Macedonian Orthodox Church and/or Ohrid Archdiocese

aleksandrov · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2007 11:25

dejance wrote:

...Anyway i haven't really been following this topic, but i saw the post about Misirkov you made Aleksandrov. I haven't read the On Macedonian Matters book, i have a copy and i've only read sections, i've seen that people can come to different interpretations by reading it because at times it sounds like he isn't really clear to what he is trying to say, his message or whatever. His point that we are Macedonians got across, but others can also give a different impression, like the Bulgarian point.

The above exerpts are quoted word for word. They are quite obviously critical of the standard Bulgarian point of view (as is the whole book). Nowhere have I suggested that he doesn't make the point that we are Macedonians. My post is intended to provoke critical thought about what being Macedonian meant to him, whether it should mean the same thing to us, and whether we should be uncritically accepting his version of history, or what others say his version of history is. Whether we like it or not, these types of 'national' questions (not only in relation to Misirkov) have caused fundamental division among Macedonians for over a century and will continue to do so unless we tackle them head-on, guided by respect for truth and reason, rather than ignorant sentiment and/or popular myth.

I suggest you read the book fully and try to make your own objective assessment, rather than relying on somebody else's. There are certainly aspects of it that aren't clear, but there are others, which have been addressed in this thread, which are very clear for any reasonably prudent reader, except for those who don't want to let truth get in the way of a good story, whether it be a 'Bulgarian' one, or a 'Slav' Macedonian one.

To interpret or assess the book in terms of whether it supports "the Macedonian point of view" or "the Bulgarian point of view" is to assume that the only relevant versions of history are those that enjoy popular support among one or another nation. Here's what one man who knew a bit about traditional nation-building (and ultimately self-destruction) had to say about such history:

"What is history but a fable agreed upon?" - Napoleon Bonaparte

deki · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2007 11:44

aleksandrov wrote:

I suggest you read the book fully and try to make your own objective assessment, rather than relying on somebody else's. There are certainly aspects of it that aren't clear, but there are others, which have been addressed in this thread, which are very clear for any reasonably prudent reader, except for those who don't want to let truth get in the way of a good story, whether it be a 'Bulgarian' one, or a 'Slav' Macedonian one.

That was my objective assessment. Anyone can make their own interpretation on it. But i'll come to a more clear assessment when i read the book fully because it's something that needs to be read over and over again to understand it i think.

aleksandrov · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2007 11:51

dejance wrote:

aleksandrov wrote:

I suggest you read the book fully and try to make your own objective assessment, rather than relying on somebody else's. There are certainly aspects of it that aren't clear, but there are others, which have been addressed in this thread, which are very clear for any reasonably prudent reader, except for those who don't want to let truth get in the way of a good story, whether it be a 'Bulgarian' one, or a 'Slav' Macedonian one.

That was my objective assessment. Anyone can make their own interpretation on it. But i'll come to a more clear assessment when i read the book fully because it's something that needs to be read over and over again to understand it i think.

Yeah, the objective assessment I had in mind was of the whole book. How you interpret it after each reading in terms of understanding where he might be coming from also depends on how much background knowledge you have of the various influences, definitions and thought processes that were predominant in his day. However, I am certain that you will come out of it with a different impression of what he was on about than what you might have gained from others.

mk · **Joined:** 19 May 2005 10:49 **Posts:** 486

I would be very careful discussing Medieval Texts and Terms in the light of Modern Nationalistic Ideas.

I would also be careful reading Misirkov. I don't agree that everything he wrote about History is true.

He is good to see what was the state of mind of the Macedonians in his particular time.

I can conclude for myself, that if he was Intelegentsia of the Macedonians, than his contemporary Macedonians must have been very confused and ignorant people, which is not surprising at all, counting on the Church and State funded Propaganda waged by the neighbors.

In my opinion, Macedonians 100 years before Misirkov were way better in terms of Identity and knowledge.

