• 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.)

Metropolitan Philip's Version of the Synodal Statement

basilthefool

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
61
Go here to see it!

http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/Synodal_Resolution_6-17-09.pdf
 

Douglas

High Elder
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
608
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
nowhere
I do not understand how the date of that fax could be Nov 2005???
 

Tamara

Archon
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Douglas said:
I do not understand how the date of that fax could be Nov 2005???
Ah yes, Douglas, good eye. Perhaps the patriarch may be interested to see this "official" version.
 

NorthernPines

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Wisconsin
So, the official translation says they are auxiliaries!?! Interesting in a sad sort of way. Which is the "correct" translation? Instead of relying on translation why not just release the decision in BOTH Arabic AND an English version approved by the Patriarch?

So basically no one knows what the "true" status is anymore than we did 2 months ago. As a friend of mine says, why don't we just put ALL the Patriarchs and Bishops in a room, lock them in from the outside and not let them out until they solve ALL of these problems. (that includes ALL Orthodoxy, and even Catholicism)

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
The version that has (Auxiliaries) in English next to it is NOT the same as the Arabic that is on the next page of the fax.  In fact, it makes the changes I guessed at:

ialmisry said:
In the Arabic it is understated, but quite clear, that the bishops are bishops, not auxiliaries.  I can guess what the supporters of their demotion would want to change, based on the Arabic language: changing the third clause from a verbal relative phrase "bishops who help" to a participial phrase "helping bishops" (or bishops who assisst to assisting/assisstant bishops, it doesn't make much difference in the English translation), and change the word used from "yusaa'iduuna" to "yu'aawiduuna" (which echoes the term in the Feb. decision for "auxiliary"), changing it from a verbal sentence back to a nominal sentence.  I know this means practically anything to most people here, but the last change would reaffirm "auxiliary" as an existential statement (which is why the statement on the nature of the bishops is important I think), instead of being a description of their duties.  If they used the same term as the Feb. statement, but in verbal form (quite natural and regular and easy to do), it would have been a codified restriction on their powers.

The facts (LOL, that is, if the rumors are true) the Metropolitan and TheAntiochian had wind of this beforehand, and TheAntiochian disinfomation compaign (e.g. that the term "auxiliary" was used) would show that, although understated, the message has gotten through loud and clear.
They do not use the same term of the Feb. statement in verbal form, however.

This new one with the English does not match the one that ocanews linked, which DOES match the 3rd page of this linked fax.

The clause on the Feb. 24 decision says "Indeed the Holy Antiochian Synod with extensive and profound examination of the synodal decision published with the date of February 24, 2009" is added: "and emphasizing it."

Both show a transpotion of "is one," which suggest "is one, that is...." but besides not being terribly grammatical, does make sense with the last clause: if bishops are just functionaries of the metropolitans, who would think that they could be independent.

It says sent exactly this way from Damascus, but don't say from whom.....
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
South Carolina
These documents ARE quite different than the ones posted at “http://www.ocanews.org/” and at http://antiochianinfo.org/. The wording of the documents also make liars out of Bishops Basil, Alexander and Mark, albeit in different ways.

So, we have a decision that was signed and translated on June 17th, is faxed on June 18th and yet not published until June 23rd. In the meantime, different versions were espoused by bishops and Internet sites alike, further stirring the pot and clouding the issue. By the way the fax date is November 18, 2005. How can that be?  One of two ways: fax machine’s data function was not working or somebody took a November 18, 2005 fax and inserted the text. Frankly, the first possibility is quite probable as faxes often stamp the wrong date. On the other hand, who knows?
 

NorthernPines

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Wisconsin
ialmisry said:
The version that has (Auxiliaries) in English next to it is NOT the same as the Arabic that is on the next page of the fax.  In fact, it makes the changes I guessed at:

ialmisry said:
In the Arabic it is understated, but quite clear, that the bishops are bishops, not auxiliaries.  I can guess what the supporters of their demotion would want to change, based on the Arabic language: changing the third clause from a verbal relative phrase "bishops who help" to a participial phrase "helping bishops" (or bishops who assisst to assisting/assisstant bishops, it doesn't make much difference in the English translation), and change the word used from "yusaa'iduuna" to "yu'aawiduuna" (which echoes the term in the Feb. decision for "auxiliary"), changing it from a verbal sentence back to a nominal sentence.  I know this means practically anything to most people here, but the last change would reaffirm "auxiliary" as an existential statement (which is why the statement on the nature of the bishops is important I think), instead of being a description of their duties.  If they used the same term as the Feb. statement, but in verbal form (quite natural and regular and easy to do), it would have been a codified restriction on their powers.

