OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Free-For-All => Religious Topics => Topic started by: FrChris on March 26, 2008, 03:02:32 PM

Title: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: FrChris on March 26, 2008, 03:02:32 PM
Any of our Philipine readers hear of this event? (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=38)
----------------
Philippine denominations join the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Aust. & NZ

We would like to inform you that after long discussions with two denominations from the Philippines, one belong to the Catholic Patriarchate of the East and the other Evangelical, we reached an agreement in principles,
to accept them in our Antiochian Archdiocese.  The Archdiocese will take care of the education, training and ordination of all the thirty plus religious leaders and their followers.  It is a historic moments in the history of the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand

(article continues, including donation information)
---------------

Where's sohma hatori  when you need him?  ;)
Title: Re: Mass Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. George on March 26, 2008, 03:07:50 PM
Interesting... Where is the date on that announcement?  I'd love to know when it was posted.

It sounds like a wonderful development.  I hope the Spirit continues to guide the leaders of the Archdiocese, and uses them to teach and edify the new Orthodox Christians!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: FrChris on March 26, 2008, 03:17:53 PM
The announcement was posted on the 'Latest News' section of the Antiochian Archdiocesan website for Austyralia and New Zealand (which also includes the Philipines, I guess!) 3/20/2008.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: arimethea on March 26, 2008, 04:48:22 PM
The announcement was posted on the 'Latest News' section of the Antiochian Archdiocesan website for Austyralia and New Zealand (which also includes the Philipines, I guess!) 3/20/2008.
His jurisdiction is the whole Pacific Ocean. It includes Hawaii but not Alaska.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: FrChris on March 26, 2008, 05:32:50 PM
Does His Eminence's jurisdiction also include parts of Mainland Asia, such as China, Vietnam, and parts west?

Just curious! I was only thinking that, if His Eminence starts to acquire multiple parishes in the Philipines, perhaps his 'title' should also be amended.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: arimethea on March 26, 2008, 09:23:47 PM
Does His Eminence's jurisdiction also include parts of Mainland Asia, such as China, Vietnam, and parts west?

Just curious! I was only thinking that, if His Eminence starts to acquire multiple parishes in the Philipines, perhaps his 'title' should also be amended.

Mainland Asia would belong to the Bishop of Babylon who modern day title is Bishop of Baghdad, Kuwait and Dependencies.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on April 04, 2008, 09:47:12 AM
Whew!! Thats so nice to hear!!!  :D

Too bad most of them are probably in the Capital region or in Visayas (I live in Mindanao)..
I'll contact the priest here in Mindanao and ask him more about this..

Thanks be to God!!  :D
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on April 04, 2008, 12:35:08 PM
By the way, the "Evangelicals" refered in the news article, refer to the Evangelical group of Bishop Heins, a former Episcopalian Bishop in Manila..
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: _Seraphim_ on April 04, 2008, 06:24:56 PM
Philippine denominations join the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Aust. & NZ

Well Glory be to God!  :)
That is wonderful news!  I know a young man who lives in a small town in the Philippines.  He is so eager for Orthodoxy.  He has asked me several times if Orthodoxy's missionary presence there will ever reach out from the capital city into the smaller towns and villages.  I will certainly let him know about this... it will be very encouraging.

Thanks for sharing!
+God bless
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 05, 2008, 11:34:55 AM
By the way, the "Evangelicals" refered in the news article, refer to the Evangelical group of Bishop Heins, a former Episcopalian Bishop in Manila..

Sohma_hatori, the "Evangelical group" being referred to in the said Antiochian news article is the IEMELIF or the Iglesia Evangelica Methodista En Las Islas Filipinas (The Evangelical Methodist Church in the Philippine Islands) lead by BISHOP JEPTAH AGUAS ANICETO (http://www.send2press.com/PRnetwire/pr04_120104-mission.shtml).  Please see Delegates from the Philippines (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=27) (January 2008 Archdiocesan News Article from the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia & New Zealand). 

The official report did not mention anything about a certain "Bishop Heins". Are you referring to Archbishop Hines of the ICCEC or the International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_Episcopal_Church)? As far as I know, Archbishop Hines is married and his Evangelical group in Manila, the capital city of the Philippines, has not approached Metropolitan Archbishop Paul yet. Two former priests of the ICCEC along with their flock from the Southern Luzon province of Sorsogon has affiliated with the Philippine Orthodox Church (http://www.ocp.uni.cc/) under the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong and South East Asia (EP) in 2006.


FrCris, Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba is the PRIMATE of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=38) (Please see below).


(http://philmelody.googlepages.com/jeptahaniceto.jpg)

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Salpy on April 05, 2008, 01:57:54 PM
Welcome to the forum, filipiniana!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 05, 2008, 10:02:05 PM
Welcome to the forum, filipiniana!

Thank you Mr. Salpy. I'm glad to be here.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on April 06, 2008, 12:44:55 AM
Thank you for the information filipiniana, and welcome!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on April 06, 2008, 02:01:44 AM
Sohma_hatori, the "Evangelical group" being referred to in the said Antiochian news article is the IEMELIF or the Iglesia Evangelica Methodista En Las Islas Filipinas (The Evangelical Methodist Church in the Philippine Islands) lead by BISHOP JEPTAH AGUAS ANICETO (http://www.send2press.com/PRnetwire/pr04_120104-mission.shtml).  Please see Delegates from the Philippines (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=27) (January 2008 Archdiocesan News Article from the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia & New Zealand). 

Hello Filipiniana!! :D

I got the info from Rev. Fr. Kleopas Daclan, the Greek Orthodox Priest in the mission there in Koronadal City, South Cotabato..
Thanks very much the info!!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 06, 2008, 04:47:47 AM
Thank you for the information filipiniana, and welcome!



Thank you Mr. Ozgeorge.


Hello Filipiniana!! :D

I got the info from Rev. Fr. Kleopas Daclan, the Greek Orthodox Priest in the mission there in Koronadal City, South Cotabato..
Thanks very much the info!!


Sorry Mr. Sohma_hatori. The information you got from the  Filipino Greek Orthodox priest in South Cotabato appears to be incorrect.

You can find the email address of Bishop Jeptah Aniceto at the Harvard Divinity School Summer Institute (http://www.hds.harvard.edu/sli/applications/alum/last_name.cfm) (click). I suggest that you drop him an email for more accurate and reliable information on the Antiochian Orthodox Mission in the Philippines. If I'm not mistaken he is presently in Davao.







Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 06, 2008, 05:10:22 AM
Let me share you what I got from the Orthodox Wikipedia:


"The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand is set to accept two denominations in the Philippines into the Archdiocese, including over 30 religious leaders and 35 churches with 6000 adherents. This has been heralded as a "historic moment in the history of the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand". There is also some evidence to suggest that Metr. Abp Paul is now the Primate for the Philippines."

Please see RECENT EVENTS (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Antiochian_Orthodox_Archdiocese_of_Australia_and_New_Zealand#Recent_events) from the Orthodox Wikipedia under the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand.






Thank you for the information filipiniana, and welcome!

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 06, 2008, 09:16:26 PM
I find this development hard to accept, given the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has already established several parishes in the Philippines.  There is no need for Antioch to accept evangelical and heretical groups to "join" Holy Orthodoxy and complicate the situation, which is generally stable.

http://www.ocp.uni.cc/

The Annunciation of the Theotokos Orthodox Cathedral is a parish of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and All–Southeast Asia under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It is currently the only full Orthodox parish in Metro Manila. Some independent protestant groups have identified themselves "orthodox" although they are not part of our Orthodox faith community. We are the only canonical Orthodox Church in the Philippines.

(http://www.geocities.com/ocp_reader/img/annunciation_front.jpg)

(http://www.geocities.com/ocp_reader/img/clergy_in_action.jpg)

(http://www.geocities.com/ocp_reader/img/iconostasis.jpg)

(http://www.geocities.com/ocp_reader/img/entrance.jpg)

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 07, 2008, 12:35:21 AM

I find this development hard to accept, given the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has already established several parishes in the Philippines.  There is no need for Antioch to accept evangelical and heretical groups to "join" Holy Orthodoxy and complicate the situation, which is generally stable.

http://www.ocp.uni.cc/

The Annunciation of the Theotokos Orthodox Cathedral is a parish of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and All–Southeast Asia under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It is currently the only full Orthodox parish in Metro Manila. Some independent protestant groups have identified themselves "orthodox" although they are not part of our Orthodox faith community. We are the only canonical Orthodox Church in the Philippines.




(http://www.gbod.org/worship/images/031404worship.jpg)
Christ cursing the Fig tree. The barren fig tree looked good but there was no fruit on it.

"And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only,
and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away."
(Matthew 21:19)




"The withering of the fig tree was a miracle of special symbolism, since the tree had leaves, but no fruit. It is symbolic of the many people who claim ethical and religious identity, but who in reality have empty lives that yield no fruit."
 -Holy Week in the Eastern Orthodox Church (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8432.asp)


"The fig tree means the synagogue of the Jews, which has only leaves, that is, the visible letter of the law, but not the fruit of the Spirit. But also every man who gives himself over to the sweetness of the present life is likened to a fig tree, who has no spiritual fruit to give to Jesus who is hungry for such fruit, but only leaves, that is, temporal appearances which fall away and are gone. This man, then, hears himself cursed. For Christ says, Go, ye accursed, into the fire. But he is also dried up; for as he roasts in the flame, his tongue is parched and withered like that of the rich man of the parable, who in his life had ignored Lazarus."
-Blessed Theophylact, Commentary on Matthew


The apparently healthy fig tree without fruit symbolizes an apparently healthy Orthodox Christian life that does not produce actions and behaviors that God wants from us. A  person can appear to have deep faith that carries momentous burdens and appear to talk with God fervently in prayer, but at the same time, it is all a show because it does not demonstrate the love of Christ in daily actions.


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on April 07, 2008, 01:11:29 AM
Welcome to the forum, filipiniana!  I hope your time here is fun and educational and I look forward to learning more about your country.  :)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: arimethea on April 07, 2008, 01:18:14 AM
I find this development hard to accept, given the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has already established several parishes in the Philippines. 

To be honest I have always had a real problem with Constantinople having any parishes in Asia since it is very clear that the Patriarch of Antioch has jurisdiction over all the east.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Tamara on April 07, 2008, 01:24:15 AM
Dear Filipiniana,

Welcome to this site. Did the evangelicals approach the EP first? Why did they have to go to the Antiochians to become Orthodox?

thank you, Tamara
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elisha on April 07, 2008, 01:58:22 AM
Dear Filipiniana,

Welcome to this site. Did the evangelicals approach the EP first? Why did they have to go to the Antiochians to become Orthodox?

thank you, Tamara


Followup though (to you) - did they really "have" to?  Why couldn't they have gone to Moscow/Alexandria/other random Orthodox see?  The EOC didn't "have" to go to Antioch 20 years ago - Antioch was just the only See willing to accept the EOC leaders on THEIR terms.  Why should these evangelical leaders who were calling themselves "bishops" be made insta-archpriests?  I'm wondering how this Phillipino situation will work out - time can only tell.

Btw, since Met. NIKITAS is in Berekley, CA now, what bishop has taken his place in Hong Kong?  I always felt the situation a bit odd, but I guess I'm betting off not knowing the "why".
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 07, 2008, 06:30:06 AM
Why should these evangelical leaders who were calling themselves "bishops" be made insta-archpriests

Mr. Elisha,

The Official Website of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/) did not mention anything about  the "bishops" being  "made insta-archpriests" after they were received into the Antiochian Church. Kindly give us your references and your sources please.  Have you spoken with any of the former members of  IEMELIF  if they still call their leaders "Bishops"  or if they call them now as  "Archpriests"?  If not, so where did you get all these?  Just asking.   Thank you.

 


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 07, 2008, 06:37:50 AM
Dear Filipiniana,

Welcome to this site. Did the evangelicals approach the EP first? Why did they have to go to the Antiochians to become Orthodox?

thank you, Tamara


Hi Tamara,
I wish I can answer your question but I really can not.  Sorry, I have not  spoken with any of the Filipino leaders nor any members of the Antiochian Church in the Philippines yet.  I'll keep you posted.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 07, 2008, 06:43:30 AM
Welcome to the forum, filipiniana!  I hope your time here is fun and educational and I look forward to learning more about your country.  :)

Thank you Gabrielthecelt.  I'm looking forward that the new Filipino Orthodox converts will participate in the discussions in the near future and share their story how God lead them to His true Church for the edification of all.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 07, 2008, 06:53:27 AM
Does His Eminence's jurisdiction also include parts of Mainland Asia, such as China, Vietnam, and parts west?

Just curious! I was only thinking that, if His Eminence starts to acquire multiple parishes in the Philipines, perhaps his 'title' should also be amended.

Of course not.  Proof of this is that there has NEVER been an Antiochian parish in the Philippines.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 07, 2008, 07:21:12 AM

(http://www.gbod.org/worship/images/031404worship.jpg)
Christ cursing the Fig tree. The barren fig tree looked good but there was no fruit on it.

"And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only,
and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away."
(Matthew 21:19)




"The withering of the fig tree was a miracle of special symbolism, since the tree had leaves, but no fruit. It is symbolic of the many people who claim ethical and religious identity, but who in reality have empty lives that yield no fruit."
 -Holy Week in the Eastern Orthodox Church (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8432.asp)


"The fig tree means the synagogue of the Jews, which has only leaves, that is, the visible letter of the law, but not the fruit of the Spirit. But also every man who gives himself over to the sweetness of the present life is likened to a fig tree, who has no spiritual fruit to give to Jesus who is hungry for such fruit, but only leaves, that is, temporal appearances which fall away and are gone. This man, then, hears himself cursed. For Christ says, Go, ye accursed, into the fire. But he is also dried up; for as he roasts in the flame, his tongue is parched and withered like that of the rich man of the parable, who in his life had ignored Lazarus."
-Blessed Theophylact, Commentary on Matthew

The apparently healthy fig tree without fruit symbolizes an apparently healthy Orthodox Christian life that does not produce actions and behaviors that God wants from us. A  person can appear to have deep faith that carries momentous burdens and appear to talk with God fervently in prayer, but at the same time, it is all a show because it does not demonstrate the love of Christ in daily actions.

Your personal interpretation of Scripture and your claim that Antioch has jurisdiction over the Philippines expose the weakness of your position.  They are self defeating.  Let me show you why.

First, by comparing Constantinople to the fig tree, you are by implication claiming that Antioch is the Lord Jesus Christ who by His divinity knows whether a tree is profitable of not.  I say that this personal interpretation of yours is hogwash.  In truth, The Lord Jesus is the only judge, Antioch is not the Son of God, and neither is the fig tree Constantinople.

Second, by claiming that Antioch has jurisdiction over the Philippines (a position which I reject) and that there is no good fruit in the Philippines (another position I reject), you are logically pointing out that after almost 2,000 years of Antioch's grip in the entire Pacific, Antioch has not produced a single fruit in the Philippines. 

My question now is, how come Antioch never bothered to plant something in the Philippines after two thousand years?  Where is the fruit of Antioch? 

More importantly, do you honestly believe that the hundreds of evangelicals Antioch is now accomodating are better fruits than the hundreds or perhaps thousands of baptized Orthodox Christians in the Philippines who belong to the EP?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 07, 2008, 07:34:28 AM
Btw, since Met. NIKITAS is in Berekley, CA now,

How is he?  Do you know him personally?

Quote
what bishop has taken his place in Hong Kong?

His Eminence Metropolitan Nektarios is the new bishop.

http://www.imsamou.gr/newsDetails.php?id=131

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 07, 2008, 07:57:00 AM
it is very clear that the Patriarch of Antioch has jurisdiction over all the east.

So what is Antioch doing in the West?

:-\
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Αριστοκλής on April 07, 2008, 10:02:59 AM
So what is Antioch doing in the West?

:-\


And his question can be applied to the MP in China (or what's left of that church).
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Anastasios on April 07, 2008, 10:12:19 AM
Jurisdiction jurisdiction jurisdiction.

Maybe the Antiochian Church met some need that the EP couldn't in this case.

Maybe there is more to the story than meets the eye.

Maybe the Antiochians already talked to the EP and they made a deal.

Do we really know all the circumstances?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Anastasios on April 07, 2008, 10:13:10 AM
I find this development hard to accept, given the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has already established several parishes in the Philippines.  There is no need for Antioch to accept evangelical and heretical groups to "join" Holy Orthodoxy and complicate the situation, which is generally stable.



So...let me get this straight...you think they should have been rejected? Or what?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 07, 2008, 10:17:56 AM
Your personal interpretation of Scripture and your claim that Antioch has jurisdiction over the Philippines expose the weakness of your position.  They are self defeating.  Let me show you why.

First, by comparing Constantinople to the fig tree, you are by implication claiming that Antioch is the Lord Jesus Christ who by His divinity knows whether a tree is profitable of not.  I say that this personal interpretation of yours is hogwash.  In truth, The Lord Jesus is the only judge, Antioch is not the Son of God, and neither is the fig tree Constantinople.

Second, by claiming that Antioch has jurisdiction over the Philippines (a position which I reject) and that there is no good fruit in the Philippines (another position I reject), you are logically pointing out that after almost 2,000 years of Antioch's grip in the entire Pacific, Antioch has not produced a single fruit in the Philippines. 

My question now is, how come Antioch never bothered to plant something in the Philippines after two thousand years?  Where is the fruit of Antioch? 

More importantly, do you honestly believe that the hundreds of evangelicals Antioch is now accomodating are better fruits than the hundreds or perhaps thousands of baptized Orthodox Christians in the Philippines who belong to the EP?



Brother, please don't put words in to my mouth. I did not "compare" Constantinople to the fig tree and nowhere in my post will you read that I did so.  Please try to re-read my previous post again so you will understand what I'm really trying to say.  Constantinople is not the Filipino Orthodox and the Filipino Orthodox is not Constantinople.  Your deep prejudice is the root cause of your hatred and confusion.  Have you  ever ask the present Vicar in your country or the Metropolitan in Hong Kong what is the real position of Constantinople with regards to the newly established Antiochian presence in your country? Please ask your Vicar  and Metropolitan to tell you honestly what is really happening there.  You might be in for a big surprise to learn that your position is VERY MUCH CONTRARY to theirs so be prepare for the final revelation and please be very careful with what you write or say  regarding the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East and your Antiochian Orthodox Christian brethren from now on.

P.S. as far as the available statistics are concerned there are less than seven hundred Filipino Orthodox Christians in the Philippines under  Constantinople.  The canonical Orthodox Church under Constantinople was established in the Philippines way back in 1992.  I have attended the Divine Liturgy at the Annunciation Parish in Manila and all I saw were less than 30 people inside the church and most of the time its almost empty even on Major Feast Days.  So perhaps now you understand what the story of the beautiful but barren Fig Tree is trying to convey. Lastly, from where did you get your "hundreds and perhaps thousands of baptized Orthodox Christians in the Philippines" statistics?  Please cite your sources and references

God enlighten and bless you my Filipino brothers in Orthodoxy.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elisha on April 07, 2008, 11:18:27 AM
Mr. Elisha,

The Official Website of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/) did not mention anything about  the "bishops" being  "made insta-archpriests" after they were received into the Antiochian Church. Kindly give us your references and your sources please.  Have you spoken with any of the former members of  IEMELIF  if they still call their leaders "Bishops"  or if they call them now as  "Archpriests"?  If not, so where did you get all these?  Just asking.   Thank you.

Filipiniana,

I was referring to two things:  both this group and the Evangelical Orthodox Church (aka "EOC") of which I grew up in that came into Orthodoxy under the Antiochian 20 years ago.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elisha on April 07, 2008, 11:19:15 AM
How is he?  Do you know him personally?

His Eminence Metropolitan Nektarios is the new bishop.

http://www.imsamou.gr/newsDetails.php?id=131


Thanks.  No, I have not been able to meet him yet, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time since I'm in NorCal too.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 07, 2008, 01:41:10 PM
Quote
Brother, please don't put words in to my mouth. I did not "compare" Constantinople to the fig tree and nowhere in my post will you read that I did so.  Please try to re-read my previous post again so you will understand what I'm really trying to say.

Then, with all honesty, tell me exactly what you meant by bringing out the parable of the fig tree, which was in response to my first post on this thread.

Quote
Constantinople is not the Filipino Orthodox and the Filipino Orthodox is not Constantinople.

Same applies to Antioch.  You are not making any sense, really.  The truth of the matter is that the Filipino Orthodox exists, and it is under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Quote
Your deep prejudice is the root cause of your hatred and confusion.
 

You are the one sowing hatred by undermining the efforts of the EP as well as discrediting the achievements of the hundreds of Filipinos who have converted to Orthodoxy. 

Quote
P.S. as far as the available statistics are concerned there are less than seven hundred Filipino Orthodox Christians in the Philippines under  Constantinople.  The canonical Orthodox Church under Constantinople was established in the Philippines way back in 1992.  I have attended the Divine Liturgy at the Annunciation Parish in Manila and all I saw were less than 30 people inside the church and most of the time its almost empty even on Major Feast Days.

Again, you are judging the parish as if you were Jesus Christ.  Besides, faith is measured in QUALITY, not quantity. 

Quote
So perhaps now you understand what the story of the beautiful but barren Fig Tree is trying to convey.

Again, you are interpreting the parable out of its proper context.  A true Orthodox wouldn't do such a thing.  You are speaking like a Protestant who takes his/her own interpretation of Scripture as gospel truth.

By the way, have you by chance been baptised/chrismated already?

Quote
Lastly, from where did you get your "hundreds and perhaps thousands of baptized Orthodox Christians in the Philippines" statistics?  Please cite your sources and references

You have already stated that there are less than seven hundred Filipino Orthodox Christians, so there is no need for me to prove my statement.  If it is of consolation to you, it is pretty obvious that I should have used "or" rather than "and", i.e. "hundreds OR perhaps thousands."
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 07, 2008, 01:47:53 PM
Jurisdiction jurisdiction jurisdiction.

Maybe the Antiochian Church met some need that the EP couldn't in this case.

Maybe there is more to the story than meets the eye.

Maybe the Antiochians already talked to the EP and they made a deal.

Do we really know all the circumstances?

You make very good points.  Perhaps the full information hasn't trickled down to the readers and the laymen.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 07, 2008, 01:53:28 PM
So...let me get this straight...you think they should have been rejected? Or what?

It would be ideal that the new members become part of the growing community that just so happens to be under the jurisdiction of the EP.  The situation in America where multiple jurisdictions exist should not be replicated in the Philippines.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 07, 2008, 02:07:25 PM
Quote from: filipiniana
I have attended the Divine Liturgy at the Annunciation Parish in Manila and all I saw were less than 30 people inside the church and most of the time its almost empty even on Major Feast Days.

Well that's the genuine Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, not the western hybrid rite that the evangelicals would want to celebrite once they become Orthodox.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Anastasios on April 07, 2008, 02:10:07 PM
It would be ideal that the new members become part of the growing community that just so happens to be under the jurisdiction of the EP.  The situation in America where multiple jurisdictions exist should not be replicated in the Philippines.


I agree on that point.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Anastasios on April 07, 2008, 02:10:55 PM
Well that's the genuine Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, not the western hybrid rite that the evangelicals would want to celebrite once they become Orthodox.


Is that what they are saying they want to do? I would be against that.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Tamara on April 07, 2008, 04:18:16 PM
Well that's the genuine Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, not the western hybrid rite that the evangelicals would want to celebrite once they become Orthodox.


Agapitos Theognosis,

I grew up in an ethnic Antiochian parish in the United States. But I now attend an Antiochian parish that was started by evangelicals. The Divine Liturgy is EXACTLY the same in the two parishes except one uses Arabic and the other uses English. I highly doubt Metropolitan Paul Saliba (who is Met. Philip's cousin), would allow a Divine Liturgy that is different.

Kalo Sarakosti, Tamara

ps. Before Met. Paul was made a bishop, he was the parish priest of St. George in Washington DC, the parish my godparents attend. Both of my godparents loved Met. Paul because he was very pastoral and very Orthodox in his teachings. My godparents are of Syrian heritage.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 07, 2008, 06:27:29 PM
Agapito Theognosis,

I grew up in an ethnic Antiochian parish in the United States. But I now attend an Antiochian parish that was started by evangelicals. The Divine Liturgy is EXACTLY the same in the two parishes except one uses Arabic and the other uses English. I highly doubt Metropolitan Paul Saliba (who is Met. Philip's cousin), would allow a Divine Liturgy that is different.



Exactly one of the the reasons why the former uncanonical Antiochian mission established  by a certain Australian deacon posing as an Antiochian Abbot in the Philippines was made defunct.   Our brother Theognosis should really consult and talk with his Vicar and Metropolitan.


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 07, 2008, 06:31:53 PM
You make very good points.  Perhaps the full information hasn't trickled down to the readers and the laymen.


Yes, that's exactly the reason why I advice you to be very careful with what you say or  write regarding the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East and your Antiochian Orthodox brethren in your country. You don't know what's really going on.  But you will know sooner or later so be prepared.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 07, 2008, 07:21:50 PM
You make very good points.  Perhaps the full information hasn't trickled down to the readers and the laymen.

(http://philmelody.googlepages.com/theword1107.jpg)


Agapitos Theognosis,
Please ask your Vicar and Metropolitan for more details.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 07, 2008, 07:55:18 PM
It would be ideal that the new members become part of the growing community that just so happens to be under the jurisdiction of the EP.  The situation in America where multiple jurisdictions exist should not be replicated in the Philippines.


Agapitos Theognosis,
Yes time will come and you will see Antiochian priests giving Holy Communion to both "Greek" Filipino Orthodox and Filipino "Antiochian" Orthodox in the Annunciation Parish in Manila.   There are only three Filipino Orthodox priests (and 1 Greek Vicar) under the EP in the Philippines at the moment. Antiochian priests will be sent to "Greek" Filipino Orthodox parishes that are without regular priests (as many of the parishes and missions under EP in the Philippines are without parish priests and even lay missionaries).  You might find these things "hard to accept"  but you will see all of these things being fulfilled in your time.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on April 07, 2008, 10:08:47 PM

P.S.  I have attended the Divine Liturgy at the Annunciation Parish in Manila and all I saw were less than 30 people inside the church and most of the time its almost empty even on Major Feast Days.  So perhaps now you understand what the story of the beautiful but barren Fig Tree is trying to convey.
God enlighten and bless you my Filipino brothers in Orthodoxy.



Man, this is a very sad thing..

Im not really THAT aware of the situation, but wouldn't cooperation between the two, help more to plant Orthodoxy here in the Philippines? Honestly I find this squabbling quite fruitless.. (Im sorry for that)..
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 07, 2008, 10:45:09 PM
Man, this is a very sad thing..

Im not really THAT aware of the situation, but wouldn't cooperation between the two, help more to plant Orthodoxy here in the Philippines? Honestly I find this squabbling quite fruitless.. (Im sorry for that)..

You're absolutely right Sohma_hatori. The problem is some faithful care only about jurisdiction, jurisdiction and jurisdiction. But we can not really blame them because they are not aware of what is really going on. You see, even the Filipino Orthodox Priest (EP) in Mindanao apparently gave you the wrong information last time? They are simply not aware. Now whose really to blame for this "fruitless squabbling"?   The ordinary faithful (readers, laymen) or their Vicar or Administrative leaders who are keeping all the vital information and the truth from them? As far as I'm concerned, the Pastoral and Administrative leaders of the Antiochian jurisdiction are not witholding the necessary information to their faithful (you see, even the bank account number for the donation was proclaimed  not only from the pulpit of the Cathedral in Australia but also published on the worldwide web :laugh:). Perhaps the Administrative leaders from the EP is aware that the majority of the faithful under their jurisdiction will find these agreement and arrangement very  "hard to accept"  so they witheld the information (in good faith) until such time that they (the Filipino Orthodox faithful under the EP)  are ready to accept them.  The Antiochians and the Greeks are brothers in Orthodoxy so what's all the squabbling? You know the answer and I repeat, some faithful only care about jurisdiction, jurisdiction and jurisdiction.

 
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Tamara on April 07, 2008, 11:27:14 PM
You're absolutely right Sohma_hatori. The problem is some faithful care only about jurisdiction, jurisdiction and jurisdiction. But we can not really blame them because they are not aware of what is really going on. You see, even the Filipino Orthodox Priest (EP) in Mindanao apparently gave you the wrong information last time? They are simply not aware. Now whose really to blame for this "fruitless squabbling"?   The ordinary faithful (readers, laymen) or their Vicar or Administrative leaders who are keeping all the vital information and the truth from them? As far as I'm concerned, the Pastoral and Administrative leaders of the Antiochian jurisdiction are not witholding the necessary information to their faithful (you see, even the bank account number for the donation was proclaimed  not only from the pulpit of the Cathedral in Australia but also published on the worldwide web :laugh:). Perhaps the Administrative leaders from the EP is aware that the majority of the faithful under their jurisdiction will find these agreement and arrangement very  "hard to accept"  so they witheld the information (in good faith) until such time that they (the Filipino Orthodox faithful under the EP)  are ready to accept them.  The Antiochians and the Greeks are brothers in Orthodoxy so what's all the squabbling? You know the answer and I repeat, some faithful only care about jurisdiction, jurisdiction and jurisdiction.


Dear Filipiniana,

I am happy regardless of what jurisdiction was chosen. It is truly miracle, just as it was a miracle when the evangelicals joined Orthodoxy in North America 20 years ago. I view it as a sign that the Holy Spirit is at work bringing more people into the Church.

your sister in Christ, Tamara

 
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 08, 2008, 12:14:31 AM
Dear Filipiniana,

I am happy regardless of what jurisdiction was chosen. It is truly miracle, just as it was a miracle when the evangelicals joined Orthodoxy in North America 20 years ago. I view it as a sign that the Holy Spirit is at work bringing more people into the Church.

your sister in Christ, Tamara

 

Dear Tamara,
Yes, I also believe that the Holy Spirit is behind all these developments in the Philippines which was heralded as  "a  historic moment in the history of the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand." (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=38)



Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 08, 2008, 01:37:36 AM

To download and read the November 2007 issue of   THE WORD Magazine  (http://www.antiochian.org/assets/word/NOVEMBER2007WORD.pdf) please click HERE (http://www.antiochian.org/assets/word/NOVEMBER2007WORD.pdf).


(http://philmelody.googlepages.com/theword1107.jpg)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 08, 2008, 01:38:19 AM
Yes time will come and you will see Antiochian priests giving Holy Communion to both "Greek" Filipino Orthodox and Filipino "Antiochian" Orthodox in the Annunciation Parish in Manila.   There are only three Filipino Orthodox priests (and 1 Greek Vicar) under the EP in the Philippines at the moment. Antiochian priests will be sent to "Greek" Filipino Orthodox parishes that are without regular priests (as many of the parishes and missions under EP in the Philippines are without parish priests and even lay missionaries).

If such cooperation between the two jurisdictions would work out, it would be glorious.

Quote
You might find these things "hard to accept"  but you will see all of these things being fulfilled in your time.

What's "hard to accept" is the fact that Antioch appointed a NON-ORTHODOX as its vicar in the Philippines, which is a blow to the morale of the Orthodox faithful living in the country.  I mean, several hundred Filipinos have been Orthodox for years and an evangelical is appointed as vicar?!

It also makes it rather awkward for the EP vicar, a Greek Orthodox, to discuss leadership matters with an Evangelical--someone who has not even taken the Eucharist.  

This is not a very good precedent in my opinion.

Filipiniana, at this point, you have not answered my question.  Please let me know if you have been baptized/chrismated already.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 08, 2008, 01:59:41 AM
If such cooperation between the two jurisdictions would work out, it would be glorious.

Filipiniana, at this point, you have not answered my question.  Please let me know if you have been baptized/chrismated already.


Yes brother, I have been Chrismated Orthodox even before your Parish in Sucat, Metro Manila was established.  Sorry for my late reply.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 08, 2008, 02:22:58 AM
What's "hard to accept" is the fact that Antioch appointed a NON-ORTHODOX as its vicar in the Philippines, which is a blow to the morale of the Orthodox faithful living in the country.  I mean, several hundred Filipinos have been Orthodox for years and an evangelical is appointed as vicar?!

It also makes it rather awkward for the EP vicar, a Greek Orthodox, to discuss leadership matters with an Evangelical--someone who has not even taken the Eucharist. 

This is not a very good precedent in my opinion.
Where do you get this idea that Antioch would do something so uncanonical as to appoint someone who is not CURRENTLY Orthodox to be its vicar anywhere?  This truly is bad precedent IF they have, but I somehow suspect that we don't know the whole story and that we may find that the allegation you're passing along is nothing but scuttlebutt.  Can you tell us where you got your information on the Antiochian vicar in the Philippines?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 08, 2008, 02:30:10 AM
Yes brother, I have been Chrismated Orthodox even before your Parish in Sucat, Metro Manila was established.  Sorry for my late reply.

Thank you. Now I know why you are so excited about the recent development.  You may have had unpleasant experiences in the past, and that you may be praying that the situation in the Philippines improve dramatically when Antioch extends its helping hand to Constantinople.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 08, 2008, 02:39:38 AM
Thank you. Now I know why you are so excited about the recent development.  You may have had unpleasant experiences in the past, and that you may be praying that the situation in the Philippines improve dramatically when Antioch extends its helping hand to Constantinople.



 We are not perfect, our leaders are not perfect, and as humans, all of us are prone to commit mistakes, lots of mistakes. We as Orthodox Christians are brothers in one family so we must always help one another, strenghten each other in the faith and strive to be united at all times. I'm deeply sorry brother  if my previous post has caused you much pain. May God have mercy on us and bless us.


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 08, 2008, 05:44:31 AM
......you may be praying that the situation in the Philippines improve dramatically when Antioch extends its helping hand to Constantinople.



We would like to thank everyone who has offered their Prayer for the Coming of More Orthodox Missionaries to the Philippines  (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12310.0.html). We are now witnessing the fruits of your fervent prayers through God's mercy and blessing.



"Let us love one another, so that with one mind we may confess: The Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
the Trinity, one in essence and undivided."
-Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom


:'(As God,by grace, hadrevealed to St. Cornelius the teachings of the truth, I, a Catholic dearly and humbly plead you to please pray for our country the Philippines, that it may receive more missionaries who will come and spread the Orthodox Faith,so that we may be baptized to the true Church...

 :'(Please pray that this may come to pass. Please offer itasan intentionwhen you celebrate The Divine Liturgy,asI shall continue to ask the Good Lord that His Church may come to us..

In the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit


May you realize your prayers for yourself and all others there in the Phillipines.

Juliana


Lord, strengthen Thy servants in doing Thy work in the Philippines!


May God's Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.


Lord have mercy!


Lord, have mercy!


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 08, 2008, 06:59:53 AM
Where do you get this idea that Antioch would do something so uncanonical as to appoint someone who is not CURRENTLY Orthodox to be its vicar anywhere?  This truly is bad precedent IF they have, but I somehow suspect that we don't know the whole story and that we may find that the allegation you're passing along is nothing but scuttlebutt.  Can you tell us where you got your information on the Antiochian vicar in the Philippines?

That is what I have been told by my priest.  Filipiniana can either reject or confirm this information.

Either way, I have to learn to respect the decision of Antioch.  I will pray for the conversion of more Filipinos and ask forgiveness and mercy from our Lord.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 08, 2008, 07:33:03 PM
That is what I have been told by my priest.  Filipiniana can either reject or confirm this information.

Either way, I have to learn to respect the decision of Antioch.  I will pray for the conversion of more Filipinos and ask forgiveness and mercy from our Lord.



An honest mistake based on assumption by the priest perhaps?  I don't know if the priest (or the EP Vicar)  has been corresponding directly with the "Vicar" for the Filipino Orthodox under Antioch or with the Primate in Australia. Did the "Vicar" told him so (ie., that he has not been Chrimated yet)? Did the Antiochian Primate in Australia said so?  When the first Filipino Orthodox converts were received into Orthodoxy, it was the leader of the community who got Chrismated first and the rest followed after some time.  What if leader or leaders of the Evangelical group requested the Primate that all ~6,000 of them be Chrismated at the same time in the Philippines by the Antiochian Primate  and/or  by the Patriarch of Antioch himself?  That would be a glorious event in Philippine history!


(http://stpeterantiochian.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/sinai-peter.jpg)
The Apostle Saint Peter


"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles."
Acts 2:41-43


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Islas Filipinas on April 09, 2008, 01:24:03 AM
To Everyone,

Mabuhay! I have been monitoring your discussion and I would say that everyone has it's own point of view and has it's own understanding of this so called "Conversions in the Philippines"... from the title of the discussion persei it seems that everyone does not really know if the said 6,000 figures of Evangelicals and member of Catholic Patriarchate of the East were already chrismated or so their leaders, namely Msgr. Jeptah Aniceto and Rev. Pascualito (Father Yitzak as mentioned by His Eminence Paul in his email to me).

Before anything else I would like to inform you that I am an Orthodox Christian in the Philippines living in Kalookan City one city away from Msgr. Jeptah and Rev. Pascualito and three or four cities away from the Greek Orthodox Church in Annunciation. I was chrismated by the time of Fr. Philemon and Fr. Kleopas by the named of John after John the Baptist

Now, my understanding on this matter is not about jurisdiction or membership or squabbling over a big piece of land that for centuries has been occupied and politically and spiritually damaged by different cultures and denominations. IT'S ABOUT VIOLATING THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH JUST EVEN THE 85 CANONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES... Article 33-35...

I am just wondering with this long thread none of you have touched the policy and rules of our Church which was set forth by the Great Church Fathers of the Church as what St. Paul also said that there may be order in the Church.

I does not matter who violated first it's about who followed the canons... and does it make the Church to be canonical.

Let me say about the Antiochian in the Philippines, this is neither to defend the EP nor to insult the Antiochian Arch. of Ausralia and Oceania etc....

I am in communication with Met. Paul and I have a copy of the e-mail and my reason for writing him is to seek reception because that would be the nearest Orthodox Church in our place...

But I was disappointed that the two (Jeptah and Pascualito) were made Vicar even if they were not Orthodox and entrusted me to tem and the worst.. They approve the Qurbana Kadisha something and allowed the two to continue on their own liturgical style... now I have arguments here:

If they were received already by Met. Paul, how? thru Chrismation? If yes, why they still bear their title as Reverend and Monsignor and wearing a white collar in front of an Orthodox priest?

Why they were still allowed to practice their own rite? Does this mean that anyone who has his own liturgical rite can continue for as long he is under an Orthodox bishop? Instead of the Typka Service?

And if indeed if Arch. Paul is in communication with the Greek Bishop in Hong Kong should he not entrusted first the said inquirers instead of accepting them and pronouncing himself as Primate of Australia and Oceania and Philippines? When we say Philippines encompassing the three main islands, Luzon , Visayas and Mindanao...

I do not question the sincerity of His Eminence Paul but the process... then again, we need to go back to the Canons... what does the Canons says about it getting into another city or country which has established Orthodox Church already.

The Philippines is very big and for sure the Greek Church cannot do it alone but putting another jurisdiction which we know will have a negative effect in the future just what is happening in America, Canada, Australia and other new lands... overlapping of jurisdictions...

If the Greek Church is lack of priest because money or people then other Churches can help on that by providing training and assistance to those baptized individuals under the EP and for me that is the true nature of brotherhood ad unity in faith and not the hypocrisy than we are all one and yet at the backdoor like this discussion praise people but not Christ... let his Church be in shame... Hierarchs to Hierarchs... we as laity have the responsibility to tell out Hierarchs this kind of disheartening event... glory of who’s Archdiocese? What’s next... the Russian, the Serbians? Who else?

Yes, Philippines is for sale... my only thought is that we should act according to our conscience and meaning of true love and unity guided by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. the reason why our Churches seems to be no different at all to other Churches and accepted others as sister Church and the other lung.... have we forsaken the Church Fathers... abandon the Patristic teachings?


I am not a perfect man; just like you... sinners and hoping to be forgive by Christ and find refuge in His Church!


John

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 09, 2008, 01:59:50 AM
Where do you get this idea that Antioch would do something so uncanonical as to appoint someone who is not CURRENTLY Orthodox to be its vicar anywhere?  This truly is bad precedent IF they have, but I somehow suspect that we don't know the whole story and that we may find that the allegation you're passing along is nothing but scuttlebutt.  Can you tell us where you got your information on the Antiochian vicar in the Philippines?
Can anyone here give a link to an official source verifying that a representative of the Antiochian Patriarchate did indeed appoint a non-Orthodox to be his vicar in the Philippines?  I've now seen two posters on this thread assert this, but without official verification.  To my understanding, this kind of appointment is a canonical offense of such serious nature (if the allegations prove true) that unsubstantiated accusations of this on an internet forum could be considered gossip.  I don't want this thread or this forum to be a vehicle for such scuttlebutt, so please someone offer us official corroboration of these rumors, or let us all stop spreading them.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Anastasios on April 09, 2008, 02:00:31 AM
Thank you John for your perspective.

Are these people using their own liturgical rite or a Rite of another Church (Tridentine Mass, Syriac Qurbana, etc)?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Salpy on April 09, 2008, 02:05:01 AM
Welcome to the forum, John!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 09, 2008, 02:05:44 AM
Are you for real Mr. John?  I don't know anyone from the Annunciation Sucat Parish  by the name of John who resides at Caloocan City. Please note you mispelled Caloocan to Kalookan. Everyone from Caloocan City knows that their City is spelled Caloocan not Kalookan.  Please be more careful with what you say or write next time.



To Everyone,

Mabuhay! I have been monitoring your discussion and I would say that everyone has it's own point of view and has it's own understanding of this so called "Conversions in the Philippines"... from the title of the discussion persei it seems that everyone does not really know if the said 6,000 figures of Evangelicals and member of Catholic Patriarchate of the East were already chrismated or so their leaders, namely Msgr. Jeptah Aniceto and Rev. Pascualito (Father Yitzak as mentioned by His Eminence Paul in his email to me).

Before anything else I would like to inform you that I am an Orthodox Christian in the Philippines living in Kalookan City one city away from Msgr. Jeptah and Rev. Pascualito and three or four cities away from the Greek Orthodox Church in Annunciation. I was chrismated by the time of Fr. Philemon and Fr. Kleopas by the named of John after John the Baptist........................


I am not a perfect man; just like you... sinners and hoping to be forgive by Christ and find refuge in His Church!


John


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Anastasios on April 09, 2008, 02:15:59 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalookan

Wikipedia says both spellings are accepted...of course, Wikipedia is not infallible :)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 09, 2008, 02:26:37 AM
Are you for real Mr. John?  I don't know anyone from the Annunciation Sucat Parish  by the name of John who resides at Caloocan City. Please note you mispelled Caloocan to Kalookan. Everyone from Caloocan City knows that their City is spelled Caloocan not Kalookan.  Please be more careful with what you say or write next time.

You are questioning the credibility of a person because of his spelling?  You could have been a little bit more forgiving than that. 

I really don't know what your intentions are, filipiniana.  I really don't.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 09, 2008, 02:30:21 AM
To my understanding, this kind of appointment is a canonical offense of such serious nature (if the allegations prove true) that unsubstantiated accusations of this on an internet forum could be considered gossip.

Are you accusing me and John of spreading gossip?  Please clarify.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 09, 2008, 02:41:41 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalookan

Wikipedia says both spellings are accepted...of course, Wikipedia is not infallible :)

This is nothing but an attempt to divert our attention.  Nonetheless...

http://sangandaan.net/sangandaan/kalookan.html

AUTHOR'S NOTE OF THE USE OF THE "K's" AND THE "C's" IN SPELLING THE NAME OF THE CITY

The observant reader will notice the seemingly interchangeable use of "Caloocan" (with two "C's") and "Kalookan" (with two "K's") in the different articles contained in this book.  Those using "C's" were generally written before July 28, 1970.  On that date, the Municipal Board enacted Resolution No. 106, requesting all department heads thenceforth to use the letter "K" instead of "C" in spelling the name of the city.  The move was inspired by the wave of nationalism that engulfed the nation in the late 1960's.  The Anglo-Spanish letter in a name that was obviously indigenous smacked of the snobbishness of the colonial master that made him write cauayan instead of kawayan, to give just one example.

Surprisingly, it was the courts and the fiscal's office that led the other departments in complying with the resolution.  School authorities refused to honor it (they still do), arguing that "C's" in a proper noun are not changed to "K's" when written in Pilipino.  The fallacy of this assertion is that "Kalookan" is the proper noun, and the "K's" are not changed to "C's" when written in English.  At any rate, ours is the only city in the country that is written in two different ways.  If only for uniformity, it is urged that the correct spelling be used by all.

It will probably take much longer than a decade to achieve total compliance, but the progress so far made is encouraging.

City of Kalookan, 1981
The Author
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: arimethea on April 09, 2008, 02:46:40 AM
If they were received already by Met. Paul, how? thru Chrismation? If yes, why they still bear their title as Reverend and Monsignor and wearing a white collar in front of an Orthodox priest?

This is common practice to use these terms in the Antiochian Patriarchate when they are translated into English. The term Monsignor is used in the Western Rite Vicarate of the Archdiocese in North America from where Met. Paul was a priest for many years. Reverend is used in front of everyone of the official English titles of the Clergy in the Patriarchate when translated into English...

