THE UNIVERSITY OF SHUMEN THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY STUDIA ACADEMICA ŠUMENENSIA CHRISTIANITY IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE (CIVILIZATIONAL AND POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE) edited by Biser Georgiev, Rumen Vatashki and Ivo Topalilov Vol. 2, 2015 The University of Shumen Press STUDIA ACADEMICA ŠUMENENSIA THE UNIVERSITY OF SHUMEN THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY edited by Biser Georgiev, Rumen Vatashki, Ivo Topalilov and Svetlana Nedelcheva (language editor) ISSN 2367-5446 THE UNIVERSITY OF SHUMEN Contents ‘Christianity in Southeastern Europe (Civilizational and Political Perspective’ …………………………………………………………………………………………….… 5 Bisser Georgiev, Rumen Vatashki, Ivo Topalilov Rereading ‘Stroitelite ...’ …….…………………………………………………………………..... 8 Andrei Pantev Russia and the Coburgs between Catholicism and East Orthodox Christianity …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27 Dimitar Sazdov The religious factor in the Austrian-Hungarian policy towards Bulgaria throughout the wars of 1912-1918 ……………………………………………..…………….. 47 Radoslav Mishev Attempt to create a Christian Democratic Party in Bulgaria at the end of World War I ……………………………………………………………………………………….…… 57 Bisser Georgiev The Bulgarian Orthodox Exarchate and Abolitionism ……………………….…… 73 Valery Kolev Birth of parliamentary democracy (1871 church and laity council) ………… 89 Hristo Temelsky Church and care for orphan children on Ukrainian territories in the 19th – the beginning of 20th centuries ……………………………..………………………………… 111 Olena Kravchenko ‘I gave my vision for their country! ...’ Blinded Soldiers of the First World War in Austria (1914) ……………………………………………..………………………………. 122 Stefan Karner Serbian Orthodox Church cooperation and frictions with Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and Bulgarian Exarchate during interwar period …………………………………………………………………………………………….………. 126 Mira Radojević Srđan Mićić Political Morality and the Recall of Members of Parliament in the Bulgarian Parliamentary Tradition …………………………………………….………………………….. 144 Todor Galunov Attempts of the Holy See to invite local Eastern Orthodox Churches to participate in the work of the Second Vatican Council ……………..…………… 155 Rumen Vatashki Contributors to the volume: ………..…………………………………………………...…… 168 STUDIA ACADEMICA ŠUMENENSIA 2, 126-143 © 2015 by the University of Shumen Press Serbian Orthodox Church cooperation and frictions with Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and Bulgarian Exarchate during interwar period Mira Radojević, Srđan Mićić, Abstract: During the period between the two world wars, Serbian Orthodox Church had continuingly had a supportive role for the Yugoslav Foreign Policy and diplomatic actions, as it had done until 1918, helping the international activities of the Kingdom of Serbia. Mutual state and church actions toward the Ecumenical Patriarchy aimed toward reorganisation of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the new kingdom’s boundaries and protection of Patriarchy’s position in Turkish republic, during 1918-1923. Frictions were emerging, while the new Serbian Patriarchy was backing Yugoslav interests in allied Czechoslovakia and against Italian penetration into the Balkans, as well as in competition for greater prestige among other orthodox churches in 1922-1933. The relations between the Serbian Orthodox Church and Bulgarian Exarchate were determined by the Yugoslav-Bulgarian state relations, mainly in connection to the Macedonian question. During the period 1918-1932 they were more hostile, and since 1932 the two churches had been acting as a vanguard for rapprochement among the two nations and kingdoms. Key words: church relations, diplomatic actions, Yugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Czechoslovakia Резюме: В периода между двете световни войни, Сръбската православна църква непрекъснато поддържа югославската външна политика и дипломатически действия, за да помогне на международната дейност на Кралство Сърбия. Съвместните държавни и църковни дейности са носочени главно по отношение на Вселенската патриаршия. Те са предназначени за реорганизация на Сръбската православна църква в границите на новото кралство и защита на позициите на Патриаршията в Турската република през 1918 – 1923 г.Търкания възникваха когато новата сръбска патриаршия отстъпваше югославските интереси спрямо съюзницата си Чехословакия и срещу италианското проникване на Балканите, както и в конкурентната надпревара за по-голям престиж сред другите православни църкви 126 Serbian Orthodox Church cooperation and frictions with Ecumenical … през 1922 – 1933 г. Отношенията между Сръбската православна църква и Българската екзархия се определят чрез югославско-българските държавни отношения, главно във връзка с македонския въпрос. През периода 1918 -1932 г. те са враждебни, но от 1932 г. двете църкви действат като авангард за сближаване между двете нации и царства. During the Ottoman rule in the Balkans, in XIX century, the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC) had associated fight for freedom and struggle for faith. This relation between nation and religion was characteristic for Serbian orthodoxy even after the liberation wars had ended in 1918. After the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Kingdom of SCS) was formed, one of the first tasks for SOC was to unite organisations which had coexisted in the Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire, Archbishopric of Karlovac-Belgrade and Patriarchy of Pec. Prince regent Alexander signed an Order in June 1920, and Serbian Patriarchy was proclaimed on 12th of September 1920. The relations between church and state were defined by Serbian Orthodox Church Law from 8th November 1929 and the Constitution of Serbian Orthodox Church from 16th November 1931. Election law of Serbian Patriarch, from 6th April 1930, secured state influence for the head of the Church during era of King Alexander I Karadjordjević’s regime and the policy of Integral Yugoslavism which aimed at overcoming tribal, religious and regional differences.1 The creation of Kingdom of SCS sought not only new SOC’s organisation, but also the expansion of its prestige. The SOC entered a competition with the Church of England and other Orthodox Churches for assumption of former influences of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Constantinople Patriarchy, which were lost by the political development in Russia and Turkey, during 1917-1923. Immediately after the First World War, the SOC was working on obtaining approval from the Ecumenical Patriarchy for unification of the Archbishopric of Karlovac-Belgrade and the Patriarchy in Pec with jurisdiction over all orthodox eparchies within Yugoslav borders. Benediction of the patriarch in Istanbul was necessary because he had religious authority over some of those eparchies. The two churches negotiated from the end of 1919 till mid-1920, and one of the most representative members of the SOC delegation was Bishop Nikolay Velimirović.2 Although Ecumenical Holly Synod had decided to allow jurisdiction’s transfer to the SOC, in March 1920, it was necessary to obtain patriarch’s Tomos of Autocephaly. Since the throne of the ecumenical patriarch was vacant, Serbian patriarchy had to wait for new elections which were held on 8th December (25th November) 1921 in a very awkward 1 2 Pržić 1933; Radić 1994, 349-351; 2002, 19-22. AY, 370-8-36, 446-450, 462-467; Slijepčević 1966, 556-560. 127 Mira Radojević, Srđan Mićić, situation and there were many doubts about the regularity of the election and personality of the new Patriarch Meletios IV (Meletios Metaxakis) who was a relative and a political associate to Eleftherios Venizelos. The Greek government and the Metropolitan of Athens Theocletos I (Theocletos Monopoulos) were tending to obtain repudiation of the election throughout Orthodox world.3 The Kingdom of and the SOC recognised the election of a new patriarch, sending their diplomatic and religious representatives to attend his enthronement.4 The Minister of Foreign Affairs Momchilo Ninchic informed the Yugoslav diplomatic representatives they were pleased with Meletios IV and instructed them to regard that information as strictly confidential.5 Negotiations on Tomos of Autocephaly lasted from 13th to 20th March 1922, and the two sides reached an agreement to send one delegation of Ecumenical Patriarchy to Belgrade with Tomos. The delegates travelled with Yugoslav passports through Romanian territory in order to avoid all inconveniencies with the authorities in Thrace, since the Greek government intended to postpone their trip until the establishment of normal relations between the Ecumenical Patriarchy and the Metropolitan of Athens.6 After the negotiations were completed, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs suggested the representative in Istanbul Radomir Shaponic to take a reserved attitude toward Meletios IV on 20th and 24th March 1922.7 The Kingdom of SCS and the SOC did not want to give the false impression they were involved in any way in his election as they observed that Meletios IV used his good relations with the SOC trying to obtain recognition of other Orthodox patriarchs.8 The Yugoslav government paid the second half of SOC’s debt to Ecumenical Patriarchate, which amounted 500 000 French francs, in the beginning of April 1922.9 The relations between the SOC and the Ecumenical Patriarchy had other political aspects. On a Peace Conference in Lausanne, Turks demanded dislocation of the Patriarchy of Constantinople from their territory. Patriarch Meletios IV personally asked King Alexander I and the 3 АY, 370-20-61, 46-49; Nanakis 2008, 361, 363, 367. AY, 370-20-61, 41. 5 AY, 341-6-12 telegraph reports of Plenipotentiary Minister in London Mihailo th Gavrilovic to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Conf.No.5 from 10 January and th Conf.No.13 from 16 January 1922; telegraph instruction of Minister of Foreign th Affairs Momchilo Ninchic to the Legation in London, Conf.No.388 from 13 st January and Conf.No.626 from 21 January 1922; AY, 370-20-61, 36, 38. 6 АY, 370-20-62, 469-474. 7 АY, 370-20-61, 46-49. 8 AY, 370-20-61, 51. 9 AY, 370-20-61, 50. 4 128 Serbian Orthodox Church cooperation and frictions with Ecumenical … Serbian patriarch Dimitriy for their support. The Yugoslav government requested from Great Britain, France and Italy to change their perspectives on the question and initialised joint actions with the Greek and Romanian governments, regardless to their attitudes toward Meletios IV in December 1922 - June 1923, which were crucial for the favourable solution.10 The Serbian and Romanian Patriarchy, Athens and Cyprian Archbishopric also gave their support to Ecumenical Patriarchy, accepting an invitation to take part in a Conference for the unification of Church calendars. Moscow Patriarchy sent only observers and Patriarchies in Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch excused themselves with the political situation in their countries.11 The Kingdom of SCS withdrew from open contacts with Meletios IV and his successors, after obtaining Tomos and after the successful defence of the Ecumenical Patriarchy at the Peace Conference.12 However, Yugoslavia remained a political protector of the Ecumenical Patriarchy.13 Frictions between the two Patriarchies started emerging in their relations to other Orthodox Churches. The Serbian Orthodox Church continued following the state foreign policy in relation to new states/churches according to political alliances and hostilities. Also, Serbian Patriarchy was trying to extend its influence abroad. The most characteristic cases were those of Czechoslovakian Orthodox Church and Albanian Orthodox Church. During Habsburgs rule in Czechs and Moravian lands, the Russian Orthodox Church had overwhelming influence. After the First World War and the foundation of Czechoslovak republic, in the ranks of catholic priests developed the following idea ‘Away from Rome!’ (‘Pryč od Rimu!’), and one group was interested in approaching to the SOC and the Anglican Church. Czechoslovakian delegation visited Sremski Karlovci, 1921, and the Serbian Patriarch Dimitriy agreed upon consecration for three bishops. In the spring of 1923, the SOC ordained Bishop Gorazd (former catholic priest Matěj Pavlík).14 Ecumenical Patriarchy ordained Savatiy (secular name: Antonín Vrabec) in June 1922, and gave Tomos for Autonomy of Archbishopric of Prague and whole Czechoslovakia in March 1923. Bishop Nikolay Velimirovic visited Bishop Savatiy in mid-1923 in order to explain to him that the SOC did not have any political intensions with appointing 10 АY, 370-20-61, 53-55, 57, 98, 103-110; AY, 395-9-95, 48, 50. АY, 370-20-61, 59-97, 99-102, 148-156, 184, 185; AY, 334-Personnel - Section 334105-381, 91-93; Radić 2011, 213-237. 