I am starting this thread with the intention of moving from the Macedonian Church Dispute in Diaspora thread (http://www.maknews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3553) all the posts by Soldier of Macedon and I that turned into a somewhat circular argument about medieval history. I will repost my post from that thread that started the argument and I ask Soldier of Macedon to repost his reply here, after which each of us will continue to repost their subsequent replies on this thread. If there is an easier way of moving all of the posts from that other thread that cloud the topic for which it was started, I would ask MakNews to help. After that, I would ask him to unlock that other thread so that we can delete the posts relating to the medieval history debate, and reopen the thread for discussions focusing on the topic for which it was originally started.

Here's my post in that thread which started the debate with SoM:



The overwhelming majority, if not all of those that I represent are not interested in any 'Ohrid' identity. We are Christian (Eastern) Orthodox believers with an ethnic Macedonian identity. The indigenous Macedonian identity and Orthodoxy are older than the medieval 'Ohridska Arhiepiskopija', which was historically a regional unit of the Orthodox Church and did not explicitly carry or promote a Macedonian ethnic or national identity. The claim that 'our' Church derives from the 'Ohridska Arhiepiskopija' is a very vague and hollow one, and has no more strength than saying that our Church derives from the Carigradska Patrijarsija (Constantinople Patriarchy). It needs to be reconsidered in the same way that we need to reconsider the theory that our history as a people starts from 5th or 6th century 'Slav' settlers who apparently filled a Balkan vacuum, and the related theory that Samoil (recorded by history as a 'Bulgarian' king) was the first 'Macedonian' king. But I won't get too much into that topic in this thread, except to add that the lack of commitment by Bishops in the Synod to affirm and protect the indigenous Macedonian ethnic identity, along with their inadequate demonstration of concern for indigenous Macedonians of the Orthodox faith in the parts of Macedonia under Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian and Serbo-Albanian ('Kosovo') rule, is one of the basic reasons why our community does not trust them enough to give them even half of the despotic powers that Petar wants to assume in their name.

As far as being under a spiritual head of an independent MACEDONIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH in Macedonia, we used to be under such a head until Petar came to Australia and decided to deny the legitimacy of everything our Church did in Australia before his arrival (by taking that position he is also effectively denying the legitimacy of the Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada, which is set up in essentially the same way that we were when he started claiming that we couldn't be part of the MOC unless we accepted his materialistic demands). As long as Petar's extreme conditions are placed for us to be under a Bishop appointed by the Synod in Macedonia, and as long as somebody as unbecoming of the throne as Petar is in that postion, while Archbishop Stefan refuses to engage in direct dialogue with us without Petar approval, we cannot be 'under' the Archbishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Church in the Macedonian Republic.

Our acceptance to be 'under' the Church hierarchy in the Republic on Petar's terms would be no less damaging than the Republic of Macedonia accepting entry into NATO or the EU on the conditions that it give up its identity and sovereignty to satisfy Greek and Albanian separatist demands (which our politicians have already done to a great degree).

Soldier of Macedonia replies:


Christianity has been in Macedonia since it began, well before Justinia Prima which was first closer to Skopje and then later in Ohrid, however, the church, literary and liturgical history of the Macedonians takes a solid form in Ohrid with the students of Kiril i Metodi, nobody can dispute this. Our holy city, Ohrid, once gave books of learning to the whole Slavic world, it is from here where our identity and spirit as a people is rejuvinated after centuries of Roman rule. The expectation that Ohrid has to "explicitly" carry an ethnic or national Macedonian identity in the past is rather unrealistic given the complex and imperial situations prevalent during the Middle Ages, not to mention Macedonia's position in adimst all of this. Ohrid is a Macedonian region and it has been since Phillip II, it is our people who cared for these holy places, this is not about an Ohrid "identity", it is about identifying with the holy and spiritual capital of Macedonian Christianity. I agree that Petar is no good for our church, but if there was a good person in his position then I would expect that all Macedonian churches unite rather than remain segregated. I am not talking about giving the leadership in Ohrid all your money or anything like that, but there must be cohesion and unity for christ's sake, we should work together and we should acknowledge the truth and our positions.

So if Petar goes (which I am sure all of us here do hope is the case real soon), will your group consider coming to the table?

Alexandrov replies

Soldier of Macedon,

We are constantly working to persuade the Synod to appoint a more credible Bishop for Australia, precisely because we want unity. I think there are two to three Bishops in the Synod that are capable of bringing that to us, by opting for dialogue, love, tolerance, persuasion and leading by example, in place of Petar's threats, blackmail, deception, malice and extreme hypocrisy.

On the historical issue, I am not denying anything that individual Macedonian clerics and educators did achieve under the Ohrid Archdiocese in the middle ages, but simply stating that I do not think that we, as Macedonians living in the 21st century and trying to protect our identity from Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian denial and indoctrination, should be stressing an 'Ohrid' identity for our current Church establishment. It is in this context that I underline that there is no strong case for the medieval Ohrid Archdiocese being considered the root or foundation of the contemporary Macedonian Orthodox Church.

Even if you are going to talk about the glory of 'Slavonic' education, it makes no sense to attribute its foundations to students of Kiril & Metodi, rather than to Kiril & Metodi themselves, given that their work was much more fundamental. As far as I know, Kiril & Metodi were not acting under the the Ohrid Archdiocese, or under the 'Bulgarian' kingdoms under which the Ohrid Archdiocese gained its preeminence. Please correct me if you are aware of strong evidence to suggest otherwise. Repeating the text-book theory we inherited from the Yugoslav Macedonian education system, and which the Macedonians in Yugoslavia essentiall based on an existing theory about the "Bulgarian Macedonians' that was previously generated by the Bulgarian Exarchy, is not enough.

Also, I did not at any stage express an expectation that the medieval Ohrid Archdiocese should have carried an ethnic Macedonian identity, as no Church institution in those days carried an ethnic identity. But we now live in the 21st century, in which most Orthodox churches do carry an ethnic or national identity. Given that Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek indoctrination of Macedonians in the 19th and 20th centuries was primarily carried out by the Orthodox Churches of those modern nations, I would say that maintaining the ethnic and national Macedonian identity should be the raison d'etre for an independent Macedonian Orthodox Church. From this perspective, emphasizing that the Macedonian Orthodox Church has its roots in the Ohrid Archdiocese and emphasizing the 'Ohrid' identity over the broader and more meaningful Macedonian identity does not help at all, assuming that we agree that both our religion and ethnicity are older than the Ohrid Archdiocese.

Having said that, I will add that not only did the Ohrid Archdiocese not explicitly carry a Macedonian identity, but the kingdoms under which it became preeminent carried an explicitly non-Macedonian identity - 'Bulgarian', while the (East) Roman Empire was run by a dynasty that explicitly carried a Macedonian identity (the dynasty to which Basil II, 'The Bulgaroslayer' belonged), promoted ancient Macedonian cultural heritage and arguably did more to instigate the spread of the Macedonian-based 'Slavonic' literary language throughout the Eastern world than did the Ohrid Archdiocese.

