Tsar Samoil and the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia

[Soldier of Macedon]

Samuel wasn't an ethnic Bulgar of the Turkic type, no medieval writer ever made such a claim that I am aware of. Too many of Samuel's actions go against the bogus theory that he was an "ethnic Bulgar", whatever that was supposed to mean during that period. This is what is certain:

1) The core territory of his state, that eventually became an empire, was Macedonia proper, including places like Ohrid, Bitola, Prilep, Skopje, etc. Not Nesebar, Pliska, Pleven or other places that formed the first Bulgarian state.

2) His capitals were in Prespa-Ohrid, and he never relocated them east towards the territory of the first Bulgarian state, even though he gradually absorbed that region into his empire.

3) His core religious institutions were in Prespa-Ohrid, again, he never relocated them east towards the territory of the first Bulgarian state, even though he gradually absorbed that region into his empire.


Any sentimentality towards the "ethnic Bulgars" should have been reflected in such actions, it never was.

[Risto the Great]

"Emperor of the Bulgarians" had as much significance as the first "Emperor of Greece". Nothing to do with ethnicity.

Good source TM, thanks.

[TrueMacedonian]

The simple sentence Stephenson wrote; "The practice of claiming the title Emperor of the Bulgarians, therefore, had no ethnic siginificance" is pure gold.

[makedonin]

There is nice book for you to read, called The Legend of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer.

Here is something from the summary:

In chapter five, Stephenson explores how the contemporary authors referred to Basil. An extensive survey of the Byzantine sources reveal that instead of Voulgaroktonos, Basil was generally referred to as porphyrogennetos or "born in the purple" to show he was the reigning emperor. Otherwise he was referred to as "the younger" or "the second". Thus Basil was known to the chroniclers and others as Basil II. This trend continued in the literature well beyond the life of Basil. Stephenson also reveals that this was well known even to biographers in the seventeenth century.

It is not until chapter six that the mystery is revealed in why Basil transforms from porphyrogennetos into the Voulgaroktonos. As one might suspect it has more to do with political changes, particularly in the ways that Bulgars were viewed in the twelfth century, rather than any particular historical activities. However, Basil image would decline again in later centuries, particularly with the rise of the Turks and a decline in the threat from the Bulgars.


Source: http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/...nson_basil.htm

Very interesting book.

I don't really need to see Samuil as Macedonian King. He may as well have been of mixed stock, Macedonian and Armenian. Some suggest he is was of Vlach descent.
Who cares.

BUT, to view him as Bulgarian is simply wrong.

The Capital of his Empire was shifted to Ohrid, which is not traditional for the Bulgarian Kings. His territories accompanied large Territories of which are known as non Bulgarian lands, such as Macedonia, Thessaly or Serbia and Bosnia.

Cause of the Territories his Empire subdued, his Empire was certainly multy ethnic as was the Byzantine.

That only tells us, that Medieval Kingdoms can't be seen through 19-20 Century nationalistic terms.

[makedonin]

See more here: http://macedoniantruth.org/forum/sho...?t=2076&page=2

[TrueMacedonian]

Here's something else from Stephenson - http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=1869

[TrueMacedonian]

Was the Ohrid Archbishopric called "Bulgarian" before and during 1767?

My curiosity peaked here because I see the Bulgars keep stating that this was always a Bulgarian church system in Macedonia and that it was always called as such.

So let me make this question more specific from the title.

Was the Ohrid Archbishopric called "Bulgarian" before 1767 during the Ottoman Empire only? Is there evidence that it was called as such from people within Macedonia?

[Pelister]

My curiosity peaked here because I see the Bulgars keep stating that this was always a Bulgarian church system in Macedonia and that it was always called as such.

So let me make this question more specific from the title.

Was the Ohrid Archbishopric called "Bulgarian" before 1767 during the Ottoman Empire only? Is there evidence that it was called as such from people within Macedonia?

I have often wondered about this same question.

[Bratot]

My curiosity peaked here because I see the Bulgars keep stating that this was always a Bulgarian church system in Macedonia and that it was always called as such.

So let me make this question more specific from the title.

Was the Ohrid Archbishopric called "Bulgarian" before 1767 during the Ottoman Empire only? Is there evidence that it was called as such from people within Macedonia?

NO!

If there was, then the Bulgarian church would be based on our Ohrid archbishopric/patriachate.