12 АY, 370-61-22, 193, 194, 199-214. 13 AY, 388-12-32, 818. 14 Pilipović 2010, 38-59; Radić 1997, 93-121. 11 129 Mira Radojević, Srđan Mićić, Gorazd.15 Yugoslav Foreign Service was unable to intervene with the enthronisation of Savatiy due to delayed instructions. The diplomatic mission in Istanbul and diplomacy could only help with retaining Ruthenians under the jurisdiction of the SOC. A problem emerged from the attitudes of President Tomas Masaryk and Minister of Foreign Affairs Eduard Benes who did not accept the idea that the Czechoslovak minorities could be subordinated to foreign religious hierarchy, even Serbian Patriarchy.16 In the conflict between Gorazd and Savatiy, the former chose open confrontation with the Ecumenical Patriarchy relying on the support of the SOC.17 The Yugoslav-Czechoslovakian alliance imposed the involvement of diplomatic service in the religious question of Ruthenia. The result was the mission of Bachka’s Bishop Iriney (secular name: Jovan Chirić) in Ruthenia in 1926.18 In response the Ecumenical patriarchy sent the Exarch for Central Europe Bishop of Amasea German. In the end, Bishop Gorazd managed to win the elections for a Bishop of Prague and the Statute of Czechoslovakian Orthodox Church was enacted in 1929.19 More important frictions emerged between the SOC and the Ecumenical Patriarchy relating to the Albanian Orthodox Church (AOC). Albania was a theater of struggle between Yugoslav and Italian foreign policies throughout interwar period. Yugoslav Foreign Service decided to extend its basis for operational work in Albania after the Orthodox Archbishop Fan Stilian Noli came to power in 1924. Besides supporting the prominent Muslim Albanians Ahmet bey Zog and Ceno bey Kryeziu, and Catholic tribes in north Albania, the Kingdom of SCS wanted to cooperate with the Orthodox Albanians who were under the influence of the Greek Orthodox Church.20 A plan for obtaining autocephaly for the AOC was discussed in Belgrade during the emigration of Ahmet bey Zog, Ceno bey Kryeziu and Bishop Vissarion (Vissarion Xhuvani) in the second half of 1924. Bishop Vissarion had been in Yugoslav service since the end of the First World War.21 The question of autocephaly was raised in a 15 Pilipović 2010, 63-65. AY, 370-20-61, 711-719, 721-731; Pilipović 2010, 76. 17 Pilipović 2010, 66-69, 76. 18 AY, 334 – Political - 334-7-25, 627, 628. 19 Pilipovich 2010, 63, 70, 71, 76-79. 20 More on Yugoslav-Albanian relations and historiography on this topic- see Mishić 2009, 13-71. 21 AS, SIA, List III, Document No.114, Elaborate ‘Albania in interwar period (written by memoirs, according to Confidential Archive and personal experience in Albania and Albanian, i.e. Balkan Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs)’ written in th th Belgrade 11 May 1952, pp. 101, 10211 May 1952, 101, 102. 16 130 Serbian Orthodox Church cooperation and frictions with Ecumenical … conversation of the new Albanian Prime Minister Ahmet bey Zog and the Yugoslav Plenipotentiary Minister in Tirana Bogoljub Jevtic in January 1925. The Supreme Council of the Albanian Orthodox Church appointed Bishop Vissarion for a provisional governor of the Metropolitan in Durrës, Tirana and Elbasan in April 1925. He was ordained in Herzeg Novi, in the Kingdom of SCS, by bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) Mihailo and Germogen (secular name: Grigorii Maksimov Ivanovich) in May 1925.22 The enthronement of Vissarion was delayed by the Italian diplomatic activities in Albania, a reaction of the Ecumenical Patriarchy and a quarrel among Yugoslav Plenipotentiary Minister Branko Lazarevic and Yugoslav Military Attaché Lt. Col. Tanasije Dinic in 1925–1926.23 The Ecumenical Patriarchy started its counteraction directly by the AOC and through Orthodox Albanians in Romania during the autumn of 1925. The Albanian clergy rejected the invitation for negotiating the independence without autocephaly.24 Further weakening of Yugoslav-Albanian relations and strengthening of Italian influence implicated an agreement between the Albanian and Greek government upon mutual cooperation between the AOC and the Greek Orthodox Church.25 The Metropolitan of Trebizond Chrysanthus (secular name: Charilaos Filippidis) led a new delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchy for negotiations with the AOC in Korçë in May 1926. The Yugoslav Foreign Service concluded that he was working for the interests of the Greek government and the Ecumenical Patriarchy and that autocephaly would be given only when they secure that all members of Holy Synod were Helenophiles.26 Due to the political persecution, Bishop Vissarion fled once again to the Kingdom of SCS under the guise of medical treatment, and stayed in Sremski Karlovci as a guest of Serbian Patriarchy. He warned the Yugoslav Foreign Service and Serbian Orthodox Church that the Ecumenical Patriarchy withdrew only due to the fear of Yugoslav-Albanian military conflict in 1926, and would continue its efforts after the threat disappeared. Also, Bishop Vissarion asked for a raise of the monthly allowance which amounted to 2 000 French Francs during the conversations with the Chief of Albanian Section of Political Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Milan Stevanovic in August-September 1927.27 22 Mishić 2009, 95, 96. Mishić 2009, 101, 120, 121. 24 Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios IV initialised unsuccessful negotiations for independence of the AOC in 1923. AY, 74-3-10, 349-354; АY, 334-Political-4-18, 379, 318, 382; АY, 370-20-62 528-570. 25 АY, 334-Political-4-18, 626-634. 26 АY, 370-22-70, 307, 317-319. 27 AY, 334-Political-4-18, 741, 748-751. 