OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 06:55:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch  (Read 122323 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,466


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #945 on: May 04, 2009, 10:34:35 AM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.

I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
cholmes
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 146



« Reply #946 on: May 04, 2009, 10:49:13 AM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.

I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...

Agreed.  As many times as I wished to express my outrage and frustrations to Metropolitan Herman over the last few years, I never thought to do so anonymously, and certainly not with such disrespect.
Logged

SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #947 on: May 04, 2009, 12:19:54 PM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.

I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...

Agreed.  As many times as I wished to express my outrage and frustrations to Metropolitan Herman over the last few years, I never thought to do so anonymously, and certainly not with such disrespect.

It may be all those things you describe but it is also safe...many clergy have families and do not want to be transferred or fired...it was a harsh letter but hopefully it will start a conversation
Logged
Abbu-Issa
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOC
Posts: 80



« Reply #948 on: May 04, 2009, 01:18:29 PM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.
I do not understand your reasoning.  Metropolitan Philip and the Patriarch collaborated to undermine the Diocesan Bishops by inserting By-Laws into their discipline (in violation to the Holy Canons) without a full synod or even a quorum and you think he has nothing to do with it?  Perhaps I have misunderstood your question?
Logged
Abbu-Issa
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOC
Posts: 80



« Reply #949 on: May 04, 2009, 01:24:23 PM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.

I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...

Agreed.  As many times as I wished to express my outrage and frustrations to Metropolitan Herman over the last few years, I never thought to do so anonymously, and certainly not with such disrespect.

It may be all those things you describe but it is also safe...many clergy have families and do not want to be transferred or fired...it was a harsh letter but hopefully it will start a conversation
Please forgive our clergy, they have 43 years of built up frustration and anger.  Would not an abused housewife also need some time to vent once she discovers a safe place to do it?  How sad that so very many clergy are voicing the same thing.  Does not the fear speak volumes?  The unity that Christ desires is not established by fear and intimidation.  Unity come from mutual submission out of love for a higher good.  Christ is the Bridegroom.  In the letter of St Paul read at every wedding service we hear St Paul say submit yourselves one to another. Submission is not the same as subjugation or domination.  Let us pray. 
Logged
SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #950 on: May 04, 2009, 01:32:31 PM »

Quote
Quote
It may be all those things you describe but it is also safe...many clergy have families and do not want to be transferred or fired...it was a harsh letter but hopefully it will start a conversation
Please forgive our clergy, they have 43 years of built up frustration and anger.  Would not an abused housewife also need some time to vent once she discovers a safe place to do it?  How sad that so very many clergy are voicing the same thing.  Does not the fear speak volumes?  The unity that Christ desires is not established by fear and intimidation.  Unity come from mutual submission out of love for a higher good.  Christ is the Bridegroom.  In the letter of St Paul read at every wedding service we hear St Paul say submit yourselves one to another. Submission is not the same as subjugation or domination.  Let us pray. 

Amen....I work as a psychologist with abused children and I am starting to realize that a lot of the behavior that we are seeing is almost the same as that of a abuse victim....that does not say much for Metropolitan Phillip
Maybe these clergy should leave the Antiochian Archdiocese .This could be the refiners fire the American Orthodox CHurch needs to go through...

{Edit - fixed quote boxes - Cleveland, GM}
« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 01:45:20 PM by cleveland » Logged
cholmes
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 146



« Reply #951 on: May 04, 2009, 02:21:58 PM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.

I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...

Agreed.  As many times as I wished to express my outrage and frustrations to Metropolitan Herman over the last few years, I never thought to do so anonymously, and certainly not with such disrespect.

It may be all those things you describe but it is also safe...many clergy have families and do not want to be transferred or fired...it was a harsh letter but hopefully it will start a conversation

I totally understand the fear of retribution that's at play here.  And of course it's easy for me to say what I would do, when I'm not in that situation.  I just pray that someone (be it clergy or lay) feels strongly enough about the situation that they would be willing to attach their name to something.  It just has much more power that way.  Maybe once one steps forward and doesn't stay anonymous, more would follow. 
Logged

AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #952 on: May 04, 2009, 02:33:39 PM »

Quote
I do not understand your reasoning.

Dragging in issues that have nothing to do with the current crisis in North America makes the letter just sound like an all around WhineFest.



MODERATION: Edited to remove a word derogatory to women. Please mind your language.
ozgeorge
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 08:18:08 AM by ozgeorge » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #953 on: May 04, 2009, 03:24:01 PM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.

I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...

....that's the reality of chastizing your executioner.


IF there were someone or someplace "safe," where such ideas could have their names attatched, that would be one thing.  But the back room dealing stench on this "directive" gives no assurance that anyone is "safe."

As I said, I wouldn't send the letter as is, because, if nothing else, its tone might prevent results.  But it does say what many think.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,466


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #954 on: May 04, 2009, 08:10:40 PM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.

I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...

....that's the reality of chastizing your executioner.


IF there were someone or someplace "safe," where such ideas could have their names attatched, that would be one thing.  But the back room dealing stench on this "directive" gives no assurance that anyone is "safe."

As I said, I wouldn't send the letter as is, because, if nothing else, its tone might prevent results.  But it does say what many think.

The sacrament of confession is open to all baptized and chrismated orthodox christians.  Maybe they should avail themselves of this fact, instead of just venting online and etc. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,136



« Reply #955 on: May 05, 2009, 02:01:45 AM »

Christ Is Risen!  Just a little anecdote from an observer, who is not in the AOCANA, but who cares much for our Holy Orthodoxy, especially in America.  Please work within your structures to remediate your problems and not be as harsh as some have been to the Metropolitan.  Met. Philip has been a rational and tireless advocate for unified administration of our Church in America and the Archdiocese is probably the only Orthodox jurisdiction in America that has grown in the past decade.

I was among those who wanted Archbishop Iakovos, of Thrice Blessed Memory, to retire at least 10 years before his "voluntary retirement."  While I supported Archbishop Spyridon (though I understood that his uncompromising nature necessitated his resignation) and support Archbishop Demetrios, there were associates of mine, who, during the crisis of Archbishop Spyridon's tenure, said, "sometimes the [bad one] you know is better than the [bad one] you don't know."
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 02:05:36 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #956 on: May 05, 2009, 09:36:35 AM »

Have you read this?
http://books.google.com/books?

It's horribly Ultramontanist, but even worse, much of what it describes about Church politics before the Bolshevik revolution is accurate.  The Phanar seems not to have changed and is hell bent on pursuing its canon 28 interpretation alone.  So it's going to have to be painted into a corner, for everyone's good, as was done for all the patriachates and local Churches (despite the rosey picture the Chief Secretary painted) in the 19th cent. 

No I have never read it, but I plan on it!  How do you know it's accurate?

I've seen what it described corroborated countless times from other sources and literature, and from many sides (my doctorate was Islamic history: although, not modern Islamic history, I did do it as part of the program).

Another interesting book on this topic is "The Russian presence in Syria and Palestine, 1843-1914:church and politics in the Near East" by Derek Hopwood.

Quote
Were you there?

LOL.  Yes, but not at the time.  I've been at Nicea too, but not in 325 nor 787, but I know the Fathers at the Councils were accurate.

Fortescue does say a number of unsubstatiated, stupid things, for instance:
Quote
The Vlachs have always been a feeble folk, always afraid to fight against their stronger neighbors, but rather glad to take shelter under someone else's wing
p. 328

which is rather odd as none other than Fortescue's supreme pontiff gave St. Stefan the Great (he was Moldavian, but Forescue isn't making the distinction in his smear) the title verus christianae fidei athleta (true Champion of the Christian Faith), winning 34 of his 36 battles in blooding the Turks (and rapacious and averous Poles and Hungarians). Stefan married the niece of Dracula (a cousin, and another Vlach that bloodied the Turks), ousting the catumite of the Ottomans, her father/Dracula's brother "Radu the Handsome" (a convert to Islam).  He also paid off the entire debt of Mount Athos to the Porte, and was recently elected the greatest Romanian by the Romanians.

But back to Fortescue.  He does go on to portray in a negative light that the Romanians had, with their drive for national independence, also seized their ecceliastical independence as well.  Some I know here would agree, seeing Autocephaly only as an economia against schism.  Needless to say, I disagree: autocephaly is a good thing, the sign of a healthy Church.  I was going to elaborate on that here, but the post seems to evolved into a thread of its own, which I'll post shortly.  Just in brief here:

In 1820 Romania, or Tara Romaneasca did not even exist: she was divided into three principalities, and had been throughout history.  Worse, an Iron Curtain dividid the three, with Transylvania, under the iron grip of the Hapsburgs, cut off from Wallachia and Moldavia.  The Vatican conducting a census of Transylvania in 1332 found that over 90% of the population were Orthodox (and only less than a third of the towns even had a single parish under the Vatican).  The Hungarian Louis I, claiming to constitute the secular arm of the Vatican, responded issuing the Edict of Turda (1366) which called for the extermination of the "schismatic Vlachs," i.e. Orthodox Romanians (Louis was also busy subduing the Bulgarians and Serbs).  He wasn't able to carry out his Crusade-his Romanian Orthodox subjects were too many-but he did made possession of nobility contingent on submission to the Vatican, reducing the Romanians to serfdom and dissolving them as an "estate" of the kingdom.  With the coming of the Reformation, the Orthodox were herded into a Governing Synod that made that of Peter in Russia look Orthodox: the rules required only using the Calvinist catechism, and required Calvinist funeral rites.  In 1675 the Orthodox Metropolitan of Transylvania convened a synod which banned Romanian, as being "primitive" and not "being rich enough" for liturgical use.  By the centuries end, by imperial command, the Orthodox were proclaimed united to the Vatican, and laws enforced it.  In Moldavia and Wallachia, the reigning houses were related, but had to deal with the local boyars, whose intrigues, marriage alliances, etc. were the epitomy of "Balkan politics."   On top of them were the Phanariot overlords sent from Constantinople from the Phanar, who bought their office and then tried to make a profit by using their office to wring the principalities dry.  The Phanariots set up an education system, but only in Greek, Hellenizing the Romanians.  The Phanariots adorned their rule with piety, making endowment of lands in Romania to support Jerusalem, Sinai, Mt. Athos etc. i.e. financing the Phanariot domain, until such lands constituted a fourth of all farmland.

That was Romania's situation in 1820.  Not much hope for a Church, but in just over a century (105 years, to be exact) Romania went from this to a full fledged, autocephalous Patriarchate, the second largest in the EO communion, and among, if not the most vibrant. Romania did so by using its wits to turn failures into advantages, seizing opportunities to edge forward towards the Patriarchate, all the time promoting both that nation and the Faith.  One of the williest moves was that in 1859: the Ottomans, Russians and Great Western Powers, to keep Romanian in the Balkans in more than a geographic sense, insisted the Wallachians and Moldavias elect their own prince, from among their own boyars.  They did, the same boyar, Cuza, who turned the personal union into a unitary Romanian state, and from thence created the context for the indepedence of the Romanian Faithful from the Phanar.


Quote
  What if I were to find a book that completely argues against this book and has a completely opposing viewpoint and facts?
LOL.  Well, you do have the Chief Secretary's speech.

Can such a book document its argument?  I highly doubt it, as I have seen plenty of evidence from this era.  I truly do not know where the "evidence" that the Chief Secretary has brought to light has been hidding.  LOL.
Quote
Would you take it seriously?

Only if it has some serious documentation.  Generalizations bereft of facts won't do.

Quote
Or have you already made up your mind?

I just go by what the historical record thus far has revealed.  If more information and insight is forthcoming, that's a different issue.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 09:38:10 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,466


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #957 on: May 05, 2009, 04:08:19 PM »

Quote
  What if I were to find a book that completely argues against this book and has a completely opposing viewpoint and facts?
LOL.  Well, you do have the Chief Secretary's speech.

