a short 10 years and it took me most of those 10 years to finally realize that MY vision for the Church is not what matters and that I had a lot more to learn from the Church than to offer it.

Joshua

[Saduyre9de]

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.

May I ask what the Patriarch of Antioch is getting away with here that he should be held accountable for?

[eskimosik]

There is no doubt there is much startling and troubling in the news out of Antioch, but frankly speaking I don't trust it. It's timing is too spot on. It's effects too wide ranging and hurtful, and not unlike the calendar question of yesteryear it leaves bewilderment and anger in its wake. In short, if feels like my buttons are being pushed and I am not happy with the reaction I sense within myself. And i don't like feeling manipulated. The fact that this news triggers feelings of sympathic anger for those on one side of the issue and very uncharitable feelings towards the other, gives me pause. My ortho-spidy-sense says, "danger, quicksand ahead. Proceed with extreme caution".

This descision, above and beyond the problems it poses for the Antiochian faithful, raises some serious questions of canonicity and with repect to their constitution, legality. But such questions are far out of my pervue or expertise. Yet they are questions that should be asked and should be answered...but how to get there charitably and avoid the quicksand of quick anger, speaking ill of those in places of spiritual authority...the danger of fasting from roast chicken but not shrinking from feasting on the flesh of our ostensible brothers. On the other hand there is the danger of silence in the face of injustice to others...of timidity and cowardice for fear of rocking the boat...risking getting on the wrong side of those in power. And that latter point is a dilemma because given the ancientness and the "Byzantine" complexity of interpreting and applying canon law...discerning a forbidden use of power from a merely unwise one is not something the average Orthodox Joe or Jane is prepared to grapple with.

What will become of the Antiochian Archdiocese and its witness in the coming weeks, months, and years as a result of this is too much to think about right now. In the short term, God helping me, I would rather work through this Lent without getting angry and accusatory. It's not a time for rash thoughts or words, but rather for prayer and repentance.

If I have understood the matter correctly the Bishops of the AA are consulting with their priests and will meet with His Eminance Metropolitan Philip sometime in April to discuss the situation, and then there will be an Archdiocesian conference in July where I suppose the Antiochian laity will be able to weigh in on the matter. Until then at least I've determined to keep Antioch, its heirarchs and people in my prayers, feeble things that they are, and reserved judgment except for myself and my own sins.

[ThekvandoVideo]

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?

*A good example here concerns the choriepiscopoi - which were of course eventually suppressed.

[immoceefe]

Perhaps one Lenten exercise would be to learn how to struggle with a difficult situation without anger. If the only way to deal with it without anger is to not deal with it, then I think that is certainly a noble step. But to deal with something difficult with dispassion is a step into the sublime realm. The case at hand, then, is really not the issue, for purposes of this forum.

Rather, how does a faithful person respond to problems in the Church as they arise with the right spiritual disposition? I doubt there is or should be a one size fits all response. Some will be more in the know (regarding canon law, things like that) than others. Let's say, for example, that a parishioner knows the doctrine of the Incarnation backwards and forwards, so to speak, and hears his priest give a sermon that is just, well, dead wrong. Not one in fifty in the parish may even have noticed. What is he to do? Thankfully, this sort of problem does not come up much in Orthodoxy. Our priests are generally well grounded theologically (at least regarding its content). So I am only using this as a hypothetical. But, again, there is a problem presented that he did not cause. And perhaps he cannot do anything to change. So is he to remain silent and protect his serenity? Avoid conflict that may have repercussions more toward him, if he brings the matter up with the priest or the bishop? Or is he to say something? Wait until Lent is over? What if the same priest were his own father-confessor? How does he deal with it then? Not inconsequential questions. It is a matter of discernment, and also, let's face it, there is risk involved. Perhaps silence and contrition is the key, and prayer. But perhaps that would not be the right approach in every case, for every person? Maybe he should sit on the steps of the Church and eat red meat during Lenten services????

[immoceefe]

Historically, there have been many cases of tension between the hierarchy and monastics. In a sense, there is a natural, ingrained tension between the two. On occasion, the monastics have been instrumental in countering heresies propounded by hierarchs. St. Maximos the Confessor comes to mind. In other cases, monastics have been the source of heresy. But there is also tension on the level of simple ecclesiastical authority. Who is in charge of monastics. Traditionally, the abbot is given a certain weight and authority that is tantamount to a bishop, and they typically don't like bishops meddling with their business. We've seen this in recent years at Athos in particular that has even spilled over into physical confrontation.

There is a great passage in the writings of Evagrius wherein he travels deep into the Egyptian desert to find the true ascetics. They torment with sarcasm, addressing him as "Bishop Evagrius!" They didn't have much use for either Greeks (too intellectually pretentious) or bishops.

