Talk:Croatian Orthodox Church

POV

It served as a front for the Ustasha's in their genocide against Serbs and was canonically unacceptable. This is very POV, as almost the entire first paragraph of the article, and much of the rest of the article, too (Some Croats living in Montenegro support the idea of Red Croatia, and support the Montenegrin Orthodox Church to achieve their goals. Some Serbs see the Montenegrin Orthodox Church as being the present day incarnation of the Croatian Orthodox Church.).--MaGioZal 07:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How can the first part be POV? It is unacceptable under Orthodox Church Canon Law as it is a unilateral foundation of an autocephales Orthodox Church without the granting of such a position by an Ecumenical Council or a Mother Church such as Russia, Constantinople, Romania, or even Serbia. Additionally, it was formed as part of the Ustasha Nazi/Croatian alliance to liquidate the Serbs in the Nazi puppet state of Croatia. You are right about the latter bit, the connection to the Montenegrin Orthodox Church is weak. It only has the support of <30% of Montenegro (50,000) and it seems to be more Montenegrin Nationalist than Croatia. 71.240.138.137 (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The latter is indeed POV - but what's wrong with the first bit?--PaxEquilibrium 15:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

By definition, genocide is: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.", so please explain how mentioned church falls into this category. Article is poor written, as copied from pamphlet of some kind. Please, keep to the subject. Intention to repeat information regarding killings, tortures, genocide, extermination etc. in every article which considers WWII in Balkans is not and shoudn't be the idea of Wikipedia. Short and clear article, with information, references and links would be better. Good template for this article could be French version, maybe with few additional data. Some relevant resources would be nice.Plantago 11:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This Church's sole existence lies in the very thing - it only existed while it was manned by the Axis powers (the World War II Nazies) and it's sole cause was the destruction of an ethnic group.

--PaxEquilibrium 15:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have to repeat myself once again. I can agree with what PE wrote, but we should not give ethic judgment, only cite relevant sources, or am I wrong?.

This is badly written article, to name just multiple POV's and no relevant resources (I've read mentioned resources, but they are really worthless, and even them are not properly quoted). There are too much author's opinions, too much unproven information and speculations (for instance, what is the source for the claim of Germogen's inclination towards Catholic church, private connections of some Croatian radical politicians with Ortodox church and their private wishes). I will try to write NPOV article and present it to fellow wikipedians soon. Regards, Plantago 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is: when for example an article in Wikipedia says “Sex before marriage is canonically unacceptable by the Southern Baptist Church”, it’s NPOV; but if the article says “Sex before marriage is canonically unacceptable” it is POV. Wikipedia is not about advocating POVs linked to religion, it’s about the clear and rational description of facts as most as possible.--MaGioZal 11:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well of course. --PaxEquilibrium 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem with all of this is that Croatians don't realize that without the Roman Catholic Church, Croats don't exist, just as without the Orthodox Christian Church, Serbs don't exist. The reason for the labels "Serb" and "Croat" is totally religious in nature. The name "Serb" belongs to Orthodox Christians only, just as the name "Croat" belongs solely to Roman Catholics. Technically speaking, prior to the conversion of the Slovenes and Western Serbs to from Byzantine Christianity to Latin Christianity by Charlemagne, there were no Croatians, only Serbians. The genesis of the term "Croat" or "Hrvatski" dates to the time of this conversion from Byzantine to Latin jurisdiction. They are the exact same people, along with the Bosnians, only each group practices its own religion (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Islam) and speaks slightly different dialects of the same language. Hopefully one day they will all be reunited! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.10.54 (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Biggest problem in all this is that there are still those like you that believe in fairy tales.

Actual facts

Ok, here are some article "facts" vs. real facts regarding Croatian Orthodox Church (COC):
Germogen:

"fact": defrocked Russian priest, with inclination towards Catholic church

fact: he was member member of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, which was established after October revolution, when priests close to Russian White Guard emigrated from Russia. He himself emigrated to Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1922, where this church established monastery in Sremski Karlovci. He was never defrocked and he was never close to Vatican, as second paragraph in the same section properly mentions. It would be nice to mention that he was executed by the partisans (without trial) the very same day partisans entered Zagreb, in his 85th year.

Uniate church:

"fact": church was meant to have the same aims as the other Uniate churches...

fact: COC was not uniate church; definition of uniate church is "Eastern Christian church that is in communion with the Roman Catholic Church but retain its own languages, rites, and codes of canon law" (as, for instance, Eparchy of Križevci).

It is worth to read the whole article by Mr. Milos Obrknezevic, Serbian Orthodox, who was secretary to Germogen, because it is valuable first-hand testimony, and also Mrs. Fikreta Jelić-Butić's book "Ustashas and the Independent State of Croatia, 1941-1945". Plantago 14:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong links

In this article,the link that should link to the Croatian Orthodox Church Patriarch Germogen,links to a Russian Partriarch from 17th century.Please fix that

---

The link appears to have been fixed. Germogen now links to a page that has not yet been written.

