Tito and the Macedonian Orthodox Church

[EmperorConstantine]

This thread was split from the following discussion:

Abp. Jovan sentenced again

--YtterbiumAnalyst

Wasn't Macedonia historically a part of Greece?  How did the Serbian Church ever get jurisdiction over the territory (I'm not disputing the claims just insterested in the history of it).

I think that it may be a leftover from the days of Tito's Yugoslavia.  If I remember correctly after Yugoslavia fell apart the Macedonians declared their own Orthodox Church out of nationalism and spite.  Although linguistically and culturally speaking, they are Bulgarians.

Some years after the so-called Macedonian Orthodox Church declared its autocephaly, Archbishop JOVAN, his diocese and others left the schismatics and went to the Serbian Church.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Wasn't Macedonia historically a part of Greece?  How did the Serbian Church ever get jurisdiction over the territory (I'm not disputing the claims just insterested in the history of it).

I think that it may be a leftover from the days of Tito's Yugoslavia.  If I remember correctly after Yugoslavia fell apart the Macedonians declared their own Orthodox Church out of nationalism and spite.  Although linguistically and culturally speaking, they are Bulgarians.

Some years after the so-called Macedonian Orthodox Church declared its autocephaly, Archbishop JOVAN, his diocese and others left the schismatics and went to the Serbian Church.

You partly correct. It was under Tito that a Macedonian language and cultural/ethnic identity was created. There were only two competing languages/ethnicities before that--that of Bulgarian and Serbian, with Serbian being the language and culture of choice in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Serbia), so much so that one could claim that the Serbians implemented cultural genocide on the Bulgarian inhabitants of the northern portion of Macedonia. The Croatians claim the same happened to them as well, under the "benevolent" Serbian rule but it was worse because religious differences. It was precisely because of these ethnic enmities that I believe the effort was made to create a separate Macedonian cultural entity. Of course, the "Macedonian" speaking churches were ruled by the Serbian Church, until the Serbs decided to give autonomy to the Macedonian historic Archbishopric of Ohrid in 1959, long before the end of the communist era in Yugoslavia. I think that the Archbishopric's declaration of autocephaly in 1967 was in line with normal Orthodox practice: in accordance with the self declaration by the Russian Church, followed by the Serbian, Romanian, Greek and Bulgarian Churches, in no particular order. Thus, "spite" had nothing to with this; it was a natural progression of affairs, continuing a process that started 150 to 200 years ago. FYI, Tito died in 1980 and the Republic of Macedonia peacefully seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991.

I think that the Macedonians are ethnically and linguistically Bulgarian, but my opinion does not matter. If the Macedonian Bulgarians want to reject the Bulgarian (or Greek or Serbian) part, it is their right. Same thing with their Church. I will say one more thing: shame on the Churches of Constantinople, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania and Russia for not recognizing the Macedonian Orthodox Church. Having said that, I think I also object to the treatment of Archbishop Jovan by the Macedonian Church and government. Shame on the whole lot of them!

[Dalibor]

Wasn't Macedonia historically a part of Greece?  How did the Serbian Church ever get jurisdiction over the territory (I'm not disputing the claims just insterested in the history of it).

I think that it may be a leftover from the days of Tito's Yugoslavia.  If I remember correctly after Yugoslavia fell apart the Macedonians declared their own Orthodox Church out of nationalism and spite.  Although linguistically and culturally speaking, they are Bulgarians.

Some years after the so-called Macedonian Orthodox Church declared its autocephaly, Archbishop JOVAN, his diocese and others left the schismatics and went to the Serbian Church.

