|
|
Submitted July 1,
2004
REPLY TO "RESPONSE
TO CHARTER ISSUES"
In his "Response to Charter Issues", Mr. Theodore
J. Theophilos, unable to refute the clear and
unambiguous language of Article XXIV of the 1977
Charter requiring approval by both the
Clergy-Laity Congress and the Ecumenical
Patriarchate for any revision of the 1977 Charter
attempts to dismiss it by asserting that
notwithstanding Article XXIV the Patriarchate has
the canonical right to unilaterally revise the
Charter. This erroneous conclusion fails to
recognize that it was in the exercise of its
canonical rights that the Patriarchate
approved Article XXIV which placed this
restriction upon its authority.
Our Archdiocese has had four Charters - 1922,
1927, 1931 and 1977. Both off the 1922 and 1927
Charters were adopted by a Clergy-Laity Congress
and approved by the Patriarchate. The 1931
Charter was adopted by the Patriarchate to
replace the 1927 Charter. It was very
controversial and it was only through the
dedicated efforts and persuasive powers of
Archbishop Athenagoras that Clergy-Laity Congress
approval was successfully achieved on November
14, 1931. A proposed draft of the
1977 Charter was submitted by the Archdiocesan
Council to the Patriarchate for its review and
approval. That draft, as modified in discussions
between the Archdiocesan Council delegation and
the Patriarchal Committee [ then Metropolitan,
now Patriarch, Bartholomew was a prominent
Committee member] , was approved and adopted by
the Patriarchate on November 29, 1977 and
subsequently approved and accepted by the Detroit
Clergy-Laity Congress on July 5, 1978.
It is clear therefore that with respect to the
revision of our Archdiocesan Charter there is
indeed "parity" between the Patriarchate
and the Clergy-Laity Congress. The final authority
is neither the Patriarchate nor the Clergy-Laity
Congress. The final authority is their joint
agreement. Neither may unilaterally change, revise
or replace the Archdiocesan Charter. This may be
done only by the approval of both the Congress and
the Patriarchate. This is the procedure followed
with respect to all four Charters under four
Patriarchs - Meletios, Basil, Photios and
Dimitrios and three Archbishops - Alexander,
Athenagoras and Iakovos. Article XXIV was nothing
more than a codification of the established
procedure followed in every instance of the
adoption or revision of a Charter.
Whatever may be the inherent canonical power of
the Patriarchate with respect to Charters, it is
clear that by joint Patriarchate and Congress
approval of the 1922, 1927, 1931 and 1977 Charters
and its approval of Article XXIV, the Patriarcahte
has agreed to the limitation requiring
Clergy-Laity Congress approval and acceptance of
any revision. Having so agreed, the Patriachate
cannot now validly claim that it retains the
unilateral right to modify our Charter. The
reliance by Mr. Theophilos upon Article XXIII of
the 1977 Charter is misplaced. The modifications
referred to in that Article were made to a
draft prepared by the Archdiocesan Council
and not to a charter previously
adopted and approved by a Congress. The integrity
and credibility of the Patriarchate require that
it abide by precedent established by it and the
agreement which it has made.
The Patriarchate historically does agree to and
approve limitations on its inherent canonical
rights in matters which are of much greater
significance than approving limitations requiring
joint Patriarchate and Clergy-Laity Congress
approval of a revision of our Charter. For
instance, every time the Patriarchate has
approved the elevation of one of its eparchies to
the status of an autonomous Archdiocese such as
Finland, Estonia, etc. or to the status of an
independent autocephalous Church, such as Greece,
Russia, Albania, Poland, etc. it has surrendered
inherent canonical rights.
In the course of a recent interview, former
Archbishop Spyridon, when asked for his opinion on
the legal action instituted on the Charter
revision issue, stated in part the following:
"… no one can gainsay the right that those who
have brought the action have, inasmuch as the 1977
Charter provides for the approval of the Clergy
Laity Congress when there is an adjustment or
amendment to a new charter.
What I am trying to say is that those who have
brought this action did not do it without a
substantive rationale. Especially inasmuch as the
1977 Charter was approved by the Patriarchate, the
Patriarchate itself should have respected it, and
not made an effort to adjust a new Charter which
had not passed through the canonical proceedings
that the Patriarchate itself provided.
Consequently, they have a basis. "
Evan Alevizatos Chriss
|
