Wednesday, March 18. 2009Reflections by Fr. Keiser, A Son, and A Priest
Your comments and thoughts are welcome.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
The email from "Abdallah Khouri" is a fascinating insight into what may really be going on. If Metropolitan PHILIP, as many of us suspect, originated this action by the Holy Synod, he may be in grave danger of having violated Apostolic Canon 35 (quoted below).
The key issue, here, of course, is finding the “smoking gun.” I would be extremely interested if anyone reading this is in possession of evidence in this regard that would help prove this and would be willing to provide it--- either here or to silouan1@gmail.com. ========================= Apostolic Canon 35 (source http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.ix.vi.html): “The bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit.”
#1
Silouan James
on
2009-03-18 08:48
While I appreciate and agree with much of the reflection of “A Son of Antioch,” I cannot help but make a correction. He asserts that “it was the Holy Synod of Antioch that helped create and foster the ‘Russy-Antaky’ division in this country that caused considerable disunity, both among Syrian Christians here and among the wider Church of North America.”
This is not really accurate. The Arab Orthodox in America were united under St. Raphael until his death in 1915. Immediately after that, they divided, as some wished to be under the Russian Archdiocese and some under the Church of Antioch. The “Antaky” group had as their leader Metropolitan Germanos (Shehadi), an Antiochian bishop who was visiting America at the time of St. Raphael’s death. Against the wishes of the Patriarchate, Met Germanos decided to remain in America and become bishop for the Antaky parishes. It was not until 1924 that the Antiochian Patriarchate itself established a formal jurisdiction in America. Thus, it can hardly be accused of “creating” the Russy-Antaky schism, since the schism was well-established prior to 1924. However, this is not to say that Antioch had no role in America before 1924. In fact, St. Raphael was quite ambiguous as to his ecclesiastical authority. He certainly deferred to the Russian archbishops in America, but he also wrote that his diocese was “one of the dioceses pertaining to the See of Antioch... notwithstanding its nominal allegience to the Russian Holy Synod” (Cf. Al Kalimat 3, pp. 95-96). It was this sort of ambiguity that set the stage for the Russy-Antaky schism that followed his death. I certainly do not mean to question the holiness of St. Raphael; far from it! But when speaking of the past, it is important that we have our facts straight. (Editor’s note: Thanks for the fascinating clarification. I think the key word here is “ambiguity”; given the facts one can argue each case persuasively and authentically. And it is a lesson we should learn to avoid the mistakes of the past. Perhaps the way forward is less ambiguity....)
#2
Ferris Haddad
on
2009-03-18 10:24
Yes, this is possibly a key canon. Whether you number it 34 or 35 is not the issue right now. What is at stake is whether it can be shown that this action of the synod of Antioch was at +PHILIP's request and instigation. If so, then His Emminence has broken an important ecclesiological canon, since he did not instigate it after a consultation with the bishops here in America of the AOCANA. If it is a backroom deal, then such could never be proven. This canon could turn out to be very relevant, but that depends on the nature of the paper trail and evidence. That email is a step in that direction.
#3
Anonymous
on
2009-03-18 10:39
Thank you for the correction, Ferris. I should have been more careful with my words. Obviously, in my letter that covered many topics, I was forced to simplify some things. In the case of the Russy-Antaky division, I clearly oversimplified, and I thank you for the correction.
For further clarification, I would say that the Holy Synod of Antioch did not 'create' the Russy-Antaky schism, but rather that they allowed it to continue and, in fact, fostered its existence by appointing separate hierarchies. I think that we would be in agreement on that point based upon your response. Either way, the historical reality is that the Holy Synod of Antioch has not always made the wisest decisions with respect to America (then again, everyone and every governing body is susceptible to mistakes now and then!) and sometimes it takes Americans pushing the Holy Synod of Antioch to change course for a better resolution to our problems. Again, thanks for your considerate response and correction.
#4
Son of Antioch
on
2009-03-18 11:46
Somebody please help me understand this. +MP claims that he supports ( or initiated this) to preserve the unity of the Archdiocese?!? This is what Rome says of the papacy--that supreme authority must rest in one man( the successor of Peter) as the focus of unity. Surely he is not appealing to Roman perspectives to justify this or is he?
All this has not escaped the notice of the Uniates(Melkites). They find it curious that a Roman perspective is being used by the AOC +MP to justify this action. Surely it can't be since all the criticism we have leveled at them and we turn around and use a Roman argument for placing all authority in one man--while reducing others bishops to assistants. I was always told that Orthodox unity was in the Faith and Sacraments we share--not a supreme bishop. So what has changed??
#5
anonymous
on
2009-03-18 11:50
Mark and the supporters of the OCA,
Met Philip is a great man who has guided the AOCA for many years. That being said Theodosius and Herman were and are not great men. Nick Soraich is not a great man.Met Jonah could have just as easily found the answers he was seeking a lost youth in California in an Ashram, mosque or mormon temple. Please focus your energy on the pitiful disreputable OCA. As a proponent of its supremacy over North America doctrine, don't bash Antioch. Please clean your own filthy house first before you find fault in others.
#6
anon
on
2009-03-18 15:12
Mark (Editor),
I think what Mr. Haddad refers to is actually a little more "earth shattering" than that, at least for OCA and AOCANA members who are more likely to perpetuate the false myth of pre-Revolutionary unity (sort of a "there once was an Eden"). The sources themselves indicate that the unity of the Syrian-Lebanese was found in the person of St. Raphael, who expressed dual allegiance. Even the events bear this out, for as soon as he died, the Christian Arab community split. A lay church historian, Matthew Namee, actually gave a paper addressing this myth at the last OTSA conference for a session I proposed. He has a fuller version, which I believe he is intending to publish at some point. The truth of the matter is that there never was Orthodox jurisdictional unity--not even formally. St. Tikhon did his best, and was as good as anyone could have been, I think, but the immigrants came in too hard and too fast and Greece and Constantinople (changing back and forth, remember) operated with the same sense of authority as did Tikhon and the Russian Mission. We have more unity now in America than we ever did and I hope we continue in that direction and not regress. I want to sincerely thank the Antiochan Priest for an outstanding and indepth reflection on the current situation. I commented in an earlier post that I knew of no tradition or historic similarity that sustained this recent decision. Upon reading his reflection I was more convinced of the "rightness" of my opinion. I still say we need to start calling Phillip "pope".
By the way, Mark, you've been taking a beating of late once again, or so it seems. I have to laugh at those who appear to read oca news for the sole purpose of finding fault with you. Rest assured the rest of us - even if we may disagree at times - really appreciate your work and contribution. (Editor's note: Thanks, but you never see the real hate mail. I have a special file called " Glorious Hate Mail". I am given to understand though that "jackass" is a real insult in Arabic. Live and learn. )
#8
anon
on
2009-03-18 18:13
I'm just curious how all of this pertains to the purpose of this website?
Mark, you can say anything (and you have) under the blanket of "free press" "right to know" "in pursuit of the truth" and so on, and you've put yourself in a position that anyone who challenges you is someone who stands against "for the good of the church." What's becoming crystal clear is that this site a place to post whatever, whenever, and with anyone's editorial "spin" on the events. For the sake of your "journalistic integrity" and "the good of the church" I suggest sticking with the stated purpose of your website (and I stress *your*) or changing its description to line up with your purpose(s). M (editor's notes: Who has time? I am so busy trying to keep up with stories, reflections and comments, there is no time for niceties. The site is what it is, or rather, what it does. Read, or don't read. Your choice. But take the time to criticize something meaningful, not my lack of "purpose". Sheesh.)
#9
Methodios
on
2009-03-18 19:27
Thankfully Mark does not succumb to misdirection. It always seems to emerge from individuals who prefer the status quo. If the status quo was healthy, I would be in favor of it also... but it is not. We must dialogue on these important issues until the light of truth shines on issues that have been shoved into the shadows way too long. The truth hurts when it challenges sacred cows.
#10
Anon.
on
2009-03-18 20:00
Well stated Fr Keiser and hope you are not sent to missionize in nChile. Our leader turned against us to preserve his "power control". All know it but few wiill confront him. Resting in Florida ne will prepare quite the "table of WHYS and what's Good for You", for the Apr 24th conclave. Be assured! Why not a Pope?