Right Reverend - For Bishop and Archimandrites
Reverend Father - for Presbyters
Very Reverend Father - for Protopresbyters
Reverend Deacon - for Deacons

This is also the practice of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, I have personally received correspondence from them as Reverend Subdeacon.

Quote
Why they were still allowed to practice their own rite? Does this mean that anyone who has his own liturgical rite can continue for as long he is under an Orthodox bishop? Instead of the Typka Service?
There is liturgical diversity in Orthodoxy. The Patriarchate of Antioch allows for two different Western Rite forms along with the typical Byzantine form.

Quote
And if indeed if Arch. Paul is in communication with the Greek Bishop in Hong Kong should he not entrusted first the said inquirers instead of accepting them and pronouncing himself as Primate of Australia and Oceania and Philippines? When we say Philippines encompassing the three main islands, Luzon , Visayas and Mindanao...

I do not question the sincerity of His Eminence Paul but the process... then again, we need to go back to the Canons... what does the Canons says about it getting into another city or country which has established Orthodox Church already.
If we go back to the canons then Met. Paul as a Bishop sitting on the Synod of the Patriarchate of Antioch and all the EAST is responsible for whatever territory such Synod would entrust him with since this is the traditional and canonical jurisdiction of his Patriarchate.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 09, 2008, 02:48:38 AM
Are you accusing me and John of spreading gossip?  Please clarify.

All I ask is for official backing of any allegations that Antiochian bishops engaged in such a serious canonical violation as to appoint heterodox to be "clergy" before they were received formally into the Church.  Without this validation such accusations are little more than rumor-mongering.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 09, 2008, 02:54:57 AM
All I ask is for official backing of any allegations that Antiochian bishops engaged in such a serious canonical violation as to appoint heterodox to be "clergy" before they were received formally into the Church.  Without this validation such accusations are little more than rumor-mongering.

It should be enough that the picture of this heterodox "vicar" appears above the bank account number where you're supposed to send your donations.

(http://philmelody.googlepages.com/jeptahaniceto.jpg)

If I am wrong, then ban me.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Anastasios on April 09, 2008, 03:05:37 AM
"If I am wrong, then ban me."

What is that supposed to mean? Why the confrontational nature? We have a responsibility to verify claims like this. People have posted inaccurate things before and it causes problems. So we take that seriously.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: arimethea on April 09, 2008, 03:06:29 AM
It should be enough that the picture of this heterodox "vicar" appears above the bank account number where you're supposed to send your donations.
Maybe I am wrong but this announcement and asking for donations is being made so that they can properly bring these groups in. Where are you getting this information that these men have been made "Vicars"? No where does the word "Vicar" appear in the sources you have provided us with. All that is being asked for is the source, no one is questioning your honesty.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Anastasios on April 09, 2008, 03:07:20 AM
I don't see anything about a vicar in that advertisement. I see a notice that some people are joining the Antiochian Church, a pic of the leader of the group, and a request for money to help their relief efforts.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 09, 2008, 03:27:29 AM
I don't even know the leader pictured in the advertisement, so the picture is all I have from which to draw conclusions.  Nothing in the picture or surrounding text even remotely indicates the man's background; therefore, I can conclude nothing about him.

Theognosis, I'm not accusing you of anything, so please don't feel you need to defend yourself against me.  I just want to make sure our public claims of hierarchical misdeeds are verifiable and accurate.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 09, 2008, 03:45:19 AM
"If I am wrong, then ban me."

What is that supposed to mean? Why the confrontational nature? We have a responsibility to verify claims like this. People have posted inaccurate things before and it causes problems. So we take that seriously.

Shouldn't you take it seriously when people accuse you of rumor-mongering and spreading gossip?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 09, 2008, 03:51:02 AM
Maybe I am wrong but this announcement and asking for donations is being made so that they can properly bring these groups in.


Would you know the owner of the bank account number?  If the person in the picture gets the donation, then he's the leader, i.e. vicar.

Quote
Where are you getting this information that these men have been made "Vicars"?

I've already answered that question even before I posted the image.

Quote
No where does the word "Vicar" appear in the sources you have provided us with. All that is being asked for is the source, no one is questioning your honesty.

Someone who is not Orthodox couldn't be a vicar, thus "vicar".
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 09, 2008, 04:03:40 AM
I just want to make sure our public claims of hierarchical misdeeds are verifiable and accurate.

I am just stating the facts.  You are the one asserting that there were hierarchical misdeeds should my statements prove to be valid.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 09, 2008, 04:16:05 AM
I don't see anything about a vicar in that advertisement. I see a notice that some people are joining the Antiochian Church, a pic of the leader of the group,

Read between the lines.  The person in the picture is definitely important, and the fact that the article does not mention his name or title is an indication that something is not right.

and a request for money to help their relief efforts.

They should ask for prayers, not money.  It's another bad precedent in my opinion.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: arimethea on April 09, 2008, 04:59:41 AM
Someone who is not Orthodox couldn't be a vicar, thus "vicar".
Maybe this is a language issue so let me try and figure out what you are saying...

Are you calling this person the "vicar" because he is the leader of this group wishing to come into the Church?

or

Is Met. Paul calling this person the Vicar in his correspondence with you?

or

Is someone else calling this person the "vicar" and you are using their terminology? (If this is the case please provide your source then)

or

Something else that I didn't think of and if this is the case can you please explain.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Anastasios on April 09, 2008, 11:46:36 AM
Read between the lines.  The person in the picture is definitely important, and the fact that the article does not mention his name or title is an indication that something is not right.

No thanks. Reading between the lines often gets people in trouble.

Quote
They should ask for prayers, not money.  It's another bad precedent in my opinion.

I agree with you that it looks suspicious.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Anastasios on April 09, 2008, 11:52:15 AM
Shouldn't you take it seriously when people accuse you of rumor-mongering and spreading gossip?



No one is accusing you of malice. Do you understand what it is like to moderate a site like this that gets 300-600 posts a day? Do you understand that people have threatened to sue us before? That we do all of this on our volunteer time? That we are often accused of prejudice by both sides of an argument at the same time? Please friend, do not take this personally. We are only inquiring what is going on.  None of us have the foggiest idea what life is like in the Philippines and so it's a little hard to figure things out. Some things are being stated as facts by people on both sides. Speaking personally, I share your concern completely with any group of people coming in on their own terms to the Orthodox Church. However, I am cautious to judge at the same time.

There is no need for you to say things like "then ban me." We are just trying to meet our responsibility of fairness and remember we will all face the ultimate judge, Christ himself. We really want to make sure that our site is not responsible for advertising mistruth whenever possible. No one on our moderation team is assuming anything you have said is not true. It is just confusing to try and figure out all the details and we are trying to be cautious. This is how Orthodox people are supposed to take all things, with a discerning spirit. Thank you for your understanding. We value your input on this site.

Anastasios
Administrator
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 09, 2008, 11:18:11 PM
Quote
No one is accusing you of malice. Do you understand what it is like to moderate a site like this that gets 300-600 posts a day? Do you understand that people have threatened to sue us before? That we do all of this on our volunteer time? That we are often accused of prejudice by both sides of an argument at the same time? Please friend, do not take this personally. We are only inquiring what is going on.  None of us have the foggiest idea what life is like in the Philippines and so it's a little hard to figure things out. Some things are being stated as facts by people on both sides. Speaking personally, I share your concern completely with any group of people coming in on their own terms to the Orthodox Church. However, I am cautious to judge at the same time.

There is no need for you to say things like "then ban me." We are just trying to meet our responsibility of fairness and remember we will all face the ultimate judge, Christ himself. We really want to make sure that our site is not responsible for advertising mistruth whenever possible. No one on our moderation team is assuming anything you have said is not true. It is just confusing to try and figure out all the details and we are trying to be cautious. This is how Orthodox people are supposed to take all things, with a discerning spirit. Thank you for your understanding. We value your input on this site.

Thanks for the clarification, Anastasios. 

Now that I have shared my concerns with all of you, I guess it's time that I leave this thread, which I believe is political in nature.  To be honest, I don’t like discussing church politics with all its shortcomings.  It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  In this case, that bad taste has spoiled the party. 

Even so, I have no regrets.  I am a man and act like a man.  I don't ask for money and am no hypocrite.  I have no intentions of becoming a priest or a bishop.  I'm no party animal either.

As for the Philippines, it is and always will be a Roman Catholic nation.  For that, it is blessed--perhaps the most blessed in all of Asia.  It is after all, the Pearl of the Orient Seas, the only predominantly Christian nation in Asia. 

To me, it doesn't matter whether the people are Orthodox or Catholic; what matters is that the Filipinos continue to pray to God, the Holy Trinity, amidst the turmoil and struggle.  Hence, there should be no urgency in "converting" the Filipinos en masse. 

Perhaps the former metropolitan had this in mind when he made it clear that the Orthodox Church is not in the Philippines to actively convert Roman Catholics like what the evangelicals are doing, but to merely open up Holy Orthodoxy's doors for those who want to come in. 

By the grace of our Lord, I saw the doors open myself, and nobody pushed me in.

Peace.

Theognosis
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Islas Filipinas on April 09, 2008, 11:42:09 PM
Luwalhati Sa Iyo O Diyos! Luwalhati Sa Iyo!
Doxa Si O Theo! Doxa Si!
Glory To You O God! Glory To You !


Peace!


After reading all the comments on my first post, it seems that there is one question that needs to be clarified.

1.   Validity of the information that indeed Msgr. Jeptah and Rev. Pascualito were appointed as Vicars under the Antiochian Jurisdiction of Archdiocese of Australia, Oceania and Philippines.

And to answer this one, it’s for everyone to find out. Below are their e-mail addresses which in case you may want to get a personal answer from them.

“The two ex-groups, the Catholic Patriarchate of the East and the Evangelicals are in the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand and the Philippines .  We have two vicars there; one in Manilla –
Father Yitzak, his email is:   mshf_stfrancis@yahoo.com
And the other is in Davao , Rev. Jeptah and his email is:    bishop_aniceto@yahoo.com
 You can contact either one, and I am sure they will provide you with any help possible.”
(Part of content of e–mail correspondence with His Eminence Paul Saliba of Australia, Oceania and Philippines)

As for me I decided not to push through with the Antiochian Mission and perhaps continue to attend the Greek Church and struggle to go on a 2-3 hours trip against 30 minutes away from the Antiochians because of this issue.

I am not against any jurisdiction coming in the Philippines, as I have said, our country is too big for the Greek Church to serve… what I am questioning is the legality and canonicity of all this phenomena, the process because at the end this is a serious topic about unity of our faith and canonical standing of everyone that might be question and might be used against us by fundamental Christian sects in our country especially the INC or Iglesia Ni Cristo or Church of Christ (descendants of Arians) which is growing already in the US and other parts of the globe.

I admire the sincerity of everyone but I cannot take joy in this historic event for the simple reason but grave violation of the Holy Canons which  I mentioned in my first post which until now none of us here discuss about it in the light of all this things.

In my opinion, the problem of administrative unity in America and other new lands is not jurisdictional or issue of ethnicities but issue of aligning ourselves according to the canons and patristic teachings which is unique to us and entrusted to us Orthodox Christians. I do know we have members of this forum belong to old style or who are Traditional Orthodox Christians who knows better about this serious breached of Canons more so this False Ecumenism (this is another topic of course).

As I see, this is not an isolated case or just a simple problem of miscommunication between Hierarchs but intentional violation of the Canons.

Let us be honest to ourselves brothers, if indeed those who call for unity in America are sincere enough, those who call themselves canonical Hierarchs, why until now they have not withdrew their Bishops in one city where multiple jurisdiction is prevalent. I my own opinion, it should be the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) who should be given presidency re on unity in America since they were the one autocephaly by The Russian Orthodox Church… but then again why, simply because they overlook what the Canon says on this matter and continue establishing their own diocese and installing their own Bishop… not the unlike the parishes under the Jerusalem Patriarchate, what they have only are representatives.

How easy for one Bishop to authorize the use of liturgical rite foreign to her practice if not, not clear for Filipinos. Where is conciliarity on this matter now? When the western rite was allowed and the Liturgy of St. Gregory and other western rites were revived, it has the blessing of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church during the time of Patriarch Tikhon.

I am saying these because the thing that we don’t want to happen in the Philippines which might creation confusion and sensationalize by fundamental Christian sects happened already by claiming the Philippines as one of Met. Paul Saliba’s jurisdiction and being him as the primate.

Again, as a Filipino I cannot partake on this joy not even as an Orthodox Christian not because I don’t want my fellow country men to embrace Orthodoxy like Sohma Hatori or any Filipino who happened to read this. We want to have a correct understanding of Orthodoxy and live the ethos of this faith… we Filipinos are very religious but please don’t bring anymore confusion in our country as we are divided already by politics and dead spirituality of Western thinking and religion.

I apologize if I offended anyone here. Rest assured that this is going to be my last posting. I hope and I pray like Filpiniana, that an Antiochian priest or Greek priest or Filipino priest will give communion to Greek or Antiochian or Russian or Filipino or perhaps ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS IN THE PHILIPPINES.

What I want to have in the Philippines, is just simply Orthodoxy, the way of life that we members need to embark and practice (orthopraxia)… not by numbers but by quality!

May this Great Lent and coming Pascha bring us Peace!

John

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on April 19, 2008, 08:12:26 AM
What is happening in the Philippines is great news of the Holy Spirit's actions, so it is a little disappointing that some people jump to conclusions without even finding out the facts first. What happened to Orthodox charity and "believing the best"?

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.

Next time you want to know things, please do not post such questions on the internet- ask Met. Paul first, then this will save many wasted hours of passing around uninformed opinion and sheer gossip. Gossip is not Orthodox. Those who asked genuine questions without gossip should also email Met. Paul or whoever in future. Otherwise you can just add to speculation and feed the argumentative types :-(

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

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on April 19, 2008, 11:27:21 AM
What is happening in the Philippines is great news of the Holy Spirit's actions, so it is a little disappointing that some people jump to conclusions without even finding out the facts first. What happened to Orthodox charity and "believing the best"?

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.

Next time you want to know things, please do not post such questions on the internet- ask Met. Paul first, then this will save many wasted hours of passing around uninformed opinion and sheer gossip. Gossip is not Orthodox. Those who asked genuine questions without gossip should also email Met. Paul or whoever in future. Otherwise you can just add to speculation and feed the argumentative types :-(

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



Thank you Father. Well put.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Tamara on April 19, 2008, 12:23:06 PM
I just hope that a bishop will be placed over this new group. Six thousand new souls are certainly enough people to qualify for assigning a bishop to oversee them in their country. One thing we learned the hard way, a large group of new converts NEED someone who is experienced in the faith to help them develop an Orthodox mind-set. They should not be left on their own to figure things out for themselves. I hope the EP and Antiochians work together on that issue and come up with a solution.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 19, 2008, 12:36:35 PM
Quote
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.

This is good news.

Quote
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.

Our priests and bishops are given certain titles for a reason.  Personally, I don't like calling the heterodox representatives as "vicars", just as I don't like calling the heterodox representatives as "bishops". 

Quote
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*.

I am relieved that you acknowledge the situation in other countries as problematic and uncanonical.  As such, please inderstand that I don't like this situation introduced in the Philippines as well.

Quote
Fifthly, the services have been modified to make them Orthodox.

I think that's innovation, and I as a former Roman Catholic am tired of it. Again, I hope you understand.

Quote
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.

Trust should be mutual.  The voice of the Orthodox Christians in the Philippines must be heard.  We want nothing less than the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.  Any "modified" liturgy must be rejected, with no compromise.

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

Next time you want to know things, please do not post such questions on the internet- ask Met. Paul first, then this will save many wasted hours of passing around uninformed opinion and sheer gossip. Gossip is not Orthodox. Those who asked genuine questions without gossip should also email Met. Paul or whoever in future. Otherwise you can just add to speculation and feed the argumentative types.

There's no speculation and gossip.  The fact that you have confirmed my grievances is a testament to this, from the evangelical leaders being called "vicars" to the evangelicals celebrating a "modified" western rite liturgy.  I will call up the local Diakonia about this matter and raise our objections directly in good faith to his emminence Met. Paul.

Thank you, Father.

Frederick
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 19, 2008, 12:40:02 PM
I just hope that a bishop will be placed over this new group.

An ORTHODOX bishop regardless of jurisdiction, yes!

Quote
Six thousand new souls are certainly enough people to qualify for assigning a bishop to oversee them in their country. One thing we learned the hard way, a large group of new converts NEED someone who is experienced in the faith to help them develop an Orthodox mind-set. They should not be left on their own to figure things out for themselves. I hope the EP and Antiochians work together on that issue and come up with a solution.

I will pray for this.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 19, 2008, 07:39:55 PM
The voice of the Orthodox Christians in the Philippines must be heard.  We want nothing less than the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.  Any "modified" liturgy must be rejected, with no compromise..... -Frederick


Dear Frederick,
When you say "WE" are you speaking in behalf of  Greek Vicar Nikitas and the more or less 500 Orthodox Filipinos under the Ecumenical Patriarchate or are you speaking only on your own behalf and the more or less than 10 members of the local "Diakonia" in the Annunciation Parish?  The voice of the few members of the "local diakonia" is NOT the voice of the more or less 500 Orthodox Filipinos under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  You should visit the Theotokos Orthodox Church  in Bajada, Masbate to find out what your  more or less 350 active Filipino Orthodox brethren under the Ecumenical Patriarchate are actually doing there. Please see for yourself and FYI, your brethren in Bajada, Masbate are doing these things with the special dispensation from  the Hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.  Please ask your Greek Vicar for more details. Again, please be careful with what you say or write in this forum.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 19, 2008, 11:29:22 PM
Quote
When you say "WE" are you speaking in behalf of  Greek Vicar Nikitas and the more or less 500 Orthodox Filipinos under the Ecumenical Patriarchate or are you speaking only on your own behalf and the more or less than 10 members of the local "Diakonia" in the Annunciation Parish?

I am speaking for myself as far as my posts on this thread are concerned.  When I said "we", I intend to gather formal support from the laity, not just from the Readers, i.e. the Diakonia.  Well, assuming that I do otherwise, the voice of 10 Orthodox Christians should carry more weight than the voice of 6,000 Evangelicals who want to become Orthodox on their own terms.

Quote
The voice of the few members of the "local diakonia" is NOT the voice of the more or less 500 Orthodox Filipinos under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  You should visit the Theotokos Orthodox Church  in Bajada, Masbate to find out what your  more or less 350 active Filipino Orthodox brethren under the Ecumenical Patriarchate are actually doing there. Please see for yourself and FYI, your brethren in Bajada, Masbate are doing these things with the special dispensation from  the Hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The Theotokos Orthodox Church in Brgy. Bajada, Cataingan, Masbate celebrates the DIVINE LITURGY OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM every Sunday.  Check the schedule of services at www.ocp.uni.cc.

(http://www.geocities.com/ocp_reader/img/bajada.jpg)

The Theotokos Orthodox Church in Brgy. Bajada, Cataingan, Masbate is a parish of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia which is under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. It is the only Orthodox Church in Masbate and one of the three canonical Orthodox parishes in the Philippines that is recognized by other Orthodox Patriarchates and Metropolitanates around the world.

The Theotokos Day Care School and Kindergarten in Bajada, Cataingan, Masbate is run by the Abbess and the three monastic nuns of the Theotokos Orthodox Monastery. It serves 30 to 50 students between the ages of 4 and 6. They are taught in a warm loving Christian environment and excel and develop at a faster pace than children at other schools in the area.

Abbess: Mother Superior Theodoti Atibagos
Address: Bgy. Bajada, Cataingan, 5405 Masbate
Telephone: (632) 431-5863

Sunday Services
Matins: 8:30 am and Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Scheduled)

Wednesday Services
Paraklesis to the Theotokos: 5:00 pm





As you can see, there are no "modified" evangelical rites in Masbate.  Hence, your statement that they are "doing these things" is totally without basis.

BTW filipiniana, for reasons of transparency, I would like to know your Christened name.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 19, 2008, 11:39:56 PM
BTW filipiniana, for reasons of transparency, I would like to know your Christened name.
Why do you want to know?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 19, 2008, 11:41:24 PM
The voice of the Orthodox Christians in the Philippines must be heard.  We want nothing less than the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.  Any "modified" liturgy must be rejected, with no compromise.
So, would you reject an Orthodox Western Rite?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 19, 2008, 11:43:32 PM
So, would you reject an Orthodox Western Rite?

No.  I said "modified".
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 19, 2008, 11:50:03 PM
No.  I said "modified".
Then why do you say you want nothing less than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?  To my knowledge the canonical Western Rite Orthodox don't use his liturgy.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Salpy on April 20, 2008, 12:04:44 AM
BTW filipiniana, for reasons of transparency, I would like to know your Christened name.


Just so filipiniana and everyone else knows, you are not in any way required to give your Christened name.  The vast majority of people on this forum don't give it and there are good reasons for that.  One cannot assume you are not being "transparent" by not giving your name.  That assertion is just ridiculous. 
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 20, 2008, 12:21:08 AM
I am speaking for myself as far as my posts on this thread are concerned.  When I said "we", I intend to gather formal support from the laity, not just from the Readers, i.e. the Diakonia.  Well, assuming that I do otherwise, the voice of 10 Orthodox Christians should carry more weight than the voice of 6,000 Evangelicals who want to become Orthodox on their own terms. ..............BTW filipiniana, for reasons of transparency, I would like to know your Christened name.


Dear Frederick and all Forum members,


If I'm not mistaken, this Forum is not intended for discussing "personal"  matters or issues but rather, for disseminating information and facts for the benefit of all and not for the benefit of a single individual.
If you want to know my Orthodox name, just PM me. There we can discuss "personal"  matters and "personal" issues privately.

I already told you what you should do so you can find out what is really happening there and I won't repeat my advices to you again. As far as I'm concerned, these advices just landed on deaf ears.  Please listen to your Greek Vicar.


With regards to your Unofficial Website (i.e, ocp.uni.cc) it would be best to secure the approval and the blessing of His Eminence Metropolitan Nectarios of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia.

Finally, please allow me to share to you Frederick and the members of the "Diakonia" in the Annunciation Parish the recent message of His Eminence Metropolitan Paul Saliba:


"The work of the Lord is moving in the Philippines , with the grace of the Holy Spirit,
and nothing can stop it."





Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 20, 2008, 12:43:41 AM
Just so filipiniana and everyone else knows, you are not in any way required to give your Christened name.  The vast majority of people on this forum don't give it and there are good reasons for that.  One cannot assume you are not being "transparent" by not giving your name.  That assertion is just ridiculous. 

Thank you Mr. Salpy  for making this important clarification.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 20, 2008, 12:48:22 AM
Thank you Mr. Salpy  for making this important clarification.
btw, Salpy is a she.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Salpy on April 20, 2008, 01:01:22 AM
Hey it's O.K.  People can call me anything they want.   :)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 20, 2008, 01:18:33 AM
I am not against Filipinos converting to Orthodox, and by Orthodox, I mean right worship.

Peace to all.

The Meaning of Orthodox.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7051.asp

The term Orthodox combines the adjective orthos, which means right, correct or true, and the noun doxa, which comes from the verb doxazo, "I hold an opinion," or "I believe." Hence "right belief," or "true doctrine." But in a deeper sense it also means "right worship," since doxazo can also mean "I glorify." It could be said that the term Orthodox was forged as a defense against heretical, or heterodox, teaching which persisted during the formative centuries. As then, so now, it signifies a framework of theological propositions worked into precise doctrinal formulations, a body of faith and a tradition, that has retained its absolute integrity in the face of the changes and innovations that have occurred within Christianity.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 20, 2008, 01:33:20 AM
Then why do you say you want nothing less than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?  To my knowledge the canonical Western Rite Orthodox don't use his liturgy.

Is the canonical Western Rite Orthodox Liturgy "less than" the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?  Of course not. 

Now, a "modified" evangelical liturgy is something else altogether.  It doesn't deserve a place alongside any established rite in Orthodoxy, either Western or Eastern.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 20, 2008, 01:34:59 AM
Now, a "modified" evangelical liturgy is something else.  It doesn't deserve a place alongside any established rite in Orthodoxy, either Western or Eastern.
Why not?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 20, 2008, 03:06:31 AM
Is the canonical Western Rite Orthodox Liturgy "less than" the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?  Of course not. 

Now, a "modified" evangelical liturgy is something else altogether.  It doesn't deserve a place alongside any established rite in Orthodoxy, either Western or Eastern.


There are lots of things that you still don't know yet, Theognosis, so please be patient. When our group (i.e., the pioneer members of the Annunciation Parish) were received into canonical Orthodoxy in 1994, the late Metropolitan Dionysius of New Zealand (of blessed memory) gave a special dispensation to the leader of our group in Manila to perform a "modified"  Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.  We observe this "modified" version of the Divine Liturgy every Sunday at the Saint George Greek Orthodox Chapel in Makati, Manila,  because  the Filipino Orthodox priest from far away Masbate island would come only once a month (sometimes only once every other month!) to perform the "canonical" Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom for us new converts in Orthodoxy. 

The leader of our indigenous Filipino Orthodox Community was ordained  by the late Metropolitan Dionysius of New Zealand assisted by then Bishop (now Metropolitan) Soterios of Korea in April 1995.  Thus, from February 1994 up to April 1995 (1 year and 2 months to be precise) we followed the said  "modified" version of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom when an Orthodox Priest is not around (you can ask the only remaining "pioneer" member of our group there in the Annunciation Parish to confirm this).


(http://images.roxtarmycx.multiply.com/image/8/photos/59/400x400/26/st.%20george%20greek%20orthodox%20chapel.jpg?et=ZKf%2BAGOib7jHB2qurgXpdw&nmid=45667838)
The Saint George Greek Orthodox Chapel at the Adamson Centre in Makati


So again, please be patient, Theognosis, with your Antiochian Orthodox brethren. Their leaders just got home from a week long audience with the Antiochian Primate in Australia last March 2008.  We, the pioneer members of the Annunciation Parish waited for 1 year and two months before the leader of our indigenous Orthodox group in Manila and Laguna finally gave us the canonical Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.







Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 20, 2008, 03:23:01 AM
There are lots of things that you still don't know yet, Theognosis, so please be patient. When our group (i.e., the pioneer members of the Annunciation Parish) were received into canonical Orthodoxy in 1994, the late Metropolitan Dionysius of New Zealand (of blessed memory) gave a special dispensation to the leader of our group in Manila to perform a "modified"  Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.  We observe this "modified" version of the Divine Liturgy every Sunday at the Saint George Greek Orthodox Chapel in Makati, Manila,  because  the Filipino Orthodox priest from far away Masbate island would come only once a month (sometimes only once every other month!) to perform the "canonical" Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom for us new converts in Orthodoxy. 

The leader of our indigenous Filipino Orthodox Community was ordained  by the late Metropolitan Dionysius of New Zealand assisted by then Bishop (now Metropolitan) Soterios of Korea in April 1995.  Thus, from February 1994 up to April 1995 (1 year and 2 months to be precise) we followed the said  "modified" version of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom when an Orthodox Priest is not around (you can ask the only remaining "pioneer" member of our group there in the Annunciation PArish to confirm this).   

So again, please be patient, Theognosis, with your Antiochian Orthodox brethren. Their leaders just got home from a week long audience with the Antiochian Primate in Australia last March 2008.  We, the pioneer members of the Annunciation Parish waited for 1 year and two months before the leader of our indigenous Orthodox group in Manila and Laguna finally gave us the canonical Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.

That's actually a good model because your group was given a "modified" Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom to prepare you for the real thing.  It was not in any form an evangelical rite.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: buzuxi on April 20, 2008, 03:25:33 AM
By modified liturgy do you mean the liturgy minus the Eucharist because you didnt have an ordained priest? Was it similar to people gathering to do a reader service? What exactly was modified?


And whats the difference between a canonical and uncanonical western rite liturgy? Regardless, just like a modified liturgy of St John Chrysostom, if approved by the bishop, it simply is a tolerated temporary anomaly for the overall good of the Church.


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 20, 2008, 04:05:41 AM
That's actually a good model because your group was given a "modified" Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom to prepare you for the real thing.  It was not in any form an evangelical rite.



Since you sound so familiar with that so-called "evangelical rite" could you kindly describe it to us?  It appears like you have attended their Liturgy. Please be kind enough to share us  your observations (that is, if you have actually witnessed their so called "Evangelical" Liturgy.)  Thank you in advance.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 20, 2008, 04:12:24 AM
By modified liturgy do you mean the liturgy minus the Eucharist because you didnt have an ordained priest? Was it similar to people gathering to do a reader service? What exactly was modified?


And whats the difference between a canonical and uncanonical western rite liturgy? Regardless, just like a modified liturgy of St John Chrysostom, if approved by the bishop, it simply is a tolerated temporary anomaly for the overall good of the Church.




Yes buzuxi these "modified" rites that were approved by Orthodox Hierarchs are but temporary rites for the church in transition.  Its basically the Divine Liturgy without the Consecration of the Eucharist. The Small Entrance, Great Entrance etc.,  is present in that said  "modified" liturgy which we used for 1 year and two months while we patiently await the ordination of our leader.


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on April 20, 2008, 05:24:19 AM
Hi all,

It is good to see the enthusiasm for Orthodox worship. It is heartening that most people are following St Paul's admonition to "love believes all things, hopes all things" and to consider the "pure, excellent" etc.

So again I am disappointed when Theognosis writes, and then there there is a long unseemly conversation based around the theme of a modified evangelical liturgy. e.g Theognosis wrote: "Now, a "modified" evangelical liturgy is something else altogether.  It doesn't deserve a place alongside any established rite in Orthodoxy, either Western or Eastern."

To be clear, i never mentioned such a thing. The evangelicals to my knowledge will be trained in the liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

What I did write was regarding the second group, which uses an ancient Orthodox liturgy, which has been slightly modified to make it more Orthodox. Theognosis, you have jumped to conclusions and not followed my advice about believing the best. Maybe you should see your priest about your problem in this regard. You wrote: "I think that's innovation, and I as a former Roman Catholic am tired of it. Again, I hope you understand." Yes I do understand. And the defensiveness/aggessiveness you are showing needs healing- please see your priest, he will help.

Also, when you write: "The voice of the Orthodox Christians in the Philippines must be heard.  We want nothing less than the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.  Any "modified" liturgy must be rejected, with no compromise."
and : "When I said "we", I intend to gather formal support from the laity, not just from the Readers, i.e. the Diakonia. " And then you jump into defining Orthodox and heresy. Really!

This is not Orthodox thinking nor action. It is outright politicking which verges on factions. St Paul warns a lot about this. Be careful in your zeal you do not cause hate and schism. "we want nothing less" is not Orthodox humility. "Gather formal support" is not Orthodox living. Pray, seek repentance and a softer heart. I am not condemning you but genuinely concerned as a pastor for your soul's health. You are seeing heresy under every bush.

Relax: There is no pressure on your parish to change.

And you really should learn about Orthodox liturgical history and theology. If you do you will see that not only St. John Chrysostom's liturgy is canonical, but also St. Basil's and St. James and several other pre-RC-split Western liturgies, and various Syriac liturgies etc. So your concern is not even Orthodox. In Jerusalem they use St. James, in Egypt, St Mark's etc etc. You may be bringing your reaction against RC innovations into orthodoxy and thus condemning the actions of a canonical bishop who has by the canons the right and responsibility to allow economia for those entering the faith. Orthodoxy is about grace. It is not about lay people jumping to conclusions and jumping into fear-based politicking that verges on factionalism.

As Tamara asked: yes there will be a senior priest appointed probably from USA or Australia to train them. maybe even a bishop.

Now, please whoever, do not read more into what i wrote above than I have said. Show Orthodox humility and grace. This holy week is not the time for fear, judgement and harshness.

Really, most of you have better things to do than argue here. Those who reply with graceful short answers, great! But please avoid feeding an argument. Or jumping to conclusions.

"If there is anything worthy of praise, think on these things..."

in Christ,
Fr John D'Alton, fully canonical Orthodox priest, using the liturgys of St John Chrysostom, St Basil, St. James and even occasionally the pre-sanctified liturgy of St. Gregory the Dialogist.







Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on April 20, 2008, 05:35:28 AM
One more thing, Theognosis, when you wrote: "Well, assuming that I do otherwise, the voice of 10 Orthodox Christians should carry more weight than the voice of 6,000 Evangelicals who want to become Orthodox on their own terms." You are condemning 6000 people's motives when you have no idea what is in their heart, based on your assumption about what I wrote. They have neither asked for nor been given any modified evangelical rite.

You have condemned 6000 people by saying "on their own terms". They demanded nothing. May God give you the grace to do the Orthodox thing and apologise to them, and learn to think the best and stop jumping to conclusions. Your harshness is very concerning and sad. Beware copying the harshness of the pharisees.

Who made you such a judge? Leave such issues to priests and bishops and focus on purifying your soul before making more accusing posts. I am speaking strongly to you for your good, but in love and concern. If you are wise you will listen. One of the first steps in Orthodox spirituality is learning humility. May God have mercy on us all.

in Christ,
Fr John D'Alton, Orthodox priest.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 20, 2008, 07:17:31 AM
Quote
The evangelicals to my knowledge will be trained in the liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

I'm very glad that you said that.  The evangelicals are great singers, and when they finally learn to chant, that would be glorious!!!

Quote
What I did write was regarding the second group, which uses an ancient Orthodox liturgy, which has been slightly modified to make it more Orthodox.

Is that not a contradiction?  If it's already Orthodox, why make it "more" Orthodox? 

Can you tell me the specifics of this ancient liturgy and the changes you have made to it? 
Further, why is there a need to teach them two liturgies when you could have taught them just one?

Quote
Theognosis, you have jumped to conclusions and not followed my advice about believing the best. Maybe you should see your priest about your problem in this regard. You wrote: "I think that's innovation, and I as a former Roman Catholic am tired of it. Again, I hope you understand." Yes I do understand.

With all due respect, I don't think you understand.  I invite you to come to the Philippines and see what's happening here.

Quote
And the defensiveness/aggessiveness you are showing needs healing- please see your priest, he will help.

Sorry, father, but you are judging my soul based solely on my participation on this thread. I am a sinner, yes, but the truth remains that you don't know me personally. 

Quote
Also, when you write: "The voice of the Orthodox Christians in the Philippines must be heard.  We want nothing less than the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.  Any "modified" liturgy must be rejected, with no compromise."
and : "When I said "we", I intend to gather formal support from the laity, not just from the Readers, i.e. the Diakonia. " And then you jump into defining Orthodox and heresy. Really!

If you want me to write in a more politically correct tone, then I will do so. 

Quote
This is not Orthodox thinking nor action. It is outright politicking which verges on factions. St Paul warns a lot about this. Be careful in your zeal you do not cause hate and schism. "we want nothing less" is not Orthodox humility. "Gather formal support" is not Orthodox living. Pray, seek repentance and a softer heart. I am not condemning you but genuinely concerned as a pastor for your soul's health. You are seeing heresy under every bush.

We are in disagreement.  Citizens have every right to express what they feel.  This is particularly true in the Philippines where there is no united voice.

Quote
Relax: There is no pressure on your parish to change.

I missed Palm Sunday because of back spasms.  Yet, I am relaxing.  I just watched Calzaghe beat Hopkins this morning (boring fight, btw...I should have just watched the playoffs).  I'm also entertaining a lot of overseas guests in the house.  I played video games with the kids as well.  By the way, I have 4 beautiful children.

Quote
And you really should learn about Orthodox liturgical history and theology. If you do you will see that not only St. John Chrysostom's liturgy is canonical, but also St. Basil's and St. James and several other pre-RC-split Western liturgies, and various Syriac liturgies etc. So your concern is not even Orthodox. In Jerusalem they use St. James, in Egypt, St Mark's etc etc.

I know that, father.

Quote
You may be bringing your reaction against RC innovations into orthodoxy and thus condemning the actions of a canonical bishop who has by the canons the right and responsibility to allow economia for those entering the faith. Orthodoxy is about grace. It is not about lay people jumping to conclusions and jumping into fear-based politicking that verges on factionalism.

There is a political dimension that must be resolved in all this.  Afterall, this is not about Orthodoxy in general, but the conversion of the Philippine nation in particular. 

Quote
As Tamara asked: yes there will be a senior priest appointed probably from USA or Australia to train them. maybe even a bishop.

Wonderful news. Just wonderful.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on April 20, 2008, 07:50:17 AM
No.  I said "modified".
You do realize that some Canonical Western Rite Liturgies are "modified" Anglican liturgies which have been made Canonical, don't you? They weren't "Canonical" in their own right, but were made Canonical by being accepted by the Synods of the Antiochian and ROCOR Churches. And in the end, this is the very mission of the Church on Earth- to sanctify the Cosmos.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 20, 2008, 08:34:15 AM
Quote
You do realize that some Canonical Western Rite Liturgies are "modified" Anglican liturgies which have been made Canonical, don't you? They weren't "Canonical" in their own right, but were made Canonical by being accepted by the Synods of the Antiochian and ROCOR Churches. And in the end, this is the very mission of the Church on Earth- to sanctify the Cosmos.
 
That's a valid point.  However, it just so happened that the Anglicans have their own liturgies, so it makes perfect sense to modify the Anglican liturgies for their own use. 

On the other hand, we don't have such an established liturgy in the Philippines.  The closest thing that can be called a "Filipino Liturgy" would be the Roman Catholic Novus Ordo translated in our native tongue.

The question now is, should we "modify" the Novus Ordo and make it more Orthodox because it is more convenient for the Filipinos? 

Is this the right way of converting the Filipinos to Orthodoxy in our attempt to sanctify the whole Cosmos? 

I really don't think so.

Just my 2 cents, George.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 20, 2008, 09:51:04 AM
Quote
You have condemned 6000 people by saying "on their own terms".

I have not condemned any soul.  I am questioning the methods being employed, period.

Quote
Your harshness is very concerning and sad. Beware copying the harshness of the pharisees.

You are being harsh on my person.  The most you can do is be harsh on my views, especially in a forum like this where people can freely express their thoughts on various topics.

Quote
Who made you such a judge?

I am not judging anybody.  I advise you to look in the mirror.

Quote
One of the first steps in Orthodox spirituality is learning humility.

One of our local priests is a very humble person.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on April 20, 2008, 10:53:56 AM
I have not condemned any soul.  I am questioning the methods being employed, period.

You are being harsh on my person.  The most you can do is be harsh on my views, especially in a forum like this where people can freely express their thoughts on various topics.

I am not judging anybody.  I advise you to look in the mirror.

One of our local priests is a very humble person.



Theognosis,
The way you answer to a Priest is so unbecoming of an Orthodox Christian. Since you won't listen to your Vicar nor to any of the good advices of other Orthodox priest and brethren here in this Forum then I won't argue nor discuss with you anymore for it is useless. This will be my last post in this particular thread.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elisha on April 20, 2008, 11:19:18 AM
...
You have condemned 6000 people by saying "on their own terms". They demanded nothing. May God give you the grace to do the Orthodox thing and apologise to them, and learn to think the best and stop jumping to conclusions. Your harshness is very concerning and sad. Beware copying the harshness of the pharisees.
...


Fr. John,

While not as objectionary as Theognosis, I share many of his concerns and it indeed sounds to me as well as they group is coming into the church under their own terms as well.  I don't know if Tamara refers to the former "Evangelical Orthodox" (my group) when she said the below (I hope she did), but many difficulties and problems could have been prevented in the earlier years by closer episcopal oversight.


I just hope that a bishop will be placed over this new group. Six thousand new souls are certainly enough people to qualify for assigning a bishop to oversee them in their country. One thing we learned the hard way, a large group of new converts NEED someone who is experienced in the faith to help them develop an Orthodox mind-set....
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on April 20, 2008, 11:47:43 AM
The question now is, should we "modify" the Novus Ordo and make it more Orthodox because it is more convenient for the Filipinos? 
Why not?
This may come as a surprise to you, but the first time I saw a Novus Ordo Mass, I was struck by how much it resembled the Liturgy of St. James which I had attended in the Cathedral of the Annunciation in Greece. We even received Communion in the hand (which is actually the correct way to receive according to the Rudder).


Who made you such a judge? Leave such issues to priests and bishops and focus on purifying your soul before making more accusing posts. I am speaking strongly to you for your good, but in love and concern. If you are wise you will listen. One of the first steps in Orthodox spirituality is learning humility. May God have mercy on us all.
Father bless,
Firstly, let me formally welcome you to the forum. I have heard many good things about you, and be assured of my prayers for the Holy Transfiguration Mission.
Secondly, believe me when I say that I can understand your reaction to what Theognosis said. One of the purposes of a forum is to be a place where people who would not normally meet in person can "meet" online. It gives us an opportunity to come to understand one another. I personally have come to understand perspectives in the Orthodox Church I had never come accross- the Western Rite is one example. This forum helped to clear up a lot of misapprehensions I had about WROy. There are always going to be people who have misapprehensions, and all we can do it try to help them understand, and try to understand what they are trying to say. Sometimes we need to correct their misunderstanding, sometimes we have an opprtunity to grow by being exposed to another perspective.
I think Theognosis and yourself have simply gotten off on the wrong foot. Part of it, I think, is cultural. As an Australian myself, I got off on the wrong foot with many an American poster when I first started, and even now I manage to put my foot in it sometimes (never say "your mob" to an Italian American!)
I'm sure that with patience and understanding we can get over this hump.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Theognosis on April 20, 2008, 12:07:58 PM
Allow me to speak, Ladies and Gentlemen.

What's a man to do when he has been maligned and demonized by many for expressing his views--views that were eventually acknowledged to be mostly correct?  I must admit that I was mistaken in some cases, but the essence of my concerns about heterodox being called vicars and a certain liturgy being modified and used remains unchallenged.

As for judgment, the accusation that I have condemned 6,000 souls is a serious matter that has to be substantiated.  It has no foundation whatsoever--utter nonsense.  Yet, this is nothing compared to being compared to a Pharisee.  That is a personal attack, one in which I cannot simply ignore.  Not one--not even a priest--could truly know the heart and intentions of a man unless the former knows the latter personally.

I must confess that I have no intention of expressing my thoughts in a more politically-correct manner.  That's my preferred style and I have no regrets. At least now I know how it feels like to be in GiC's shoes.



And so to the widely unpopular GiC, wherever you are, I take my hat off to you man!

8)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: padre_aniceto on April 21, 2008, 12:53:24 AM
Re: Correct information about the Philippine Evangelical group of Bishop Aniceto

Friends,

May I kindly correct the information posted.  The Evangelical Church under me is the "Pentecostal Methodist Evangelical Union, Inc, the representation of the Pentecostal Methodist Evangelic Church (PMEC), Delaware, USA and founding member of the Pentecostal Methodist Evangelical World Mission Board, based in Hayward, CA, USA.

I was involved with IEMELIF as a Theological Consultant for a short period.  That is the reason you can find that inforamtion from Harvard Divinity School.

Further, we are under the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia led by Met.Arch. Paul Saliba.  We also have the Ecumenical Patrciachiate Missions in the Philippines.  We have separated jurisdictions.

For more information about our Philippine Mission, kindly get in touch with me at:

mobile.63928.453.9346/63917.530.3368
www.antiochianarch.org.au

Blessings to all!!

Jeptah Aguas-Aniceto PhD
Vicar-General
Davao
Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines

EDIT: I have removed the email address you posted for your own security. Email addresses should never be posted on a website as this is how webcrawlers gather email addresses for spamming purposes. An alternative is that you ask people to privately message you using the forum's private messaging facility.
George
(Global Moderator)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on April 21, 2008, 01:56:50 AM
Hi Ozgeorge,
The Lord bless you.
Thanks for your input- very helpful. Yes I'm still confused about these culture issues. You wrote:

>Firstly, let me formally welcome you to the forum. I have heard many good things about you, and be assured of my prayers for the Holy Transfiguration Mission.

Thanks. We need it.

>Secondly, believe me when I say that I can understand your reaction to what Theognosis said. One of the purposes of a forum is to be a place where people who would not normally meet in person can "meet" online. It gives us an opportunity to come to understand one another. <snip> I think Theognosis and yourself have simply gotten off on the wrong foot. Part of it, I think, is cultural. As an Australian myself, I got off on the wrong foot with many an American poster when I first started, and even now I manage to put my foot in it sometimes (never say "your mob" to an Italian American!) I'm sure that with patience and understanding we can get over this hump.

Great. Maybe then you can help here, and I'm being serious not sarcastic... How would you respond then to comments that this evangelical group is joining "on their own terms" and using a "modified liturgy" (which is an outright lie AFAIK). I'd quite happy to see how you would deal with these "misunderstandings" if they are indeed not as i understood- incorrect "judgements".? If you can clear this up so such statements are not left standing nor open to the interpretation  I placed then that would be great :-)

Thanks for your help.

in Christ,
Fr. John
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on April 21, 2008, 05:45:07 AM
How would you respond then to comments that this evangelical group is joining "on their own terms" and using a "modified liturgy" (which is an outright lie AFAIK).
I would point out that the burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim: "Thank you for your opinion. Could you please provide your evidence to support this claim?" And if they respond with simply more "opinion", I would point this out and repeat: "Thank you for your opinion. Could you please provide your evidence to support this claim?"
Until they actually tell you why they are making the claim, their opinion is nothing but prejudice. If they can tell you why they hold the opinion they hold, then there is an opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings they may have, or to see things from their perspective.
If we keep trying to dialogue with someone, and they just want to use the forum to give a monologue about what they think, it soon becomes apparent to all.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. George on April 21, 2008, 08:59:49 AM
Hey it's O.K.  People can call me anything they want.   :) 

... and please, don't call me Shirley.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. George on April 21, 2008, 09:05:27 AM
padre_aniceto,

Welcome to the forum!
 
