[ditty_news_ticker id="27897"] His Eminence Metropolitan Saba Elected Metropolitan of Antiochian Archdiocese of North America (UPDATED) - Orthodox Christian Laity

His Eminence Metropolitan Saba Elected Metropolitan of Antiochian Archdiocese of North America (UPDATED)


Source: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

Metropolitan Saba

His Eminence, the Most Reverend Saba Esper, is the Archbishop of New York and Metropolitan of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Antioch and All the East and the Holy Synod of Antioch elected His Eminence to lead the Archdiocese during its extraordinary session on Feb. 23, 2023 in Balamand, Lebanon.

His Eminence now leads and oversees the Archdiocese’s parishes, missions, departments, institutions and organizations in the United States and Canada from the headquarters in Englewood, New Jersey. The auxiliary bishops aid him in his administration across the continent.

Metropolitan Saba was born in Latakia, Syria in 1959. He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Tishreen in Latakia, and a bachelor’s degree in theology from the St. John of Damascus Institute of Theology in Balamand. His Eminence is fluent in Arabic and English.

Prior to his election as Metropolitan of North America, His Eminence cofounded The Hauran Connection with the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America. This charitable project enhances Orthodoxy in this ancient Christian land in the face of strife. More than $1 million has been raised in more than 15 years.

Developmental projects and charitable endowments for the Bosra Archdiocese under Metropolitan Saba include a medical clinic in As-Suwayda, dormitories for 150 university students in As-Suwayda and Daraa; 48 studios for retirees in The House of Love; the Bethany Spiritual Retreat Center in Kharaba; Bread for All that distributes food to the poor regardless of religion; ongoing agricultural projects; and The Good Samaritan, a multifaceted charitable organization for parishioners displaced or affected by the recent Syrian war.

His Eminence was ordained a priest in 1988 and elevated to the dignity of archimandrite in 1994. He pastored St. Michael the Archangel Church in the Archdiocese of Latakia until 1998. During that time, Metropolitan Saba edited and published the Orthodox Christian magazine Farah geared toward children and families.

In 1998, Metropolitan Saba was elected and consecrated as an auxiliary bishop to His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV of thrice-blessed memory. In 1999, His Beatitude and the Holy Synod of Antioch elected him as metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Bosra, Hauran and Jabal Al-Arab in Syria.

Simultaneously with his pastoral and episcopal duties, from 1995-2006, His Eminence served as instructor of Pastoral Care and Introduction to the Old Testament at the St. John of Damascus Institute of Theology in Balamand.

His Eminence established a publishing house in the Bosra Archdiocese, the Al-Arabiya magazine for adults, and continued issuing Farah for children. An English version has been produced since 2010. Metropolitan Saba authors weekly articles on his Facebook page and has written on various topics in Al-NoorPatriarchal and Al Arabiya magazines. He has authored a number of books in pastoral life and theology.

Metropolitan Saba has also translated a number of titles from English to Arabic, including works by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev and Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko.

His Eminence’s patron saint is St. Saba (Sabbas) the Sanctified, commemorated on Dec. 5.

Related Articles from the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of America
Metropolitan Saba: Chosen by God and the Holy Synod
Letter of Metropolitan Saba to Antiochian Archdiocese
Letter of Patriarch John X to the Antiochian Archdiocese

Metropolitan Saba (Esber) on the Orthodox “Diaspora”

Source: Notes on Arab Orthodoxy

Arabic original here and here.

On the Issue of the Orthodox “Diaspora”


It seems, during the course of work on the Great Orthodox Council, that the issue of the “diaspora” will be the most important, in the sense that there is no issue more important than it. Due to serious disagreements that currently exist between the Orthodox Churches, mostly due to historical factors, the other working papers, most of which have been agreed upon, were formulated according to the lowest common denominator of agreement and not at the level hoped for by the people of God. The issue of the “diaspora,” however, has remained urgent because it is thorny, multi-dimensional and has an inherent relationship to the Mother Churches. In addition to the theological and ecclesiological problematique, there is the proposal advocated by the Church of Constantinople, which is rejected by the majority of churches not under Constantinople’s influence.

