Changes

=="clandestine and cultic"==This language is has been a pretty strong -- maybe it would be helpful to have more identification here -- what are these groups like, what are they called? "Clandestine contentious article and cultic" should have some documentation to fill it outdiscussion page, otherwise this language is just regarded as personal opinion. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new 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. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new 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 lots 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, — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new 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 hereserious jurisdictional disputes. 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 m really interested in the so-called diaspora. The world has changed a level- increased mobility headed presenation of peoples and other forces the facts 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 life on the regionground here. The various jurisdictions will simply These have been very hard 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. come by! It seems difficult to me that these issues won't be really worked out unless there is a functioning primacy according know who to Orthodox canonical tradition, that bears the interests of the whole deeply trust 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 particular situation as clearly as possibly, avoiding gossip, speculation, and slander. The articles should reflect ''who'' says ''what''Ina ny case, ''where''for now, ''when'' and (to the degree it can be ascertained) ''why''. This may not solve anything -- but that's not the purpose I propose we start 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! — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) == Deletions == The recent deletions have been approved. Please don't rollback. Thanks, — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]):Fr John, are you referring to this talk page or to [[User:Theognosis|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. &mdash; edited by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] ^{''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''} 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 clean slate and interesting article, see if only its scholarly foundations would be established. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] ^{[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]} <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 06:00, December 1, 2007 (PST) :Definitely agreed. I'm wondering if you we can use some make a better go 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 missionsit a second time around. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 1921:0032, December 117, 2007 (PST)