Can such a book document its argument?  I highly doubt it, as I have seen plenty of evidence from this era.  I truly do not know where the "evidence" that the Chief Secretary has brought to light has been hidding.  LOL.
How good is your greek?  I would be willing to bet that a lot of it is in Fidas' new works:  History of the Church (volumes 1 & 2 = they are really big) and History of the Pentarchies (just one volume).  Maybe even in some of his articles.  He is EXTREMELY  well written and EXTREMELY well sourced.  I took a class with him when I was in Athens.  I could look through this "history of the church" texts fairly easily but I would have to find the pentarchy book...let me know if you want me to look into it. 

Quote
Quote
Would you take it seriously?

Only if it has some serious documentation.  Generalizations bereft of facts won't do.

Fidas has some serious documentation.  PLUS he has found things in greek that NO ONE else has found, and he quotes and provides the texts, within his histories.  In fact, I believe that he has an entire book on all the new historical evidences he has found.  I would recommend looking up ANYTHING of his...very excellent scholarship.

Quote
Quote
Or have you already made up your mind?

I just go by what the historical record thus far has revealed.  If more information and insight is forthcoming, that's a different issue.


LOL!  Good to know.  I'll keep that in mind  Wink

[edited to fix quote tags]
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 04:09:20 PM by serb1389 » Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #958 on: May 05, 2009, 09:23:22 PM »


The sacrament of confession is open to all baptized and chrismated orthodox christians.  Maybe they should avail themselves of this fact, instead of just venting online and etc. 

Interesting thought..... if a Christian reveals in Confession an illegal act by another (theft, murder, bigamy, tax fraud, sexual abuse, whatever) and tells the priest that he is free to reveal this information publically, does the priest have a moral obligation to report to the appropriate civil or eclesiastical authority what he has been given permssion to reveal?

I would say that what is in said in confession is sealed by that sacrament.  If the person has TOLD the priest that it's a publicly known fact, then that same person should just tell the police.  If it's public, then there isn't even a problem of "selling the person out" because it is public anyway.  I believe the question was (in this topic) if the case is private and etc. 

Also, that comment was from another thread where I was saying that people should go to confession instead of venting online.  If they have gone to confession about what has happened to them or what they have done, then it is between them and their spiritual fathers.  Now if their spiritual fathers have TOLD them to go and say something publicly, those people could be called to account for their spiritual directions (by their bishop, who at this point is an auxiliary bishop with no more authority to do such things).  It's a catch 22 at this point. 

That's the crux in question, isn't it?

I would argue that uncanonical acts are void ab initio. Bishop Mark is my bishop.  He is acting as a bishop. I will follow him as my bishop.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,466


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #959 on: May 05, 2009, 09:42:03 PM »


The sacrament of confession is open to all baptized and chrismated orthodox christians.  Maybe they should avail themselves of this fact, instead of just venting online and etc. 

Interesting thought..... if a Christian reveals in Confession an illegal act by another (theft, murder, bigamy, tax fraud, sexual abuse, whatever) and tells the priest that he is free to reveal this information publically, does the priest have a moral obligation to report to the appropriate civil or eclesiastical authority what he has been given permssion to reveal?

I would say that what is in said in confession is sealed by that sacrament.  If the person has TOLD the priest that it's a publicly known fact, then that same person should just tell the police.  If it's public, then there isn't even a problem of "selling the person out" because it is public anyway.  I believe the question was (in this topic) if the case is private and etc. 

Also, that comment was from another thread where I was saying that people should go to confession instead of venting online.  If they have gone to confession about what has happened to them or what they have done, then it is between them and their spiritual fathers.  Now if their spiritual fathers have TOLD them to go and say something publicly, those people could be called to account for their spiritual directions (by their bishop, who at this point is an auxiliary bishop with no more authority to do such things).  It's a catch 22 at this point. 

That's the crux in question, isn't it?

I would argue that uncanonical acts are void ab initio. Bishop Mark is my bishop.  He is acting as a bishop. I will follow him as my bishop.

And I would argue that you have no authority to act on your own.  So where does that put us?  lol. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #960 on: May 05, 2009, 10:21:54 PM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.

I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...

....that's the reality of chastizing your executioner.


IF there were someone or someplace "safe," where such ideas could have their names attatched, that would be one thing.  But the back room dealing stench on this "directive" gives no assurance that anyone is "safe."

As I said, I wouldn't send the letter as is, because, if nothing else, its tone might prevent results.  But it does say what many think.

The sacrament of confession is open to all baptized and chrismated orthodox christians.  Maybe they should avail themselves of this fact, instead of just venting online and etc. 

They are just following tradition: in the older days we had pamphlets.  Internet works faster, as Met. Herman found out.

An earlier example is "A Historical Glance at the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher," which outilined the Phanar's seizure of the rest of the Pentarchy.  It played a pivotal role in the restoration of local control in Antioch, and what local control was won in Jerusalem.  And, for not so hard to understand reasons, it was anonymous (St. Raphael is now being promoted as its author).
http://www.frmichel.najim.net/brotherenglish.pdf
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,466


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #961 on: May 06, 2009, 07:03:41 AM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.

I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...

....that's the reality of chastizing your executioner.


IF there were someone or someplace "safe," where such ideas could have their names attatched, that would be one thing.  But the back room dealing stench on this "directive" gives no assurance that anyone is "safe."

As I said, I wouldn't send the letter as is, because, if nothing else, its tone might prevent results.  But it does say what many think.

The sacrament of confession is open to all baptized and chrismated orthodox christians.  Maybe they should avail themselves of this fact, instead of just venting online and etc. 

They are just following tradition: in the older days we had pamphlets.  Internet works faster, as Met. Herman found out.

An earlier example is "A Historical Glance at the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher," which outilined the Phanar's seizure of the rest of the Pentarchy.  It played a pivotal role in the restoration of local control in Antioch, and what local control was won in Jerusalem.  And, for not so hard to understand reasons, it was anonymous (St. Raphael is now being promoted as its author).
http://www.frmichel.najim.net/brotherenglish.pdf

So now you are trying to say that there is an established tradition for people writing anonymous letters and etc. to "correct" the church, or bring bearing to the boat?Huh

While it is a historical fact that these types of actions have been taken, I would submit that in the general church history there are MANY MANY more cases of PUBLIC denouncement, with people's names on it, than silent (anonymous) ones.  I think the shear numbers speak for themselves:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.i.html?highlight=seven,ecumenical,councils#highlight

Read up, maybe the lists of names will be enlightening to you. Wink Grin
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Abbu-Issa
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOC
Posts: 80



« Reply #962 on: May 07, 2009, 08:14:14 AM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.
I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...

....that's the reality of chastising your executioner.


IF there were someone or someplace "safe," where such ideas could have their names attached, that would be one thing.  But the back room dealing stench on this "directive" gives no assurance that anyone is "safe."

As I said, I wouldn't send the letter as is, because, if nothing else, its tone might prevent results.  But it does say what many think.

The sacrament of confession is open to all baptized and chrismated orthodox Christians.  Maybe they should avail themselves of this fact, instead of just venting on line and etc. 

They are just following tradition: in the older days we had pamphlets.  Internet works faster, as Met. Herman found out.

An earlier example is "A Historical Glance at the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher," which outlined the Phanar's seizure of the rest of the Pentarchy.  It played a pivotal role in the restoration of local control in Antioch, and what local control was won in Jerusalem.  And, for not so hard to understand reasons, it was anonymous (St. Raphael is now being promoted as its author).
http://www.frmichel.najim.net/brotherenglish.pdf

So now you are trying to say that there is an established tradition for people writing anonymous letters and etc. to "correct" the church, or bring bearing to the boat?Huh

While it is a historical fact that these types of actions have been taken, I would submit that in the general church history there are MANY MANY more cases of PUBLIC denouncement, with people's names on it, than silent (anonymous) ones.  I think the shear numbers speak for themselves:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.i.html?highlight=seven,ecumenical,councils#highlight

Read up, maybe the lists of names will be enlightening to you. Wink Grin
The whole nature of Apocalyptic Literature was based almost entirely on writing with a pseudonym.  Daniel may be one example, written during a time of SEVERE persecution to comfort God's people and assure them darkness will not TRIUMPH over LIGHT.

There are volumes of Literature from the inter-Testamental period of this nature intended to comfort suffering people during times of persecution.  There are various types of literature which make of Sacred Scripture --- Historical Narrative, Poetry, Proverbs, Wisdom Literature, Prophecy, Legislative and Apocalyptic.  Even the Gospel were written without names attached.  Not to same what we are seeing compares in any way
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #963 on: May 07, 2009, 08:18:09 AM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.

I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...

....that's the reality of chastizing your executioner.


IF there were someone or someplace "safe," where such ideas could have their names attatched, that would be one thing.  But the back room dealing stench on this "directive" gives no assurance that anyone is "safe."

As I said, I wouldn't send the letter as is, because, if nothing else, its tone might prevent results.  But it does say what many think.

The sacrament of confession is open to all baptized and chrismated orthodox christians.  Maybe they should avail themselves of this fact, instead of just venting online and etc. 

They are just following tradition: in the older days we had pamphlets.  Internet works faster, as Met. Herman found out.

An earlier example is "A Historical Glance at the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher," which outilined the Phanar's seizure of the rest of the Pentarchy.  It played a pivotal role in the restoration of local control in Antioch, and what local control was won in Jerusalem.  And, for not so hard to understand reasons, it was anonymous (St. Raphael is now being promoted as its author).
http://www.frmichel.najim.net/brotherenglish.pdf

So now you are trying to say that there is an established tradition for people writing anonymous letters and etc. to "correct" the church, or bring bearing to the boat?Huh

While it is a historical fact that these types of actions have been taken, I would submit that in the general church history there are MANY MANY more cases of PUBLIC denouncement, with people's names on it, than silent (anonymous) ones.  I think the shear numbers speak for themselves:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.i.html?highlight=seven,ecumenical,councils#highlight

Read up, maybe the lists of names will be enlightening to you. Wink Grin

LOL.  As has been pointed out, the Decision of Antioch is short the quorum required by the Patriarch's own Constitution, and Met. Philip's letter endorsing it is three signatures short. Grin
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Corsair
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #964 on: May 07, 2009, 08:45:28 AM »

And more fodder for this discussion/issue. A site dedicated to the "pro" Met. Philip side of this issue:

Discussion board


Blog


Unfortunately, the content thus far seems to be back-and-forth of the "i know you are but what am I" sort.

Corsair,
I'm sorry, but the kind of links that you have provided to a blog and a discussion board are not allowed in this context.   I have therefore removed the links.  Please consult our board policy here to learn more about how this works. If you have questions about this, please write a private message to Cleveland or Fr Chris.  (This is not a formal warning, as we understand that you are new and probably haven't had occasion to consult our policy on this kind of thing yet.)

Regards,

Pravoslavbob
Religious Topics Moderator
« Last Edit: May 10, 2009, 02:40:26 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #965 on: May 07, 2009, 08:57:01 AM »

I got my monthly edition of the Word and there's nothing about this in it.  I assume then the problem is solved.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #966 on: May 07, 2009, 09:01:51 AM »

I got my monthly edition of the Word and there's nothing about this in it.  I assume then the problem is solved.

LOL.  Yes, that's why Pravda was such a source of information.

You know what happens when you assUme?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #967 on: May 07, 2009, 09:03:53 AM »

You're not suggesting the Word is some softball throwing propaganda machine are you?
Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,073



« Reply #968 on: May 07, 2009, 10:30:19 AM »

I got my monthly edition of the Word and there's nothing about this in it.  I assume then the problem is solved.

LOL.  Yes, that's why Pravda was such a source of information.

You know what happens when you assUme?

