Antiochian Patriarchate flexing its muscles

[Paul Cowan]

Can someone help me understand this letter (http://antiochian.org/node/18867)? We were told in church this morning that Metropolitan Phillip went along with the Patriarchate in Antioch to remove the portion of our heading "Self-ruled" (http://antiochian.org/node/18867) without any fuss. Also that our Bishops are now referred to Auxilliary bishops. What does this mean? WHat were they before?

It sounds as if all the work Metropolitan Phillip has done the past 40 years of trying to unite America under a common jurisdiction or to at least get all the ethnic churches to work together just went up in smoke. If this is the case, is it that our ethnic mother church is scared to let us go? Or worse, holding on to us because she can't support herself? or some other reason?

Fr. this morning said it really does not affect US much, but this really does affect us (the church) a whole lot. He just said to keep an eye on the archdiocese home page for updates.

Paul

[Isa Almisry]

Can someone help me understand this letter (http://antiochian.org/node/18867)? We were told in church this morning that Metropolitan Phillip went along with the Patriarchate in Antioch to remove the portion of our heading "Self-ruled" (http://antiochian.org/node/18867) without any fuss. Also that our Bishops are now referred to Auxilliary bishops. What does this mean? WHat were they before?

It sounds as if all the work Metropolitan Phillip has done the past 40 years of trying to unite America under a common jurisdiction or to at least get all the ethnic churches to work together just went up in smoke. If this is the case, is it that our ethnic mother church is scared to let us go? Or worse, holding on to us because she can't support herself? or some other reason?

Fr. this morning said it really does not affect US much, but this really does affect us (the church) a whole lot. He just said to keep an eye on the archdiocese home page for updates.

Paul

I'm wondering, because I don't read it the same way Met. Philip does.

E.g. 78 says "The bishop is entrusted by his "marji'" [what Met. Philip translates above as "reference point" 75-6 but "spiritual authority" in 77: it means an authority one takes recourse or appeals to] with his [the bishop's] place of service and his [the bishop's] services/full/mandated powers [technical legal term: power of attorney], he [the bishop] doing/enacting all what does not contract that marji'."

[Ryan]

Since I am rather dense and don't really understand how the hierarchy works, could someone explain how these articles would abrogate AOA's "self-ruled" status?

[Owen Jones]

One must appreciate the fact that the Antiochian Patriarch resides in a Baathist dictatorship. It is also very poor indigenously. So there must be some kind of pact between the Patriarchate, the Metropolitan in North America, and the very wealthy donors to the church. That's what counts, not public statements, but private understandings.

[Michael Stickles]

Well, we could always look at the announcement from the Church of Antioch (http://antiochpat.org/arabic/news/news.php?newsid=323&PHPSESSID=9972b5dbb7376afd800c30152c9c4be0) itself for some background. Unfortunately, it's in Arabic - they don't appear to have translated any news items into English since 2007. And the Google translation service leaves a little to be desired:


On the twenty-fourth of February 2009 under the chairmanship of His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim of Antioch Bible compound held in Casablanca, the Patriarchate in Damascus attended by the archbishops of the homeland and the diaspora in a special session during which matters Tdaolo church and the general welfare.

Examine the laws on the subject of parents with Bishop in the Church. Concluded the meeting to clarify some of the articles of the relevant domestic law to determine the clear terms of reference assigned to assist the Bishop, Mr. Patriarch or any of the parishes, the Archbishop of the Holy or the Antioch Patriarchate in Almatmdiat where they exist.

Heard reports from the parents Congregations in Latin America, Australia, noted the abundance of the fruits of the Holy Spirit's work in this country and stressed the continuation of a plan of pastoral and missionary work in these areas of fertile land.

He was pleased to approach things realistically and Amlani way we are invited to witness to God and to work actively for the salvation of souls entrusted to us the task of care. This requires an understanding of the reality and serious consideration of the welfare programs for missionary work and courteously arrangement.

Finally, its Holy Synod to pray and to pray for His Eminence.

Ah, the joys of automatic translators; at least they're better than nothing.

In any case, how to understand this decision depends very much on what prompted it, and how it is intended to work in practice. Which isn't all that clear just from the texts available, so I have no idea how to bring the "patristic and monastic heritage" angle to bear (I was reading the "Topic notice for Great Lent" right before replying).

