Topic: Serbian bishop expresses support for Macedonian autocephaly

[biro]

Bishop Lavrentije of the Serbian Orthodox Church said it may be time for the Macedonian Orthodox Church to be given canonical recognition. In an interview with the Serbian tabloid Blic, the Bishop said the following:

"I believe that such an initiative would be welcomed with open arms in Macedonia. Almost all Orthodox churches are autocephalous, why wouldn't the same be true of the Macedonia Church. This needs to be arranged canonically."

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Bishop Lavrentije of the Serbian Orthodox Church said it may be time for the Macedonian Orthodox Church to be given canonical recognition. In an interview with the Serbian tabloid Blic, the Bishop said the following:

"I believe that such an initiative would be welcomed with open arms in Macedonia. Almost all Orthodox churches are autocephalous, why wouldn't the same be true of the Macedonia Church. This needs to be arranged canonically."

Quite interesting (and not only because I agree with His Grace's rationale). I also noticed that the cited article ends with another reason for this POV: "(Bishop) Lavrentije also commented on President Tomislav Nikolić's initiative for the two states to help the churches in overcoming their problems, to say that it was "honorable and sincere", but that the issues in question should be solved by the religious authorities themselves."

[Shanghaiski]

"To his Holiness _____, Archbishop of Skopje and all the Former Yugoslave Republic of Macedonia, many years!" has a certain ring to it.

The Macedonian Question lives on.

"What question?" ask the Greeks.

"What Macedonia?" ask the Bulgarians.

I love those Orthodox problems that have been going on for over 1,000 years.

[mike]

Quite interesting (and not only because I agree with His Grace's rationale). I also noticed that the cited article ends with another reason for this POV: "(Bishop) Lavrentije also commented on President Tomislav Nikolić's initiative for the two states to help the churches in overcoming their problems, to say that it was "honorable and sincere", but that the issues in question should be solved by the religious authorities themselves."

Nikolić said the condition for him to support talks was stopping persecuting Abp John.

[ialmisry]

Quite interesting (and not only because I agree with His Grace's rationale). I also noticed that the cited article ends with another reason for this POV: "(Bishop) Lavrentije also commented on President Tomislav Nikolić's initiative for the two states to help the churches in overcoming their problems, to say that it was "honorable and sincere", but that the issues in question should be solved by the religious authorities themselves."

Nikolić said the condition for him to support talks was stopping persecuting Abp John.

That is the route to autocephaly.

[Antonis]

I would say the minimum requirement for talks of any sort to begin would be their immediate release of Archbishop John and asking of his forgiveness and recognition of their extreme and un-Christian error. Personally, I would still be against it. Such nationalism has no place in the Church, and that seems to be the main goal of the coalition between the breakaway bishops and their government. It's awful.

[88Devin12]

I just find it funny that they insist they are Macedonians when the real Macedonia is actually in Greece, or at least the Macedonia of Philip & Alexander.

[Servos]

Bishop Lavrentije of the Serbian Orthodox Church said it may be time for the Macedonian Orthodox Church to be given canonical recognition.

Scandalous.
The Church in Former Serbian Province of Vardarska is already recognized.
http://www.poa-info.org/eng

[Servos]

Russian documentary with English subtitles
The Schism in FYRMacedonia
http://vimeo.com/8129549

[Servos]

Persecution of canonical Church in Former Serbian Province of Vardarska:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l25RAep6Oto

[Cyrillic]

I just find it funny that they insist they are Macedonians when the real Macedonia is actually in Greece, or at least the Macedonia of Philip & Alexander.

Didn't you know that Alexander the Great was a slav?

[Alpo]

Great. Like everything we needed was yet another Phyletist church.

[ialmisry]

I just find it funny that they insist they are Macedonians when the real Macedonia is actually in Greece, or at least the Macedonia of Philip & Alexander.

A little genocide and a lot of denial are responsible for that.

According to the Greeks, Macedonia isn't in the Church of Greece (its under the EP).

[ialmisry]

I would say the minimum requirement for talks of any sort to begin would be their immediate release of Archbishop John and asking of his forgiveness and recognition of their extreme and un-Christian error. Personally, I would still be against it. Such nationalism has no place in the Church, and that seems to be the main goal of the coalition between the breakaway bishops and their government. It's awful.

Other than the persecution of the archbishop, I know of no reason why they shouldn't be autocephalous.

