www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Strasbourg court finds in favour of Bulgarian schismatics...

The European Court of Human Rights have given Bulgaria three months to recognise the Synod of Innokenti or face sanctions.

Following the decision, the Alternatives issued a communique claiming over 100 properties, including the ancient church of St Sofia in Sofia...

Goodness knows what happens now...

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=104638

Forgive my ignorance. What business does the European Court of Human Rights have in deciding the internal business of a Church?

If there is a schismatic group, let them be such. But the properties of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church don't seem to me to be properties that can be claimed by those who don't want to belong to said Church.

So how can people decide they don't want to belong to the Church but then turn around and claim properties of the Church? And how can an outside body over-rule a sovereign nation in its internal handling of a dispute like this?

Maybe Bulgaria ought to rethink its status vis-a-vis the European Union. The EU doesn't seem to be something that Eastern Europe is a good fit with anyway since the ideas that underlie it spring from the Western European experience--something rather alien to that of Eastern Europe.

BOB

A summary from the initial court judgement detailing the background. Essentially, the Court said that the State should not have interfered and should have allowed the two factions to sort it out themselves but as they haven't...


http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/ho...00ca787282ec1257547002f6545?OpenDocument

The European Court of Human Rights is actually not an EU institution. Rather, it operates under the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. The 47 member states of the Council of Europe (which also is not an EU institution), including Bulgaria, are parties to the convention (source [en.wikipedia.org]).

Also, as I understand it, the verdict does not seek to regulate the internal business of a Church, but to protect against government interference in the internal business of a Church.

Yes, should have made it clear. The ECHR is separate from the EU and the ECJ. And its all about State interference - quite sad and I don't think there is a possibility of any healing until the passing of Patriarch Maxim as he is considered the biggest problem by the Alterntiva Synod...

Does anyone seriously maintain that a secular government should have the right to appoint a Patriarch of the Orthodox Church? How quickly we forget what went on in the Soviet period!

Fr. Serge

"How quickly we forget what went on in the Soviet period! "

And the Tsarist period, too. And every now and again during the Byzantine era.

Thank you, one and all. What a mess.

Bob

In theory, if not in reality, the Byzantine Empire and Tsarist Russia were both supposed to be Orthodox Christian monarchies.

Fr. Serge

And yet, Piotr Veliki made the Church a department of the Russian Civil Service, subordinate to a layman who had, usually, no great attachment to the faith. If I remember correctly, one of these men was a General of Cavalry in his day job.

As for the Byzantine Empire, yes, most definitely a Christian Empire, sometimes ruled by un-Christian men, who appointed and dismissed patriarchs at their whim, and often used them to promote doctrines condemned as heretical or actions (usually related to illicit marriages) condemned as sinful.

Doesn't make it right, but it is an unavoidable historical fact that must be taken into account. The main difference between then and now is the European Court of Human Rights is a surpranational organization that has no jurisdiction or standing. It's also, by the way, the same body to which the Ecumenical Patriarch is taking its case against the Turkish government. Put not your trust in princes, or in judges.

I had wondered what had happened to those who wanted the Patriarch removed after the fall of communism and how they were coping in Bulgaria.

Peter I is no hero of mine. He killed Greek-Catholic priests with his own hands, finished what Nikon started, and persecuted the Old-Ritualists. As if that weren't enough, he began a relatively long line of Emperors that kept the State Church firmly under their thumbs, while themselves not believing in very much anyway. Ugh.

Fr. Serge

Balshoi Pyotr made many great advances for Russia... but not for the Russian Church. Tho', by comparison to some kin of his, fairly sane.

Russia: Home of the Palace Coup!

Father Serge:

Father bless!!

I don't know how to respond. My God, what kind of monster does this? I guess I should take my own advice and remember that different points of history approached the Faith and its practice in different ways--including dealing with those considered outside the Church--but . . .

Bob

Peter was, shall we say, quite a character, with decided preferences (he also killed his own son and heir). Intriguingly, his daughter, the Empress Elizabeth, was rather better - during her reign the death penalty was never used. Not that she didn't have other peculiarities.

Fr. Serge

And the Frankish period in the West, lest we forget.

I don't understand how anyone can claim that the Frankish, Byzantine, or pre-1917 Russian periods are equal to Soviet persecution. To me this shows a certain lack of historical insight.

Let me suggest reading A Long Walk to Church [amazon.com] to put things into some perspective.

Let me suggest reading a history of the persecution of Saint Maximos the Confessor and the Orthodox. When you've done that, start researching the persecution of the Iconodules.

Fr. Serge