You partly correct. It was under Tito that a Macedonian language and cultural/ethnic identity was created. There were only two competing languages/ethnicities before that--that of Bulgarian and Serbian, with Serbian being the language and culture of choice in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Serbia), so much so that one could claim that the Serbians implemented cultural genocide on the Bulgarian inhabitants of the northern portion of Macedonia. The Croatians claim the same happened to them as well, under the "benevolent" Serbian rule but it was worse because religious differences. It was precisely because of these ethnic enmities that I believe the effort was made to create a separate Macedonian cultural entity. Of course, the "Macedonian" speaking churches were ruled by the Serbian Church, until the Serbs decided to give autonomy to the Macedonian historic Archbishopric of Ohrid in 1959, long before the end of the communist era in Yugoslavia. I think that the Archbishopric's declaration of autocephaly in 1967 was in line with normal Orthodox practice: in accordance with the self declaration by the Russian Church, followed by the Serbian, Romanian, Greek and Bulgarian Churches, in no particular order. Thus, "spite" had nothing to with this; it was a natural progression of affairs, continuing a process that started 150 to 200 years ago. FYI, Tito died in 1980 and the Republic of Macedonia peacefully seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991.

I think that the Macedonians are ethnically and linguistically Bulgarian, but my opinion does not matter. If the Macedonian Bulgarians want to reject the Bulgarian (or Greek or Serbian) part, it is their right. Same thing with their Church. I will say one more thing: shame on the Churches of Constantinople, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania and Russia for not recognizing the Macedonian Orthodox Church. Having said that, I think I also object to the treatment of Archbishop Jovan by the Macedonian Church and government. Shame on the whole lot of them!

In year 1967 Central committee of communist party in Belgrade decided that Orthodox Church in FYROM should get autocephaly and break all relations with canonical S.O.C.
Before that in 1945 in Skopje there was a church-national meeting of Communists, Muslims, Jews and orthodox priests. They issued a decree which forbid all canonical Bishops from entering FYROM.
That speaks enough about this so called M.O.C., who created it and why it shouldn’t be recognised.

What proof do you have for 'cultural genocide'? When did we force anyone to speak serbian?
As for Croats, they speak serbian language, they just changed some words in last two decades to make it look like their own language.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Wasn't Macedonia historically a part of Greece?  How did the Serbian Church ever get jurisdiction over the territory (I'm not disputing the claims just insterested in the history of it).

I think that it may be a leftover from the days of Tito's Yugoslavia.  If I remember correctly after Yugoslavia fell apart the Macedonians declared their own Orthodox Church out of nationalism and spite.  Although linguistically and culturally speaking, they are Bulgarians.

Some years after the so-called Macedonian Orthodox Church declared its autocephaly, Archbishop JOVAN, his diocese and others left the schismatics and went to the Serbian Church.

You partly correct. It was under Tito that a Macedonian language and cultural/ethnic identity was created. There were only two competing languages/ethnicities before that--that of Bulgarian and Serbian, with Serbian being the language and culture of choice in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Serbia), so much so that one could claim that the Serbians implemented cultural genocide on the Bulgarian inhabitants of the northern portion of Macedonia. The Croatians claim the same happened to them as well, under the "benevolent" Serbian rule but it was worse because religious differences. It was precisely because of these ethnic enmities that I believe the effort was made to create a separate Macedonian cultural entity. Of course, the "Macedonian" speaking churches were ruled by the Serbian Church, until the Serbs decided to give autonomy to the Macedonian historic Archbishopric of Ohrid in 1959, long before the end of the communist era in Yugoslavia. I think that the Archbishopric's declaration of autocephaly in 1967 was in line with normal Orthodox practice: in accordance with the self declaration by the Russian Church, followed by the Serbian, Romanian, Greek and Bulgarian Churches, in no particular order. Thus, "spite" had nothing to with this; it was a natural progression of affairs, continuing a process that started 150 to 200 years ago. FYI, Tito died in 1980 and the Republic of Macedonia peacefully seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991.

I think that the Macedonians are ethnically and linguistically Bulgarian, but my opinion does not matter. If the Macedonian Bulgarians want to reject the Bulgarian (or Greek or Serbian) part, it is their right. Same thing with their Church. I will say one more thing: shame on the Churches of Constantinople, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania and Russia for not recognizing the Macedonian Orthodox Church. Having said that, I think I also object to the treatment of Archbishop Jovan by the Macedonian Church and government. Shame on the whole lot of them!

In year 1967 Central committee of communist party in Belgrade decided that Orthodox Church in FYROM should get autocephaly and break all relations with canonical S.O.C.
Before that in 1945 in Skopje there was a church-national meeting of Communists, Muslims, Jews and orthodox priests. They issued a decree which forbid all canonical Bishops from entering FYROM.
That speaks enough about this so called M.O.C., who created it and why it shouldn’t be recognised.

