OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 01:26:06 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What Americans Don’t Understand About Orthodox Primacy  (Read 1824 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,072



« Reply #45 on: February 03, 2014, 11:30:30 PM »

then justify you accusation~

i will mine. he labled all greeks as just looking out for themselves and not caring about nyone else

He didn't say anything of the sort.

im still waiting for you to defend what yo are saying?

below is exactly what he said, what do you make of this?

 "In America, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is largely broken down into a number of long-extant, self-defining ethnic jurisdictions with only minimal interest in the outside world.  Missionary work?  Social programs?  Well, if you are talking about food festivals, the GOA indeed rules."

For starters, "Greek Orthodox Archdiocese" does not mean "all Greeks."
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,008


WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 03, 2014, 11:30:55 PM »

"Methinks you think your special just by virtue of being a priest. "

thats what i got from reading this out of the blue post also.

and another dig on the Greek race, once again on this great ocnet site Roll Eyes

im reffering to this nice choice of wording:

 "In America, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is largely broken down into a number of long-extant, self-defining ethnic jurisdictions with only minimal interest in the outside world.  Missionary work?  Social programs?  Well, if you are talking about food festivals, the GOA indeed rules."

according to you, not only are greeks introverted and keep to themselves but we evidently only think about selling you our gyros to make money. the food festival couldent be for the filoptohos, or the soup kitchen we support....you realy said we dont have missionary work?  Social programs? outreach programs. what planet are yo living on?Huh
 
father you are so off on this its not even funny.

how dare you singal out an entire race and generalise their caracter and motivations, and trivialise what they do for the comunity.

you should be ashamed of yourself. YOUr a priest?!?!?

I better stop.

Every time Greeks are brought up you immediately start throwing around accusations of racism etc.

then justify you accusation~

i will mine. he labled all greeks as just looking out for themselves and not caring about nyone else

FatherGiryus didn't say that.

yes he did. do you know what the word "implied? means?

FatherGiryus didn't label all greeks as just looking out for themselves and not caring about anyone else.  Also realize that ACROD and the UOC-USA are under the Ecumenical Patriarch - FatherGiryus included them in with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America since all 3 jurisdictions are "long-extant, self-defining ethnic jurisdictions" under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 11:32:44 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,518



« Reply #47 on: February 03, 2014, 11:34:30 PM »


Well, most of us in the Ortho-sphere have noticed a lot of arguing about primacy in the Orthodox Church.  I think there is a profound misunderstanding, at least here in the English-speaking hemisphere, about what ‘primacy’ means in an Orthodox context versus what it means in our modern Anglophonic expectation of the concept.

For example, when we hear about ‘primacy,’ we Americans (perhaps others, but I am addressing an American audience) tend to think of ‘leadership’ in the terms of get out in front and direct things.  In the Orthodox world, primacy usually means something more like ‘final say’ or ‘end of the line.’  It is not so much of a trail-blazing position, but more like an anchor.

Here’s an example: numerous writers have discussed how Constantinople is variously involved or tasked with granting autocephaly.  Now, let’s look at the dates of those churches formed after the period of the Ecumenical Councils-

The Church of Russia is declared autocephalous in 1448, recognized by Constantinople in 1589.
The Church of Serbia is declared autocephalous in 1832, recognized by Constantinople in 1879.
The Church of Greece is declared autocephalous in 1833, recognized by Constantinople in 1850.
The Church of Romania is declared autocephalous in 1865, recognized by Constantinople in 1885.
The Church of Bulgaria is declared autocephalous in 1872, recognized by Constantinople in 1945.
The Church of Georgia is declared autocephalous (lost in 1811 due to Russian Imperial edict) in 1917, recognized by Constantinople in 1989.
The Church of Albania is declared autocephalous in 1922, recognized by Constantinople in 1937.
The Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia is declared autocephalous in 1951, recognized by Constantinople in 1998.
The Orthodox Church in America is declared autocephalous in 1971, and is still waiting.

Historically speaking, the OCA is right on schedule.  They probably should be a little concerned in about 100 years, given the wait other churches have had.
Constantinople, in none of these cases, was ‘out in front’ of the autocephaly movement.  We really do not see a pattern of Constantinopolitan bishops sitting down with a group of non-Greek bishops and saying, “Boys, you need to move out of the basement apartment and start living your own lives.”

I suppose we could chalk this up to Eastern culture.  Most Easterners require their children to live at home well into adulthood.  These days, more and more Americans are doing this, but not willingly… independence is expensive.  However, we Americans are far more open to the idea of independence than Easterners are (think about our history and all that it involved).  In fact, they distrust it.

So, it is not a surprise that we see so much ‘clinginess’ among the Eastern churches.  They don’t want to let go even when they really don’t have all that much in common anymore with the communities they are holding onto.  For them, it is unimaginable that anyone would want anything more than a room in one’s own parents’ home.

So, when it comes to Constantinople and the issue of autocephaly, their practical exercise of ‘primacy’ is largely about being the last holdout.  When Constantinople finally caves, everyone will know that there simply is no denying the reality of a local church’s autocephaly.

The same can be said of Constantinople hearing appeals.  They are the ‘last stop’ for those having problems with the Synod of another local church.  Primacy does not mean that Constantinople would, or ever has, ratified what local churches are deciding when there is no larger conflict.  They only hear cases that are brought to them when a local agreement seems impossible.

Even then, Constantinople’s primacy still requires cooperation from the other local churches.  When Constantinople broke communion with the Church of Greece in 2004 over the election of bishops in territories claimed by the former, the incident hardly had any effect on the world-wide Orthodox scene.

That’s because Constantinople can’t afford to alienate the entire community by demanding the world recognize all of its decisions when others simply don’t care.  It has no army or drones or weapons of mass destruction.  If it wants anything to happen, or its decisions to be recognized, it has to build consensus and get voluntary compliance.

However, given the fact that consensus-building and last-stop primacy are at opposite poles of the leadership-behavioral spectrum, we can see that Constantinople can accrue all kinds of wild titles and claims of supremacy without actually doing much of anything or having many responsibilities aside from when they are invited.
Even in territories that the Patriarchate of Constantinople claims direct authority over, we can see a rather lackadaisical attitude towards ‘leadership’ in the sense of the bishops coming out and guiding the people in a new direction.  In America, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is largely broken down into a number of long-extant, self-defining ethnic jurisdictions with only minimal interest in the outside world.  Missionary work?  Social programs?  Well, if you are talking about food festivals, the GOA indeed rules.

The GOA and its Patriarchal Mother don’t have a plan for the larger community.  Of course, this can be said of all the jurisdictions in the Americas, which are largely confined to ‘our people’ with the occasional acquisition of an ‘outsider’ to convince the kids that inevitable intermarriage does not meet total exclusion.  “We have converts… even convert bishops!” is hardly a plan.

We are abysmally parochial.  It is just a fact of life: other people are weird.  If we are all about trying to preserve our own weirdness, then other peoples’ weirdnesses will not be tolerated.

So, the local churches presently calling Constantinople the ‘Mother Church’ find that they have a nice, warm cocoon to keep their particular practices without any danger from the outside world and other influences.  That is, unwanted influences.  There are plenty of influences which are un- or sub-conscious.  After all, the average GOA parish is run nothing like its counterpart in the hills of Sparta or the coast of Chios.

That’s not to say that Orthodox laypeople are not doing absolutely wonderful things… they certainly are.  There are a whole host of local and national ministries that are serving not only the American community, but the entire world.  I want to emphasize that these ministries are largely the work of the people, even when they get their token bishop to show up for board meetings and add his name to the effort like a sponsor sticker on the side of a racecar.

With us clergy, no matter the size of the headgear, we usually only make a splash when it comes to self-promotion.  Mea culpa.

So, Constantinopolitan primacy is certainly not, if present patterns hold, about trying to manage local affairs and effecting big changes on the local level, because this type of ‘leadership’ is utterly foreign to Constantinople’s thinking.  They just don’t lead in that way.  They don’t even want to.

Another example of this ‘primacy’ can be seen in the recent start and apparent disintegration of the ‘Chambesy Assemblies’ (which looks much more impressive when you write Chambesy as ‘Chambésy’… and sounds even more inspiring when try say it with a French accent that sounds more like Gérard Depardieu than Inspector Clouseau) that have fallen apart with Antiochian withdrawal over Constantinople’s inability to settle a dispute between Antioch and Jerusalem.  The face-to-face negotiations between the two churches were hosted by… the Greek Foreign Ministry.  This should tell us a lot about how confident Constantinople is in its abilities to either lead or broker deals.

Constantinople called for the assemblies, got everyone into meeting rooms, formed a bunch of committees, and still can’t articulate a clear goal beyond something ‘better’ (insert you choice of wild hand gestures here).  Perhaps that is wise if you want to get everyone together at once, but now the problem is that everyone has brought their own meaning to the purpose.

To Bishop Basil (Essey) of Wichita, the purpose is the creation of an autocephalous American church.  Metropolitan Savvas (Zembillas) then says the exact opposite… autocephaly is off the table.  ROCOR agrees that it has giving nothing up, not to be outdone by the Bulgarians who have said much the same.  Confusion ensues. Ambiguity can sometimes be the best marketing strategy one can have to get a sale, but it stinks when it comes to ‘buyer’s remorse.’
Everyone agrees to be agreeable, while agreeing to nothing else.

