Monday, January 13, 2025

How Patriarch John X was Elected in 2012

 Yazigi New Patriarch of the Orthodox Church

by Ghassan Rifi in al-Safir, Arabic original here.

The bells of Balamand Monastery rang out to announce the election of the Metropolitan of Western Europe, John Yazigi as the new Greek Orthodox patriarch of Antioch and all the East, successor to Saints Peter and Paul and successor to the departed patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim.

The election of John Yazigi, who is the 158th patriarch of the See of Antioch and who will bear the name "John X", was a surprise for all the clergy and laity who were observing it, especially since his name was not listed among the potential candidates since there had not yet been five years since his being named metropolitan (it had been 4 years and 8 months) as the canons require. However, "ecclesial economia accompanied by divine inspiration," according to one of the metropolitans, led the members of the Holy Synod of Antioch to amend the canon to allow for the nomination of all metropolitans. This was in order widen the range of choices and to keep it from being limited to certain people.

It could be said that the "Antiochian coalition" that stretches from Syria to Lebanon, Palestine, and the Gulf, all the way to Antioch, comprising the senior metropolitans who are the founders of the Orthodox Youth Movement and those active in it, put itself in democratic competition with a coalition of some of the archdioceses of the West and Syria.

It was clear that the orientation of the "Antiochian coalition" is to continue along the lines established by the past two patriarchs, Elias IV and Ignatius IV, who laid the foundation for the revival of the Orthodox Church. The metropolitans of this coalition chose John X from outside the list of candidates, since even though he was considered one of the metropolitans of the West, he simultaneously represents a meeting-point for all and a common ground between the older and younger generations of metropolitans. He responds to the desires of the "Church Current" and the Orthodox Youth Movement, especially since he was raised in the thought of the late Patriarch Ignatius IV and his colleague Metropolitan Georges Khodr.

One of the metropolitans says, "The winner in these elections is the unity of the Orthodox Church and of revivalist thought, especially since the new patriarch is a son of Lattakia who knows Syria and Lebanon very well. He is a man of peace and dialog who believes that the Eastern Orthodox Church stretches from Antioch to the Americas. He is able to face the difficult circumstances that the Arab region, and especially Syria, is living through."

How did the new patriarch arrive at the reins of the See of Antioch?

At ten yesterday morning, a meeting of the Antiochian synod met at Balamand Monastery with the participation of eighteen of twenty metropolitans, since the metropolitan of North America, Philip Saliba, and the Metropolitan of Baghdad, Constantine Papastephanou, were absent on account of illness.

When Metropolitan Elias Audi arrived at the monastery, the doors of Balamand were shut so that they could be alone for approximately three hours, during which time no one was allowed to enter. It began with prayer for the soul of Patriarch Hazim and that "God may inspire the metropolitans of the See of Antioch to make the right choice."

Then a consultative session began during which the question of holding the election or delaying it to wait what will happen with the security situation in Syria was held. However, the overwhelming majority was in favor of holding it and the possibility of delay was quickly set aside, so everyone moved on to the process of election.

The election process requries that each metropolitan puts forward the name of three candidates (he can name himself) and then one of those three is elected. If he receives two thirds of the vote, he is named the winner but if he does not, there is an election between him and the next two candidates. The one who wins a majority is named patriarch.

At the beginning of the electoral session, the metropolitans agreed to amend the Church canons to. The amendment opened the door for all metropolitans to be nominated and ended the limitation to only those who have been metropolitans for more than five years.

In the first round, which was a secret ballot, metropolitans John Yazigi (Western Europe), Antonios Shadrawi (Mexico), and Saba Esber (Patriarchal Locum Tenens and metropolitan of Hauran and Jebel el-Arab) were named.

In the second round of the election, it became clear that if both metropolitans Yazigi and Esber--both of whom belong to the "Antiochian coalition", continued in the running, the deciding bloc's votes would be split between them, which would be in Metropolitan Shadrawi's favor. For this reason, Metropolitan Esber took the initiative to announce his withdrawal so that the competition would be limited to Yazigi and Shadrawi.

After the vote and the count, Yazigi's victory became clear with twelve votes against five votes for Shadrawi and one vote for Esber. Immediately, the Synod's secretary, Father Georges Dimas went out and the election of John Yazigi as the new patriarch of the See of Antioch, succeeding the departed Patriarch Ignatius Hazim, calling attention to that the patriarchal departments will take charge of announcing the formal arrangements for celebrating the installation and his receiving the shepherd's staff. Throughout this announcement there were bells ringing, cheers, and applause.

After this the metropolitans, led by Patriarch John X went to the monastery's church amidst the chanting of the Balamand choir. There he put on priestly robes and presided over the prayer of thanksgiving. He gave a sermon in which he stressed that the Gospel, through our prayers, will remain open, and calling on the fathers to pray so that we might be as one hand and so that we may make the Church of Antioch the image that befits the Bride of Christ and the Church. He said, "We realize that our people are good and that serving them is sweet for our hearts. We are from this land, from this country. Our country, our soil, is a part of us and we are a part of it."

He closed by stressing unity and cooperation for the sake of service. He thanked the metropolitans for their trust, confirming his tireless quest to build up a church that is a beautiful bride for all. Then Patriarch Yazigi went to the Institute of Theology. The first to congratulate him was the former vice president Issam Fares who called him from abroad. Brigadier General William Majli also sent his congratulations, as did the president of Balamand University, Doctor Elie Salem and a number of the university's deans. The deputy Robert Fadel was present and said that Yazigi "enjoys the qualities of youth, knowledge, culture, piety, and openness" and that half of him is Lebanese and half Syrian, noting that these qualities are not easily found.

For his part, the patriarch locum tenens Saba Esber told al-Saifr, "The election process was carried out in peace and love and was exceptionally smooth."

Esber thought that the media burdened the election process with more than it could bear. This provoked great buzz around it, but he denied that any political struggle took place and affirmed that the election process was carried out in all responsibility.


The Orthodox Church Renews Her Youth: Yazigi is Patriarch

by Ghassan Saoud in al-Akhbar, Arabic original here.

"Yesterday the Holy Spirit chose the metropolitan of Europe, John Yazigi (born 1955) as patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Antioch." If some of the metropolitans were occupied with prayer instead of their electoral campaigns, they might have heard the voice of Holy Spirit encouraging them to withdraw in favor of Yazigi rather than persist in their candidacy, lest the Holy Spirit dash their hopes by preferring someone else. The day before yesterday, Patriarch John Yazigi dined at the table of the metropolitan of Mexico, Antonios Shadrawi. He heard him speak of his nomination and his plans for the Church in the event that he wins, within him reciprocating the disclosure of his intentions or what awaits him. Thus Shadrawi went to bed a patriarch, without his calculations requiring too much prayer of him. The metropolitans woke with the assumption that there were two competing groups: one with six votes nominating the metropolitan of Hauran Saba Esber, the other with six votes nominating Shadrawi, with the probability of Shadrawi's influence among the six remaining metropolitans.

However, the meeting had barely begun before "the Holy Spirit" began to be active among the two groups, as Church sources prefer to say. The patron of Esber's candidacy proposed that the Synod amend the basic statute of the See of Antioch  that was issued in 1973, in order to permit the nomination of metropolitans who have not yet had dioceses for five years. Thus it became possible to nominate Metropolitan John Yazigi, who was elected metropolitan in 2008. This is with knowledge that yesterday's amendment, like other previous amendments, have been a point of canonical discussion between members of the Orthodox Church. Shadrawi's initial surprise was soon followed by an additional surprise, as some of the metropolitans whom he considered to be on his side moved over to Yazigi's side.

Thus the metropolitan of Hauran Saba Esber, the metropolitan of Mexico Antonios Shadrawi, and the metropolitan of Central and Western Europe John Yazigi led the first election that names the three candidates for patriarch. With Saba attracting most of the block in favor of him to Yazigi, the latter was able to gain the support of a number of metropolitans who had voted for Shadrawi, the most important of them the new patriarch's brother,  the metropolitan of Aleppo Paul Yazigi who had previously withdrawn his nomination in favor of Shadrawi, the metropolitan of Argentina Siluan Muci, his friend bishop Ghattas Hazim, and his spiritual father Metropolitan John Mansour, who had ordained him deacon in 1979 and priest in 1983 in the Archdiocese of Lattakia.

The first group, whose announced candidate was Esber and whose leader was Metropolitan Georges Khodr, first by amending the canon and then by nominating Yazigi, attracted four votes that were considered to be closer to the other bloc. If the other group had realized what  lay in wait for them, they would have first blocked the canonical amendment and then would have nominated Metropolitan Paul Yazigi, who, until his withdrawal in favor of Shadrawi, was one of the most prominent candidates opposing Esber. Thus the Orthodox Church would have witnessed an unprecedented competition between two brothers for the See of Antioch. Thus it might be said that Shadrawi and his bloc were fooled when they thought that Esber was Metropolitan Georges Khodr's only choice. His calculations, and those of Paul Yazigi, were on this basis. Regardless of the exact electoral figures and who voted for whom, the Metropolitan of Mount Lebanon has been successful for the second consecutive time in bringing forward a patriarch whom the Orthodox Youth Movement can claim as an alumnus.

The new patriarch is a monk who has been living in a tiny apartment in the French capital for four years because his metropolitan office was not yet built. Finally, he rented a Church in order to perform the Orthodox liturgy in it. In his first words as patriarch, the graduate of Greek theological institutes and abbot of the Patriarchal Monastery of Our Lady of Balamand from 2001 to 2005 affirmed that, "Christians are staying in Syria. The land is their land. He called for dialog in order to solve the crises. Those who know the former bishop of Wadi al-Nasara say that his political positions will not go beyond the low ceiling that Patriarch Hazim set for his positions and that generally he will be content to give fatherly advice to those fighting to love each other a little more, preferring prayer, fasting, chant, and religious books to everything else.

