Nick,

In one sense I agree with you, in another I would prefer to be less adamant. A man consecrated by three other bishops according to canon law is a bishop. I don’t think that you’re suggesting that his consecration was not valid and therefore his episcopal acts have no grace. Also, I would qualify what you said by also saying that a bishop of a see from which he is driven may remain a valid bishop, even of that see. Were it not so, neither Patriarch Ignatius nor the former Karlovtsy Synod would have any authority.

However, in a very real sense you are spot on. The existence of auxiliary bishops is not a canonical phenomenon. However, neither is the New Calendar, kneeling on Sundays, or any number of things done here and there in the Orthodox world. I don’t think they’re all “hanging offenses” though. Really, the bottom line standard is what the wider community of bishops is willing to tolerate. What they should tolerate is another question . . .

Scott; The whole idea of an “auxillary bishop” is totally against true orthodox eccelesiolgy. In the consecration ceremony, a bishop is consecrated to a particular place WITH FAITHFUL and the faithful confirm it with AXIOS. A bishop without a see with faithful in that see is no bishop, according to our ecclesiology!

Susan,

This particular bishop is both bishop of Mokissos and chancellor of the diocese of Chicago. It is common practice in the Greek church in Asia Minor to name titular bishops for territories that have long since ceased to have any significant Christian presence. As a practical matter, they function as auxiliaries. Part of it is a kind of nostalgic reluctance to cede the territory to Muslims since it was historically Christian. One possible reason is to create lots of bishops for their local church in anticipation of the always-just-around-the-corner next Ecumenical Council. More bishops = more power to influence. There may be other reasons – rewarding this or that monk or cleric for loyal service, etc. I assume the duties regarding his see aren’t too demanding (no baptisms, funerals, marriages, etc.).

There may be more legitimate reasons for this, these are just the ones I’ve heard of. Perhaps someone else will chime in.

We need to distinguish between three types of situations:

1) The situation within the OCA where they have overlapping dioceses because of the non-geographical ethnic eparchies, like that of Ab. Nathaniel.

2) A situation where a local church, like Russia, basically offers to build and staff parishes in North Africa or Turkey for the use of its own ethnic group as well as anyone else in the area, but does so with the permission of the the local church and under its omophorion.

3) The situation where different local churches establish overlapping jurisdictions in a no man’s land like America.

Number 3 seems to be the problem that Ab. Nathaniel was addressing, and correctly IMHO. Number 1 is certainly less than ideal but I don’t think he was criticizing that (otherwise he would be a hypocrite, which I do not believe he is).

I don’t see any problem at all with number 2. I don’t think it even qualifies as an anomaly.

Dean: His fax is: Fax: +90 212 5316533.

Scott,

Keep in mind this article was written 10 years ago, so it was not addressing the most recent issue specifically.

On a broader front, though, I thought the article was addressing something that is confronting the church in North America – ie, the issue of many of the Old World patriarchates essentially taking up the (Roman Catholic) notion of universal jurisdiction – which i think we would all agree is foreign to the Orthodox church.

If you think about it…isn’t that what we are really witnessing worldwide right now? Russia setting up new parishes in W. Europe, Africa and now Turkey, and the Romanian patriarch claiming jurisdiction for Romanians all over the world are only two recent examples.

Isn’t the reluctance of these Old World patriarchs to let go of their respective eparchies in America really the root of the problem?

I thought the article was good because it put a finger on what is a serious problem. Look at it this way – if we continue to allow this universal jurisdiction we will have abandoned the notion of local churches. Isn’t that really what SCOBA represented…the continued interests of the Old World patriarchates?

Is that what we are really intending to do? If so, let’s at least make a conscious decision and be done with it.

Best Regards,
dean

I don’t know that what Archbishop Nathaniel said really has any bearing on the creation of “Russian churches” on the territory of Constantinople or in Africa, so long as these churches fall under the omophorion of Constantinople and Alexandria. I mean, if non-geographical ethnic dioceses are a problem even if they’re under the omophorion of the church to whom the canonical territory belongs, then Abp. Nathaniel is a hypocrite and should merge his Archdiocese geographically with the rest of the OCA on non-ethnic lines. I’m not sure that’s what he was criticizing.

We need to decide what the future is going to look like for the Orthodox Oecumene. Is it going to be a story of warring worldwide universal jurisdictions; Russian, Romanian, Greek, Serbian, Antiochian, causing chaos throughout the traditionally non Orthodox lands (and thereby minimizing our ability to evangelize any of these areas), or will it be a return to the traditional method of Orthodox governance, i.e. the creation of local churches – locally elected bishops sitting in synod.

One path leads to self worship, disaster and extinction; the other leads to vibrant, growing communities.

Given the recent actions of the Old World patriarchates, there will be a natural tendency for the Episcopal Assembly to do nothing more than legitimize the overlapping patchwork of universal jurisdictions…each Old World church retaining it’s New World colonial eparchy for it’s own parochial use.

We must remind our bishops that such a system of governance simply guarantees our extinction on this continent…and that only a local church, in the ancient Orthodox tradition, will allow this continent to be evangelized.

The Archbishop’s article, helps to make that point.

Best Regards,
Dean