23 131 Mira Radojević, Srđan Mićić, During 1928, the Serbian Patriarchy pressured the Yugoslav government to take immediate action upon the information that Italy was planning to found Uniate Church (Eastern Catholic Church) in Albania with the support of Vatican. The SOC made a plan with Bishop Vissarion and vicar bishop of the SOC for Shkodër Victor, to create a counterbalance in the Albanian Holy Synod toward Bishop of Berat Kristifor (secular name: Kristifor Kisi) and Bishop of Korçë Hierotheos, both Helenophiles. It was planned that the two bishops of the ROCA to ordain two Albanian bishops in Tirana. Also, the SOC and bishops Vissarion and Victor agreed upon appointing Serbian clergy in parish of Shkodër and that the bishop of Shkodër should be a member of the Albanian Holy Synod. The plan was only partially realised. Two Russian bishops illegally crossed the border on their way from Podgorica to Shkodër, and during the night ordained the two new Albanian bishops in Tirana. Although uninformed about these plans, the high clergy of the AOC and Ahmed bey Zog accepted that consecration because they were afraid of the Italian plans for a Uniate Church. But Victor was not elected in the Holy Synod of the AOC and he became vicar bishop of Vissarion, and soon after that he left Albania. Due to his unfulfilled promises, Plenipotentiary Minister in Tirana Stanoye Mihailović was recalled.28 After his proclamation for the King of Albanians, Ahmet Zog initialised new negotiations with the Ecumenical Patriarchy in September 1928. Unwilling to escalate frictions with the SOC, the Patriarchy of Constantinople sent the Metropolitan of Trebizond Chrysanthus to Belgrade to make agreement with the Serbian Patriarchy on their standings toward the AOC. The Serbian Holy Assembly of Bishops resolved on 2nd November 1929 that they still recognised Victor as an administrator of Shkodër’s eparchy, and do not recognise the autocephaly of AOC nor the new Orthodox bishops in Albania.29 The Plenipotentiary Minister in Tirana Djordje Nastasijević blackmailed bishop Vissarion throughout 1929 that the continuous financial support depended on the number of Serbian priests appointed in the eparchy of Shkodër. The special envoy of King Alexander I and Minister of Foreign Affairs Voyislav Marinković, major Milosav Jelić30 was trying to persuade Bishop Vissarion in 1929-1930 that he should take a more moderate attitude toward the SOC if he wanted to regain its support.31 The Yugoslav diplomatic personnel in 28 AS, SIA, III, 114, 102-105; АY, 74-3-10, 349-354; Pearson 2004, 306, 307. АY, 74-3-10, 349-354 Albanian Autocephaly Church. Summary review. 30 On missions and role of Milosav Jelic in Albania, during 1919-1927, see Mishić 2009, 228-239. 31 ASACA 14.439/397 and 14.439/399 major Milosav Jelic’s reports on his missions in th th th th Albania, 12 November – 4 December 1929, 6 – 14 June 1930. 29 132 Serbian Orthodox Church cooperation and frictions with Ecumenical … Tirana were not allowed to attend liturgies in Tirana. During the intensive work for Balkan Entente, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Bogoljub Jevtić sent two letters to the Serbian Patriarch Varnava (secular name: Petar Rosić) in December 1932 and January 1933 asking for his attitude toward the AOC. Patriarch Varnava replied on 2nd February 1933 that the Holy Synod still did not recognise ordains of Bishop Vissarion, but they are ready to acknowledge Autocephaly in cooperation with other Orthodox churches.32 The relations among Serbian Patriarchy and Bulgarian Exarchate were far more complicated due to various factors. Both churches had heavy inheritance of previous conflicts that arose in the context of national struggles for freedom and territorial aspirations, which were primarily diverted in Macedonia, especially during 1913-1918. Their relations during interwar period were further hampered by mutual mistrust and often hostile policies implemented by the Kingdom of SCS/Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Third Bulgarian Empire. The main problem in the Yugoslav-Bulgarian relations was the Macedonian question. Until the Balkan wars Serbian and Bulgarian propaganda were trying to prove that in this region of the Ottoman Empire existed only Serbian or Bulgarian majority, respectively, while almost completely wiping out the existence of other ethnic elements.33 After the First World War the social elites in Sofia continued to propagate the standpoint that the Bulgarians were majority in Southern Serbia, while the Yugoslav state annulled recognition of Bulgarian population on Yugoslav land. Thus, Bulgaria wanted to raise the issue of national minorities, which the Kingdom of SCS persistently avoided. The national minority issue entailed a number of other problems, among them school and church autonomy.34 Ecumenical patriarch’s anathema cast upon Bulgarian Exarchate, in 1872, was not officially recognised by the SOC, but had an impact on the favourable decision of the Ecumenical Holy Synod and Patriarch Meletios IV to award all eparchies which were in the boundaries of SCS the Kingdom of SCS to the SOC’s jurisdiction. During 1921, only four of seven bishops in South Serbia were enthroned and eparchies were officially included in the scope of the SOS in April 1922.35 Throughout the interwar 32 th ASACA 14.439/398 major Milosav Jelic’s report on his mission in Albania, 27 th April – 9 May 1931; АY, 74-3-10, 349-354. 33 On Serbian propaganda and comparative analyse of Serbian and Bulgarian propaganda statistics, see: Vojvodić 2002, 22-25. 34 Sherrill 1921, 211, 212, 227, 231; Stojanov 1980, 38-51; Avramovski 1980, 61-66, 71-79, 85-97; 1980a, 149, 151-153; 1986, 7-10; Türkeş 1993, 125. 35 Jovanović 2002, 362; Radić 1995 18, 19; Troitski 1933, 74-75; Yanić 1936, 610; Gligorijević 2002, 135, 136. 