So, what does this mean?  It means that whatever claims Constantinople makes, there is not much it can do without the cooperation of all.  It also means that if a local community wants something, then it should not wait around for ‘guiding leadership’ from Constantinople because it does not act in that manner.  

I could summarize the whole methodology in this way: a back-seat driver.  Sometimes it is helpful to get advice from the back seat, but that does not mean the person in the back seat is actually driving.  The person in the front seat is.  We can opt to listen or to ignore, but no matter what, it is the driver that must face the consequences.

In this analogy, the local community is the driver.  We can choose to listen to or ignore advice, but there is no stick to beat us with, nor is there really much of a carrot.  What we should do is watch the other cars on the road, because that is where the accidents happen.  The carrot-and-stick is really overall success or failure rather than primatial proclamation or censure.

We must hold all the other churches in equal esteem, because they are collectively the Church.  The whole enumeration of primacy only makes sense if there are other numbers, which is why there must be a first… and a second… and a third.  But, whatever cries there may be about the Patriarchate of Constantinople emanating honor like radiation from a lump of uranium, that only works if someone cares about whatever it is that is being radiated.

In 2004, the Greeks ignored Constantinople, and somehow didn’t die of radiation poisoning.  They lost none of their ‘honor.’

Primacy has no ontological reality, because local churches have existed without recognition for years and years, yet no one would question the validity of the Sacraments performed during those times without recognition.  When Greece and Constantinople broke ties, nobody demanded that all the babies be rebaptized from that period.  It is a nice rhetorical flourish, but the reality is all around us right now.

Antioch and Jerusalem right now need, at the very least, a willing and interested mediator.  If we magnify the meaning of primacy to imply that Constantinople has the power and ability to call churches to obedience, or impose a ‘binding arbitration’ scheme, then the withdrawal of Antioch from the Chambesy process cries out for Constantinople to call Antioch to obedience, just as Constantinople could also instruct Jerusalem to remove its bishop from Qatar.  Instead, we see Constantinople doing neither, and so Antioch walks from the meetings, and Constantinople can only seem to wring its hands.  Yet, Constantinople has not relinquished any of its claims to primacy.

Constantinople is not acting either because it does not care about the conflict or really has no power to do anything even with ‘primacy.’  Orthodox primacy does not give Constantinople any type of real leverage in the matter.  An excommunication of either side may very well be ignored, as in 2004.  Nobody wants to excommunicate Jerusalem and complicate matters of pilgrimage and access to holy sites.  Nobody wants to excommunicate Antioch while it struggles against open persecution.

This conflict, I believe, could not have come at a better time to teach us what primacy is in an Orthodox context.  In practical terms, it only works when all the rest of the churches say that it does, and to the extent they will grant it.  This is the ‘conciliar’ nature of Christian leadership.

No one would envy Constantinople’s position if it really tried to arbitrate this conflict.  It has all the makings of a really big conflict between two churches that have not been on the best of terms for a while.  Staying out may be the wisest move even if Constantinople wanted to help the situation.  I’m not saying that it doesn’t.  I am saying that it really does not have the ‘right stuff’ to make it happen, even with primacy.

We have nothing to fear from Constantinople and all the hubbub about ‘primacy.’  I do not believe that we ought to be shouting epithets at one another or plotting a schism, because the problem of primacy is far less important than other, bigger issues: evangelizing new peoples, healing the sick, saving the lost… the things our Lord called us to do.

What we should be concerned about is our own inertia in these matters.  But, that is a topic for another time when I feeling like dealing with more hate mail than what I will get for posting this.


Wow. Would you post the same without the benefit of anonymity?

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook this morning, I am more and more convinced that he is correct:

" Dumping all my Orthodox discussion groups on Facebook. This is really not the place to hold these discussions as informed opinions hold the same weight as those of the uninformed. Sometimes truth equals what the person likes or what they think they heard someone say once or a vague feeling that the issue doesn't really matter at all. It's simply too depressing. "

I would expect generalizations and stereotypes from a layman. To see them in print by a member of the clergy is really depressing.

I could post my recollections of interactions with Antiochian congregations which were ethnically insular, wrapped up in the 'old world' , full of whatever (including really wonderful people and priests) - but to what end? Why would I do that?

THERE IS NOT A SCINTILLA OF HOPE FOR ANY REAL UNITY IN ORTHODOXY IN NORTH AMERICA OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD FOR THAT MATTER.



I wish I could argue with you on any point, but I cannot.  The last sentence just lacks one thing--two other dots, for an ellipsis.  Lord, have mercy and finish the sentence with something positive, for we cannot see it today.  
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,518



« Reply #48 on: February 03, 2014, 11:37:12 PM »

Here is what FatherGiryus understands about Orthodox Primacy, and I list them in order:

Logged
Nikolaostheservant
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: greek orthodox
Jurisdiction: christian
Posts: 582



« Reply #49 on: February 03, 2014, 11:37:23 PM »

then justify you accusation~

i will mine. he labled all greeks as just looking out for themselves and not caring about nyone else

He didn't say anything of the sort.

im still waiting for you to defend what yo are saying?

below is exactly what he said, what do you make of this?

 "In America, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is largely broken down into a number of long-extant, self-defining ethnic jurisdictions with only minimal interest in the outside world.  Missionary work?  Social programs?  Well, if you are talking about food festivals, the GOA indeed rules."

For starters, "Greek Orthodox Archdiocese" does not mean "all Greeks."

hey, Nephi, you just posted some doragatory comments about Greeks on another thred. would you be able to prove what you are saying, or are you just making things up against greeks because yo angry you cant justify what you said before. below is what im reffering to.

"A couple facts about this community that I've recently learned.

1) There was a Ukranian Orthodox man that had been attending the church for 42 years before he died, but the parish refused to permit him a funeral because he wasn't Greek. His family had to contact churches ~30+ miles away for a funeral.

2) There was a Romanian Orthodox woman that had attended the church for about 50 years and was still denied membership due to not being Greek. She finally changed parishes.

Apparently even the neighboring Greek parishes shake their heads over this stuff."

your personal greek bashing thread is:

First Experience at a Greek Church http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55845.0.html
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,413


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #50 on: February 04, 2014, 12:22:33 AM »

Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Ersaia
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 284



« Reply #51 on: February 04, 2014, 01:37:20 AM »


"A couple facts about this community that I've recently learned.

1) There was a Ukranian Orthodox man that had been attending the church for 42 years before he died, but the parish refused to permit him a funeral because he wasn't Greek. His family had to contact churches ~30+ miles away for a funeral.

2) There was a Romanian Orthodox woman that had attended the church for about 50 years and was still denied membership due to not being Greek. She finally changed parishes.



why?
I don't understand it
In Greece we have such problems in cemetery only for Jehovah's Witnesses when the cemetery is greek-orthodox property
Logged
poleteo_soko
Muted
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate, a soul refusing Patriarch Irinej
Posts: 144



« Reply #52 on: February 04, 2014, 02:40:39 AM »


...
The Church of Russia ...
The Church of Serbia is declared autocephalous in 1832, recognized by Constantinople in 1879.
...
The Church of Bulgaria is declared autocephalous in 1872, recognized by Constantinople in 1945.
...


Father,

With all due respect, you presented wrong facts.

First of all, there is neither "Church of Serbia" nor "Church of Russia" nor, I believe,"Church of Bulgaria".

There is Serbian Patriarchate (with the territory far exceeding present-day Serbia) and Patriarchate of Moscow and all Rys (sp?). I do not have the title of Bulgarians handy. There is a great difference between the proper name and the name you usually employ in English.

Second, Bulgars self-proclaimed autocephaly in 9th or 10th century, never recognized and terminated by Basil Bulgaroktonos in 1014.

Third, the autocephaly of Serbian Archbishopry (of Zica) was granted at the begining of 13th century, after 1204 (the year should ring the bell), I believe in 1235, as the result of negotiating skills of St. Sava, while he was also the mediator for the autocephaly of Bulgarians, recognized (I believe) in 1239.

Raising the Archbishop of Zica to Patriarch of Pec at the beginng of 14th century (I think 1325), and adjoining the territories of present-day FYROM, Albania and northern Greece to him (under the reign of Car Dusan) was the reason for a short-living anathema of Serbs by Ecumenical Patriarchate. The title of Patriarchate was simply not resumed after the fall of Smederevo (1454) by first elected primate, while parts of the Serbian church (and Bulgarian church) were adjoined to Ecumenical Patriarchate by the end of 15th century. However, the title of Srbian Patriarchate (and pertaining autocephaly) was restored again at the end of 16th century and revoked again at the end of 17th century following the order of Ottoman Sultan both for restoration and termination. Meanwhile, autocephaly of Serbian church never ceased in the parts not having been conquered by Ottoman Empire (Montenegro, then Austria, now: Italy, Croatia, Hungary, Romania and Ukraine). Austrian (Roman) Emperor Leopold signed the concordate at the end of 17th century, granting freedom of operation to Serbian Church in the entire empire. Present-day dispute between Serbian Church and Romanians about allegedly overlapping territories traces its roots to the status granted to Serbian Church by Emperor Leopold.

The title of Serbian Patriarchate was restored again in 1922 (or was it 1924?) by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, embracing all the parts of the Serbian Church again - those that were part of Ecumenical Patriarchate between middle 15th century to 20th century, along with those that were never part of Ecumenical Patriarchate after the begining of 13th century.

