• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Conversions in Philipines

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,867
Reaction score
81
Points
48
Location
Chicago
Irish Hermit said:
ozgeorge said:
SolEX01 said:
Could it be possible that during the meeting of Autocephalous Orthodox leaders that Pat. Ignatius brought up the Phillipines issue with the EP and the EP OK'ed the addition of the Phillipines to the Metropolitan of Australia and New Zealand resulting in the EP's comments that the canonical nightmare needs to be rectified?
Sol, read again.
The Statement of the EP came out in July 2008. The Antiochian Archdiocese changed it's title to include the Philippines in November 2008.
If you go to the official website of "The Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and The Philippines" you will find links to two videos of the Metropolitan there which were uploaded in November and, to the tune of some touchy-feely evangelical song, you will see the video's entitled: "Welcome Paul Saliba His Eminence Metropolitan Primate of Australia and New Zealand"...no mention of "The Philippines" in his title then.
Check the videos for yourself:
http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=56
I am puzzled why the matter of overlapping jurisdiction should be a matter of concern in this particular case.

How many Orthodox bishops are there in Australia with the title of "Sydney, Australia and New Zealand"?  Bishops from the Church of Constantinople, Russian, Antiochian, Serbian, Romanian... more?   If we have overlapping jurisdictions and episcopal titles in Australia, why is it a problem in the Philippines?  Yes, it is out of line with the canons, but let's face it, it is the norm in the entire diaspora.  The Serbian bishop in Australia even has (or has it been removed?) the title "... of South Africa" depite the fact that that is way out of line since it is arguably the canonical territory of Alexandria.
No argument about it: the agreement was made between everyone in the 1920s, sparing Africa much of the nonsense that goes on in the diaspora.

I suspect that there is Greek bishop with the title "...of Japan" even though there is an autonomous Church of Japan.
I recall when the Greek hierarchy was set up there, but I don't about it since.

ozgeorge said:
Irish Hermit said:
If we have overlapping jurisdictions and episcopal titles in Australia, why is it a problem in the Philippines? 
Because this would be nothing short of colonialism of the worst kind.
Why would we want to export something to the Philippines which is uncanonical here?
What else should we export to "the barbarians."

No, a certain interpretation of the "famous" canon 28 of Chalcedon is colonialism of the worst kind.

I can't speak for Father, but when people act as it 5 bishops in one city is normal, normal enough not to be doing ANYTHING about it (and I am thinking of the reaction to Ligonier here in the U.S.), then they can't act outraged when that plague spreads.

Irish Hermit said:
ozgeorge said:
Irish Hermit said:
If we have overlapping jurisdictions and episcopal titles in Australia, why is it a problem in the Philippines? 
Because this would be nothing short of colonialism of the worst kind.
Why would we want to export something to the Philippines which is uncanonical here?
Well, you exported it to my country, in the 1960s, and it seems to be working very well.  We now have a variety of "colonising" jurisdictions and converts are able to choose the one which suits them best.  Some prefer Russian ways (often Roman Catholics), others Greek and others Antiochian (often Anglicans.)  The multiplicity of Orthodox Churches colonising this country has accelerated the rate of conversion.
Father, I don't know about Australia, but in the U.S. it also has cost a number of conversions, and the craddle Orthodox, who tire of the squabbling.  Then there are those (and from our CAF days, I know you know this) from the Vatican pointing out that at least with them, you know who is in charge, and even state that the Orthodox are not a Church, something Card. Kasper claims.

Myself, I would prefer the OCA solution (yes, it has done some things right.  Their translations are also generally the best), local bishops, a number of which serve as eparchies for various ethnic groups.  Or what Alexandria and Antioch have done with vicarates.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
ialmisry said:
Irish Hermit said:
I suspect that there is Greek bishop with the title "...of Japan" even though there is an autonomous Church of Japan.
I recall when the Greek hierarchy was set up there, but I don't about it since.
I happen to know because the Greek bishop who held the title "...of Japan" was one well known to me during his 30 year tenure here in Wellington.

It was in 1970 that the Patriarchate of Constantinople created the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Zealand by separating it from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia. Bishop Dionysios (Psiahas) was elected Metropolitan of New Zealand and Exarch of India, Korea and Japan.


 

Fr. John D-Alton

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Melbourne Australia
Dear ozgeorge,
I think I have not explained what i meant clearly. i agree with you about using our minds and keeping correct " canonical Ecclesiology". As you wrote: "I'm all for respecting Bishops. But this is not about personalities, it's about canonical Ecclesiology."
That's exactly what I mean. The canons say if you have a problem with a bishop you talk to them directly. The canons and Orthodox ecclesiology do not allow for open slander as some others have done on this list. I know that you have faxed the right people, well done. The canons and the holy fathers also talk about refraining from gossip and the virtue of covering up the sins of others and not exposing them, so that problems in the Church are dealt with in decorum. that is what i am talking about.

A pertinent question is to ask what specific bishop gives his blessing and oversight to this list?

I wrote:"Orthodoxy is humility as the Mt. Athos holy ones teach us. People should stop assuming the worst of Met. Paul."
You wrote:"Orthodoxy is truth, as the Athonites teach us. The Athonites are actually among the first to speak up when a Bishop does something uncanonical. Yes, we are Christ's sheep, but we are rational sheep. And the rational sheep of Christ want this insanity of jurisdictionalism to end."

Look, I agree they do challenge bishops, but the they usually write quietly first before the public writings, and after all they are holy monks!! not lay people 1000s of km away from the issues! So if you are right, and i agree with you about challenging bishops, then do it the right way. Which is not being done by 90% here. You have faxed. good. If you are still concerned then keep talking to the relevant bishops. Stirring up anger on this list is NOT the way to achieve your and my goal of helping bring "this insanity of jurisdictionalism to end." The way is to assume the best not the worst of bishops. Question, but with respect.

You wrote: "We have created a jurisdictional nightmare here in Australia with different Bishops claiming jurisdiction over the same territory, and now our Australian Bishops want to export this to other nations.
Why?"

By this you are also attacking Arch Stylianos of Australia, so i suggest you don't do that, but in humility ask him directly why.
And be ready in humility to agree or disagree but live with the answer :)

I hope others follow your example and follow correct canonical ecclesiology in these matters too. i am concerned for the souls of those who gossip and slander instead of going straight to their priests and bishops.
I doubt any bishop would give his blessing to most of what happens on this list :-(

in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton
 

Fr. John D-Alton

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Melbourne Australia
Dear Sohma and ozgeorge,

about forms of Chrismation. You have both asked a good question in a polite tone which I applaud :)
Firstly, if you know Orthodox canons you will know that there Traditions which cannot be changed, but according to the Rudder, the bishop has many perogatives and in economia can modify the lesser traditions.

