• 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
41,872
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Chicago
filipiniana said:
ialmisry said:
ialmisry said:
The Church of Russia reached China, Korea and Japan, and, so it seems, the Philippines , first.  Yet the EP saw fit to install its own hierarchy in those areas.  In the case of China and Korea, for the greater good, given circumstances.  In Japan, for no good purpose.  Where does that leave the Philippines?
'

I repeat myself.

filipiniana said:
THIS IS ANTIOCHIAN BRAND OF ORTHODOXY IN THE PHILIPPINES

What a shame!!!
These Antiochian "Orthodox" priests in the Philippines stick to NO because their Antiochian  Orthodox Primate tell them to do so!  They have their Primate's blessing.

That answers your question why " anyone NO would want to become Orthodox and stick to NO." 
Obedience?

That doesn't explain the reason for the "blessing."

So what explains this:

I'm sorry, but nothing is coming up for your image, so I don't know what "this" is to explain.
 

Elpidophoros

Elder
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Points
16
The Patriarch of Antioch is the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East.  It seems the Philippines are in the East.
If AP really believe the "All the East"theory,and consider the Philippines as Her canonical territory,then why AP never made any protest or announcement when EP began Her own mission in Philippines? When former New Zealand k.k. Dionysios (aionia autou i mnimi!)went to philippines and ordained priests,AP did not say anything.....When former Koreas(now Pisidias)k.k. Sotirios did same thing in philippines,we heard nothing from Antioch.....Same during the period of former Hongkong(now Dardanellion)k.k.Nikitas.......
So,in the past almost 30 years ,AP kept a strange silence,did not make any voice to defend Her own canonical right,and now suddenly broke in this country and treat EP parishes and clergies as non-existence....
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,872
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Chicago
ozgeorge said:
Territorial Jurisdiction According to Orthodox Canon Law.
The Phenomenon of Ethnophyletism in Recent Years

In the ancient Church, each city had its own bishop, who was the president of the eucharistic assembly and its shepherd, responsible for pastoral service in all its guises and the person who “rightly divided the word of truth”. Even small towns or places were the seats of bishops, each of whom exercised a certain episcopal jurisdiction independently of the bishop of the city. Because of the persecutions, the problematical conditions and the awkwardness of the situation for the Church, it was difficult to deftne the boundaries of each of the episcopal regions over which the bishops were to exercise thetr jurisdiction. As a result of this, confusion and conflict often arose within the administration of the Church, over the ordination of clerics or the dependence of presbyters on two bishops, given that there were often two bishops in one and the same place. When the persecution of the Christian Church by the Roman state ceased, the legislative authority of the Church was able to define the boundaries within which the bishop could exercise his episcopal authority. In this way, the canonical provincial administration was formed.

              In the fourth and fifth centuries, the metropolitans/bishops of the Roman Empire, of the capitals of the Dioceses, acquired even greater power, and important ecclesiastical matters were handled in these major cities. The metropolitans of the five most important cities of the Christian world were called Patriarchs, while the metropolitans of the smaller cities, over time, lost their complete independence, though they retained their former title, “metropolitan”, and also their sees. The most important matters of the geographical eccle-siastical region were now handled by the Patriarchal Synod, by which metropolitans were now elected and consecrated, and then installed by the Patriarch. The Patriarchal Synods, under the chairmanship of the Patriarch, were at first made up of the metropolitans, then later also of the bishops of the patriarchal geographical region. The provincial metropolitan/episcopal synods under the chairmanship of the metropolitan were retained, and dealt with local provincial matters. They remained, however, under canonical dependence upon the patriarchs and their synods, in which they also participated.
If I remember correctly you have some Alexandria background, no?

In Alexandria, there was one bishop, the patriarch (or the see that would become) of Alexandria, assisted by 12 presbyters (i.e. chorbishops, but resident in the metropolis).  It was not until Pope St. Demetrius (189–232) that the provinces of Egypt received their own bishops.

The boundaries of the patriarchates are geographical and nothing more. They are not ethnophyletic, cultural, liturgical or anything else of the sort, and were defined by Ecumenical Synods through sacred canons and ecclesiastical regulations in accordance with Christian teaching against racial discrimination, with Orthodox ecclesiology and with canon law and pastoral requirements.

              Canon 6 of the 1st Ecumenical Synod says “Let the old customs prevail as well as the later canons”, and goes on to confirm the geographical boundaries of the jurisdiction of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. “Let the ancient custom prevail which obtained in Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also usually accorded to the bishop in Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch and the other provinces, let seniority be preserved in the churches”. Thus “the bishop of Alexandria precedes those in Egypt, Lybia and the.province of Pentapolis, Africa; Antioch similarly heads Syria, Coele or Hollow Syria, Mesopotamia and both Cilicias...” i. e. the diocese of the East; “and the bishop of Rome is senior in the western provinces”[1.
Actually, the canon was sanctioning a recent change: Libya and the Pentapolis had been indepedent of Egypt and in the West (Tertullian, the Father of the Latin Fathers, hailed from there).  It had recently been attached to Egypt by Diocletian 29 years earlier.



         
     The bishop of Jerusalem, because of the sacred nature of the city “through the redemptive passion of Christ”[2], was declared patriarch by the 4th Ecumenical Synod, with his jurisdiction extended to include the three provinces of Palestine, known as the “Three Palestines”[3]. So Jerusalem was senior to “the provinces in Palestine, in Arabia and in Phoenicia.. .”[4].
At the large expense of the Patriarchate of Antioch (and slightly, Alexandria), and the downgrading of Caesarea.

             
As Patriarchate, Jerusalem occupied the fifth place, after Antioch[5], while since the schism between East and West it has taken the fourth place in the Orthodox Church. In the case of Jerusalem, too, the criteria applied by the 4th Ecumenical Synod for canonical jurisdiction- “ground” — were geographical and no more.

