Jump to content

Talk:Macedonian Orthodox Church/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Greetings to anyone concerned

I made my changes to this page and may say that I have enough time to keep changing the content. Father Igor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.162.213.38 (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Points disputed?

  • There are strong, conflicting nationalistic perspectives here between both sides of this conflict. There has been an on and off revert war since the article was started.
  • User:Miskin has pointed out in his edit summary (dated 2Jan2006) the similarities between the histories of the Macedonian Orthodox Church and Bulgarian Orthodox Church (which also claims to be restored of the Ohrid Archbishopric.
  • User:Miskin also claims in an edit summary dated 2Jan2006 "...neither the Patriarchate of Constantinople nor any other Greek Orthodox body has recognised this church..."
  • [[1]] which lists the church as a "church of irregular status" and [[2]] which gives slightly differing version of the churches history and also notes the membership to be somewhat lower than stated in the article.

There. Being (hopefully) neutral in this dispute (but also not overly well versed with history of the issue and the terminology) I rewrote the article, focusing on recent events and trying to retain a NPOV. There's a lot to be desired yet, starting from copyediting, selection of sources, events from older history, and Bulgarian and Greek view on the dispute, but I hope I provided a good start (and also, that I did not shoot myself in foot entering this ever-hot area). Duja 10:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Duja for joining the conversation. As you can see the people who are reverting to the previous version, don't have much to say to me, they probably know they're wrong. User:VMORO was also protecting this page with me a while ago. The Macedonian Slavic editors are trying in many articles to imply that this nationality has existed before the 20th century and since the middle-ages. They're doing this by hijacking Greek and Bulgarian history. For example there have been much vandalism in the First Bulgarian Empire, where Macedonian Slavs would claim that it was in fact a "Macedonian Empire". Macedonian Slavs are taught those things in school and it's spread all over the internet in their propaganda sites, but for the rest of the world it is completely unsourced and ludicrous. The case of the "Macedonian" vs Bulgarian Orthodox Church is a similar one. The Bulgarian partriarchate of Orchid was in 1019 recognized by Constantinople as part of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Now, just because modern Orchid is in FYROM, they claim that it was in fact a "Macedonian" Church from the beginning. This is an extremely ridiculous POV-pushing, and the fact that many neutral editors can't see it, is really sad for wikipedia. It's been there for some weeks, and only two people found out what's going on, other editors were just blindly reverting, cluelessly. Makes you wonder about the content of wikipedia articles in general. Miskin 20:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyway as I said before, no member of the Greek Orthodox Church has ever recognized a "Macedonian" body. The proof is here [3] Miskin 20:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway as I said before, no member of the Greek Orthodox Church has ever recognized a "Macedonian" body. The proof is here [4] Miskin 20:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If I may explain my PoV... Generally, I'm sympathetic with "Macedonian issue" and I don't approve denials of Macedonian language, nationhood and name; I think that Greek attempts to monopolize the term of "Macedonia" as purely Greek thing are, for the most part, ridiculous. One can't hold "copyright" to a name throughout the centuries. I believe in people's right of self-determination and, despite the fact that Macedonian nation and language standard are young, the last century history can not be reversed, and Macedonian nation should have equal rights as all other "old" nations of the region. On the other hand, I do and will oppose attempts of Macedonian nationalists to monopolize the cultural and linguistic heritage of the area, i.e. "retrofitting history". However, I also deem that they cannot be denied at least a share of it – after all, they didn't settle there 1945 or 1912.
That being said, I think that this article still lacks a "History" section which would explain the (rich) history of Orthodox religion in the area in a NPOV manner, without attribution of that heritage to the modern MOC. In other words, Orthodox churches, shrines and believers in the RoM, currently under MOC jurisdiction, did not "come from Mars" 1945, but had a previous long-lasting history, which was Bulgarian, Serb and/or Greek but also developed by ancestors of present-day Macedonians. Duja 09:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Dipa, thanks for helping to rewrite this. Triona 09:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Canon Law

I don't know much about the current sitaution, but I was hoping somebody could explain what it means to be "canonically-unconstitutional", and why the MOC is considered such? --Daniel Tanevski talk 05:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Church canon presumably has rules on how, when and why autocephalous churches should be established. I'm assuming that bullying from the secular atheist communist authorities of Yugoslavia for political gain falls short of those requirements (only the MOC was founded this way, so there's no parallel). Telex 08:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Origins?

Since when does the illegitimate schismatic '"Macedonian" "Orthodox" "Church"' as an "ecclesiastical" entity have origins in the 11th century or at any time before 1945? Please cite independent sources confirming this (rather than the "church"'s own website or www.maknews.com), or I'll be removing it. Thanks in advance. --Tēlex 18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag. MOC claims continuity with the Bulgarian exharchate, and this is also stated.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Claims is different from is. However, it's much better now. --Tēlex 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
(to Telex) I don't see why the Macedonian church (supported by 99% of the Orthodox population in the country) shouldn't claim continuity from the past as other churches do. MatriX 18:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Because it is a brand new church, which did not exist before 1967. Plus you know perfectly well what this is all about, using weasel words such as "Samuil's kigdom", and "forgetting" the adjective Bulgarian in the Archbishopric of Ohrid.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I will not involve into discussions about Samuil's ethnicity, but as the only relevant church in Macedonia, Macedonian Orthodox Church can claim continuity from the past. MatriX 18:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is stated that the claim is made, however no other church recognizes it.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
To MatriX: I suppose the church buildings and the people can, however, the clergy (and therefore the church) cannot. The only legitimate Orthodox Church in the area of Vardar Macedonia is the Serbian Orthodox Church (from the Orthodoxy worldwide point of view at least), and they have ecclesiastical continuity due to the recognition of their superiors (see Apostolic Succession). --Tēlex 18:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What I'm basically saying is that the Orthodox faithful of the area should go to legitimate priests, not false priests (such as those of the MOC). Legitimate priests include priests of the Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian, Albanian etc Orthodox Churches. The MOC's priests are illegitimate. --Tēlex 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
That is, if they are cannonical orthodox believers, which given the situation might not quite be the case.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Btw, I think I should add that to Macedonism, I mean the claim of continuation with the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid. I'll check if it is common enough of a claim.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I think they are considered to be. I think all Christian Churches agree that there is only one baptism, whoever performs it, so to say that anyone baptized by a priest of the MOC is not a Christian (from an Orthodox point of view) is going to far I think. As for the "claim", I think it is ;-) --Tēlex 18:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To MatriX: what language does the Serbian Orthodox Church in the Republic of Macedonia use? --Tēlex 18:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, what I meant was, the Partiarchate of Constantinopole to a great extent defines what the Eastern Orthodox Church is.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of Orthodox christians in Macedonia stands behind the only relevant church in the country (MOC). Vraniskovski (former bishop Jovan) is a new installation paid by the Serbian government and the people are aware of that. The way MOC declared autocephaly is not invention of this church, self-declaring of autocephaly is used by many churches in the history (see:[5]). Hopefully, Macedonian church will not wait so long for resolving its status among other Orthodox churches. MatriX 18:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the the name "Macedonian" has something to do with it. As for your other claim, you are wrong. The overwhelming majority of Orthodox Christians in Macedonia are affiliated to the Greek Orthodox Church only. --Tēlex 19:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, at least in Serbia, MOC does not have the same "degree" of schism as e.g. Montenegrin Orthodox Church. Its clergy and believers are not treated as schizmatics, they're accepted in church, and baptism and wedding papers issued by MOC are accepted as valid. IOW, it is treated more as "Lost Son" than as an outright schizmatic sect. Thus, I returned that sentence in the article.

As for the number of followers, sources might be sparse, but how can it be significantly smaller than the number of Macedonians (ethnic group)? Pretty much all Orthodox Macedonians in RoM belong to MOC, plus quite numerous diaspora. Duja 19:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of sources; what you say is reasonable and probably true, but we need sources so to be able to awnser to those who claim that the MOC is schismatic, when not heretic. As for the number, I believe to be responsible for placing the number. I took the number basing myself on the Religion section of the RoM article, which gave 52% for the MOC. I hadent seen that the page had just been maliciously vandalized by Asteraki, as I note now.--Aldux 20:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I wanted to mark the sentence myself with {{fact}} but forgot. I'll try to find the sources... Duja 07:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox is heretical. - FrancisTyers · 22:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence? Sources?

