www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Macedonian Orthodox and Rome.

In dialogue with our friend Alex, he mentioned to me that the Macedonian Orthodox Church sought union/communion with Rome a few years ago.
Can any one provide more information on this.
My In-laws from Macedonia (not Macedonia proper but the Slav area in northern Greece) now have Macedonian Orthodox church in their village.
I'm wondering if this sought after union was more political than ecumenical.

Thanks,
Brad
or
Lep(Bread in Macedonian)

The Macedonian Orthodox Church as I understand it, is a non-canonical church and could be a break away from the Serbian Orthodox Church which is canonical. This church is still looking for ligitmatization from the Orthodox church in general. Im sure there is a more scholarly explanation for this.

JoeS

//The Macedonian Orthodox Church as I understand it, is a non-canonical church and could be a break away from the Serbian Orthodox Church which is canonical. This church is still looking for ligitmatization from the Orthodox church in general. Im sure there is a more scholarly explanation for this.

JoeS//

Or it could be an off shoot from the Greek Orthodox?

JoeS

Hello,

Yes, it is true that the Macedonian Orthodox Church sought communion with Rome.

Pope John Paul II, out of a TRUE spirit of papacy, strongly advised them to seek communion with the Church of Constantinople with Patriarch Bartholomelow I instead.

What I meant by the true spirit of papacy is that it is meant and made to be a visible source of unity. The Macedonian Orthodox is a Byzantine-Constantinopolitan Church, so therefore, should be in communion with the See of Constantinople.

I believe that the 5 original Ecumenical Sees (Pentarchy) should be the main Christian Centers for the corresponding Rites/Churches. Of course, of the 5, Rome is the leader.

(For those who don't know who's who of the Pentarchy..they are: Rome, Contantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) Of course Moscow is and will never be it's own true ecumenical Patriarchate...since it's self-proclaimed. So, therefore, Moscow should be subjected to Constantinople.

I think the 5 centers would be an ideal arrangement for a UNITED Churches. It'd be more organized and more unified. I think strengths will come in numbers/unity.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Brother Spdundas,

I thought the Patriarch rankings were Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople & Jerusalem.

Please enlighten me if incorrect.

james

Here is some information from cnewa.org

Orthodox Church: Churches of Irregular Status � Macedonian Orthodox Church

Macedonia, an important geopolitical center of the Balkans since ancient times, has for centuries been a focal point of territorial rivalries involving Turkey, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece.

While Macedonia was under Ottoman administration, the Orthodox church there was part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. When Turkish rule was ended following the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, southern Macedonia became part of Greece. But northern Macedonia, inhabited by Slavs who called themselves Macedonians because of the name of the area in which they lived, was incorporated into the newly formed kingdom of Yugoslavia. By agreement with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Orthodox in this northern area were integrated into the Serbian Patriarchate and reorganized into three dioceses.

When the communists took power in Yugoslavia following World War II, they decided to reorganize Yugoslavia on a federal basis and provided for the creation of a separate Macedonian Republic. The communists supported the aspirations of some Macedonians who wished to assert their separate identity, in order to gain their backing for the new government.

During the same period, the government supported efforts by some Orthodox in the Macedonian Republic to establish a separate Macedonian Orthodox Church. In October 1958 an Ecclesiastical and National Council of 220 priests and laity was held in Ohrid that declared the restoration of the ancient Archbishopric of Ohrid and the autonomy of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. It also elected three new bishops for the three dioceses of the church. This was considered an irregular election, as only one bishop was present. But the new church declared itself in canonical unity with the Serbian Orthodox Church in the person of the Serbian Patriarch. In June 1959 the Serbian Holy Synod accepted this fait accompli, and the next month the three bishops-elect were consecrated by Serbian Orthodox bishops.

In the autumn of 1966, the Macedonian Orthodox Church formally petitioned the Serbian Patriarchate for autocephalous status. But when it met in May 1967, the Serbian episcopate rejected this request.