On the website of the Archdiocese of  Argentina, there is a slightly different account of how the statute was modified to allow for the election of Patriarch John. Spanish original, here.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Holy Fathers opened the question of the list of candidates and decided to include in it Metropolitans John (Europe) and Basilios (Akkar) who each have 4 years and 7 months of ministry [as metropolitans], thus making them eligible for the See of Antioch.

 

Met. George Khodr's Two Tears 

From the December 18, 2012 al-Safir. Arabic original here.

As Patriarch John X was elevated upon the throne at Our Lady of Balamand, presiding over the prayers of thanksgiving after his election to the See of Antioch, the "architect" of the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Georges Khodr, let two tears stream from his eyes.

The first tear was for his life-long friend, Ignatius IV Hazim. Yesterday, Khodr realized that he had departed for good and that he had lost someone very dear, with whom he had worked over the decades to construct an Orthodox revival that produced vibrant institutions like Balamand University and with whom he fought to preserve the unity of the Church and to open her to dialogue with other religions.

The second tear was a tear of joy and confidence in the "right-believing" Church, who entrusted the reins of her authority to one of the pupils who drew from his well and from the well of his life-long friend Ignatius IV, and who grew up on the sound thinking of the Orthodox Fathers.

Georges Khodr seemed satisfied, yesterday, at the election of John Yazigi as patriarch, because with him and through him is ensured the future of the Orthodox Church, from Antioch to all the corners of the earth. He expressed to al-Safir his great longing for Patriarch Hazim and his overwhelming joy for the one who, with his faith and profound spirituality, is able to guide the path of the Orthodox Church to a safe harbor. Khodr states that, "In our canons and our theology, there is no continuation to the program from one patriarch to another. Each patriarch has his own program and his own administrative style, within the one faith."

Wednesday, January 8, 2025

Fr. Georges Massouh on Christians' Right to Reject Islamic Law (2013)

 Arabic original here. This is from 2013, but extremely pertinent today.


To those who do not want to congratulate Christians on their feasts

In recent days, voices have been raised reminding Muslims of the impermissibility of congratulating Christians on their feasts. We respect the freedom of those who call on their coreligionists to not be attracted toward "infidels" under the guise of congratulating Christians on their infidel feasts. Religions are a private matter for those who belong to them, and we won't give anyone lessons on the soundness or unsoundness of the rulings they make about lifestyle and behavior.

However, if the discourse of these zealots for their faith is to be fair, they must refrain from inundating us, day and night, with talk of Islam's tolerance and openness and they must refrain from citing verses from the Qur'an that talk about respect human diversity and religious differences as being God's way. As they understand it, what is the meaning of the Qur'anic verse "O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct" (Surat al-Hujrat 13)? What is the meaning of the love that the Qur'an commands to Muslims when it says, "Thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud" (Surat al-Ma'ida 82)?

In reality, Middle Eastern Christians' concern is not for respecting social niceties and the exchange of greetings between Christians and Muslim, but rather that their rights to a life of dignity with their Muslim partners in a civil state and to complete equality between all citizens of the single country be respected.

Muslim-Christian relations cannot be reduced to photo-ops that gather a sheikh or mufti with a patriarch of bishop on religious occasions, but rather they are based on mutual respect within a state in which one religious group does not impose its law on other groups under the pretext that they are a majority and others are a minority.

Even if non-Muslims do not have the right to discuss the propriety of Muslims' congratulating Christians on their feasts, they do have the natural right to refuse the imposition of Islamic law as the primary source for their country's constitution. In a discussion that took place at a panel on Muslim-Christian dialog, one of the Muslims asked me how I, as a non-Muslim, can have the right to object to "the position of non-Muslims in Islamic law" when it is, in his opinion, a purely Islamic matter. I told him that this issue concerns me too, since it talks about me, so how do you have the right to prevent me from rejecting the legal restrictions that you draw up for me? I closed by saying that those who work for the return of Islamic law as the organizing principle for relations between Muslims and non-Muslims are acting according to the logic of the ancient conquests. That is, according to domination based on the absolute sovereignty of a group that is victorious in war over a group that is occupied and not a partner in the nation.

That some of them do not congratulate Christians on their feasts does nothing to diminish Christians' divine joy that is based on the presence of the Master of the feast among them. Christmas, Epiphany, the Transfiguration, the Cross, the Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost... these are occasions for them to rejoice in Christ their Redeemer. "Rejoice in the Lord always and again I say rejoice" (Philippians 4:4). We will not beg for the courtesies of this world that are called the exchange of greetings, although we have heartfelt appreciation for those who do not heed the call to cut themselves off and so congratulate the Christians every year according to their custom. However, we will not keep silent from demanding our right to a just state based on citizenship and total equality of rights and responsibilities among individuals within the one nation.