The facts (LOL, that is, if the rumors are true) the Metropolitan and TheAntiochian had wind of this beforehand, and TheAntiochian disinfomation compaign (e.g. that the term "auxiliary" was used) would show that, although understated, the message has gotten through loud and clear.
They do not use the same term of the Feb. statement in verbal form, however.

This new one with the English does not match the one that ocanews linked, which DOES match the 3rd page of this linked fax.

The clause on the Feb. 24 decision says "Indeed the Holy Antiochian Synod with extensive and profound examination of the synodal decision published with the date of February 24, 2009" is added: "and emphasizing it."

Both show a transpotion of "is one," which suggest "is one, that is...." but besides not being terribly grammatical, does make sense with the last clause: if bishops are just functionaries of the metropolitans, who would think that they could be independent.

It says sent exactly this way from Damascus, but don't say from whom.....

So you're saying there are multiple "versions" of this document? WTF? I dare not even suggest what I'm thinking.......well, ok, maybe just a hint...am I the only one that is all of a sudden reminded of  the Donation of Constantine? This is just insane....obviously Bishops Mark and Basil had something different than this? I assume? What the heck is going on? I guess I don't expect you to answer that since unless you have a crystal ball you won't know either, but this is just weird......

I changed my mind, the Bishops and Patriarchs don't need to be locked in a room, they need to be locked up in the "big brother house", this would make a great "reality" show.



 

SDMPNS

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
540
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
FLORIDA
"Big Bishop House" How about "I'm a Bishop ..Get me out of here!"..All jokes aside this is really crazy and makes all of Orthodoxy look shallow and cheap..I refuse to believe that there could be any mendacity afoot but why doesn't someone just ask His Beatitude what the heck was meant?
I ,personally, and this is me ,personally would be very surprised if Bishop Mark was part of any foolishness but I also really do not want to think that Metropolitan Phillip was either. This is all just too important..
This also makes me think very kindly about what Metropolitan Jonah and his statement about merging the OCA with the AOCONA. At least there wouldn't be dueling languages!
 

SDMPNS

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
540
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
FLORIDA
The official web site of the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America has posted a link to the Arabic and English statements..notice the use of the word "precisely".

http://www.antiochian.org/
 

Corsair

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I posted this info on a related thread:

http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2009/06/damascus-enron-ecclesiology-with-fun.html

 

arimethea

Archon
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
2,966
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
United State of America
Corsair said:
I posted this info on a related thread:

http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2009/06/damascus-enron-ecclesiology-with-fun.html
Linking to a blog as you have done is against board policy
2) Links to one's own blog as a means of advertisement, without citing the relevant part of the blog that the author is quoting, are not allowed.  However, alerting users to another blog is acceptable as long as it is relevant to a thread.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13455.0.html
Please cite the relevant part of the blog.

Arimethea
Liturgy Section Moderator
 

Corsair

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Points
0
arimethea said:
Corsair said:
I posted this info on a related thread:

http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2009/06/damascus-enron-ecclesiology-with-fun.html
Linking to a blog as you have done is against board policy
2) Links to one's own blog as a means of advertisement, without citing the relevant part of the blog that the author is quoting, are not allowed.  However, alerting users to another blog is acceptable as long as it is relevant to a thread.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13455.0.html
Please cite the relevant part of the blog.

Arimethea
Liturgy Section Moderator



Let me clarify, I meant I posted this link on the related "Any news from the Synod of Antioch" thread on this forum as well as this particular thread.

I do not own the blog that is linked--I do not have a blog at all--nor am I attempting to "promote" the linked blog. I provided the link in an effort to alert users to another blog because I felt the linked contents are relevant to this thread.

If I am misunderstanding this policy, please clarify.

 

arimethea

Archon
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
2,966
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
United State of America
Corsair said:
If I am misunderstanding this policy, please clarify.
Thanks for the clarification, from our first read it appeared as if you were promoting your own blog. Sorry for the confusion.