Michael

[Michael Astley]

May this have something to do with the gathering of primates last year? This (http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?page=42934) statement was issued as a result of that gathering. i would like to draw special attention to the following:


As Primates and the Representatives of the Most Holy Orthodox Churches, fully aware of the gravity of the aforementioned problems, and laboring to confront them directly as “servants of Christ and stewards of God’s mysteries” (1 Cor. 4:1), we proclaim from this See of the First-throne among the Churches and we re-affirm:

...

ii) our desire for the swift healing of every canonical anomaly that has arisen from historical circumstances and pastoral requirements, such as in the so-called Orthodox Diaspora, with a view to overcoming every possible influence that is foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology. In this respect we welcome the proposal by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to convene Panorthodox Consultations within the coming year 2009 on this subject, as well as for the continuation of preparations for the Holy and Great Council. In accordance with the standing order and practice of the Panorthodox Consultations in Rhodes, it will invite all Autocephalous Churches.

The situation in which a number of autocephalus and autonomous churches overlap on the same geographical territory is precisely one of the abnormalities that hinders the canonical normality of Orthodoxy and helps to further perpetuate the impression in the minds of those without that we are divided.

It may be that I am demonstrating extreme naivety, but could it not be possible that, rather than being an example of Antioch playing power games it may simply be the beginning of the Synod's response to the pledge of our patriarchs who met last year? Perhaps they see taking a tighter grip of the reins as being a first step towards normalising the situation in the USA and better enabling them to move forward in conjunction with the other local churches to finally give us some semblance of normality in the western world?

Please forgive me for speaking from a position of ignorance on the other side of the world. I just feel that, in the spirit of the season, we perhaps ought to be more willing to seek a more charitable explanation for this action.

Has anybody who is wondering contacted his/her bishop about it? This seems to be the best way to get a clear idea of what is going on, free from speculation and doubt, which leads to worry and anxiety.

In Christ,
Michael

[Andrew D. Morrell]

Please forgive me for presuming to interrupt the current flow of this thread...

In the Dec/2008 "the Word", there is an interview with his Beatitude, Ignatius lV. Taking the time to read this will perhaps give one a better understanding of his heart and vision... as well as his trust for Met. Philip.

Plus, there's always the option of privately asking an Antiochian priest.

Again, forgive me if I am offending anyone with my words. In my ignorance, I might well be out of line here.

In Christ's love,
Andrew

[Owen Jones]

Permit me some musings regarding the Patriarch's comments in Word. (Bear in mind that the magazine was started by Fr. John Hardenbrook and others, and was taken over by the Archdiocese as a result of its conflict with the parish in Ben Lomond). The Patriarch is focusing on ecclesiastical structures. He says that Antioch needs more Bishops, among other things. And this is probably true. But to what end. I have seen in Antioch for some time a focus on structural reorganization and planning and management, five year plans, that sort of thing. This is the wrong approach. Antioch has a great spiritual gift to mankind in the Syriac Fathers. Utilizing this great spiritual tradition could be a great source of evangelism to non-believers and non-Christians and non-Orthodox in our world. It is less intellectual and less abstract and less dogmatic, so to speak, in its approach. As such, it is much more ideally suited for evangelistic purposes than requiring people to read Greek treatises on the Trinity, for example. This should be the focus, it seems to me, of virtually everything that comes out of the Patriarch's mouth. Antioch has proven in the past that it was willing to make bold steps in evangelism, and it can do so again. I can't really think of any other purpose of the Church than evangelism.

[Theodora E.]

The Word was begun by St. Raphael (Hawaweeny) of Brooklyn in Arabic in the early 1900s - you simply have to read the "credits" page on the inside cover to get that info. It's the official publication of the Antiochian Archdiocese, as The Orthodox Church is to the OCA, and The Orthodox Observer to GOA.

Methinks you've got Again magazine, in mind...

[Joshua G.]

I didn't understand anything that was quoted from the patriarchs and meetings here. Usually I don't get what they are saying and it seems that generally when patriarchs and bishops release decisions to the public, they beat around the bush, use a lot of fancy words and leave it to the priests and lay to cut through the bull and get to what it all really means. (I remember going through this when the MP and ROCOR united). In other words, we're left to wonder what this means practically. Many times the words spoken by these decisions sound more monumental than they actually are (although the MP and ROCOR decision was quite monumental in the end).

