Early news from the Melkite Synod shows the eparch of Australia and New Zealand (Issam [John] Darwish) moving to take over the see of Zahlah (Zahle) in Lebanon, whose eparch (André Haddad) is retiring.
Changes also, it seems, in the dioceses of Tripoli and Beirut.
The Holy Synod of the Melkite-Greek Catholic Church of Antioch has elected Archbishop Cyril Bustros, Eparch of Newton, to the Metropolia of Beirut. It is further suggested that the terna with the names of his possible successor has been sent to Rome. Given the summer recess it doesn't seem likely that a successor will be named before next year.
No guesses, I'm afraid. It would be great to have a US-born hierarch, but most of those whom I would think were once viable candidates seem unlikely now, due to age.
A few possibilities come to mind: Bishop Ibrahim (Ibrahim), BSO - Eparch of Saint Saviour (Canada) and former pastor of St Elias, Cleveland; Father Archimandrite Gabriel (Ghannoum), BSO - Patriarchal Exarch for Mexico and formerly pastor of St Jude, Miami; Father Archimandrite John (Farris), BSO - presently Superior General of the Basilian Salvatorians and formerly pastor of Virgin Mary, Brooklyn.
All 3 of those have the advantage of being familiar with the Eparchy.
Both Archbishop Cyril and Bishop Issam-John are effectively being honored by reason of the posts that each is assuming. The Metropolitan Archeparchy of Beirut (which is the Proto-Throne of Antioch), and the Archeparchy of Furzol, Zahle and the Bekaa, are among the most historically important and prominent Sees of the Melkite Patriarchate.
Archbishop Cyril will be the 4th bishop of the Missionaries of St Paul to head the Metropolia - the first of whom would later become His Beatitude Maximos IV, of blessed memory. Bishop Issam-John will be the 5th bishop of the Basilian Salvatoriams to head the Archeparchy of Furzol, Zahle, and the Bakaa. Two of his predecessors in this See also became patriarchs, Macarios IV Tawil and Cyril IX Mogabgabh, both of blessed memory. Another was Archbishop John Bassoul, BSO, of blessed memory, who was previously pastor of Our Lady of the Annunciation parish (later the Melkite Cathedral) in Boston and whose episcopal ordination was presided by Cardinal Cushing, robed in Byzantine vesture, at Boston's (Latin) Cathedral of the Holy Cross.
Does someone know when will these decisions come into force? It is more than six months since the Synod gathered and nothing has changed among these eparchies. Archbishop Cyril Salim Boustros is still Eparch of the USA, Bishop Issam Darwish is still Eparch of Australia, Metropolitan Youssef Kallas is still Metropolitan of Beirut and Archbishop Andre Haddad is still Archbishop of Zahle.
I would be very interested in knowing whether there are any American-born candidates under consideration for the Archeparchy of Newton.
Wouldn't we all.
Stuart, if so (and, hopefully, there are), it strikes me that the pool for such would be very small if one considers factors of age, health, years as a priest, and that the first such would likely be of either Lebanese or Syrian ancestry. I'm thinking the list of possibilities meeting that criteria could probably be counted on one hand - with a finger or two perhaps left over.
For some of my friends here in Indonesia, the news of Bishop Issam's moving has been a sad news, since it means any activity for starting melkite in Indonesia "might be" pending. And... No one knows the future Bishop and his point of view regarding the desire to have melkites in Indonesia. Well, Good Lord, have mercy on us.
There is, of course, a former auxiliary who was passed over, whose tenure as Archbishop would have had tremendous potential for the Melkite Archeparchy.
There is, of course, a former auxiliary who was passed over, whose tenure as Archbishop would have had tremendous potential for the Melkite Archeparchy.
Does someone know when will these decisions come into force? It is more than six months since the Synod gathered and nothing has changed among these eparchies. Archbishop Cyril Salim Boustros is still Eparch of the USA, ...
Well, I hope His Grace doesn't leave too soon. I'm still awaiting a official reply from him.
Originally Posted by StuartK
I would be very interested in knowing whether there are any American-born candidates under consideration for the Archeparchy of Newton.
Newton is canonically an eparchy, although it has had two archbishops (including Archbishop Cyril) among its eparchs.
An archbishop is still a bishop. Likewise, an Archeparchy should still be just an eparchy. You still need a bishop to run the show. And an archbishop cannot be so until he becomes bishop.