A Historical Outline

The term “diaspora” is applied to those Orthodox who have emigrated from their home countries belonging to one of the recognized autocephalous local churches to countries that do not fall within the borders of the historical Church, either due to the absence of a previous Orthodox presence or due to their not yet appearing on the map when the canons setting the boundaries of the churches were issued.

The Christian Churches first emerged in the Mediterranean Basin within the framework of the Roman Empire. Thus, with time, the five ancient patriarchates were established around the chief cities. According to the traditional honorific taxis, they are: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Over the first millennium of Christianity and then some, they remained the chief centers of the Christian world. From them evangelical missions were dispatched to the world lying outside the bounds of the Roman Empire which was, in Church literature, known as “the inhabited world” (ἡοἰκουμένη).

After the Great Schism of 1054, the Orthodox world was limited to the four patriarchates that came after Rome. However, with the growth and spread of Orthodoxy, this world started to witness the birth of new patriarchates such as those of Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. Until now, this has led to the existence of fourteen autocephalous Orthodox churches in the world.

The ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church has preserved the concept of the local church and has not known a globally centralized ecclesiastical structure as came to exist in Rome after the schism, especially in the past two centuries. Those Orthodox living in countries that lie outside the boundaries of the autocephalous local churches have been considered a diaspora. Over time, however, they have grown in numbers and have become rooted in their new countries, even as they continue until now to stream into them in great numbers, causing their churches there to multiply and grow.

Very quickly, their mother churches contacted them– or they contacted their mother churches– in order to provide them with spiritual service. In the case of Antioch, at least, the emigrants sent for priests that they knew or the priest of their village in order to perform the Holy Mysteries for them. Over time, they gained churches and parishes which remain tied to their mother churches.

It is worth mentioning that the Antiochians who emigrated to North America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were, before the Bolshevik Revolution, under the pastoral care of the Russian Orthodox Church which requested from their mother church an Antiochian bishop to shepherd them under the omphorion of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America. This took place and their bishop then was Saint Raphael Hawaweeny.

The current situation of the Orthodox Church in the “diaspora,” which started out as a matter of “economy” but has now become an established, permanent presence, is not in keeping with the canonical Orthodox ecclesiological concept. This dogma states, for example, that there should be one bishop for one city, while today there are many bishops in some cities. There is an Antiochian bishop for the Antiochians, a Greek for the Greeks, a Russian for the Russians, etc.

Over the years, the generation that emigrated started to engage with their new societies and have become Americans, Brazilians, Argentines… Moreover, some of the active churches started to attract not insignificant numbers of inhabitants of their new countries who were not of an Orthodox background. That is, they started to practice their apostolic mission in a manner demonstrating a real maturity within them.

The issue of organizing the Orthodox presence in what was in the past known as countries of emigration and is known today as countries of diaspora has been posed for some time and there are numerous opinions about it. It is a thorny issue, especially with renewed waves of emigration after the collapse of the Communist regimes that ruled in many Orthodox countries. Greek and Antiochian emigration has also renewed in recent years as a result of the Lebanese and Syrian wars and the Greek economic collapse.

The Issue at Hand

There is a serious debate among the churches about the theory adopted by the Church of Constantinople based on a particular interpretation of Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which regards the inhabited world (ἡ οἰκουμένη) as restricted to the Roman Empire and those outside of it as backwards. This view was predominant in the fifth century, when the concept of the “inhabited world” was limited to the Roman Empire because it was regarded as the center of civilization.

Following this interpretation, “Constantinople” considers itself to have sole responsibility for providing pastoral care to all those outside the bounds of the autocephalous local churches. This is rejected by the other churches, apart from those who, due to particular considerations, are unable to contradict the Patriarchate of Constantinople on this matter. It should be noted that the Church of “Constantinople” currently shepherds all the Greek-speaking Orthodox outside the countries of Greece and Cyprus.