It's interesting that in the present case, which seems in large part to be a conflict among bishops, there is a pro-monastic and an anti-monastic faction, which I think reveals a lot.

[biannaruh]

Maybe he should sit on the steps of the Church and eat red meat during Lenten services????

St Basil the Blessed of Moscow did just that, munching on a sausage on Great Friday. But then, holy foolishness is not for the faint-hearted.

[biannaruh]

I find this tension quite ironic, as bishops are drawn from monastic ranks, and not a few of them were abbots before being consecrated.

[OnlineViagraCheapestFREE]

I find this tension quite ironic, as bishops are drawn from monastic ranks, and not a few of them were abbots before being consecrated.

Not among the Antiochians - no abbots, I mean. New Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA seems to be a rarity among the OCA/Antiochians, in that he actually WAS an abbott before becoming a bishop.

The new bishops that were consecrated for the Antiochian Archdiocese - +Mark, +Thomas, +Alexander - were all celibrate parish priests. +Mark was my local bishop when I was Antiochian (I joined the OCA early 2008) and he was simply excellent. Archbishop Job of the OCA (Diocese of Chicago and the Midwest) was a celibate parish priest, as well, before he became a bishop. +Basil (Antiochians) seems to be the exception among the Antiochians in that he actually has been tonsured in more than just the most minor monastic rank.

[medifastwoman]

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

[wbondarmunw]

1. It is not clear to me that the the bishops have the authority to do what they did.

2. If we are not accountable to the bishops and the bishops are not accountable to us, IN CHRIST, we have no Church only a poorly run wordly organization. It is not the bishop's Church, it is Christ's, it is not the laity's Church, it is Christ's. For any of us to ignore and/or attempt to exercise tyranny over our brothers and sisters is wrong. As St. John Chrysostom said, "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests and bishops" Without the charisma of the bishops, we perish, but they must be honest and caring shepards. We have a responsibility to ask that of them. Our obedience, after all, is due Jesus Christ, our Lord.

3. The nature of ecclesial authority is the essence of this situation.

4. The reason for the change is unknown. It would seem that for many it is wrong even to ask why and expect a coherent, reasonable answer.

5. There seems to be a great deal more uniformed speculation on this thread than on ocanews.org

6. Something needs to be healed in the Antiochian Archdiocese. The question is what needs to be healed?

7. I know +Basil as he has been with me in my struggles to become more Christian, a living guardian and guide, rightly dividing the word of Truth in his homilies and in his life. I don't know Met. Phillip except by contradictory and confusing pronoucements yet I am ordered to no longer commemorate +Basil unless he is physically present at the Divine Liturgy but always to commemorate Met. Phillip who is almost never physically present (distant even when he is physically present). I find this wholly unacceptable and I will vocally remember +Basil in the Divine Liturgy even if my priests do not.

8. If we are apathetic about our bishops, we don't care for the Church.

9. Is it wrong to expect bishops to be Godly caring men who are willing to lay down their lives for their flocks and in defense of the truth?

10. Is it wrong to expect bishops to be among we poor sinners who are is such need of their care and guidance?

11. Tryanny does not bring unity--only love brings unity. It is wholly unclear to me that the Antiochian Synod's decision has anything to do with love.

12. In Christ, in HIS Church there is no Greek, Jew, Arab, American, or any other man-made distinction of worth or value. We are all equally sinners called to repent and submit to His love so we may be healed and be in union with Him and one another. If Arabs, Greeks, Slavs or Americans think of themselves as superior and righteous simply by virture of their ethnic heritage they are in deadly sin. If any reject others for similar reasons, they are in deadly sin.

13. Whenever I hear anyone object to questions and concerns solely on the basis of obedience, I cringe and look to see how I am being conned and what those insisting on obedience want to hide.

[ThekvandoVideo]

Dear Reader Michael

I think there is much confusion generated in the varying usages of this term in the Orthodox Church. An "Archdiocese" is not single Big Diocese although in Antioch and elsewhere this is often how the term is used. An Archdiocese is a regional or provincial assembly of dioceses (plural) whose bishops (ideally) elect from amomgst themselves OR receive from an historic see a senior bishop as Archbishop who will preside in love over the whole. Such a presiding ministry does not include the right to intervene in the jurisdiction of a DIOCESAN bishop unless that bishop has been found guilty of heresy or uncanonical deposable behaviour by a Church court. An auxilary bishop of course does not have such unfettered oversight. It is thought by many scholars that auxilary bishops are pastoral exceptions to the more general rule that the size of diocese should be determined by the capacity of ONE bishop to exercise oversight and pastoral care in a particular area or number of communities. The profusion of auxilaries is usually a sign that the number and geographical definition of dioceses stands in need of review. This is one of the major roles of an Archbishop of course with his synod of bishops.

