Macedonian Church Dispute in Australia

[aleksandrov]

Екслузивно интервју на Митрополитот Преспанско -пелагониски и администратор австралиско-новозеландски Г-дин Петар

Законот се однесува само на оние имоти кои се епархиски и кои моментно гласат на мое име, на Отец Јовица Симоновски, на Отец Тоне Гулев. Ние имаме поднесено изјава, декларација пред адвокати , дека тој имот не е наш туку со одлука на епархиски Управен одбор е купен за овие цели за црквата и кога ќе се донесе овој Закон за старател на црквата, ние го предаваме, значи не станува збор за наш личен имот туку за имот кој е на МПЦ. На оние луѓе кои прават пропаганди ќе им пропаднат пропагандите ако овој Закон се донесе бидејќи не ќе можат да им велат на луѓето дека имаме цркви на наш имот. Со ова нема да стојат имотите на наше име туку името на старателот е МПЦ. И после нас, старател ќе биде МПЦ. Откако ќе се расчистат сите овие работи и кога не секој да се претставува како МПЦ и кога ќе престанат пропагандите, ние ќе обрнеме внимание повќе на отворање на старски домови,детски градинки, и други објекти за згрижување на лица – зависници од дрога, од алкохол и за тие посебно ќе се грижиме.

Нашата цел е да се создаде еднаш засекогаш старател на имотот на македонската црква во Австралија по примерот на првите верници во црквата како што бил случајот со верниците запишани во делата на светите апостоли .Овие регистрации за кои станува збор, овој Закон за старател значи регистрација на МПЦ. Ако МПЦ не биде регистрирана со свој имот не може ни да постои како правно лице.

http://www.radioilinden.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=164:2010-08-15-09-40-46&catid=37:zaednica&Itemid=57

Could you please give your comment on this Aleksandrov?

Already have, Bratot. It's another act of deception by Petar to get people to support something that has little if anything to do with what they think they are supporting. Just check the link to the Bill and the submissions regarding the Bill, which I posted above.

I will post my own submission here soon, but I am not sure how, as it is about 33 pages long.

[indigen]

Already have, Bratot. It's another act of deception by Petar to get people to support something that has little if anything to do with what they think they are supporting. Just check the link to the Bill and the submissions regarding the Bill, which I posted above.

I will post my own submission here soon, but I am not sure how, as it is about 33 pages long.

If I may suggest, either post all of the document on a separate thread and, with the approval of MTO Admins, have it locked and made a sticky and then link to it here or send it to RTG/SOM and have one of them do the same. Another option would be to use a document hosting service such as Google, which Chris Stefou (aka Risto Stefov) uses for his "Macedonian Digest" monthly and post a link to it.

[aleksandrov]

I will not be able to post a copy of my submission to the NSW Parliament's Inquiry into the Macedonian Orthodox Church Property Trust Bill 2010 until the Standing Committee has had time to consider it. However, I will start post aspects of our objections to the Bill.

The Bill represents an attack on the founding principles by which Macedonian Orthodox communities in Australia have been established, and have operated and accumulated assets since 1956. Those principles include freedom of religion, freedom of association, democratic, independent, and accountable self-government in the interest of the local Australian Macedonian Orthodox community, respect for general Australian law governing the registration and operation of non-profit and charitable organisations, and the right to preserve and promulgate the Macedonian ethnic heritage free of the repressive assimilation that Macedonians have been subjected to by state and church regimes in different parts of the Macedonian homeland for centuries.

Historical structure and political context of the Macedonian Orthodox Church

1.1 The Bill is based on a misguided presumption that the Macedonian Orthodox Church is historically hierarchical in its management and control of property.

1.2 The Macedonian Orthodox churches in Australia, America and Canada, as well as the modern Macedonian Orthodox Church in the Republic of Macedonia, were established as self-governing, legally decentralized institutions by a grass-roots movement of the Macedonian Orthodox people. Their establishment was led by the Macedonian national independence movement, with the objective of freeing the Macedonian people from oppressive state and church regimes. The clerics who provided spiritual leadership in the establishment of self-governing Macedonian Orthodox churches did so in defiance of the clerical hierarchies by which they were ordained and under which they served until they broke away.