Saugart 02:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Review

I have attempted to tidy this article without significantly altering the content, by removing various repetitions and improving the English. I have also removed the Eastern Christianity box, as this article appears to deal principlally with a matter of Yugoslavian politics rather than Orthodox Christian faith. There is at present no link here from the article on the Independent Croatian State, which there probably ought to be. Myopic Bookworm 10:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources?

Although Myopic Bookworm made good job in tiding up this article, the overall quality is by my opinion terrible. The worst of all are sources. There is not even one reliable resource, only some very biased pamphlets. As I know that PaxEquilibrium is very good in referencing, I'm asking him to find resources for his and other questionable claims, such as "church manager", "appointed by Stepinac", "inclined to Uniates", "defrocked Orthodox priests", "goal to...establish...theocratic and purely Catholic state" which are not documented in article. As it is now, it appears like putting equal sign between Catholic church in Croatia and Ustaše movement. Also, part involving leaders of HSP is not giving any reference, so it is at this moment clear WP:OR. Can we leave introduction, and and try to document first section without all that speculations? Also, second section about modern times would need more proper sources, there are just two, Serbian Tanjug and Grecian HR-Net, from the war times.--Plantago (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Idea of Croatian ortodox church

Was first concived in 19th century. Ortodox people in Croatia and in what is now Bosnia became Serbs only after they got under jurisdiction of the Serbian Unortodox Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.252.40 (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That's complete nonsense. And you very well know that. So better stop trolling around here.--2003:6F:8C6D:85F0:49F4:F777:B1F1:38CD (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not nonsense. Pan-slavists in 19th century have made all "White Wlachs" (Catholics) into Croatians, while all "Black Wlachs" (Orthodox, also named as "Morlacci" by Venetians) were made into Serbs. Fact that they had their own culture and language was irrelevant to them. Today last remains of those are "Istro-romanians" in Croatia, and what is left of Aromanians in Serbia. Actually, even Romanian minority in Banat area wasn't allowed to celebrate in Romanian language, as rest of them do, until several years ago, when Serbia had to allow them, due to closing some chapters in EU entry negotiations.

WP:Wikipedia is not a forum 2) They were and are allowed to use Romanian language, I know this from real life. There are also some cases in AP Vojvodina where a Romanian or Hungarian person speaks poor Serbian (or does not) and nobody is making a fuss about it. I do not think that, for example, that you would have that right in Austria or many EU countries. Now, let us return to the subject at hand, please. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

I didn't say that they were not allowed to talk romanian in Serbia. I've said that they were not allowed to celebrate mass in Romanian, as Romanian Orthodox church members. As in "all Orthodox are Serbs, all Catholic are Croatian idea". That is subject at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.158.162 (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Here, watch and enjoy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXvZmz3nmVY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.158.162 (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Neo-fascist POV-pushing

Looks like this article had gone the way of the notoriously revisionist Croatian Wikipedia for almost a year starting with the edits of a banned sockpuppeteer called Ban kavalir, before I undid the additions and those of another chauvinist POV-pusher, which consisted of nothing but the most blatant historical revisionism, relying on the writings of Ustashe officials such as Krunoslav Draganović, to assert that an autocephalous Croatian Orthodox Church has existed historically, when in reality it was a wartime creation of the Ustashe regime to facilitate the assimilation of the NDH's remaining Serb population during the genocide of 1941-45 . I will be starting a WP:SPI against Mikola22 shortly. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