He loved his mother country, but he is somebody who had view on the History which he could only gain by hearing it from the old people, the propaganda and interpolation of his intellect.

thats the best what he could make of it, concerning the resources which were available to him.

Soldier_of_Macedon · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2007 22:35

Aleksandrov, WHY CAN'T YOU JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION?

Internet Warrior over a lying piece of arrogance anyday, you can't even bring yourself to answer and justify ONE question, and you are going to represent our people :oops:

aleksandrov · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 00:34

Insolent brats with self-imposed reading comprehension impediments need a special kind of 'representation' and attention, which they will be hard pressed to find while hiding in a closet, making silly threats and malicious and defamatory statements from behind a cowardly wall of anonymity.

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Soldier_of_Macedon · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 03:27

The Macedonians have not always, but quite often, elected poor leaders, how true it is when in reference to you. You have resorted to insults simply because you cannot answer one question about the Macedonian Dynasty and their "promulgation" of the Macedonian language, yes, its people like you we need more of because lord knows we haven't had enough :roll:

What is the problem Igor, is it because you were citing a source which referred to Macedonians, in which those Macedonians are clearly identified as being of the Macedonian Theme in Thrace rather than Macedonia Proper? Or is the fact that you were not even aware that it was in reference to the Macedonian Theme as you clearly stated in one of your first replies? Or perhaps it may be because you are supposed to represent some group called Vasil Vtori which is named after a member of the Macedonian Dynasty in THRACE?

Now, put your little ego back in its box, all I want to know is how the Macedonian Dynasty "promulgated" the Macedonian language, because if this can be proven it is an important piece of information which I think should be shared with others here. You have made the statement, can you back it up?

maknews · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 03:30

SoM, it would be awfully nice if you could be more civil in your dialogue with Igor.

aleksandrov · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 03:36

Again, I ask the sensible readers of this thread to read everything that I've posted judiciously, including the references. They will find that there is nothing raised in the malicious nuisance posts (which are based on false premises) that hasn't already been addressed. If there is anybody but the one malicious poster that feels I have not adequately addressed any of the issues I've raised, I'll be happy to try and elaborate further.

Soldier_of_Macedon · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 04:48

Again his desperate appeal to the public :lol:

Rest assured that sensible readers will take it from the start and see exactly where you turn one innocent question into some personal agenda.

Maknews wrote:

SoM, it would be awfully nice if you could be more civil in your dialogue with Igor.

Maknews, you mean like the following awfully nice and civil comments made Igor:
“prevent the persistent pollution”
“the petty ego of an omnipotent internet warrior who happens to hold moderator power”
“Insolent brats with self-imposed reading comprehension impediments”
“hiding in a closet, making silly threats and malicious and defamatory statements from behind a cowardly wall of anonymity”

I think awful, not nice. I may come across as having stronger language but everything is in proportion, maybe if Igorche hadn't made the assumption off the bat that I am some agent of Petar here to provoke him with questions and hadn't let his paranoia run wild this discussion would have remained civil. Yet not one of you who have commented on this discussion have held Igor responsible for not answering my questions and making baseless accusations about me, you all seem to be scared of this guy or something. I can take the hit, no problem, but I will not give him a free pass here after he made a spectacle for me not answering some of his questions while he has avoided nearly all of mine.

You think I asked him the initial question which started all of this in anticipation of what happened? You think I would purposefully get into an argument with somebody who is apparently supposed to represent our people? I agree with 90% of what he says anyway, zoshto da mu mavam po kontra badiala? Nemam i nemav prichina, ova seto se sluchi zaradi negovata paranoia i bezumni misli za mene.

You don’t think it is a tad little psycho for some person to ask for your personal name and details over the internet hiding behind the excuse of “fair dialogue”? Or perhaps your idea of civil is asking for personal details of each and every person he speaks to on the net, I wonder, does he have Ohridski Komiti’s real name, Osiris’, the others he spoke to here, did he ask them for personal details like some stalker?