I assume you meant Pravada (consequently means truth in Ukrainian).  I hesitate to post on such a long winded speculative thread that has managed to have the EP dragged into it about every third post, but I can't sit back and watch someone put a capital u in assume and while doing so misspell Pravada.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #969 on: May 07, 2009, 10:36:15 AM »

I got my monthly edition of the Word and there's nothing about this in it.  I assume then the problem is solved.

LOL.  Yes, that's why Pravda was such a source of information.

You know what happens when you assUme?

I assume you meant Pravada (consequently means truth in Ukrainian).  I hesitate to post on such a long winded speculative thread that has managed to have the EP dragged into it about every third post, but I can't sit back and watch someone put a capital u in assume and while doing so misspell Pravada.

It's spelled Правда.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda

what did I warn about when you assUme.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 10:37:14 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,073



« Reply #970 on: May 07, 2009, 10:48:59 AM »

I got my monthly edition of the Word and there's nothing about this in it.  I assume then the problem is solved.

LOL.  Yes, that's why Pravda was such a source of information.

You know what happens when you assUme?

I assume you meant Pravada (consequently means truth in Ukrainian).  I hesitate to post on such a long winded speculative thread that has managed to have the EP dragged into it about every third post, but I can't sit back and watch someone put a capital u in assume and while doing so misspell Pravada.

It's spelled Правда.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda

what did I warn about when you assUme.

Well, first this is my brother's computer and I am not going to go in and mess with his language bar to write in Cyrillic, some of us don't need wiki to spell Russian or Ukrainian.
So be careful when you assume. 
Logged

AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #971 on: May 07, 2009, 11:13:15 AM »

Are you not your brother's computer's keeper?
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,466


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #972 on: May 07, 2009, 11:55:35 AM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.

I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...

....that's the reality of chastizing your executioner.


IF there were someone or someplace "safe," where such ideas could have their names attatched, that would be one thing.  But the back room dealing stench on this "directive" gives no assurance that anyone is "safe."

As I said, I wouldn't send the letter as is, because, if nothing else, its tone might prevent results.  But it does say what many think.

The sacrament of confession is open to all baptized and chrismated orthodox christians.  Maybe they should avail themselves of this fact, instead of just venting online and etc. 

They are just following tradition: in the older days we had pamphlets.  Internet works faster, as Met. Herman found out.

An earlier example is "A Historical Glance at the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher," which outilined the Phanar's seizure of the rest of the Pentarchy.  It played a pivotal role in the restoration of local control in Antioch, and what local control was won in Jerusalem.  And, for not so hard to understand reasons, it was anonymous (St. Raphael is now being promoted as its author).
http://www.frmichel.najim.net/brotherenglish.pdf

So now you are trying to say that there is an established tradition for people writing anonymous letters and etc. to "correct" the church, or bring bearing to the boat?Huh

While it is a historical fact that these types of actions have been taken, I would submit that in the general church history there are MANY MANY more cases of PUBLIC denouncement, with people's names on it, than silent (anonymous) ones.  I think the shear numbers speak for themselves:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.i.html?highlight=seven,ecumenical,councils#highlight

Read up, maybe the lists of names will be enlightening to you. Wink Grin

LOL.  As has been pointed out, the Decision of Antioch is short the quorum required by the Patriarch's own Constitution, and Met. Philip's letter endorsing it is three signatures short. Grin

Yah...that's awkward.  I got nothing for you there.  is there anything that can be done about that?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,073



« Reply #973 on: May 07, 2009, 03:39:51 PM »

Are you not your brother's computer's keeper?

LOL!! 
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #974 on: May 07, 2009, 04:49:12 PM »

I got my monthly edition of the Word and there's nothing about this in it.  I assume then the problem is solved.

LOL.  Yes, that's why Pravda was such a source of information.

You know what happens when you assUme?

I assume you meant Pravada (consequently means truth in Ukrainian).  I hesitate to post on such a long winded speculative thread that has managed to have the EP dragged into it about every third post, but I can't sit back and watch someone put a capital u in assume and while doing so misspell Pravada.

It's spelled Правда.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda

what did I warn about when you assUme.

Well, first this is my brother's computer and I am not going to go in and mess with his language bar to write in Cyrillic, some of us don't need wiki to spell Russian or Ukrainian.

LOL. It's my mother's computer.  And I need wiki to spell English often enough.
Quote
So be careful when you assume. 
That's why I make it a rule to assUme nothing.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Abbu-Issa
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOC
Posts: 80



« Reply #975 on: May 08, 2009, 12:15:31 AM »

And more fodder for this discussion/issue. A site dedicated to the "pro" Met. Philip side of this issue:

Discussion board


Blog


Unfortunately, the content thus far seems to be back-and-forth of the "i know you are but what am I" sort.
This is nothing but a site to run down those who desire canonical order in the church.  My sources tell me it is run by those seeking to discover which priests are against the decision of the Holy Synod in uncanonically and unconstitutionally attempting to reduce the Diocesan Bishops to auxiliaries.  My suggestion --- do not even visit the site as they will know what city and perhaps IP address you have.  Secondly leave no posting opposed to the decision or anything negative as this may be the source of executions to come. Shocked Tongue NO Priests of the AOCA should leave any posts there!

(Links removed as per moderatorial decision of post reply #964 - Pravoslavbob)
« Last Edit: May 10, 2009, 02:47:00 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #976 on: May 08, 2009, 01:27:10 AM »

And more fodder for this discussion/issue. A site dedicated to the "pro" Met. Philip side of this issue:

Discussion board


Blog


Unfortunately, the content thus far seems to be back-and-forth of the "i know you are but what am I" sort.
This is nothing but a site to run down those who desire canonical order in the church.  My sources tell me it is run by those seeking to discover which priests are against the decision of the Holy Synod in uncanonically and unconstitutionally attempting to reduce the Diocesan Bishops to auxiliaries.  My suggestion --- do not even visit the site as they will know what city and perhaps IP address you have.  Secondly leave no posting opposed to the decision or anything negative as this may be the source of executions to come. Shocked Tongue NO Priests of the AOCA should leave any posts there!
And how is that different to the antics of some of our posters on this thread?

(Links removed as per moderatorial decision of post reply #964 - Pravoslavbob)
« Last Edit: May 10, 2009, 02:48:45 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #977 on: May 08, 2009, 10:13:53 AM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.

I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...

....that's the reality of chastizing your executioner.


IF there were someone or someplace "safe," where such ideas could have their names attatched, that would be one thing.  But the back room dealing stench on this "directive" gives no assurance that anyone is "safe."

As I said, I wouldn't send the letter as is, because, if nothing else, its tone might prevent results.  But it does say what many think.

The sacrament of confession is open to all baptized and chrismated orthodox christians.  Maybe they should avail themselves of this fact, instead of just venting online and etc. 

They are just following tradition: in the older days we had pamphlets.  Internet works faster, as Met. Herman found out.

An earlier example is "A Historical Glance at the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher," which outilined the Phanar's seizure of the rest of the Pentarchy.  It played a pivotal role in the restoration of local control in Antioch, and what local control was won in Jerusalem.  And, for not so hard to understand reasons, it was anonymous (St. Raphael is now being promoted as its author).
http://www.frmichel.najim.net/brotherenglish.pdf

So now you are trying to say that there is an established tradition for people writing anonymous letters and etc. to "correct" the church, or bring bearing to the boat?Huh

While it is a historical fact that these types of actions have been taken, I would submit that in the general church history there are MANY MANY more cases of PUBLIC denouncement, with people's names on it, than silent (anonymous) ones.  I think the shear numbers speak for themselves:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.i.html?highlight=seven,ecumenical,councils#highlight

Read up, maybe the lists of names will be enlightening to you. Wink Grin

LOL.  As has been pointed out, the Decision of Antioch is short the quorum required by the Patriarch's own Constitution, and Met. Philip's letter endorsing it is three signatures short. Grin

Yah...that's awkward.  I got nothing for you there.  is there anything that can be done about that?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21172.0.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,466


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #978 on: May 10, 2009, 08:50:02 PM »

Interesting that this anonymous letter writer felt the need to attack the patriarchate over matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand in North America.

I have little respect for people who don't put their names on statements.  The Patriarch has to sign his name to all of his encyclicals, he has to sign his name to all of his directives, as did all of the other bishops of the synod.  Not only that but he represents St. Peter, the see of Antioch and the many who are underneath his omophorion.  And then this "anonymous" person has the audacity to write a letter to him and demand things?  Without even having the decency of allowing him to know who his accuser is?  That's rough...

....that's the reality of chastizing your executioner.


IF there were someone or someplace "safe," where such ideas could have their names attatched, that would be one thing.  But the back room dealing stench on this "directive" gives no assurance that anyone is "safe."

As I said, I wouldn't send the letter as is, because, if nothing else, its tone might prevent results.  But it does say what many think.

The sacrament of confession is open to all baptized and chrismated orthodox christians.  Maybe they should avail themselves of this fact, instead of just venting online and etc. 

They are just following tradition: in the older days we had pamphlets.  Internet works faster, as Met. Herman found out.

An earlier example is "A Historical Glance at the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher," which outilined the Phanar's seizure of the rest of the Pentarchy.  It played a pivotal role in the restoration of local control in Antioch, and what local control was won in Jerusalem.  And, for not so hard to understand reasons, it was anonymous (St. Raphael is now being promoted as its author).
http://www.frmichel.najim.net/brotherenglish.pdf

So now you are trying to say that there is an established tradition for people writing anonymous letters and etc. to "correct" the church, or bring bearing to the boat?Huh

While it is a historical fact that these types of actions have been taken, I would submit that in the general church history there are MANY MANY more cases of PUBLIC denouncement, with people's names on it, than silent (anonymous) ones.  I think the shear numbers speak for themselves:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.i.html?highlight=seven,ecumenical,councils#highlight

Read up, maybe the lists of names will be enlightening to you. Wink Grin

LOL.  As has been pointed out, the Decision of Antioch is short the quorum required by the Patriarch's own Constitution, and Met. Philip's letter endorsing it is three signatures short. Grin

Yah...that's awkward.  I got nothing for you there.  is there anything that can be done about that?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21172.0.html

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20115.0.html
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Abbu-Issa
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOC
Posts: 80



« Reply #979 on: May 16, 2009, 11:42:17 PM »

Here is some real news on the situation with signaturs attached by the TWO ChNANCELLORS OF THE AOCA

May 13, 2009
Dear Saidna PHILIP, Members of the Local Synod and Members of the
Board of Trustees,
Christ is Risen!
We have been requested by several members of the Board of Trustees, as Chancellors, to give our Opinion regarding the February 24, 2009 decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch.  Enclosed is that Opinion. In reaching that Opinion, we have spent many hours
examining the Patriarchate Constitution and Bylaws, and importantly the Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch irrevocably granting our Archdiocese Self-Rule, as well as our Archdiocese Constitution.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call us.