Would you like to share the story of how your group found Orthodoxy, and how you decided to join the Orthodox Church?  I'm very interested!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Salpy on April 22, 2008, 01:18:24 AM
... and please, don't call me Shirley.

Surely you jest.   :)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on May 26, 2008, 10:46:57 AM
Here's the latest news on the Antiochian Orthodox Church in the Philippines (from the official website of the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia & New Zealand):

(http://philmelody.googlepages.com/parish.jpg)

Salamat sa Diyos! (Thanks be to God!)




What is happening in the Philippines is great news of the Holy Spirit's actions, so it is a little disappointing that some people jump to conclusions without even finding out the facts first. What happened to Orthodox charity and "believing the best"?

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.

Next time you want to know things, please do not post such questions on the internet- ask Met. Paul first, then this will save many wasted hours of passing around uninformed opinion and sheer gossip. Gossip is not Orthodox. Those who asked genuine questions without gossip should also email Met. Paul or whoever in future. Otherwise you can just add to speculation and feed the argumentative types :-(

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


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on May 27, 2008, 02:47:40 AM
 :o

im speechless
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 02, 2008, 10:05:16 AM
Here's another update:

(http://rizalophile.googlepages.com/mission.JPG) (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/Philippines.aspx)

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Islas Filipinas on June 02, 2008, 01:19:04 PM
... a lot of developments... may I ask everyone to take note especially our dear friend Filipiniana the name of contact person under the Chapel of Molta, Turil, Davao City... Bishop Jeptan Aniceto. Does this mean that he was ordained already or elevated as an Orthodox episcopacy to be addressed as Bishop?

With the previous threads, there was a question among the participants here if indeed a an Episcopal Vicar was already assigned by Antiochian Arch. of Australia and NZ even not yet received by Chrismation.

If one will argue that such honorary title is just being used as a sign of respect because he was a Bishop of his former flock then are we acknowledging the validity of ordinations among evangelicals? Are we then compromising our faith here? As far as I know if a person become an Orthodox Christian, whether he is a priest or bishop of another belief is considere to be layman... please correct me if I am wrong...

Again, the Philippines is to big to be handled by one missionary Church... but I hope proper guidance and adherance to the canon be considered in order not the Filipinos to be confused.

Thank you to all.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on June 02, 2008, 06:00:30 PM
Glory to God!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 02, 2008, 10:21:53 PM
... a lot of developments... may I ask everyone to take note especially our dear friend Filipiniana the name of contact person under the Chapel of Molta, Turil, Davao City... Bishop Jeptan Aniceto. Does this mean that he was ordained already or elevated as an Orthodox episcopacy to be addressed as Bishop?


For more information please CONTACT THE ARCHDIOCESE (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/Contact-Us.aspx)



.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipinopilgrim on June 03, 2008, 10:08:51 PM
You might all be interested to know that the Moscow Patriarchate has a Filipino hierodeacon -- Hierodeacon Martinian (Mark Balagtas) of Mercy House in NY.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 03, 2008, 11:20:06 PM
You might all be interested to know that the Moscow Patriarchate has a Filipino hierodeacon -- Hierodeacon Martinian (Mark Balagtas) of Mercy House in NY.


Glory to God! I'm speechless... :o A Filipino hierodeacon under the Moscow Patriarchate! This will be bad news for some members of this particular thread who thinks that all Filipinos should be under the EP otherwise they have broken the canons and hence uncanonical. By the way, the EP jurisdiction in the Philippines has a Filipino Archimandrite in the person of Father Philemon Castro.

(http://rizalophile.googlepages.com/archim1aw.JPG)
(http://rizalophile.googlepages.com/archim2a.JPG)


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on June 06, 2008, 03:59:24 AM
Fr. Aniceto, the vicar priest visited me yesterday..

His Eminence Metropolitan has just recently ordained him to the priesthood, and many others more of the pastors who were once under him in the Evangelical group, are now preparing and studying their way to the priesthood. We also talked of plans on sending missionaries to my hometown.

God bless the Archdiocese and its mission! God bless  His Holy Church!   :D
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 07, 2008, 05:22:40 AM
Fr. Aniceto, the vicar priest visited me yesterday..

His Eminence Metropolitan has just recently ordained him to the priesthood, and many others more of the pastors who were once under him in the Evangelical group, are now preparing and studying their way to the priesthood. We also talked of plans on sending missionaries to my hometown.

God bless the Archdiocese and its mission! God bless  His Holy Church!   :D

Thank you for sharing this vital information with us. The Antiochian Orthodox in the Philippines is commendable for their swift compliance with what has been negotiated (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg222598.html#msg222598)  according to the "AGREEMENT" (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg222598.html#msg222598) made between their Patriach in Antioch and  the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople.  I just hope the leaders of both parties (the Greek and the Antiochian Vicars) in the Philippines will publish once and for all the full details of this "AGREEMENT" (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg222598.html#msg222598) soon in order to prevent confusion and doubts among very loyal members of each jurisdiction.  The people is asking for the truth and you can't ignore and keep people waiting for so long.


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 07, 2008, 05:31:54 AM
Thank you for sharing this vital information with us. The Antiochian Orthodox in the Philippines is commendable for their swift compliance with what has been negotiated (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg222598.html#msg222598)  according to the "AGREEMENT" (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg222598.html#msg222598) made between their Patriach in Antioch and  the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople.  I just hope the leaders of both parties (the Greek and the Antiochian Vicars) in the Philippines will publish once and for all the full details of this "AGREEMENT" (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg222598.html#msg222598) soon in order to prevent confusion and doubts among very loyal members of each jurisdiction.  The people is asking for the truth and you can't ignore nor keep people waiting for so long.




PS ...I do hope the leaders from the Antiochian side will not play deaf and dumb to these concerns.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on June 07, 2008, 07:08:29 AM
PS ...I do hope the leaders from the Antiochian side will not play deaf and dumb to these concerns.

Why do you think they would?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 07, 2008, 10:06:00 AM
Why do you think they would?

If you have any details regarding the  "AGREEMENT"  (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg222598.html#msg222598) between your Patriarch in Antioch and our Patriarch in Constanstinople regarding the Philippines please do share it with us. Members of the Orthodox Church under the EP (including me) have only the slightest idea about it (thanks to Fr. John-D Alton, otherwise we would'nt have known that such an  "AGREEMENT"  (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg222598.html#msg222598) exists!). That's all. Thank you.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 07, 2008, 10:14:41 AM
oops I push the wrong button... :laugh:
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Milliardo on June 08, 2008, 08:25:18 AM
I have attended the Divine Liturgy at the Annunciation Parish in Manila and all I saw were less than 30 people inside the church and most of the time its almost empty even on Major Feast Days.

Please do not post half-truths here; Divine Liturgy on Sundays is always well-attended. One should also see that the reason why attendance on some major feast days isn't good is because there is only  one Orthodox church and one chapel serving a city of 10 million people, and the Orthodox faithful are scattered throughout the city as well as some outlying provinces. The next Orthodox church would already be outside Metro Manila, in the province of Laguna.

I will not comment on the Antiochian presence here just yet, as we have yet to see how the two Patriarchates will handle the situation. We pray that the solution they will reach will be of benefit for Orthodoxy here in the Philippines for the continued growth of the Faith.

Quote
Are you for real Mr. John?  I don't know anyone from the Annunciation Sucat Parish  by the name of John who resides at Caloocan City. Please note you mispelled Caloocan to Kalookan. Everyone from Caloocan City knows that their City is spelled Caloocan not Kalookan.

Both spellings are actually correct; Caloocan is used in the modified Filipino alphabet, and Kalookan is used when pertaining to how the Filipino alphabet is originally done (remember that the original Filipino alphabet never had the letter "c"; thus it would go as a, b, k, d...)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 08, 2008, 12:46:32 PM
Please do not post half-truths here; Divine Liturgy on Sundays is always well-attended....


That's good news! Where were you from February 1994 to April 2008 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15665.msg223375.html#msg223375)? (click). Anyway, thank you very much for the updates and welcome to the Orthodox Church! ;)

Both spellings are actually correct; Caloocan is used in the modified Filipino alphabet, and Kalookan is used when pertaining to how the Filipino alphabet is originally done (remember that the original Filipino alphabet never had the letter "c"; thus it would go as a, b, k, d...)

I know that.  You did not grew up nor study in Caloocan. Since our elementary school days at M.C.U Caloocan our teachers and professors teaches and commands us to write the name of our city  in C and not in K. Please do a reality check by asking students from the two universities in Caloocan how they spell their city. Kindly cease from speaking  half truths here okay?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Milliardo on June 08, 2008, 01:19:09 PM
I know that.  You did not grew up nor study in Caloocan. Since our elementary school days at M.C.U Caloocan our teachers and professors teaches and commands us to write the name of our city  in C and not in K. Please do a reality check by asking students from the two universities in Caloocan how they spell their city. Kindly cease from speaking  half truths here okay?

Well, this is off topic, but let's just say that although your teachers taught you that, it still cannot be denied that it can be spelled either way, and that either spelling is acceptable. Nothing half true about that.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 08, 2008, 08:52:05 PM
Well, this is off topic, but let's just say that although your teachers taught you that, it still cannot be denied that it can be spelled either way, and that either spelling is acceptable. Nothing half true about that.

I agree. have you done the "reality check" already? The fact remains; students and residents of Calooocan spell it with a "C" and not with a "K". The "half truth" refers to these lines: " Divine Liturgy on Sundays is ALWAYS well-attended". How can you say "ALWAYS"? Where were you from February 1994 to April 2008 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15665.msg223375.html#msg223375)? (click).  The fact is you've just been around very recently. Well, that's off topic already. Now you understand my point? Again, thank you for the updates on church attendance at the ATOC in Paranaque and welcome to the Orthodox Church!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Milliardo on June 09, 2008, 03:22:16 AM
How can you say "ALWAYS"? Where were you from February 1994 to April 2008 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15665.msg223375.html#msg223375)? (click).

I attended Divine Liturgy for 4 Sundays in 2005. They were all well-attended. I have also attended twice in 2006 and they were well-attended as well. I regularly went to Divine Liturgy from August 2007 to the present, and almost often Sunday Divine Liturgy is well-attended. I wonder then where you got the notion that there are, as you say, only 30 or so people attending. It does not do us any good if we are going to bicker this way. Whether Antiochian, Russian, Constantinople, etc. what we must strive to do is to build up Orthodoxy here, not tear each other down. So I do not see your point in mentioning that; is it to discredit the work of Constantinople here? This is detrimental for Orthodoxy here. I would like to see cooperation among Orthodox here in the Philippines rather than show who came here first, or who has the right to be here. Such thoughts will not help the Church. If we are to show that the true Church can be found in Orthodoxy, then the first thing we should do is help one another.

As for the K vs C thing, I actually prefer it spelled as Caloocan. That being said, either spelling would still be correct. Blame that on whoever made the proposal in the first place.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 09, 2008, 04:08:30 AM
I attended Divine Liturgy for 4 Sundays in 2005. They were all well-attended. I have also attended twice in 2006 and they were well-attended as well. I regularly went to Divine Liturgy from August 2007 to the present, and almost often Sunday Divine Liturgy is well-attended. I wonder then where you got the notion that there are, as you say, only 30 or so people attending.

Four Sundays in 2005, two Sundays in 2006  only! So that's the reason why you did not see the only 30 or so people attending the Sunday Liturgy  and the almost empty church during major feast days at the ATOC. So how can you say  "ALWAYS WELL ATTENDED" (http://"http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg234656.html#msg234656) when you yourself were not always present?  Admit it you made a mistake and you are a newbie in the ATOC, hence,  you were not able to see everything. Your statement is full of contradiction and flaws so how will you convice me and our intelligent readers here? Anyway, this is off topic and please I won't take part with the bickering here anymore.


Please do not post half-truths here; Divine Liturgy on Sundays is always well-attended.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 09, 2008, 04:14:31 AM
...
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 09, 2008, 04:21:56 AM
Any updates on the AGREEMENT (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg222598.html#msg222598) between Antioch and Constantinople regarding the pastoral administration of the Philippines?   The Antiochians will not be in the Philippines in the first place without the blessing of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.  I do hope the brethren in the ATOC will realize and accept that fact.



P.S. ATOC means the Annunciation of the Theotokos Orthodox Church in Paranaque, Metro Manila  :)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Milliardo on June 09, 2008, 02:58:47 PM
Four Sundays in 2005, two Sundays in 2006  only! So that's the reason why you did not see the only 30 or so people attending the Sunday Liturgy  and the almost empty church during major feast days at the ATOC.

I think it's fair enough to say that for 4 consecutive Sundays in 2005, the Liturgy was well-attended and that would be more than enough reason that there's more than 30 people attending it. Ditto for 2006. Of course, you already know about 2007 since I have been regularly been there since then. This is only logical, since if attendance is not regular then at least one Sunday I would've seen something like 30 or even less, so there's no mistake about it as you would like people here to believe. I would like to ask you, what is your agenda for saying such things in the first place? As Orthodox, you should be helping in building up the Church here, not working to tear it down. And as I can see in your profile, you claim to be part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as well. Do you want people here to believe that your work here is to tear down the very Church you claim to be part of?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. Methodios on June 12, 2008, 05:50:41 AM
Hello Filipiniana!! :D

I got the info from Rev. Fr. Kleopas Daclan, the Greek Orthodox Priest in the mission there in Koronadal City, South Cotabato..
Thanks very much the info!!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Thomas on June 12, 2008, 08:42:29 AM
Four Sundays in 2005, two Sundays in 2006  only! So that's the reason why you did not see the only 30 or so people attending the Sunday Liturgy  and the almost empty church during major feast days at the ATOC. So how can you say  "ALWAYS WELL ATTENDED" (http://"http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg234656.html#msg234656) when you yourself were not always present?  Admit it you made a mistake and you are a newbie in the ATOC, hence,  you were not able to see everything. Your statement is full of contradiction and flaws so how will you convice me and our intelligent readers here? Anyway, this is off topic and please I won't take part with the bickering here anymore.



One can only speak from the time that one has been in the Church. From his prospectus, the Church was well attended especially following his admission to the Church as a member. From his view point he was telling the truth, from your view point that held a longer view it was not. We are called by God to be brothers and sisters in Christ and so my prayer is that the Most Holy Triune God will bless the Holy Orthodox Church in the Philipines and allow it to grow in Charity and love of Christ.

Thomas
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 14, 2008, 10:48:28 AM
As Orthodox, you should be helping in building up the Church here, not working to tear it down..... Do you want people here to believe that your work here is to tear down the very Church you claim to be part of?



Look who's talking? Time to look at yourself in the mirror and do a reality check again (please note the underlined words):

(http://rizalophile.googlepages.com/onlycanonical.jpg) (http://www.ocp.uni.cc/)


So what happens now to the 32 Antiochian Orthodox Missions and Parishes in the Philippines  (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg230793.html#msg230793) the majority of whom were former members of independent Protestant groups?

So who is "tearing down" the Church? Let the words in the image above speaks for itself. The image is from the website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate/Affiliate in the Philippines (http://www.ocp.uni.cc/) as it appears today [accessed on June 14, 2008].  This website is a project of the brothers in the ATOC's  Diakonia.

Now let me ask you and your brothers in the ATOC's Diakonia just what is your agenda for saying such things in the first place?

You owe your canonical Antiochian Orthodox brethren an apology.

May God have mercy upon you and pardon you.



Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Milliardo on June 15, 2008, 12:42:40 AM
Look who's talking? Time to look at yourself in the mirror and do a reality check again (please note the underlined words):

Please note that I did not make that site; if you have any reactions regarding it, then it is best to contact the webmaster or the church office itself. That is the most prudent thing to do.

Quote
So what happens now to the 32 Antiochian Orthodox Missions and Parishes in the Philippines  (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg230793.html#msg230793) the majority of whom were former members of independent Protestant groups?

I would not know, as again these matters are best handled by the proper authorities within the Church, which would go without saying our Heirarchs and those they have authorized to look into the matter. What we can do is to pray for a good resolution which will help the Church to grow, and as members of the Church, our task is to build it up.

Quote
Now let me ask you and your brothers in the ATOC's Diakonia just what is your agenda for saying such things in the first place?

I would think that the purpose of what is said in that site is to show that we have a representation here in the Philippines of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and that any group that claims to be Orthodox are not within its jurisdiction nor officially represent any other jurisdiction for that matter. That being said, it does not make mention nor antagonize in any way our Antiochian brethren; that is not its purpose. It should be stressed that there are non-canonical groups who claim to be Orthodox; this is known for a long time. It is not against other jurisdictions then who are canonical, but on those who use the term Orthodox loosely.

Again, this case is best handled by those duly authorized to look into the matter, and we must let them do what they are supposed to do. Bickering over this will not help the issue, and might only escalate it. As I have again said, we must work to build the Church up, not tear it down. Unity within Orthodoxy will not be helped with such bickerings.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 15, 2008, 03:16:14 AM
  "WE are the ONLY CANONICAL Orthodox Church in the Philippines" (http://rizalophile.googlepages.com/onlycanonical.jpg)
Quoted from  ATOC's Website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate - Affiliate in the Philippines (http://www.ocp.uni.cc/)


"..it does not make mention nor antagonize in any way our Antiochian brethren; It is not against other jurisdictions then
who are canonical
,  but on those who use the term Orthodox loosely."
-Milliardo


Its very obvious that our friend here has a distorted and perverted way of understanding things so there's no use arguing nor discussing with such person/ persons. Anyway, thank you for you have given me additional reasons why I should not to return back to the ATOC parish.  I'm glad and and I'm very thankful to God that the Antiochian Orthodox Church is already in the Philippines (and now in my home town: The Protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary Parish in Caloocan City!), because now  I can find my true home. This will be my last post in this thread. For the latest updates regarding the Antiochian Orthodox Church in the Philippines please visit the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines.  (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/Philippines.aspx)
.

(http://rizalophile.googlepages.com/onlycanonical.jpg)



Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on June 15, 2008, 03:55:04 AM
...
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Milliardo on June 15, 2008, 07:30:04 AM
  "WE are the ONLY CANONICAL Orthodox Church in the Philippines" (http://rizalophile.googlepages.com/onlycanonical.jpg)

Its very obvious that our friend here has a distorted and perverted way of understanding things so there's no use arguing nor discussing with such person/ persons. Anyway, thank you for you have given me additional reasons why I should not to return back to the ATOC parish.

As far as I know the point there is to make clear that the only jurisdiction presently that's officially represented here in the Philippines is that of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. If there is any other, then that would still be up in the air since that should be discussed between the Heirarchs of those jurisdictions involved. Is that in any way meant to antagonize other jurisdictions? Not in any way. I do find it disturbing though that there seems to be a very Protestant thought in your posts, that there's an us-vs-them thinking present, which is inimical to Orthodoxy as this is not how the Orthodox Church works nor thinks. We as a Church should work as one, regardless of what jurisdiction we belong to. However, such thinking that you espouse is troubling indeed, and should not be how an Orthodox thinks.

Quote
I'm glad and and I'm very thankful to God that the Antiochian Orthodox Church is already in the Philippines (and now in my home town: The Protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary Parish in Caloocan City!), because now  I can find my true home.

That is good that you have indeed found a home in Orthodoxy. As stated, it matters little which jurisdiction you would like to align yourself to; what is needed is that one works for the good of Orthodoxy as a whole. May we find our churches work side by side in building up Orthodoxy, and spread the Faith here. That should be our goal and our thought, not to have one jurisdiction pitted against the other. We accomplish little if we argue which is better; as I have stated, we only lose in the end when we do that. So from one church to the other, may there be many years to you and your endeavors.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on June 15, 2008, 10:44:55 PM
The troubling fact is that both jurisdictions are IGNORING each other presence here!! Its as if there was never an "agreement" between them! Im already confused as it is, as I am under the guidance of both an EP and Antiochian priest...
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: GodIsGoodHeSavesMe on August 11, 2008, 08:28:16 AM
Maybe this is a language issue so let me try and figure out what you are saying...

Are you calling this person the "vicar" because he is the leader of this group wishing to come into the Church?

or

Is Met. Paul calling this person the Vicar in his correspondence with you?

or

Is someone else calling this person the "vicar" and you are using their terminology? (If this is the case please provide your source then)

or

Something else that I didn't think of and if this is the case can you please explain.

http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/manila.aspx#ncr001
http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/davao.aspx
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: GodIsGoodHeSavesMe on August 11, 2008, 09:48:43 AM
Here's another update:

(http://rizalophile.googlepages.com/mission.JPG) (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/Philippines.aspx)


What's the use of the TRUTH when it is laced with lies? Figures (did they say 6000?), numbers, locations and people can merely be drawings. It can be made even picture-perfect to draw funds. I heard His Eminence Paul came over to the Philippines but I doubt if he was able to see for himself if those churches and 6,000 people actually exist. I won't be here and talking empty if I don't know anything about this. I personally do know something but it won't be good to discuss this right on here. As much as I believe the church nor its leaders shouldn't be judgmental of anyone's motives and intentions in serving God, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve Him.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Anastasios on August 11, 2008, 10:03:48 AM
I would suggest that making a post saying you know the truth but aren't going to discuss it on here is worse than just saying what you know. It's going to make people wonder more.

We've seen people from both sides coming on here arguing this. Something seems to be going on. I hope that many people are embracing Orthodoxy in the Phillipines. But if there is anything going on that is bad then there needs to be some documented proof: photos; video interviews; letters.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: GodIsGoodHeSavesMe on August 11, 2008, 08:09:06 PM
I would suggest that making a post saying you know the truth but aren't going to discuss it on here is worse than just saying what you know. It's going to make people wonder more.

We've seen people from both sides coming on here arguing this. Something seems to be going on. I hope that many people are embracing Orthodoxy in the Philippines. But if there is anything going on that is bad then there needs to be some documented proof: photos; video interviews; letters.
I am weighing the options of bringing the details on here or not. I have the knowledge and I have the evidences. Right now, I am trying to look for the right person whom I can approach with these or a person who can help me bring this matter to His Eminence in Australia without jeopardizing my identity and the people around me. As much as I am vigilant about this, I have to consider our safety. I know the people involve, they have connections to other people in power here. Anything can happen.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: GodIsGoodHeSavesMe on August 12, 2008, 03:34:04 AM
What's the use of the TRUTH when it is laced with lies? Figures (did they say 6000?), numbers, locations and people can merely be drawings. It can be made even picture-perfect to draw funds. I heard His Eminence Paul came over to the Philippines but I doubt if he was able to see for himself if those churches and 6,000 people actually exist. I won't be here and talking empty if I don't know anything about this. I personally do know something but it won't be good to discuss this right on here. As much as I believe the church nor its leaders shouldn't be judgmental of anyone's motives and intentions in serving God, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve Him.
Most of the names of the people presented on the site as depicted in the image above don't even have an idea of what is actually going on. In short, they have been presented on here without even knowing what is it all about. almost everything was a lie.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 12, 2008, 03:30:39 PM
Most of the names of the people presented on the site as depicted in the image above don't even have an idea of what is actually going on. In short, they have been presented on here without even knowing what is it all about. almost everything was a lie.

Referring you to something Fr. Anastasios said above:

But if there is anything going on that is bad then there needs to be some documented proof: photos; video interviews; letters.

For you to assert that almost everything presented here is a lie, you need to first be able to present to us the truth, together with documented proof as described above.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: GodIsGoodHeSavesMe on August 12, 2008, 10:08:33 PM
Referring you to something Fr. Anastasios said above:

For you to assert that almost everything presented here is a lie, you need to first be able to present to us the truth, together with documented proof as described above.
I answered it already. I will not drag the details and evidences right on this board. I have reasons not to do so.
I will just wait for the right person whom I can entrust these informations to and who wouldn't jeopardize my identity once the informations are  out. 
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 12, 2008, 11:30:41 PM
I answered it already. I will not drag the details and evidences right on this board. I have reasons not to do so.
I will just wait for the right person whom I can entrust these informations to and who wouldn't jeopardize my identity once the informations are  out. 

Then I'll repeat something else Fr. Anastasios, our site owner, said.

I would suggest that making a post saying you know the truth but aren't going to discuss it on here is worse than just saying what you know. It's going to make people wonder more.interviews; letters.

Why are you here telling us that things are not as they appear when you refuse to tell us what is really going on when you are asked to do so?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on August 14, 2008, 09:24:05 AM
What's the use of the TRUTH when it is laced with lies? Figures (did they say 6000?), numbers, locations and people can merely be drawings. It can be made even picture-perfect to draw funds. I heard His Eminence Paul came over to the Philippines but I doubt if he was able to see for himself if those churches and 6,000 people actually exist. I won't be here and talking empty if I don't know anything about this. I personally do know something but it won't be good to discuss this right on here. As much as I believe the church nor its leaders shouldn't be judgmental of anyone's motives and intentions in serving God, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve Him.

You dont make sense... If you didnt want your identity to be damaged or whatever, why did you come to this forum then?  ???
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on August 23, 2008, 11:56:21 PM
I am weighing the options of bringing the details on here or not. I have the knowledge and I have the evidences. Right now, I am trying to look for the right person whom I can approach with these or a person who can help me bring this matter to His Eminence in Australia without jeopardizing my identity and the people around me. As much as I am vigilant about this, I have to consider our safety. I know the people involve, they have connections to other people in power here. Anything can happen.


Just a piece of brotherly advice; you must write directly to the  Orthodox Primate of the Philippines, His Eminence Archbishop Paul Saliba. He is the right person to approach regarding your concerns. If you no longer trust the local leaders of your Church then go to His Eminence.


Most of the names of the people presented on the site as depicted in the image above don't even have an idea of what is actually going on. In short, they have been presented on here without even knowing what is it all about. almost everything was a lie.

It sounds that you are very familiar with the people under the Davao Vicariate under the Orthodox Vicar Bishop Jeptah Aniceto.  If your allegations can be substantiated then report them to His Eminence Archbishop Paul Saliba.   As far as I'm concerned, the Manila Vicariate under Vicar Bishop Yitzak has no such problem or controversies within his jurisdiction.


What's the use of the TRUTH when it is laced with lies? Figures (did they say 6000?), numbers, locations and people can merely be drawings. It can be made even picture-perfect to draw funds. I heard His Eminence Paul came over to the Philippines but I doubt if he was able to see for himself if those churches and 6,000 people actually exist. I won't be here and talking empty if I don't know anything about this. I personally do know something but it won't be good to discuss this right on here. As much as I believe the church nor its leaders shouldn't be judgmental of anyone's motives and intentions in serving God, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve Him.

Thank you for expressing your concerns. For me these concerns of yours should not be ignored. If there are problems with the leadership in the Davao Viacariate then the Orthodox Primate of the Philippines should be informed immediately. He should be the first man to be aware of these problems and controversies. Instead of reporting your observations and concerns here in the discussion board you must go through the right channels. Otherwise people would think that you are only spreading gossips and hearsay through this discussion board.   Write His Eminence now and tell him everything. Only then you can get the proper solution to your problems and concerns.  May the merciful God and Savior Jesus Christ give you the strength to fulfill this  noble task.


P.S. I have yet to see the "6,000" Filipino Orthodox in Davao, Western and Central Visayas under Vicar Bishop Jeptah Aniceto. A single picture showing a thousand member will suffice.  As the saying goes; "To see is to believe".  I think Sohma_hatori can tell us something if there are literally "6,000" Filipino Orthodox in that area of the Philippines. ;D  So far, as of this writing, the Davao Vicariate has not published a single photograph of their communities, missions or churches verifying their alleged "6,000"  Orthodox converts. Not a single photograph is posted in the official website of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines. Isn't that wonderful? Therefore, I believe our brother or sister GodIsGoodHeSavesMe is telling the truth.  Yes "figures , numbers, locations and people can merely be drawings. It can be made even picture-perfect."


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on August 27, 2008, 03:56:09 AM

P.S. I have yet to see the "6,000" Filipino Orthodox in Davao, Western and Central Visayas under Vicar Bishop Jeptah Aniceto. A single picture showing a thousand member will suffice.  As the saying goes; "To see is to believe".  I think Sohma_hatori can tell us something if there are literally "6,000" Filipino Orthodox in that area of the Philippines. ;D  So far, as of this writing, the Davao Vicariate has not published a single photograph of their communities, missions or churches verifying their alleged "6,000"  Orthodox converts. Not a single photograph is posted in the official website of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines. Isn't that wonderful? Therefore, I believe our brother or sister GodIsGoodHeSavesMe is telling the truth.  Yes "figures , numbers, locations and people can merely be drawings. It can be made even picture-perfect."


Well, (do correct me if im wrong), but insofar as my knowledge is concerned, a majority of these "6000" aren't Orthodox yet, (like myself)..
Most of them, like members of the community in Bislig City, are still cathecumens and are preparing for their chrismation into the Holy Church. Fr. Jeph is having a hard time organizing the missions due to logistics and other resources.

I do not know however about the communities in Western Visayas.
God bless the Church in the Philippines!


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on August 27, 2008, 12:06:22 PM
Well, (do correct me if im wrong), but insofar as my knowledge is concerned, a majority of these "6000" aren't Orthodox yet, (like myself)..
Most of them, like members of the community in Bislig City, are still cathecumens and are preparing for their chrismation into the Holy Church. Fr. Jeph is having a hard time organizing the missions due to logistics and other resources.

I do not know however about the communities in Western Visayas.
God bless the Church in the Philippines!




Thanks for the valuable input Sohma_hatori. There seems to be conflicting reports regarding the actual or real figures of Orthodox converts or members in the Philippines under the Antiochian Orthodox Primate based in Australia. The Orthodox WIKI reported  on 25th May 2008 that:

"The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand has accepted two denominations in the Philippines into the Archdiocese, including over 30 religious leaders and 31 churches with ~6000 adherents. This has been heralded as a "historic moment in the history of the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand", and has prompted a change of name to reflect the breadth of the Archdiocese, being renamed to include 'Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines', with Met. Abp. Paul as primate of all three."

Please see Recent Events, Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines  (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Antiochian_Orthodox_Archdiocese_of_Australia%2C_New_Zealand_and_the_Philippines&diff=66805&oldid=66801)

The presence of approximately "6,000 adherents" in the Philippines as reported  justified the "change of name" or honorary "title" of the Antiochian Orthodox hierarch in Australia as  Orthodox "Primate" of the Philippines.  Without these "6,000"  adherents which were reported to have been already "accepted" do you think the so called "change of name" or title of the Metropolitan based in Australia as "Primate" of the Philippines is still justifiable?  I don't think so.  How can a Hierarch calls himself canonically as "Primate" if he has less than 500 adherents?

Is it canonical or fair to call or even consider a certain Hierarch  "Primate" if he has less than 500 Chrismated members?  As fas as I am concerned, the Greek Orthodox  Metropolitan of  Hong Kong and South East Asia (E.P) under which the Filipino Orthodox  in Paranaque, Laguna, Masbate and elsewhere belong did not took pride nor boasted  the title of "Primate of the Philippines" due to the fact that he has less than a thousand Filipino adherents in the Philippines.   

I'm not saying that the Antiochian Hierarch should drop the title outright but I am questioning its validity due to the questionable and conflicting reports on the actual number or figures of Orthodox converts or adherents under the Antiochian jurisdiction in the Philippines.  Therefore, GodisGoodHeSavesMe statements and allegations still holds water (i.e., that "figures , numbers, locations and people can merely be drawings. It can be made even picture-perfect").  Its indeed necessary to make a reality check.





Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: GodIsGoodHeSavesMe on August 28, 2008, 09:58:14 AM
Well, (do correct me if im wrong), but insofar as my knowledge is concerned, a majority of these "6000" aren't Orthodox yet, (like myself)..
Most of them, like members of the community in Bislig City, are still cathecumens and are preparing for their chrismation into the Holy Church. Fr. Jeph is having a hard time organizing the missions due to logistics and other resources.

I do not know however about the communities in Western Visayas.
God bless the Church in the Philippines!



There weren't even a 50 cathecumens in the Mindanao. I wish they will be going to send people to verify all these so called cathechumens. With all the documents at hand right now, I am bringing this to His Eminence. 
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on August 28, 2008, 11:43:41 AM
There weren't even a 50 cathecumens in the Mindanao. I wish they will be going to send people to verify all these so called cathechumens. With all the documents at hand right now, I am bringing this to His Eminence. 

 So it appears now that the  present Vicar just made us believe that he has thousands of followers but in fact has only less than a hundred cathecumens!  So that's the reason why there is not even a single photograph of the so-called "6,000"  Filipino adherents which was reported in May 2008  as already  received into the Antiochian jurisdiction, hence, making the Antiochian Archbishop  based in Australia the Orthodox "Primate"  of the Philippines. Yes, do bring this up to His Eminence.

To my knowledge, His Eminence made his pastoral visit only to the very small Antiochian Orthodox communities in Luzon under Vicar Yitzak.  Its also wonderful why this historic pastoral visit to the Philippines was not even published in the official website of the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines. Was the Greek Orthodox Vicar of Manila even informed of the pastoral visit?  I don't think so. As far as I know the two haven't met yet nor even communicated by phone. Where is Orthodox brotherhood if not even a courtesy call was given to an Orthodox leader of the country being visited  ???  The leaders are the one's who should show good examples for emulation. There is really something wrong going on and its a shame!

Thank you again for bringing this up. Our Filipino Orthodox (EP) friends in Manila should also be aware of this very timely expose of yours. May God strengthen you more.

For our foreign viewers, the Mindanao island is the southern main island of the Philippine archipelago  where the Antiochian Vicariate of Davao (and the reported "6,000" adherents) is located:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Ph_locator_map_davao_del_norte.png)
Image of Mindanao from the Wikipedia

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on September 05, 2008, 09:04:58 AM
Hey..

I'll be chrismated this month...  :-\
a lot of problems have risen though...
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on September 05, 2008, 09:32:44 PM
Hey..

I'll be chrismated this month...  :-\
a lot of problems have risen though...

I'm already aware of the  problems and anomalies. Welcome to the world of Orthodoxy! Please continue praying for God's guidance.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on September 06, 2008, 08:57:28 AM
actually, i was efering to parental problems.. especially that papa is against my chrismation..

what concerns and anomalies did you have in mind?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on September 07, 2008, 06:54:19 AM
what concerns and anomalies did you have in mind?

Please refer to the post of an "insider" from Davao.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: GodIsGoodHeSavesMe on September 11, 2008, 12:16:30 PM
actually, i was efering to parental problems.. especially that papa is against my chrismation..

what concerns and anomalies did you have in mind?
Hello Sohma. Like you, I want to belong to the  orthodoxy as well. Unfortunately, I know the person
involve in this issue more than you know him. I am a sheep that has refused to be led by a person who founded his ordination and ministry in lies and deception. And believe me, its wiser to heed your father's advice for now (as I see it, you are 16 in your profile).  If in time, there will be a Sheppard who lives with what he preaches and will lead me to the light of true faith... I WILL NOT HESITATE to be an orthodox. I am actually praying for strength in fighting for the truth. God bless you and please include me in your prayers.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on September 12, 2008, 05:58:32 AM
actually, i was efering to parental problems.. especially that papa is against my chrismation..

what concerns and anomalies did you have in mind?
Hello Sohma. Like you, I want to belong to the  orthodoxy as well. Unfortunately, I know the person
involve in this issue more than you know him. I am a sheep that has refused to be led by a person who founded his ordination and ministry in lies and deception. And believe me, its wiser to heed your father's advice for now (as I see it, you are 16 in your profile).  If in time, there will be a Sheppard who lives with what he preaches and will lead me to the light of true faith... I WILL NOT HESITATE to be an orthodox. I am actually praying for strength in fighting for the truth. God bless you and please include me in your prayers.

I would have to agree with GodIsGoodHeSavesMe. This is not the right time for you Sohma to join a group whose present leaders are involved in various anomalies. Please be patient and wait for better times. Again, pray for God's guidance.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on September 12, 2008, 08:27:22 AM
Can you at least make me aware of those anomalies??! I want to know too!! And i believe that even if im still not in the age of mature reasoning, i at least have the right to know!  :'(

I want to know if my trust in them was betrayed or not!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on September 12, 2008, 09:40:51 AM
Can you at least make me aware of those anomalies??! I want to know too!!

The anomalies (not all of them) were already mentioned here and it is a shame! Please re-read ALL the posts by GodIsGoodHeSavesMe in this thread. Of course, the few people who are still loyal to the leader (including the anomalous leader himself) will deny them. 

From the beginning of the establishment of the Antiochian jurisdiction in the Philippines you will also see various loopholes and anomalies. If you have been reading this thread from the very start you should have been aware of those anomalies. Hence you see the reactions from the local Orthodox faithful under the EP because they saw them very clearly and realized these shameful things committed by  these leaders or  Orthodox shepherds from the other jurisdiction.  So you should not wonder anymore why both Orthodox jurisdictions are ignoring each other.  Because previously you wrote:

The troubling fact is that both jurisdictions are IGNORING each other presence here!! Its as if there was never an "agreement" between them! Im already confused as it is, as I am under the guidance of both an EP and Antiochian priest...

Who in his right mind will join such Orthodox groups? So weight things very carefully before deciding to join them.  But don't loose hope for better times are coming. Keep on praying and keep the Orthodox faith.



Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 12, 2008, 01:51:17 PM
Can you at least make me aware of those anomalies??! I want to know too!!

The anomalies (not all of them) were already mentioned here and it is a shame!
Already mentioned here, and already argued here from the perspective of your opponents, as well.

Quote
Please re-read ALL the posts by GodIsGoodHeSavesMe in this thread.
He who only hints at improprieties but refuses to speak of them in detail when asked...

Quote
Of course, the few people who are still loyal to the leader (including the anomalous leader himself) will deny them.
But, reading only what one sees posted here, whom does one trust?

Quote
From the beginning of the establishment of the Antiochian jurisdiction in the Philippines you will also see various loopholes and anomalies. If you have been reading this thread from the very start you should have been aware of those anomalies.
Correction:  allegations of anomalies...  Let each reader determine for himself if the allegations have merit.

Quote
Hence you see the reactions from the local Orthodox faithful under the EP because they saw them very clearly and realized these shameful things committed by  these leaders or  Orthodox shepherds from the other jurisdiction.  So you should not wonder anymore why both Orthodox jurisdictions are ignoring each other.  Because previously you wrote:

The troubling fact is that both jurisdictions are IGNORING each other presence here!! Its as if there was never an "agreement" between them! Im already confused as it is, as I am under the guidance of both an EP and Antiochian priest...

Who in his right mind will join such Orthodox groups? So weight things very carefully before deciding to join them.  But don't loose hope for better times are coming. Keep on praying and keep the Orthodox faith.
Yes, please do.  Please gather evidence from both sides before making a judgment and acting upon it.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on September 21, 2008, 09:40:01 PM
PeterTheAleut, thanks so much for the advises..

As for GodIsGoodHeSavesMe, I believe i now know where you came from. Tell me, where you a vicariate employee, recently fired from your job in the "Bigasan ng Parokya"? Because, if "you were that person", I think I have good reason to doubt the allegations you have posted here, as i spent some time gathering evidence. If you certainly match the person on my mind, your submission of complaints to His Eminence Saliba, may just be some sort of an act of revenge for the vicariate's firing of you. (please correct my grammar if necesarry  :laugh:)

The Archbishop came here a few months ago, and he's coming back on the 4th of October, by which at that time, I will be chrismated and ordained as a sub-deacon. I doubt that he would ever come back to Davao, just to check on parishes and missions, which GodIsGoodHeSavesMe, claims to "NOT EXIST". The Archbishop has seen the Churches and has seen the progress of the misions, it would be totally illogical of him, to forsee the development of missions that "DONT EVEN EXIST"!  >:(

Im not sure what your getting at, but because of you I certainly did doubt the integrity of the vicar-general, which I now regret having done so (may the Lord forgive me). I agree with PeterTheAleut, that your somebody "who only hints at improprieties but refuses to speak of them in detail when asked...". We dont even know you personally, so defending yourself by saying that you don't want your identity damaged, is out of the questions. If your really intent in divulging the truth, why dont you substantiate your arguments and convince us that indeed, their are serious anomalies in the Davao vicariate?  >:(

May God have Mercy on our country.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: GodIsGoodHeSavesMe on September 22, 2008, 01:34:34 AM

As for GodIsGoodHeSavesMe, I believe i now know where you came from. Tell me, where you a vicariate employee, recently fired from your job in the "Bigasan ng Parokya"? Because, if "you were that person", I think I have good reason to doubt the allegations you have posted here, as i spent some time gathering evidence. If you certainly match the person on my mind, your submission of complaints to His Eminence Saliba, may just be some sort of an act of revenge for the vicariate's firing of you. (please correct my grammar if necesarry  :laugh:)

I am in no way an employee of Jeptah Aniceto and never was. I can see how he still can lie through his teeth now. The evidence you have at hand is basically a one-sided, it must just be his words against mine. You have heard him but you haven't been into the areas (the supposed churches as listed in that website). Were you able to talk to the people in those areas other than Aniceto? Were you able to talk to  the people whose names were listed on that webpage?

The Archbishop came here a few months ago, and he's coming back on the 4th of October, by which at that time, I will be chrismated and ordained as a sub-deacon. I doubt that he would ever come back to Davao, just to check on parishes and missions, which GodIsGoodHeSavesMe, claims to "NOT EXIST". The Archbishop has seen the Churches and has seen the progress of the misions, it would be totally illogical of him, to forsee the development of missions that "DONT EVEN EXIST"!  >:(

The first lie, he used these people just so he have "people" to present to Archbishop few months back. How long did the Archbishop stayed with the congregation? 30mins, an hour? There was a confrontation among the people and Aniceto because most of these people didn't understand what was going on but the Archbishop didn't understand it simply because Aniceto didn't even give anyone a chance to have an open forum with the Archbishop. (posted with permission): Take note.. there are more coming...
(http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq221/Godisgoodhesavesme/bishop.jpg)

Im not sure what your getting at, but because of you I certainly did doubt the integrity of the vicar-general, which I now regret having done so (may the Lord forgive me). I agree with PeterTheAleut, that your somebody "who only hints at improprieties but refuses to speak of them in detail when asked...". We dont even know you personally, so defending yourself by saying that you don't want your identity damaged, is out of the questions. If your really intent in divulging the truth, why dont you substantiate your arguments and convince us that indeed, their are serious anomalies in the Davao vicariate?  >:(

May God have Mercy on our country.


He might be able to destroy my integrity as a person and the integrity of the people he fooled here. But he will never be able to destroy the integrity of the TRUTH itself.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on September 22, 2008, 02:11:28 AM
^ (refering to your post above)

So all you want is to have your names deleted on the website and "POOF!!" were done???
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: GodIsGoodHeSavesMe on September 22, 2008, 03:25:56 AM
^ (refering to your post above)

So all you want is to have your names deleted on the website and "POOF!!" were done???
You still don't get it, do you?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on September 22, 2008, 03:43:23 AM
Dear GodIsGoodHeSavesMe & filipiniana,

I'm trying to understand what's going on here, please bear with me.

As I understand it, the Protestant Churches in the Phillipines want to come to Orthodoxy, but have reservations about the method with which it being done. Is this correct?

Also, I understand that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is already in the Phillipines and is "ignoring" the Antiochians.

So why don't the Protestant Churches which have reservations about the Antiochians (but want to come to Orthodoxy) approach the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

George
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on September 22, 2008, 04:06:31 AM
You still don't get it, do you?

What I know, is that your group was excommunicated, with the authority of Metropolitan Paul. I understand that by virtue of that, you are no longer part of the vicariate, or Orthodox for that matter.
You were exaggerating when you said that the Archbishop was only here for 30mins or an 1 hour!  ::) You said in your letter, that you received no financial aid, but during the Archbishop's visit, you DID receive money. You have already been reported by Fr. Aniceto to His Eminence way back 2 months ago, and apparantly he approved of your excommunication.
Because of your behavior, the vicariate was divided, by your mebers who joined you, and those who remained in the Archbishop's care.

In your letter, you don't seem to acknowledge that BEFORE Fr. Aniceto was chrismated and ordained a priest, he was YOUR superior. He was your head bishop if I clearly remeber. Your letter sems to imply, that it was he who YOU accomodated INTO the Church, when it was the other way around!

Also, there MIGHT be some monetary issues revolving around your excommunication..  ;)

To ozgeorge:

The issue with  GodIsGoodHeSavesMe is about, some FORMER members of the Davao vicariate of the Antiochian Church who were dissatisfied with the vicar-general leadership. The EP priest in Mindanao, has toldme that the Greek Orthodox Church in the Philippines now officially recognize, the Antiochian missions as canonical ones. (Whew! Im glad that was fixed!  ;D)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on September 22, 2008, 12:11:08 PM
Dear GodIsGoodHeSavesMe & filipiniana,

I'm trying to understand what's going on here, please bear with me.

Dear Mr. George,
I would have to reply to your inquiries since you mentioned my name along with  GodIsGoodHeSavesMe.  I also want to understand thoroughly just what is going on because there is definitely something wrong going on in the Philippines.