It would appear that the Melkites and some others dont have diocese and only have archdiocese. We have had problems in Australia with the eparchs using the title of archbishop and upsetting the Latin bishops in the process. It does not seem to be a issue today but it certainly was when these eparchs arrived here from o'seas.
Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros was Archbishop of Baalbek in Lebanon before he became Bishop of Newton in the United States. As usual in such cases, he was allowed to keep the personal title of Archbishop (source [press.catholica.va]).
The confusion in regards to the use of "archbishop" or "bishop" for an eparch lies in the fact that, unlike the Latin Church and most other Catholic Churches, in the Melkite Church archbishops are heads of eparchies while bishops are auxiliaries or have patriarchal curial positions. It is an imposed latinization, then, that runs contrary to our own Melkite canons, to deprive our Melkite eparchs of their proper title of archbishop. The phrase "ad personam" is obviously a Latin phrase and concept which is alien to our Melkite tradition. After all, if the Catholic Churches are equal "in stature and dignity" it makes no sense that one of those traditions, the Roman tradition, should be imposed upon us. The universality of our Catholic Church is best exemplified when we respect our differences.
The confusion in regards to the use of "archbishop" or "bishop" for an eparch lies in the fact that, unlike the Latin Church and most other Catholic Churches, in the Melkite Church archbishops are heads of eparchies while bishops are auxiliaries or have patriarchal curial positions. [...]
This may be true in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, but not in the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, which we are discussing here.
In the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, even auxiliary Bishops and Bishops of the Curia are usually titular Archbishops:
Archbishop Michel Abrass, B.A., titular Archbishop of Myra (Bishop of the Curia)
Archbishop Joseph Absi, titular Archbishop of Tarsus (auxiliary Bishop and Protosyncellus for Damascus)
Archbishop Georges Bakar, titular Archbishop of Pelusium (auxiliary Bishop and Protosyncellus for Egypt and Sudan)
Archbishop Joseph Jules Zerey, titular Archbishop of Damiata (auxiliary Bishop and Protosyncellus for Jerusalem)
You misread me. I don't disagree with you. The synod usually does make curial bishops archbishops - although this has not always been so in our canons and particular law - that's up to our synod (not Rome). The problem lies in eparchs outside of the Middle East not being accorded their proper title as Melkite eparchs, i.e. archbishop. We saw that in regards to two our former Melkite eparchs in the United States. Archbishop IGNATIUS [Ghattas] of blessed memory, consistently used the title although the USCCB wouldn't,(I have letters and a statikon signed by him as such) and our late patriarch, MAXIMOS V, used the title in publicly referring to him. I once asked another of our former eparchs if he was to be referred to as "bishop" or "archbishop." His response to me was: "Our Church calls me Archbishop, my friends call me Archbishop." With all due respect and simply put, we are a patriarchal Church of equal stature to the Latin. To quote the late Archbishop JOSEPH [Tawil] of blessed memory, "we are not so poor that we await crumbs from the table of others." Our Catholicity is not dependent upon submission to the traditions of other Catholic Churches with whom we are in communion.
I notice that you are new to the forum, so let me be the first to say hello and welcome you.
The underlying problem here, I think, is that Melkite bishops outside the Middle East are subject to the Holy See and not to the Melkite Synod, and they therefore have to follow Western custom with regard to the title of archbishop. However, I cannot help feeling that there is a certain inflation of titles in the Melkite Church, and that in this case the Western custom is the more original.
In particular, I don't like the idea (current in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch) that archbishops are heads of eparchies and bishops are auxiliaries or curial bishops. This is a misunderstanding. I believe the ancient and original practice is that every bishop is the bishop of a particular church (eparchy/diocese), and the title of archbishop is reserved for the bishop of the metropolitan church, i.e. the provincial or regional capital (cf. Apostolic Canon 34, qtd. in the Ravenna Document [vatican.va], 24).
