Topic: Montenegrin Orthodox Church Going Full Steam Ahead

[SouthSerb99]

Defrocked by the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Holy Synod in 1997, Miraš Dedeić is going forward with his Montengrin Orthodox Church. 

http://www.njegos.net/en/studies/mirasdedeicanathema/index.html?=mirasdedeicanathema.html

Amongst other things, the "Montenegrins" are threatening to take over Serbian Orthodox Churches and kick out Serbian Orthodox Clergy. http://www.krstas.org.yu/

Picture of Miraš Dedeić.

http://www.krstas.org.yu/Components/uskcet2.jpg

[AMM]

That seems to be how Orthodox ecclesiology works now.

[Αριστοκλής]

When the flock goes astray is it their fault or that of their shepherd? I understand this 'bishop' was never a bishop to start with. Phyletism run amok. the Montenegrins are a discrete ethnicity but they hardly qualify for a separate church, IMHO. Historically fiercely clannish, it's amazing they stayed with the rest of the southern Slavs as long as they did, but a separate church for no other reason? Naw.

[Anastasios]

They interestingly form a coalition of schismatics with the Kiev Patriarchate, the remnants of the Bulgarian alternative synod, and three ex-Cyprianite bishops!

[SouthSerb99]

When the flock goes astray is it their fault or that of their shepherd? I understand this 'bishop' was never a bishop to start with. Phyletism run amok. the Montenegrins are a discrete ethnicity but they hardly qualify for a separate church, IMHO. Historically fiercely clannish, it's amazing they stayed with the rest of the southern Slava as long as they did, but a separate church for no other reason? Naw.

In the last Montenegrin census, 43% of the country identified themselves as "Montenegrins".  I think the Serbian number was in the high 30's.

[serb1389]

HAHAHAHAHAHA  Crno Gorci....that's all I have to say about this. 

Well there's more...but nothing nice.   

[AMM]

Eventually they'll (along with Macedonia and Ukraine and whoever else will be next after that) gain acceptance and legitimacy as Bulgaria did after a prolonged schism.

[SouthSerb99]

^^^ If true (and I think you probably are right) why don't we just amend the Canons on gaining autocephaly.

Amendment:

If you so desire, find any defrocked Bishop to lead your new Church, let your nation be the primary basis for your new jurisdiction, spend some time in schism and eventually welcome to the wonderful world of Orthodoxy.

[AMM]

and it's only going to get worse.

[Αριστοκλής]

^^^ If true (and I think you probably are right) why don't we just amend the Canons on gaining autocephaly.

Amendment:

If you so desire, find any defrocked Bishop to lead your new Church, let your nation be the primary basis for your new jurisdiction, spend some time in schism and eventually welcome to the wonderful world of Orthodoxy.

Defrocked priest, now self-styled "bishop" to boot!

[SouthSerb99]

Yes, I've been thinking of declaring my independence from the SOC.

Since it would be "my" Church (jurisdiction would cover 65' x 160' dimensions of my yard) and I was thinking since its "mine", I'd call it the Don'tknowmuch Orthodox Church of New Jersey.

All are welcome, however, in order to accomodate my busy schedule, Liturgy is held every Wednesday evening, right before Lost.

[minasoliman]

Yes, I've been thinking of declaring my independence from the SOC.

Since it would be "my" Church (jurisdiction would cover 65' x 160' dimensions of my yard) and I was thinking since its "mine", I'd call it the Don'tknowmuch Orthodox Church of New Jersey.

All are welcome, however, in order to accomodate my busy schedule, Liturgy is held every Wednesday evening, right before Lost.

Hmmm...that church sounds quite appealing.  Finally, an Orthodox Church of New Jersey for Don'tknowmuchiners.

 

[Heorhij]

They interestingly form a coalition of schismatics with the Kiev Patriarchate, the remnants of the Bulgarian alternative synod, and three ex-Cyprianite bishops!

Honestly, to me, it's such a great pain to read the word "schismatics" next to the Kyivan Patriarchate... You see, I understand that from the point of view of the Orthodox canoon law, they ARE "schismatics." But so were the Muscovites for about one century and a half...

