Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$global_prefix is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 468

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$blog_prefix is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 469

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$cache_hits is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 475

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$cache_misses is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 476
Chambessy Bankrupt – AOI – The American Orthodox Institute – USA

AOI – The American Orthodox Institute – USA

Chambessy Bankrupt

Source: Orthodox England

As a result of its economic crisis, the Greek government has stopped funding for the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s ecumenical centre in Chambésy (Switzerland). Largely built with Protestant funding and according to their designs, the centre is now on the verge of closure.

It should be recalled that the centre has done very little for years. This situation began with the collapse of Communism, and therefore ecumenism, and the return of the Russian Orthodox Church to the world scene after its liberation from the Soviet system. According to the Bulgarian website ‘Doors to Orthodoxy’, the centre does not actually do anything now and has a drastically reduced staff. The office staff, many of them redundant, had been preparing papers for a theoretical Pan-Orthodox ‘Council’, which Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople used to talk about.

It seems likely now that any future Pan-Orthodox administrative meetings may take place in an Orthodox country, perhaps in Russia. Notably, in the next few years the restoration of the New Jerusalem Monastery outside Moscow, built in the 17th century to accommodate international groups of Orthodox and in the 20th century ravaged by the Nazis, will be completed.

Posted

in

by

Fr. Johannes Jacobse

Tags:

,

Comments

54 responses to “Chambessy Bankrupt”

  1. Andrew

    E-bay anyone? Memo to the Phanar, I am sure a worldwide clearance sale and auction of Orthodox nick-nacks from Chambesy would generate alot of interest in the Orthodox World. You could probably make a few bucks as well.

    Reply
  2. Chris

    Ohrid, Macedonia would be a nice spot to hold the meetings.

    Reply
  3. George Michalopulos

    Andrew, I couldn’t help but catch my breath at the headline. I thought that this was about the Chambesy process somehow being bankrupt, or the Episcopal Assemblies. Then I read the body. Ohrid would be a good place, but isn’t that a monastery? I’m not sure the jet-setting hierarchs want to decamp to an actual monastery to contemplate, pray and engage in the ascetic struggle.

    Maybe the EP will call Soros for a bailout? After all, he’s on the Phanar’s speed-dial.

    Reply
  4. Dean Calvert

    Re: Chambessy Bankrupt

    Yes, it is.

    Dean

    Reply
  5. Andrew

    George, hypothetically speaking, if George Soros offered a sizeable donation to the EP to help its operations. Would the EP accept or decline the donation?

    Think about it.

    Reply
    1. George Michalopulos

      Andrew, I have. I’m not happy with the answer.

      Reply
  6. Alexander

    I doubt that Ohrid, Macedonia is acceptable, appropriate or even feasible.

    Convening there would highlight the “Macedonian Orthodox Church” issue, a rare ecclesiological subject on which the Old World Patriarchates have managed to reach broad agreement.

    The Serbs created the problem in the 1950’s, the Macedonians turned it into an irreparable schism, and the Serbs exacerbated it within the last 10 years or so with the creation of some concocted “Archbishopric of Ohrid and Metropolitanate of Skopje.”

    Lurking an angstrom below the surface is also the issue of how and by whom “autonomy,” and even “autocephaly,” is granted.

    This headache — from all perspectives — is chronicled and argued ad nauseum elsewhere, but suffice it to say, the EP sides with anyone who seeks to deny any legitimacy to anything “Macedonian.”

    Ohrid is a non starter.

    Now, if the Russians stepped in to take over the Chambesy facility’s costs and administration … there’s a poke in the Phanar’s eye.

    Reply
    1. Chris

      Alexander. I truly enjoyed your fair and balanced i.e. Fox News outlook on the Church issue in Macedonia. I agree with you on ALL accounts except for the “irreparable” part. But that’s another article all together.

      In any case, I would much rather have an all Orthodox admin meeting in Ohrid than these intra-faith-kumbaya ones they’ve been holding in Ohrid every two years or so. With the history of Ohrid, I find them pretty insulting. I would hope others would too.

      Indeed, Russia is the answer. Isn’t it always?

      Reply
      1. Harry Coin

        re: ‘pokes in eyes’– I rather doubt there will be much of that seen. The Islamists won’t want it in Turkey while the more educated freedom of conscience favoring Turks will. It would be a victory of decency for Turkey to allow it, and frankly would help Turkey’s political standing too. Russia has quite a bit of influence in Turkey and might be able to help there.

        From a public relations / growth / retaining memberhip standpoint, the best place to hold the meeting plainly is…

        Jerusalem.

        Reply
    2. Isa Almisry

      The Serbs created the problem in the 1950′s,

      No, that would be Tito.

      Reply
      1. Chris

        Isa – just like nationalism produced a national Church in Bulgaria, Russia, Greece, Serbia etc hence the Macedonian Church was produced. And pretty much along the same way.

        The only difference between these and Macedonia is that none of the others were being disputed name/identity-wise by stronger neighbors.

        Tito didn’t “create” anything in the Balkans let along a nationality, or a Church.
        Macedonia garnered Autonomy from SOC in the 1950’s. Not to say that Macedonians weren’t leaning towards autocephaly any way, but it sure didn’t help that Macedonian Bishops were being introduced by Serbian Bishops to concelebrants as Serbs, or sometimes they’d forget to introduce them at all.

