Macedonian Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

twf

Guest
I noted that a single bishop serves as both the Latin Bishop of Skopje and the Apostolic Exarch for the Macedonian Catholic Church. Bishop Stojanov is the only Catholic bishop for the entire country of Macedonia for jurisdiction over both Latin and Greek Catholics. Does anyone know:
  1. is the bishop himself from a Latin or a Byzantine background?
  2. does he regularly celebrate both Roman Rite masses and Byzantine DL?
  3. does anyone else find it very odd that the head (and in fact sole bishop) of an Eastern Church sui iuris would also be the ordinary of a Latin diocese?
 
  1. does anyone else find it very odd that the head (and in fact sole bishop) of an Eastern Church sui iuris would also be the ordinary of a Latin diocese?
Yes, I’d say it is somewhat irregular.

And btw you’re right, the Macedonian Greek Catholic Church is sui iuris. (It sometimes gets left off of lists of EC Churches, stemming from a mistake made by Catholic Almanac a few decades ago iirc.)
 
I noted that a single bishop serves as both the Latin Bishop of Skopje and the Apostolic Exarch for the Macedonian Catholic Church. Bishop Stojanov is the only Catholic bishop for the entire country of Macedonia for jurisdiction over both Latin and Greek Catholics. Does anyone know:
  1. is the bishop himself from a Latin or a Byzantine background?
  2. does he regularly celebrate both Roman Rite masses and Byzantine DL?
  3. does anyone else find it very odd that the head (and in fact sole bishop) of an Eastern Church sui iuris would also be the ordinary of a Latin diocese?
The Catholic Hierarchy site gives some pertinent information.

The consecrators of Bishop Kiro (Stoajanov) were all Greek Catholic Bishops,
The are only a few Catholic parishes in Macedonia, the majority of which are Greek Catholic.

I am not sure if the Macedonian Greek Catholic Church is a sui juris church, but it is unusual that a Greek Catholic bishop would also serve as bishop for the Roman Catholics in his area, but I don’t find it a bad idea.
 
I read a few years ago that the Macedonian Orthodox Church ras a whole equested to come into communion with Rome, but Pope St John Paul II didn’t accept the request so as not to cause friction with the other Orthodox Churches. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this story? Thank you.
 
So if the bishop was consecrated by Greek bishops and is presumably first and foremost a Greek bishop, it would seem Macedonia is technically a second country, with Eritriea, where, for all intents and purposes, all Catholics, including Latins, are under an Eastern bishop. Of course technically in this case he is ALSO a Latin ordinary.
 
I noted that a single bishop serves as both the Latin Bishop of Skopje and the Apostolic Exarch for the Macedonian Catholic Church. Bishop Stojanov is the only Catholic bishop for the entire country of Macedonia for jurisdiction over both Latin and Greek Catholics. Does anyone know:
  1. is the bishop himself from a Latin or a Byzantine background?
  2. does he regularly celebrate both Roman Rite masses and Byzantine DL?
  3. does anyone else find it very odd that the head (and in fact sole bishop) of an Eastern Church sui iuris would also be the ordinary of a Latin diocese?
Some smaller eastern Catholic churches are without their own hierarchy so are in the care of another Catholic sui iuris church. This is detailed in the eastern canon law (CCEO).

The Annuario Pontifico lists the Catholic sui iuris Churches. On the statistics pdf for 2013, compiled from that publication, is this note:The 2013 Annuario Pontificio lists the Apostolic Exarchate in Macedonia separately from the other two jurisdictions, which are listed as “The Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro.”

cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=125&pagetypeID=1&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1

The Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro also has jurisdiction over their members in Slovenia and Bosnia Hertzegovina, so it includes five of the six countries that were Yugoslavia (Vatican does not recognize Kosovo as independent).

The socialist republics were: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia (inclues Vojvodina and Kosovo), Montenegro, Macedonia.
 
I looked the bishop in question up on Wikipedia. Looks pretty Latin to me… so this may be the case of the Latin bishop of a tiny, tiny, tiny Diocese with only a couple parishes being made the sole bishop of an Easter Church sui iuris. That leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiro_Stojanov
 
I read a few years ago that the Macedonian Orthodox Church ras a whole equested to come into communion with Rome, but Pope St John Paul II didn’t accept the request so as not to cause friction with the other Orthodox Churches. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this story? Thank you.
I admit to not having an official document about it either, but I don’t think it’s very difficult to understand.

This may sound simplistic, but my suggestion is, rather than trying to put yourself in their shoes, simply imagine a reverse situation. That is, if instead of a group of Orthodox wanting to become Catholics, it were a group of Catholic (say the MGCC, to avoid changing too many aspects of it) wanted to convert to Orthodoxy – taking all their parishes and faithful with them. I know I wouldn’t be entirely happy about it, and I’m guessing you wouldn’t either.

Of course the icing on the cake is the facts that Dr. Dragani mentioned, like the canonical status issue. (I’ve quoted below the relevant portion from the article you linked.)
  1. I don’t believe that the Macedonian Orthodox Church has any grudge against the Pope. If the Pope would have established full communion with them the ecumenical fallout would have been disasterous. They certainly are aware of this. You see, the canonical status of the Macedonian Church is a hot topic in Orthodoxy. They have been embroiled in a bitter dispute with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople for some time now. If the Pope had gotten involved, and established communion with them, his relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarch would have been severely damaged. This is a relationship that Popes since John XXIII have worked very hard to build.
 
I looked the bishop in question up on Wikipedia. Looks pretty Latin to me… so this may be the case of the Latin bishop of a tiny, tiny, tiny Diocese with only a couple parishes being made the sole bishop of an Easter Church sui iuris. That leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
At the risk of sounding like someone unfamiliar with how-things-are-on-internet-discussion-forums, let me just say What the?
 
