Talk:Orthodoxy in the Philippines
"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)
"clandestine and cultic"
Dear Father John, The online dictionary defined the word clandestine as "existing or operating in a way so as to ensure complete concealment and confidentiality" (). The American Heritage Dictionary defined the word cult as "a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. The followers of such a religion or sect. Listed below are registered churches in the Philippines claiming to be "Orthodox". No other information can be obtained from the internet except the name of their church. I have talked with some members and clergymen of these "orthodox" groups years back while I was searchin for the true Orthodox Church and I found out that they professed the Hindu, Buddhist and "New Age" doctrine of Karma and Reincarnation. They also believed in "mediums" (i.e., Christ, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Theotokos, the Child Jesus etc. possesing their spiritual leaders (priests and bishops) thereby receiving from them the power to heal, prophesy etc.).
1. ARCHBISHOP ISAAC NEE DANIEL L. GOROSPE EASTERN ORTHODOX CATHOLIC MISSION CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, INC.
2. ARCHBISHOP JAMES NEE LEON C. CACHERO JR. INTL. ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, INC.
3. ARCHBISHOP PATRIARCH ABRAHAM JOHN PAUL I NEE ARTEMIO FRANCISCO.
4. PAULINO CANETE-PINERO D.D. OF THE ORTHODOX MISSIONARY FATHERS.
5. BISHOP OF LOS BANOS OF THE ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH INC.
6. BISHOP PRIMATE OF THE ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH INC.
7. BISHOP UNITED ORTHODOX APOSTOLIC EASTERN CHURCH, INC.
8. CONGREGATION OF ORTHODOX CATHOLIC MISSIONARIES INC.
9. DIOCESAN BISHOP OF THE ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CANONICAL DIOCESE OF THE PHILS. INC.
10. DIVINE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST INC.
11. FAR EAST ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH INC.
12. GOVERNING HIERARCH OF THE ASIAN ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH INC.
13. HOLY ORTHODOX CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST INC.
14. KATHOLIKOS ARCHIEREUS OF ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH ORD. IN PHILS.
15. ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH OF AMERICAS & ASIA INC.
16. ORTHODOX CATHOLIC MISSION INCORPORATED
17. ORTHODOX CHURCH IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC.
18. PHIL. ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH INC.
19. PHIL. PATRIARCH OF THE HOLY ORTHODOX CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST INC.
20. PRESIDING PRESBYTER OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN THE PHILS. INC.
21. PRIMATE OF THE ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH INC.
22. SAN AGUSTIN III (DASMARINAS CAVITE) RESIDENTS & MEMBERS OF INTL. ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS LORD.
23. SOVEREIGN ORDER OF THE ORTHODOX HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.
24. ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH, INC.
25. UNITED ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD IN THE PHILS., INC.
26. WESTERN AND EASTERN ORTHODOX CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH MISSIONARIES SOCIETY INC.
27. WESTERN ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE PHILS., INC.
Source: The Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission 
There are other unregistered clandestine and cultic "churches" claiming to be orthodox which are not included in the above list.
Father, since you find the language "pretty strong" please provide a more appropriate alternative. Thank you very much. Filipino 21:27, June 7, 2007 (PDT)
- 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)
- Dear Father John I already removed the "strong language". Thank you for your unbiased insight and kind remarks.
Filipino 10:24, June 8, 2007 (PDT)
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 appears that there is some polemic here, with Marcus representing the Antiochian side and Filipino representing the Greek side. Both have provided different histories of the origins of Orthodoxy in the Philippines, which each seem to bolster jurisdictional claims.
It's difficult for me to imagine that Antiochians aren't in communion with Greeks -- is this really the case? Was the deacon merely representing himself, or was he sent by his bishop?
I can definitely see the canonical problems here, though. It may be helpful to keep in mind that these canonical issues persist throughout the "diaspora" - hence the historical interest in claiming first landing in the country. There is no doubt that these conflicts will remain with us for some time. My hope is that on the wiki we can seek to describe the situation as completely and dispassionately as possible, with attention to the historical circumstance and competing canonical claims. We are definitely biased towards the what we call "Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy", i.e. those churches in communion with the ancient patriarchates (with the exception of Rome), but I would prefer to remain as neutral as possible in the midst of inter-jurisdictional disputes such as this. — FrJohn (talk) 10:45, June 8, 2007 (PDT)
Chris Gain is not a deacon within the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand or any Orthdox Church. His views do not represent the views of any canonical bishop in Australia --Marcus
- I reverted the article to the previus revision as of 17:37, June 8, 2007 by Fr. John. Marcus, please justify your act of deleting the reference to the first reception of Filipino Orthodox Christians in the Philippines and for removing the links to the canonical Orthodox Church in the Philippines. Likewise, Marcus, please cite your sources and historical documents to support your claim about the Lebanese and Syrian Christians in the Philippines. If you can provide evidence and documentation for this then reference to Lebanese and Syrian Christians as the "first" Orthodox Christians in the Philippines should be included in the article.
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. However, many Orthodox Christians in Australia have been hearing more stories about the plight of Indonesian Orthodox Christians--who suffered greatly and are now being cared for under ROCOR--and are sensitive to issues of race, colonialism, and the recent uncanonical actions taken by Constantinople in Great Britain. In addition, there have been complaints made by certain non-Russian slavs in Manila about the lack of sacramental services to certain hierarchs. So there is considerable pressure to establish other jurisdictions in the Philippines and it is likely in the near future, the Filipinos and other nationalities will have more options and more access to Orthodoxy than the type of Helenic Orthodoxy that is in Manila.
Also if you would have taken the time to examine the SEC registration since you specifically mention it, you would have noticed that the registration of the Orthodox Church in the Philippines was a gift from Chris Gain to Patriarch Ignatius IV of (the City of God of) Antioch and All the East. That is why Chris Gain is mentioned in the paperwork. The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese has nothing to do with gifts to the patriarchate and they would appreciate it if you would stop mentioning them in the article without their authorization. I would like to repeat that the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand, and All Oceania has had nothing to do with Chris Gain nor with his Iglesia Ortodoxa ng Pilipinas. The Antiochian Archdiocese was as uninformed as was the Greek Metropolitanate of Hong Kong about this gift and the Archdiocese only found out about this recently.
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.
- 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.