You would also know that the correct canonical procedure in relation to your question is to ask the bishop involved. Please do that. Then you will have God's blessings :) Write to Met. Paul and ask his eminence yourself.

30 years ago as a young adult I was full of questions which I was afraid to ask my leaders. But when i learnt to talk directly to the church leaders it solved much. Please do the same.

in Christ,
Fr. John
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
55
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Fr. John D-Alton said:
That's exactly what I mean. The canons say if you have a problem with a bishop you talk to them directly.
Which Canons actually say this Father? I don't think the Canons stipulate this. The difficulty in this situation is that there is no Ecclesiastical Court or any other body recognised by both sides as authoritative because of the uncanonical situation of multiple jurisdictions. If we were, say, in Greece or Damascus, the matter could be settled by the Synod of the local Church, and if anyone were not satisfied that the outcome was correct, then they could appeal to Constrantinople under the Canons. The problem we have here is that two Bishops are claiming jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church in the same area (a problem which has existed for about 3-4 generations in countires like the US, UK, Australia etc).  

Fr. John D-Alton said:
The canons and Orthodox ecclesiology do not allow for open slander as some others have done on this list. I know that you have faxed the right people, well done. The canons and the holy fathers also talk about refraining from gossip and the virtue of covering up the sins of others and not exposing them, so that problems in the Church are dealt with in decorum.
Father, what makes this "slander"? When people who are actually in the Philippines in the middle of this situation express their dismay and their disappointment, if we then effectively say to them "Keep your mouths shut publically for the sake of decorum", what are we saying about transparency and accountability in the Orthodox Church?

Fr. John D-Alton said:
A pertinent question is to ask what specific bishop gives his blessing and oversight to this list?
Why is that a pertinent question? Are Bishops and Priests of the Orthodox Church gurus and cult leaders who must approve every action of their "followers"? Is OCnet the Orthodox Church?

Fr. John D-Alton said:
Question, but with respect.{quote] I actually think everyone so far has done this, especially those on the thread who have been posting from the midst of this situation in the Philippines.


Fr. John D-Alton said:
You wrote: "We have created a jurisdictional nightmare here in Australia with different Bishops claiming jurisdiction over the same territory, and now our Australian Bishops want to export this to other nations.
Why?"

By this you are also attacking Arch Stylianos of Australia, so i suggest you don't do that, but in humility ask him directly why.
And be ready in humility to agree or disagree but live with the answer :)
What exactly are you accusing Archbishop Stylianos of here? I actually have no problem with disagreeing with him, and have done so in the past, but I'm not sure what you are talking about here. What has Archbishop Stylianos done specifically to warrant this accusation? The first Orthodox Bishop in Australia and New Zealand was Metropolitan Christoforos of the Ecumenical Patriarchate- you're surely not going to suggest that Archbishop Stylianos is responsible for the jurisdictional mess here?
 

Fr. John D-Alton

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Melbourne Australia
Hi,

ozgeorge asked: "Which Canons actually say this Father? I don't think the Canons stipulate this."
When I have time later today I'll find the parts in the rudder for you. This should already be known to all orthodox.

"Father, what makes this "slander"? "
Nothing you have said is slander, but when some others have imputed base motives to Met. Paul clearly that is slander, by definition.

"What exactly are you accusing Archbishop Stylianos of here?"
That's my point. I am not. And neither should anyone else.
But your comment can be read that way, whenyou write about ""We have created a jurisdictional nightmare here in Australia with different Bishops claiming jurisdiction over the same territory, and now our Australian Bishops want to export this to other nations." does, since His eminence is clearly a bishop in this set of people consisting of as you say "here in Australia with different Bishops".

Be careful what you write.

in Christ,
Fr. John
 

Fr. John D-Alton

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Melbourne Australia
PS,

ozgeorge wrote:
"if we then effectively say to them "Keep your mouths shut publically for the sake of decorum", what are we saying about transparency and accountability in the Orthodox Church?"

Look i totally agree there needs to be openness and accountability. Its how that is done. Directly, not behind bishop's backs on a list they don't read. Nowhere do i think people should keep their mouths shut. Just open them in the right way to right people.

in Christ,
Fr John
 

Fr. John D-Alton

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Melbourne Australia
Yes George, like that! :)

Again, let me emphasise that i applaud your efforts to keep this topic both civil and truthful, and your warnings when people go hysterical. If others follow your example it will be good.

About canonical procedure for raising challenges, I've only found a few things so far. These are really useful, especially the Greek orthodox priest article below...

Canon from the Council of Chalcedon:

Canon IV.

"Let those who truly and sincerely lead the monastic life be counted worthy of becoming honour; but, forasmuch as certain persons using the pretext of monasticism bring confusion both upon the churches and into political affairs by going about promiscuously in the cities, and at the same time seeking to establish Monasteries for themselves; it is decreed that no one anywhere build or found a monastery or oratory contrary to the will of the bishop of the city; and that the monks in every city and district shall be subject to the bishop, and embrace a quiet course of life, and give themselves only to fasting and prayer, remaining permanently in the places in which they were set apart; and they shall meddle neither in ecclesiastical nor in secular affairs, nor leave their own monasteries to take part in such; unless, indeed, they should at any time through urgent necessity be appointed thereto by the bishop of the city." <snip>

Fr. Aris Metrakos wrote on the web:

When did America's Orthodox Christians become such conflict junkies? Sure, controversy has been part of the Church since her earliest days. Acts 15 describes a dispute that dwarfs any disagreement that the contemporary Church faces. By all accounts, the discussions at the Ecumenical Councils were often animated and even confrontational. But the drama that developed at these events emanated from the profundity of the issues, not the peevishness of the participants.

Today, many persons with diverging opinions in the Church behave more like divorcing celebrities than like the Apostles in Jerusalem or the Saints in Nicea. It's not enough to disagree with a hierarch-an entire website must be dedicated to his destruction. Candidates for parish council run on the platform of "putting the priest in his place." Teens like to hang out in the back of the church hall during parish assemblies because "the fights are really cool."

In the absence of a hullabaloo we invent problems. Pastors of growing churches are "bringing in too many outsiders." If the priest and parish council president are friends, it can only mean one thing: "They are concocting a conspiracy." When the clergy and parish council have a good working relationship there is an obvious reason: "Father is a control freak and a puppet master."
Why are so many churchgoing folk spoiling for a fight? Perhaps they come to church for the wrong reasons. Possibly unresolved psychological issues are to blame. Maybe they suffer from the same tribalism that has enthralled humanity since the first time a caveman discovered the satisfaction that comes from splitting open the skull of a member of a rival clan.
Whatever the reason, the polemics that pollute the atmosphere of our parishes is slowly killing us. Church conflict creates lots of collateral damage: Priests leave the ministry. Pious laypeople shy away from leadership positions. Communities atrophy, putrefy and then petrify. For those of us who are tired of the pettiness and verbal combat, here's a simple roadmap to peace in our parishes.