[Anastasios]

Honestly, to me, it's such a great pain to read the word "schismatics" next to the Kyivan Patriarchate... You see, I understand that from the point of view of the Orthodox canoon law, they ARE "schismatics." But so were the Muscovites for about one century and a half...

I have no problem with the idea of an autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine and think one should be established, given the historic value of this great center of Orthodoxy.

At the same time, I am very opposed to national Churches. I don't see the point of having patriarchates of Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, an Archbishopric of Greece, etc.  Perhaps it would have made sense to have a Patriarchate in Constantinople and Catholicoses in the national Churches that commemorated the patriarch.  However, that is a done deal.  The Kiev Patriarchate, or Kyiv Patriarchate out of respect for your position, has some good points but I just cannot wrap my mind around Patriarch Filaret. I think the UAOC in Ukraine has a better claim to legitimacy than the KP. But this is my biased opinion. In either case, both are too cozy with Byzantine Catholics for my taste, but that is a different story. I look forward to seeing a Ukrainian Church that is autocephalous based on the immense spiritual respect it commands in the Orthodox world, such that it is given this position in recognition and not because of nationalism.

I make no judgment on the status of individuals in the KP at this time.

In Christ,

Anastasios

[PeterTheAleut]

Honestly, to me, it's such a great pain to read the word "schismatics" next to the Kyivan Patriarchate... You see, I understand that from the point of view of the Orthodox canoon law, they ARE "schismatics." But so were the Muscovites for about one century and a half...

Don't quote me as an expert on this, but I believe Moscow declared her autocephaly from Constantinople over a century before actually receiving the tomos because Constantinople was at the time under the rule of the Turks.  Not being under Turkish rule herself, Moscow recognized that she could not submit to Constantinople without also submitting to Constantinople's Turkish overlords; thus, the only way Moscow could remain free of such Turkocracy was to declare her ecclesiastical independence.  I'm not sure this is the same thing as saying, "We are the Montenegrin/Ukrainian/Greek/fill-in-the-blank people!  We want our own autocephalous national church!"

[bergschlawiner]

So they are an ethnic nationality but have no right to an autonomous church?  Is this the same for Macedonia?  Perhaps a better approach would be to have an "Orthodox Church in Montenegro" like the OCA?  Let's face it, the ethnic map of Eastern Europe is changing.

[Bono Vox]

I hate the schismatic tendancies of many of those in the orthodox church.

[PeterTheAleut]

So they are an ethnic nationality but have no right to an autonomous church?  Is this the same for Macedonia?  Perhaps a better approach would be to have an "Orthodox Church in Montenegro" like the OCA?  Let's face it, the ethnic map of Eastern Europe is changing.

The canonical precedent, however, ties autonomous jurisdiction to geographical territory, not to ethnic nationality.  All the local Orthodox churches within a defined geographical region are to be united under the oversight of one primate regardless of ethnicity.

[Elisha]

The canonical precedent, however, ties autonomous jurisdiction to geographical territory, not to ethnic nationality.  All the local Orthodox churches within a defined geographical region are to be united under the oversight of one primate regardless of ethnicity.

Sure.  Now define what is proper geographical territory.  Do you see where this is leading?  I'm not saying I'm for this Montenegrin thing, but how is geographical territory NOT synonomous ethinic nationality for the most part?  It historically has been - that's how nationalities/ethnicities developed!

[SouthSerb99]

Well, the Montenegrin Church presents some bigger problems than I think most are seeing.

First of all (as it was correctly pointed out), their "Bishop" was only a "Priest" and is a self made Bishop.  I think that should serve as strike one.

Two is the question of ethnicity.  I have cousins who are "Montenegrins", but what does that really mean?  They'll tell you they are Serbs.

Are Montenegrins any different than Serbs?  Some say yes, some say no, but either way I'm not sure the divisions are so great as to dictate a Church.

Although I agree with Anastasios (to a degree) about the lack of need for national Churches, when the SOC, and BOC gained their autocephaly they were indeed distinct ethnic groups covering specific geographic territories.  It (in a way) made sense for them to be autocephalous because the EP had her own problems to deal with at the time.

Right now, two "new" Orthodox Churches have "popped" up on the land of the SOC.  The Montenegrins and the Macedonians.  Both have questionable claims as to how distinct they are from either Serbs, Bulgars or Greeks.

The SOC has proven it can adequately tend to its flock in these areas, so the need for autocephalous Churches seems quite superfluous and adding to the perception that Orthodoxy is nothing more than a collection of nationalist ethnic Churches.

The SOC (primarily with the Macedonians) has bent over backwards to accomodate their "needs" as a distinct society, yet we were rejected even though they signed the NIS agreement.  At what point in time are we Orthodox going to say "enough is enough".

I mean, personally, I would rather see a move toward dismantling jurisdictions (and unifying them) rather than adding more.  You have to start somewhere, even if it is arbitrary.

[Anastasios]

So they are an ethnic nationality but have no right to an autonomous church?  Is this the same for Macedonia?  Perhaps a better approach would be to have an "Orthodox Church in Montenegro" like the OCA?  Let's face it, the ethnic map of Eastern Europe is changing.

No one has a right to an autonomous Church. But an autonomous Church might be better than autocephalous--we don't need further fragmenting. IN Europe we see the growth of minority regions while at the same time seeing the growth of supranational entities (the EU) so in essence we see Basques and other groups getting more recognition while Europe continues to integrate. I think this is cool.  IN the Church it could be the same: stop creating autocephalous Churches but keep some degree of autonomy in various places.

[Anastasios]

I hate the schismatic tendancies of many of those in the orthodox church.

It really is vexing, I agree. I still prefer it over being Catholic though, where external unity was preferable to doctrinal unity.  But at least they don't have schisms based on ethnicity usually.

[Elisha]

Well, the Montenegrin Church presents some bigger problems than I think most are seeing.

First of all (as it was correctly pointed out), their "Bishop" was only a "Priest" and is a self made Bishop.  I think that should serve as strike one.

Two is the question of ethnicity.  I have cousins who are "Montenegrins", but what does that really mean?  They'll tell you they are Serbs.

...

Right now, two "new" Orthodox Churches have "popped" up on the land of the SOC.  The Montenegrins and the Macedonians.  Both have questionable claims as to how distinct they are from either Serbs, Bulgars or Greeks.

...

As to my question, these two issues should be pretty obvious.  But opponents of, for example, Orthodox unity in America, seem to use this same issue (the ethnic one or whatever).  Pure bunk.  An entirely different case.

[AMM]

Although I agree with Anastasios (to a degree) about the lack of need for national Churches, when the SOC, and BOC gained their autocephaly they were indeed distinct ethnic groups covering specific geographic territories.  It (in a way) made sense for them to be autocephalous because the EP had her own problems to deal with at the time.

Maybe it made sense, but it set a horrible pattern we are now locked in.  Phyletism is simply now written in the DNA of Orthodoxy.  Each local group that develops a national or ethnic consciousness, will invariably seek its own church and local control.  One could tell the Macedonians they're really Serbs or Bulgarians or Greeks or whatever, but if they as a local church disagree, it really doesn't matter.  You can't impose some other identity on them.  Constantinople tried and failed to do that already with the churches it lost control of, and once formed part of its territory.

What is most unfortunate to me is the whole idea of ethnic and national lines is so arbitrary.  It should be the last thing we as Christians concern ourselves with given what the Gospel says, but we've built our whole model of church organization on it.

[SouthSerb99]

Welkodox,

Everything you say makes 100% perfect sense to me, but couldn't much of this be corrected with the notion of autonomous Churches, instead of autocephalous Churches?

Take the Macedonian example.  I don't know if you've ever seen the Nis Agreement (between the SOC & the MOC), but essentially set out the conditions for the return of the MOC into Canononical Unity with the rest of Orthodoxy and was signed by three Bishops in the MOC.

It basically said, the Macedonians could have everything they wanted, except autocephaly (which could be determined at a later date).  The three Bishops signed the "agreement" because they scored bigtime, yet when they returned to Skopje, the politicians told the Church officials they would not support the Church if they adhered to the agreemeent.

The politicians told Archbishop Stefan of the MOC that if the Church adhered to the agreement it would undermine their political aspirations.  So, in many ways these cases stand alone.

[Heorhij]

In Ukraine, the question of autocephaly is not as much ethnic as political. When the major Orthodox jurisdiction in Ukraine remains, in fact, a "department" of the Russian Orthodox Church, it tunes much of its actvity (particularly cermons) in such a way that is is compatible with Kremlin imperialist, hegemonist plans. For example, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchy) up to mid-1990's, some five or six or seven years after the declaration of Independence of Ukraine (August 1991) continued to preach that Ukrainians and Russians are the same people, that "we are all brother Slavs," that "nationalists" or "separatists" are evil, etc. The Divine Liturgy was in Church Slavonic, but homilies were in Russian, and many priests demonstatively spoke Russian and refused to speak Ukrainian ("the language of Mazepa-ites, nationalists"). Right now, the anti-Ukrainian fervor of the UOC(MP) seems to be somewhat "softened," but, still, many of the high-positioned UOC (MP) hierarchs are the same people who blasted "evil separatists" in the early- and mid-1990s.

Het'man Ivan Stepanovych Mazepa is regarded by many patriotic Ukrainians as a national hero, almost an icon (he did so much for the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, for example, and built dozens if not hundreds of Orthodox chrches, financing the construction by his private funds). But Mazepa was excommunicated and anathemized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1709, after he, being afraid of Russian imperialism, sought negotioations with the Swedish king Charles XII. This anathema was never lifted, which is just disgusting for many Ukrainian patriots.

[AMM]

Everything you say makes 100% perfect sense to me, but couldn't much of this be corrected with the notion of autonomous Churches, instead of autocephalous Churches?

It could, but what's the mechanism to sort this all out?  We avoid cross church exercise of primacy like the plague, and the two main churches in Eastern Orthodoxy are basically rivals and not on speaking terms.  It doesn't give one hope that this particular genie can be put back in the bottle.

Take the Macedonian example.  I don't know if you've ever seen the Nis Agreement (between the SOC & the MOC), but essentially set out the conditions for the return of the MOC into Canononical Unity with the rest of Orthodoxy and was signed by three Bishops in the MOC.

It basically said, the Macedonians could have everything they wanted, except autocephaly (which could be determined at a later date).  The three Bishops signed the "agreement" because they scored bigtime, yet when they returned to Skopje, the politicians told the Church officials they would not support the Church if they adhered to the agreemeent.

The politicians told Archbishop Stefan of the MOC that if the Church adhered to the agreement it would undermine their political aspirations.  So, in many ways these cases stand alone.

That was probably supported by popular opinion.  It sounds very much like how things work in Orthodoxy.  Nationalism guiding church organization, political interference in church affairs, and everybody ignoring the bishops.

This anathema was never lifted, which is just disgusting for many Ukrainian patriots.

It's not only offensive to Ukrainians who have had their identity walked over, the anathema on the Hetman is a grotesque display of the manipulation of the church for the purposes of the state.

[arimethea]

Phyletism is simply now written in the DNA of Orthodoxy.

The same Iconoclasim or Arianism was in our DNA. I dare say the Phyletism is the great heresy that faces us today. Our problems here in America are direct results of Phyletism.

[SouthSerb99]

The problem in these situations, there seems to be no easy fix, because either way, won't you be rewarding someone's phyletism?

Lets take SOC vs. MTOC (Montenegrin Orthodox Church).

If the Serbs cave, they would in essence be rewarding Montenegrin nationalism as the Montengrins would assert, if they were to cave, they would be yielding to Serbian phyletism.

As is the case between the Russians vs. Ukrainians.

Who is to say ONLY the Russians are guilty of phyletism when the same yoke seems to stick to the Ukrainians.  Who is to say the Macedonians are guilty of it, when it could be the Serbs?  Doesn't the very notion of the "national Church" promote phyletism?

Also, how and why is an "American" Church any different?

I mean, this seems to be the strongest argument in support of a purely Orthodox Church with NO ethnic identifier.

[Elisha]

Also, how and why is an "American" Church any different?

I was unaware that North America was geographically contiguous to Constantinople....or Russia...or Serbia  ....or Syria/Lebanon...

[Αριστοκλής]

Sorry to revive this older thread, but I was reading a list of councils on one of those websites of a "True" Orthodox Church yesterday and saw a council in 1766 which granted autocephalous status to Montenegro (agreed according to the site by Constantinople and other local churches). The dubious claims of their head 'bishop' aside, is this true, and if so, when did Serbia take them back?

[serb1389]

It had to have been recently.  I'm pretty sure that Patriarch Pavle put them back under Serbia...and I think he's been Patriarch since 1990...

I could be wrong about all this though...

[macedonia74]

Well, the Montenegrin Church presents some bigger problems than I think most are seeing.

First of all (as it was correctly pointed out), their "Bishop" was only a "Priest" and is a self made Bishop.  I think that should serve as strike one.

Two is the question of ethnicity.  I have cousins who are "Montenegrins", but what does that really mean?  They'll tell you they are Serbs.

Are Montenegrins any different than Serbs?  Some say yes, some say no, but either way I'm not sure the divisions are so great as to dictate a Church.

Although I agree with Anastasios (to a degree) about the lack of need for national Churches, when the SOC, and BOC gained their autocephaly they were indeed distinct ethnic groups covering specific geographic territories.  It (in a way) made sense for them to be autocephalous because the EP had her own problems to deal with at the time.

Right now, two "new" Orthodox Churches have "popped" up on the land of the SOC.  The Montenegrins and the Macedonians.  Both have questionable claims as to how distinct they are from either Serbs, Bulgars or Greeks.

The SOC has proven it can adequately tend to its flock in these areas, so the need for autocephalous Churches seems quite superfluous and adding to the perception that Orthodoxy is nothing more than a collection of nationalist ethnic Churches.

The SOC (primarily with the Macedonians) has bent over backwards to accomodate their "needs" as a distinct society, yet we were rejected even though they signed the NIS agreement.  At what point in time are we Orthodox going to say "enough is enough".

I mean, personally, I would rather see a move toward dismantling jurisdictions (and unifying them) rather than adding more.  You have to start somewhere, even if it is arbitrary.

Wow, am I to consider this 'bait' of blatant ignorance against members of your own faith? But I'm the only ignorant one for even qualifying a response, that btw, is only going to ignite the wrath of certain members of this forum. So, forgive me ahead of time if my response is not up to the expected, or if this sinner causes anyone to stumble or afront.

The Montenegrins and the Macedonians.  Both have questionable claims as to how distinct they are from either Serbs, Bulgars or Greeks

Excuse me? I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth ... but more on this later.


The Nis "Agreement"? This was "an agreement that the SOC bent over backwards to accomodate the needs of a distince society?"

Firstly, this my friends was a working agreement. Who of us would actually believe that a few Bishops could sit at round table and "agree" upon something, put their signatures on a piece of paper and say, "Look we have the authority" to speak for our Synod? If you believe this, then great! But I choose to go with the line that nothing is accepted as "an Agreement" until approved by both Synods of the talking parties, and then, after going through the filters of the body. Anyone who says that Bishops do not have to tend to the needs and approvals of their flock really haven't figured out what it means to be a pastor. No politician unilaterially ever told any Bishop in Macedonia that this "agreement" isn't acceptable, nor does this whole idea about whitewashing the Republic of Macedonia as some sort of Bishop-hating, undemocratic bastion hold any water.

Secondly, the "bending over backwards" part.... yes, certain Serbian Bishops bent over backwards, far enough to not even recognize the Macedonian Name or Identity because within that "agreement" you put it, they would not.

You are right though, the MOC was prepared to accept a move back into Autonomy, and that was accepted  (since neither the SOC or the MOC actually have any lingering disagreements over anything truly, ecclesiastical), rather over politics and a misguided and unchristian idea of authority. Yes, both Synods are guilty of this. But come on, your state above says it all "questionable claims as to how distinct they are from either Serbs, Bulgars or Greeks" and you expect someone to run into open communion with you after this sort of statement? You have to be kidding me.

It would be really nice, since both Churches have accepted to resume talks, that instead of misguiding others to sit back and pray over the situation that full ecclesiastical communion be restored and, then start thinking about removing jurisdictions, as I'm sure a good deal of Macedonians will agree with. You'd be surprised.

But there's no way you can even suggest removing jurisdictions until you look me in the eye and accept me for what I am, A Macedonian, an Equal, and most importantly, a human being made in the image of God.

[Αριστοκλής]

I appreciate your response, but I was interested in the events of 1766 on Montenegro and its autocephalcy being rescinded, if that's what indeed happened.

[SouthSerb99]

But I'm the only ignorant one for even qualifying a response, that btw, is only going to ignite the wrath of certain members of this forum.

Well, it really shouldn't ignite any wrath and I hope it does not, but starting a post by calling (me in particular) "ignorant" is not a good place if you are sincerely looking for dialogue.

Who of us would actually believe that a few Bishops could sit at round table and "agree" upon something, put their signatures on a piece of paper and say, "Look we have the authority" to speak for our Synod?

They would have had whatever power was conferred upon them by the respective Synod.  I know the three Serbian Bishops had the "power" to bind the Serbian Synod, so why not the Macedonians?

Yes, both Synods are guilty of this. But come on, your state above says it all "questionable claims as to how distinct they are from either Serbs, Bulgars or Greeks" and you expect someone to run into open communion with you after this sort of statement? You have to be kidding me.

Actually this is your phyletism speaking because you completely misunderstood what I was saying, but you are so hell bent on being Macedonian first, that everything else goes by the way side.

Here is what I meant... between Serbs, Bulgars, Greeks and Macedonians, there is not much of a discernable difference (especially Serbs and Bulgars).  I have my feelings about Macedonians but above all, I believe they have developed into a distinct Macedonian society (the only place you and I would differ on this issue is about history).

Having said that, my point was that we are all so similar (in terms of our tradtions and practices) that it makes more sense to have increased unity as opposed to increased divisions.   I have said (here) and elsewhere, my desire is towards an "Orthodox" Church without ethnic identifiers.

However, I find everytime I engage a Macedonian and now a "Montenegrin" they are so pent up with phyletism that you really can't get your point across because they seem to already know what you are thinking before you thought it.

If you want my honest opinion, I had hoped the Macedonians accepted Nis because the way I saw it, by now they would've already been autocephalous and in full communion.  What a terrible thought on my part.

As to the specifics of the Nis agreement, I posted it here once before and I identified the two points that showed how far the SOC went to accomodate your Church.  To this day, neither you nor anyone else has refuted those points.

[SouthSerb99]

I appreciate your response, but I was interested in the events of 1766 on Montenegro and its autocephalcy being rescinded, if that's what indeed happened.

Αριστοκλής,

As I know it, the Montengrin Orthodox Church was an autocephalous Church which wanted to be subsumed by the SOC (in 1920) I believe.  It was not rescinded but rather a request to be together.

Understand one thing... up and until the last 10 years or so, the notion that a Montenegrin is somehow different than a Serb would have been considered comedy of the highest order. 

I talk to a "Montenegrin" cousin of mine about this all the time and he just shakes his head and wonders where these innovations come from.

[Αριστοκλής]

Thank you, SS99.
1) For the answer to my question
2) For the extra comments which seem a whole lot like reality to me.

[macedonia74]

Well, it really shouldn't ignite any wrath and I hope it does not, but starting a post by calling (me in particular) "ignorant" is not a good place if you are sincerely looking for dialogue.
They would have had whatever power was conferred upon them by the respective Synod.  I know the three Serbian Bishops had the "power" to bind the Serbian Synod, so why not the Macedonians?

Actually this is your phyletism speaking because you completely misunderstood what I was saying, but you are so hell bent on being Macedonian first, that everything else goes by the way side.

Here is what I meant... between Serbs, Bulgars, Greeks and Macedonians, there is not much of a discernable difference (especially Serbs and Bulgars).  I have my feelings about Macedonians but above all, I believe they have developed into a distinct Macedonian society (the only place you and I would differ on this issue is about history).

Having said that, my point was that we are all so similar (in terms of our tradtions and practices) that it makes more sense to have increased unity as opposed to increased divisions.   I have said (here) and elsewhere, my desire is towards an "Orthodox" Church without ethnic identifiers.

However, I find everytime I engage a Macedonian and now a "Montenegrin" they are so pent up with phyletism that you really can't get your point across because they seem to already know what you are thinking before you thought it.

If you want my honest opinion, I had hoped the Macedonians accepted Nis because the way I saw it, by now they would've already been autocephalous and in full communion.  What a terrible thought on my part.

As to the specifics of the Nis agreement, I posted it here once before and I identified the two points that showed how far the SOC went to accomodate your Church.  To this day, neither you nor anyone else has refuted those points.

Oh wow. Forgive my claiming your ignorance, but you did notice I was also calling myself the same? As for phyletism, I will accept that I am struggling with this personally, however, I'd have a hard time not making reference to the "pot calling the kettle black" with the dipiction in your avatar.

Unfortunately, brother SouthSerb, what you just posted did not remotely resemble what you previously posted. If it did, I would have certainly not even rebutted. 

Just some points though: No, the Macedonian Bishops sent to the Nis Working Agreement round table were not given authority to "bind" anything, only to speak on behalf and then report back for approval through council. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, EVERYTHING was agreed upon in Nis accept for the name of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. See, since we Macedonians are so ethnophylistic, it would be expected for us not to accept anyone using our identity as a bartaring tool to obtain public communion. Call us crazy ... but I'd doubt anyone would accept this.

Other than that, I, personally speaking, am in full agreement about removal of all ethnic identifiers. I have good reason to believe that most, except for a few Bishops, in the MOC community would also be in full agreement.

But as I have stated numerous times before, it sure would be nice if Serbian and Greek Orthodox Bishops would actaully recognize our existence as an ethnic group before you actually strip the identifiers. Otherwise, what the heck are you stripping? Without which, any such movement would be deemed as a means to subjugate rather than free through communion.

[SouthSerb99]

I'd have a hard time not making reference to the "pot calling the kettle black" with the dipiction in your avatar.

The depiction in my avatar is the Serbian coat of arms adopted in 1882.  I don't see why it smacks of phyletism.  It refers back to the time of Nemanjic and when the Church had a prominent role in Serbia (as I wish it does in the future). 

It is placed over the backdrop of the heartland of Serbian Orthodoxy.

Unfortunately, brother SouthSerb, what you just posted did not remotely resemble what you previously posted. If it did, I would have certainly not even rebutted. 

That is not true at all, but I cannot help how you interpret things.

Just some points though: No, the Macedonian Bishops sent to the Nis Working Agreement round table were not given authority to "bind" anything, only to speak on behalf and then report back for approval through council.

Well, since neither of us were there, how about we use a bit of common sense to deduce what was done.

4 Serbian Bishops with the right to bind, 3 Macedonian.

They agree.  All seven sign the doc (I'm sure you've seen the SIGNED original).  This much is NOT in dispute.

The next part is.  You say the "Macedonian Synod rejected it based on the name" and I say, they were pressured by their government to renege on that which they already agreed.

Where do I get my opinion and where do you get yours?  I get mine from Archbishop Jovan, who was present when your Heirarchs came back with the agreement.  You get yours from the remaining Heirarchs who dispute his account.  However, here is where you start to lose steam...

1.  What benefit would Archbishop Jovan have for lying?  For goodness sake, since he "spoke out" he has been falsely accused, wrongly convicted, humiliated, incarcerated and been spit on by the Macedonian government.