OPINION OF THE CHANCEllORS REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE HOLY SYNOD OF ANTIOCH OF FEBRUARY 24, 2009
As the Chancellors for the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, we have been asked by several members of the Board of Trustees for our opinion on the legal effect of the Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch of February 24, 2009. Under the Constitution of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, the Chancellors, while appointed by the Metropolitan Primate with the consent of the Board of Trustees, are the attorneys for the Archdiocese. As such, it is our obligation to respond to a request for legal opinions from the Primate, members of the Local Synod, members of the Board of Trustees or the General Assembly of the
Archdiocese.
In doing so for this opinion, we have considered the Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch granting self rule to the Archdiocese of North America, the Constitution and Bylaws of the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Articles of Incorporation of the Self-Ruled
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America as signed by Metropolitan PHILIP and filed with the State of New York, the Constitution of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America as passed in Pittsburg, PA
and approved by Metropolitan PHILIP, prior opinions of the Chancellors pertaining to
Self-Rule that have been approved and published by the Archdiocese, statements
pertaining to Self-Rule as proffered by Metropolitan PHILIP, the April 24, 2009 Decision
of the Local Synod, and, of course, the Decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch of
February 24, 2009
I. THE FEBRUARY 24, 2009 DECISION OF THE HOLY SYNOD APPEARS TO BE
; ·''lAUD.
In considering whether the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch is binding ypon
the Self-RUled Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America and. has any effect
on the status of the Diocesan Bishops, one must look first to whether the decision is a
1
valid decision. No person or organization can claim that there must be allegiance to a
decision that was not properly made in the first instance. Moreover, a decision not
properly made cannot be ratified or approved since if it was not properly made there is
no decision to approve or ratify. This issue has been raised by others and needs to be
addressed as a preliminary matter.
A. There Does Not Appear to Have Been the Required Quorum.
According to the official translation of the February 24 decision, only nine
members of the Holy Synod were present. The Metropolitans of the Archdioceses are
the members of the Holy Synod of Antioch. Patriarchal Constitution, par. 7.
The Patriarchal Constitution calls for the Holy Synod to meet in two sessions,
one to be held in the first half of October and the second around Pentecost of each
year. It may meet pursuant to a call by the Patriarch or a written request by three
members of the Synod giving the reasons therefore. Patriarchal Constitution par. 9.
The sessions of the Holy Synod are valid if attended by the majority of its members
unless the regulations provide otherwise. Id. 13. ByLaws, par. 13 Decisions are made
by a majority of those present at the meeting. Patriarchal Constitution par. 16; ByLaws
par.16.There is apparently a question as to whether the appropriate call ever took place.
Pursuant to the Patriarchal Constitution and ByLaws, it appears that the February
24th session of the Holy Synod would not have been valid and any decisions made by
such a gathering would have no force or effect. Moreover, it cannot be made "valid" by
subsequent agreement by those not in attendance since the Patriarchal Constitution
dictates that the decisions are made by a majority of those present at the meetings. Id.
16.
B. There Does Not Appear to Have Been the Required Two-Thirds Vote.
Article 51 of the Constitution (The Fundamental Canons of the Greek Orthodox
Patriarchate of Antioch) states: "These canons may be amended only by a two-thirds
majority vote of the members of the Holy Synod." Such a major structural change of
making diocesan bishops auxiliary bishops would seem to be a matter that can only be
done by amendment of the Patriarchal Constitution. The Patriarchal Constitution may
well not even give authority to handle such matters by a modification of the bylaws. The
Bylaws of the Patriarchate, as is typical, involves only generally procedural matters
2
implementing the Constitution. The Patriarchal Bylaws are only "to define the work of
the Synod, the number of departments, as well as the authority of such departments
and the conducting of their meetings." Patriarchal Constitution art. 16. The subject
matter of the February 24, 2009 decision is not such a matter. Further, it is reasonable
to assume that in such an important amendment of the Bylaws, as with the Patriarchal
Constitution, notwithstanding any other provision, a two-thirds vote would be reqUired,
Le. 14 members necessary to amend the Bylaws. There is no showing that the
proposed amendment received an affirmative vote of 14 members of the Holy Synod
and therefore would not be valid.
In any event, assuming the two-thirds requirement, to constitute a proper quorum
for the amendment of a bylaw, there would have to be at least two thirds of the
members of the Holy Synod of Antioch present. It appears there was not a quorum
present and therefore the action was invalid for that reason also.
C. The Decision Appears to Be Invalid, But If It Were Valid, It Is
Inapplicable.
It would appear therefore that for significant procedural reasons, the February
24th decision would not be valid and therefore is not binding upon any archdiocese in
the Patriarchate and would have no effect on the status of bishops in North America. It
would also follow that one cannot submit obedience to an invalid decision. For other
additional reasons, as set forth below, even if the decision were valid it would not apply
to the Self-Ruled Archdiocese of North America.
II. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE DECISION IS VALID, IT DOES NOT APPLY
TO THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NORTH AMERICA.
If the so called February 24th decision is a valid decision of the Holy Synod of
Antioch, there still remains the question as to whether it has any application to the SelfRuled
Archdiocese of North America. While there are numerous archdioceses whose
respective metropolitans sit on the Holy Synod and all receive their ecclesiastical
:. ,\thority from a praxis issued by the Patriarchate, only one archdiocese, North America,
has been granted irrevocably self-rule by a resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch.
3
While there may be debate as to whether, based upon the record, the decision of
February 24th is a valid decision, there can be no debate that the decision can not have
Leen intended to apply to the Self-Ruled Archdiocese nor to affect or negate the
October 2003 Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch granting the North America
Archdiocese self rule. That is apparent for several reasons.
A. There Does Not Appear to Be Any Intent to Have the Decision Apply.
1. There Was No Intent Previously for Articles 75-79 to Be Binding on the
Archdiocese.
In considering whether a new Bylaw amendment affects the North America
Archdiocese, a good starting point is whether the old Bylaws prior to amendment
governed the North America Archdiocese. If the Bylaws, prior to amendment, governed
the Archdiocese than their amendment might also. Bya parity of reasoning, the reverse
would also appear to be true. That is, if the prior Bylaw provisions in question did not
govern this Archdiocese than their amendment would be equally inapplicable.
In the instant case, Articles 75-79 prior to amendment read as follows:
75. The Patriarch is the relevant authority for all the bishops and they
report to him.
76. The provisions of Article 60 of these regulations are applicable to
the nominee for bishopric and his eligibility is determined pursuant
thereto.
77. The Holy Synod shall elect the bishop from among three names
submitted by the patriarch. The elections shall take place pursuant
to Articles 60, 68, 69, and 70 of these Regulations.
78. A bishop is appointed to head the patriarchal office, or a patriarchal
monastery or a vicariate or another ecclesiastical institution. The
Patriarchal Vicar is elected to this position.
79. The patriarchal vicar participates in the nomination and election of
the patriarch, archbishops and bishops.
It is clear that since the irrevocable grant of self-rule to this Archdiocese, the
creation of three diocesan bishops by the irrevocable self-rule Resolution itself, the
4
adoption by the Archdiocese of the irrevocable self-rule, the election and consecration
of three additional new bishops pursuant to our Constitution, and the enthronement of
the Archdiocese's diocesan bishops, the prior Articles 75-79 applied only throughout the
rest of the Patriarchate and had no bearing or application to North America.
2. There Was No Intent to Violate the Self-Rule Resolution by the Inconsistent
Amendment.
Without a clear repudiation of the Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch
granting irrevocably self-rule to this Archdiocese, the purported amendments to the
Patriarchate's bylaws in like manner can have no bearing or effect on this Self-Ruled
Archdiocese. For the reasons addressed below, the purported amendments and the
self-rule Resolution are significantly inconsistent and both cannot apply to this
Archdiocese. Therefore, since there is no claim that the Resolution on self-rule has
been abrogated, and therefore still applies to this Archdiocese, the only logical
conclusion is that the purported amendments, if they have any applicability, apply only
to archdioceses that have not been granted self-rule. They would not and do not apply
to this Archdiocese.
It is apparent that some might argue that by the very wording of the amended
Article 79, that the purported amendments apply to all archdioceses of this Patriarchate
including North America. That article as a'!'ended reads: "The aforementioned articles
75,76,77,78 are applicable in all Antiochian Archdioceses and whatever contradicts
these articles is null and void."
What contradjcts those articles in their application to North America is the
Resolution of the Holy Synod granting self-rule, the Constitution of the Archdiocese of
North America, the irrevocable creation of three diocesan bishops by the self-rule
Resolution itself, the election and consecration of three bishops under the Constitution
as diocesan bishops for North America and the enthronement of these various bishops
··eir respective dioceses. To render all of these documents, resolutions and actions
null and void by implication, or sub silentio, would be an absurd action. It cannot be
imagined that the Holy Synod of Antioch, composed of wise and holy men, would
participate in such a folly.
5
One would expect that if the Holy Synod of Antioch intended to abrogate its
Resolution of self rule, it would have done so directly and unequivocally. One must
assume the Synod did not intend to undue its Resolution of self rule or to render
nugatory the Constitution of the Archdiocese of North America, but rather intended only
to affect those bishops in archdioceses that did not have self rule.
B. The Decision Does Not Apply to North America Because If It Did, It
Would Violate the Irrevocable Self-Rule Resolution.
The Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch granting self-rule to the North
~merica Archdiocese is a simple yet powerful and historic document. In the history of
the Church, for whatever reasons, mother Churches have been recalcitrant and
unWilling to yield authority to their offspring even when they have grown in distant lands
with the influence of different cultures and languages. As a result, when separation
occurs without cooperation the split is often hostile and takes years to mend. There are
numerous examples in the history of the Orthodox Church for reference.
Yet when one examines the Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch granting
self-rule, one sees that the Synod granted irrevocably self-rule to the Archdiocese. It
also irrevocably restricted itself in the ways that synodical decisions of the Holy Synod
could impact the Archdiocese. That the grant was irrevocable is clear from the very first
paragraph of the Resolution: "The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North
America is and shall remain self ruled within its present jurisdiction."
The wording simply couldn't be stronger. The word "is" denotes a present
eXisting condition while the word "shall" is not only mandatory, meaning nothing can
change that condition, but also expresses that the self-rule is to continue in the future
without change.
The paragraphs on Governance, Recognition of Auxiliary Bishops as Diocesan
Bishops and local Synod, and Decisions of the Holy Synod of Antioch, show the grant
;)If rule and how it is to be accomplished as well as the Synod self-imposed
restriction on itself in its ability to affect the ecclesiastical governance of the Self-Ruled
.':diocese of North America.
The language on Governance is very instructive on the limitations the Holy
Synod placed on itself insofar as its decisions would be binding on the North America
6

