Russia, Conservatism & Orthodoxy

[Karposh]

Well then, to be fair, the Serbian Patriarchate of Pech was abolished a year earlier than the Ohrid Archbishopric by the Turks (both of which were initiated by the Patriarchate of Constantinople). As to how “Macedonian” the Ohrid Archbishopric was, as some have speculated, let's just be mindful that generations of Macedonians over the course of 200 years looked on the Ohrid Archbishopric as the natural progenitor for an eventual National Church of their own.

Like you mentioned, the desire by MOC for Autonomy was pretty much guaranteed by SOC. This was confirmed with the joint Church service that was performed with the Serbian Patriarch German, in July 1959 in the Church of St Mina in Skopje. Things were going well and there was mutual respect between the two Churches for about a decade. Even the Patriarch of Russia, Aleksei, along with various heads of the Russian Orthodox hierarchy, visited MOC in 1962 who, together with German from SOC, performed another joint Church service in St. Holy Mother of God (Kamensko) in Ohrid.

That all came to an end in 1966 when relations deteriorated between MOC and SOC. The reason for this was the openly expressed opinions of the majority of those in SOC which negated the existence of the Macedonian national identity. They looked on Macedonia as an historical Serbian region which they could not abandon. That is the reason for the declaration of Autocephaly. And for anyone wondering, Autocephaly means the "property of being self-headed". It is the status of a hierarchical Christian Church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop. Can you blame MOC for not wanting her head bishop reporting to SOC who denies the very existence of the Macedonian people?

[Om3n]

Can you blame MOC for not wanting her head bishop reporting to SOC who denies the very existence of the Macedonian people?

Whatever their intentions, the autonomy of the Macedonian Church was a reality and it was exactly that, Macedonian. But because of disagreements about something terrestrial they are now neither autonomous nor autocephalous, but schismatic. Instead, the Serbian Church has granted autonomy to a Church in Macedonia which is headed by a Philhellene, perhaps sealing the MOC's fate. To quote the Apostle Peter, "their latter state is become unto them worse than the former."

[Karposh]

Whatever their intentions, the autonomy of the Macedonian Church was a reality and it was exactly that, Macedonian. But because of disagreements about something terrestrial they are now neither autonomous nor autocephalous, but schismatic. Instead, the Serbian Church has granted autonomy to a Church in Macedonia which is headed by a Philhellene, perhaps sealing the MOC's fate. To quote the Apostle Peter, "their latter state is become unto them worse than the former."

It was more than just a disagreement over terrestrial matters but a denial of another nation's very existence. The events of 1966/67 are quite recent and the declaration of autocephaly has made us "schismatic". Similarly, in your opinion, do you feel that enough water has flowed under the bridge since 1219 not to regard the Serbian Church as schismatic for breaking away from its mother Church, the Ohrid Archbishopric? And, we've already established that the break in continuity is the same for both churches.

[Om3n]

It was more than just a disagreement over terrestrial matters but a denial of another nation's very existence.

What's the difference?

Similarly, in your opinion, do you feel that enough water has flowed under the bridge since 1219 not to regard the Serbian Church as schismatic for breaking away from its mother Church, the Ohrid Archbishopric?

Since the Serbian Church was given autocephalous status by the Ecumenical Patriarch in that year, I'm having trouble understanding how this is a schism. The Ohrid Archbishopric and the Ecumenical Patriarchate were both of the same Orthodox Church and a schismatic group is one outside of said Church. In fact, both belonged to the Roman Empire but the OA had jurisdiction over heavily contested territory.

[Karposh]

What's the difference?

When you said "disagreement over something terrestrial" I assumed you meant territorial jurisdiction over church assets. I now know you meant "disagreements over 'earthly' matters". That's all well and good but that should be a two-way street. It's no good the Serbs acting all 'earthly' or 'terrestrial' with regard to Macedonians while the Macedonians are expected to act divinely, turn the other cheek and accept what's been served up to them by the 'mother' church. BTW, I could never regard the Serbian Church as my 'mother' church. If that makes me a schismatic or any other Macedonian a schismatic believer then I guess we'll have to answer to the one concerned when the time comes. My conscience is clear though and not accepting SOC as my mother church does not give me sleepless nights.

Since the Serbian Church was given autocephalous status by the Ecumenical Patriarch in that year, I'm having trouble understanding how this is a schism. The Ohrid Archbishopric and the Ecumenical Patriarchate were both of the same Orthodox Church and a schismatic group is one outside of said Church. In fact, both belonged to the Roman Empire but the OA had jurisdiction over heavily contested territory.

It is a schism, and I'm pretty sure MOC regards it as a schism, because the mother church being the Ohrid Arhbishopric should have granted the Serbian Church independence and not the Nicean Patriarch.