Please try to work out some sort of consensus version here on this article, preferably one backed up by solid evidence and reliable sources. If you can't work it out after reasonable attempts to discuss, please see Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution - Triona 16:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Check the article Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid. Now open on a separate browser window Macedonian Orthodox Church. You'll find too many common things between these two articles, any clue why? As the article states, the Macedonian Orthodox Church was created in 1945 by the Yugoslavian government and it has no prior history. To claim that the Greek Orthodox Chuch once recognised it, is a straight-forward lie. The existence of a Macedonian Orthodox Church is POV-pushing by Macedonian Slav nationalists who want to back up the existence of a Macedonian nation. As you can see that happens by trying to "steal" Bulgarian and Greek history, e.g. presenting the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid as a ethnic Macedonian body. So please don't revert again, it's the Macedonian Slav editors who need to provide sources before making such claims. This is the last time I'll say it, if another person Macedonian Slav or not, reverts to the unsourced version, I'm taking this to RFC in order to make some editors understand what wikipedia is about. Miskin 17:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find external verifiable sources for either viewpoint. I don't really have an opinion in this - I only started watching this article because I saw it reported by the RC bot as a large removal. As an amatuer historian, I'm interested in finding facts here, because this article looks like it needs them. A lot of the information I'm finding are in Slavic languages that I can't understand, so its tricky for me. Even so, I'm still interested in finding out what the facts are - from the outside, its not even entirely clear exactly what points are being disputed - if someone wants to explain in more detail here that would be great. Triona 07:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, given the tendancy here for nationalistic disputes, we may ultimately have to resort to an article RFC if consensus can't be reached. Triona 08:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a change to the original document because it was clearly incorrect and easily verifiable. Initially the text wrote that "only Archbishop Jovan" signed the Nis Agreement, which is patently false. Archbishop Jovan was not even in Nis. The representatives of the MOC were Metropolitan Petar of Australia, Metropolitan Timotej of Debar and Kicevo and Metropolitan Naum of Strumica. The original source document is no longer on the net, although I have a copy of it on my cpu, but don't know how to post it here.

Thus, the way the article was written was misleading. What transpired was that the aforementioned three Bishops of the MOC signed the agreement as "acceptable" to the MOC and *ONLY* changed their position when political pressure mounted upon their return to Skopje. http://www.kosovo.net/news/archive/2005/August_17/2.html

After the Holy Synod of the MOC decided they were going to renege on the signed agreement, Archbishop Jovan that he supported the Nis Agreement because it was more important to be in Canonical Unity with the rest of Orthodoxy, rather than permit the nationalism of the FYROM politicians to dictate Church Theology and Praxis.66.134.248.122 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Seraphim

Rewrite

Please see this. Antarese 12 17:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No (you know why). NikoSilver 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue of dispute is the method used to gain autocephaly ...
Something should be added to show the Macedonian view - that the Church isn't being recognized because of its use of the name "Macedonian". Antarese 12 17:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it, but feel free to consider the Serbs as biased against that name. (???) NikoSilver 17:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

SOC

I've heard the Serbian Orthodox Church is preparing to recognize the Macedonian Orthodox Church and appeal for its Ecumenical recognition, but they have a large request - they want the MOC to be "autonomous" within the SOC, but are prepared for negotiations. I've heard that the most important thing for them is that the MOC monasteries and churches open for SOC officials. --PaxEquilibrium 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Macedonian" bishops in ecumenical councils

Atr the times of the ecumenical councils Macedonia was a Byzantine province in Thrace, Ohrid was well outside it. Calling them "Macedonian" is anachronistic. I also think it's unencyclopedic to speak of "holy" apostles and a bad idea to include the history of Christianity in the region in this article when there is another church (which is recognized by eastern orthodoxy) as the legitimate church of the region - it's a claim to legitimacy by stealth. If you must include this information somewhere, make a separate article such as History of Christianity in Vardar Macedonia (=MOC and SOC have no parishes in Greece and Bulgaria and none of them claim their canonical territory includes lands in those countries).--Ploutarchos 08:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[6]. Mr. Neutron 14:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Also spend some time to read through the links above in this talk. Mr. Neutron 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

From reading the discussions on the page the only conclusion I can come to is that the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian churches do not recognize the Macedonian church. Stating that the church is not recognize by some churches if fine but there is not proof that it is unrecognized by all Orthodox churches, this would include, Albanian, Armenian, Georgian, Russian, Australian, Polish (etc.) churches. Until you can prove that all autocephalous Orthodox churches (individually) do not recognize the Macedonian one, then only state "some". By the way, the only reason the Patriarch of Constantinople did not grant the Macedonian church autocephaly is because he's Greek and shares the same view that all Greeks share with no consideration for religion. Frightner 14:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE of Constantinople does not recognize that church, which by definition means the church is not autocephalous. Mr. Neutron 14:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