-Arimethea
 

Seraphim98

High Elder
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
583
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
MS
Even if it was, that is one of those handful of high brow deep thinking Orthodox blogs that garner a lot of respect in the Orthodox blogosphere....I'm pretty sure, lots of well known Orthodox and Orthodox sites have links or references to it.
 

scamandrius

Merarches
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
9,377
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Omaha
Second Chance said:
So, we have a decision that was signed and translated on June 17th, is faxed on June 18th and yet not published until June 23rd. In the meantime, different versions were espoused by bishops and Internet sites alike, further stirring the pot and clouding the issue. By the way the fax date is November 18, 2005. How can that be?  One of two ways: fax machine’s data function was not working or somebody took a November 18, 2005 fax and inserted the text. Frankly, the first possibility is quite probable as faxes often stamp the wrong date. On the other hand, who knows?
Or the more plausible explanation is that the fax in transit hit a time warp! ;D
 

Aristobolus

Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Points
0
A question no one has asked is why would this very important document be faxed anyways?  Would not such a treasure deserve a personal courier?  FedEX and UPS deliver worldwide.  And a fax so important in magnitude with no "to" or "from" filled in at the top?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Aristobolus said:
A question no one has asked is why would this very important document be faxed anyways?  Would not such a treasure deserve a personal courier?  FedEX and UPS deliver worldwide.  And a fax so important in magnitude with no "to" or "from" filled in at the top?
I'm still wondering why there is nothing on the Patriarchal Website. :-[
 

SbdcnDavid

Jr. Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
Aristobolus said:
A question no one has asked is why would this very important document be faxed anyways?  Would not such a treasure deserve a personal courier?  FedEX and UPS deliver worldwide.  And a fax so important in magnitude with no "to" or "from" filled in at the top?
I'm still wondering why there is nothing on the Patriarchal Website. :-[
As far as I can tell, the news page on the Patriarchal website hasn't been updated since 2007.
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
South Carolina
You cannot make up what The Antiochian published overnight:

Admin wrote: "“According to our sources within the Patriarchate who attended the meeting, it is reported that the first arabic document that was released indicated that the bishops were to serve to assist the metropolitan. in this document, the word auxilliary was not used as the meaning of auxilliary is to assist. however, the holy synod meeting spanned over 3 days and more deliberation continued. there was worry that some may misinterpret what it means to “assist” the metropolitan (like bishop mark did in his statement earlier this weekend) and so the synod put forth the second document in arabic and in english to provide further clarification. the arabic and english versions are the official resolutions. all three were made available to show that the meaning of all documents are one and the same. thanks!”

So, by the admission of the +Phillip supporters,  the third page of the pdf document is the text of the actual resolution that was produced by the Holy Synod after deliberations and a vote. The other two pages were produced to better convey the meaning of the original resolution. However, there is no mention of a re-vote. There is also no explanation why the clarification was not made via a memorandum or letter. To me at least this is plain weird.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Second Chance said:
You cannot make up what The Antiochian published overnight:

Admin wrote: "“According to our sources within the Patriarchate who attended the meeting, it is reported that the first arabic document that was released indicated that the bishops were to serve to assist the metropolitan. in this document, the word auxilliary was not used as the meaning of auxilliary is to assist. however, the holy synod meeting spanned over 3 days and more deliberation continued. there was worry that some may misinterpret what it means to “assist” the metropolitan (like bishop mark did in his statement earlier this weekend) and so the synod put forth the second document in arabic and in english to provide further clarification. the arabic and english versions are the official resolutions. all three were made available to show that the meaning of all documents are one and the same. thanks!”

So, by the admission of the +Phillip supporters,  the third page of the pdf document is the text of the actual resolution that was produced by the Holy Synod after deliberations and a vote. The other two pages were produced to better convey the meaning of the original resolution. However, there is no mention of a re-vote. There is also no explanation why the clarification was not made via a memorandum or letter. To me at least this is plain weird.
And since the 3rd document is what supports Bishop Mark (and the Canons), and the others support the Met.'s pet theory, no the meaning is NOT "one and the same."

WHICH Arabic version is official?
 