What proof do you have for 'cultural genocide'? When did we force anyone to speak serbian?
As for Croats, they speak serbian language, they just changed some words in last two decades to make it look like their own language.

Dear Cousin Dalibor,

I am calling you cousin for we really are related, you and I. Serbs, Bulgars and Croats are all branches of the same tree. That said, we will have to agree to disagree. May the Lord bless you.

[Alveus Lacuna]

Why the heck does everyone have to have their own national church?  This concept seems progressively more and more stupid to me, seeing how most of Orthodoxy wastes its time on a game of "who's church is who's."  Let people celebrate the liturgy in their own languages if they wish, but regionally why do their have to be national churches with their own patriarchs?  Yes, I realize that not all national churches have their own patriarchs, but so much time gets wasted with these petty squabbles that nobody wins.

National borders shift and change with time on a regular basis.  Is the Orthodox Church now forever cursed to fight this battle for national churches with no end?  What about whenever more Russians adopt new regional identities and the land mass is broken up into smaller countries?  Are we going to have to watch fights ensue for five new national churches there too, with Moscow spending all of its time trying to exert its own dominance?  Why is there some horrible taboo attached to presiding patriarchs outside of national borders?  The whole thing seems ridiculous to me, and make the notion of someone like the Patriarch of Constantinople overseeing the American church more appealing than us doing everything ourselves.  OK, now everyone can kill me.

[Lichnidos]

Christ is risen!

In the few Orthodox history books that I have read,  Macedonia has been depicted as something other than Bulgarian, Serbian, or Greek. Historians seem to be conflicted as to Macedonia being only "Greek" or entirely "Greek." When they speak of the language used to form the Old Church Slavonic, they mention a Macedonian "dialect" that was (and is) spoken in abundance in Thessalonica- obviously something other than Greek.

Being of Macedonian background myself, I can tell you that I am not Bulgarian, Greek, or Serbian and it is not because of some conscious effort not to be these others, but because I'm not. This doesn't mean that we do not have a lot of commonalities with the neighboring nations. And we should exploit these common histories to bring our Churches together.

We know that Greek was the lingua franca and most of the educated, even outside of the Balkan area, spoke Greek. So that is not much proof. From my readings, I came to understand that Macedonia is a separate entity, while being under various conquests during certain part of history. In the book, "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire" J.M. Hussey makes clear reference as Macedonia being something completely different from Bulgarian when they formed the Bulgarian Kingdom. Two different groups forming one kingdom. She says one, the Bulgars come from beyond the Volga, while the Macedonians were in the Balkans. In her book, she also makes it clear that there were various Macedonian dynasties that were part of the Byzantine Empire. From this, in my humble opinion, I can pull that the Byzantine Empire wasn't entirely Greek.

Having said all of this, it is painfully obvious that all that is "Macedonian" cannot be exclusively one particular group. I, along with many, understand that there are Greek claims to Macedonia, and rightfully so. But no one "owns" this particular history, culture, and territory exclusively. Regardless of all of the harshness that is part of Macedonia, I find it exciting that such a entity has the capacity to bring people together, eventhough we have chosen to have it divide us.

[Tzimis]

The Orthodox history books that you claim have this information should be referenced as it is a forum policy to do so.

Welcome to the forum Lichnidos 

[Lichnidos]

The Orthodox history books that you claim have this information should be referenced as it is a forum policy to do so.

Welcome to the forum Lichnidos 

Of course. I mentioned one, "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire - Hussey" Another is "A History of the Christian Church-Walker" and even "The Orthodox Church- Bishop Kallistos"

The Walker book isn't necessarily an "Orthodox" Book.

Glad to be here! Christ is in our midst!

[Tzimis]

The Orthodox history books that you claim have this information should be referenced as it is a forum policy to do so.

Welcome to the forum Lichnidos 

Of course. I mentioned one, "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire - Hussey" Another is "A History of the Christian Church-Walker" and even "The Orthodox Church- Bishop Kallistos"

The Walker book isn't necessarily an "Orthodox" Book.

