Controversial Maps To Debate

[Aloysius]

so... these are all my controversial views on various borders throughout the world:

[url="http://www.brianpadraig.com/world.html"]http://www.brianpadraig.com/world.html[/url]
(scroll down below the liturgical calender and map of Christendom for controversy)
... anyone got a problem with that?

of course, I do not support terrorism of any kind, I should make that clear.

so... which one of these maps does someone want to debate me about? ... I'd bet the Palestine one would be clouded in the most controversy. My position in this debate is in support of the right of self-determination of those groups and organizations which have historically held lands. I say that after a few generations when colonists have dug their heals in to much, the local people ought still to be given the right to their own nation on their own land even if it is not feasible to fully rid that land of colonial rule. This position is best illustrated by my position on the Lakota map and on the Palestine map, as whilst I do not believe the United States should lose its entire territory just because it is the result of colonization which displaced the American, I do believe the American Indians ought to have their own small protectorate nations with full sovereignty and independence over their own lands which co-exist in alliance and trade with the US... in the same way it is not feasible to hold that the European Colonial Jews who laid claim to the British Territories in Palestine following the Second World War should be entirely removed from the land or from power, but I do believe a very large portion of that territory ought to be given back to the Palestinian people. Jerusalem ought to have international status with power sharing between Jews, Muslims, and Christians from the area, of course, to secure peace in that city.

I am not exactly proposing simple democratic self-determination, as I do not believe it is necessarily majority status which ought to determine where an independent nation ought to be supported. For instance, there remains a protestant majority in Northern Ireland, yet I support those six counties being included as part of the Republic. Majority status is a tricky subject, of course, because it all depends upon where you put the borders... for on the whole island of Ireland there is a Republican majority, even in only all the western counties of the Northern Ireland section of Ulster there is a Republican majority.... it is only from one densely populated location that the majority loyalist position receives its majority support in those six counties.

What say you to my ridiculous idealism? ... I think this can make for some interesting debates...

[Apotheoun]

Below is my revised version of your ecclesiastical map.

[i]The six major patriarchates:[/i]


[img]http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/six_patriarchates.gif[/img]

[Aloysius]

cool... I divided them up a little more into more minor patriarchates, but this simplified map is very useful.

as regards Asia and Africa, I went through statistics and such and it seems to me that the Christian Church has been re-established in the absence of those patriarchates by Roman Catholic missionaries, or else at least by some protestant missionaries (which as I was adjusting for schism I placed under the jurisdiction of Rome). I marked off a particular part of India that still seemed to fit under that old patriarchate of Antioch, but otherwise it seems to me that that Church lost that area and it was re-evangelized by Romans and their

your map is pretty interesting historically of course, I like it. but certainly California, Africa, and Asia have all been much more thoroughly evangelized by Romans in the absence of any strong presence under those patriarchates. now, most of the middle east has pretty much been lost to the Muslims and such by the patriarchate of Antioch but no other Church has re-established the Christian Church effectively there.

[Galloglasses]

I can't say i disagree with you in regards to Ireland, (Granted, i'm from south Armagh the Republican heartland and nationalism is bred into the blood so...yeah, powerful and in some eyes, a dangerous mix. [i]Teensy[/i] bit biased), I do not recognise the north at all really because of the illegal manner in which it was brought up. The traditional Ulster holds the six counties AND Donegal and Monaghon. The border was drawn to ensure a unionist majority. Altough it was either let Britain carve up Ireland or face full scale war. Not sure which is worse, (To anyone who always wondered why the troubles in NI were so bad, THATs what kicked off most of the tension and whatnot.)

With the Jewish state thingy, i'm not sure. It WAS wrong for Britain to carve up Israel and relocate the palestinians. So i'm rather divided, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the palestinians as I can draw parallels with Ireland, however I can't bring myself to condemn Israel, especially since they're usually on the defense, (bar that one invasion of Palestine to eliminate Hamas, they almost managed it but they ran out of time.)

[Norseman82]

Lithuania is Latin-rite Catholic, so shouldn't it be under the See of Peter?

[Aloysius]

Yeah, you're right, I just double checked the CIA world fact book (which was one of my main source for percentages), Latvia probably falls under Rome too but I can't find any sources for the exact percentages... apparently there's Lutheranism there too and if it was just lutheranism that put Rome over the top (since, adjusted for schism, those Christians ought to be under Rome), I'd probably slide Latvia into the Russian Orthodox category.

I don't know why I put Latvia and Lithuania under Russia, because I'm pretty sure I remember seeing the percentages on them before... I think I intended to look up territorial divisions within those two countries to see if there was any noticeable way to divide them up on the world map (like I was able to do in India and also with the Armenians)

I would say my map represents more of a practical report on the way things are from a Roman Ecclesiastical perspective, and Apotheoun's map represents an idealistic version from an Eastern Ecclesiastical perspective.

galloglasses, Israel is always on the defense defending the lands it occupies as a colonial power, that's the way I see it anyway. It takes all my powers of compromise to put up the carved up map with two states rather than a map showing the country of Palestine there and a country called Israel somewhere in Eastern Europe (probably where the Jewish Autonomous Region is right now)

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1491861' date='Apr 3 2008, 09:49 AM']I would say my map represents more of a practical report on the way things are from a Roman Ecclesiastical perspective, and Apotheoun's map represents an idealistic version from an Eastern Ecclesiastical perspective.[/quote]
Both maps (mine and Aloysius') are idealistic, but the motives behind them are clearly different. Aloysius has already described his reasons and so I will not recount those again, and -- of course -- my reasons are quite different, because I have based my map upon the concept of canonical territory, while also taking into account historical considerations (missionary activity, the sphere of influence of the Byzantine Empire, etc.), and the importance of maintaining the doctrinal, spiritual, and liturgical patrimony of the ancient patriarchal sees of the East. In fact, I would prefer to preserve the liturgical heritage of the ancient Apostolic Eastern sees by expanding their territory at the expense of the modern (i.e., 1969) Roman Rite, a rite which I would abolish completely even in those areas that I kept within the Latin patriarchate, ultimately replacing the modern rite with the ancient Roman Rite as codified by the Pius V after the Council of Trent.

Finally, as far as the Moscow Patriarchate is concerned, it would be autonomous, but would still be connected -- at least nominally -- to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Edited April 3, 2008 by Apotheoun

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1491188' date='Apr 2 2008, 07:41 PM']The traditional Ulster holds the six counties AND Donegal and Monaghon.[/quote]

You forgot Cavan

[mortify]

Constantinople is not the See of St Andrew.


[quote]"The first historically known Bishop of Byzantium is St. Metrophanes (306-314), though the see had perhaps been occupied during the third century. It was at first subject to the metropolitan authority of Heraclea, and remained so, at least canonically, until 381, when the Second Ecumenical Council (can. iii) gave the Bishop of Constantinople the first place after the Bishop of Rome."[/quote]

[quote]In the fifth century we meet with a spurious document attributed to a certain Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre at the end of the third century, according to which the Church of Byzantium was founded by the Apostle St. Andrew, its first bishop being his disciple Stachys (cf. Romans 16:9). The intention of the forger is plain: in this way the Church of Rome is made inferior to that of Constantinople, St. Andrew having been chosen an Apostle by Jesus before his brother St. Peter, the founder of the Roman Church.[/quote]


[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04301a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04301a.htm[/url]