My sources are numerous, but suffice to refer to an arch-enemy Fortesque, having already been mentioned above by Isa Almisry. Before you ask for more sources, I must ask you for yours.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 02:52:08 AM by poleteo_soko » Logged

Lord, destroy the enemies of Czar Vladimir the Liberator and grant him long lasting and peaceful rule!
poleteo_soko
Muted
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate, a soul refusing Patriarch Irinej
Posts: 144



« Reply #53 on: February 04, 2014, 02:44:47 AM »

deleted, faulty edit
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 02:47:13 AM by poleteo_soko » Logged

Lord, destroy the enemies of Czar Vladimir the Liberator and grant him long lasting and peaceful rule!
poleteo_soko
Muted
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate, a soul refusing Patriarch Irinej
Posts: 144



« Reply #54 on: February 04, 2014, 03:32:34 AM »


...

The same can be said of Constantinople hearing appeals.  They are the ‘last stop’ for those having problems with the Synod of another local church.  Primacy does not mean that Constantinople would, or ever has, ratified what local churches are deciding when there is no larger conflict.  They only hear cases that are brought to them when a local agreement seems impossible.

...

I would just slightly disagree with you here.

Ecumenical Patriarch does have the jurisdiction to hear the appeals of a bishop of another autocephalous church against the decisioin of a synod/council of that church and does have the power to annul the appeled decision and order re-trial. It is based on interpretation of some canon (Sardica?) granting that right to the Roman Pope (after his fall into herecy).

The jurisdicion of the Synod/Council of the Ecumanical Patriarchate is not based on canons, but on practice during the Ottoman Empire and etnarch status. It is essentialy non-canonical and non-existant.
Logged

Lord, destroy the enemies of Czar Vladimir the Liberator and grant him long lasting and peaceful rule!
poleteo_soko
Muted
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate, a soul refusing Patriarch Irinej
Posts: 144



« Reply #55 on: February 04, 2014, 03:50:26 AM »


"A couple facts about this community that I've recently learned.

1) There was a Ukranian Orthodox man that had been attending the church for 42 years before he died, but the parish refused to permit him a funeral because he wasn't Greek. His family had to contact churches ~30+ miles away for a funeral.

2) There was a Romanian Orthodox woman that had attended the church for about 50 years and was still denied membership due to not being Greek. She finally changed parishes.



why?
I don't understand it
In Greece we have such problems in cemetery only for Jehovah's Witnesses when the cemetery is greek-orthodox property

IMHO, it's just a made up non-argument. No particulars are given, it's just: "there was" and "somewhere, someone". It just lacks "they have lived hapily everafter".

If the cemetary is private property, it's up to the owners to decide who will be berried there and under what circumstances. It's up to the legislation of USofA, not about the church, but is used for Greek-bashing and hollow argument about non-canonical overlaping jurisdictions in America.

I can't imagine a non-hospitable Orthodox Greek. To me, it's science-fiction.
Logged

Lord, destroy the enemies of Czar Vladimir the Liberator and grant him long lasting and peaceful rule!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2014, 06:08:33 AM »


"A couple facts about this community that I've recently learned.

1) There was a Ukranian Orthodox man that had been attending the church for 42 years before he died, but the parish refused to permit him a funeral because he wasn't Greek. His family had to contact churches ~30+ miles away for a funeral.

2) There was a Romanian Orthodox woman that had attended the church for about 50 years and was still denied membership due to not being Greek. She finally changed parishes.



why?
I don't understand it
In Greece we have such problems in cemetery only for Jehovah's Witnesses when the cemetery is greek-orthodox property

IMHO, it's just a made up non-argument. No particulars are given, it's just: "there was" and "somewhere, someone". It just lacks "they have lived hapily everafter".

If the cemetary is private property, it's up to the owners to decide who will be berried there and under what circumstances. It's up to the legislation of USofA, not about the church, but is used for Greek-bashing and hollow argument about non-canonical overlaping jurisdictions in America.

I can't imagine a non-hospitable Orthodox Greek. To me, it's science-fiction.
No, it's history: Abp. Fan Noli founded the Albanian Orthodox Church when the Greek Church refused to bury Albanian Orthodox who spoke Albanian.

Then there is this amusing tale:

But speaking of the Romanians, I was going to post next on their cousins, the Aromanians or as you problably call them "Vlachs."  I'll start at a funeral:
Quote
Here is one exmaple for many: "In 1904 a Vlach died in Monastir [Republic of Macedonia: then too it didn't have a majority Greek population] His relations wanted to bury him in Roumanian, the Greeks insisted in Greek.  The Bishop (a Greek) forbade a Roumanian funeral, the relations would not have a Greek one.  As usual both sides appealed to the judgee of ecclesiastical affaires, the Turkish Kaimakan.  The Kaimakan, as usual, could do nothing without instructions from Constantinople, and the Porte, as usual, could not make up its mind.  So there came a preliminary order to put off the funeral till the Governement had considered the caee.  Meanwhile, as it was becoming quite time to do something, the wretched man was embalmed.  Time passed and nothing was settled.  Then both sides began fighting over the body, the market-place was shut up, and two charges of cavalry could not disperse the mob.  The Wali, desperate and helpless, as last telegraphed direct to the Sultan imploring him to let the man be buried somehow before the mob had pulled the town down.  At last the decision came.  The Government could not afford to gratify either side, so the man was to be just put in the ground without any burial at all.  See the newspaper report in Bradford: Macedonia, pp. 189-190.  "Nothing," adds Mr. Bralisford, "could be more Turkish, and nothing could be more Greek."

Fortescue adds when "Greeks publish statistics of Macedonia, nearly all the people they brazenly write as "Hellenes" are really these half-Hellenized Vlachs"
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2014, 06:11:06 AM »

Here is what FatherGiryus understands about Orthodox Primacy, and I list them in order:
You are confusing Father for the Metropolitan of Bursa.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #58 on: February 04, 2014, 06:16:46 AM »


...
The Church of Russia ...
The Church of Serbia is declared autocephalous in 1832, recognized by Constantinople in 1879.
...
The Church of Bulgaria is declared autocephalous in 1872, recognized by Constantinople in 1945.
...


Father,

With all due respect, you presented wrong facts.

First of all, there is neither "Church of Serbia" nor "Church of Russia" nor, I believe,"Church of Bulgaria".

There is Serbian Patriarchate (with the territory far exceeding present-day Serbia) and Patriarchate of Moscow and all Rys (sp?). I do not have the title of Bulgarians handy. There is a great difference between the proper name and the name you usually employ in English.
When Father is talking about, in the Churches he is talking about, they were not named Patriarchs until later after the period under discussion.
Second, Bulgars self-proclaimed autocephaly in 9th or 10th century, never recognized and terminated by Basil Bulgaroktonos in 1014.
Yes, it was recognized: it served as the cradle of Slavic Orthodoxy.  After 1014, it survived as the autonomous Archdiocese of Ohrid.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
poleteo_soko
Muted
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate, a soul refusing Patriarch Irinej
Posts: 144



« Reply #59 on: February 04, 2014, 07:27:31 AM »

...To me, it's science-fiction.
No, it's history: Abp. Fan Noli founded the Albanian Orthodox Church when the Greek Church refused to bury Albanian Orthodox who spoke Albanian.
...

I haven't seen a reference to that in the original post. Let Albanian Orthodox Church (more appropriate to add "of USofA" to her name) be aside for the moment, since I cannot see her relevance for the subject at the moment.


...


There is a great difference between the proper name and the name you usually employ in English.

When Father is talking about, in the Churches he is talking about, they were not named Patriarchs until later after the period under discussion.

You both missed my point (as an example of the topic title? Smiley ) and your point is wrong. First, In the cases of Bulgarians and Serbs, they were Patriarchates long before the time of referred period of 19th century. Second, naming these present day Patriarchates in English after the countries of their seats reduces their canonical territories (specifically significant in the case of Serbian Church and not the Church of Serbia). As a consequence, it misleadS English-speaking Orthodox and should imply "Ecumenicity" of EP and her entitlement to take over some day the canonical territories of these churches outside of the state boundaries (Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and Metohija, FYROM).

Second, Bulgars self-proclaimed autocephaly in 9th or 10th century, never recognized and terminated by Basil Bulgaroktonos in 1014.
Yes, it was recognized: it served as the cradle of Slavic Orthodoxy.  After 1014, it survived as the autonomous Archdiocese of Ohrid.

The fact is disputed very much, and Bulgarians can't present a proof about the recognition, but that is not what's been debated here. You are mixing apples and oranges - autonomy is quite different from autocephaly, so the autonomy of Ohrid after 1014 does neither equate autokephalia of Bulgarian Patriarchate before that year, nor imply the prior recognition of it.
Logged

Lord, destroy the enemies of Czar Vladimir the Liberator and grant him long lasting and peaceful rule!
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #60 on: February 04, 2014, 10:28:51 AM »

Church of Crete is semi-autonomous under  the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
The Patriarchate nominates the island's presiding bishop from a list of three Cretan bishops prepared by the Greek Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs, but the Church's affairs, including the nomnation of the other bishops, are otherwise handled by the "Holy Provincial Synod of Crete". (wikipedia)


the "Greek Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs" is the funny part  Grin

Thanks.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
orthoreader
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Los Angeles and the West
Posts: 323



« Reply #61 on: February 04, 2014, 10:34:42 AM »

...To me, it's science-fiction.
No, it's history: Abp. Fan Noli founded the Albanian Orthodox Church when the Greek Church refused to bury Albanian Orthodox who spoke Albanian.
...