              The Ecumenical Patriarch[6], the Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome, occupies the first place, the primacy of    honour in the canonical structure of the Orthodox Church. This position, as well as his canonical jurisdiction — the “ground” — have been defined by the sacred canons of the Ecumenical Synods, in other words by irreversible ecumenical decisions[7],
No canon is "irreversible." Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon and Canon III of Constantinople I in part reversed Canon VI of Nicea I.  Otherwise, Constantinople has no standing.

and their application is binding for all Orthodox.
but not the recent novel interpretation, the "famous" interpretation.

             
As regards the primacy of honour of Constantinople, this has been legislated for by the 2nd Ecumenical Synod (Canon 3), the 4th (Canon 28) and the Quinisext (Canon 36). Thus: “the Throne of Constantinople shall enjoy equal seniority with the throne of Older Rome, and in matters of the Church shall be magnified as the latter, coming second after it...”[8]. Since the schism Constantinople has held the primacy of honour and of διακονια in the Orthodox Church.

              By a decision (Canon 28) which is of universal status and validity, the 4th Ecumenical Synod confirmed a long tradition and action of the Church as regards the canonical jurisdiction and the territory of the Ecumenical Throne. The geographical extent of its own ground was extended to the then administrations of the Roman Empire in Pontus, Asia and Thrace, as well as to the “barbarian” lands, i. e. those which were outside the boundaries of the then Roman Empire: “... only the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the aforesaid Most Holy Throne of the Most Holy Church of Constantinople and likewise the bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands...”.
We discussed this before:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,17288.msg250573.html#msg250573

             
The adjective “barbarian” defines the noun “nations”, which is omitted from the text of the canon, but which is to be inferred, as Zonaras interprets it[9]. Barbarian nations or countries are, as has been said, those provinces which lay beyond the Roman Empire at the time of the 4th Ecumenical Synod: “While it called bishoprics of the barbarians those of Alania, Russia and others”[10]. The other barbarian lands, apart from Alania and Russia, are, in general, “the Barbarians”, according to the interpretation of Aristenos of Canon 28: “... the (bishops ) of Pontus and Thrace and Asia, as well as the Barbarians, are consecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople...”.
Pontus, Asia and Thrace all lay within the empire but were overrun with barbarians (interestingly, there is no mention of the Armenians nor the Georgians, both of which were Christian nations at the time, and had attended the Ecumenical councils).  If it is as is famously claimed now, then SS. Cyril and Methodius wouldn't have gone to Rome for its blessing their work in Moravia, nor would there have been any question on the status of the Bulgars during the same time.

             
According to the “Notitiae episcopatuum” (Συνταγμάτιον) bearing the name of Emperor Leo the Wise (886-912), but actually dating more or less to the llth century[11], the eparchies of South Italy, i. e. Calabria and Sicily, are also under' the Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople. Besides, according to the “Exposition” of Emperor Andronikos II Palaeologos (1282-1328), which was generally valid until the 19th century, these eparchies were subject to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. With the passage of time, however, this dependence in fact weakened away because of the propinquity of these provinces to Rome and because of the impossibility of Constantinople maintaining communications with them, situated as it was within the Ottoman Empire.
And what "irreversible" canons put Italy under the EP?

             
In the Order “of the Thrones of the Orthodox Eastern Church”, i.e. the (Συνταγμάτιον)of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the year 1855, there is no reference to these eparchies[12].

              Moreover, from the 8th century, all the provinces of Eastern Illyricum, i. e. the Balkan region from the borderş of Thrace to the Adriatic, were removed from the jurisdiction of Rome and placed under the canonical jurisdiction of Constantinople.
And yet the Bulgars had the choice between Old and New Rome.

The newer lands of North and South America, of Australia, the Far East and so on, and also those in general that are outside the boundaries of the local Churches as defined by the sacred canons and the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods, as well as by the Patriairchal and Synodical Tomes, are included in theory, and hence in practice, in the “other” barbarian lands, according to the general terminology of the 4th Ecumenical Synod and of the other synods. This has nothing to do with an ethnological or any other modern cultural definition, but is geographical, since they were not included, at the time of this synod, within the bounds of the then Roman Empire and were not named in the canonical sources, as were Alania or Russia[13].
Among other problems, there is the fact that Alexandria has jurisdiction over all the "barbarian" lands in Africa, including Ethiopia-a Christian nation at the time outside of the Roman empire-and territory formerly under Rome according to canon VI of Nicea I.  Georgia was under Armenia, then Antioch, then Russia, but never under Constantinople.

The Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople thus has canonical jurisdiction over the Orthodox in all the “barbarian” countries which constitute its geographical area and “ground”, while the exercise of its canonical rights over all the Orthodox in these countries should not in any way be considered as being“beyond the boundaries” (of its “ground”), i. e. 10]. Interpretation of Valsamon of Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Synod.

Ah, yes. The Patriarch who never set foot in his patriarchate.  Need I say more.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
ozgeorge said:
Territorial Jurisdiction According to Orthodox Canon Law.
The Phenomenon of Ethnophyletism in Recent Years
Yes, I am familiar with the interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28 currently advanced by the EP.  "We've got first dibs on sending missionaries to lands where the Orthodox Church has no presence.  You keep your missionaries out."  Sounds extremely counterproductive in our efforts to follow the Great Commission to go and make disciples of all the nations. ::)
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,872
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Chicago
PeterTheAleut said:
ozgeorge said:
Territorial Jurisdiction According to Orthodox Canon Law.
The Phenomenon of Ethnophyletism in Recent Years
Yes, I am familiar with the interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28 currently advanced by the EP.  "We've got first dibs on sending missionaries to lands where the Orthodox Church has no presence.  You keep your missionaries out."  Sounds extremely counterproductive in our efforts to follow the Great Commission to go and make disciples of all the nations. ::)
You forgot "famous" interpretaton of Chalcedon Canon 28
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,872
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Chicago
Elpidophoros said:
The Patriarch of Antioch is the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East.  It seems the Philippines are in the East.
If AP really believe the "All the East"theory,and consider the Philippines as Her canonical territory,then why AP never made any protest or announcement when EP began Her own mission in Philippines? When former New Zealand k.k. Dionysios (aionia autou i mnimi!)went to philippines and ordained priests,AP did not say anything.....When former Koreas(now Pisidias)k.k. Sotirios did same thing in philippines,we heard nothing from Antioch.....Same during the period of former Hongkong(now Dardanellion)k.k.Nikitas.......
So,in the past almost 30 years ,AP kept a strange silence,did not make any voice to defend Her own canonical right,and now suddenly broke in this country and treat EP parishes and clergies as non-existence....
The OCA, the PoM and the Autonomous Church of Japan protested a lot when the EP set up their altar agains those already there.  There was no need for them (unlike Korea, China and Hong Kong).

