[farmarrl]

Can someone help me understand this letter? We were told in church this morning that Metropolitan Phillip went along with the Patriarchate in Antioch to remove the portion of our heading "Self-ruled" without any fuss. Also that our Bishops are now referred to Auxilliary bishops. What does this mean? WHat were they before?

It sounds as if all the work Metropolitan Phillip has done the past 40 years of trying to unite America under a common jurisdiction or to at least get all the ethnic churches to work together just went up in smoke. If this is the case, is it that our ethnic mother church is scared to let us go? Or worse, holding on to us because she can't support herself? or some other reason?

Fr. this morning said it really does not affect US much, but this really does affect us (the church) a whole lot. He just said to keep an eye on the archdiocese home page for updates.

Paul

[MormefWrarebe]

Greetings,

http://tinyurl.com/cocmm6

I pray you all are feeling blessed,

In Christ's love,

Andrew

[farmarrl]

Please all forgive me for stirring the pot. I guess I see conspiracy theories every where I look these days. Goes to show the layity do not always know what is best for ourselves. Unity is what Metropolitan Phillip worked for and is still working towards.

Paul

[Saduyre9de]

Please all forgive me for stirring the pot. I guess I see conspiracy theories every where I look these days. Goes to show the layity do not always know what is best for ourselves. Unity is what Metropolitan Phillip worked for and is still working towards.

Paul

Even if there is one, God will provide. Unless they are giving way to outright heresy, let the bishops deal with this. They will have to answer to God for any wrong-doing (not that I am personally asserting that they are doing anything wrong, but I could be mistaken...)

[delnisfernan]

This wa posted on the AOA's website. Does anyone know the background to this?

An Important Statement from the Clergy of the Greater Detroit Area

March 6, 2009

We have heard, to our dismay, that our honored hierarchs, including Metropolitan PHILIP, are upset by a statement, which was recently circulated in the Greater Detroit Area, in support of the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch, concerning all bishops in the See of Antioch. This letter is to clarify and articulate the true meaning of that statement. We, indeed, have no intention of hurting and/or intimidating any of our hierarchs. We sincerely apologize for any hurt caused unintentionally. As obedient children of the Holy Church, we accept, with humility, this historic decision with much gratitude. We assure our love and respect to all revered hierarchs, and we pray for a smooth transition for our Self-Ruled Antiochian Archdiocese. May the Lord, our God, guide our steps.

V. Rev. Joseph Antypas

V. Rev. George Shalhoub

V. Rev. George Baalbaki

Rev. Ayman Kfouf

[Saduyre9de]

Isn't maybe better for us all to trust in our bishops (and other bishops of the Orthodox)? Aren't they the one's charged with making these administrtive decisions? I'm just not sure how much good we can accomplish by speculating. Rather, I know from another forum that discussions like this have spurred other faithful to wonder how they can trust their bishops at all. I know no one has bad intentions, but it would seem this thread has run it's course and is accomplishing little good now, especially during this lenten season. Let's pray for these bishops and our own and also pray that God can grant us the discernment to know what He wishes us to be concerned with and what not. This is something I personally struggle with.

Forgive me if I have offended anyone.

Joshua

[delnisfernan]

I'm not interested is passing judgment on anyone, just in knowing how any of this affects the AOA's autonomy and future prospects of Orthodox jurisdictional unity in North America.

[velichay]

http://ocanews.org/news/TroubleinAntioch3.9.09.html

[DoctorDulitlBest]

http://ocanews.org/news/TroubleinAntioch3.9.09.html

There is a great deal of gossip and speculation in this very lengthy article. I now wish I had not read as much as I did, particularly during the holy time of Great Lent. It is one thing to discuss and try to understand what this decision means for the Antiochian Archdiocese and its people; it's quite another to air episcopal dirty laundry, speculate on motives, and generally gossip about Metropolitan PHILIP.

-Kseniya

[jeaccatty]

There is a great deal of gossip and speculation in this very lengthy article.

As with any opinion article (especially those on the internet), it is important to take into account the source. The author of this article is mostly known for his role as the self appointed watchdog of the Orthodox Church to protect it against dishonest bishops and/or administrators. Thus the "slant" of the article is quite predictable.