#11
Anonymous Ant. Clergyman
on
2009-03-18 22:29
Fr. Kaiser -
Thank you for your insightful letter. I hope that many others (clergy) are also willing to ask these questions openly. My prayer is for transparency and clarity in the AOCA. If +MP is truly the pious leader that many believe him to be, he will address your questions, and all others, head-on (and soon). Mark S.- Thank you for your dedication and time. I am amazed that personal attacks are leveled against you while the important and valid questions raised here go unanswered. Please hang in there. So many of the negative comments here are laughable and unworthy of response. Many talk about unity and then attack you for butting in to the affairs of the AOCA. As I see it, the current situation in the AOCA impacts all Orthodox churches in the U.S. (just as the OCA crisis does) and deserves the attention of all. You are doing a huge service to this Archdiocese (AOCA) and our church. It is appreciated by many.
#12
David Feliciano
on
2009-03-18 22:57
For those of you who keep criticising Mark Stokoe....he's offered what, ONE analysis here? The majority of the content is Antiochian priests dialoguing the events and issues....and thoughfutlly so.
If YOU don't like it, then go read something else. The rest of us are grateful to Mark for opening up ocanews.org so we can actually here about this from people who KNOW what they are talking about. There is no "my church, your church." Its CHRIST'S Church. This conernes the OCA and Greeks as much is it concerns us. If you think otherwise, then you are part of the porblem and need to take advantage of the remaining days of Great Lent.
#13
Antionymous
on
2009-03-19 02:23
Your reading of the Canon is, I suppose, supportable from one perspective, if you take the word "nation" to mean the United States (which, of course, means that the Bishops, clergy, and faithful in Canada, and Central and South America don't count). But I'm reasonably sure the Patriarchate would read it differently, viz., that "nation" refers to the Antiochian Patriarchate; that the Patriarch is the head Bishop among all the Antiochian Bishops, wherever they may be; and that all the Antiochian Bishops form one Synod of the Church of Antioch. There is, admittedly, still the issue of lack of the consultation required by the Canon. But to use this Canon to club Metropolitan Philip? I don't think so.
Fr. Philip
#14
Igumen Philip (Speranza)
on
2009-03-19 05:13
Many of us in the OCA have come to recognize the dangers of Papal-like or dictatorial authority.
Enjoy.
#15
Daniel E. Fall
on
2009-03-19 07:33
Further irony:
Don't the Melkites, then, place themselves in the position of an "autonomous" (using the word somewhat loosely. "Autocephalous" might even be more accurate) "Sister Church" vis a vis Rome?
#16
Fr. Dennis Buck
on
2009-03-19 07:34
That Philip uses, misuses, or completely ignores the canons with the best of post-schism popes is hardly a debatable point. Despots always claim that in their own person resides the law or in this case the canons.
While those who oppose him may think that by employing canonical arguments even though correct will somehow persuade a change of course they merely need look at the littered historical trail strewn with the bones of those who thought the same. "This Thing of Ours" A term used often by his Sicilian counterparts is not nor ever will be subjected to power sharing especially with gringo's. Why is that even old Don's can't ever seem to retire?
#17
Kevin
on
2009-03-19 08:20
Why is ENABLED for comments on Fr Keiser's great message. Don't hide the truth. a mass mailing to every Ant PARISHIONER from Met P. is underway. "you just don't understand", baloney! As usual!
#18
Anonymous Arch'd Priest
on
2009-03-19 10:44
I converted to Holy Orthodoxy because I believed via a study of the patristic and historic sources that it represented the genuine Catholic Faith of Holy Tradition.
The words of St. Pope Gregory the Great in particular challenged the non-Catholic notion of modern Rome's Bishop of bishops ecclessiastical despotism. Of course Gregory presided over the Roman See when it still respected Holy Tradition. When studying the correspondences of Pope Gregory, regarding concerns about his contemporary John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople I saw how he regarded even hints of Episcopal Despotism. Words like, "in imitation of the first apostate" are used without hesitation when describing a bishop attempting to elevate himself above his brother bishops. So here I wind up in the Antiochian Archdiocese only to see that we have our very own Bishop of bishops and one who gives almost verbatim the same arguments of Roman Catholic Apologists for their "Singular" non-canonical behavior...Go figure?
#19
Kevin
on
2009-03-19 13:03
Dear Mark:
'Jackass' might be a real insult in Arabic, but as one who owns two of them (mammoth jacks, both, and big as normal horses) I've found the real thing to be loyal, gentle, very intelligent and easily trainable. And their reputation for stubbornness stems from their sense of caution: they won't get into a situation they don't understand, and where they don't see a way to escape what they perceive as dangerous. They can also give you one hell of a kick if really provoked. If only some of our leaders were half as 'ass-tute'!
#20
James Morgan
on
2009-03-19 14:15
"Who has time for niceties?" "lack of purpose?" I'm confused. Neither of these topics did I even mention. My only point, which you and others failed to address, is that what is going on in the Antiochian Archdiocese really has no place here, under what you (the editor) describes as a site which is "To inform members of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) of the origins, nature and scope of allegations concerning financial misconduct at the highest levels of the central church administration of the OCA by providing news and supporting documentation about the scandal."
One could argue, and I'm not saying that this is the stand I'm taking, that the site has morphed (for better or for worse) into something other than its stated purpose. And who has the time? I laughed, really, I did - you're not the New York Times and I don't think Murdoch is breathing down your neck to bust another front-page story for his empire. But really Mark, you do have the time to honestly and critically think about the purpose of the site. Here are some ideas if you're really strapped for time (I take no credit if you decide to use them): OCANEWS: To inform the general public about perceived mismanagement by Orthodox bishops, clergy, lay officers both here and abroad OCANEWS: To provide a forum for dialogue about topics not readily discussed on official church websites or other publications OCANEWS: To report on the various ins-and-outs of the Orthodox Church(es) with my main focus to talk about all that is bad, ignoble, and wrong. Bottom line, you're off-topic. If you can relate all of this to your purpose, do it; if not... well, you know what you're doing - I certainly don't need to point the finger. ~M (Editor's note: Or, of course, all of the above and more. If it helps you, go with it.)
#21
Methodios
on
2009-03-19 15:25
I liked the term PAY-PAL s it sums up our Met Philip to a TEE! The April 24 meeting of the Synod (USA) ??? will be nothing but a plea of His normal, "I know what is best for you." His theme since 1966. As one Eastern states Vicar was reportedto say, "I don't need to think matters through as I have My Metropolitan." So much for the robot age that Met P. and Met H. encouraged?!!
#22
Anonymous
on
2009-03-19 16:48
Father bless!
Even if one interprets the canon as referring to the Patriarchate of Antioch, the actions were hardly taken in consultation with all of the bishops of the Patriarchate. I am quite certain my bishop, +BASIL of Wichita and Mid-America, was not consulted, nor I am quite certain was +MARK of Toledo and the Midwest. Last I checked, they are bishops of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the canon would call for their unanimity in the decision. Or they are not, because they are bishops of an autonomous church, in which case, on what basis does the Holy Synod of Antioch functionally revoke its grant of autonomy by unilaterally modifying the Constitution of an autonomous church? The question is whether the portion of the Holy Synod of Antioch that decided it had the right to void the Constitution of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America that it had lately agreed to is in violation of Canon 35 (or 34). (And no, the differences between the 'equally authoritative' English version published by the Patriarchate, signed by the entire Holy Synod, and that adopted at Pittsburgh by the Archdiocesan Convention do not extend to there not being diocesan bishops in the Archdiocese, nor to there being multiple 'auxiliary bishops'.) In Christ, Subdeacon David St. Mary Magdalene Mission Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America
#23
Subdeacon David Yetter
on
2009-03-19 18:08
ctions, a sinner....