1.3 Prior to 1913, the Macedonian homeland was under the religiously and politically oppressive rule of the Ottoman Empire for five centuries. In the course of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire, under international pressure, allowed the national Orthodox churches of neighbouring Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia to operate in various parts of Macedonia. The desire of indigenous Macedonians to have their own Macedonian Orthodox Church was not respected. Macedonians, most of whom were historically Orthodox Christians, could only choose between the Serbian, Greek or Bulgarian Orthodox church. The clerical hierarchies of these churches used their resources and influence to indoctrinate and assimilate the Macedonian people into the new Serbian, Greek or Bulgarian and national identities, as defined by their nation-states.

1.4 In the Balkan Wars of 1912/13, Macedonia was occupied and divided by Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria. All of these states denied the Macedonian people the right to self-determination and the right to preserve and promulgate their autochthonous Macedonian identity, culture, language and historical heritage. Serbia insisted that the Macedonian people are Serbs. Greece insisted that the Macedonians are Greeks. Bulgaria insisted that the Macedonians are Bulgarians. The national Orthodox Church of each of these states used its religious influence to promote these politically, culturally and ethnically oppressive policies.

1.5 The “Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archdiocese” (MOC-OA) operates only in the part of Macedonia that was under Serbian rule between the Balkan Wars and WWII, and subsequently achieved the status of a federal Republic in the Yugoslav Federation of nations, before declaring independence in 1991. Macedonians currently living within the borders of neighbouring Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania are not offered the opportunity to establish their own Macedonian Orthodox churches. They continue to be subjected to systematic national assimilation by the Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian Orthodox churches. The hierarchy of the MOC-OA is doing very little, if anything, to support them in achieving respect for their basic human rights. This is a key point of distinction between the MOC-OA in Macedonia and Macedonian Orthodox communities abroad, which are made up of Macedonian migrants from all parts of Macedonia.

1.6 The process of the establishment of the modern Macedonian Orthodox Church has been traced to a resolution by the Supreme Headquarters of the Macedonian People’s Liberation Army and Partisan Divisions to appoint father Veljo Manchevski (a rebel priest originally ordained by the Serbian Orthodox Church) as its Religious Head, dated 15 October 1943.

1.7 The earliest recorded meetings of a Holy Synod and Church-people’s Assembly of the Macedonian Orthodox Church occurred on 17-19 July 1943, without the presence or blessing of any bishop.

1.8 The first Macedonian Church-people’s Assembly acknowledged in the preamble to the current Constitution of the MOC-OA, held on 4 March 1945, was also held without the presence or blessing of any bishop. Among the resolutions of that Assembly were the following:

“1. That the (medieval) Ohrid Archdiocese be renewed as a Macedonian independent church that will not be subservient to any other Church;
2. That it shall have its own national bishops and its own national clergy as a guarantee of the preservation of its distinct national characteristics.”

1.9 A subsequent Assembly of Macedonian Priests, held in May 1946, resolved:

“1. That the Church in the People’s Republic of Macedonia have national bishops, national clergy and self-government in the resolution of all internal church-people’s matters.
2. That bishops be elected by the people and the priests.”

1.10The Macedonian Orthodox Church in the Republic of Macedonia operated without any bishops and without recognition by any other Orthodox Church hierarchy from at least 1943 to 1958. During that time, its legitimacy as an Orthodox Church was disputed by the hierarchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church within Yugoslavia, as well as by other Orthodox Church hierarchies.

1.11 On 4-6 October 1958, a Macedonian Church-people’s Assembly held in Ohrid Macedonia adopted a Constitution for the establishment of an autonomous Macedonian Orthodox Church, which would be in canonical unity with the Serbian Orthodox Church, and have bishops approved by the Serbian Orthodox Patriarch. On 17 July 1967, an Archiepiscopal Church-people’s Assembly of the Macedonian Orthodox Church declared autocephaly, that is, complete independence from the Serbian Orthodox Church.

1.12 Article 4 of the foundational constitution of the Macedonian Orthodox Church makes it clear that it was conceived as a decentralised affiliation of various legal entities, each of which was to be independent in the legal ownership and control of its property:

“The Macedonian Orthodox Church consists of the following legal persons:

1. Macedonian Orthodox Church;
2. The Metropolitan residency;
3. The Dioceses;
4. The bishops’ regencies;
5. The church communities;
6. The monasteries;
7. Charitable foundations;
8. The independent institutions and funds, legacies and individual parishes, according to their properties;
These legal persons are entitled, in accordance with the existing state laws, to accumulate and hold real property and any other property, to use and manage it, and to exercise all rights and obligations arising from its ownership.”