[Αριστοκλής]

I just find it funny that they insist they are Macedonians when the real Macedonia is actually in Greece, or at least the Macedonia of Philip & Alexander.

A little genocide and a lot of denial are responsible for that.

According to the Greeks, Macedonia isn't in the Church of Greece (its under the EP).

Tsk, tsk...
We've argued that before. I'm sure you were here for that, but maybe not (still at CAF).

[ialmisry]

I just find it funny that they insist they are Macedonians when the real Macedonia is actually in Greece, or at least the Macedonia of Philip & Alexander.

A little genocide and a lot of denial are responsible for that.

According to the Greeks, Macedonia isn't in the Church of Greece (its under the EP).

Tsk, tsk...
We've argued that before. I'm sure you were here for that, but maybe not (still at CAF).

No, I know it was here.  I don't recall it @ CAF.

[Servos]

Other than the persecution of the archbishop, I know of no reason why they shouldn't be autocephalous.

The reason is very simple. This organization, so-called "church" is founded by Yugoslav Communistic Party just after Second World War in the time when the Church was severely persecuted.
Can Church be founded by some political party ? No. That is the reason.

But as I already said before, there is a legal Church in that country with 4 bishops, priests, monks, nuns and believers so everyone there who wants to be the member of One and Apostolic Church can be.

[ialmisry]

Other than the persecution of the archbishop, I know of no reason why they shouldn't be autocephalous.

The reason is very simple. This organization, so-called "church" is founded by Yugoslav Communistic Party just after Second World War in the time when the Church was severely persecuted.
Can Church be founded by some political party ? No. That is the reason.

Ohrid's autocephaly was wretched from Rome by the Emperor Justinian, and its organization in the ninth century, about a millenium before the communists, who took advantage of such facts.

But as I already said before, there is a legal Church in that country with 4 bishops, priests, monks, nuns and believers so everyone there who wants to be the member of One and Apostolic Church can be.

The canonical Church is illegal at present.  Hence the persecusion of Archbishop Jovan

[Servos]

Ohrid's autocephaly was wretched from Rome by the Emperor Justinian, and its organization in the ninth century, about a millenium before the communists, who took advantage of such facts.

Ohrid autocephaly has nothing in common with so-called "Macedonian Orthodox Church" established after Wolrd War II.
It is a theatre.
The communist can not have advantage because they are not members of the Church.
Everyone can declare himself as a Roman Pope, Napoleon or a Bishop. But that is not relevant for the Church.

The canonical Church is illegal at present.  

That is political problem. This illegality is not congruent with modern European law. FYROM said it wants to be EU member, etc. and this now is impermissible.
Anyhow, legal or illegal in eyes of a local government, it is canonical. For us Orthodox that is important.

[primuspilus]

Is this the same Macedonian Church that canonized Alexander the Great?

[ialmisry]

Ohrid's autocephaly was wretched from Rome by the Emperor Justinian, and its organization in the ninth century, about a millenium before the communists, who took advantage of such facts.

Ohrid autocephaly has nothing in common with so-called "Macedonian Orthodox Church" established after Wolrd War II.
It is a theatre.

As they say in real estate: location, LOCATION, LOCATION!

The Macedonian Orthodox Church has possession of the patrimony of Ohrid, and is derived therefrom (Macedonian and Bulgarian are the only ones in running for direct descendant of the Old Church Slavonic of SS. Cyril and Methodius).

And its canonical archbishop is the heir of St. Clement of Ohrid (hence why his eminence is "Jovan VI," not "Jovan I," who was John of Debar, a Macedonian in the Slavic sense of the word, who presided from Ohrid 1018-1037).

The communist can not have advantage because they are not members of the Church.

Neither can the Muslim, because the Sultan who "abolished" the Church of Ohrid in 1767 was not a member of the Church.

Everyone can declare himself as a Roman Pope, Napoleon or a Bishop. But that is not relevant for the Church.

Then New Rome/Constantinople, Serbia and the Church of Greece have no basis for their autocephaly.

The canonical Church is illegal at present.  

That is political problem. This illegality is not congruent with modern European law. FYROM said it wants to be EU member, etc. and this now is impermissible.
Anyhow, legal or illegal in eyes of a local government, it is canonical. For us Orthodox that is important.

I merely pointed out that you called the canonical Church legal, when it is not.  Hence the problem.

[Servos]

Is this the same Macedonian Church that canonized Alexander the Great?

Yes, that's the one.
But, what can you expect from communist's founded "church".