In fact, several Melkite eparchies in Lebanon only became archeparchies in 1964: Baalbek, Baniyas, Saïda, Tripoli, Zahleh and Furzol (cf. the relevant entries in Annuario Pontificio 2010). Just because all Melkite eparchial bishops in the Middle East are currently archbishops, it doesn't follow that all Melkite eparchial bishops everywhere in the world have to be archbishops. Properly, the title of archbishop is traditionally reserved for the bishop of a metropolitan church or another ancient and venerable church. It is not automatically granted to every eparchial or diocesan bishop, even in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
So, respectfully, I don't agree that all Melkite eparchial bishops should automatically be archbishops. I don't think this is part of the tradition of either the Melkite Church or the Eastern Catholic Churches, but rather a fairly modern innovation.
Where to begin? With all due respect, your statement: "The underlying problem here, I think, is that Melkite bishops outside the Middle East are subject to the Holy See and not to the Melkite Synod, and they therefore have to follow Western custom with regard to the title of archbishop" is the real underlying problem. The Roman patriarchate (and yes, I know that Rome has recently eschewed the title, but it's a Great Council of the Church that accorded her the title) only has the jurisdictional authority that the other Churches are willing to accord her. The proper phrase for the Roman See is "primus inter pares" not "Roma uber alles." Our Holy Synod is on record that the Melkite Church, in accord with the Church Fathers, accepts the Roman primacy as understood by the universal Church of the Seven Ecumenical Council and prior to our historic separation.
I make note that the documentation for the 1724 reconciliation between the Roman patriarchate and our own patriarchates clearly states that nothing previously kept and observed was to be abrogated. Check the history, the Fathers of our Holy Synod walked out of the Catholic Council of Vatican I and refused to sign its decrees over this very issue.
The Roman dicastries have often taken advantage of the weakened state of the Middle Eastern patriarchates suffering under Islam to further their own tendency to aggrandizing hegemony. To quote a leading Eastern Catholic and twentieth century Confessor of the Faith, the late Ukranian Patriarch JOSEPH I [Slipy]: "We suffer more in Rome than we ever did in the Soviet prison camps." Or, as our late patriarch MAXIMOS V pointed out: "We are not lapdogs."
I would have more understanding and sympathy for the Roman position when I see the "Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem" disappear and Rome submitting a terna to our patriachates for Latin bishops within our patriarchal territories.
As for the title "archbishop" for all eparchs, I agree that it is a relatively recent innovation. Nonetheless, it is an innovation that is now the accepted practice of our Church, and it is the greatest of hubris for those outside of our Church to insist that we follow the practice of their Church. There are many practices of the Roman Church that I could seriously question (imposed presbyteral celibacy, non-elected bishops, permanent? deacons, the use of azymes in the Eucharist, non-ordained ministers of Holy Communion, female servers, extra-conciliar additions to the Symbol of Faith (the Creed) etc., etc., etc., however it is a sister Church with whom we are in communion and her internal affairs are her affair. The bottom line? Respect is a two way street.
"All roads lead to Rome"- "Omnes viae Romam ducunt" If by this you mean the standard medieval western idiomatic definition of this saying, i.e."that there can be many different ways of doing something", then I most heartily agree. However, if by this you mean that ultimately it is simply a case of "Roma locuta est -causa finita est." (a statement that, although attributed to him, Blessed Augustine never made) then I utterly reject this. Rome is not the final answer, the Holy Spirit is. And the Holy Spirit speaks most succinctly in the universal Church gathered together in Council: "It pleases the Holy Spirit and us..." is the traditional form of introduction for canons and decrees of the seven Great Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Believe me when I say that I have the greatest respect for the Latin Church and her ancient tradition of faith, but love and respect does not make me blind to the fact that Rome can, at times, be her own worst enemy. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't join my poor prayer to the overwhelming priestly prayer of Christ: "Father that they may be one,,," But that unity is based on Christ, as head of the Church and in the unity of the Holy Spirit who speaks to us through and in the oecumene of His Holy Church.
All roads lead to Rome can mean there are many ways to skin the cat. But it can also (and frequently does) mean in the minds of the Curia Romana that there is a praestantia ritus Latini, and that the Eastern Churches may follow their own Tradition except where it diverges from that of Rome. The problem is a kind of schizophrenia between conciliar documents and papal statements on the one hand, and the manner in which policy is enacted on the other, which sends mixed signals not only to us, but to our Orthodox brethren, too. How, one wonders, can they take Rome's ecumenical blandishments seriously while observing how Rome treats the Eastern Churches with which it is already in communion?