Did the EP notify Antioch it was coming to the Philippines?  I think not.  Nor do I think Antioch would care as long as the Faith was being spread.
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
ialmisry said:
Nor do I think Antioch would care as long as the Faith was being spread.
That's the point. Let both of them spread Holy Orthodox Christian Faith. I hope they'll do it together, not one against another, what the hay in what way.

Philippines are not USA when first stage of missionary work is finished and there's time to "clean up the yard"
 

Veniamin

Archon
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Texas
I've moved this thread from Christian News to FFA because its turned into the usual debate over Canon 28, etc.  Also, please stop reposting the massive photo and quoting said massive photo.  It isn't adding anything new to the discussion when reposted and just causes the page to take even longer to load.
 

Elpidophoros

Elder
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Points
16
The OCA, the PoM and the Autonomous Church of Japan protested a lot when the EP set up their altar agains those already there.  
When and for what Autonomous Church of Japan protested? Do you have any document to prove this?

And when the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America was established ,there was no OCA.Why OCA as a newer jurisdiction protested the older one's presence ???
 

Veniamin

Archon
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Texas
Elpidophoros said:
The OCA, the PoM and the Autonomous Church of Japan protested a lot when the EP set up their altar agains those already there.  
When and for what Autonomous Church of Japan protested? Do you have any document to prove this?

And when the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America was established ,there was no OCA.Why OCA as a newer jurisdiction protested the older one's presence ???
Actually, at that time, the OCA was a part of the MP.  It may not have existed with the name "OCA" but it was still in existence.
 

Elpidophoros

Elder
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Actually, at that time, the OCA was a part of the MP.  It may not have existed with the name "OCA" but it was still in existence.
Ok,so the worst one who "set up their altar agains those already there" should be ROCOR, since ROCOR has same ethnic background as MP——at least the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America can use the "pastoral care for the greekspeakers"as reason to justify them(a weak justification,yes;but better than nothing).
And now what happened?After union ,did MP order ROCOR to join OCA or dissolve their synod(which is 'a synod against the one(of OCA)already there')?
Why blame EP so much? It sounds "blame Canada"stuff....
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,872
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Chicago
Elpidophoros said:
The OCA, the PoM and the Autonomous Church of Japan protested a lot when the EP set up their altar agains those already there.  
When and for what Autonomous Church of Japan protested? Do you have any document to prove this?
This was before '92.  I'd have to go looking it up.  Something to do with the needs of Greek expats in Japan, and the EP setting something up, without any invovlement of the OCJ.

And when the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America was established ,there was no OCA.Why OCA as a newer jurisdiction protested the older one's presence ???
The OCA is the successor of the Russian Metropolia, a diocese of the PoM, which predated the GOA.

What I was referring to, however, was the OCA's voiced support for the OCJ.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,872
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Chicago
Elpidophoros said:
Actually, at that time, the OCA was a part of the MP.  It may not have existed with the name "OCA" but it was still in existence.
Ok,so the worst one who "set up their altar agains those already there" should be ROCOR, since ROCOR has same ethnic background as MP——at least the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America can use the "pastoral care for the greekspeakers"as reason to justify them(a weak justification,yes;but better than nothing).
And now what happened?After union ,did MP order ROCOR to join OCA or dissolve their synod(which is 'a synod against the one(of OCA)already there')?
Why blame EP so much? It sounds "blame Canada"stuff....
I wasn't aware the EP was in Canada.  In fact, since I've been to St. Georges in the Phanar, and Canada, I know he's not.

Its not a question of ethnicity, but geography, as Ozgeorge's post claims.

When the OCA became autonomous, there were parishes that remained with the PoM.  ROCOR now falls under that rubric.

And ROCOR can claim to have already been here, something the GOA tries to claim, but cannot.
 

Elpidophoros

Elder
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Points
16
This was before '92.  I'd have to go looking it up.  Something to do with the needs of Greek expats in Japan, and the EP setting something up, without any invovlement of the OCJ.
In fact ,when the Exarchate of Korea was raised to the rank of a Metropolis in 2004, at the same time the exarchate of Nihon was established under this metropolis(nominally,no actual 'altar' was set up in Japan).But as far as I know Autonomous Church of Japan did not protest for this.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,872
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Chicago
Elpidophoros said:
This was before '92.  I'd have to go looking it up.  Something to do with the needs of Greek expats in Japan, and the EP setting something up, without any invovlement of the OCJ.
In fact ,when the Exarchate of Korea was raised to the rank of a Metropolis in 2004, at the same time the exarchate of Nihon was established under this metropolis(nominally,no actual 'altar' was set up in Japan).But as far as I know Autonomous Church of Japan did not protest for this.
Japan has no jurisidiction over Korea.  It is a question of the PoM.

And the Exarchate of Korea has no place in Japan.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,872
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Chicago
Elpidophoros said:
Japan has no jurisidiction over Korea. 
MP thought Japan had jurisdiction over Korea even after IIWW.
No.  The MP didn't even have oversight over Japan at the time.  The restoration of that was involved in the autocephalacy of the OCA.

And the Exarchate of Korea has no place in Japan.
The Exarchate of Korea no more exist since 2004.[/quote]
Then the Metropolate of Korea.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
55
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Oh Good, now that we are in FFA, I can say this:
Antioch has, once again, created a disastrous mess and will leave a lot of disillusioned and hurt people in it's wake again.
The sooner you all join the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Philippines the better.
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
everybody blows his own horn
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,872
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Chicago
ozgeorge said:
Oh Good, now that we are in FFA, I can say this:
Antioch has, once again, created a disastrous mess and will leave a lot of disillusioned and hurt people in it's wake again.
The sooner you all join the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Philippines the better.
Oh yeah.  That worked so well in Sweden.