[88Devin12]

Is this the same Macedonian Church that canonized Alexander the Great?

That is one person that cannot and won't be carried over in the case of its reunion. How stupid is that? That's like if we were to canonize Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Homer, Leonidas or Odysseus.

[primuspilus]

Is this the same Macedonian Church that canonized Alexander the Great?

That is one person that cannot and won't be carried over in the case of its reunion. How stupid is that? That's like if we were to canonize Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Homer, Leonidas or Odysseus.

That would give me pause the allow their canonical status. If their judgement is that flawed, there is probably a bigger issue.

PP

[Servos]

Yes, please teach all the patriarchs and all hierarchs what and where is the Church.
They are all wrong, just you and those schismatics are in right.   

[88Devin12]

Is this the same Macedonian Church that canonized Alexander the Great?

That is one person that cannot and won't be carried over in the case of its reunion. How stupid is that? That's like if we were to canonize Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Homer, Leonidas or Odysseus.

That would give me pause the allow their canonical status. If their judgement is that flawed, there is probably a bigger issue.

PP

After reading a bit more, is there any evidence they canonized him other than that private blog?

The dome isn't reserved for Christ, the central dome in the nave is, the other domes can have whoever, but usually would be the Theotokos, John the Baptist, the Evangelists or others.

There are some canonical Orthodox Churches in Greece who apparently have Plato and others in the exonarthex without halos and without the ΑΓ. before their name. So while it may not technically be right, there are other examples out there.

Now if he were depicted with a halo and with Αγ. before his name, there would be a problem.

[Servos]

in the case of its reunion.

But 88Devin12,
Reunion already happened in 2002.

You have all relevant documents here:
http://www.poa-info.org/history/schism

Or in brief:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Ohrid_Archbishopric (with some inaccuracies)

[88Devin12]

in the case of its reunion.

But 88Devin12,
Reunion already happened in 2002.

You have all relevant documents here:
http://www.poa-info.org/history/schism

Or in brief:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Ohrid_Archbishopric (with some inaccuracies)

No reunion hasn't happened yet. Servos, the Bishop in the OP is talking about the Macedonian Orthodox Church not the Ohrid Archbishopric. The Macedonian Orthodox Church wants to be recognized as autocephalous and haven't been and are recognized as schismatic, this Bishop is saying that it is time to grant them autocephaly and being them back into the Church.

[Servos]

No reunion hasn't happened yet. Servos, the Bishop in the OP is talking about the Macedonian Orthodox Church not the Ohrid Archbishopric. The Macedonian Orthodox Church wants to be recognized as autocephalous and haven't been and are recognized as schismatic, this Bishop is saying that it is time to grant them autocephaly and being them back into the Church.

That is the reason why interview of the Bishop in question is scandalous.
We have canonical ecclesiastical structure there.

We can not have two Bishops of Skoplje who claim to be canonical.

If we recognize "Macedonian Orthodox Church" as canonical, we than need to declare Archbishop John as not canonical. That is nonsense.

Like in Ukraine. We have ONE canonical Church. All others can join whenever they want. But we can not recognize TWO churches in Ukraine, for example.

Just to add, that this view of Bishop in question we can read in interview has no support at all in Serbian Church. We are firmly united with our brothers and sisters in Greece and FYROM (members of canonical Church).

Macedonia is only one and it is Greek.

[88Devin12]

No reunion hasn't happened yet. Servos, the Bishop in the OP is talking about the Macedonian Orthodox Church not the Ohrid Archbishopric. The Macedonian Orthodox Church wants to be recognized as autocephalous and haven't been and are recognized as schismatic, this Bishop is saying that it is time to grant them autocephaly and being them back into the Church.

That is the reason why interview of the Bishop in question is scandalous.
We have canonical ecclesiastical structure there.

We can not have two Bishops of Skoplje who claim to be canonical.

If we recognize "Macedonian Orthodox Church" as canonical, we than need to declare Archbishop John as not canonical. That is nonsense.

Like in Ukraine. We have ONE canonical Church. All others can join whenever they want. But we can not recognize TWO churches in Ukraine, for example.

Just to add, that this view of Bishop in question we can read in interview has no support at all in Serbian Church. We are firmly united with our brothers and sisters in Greece and FYROM (members of canonical Church).

Macedonia is only one and it is Greek.

Servos, you are misunderstanding I think, if reunion were to occur, they would not have two archbishoprics. Like if we and the Orientals were to reunite, we wouldn't have two Bishops and churches in Alexandria, they would be merged into one.