In the part of the article which talks about Orthodox Croats are historical information and facts presented from books of different historians and as such must be respected. If something is wrong or cited without evidence there is this page where anyone can dispute something. Delete something for no reason is not in the spirit of civilized behavior Mikola22 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A user who widely cites the works of wartime fascist officials like Krunoslav Draganović shouldn't lecture anyone about "the spirit of civilized behavior". Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Original historical data is important. If you think that part of article is false or without evidence here is a place to refute it. Therefore that something was false or not true you would have already challenged and refute that. Since you're not doing that but deleting part of the article just says that this whole part is based on evidence and truth. That's exactly what Wikipedia is looking for. Mikola22 (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Whole no "original historical data" is - BS. Learn which sources are reliable, learn some more about (N)POV and content pushing and than return to Wiki, please. I will keep an eye on this and all the other articles on which some content is pushed (fascist sources used etc.). cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The historical data concerning Orthodox Croats are there for a reason and must remain, when you cannot dispute or refute any of the information I have written in article then I will have to confirm them, let's go from the beginning "Sokollu Mehmed Pasha 1566 issued an order in which he says that roman friars of Buda, Timișoara and Dubrovnik and of all Croatian nation do not ask for charity if these people(Croats) belongs to the Greek Patriarch"information that is irrefutable and which speaks of the Croatian Orthodox people, From Syrmia 1634 we have a report on the Catholics which convert to Orthodoxy: more than 10 villages, i.e. Soljani, Veliki Remete, Golubinci , Ruma , Vojinci, Manđelos and Sremska Mitrovica information that talks about convert to Orthodoxy which is proven from the Vatican archives "Sono andate al rito Raseiano piu di 10 ville eioe Soljani,Velike Remete, Golubinei, Ruma, Vojinei, Mangjeloš e Mitrovica,magior parte e fra tutto sarrano case 200" therefore, this is already known information (Actibus Bosnae), "In 1635, Bishop Franjo Ergelski of Zagreb claimed that among Orthodox Vlachs nearly half were Catholics and that peasants who fled among the Vlachs abandoned the Catholic faith and convert to Orthodoxy. Orthodox priests according to Bishop Ergelski baptized Catholic children and performed other religious services for them" this is information from the book of Hrvoje Petrić 2011, There are records in the literature of the late 18th and early 19th centurie that point to the existence of Orthodox Croats. D. Teleki von Szék claims in 1795 that Croats were mostly Catholics and that to a lesser extent Grenzers of Military Frontier belong the Greek Orthodox Church . An 18th-century source after describing the fighting in which Croatian units participated, says that "there were three Greek priests with the Croats and two with the Hungarians. The Austrian writer Carl Christian Viktor writes in his book "Chronicon viennense" 1790 how the "Turkish Croats" invaded the emperor's land and plundered villages under the protection of "Pasha and Sanjak", while the "emperor Croats" in turn pursued those robbers and plundered the villages of "Turkish Croats". It can be assumed that part of the Turkish Croats are and Orthodox. According to Emperor Joseph II (1785) in addition to Catholic Croats, there were also Croats of "Greek religion"this is what Mario Grčević, 2009. says in his book That the Orthodox were not all considered as Serbs but many as Croats not in the regional sense can be conclude on the basis of the national self-determination of their descendants who as migrants were arriving by ships to America via Ellis Island near New York. Statements of emigrants were recorded by US officials or retrieved from shipping lists and entered into a computer database that covers the period 1892-1924. The database is available at the link, "Records that testify existence of Orthodox who called themselves as Croats and came from western and southwestern jekavian area exist in large numbers." this is said by Mario Grcevic and factual evidence is on Ellis Island register and anyone can see it, I looked at them and everything is true. Most Catholics of southern Herzegovina especially in the central parts of the diocese in the 15th century or earlier convert to Orthodoxy. in the 1937 book written by Krunoslav Draganović there are dozens of original Vatican documents that prove this (Arhiv

Propagande) "Adolfo Veber Tkalčević in a book "Trip to Constantinople" in 1886 talking with the Balkan peoples that live in Constantinople and they mentione Vlachs. This is part of the conversation: Tkalcevic says "How Croats, but they call themselves as Serbs in homeland if they are Orthodox. The person from Constantinople answers "I do not know how someone calling himself now in homeland because I have been in Constantinople for a long time but everyone here either Vlachs or Catholics call themselves as Croats . It's a name from old times!" this is the part from the book of Adolfo Veber Tkalčević which says that Orthodox Serbs and Vlachs are called Croats in Constantinople or Istanbul. "Existence of Croats as Orthodox priests in the late 19th century testifies Serbian newspaper Srbobran in which was stated complaint that among Orthodox priests exist some "Orthodox Croats" priests." this is a fact from the book of Mario Grčević This is a fact from various books and if someone does not like what i have to do with it. Otherwise Krunoslav Draganovic's books are published by Catholic Diocese Ordinary and this book exists in the Diocesan Library in Varaždin and other cities in Croatia or in Catholic institutions And other historians quote Krunoslav Draganović This doctoral dissertation also has Krunoslav Draganović as a source of data otherwise this dissertation also talks about the abduction of Catholic churches in Herzegovina that are becoming Orthodox(with Vatican historical sources) Just one quote on page 69, "Information about the transitions to Orthodoxy is also provided by D. Andrijašević in 1627. who says he is in Popovo because of the lack of clergy and because there was none bishop, 360 Catholic families crossed the Orthodoxy" source: In questa erano (Popovo) no[n] sono 50 ain[n]i appresso 360 case, et per no[n] haver hauto lor pastore né Vescovo sono trabuchate nello Scisma; et delle dette 12 Chiese sono 4. usurpate et occupate dalli scismatici maxime quelle che sono trabuchate nello scisma, et tutto p[er] no[n] esser stato proprio Vescovo chi potesse diffender le raggi oni della S[anta] Chiesa.“ M. JAČOV, Spisi Kongregacije…, sv. I., 75-76. etc,etc Everything is proven and there is no obstacle to putting information from various historians on Wikipedia. Mikola22 (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Well for starters, WP:SCHOLARSHIP says completed doctoral dissertations which are publicly available may be used, but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. So the last one cited needs to be publicly available, and it would also be very helpful if the dissertation had been cited in the literature, supervised by recognised experts in the field, or reviewed by a third party. Let's just start with "is it publically available?". Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

References