Nevertheless, the Macedonians went forward and held a council in Ohrid from July 17 to 19, 1967. On July 19, acting on a resolution of the council, the Holy Synod of the Church of Macedonia proclaimed the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in the Republic of Macedonia. The Metropolitan was given the new title of �Archbishop of Ohrid and Macedonia.� All this was openly supported by the state authorities, who gave the new Metropolitan state honors and attended his installation ceremonies.

In September 1967 the Serbian Orthodox Synod declared the Macedonian Orthodox Church to be a schismatic religious organization and broke off all liturgical and canonical links with its hierarchy, although not with its faithful. This decision has been supported by other Orthodox churches, as none has recognized the legitimacy of the Macedonian church.

The disintegration of Yugoslavia led to Macedonia�s declaration of independence in 1991. But its name has been disputed by Greece and consequently it has not been recognized by most of the countries of the world.

In December 1991 Archbishop Gavril resigned his post as head of the church, possibly because of tensions within the hierarchy concerning the church�s canonical status. But he was persuaded to withdraw his resignation after the Holy Synod assured him of its confidence. Serbian Patriarch Pavle received a delegation of Macedonian Orthodox bishops in mid-1992 to discuss the church�s status, but so far these contacts have not led to a restoration of canonical communion. The present government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia strongly supports the church�s autocephaly. But Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has declared that such status cannot be recognized because of the clear political factors involved.

At the time of the declaration of autocephaly in 1967, the Macedonian Orthodox Church included some 334 priests ministering in approximately 400 parishes. Monasticism has experienced a serious decline. In 1992 it was reported that there were a total of ten religious sisters associated with communities in Bitola and Prilep, while a young religious community of men had been founded at the ancient monastery of St. Naum on Lake Ohrid. About two thirds of the population of Macedonia is Orthodox.

Macedonian Orthodox bishops resident in Skopje, the republic�s capital, have responsibility for their church�s parishes in the diaspora. Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid is responsible for the 19 parishes and one monastery in the United States, and seven parishes and one monastery in Canada. Metropolitan Petar oversees the 21 parishes and two monasteries in New Zealand and Australia, where the diocesan secretary is Fr. Grigor Kifelinov, 642 Plenty Road, Preston, Victoria 3072.

//(For those who don't know who's who of the Pentarchy..they are: Rome, Contantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) Of course Moscow is and will never be it's own true ecumenical Patriarchate...since it's self-proclaimed. So, therefore, Moscow should be subjected to Constantinople.//

I may be mistaken, but, didnt Constantinople finally recognize the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox church some time ago? And by doing so, the Moscow is not subject to Constantinople.

JoeS

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jakub:
[QB] Brother Spdundas,

I thought the Patriarch rankings were Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople & Jerusalem.

Please enlighten me if incorrect.

Brother Jakub,

In 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that: "The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome"

This is why we must consider Constantinople 2nd after Rome.

Brad

Does anyone have documentation of this? Some more detailed history? I would be VERY fascinated to know more about this.

Regarding the pentrachy, I don't think we necessarily have to go back to just those five sees. The modern reality is that other sees could be included as self-governing and as "Christian centers", as well as having as many privileges as say, Alexandria. If forced to, I would even include Moscow (the self-proclaimed "Third Rome") in that list.

Hello,

Don't mind my list of order of ranks that I mentioned above because I don't know..I do know that Rome is number 1 and Constantinople is number 2.

The heads of the Pentarchy are of course the Ecumenical Patriarchs.

The 5 Sees seem to work well back in the pre-schism era, so why not now?

The Churches in this world is getting too fragmented and too loose...so it needs to be more centralized. Although Rome has TOO much of centralization, need to loosen up just a little more..and the Orthodox need to tighten up a little more. Then we'll have a healthy balance of unity and Church governance.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Glory to Jesus Christ
Slava Isusu Christu

SPDundas, your logic is strong (and imho correct). Based upon this, is not the Byzantine Catholic Church (aka Ruthenian Catholic Church) originally a "Byzantine-Constantinopolitan Church"? If so, logic suggests that said named Church should be "in communion with the See of Constantinople".

I can understand how our Holy Father would, in the interest of historical and political fairness, give His Holy Eminance Bartholomew II the chance to bring another church into unity, but once the decision was denied, would it not be then right to bring the Macedonian Orthodox Church under the See of Rome?