133 Mira Radojević, Srđan Mićić, period, the SOC and state authorities paid attention to the work of the former Exarchate priest who admitted jurisdiction of the Serbian Patriarchate and pleaded for loyalty to Yugoslav kingdom.36 On the other hand, Bulgarian Exarchate adopted the Law of Amendments and Supplements to the Law of the Bulgarian Exarchate in October 1920, allowing participation in the Church Council for dignitaries from the ‘enslaved’ territories. To the great astonishment of Bulgarian officials and Yugoslav Plenipotentiary Minister in Sofia Milan Rakić there was no reaction of Serbian Patriarchate.37 After the First World War, the SOC showed no interest in direct contacts with Bulgarian Exarchate, reducing them to meetings in international conferences. First contacts which had a significant impact on the relations between the Serbian Patriarchate and the Bulgarian Exarchate were within The World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches. In that, as well as in other international church organisations initiated by protestant churches, the bishop of Ohrid Nikolay Velimirovic and the Metropolitan of Sofia Stefan (secular name: Stoyan Popgeorgiev Shokov) had important roles. Yugoslav National Assembly for The World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches had officially performed as a private organisation independent from the SOC. Some of its members were: bishop of Batchka Irinej Ciric, bishop of Dalmatia Irinej Djordjević (secular name: Milan Djordjević), bishop of Nish and later Metropolitan of Zagreb Dositey (secular name: Dragutin Vasić), but also politically active persons such as priest Valerian Pribicević (secular name: Vasilie Pribichević) and Dr. Vojislav Janjić. The importance of the World Alliance work was not only due to their annual conferences, but also to promoting regional conferences with participation of representatives of the Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Greek and Hungarian church. The First Regional Conference was held in Novi Sad in 1923; however the Bulgarian delegation had not taken part justifying its absence with the unsettled political situation in the country. From the Second Regional Conference held in Sinai in 1924 Serbian and Bulgarian delegations were regular participants. At the beginning there were no concrete results, while the Bulgarian delegations raised the issue of the Bulgarian minority in Yugoslavia, Romania and Greece.38 36 AY, 334-Political-8-28, 148-151; AY, 63-5-64, 29 and 63-5-204, 29 reports of Minister of Army and Marine General Stevan S. Hadzic to Minister of Justice Dr st th Milan Srshkic, 1 July and 30 November 1929; Jovanović 2002, 197; 2011, 309. 37 th ASASA, 14.331-15 (1) Diary of Milan Rakic, entrance for 9 February 1921. 38 AY, 334-Personnel-108-410, 131-138; Eldarov 2010, 174-177. 134 Serbian Orthodox Church cooperation and frictions with Ecumenical … Yugoslav authorities have paid attention on activities of the Bulgarian Exarch Church (BEC) after the Metropolitan of Sofia Stefan held memorials for the assassinators of general Mihailo Kovacević and for the murdered father and brother of Ivan Mihailov Gavrilov in 1927.39 Despite the worsening of the Yugoslav-Bulgarian relations, first act of friendship provided by the Serbian Orthodox Church was after the devastating earthquake that hit Bulgaria in 1928. The SOC has sent financial and material assistance over the bishop of Nish Dositey.40 The reopening of the conflict between the two churches was initiated by the Bulgarian Exarchate. Namely, Bulgarian church launched a broad campaign for the rights of the Bulgarian minority, initiated actions for removal of the Ecumenical patriarch’s schism through the Romanian Orthodox Church and for recognition of the autocephalous the Albanian Orthodox Church. The information collected by the Yugoslav services resulted in the preparation of counteraction of the government in collaboration with the SOC. Some Yugoslav authorities emphasised that the propaganda of the Bulgarian Exarch Church was more dangerous than the Bulgarian propaganda, because it was shrouded under the cloak of Slav and Christian brotherhood and love.41 The main discussion was prepared for the Conference of the World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through Churches in Avignon, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stipulated an action over Legation in London by the General Secretary Sir Willoughby Dickinson.42 Following the presentation of the Bulgarian memorandum at 39 AY, 334-Political-8-28, 356, 360; AY, 341-23-53 telegraphic reports of minister th Vojislav Marinkovic to the Legation in London, Conf.No.12056 from 8 December th and Conf.No.12504 from 18 December 1927. 40 Avramovski 1986, 504. 41 AY, 38 -26-70 reports of Press Attaché in Sofia Branislav Denic to the Director of the Central Press Bureau of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers Milan th th Marjanovic, Conf.P.B.No.382 from 6 July, Conf.P.B.No.427 from 16 July, nd th Conf.P.B.No.477 form 22 July, Conf.P.B.No.471 from 26 July, Conf.P.B.No.506 th th and Conf.P.B.No.507 from 6 August, Conf.P.B.No.525 from 14 August, th nd August, Conf.P.B.No.537 from 22 August, Conf.P.B.No.534 from 19 th Conf.P.B.No.596 from 5 September, Conf.P.B.No.610 and Conf.P.B.No.612 from th th 11 September, Conf.P.B.No.618 from 14 September 1929. 42 АY, 341-23-54 telegraph instructions Kosta Kumanudi to the Legation in London, th Conf.No.10242 from 9 September 1929, Chargé d’Affaires Pavle Karovic to the Rt. th Hon. Sir Willoughby Dickinson, K.B.E., 10 September 1929; Pavle Karovic’s note on telephone conversation with H. Charles, secretary of Sir Willoughby Dickinson, th conducted on 11 September 1929 at 2 PM, Chargé d’Affaires Pavle Karovic to the th Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 11 September 1929, H. Charles, secretary of Sir th Willughby Diskinson, to P. Karovitch, 12 September 1929. 135 Mira Radojević, Srđan Mićić, the Conference, it was agreed that Serbian and Bulgarian delegations should hold a separate meeting to discuss the presented issues. One of the direct results of this meeting was an agreement to hold a Bulgarian-Serbian Conference in Sofia. However, upon conclusion of the Conference in Avignon, a public debate began over the press in Sofia and Belgrade about the essence of the talks in Avignon. Metropolitan Stefan claimed that the Serbian delegation acknowledged the existence of the Bulgarian minority in Yugoslav territory, and that it was begging the Bulgarian delegation to withdraw the memorandum from the agenda.43 According to Bishop Irinej Djordjevic the Serbian delegation presented to the Bulgarian delegates two options. Either they would discuss issues mentioned in the memorandum at the Conference in Avignon which would open discussion on all the other problems that prevented better Yugoslav-Bulgarian relations or the Bulgarian delegation would withdraw memorandum and they would open direct talks that were aimed at soothing the atmosphere. Metropolitan Stefan understood all repercussions of public debate and chose the second option.44 Metropolitan Stefan tried to respond through the Plenipotentiary Minister in Sofia Ljubomir Neshić who advised him to avoid discussions with the Serbian delegates through the press and directed him to straight communication with the SOC.45 The Bulgarian-Serbian Conference in Sofia was not held in 1929,46 and the Yugoslav intelligence service continued to monitor the propaganda work of Metropolitan Stefan against the Kingdom of SCS.47 According to the report which Bishop Irinej Ciric had submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in November 1931, the Conference was delayed for confusions that occurred in the ranks of the Serbian and Bulgarian delegations due to various political factors.48 Also, the death of Patriarch 43 AY, 38-26-70 reports of Press Attaché in Sofia Branislav Denic to the Central Press Bureau of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Conf.P.B.No.658 from th nd th 30 September, Conf.P.B.No.663 from 2 October, Conf.P.B.No.675 from 8 October 1929. 