Talk:Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines

From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Parish Listing

I'm not entirely sure that a listing of parishes on this page is entirely appropriate. First, such a listing is already available on the (and websites), and it seems unnecessary to have it here. Second, it doesn't seem to talk about the archdiocese, and seems big enough to have it's own article (perhaps at Antiochian parishes in Australasia or something similar) - one could not do a similar thing with the Greek archdiocese, nor (most likely) with the Serbian dioceses. Third, there is already a number of listings of parishes, albeit by state. Perhaps you'd be able to elucidate on what the parish listing contributes? cheers, --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 02:25, February 7, 2006 (CST)

His Eminence invited me to add it. I did. If you as editor don't want it, then I have no control over that. At least I can inform HE that I did as he asked, but was overruled. The other thing is, there is another jurisdiction which has an article on Orthodoxwiki discussing the Antiochian parishes in Australasia and severely understating the number. This listing gives the correct number and location in contravention to that erroneous listing. -- Chrisg 2006 Feb 07 19:50 EAST
Not that I am officially an editor, but in this area especially, I would be inclined to follow the person who has official standing in the archdiocese (ie, in this case, your self), particularly under an archepiscopal request.
Another concern (although mild, and none of my business) was that it would, if anything, show how small the jurisdiction was: previously, the only jurisdictions that have parish listings on their page are bishopless jurisdictions.
Regarding the other jurisdiction, I'm not sure where you're referring to, but I would be happy for you to fix it (and since it was quite possibly my fault anyway...). However, something to keep in mind: the census 2001 figures are quite handy to have, if only as a comparison (since, for example, I'm quite certain that there are far more than 300,000 Greeks in Australia). -- — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 05:40, February 7, 2006 (CST)


Thanks for fixing up the internal link to the new archdiocesan name.

I don't remember precisely where the false figures were. I think it was in the history of Orthodoxy in Australia. I'll look again when I get some more time.

Thanx again


I'm not sure, but you could have been referring to the statistics article - I tried to clear that one up, removing all confusion, but keeping all detail, hope it worked... -- — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 15:43, February 7, 2006 (CST)


Regarding the sidebox - going through the parish listings, none of the churches use Belarus, Bulgarian, Greek (modern or Byzantine), Russian, Serbian or Ukrainian.

Also, what is the Eastern Hierarchs organisation alluded to in the article? Haven't heard of them. Are they a pseudo-SCCOCA group, or any eastern tradition (eg. Uniates and Oriental Orthodox)? Also, I tried to make the History sections link better; perhaps more can be fleshed out later. Thanks, — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 04:42, March 9, 2006 (CST)


Dear Pistevo

I'm sorry. I would like to change some parish listings but they cannot always reflect all that happens.

Part of the problem is that the priests using these languages do so when needed, and in differing parishes. Two priests speak Bulgarian, four priests speak Russian, two priests speak Serbian, three priests speak modern Greek and two of them and one other can serve in Church Greek. One priest speaks Belarus, and three priests speak Ukrainian. They all use these languages during different services at different places when pastoral situations indicate it is appropriate.

Plus some deacons and subdeacons serve in these languages as well.

Three clergy use Latin during some services. One uses Coptic on occasion. One priest uses Swahili when in Australia. Although we do not advertise these, they flow naturally when the spirituality of the congregation will be uplifted by their use.

Whether Eastern Hierarchs want a listing in OrthodoxWiki is a matter for them. At this stage they appear to want to work quietly and effectively, and without any fanfare.

For the clean-up of the history box and the other files, many thanks

chrisg 2006-03-10 0241 AEDT

Article name

The article name may have one or two problems - firstly, this is the only place that has the 'and all Oceania' bit (ie it's not on the official webpage, nor on any of the parish sites that I frequent); secondly, I would have assumed that the final comma was an americanisation (commas before an 'and', as you no doubt are aware, are the standard in America but not the most of the commonwealth). --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 10:24, May 7, 2006 (CDT)

The New South Wales Parliament has adopted as standard the comma before the separating 'and' in any string. We have adopted the NSW parliamentary standard. I don't know what the other members of the Commonwealth are doing.
My webtech seems to think it is more important for him to pass his university exams than to update the banner on the archdiocesan website. Until I can get the banner updated, the rest of the sites will not be updated. It took three years to get most of the parishes to drop the 'Christian' they insisted on putting in the archdiocesan title. They wanted to follow the North American example. The 'and All Oceania' bit should not take that long. Hopefully....
Thanks for the work you are putting into the OrthodoxWiki Australia and New Zealand project
chrisg 2006-05-08 : 0215 EAST


