What I think everyone is missing here is that the Patriarchate of Antioch has now resurrected the office of the Chorepiskopoi. Those who look forward to the resurrection of other defunct offices such as Widows, Consecrated Virgins, and Deaconesses now have reason for hope!

Fr David Straut

There are two discussions going on here now, one general and one specific. The general discussion is about about titular bishops as such, and I tend to agree with Stuart's views here.

However, the specific discussion is about the bishops who were consecrated to particular churches by Patriarch Ignatius IV (as we can see and hear in this video, and who were later enthroned in their respective cathedrals.

A titular bishop, by definition, is one who is consecrated to a defunct church (e.g. in Anatolia or North Africa), and who therefore cannot be enthroned in his own cathedral. Such bishops are sometimes useful, but they are still an ecclesiological anomaly.

An eparchial bishop, on the other hand, is by definition a bishop who has been consecrated to an existing, living church and has been enthroned in his cathedral.

Bishops Thomas, Mark and Alexander clearly belong to the latter category. But now we are told that the plain words and actions of the consecration and enthronement were never supposed to mean anything, and were just playacting, because in fact the intention all along was to make them into titular bishops, not eparchial bishops... Even Lewis Carroll couldn't have invented this kind of argument.

Iube, domne, benedicere

You are right, Father, that the current position of the bishops of the North American Archdiocese is very similar to that of chorepiscopoi. But that doesn't change the fact that they were not consecrated as chorepiscopoi, so why should they be treated as such?

PS! Consecrated Virgins do exist in the Catholic Church.

I don't personally remember Metropolitan Samuel David. But I do remember Metropolitan Michael Shaheen (both of Toledo and Dependencies). In the latter case (and probably in the former case as well), the difficulty was that Metropolitan Michael (and Metropolitan Samuel David before him) held a seat in the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, and each was Bishop of the Archdiocese of Toledo, subject directly to the Patriarch and the Holy Synod, without any particular reference to the Metropolitan of Brooklyn (first Antony and then Philip). Successive Metropolitans of Brooklyn found this absolutely intolerable - which is why it reminds me of the current set of problems. I've been told that it involved two different quasi-ethnic communities of Arabs, but I know little or nothing about that aspect.

Fr. Serge

I'm sure the conflict between Brooklyn and Toledo looms large in the mind of some still. But surely it is time to move beyond that conflict?

Almost as much as the conflict between Brooklyn and the Bronx.

Forgery is such a harsh word. Sounds better if you call it pseudoepigraphia. But, on the whole, how very traditional.

Lord have mercy!

I don't mean to throw oil on the fire, but could someone tell those of us who don't read arabic what's going on???

This post simply translates the Arabic text of the message from Father Archimandrite Touma (Bitar). There are no further details so far about the alleged forgery.

Apparently Bishop Thomas (al-Zahlawi) is currently travelling in Syria and Lebanon, meeting his brother bishops in those countries. There might be a connection here.

However, this is not the first time in this sorry tale that there have been allegations of forgery, and yet nothing has happened. So, I don't know if this latest news is going to change anything.

Mark Stokoe comments under the headline "Cryptic Protest Alleging 'Forgery'... Website".

Is anyone familiar with Archimandrite Touma (Bitar)? How much weight does his opinion carry in the Church of Antioch? How likely is he to make allegations that he cannot back up? Will the Synod of Antioch now be forced to act, one way or another?

LC,

The Archimandrite is the Abbot of an Antiochian Monastery at Douma. He's also the published author of a hagiographic text. Archimandrite Touma was among the few quoted extensively a year or so ago, when the earlier controversy arose - however, nothing changed then but he's apparently unafraid to speak again. So, my conclusion - he's secure in his position and unafraid to speak out, but he has not the leverage or influence to actually effect change.

Many years,

Neil

Thank you, Neil.

Fr Touma explains what he means by "forgery": "The Holy Synod's Decision about North America: In Search of the Truth."

This makes things a bit more clear.