1.13 The definition of local church communities as separate legal persons remains a part of the Constitution of the MOC-OA to this day. However, Article 172 of the current version of the Constitution, which was passed in 1994, ambiguously attempts to subvert the right of individual church communities to independently determine how they will use their properties, by providing that they accumulate their properties “for the Church” and manage them “in accordance with this Constitution and church regulations, which are passed on the basis of this Constitution.” This provision was introduced in Macedonia without the free and democratic consent of the members of individual Macedonian Orthodox church communities in Australia, America, Canada and Western Europe. Most of those communities continue to rely on the democratic constitutions and legislation and regulations by which they are incorporated in their new homelands.

1.14 The establishment of a self-governing Macedonian Orthodox Church in Australia dates back to 1956, that is even before the official declaration of an autonomous Macedonian Orthodox Church in 1958, when the Macedonian Orthodox Community of Melbourne and Victoria democratically elected its first church committee and bought the property on which it built the church of St. George. A majority of the members and leaders of that Community were and still are Macedonians originating from the part of Macedonia under Greek state rule. There was no Macedonian Episcopal hierarchy operating in any part of the Macedonian homeland in 1956. The only Episcopal hierarchies operating in parts of Macedonia were the Greek Orthodox Church (in the parts of Macedonia under Greek and Albanian state rule), and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (in the part of Macedonia under Bulgarian state rule). Both of those Church hierarchies, along with the Serbian and other non-Macedonian Orthodox Church hierarchies, had branches in Australia. A key motivation of the Macedonian Orthodox Community of Melbourne and Victoria was not to be under their jurisdiction and to remain legally independent.

1.15 Article 75 of the Community’s foundational constitution provided that “The Community shall from time to time employ a priest who shall perform all such religious rites, ceremonies and duties as are ordinarily performed by priests of the Eastern Orthodox Church.” There was no reference at all in the constitution to any specific Orthodox Church’s hierarchy.

1.16 When an administratively autonomous Macedonian Orthodox Church was subsequently established in the Republic of Macedonia, under the canonical jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarch, in 1958, its bishops accepted the St. George church as the first Macedonian Orthodox parish outside of Macedonia. However, the Macedonian Orthodox Community of Melbourne and Victoria, with its parish, retained its self-governing status. It did not make any amendments to its constitution that would legally bind it to the autonomous Macedonian Orthodox Church in the Macedonian Republic.

1.17 The foundation stone for the St. George church was laid on 2nd August 1959, blessed by a priest of the Syrian Orthodox Church, father George Haydar. The church was consecrated on 1st August 1960, by a bishop and priest from Macedonia. Its first parish priest was also from Macedonia, but it never accepted the jurisdiction of the Serbian Patriarch, even though the Church in Macedonia was under his canonical jurisdiction until 1967.

1.18 All other Macedonian Orthodox communities and churches established in Australia prior to bishop Petar’s arrival in 1996 followed the independent self-governing model of the Macedonian Orthodox Community of Melbourne of Victoria, with respect to property ownership and control. Hoewever, some of them, like the Macedonian Orthodox Church Community “St. Petka” Inc and Macedonian Orthodox Church Community “St. Nikola” in Preston Victoria adopted constitutions that put them under the canonical jurisdiction of the Macedonian Orthodox Church in Macedonia for what the founders thought would be only spiritual, rather than material purposes. Communities that accepted such provisions, without an understanding of the potential implications under trust law, ultimately became the targets of extremely costly and complex legal proceedings by bishop Petar, in his attempt to put their properties under the absolute and unaccountable control of himself or his appointees.

1.19 In 1996, having been freshly appointed by the Synod of the MOC-OA in the Republic of Macedonia to head its Australian Diocese, bishop Petar tried and failed to persuade existing Macedonian Orthodox communities in Australia to accept a new Diocesan Statute and By-Laws that would give him absolute and unchecked control over their funds, assets and appointment of office-bearers and delegates to his Diocesan Assembly. He then resorted to legal action, which led to claims of property having been held on trust for the MOC-OA that were previously unheard of.

1.20 The founders of the St. Nikola Community in Preston Victoria were the first to be sued. They promptly lost the proceedings due to inability to afford effective legal representation. They lost much of their own property, including homes, on legal costs. That is what they remember as the bishop’s and the MOC-OA’s show of appreciation for their countless voluntary hours in the establishment of the St. Nikola church.

1.20 The court victory against the St. Nikola Community emboldened the bishop to sue the MOCC St. Petka Inc in Rockdale NSW. Those proceedings have been on foot for 14 years now and the Community is severely struggling to afford effective legal representation. Bishop Petar’s source of funds for his legal expenses in the ongoing proceedings remains undisclosed.