I do not want to rewrite the history on my own, but having read what others have already written, I am simply not convinced by the 'slavocentric' version that is currently popular in the Macedonian Republic. I would like to see it rigorously reconsidered, with more critical analysis of ALL relevant evidence and from an independent Macedonian perspective.

Alexandrov replies:


Please guide me to some source material from the era that backs this theory up, and which makes reference to Macedonians. What church did Macedonian Christians follow before the Ohrid Archdiocese?



Are you sure you should not be attributing this first and foremost to Kiril & Metodi and the (East) Roman/Byzantine Empire under which they operated, as well as to the city of Salonika/Solun, on whose Macedonian dialect they based the 'Old Church Slavonic' literary language?



Which identity are you referring to here? 'Slavic' or Macedonian?

Are you aware that the (East) Roman/Byzantine Empire was mostly not run by Romans, but simply maintained the name 'Roman' as a claim to the 'glory' and conquests of the Roman Empire? I suggest you read up on Emperor Justin (of Macedonian shepherd stock, from Taor, near Skopje) and on Basil II and the Macedonian Dynasty that he belonged to. For the latter, including the explicit maintenance of the Macedonian identity within the Byzantine Empire, you can start with Michael Psellus' "Fourteen Byzantine Rulers" (Penguin Classics). In addition, try to find some middle-eastern sources, which are free of Eastern European 'Pan-Slavic' influences and Western European 'Hellenophile' influences.

Alexandrov replies:



If the Synod of the Macedonian Orthodox Church decides to remove the Macedonian identity from its name and constitution, and be identified only as an Ohrid Archdiocese, as they attempted to do with Petar's 'Nish Accord', I would not want to be under them. However, if it maintains the Macedonian identity but continues to state that its historical foundation is the medieval Ohrid Archdiocese, I would accept that as a temporary official statement of history, while continuing to advocate critical academic revision of it, from an independent Macedonian perspective.

"We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect." - Ambrose Bierce



When? Under whose rule?



The churches in Macedonia were under Constantinople before the establishment of the Ohrid Archbishopric, which itself was originally an extension of the Constantinople Patriarchate. We have just as much claim to the original Patriarchate of Constantinople as the modern Greeks do, if not more. It is a shame that they've usurped it and that we seem to accept that as proper.



Not really. Firstly, acknowledging that the Ohrid Archdiocese is considered to be the foundation of the Macedonian Orthodox Church is not the same as saying that the Macedonian Orthodox Church is the exclusive inheritor of the Ohrid Archdiocese. Secondly, contemporary property title cannot be decided by reference to medieval or Ottoman era history. If that was the case, the Serbian Orthodox church would be able to claim the churches in the Republic of Macedonia that were built under the jurisdiction of the Serbian Church, after the abolition of the Ohrid Archdiocese.



Not really. The reasons are the objections of the Serbian and Greek Orthodox churches, which relate primarily to their denial of our church's right to a Macedonian identity and the manner in which our modern church in Macedonia declared independence from the Serbian Church, without approval from the Serbian Synod. Have you read Petar's "Nish Accord", based on which the Serbian Church was willing to recognise ours as an autonomous Ohrid Archdiocese, excluding the Macedonian identity, and under supremacy of the Serbian Patriarch? It makes no reference to property rights or limitations to our geographical influence, yet the Serbs were prepared to accept it. The Constantinople Patriarchate has already stated that it will recognise us if the Serbian Church does. In fact, they have both recognized 'Archbishop' Jovan's (Petar's protege, Zoran Vraniskovski) breakaway Ohrid Archdiocese as the legitimate heir to the historical Ohrid Archdiocese. What property has Jovan gained from that?

Alexandrov replies:

For those who haven't read it before, here is a Macedonian translation of the infamous "Nish Accord", which three Macedonian Bishops, including Petar, Timotej and Naum entered into with the Serbian Orthodox Church, on 17 May 2002. The original document is in Serbian. I have a JPEG copy of it if anybody wants me to email it to him/her .

Note that, according to the introduction, the "Accord" appears to take the form of a decree by the Serbian Orthodox Church, which our Bishops have simply accepted, rather than an agreement between two sides.

Petar, as a co-creator of the document, lobbied hard to get the Synod to ratify it. He initially defended it publicly, both in Australia and Macedonia. The only two Bishops who opposed it immediately and publicly were Kiril and Agatangel. The others, including Stefan, were apparently leaning towards ratifying it, but they remained quiet while waiting to see which way the political winds would blow. Due to widespread public outrage in Macedonia, including political pressure, the Synod ultimately decided not to ratify the Accord. After that, Petar tried to play dumb by simply saying that it was only a draft, while Jovan broke away to implement it on his own, and accused Petar of treason for backing off for fear that he would lose his privilleges in Macedonia and over $300,000 in unpaid salary that he is claiming from his Australian Diocese (see http://www.poa-info.org/frameset.php?l=mk&r=arhiepiskop&p=prepiska&d=prepiska/20030609.html).


"NACRT SPOGODBA ZA VOSPOSTAVUVANJE NA CRKOVNO EDINSTVO

Srpskata Pravoslavna Crkva, odnosno Pechkata Patrijarshija, imajki gi predvid realnite duhovni i pastirski potrebi i odlukite na Svetiot Arhierejski Sobor na Srpskata Pravoslavna Crkva broj 47/1958, 6.1959 - zapisnik 57 od 17/4 juni 1959 g., na postoechkite eparhii na Pravoslavnata Crkva vo Republika Makedonija, odnosno na Ohridskata Arhiepiskopija i nejzinata dijaspora, im priznava shiroka crkovna samostojnost, odnosno najshiroka crkovna avtonomija, ostavajki go prashanjeto za konechno reshenie, vo soglasnost so kanonskiot soboren poredok na Pravoslavnata Crkva, na idnata sepravoslavna soglasnost na celata Crkva vo Svetiot Duh.

Po svojata konkretna sodrshina toa go podrazbira slednoto:

1. Vo svojot vnatreshen zhivot i vo svoite crkovno-pastirski dejnosti, Pravoslavnata Crkva za koja stanuva zbor ima samostojnost vo soglasnost so opshtovazhechkite kanonski normi. Soodvetno na toa, taa ima svoj Sveti Arhierejski Sinod i Poglavar.

2. Crkvata za koja stanuva zbor se upravuva vrz osnova na opshtovazhechkoto kanonsko ureduvanje na Pravoslavnata Crkva i svojot Ustav.

3. Poglavarot ja pretstavuva svojata Crkva pred Sprskata Pravoslavna Crkva, a vospostavuvanjeto na evharistiskata zaednica i kanonsko edinstvo so Srpskata Pravoslavna Crkva e svedoshtvo na crkovnoto edinstvo i so ostanatite pomesni Pravoslavni Crkvi.

4. Poglavarot se oslovuva so Negovo Blazhenstvo ili Blazhenjejshi i nosi bela panakamilavka so brilijanten krst.

5. Izborot na Poglavarot go potvrduva Patrijarhot srpski, pred se so zaednichko sluzhenje na Sveta Liturgija so nego.

6. Vo chinot na vostolichuvanje na novoizbraniot Poglavar uchestvuva Patrijarhot srpski ili negov pratenik i eden od arhiereite na spomnatata Crkva.