Glad to be here! Christ is in our midst!

Since when is Joan M. Hussey an author of a book published 1990 an authoritative figure in the Orthodox church? Are you also aware that the Orthodox Church fully rejects the Schismatic and anti-canonical FYROM Church. So anything coming from FYROM sources is not Orthodox.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

The Orthodox history books that you claim have this information should be referenced as it is a forum policy to do so.

Welcome to the forum Lichnidos  

Of course. I mentioned one, "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire - Hussey" Another is "A History of the Christian Church-Walker" and even "The Orthodox Church- Bishop Kallistos"

The Walker book isn't necessarily an "Orthodox" Book.

Glad to be here! Christ is in our midst!

Since when is Joan M. Hussey an author of a book published 1990 an authoritative figure in the Orthodox church? Are you also aware that the Orthodox Church fully rejects the Schismatic and anti-canonical FYROM Church. So anything coming from FYROM sources is not Orthodox.

I think you may be confusing demographics/history with religion. It is indeed possible for people to be Orthodox and not Greek, or any one of the existing and traditional Orthodox churches and/or nationalities. Things that come from, or in the case of Joan Hussey's book that is supportive of, the Republic of Macedonia do not have be necessarily approved by anybody to be valid. This whole bit of recognition should be taken with a grain of salt. take the recognition of Russian autocephaly, for example. Was the Church of Russia an authentic and valid Orthodox Church during the centuries that Constantinople did NOT recognize it? Of course it was; it did not really matter one iota what Constantinople did. Was the Church of Bulgaria autocephalous and then not, and then yes, and then not, and then finally yes again? According to Constantinople's recognition, the answer is yes. Again, it really did not matter what Constantinople did (except being an irritant). The Church of Bulgaria was a valid Orthodox Church all those centuries. I predict that so it will be with the Macedonian Orthodox Church.

[Lichnidos]

The Orthodox history books that you claim have this information should be referenced as it is a forum policy to do so.

Welcome to the forum Lichnidos  

Of course. I mentioned one, "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire - Hussey" Another is "A History of the Christian Church-Walker" and even "The Orthodox Church- Bishop Kallistos"

The Walker book isn't necessarily an "Orthodox" Book.

Glad to be here! Christ is in our midst!

Since when is Joan M. Hussey an author of a book published 1990 an authoritative figure in the Orthodox church? Are you also aware that the Orthodox Church fully rejects the Schismatic and anti-canonical FYROM Church. So anything coming from FYROM sources is not Orthodox.

So I take it when you said "welcome" you were being sarcastic?

[Tzimis]

The Orthodox history books that you claim have this information should be referenced as it is a forum policy to do so.

Welcome to the forum Lichnidos  

Of course. I mentioned one, "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire - Hussey" Another is "A History of the Christian Church-Walker" and even "The Orthodox Church- Bishop Kallistos"

The Walker book isn't necessarily an "Orthodox" Book.

Glad to be here! Christ is in our midst!

Since when is Joan M. Hussey an author of a book published 1990 an authoritative figure in the Orthodox church? Are you also aware that the Orthodox Church fully rejects the Schismatic and anti-canonical FYROM Church. So anything coming from FYROM sources is not Orthodox.

So I take it when you said "welcome" you were being sarcastic?

Sarcastic? Not at all. If you put your Politics aside than welcome. But from your first post you seem to have an agenda.

[podkarpatska]

I am hesitant to weigh in here given the emotional nature of the dispute, but I have to ask the question, based upon Demetrios G's comment about the work published by the late Dr. Hussey in 1990.  Are we, as Orthodox, "required" to reject and not read any scholarly work written by a non-Orthodox writer about the history of the Church and Byzantium? That strikes me as a rather narrow point of view to express. For example, during most of his life the late Jaroslav Peilikan was a Lutheran. In 1998, six years prior to his death, he and his wife joined the Orthodox Church. Would you 'reject' his work pre-1998? I am not suggesting that Dr. Hussey was a 'figure in the Orthodox Church' but throughout much of the twentieth century, she was a renowned Byzantine-era scholar. A cavalier rejection of her body of academic work strikes me as being extreme, even given the enmity and passion that the FYROM and the whole issue of Macedonia and the Balkans and Greece may cause.