With all of that said, as someone who is under the care of a foreign Patriarch and someone who desires that American parishes would be more united to the point that one day (when God wills) we will all be united as one functioning body/jurisdiction of some sort (however that will flesh itself out), I don't understand what this REALLY hinders practically speaking.

So, if it's not self-ruled and Met PHILIP has to report to a Patriarch for certain decisions (I thought, in the end, that was true anyway, that the Antiochian Church in America was not in the same position as the OCA, that is was self-ruled with an asteriks), so what? 1) Do we really believe the Patriarch has not always proven himself to be considerate and thoughtful when approaching diasporan issues?

I say, we let the bishops do what they will do. Decisions by bishops (in administerial matters) are only as strong as the people understand and support them. Important joint decisions are reflections of the community. If we keep looking beyond jurisdictional borders and continue to see the Arab, Russia, Macedonian, former Baptist, etc as our brother or sister EQUALLY as we would one from our own jurisdiction, those jurisdictional walls will continue to deteriorate.... or, rather than deteriorate, be understood in their proper context. PERSONALLY, anywhere I have gone I have ONLY seen progress in this area, even outside of the US. I am sure there are exceptions to this but in general, I think most of us here see it.

I fear my point is being lost in my wordiness. In America, we rightly hope for a day when we will be united as one jurisdiction in accordance with Canon law. But, my opinion is that sometimes we obsess over this and give more importance to it than it deserves. This is a complicated issue and yes, perhaps some or all patriarchs hold onto us for financial reasons in part. BUT, isn't it possible that they are also a bit nervous about leaving their children to lead themselves in the spiritual desert that is the New World?

While I pray for a united Jurisdiction for North America, I also pray that that happen in God's time. And I am not at ALL convinced that now is that time or that such a time should be within my lifetime. Personally, I am happy that our country has so many patriarchs with their hands in our business (even if from afar). I am glad the motherland (Russia, Syria, Constantinople, etc) has some kind of limited influence over us and I don't think taht we should be in a hurry to depart from their care? Little by little, step by step. We're like a 10 year old. Sure, if we were left home alone, we could figure it out, eat, etc. But there would be a wisdom lacking to hold that household in tact.

IN saying this, I also believe that WE in the new world have something to offer the Motherland other than just money.

I will always support cautious moves forward towards American unity, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over a Patriarch (whose seat I believe deserves a special respect and even trust... not blindly, but still, a trust) tightening his grip. I would, however, lose sleep over rash moves towards independence. While I support American unity, I don't feel comfortable witht he idea of an American Orthodoxy. It's a bit like saying "Fast Food Gourmet". What does this mean? That's probably another thread.

I apologize if I have offended anyone. I just wanted to offer some kind of naive perspective to this issue that... I really don't get. LOL

God bless my brothers and sisters!

Joshua

[Owen Jones]

A focus on unity can be good or bad, depending on the spirit of it. I have seen the extremely bad side of this in the Episcopal Church. And I see it all over our society today, in which the call for unity is used to silence people. So what is the case here? It would be nice to see unity defined not in terms of itself, but for some higher purpose. Not in terms of some managerial type "vision statement," but in terms of evangelising the Good News. It's interesting that the Greek Archdiocese seems to have gone in the opposite direction, by making all of its bishops Metropolitans. I don't know what this means practically, however, not being much of an ecclesiastical expert. I just know that there is a certain undercurrent of feeling in my church on the subject of bishops more concerned about feathering their own nests.

A bishop is one who is willing to lay down his life for the lost sheep of the flock. He is not a functionary or an administrator or a fund raiser. Yet I fear that all too often the latter is the case.

Of course, this just constitutes whining and complaining in a sense, because nothing is really going to change. We are going to continue to be part of a wonderful Church that remains hidden and insular. A certain person concerned about Orthodox evangelism approached her priest on the subject and he said, quite comically, this was why the parish sent money to the office of missions and evangelism! So the idea seems to be that we outsource the primary reason for a Church's existence!

[Olga]

It's interesting that the Greek Archdiocese seems to have gone in the opposite direction, by making all of its bishops Metropolitans.


A sidetrack, if I may, Owen. The Greek and Slavic churches use the titles Metropolitan and Archbishop in the opposite way to each other. So a Greek Metropolitan (responsible for a region or province, traditionally named after the provincial capital (metropolis, or "mother city")) is lower in rank to an Archbishop (who is in charge of the entire diocese). A Slavic Metropolitan outranks his Archbishops. Does this help?