7. Poglavarot na svetata Liturgija, na V pervih pomjani, go spomenuva Patrijarhot Srpski, a na Velikiot vhod mozhe da gi spomenuva i poglavarite na drugite pomesni Crkvi, dodeka podrachnite eparhiski arhierei i vikarni episkopi go spomenuvaat imeto na Poglavarot.

8.Poglavarot, ili negoviot pratenik, uchestvuva vo varenjeto i osvetuvanjeto na miroto so Patrijarhot srpski, vo znak na edinstvo na Svetiot Duh.

9. Za izborot i vostolichuvanjeto na Poglavarot na spomnatata Crkva, Patrijarhot srpski ja izvestuva Vselenskata Patrijarshija i pomesnite crkvi. Od svoja strana, za toa mozhe da izvesti i Poglavarot so svoe mirno pismo.

10. Za osnovanjeto na novi i arondacijata na postoechkite eparhii odluchuva Svetiot Arhierejski Sinod na spomnatata Crkva i za toa sluzhbeno go izvestuva na Patrijarhot srpski.

11. Vo sluchaj na sudenje na episkop ili vo drug sluchaj so slichna tezhina, koga, vo soglasnost so kanonskiot poredok na Pravoslavnata Crkva, treba da odluchuva Sobor od najmalku dvanaeset episkopi, brojot na episkopite koi nedostavuvaat ke bide obezbeden od episkopatot na Srpskata Pravoslavna Crkva.

12. Eparhiskite arhierei i vikarnite episkopi gi izbira Svetiot Arhierejski Sinod na spomnatata Crkva.

13. Poglavarot, pri sosluzhenie so Arhiepiskopot pechki Mitropolit belgradsko-karlovachki i Patrijarh srpski, stoi od negovata desna strana.

14. Vo soglasnost so drevnoto crkovno predanie i istoriskata praksa, Crkvata za koja stanuva zbor go nosi imeto Ohridska Arhiepiskopija. Ohridskata Arhiepiskopija mozhe, po dosega vostanovenata mnogudeceniska praksa, vo svoeto vnatreshno megjusebno sluzhbeno opshtenje so Pechkata Patrijarshija da go koristi imeto koe i dosega go koristeshe.

15. Od istite prichini, Poglavarot oficijalno nosi titula Arhiepiskop ohridski i mitropolit skopski, a vo vnatreshnata upotreba mozhe da ja koristi i dosegashnata titula.

16. Pravoslavnata Crkva za koja stanuva zbor uchestvuva na sepravoslavnite konferencii, sovetuvanja i svechenosti, a so soglasnost na Vselenskata Patrijarshija i vo sredbite na Poglavarite na avtokefalnite i avtonomni Pravoslavni Crkvi.

17. Vo duhot na ovie odluki neophodno e da se usoglasat ustavnite propisi koi se odnesuvaat na spogodbata za vospostavuvanje na kanonskoto edinstvo.


Mitropolit + Petar, s.r. Crnogorsko-primorski + Amfilohije, s.r.

Mitropolit + Timotej, s.r. Nishki + Irinej, s.r.

+ Naum Stumichki, s.r. Bachki + Irinej, s.r.

+ Episkop vranjski Pahomije, s.r."

Soldier of Macedon replies:

Aleksandrov,

Once we rid ourselves of Petar the road should be pretty much opened for re-unifying the churches, I don't want to see priests or local bishops acting like rogue kings of the churches in their own individual suburbs or regions, there must be unity and acceptance of the truth and facts.

You come across as having your own perception on how things are which seems removed from historical truth, like distancing yourself from Ohrid on the basis that you do not wish to have an Ohrid "identity", disregarding all our church history emanating from that region. As I stated previously, Ohrid is not the root or foundation of Christianity in Macedonia, but it is the place where it took a solid form for our people. You claim that there is 'no strong case', then please provide us with the alternative, 'stronger' case of where this elusive spiritual capital of ours is.


Please don't misconstrue what I wrote, nowhere do I credit the students of Kiril i Metodi as the "founders" of Slavonic education.


Who is repeating it, me? Disregarding all our history from Ohrid just because it was attached with different terms centuries ago doesn't really seem to qualify as inclusive of the whole truth either.


Really? That's what it looked like to me when you wrote that the indigenous Macedonian identity and Orthodoxy are older than the medieval 'Ohridska Arhiepiskopija', which was historically a regional unit of the Orthodox Church and did not explicitly carry or promote a Macedonian ethnic or national identity.

It seems as you are using that very point to distance yourself from Ohrid. This was our main church institution for over a 1000 years, not just us, but for many Slavic people over a period of many centuries, all from Macedonia, and you expect that we should just start a "new" independent Macedonian church to emphasise the fact that we are not Bulgarians? I doubt that notion will recieve much support, neither Bulgarian nor Roman were ethnic terms during the main stages of the Middle Ages so trying to claim that Ohrid was ethnic Bulgarian or that Constantinople was ethnic Italian simply innacurate.

I agree with you that much needs to be revised but lets not throw everything out of the window just yet until such an analysis has been completed.

Soldier of Macedon replies:


Source material? You are kidding right? Read up on Ohrid's literary history, and you were saying before that you had no expectations that there should be an explicit reference to an ethnic or national Macedonian label and now you want a source where it says so? Come on mate.

I give due credit to Kiril i Metodi but it is their students, mainly Kliment i Naum who continued their work and created the environment where Ohrid was to supply books to the Slavic world, that is why I say it was not founded but solidified in Ohrid, which it was. Solun is a historical capital of the Macedonian region, but so is Bitola and so is Ohrid, more so in liturgical terms. The activities in Ohrid rejuvinated our identity as a common and unique people giving us further purpose, there was no ethnic anything in the Middle Ages the way we identify it today, but there was a sense of common belonging and communty which has always been around in Macedonia.

You shouldn't allow the contempt you have today towards some of the Macedonian leadership in Ohrid cloud your judgement regarding the historical significance this place has for us as Macedonians.

Aleksandrov, I am well familiar with Macedonia's history during the Middle Ages, but you seem to contradict yourself somewhat, on the one hand Ohrid despite the Bulgar label is still a Bulgar institution but on the other hand Constantinople despite the Roman label is not a Roman institution. Justin is spoken of as an Illyrian and not of Macedonian sheperd stock, should we now dismiss him as non-Macedonian or non-significant to Macedonians like you do with Ohrid? Thracians and Illyrians have always been a close link to the Macedonians and overlap in identities with each other during various intervals.

Please show me the passages of Michael Psellus which refer explicitly to a Macedonian indentity.

P.S: We don't want to fall in the same trap as today's modern Greeks.

Alexandrov replies:



I don't think anybody does.



What truth and facts would they be? It is much easier to declare things as true and factual than it is to prove and defend them as such.



What truth would that be? What statement of fact have I made that is removed from historical truth? Please be specific. I've made very specific statements of fact further above and have posed very specific questions.

