Macedonian Church Dispute in Australia

[George S.]

yes it's done before & they all claim it's in the church canons etcif anything i don't approve of bishops owning church property as the vladika petar has very grandiose ideas as to what he want's them for.Tosell them & to build some huge cathedral in europe??He doiesn't care for the local diosce or the diaspora macedonians ,you will do as you are told is the saying like the communist days of macedonia.If he holds property in his name it's all the more easier for himself to sell it & move the money offshore.

[boyphenom666]

What has been done in America and what is done in Australia are 2 different things due to different legislative requirements, which I recommend you educate yourself about!

This has nothing to do with the fact that the Catholic Church owns property in the name of the Bishop in America versus Australia. American and Australian laws descend from British Common Law and thus are very similar. My point is that this is a very common structure for churches to own property and is legally justifiable. Indeed, the local bishop often makes decisions which properties to keep open, close, sell, etc. It is assumed that the bishop is acting in the best interests of the church.

Now if you don't trust our own bishop to own property, what does that say about the church you belong to? And how does the church survive if that's the attitude its members have?

[boyphenom666]

yes it's done before & they all claim it's in the church canons etcif anything i don't approve of bishops owning church property as the vladika petar has very grandiose ideas as to what he want's them for.Tosell them & to build some huge cathedral in europe??He doiesn't care for the local diosce or the diaspora macedonians ,you will do as you are told is the saying like the communist days of macedonia.If he holds property in his name it's all the more easier for himself to sell it & move the money offshore.

I think you need to have a little more faith in church hierarchy. And if the church hierarchy is so quick to act in an unethical manner, then they should be replaced. To be fair, they wouldn't get very far with doing something like this in this country and would probably be faced with the same reaction as in your country. But that still has nothing to do with whether this is legally justifiable or not. It very much is.

[boyphenom666]

http://policy.archchicago.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=cQbw0PrRXgc%3D&tabid=10164

See the top of Page 8 if you guys want to see an example of Bylaws related to the Catholic Church and ownership of property by the Bishop in the Chicago Archdiocese.

Specifically,

§203.2 Purposes of the Corporation Sole

203.2.1. General Purposes. The purposes of the Corporation Sole are:

(4) To hold property, as permitted under canon law and as recognized in the relevant acts of the Illinois General Assembly approved February 24, 1845 and February 20, 1861, and more particularly to hold property in trust for the use and benefit of the Archdiocese of Chicago, its institutions, its parishes, and certain other institutions affiliated with the Catholic Church.

(5) To ensure that the provisions of any gift, grant, devise, deed, or other instrument that direct, restrict, or encumber the use of property transferred to the Corporation Sole, the Archdiocese of Chicago, or any affiliated organization, or the proceeds thereof, are honored.

=================

It appears that the Bishop formerly held property in his name as a Trustee, but they reorganized into a corporation called the "The Catholic Bishop of Chicago." There isn't much of a legal difference here, just a different way to accomplish the same thing.

Bottom line is that it sounds like the Australian Bishop is trying to do the same thing here. If you trust your Vladika and truly believe he is a representative of God, it's like leaving your property with someone you trust.

I'm not going to opine whether it's good or bad, or right or wrong, but my only point is that it is a legitimate way to own church property.

[boyphenom666]

More:

203.4.1. Legal Title to Parish Real Property. As trustee, the Corporation Sole is vested with legal title to the real property and real property interests of parishes within the Archdiocese of Chicago and to all rents, incomes or profits therefrom and to all additions and accumulations thereto. Such real property interests are held by the

Corporation Sole:

(1) In a trust for the benefit of each respective parish and

(2) Subject to any other restrictions of any kind related to particular gifts, grants, bequests, devises or conveyances of real property interests.

Such real property interests are reported in the Inventory of Parish Real Property Interests described in §203.4.3.

Accountability and Ecclesiastical Processes

203.4.2. Legal Title to Parish Personal Property. As trustee, the Corporation Sole is vested with legal title to certain personal property of parishes within the Archdiocese of Chicago, including certain financial assets comprising parish endowment funds, parish educational endowment funds, and other capital or restricted funds. Such personal property interests are held by the Corporation Sole:

(1) In a trust for the benefit of each respective parish and

(2) Subject to any other restrictions of any kind related to particular gifts, grants, bequests, devises or conveyances of real property interests. Such personal property interests are reported in the Inventory of Parish Personal Property Interests described in §203.4.3.