Strictly speaking, the Greek usage is the more correct one, but I have been unable to find the reason for the reversal of terminology in the Slavic churches.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Olga


Strictly speaking, the Greek usage is the more correct one, but I have been unable to find the reason for the reversal of terminology in the Slavic churches.

Maybe it has something to do with what happened to the role of the archbishop. In slavic churches an archbishop as compared to a bishop has come to denote a higher rank of bishop. Whereas the metropolitan is an episcopal coordinater for a specific area of dioceses.

In other words an archbishop is a rank of bishop whereas the metropolitan is a regional designation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Paul Cowan]

I understood our Metropolitan to be the archbishop.

[Owen Jones]

It just seems to me that if Paul is a member of the Antiochian Archdiocese then he certainly has a right, duty, responsibility to question or criticize it within reason because he presumably has its best interests at heart. I am not quite sure I understand the point about not criticizing jurisdictions, or pointing out certain problems, unless I am just taking cheap shots...Ecclesiastical problems in the U.S. are a matter of public debate ongoing and surely are a relevant topic of spirited discussion, as long as it isn't too personal or scurrilous.

[Father David Moser]

I am not quite sure I understand the point about not criticizing jurisdictions, or pointing out certain problems, unless I am just taking cheap shots...Ecclesiastical problems in the U.S. are a matter of public debate ongoing and surely are a relevant topic of spirited discussion, as long as it isn't too personal or scurrilous.

I agree that such issues are a relevant matter for discussion ... but not here. This forum is not the place for that discussion to take place. The scope and purpose of Monachos is specifically the discussion of patristic, monastic and liturgical expressions of Orthodoxy - not current events or Church politics (however relevant or important they may be). Thus it is within our scope to discuss the underlying principles of such issues as they are addressed in the writings of the fathers or the worship of the Church, however, to enter into the public critique (valid or not) of the acts of our hierarchs is not.

Fr David Moser

[Owen Jones]

Fair enough, Father. So would it be appropriate to have a discussion of St. Gregory's "Flight to Pontis," and allow people to draw their own inferences regarding contemporary events? I think it's required reading at Holy Cross.

[Owen Jones]

For anyone who might be interested, here is a link to St. Gregory the Theologian's defense of his flight to pontis (Oration II).

http://www.searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/pos/gregorynazianzen/view.cgi?file=npnf2-07-33.htm

[Andrew D. Morrell]

For anyone who might be interested, here is a link to St. Gregory the Theologian's defense of his flight to pontis (Oration II).

http://www.searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/pos/gregorynazianzen/view.cgi?file=npnf2-07-33.htm


Heh. <SMILE> Where was his mom - St. Nonna - when her convert husband ordained their son a priest against his will?
"Merry Christmas, son! You're a priest!"

From the text: "First, and most important, I was astounded at the unexpectedness of what had occurred, as people are terrified by sudden noises; and, losing the control of my reasoning faculties, my self-respect, which had hitherto controlled me, gave way." This line of St. Gregory's explanation paints a very clear picture to me, not just of his reaction but that of a position I find myself in far too often. Very encouraging, actually.

What a wild story. I wonder if that's even possible in this time... to ordain a man a priest without his consent. The more I learn, the less I know.

Thank you for posting that link, Owen.

In Christ,
Andrew

[Owen Jones]

Thanks, Christophoros. This excerpt from St. Gregory's Oration II seems particularly poignant in the current context:

8. I was influenced besides by another feeling, whether base or noble I do not know, but I will speak out to you all my secrets. I was ashamed of all those others, who, without being better than ordinary people, nay, it is a great thing if they be not worse, with unwashen hands,(19) as the saying rims, and uninitiated souls, intrude into the most sacred offices; and, before becoming worthy to approach the temples, they lay claim to the sanctuary,(20) and they push and thrust around the holy table, as if they thought this order to be a means of livelihood, instead of a pattern of virtue, or an absolute authority, instead of a ministry of which we must give account. In fact they are almost more in number than those whom they govern; pitiable as regards piety,(21) and unfortunate in their dignity; so that, it seems to me, they will not, as time and this evil alike progress, have any one left to rule, when all are teachers, instead of, as the promise says, taught of God,(22) and all prophesy,(23) so that even "Saul is among the prophets,"(24) according to the ancient history and proverb. For at no time, either now or in former days, amid the rise and fall of various developments, has there ever been such an abundance, as now exists among Christians, of disgrace and abuses of this kind. And, if to stay this current is beyond our powers, at any rate it is not the least important duty of religion to testify the hatred and shame we feel for it.

