top

hellenic times - July 9-August 5, 1999

    Strengthening our foundation   

CHARTER OF 1977:  ACTUALITY AND OBJECTIVITY

___________________

By Evan C. Lambrou

___________________

"Our Archbishop still stands a chance to resolve the issues."

His Eminence Archbishop Spyridon

Assuming the reverse is the case, His Eminence Archbishop Spyridon, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in America, could succeed in restoring order to the Church in America, according to a reported statement made by Metropolitan Maximos of Aenos, the Bishop who presides over the Diocese of Pittsburgh (see Greek American, July 23, 1999 issue, page 1).

The statement is interesting, however, not because it may or may not be true, but because it was made by one of the Metropolitans of the Holy Eparchial Synod who has openly opposed the Archbishop's authority in America.

Along with his fellow Metropolitans (Iakovos of Krinis/Chicago, Anthony of Dardanellion/San Francisco, Methodios of Aneon/Boston, and Isaiah of Proikonisou/Denver), Metropolitan Maximos was one of five signatories on a harshly-worded report submitted in January to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The report demanded that the Mother Church transfer the Archbishop to another province (i.e., away from the American Archdiocese). The report was also flatly rejected by the Holy and Sacred Synod of Constantinople and will probably go down in sacred history as a document of disgrace.

In any event, one of the Metropolitans who defied the Archbishop has apparently changed his position somewhat. Suddenly, where there was a certain level of inflexibility, there now seems to be some flexibility.

Nonetheless, Metropolitan Maximos has also placed conditions on the Archbishop's chances of remaining Archbishop of America. The Presiding Hierarch of the Pittsburgh Diocese reportedly makes the Archbishop's progress contingent upon...

1. Beginning the process of revising the Church in America's Charter; and...
2. Bolstering the local synodical system.

In light of extensive coverage by the Greek press regarding the Archbishop's recent visit to Constantinople, Metropolitan Maximos' statements are particularly significant.

Speculation is rampant. Rumors abound: e.g., if the Archbishop does not fulfill certain conditions, the Ecumenical Patriarchate will ask him to vacate his archiepiscopal throne.

Some rumors have circulated concerning the further restructuring of the Archdiocese and the reshuffling of personnel (i.e., the removal of some people from their current positions and the return of others to positions of prominence).

Other rumors have gone as far as to state the reason behind, and the consequences of, Archbishop Spyridon's tenure here: the Phanar plans to decentralize the Archdiocese (i.e., to partition the Archdiocese and create individual metropolises) and has been planning to do so for quite some time.

But neither the Patriarchate nor the Archdiocese have issued any official statements which verify the above.

Metropolitan Maximos, however, is a Metropolitan of the Ecumenical Throne, and he has raised some specific points. He has introduced the Charter of the Church in America as a criterion, as an objective frame of reference.

According to the Presiding Bishop of the Pittsburgh Diocese, the Charter is at the very heart of the issue. As such, it now seems necessary to examine its relevance.

So then, what precisely is a Church Charter?

A Church Charter is a canonical document which is granted to various Orthodox Churches by the Mother Church. It is a document which is consonant with the Holy Canons, which are of universal significance. At the same time, it is also a document which is granted by the Mother Church for local purposes.

It is a model of administrative operation by which a local Church can canonically govern itself. It is therefore granted by the Mother Church with locality specifically in mind.

Each locality has a different context. The American context is different from the German context, for example, so the Charter for the Church in America is different than the Charter for the Church in Germany, as each country has a different culture, system of government and set of laws.

Thus, the Mother Church prescribes a set of administrative rules for each particular context.

That said, what is the current conflict concerning the Charter for the Church in America?

The conflict can not be that the Charter is expected to undergo revision because, until it is actually revised (with such revisions requiring the ultimate approval of the Patriarchate), the existing Charter is the one which the Church in America must canonically abide by.

"The Charter is functioning at full force," according to Father Marc Arey, Archdiocesan Director of Communications.

A statement issued by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on January 12, 1999 confirms as much:

"... after a mutual exchange of commentary, it was unanimously decided that the synodical institutional structure in America be revitalized, and that all affairs continue to work in accordance with the established ordinances of the Sacred Canons, the Charter of the Archdiocese, the Uniform Parish Regulations and the Special Regulations," the Patriarch said in reference to the meeting held at the Patriarchate in January between the Holy and Sacred Synod of Constantinople and the Holy Eparchial Synod of America.

Since the Charter is fully operational, then, what is Metropolitan Maximos referring to?

"Presently, the Church here is experiencing a bit of an anomaly," Father Arey said.

According to the Charter, he explained, the Archbishop should be commemorated in each parish of each Diocese.

"But in the Dioceses where the Bishops have been elevated to Metropolitans, the parish priests are commemorating the Metropolitans, and they've stopped commemorating the Archbishop," he said.

"The matter is further compounded because the Metropolitans are now commemorating the Patriarch. Liturgically they have to do this, but it's confusing the faithful," Father Arey added.