To merge isn't to recognize one as canonical and the other as not.

As Orthodox we also cannot have the attitude of "they must join us and our existing structure if they want union." That kind of zealous, fanatical thinking is the polar opposite of Ecumenism and is just as wrong as Ecumenism.

Like here in the US, we have multiple canonical Bishops in the same cities, this will be fixed and some will retain their jurisdiction and others won't and will be given a new diocese to administer.

Like if Ukrainians were to unite, I don't think it'd be as simple as all going under the MP-Kiev group. They would have to meet in the middle.

Jurisdiction and politics are NOT doctrine, dogma or theology and we have the freedom to bend canons if they need to be bent. We cannot compromise on doctrine, but we can compromise a little on the "laws" in order to get a more canonical and better system in place. We aren't a legalistic church and don't adhere strictly to the canons, and we recognize that we have the ability to use economy to bend them if needed.

Are there theological divisions between us? If not, then what divides us? If it is their desire for autocephaly, then why not actually consider bringing them in and granting it, while also merging our current groups there with them?

We aren't zealots or fanatics and we shouldn't ever be.

[Servos]

Servos, you are misunderstanding I think,

Someone of two of us is misunderstanding. But I am not sure that I am the one : )

My English is not good enough to answer you. Anyhow, I agree with you the most. If ALL patriarchs are zelous about this question, I am too. But I don't think that they are. On the contrary. They are ready to use economy, as they shown with Archbishop John.

You mentioned USA. Will SCOBA try economy with some obscure so-called orthodox groups? No.
Same question is here.

Why don't you have trust in Ecumenical Patriarch, Serbian Patriarch, Greek Archbishop, Archbishop of Skoplje, etc ? Maybe they are more deep in the knowledge of problem then you are ?

I noticed here that some members of this forum present their view with such certainty like they are experts on the theme.

[mike]

Can Church be founded by some political party ? No. That is the reason.

Tell that to the EP, or to the Greeks, or to the Polish Church, or to the Russians, or Bulgarians, or Serbians... All the autocephalous Churches were made autocephalous because of the political influence.

Is this the same Macedonian Church that canonized Alexander the Great?

No. That was a hoax.

[Servos]

Tell that to the EP, or to the Greeks, or to the Polish Church, or to the Russians, or Bulgarians, or Serbians... All the autocephalous Churches were made autocephalous because of the political influence.

First, regarding Serbian Church, one thing is influence of pious rulers, other thing is creation of the "church" by atheist communists who are not memebers of the Church.

Second, other churches recognized Serbian Church as autocephalous.
No one Church recognizes "Macedonian Church". If that happened no problem.
But there is no intention for now to be done so, except one Serbian bishop.
Can one find me some Greek bishop to think the same ? Or some bishop in USA ? Or in Poland ? No.

[88Devin12]

Servos, you are misunderstanding I think,

Someone of two of us is misunderstanding. But I am not sure that I am the one : )

My English is not good enough to answer you. Anyhow, I agree with you the most. If ALL patriarchs are zelous about this question, I am too. But I don't think that they are. On the contrary. They are ready to use economy, as they shown with Archbishop John.

You mentioned USA. Will SCOBA try economy with some obscure so-called orthodox groups? No.
Same question is here.

Why don't you have trust in Ecumenical Patriarch, Serbian Patriarch, Greek Archbishop, Archbishop of Skoplje, etc ? Maybe they are more deep in the knowledge of problem then you are ?

I noticed here that some members of this forum present their view with such certainty like they are experts on the theme.

SCOBA doesn't exist anymore. We now have the Assembly of Canonical Bishops, which is mandatory and the unity of the jurisdictions is also mandatory, just pending.

The Macedonian Orthodox Church isn't an obscure group, it was a group that was Orthodox canonically and now isn't canonical due primarily to politics. There are over 2,000,000 members of the MOC, so it isn't obscure.

You also have to know a little of the history of the Orthodox Church. Many, if not most churches which are now autocephalous went through long periods of being regarded as schismatic or non-canonical. They usually ended up being recognized as canonical.

[Servos]

There are over 2,000,000 members of the MOC, so it isn't obscure.

False.

[mike]

First, regarding Serbian Church, one thing is influence of pious rulers, other thing is creation of the "church" by atheist communists who are not memebers of the Church.

Like Stalin, Ceauşescu, or Zhivkov?