But since there is no such connection nor it could be possible something like that, the Bulgarian church is formed by the SULTAN with a FERMAN - a turkish decree.

As such, it clearly points out that Bulgarian church is not legal - canonical or w/e you want to name it.

If the Bulgarians got only one evidence they would already claimed such thing, but clearly they CAN NOT!

[Prolet]

Bratot (The Brother)

Is it true that the first Macedonian Church in Canada was actually Bulgarian??

YouTube - The First "Macedonian" Church In Canada

I know for a fact that before the Ottoman Empire, we lead all the Orthodox Churches from Ohrid not CariGrad.

[makedonin]

Prolet, what you posted has nothing to do with the Ohrid Aherpiskopija.

Ohrid Aperhiskopija had jurisdiction over whole Macedonia, Bosnia, Serbia (Kosovo) Montenegro, Moesia (Bulgaria with out Thracia), Romania and parts of Thessaly.

So it could not be Bulgarian in the sense that the Bulgarian claim it.

[Bratot]

Prolet, there are many churches built by the Macedonian community in oversea countries, which today have been usurped by the Bulgarian or Serbian churches in the period before 1960 and MPC.

The work of the holy Apostle Paul and the holy emperor Justinian I was continued by the holy brothers Methodius and Cyril and their disciples Saints Clement and Nahum of Ohrid. In the second half of the 10th century, within the borders of Samuel's state, the autocephalous Ohrid Archdiocese was established with the rank of patriarchate, on the foundations of Justiniana Prima. After the fall of Samuel's state, the Ohrid Archdiocese was reduced to a lower rank of church hierarchy (archbishopric) and it existed as such for eight centuries, until its abolishment in 1767 by the Turkish sultan Mustapha III (my note: UN-CANONICALY) , and its dioceses were annexed to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. From this moment on Macedonian people made all possible efforts to restore the Archdiocese. Its dioceses were under several jurisdictions of the neighbouring Orthodox Churches and this struggle became particularly fierce in the second part of the 19th and the first part of the 20th century. Convenient conditions for restoration of the independence were created not earlier than during World War II (1941-1945). Right before the end of the war, in 1944, in the village of Gorno Vranovci, an Initiative Board for Organisation of the Macedonian Orthodox Church was formed. In March, 1945, in Skopje, a Resolution to restore the Archdiocese of Ohrid as Macedonian Orthodox Church was made at the First Clergy and Laity Assembly. This decision was submitted to the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, since before World War II several dioceses in Macedonia were under the United Orthodox Church of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians, known later as Serbian Orthodox Church. The Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church did not accept this decision, which resulted in the following actions of the Initiative Board: instead of as an autocephalous, the Board insisted on the Church being recognised as autonomous. This request was also rejected. In 1958, the Second Clergy and Laity Assembly was held in Ohrid and the proposal for restoration of the Ohrid Archdiocese of Saint Clement as a Macedonian Orthodox Church was accepted and Dositheus was appointed the first archbishop.

http://www.mpc.org.mk/MPC/istorija.asp

One example is the church in Detroit sponsored by Ilic, our businessman who now refuse to donate for further church causes since he was fraud and instead a Macedonian church, now the church belongs to the Bulgarian authorities.

[Prolet]

Makedonin, You're right it doesnt but the Bulgarians are accusing us of stealing their churches.

Bratot, I thought Mike Ilich was Macedonian? He owns those Pizza shops throughout America im quite sure that he is part of MPO.

Why was he a fraud?? I thought he was a proud Macedonian??

I dont understand how can the Bulgarians take that church in Detroit?? Did they register it under the Bulgarian Orthodox Church?? The one in Toronto has Bulgarian flags all over it we are talking about 1910 here before Macedonia was divided.

[TrueMacedonian]

Bratot (The Brother)

Is it true that the first Macedonian Church in Canada was actually Bulgarian??

YouTube - The First "Macedonian" Church In Canada

I know for a fact that before the Ottoman Empire, we lead all the Orthodox Churches from Ohrid not CariGrad.

This post has nothing to do with this topic. However this can easily be refuted on many grounds.

YouTube - Keith Brown on the ethnic identity of Macedonians 1930-40's

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=835&page=8

[TrueMacedonian]

Bratot, Makedonin thanks for the replies. I guess this destroys yet another Bulgar myth that the Ohrid Archbishopric was "always Bulgarian" in the "nationalistic" sense that Bulgars would like to believe.