If we were to take all official versions of history as undisputed truth, without critical thought and insistence on evidence and logic, we would have to also accept the Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian versions of history, all of which conflict with each other to some degree, yet are widely accepted as fact within those nations (by people who believe what they want to believe) and often uncritically accepted by those in the world who have no knowledge of alternative sources.


Saying that I don't want our Church to be emphasizing the Ohrid identity over the Macedonian identity is not the same as distancing myself from Ohrid. I am proud of Ohrid and its history, but only as a limited part of a broader and deeper Macedonian history. In the same way, I am proud of Skopje (my place of birth) and its history, including its Byzantine history, which predates the Ohrid Archdiocese, but I do not stress my Skopje origin over my Macedonian origin. I know the Greeks would love me to identify as a Skopjan though.


Like what? What is a true fact (as opposed to interpretation) about our church history that I am disregarding?



What does this mean? I asked you previously what church did Macedonians belong to before the Ohrid Archdioces was established, if any? Was the Ohrid Archdiocese and independent church, or merely an extension of Constantinople? What does "took a solid form for our people" mean, exactly? What did the Ohrid Archdiocese do to promote the Macedonian identity and "Slavonic literature" that was more "solid for our people" than what Kiril & Metodi and the Macedonian Dynasty did under the East Roman Empire?



Firstly, there is no good logic which dictates that to question somebody's asssumption, you have to provide an alternative assumption. There's good logic behind why our courts place the onus of proof on those seeking to affirm the existence of a certain set of facts, rather than on to those disputing them.

Secondly, what rule says that we have to have a spiritual CAPITAL?

Thirdly, I already made the point that what makes us Macedonian Orthodox is that we are Orthodox (the Orthodox religion is ONE) and that we are ethnic Macedonians. The spiritual 'capital' of Orthodoxy is Constantinople. Do you dispute this? Macedonians, as a people, have had numerous capitals over the centuries, but the only capitals of an independent Macedonian state that I know of are Pella (in antiquity) and Skopje (today). Furtnermore, the real seat of the modern Macedonian Orthodox Church is in Skopje. That's where our Archdiocese and our Archbishop are based.

Finally, I already gave you at least one SOURCE reference, which, if you read it, will make you question what you currently seem to consider historical fact.




You wrote:

"in Ohrid, however, the church, literary and liturgical history of the Macedonians takes a solid form in Ohrid with the students of Kiril i Metodi,...Our holy city, Ohrid, once gave books of learning to the whole Slavic world, it is from here where our identity and spirit as a people is rejuvinated after centuries of Roman rule"?

Why are you putting the Ohrid-based students of the "founders of Slavonic education" up as the "rejuvinators", over the Solun/Byzantium-based "founders"? Also, why are you avoiding to answer whether it was our "Slavic" or Macedonian identity that was apparently "rejuvinated [in Ohrid] after centuries of Roman rule"?





OK, can you please refer me to any independent sources on which you rely? I am open to being convinced.



No it does not, which is why I haven't disregarded what you claim I've disregarded. Is there no difference between not wanting to grant a limited set of elements of our history supremacy over others and disregarding them?





It might look that way when you add external presumptions to it. I was merely making a statement of fact, which makes no mention of the alleged expectation you refer to. Do you agree or disagree with the above statement of fact?

Saying that something did not happen is not the same as saying that it should have happened, but did not.

I was merely indicating that the popular presumption in the Republic of Macedonia about what the Ohrid Arcdiocese was in medieval times as far as the Macedonian identity is concerned, which you seem to share, is not supported by clear historical facts. As far as the Ohrid Archdiocese being a spiritual centre for Macedonian people, which did not carry the Macedonian identity, it was neither the only, nor the first regional unit of the Orthodox Church to have that role. Given these facts, I see no logical reason for the modern Macedonian Orthodox Church, which, like most modern regional Orthodox Churches, carries a national or ethnic identity, to claim that its historical foundation is the Ohrid Archdiocese, given that the Christian Orthodox tradition of the Macedonian people has just as much, if not more, historical connection to Justiniana Prima and Constantinople, but, more importantly, to Macedonia (as distinct from any one part of it).



I am not interested in carrying on the 'Slavic people' myth. It hasn't brought any good to Macedonia and only serves to dillute our indigenous Macedonian identity. I can accept that there is a 'Slavic' group of languages shared by distinct peoples, whose literary languages derive from the "Old Church Slavonic", which was based on a Macedonian dialect/language. That's not enough to suggest that we belong to a "Slavic people", as if they were some homogenous ethnic entity, nation or 'race'.

As far as a "new" independent Macedonian church, I don't need to 'start' it. It was 'started' by at least 21 October 1943, at a meeting of Macedonian priests in the Republic of Macedonia, then supported by a Church People's Assembly on 4 March 1945, then a second such Assembly on 4 October 1958, initially approved by the Bishops' Assembly of the Serbian Orthodox Church, on 24 November 1959, and formally declared at a Macedonian Church People's Assembly on 17 July 1967. The fact that it (misguidedly, in my view) claims to be a territorial or episcopal heir to the medieval Ohrid Archdiocese does not make it less "new" and does not change the fact that it has an independently Macedonian character and identity, which no medieval Archdiocese or Patriarchy had (nor did the medieval Archdioceses or Patriarchies have any other independent ethnic or national identity).

Also, the concept of emphasizing our Macedonian identity is different to merely 'proving' that we are not Bulgarian, although I understand that many reduce the affirmation of the Macedonian identity to disputing the claim that we are Bulgarians.



I am not looking for anybody to support my theory. I am merely presenting facts and logic that contradict the theory you seem to think is undisputed. It is up to independent scholars, preferably Macedonians who are free of the remnants of Serbian, Bulgarian and Greek indoctrination, to revise the weak theory and come up with a stronger one.

The terms Roman and Bulgarian were used to identify people who shared linguistic and/or cultural traits and/or a common territorial and/or a tribal identity, on which they based their own kingdoms, which were subsequently infiltrated and shared by people of other 'races', some of whom continued to carry only the existing identites of the kingdoms, while others (like the Macedonian Dynasty of Byzantium) added their more specific identities to the identity of the kingdoms they took over. Back then, that was just about the closest thing there was to the modern concepts of ethnicity or nationality. The closest Macedonian version of it was the Macedonian Dynasty that ruled the East Roman Empire and which was at war with Samoil, the Tzar who carried a Bulgarian identity (the people that made up his kingdom may have have been Macedonians, but so were the people who made up Ivan Mihajlov's VMRO and we don't treat Mihajlov as a Macedonian hero today). The Ohrid Archdiocese is mostly associated with Samoil, under whose rule it also became a Patriarchy. The facts on which these statements are based have been recorded in texts and archeological findings from the era. As long as we choose to ignore them, in favour of a semi-mythical version of history which is little more than an adaptation of the political versions served to us by the Bulgarian Exarchy, Greek Patriarchy and Serbian Patriarchy, with little more academic vigour than the replacement of the term 'Bulgarian' with 'Macedonian' and 'Macedonian' or 'Byzantine' with Greek, we cannot hope to find broad support for our theory among scholars of the world. The pupularly accepted theory of Macedonian history in the Republic is so weak that it is easily taken apart by (pro)Bulgarians, (pro)Greeks and (pro)Serbs with elementary knowledge of the relevant historical facts. Of course, they usually try to replace it with their own politically doctored theories, but that only leaves us with opportunities to pick their theories apart, rather than to support our own.