As I understand it, the Protestant Churches in the Phillipines want to come to Orthodoxy, but have reservations about the method with which it being done. Is this correct?


As I understand it, the Orthodox Christians  in the Philippines  [EP] have reservations about accepting the former Evangelicals who were seeking entrance into canonical Orthodoxy though the Greek Orthodox jurisdiction.  An objection was even raised here by one of the  EP faithful that these Evangelicals want to become Orthodox "on their own terms" with a "modified" Liturgy  which is totally unacceptable both for the Greek authorities and the native Filipino Orthodox faithful under the Greek Jurisdiction [EP]. Let me quote the exact words here:

The voice of the Orthodox Christians in the Philippines must be heard.  We want nothing less than the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.  Any "modified" liturgy must be rejected, with no compromise.


Now I totally agree with their objections and condemnation of this shameful anomaly! Observers have reported how the Orthodox priests from this jurisdiction conduct their "modified" Liturgy which does not resemble any of the canonical Orthodox liturgical rites or the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Their priests (and even the Vicars themselves) are actually using a "modified" Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Rite of the Mass with the same unleavened wafers used by the Roman Catholic priests. Their  priests says the Mass exactly the same way Roman Catholic priests "says" them; with Roman Catholic vestments  and the celebrant facing the people and with the congregation singing the same hymns sung in Roman Catholic Masses in the Philippines.   GodIsGoodHeSavesMe and even Soma_hatori can confirm my statement.



Also, I understand that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is already in the Phillipines and is "ignoring" the Antiochians.
So why don't the Protestant Churches which have reservations about the Antiochians (but want to come to Orthodoxy) approach the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

Its not only the clergy and the faithful under the EP in the Philippines who ignores the Antiochians but the Antiochian clergy and faithful themselves ignores the EP clergy and faithful in the Philippines as well (please read Sohma's confirmation of this fact). That they BOTH ignore each other is  evidenced by the absence of  any representatives from the EP during the clandestine pastoral visit(s) of the Primate of the Philippines in Manila, Davao and elsewhere (who knows exactly where? it was never mentioned in their offical website up to this moment!) for the chrismation of its  ??6,000 ??? members and the ordinations of former Evangelical and Independent Catholic clergymen (who knows how many and when they were ordained? it was never mentioned in their official website as well!).  Does that does not even make you wonder??

The Evangelicals have no reservations about the Antiochians because the Antiochians have no reservations about the Evangelicals as evidenced by the "modified" Novus Ordo Roman Catholic Masses they  "say" during their "orthodox" worship.







 




Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on September 22, 2008, 08:42:32 PM
Dear filipiniana,
Thanks for taking the time to help me to understand what's going on. I still need some clarification though, please bear with me.

As I understand it, the Orthodox Christians  in the Philippines  [EP] have reservations about accepting the former Evangelicals who were seeking entrance into canonical Orthodoxy though the Greek Orthodox jurisdiction.  An objection was even raised here by one of the  EP faithful that these Evangelicals want to become Orthodox "on their own terms" with a "modified" Liturgy  which is totally unacceptable both for the Greek authorities and the native Filipino Orthodox faithful under the Greek Jurisdiction [EP]. Let me quote the exact words here:

The voice of the Orthodox Christians in the Philippines must be heard.  We want nothing less than the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.  Any "modified" liturgy must be rejected, with no compromise.
What I don't understand is whether those Evangelicals seeking conversion to Orthodoxy actually want to use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It seems they want to use the modified Liturgy. Is there a division between the Evangelicals about which Liturgy to use? If so, couldn't those wishing to use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom join the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and those wanting the modified Liturgy join the Antiochians?
Is the modified Liturgy being imposed by the Antiochians against the will of the Evangelicals? If so, it certainly seems strange to me that a Liturgy based on the RC Novos Ordo should be imposed on former Evangelicals. It doesn't make much sense, and it seems there would be no difference to imposing the DL of St. John Chrysostom anyway.

Now I totally agree with their objections and condemnation of this shameful anomaly! Observers have reported how the Orthodox priests from this jurisdiction conduct their "modified" Liturgy which does not resemble any of the canonical Orthodox liturgical rites or the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Their priests (and even the Vicars themselves) are actually using a "modified" Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Rite of the Mass with the same unleavened wafers used by the Roman Catholic priests. Their  priests says the Mass exactly the same way Roman Catholic priests "says" them; with Roman Catholic vestments  and the celebrant facing the people and with the congregation singing the same hymns sung in Roman Catholic Masses in the Philippines.   GodIsGoodHeSavesMe and even Soma_hatori can confirm my statement.
Am I understanding correctly that the resentment and resistance is about being a Western Rite Church? If so, I have to say that this was not clear until now, even with the letter posted by GodIsGoodHeSavesMe. I think if this is made clearer to Archbishop Paul Saliba, he would be more than happy to accommodate this and get them to use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. I really think this can be resolved if this is the case. I am willing to help in any way I can to assist in finding a resolution to this which suits all the parties. I am in Australia and under the EP, (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia).


Its not only the clergy and the faithful under the EP in the Philippines who ignores the Antiochians but the Antiochian clergy and faithful themselves ignores the EP clergy and faithful in the Philippines as well (please read Sohma's confirmation of this fact). That they BOTH ignore each other is  evidenced by the absence of  any representatives from the EP during the clandestine pastoral visit(s) of the Primate of the Philippines in Manila, Davao and elsewhere (who knows exactly where? it was never mentioned in their offical website up to this moment!) for the chrismation of its  ??6,000 ??? members and the ordinations of former Evangelical and Independent Catholic clergymen (who knows how many and when they were ordained? it was never mentioned in their official website as well!).  Does that does not even make you wonder??
The simple reality is that the EP tends to be suspicious of Antiochian Western Rites. We don't have any Western Rites in the EP, but we do have less of a problem with ROCOR Western Rite Orthodox Churches than with Antiochian ones. ROCOR WR Churches are perceived as being "more thought out" than Antiochian ones (whether this perception is right or wrong). But at the same time, we also have a great respect for the Antiochian Patriarchate, so there is an "interesting" situation of maintaining Communion while not always agreeing on methods.

The Evangelicals have no reservations about the Antiochians because the Antiochians have no reservations about the Evangelicals as evidenced by the "modified" Novus Ordo Roman Catholic Masses they  "say" during their "orthodox" worship.
Sometimes, I think it actually is better that we ignore things. The reality is that as long as the Antiochians are in Communion with the rest of Orthodoxy, their Western Rite Liturgies are technically Liturgies of the Orthodox Church. Perhaps its better just to leave it at that and ignore the problems we may have with it rather than allow it to become a cause of division. Those Orthodox Christians who wish to use the DL of St. John Chrysotom are free to join jurisdictions which use it, but if the will to use it isn't there, what else can we do?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on September 22, 2008, 09:23:43 PM
Dear filipiniana,
Thanks for taking the time to help me to understand what's going on. I still need some clarification though, please bear with me.

Dear Mr. George,
You're most welcome. I'll try to clarify things the best way I can.

What I don't understand is whether those Evangelicals seeking conversion to Orthodoxy actually want to use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It seems they want to use the modified Liturgy.

Your observation could be accurate and I agree. But it appears that they want to use the "modified" Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Rite of the Mass than the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and the re-constructed canonical Western Rite Liturgy of Saint Gregory or Saint Tikhon etc. which are being used by canonical Western Rite Orthodox priests under Russia and Antioch.


Is there a division between the Evangelicals about which Liturgy to use? If so, couldn't those wishing to use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom join the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and those wanting the modified Liturgy join the Antiochians?

I have received letters coming from their faithful which expresses their disapproval of the use this "modified" Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Rite by their priests.  Let me quote one of the said letters  (Note: names have been witheld:


"I had some three instances attending a small community of about 10 people for a sunday mass , these were catholics who thought Fr. ______ as a catholic priest since he introduces the orthodoxy as "Antiochian Orthodox Catholic Church" I know the difference because I had  degree on Religious Studies. But these common people (not regular church goers, he performed it in most rural areas) doesnt know anything about it. They cannot tell the difference because Fr.______ celebrates it in the Roman Catholic Holy Eucharistic Rites. I couldn't just take the lies anymore, I stopped attending.. "


Is the modified Liturgy being imposed by the Antiochians against the will of the Evangelicals? If so, it certainly seems strange to me that a Liturgy based on the RC Novos Ordo should be imposed on former Evangelicals. It doesn't make much sense, and it seems there would be no difference to imposing the DL of St. John Chrysostom anyway.

Sorry, I don't have any reports which says that this modified ROman Catholic Novus Ordo  Rite of the Mass is being imposed by Antioch against the will of the Filipino Orthodox priests under their jurisdiction.

Am I understanding correctly that the resentment and resistance is about being Western Rite Church? If so, I have to say that this was not clear until now....

The resentment and resistance in the Greek [EP] side is not the issue of being "Western Rite" but the use of the "modified" Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Rite of the Mass which has no place in canonical Orthdox worship. Things will be less complicated if priests from this jurisdiction will use the approved Western Rite Liturgies, or better, the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.



Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on September 22, 2008, 09:44:59 PM
The resentment and resistance in the Greek [EP] side is not the issue of being "Western Rite" but the use of the "modified" Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Rite of the Mass which has no place in canonical Orthdox worship. Things will be less complicated if priests from this jurisdiction will use the approved Western Rite Liturgies, or better, the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.
Thank you, this clarifies the position tremendously for me!
So the issue, I understand, is not simply that it is Western Rite, but rather, that it appears deceptive in a predominantly Roman Catholic country to have an Orthodox Church which looks exactly like a Roman Catholic Church.
I think that many European Orthodox Churches can understand this concern, because it echoes their experience with Eastern Rite Catholic Churches in their own counties which look exactly like Orthodox Churches, but are in fact not in Communion with the Orthodox Church, but rather with the Vatican.
I think this needs to be made clear to His Eminence, Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on September 22, 2008, 11:39:08 PM

Thank you, this clarifies the position tremendously for me!
So the issue, I understand, is not simply that it is Western Rite, but rather, that it appears deceptive in a predominantly Roman Catholic country to have an Orthodox Church which looks exactly like a Roman Catholic Church................I think this needs to be made clear to His Eminence, Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba.

I understand that this is no longer an "issue" because according to Sohma the Greek [EP] side has also accepted as canonical the "modified" Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Rite of the Mass which the Filipino priests under Antioch use in their "orthodox" worship. Please refer to Sohma's recent post which seems to imply that  fact:

To ozgeorge:
The EP priest in Mindanao, has toldme that the Greek Orthodox Church in the Philippines now officially recognize, the Antiochian missions as canonical ones. (Whew! Im glad that was fixed!  ;D)


Hence, there should no longer be "resentments" and "resistance" on both sides from now on (if this is true?) and clergymen and faithful from the Greek (EP) side should now be invited and present during every "Primate of the Philippines" pastoral visits in the country which from now on should not be held clandestinely and that details of chrismations and ordinations in the Philippines should now be published in the official website of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia.

The main issue now is this and please find time to read it carefully all over it again:



I am in no way an employee of Jeptah Aniceto and never was. I can see how he still can lie through his teeth now. The evidence you have at hand is basically a one-sided, it must just be his words against mine. You have heard him but you haven't been into the areas (the supposed churches as listed in that website). Were you able to talk to the people in those areas other than Aniceto? Were you able to talk to  the people whose names were listed on that webpage?

The first lie, he used these people just so he have "people" to present to Archbishop few months back. How long did the Archbishop stayed with the congregation? 30mins, an hour? There was a confrontation among the people and Aniceto because most of these people didn't understand what was going on but the Archbishop didn't understand it simply because Aniceto didn't even give anyone a chance to have an open forum with the Archbishop. (posted with permission): Take note.. there are more coming...


(http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq221/Godisgoodhesavesme/bishop.jpg)


He might be able to destroy my integrity as a person and the integrity of the people he fooled here. But he will never be able to destroy the integrity of the TRUTH itself.


This is the real "issue" now.  Thank you GodIsGoodHeSavesMe for taking the courage to expose these anomalies; the lies and deceptions. May God strengthen you more in this noble undertaking. I will be praying for you and Pastor Abraham Igar. Brethren and friends, please pray for them.




Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: GodIsGoodHeSavesMe on September 23, 2008, 12:11:12 AM

What I know, is that your group was excommunicated, with the authority of Metropolitan Paul. I understand that by virtue of that, you are no longer part of the vicariate, or Orthodox for that matter.
You really don't have an idea who I am, right? I have not been chrismated yet so there is no sense in pushing about me being excommunicated by the Metropolitan Paul. You must be referring to Igar, but well.. thanks because I found out, if Aniceto did excommunicated him it must have been after  Igar  declined to be a part of Aniceto's plan when  WE SAW how he has been doing things around here. FYI, it was Aniceto who have been begging me to support him and be chrismated (because he knows he can use me if I agreed) even long before I met the so called "excommunicados" and yes, he can have the pleasure to term me as excommunicado as well. And so do you. I was hesitant because I know him personally. If he could lie to me, he could lie to anyone else, he could lie to his mom then he could lie to you and to the orthodoxy. I came out because I couldn't take the lies anymore.

You were exaggerating when you said that the Archbishop was only here for 30mins or an 1 hour!

were you here when the installation happened?  were you here when the confrontation happened while Archbishop Paul was around?

You said in your letter, that you received no financial aid, but during the Archbishop's visit, you DID receive money. You have already been reported by Fr. Aniceto to His Eminence way back 2 months ago, and apparantly he approved of your excommunication.

This was just a strategy made by Aniceto to save himself from any  future legal confrontations AFTER I withdrew any support from him and sensing how Igar has been slowly declining supporting him.

Because of your behavior, the vicariate was divided, by your mebers who joined you, and those who remained in the Archbishop's care.

It was divided because I have spoken the truth.

In your letter, you don't seem to acknowledge that BEFORE Fr. Aniceto was chrismated and ordained a priest, he was YOUR superior. He was your head bishop if I clearly remeber. Your letter sems to imply, that it was he who YOU accomodated INTO the Church, when it was the other way around!

What kind of a leader will he be abandoning his so-called "flock" for years and coming back telling lies about being abroad and seeking help outside thus he had the orthodoxy at hand while he was in the same city living with a woman for a year?

Also, there MIGHT be some monetary issues revolving around your excommunication..  ;)

The truth will set me free.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on September 23, 2008, 01:25:42 AM
Dear filipiniana,
There are a few items in your post I would like to respond to seperately, so I have divided your post up, please bear with me.
Hence, there should no longer be "resentments" and "resistance" on both sides from now on (if this is true?) and clergymen and faithful from the Greek (EP) side should now be invited and present during every "Primate of the Philippines" pastoral visits in the country which from now on should not be held clandestinely
This seems to me to echo concerns that many people have of the Orthodox Church in Counties like the Philipines, Greece, Australia, the UK and the USA where multiple jurisdictions exist simultaneously. For example, here in Australia, there is the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the Moscow Patriarchate, the Romanian Patriarchate, the Serbian Patriarchate etc. To those unfamiliar with Orthodoxy, this looks like disunity, but in fact, it is an expression of genuine "unity in diversity". The Orthodox Church is united in Faith, not administration, and there exists a bond of trust between the different jurisdictions which allows them to act independantly of one another. Yet we are all in Communion, and, here in Australia, we emphasise this with "Pan-Orthodox" Liturgies, Commissions etc. This unity of Faith is more important than differences of opinion as to how things ought to be done. As I said, the EP has no Western Rite parishes or monasteries, but it hasn't broken Communion with Antioch over their Western Rite Churches. The philosophy seems to be "let them do things as they see fit". What you should also know is that every Orthodox jurisdiction has the right to appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for an adjudication when a dispute arises. This was the case recently with the Jerusalem Patriarchate, when the Synod of the Jerusalem Patriarchate took a "vote of no confidence" in the former Patriarch of Jerusalem and appealed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The EP then summoned a Pan-Orthodox "Endomousa Synod" which upheld and ratified the decision of the Synod of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and deposed the former Patriarch.

and that details of chrismations and ordinations in the Philippines should now be published in the official website of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia.
I'm not sure why this needs to be a requirement. It's not a requirement of any other Orthodox Jurisdiction, so why should it be a requirement of the Antiochians? Certainly, an Orthodox Church is required to keep other Orthodox Churches informed of who it's clergy are and who is a member, but this is normally on a "need to know" basis and is in the form of letters of recommendation, certificates etc. For example, if an Antiochian Orthodox Christian wishes to Sponsor at the Baptism of a Greek Orthodox Christian and they are unknown to the celebrant of the Baptism, they are usually required to provide their own Baptisimal Certificate as well as a letter of recommendation from their Parish Priest to say they are an Orthodox Christian in good standing. And if their Priest is not known to the celebrant, then he would provide a letter of recommendation from his Bishop. This is how things have been done in the Orthodox Church for centuries. The internet is a new phenomenon, and in terms of "Orthodox Time", it hasn't even been born yet!

The main issue now is this and please find time to read it carefully all over it again:



I am in no way an employee of Jeptah Aniceto and never was. I can see how he still can lie through his teeth now. The evidence you have at hand is basically a one-sided, it must just be his words against mine. You have heard him but you haven't been into the areas (the supposed churches as listed in that website). Were you able to talk to the people in those areas other than Aniceto? Were you able to talk to  the people whose names were listed on that webpage?

The first lie, he used these people just so he have "people" to present to Archbishop few months back. How long did the Archbishop stayed with the congregation? 30mins, an hour? There was a confrontation among the people and Aniceto because most of these people didn't understand what was going on but the Archbishop didn't understand it simply because Aniceto didn't even give anyone a chance to have an open forum with the Archbishop. (posted with permission): Take note.. there are more coming...
This seems to confirm what sohma_hatori is saying when he says:
To ozgeorge:

The issue with  GodIsGoodHeSavesMe is about, some FORMER members of the Davao vicariate of the Antiochian Church who were dissatisfied with the vicar-general leadership.
As I understand, the former members of the Davao Vicariate have been excommunicated from the Vicariate. Is this correct? If so, then what is the problem? If they no longer wish to belong to the Orthodox Church in Davao for whatever reason (including perceived deception), that's fine- no one is imposing Orthodoxy on them. If they wish to be reconciled with their Bishop or appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarchate to receive them, then thats fine also, but no one is forcing them. Let them go their way in Peace, they have to make their own choices.

But is seems to me that this has become an issue of "personalities", with one "personality" picking up his bat and ball and saying "I don't want to play any more" and walking away with the members of his team who wish to follow him, and this seems to be based an a sense of being personally insulted, as indicated by:
He might be able to destroy my integrity as a person and the integrity of the people he fooled here. But he will never be able to destroy the integrity of the TRUTH itself.

This is the real "issue" now. 
I disagree. The real issue is, and always has been the salvation of souls. Those who are outside of the Orthodox Church through no fault of their own will be judged by our merciful God who wants the Salvation of all. Those who of their own volition leave the Orthodox Church also depend on the mercy of God, but they once made a promise to God and have not fulfilled it. They have said "yes" to God and then said "no".
As the psalmist says: "Vow and pay your vows to the Lord our God..." (Psalm 75:11 LXX)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on September 23, 2008, 01:40:15 AM
It's not a requirement of any other Orthodox Jurisdiction, so why should it be a requirement of the Antiochians? Certainly, an Orthodox Church is required to keep other Orthodox Churches informed of who it's clergy are and who is a member, but this is normally on a "need to know" basis and is in the form of letters of recommendation, certificates etc. For example, if an Antiochian Orthodox Christian wishes to Sponsor at the Baptism of a Greek Orthodox Christian and they are unknown to the celebrant of the Baptism, they are usually required to provide their own Baptisimal Certificate as well as a letter of recommendation from their Parish Priest to say they are an Orthodox Christian in good standing. And if their Priest is not known to the celebrant, then he would provide a letter of recommendation from his Bishop. This is how things have been done in the Orthodox Church for centuries. The internet is a new phenomenon, and in terms of "Orthodox Time", it hasn't even been born yet!

Just as in ancient times, forgery becomes easier with technology.  Anyone can type up official and canonical looking documents saying that they were baptized by Father <so and so> who was ordained by Bishop/Metropolitan <such and such>, etc.  Do people really call to verify the existence of Father <so and so> or Bishop/Metropolitan <such and such> and whether or not these people are canonical Orthodox Clergy and not someone with phony papers that can say anything?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on September 23, 2008, 01:47:34 AM
Just as in ancient times, forgery becomes easier with technology.  Anyone can type up official and canonical looking documents saying that they were baptized by Father <so and so> who was ordained by Bishop/Metropolitan <such and such>, etc. 
That's true I guess.

Do people really call to verify the existence of Father <so and so> or Bishop/Metropolitan <such and such> and whether or not these people are canonical Orthodox Clergy and not someone with phony papers that can say anything?
In my experience, yes they do check. The Godmother of one of my nephews baptized in the GO Archdiocese in Sydney is a member of the Antiocian Church in Melbourne. She had to produce her letter of recommendation and Birth Certificate to the Priest, who then checked with the then Antiochian Metropolitan Archbishop of Sydney that the Priest was indeed one of his Priests and then spoke to the Priest himself to confirm the letter. This probably goes back to your first point that we should never take anything in print on face value, particularly in these times, and the internet, if anything has confirmed this with so much conflicting information abounding on it (as is the case in this thread).
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on September 23, 2008, 01:55:57 AM
This probably goes back to your first point that we should never take anything in print on face value, particularly in these times, and the internet, if anything has confirmed this with so much conflicting information abounding on it (as is the case in this thread).

This thread reminds me of American Orthodoxy in the 1910's and 1920's in that Orthodoxy in the Phillippines is following the same chaotic path which will eventually reach entropy by the 22nd Century, give or take a few decades, lol.   :'(  In a decade, someone will be the Metropolitan of the Holy Orthodox Philippine Church or something with a snazzy abbreviation.   ;D
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on September 23, 2008, 02:04:28 AM
This thread reminds me of American Orthodoxy in the 1910's and 1920's in that Orthodoxy in the Phillippines is following the same chaotic path which will eventually reach entropy by the 22nd Century, give or take a few decades, lol.   :'(  In a decade, someone will be the Metropolitan of the Holy Orthodox Philippine Church or something with a snazzy abbreviation.   ;D
Unfortunately, this is the history of the Church for two millenia.
Every heresy and every schism has been the result of a power struggle.
But as Our Lord says:
“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”
(Matthew 13:24-29)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on September 23, 2008, 06:12:55 AM
as for now,i'll not be taking sides.. regardless.. I respect the decisions of His Eminence Saliba, and i don't care if the vicariate im in is having all these controversies, I want to serve the Archdiocese, and since His Eminence has called me to be chrismated and made a sub-deacon, I will follow his call, because He is vested in the authority of my God.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Milliardo on September 25, 2008, 01:51:23 AM
as for now,i'll not be taking sides.. regardless.. I respect the decisions of His Eminence Saliba, and i don't care if the vicariate im in is having all these controversies, I want to serve the Archdiocese, and since His Eminence has called me to be chrismated and made a sub-deacon, I will follow his call, because He is vested in the authority of my God.

I think this is the best attitude to go about the whole thing, and I agree with it. It should not affect us in our Faith, but should rather strengthen us. Let the matter be resolved by those who should resolve it; that is not in our hands, but those given authority to handle it.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on September 25, 2008, 08:27:20 AM
To Filipiniana and ozgeorge

To my knowledge, it wasHis Eminence who probably allowed them to use the modified rite. When the Archbishop comes on his visits here, he celebrates liturgy in according to St. John Chrysostom. Fr. Aniceto and the other priests said that, all the parishes will soon adopt the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, as they said, and i qoute, "in due time".
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: CCTE on October 23, 2008, 01:01:44 AM
I'm sad to hear that are such a problems in Philippines. Orthodoxy is such a nice and wonderful faith.
Trust in God, am pray to him, He is the solution for all world problems.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: philip xavier on October 23, 2008, 02:33:17 AM
]
I'm sad to hear that are such a problems in Philippines. Orthodoxy is such a nice and wonderful faith.
Trust in God, am pray to him, He is the solution for all world problems.
[/quote]

There really seems to be a problem between the EP and the Antiochian Orthodox church's presence in the Philippines. A friend of mine, a former priest of the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC) in the Southern Luzon area (Bicol region) and now coordinator for missions in our province recently alerted me, through SMS, of a definite warning supposedly issued by Bp. Nectarios to all the  EP priests that the Antiochian orthodox church in the Philippines is uncanonical. This is a sad event if true.anybody can verify this, please?

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on October 23, 2008, 03:41:30 AM
Quote
There really seems to be a problem between the EP and the Antiochian Orthodox church's presence in the Philippines. A friend of mine, a former priest of the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC) in the Southern Luzon area (Bicol region) and now coordinator for missions in our province recently alerted me, through SMS, of a definite warning supposedly issued by Bp. Nectarios to all the  EP priests that the Antiochian orthodox church in the Philippines is uncanonical. This is a sad event if true.anybody can verify this, please?

Well, I am an Antiochian Orthodox Christian in the Philippines, and we are certainly NOT uncanonical!  >:(
His Eminence Metropolitan Saliba, is a canonical heirarch, appointed by His Holiness Ignatius IV to  sheperd the growing flock here in the Philippines, so undoubtedly, our presence here is canonical. The information I got, from the EP priest in Koronadal, South Cotabato, suggest the opposite; the EP now considers us canonical, and that a spirit of cooperation is invoked in order to bring more Filipinos to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Vineyard of Christ.
Im very happy with the developments, and I agree that instead of bickering we should cooperate. Protest and complaints aimed at ruining the progress within the Antiochian vicariate, have wounded us Orthodox Christians very much, but when His Eminence Saliba came to visit us, we were renewed with a new hope, because we know, that people who wish to ruin the church, will never succed because the Truth is on our side, God is with us!
We have faced much persecution, from both protestants and Roman Catholics. Some of our members have been beaten up, mocked and insulted publicly. Some residents in the site of our communty even burned the foundation of the Church we were building! (This is in our urban poor communties in Davao).. Most of my brothers and sisters there are very poor, and can barely make ends meet, and other "Christians"  >:(, are making things worse for us. Even our priests and leaders are living in poverty!  :'( Im trying my best to get as much aid as I can, by giving out cathecism or Theological materials I got from the net, and passing it to them, (its all a kid like me can do)..
It is my heartfelt wish,that our agreement of cooperation with the EP, will not only stay in words, but will translate itself into genuine action on both sides. We need their prayers more than ever, as we are always praying for the succes of our EP brothers!  :)
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Have Mercy on us!

By the way, philip xavier, are you a cathecumen?  ;D
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: philip xavier on October 23, 2008, 04:05:56 AM

By the way, philip xavier, are you a cathecumen?  ;D
[/quote]

well not as of this moment. in my heart i'm orthodox.i still belong to what orthodox christians would call uncanonical convergence churches.I started being an inquirer in the EP last year but it did not flourish for some reason but the call of God to a journey home to orthodoxy remains.

Im glad to learn that the zeal for the house of God burns brightly in your heart and you defend it like a man on fire.maybe if you belonged to the apostolic times, you would embrace martyrdom like the apostles of old.
I intended no malice when i posted that question. I just wanted to clarify the issue because my friend, who belong to the EP,indeed  made such uncharitable claim. i would like to verify it directly from an antiochian orthodox christian in the philippines and im glad you responded with fire and fervor. 

keep the faith...
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on October 23, 2008, 04:27:15 AM

well not as of this moment. in my heart i'm orthodox.i still belong to what orthodox christians would call uncanonical convergence churches.I started being an inquirer in the EP last year but it did not flourish for some reason but the call of God to a journey home to orthodoxy remains.

Im glad to learn that the zeal for the house of God burns brightly in your heart and you defend it like a man on fire.maybe if you belonged to the apostolic times, you would embrace martyrdom like the apostles of old.
I intended no malice when i posted that question. I just wanted to clarify the issue because my friend, who belong to the EP,indeed  made such uncharitable claim. i would like to verify it directly from an antiochian orthodox christian in the philippines and im glad you responded with fire and fervor. 

keep the faith...

Brother, I hope you persevere!
During my times as an inquirer of the faith, I BARELY had any contact with Orthodox Christians who live in the Philippines, and for a time, I did'nt even know the EP was here!  ;D
But my friends in this site help me to have contact with them, but when I tried to make contact , their was almost no response. And I understand why, my place is remote and unknown to most Manilenyos, Im still a student too, so my chances to contact them or speak to them in person are so thin. I was sad, but I continued anyway. I talked about Orthodoxy with my friends, and I was happy enough to bring my faith to my bestfriend, who is a devout Roman Catholic.  ;D
Once again, I (with my bestfriend this time), tried to make contact with the EP , and this time we got a response!  :laugh:, Fr. Daclan, the priest in Cotabato, welcomed us, and on one of my trips dring the NSPC (National School's Press Conference), I was able to meet with him, and to speak with other Orthodox Christian brothers.
Sadly, though, there was not enough resources and people to make a mission inmy hometown about 700+ kilometers away from him, so my call to the Church was once again delayed. A few months later, my bestfriend and I found out that Antiochian missionaries are here in Davao! We sent SMS messages to them asking for info and stuff, but they suggested that a priest will come to OUR place! And we were so thrilled! When Fr. Aniceto came to my hometown Butuan, he talked of plans to expand the missions of the Church, and to give what me and friend had been most eager to receive, our chrismation, the seal of the Holy Spirit!  :)
Im glad my perseverance has paid off! I have been chrismated and am doing my best to live the faith and call others to the Church. And im very glad that God called me in my youth so tat he could use my youthful energy to become an engine of service to His Church!

Brother, I hope you will one day be called! Keep up the Good fight! My prayers are with you..

Please pray for me as well..


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Aftimios on November 07, 2008, 12:49:31 AM

Dear Orthodox Brethren and friends,
I would like to share  some of the photos from the Antiochian Orthodox Vicariate of Manila.


(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/chrismation.jpg)
Chrismation of Filipino converts




(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/liturgy.jpg)
The Divine Liturgy




(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/minor_ordinanation.jpg)
Ordination of Deacons and Subdeacons (Vicariate of Manila)





(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/priests_ordination.jpg)
Ordination of Priests (Vicariate of Manila)



(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/syndesmos.jpg)
Filipino Syndesmos



Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: prodromas on November 08, 2008, 05:20:53 AM
Those are great photos. Is that his Grace Archbishop Paul Saliba?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on November 08, 2008, 09:42:35 AM
Thank you, Aftimios. Welcome to the forum!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: yochanan on November 08, 2008, 01:33:29 PM
Hehe.. too bad I wasn't chrismated with them in Davao.. ka sayang uie!!!
It was finals week when I heard about the Chrismation from Sohma_Hatori..

Hey, I heard about conflicts between the Greeks and the Antiochians, what's with the fuss?
Can't just one jurisdiction rule? Can't they agree amongst themselves?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on November 08, 2008, 01:45:32 PM
Hey, I heard about conflicts between the Greeks and the Antiochians, what's with the fuss?
What conflicts?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: yochanan on November 08, 2008, 02:07:41 PM
In the Philippines there is a conflict whether to which Jurisdiction the Philippines is in.. Greek or Antiochian?
Is it possible for one country to have two jurisdictions?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: prodromas on November 08, 2008, 11:58:29 PM
In the Philippines there is a conflict whether to which Jurisdiction the Philippines is in.. Greek or Antiochian?
Is it possible for one country to have two jurisdictions?

haha good statement brother. Although this is the exact problem countries like America, Australia and England are facing!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on November 09, 2008, 12:28:49 AM
In the Philippines there is a conflict whether to which Jurisdiction the Philippines is in.. Greek or Antiochian?
I see what you mean now. I got confused because it is not between "Greek" and "Antiochian", but between "The Ecumenical Patriarchate" and "The Patriarchate of Antioch". You need to be careful with the use of the word "Greek", particularly in this case, since the official title of the Patriarchate of Antioch is "The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East" (see their official website here: http://www.antiochpat.org/english/sitefiles/ )

Is it possible for one country to have two jurisdictions?
Yes, it is possible. The Church is not jurisdictionally divided by national borders, but has it's own geographical borders. Greece is an example of this. The Southern part of Greece is under the Jurisdiction of the Church of Greece, while the middle and northern parts of Greece along with the Islands of Greece are under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This is perfectly Canonical because no two Bishops from the different jurisdictions have jurisdiction over the same geographical area.
In countries which are not traditionally Orthodox, we have the problem of different jurisdictions covering the same geographical area. For example, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia is under the Ecumenical Patriarchate and has it's own Archbishop, while the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand (and who recently added "and the Phillipines" to their title) has it's own Archbishop who covers the same geographical area. Strictly speaking, this is not canonical- there should be one Bishop in a city, not two. This problem exists also in the USA and the UK, and will eventually require a Pan-Orthodox Synod to resolve it. In the meantime, we should try to get on with one another and remember that we are one in Christ and all partakers in His Body and Blood.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Aftimios on November 11, 2008, 06:28:06 AM
Thank you, Aftimios. Welcome to the forum!

Maraming salamat po kapatid! (Thank you very much brother!)

Those are great photos. Is that his Grace Archbishop Paul Saliba?

Yes. You can  see more photos of His Eminence's pastoral visit in the Philippines by clicking the url shortcut below:

Archbishop Paul Saliba in the Philippines Part I  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxTs5lGKe0k)

Archbishop Paul Saliba in the Philippines Part II  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvAd1IZqiYU)


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Aftimios on November 11, 2008, 07:23:01 AM
Please support the fledgling local Orthodox Church in the Philippines (Manila Vicariate)

(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/antiochianfilipinos2.jpg) (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=44)


See photos of Filipino Orthodox faithful (Manila Vicariate) together with His Eminence Archbishop Paul Saliba by clicking the url shortcut below:

Archbishop Paul Saliba in the Philippines Part I  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxTs5lGKe0k)

Archbishop Paul Saliba in the Philippines Part II  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvAd1IZqiYU)



Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: philip xavier on November 13, 2008, 01:43:13 AM
great photos, especialy the complete one on the tube.the Lord has done great things for the orthodox church in the philippines. I hope the davao vicariate can upload some of their photos too. great news indeed. Congratulations!!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipinopilgrim on November 13, 2008, 03:19:42 PM
It seems to me that the Novus Ordo is the liturgy of the Antiochenes in the Philippines. Will this be permanent, or will there be an eventual shift to the Byzantine Rite?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on November 13, 2008, 10:41:04 PM
It seems to me that the Novus Ordo is the liturgy of the Antiochenes in the Philippines. Will this be permanent, or will there be an eventual shift to the Byzantine Rite?


It appears so! But I haven't witnessed it myself so lets just say it is a "modified" Novus Ordo Rite of the Roman Catholic Mass they are using for their Sunday Divine Liturgy (please refer to the photos generously supplied by Aftimios)

With regards to your second question, please read Sohma_hatori's previous post below:

To Filipiniana and ozgeorge

To my knowledge, it wasHis Eminence who probably allowed them to use the modified rite. When the Archbishop comes on his visits here, he celebrates liturgy in according to St. John Chrysostom. Fr. Aniceto and the other priests said that, all the parishes will soon adopt the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, as they said, and i qoute, "in due time".


I do hope that this uncanonical rite, a liturgical anomaly,  will soon cease and the  Filipino "Antiochenes" will observe the canonical Liturgies (Western Rite or Byzantine etc.) of the Orthodox Church. As mentioned earlier, the local Roman Catholic faithful couldn't hardly notice the difference at all  and this is not a mere allegation. All you have to do is to  see the vestments worn by the "Antiochene" Orthodox priests in the attached photographs. Not only that, they sing contemporary Roman Catholic hymns of the Novus Ordo Mass in their Liturgy! Sohma_hatori and GodIsGoodHeSavesMe can verify that fact.

Listen to Mr ozgeorge's observation:


So the issue, I understand, is not simply that it is Western Rite, but rather, that it appears deceptive in a predominantly Roman Catholic country to have an Orthodox Church which looks exactly like a Roman Catholic Church......I think  this needs to be made clear to His Eminence, Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba.

I say AMEN to that!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on November 17, 2008, 05:20:40 AM
Listen to Mr ozgeorge's observation:
Which actually predates sohma_hatori's post which explains that:

all the parishes will soon adopt the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, as they said, and i qoute, "in due time".

Clearly the adapted Rite is only temporary, so I don't think there's any reason for concern at this stage.
Things happen slowly in the Orthodox Church, but we should all be running towards salvation. Metropolitan Paul has simply built a temporary bridge to help get some people across quickly.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elpidophoros on November 26, 2008, 01:34:22 PM
As I saw in the pics Aftimios posted, HE Paul performed collective ordination? How it's possible ? How to prove that such "ordination" is valid?
And the "ad populum" manner of the "liturgy" is harshly against the Holy Tradition. How can HE Paul justify it?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Islas Filipinas on November 26, 2008, 02:41:48 PM
One of the reasons why I joined and embraced Orthodoxy is because of its strict adherence to its canons, a Church governed by law, of tradition… which makes it different from other confession of faith.

If somebody will tell me that it is for the sake of economia why such ordinations were made (aside from the fact that HE Paul ignores the presence of EP in the Philippines) and why the Evangelicals were accommodated, then who is uncanonical here? Is it the one who was accepted or the one who accept?

How can we possibly say that Orthodoxy is truly being planted in the Philippine Islands if by that act of acceptance and ordination, which were clearly defined in the canons, were violated? If from the very start a lot of rubrics and protocols were compromised just to say that “Hey, another history in the archdiocese, thousands (as they claimed) were received in the Mother Church!” What kind of Church are we then? What makes us different from established uncanonical orthodox catholic church here?

We are tired of Roman Catholicism, of Protentism… reason we came to Orthodoxy to quench that thirst for Truth, not just a part of it. We want to have a Hierarch worthy of commemoration… “…teaching the word of truth” as we pray in the Divine Liturgy.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on November 28, 2008, 11:55:35 AM
As I saw in the pics Aftimios posted, HE Paul performed collective ordination? How it's possible ? How to prove that such "ordination" is valid? And the "ad populum" manner of the "liturgy" is harshly against the Holy Tradition. How can HE Paul justify it?

Yes Elpidophoros, you can see it clearly  on the attached photo stills and from the video presentation posted at You Tube. Likewise, you can see a short article about the "collective ordination" from their official website which reads (and I quote):

"His Eminence Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba recently visited the Philippines on September 28th 2008. The purpose of this visit was to ordain a number of candidates to the priesthood and diaconate. He ordained seventeen priests and ten deacons."

Source: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of Australia (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=56) (click)

With regards to the canonicality or legitimacy of such ordination let them (i.e., the Antiochenes) prove it themselves. Were the clergies under the EP aware of these ordinations?  Were they even informed or invited?  I guess "Las Islas Filipinas" can answer these questions


Clearly the adapted Rite is only temporary, so I don't think there's any reason for concern at this stage.

Thus, you ignore once again  (and continually IGNORE) the concerns of your Filipino Orthodox brethren under the EP (please read "Las Islas Filipinas'" latest post and  please do not play deaf and dumb to these concerns).


Things happen slowly in the Orthodox Church, but we should all be running towards salvation. Metropolitan Paul has simply built a temporary bridge to help get some people across quickly.

Even at the expense of violating the holy canons of the Orthodox Church as the Orthodox faithful under the EP has been trying to point out all this time?  So how long will you continually ignore the legitimate concerns and protestations of your canonical Orthodox brethren under the EP in the Philippines?




Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on November 28, 2008, 12:48:59 PM
As I saw in the pics Aftimios posted, HE Paul performed collective ordination? How it's possible ? How to prove that such "ordination" is valid? And the "ad populum" manner of the "liturgy" is harshly against the Holy Tradition. How can HE Paul justify it?

Yes Elpidophoros, you can see it clearly  on the attached photo stills and from the video presentation posted at You Tube. Likewise, you can see a short article about the "collective ordination" from their official website which reads (and I quote):

"His Eminence Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba recently visited the Philippines on September 28th 2008. The purpose of this visit was to ordain a number of candidates to the priesthood and diaconate. He ordained seventeen priests and ten deacons."

Source: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of Australia (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=56) (click)

With regards to the canonicality or legitimacy of such ordination let them (i.e., the Antiochenes) prove it themselves.

Seven deacons were ordained at the creation of the diaconate in Acts, and Barnabas and Paul were ordained together.  Such mass ordinations are not outside economy.

Quote
Were the clergies under the EP aware of these ordinations?  Were they even informed or invited?  I guess "Las Islas Filipinas" can answer these questions

Don't know.  Given the EP's antics in other areas (setting up shop in Japan, despite an autonomous Church existing there, dismembering the Swedish Church into ethnic "jurisdictions," let alone squashing Ligonier etc), I'm not sure that it should be much of an issue, as the first priest, bishop and parishes that we know of in the Phillipines were PoM (the claims of earlier Greek settlers is like the claim that Orthodoxy in America dates to New Smyrna in Florida.  Was just there, and the momunent was at pains to state that the settlement had no religious significance and was aggresively secular and Hellenic, not Greek).


Clearly the adapted Rite is only temporary, so I don't think there's any reason for concern at this stage.

Quote
Thus, you ignore once again  (and continually IGNORE) the concerns of your Filipino Orthodox brethren under the EP (please read "Las Islas Filipinas'" latest post and  please do not play deaf and dumb to these concerns).


What exactly are those concerns?


Things happen slowly in the Orthodox Church, but we should all be running towards salvation. Metropolitan Paul has simply built a temporary bridge to help get some people across quickly.

Quote
Even at the expense of violating the holy canons of the Orthodox Church as the Orthodox faithful under the EP has been trying to point out all this time?  So how long will you continually ignore the legitimate concerns and protestations of your canonical Orthodox brethren under the EP in the Philippines?

For one thing, as long as the EP keeps insisting on its own interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon.

That being said, if the groups are using NO rites, there should have been an approval of said rites, with an eye towards to the DL of St. Gregory or St. Tikhon.  But I'm not there, and I"m not the pastor responsible.  If it is anything like what went on in the States, then there should be no fears.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on November 28, 2008, 01:02:25 PM
As I saw in the pics Aftimios posted, HE Paul performed collective ordination? How it's possible ? How to prove that such "ordination" is valid?  And the "ad populum" manner of the "liturgy" is harshly against the Holy Tradition. How can HE Paul justify it?

With regards to "collective" or "multiple" ordination, please read below:


"d) Acts 13:3. The note supports multiple ordination. This practice has been forbidden in the Orthodox Church for many centuries, so there is no reason whatsoever to mention it, unless it is to justify the extreme irregularity of performing such ordinations when the so-called "Evangelical Orthodox" were received into the Antiochian Church."

Review of the Orthodox Study Bible
by Priest Seraphim Johnson


Source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb2.aspx

Antiochenes again are the culprits??? :'(
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elpidophoros on November 28, 2008, 01:07:37 PM
Quote
Seven deacons were ordained at the creation of the diaconate in Acts, and Barnabas and Paul were ordained together.  Such mass ordinations are not outside economy.

There is no any kind of Agion Myron be mentioned in Agia Graphe, so it's possible today any priest use hand-laying instead Myron in chrismation??

Also,there was no epiklesis in the Mystic Supper;how about if today any priest omit it in DL?

I can not ensure such ordination is invalid,but at least is high-doubtful.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on November 28, 2008, 02:40:25 PM
As I saw in the pics Aftimios posted, HE Paul performed collective ordination? How it's possible ? How to prove that such "ordination" is valid?  And the "ad populum" manner of the "liturgy" is harshly against the Holy Tradition. How can HE Paul justify it?

With regards to "collective" or "multiple" ordination, please read below:


"d) Acts 13:3. The note supports multiple ordination. This practice has been forbidden in the Orthodox Church for many centuries, so there is no reason whatsoever to mention it, unless it is to justify the extreme irregularity of performing such ordinations when the so-called "Evangelical Orthodox" were received into the Antiochian Church."

Review of the Orthodox Study Bible
by Priest Seraphim Johnson


Source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb2.aspx

Antiochenes again are the culprits??? :'(

Or the ethnocentric ghetto?

I've come across this silly (very silly and petty in many ways) review of the OSB. In many ways it reflects the mindset of keeping a private family garden rather than going out in the fields and recruiting workers.

The reviews critique of the mass ordinations I believe is lost in the fruits of those ordinations.

Quote
Seven deacons were ordained at the creation of the diaconate in Acts, and Barnabas and Paul were ordained together.  Such mass ordinations are not outside economy.

There is no any kind of Agion Myron

You mean Holy Myron.

Quote
be mentioned in Agia Graphe,

You mean Holy Scripture.

 
Quote
so it's possible today any priest use hand-laying instead Myron in chrismation??

No, as the oil is the hand-laying of the BISHOP, not the priest.  Your question might be more correct to ask if the bishop can confirm by laying on of hands.  And yes, in emergencies at least, I think it could.

Quote
Also,there was no epiklesis in the Mystic Supper;how about if today any priest omit it in DL?

It there is a priest consubstantial with the Spirit, so that he (or He) might say "This is" and it will be as it was in Genesis at His command, by all means....

