Talk:Macedonian Orthodox Church
This article will need some serious work in order for it to conform to NPOV standards, especially as this particular group is the subject of much controversy. I'm also concerned that this article, as it now stands, may violate copyright from this site.—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 19:20, December 20, 2005 (CST)
Metropolitan Nahum of Strumica owns www.mpc.org.mk either in his own right or as diocesan bishop. He also owns in some right Premin Portal. The editor of Premin Portal says he is please to have this article posted on orthodoxwiki.
It cetainly does need some further elucidation.
However, the claims put forward there by Met Nahum have never been denied by the Serbian authorities.
chrisg 2006-05-01 : 0003 EAST
I'm sure that Archbishop Stefan as well as most of the bishops are elated that the material in question was used on Wikipedia. A larger issue in my mind is whether it is appropriate for Serbian propaganda to appear within the article and as one of the external links. I see it has been removed for now, but it is very insulting to have it continually appear unless a link from the Macedonian perspective is granted on the Greek and Serbian pages.
On another note ... the Columbus church link was incorrect. Since the present church was destroyed in an arson, the only functioning buildings are the current social hall and their new cathedral, which will be consecrated on October 22nd. The new building is being referred to as a Cathedral. Although there is no bishop, it is a rather nice building and probably worthy of that term.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dirtyharry667 (talk • contribs) .
The Orthodox within the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Macedonia), have consistently said they were granted autonomy by their mother church Serbia. No one in authority seems to deny that. It is clear that the Serbian Church later resiled from that position, perhaps under intense pressure from a geographically close Patriarchate or other Holy Synod.
However, most legal systems consider that once a grant of independence is made it cannot be taken back except by conquest or free treaty.
In the case of Churches, there have been plenty of examples of independent Churches being taken back under the wing of another more powerful Church. There are also examples of independent Churches not being recognised by all other Orthodox Churches for decades, or even longer. Witness Bulgaria and Romania for instance.
So the process of independence for Orthodox Churches is not so clear.
The case of the Macedonian Orthodox Church is a fresh one with lots of invective and hatred shown on the three or four sides involved in the conflict. The Serbians have a strong position. The Greeks have a strong position. The Macedonians have a strong position. And the parallel jurisdiction recently set up within Macedonia by the Serbians also has a strong position.
Plus there are the political powers who are using this cause for their own nationalistic or hegemonistic ends.
It seems inappropriate for Serbian propaganda to be imbedded into this article by anti-Macedonian activists. Certainly the Serbian position and the Greek position have a right to be heard. But perhaps they should be placed under their own subheading in this general article.
To that end, the most recent amendments seem inappropriate as they are at the moment.
Chrisg 18:19, March 20, 2007 (PDT)
Church of Serbia granted autonomy to three Dioceses in Macedonia. Holy Assembly of Bishops of Serbian Church never resiled from this desision. But autonomy is not autocephaly and Church of Serbia never gave autocephaly to Macedonians. Macedonians proclaimed their church autocephalous. This was uncanonical fact. Macedonians were asking autocephaly. They also were asking autocephaly from all churches and were rejected. They are asking recognition even from Turkish Parlaiment!!
If the Church of Serbia granted autonomy to Macedonian dioceses, and have not resiled from that position, why did they set up a parallel jurisiction bearing the same name as one of the autonomous dioceses? Is that not defacto resiling from the earlier grant? chrisg 2007Apr12:1543EAST
Confusion on added material
I'm a little confused about Ddpbf's edits, especially the sentence "But two of them soon consecrated new bishop who was without nide qalifications." which I changed to "But two of them soon consecrated new bishops who were without the proper qualifications." for legibility... but that change doesn't really clarify the "nide qalifications" of the original. Any ideas? —magda (talk) 17:18, May 28, 2008 (UTC)