Ah, the tranquillity of Alexandria and all of Africa.  Glad the attempts to get involved in the "diaspora" mess got clipped.

Once again?  What, pray tell, prior messes are you alluding to?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,872
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Chicago
ozgeorge said:
Ah, yes.  The Grand Pot calling all the kettles black.  The phanriots had some many logs at the Council of 1872 that they could have set a bonfire, rather than worrying about the Bulgarians' specks.

Not to mention a little revisionism:
Historical developments and events brought changes as regards the seat of this metropolis and its geographical boundaries until the political and ecclesiastical centre was stabilized at Moscow. When Moscow became the dominant power in the region, its bishop was recognized as the Metropolitan of Russia. In the year 1459, because of the difficultieş in communication between Moscow and Constantinople following the capture of the latter by the Ottomans (1453), the Metropolitan of Russia was made independent of the Ecumenical Patriarch as regards his election, while the see was divided into two: the Metropolis of Moscow and that of Kiev.

              In the year 1588, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremiah II, went to Moscow, where he agreed to elevate the Metropolis of Moscow to the rank of Patriarchate and, under pressure, ordained (sic) Job, the Metropolitan of Moscow, as Patriarch on 26 January, 1589.
Kiev became independent because Constantinople had fallen into apostacy and submitted to the Vatican, which Moscow (where the metropolitan of Kiev had relocated) refused to do, deposing its metropolitan Isodore in the process.

Job was ordained by the patriarch of Jerusalem.

Cognizant of its responsibilities towards Orthodoxy, as the First Throne of the Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, independently of the conditions prevailing at the time, adopted a position against this most significant phenomenon. Initially, it censured the Greeks (1833-1850) and then, at the Great (Μείζων) Local Synod in Constantinople (1872), went on to condemn ethnophyletism, which was not merely a deviation from the healthy love of one's nation and state, but constitutes a real impediment to cooperation between local Orthodox Churches in the world and is the greatest enemy to the unity of the Church.
Oh, please.  Every Orthodox, including the Greeks, who lived under the Ottomans knows what the "Phanoriots" means.  Independently of conditions?  The EP had even less independence than he has today.

But the principle of phyletism also overturns the sacred structure of the Orthodox Church. The structure of the Orthodox Church, i.e. its administrative organization as a visible communion, is apparent in the sum total of its legislation, which is made up of the divine and sacred canons of the holy Apostles and of the Holy Synods, both ecumenical and local. Any action referring to the Church and tending towards the infringement of these canons in whole or in part, essentially violates the very structure of the Church... Canon 8, for instance, of the 1st Ecumenical Synod legislates that: “there be not two bishops in the city”. But, according to the principle of phyletism, two, three, or more bishops of the same faith can have their seats in the same city; in other words, as many as there are races living there. Canon 12 of the 4th Ecumenical Synod states: “Let there not be two metrqpolitans in the same eparchy”. But, according to phyletism, two or more metropolitans can have one and the same province as their see, depending on the number of races there[23].

              Stricture against abrogation of the Church politeuma[24] (by phyletism) is even clearer in the Churches of the Dioceses (Patriarchates and autocephalous Churches). Canon 2 of the 2nd Ecumenical Synod says:

“Let bishops not go to churches beyond the boundaries of their own dioceses...”
Maybe the Archbishop of Greece Meletios should have read that before he came here and helped himself to the Greeks of the Diocese of the Aleutians and North America, and them placed it under himself, and then transferred it to himself as EP leading up to his other legacy, the Calendar synod of 1923.

The missionaries and emigrants, living and working in the region proper to the Patriarch of Alexandria, and with his canonical permission, are automatically placed under his jurisdiction. The same is true in Antioch, in Jerusalem and so on. This ought also to be the case in the new ecclesiastical provinces of America, Australia and so on, though it is not so because here the criteria of ethnophylestism prevail to this day[27].
The Church of Jerusalem is run by and for missionaries and emigrants. It would be still so, were it not for the PoM,  in Antioch, who had the audacity of wanting to run their own patriarch for the Faithful of the patriarchate, not the Phanar.

Ethnophylestism didn't prevail until Meletius brought them to the US.

 

filipiniana

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
  Nor do I think Antioch would care [size=10pt]as long as the Faith was being spread[/size].
This is what brand of Orthodox "Faith" the Antiochians are spreading in the Philippines:



              His Eminence Metropolitan Paul Saliba with his newly ordained priests in the Philippines
 

filipiniana

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Points
0
mike said:
That's the point. Let both of them spread Holy Orthodox Christian Faith. I hope they'll do it together, not one against another, what the hay in what way.
The problem is the ANTIOCHIANS are spreading a BASTARDIZED version of Orthodoxy! Look at the picture below.


Filipiniana:  Please pay closer attention to moderational requests in future.  Veniamin has already asked people not to continually post these large photos.  If this happens again, you may receive a formal warning.   Thank you for your cooperation.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator.
 

filipiniana

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ozgeorge said:
mike said:
everybody blows his own horn
Perhaps. But I'm also listening to the people who are in the middle of this mess. Something Antioch and it's advocates apparently are not doing.
So where's Sohma hatori when you need him? :( He's been an advocate of this Antiochian enterprise in the Philippines. I was also an advocate until my disillusionment with the brand of Orthodoxy these Antiochians are trying to spread and promote in my country. Now I take side with the Filipino Diakonia  (Annunciation Cathedral -EP) in their condemnation of the Antiochian's MISREPRESENTATION of Orthodoxy in the Philippines.
 

filipiniana

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Now lets get back to the topic: "Conversions in the Philippines".
Las Islas Filipinas wrote:

Islas Filipinas said:
From: http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/cannons_apostles_rudder.htm

34. It behoves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

35. A Bishop shall not dare to confer ordinations outside of his own boundaries, in cities and, territories not subject to him. If he be proved to have done so against the wishes of those having possession of those cities or territories, let him be deposed, as well as those whom he ordained.