Or are you referring to his repeated baseless accusations such as where I apparently stated that the MOC should be called simply the Ohrid Church? (there is another motive here by him, and that it is to try and label me as some supporter of jovan which is why he continually kept stressing on the point of the “Ohrid Identity”).

Or maybe you would have me mimick his back-flips such as when he clearly admitted he did not know that a source he cited (Psellus) spoke of people from the Macedonian Theme in Thrace (modern Turkey), but then later on tried to withdraw that comment on account of the fact that he posted footnotes of the text where it mentions Adrianople (yet he still on that same page admitted he did not know it was the Macedonian Theme)

He should have known that if he is to attack anything he is to attack the content of what is written and not the individual with outrageous claims conjured up in the basement headquarters of Vasil Vtori.

Maknews, he has asked me a billion questions and I have answered all of them, and if I missed some he made a whole song and dance about how I am apparently avoiding his questions, now, I asked him plenty and he hardly addressed any of them, is it too much to ask for just to have ONE question answered by him to support a claim he made? I have repeatedly asked the same question which he keeps avoiding, perhaps you can ask him the question and maybe we can finally get an answer;

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF THE MACEDONIAN DYNASTY “PROMULGATING” THE MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE?

aleksandrov · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 06:18

aleksandrov wrote:

Soldier_of_Macedon wrote:

Quote:

Is Samoil more Macedonian than Alexander of Macedon because the former made Ohrid his capital, while the latter made Alexandria his capital?

Let me start by pointing out to you that it was not Alexandria, but Babylon which was the capital of Alexander the Great's empire, a well-known fact to most. And unlike Alexander, Samoil conquered the Balkans and some other surrounding areas (within closer proximity to Macedonia), not swathes of Europe, Asia and Africa, on the other hand, Babylon was centrally located in the large domains of Alexander the Great hence making it a natural choice from where to conduct the administration of his world-wide empire. Taking into account the religious significance (which was not present in Alexander's era) of the 10th century, for example the legitimacy afforded to Samoil's Empire by establishing a Patriarchate within the capital city of Ohrid, and the fact that Samoil's aims were centered locally in the Balkans and not in places such as Persepolis or the Punjab, equivalent comparisons cannot be fairly drawn between Alexander and Samoil, they were two different people with different aims and both had two different dynamics present in their domains. They are, however, both significant for Macedonian history.

You are again avoiding the substance of the original question/point and I will no longer help you do that. What would the difference in the substance of my question be if I substituted the name Alexandria with Babylon? Was Adrianople a formal state capital in the times that the Macedonian Dynasty ran the Byzantine empire? The rest of your explanation is just as irrelevant to my question, especially given the context in which it was asked. Please answer the original question directly, rather than simply stating the obvious fact that they were living in two different times and making irrelevant references to religios 'significance' when we are talking about the Macedonian identity? And next time you try to answer the question, please do me a favour and quote it in full, including the statement of yours to which it was a response, just so I don't have to do that for you and risk seeming to want to make you look bad again.

We'll get to what percisely was Alexander's capital and when, as well as what the term 'capital' meant at that time, compared to now, after we get past the points you've been dodging.

I will not address any of the points you bring in to deviate from the original points of debate, until you answer my original questions and propisitions more directly.

My original point was that you should use the name Macedonian Orthodox Church to identify our current Church, rather than Ohrid. Did I not give you a solid enough basis for that? Do you disagree that it should be called Macedonian? Do you still dispute the constitutional name and nationally independent status of our Church?

Show me your solid basis for the statement that it was the medieval Ohrid Archdiocese that solidified "our" IDENTITY, and about an apparent INSTITUTIONAL continuity of 1,000 years between Samuil's Patriarchy in Ohrid and today's Macedonian Orthodox Church, and then I will be glad to answer your peripheral questions. I gave you a clear SOURCE reference to Macedonians of Byzantium identifying as Macedonians. And if you are unaware of your own posts, let me remind you that YOU quoted a statement from a ROMAN Emperor referring to PURE Slavonic being spoken by ALL Salonicans, prior to any influence by the Ohrid Archdiocese, which also makes it quite clear that the 'Romans'/Byzantines were spreading (at least through St Kiril & Metodi)the Slavonic literary language PRIOR to the Ohrid 'solidifiers' or 'originators'. Why should I waste my time proving something which you have already admitted, albeit inadvertently? If you wanted to find more evidence, you could do so quite easily. Unfortunately, it seems that you are less interested in discovering than truth than finding reinforcement, no matter how weak, for your preconceptions and sentiments, and winning an argument for its own sake.