SbdcnDavid

Jr. Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Second Chance said:
You cannot make up what The Antiochian published overnight:

Admin wrote: "“According to our sources within the Patriarchate who attended the meeting, it is reported that the first arabic document that was released indicated that the bishops were to serve to assist the metropolitan. in this document, the word auxilliary was not used as the meaning of auxilliary is to assist. however, the holy synod meeting spanned over 3 days and more deliberation continued. there was worry that some may misinterpret what it means to “assist” the metropolitan (like bishop mark did in his statement earlier this weekend) and so the synod put forth the second document in arabic and in english to provide further clarification. the arabic and english versions are the official resolutions. all three were made available to show that the meaning of all documents are one and the same. thanks!”

So, by the admission of the +Phillip supporters,  the third page of the pdf document is the text of the actual resolution that was produced by the Holy Synod after deliberations and a vote. The other two pages were produced to better convey the meaning of the original resolution. However, there is no mention of a re-vote. There is also no explanation why the clarification was not made via a memorandum or letter. To me at least this is plain weird.
For reasons I have set forth in a post to the "Any News from the Synod of Antioch" thread and in slightly fuller version in a post on the ocanews.org comment page, I believe the first two pages are a bad forgery. (Note esp. the fact that the title of the Patriarchate is given in Arabic and English, while the Patriarchate uses Arabic and French, and the fact that the date in the English version is in American civilian order, while Syrians and Lebanese order dates in the same way as the rest of the world and the American military, as well as some evidence in the images of cutting and pasting.)

In the vanishingly unlikely event that theantiochian.com finally managed to get a report right, the sort of mendacity suggested in their description of events would be sufficient cause, it seems to me, for any diocese of the Antiochian Archdiocese to appeal to Constantinople or the OCA (as the local autocephalous church, Met. Jonah's kenotic interpretation of OCA autocephaly not withstanding) to be relieved from all ties to Antioch.  Indeed, if the Holy Synod really engaged in such mendacity as part of an attack on Orthodox ecclesiology, the AOCANA should unilaterally declare autocephaly, after the manner of Russia when Constantinople was in thrall to the False Union of Florence/Ferrar, and merge with the OCA. Quite frankly I do not believe that the Holy Synod of Antioch engaged in such mendacity. 

Whoever the forger is he should be deposed if a cleric, and excommunicated if a layman.  Maybe someone will save me the trouble of finding exactly which canon would apply.
 

NorthernPines

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Wisconsin
SbdcnDavid said:
Whoever the forger is he should be deposed if a cleric, and excommunicated if a layman.  Maybe someone will save me the trouble of finding exactly which canon would apply.
The problem I see is that it appears that those within the hierarchy of the Church, at least at some level, are involved with the alleged forgeries. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but yesterday the Antiochian.org website was saying this is the document exactly as received from the Patriarchate, so obviously SOMEONE somewhere in the Church is lying. I don't see how this can be an accident, but rather it appears to be a deliberate attempt to either deceive the faithful and some Bishops into thinking Damascus reached a decision it did not reach (by that I mean someone was trying to deceive Bishops Mark and Basil) OR, someone is trying to usurp authority above what the Patriarchate says is allowed. I just don't see a third possible interpretation of these events.

The fact that this document was on their official website is what is disturbing IMO, as obviously there is some sort of deception or attempted deception at some level going on here. I find it hard to believe it's a single priest or laymen, as the document is still on the Archdiocese website as of this moment. (9:44am Central Daylight Time)

I certainly hope the faithful, both clergy and laity in the Archdiocese do not tolerate this, and I think uniting with the OCA is now not only advisable, but that it MUST happen, just so TPTB know the Church, Christ's temple, and people will NOT tolerate such actions just because it comes from a particular office, be it clerical office, or Church position of some sort. These people are not our dictators but our shepherds. Unfortunately it looks as if the sheep might have to stampede just to remind them of this. :)


 

Tamara

Archon
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There is no doubt it is a fraud.

The patriarchate needs to post the original on their website to clear up this whole situation.

 

SbdcnDavid

Jr. Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Tamara said:
There is no doubt it is a fraud.

The patriarchate needs to post the original on their website to clear up this whole situation.
I heartily agree.  But, good luck with that:  the Patriarchate's website doesn't seem to have been
updated since 2007.
 

Tamara

Archon
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
0
Points
0
http://www.ocanews.org/
6.23.09  TROUBLE IN ANTIOCH REDUX
Did the Patriarch Really Say That?
Authenticity of Englewood’s Posted Documents Under Question

The trouble in Antiochian America just got worse.