He is the head of one of the four main apostolic churches. He does not constitute for every Orthodox church. You obviously didn't know that. On the other hand, there's alot you don't know. Frightner 14:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
And you should spend some more time reading instead of making rash accusations - it remains unrecognized by other Orthodox churches, which does not specify whether Rome recognizes it or not. Mr. Neutron 14:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
What about Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem? These are Oriental Orthodox Churches so put "is not recognized by other Eastern Orthodox Churches" as the Oriental churches have no part in the matter. Frightner 14:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Ecumenical Patriarch has the historical and theological responsibility to initiate and coordinate actions among the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania, The Czech Land and Slovakia, Finland, Estonia, and numerous archdioceses in the old and new worlds, please learn to read the sources!!!! Mr. Neutron 15:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OKAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But it still doesn't prove that Ethiopian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Assyrian Orthodox Churches are involved. 15:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Why dont you try to find information that it is recognized instead of me wanting to refute every single church? It is indisputable it is not recognized by a host of churches, including Constantinople, Russia, Serbia, Bularia, Greece and so on. Mr. Neutron 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
But now I'm asking you about the Oriental churches, unless you can prove they are involved, then just put Eastern Orthodox. 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It does not say "Eastern" because MOC aspires to be independent Eastern Orthodox, not Oriental Orthodox church, and Eastern goes by default. But if you want to specifically designate MOC as Eastern then go ahead. Mr. Neutron 15:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I will, not every Wikipedian knowns what the MOC is. 15:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

REFERENCES

History

  • source]
  • And where are your sources on this atribution???
  • There are no sorces of yours coment!Any way this article is about Macedonian church history not Bulgarian!!
  • You can write your Bulgarian history at Bulgarian church.
  • I dont think this contribution is needed in Macedonian church.Makedonij (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are you pasting this everywhere I already answered you on my talkpage. --Laveol T 16:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
So what's the problem now - I provided you with sources for every single issue - neutral sources that don't have anything to do with the Bul-mk issue. You wanted sources - you got them. Why are you making upi reasons to delete the text now? I am aware that you want to remove all mention of Bulgaria in the text, but how could it happen since Boris and Samuel were Bulgarian rulers and Ohrid was the seat of the Bulgarian Patriarchate with the Bulgarian Patriarch. And then when the First Bulgarian Empire fell the insitution created was called Bulgarian Archbishopric. I know history in RoM differs from that in the real world, but these are facts, sorry. --Laveol T 19:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Man this is about Macedonian church for other meanings look Bulgarian church!?!?
Is that not fair?Whay do you opose on every single Macedonian edition of the article??Be reasonable Laveol that is not neutralety and you know that!!And i think that this article is talking about Macedonian Orthodoks church,there is nowere mantion in thear oficial page about yours claiming!
Here is the link of the oficial page "AGAIN":http://www.mpc.org.mk/English/MPC/history-mpc.asp
Makedonij (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources anyone? --Laveol T 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Watching

As from now I'll be watching this article against Bulgarian and Macedonian-Slav nationalists and I won't let anyone mix the history of Greek Macedonia with the region of "Vardarska Banovina" that was renamed to "Macedonia" in the '40s by a communist dictator. The history of the Macedonian Orthodox Church starts with the invention of a Macedonian Slav nation out of a Serb-occupied Bulgarian population. I'll be on watch for every sort of nationalist propaganda that will try to steal from Greek and Bulgarian history in order to back up the existence of a separate Macedonian Slav ethnic Group prior to 1945. Miskin 09:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

means what? so you can keep YOUR propaganda on? You and your texts are joke man.
What propaganda? I didn't add a single word to the article, I just removed the lying bit. Better stay away from drugs. Miskin 30 June 2005 03:32 (UTC)
So I see, you are on drugs. You should keep guarding this article. I see you fit for the job. (unsigned comment)
This article as it is now, is an insult to the Macedonians.The Macedonian Orthodox Church is an AUTOCEPHALOUS church.It has problems with its nacionalist neighbour which has nothing to do with christianity. (unsigned comment)

The Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian church are prepared to recognize a authonomious church in Macedonia under the name "Ohrid Arhiepiscopy", but they are not prepared to recognize the same church under the name "Macedonian Ortodox Church". So, it is obvious that they only want to deny the Macedonian name. Nothing else. When the Serbian Church change its name to something that does not include 'Serbian' in the name, or the Greek with something that does not include 'Greek' in the name, Bulgarian with something that does not include 'Bulgarian' in the name, then it won't be a problem not to include 'Macedonian' in the name of the Macedonian Ortodox Church. But till then, noone has a right to tell to the Macedonians how to call their church. Pure politics of nationalist propaganda and assimilation. Too bad Wikipedia supports this. I sterbinski 13:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

As an autonomous church, the Serbs would still have the power to determine who gets appointed as Bishops ... giving them the right to place their own stooges in these positions. The Macedonian people will never accept this. All we want is what everybody else has ... the right to self-determination, politically and religiously.
The problem is not autonomy. The problem is claims that the Macedonian church has a history separate from the Bulgarian church prior to Macedonia being absorbed by Yugoslavia (the opposite is supported by countless historical evidence.) Of course the church--and the nation--have the right to be independent with a separate self-consciousness, and call themselves whatever they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.17.6 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New name

I understand that the MOC has or is moving towards a modified name, 'MOC - Ohrid Archbishopric'. If and when that is confirmed, then presumably we should also change the title of the article Politis (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The new name is adopted by the church, but the official document will be signed in November. But that is not a new name, according to the curent church constitution, the church is called Macedonian Orthodox Church - Ohrid Archbishopric, but in November it will be announced that the constitution is equalized with the name: same official name - same constitutional name. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Episcopi Vagantes"

The term episcopi vagantes a highly pejorative term that is usually reserved for "wandering" bishops have no real following, as the article so entitled notes. The Macedonian Orthodox Church, whatever the merits historically or canonically of it, clearly has a number of parishes in at least FYROM and the United States, and clearly represent a substantial church body. It is sufficient to note that the MOC is not recognized by other Orthodox bodies. I am removing the inflammatory reference to "episcopi vagantes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipcedric (talk • contribs) 23:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Change of the name, coat of arms and the flag

The MOC today have changed its name, it is Macedonian Orthodox Church - Ohrid Archbishopric. Also it changed it's coat of arms (and the flag) and instead the church of Bogoridica Perilepta it is the church Sveta Sofija in Ohrid. The name of the article should be changed. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation verification

I removed the quote:

I could not find an independent reference to it or through searching Bulgarian archives. It does not appear in Bulgarian wikipedia or in Macedonian wikipedia. Even if it is a refection of Theodosius's letter, at least it will prove that something was happening. The same applies to the letter to the Great Patriarch of Constantinople. It seems unrealistic to expect a letter of the period demanging the renewals of a 'Macedonian Archbishopric of Ohrid', to the best of my knowledge this does not even appear in the offical page of the MOC. I look forward to seeing more concrete proof (and sorry if I was wrong), but IMO the language used is uncharacteristic of the period. Perhaps Serbian or Yugoslave sources might have something? Thanks for helping out. Politis (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Theodosius of Skopje Centralen D'rzhaven istoricheski archiv (Sofia) 176, op. 1. arh.ed. 595, l.5-42 - Razgledi, X/8 (1968), p.996-1000.

who says the church is unrecognized?

ok, what stupid people do is spread their propaganda, cuz all they can do is lie (e.g. Miskin who has nothing better to do but lie, cuz he's illiterate) i don't wanna argue, but damn, cite ur sources before shitting on innocent people on the net - i mean no one wants to read ur propaganda, people wanna hear the truth, but then again, this wikipedia has become a nationalist place... no further comments, if any1 wants to argue, be my guest! i dare u 2 click here

Well besides Miskin's illiterate lies, FYROMian people themselves admit it [7], I mean it's not exactly something that can be kept a secret. Miskin 23:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Have it from other sources if you want [8]. Just search the web. Miskin 23:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Actually, Vatican recognized this sect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.18.59.41 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Formation Year?