Quote
I can not ensure such ordination is invalid,but at least is high-doubtful.
No doubt at all.  Certainly not as much as single bishops ordaining a bishop (which I think the argument can be made for economy), which the cited web site OKs for certain groups (i.e. Old Calendarists).
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on November 28, 2008, 10:24:35 PM

With regards to "collective" or "multiple" ordination, please read below:


"d) Acts 13:3. The note supports multiple ordination. This practice has been forbidden in the Orthodox Church for many centuries, so there is no reason whatsoever to mention it, unless it is to justify the extreme irregularity of performing such ordinations when the so-called "Evangelical Orthodox" were received into the Antiochian Church."

Review of the Orthodox Study Bible
by Priest Seraphim Johnson

Source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb2.aspx

Antiochenes again are the culprits??? :'(

Or the ethnocentric ghetto?

I've come across this silly (very silly and petty in many ways) review of the OSB. In many ways it reflects the mindset of keeping a private family garden rather than going out in the fields and recruiting workers.

The reviews critique of the mass ordinations I believe is lost in the fruits of those ordinations.


Thanks for reminding us about the BEN LOMOND TRAGEDY  (http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&q=Ben+lomond+tragedy&btnG=Google+Search&meta=). This tragedy is one those "fruits" of multiple or "mass ordinations". Thats what you get from compromising, disregarding and violating the canons of the Orthodox Church.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on November 28, 2008, 11:49:28 PM

With regards to "collective" or "multiple" ordination, please read below:


"d) Acts 13:3. The note supports multiple ordination. This practice has been forbidden in the Orthodox Church for many centuries, so there is no reason whatsoever to mention it, unless it is to justify the extreme irregularity of performing such ordinations when the so-called "Evangelical Orthodox" were received into the Antiochian Church."

Review of the Orthodox Study Bible
by Priest Seraphim Johnson

Source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb2.aspx

Antiochenes again are the culprits??? :'(

Or the ethnocentric ghetto?

I've come across this silly (very silly and petty in many ways) review of the OSB. In many ways it reflects the mindset of keeping a private family garden rather than going out in the fields and recruiting workers.

The reviews critique of the mass ordinations I believe is lost in the fruits of those ordinations.


Thanks for reminding us about the BEN LOMOND TRAGEDY  (http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&q=Ben+lomond+tragedy&btnG=Google+Search&meta=). This tragedy is one those "fruits" of multiple or "mass ordinations". Thats what you get from compromising, disregarding and violating the canons of the Orthodox Church.



LOL.  I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought up BL.

So, pray tell: how did mass ordinations lead to the Ben Lomond Tragedy?  Because I can point to far worse in jurisdictions who never in living memory conducted mass ordinations, including the EP.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Islas Filipinas on November 29, 2008, 05:30:04 AM
... so just because the other do it... we will do the same? Is that your way of measuring or way of interpreting the canons even in plain logic or simple reason that we should not do something like that? So what if the EP does it? Let EP be guilty of that crime ... but it doesn't necessary that every one should follow...

I am very much disappointed with the people here... if you are going to read all my post, I never say that the Antiochians should never come here... there are ways and procedures that need to be followed... our country is too big for EP to evangelize the entire islands...

My only point is this... how can we say that we are one in faith... in everything except administration if we do not know how to follow simple protocol.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on November 29, 2008, 08:08:27 AM
... so just because the other do it... we will do the same? Is that your way of measuring or way of interpreting the canons even in plain logic or simple reason that we should not do something like that? So what if the EP does it? Let EP be guilty of that crime ... but it doesn't necessary that every one should follow...

I am very much disappointed with the people here... if you are going to read all my post, I never say that the Antiochians should never come here... there are ways and procedures that need to be followed... our country is too big for EP to evangelize the entire islands...

My only point is this... how can we say that we are one in faith... in everything except administration if we do not know how to follow simple protocol.

Ah, if it was only that simple.

The problem has been that the EP acts like an ethnarch, which the Antiochians (among others) have had to deal with in Europe, the US and in Antioch itself in the past.  The histories I get about the Phillipines, that the Russians under St. John didn't evangelize to the Filippinos strike me as a little odd, as St. John's whole life was spent evangelizing wherever he went (e.g. his support of the Gallican rite while in France).  I find it hard to believe that he made an exception for the Fillipinos.  I am a little suspicious that this is meant to undercut rival claims by the EP, much like the promotion of the New Smyrna colony (not Orthodox by any account) and Holy Trinity Parish in New Orleans (predated by the the Russian cathedral in San Francisco, let alone Alaska) is used in the US.


I will admit, I am unclear on how the Antiocheans got in the Philippines.  Antioch's title is "Antioch and All the East," but I don't know the specific history in the Phillipines.

And I will agree with you, there should be administrative unity.  Everywhere.

But the history of what has gone on in the US with the EP (let alone in Antioch, and the Greeks in Jerusalem) makes me wary of what is going on in the Phillipines.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on November 30, 2008, 02:18:55 AM
The Davao vicariate is now celebrating the Western Rite Liturgy approved by the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of America.. We are now also celebrating Matins and Vespers on Feast Days. The new Orthodox Christians of Davao, are still studying and adjusting, to Eastern liturgies, God-granting, by next year, we will be celebrating the St. John Chrysostom Liturgy, REGULARLY..  :)

We pray to the Lord.
Lord have Mercy!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on November 30, 2008, 06:42:52 AM
The Davao vicariate is now celebrating the Western Rite Liturgy approved by the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of America.. We are now also celebrating Matins and Vespers on Feast Days. The new Orthodox Christians of Davao, are still studying and adjusting, to Eastern liturgies, God-granting, by next year, we will be celebrating the St. John Chrysostom Liturgy, REGULARLY..  :)

We pray to the Lord.
Lord have Mercy!

Are these two different groups, or one group using the WR to transition into Eastern Rite?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on November 30, 2008, 09:59:12 AM
Are these two different groups, or one group using the WR to transition into Eastern Rite?

We are just part of the same Archdiocese friend. The Antiochian presence in the Philippines has two vicariates, Manila and Davao.. I belong to the Davao vicariate under Archpriest Jeptah Aniceto.
as of now, we are using a canonical Western liturgy, but it might take a longer time before we succesfully shift to St. John's Liturgy, because of the lack of materials and rubrics. We could not even afford a Thurible for our priest, or even Orthodox Vestments. The only one's we could buy (since they are a lot cheaper, and are readily available) are Roman Catholic vestments (as you've probably seen in the photos).. We are having a hard time, but Im happy that even if things are going slow , God never fails to slowly provide us with our spiritual nourishment,even if we lack material goods..  :)

Lord have Mercy!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on November 30, 2008, 10:33:50 AM
Are these two different groups, or one group using the WR to transition into Eastern Rite?

We are just part of the same Archdiocese friend. The Antiochian presence in the Philippines has two vicariates, Manila and Davao.. I belong to the Davao vicariate under Archpriest Jeptah Aniceto.
as of now, we are using a canonical Western liturgy, but it might take a longer time before we succesfully shift to St. John's Liturgy, because of the lack of materials and rubrics. We could not even afford a Thurible for our priest, or even Orthodox Vestments. The only one's we could buy (since they are a lot cheaper, and are readily available) are Roman Catholic vestments (as you've probably seen in the photos).. We are having a hard time, but Im happy that even if things are going slow , God never fails to slowly provide us with our spiritual nourishment,even if we lack material goods..  :)

Lord have Mercy!

Any reason why switching to Eastern Rite?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on November 30, 2008, 10:37:43 AM
Its what His Eminence wants for the future Parishes in the Philippines... We just adopted the Western Rite, but only for the meantime.. The priests told us, that when we have our own Temple's where we can do liturgy, then we can adopt the Eastern Rite.. As of this time, we celebrate Liturgy in the homes of the faithfull, or sometimes we rent a Protestant Place or an RC Cathedral for bigger celebrations..
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on November 30, 2008, 11:07:07 AM
We could not even afford a Thurible for our priest,
You may be in luck here.
I have this handheld liturgical censer with bells which I have been asked to find a home for.
If you would like to have it, pm me with an address to send it to.
(http://www.liturgix.com/biz/images/ce105.jpg)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on November 30, 2008, 05:37:19 PM
Its what His Eminence wants for the future Parishes in the Philippines... We just adopted the Western Rite, but only for the meantime.. The priests told us, that when we have our own Temple's where we can do liturgy, then we can adopt the Eastern Rite.. As of this time, we celebrate Liturgy in the homes of the faithfull, or sometimes we rent a Protestant Place or an RC Cathedral for bigger celebrations..

Can or must adopt the Eastern Rite?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on December 01, 2008, 01:53:54 AM
Its what His Eminence wants for the future Parishes in the Philippines... We just adopted the Western Rite, but only for the meantime.. The priests told us, that when we have our own Temple's where we can do liturgy, then we can adopt the Eastern Rite.. As of this time, we celebrate Liturgy in the homes of the faithfull, or sometimes we rent a Protestant Place or an RC Cathedral for bigger celebrations..

Can or must adopt the Eastern Rite?

I don't really have a sure answer to that friend, but apparently, the converts themselves, want to establish Eastern Rite Parish, in order for us to establish an indenpendent identity, as Orthodox Christian. I concede to what my other fellow Filipinos have said here, that as of present, Antiochian Christians here are hard to distinguish from the Roman Catholic Church because of our Rites. But I've already mentioned (I thin I have mentioned) that lack of knowledge and materials have barred our way to complete transition to Eastern rubrics, such as the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. So HE PAul and our vicar decided that we adopt a liturgy that is very familiar to the evangelical and Roman Catholic converts (like myself) which is, at the same time, Orthodox in itself, that is why as of now, we adopt the Western liturgy approved by the Antiochian Church. I dont know if we HAVE to use the Eastern Liturgies, but personally, Id be eager to witness the day, where we can establish for ourselves, a Temple where we can celebrate the St. John Chrysostom Liturgy, with complete rubrics, and with the people's familiarity.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on December 01, 2008, 11:25:49 AM

.....apparently, the converts themselves, want to establish Eastern Rite Parish, in order for us to establish an indenpendent identity, as Orthodox Christian. I concede to what my other fellow Filipinos have said here, that as of present, Antiochian Christians here are hard to distinguish from the Roman Catholic Church because of our Rites.

Thank you for the updates Sohma. Its good to know that the converts (does that includes the ordained priests or only the lay people?) wants "to establish Eastern Rite Parish" so as to be identified as truly Orthodox. If the priests prefers  "Western Rite" then they should follow the canonical Western Rite and not the modified Novus Ordo Roman Rite.


But I've already mentioned (I thin I have mentioned) that lack of knowledge and materials have barred our way to complete transition to Eastern rubrics, such as the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. ....... I dont know if we HAVE to use the Eastern Liturgies, but personally, Id be eager to witness the day, where we can establish for ourselves, a Temple where we can celebrate the St. John Chrysostom Liturgy, with complete rubrics, and with the people's familiarity.

There are more Byzantine Liturgical materials and media which you can download over the net than Western Rite liturgical materials. During our time, it took us several months before we memorized how to sing or chant the different melodies of the Byzantine hymns in the Sunday Liturgy. We started familiarizing ourselves by distributing 1 cassette tape of the the Divine Liturgy in English for each family.

The tape did not come from Greece or America (and back then there was no internet sites where you can download the hymns "on line" unlike today).  We made it ourselves; a Filipino member who knows how to read music notations familiarized himself with the melodies of hymns of the  Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom Hymnal and made voice recordings of the liturgical hymns. We would listen to his voice recordings at home then will try our best to follow the melody and sing the hymns during the Sunday Liturgy. Yes, we even play the voice recording on the cassette player during the liturgy (especially the long hymns like the Great Doxology and the Cherubic Hymn) so we can follow and sing the hymns.  Several months later, we can sing the hymns  without playing the  cassette tape during the Liturgy. That's how we were able to familiarize ourselves with the  hymns (or liturgical rubrics) of the Divine Liturgy even though we do not have a "temple".

You don't need a "temple",  iconastasis etc. to perform the Divine Liturgy.  Our "temple" arrived after more than 3 years of performing the Divine Liturgy in offices and homes owned by Orthodox faithful (occasionally in the Greek chapel of Saint George which is actually a  family mausoleum).  Yes, if there is a will there is a way.  ;)

Here's an online resource where you can download Byzantine liturgical music sheets in PDf format and recordings of Liturgical hymns in MP3 format:

NEW BYZANTINE PUBLICATIONS (http://www.newbyz.org/) (click)

You can download an MP3 recording of the major hymns of the Divine Liturgy in English  HERE (http://dc108.4shared.com/download/73954321/4d2d3453/Divine_Liturgy.mp3?tsid=20081201-091752-82aa158b) (click).

The link above contains the following Divine Liturgy hymns in English:

1. Through the Prayers of the Theotokos
2. Save us O Son of God
3. Thrice Holy Hymn
4. A Hymn of Praise (During Consecration)
5. One is Holy  (During Communion)
6. Praise the Lord (During Communion)
7. Receive Me Today O Son of God (Communion Song)
8. We Have Seen the Light


I hope this helps.







Title: An Appeal For the Converts in the Phillipines
Post by: ozgeorge on December 06, 2008, 05:31:19 PM
The new converts to Orthodoxy in the Philippines are in need of many things as they try to establish themselves.
Prodromas and I are trying to assist as best we can, but we need help.
After discussing this with Frs. Anastasios & Chris, permission has been obtained to post this appeal.
We are shipping a few items next week to help out, and if anyone would like to donate any of the following items, pm me, and I will give you the shipping address.
The items they need are:

Icons of the Archangels

Icon/s of Christ Pantocrator/ High Priest

Icon/s of the Theotokos

Icon/s of St. John Forerunner

Icons of the 12 Feasts of the Church

Icon of St. Basil the Great

Icon of St. John Chrysostom

Icon of the 12 apostles

Icon of St. Peter and Paul

Icon of St. Andrew the Apostle

3 Hand Crosses

Catechetical and Theological Books (anything you can provide, no specific category)

More Orthodox Bibles, for our priests (about 3 should do)

Prayer Books and Reader Service Books (English/Greek)

Hand Censer (with the materials needed to use it if its possible)

Holy Water (if possible)

Books on learning Byzantine Hymnlogy

Title: Re: An Appeal For the Converts in the Phillipines
Post by: Milliardo on December 14, 2008, 06:30:46 AM
The new converts to Orthodoxy in the Philippines are in need of many things as they try to establish themselves.
Prodromas and I are trying to assist as best we can, but we need help.
After discussing this with Frs. Anastasios & Chris, permission has been obtained to post this appeal.
We are shipping a few items next week to help out, and if anyone would like to donate any of the following items, pm me, and I will give you the shipping address.
The items they need are:

Icons of the Archangels

Icon/s of Christ Pantocrator/ High Priest

Icon/s of the Theotokos

Icon/s of St. John Forerunner

Icons of the 12 Feasts of the Church

Icon of St. Basil the Great

Icon of St. John Chrysostom

Icon of the 12 apostles

Icon of St. Peter and Paul

Icon of St. Andrew the Apostle

3 Hand Crosses

Catechetical and Theological Books (anything you can provide, no specific category)

More Orthodox Bibles, for our priests (about 3 should do)

Prayer Books and Reader Service Books (English/Greek)

Hand Censer (with the materials needed to use it if its possible)

Holy Water (if possible)

Books on learning Byzantine Hymnlogy



This would be of great help to Filipino Orthodox. Incidentally, would this apply only to our Antiochian brothers, or would this also include those in the Ecumenical Patriarchate?
Title: Re: An Appeal For the Converts in the Phillipines
Post by: ozgeorge on December 14, 2008, 06:42:56 AM
This would be of great help to Filipino Orthodox. Incidentally, would this apply only to our Antiochian brothers, or would this also include those in the Ecumenical Patriarchate?
This is what the Antiochians have asked for.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2009, 06:06:02 AM
it is very clear that the Patriarch of Antioch has jurisdiction over all the east.

So what is Antioch doing in the West?

:-\

If you look at this post by a Catholic Filipino, it is a good question.  Does anybody think there is any truth in these disturbing words?

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/307388/Re:%20Eastern%20Orthodox%20switching#Post307388

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2009, 06:18:57 AM
Someone sent these video clips of the Antiochians in the Philippines.  I haven't see them myself; my computer is a bit slow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxTs5lGKe0k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvAd1IZqiYU&feature=related
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 21, 2009, 10:45:37 AM
it is very clear that the Patriarch of Antioch has jurisdiction over all the east.

So what is Antioch doing in the West?

:-\

If you look at this post by a Catholic Filipino, it is a good question.  Does anybody think there is any truth in these disturbing words?

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/307388/Re:%20Eastern%20Orthodox%20switching#Post307388



What words in particular?

Why would anyone committed to the Novus Ordo want to embrace Orthodoxy?

Father, you mention a NO Orthodox parish in Florida.  Where is that?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2009, 03:56:05 PM
[
Father, you mention a NO Orthodox parish in Florida.  Where is that?
Florida is somewhere on the States.   Sorry, but I am not too clear on American geography.

The parish was mentioned on the Weste Rite list Occidentalis.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 21, 2009, 04:15:24 PM
Florida is somewhere on the States.   Sorry, but I am not too clear on American geography.
That big peninsula on the extreme southeastern corner of the U.S.A., FYI.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 21, 2009, 04:26:22 PM
Florida is somewhere on the States.   Sorry, but I am not too clear on American geography.
That big peninsula on the extreme southeastern corner of the U.S.A., FYI.
Not close to Alaska then?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 21, 2009, 07:20:34 PM
Florida is somewhere on the States.   Sorry, but I am not too clear on American geography.
That big peninsula on the extreme southeastern corner of the U.S.A., FYI.
Not close to Alaska then?
I'd say probably 5000 miles separate the two states.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on January 21, 2009, 11:37:06 PM
Father Deacon Martinian of the ROCOR in New York, once warned about the situation here in the Philippines and has told me to take extreme caution when dealing with "Orthodox" groups here. With all the fuss and confusion, sometimes I am compelled to leave the Antiochian Church and be under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 24, 2009, 11:06:26 PM
The article called "Enfants Terribles: The Challenge of Sectarian Converts to Ethnic Orthodox Churches" could be very useful here, maybe not simply to onlookers but also the Church authorities involved in the Philippines' outreach and mission.

There is a thread about this article in another section of the Forum.  People are trying to locate a copy.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19383.0.html
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on January 25, 2009, 03:39:56 AM
This is a video of a Greek Orthodox Parish of the Holy Trinity, in Laguna, Philippines..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biQKdNn2TtY
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 26, 2009, 07:48:49 AM
If you look at this post by a Catholic Filipino, it is a good question.  Does anybody think there is any truth in these disturbing words?

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/307388/Re:%20Eastern%20Orthodox%20switching#Post307388



Please see for yourself in order to be convinced and please don't forget to count the number of Hierarchs, Primates, Patriarchs etc.,:

(http://rizalophile.googlepages.com/Orthodox.jpg)

SOURCE: Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission
http://www.sec.gov.ph/
 (http://www.sec.gov.ph/)



===========

"The recent establishment of an Antiochian jurisdiction in the Philippines has occasioned no small controversy and scandal. In addition to the apparent animosity that developed between the Greek and Antiochian jurisdictions over Met. Paul Saliba's un-publicized visits and mass ordinations of former Protestant and vagante ministers and priests, there is also the question of the liturgy. The new "Antiochian" priests offer the Novus Ordo with all the typical Filipino liturgical abuses (no alb under the chasuble, just street clothes; stole on top of chasuble or chasu-alb, etc.) and this has resulted in not a few people mistaking them for Roman Catholics.

Personally, as an observer on the sidelines, I am deeply troubled by the Antiochian enterprise; not so much because it is an "invasion" of a traditionally Catholic country, but because of the kind of people they are dealing with.

Please realize that the Philippines has a very bad "episcopi vagantes" mania, with dozens of them all over the place, claiming apostolic succession from this or that Patriarch, etc. Most of these groups pose as "Orthodox" or as "Eastern Catholic", and given the general ignorance of people here about Orthodoxy (something that isn't surprising at all), a lot of people do mistake these vagantes as the real Orthodox or Eastern Catholic! Indeed, a few years ago, a man posing as a Byzantine Catholic bishop fooled the Cardinal Archbishop of Manila into granting him an audience and inviting him to an important occasion. Only when another, more suspicious archbishop asked the Vatican to verify did it turn out that the man was a member of an American vagante group trying to establish itself in the Philippines.

Now, to make matters worse, many of these so-called "Orthodox" offer the Novus Ordo or something very similar, not the Byzantine Liturgy or any Eastern liturgy. One big group calling itself the "Byzantine Catholic Church Incorporated" -- its headquarters are a mere 15 minutes away from my house -- offers a "Syrian Qurbono" with "inculturated vestments and language" (go figure) and claims to be part of the "Assyrian Church". I wonder what Mar Dinkha IV will make of their married episcopate and their "Carmelite" friars!

And now, you have (presumably) real Orthodox priests acting just like these vagantes, calling themselves Eastern but offering the usual Filipino Latin Rite mass? I really wonder if the Antiochian Patriarchate knows what it is getting into by accepting marginal Protestants and ex-vagantes! Personally, my fear is that the brand-new Antiochian priests will end up establishing their own vagante community. God forbid that it happen: we have too many vagantes already. I hope that, at the very least, Antioch will insist that these new priests learn the Byzantine Rite asap."

SOURCE: The Byzantine Forum: excerpted from the comment of Asianpilgim on 12/17/08
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/307388/Re:%20Eastern%20Orthodox%20switching#Post307388 (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/307388/Re:%20Eastern%20Orthodox%20switching#Post307388)



Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 26, 2009, 12:15:56 PM
The histories I get about the Phillipines, that the Russians under St. John didn't evangelize to the Filippinos strike me as a little odd, as St. John's whole life was spent evangelizing wherever he went (e.g. his support of the Gallican rite while in France).  I find it hard to believe that he made an exception for the Fillipinos.  I am a little suspicious that this is meant to undercut rival claims by the EP, much like the promotion of the New Smyrna colony (not Orthodox by any account) and Holy Trinity Parish in New Orleans (predated by the the Russian cathedral in San Francisco, let alone Alaska) is used in the US.


Most of the  'Archbishops', 'Primates', 'Patriarchs'(!), 'Katolikos'(!) of so-called "orthodox" churches in the Philippines listed in my previous post claim their canonical apostolic succession from the consecrating hands of John Maximovitch. They have no evidence whatsoever to prove their claims. If anyone of you want to become an Orthodox Patriarch or Katolikos then come to the Philippines.

(http://rizalophile.googlepages.com/vagante1.jpg)



(http://rizalophile.googlepages.com/vagante002.jpg)



(http://rizalophile.googlepages.com/vagante4.jpg)

Please note the conflicting information on the alleged year of consecration. By the way, the "Primatial Vicar" has since affiliated with canonical Orthodoxy (he is now a priest under the EP).

 
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 26, 2009, 09:52:18 PM
If anyone of you want to become an Orthodox Patriarch or Katolikos then come to the Philippines.

You don't have to go to the Philipines filipiana! There are more than enough strange, fringe groups claiming to be "Orthodox" in Australia, the US, the UK and everywhere! About 11kms from me is a "Bishop David", an ex-Roman Catholic Benedictine Monk who claims apostolic succession from "The Ukrainian Church" and can't understand why none of the local Orthodox Churches under the EP, Antioch, Moscow or ROCOR take him seriously or are in Communion with him. In his mind, it's they that have the problem!
Although the fringe groups will disagree, (especially the ones convinced that they alone are the remaining "treasury of Orthodoxy"), Communion with the Ancient Patriarchates is, in the opinion of most Orthodox Christians, the acid test of whether one is in the Church or not.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 27, 2009, 02:58:34 AM
Someone sent these video clips of the Antiochians in the Philippines.  I haven't see them myself; my computer is a bit slow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxTs5lGKe0k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvAd1IZqiYU&feature=related


There are also many in the Philippines who has slow computers so for their sake I will re-post a photo collage by Aftimios  which I believe was taken from that said Youtube video presenting the ordination of several Filipinos into canonical Orthodox priesthood by the Antiochian Primate of the Philippines.


(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/priests_ordination.jpg)
        His Eminence, Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba with his newly ordained Antiochian Orthodox priests in Manila

Notice the vestments worn by this newly ordained canonical Antiochian Orthodox priests and compare it with the vestments worn by "uncanonical", "episcopi vagantes" and "so-called orthodox" priests/clergymen in the Philippines:


(http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt27/episcopivagantes/vagante6.jpg)


To whom do you think these  clergymen belongs? (Roman Catholic, Episcopi Vagantes or to the Antiochian Orthodox?). You can't hardly tell the difference.

(http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt27/episcopivagantes/vagante7.jpg)


Now,  see how canonical Orthodox clergymen in the Philippines under the EP looks like:

(http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt27/episcopivagantes/canonical%20orthodox/canonical.jpg)


As the old English proverb says: "Birds of the same feathers flock together".

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 27, 2009, 04:04:21 AM

The histories I get about the Phillipines, that the Russians under St. John didn't evangelize to the Filippinos strike me as a little odd, as St. John's whole life was spent evangelizing wherever he went (e.g. his support of the Gallican rite while in France).  I find it hard to believe that he made an exception for the Fillipinos. 

I find it hard to believe that if the Filipinos were  "evangelized" by John Maximovitch then we won't be having so many episcopi vagantes, uncanonical "orthodox" Primates, Patriarchs(!), Catholicos (!) etc. in the Philippines! The Filipinos should be glad that John Maximovitch did not follow the footsteps of the Antiochian Orthodox clergyman Aftimios Ofiesh in America otherwise the uncanonical orthodox situation in the Philippines will be even much worse than in the US!

The Filipino sitting on the middle with a long stainless steel staff is one of the many "orthodox" Patriarchs(!!!) in the Philippines. He is the successor of the Filipino "orthodox" bishop who claims to have been consecrated by John Maximovitch himself.  Notice the Russian/Slavonic styled cross that he wore. The same type of cross can be seen on the stoles of  "orthodox" clergymen in this picture:


(http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt27/episcopivagantes/vagantebishops.jpg)

So is this the result of John Maximovitch's evangelization of Filipinos?  You decide for yourself. By the way, this particular "orthodox" church believes in reincarnation. They also have married episcopacy like all of the other so-called "orthodox" churches in the Philippines.


"By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"
          Matthew 7:16


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 28, 2009, 12:47:08 AM
The histories I get about the Phillipines, that the Russians under St. John didn't evangelize to the Filippinos strike me as a little odd, as St. John's whole life was spent evangelizing wherever he went (e.g. his support of the Gallican rite while in France).  I find it hard to believe that he made an exception for the Fillipinos.  I am a little suspicious that this is meant to undercut rival claims by the EP, much like the promotion of the New Smyrna colony (not Orthodox by any account) and Holy Trinity Parish in New Orleans (predated by the the Russian cathedral in San Francisco, let alone Alaska) is used in the US. But the history of what has gone on in the US with the EP (let alone in Antioch, and the Greeks in Jerusalem) makes me wary of what is going on in the Phillipines.

This is especially for you ialmisry. Enjoy reading:

(http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt27/episcopivagantes/Uncanonical%20and%20Vagante%20Clergy/vagantehistory.jpg)



The pictures below are in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.  To see more click HERE (http://hocacjcphils.multiply.com/)


(http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt27/episcopivagantes/Uncanonical%20and%20Vagante%20Clergy/philippinepatriarch.jpg)
HIS BEATITUDE +PAPPAS MAR JESUS THE FIRST

"He is the present Patriarch, Grand Pontiff & Primate of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ in the Philippines.

These are the Pontifical Titles under Him:

> Patriarch of the Greaco - Russian - Latin Rite Orthodoc (sic) Christians of Manila and of all the Philippines;

> Grand Pontiff of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ in the Philippines;

> Archbishop of Manila;

> Primate of the Philippines

> Permanent Apostolic Administrator of the Philippine Orthodox Church;

> Successor of St. Andrew the Apostle throught the Russian church;

> Ecuminical (sic) Father of the Far East;

> Prince of Truth, Faith, Hope and Love

The youngest of all the Patriarchs in the whole world. He succeded (sic) His Pontifical Trone (sic) from His Beatitude + Pappas Mar Miguel I.

In real life He is the Most Rev. Archbishop ARTURO I. DE JESUS, D.D.

He is the present Patriarch, Grand Pontiff & Primate of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ in the Philippines."


Quoted from http://hocacjcphils.multiply.com/photos/album/4/His_Beatitude_Pappas_Mar_Jesus_the_First#1 (http://hocacjcphils.multiply.com/photos/album/4/His_Beatitude_Pappas_Mar_Jesus_the_First#1)


(http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt27/episcopivagantes/Uncanonical%20and%20Vagante%20Clergy/philippinepatriarch2.jpg)
HIS BEATITUDE +PAPPAS MAR JESUS THE FIRST

Notice the Hexagram Symbol (Solomon's seal) and the Egyptian Ankh that he wore.  The Hexagram is said to be an ancient pagan emblem symbolizing  "the very soul of magic, astrology and divination." Whereas, the Egyptian Ankh is "the symbol of eternal life, rebirth (REINCARNATION), and the life-giving power of the sun-god."  (Pls. see Elizabeth Goldsmith, ANCIENT PAGAN SYMBOLS (New York: The Knickerbocker Press, 1929, reprinted by A.M.S. Press Inc., New York), p.150.

So now you see ialmisry the fruits of John Maximovitch's "evangelization" of Filipinos. Are you happy now?



Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 28, 2009, 08:47:50 AM
The histories I get about the Phillipines, that the Russians under St. John didn't evangelize to the Filippinos strike me as a little odd, as St. John's whole life was spent evangelizing wherever he went (e.g. his support of the Gallican rite while in France).  I find it hard to believe that he made an exception for the Fillipinos.  I am a little suspicious that this is meant to undercut rival claims by the EP, much like the promotion of the New Smyrna colony (not Orthodox by any account) and Holy Trinity Parish in New Orleans (predated by the the Russian cathedral in San Francisco, let alone Alaska) is used in the US. But the history of what has gone on in the US with the EP (let alone in Antioch, and the Greeks in Jerusalem) makes me wary of what is going on in the Phillipines.

This is especially for you ialmisry. Enjoy reading:

So now you see ialmisry the fruits of John Maximovitch's "evangelization" of Filipinos. Are you happy now?

Are you angry at St. John?

One thing I am suspicious about is the claim to ordination of bishops.  Itr requires three bishops, St. John was only one.  Where to they claim the other two came from?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Milliardo on January 28, 2009, 09:44:32 PM
Are you angry at St. John?

One thing I am suspicious about is the claim to ordination of bishops.  Itr requires three bishops, St. John was only one.  Where to they claim the other two came from?

It is quite suspicious as to the claim of the "Orthodox" bishop above; if you will notice, his coat-of-arms is suspiciously like that of the Pope. Already there you'll see how dubious is this claim that he came from the line of St. John.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 28, 2009, 11:05:23 PM
Are you angry at St. John?

I think you're misrepresenting things again in the same way you misrepresent the history of Greek Orthodoxy in the Philippines by comparing it with "what has gone on in the US with the EP" (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg273340.html#msg273340).  Please do a little bit of research yourself  and stop imagining things* okay?


__________
* that the Filipinos were "evangelized" by John Maximovitch and that he consecrated Filipinos to the Orthodox Episcopacy.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 28, 2009, 11:58:14 PM
Are you angry at St. John?

I think you're misrepresenting things again in the same way you misrepresent the history of Greek Orthodoxy in the Philippines by comparing it with "what has gone on in the US with the EP" (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg273340.html#msg273340).  Please do a little bit of research yourself  and stop imagining things* okay?


__________
* that the Filipinos were "evangelized" by John Maximovitch and that he consecrated Filipinos to the Orthodox Episcopacy.

I haven't imagined anything, just questioned.   I question that St. John never evangelized anyone in the Phillippines, as it is so out of character with the rest of his life; I question the EP so stating, as I have seen similar statements, unfounded, about the US; and I question that any bishop was consecrated by St. John in the Phillipines, as I don't know where the other two bishops would come from, and I doubt St. John would ordain without oversight from ROCOR.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 29, 2009, 03:02:04 AM
Are you angry at St. John?

I think you're misrepresenting things again in the same way you misrepresent the history of Greek Orthodoxy in the Philippines by comparing it with "what has gone on in the US with the EP" (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg273340.html#msg273340).  Please do a little bit of research yourself  and stop imagining things* okay?


__________
* that the Filipinos were "evangelized" by John Maximovitch and that he consecrated Filipinos to the Orthodox Episcopacy.

I haven't imagined anything, just questioned.   I question that St. John never evangelized anyone in the Phillippines, as it is so out of character with the rest of his life; I question the EP so stating, as I have seen similar statements, unfounded, about the US.....

What does the EP states? Could you give me the links to the articles so that I and the other thread viewers can read and verify your allegations? Otherwise what you're telling here are just rumors (or maybe purely hearsays or worst your very imaginations) meant to discredit the EP. 

You can not discredit the EP jurisdiction in the Philippines. Its people from your jurisdiction who has been misrepresenting Orthodoxy in my country by looking and acting like the vagantes. Its a shame....

(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/priests_ordination.jpg)
                          ANTIOCHIAN ORTHODOXY IN THE PHILIPPINES


.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on January 29, 2009, 06:54:19 AM
 :'(


I'm so confused now!!!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 29, 2009, 09:30:12 AM
:'(


I'm so confused now!!!


and so are the Roman Catholics also who have observed the Novus Ordo type "Orthodox" liturgies performed by these canonical Antiochian Orthodox priests in the Philippines dressed as Roman Catholic priests!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elpidophoros on January 29, 2009, 10:16:28 AM
My question is why so difficult for the antiochian guys to follow the byzantine rite?

I always remember the late filipino protopresbyteros p. Tarasios(aionia autou i mnimi!),who was a very simple humble person,married and with five children,never got rich in his life. But he always serve with canonical standard vestment .

I'll never forget ,when he received a set of priestly vestment (which was used and old)as gift from a local bishop of other metropolis where he visited,he was so happy and smiled like child. In the return trip he opened the package looked and touched the vestment again and again.

So,why H.E.Paul could not do the same thing? It's too difficult for H.E. to collect some old and used vestments from his Metropolis?

My beloved pater Tarasios also confessed that he was not accomplished in liturgic.But he still tried his best,to observe the Typikon as far as he could ,with much love.

I'll never forget,once he came to me with the evangelion and asked me for one certain day,the perikopi of reading should be taken form "the week" or "the feast".We checked diptycha together and found the right one.Again he got so happy.

This was the agathe memory one humble and faithful priest under EP left for me.He was filipino,not served in capital,not rich,not specialized on liturgical stuff....But for his whole life ,he followed the way of the Tradition and was happy for this.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on January 29, 2009, 10:41:24 AM
Hasn't someone posted here that Novus Ordo Missae is just for a short period of time and they would switch to St. John Goldenmouth Liturgy?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 10:49:49 AM
Are you angry at St. John?

I think you're misrepresenting things again in the same way you misrepresent the history of Greek Orthodoxy in the Philippines by comparing it with "what has gone on in the US with the EP" (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg273340.html#msg273340).  Please do a little bit of research yourself  and stop imagining things* okay?


__________
* that the Filipinos were "evangelized" by John Maximovitch and that he consecrated Filipinos to the Orthodox Episcopacy.

I haven't imagined anything, just questioned.   I question that St. John never evangelized anyone in the Phillippines, as it is so out of character with the rest of his life; I question the EP so stating, as I have seen similar statements, unfounded, about the US.....

What does the EP states? Could you give me the links to the articles so that I and the other thread viewers can read and verify your allegations? Otherwise what you're telling here are just rumors (or maybe purely hearsays or worst your very imaginations) meant to discredit the EP.

Just the same information that has been put on this thread that St. John didn't evangelize the filipinos while there.  Due to the isolation, it is not imposible, but I've learned to question such blacket statements, especially when I smell an axe being ground.

Quote
You can not discredit the EP jurisdiction in the Philippines. Its people from your jurisdiction who has been misrepresenting Orthodoxy

How's that?

Quote
in my country by looking and acting like the vagantes. Its a shame....

details?

Given the results of the Evangelical Orthodox in the US, and in view of their "reception" at the phanar, I'd like to know what exactly are you accusing Antioch of, when you say "acting like vagantes."

As for the appearance, I'm still not clear on what the idea is on Eastern or Western rite.  I agree with you that they should, unless a reason is given and authorized (like, perhaps translations), use the already approved Orthodox WRO missal.

(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/priests_ordination.jpg)
                          ANTIOCHIAN ORTHODOXY IN THE PHILIPPINES


.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 10:51:35 AM
Hasn't someone posted here that Novus Ordo Missae is just for a short period of time and they would switch to St. John Goldenmouth Liturgy?

I still don't get why anyone NO would want to become Orthodox and stick to NO.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Islas Filipinas on January 29, 2009, 11:34:04 AM
This is the reason why Orthodoxy in the Philippines is until now seen as a cult and not a Christian Church, not True Church and being scorned by other Christian Churches especially by those whom we called uncanonical because those who are in authority are the one doing these uncanonical acts...

Is it not we are hypocrite when we try to condemned the Vatican of prosyletyzing Orthodox countries with uniatism when in fact our hieararchs are guilty of the same issue by promoting western rite such as in the case of Filipino converts?

If the problem of EP is lack of fund in training her priests in the Philippines, why can't just the other Bishops help instead of doing something that would violate the canon or break simple protocol... Quezon City is just two hours away from the site where the Annunciation Cathedral is located...

And the worst is, both domestic and international airports in Manila is just 20 minutes away from the site of the Cathedral... why, with brotherly love and for the sake of Orthodoxy His Eminence Paul did not dropped by the Church to give thanks and acknowledge that there is a holy temple of God built where Orthodox Christians can pray and come together as one family...

As far as I remember, the new elected Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia when he was a Metropolitan then visited Manila in 2004 or 2005 , dropped by the Annunciation Cathedral and in joy give thanks and pray for the goodness of the Holy Mother Church in the Philippines... OHMKSEA was aware of it and the same thing when Met. Nikitas went to China and visited a Russian Church, the adminstrator of MP was aware of the visit...

Well, I hope, in humility and as brother in faith, our hierarchs, in wisdom and by the responsibility given to them will act accordingly because at the end, it is us the faithful who suffer....

May our Lord forgive me a sinner!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 11:42:28 AM
This is the reason why Orthodoxy in the Philippines is until now seen as a cult and not a Christian Church, not True Church and being scorned by other Christian Churches especially by those whom we called uncanonical because those who are in authority are the one doing these uncanonical acts...

Which uncanonical act are you talking about?
Quote
Is it not we are hypocrite when we try to condemned the Vatican of prosyletyzing Orthodox countries with uniatism when in fact our hieararchs are guilty of the same issue by promoting western rite such as in the case of Filipino converts?
No.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Islas Filipinas on January 29, 2009, 12:06:57 PM
As you requested... not to add the title of being the Archbishop of Australia, New Zealnd and the Philippines... you have to remember that the three Islands of Philippines were well represented already by clergies and faithful of the EP, which Arch. Paul is aware of... Again, we would be happy to serve each other if only we will do what is right and what we are ought to do... let us not be carried away by our pride or anger or... tell us to know what to do because we Filipino are not stupid not to understand this simple protocol, people here are tired of Christian sects and we embraced Orthodoxy because we believed that she has the fullness of truth and spirituality but this current situation and this kind of discussion does not refelect the true values of Orthodoxy and to this, I rest my case... God bless you Ialmisry!

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.

(cc. VI, VII of the 1st; cc. II, III of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; o. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXVI, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch.).

Interpretation.

Just as, when the head is unwell and fails to function properly, the other members of the body also are ill disposed or even utterly useless, so and in like manner it may be said that if the one acting as head in the Church does not honor her fitly, all the rest of the body of the Church will be out of order and unable to function. It is for this reason that the present Canon ordains that all bishops of every province ought to know who is the chief among them, i.e., the metropolitan; and ought to regard him as their head, and not to do anything unnecessary without consulting him, as respecting, that is to say, anything that does not pertain to the parishes of their bishoprics, but, extending beyond these limits, have to do with the common condition of the whole province, as, for instance, do questions concerning the dogmas, matters involving adjustments and corrections of common mistakes, the installation and ordination of prelates, and other similar things. Instead, they are to meet with the metropolitan and confer with him in regard to such common matters, and decide in common on what appears to them the best thing to be done. Each of the bishops should do by himself, without consulting his metropolitan, only those things that are confined to the limits and boundaries of his bishopric and to the territories that are subject thereto. But just as bishops should do nothing of common interest without consulting the metropolitan, so and in like manner a metropolitan ought not to do anything of such common interest alone and by himself without consulting all his bishops. For in this way there will be concord and love, both between bishops and metropolitans and between clergymen and laymen. The outcome of this concord and love will be that God the Father will be glorified through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who acquainted men with the name of His Father and laid down the law requiring love, when He said: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another" (John 13:35). And He will be glorified in His Holy Spirit, which through Its grace has united us in one spiritual association. That is the same as saying that as a result of this concord the Holy Trinity — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — will be glorified, in accordance with the voice of the Gospel which says: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and may glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16).

Concord.

Almost identically the same things are seen to be ordained also in c. IX of Antioch. That is why c. VI of the First Ecumenical Council commands that the ancient customs are to hold; those, that is to say, which had been prevalent in accordance with this Ap. c.; so that the patriarch of Alexandria had control of affairs in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, since such was also the custom in connection with the patriarch of Rome too. Likewise the patriarch of Antioch had control of his own provinces; and, in general, the same privileges were preserved to every Church and Metropolis, so that every metropolitan should have control over the provinces subject to him. Canon VII of the same Council ordains that the patriarch of Aelia, i.e., of Jerusalem, is to have the observance of the ancient honor and the dignity of his own Metropolis, Canon III of the 2nd commands that the patriarch of Constantinople is to have the highest honor. Canon VIII of the 3rd, too, demands that the rights belonging to each province be free from constraint and impurity again even as in the beginning, according to the old custom, and especially as respects those of Cyprus. In addition, c. XXXIX of the 6th confirms the same c. VIII of the 3rd.

 

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.).

Interpretation.

This Canon too was ordained for the concord and good order of bishops and metropolitans. It says in effect that a bishop ought not to dare to confer ordinations outside of the boundaries of his bishopric, or to perform any other ecclesiastical function in those cities and countries that are not within his own territory (but neither has a metropolitan the liberty to go into the parishes of his bishops and perform ordinations or any other prelatical ceremony). Only then has he the liberty to perform such functions, when he has been invited by the bishop of the region in question. If, nevertheless, it transpire that he did this without the consent and permission of the bishops who control those cities and territories, let him be deposed who ordained men beyond his boundaries, together with those whom he ordained. For in such a case it would appear that there were two bishops in one and the same place, or two metropolitans, which is unlawful and prohibited by c. VIII of the 1st, and by c. XII of the 4th.

Hence, in its c. XX the Sixth Ecum. C. ordains that whoever goes to a strange bishopric and publicly teaches on his own account and of his own accord, without the local bishop’s permission, shall lose his position in the prelacy and shall be allowed to perform only the functions of a presbyter. Perhaps for no other purpose was this provision made than that of preventing the occurrence of this absurd anomaly, to wit, that of having two bishops at the same time in the same bishopric, one wanting this and the other that, which he dared to do. For if that was not the purpose that this council had in mind, why should it degrade the bishop to the rank of a presbyter, at a time when this degradation amounts to sacrilege, according to c. XXIX of the 4th? Besides, if a bishop teaching beyond his boundaries is unworthy, he ought to be unworthy also of the presbytery; but if he is worthy of the presbytery, why should he not be worthy also of the episcopate? So it is apparent that the reason why it reduces him to the rank of a presbyter is to leave one bishop again in one bishopric, and not two. For he sinned immediately against the episcopal office by causing two bishops to be in the same bishopric, on which account he is deposed therefrom; he did not sin, however, against the office of presbyter, since two or more presbyters are not prohibited from being in the same bishopric, wherefore neither is he deposed therefrom (although Zonaras and Balsamon say that anyone that teaches publicly contrary to the will of the local bishop is on this account reduced to the rank of presbyter, in order to humble him, on the ground that he became vainglorious and exalted himself). Hence sacred Photius (Title IX, ch. 11), to do away with the apparent contradiction of the canons — that is, of c. XXIX of the 4th and c. XX of the 6th -, proposed c. VIII of the 1st. Nevertheless, even when it comes to performing the office of a presbyter, a bishop from beyond the boundaries must obtain the permission and consent of the local bishop. If he does not have such permission, he cannot exercise the function; he simply has the standing of a laymen in that case as long as he remains in that foreign region, according to the canons. In order to sum up the entirety of the present Apostolical Canon, we may say thus: A bishop who performs a prelatical service in a strange bishopric, with the consent of the bishop thereof, is not performing it with the power and operation of his own episcopate (for in that case there would be two bishops in one bishopric as though possessing two distinct and separate powers and faculties); but, on the contrary, solely with the episcopal power and faculty of the local bishop (for in this case the two bishops are regarded as one bishop). And if this be so, as indeed it is, anyone that performs a prelatical function against the will of the local bishop, is deposed even from his own episcopal power, which, without possessing it, on the score of his being beyond his boundaries, he exercised; as well as from the strange episcopal power of the local bishop, which he might have possessed with the consent and permission of the latter, but which he stole and appropriated as his own.

Concord.