        Just saying.

        Reply
        1. Isa Almisry

          In the 1950’s nothing happpened in Yugoslavia that Tito did not want. Just saying.

          The situation in Macedonia is much like that in Ukraine with similar problems: a new national indenty in the cradle of a more powerful neighbor.

          I support autocephaly for both, but not one that comes from communist authority or schimstic bishops of dubious canonical credentials.

          Reply
          1. Chris

            I’ll bite with your first statement. Lot’s of people suffered during Tito’s reign, but the closest it ever got to Gulag Russia was in the 1950’s. The old man just lost steam as the US pumped Yugoslavia with money to offset the Soviets.
            I think you can draw a parallel with the Ukraine, albeit I would be very cautious as to using “new identity” in both instances.
            I can also buy the whole “illegitimate autocephaly under communism” belief, which is why a lot of the Macedonian Bishops were in support of utilizing a term like “independent.” If it wasn’t for that pesky name. I mean we Macedonians like to be called Macedonian 🙂
            Interesting tidbit: Bishop John(Jovan) of the parallel “Ohrid Archbishphoric” was consecrated a Bishop by the Metropolitan that the Serbian Orthodox Church wants defrocked and views as the “most communist” and “dubious.” They based their entire “church coup” on the this very bishop. Irony.
            But then should we open up the files on all of the Bishops in the Balkans? Macedonian wasn’t the only Republic in a former communist/socialist state. And besides, the MOC’s Bishops are mostly a new generation that despise the old system. I cannot say the same thing for the other Churches.
            I think that a solution can be reached in short fashion so long as the Name of a Church isn’t placed in the forefront of a ecclessial matter.
            Sorry to highjack the thread.

            Reply
      2. Alexander

        Isa,

        First, sorry to you and others for this detour.

        There is no question that Joe Broz and his henchmen were intimately involved in the “creation” of the “Macedonian Orthodox Church,” just as he was the puppeteer in initiating and perpetuating the schism in the Serbian Church in the USA, Canada, Western Europe, and Australia.

        Certainly, Tito was no friend of the Church. But, he was far ahead of other Leninists to the extent that he actively manipulated the internal activities of the Church for his interim benefit — as opposed to moving more directly toward its outright destruction. Total destruction would come with time.

        In the 1950’s, Tito encouraged a growing Macedonian “national” identity, partly to further minimize Serbian political clout. Gerrymandering the plurality of Serbs into minorities within the newly defined Marxist “nation states” (e.g., Macedonia) was one avenue. Of course, a new “national church” would help “legitimize” the new Marxist “country” of Macedonia.

        Further, no one doubts that many in the Federal Republic of Macedonia were receptive the phyletist notion of an MOC for “nationalist” and other purposes. By then, many believed themselves to be Macedonians and neither Serbs, nor Bulgars, nor Greeks, nor whatever else. Many more do so today. They welcomed this with open arms.

        But, Tito et al., could do nothing without the active work and complicity of the Serbian hierarchs who were willing to oblige — some happily, others reluctantly — but all for momentarily expedient reasons. And this why I say that the Serbs created the problem. Excuse it. Explain it. Contextualize it. Justify it how you wish. It makes no difference. The hiearchs did not say “no,” they created it.

        Contrary, however, to the current banal political efforts in Montenegro to create a “Montenegrin Orthodox Church” from whole cloth outside the existing SOC, I do not think that the “original” Macedonian bishops were of “dubious” canonical status.

        As all things Balkan, including ecclesiastical “politics,” there are a layers of nuance here, and layers far more intricate than what can be appropriately addressed in one of these comments.

        There is, however, a helpful learning point or further food for thought for those interested in understanding Old World Patriarchate machinations — or duplicities — and how they manifest themselves in the Church life here in the USA.

        It is all about momentary expediency.

        The Serbian schism (1963) in North America, Europe and Australia, “healed” in the early 1990’s because the Serbian political powers — yes, that unrepentent communist and son of a priest, Slobodan Milosevich – now wanted an “undivided” Serbian “nation” and “diaspora” (ugh!) for his own purposes. And, neo-fascist elements in the SOC were happy to oblige. (And yes, Mr. Editor, there is a strong neo-fascist element in the hierarchy of the SOC.)

        After Eucharistic “reunion,” there were the nitty gritty details of administrative reconciliation that needed to be addressed — something that is still not completely resolved.

        During those discussions in the 1990’s, the “schismatic” New Gracanica Metropolitanate proposed an autonomous, unified Serbian Church structure for North and South America. The proposal was much like the Antiochian Self Rule (or at least how Antiochian Self Rule used to be conventionally understood). It was flatly rejected — replete with diatriabes from putative “scholars” about how such a thing was uncanonical, unheard of, impossible. Indeed, the saintly Patriarch Paul himself at one of the meetings in the outskirts of Chicago said an Autonomous Archbishopric was “unnatural” in the Serbian Church. The current Patriarch – then bishop – Iriney concurred. Other bishops were even more strident in opposition.

        (My own hope was that such an “autonomous” or “self-ruled” archbishopric could more easily meld into a broader Church in the USA and Canada when that day finally comes. Now that’s a completely different story.)

        Well, fast forward just a couple of years. I surmise under pressure from the Phanar for purposes of Greek “national interests,” the SOC attempted to “bring back” the Macedonians. They seemingly had a deal — although that’s subject to debate. Either way, the Macedonian government killed it.