At the risk of sounding like someone unfamiliar with how-things-are-on-internet-discussion-forums, let me just say What the?
It’s the perception. The much smaller Latin diocese warrants a bishop but the larger Greek faithful are placed under the Latin bishop rather than given their own? Smacks of Latin primacy as in so many other cases.
 
Please take my last post with a grain of salt. I occasionally forget that being on an Internet discussion forum means that we know better than even the leaders of our churches. 😉
 
It’s the perception. The much smaller Latin diocese warrants a bishop but the larger Greek faithful are placed under the Latin bishop rather than given their own? Smacks of Latin primacy as in so many other cases.
But you are supplying your own perception.
Even the wiki site notes that he was auxiliary to Bishop Joakim Herbut who was Greek Catholic (from Ruski Kerestur) and served the Catholics in Macedonia. He was, as the Catholic Hierarchy site documents, consecrated a bishop by Greek Catholic bishops. It is not clear that this is a situation that smacks of Latin primacy as in so many other unnamed cases.
 
But you are supplying your own perception.
Even the wiki site notes that he was auxiliary to Bishop Joakim Herbut who was Greek Catholic (from Ruski Kerestur) and served the Catholics in Macedonia. He was, as the Catholic Hierarchy site documents, consecrated a bishop by Greek Catholic bishops. It is not clear that this is a situation that smacks of Latin primacy as in so many other unnamed cases.
Fair enough.
 
You might also note that the situation of the Macedonian Orthodox is also a bit complex.
They are neither Macedonian nor Orthodox.
The historical Macedonians were a Greek tribe. During Roman times and later, “Macedonia” did not describe a particular people, but was used as a geographic identifier to describe a region, the size and shape of which was changed many times without respect to the peoples living there. When people described themselves as Macedonians, it was in the same sense that the residents of New York would call themselves New Yorkans, regardless of whether they were Spanish, German, African or of any other ethnic background. There are no ethnic Macedonians. There are Greeks from Macedonia and Bulgarians from Macedonia and Albanians from Macedonia etc. but no nation Macedonia until Tito renamed Barinova Vardarska in an attempt to lay claim to all of the geographic area known as Macedonia. The creation of the ‘Macedonian’ Orthodox Church by the Communist leaders was all part of an attempt to create a national ‘Macedonian’ consciousness in the population. They are in schism from the rest of the Church and actively participate in persecuting the true Orthodox christians in the region. Bishop Jovan has been in jail for years on false charges and churches and monasteries have been destroyed by these false christians.
Unfortunately, by creating a sui juris Macedonian Catholic Church, Rome has helped further their cause.
 
I’m surprised you say that the Macedonian Orthodox Church (MOC-OA) is not Orthodox. As I understand it they declared themselves autocephalous, which has not been recognized by the rest of Orthodoxy; but does that make them “not Orthodox”? I would say rather that they continue to be an autonomous Orthodox church, as they have been since 1959.
 
[SIGN][/SIGN]
They are neither Macedonian nor Orthodox.
The historical Macedonians were a Greek tribe. During Roman times and later, “Macedonia” did not describe a particular people, but was used as a geographic identifier to describe a region, the size and shape of which was changed many times without respect to the peoples living there. When people described themselves as Macedonians, it was in the same sense that the residents of New York would call themselves New Yorkans, regardless of whether they were Spanish, German, African or of any other ethnic background. There are no ethnic Macedonians. There are Greeks from Macedonia and Bulgarians from Macedonia and Albanians from Macedonia etc. but no nation Macedonia until Tito renamed Barinova Vardarska in an attempt to lay claim to all of the geographic area known as Macedonia. The creation of the ‘Macedonian’ Orthodox Church by the Communist leaders was all part of an attempt to create a national ‘Macedonian’ consciousness in the population. They are in schism from the rest of the Church and actively participate in persecuting the true Orthodox christians in the region. Bishop Jovan has been in jail for years on false charges and churches and monasteries have been destroyed by these false christians.
Unfortunately, by creating a sui juris Macedonian Catholic Church, Rome has helped further their cause.
That sounds not dissimilar to the history of essentially any nation. There’s no such thing as ethnic purity. Peoples have migrated from place to place, conquered one another, intermarried, and in time, either by the deliberate actions of a government or by a more organic process, come to see themselves as a nation or ethnic group. My wife comes from the Dominican Republic. Sure historians know that her ancestry is a mix of Spanish, Taino aboriginal, and African, but after 500 years of “mixing” she and her country men identify themselves as Dominicans - plain and simple.
For the Macedonian Greek Catholics there is a single bishop appointed by Rome who also cares for the Latin faithful in Macedonia- it’s not like an entire parallel Church structure.
 
I’m surprised you say that the Macedonian Orthodox Church (MOC-OA) is not Orthodox. As I understand it they declared themselves autocephalous, which has not been recognized by the rest of Orthodoxy; but does that make them “not Orthodox”? I would say rather that they continue to be an autonomous Orthodox church, as they have been since 1959.
Are they in communion with any other Church? I don’t believe they are, and on that basis, Eastern Orthodox will not recognize them as being Orthodox.
 
Are they in communion with any other Church? I don’t believe they are, and on that basis, Eastern Orthodox will not recognize them as being Orthodox.
As most issues in regard to jurisdiction, I’d say it’s more complicated. The UOAC and UOC-KP are certainly Orthodox, but not regarded as canonical. A similar issue seems to be here.

As to Bishop Kiro, please see here - http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wp07sLytOnc/TnjydmI6tqI/AAAAAAAAB0I/kCS2eIwHvvQ/s1600/vir_01.gif



http://www.ktabkbih.net/files/image/Foto_Vijesti/2013/01/makedonija/01.JPG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top