Topic: Organize by nation or region? (split from Two of the largest eparchies of the UAOC join the UOC-KP)

[mike]

And I answered to the points your reasoning went wrong ^

[ialmisry]

According to the latest Polish census (last year), Poland contained 46,000 Belorussians, 10,000 Lemkos, 13,000 Russians and 48,000 Ukrainians, including ones who also claim to be Polish and those who claim to be Belorus etc. as a second identity. That adds up to 117,000 (30k+6k+5k+27k=68,000 if one counts those who claim to only be Belarussian, Lemko, Russian or Ukrainian).
http://www.stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/sy_demographic_yearbook_2012.pdf
If every single one was Orthodox (and the Annuario Pontifico claims 55,000 for the UGCC and 650 for others of the Vatican's eastern flock , the Polish 2011 census claims 35,000 "Greek Catholic")
http://www.cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat12.pdf
at most they would be at most 75% of what the 2011 census found for the Polish Orthodox Church.  Once you account for the UGCC et alia, count those who identify in part as Polish etc, the percentage of Poles in the Polish Orthodox Church accounts for at least 55%.

Good Maths

LOL.  Btw, that a Britishism. (although the Canadians might have it as well).

you did. The problem is most of these "Poles" are Poles 2nd or 1st generation due to their parents polonized out of fear or conformism.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but I don't consider it necessary to check the DNA to find descent from Lech. If they claim to be Poles (for whatever reason, and I'd rather they become Polish Orthodox than Ukrainian, Belarus etc. followers of the Vatican), and the Poles accept them, they're Polish as far as I'm concerned.

If we eliminated all those whose genes turned Polish out of conformism (helped with a lot of fear, despite what Polish propaganda says), how many szlachta would be left?

Btw, 160,000, if accurate, would mean a considerable drop in the POC. From anecdote and studies on trends, it would seem to be accounted for by the massive immigration from Poland, but still worrisome.

That census is not to be trusted since the manner it was executed and the frauds done by interwievers makes those minority numbers not reliable at all. On the other hand previous numbers of the Orthodox believers given to the CSO by the Church are also not to be believed. It means we have to numbers, one overestimated, one - underestimated.

I suspected as much (prior knowledge of the 1931 census etc.), but since I have no proof, I don't want to make accusation.  Just say there must be at least 160,000.

That emmigration thing had no major role.

Oh?  I've been bumping into a lot of Polish immigrants, including Orthodox ones (interesting, most identified as Poles, except one Belorussian who claimed both nationalities).

As for the past, Poles would never have constituted a majority during the First Republic, as it annexed so many Rus' and Lithuanian Orthodox, and promoted submission to the Vatican as a vital part (perhaps the most important, rivaled only by the Polish language) of Polonization: despite that, the Poles never formed the majority of the Commonwealth, mostly being around 40%.

"Lithuanian Orthodox"? In what sense "Lithuanian"?

In the sense that they were Lithuanian, and Orthodox, specifically spoke Lithuanian and/or was descended from Lithuanian tribes and was baptized Orthodox.  Even most of the first generation of the Jagellions after Krewo/Kreva remained Orthodox and did not apostatize with him.

[Gorazd]

LOL.  Btw, that a Britishism. (although the Canadians might have it as well).

So what? The language is called "English" rather than "USAish" and British English is still the official standard in the European Union. (Though I personally use American pronounciation, having grown up near the EUCOM).

[mike]

If we eliminated all those whose genes turned Polish out of conformism (helped with a lot of fear, despite what Polish propaganda says), how many szlachta would be left?

Several hundreds of thousands.

In the sense that they were Lithuanian, and Orthodox, specifically spoke Lithuanian and/or was descended from Lithuanian tribes and was baptized Orthodox.  Even most of the first generation of the Jagellions after Krewo/Kreva remained Orthodox and did not apostatize with him.

No Lithuanian tribes were baptised Orthodox and almost none Orthodox spoke Lithuanian then. Lithuanians (or, more precisely, Lietuvises) were pagans.

Majority of the GDL inhabitans were Orthodox Ruthenians.

[ialmisry]

LOL.  Btw, that a Britishism. (although the Canadians might have it as well).

So what? The language is called "English" rather than "USAish" and British English is still the official standard in the European Union. (Though I personally use American pronounciation, having grown up near the EUCOM).

Just pointing the fact out.  Michal is the type to appreciate such things.  Most Americans wouldn't know what he meant.  For them "Maths" means the thing you wipe your feet on.  They say "math."

As for British English, I've pointed out elsewhere its estimation reached a low when Oxford bent over for the Soviets to define according to Marxist usage.