Contemporary political hostility surrounding the Macedonian Orthodox Church

2.1 The Serbian Orthodox Church disputes the autocephalous status of the Macedonian Orthodox Church on the basis that it broke away without approval from the Serbian Patriarchy and that it is a non-canonical, ‘communist’ creation. The hierarchy of the Serbian Church has also maintained the hostile nationalist position that the Macedonian people are historically Serbs. Other Orthodox Church hierarchies have either actively supported or otherwise appeased the position taken by the Serbian Orthodox Church. Orthodox Macedonians worldwide find this position to be a violation of their right to freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom to preserve and promulgate their distinct ethnic, cultural and linguistic heritage and identity.

2.2 Bishop Petar is one of several modern bishops in Macedonia who have a history of supporting the Serbian position on the independence of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. On 7 May 2002, he led a delegation of three Macedonian bishops who signed an agreement with the Serbian Orthodox Church to the effect that the “Church in Macedonia” would relinquish its Macedonian national identity, adopt the name Ohrid Archdiocese and come under jurisdiction of the Serbian Patriarch. Numerous sources suggest that a majority of bishops in the Holy Synod of the MOC were prepared to ratify that agreement, but backed off due to vehement opposition by bishop Kiril, bishop Agatangel, some lower ranking clerics, and overwhelming public revolt and political pressure within the Republic of Macedonia. Given the political volatility in the Republic of Macedonia, this position could easily change, against the will of Macedonian Orthodox Australians.

2.3 Despite the positions taken by bishop Petar and other Orthodox Church hierarchies, most Orthodox Macedonians are proud of the self-determination and the commitment to democratic, decentralised and transparent self-government that led to the establishment of independent Macedonian Orthodox churches in the Republic of Macedonia and Australia, as well as in America, Canada and Western Europe.

[Risto the Great]

It must be disappointing to recant such detailed and thoughtful information only to be met with stupid and thoughtless replies based on innuendo, misinformation and hearsay.

I fear we will never see an equally intelligent reply.

It should be said that the Macedonian Orthodox Church has never tried to be a church for its Macedonians in Greece or Bulgaria. In which case, it has never tried to be a church for Macedonians outside of the Republic of Macedonia ...... except for instances where there is property up for grabs.

[aleksandrov]

... It should be said that the Macedonian Orthodox Church has never tried to be a church for its Macedonians in Greece or Bulgaria. In which case, it has never tried to be a church for Macedonians outside of the Republic of Macedonia ...... except for instances where there is property up for grabs.

Did you notice point 1.5 in my previous post?

[Risto the Great]

Absolutely.

1.5 The “Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archdiocese” (MOC-OA) operates only in the part of Macedonia that was under Serbian rule between the Balkan Wars and WWII, and subsequently achieved the status of a federal Republic in the Yugoslav Federation of nations, before declaring independence in 1991. Macedonians currently living within the borders of neighbouring Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania are not offered the opportunity to establish their own Macedonian Orthodox churches. They continue to be subjected to systematic national assimilation by the Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian Orthodox churches. The hierarchy of the MOC-OA is doing very little, if anything, to support them in achieving respect for their basic human rights. This is a key point of distinction between the MOC-OA in Macedonia and Macedonian Orthodox communities abroad, which are made up of Macedonian migrants from all parts of Macedonia.

The MOC has had many years to prove it is the church for ALL Macedonians. I am not sure this is the case.

[aleksandrov]

Lack of accountability and potential for abuse of power

3.1 If passed, the Macedonian Orthodox Church Property Trust Bill 2010 (NSW) will give absolute, unfettered, non-transparent and unaccountable control over Macedonian Orthodox churches and related properties in Australia to bishop Petar. It will thereby disenfranchise thousands of Macedonian Orthodox Australians who have contributed to the accumulation of those properties on the premise that they would be used for their communities’ benefit and in accordance with well-established democratic processes and financial checks and balances.

3.2 The explicit purpose of the Bill is to vest all rights over Macedonian Orthodox churches and related properties in Australia to a new corporation. According to Clause 5, that corporation will consist of the “Metropolitan” (the bishop), seven persons who will be directly appointed by the bishop, and three office-bearers of his Diocese, who by virtue of the practical operation of the Diocesan Statute are also selected by the bishop. The effect of this is that all of the powers of the new corporation will be ultimately vested in the bishop. This type of legal ownership and despotic power and control over Macedonian Orthodox churches and related properties is without precedent even in the Republic of Macedonia or any other country with active Macedonian Orthodox communities and churches.