44 th Vreme and Politika from 6 October 1929. 45 AY, 334-Political-8-28, 555. 46 AY, 38-26-70 report of Press Attaché in Sofia Branislav Denic to the Central Press th Bureau of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Conf.P.B.No.789 from 11 November 1929. 47 AY, 38-26-70 reports of press attaché in Sofia Branislav Denic to the Central st Press Bureau of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Conf.P.B.No.761 from 1 th th November, Conf.P.B.No.801 from 15 November, Conf.P.B.No.802 from 16 nd November and Conf.P.B.No.813 from 22 November 1929. 48 AY, 395-23-240, 577-583; AY, 370-20-61, 426-433. 136 Serbian Orthodox Church cooperation and frictions with Ecumenical … Dimitriy and the election of Varnava sparked a considerable discussion and vigorous response in the Bulgarian publics. Accusing the former Metropolitan of Skopje that he was elected by Court and the so-called ‘White Hand’ and that he was responsible for many murders committed in South Serbia, Bulgarian press did not spare the personality of the new Serbian Patriarch, writing about him: ‘He is a Stalin dressed in a black cassock’, ‘Varnava is unrestrained Serbian chauvinist and furious Bulgarophobe’ and that the former Bishop of Skopje Firmilian (secular name: Dimitrije Drazhic) was a bandit of a kind and his successor Varnava ‘was even more unholy and more ruthless’. The main propaganda aim of those articles was primarily directed against the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but it could not leave a favorable impression on the SOC.49 The propaganda against the Serbian Patriarch Varnava was extended against the work of the two churches for the rapprochement between the nations and against the Bulgarian delegation which attended the funeral of Patriarch Dimitriy and the enthronement of Patriarch Varnava.50 After the death of the Metropolitan of Vratza Neofit (secular name: Grigorii Ivanov Shivachev), a new opportunity aroused for direct contact between the dignitaries of the two churches. The representative of SOC at the funeral was Bishop of Nish Dositej. Returning to Nish, he submitted an oral report to the Deputy Head of Moravian County about his talks with tsar Boris III and the Bulgarian dignitaries. His main focus was on the conversation with Metropolitan Stefan, considering him as the most influential amongst the Bulgarian clergy, a true Bulgarian, a very ambitious man close to the Bulgarian monarch, but Bishop Dositey thought he was not a suitable person to conduct the rapprochement policy as he was unwilling to endure personal sacrifices. Nevertheless, the main part of the report was dedicated to the declarations of Metropolitan Stefan on obstacles which the Bulgarian Exarchate had in conducting the rapprochement policy: 1) Pros were the change of attitude of the 49 AY, 38-26-70 reports of Deputy Press Attaché in Sofia Boshko Tokin to the Central Press Bureau of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, th th Conf.P.B.No.160 from 17 April, Conf.P.B.No.172 from 26 April, Conf.P.B.No.173 th th from 30 April, Conf.P.B.No.190 from 10 May 1930; report of Press Attaché Velimir Krisovic to the Central Press Bureau of the Presidency of the Council of th Ministers, Conf.P.B.No.190 from 10 May 1930; AY, 341-7-14 Counsellor of the Legation in London to the Political Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, th Conf.No.816 from 11 October 1930. 50 AY, 38-27-71 report of Deputy Press Attaché Boshko Tokin to the Central Press th Bureau of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Conf.P.B.No.183 from 9 May 1930. 137 Mira Radojević, Srđan Mićić, Metropolitan of Stara Zagora Pavle (secular name: Petar Popkonstantinov) after his one-week stay in Belgrade, the older clergy educated in Russia carrying the ideas of Slav cooperation and the dissatisfaction of the Bulgarian public provoked by the terror of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO) against Bulgarian citizens; 2) Cons were the younger clergy educated in West Europe with no interest in Slav cooperation, distrust toward the Serbian idea of Integral Yugoslavia, Italian financial support for IMRO’s activities against Bulgarian-Yugoslav rapprochement and the Macedonian emigrants in Sofia. Bishop Dostije suggested to the Yugoslav authorities: 1) careful and patient work toward rapprochement with Bulgaria, leaving initiative to the Bulgarians in order to avoid impression of any kind of pressure; 2) if they were not to be in a haste, they should not stall either, which could be dangerous for the Italian counteractions; 3) even if the rapprochement is impossible it could diminishe the influences of Italy and the IMRO.51 Due to its postponement, the Bulgarian-Serbian Conference became a pretext for a Regional Conference scheduled in October 1929 in Belgrade. The Management Board of the World Alliance sent its delegation to persuade two churches and ministries of foreign affairs to settle the matters. Due to the new frictions, the issue was finally disclosed before the meeting of the Management board of the World Alliance held in Cambridge in 1931. The expected quarrel among Bishop Irinej and Metropolitan Stefan was avoided by their reasonable approach, which had created an opportunity for continuation of negotiations.52 Beside the postponements of the conferences, there was another reason for dissatisfaction of the SOC and Yugoslav Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The 51 AY, 38-27-71 Deputy Head of Moravian county Mil. K. Jovanovic to the Department for State Protection of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and to the Central Press Bureau of the Presidency of the Council th of Ministers, Conf.II.No.1783 from 20 May 1930. 