Since the Charter is still in effect, however (as the above statement by the Patriarch himself indicates), why do the Metropolitans not commemorate the Archbishop also?

They are Metropolitans of the Ecumenical Throne, but they still preside over Bishoprics within the Archbishopric of America, over which the Archbishop of America still presides. Does this not entail that they are essentially on loan from the Throne to the Archdiocese?

Ecclesiastically speaking, it is a privilege to have a Metropolitan of the Throne presiding over a Diocese which is not his territory, but why should priests in those Dioceses stop commemorating the Hierarch (namely, the Archbishop) to whom the territory has been entrusted by the Mother Church?

According to the Charter, "During sacraments and ceremonies, priests and deacons commemorate the Archbishop and their Bishop; the Bishops commemorate the Archbishop; and the Archbishop commemorates the Patriarch (Article IX - Order of Commemoration)."

As Metropolitans of the Throne, they must now commemorate the Patriarch, but as Bishops who preside over Dioceses of the American Archdiocese, should they not continue commemorating the Archbishop of America?

The Mother Church already answered this question on November 24, 1999:

"The only alteration (as a result of their elevation to Metropolitans of the Throne) is that, from now on, the Metropolitans who were thus elevated, according to the holy services, will commemorate the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch, in adherence to the specified order (of canonical tradition)," according to an official statement signed by Metropolitan Meliton of Philadelphia, Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod (translated from the original Greek).

It must be noted that the statement does not say the Metropolitans should commemorate only the Patriarch and stop commemorating the Archbishop. If, however, the Metropolitans assume the above statement implies that they should stop commemorating the Archbishop while they preside over Dioceses in his archiepiscopal domain, do they not also implicitly assume that the Patriarchate has withdrawn from its own official position that the Charter is still in effect (even though the Patriarchate itself has not made any official statement to that effect)?

Furthermore, "The Archbishop, in his capacity as Archbishop and Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, is charged as follows ...to oversee and coordinate, with the Synod of Bishops and the Archdiocesan Council, the preservation and promotion of the unity of the Archdiocese and is responsible therefore to the Ecumenical Patriarchate ... to oversee the activities of the Bishops and assist and cooperate with them in the implementation of their common programs, through which the unity of the Archdiocese may be preserved," according to the Charter (Article VII - Rights and Responsibilities of the Archbishop).

Now that they possess the same titular rank as the Archbishop; now that they are Metropolitans of the Throne, they are liturgically required to commemorate the Patriarch, as the Archbishop does.

But since the Mother Church has permitted them to continue looking after Dioceses in the Archdiocese of America, which is under the Archbishop's direct authority; since the Ecumenical Patriarch himself has reconfirmed that the existing Charter is in effect; since the existing Charter grants certain privileges to the Archbishop over the Bishops in the Archdiocese; since the existing Charter has not yet been revised, why should the Metropolitans cease commemorating the Archbishop?

The Metropolitans can argue that the double commemoration prescribed by the Charter is uncanonical, but if this is the case, there is an official procedure in place by which the Charter can be examined (and revised if necessary).

In other words, there is ecclesiastical protocol. Just because there may be something wrong with a particular aspect of the Charter, it does not mean that the aspect in question should be arbitrarily disregarded. Moreover, until the problematic aspect is analyzed and discussed in the proper ecclesiastical arena; until an official ruling on it is issued by the Mother Church, every article of the Charter must be adhered to.

It must also be noted that the Charter grants the Archbishop with the right to "oversee" the affairs of the Archdiocese. The American Heritage Dictionary (third edition) defines the word, oversee as a verb which means "to watch over and direct; to examine or inspect."

In the original Greek, the Charter makes use of the word, epivlepei, a derivative of the verb, epivlepo, which carries even more innate authoritative weight. In the Oxford Greek-English Learner's Dictionary by D.N. Stavropoulos (eighth edition), epivlepo is translated as "supervise, superintend, oversee, watch over, keep an eye on."

This clearly means that the Archbishop is granted supervisory authority over the Archdiocese by the Ecumenical Patriarchate through the existing Charter.

By inference, then, the Metropolitans must acknowledge the Archbishop as their Protos (Primate, first among them) in America and commemorate him liturgically; to do otherwise is a violation of the Charter, which is yet to be revised and which the Patriarchate itself upheld in January of this year.

While the Metropolitans now share equal titular honor with the Archbishop, in America, they do not share his territorial privilege under the existing Charter.

By raising the prestige of the Metropolitans, did the Patriarchate intend to lower the prestige of the Archbishop?

If an effort is made to restrict the Archbishop's supervisory capacity, emphasis could be placed on the phrase in the Charter which states that the Archbishop must cooperate with the rest of the Synod: "...with the Synod of Bishops and the Archdiocesan Council (Article VII)."

The Metropolitans have, in fact, made use of this argument. They expanded on its inherent points in a letter which they wrote to the Archbishop on October 14, 1998.