• Constitution of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America Enclosed is the text of Constitution of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America approved by the Holy Synod of Antioch in the 37th conciliar session held in the Patriarchate, in Damascus October 13-15, 2004. This document is the culmination of a process begun by the request to the Patriarchate of Antioch from her North American archdiocese for “autonomy.” The Holy Synod of Antioch met 7-10 October 2003 to consider this request and responded by passing unanimously a resolution that approved a status of “self-rule” according to the specifics included in that official resolution. The North American archdiocese was asked to propose changes to its constitution consistent with the October 2003 Resolution. The said resolution stated (article Following the archdiocesan special convention held in Pittsburgh in July 2003, His Eminence Metropolitan Philip submitted to the Patriarch a proposed amended constitution. It was discussed during the course of the meeting of the Holy Synod, October 13-15, 2004, and the enclosed revised constitution was unanimously approved. Section 1. The Name The name of this self-ruled religious corporation shall be “Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocesan of North America”. A. Legal This organization derives its legal authority to function as a religious corporation by virtue of a charter issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 2, Section 15, of the “Religious Corporation Laws” of the State of New York. B. Ecclesiastical This Archdiocese derives its ecclesiastical authority to function as a self-ruling Archdiocese in accordance with this constitution from the Holy Synod of the Apostolic Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East (“Holy Synod”) and shall constitute one unified ecclesiastical Antiochian entity as an Archdiocese of the Patriarchate of Antioch. Its Primate is a member of said Holy Synod and is the duly elected Metropolitan Archbishop (“Primate”, “Metropolitan –Archbishop”), serving under a canonical Praxis issued by His Beatitude, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East (“Patriarch”). Section 3. Headquarters The headquarters of this Archdiocese shall be located in the Greater Metropolitan New York City area, including northern New Jersey. Section 4. Qualifications for Metropolitan Archbishop and Diocesan Bishop Candidates for the office of Metropolitan Archbishop of this Archdiocese and / or candidates for the office of Diocesan Bishop must be celibates and meet the following qualifications: A. Metropolitan Archbishop (1) He must be one of the canonical clergy who is qualified in all respects, including the possession of an earned degree in Orthodox theology and be a man of piety and good character. (2) He must be fluent in the English language and have a good working knowledge of the Arabic language. (3) He must be at least thirty-three (33) years of age. (4) He must be physically and mentally sound. (5) He must have been in accordance with the statutes of the Patriarchate of Antioch, a member of the clergy of the Patriarchate for five years, and have served some time, as a clergyman in the Archdiocese. B. Diocesan Bishop (1) He must be one of the canonical clergy who is qualified in all respects, including the possession of an earned degree in Orthodox theology and be a man of piety and good character. (2) He must be fluent in the English language and have a knowledge of the Arabic language. (3) He must be at least thirty-three (33) years of age. (4) He must be physically and mentally sound. (5) He must have been in accordance with the statutes of the Patriarchate of Antioch, a member of the clergy of the Patriarchate for five years, and have served some time, as a clergyman in the Archdiocese. Section 5. Nomination and Election Procedures Upon Vacancy of Metropolitan See A. Immediately upon the vacancy of the Metropolitan See, either by death, disability or retirement, the Archdiocesan Synod and the Archdiocesan Board of Trustees shall inform officially in writing the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East and appropriate civil and ecclesiastical authorities. Upon any such happening, the Senior Bishop present, together with the Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees and/or the Treasurer and/or the Chancellor shall seal important rooms at the Archdiocese headquarters, and make a record of same, signed by all present. (Thereafter, all properties or investments registered in the name of the Metropolitan Archbishop shall become the property of the Archdiocese). The Senior Diocesan Bishop and the Archdiocesan Synod will, with the members of the Archdiocesan Board of Trustees, assume responsibility for the administration of the Metropolitan See. B. The duties and functions assigned to the Senior Diocesan Bishop in Sections 5A, C and D shall cease to be performed by him and shall be performed by the Patriarchal Vicar appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch upon assumption of his duties. C. Within a period of sixty (60) days after the vacancy of the Metropolitan See, the Senior Diocesan Bishop and the Archdiocesan Synod together with the Archdiocesan Board of Trustees, shall call a Special Convention, which must be held on or before the expiration of thirty (30) days of the date of call, for the nomination and election of candidates for the position of Metropolitan Archbishop by secret ballot. D. (1) The Senior Diocesan Bishop, and the Archdiocesan Synod in agreement with the Archdiocesan Board of Trustees, shall prepare a list containing all the names of worthy clergymen who are qualified for nomination as per the list of nominees kept in the records of the Patriarchate and the Holy Synod, and including the names of those qualified under Section 4 of this Article. (2) The delegates attending such Convention shall select, by secret ballot, three candidates from such list. Each delegate shall be entitled to one vote. The three clergymen with the highest number of votes of the general assembly shall thereupon be designated as candidates. (3) Immediately, thereafter, the names of the candidates for the office of Metropolitan Archbishop, shall be submitted to the Synod of the Archdiocese which will certify the results of the nomination and submit the names of the candidates to the Holy Synod, who will, within forty days of submittal, elect one of the nominees to be the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Archdiocese. Section 6. Nomination and Election of Diocesan Bishops A Diocesan Bishop shall be nominated and elected in the following manner: A. The Metropolitan Archbishop is agreement with the Archdiocesan Synod and the Archdiocesan Board of Trustees, shall prepare a list containing the names of the worthy clergymen who are qualified for nomination as per the list of nominees kept in the records of the Patriarchate and the Holy Synod and mentioning the names of those qualified under Section 4B of this Article, and a copy of this list shall be included in the call for the Convention. B. A General Convention, or a Special Convention called for that purpose by the Metropolitan Archbishop, shall, from a list provided for in accordance with Section 6A above, nominate, by secret ballot, three (3) candidates for the office of Diocesan bishop. Each delegate shall be entitled to one vote times the number of offices to be filled and each of such votes must be for a different candidate. The entire list of candidates shall be submitted to the Archdiocesan Synod with the candidate’s respective number of votes received. When Diocesan Assemblies shall be constituted, the nominations shall then be made by said Assemblies. C. The Electoral Board of Diocesan Bishops is constituted of the Metropolitan – Archbishop with the Diocesan Bishops and the Auxiliary Bishop D. Where one Diocesan Bishop is to be elected, the Electoral Board shall elect, by a majority vote, from the three candidates receiving the highest number of votes of the Convention. With respect to the election of additional Diocesan Bishops at the same time, the Electoral Board may elect, by a majority vote, from the entire list of nominees. Such election(s) shall occur within 40 days thereafter. The Metropolitan Archbishop of this Archdiocese shall set the time and place for the electoral assembly and shall preside over it. Section 7. Consecration of Metropolitan and/or Diocesan Bishop A. The consecration of the Metropolitan Archbishop shall take place at the Patriarchal Cathedral in Damascus by the laying on of hands of the Patriarch, and the members of the Holy Synod. His enthronement (installation) shall take place at the Cathedral of the Archdiocese. B. The consecration of Diocesan Bishops shall take place at the Patriarchal Cathedral in Damascus by the laying on of hands of the Patriarch and the members of the Holy Synod. Their enthronement (installation) shall take place at the Cathedral of their diocese. ARTICLE II MEMBERSHIP AND JURISDICTION Section 1. This Archdiocese consists of all dioceses, churches, missions, parishes, monasteries, departments, agencies, orders, societies and committees in North America (“units”) heretofore or hereafter established by the Archdiocese of North America. Section 2. This Archdiocese shall remain one unified Antiochian entity as an Archdiocese of the Patriarchate of Antioch and may not be divided except if Orthodox unity in North America is implemented by decision of the Antiochian Holy Synod and of the Orthodox Churches concerned. Section 3. Upon the dissolution or separation from the Archdiocese of any unit, the assets and property shall revert to the Archdiocese. No real property of any unit may be sold or mortgaged without the express written approval of the Metropolitan Archbishop and no assets in excess of $ 100,000 (one hundred thousand dollars) of any unit may be sold or mortgaged without the express written approval of the Metropolitan Archbishop. Section 4. Any provision of the Constitution of any unit of this Archdiocese that is in any way inconsistent with, or in conflict with any provision of this Constitution shall cause said provision of the unit Constitution to be deemed void and of no effect. ARTICLE III PURPOSES Section 1. The