(c. II of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XX of the 6th; cc. XIII, XXII of Antioch; cc. Ill, XI, XII of’the Sardican.).
We seems to be forgetting something very important here.   Have we forgotten the secret  (under-the-table)  "AGREEMENT" made between the EP and the Patriarch of the East regarding the Philippines?  Since most of you can't hardly remember, I'll refresh your mind once again. Let me quote  the message posted last year by Rev. Fr. John D'Alton (Antiochian Orthodox, Australia):

Fr. John D-Alton said:

[size=10pt]The facts are that the negotiations between the EP and Met. Paul and Antioch have been long and far more complex than stated here.
Secondly there is a very cordial working agreement, not animosity as suggested here at times. Thirdly, in no canonical sense have non_Orthodox been made "vicars", however, that term has been used out of respect for current evangelical leaders position.

Fourthly, while everyone is aware of the problem of the overlapping of jurisdictions (we have it here in Australia too), Antioch (and the EP) work pragmatically *now* despite this, while working to resolve this uncanonical situation in the *future*.

Fifthly, the services have been modified to make them Orthodox. Antioch has always had a broader range of services than some other jurisdictions. Really, assuming that a bishop would overlook this is a sad reflection on lay distrust of bishops.

People should not read bad motives, uncanonical intent nor unOrthodox actions into anything that has happened.


in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton, Antiochian Orthodox, Australia, writing as a priest, not in any official capacity for the archdiocese.[/size]
Now you see Las Islas Filipinas?  Its not only the leaders of the Antiochian Church but likewise the leaders of the EP are to be blamed for this jurisdictional MESS  in the Philippines.  There are certain things that these Orthodox leaders does not want their Filipino subjects to know and these things are being kept for a reason.  But in fairness to the EP jurisdiction, they are really promoting Eastern Orthodoxy (Orthodox Tradition and Liturgy) to the Filipinos unlike the  Antiochian jurisdiction which is compromising Orthodox Tradition and Liturgy and the Faith itself by spreading and promoting vagante (bastardized) brand of Orthodoxy.


 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
55
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
filipiniana said:
Now you see Las Islas Filipinas?  Its not only the leaders of the Antiochian Church but likewise the leaders of the EP are to be blamed for this jurisdictional MESS  in the Philippines.  There are certain things that these Orthodox leaders does not want their Filipino subjects to know and these things are being kept for a reason. 
Absolute rubbish. There are no "secret meetings"- this is conspiratorial nonsense.
Look at it logically: to what end would such "agreements" be made for? What would anyone hope to gain?
The position of the Oecumenical Patriarchate is absolutely clear, as seen in the article I posted which comes from their official website:
http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=287&tla=en
 

filipiniana

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ozgeorge said:
filipiniana said:
Now you see Las Islas Filipinas?  Its not only the leaders of the Antiochian Church but likewise the leaders of the EP are to be blamed for this jurisdictional MESS  in the Philippines.  There are certain things that these Orthodox leaders does not want their Filipino subjects to know and these things are being kept for a reason. 
Absolute rubbish. There are no "secret meetings"- this is conspiratorial nonsense.
Look at it logically: to what end would such "agreements" be made for? What would anyone hope to gain?
The position of the Oecumenical Patriarchate is absolutely clear, as seen in the article I posted which comes from their official website:
http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=287&tla=en
Please do not put rubbish words into my mouth ozgeorge.  Read my previous post again. I did not said "SECRET MEETINGS" as you erroneously alleged. I specifically wrote "SECRET (UNDER THE TABLE) AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EP AND THE PATRIARCH OF THE EAST".

This is evidenced by what Rev. Fr. John D'Alton (Antiochian Orthodox Church, Australia) revealed to us when he wrote: "The facts are that the negotiations between the EP and Met. Paul and Antioch have been long and far more complex than stated here. Secondly there is a very cordial working agreement, not animosity as suggested here at times."

Tell me ozgeorge, do you know or does anyone knows anything about the details of these "negotiations"  between "the EP, Metropolitan Paul AND Antioch"?  How about the said  "very cordial working agreement" ? Do you know anything about the details of this "VERY CORDIAL WORKING AGREEMENT" between the EP, the Metropolitan of Australia and the Patriarch of Antioch?  You don't know and nobody knows in the Philippines except these Greek and Antiochian hierarchs themselves. Therefore, they are "SECRET UNDER THE TABLE AGREEMENT".   It pays to use your COMMON SENSE once in a while.  The Filipinos are not as STUPID as many of you think.

So who are guilty of transgressing the CANONS here? I think Las Islas Filipinas knows the answer now.  The presence of the Antiochians in the Philippines has the blessing of the EP in Constantinople.


Fr. John D-Alton said:

[size=10pt]The facts are that the negotiations between the EP and Met. Paul and Antioch have been long and far more complex than stated here.
Secondly there is a very cordial working agreement, not animosity as suggested here at times. Thirdly, in no canonical sense have non_Orthodox been made "vicars", however, that term has been used out of respect for current evangelical leaders position.

Fourthly, while everyone is aware of the problem of the overlapping of jurisdictions (we have it here in Australia too), Antioch (and the EP) work pragmatically *now* despite this, while working to resolve this uncanonical situation in the *future*.

Fifthly, the services have been modified to make them Orthodox. Antioch has always had a broader range of services than some other jurisdictions. Really, assuming that a bishop would overlook this is a sad reflection on lay distrust of bishops.

People should not read bad motives, uncanonical intent nor unOrthodox actions into anything that has happened.


in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton, Antiochian Orthodox, Australia, writing as a priest, not in any official capacity for the archdiocese.[/size]
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,872
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Chicago
ozgeorge said:
filipiniana said:
Now you see Las Islas Filipinas?  Its not only the leaders of the Antiochian Church but likewise the leaders of the EP are to be blamed for this jurisdictional MESS  in the Philippines.  There are certain things that these Orthodox leaders does not want their Filipino subjects to know and these things are being kept for a reason. 
Absolute rubbish. There are no "secret meetings"- this is conspiratorial nonsense.
Look at it logically: to what end would such "agreements" be made for? What would anyone hope to gain?
The position of the Oecumenical Patriarchate is absolutely clear, as seen in the article I posted which comes from their official website:
http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=287&tla=en
Yes, I think George and I are in agreement here: the jurisdictional mess is quite public, with quite public positions, in the Philippines, here in the US, and I assume also in Australia.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Oh my goodness... so this is how Orthodoxy works in your country and trying to bring that attitude in the Philippines... what under the table? what negotiations? cordial agreement?