        Overnight, viola:

        The SOC gives birth to something “uncanonical,” “unheard of,” “impossible” and yes, “unnatural,” the Archbishopric of Ohrid. And, just as fast, the Phanar “recognizes” it and its Archbishop of questionable background, but unquestionable apostolic succession.

        In exchange, … well the story goes on and on and on and on.

        None of this has anything to do with the saving of souls.

        It is disgusting.

        It is sick.

        And sad.

        But, it’s all about what is momentarily expedient.

        Reply
        1. Chris

          Alexander – overall this is a great explanation of what is going on in the Balkans. I think there need be more talk of it.

          I do know, however, that in the NIS “agreement” which was a working agreement, at least it was view like this by the Macedonian Bishops in the meeting – they brought back to Macedonia a fairly productive report. I mean, other than the Macedonian Church having to agree to change their name in order to enter full communion. I think it has been stated a few times, even by Serbian Bishops, that there is really nothing “ecclesial” left in the dispture between the SOC/MOC only political. And that it was more the “nationalist” element in the MOC Synod that killed it, than the government. Contrary to popular belief there is no Church-State conglomerate in Macedonia like Serbia or Greece. At least, much less so.

          Also, I know for a fact that the Serbian Synod is divided between a Pro-Russian element, and a Pro-Greek element that was mentioned to me cannot even agree upon which Typica to use let alone settle this issue. In any case the entire ‘parallel’ Church in Macedonia is much too contrived for my taste. It is almost as if Bishop Jovan knew that Macedonians would never stand for a name change of the Church, so the SOC would claim the MOC unruly and issue the TOMOS and place him as Exarch to the SOC in Macedonia.

          Reply
        2. Chris

          Alexander – is there a way you and I can talk? Again, my apologies to the editors for my selfishness.

          Reply
        3. Isa Almisry

          I don’t think this is a detour at all. Those who think the “Chambesy Process” is unrelated to the squabbling within the homelands of the “Mother Churches”-jurisdictional disunity is not just for the “diaspora”-are not paying attention.

          I have to state that I have an idealogical slant to all this: I do not believe that autocephaly, once achieved, it cannot be destroyed. Thus when Basil the Bulgar-slaver annexed the First Bulgarian Empire outright, the Patriarchate was just demoted to Archbishop and continued on until the Sultan abolished it for his exarch in the Phanar nearly a millenium later. In the meantime it played its role in the rise of the Serbian, later Bulgarian, Russian and Romanian Churches.

          Since Belgrade purchased the claims of Constantinople with no regard to the Bulgarian exarchate’s claims, I find the MOC’s claims via the SOC also rather murky, not as clear cut as Ukraine (or for that matter, as North America). In the end, what should happen is a settling of the matter between Belgrade, Sofia, Constantinople and Skopje which ends in an autocephalous Ohrid.

          Reply
          1. Chris

            In the end, what should happen is a settling of the matter between Belgrade, Sofia, Constantinople and Skopje which ends in an autocephalous Ohrid.

            Isa – compared to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, do you believe that any of the autocephalous claims in the Balkans in general aren’t murky? Purchasing autocephaly by the Pec Patriarchy is clear cut?

            Like the Yugoslav Kingdom afer it, the Bulgarian Kingdom was made up of Macedonians that, for all intents and purposes, did not identify themselves as anything else other than Macedonian. So when the Phanar dissolved the Bulgarian Exarchy, Macedonians within that Church felt as if the Macedonian Church was being destroyed. How many have read the poem of 1762?

            At this point. You have an established Orthodox Church in Macedonia ,the MOC-OA, with millions of participants, with established church structures, Seminaries, and a self-identitifier in Macedonian Orthodoxy.

            I’m not sure digging up the past is where the solution is. Besides, the question is less about Church status and more about recognition. It is highly difficult for a Synod to grant a particular Church status to a regional Church if half or most of that synod doesn’t recognize the people/faithful in the region.

            Reply
          2. Isa Almisry

            Isa – compared to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, do you believe that any of the autocephalous claims in the Balkans in general aren’t murky?

            No. They are, by and large, pretty clear cut most certainly in the issues. That hasn’t stopped fighting over them, though.

            So when the Phanar dissolved the Bulgarian Exarchy

            It didn’t, though it tried. It became the Bulgarian Patriarchate.

            At this point. You have an established Orthodox Church in Macedonia ,the MOC-OA, with millions of participants, with established church structures, Seminaries, and a self-identitifier in Macedonian Orthodoxy.

            I’m not sure digging up the past is where the solution is.

            History is the antidote to creating facts on the ground.

            Reply
          3. Alexander

            For the forseeable future, this will remain a “frozen” conflict, the solution to which falls squarely between Belgrade and Skopje.

            These days, anyone who “helps” Belgrade with the utterly lost cause that is Kosovo is its friend. To them, no price is too steep to pay for that friendship, of whatever duration, however short-sighted.

            Belgrade is caught on the one hand between its “Slavic brethern” in Moscow, a potentially rich and geopolitically powerful benefactor, and the Phanar, on the other. The cacophany of episcopal “what’s in it for me” voices is nothing more than noise.