All roads lead to Rome can mean there are many ways to skin the cat. But it can also (and frequently does) mean in the minds of the Curia Romana that there is a praestantia ritus Latini, and that the Eastern Churches may follow their own Tradition except where it diverges from that of Rome. The problem is a kind of schizophrenia between conciliar documents and papal statements on the one hand, and the manner in which policy is enacted on the other, which sends mixed signals not only to us, but to our Orthodox brethren, too. How, one wonders, can they take Rome's ecumenical blandishments seriously while observing how Rome treats the Eastern Churches with which it is already in communion?
All roads lead to Rome can mean there are many ways to skin the cat. But it can also (and frequently does) mean in the minds of the Curia Romana that there is a praestantia ritus Latini, and that the Eastern Churches may follow their own Tradition except where it diverges from that of Rome. The problem is a kind of schizophrenia between conciliar documents and papal statements on the one hand, and the manner in which policy is enacted on the other, which sends mixed signals not only to us, but to our Orthodox brethren, too. How, one wonders, can they take Rome's ecumenical blandishments seriously while observing how Rome treats the Eastern Churches with which it is already in communion?
To be honest, after knowing the Eastern Churches (Eastern Catholic and Orthodox), one of my conclusions even though i am a Latin Catholic : The separation of Eastern Catholic Churches from their Orthodox Mother Church, and their communion with the Latin Church is a mistake; considering that the communion is useless and unmeaningful. The Latin Church thinks only themself. The Latin Church accomodate only their own business. And in many ways, they "act" like a colonial to the Eastern Churches which are in full communion with them. And the worst thing is, they never promote the EC to their own people. I even don't think that they consider the ECs as Catholics. In this case, being fully communion with Latin Church has no significance.
Try telling that to the thousands of martyrs and their families who suffered and ultimately gave their lives for the cause of communion with Rome. Stephanos I Beautiful Icon by the way. What is its title?
The separation of Eastern Catholic Churches from their Orthodox Mother Church, and their communion with the Latin Church is a mistake; considering that the communion is useless and unmeaningful.
My dear brother in Christ, I must respectfully disagree with you. While it is truly sad that we Eastern Catholics are not in communion with our Mother Churches it is equally sad that our Mother Churches are not in Communion with Rome. (Christian disunity is a terrible thing) Also our communion with Rome has seen thousands of martyrs shedding their blood for that union. It was not useless to them!
Quote
The Latin Church thinks only themself. The Latin Church accomodate only their own business. And in many ways, they "act" like a colonial to the Eastern Churches which are in full communion with them.
While this has been the case historically at times (and lets not forget the Eastern Churches have also thought only of themselves at times) this has changed for the better since Vatican II. While sometimes they still do act like a colonial office (many of us who post point this out about the Oriental Congregation) I think the recent Synod for the Middle East (which was overwhelmingly Eastern Catholic) brought this to the forefront and I believe real change is coming! One can pray!
Quote
I even don't think that they consider the ECs as Catholics.
Whom are you referencing? The Latin Church leadership? Because they most certainly do! Vatican II and the recent Popes attest to this (as do the Reunion Synods that brought our Churches together) The Latin faithful I would venture are a mixed bag. Some may think that and others don't but I think the vast majority of them have no idea who we are ( Eastern Catholic/Orthodox ) and I think this is a problem that needs to be addressed. I would suggest reading Orientale Lumen by Blessed (almost) Pope John Paul II and other writing by him. He speaks to the importance of the Eastern "Lung" of the Church.
Quote
In this case, being fully communion with Latin Church has no significance.
But my brother it is! We must witness to the Latin Catholics that one can be Catholic and not be Roman. We must witness to the unity of the Church. We must be martyrs for Christian unity. We must for better or worse God has placed us in the position to witness and live the Eastern Traditions of the Church while in Communion with Rome.
Whom are you referencing? The Latin Church leadership? Because they most certainly do!
Yet, of a decidedly second-class status. I have even been told by an Orthodox bishop that he was continually approached by Eastern Catholic hierarchs who asked him to raise certain issues with the Holy See, because their own approaches were either ignored or rebuffed.
Quote
Vatican II and the recent Popes attest to this
But, as I pointed out, the actions of the Curia often do not match the words of the conciliar documents.
Quote
(as do the Reunion Synods that brought our Churches together)
Again, find one instance where the Holy See lived up to both the letter and spirit of the reunion agreements.