As far as I can recall I never heard nor I saw in any websites or from the mouth of both jurisdictions that there is such an agreement (whether secret or for heaven's sake made it in public)...

Don't you get it people until now... if there's indeed a good relationship or let us say "good working relationship" between the two because of this agreement or cordial gestures from Antiohian Archdiocese... HEY, COME TO THINK OF THIS AND TRY TO ANSWER THIS IALMISRY....

1. Why did not Met. Paul visited or pay a visit to the EP's parishes or to EP's Cathedral which is just 15 minutes away from the International and domestic airports of Manila?

2. Why there was no any public announcement or news in the Antiochian's website that indeed that the two Patriarchates are in agreement in the Philippines?

3. If indeed there is a cordial agreement as what the good Father said and which you agreed, why did His Eminence Metropolitan Paul of Australia, New Zealnd included Philippines in his jurisdictional title when he knows that the Philippines is currently under OMHKSEA?

4. And lastly, as Sohma's confusion and his concerned about the canonicity of his current parishes and communities, WHY none from the Antiochian's part dare to breach this gap?

You see, and the worst and what makes us feel bad is this, WE ALWAYS SAY AND IT IS A FACT THAT WE ARE ALL UNITED IN ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, MYSTERIES, ET. AL. but it seems that everyone here by justifying the action of Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia completely disregarded the ETHICAL AND MORAL standards of our faith...

As you can see, Filipiniana already provided with you hundreds of Vagantes in the Philippines claiming to be Orthodox and descendants of whose saints of our Church... HOW ARE WE GOING TO RAISE THE BANNER OF CHRIST, OF OUR LORD AND HIS CHURCH IF THE OTHER PARISHES OR JUST ONE CITY AWAY THERE ARE GROUPS WHO CALLED THEMSELVES ORTHODOX... CANONICAL ORTHODOX and yet far from truth...

As reported there are already some R. Catholic Dioceses advising their flock to take care from this so called Orthodox Churches...

It hurts me and the rest of us here when we say that Yes, we are Orthodox and yet what they know about us are more worst than what these Vagantes are doing... soliciting using the orthdox name, marrying homosexuals, doing baptism and chrismation (confirmation) in some local communities...

THIS IS WHY WE ARE SADDENNED BY THE WAY ANTIOCH CAME AND PRESENTED ORTHODOXY (as I've said before, personally I am not against the coming of other sister Churches because the Philippines s too big)... mixed nuts... I am sorry... claim whatever you would like to claim... east, west, north ad south BUT IT DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE ARE ALL ACCOUNTED HERE FOR THE MESS IN THE PHILIPPINES... WHETHER YOU ARE OLD CALENDARIST OR NEW CALNDARIST.. THE FACT THAT EVERYONE HERE TRY TO IGNORES WHAT THAT CANON SAYS JUST TO JUSTIFY AND TO SAY THAT HEY.... WE ARE ADVANCING... A TRUE BROTHER HELPS HIS BROTHER IN TIME OF NEEDS AND DOES NOT WORK AT THE BACK OF HIS BROTHER...

Thank you and I call al the Administrators here to shutdown this topic as no one really takes seriously of what is happening in the Philippines...

It's sad that what are our Church Fathers have paid by their blood and martyrdom are just ignored by people who knows more the Canon than us Filipinos.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
55
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
ialmisry said:
Yes, I think George and I are in agreement here: the jurisdictional mess is quite public, with quite public positions, in the Philippines, here in the US, and I assume also in Australia.
Indeed. I think filipiniana mistakenly believes that this uncanonical jurisdictional situation is unique to the Philippines. It isn't.
As the Oecumenical Patriarchate states, the preparatory committee of the upcoming Great Synod of the Orthodox Church is already dealing with this problem. As the preparatory committee points out, while on the one hand, the canonical disorder caused by having more than one Bishop for the same geographical area needs to be resolved, this does not require the abandonment of culturally different Churches.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
55
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Islas Filipinas said:
Thank you and I call al the Administrators here to shutdown this topic as no one really takes seriously of what is happening in the Philippines...
That is a silly reason to close a thread. Just because some people are not listening to the pain this is causing is no reason to close the thread, in fact the opposite is the case.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,872
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Chicago
Islas Filipinas said:
Oh my goodness... so this is how Orthodoxy works in your country and trying to bring that attitude in the Philippines... what under the table? what negotiations? cordial agreement?

As far as I can recall I never heard nor I saw in any websites or from the mouth of both jurisdictions that there is such an agreement (whether secret or for heaven's sake made it in public)...
I said public.

I didn't say agreement.

Don't you get it people until now... if there's indeed a good relationship or let us say "good working relationship" between the two because of this agreement or cordial gestures from Antiohian Archdiocese... HEY, COME TO THINK OF THIS AND TRY TO ANSWER THIS IALMISRY....

1. Why did not Met. Paul visited or pay a visit to the EP's parishes or to EP's Cathedral which is just 15 minutes away from the International and domestic airports of Manila?
Would they open the door?

The EP is notorious for not letting the OCA in at anything, while dragging, say, its Estonians along.

I don't know the answer to my first question.  I ask it knowing how things are here and elsewhere.

2. Why there was no any public announcement or news in the Antiochian's website that indeed that the two Patriarchates are in agreement in the Philippines?
Again, you said agreement, not I.

3. If indeed there is a cordial agreement as what the good Father said and which you agreed, why did His Eminence Metropolitan Paul of Australia, New Zealnd included Philippines in his jurisdictional title when he knows that the Philippines is currently under OMHKSEA?
OMHKSEA?

Which good Father am I agreeing with?