purpose of the Archdiocese is the pastoral care of the Antiochian Orthodox people of North America. It maintains spiritual unity, coordinates religious work or activity, and promotes collaboration and closer relations with the governing and advisory bodies of other Orthodox Christian Jurisdictions in the territory hereinbefore mentioned, with the intent of propagating, practicing and forever perpetuating religious worship, services, ministrations, sacraments, and teachings in full accord and unity with the doctrine, rules, ritual, canon law, faith, practice, discipline, traditions and usages of the Orthodox Christian Church. Section 2. In fulfilling the purpose set forth in Section 1, of this Article, to exercise governing and advisory authority over all the component divisions of this Archdiocese hereinbefore mentioned. ARTICLE IV GOVERNMENT Section 1. The governing code for this Archdiocese shall be the Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Holy Canons, the Constitution of the Church of Antioch and the Constitution of the Archdiocese as approved by the Holy Synod of Antioch. Section 2. The Archdiocesan Synod comprised of the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Diocesan Bishops shall be the governing ecclesiastical authority of the Archdiocese. The Metropolitan Archbishop shall preside over the Archdiocesan Synod. The Synod shall determine the number of dioceses, their boundaries, and the respective diocese(s) and/or area of responsibility of each bishop. It shall also determine all matters of hierarchical discipline of bishops of the Archdiocese. Section 3. The decisions of the Archdiocesan Synod may be appealed to the Patriarch and Holy Synod of Antioch who shall be the final judge on the matter. Section 4. All administrative authority is vested in the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Archdiocesan Board of Trustees as hereinafter provided. Section 5. All legislative authority is vested in the General Convention of the Archdiocese as approved by the Metropolitan Archbishop and by the Archdiocesan Synod. Section 6. The decisions of the Holy Synod of Antioch shall be binding on the Archdiocese on matters of doctrine, liturgy, sacraments, relations with autocephalous Orthodox Churches and ecumenical policy with regard to other Christian and non-Christian bodies. ARTICLE V MEETINGS Section 1. The General Convention shall be held biennially within the last twelve days in July at a location set by the General Convention at its meeting four years preceding its determination. In the event of an emergency or circumstances which in the discretion of the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Board of Trustees justify the postponement or a change in the time, place or bidding for a future convention, such postponement and/or change in the time, place or bid therefore shall be valid. Section 2. Special Convention A. The Metropolitan Archbishop may call a Special Convention at any time he deems it necessary and advisable. B. Upon a petition by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of Diocesan Bishops or of parishes of the Archdiocese in good standing to the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Board of Trustees for a special convention, the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Board of Trustees shall call a special convention. C. The time and place of such convention shall be fixed by those responsible for calling such convention. Section 3. Notices for Convention A. Notices for regular conventions shall be sent to all parishes and missions of the Archdiocese and to all those who are entitled to be represented at the convention no less than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the convention. B. All notices for special convention shall state the purpose for which the convention is being called and shall be sent by mail that will positively certify receipt by signature no less than thirty (30) days in advance of the date of such convention to all parishes and missions of the Archdiocese and to all those who are entitled to be represented at a convention. Section 4. Delegates A. All Diocesan Bishops pastors, full-time assistant pastors, retired pastors, and all full-time clergy directly employed by the Archdiocese shall be delegates to any convention and shall each be entitled to one (1) vote in person or by written proxy. B. Each one hundred (100) persons or any fraction of one hundred (100) which exceeds fifty (50) persons in every parish or mission, in good standing in the Archdiocese, shall be represented by one lay delegate at a convention. Each delegate may vote on behalf of one (hundred (100) persons in his parish or community or on behalf of any fraction of one hundred (100) exceeding fifty (50) in number. A parish or community may send as many delegates or written proxies as it wishes without affecting its right to have cast in its behalf the votes to which it is entitled. These delegates shall be elected in accordance with the provisions of the local parish constitution and by-laws and be faithful Orthodox in good standing under the rules of their parish or community and the Archdiocese. C. (1) All regular members of the Board of Trustees of the Archdiocese shall be delegates at large and shall be entitled to one vote. (2) Each Diocesan Fellowship of St. John the Divine shall be represented by as many delegates as it wishes to send and each Diocesan Fellowship of St. John the Divine shall be entitled to one (1) vote. (3) Each Diocesan SOYO shall be represented by as many delegates as it wishes to send and each Diocesan SOYO shall be entitled to one (1) vote and the NAC president shall be a delegate and shall be entitled to one (1) vote. (4) Each Diocesan AOCWNA (Antiochian Orthodox Christian Women of North America) shall be represented by as many delegates as it wishes to send and each Diocesan AOCWNA shall be entitled to one (1) vote. (5) Each Diocesan Order of St. Ignatius of Antioch shall be represented by as many delegates as it wishes to send and each Diocesan Order of St. Ignatius of Antioch shall be entitled to one (1) vote. D. A delegate’s proxy shall be recognized if it bears the signature of the pastor and/or chairman of the Parish Council. The proxy of a priest shall be recognized with the approval of the Metropolitan Archbishop of the presiding officer of the Convention or his duly appointed representative. A proxy by telegram will be accepted in an emergency if it is approved by the Metropolitan Archbishop or the presiding officer of the convention or his duly appointed representative. Section 5. Convention Officers A. The Metropolitan Archbishop or his duly appointed representative shall preside over all conventions. B. The Metropolitan Archbishop or his duly appointed representative shall appoint the following officers of the convention: A lay vice-chairman, a secretary or secretaries, sergeants at arms and one or more parliamentarians. C. The secretaries shall be responsible for recording the minutes of the convention. D. In the event of prolonged absence of the Metropolitan Archbishop, his duly appointed representative or upon the failure to so appoint, the Senior Diocesan Bishop shall preside at a convention. Section 6. Quorum A majority of the established Churches, missions and organizations which are under the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese represented by delegates (either in person or by written proxies), together with a majority of active clergy of the Archdiocese, (either in person or by written proxies) shall constitute a Quorum for the transaction of business at all conventions. ARTICLE VI ADMINISTRATION Section 1. Officers A. Metropolitan Archbishop The Metropolitan Archbishop is the chief shepherd of, and shall guide the entire unified, self-ruled Archdiocese. He shall bear the title “Metropolitan of All North America and Archbishop of New York”. The Metropolitan Archbishop shall be a member of the Holy Synod of Antioch, and the presiding officer of the Archdiocesan Synod, the Board of Trustees, Regular and Special General Assemblies, the Department of Finance, and the administration of the Archdiocese. Upon request of the Metropolitan and nomination by the General Assembly, one Auxiliary Bishop who will assist the Metropolitan with the administration of the Archdiocese shall be elected by the Archdiocesan Synod. This Auxiliary Bishop shall be a non-voting member of the Archdiocesan Synod. A candidate for Auxiliary Bishop shall satisfy the same requirements as, and be nominated and elected by the same procedure as that of a candidate for Diocesan Bishop. An Auxiliary Bishop will perform his duties under the jurisdiction and direction of the Metropolitan Archbishop. He is a member of the Archdiocesan Synod, and the Board of Trustees. He is entitled to one vote in the general assembly in person or by written proxy. The Auxiliary Bishop shall attend gatherings or synaxis of the Antiochian Bishops that may be called by the Patriarch of Antioch. B. Diocesan Bishop The Diocesan Bishop exercises his rights and responsibilities in accordance with the Canons of the Holy Orthodox Church, this Constitution, the decisions of the Synod of the Archdiocese and in accordance with the duties and responsibilities specified by the said Synod in “The Manual of Hierarchical Duties and Responsibilities”. The Diocesan Bishop shall bear the title of “Bishop of (city and area)”. The Diocesan Bishop shall attend gatherings or synaxis of the Antiochian Bishops that may be called by the Patriarch of Antioch. C. Vicar General The vicar General, who shall be selected from among the married clergy, shall perform his duties under the jurisdiction and direction of the Metropolitan Archbishop and shall be appointed by him. D. Protosyngelos (Dean of the Clergy). The Protosyngelos shall perform his duties under the jurisdiction and direction of the Metropolitan Archbishop and shall be appointed by him. E. Executive Secretary The Executive Secretary shall keep the Archdiocese records, issue regular statistical reports, and perform the duties of the Secretary of the Archdiocesan Corporation. The Executive Secretary shall be appointed by the Metropolitan Archbishop. F. Chancellor or Chancellors The Archdiocesan Chancellor or Chancellors shall be