[Lichnidos]

The Orthodox history books that you claim have this information should be referenced as it is a forum policy to do so.

Welcome to the forum Lichnidos  

Of course. I mentioned one, "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire - Hussey" Another is "A History of the Christian Church-Walker" and even "The Orthodox Church- Bishop Kallistos"

The Walker book isn't necessarily an "Orthodox" Book.

Glad to be here! Christ is in our midst!

Since when is Joan M. Hussey an author of a book published 1990 an authoritative figure in the Orthodox church? Are you also aware that the Orthodox Church fully rejects the Schismatic and anti-canonical FYROM Church. So anything coming from FYROM sources is not Orthodox.

So I take it when you said "welcome" you were being sarcastic?

Sarcastic? Not at all. If you put your Politics aside than welcome. But from your first post you seem to have an agenda.

 
Uhm, ok 

[stanley123]

Christ is risen!

In the few Orthodox history books that I have read,  Macedonia has been depicted as something other than Bulgarian, Serbian, or Greek. Historians seem to be conflicted as to Macedonia being only "Greek" or entirely "Greek." When they speak of the language used to form the Old Church Slavonic, they mention a Macedonian "dialect" that was (and is) spoken in abundance in Thessalonica- obviously something other than Greek.

Being of Macedonian background myself, I can tell you that I am not Bulgarian, Greek, or Serbian and it is not because of some conscious effort not to be these others, but because I'm not. This doesn't mean that we do not have a lot of commonalities with the neighboring nations. And we should exploit these common histories to bring our Churches together.

We know that Greek was the lingua franca and most of the educated, even outside of the Balkan area, spoke Greek. So that is not much proof. From my readings, I came to understand that Macedonia is a separate entity, while being under various conquests during certain part of history. In the book, "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire" J.M. Hussey makes clear reference as Macedonia being something completely different from Bulgarian when they formed the Bulgarian Kingdom. Two different groups forming one kingdom. She says one, the Bulgars come from beyond the Volga, while the Macedonians were in the Balkans. In her book, she also makes it clear that there were various Macedonian dynasties that were part of the Byzantine Empire. From this, in my humble opinion, I can pull that the Byzantine Empire wasn't entirely Greek.

Having said all of this, it is painfully obvious that all that is "Macedonian" cannot be exclusively one particular group. I, along with many, understand that there are Greek claims to Macedonia, and rightfully so. But no one "owns" this particular history, culture, and territory exclusively. Regardless of all of the harshness that is part of Macedonia, I find it exciting that such a entity has the capacity to bring people together, eventhough we have chosen to have it divide us.

It would be nice to have a readable and  objective  view of the history of Macedonia.  From what I have read there is serious disagreement about whether Macedonia is independent, or part of Bulgaria, or part of Greece.

[stanley123]

Why the heck does everyone have to have their own national church? 

Is this really true? For example, Americans do not have their own national Orthodox Church, nor do Canadians, as far as I know. And what about French, English, Gernans, Spanish and Dutch?

[Lichnidos]

Christ is risen!

In the few Orthodox history books that I have read,  Macedonia has been depicted as something other than Bulgarian, Serbian, or Greek. Historians seem to be conflicted as to Macedonia being only "Greek" or entirely "Greek." When they speak of the language used to form the Old Church Slavonic, they mention a Macedonian "dialect" that was (and is) spoken in abundance in Thessalonica- obviously something other than Greek.

Being of Macedonian background myself, I can tell you that I am not Bulgarian, Greek, or Serbian and it is not because of some conscious effort not to be these others, but because I'm not. This doesn't mean that we do not have a lot of commonalities with the neighboring nations. And we should exploit these common histories to bring our Churches together.

We know that Greek was the lingua franca and most of the educated, even outside of the Balkan area, spoke Greek. So that is not much proof. From my readings, I came to understand that Macedonia is a separate entity, while being under various conquests during certain part of history. In the book, "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire" J.M. Hussey makes clear reference as Macedonia being something completely different from Bulgarian when they formed the Bulgarian Kingdom. Two different groups forming one kingdom. She says one, the Bulgars come from beyond the Volga, while the Macedonians were in the Balkans. In her book, she also makes it clear that there were various Macedonian dynasties that were part of the Byzantine Empire. From this, in my humble opinion, I can pull that the Byzantine Empire wasn't entirely Greek.