3.3 No democratically governed Macedonian Orthodox community organisation in Australia supports the establishment of despotic power over church and related properties envisaged by this Bill. To the extent that Parliament has received supportive submissions purporting to represent relevant organisations of the Australian Macedonian Orthodox community, it should examine the validity of such representations most rigorously. Bishop Petar and his priests have a history of coercing individuals to make representations that conflict with the policies of the board and membership of the organisation they purportedly represent, without substantive understanding of what they are signing. Examples of such acts of coercion include threats of excommunication from the Orthodox Church (not just the Diocese or MOC-OA, but from the Orthodox Church in general), the laying of anathema, threats that dissent will result in being stigmatized as a traitor and a heretic by the MOC-OA and the Macedonian state, superstitious claims that refusal to submit to the bishop’s material dictates is an act of hostility towards the Church which will incur the wrath of God and a fatal curse on one’s family, and, in the case of priests, threats of suspension, defrocking, excommunication or relocation to a less ‘lucrative’ parish. Bishop Petar’’s supporters have also used physical attacks, intimidation and threats of violence to coerce people into submitting to his demands contrary to their free will and conscience.

3.4 We dispute the Reverend Fred Nile's claim in his Second Reading Speech that “the bill follows the governance of the church in relation to matters regarding the assets of the church but causes the utilization of property assets by the church to be subject to civil and canonical accountability required by its statute.”

3.5 It is misleading to say that the Bill will establish a “statutory body, the constitution of which cannot be changed except by an Act of Parliament.” The Bill relies on the Diocesan Statute for constitutional provisions concerning civil and canonical accountability. But there is no provision in the Bill requiring an Act of Parliament to effect changes to the Diocesan Statute i.e. constitution. We question whether Members of the NSW Parliament, including Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, have ever analysed the Diocesan Statute, or the Constitution of the MOC-OA to which the operation of the Diocesan Statute is allegedly subject, let alone considered the extent to which bishop Petar respects and implements them.

3.6 The Diocesan Statute applied by bishop Petar provides no effective mechanism for delegates who purportedly represent local Macedonian Orthodox community churches in the Diocesan Assembly to hold the bishop accountable in relation to appropriation of Diocesan assets and funds.

3.7 The Diocesan Statute effectively gives the bishop absolute and unfettered personal control over all matters concerning the Diocese and churches and church communities within the Diocese.

3.8 Bishop Petar has persistently evaded providing proper financial reports or inspection of records of receipt and appropriation of contributions that he has demanded from local Macedonian Orthodox churches and communities in the name of the Diocese. At a Diocesan Assembly held in Wollongong in 1997, chaired by bishop Petar, a representative of his Diocesan Ruling Committee provided a vague oral summary of income and expenditure. A delegate of the Macedonian Orthodox Church Community St. Petka Inc, Igor Avramovski, proposed that the Ruling Committee provide a written financial report resembling the itemized form used by the certified accountants of each of the incorporated Macedonian Orthodox communities that were members of the Diocese at that time. The bishop replied that he would not disclose “church secrets” and that the proposer could not be a delegate of the MOCC St. Petka Inc because he was not a member of its Executive, even though his vote as a delegate had already been counted for several preceding resolutions proposed by the bishop. There was no provision in the Diocesan Statute or St. Petka’s constitution suggesting that only an Executive member of St. Petka could be its delegate to the Diocesan Assembly.

3.9 Bishop Petar has persistently refused to disclose his source of funding for the legal expenses in his Supreme Court and High Court proceedings against the Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St. Petka Inc. He claims that he has not used any money of his Australian Diocese, but has failed to provide Diocesan members with financial reports and access to other financial records to verify that claim. The writer of this submission has been directly informed by at least four current bishops of the MOC-OA that bishop Petar has not revealed the source of his funds for the litigation to the Holy Synod of the MOC-OA.

3.10 Between 1996 and 2004, bishop Petar, in the name of his Diocese, vehemently insisted that the Constitution of the Macedonian Orthodox Church and Orthodox canons prohibit a company or association from holding church property, being a church or operating a church. Since then, he has made such claims intermittently and opportunistically. If these claims were true, it would be non-canonical and unconstitutional for the corporation envisaged by the Bill to hold church property. If they were false, which we submit they were, they indicate that bishop Petar and his unincorporated Diocese lack the competence or integrity that should be necessary for Parliament to grant them anything resembling the despotic trustee powers over church property envisaged by the Bill.