Now you show me something more significant, or at least similar, in relation to Samuil, as far as the Macedonian IDENTITY is concerned, before we can move further forward. At the end of the day, don't forget that I am not the one asserting that we should IDENTIFY the MOC with Constantinople (apart from the obvious fact that Constantinople is the centre of Orthodoxy in general) or Byzantium. It is YOU who is identifying it with Samuil and his Ohrid Archbishopric/Patriarchy. So the onus on proof is clearly on you.

aleksandrov · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 06:40

aleksandrov wrote:

For those interested in seeking the truth about the Macedonians of Byzantium, as well as challenging the Yugoslav Macedonian version of history that tells us how Samuil was the first Tzar of the modern Macedonian people (being 'Macedonian Slavs' who are supposed to descend from 5th or 6th century settlements and have nothing of note to do with the indigenous Macedonian population of the time), I will again repost something from the first page of this thread, regarding Michael Psellus' "Fourteen Byzantine Rulers" and other sources:

Aleksandrov wrote:

In my version (1966 revised version) [of the Psellus book], Appendix 1 outlines the lineage of the Macedonian House (the Macedonian Dynasty, which ruled from 867 to 1055, and included Basil II, 976-1025, as its most famous ruler). You will find numerous references to Macedonians throughout the book, including Macedonian 'arrogance', a revolt by a Macedonian party which preceded the Dynasty, a Macedonian colony in Iberia, which included people who had previously lived in Andrianople (Adrainopolis), a Macedonian army, and even a Macedonian border. You will find all the relevant passages by looking up Macedonia in the index.

The footnotes are very interesting too. For example, footnote 1 on page 352, includes the words: "Romanus [Emperor from 1068] had a conglomerate force of Macedonians, Bulgarians, Cappadocians, Uzes, Franks, and some poor levies from Phrygia." Footnote 2 on page 332 distinguishes between Thrace, Greece and Macedonia, in reference to the period between 1059 to1067. Footnote 2 on page 277 refers to a commander of the Macedonian army in Cappadocia.

The Psellus book is only a starting point. There is plenty more material out there about explicitly Macedonian and "Slavonic' elements of the (East) Roman Empire, particularly from middle-eastern sources, which Macedonian historians almost completely ignore.

Psellus, who is thought to have lived between 1018 an 1096, is the main Western source of Byzantine history, especially for the 11th century (in which Basil II ruled and died). Psellus clearly identifies Samuel as a "King of the Bulgarians", without any suggestion that Samuel's kingdom or 'dynasty' carried a Macedonian identity in any way whatsoever. If someone can point to credible sources from the era suggesting that Samuil's 'dynasty' or kingdom carried a Macedonian identity in any way, that would certainly strengthen the Macedonian case. However, making blanket statements in the absence of credible evidence only serves to compromise the credibility ot the people presenting 'our' case.

See this link http://www.roman-emperors.org/basilii.htm for a reference to other key sources (the author of the article itself seems to take a very pro-Greek approach to research and interpretation), as well as common problems in researching Byzantine history.

Here's a pro-Greek Wikipedia article about Basil I (an ancestor of Basil II), from which you can draw questions for further inquiry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_I

Consider the referenced information and contradictions that arise from it. For example, the article says:

Quote:

According to tradition current in his own reign, Basil was of Armenian origin[2][3][4] and a distant descendant of an Armenian princely family [5]. His parents were most likely Armenian peasants who had been settled in the Byzantine Macedonia (theme) (an administrative division corresponding to the area of Adrianople in Thrace) according to standard Byzantine practice.