qualified attorneys-at-law, and shall act as legal advisor(s) to the Archdiocese. They shall be appointed by the Metropolitan Archbishop with the advice of the Board of Trustees. G. Financial Advisor-Comptroller The Financial Advisor-Comptroller shall act as advisor in the management of the finances of the Archdiocese and shall perform the duties usually performed by a comptroller. He shall be appointed by the Metropolitan Archbishop with the advice of the Board of Trustees. H. Treasurer The Archdiocesan Treasurer shall be a layman and a member of the Board of Trustees. He shall be properly bonded in a suitable sum, and shall fulfill the ordinary duties of the office of Treasurer. He shall be elected by the Board of Trustees of the Archdiocese. I. Assistant Treasurer The Archdiocesan Assistant Treasurer shall be a layman and a member of the Board of Trustees. He shall be properly bonded in a suitable sum, and shall fulfill the ordinary duties to the office of Assistant Treasurer. He shall be elected by the Board of Trustees. Section 2. Board of Trustees A. Function. This Board shall accumulate and administer all funds and properties belonging to the Archdiocese and such properties shall include but not be limited to all funds, properties, insurance policies, trusts, foundations and any other properties, including those of the Dioceses. The Metropolitan Archbishop will, with the assistance of the Archdiocesan and Board Officers, and the various committees and orders later described in Section 3 of this Article, actually supervise the various activities of the Archdiocese. He shall present to the Board of Trustees an annual budget which will be sufficient to carry out the necessary functions. The Board of Trustees may, however, after consideration and consultation, revise, modify, increase or decrease any appropriation requested in the proposed budget. B. Membership. The Archdiocese Board of Trustees shall consist of the Metropolitan Archbishop, the Diocesan Bishops, the Auxiliary Bishop, the Vicar General, the Protosyngelos (the Dean of the Clergy), the Executive Secretary, the Chancellor or Chancellors, the Financial Advisor- Comptroller, the President of the North American Council of the Fellowship of St. John the Divine, the President of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Women of North America, the Chairman of the Order of St. Ignatius of Antioch and thirty (30) additional members to be selected as follows: ten (10) members shall be appointed by the Metropolitan Archbishop : five (5) members shall be appointed for a term of two years; and five (5) members shall be appointed for a term of four years. The remaining twenty (20) members of the Board shall be elected by the General Conventions: ten (10) members for a term of two years; and ten (10) members for a term of four years. Upon the expiration of the appointed or elected terms as set forth hereinabove, such Board members thereafter shall be appointed or elected for full terms of four years. In the event of a vacancy in the Board of Trustees, the Metropolitan Archbishop shall appoint a person to complete the unexpired term. The Metropolitan Archbishop and the Board of Trustees may appoint honorary members to the Board of Trustees who shall have all rights of membership, except they shall not have the right to vote. Unless otherwise expressly provided, all appointments, or reappointments to honorary membership shall be limited to a term of two years or until the next succeeding biennial convention, whichever shall first occur. This Board shall elect from among its members a vice-chairman, who shall preside at the request of the Metropolitan Archbishop, or in his absence at the request of the Senior Diocesan Bishop, and also a Secretary from among its members who shall keep proper records of the deliberations of the Board. C. Meetings The Board of Trustees shall hold regular meetings during Spring and Fall of each year at such time and place as may be determined by the Metropolitan Archbishop with the advice of the Board of Trustees. In addition, the Board of Trustees shall meet biennially during the General Convention of the Archdiocese. Additional meetings of this Board may be called at any time when the Metropolitan Archbishop deems it advisable, or upon the request of a majority of the members of the Archdiocesan Synod or the Board who shall request the Executive Secretary of the Archdiocese to notify the members in writing of the time and place of the meeting. Any action required or permitted to be taken by the Board of Trustees may be taken without a meeting if all members of the Board consent in writing to the adoption of a resolution authorizing the action. The resolution and the written consents thereto shall be filed with the minutes of the proceedings of the Board. Twelve (12) voting members of the Board of Trustees at any meeting duly called shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The Chairman shall vote only in the event of a tie. Section 3. Archdiocesan Committees and Orders The Metropolitan Archbishop shall create and appoint all Committees, Commissions and Orders necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Archdiocese, after consultation with the Board of Trustees as he deems it necessary. Section 4. Finance A. Authority to Assess. Each parish shall contribute to the Archdiocese a sum of money annually. Pursuant to resolutions duly made, the formula and the amount to be assessed, shall be adopted by the Board of Trustees and a majority vote of the General Assembly at the Archdiocese Convention and approved by the Metropolitan Archbishop. B. General Fund The contributions of the parishes as hereinbefore mentioned, together with any other general contributions, shall be deposited in the name of the Archdiocese and shall constitute the General Fund of the Archdiocese. C. Special Funds The Board of Trustees may create other funds titled under specific or separate names for the purposes of receiving and accumulating pledges, gifts and inheritances which may be designated for the fulfillment of any specific purpose or purposes contained in the constitution. Funds, property, pledges, gifts and inheritances received by any diocese of this Archdiocese shall be held and administered by the Archdiocese for the benefit of the diocese. ARTICLE VII Subject to the requirements of Article II, Section 4, the Constitution of the Archdiocese may be revised or amended in either of the following manners: Section 1. A resolution duly passed by a majority vote of a General or Special Convention shall be submitted to the department of Legal Affairs for the purpose of studying and determining the legality of any change. The Department of Legal Affairs, at a date no later than the Spring Meeting of the Board of Trustees, shall report its recommendations to the Board of Trustees and the Metropolitan Archbishop. The Metropolitan Archbishop thereafter shall include in the notice of the next succeeding convention the recommendations of the Board of Trustees for or against adoption together with the description in substance of the contemplated change. The Contemplated amendment shall be put on the agenda of the next succeeding convention and shall be adopted after an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the total vote cast thereon subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Archdiocesan Synod. Section 2. A Resolution submitted to the Archdiocesan office on or before April 1st of any year by the Department of Legal Affairs, or any members of the Board of Trustees or any parish of the Archdiocese in good standing during the immediately preceding General Convention of the Archdiocese, said resolution to be certified by the sponsor and submitted to the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Department of Legal Affairs (if not initiated by the Department of Legal Affairs) for the purpose of studying and determining the legality of such proposed change. The Department of Legal Affairs, at a date no later than the Spring Meeting of the Board of Trustees, shall report its recommendations to the Board of Trustees and the Metropolitan Archbishop. The Metropolitan Archbishop thereafter shall include the notice in the next succeeding convention the recommendations of the Board of Trustees for or against adoption together with the description in substance of the contemplated change. The contemplated amendment shall be put on the agenda of the next succeeding convention and shall be adopted after an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the total votes cast thereon subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Archbishop. This amended Constitution and future amendments to it shall be effective upon adoption of the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Archdiocesan Synod and approval by the Holy Synod of Antioch. Such amendments shall be consistent with the self-rule status granted to the Archdiocese by the Resolutions of the Holy Synod of Antioch dated October 9, 2003 and October 15, 2004. Approved by the Holy Synod Antioch on: October 15- 2004. Published by his Beatitude Ignatius IV
#24
anonymous
on
2009-03-19 18:54
The AOCA Constitution and the Constitution from the Patriarchate do not agree. Does it really matter since Metropolitan Philip, the Patriarchate and the Holy Synod have acted unilaterally without regard to either Constitution, the Diocesan Bishops, the Clergy, the Board of Trustees and the Laity? If Philip reposes now will they simply do what they want as in this instance? Those who ignore history are doomed to see it repeated! Why have the Diocesan Bishops been ignored? The clergy? the Board of Trustees (except a few who cannot be trusted!)? The Laity? Why do they all continue to be ignored by Metropolitan Philip? If history is any indicator, like with Joe Allen, Fr John Namee laost his housing allowance whe he disagreed. If history is any indicator, he will simply pull rank and shut down dialogue as he did in Detroit over the issue of tithing, when he humilated V Rev. Fr Elias Bitar and the Rt Rev Michael Evans! Metropolitan Philip does not function well when confronted with facts! What will he do when he realizes that the only way the faithful may communicate their opinions to him is through LACK of MONEY or with their feet?