            Just when they thought the Serbs were trustworthy, Moscow gave Belgrade some $2 million in chump change to “preserve cultural landmarks in Kosovo.” But then Belgrade promptly infuriates Moscow with how Belgrade forceably retired and removed “uber-conservative” Bishop Artemis of Kosovo. Belgrade pulled out the old “financial improprieties” script in Artemis’ diocese. It was the price to make peace with Brussels. Serbia, of course, wants admission into the EU – with some accomodation for its interests in Kosovo – and the little bishop in Prizren was just too vocal, extreme and “cultivating the path to schism.”

            “And, if the Phanar doesn’t like ‘Macedonia’,” we don’t either. Just leave our Serbian Mt. Athos monasteries out of your squabbles with the Greek monks.” We’ll do our best to get the schismatic Macedonians to change their name in exchange for returning to the ‘canonical fold’.”

            As the Phanar flirts with Rome, so does Belgrade. “Don’t forget us,” they tell Rome. “In 1389, Serbia ‘saved’ that rich Christian cultural history of Western Europe you keep talking about. So, if you have a kind diplomatic word about our Jerusalem (Kosovo), thank you very much.”

            “Ohh, by the way, for good measure, a sizeable number of us in Belgrade now tend to side with the Greeks and think our epiklesis is way too long and should be said an awful lot like what you do in Mass.”

            But, consistent with its self-delusional sense of self-import, Belgrade will spin its inconsistent “independence” (aka schizophrenia) as a play to be the vaunted “middle man” between the Phanar and Moscow.

            Fiction pales in comparison.

            Who loses? Everybody of course.

            With each passing day, we “colonists” in the dreaded but profitable “diaspora” lose our way, wither in dysfunctionality, without true archpastors.

            And the Macedonians drift farther and farther away while its conflict with Belgrade goes into deep freeze.

            Reply
        4. Dean Calvert

          Alexander,

          Please tell us more about this “Archbishopric of Ohrid.” I hadn’t realized that someone had resurrected this title.

          Sounds like a GREAT example of “why not to trust the Old World patriarchs”…

          Where can i find out more?

          Thanks
          Dean Calvert

          Reply
          1. Chris

            I’m not sure that I agree that the “conflict will remain frozen for the forseeable future: – not unless both sides want it to be. I believe there are other, Orthodox Avenues that can be taken.

            But I’d like to point how out the “schism” has been deepened, and done so purposely.

            I think Alexander can talk a lot better about the “Archishphoric of Ohrid.” I’d just like to point out that this is the official name of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. Macedonian Orthodox Christians identify immensely with Ohrid as historical Orthodox threshhold of the MOC. I’m sure people can lay lots of claims here. Hence, it was purposely chosen by the SOC to further deepen the conflict. But let’s be realistic. Ohrid is in Macedonia. Ohrid was viewed as the bastion of Macedonian Orthodoxy even while part of the Bulgarian Exarchy/Patriarchate. Why? Because Macedonians lived and continue to live there.

            Two more aspects that were purposely done to intensify the problems were:

            1.) Within the NIS working agreement there was a caveat that articulated the MOC must change her name and remove any reference to Macedonia in order to be restore to full communion.

            Knowing that the MOC would not go for this, and searching for a reaction to prove just how “nationalistic Macedonians are” the SOC then:

            2.) Created the OA utilizing the Ohrid terminology to raise outrage. By enlisting Bishop Jovan, a Macedonian monk who was educated WELL in Greece, and who allegedly always had ambitions of becoming a Bishop, the Old Guard could then utilize any new found contempt to show the world just out “unruly and schismatic Macedonians” were. Throw in some rioting civilians, some jail time for financial issues, and you have a “Free Bishop Jovan” Website and an Amnesty International File on civil abuse. It worked wonders until half of Bishop Jovan’s clergy and synod fell away for various reasons. Don’t get me wrong, many of these members are good people. And anyone in their right mind and heart wants to be part of communion. I guess that’s were the biggest manipulation is taking place.

            Reply
          2. Alexander

            Dean,

            Given the caliber of commentators on this site, I’m not sure I’m appropriately qualified to give you the history with the exactitude you folks are used to reading.

            Here’s the layman’s nutshell:

            The Serbs are doing the Phanar’s, and more broadly the “Greeks,” dirty work. After the Serbs’ efforts to “bring back the entirety of the ‘schismatic’ Macedonian hierarchy failed, one ‘schismatic’ MOC bishop took Belgrade’s deal. And they “re-created” the Archbishopric of Ohrid.

            This is what the “new” Archbishop of Ohrid John says about himself:

            In March 2000, he was assigned to be Administrator of the Metropolis of Bregalnitza, and elected to be a Bishop of Veles and Vardar Valley in November 2000. He was enthroned at the aforesaid Bishopric on 4th December 2000. He had answered positively at the summon to liturgical and canonical unity with the Patriarchate of Pec by the Patriarch of Serbia Paul, together with all his clergymen and faithful people from his Metropolis, being the only Metropolitan of the schismatic Macedonian Orthodox Church who answered positively. The liturgical and canonical unity with the Patriarchate of Pec of the Holy Metropolis of Veles and Vardar Valley, being under his jurisdiction in that time, was reached on 22nd June 2002. Several days thereafter, he was expelled from the seat of the Metropolis together with the monastics living with him, completely illegally and without a court warrant by means of brutal force by the Police of the Republic of Macedonia. On 23rd of September 2002, he was appointed an Exarch of all the territories of the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric by the Assembly of the Serbian Orthodox Church. He had been detained under custody many times by the authorities of the Republic of Macedonia, which in fact created the schism of the Church during the times of communist rule, supporting the putsch of proclamation of the uncannonical autocephaly of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. He was elected a Chairman of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric on 25th December 2003, after the constitution thereof. He was sentenced to a suspended punishment one year of imprisonment for the criminal offence “performing unauthorised activities” because he had entered a Church aiming to baptise a female infant in 2004. The Court of Appeal in Bitola sentenced him to eighteen months of imprisonment in 2005 with valid judgement for a criminal offence “incitement of ethnic and religious hatred, discord and intolerance”.