The Orthodox Church is a universal Church, as the Creed states, and her fathers who gathered in Constantinople in the nineteenth century rejected the principle known as “ethnophylitism.” That is, the submission of the Church to racism or nationalisms.

Orthodox ecclesiology advocates the local church, while many may not believe that all the churches of the “diaspora” have reached the maturity that would permit them to become autocephalous local churches, especially after renewed waves of immigration or the phenomenon of mobility from one country to another in the past two decades.

What should we do in the face of the existing contradictory ecclesiological situation? And what should we do in the face of the position of one or more churches that is based on a concept of worldly influence that is sought in word and deed, causing controversy and confusion and, moreover, impeding the communication and communion sought by all the churches? The return of churches that had been under Communist regimes to activity, growth and influence has likewise added a new dimension to the problem, insofar as this new situation has contributed to reviving the struggle between Greeks and Russians in the Orthodox world.

Some Observations on Current Approaches

So the issue of the diaspora is now under the microscope. What appears to be the manner of addressing it allows us to draw certain conclusions:

  • Most views that have been proposed treat the issue from a purely canonical angleand attempt to adapt the canons to fit the perspective of the church making the proposal. Everyone searches through ancient commentaries, twists the facts of the modern situation, and relies on texts composed in bygone eras that differ drastically from our own times.
  • Through the above, the observer gets the feeling about this matter, through studies or teachings or practice, of a hidden ecclesiastical power struggle and the fear of losing flocks in the diaspora. This is what must be respected in light of present circumstances in the countries of the mother churches, in terms of wars and economic and social collapse.
  • There is a growing conviction among many that the mother churches are not prepared to let go of their churches in the diaspora, just as most of the churches of the diaspora still reject such a severing of bonds, especially if the solution entails dependence on one of the autocephalous churches. These positions affirm approaches to this thorny issue that are not based on a theological perspective so much as they are based on providing proofs for the veracity of what they want with regard to this issue
  • Focusing on the canonical dimension in treating this issue reveals the extent to which pastoral care is absent, the great disappointment resulting from the failure to adopt a clear plan for salvifically serving the people, and the profound abyss that exists between the ecclesiastical leaderships and the people in the majority of churches.
  • This matter has been dealt with in a worldly manner that ensures for the churches a worldly influence that is far removed from the presence of Christ at the heart of His Church, such that He becomes a stranger to it.
  • There is a feeling that a papal orientation is on the rise on numerous levels, internally and externally, in one or another of the churches, appearing in positions, dialogues, and various debates. This orientation reveals the extent of Orthodox theology’s need for canonical theological frameworks that embody its ecclesiology in history. Effectively, it defines the theory and practice of primacy of honor, the primacy of the head of the local church and the bishop and the manner of expressing synodality between the patriarch and the bishops and the bishops among themselves and also between the clergy and the laity.
  • The absence of a pastoral aspect from most of the current approaches reveals the extent of the danger in this matter. The pain and suffering of earlier and subsequent emigrants is not taken into account. If only we were disagreeing over the best way to provide them with pastoral care, rather than over dividing up the earth and populations!!! This, unfortunately is an expression of the extent to which pastoral service is ignored and its weakness in general, even in the mother churches.

Some Proposals

There is no avoiding the ideal solution based on Orthodox ecclesiology. This solution is embodied in the appearance of new autocephalous churches when the state of the faithful and parishes in those countries reaches the maturity that allows for recognizing their having one church and the necessary conditions for recognizing it.