52 AY, 395-23-240, 577-583; AY, 395-36-306, 30, 31; AY, 370-20-61, 426-433; AY, 34123-54 Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Legation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in London, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Patriarchy of the SOC, Conf.No.15069 Bu.-42 th from 27 July 1931; Charge d’Affaires in London to the Political Department of the th Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Conf.No.419 from 11 August 1931; AY, 38-28-72 Press Attaché in Sofia Velimir Krisovic to the Central Press Bureau, Conf.P.B.No.239 th from 20 August 1931; Archive of Yugoslavia, Reports and papers of the Permanent Delegation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the League of Nations in Genève 1599-2 reports of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Royal Permanent Delegation to th the League of Nations, Conf.No.9425.-Min. from 15 May and Conf.No.10192 Min.-5 th from 26 May 1931. 138 Serbian Orthodox Church cooperation and frictions with Ecumenical … Bulgarian Exarch Church took its part in broad diplomatic-religious propaganda for minority rights in 1931. The failure of this action had an implication on strengthening of the wing in the ranks of the BEC willing to collaborate with the SOC.53 Nevertheless, that change was not immediately noticed by the Serbian National Assembly for the World Alliance. They were still focused on activities by Professor Stefan Tsankov whom they considered as an irreconcilable opponent to the rapprochement policy.54 His speech at the Conference of the World Alliance in Genève, 1932, aroused a new debate among the Serbian and Bulgarian delegation, who organised several meetings and concluded that mutual issues should be discussed at bilateral conferences and not in front of the whole international community.55 Thus, the Serbian delegation led by Bishop Nikolay Velimirovic was guest of Bulgarian National Assembly from 28th April to 3rd May 1933. The program of their visit and manners of mutual work aimed to help building trust and confidence among two nations and kingdoms. A signed Protocol stipulated further exchange of visits between clergy and professors and students of theological faculties. Also, they agreed upon a return visit of Bulgarian delegation and joint liturgy in Ohrid, scheduled for 1934.56 At the request of the Serbian Patriarchate, the Foreign Minister Bogoljub Jevtić asked in June 1933 whether the Romanian Patriarch Miron would support an action at the Ecumenical Patriarchate to withdraw the Anathema from 1872.57 Although the Romanian Orthodox Church accepted the offer, the Romanian government proposed that ministers Bogoljub Jevtić and Nicolae Titulescu should consider first all political aspects of the Church issues in September 1933.58 The outcry of the Balkan committee in London about founding of good relations between the SOC and the BEC, in September 1933, was countered by the government of Kimon Georgiev by Metropolitan Stefan in London in August 1934.59 A return visit of the 53 Eldarov 2010, 178-180. AY, 395-23-240, 577-583; AY, 370-30-61, 426-433. 55 АЈ, 395-27-260, 46; Anonym 1933, 46-47; Petrović 1933, 157-159; Yanić 1936, 610. 56 AY, 74-50-68, 103-105; CSA,f. 460к, Bulgarian legation in Prague, op.2, а.е.55, 86, 87, 247, 248; Avramovski 1986a, 150, 155, 156; Petrović 1934; 1933, 331, 332; Stefan 1940, 3-5; Pashev 1940, 6-7. 57 AY, 395-29-276, 75. 58 AY, 395-29-276, 76. 59 AY, 341-13-30 Acting Chief of the Political Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Vladislav Martinac to the Royal Legation in London, Conf.No.21565 Bu.-39 th from 8 November 1933; AY, 341-24-55 coded letter from Bogoljub Jevtic to the rd Royal Legation in London, Conf.No.17525 from 3 August 1934. 54 139 Mira Radojević, Srđan Mićić, Bulgarian delegation was not organised during 1934 and 193560 and Metropolitan Stefan was exposed to critics in the Bulgarian public and was pronounced a partner in the republican’s conspiracy to overthrow tsar Boris III and Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha Dynasty.61 During the negotiations and preparations for signing the Pact of Eternal and Inviolable Friendship between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, Bishop Irinej Cirić and Dr. Vojislav Janjić made an agreement with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr Milan Stoyadinović upon a return visit of the Bulgarian delegation,62 which was organised in September 1936.63 The relations between the two churches continued to evolve in the direction of cooperation and rapprochement until 1941.64 The change of the BEC posture was manifested when the AOC asked for their support for the Memorandum of Bishop Vissarion on the minority issues prepared for the Conference of the World Alliance for International Friendship by the Churches in Lavrik, in September-October 1938. The Bulgarians refused to give their support, and the Prime Minister Georgi K’oseivanov ordered the plenipotentiary ministers in London, Rome and Paris to avoid conversations on minorities.65 AS, SIA - Archive of Serbia, Collections of the Security Information Agency. ASACA, 14.439 - Archive of Serbian Academy of Science and Art, Personal collection of Vojislav Marinkovic. ASASA-Personal collection - Archive of the Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, Personal collection of Milan Rakic AY, 334-Personnel - Archive of Yugoslavia, Reports and papers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Personnel Section; 60 th AY, 38-31-76 Conf.P.B.No.2442 from 11 April 1936, annual report of Press Attaché in Sofia Dr Pavle Jevtic for the year 1935, report of Press Attaché Dr Pavle Jevtic to the th Central Press Bureau, Conf.Np.204 from 18 June 1935; AY, 38-55-128 report without date on the Turkish press; AY, 74-50-68, 142-147, 165, 169, 187; Avramovski 1986a 238, 316; Pashev 1934, 118-120; Yanić 1936, 611; B. 1934, 136-139; 1934a, 144; 1934b, 52-56; Anonym 1934, 147, 148; Brakocvević 1934, 28-31; Eldarov 2010, 182. 