[ialmisry]

If we eliminated all those whose genes turned Polish out of conformism (helped with a lot of fear, despite what Polish propaganda says), how many szlachta would be left?

Several hundreds of thousands.

Not much in a nation of 40 million.

In the sense that they were Lithuanian, and Orthodox, specifically spoke Lithuanian and/or was descended from Lithuanian tribes and was baptized Orthodox.  Even most of the first generation of the Jagellions after Krewo/Kreva remained Orthodox and did not apostatize with him.

No Lithuanian tribes were baptised Orthodox and almost none Orthodox spoke Lithuanian then. Lithuanians (or, more precisely, Lietuvises) were pagans.[/quote]
Vaišelga, son and successor of King Mindaugas as Grand Duke of Lithuania certainly spoke Lithuaninian, was descended from Lithuanians tribesmen (most Lithuanians are: their genetics show the population has been pretty stable ever since settled), and was baptized Orthodox.  I'd have to look up again, but their were areas when Orthodoxy had begun to penetrate. Most, however, perhaps came from intermarriage with Orthodox Rus', as the case of the Jagellions, all of which spoke Lithuanian, were descendants of Lithuanian tribesmen, and were baptized Orthodox.  The last Jagiellon to speak Lithuanian was Alexander (Aleksandras Jogailaitis), Grand Duke of Lithuania from 1492, and King of Poland from 1501, until 1506. He was also (coincidence?) the last to marry an Orthodox, Helena of Moscow, heiress of the Rurikids and the Palaiologans.  The Olelkaičiai, among the last Great Princes of Kiev, were descendants of the Lithuanian tribes-being the scions of Algirdas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, as was Teodoros/Fyodor of Kiev, brother of Gediminas, the Grand Duke of Lithuania and the founder of its state.  All were Orthodox descendents of Lithuanian tribesmen-whether they spoke Lithuanian in Kiev I don't know, but their relationship to the rulers in Vilnius suggests yes.  There were many such families, which, if they remained Orthodox, mostly ended up assimilated into the Rus' population-some going to Moscow as the Crown insisted on its Latin faith in the Commonwealth.

Majority of the GDL inhabitants were Orthodox Ruthenians.

That would be a given.  The ratio of Ukrainians (38 million) and Belarussians (9 million) versus Lithuanians (3 millions) in the area of the GDL today doesn't seem to be very different from what it was, which couldn't have been more than 10% Lithuanians in the Grand Duchy at its height.

[podkarpatska]

According to the latest Polish census (last year), Poland contained 46,000 Belorussians, 10,000 Lemkos, 13,000 Russians and 48,000 Ukrainians, including ones who also claim to be Polish and those who claim to be Belorus etc. as a second identity. That adds up to 117,000 (30k+6k+5k+27k=68,000 if one counts those who claim to only be Belarussian, Lemko, Russian or Ukrainian).
http://www.stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/sy_demographic_yearbook_2012.pdf
If every single one was Orthodox (and the Annuario Pontifico claims 55,000 for the UGCC and 650 for others of the Vatican's eastern flock , the Polish 2011 census claims 35,000 "Greek Catholic")
http://www.cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat12.pdf
at most they would be at most 75% of what the 2011 census found for the Polish Orthodox Church.  Once you account for the UGCC et alia, count those who identify in part as Polish etc, the percentage of Poles in the Polish Orthodox Church accounts for at least 55%.

Good Maths you did. The problem is most of these "Poles" are Poles 2nd or 1st generation due to their parents polonized out of fear or conformism.

Btw, 160,000, if accurate, would mean a considerable drop in the POC. From anecdote and studies on trends, it would seem to be accounted for by the massive immigration from Poland, but still worrisome.

That census is not to be trusted since the manner it was executed and the frauds done by interwievers makes those minority numbers not reliable at all. On the other hand previous numbers of the Orthodox believers given to the CSO by the Church are also not to be believed. It means we have to numbers, one overestimated, one - underestimated.

That emmigration thing had no major role.

As for the past, Poles would never have constituted a majority during the First Republic, as it annexed so many Rus' and Lithuanian Orthodox, and promoted submission to the Vatican as a vital part (perhaps the most important, rivaled only by the Polish language) of Polonization: despite that, the Poles never formed the majority of the Commonwealth, mostly being around 40%.

"Lithuanian Orthodox"? In what sense "Lithuanian"?

I wanted to note that the census issue Michal mentioned is not unique to Poland among the former so-called "soviet bloc" countries. Similar issues regarding the accuracy of minority group undercounts have been known in Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine. 