3.11 Contrary to bishop Petar’s claims that it is unconstitutional and non-canonical for local church communities to be incorporated as non-profit associations or companies, bishop Timotey, who headed the Australian Diocese between 1981 and 1993, has publicly acknowledged that there is nothing improper about Macedonian Orthodox Church properties in Australia being legally owned by incorporated non-profit communities. He has also publicly stated that the most secure way to register Macedonian churches and church communities, which best protects their interests, is under Company Law. Bishop Petar’s response to this is that bishop Timotey is should not undermine him by mixing in his affairs and stirring people up.

3.12 In recent days, bishop Petar has publicly accused bishop Timotey of hostile interference in his Diocese, and demanded that he be sanctioned for it by the Synod. The basis for this charge was bishop Timotey’s letter of congratulations to the Macedonian Orthodox Community of Victoria, for the 50 Years Anniversary since its church of St. George was consecrated. This demonstrates the fact that, as far as bishop Petar is concerned, he is a law unto himself within the Australia Diocese, and is not required to justify his personal declarations of church law by reference to the Macedonian Orthodox Constitution or other Church canons.

3.13 A resolution by the Diocesan Assembly dated 24/9/2004, and proposed by Bishop Petar, made the following offer to three of the fourteen Macedonian Orthodox communities that were until that time rejected as “non-churches” by the bishop on the basis that an incorporated association or company could not be a church or hold church property:

“…to join the Macedonian Orthodox Church Diocese of Australia and New Zealand, if they accept the Holy canons, the Constitution of the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Statute of the Diocese, as basic church law acts, according to which all Macedonian Orthodox Church Communities, Churches, Parishes and Monasteries in the MOC, and the Diocese of Australia and New Zealand, which have accepted and recognize the canonical jurisdiction of the MOC, are governed.
Also, the abovementioned Macedonian Orthodox Church Communities are obliged to abolish the registration of the so-called Macedonian Orthodox Church of Australia Inc.
The above-mentioned Macedonian Orthodox Church Communities, which separated and excommunicated themselves from the MOC Diocese of Australia and New Zealand, only to avoid transferring their churches and church properties to the MOC, may continue in future to hold the churches with their properties as company property, and to still be in unity with the MOC, but in that case, their elected members (parishioners) will not be able to vote and to be elected (and to participate) in the bodies and organs of the Macedonian Orthodox Church Diocese of Australia and New Zealand, as well as in the Archiepiscopal Management Committee and the Archiepiscopal Church-people’s Assembly, up until such time as they pass a resolution that they accept the Macedonian Orthodox Church Property Trust Bill [1998].
Apart from the abovementioned, they are obliged to fulfil their financial obligations to the Macedonian Orthodox Church Diocese of Australia and New Zealand for the period up to their separation from the MOC, as well as to withdraw their legal [defamation] proceedings against the Diocesan Ruling Committee.”

This resolution demonstrates the propensity of bishop Petar to abuse his power in the Diocese for blatant blackmail. It also demonstrates that the bishop and his Diocese interpret and apply constitutional provisions arbitrarily, and engage in deceiving people about the existence and effect of canon and state laws, for materialistic purposes. The alleged church law prohibiting companies or associations from holding church property or operating as churches were suddenly forgotten in an alternative pursuit of material benefit. An apparent concession allowing incorporated associations and non-profit companies to retain their legal status and property interests was deceptively used to bait them into expressing support for a Bill that would vest their properties in a new statutory corporation controlled by the bishop (as per the provisions of the Macedonian Orthodox Church Property Trust Bill 1998).

3.14 In late 1997, bishop Petar made an unsubstantiated demand that the Macedonian Orthodox Community of Sydney Ltd. (MOCS) pay a sum of money for purportedly outstanding levies to the Diocese. When MOCS questioned the basis for his claim and asked him to account for advance payment of levies it had made to the Diocese, he retaliated with a fresh demand that MOCS must deregister itself as a (non-profit) company (limited by guarantee) because a company or association could not be a church or hold church property. MOCS then pointed out that it has been incorporated as a company limited by guarantee since 1971 and has since built and operated two churches that were consecrated by prior bishops of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. It also pointed out that most of the Macedonian Orthodox communities comprising his Diocese are incorporated associations and companies limited by guarantee. The bishop then attempted to blackmail MOCS into submission by ordering his priests to stop conducting certain liturgies in its churches. This eventually forced MOCS to sponsor new priests from Macedonia, who were willing to serve its churches despite the bishop’s unjustified bans. In retaliation, he declared the new priests suspended and then defrocked, without any fair process.