Archdiocese. The Resolution states: "The Archdiocese is governed by the Holy
Scripture, the Sacred Tradition, the Holy Canons, the Constitution of the Church of
Antioch and this Synodical Resolution and by its Constitution and Bylaws."
It is interesting that the paragraph does not state that the Archdiocese is
governed by the Bylaws of the Church of Antioch since clearly while some would apply
others clearly would not as shown above. Indeed, from the time self rule was granted
the Bylaws on the Bishops did not apply. The ones that would not apply as of the time
of the Resolution was passed were those that conflicted with the grant of self rule as set
forth in the Resolution, e.g., Articles 75-79 as shown above.
More important as to the self-rule Resolution than whether the Patriarchal bylaws
are authorized or could ever affect the Archdiocese, in a section headed "Decisions of
the Holy Synod of Antioch", the self-rule Resolution clearly limits how and what future
decisions may impact the North America Archdiocese: "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." Significantly, the Resolution
does not provide that Synod decisions that would affect the internal governance of the
Self-Ruling Archdiocese are binding on the Archdiocese. Therefore, one must conclude
they are not binding.
Clearly, the February 24th decision does not pertain to doctrine, liturgy,
sacraments, relations with autocephalous Orthodox Churches or ecumenical policy and
therefore does not constitute a binding decision as defined in the Resolution on 8elfRule.
While the paragraphs on Governance and Decisions would seem to be sufficient
to show that the February 24th decision could not pertain to this Self-RUling
Archdiocese, what is equaJly instructive is the section entitled "Recognition of Auxiliary
E!jshops as Diocesan Bishops and Local Synod". After stating that upon adoption of the
resolution the Auxiliary bishops shall become Diocesan Bishops, it states: "The
Diocesan Bishops will constitute under the Metropolitan the Local Synod of the
Archdiocese which will be its governing authority. The Local Synod shall
determine the number of dioceses and their boundaries."
7
That the Local Synod is the governing ecclesiastical authority for the Archdiocese
of North America is a touchstone of self-rule. As part of that self rule is the ability of the
Li..ical Synod to elect other Diocesan bishops, to determine the number of dioceses and
their boundaries.
The February 24th decision defines all bishops other than the Patriarch,
metropolitans and archbishops as auxiliary under their respective Metropolitan and not
able to "do anything contrary to the will of the Metropolitan." If the bishops sitting on the
Local Synod cannot vote as they feel they should but must vote in agreement to the will
of the Metropolitan then the Local Synod, if it exists at all as a Local Synod, is only a
fa~ade and rubber stamp, not truly a Synod of any sort at all. Such a provision that
restricts the bishops to do nothing contrary to the will of the Metropolitan is in clear
conflict with the self-rule Resolution. They cannot both stand.
Since there is no evidence that the Holy Synod acted to negate the Resolution of
Self-Rule, (and thus render itself as contradictory since the Resolution on Self-Rule
grants self rule irrevocably), and indeed Metropolitan PHILIP maintains self-rule has not
been affected, then it is clear that the decision does not apply to this Archdiocese. It
would not be appropriate to assume that the Holy Synod of Antioch acts in a haphazard
and contradictory way. Such a suggestion only would bring disgrace and dishonor to
an ancient Holy See which we refuse to do.
Furthermore, if the purported Bylaw amendments were intended to negate the
Resolution of Self-Rule it must be concluded they do not apply to this Archdiocese
because the Self-Rule Resolution is irrevocable and cannot legally be so violated.
C. The Decision Does Not Apply To North America Because If It Did It
Would Violate the Constitution Of The Irrevocably Self-Goveming
Archdiocese.
In acceptance of the answer to its request for self rule and in implementation of
~l-2 Resolution on Self-Rule, this Archdiocese amended her Constitution in Pittsburgh,
PA which was immediately approved by Metropolitan PHILIP. As a result the
Constitution took immediate effect. It was submitted to Antioch for approval, and except
for minor differences, the Constitution was sufficiently approved under the Self-Rule
Resolution that the Patriarch consecrated, pursuant to a process that the Archdiocesan
8
Board of Trustees accepted under our Constitution, three Diocesan bishops, THOMAS,
MARK and ALEXANDER, who were elected by the North American Local Synod.
Those bishops as well as Bishops JOSEPH and BASIL were enthroned as diocesan
bishops of their respective dioceses, all pursuant to the Archdiocese Constitution.
Those Diocesan bishops, with Metropolitan PHILIP as the head, and Bishop ANTOUN,
a Diocesan Bishop under the Self-Rule Resolution, constitute the Local Synod. Arch.
Const. Art. IV, Sec. 2.
Pursuant to both the Resolution on Self-Rule and the Archdiocese Constitution, it
is the Local Synod through whom self rule is accomplished. The Resolution provides:
"The Diocesan Bishops will constitute under the Metropolitan the Local Synod of the
Archdiocese which will be its governing authority."
In like manner, the Archdiocese Constitution provides: "The Local Synod,
comprised of the Metropolitan, and the Diocesan Bishops shall be the governing
ecclesiastical authority of the Archdiocese. The Metropolitan shall preside over the
Local Synod." Arch. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 2.
If the February 24th Decision applied to this Self-Ruled Archdiocese, it would
create several conflicts with our Constitution such that our Constitution would be
rendered nugatory. First, if all of the Diocesan bishops are now auxiliary, then the Local
Synod would cease to exist. Our Constitution does not provide for auxiliary bishops to
be on the Local Synod except for one auxiliary bishop nominated by the General
Assembly and elected by the Local Synod who is to assist the Metropolitan in the
administration of the Self-Ruled Archdiocese. Arch. Const. Art. VI Sec. 1 A.
Second, even if they sat on the Local Synod, they would have no ability to govern
since they would be limited to voting in accordance with the will of the Metropolitan.
The Local Synod would for all practical purposes cease to function in accordance with
its constitutional mandate as the governing ecclesiastical authority of the Archdiocese.
Third, the Archdiocese Constitution only allows that in certain instances the
Constitution of the Church of Antioch along with the Archdiocese Constitution, Bylaws,
Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Holy Canons shall be the governing code for ~his
Archdiocese. Arch. Const. Art. IV Sec. 1. It does not provide that the Bylaws of the
Church of Antioch shall be part of that governing code. Should it be argued that the
9
Bylaws of Antioch are included by implication since the Constitution of Antioch is part of
the governing code, even the Constitution of Antioch is only part of this Archdiocese's
governing code to the extent it is not inconsistent with our Constitution. Arch. Const.,
Art. 4.
Metropolitan PHILIP has recognized that while portions of the Patriarchal
Constitution may apply in other archdioceses, they are not applicable here. In a letter to
Patriarch IGNATIUS IV dated February 11, 2005, His Eminence wrote: "We are an
Archdiocese, established oversees, i.e., in the United States of America and Canada,
which has its own particUlarities. In our administrative methodology we differ from all
the other Archdioceses. For example, the main Patriarchal constitution is suitable to the
Antiochian see in the homeland, but not overseas. Additionally, we have a mechanism
for amending the constitution which we can not overstep."
As shown above, the February 24th decision is irreconcilably in conflict with the
Archdiocese Constitution. They cannot both apply to this Archdiocese and since the
decision is inconsistent with our Constitution, the February 24 decision does not apply
to our Archdiocese.
Fourth, should it be argued that the decision is effectively an amendment to the
Archdiocese Constitution, it should be remembered that only the General Assembly of
the Archdiocese can amend the Archdiocese Constitution. This is clearly set forth in
Art. VII. It was also noted by Metropolitan PHILIP in his letter of February 11, 2005 to
the Patriarch: "According to our registered constitution, neither the Holy Synod, nor the
Metropolitan, nor the Local Synod can impose any amendment to the constitution
without the approval of clergy and laity, i.e., the General Assembly of the Archdiocese."
This position was repeated by the Chancellors of the Archdiocese in their
"IMPORTANT MESSAGE REGARDING OUR CONSTITUTION" dated January 27,
2005. That message was distributed by the Archdiocese and directed to be published
in the parish bulletin.
The February 24th decision, if it applied to this Archdiocese would dramatically
change our Constitution. As noted above, neither the Holy Synod, nor the MetropoJitan,
nor the Patriarch nor the Local Synod can impose any amendment without the approval
of the General Assembly of the Self-Ruled Archdiocese.
10
Since the decision conflicts with the Archdiocese Constitution, the Constitution
governs and the decision cannot apply to this Self-Ruled Archdiocese.
D. The Decision Does Not Apply To North America Because If It Did It
Would Violate The Irrevocably Self-Ruled Archdiocese's Articles Of
Incorporation.
As a result of the amendment of the Self-Ruled Archdiocese Constitution, the
Articles of Incorporation of the Self-Ruled Archdiocese were amended. They were
signed by Metropolitan PHILIP and filed with the State of New York on December 26,
2006.
Those articles recognize that the grant of self-rule was irrevocable. Moreover,
they acknowledged that the self-rule was implemented pursuant to the amended
Constitution.
Since the February 24th decision, if applicable, would violate the Archdiocese
Constitution and negate the irrevocable grant of self-rule, it would also violate the
Articles of Incorporation. Since the decision conflicts with the Articles of Incorporation,
the Articles govern and the decision, therefore, cannot apply to this Self-Ruled
Archdiocese.
III. SUMMARY: THE DECISION IS INVALID, WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY
AND INDEPENDENTLY DOES NOT APPLY TO, NOR DOES IT HAVE ANY
EFFECT UPON, OUR SELF·RULED ARCHDIOCESE.
For all of the reasons stated above, the February 24th decision is not a valid
decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch. Moreover, even if were, it was not intended to
apply to the Self-Ruled North American Archdiocese, and if it were intended to apply, it
does not apply to, nor does it have any effect on our Self-Ruled Archdiocese or the
status of our Diocesan Bishops, because it is inconsistent with, negates, and violates
the irrevocable Resolution on Self-Rule, and without amendment by the General
Assembly it is inconsistent with, negates, and violates the Archdiocese Constitution in
addition to the Articles of Incorporation.
11
IV. THIS OPINION IS NOT CHANGED BY THE APRIL 24, 2009 LOCAL SYNOD
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING OBEDIENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HalY
SYNOD OF ANTIOCH OF FEBRUARY 24, 2009.
On April 24, 2009, the Local Synod of the Archdiocese of North America met.
During that meeting a resolution was signed by four members of the Local Synod
'(affirming obedience to the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch of February 24, 2009".
The question becomes what effect if any does that "resolution" of the four bishops have
on the status of the Archdiocese's bishops in North America?
For the reasons stated above, it is clear that the "resolution" was ill-advised and
would have no effect on the status of the diocesan bishops. Even assuming the
decision of the Holy Synod was valid, for the reasons set forth above, it would not be
applicable to bishops in North America. Moreover, an act by the Local Synod that
would contradict the Archdiocese Constitution, without amendment of the Constitution,
would not only be an unconstitutional, and therefore an invalid act, but equally important
would violate the sacred duties of the members of the local Synod who share the
responsibility to maintain the trust placed in them by the clergy and laity of the
Archdiocese, that they would uphold and protect the Constitution of this Archdiocese.
Indeed, that is a requirement of all members of the Board of Trustees who take such an
oath administered by the Metropolitan Primate.
In examining the April 241h resolution, it is premised upon the fact that the
Archdiocese receives its ecclesiastical authority to act as a self-ruled Archdiocese from
the Holy Synod of Antioch and that Metropolitan PHILIP is a member of that Synod and
serves under a canonical praxis issued by the Patriarch. More importantly, it refers first
and foremost to the Archdiocese Constitution. In referring to the Archdiocese
Constitution, the April 241h Resolution would have been acting properly.
Unfortunately, the Local Synod appears to have ill-advised. The analysis of
whether a decision of the Holy Synod applies to this Archdiocese would not examine
just one section of the Archdiocese Constitution. There are other sections of the
Constitution that must also be considered otherwise the analysis falls to the criticism
that it has taken a provision out of context.
12