Alexandrov replies:


Specific reference, please.



What is inconsistent between saying that I have no expectation that such a reference exists and challenging you to prove that it does, with the expectation that you won't? You were the one claiming that the Ohrid Archdiocese rejuvinated our 'identity' after centuries of Roman rule - not me. I am merely saying that you shouldn't make such specific and definitive statements without evidence to support them.



What leadership in Ohrid? Bishop Timotej, the Metropolitan of Debar and Kicevo? I don't have contempt for him, even if I disagree with him on a lot of issues.



I did not say that Constantinople did not carry the Roman label or that it was not a 'Roman' institution. What I essentially said was that the (East) Roman Empire, in the relevant periods of history, was run by Macedonians who were born in Macedonia of shepherd (which most likely means indigenous) stock or maintained a Macedonian identity, maintained ancient Macedonian symbols and cultural heritage, and ultimately used their positions to spread a Macedonian-derived literary language throughout the Balkans and to Eastern Europe, even though the Empire's primary official languages before that were Latin and Koine. I also referred you to a source text from the era. Can you do the same thing about Samoil or the medieval Ohrid Archdiocese? If not, what makes the Ohrid Archdiocese or Samoil more Macedonian than Constantinople or the Macedonian Dynasty of Byzantium? Surely it can't be the fact that the Ohrid Archdiocese promulgated Orthodoxy and the "Old Church Slavonic" language among the Macedonian population, since the Macedonians of Byzantium did so even earlier and continued to do so after defeating Samoil, while the Ohrid Archdiocese was merely an extension of what they were already doing, with a 'spiritual' base in Constantinople.

I haven't made as definitive and as exclusive a claim in relation to Constantinople as you have in relation to Ohrid i.e. that it was the place where the Macedonian Church identity took its most solid form. I never said anything to the effect that "if it wasn't Ohrid, it must have been Constantinople instead". I haven't suggested that we call the Macedonian Orthodox Church the Constantinople Church, like others suggest that we should call it the Ohrid Church. Why are you challenging me to defend a proposition I haven't made? What you seem to be saying to me is akin to saying something like: "If you don't accept that it's black, you are saying it is white. Prove to me that it's white and not black". Do you think that this is a logically valid way to react to my questioning of your your proposition?



Where? Some sources say Illyrian, but some say Macedonian, depending on the perspective of the writer. In any case, as you acknowledge below, Illyrians and Macedonians were related since antiquity, with the principal difference being that Illyrians weren't always under the Macedonian kingdom. Do you know where Justin is believed to have been born and where his seat was?



Again, please don't try to convert what I've actually written to a 'black and white' picture. Nowhere have I dismissed Ohrid as non-Macedonian or non-significant to Macedonians. I have merely questioned your assumption about how fundamental the Ohrid Archdiocese is to our identity.


Yes they do. Did the Ohrid Arcdiocese carry a Thracian or Illyrian identity? If not, what is the exact relevance of this point?



Have you actually read the book? It only costs about $17.

In my version (1966 revised version), 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. If you are really interested, it is not hard to find. I am not going to go through material I've read over 10 years ago just for the sake of arguing about it on this thread. I am not trying to write history. I am simply trying to encourage people to think more critically about certain popular assumptions. Substantive critical thought requires some independent research.

In any case, I do not think it is fruitful to continue this debate about history in this thread, since some people might get an incorrect impression that interpretations of medieval history are central to our resistance to Bishop Petar. Our desire to maintain the current Macedonian identity of the Macedonian Orthodox Church is a central issue, but we don't think that our case needs to be justified by reference to medieval Church history.

Soldier of Macedon replies:

I will compress my responses in just this one post, and I will start by saying that if you thought it not fruitful to continue this historical debate in this thread then you would have responded in or created another, which you didn’t, so I will answer you back here.

If your aim is to pick and choose selected segments of our history as Macedonian and disregard others, as your words seem to suggest, then your theory will not get too far, it need not have the Macedonian name tied exclusively to it to be historically Macedonian.

I find your watered-down version of events concerning Ohrid and its history in the scope of Macedonia as rather ill-informed, it is a FACT that our spiritual leadership has come from Ohrid for at least a 1000 years, naturally Constantinople is for Orthodoxy what Rome is for Catholicism but Ohrid is for Macedonians what Pec is for Serbia or what Pliska is for Bulgaria, it has clearly held the position of the main church institution of our land for centuries, and that is the TRUTH. It is completely correct for all Macedonian churches to be under the spiritual head of Ohrid, as they have been for centuries prior, your Ohrid “identity” crisis is fictional and I don’t think anybody here is considering giving up their Macedonian identity for an Ohrid one, such comparisons therefore are irrelevant. Yet, your main focus point seems to be just that, the Ohrid “identity”, which leads me to think that this is something more of a ‘personal’ nature rather a general one. Ohrid’s historical significance is not “limited”, it is extensive, and there is no “rule” for a spiritual capital as this occurs through historical development, you are not talking to supporters of Vranishkovski here Aleksandrov, your comments regarding the Ohrid “identity” are out of context.

SOLID form, meaning now, we write in our own letters, we pray in our own language, we dictate Slavonic liturgical matters from our own land – OHRID – MACEDONIA. I am not putting Kliment i Naum “above” Kiril i Metodi, and Old Slavonic, the Slavonic identity and Pan-Slavonic activities of Macedonia are integral to Macedonian history in the Middle Ages, down-playing its significance because it did not always harbour an ethnic Macedonian name is not really a calculated assumption. Old Slavonic emanating from Macedonia IS Macedonian, I don’t really see the point in putting the word ‘Slavonic’ in quotation marks each time you write it, Emperor Michael III of the Roman Empire said to Kiril i Metodi “you are both natives of Salonika, and all Salonikans speak pure Slavonic”, do you wish to put the word in this sentence in quotation marks too?


Political and social circumstances may dictate as to where the main seat of a church appears to be in a particular state, but historically and realistically speaking Ohrid is the main seat, most Macedonians will tell it to you plain and simple that Ohrid is our spiritual capital, regardless of where the state capital is located. The state doesn’t make the church, the people make the church, and the people in Ohrid are Macedonians. As for Skopje, one wonders why you fail to apply the same principles here as you do with Ohrid, a capital city hand-picked by our friends up north due to its proximity with their southern border, and this is a “foundation” to be proud of as your state’s capital and your home city?

You may not be specifically saying that Ohrid and other “limited” elements should have had a Macedonian label to qualify as ours, but you may as well because the rest of what you wrote certainly seems to suggest so.