61 AY, 38-27-72 correspondence between Acting Chief of the Department for Foreign Press of the Central Press Bureau and Press Attaché in Sofia Dr Pavle th th Jevtic, Conf.No.640 from 29 January, Conf.No.49 from 7 February, Conf.No.54 th from 14 February 1935. 62 AY, 37 – Personnel - 37-23-182, 338, 445. 63 Anonym 1936, 551; 1936a, 552-558; Yanich 1936, 609-611. 64 Eldarov 2010, 182, 183. 65 AY, 334-Political-4-18, 961-963; AY, 341-13-30 telegram from Stoyadinovic to the rd Legation in London, Conf.No.2301 from 3 November 1938. 140 Serbian Orthodox Church cooperation and frictions with Ecumenical … AY, 334-Political - Archive of Yugoslavia, Reports and papers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Political department. AY, 341 - Archive of Yugoslavia, Records and papers of the Legation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in England – London; AY, 37 – Personnel - Archive of Yugoslavia, Personal Collection of Milan Stoyadinovic 37-23-182, 338, 445 AY, 38 - Archive of Yugoslavia, Reports and papers of the Central Press Bureau of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. AY, 388 - Archive of Yugoslavia, Reports and papers of Legation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in France – Paris. AY, 395 - Archive of Yugoslavia, Reports and papers of the Legation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in Romania – Bucharest; AY, 63 - Archive of Yugoslavia, Records and Papers of the Ministry of Justice of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Confidential Archive AY, 74 - Archive of Yugoslavia, Records and papers of the Court of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 74-3-10, 349-354 Albanian Autocephaly Church. Summary review. CSA - Central State Archive (Sofia). АY, 370 - Archive of Yugoslavia, Records and papers of the Legation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in Turkey – Constantinople, Ankara. Anonym (1933) ‘Svetski savez za mezhunarodno priyatelstvo tsrkava’ Glasnik No.3 from 6th January 1933, 46-47; Anonym (1934) ‘Nasha poseta i boravak u Bugarskoi’, Svetoslavl’e 2, 28-31. Anonym (1936) 'Bugarski velokodostoinitsi u Jugoslavii’, Glasnik No.24-25 from 13th September 1936, 551. Anonym (1936a) 'Manifestatsiya ljubavi i bratske snage izmezhdu Bugar, a i nasheg naroda. Spasonosan rad na delu mira’, Glasnik No.24-25 from 13th September 1936, 552-558. Avramovski, Ž. (1980) ‘Opredeljenje Bugarske za Centralne sile u Prvom svetskom ratu’, in Ž. Avramovski (ed) Jugoslovensko-bugarski odnosi u XX veku. Zbornik radova I (Beograd), 61-100. (1980a) ‘Makedonsko pitanje u jugoslovensko-bugarskim odnosima od 1918. do 1925. godine’, in Ž. Avramovski (ed) Jugoslovensko-bugarski odnosi u XX veku. Zbornik radova I (Beograd), 147-178. (1986) Ž. Avramovski (ed) Britanci o Kraljevini Jugoslaviji. Godišnji izveštaji Britanskog poslanstva u Beogradu 1921–1938. Knjiga prva (1921-1930) (Beograd-Zagreb). 141 Mira Radojević, Srđan Mićić, (1986a) Avramovski, Ž. (ed) Britanci o Kraljevini Jugoslaviji. Godišnji izveštaji Britanskog poslanstva u Beogradu 1921–1938. Knjiga druga (19311938) (Beograd-Zagreb). (1986b) Balkanska Antanta (1934-1940) (Beograd). B[rakočević], J. (1934) ‘Yedna manifestatsiya bratskih odnosa dvajy naroda’, Svetoslavl’e 2, 136-139. (1934b) ‘Nasha poseta i boravak u Bugarskoi’, Svetoslavl’e 3, 52-56. (1934a) ‘Yugoslovensko-bugarski pregled, Sofia, 1934’, Svetoslavl’e 2, 144. Brakochević, J. (1934) ‘Nasha poseta i boravak u Bugarskoi’, Svetoslavl’e 4, 28-31. Eldarov, S. (2010) ‘Balgarskata pravoslavna tsarkva i zashtita na maltsinstvenite prava na balgarite v Jygoslaviya mezhdu dvete svetovni voini (1919–1939)’, Studia Balvanica 28, 174-177. Gligorijević, Br. (2002) Kral’ Aleksandr Karadzhordzhevich u evropskoi polititsi (Beograd). Jovanović, V. (2002), Jugoslovenska država i Južna Srbija 1918–1929. Makedonija, Sandžak, Kosovo i Metohija u Kraljevni SHS (Beograd). (2011) Vardarska banovina 1929-1941 (Beograd). Mishić, S. (2009) Albaniya: priyatel' i protivnik. Jugoslovenska politika priema Albaniji 1924-1927 (Beograd) Nanakis, A. (2008), ‘Venizelos and Church-State Relations’, in P. Kitromilides (ed) Eleftherios Venizelos. The Trials of Statesmanship (Edinburg)2. Pearson, O. (2004) Albania and King Zog I. Independence, Republic and Monarchy, 1913-1939 (London). Pashev, St. (1934) ‘Mozhe li biti zblizhen’e izmezhdu Srba i Bugara posredovan’em tsrkve?!’, Glasnik 7-8/ 8th March, 118-120. (1940) ‘Himera ili stvarnost’, Svetoslavl’e, sveska za mart-juni, 6-7. Petrović, M. (1933) ‘Dobar pochetak’, Glasnik 21-22, 331-332 (1933a) ‘Mi i Bugari’, Glasnik 10, 157-159. (1934) ‘Mi i Bugari u izgradn’i jedinstva duhova (Beograd). Pilipović, R. (2010) Pravoslavl’e u Chehoslovachkoj 1918-1942. Master thesis defended on Theological faculty of Belgrade University (Belgrade). Pržić, I. (1933) Odnos crkve i države u slovenskim državama (Beograd). Radić, R. (1994) ‘Uticaj razvoja Srpske pravoslavne crkve na modernizacijske procese u Srbiji i Jugoslaviji’, in L. Perović, M. Obradović & D. Stojanović (eds) Srbija u modernizacijskim procesima XX veka (Beograd), 349-351. (1995)Verom protiv vere. Država i verske zajednice u Srbiji 1945–1953 (Beograd). 142 Serbian Orthodox Church cooperation and frictions with Ecumenical … (1997) ‘Srpska pravoslana crkva i pravoslavlje u Čehoslovačkoj’, Tokovi istorije 1-2, 93-121. (2002) Drzhava i verske zajednitse 1945–1970. Prvo deo: 1945–1953 (Beograd). (2011) Zhivot u vremenima. Patrijarh Gavrilo (Dozhich) 1881–1950, (Beograd)2. Sherrill, Ch. H. (1921) Prime ministers and presidents (New York). Slijepčević, Dj. (1966), Istorija Srpske pravoslavne crkve. Od početka XIX veka do kraja drugog svetskog rata. knj. II (Minhen). Stefan, mitorpolit Sofiiski (1940) ‘Da svi jedno budu (Jovan 17, 21)’, Svetosavl’e sveska za mart-juni, 3-5. Stojanov, P. (1980) ‘Makedonija za vreme balkanskih ratova’, in Ž. Avramovski (ed) Jugoslovensko-bugarski odnosi u XX veku. Zbornik radova I (Beograd), 38-51. Troitski, S. (1933) ‘Projekat ustava Bugarske tsrkve’, Glasnik 5, 74-75. Türkeş, M. (1993) ‘The Balkan Pact and Its Immediate Implications for the Balkans States 1930-1934’, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 30, No. 1, 123144. Vojvodić, M. (1992) ‘Srbija i makedonsko pitanje’, Istorijski glasnik 1-2, 33-48 Yanić, V. (1936) ‘Srpska i bugarska pravoslavna tsrkva’, Glasnik 2627, 609-611. 143