Abandon the Notion of Constituencies
St. Paul condemned the formation of parties in the Church and even urged Titus to reject factious men. This is good advice for today. Splitting the Church into groups serves only the evil one.
Sometimes the divisiveness is well-intentioned but misguided. The chairman of one parish's nominating committee reported proudly to his priest that So-and-So had agreed to run for the parish council. In the chairman's eyes this was a good thing because this candidate could represent all of the "religious" people of the community. The chairman's goal was to recruit nominees that "represent all agendas in the parish."
There's only one agenda that matters in the Church: grow the Body of Christ numerically and spiritually and help people in need.

No Secret Meetings
There should be no meeting to which the priest is not invited and of which the parish council is unaware-period. Gatherings outside of the normal chain-of-command undermine the authority of the church's leadership and polarize the parish. There is nothing innocuous about a "special" budget committee meeting that is really a secret budget committee meeting. Rallies of "parishioners for truth" in the back room of a bar are anything but benign. Bypassing the chain-of-command without consulting the parish council and priest hits the community with an ecclesiastical sucker punch.

Deal Directly with People
The Bible models communication that is simple, honest, and direct. If an adult has a beef with another adult, the two should speak face-to-face, not through a third party. In order to hate someone we must first objectify him. Talking man-to-man (or woman-to-woman) derails this process.
One of the dads in my parish told me about something that happened at his home the other night. His wife and older son were exchanging cross words. He jumped in (rather ungracefully), and before Dad knew it he was yelling. The whole thing lasted less than three minutes, and afterward all three apologized. Their younger son was up in bed and became very upset with the fussing. Dad called him downstairs.
"Look, son," he said, "In families we sometimes disagree with each other and even hurt one another's feelings. We might raise our voices. But here's what you need to know. People can disagree and still love one another. The three of us have already forgiven one another and we're getting on with the evening. You see, we all want the best for one another and for the family. I pray that one day you and your own wife and children will deal with conflict in the same way. This is what happens in healthy families."
Come to think of it, this is what happens in healthy churches too.
Rev. Aris P. Metrakos is a Greek Orthodox priest and pastor of Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Columbia, SC. A former Naval Aviator, he spent seven years on active duty prior to attending seminary.

He didn't mention the passage in St. Matthew but implies it. maybe you or others can look up St john Chrysostom's commentary on it and post it- its quite relevant!

in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton
 

Fr. John D-Alton

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Melbourne Australia
From the Rudder- 85 canons of the Holy Apostles: on the correct procedure and who to accept in relation to attacks on bishops.

74. When a Bishop has been accused of something by trustworthy men, he must be summoned by Bishops; and if he answers and confesses, or is found guilty, let the penalty be fixed. But if when summoned he refuses to obey, let him be summoned a second time by sending two Bishops to him. If even then he refuses to obey, let him be summoned a third time, two Bishops again being sent to him; but if even then he shows contempt and fails to answer, let the synod decide the matter against him in whatever way seems best, so that it may not seem that he is getting the benefit by evading a trial.

(c. VI of the 2nd; cc. IX, XVII, XXI of the 4th; cc. XIV, XV of Antioch; c. IV of Sarican; cc, VIII, XII, XVI, XXVII, XCVI, CV, CXXXI, CXXXVII, CXXXIX of Carthage; and c. IX of Theophilus.).

Interpretation.

The accusation brought against the Bishop and mentioned in the present Canon is not one involving a financial matter, that is to say, not anything of a private nature and calling for personal blame, as, for instance, that a man Has been unjustly treated by the Bishop or that he has been greedily victimized, as Balsamon has incorrectly interpreted it, but, on the contrary, it is one involving an ecclesiastical matter such as might be expected to imperil his rank. But how can this be determined? By the 1 trustworthy men whom the Canon produces as accusers. For men bringing charges against a bishop on account ol financial claims or personal grievances are not examined as to whether they are Orthodox or are misbelievers, nor as to whether they are under suspicion or above suspicion, that is to say, thoroughly trustworthy, but, on the contrary, no matter what sort of persons they may be they are entitled to have their changes sifted, according to c. VI of the 2nd, and cc. VIII and XXVII ot Carthage. But as for those who accuse him on ecclesiastical grounds and m regard to ecclesiastical matters must be both Orthodox and above suspicion, or trustworthy; or else they are not admissible as accusers, according to the same canons. That is why Zonaras too appears to agree with such an acceptation of this Canon. So what the Canon means is simply this: If any bishop should be accused by trustworthy and unaccused men of any ecclesiastical crime he must be summoned to trial by the other bishops. Then if he appears and confesses of his own accord that the accusation is true, or, though he deny it, it is proved by indisputable evidence offered by his accusers that he is guilty of such a charge, then it shall be determined by the bishops what penalty he ought to bear. If, on the other hand, he be summoned and refuse to appear for trial, let two bishops be sent to him and let them summon him a second time. If he again refuses to appear, let two bishops be sent to him once m Dre, and let them summon him a third time. If even for a third time he scorns the summons and refuses to go, henceforward let the synod of bishops decide the case against him even in his absence and decree whatever it deems just and right and lawful penalties, lest he consider that he is gaining any benefit by such tactics in avoiding trial and postponing the time.

Concord.

