Macedonian Orthodox Church - News & Updates

[johnMKD]

Originally Posted by Onur

What you expect from the recognition of Russian patriarchy? I mean, whats the difference if they recognize your church or not? I can clearly see that the religion of Christianity always involved into politics throughout history but it is 2010. Do you think that religion still have power on world of politics?

It's very important for the church to be recognised by the Russian Patriarchy. But isn't it already recognised by the "Ecumenical" Patriarchy? I really don't have a clue about it. Or is the latter quietly supporting Greek views and refuses to recognise the church?

[Daskalot]

Originally Posted by Bratot

Sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm not a church follower nor I take any church seriously when it comes to proclaimation of someone for a "Saint".

The church was and will remain a tool of ruling the masses by persuasion.

You are correct Bratot, it is all about control and power.

[Onur]

Originally Posted by Mastika

I will happily answer your question Onur, however please clarify the following. Are you talking about the Tsarist influence in/on Macedonia or the way that the Russian empire goverened itself in comparison to the way that the Ottoman Empire was goverened?

Not the way they govern themselves. I am wondering, how you guys perceive their reign in Macedonia and Balkans in general.

Do you see any difference on Russian and Turkish Empire reign in Balkans? If yes, why? Do you think Russian reign was more rightful than Turks in Balkans?? I am asking for the period after they beat the Turks in the war at 1878. Tsarist influence and the communism days after WW-2.

Like i said, i see no difference in my point of view. Both of them wanted to expand their political power by controlling the Balkans, thats all. Both were foreigners to you as well, right?

[julie]

all religions are politcs, brainwashing the masses and control, I have seen it with my first husbands Catholic faith- God bless the pope, the leader of Catholics, the only true believers of God and Christ, and the only true christians of the world, and with my husband's Anglican faith (which was once presbyterian and taken over) the only true believers, God bless the Queen and the followers in this church, as you are the only ones to be admitted into the Kingdom of heaven

It disgusted me, attending services to appease , and to sit and listen to that bullshit.

I go to Macedonian Orthodox mass here and have yet to hear the priest say, that we are the only ones to be able to enter "heaven's gates"

Both husbands had been controlled by their respective churches which instilled a tithe, even today where a percentage of salary had to be paid for their salvation to the church.

I married my first husband in the Catholic church to appease the in laws. My priest was present where he performed full traditional Orthodox rites.

My then husband was forced to sign a document whereby our future children would be baptised to the Catholic church.

I put my foot down, and we argued over that for a while and he relented, having been acceppted within the Macedonian community , and my 3 sons were christened in the Macedonian Orthodox church.

We see the divisions imposed by the archbishop of the MOC in Australia, and I think it is something that is sanctioned by RoM to dispel the "nationalism", I call it patriotism of the diaspora.

And all so called religions is about money and power, Daskalot, you put it very succinctly

[Mastika]

Originally Posted by Onur

Like i said, i see no difference in my point of view. Both of them wanted to expand their political power by controlling the Balkans, thats all. Both were foreigners to you as well, right?

There is a big difference, the Ottomans controlled much of the Balkans for 400-500 years. They ruled and they made the decisions and decided what was going on. Although initially they were foreign, a large Muslim and Turkish population eventually developed across all of Macedonia, some of which remains today (however the majority of real Turks left in the 1920's population exchanges with Greece or the 1950s-era emigration to Turkey). The Ottomans made a real impact on Macedonia, our culture, our people, our langauge.

The point you raise about Russian rule, no Russia would not have had any legitimate claim to rule unless the she had conquered the Balkans with force. Even then, she would still have been treated as a foreign power, no different to Britain or France. Even though our countries have similar religious beliefs and churches, the Russians would have still been treated as conquerors rather then liberators. However the Russians never established any legitimate claims anywhere in the Balkans so it is impossible for anyone to comment on this non-existant "Russian reign in the Balkans" which you are asking about.

If you are going to liken the Russian Empire with someone then the closest alternative would be the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Here we have two vultures slowly picking off the bits of the Ottoman Empire and giving them to whoever they could use at the time.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Komita

our church is the only true one, oldest

It isn't the only one and nobody has ever said that. However, it is older than the Serbian church. Are you denying this fact too?

our languages is the oldest

Macedonian in its current form is older than Serbian. You'd know this had you bothered to spend your time here reading material rather than insulting people that don't agree with your view. Check the link:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=3066

Now show me the equivalent from 500 years ago in Serbian, and let's see which is closer to which.

everybody is guilty for stealing our history

Who is everybody? Who said that? Another falsity. Are you seriously denying that our neighbours haven't encroached on our history like vultures? Are you that blind, or have you just given up and turned?

No wonder everybody laugh at us

Who laughs at us bre, your Serbian friends? Tebe ti se smeat, i ako ti e tolku sram begaj si kaj nim, jas budala sum sho te branam sekoj pat deka mislev dobro dete si bil, ama eve mi dokazha inaku. They laugh at us because people like you are ashamed of their own heritage, se mu priznavash na srbite i duri mu gi obazhavash nivnite svetici, nikogash ne sum sretnal choek sho si go mrazi svojot narod kolku tebe, po dabeter si od grkoman ebago.

[Risto the Great]

Originally Posted by Komita

at your posts on this topic. Hillarious.
No wonder everybody laugh at us, your all history experts and our church is the only true one, oldest, our languages is the oldest, everything we have is the only true and oldest and everybody is guilty for stealing our history... etc the usual pathetic.