That the Archdiocese Constitution provides that the Archdiocese receives its
ecclesiastical authority to act as a self-ruled Archdiocese from the Holy Synod of
/\ntioch and that Metropolitan PHILIP is a member of that Synod and serves under a
canonical praxis issued by the Patriarch, are essentially non-issues and do not provide
a basis for concluding that the February 24th Holy Synod decision has any bearing to
this Archdiocese. No one would dispute either that the Constitution so provides or that
the Holy Synod granted self-rule to this Archdiocese or that the Metropolitan serves
under a canonical praxis issued by the Patriarch.
That the Metropolitan serves under a canonical praxis issued by the Patriarch
does not in any way affect the Self-Rule granted by the Holy Synod. In like manner, the
fact that he is a member of the Holy Synod of Antioch does not affect the grant of selfrule.
Thus, neither of those two facts can serve as a basis for contending the February
24th decision applies to this Archdiocese.
Moreover, the fact that the Holy Synod irrevocably granted self-rule to this
Archdiocese is precisely one of the reasons why the February 24th decision is
inapplicable. Unless self-rule was attempted to be annihilated by the Holy Synod of
Antioch, and even the Local Synod's resolution would appear to contradict such an
interpretation, then for the reasons stated above in Section II the decision does not and
cannot apply.
Reliance on Article 1, Section 2 Paragraph B of the Archdiocese Constitution as
a basis to claim this Archdiocese is bound by the February 24th decision is inapposite
for several reasons: First, the paragraph itself reads: This Archdiocese was granted its
ecclesiastical authority to function as a self-ruling Archdiocese from the Holy
Synod ..."
It should be noted first that the word "granted" was specifically debated and the
past tense specifically chosen by the General Assembly to emphasize the past and
,'!Dcable decision of the Holy Synod to grant self-rule. As to the future, if
ll:';c'esiastical authority to function as a self-ruling Archdiocese" has any
1T.. ning, it comes first and foremost from Art. IV Section 2: "The Local Synod,
comprised of the Metropolitan and the Diocesan Bishops shall be the governing
ecclesiastical authority of the Archdiocese."
13
As noted above by its irrevocable grant of self-rule to this Archdiocese, the Holy
Synod of Antioch irrevocably placed restrictions on its ability to affect the governance
and internal structure of this Archdiocese. That governance has been irrevocably
delegated to this Archdiocese ecclesiastically through the Local Synod comprised of the
Metropolitan and the Diocesan Bishops. Any change in that would require a clear
statement by the Holy Synod abrogating the Resolution on Self-Rule which Metropolitan
PHILIP has said such abrogation did not occur.
More importantly, it would require a complete revision of the Archdiocese
Constitution since we would no longer have a functioning Local Synod in terms of real
governance and we would no longer have Diocesan bishops or the ability to elect new
bishops. Such changes would occur only when and if such amendments were duly
passed by a General Assembly of the Archdiocese as provided in the Archdiocese
Constitution and as confirmed by the Metropolitan.
As Metropolitan Philip has stated in his letter of February 11, 2005 to the
Patriarch: "According to our registered constitution, neither the Holy Synod, nor the
Metropolitan, nor the Local Synod can impose any amendment to the constitution
without the approval of clergy and laity, i.e., the General Assembly of the
Archdiocese."
While the members of the Local Synod could express their obedience to the
February 24th decision, assuming it was valid, such expression would only mean that it
might have validity in other archdioceses of the Patriarchate and not in North America.
As noted above, not even our own Local Synod can impose any amendment to our
Constitution on its own. Indeed, as members of our Local Synod, the better choice of
action would have been to point out the fact it could have no application to North
America. After all, the members of the Local Synod as well as the Board of Trustees
are duty bound to protect and defend our Constitution and to act in accordance with it.
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons stated above, the February 24th decision is not a valid
decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch. Moreover, even if were, it would have no effect
14
on our Archdiocese since it wasn't intend to apply to our Archdiocese and if it was
intended, it would not apply because it is inconsistent with, negates, and would violate
the irrevocable Resolution on Self-Rule, the Archdiocese Constitution and the
Archdiocese Articles of Incorporation, filed with the State of New York. Unless properly
amended, these documents cannot be overridden and the February 24,2009 decision
is inapplicable to the Self-Ruled Archdiocese.
Pursuant to the Constitution, all members of the Board of Trustees including the
clergy and the hierarchs have an obligation to insure that the Archdiocese Constitution
and Articles are protected. A constitution defines certain rights and privileges and
obligations, these apply to the entire church population including the laity. It is
incumbent upon all members to insure that these provisions are not violated even if one
disagrees with them.
There is an element of trust that is underlying the role of a member of the Board
of Trustees (and a member of the General Assembly) whether the person is a hierarch,
priest, or member of the laity. That trust is that the member will act in the best interests
of the Archdiocese and follow the dictates of the spirit as well as the letter of the
Constitution.
If the members do not act to protect the Constitution and the self-rule as defined
therein, then they will have violated that trust. The consequences, among others, will
be a legitimate lack of trust by clergy and laity in the leaders of this Archdiocese. That
would be tragic.
/II ;1 P /l 1 1 Ull/{?c£f tU/0d!;.t {J
Charles R. Ajalat
Chancellor
15



Just fixing a quote tag issue...  -PtA
« Last Edit: May 17, 2009, 02:53:17 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #980 on: May 17, 2009, 07:51:01 AM »

Here is some real news on the situation with signaturs attached by the TWO ChNANCELLORS OF THE AOCA

May 13, 2009
Dear Saidna PHILIP, Members of the Local Synod and Members of the
Board of Trustees,
Christ is Risen!
We have been requested by several members of the Board of Trustees, as Chancellors, to give our Opinion regarding the February 24, 2009 decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch.  Enclosed is that Opinion. In reaching that Opinion, we have spent many hours
examining the Patriarchate Constitution and Bylaws, and importantly the Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch irrevocably granting our Archdiocese Self-Rule, as well as our Archdiocese Constitution.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call us.


OPINION OF THE CHANCEllORS REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE HOLY SYNOD OF ANTIOCH OF FEBRUARY 24, 2009
As the Chancellors for the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, we have been asked by several members of the Board of Trustees for our opinion on the legal effect of the Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch of February 24, 2009. Under the Constitution of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, the Chancellors, while appointed by the Metropolitan Primate with the consent of the Board of Trustees, are the attorneys for the Archdiocese. As such, it is our obligation to respond to a request for legal opinions from the Primate, members of the Local Synod, members of the Board of Trustees or the General Assembly of the
Archdiocese.
In doing so for this opinion, we have considered the Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch granting self rule to the Archdiocese of North America, the Constitution and Bylaws of the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Articles of Incorporation of the Self-Ruled
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America as signed by Metropolitan PHILIP and filed with the State of New York, the Constitution of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America as passed in Pittsburg, PA
and approved by Metropolitan PHILIP, prior opinions of the Chancellors pertaining to
Self-Rule that have been approved and published by the Archdiocese, statements
pertaining to Self-Rule as proffered by Metropolitan PHILIP, the April 24, 2009 Decision
of the Local Synod, and, of course, the Decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch of
February 24, 2009
I. THE FEBRUARY 24, 2009 DECISION OF THE HOLY SYNOD APPEARS TO BE
; ·''lAUD.
In considering whether the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch is binding ypon
the Self-RUled Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America and. has any effect
on the status of the Diocesan Bishops, one must look first to whether the decision is a
1
valid decision. No person or organization can claim that there must be allegiance to a
decision that was not properly made in the first instance. Moreover, a decision not
properly made cannot be ratified or approved since if it was not properly made there is
no decision to approve or ratify. This issue has been raised by others and needs to be
addressed as a preliminary matter.
A. There Does Not Appear to Have Been the Required Quorum.
According to the official translation of the February 24 decision, only nine
members of the Holy Synod were present. The Metropolitans of the Archdioceses are
the members of the Holy Synod of Antioch. Patriarchal Constitution, par. 7.
The Patriarchal Constitution calls for the Holy Synod to meet in two sessions,
one to be held in the first half of October and the second around Pentecost of each
year. It may meet pursuant to a call by the Patriarch or a written request by three
members of the Synod giving the reasons therefore. Patriarchal Constitution par. 9.
The sessions of the Holy Synod are valid if attended by the majority of its members
unless the regulations provide otherwise. Id. 13. ByLaws, par. 13 Decisions are made
by a majority of those present at the meeting. Patriarchal Constitution par. 16; ByLaws
par.16.There is apparently a question as to whether the appropriate call ever took place.
Pursuant to the Patriarchal Constitution and ByLaws, it appears that the February
24th session of the Holy Synod would not have been valid and any decisions made by
such a gathering would have no force or effect. Moreover, it cannot be made "valid" by
subsequent agreement by those not in attendance since the Patriarchal Constitution
dictates that the decisions are made by a majority of those present at the meetings. Id.
16.
B. There Does Not Appear to Have Been the Required Two-Thirds Vote.
Article 51 of the Constitution (The Fundamental Canons of the Greek Orthodox
Patriarchate of Antioch) states: "These canons may be amended only by a two-thirds
majority vote of the members of the Holy Synod." Such a major structural change of
making diocesan bishops auxiliary bishops would seem to be a matter that can only be
done by amendment of the Patriarchal Constitution. The Patriarchal Constitution may
well not even give authority to handle such matters by a modification of the bylaws. The
Bylaws of the Patriarchate, as is typical, involves only generally procedural matters
2
implementing the Constitution. The Patriarchal Bylaws are only "to define the work of
the Synod, the number of departments, as well as the authority of such departments
and the conducting of their meetings." Patriarchal Constitution art. 16. The subject
matter of the February 24, 2009 decision is not such a matter. Further, it is reasonable
to assume that in such an important amendment of the Bylaws, as with the Patriarchal
Constitution, notwithstanding any other provision, a two-thirds vote would be reqUired,
Le. 14 members necessary to amend the Bylaws. There is no showing that the
proposed amendment received an affirmative vote of 14 members of the Holy Synod
and therefore would not be valid.
In any event, assuming the two-thirds requirement, to constitute a proper quorum
for the amendment of a bylaw, there would have to be at least two thirds of the
members of the Holy Synod of Antioch present. It appears there was not a quorum
present and therefore the action was invalid for that reason also.
C. The Decision Appears to Be Invalid, But If It Were Valid, It Is
Inapplicable.
It would appear therefore that for significant procedural reasons, the February
24th decision would not be valid and therefore is not binding upon any archdiocese in
the Patriarchate and would have no effect on the status of bishops in North America. It
would also follow that one cannot submit obedience to an invalid decision. For other
additional reasons, as set forth below, even if the decision were valid it would not apply
to the Self-Ruled Archdiocese of North America.
II. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE DECISION IS VALID, IT DOES NOT APPLY
TO THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NORTH AMERICA.
If the so called February 24th decision is a valid decision of the Holy Synod of
Antioch, there still remains the question as to whether it has any application to the SelfRuled
Archdiocese of North America. While there are numerous archdioceses whose
respective metropolitans sit on the Holy Synod and all receive their ecclesiastical
:. ,\thority from a praxis issued by the Patriarchate, only one archdiocese, North America,
has been granted irrevocably self-rule by a resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch.
3
While there may be debate as to whether, based upon the record, the decision of
February 24th is a valid decision, there can be no debate that the decision can not have
Leen intended to apply to the Self-Ruled Archdiocese nor to affect or negate the
October 2003 Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch granting the North America
Archdiocese self rule. That is apparent for several reasons.
A. There Does Not Appear to Be Any Intent to Have the Decision Apply.
1. There Was No Intent Previously for Articles 75-79 to Be Binding on the
Archdiocese.
In considering whether a new Bylaw amendment affects the North America
Archdiocese, a good starting point is whether the old Bylaws prior to amendment
governed the North America Archdiocese. If the Bylaws, prior to amendment, governed
the Archdiocese than their amendment might also. Bya parity of reasoning, the reverse
would also appear to be true. That is, if the prior Bylaw provisions in question did not
govern this Archdiocese than their amendment would be equally inapplicable.
In the instant case, Articles 75-79 prior to amendment read as follows:
75. The Patriarch is the relevant authority for all the bishops and they
report to him.
76. The provisions of Article 60 of these regulations are applicable to
the nominee for bishopric and his eligibility is determined pursuant
thereto.
77. The Holy Synod shall elect the bishop from among three names
submitted by the patriarch. The elections shall take place pursuant
to Articles 60, 68, 69, and 70 of these Regulations.
78. A bishop is appointed to head the patriarchal office, or a patriarchal
monastery or a vicariate or another ecclesiastical institution. The
Patriarchal Vicar is elected to this position.
79. The patriarchal vicar participates in the nomination and election of
the patriarch, archbishops and bishops.
It is clear that since the irrevocable grant of self-rule to this Archdiocese, the
creation of three diocesan bishops by the irrevocable self-rule Resolution itself, the
4
adoption by the Archdiocese of the irrevocable self-rule, the election and consecration
of three additional new bishops pursuant to our Constitution, and the enthronement of
the Archdiocese's diocesan bishops, the prior Articles 75-79 applied only throughout the
rest of the Patriarchate and had no bearing or application to North America.
2. There Was No Intent to Violate the Self-Rule Resolution by the Inconsistent
Amendment.
Without a clear repudiation of the Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch
granting irrevocably self-rule to this Archdiocese, the purported amendments to the
Patriarchate's bylaws in like manner can have no bearing or effect on this Self-Ruled
Archdiocese. For the reasons addressed below, the purported amendments and the
self-rule Resolution are significantly inconsistent and both cannot apply to this
Archdiocese. Therefore, since there is no claim that the Resolution on self-rule has
been abrogated, and therefore still applies to this Archdiocese, the only logical
conclusion is that the purported amendments, if they have any applicability, apply only
to archdioceses that have not been granted self-rule. They would not and do not apply
to this Archdiocese.
It is apparent that some might argue that by the very wording of the amended
Article 79, that the purported amendments apply to all archdioceses of this Patriarchate
including North America. That article as a'!'ended reads: "The aforementioned articles
75,76,77,78 are applicable in all Antiochian Archdioceses and whatever contradicts
these articles is null and void."
What contradjcts those articles in their application to North America is the
Resolution of the Holy Synod granting self-rule, the Constitution of the Archdiocese of
North America, the irrevocable creation of three diocesan bishops by the self-rule
Resolution itself, the election and consecration of three bishops under the Constitution
as diocesan bishops for North America and the enthronement of these various bishops
··eir respective dioceses. To render all of these documents, resolutions and actions
null and void by implication, or sub silentio, would be an absurd action. It cannot be
imagined that the Holy Synod of Antioch, composed of wise and holy men, would
participate in such a folly.
5
One would expect that if the Holy Synod of Antioch intended to abrogate its
Resolution of self rule, it would have done so directly and unequivocally. One must
assume the Synod did not intend to undue its Resolution of self rule or to render
nugatory the Constitution of the Archdiocese of North America, but rather intended only
to affect those bishops in archdioceses that did not have self rule.
B. The Decision Does Not Apply to North America Because If It Did, It
Would Violate the Irrevocable Self-Rule Resolution.
The Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch granting self-rule to the North
~merica Archdiocese is a simple yet powerful and historic document. In the history of
the Church, for whatever reasons, mother Churches have been recalcitrant and
unWilling to yield authority to their offspring even when they have grown in distant lands
with the influence of different cultures and languages. As a result, when separation
occurs without cooperation the split is often hostile and takes years to mend. There are
numerous examples in the history of the Orthodox Church for reference.
Yet when one examines the Resolution of the Holy Synod of Antioch granting
self-rule, one sees that the Synod granted irrevocably self-rule to the Archdiocese. It
also irrevocably restricted itself in the ways that synodical decisions of the Holy Synod
could impact the Archdiocese. That the grant was irrevocable is clear from the very first
paragraph of the Resolution: "The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North
America is and shall remain self ruled within its present jurisdiction."
The wording simply couldn't be stronger. The word "is" denotes a present
eXisting condition while the word "shall" is not only mandatory, meaning nothing can
change that condition, but also expresses that the self-rule is to continue in the future
without change.
The paragraphs on Governance, Recognition of Auxiliary Bishops as Diocesan
Bishops and local Synod, and Decisions of the Holy Synod of Antioch, show the grant
;)If rule and how it is to be accomplished as well as the Synod self-imposed
restriction on itself in its ability to affect the ecclesiastical governance of the Self-Ruled
.':diocese of North America.
The language on Governance is very instructive on the limitations the Holy
Synod placed on itself insofar as its decisions would be binding on the North America
6