  • According to the words of Patriarch Ignatius IV during the preparations for the Fourth Preliminary Orthodox Conference, the diaspora “is called not merely to stay alive, as was the case in the past, but to transform into a dynamic and creative element in the place where it exists. Orthodox unity, in the various countries of the Orthodox diaspora, has become a necessity for the preservation of the purity of the Church and the witness of the Orthodox Church.”
  • Here we must raise the question of whether there exist sincere intentions to arrive at the ideal ecclesiastical solution! It appears that the consequences of history and the difficult and bitter situation of the Orthodox peoples on the one hand and a worldly mentality that bends theology to its vision on the other hand, are having an impact on the adoption of the solution based on an authentic ecclesiology.
  • Therefore, there is an urgent need for serious preparation leading to the desired solution, which will not fall from the sky all at once. Rather, it will be a goal and an ideal whose realization requires an agreed upon vision of the future and diligent and clear joint work according to a plan of action that takes into account the reality of providing people with the best pastoral care and developing a palpable sense of Orthodox catholicity. In this context, the proposal of the Antiochian delegate to those same gatherings, Albert Lahham, remains live and realistic: “Let us take small steps together in order to move together towards unity because the people must experience this unity first.”
  • This plan is purely based on an effective and upright theological vision that precludes any concept of influence, dominance or interests that have no part in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
  • Likewise, this is with full consciousness of the suffering experienced by the Orthodox people that continues to force them to emigrate, situations of extreme hardship or persecution, whether economic or in terms of security. The emigration of Orthodox has not occurred only due to seeking employment and education. People have been unjustly forced to seek refuge against their will. This means that we as churches must take into account with all due respect the feelings that these believers have toward their land, their countries, their languages, their customs, and their cultural Orthodoxy. This requires a long-term plan that manages the temporal dimension in order to prepare circumstances, mentalities and souls to accept the realization of the desired goal.
  • The vision is based on the creation of a new ecclesiological reality that takes into account the specificity of these churches of various origins having a relationship with their mother churches. How should we designate this relationship? What are the specificities that distinguish them? How can they exist without affecting the catholicity of the Church? These are the questions that must be raised.
  • These new local churches appear when the Orthodox of the diaspora, who are still pouring into new countries, become conscious of the culture of the new land where they live, interact with it and assimilate to it on the basis of their Orthodox faith. Reaching this consciousness requires a transitional phase with a purposeful pedagogical trajectory that takes into serious account that culture which differs in its foundations from the culture that has historically existed in Orthodox countries. This is fundamental work whose time has come to commence on a pan-Orthodox level.
  • The episcopal conferences, which were declared in 2007, initiated successful work towards unity, even if it has remained on a formal, superficial level and has not transcended, except on symbolic occasions, the bounds of ecclesiastical jurisdictions. However, before this work is cancelled or renewed, it is in pressing need of appraisal. The Orthodox have agreed on its principle, but its practice has been beset, here and there, with numerous errors that have aroused fears among many of the churches and has evinced an effort towards limiting the Orthodox representation in certain countries of the “diaspora” to one particular church. 
  • Knowledge of the history of the emergence of the ancient patriarchates takes on great importance in helping to elucidate the boundaries of the churches that are maturing towards autocephaly. The tie between the autocephaly of churches to nationalism, which appeared two centuries ago, constitutes a danger to the churches. While the emergence of the five historical churches took place in circumstances different from our own circumstances, the experience of having recourse to them is useful for building up the catholicity of the Church today.


There remains hope that the Church’s deliberations about any of the issues on the table at the Great and Holy Council will take into account the salvation, support, and ideal pastoral care of the people of God, with an upright mindset, faith and comportment. Otherwise, the least we can say of the path we are on is that it is not straight (i.e., Orthodox).



  1. First and foremost, THERE IS NO DIASPORA IN AMERICA. The Orthodox, of whatever nationality who are here, do NOT belong elsewhere. Secondly, the decision for the American Arabs to allow the Old Country to force an OLD COUNTRY bishop upon them is plain ridiculous. Have the American Arabs learned nothing? There is no need for foreign bishops to rule over them. Bishop John would have been an excellent choice. Fools! The Antiochians (AOCA) should have joined the OCA back in 1970. Instead, we continue this ongoing stupidity ignoring Canon Law and letting overseas bishops to rule over Americans.