            And, of course, there is a MOC perspective on this that is different. Chris has touched on it and there are dozens of sites that would address that perspective.

            I’ll leave it to sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and even psychiatrists to define for us whether the current plurality of the FRYM’s residents are a “nationality” and distinct “ethnic group.” That is a subject that generates enormous controversy.

            Whatever the the residents of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are or believe themselves to be, and many think of themselves as distinctly “Macedonian,” it is clear that they are not Hellenes, e.g. are not the decendents of Philip and Alexander the Great. Though, without question, the current geopolitical borders of the FYRM include territory once ruled by the ancient, Hellenic, Macedons.

            On the other hand, the Hellenes, i.e. “the Greeks,” jealously guard their claim to the title of the Hellenic ancient history of that land. They cringe, argue, and demonstrate at the mere suggestion that the post-Yugoslav country even use the word Macedonia.

            And in the middle is the fact that a large chunk of the current territory of the FRYM used to be known as “South Serbia.” Serbia’s geopolitical zenith was in the 14th century and included much of what is today’s FRYM. In fact, Serbian emperors crowned themselves in Skopje, with the assistance of self-proclaimed Serbian Patriarchs (St. Joanikije). Dushan the Mighty was a good military guy and savvy politician. History suggests, perhaps wishfully, that he was preparing to liberate Constantinople and the Holy Land. Unfortunately, he died young and it’s been kinda downhill ever since for the Serbs.

            None of this is news and is largely uncontroverted.

            What is equally clear – and to this extent I disagree with Chris – he MOC is canonically stuck with the Serbs – if they intend to remain Orthodox. It has nowhere to turn — unlike, say some of the Ukrainians and Estonians who don’t like Moscow and have a friend in the EP and Bart. Moscow won’t entertain them given the parallel with the Uki’s and teh Estonians. I’ve never quite understood why the MOC didn’t team up with Old Calendarists, but that is way over my head. On the other extreme, I’ve even wondered why they did not take their radical “ecumenical” road show and become Uniates. But that is even farther over my head.

            Fast forward at warp speed, certainly glossing over an awful lot. In the pre-WWII period, there was a considerable Serbian presence in Ohrid itself. And, if I have my facts right, St. John of San Franscisco taught in Bitolj; and St. Nicholas of Zicha and Libertyville also taught in Bitolj and spent time in the Monastery in Ohrid. There still is a fair — albeit relatively small — number of ethnic Serbs who still live there.

            My guess — and that’s all it is — is to guard Hellenistic claims to history and land, the Phanar and Greeks wanted to stiffle the FRYM’s political independence. And like Tito, they realize that a “National Church” helps the “Macedonian” nationalist cause. Stifle the aspirational claims of a national church by blocking its canonicity, you stifle the nation building process — or so goes the thinking.

            So, in the 1990’s and early 2000’s the EP prods the MOC’s most recent “mother church” — Belgrade — to bring them back under the Serbian Patriarchate. The “deal” at Nis, if they really had one, fell through. So, as opposed to keeping the status quo, the Serbs, with the “defector” John, re-create this new entity.

            Frankly, all things equal, I don’t think that the SOC would care one way or another what a “reunified” autonomous “Macedonian Church” called itself. Tito got them over any emotional attachment to that subject decades ago. Furthermore, at least as far as I can tell, there really is nothing in it for the Serbs, other than the good will it may generate with the EP. The weary Serbian citizenry does not much care. Although the radical crazy nationalists would probably want to claim the long abandoned “Serbian” patrimony in Skopje.

            The name change thing is 100% – in my humble view – therefore driven by the Phanar et al. And, given the socio-politics of the FRYM, it is no surprise that they would balk at the idea of a name change.

            See, all of this has everything to do with preaching Christ’s gospel, ministering to the poor, visiting the sick, caring for orphans, and feeding the hungry. … ummm, right?

            Reply
          3. Alexander

            Re: Archbishop John:

            This was lost in my clipping from another site:

            On 24th May 2005, on the Feast of the Ss. Cyril and Methodius, he has been confirmed by his Holiness, the Archbishop of Pec and Metropolitan of Belgrade and Karlovtzy and Patriarch of Serbia, kyr kyr Paul, to be Archbishop of Ohrid and Metropolitan of Skopje in accordance with the Nis Agreement. On the same day, there was an announcement of the Patriarchal and the Assembly’s Tomos for Autonomy of the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric, the Chairman of whose Holy Synod of Bishops is he, himself.

            Reply
  7. Fabio L Leite

    Maybe in Mount Athos, which is already a Pan-Orthodox place, with enough facilities for everyone in monasteries of their own jurisdictions.

    The Council of Mount Athos….

