asianpilgrim,

a better person from the Antiochians to talk to would be Fr. Chris, a monk who was based in the Phillipines before.

The "Carmelite abbot" belonged to the vagante group. I don't think he became Antiochene.

That used to be the case. At present, a lot of Discalced Carmelites (in Spain, for instance) don't even bother to wear clerical dress.

Kabayan,
So it appears that it is only the local Filipino lay faithful that does not recognized the Antiochians in the Philippines as Orthodox and "absolutely rejects" their canonicity. Am I right? I'm afraid that is the reason why there is no official statement from the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong because it is only the lay faithful in the Philippines who rejects the canonicity of the Antiochians and considers them as non-Orthodox.

Thanks for the link but I did not see any statement coming from any Greek Orthodox clergy there who would verify your assertions that the Greek Orthodox Church rejects the canonicity of the Antiochians in the Philippines etc.


If your assertions based on the allegations of the lay faithful you have spoken with is true, how come that an allegation of such magnitude is not published in the official website of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia?

Is it possible that this group is somehow related to the Philippine Independent Church (also known as the "Aglipayans")?

Fr. Serge

I can see no indications of any such links.

At any rate, the Aglipayans are pretty much a spent force. The main cathedral in Manila has stopped having daily services, and the grounds are unkempt and dusty. (I was there very recently).

And from the most recent census figures, the Aglipayan stronghold of Ilocos Norte has become majority Catholic in the last ten years.

One pastoral problem that the quiet but steady flow of Aglipayans back to the Catholic Church has produced, is the way a lot of Aglipayans meld into Catholic parishes without being formally received into the Church. This can be problematic, since the validity of Aglipayan baptisms is questionable due to the existence of a strong Unitarian faction within the Aglipayan family of churches. This is another reason why the Aglipayans are a lot stronger on paper than in reality: many Aglipayans become de facto Catholic without ever bothering to register or formalize their change of churches. (By the way, there is no equivalent to RCIA in the Philippines).

I have a friend whose Aglipayan father converted to Catholicism on his deathbed. The hospital chaplain insisted on baptizing the man because the latter had been baptized into the Aglipayan church during its Unitarian days.

The problem with the Aglipayan schism is that it was a purely political move at its inception: it was basically an attempt to form a Philippine National Church without any ties to Rome and without any foreign bishops. To justify the schism, Gregorio Aglipay came up with an extremely rationalistic and Unitarian theology combined with a ritual that was almost purely Tridentine, albeit in the vernacular, and a devotional life that mimicked Catholic piety in everything. Everyone knew, though, that the real reason for the schism was the agitation for Filipino bishops.

The schism began to sputter out almost as soon as it started, as Rome appointed the first Filipino bishop in 1905 and as the Philippine Supreme Court forced the Aglipayans to hand back the churches they had seized from the Catholics in 1907.

Gregorio Aglipay -- who was "ordained" bishop by a group of priests and laymen -- tried in vain to get valid orders from the Old Catholics and even from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. He was constantly rebuffed; it was not until 1948 (after Aglipay's death) that the Aglipayan bishops received "orders" from the Episcopalians. This, of course, raised questions about the credibility of the Aglipayan church -- why did Aglipay continue to act as a bishop when he clearly knew that he was no bishop?

Under pressure from the Episcopalians, the Aglipayans also began to revise their doctrine and liturgy to become more "orthodox". This fractured the Aglipayan community into several warring factions, with some groups clinging to Aglipay's original theology and vision.

At present, the Aglipayan Church is mainly identified with radical labor groups and leftwing activism.

Ok... back to our topic!

Regarding the position of the Greek Orthodox Exarchate on the canonicity of the Antiochenes in the Philippines: I will only say one thing -- go to the Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Paranaque and talk to the deacon, priests and members of the diakonia there. Ask them yourselves.

That is the last that I will say on this topic.

There are a million reasons why things are not put on websites, so the fact that their position on the canonicity of the Antiochenes in the Philippines is not (yet) on the website of OMHKSEA does not prove or disprove anything.

According to this website, the Antiochenes backed out from creating the mission in the Philippines.

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/7364272

That was in 2007. Things are VERY DIFFERENT now.

Well, it happens everywhere. Apparently, the Maronites wanted to start a mission in Perth. The priest, seeing how much he had to do to get established, ran away after 3 days.

Ever since the last Antiochian priest here retired due to health issues, the Antiochian parish here has since died off. Fr. Ed Doncaster now occasionally preaches at St. Nektarios Greek Orthodox Church, and communes there every Sunday.

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/7364272 [/quote]

That was in 2007. Things are VERY DIFFERENT now. [/quote]

Thank you for clarifying the date asianpilgrim. Its been months since I last heard of any development in the growth of Orthodoxy (and those claiming to be Orthodox) in my dear beloved land of ours.

You are welcome, Eumir.

If ever you come back to the Philippines, I hope that you can help make more Catholics aware of the beauties and riches of the Byzantine East.

AP

Kabayan,
Thanks for clarifying. I apologize if you were offended by my words.