The church wasn't formed by Basil in 1019 but by Samoil in 999-1000 with a rank of Patriarchy by a blessing from the Pope in Rome, I believe Pope Sylvester II as he was on throne at the time (this was some 54-55 years before the Schism and most certainly was an extra thorn in the East/West relations) even in the 10-thh century it was formed and gained autocephal status without the blessing of it's former administrator - Constantinople which in turn was formed without the blessing of the Church in Rome or Alexandria or Antioch does anyone see a pattern?) As no church in the middle ages had a national character the use of the therm Bulgarian is subjective and offensive please remove it, no one called the Alexandrian Church Egyptian or the Antioch Syrian or the Constantinoplian Greek except maybe the Greeks. After the fall of Samoil's Empire Basil decided to keep the church much to the dismay of the Patriarch of Constantinople as the church was still autocephal and not under administration from the Patriarch of Constantinople. As a separate church it existed until the 18th century when it was abolished by the Muslim Otomans, and it's older then the Serb, Greek, Bulgarian, Russian, Romanian or any other European church (Orthodox Catholic or Protestant) the exception being the Church of Istanbul.

On a second note please provide proof that Dositej Stojković (Stojkovski was his proper Family name as during the period 1918-1941 many names wore made to sound Serb that didn't make them Serbs as it was the Law at the time, after 1945 most families changed their names back some didn't especially those living in Serbia) was a Serb, as he was born in the village of Mavrovo near the town Gostivar in present day Republic of Macedonia and moved to Belgrade for his education, he was born during the Ottoman Rule does that make him a Turk or a Bulgarian as the Churches of Ottoman Macedonia wore being administered by the Exarchy untill 1912, you have no proof that Dositej was a Serb remove that offensive remark.

And as the Catholic enciclopedia states (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01103b.htm) In reality Achrida (Ohrid) was seldom in communion with either Constantinople or Rome. In 1053 the metropolitan Leo of Achrida signed with Michael Caerularius sent a circular letter to John of Trani (Apulia in Italy) against the Latin Church. (The big Schisam started in Ohrid) Theophylactus of Achrida (1078) was one of the most famous of the medieval exegetes; in his correspondence (Ep., 27) he maintains the traditional independence of the Diocese of Achrida. The Bishop of Constantinople, he says, has no right of ordination in Achrida.

To Summarize the Archbishopy of Ohrid was formed in 999 by a Roman Papal edict; The Church was autocephal from 999 to 1767 (999-1019 as a Patriarchy, 1019-1767 as Archbishopy); There is no proof that during the period 999-1767 it used the adjective Bulgarian; Archbishop mr. mr. Dositej was not a Serb as he was born in Macedonia and worked for independent Macedonia both in secular and spiritual right and the term serb was added simply as an offense.

Finally about the church not being recognized, it doesn't need to be recognized as it's abolishment was not Canonical so it has every right to exist on the territory of Macedonia as it had from the 10-th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilija a (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a new Church, still not recognized. Everybody can claim everything, but this is an encyclopedia. Macedonian state, church, language and nation were created during the 20-th. century. This is the exact opinion from scientific point of view. Everything other is simply political and nationalistic propaganda. You can create a chapter called Political views in RoM. Jingiby (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian Boy, please, do not use biased sources written by Ethnic Macedonian authors as Nikola Trifunovski.Do not delete reliable sources, as you did with a book from Cambridge University Press, thank you. Jingiby (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

The article is titled, "Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric". That is the full name of this church; but the article does not seem to explain when the two separate terms, 'Macedonian Orthodox Church' and 'Ohrid Archbishopric' came together. The official page of the MPC [9] gives this name, 'Македонска Православна Црква - Охридска Архиепископија', but also just 'Македонска Православна Црква' ]http://www.mpc.org.mk/MPC/istorija.asp] on its own. Does an editor know when the two terms came together? Politis (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The church was just given a tomos of autocephaly

https://www.dw.com/mk/%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%82-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%98-%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%98%D0%B5-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8-%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%86-%D1%98%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BC%D0%BF%D1%86-%D0%BE%D0%B0/a-61913051 Should the article be updated now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.239.64 (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I have updated the article. It is expected that a tomos will be given at some point. Veverve (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Controversial

Please discuss signifigant changes here and try to reach consensus before making them, in order to avoid continuing an edit war here. Triona 07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph about Archbishop Jovan of Ohrid seems to have been added on to the "Relations with the SOC" section as POV. Unless some reliable references are provided to back up this very serious accusation, the paragraph ought to be taken out. "Also, a much greater impact for the decision of Jovan's arrest made his financial malversations, that is, his inappropriate usage of the church fund.[citation needed] In September 2005 he was also accused of embezzlement of church funds at the time when he still was MOC clergyman." --A.Molnar (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The added paragraph about Bulgarian Orthodox Church synod meeting and a resolution is not interpreted correctly. The BOC did not, in fact, declare itself as MOC's mother church, but the resolution is for the BOC to mediate and involve themselves more in the dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.8.191 (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent anon contrib