[Father David Moser]

There have been two different trains of discussion generated by this thread. One is a discussion ofthe relationship between the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Antiochian Archidiocese in North America and the relationship between the Metropolitan bishop of the diocese and the local bishops. This includes the autonomy issues and the issues of changes in status of the former diocesan now auxilliary bishops. This is a discussion about how the Church hierarchy works and its interrelationships and how all this is played out in the world. Owen brought up a parallel example of St Gregory the Theologian which also remains a part oft his discussion.

The specific "news" of the changes in the Antiochian Archdiocese and the various impacts on the people and other jurisdictions in North America has been moved to a new thread in the "World News" section called "Antiochian Patriarchate reorganizes North American Archdiocese (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5860)" and so discussion of the "current events" related to this action should go there.

Fr David Moser

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

I agree that such issues are a relevant matter for discussion ... but not here. This forum is not the place for that discussion to take place. The scope and purpose of Monachos is specifically the discussion of patristic, monastic and liturgical expressions of Orthodoxy...Fr David Moser

If this discussion is inappropriate here, people may like to participate in a discussion among fellow Orthodox in another group. There is an ongoing discussion on www.orthodoxchristianity.net

There is also a Poll there, ascertaining how many Antiochian clergy found it impossible to obey the non-commemoration Directive last Sunday.

Mods, I cannot remember the precise Rules for the Forum but if I have transgressed by mentioning another Forum I apologise and invite you to delete this message.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Father Ambrose.... not at all. Thank you for pointing it out, for those who might wish to take part. Part of the reason we're able to keep to our intently patristic focus here, is precisely because there are other Orthodox fora that discuss issues in other areas.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Daniel Smith]

That part of the letter which states that all bishops of the see of Antioch are auxillary bishops
Means:

1. There is only one bishop of Antioch, the patriarch; therefore
2. All other bishops at A ntioch are to be regarded as auxillary since there can only be one bishop to one see, like the choirepiscopis in the ecumenical canons.

That is how I understand it,

Vaingloriously
Humble,

Dan

[Paul Cowan]

So are you saying Metropolitan Phillip is also an auxilliary bishop? What then are the auxilliary bishops that report to him called? sub-auxilliary bishops?

[Herman Blaydoe]

The bishop, surrounded by his flock IS the CHURCH. I always thought that centralized authority is anathema to Orthodoxy. "Auxiliary" means "subsidiary" or can even mean redundant. An "auxiliary" bishop is therefore a bishop without a flock and that is, um, like, what, exactly? He is merely an assistant shepherd--it is not his flock--therefore, is he really even a "bishop" in, shall we say, a "biblical sense"? They may as well be uberpriests.

This bear of very little brain is having a very difficult time figuring this one out. It sounds like "oops we made a mistake, we shouldn't have hired this guy, he is not really safe to be in a leadership role without supervision, but now we can't fire him, let's make him an 'auxiliary' instead".

Sorry, but the term "auxiliary bishop" has no meaning to me, it is a contradiction in terms like "original copy" or "unbiased opinion" or "Microsoft Works".

Oh bother.

Herman the Pooh

[Rick H.]

I always thought that centralized authority is anathema to Orthodoxy.




I would like to understand this statement better if anyone has the time.

Pooh, I wonder if you remember a comedian who thrived on oxymorons and smashing watermelons with sledgehammers? His contribution to your above list would be "marijuana initiative."


Thanks,

Rick

[Isa Almisry]

The bishop, surrounded by his flock IS the CHURCH. I always thought that centralized authority is anathema to Orthodoxy. "Auxiliary" means "subsidiary" or can even mean redundant. An "auxiliary" bishop is therefore a bishop without a flock and that is, um, like, what, exactly? He is merely an assistant shepherd--it is not his flock--therefore, is he really even a "bishop" in, shall we say, a "biblical sense"? They may as well be uberpriests.

This bear of very little brain is having a very difficult time figuring this one out. It sounds like "oops we made a mistake, we shouldn't have hired this guy, he is not really safe to be in a leadership role without supervision, but now we can't fire him, let's make him an 'auxiliary' instead".

Sorry, but the term "auxiliary bishop" has no meaning to me, it is a contradiction in terms like "original copy" or "unbiased opinion" or "Microsoft Works".