Just a thought. As much for me and for you.

Michael (a sinner)

ALCON,

Here is the order that I have known

As noted in the Nicene Canons: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

During the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople, Constantinople(the "New Rome") was placed into the second position of honor behind "Old Rome".

At the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, Jerusalem became a Patriarchate, honoring the Apostle James and the origins of Christianity.

Without getting into minute detail, I believe this list suffices as to the positions of honor as detailed by the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils.

Regards

Cyril, in the West but facing East

Hello Michael and all,

Thank you for the response.

Patriarch Bartholomelow I have been strongly criticized by many fellow Orthodox bishops/clergy for being "pope-like."

It's too bad, because these folks don't see what I think is the Patriarch's intention of unifying the Orthodox Churches. Unfortunately, the Orthodox Churches are too fragmented (don't share an unifying voice of witness).

Just because one is in "charge" doesn't mean that one is a dictator and a ruler over Churches.

From what I perceive: There are levels/ranks of Patriarchs. So...from each of 5 Pentarchy rules an Ecumenical Patriarchs in their own Patriarchal boundaries (Patriarchates).

I believe that Moscow falls into the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Bartholomelow I is head of it.

There is a Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem, doesn't mean he has the same honor as the Ecumencial Patriarch of Rome.

My point is, in the Orthodox world, all bishops are equal in "honor" with nobody to answer to on earth. It's no wonder why the unity in the Orthodox Churches aren't as strong as the Catholic ones.

So, I applaud Bartholomelow I for his efforts to strengthen the Orthodox Churches thru more unity among themselves.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

If the Macedonians truly seek unity with the Aostolic See of Rome, the in my opinion they have a "right" to be received and no one,even the Pope of Rome has a right to deny them.While I agree that this should not be for merely political ends, I do agree that if noble and sincerely they should be received.
Stephanos I

The dialogues between Rome & Constantinople have rejected the "uniatism" of the past as a means to achieving unity of the apostolic Churches.

In other words, they recognize that the ideal and proper order would be for all Byzantine Rite jurisdictions to be in communion with each other through Constantinople and that that Constantinople would hold and manage the link with Rome.

The Macedonian Church could solve 90% of their problem by returning to the Serbian Church with the Autonomous status that they had from 1958 to 1967.

In Christ,
Andrew

James,

Precedence of honor, according to the Eastern Code:

Since the inclusion of Constantinople, which lacks a Catholic Patriarch, clearly suggests that this is intended to indicate the precedence of honor were both Orthodox and Catholic Patriarchs gathered together, to my eye, it translates as:

1. Constantinople

Ordered by the dates of their respective elevations to the patriarchal dignity (which I have not done)

Ecumenical Patriach of Constantinople
Armenian Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople*

*In the event of union, there might be some pressure on the Armenians to give up this title

2. Alexandria

Coptic Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria
Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria and All Africa
Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria

3. Antioch

Ordered by the dates of their respective elevations to the patriarchal dignity (which I have not done)

Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, of Alexandria & Jerusalem*
Syriac Catholic Patriarch of Antioch & All the East
Maronite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch & All the East
Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch
Antiochian (Greek) Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch

*The titles of Alexandria & Jerusalem are ad honorem, granted to each successive Melkite Patriarch since His Beatitude Maximos III Mazloum, of thrice-blessed memory. As such, they do not factor into precendence.

4. Jerusalem

Ordered by the dates of their respective elevations to the patriarchal dignity (which I have not done)

Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem
Armenian Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem

5. Other Patriarchates

Ordered by the dates of the antiquity of their respective patriarchal sees and, within those of the same title, by the dates of their elevation to the patriarchal dignity (I have not ordered by either, just listed - and I'm sure I have forgotten to include someone)

Russian Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow
Tewahedo Orthodox Patriarch of Ethiopia
Orthodox Patriarch of Eritrea
Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians
Catholicos-Patriarch of Cilicia of the Catholic Armenians
Catholicos-Patriarch of Babylon & Ur of the Chaldees for the Catholic Chaldeans
Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East
Orthodox Patriarch of the Serbs
Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church
Orthodox Patriarch of All Bulgaria
Orthodox Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia
Patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kievan Patriarchate
Patriarch of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church

Many years,

Neil

Note that the above list does not make provision for any of the many vagante patriarchs, such as His Holiness, Patriarch Mar Markus I of The Byzantine Catholic Church, Inc.... Eastern & Western (Orthodox) Rites [members.tripod.com] (be prepared for pop-ups, if you elect to go there).