Late yesterday afternoon the official Archdiocesan website at www.Antiochian.org published three documents, all purporting to be official texts from the Patriarchate in Damascus. The first document claims to be a fax of “official” English translation of the Synodal decision of June 17th, bearing the Patriarchal signature and seal. The second document, also a fax, purports to be the decision in the original Arabic, also bearing the Patriarchal signature and seal. but with the English word “Auxiliary” inserted into the Arabic text. The third document is yet another fax, this time of an Arabic version of the June 17th decision, also bearing the Patriarchal seal and signature on Arabic and French letterhead. (Read those documents here.) Serious questions have been raised about the authenticity of the first two of these documents, the publication of which were clearly intended to bolster the Metropolitan’s position in the crisis which has gripped the Archdiocese since February 24th. (Read more here)
 

SbdcnDavid

Jr. Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have it on authority that I trust that the Patriarch has disavowed pages 1 and 2 of the Englewood documents.

Which leaves the question of who the forger is and the motive.  Again, I can see two possibilities:  a naive (and hopelessly
bad as a forger) supporter of the neo-papal ecclesiology pushed by theantiochian.com, or an enemy of Met. Philip
who wants him to appear as a rebel against the Holy Synod to bring about his downfall, for whom a transparently bad forgery
might be optimal, provided the Archdiocesan offices fell for it (as they did).

Subdeacon David [Yetter]
 

jnials

Newbie
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Subdeacon David:

Unfortunately, the theory that it is someone out to damage +Philip just doesn't fit.  That +Philip is being damaged is beyond doubt, but just leave motivations aside for a second.

The document is forged.  That is clear.  The webmaster for the Archdiocesan site seems to be an honorable sort, and frankly is probably not well positioned for the sort of politics being played to put up a forged document since it does not profit him.  If someone other than +Philip is behind this, then who has that much pull in the to give the direction to post it without Philip's approval?  Who would profit by damaging +Philip in this way?

Besides, there is too much emphasis on one thing in all this:  Reducing the Bishops to a position of complete subservience.  If +Philip does not profit by this, who does?  Certainly not +Mark, +Basil, or +Alexander.  Of the other bishops who would this profit?  +Thomas, +Antoun, or +Joseph COULD  possibly profit from this, but I doubt that +Thomas or +Antoun could profit unless they ascended to the Metropolitan's throne neither of whom strike me as likely candidates.  +Joseph perhaps as I don't now him, but even then, I think not.  He seems to be a pious and godly bishop, who wouldn't stoop to such trickery.  Besides, I doubt he would need to.  If he is the ambitious sort, he is already well placed to ascend to the Metropolitical throne since he is well known in the Patriarchate.  But until he does, this does not profit him either.  And it would only profit him then IF he desired to be a despot, which does not seem the case.

So, to quote Mr. Spock:  Logic dictates that +Philip or someone +Philip trusts is behind this.

To quote an old greek proverb:  The fish rots from the head.....








 

username!

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
5,090
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Where Iron hydrochloride ruins watersheds
SbdcnDavid said:
I have it on authority that I trust that the Patriarch has disavowed pages 1 and 2 of the Englewood documents.

Which leaves the question of who the forger is and the motive.  Again, I can see two possibilities:  a naive (and hopelessly
bad as a forger) supporter of the neo-papal ecclesiology pushed by theantiochian.com, or an enemy of Met. Philip
who wants him to appear as a rebel against the Holy Synod to bring about his downfall, for whom a transparently bad forgery
might be optimal, provided the Archdiocesan offices fell for it (as they did).

Subdeacon David [Yetter]
Just curious as to why you use the minor clerical title when you sign your posts and why it is in your nickname.  There are plenty of subdeacons out there that only use the title when at divine services and when receiving communion.. same for readers.  It was my understanding that only in major orders does one start to address himself as Deacon, Priest of Bishop outside of his role in liturgical functions.  I'm just curious as to the reasoning of using the title subdeacon outside of liturgical functions.
 

