 |
| St. Ignatius of Antioch |
The one term that is
used-and misused-among the Orthodox people more often than the Arabic word tux (right order or right practice). The
term implies that a practice being conducted in the church today has lost its
meaning or canonicity because a “newer” practice has taken its place. This type
of language is common amongst the people. “This is the tux…this is not tux”, is
the language used whenever one observes the movements and actions of the
priests and bishops. This is an indication that a canonical problem exists
within the church and a solution needs to be proposed by the synod of the
church. Unfortunately the existence of such a problem is seldom admitted. The
opinions of the laity have been forgotten and the clericalization of the church
has taken over the mind of the individual. We have let the clergy and bishops
make decisions divorcing the work of the church into two groups-laity and
clergy. Everyone simply claims the fullness of canonicity of his own position
and, in the name of it, condemns and denounces as uncanonical the
ecclesiastical status of others. The concern for both parties is not for truth,
but for victories in the form of church building projects, new creation of
bishoprics, ordination of a priest “against the will” of the people. The opinions
of the people matter in so much when voicing the opinion of the majority. We
live in a society that breeds and teaches the majority wins-taking shape in our
governments and in the system that governs our economy; capitalism. How can
this poisoned atmosphere change the minds of the laity towards the clergy? How
can we respect the hierarchy and its decisions? In Toronto we are living at a
time when Orthodoxy is coming of age. A 50 year history has been established
and growing quickly. Yet the constant cry for a bishop has taken over the minds
of the individuals mostly amongst the youth. We teach our children to be
“proud” of the Orthodox faith, we constantly congratulate each other on our
achievements about different historic events, yet, if we were true to the
spirit we ought to repent in sackcloth and we ought to cry day and night for
the sad state of the church finds itself in today. The idea of having a bishop or
not having a bishop in Toronto we cannot deny or nothing can justify the fact:
our church is divided. To be sure, there have always been divisions and
conflicts amongst Christians, but for the first time-in a long time-division
belongs to the very structure of the entire church, both in Canada and Egypt.
We must wake up and be horrified by the situation the people of the church
finds itself in. We must own up to our mistakes and find the courage to
re-think it in the light of the Orthodox doctrine and tradition, no matter what
it will cost to repair the damage that has been created by the canonical
problem. The problem of wanting a bishop in Toronto has grown in the past few
years and it has come to the fore-front of the dialogues in recent months (July
and August 2014) prior to the visit of the Pope of Alexandria (Pope Tawadros
the 2nd). Unless, we admit the existence of the canonical problem,
and secondly, put all our thoughts and energies into finding a solution, the
façade we have created with million dollar churches and magnificent facilities hinges
on the brink of extinction if we cannot find a solution. St. Peter taught us
that judgement must first begin with us in order to progress in the knowledge
of God: “For the time is come that judgement must begin at the house of God:
and if it first begins at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the
gospel of God?” (1 Pet 4.17).
In order to demonstrate
the need and importance of the bishop we shall look to the writings of Ignatius
of Antioch-a second century bishop who was martyred in the city of Rome. On his
way to Rome he wrote a series of letters to different churches in different
cities. The letters of Ignatius are one of the most important early witnesses,
outside the New Testament, to the development of both the church structure and
theological reflection. The emphasizes of his letters focuses on the centrality
of the bishop, surrounded by his presbyters (priests) and deacons, for the
composition of the church; without these three orders the community cannot be
called a church as he wrote to the Trallians (3.1). He urges the Smyrneans, for
example, to follow the bishop as Christ follows the Father, and do nothing
pertaining to the church without the consent and knowledge of the bishop;
without him, they are neither to baptize nor hold an agape meal, and only that
Eucharist which he, or the priests, celebrates is to be considered certain; in
sum, “whenever the bishop appears, let the congregation be present, just as
wherever Christ is, there is the catholic Church” (Smyrneans 8). That there is
only one Christ means that there can only be one Eucharist, one altar, one
bishop (Philadelphians 4). The importance of the bishop and the need of a
bishop to this city were understood early on as representing the unity of the
church through the priests, deacons and laity. The body of Christ made this
union happen as long as “all the pieces” were present in the work of the
church. However, this emphasis Ignatius places on the bishop should not be
misunderstood as a mono-episcopacy. The obedience that the Smyrneans owe to
their bishop, for instance is also due to the presbyters (priests) [Smyrneans
8.1]. This is only made possible first and fore-most with the presence of the
bishop. Ignatius likewise, writing to the Magnesians and the Ephesians urges
them to do nothing without the bishop and priests as they are to obey and
subject to one another (Magnesians 7.1; 13.2; Ephesians 2.2; 20.2). This is
again only possible with the presences of the bishop in the city. As such, the
unity of Christians with their one bishop, in the one Eucharist celebrated on
the one altar, is dependent upon a prior unity in the apostolic faith
established by Christ. If the bishop ceases to be present then the church is
divided and broken. Based on this understanding of the bishop according to
Ignatius it is important for every city in the world to have a bishop present
working with his priests and deacons to unite the church in the body of Christ.
This then takes us back
to the city of Toronto. Pope Tawadros has announced that he plans on making the
city of Toronto the archdiocese. Much confusion has been brought out in the
form of many questions by the laity. Is this archdiocese the main hub to all of
North America? Is this archdiocese connected with Cairo? If so will Toronto
then, being an archdiocese, be getting a metropolitan? Will it be getting a
general bishop? These questions and more have been going around about the news
of Toronto becoming an archdiocese. The role of the archdiocese is set around
as the main city for the metropolitan who has other cities under his jurisdiction.
For example the metropolitan of Jerusalem has the UAE as part of his diocese
but still remains the metropolitan of Jerusalem. Clarification is needed in
order for the people to understand the status of Toronto. However, what is
clear is that many believe the Pope to be the bishop of Toronto and this is
incorrect. According to the canons of the church the Pope only has jurisdiction
in Alexandria (and now Cairo). Canon 2 of Constantinople says, “The bishops are
not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor
bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to
the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the
East manage the East alone…” The canonical problem present in Toronto needs to
admitted to and corrected by the synod of the church. The church, as Ignatius
has pointed out previously, needs a pastor to take care of its people. As long
as there is a Coptic presence in any city in the world a bishop must be
present. If the bishop is not present how then are the priests given authority
to celebrate the Eucharist? Is there a way out of this?
There is no denial that
the unity of the church, as expressed in the canons, is expressed, through the
unity of the Episcopate (bishopric). St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote in the third
century, episcopatus unus est. This
means that each local church is united to all other churches, revealing her
ontological identity with them, in its bishop. Just as every bishop receives
the fullness of his episcopate from the oneness of the episcopate (the entire
synod of bishops) which is expressed in the plurality of those who have
consecrated him, this fullness includes the unity of the entire church. This unity
is given its lived reality in the body of Christ (the Eucharist). The unity of
the church is formed in the parish which gives the authority to the bishop. It
is the bishop who unites all in the body of Christ. If the bishop is not
present then the church ceases to exist. Lastly, the requirements of our
Orthodox canonical tradition, the solution of our canonical problem coincides,
strange as it may seem, with the most practical solution, with common sense. By
looking back to the history and tradition of the church we are to see life and
truth as the source that governs our lives today. You shall know the truth and
the truth shall set you free-free to follow the glorious truth to fulfill in
this great country the mission of Orthodoxy.