The same things are ordained also by c. II of the 2nd, wherein the latter prohibits anyone (whether a patriarch or a metropolitan) from meddling in other dioceses beyond his boundaries in order to perform ordinations or to execute other ecclesiastical accomodations. But still more is that true of c. VIII of the 3rd, which ordains that the bishop of Antioch shall not have authority to carry out ordinations in Cyprus, beyond the boundaries of that diocese, which, it says, is contrary to the Apostolical Canons, meaning the present one. Both c. XIII and c. XXIV of Antioch agree in ordaining that no bishop shall dare to meddle in a foreign province and perform any ordinations therein, except only in case he goes there provided with letters of the bishop inviting him; if he do so under contrary circumstances, the ordinations and all other services he may perform shall remain void and invalid. If, however, it so happen that one bishop has lands, say, and substantial property in the province of another bishop, c. XII of the Sardican allows him to go there in order to gather produce, and for three weeks’ duration to attend church in the church that is in the vicinity of his property, but not to go any closer to the city in which the bishop is. That a bishop may not even teach in territory beyond his own boundaries without the consent of the local bishop is stated in c. XX of the 6th above and in c. XI of the Sardican. Canon III of the Sardican, in fact, not only prohibits this, but does not even allow a bishop to go to the province of another bishop without being invited.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 01:03:08 PM
As you requested... not to add the title of being the Archbishop of Australia, New Zealnd and the Philippines... you have to remember that the three Islands of Philippines were well represented already by clergies and faithful of the EP, which Arch. Paul is aware of... Again, we would be happy to serve each other if only we will do what is right and what we are ought to do... let us not be carried away by our pride or anger or... tell us to know what to do because we Filipino are not stupid not to understand this simple protocol, people here are tired of Christian sects and we embraced Orthodoxy because we believed that she has the fullness of truth and spirituality but this current situation and this kind of discussion does not refelect the true values of Orthodoxy and to this, I rest my case... God bless you Ialmisry!

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.

(cc. VI, VII of the 1st; cc. II, III of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; o. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXVI, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch.).

Interpretation.

Just as, when the head is unwell and fails to function properly, the other members of the body also are ill disposed or even utterly useless, so and in like manner it may be said that if the one acting as head in the Church does not honor her fitly, all the rest of the body of the Church will be out of order and unable to function. It is for this reason that the present Canon ordains that all bishops of every province ought to know who is the chief among them, i.e., the metropolitan; and ought to regard him as their head, and not to do anything unnecessary without consulting him, as respecting, that is to say, anything that does not pertain to the parishes of their bishoprics, but, extending beyond these limits, have to do with the common condition of the whole province, as, for instance, do questions concerning the dogmas, matters involving adjustments and corrections of common mistakes, the installation and ordination of prelates, and other similar things. Instead, they are to meet with the metropolitan and confer with him in regard to such common matters, and decide in common on what appears to them the best thing to be done. Each of the bishops should do by himself, without consulting his metropolitan, only those things that are confined to the limits and boundaries of his bishopric and to the territories that are subject thereto. But just as bishops should do nothing of common interest without consulting the metropolitan, so and in like manner a metropolitan ought not to do anything of such common interest alone and by himself without consulting all his bishops. For in this way there will be concord and love, both between bishops and metropolitans and between clergymen and laymen. The outcome of this concord and love will be that God the Father will be glorified through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who acquainted men with the name of His Father and laid down the law requiring love, when He said: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another" (John 13:35). And He will be glorified in His Holy Spirit, which through Its grace has united us in one spiritual association. That is the same as saying that as a result of this concord the Holy Trinity — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — will be glorified, in accordance with the voice of the Gospel which says: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and may glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16).

Concord.

Almost identically the same things are seen to be ordained also in c. IX of Antioch. That is why c. VI of the First Ecumenical Council commands that the ancient customs are to hold; those, that is to say, which had been prevalent in accordance with this Ap. c.; so that the patriarch of Alexandria had control of affairs in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, since such was also the custom in connection with the patriarch of Rome too. Likewise the patriarch of Antioch had control of his own provinces; and, in general, the same privileges were preserved to every Church and Metropolis, so that every metropolitan should have control over the provinces subject to him. Canon VII of the same Council ordains that the patriarch of Aelia, i.e., of Jerusalem, is to have the observance of the ancient honor and the dignity of his own Metropolis, Canon III of the 2nd commands that the patriarch of Constantinople is to have the highest honor. Canon VIII of the 3rd, too, demands that the rights belonging to each province be free from constraint and impurity again even as in the beginning, according to the old custom, and especially as respects those of Cyprus. In addition, c. XXXIX of the 6th confirms the same c. VIII of the 3rd.

 

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.).

Interpretation.

This Canon too was ordained for the concord and good order of bishops and metropolitans. It says in effect that a bishop ought not to dare to confer ordinations outside of the boundaries of his bishopric, or to perform any other ecclesiastical function in those cities and countries that are not within his own territory (but neither has a metropolitan the liberty to go into the parishes of his bishops and perform ordinations or any other prelatical ceremony). Only then has he the liberty to perform such functions, when he has been invited by the bishop of the region in question. If, nevertheless, it transpire that he did this without the consent and permission of the bishops who control those cities and territories, let him be deposed who ordained men beyond his boundaries, together with those whom he ordained. For in such a case it would appear that there were two bishops in one and the same place, or two metropolitans, which is unlawful and prohibited by c. VIII of the 1st, and by c. XII of the 4th.

Hence, in its c. XX the Sixth Ecum. C. ordains that whoever goes to a strange bishopric and publicly teaches on his own account and of his own accord, without the local bishop’s permission, shall lose his position in the prelacy and shall be allowed to perform only the functions of a presbyter. Perhaps for no other purpose was this provision made than that of preventing the occurrence of this absurd anomaly, to wit, that of having two bishops at the same time in the same bishopric, one wanting this and the other that, which he dared to do. For if that was not the purpose that this council had in mind, why should it degrade the bishop to the rank of a presbyter, at a time when this degradation amounts to sacrilege, according to c. XXIX of the 4th? Besides, if a bishop teaching beyond his boundaries is unworthy, he ought to be unworthy also of the presbytery; but if he is worthy of the presbytery, why should he not be worthy also of the episcopate? So it is apparent that the reason why it reduces him to the rank of a presbyter is to leave one bishop again in one bishopric, and not two. For he sinned immediately against the episcopal office by causing two bishops to be in the same bishopric, on which account he is deposed therefrom; he did not sin, however, against the office of presbyter, since two or more presbyters are not prohibited from being in the same bishopric, wherefore neither is he deposed therefrom (although Zonaras and Balsamon say that anyone that teaches publicly contrary to the will of the local bishop is on this account reduced to the rank of presbyter, in order to humble him, on the ground that he became vainglorious and exalted himself). Hence sacred Photius (Title IX, ch. 11), to do away with the apparent contradiction of the canons — that is, of c. XXIX of the 4th and c. XX of the 6th -, proposed c. VIII of the 1st. Nevertheless, even when it comes to performing the office of a presbyter, a bishop from beyond the boundaries must obtain the permission and consent of the local bishop. If he does not have such permission, he cannot exercise the function; he simply has the standing of a laymen in that case as long as he remains in that foreign region, according to the canons. In order to sum up the entirety of the present Apostolical Canon, we may say thus: A bishop who performs a prelatical service in a strange bishopric, with the consent of the bishop thereof, is not performing it with the power and operation of his own episcopate (for in that case there would be two bishops in one bishopric as though possessing two distinct and separate powers and faculties); but, on the contrary, solely with the episcopal power and faculty of the local bishop (for in this case the two bishops are regarded as one bishop). And if this be so, as indeed it is, anyone that performs a prelatical function against the will of the local bishop, is deposed even from his own episcopal power, which, without possessing it, on the score of his being beyond his boundaries, he exercised; as well as from the strange episcopal power of the local bishop, which he might have possessed with the consent and permission of the latter, but which he stole and appropriated as his own.

Concord.

The same things are ordained also by c. II of the 2nd, wherein the latter prohibits anyone (whether a patriarch or a metropolitan) from meddling in other dioceses beyond his boundaries in order to perform ordinations or to execute other ecclesiastical accomodations. But still more is that true of c. VIII of the 3rd, which ordains that the bishop of Antioch shall not have authority to carry out ordinations in Cyprus, beyond the boundaries of that diocese, which, it says, is contrary to the Apostolical Canons, meaning the present one. Both c. XIII and c. XXIV of Antioch agree in ordaining that no bishop shall dare to meddle in a foreign province and perform any ordinations therein, except only in case he goes there provided with letters of the bishop inviting him; if he do so under contrary circumstances, the ordinations and all other services he may perform shall remain void and invalid. If, however, it so happen that one bishop has lands, say, and substantial property in the province of another bishop, c. XII of the Sardican allows him to go there in order to gather produce, and for three weeks’ duration to attend church in the church that is in the vicinity of his property, but not to go any closer to the city in which the bishop is. That a bishop may not even teach in territory beyond his own boundaries without the consent of the local bishop is stated in c. XX of the 6th above and in c. XI of the Sardican. Canon III of the Sardican, in fact, not only prohibits this, but does not even allow a bishop to go to the province of another bishop without being invited.

All very interesting, but begs the question.

The Patriarch of Antioch is the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East.  It seems the Philippines are in the East.
Quote
According to the Syrian Consulate in Makati, the first Orthodox Christians on the islands were Syrian and Lebanese merchants and sailors, who arrived in Manila after the city was opened to international trade.[1] Many of the Lebanese sailors married local women and their descendants have since become Philippine citizens, including the owners of a famous pizzeria in Manila
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Filipinos

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?

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 29, 2009, 01:10:37 PM
"First come first served" does not work when it comes to the Church.
Sending missionaries into another Bishop's jurisdiction is not only uncanonical, it's unethical.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 01:18:37 PM
"First come first served" does not work when it comes to the Church.
Sending missionaries into another Bishop's jurisdiction is not only uncanonical, it's unethical.

And which missionary would that be, encroaching on which  bishop's jurisdiction?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 29, 2009, 01:22:20 PM
This document should answer any questions about this:

"Territorial Jurisdiction According to Orthodox Canon Law. The Phenomenon of Ethnophyletism in Recent Years."
(http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=287&tla=en)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elpidophoros on January 29, 2009, 01:22:56 PM
Quote
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.

For korea:When the tiny community with consensus agreement to join EP,they had only one priest(p. Boris——aionia autou i mnimi!)and completely abandoned by MP.And the decision was made by all native korean faithfuls and priest. They asked EP to take them under Her Omophorion,not EP pilfered them from MP. And thanks p.Boris and his folks' decision,the Orthodoxy be preserved in the blessed land of Sanhan.Otherwise,after the death of p.Boris,the community would become Bespopovtsy(like many communities in China),since there was no any bishop to ordain.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 29, 2009, 01:29:05 PM
Hasn't someone posted here that Novus Ordo Missae is just for a short period of time and they would switch to St. John Goldenmouth Liturgy?
I still don't get why anyone NO would want to become Orthodox and stick to NO.


You still don't get it? Just look below:

(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/priests_ordination.jpg)

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." 

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 01:36:19 PM
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.



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."
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 29, 2009, 01:39:37 PM
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.

I also repeat my post.

(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/priests_ordination.jpg)

                THIS IS THE ANTIOCHIAN BRAND OF ORTHODOXY IN THE PHILIPPINES
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 29, 2009, 01:45:14 PM
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.

              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].



              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].

              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], and their application is binding for all Orthodox.

              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...”.

              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...”.

              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.

              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.

              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].

              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. “υπερόριος”[14].Through Patriarchal Synodical Tomes or Acts, specific metropoles, archbishoprics and bishoprics which were part of the geographical area of the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople have been ceded to the newer autocephalous local Churches, in Russia, in the Balkans and beyond. After autocephaly, these autocephalous Churches acquired canonical, administrative and pastoral jurisdiction over them. Any exercise of administration or pastoral tasks by these autocephalous Churches over Orthodox outside and beyond their own defined geographical boundaries, on the basis of national, racial, linguistic or “cultural” criteria, constitutes, according to canonical exactitude, an action “beyond the boundaries” (υπερόριον) and an intrusion (εισπήδησιν) into another province, thus violating the fundamental principles of canonical jurisdiction and the tradition of the Church.

              The history of the transmission of Christianity from Constantmople to Russia, Great and Little, (10th century), is well known, as is the entry of this eparchy into the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

              According to the “Notitiae episcopatuum”, i. e. the constitutional record of metropoles, archbishoprics and bishoprics subject “to the Patriarch of Constantinople”, referred to commonly by the name of Emperor Leo the Wise (886-912), though in fact dating from the llth century, the Metropolis of Russia (Kiev) occupied the 61st position[15].

              Twelve bishops are subject to this Metropolis in Great Russia (Novgorod, Chernigov, Suzdal, Rostov, Vladimir, Chmelniskii, Byelgorod the Great, close to Kiev, Yurief, Polotsk, Riazan, Tver, and Sarai).

              Likewise, under the Metropolitan of Kiev there are seven bishops in Little Russia (Western Region) (Galicia, Volynia, Peremysl, Putsk, Turof, Cholm and Smolensk).

              The Metropolis of Kiev (Russia), under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, had geographical boundaries which cover Great and Little Russia, in accordance with the canonical order, so that, without distinction, the people living in this area could be served evangelically, administratively and pastorally.

              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.

              An Endemousa Synod was called in Constantinople by Jeremiah to ratify what had taken place in Moscow. This was called again, in 1593, at the wish of the Tzar, so that one of its participants could be Meletios Pegas, the Patriarch of Alexandria, who had reacted against these developments. The synod ratified the elevation of the Metropolis of Moscow to the status of Patriarchate, which was to occupy the fifth position in the Diptychs, i. e. after the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

The Patriarch of Moscow was to be elected by the hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

              According to the Patriarchal and Synodical Act of this Endemousa Synod: “the throne of the most venerable and Orthodox city of Moscow is and shall be called Patriarchate' ... and all Russia and the Far-NorthernTerritories shall be subject to the Patriarchal Throne of Moscow and all Russia... It has its place after His Beatitude of Jerusalem in the sacred diptychs and in ecclesiastical gatherings, and so we have firmly retained the canons previously formulated by the holy Fathers.. .it is the head of this region of Moscow and all Russia and the Far-Northern territories and shall be recognized as such in accordance with canon 34 of the holy and all-praised Apostles...”[16].

              Thus, according to the Patriarchal and Synodical Act founding the Patriarchate of Moscow, ratifying what had taken place in Moscow (1589) under Patriarch Jeremiah II, the Patriarch of Moscow, fifth in rank in the Diptychs after Jerusalem, has canonical jurisdiction over Moscow, as its bishop, and as the first in all Russia and the Far-Northern Territories of Moscow within the Russian realm. Ţhe Patriarchate of Moscow, as a local Church, and according to the official ecclesiastical Acts regarding its foundation, also has canonical jurisdiction, with geographical boundaries and geographical limits, and thus conforms to the canonical teaching and ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church. Its canonical jurisdiction- its “ground”- extends to “the whole of Russia”, i. e. as was mentioned earlier, within the boundaries of the Russian realm, not beyond it. It follows that its “missionary ground” also extends to the boundaries of its officially-defined expanse and lies within the boundaries of the Russian realm, not outside it.

              Missionary work conducted outside the geographical boundaries of the canonical jurisdiction of local Churches by their members or in their name is uncanonical and ecclesiologically unacceptable. It can be regarded as canonical and ecclesiologically acceptable only if preceded by an invitation from a local Church to specific missionaries from other local Churches, who would, without fail, come under the local canonical bishop during the course of their mission. They would commemorate only the name of the local bishop during services and would carry out their missionary and pastoral work solely in the name of the local bishop, so that this work would be canonical, pure and beyond reproach. Otherwise it is an intervention “beyond the borders” (“υπερόριος”) and an “intrusion” (“εισπήδησις”) into another province, which is specifically forbidden by the sacred canons and decisions of the Ecumenical Synods: “Let no bishop dare confer ordinations outside 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 has ordained”[17].

              “Let no bishop dare to go from one province to another and ordain anyone in church... unless invited to come by letter from the metropolitan and other bishops of the territory into which he is going. Should anyone so go without invitation and irregularly ordain someone in violation of the order of the things in the church... anything performed by him is invalid. He himself shall incur a suitable punishment for his irregular behaviour and his unreasonable enterprise, having already been deposed from office by the holy Synod” (Canon 13 of the Synod in Antioch)[18].

              Thus, according to Orthodox canonical teaching and ecclesiology, “each of the patriarchs should be content with his own privileges and not seize any of those of another eparchy, since from the beginning it is not under his hand. For this is conceit in secular power...”[19].

              This canonical order of the Church, based on ecclesiological dogmatic conditions, i.e. on ţhe teaching concerning the Church, its structures, its bishops, its work, its jurisdiction and so on is its official and unshakable position. It is based on Holy Scripture, the sacred canons and the decisions of Ecumenical Synods, which, as expressions of the infallibility of the Church, are obligatory for all the local Orthodox Churches. Besides, the Orthodox Catholic Church, despite its administrative decentralization is still, one, with common faith and dogma. The same sacraments sanctify within it, the same synodical canons regulate matters of its life and order within it.

              The Church was revealed by God to the world through Jesus Christ for the salvation of all people and of the world itself, regardless of race,and not to serve political or personal ambitions or other secular pursuits and opportunistic goals. The Church is not Russian or Greek, Serbian or Rumanian and so on, but the Orthodox Catholic Church in Greece, in Russia, in Serbia, in Rumania and so on. The boundaries of the local Churches are geographical and were defined not with national and racial criteria, but with administrative ones, following, in general, the civil administrative divisions of the Roman Empire (Saint Photios), in order to provide the best pastoral care for the people of God, irrespective of race, to bring them to salvation in Christ.

              Ethnophyletism is a phenomenon which arose at the end of the 18th and the 19th centuries, a product of the Enlightenment and the French revolution. It was the new political theory, on the basis of which were created the nation states of Europe, and, in particular, those of the Balkan peninsula. This theory is, alas, still being applied in the Balkans today, with its familiar disastrous consequences on the lives of the people of the region and on peace.

              The idea of “the nation” in the historical sources, in the lives of ordinary people and in the formation of states before the 18th century, i.e. before the French revolution, did not have the ethnophyletic meaning which is attributed to it today. In antiquity and until the 18th/19th centuries, “the nation” was defined by religion and culture, not by race. This was the politico-religious theory of the Persians, of the Ancient Greeks, of the pagan Romans and also of the Christian Romans (Byzantines), as well as of the Jews (as it still is to this day), and of the Muslims. When the latter, Arabs first and then later the Ottomans, conquered Roman (“Byzantine”) countries and territories, they applied an administration “by nations” (millet), i. e. by religious communities, not by race. The religious leaders of the communities within the Muslim states were also ethnarchs of these communities. So the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was also the ethnarch of the Orthodox Christian “nation” within the Ottoman Empire, irrespective of race or language, as were the other patriarchs, metro-politans and other bishops locally. The Sultan/Caliph was the ethnarch of the Muslims, irrespective of the particular race, and so on[20]. The ideas of the French revolution (1789) and of the Enlightenment created, as has been said, a new political theory, which ignored religion or culture as elements shaping communities and administrative units. States were now formed according to this dominant theory, on the basis of ethnophyletic criteria — either those already in existence or, mainly, those invented by means of politics or propaganda — with all the melancholy consequences we know today (ethnic cleansing and so on). Of course, for Christ and His Church, “there is neither Jew nor Greek... for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3, 28).

              To a great extent, then, the politics of nationality which was dominant in the 19th century created the nation states of Europe, and particularly those of the Balkan Peninsula. An immediate consequence of this was the dissection in South-Eastern Europe of the Orthodox Catholic Church, the unified task of which underwent considerable external transformation. The most significant points of evolution were:

1. the creation of national Churches which, for a certain time were alienated from each other, and

2. the gradual entry into the East of a secular (profane) spirit and, particularly, of individual Liberalism, based on intellectual currents imported from the West[21].

              Those who were informed with this spirit of ethnophyletism collaborated with foreign political powers and were moved to declare the arbitrary autocephaly of churches in Greece (1833), Rumania (1865), Bulgaria (1870) and Albania (1922-1928-1937). The Church of Serbia displayed a different and more peaceful spirit.

              It is a fact that the then Great Powers had planned the dissolution of the ailing Ottoman Empire and its restriction to Asia, though not the restoration of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) which could have proved a competitor to their economic and political interests in the Balkans and in the Eastern Mediterranean. On the basis of the prevailing political theory of ethnophyletism, they preferred the creation of small, weak states which would be dependent upon them. In order for these ambitions to succeed, the spiritual, cultural and ecclesiastical unity of the region also had to be shattered, and local autocephalous Churches established, subservient to the states created, which were, in their turn and depending on circumstances, subservient to one or the other Great Power.   

              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.

              This Great Synod published a “Resolution” condemning ethnophyletism in the Church, a resolution which was based on general principles formulated by a special committee of the Synod[22].

In brief, these general principles are as follows:

“... in the Christian Church, a society which is spiritual and charged by its Head and Founder to include all nations in one Christian brotherhood, phyletism is foreign and completely unthinkable. And, indeed, phyletism, i. e. the formation of special national Churches in the same place, which accept all those of the same race, but exclude all those of other races and which are administered solely by those of the same race, are unheard of and unprecedented , though they are what the adherents of phyletism aspire to.”

              All the Christian Churches, founded in all places, were, from the beginning, local, containing the faithful of a particular city, or a particular local region, without racial discrimination. And thus, they were usually named after the city or territory, but not the racial provenance, of the members.

              In the first place, the Church of Jerusalem consisted, as is well known, of Jews and proselytes of various nations. In the same way, the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Rome and all the others were made up of Jews and Gentiles. Each of these Churches constituted in itself something compact and indivisible; each recognized as its apostles the apostles of Christ, all of whom were Jews by race; each had a bishop ordained by these apostles, without any regard to race, as the history of the first Churches of Christ testifies...

              This way of establishing Churches in various localities also obtained after the apostolic age, i. e. in the regional or Diocese Churches, which were defined in accordance with the prevailing civil divisions or other historical reasons. The congregation of the faithful in each of these churches consisted of Christians of every race and language.

              Thus, the Churches of the Patriarchal Thrones of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and the Archbishopric of Cyprus, which have, by God's grace, been preserved to this day, are local Churches, in the sense that they are contained within geographical boundaries. They are not national. This is why they are named after the capital city rather than after the various nations of which they consisted: Greeks, for example, Egyptians, Syrians, Arabs, Wallachians, Moldavians, Serbs, Bulgarians and others among those who usually live in concourse in the regions of these Churches.

              Such, also, were the boundaries of the archbishoprics of Ochrid, Pec and Turnavo: i. e. Churches within drawn boundaries. They were neither constituted by reason of phyletism nor were their members of the same race and language. The later expressions “Latin, Greek, Armenian Church” and so on, do not, in general, express discrimination by nation, but differences in dogma. In the same way, the Church of Greece, of Russia, of Serbia, of Wallachia, of Moldova, or, more improperly, the Russian, Greek, Serbian etc. Church, mean autocephalous or semi-independent Churches in autonomous or semi-independent realms and with definite boundaries: those of the political realm, beyond which they have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It follows that they exist not because of nationality, but because of the political situation, and that their members are not all of one race and language...

              The Fathers of the Holy Synods- partial or general, local or ecumenical- did not present themselves in an ethnic capacity, either their own or that of their flocks, but as representing the Church of which they were the head. And if, in the acts of the first synods and in Church history we do find bishops designated not by city or territory, but by nation, such as bishop of the Saracens, of the Goths or of the Scythians, this was so because of the ill-defined and badly constituted political and social conditions within some nations. Such titles can therefore easily be understood, since only a few people within these nations had accepted the Christian faith and had not yet gathered together in towns.

              And if we have recourse to these very sacred canons, on which the structure of the Church is founded, we shall find not a trace of phyletism. The canons dealing with the election and consecration of bishops, metropolitans and patriarchs, as well as of the other functionaries of the Church nowhere define the racial characteristic as a qualification of eligibility. They mention only the moral and religious qualities which were laid down by the Apostle of the Gentiles in his epistles to Timothy and Titus. In the same way, the sacred canons of local Churches, which were aimed at the constitution, unification, or division of eparchies and parishes, projected ecclesiastical or political necessity, never ethnophyletic aspirations...

              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...”

              The Synods of these Dioceses together with their primate, president, archbishop, exarch or patriarch, constitute the highest ecclesiastical authority in the whole region of the Diocese. And according to this institution, there remain to this day Orthodox Patriarchates in the lands of the East, and, in the other realms, the administrative synods with their presidents. But according to the aspirations of the phyletists, there are no specific loci for the administration of the local Church. The racial, highest ecclesiastical jurisdictions also expand and contract in accordance with the eternal ebb and flow of nations, in groups or as individuals, wandering and migrating hither and thither...Thus, in one and the same ecclesiastical diocese, there will be, on the one hand, many exarchs or patriarchs of the same faith, and, on the other, many administrative synods of the same faith, in despite of so many sacred canons. In sum, according to the principles of phyletism, it is not possible for Diocesan Churches, Patriarchal, provincial or metropolitan Churches to exist, nor for there to be a bishopric or even a simple parish or church in some small village or settlement, if they are to have their own area and are to include all those of the same faith living therein”.

              This Report, which also contains other historical and canonical arguments, concludes: “If things are thus, as, indeed, they are, phyletism is clearly in opposition to and conflict with the spirit and the teaching of Christ...”

              These general theological, historical and canonical principles expressed in this Report were taken into consideration by the Holy and Great Local Synod which met at Constantinople in August, 1872. It condemned phyletism and published a “Resolution” (Όρος) concerning it, in which, among other things, the following is stated: “censuring and condemning it, we reject phyletism, that is racial discrimination and nationalistic contention, enmities and discord in the Church of Christ as being contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the sacred canons of our holy Fathers, who support the holy Church and adorn the whole of the Christian life, leading to divine Godliness”[25].

              Despite this, and after the decision of the Synod in Constantinople, phyletism, in the sense of unrestrained nationalism, unfortunately continued to influence the thoughts and actions of some local Orthodox Churches in this direction, at least as regards certain questions, to the detriment of Church unity. This is clear in the so-called Orthodox Diaspora, where canonical disorder prevails and where the nationalist element is powerful[26].

              Orthodox faithful, members at first of different local Ghurches and states, have emigrated to new countries, settled and live there. They no longer belong, in Church terms, to the ecclesiastical provinces from which they came, because, as residents now of these new countries, they belong to the new ecclesiastical province in which they have settled and in which they experience their eucharistic and sacramental and spiritual life. They are thus members of the local Church under its bishop. This was always the canonical way of ordering things, it was the practice and tradition of the Church and has continued to this day in regions other than the new countries mentioned earlier. In Egypt, for example, in Libya, Pentapolis and the other territories of Africa, which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria,.new churches are being established by missionaries or emigrants. These new communities are independent of the national provenance of the missionaries or of the emigrants or of the original autocephalous Church from which they came. 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 Orthodox Church is, in general, conscious of the ecclesiological and canonical irregularity which was created by the appearance of ethnophyletism in the 19th century and which is apparent in the formation and establishment of new provinces in America and elsewhere.

              For this reason, one of the subjects for discussion by the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church which is to be convened is also that of the so-called Diaspora, on the basis of canonical order and Orthodox ecclesiology and not ethnophyletic criteria. A good deal of progress has been achieved in this direction by the preparatory committee of the Synod in its sessions. The application of canonical order in the new provinces of the so-called Orthodox Diaspora does not mean uniformity in the parishes. Today's pastoral reality, and expediency, would not permit the absorption of one by the other and the levelling out of everything. Besides, as we see in the Gospel, Jesus Christ, the “Good Shepherd” and the “Chief Shepherd” of the Church, did not scorn the cultural features of His environment.

              He did not destroy things that were well-loved, but rather used these features in order to communicate with people and save them. People must certainly retain their faith above all, but without feeling contempt for their culture and without being cut off from their roots[28].

              This variety, which enriches the life of the Church in the new provinces and is demonstrably necessary, pastorally, for the survival and development of the local communities, must find expression within the ecclesiological and canonical framework defined by the sacred canons and decisions of the Patriarchal and Synodical Tomes of the Ecumenical Throne concerning the autocephalous status of the recent autocephalous Churches, and thus provide diversity in canonical unity, within the defined territorial limits of the local Churches.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* A paper read at the International Congress of Canon Law, Budapest, 2-7 September 2001.   



[1]. Valsamon, Commentary on Canon 6 of the1st Ecumenical Synod. Cf. Similar commentaries by Zonaras and Aristenos on the same canon, in RALLIS AND POTLIS, Constitution of the Divine and Sacred canons... (in Greek), vol. II, p. 129.

[2]. Valsamon, commentary an Canon 6 of the 1st Ecumenical Synod,    RALLIS AND POTLIS, op. cit. vol. II, p. 131.

[3]. MANSI 7,179.

[4]. Valsamon, Commentary on Canon 6 of the 1st Ecumenical Synod, RALLIS AND POTLIS, op cit.    vol. II, p. 129.

[5]. Cf. Canon 36 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod.

[6]. This title has been in use for the Patriarch of Constantinople since the 6th century. He is the bishop of the capital of the Roman Empire, i. e. of the whole of the inhabited, civilized world, according to the political theory of the Romans.

[7]. Canon 3 of the 2nd Ecumenical Synod, Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Synod, Canon 36 of'the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod.

[8]. Canon 36 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod. Cf. Novella 131 of Justinian, Basilika, BookV, title 3.

[9]. Interpretation of Zonaras of the above canon.

[10]. Interpretation of Valsamon of Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Synod.

[11]. RALLIS AND POTLIS, op.cit., vol V, p. 474. Cf. also the Cataloque    of Neilos Doxapatris in Goar in Allatius' de Consensu, p. 411 (note 1 in RALLIS AND POTLIS).

[12]. According to the testimony to the undersigned of G. Ferrari, late Professor of Patrology and Dogmatics in the Theological School of Bari, the Archbishop of Paronaxia was sent to these eparchies by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the 18th century on a pastoral tour.

[13]. On the term “Barbarian” in the canons, see MAXIMOS, METROPOLITAN    OF SARDEIS, The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church (in Greek), Thessaloniki 21989, p. 277..   

[14]. Cf. Vlasios PHEIDAS, “Οικουμενικός Θρόνος και Ορθόδοξος Διασπορά” in Ορθόδοξος Μαρτυρία και Σκέψις art. 19, 1979, pp. 5-6.

[15]. In RAlLIS and POTLIS, op. cit. vol. V, p. 474. Cf. the registers of Darrouzes and Gelzer “Notitiae episcopatuum...”.

[16]. In RALLIS AND POTLIS, op. rit., vol. V, p. 149 ff.

[17]. Canon 35 of the Apostles.

[18]. Cf. also Canons 6 and 15 of the Ist Ecumenical Synod and the interpretations of these by Zonaras, Valsamon, Aristenos. Also Canon 8 of the 3rd Ecumenical Synod and interpretations of it.

[19]. Comment by Aristenos on Canon 6 of the Ist Ecumenical Synod, in RALLIS AND POTLIS op. cit. vol. II, p. 131.

[20]. Cf.    Sir Stephen RUNCIMAN,    The Orthodox Churches and the Secular State, p. 26 ff. Auckland Oxford 1971. On the meaning of    “Nation” in the sacred canons, see Canon 34 of the Apostles, which is repeated in Canon 9 of the Synod in Antioch. See also the interpretation of Zonaras on this.    “Nation” in the sacred canons means the metropolitan province as geographical boundaries.

[21]. MAXIMOS, METROPOLITAN OF SARDEIS, The Ecumenical Patriarchate op.cit.    p. 320. Cf. Gerasimos konidaris, The Greek Church as a Cultural Force in the History of the Balkan Peninsula (in Greek), pp. 28-29.

[22].    The text of the Report is in MAXIMOS, METROPOLITAN OF SARDEIS, op. cit. pp. 323-330.

[23]. The text of the Report also refers to Canons 34 and 35 of the Holy Apostles, Canon 2 of the 2nd Ecumenical Synod; Canon 8 of the 3rd Ecumenical Synod; Canon 6 of the Ist and Canon 28 of the 4th.

[24]. The 'politeuma' of the Church is the system of governance in the Church, in its ecclesiological and canonical dimension.

[25]. In MAXIMOS, METROPOLITAN OF SARDEIS, op, cit. pp. 323-330.

[26]. For more, see PANTELEIMON RODOPOULOS (METROPOLITAN    OF TYROLOE AND SERENTION), An Ecclesiological and Canonical View of the Orthodox Diaspora, in his collection Meletai    A', Thessaloniki 1993, pp. 180-181 (in Greek).

[27]. panteleimon rodopoulos, op. cit.    184-185.

[28]. metropolitan aimilianos of selyvria, The Revitalization of the Local Community, (in Greek), in Επίσκεψις 192 (1978), p. 10

Source (http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=287&tla=en)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 29, 2009, 01:47:57 PM
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.



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:

(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/priests_ordination.jpg)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 02:03:10 PM
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.



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:

(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/priests_ordination.jpg)

I'm sorry, but nothing is coming up for your image, so I don't know what "this" is to explain.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elpidophoros on January 29, 2009, 02:15:26 PM
Quote
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....
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 02:56:14 PM
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.

Quote
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.



         
Quote
     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.

             
Quote
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.

Quote
and their application is binding for all Orthodox.

but not the recent novel interpretation, the "famous" interpretation.

             
Quote
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

             
Quote
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.

             
Quote
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?

             
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 29, 2009, 02:58:16 PM
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. ::)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 03:08:42 PM
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
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 03:38:20 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on January 29, 2009, 03:47:52 PM
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"
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Veniamin on January 29, 2009, 04:08:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elpidophoros on January 29, 2009, 04:13:25 PM
Quote
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 ???
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Veniamin on January 29, 2009, 04:19:34 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elpidophoros on January 29, 2009, 04:32:24 PM
Quote
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....
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 04:36:32 PM
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 04:44:11 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elpidophoros on January 29, 2009, 04:56:54 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 05:07:08 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elpidophoros on January 29, 2009, 05:23:35 PM
Quote
Japan has no jurisidiction over Korea. 
MP thought Japan had jurisdiction over Korea even after IIWW.

Quote
And the Exarchate of Korea has no place in Japan.
The Exarchate of Korea no more exist since 2004.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 05:35:11 PM
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 29, 2009, 05:45:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on January 29, 2009, 05:49:58 PM
everybody blows his own horn
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 29, 2009, 06:00:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 29, 2009, 09:57:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 30, 2009, 01:40:11 AM
This document should answer any questions about this:

"Territorial Jurisdiction According to Orthodox Canon Law. The Phenomenon of Ethnophyletism in Recent Years."
(http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=287&tla=en)

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:
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 30, 2009, 03:40:40 AM
  Nor do I think Antioch would care as long as the Faith was being spread.

This is what brand of Orthodox "Faith" the Antiochians are spreading in the Philippines:


(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/priests_ordination.jpg)
               His Eminence Metropolitan Paul Saliba with his newly ordained priests in the Philippines
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 30, 2009, 03:44:35 AM
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.
(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/priests_ordination.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 30, 2009, 03:48:18 AM
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? (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg216916.html#msg216916) :( 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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 30, 2009, 05:12:22 AM
Now lets get back to the topic: "Conversions in the Philippines".
Las Islas Filipinas wrote:


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):


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.




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.


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 30, 2009, 06:42:57 AM
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
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 30, 2009, 08:41:34 AM
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.



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.




Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 30, 2009, 08:45:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Islas Filipinas on January 30, 2009, 10:07:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 30, 2009, 10:08:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 30, 2009, 10:12:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 30, 2009, 12:06:47 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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....

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 31, 2009, 01:19:13 AM

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.


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)  (http://www.omhksea.net/homepage.aspx)

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on January 31, 2009, 01:43:38 AM
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!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 31, 2009, 02:07:02 AM

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Please stop fooling yourself ialmisry.

 ::)

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?

Quote
Again ialmisry, please do a little more research.


A little hard 10,000 miles away.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

 
Quote
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.

Quote
(this only exist in the imaginations of vagante Patriarchs and unfortunately also your wild imaginations ialmisry).

 ::)
Quote
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.

Quote
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.omhksea.net/homepage.aspx)
http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/

I hope that there can a good resolution to all of this.  We are supposed to be brothers.  We hell,
wrong place.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 31, 2009, 02:58:32 AM

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.

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"  ::)


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 ::)




Quote
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.omhksea.net/homepage.aspx)
[/url]

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

(http://www.orthodox.org.ph/templates/antiochian/images/philippines-header.gif) (http://www.orthodox.org.ph/)

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 31, 2009, 07:33:01 AM

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.

(http://www.omhksea.net/ImageHandler.ashx?UploadedFile=true&pg=5cff54ae-6c6e-48f7-8347-95c6d46b5432&image=%7E/App_Data/UserImages/Image/news/IMG_5485.JPG)

(http://www.omhksea.net/ImageHandler.ashx?UploadedFile=true&pg=5cff54ae-6c6e-48f7-8347-95c6d46b5432&image=%7E/App_Data/UserImages/Image/news/IMG_5492.JPG) 

SOURCE:  Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia (http://www.omhksea.net/default.aspx?pg=5cff54ae-6c6e-48f7-8347-95c6d46b5432)


...
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on January 31, 2009, 08:20:10 AM
Photo Gallery (http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/aftimios/orthodox%20filipinos/priests_ordination.jpg) from Antiochian metropolitan's visit.

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.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Thomas on January 31, 2009, 08:25:30 AM
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
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 31, 2009, 09:54:37 AM

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.

I am aware of that, but you started with Russia.  Which, btw, is also how Chalcedonian Orthodoxy started in the Far East, with Russia.

Russia is autocephalous.  She elected her canonical Patriarch just recently.  Patriarch Ignatius of Antioch will be commemorating Patriarch Cyril in the diptychs.

Quote
So that clearly explains why the Antiochian Patriarch can not claim himself as "Patriarch of ALL the EAST"  ::)

The Patriach has been carrying that title ever since, well, ever since Antioch has had a patriarchate, which is for some time now.

As the tomos of Russia's autocephalacy shows, Russia is in the North.


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


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

In 1935, a Russian parish was established in Manila, and the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia appointed Father Mikhail Yerokhin as vicar. The Episcopal Church then permitted Fr. Mikhail to use the north transept of their cathedral for worship. In 1937, the first Orthodox church was built and was named after the Iberian Icon of the Mother of God. This also became the first Orthodox altar in the Philippines. Later, both the Episcopal Cathedral and the Russian Orthodox church in Manila were destroyed during the Second World War.
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodoxy_in_the_Philippines



Quote
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.omhksea.net/homepage.aspx)
[/url]

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

(http://www.orthodox.org.ph/templates/antiochian/images/philippines-header.gif) (http://www.orthodox.org.ph/)
[/quote]

OK, what's the blunder shown?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 31, 2009, 09:59:36 AM
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 Othodox Christians in the Phillipines blessed unity in my prayers.

Thomas

Mr Thomas,
Please be informed that this particular "orthodox" group in Manila which call itself  the "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas"  (Orthodox Church in the Philippines"  and who owns the website  http://www.orthodox.org.ph/ (http://www.orthodox.org.ph/) is NOT in communion with the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines nor the EP.  The said "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas" was registered at the Philippine SEC by Father Christopher Gain, a former deacon under the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand in 2006. Christopher Gain was "released" from the Antiochian Archdiocese in 2007.  This group which calls itself the "Orthodox Church in the Philippines" was the result of that "big blunder".  They do not recognize the Primate in Australia but they call themselves "Antiochian".  So now everything is clear ialmisry?

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 31, 2009, 10:06:17 AM

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.

(http://www.omhksea.net/ImageHandler.ashx?UploadedFile=true&pg=5cff54ae-6c6e-48f7-8347-95c6d46b5432&image=%7E/App_Data/UserImages/Image/news/IMG_5485.JPG)

(http://www.omhksea.net/ImageHandler.ashx?UploadedFile=true&pg=5cff54ae-6c6e-48f7-8347-95c6d46b5432&image=%7E/App_Data/UserImages/Image/news/IMG_5492.JPG) 

SOURCE:  Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia (http://www.omhksea.net/default.aspx?pg=5cff54ae-6c6e-48f7-8347-95c6d46b5432)


...

Glory to God!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 31, 2009, 10:20:45 AM



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


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

In 1935, a Russian parish was established in Manila, and the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia appointed Father Mikhail Yerokhin as vicar. The Episcopal Church then permitted Fr. Mikhail to use the north transept of their cathedral for worship. In 1937, the first Orthodox church was built and was named after the Iberian Icon of the Mother of God. This also became the first Orthodox altar in the Philippines. Later, both the Episcopal Cathedral and the Russian Orthodox church in Manila were destroyed during the Second World War.
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodoxy_in_the_Philippines


Where is the Orthodox Cathedral?  You said "Orthodox Cathedral". I don't see any Orthodox Cathedral in your reference ialmisry

 Please read the whole context. Let me explain it to you in simple English: The Cathedral belongs to the Episcopal Church in the Philippines who allowed the Russians in 1935 to use "the north transept" since they don't have a place of worship and the "first Orthodox Church" (not a Cathedral!) was  yet to be built in 1937. The Orthodox WIKI did not say that the first Orthodox Church which was named after the Iberian Icon of the Theotokos was also a "Cathedral".   Is everything clear now, ialmisry?

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 31, 2009, 10:36:52 AM
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 Othodox Christians in the Phillipines blessed unity in my prayers.

Thomas

Mr Thomas,
Please be informed that this particular "orthodox" group in Manila which call itself  the "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas"  (Orthodox Church in the Philippines"  and who owns the website  http://www.orthodox.org.ph/ (http://www.orthodox.org.ph/) is NOT in communion with the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines nor the EP.  The said "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas" was registered at the Philippine SEC by Father Christopher Gain, a former deacon under the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand in 2006. Christopher Gain was "released" from the Antiochian Archdiocese in 2007.  This group which calls itself the "Orthodox Church in the Philippines" was the result of that "big blunder".  They do not recognize the Primate in Australia but they call themselves "Antiochian".  So now everything is clear ialmisry?



Is this the release you speak of?
Quote
04  Fr Dn Chris Gain appointed Chaplain to Students in Manila

Father Deacon Chris Gain, formerly of the Australian Antiochian Archdiocese and released in February 2007 by Archbishop Paul Saliba of Australia to the Patriarchate in Damascus, has been appointed Orthodox Chaplain of Students at the National Episcopal Theological Seminary of Saint Andrew in Quezon City, MetroManila, The Philippines.

Father Deacon Chris is the Director of the Orthodox Studies Centre on the Saint Andrew's Theological Seminary campus.

Making the announcement, the dean of the seminary, Very Reverend Tomas Maddela said, "I am delighted Father Chris was prepared to accede to my request to assist the seminary in this way. Having pastorally experienced clergy with the wide life experience of Father Chris is just what students need. Since he is outside the seminary authority structure, students may feel more comfortable with him than with faculty members who have disciplinary responsibilities over the students."

Father Chris said, "Although I am occupied establishing the three Orthodox parishes in Barangay Violago and surrounding barangays, I live on Saint Andrew's Theological Seminary campus, and some of the seminary students are taking postgraduate courses at the Orthodox Studies Centre. I see seminary students every day, so it is a natural step in furthering good relations and understanding of Orthodoxy with our separated brothers and sisters of the Anglican and Independiente traditions in the Philippines. I am pleased to be able to assist in this honorary appointment too."

http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/664/1/
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 31, 2009, 10:44:00 AM
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 Othodox Christians in the Phillipines blessed unity in my prayers.

Thomas

Mr Thomas,
Please be informed that this particular "orthodox" group in Manila which call itself  the "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas"  (Orthodox Church in the Philippines"  and who owns the website  http://www.orthodox.org.ph/ (http://www.orthodox.org.ph/) is NOT in communion with the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines nor the EP.  The said "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas" was registered at the Philippine SEC by Father Christopher Gain, a former deacon under the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand in 2006. Christopher Gain was "released" from the Antiochian Archdiocese in 2007.  This group which calls itself the "Orthodox Church in the Philippines" was the result of that "big blunder".  They do not recognize the Primate in Australia but they call themselves "Antiochian".  So now everything is clear ialmisry?



Is this the release you speak of?
Quote
04  Fr Dn Chris Gain appointed Chaplain to Students in Manila

Father Deacon Chris Gain, formerly of the Australian Antiochian Archdiocese and released in February 2007 by Archbishop Paul Saliba of Australia to the Patriarchate in Damascus, has been appointed Orthodox Chaplain of Students at the National Episcopal Theological Seminary of Saint Andrew in Quezon City, MetroManila, The Philippines.

Father Deacon Chris is the Director of the Orthodox Studies Centre on the Saint Andrew's Theological Seminary campus.

Making the announcement, the dean of the seminary, Very Reverend Tomas Maddela said, "I am delighted Father Chris was prepared to accede to my request to assist the seminary in this way. Having pastorally experienced clergy with the wide life experience of Father Chris is just what students need. Since he is outside the seminary authority structure, students may feel more comfortable with him than with faculty members who have disciplinary responsibilities over the students."