Searching for similarities in the Middle Ages to today's modern concept of nationality is a fruitless task, you speak about Samoil who according to you had a Bulgarian identity, Heralcius who was a Greek had a Roman identity, Justin the Illyrian had a Roman identity, these cannot be viewed through the eyes of 19th century nationalism for if we were to do so the modern Italians have a claim on half of Europe and Asia. Ivan Mihailov himself may be a predavnik and he is certainly no hero for us, but the traitor was as much a Macedonian as Petar Ligushev and Boris Sarafov, these facts need to be acknowledged rather than swept under the rug.


You really need specific references to prove that with Kliment i Naum in Ohrid our literature and language took on a solid form? They are the students of Kiril i Metodi, theirs is a continuation of the work started by their teachers, are you not aware of all the literature using our language which stems from Medieval Ohrid beginning during the lives of Kliment i Naum? Are you not aware that Ohrid is in Macedonia? Yet once again, you search for the Macedonian "label". You want a reference, go and check the multitudes of literature which comes from Ohrid, Solun may be where the Macedonian brothers first began their work, but thereafter Ohrid was where the Slavic world came for books, in Ohrid, Macedonia. Before all of this, we were using Latin and Greek overwhelmingly for such purposes, that is why I call it a rejuvination because our native language and literature found a means to be expressed and subsequently lifted the spirits of our people as one of significance rather than one of submission to foreigners, come this time, half of Europe looked towards us.


Well let us start with the fact that OHRID IS IN MACEDONIA, the Macedonian Dynasty was based in Odrin-Thrace, not Macedonia proper, and I am not saying anything is more Macedonian than the other.


Still with this, which others? And once again you misconstrue what I wrote with your assumptions, which by the way is the reason why I haven't bothered to respond to some sections of your post. You can't have it both ways, you can't passionately say Ohrid is "limited" in Macedonia's history and then say you don't deny its historical significance when defending your position.

Justin IS spoken of as an Illyrian by contemporary sources, not that I doubt his link to Macedonians. I know where Justin is believed to have been born, close to where you are from.


You're a comedian too, or are you referring to "acquired" money? I will tell you a secret, shhh, you can get the whole text for $0 on-line.

You are aware (or maybe not) that Psellus talks about the Macedonian theme right?

Alexandrov replies:



Have you read the 2002 "Nish Accord", that is, the decree of the Serbian Orthodox Church signed by Petar, Naum and Timotej? I posted it further above just for those who have not read it yet. Are you suggesting that it is a fiction arising from my "Ohrid identity crisis"?

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain



You mean you agree that all Salonikans spoke pure Slavonic and Kiril & Metodi were spreading it throughout the Roman Empire and beyond, with the support of "Romans", before the Ohrid Archdiocese apparently "rejuvinated our identity after centuries of Roman rule" and "solidified" our language?

Didn't those tribal settlers to whom the Macedonian mainstream today refers as "Slavs" fail in their many attempts to occupy Salonika, except for settling around its periphery? If so, how did ALL Salonikans manage to learn to speak PURE Slavonic, before the Ohrid Archdiocese apparently solidified that literary language? Who's wrong? Emperor Michael or the neo-Slavists who claim that our Macedonian identity was first 'solidified' in the times of the Ohrid Archdiocese and Samuil, by "Slav" settlers?



If you responded directly to what I have actually written, rather than to your own selective readings or reconstructions of it, this 'debate' would not have detracted as much attention from the key topic of this thread and may even have been fruitful. The approach you have taken might make it easier for you to avoid backing up or reconsidering the assumptions you have treated as undisputed facts, but it is barely leading to anything fruitful, especially with the increasing dose of antagonism that I am starting to sense.

I raised an objection to you identifying the Macedonian Orthodox Church merely as "the Ohrid church", just like I would object if you referred to the Macedonian Republic as the Skopje Republic or if you treated the Macedonian Republic as if it encompasses all of Macedonia (something that many people do). In addition, I made my comments to encourage more critical research and thought into certain assumptions about our history that have caused a lot of damage and confusion regarding our Macedonian identity, by providing opportunities for Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian propagandists to indoctrinate Macedonians into believing that they are historically Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian or "Slav", and that the distinct Macedonian identity is an artificial creation of the 20th century. I did not intend to get involved in a petty and stubborn battle of wits, or to have to write twenty pages to elaborate and repeat a point which, at least to me, is much clearer, simpler and less contentious than it seems to have been received by you.

If you want us to continue debating medieval history, I am happy to start a separate thread about it and repost all of my relevant posts from this thread on it, as long as you are happy to do the same, after which I suggest we both delete from this thread those posts which relate purely to medieval history and cloud the discussion about the more immediately relevant issues that were supposed to be the topic of this thread. Please confirm whether you want me to start a separate thread for this purpose and I will oblige.


The irony in that statement is really tempting me to continue this discussion, but I'll contain myself until we move it to another thread.


Which theory would that be? Please tell me in the other thread, if you agree that I should start it.


I've never said that it does. If you are deliberately changing the goal posts, please be kind enough to tell me, as I might not want to play. If that is not your intention, please re-read this discussion (of medieval history) from the beginning.




What?:o



Thank you, but hard copy publications, especially by promiment publishers, carry a lot more credibility among academic circles and public institutions, so I've become accustomed to relying on them over online versions, wherever available.

Does the online version have the passages I referred to in the previous post? Have you read them? If so, why did you ask for quotes referring to a Macedonian identity, as if they don't exist?


No, I am not. You can tell me about it in another thread, if you are interested.

Alexandrov replies:



There is no doubt that it was a major spiritual centre of the (Eastern) Roman Empire, given that when not under the Bulgarian Empire, it was an extension of Constantinople i.e. outside of the period when it had a Patriarchy established by the 'Bulgarian' Empire, it had an Archdiocese to Constantinople's Patriarchy.

Alexandrov replies:



Yes, I agree that a Macedonian Bishop who respects the Macedonian national identity would not even consider signing a document like this. Not only did Petar and the other two consider signing it, but they actually did sign it, and then Petar went on to try and persuade the Macedonian public that the Synod should ratify and implement it.

Alexandrov replies:



I wanted to respond to the above quote separately, as it is a perfect example of your disingenuous reconstructions of what I've said. This is what I said a couple of pages back:



How can you honestly claim, after I have made my position as clear as quoted above, that I fail to apply the same principles to Ohrid as I do to Skopje? How can you honestly claim that my foundation for being proud of Skopje's history (just as I am proud of Ohrid's history), is that it was hand-picked as the capital of the Macedonian Republic by our northern 'friends', when my statement about Skopje has absolutely nothing to do with it being our Republic's capital, but mentions its history going back to the early Byzantine era? If you missed what I really wrote the first time, please read it more carefully this time around. I have even emphasized some key words in bold for you.

Do you have any knowledge of Skopje's history prior to the Serbian occupation? Do you know who the Kale was originally built by? Do you have any idea what is buried under the old town? Do you know about its relationship to Justiniana Prima? Have you ever visited any of the historical monastries and excavations within and around Skopje? Do you know anything about the extraordinary medieval and ancient historical heritage that is left in Skopje, despite the city having been burnt to the ground more than once and despite cyclical earthquakes? Do you know anything about the Macedonian revolutionary activities in and around Skopje during the Ottoman era and until the end of WWII (not to mention the more modern movement for Macedonian independence)?