4. And lastly, as Sohma's confusion and his concerned about the canonicity of his current parishes and communities, WHY none from the Antiochian's part dare to breach this gap?
This gap?  As different from the other confusion on the canonical jurisdiction in much of the world?

You see, and the worst and what makes us feel bad is this, WE ALWAYS SAY AND IT IS A FACT THAT WE ARE ALL UNITED IN ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, MYSTERIES, ET. AL. but it seems that everyone here by justifying the action of Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia completely disregarded the ETHICAL AND MORAL standards of our faith...
Except for a picture, I've gotten few details and a lot of accusations of what is going on.

As you can see, Filipiniana already provided with you hundreds of Vagantes in the Philippines claiming to be Orthodox and descendants of whose saints of our Church... HOW ARE WE GOING TO RAISE THE BANNER OF CHRIST, OF OUR LORD AND HIS CHURCH IF THE OTHER PARISHES OR JUST ONE CITY AWAY THERE ARE GROUPS WHO CALLED THEMSELVES ORTHODOX... CANONICAL ORTHODOX and yet far from truth...
Well, if it was America, they'd sue....

As reported there are already some R. Catholic Dioceses advising their flock to take care from this so called Orthodox Churches...
Unfortunately, we can't enforce our copyright to the Orthodox name.

It hurts me and the rest of us here when we say that Yes, we are Orthodox and yet what they know about us are more worst than what these Vagantes are doing... soliciting using the orthdox name, marrying homosexuals, doing baptism and chrismation (confirmation) in some local communities...

THIS IS WHY WE ARE SADDENNED BY THE WAY ANTIOCH CAME AND PRESENTED ORTHODOXY (as I've said before, personally I am not against the coming of other sister Churches because the Philippines s too big)... mixed nuts... I am sorry... claim whatever you would like to claim... east, west, north ad south BUT IT DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE ARE ALL ACCOUNTED HERE FOR THE MESS IN THE PHILIPPINES... WHETHER YOU ARE OLD CALENDARIST OR NEW CALNDARIST.. THE FACT THAT EVERYONE HERE TRY TO IGNORES WHAT THAT CANON SAYS JUST TO JUSTIFY AND TO SAY THAT HEY.... WE ARE ADVANCING... A TRUE BROTHER HELPS HIS BROTHER IN TIME OF NEEDS AND DOES NOT WORK AT THE BACK OF HIS BROTHER...
As Ozgeorge points out, you are not alone, unfortunately, in this in the Philippines.

Thank you and I call al the Administrators here to shutdown this topic as no one really takes seriously of what is happening in the Philippines...
We take it seriously.  I would just like to have more facts.

It's sad that what are our Church Fathers have paid by their blood and martyrdom are just ignored by people who knows more the Canon than us Filipinos.
It's not a Filipino alone, not by a long shot.  Look at the problems between Constantinople and Moscow, both Orthodox for some time now.
 

filipiniana

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
The Patriarch of Antioch is the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East.  It seems the Philippines are in the East.
It appears that Russia, China, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia etc are also in the East. So according to your line of reasoning ialmisry the Patriarch of Antioch is also the canonical Patriarch of Russia, China  "and all the East".  Please stop fooling yourself ialmisry.


ialmisry said:
The Church of Russia reached China, Korea and Japan, and, so it seems, the Philippines , first.  Yet the EP saw fit to install its own hierarchy in those areas.  In the case of China and Korea, for the greater good, given circumstances.  In Japan, for no good purpose.  Where does that leave the Philippines?
Again ialmisry, please do a little more research. It is not the Russians who came "first" in the Philippines. There were already Greeks, Armenians and Syrians in Manila during the 1800's. Likewise there is no historical record or any documentary evidence whatsoever that the Church of Russia installed its own hierarchy (or a native Orthodox hierarchy) in the Philippines (this only exist in the imaginations of vagante Patriarchs and unfortunately also your wild imaginations ialmisry).  If you can't provide any material and documentary evidence to support your allegations then you better stop imagining and assuming things.  The fact is, the EP has already installed its own hierarchy for the Philippines and South East Asia since 1997 and thus establishing the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia (OMHKSEA). From 1997 up to 2008, His Eminence Metropolitan Nikitas has made numerous Pastoral visits to the Philippines and other countries in South East Asia under his canonical jurisdiction. 

The present Antiochian Hierarch, His Eminence Archbishop Paul Saliba only set foot (again CLANDESTINELY) in the Philippines in OCTOBER 2007 to ordain a Filipino-American as a Deacon for the now defunct "Antiochian Orthodox Christian Mission in the Philippines" but the whole enterprise  ended in a fiasco. I said clandestinely because nobody from the local canonical Orthodox clergy under EP was informed of this undertaking by the then Metropolitan Archbishop now Primate of the Philippines, His Eminence Paul Saliba. The failed enterprise was described by a priest from  another jurisdiction as "a big blunder on the part of the Archbishop."  Sadly that was not the last "blunder" but only the first.

By the way the official website of  OMHKSEA has been recently updated. Please visit:
Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia (OMHKSEA)

 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,428
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Location
Missouri, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
I hope that there can a good resolution to all of this.  We are supposed to be brothers.  We hell, I'm not even fully Orthodox yet.  It is things like this that remind me that the important thing is my own local church and seeking Christ there, not trying to fix the whole Orthodox world!
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,872
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Chicago
filipiniana said:
ialmisry said:
The Patriarch of Antioch is the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East.  It seems the Philippines are in the East.
It appears that Russia,
uh, no.  Russia is in the North.  And Antioch would have to go through Constantinople to get there.

China, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia etc are also in the East. So according to your line of reasoning ialmisry the Patriarch of Antioch is also the canonical Patriarch of Russia, China  "and all the East".
Russia is autocephalous.  She elected her canonical Patriarch just recently.  Patriarch Ignatius of Antioch will be commemorating Patriarch Cyril in the diptychs.

Please stop fooling yourself ialmisry.
::)

ialmisry said:
The Church of Russia reached China, Korea and Japan, and, so it seems, the Philippines , first.  Yet the EP saw fit to install its own hierarchy in those areas.  In the case of China and Korea, for the greater good, given circumstances.  In Japan, for no good purpose.  Where does that leave the Philippines?
Again ialmisry, please do a little more research.
A little hard 10,000 miles away.