Father Chris said, "Although I am occupied establishing the three Orthodox parishes in Barangay Violago and surrounding barangays, I live on Saint Andrew's Theological Seminary campus, and some of the seminary students are taking postgraduate courses at the Orthodox Studies Centre. I see seminary students every day, so it is a natural step in furthering good relations and understanding of Orthodoxy with our separated brothers and sisters of the Anglican and Independiente traditions in the Philippines. I am pleased to be able to assist in this honorary appointment too."

http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/664/1/

The said former Deacon has nothing to do with the Antiochian Primate of the Philippines anymore nor the Antiochian jurisdiction in the Philippines.  As far as I know, the Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas is an Independent "orthodox" group.  I consider it a vagante group. That's all I can say. If you want more information regarding this group write directly to the Antiochian Primate in Australia.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on January 31, 2009, 11:05:50 AM
Father Deacon Chris Gain, formerly of the Australian Antiochian Archdiocese and released in February 2007 by Archbishop Paul Saliba of Australia to the Patriarchate in Damascus, has been appointed Orthodox Chaplain of Students at the National Episcopal Theological Seminary of Saint Andrew in Quezon City, MetroManila, The Philippines.

The said former Deacon has nothing to do with the Antiochian Primate of the Philippines anymore nor the Antiochian jurisdiction in the Philippines.  As far as I know, the Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas is an Independent "orthodox" group.  I consider it a vagante group. That's all I can say. If you want more information regarding this group write directly to the Antiochian Primate in Australia.


Am I missing/forgetting part of the story?  "Released to the Patriarchate in Damascus."  The Patriarchate in Damascus (on the "street called Straight" Acts 9:11, btw) is part of the Patriarchate of Antioch.  I've been there, and at the Cathedral in Antioch, trust me.

Now, what Fr. Gain's present status is, I don't know.  Anything concrete?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 31, 2009, 11:17:00 AM
Father Deacon Chris Gain, formerly of the Australian Antiochian Archdiocese and released in February 2007 by Archbishop Paul Saliba of Australia to the Patriarchate in Damascus, has been appointed Orthodox Chaplain of Students at the National Episcopal Theological Seminary of Saint Andrew in Quezon City, MetroManila, The Philippines.

The said former Deacon has nothing to do with the Antiochian Primate of the Philippines anymore nor the Antiochian jurisdiction in the Philippines.  As far as I know, the Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas is an Independent "orthodox" group.  I consider it a vagante group. That's all I can say. If you want more information regarding this group write directly to the Antiochian Primate in Australia.




Am I missing/forgetting part of the story?  "Released to the Patriarchate in Damascus."  The Patriarchate in Damascus (on the "street called Straight" Acts 9:11, btw) is part of the Patriarchate of Antioch.  I've been there, and at the Cathedral in Antioch, trust me.

Now, what Fr. Gain's present status is, I don't know.  Anything concrete?

Lets talk about it using the PM. Is that okay for you, almisry?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on January 31, 2009, 11:43:37 AM
Please don't. Personally I also know to get to know something about this issues. Is the deacon canonical or not?

BTW Could someone send me that 2 photos of ordination because the website seems broken and I want to look at them one more time?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 31, 2009, 12:25:06 PM
Please don't. Personally I also know to get to know something about this issues. Is the deacon canonical or not?

BTW Could someone send me that 2 photos of ordination because the website seems broken and I want to look at them one more time?

The OMHKSEA server appears to be down as of this writing. Perhaps I can still find the images stored in my computer's "cache" (I'm using Firefox not Internet Explorer"). 

Please note that  there are TWO websites carrying the name of the Antiochian Archdiocese .  One is  (http://www.antiochian.org.au[/b) with Father Cristopher  (http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/124/23/) (click) as Weblord. This "Father Cristopher" is also known as Deacon Father "Chris Gain".

The other website http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/ (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/) is the new and the "Official" one  and if you will look carefully, a Disclaimer is written at the bottom  which reads and I quote (please take note of the words in red):


Warning/Disclaimer
This is the official website of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines. Please be aware that the website http://www.antiochian.org.au is no longer the official website of the Archdiocese. Any material placed on that website after 27th April 2007 is not authorised by the Archdiocese or the Archbishop Metropolitan Paul Saliba and the Archdiocese and the Archbishop disclaim any responsibility for that material.

+++

On July 2007 an article was posted in the old Antiochian Archdiocese website by Father Christopher "Chris" Gain, weblord of that site which reads:

Quote

04  Fr Dn Chris Gain appointed Chaplain to Students in Manila

Father Deacon Chris Gain, formerly of the Australian Antiochian Archdiocese and released in February 2007 by Archbishop Paul Saliba of Australia to the Patriarchate in Damascus, has been appointed Orthodox Chaplain of Students at the National Episcopal Theological Seminary of Saint Andrew in Quezon City, MetroManila, The Philippines.

Father Deacon Chris is the Director of the Orthodox Studies Centre on the Saint Andrew's Theological Seminary campus.

Making the announcement, the dean of the seminary, Very Reverend Tomas Maddela said, "I am delighted Father Chris was prepared to accede to my request to assist the seminary in this way. Having pastorally experienced clergy with the wide life experience of Father Chris is just what students need. Since he is outside the seminary authority structure, students may feel more comfortable with him than with faculty members who have disciplinary responsibilities over the students."

Father Chris said, "Although I am occupied establishing the three Orthodox parishes in Barangay Violago and surrounding barangays, I live on Saint Andrew's Theological Seminary campus, and some of the seminary students are taking postgraduate courses at the Orthodox Studies Centre. I see seminary students every day, so it is a natural step in furthering good relations and understanding of Orthodoxy with our separated brothers and sisters of the Anglican and Independiente traditions in the Philippines. I am pleased to be able to assist in this honorary appointment too."



SOURCE: http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/664/1/ (http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/664/1/)


So now you decide whether the said deacon and his church in the Philippines, the "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas" (Orthodox Church in the Philippines) is canonical or not.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 31, 2009, 12:45:04 PM
Please note that  there are TWO websites carrying the name of the Antiochian Archdiocese .  One is  (http://www.antiochian.org.au[/b) with Father Cristopher  (http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/124/23/) (click) as Weblord. This "Father Cristopher" is also known as Deacon Father "Chris Gain".

The other website http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/ (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/) is the new and the "Official" one  and if you will look carefully, a Disclaimer is written at the bottom  which reads and I quote (please take note of the words in red):


Warning/Disclaimer
This is the official website of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines. Please be aware that the website http://www.antiochian.org.au is no longer the official website of the Archdiocese. Any material placed on that website after 27th April 2007 is not authorised by the Archdiocese or the Archbishop Metropolitan Paul Saliba and the Archdiocese and the Archbishop disclaim any responsibility for that material.
 
This is very strange indeed.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on January 31, 2009, 12:56:38 PM
Please note that  there are TWO websites carrying the name of the Antiochian Archdiocese .  One is  (http://www.antiochian.org.au[/b) with Father Cristopher  (http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/124/23/) (click) as Weblord. This "Father Cristopher" is also known as Deacon Father "Chris Gain".

The other website http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/ (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/) is the new and the "Official" one  and if you will look carefully, a Disclaimer is written at the bottom  which reads and I quote (please take note of the words in red):


Warning/Disclaimer
This is the official website of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines. Please be aware that the website http://www.antiochian.org.au is no longer the official website of the Archdiocese. Any material placed on that website after 27th April 2007 is not authorised by the Archdiocese or the Archbishop Metropolitan Paul Saliba and the Archdiocese and the Archbishop disclaim any responsibility for that material.
 
This is very strange indeed.

Many strange things happened  ever since the Antiochians set foot in the Philippines. I find it also very strange that the newly ordained Antiochian priests are dressed as Roman Catholics, use Novus Ordo Mass and unleavened wafers in their liturgy...Thats very strange, very strange indeed!!

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on January 31, 2009, 01:09:46 PM
In Damascus there is headquarter of Patriarchate of Antioch. So maybe this means that metropolitan Paul released fr. Chris from his jurisdiction and he is now directly under the patriarch or some other Antiochian hierarch. I have completely no idea why he was released from the Archdiocese and is under different bishop despite still living in the Philippines.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 31, 2009, 01:12:04 PM
In Damascus there is headquarter of Patriarchate of Antioch. So maybe this means that Metropolitan Paul released Fr. Chris from his jurisdiction and he is now directly under the Patriarch or some other Antiochian hierarch. I have completely no idea why he was released from the Archdiocese and is under different bishop despite still living in the Philippines.
Mike,
the Antiochian Archdiocese in Australia is neither Autonomous nor Autocephalous (as it is in the USA). It is itself directly under the Patriarcharchate of Antioch.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on January 31, 2009, 01:16:54 PM
I know. But there's written that he is not under the metropolitan Paul because he had released him. But he may be under another Antiochian bishop (patriarch, patriarchal vicar, any other hierarch) because there's written (at least I understand it in such a way) that he remained in the Church of Antioch.

Quote
formerly of the Australian Antiochian Archdiocese and released in February 2007 by Archbishop Paul Saliba of Australia to the Patriarchate in Damascus

to filipiniana: I'd be grateful if You found them.

BTW I've found an interesting Constantinonopolitan-Filipino Orthodox site (http://www.cs.ust.hk/faculty/dimitris/metro/philipines.html).
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 31, 2009, 02:00:14 PM
ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE
ORTHODOX METROPOLITANATE OF HONG KONG
 AND SOUTH EAST ASIA
Announcement

http://orthodox.cn/contemporary/20080724omhksea_en.htm

The Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia expresses its surprise at all the inaccuracies in the announcement released on 15th April 2008 by the Synod of the Church of Russia, and in the declarations of His Holiness Alexios, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, on 24th June 2008, regarding the canonical jurisdiction of the Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia.

In order to restore the truth we state that the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia was founded by decision of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the year 1996, as a detachment from the Orthodox Metropolitanate of New Zealand. It has under its spiritual jurisdiction, and is developing missionary and charitable activities in, 23 countries of South East Asia: Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Macao, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Myanmar, Mongolia, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Timor, Maldives, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

In these countries, even before the foundation of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong, there worked with incomparable missionary zeal and a spirit of sacrifice the late Metropolitan of Proussa, Dionysios, as Metropolitan of New Zealand, and Sotirios, Metropolitan of Pisidia, as Archimandrite and Protosyngellos (Chancellor) of the Holy Metropolitanate of New Zealand, and then Bishop of Zila. Missionary work in the countries of South East Asia took on a more systematic character with the founding of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and the election of the first Metropolitan, Nikitas, who for 11 years toiled successfully to develop the work of mission. All three missionary Bishops mentioned above worked as missionaries with zeal and prudence, and those whom they baptized and to whom they taught the Orthodox faith bear witness to their work.

On 9th January 2008, the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in order to better carry out missionary work, took the decision to split up the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong, which had already existed as a Metropolitanate for 12 years, and to create a new Metropolitanate, with Singapore as the seat of its see, and elected a new Metropolitan for the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong. The following countries came under the canonical jurisdiction of the new Orthodox Metropolitanate: Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Timor, Maldives, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

It is clear that, on 9th January the Ecumenical Patriarchate proceeded to founding a new Orthodox Metropolitanate, and not to the expansion of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong.

The actions and decisions of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate are carried out within the framework of universal mission and service to the nations of the First Throne Great Church of Christ, as defined by the 2nd and 4th Ecumenical Councils with their respective wise and unambiguous decisions, which are binding for all Orthodox.

The accusations launched by the Church of Russia against the Ecumenical Patriarchate, that supposedly it is impinging on the rights of the so-called "Autonomous Church of China" and that allegedly it is breaking the unity of the Orthodox Churches, concern us, for sadly we see that in this connection it is the Church of Russia that is overlooking in an inept manner what the Church in its entirety has decided, and is proceeding to unilateral proclamations of "Autonomous Churches" and speaks of "rights over countries", reminding us of secular states of an old feudalistic kind.

The Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia, with the grace of God, is struggling to remain faithful to Orthodox tradition and practice, established by the God-bearing Fathers of our Holy Church. It remains faithful to the martyr-like, First Throne and Apostolic Ecumenical Patriarchate, for it knows that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Great Church of Christ, which is faithful to its apostolic responsibility and service throughout the world, which were assigned to Her by decisions of Ecumenical Councils, has been labouring for centuries day and night to sustain and develop missionary Churches, and principally for the unity and stability of all the Orthodox Churches.

We should understand that in the modern age the Orthodox Churches must bear witness and carry out missionary work united, without antagonistic attitudes and egotistical claims. The preservation of unity, which is a command of our Lord Jesus Christ, gives credence to the witness of Orthodoxy and keeps it far from the stain of nationalistic, political and other intentions.

Hong Kong, July 23rd 2008

From the Office of
ORTHODOX METROPOLITANATE OF HONG KONG
 AND SOUTH EAST ASIA
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 31, 2009, 02:06:21 PM
We should understand that in the modern age the Orthodox Churches must bear witness and carry out missionary work united, without antagonistic attitudes and egotistical claims.
Do egotistical claims include declaring one's self "Archbishop of the Phillipines" as does Archbishop Paul Saliba on his new website?
I thought Bishops were appointed, and not that they themselves decided what is to come under their ormorphion.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on January 31, 2009, 04:54:42 PM
We should understand that in the modern age the Orthodox Churches must bear witness and carry out missionary work united, without antagonistic attitudes and egotistical claims.
Do egotistical claims include declaring one's self "Archbishop of the Phillipines" as does Archbishop Paul Saliba on his new website?
I thought Bishops were appointed, and not that they themselves decided what is to come under their ormorphion.

Points of information:

1.  A Metropolitan is also an Archbishop.

2.  In the DL in the Metropolis for NJ (GOA), we pray for our Archbishop Evangelos.  If His Emimence Evangelos chooses not to refer to Himself as an Archbishop, that is His Eminence's prerogative.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 31, 2009, 05:22:04 PM
Points of information:

1.  A Metropolitan is also an Archbishop.

2.  In the DL in the Metropolis for NJ (GOA), we pray for our Archbishop Evangelos.  If His Emimence Evangelos chooses not to refer to Himself as an Archbishop, that is His Eminence's prerogative.
Yes, but what on Earth has that got to do with why Archbishop Paul Saliba of Australia and New Zealand has decided last year to make himself the Archbishop of the Phillipines?
You seem to have missed the point.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on January 31, 2009, 07:01:08 PM
Points of information:

1.  A Metropolitan is also an Archbishop.

2.  In the DL in the Metropolis for NJ (GOA), we pray for our Archbishop Evangelos.  If His Eminence Evangelos chooses not to refer to Himself as an Archbishop, that is His Eminence's prerogative.
Yes, but what on Earth has that got to do with why Archbishop Paul Saliba of Australia and New Zealand has decided last year to make himself the Archbishop of the Philippines?
You seem to have missed the point.

You're saying that the Philippines is outside of Met. Paul's canonical territory; Hence, His Eminence has crossed the line by calling Himself Archbishop of something that He isn't?  Unfortunately, there is precedence when the 8 Dioceses in the USA became Metropolises with a stroke of a pen.  If the Antiochian Metropolitan of Australia and New Zealand wants to call Himself Archbishop of the Philippines, who's going to stop Him?   ???
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Veniamin on January 31, 2009, 07:18:21 PM
Points of information:

1.  A Metropolitan is also an Archbishop.

2.  In the DL in the Metropolis for NJ (GOA), we pray for our Archbishop Evangelos.  If His Eminence Evangelos chooses not to refer to Himself as an Archbishop, that is His Eminence's prerogative.
Yes, but what on Earth has that got to do with why Archbishop Paul Saliba of Australia and New Zealand has decided last year to make himself the Archbishop of the Philippines?
You seem to have missed the point.
You're saying that the Philippines is outside of Met. Paul's canonical territory; Hence, His Eminence has crossed the line by calling Himself Archbishop of something that He isn't?  Unfortunately, there is precedence when the 8 Dioceses in the USA became Metropolises with a stroke of a pen.  If the Antiochian Metropolitan of Australia and New Zealand wants to call Himself Archbishop of the Philippines, who's going to stop Him?

As usual, what is your point?  The question here is about assuming new territory for oneself, not whether the titles of existing territory are changed by someone else.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on January 31, 2009, 07:37:57 PM
As usual, what is your point?  The question here is about assuming new territory for oneself, not whether the titles of existing territory are changed by someone else.

I was only providing points of information and precedences and not making any point.   :)

There are canonical issues in the Philippines.  One Hierarch jumped the gun and declared Himself Archbishop of the Philippines resulting in stress and concern which are compounded with the existing stress and concern of canonical issues throughout the world.  What is one to to do, depose the Archbishop of the Philippines to resolve the canonical problem?   ::)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 31, 2009, 08:54:43 PM
What is one to to do, depose the Archbishop of the Philippines to resolve the canonical problem?   ::)
Is there anyone to depose? Has anyone apart from himself recognised him as the "Archbishop of the Philippines"? If I call myself "The Archbishop of the Blue Mountains" do I need to be deposed?
If we want to resolve this jurisdictional mess as we all claim to want to do, I don't think the answer lies in declaring ourselves Bishops of Provinces outside our jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Thomas on January 31, 2009, 10:19:19 PM
This is really quite simple. The real question is this:  Has His Beatitude Ignatius IV, Patriarch of Antioch and the all East, given Metropolitan Paul that title ,if he has, it is something for the Patriarchs to settle among themselves.  If Metropolitan Paul gave himself the title then it is up to His Beatitude Ignatius IV, Patriarch of Antioch and the all East, to determine his action in the response to assuming a title without his permission.

Thomas
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 31, 2009, 10:44:53 PM
This is really quite simple. The real question is this:  Has His Beatitude Ignatius IV, Patriarch of Antioch and the all East, given Metropolitan Paul that title ,if he has, it is something for the Patriarchs to settle among themselves.  If Metropolitan Paul gave himself the title then it is up to His Beatitude Ignatius IV, Patriarch of Antioch and the all East, to determine his action in the response to assuming a title without his permission.
I'm afraid it's not that "simple" Thomas. The Orthodox Metropolis of Honk Kong and South East Asia (OMHKSEA) has existed since 1996. The only "simple" thing is that an Antiochian Bishop (whether with or without permission of his Patriarchate) has taken another Bishop's jurisdiction and is bringing to the Philippines the same jurisdictional mess that exists in the US, Australia & the UK- to the shame and detriment of Orthodoxy worldwide.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 31, 2009, 11:03:43 PM
Oh, and one more thing Thomas; How do you explain that an Antiochian Deacon (Fr. Chris Gain) should be released from the jurisdiction of the supposed "Archbishop of the Phillipines" to join the Antiochian Patriarchate in the Phillipines?
Why would the Antiochian "Archbishop of the Philippines" not have jurisdiction over an Antiochian Deacon in the Philippines?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on January 31, 2009, 11:10:01 PM
What is one to to do, depose the Archbishop of the Philippines to resolve the canonical problem?   ::)
Is there anyone to depose? Has anyone apart from himself recognised him as the "Archbishop of the Philippines"? If I call myself "The Archbishop of the Blue Mountains" do I need to be deposed?

The facts can establish that Metropolitan Paul established a non-canonical Archbishop of the Philippines; Hence, Met. Paul has deposed Himself and no one has to depose whatever the former Met. Paul has now become.

You made your point.  I can't believe the Philippines have become the USA of the 1920's in terms of canonical nonsense.  I've had it with history repeating itself.   >:(

If we want to resolve this jurisdictional mess as we all claim to want to do, I don't think the answer lies in declaring ourselves Bishops of Provinces outside our jurisdiction.

Inter-Orthodox Schism is the only realistic solution to these canonical messes.   :(
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Thomas on January 31, 2009, 11:33:42 PM
Just a question. Do you know that Metropolitan Paul  independently  did what he did? 

I know that when Metropolitan Philip accepted the EOC into the Antiochian Archdioses in the US, it was in response to being blessed to do so by the Patriarch. I am not an expert in canon law but I find very few modern evidences that anything  the bishops (Metropolitans, etc) do this large is without  making their Patriarch aware of it either in the Patriarchate of Constantinople or the Patriarchate of Antioch. To do so would result in a Spiritual court for disobedience to the Patriarchate. There is too much that is unanswered in this issue and since the Patriarch of Constantinople and The Patriarch of Antioch are still in communion with each other and there has been no ceasing of commemoration activity as we have found with the Patriarchate of Moscow and Contsntinople in the recent past, it must not be an important issue to them at this time.

Thomas
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 31, 2009, 11:35:24 PM
Just a question. Do you know that Metropolitan Paul  independently  did what he did? 
Does that matter Thomas? Read again what I wrote in response to you:
This is really quite simple. The real question is this:  Has His Beatitude Ignatius IV, Patriarch of Antioch and the all East, given Metropolitan Paul that title ,if he has, it is something for the Patriarchs to settle among themselves.  If Metropolitan Paul gave himself the title then it is up to His Beatitude Ignatius IV, Patriarch of Antioch and the all East, to determine his action in the response to assuming a title without his permission.
I'm afraid it's not that "simple" Thomas. The Orthodox Metropolis of Honk Kong and South East Asia (OMHKSEA) has existed since 1996. The only "simple" thing is that an Antiochian Bishop (whether with or without permission of his Patriarchate) has taken another Bishop's jurisdiction and is bringing to the Philippines the same jurisdictional mess that exists in the US, Australia & the UK- to the shame and detriment of Orthodoxy worldwide.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on January 31, 2009, 11:36:38 PM
And Thomas, I'd really like you to explain this irregularity:
Oh, and one more thing Thomas; How do you explain that an Antiochian Deacon (Fr. Chris Gain) should be released from the jurisdiction of the supposed "Archbishop of the Phillipines" to join the Antiochian Patriarchate in the Phillipines?
Why would the Antiochian "Archbishop of the Philippines" not have jurisdiction over an Antiochian Deacon in the Philippines?

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Thomas on January 31, 2009, 11:50:27 PM
Oh, and one more thing Thomas; How do you explain that an Antiochian Deacon (Fr. Chris Gain) should be released from the jurisdiction of the supposed "Archbishop of the Phillipines" to join the Antiochian Patriarchate in the Phillipines?
Why would the Antiochian "Archbishop of the Philippines" not have jurisdiction over an Antiochian Deacon in the Philippines?


Once again I am not a canonist.  It would seem to me that there are many Greek priests and Deacons who have been released over the years from their local diocese/Archdiocese to be assigned and under the direct supervision of the Phanar when working directly for the Patriarchate. I know we have had Antiochian priests  released to serve at the OCA (for example father Tassos)---they are still Antiochian priests but on loan to the OCA and under the omophorion of the OCA Metropolitan. It is possible if  Deacon CHRIS Gain was such a case he could be apart of the Patriarchal staff serving in the Phillipines for the patriarchate since his  departure apparrently was before the 2008 item at issue.(I personally have never seen this but again I am not involved in the Patriarchal politics no a confidant of the Patriarch). Whether he was released or deposed by the Patriarch I do not know, I can find no reference to the man besides what has been brought up here.

It is of interest to me however that the two Patriarchates take a very divergent view of  allowing a western rite in their patriarchate. The Antiochians openly allow it and have for many years encouraged the prosyletizing of  entire  groups  to enter the Church with the utilization and correction of their liturgies to make the liturgy an "Orthodox" one.  The Patriarchate of Constantinople however has, up to this date, not seen the value in this and sees one of their main purposes as being the spread of Hellenic Culture and language with conversion being just a component of that or as one Old Greek priest once  told me "we expect  our converts to become Greek in all but name, they should embrace Hellenic traditions, customs, and practices when they become a Greek Orthodox. If possible they should learn the Greek Language so they understand better the worship services of the parish."

As we well know, from both puclic articles from the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Church, the Patriarchate of Constantinople does not share the same understanding of canons in which he claims primacy over areas that are also claimed by other patriarchates---we may be faced with this in that HIB Ignatios may see the Phillipines as belonging to him as the Patriarch of Antioch and the all East and not to Constantinople despite Constantinople being present since 1996 in Hong Kong, I sure HIB Ignatios would cite a much older claim to authority over "the East". In some of the Antiochian publications in English this appears to be the case if I am reading them correctly.

In the mean time, I do what I can do as I do here in the US, pray for the unity of the Church here in the United States and in the Philipines so that we may all be as one in the Lord. This is a battle for the patriarchs, I will be content topray so that the Holy Spirit will make the determination as I believe eventually He will do as he has always intervene in such issues within the Church.


Thomas
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on February 01, 2009, 12:12:55 AM
Once again I am not a canonist.
Thomas,
You don't need to be a Canonist. What the Antiochian Archdiocese has done is not only uncanonical, it is illegal.
The Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia was established in 1996. It is recognised under Hong Kong Law. According to that law "All baptised Orthodox Christians residing in Hong Kong and all the
countries of South East Asia shall constitute the membership of the Metropolitan Archdiocese. Together they comprise a complete ecclesiastical unit. " ( http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/en/ord/1163/s4.html ).
What Archbishop Saliba has done is establish a group of "Baptised Orthodox Christians" in South East Asia who do not constitute the membership of the Metropolitan Archdiocese. So, what do you think this is going to do to the credibility of the Orthodox Church in Hong Kong?
You guys are so bent on your "Western Rites" and imposing them on people who don't even want them that you don't even see that you are dividing and discrediting the Church.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on February 01, 2009, 12:24:33 AM
Once again I am not a canonist.
Thomas,
You don't need to be a Canonist. What the Antiochian Archdiocese has done is not only uncanonical, it is illegal.

Illegal.  I didn't know the Church became a legislature.

Quote
The Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia was established in 1996. It is recognised under Hong Kong Law. According to that law "All baptised Orthodox Christians residing in Hong Kong and all the
countries of South East Asia shall constitute the membership of the Metropolitan Archdiocese. Together they comprise a complete ecclesiastical unit. " ( http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/en/ord/1163/s4.html ).

LOL.   I know Britain thinks it had universal sovereignty, and could dole it out as it saw fit, but the sun has set on the British Empire.

Quote
What Archbishop Saliba has done is establish a group of "Baptised Orthodox Christians" in South East Asia who do not constitute the membership of the Metropolitan Archdiocese.

The Philippines aren't in Hong Kong.  Nor is the vast majority of South East Asia.

Quote
So, what do you think this is going to do to the credibility of the Orthodox Church in Hong Kong?

I didn't know that Hong Kong was on the edge of their seats over what happens in the Philippines.

Quote
You guys are so bent on your "Western Rites" and imposing them on people who don't even want them that you don't even see that you are dividing and discrediting the Church.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on February 01, 2009, 12:36:42 AM
Here is a copy of a Fax I have just sent to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and cc-d to the Patriarchate of Antioch:

Quote
His All Holiness Bartholomew
Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch,

February 01, 2009



You’re All Holiness,

I am writing to you to raise my concerns regarding the recent actions of the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand.

Last Year, 2008, the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand changed its title to include The Philippines, and now, on it’s new official website (http://www.antiochianarch.org.au ), the Archdiocese titles itself “Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of  Australia New Zealand and The Philippines”.

To my knowledge, The Philippines have been under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia since 1996.

Under Hong Kong Law:

“All baptised Orthodox Christians residing in Hong Kong and all the countries of South East Asia shall constitute the membership of the Metropolitan Archdiocese. Together they comprise a complete ecclesiastical unit.”
(The Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia Ordinance. Section 4, subsection 3)

My concern is that Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand, by taking under its omorphion The Philippines has created a situation whereby there are now baptised Orthodox Christians in the  Philippines who are not members of the Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia, and thus brings discredit to the Orthodox Church in the eyes of Hong Kong, placing the Metropolitanate there in danger.

Your All Holiness, it is my firm belief that this irregularity must be corrected as soon as possible.

Kissing your right hand,
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on February 01, 2009, 01:56:19 AM
Could it be possible that during the meeting of Autocephalous Orthodox leaders that Pat. Ignatius brought up the Phillipines issue with the EP and the EP OK'ed the addition of the Phillipines to the Metropolitan of Australia and New Zealand resulting in the EP's comments that the canonical nightmare needs to be rectified?

So, just as I can attend an EP or Antiochian Church in the USA, I can do the same for the Phillipines even though the same canonical nightmare exists in the latter as it does in the former?   ???

Such a decision between two Patriarchs is not likely to be publicized on anyone's website; However, some official paperwork is bound to exist whether in Damascus or Australia?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on February 01, 2009, 02:17:39 AM
Could it be possible that during the meeting of Autocephalous Orthodox leaders that Pat. Ignatius brought up the Phillipines issue with the EP and the EP OK'ed the addition of the Phillipines to the Metropolitan of Australia and New Zealand resulting in the EP's comments that the canonical nightmare needs to be rectified?
Sol, read again.
The Statement of the EP came out in July 2008. The Antiochian Archdiocese changed it's title to include the Philippines in November 2008.
If you go to the official website of "The Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and The Philippines" you will find links to two videos of the Metropolitan there which were uploaded in November and, to the tune of some touchy-feely evangelical song, you will see the video's entitled: "Welcome Paul Saliba His Eminence Metropolitan Primate of Australia and New Zealand"...no mention of "The Philippines" in his title then.
Check the videos for yourself:
http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=56
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on February 01, 2009, 02:22:20 AM
Sol, read again.
The Statement of the EP came out in July 2008. The Antiochian Archdiocese changed it's title to include the Philippines in Novemeber 2008.
If you go to the official website of "The Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Phillipines" you will find links to two videos of the Metropolitan there which were uploaded in November and, to the tune of some touchy-feely evangelical song, you will see the video's entitled: "Welcome Paul Saliba His Eminence Metropolitan Primate of Australia and New Zealand"...no mention of "the Philipines" in his title then.
Check the videos for yourself:
http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=56

Between July and November, specifically October 2008, Pat. Ignatius and Pat. Bartholomew met a number of times.  There has to be Canonical Blessing for the addition of the Phillipines.  Because you say differently doesn't make that an absolute statement.

Who is the real Hierarch based out of Australia if it's no longer Met. Paul Saliba?   ???
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on February 01, 2009, 02:30:56 AM
There has to be Canonical Blessing for the addition of the Phillipines. 
Oh please! What a load of nonsense! Why would there be a "Canonical Blessing" for the addition of the title three months after the Oecumenical Patriarchate clearly stated that The Philippines are the Jurisdiction of the OMHKSEA?

Because you say differently doesn't make that an absolute statement.
Yeah....that's right....I mean, basic reality has nothing to do with it..... ::) Your theory must be right. The Oecumenical Patriarchate declared one thing and then did an underhand deal with Antioch....Perhaps His All Holiness got a carton of cigarettes out of it..... ::)


Who is the real Hierarch based out of Australia if it's no longer Met. Paul Saliba?   ???
What on Earth are you talking about?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on February 01, 2009, 02:52:46 AM
Sigh, I just finished reading a whole bunch of articles on pokrov.org.  Satan is winning the battle of these uncanonical situations.  I'm going to bed.  God Bless You.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on February 01, 2009, 03:11:24 AM
Between July and November, specifically October 2008, Pat. Ignatius and Pat. Bartholomew met a number of timesThere has to be Canonical Blessing for the addition of the Phillipines

If you will read carefully the so-called "PRESBYTERAL REPORT" (http://eorthodox.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/philippine-antiochian-donations/#comment-223) written by one Father  John D' Alton (Antiochian Orthodox Church, Australia) (please see excerpt below) then that seems to be the case SolEX01  and I totally agree with your observation. I would like to hear what ozgeorge has to say about this so-called "PRESBYTERAL REPORT":


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.




The very fact that the present Greek Hierarch of OMHKSEA and the Greek Vicar in Manila has not issued any protest regarding the so called "illegal" and "uncanonical" insertion of the Philippines under the jurisdiction of the Antiochian Metropolitanate of Australia  is a clear sign that there is a canonical blessing for the addition of the Philippines by the EP.  Please ozgeorge explain to me what the letter of Fr. John d' Alton says.  Is he imagining things , saying rubbish and non sense words or is he just lying through his teeth?  I will be waiting for your response ozgeorge.  Please do not ignore my request ozgeorge. Thank you.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipiniana on February 01, 2009, 03:30:07 AM

So, just as I can attend an EP or Antiochian Church in the USA, I can do the same for the Phillipines even though the same canonical nightmare exists in the latter as it does in the former?   ???


Would you attend a Novus Ordo Mass, partake unleavened wafers offered by Antiochian Orthodox priests in Roman Catholic vestments? Please, you are making a big mistake comparing the Antiochian Orthodox in the US with the Antiochian Orthodox in the Philippines. Do I need to repost the "massive" photos and get another warning from the Moderator of this thread???

Alright, for the sake of the "new comers" here it is once more:

Image removed


(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/default/images/warnwarn.gif) You've been instructed by two different moderators not to repost the same image over and over again.  Seeing as you have acknowledged receiving this instruction and have decided to repost your image anyway, you may consider this a formal warning.  If such behavior continues, you may face further sanctions such as being put on post moderation, where all of your posts must be approved by a moderator.
Veniamin, Free-for-All Moderator
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on February 01, 2009, 10:00:05 AM
If you will read carefully the so-called "PRESBYTERAL REPORT" (http://eorthodox.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/philippine-antiochian-donations/#comment-223) written by one Father  John D' Alton (Antiochian Orthodox Church, Australia) (please see excerpt below) then that seems to be the case SolEX01  and I totally agree with your observation. I would like to hear what ozgeorge has to say about this so-called "PRESBYTERAL REPORT":
The link to the "presbyterial report" does not work.


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.
filipiniana,
Fr. John D-Alton is in Australia, how would he know what is going on in the Philippines? Get real.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on February 01, 2009, 02:20:46 PM
Would you attend a Novus Ordo Mass, partake unleavened wafers offered by Antiochian Orthodox priests in Roman Catholic vestments? Please, you are making a big mistake comparing the Antiochian Orthodox in the US with the Antiochian Orthodox in the Philippines. Do I need to repost the "massive" photos and get another warning from the Moderator of this thread???

I'm deeply sorry if the Antiochian Orthodox Church has left a sour taste in your mouth in the Phillipines and I'm deeply sorry you received a colored dot.  If you feel that the Western Rite is not an appropriate Liturgy for you, try to Worship at the EP's Churches where no EP Church has ever used the Western Rite

What's wrong with that image anyway? Ah, yes it exposes the TRUTH! It is such an eye sore seeing how Orthodoxy has been misrepresented and bastardized by Antioch in my country. Okay, if you want to BAN me for exposing the truth then do it now. Anyway, I have said what I have to say. Farewell and may God forgive us sinners and may God have mercy and forgive the transgressing Hierarchs of our beloved Orthodox Church.

May God Bless You and strengthen the Orthodox Church in the Phillipines.  Amen!

The above-quoted complaint about moderation has been split into its own thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19513.0.html

- Cleveland, GM
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elpidophoros on February 01, 2009, 04:20:32 PM
As far as I know there is no any"under table agreement"betwwen EP and AP for Philipines. Why someone insist on such phantasy which obviously cannot be proved as real.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on February 01, 2009, 04:43:25 PM
As far as I know there is no any"under table agreement"betwwen EP and AP for Philipines. Why someone insist on such phantasy which obviously cannot be proved as real.
To what post are you referring?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: antiderivative on February 01, 2009, 04:48:33 PM
Quote
Would you attend a Novus Ordo Mass, partake unleavened wafers offered by Antiochian Orthodox priests in Roman Catholic vestments?

Why would they want to do that?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Elpidophoros on February 01, 2009, 04:57:41 PM
As far as I know there is no any"under table agreement"betwwen EP and AP for Philipines. Why someone insist on such phantasy which obviously cannot be proved as real.
To what post are you referring?

Did filipiniana said something like this? I remember he/she or someone else said there is a "secret agreement" between EP and AP. An illusion or false memory? :-[
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on February 01, 2009, 05:09:17 PM
As far as I know there is no any"under table agreement"betwwen EP and AP for Philipines. Why someone insist on such phantasy which obviously cannot be proved as real.
To what post are you referring?

Did filipiniana said something like this? I remember he/she or someone else said there is a "secret agreement" between EP and AP. An illusion or false memory? :-[
I have to confess that, since this thread isn't in my area of responsibility, I haven't been keeping up with the discussion all that much.  You'll need to quote the post you're referencing or post a link to that post for me to see what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on February 01, 2009, 05:10:18 PM
As far as I know there is no any"under table agreement"betwwen EP and AP for Philipines. Why someone insist on such phantasy which obviously cannot be proved as real.
To what post are you referring?

Did filipiniana said something like this? I remember he/she or someone else said there is a "secret agreement" between EP and AP. An illusion or false memory? :-[

1.  I said it in Reply #354.

Could it be possible that during the meeting of Autocephalous Orthodox leaders that Pat. Ignatius brought up the Phillipines issue with the EP and the EP OK'ed the addition of the Phillipines to the Metropolitan of Australia and New Zealand resulting in the EP's comments that the canonical nightmare needs to be rectified?

So, just as I can attend an EP or Antiochian Church in the USA, I can do the same for the Phillipines even though the same canonical nightmare exists in the latter as it does in the former?   ???

Such a decision between two Patriarchs is not likely to be publicized on anyone's website; However, some official paperwork is bound to exist whether in Damascus or Australia?

2.  No one apparently has said anything 3 months after the change in the Metropolitan's Website was made in November 2008.  For no one to have raised an objection (especially the EP's Met. of Hong Kong) leads me to believe that the change was made with the blessing of the EP especially when the EP Himself called for an Ecumenical Council to resolve all canonical issues.  After all, how can the EP object to the Philippines where the same jurisdictional mess exists in the USA and elsewhere?  Now, as to Antiochian Clergy celebrating Novus Ordo Masses, that is a pastoral decision which is made by Met. Paul Saliba although I bet that allowing the celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass as an Orthodox Liturgy doesn't count as Economy.

Remember, the Patriarch of Antioch is known as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch where Greek only signifies language and (ideally) nothing else.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. George on February 02, 2009, 08:32:01 AM
Remember, the Patriarch of Antioch is known as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch where Greek only signifies language and (ideally) nothing else.

Yikes.  You need to read a lot more history before posting something as wrong as this.  We've addressed this in other threads, dude - threads that I know you've read and participated in.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2009, 08:41:37 AM
Remember, the Patriarch of Antioch is known as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch where Greek only signifies language and (ideally) nothing else.

Yikes.  You need to read a lot more history before posting something as wrong as this.  We've addressed this in other threads, dude - threads that I know you've read and participated in.

Wrong how?  However appropriate, the term Greek Orthodox is used as opposed to Greek Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, and Maronite patriarchs who also claim Antioch (although I only recall seeing the Arab/Greek Orthodox having a cathedral there).
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on February 02, 2009, 12:51:04 PM
Remember, the Patriarch of Antioch is known as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch where Greek only signifies language and (ideally) nothing else.

Yikes.  You need to read a lot more history before posting something as wrong as this.  We've addressed this in other threads, dude - threads that I know you've read and participated in.

From their homepage, http://www.antiochpat.org
Copyright 2004 Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East.

From their English language homepage, http://antiochpat.org/english/sitefiles/
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East

How am I wrong? ???
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: PeterTheAleut on February 02, 2009, 01:00:09 PM
Remember, the Patriarch of Antioch is known as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch where Greek only signifies language and (ideally) nothing else.

Yikes.  You need to read a lot more history before posting something as wrong as this.  We've addressed this in other threads, dude - threads that I know you've read and participated in.

From their homepage, http://www.antiochpat.org
Copyright 2004 Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East.

How am I wrong?   ???
There's more to your assertion than just the name "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch".  What about your reasoning that this title "Greek" signifies language only and nothing else?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on February 02, 2009, 01:09:01 PM
There's more to your assertion than just the name "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch".  What about your reasoning that this title "Greek" signifies language only and nothing else?

Exactly what you said - The Greek Orthodox Church obtains the name from the use of the Greek language and to distinguiush Herself from the Roman Catholics who use Latin as a liturgical language only.   :)  As for the Patriarch of Antioch, the use of Greek in His Title is to distinguish the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch from everyone else in Antioch as ialmisry mentioned.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. George on February 02, 2009, 01:13:16 PM
Remember, the Patriarch of Antioch is known as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch where Greek only signifies language and (ideally) nothing else.

Yikes.  You need to read a lot more history before posting something as wrong as this.  We've addressed this in other threads, dude - threads that I know you've read and participated in.

Wrong how?  However appropriate, the term Greek Orthodox is used as opposed to Greek Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, and Maronite patriarchs who also claim Antioch (although I only recall seeing the Arab/Greek Orthodox having a cathedral there).

Wrong: "language only and (ideally) nothing else."   Sorry I wasn't clearer.  Methinks you will agree with my assessment.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. George on February 02, 2009, 01:15:53 PM
Remember, the Patriarch of Antioch is known as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch where Greek only signifies language and (ideally) nothing else.

Yikes.  You need to read a lot more history before posting something as wrong as this.  We've addressed this in other threads, dude - threads that I know you've read and participated in.

From their homepage, http://www.antiochpat.org
Copyright 2004 Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East.

How am I wrong?   ???
There's more to your assertion than just the name "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch".  What about your reasoning that this title "Greek" signifies language only and nothing else?

I'm glad someone understood what I was getting at.  The title "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch" is a given; although, truth be told, "Roman Patriarch of Antioch" is probably more historically correct.  But the Greek appellation is for more than language (which is - surprise! - Arabic, no?), but for culture, musical tradition, phronema, etc.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. George on February 02, 2009, 01:16:50 PM
There's more to your assertion than just the name "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch".  What about your reasoning that this title "Greek" signifies language only and nothing else?

Exactly what you said - The Greek Orthodox Church obtains the name from the use of the Greek language and to distinguiush Herself from the Roman Catholics who use Latin as a liturgical language only.   :)  As for the Patriarch of Antioch, the use of Greek in His Title is to distinguish the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch from everyone else in Antioch as ialmisry mentioned.

That's not "exactly" what he said.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on February 02, 2009, 01:17:28 PM
There's more to your assertion than just the name "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch".  What about your reasoning that this title "Greek" signifies language only and nothing else?

Exactly what you said - The Greek Orthodox Church obtains the name from the use of the Greek language and to distinguiush Herself from the Roman Catholics who use Latin as a liturgical language only.   :)  As for the Patriarch of Antioch, the use of Greek in His Title is to distinguish the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch from everyone else in Antioch as ialmisry mentioned.

What doesn't come out in the English is that the word in Arabic for Greek in this means "Roman."
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on February 02, 2009, 01:22:08 PM
I'm glad someone understood what I was getting at.  The title "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch" is a given; although, truth be told, "Roman Patriarch of Antioch" is probably more historically correct.  But the Greek appellation is for more than language (which is - surprise! - Arabic, no?), but for culture, musical tradition, phronema, etc.

I've never seen a kotsari danced at an Antiochian Church festival or hafli.

The Byzantine/Greek Culture didn't result in a loss or diminuition of Arabic Culture.

I used the term "ideally" as a sarcastic tone to help the people in the Philippines understand why they are in the middle of a Jurisdictional roller coaster like America in the 1910's and 1920's.  I apologize for not being clearer and I ask for forgiveness....
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. George on February 02, 2009, 01:26:59 PM
I've never seen a kotsari danced at an Antiochian Church festival or hafli.

Oh, I'm sorry - I guess I needed to be clearer.  BYZANTINE ECCLESIASTICAL MUSIC - something "they" and "we" have in common...

The Byzantine/Greek Culture didn't result in a loss or diminuition of Arabic Culture.

Roman/Greek/Byzantine Culture was there before "Arabic."  Thankfully, the Arabic Culture didn't result in a loss or "diminution" of Roman/Greek/Byzantine Culture - instead, the two blended well to create Antiochian Christianity in the modern world.  How wonderful.

I used the term "ideally" as a sarcastic tone to help the people in the Philippines understand why they are in the middle of a Jurisdictional roller coaster like America in the 1910's and 1920's.  I apologize for not being clearer and I ask for forgiveness....

Yikes.  It was a strange way of saying it, to be sure.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SolEX01 on February 02, 2009, 04:24:17 PM
^ Whew, I hope everyone feels better.   8)  I apologize once again for the roller coaster caused by my own word choice.   :angel:  At least I didn't suggest that Orthodox Christian Filippinos take a crash course in liturgical Arabic or Greek.   ::)

Yes, I forgot about listening to A Capella Byzantine Chant at the Antiochian Church in my area.  I also forgot about the fun we had posting in size 99 font.   ;D

Your last post made for a good laugh.    :laugh:  :D
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on February 04, 2009, 07:21:18 AM
Friends..

Most of you have probably heard about the jurisdictional problems here in the Philippines. I have been chrismated in the Antiochian jurisdiction, but then again even the way I was chrismated was questionable in a sense that I was only anointed on the head. I have decided now to leave the jurisdiction, especially with all the stuff that's been happening, I prefer to be in an Orthodox Church, where its being canonical is least questioned. Besides, the priests of the EP here, do not recognize my chrismation, and even tell me that because of what happened in my case, I have to be re-baptized into the Orthodox faith.

