Discussion:
The Romanian Orthodox Church Under Macedonia
(too old to reply)
++
2012-04-17 05:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Here is a video showing one of the many early books printed when the
Romanian Orthodox Church was under the Macedonian Orthodox Church.
The language is Romanian, printed in Macedonian Church Slavonic
letters.

One icon in the book, which seems like a liturgikon, is of the Life
GIving Font (Spring) which feast day is this coming Friday, and has
the date 1791 within the printed icon. It looks very much like an
icon I saw at Bigorski


SteN
2012-04-18 14:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ++
when the
.
The language is Romanian, printed in Macedonian Church Slavonic
letters.
And when precisely was "Romanian Orthodox Church under the Macedonian
Orthodox Church"

And no such thing like "Macedonian Church Slavonic letters"?
Lyngos
2012-04-19 22:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SteN
Post by ++
when the
.
The language is Romanian, printed in Macedonian Church Slavonic
letters.
And when precisely was "Romanian Orthodox Church under the Macedonian
Orthodox Church"
And no such thing like "Macedonian Church Slavonic letters"?
Somehow these news are nothing more than wishful thinking by cheap
propagandists.


L.
++
2012-04-29 23:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SteN
Post by ++
when the
.
The language is Romanian, printed in Macedonian Church Slavonic
letters.
And when precisely was "Romanian Orthodox Church under the Macedonian
Orthodox Church"
And no such thing like "Macedonian Church Slavonic letters"?
Hmm, good question. Both the Romanian and Serbian Patriarchates are
later inventions having at least something to do with european power
politics. It is amazing how cleverly backdated church politics have
become worldwide. Thankfully, in our era, various jurisdictions seem
to be comi8ng together in a positive way. Where there were once three
distinct Russians jurisdictions in the US, formed out of a whole cloth
that used to be called The Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in
America (which also included the Arabic speaking - Syrian, Egyptian,
Palestinian and Lebanese, Albanian, Bulgarian - Bulgaro-Macedonian - ,
the Romanian and Greek parishes, btw) this became in its Russian part
what was referred to in shorthand as the Metropolia (Orthodox Church
in America), the Zarubezhni (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Russia), ;and the Patriarchal ( Russian Orthodox Church, directed from
Moscow), the majority of the Arabic speaking joined an American
diaspora version of the Antiochian Patriarchate, the Greeks an
Archdiocese under the Patriarch of Constantinople in Istanbul who
newly took upon his titles not only Macedonia but the "new lands/
territories" which came to include, theoretically, anywhere else the
Patriarchate would like to be. Meanwhile, most of the Patriarchates
of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem have some functional
issues begun under Phanariot compromises of various kinds, including
the necessity to have the Patriarchs ok'd by the secular (these days
Islamic orJewish ) states. Pharariot takover of churches under
Ottoman control also had an impact on individual ability of churches
to continue to rule themselves.

While I have you on this issue, do you know the precise dates in which
the Exarchate was formed, the date at which the Bulgarian Patriarchate
was first attenpted and then rejected by the Patriarch of
Constantinople in Istanbul, and when the Bulgarian Patriarchate was
finally recognized by the Constantinopolitan? I find it amazing that
even in this ecumenical and brotherly Orthodox day, the Exarchate and
Patriarchate in Istanbul do not concelebrate services. Meanwhile, the
Turkish state views the Constantinople Patriarchate as pertaining only
to the Greeks in Turkey on contradiction of its ecumenical stance.
SteN
2012-05-05 12:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ++
While I have you on this issue, do you know the precise dates in which
the Exarchate was formed, the date at which the Bulgarian Patriarchate
was first attenpted and then rejected by the Patriarch of
Constantinople in Istanbul, and when the Bulgarian Patriarchate was
finally recognized by the Constantinopolitan? I find it amazing that
even in this ecumenical and brotherly Orthodox day, the Exarchate and
Patriarchate in Istanbul do not concelebrate services. Meanwhile, the
Turkish state views the Constantinople Patriarchate as pertaining only
to the Greeks in Turkey on contradiction of its ecumenical stance.
This is not amazing at all because the Bulgarian Exarchate was created
to serve a nationalist cause - the very same cause you are now serve
while pretending to follow Orthodox teachings.This is the heresy of
Phyletism. The founders of the Bulgarian Exarchate did not seek the
restoration of the Bulgarian patriarchate (first recognised in 927, then
restored in 1235) or the Ochrid Bulgarian Archbishopric (established in
1018). The supporters of the Exarchate sought the establishment of a new
national ecclesiastic organization - so this very attempt was branded as
"the heresy of Phyletism" at the council of 1872. Now, the nationalists
in FYRoM are repeating the same mistake: instead of trying to restore
the old Ochrid Archbishopric, they want a "national Church" based in
Skopje. The Skopje nationalists realise that a restored Ochrid
archbishopric would always point to the real history of that land and
the people living in it that - that these were Bulgarian once.
So, no "Macedonian "Slavic letters", no "Macedonian church" in the
period under discussion and no "Romanian church under Macedonia".
++
2012-05-06 01:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SteN
Post by ++
While I have you on this issue, do you know the precise dates in which
the Exarchate was formed, the date at which the Bulgarian Patriarchate
was first attenpted and then rejected by the Patriarch of
Constantinople in Istanbul, and when the Bulgarian Patriarchate was
finally recognized by the Constantinopolitan?  I find it amazing that
even in this ecumenical and brotherly Orthodox day, the Exarchate and
Patriarchate in Istanbul do not concelebrate services.  Meanwhile, the
Turkish state views the Constantinople Patriarchate as pertaining only
to the Greeks in Turkey on contradiction of its ecumenical stance.
This is not amazing at all because the Bulgarian Exarchate was created
to serve a nationalist cause - the very same cause you are now serve
while pretending to follow Orthodox teachings.This is the heresy of
Phyletism. The founders of the Bulgarian Exarchate did not seek the
restoration of the Bulgarian patriarchate (first recognised in 927, then
restored in 1235) or the Ochrid Bulgarian Archbishopric (established in
1018). The supporters of the Exarchate sought the establishment of a new
national ecclesiastic organization - so this very attempt was branded as
"the heresy of Phyletism" at the council of 1872.
Exarchate in Istanbul still exists, far as I know