Canon XXVII of Carthage adds that the synod of bishops ought to send the accused bishop letters of request, and if within a space of one month he does not appear, he is to be excluded from communion. Or if he prove that necessary business prevented his appearing for trial, he is to be allowed another month’s time. After the second month has passed without his appearing for trial, he is to be excluded from communion until he proves himself innocent of the crime with which he is charged. But Balsamon says that the thiee summons which the Canon requires to be served upon the accused bishop are to be spaced thirty days apart. So that if the accused bishop fails to appear for trial before the synod within a period of three months, he is thereafter to be condemned at an ex parte hearing. Accordingly in the days of the Holy Apostles, on account of the tact that there were no patriarchates as yet, two bishops had to be sent to summon a bishop; but nowdays it is sufficient if he is notified and this fact is verified by the Patriarchal notaries. According to cc. XII and CXI of Carthage twelve bishops are required to try a bishop, six to try a presbyter, three to try a deacon, and their own metropolitan and bishop. If, however, by consent, they appoint umpires (or chosen judges), even though the latter be less in number than the number ordained, they shall have no right of appeal, according to cc. XVI and CV and CXXXI of the same council. If, on the other hand, any bishop promised at first to let his ease be tried by the bishops, but afterwards refuses to consent to this, he is to be excluded from communion. Nevertheless, until his case has been finally disposed of, according to c. XCVI of the same council, he is to be deprived of his episcopate. If anyone accuses a bishop, the case is to be tried first before the bishops of the synod of the province in question. But if this synod is unable to handle the case, let the trial be held by a larger synod of the diocese, in accordance with c. VI of the 1st. But if anyone has a case to be tried with a metropolitan, let him apply either to the exarch of the diocese or to the patriarch of Constantinople, according to cc. IX and XVII of the 4th. If when the bishop is tried some of the bishops of the province are in favor of acquitting him while others insist upon condemning him, let the Metropolitan call other bishops from nearby districts and let them decide the ease, according to c. XIV of Antioeh. But if all the bishops of the province unanimously arrive at one and the same decision against the accused, let the one thus condemned not be tried any more by other, according to c. XV of the same council. But c. IV of Sardican ordains that if the deposed bishop who has been tried by neighboring bishops claims to have a new defense, no one else is to be ordained in his stead until a better investigation has been made. But that men who accuse bishops and clergymen of criminal offenses must be men above suspicion and Orthodox is decreed more especially by c. CXXXVIII of Carthage, which states that slaves or even freed men are not acceptable as accusers of clergymen against their own lords, nor are mimes and buffoons or any persons that are infamous, and in general all those who are inadmissible as accusers in the case of civil laws. Moreover, c. CXXXIX of the same C. says: When anyone has charged a clergyman with a number of crimes, if he be unable to prove the first crime, let him not be accepted any longer with respect to the rest of his charges as credible. But neither are those who are still under excommunication admissible as accusers, according to c. CXXXVII of the same council. But it such persons are inadmissible as accusers of clergymen, still more are they inadmissible as against bishops. In addition, c. XXI of the 4th says that the reputation of those accusing bishops and clergymen ought to be investigated; and c. IX of Theophilus says the same thing too. See also the Interpretation of c. VI of the 2nd, and that of c. IX of the 4th.

75. As a witness against a bishop no heretic shall be accepted, but neither shall one faithful alone: for "every charge shall be established by the mouth of two or three witnesses" (Deut. 17:6; Matt. 18:16).

(c. II of the 1st; c. XL of Carthage; c. IX of Theophilus; Deut. 17:6.).

Interpretation.

Not only must those accusing a bishop not be heretics, as we said above, but neither must those bearing witness against him; neither is any one person alone admissible as a witness against a bishop. That is why the present Canon says that no heretic shall be allowed to give testimony against a bishop, nor shall a single Orthodox and faithful one be allowed to stand alone as a witness against a bishop; because it is written in the old Law, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every doubtful word and charge shall be examined and verified.

Concord.

The great St. Paul says the same things especially in writing to Timothy: "Against an elder (i.e., a presbyter) receive no accusation unless it beeng supported by two or three witnesses" (I Tim. 5:19). Canon CXL of Carthage ordains that if any persons are inadmissible as accusers they are inadmissible also as witnesses. But neither are those persons admissible as witnesses who are brought in by an accuser from his own home, which is the same as saying, the relatives of the accuser, and his intimates and those who arc subject to his authority. Neither ought anyone’s testimony to be admitted in evidence when he is under age, less than fourteen years old, according to the same Canon of Carthage, although, on the other hand, ch. 20 of Title I of Book 21 says that anyone under the age of twenty is disqualified as a witness in court. The First Ecum. C. in its c. II commands that if a bishop or presbyter be convicted of any sin by the testimony of two or three witnesses, he must be ousted from the Clergy. Moreover, c. IX of Theophilus ordains that if any clergyman accused of fornication be proved guilty of this crime by the testimony of credible witnesses, he shall be ousted from the Clergy. Canon XXXVIII of Carthage says that if an accuser cannot bring witness from the district of the one accused, on account of some fear, the court is to be held nearer to that locality so that witnesses may easily attend it. Canon LXVIII says for clergymen not to be haled into court against their will to give testimony. A single witness is never to be believed at any time, even though he be a great man, or a dignitary, or a senator, according to Title IX, ch. 2. of the Nomicon of Photius. See also Ap. c. LXXIV.

...
So, note that it is other bishops who do the challenge of a bishop. The correct procedure is for 2 or more lay people to thus talk to their bishop and present evidence directly, and let the bishops decide.

in Christ,
Fr. John
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
55
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Fr. John D-Alton said:
The correct procedure is for 2 or more lay people to thus talk to their bishop and present evidence directly, and let the bishops decide
No, what the Canons say is that lay people can be witnesses against the Bishop. They don't have to approach the offending Bishop themselves, they lodge their complaint with another Bishop/s.
 

Remie

High Elder
Joined
Oct 31, 2002
Messages
508
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Mexico
What can we say about the Novus Ordo?

Should we say that the Rite is uncanonical because it's not connected to Orthodoxy even though it has been corrected? (If this is the case, the Liturgy of St. Tykon would also receive a similar criticism).

Or should we agree with the Latin Traditionalists about all what is wrong in this Paul VI Rite?

This is so confusing.

I would also say that maybe these priests are wearing these vestments because they have no money to buy Orthodox ones or because they're simply not fabricated in that country.

I've seen Latin American Orthodox Church pictures (taken many years ago) where priests were wearing "westernized" vestments because the Byzantine ones had to be brought from other places and they were very expensive.

I would say the same about the Church, in order to have a Byzantine Liturgy celebrated correctly, the church facilities must be adapted propperly, as the acrhitecture used for the modern Western Mass is different from that of the Byzantine church.
 

yochanan

Sr. Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
185
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Philippines
Hmm.. Sorry, I'm just back now..  ;D (it's been years) So.. It is possible for a country to have several jurisdictions.. Any Filipinos watching this thread? Please do help me with this: What jurisdiction would you be in? and what are your reasons?
 

welkodox

Archon
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So there is an Orthodox group that basically uses an unaltered Novus Ordo?  Interesting.
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Location
Mazovia, Poland
AMM said:
So there is an Orthodox group that basically uses an unaltered Novus Ordo?  Interesting.
Are they still using it? I thought it was going to be only temporary.
 

_Seraphim_

High Elder
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
657
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Eugene, Oregon USA
Website
www.orthodoxmysteries.com
Wonderful News!  The Philippines are now on the OrthodoxMysteries world map!  You can see and hear an Orthodox icon and chant from the Philippines at:

http://www.orthodoxmysteries.com/chant-philippine.html


Christ is risen!  Truly He is risen!

