Българската православна църква в Беломорската област 1941–1944 година
The Bulgarian Orthodox Church in the Aegean Region (1941–1944)

Summary/Abstract: The temporary incorporation of the Aegean region in the boundaries of the Bulgarian state (April 1941 – September 1944) enabled the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to restore its canonical rights over this region. From its position of heir to and continuer of the work of the Exarchate, the Holy Synod organized church life there in compliance with the Exarchal Statute in force in the Kingdom. The two newly established bishoprics were headed by the metropolitans temporarily in office: Cyril of Plovdiv – as head of the bishopric of Maroneia, and Boris of Nevrokop – of the bishopric of Strumica and Drama (later called bishopric of Drama). Owing to the dispute which arose in June 1942 between the Government and the King on the one side and the Holy Synod on the other concerning the election of a prelate of the Bulgarian Church and his relationship with the structure of the newly established bishoprics, up to the end of the period considered here the cathedras there were not occupied by regularly elected Bulgarian metropolitans. In difficult military, political, economic and ethnodemographic conditions, the Holy Synod made genuine efforts to fill the ecclesiastical service there with Bulgarian cadres, counting mainly on clergymen commissioned from the interior of the country. They became not only religious leaders of the Bulgarians in the region but turned, along with school teachers, also organizers of the social and cultural life of the towns and villages where they served and ensured a live and tolerant contact between the Bulgarian authorities and the local population. Along with them continued to officiate the lower Greek clergy, part of them receiving salaries from the state budget. The Bulgarian church authorities took care also of the preservation, maintenance and repair of the place of worship. The all-round activity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in the Aegean region was characterized by realism of the positions, moderation in the methods and a striving to defend a relative independence as a factor in the general policy of the state. It was pursued with more tolerance, typical of an ecclesiastical institution, but did not lack its Bulgarian national basis either. In a historical perspective, if it did not solve, at least it did not burden with an inconvenient legacy the defence of the Bulgarian national cause in the Aegean region.

• Details
• Contents