I am not concerned they are becoming Orthodox, but that the Moscow Patriarchate constantly complains about Catholic proselytism in their traditional territory or among their faithful but the Orthodox have no reservation about the same in reverse.

Father,

Incredible as it is to us non-Greeks, the current Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew the Oneth interprets Canon 28 of Chalcedon as giving him canonical authorioty over all territories around the globe except those belonging to existing autocephalous and autononomous Churches. As such all the Americas belong to him, since they did not constitute the traditional territory of the Church of Rome at the time when we were united and no Council has granted them to Rome.

I admit that an uncontrollable desire to collapse into laughter seizes me when I think of this claim. Knowing of this claim, Catholics will better understand why some Orthodox are resolutely opposed to this interpretation of Canon 28, as also to the newly invented role of a Protos of Primus within Orthodoxy and also opposed to Belgrade 2006, Ravenna 2007, and what some are now calling the "Cretan Unia" (the positon paper developed on Crete and presented to but not approved by the Joint International Catholic-Orthodox Meeting on Cyprus 2009.)

LOL. Me thinks thou dost protest too much. The Vatican has shown no such concern in the East. I do remember JP II railing against the Protestants in Latin America, while allegations of human rights were being raised, for instance, in Ukraine.

As for the group in question, they are not under the Vatican. If the Orthodox were stealing sheep, it wasn't from that flock.

Gentlemen,

This announcement has offered all sorts of legitimate questions, as well as having raised a variety of speculative issues - all of which are fairly interesting in and of themselves (but few of which we're likely to have answered, other than by the passage of time).

In the interim, let's NOT wander into who (the EP, the MP, or the Pope) possesses the historical and/or rightful authority to bring these folk from an ecclesia vagante into communion with an Apostolic Church.

If folks want to debate historical and/or canonical territories, proselytism, sheep-stealing, etc, please feel free to do so, but take it up in a new thread.

Many years,

Neil

Interesting discussion.

Whenever I see 500,000 of anything claimed in religious discussions I immediately (rightly or wrongly) assume there is an exaggeration at hand.

Dear Friends

Vagantism exists in Latin America in the form of "Old Catholic" or "Independent Catholic" denominations. However, many of them, seeing the good reputation of the Orthodox Churches, have changed their names and now call themselves Orthodox.

All of them trace their "holy orders" to Carfora, Aftimios, Thuc, Souris, Conteogeorge, etc. just as their US "sister Churches" do. These sects are often founded by men who have been expelled from a Roman seminary (or left because they couldn't handle it) so they looked for an easier way to be clergymen. Some of them are good people who didn't want to pass through all the difficulties you would normally pass if you wanted to be ordained at a serious Church but others do so for convenience Unfortunately, in Latin America, many priests believe their job to be just another occupation, they think they provide a service and that they deserve a pay for what they do so, the priesthood has become an attractive way to do business. It's quite easy to get a "religion minister" permission from the government and the vagantes often pose as Catholic priests and celebrate in funerals, weddings, birthdays, etc.

The Guatemalan case is complicated. There are 3 or 4 independent denominations and they're one against the other. Many of these denominations in Latin America have attempted to join an Orthodox jurisdiction without success. But then there's the situation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, they're virtually unexistant in Mexico and Central America, they have about three churches in all the countries this diocese controls and (at least in Mexico) they actually have no followers. The diocese has been plagued by scandals in the past and there are some priests who have been defrocked or who have become "independent". Bishop Athenagoras isn't living in Mexico (I think he resides in Panama). Therefore, by bringing Archimandrite Vusnic to the country the Ecumenical Patriarchate attempts to heal the diocese's reputation and win followers for the Patriarchate and Orthodoxy.

This is probably the reason why they've allowed this Guatemalan group to join the diocese, something they would never do in other countries (In Ecuador, for example, there is a vibrant and truly Orthodox Non canonical community and they have been unable to be officially received as a community. This is very unfair).

A rival group of the denomination that joined the EP in Guatemala (which dennounces the EP as false and opportunistic, claiming that they actually have at most 1000 followers who actually know nothing about Orthodoxy), is trying to be received canonically by the Coptic Orthodox Church. This is the best thing they can do: the Coptic Church in Mexico is very respectable, they've had no scandals, no problems and the people in charge of it are truly Orthodox and devote. The Copts are taking their time to decide, their Church is studying the case. This is a prudent step, as they don't want to have problems with oportunistic people or people they don't know well.

Changing from vagante to Orthodox isn't easy, you can't receive such a big community with so many clergy and ordain them without knowing if they are prepared for that. Just look at the case of the Philippines, where the Antiochian Church ordained priests who were celebrating the Novus Ordo rite verus populum and who wore Novus Ordo vestments. The pictures are available on many sites.

Hi Mexican,

I found this list of the parishes of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Diocese of Central America, do you know if it is correct and updated?

I don't think it's updated since the new parishes in Guatemala, coming from the group recently received in Orthodoxy, do not appear on the list.

I think there were some parishes in Colombia that went independent recently.

By the way most of the clergy of the EP is from Colombia.

My Spanish is really execrable but after glancing at their website I have a very high degree of confidence that these people are NOT Orthodox. At best they are schismatics, but probably not even that. One really major tip off is when the website of a "church" feels the need to post its bona fides in terms of apostolic succession. That's a huge red flag.

Also few of those listed would pass muster with the Orthodox Church and in any case we don't generally recognize the sacraments of vegantes. The so called "Dutch Touch" is meaningless to us. These are just a bunch of layman playing dress up with serious delusions if they think they are Orthodox.

Not sure how Rome would view them since the Vatican takes a somewhat different view of Holy Orders.