Seriously Komita, don't you feel it is appropriate to reconcile the title you gave this thread with the text you posted underneath it? I genuinely want to know why you think the ROC is supporting the MOC.

Why can't you present your case more vigorously?

Here is a hint, I suspect you can't.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Onur

Do you see any difference on Russian and Turkish Empire reign in Balkans? If yes, why? Do you think Russian reign was more rightful than Turks in Balkans??

Onur, I think Russian influence would have been preferred by the overwhelming majority of the Balkans, mainly due to 2 factors, Christianity (Orthodoxy in particular) and linguistic commonality. We have shared histories with them due to the above-mentioned reasons, whereas we have nothing to do with Turks historically prior to the Ottomans (aside from being invaded by Huns and Avars, who were incidentally joined by our linguistic counterparts from the north of the Danube). Even after 5 centuries of Ottoman rule, our languages, religions (in most cases) and large parts of our culture (although large parts are similar due to interaction during the Ottoman period) are still different. I don't think this should come as a suprise to you, I would say that Kyrgyzstan would rather have been under Turkish reign than Russian for the same reasons above. However, I believe the preference in the Balkans would have been no external overlordship at all, that is the will of free men.

I am asking for the period after they beat the Turks in the war at 1878. Tsarist influence and the communism days after WW-2.

Onur, if I were alive in 1878 I too would have gladly received aid from Russia so that Macedonia may be free from foreign rule. The San Stefano idea could have been used as a vehicle towards the ultimate aim of a united and free Macedonia, as breaking away from the Bulgars would have been monumentally easier than from the Ottomans. As it turns out, Macedonia was left out of Russia's creation, and thousands of Muslim refugees, bitter and vengeful, poured into Macedonia. The Ottomans did not deliver on their promises concerning reforms in Macedonia, and it became a place of tyrrany and torture for the Macedonian victims. Ottomans were responsible for much of this, Onur, but much worse still were your 'bashibozok' Albanian helpers, those that went into villages with the sole purpose of looting, burning, raping, murdering, etc.

At the end of the day mate, neither Macedonia or the Macedonians had friends in the 19th century. Everybody did their damage, Greeks, Turks, Albanians, Bulgars and Serbs, each has a story of suffering caused where it concerns their actions in Macedonia during the Ottoman period.

[Onur]

Originally Posted by Mastika

The Ottomans made a real impact on Macedonia, our culture, our people, our langauge....
However the Russians never established any legitimate claims anywhere in the Balkans so it is impossible for anyone to comment on this non-existant "Russian reign in the Balkans" which you are asking about.

So, you say that there was no Russian reign in Balkans??

Yes, maybe they didn't occupy whole Balkans with military force but in my opinion Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and others were part of the Russian Empire called USSR at communism days. They were the ones who decided everything for them like the Turks did.

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Onur, I think Russian influenced would have been preferred by the overwhelming majority of the Balkans, mainly due to 2 factors, Christianity (Orthodoxy in particular) and linguistic commonality. We have shared histories with them due to the above-mentioned reasons, whereas we have nothing to do with Turks historically prior to the Ottomans (aside from being invaded by Huns and Avars, who were incidentally joined by our linguistic counterparts from the north of the Danube). Even after 5 centuries of Ottoman rule, our languages, religions (in most cases) and large parts of our culture (although large parts are similar due to interaction during the Ottoman period) are still different. I don't think this should come as a suprise to you, I would say that Kyrgyzstan would rather have been under Turkish reign than Russian for the same reasons above. However, I believe the preference in the Balkans would have been no external overlordship at all, that is the will of freemen.

Onur, if I were alive in 1878 I too would have gladly received aid from Russia so that Macedonia may be free from foreign rule. The San Stefano idea could have been used as a vehicle towards the ultimate aim of a united and free Macedonia, as breaking away from the Bulgars would have been monumentally easier than from the Ottomans. As it turns out, Macedonia was left out of Russia's creation, and thousands of Muslim refugees, bitter and vengeful, poured into Macedonia. The Ottomans did not deliver on their promises concerning reforms in Macedonia, and it became a place of tyrrany and torture for the Macedonian victims. Ottomans were responsible for much of this, Onur, but much worse still were your 'bashibozok' Albanian helpers, those that went into villages with the sole purpose of looting, burning, raping, murdering, etc.

At the end of the day mate, neither Macedonia or the Macedonians had friends. Everybody did their damage, Greeks, Turks, Albanians, Bulgars and Serbs, each has a story of suffering caused where it concerns their actions in Macedonia during the Ottoman period.

I agree to you on that and yes, your example of Kyrgyzstan explains the situation here.

Thats another subject but i think this was the very same reason why western powers supported Greece at the civil war. Probably they thought that you are the supporters of Russia and they feared that they can lose their peon, Greece to the Russian hands too.



You are right about the last years of the Ottoman rule in Balkans but it was a result of mass hysteria and madness of the people, caused by sudden destruction of the empire. So, in reality, not only that Albanians was "Basibozuk(irregular bandits in english) at those times, everyone went insane and became "basibozuk". There was no order and control at all, even in the heart of the Empire, Anatolia.

[Prolet]

Onur, Stalin and Tito wernt very good friends after WW2, this is why Tito went with the west.