  2. As a 2nd generation American of Lebanese origin, I respectfully disagree with Nikolai. Our Antiochian connection is what gives our church here in the United States a secure foundation and a historical connection to the seat where ” the Disciples were first called Christians.” We do have many converts of all ethnicities and religious backgrounds in our Archdiocese and a nice mix of English and some Arabic, Greek and even some Russian language during our liturgy. I personally do not speak Arabic but enjoy the Arabic chanting .
    Our parishioners and clergy participate in all the pan Orthodox services locally and support the Pan Orthodox support organizations locally as well as the IOCC. I do know Bishop John personally since he was a priest, and yes he would have been a good choice also. However, we must respect the choice of the Holy Synod of Antioch guided by the Holy Spirit
    Yours in Christ

  3. Michael Koulos on

    Secure foundation? Historical connection? You left out Canon Law!


    Your argument reeks of ethnophyletism and perpetuates the roadblock we’ve been hearing for years. It is precisely what is wrong with Orthodox Christianity in America today. We have multiple jurisdictions divided by ethnicity which are fueled by the same lame arguments as yours.

    Fortunately, our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to counter your arguments back in 1872 and condemned it.

    If your parishioners and clergy participate in all the pan-Orthodox services locally and support the IOCC, well then…this is more the reason you should argue for a united, autocephalous church.

    You can still be a 2nd generation American of Lebanese origin and worship at the Antiochian Church. You can still follow all the traditions and customs practiced at your church. Antioch will always be the seat “where the Disciples were first called Christians”. Autocephaly doesn’t change any of that.

    Autocephaly just changes how we are governed. It is so simple, yet people see it as a threat. The Synods overseas will become stronger, yet are perceived as becoming weaker.

  4. Nice Michael, very nice! I will say it again, the situation in the United States is an aberration. What ethnic Orthodox had as MISSIONARY ACTIVITY, turned into DIOCESES for overseas Patriarchs. Canon Law is clear, Bishops CANNOT have a diocese outside their own TERRITORY. Not Damascus, not the Greeks, not the Russians or anyone else. To clear up this anomaly, SCOBA was created to work toward an autocephalous (independent) Orthodox Church in America where ALL ethnic Orthodox would join in unity to RULE THEMSELVES. This was made a reality in 1970 by Fr. Alexander Schmemann when the former Metropolia was granted autocephaly from the MP. The Romanians joined the newly formed OCA, the Bulgarians joined and others, but the GREEKS & ANTIOCHIANS RENEGED! So, 53 years later, the U.S. Orthodox are still divided because their own bishops have refused to join the OCA. Therefore, this travesty of +Saba coming from overseas to rule over the American Arabs – stupid. FOREIGN BISHOPS HAVE NO BUSINESS HERE! Bishop John of Wooster would have been the better choice!

  5. Cato the Elder on

    Has anyone listened to Archbishop Elpi’s speech to Leadership 100 (https://youtu.be/_YNZBmPLxW8)? The same person who wrote that the Ecumenical Patriarch is not just the titular first AMONG equals but is actually the first WITHOUT equals is now complaining that everyone knows who the Pope is, but no one knows who the Istanbul Patriarch is!

    He goes on to denigrate the Orthodox in America as too immature to govern themselves but in need of those from “Europe” (like himself) who know what we need.

    His formula for fixing the problems facing the Greek Archdiocese in America is to order the clergy to mention himself and Patriarch Bartholomew instead of their Metropolitan in each Sunday liturgy!

    The arrogance of this Phanariote from Istanbul is breathtaking. His disrespect for the generations of Orthodox faithful who established the parishes and institutions in America (IOCC, OCMC, FOCUS, OCAMPR, St. Vladimir’s, Holy Cross, etc., etc.), all without any help from Istanbul or other “Mother Churches,” speaks volumes about how they view the Orthodox of America.