LOL.

That is a crux of this matter:a diocesan bishop and his flock are the fullness of the Orthodox Catholic Church. Techinically speaking, we don't need Met. Philip, Pat. Ignatios, or for that matter, EP Bartholomew. Their inclusion in our diptychs affirms the unity of the Faith quantitatively, but not qualitatively. To say otherwise is to advocate Ultramontanism.

Before Self-Rule, we were under canon 101 of Carthage "It seemed good that such peoples as had never had bishops of their own should in no way receive such unless it had been decreed in a plenary council of each province and by the primates, and with the consent of the bishop of that diocese to which the church belonged." The Patriarch, the Holy Synod of Antioch, the Primate Archbishop Phillip and the North American council approved the diocese bishops and the new constition of Self-Rule status, etc. The deed was done, and done according to the canons (I am leaving aside the OCA and its just canonical claims for the moment, just looking at the Antiochians isolated within ourselves). The dioceses were created, and there are canonical and theological consequences to that.

Pursuant to Apostolic Canon 34, and canon 9 of Antioch, the Antiochian Archdiocese began to operate as a Holy Synod, meaning that its primate, in this case the Metropolitan, could do nothing without agreement of his Synod. Canon 60 of Carthage "he who was ordained for a diocese by the consent of the bishop who held the mother see, should retain only the people for whom he was ordained," came into play the moment that the Patriarch ordained the DIOCESAN bishops, pursuant to canon 57 of the same Council "In many councils it has been decreed by the sacerdotal assembly that such communities as are contained in other dioceses and ruled by their bishops, and which never had any bishops of their own, should not receive rulers, that is bishops, for themselves except with the consent of the bishop under whose jurisdiction they have been...For it is right that he who cleaves to all the brethren and the whole council, should possess with full right not only his church but also the dioceses." By canon 74 of the same Council, said bishops are obliged not to neglect their cathedral: auxiliaries don't have cathedrals or dioceses, and thus the DIOCESAN bishops are obligated to preserve their diocese. None of the dioceses rejected their bishops, so pursuant to canon 16 of Antioch "If any bishop ordained to a parish shall not proceed to the parish to which he has been ordained, not through any fault of his own, but either because of the rejection of the people, or for any other reason not arising from himself, let him enjoy his rank and ministry; only he shall not disturb the affairs of the Church which he joins; and he shall abide by whatever the full synod of the province shall determine, after judging the case" our bishops were enthroned. And if they were prevented to be enthroned, canon 37 of Quinsext provides that they would still remain the bishops of their dioceses. Qunisext canon 35 indicates that the diocese remains in toto conected with her bishop, even with the death of the bishop: "It shall be lawful for no Metropolitan on the death of a bishop of his province to appropriate or sell the private property of the deceased, or that of the widowed church: but these are to be in the custody of the clergy of the diocese over which he presided until the election of another bishop, unless in the said church there are no clergymen left. For then the Metropolitan shall protect the property without diminution, handing over everything to the bishop when he is appointed."

Canon XXX of Chalcedon forbids degrading of bishops without cause.

The status of auxiliary bishop is that of chorbishop, of which canon 57 of Laodicia states "Bishops must not be appointed in villages or country districts, but visitors; and those who have been already appointed must do nothing without the consent of the bishop of the city. Presbyters, in like manner, must do nothing without the consent of the bishop." The Antiochian bishops were ordained to city sees and cathedrals, not as visitors to country districts.

(The chorbishops are actually the basis of the order of presbyters, i.e. priests, the reason why they can chrismate and celebrate the Eucharist with the bishops permission. In the Peshitta "qashshish" "elder" is the translation of "episcopos," and latter becomes the term for priest (Classical Arabic "qissiis," "Christian priest," now sometimes applied like "minister"), and the Arabic "khuurii" "priest" comes from "chorepiskopos," most full bishops sticking to the Greco-Roman cities and not frequenting the Semitic hinterland).
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xiii.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=xLg3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA60&dq=Studies+in+Semitic+Philology+qissis#PPA60,M1

I have already told my bishop that pursuant to the above canons, in obedience to his grace, I will follow where he goes with the uncanonical acts of late. I urge all Antiochians in North America to tell their bishop, around whom they are gathered into the Catholic Church, the same.

On a final note, I urge my fellow Antiochians not to let this recent unpleasantness adversely affect today's collection for the poor and needy of the Mother Church of Antioch.