[[User:Filipino|Filipino]] 20:31, June 8, 2007 (PDT)
First, I do not speak for the ancient Antiochian Orthodox Church nor for its Australian archdiocese.
Would you want the family names? The Syrian and Lebanese Consulates in Manila confirmed that after the opening of foreign trade, a number of Ottoman subjects from the Greater Syria province arrived in the Philippines including the Sa-id and Saliba (which became Filipino-nized into "Soliba") families. The Sa-id family has the records to show that their ancestors worked on British ships in the Philippines.
Furthermore, I deleted the references because it is too politicized and shows blind papal-cesaerism, not to mention its highly inaccurate and anti-Arab. The Greek Orthodox Church in the Philippines can not call itself ''the'' Orthodox Church of the Philippines because it is not legally entitled to do so, check the SEC registration again. Nor does it have the canonical or moral authority to do so. According to the 1, 2, 3 Ecumenical Councils, Antioch was given the jurisdictional territory of "All the East" which means all of Asia and for this reason Antioch had parishes in China, Indonesia, and India as early as the 2nd century in the year of our Lord. It is also known that the Patriarchate of Moscow still considers the Philippines its missionary area because of its early presence in Manila. May God grant you guidance and wisdom to refrain from attacking the ancient See of Antioch, the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, and for showing more careful and loving discernment in your writing about Orthodoxy in the Philippines.
--Marcus
: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.