Si Kristo ay nabuhay!  Totoo ngang nabuhay!
(Filipino: the official language of the Philippines)

Si Kristo nabanhaw!  Siya nabanhaw gayud!
(Cebuano: from the island of Cebu, the second-largest metropolitan area in the Philippines... provided by a dear friend of mine :) on this forum who lives in that region)
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Location
Mazovia, Poland
_Seraphim_, thank you for the link. Do you know, or can you, please, get information, what rite are they using on the Philippines? Is it still Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Missae or have they turned to one of the Orthodox Liturgies, Eastern or Western?
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Location
Mazovia, Poland
ialmisry said:
Chrystus Zmartwychwstal!
Prawdziwie zmartwychwstal!

ialmisry said:
Btw, what's a Podlachian?
I know that mike is currently busy so I'll try to give you the answer. Here "Podlachian" is an adjective derived from the word "Podlachia" (other forms: Podlesia, Podlasie), a name of a region in the north-eastern part of Poland (please, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podlachia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podlachian).
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,867
Reaction score
81
Points
48
Location
Chicago
Chrystus Zmartwychwstal!
Michał said:
ialmisry said:
Chrystus Zmartwychwstal!
Prawdziwie zmartwychwstal!

ialmisry said:
Btw, what's a Podlachian?
I know that mike is currently busy so I'll try to give you the answer. Here "Podlachian" is an adjective derived from the word "Podlachia" (other forms: Podlesia, Podlasie), a name of a region in the north-eastern part of Poland (please, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podlachia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podlachian).
Dziekuja.

Is this near the Lemkos?
 

sohma_hatori

High Elder
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
527
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, Republic of the Phi
Michał said:
_Seraphim_, thank you for the link. Do you know, or can you, please, get information, what rite are they using on the Philippines? Is it still Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Missae or have they turned to one of the Orthodox Liturgies, Eastern or Western?
To answer that, the Ecumenical Patriarchate here, uses Eastern Rites, while the Antiochian Church, uses Western Rites and even uses the Roman Catholic Calendar (or at least I found out that they do)..
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Location
Mazovia, Poland
sohma_hatori said:
. . .while the Antiochian Church, uses Western Rites
But are they the Liturgy of St. Gregory and/or the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, or simply Novus Ordo (1 hour long, priest facing the people)?

sohma_hatori said:
. . .and even uses the Roman Catholic Calendar
In the US the Western Rite parishes under the Antioch use such a thing: http://www.antiochian.org/node/18577 but I don't know if it is 100% compatible with the Roman Catholic calendar.
 

sohma_hatori

High Elder
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
527
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, Republic of the Phi
They are using the Novus Ordo..

Aren't all Orthodox, regardless of calendar supposed to celebrate only ONE Pascha? Even the Old-Calendar Orthodox Churches have the same Pascha date with the New Calendar Orthodox. The RC Calendar dates a different Pascha, and as I found out, that is what the Antiochians here celebrated..
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Location
Mazovia, Poland
sohma_hatori said:
They are using the Novus Ordo..
I hope it's temporary economia.

sohma_hatori said:
Even the Old-Calendar Orthodox Churches have the same Pascha date with the New Calendar Orthodox.
Rather: even the New Calendar Orthodox Churches have the same Pascha date with the Old Calendar Orthodox. ;)

sohma_hatori said:
The RC Calendar dates a different Pascha, and as I found out, that is what the Antiochians here celebrated..
Well, that made them celebrating in the same time as the Orthodox in Finland and Estonia (although they do it for economy, not for economia ;)).
 

sohma_hatori

High Elder
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
527
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, Republic of the Phi
Michał said:
sohma_hatori said:
They are using the Novus Ordo..
I hope it's temporary economia.

sohma_hatori said:
Even the Old-Calendar Orthodox Churches have the same Pascha date with the New Calendar Orthodox.
Rather: even the New Calendar Orthodox Churches have the same Pascha date with the Old Calendar Orthodox. ;)

sohma_hatori said:
The RC Calendar dates a different Pascha, and as I found out, that is what the Antiochians here celebrated..
Well, that made them celebrating in the same time as the Orthodox in Finland and Estonia (although they do it for economy, not for economia ;)).
I believe it is temporary, after all the members of the Antiochian community in Davao, are urban poor, living in very poor conditions.. A complete set of a Byzantine Bishop's vestments might even cost more than their houses, and im not exaggerating! I do hope they could adopt a canonical Western Liturgy.

And sorry for the mix up of dates..  :D

Also, what's the difference between economy and economia? (forgive my unfamiliarity with the terms)..   
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Location
Mazovia, Poland
sohma_hatori said:
Also, what's the difference between economy and economia? (forgive my unfamiliarity with the terms)..
By economia I meant "the suspension of the absolute and strict applications of canon and church regulations in the governing and the life of the Church, without subsequently compromising the dogmatic limitations" (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_(Eastern_Orthodox_Church)) and by economy - simply managing money (in Finald the Church is granted by the state as long as it has Christmas and Easter at the same time as other Christian communities in the country; I'm not sure if it's also the case in Estonia but I suppose so).
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
55
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
sohma_hatori said:
Also, what's the difference between economy and economia? (forgive my unfamiliarity with the terms)..   
I believe it is a play on words, but the fact is that both words come from the same root and actually share similar meanings.
In ancient Greek, "OIKOS" (pronounced "EEKOS") means "HOUSE" and "NOMOS" means "LAW" or "RULE", so "OIKONOMIA" ("ECONOMIA") means "THE LAW OF THE HOUSE", that is, the rules which regulate how a house runs to keep it functioning. For example, because of my work hours and family commitments, in my house, I receive friends on Saturdays, Mondays and Tuesdays. So the general rule of hospitality which we must practice as Christians is practised in this particular way according to the particular rule ("economia")  of my house. The same applied to governments of nations. While the Constitutional or Federal Law is the "General Rule", the State's budget varies from year to year and province to province, thus the "Economy" of the State (how it is run fiscally) also varies and forms a "Particular Rule".
In the Church, the word "Economia" means the particular way in which the general Canons are to be observed in a local Church. This is contrasted with "Akrevia" which means "Exactness" and is the exact application of the Canons. Thus, for example, the 101st Canon of the Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Council states that we should receive the Body of Christ in our hand and drink the Blood of Christ directly from the Chalice, however, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, this is now only practised by the Clergy, and by the Laity only on the rare occasions when the Liturgy of St. James is offered. The practice of placing the Body in the Chalice and administering both with a Spoon ("labis") is an "economia" which local Bishops once allowed , and has since developed into a tradition. It is not an exact following of the Canons (akrevia), since the Canon still says we should receive directly into our hand, but it is how the Church has come to apply the Canon.
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
28
Points
48
Location
Canada
Faith
Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction
Antioch
The discussion concerning the Finnish date for Pascha has been moved
here.
   I would like to encourage everyone to research past threads on OC.net and/or create their own threads on matters of interest.  IIRC, the "Finnish Question" has certainly been discussed before.
Please try to keep this thread on topic.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator
 
 

Fr. John D-Alton

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Melbourne Australia
I don't think sohma is right. Having spoken to one of the leading Philippino priests it is my understanding that the ex-Protestant group is using the standard Western Rite Orthodox service, and the other group is using an ancient Syrian rite which is Orthodox. In some photos they *look* like they are doing novus ordo because they adopted (were forced to adopt) various catholicisms. But it is NOT novus ordo which no orthodox bishop would allow! I would like to know what evidence sohma has? is it just photos? hearsay? gossip? Or have you actually been to a service? I find it hard to believe various bishops and priests have told me lies over this, so i must assume sohma was just misinformed. Please do clarify.