As far as your theory of how Skopje was chosen as the modern capital of the Macedonian Republic, I'd really like to see you start a separate thread about that, in which you might explain to us exactly who nominated or chose it as a capital and which city within the boundaries of the Republic you would have chosen instead, by reference to relevant demographic, geographic, political and historical factors.

Soldier of Macedon replies:

You seem to like quoting people without following their example, great quality, and you say you can sense what now, antagonism? I have no reason to be against you, I am sure we would probably agree on most things, but maybe you should reflect on the way you have written some things here and your assumptions to detect where this "antagonism" may have its roots. Placing a few select words of mine in quotation marks and emphasising on them like they are wrong would be a good place to start looking.

And please, I don't need education on what and how the Slavic-speakers were during the Middle Ages, this has been discussed extensively hence your statements regarding it are elementary compared to most others here, I am no neo-Slavist buddy, but nor am I a delusional purist.

Petar and Jovan are liars and thieves and I have already acknowledged the fact that they are both wrong for us, but you continually go on about the "Ohrid" identity, as if it detracts from it being Macedonian, it may be something to do with your devout Christianity and the way you percieve things should have been, rather than how they really were. I do not deny the Byzantine connection, but to dismiss everything from Ohrid while it was under the Bulgarian rather than the Roman Empire is historically wrong, you on the other hand may not see it that way. The way I see it, Pech-Serbia, Pliska-Bulgaria, Ohrid-Macedonia.


You show me where exactly I identify the MOC as "merely the Ohrid Church"? Or maybe you should have another read of Twain.


Yet you have done exactly that, how it became petty though I believe our viewpoints will differ.


So why haven't you done it already then, but instead, you respond again in this thread? You don't need my confirmation, you could have started it two posts ago yet you didn't, start one, and I will be happy to meet you there and continue the Medieval debate.


Come now, you don't accuse the goalie of moving the posts after you miss the shot.


Have you opened that thread yet? And considering you use that as your key source one would have assumed that you would already know this important detail, but we see how far some assumptions get us don't we.

By the way, thanks for the emphasis in bolded words for me, lord knows I would be lost otherwise I think it would pay for you to read some of the older threads on this forum and find out who's who in the zoo and how much we really know here instead of asking question like if I have knowledge about Skopje prior Serbian occupation, which I view as an insult.

As for which city should have been the capital in the Republic of Macedonia at independence or statehood (solely or as a republic in yugoslavia), easy, Bitola.

Open your thread.

Alexandrov replies:



In the context in which I used it, the word merely means something like only. You merely have to look for that post in this thread in which you provoked my original comment about your reference to the Archbishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Church as 'the spiritual head of Ohrid' to realise that you did in fact only use the term 'Ohrid' as an identifier of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. I'll help you:



You continued this theme, and added the more obviously fallacious assumption that the leadership or seat of the modern MOC is based in Ohrid, a couple of posts later:



You also inferred as fact an unsubstantiated presumption that there is 1000 years of historical continuity between the medieval Ohrid Archdiocese (which, according to universally acknowledged sources, was originally established as an Orthodox centre, in the form of a Patriarchy, by an empire that identified itself as Bulgarian), and our current MACEDONIAN Orthodox Church, which was established after WWII, by a popular movement of Macedonians, for Macedonians of the Orthodox faith, with a distinctly Macedonian national identity, as a tangible INSTITUTION (rather than simply a 'spiritual centre'). When challenged to back that popular myth up with credible references to historical facts, instead of acknowledging your inadequate knowledge of the current constitution and 20th century history of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, you chose to disingenuously back-pedal and reconstruct what I’ve actually written, as if attaining an internet reputation of infallibility is more important than the substance of the discussion.

You’ve tried to make it out as if I am the one identifying the Macedonian Orthodox Church with a specific Macedonian province and limited period and scope of Macedonian history (Constantinople under Byzantine rule or Skopje under Yugoslav?), and not you (Ohrid, since Samuil's days). You’ve stubbornly persisted with that misrepresentation over several posts, despite repeated posts by each of us that clearly indicate the opposite.

If you don't have a copy of the constitution of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, I can tell you that in it you will find that its name is Macedonian Orthodox Church. Article 2 says that its status is that of an Archbishopric. It is alternatively referred to as the Macedonian Archbishopric. According to the preamble, it considers itself to be the canonical successor to the Ohrid Archbishopric, which was abolished in 1767, but its name is not 'Ohrid Archdbishopric and its seat is not in Ohrid.

Just to crystallize some things in my previous posts which you may have genuinely misunderstood:



I didn’t say you are. I don’t know enough about your credentials to make that call.

I do distinguish between being a pan-Slavist and accepting as fact theories that are deeply rooted in pan-Slavism, just like I distinguish between good/bad intentions and good/bad deeds.

If we are going to be buddies, I should at least know your real name. If you don't want to use it on this forum, you can PM it to me.


Are you some other type of purist? If not, what exactly was the purpose of the ‘delusional’ qualifier?



I don’t think anybody really ‘needs’ that, but I have no doubt that ANY person who is interested in that topic could benefit from further research and education. I don’t claim any special expertise in that field. However, I can confidently suggest that you appear to need some elementary experience in having the theories (whatever they may relate to) that you take as facts rigorously tested by people who expect real facts (including credible references) and logical arguments based on those facts. In the absence of knowing what your formal academic training is, one great exercise I can think of is playing an expert (historian?) witness in a moot court, perhaps in one of the universities near you.

I may later respond more specifically to a couple of points in your last two posts that have some direct relevance to the misconceptions regarding the current Macedonian Orthodox Church. As to the rest, I will simply have to rely on reasonable people reading my posts for themselves, judiciously and in good faith.



Did I respond with further representations regarding MEDIEVAL HISTORY?

If I didn’t believe that we are essentially on the same side as far as the more substantive contemporary challenges for the Macedonian nation are concerned, I would have stopped replying to you several posts ago. However, although I have persisted this far (which some may rightly judge as unwise and wasteful), I do not intend to clock up 2,000 posts flogging a dead horse.

After reading your last post, and reading some of your history lessons in other threads, I’ve gained an impression that I will need to wait for a few years before I can hope to engage in any FRUITFUL debates with you about the factual and logical integrity behind certain presumptions about medieval history. If I get a chance to find out who is the real person behind the internet Soldier of Macedon, my impression may well change, and I hope it does. As things stand, I must say that I have no ambition to be an internet forum warrior and to compete with a fictional internet identity.

Having said that, for the sake of not clouding the key topic of this thread with peripheral arguments, I am willing to start a separate thread FOR THE PURPOSE OF MOVING all of my comments regarding medieval history from this thread, AS LONG AS YOU AGREE TO DELETE ALL OF YOUR POSTS ON MEDIEVAL HISTORY FROM THIS THREAD AND MOVE THEM (UNCHANGED) TO THE OTHER THREAD (as I would do with mine). I am sorry if the emphasis offends you, but you seem to have missed that key condition of my original proposition, as you have missed several other key parts of my prior quotes. Do we have a deal?

