Talk:Orthodoxy in the Philippines

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Cite!)
(Cite!)
Line 37: Line 37:
  
 
:Unfortunately, nowadays official Orthodox church websites do not normally post the names of their excommunicated clergymen and members, hence, we just have to content ourselves with declarations coming from former associates and followers [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:ASDamick&diff=55622&oldid=54734][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Angelo_Piccio&diff=161457349&oldid=158710631] of the said Australian clergyman. It would be helpful also to review the deleted portions of this Discussion Page for further information.--[[User:PedroPenduko|PedroPenduko]] 09:20, December 12, 2007 (PST)
 
:Unfortunately, nowadays official Orthodox church websites do not normally post the names of their excommunicated clergymen and members, hence, we just have to content ourselves with declarations coming from former associates and followers [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:ASDamick&diff=55622&oldid=54734][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Angelo_Piccio&diff=161457349&oldid=158710631] of the said Australian clergyman. It would be helpful also to review the deleted portions of this Discussion Page for further information.--[[User:PedroPenduko|PedroPenduko]] 09:20, December 12, 2007 (PST)
 +
 +
:: Citations don't necessarily need to be from websites; they can be from print publications, as well.  Declarations coming from former associates and followers don't really make for good scholarship, however accurate they may be.  Where it's controversial, we need to cite.  If we can't cite, we should omit.
 +
 +
:: I don't really know the details of this particular situation, but it could be said, for instance, that a particular group is not in communion with the rest of the Orthodox Churhc, that there is no official record of their operation by their claimed jurisdiction, etc.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 10:48, December 12, 2007 (PST)

Revision as of 10:48, December 12, 2007

Contents

"clandestine and cultic"

This language is pretty strong -- maybe it would be helpful to have more identification here -- what are these groups like, what are they called? "Clandestine and cultic" should have some documentation to fill it out, otherwise this language is just regarded as personal opinion. — FrJohn (talk)

Thanks, Filipino - it's very interesting, if not helpful, to see all of those groups. Perhaps strong language is appropriate, but maybe they are not all clandestine or cultic according to your definitions? Definitely they breed confusion, and it can be good to identify groups to avoid. — FrJohn (talk)

If they are clandestine as you say "Filipino, then why are they listed with the Philippine Exchange Commission, have been recognized as religious entities by the Philippine government, and some of these groups are members of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines. Please stop politicizing this entry. ---Marcus

The term "clandestine" has been removed. The groups are what they are - it isn't really of concern to us here. Marcus, can you provide any solid documentation related to the arrival of the Lebanese families you metioned in the 1800's? Thanks, — FrJohn (talk)

Antiochians in the Philippines

It seems to me that we should keep the reference in to the Lebenese families. Not sure why it is so contentious. Certainly, any canonical claims cannot merely rest on the "a few families from someplace arrived here first" argument. It's an interesting historical tidbit, anyway.
About the other matters, I kindly request that you both refrain from personal attacks and from attributing bad motives to one another, at least here. These are difficult issues, and it's a difficult time in church history (can't think of one that wasn't...). Ultimately, the bishops must work these things out. Honestly, I think that all of these "it's my territory" claims are doomed to failure in the so-called diaspora. The world has changed - increased mobility of peoples and other forces of globalization means that traditionally Orthodox peoples, each with their own histories, find themselves in far corners of the earth. Naturally, they bring their heritage -- and their hierarchy -- with them when there is no established and deeply rooted Orthodox church body in the region. The various jurisdictions will simply have to learn to live with each other under these new circumstances, observing and preserving carefully the bonds of communion which tie us together. I am sympathetic with the desire for canonical order that I see reflected in Filipino's statements, as well as the desire for an authentically indigenous Orthodoxy I see in Marcus' comments. It seems to me that these issues won't be really worked out unless there is a functioning primacy according to Orthodox canonical tradition, that bears the interests of the whole deeply in its heart. We may all dream of such a day, but it doesn't appear that this will happen anytime soon.
I want to emphasize once again that the role of OrthodoxWiki is not to take a side in these debates, but to honestly reflect the situation as clearly as possibly, avoiding gossip, speculation, and slander. The articles should reflect who says what, where, when and (to the degree it can be ascertained) why. This may not solve anything -- but that's not the purpose here. I hope this approach will be of service to people trying to figure these things out on all sides.
May God bless us and have mercy on all of His struggling children! — FrJohn (talk)

Deletions

The recent deletions have been approved. Please don't rollback. Thanks, — FrJohn (talk)

Fr John, are you referring to this talk page or to Theognosis' recent deletions of the Antiochian part of the current events subsection? While that section was, perhaps, wordy, I'm not certain why it would be deleted wholesale. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 16:53, September 11, 2007 (PDT)

Cite!

This article, which has been so surprisingly contentiously edited, is in severe need of third-party citations. Wikipedia articles don't count, and neither do websites maintained by the editors. Aside from that, it's honestly hard to know whom to trust, especially with such claims and counter-claims being made.

This has the potential to be a very good and interesting article, if only its scholarly foundations would be established. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 06:00, December 1, 2007 (PST)

Definitely agreed. I'm wondering if you can use some of your Antiochian connections to check on the canonical status of the Antiochians there. It's an interesting case study too for foreign missions canonical territory re: foreign missions. — FrJohn (talk) 19:00, December 1, 2007 (PST)
It's honestly hard to trust statements coming from excommunicated clergyman and editors belonging to an uncanonical church jurisdiction. --PedroPenduko 09:08, December 3, 2007 (PST)
Absolutely. But it's also hard for the majority of the editors (who aren't in the PI) even to know who's who. That's why there need to be citations from reliable third-party sources. We don't demand that standard for all article, but where there's a contentious one, it's to be expected. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 18:55, December 3, 2007 (PST)
Perhaps we can start with a citation for the excommunication itself? While it would serve to explain - and to explain the sudden disappearance of the official website, along with a number of other occurances - correlation isn't causation. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 19:02, December 11, 2007 (PST)
Unfortunately, nowadays official Orthodox church websites do not normally post the names of their excommunicated clergymen and members, hence, we just have to content ourselves with declarations coming from former associates and followers [1][2] of the said Australian clergyman. It would be helpful also to review the deleted portions of this Discussion Page for further information.--PedroPenduko 09:20, December 12, 2007 (PST)
Citations don't necessarily need to be from websites; they can be from print publications, as well. Declarations coming from former associates and followers don't really make for good scholarship, however accurate they may be. Where it's controversial, we need to cite. If we can't cite, we should omit.
I don't really know the details of this particular situation, but it could be said, for instance, that a particular group is not in communion with the rest of the Orthodox Churhc, that there is no official record of their operation by their claimed jurisdiction, etc. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 10:48, December 12, 2007 (PST)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox