OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 17, 2014, 08:55:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Metropolitan Jonah issues statement on recent sermon  (Read 17714 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jake
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern orthodox
Posts: 130


« Reply #135 on: September 14, 2009, 08:33:29 AM »

There are numerous cases/examples throughout Orthodox Church history when governments working with the local sobor/synod declared a church autonomous or autocephalous.  Not just Tito.


One example is the Church of Greece.  It was the government of the newly independent state of Greece that declared the church autocephalous from the EP.

Naturally, the EP still under the Ottomans Turks did not accept this at first.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2009, 08:36:13 AM by Jake » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,985



« Reply #136 on: September 14, 2009, 07:42:38 PM »

Perhaps I should find out!

Thats a good idea. Do a little research and you will find that no Orthodox Church recognises their autocephaly- including yours. Do you think this is simply "ignorance", or might there be something else? Don't assume that because some Churches do not recognise the autocephaly of the OCA that this is due to "ignorance".

Agreed. The problem is not ignorance but nationalistic and ecclesiastic considerations of various churches.

Serbian Church: The Serbian Kingdom and then the state tried hard to Serbianize the Bulgarians of the current Republic of Macedonia. When it could not finish the job, Belgrade encouraged the creation of a fake Macedonian nation, culture, and language, and endorsed the establishment of the Church of Macedonia as an autonomous Church under its wing. However, the Macedonians went very far to the Serbs when they declared autocephaly: they cannot let that mouse get away.

Bulgarian Church: The Bulgarian Church could not relinquish its historical claim on the lands covered by the Bulgarian Exarchate of the late 19th Century. Also, recognizing the Macedonian Church would perpetuate the myth of a distinct Macedonian language. Just like their neighbors West and South, most Bulgarians would be extremely unhappy. Again, they cannot let that mouse get away.

The Church of Greece: the Greek Government and Church cannot bring themselves even now to acknowledge the existence of Bulgarians, let alone non-Greek Macedonians, in Aegean Macedonia. The recognition of the Church of Macedonia would be viewed by many Greeks (all over the world) as something close to blasphemy: they cannot let that mouse get away, even if the mouse did not officially exist.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople: In addition to the problems that an autocephalous Macedonian Church would pose to the Church of Greece, the EP has for centuries claimed the right to "confer" autocephaly. It cannot change its long-standing policy, especially in the age of its novel interpretation of Canon 28: it cannot let any mouse get away.

The rest of the Churches are either closely related to the ones I cited or cannot bother to concern themselves with such a small nation and church. Bottom line: I am sympathetic to the Macedonian claims to an autocephalous church, language and culture. I don't agree with them, but they have the right to decide for themselves, just as the Bulgarians, Russians, and even the Greeks did.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2009, 07:46:23 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
dirtyharry667
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #137 on: September 14, 2009, 08:25:15 PM »


Serbian Church: The Serbian Kingdom and then the state tried hard to Serbianize the Bulgarians of the current Republic of Macedonia. When it could not finish the job, Belgrade encouraged the creation of a fake Macedonian nation, culture, and language, and endorsed the establishment of the Church of Macedonia as an autonomous Church under its wing. However, the Macedonians went very far to the Serbs when they declared autocephaly: they cannot let that mouse get away.

Bulgarian Church: The Bulgarian Church could not relinquish its historical claim on the lands covered by the Bulgarian Exarchate of the late 19th Century. Also, recognizing the Macedonian Church would perpetuate the myth of a distinct Macedonian language. Just like their neighbors West and South, most Bulgarians would be extremely unhappy. Again, they cannot let that mouse get away.


Four issues with what you are saying:

1.  The existence of the Macedonian people.  I don't want to get too far off the topic of religion here, so forgive me in advance if I go off on a tangent.  That said, there are documents that have been uncovered in various libraries referring to the existence of a Macedonian people that I've seen dating to 1400 or so.  Furthermore hi "Ignea" released a DNA study in 2008 and came up with something of a typical genetic profile for a Macedonian with the following DNA results:

30%macedonian
10% illyrian
15% hellenen
5%phoenician
20% germanic
5% hunnen
15% slavic

The irony, of course, is that Greeks have more Slavic DNA (I believe it was 20%) and less Macedonian DNA (5%; 18% in the North).  If this is accurate, that makes a good case for the existence of a Macedonian people. 

2.  Creation of the Macedonian Nation:  Nobody can encourage creation of anything without popular support.  I will not argue that the Serbians engaged in anti-Bulgarian propaganda, however, if the Macedonian people didn't naturally feel that way I doubt that a "fake" nation could be created.

3.  Existence of a Distinct Language:  Here is a video of the 100th anniversary celebration of the first Bulgarian parish in America (largely started by people who would call themselves Macedonians today):

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p5rPJrxHTE

There is a banquet video where the bishop gives a speech.  To my first-generation ears, he is basically just as unintelligible as a Serb is.  I can, however, easily understand the dialect in Greek Macedonia.

4.  I have no problem with being called Bulgarians as that is how you were identified in Ottoman times--based on your ecclesiastical jurisdiction encompassing many different tribes.  However one should realize that Europ is far from homogeneous-.  Bulgarian could mean either Bulgarian ethnicity or Bulgarian nationality.  If you dig deeper in tthe people calling themselves Greeks, they were Patriarchists who were of various backgrounds with Vlachs being among the largest groups.  It was a surprise to me when i first learned all this, as I thought if you said "Italian", for instance, it meant something, but it really doesn't.  European countries are heterogeneous not unlike America.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2009, 08:31:49 PM by dirtyharry667 » Logged

NULL
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.046 seconds with 31 queries.