More on the Antiochian meeting regarding "auxiliary" bishops

April 28, 2009 (OCA News) - Four days after a meeting of the Local Synod of the Bishops of the Antiochian Archdiocese, Englewood has released a photocopy of the “Resolution” Metropolitan Philip convened the meeting to have the Bishops sign. (View it here). In so doing, Englewood resolved the mystery of what Bishop Alexander, who refused to sign the document, but penned a note on the document itself, had written. Instead of his signature, the Bishop wrote: “This decision is already in effect and does not need my signature,” - an action which +Philip did not want him to take.

The "Resolution"

Cumbersomely entitled a “Resolution Affirming Obedience to the Decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch of January 24, 2009, Which Normalized the Status of Bishops Across the See of Antioch,” +Philip’s resolution makes only three points:

1) The Holy Synod of Antioch is “the highest authority” for all of its Archdioceses;

2) This authority is affirmed by “Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph B of the Archdiocesan Constitution”;

3)By signing the document, the hierarchs of the “Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America” affirm their “obedience to the decision of the Synod of February 24, 2009,” which purported to make all bishops across the entire See of Antioch auxiliary bishops.

What stands out in the “Resolution” - apart from the lack of signatures - is that for the second time in four days the Archdiocese is no longer referred to as “Self-Ruled” in official releases of the Archdiocese. Apparently “Self-Rule” is no longer the case. The “Resolution" reverts to pre-2004 usage of simply “The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America,” as did the first notice of the meeting issued on Friday, April 24th. (Read that notice here.)

Do as I say, Not as I Do

Even more interesting is that the Archdiocesan Constitution cited in the Resolution is the Pittsburgh version of the Constitution, not the Damascus Constitution which was approved by the Holy Synod in 2004. This rekindles a long-standing disagreement between Metropolitan Philip and Patriarch IGNATIUS IV about which Constitution is official. That disagreement, and Metropolitan Philip’s continual failure to obey the Holy Synod and Patriarch, is meticulously documented in the Timeline posted on the Association of Orthodox Attorneys website. (Read the Timeline here.) Things got so heated that the Patriarch finally resorted to sending a letter (which can be read here) to Metropolitan Philip. He even prepared an official copy of the Damascus Constitution, which he signed and sealed on every single page marking it as the only true and correct Constitution. Metropolitan Philip may say that he is obedient, and require obedience from others, but his actions don’t match his words.

Not only that, but the Metropolitan conveniently overlooks Article IV, Section 2 of the Pittsburgh version of the Constitution which clearly states: “The Local Synod, comprised of the Metropolitan and the Diocesan Bishops shall be [the] governing ecclesiastical authority of the Archdiocese….” So, not only does Metropolitan Philip not obey the Holy Synod and Patriarch, he doesn’t even obey Constitution that he so vociferously claims is the legal Constitution.

The Spin From Englewood

Englewood, however, mentions none of this, attempting to put out today a more favorable spin on +Philip’s failure to bend all the Bishops to his will. In Englewood’s view: “In summary, of the seven hierarchs in attendance, four signed the resolution, two did not sign the resolution, and one wrote a note in place of his signature,” giving +Philip a 4-3 victory in a Synod that by its own resolution, no longer has any authority. On the other hand (given that the Metropolitan’s status is not affected by the decision he is so eager to make all the other Bishops acquiesce to), the outcome can more realistically described as a 3-3 tie. For an Archbishop who has never even tolerated dissent, let alone opposition, a tie in something he has made so important, can only be described as a defeat.

Confusion

The three bishops who signed may have consented to being demoted to auxiliaries, but they have surely added to the confusion in the Archdiocese by so doing. For example: how can Bishop Joseph, who was a diocesan bishop (but now understands himself only as an auxiliary), remain as the “locum tenens” of the Diocese of Eagle River and the Northwest? One Diocesan Bishop can be “In The Place Of” of another, absent Diocesan Bishop - but how can an auxiliary? Shouldn’t he resign? Or, rather - was he ever, if he never was a diocesan? One can see what canonical confusion +Philip’s decisions are now causing, as the effects ripple throughout the Archdiocese he labored so long to build.

Resistance

But what of the three diocesans, +Alexander, +Basil and +Mark who did not sign? Their status remains open: Does the Orthodox Tradition allow a Diocesan Bishop - and all three of these men were Diocesan Bishops by any accounting - to be reduced in rank to auxiliary status without cause, and against their will? Can one be “obedient” to an uncanonical decision? Must one be obedient to a decision that was made without a quorum? The terse posting from Englewood last Friday gave a clear indication this was the source of their problem: “A significant discussion was held regarding obedience to this decision.” In other words, the diocesans did not question their loyalty to the See of Antioch, nor their continuing obedience to Antioch. All affirmed they were “currently in obedience.” Obedience to Antioch is not the issue: rather, obedience to an invalid decision is. In this context Bishop Alexander’s cryptic answer to +Philip’s demand to sign makes perfect sense: “This decision is already in effect and does not need my signature.” In other words, “You have done what you have done. I need not condone it.” Sometimes silence speaks volumes. Sometimes a few words speak even more.

The Future

Last Friday’s posting concluded with an expression of +Alexander, +Basil and +Mark’s concerns: “In conjunction with this, the hierarchs acknowledged that the decision had caused concern among the clergy and people, and there must be steps taken to begin to heal these misunderstandings.” Seeking “clarification” from Antioch is one way this “misunderstanding” may begin to be healed, which may be why at least one of the diocesans, as yet unidentified, has written to Antioch seeking relief. (Read that story here.)

But the bottom line is that the crisis in Antioch continues unabated. What can +Philip now do to force the diocesans to accept the unacceptable? His major weapon - an accusation of disobedience - has been successfully countered. The Bishops who refused to sign may be equally stuck - unable to persuade +Philip to alter his course, which seems to be to undo all that has been done in the last forty years. With the Archdiocesan Convention only 3 months away, one can only ask: What will the Faithful say?