Macedonian Church dispute in Australia

[Stojacanec]

Risto, Greek friends of mine had to christen their daughter. They chose a god mother to perform the duties. The Greek priest did not recognise the god mother which belonged to a separate greek church. She had to be re-baptized by this priest, for a fee of course, so that she can perform the christening. This is an example of greek churches not recognising each other. It is a farce as far as I am concerned. Like Vangelovski says, I think not even the priests know the meaning of Christianity.

[George S.]

The big problem i find & it's the same quandarry is why didn't the mother church from macedonia take a different roll of participating with the people & the imot could've been forwarded to the curch like other property in macedonia beconing part of the church.Instead of that we have infighting & division of the church.Also where is all the money going to if the money is not overseen by anyone.?If it's a corporation then the public can scrutinize where all the money has went.I wonder if the public can scrutinize companies that are not for profit.

[George S.]

Sorry tom but what i'm trying to say that at this meeting a hell of a number of people are going to be pissed off with moca for telling them they don't own the properties stc.Those people that donate & help in building of the churches regard the churches as theirs.Call it blood sweat & tears.So over the years the commubnity churches were incorporated own the properties with direct control ny moca.I'm saying a hell of alot of people are going to be shocked to know that they don't own the churches.They think it's in safe keeping for the macedonian narod.So if it's not that we have one big division.

[George S.]

Correct me if i'm wrong here tom .There are a lot of parishoners who when they donate to the church regard their donation as theirs like a share in the church,particularly when the church is being built.So then in comes the incorporated company & they don't really recognize these contributions so it becomes all part of the corporation & to those who control it to do as they will without question.So people who gave"donated"money & other means to the curch is not really recognized.A hell of a lot of people beleive that the churches are the peoples curches built on blood ,toil,sweat,only to find that is not so.The property vests in the compamies tom.
By the way tom if you are going to the moca meeting maybe you can get some notes

[Vangelovski]

George, firstly, they are not companies. They are incorporated non-profit associations - there is a big difference. Secondly, this is Australia, not Macedonia. Taking that into consideration and the two very different legal systems, who would you like to own the church properties if you don't want them to be a legal entity in themselves, run by the community?

[George S.]

tom the people then don't own the properties & those vested with the control can do what they want.No wonder there is so much sensitive information they don't want people to know.How do you think people are going to react all those years of donating & helping is going to go into someone elses pocket.The whole thing is not about religion but money & property.All this is going to divide the people.I'm not saying the other side is any better they are just as bad.
Tom personal question given your immense knowledge & understamding of religion etc what is the solution here??is there any hope of a solution??

[aleksandrov]

Originally Posted by George S.

I can understand that sensitive information has to be treated differently but that doesn't mean other things need to be hidden.The public doesn't really know what's going on.Clearly there is a division in the community & a forum should strive to explain whats going on.

I agree. That's the idea behind the Q & A session. What would be even better is if Petar Karevski agreed to a public debate with us about all the relevant facts and arguments behind the so-called 'church dispute', at which both sides would present evidence to back up their claims.

[Vangelovski]

George, the church properties are owned by the incorporated association. The incorporated association is controlled by its members - everyone in the community should be a paid up member. So, in actual fact, the community does control the incorporated association, which in turn owns the properties.

Incorporated associations are required to meet strict governance and financial regulations under Australian law. For example, under Australian state and territory law, incorporated associations have to provide their members with a financial statement at every Annual General Meeting. If you are that concerned about the financial dealings of your local church, become a member and attend the next Annual General Meeting where they will provide you with a financial statement outlining how much was recieved and how much was spent (and on what).

Having our church properties owned by non-profit incorporated associations run by the community is the best possible solution in the financial and legal systems that we live under.

[aleksandrov]

Originally Posted by Bill77

So let me get this right, (i am not trying to be a smart ass, i am confused) So the Macedonian community in Aus do not own its church's?

Then what is all this argument about Peter taking over possessions that belong to the Macedonian community in Aus?

If by "Macedonian Orthodox community in Australia" you mean an amalgamation of all persons in Australia who consider themselves Macedonian Orthodox, my answer is that that there is no such legal person. You need to be a legal person to own property in Australia. There are various incorporated organisations (legal persons) in Australia formed by Macedonian Orthodox members, in accordance with standard Australian legal forms for establishing democratically structured non-profit and charitable organisations. Such organisations represent separate legal persons in their own right. Their members have no ownership of any shares in them, but have legally defined rights over their management. The Macedonian Orthodox Community of Australia Ltd is one of those organisations.

Petar Karevski's churches are not legally owned by incorporated community organisations, but by himself and other individuals selected by him. Karevski is not legally accountable to ANY members of the Macedonian community for the way he manages his churches.

[George S.]

i can understand the company law side.But how you going to explain to the ordinary joe out there who has contributed all their live & they regard the property as the people's rather than some company.I would venture to say that a lot of people who beleive that petar should not have the peuples property is supposedly represented by the likes of moca for the community churches.I think a few people will be shocked to learn that the peoples property "narod" really isn't.So in effect all community propert rests with the control of MOCA.