in Christ,
Fr. John
 

sohma_hatori

High Elder
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
527
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, Republic of the Phi
Fr. John D-Alton said:
I don't think sohma is right. Having spoken to one of the leading Philippino priests it is my understanding that the ex-Protestant group is using the standard Western Rite Orthodox service, and the other group is using an ancient Syrian rite which is Orthodox. In some photos they *look* like they are doing novus ordo because they adopted (were forced to adopt) various catholicisms. But it is NOT novus ordo which no orthodox bishop would allow! I would like to know what evidence sohma has? is it just photos? hearsay? gossip? Or have you actually been to a service? I find it hard to believe various bishops and priests have told me lies over this, so i must assume sohma was just misinformed. Please do clarify.

in Christ,
Fr. John
Father Bless..

Father forgive me.. I have never been to one of the services due to distance. And for a very long time now, I have not been communicating with the Antiochians. The information I have of them using a Novos Ordo rite comes from other people, (who of course are not from the Antiochianns).
 

Fr. John D-Alton

Jr. Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Melbourne Australia
God bless you sohma_hatori,

thank you for your humility and honesty and for clarifying so quickly. Hearsay can really undermine the Church, so please if/when you see your sources let them know that they are jumping to wrong conclusions based on photos and assumptions. The messy Philippines situation needs more people like you willing to ask questions and then find out the facts, rather than spread rumours and cause further schism. It is difficult but we are all called to "endeavour to maintain the unity of the faith in the bond of love".

@Michal and others who wonder....Those parish photos show the ancient Syrian rite they have been using in the Orthodox churches in the Phillippines since before the 1200s, but with the priest now facing the people due to the heavy pressure put on them over centuries by the RC. Many of their priests were persecuted and killed, so they adopted some wrong RC things. Slowly they will change back. But it is not a novus ordo service. It is a valid Syrian rite which actually is very similar to the St. John Chrysostom liturgy.

There is only One Church. When we stop acting like their are separate Greek, Antiochian etc churches then it is better :)
If enough of us follow the lead of Elder Porphyrios of Mt. Athos and live "wounded by love" then the enmity will evaporate.

in Christ,

Fr. John D'Alton
Holy Transfiguration Mission
Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines.

 

collin_nunis

Jr. Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Malaysia
Website
cmnunis.wordpress.com
Bless Fr. John,

well, I guess only Kyr Paul can confirm for himself what liturgies they were using as they would naturally be approved by him. And him being a bishop, as a teacher of the faith, would only want to dispense the right teachings to his flock. Kyr Paul is a lone ranger in his efforts, and will surely be blessed. I was, like many other people, gobsmacked to see the pictures, but I guess Kyr Paul knew what he was doing all along. I wish that the Archdiocese would have released more details about what went on etc. as a few more details would have actually avoided a lot of this online bickering that has taken place. Pictures were one thing, but again, pictures say a thousand words. But again, what's done is done and we should now wish the Filipina Antiochian Orthodox only Christ, and only the best in their Orthodox journey. Whatever rite they maybe, so as long as they're making a difference in society, thats all that matters.

Speaking of the Western Rites, a book called the St. Andrews Service Book is available online as a PDF download. In that book, all the rubrics for the sacramental rites, liturgies, and blessings are prescribed. I would assume that Kyr Paul used that. It was said that Fr. Schmemmann was one of the consultants of the Western Rite project initiated by the late Metropolitan Anthony Bashir.

Speaking of the Novus Ordo, I do believe that it can be Orthodox-ified. As much as I find the Novus Ordo to be highly uninteresting and uninspiring, I do believe that there is much that the Orthodox can do to redeem the Novus Ordo by restoring the riches and truths of ancient Christendom back into the Western Rite through the Novus Ordo. The Orthodox have done a good job SO FAR with the Sarum, Tikhonite/BCP, and Gregorian/Latin liturgical uses, so why can't we one-up the Romans yet again with our own Orthodoxified version of the Novus Ordo? The Novus Ordo is not Orthodox by default, but if the Gospel calls us to worship in spirit and truth, we can bring that warmth of the Holy Spirit into the Novus Ordo. Orthopraxis is possible for the Novus Ordo - we'd just have to do things right.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
130
Reaction score
0
Points
0
God bless you sohma_hatori,

@Michal and others who wonder....Those parish photos show the ancient Syrian rite they have been using in the Orthodox churches in the Phillippines since before the 1200s, but with the priest now facing the people due to the heavy pressure put on them over centuries by the RC. Many of their priests were persecuted and killed, so they adopted some wrong RC things. Slowly they will change back. But it is not a novus ordo service. It is a valid Syrian rite which actually is very similar to the St. John Chrysostom liturgy.

Fr. John D'Alton
Holy Transfiguration Mission
Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines.


Dear Fr. Alton

Am I to understand that the Antiochians in the Philippines claim that the group to which they formerly belonged is a persecuted or catacomb Church of Syrian provenance, that predates the Hispanic conquest of the Philippines in 1565?

If so, then that claim is preposterous. If indeed they made that claim – for that is the only way to interpret your letter – then I have to say that they have uttered a great dishonesty. The fact is that there has not and never been an ancient Syrian Church in the Philippines.

Information about Philippine history prior to the Spanish era is quite incomplete, but enough has survived in the form of Spanish-era chronicles of the historical reminisces of pre-Hispanic Filipinos, in the archaeological record, in the historical records of China, Vietnam and Indonesia, and in the indigenous epic literature and oral traditions of the numerous Muslim and pagan tribes that were never subjugated by the Spaniards. As for Philippine history since 1565, there are literally thousands of relevant volumes of existing records in the Philippines and in Spain, notably, in the Archives of the Indies in Seville, in the records of the Spanish Inquisition, and in the archives of major Catholic religious orders in Spain and Rome. At least 18,000 volumes of original Spanish-era records and documents were destroyed in Old Manila in World War II but not before several comprehensive histories of the Philippines had been written. Hundreds of volumes of the most important documents have been translated by American scholars (the Blair and Robertson series) and can be checked in major university libraries.

