The below is referring to this declaration.
(NFTU) - Things just get more and more mind-blowing in Antioch.
Changes were made to the by-laws this week with effects on all the Bishops. According to the decision of the Holy Synod, all Bishops are now auxilliary Bishops to either the Patriarch or the Metropolitan. Articles #75 and #76 define the Patriarch and the Metropolitan as the "reference points" ("locus"? "primate"? The English translation of the Arabic was done by Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochian Archdiocese and is suitably unclear) and point #77 makes all Bishops into auxilliaries ("all bishops within the Antiochian see are auxilliary Bishops and directly under their spiritual authority.")
It would appear that the Antiochian Synod is submitting to Roman ideas concerning episcopal authority (That is, a universal or patriarchal jurisdiction of sorts). Further, it seems the self-ruled Archidiocese is now ruled solely by one "self"-- the Metropolitan. The canonical implications of this statement are amazing, and this author has no words that can adequately convey the outrageous implications of this text. Comments?
Changes were made to the by-laws this week with effects on all the Bishops. According to the decision of the Holy Synod, all Bishops are now auxilliary Bishops to either the Patriarch or the Metropolitan. Articles #75 and #76 define the Patriarch and the Metropolitan as the "reference points" ("locus"? "primate"? The English translation of the Arabic was done by Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochian Archdiocese and is suitably unclear) and point #77 makes all Bishops into auxilliaries ("all bishops within the Antiochian see are auxilliary Bishops and directly under their spiritual authority.")
It would appear that the Antiochian Synod is submitting to Roman ideas concerning episcopal authority (That is, a universal or patriarchal jurisdiction of sorts). Further, it seems the self-ruled Archidiocese is now ruled solely by one "self"-- the Metropolitan. The canonical implications of this statement are amazing, and this author has no words that can adequately convey the outrageous implications of this text. Comments?
Posts
Making the Patriarch or the Metropolitan a super ordinary is indeed amazing. I am not aware that this is a Roman idea. How so? There are no Roman Patriarchs other than titular. Certainly Roman Metropolitans are only ordinaries within their own dioceses and have no jurisdiction outside of them. Could you explain?
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting. Speaking as a Catholic, while we do acknowledge a universal jurisdiction, we most certainly don't view our bishops as mere auxiliaries. We've attempted to assert our ecclesiology in much more collegial terms in the last 40 years (particularly since the Second Vatican Council) in that we believe each bishop is himself a vicar of Christ for his local church with an authority that is proper to himself and that isn't annulled (but rather confirmed) by the authority of the Bishop of Rome. So one thing we say is that, in spite of the ecclesiology one might find expressed in the middle ages, our bishops are not to be thought of as mere branch managers of Rome, Incorporated.
ReplyDeleteI will point readers to this for reference:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aoiusa.org/main/page.php?page_id=117
Gil Garza: I don't understand the solely "titular" nature of the Catholic patriarchs (Ukrainian, Chaldean, Syriac, etc.). Can you elaborate?
Alan Phipps: Good points all.
The Roman Church has only one titular Patriarch with jurisdiction, namely the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. Former titular Roman Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch have been suppressed. Likewise have the titular Patriarchs of Lisbon, Venice, East Indies and West Indies. The Roman titular Patriarchs were Patriarchs in name only and had the same jurisdiction and authority as any other ordinary. These titles were honorific only.
ReplyDeleteBenedict XVI suppressed the Roman title of Patriarch of the West that had been applied to the Bishop of Rome as it has only been used officially since the 19th century.
The Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are, of course, a different matter all together. However, they are not Roman but Eastern Catholic. I was not referring to them.
Ah, I understand you now. Depending on who is speaking 'Roman' can mean the entire Catholic Church or simply the Latin Church.
ReplyDeleteForgive my ignorance, but who or what is NFTU?
ReplyDeleteAn opinionated blog:
ReplyDelete"An independent weblog focused on events in the True Orthodox Churches and the endeavors of the Ecumenists collected from inside and outside sources."
http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2008/05/nftu-back-up-with-new-look.html
I have found that folks that refer to the entire Catholic Church as Roman simply do not know about or do not appreciate the Eastern Catholic Churches.
ReplyDeleteTo your point, the authoritarianism that has always characterized the Byzantine Orthodox Churches (and lately demonstrated by the Antiochian Patriarchate) is far and away much more strident than anything that exists in the Catholic Church.
This recent decision by the Antiochian Holy Synod is ironic because it is just this kind of authoritarianism on the part of the Patriarch of Constantinople that precipitated the Antiochian revolt against the last Greek Antiochian Patriarch in 1898.