But there is no intention for now to be done so, except one Serbian bishop.
Can one find me some Greek bishop to think the same ? Or some bishop in USA ? Or in Poland ? No.

No intention? Really?

"we are open to giving support, if needed, to our brothers in Serbia and Macedonia so that they may find a common language"

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2009/11/12/news8277/

"Since we have ascertained from our personal meeting with you that you indeed honestly wish for the settling of this ecclesiastical issue according to unchangeable Canon Law of the Orthodox Church, we would like to ask paternally Your Excellency to give counsel to Their Eminences the Hierarchs to return to the table of negotiations with the Holy Church of Serbia, stating that our Modesty is always willing to assist and intercede in the peaceful resolution of this problem that has greatly saddened the entire body of the Local Orthodox Churches. "

http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/prime-minister-of-fyrom-buckovski-2005

[88Devin12]

There are over 2,000,000 members of the MOC, so it isn't obscure.

False.

2 mil may be high but 65% of Macedonians are members of the MOC (not the EO group) which numbers about 1,350,000. (Source is CIA World Factbook) Definitely not obscure.

[ialmisry]

Tell that to the EP, or to the Greeks, or to the Polish Church, or to the Russians, or Bulgarians, or Serbians... All the autocephalous Churches were made autocephalous because of the political influence.

First, regarding Serbian Church, one thing is influence of pious rulers, other thing is creation of the "church" by atheist communists who are not memebers of the Church.

The Church of Ohrid was created by the influence of the pious rulers Emperor Justinian, Khan Boris/Prince St. Michael, Czar Simeon I and Emperor Basil, all members of the Church.

[ialmisry]

There are over 2,000,000 members of the MOC, so it isn't obscure.

False.

2 mil may be high but 65% of Macedonians are members of the MOC (not the EO group) which numbers about 1,350,000. (Source is CIA World Factbook) Definitely not obscure.

At the least definitely not in Macedonia.

[88Devin12]

There are over 2,000,000 members of the MOC, so it isn't obscure.

False.

2 mil may be high but 65% of Macedonians are members of the MOC (not the EO group) which numbers about 1,350,000. (Source is CIA World Factbook) Definitely not obscure.

At the least definitely not in Macedonia.

That could be said about all Orthodox Churches.

[Gorazd]

Let them have their Church, as long as they fully rehabilitate the members of the canonical Serbian Patriarchate. As for the name, it can just be Church of Ohrid.

[ialmisry]

No reunion hasn't happened yet. Servos, the Bishop in the OP is talking about the Macedonian Orthodox Church not the Ohrid Archbishopric. The Macedonian Orthodox Church wants to be recognized as autocephalous and haven't been and are recognized as schismatic, this Bishop is saying that it is time to grant them autocephaly and being them back into the Church.

That is the reason why interview of the Bishop in question is scandalous.
We have canonical ecclesiastical structure there.

We can not have two Bishops of Skoplje who claim to be canonical.

If we recognize "Macedonian Orthodox Church" as canonical, we than need to declare Archbishop John as not canonical. That is nonsense.

Like in Ukraine. We have ONE canonical Church. All others can join whenever they want. But we can not recognize TWO churches in Ukraine, for example.

Just to add, that this view of Bishop in question we can read in interview has no support at all in Serbian Church. We are firmly united with our brothers and sisters in Greece and FYROM (members of canonical Church).

Macedonia is only one and it is Greek.

Which one is it?













SS. Cyril and Methodius of Thessalonika taught their disciple St. Clement of Ohrid that it was Макєдонїꙗ.

[ialmisry]

Let them have their Church, as long as they fully rehabilitate the members of the canonical Serbian Patriarchate. As for the name, it can just be Church of Ohrid.

and All Macedonia.

[Αριστοκλής]

Great maps...go, Isa!

[88Devin12]

The current country of Macedonia, or rather the area it encompasses was originally part of Macedonia/Macedon even though it wasn't the center. I'd almost compare it to that Alaska is just as much part of the US as any other state, and if many centuries from now, the US doesn't exist and Alaska forms a government and calls itself the Republic of America or something. Was Alaska the center of the US? No, but it was still a part of the US.

Or like Israel, which is nothing like Ancient Israel but uses the name.

It would be very naive to think a nation or a church will change its name because you don't like or agree with it. It nationalistic to desire to continue schism because of a name, just as it is also nationalistic to desire schism based on nationality.