Fr David Moser

[Saduyre9de]

I don't know. I am quite uncomfortable with all of this. I do truly believe that this thread has gone well beyond the intentions of the OP and seems to offer refuge for brothers and sisters to express their distrust of bishops. While I don't believe we are called to blindly follow them (that is, in matters of doctrine) I also don't believe we are called to be watchdogs. Worse than unwittingly allowing a bishop to steal or misuse our money and independence and other earthly treasures that we cannot store up in heaven would be to call out a bishop on something that may not be true or considerate of the whole picture (for that, we WILL have to answer one day). In the end, if a bishop gets away with something, he will answer for that. Not us. We may suffer earthly consequences for his misgivings, but I would rather that than to answer to Christ for wrongly judging a bishop's actions. It's not called the dread judgment seat for nothing.

Let us pray for our bishops and pray for humility. We are one Church regardless of non-canonical status, overlapping or bickering bishops, misused money, property issues, new calendar, old calendar, schmemman, anti-schmemman you name it.

God bless brothers and sisters,

Joshua

[velichay]

As with any opinion article (especially those on the internet), it is important to take into account the source. The author of this article is mostly known for his role as the self appointed watchdog of the Orthodox Church to protect it against dishonest bishops and/or administrators. Thus the "slant" of the article is quite predictable.

Fr David Moser

While I think questioning the source - particularly in the case of ocanews.org - is always a sound thing, I can personally affirm that after speaking with a couple close friends and Godparents to members of my family (an Antiochian priest of the Midwest diocese and his Khouriya), in their opinion, it is an accurate article.

[DoctorDulitlBest]

The author of this article is mostly known for his role as the self appointed watchdog of the Orthodox Church to protect it against dishonest bishops and/or administrators. Thus the "slant" of the article is quite predictable.

Yes, Father. I guess what I'm trying to say is, for those of us who cannot influence this with anything other than prayer, getting lathered up about it will do us no good at all. I'm trying to recall where I read recently a Saint or someone important commenting that needing to know all the jots and tittles of church politics is bad for the soul. I think this article is a good example of that.

I've heard it said that we get what we deserve if we don't pray for our hierarchs. It looks like we need to pray for the Antiochian hierarchs a little more fervently, that this reorganization may be good for the North American Archdiocese in particular and the Orthodox Church in general.

-Kseniya

[BenBoobmers]

If we don't stay informed and hold them accountable, we will set them and ourselves up for a downfall.

Been there, done that.

[immoceefe]

I believe it is the responsibility and duty of every faithful Orthodox Christian to learn the faith and to be strong and courageous and to stand up for the faith, even if it means, at times, holding priests and hierarchs to the right standards, when there is an obvious need to do so. This is especially true when it comes to obvious theological matters. If I were to hear my priest say something heretical, I am the type of person who would shout something out in the middle of the sermon. Although my wife would not speak to me for a year.

The question of ecclesiastical authority gets very dicey, because we are also talking about the tone or spirit of it, and not something that is necessarily or obviously heretical. Most bishops and priests, when criticized -- it is over how they are spending the money of the major contributors to the Church. So I think there develops a kind of foxhole attitude by some clergy and hierarchs. They see themselves as embattled. And so unity for them all too often is equated with the idea of getting along. If we could just get along better, then we would have unity. That sort of thing. But unity and conflict are not necessarily diametrically opposed. To find unity in myself, I must wage war against those parts of me that resist God and are easily tempted to do the devil's work.

So the underlying problem is that all too often priests and clergy find themselves lapsing into the role of a bureaucratic functionary whose major task it is to avoid conflict. And the easiest way to do this is to insist that "I am in charge here...". In such a climate, terms such as unity take on basically a bureaucratic meaning, whereas the true meaning of unity begins and ends with the interior life, and the Church polity becomes an outward expression of this interior unity. Which also involves being engaged in spiritual warfare.

But there is precious little attention and focus by the clergy on the development of the interior life of the faithful, other than that which is just absorbed by attending services. It is not made explicit enough in our preaching and teaching and daily observances in the Church. Theology is taught as information, not formation. So this leads to a certain amount of confusion and anxiety and questioning regarding the true meaning of authority. Especially as we live in a nihilistic society and we look around us and see moral degeneration, and are even tempted by it while being repelled at the same time.