If, indeed, a Syrian Church had existed in the Philippines prior to 1565, this would have certainly been noted by the Spanish chroniclers. Many people like to talk about how the Spaniards “liked to destroy native documents” but they often did so mainly to destroy idolatry, while simultaneously documenting the historical and cultural information that they found. Even if, for argument’s sake, the Spaniards did obliterate any mention of the Syrian Church in the Philippines in those areas that they ruled, the Spaniards never conquered precisely those areas of the southern Philippines which had been most heavily connected with the outside world in the pre-Hispanic era, and where a Syrian Church would have logically been found had it really existed in the pre-Hispanic era. These areas were ruled by several sultanates and pagan tribes whose epic literature and cultural customs, distinguished by strong Indian and Arab influences, have largely survived to the present day. There are also references to Philippine affairs in some Chinese and Indonesian historical sources. Surely they would not have failed to mention the existence of a Syrian Church. We know that Buddhist and Hindu kingdoms could be found in the Philippines in the 10th-13th centuries in the Philippines, despite the fact that these two religions were already extinct in the country when the Spaniards arrived in the 16th century – how much more would we know of the Syrian Church in the Philippines had it truly existed?

Mind you, Spanish chroniclers DID mention the presence of Armenian and Greek individuals in Manila, and there was an influx of Indian Sepoys (some of whom may have been Malabar Christians) during the British occupation of 1762-1764, but not even the Greek Orthodox claim to have had an institutional presence in the Philippines during the Spanish era.

At any rate, the Americans conquered the Philippines in 1899-1901 and ruled it until 1946 (except for 2 years under the Japanese), and with the Americans came near-complete religious liberty. Had a Syrian Church existed in the catacombs then, it would surely have emerged at that time. When the Philippines became independent in 1946 it was as a US-style secular democracy, not as a Franco-style Catholic state, and indeed we have had an excellent record of religious freedom since 1901. Where, in all those years, was the supposed Syrian Church in the Philippines? Considering that the Philippine Independent Church (“Aglipayans”) founded in 1902 and which, at one point, had the allegiance of perhaps 30% of the population, zealously tried (and failed) to receive valid episcopal orders even from the Greek Orthodox Church, surely they would have turned to the Syrian Church had it really existed in the Philippines.


Permit me to state the obvious: the fact is that there was no such thing as an ancient Syrian Church in the Philippines, predating the Spanish conquest. ALL – and I mean, ALL – Philippine historians agree that the beginnings of the continuous existence of Christianity came in the 16th century, with the Spaniards. No history book – whether written by Catholic, Protestant, anti-clerical Communist, or secular nationalist – even mentions an ancient Syrian Church in the Philippines. It is true that there is some speculation that there MAY have been Assyrian Christians in the Philippines prior to the Spanish era, but there is no conclusive proof of this, and we can be certain that even if some form of Syrian Christianity had existed in the Philippines prior to Spanish conquest, this did not survive into the present day. It is only in the past couple of decades that vagante groups claiming all sorts of obscure Syrian, Coptic, Greek or Russian lineages have come to the fore. No Philippine history book mentions any “Syrian Church”, much less a persecuted Syrian Church, and given the legendary anti-Catholicism of Filipino historians they would certainly have made much of said “persecution”.

As for the story about how the Antiochian clergy of today dress the way they do because of “pressure” from the Catholics, this is an utterly cheap shot against the Catholic Church in the Philippines. In addition to the fact that complete religious liberty exists (and has existed since c. 1901) in the Philippines, the present way in which Filipino Roman Catholic priests normally vest – with stole over chasuble or chasu-alb, and often without alb or cassock underneath --  and which has been used by the Filipino Antiochians as well, dates back only to c. 1971. Prior to 1971 Filipino Catholic priests vested just like all Latin-Rite priests anywhere in the world. Now, after 1971 – what power or influence did the Filipino Catholic Church have over any other religious body? How could they have “pressured” the Antiochians to adopt contemporary-style Filipino Catholic vesture? It is absurd. The Catholic Church in the Philippines has significant “soft power” but it has absolutely no coercive or constitutional power – it couldn’t even stop the hostile propaganda of so many small Protestant sects! The Philippines has a lot of non-Catholic communities and most of their clergy don’t dress like Catholics at all. The Catholic Church was certainly in no position in 2007 or 2008 (and has not been in that position for the longest time) to tell any non-Catholic how to vest (it couldn’t even enforce a modest dress code inside its own churches!) And why should the Catholic Church even do something of the sort? If anything, the complaint of the Catholic Church against a few sects is the way they like to dress like Catholic priests!

I’m sorry to have to state this, but I would respectfully suggest to the Orthodox to be very careful with the kind of “sob stories” that a lot of people coming from indigenous Filipino sects and homegrown churches like to tell foreigners, especially foreigners who know nothing about the Philippines. I have nothing against Catholics converting to Orthodoxy if they really believe that Orthodoxy is true – but I must, in conscience, tell the Orthodox to be VERY CAUTIOUS with the former members of Filipino sects who would like to come under their mantle. By all means, I think Antioch should do a second round of due diligence with the Filipino groups already under its care.


 
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
130
Reaction score
0
Points
0
filipinopilgrim said:
God bless you sohma_hatori,

@Michal and others who wonder....Those parish photos show the ancient Syrian rite they have been using in the Orthodox churches in the Phillippines since before the 1200s, but with the priest now facing the people due to the heavy pressure put on them over centuries by the RC. Many of their priests were persecuted and killed, so they adopted some wrong RC things. Slowly they will change back. But it is not a novus ordo service. It is a valid Syrian rite which actually is very similar to the St. John Chrysostom liturgy.

Fr. John D'Alton
Holy Transfiguration Mission
Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines.


Dear Fr. Alton

Am I to understand that the Antiochians in the Philippines claim that the group to which they formerly belonged is a persecuted or catacomb Church of Syrian provenance, that predates the Hispanic conquest of the Philippines in 1565?

If so, then that claim is preposterous. If indeed they made that claim – for that is the only way to interpret your letter – then I have to say that they have uttered a great dishonesty. The fact is that there has not and never been an ancient Syrian Church in the Philippines.

Information about Philippine history prior to the Spanish era is quite incomplete, but enough has survived in the form of Spanish-era chronicles of the historical reminisces of pre-Hispanic Filipinos, in the archaeological record, in the historical records of China, Vietnam and Indonesia, and in the indigenous epic literature and oral traditions of the numerous Muslim and pagan tribes that were never subjugated by the Spaniards. As for Philippine history since 1565, there are literally thousands of relevant volumes of existing records in the Philippines and in Spain, notably, in the Archives of the Indies in Seville, in the records of the Spanish Inquisition, and in the archives of major Catholic religious orders in Spain and Rome. At least 18,000 volumes of original Spanish-era records and documents were destroyed in Old Manila in World War II but not before several comprehensive histories of the Philippines had been written. Hundreds of volumes of the most important documents have been translated by American scholars (the Blair and Robertson series) and can be checked in major university libraries.