Just noticed this article on the Macedonian Church in the current issue of One (formely CNEWA):

http://www.cnewa.org/one30-4-4-macedonia.htm

Also, is there anything in print about the Macedonian Church seeking union with Rome?

Thanks Neil,

I was wrestling with the old Roman Canon which had Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Later, Palestine and Arabia was annexed from Antioch to help form the Jerusalem Patriarch etc, I guess there were some protests about Constantinople being elevated above the others.

I won't lose sleep over how the process ended ,
as long as it works.

james

I doubt that there is any credible evidence that the entire Macedonian Orthodox Church sought union with Rome. First of all, there is a United Greek Catholic Church in Serbia's Vojvodina and if anyone wanted to join it, they are free to do so. There is also a Latin Catholic Church in Macedonia, from which the Albanian St. Theresa of Calcutta came.

Second of all, Slavic Catholicism is identified with the Latin Croats and thus considered the enemy of the Orthodox in the former Yugoslavia. My Orthodox University Theology Master's thesis is on the Region and I've been to the Balkans three times in the last two years. Although I did not cross the Macedonian border, one canonical Orthodox bishop from an area country mentioned to me his desire to assist in the canonical resolution of the Macedonian problem. No mention was made of any potential Unia in that meeting.

In concluding, I do not deny the possiblity that some individuals might have made some overtures to Rome. However, I feel quite strongly that the possibilty of the entire Macedonian Orthodox Church going into union with Rome without severe resistance from the masses of faithful (let alone clergy) was quite remote, at best. This is probably especially true now because the Albanian Christian minority in Macedonia is Latin Catholic (with the vast majority of the Macedonian Albanians being Muslims). Today, I have no doubt that Macedonian Slavic identity is intertwined with Orthodoxy.

Christ Is Among Us!

Three Cents

Dear SPDundas,

I agree with much of what you say in defense of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

I have also seen his actions in the same positive way as you do.

As sinners, we all have this little problem of only finding negative to say about others rather than positive...ofcourse, some of us do this more than others.

I rejoice when someone sees the glass half full, rather than half empty!

Thanks for your post!

With much love in Christ,
Alice

Then all this news of the Pope rejecting any dialogue of inclusion by the MOC to Rome, in fact didnt happen and is all untrue?

Just trying to get the true picture here.

JoeS

//I doubt that there is any credible evidence that the entire Macedonian Orthodox Church sought union with Rome. First of all, there is a United Greek Catholic Church in Serbia's Vojvodina and if anyone wanted to join it, they are free to do so. There is also a Latin Catholic Church in Macedonia, from which the Albanian St. Theresa of Calcutta came.

Second of all, Slavic Catholicism is identified with the Latin Croats and thus considered the enemy of the Orthodox in the former Yugoslavia. My Orthodox University Theology Master's thesis is on the Region and I've been to the Balkans three times in the last two years. Although I did not cross the Macedonian border, one canonical Orthodox bishop from an area country mentioned to me his desire to assist in the canonical resolution of the Macedonian problem. No mention was made of any potential Unia in that meeting.

In concluding, I do not deny the possiblity that some individuals might have made some overtures to Rome. However, I feel quite strongly that the possibilty of the entire Macedonian Orthodox Church going into union with Rome without severe resistance from the masses of faithful (let alone clergy) was quite remote, at best. This is probably especially true now because the Albanian Christian minority in Macedonia is Latin Catholic (with the vast majority of the Macedonian Albanians being Muslims). Today, I have no doubt that Macedonian Slavic identity is intertwined with Orthodoxy.

Christ Is Among Us!