    Reply
    1. Andrew

      Fabio, Mt. Athos is not politically correct enough for the EP to convene a council there. The whole no-women allowed on the Island thing does not work for these folks. Besides, Mt. Athos does not have the suburban creature comforts that many a bishop needs as a result of the “dignity” of their office.

      Reply
      1. Fabio L Leite

        Still, since this council will happen one way or the other, since Chambessy is falling out of question now… maybe it would be a good moment for the lay people to make a call for the hierarchs for this new place.

        Simply by happening in Mount Athos, for spiritual and social pressures, the Council would more likely go the right track whatever the subjects that are brought in.

        Maybe not even the lay people, but the Athonite monks themselves could invite the emminent and holy bishops to convene there and pray with them.

        Reply
        1. Michael Bauman

          Maybe not even the lay people, but the Athonite monks themselves could invite the eminent and holy bishops to convene there and pray with them

          .

          Aside from the fact that historically, the Athonite monks have wanted to keep bishops as far from the place as possible because of the inevitable tension between the demands and temptations and authority inherent in the episcopal office and the (supposedly) more single minded dedication of the monks.

          If you lock the folks up in a monastery somewhere though, the decisions will be made more quickly at least.

          All of this stuff makes me sick.

          Will there by any faith on the earth when Jesus returns?

          Reply
          1. George Michalopulos

            Michael, that is indeed the question. The answer? I don’t know. What I do know is that all this folderol about seating arrangements do not point in the direction of true and humble piety.

            Reply
  8. Chris

    Alexander –

    It never occurred to me that it could be the Phanar who was truly “behind” the mess that is SOC/MOC. This would explain the caveat in the NIS Agreement. You’re right, mos Serbis wouldn’t care and even recognize Macedonians for who they are. But if a “Greek” EP+ has his hands in the mix, well then,you get the picture.

    Personally, I would like to see a solution between the SOC/MOC and only them, but what is stopping the MOC diasopra (hate this word) in North America from seeking shelter in the OCA?

    Finally, why would Macedonians have to run the gauntlet of sociologists, psychatrists, psychologists to garner approval of their identity? Is is an international standard or norm for all nations?

    Reply
    1. Isa Almisry

      Finally, why would Macedonians have to run the gauntlet of sociologists, psychatrists, psychologists to garner approval of their identity? Is is an international standard or norm for all nations?

      No, nor do they have to, which is what unnerves the Greeks.

      The SOC “bought the rights” to the jurisdiction of the area as part of the reorginzation of borders and the curtailment of Constantinople, secular and religious, after WWI. Problem was, according to Imperial Firman (and the choice of the faithful, and the autocephalous rights of Ohrid), the Bulgarian Exarchate had jurisdiciton in the area. What the Sultan can give, he can take away: if the Phanar wants to lay claim with the firman of the abolishment of Ohrid, it has to accept the firman which gave it to the Bulgarian Exarch.
      The Bulgarian Exarchate: its history and the extext of its authority in Turkey By Richard von Mach, 1907.
      http://books.google.com/books?id=MEwpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA45&dq=Bulgarian+exarchate+Ohrida+almost+exclusively+Bulgarian&hl=en&ei=dWWjTN7FOYygnwfI26WJBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Bulgarian%20exarchate%20Ohrida%20almost%20exclusively%20Bulgarian&f=false

      In fact, Uskub a/k/a Skopje, had already gained its autonomy as a millet, something that Theodosius of Skopje pushed for, off and on.
      The Orthodox Eastern Church By Adrian Fortescue, 1908.
      http://books.google.com/books?id=UPr1ZCxPW6QC&pg=PA327&dq=Fortescue+Uskub+millet&hl=en&ei=dGmjTJuDDoOBnQfV2-CeAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

      The Greeks are uneasy about Macedonian claims on Greek Macedonia (which has been ruthlessly hellenized) and Thessalonica (which was Slavic at one point: the Vita of SS Cyril and Methodius has the Emperor of the Romans quirp that of course they spoke Slavonic, coming from Thessalonika), the Serbs nervous about claims on Kosovo. The latter are small and overshadowed by the Albanians, so the chief one with a vested interest is denying the existence of the Macedonians is the Greeks. Since Serbia has a dependeble ally in Greece, and a similar policy of phyletism in the Church, by default Greece’s anti-Macedonia program gets support.

      Macedonia represents a precedent that Russia does not want followed in Ukraine, and the Phanar does not want to admit in North America (or, characteristically, anywhere else).

      Reply
      1. Chris

        Good stuff.

        Macedonia represents a precedent that Russia does not want followed in Ukraine, and the Phanar does not want to admit in North America (or, characteristically, anywhere else).

        I guess Macedonians are out of luck then.

        Reply
        1. Isa Almisry

          LOL. Only if you think the Phanar is infallible and the Czar doesn’t have to answer to the Almighty.

          Reply
          1. Chris

            I don’t believe either. But we’re talking about the ROC and the EP+. If they don’t want it done… I guess we pray.

            Reply
        2. Chris

          BTW – Based upon what I have seen, I wouldn’t place all my money on Richard von Mach as historian for that time period.

          Reply
          1. Isa Almisry

            He is easily substantiated. Something that cannot be said for his Hellenic detractors.