Now in this particular case if DIOCESAN bishops have been created within an Archdiocese then if they are subsequently "disinvented" as diocesans this would only USUALLY be because ALL of them had been culpable of uncanonical or heretical behaviour. However, even in that circumstance the diocesan sees would simply fall vacant but remain in tact. There is no evidence that all the diocesans here had been naughty or even some of them and indeed the abolition of the dioceses seems to be indicated by the Holy Synod's decision that hence there shall be "Metropolitans" with auxilaries. It seems that America is reverting to what I believe to have been the old Ottoman period ecclesiastical polity of the Antiochian and other Middle Eastern churches when most if not all of the bishops were Metropolitans even though the dioceses at that time were all quite small, (in European And American terms).

Whether this is canonical / desirable or not I am not qualified to judge nor do I wish to make any comment on that at all. I am merely trying to understand the canonical and historical context ... which I may have got completely wrong; in which case doubtless someone will put me right and I will learn more.

[farmarrl]

Dear Michael Bauman,

I do and don't agree with you. Bishop Basil is also my Bishop down here in Houston. I love him as a grandfather. I agree is homilies are to the core of our being. I envy you being able to be in the cathedral. I too have allegiance to him over another bishop, yet I also know the heirachy of things and he as we still "report" to Metropolitan Phillip.

I have never met "The Met" and surprisingly hear more negative things about our archpastor than positive. As a whole, this is not right. Policy from "on high" is made by people more informed than we. We rely on him and the bishops to rightly divide the word of Truth. So let them. If their dividing is wrong, it will come to light soon enough.

What is obedience if not doing what we are told? It is not blind obedience we are told to endure, but until WE the laity have the full picture, yes, we need to do as they are telling us. We commemorated both the Met. and Bishop previously. Now we only commemorate the Met. unless the Bishop is present. To not do this is to put us in a similar situation as is happening on Athos with the EP.

I too regret we no longer commemorate Bishop Basil. It does not change his job description or our love for him. It is a title! He as the other Bishops are still governing their respective areas of responsibilities as before. Don't let titles get under your skin. Love him and pray for our heirarchy even to Antioch itself.

Paul

[BenBoobmers]

Dear Paul,

"It is not blind obedience we are told to endure, but until WE the laity have the full picture, yes, we need to do as they are telling us."

This is where it gets sticky. Unless we ask, and respectfully insist, will we be informed? Furthermore, some seem to suggest http://ocanews.org/GabrielandResponse3.16.09.html that we simply need to obey, and to ask the hard questions is to lack charity and humility.

That sort of approach may have worked during the Ottoman dynasty, even with all the best intentions, but it doesn't work well in North America ANNO 2009. Quite frankly it smells, given the recent happenings.

We are asking for transparency, honest and forthrightness here. We don't need the dirty scoop on this bishop or that (no names please), but want to know the justification(s) behind such a sudden and drastic change affecting our communities. Is that too much to ask? Are we now lacking charity and humility?

[wbondarmunw]

Dear Michael Bauman,

I do and don't agree with you. Bishop Basil is also my Bishop down here in Houston. I love him as a grandfather. I agree is homilies are to the core of our being. I envy you being able to be in the cathedral. I too have allegiance to him over another bishop, yet I also know the heirachy of things and he as we still "report" to Metropolitan Phillip.

I have never met "The Met" and surprisingly hear more negative things about our archpastor than positive. As a whole, this is not right. Policy from "on high" is made by people more informed than we. We rely on him and the bishops to rightly divide the word of Truth. So let them. If their dividing is wrong, it will come to light soon enough.

What is obedience if not doing what we are told? It is not blind obedience we are told to endure, but until WE the laity have the full picture, yes, we need to do as they are telling us. We commemorated both the Met. and Bishop previously. Now we only commemorate the Met. unless the Bishop is present. To not do this is to put us in a similar situation as is happening on Athos with the EP.

I too regret we no longer commemorate Bishop Basil. It does not change his job description or our love for him. It is a title! He as the other Bishops are still governing their respective areas of responsibilities as before. Don't let titles get under your skin. Love him and pray for our heirarchy even to Antioch itself.

Paul

Paul, unfortunately, what the Antiochian Synod has done does change the job description--radically in fact. That's the point or part of it. It changes the ecclesiology by fiat. The movement toward a mature functioning American heirachy has been stopped in its tracks apparently without rational or cannonical reason, but who really knows? I don't even know what I am supposed to obey. If it is just an 'adminstrative change' there is no obedience involved.

Historically to stop commemorating a bishop was an act of excommunication. For some reason, although we commemorate everybody else here and around the world and those who lie asleep in the Lord, we can't commemorate our own bishop? Shoot, I quite often commemorate those I love during the course of the Divine Liturgy. To this point it has always been a silent commeration in line with the particular prayer at the time. No reason at all why I can't give voice to what I am thinking, making a joyful noise unto the Lord.