Again, I think taking a look at St. Gregory's Oration II is a very helpful guide in this. First of all, these problems are nothing new. And second, St. Gregory is responding to intense scrutiny and criticism by the laity. And he is not criticizing the laity for their having questioned him and his motives. Rather, he is putting the issue of authority in its proper perspective. With scathing self-criticism on the one hand but also, scathing and sarcastic criticism of the clergy of his day on the other.

I say all of this having watched as the Episcopal Church completely imploded. And I lay the blame squarely on the laity which was content to be uneducated and cowardly in their own faith. If I have low standards for myself, then the standards I expect from the ecclessiastical authorities will be low. And I will be lulled into a false understanding of unity, thinking it simply means a lack of conflict.

[DoctorDulitlBest]

If we don't stay informed and hold them accountable, we will set them and ourselves up for a downfall.

Been there, done that.

I agree, and while I'm now in the Synod, I was in the OCA for many years, including when the financial scandals were breaking, so I sympathize. I am by no means saying we should have just let the hierarchy do as it pleased with no accountability. I am saying that the financial improprieties needed to be uncovered, and the matter handled in a matter-of-fact and methodical way, to discover who was responsible, and then hold them accountable. Without gossip, speculation, or back-biting.

The same goes for what is happening with the Antiochian Archdiocese.

It is not the same thing to seek out the facts of the matter and hold people responsible for their actions, as it is to gossip about their motives for doing it. Remember Jack Webb? "Just the facts, ma'am." We need just the facts.

-Kseniya

[Saduyre9de]

And it should be made clear that, in the case of the subject of this thread, no one is stealing money or mispending it, no one is accused of making heretical moves or comments. it is simply a bishop doing what he has every right to do. In this thread, the only things we can do is 1) Speculate on intentions and 2) offer our own thoughts on how this does or doesn't fit our personal method of what is best for the Church.

Option 1) is out of the question and option 2) is fine, but we have to wonder: to what end? None of us our bishops and we can probably thank God for that (I know I do). It's fine to have opinions, and even to share them respectfully (it can only be a good thing for bishops and patriarchs to hear the thoughts and prayers of their faithful so as to consider all options in truth), but in the end, it seems to me, regarding administerial issues and organization, we should trust that God is leading the heirarchy.

It makes me sick when I see those Orthodox lay groups who ban together to make legal suits against their diocese/deanery/jurisdiction or to protest decisions of their jurisdiction (that do not have to do with embezzlement or intensly moral issues). It seems I vaguely remember some lay group in the GOArch. Even when I agree with their position, it sends such a terribly unchristian message to the world. It makes the Church look so... American. Me Me Me Me. What I think is right. My vision is the best. Why won't people just see it MY way?

Surely there are times when bishops need to be put in check, but I don't see how this is one of them. Sure, it doesn't SEEM to fit what many of us have envisioned for the Church. And some of us think that to best obey the Canon of no overlapping bishops, the best move forward would be to move toward complete independence (officially) so as to later reunite. Maybe we're right. But we're dead wrong. Maybe God doesn't think we are all ready for complete independence yet. I don't know. But I do know that I was not charged with having to make these decisions. This is left up to my bishops and my Patriarch, so, in the end, I will not reluctantly go along with his decision, but I will prayerfully and humbly accept his decision. If that means that our parishes (accept for the OCA) are tied to Patriarchs abroad for another 200 years... then God be praised. May His will be done in these issue through our bishops.

Joshua

[immoceefe]

So what is the problem? What is the nature of the problem? Is there even a problem? When a public, stinging letter is sent from a bishop to a Metropolitan, is that something just between bishops? Is it just personal? Has it any theological/spiritual significance beyond just a personal battle?

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 eccleiastical leadership? Whenever there is a controversy among bishops, are the laity innocent bystanders? What is our role, if any?

The obvious course of action is to choose sides. I'm for Bishop A. He's for Bishop B. Another is to pray for them. I was going to say "just" pray for them, which is innacurrate since it implies that prayer is not a very powerful tool. On the other hand, prayer only can become something akin to sola fides, or sola scriptura in its effects. Not that some sort of action is called for either, or interference. Only that perhaps whenever there is conflict there is an opportunity to examine what the underlying spiritual and theological issues are, and bring them to some sort of clarity of mind. Simple clarity is a powerful tool for unity, even if it brings the nature of a conflict more into the open.

[BenBoobmers]

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.

[vipBrooriErok]

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.