Lazarus Abboud
The Archdiocese of America became vacant following the resignation of Metropolitan Joseph Zahlawi, and the procedures for electing a new metropolitan for the archdiocese began according to its internal statutes (the Constitution of the Archdiocese of North America). It is noteworthy that this archdiocese is the only one that enjoys such an organization and has an archdiocesan council; would that all the archdioceses of the Church were so organized and that the people had a role in administrative and pastoral work.
The one elected must speak English fluently (the implied meaning: those working in the archdiocese and belonging to that particular societal culture of the archdiocese), have a working knowledge of Arabic, and be among those who have served in the archdiocese (Antioch and the Law, p. 574).
The election must take place within a period of 40 days of the submission of the three names (according to paragraph 5, item 5 of the archdiocesan constitution, Antioch and the Law, p. 576), which are submitted by the patriarchal vicar over the archdiocese, who must reside at the archdiocesan see (Article 38, Antioch and the Law, p. 546).
The problem:
During the nomination procedures for several names for the office, the name of another metropolitan already at the head of his own archdiocese was nominated among the names put forward for this office. The justification, as previously stated, was as follows:
“The Holy Synod has the right to put forward the names of candidates it deems suitable for this service, and the nominated metropolitan has visited the Archdiocese of North America and served in it for several months. He also has a popular base resulting from the close relationship between one of the dioceses of the Archdiocese of North America and the Metropolitanate of Hauran. Moreover, agreement on this list was reached during the meeting held in October between His Beatitude, the bishops of the archdiocese, and the board of trustees”
The violation:
Ecclesiastical law forbids the transfer of a metropolitan from a small archdiocese over which he was elected to another, larger archdiocese (the canons are at the end of the article). As Saint Gregory says: “the archdiocese is the bride of the bishop, and if he abandons her and moves to another archdiocese, this is an act of divorce not permitted by law” (Ecclesiastical Law, p. 83). Hefele comments on Canon (1) of the First Ecumenical Council: “the relationship between the cleric and the church for whose service he was ordained resembles a holy, mystical marriage contract between them, which permits no separation or substitution.”
The results of this nomination:
First: the violation of the canons of ecclesiastical law which were enacted in ecumenical councils (Apostolic 14 and 15; Fourth 5 and 6; Sixth 18; Antioch 3 and 21; Sardica 1 and 16; Carthage 57), even if it was ”by compulsion of the people or by constraint of the bishops” (Council of Antioch 21, p. 188).
Second: creating confusion by opening the door to transfers, since it became a justification for every metropolitan whose archdiocese became impoverished, or who coveted an archdiocese larger than his own, to work at establishing a popular base in another archdiocese, then nominate himself and be elected to it. This confusion is what the Fathers fought vigorously in the councils (Canon 15 of the First Ecumenical Council, p. 82).
As for the justification for the nomination, it raises a set of major questions:
1. Are nomination decisions for elections made arbitrarily and by agreement, or are they subject to the ecclesiastical canons that were enacted?
2. If nomination is according to what the Synod sees fit, then why do the canons exist? And again, if the Synod has the right to do what it sees fit, does it then have the right to install a married bishop (for example)?
3. Is not saying that there is a “popular base for the nominated metropolitan” precisely what the canons fought against? And does it not open the door for every metropolitan to build relations with a popular base in an archdiocese he covets in order to transfer to it?
4. Is nomination based on a visit to the archdiocese, or are there legal criteria (according to the archdiocesan constitution), eligibility, and knowledge by the elected bishop of the archdiocese’s reality (speaking English fluently)? Is it better to elect a visitor or a worker in the archdiocese, especially when transferring from East to West?
A question:
1. Why are bishops who are members of the Synod not elected from among the sons of Antioch in Western society, those belonging to that culture? Is not diversity the mark of the Body of Christ, and is there not a need for the Church to transcend cultures?
2. If Christ were present, would He accept a violation of ecclesiastical law — He who submitted to the law that He Himself established?
Conclusion:
The legality of the process lies in following ecclesiastical law where it leads; that is, the legality of the election lies in its goodness according to the order of the canons.
Will the Holy Antiochian Synod accept the election process and the acceptance of the nomination?
…………………………………………………………………………………
The canons from the collection of ecclesiastical law:
1. Canon 15 of the First Ecumenical Council, p. 82
Because of the strife and great confusion that arise, we have deemed it good to forbid the custom that has prevailed in some places, contrary to the Apostolic canon, so that it is no longer permitted for a bishop, priest, or deacon to move from one city to another. If, after the issuance of this council’s decree, any cleric attempts to carry out an act of this kind and persists in the violation, then whatever he does shall be deemed null and void, and he must return to the church for whose service he was chosen, whether bishop or priest.
2. Canon 21 of the Council of Antioch, p. 188
It is not permitted for a bishop to move from one archdiocese to another, or to enter upon it forcibly, whether of his own accord, or by compulsion of the people, or by constraint of the bishops; rather, he must remain in his church to which God first called him to shepherd, and he may not move from it in imitation of the canons previously established.
3. Canon 1 of the canons of the Local Council of Sardica, 343, p. 618
Hosius, Bishop of Cordoba, said: This widespread evil and vile corruption must be uprooted, so that a bishop is not permitted to move from a small city to another, for the aim of this attempt is evident. We still hear of a bishop moving from a large city to a small one, and it is no secret that such people are driven by unbridled greed, serving only their ambition for greater authority. Do you all agree that such a great sin must be severely punished, and that those of this kind, as I see it, should not be received even into the communion of the laity? All the bishops answered with one voice: This is what pleases us all.
Summary of the canon: It is not permitted for a bishop to move from a small city to a large one, and if anyone moves from a lowly see to a great see, he must be cut off from communion all his life for his pride and greed.
4. Canon 2 of the canons of the Local Council of Sardica, 343, p. 619
Bishop Hosius said: Any person whom folly or audacity leads to imagine that he has an acceptable excuse because he carries with him letters from the people — while it is clear that some people are corrupted by bribes and gifts and cause division in the church, seeking that man as bishop over them — I rule that such devices must be ruled against, and that a person of this kind should not be received into communion even as a layman, even at the end of his life. Do you all agree with this opinion and ruling? The council answered: We agree.
Reference
George Tawfiq Ghandour, Antioch and the Law: An Introduction to the Antiochene Canons and Their Application in the Twentieth Century, Orthodox Light Cooperative, Al-Yanbou’ Press, 2009.
The Collection of Ecclesiastical Law, or the Canons of the Universal Christian Church, compiled, translated, and arranged by Archimandrite Hanania Kassab, Light Publications, 1998.