Could someone please explain to me what this means? In particular, what is the meaning of the word "diocese" in this text?


(Source: Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch Regarding the Status of Bishops in North America)

I should mention that the text posted above has just been released on the website of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America (AOCANA).

It is no doubt meant to resolve the controversy which broke out last year over the role of the bishops in the AOCANA.

However, I find the decision confusing, indeed meaningless, if the word "diocese" is used in the normal sense of a particular Church governed by a diocesan Bishop. A real diocese must have its own diocesan Bishop, not an auxiliary Bishop "delegated ... by the Metropolitan." Nor is it normal for the Metropolitan to possess "the right and the authority to transfer a bishop from one diocese to another."

I don't understand how this can be the result of "long and careful deliberation" and "careful investigation of canonical studies." The whole thing simply does not make sense!

The entire purpose is to ensure that control of the Archdiocese--and especially its contributions to the patriarchate--remain under the control of a safe, reliable, and non-American bishop. The declaration of autonomy is thus revealed to be an empty letter, a charade intended to mollify the increasingly non-Middle Eastern clergy and laity of the AOC in the United States.

I think it is very sad. Hopefully some Antiochian Orthodox members of the forum will be able to comment.

From the blog Notes on Arab Orthodoxy:


"The Office of Bishop in the Patriarchate of Antioch during the Modern Era"

Unfortunately I don't read Arabic. But at least in the English translation, the text appears to make no reference of allusion to the Archdiocese of Toledo (Metropolitan Samuel David and Metropolitan Michael. Surely this matter has interesting canonical implications.

Fr. Serge

Well spotted, Father! I hadn't noticed this omission, but it seems significant.

I noticed it also, but I'm aware of a decided tendency among the Antiochians to forget or ignore that little detail

The very valuable Notes on Arab Orthodoxy blog brings us the translation of a very fine article on this subject by Father Archimandrite Touma (Bitar), Hegumen of the Monastery of St. Silouan the Athonite.

"Fr. Touma (Bitar) on Auxiliary Bishops"

In his "study", Metropolitan Basil distinguishes between the Eparchy (أبرشية abrashiyyah) and the Bishopric (أسقفية usqufiyyah). Only the Eparchy is a real diocese in the English sense of the word. The bishopric is more like a region headed by an auxiliary bishop. Much of the confusion seems to derive from the fact that in North America the words "Archdiocese" and "Diocese" are used instead of "Eparchy" and "Bishopric".

This appears reasonable enough, but in fact it is not quite as simple as that. I just came across the following on ocanews.org:


I have watched the video and agree that the words used by Patriarch Ignatius III at he consecration of the three Bishops are "Bishop of the Eparchy" (أسقف أبرشية usquf abrashiyya). We must assume that his Beatitude used these words intentionally. However, it means that nothing of what Metropolitan Basil writes about the Bishop of a Bishopric (أسقف أسقفية usquf usqufiyyah) applies to Bishops Thomas, Mark and Alexander, because none of them was consecrated to this office. In fact they were consecrated as Bishops of Eparchies! Yet we are told that in the Antiochian Patriarchate, all Eparchies are headed by Archbishops...

Thus confusion still reigns. I think the Antiochian Patriarchate urgently needs to reform its canons to provide some clarity and consistency to its hierarchical structure.

Ultimately, the question is resolved by the rite through which the bishops were ordained to their office. If the Rite of Cheirotoneia for a bishop was used, then they are bishops, with all the grace, dignity and authority that goes with that ministry. Any attempts to circumvent their office through weasely words does nothing except undermine the dignity and authority of the Patriarch and the Metropolitan.

I don't wish to insult anybody - but this is madness. It comes to an assertion that a Bishop is ipso facto a "titular bishop" (which is itself an anomaly), having the title but not the authority of the diocese, but not the eparchy (whaaaa?) to which the Archbishop chooses to assign him and from which the Archbishop remains free to move him.

It would be difficult, even in theory, to devise an arrangement less consistent with patristic and canonical teaching.

Again, my apologies to anyone who feels personally offended by my comment, with the assurance that my comment is not aimed at any particular person or persons.

Fr. Serge

I agree with Father Serge and with Stuart. It is all very strange and inconsistent with the canons and the teaching of the Fathers. See for example this interesting article by Fr. John Romanides on the Ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Sancte Ignati Antiochene, ora pro Ecclesia tua!

Correction: Above, I referred to the Patriarch of Antioch as "Ignatius III". His name is "Ignatius IV". Sorry.

Actually, I don't think anyone is suggesting that they are not bishops. However, the authority able to be exercised by a bishop is determined not by reason of his being a bishop, but by the function to which he is assigned by the primate who ordains him. Thus, a bishop who is assigned as to curial or synodal duties, rather than to a diocese or eparchy or other jurisdictional entity is no less a bishop - but the authority he exercises is significantly different than that of his brother bishop who is appointed to a canonical jurisdiction.

That said, the process being employed by the Antiochians, which effectively makes the bishops serving in the US little more than deans or protopresbyters seems to offend the historical concept of the episcopal office as the East knows it - being much more akin to that of the West. However, if you think about it, there is a parallel to be drawn between this scenario and those of Patriarchal vicars, sometimes hierarchs - sometimes not - who exercise limited authority, on the Patriarch's behalf, in those Sees which are of his title or which are deemed dependencies. HE Philip is effectively functioning in a similar role as regards the Antiochian Archdiocese as would the Patriarch in respect to those Sees which are 'his', but in which he is not resident.

Many years,

Neil

That's a new one on me. All bishops being equal in grace and dignity, once a bishop is installed in a diocese--the only reason for elevating a man to the episcopate--then he has all the power, authority, autonomy and responsibility that comes from being a bishop.

The idea that a bishop can be "assigned" to a non-diocesan position as an alternative to serving as a diocesan bishop is an anomaly and certainly a corruption of the patristic understanding of the episcopate. In the patristic era, all bishops had a diocese--there was no such thing as a titulary bishop. If a bishop served on a synod or in the curia, it was in addition to his duties as local ordinary.

The idea that a bishop could be a bishop without a functioning diocese must have begun when the Muslim conquest drove many bishops out of their sees in the Middle East and Asia Minor, causing them to congregate in Constantinople, where they were put to work in various administrative posts. Their sees disappeared (just as the majority of sees in the Ecumenical Patriarchate are today just fly-blown Syrian or Anatolian villages), but the titles remained.

That bishops in the New World are treated in this manner represents a stunning failure of imagination and confidence on the part of the Antiochian synod, for it reveals they do consider Orthodox in the Americas to be "in diaspora"--their presence here is not permanent, not an expansion of Orthodoxy to the four corners of the globe, but a form of exile, implying that some day there will be a return. It is also demonstrates a fear that these exiles, with their zeal, their wealth, and their uniquely American culture will somehow undermine the control and authority of the Patriarch and Synod, that autonomy will gradually morph into autocephaly, and that a distinctly American Church will, at some point, cease to look to the Mother Church, and above all, cease to provide increasingly vital financial support for the Mother Church.