3.15 Allegations against bishop Petar of abuse of power, misappropriation of funds, with disregard for state law and the Constitution of the MOC, the Holy Canons, and other governing authorities in the MOC are recorded in an Indictment against him by the late Archbishop Gavril, dated 9 June 1990, which led to a decision by the Synod to defrock him, dated 14 June 1990, and signed by Archbishop Gavril.

3.16 Bishop Petar defied the defrocking decision and retaliated with a public rally in his Bitola Diocese, at which he and his supporters made grievous accusations of impropriety and immorality against bishop Kiril, the then Archbishop Garvril, the previous Archbishop Angelarij, and bishop Mihail, who later succeeded Gavril to the Archbishop’s throne. In 1991, speeches from the rally were published by bishop Petar’s Bitola Diocese, in a Macedonian language book entitled “Voice of the Truth – Conditions in the Macedonian Orthodox Church.” In the book, bishop Petar accuses Archbishop Gavril and bishop Kiril of falsely doctoring the Indictment and the decision to defrock him. He accuses Archbishop Gavril of having signed the decision on behalf of the Synod without the majority of Synod members having seen it. He accuses bishop Kiril of leading an immoral life, of being a hypocritical politician, “and anything else but a bishop”, of purporting to be a bishop contrary to the Holy Canons, and of being secretly married to his own brother’s wife while purporting to be celibate. He accuses the late bishop Mihail (previously known as priest Metodila Gogov and later enthroned as Archbishop) of having become a bishop through abuse of the Holy Canons and the constitution to gain a majority vote on the Synod. He makes the superstitious claim that this sin was paid for with the death of bishop Mihail’s former wife and the death of another bishop, Gavril-Svetogorec (presumably because he too committed some sin involving the appointment of father Gogov as bishop). An article by Zoran Vraniskovski (who was subsequently promoted by Petar to bishop of the MOC and has since broken away to become a Serbian bishop) says: “Perhaps our sister churches are right to some degree in claiming that our Church is a communist one.”

3.17 After the publication of bishop Petar’s outrageous book of speeches from his rally, the Synod allowed him, and later Zoran Vraniskovski (as bishop Jovan), to carry on as bishops as if the signed decision to defrock him and the retaliatory rally and book never happened. He proceeded to sit on the same Synod with bishops Kiril and Mihail (who later became his Archbishop), and Archbishop Gavril, without ever substantiating, rescinding or apologising for his extreme accusations against them, which, if true, would make them illegitimate bishops.

3.18 Following the election of the current Archbishop, Stefan, on 9-10 October 1999, bishop Petar, along with bishop Jovan (Zoran Vraniskovski), publicly declared the election invalid and the new Archbishop illegitimate. The allegation has never been tested by the Archiepiscopal Church Court, but has never been rescinded by bishop Petar either. Yet bishop Petar continues to serve under Archbishop Stefan. Prior to being elected Archbishop, Stefan gave an undertaking to a delegation of the AMCA, including the author of this submission, to put an end to bishop Petar’s legal proceedings and hostile accusations against our communities on behalf of the Synod. Following his election, Bishop Stefan has avoided all contact with our Association.

3.19 In 2006, a delegation of the AMCA, accompanied by Peter Breen, who was then a Member of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of NSW, was in Macedonia seeking a meeting with Archbishop Stefan, to discuss grievances against bishop Petar. While communications with the Archbishop’s office to arrange a meeting were ongoing, bishop Petar appeared on television calling for the state to lay criminal charges against Archbishop Stefan, in relation to alleged misappropriation of property belonging to the MOC. The delegation was subsequently informed by the Archbishop’s Secretary that in order to meet with the Archbishop it must request permission from bishop Petar. Written and oral requests to bishop Petar for permission to meet the Archbishop, in his presence, were met with a reply that the delegation could only meet the Archbishop if it first reached a deal with bishop Petar regarding property ownership and constitutional status of communities affiliated to the AMCA. Since that time, numerous written requests by the AMCA to meet with the Archbishop or Synod of the MOC-OA, for the purpose of negotiating a resolution to the schism in Australia through dialogue, have remained unanswered. Perhaps coincidentally, bishop Petar has not repeated or rescinded his public calls for criminal charges against the Archbishop.