Quote
I would suggest reading Orientale Lumen by Blessed (almost) Pope John Paul II and other writing by him. He speaks to the importance of the Eastern "Lung" of the Church.
Orientale Lumen was not intended for us, but for the faithful of the Latin Church. From experience, I can safely say most have not even heard of it, let alone read it. And, from experience, I can also say that a goodly proportion of the Latin faithful do not know we exist, and of those who do, a significant number consider us to be "Barely Catholic" at best.
Quote
But my brother it is! We must witness to the Latin Catholics that one can be Catholic and not be Roman. We must witness to the unity of the Church. We must be martyrs for Christian unity. We must for better or worse God has placed us in the position to witness and live the Eastern Traditions of the Church while in Communion with Rome.
On this we agree, but we should not delude ourselves that the task will be either easy or pleasant. Bridges get walked on, regardless of which way the traffic is moving.
I half agree with you that "The separation of Eastern Catholic Churches from their Orthodox Mother Church, and their communion with the Latin Church is a mistake; considering that the communion is useless and unmeaningful." The separation of Rome from the other Orthodox Churches (and vice-versa) is the real mistake, Real communion among the Churches can never be taken lightly since it is the expressed desire and command of Christ, "that they may be one, as We are One..." Through the years it has consistently been the position of the Melkite Church of Antioch that the breaks within the unity of the Church (chalcedonian and non-chalcedonian, Old Rome and New Rome) should never have taken place. It was the diabolical influence of pride, arrogance and semantics that caused our separation. For years, both before and after 1724, the patriarchal Church of Antioch attempted to maintain communion with Rome, Alexandria and Constantinople. Even the pronounced support of our Holy Synod for the so called "Zogby Initiative" was nothing new but a continuation of our position. People sometimes will ask, "What is the date for the break between the Melkites and Rome?" The response? There was no formal date, nor was there ever a formal break. By the time of the 1054 break between the two Romes we were already under the yoke and heel of Islam. We could no longer communicate with the giants of Christendom. Estrangement happened with old Rome due to the breakdown of the possibility of regular communication. We attempted to remain in communion with both of these Great Churches. However, due to its geographical proximity, and especially its fall to the Ottomans, it was easier to communicate with Constantinople. Plus, with the advent of Islamic rule over the former Eastern Empire, communication with the Christian West was forbidden. Needless to say, estrangement became somewhat permanent - especially when your head was chopped off and mounted over a city gate as a warning. As regards: "Try telling that to the thousands of martyrs and their families who suffered and ultimately gave their lives for the cause of communion with Rome." Let me point out that there were sincere martyrs on both sides of the issue. We also do these Holy Martyrs a great disservice by "boiling down" their deaths to merely "communion with Rome." Christ placed the unity of His Holy Church as foremost in His Priestly Prayer on the night before He died (John 17) I would venture to say that their deaths were for the cause of Christian unity as they understood it. Communion with Rome is important, but so isn't communion with Constantinople, and Alexandria, and Antioch, and Jerusalem, and Bucharest, and Moscow, and every other place where the Church of Christ is. For the Christian, peace must be based upon a humility leading to repentance. True leadership within the Church must be based upon strong yet humble servanthood. As our Hly Synod has repeatedly said, and as the estranged Orthodox Churches have pointed out, the place of Old Rome within the hieros is that of "primus inter pares", first-among-equals. Rome will "shine forth like the sun" when it recognizes and embraces its sister Churches as equals and understands that it is not unilateral juridical fiats that unify the Church of Christ but, rather, a humble submission to the Holy Spirit speaking with the unerring voice of Holy Tradition. To paraphrase His Eminence, the late Archbishop ELIAS [Zogby], as Melkites we say to our brothers and sisters of the Latin Church "Melkites are the Orthodox Churches of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem who are in communion with the Orthodox Church of Rome." Or, as one of our priests likes to say "If Rome isn't an Orthodox Church than we have no business being in communion with her." Another favorite quote of mine is from our late patriarch, MAXIMOS V. At a clergy conference His Holiness said: "It seems one of the vocations of Melkites in the Catholic Church is to scream loudly whenever we are stepped on."[i] And, we seem to be pretty good at that - most of the time! Again, unity within the Church must be based upon faithful and humble repentance, only then will the wounds and hurts of generations be healed.