I haven't seen a reference to that in the original post. Let Albanian Orthodox Church (more appropriate to add "of USofA" to her name) be aside for the moment, since I cannot see her relevance for the subject at the moment.


...


There is a great difference between the proper name and the name you usually employ in English.

When Father is talking about, in the Churches he is talking about, they were not named Patriarchs until later after the period under discussion.

You both missed my point (as an example of the topic title? Smiley ) and your point is wrong. First, In the cases of Bulgarians and Serbs, they were Patriarchates long before the time of referred period of 19th century. Second, naming these present day Patriarchates in English after the countries of their seats reduces their canonical territories (specifically significant in the case of Serbian Church and not the Church of Serbia). As a consequence, it misleadS English-speaking Orthodox and should imply "Ecumenicity" of EP and her entitlement to take over some day the canonical territories of these churches outside of the state boundaries (Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and Metohija, FYROM).

Second, Bulgars self-proclaimed autocephaly in 9th or 10th century, never recognized and terminated by Basil Bulgaroktonos in 1014.
Yes, it was recognized: it served as the cradle of Slavic Orthodoxy.  After 1014, it survived as the autonomous Archdiocese of Ohrid.

The fact is disputed very much, and Bulgarians can't present a proof about the recognition, but that is not what's been debated here. You are mixing apples and oranges - autonomy is quite different from autocephaly, so the autonomy of Ohrid after 1014 does neither equate autokephalia of Bulgarian Patriarchate before that year, nor imply the prior recognition of it.

FYROM? What is FYROM?

While we're on unproven canonical status, can we speak to the notion that the Pec Patriarchates' Autocephaly was purchased?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #62 on: February 04, 2014, 10:55:29 AM »

Btw, I would just like to point this out to each and every bishop to say "See! This is how it is done!"
Quote
In 1933, Bp. Benjamin was elevated to archbishop by Metr. Sergius of the Church of Russia. He was also, assigned to go to the United States to lecture. While in the United States he was appointed the interim exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate on November 22, 1933, in North America, with the title of Archbishop of Aleutians and North America. This position he held until 1947. On July 14, 1938 he was designated Metropolitan of the Aleutians and North America. Having arrived in the United States without any parishes to serve, he created 50 parishes during his tenure that he supervised with three vicars.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Benjamin_(Fedchenkov)_of_the_Aleutians

I wonder about the relationship of these 50 and the patriarchal parishes.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,277


« Reply #63 on: February 04, 2014, 10:58:00 AM »

Btw, I would just like to point this out to each and every bishop to say "See! This is how it is done!"
Quote
In 1933, Bp. Benjamin was elevated to archbishop by Metr. Sergius of the Church of Russia. He was also, assigned to go to the United States to lecture. While in the United States he was appointed the interim exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate on November 22, 1933, in North America, with the title of Archbishop of Aleutians and North America. This position he held until 1947. On July 14, 1938 he was designated Metropolitan of the Aleutians and North America. Having arrived in the United States without any parishes to serve, he created 50 parishes during his tenure that he supervised with three vicars.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Benjamin_(Fedchenkov)_of_the_Aleutians

I wonder about the relationship of these 50 and the patriarchal parishes.

In the 30s this was easy because you had lots of immigrants who were already Eastern Christians of some sort with big families and disaffected Greek Catholics ready to jump ship.  So creating parishes was more of a build it and they will come phenomenon. 
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,539



« Reply #64 on: February 04, 2014, 11:21:59 AM »

Second, Bulgars self-proclaimed autocephaly in 9th or 10th century, never recognized and terminated by Basil Bulgaroktonos in 1014.

I hope you do not reject this source out of hand:

"Following Bulgaria's two decisive victories over the Byzantines at Acheloos (near the present-day city of Pomorie) and Katasyrtai (near Constantinople), the government declared the autonomous Bulgarian Archbishopric as autocephalous and elevated it to the rank of Patriarchate at an ecclesiastical and national council held in 919. After Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire signed a peace treaty in 927 that concluded the 20-year-long war between them, the Patriarchate of Constantinople recognised the autocephalous status of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and acknowledged its patriarchal dignity.[1][2] The Bulgarian Patriarchate was the first autocephalous Slavic Orthodox Church, preceding the autocephaly of the Serbian Orthodox Church (1219) by 300 years and of the Russian Orthodox Church (1596) by some 600 years. It was the sixth Patriarchate after Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch. The seat of the Patriarchate was the new Bulgarian capital of Preslav. The Patriarch was likely to have resided in the town of Drastar (Silistra), an old Christian centre famous for its martyrs and Christian traditions." (my emphasis)

Notes:
[1] Kiminas, D. (2009). The Ecumenical Patriarchate. Wildside Press LLC. p. 15

[2] GENOV, R., & KALKANDJIEVA, D. (2007). Religion and Irreligion in Bulgaria: How Religious Are the Bulgarians? Religion and power in Europe: conflict and convergence, 257."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Orthodox_Church#Establishment

What I did not include above is the immediately prior situation, roughly the following (from the same source above):

"(870) the Fourth Council of Constantinople granted the Bulgarians an autonomous Bulgarian archbishopric. The archbishopric had its seat in the Bulgarian capital of Pliska and its diocese covered the whole territory of the Bulgarian state. The tug-of-war between Rome and Constantinople was resolved by putting the Bulgarian archbishopric under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, from whom it obtained its first primate, its clergy and theological books...In 893, Boris I expelled the Greek clergy from the country and ordered the replacing of the Greek language with the Slav-Bulgarian vernacular."
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 11:25:52 AM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #65 on: February 04, 2014, 11:29:09 AM »

...To me, it's science-fiction.
No, it's history: Abp. Fan Noli founded the Albanian Orthodox Church when the Greek Church refused to bury Albanian Orthodox who spoke Albanian.
...
I haven't seen a reference to that in the original post.

Of course not, because the Greeks in it are history, not science fiction.
Let Albanian Orthodox Church (more appropriate to add "of USofA" to her name)
At the time her name was the "independent Orthodox Albanian Church in the United States and Canada"-from the official organ of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, quoting the Greek (as in Greece) press on the jurisdiction in America (where the Russia bishop of the Aleutians and North America had been a century, and no bishop of the Phanar had yet set foot):
Quote
The “Pan-Hellenic Power/State” nonetheless [the quotation comes after the discussion by the professor of International Law at the National University of Greece on the then recent 1908 Tomos] taking as a starting point from the retention of the Russian bishop in Alaska, expresses the opinion “that Ecumenical Patriarchate did wrong, both to the canons of the Church and according to [the fact] that it had no right to transfer to the Church of Greece the privilege furnished it by the Ecumenical Councils.” But it asks “for what justification does the Russian Church retain its jurisdiction over the Church of Alaska and after the Cession of it to the United States, if the Tomos of the Great Church requires among the Greek Churches in the diaspora, in order that the jurisdiction of the Sacred Synod of Greece be extended over them? And this certainly—adding further—if uncanonical, would be the lesser evil. Scandalousness yet results from the establishment of this Russia bishop of Alaska in the United States and the extension of his spiritual authority automatically and besides the justification of no one over the whole of America. And most rightly whenever the bishop thus shall make an ordination of priests and ‘ founding churches independently as it committed some time before through the ordination of the Albanian Noli a priest of the “independent Orthodox Albanian Church in the United States and Canada” creating the employment of the Albanian language in its rites and this be regarded scandal amid other Orthodox Churches of the New World, which according as Greeks, and further by the new Tomos were already brought under under the spiritual rule of the Church of Greece, required to commemorate the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch; to receive from him the holy chrism, to receive his blessings and to offer some quantiy for the fund of the Patriarchate. We believe that “this issue will be regarded the earnest position of the discussion in the Sacred Synod of the Great Church, and so quite rightly so, as much as besides the Russian bishop of Alaska having ordained Mr. Noli entitled as priest of the Orthodox Albanian episcopacy of the United States and Canada and in the choice, this wrought in Boston in Albanian, dealing irreverently towards the Patriarch and promised that independent Albanian and Orthodox Church will be founded everywhere gearing up to ordain a bishop also.
(pardon the translation, I'm on my first cup of coffee).
http://books.google.gr/books?id=8ZQQAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA5-PA79&dq=%CE%91%CE%BB%CE%AC%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%B1&cd=4#v=onepage&q=%CE%91%CE%BB%CE%AC%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%B1&f=false
Bp. Fan Noli went on to serve as Prime Minister of Albania and organize the Church there (and here in North America).
be aside for the moment, since I cannot see her relevance for the subject at the moment.
Of course not, the facts of the matter upset your narrative.

...


There is a great difference between the proper name and the name you usually employ in English.

When Father is talking about, in the Churches he is talking about, they were not named Patriarchs until later after the period under discussion.

