I'd have a hard time not making reference to the "pot calling the kettle black" with the dipiction in your avatar.
The depiction in my avatar is the Serbian coat of arms adopted in 1882. I don't see why it smacks of phyletism. It refers back to the time of Nemanjic and when the Church had a prominent role in Serbia (as I wish it does in the future).
It is placed over the backdrop of the heartland of Serbian Orthodoxy.
Unfortunately, brother SouthSerb, what you just posted did not remotely resemble what you previously posted. If it did, I would have certainly not even rebutted.
That is not true at all, but I cannot help how you interpret things.
Just some points though: No, the Macedonian Bishops sent to the Nis Working Agreement round table were not given authority to "bind" anything, only to speak on behalf and then report back for approval through council.
Well, since neither of us were there, how about we use a bit of common sense to deduce what was done.
4 Serbian Bishops with the right to bind, 3 Macedonian.
They agree. All seven sign the doc (I'm sure you've seen the SIGNED original). This much is NOT in dispute.
The next part is. You say the "Macedonian Synod rejected it based on the name" and I say, they were pressured by their government to renege on that which they already agreed.
Where do I get my opinion and where do you get yours? I get mine from Archbishop Jovan, who was present when your Heirarchs came back with the agreement. You get yours from the remaining Heirarchs who dispute his account. However, here is where you start to lose steam...
1. What benefit would Archbishop Jovan have for lying? For goodness sake, since he "spoke out" he has been falsely accused, wrongly convicted, humiliated, incarcerated and been spit on by the Macedonian government.
2. If what you say is true, why then would your 3 Bishops sign the agreement, only later to agree it was a "bad agreement". If it was bad in Skopje, why was it not bad in Nis?
3. You say it's the name issue. I say, nonsense. Here are points 14 & 15 of the Nis Agreement.
14. In accordance with ancient church tradition and historical practice, the aforementioned church will bear the name of the Ohrid Archbishopric. The Ohrid Archbishopric may, on the basis of a now decades-long practice, use the name it has used thus far in internal official communication with the Pec Patriarchate.
15. For the same reasons, the head of the Church officially bears the title of Archbishop of Ohrid and Metropolitan of Skoplje; internally, he may use the title he has used thus far.
Which "same name" are they talking about? Isn't it "Macedonian". As for the Ohrid Archbishopric, isn't that the name of the original Church? In this regard, the SOC seems to be covering both history and the modern Church. And this is not accomodating?
sure would be nice if Serbian and Greek Orthodox Bishops would actaully recognize our existence as an ethnic group before you actually strip the identifiers.
Is it the job of our Bishops to recognize ethnic groups? Are they historians? Are they geneologists? In fact, if you follow Orthodox history (as it is written and accepted) there is NO reason for either to do such a thing. I used to be hopeful that this would work itself out, but unfortunately to a large degree to many people in the Balkans have abandoned God, so things such as this seem fruitless.