I would be interested in your pastor’s sources. To my knowledge bishop Nicholas Samra is the only native-born retired auxilary bishop for the Melkites in the U.S. I would LOVE to see him made bishop for the eparchy.
So to speak out for the rights of Christian and non-christian Palestinians is “anti-israel”?
That’s largely why Archbishop Joseph (Raya) of blessed memory ended up in the US. Getting back to Philip’s post, +Nicholas is the only American-born hierarch currently, and he is technically in retirement.
That was my thought precisely, a strange twist.
Yeah, nothing says provocative like defending your homeland, women and children from foreign invaders.
I believe that’s pretty much what we do, but I could be wrong. If I remember correctly our Synod elects the bishop(s) and notifies the Pope. If the Pope has any major objections then the Synod goes back to the drawing board. But from what I understand we don’t really look to Rome to “approve” our bishops; we simply notify Rome who has been elected and where they have been assigned.
Thanks, Diak.
I know Kyr Samra is in retirement, but my hope is that they will bring him out of retirement to serve as our eparch. I do not know where my pastor received his information to make him think that but it sounds like everyone would love the idea of Bishop Samra coming out of retirement.Thanks, Diak.
I think it may scare you to know how many thoughts we share in common. I know it does me.
Now this was offensive. Not all non-christian Palestinians support this and I know of no Christian Palestinian group that engages in terrorism.
Just FYI, not everyone here was offended.
The first part is correct, albeit a bit simplified. The second part is a little murky. Within the Patriarchal Territories, it’s a yes. Without the Patriarchal Territories, not so much. Rome can (and on occasion, has) refused to accept an election or, in the case of an already ordained bishop, an appointment, but I have no idea if this has happened with the Melkites. I recall that Nicholas Samra was passed over the last time around for the Eparchy of Newton, and hence his early “retirement.” Why he was passed over I don’t know.
I wondered if such might be the case. I don’t really pay too much attention to the way in which bishops are elected and assigned. I’m too busy trying to actually live my faith than worry about the logistics of from whence my bishop came or how he was elected.
I believe, however, that it depends upon the particular Church. The Ruthenians, for example, have a different law about the assignment of bishops within the U.S. than the Melkites, Ukrainians, or Romanians. This has partly to do with the fact that they have been “in the West” longer than the others, and partly with the fact that they are not a patriarchal Church. Within Patriarchal Churches, I believe that the local Synods elect the bishop(s) for the “diaspora” and then notify Rome in the hopes of approval. For non-patriarchal Churches I believe they submit a list of candidates and Rome chooses the one they like the best. 
We currently have the opportunity to observe this with the election of the new Metropolitan of Pittsburgh as well as the new Bishop for the Eparchy of Newton. Quite a learning experience as far as I’m concerned. 
Who in Rome chooses?I wondered if such might be the case. I don’t really pay too much attention to the way in which bishops are elected and assigned. I’m too busy trying to actually live my faith than worry about the logistics of from whence my bishop came or how he was elected.