Archdiocese. The Resolution states: "The Archdiocese is governed by the Holy
Scripture, the Sacred Tradition, the Holy Canons, the Constitution of the Church of
Antioch and this Synodical Resolution and by its Constitution and Bylaws."
It is interesting that the paragraph does not state that the Archdiocese is
governed by the Bylaws of the Church of Antioch since clearly while some would apply
others clearly would not as shown above. Indeed, from the time self rule was granted
the Bylaws on the Bishops did not apply. The ones that would not apply as of the time
of the Resolution was passed were those that conflicted with the grant of self rule as set
forth in the Resolution, e.g., Articles 75-79 as shown above.
More important as to the self-rule Resolution than whether the Patriarchal bylaws
are authorized or could ever affect the Archdiocese, in a section headed "Decisions of
the Holy Synod of Antioch", the self-rule Resolution clearly limits how and what future
decisions may impact the North America Archdiocese: "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." Significantly, the Resolution
does not provide that Synod decisions that would affect the internal governance of the
Self-Ruling Archdiocese are binding on the Archdiocese. Therefore, one must conclude
they are not binding.
Clearly, the February 24th decision does not pertain to doctrine, liturgy,
sacraments, relations with autocephalous Orthodox Churches or ecumenical policy and
therefore does not constitute a binding decision as defined in the Resolution on 8elfRule.
While the paragraphs on Governance and Decisions would seem to be sufficient
to show that the February 24th decision could not pertain to this Self-RUling
Archdiocese, what is equaJly instructive is the section entitled "Recognition of Auxiliary
E!jshops as Diocesan Bishops and Local Synod". After stating that upon adoption of the
resolution the Auxiliary bishops shall become Diocesan Bishops, it states: "The
Diocesan Bishops will constitute under the Metropolitan the Local Synod of the
Archdiocese which will be its governing authority. The Local Synod shall
determine the number of dioceses and their boundaries."
7
That the Local Synod is the governing ecclesiastical authority for the Archdiocese
of North America is a touchstone of self-rule. As part of that self rule is the ability of the
Li..ical Synod to elect other Diocesan bishops, to determine the number of dioceses and
their boundaries.
The February 24th decision defines all bishops other than the Patriarch,
metropolitans and archbishops as auxiliary under their respective Metropolitan and not
able to "do anything contrary to the will of the Metropolitan." If the bishops sitting on the
Local Synod cannot vote as they feel they should but must vote in agreement to the will
of the Metropolitan then the Local Synod, if it exists at all as a Local Synod, is only a
fa~ade and rubber stamp, not truly a Synod of any sort at all. Such a provision that
restricts the bishops to do nothing contrary to the will of the Metropolitan is in clear
conflict with the self-rule Resolution. They cannot both stand.
Since there is no evidence that the Holy Synod acted to negate the Resolution of
Self-Rule, (and thus render itself as contradictory since the Resolution on Self-Rule
grants self rule irrevocably), and indeed Metropolitan PHILIP maintains self-rule has not
been affected, then it is clear that the decision does not apply to this Archdiocese. It
would not be appropriate to assume that the Holy Synod of Antioch acts in a haphazard
and contradictory way. Such a suggestion only would bring disgrace and dishonor to
an ancient Holy See which we refuse to do.
Furthermore, if the purported Bylaw amendments were intended to negate the
Resolution of Self-Rule it must be concluded they do not apply to this Archdiocese
because the Self-Rule Resolution is irrevocable and cannot legally be so violated.
C. The Decision Does Not Apply To North America Because If It Did It
Would Violate the Constitution Of The Irrevocably Self-Goveming
Archdiocese.
In acceptance of the answer to its request for self rule and in implementation of
~l-2 Resolution on Self-Rule, this Archdiocese amended her Constitution in Pittsburgh,
PA which was immediately approved by Metropolitan PHILIP. As a result the
Constitution took immediate effect. It was submitted to Antioch for approval, and except
for minor differences, the Constitution was sufficiently approved under the Self-Rule
Resolution that the Patriarch consecrated, pursuant to a process that the Archdiocesan
8
Board of Trustees accepted under our Constitution, three Diocesan bishops, THOMAS,
MARK and ALEXANDER, who were elected by the North American Local Synod.
Those bishops as well as Bishops JOSEPH and BASIL were enthroned as diocesan
bishops of their respective dioceses, all pursuant to the Archdiocese Constitution.
Those Diocesan bishops, with Metropolitan PHILIP as the head, and Bishop ANTOUN,
a Diocesan Bishop under the Self-Rule Resolution, constitute the Local Synod. Arch.
Const. Art. IV, Sec. 2.
Pursuant to both the Resolution on Self-Rule and the Archdiocese Constitution, it
is the Local Synod through whom self rule is accomplished. The Resolution provides:
"The Diocesan Bishops will constitute under the Metropolitan the Local Synod of the
Archdiocese which will be its governing authority."
In like manner, the Archdiocese Constitution provides: "The Local Synod,
comprised of the Metropolitan, and the Diocesan Bishops shall be the governing
ecclesiastical authority of the Archdiocese. The Metropolitan shall preside over the
Local Synod." Arch. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 2.
If the February 24th Decision applied to this Self-Ruled Archdiocese, it would
create several conflicts with our Constitution such that our Constitution would be
rendered nugatory. First, if all of the Diocesan bishops are now auxiliary, then the Local
Synod would cease to exist. Our Constitution does not provide for auxiliary bishops to
be on the Local Synod except for one auxiliary bishop nominated by the General
Assembly and elected by the Local Synod who is to assist the Metropolitan in the
administration of the Self-Ruled Archdiocese. Arch. Const. Art. VI Sec. 1 A.
Second, even if they sat on the Local Synod, they would have no ability to govern
since they would be limited to voting in accordance with the will of the Metropolitan.
The Local Synod would for all practical purposes cease to function in accordance with
its constitutional mandate as the governing ecclesiastical authority of the Archdiocese.
Third, the Archdiocese Constitution only allows that in certain instances the
Constitution of the Church of Antioch along with the Archdiocese Constitution, Bylaws,
Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Holy Canons shall be the governing code for ~his
Archdiocese. Arch. Const. Art. IV Sec. 1. It does not provide that the Bylaws of the
Church of Antioch shall be part of that governing code. Should it be argued that the
9
Bylaws of Antioch are included by implication since the Constitution of Antioch is part of
the governing code, even the Constitution of Antioch is only part of this Archdiocese's
governing code to the extent it is not inconsistent with our Constitution. Arch. Const.,
Art. 4.
Metropolitan PHILIP has recognized that while portions of the Patriarchal
Constitution may apply in other archdioceses, they are not applicable here. In a letter to
Patriarch IGNATIUS IV dated February 11, 2005, His Eminence wrote: "We are an
Archdiocese, established oversees, i.e., in the United States of America and Canada,
which has its own particUlarities. In our administrative methodology we differ from all
the other Archdioceses. For example, the main Patriarchal constitution is suitable to the
Antiochian see in the homeland, but not overseas. Additionally, we have a mechanism
for amending the constitution which we can not overstep."
As shown above, the February 24th decision is irreconcilably in conflict with the
Archdiocese Constitution. They cannot both apply to this Archdiocese and since the
decision is inconsistent with our Constitution, the February 24 decision does not apply
to our Archdiocese.
Fourth, should it be argued that the decision is effectively an amendment to the
Archdiocese Constitution, it should be remembered that only the General Assembly of
the Archdiocese can amend the Archdiocese Constitution. This is clearly set forth in
Art. VII. It was also noted by Metropolitan PHILIP in his letter of February 11, 2005 to
the Patriarch: "According to our registered constitution, neither the Holy Synod, nor the
Metropolitan, nor the Local Synod can impose any amendment to the constitution
without the approval of clergy and laity, i.e., the General Assembly of the Archdiocese."
This position was repeated by the Chancellors of the Archdiocese in their
"IMPORTANT MESSAGE REGARDING OUR CONSTITUTION" dated January 27,
2005. That message was distributed by the Archdiocese and directed to be published
in the parish bulletin.
The February 24th decision, if it applied to this Archdiocese would dramatically
change our Constitution. As noted above, neither the Holy Synod, nor the MetropoJitan,
nor the Patriarch nor the Local Synod can impose any amendment without the approval
of the General Assembly of the Self-Ruled Archdiocese.
10
Since the decision conflicts with the Archdiocese Constitution, the Constitution
governs and the decision cannot apply to this Self-Ruled Archdiocese.
D. The Decision Does Not Apply To North America Because If It Did It
Would Violate The Irrevocably Self-Ruled Archdiocese's Articles Of
Incorporation.
As a result of the amendment of the Self-Ruled Archdiocese Constitution, the
Articles of Incorporation of the Self-Ruled Archdiocese were amended. They were
signed by Metropolitan PHILIP and filed with the State of New York on December 26,
2006.
Those articles recognize that the grant of self-rule was irrevocable. Moreover,
they acknowledged that the self-rule was implemented pursuant to the amended
Constitution.
Since the February 24th decision, if applicable, would violate the Archdiocese
Constitution and negate the irrevocable grant of self-rule, it would also violate the
Articles of Incorporation. Since the decision conflicts with the Articles of Incorporation,
the Articles govern and the decision, therefore, cannot apply to this Self-Ruled
Archdiocese.
III. SUMMARY: THE DECISION IS INVALID, WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY
AND INDEPENDENTLY DOES NOT APPLY TO, NOR DOES IT HAVE ANY
EFFECT UPON, OUR SELF·RULED ARCHDIOCESE.
For all of the reasons stated above, the February 24th decision is not a valid
decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch. Moreover, even if were, it was not intended to
apply to the Self-Ruled North American Archdiocese, and if it were intended to apply, it
does not apply to, nor does it have any effect on our Self-Ruled Archdiocese or the
status of our Diocesan Bishops, because it is inconsistent with, negates, and violates
the irrevocable Resolution on Self-Rule, and without amendment by the General
Assembly it is inconsistent with, negates, and violates the Archdiocese Constitution in
addition to the Articles of Incorporation.
11
IV. THIS OPINION IS NOT CHANGED BY THE APRIL 24, 2009 LOCAL SYNOD
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING OBEDIENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HalY
SYNOD OF ANTIOCH OF FEBRUARY 24, 2009.
On April 24, 2009, the Local Synod of the Archdiocese of North America met.
During that meeting a resolution was signed by four members of the Local Synod
'(affirming obedience to the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch of February 24, 2009".
The question becomes what effect if any does that "resolution" of the four bishops have
on the status of the Archdiocese's bishops in North America?
For the reasons stated above, it is clear that the "resolution" was ill-advised and
would have no effect on the status of the diocesan bishops. Even assuming the
decision of the Holy Synod was valid, for the reasons set forth above, it would not be
applicable to bishops in North America. Moreover, an act by the Local Synod that
would contradict the Archdiocese Constitution, without amendment of the Constitution,
would not only be an unconstitutional, and therefore an invalid act, but equally important
would violate the sacred duties of the members of the local Synod who share the
responsibility to maintain the trust placed in them by the clergy and laity of the
Archdiocese, that they would uphold and protect the Constitution of this Archdiocese.
Indeed, that is a requirement of all members of the Board of Trustees who take such an
oath administered by the Metropolitan Primate.
In examining the April 241h resolution, it is premised upon the fact that the
Archdiocese receives its ecclesiastical authority to act as a self-ruled Archdiocese from
the Holy Synod of Antioch and that Metropolitan PHILIP is a member of that Synod and
serves under a canonical praxis issued by the Patriarch. More importantly, it refers first
and foremost to the Archdiocese Constitution. In referring to the Archdiocese
Constitution, the April 241h Resolution would have been acting properly.
Unfortunately, the Local Synod appears to have ill-advised. The analysis of
whether a decision of the Holy Synod applies to this Archdiocese would not examine
just one section of the Archdiocese Constitution. There are other sections of the
Constitution that must also be considered otherwise the analysis falls to the criticism
that it has taken a provision out of context.
12