Matrona

High Elder
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
999
Reaction score
1
Points
0
jnials said:
Subdeacon David:

Unfortunately, the theory that it is someone out to damage +Philip just doesn't fit.  That +Philip is being damaged is beyond doubt, but just leave motivations aside for a second.
I agree - that theory doesn't seem likely.  Unfortunately, Met. Philip seems to be doing a good job damaging himself.  Creating a ruse like this, in an effort to discredit Met. Philip further, has a huge potential for backfiring.  It turns him into a victim and makes the resistance look just as sneaky and underhanded as the people they're fighting against.  I really hope this scenario is not the case.

The document is forged.  That is clear.  The webmaster for the Archdiocesan site seems to be an honorable sort, and frankly is probably not well positioned for the sort of politics being played to put up a forged document since it does not profit him.  If someone other than +Philip is behind this, then who has that much pull in the to give the direction to post it without Philip's approval?  Who would profit by damaging +Philip in this way?

Besides, there is too much emphasis on one thing in all this:  Reducing the Bishops to a position of complete subservience.  If +Philip does not profit by this, who does?  Certainly not +Mark, +Basil, or +Alexander.  Of the other bishops who would this profit?  +Thomas, +Antoun, or +Joseph COULD  possibly profit from this, but I doubt that +Thomas or +Antoun could profit unless they ascended to the Metropolitan's throne neither of whom strike me as likely candidates.  +Joseph perhaps as I don't now him, but even then, I think not.  He seems to be a pious and godly bishop, who wouldn't stoop to such trickery.  Besides, I doubt he would need to.  If he is the ambitious sort, he is already well placed to ascend to the Metropolitical throne since he is well known in the Patriarchate.  But until he does, this does not profit him either.  And it would only profit him then IF he desired to be a despot, which does not seem the case.

So, to quote Mr. Spock:  Logic dictates that +Philip or someone +Philip trusts is behind this.

To quote an old greek proverb:  The fish rots from the head.....
More specifically, I'd say whomever is behind TheAntiochian knows something about the forgery as well.  It's way too convenient for them how much they knew ahead of time about exactly what the forged document would contain, even before other people in the know actually knew about it, like antiochian.org's webmaster.  (I elaborated further on this theory of mine in another thread.)  If they knew that much about a legitimate document, that would mean they must have a well-placed source.  Since the document in question is a forgery, it stands to reason that TheAntiochian knows some inside information about the forgery.  If TheAntiochian's admin isn't behind it directly, then I'd say certainly one of his sources is responsible.  Does anyone know more about him, aside from the false information in his domain name whois?
 

SDMPNS

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
540
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
FLORIDA
The thing that bothers me the most and I am trying to sort this out in the bat filled cave of my head is that we are talking about a Metropolitan of a large Archdiocese of the Holy Church of Christ...the Orthodox Church, The bride of Christ etc etc.
We are also talking about such a sordid crime as forgery. A crime in most areas. How can we talk about a Metropolitan and a crime like forgery and not get sick to our stomachs or not worry about the future of the Church?
 

basilthefool

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
61
From the Patriarchal website:

"To whomever it may concern

The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East is willing to announce herein the final official statement that had been agreed and voted among the majority of the Holy Synod members during the recent Synodal meeting thaw was taken place at the Patriarchate in Damascus from 15-18 June 2009.

The below decision represents the final official Synodal decision issued from the Patriarchate on June 17th 2009.

The Patriarchate wishes all readers not to consider any other version in Arabic language except the attached one that appears below."

The Arabic text is the "page 3" from the Archiocesan webpage and the version expertly analysed and discussed in this forum.

http://antiochpat.org/english/news/news.php?newsid=118&PHPSESSID=101a2da1a41579a4033d38a26ed752c4

 

SDMPNS

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
540
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
FLORIDA
So there you have it...Metropolitan Phillip needs to retire and maybe be presented before a Spritiual Court.
 

jnials

Newbie
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
0
basilthefool said:
From the Patriarchal website:

"To whomever it may concern

The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East is willing to announce herein the final official statement that had been agreed and voted among the majority of the Holy Synod members during the recent Synodal meeting thaw was taken place at the Patriarchate in Damascus from 15-18 June 2009.

The below decision represents the final official Synodal decision issued from the Patriarchate on June 17th 2009.

The Patriarchate wishes all readers not to consider any other version in Arabic language except the attached one that appears below."