What precisely, if I may ask, do they think necessitates re-baptism? something expressly forbidden by the Creed?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on February 04, 2009, 10:36:18 PM
It is because of the manner I was chrismated, in a sense that it was "unorthodox" (I can't find the right term). I was anointed only in the head, which is of course not the way it should be. It was what was decided by the EP vicar in Manila.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on February 05, 2009, 12:11:49 AM
It is because of the manner I was chrismated, in a sense that it was "unorthodox" (I can't find the right term). I was anointed only in the head, which is of course not the way it should be. It was what was decided by the EP vicar in Manila.
I can see that argument (not that I agree, but I can see the argument), but why rebaptism?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: philip xavier on February 13, 2009, 04:48:37 AM
im happy that sohma hatori has found a more stable home in the EP.May the grace of our Lord Jesus be always with him.
Im just sad that the question of territorial jurisdiction really left a bittter taste in the mouth.To those who are contemplating to make the big jump to orthodoxy from what orthodox christians would call uncanonical and heteredox churches...the heated debate about it appears, to the reading observer like me,  to produce more heat than light. It seems like the drama unfolding at the foot of the cross of Christ, while Christ pays the supreme sacrifice for the sins of mankind, the roman soldiers haggle and gamble for the earthly possessions of Christ. The whole world is suffering....yet here we are...fighting each other to be the sole governor and administrator of a territory. its just so sad..
But i am not a priest nor the son of a priest...just a sinner........ 
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on March 03, 2009, 05:42:14 AM
I agree with ozgeorge:"The sooner you all join the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Philippines the better." yepp, I fully honestly agree if only it were so simple. (no this is not sarcasm). As he well knows in some countries Antiochian priests and lay would be welcome, but in others sadly not :-(

We aim for unity while recognising the tragic disunity :-(

I have no interest in assigning blame for the various kinds of messes created by every patriachate at various times. What is more useful is as someone posted- creating unity and resolving the issue.

Which is why it is important to remember as i posted before: there *were* ongoing discussions over several years between Antioch and EP about this (neither secret nor under nor over any tables). However, we have no right to demand explanations from any Antioch and EP bishops about these matters since they are acting following patriachate blessings. If anyone has a problem it should be taken up with your own Patriach, not used as a chance to attack other jurisdictions.

Any concern over current liturgical practices should be seen in perspective of a temporary transition toward the proper St John Chrysostom liturgy. How can people expect priests to learn this in 1 day. please be realistic. It takes awhile to learn properly Met. Paul has invested considerable $ in providing training so the transition should be possible. All those photos will not be relevant in a year!

There are obviously challenges in the Philippines, but they are best overcome between the patriachs who discussed within the context that there are now 1000s of new Orthodox there. This is a good thing, even though messy. We should not assign bad motives nor lack of foresight where none exists. Such a low view of bishops is not healthy.

Also, please do not quote me and put words or interpretations in my mouth. I think I am being quite clear and calm here.

May God lead us to love and unity,
in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on March 03, 2009, 05:49:55 AM
Which is why it is important to remember as i posted before: there *were* ongoing discussions over several years between Antioch and EP about this (neither secret nor under nor over any tables).

Father, there are "ongoing discussions" on this forum- doesn't mean people agree. An ongoing discussion is just that, a discussion. We have Orthodox-Catholic dialogues going on- doesn't mean either side has agreed on dogmatic differences. A discussion is not a blessing to do something, nor an agreement on a course of action; it's a discussion.

George
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on March 03, 2009, 05:55:12 AM
PS, thanks ozgeorge for trying to keep this calm and truthful.
To clarify, you could not find the link because there has never been any "prebyterial report". i have no idea where that concept came from. My only post about this was on this forum.

Why would I know what is happening? I first went to the Philippines in 1987. Although based in Australia i am a missionary priest. Over the last 25 years I've probably been to 20 countries, especially India, and keep in close contact with the Philippines situation. hence my grief :-( Also Met. Paul discusses this with me.

Which is why i suggest again that anyone too upset should talk to their Patriarchs and not promote unseemly arguments.

in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton, Antiochian Orthodox priest, Archdiocese of Australia, NZ and Philppines.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on March 03, 2009, 05:59:37 AM
Hi George,

You wrote: "Father, there are "ongoing discussions" on this forum- doesn't mean people agree. An ongoing discussion is just that, a discussion. We have Orthodox-Catholic dialogues going on- doesn't mean either side has agreed on dogmatic differences. A discussion is not a blessing to do something, nor an agreement on a course of action; it's a discussion."

Yes i get your point. Quite valid. Let me clarify. I do not *know* whether there were just discussions or actual *agreements* made. I'm being perfectly frank. I *understood* that there *was* some agreement. To know we'd have to ask the Patriarchs involved. You have my full encouragement to do so. maybe that would clarify all this! More light and less heat would be great :-)

in Christ,
Fr John D'Alton
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on March 03, 2009, 06:01:13 AM
Which is why i suggest again that anyone too upset should talk to their Patriarchs and not promote unseemly arguments.
I fully agree Father, which is why I did precisely that.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.msg288123.html#msg288123

And I received a response. If you would like, I can pm it to you.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on March 03, 2009, 06:22:12 AM
George, well done! I just went back and saw a few posts I missed including you sending the fax. Pls do send the answer to me.

As for Chris Gain, as far as i know, he is no longer under the Antiochian Patriachate and has not been for quite some time, probably from not long after his release from Met. Paul.

AFAIK, Met. Paul was appointed by the holy synod of Antioch as Archbishop of Philippines. He would never self-appoint!

I know you will still not be happy with this. I will not argue with you. I leave it up to our respective patriarch's to resolve. Otherwise we lesser saints (or greater sinners) will have too much anger and not the wisdom of our Patriarchs to handle our disagreement in love and wisdom.

May God work it out in our lifetime! warmly,
in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 03, 2009, 06:31:20 AM
Could it be possible that during the meeting of Autocephalous Orthodox leaders that Pat. Ignatius brought up the Phillipines issue with the EP and the EP OK'ed the addition of the Phillipines to the Metropolitan of Australia and New Zealand resulting in the EP's comments that the canonical nightmare needs to be rectified?
Sol, read again.
The Statement of the EP came out in July 2008. The Antiochian Archdiocese changed it's title to include the Philippines in November 2008.
If you go to the official website of "The Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and The Philippines" you will find links to two videos of the Metropolitan there which were uploaded in November and, to the tune of some touchy-feely evangelical song, you will see the video's entitled: "Welcome Paul Saliba His Eminence Metropolitan Primate of Australia and New Zealand"...no mention of "The Philippines" in his title then.
Check the videos for yourself:
http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=56

I am puzzled why the matter of overlapping jurisdiction should be a matter of concern in this particular case.

How many Orthodox bishops are there in Australia with the title of "Sydney, Australia and New Zealand"?  Bishops from the Church of Constantinople, Russian, Antiochian, Serbian, Romanian... more?   If we have overlapping jurisdictions and episcopal titles in Australia, why is it a problem in the Philippines?  Yes, it is out of line with the canons, but let's face it, it is the norm in the entire diaspora.  The Serbian bishop in Australia even has (or has it been removed?) the title "... of South Africa" depite the fact that that is way out of line since it is arguably the canonical territory of Alexandria.

I suspect that there is Greek bishop with the title "...of Japan" even though there is an autonomous Church of Japan.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on March 03, 2009, 06:50:37 AM
Oh, another PS :-)

Someone wrote: "So the issue, I understand, is not simply that it is Western Rite, but rather, that it appears deceptive in a predominantly Roman Catholic country to have an Orthodox Church which looks exactly like a Roman Catholic Church......I think  this needs to be made clear to His Eminence, Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba."

I know for a fact that His Eminence was quite aware of this and took it into consideration, plus 25 other issues, in deciding what way and when and how to have a transition to St john Chrysostom liturgy, when there were untrained priests with no good orthodox vestments, living at the poverty line... etc

It is below orthodox good manners to assume that his eminence would not have thought about this. At least in Antioch we know that our bishops think about things. If anyone has another experience with their own bishop they should not project this onto other bishops. "Where the bishop is, there  i s the church" St Ignatius. let us have a higher regard for bishops and honour them as representing Christ.

It is therefore quite inappropriate for a lay person to suggest that anything needs to be made clear to a bishop on a public forum, which he is likely to have already considered. Such statements demean and dishonour bishops and sound arrogant. Orthodoxy is humility as the Mt. Athos holy ones teach us. People should stop assuming the worst of Met. Paul.

in Christ,
Fr John D'Alton
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on March 03, 2009, 06:52:31 AM
If we have overlapping jurisdictions and episcopal titles in Australia, why is it a problem in the Philippines? 
Because this would be nothing short of colonialism of the worst kind.
Why would we want to export something to the Philippines which is uncanonical here?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: CCTE on March 03, 2009, 06:53:23 AM
And I received a response. If you would like, I can pm it to you.
Why you don't put the response here, in the topic?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on March 03, 2009, 07:01:03 AM
It is below orthodox good manners to assume that his eminence would not have thought about this. At least in Antioch we know that our bishops think about things. If anyone has another experience with their own bishop they should not project this onto other bishops. "Where the bishop is, there  i s the church" St Ignatius. let us have a higher regard for bishops and honour them as representing Christ.
I'm all for respecting Bishops. But this is not about personalities, it's about canonical Ecclesiology.

Orthodoxy is humility as the Mt. Athos holy ones teach us. People should stop assuming the worst of Met. Paul.
Orthodoxy is truth, as the Athonites teach us. The Athonites are actually among the first to speak up when a Bishop does something uncanonical. Yes, we are Christ's sheep, but we are rational sheep. And the rational sheep of Christ want this insanity of jurisdictionalism to end.
We have created a jurisdictional nightmare here in Australia with different Bishops claiming jurisdiction over the same territory, and now our Australian Bishops want to export this to other nations.
Why?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on March 03, 2009, 07:14:38 AM
Father Bless,

Father John, there is just a concern I would like to raise with all due respect. I was chrismated by the vicar-general of Davao during His Eminence's visit to the Philippines. Unfortunately due to a sudden change of travel plans, I had to go home to my hometown on the day when His Eminence Paul was supposed to celebrate Divine liturgy at a hall they rented from a protestant church, so I was not able to attend and be chrismated by him. However, the vicar priest did agree to chrismate me in a simple ceremony. We said a few prayers, informal ones, then he anointed me, but only on my forehead.

I  had so many doubts about that "chrismation" because I am aware that this is not the prescribed practice. But then, I was told that this was also the method by which others including some priests themselves were chrismated.


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 03, 2009, 07:37:02 AM
If we have overlapping jurisdictions and episcopal titles in Australia, why is it a problem in the Philippines? 
Because this would be nothing short of colonialism of the worst kind.
Why would we want to export something to the Philippines which is uncanonical here?

Well, you exported it to my country, in the 1960s, and it seems to be working very well.  We now have a variety of "colonising" jurisdictions and converts are able to choose the one which suits them best.  Some prefer Russian ways (often Roman Catholics), others Greek and others Antiochian (often Anglicans.)   The multiplicity of Orthodox Churches colonising this country has accelerated the rate of conversion.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on March 03, 2009, 07:53:44 AM
Father Bless,

Father John, there is just a concern I would like to raise with all due respect. I was chrismated by the vicar-general of Davao during His Eminence's visit to the Philippines. Unfortunately due to a sudden change of travel plans, I had to go home to my hometown on the day when His Eminence Paul was supposed to celebrate Divine liturgy at a hall they rented from a protestant church, so I was not able to attend and be chrismated by him. However, the vicar priest did agree to chrismate me in a simple ceremony. We said a few prayers, informal ones, then he anointed me, but only on my forehead.

I  had so many doubts about that "chrismation" because I am aware that this is not the prescribed practice. But then, I was told that this was also the method by which others including some priests themselves were chrismated.

Chrisimation of those who have not received Orthodox Baptism is supposed to complete what is lacking in their baptism. In other words, anyone who is received from an heterodox Church by Chrisimation could also be received by Baptism and Chrisimation, but Chrisimation only is a way of receiving converts which completes what is lacking in their baptism.
I don't understand why the Antiochian Church would receive people with an abbreviated form of Chrisimation. It seems to me that if you were receiving people whose baptism was lacking, you would receive them with full Chrisimation.
Perhaps there is some abridged form of Chrisimation in the Antiochian Church?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on March 03, 2009, 08:08:01 AM
And I received a response. If you would like, I can pm it to you.
Why you don't put the response here, in the topic?
Because this situation is causing terrible pain in the Philippines.
I know people personally who are suffering because of this. I don't want to add to their pain, or bring any more discredit to the Orthodox Church there than this sorry situation already has.
Those who want to know for genuine reasons (not gossip) have asked me and I've pmed them.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on March 03, 2009, 08:45:26 AM
Could it be possible that during the meeting of Autocephalous Orthodox leaders that Pat. Ignatius brought up the Phillipines issue with the EP and the EP OK'ed the addition of the Phillipines to the Metropolitan of Australia and New Zealand resulting in the EP's comments that the canonical nightmare needs to be rectified?
Sol, read again.
The Statement of the EP came out in July 2008. The Antiochian Archdiocese changed it's title to include the Philippines in November 2008.
If you go to the official website of "The Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and The Philippines" you will find links to two videos of the Metropolitan there which were uploaded in November and, to the tune of some touchy-feely evangelical song, you will see the video's entitled: "Welcome Paul Saliba His Eminence Metropolitan Primate of Australia and New Zealand"...no mention of "The Philippines" in his title then.
Check the videos for yourself:
http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?i=56

I am puzzled why the matter of overlapping jurisdiction should be a matter of concern in this particular case.

How many Orthodox bishops are there in Australia with the title of "Sydney, Australia and New Zealand"?  Bishops from the Church of Constantinople, Russian, Antiochian, Serbian, Romanian... more?   If we have overlapping jurisdictions and episcopal titles in Australia, why is it a problem in the Philippines?  Yes, it is out of line with the canons, but let's face it, it is the norm in the entire diaspora.  The Serbian bishop in Australia even has (or has it been removed?) the title "... of South Africa" depite the fact that that is way out of line since it is arguably the canonical territory of Alexandria.

No argument about it: the agreement was made between everyone in the 1920s, sparing Africa much of the nonsense that goes on in the diaspora.

Quote
I suspect that there is Greek bishop with the title "...of Japan" even though there is an autonomous Church of Japan.

I recall when the Greek hierarchy was set up there, but I don't about it since.

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

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

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

If we have overlapping jurisdictions and episcopal titles in Australia, why is it a problem in the Philippines? 
Because this would be nothing short of colonialism of the worst kind.
Why would we want to export something to the Philippines which is uncanonical here?

Well, you exported it to my country, in the 1960s, and it seems to be working very well.  We now have a variety of "colonising" jurisdictions and converts are able to choose the one which suits them best.  Some prefer Russian ways (often Roman Catholics), others Greek and others Antiochian (often Anglicans.)   The multiplicity of Orthodox Churches colonising this country has accelerated the rate of conversion.

Father, I don't know about Australia, but in the U.S. it also has cost a number of conversions, and the craddle Orthodox, who tire of the squabbling.  Then there are those (and from our CAF days, I know you know this) from the Vatican pointing out that at least with them, you know who is in charge, and even state that the Orthodox are not a Church, something Card. Kasper claims.

Myself, I would prefer the OCA solution (yes, it has done some things right.  Their translations are also generally the best), local bishops, a number of which serve as eparchies for various ethnic groups.  Or what Alexandria and Antioch have done with vicarates.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 03, 2009, 09:01:01 AM
I suspect that there is Greek bishop with the title "...of Japan" even though there is an autonomous Church of Japan.

I recall when the Greek hierarchy was set up there, but I don't about it since.

I happen to know because the Greek bishop who held the title "...of Japan" was one well known to me during his 30 year tenure here in Wellington.

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


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on March 03, 2009, 07:21:27 PM
Dear ozgeorge,
I think I have not explained what i meant clearly. i agree with you about using our minds and keeping correct " canonical Ecclesiology". As you wrote: "I'm all for respecting Bishops. But this is not about personalities, it's about canonical Ecclesiology."
That's exactly what I mean. The canons say if you have a problem with a bishop you talk to them directly. The canons and Orthodox ecclesiology do not allow for open slander as some others have done on this list. I know that you have faxed the right people, well done. The canons and the holy fathers also talk about refraining from gossip and the virtue of covering up the sins of others and not exposing them, so that problems in the Church are dealt with in decorum. that is what i am talking about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on March 03, 2009, 07:30:54 PM
Dear Sohma and ozgeorge,

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

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

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

in Christ,
Fr. John
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on March 03, 2009, 07:56:14 PM
That's exactly what I mean. The canons say if you have a problem with a bishop you talk to them directly.
Which Canons actually say this Father? I don't think the Canons stipulate this. The difficulty in this situation is that there is no Ecclesiastical Court or any other body recognised by both sides as authoritative because of the uncanonical situation of multiple jurisdictions. If we were, say, in Greece or Damascus, the matter could be settled by the Synod of the local Church, and if anyone were not satisfied that the outcome was correct, then they could appeal to Constrantinople under the Canons. The problem we have here is that two Bishops are claiming jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church in the same area (a problem which has existed for about 3-4 generations in countires like the US, UK, Australia etc).  

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

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

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


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

By this you are also attacking Arch Stylianos of Australia, so i suggest you don't do that, but in humility ask him directly why.
And be ready in humility to agree or disagree but live with the answer :-)
What exactly are you accusing Archbishop Stylianos of here? I actually have no problem with disagreeing with him, and have done so in the past, but I'm not sure what you are talking about here. What has Archbishop Stylianos done specifically to warrant this accusation? The first Orthodox Bishop in Australia and New Zealand was Metropolitan Christoforos of the Ecumenical Patriarchate- you're surely not going to suggest that Archbishop Stylianos is responsible for the jurisdictional mess here?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on March 03, 2009, 08:06:34 PM
Hi,

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

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

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

Be careful what you write.

in Christ,
Fr. John
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on March 03, 2009, 08:09:52 PM
PS,

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

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

in Christ,
Fr John
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on March 03, 2009, 08:39:54 PM
Just open them in the right way to right people.
You mean, like this?:
I think this needs to be made clear to His Eminence, Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba.
;)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on March 03, 2009, 08:50:31 PM
Yes George, like that! :-)

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

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

Canon from the Council of Chalcedon:

Canon IV.

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

Fr. Aris Metrakos wrote on the web:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in Christ,
Fr. John D'Alton
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on March 03, 2009, 09:20:45 PM
From the Rudder- 85 canons of the Holy Apostles: on the correct procedure and who to accept in relation to attacks on bishops.

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

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

Interpretation.

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

Concord.

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

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

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

Interpretation.

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

Concord.

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

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

in Christ,
Fr. John
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on March 05, 2009, 03:14:46 AM
The correct procedure is for 2 or more lay people to thus talk to their bishop and present evidence directly, and let the bishops decide
No, what the Canons say is that lay people can be witnesses against the Bishop. They don't have to approach the offending Bishop themselves, they lodge their complaint with another Bishop/s.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Mexican on March 22, 2009, 02:26:16 AM
What can we say about the Novus Ordo?

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

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

This is so confusing.

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

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

I would say the same about the Church, in order to have a Byzantine Liturgy celebrated correctly, the church facilities must be adapted propperly, as the acrhitecture used for the modern Western Mass is different from that of the Byzantine church.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: yochanan on April 09, 2009, 11:10:35 AM
Hmm.. Sorry, I'm just back now..  ;D (it's been years) So.. It is possible for a country to have several jurisdictions.. Any Filipinos watching this thread? Please do help me with this: What jurisdiction would you be in? and what are your reasons?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: AMM on April 24, 2009, 08:58:09 AM
So there is an Orthodox group that basically uses an unaltered Novus Ordo?  Interesting.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Michał on April 24, 2009, 09:38:20 AM
So there is an Orthodox group that basically uses an unaltered Novus Ordo?  Interesting.

Are they still using it? I thought it was going to be only temporary.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: AMM on April 24, 2009, 12:05:18 PM
Dunno.  That's why I'm asking.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on April 24, 2009, 05:11:24 PM
Dunno.  That's why I'm asking.

Any Philippinians here?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on April 24, 2009, 06:58:42 PM
Dunno.  That's why I'm asking.

Any Philippinians here?

Chrystus Zmartwychwstal!

I think you mean Filipinos.  Phillippians are those St. Paul wrote to.


Btw, what's a Podlachian?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: _Seraphim_ on April 24, 2009, 07:30:47 PM
Wonderful News!  The Philippines are now on the OrthodoxMysteries (http://www.orthodoxmysteries.com) world map!  You can see and hear an Orthodox icon and chant from the Philippines at:

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


Christ is risen!  Truly He is risen!

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

Si Kristo nabanhaw!  Siya nabanhaw gayud!
(Cebuano: from the island of Cebu, the second-largest metropolitan area in the Philippines... provided by a dear friend of mine :) on this forum who lives in that region)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Michał on April 24, 2009, 09:45:39 PM
_Seraphim_, thank you for the link. Do you know, or can you, please, get information, what rite are they using on the Philippines? Is it still Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Missae or have they turned to one of the Orthodox Liturgies, Eastern or Western?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Michał on April 24, 2009, 10:06:36 PM
Chrystus Zmartwychwstal!

Prawdziwie zmartwychwstal!

Btw, what's a Podlachian?

I know that mike is currently busy so I'll try to give you the answer. Here "Podlachian" is an adjective derived from the word "Podlachia" (other forms: Podlesia, Podlasie), a name of a region in the north-eastern part of Poland (please, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podlachia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podlachian).
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on April 24, 2009, 10:41:58 PM
Chrystus Zmartwychwstal!
Chrystus Zmartwychwstal!

Prawdziwie zmartwychwstal!

Btw, what's a Podlachian?

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

Is this near the Lemkos?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Michał on April 24, 2009, 11:15:18 PM
Is this near the Lemkos?
Nope. Lemkivshchyna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemkivshchyna) is in the south-eastern part of Poland.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on April 25, 2009, 04:25:01 AM
_Seraphim_, thank you for the link. Do you know, or can you, please, get information, what rite are they using on the Philippines? Is it still Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Missae or have they turned to one of the Orthodox Liturgies, Eastern or Western?

To answer that, the Ecumenical Patriarchate here, uses Eastern Rites, while the Antiochian Church, uses Western Rites and even uses the Roman Catholic Calendar (or at least I found out that they do)..
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Michał on April 25, 2009, 05:16:13 AM
. . .while the Antiochian Church, uses Western Rites

But are they the Liturgy of St. Gregory and/or the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, or simply Novus Ordo (1 hour long, priest facing the people)?

. . .and even uses the Roman Catholic Calendar

In the US the Western Rite parishes under the Antioch use such a thing: http://www.antiochian.org/node/18577 but I don't know if it is 100% compatible with the Roman Catholic calendar.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on April 25, 2009, 05:20:35 AM
They are using the Novus Ordo..

Aren't all Orthodox, regardless of calendar supposed to celebrate only ONE Pascha? Even the Old-Calendar Orthodox Churches have the same Pascha date with the New Calendar Orthodox. The RC Calendar dates a different Pascha, and as I found out, that is what the Antiochians here celebrated..
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Michał on April 25, 2009, 05:32:37 AM
They are using the Novus Ordo..

I hope it's temporary economia.

Even the Old-Calendar Orthodox Churches have the same Pascha date with the New Calendar Orthodox.

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

The RC Calendar dates a different Pascha, and as I found out, that is what the Antiochians here celebrated..

Well, that made them celebrating in the same time as the Orthodox in Finland and Estonia (although they do it for economy, not for economia ;)).
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on April 25, 2009, 05:40:25 AM
They are using the Novus Ordo..

I hope it's temporary economia.

Even the Old-Calendar Orthodox Churches have the same Pascha date with the New Calendar Orthodox.

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

The RC Calendar dates a different Pascha, and as I found out, that is what the Antiochians here celebrated..

Well, that made them celebrating in the same time as the Orthodox in Finland and Estonia (although they do it for economy, not for economia ;)).

I believe it is temporary, after all the members of the Antiochian community in Davao, are urban poor, living in very poor conditions.. A complete set of a Byzantine Bishop's vestments might even cost more than their houses, and im not exaggerating! I do hope they could adopt a canonical Western Liturgy.

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

Also, what's the difference between economy and economia? (forgive my unfamiliarity with the terms)..   
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Michał on April 25, 2009, 05:54:11 AM
Also, what's the difference between economy and economia? (forgive my unfamiliarity with the terms)..

By economia I meant "the suspension of the absolute and strict applications of canon and church regulations in the governing and the life of the Church, without subsequently compromising the dogmatic limitations" (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_(Eastern_Orthodox_Church) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_(Eastern_Orthodox_Church))) and by economy - simply managing money (in Finald the Church is granted by the state as long as it has Christmas and Easter at the same time as other Christian communities in the country; I'm not sure if it's also the case in Estonia but I suppose so).
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on April 25, 2009, 06:26:35 AM
Also, what's the difference between economy and economia? (forgive my unfamiliarity with the terms)..   
I believe it is a play on words, but the fact is that both words come from the same root and actually share similar meanings.
In ancient Greek, "OIKOS" (pronounced "EEKOS") means "HOUSE" and "NOMOS" means "LAW" or "RULE", so "OIKONOMIA" ("ECONOMIA") means "THE LAW OF THE HOUSE", that is, the rules which regulate how a house runs to keep it functioning. For example, because of my work hours and family commitments, in my house, I receive friends on Saturdays, Mondays and Tuesdays. So the general rule of hospitality which we must practice as Christians is practised in this particular way according to the particular rule ("economia")  of my house. The same applied to governments of nations. While the Constitutional or Federal Law is the "General Rule", the State's budget varies from year to year and province to province, thus the "Economy" of the State (how it is run fiscally) also varies and forms a "Particular Rule".
In the Church, the word "Economia" means the particular way in which the general Canons are to be observed in a local Church. This is contrasted with "Akrevia" which means "Exactness" and is the exact application of the Canons. Thus, for example, the 101st Canon of the Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Council states that we should receive the Body of Christ in our hand and drink the Blood of Christ directly from the Chalice, however, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, this is now only practised by the Clergy, and by the Laity only on the rare occasions when the Liturgy of St. James is offered. The practice of placing the Body in the Chalice and administering both with a Spoon ("labis") is an "economia" which local Bishops once allowed , and has since developed into a tradition. It is not an exact following of the Canons (akrevia), since the Canon still says we should receive directly into our hand, but it is how the Church has come to apply the Canon.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Pravoslavbob on May 01, 2009, 12:53:47 PM
The discussion concerning the Finnish date for Pascha has been moved
here. (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21035.0.html)   I would like to encourage everyone to research past threads on OC.net and/or create their own threads on matters of interest.  IIRC, the "Finnish Question" has certainly been discussed before.
Please try to keep this thread on topic.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator
 
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on July 26, 2009, 06:39:55 AM
I don't think sohma is right. Having spoken to one of the leading Philippino priests it is my understanding that the ex-Protestant group is using the standard Western Rite Orthodox service, and the other group is using an ancient Syrian rite which is Orthodox. In some photos they *look* like they are doing novus ordo because they adopted (were forced to adopt) various catholicisms. But it is NOT novus ordo which no orthodox bishop would allow! I would like to know what evidence sohma has? is it just photos? hearsay? gossip? Or have you actually been to a service? I find it hard to believe various bishops and priests have told me lies over this, so i must assume sohma was just misinformed. Please do clarify.

in Christ,
Fr. John
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on July 26, 2009, 10:05:29 AM
I don't think sohma is right. Having spoken to one of the leading Philippino priests it is my understanding that the ex-Protestant group is using the standard Western Rite Orthodox service, and the other group is using an ancient Syrian rite which is Orthodox. In some photos they *look* like they are doing novus ordo because they adopted (were forced to adopt) various catholicisms. But it is NOT novus ordo which no orthodox bishop would allow! I would like to know what evidence sohma has? is it just photos? hearsay? gossip? Or have you actually been to a service? I find it hard to believe various bishops and priests have told me lies over this, so i must assume sohma was just misinformed. Please do clarify.

in Christ,
Fr. John
Father Bless..

Father forgive me.. I have never been to one of the services due to distance. And for a very long time now, I have not been communicating with the Antiochians. The information I have of them using a Novos Ordo rite comes from other people, (who of course are not from the Antiochianns).
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on July 26, 2009, 07:23:12 PM
God bless you sohma_hatori,

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

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

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

in Christ,

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

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: collin_nunis on October 16, 2009, 11:39:01 AM
Bless Fr. John,

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

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

Speaking of the Novus Ordo, I do believe that it can be Orthodox-ified. As much as I find the Novus Ordo to be highly uninteresting and uninspiring, I do believe that there is much that the Orthodox can do to redeem the Novus Ordo by restoring the riches and truths of ancient Christendom back into the Western Rite through the Novus Ordo. The Orthodox have done a good job SO FAR with the Sarum, Tikhonite/BCP, and Gregorian/Latin liturgical uses, so why can't we one-up the Romans yet again with our own Orthodoxified version of the Novus Ordo? The Novus Ordo is not Orthodox by default, but if the Gospel calls us to worship in spirit and truth, we can bring that warmth of the Holy Spirit into the Novus Ordo. Orthopraxis is possible for the Novus Ordo - we'd just have to do things right.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipinopilgrim on November 02, 2009, 10:54:33 PM
Quote
God bless you sohma_hatori,

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

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



Dear Fr. Alton

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: filipinopilgrim on November 02, 2009, 11:00:16 PM
Quote
God bless you sohma_hatori,

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

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



Dear Fr. Alton

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on November 04, 2009, 06:14:40 AM
Am I to understand that the Antiochians in the Philippines claim that the group to which they formerly belonged is a persecuted or catacomb Church of Syrian provenance, that predates the Hispanic conquest of the Philippines in 1565?

If so, then that claim is preposterous. If indeed they made that claim – for that is the only way to interpret your letter – then I have to say that they have uttered a great dishonesty. The fact is that there has not and never been an ancient Syrian Church in the Philippines.
Interesting how the "Lost Tribe of Israel" type of mythology is being used these days by representatives of even mainstream Churches. And it seems to be most prevalent among the Orthodox, particularly the Western Rite.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on November 04, 2009, 07:54:59 AM
Am I to understand that the Antiochians in the Philippines claim that the group to which they formerly belonged is a persecuted or catacomb Church of Syrian provenance, that predates the Hispanic conquest of the Philippines in 1565?

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

This is the first time I have ever heard it in connection with the WRO (and this isn't even about the WRO but the Antiochians period).  I find it a lot among the Greek Orthodox, from the Jerusalem Patriarchate to the GOARCH claiming roots from a failed colony of submitters to the Vatican.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on November 08, 2009, 02:11:15 AM
The Davao Vicariate of the Antiochians in the Philippines is requesting to canonically leave the Australian Archdiocese for the ROCOR.. I have confirmed this news via Fr. Martinian Balagtas, a Filipino Heirodeacon under ROCOR, to whom His Eminence Vladyka Hilarion has passed the news...
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on November 08, 2009, 02:22:01 AM
The Davao Vicariate of the Antiochians in the Philippines is requesting to canonically leave the Australian Archdiocese for the ROCOR...

Well, if this is true, I imagine they will whip things into shape.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on November 08, 2009, 04:53:16 AM
The Davao Vicariate of the Antiochians in the Philippines is requesting to canonically leave the Australian Archdiocese for the ROCOR...

Well, if this is true, I imagine they will whip things into shape.

His Eminence Vladyka Hilarion said that if things push through with the canonical transfer, he plans to re-cathecize the people there first before formally receiving them into the Russian Orthodox Church as he is also well aware of how messy things have become there. I'm wondering however if this isn't going to cause yet again another bickering on jurisdiction, though I am very much hoping that it will not. I am very happy to know that many groups of people out there who are interested in bringing the Filipino people to the Church of Christ.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on November 08, 2009, 08:48:26 AM
Please, inform us about the issue. Nice to realise that you are all right, sohma_hatori.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on November 08, 2009, 09:23:49 AM
Please, inform us about the issue. Nice to realise that you are all right, sohma_hatori.

Thanks for the concern.  :) If this is about the recent wave of typhoons that hit our country, well things are still in bad shape. About a thousand or more are dead, many more thousands left homeless. And as if this wasn't enough, drought has also ruined the southernmost part of the Philippines, it has only been now that the monsoon rains which were suppose to hit the southern part by August only just came, and this ruined rice harvests. But thatnk God, that we were still able to salvage our crops even if just a little. Please pray for us!

If I am not mistaken, the Russian Orthodox Church in Hong Kong is under the MP and Indonesia is under the ROCOR. What I've heard from Fr. Martinian is that both MP and ROCOR are coordinating on this matter since most overseas Filipino converts to Orthodoxy are with the MP. In any event, I pray that things will go well for all of us here. I pray that there will be less bickering, and more cooperation. I know this sounds rather too idealistic or something, and that a reality check might just slap me in the face, but I still hope and pray that everybody will be ok with each other here. After all, with the rising popularity of "Christian" Sects that deny Christ here in the Philippines (i.e. Iglesia ni Cristo, Kingdom of Jesus Christ under Apollo Quiboloy, etc), it is only through the brotherly efforts of the many Orthodox people's here (Greek, Serbian, Russian expatriates, and the few Filipinos who have come to the Church) that will combat the spread of heresy.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ozgeorge on November 08, 2009, 11:30:06 AM
Thanks for the concern.  :)
You've been in our prayers.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24135.0.html
Good to see you back!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2010, 02:28:57 PM
This thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26348.msg415777/topicseen.html#msg415777

reminded me of this thread.

Has the dust settled in the Phillipines?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on March 10, 2010, 03:02:57 PM
Or has the smoke stopped blowing?  ;D
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on July 04, 2010, 05:09:41 PM
Quote
SAINT ANASTASIA MISSION

Friday 2nd July 2010: We welcome the new Western Rite ROCOR mission of Saint Anastasia in Davao City in the Philippines. The mission is led by Chrysostom Canezal, and is planning to acquire a house in Davao City for use as the Saint Anastasia Orthodox Centre.

source (http://orthodoxchristianwest.blogspot.com/)

It looks like ROCOR has started acting there. Did they take over Antiochian Missions or is it something new?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Fr. John D-Alton on July 04, 2010, 06:51:46 PM
Good question. Some of the people are new, others are ex-Antiochian. May God give the very godly Vl. Hilarion wisdom to deal with people who will probably just want to move on again somewhere else once they discover that their ways are questioned.
There are sadly so many who want no accountability and think that they have learnt orthodoxy in 10 minutes :-(
The critics will no doubt now attack Moscow as well as Antioch. But wait till the Romanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians and Alexandrians also arrive ;-)

Lord have mercy,

Fr. John D'Alton
Holy Transfiguration Mission
Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 04, 2010, 08:15:59 PM
Quote
SAINT ANASTASIA MISSION

Friday 2nd July 2010: We welcome the new Western Rite ROCOR mission of Saint Anastasia in Davao City in the Philippines. The mission is led by Chrysostom Canezal, and is planning to acquire a house in Davao City for use as the Saint Anastasia Orthodox Centre.

source (http://orthodoxchristianwest.blogspot.com/)

It looks like ROCOR has started acting there. Did they take over Antiochian Missions or is it something new?

My information is that this is a "one off" Western Rite mission.  

Several months ago when the Antiochian Vicariate of Davao approached the Russian Church Abroad for reception (and I understand that the Antiochian Met Paul of Sydney was agreeable) the Russian Church Abroad declined the request because it does not have the wherewithal in terms of clergy and resources to adequately assist and oversee such a large scale project in the Philippines.

PS:  I clicked on the Tag "EP Bashing" and it leads to 40 threads which bash the EP.   Why is the EP so massively disliked in the Orthodox world?   :(
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Bruce in Iloilo on July 22, 2010, 03:59:54 PM
This is a bit off-topic, at least judging from the selection of replies that I read, but I live in the Philippines, just joined the forum and wanted to say "Hi".  

I hope to attend an Orthodox service or two soon since my interest in liturgy has grown over the years and I have only attended one Orthodox, or rather Eastern service (a Greek Catholic one in Boston).  

One reason for my interest is my conversion from the Episcopal Church (USA) to the Roman Catholic church several years ago and in those years I have tried to stay active in Anglican Use circles.  With the announcement of the coming Anglican Ordinariates within the Catholic Church, there has been more interest in Anglican Use and a few of us are trying to put together a small AU group here in the Philippines.

I hope too to learn some more about the Orthodox perspective on various issues.  I have read a bit on Orthodoxy especially from Frederica Mathewes-Greene, a feminist pro-lifer, wife of a priest, and Orthodox convert from Anglicanism, which I enjoyed and found deepened by faith.

According to the Board Policy we should not describe Eastern Rite Catholics in the way you did as it can be received as an offence. BTW welcome to the forum.

mike
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on July 24, 2010, 01:29:49 PM
Welcome, Bruce!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: onesimuscruz on December 05, 2010, 10:03:05 AM
is there anybody who could confirm if the Davao vicariate under Fr. Jeptha Aniceto was officially received into ROCOR? Their list in the Philippines parishes in the antiochian orthodox australian website seemed deleted.
What happened?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Michał on December 05, 2010, 10:13:45 AM
This website may be helpful: http://saintpetrocmissionarysociety.blogspot.com
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: onesimuscruz on December 06, 2010, 09:11:08 AM
thank you.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: FrMichael on February 11, 2011, 02:24:31 PM
Joseph Aniceto was officially excluded from ROCOR missions in the Philippines by his Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion in writing last year.  ROCOR has two operating missions in the Philippines, both under Saint Petroc Monastery.  We have no connection with any other jurisdiction in the Philippines and we do not acknowledge anyone's suzerainty there it is a missionary area.

Fr. Michael
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on February 11, 2011, 02:37:55 PM
We have no connection with any other jurisdiction in the Philippines

Is that the thing to be proud of?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: CCTE on February 11, 2011, 03:12:04 PM
Joseph Aniceto was officially excluded from ROCOR

Why?
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: philip xavier on February 12, 2011, 01:20:32 PM
Joseph Aniceto was officially excluded from ROCOR missions in the Philippines.

That leads to more questions and blank walls of silence.

Hope the ROCOR mission moves fast toward North of the Philippines. Its indeed a vast mission area, and the grains are ready for harvest.

Lets pray for more harvesters...Lord have mercy..
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on April 14, 2011, 06:55:58 AM
Joseph Aniceto was officially excluded from ROCOR missions in the Philippines.

That leads to more questions and blank walls of silence.

Hope the ROCOR mission moves fast toward North of the Philippines. Its indeed a vast mission area, and the grains are ready for harvest.

Lets pray for more harvesters...Lord have mercy..

For information re the ROCOR western rite missions in the Philippines, which claims 200 plus souls ( originating and released from Antioch, I read) see: http://orthodoxwesternrite.wordpress.com/698-2/ (http://orthodoxwesternrite.wordpress.com/698-2/)

Quote
Saint Thomas Orthodox Mission[/b]

Mindanao, the Philippines   

Thomas, the faithful servant and disciple of Christ, filled with divine grace, cried out from the depth of his love: You are my Lord and my God!

The Saint Thomas Mission is a thriving Orthodox community of 140 former Old Catholics who entered the Church in 2008 through Antioch and, after obtaining canonical release, were later received by ROCOR with the blessing of Metropolitan Hilarion.  They, and their pastor, whom they refer to as Father from habit and affection (and therefore so do their brothers and sisters in Christ in England), own their own church building which they use for regular Sunday services and meetings throughout the week. The faithfulness of these people worshipping together and raising their children in the Faith without a priest of their own is an inspiring witness.  They are all Chrismated Orthodox and have for the past year received occasional visits from Orthodox clergy.  The mission is in the middle of an area where the moslem Abbu Sayyef terrorists operate and no Priest serving this mission visiting from Australia will be named or have his schedule known.

Advice on travel and terrorism in the Philippines from the Australian government

“We strongly advise you not to travel to Mindanao, including mainland Mindanao, the Zamboanga Peninsula and the Sulu Archipelago, due to the very high threat of terrorist attack, including kidnapping, and related counter-terrorism operations.   Armed clashes between Philippine security forces and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front could occur without warning, including in central Mindanao”.


St Thomas' traditionally built church.

Some of the faithful of St Thomas’ Mission who came as a family to the fullness of Christ in Holy Orthodoxy.

Interior of the church.

As you can see there are many children and young people, please pray particularly for them that they continue to be blessed to grow up in the Orthodox Church.
.
Saint Anastasia Orthodox Mission

Mimndanao, the Philippines

This formerly Old Catholic mission is without its own pastor, with only some lay leaders and occasional visits from Orthodox clergy.  About eighty people, it incorporated as a ROCOR mission and is searching for a property to use for worship.

________________________________
NB

Jeptah Aguas Aniceto and Chrysostom Canezal

We realise that the activities of these two have caused legitimate concern and remind you that they have been formally excluded from involvement in the Philippines Missions by the Metropolitan at Fr Michael’s request. The formal document of exclusion has been circulated in the Philippines, the original is held in Saint Petroc Monastery.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Orthoconvert71 on May 20, 2011, 11:26:33 AM
Greetings in Christ:

I am happy to hear that their are Orthodox Christians in the Philipines and they are under the Patriarchate of Antioch. 

I work with people from the Philipines. :)

May God bless the converts to the Antiochian Orthodox Church and may God bless Metropolitan Philip.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on May 20, 2011, 11:27:35 AM
You mean Metropolitan Paul, don't you?

Welcome to the forum!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Orthoconvert71 on May 20, 2011, 12:14:03 PM
My apologies----I've been out of the loop lately.   Was Metropolitan Phililp retired recently? 

Sorry....Trying to get into the loop again.

Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Orthoconvert71 on May 20, 2011, 12:16:50 PM
Thank you for welcoming me.



You mean Metropolitan Paul, don't you?

Welcome to the forum!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on May 20, 2011, 12:21:27 PM
AFAIR Metropolitan Philip is the Antiochian Metropolitan of North America and Metropolitan Paul is the Antiochian Metropolitan of Australia. They are not realted despite their share a family name.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Orthoconvert71 on May 20, 2011, 12:21:59 PM
I meant blessings for the both of them.  Yes, Metropolitan Paul (Saliba) is head of the jurisidciton in the Philipines, if I have understood this correctly.  May God bless bless him.

You mean Metropolitan Paul, don't you?

Welcome to the forum!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Michał on May 20, 2011, 01:08:49 PM
AFAIR Metropolitan Philip is the Antiochian Metropolitan of North America and Metropolitan Paul is the Antiochian Metropolitan of Australia. They are not realted despite their share a family name.

Are you sure? I've heard they were cousins of some sort.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: smithakd on May 21, 2011, 02:50:53 AM
AFAIR Metropolitan Philip is the Antiochian Metropolitan of North America and Metropolitan Paul is the Antiochian Metropolitan of Australia. They are not realted despite their share a family name.
Are you sure? I've heard they were cousins of some sort.

Michal - I believe that originated on OrthodoxWiki a while back and, after some time on there (and the enquiries of an American priest, IIRC), was corrected. See: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Paul_%28Saliba%29_of_Australia%2C_New_Zealand_and_the_Philippines
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on May 21, 2011, 06:32:19 AM
Oh, thanks.
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: choy on November 05, 2012, 04:02:43 PM
Why is this a sticky?  Sorry, too lazy to read through a dozen pages :p
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: frjohnmorris on January 17, 2014, 12:34:01 AM
_Seraphim_, thank you for the link. Do you know, or can you, please, get information, what rite are they using on the Philippines? Is it still Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Missae or have they turned to one of the Orthodox Liturgies, Eastern or Western?

To answer that, the Ecumenical Patriarchate here, uses Eastern Rites, while the Antiochian Church, uses Western Rites and even uses the Roman Catholic Calendar (or at least I found out that they do)..

Metropolitan Paul told me in July that his parishes in the Philippines use the Byzantine Rite.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: sohma_hatori on May 23, 2014, 12:35:59 AM
Pictures of the current Churches in the Philippines in case there is interest:  :police:

Sunday of Orthodoxy, at the Annunciation Cathedral (Ecumenical Patriarchate)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/t1.0-9/10252018_612594155485820_7843666072281882858_n.jpg)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/10151214_612594318819137_2243521275528360266_n.jpg)

Feast of the Annunciation. (St. Mary's Chapel, Antiochian Archdiocese of AU and NZ)

(https://scontent-b-hkg.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/1525361_613617622064693_434568430_n.jpg)

(https://scontent-b-hkg.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/l/t1.0-9/10152492_613616968731425_339138356_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: biro on October 03, 2014, 12:13:42 AM
Sorry I took so long to look at this thread. Very nice pictures!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: ialmisry on October 03, 2014, 12:23:33 AM
Somehow I missed this. Very nice pictures. Many years of fruitful mission!
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mabsoota on October 03, 2014, 07:01:11 AM
ialmisry, you missed an 11 page thread?!
 ???
where have you been?

surely not busy in the real world?
 :o

quick, stop all your useful activity and get back on the internet!
 ;)

(seriously, though, nice pictures, as biro said)
 :)
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: mike on May 16, 2015, 12:28:20 PM
Large Number of Filipinos Join Orthodox Church : Mass Baptism Held
https://www.facebook.com/orthodox.christian.news/posts/1739044932988774
Title: Re: Conversions in Philipines
Post by: Iconodule on May 16, 2015, 02:38:04 PM
Large Number of Filipinos Join Orthodox Church : Mass Baptism Held
https://www.facebook.com/orthodox.christian.news/posts/1739044932988774

Glory to God.

I'm guessing no one considered bringing the Western rite into this.