2.  If what you say is true, why then would your 3 Bishops sign the agreement, only later to agree it was a "bad agreement".  If it was bad in Skopje, why was it not bad in Nis?

3.  You say it's the name issue. I say, nonsense.  Here are points 14 & 15 of the Nis Agreement.

14.   In accordance with ancient church tradition and historical practice, the aforementioned church will bear the name of the Ohrid Archbishopric. The Ohrid Archbishopric may, on the basis of a now decades-long practice, use the name it has used thus far in internal official communication with the Pec Patriarchate.

15.   For the same reasons, the head of the Church officially bears the title of Archbishop of Ohrid and Metropolitan of Skoplje; internally, he may use the title he has used thus far.

Which "same name" are they talking about?  Isn't it "Macedonian".  As for the Ohrid Archbishopric, isn't that the name of the original Church?  In this regard, the SOC seems to be covering both history and the modern Church.  And this is not accomodating?

sure would be nice if Serbian and Greek Orthodox Bishops would actaully recognize our existence as an ethnic group before you actually strip the identifiers.

Is it the job of our Bishops to recognize ethnic groups?  Are they historians?  Are they geneologists?  In fact, if you follow Orthodox history (as it is written and accepted) there is NO reason for either to do such a thing.  I used to be hopeful that this would work itself out, but unfortunately to a large degree to many people in the Balkans have abandoned God, so things such as this seem fruitless.

[Αριστοκλής]

I see macedonia74 has hijacked yet another thread.

[macedonia74]

I see macedonia74 has hijacked yet another thread.

I see. Any time someone expresses a viewpoint that 'stirs the waters a bit' then it's hijacking a thread? Well then, I "hijacked" the liturgy thread a few days back and no seemed to care then...

[macedonia74]

14.   In accordance with ancient church tradition and historical practice, the aforementioned church will bear the name of the Ohrid Archbishopric. The Ohrid Archbishopric may, on the basis of a now decades-long practice, use the name it has used thus far in internal official communication with the Pec Patriarchate.

15.   For the same reasons, the head of the Church officially bears the title of Archbishop of Ohrid and Metropolitan of Skoplje; internally, he may use the title he has used

Hmmm, well I never saw this with my eyes previous to your post, rather I only heard of it by the MOC Bishops present at Nis. It great that the Serbian Bishop representatives grant us the 'freedom' to utilize our name in "internal official communication" between Pec and Ohrid? Niiice... I guess that means we do not have the same options with the rest of Orthodoxy? I guess we should be grateful for all of that 'pastoral love', huh? 

Funny, this seems to be the official line of the Greek Government when it comes to the Constitional name of the Republic of Macedonia? Ironic how these racist policies tend to transcend Church matters ....

[sdcheung]

yeah, Blah blah Blahbyblu!

Skopiani!

Hmmm, well I never saw this with my eyes previous to your post, rather I only heard of it by the MOC Bishops present at Nis. It great that the Serbian Bishop representatives grant us the 'freedom' to utilize our name in "internal official communication" between Pec and Ohrid? Niiice... I guess that means we do not have the same options with the rest of Orthodoxy? I guess we should be grateful for all of that 'pastoral love', huh? 

Funny, this seems to be the official line of the Greek Government when it comes to the Constitional name of the Republic of Macedonia? Ironic how these racist policies tend to transcend Church matters ....

[SouthSerb99]

M74,

I'm not going to even engage you because you seem hell bent on insulting and personally attacking.  I do not see that I used an ad hominem against you, yet your posts a riddled with them against me.  Odd, to say the least.

In any event, I don't want continue derailing this thread, but suffice it to say, I think the points of Nis still stand, unrefuted and the best you can come up with is the Archbishop Jovan's ambition led him astray.

Well that would all be fine and well with your wild "stories" of money stealing and this and that, however, just about every reputable human rights institution recognized the grave injustice against the Archbishop.  Everyone that is, except those so inspired by nationalism that they cannot see what everyone (even non-Orthodox) can see.

In any event, sorry if my words offended.

[macedonia74]

yeah, Blah blah Blahbyblu!

Skopiani!