[Putnik Namernik]

Without the national churches the number of Orthodox believers in Balkans would be significantly smaller...Autocephalous churches in places like Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Kosovo have nothing to do with faith but with politics and would not contribute to missionary of non-Serbs...I don't want to comment about Moldavia and Ukraine since I am not as much aware of all historical factors involved...Abolishing national churches might lead us towards having similar structure as the Roman Catholic Church which I don't see as an upgrade. Perhaps there might be reorganization some time far away into the future...but that will be very difficult sunce the circumstances very from place to place.

I never spoke of abolishing anything. I was talking of having set an unwise precedent in the past, not trying to roll back time. However, if what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then that only reinforces my feelings. Phyletism and nationalism have no place in the Church and if people are members of their local church for either reason one has to wonder whether they are even Christian at all. Keeping such nominal adherents 'Orthodox' does not seem to me to be a reason to create a new autocephalous church whenever a state fragments - that might encourage nationalism but it does nothing to encourage faith.

James

I was not refering to you or anyone in particular regarding the statement that national churches played a big role for missionary purposes.During the Ottoman Empire church was the one that provide people with hope. Eventually national and religious identification became one and the same which is why Serbs are mainly Orthodox, Croats are Roman Catholics and Bosniaks are now Muslims...this is why it is difficult to find nonOrthodox Greek, Bulgarians...that was the case until recently...there is too much history and politics involved and I really dislike discussing it but at the same time it bothers me when I see untruths being spread so easily...I have read and heard about Serbs being blamed for so many things (just an example) that I am really worrying if we as humanitye are devolving....or oversimplifying issues abou the Balkans where Serbs are always the opresors and the bad guys...The eeason why I don't wish to  discuss things in Ukdaine because I do not know as much about as I should yet other who are even from that area try to portray things as black and white. It hurts me to see brothers and sisters in Christ use such nonChristian terminology amongst the others. I am not saying that Serbs are saints but this is getting ridiculous... Perhaps one of the options is having regional multinational jurisdictions perhaps could resolve some of the current issues...

[mike]

Not much in a nation of 40 million.

I mean the process that started after the WWII. Union of Brest and its iquidation had moved Western/Eastern Slavic border about 60 km East. If you count that you can multiply this number a couple of times.

Vaišelga, son and successor of King Mindaugas as Grand Duke of Lithuania certainly spoke Lithuaninian, was descended from Lithuanians tribesmen (most Lithuanians are: their genetics show the population has been pretty stable ever since settled), and was baptized Orthodox.  I'd have to look up again, but their were areas when Orthodoxy had begun to penetrate. Most, however, perhaps came from intermarriage with Orthodox Rus', as the case of the Jagellions, all of which spoke Lithuanian, were descendants of Lithuanian tribesmen, and were baptized Orthodox.  The last Jagiellon to speak Lithuanian was Alexander (Aleksandras Jogailaitis), Grand Duke of Lithuania from 1492, and King of Poland from 1501, until 1506. He was also (coincidence?) the last to marry an Orthodox, Helena of Moscow, heiress of the Rurikids and the Palaiologans.  The Olelkaičiai, among the last Great Princes of Kiev, were descendants of the Lithuanian tribes-being the scions of Algirdas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, as was Teodoros/Fyodor of Kiev, brother of Gediminas, the Grand Duke of Lithuania and the founder of its state.  All were Orthodox descendents of Lithuanian tribesmen-whether they spoke Lithuanian in Kiev I don't know, but their relationship to the rulers in Vilnius suggests yes.  There were many such families, which, if they remained Orthodox, mostly ended up assimilated into the Rus' population-some going to Moscow as the Crown insisted on its Latin faith in the Commonwealth.

I mean actual people, not some handful of political-Oriented conversions or inter-ethnic marriages.

[ialmisry]

Not much in a nation of 40 million.

I mean the process that started after the WWII. Union of Brest and its iquidation had moved Western/Eastern Slavic border about 60 km East. If you count that you can multiply this number a couple of times.

Vaišelga, son and successor of King Mindaugas as Grand Duke of Lithuania certainly spoke Lithuaninian, was descended from Lithuanians tribesmen (most Lithuanians are: their genetics show the population has been pretty stable ever since settled), and was baptized Orthodox.  I'd have to look up again, but their were areas when Orthodoxy had begun to penetrate. Most, however, perhaps came from intermarriage with Orthodox Rus', as the case of the Jagellions, all of which spoke Lithuanian, were descendants of Lithuanian tribesmen, and were baptized Orthodox.  The last Jagiellon to speak Lithuanian was Alexander (Aleksandras Jogailaitis), Grand Duke of Lithuania from 1492, and King of Poland from 1501, until 1506. He was also (coincidence?) the last to marry an Orthodox, Helena of Moscow, heiress of the Rurikids and the Palaiologans.  The Olelkaičiai, among the last Great Princes of Kiev, were descendants of the Lithuanian tribes-being the scions of Algirdas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, as was Teodoros/Fyodor of Kiev, brother of Gediminas, the Grand Duke of Lithuania and the founder of its state.  All were Orthodox descendents of Lithuanian tribesmen-whether they spoke Lithuanian in Kiev I don't know, but their relationship to the rulers in Vilnius suggests yes.  There were many such families, which, if they remained Orthodox, mostly ended up assimilated into the Rus' population-some going to Moscow as the Crown insisted on its Latin faith in the Commonwealth.