While one source has claimed him to be of Slavic decent, such assumptions have been dismissed as fiction by the scholarly world.[6]The sole foundation of the Slavonic theory is that Arabic writers designate him as a Slav. This is explained by the Arabic viewed that all Macedonians were Slavs. [7]

If we can accept, for now, that Basil I was of Armenian descent (as was Samuil, according to most Western sources), let's think about why Arab sources, which are less likely to be influenced by 'Greek' or 'Slav' bias than Western or Eastern European sources, would view "all Macedonians as Slavs", well before Samuil's reign. Bear in mind that Basil I was a Roman Emperor who identified and was identified by others as a Macedonian. This is something that there seems to be no dispute about among the key sources and authorities on that part of 'Byzantine' history.

Why would Arab sources view ALL Macedonians as Slavs, if the term Macedonians was used by the 'Byzantines' only to identify Romans or 'Greeks' in the Macedonian Theme in Thrace, who allegedly did not use a Slavonic/Slavic language, or a dynasty which was allegedly named Macedonian only because of its association with a Macedonian Theme in Thrace? The Arabs who took an active interest in the 'Byzantine' Empire had ongoing conflicts with it, particularly when it was ruled by Macedonians. It is highly unlikely that they were completely ignorant of their arch enemy's composition. Could it be that the Roman Macedonians, who generally considered themselves to be descendants of the ancient Macedonians and used ancient Macedonian symbols, and who, like "Salonikans", did not see themselves and were not seen by others as 'Slav' settlers from the 5th or 6th century, used a 'Slav' language because that was their indigenous/native Macedonian tongue? Could this be why the Roman Macedonians were the ones to initiate the formalisation of their native tongue into a literary (Slavonic) language and to make it an additional formal language used in the Roman Empire (at least for some parts of it), even at the risk of resistance from those subjects of the Empire who wanted to stick only to Latin and/or 'Greek'? (Note: I use the quotation marks on 'Slav' and 'Greek' because I haven't seen evidence that 'Slav' and 'Greek' were the terms used for self-identification by the people who used the respective tongues in those days, but I stand to be corrected on that.)

I will add to the above that at least in my (Penguin Classics) version of Psellus' "Fourteen Byzantine Rulers" there are several references to Macedonia (including a Macedonian border) and Macedonians (including a Macedonian party and Macedonian army) that are not at all limited to an association with the "Macedonian Thema" or with Adrianople (in Thrace). Furthermore, the book contains a map of the Byzantine Empire at the death of of Basil II in 1025, where Macedonia 'proper' (as we know it today) is marked as Macedonia, while Adrionople is in Thrace. Perhaps this is not included in whatever internet versions of the book are available. Whatever the case, Psellus is only a STARTING POINT for research into the period. He didn't write the book with the intention of proving who the Macedonians were (probably because there was no such challenge at the time), so it won't make much sense unless cross-referenced with other sources.

I hope this hasn't offended SoM's ego as much as did the exposure of his fallacies about the current identity and seat of the Macedonian Orthodox Church (including persistent ignorance of the MOC Constitution), about the apparent 'identity' that was apparently 'solidified' by the medieval Ohrid Archbishopric/Patriarchy, about the alleged institutional continuity of the Ohrid Archbishopric for 1,000 years, about the selection process for the capital of the Macedonian Republic, about the basis of the development of the current Macedonian literary language, and about Misirkov's idea of what the roots of the Macedonian nation are.

Soldier_of_Macedon · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 06:41

You can't even back up ONE claim, and now this, a quoted post from earlier which I have already addressed, e bre kakov ispadna i ti.....

Surely you must realize how negative all this hide & seek game you've been playing looks for you here, I mean, after all, I am merely a moderator on an internet forum, and you, somebody who is supposed to be representing our people cannot even answer ONE question by someody from the people.

Soldier_of_Macedon · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 06:55

There goes that selective memory again that we are all too used to now. The Macedonian border, the Macedonian army, are all from the Macedonian Theme of Thrace, if you think otherwise then PROVE IT.