#25
anonymous
on
2009-03-19 19:18
I fiind in 2005 it stated uncategorically the AOCA Constitution could not be amended by the Patriarchate,
January 27, 2005 IMPORTANT MESSAGE REGARDING OUR CONSTITUTION TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PARISH BULLETIN Beloved Hierarchs, Clergy, Members of the Board of Trustees and Faithful of this God-Protected and Self-Ruled Archdiocese: It has come to our attention that many of you may have received an email from Tarek Mitri dated January 25, 2005, with the subject “The North American Constitution.” Please be advised that this email is considered a serious intrusion into the affairs of this Archdiocese by Tarek Mitri, who has no ecclesiastical capacity to send such a communication to our clergy under his own signature. Communications under the direct signature of His Beatitude Patriarch IGNATIUS IV to Metropolitan Philip and this Archdiocese are, of course, always welcome. As you all know, the Archdiocese Constitution that was legally adopted by our Special Convention held in July 2004 in Pittsburgh is in harmony with the Synodal self-rule resolution of October 9, 2003 which was adopted unanimously by the Holy Synod, and signed by His Beatitude Patriarch IGNATIUS IV and all of the members of the Holy Synod. The Pittsburgh Constitution was submitted to the Holy Synod by Metropolitan PHILIP on October 13, 2004. There is a very serious inaccuracy in the last sentence of the email from Tarek Mitri. In referring to our legally adopted Pittsburgh Constitution, he states that “It was discussed during the course of the meeting of the Holy Synod, October 13-15, 2004, and the attached revised constitution was unanimously approved.” Contrary to this statement, the proposed October 15, 2004 constitution (which was attached to Tarek Mitri’s email), although read by the Patriarch’s legal adviser in the meeting, was not even discussed in detail by the members of the Holy Synod nor was it unanimously approved. Our Metropolitan PHILIP in not supporting such proposed constitution, pointed out to the members of the Holy Synod that our Constitution, by law, could only be amended by our General Assembly in the ways provided by our Constitution. Moreover, any amendments to our Constitution became effective immediately upon adoption at a General or Special Convention and the approval of our Metropolitan. Therefore the proposed constitution of October 15, 2004 could only be considered as suggested changes to our Constitution. These suggestions were submitted to the Department of Legal Affairs to avoid any inconsistencies with our existing Constitution and the Holy Synod’s self-rule Resolution of October 9, 2003. The legal department in reviewing the suggestions of the legal advisor to the Patriarch in the proposed Constitution has noted that: 1. The proposed October 15, 2004 constitution violates the spirit and letter of the irrevocable Synodal self-rule resolution of October 9, 2003, which was itself immediately effective. Moreover it is not appropriate for any person to attempt to rewrite the Constitution of this self-ruling Archdiocese and to attempt to negate self-rule and give less authority to the Archdiocese than it had prior to the Synodal Resolution of October 9, 2003. 2. Under Section 8 of the October 9, 2003 self-rule resolution, the Holy Synod of Antioch was required to approve the Pittsburgh Constitution insofar as it was consistent with that resolution. Since the Pittsburgh Constitution is entirely consistent with the Synodal Resolution none of the suggested changes apply and any required approval has been given. 3. The proposed October 15, 2004 constitution did not receive enough scrutiny by the Holy Synod, nor was it discussed in detail in the Holy Synod meeting. We will, at all times in this Archdiocese, be bound by our legally adopted constitution and the civil laws of this land in which we reside. Article VII of our constitution allows timely proposed amendments to be submitted for consideration only by any of the following procedures: 1. by a majority vote of the General Assembly of a Regular or Special Convention 2. by a recommendation from the Archdiocese Department of Legal Affairs 3. by a recommendation from the Archdiocese Board of Trustees 4. by a recommendation from any parish of this Archdiocese in good standing Under all of the above procedures, any proposed amendments are “to be certified by the sponsor and submitted to the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Department of Legal Affairs for the purpose of studying and determining the legality of such proposed change.” As a courtesy, the proposed October 15, 2004 constitution was submitted to the Department of Legal Affairs for review. As communicated in the press release of January 18th, 2005, the Department of Legal Affairs rendered a decision that the “major appropriate suggested changes do not require amendments to the Pittsburgh Constitution” and the legally adopted Pittsburgh Constitution “stands as the Constitution of this Archdiocese, without the need for further revision.” Yours in Christ, The Department of Legal Affairs Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America http://www.antiochian.org/newsjan272005
#26
anonymous
on
2009-03-19 20:26
Met. Philip should retire and soon. ... Why not? Says Met P., "Because no one can hold it together but Me." Old Soldiers don't die .....
An Antiocian Layman from Toledo
#27
ANONYMOUS
on
2009-03-19 21:35
Subdeacon David, I agree with your response. Fr. Philip, you yourself admit the clause of not consulting the bishops is relevant. In light of this, you ought to give a reason for why it should not be mentioned to Metrpolitan PHILIP (ideally, by the bishops themselves). I don't know if the point is to "club" him with it, but if he is acting unilaterally he is likely in violation of that clause and certainly disregarded the spirit of it, the spirit of which was reflected in the constitution of the AOCANA. This is a whole other matter--is the recent decision even legal in light of the constitution? I don't know. I'm just asking.
As the author of the above reflection on the canons, I did not use this canon because I was interested in reflecting on the specific issue of demotion. However, I do think this apostolic canon has been disregarded by His Eminence. Then again, in light of "he who shall not be named," it should come as no surprise, I suppose. Who needs canons when one has a metropolitan, right?
#28
Phileas
on
2009-03-20 07:01
Careful! We're not even to mention that name! Metropolitan PHILIP can ONLY shut down the dialogue if we LET him. Otherwise, we could continue. If we shut down the dialogue, then, as a blogger elsewhere on the internet put it, we're only showing ourselves to be the self-fooled archdiocese, not self-ruled. The choice is ours. If, ultimately, the synod of Antioch's alleged decision stands, then it ought to based on consultation with the diocesan bishops and in a manner appropriate to the constitution. If that occurs, then the objections must cease but if that does not occur, then the objections must not. The problem with the case of "he who shall not be named," is that the bishops and priests did not unite, so the few who had the guts to say anything were penalized. Perhaps, some day, Orthodox ecclesiology and the canons will matter to this archdiocese. I, for one, hope that day is today.
#29
Phileas
on
2009-03-20 08:46
Why isn't the Department of LEGAL AFFAIRS defending the AOCA Constitution and the AOCA FROM THIS INTRUSION and INFRINGEMENT? If MP and the Patriarchate do not honor what they put in writing and the Department of Legal Affairs does not contest and protest, how can anything coming out of Damascus or Englewood EVER be TRUSTED AGAIN??????? They can simply make up the rules as they go along as they did here.*
#30
anonymous Why continue to be lied to anymore?
on
2009-03-20 19:50
Metropolitain PHILIP on the direction of the Archdiocese
“Sometimes, during my hours of solitude, like most of you, I think about the future of this beloved Archdiocese. I know and you know that all of us are mortal beings. The question is: “What about the future?” I appeal to you, my beloved children and friends, not to let any group of people, or any group of bishops or any Synod, local or foreign, divide you and destroy what we have built for the past forty-one years. This Archdiocese must remain a beacon of light and a good example to be emulated by all Orthodox in North America. We have enough Orthodox fragmentations and we do not need any more. “ — Metropolitan Philip, 2007 Convention Speech.
#31
anonymous
on
2009-03-21 05:05
This is very much an unwarranted slander on Met. Jonah. The author either thinks very little of him (and he may--he's entitled to his opinion) or else very little of the teachings of the Church to state that he could have found his desired "answers" in an "ashram" or the like. Not if he were looking for Christ, which I do believe +Jonah always has been.
I think the author would need to have a much better personal knowledge of this Metropolitan than I'm guessing he does. I don't know about you, but it seems to me as though His Beatitude is coming in for his share of rather personal ad hominem-type slams lately (see the talk given by the representative of the EP at Holy Cross). And all this with very little time to gather any knowledge of the man. Wonder what it all may signify? Just a thought.
#32
fr. Dennis Buck
on
2009-03-21 09:12
If every priest, board of trustee member, auxiary bishop and layman stood up and opposed him, he may simply say shut up and sit down. If he chooses to ignore them, then what? He has the Holy Synod in his pocket (*or should I say in our pockets*), although I hear they did not have a legal quorum present. One vote was faxed in. How could there be a discussion without somone being present. The matter was decided before the Holy Synod met. Who are we kidding? We ae wasting our time discussing Canons, as neither the Holy Synod nor Met Philip care about Canons.
#33
anonymous
on
2009-03-21 11:11
They can not be trusted. But then both Chancellors (as we in the MidWest know) are "the Dept. of Legal Affairs". They, too, dare not cross him! What a system we have. Remember we have no Org.News in the AOC. Keep up the good work. "Oh, Truth where art Thou...?"
#34
Anonymous
on
2009-03-21 15:27
Please see Article IV of the Constitution of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America:
Quote: ARTICLE IV GOVERNMENT Section 1. The governing code for this Archdiocese shall be the Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Holy Canons, the Constitution of the Church of Antioch and the Constitution of the Archdiocese as approved by the Holy Synod of Antioch. Section 2. The Archdiocesan Synod comprised of the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Diocesan Bishops shall be the governing ecclesiastical authority of the Archdiocese. The Metropolitan Archbishop shall preside over the Archdiocesan Synod. The Synod shall determine the number of dioceses, their boundaries, and the respective diocese(s) and/or area of responsibility of each bishop. It shall also determine all matters of hierarchical discipline of bishops of the Archdiocese. Section 3. The decisions of the Archdiocesan Synod may be appealed to the Patriarch and Holy Synod of Antioch who shall be the final judge on the matter. Section 4. All administrative authority is vested in the Metropolitan Archbishop and the Archdiocesan Board of Trustees as hereinafter provided. Section 5. All legislative authority is vested in the General Convention of the Archdiocese as approved by the Metropolitan Archbishop and by the Archdiocesan Synod. Section 6. The decisions of the Holy Synod of Antioch shall be binding on the Archdiocese on matters of doctrine, liturgy, sacraments, relations with autocephalous Orthodox Churches and ecumenical policy with regard to other Christian and non-Christian bodies. It seems to me that the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch conflicts with the Constitution of the Archdiocese previously approved by the same Holy Synod of Antioch and published by His Beatitude the Patriarch. In particular, the Archdiocesan Synod, according to Section 2, "shall determine the number of dioceses, their boundaries, and the respective diocese(s) and/or area of responsibility of each bishop. It shall also determine all matters of hierarchical discipline of bishops of the Archdiocese." Therefore, any change in the status of the diocesan Bishops should be decided by the Archdiocesan Synod, with a right of appeal to the Patriarch and Holy Synod of Antioch (Section 3). Furthermore, according to Section 6, "The decisions of the Holy Synod of Antioch shall be binding on the Archdiocese on matters of doctrine, liturgy, sacraments, relations with autocephalous Orthodox Churches and ecumenical policy with regard to other Christian and non-Christian bodies." Thus, it would seem that the Holy Synod of Antioch is not competent to reduce diocesan Bishops within the Archdiocese to the status of Auxiliary Bishops.