IMHO, the history section is getting rather large. I would think that a brief summary, headed by a link to a seperate article, would be best. Thoughts? — sτévο, at 07:46, May 24, 2006 (CDT)

Sounds like a good plan to me. —magda (talk) 08:23, May 24, 2006 (CDT)
done chrisg 2006-05-25-0016 EAST
Hm. I thought the intention was an internal link to a separate OrthodoxWiki article... With, you know, a brief summary in this article? —magda (talk) 10:23, May 24, 2006 (CDT)
I've created a separate article with the text from the main article: History of Antiochian Orthodoxy in Australasia. All that's in the main article now is a link, but perhaps one of our Australasian experts could write a summary. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 16:05, May 24, 2006 (CDT)


If you could list the names of the Antiochian Orthodox parishes in Washington DC, that would be much appreciated thanks. chrisg 2006-06-06-2323 EAST

St. George and St. Gregory are in DC proper, while Ss. Peter & Paul is in Potomac, MD, and Holy Cross is in Linthicum, MD.
In any event, though, assuming this is in reference to my recent reversion, the wording of the edit did not specify Antiochian parishes only, but simply used the phrase "the parish priest of Washington, D.C." There are in fact seven Orthodox parishes in DC proper, and another two dozen or so in the DC metropolitan area. The wording as it was made it seem that Metr. Paul was the only parish priest in the whole area. If a reference to the particular parish (presumably St. George Antiochian) were given, this confusion would be avoided. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 08:59, June 6, 2006 (CDT)

How come St Gregory is not listed on the North American website? (Antiochian). chrisg 2006-06-07-0023 EAST

I don't know. I found it via the site. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 09:32, June 6, 2006 (CDT)

The then Archimandrite Paul Saliba says he was an Antiochian Orthodox priest. He says he was THE parish priest of Washington DC. Because he was an Antiochian Orthodox priest, he assumes Orthodox people would also assume he was referring to his own jurisdiction.

Metropolitan Philip (Antiochian Orthodox, North America), appointed him as THE parish priest of Washington DC.

If you like, you could say he was the Antiochian Orthodox parish priest of Washington DC. He says there was no other Antiochian Orthodox parish priest of Washington DC. He was THE parish priest of Washington DC (within his own jurisdiction).

The State of Maryland is a separate state outside the District of Columbia. I am instructed to say the capital city of Washington is in the District of Columbia, not in Maryland.

A matter for you as editor, of course. chrisg 2006-06-07-0959 EAST

It is true that Maryland is outside DC proper, but metropolitan Washington, DC, extends into multiple states, including Maryland (and thus includes parishes in Metr. Philip's diocese, even if those states may individually belong to other Antiochian dioceses). In any event, I'm not sure why this needs to be made an issue, just that it should be made clear in the article that he wasn't the only Orthodox parish priest in the city (which is what the change from "a" to "the" seems to imply). (OrthodoxWiki articles do not usually assume only one jurisdiction in areas where multiple ones exist.) Anyhow, I've changed the wording to try to be more specific. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 20:14, June 6, 2006 (CDT)
Not professing to know terribly much about Orthodoxy in the USA, I don't want to intrude terribly much; but, the terminology of being the parish priest of a particular area seems...strange, at least to me. Priests, to me, are priests of a church that is in a location. That being said, I don't want to edit to reflect this as it may not reflect either Antiochian practise or universal English usage. — edited by sτévο at 21:47, June 6, 2006 (CDT)
It is not customary for Orthodox priests here to be referred to as "of [place]," but rather as you say, "of" a church that is "in" a place. I'm honestly somewhat baffled here.  :/ —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 07:57, June 7, 2006 (CDT)
That being the case, this could be just a question of standard English usage, and as such, 'in' must override 'of'. (That also avoids irritating - but leading to no less than the same conclusion - questions of church hierarchy and the place of bishops and their priests) — edited by sτévο at 17:48, June 7, 2006 (CDT)

More on Status, Title, and Territory

The question of status, title, and territory has been clarified. Please delete the reference to "and All Oceania" from the title for this article. Thanks Chrisg 18:48, March 27, 2007 (PDT)

Fixed! I'm curious as to what occurred in this regard. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 04:23, March 28, 2007 (PDT)

Indeed! A lot of people are curious. Item 4 at is somewhat pertinent, as is . More to follow in the next few weeks. Thanks for the fix. Chrisg 06:03, March 28, 2007 (PDT)