Your Penguin book can contain whatever map it likes, the actual reality of the time records Thrace as Macedonia and Macedonia Proper as Bulgaria in the context of Themes.

Tell me, what connection do you have to Basil II (whom you have named your basement school after) when you were not even aware that the daynasty is said to come from the Adrianople region in Thrace? Could this be the reason for your childish facade, the fact that you were ignorant of that basic fact?

Quote:

the alleged institutional continuity of the Ohrid Archbishopric for 1,000 years

Ok mr Byzantine Macedonian

You are right and all other Macedonians from the last 200 years are wrong :lol:

aleksandrov · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 07:33

I have finally seen the light. I now know that we should all throw away any books published by reputable international publishers and turn to the free-of-charge (except for the ego massage) internet forum historian, who calls himself Soldier of Macedon and has an avatar of Philip of Macedon, while at the same time fiercely defending popular 'Macedonian' fables that he's (mis)read excerpts from on the internet, which claim that our original ancestors came to Macedonia in the 6th century AD, that their FIRST identity was Slav, that their first kingdom was one that was called Bulgarian, that they apparently have a Church which has had 1,000 years continuity from the Ohrid Archbishopric/Patriarchy of the medieval Bulgarian state, that they later changed their identity to Serbian, then to Bulgarian again, and then, finally, in the late 19th century, created a new 'Macedonian' identity for "all the Slavs of Macedonia". If we can take ourselves seriously with an identity based on such a solid theory, the world could surely not resist. Greece and Bulgaria should be the first to support us.

"He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger." - Confucius

I now kindly ask this great internet historian to enlighten us by citing the opinions of "all other Macedonians of the past 200 years".

I'd also ask him to enlighten us with his knowledge of the full history of how and why the 'basement school' in Sydney was named Vasil II.

Soldier_of_Macedon · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 09:41

A bre Igorche, ne se luti muce, stvarno ne znajs sho tropash sega

Those links are ALL Macedonian websites, and under them I clearly stated for you to see what they write about Ohrid, and that is THEIR opinion. So please, if you have any further wonderful things to say about the opinions of other Macedonians then go and address your concerns with them, send them an e-mail, try telling them and the people in Macedonia about your denigrating view of the 1,000 year old history of the Ohrid Archbishopric while you are there to apparently "promote" the region.

As for the rest, you are writing fairlytales buddy, and the lack of substance in your responses and in your character really does clarify what the real Igor Aleksandrov is all about.

aleksandrov · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 11:24

It is quite sad when people get so carried away with their own ego, prejudices and silly vendettas that they become almost totally oblivious to plain language, common sense and even what is going on around them. It seems that even if God himself tells them that they are being foolish and gives them clear reason for that assessment they will accuse him of being Satan.

Soldier_of_Macedon · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 13:32

So true, people really should practice what they preach...........

aleksandrov · **Posted:** 15 Dec 2007 14:24

We finally agree on something! :clap:

Magedon · **Joined:** 05 Oct 2006 18:44 **Posts:** 256

How is Vasil II remembered by our ppl?Like the man who blinded his own ppl. Ever asked yourselves why Vasil didnt kill them and sold to slavery instead of blinding them??Maybe bcs they were his OWN kin??Maybe he was sending an sms with something about 'blindness' to Samuil??

Why did we nicknamed Branko Crvenkovski - Vasil II???Bcs he did what he did TO HIS OWN PPL!

The Roman empire having defated and concoured anc Macedonia HELD the Macedonian crown. Even if Samuil wanted to name his empire a "Macedonian" one - he cudnt bcs he cudnt claim the crown. But instead he claimed the BULGAR crown and imidiatly went to war with Vasil, in my mind to take the Roman AND Macedonian crown from him. If they were in war - it doesnt mean that they werent the same ppl with different kingdoms and crowns.

Macedonian Orthodox Church and/or Ohrid Archdiocese

Who is online