203.4.3. Inventories of Parish Real and Personal Property Interests Held in Trust. The Corporation Sole shall maintain an Inventory of Parish Real Property Interests, and an Inventory of Parish Personal Property Interests. Such Inventories may exist from time to time in paper or electronic forms, as such records may be maintained in the ordinary course of business by the Archdiocesan Office of Finance or any successor organization. Such Inventories shall be amended from time to time to reflect parishes created, merged, consolidated or suppressed, real estate interests acquired or divested, acquisition or divestiture of intangible assets, changes in the value and structure of accounts, otherwise to reflect changes over time in the assets held in trust by the Corporation Sole. The inclusion in or omission from such Inventory at any point in time of any parish, or of any particular property or property interest, or of any restriction or encumbrance related to any particular property or interest, shall not be dispositive of the legal status of such parish, property, or interest, which may be determined by reference to other Archdiocesan and civil records.

203.4.5. Change in Parish Status. The Archbishop of Chicago may, subject to the requirements of canon law, create, merge, consolidate or suppress a parish. In the event of merger, consolidation or suppression, the property of the parish, including any real or personal property whether held directly by the parish or in trust by the Corporation Sole or any other person, shall be distributed to other parishes or ecclesial functions of the Catholic Church as provided in canon law, provided that no distribution shall be inconsistent with the provisions of §203.2.2.

===========

Please Note: Our standard Macedonian church bylaws have a similar provision.

[boyphenom666]

Here is something I found in AU:

http://corrigan.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rcta1907251/

And an interesting article on Corporations in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_sole

[makedonche]

This has nothing to do with the fact that the Catholic Church owns property in the name of the Bishop in America versus Australia.More irrelevant garbage. American and Australian laws descend from British Common Law and thus are very similar.Similar but not the same, educate yourself about the differences before you make more uninformed comments. My point is that this is a very common structure for churches to own property and is legally justifiable.Your point has been clear from the start, naeive and wrong, but clear.The Church can still own property or put it into the bishops name, all they need to do is buy the land and build the church and then they can put it into whichever name they like. Indeed, the local bishop often makes decisions which properties to keep open, close, sell, etc.An invitation for disaster. It is assumed that the bishop is acting in the best interests of the church.Therein lays your greatest stupidity for all to see, that "The bishop acts in the best interests of the church".

Now if you don't trust our own bishop to own property, what does that say about the church you belong to?That the bishop is untrustworthy - what does it say to you? And how does the church survive if that's the attitude its members have?The same way it survived before the bishop came along, and the attitude is caused by the bishops behaviour.

The community owns the church over here and the community/members decide what happens to it, after all it was the community who bought the land and built the church and created one of the first modern day independent Macedonian Orthodox Church's, why wouldn't they be entitled to own it and determine it's fate?

[Kosturski Orel]

The community owns the church over here and the community/members decide what happens to it, after all it was the community who bought the land and built the church and created one of the first modern day independent Macedonian Orthodox Church's, why wouldn't they be entitled to own it and determine it's fate?

You are not quite right on onen thing.

We didn't "create one of the first modern day independent Macedonian Orthodox Church's"...we established THE FIRST Macedonian Orthodox Church IN THE WORLD here in Melbourne.

Never before in history had such an entity existed and after a millenium of worshipping in other churches, we finally had our own reflecting what we identified as.

All this while Vladika Petar was still a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church...the church he hopes to re-unite with one day.

I, for one, do not feel comfortable with Petar's actions as his motives are far different to the asperations of the hard working Macedonians of Australia.

[makedonche]

You are not quite right on onen thing.

We didn't "create one of the first modern day independent Macedonian Orthodox Church's"...we established THE FIRST Macedonian Orthodox Church IN THE WORLD here in Melbourne.

I was referring to the Church in Adelaide

Never before in history had such an entity existed You might want to re-check the history books on this oneand after a millenium of worshipping in other churches, we finally had our own reflecting what we identified as.

All this while Vladika Petar was still a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church...the church he hopes to re-unite with one day. And his allegiances still lays there!

I, for one, do not feel comfortable with Petar's actions as his motives are far different to the asperations of the hard working Macedonians of Australia.

You are not alone in your discomfort!

[George S.]