If, indeed, a Syrian Church had existed in the Philippines prior to 1565, this would have certainly been noted by the Spanish chroniclers. Many people like to talk about how the Spaniards “liked to destroy native documents” but they often did so mainly to destroy idolatry, while simultaneously documenting the historical and cultural information that they found. Even if, for argument’s sake, the Spaniards did obliterate any mention of the Syrian Church in the Philippines in those areas that they ruled, the Spaniards never conquered precisely those areas of the southern Philippines which had been most heavily connected with the outside world in the pre-Hispanic era, and where a Syrian Church would have logically been found had it really existed in the pre-Hispanic era. These areas were ruled by several sultanates and pagan tribes whose epic literature and cultural customs, distinguished by strong Indian and Arab influences, have largely survived to the present day. There are also references to Philippine affairs in some Chinese and Indonesian historical sources. Surely they would not have failed to mention the existence of a Syrian Church. We know that Buddhist and Hindu kingdoms could be found in the Philippines in the 10th-13th centuries in the Philippines, despite the fact that these two religions were already extinct in the country when the Spaniards arrived in the 16th century – how much more would we know of the Syrian Church in the Philippines had it truly existed?

Mind you, Spanish chroniclers DID mention the presence of Armenian and Greek individuals in Manila, and there was an influx of Indian Sepoys (some of whom may have been Malabar Christians) during the British occupation of 1762-1764, but not even the Greek Orthodox claim to have had an institutional presence in the Philippines during the Spanish era.

At any rate, the Americans conquered the Philippines in 1899-1901 and ruled it until 1946 (except for 2 years under the Japanese), and with the Americans came near-complete religious liberty. Had a Syrian Church existed in the catacombs then, it would surely have emerged at that time. When the Philippines became independent in 1946 it was as a US-style secular democracy, not as a Franco-style Catholic state, and indeed we have had an excellent record of religious freedom since 1901. Where, in all those years, was the supposed Syrian Church in the Philippines? Considering that the Philippine Independent Church (“Aglipayans”) founded in 1902 and which, at one point, had the allegiance of perhaps 30% of the population, zealously tried (and failed) to receive valid episcopal orders even from the Greek Orthodox Church, surely they would have turned to the Syrian Church had it really existed in the Philippines.


Permit me to state the obvious: the fact is that there was no such thing as an ancient Syrian Church in the Philippines, predating the Spanish conquest. ALL – and I mean, ALL – Philippine historians agree that the beginnings of the continuous existence of Christianity came in the 16th century, with the Spaniards. No Philippine history book – whether written by Catholic, Protestant, anti-clerical Communist, or secular nationalist – even mentions an ancient Syrian Church in the Philippines. It is true that there is some speculation that there MAY have been Assyrian Christians in the Philippines prior to the Spanish era, but there is no conclusive proof of this, and we can be certain that even if some form of Syrian Christianity had existed in the Philippines prior to Spanish conquest, this did not survive into the present day. It is only in the past couple of decades that vagante groups claiming all sorts of obscure Syrian, Coptic, Greek or Russian lineages have come to the fore. No Philippine history book mentions any “Syrian Church”, much less a persecuted Syrian Church, and given the legendary anti-Catholicism of Filipino historians they would certainly have made much of said “persecution”.

As for the story about how the Antiochian clergy of today dress the way they do because of “pressure” from the Catholics, this is an utterly cheap shot against the Catholic Church in the Philippines. In addition to the fact that complete religious liberty exists (and has existed since c. 1901) in the Philippines, the present way in which Filipino Roman Catholic priests normally vest – with stole over chasuble or chasu-alb, and often without alb or cassock underneath --  and which has been used by the Filipino Antiochians as well, dates back only to c. 1971. Prior to 1971 Filipino Catholic priests vested just like all Latin-Rite priests anywhere in the world. Now, after 1971 – what power or influence did the Filipino Catholic Church have over any other religious body? How could they have “pressured” the Antiochians to adopt contemporary-style Filipino Catholic vesture? It is absurd. The Catholic Church in the Philippines has significant “soft power” but it has absolutely no coercive or constitutional power – it couldn’t even stop the hostile propaganda of so many small Protestant sects! The Philippines has a lot of non-Catholic communities and most of their clergy don’t dress like Catholics at all. The Catholic Church was certainly in no position in 2007 or 2008 (and has not been in that position for the longest time) to tell any non-Catholic how to vest (it couldn’t even enforce a modest dress code inside its own churches!) And why should the Catholic Church even do something of the sort? If anything, the complaint of the Catholic Church against a few sects is the way they like to dress like Catholic priests!

I’m sorry to have to state this, but I would respectfully suggest to the Orthodox to be very careful with the kind of “sob stories” that a lot of people coming from indigenous Filipino sects and homegrown churches like to tell foreigners, especially foreigners who know nothing about the Philippines. I have nothing against Catholics converting to Orthodoxy if they really believe that Orthodoxy is true – but I must, in conscience, tell the Orthodox to be VERY CAUTIOUS with the former members of Filipino sects who would like to come under their mantle. By all means, I think Antioch should do a second round of due diligence with the Filipino groups already under its care.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
55
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
filipinopilgrim said:
Am I to understand that the Antiochians in the Philippines claim that the group to which they formerly belonged is a persecuted or catacomb Church of Syrian provenance, that predates the Hispanic conquest of the Philippines in 1565?

If so, then that claim is preposterous. If indeed they made that claim – for that is the only way to interpret your letter – then I have to say that they have uttered a great dishonesty. The fact is that there has not and never been an ancient Syrian Church in the Philippines.
Interesting how the "Lost Tribe of Israel" type of mythology is being used these days by representatives of even mainstream Churches. And it seems to be most prevalent among the Orthodox, particularly the Western Rite.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,867
Reaction score
81
Points
48
Location
Chicago
ozgeorge said:
filipinopilgrim said:
Am I to understand that the Antiochians in the Philippines claim that the group to which they formerly belonged is a persecuted or catacomb Church of Syrian provenance, that predates the Hispanic conquest of the Philippines in 1565?

If so, then that claim is preposterous. If indeed they made that claim – for that is the only way to interpret your letter – then I have to say that they have uttered a great dishonesty. The fact is that there has not and never been an ancient Syrian Church in the Philippines.
Interesting how the "Lost Tribe of Israel" type of mythology is being used these days by representatives of even mainstream Churches. And it seems to be most prevalent among the Orthodox, particularly the Western Rite.
This is the first time I have ever heard it in connection with the WRO (and this isn't even about the WRO but the Antiochians period).  I find it a lot among the Greek Orthodox, from the Jerusalem Patriarchate to the GOARCH claiming roots from a failed colony of submitters to the Vatican.
 

sohma_hatori

High Elder
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
527
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, Republic of the Phi
The Davao Vicariate of the Antiochians in the Philippines is requesting to canonically leave the Australian Archdiocese for the ROCOR.. I have confirmed this news via Fr. Martinian Balagtas, a Filipino Heirodeacon under ROCOR, to whom His Eminence Vladyka Hilarion has passed the news...
 
Top