Arabic original here.
Auxiliary Bishops
The consecration of auxiliary bishops is a noteworthy phenomenon that calls for examination and analysis, especially given its increasing frequency in recent decades, despite the general admission that it is contrary to the foundations of traditional Orthodox ecclesiology. A palpable increase of this phenomenon can be observed in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, where consecrations happen almost monthly, responding to repeated requests from the metropolitans of dioceses, particularly in the diaspora.
In the context of Antioch, the Antiochian Orthodox Church has witnessed a radical change in its attitude toward auxiliary bishops, especially since the famous session of the Holy Synod in 2011, when a precedent-setting 12 auxiliary bishops were elected, on the basis of internal agreements tied to ecclesiastical balances within the synod at that time. That meeting of the synod was an inflection point in the church's approach to this issue, since it practically ended the period of historic reservation, clearly expressed by Metropolitan Georges (Khodr) who viewed titular episcopacy as a deviation from the apostolic understanding of episcopacy, characterized as pastoral service tied to a living community.
Since that time, the Church of Antioch has seen a noticeable increase in the number of auxiliary bishops, without this being accompanied by an explanation of the standards governing these consecrations or a precise definition of the roles assigned to these bishops. The door was left open for new norms permitting "auxiliary bishops" to be named outside the framework of elections or traditional conciliarity, where many such bishops are elected by show of hands based simply on nomination by the patriarch.
There are a number of indications that this phenomenon must be approached critically, most prominently:
- The variety of roles and poor job description: auxiliary bishops are assigned various roles, such as assisting metropolitans of dioceses (in Akkar, North America, Mexico, Germany), serving the patriarch in Damascus, representing the church in places such as Rio de Janeiro, as well as serving as abbots of patriarchal monasteries. However, the absence of clear, unified standards for these roles leads to ambiguity in defining the nature and limits of episcopal service.
- Differences in how vacant sees are treated: experience shows that some bishoprics that have previously been occupied by auxiliary bishops, such as Tartus, Wadi al-Nasara, the Emirates and Brazil,
- The symbolic role of the honorary episcopate: in a number of cases, the auxiliary bishops seems to have more of a symbolic or honorary rather than real pastoral role, which weakens the service aspect of the episcopacy and empties it of its apostolic content.
- An administrative an organizational vacuum: the Church of Antioch has still not conducted a transparent, institutional review of the issue of the auxiliary episcopacy that is based on the actual need for it and studies ways to organize it and make its role effective.
It cannot be denied that the Patriarch of Antioch has a real need for episcopal assistance, especially in the Archdiocese of Damascus, given its varying parts and its connection to the patriarchal residence. Nevertheless, this need does not eliminate the need to define it in a clear, thoughtful, scientific and fixed manner, within an ecclesiastical framework that is more cohesive and effective than the formula followed for the titular episcopate up to now.
Therefore, there is an urgent need for the Holy Synod of Antioch to call for a bold, comprehensive review of this phenomenon, which requires a modern ecclesiastical approach based on abandoning the institution of auxiliary bishops in its current form, turning them into metropolitans dependent on specific metropolia, created on the basis of a precise study of the real pastoral needs and incorporating them into metropolitan synods, with the aim of having them effectively participate in the church's decision-making.
According to sound Orthodox theology, it is not permissible for a bishop not to be a member of a synod and it is not right for him to be treated as a bishop subject to another bishop, since this is contrary to the deeply-rooted ecclesiastical principle that "the episcopacy is one."