[Om3n]

It's no good the Serbs acting all 'earthly' or 'terrestrial' with regard to Macedonians while the Macedonians are expected to act divinely, turn the other cheek and accept what's been served up to them by the 'mother' church.

My statement was meant to be inclusive. I'm not putting one side above the other in terms of their behaviour, but as it stands, the Serbian Church is in Communion and has authority and the Macedonian Church not. But yes, all Christians should turn the other cheek and accept what's been served up to them "for this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people" (again, St. Peter). If this wasn't the case then we wouldn't have martyrs and confessors.

BTW, I could never regard the Serbian Church as my 'mother' church. If that makes me a schismatic or any other Macedonian a schismatic believer then I guess we'll have to answer to the one concerned when the time comes. My conscience is clear though and not accepting SOC as my mother church does not give me sleepless nights.

If you walk in the Faith and receive the saving grace of our Lord within the MOC then that's all that matters.

It is a schism, and I'm pretty sure MOC regards it as a schism, because the mother church being the Ohrid Arhbishopric should have granted the Serbian Church independence and not the Nicean Patriarch.

It's hard to say either way unless it can be established that an Archbishop of Ohrid did not recognise the decision, but based on what you posted earlier, one was present at the promotion of the Serbian Church to Patriarchate.

[Gocka]

LOL this conversation is a perfect example why the church is anything but a religious, institution. I'm sure this is exactly what god envisioned to become of the Christian faith

You guys sound like two girls arguing about sorority membership.

[Risto the Great]

Macedonians must be the best Christians. They accept what's been served up to them every time. I take it that Zaev must also be the will of God and North Macedonia is God's plan. Finally, we know who to really blame. Thanks.

[Niko777]

An example of how the Serbian Church treated Macedonian priests, described by Macedonian Archbishop Mihail (1912 - 1999)



Taken from "Why Angels Fall: A Journey Through Orthodox Europe from Byzantium to Kosovo" By Victoria Clark

[Niko777]

No, because there is no continuity between the MOC and the Ohrid Archbishopric.

This is what I don't understand, why is a different standard always applied to the Macedonian church...

What continuity is there between the Tarnovo Patriarchate (abolished in 1393) and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (established as the Exarchate in 1870, recognized in 1945)?

What continuity is there between the Patriarchate of Peć (abolished in 1766) and the Serbian Orthodox Church (established in 1920)?

[Risto the Great]

I reckon I could make Macedonians believe they are Chinese if I had a powerful enough church.

[Risto the Great]

This is what I don't understand, why is a different standard always applied to the Macedonian church...

What continuity is there between the Tarnovo Patriarchate (abolished in 1393) and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (established as the Exarchate in 1870, recognized in 1945)?

What continuity is there between the Patriarchate of Peć (abolished in 1766) and the Serbian Orthodox Church (established in 1920)?

It's a fyromian thing.

[Niko777]

This is what I don't understand, why is a different standard always applied to the Macedonian church...

What continuity is there between the Tarnovo Patriarchate (abolished in 1393) and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (established as the Exarchate in 1870, recognized in 1945)?

What continuity is there between the Patriarchate of Peć (abolished in 1766) and the Serbian Orthodox Church (established in 1920)?

Oh and let's not forget the "Holy" deeds of the "ancient" and "continuous" Church of Greece (established in 1822 and recognized in 1850)

[Risto the Great]

Oh and let's not forget the "Holy" deeds of the "ancient" and "continuous" Church of Greece (established in 1822 and recognized in 1850)

And still only "renting" the jurisdiction of the New Territories.

[Karposh]

LOL this conversation is a perfect example why the church is anything but a religious, institution. I'm sure this is exactly what god envisioned to become of the Christian faith

You guys sound like two girls arguing about sorority membership.

I'm not arguing with Omen. I'm having a respectful discussion with him. I may not agree with him over what constitutes our mother church but I find the guy respectful and not at all belligerent like some. You, on the other hand...my Christian side takes a back seat whenever I engage you. And, if you're going to insult, then always be prepared for a return of serve.

You posted earlier on this thread:

…Besides churches and god are totally different concepts if you ask me.

Besides being a building used for public Christian worship, a church is often synomymously regarded as the house of God or the house of prayer. The churches are therefore a very much related concept to God.

I consider the church, any church of any Christian faith, one of the last places to find god.

You can't find something you're not looking for. In any case, it's very hard for a narcissist to find God. Not impossible but very hard. And, by the very opinionated sounds of you, you strike me as someone who has all the classic signs of narcissism: Grandiose sense of self-importance; Lives in a fantasy world that supports their delusions of grandeur; Needs constant praise and admiration; Sense of entitlement; Belief that one is special and unique; Lack of empathy; Arrogance, Jealousy of others; Frequently demeans, intimidates, bullies, or belittles others; etc.