You both missed my point (as an example of the topic title? Smiley ) and your point is wrong. First, In the cases of Bulgarians and Serbs, they were Patriarchates long before the time of referred period of 19th century.
They are not the ones we are speaking of: the Patriarchate of Pec, for instance, lived on in Montenegro and Karlowitz, but the Church Father spoke of was the one in Belgrade, which went on to become the present Patriarchate of Serbia.  The Bulgarian exarchate was based in Constantinople, where no Bulgarian patriarchate had ever had jurisdiction.  The previous Patriarchates Bulgaria has to share with Serbia/Macedonia and Romania.
Second, naming these present day Patriarchates in English after the countries of their seats reduces their canonical territories (specifically significant in the case of Serbian Church and not the Church of Serbia). As a consequence, it misleadS English-speaking Orthodox and should imply "Ecumenicity" of EP and her entitlement to take over some day the canonical territories of these churches outside of the state boundaries (Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and Metohija, FYROM).
You mean Macedonia: yes, the Phanar claims that, as the right to abolish the Patriarchate in Belgrade as well.  Has nothing to do with how it is worded in English.
Btw Metohija is in Serbia.
Second, Bulgars self-proclaimed autocephaly in 9th or 10th century, never recognized and terminated by Basil Bulgaroktonos in 1014.
Yes, it was recognized: it served as the cradle of Slavic Orthodoxy.  After 1014, it survived as the autonomous Archdiocese of Ohrid.
The fact is disputed very much

Disputed facts remain facts.
and Bulgarians can't present a proof about the recognition,

Sure can: Ohrid remained the Church of Bulgaria, now a theme in the Empire of the Romans

rather than being incorporated into the Church of Constantinople.  Even the Greeks the Emperor approved as Archbishops tenaciously held to the independence of Ohrid.

but that is not what's been debated here. You are mixing apples and oranges - autonomy is quite different from autocephaly, so the autonomy of Ohrid after 1014 does neither equate autokephalia of Bulgarian Patriarchate before that year, nor imply the prior recognition of it.
Not that different, as history shows and the episcopate knows: hence why Patriarch Ignatius and the Holy Synod of Antioch did not want to give the name "autonomous" to the Archdiocese here in North America.

When the Patriarchate of Serbia bought out from Constantinople the Macedonian and southern lands of what was becoming Yugoslavia, no recognition was given to the existence of the Bulgarian Exarchate there.  There's your apple.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 11:53:48 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #66 on: February 04, 2014, 11:31:56 AM »

Btw, I would just like to point this out to each and every bishop to say "See! This is how it is done!"
Quote
In 1933, Bp. Benjamin was elevated to archbishop by Metr. Sergius of the Church of Russia. He was also, assigned to go to the United States to lecture. While in the United States he was appointed the interim exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate on November 22, 1933, in North America, with the title of Archbishop of Aleutians and North America. This position he held until 1947. On July 14, 1938 he was designated Metropolitan of the Aleutians and North America. Having arrived in the United States without any parishes to serve, he created 50 parishes during his tenure that he supervised with three vicars.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Benjamin_(Fedchenkov)_of_the_Aleutians

I wonder about the relationship of these 50 and the patriarchal parishes.

In the 30s this was easy because you had lots of immigrants who were already Eastern Christians of some sort with big families and disaffected Greek Catholics ready to jump ship.  So creating parishes was more of a build it and they will come phenomenon. 
The immigrants had become a trickle in the 30's (besides the Depression, there was the post WWI restrictions on immigration), and not many wanted to be associated with the Soviet state in any way.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,277


« Reply #67 on: February 04, 2014, 11:35:59 AM »

Btw, I would just like to point this out to each and every bishop to say "See! This is how it is done!"
Quote
In 1933, Bp. Benjamin was elevated to archbishop by Metr. Sergius of the Church of Russia. He was also, assigned to go to the United States to lecture. While in the United States he was appointed the interim exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate on November 22, 1933, in North America, with the title of Archbishop of Aleutians and North America. This position he held until 1947. On July 14, 1938 he was designated Metropolitan of the Aleutians and North America. Having arrived in the United States without any parishes to serve, he created 50 parishes during his tenure that he supervised with three vicars.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Benjamin_(Fedchenkov)_of_the_Aleutians

I wonder about the relationship of these 50 and the patriarchal parishes.

In the 30s this was easy because you had lots of immigrants who were already Eastern Christians of some sort with big families and disaffected Greek Catholics ready to jump ship.  So creating parishes was more of a build it and they will come phenomenon. 
The immigrants had become a trickle in the 30's (besides the Depression, there was the post WWI restrictions on immigration), and not many wanted to be associated with the Soviet state in any way.

Some of the highest defections from the GC happened then. 

And there were still many Russophiles among the Ruthenians.

Look at the composition of these parishes.  Bet they are all East Slavs or at least ethnic Orthodox.  You won't find many Scots Irish types there I'm sure, if you get my drift.
Logged
Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,277


« Reply #68 on: February 04, 2014, 11:41:18 AM »

Btw, I would just like to point this out to each and every bishop to say "See! This is how it is done!"
Quote
In 1933, Bp. Benjamin was elevated to archbishop by Metr. Sergius of the Church of Russia. He was also, assigned to go to the United States to lecture. While in the United States he was appointed the interim exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate on November 22, 1933, in North America, with the title of Archbishop of Aleutians and North America. This position he held until 1947. On July 14, 1938 he was designated Metropolitan of the Aleutians and North America. Having arrived in the United States without any parishes to serve, he created 50 parishes during his tenure that he supervised with three vicars.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Benjamin_(Fedchenkov)_of_the_Aleutians

I wonder about the relationship of these 50 and the patriarchal parishes.

In the 30s this was easy because you had lots of immigrants who were already Eastern Christians of some sort with big families and disaffected Greek Catholics ready to jump ship.  So creating parishes was more of a build it and they will come phenomenon. 
The immigrants had become a trickle in the 30's (besides the Depression, there was the post WWI restrictions on immigration), and not many wanted to be associated with the Soviet state in any way.

Some of the highest defections from the GC happened then. 

And there were still many Russophiles among the Ruthenians.

Look at the composition of these parishes.  Bet they are all East Slavs or at least ethnic Orthodox.  You won't find many Scots Irish types there I'm sure, if you get my drift.

Your highest praise should go to your own jurisdiction which received thousands of Evangelical converts in 1987.  This type of effort is more instructive in our own times, I think. 

Saint Innocent of Alaska's efforts are similarly instructive. 
Logged
Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,277


« Reply #69 on: February 04, 2014, 11:46:13 AM »

Btw, I would just like to point this out to each and every bishop to say "See! This is how it is done!"
Quote
In 1933, Bp. Benjamin was elevated to archbishop by Metr. Sergius of the Church of Russia. He was also, assigned to go to the United States to lecture. While in the United States he was appointed the interim exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate on November 22, 1933, in North America, with the title of Archbishop of Aleutians and North America. This position he held until 1947. On July 14, 1938 he was designated Metropolitan of the Aleutians and North America. Having arrived in the United States without any parishes to serve, he created 50 parishes during his tenure that he supervised with three vicars.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Benjamin_(Fedchenkov)_of_the_Aleutians

I wonder about the relationship of these 50 and the patriarchal parishes.

In the 30s this was easy because you had lots of immigrants who were already Eastern Christians of some sort with big families and disaffected Greek Catholics ready to jump ship.  So creating parishes was more of a build it and they will come phenomenon. 
The immigrants had become a trickle in the 30's (besides the Depression, there was the post WWI restrictions on immigration), and not many wanted to be associated with the Soviet state in any way.

Some of the highest defections from the GC happened then. 

And there were still many Russophiles among the Ruthenians.

Look at the composition of these parishes.  Bet they are all East Slavs or at least ethnic Orthodox.  You won't find many Scots Irish types there I'm sure, if you get my drift.

Your highest praise should go to your own jurisdiction which received thousands of Evangelical converts in 1987.  This type of effort is more instructive in our own times, I think. 

Saint Innocent of Alaska's efforts are similarly instructive. 

I'm of the view that we need our own version of Bishop Fulton Sheen and EWTN.  Something faithful and not flashy for people to stumble across.  If AFR was able to get some radio stations that could work too. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #70 on: February 04, 2014, 11:50:59 AM »

Btw, I would just like to point this out to each and every bishop to say "See! This is how it is done!"
Quote
In 1933, Bp. Benjamin was elevated to archbishop by Metr. Sergius of the Church of Russia. He was also, assigned to go to the United States to lecture. While in the United States he was appointed the interim exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate on November 22, 1933, in North America, with the title of Archbishop of Aleutians and North America. This position he held until 1947. On July 14, 1938 he was designated Metropolitan of the Aleutians and North America. Having arrived in the United States without any parishes to serve, he created 50 parishes during his tenure that he supervised with three vicars.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Benjamin_(Fedchenkov)_of_the_Aleutians

I wonder about the relationship of these 50 and the patriarchal parishes.

In the 30s this was easy because you had lots of immigrants who were already Eastern Christians of some sort with big families and disaffected Greek Catholics ready to jump ship.  So creating parishes was more of a build it and they will come phenomenon. 
The immigrants had become a trickle in the 30's (besides the Depression, there was the post WWI restrictions on immigration), and not many wanted to be associated with the Soviet state in any way.

Some of the highest defections from the GC happened then. 

And there were still many Russophiles among the Ruthenians.