[Phoenix]

Maknews To Settle Oz Church Dispute

Maknews said...

We're also more unified than the Macedonians in Australia and we would very much like to support the Australian Diaspora in helping it come together, in resolving its church dispute and in helping to have the Australian government respect the Republic of Macedonia's constitutional name. Just give us a chance.

http://www.maknews.com/forum/post273088.html#p273088

[Vangelovski]

Maknews said...

We're also more unified than the Macedonians in Australia and we would very much like to support the Australian Diaspora in helping it come together, in resolving its church dispute and in helping to have the Australian government respect the Republic of Macedonia's constitutional name. Just give us a chance.

http://www.maknews.com/forum/post273088.html#p273088

Maybe he can work out his own contradictions first... clarify in his own mind what he actually stands for.

[Bratot]

"Give us a chance to let you down"

UMD needs to clean their own yard after the blammage with MPO and their pro-american serville attitude.

It would be wise for them not to sell brain to others in respect to the national ideology and their firm as diarrhea position on the 'name issue'.
I already gave my opinion in regard to their late change of position but as always such questions "does not deserve an answer" in the familiar SDSM style, that's why I suggest they keep their advises to themselfs and to stop their censorship on their forum.

You can't monopolize the organizations of Macedonian diaspora everywhere and you are incapable egoists who doesn't give a fuck for the Macedonian matters.

[Phoenix]

"Give us a chance to let you down"

UMD needs to clean their own yard after the blammage with MPO and their pro-american serville attitude.

It would be wise for them not to sell brain to others in respect to the national ideology and their firm as diarrhea position on the 'name issue'.
I already gave my opinion in regard to their late change of position but as always such questions "does not deserve an answer" in the familiar SDSM style, that's why I suggest they keep their advises to themselfs and to stop their censorship on their forum.

You can't monopolize the organizations of Macedonian diaspora everywhere and you are incapable egoists who doesn't give a fuck for the Macedonian matters.

Bratot, I think Lubi Maknews represents a very arrogant view of some North Americans and their 'importance' and influence...fancy suggesting that the australian Macedonian community is in need of North American help in addressing local issues, fancy portraying the Australian Macedonian community as some sort of dysfunctional rabble...
That guy has some serious mental issues, the sort of delusional grandeur that was once the sole domain of our very sick 'greek' friends...

[Prolet]

Phoenix, Maknews has lived in Australia for 10 years, his sister was born here. He's lived in Wollongong,Melbourne and Geelong. Surly he knows something about our people here.

He likes Australia alot, he just doesnt understand why people from here dont like the UMD.

[Bill77]

He likes Australia alot, he just doesnt understand why people from here dont like the UMD.

Thats because he doesn't want to understand or give common sense a chance. So he has a problem, inajetchia.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, Maknews has lived in Australia for 10 years, his sister was born here. He's lived in Wollongong,Melbourne and Geelong. Surly he knows something about our people here.

He likes Australia alot, he just doesnt understand why people from here dont like the UMD.

Lets put aside Maknews' relationship with the UMD just for a moment...and focus on what Maknews has said...

Do you agree with Maknews that the Australian Macedonian community is "divided" and that North Americans can help us overcome our issues surrounding the Church 'dispute'...?

I know first hand what Maknews thinks of the Australian Macedonian community, you've obviously forgotten...

Maknews has constantly and consistently belittled the Australian Macedonian community, something that has been more than obvious to most people except you.

[aleksandrov]

Maknews said...

We're also more unified than the Macedonians in Australia and we would very much like to support the Australian Diaspora in helping it come together, in resolving its church dispute and in helping to have the Australian government respect the Republic of Macedonia's constitutional name. Just give us a chance.

http://www.maknews.com/forum/post273088.html#p273088

The easiest way for us to settle the so-called "Church dispute" would be to become obedient lapdogs to anybody holding official power in the hierarchy of the MOC-OA or the Macedonian state, no matter how much that power is abused. But the Macedonian community in Australia has always offered the strongest resistance to vassal politics, which is why we will have the "Church dispute", in whatever guise it may come, for as long as there are vassals of the oppressors of the Macedonian people holding leadership positions in the Macedonian Church and state. If Lubi truly wants a more cooperative relationship between the Macedonian communities in Australia and North America, he needs to start thinking a little harder about why the Macedonian communities in Canada & USA have not come under the type of "Church" assault that we have been resisting for the past 15 years, but which was present in milder forms since the early 70s.

Peace without justice is tyranny. William Allen White