If the synod in macedonia knows of the poor performance of thr metropolitan peter in australia.Why don't the synod defrock him for poor performance namely dividing the people.
Think of all the damage peter has done irreperable damage.He is only acting as an administrator(temporary).So if he is not a bishop and only an administrator how can he defrock priests & reverse church membership of moc.If he isn't doing the full job as bishop then he doesn't have the authority.Does the synod know what he has done in australia & why they don't defrock him.Why is the Synod not putting a new person in especially trained to improve the situation in australia.But the question is do we need a bishop more than he needs us.We have stood without one for a long time so do we really need any kind of bishop to run the churches in australia.??Also if there was a real bishop how much money are they allowed to take for themselves or for the MOC like a contribution.Also the church assets can the bishop do what he likes with the church property or does he has to abide by some rules??

[Kosturski Orel]

You are not alone in your discomfort!

Risto Altin and his band of merry men (Dane Trpkov, Koco Kalincev, Vanco Nedelkovski, Janko Kalincev, etc etc) established the first Macedonian Orthodox Church in the world.

End of.

Prior to this, we always had to worship in other national churches with mixed degrees of attachment.

About these history books that I should consult - please enlighten me.

[Kosturski Orel]

Back on topic, Petar has driven a massive stake right through the heart of the Macedonian community here in Australia.

The damage he has wrought will take years to repair...if we can ever manage it at all.

That the Holy Synod in Ohrid and the Macedonian government allows this unhinged, unreconstructed Serbophile to remain in charge down here, we are on a hiding to nothing.

About a decade or so ago, one of the churches under his control invited a Serbian priest to conduct litergy and to give a discussion afterwards about the importance of Orthodoxy etc (the angle was that he was an Aussie convert to the Serbian Orthodox Church).

Many of the (Macedonian) parishoners had tears in their eyes at the joy of hearing the liturgy in Serbian (they must have felt nostalgic). It took a young Macedonian of Aegean origin to challenge the pro-Serbian nonsense emanating from this priests mouth.

I was fuming, but restrained myself from saying anything.

This knucklehead was talking about some hippy kind of love, peace and co-operation between the Greek, Serbian and Orthodox Churches...when our younf Egejec interjected with "well then when are the other Orthodox Churches going to even recognize us?"

He talked crap but essentially did not answer the question and then our young friend (Gospo da mou daj sila) asked "the Greek Orthodox Bishop Karavangelis blessed the Turkish cannons which were to be used on teh Macedonian villages in Kostur during teh Illinden Uprising" - needless to say our Serbo-Aussie priest knew nothing of it, but even more amazing, most of the other parishoners in the church didn't seem to know what this lad was talking about.

What the hell do they teach these embiciles in school in RoM?? They know Tito's life in minutae, but apparently most of them had no idea what or where Kostur is and that some Greek Bishop had ever blessed any Turkish cannons there (along with along list of other heinous crimes committed by this devil).

Needless to say this staunch young Macedonian patriot of Lerinsko origin was booed and heckled by the parishoners.

It was only myself and other Egejci who happened to be there who patted him on the back and congratulated him on his stance.

I left that night with a feeling that Petar thrived on the ignorance of large sections of our community who have never quite shaken off their discredited Yugoslav education.

Thank God that not everyone who endured that criminal system has been brainwashed, hence why the constant questioning of Petar's questionable activities goes on.

[George S.]

yeah he is just an administrator in australia & Nz.They should just remove him alltogether.
What has petar been adminestering,wasting millions in the courts.

[Kosturski Orel]

yeah he is just an administrator in australia & Nz.They should just remove him alltogether.
What has petar been adminestering,wasting millions in the courts.

The court cases are bad enough bratko, but worse still, he has fellow Macedonians hating each others guts and any unity we had started to build up in the early to mid 90's was destroyed once and for all.

That is why I have often wondered if the successors of uDBA were behind his appointment.

No sane person would consider Petar appropriate for the job. When he was hoisted upon us, Petar enjoyed massive popularity and many misguided patriots assisted him in seizing control of Sveti Georgi...what a mess it ended up being.

So many well meaning Macedonians supported him at first...but within a year it became apparent what this man was all about.

Now all these years later we are counting the cost and dealing with the ongoing angst.

So desperately sad.

[makedonche]

Risto Altin and his band of merry men (Dane Trpkov, Koco Kalincev, Vanco Nedelkovski, Janko Kalincev, etc etc) established the first Macedonian Orthodox Church in the world.

End of.

Prior to this, we always had to worship in other national churches with mixed degrees of attachment.

About these history books that I should consult - please enlighten me.

KO
I stand corrected, all previous Macedonian Churhes fell under other exarchates, therefore the Fitzroy Church was the first in the world!