Author Topic: Conversions in Philipines  (Read 107319 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #270 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?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #271 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.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #272 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?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #273 on: January 29, 2009, 01:22:20 PM »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Elpidophoros

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #274 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.

Offline filipiniana

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #275 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:



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." 

« Last Edit: January 29, 2009, 01:37:42 PM by filipiniana »
I will no longer post in OCnet.
Be kind to one another!

Filipiniana

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #276 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."
« Last Edit: January 29, 2009, 01:45:22 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline filipiniana

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #277 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.



                THIS IS THE ANTIOCHIAN BRAND OF ORTHODOXY IN THE PHILIPPINES
I will no longer post in OCnet.
Be kind to one another!

Filipiniana

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #278 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
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline filipiniana

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #279 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:

I will no longer post in OCnet.
Be kind to one another!

Filipiniana

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #280 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:



I'm sorry, but nothing is coming up for your image, so I don't know what "this" is to explain.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Elpidophoros

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #281 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....

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #282 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.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2009, 03:24:43 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Online PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,050
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #283 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. ::)
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #284 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
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #285 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.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline mike

  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,589
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #286 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"
« Last Edit: January 29, 2009, 03:51:36 PM by mike »
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

not everything I typed before [insert current date] may reflect my current views on the subject

Offline Veniamin

  • Fire for Effect!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,372
  • St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #287 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.
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

Offline Elpidophoros

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #288 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 ???
« Last Edit: January 29, 2009, 04:14:17 PM by Elpidophoros »

Offline Veniamin

  • Fire for Effect!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,372
  • St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #289 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.
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

Offline Elpidophoros

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #290 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....

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #291 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.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #292 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.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Elpidophoros

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #293 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.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #294 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.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Elpidophoros

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 292
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #295 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.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #296 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.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #297 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.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline mike

  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,589
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #298 on: January 29, 2009, 05:49:58 PM »
everybody blows his own horn
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

not everything I typed before [insert current date] may reflect my current views on the subject

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #299 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.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #300 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?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #301 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."


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.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline filipiniana

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #302 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:



               His Eminence Metropolitan Paul Saliba with his newly ordained priests in the Philippines
I will no longer post in OCnet.
Be kind to one another!

Filipiniana

Offline filipiniana

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #303 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.


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.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 10:37:13 AM by Pravoslavbob »
I will no longer post in OCnet.
Be kind to one another!

Filipiniana

Offline filipiniana

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #304 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? :( 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.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 04:03:52 AM by filipiniana »
I will no longer post in OCnet.
Be kind to one another!

Filipiniana

Offline filipiniana

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #305 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.


« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 05:26:45 AM by filipiniana »
I will no longer post in OCnet.
Be kind to one another!

Filipiniana

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #306 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
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 06:51:28 AM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline filipiniana

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #307 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.




« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 08:43:20 AM by filipiniana »
I will no longer post in OCnet.
Be kind to one another!

Filipiniana

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #308 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.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Islas Filipinas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #309 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.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #310 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.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #311 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.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,264
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #312 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.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline filipiniana

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #313 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)

I will no longer post in OCnet.
Be kind to one another!

Filipiniana

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,061
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Conversions in Philipines
« Reply #314 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!