            Reply
          2. Chris

            I guess what I’m trying to say that we’re talking about a period where nationalism as we know it today was yet unknown. Many Macedonians at that time would identify with a particular regional Church jurisdiction. We won’t get into the catechcism classes set up by the various jurisdiction. My Grandfather who was born in Macedonia in 1901 had some really neat stories, pending upon whose control Macedonia was under-in one part of his childhood he’d attend a school under the Bulgarian Church ‘regime’ and he’d have to learn about what a wonderful Bulgarian Orthodox boy he was, and then when the Serbs took over, he’d have to unlearn the Bulgarian and become a Serb. Which is funny since I’ve never heard him utter a word in anything other than the modern Macedonian language, nor claim to be anything other than Macedonia. I guess the schools didn’t work. Perhaps if they had taught him some Liturgical or Bible lessons, he could have become a Priest since that was what he was slated to do being the only one in his village that could read?

            Reply
    2. Alexander

      Personally, I would like to see a solution between the SOC/MOC and only them, but what is stopping the MOC diasopra (hate this word) in North America from seeking shelter in the OCA?

      Answer: Moscow

      Finally, why would Macedonians have to run the gauntlet of sociologists, psychatrists, psychologists to garner approval of their identity? Is is an international standard or norm for all nations?

      Response: I did not mean to suggest that the residents and citizens of the FYRM needed to run such a gauntlet. They don’t. As you well know, identity politics in FRYM, elsewhere in the Balkans, and just generally elsewhere, is such a touchy subject. How an ethnicity, nationality or even race these days (even historically) are defined and understood are laden with all sorts of assumptions and agendas. (For one stupid example, in the USA, it is a veritable science project to define someone as a member of a Native American tribe so they can run a casino. Come on.)

      But, in an Orthodox context, I remain completely and utterly perplexed why “ethnicity,” “nationality,” or “race” are ever a “canonical” issue, consideration or subject of discussion. Hence the “sin” of phyletism. The question should simply be, “are you Orthodox?” And if you happen to live in Blackacre, so and so is your bishop. And if you happen to live in Whiteacre, this other guy is.

      Most of those monks at Decani “get it.” Neo-fascists like Artemis, Amphilochicus, Basil (Tuzla), Photius and others of thier ilk in the SOC do not. And the purely political games being played in the Kosovo diocese these days are morally reprehensible – by Artemis and his supporters, his detractors, and his ecclesiastical prosecutors, alike.

      The analytical contortions — and lies — over history and canons that advocate any ecclesiological super-structure beyond a defined diocese are mind-numbing.

      In the end, which bishops to sit together in a synod can — and should — be much more fluid than it is. As best I can tell, and I’m no theologian, Orthodoxy has not for centuries been consumed by any fundamental theological or “dogmatic” dispute; it is all administrative and practical. I’m no canonist, but I think all you need is three to make a synod. Super-diocesan structures at best hope to provide “interim” conciliar accountabilty.

      No one in their right mind can say that any debate about which Orthodox Patriarchate, Archbishopric, Metropolitanate, or “Autonomous Church” has jurisdiction over a given piece of real estate has ever been: “let me be responsible for the real work saving these peoples’ souls. No me. NO ME.”

      It has always been about something that has precious little to do with why Christ was incarnate and died for all of us.

      Sorry if this appears to be a diatribe. It is not intended as one.

      Reply
      1. Chris

        Question: They why not just call us Macedonian instead of FYRM?

        In anycase, with crooks like these deciding what my identity is, it is difficult to imagine anything other than the finger of God helping us:

        http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/81351

        Reply
        1. Alexander

          That, my friend, like the Star of Vergina and the million other debates over history and symbols, is an issue between Macedonia/FRYM, and Greece, a EU member country.

          Reply
          1. Chris

            Loud and clear. My apologies for ramshacking the thread.

            Reply
  9. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

    Reuters (again!) has a brief story:

    Serbian Orthodox Church ceremony highlights complex Serbian-Kosovo ties

    Reply
    1. Chris

      Father Johannes – Kosovo IS Serbia. But on that note, Serbia lost Kosovo. Especially the Serbian Orthodox Church. I’d like to continue on with the rhetoric of the big, bad Albanians and the NATO bombs. Believe me, the Albanians are bad, and the bombs dropped in Belgrade and in Kosovo were horrific. I firmly believe that Albright and Clinton need to be held accountable. In fact, they drove out Albanians into Macedonia and Macedonia hasn’t been able to get the Albanians to move back out. In fact, Macedonia had to change he form of government to consensual democracy and her constitution twice in the last 20 years. Once to appease the Greeks, and once to make Albanians put down their guns. Both times by outside coercion.

      But accountability is called for on all ends. And, when I say the SOC lost Kosovo, this is where I focus. I mean that it takes more than nationalistic speeches, populistic politicians to serve a flock and to spread the Gospels. It takes more than Bishops “fighting for the National Cause.” Where are all the converts to Orthodoxy in Kosovo? Anything translated into the Albanian language? In Croatia for that matter? We’ll hear a whole bunch about how everything was once Serbia or is part of the Serb “Holy Land” – but then you find out that the Serbs only called these Holy and really didn’t treat them as such.

      Yes, this IS definitely the “old guard” mentality that many have spoken of on this blog. It’s all majesty, exteriority, and really no sustenance, no Food, no Christ.