Look at the composition of these parishes.  Bet they are all East Slavs or at least ethnic Orthodox.  You won't find many Scots Irish types there I'm sure, if you get my drift.

Your highest praise should go to your own jurisdiction which received thousands of Evangelical converts in 1987.  This type of effort is more instructive in our own times, I think. 

Saint Innocent of Alaska's efforts are similarly instructive. 
St. Innocent remains the gold standard, as a missionary, as a bishop and as a primate.  And as a married priest, for those who question the dedication of married clergy to the Church.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,277


« Reply #71 on: February 04, 2014, 11:53:51 AM »

Btw, I would just like to point this out to each and every bishop to say "See! This is how it is done!"
Quote
In 1933, Bp. Benjamin was elevated to archbishop by Metr. Sergius of the Church of Russia. He was also, assigned to go to the United States to lecture. While in the United States he was appointed the interim exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate on November 22, 1933, in North America, with the title of Archbishop of Aleutians and North America. This position he held until 1947. On July 14, 1938 he was designated Metropolitan of the Aleutians and North America. Having arrived in the United States without any parishes to serve, he created 50 parishes during his tenure that he supervised with three vicars.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Benjamin_(Fedchenkov)_of_the_Aleutians

I wonder about the relationship of these 50 and the patriarchal parishes.

In the 30s this was easy because you had lots of immigrants who were already Eastern Christians of some sort with big families and disaffected Greek Catholics ready to jump ship.  So creating parishes was more of a build it and they will come phenomenon. 
The immigrants had become a trickle in the 30's (besides the Depression, there was the post WWI restrictions on immigration), and not many wanted to be associated with the Soviet state in any way.

Some of the highest defections from the GC happened then. 

And there were still many Russophiles among the Ruthenians.

Look at the composition of these parishes.  Bet they are all East Slavs or at least ethnic Orthodox.  You won't find many Scots Irish types there I'm sure, if you get my drift.

Your highest praise should go to your own jurisdiction which received thousands of Evangelical converts in 1987.  This type of effort is more instructive in our own times, I think. 

Saint Innocent of Alaska's efforts are similarly instructive. 
St. Innocent remains the gold standard, as a missionary, as a bishop and as a primate.  And as a married priest, for those who question the dedication of married clergy to the Church.
I glorify God for his faith and life.  He is simply amazing.  I am in awe of his long trips around the barren north in a kayak to visit and evangelize.  He baptized Aleutians culture, which is the biggest lesson of all.  He follows in the likes of St. Paul and SS Cyril and Methodius in that way I think. 
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #72 on: February 04, 2014, 03:49:58 PM »

St. Innocent remains the gold standard, as a missionary, as a bishop and as a primate.  And as a married priest, for those who question the dedication of married clergy to the Church.
I glorify God for his faith and life.  He is simply amazing.  I am in awe of his long trips around the barren north in a kayak to visit and evangelize.  He baptized Aleutians culture, which is the biggest lesson of all.  He follows in the likes of St. Paul and SS Cyril and Methodius in that way I think. 
You're right, which is why the Church recognizes him as Equal-to-the-Apostles.  Very fitting.
Logged

poleteo_soko
Muted
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate, a soul refusing Patriarch Irinej
Posts: 144



« Reply #73 on: February 05, 2014, 02:53:22 AM »

FYROM? What is FYROM?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=FYROM

While we're on unproven canonical status, can we speak to the notion that the Pec Patriarchates' Autocephaly was purchased?

Be my guest, provided you troll-off and start a separate thread about it.
Logged

Lord, destroy the enemies of Czar Vladimir the Liberator and grant him long lasting and peaceful rule!
poleteo_soko
Muted
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate, a soul refusing Patriarch Irinej
Posts: 144



« Reply #74 on: February 05, 2014, 02:55:52 AM »

Second, Bulgars self-proclaimed autocephaly in 9th or 10th century, never recognized and terminated by Basil Bulgaroktonos in 1014.

I hope you do not reject this source out of hand:
...

If the sources you provided had stated anything contrary to what I had presented, I would have to question the accuracy of wikipedia as a signle source. Since they didn't I am at a loss about what you actually tried to point.
Logged

Lord, destroy the enemies of Czar Vladimir the Liberator and grant him long lasting and peaceful rule!
poleteo_soko
Muted
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate, a soul refusing Patriarch Irinej
Posts: 144



« Reply #75 on: February 05, 2014, 03:36:24 AM »

...To me, it's science-fiction.
No, it's history: Abp. Fan Noli founded the Albanian Orthodox Church when the Greek Church refused to bury Albanian Orthodox who spoke Albanian.
...
I haven't seen a reference to that in the original post.

Of course not, because the Greeks in it are history, not science fiction.
...
Of course not, the facts of the matter upset your narrative.

It's easy to me to remain Greekophile - they were Americans, not Greeks, and American Phanariotes on top of that. In my  universe, that is exactly the opposite from Greeks. It's not the issue of facts, but of personal preference and is non-issue to the topic at hand.

Just to remind you, the debate here is not my personal perception of Greeks, but the fact that Father presented a conclusion about misconception among Americans about primacy (which I find truthfull and accurate), but based on some wrong facts. In the terms of Aristotelian Logic, his conclusion is truthfull, but not valid.


They are not the ones we are speaking of: the Patriarchate of Pec, for instance, lived on in Montenegro and Karlowitz, but the Church Father spoke of was the one in Belgrade, which went on to become the present Patriarchate of Serbia.  The Bulgarian exarchate was based in Constantinople, where no Bulgarian patriarchate had ever had jurisdiction.  The previous Patriarchates Bulgaria has to share with Serbia/Macedonia and Romania.

Again, what does it have with the topic at hand?

BTW, you ignored what I pointed. It wasnt the local church in Belgrade that "went on to become present Patriarchate of Serbia", there were both Pec and Karlovac and Belgrade that went on to become present Serbian Patriarchate, but you are free to repeat your distorted interpretation of a bunch of historical facts as long as you wish, to the detriment of the topic at hand.

..
Sure can: Ohrid remained the Church of Bulgaria, now a theme in the Empire of the Romans rather than being incorporated into the Church of Constantinople.  Even the Greeks the Emperor approved as Archbishops tenaciously held to the independence of Ohrid.
...
Not that different, as history shows and the episcopate knows: hence why Patriarch Ignatius and the Holy Synod of Antioch did not want to give the name "autonomous" to the Archdiocese here in North America.
...
When the Patriarchate of Serbia bought out from Constantinople the Macedonian and southern lands of what was becoming Yugoslavia, no recognition was given to the existence of the Bulgarian Exarchate there.  There's your apple.

Yet again, a bunch of interpretation of history, with the aim to equate autokephalia with autonomia (with exarchate as spice). Since they are "not so different" you claim they are the same. Do you expect me to waste my time in debating such a nonsense? What recognition does pertain to an exarchate? Do you know what is exarchate? From what you presented, I doubt it very much.

Pitty Americans presented at this thread misunderstanding about more than Father pointed in the OP.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 03:40:03 AM by poleteo_soko » Logged

Lord, destroy the enemies of Czar Vladimir the Liberator and grant him long lasting and peaceful rule!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #76 on: February 05, 2014, 04:58:47 AM »

You're the one who dismissed facts as fiction.
...To me, it's science-fiction.
...To me, it's science-fiction.
No, it's history: Abp. Fan Noli founded the Albanian Orthodox Church when the Greek Church refused to bury Albanian Orthodox who spoke Albanian.
...
I haven't seen a reference to that in the original post.

Of course not, because the Greeks in it are history, not science fiction.
...
Of course not, the facts of the matter upset your narrative.

It's easy to me to remain Greekophile - they were Americans, not Greeks, and American Phanariotes on top of that. In my  universe, that is exactly the opposite from Greeks. It's not the issue of facts, but of personal preference and is non-issue to the topic at hand.

Just to remind you, the debate here is not my personal perception of Greeks, but the fact that Father presented a conclusion about misconception among Americans about primacy (which I find truthfull and accurate), but based on some wrong facts. In the terms of Aristotelian Logic, his conclusion is truthfull, but not valid.


They are not the ones we are speaking of: the Patriarchate of Pec, for instance, lived on in Montenegro and Karlowitz, but the Church Father spoke of was the one in Belgrade, which went on to become the present Patriarchate of Serbia.  The Bulgarian exarchate was based in Constantinople, where no Bulgarian patriarchate had ever had jurisdiction.  The previous Patriarchates Bulgaria has to share with Serbia/Macedonia and Romania.

Again, what does it have with the topic at hand?

BTW, you ignored what I pointed. It wasnt the local church in Belgrade that "went on to become present Patriarchate of Serbia", there were both Pec and Karlovac and Belgrade that went on to become present Serbian Patriarchate, but you are free to repeat your distorted interpretation of a bunch of historical facts as long as you wish, to the detriment of the topic at hand.

..
Sure can: Ohrid remained the Church of Bulgaria, now a theme in the Empire of the Romans rather than being incorporated into the Church of Constantinople.  Even the Greeks the Emperor approved as Archbishops tenaciously held to the independence of Ohrid.
...
Not that different, as history shows and the episcopate knows: hence why Patriarch Ignatius and the Holy Synod of Antioch did not want to give the name "autonomous" to the Archdiocese here in North America.
...
When the Patriarchate of Serbia bought out from Constantinople the Macedonian and southern lands of what was becoming Yugoslavia, no recognition was given to the existence of the Bulgarian Exarchate there.  There's your apple.