Alexandrov replies:



I've heard that provincially partisan statement from many patriotic Bitolchani, but I was hoping to get a little more depth from you. Here's the proposition to which you seem to have attempted to reply with the above statement, but this time with emphasis in bold on the parts you seem to have missed:

Soldier of Macedon replies:

Alot of smoke in your words Aleksandrov, a trait I am becoming accustomed to seeing from you. You accuse me of something and you fail to show evidence of it, because as we both now, nowhere have I dismissed the MOC as "merely the Ohrid Church", you may want to re-evaluate your approach.

Your continued rejection of Ohrid only serves to demonstrate how extreme your view is, and I will tell you for a fact that your psuedo-notions do not have much support amongst the bulk of the Macedonian population if this is your true position, I actually thought you were Ok when you first started writing here, I seen you first in Canberra during the protest and I assumed that you were on the ball but now I see that your aims are much more narrow than initially anticipated.

http://www.mpc.org.mk/English/default.asp
http://www.mpc.org.mk/English/mpc-today.asp
Macedonian Orthodox Church - Ohrid Archdiocese

Way too many assumptions and empty accusations, like I am "limiting" the MOC to Ohrid, or I am identifying the MOC "specifically" with Ohrid, when in actual reality I am merely paying the homage and respect that Ohrid does deserve pertaining to its significance for Orthodoxy in Macedonia. (No doubt you will now twist those words and tailor it to fit your argument also You on the other hand, due to some personal vendetta or spaced-out version of history seem to think that Ohrid is virtually insignificant where it concerns the MOC.



Really? Then what would you call this;

Your contradictions are becoming quite the spectacle now. And I never said it was first soldified as if we had never existed prior, your over-emphasis on insignificance may be enough to pull in curious listeners where you are from but here it will be given the respect it deserves rather than expected.


You really are a comedian! Comparing yourself to me, your level of knowledge would not even register on the scales, and no, conjured theories about some Constantinople continuity and Ohridophobia do not count as valid.


Yet, once again, you do just that.


Yet you do exactly that, ONCE AGAIN. You are not competing with a fiction here, I am as real as they come and the fact that you now twist the scenario again to one of a "real" person against an "internet warrior" is evidence of your loss and that you don't have a clue of what you are talking about. I wouldn't even be conversating with you if you never spoke in the demeaning way you did about Ohrid, however, now, I will assure that no falsity expressed by yourself will go unchallenged. I am not calling you a liar per se, but you are in serious denial where it concerns some elements regarding Macedonia.

Bitola, the heart of the Macedonian revolutionary struggle, a consular and renowned city during the same period, home of our most common dialects, the basis for our literary language and a main cultural centre for Macedonia. In a united Macedonia either Solun or Bitola, in the republic it should have been Bitola. That's not a provincial partizan statement, Misirkov is not from Bitola but even he advocates it as a capital.

Alexandrov replies:

Soldier of Macedon,

You continue to deliberately misconstrue my words and to totally ignore the key parts that don't suit you, to the extent where you are starting to appear as if you have serious problems with English comprehension and logical thinking. Maybe when your judgment is not clouded by your warrior instinct, you will actually read my words for what they are and get beyond your bratty denial and petty snipes.

I also suggest that you give up overconfidently relying on the World Wide Web for all your research. I refer you to the CONSTITUTION of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, which has been adopted by the highest legislative body of the Church (Arhiepiskopski Crkovno-Naroden Sobor na Makedonskata Pravoslavna Crkva), and you try to counter the validity of its content with links to some trivial articles on a web site that carry no legal weight. As resourceful as the internet may be, it is of limited value and credibility, since any Tom, Dick or Harry can publish stuff on it, without even putting his real name behind it and taking real responsibility for his/her actions. The links to the MOC web site that you posted prove nothing more than that whoever put together or approved the content of those pages is being disrespectful or ignorant of the constitution of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. If you bother to get your hands on the constitution (published in hard copy), you may find that out, as long as you don't read it selectively and misconstrue it to fit your preconceived theory.

If all of the Bishops and others who are in charge of the day to day running of the Macedonian Orthodox Church in the Macedonian Republic had more respect for their own constitution, we wouldn't be having the problems with Petar that we do.

As far as what myths or versions of history are or are not acceptable to the broader Macedonian population, if you really think that popularity is a valid test for theories of history, maybe you should try entering some of the theories about Slavs, Bulgars, Tito etc. that you've posted elsewhere on this website in a broader (beyond the internet) popularity contest. Try publishing an article in a Macedonian journal or magazine or even newspaper, or speaking on a Macedonian radio or TV program, or publishing a book, about your theories (translated in Macedonian), and let us see how they pass the popularity test that you appear to place great significance on. Try putting your real name behind it, too. I will then be happy to be one of the members of the public, or maybe even a student, if you are an academic, to put questions to you, to test the factual and logical integrity of your theories. If you want to improve your chances of establishing infallability or superiority, before you start, I suggest that you AT LEAST read, re-read and perform the exercises in the book "Understaning Scientific Reasoning", written by Ronald N. Giere, published by Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Among other acknowledgments, it has been used as one of the standard texts in a first year Bachelor of Laws subject called Law Foundation (different universities give it different names), but it is not a legal text per se. It can be of value for any type of scientific research and reasoning. It might be elementary, but, as the saying goes, "you need to learn to crawl before you walk". There are other similar books around.

As far as me apparently comparing “my” knowledge about history to yours, get over yourself. Nowhere have I presented my own theory or claimed expert knowledge of history. I have merely questioned your representations of medieval and modern history by reference to universally acknowledged sources and asked you to explain how your theories fit in with the statements of fact that can be found in those sources. Nowhere have you said anything in this thread that disputes the statements of facts that I have actually referred to. You have merely chosen to deliberately misrepresent what I’ve actually written, to make it easy for you to shoot it down. I’ve pointed to specific instances where you have done that and asked you to stop doing it, but you continue to stubbornly persist with the same disingenuous conduct. The best I can do now is warn people to judiciously read what I’ve written, before they consider the validity of your distortions of it. If you think that I’ve distorted what you’ve said, I ask readers to also read your posts judiciously before they consider the validity of my impressions of them.

There is a difference between knowledge or presumed knowledge and scientific or logical reasoning. If you can't distinguish between them, I don't care who you are, you will have problems convincing even a reasonably competent end-of-first-year law student from a Western university of anything that’s worth debating about. If what you want is acknowledgment of your extraordinary knowledge of history, tell me what your real name is and what you've written or had tested in an academic or professional environment, and I'll be glad to take more notice. In the meantime, please stop clouding this thread with fruitless attempts to prove your expertise in medieval history.

P.S. Since you are not a fiction, can you tell me what your real name is and how old you are (you already know my real name, and I am 33 years young)? And if your internet identity is not fictional, can you tell me which is this army of Macedon that you serve in? Since you are not a delusional purist (as, apparently, I am), can you tell me who is this ”pure blooded Macedonian” soldier that you are asking Christ to protect, “In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun,”? Or if your signature is supposed to be a joke, can you enlighten those simpletons among us who don’t get it?