The Arabic text is the "page 3" from the Archiocesan webpage and the version expertly analysed and discussed in this forum.

http://antiochpat.org/english/news/news.php?newsid=118&PHPSESSID=101a2da1a41579a4033d38a26ed752c4
Finally.  Now perhaps there will be some sanity returning to the Archdiocese.

 

SDMPNS

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
540
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
FLORIDA
its a Spiritual Court...wish I could spell.

Sanity can only return to the Antiochian Archdiocese if Metropolitan Phillip retires.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,908
Reaction score
73
Points
48
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
basilthefool said:
From the Patriarchal website:

"To whomever it may concern

The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East is willing to announce herein the final official statement that had been agreed and voted among the majority of the Holy Synod members during the recent Synodal meeting thaw was taken place at the Patriarchate in Damascus from 15-18 June 2009.

The below decision represents the final official Synodal decision issued from the Patriarchate on June 17th 2009.

The Patriarchate wishes all readers not to consider any other version in Arabic language except the attached one that appears below."

The Arabic text is the "page 3" from the Archiocesan webpage and the version expertly analysed and discussed in this forum.

http://antiochpat.org/english/news/news.php?newsid=118&PHPSESSID=101a2da1a41579a4033d38a26ed752c4  
Fascinating.  They don't update the Patriarchal website seemingly in years, but in the wake of the multi-page affair they use the site to stamp out confusion.  Great thinking on their part.
 

SDMPNS

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
540
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
FLORIDA
Very astute observation Cleveland..I wonder how this is going to turn out? I bet Metropolitan Phillip is now working to make it so no protests or questions can be asked at the Convention.
Its working in Iran.Protest! Freedom!
 

basilthefool

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
61
cleveland said:
Fascinating.  They don't update the Patriarchal website seemingly in years, but in the wake of the multi-page affair they use the site to stamp out confusion.  Great thinking on their part.
Actually, the Arabic version of the site seems to be updated on a monthly basis. Incidentally, Google has a translation engine that allows Arabic to English. It aproximates some words and phrases, providing some humorous translations, and simply transliterates a few words it doesn't recognize. However, one can get the gist of.
 

Corsair

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Points
0
OCAnews has just posted the English text of the synod decision that was sent to bishops of the Antiochian Archdiocese this morning:

http://ocanews.org/news/EnglishTranslation6.24.09.html

It matches the original text posted by Bps Mark and Basil this past weekend.
 

Corsair

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Now both the English and Arabic versions are available on the Patriarchate Web site:

http://antiochpat.org/english/news/news.php?newsid=118&PHPSESSID=17fcd7ee5231a083c701c4c241ffb7a8

These match the texts shared by OCAnews over the weekend.
 

NorthernPines

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Wisconsin
username! said:
Just curious as to why you use the minor clerical title when you sign your posts and why it is in your nickname.  There are plenty of subdeacons out there that only use the title when at divine services and when receiving communion.. same for readers.  It was my understanding that only in major orders does one start to address himself as Deacon, Priest of Bishop outside of his role in liturgical functions.  I'm just curious as to the reasoning of using the title subdeacon outside of liturgical functions.
In defense of Sub-Deacon David, there doesn't appear to be any specific rule or guideline or small t tradition for such etiquette. In some circles of the Antiochian tradition, Readers and Sub-Deacons will sign their letters, emails, etc with their titles. (check out: www.kelfar.net/orthodoxiaradio/, Subdeacon Karim Elfar also signs his name on his website with his title within the minor orders.) So it's certainly not unheard of, and isn't as rare as one might think. In certain circles of the Russian tradition, especially ROCOR this is also true, and both Readers and Sub-Deacons will sign their name with the minor-order office in their signature. I can't speak for what the OCA does or other traditions, but being in the Greek tradition, it is as you said, almost unheard of. of course even having Sub-Deacons is practically unheard of these days in the Greek Church, and even Readers seem to be in short order in places so... (I'm a Reader and I never sign my name as such, except in maybe one or two Liturgical books that are my own property, but again, it's just not part of our custom as far I can tell)  However different traditions and customs call for different etiquette and practice. But it is certainly not unheard of, particularly among the more traditional circles for this to be done. (hence ROCOR seems to be the most consistent)

BTW I have no idea who David is, nor do I know him, but just thought it was important he's not really doing anything out of line within certain traditions. Now back on topic....

 
Top