Yet again, a bunch of interpretation of history, with the aim to equate autokephalia with autonomia (with exarchate as spice). Since they are "not so different" you claim they are the same. Do you expect me to waste my time in debating such a nonsense? What recognition does pertain to an exarchate? Do you know what is exarchate? From what you presented, I doubt it very much.

Pitty Americans presented at this thread misunderstanding about more than Father pointed in the OP.
Now we understand your fondness for fiction.

I'm about to go to bed.  Lord willing, I might straighten your posted mess out later.

In the meantime, you might want to educate yourself. You can start with something simple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_exarchate
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
poleteo_soko
Muted
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate, a soul refusing Patriarch Irinej
Posts: 144



« Reply #77 on: February 05, 2014, 05:07:35 AM »

...

Why don't you start a separate thread where you will be proving (along with Carl and Orthosomething) that FYROM is sumultaneously purchased by Serbian Patriarchate and granted to Bulgarian Exarchate? I'm eager to see the elaboration of it.
Logged

Lord, destroy the enemies of Czar Vladimir the Liberator and grant him long lasting and peaceful rule!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #78 on: February 05, 2014, 05:19:49 AM »

...

Why don't you start a separate thread where you will be proving (along with Carl and Orthosomething) that FYROM is sumultaneously purchased by Serbian Patriarchate and granted to Bulgarian Exarchate? I'm eager to see the elaboration of it.
for one:Catholic world, Volume 114 By Paulist Fathers (1922)
Quote
Before the War, the Orthodox population of the Serbian Kingdom amounted to 2,880,000. With her new territorial conquests, the Serbian Church embraces at the present time about six millions of Orthodox within the limits of Jugo-Slavia. Therefore, the first task of the Serbian Church is the religious unification of all Serbians. This problem was discussed in the meeting of all the Serbian bishops, held at Belgrade, May 26, 1919. A decision could not be taken without a preliminary understanding with the Greek Patriarch [i.e. the EP]. At the end of the same year, the Patriarch consented to renounce his jurisdiction over ten Metropolitan Sees of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Old Serbia and Macedonia upon the payment of an indemnity equivalent to $300,000. At the same time, the Serbian Government negotiated the exemption of the Metropolitan Sees of Zara and Cattaro from the jurisdiction of the Patriarch [sic, he was/is a Metropolitan] of Cernowitz.
http://books.google.com/books?id=OH0QAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA811&lpg=PA811&dq=%22Srptka+Crkva,+1920,+n.+5,+pp.+193,+194&source=bl&ots=20ImJ0d1Be&sig=imG38XHP8Im5GiATy06vd5OUs8w&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22Srptka%20Crkva%2C%201920%2C%20n.%205%2C%20pp.%20193%2C%20194&f=false
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
poleteo_soko
Muted
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate, a soul refusing Patriarch Irinej
Posts: 144



« Reply #79 on: February 05, 2014, 05:32:02 AM »


It is only left to prove now how it simultaneously granted to Bulgarian Exarchate, as well as to prove that Chernowitz was not an offshot of the very same Serbian Patriarchate. (Hint: Fortesque) I'll refrain for the moment from questioning the accuracy of the source which was "credible" enought to attribute to Chernowitz the status of a patriarchate.

Edit: In anticipation of relating the purchase of territories to the notion of simonia, I will ask to quote tha canons defining simonia, once such a laughable interpretation arises here.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 05:37:08 AM by poleteo_soko » Logged

Lord, destroy the enemies of Czar Vladimir the Liberator and grant him long lasting and peaceful rule!
Ersaia
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 284



« Reply #80 on: February 05, 2014, 06:50:25 AM »

It's not so simple to analyze the Bulgarian Exarchate in the area of Greek Macedonia. The 2/3 majority rule to have episcopacy and the 1/3 rule to have church created very bad situations in the area between people and the memories of violence are still here.

Americans can't understand this part of history. I remember in another topic last year when I said that Greek Orthodox in North Greece had more problems with Bulgarians than Ottomans and you could not understand how orthodox destroy orthodox churches and kill priests.

My English are not so good to have this conversation and I really don''t want to have so hot conversations with other orthodox here, but the memories are still here and the Bulgarians have try to make my Greek grandmother Bulgarian and my father's sisters went to bulgarian school involuntarily.  My father's family was Greek Macedonian from Drama and the oldest member in the area I can find as search is one Greek orthodox priest on 1680 - 1750 arhives from one monastery.

In this Greek area they were under the violence of Bulgarians
-1912-1913 1st Balcan War
-1916-1918 2nd Balcan War
-1941-1944  WW2

To be honest many people from North Greece don't hate Ottoman Turks, don't hate German Nazi but they really hate Orthodox Bulgarians because they have the worst memories of violence


Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,022


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #81 on: February 05, 2014, 09:23:05 AM »

Ersala raises a point, which is that the power of collective community memory is real and has to be taken to heart by those who want theories and even"canons" to neatly resolve any issue. The reality "on the ground" makes such an approach doomed from the inception if any solution to the many nationality issues vexing the Church in her quest for "canonical regularity" here in America.

Logged
orthoreader
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Los Angeles and the West
Posts: 323



« Reply #82 on: February 05, 2014, 10:49:23 AM »

And then you have that pesky problem that Macedonians actually consider themselves something other than Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian.

But hey, we all know that Tito was great at the Vulcan mind-melt so it was his propaganda that did this ....  Cheesy

Perhaps it's fruitless to put THIS much stock in history. It's good to learn it to understand the narratives of those in power, as well as to be prepared for the future, but perhaps we need to understand what is reality in the present as well? Just a thought ....
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,539



« Reply #83 on: February 05, 2014, 11:21:13 AM »

Second, Bulgars self-proclaimed autocephaly in 9th or 10th century, never recognized and terminated by Basil Bulgaroktonos in 1014.

I hope you do not reject this source out of hand:
...

If the sources you provided had stated anything contrary to what I had presented, I would have to question the accuracy of wikipedia as a signle source. Since they didn't I am at a loss about what you actually tried to point.

I'm tempted to retry but I am convinced that it would be a vain attempt. You and I are finished talking. Wishing you a spiritually profitable Lenten Season.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,539



« Reply #84 on: February 05, 2014, 11:55:16 AM »

It's not so simple to analyze the Bulgarian Exarchate in the area of Greek Macedonia. The 2/3 majority rule to have episcopacy and the 1/3 rule to have church created very bad situations in the area between people and the memories of violence are still here.

Americans can't understand this part of history. I remember in another topic last year when I said that Greek Orthodox in North Greece had more problems with Bulgarians than Ottomans and you could not understand how orthodox destroy orthodox churches and kill priests.

My English are not so good to have this conversation and I really don''t want to have so hot conversations with other orthodox here, but the memories are still here and the Bulgarians have try to make my Greek grandmother Bulgarian and my father's sisters went to bulgarian school involuntarily.  My father's family was Greek Macedonian from Drama and the oldest member in the area I can find as search is one Greek orthodox priest on 1680 - 1750 arhives from one monastery.

In this Greek area they were under the violence of Bulgarians
-1912-1913 1st Balcan War
-1916-1918 2nd Balcan War
-1941-1944  WW2

To be honest many people from North Greece don't hate Ottoman Turks, don't hate German Nazi but they really hate Orthodox Bulgarians because they have the worst memories of violence




This is so interesting; Macedono-Bulgarians have the diametrically opposite history. Is it possible that both could be right? Pursuing that point, what you are saying may well be true for most Greeks who were resettled in Macedonia in the 1920s. For a third-party look at the Balkan Wars see Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan War. https://archive.org/details/reportofinternat00inteuoft

In my case, my grandfather and grandmother escaped the advancing Greek armies in 1918 and eventually resettled in Istanbul. The reason? Ethnic cleansing by the usual methods (rape, torture, murder) by the Greeks.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 11:56:04 AM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #85 on: February 05, 2014, 12:00:54 PM »


It is only left to prove now how it simultaneously granted to Bulgarian Exarchate, as well as to prove that Chernowitz was not an offshot of the very same Serbian Patriarchate. (Hint: Fortesque) I'll refrain for the moment from questioning the accuracy of the source which was "credible" enought to attribute to Chernowitz the status of a patriarchate.

Edit: In anticipation of relating the purchase of territories to the notion of simonia, I will ask to quote tha canons defining simonia, once such a laughable interpretation arises here.
I didn't say a thing about simony, so someone else will have to play with you on that one.

As for the Bulgarian Exarchate:
This is what Chief Secretary, following his "tradition", found so objectionable, the Firman of March 11, 1870 :
Quote
"All loyal subjects and inhabitants of my Empire enjoy, in respect to religion and the practice of their faith, as in all other respects, complete and permanent security, and they should be animated with feelings of good mutual understanding and friendship, as beseems fellow-countrymen and civilised peoples. It is my inmost wish that they should continue to support, to the utmost extent of their power, the efforts which I arn constantly making for ensuring the welfare of the country and the progress of civilisation.

«• It is therefore with regret that I have observed the misunderstandings and dissensions which, contrary to this agreeable expectation, have for some time past existed between the Bulgarians of the Orthodox Church and the Greek patriarch, as regards the spiritual bonds which unite the Patriarchate and the Metropolitans, Bishops and priests of the Bulgarian Church.