[i]For the well-being of the Holy Churches of God and the unity of all. Let us pray to the Lord.
Since the thread has moved well beyond the news item and become more directed toward the larger issue of appointment/assignment of hierarchs and their titling, I've moved the thread from the News forum to here.
I agree with much that Father offers here. As to martyrs, he is quite correct that honest,faithful men and women are included by Orthodox and Catholic from their own perspective.
Yet, there can be rays of light in the darkness. I remember that when Metropolitan Nicholas of Amissos, ACROD, proclaimed the Synaxis of the Saints of Carpatho-Rus some years back he asked that we remember in our prayers the Martyrs to the yoke of communist oppression, the Blessed Pavel Goidich and Blessed Theodore Rhomza. While this raised eyebrows among some, most regarded it as being more than magnanimous as it bore witness to the truth of the repression of the faith by the Soviets and their Slovak associates in their cynical attempt to 'restore' Orthodoxy by fiat in the hopes of controlling the church and her actions.
While they were not placed on the icon drawn for the occasion, the mere gesture of recognizing their martyrdom is certainly significant.
I agree with much that Father offers here. As to martyrs, he is quite correct that honest,faithful men and women are included by Orthodox and Catholic from their own perspective.
There are martyrs for conscience of all beliefs and no belief.
If I understand you correctly, you disavow your original statement.
This is excellent news. Reading your original post, where you state that "in the Melkite Church archbishops are heads of eparchies while bishops are auxiliaries or have patriarchal curial positions," I was worried that you were apparently endorsing the very same erroneous position which has led to considerable confusion and turmoil in your sister Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, you seem to agree that according the title of archbishop to all eparchial bishops is a recent innovation in the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church. I want to point out that I do not seek to impose the Latin tradition on anyone, but only to remind you of the tradition of the undivided Church of the first millennium, where the title of archbishop was used much more restrictively.
Finally, I don't disagree with your criticism of non-elected bishops. However, I feel that a bishop should ideally be elected by the clergy and (representatives of) the laity of the particular Church which he is going to serve, subject to confirmation by the metropolitan and provincial synod. I don't think a bishop should be directly appointed by the Pope or chosen ("elected") by a Synod of Bishops over the heads of the local Church, since in either case the local clergy and laity are excluded from the election process.
Forgive me, but no, I don't disavow my original statement, rather I qualified it by pointing out that recently our Holy Synod has also been giving the title of archbishop to curial bishops and patriarchal vicars, etc. Its a developing practice which I, personally, might even have some misgivings about but which is certainly within the prerogative of our Church to do. Is it good as a practice? I'll let those who are wiser than me and higher up on the "hierachical food chain" make their own decision. As for the title archbishop, there are legitimate yet variant traditions within the Church and even within our various Eastern Catholic Churches. Unlike the Slav tradition (as I understand it), in the Greek-Antiochian tradition (which Melkites follow) an Archbishop has precedence over a Metropolitan. Historically for us, as well, the senior bishop of a nation (as somewhat distinct from a country - although they often coincide) is also accorded the title of "archbishop." So, in either case, our eparchs in the United States and in Canada are accorded the title "archbishop"; either by the earlier Greek-Antiochian practice of calling the senior eparch of a nation "archbishop," or by virtue of later synodal decree that all eparchs are "archbishops." Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the practice, nor am I denying the validity of your observations. What I am saying is that it is our Church's decision to make not the decision of another sister Church Bottom line for me, I don't really care what the Latins do (within reason, obviously), they can appoint bishops, elect bishops, choose bishops by lot or acclamation, but they need to "butt out" of the internal affairs of their sister churches unless we are so errant in our faith, practice and teaching that it needs to be adjudicated by a Church council.
PS While I do think our Melkite system for the election of bishops could be mightily improved, I do make note that - with the exception of our eparchies in the so-called "diaspora" - there is synodal consultation of both clergy and laity in the election of bishops. Could it be done better? Most assuredly yes! However, I hope and pray that it would never reach the point of being the popularity contests with such disastrous results so evident among the western reformation Churches. "God preserve us from men of ambition who want to be bishops!" And there is nothing new there. Remember well the admonition of the early Desert Fathers, "flee loose women and bishops" (I would add, not necessarily in that order)