      Reply
      1. Isa Almisry

        The Monks of Decani

        There is another part of the Church in Kosovo, however, which has already started preparing for the spread of the gospel to the rest of the region. These people are less concerned that Kosovo should become Serbian than that Kosovo as a whole should become Christian.

        It seemed to me that the monks of Decani, some of whom have learned to speak Albanian, form something of a vanguard in this forward-looking movement. Although they insisted on the legitimacy of Serbia’s political claims in the region and showed not the slightest enthusiasm for Kosovo independence, the Decani monks manifested a greater interest in the salvation of souls—including Albanian souls.

        Indeed, even during the war, the monastery of Decani was a beacon of hope and renewal. When hostile Albanians launched a mortar attack against the monastery, and bombs from American planes (evidently misdirected on purpose!) fell on the monastery’s apple orchard, the monks of Decani went on with their traditional routine: chanting the Psalms and hymnody in church, painting icons, studying the Bible, tilling fields, gathering honey, making cheese and butter, and so on.

        And especially these monks loved their neighbors, regardless of race or religion. When the army sent from Yugoslavia was killing and pillaging all through the region, the monks of Decani received the fleeing Muslims and other Albanians into their cloister to protect them. These monks—never more than thirty in number, I think—fed the hungry and housed the homeless. When cursed, they blessed. Slapped on one cheek, they turned the other. That is to say, they did what Christians are supposed to do in the hour of the gospel’s testing. They placed the gospel first. If the spirit of the Decani monastery prevails in the Orthodox Church in Kosovo, I believe nothing is to be feared about the region’s future.

        http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-07-021-f

        Reply
        1. Chris

          Well isn’t this a kick in the head. I love to be proven wrong in this fashion. Awesome! 🙂

          Reply
    2. Isa Almisry

      Serbian Orthodox Church and political leaders gather on Sunday to enthrone a new patriarch to guide a religion embodying the spirit of Serbia, but the once a generation ceremony will take place on foreign soil

      No, it doesn’t.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_independence_precedent

      Reply
      1. George Michalopulos

        or as Rush calls it, “Al-Reuters.”

        Reply
  10. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

    I know, Chris. It’s Reuters though. Also, the PR campaign against Serbia during the NATO campaign was very effective — amoral, but effective. Most Americans still believe it was a war for independence.

    The problem with most reporters is that they learn their history through news stories written by their peers.

    Reply
  11. Chris

    Everything that Albanians do has to be part of some massive “independence or civil rights” movement. And then they do most of the firing. They do not function unless in conflict.

    Reply
  12. Samn!

    Actually, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is now talking about the Great and Holy Council happening in 2012……. That is, bankruptcy could speed things along, not hinder them.

    http://www.la-croix.com/article/index.jsp?docId=2441263&rubId=4078

    Reply
    1. George Michalopulos

      Samn! it’ll happen if nnd only if +Kirill wants it to happen. Keep your eye on his eparchies in North America and Europe, particularly events in Great Britain, the MP-USA, and ROCOR (probably the OCA and the Slavic jurisdictions in America as well).

      Reply
  13. Chris

    Interesting “admission” I believe. I just listened to an interview given by His Grace, Archbishop Jovan given in Macedoniain 2007 (he wasn’t in prison) regarding the Nis According. In the interview he accuses Macedonian Bishops of reniging on their signatures in agreement and attempts to give an explanation on why the accord would not mention, let alone stand up for the term Macedonia in Macedonian Orthodox Church. His explanation is that because five Sees are “Greek” or have Greek Archbishops/Patriarchs, the accord would have never been accepted with the inclusion of the name, Macedonian Orthodox Church making reference to Macedonia.

    Interesting tid bit. The intire interview, Jovan+ born in Bitola, Macedonia, alludes to the “artificialness” of the Macedonian identity, that ethnophyletism seems the culprit in the make-up of the Church, and that he considers himself a Byzantine(Roman/Romej), not Macedonian. He also starts off the interview by talking about how great he was treated in prison by the other prisoners and the guards. Sort of a twist as to how it was all depicted on the news and “other sources.:

    The interview can be found here: http://www.poa-info.org/video
    Fifth video down. In Macedonian, so it may be worthless to most.

    Reply
    1. Chris

      later in the interview he says that the ROC has several autonomous churches under the Patriarchate that they will never grant autocephaly to; and that there is no difference, at all, between autonomy and autocephaly other than some minute financial autonomies.

      Reply
      1. Chris

        I hate to blubber on (but I will), but I have to admit that my eyes have been sort of opened with all of the EP+ talk regarding the administrative, chess game being played throughout Orthodoxy.

        In the end of the interview, His Grace, Archbishop Jovan+ gave an ad hoc “shout out” to the EP+ and praised him for his “Green Patriarch” label. He also downplayed the ROC in light of the current situation, stating that the MOC has 5 Archbishops that would deny Macedonian Autocephaly hence the need to deny the name, while the ROC has no one that would hinder their pronouncment of Ukrainian Autocephaly. Couple these statements with what I have heard/read Jovan+ state numerous times that he considers himself to be Byzantine(Roman) and I think that perhaps he may be one of the “pawns” in the EP+ Chess game. Just I hunch, could be wrong. But I tend to agree more with Alexanders and Isa’s commentary regarding the situation in Macedonia.

        Reply

Leave a Reply to George Michalopulos Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Notice: ob_end_flush(): Failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5481