Three Cents//

Thanks for all the responses.
That said, the Macedonian Orthodox Church (MOC) is a "church of irregular status", being either in schism or not in full communion with Constantinople.
Would it be "acceptable" (from both sides) for someone who is baptized in a MOC to receive the Holy Eucharist in a Greek Orthodox Church ?

Brad

Yes, the Serbian Patriarchate didn't want to alienate the membership, just reprimand the hierarchy for the declaration of autocephaly.

This is a schism that should and could be healed with simple revision to autonomy. They could talk again from there.

Andrew

Three cents wrote:

Second of all, Slavic Catholicism is identified with the Latin Croats and thus considered the enemy of the Orthodox in the former Yugoslavia

That's probably the reason why there are no Serbian Greek Catholics after WWII although these existed in the past (the Marca Monastery and so on).

However, Macedonia has had very little contact with the Croats and the occupying Bulgarian and Italian troops there had light hand, so Catholicism there does not have that stigma. Macedonian Greek-Catholicism is connected with the XIXth Bulgarian and Macedonian Nationalist movement opposing Greek and Turkish presence.

As far as I know there's now a separated Greek Catholic Church for Macedonia under the care of Bishop Joakim Herbut of Skopje, but he delegates his functions to Mons. Kiro Stoyanov who is a former member of the Orthodox Macedonian Church. (The Krizevci Diocese only has a honourary jurisdiction in MK).

On the other side the membership of the tiny Greek Catholic community in Serbia and Croatia are mostly Ruthenians-Ukrainians whose liturgy has suffered Latinization and Romanization. Their Bishop during WWII, Janko Simrak, was very pro-Serbian and Eastern but eventualy collaborated with the Croatian dictatorship. He tried though, to save Serbian priests and people by making them part of the Greek Catholic Church, but was prevented to do so by the Ustasha regime, who forbid by their own name, any activity of the Eastern Rite in Yugoslavia.

Remo,

When the Apostolic Exarchate for Faithful of the Oriental Rites in Macedonia was established (if memory serves me correctly), it was indicated that it was intended to be for the pastoral care of Byzantine Serbian and Macedonian Catholics. Prior to that time, they were subject to the Eparchy of Krizevci, the hierarchical see of the Croatian Catholic Church sui iuris. Formally, the Macedonian Exarchate is deemed to be a jurisdiction of the Croatian Church.

Many years,

Neil

a united byzantine jurisdiction would be great, but too many particular churches wont relinquish their national titles. the roman church, and not by accident has not had this problem that much, being that there is no such thing as the italian catholic church, or spanish catholic church, or even the Polish Catholic church.

RE: Macedonian Orthodox Church

My information comes from a priest who works at the Vatican. I do not think a formal petition was made but an initial overture by the hierarchy which the Vatican quitely dismissed. I do not think there is any documentation of this or that ther ever will be, that is how the Vatican works often times. For all the talks between the SSPX and the Vatican there is sparse documentation and these talks are ongoing and serious. If one chooses not to believe the report that is fine but I have no reason to believe the priest would just make this up.

Fr. Deacon Lance

My own information coincides with that offered by Father Deacon Lance - yes, there were overtures from the Macedonians, and yes, the refusal was polite but clear. On the other hand, there is certainly no documentation currently available, and we are unlikely to live to see the archives opened to scholars. So there is no way to compel the ability of those who do not believe the report.
Incognitus

In the last sentence of my previous posting, I stated that it was possible that some individuals (implying hierarchs and/or respected laity) made overtures to Rome. But I also stated that a Union would have been a very hard sell to the Macedonian Orthodox masses and to many clergy as well. I believe that view of the total picture is very credible. This is even truer now since the Civil War spread to Macedonia after the KLA was handed Kosovo by NATO. They then tried Macedonia and Presevo (Serbia proper) to see how far they would be allowed to go by the political and economic powers that be.

Overtures to Rome may have been very sincere by some and possible Orthodox canonical recognition bargaining leverage by others. Given the Balkan realities, the second seems to me the most plausible. Explaining a Union to a population that has always been Orthodox and to whom Orthodoxy is viewed as preserving their national (let alone Christian) identity under the Turkish yoke would have been extremely difficult and almost assuredly would have encountered resitance.