«In order to bring about a favourable solution of the difflculty, the following decisions have been arrived at as the result of negotiation and deliberations:

1. A special spiritual denomination is formed under the name of the Bulgarian Exarchate, which comprises all the Dioceses, Bishoprics and other places hereinafter set out. It will be invested with authority in all ecclesiastical matters appertaining to the Bulgarian confession.

2. The highest in rank among the Metropolitans of this denomination will be given the title of Exarch; he will be invested with the Presidency of the Bulgarian Synod which will be attached permanently to his person....

9. In the same way as the Jerusalem Monastery in the Phanar is dependent on the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and is subject to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, so also the Bulgarian Monastery at the Phanar and the adjoining Bulgarian Church will be dependent on the Bulgarian Exarchate. The Exarch is authorised to reside in this monastery whenever his duties call him to Constantinople. In all that concerns his arrival at the capital and the exercise of his ecclesiastical office during his stay there he must conform to the ecclesiastical rules followed in similar cases by the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch.

10. The spiritual jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Exarchate extends over the Metropolitan Dioceses of Roustchouk, Silislria, Shoumla, Tirnovo, Sofia, Vratza, Loftcha, Widdin, Nish, Pirot, Kustendil, Samakov, Velika, Varna (excluding the town of Varna and about twenty villages on the coast of the Black Sea as far as Kustendje, the inhabitants of which are not Bulgarians), the Sandjak of Slimia without the towns of Ahirdji (Anchialos) and Messimbria;the Kaza of Sozopolis excluding the villages on the coast; Philippopolis, excluding the town and the district of Stanimak, the villages of Kokbounar. Vodina, Arnaoutkeui, Panaya, Novoseli, Laskovo, Arkhlani, Batchkovo, Velastitza, and the monasteries of Batchkovo, Ayos Anargiri. Aya Paraskevi and Ayos Georghi. The Panaya quarter in the city of Philippopolis will belong to the Bulgarian Exarchate ; those of its inhabitants who do not wish to be subject to the Bulgarian Church and Exarchate will be quite free in this respect. The details of this arrangement are to be settled between the Patriarch and the Exarchate in accordance with ecclesiastical custom, principles and regulations. If all, or not less than two-thirds, of the inhabitants of orthodox faith in places other than those aborementioned wish to be subject to the Exarchate in their spiritual affairs, and if this fact is clearly established, they shall be permitted to do as they wish ; but such permission is to be granted only on the demand, or with the assent, of the entire population or of at least of two-thirds of the same. All persons who may seek on this pretext to bring about dissensions and disturbances among the population will be prosecuted and punished according to law...

« As the foregoing provisions appear to meet the legitimate demands of the parties and to be calculated to put an end to the regrettable dissensions which have taken place, they have been agreed to by the Government. They will in future have the force of law, and the present Firman has been promulgated to give proof of Our formal desire that all persons shall refrain from acting contrary to this law or from departing from its provisions. »
The Bulgarian Exarchate: its history and the extext of its authority in Turkey By Richard von Mach
http://books.google.com/books?id=MEwpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=firman+Bulgarian+exarchate&source=bl&ots=mgd5gdrp30&sig=JrazeAkZDdKJRQ3zyRqrerWS5k0&hl=en&ei=CVMYTJDEOpDOM7eV3d8E&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=firman%20Bulgarian%20exarchate&f=false

The distribution of Bulgarians at the time:

The territories in question are listed under the Exarchate here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=MEwpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA3&dq=%22Dioceses+in+which+the+Exarchate+posses+Bishoprics%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YmDyUoGeMZDiyAH4j4GQDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Dioceses%20in%20which%20the%20Exarchate%20posses%20Bishoprics%22&f=false
Rather than getting the required two-thirds, over 90% of the Orthodox in these territories demanded to be included in the Exarchate.

The Metropolitinate of Czernowitz had nothing to do with the territories in question-they not having any connection to Constantinople except in Faith for nearly a century and a half by then.  But anyway, an offshoot of the Church of Moldavia (actually its cradle, and into which it was reintegrated after WWI), the Habsburgs placed it, like all their Orthodox, under their Serbian Metropolitan at Karlowitz.  When the Church of Transylvania was able to reassert itself, Czernowitz was kept apart.  When the Ausgleich demanded a separate Church from the Serbian Patriarch and Romanian Metropolitans under Hungarian control, Czernowitz received jurisdiction over all the Imperial Lands of Austria.

As for its title, Metropolitan or Patriarch, the only difference would be the name.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,539



« Reply #86 on: February 05, 2014, 12:14:07 PM »

Ersala raises a point, which is that the power of collective community memory is real and has to be taken to heart by those who want theories and even"canons" to neatly resolve any issue. The reality "on the ground" makes such an approach doomed from the inception if any solution to the many nationality issues vexing the Church in her quest for "canonical regularity" here in America.



The power of collective community memory and self-identity are indeed real and must be respected if one is to go forward. That is the reason for the presence of the Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian dioceses in the OCA. This model can be applied successfully in a future autocephalous church. The real problem to unity is a mindset that values ethnic communities' preservation at the expense of pursuing the unchurched and the heterodox. Would it be a problem for the GOA, and the ethnocentric jurisdictions under Constantinople, to tithe to the national church and to start missions locally that are plain vanilla American? Probably. The same goes for ROCOR, Bulgarians under Sofia, Serbians, Romanians under Bucharest, and may be even for the Antiochians (included only because of the developments in the Middle East). I think eventually it boils down to choosing between two seemingly incompatible  goals.  
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 12:14:46 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #87 on: February 05, 2014, 12:25:15 PM »

Ersala raises a point, which is that the power of collective community memory is real and has to be taken to heart by those who want theories and even"canons" to neatly resolve any issue. The reality "on the ground" makes such an approach doomed from the inception if any solution to the many nationality issues vexing the Church in her quest for "canonical regularity" here in America.
Actually, when one takes the standard of "reality on the ground," rather than the anchor of historic right, that encourages the parties to change the reality on the ground-by all means possible.  Sat' al-Husri, the Ottoman school official in the region under discussion, took to heart the example of the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians and Macedonians in pursuing that.

Hence the canon that if one seizes a diocese, he must be forced to give it up.

Another example of this spawned the parent of this thread: Jerusalem now claims all of the Arabia peninsula (and Lord knows what else) on the basis of the sees that seized from Antioch and attached to their Latin patriarchate.  When you do not uproot weeds by the root, they grow all over.

The same Sacred canons, however, do not let one sit on his laches.  If no objection is brought over 30 years, than the claim expires.  Antioch-at least the Latin patriarch of it, "Antioch's Patriarch" Theodore Balsamon was too concerned over Constantinople to care-did complain at the time over Arabia, but circumstances have developed over the centuries where it would serve little purpose to split Jordan from Palestine.  That is, if the Palestinians were running Jerusalem.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #88 on: February 05, 2014, 12:26:20 PM »

Ersala raises a point, which is that the power of collective community memory is real and has to be taken to heart by those who want theories and even"canons" to neatly resolve any issue. The reality "on the ground" makes such an approach doomed from the inception if any solution to the many nationality issues vexing the Church in her quest for "canonical regularity" here in America.



The power of collective community memory and self-identity are indeed real and must be respected if one is to go forward. That is the reason for the presence of the Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian dioceses in the OCA. This model can be applied successfully in a future autocephalous church. The real problem to unity is a mindset that values ethnic communities' preservation at the expense of pursuing the unchurched and the heterodox. Would it be a problem for the GOA, and the ethnocentric jurisdictions under Constantinople, to tithe to the national church and to start missions locally that are plain vanilla American? Probably. The same goes for ROCOR, Bulgarians under Sofia, Serbians, Romanians under Bucharest, and may be even for the Antiochians (included only because of the developments in the Middle East). I think eventually it boils down to choosing between two seemingly incompatible  goals.  
They are not incompatible.  Some just don't want to see it that way.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,277


« Reply #89 on: February 05, 2014, 12:29:02 PM »

Ersala raises a point, which is that the power of collective community memory is real and has to be taken to heart by those who want theories and even"canons" to neatly resolve any issue. The reality "on the ground" makes such an approach doomed from the inception if any solution to the many nationality issues vexing the Church in her quest for "canonical regularity" here in America.



The power of collective community memory and self-identity are indeed real and must be respected if one is to go forward. That is the reason for the presence of the Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian dioceses in the OCA. This model can be applied successfully in a future autocephalous church. The real problem to unity is a mindset that values ethnic communities' preservation at the expense of pursuing the unchurched and the heterodox. Would it be a problem for the GOA, and the ethnocentric jurisdictions under Constantinople, to tithe to the national church and to start missions locally that are plain vanilla American? Probably. The same goes for ROCOR, Bulgarians under Sofia, Serbians, Romanians under Bucharest, and may be even for the Antiochians (included only because of the developments in the Middle East). I think eventually it boils down to choosing between two seemingly incompatible  goals.  
They are not incompatible.  Some just don't want to see it that way.

One can have the Orthodox faith as transmitted according to Russian, Greek, Arab, Ukrainian, etc. rubrics and customs and still be American.  The two aren't incompatible. 
Logged
Tags: history politics bashing Primacy 
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  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 0.24 seconds with 72 queries.