#35
anonymous
on
2009-03-21 19:42
Ironically the AOCA Constitution above has disappeared from the Website of the Patriarchate. Thank God we copied it before it was removed. What monkey business! If they were not guilty they would not attempt to hide anything! The removal of the Constitution is an acknowledgement of culpability!!!! Lord deliver us from this Byzantine Intrigue. Why should North America be subjected to this Mafioso behavior under the pretence of presering unity. It only preserves the grip of a conspiring despot and his select CHOSEN power mongers.
#36
Anonymous
on
2009-03-22 14:24
MP should have retired when he was on top, i.e., after getting the self-rule and installing the Diocesan Bishops. Now he will either retire or die in disgrace. It is not a matter of how well one runs a race, but how he finishes. MP is finished. Does he recognize it?
(Editor's note: On the other hand, it takes a real leader to admit a rush to judgement may have been made, and agree to a reconsideration, so that all dimensions of the question may be fully considered, returning things to the status quo ante as such a task is undertaken.)
#37
anonymous
on
2009-03-22 14:35
Obviously, Metropolitan PHILIP and others could care less when it suits them not to care. That is actually NOT the point. The reason for the reflection on the canons was to add to the contemplation and prayer and discernment of those who are so inclined to care. Perhaps, there are enough priests and bishops who care. Hopefully, many lay people do as well.
I think an analogy could be made with fasting. Some don't care. Sometimes, priests themselves will regularly eat steak during Lent while making comments like "oh, look, they actually fast." Such people might not ever be convinced by reflections on fasting. Yet, for those who have ears to hear, spiritual insights will be beneficial. And, there is always the chance that one who did not fast, might try it, if even in a measured way. If even all the metropolitans of the see of Antioch stand up and disregard the general spirit of the canons on an issue, I shall not. I am not arguing for "fundamentalism," but I am arguing that that is how we get our guidance. Without the Tradition, without the fathers and canons providing a normative guide, we are nothing more than Eastern Rite Protestants.
#38
Phileas
on
2009-03-22 15:08
Dear Editor:
I take offense at your description of the "old guard" of Arab priests that do not agree with Bishop Mark. There are a lot of things you don't know about the practices of Bishop Mark. It has been my experience, as a life-long Orthodox Christian, who married someone who was Catholic all his life but was chrismated in the Holy Orthodox Church, that these "old guard" Arab priests have beautiful hearts and treat all parishioners with love and Christ's teachings. The evangelicals, who have professed Orthodoxy almost 20 years ago, have brought big measures of Protestantism and hard-edge ways to "control" the flock. They have not acted in Christ-like ways, but merely have brought the rod of damnation down upon many parishes with a dictatorship rule. God bless the "old guard" Arab priests. They are who we look to with love and trust that they are indeed acting as emissaries of Christ, not a Protestant guard who wants to find fault with anything that was practiced before they came into the Orthodox faith. I can't speak for the Bishops in other regions besides the Midwest ... the Lord knows what's in their hearts, but I can speak for what has happened in the Midwest. Many Orthodox Christians are leaving their churches at a rapid rate because there is no love in their churches anymore. Laugh if you will, but many of us are disheartened at the direction the churches have taken, with the support of His Grace, Bishop Mark. Some changes need to be done. I think the evangelicals need to absorb more Orthodoxy and leave the protestantism behind. Susan George Murphy
#39
Susan George Murphy
on
2009-03-22 17:12
Here is an interesting article regarding Metropolitan Philip's remarks about the AOCA in 2004 when the new bishops were elected.
Published by Scripps Howard News Service, February 23, 2005 Calling for Orthodox unity, with diversity By TERRY MATTINGLY Scripps Howard News Service *Week after week, Eastern Orthodox hierarchs guide their flocks through the incense-shrouded rites that define their ancient faith. Bishops also become experts at another intricate ritual - banquets. So Metropolitan Philip, the Antiochian Orthodox archbishop of North America, was not surprised to be asked to make a few remarks at the final banquet of the 2004 Clergy-Laity Congress of the Greek Orthodox Church in New York City. He was surprised when Greek Archbishop Demetrios indicated that this was more than a polite request. "I reminded him that when I speak, I tell it like it is," said Philip. What happened next caused shock waves that reached all the way to Istanbul, even if the archbishop's words would have seemed mild to outsiders who could not break the Byzantine code. Philip addressed the delegates as Americans - not Greeks. The Lebanese-born archbishop said it was time to challenge the ties that bind the new world to the old. He said what he has been saying since 1966, when he assumed control of a diocese that has grown from 66 to 250 parishes on his watch. Philip brought greetings from Patriarch Ignatius IV in Damascus and his ancient church founded by Peter and Paul. Then he ventured into an ecclesiastical minefield, offering greetings from the 1000 Antiochian Orthodox delegates who, days earlier, had voted unanimously to approve what many Greek lay people have long demanded - a constitution granting them control of their own church in North America. The delegates burst into applause. Philip plunged on. "I told them that if I could sum up this new constitution, I would begin with the words, 'We the people,' " he said. "The hall erupted again. I told them we cannot ignore this truth - Americans are infested with freedom. We cannot ignore that our churches are in America and we are here to stay." That was all Philip needed to say. Nikki Stephanopoulos, the veteran press officer for the Greek archdiocese, described the scene this way: "It would be accurate to say that he received an enthusiastic response." The response was different in Istanbul. According to The National Herald, the Greek-American daily newspaper, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew criticized Demetrios for allowing Philip to "spread his propaganda in favor of establishing an autocephalous," or independent, "Orthodox Church in America!" When Demetrios said that Philip spoke as vice president of the Standing Council of Canonical Bishops in the Americas, Bartholomew reportedly exclaimed: "You should have stopped him!" Months later, Philip continues to travel from altar to altar and banquet to banquet, offering his own people an even blunter version of the sermon he preached to the Greeks. This past week he was in West Palm Beach, Fla. The archbishop continues to tell familiar stories about life in the Middle East. He still asks second- and third-generation Arab children if they can speak Arabic. But Philip said Eastern Orthodox Christians must embrace Americans who seek ancient roots in the confusion of modern times. This will mean learning from converts who are not afraid to use words like "missions," "tithing" and even "evangelism." A symbolic sign of change: One of his newly consecrated bishops once taught biblical studies at Oral Roberts University. Change will be difficult, but bishops must realize that they are called to spread their faith to others, not just to "to preserve it for ourselves," he said. Orthodox leaders will find a way to save the traditions of their homelands, said Philip. But the clergy and laity must realize that their own children and grandchildren are Americans who need a faith that is stronger than old music, familiar foods, folk dancing and traces of an ancient language. "I believe in Orthodox unity, with diversity," he stressed. "We will not melt into the Greek archdiocese and the Greeks will not melt into our archdiocese. ... But we must have a united synod that speaks to this country. We must speak to America, not as Arabs and Greeks and Russians and Romanians and Bulgarians. We need to speak with one Orthodox voice on the issues that affect our country and our country is America*." (Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.)