Now, the nationalists
Post by SteN
in FYRoM are repeating the same mistake: instead of trying to restore
the old Ochrid Archbishopric, they want a "national Church" based in
Skopje. The Skopje nationalists realise that a restored Ochrid
archbishopric would always point to the real history of that land and
the people living in it that - that these were Bulgarian once.
So, no "Macedonian "Slavic letters", no "Macedonian church" in the
period under discussion and no "Romanian church under Macedonia".
well, I guess you earned your nationalist credentials for today.
Whether you start with Ohrid or Preslav or wherever, there was a real
huge serious gap or two in history in which there was no Patriarchate
of Bulgaria, especially as recognized by other sister Orthodox
churches.

Bulgarian point of view here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_the_Bulgarian_Orthodox_Church

And that's before we get to Serbian claims and the Pec Patriarchate
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Patriarch). Was Stefan Dushan
the first Serb to declare himself head of Macedonia, for example?)

Nationalism and Orthodoxy are a nasty mix. And who stole whose
bishop's crown in Ohrid and moved it to Sofia? I visited it in the
national museum. Kinda like stealing relics and expecting them to
gush myrrh?

Wasn't Letter Day invented in the late 19th century by phylatists, if
there is such a term?
SteN
2012-05-06 15:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ++
Post by SteN
Post by ++
While I have you on this issue, do you know the precise dates in which
the Exarchate was formed, the date at which the Bulgarian Patriarchate
was first attenpted and then rejected by the Patriarch of
Constantinople in Istanbul, and when the Bulgarian Patriarchate was
finally recognized by the Constantinopolitan? I find it amazing that
even in this ecumenical and brotherly Orthodox day, the Exarchate and
Patriarchate in Istanbul do not concelebrate services. Meanwhile, the
Turkish state views the Constantinople Patriarchate as pertaining only
to the Greeks in Turkey on contradiction of its ecumenical stance.
This is not amazing at all because the Bulgarian Exarchate was created
to serve a nationalist cause - the very same cause you now serve
while pretending to follow Orthodox teachings.This is the heresy of
Phyletism. The founders of the Bulgarian Exarchate did not seek the
restoration of the Bulgarian patriarchate (first recognised in 927, then
restored in 1235) or the Ochrid Bulgarian Archbishopric (established in
1018). The supporters of the Exarchate sought the establishment of a new
national ecclesiastic organization - so this very attempt was branded as
"the heresy of Phyletism" at the council of 1872.
Exarchate in Istanbul still exists, far as I know
And what - how is this related to the discussion.
Post by ++
Now, the nationalists
Post by SteN
in FYRoM are repeating the same mistake: instead of trying to restore
the old Ochrid Archbishopric, they want a "national Church" based in
Skopje. The Skopje nationalists realise that a restored Ochrid
archbishopric would always point to the real history of that land and
the people living there - that these were Bulgarian once.
So, no "Macedonian "Slavic letters", no "Macedonian church" in the
period under discussion and no "Romanian church under Macedonia".
well, I guess you earned your nationalist credentials for today.
Whether you start with Ohrid or Preslav or wherever, there was a real
huge serious gap or two in history in which there was no Patriarchate
of Bulgaria, especially as recognized by other sister Orthodox
churches.
No nationalist claims whatsoever.
The serious gap is only one - the period after the Ochrid Archbishopric
was abolished by the Ottomans in the 17th c.
From Constantinople IV onwards until then there has always been
authocephalous Bulgarian church.
Post by ++
Bulgarian point of view here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_the_Bulgarian_Orthodox_Church
This is not the "Bulgarian point of view". This is the history of the
Church.
Post by ++
And that's before we get to Serbian claims and the Pec Patriarchate
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Patriarch). Was Stefan Dushan
the first Serb to declare himself head of Macedonia, for example?)
Nationalism and Orthodoxy are a nasty mix. And who stole whose
bishop's crown in Ohrid and moved it to Sofia? I visited it in the
national museum. Kinda like stealing relics and expecting them to
gush myrrh?
Do not act more stupid than you actually are.
Did Constantine's mother St Helen steal the Holy cross from Jerusalem?
Then the "relics" in question are related to the Bulgarian Church,
nothing to do with "Macedonian" whatsoever.
Post by ++
Wasn't Letter Day invented in the late 19th century by phylatists, if
there is such a term?
Huh?
Istor the Macedonian
2012-06-15 10:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 30 Απρ, 02:26, "++" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
...........................
Hmm, good question.  Both the Romanian and Serbian Patriarchates are
later inventions having at least something to do with european power
politics. ...................
Oh yes.
"ArchiBshopric of Ohrid, Prima Justiana and ALL Bulgarians" was
earlier one !!

Loading...