By the way, in Kosovo I was under the protection of ... the Italian Army and the Kosovo police. My heartfelt thanks to both of them. I love both the Slavs and Albanians that inhabit that great Balkan land.

Christ Is Among Us!

Three Cents

Just a brief correction, of course I was referring to my last paragraph and not last sentence. That is what I get for trying to write so early in the morning!

Have a Blessings Filled Day!

Also there was a Macedonian-Bulgarian Diocese in the US which was under the ROCOR at least in the 1960-70's. The bishop was Bishop Kiril. They had many parishes, one I knew was in Granite City, IL. that was pretty old.

Berg,

The parish was established in 1907; it was the first Bulgarian Orthodox parish in the US. There's a chronological history of the diocese here:

History of Ethnic Orthodox Dioceses [ocl.org]

Many years,

Neil

The ROCOR Bulgarian group is the one that joined the OCA. The bishop referred to there is the OCA Archbishop of Pitsburgh.

Regrading the Albanians, it was not Theofan Noli who brought the larger group (including two of the three South Boston parishes) in the OCA. He had reposed. It was Bishop Stephen Lasko who did after he was cut off from the Holy Synod after Enver Hoxha declared Albania "the World's First Officially Atheistic Country" in 1967. This meant that the Orthodox Church and the second largest Roman Catholic Church legally ceased to exist by governmental fiat. The larger (of two) Albanian Orthodox American jurisdictions joined the OCA in the '70s after Moscow granted it autocephaly. Bishop Mark Lipa's smaller group continues to be under the EP with Bishop Ilia (Katre).

For a very current interview with Archbishop Anastasios Yannoulatos Of Albania (a walking saint) see this week's Orthodox News at www.orthodoxnews.com. [orthodoxnews.com.] Besides the reconstruction of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Albania, His Beatitude was asked about whether or not he almost resigned. He speaks very fluent and scholarly English (by the way).

I don't think it is chance that two of the leading examples of Christ in our time (Mother Teresa and Archbishop Anastasios) were involved with Albanian Christianity. The prayers of the suffering saints there would rise like incense before Our Heavenly Father!

Christ Is Among Us!

Three Cents

Dear Three Cents,

The Albanians thank you for your glowing praise.

However, on the issue of Bishop Stephen (Lasko), a confession is in order.

We should remember that he went to Albania following the death of Metropolitan Theophan (Noli) in 1965 secretly and without the nomination of his diocese. That was the first deficiency.

Next, he was elected there by a Synod that; (1) had never claimed authority over the Albanian Orthodox in the Americas since that was traditionally and is still now accepted by the Church of Albania as a Patriarchal perrogative, and (2) had been put in place by the communists by deposing the canonical Synod.

The non-canonical head of the "Communist" Synod was a former partisan (Pandi Pashko Vodica) who, after his consecration as ABp, was seen in public carrying pistols, drinking, and gambling. In a rage, he once even threatened a man with the pistol while dressed in his clerical robes and wearing the Panagia medallion.

The personal deficiencies of Rev. Stephen as an episcopal candidate may have been set aside out of ekonomia, but the other ecclesial ones mentioned here made the whole situation a farce and tragedy for Orthodoxy.

We've had our dark moments.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew, I happen to work with an Albanian(of Moslem descent, but not a religious person).I mentioned the late Bishops Mark Lipa and Stephan Lasko.He said that their last names don't sound Albanian, which is what I thought.They sound more Slavic, Lasko sounds more Slovak or Rusyn, than say,Serbian or Bulgarian.Just curious.Fr. Andrei

Dear Fr. Andrei,

Thank you for the query. As you are in Farmington Hills, you may want to check in with the folks at St. Thomas Albanian Orthodox Church when the opportunity arises.

Lipa is most definitely an Albanian surname, after the village of "Lipa" outside of Permeti. It is in the feminine definitive form.