#40
anon
on
2009-03-22 21:49
Interesting to note Metropolitan Philip GAVE THE IMPRESSION IN 2004 THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WERE SETTLED. HE SEEMS TO USE CONFLICTING INFORMATION AS HE SEES FIT!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 22, 2004 – Englewood, New Jersey HOLY SYNOD OF ANTIOCH APPROVES THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SELF-RULED ANTIOCHIAN ORTHODOX ARCHDIOCESE OF NORTH AMERICA On Thursday, October 14th, 2004, the Holy Synod of Antioch voted to approve the Constitution of the self-ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. By this action, the final step has been taken and this Archdiocese can now function as a self-ruling Archdiocese. In approving the Constitution, several important changes were made to the version that had been approved by the General Assembly of the Special Convention in Pittsburgh on July 16th, 2004. The following are the significant changes that were made: 1. The election of Diocesan bishops will be conducted by the Local Synod (Archdiocesan Synod), with the participation of only the Metropolitan, and the Diocesan Bishops who are members of the Local Synod (Archdiocesan Synod). 2. The consecration of Diocesan Bishops will be held at the Patriarchal Cathedral in Damascus, Syria. 3. Clergy from this Archdiocese who are eligible for election will be added to the master list of candidates held in the Patriarchate, and the General Assembly of this Archdiocese will nominate candidates from this master list. 4. Other minor changes that will be communicated in the near future The final ratification of this amended Constitution by the General Assembly of this Archdiocese will be accomplished at the upcoming 47th Convention of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America which is scheduled to be held from July 24th through 31st, 2005, and hosted by St. George Church of Troy, Michigan. In accordance with this decision, the Local Synod will elect three new Diocesan Bishops at its upcoming Fall meeting which will be held on Friday October 29th, 2004, in Naples Florida. The consecration of these new Diocesan Bishops will take place in Damascus at some time following the election. Some time after the consecration, they will be enthroned in the Cathedral of their diocese. His Eminence was accompanied to the Middle East by the following members of our Archdiocese (listed in alphabetical order): Dr. George Farha, Vice Chairman of the Archdiocese Board of Trustees Very Rev. Joseph Antypas, Pastor of St. George Church of Troy, Michigan Mr. Nicola Antakli, Member of the Archdiocese Board of Trustees Mr. Fawaz El Khoury, Member of the Archdiocese Board of Trustees Mr. Walid Khalife, Honorary Member of the Archdiocese Board of Trustees Mr. Anton Khoury, Member of the Archdiocese Board of Trustees We are thankful to these men for the outstanding support that they gave to His Eminence throughout this arduous journey. We wish to express our heartfelt thanks to Our Father in Christ, Patriarch IGNATIUS IV, and the members of the Holy Synod of Antioch for this vote of confidence in the North American Archdiocese. In addition, we thank our Metropolitan PHILIP for his vision and untiring leadership, without which, this historic event could not have occurred. We pray that God will grant them all Many Years!
#41
anon
on
2009-03-22 22:58
In remembrance of the meeting in Ligonier, Word Magazine Nov 2004
What we — the canonical Orthodox bishops — had done 10 years ago was good. But there are no results so far. It is only a good desire. That means — such is God’s will. Without Him we can do nothing. Therefore, I beseeched the Lord to teach me His statutes. After my prayer as usual I opened my Bible with closed eyes and put my finger on the right place. For the first time I opened Revelation 1:3 — “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” I asked the Lord: “O Lord! What about until then?” And again I opened the Bible, that time on 1 Timothy 1:15 — “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” And for the third time I tempted the Lord, saying: “O Lord! I am not an Abraham nor a Jew, I’m a sinner, but involve me to understand Your Will.” And then I opened the Book of Sirah — Joshua — 24:29-30, where I read in the new American Translation: “Said to myself, I will water my plants, my flower bed I will drench; and suddenly this rivulet of mine became a river, then this stream of mine, a sea. Thus do I send my teaching forth shining like a dawn, to become known afar off. Thus do I pour out instruction like prophecy and bestow it on generations to come.” And now it is clear for me, that this prophecy should be fulfilled, but not during my life. I think that all of us, Orthodox bishops, who were born and came to America from the old countries, like me, and now control the jurisdictional eparchies, must die. The Holy Orthodox Church needs new generations of Americans to come after us, who shall fulfill the Lord’s instructions and prophecy. Because now, as Fr. Vladimir Berzonsky writes: “Spiritually we are still drinking mother’s milk, not yet ready for loftier and deeper experiences of the life reaching out to us from Christ and present through the Holy Spirit within our hearts.” Metropolitan Joseph Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the USA, Canada and Australia
#42
Anonymous
on
2009-03-22 23:39
Oh really? IS Bp. ALEXANDER "Protestant?" Yet he encountered much of the same resistance Bp. Mark did.
This is not a conflict between Cradles and Converts. Its a clash between rule guided by the canons, and rule by an oligarchy.
#43
Antionymous
on
2009-03-23 05:32
Your remarks are interesting in the fact that it lacks specifics. My understanding is that the old guard Arabs of the Detroit area were left to their own devices. Bishop Mark did not cause the Exodus their priests have. More than 90% of the marriages in the church are to non-Orhodox. When the spouse does not feel welcome because of cultural barriers or linguistic barriers, they will loose both. This trend in Detroit has been going on for years (before Bp Mark was consecrated). Even with this trend the Detroit clergy continued to commune non-Orthodox spouses and Bp MARK said nothing as he knew he was not supported by *Met Philip*. Even though it is the Policy of Met Philip that non_orthodx are not to be communed. What specifically do the Detroit clergy or old country Arabs do tht endears them, other than to violate th canons, the fasts, fraternize with the muslims, etc.? What specifically did Bp Mark do that cause this supposed exodus, as he left them to their own devices. Can you document your accusations? What? When? Where? Who? As Judge Judy would ask, don't tell me you heard this? *WHAT DID YOU SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES? WHAT DID YOU HEAR FROM BISHOP MARK WITH YOUR OWN EARS?....
#44
anonymous
on
2009-03-23 06:22
I saw a documentary on Prague and the Communist movement. Many who advocated for communism during the rise of Hitler did so because they were fearful of fascism. They worked hard to adopt communism in Prague as poverty was rampant and they were afraid off the Nazis. After the war many of the top leaders of their own communist party were accused of collaborating with the USA. Not because they did so, but for two reasons: 1.) Insecurity and they wanted to show their loyalty to Stalin, so they betrayed innocent men 2.) The leaders of the Communist Party in Prague were Jews and they wanted to finish what Hitler started. The widows of these leaders, when interviewed said that what they worked for and what they got were two different things! Communism looked better on paper than in practice.
When I say I want out, it is out of frustration, indeed because, Orthodoxy looks better on paper than in practice. The Very Rev Dr John Meyendorff made the comment several times when I heard him speak, " It is the right faith but the wrong people. Sadly, I have a friend from college that wrote me after twenty years and he recapped his life and spiritual journey in the evangelical world. I was completely embarrassed to speak of my spiritual journey in Orthodoxy: arguements about belly dancers, food festivals, food preparation, how much tahini goes in the humus; gambling, casino nights, scams at the church candle stand (writing checks for $100.00 and asking for $98.00 in change), fundraisers, etc., etc., etc.. We are losing our youth. We are more concerned with language issues, cultural issues, and ethnic issues. Divisions within Orthodoxy not only between Greeks and Arabs, but Arabs from one Village or another. Arabs from one country or another, etc. The same could equally be said, I am sure about our other ethnic groups. We may have two Antiochian parishes in one city and the people from one church will not go to the other. Other ethnic groups are the same from what I hear. Sadly, I see little tolerance for legitimate liturgical diversity. Some Antiochians tend to butcher the service and anyting they dislike or think too lengthy they say is Russian. Last I hard the Russians were Orthodox too. I earnestly yearn to engross myself in the Holy Gospel, the other Sacred Scriptures and he Holy Fathers. I long to see a Church bringing forth fruits in keeping with repentance. Sadly, instead I see a den of thieves. Some of the clergy who are directing the Archdiocese are more concerned with visiting Las Vegas than providing Liturgical Services, teaching the Holy Scriptures and Fathers or opening the doors of the church to the people of North America. Though these hirelings have made great profit off their flocks, by fleecing the sheep, they do not impress me as genuinely caring for all the people, Christ or the Gospel. They appear to be ghetto Lords who keep the doors tightly shut to those outside and yet fail to minister to the less than wealthy of their own parishes. If these priests do not want to mix with the natives they should go back across the big pond and let us have a Church and not a Ghetto. I am sure we would have NO PROBLEM raising money for their tickets.
#45
anonymous
on
2009-03-23 19:42
My goodness your description is TOO TRUE! I have observed it and the leaders of Englewood and past of Syosset encourage this type of parish life. "Peace at all costs", they proclaim. Problem in the parish replace the Priest. First ten yrs of a clergyman's history is seeking the "ideal". After that submission to survive especially with a framily to be concerned with. Is the Church an ethnic club. In most cases YES! Newly forming mission parishes if examined offer thye only hope.
#46
Anonymous On Looker
on
2009-03-24 10:44
I am so sorry that you experience in Orthodoxy has been such a struggle. Its been a struggle in many ways for me as well, but the blessings I have incurred are NUMEROUS! God is present in our church despite our efforts to exclude Him!
I am so happy to be raising my children in the faith, despite the flaws I see around me. We have the blessing of recieving His very body and blood every Sunday, and we are surrounded by good holy people, who have their own struggle. Don't give up! Prayers for you, anonymous!
#47
Antionymous
on
2009-03-24 10:52
The author does not allow comments to this entry
|
Calendar
QuicksearchArchives |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