That the Archdiocese Constitution provides that the Archdiocese receives its
ecclesiastical authority to act as a self-ruled Archdiocese from the Holy Synod of
/\ntioch and that Metropolitan PHILIP is a member of that Synod and serves under a
canonical praxis issued by the Patriarch, are essentially non-issues and do not provide
a basis for concluding that the February 24th Holy Synod decision has any bearing to
this Archdiocese. No one would dispute either that the Constitution so provides or that
the Holy Synod granted self-rule to this Archdiocese or that the Metropolitan serves
under a canonical praxis issued by the Patriarch.
That the Metropolitan serves under a canonical praxis issued by the Patriarch
does not in any way affect the Self-Rule granted by the Holy Synod. In like manner, the
fact that he is a member of the Holy Synod of Antioch does not affect the grant of selfrule.
Thus, neither of those two facts can serve as a basis for contending the February
24th decision applies to this Archdiocese.
Moreover, the fact that the Holy Synod irrevocably granted self-rule to this
Archdiocese is precisely one of the reasons why the February 24th decision is
inapplicable. Unless self-rule was attempted to be annihilated by the Holy Synod of
Antioch, and even the Local Synod's resolution would appear to contradict such an
interpretation, then for the reasons stated above in Section II the decision does not and
cannot apply.
Reliance on Article 1, Section 2 Paragraph B of the Archdiocese Constitution as
a basis to claim this Archdiocese is bound by the February 24th decision is inapposite
for several reasons: First, the paragraph itself reads: This Archdiocese was granted its
ecclesiastical authority to function as a self-ruling Archdiocese from the Holy
Synod ..."
It should be noted first that the word "granted" was specifically debated and the
past tense specifically chosen by the General Assembly to emphasize the past and
,'!Dcable decision of the Holy Synod to grant self-rule. As to the future, if
ll:';c'esiastical authority to function as a self-ruling Archdiocese" has any
1T.. ning, it comes first and foremost from Art. IV Section 2: "The Local Synod,
comprised of the Metropolitan and the Diocesan Bishops shall be the governing
ecclesiastical authority of the Archdiocese."
13
As noted above by its irrevocable grant of self-rule to this Archdiocese, the Holy
Synod of Antioch irrevocably placed restrictions on its ability to affect the governance
and internal structure of this Archdiocese. That governance has been irrevocably
delegated to this Archdiocese ecclesiastically through the Local Synod comprised of the
Metropolitan and the Diocesan Bishops. Any change in that would require a clear
statement by the Holy Synod abrogating the Resolution on Self-Rule which Metropolitan
PHILIP has said such abrogation did not occur.
More importantly, it would require a complete revision of the Archdiocese
Constitution since we would no longer have a functioning Local Synod in terms of real
governance and we would no longer have Diocesan bishops or the ability to elect new
bishops. Such changes would occur only when and if such amendments were duly
passed by a General Assembly of the Archdiocese as provided in the Archdiocese
Constitution and as confirmed by the Metropolitan.
As Metropolitan Philip has stated in his letter of February 11, 2005 to the
Patriarch: "According to our registered constitution, neither the Holy Synod, nor the
Metropolitan, nor the Local Synod can impose any amendment to the constitution
without the approval of clergy and laity, i.e., the General Assembly of the
Archdiocese."
While the members of the Local Synod could express their obedience to the
February 24th decision, assuming it was valid, such expression would only mean that it
might have validity in other archdioceses of the Patriarchate and not in North America.
As noted above, not even our own Local Synod can impose any amendment to our
Constitution on its own. Indeed, as members of our Local Synod, the better choice of
action would have been to point out the fact it could have no application to North
America. After all, the members of the Local Synod as well as the Board of Trustees
are duty bound to protect and defend our Constitution and to act in accordance with it.
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons stated above, the February 24th decision is not a valid
decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch. Moreover, even if were, it would have no effect
14
on our Archdiocese since it wasn't intend to apply to our Archdiocese and if it was
intended, it would not apply because it is inconsistent with, negates, and would violate
the irrevocable Resolution on Self-Rule, the Archdiocese Constitution and the
Archdiocese Articles of Incorporation, filed with the State of New York. Unless properly
amended, these documents cannot be overridden and the February 24,2009 decision
is inapplicable to the Self-Ruled Archdiocese.
Pursuant to the Constitution, all members of the Board of Trustees including the
clergy and the hierarchs have an obligation to insure that the Archdiocese Constitution
and Articles are protected. A constitution defines certain rights and privileges and
obligations, these apply to the entire church population including the laity. It is
incumbent upon all members to insure that these provisions are not violated even if one
disagrees with them.
There is an element of trust that is underlying the role of a member of the Board
of Trustees (and a member of the General Assembly) whether the person is a hierarch,
priest, or member of the laity. That trust is that the member will act in the best interests
of the Archdiocese and follow the dictates of the spirit as well as the letter of the
Constitution.
If the members do not act to protect the Constitution and the self-rule as defined
therein, then they will have violated that trust. The consequences, among others, will
be a legitimate lack of trust by clergy and laity in the leaders of this Archdiocese. That
would be tragic.
/II ;1 P /l 1 1 Ull/{?c£f tU/0d!;.t {J
Charles R. Ajalat
Chancellor
15



Just fixing a quote tag issue...  -PtA

Shukran yaa Aba 'Isa!

Do you have a link?



Fixed quote tag issue...  -PtA
« Last Edit: May 17, 2009, 05:16:56 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #981 on: May 17, 2009, 07:58:10 AM »

THE DECISION IS INVALID, WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY
AND INDEPENDENTLY DOES NOT APPLY TO, NOR DOES IT HAVE ANY
EFFECT UPON, OUR SELF·RULED ARCHDIOCESE.
For all of the reasons stated above, the February 24th decision is not a valid
decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch. Moreover, even if were, it was not intended to
apply to the Self-Ruled North American Archdiocese, and if it were intended to apply, it
does not apply to, nor does it have any effect on our Self-Ruled Archdiocese or the
status of our Diocesan Bishops, because it is inconsistent with, negates, and violates
the irrevocable Resolution on Self-Rule, and without amendment by the General
Assembly it is inconsistent with, negates, and violates the Archdiocese Constitution in
addition to the Articles of Incorporation.

Oh my... I would love to be a fly on the wall in Englewood, NJ. You are right however, this will change the landscape and give the Synod a say in this issue.
Logged
basilthefool
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston (HOCNA)
Posts: 84


htfulcher@comcast.net
« Reply #982 on: May 17, 2009, 08:35:17 AM »

What does this mean for the upcoming convention of the Antiochian Archdiocese? Does this mean that Metropolitan Philip has to guide through a resolution affirming the intent of the February Synodal resolution to apply to the Archdiocese?
Logged
SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #983 on: May 17, 2009, 08:47:52 AM »

I would love to be a fly on the wall in Englewood,NJ. I bet Metropolitan Phillip is so mad!
In the future we will speak of the men who wrote this decision as Lions of Orthodoxy.
God grant them many years!
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,466


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #984 on: May 17, 2009, 09:35:46 AM »

Reply to statement of the chancelors (so that I don't have to post it again):

So what.  What's the point of writing it.  They just posted an opinion on the matter and didn't do anything further.  A waste of time if you ask me...
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #985 on: May 17, 2009, 10:37:33 AM »

Reply to statement of the chancelors (so that I don't have to post it again):

So what.  What's the point of writing it.  They just posted an opinion on the matter and didn't do anything further.  A waste of time if you ask me...

They don't have to do anything further. We'll take it from there.

Btw, it's not a waste of time: a legal opinion is required for changes, according to the constitution.  Yet another reason why the Feb. "decision" and the April followup don't pass the smell test.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #986 on: May 17, 2009, 05:11:36 PM »

I wonder how the writings by the Chancellor of the Archdiocese will affect how the Synod Of Bishops deal with this issue?
I feel sorry for Bishop Khoury. I think he could be a pawn in some sad conflict. he should be allowed to live out his retirement in peace.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,170


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #987 on: May 17, 2009, 05:18:24 PM »

Shukran yaa Aba 'Isa!

Do you have a link?
http://www.ocanews.org/news/ChancellorsLetter5.17.09.html
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #988 on: May 17, 2009, 05:19:28 PM »

...
In the future we will speak of the men who wrote this decision as Lions of Orthodoxy.
God grant them many years!

Many years!
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #989 on: May 17, 2009, 05:19:29 PM »

... We'll take it from there.
...

Many years!
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Tags: bishops ecclesiology crisis Antioch autocephaly Godwin's Law cheval mort transference EP Bashing 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.267 seconds with 72 queries.