A short grammar to explain the norms:


Masculine Endings Indefinite = (consonant)
Definite = i, u

Feminine Endings Indefinite = e umulat (two dots)
Definite = a, ja


The "o" endings on masculine nouns (Lasko) are more popular in the Korca region where Greeks, Macedonian, and Slavic influences are also present. The Korca region (including Pogradec, Ohrid, and Devoll) has traditionally been part of Macedonia, geographically speaking, and much less affiliated with Epiros. This is due to geography; with Korca much more closely linked, historically, with Thessaloniki and Constantinople than with Tirana, Durres, or Vlora.

The people of Korca, like the Slavs, also use the diminutive "ka" at the ends of many nouns to indicate a smaller or cuter version of the noun. They also have as many as ten Slav-Macedonian-Bulgarian-speaking villages, primarily along Prespa, but also on the Plain of Korca, south of the city. Slav place-names are also very common, from the Bulgarian era of 900-1000 AD.

Some of our families even have what the Serbians would call a "slava;" a saint venerated by all generations of the same family.

Having said that, it is a mistake to underestimate the "Albanianess" of the Korcaret. They are the ones (led by Themistokli Germenj) who turned back the Greek invasion during the Balkan Wars and WWI and proclaimed themselves a "Republic" under French protection. The first published Albanian alphabet book for children was published by a resident of my wife's village in Korca and many of Albania's greatest educators came from Korca.

Whenever discussing the Balkans and seeking the roots of the current inhabitants, one needs to remember that prior to approx. 600 AD, there were no Slavs whatsoever in the Balkans. This understanding leads one back to the earlier peoples: Greeks-Hellenes, Illyrians (Dardani), Epiroti (Molossi, Suli, etc.), Macedonians, and Dacians. Prior to these are the Pelasgians who predate all and may have been the fathers of all of the abovementioned groups.

So Lasko, Proko, Duro, Robo, Thomo and others may have once been Laskos, Prokos, Duros, Robos, or Thomos during the era where Church documents were in Greek. It all depends how the parish priest recorded it. But even before that these names may very well have been Lasku, Proku, Duri, Robi, or Thomi (all extant versions that ones can find).

And surnames were not really used until people moved to cities where there could be more than one
"Andrew, son of John. So they added a profession or a village of origin. But professions change and origin changes.

I hope that this has helped.

In Christ,

Andrew

Dear Andrew, Thank you for the information.I was actually studying a little Albanian, at one time I had a co-worker from Shkoder who knew almost no English,so I bought an Albanian grammar and dictionary to help communicate with her.She's been gone a few years now.Most of the other Albanians I've worked with were of Muslim background,one lady was Greek-Albanian,fluent in both languages and Orthodox.At my age(52),languages don't come easily to me anymore,and since the one Albanian I now work with speaks excellent English(he just got his MA here), I'm not compelled to use Albanian as before.St.Thomas Church is about 2 miles from here,I knew your bishop as Fr.Nicholas, when he was pastor there.I always remind people that it was the Russian mission which gave the Albanians services in their language and also the first church to give Native Americans services in their languages in Alaska. Best wishes,Fr. Andrei

When I see His Grace Nikon next, I'll let him know that we have been in communication. Interestingly, his families' surname was "Lolo" prior to his father changing it to "Liolin" in the USA. His village of origin is primarily a Bulgarian-speaking village and His Grace's cousins over there speak Bulgarian, in addition to Albanian.

And may God bless you also with good health and many years of service!

It was Bishop Fan, of blessed memory, who was instrumental and aggressive in providing early English translations of the service books as well in this country.

I still relish and use his Epistle Lectionary. Good translation and very chantable. It is far superior to some recent versions with very "modernized" language. May he intercede for us.

Bishop Kirill is still the standing bishop for the Bulgarian Diocese of the OCA.

Interesting tidbits I am learning here!

And Andrew...its very nice to hear of the Bishop's family's eminently good taste!

I had no idea behind the story of the Bulgarian group in the OCA so thanks for telling us. I don't really keep abreast of the US news but how are relations between the Bulgarian Patriarchate and the Bulgarian Patriarchal Metropolia in the US? Is it cordial or is it similar to the problems that exist between the EP and the GOARCH?

Cheers, Anton