    A new charter for the Greek Archdiocese drafted in secret by this Archbishop and the Patriarch’s appointed minions without meaningful clergy and lay participation will be as illegitimate as the last one…which was imposed..suspended..reinstated..and now..what?

    No one could make the case for a united, autocephalous Church in America better than +Elpi and +Bart! When will the Assembly of Bishops in America finally act like real shepherds of their flocks and bring the church into canonical order?

  6. The starting point for creating a charter for the Archdiocese should be the input provided to the Representatives of the Patriarchate who attended the Clergy-Laity Congress, in July 2022. One of the last sessions on Thursday afternoon offered the delegates the opportunity to provide their input on the development of a new charter. I hope the session was videotaped. The Archdiocese should post the videotape. For three hours, delegates, clergy and, laity, and hierarchs provided thoughtful, practical, meaningful input. Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh presented an outstanding overview. Why is he not on the Committee discussing the provisions for a new charter? Who appointed the present members of this new committee? What happened to the work of the 80 individuals appointed by the Metropolitans and Archbishop that was working for two years before this 2nd committee was established? Do we have a report from this first Committee?

    We agree that this new charter better get it right. The overview presented to Leadership 100 by the Archbishop with the three points outlined is off on the wrong track. We want a charter for our USA Archdiocese. We do not want a charter to enhance the global ambitions of the Patriarch. We want the end of a two-tier Archdiocese in the USA: One for appointed leaders who fund Leadership 100 and the Archons, and one for the rest of us who serve the parish communities. We want an Archdiocese and Metropolises that serve the parishes and the individuals who make up these parishes. We want programs that serve our youth and seniors. We want funds used to finance youth and senior programs. We want Care Centers for the elderly. We want a National, Continuous, Lifelong Learning Education Program. We want a missionary church reaching out to seekers in our neighborhoods. We want our funds to be used for the spiritual renewal of our Orthodox Christian Church in the USA. We want a charter that respects the history of our 120 years in this country, and that brings canonical order to Orthodoxy in the USA.

  7. Nice, Cato! The Phanar has used the same argument since the OCA was granted autocephaly. Exactly what great wisdom do foreign bishops possess that American bishops do not? Can you say “Phyletism?”

  8. Peter Ray Millman on

    Greetings Mr. Matsoukas,
    In my humble opinion, no one has done more for the Orthodox Church in America than Orthodox Christian Laity. When the guidelines of the Orthodox Christian Laity are implemented, the Orthodox Church in America will become a very powerful voice not only in America, but also throughout the world. The OCL’s project for Spiritual Renewal is pristine, flawless, transcendent, and magnificent. When all is said and done, you, Mr. Karcazes , and the late Kay Valone should all be canonized as saints when you have gone on to your eternal reward in heaven!!

  9. It would be interesting to note how many of the Orthodox Church hierarchs in the United States are foreign born and how many native born in all of the diverse jurisdictions in this country. My guess is that most if not all, especially in the GOA, are foreign born and swear personal allegiance to their respective native heritage. Therefore, my assumption is that they are not interested in separating themselves from their native land to form an autocephalous church in the USA. If they were interested and concerned about the faith in this country they would have proclaimed independence without the consent of hierarchs in other parts of the world a long time ago.

    Let’s face it, it’s all about financial and political support from the USA and it has nothing to do about the health, growth and well being of the Orthodox Church in the USA.

  10. George D. Karcazes on

    The imposition of a foreign Hierarch to head the Antiochian Archdiocese in America instead of the choice of the faithful here should convince all Orthodox faithful in America to support OCL’s Declaration and support the cause of a United, Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America. Nostalgia for familiar chants in Arabic, Greek, Romanian, etc., are red herrings. All of those sounds and traditions can be respected on a parish-by-parish basis as needed. None of those objections are valid arguments against unity and Autocephaly.

Leave A Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.