Having said all of this, it is painfully obvious that all that is "Macedonian" cannot be exclusively one particular group. I, along with many, understand that there are Greek claims to Macedonia, and rightfully so. But no one "owns" this particular history, culture, and territory exclusively. Regardless of all of the harshness that is part of Macedonia, I find it exciting that such a entity has the capacity to bring people together, eventhough we have chosen to have it divide us.

It would be nice to have a readable and  objective  view of the history of Macedonia.  From what I have read there is serious disagreement about whether Macedonia is independent, or part of Bulgaria, or part of Greece.

 

[mike]

Why the heck does everyone have to have their own national church? 

Is this really true? For example, Americans do not have their own national Orthodox Church, nor do Canadians, as far as I know. And what about French, English, Gernans, Spanish and Dutch?

They all do not. It's a Slavic thing.

[serb1389]

Why the heck does everyone have to have their own national church? 

Is this really true? For example, Americans do not have their own national Orthodox Church, nor do Canadians, as far as I know. And what about French, English, Gernans, Spanish and Dutch?

They all do not. It's a Slavic thing.

America does have a national church, or at least one which is making that claim.  the OCA. 

[podkarpatska]

Why the heck does everyone have to have their own national church? 

Is this really true? For example, Americans do not have their own national Orthodox Church, nor do Canadians, as far as I know. And what about French, English, Gernans, Spanish and Dutch?

They all do not. It's a Slavic thing.

America does have a national church, or at least one which is making that claim.  the OCA. 

It being the post Paschal festival, I am not going to touch that one. 

[Lichnidos]

Why the heck does everyone have to have their own national church? 

Is this really true? For example, Americans do not have their own national Orthodox Church, nor do Canadians, as far as I know. And what about French, English, Gernans, Spanish and Dutch?

They all do not. It's a Slavic thing.

America does have a national church, or at least one which is making that claim.  the OCA. 

I wholeheartedly agree!

[stanley123]

Why the heck does everyone have to have their own national church? 

Is this really true? For example, Americans do not have their own national Orthodox Church, nor do Canadians, as far as I know. And what about French, English, Gernans, Spanish and Dutch?

They all do not. It's a Slavic thing.

America does have a national church, or at least one which is making that claim.  the OCA. 

Thanks for recalling that for me.
Is the Greek ORthodox Archdiocese of America under the OCA or is it independent of it. I guess that the Greek Orthodox in America are ultimately under the Greek Patriarch, but what about the OCA. Who would be the Patriarch of the OCA?

[augustin717]

OCA is under the Russian Church. I'm sure it still receives directives from there

[serb1389]

Why the heck does everyone have to have their own national church? 

Is this really true? For example, Americans do not have their own national Orthodox Church, nor do Canadians, as far as I know. And what about French, English, Gernans, Spanish and Dutch?

They all do not. It's a Slavic thing.

America does have a national church, or at least one which is making that claim.  the OCA. 

Thanks for recalling that for me.
Is the Greek ORthodox Archdiocese of America under the OCA or is it independent of it. I guess that the Greek Orthodox in America are ultimately under the Greek Patriarch, but what about the OCA. Who would be the Patriarch of the OCA?

That's actually a very complicated and involved question.  Shortly put, the OCA came out the Moscow Patriarchate, and they were declared autocephalous by that Patriarchate, which means they get to chose their OWN head of church, and their OWN bishops.  So, they have their own "archbishop" called a Metropolitan, and his name is Metropolitan Jonah. 

For more information you can always read more at www.oca.org

for more discussion about the OCA there are tons of threads on this site about it.  I would recommend doing a basic search and pick whichever ones look interesting  to you. 

[mike]

Comment on present political situation in Macedonia has been moved to the Politics board. Contact FrChris if you haven't an access there and want to get one.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Tito and the Macedonian Orthodox Church