Quote:
The bulgarian exarchate:
 This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 962x806 and weights 111KB.
|
The fact that the Bulgarian church was at one time present beyond it's borders does not mean that the people in those areas were Bulgarian. A perfect example of this is how between the two world wars the orthodox church in Czechoslovakia was part of the Serbian church -- using the logic you did with the exarchate I could claim that Czechs and Slovaks are Serbs (
a very ridiculous claim). An even bettern modern day exmaple would be claiming that FYROMians are Serbs because under Orthodox Church canon law FYROM is under the jurisdiction of the Serbian church.
Not only that but the Bulgarian exarchate (church) has ceeded the authority in neighbouring states thus by your logic recognizing the population of those areas as being largely un-bulgarian.
Not only that but the exarchate claimed authority in most of what is the wider region of Macedonia is a violation of orthodox church law since at the time those areas would be under direct control of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople (Istanbul).
Not only that but exarchate was declared schismatics and heretics until it's autocephaly was recognized in the 1950s because only in the 1950s did the exarchate meet the requirements to be recognized as autocephalous.
It's also questionable whether the Exarchate even had authority in may of the areas listed in the map. Specifically since it includes areas that were part of the Serbian church (i.e. under authority of the Patriarch of Pec).