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