This was the recent contrib by an anon user, reverted:

The history of Christianity in Europe begins with Macedonia, as the first ever christian in Europe was Lidia of Macedonia that was christened by the Apostle Paul. However the first church organisation which was independent and covered the teritorry of Macedonia was created with the investiture of St. Clement of Ohrid for the first ever Slavic Bishop with deocese in the region of Ohrid (Kutmichevitsa) and the first Bishop, later Archibishop of the Ohrid Archibishophoric. During the following period up to the coronation of Samoil as Macedonian Emperor the Archibishophoric of Ohrid was enlarging its deocese and included at its peek Dubrovnik (todays Croatia), the whole of Zeta and Raska (todays Serbia and Montenegro), the deoceses of Albania, Sicily, Serdica (todays Sofia in Bulgaria) and the complete deocese of the ethnical Macedonian teritorry. It was during this period that the Archibishophoric of Ohrid was up-graded to Patriarhat.

Some century and a half later after the fall of the Empire of Samoil and his death, part of the deocese of the Macedonian church under the lead of St. Sava of the Serbs established the Pek Patriarhat, illegitimately, and with no recognition by the Ohrid Archibishop. This however, never lead to separation since during the rule of the Emperor Dushan of the Serbs who was crowned in Skopje, the capital of todays Macedonia, both churches co-existed harmoniously, when both archibishops participated in the ceremony of the coronation.

The fatal moment occures in 1762 when the Turkish Sultan adopted decree by the means of which the Ohrid Archipishophoric was abolished and the diocese was passed to the Patriarhate of Constantinopole. Latter in 20 century with the establishment of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, when the teritorry of Macedonia was included under the teritorry of the Serbs, as Southern Banovina, the antique diocese of the Ohrid Archibishophoric was bought for money from the Patriarhate of Constantinopole and therefore the Serbian Orthodox Church considers to be the mother church of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, which having regard the spreads of christianity and slavic literacy is the mother church of all the Slavic Orthodox Churches.

Now, I know it's full of PoVs, but I feel that we need some kind of similar info in the article. Even if MoC were formed in 1945, Orthodox Christianity in the area has a veery long history long time before that, and that history should be depicted in the article to provide an overview of historic conditions. Duja 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Info in second paragraph added is about Bulgarian church. But much of the things mentioned takes part in today's Macedonia terotory, so it should be mentioned, as rewritten. I would rewrite this info to POV, but I have fatal shortage of time. But if someone else doesn't beat me to this, I would probably do this.

Are you serious? Lydia of Macedonia IS NOT A MACEDONIAN SLAV!!! The slavs didint arrive until the sixth century. she could be a Roman for all we knowHeraklios 11:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Alot of this stuff is utter nonsense. Whether or not this is a political issue is irrelevant to the central questions about the legitimacy of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. By the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, which states [in part] "And for the future, all the (26) metropolitans of the three (civil) dioceses of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus are to be consecrated by the bishop of Constantinople--he is to be definitely their overlord. And likewise it is he who will consecrate the bishops of the churches among the barbarian peoples beyond the frontier."... Constantinople (new Rome)was the "overlord" over the region of today's Macedonia.

After the dissolution of the Ohrid Archbishopric, Constantinople entrusted the Serbian Orthodox Church dominion over the land of FYROM. Thus, Autocephaly could only be granted by the Serbian Orthodox Church. Failure to gain their permission, is de facto uncanonical.

Furthermore, this site should include a link the Nis agreement (copy here http://www.poa-info.org/cont.php?l=en&r=history&p=&d=schism/nisdok.html) which was signed by three promient Macedonian Bishops, (accepting autonomy under the Patriarch of Pec, Serbian Orthodox Church). From a Canonical perspective, this is a no-brainer and that is exactly why NO ORTHODOX CHURCH ON THE PLANET accepts the Macedonian Orthodox Church as Canonical.

In contrast, the newly formed Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric is the ONLY Canonically recognized Orthodox Church in Macedonia.

except the Nis agreement was eventually rejected by the bishops of Macedonia, except for Jovan. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonian_Orthodox_Church/Archive_2&oldid=1247241911"