It is not the Russians who came "first" in the Philippines.
So far, the only claims, let alone documentation, that I have seen with the first Orthodox Church in the Philippines, are those of the Russians.

There were already Greeks, Armenians and Syrians in Manila during the 1800's.
As I think I've stated, knowing the facts behind such statements in the US makes me wonder about their applicability in the Philippines.

Likewise there is no historical record or any documentary evidence whatsoever that the Church of Russia installed its own hierarchy (or a native Orthodox hierarchy) in the Philippines
The above mentioned Orthodox Cathedral, and St. John's presence, which I haven't seen denied by anyone.

(this only exist in the imaginations of vagante Patriarchs and unfortunately also your wild imaginations ialmisry).
::)
If you can't provide any material and documentary evidence to support your allegations then you better stop imagining and assuming things.  The fact is, the EP has already installed its own hierarchy for the Philippines and South East Asia since 1997 and thus establishing the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia (OMHKSEA). From 1997 up to 2008, His Eminence Metropolitan Nikitas has made numerous Pastoral visits to the Philippines and other countries in South East Asia under his canonical jurisdiction.
 

Btw, I know His Eminence quite well, back in the day when he was just Father Nikitas.

The present Antiochian Hierarch, His Eminence Archbishop Paul Saliba only set foot (again CLANDESTINELY) in the Philippines in OCTOBER 2007 to ordain a Filipino-American as a Deacon for the now defunct "Antiochian Orthodox Christian Mission in the Philippines" but the whole enterprise  ended in a fiasco. I said clandestinely because nobody from the local canonical Orthodox clergy under EP was informed of this undertaking by the then Metropolitan Archbishop now Primate of the Philippines, His Eminence Paul Saliba. The failed enterprise was described by a priest from  another jurisdiction as "a big blunder on the part of the Archbishop."  Sadly that was not the last "blunder" but only the first.

By the way the official website of  OMHKSEA has been recently updated. Please visit:
Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia (OMHKSEA)
http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/

Alveus Lacuna said:
I hope that there can a good resolution to all of this.  We are supposed to be brothers.  We hell,
wrong place.
I'm not even fully Orthodox yet.  It is things like this that remind me that the important thing is my own local church and seeking Christ there, not trying to fix the whole Orthodox world!
AMEN.
 

filipiniana

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
uh, no.  Russia is in the North.  And Antioch would have to go through Constantinople to get there.
:p

Oh no! The Philippines is in South East Asia.

ialmisry said:
Russia is autocephalous.  She elected her canonical Patriarch just recently.  Patriarch Ignatius of Antioch will be commemorating Patriarch Cyril in the diptychs.
So that clearly explains why the Antiochian Patriarch can not claim himself as "Patriarch of ALL the EAST"  ::)

ialmisry said:
The above mentioned Orthodox Cathedral, and St. John's presence, which I haven't seen denied by anyone.

What Russian "Cathedral" and where is this Cathedral?  You are imagining things again ialmisry ::)




The present Antiochian Hierarch, His Eminence Archbishop Paul Saliba only set foot (again CLANDESTINELY) in the Philippines in OCTOBER 2007 to ordain a Filipino-American as a Deacon for the now defunct "Antiochian Orthodox Christian Mission in the Philippines" but the whole enterprise  ended in a fiasco. I said clandestinely because nobody from the local canonical Orthodox clergy under EP was informed of this undertaking by the then Metropolitan Archbishop now Primate of the Philippines, His Eminence Paul Saliba. The failed enterprise was described by a priest from  another jurisdiction as "a big blunder on the part of the Archbishop."  Sadly that was not the last "blunder" but only the first.

By the way the official website of  OMHKSEA has been recently updated. Please visit:
Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia (OMHKSEA)
ialmisry said:
http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/
Have a look at this site, this is the result of Archbishop Paul Saliba's first  "big blunder" in the Philippines:

http://www.orthodox.org.ph/



 

filipiniana

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Now for the brighter side of canonical Orthodoxy in the Philippines, let me share to my Filipino Orthodox faithful abroad this good news:

New Ordinations

On Friday 12 and Saturday 13 December (2008), Metropolitan Nektarios of Hong Kong and Southeast Asia ordained two new clergyman in Manila, Philippines. The new Priest, Fr.George, is married an has five children and he will serve in Masbate, South Philippines. In Masbate there is a small Orthodox Community and the Monastery of the Birth of Theotokos with four Nuns. The new Deacon, Fr. James, is married and has three children. He will serve in Manila at the Annunciation Cathedral.




 

SOURCE: Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia


...
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Photo Gallery from Antiochian metropolitan's visit.

filipiniana said:
Now for the brighter side of canonical Orthodoxy in the Philippines, let me share to my Filipino Orthodox faithful abroad this good news:
Both Antiochian and Constatninopolitan are canonical and are in communion. They are both the same faith and the same Church, no matter what do You think about this. You may not accept Antiochian practises (for me Novus Ordo is also something at least strange) but You cannot insult the one jurisdiction and say it's better than the other one. Practises may be better, more proper but the "importance" is the same.

There are many areas where are several different EO canonical jurisdictions. For example in the USA there are bout 15 not 2 You have in Your country.
 

Thomas

Archon
Joined
Jan 14, 2003
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
70
Location
Temple, Texas
I note in your reference to  http://www.orthodox.org.ph/

you fail to note that the Liturgies that they publish are those utilized by the Eastern Orthodox Church, namely:
Wedding Service  
Liturgy Saint James Jerusalem  
Liturgy Saint Basil Caesarea  
Liturgy Saint John Chrysostom  
Deacons Typika with Hours  
Readers Typika with Hours  
Ordination to Deacon  

According to all that I have read in official Antiochian resources these are the liturgies that they are to progress to in short course. Their documents note their Patriarchate and they are under the Antiochian Patrirachate.

Wishing all Orthodox Christians in the Phillipines blessed unity in my prayers.

Thomas
 
Top