In their letter, the tone of which is abrasively defiant toward the Archbishop, they cite Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles and place their emphasis on the second half of the canon:

"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is the first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his approval; but neither let him (who is first) do anything without the consent of all, for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit [emphasis is ours]."

At this point, however, the Church's official interpretation of the above-mentioned Canon must be noted:

"Just as when the head is unwell and fails to function properly, the other members of the body are also ill-disposed or even utterly useless... it is for this reason that the present canon ordains that all bishops of every province ought to know who is the chief among them... Each of the Bishops (i.e., the Metropolitans in this case) should do by himself, without consulting with the Metropolitan (i.e., the Archbishop in this case), only those things which are confined to the limits and boundaries of his Bishopric (i.e., the Dioceses of the American Archdiocese in this case), and to the territories which are subject thereto," according to the Pedalion (the Rudder), the Church's standard text for the Holy Canons and their proper interpretation.

The meaning of the above-cited interpretation is self-evident:

If the Metropolitans refuse to acknowledge the Archbishop, he will suffer. If he suffers, they will suffer. And if all of them suffer, the Church suffers, too.

It also means that, in addition to commemorating the Patriarch, the Metropolitans should adhere to the Charter, which specifies that the Archbishop presides over the Eparchial Synod, and thereby recognize the Archbishop as their Protos by commemorating him also.

In Article V, the Charter demands no less: "The Archbishop presides over (proistatai - takes the lead) and administers the Archdiocese, exercising the said highest ecclesiastical authority with the Synod of Bishops (meta tis peri afton - the Synod which gathers around him) and is responsible therefore to the Ecumenical Patriarchate."

Thus, in the original Greek, the Charter vests the presidency, the exercise of ecclesiastical authority and final responsibility in the person of the Archbishop. Moreover, there is neither an implicit nor an explicit mandate in the Charter which designates the Eparchial Synod as the operational mechanism of the Archdiocese. If that was the case, then the Charter would, in all likelihood, make provisions for more than two compulsory meetings a year, as specified by Article VI, which also confirms the Archbishop's presidency and authority:

"The Archbishop convenes and presides over the Synod of Bishops, in accordance with the Holy Canons of the Eastern Orthodox Church, at least twice annually ... especially when the Archbishop deems it necessary ... The Archbishop determines the place of such meetings."

In other words, the Metropolitans can not stonewall the Archbishop; they can not take any action on their own, as such action would be considered mutinous; and the Holy Eparchial Synod of America does not exist separately from, or without, the Archbishop of America because only he can convoke it.

Thus, it is canonically unacceptable to make a distinction between the Archbishop and the Holy Eparchial Synod.

From the Charter and statements issued by the Patriarchate itself, therefore, it is reasonably clear that the province which is America is Archbishop Spyridon's ecclesiastical territory; that his authority as Archbishop of America is to be acknowledged by the Metropolitans; that, since they preside over Dioceses in the Archdiocese over which he presides, they should commemorate him liturgically (as should the priests in the Dioceses over which they preside); that both the Archbishop and the Metropolitans should commemorate the Patriarch; that the double commemoration specified by the Charter continue to be a liturgical practice in America; and that, until the Charter is actually revised and approved by the Mother Church, it must be adhered to.

That said, what about Metropolitan Maximos' two points?

BEGINNING THE REVISION PROCESS

As to beginning the process of revising the Charter, it has already begun.

The Archdiocesan Charter Revision Committee, of which the Archbishop is Chairman, held its first meeting on November 24, 1998. The Committee consists of 15 members, including the Archbishop, and one archdiocesan staff person, Father Demetrios Earl Cantos, who serves as coordinator.

Each Diocese is represented either by clergy or lay people in the legal profession, or both, according to Father Cantos.

To honor the Patriarch's directive in January that the Holy Eparchial Synod work together "in a spirit of mutual love and cooperation," Father Cantos said, Archbishop Spyridon appointed Metropolitans Anthony and Isaiah to the Committee this past winter.

After its first meeting, Father Cantos said, the Committee sent a letter to the Patriarchate requesting assistance, "although we have not received a formal written response to that letter yet."

The Committee was scheduled to hold another meeting in June, Father Cantos added, but the second meeting has been postponed until September 25.

RESTORING THE SYNOD?

As to "the lack of a synodical system" cited by Metropolitan Maximos (see Greek American article), is the Bishop who presides over the Diocese of Pittsburgh suggesting that the Holy Eparchial Synod has been abolished?

The Synod met on January 26, 1999 and again on February 25, 1999. It will meet again in conjunction with the Archdiocesan Council in October "and quite possibly a fourth time before the end of the year," according to Father Arey.

Thus, the Synod will meet at least three and perhaps four times this year, well within the minimum number of times prescribed by the Charter.

Since the Archbishop convokes the Synod, it is fairly evident that His Eminence, at least, is adhering to the Charter.

[Editor's note: the Hellenic Times welcomes any objective response to this article and respectfully requests that anyone who cares to respond refrain from personal attacks.] ●

[ hellenic times - July 9-August 5, 1999 - pp. 5 and 10 ]