I mean actual people, not some handful of political-Oriented conversions or inter-ethnic marriages.

History only records a handful of people, usually the politically connected, who, none the less, are actual people.  Other people only get mentioned incidentally (and other Lithuanian Orthodox are incidentally mentioned).  In the history in question, two problems stand out for history-1) the Lithuanians never wrote down their language until Lithuania almost ceased as an entity, instead 2) wrote in Ruthenian, which itself had a different locus of attention, and reflected an ongoing tradition, i.e. the Rus'.

Which is turn exemplifies the point: we know that the Rus'-or rather East Slavs, as the Rus' hadn't landed yet-were Christianized before the Baptism of the Rus' by St. Vladimir/Volodymyr (which isn't recorded by a non-Rus' source, except Yahya of Antioch): EP St. Photios the Great mentions the zeal of the Rus' that he felt it necessary to send them a bishop in 880-a century before St. Vladimir/Wolodymyr-around that time the Arabic writers begin to switch from writing about the pagan excesses of the East Slavs-or rather their Rus' rulers-and talk about them as Christians.  Although the Roman-Rus' Treaty of 945 shows part of the Rus' delegation swearing by pagan gods, part swear by the Christian God, there was no dramatic conversion as Grand Prince St. Vladimir's (whose grandmother St. Olga was Christian and had missionaries come to Kiev)-your political-Oriented conversions or inter-ethnic marriages-and hence the Baptism of Rus' is portrayed as an act on a tabula rasa.  Such, however, was not the case.

As for that process you mention on moving the border, that's been going on at least since the Union of Krewo in 1385.

[mike]

As for that process you mention on moving the border, that's been going on at least since the Union of Krewo in 1385.

Brest and how Russians dealt with it was the most important factor. Then, maybe Lublin. Krewo - not so much.

[ialmisry]

As for that process you mention on moving the border, that's been going on at least since the Union of Krewo in 1385.

Brest and how Russians dealt with it was the most important factor. Then, maybe Lublin. Krewo - not so much.

It all goes back to Krewo, where Orthodox Jacob apostatized and as Władysław loyal son of the Vatican rebaptized Jagiello promised to make the Orthodox Rus' and Lithuanians as he had become, promising "to join his Lithuanian and Russian lands to the Polish Crown."

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

He wonts to annex Bitola and would love to kill everyone to reclaim it, this is then Bishop of Thessaloniki/Solun.

Thessaloniki. The Slavs never took the city when they had taken all the rest of Macedonia.

Isa--I read somewhere that Thessalonika was not ethnically majority Greek until 1940. Indeed, Jews was the majority group off and on since the 16th Century. If that was the case, should we always stick to "Thessaloniki" as the ever-correct name of this city, rejecting all others? The reason I am bringing this up is that I just remembered that we called Istanbul/Constantinople/Byzantium "Tsarigrad." which is a complimentary and descriptive name for that wonderful city.

[Gorazd]

He wonts to annex Bitola and would love to kill everyone to reclaim it, this is then Bishop of Thessaloniki/Solun.

Thessaloniki. The Slavs never took the city when they had taken all the rest of Macedonia.

Isa--I read somewhere that Thessalonika was not ethnically majority Greek until 1940. Indeed, Jews was the majority group off and on since the 16th Century. If that was the case, should we always stick to "Thessaloniki" as the ever-correct name of this city, rejecting all others? The reason I am bringing this up is that I just remembered that we called Istanbul/Constantinople/Byzantium "Tsarigrad." which is a complimentary and descriptive name for that wonderful city.

Tsarigrad ("the king's/emperor's city") is indeed the Bulgarian name of Istanbul/Constantinople. It also is/was used in some other Slavic languages.

As for Thessaloniki, it lost its Greek majority when Ottomans settles Jews there, who had fled from the inqusition in Spain. In Ottoman times, the city was even called "madre de Israel". It got a Greek majority again when Orthodox Christians fleeing from Asia minor came there in 1923 and Muslims had to leave. A large Jewish community remained until the holocaust.

[Pravoslaven Makedonec]

Carl naturally everything about Macedonia must be Bulgarian like yourself or Greek. Sramota (you should be ashamed of yourself)