The Church is not a monastary, I am not a monk. Even in a monastary however, the obedience is only given to one's spiritual father and one's bishop (always a dicey situation between monks and bishops though if the obedience was thought to interfer with the monastic vocation). Obey comes from the word to hear with the connotation that one acts on what one hears. Real obedience cannot be coerced or commanded, it is given and the one to whom it is given has the humility to receive the gift. Once the gift is given, the giver can be reminded of the gift but that is all. They type of obedience I see being demanded is not real obedience at all, just an excuse.

At my baptism I offered my obedience to Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Church. Met. Phillip was never mentioned. That is the obedience I am striving to maintain and be faithful to.

I spoke briefly with +Basil after Pre-Sanctified tonight. His direction to me was maintain your peace. Quite similar to your suggestion. My way of working toward that peace and mainting it may look a lot like ranting to some. Writing and listening to responses like yours is one of the ways I figure things out.

What is going on is part of our Lenten battle--Satan is striking at the episcopate (all Orthodox bishops) and trough them at us.

Thank you for your caring.

[wbondarmunw]

If our understanding of obedience were not already cloudy enough, the Ecumenical Patriarch has specifically and forcefully called upon we Americans to submit to him and none other. Perhaps the Antiochian Synod wishes to counter the Ecumencial Patriarch.

Sorry, I don't feel like being a pawn.

[farmarrl]

Dear Paul,

"It is not blind obedience we are told to endure, but until WE the laity have the full picture, yes, we need to do as they are telling us."

This is where it gets sticky. Unless we ask, and respectfully insist, will we be informed? Furthermore, some seem to suggest http://ocanews.org/GabrielandResponse3.16.09.html that we simply need to obey, and to ask the hard questions is to lack charity and humility.

That sort of approach may have worked during the Ottoman dynasty, even with all the best intentions, but it doesn't work well in North America ANNO 2009. Quite frankly it smells, given the recent happenings.

We are asking for transparency, honest and forthrightness here. We don't need the dirty scoop on this bishop or that (no names please), but want to know the justification(s) behind such a sudden and drastic change affecting our communities. Is that too much to ask? Are we now lacking charity and humility?

In the big scheme of things (and the small of them too), I am a nobody. Frankly, I don't think it is much of our business as laymen on the structure of church heirarchy. Laymen are important though in watching over heresies by our heirarchs. I don't think current political buzzwords like transparency, honesty, and forthrightness; though desirable, are demandable or even askable of the church. I think this is 21st century "I have to know everything" thinking.

The only times I can recall in the lives of the saints when the people stood up and refused to accept church leadership is when it was attached to heretical heirarchs. That is not the case at this time. Perhaps it will be as things unfold, or perhaps not. Does not each archdiocese, diocese, parish have a council or board of directors that overlook their clergy on our behalf? When these governing boards raise the red flag, then we have a responsibility to get more involved.

At this time, from what I do or don't know, nothing heretical has happened. Therefore we have little to say about it. I am responsible for my salvation in my parish. When my priest starts saying things out of line based on what his bishop has told him to do, then we must pounce and say "hey, wait a minute". But until that happens, I don't care as a parishoner, if I have a Bishop or an auxilary bishop as my priest's guide. He is dividing the word of truth for us just as his "boss" is.

My company is restructuring. Nobody likes it in my office, but no ones job has changed, none of our benefits have been cut, no one has gotten fired, management is just realigning themsleves to be more efficient. Should we ask less of our eccleiastical officers?

Paul

[Saduyre9de]

If our understanding of obedience were not already cloudy enough, the Ecumenical Patriarch has specifically and forcefully called upon we Americans to submit to him and none other. Perhaps the Antiochian Synod wishes to counter the Ecumencial Patriarch.

Sorry, I don't feel like being a pawn.

We can learn a lot about godliness and humility in being pawns. Really, what's the worst that can happen? Anything you can conjure up can be conjured up with equal urgency on the other side. That is, the patriarchs could have their own armegeddon scenarios to share if they DON'T tighten the reigns. In the end, it is our simply taske to leran to love Christ in humility and obedience to that which we don't understand is one of the best ways to do this.

Quite frankly, based on you last sentence, this is great blessing for you, seriously.

Joshua

[BenBoobmers]

Dear Paul, my brother, you sidestepped my point and by doing so powerfully make my case.

You initially said "until WE the laity have the full picture...we need to do as they are telling us." Then, in your latest response your position is that as laymen these things are none of our business.

My goodness, Paul, you are setting us all up for heresy.

No, I have been through this before. The answer most assuredly is not myopia.

[farmarrl]

My goodness, Paul, you are setting us all up for heresy.

Oh well, Good thing for all then I am not part of the heirarchy.