Talk:Antonije Abramović

[Untitled]

The "renewed" word is quite controversial. I know that you will be referring to the autocephalous Montenegro and the Littoral Metropolinate - but that is not MOC. The Montenegrin Orthodox Church might claim descent from the autocephalous metropolinate, but like I said, there was no autocephalous Church. --PaxEquilibrium 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop being so ignorant, Pax. MOC was once autocephalous for most of its time as being a church. --Crna Gora 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being ignorant. MOC was introduced for the first time in history in 1993. The Ohrid Archbishopric was autocephalous for half a millennium, and the current Macedonian Orthodox Church claims it - but it is known that M(ac)OC isn't 50 years old. The Metropolinate was autocephalous as such as well. Besides, the MOC shares totally different goals, beliefs and other pursuits than the original Metropolinate (which lasts up to this day and has never indeed been abolished). --PaxEquilibrium 13:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You have nerve to say that vladikas from Petrovic dynasty were controlled by the Serbian patriarch, are you saying that this is a lie? Are you saying that true vladika of Montenegro would be treated like this in Cetinje, seat of his church? Not to mention that Petar I and Petar II were wearing the white "kamilavka"(a version of aholy cap), which is for heads of autocephalous churches only. But I see that preserving Serb nationalist-assimilatory view is more important than presenting things as they are. Tebi na obraz! Sideshow Bob 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, that is a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA. There is no excuse for making them.

Second, I obviously do not have the nerve to say that ..vladikas from Petrovic dynasty were controled by the Serbian patriarch.., since I never said that, did I? Anyway, if I said that, that would've been true for the historical period from 1697 to 1833 (when the Russian Patriarchate kicked in and took over leadership over the Montenegrin Metropolinate).

Next, you have an error on that link (an extra | in the end). I am not saying that the Constitution of the Holy Synod (composed in 1903) is a lie - it indeed declared the Metropolinate of Montenegro an autocephalous one within the Eastern Orthodox Church (which was politically official-ized in the 1905 Constitution of the Princedom [later Kingdom] of Montenegro). By the way, the short-lived age of this autonomy is greatly overestimated (when it apparently wasn't even two decades).

Worn by the Archbishop of Ochryd as well, yes (however, there is no "Orthodox Church of Ochryd" (although "Church of Ochryd" was indeed sometimes used); there is only "Ochryd Archbishopric". Hence, there were/are no such thing as "Orthodox Ochrydians", nor could anyone be "Ochrydian Orthodox".

Your reference to Youtube I do not understand, I am sorry.

Perhaps what you perceive as a ..Serb nationalist-assimilatory view more important than things as they are. is actually WP:NPOV?

The thing that is as it is is that an (national religious) institution known as the "Montenegrin Orthodox Church" was created ("illegally" as could be described) in 1993. --PaxEquilibrium 23:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I explained the personal attack issue, I reverted it myself as soon as I calmed down. Hope you wont hold it against me.

It is well known that Montenegrin Orthodox Church was autocephalous at the beginning of 20th century, until 1920,when it was cancelled by the order of King Alexander,and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro and Littoral was created as a part of the Serbian Orthodox Church. I acknowledge the manner in which the MOC was re-created in 1993, but if anyone can be called a rightful successor of Montenegrin vladikas throughout the history, it is certainly not the Metropolitanate with Amfilohije at its helm.

Reference to Youtube...It was just a video uploaded by my personal friend who sent it to me a couple of days ago. It just shows how the people of Cetinje treated Risto Radovic in 1993 on the Assembly about Petar II Petrovic Njegos, revolted by the bias and inaccuracy of the facts presented on the assembly by academics from SANU and CANU,which at that time was heavily controlled by SANU leaders. It was simply an interesting addition to the talk, revealing the people's feelings about the current head of SOC's puppet Metropollitanate.

Is MOC canonically aknowledged? No, but who are we to demonise any side here by suggestive vocabulary, such as self proclaimed Archbishop, head of Church(least he deserves is a formal title),church that registered as a non-governmental organization at the Montenegrin Ministry of the Interior in 1997(any relevance?!) etc. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 21:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I won't.

That's what I've been saying, that was not a "Montenegrin Orthodox Church". For example, the Serbian Orthodox Church had existed in 1219-1532, but has been recreated and lives on ever since 1920. Despite the Serbian sacral institutions existed across various periods, those were not a "Serbian Orthodox Church" (despite even referred to as "Church of Serbia" many times), i.e. the Serbian Patriarchate of Pec in 1557-1766, or the Metropolinate of Montenegro and the Littoral that inherited its heritage from the first half of the 18th century onwards, or the Metropolinate of Karlowitz from 1691, that became a self-proclaimed Patriarchate in 1848 - merged into SOC in 1920.

Understand this - there was no "order" of King Alexander that abolished it. All the Metropolinates (karlowitz, Belgrade, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Croatia and others) gathered in 1920 and (re)proclaimed the Serbian Orthodox Church in Belgrade. The Montenegrin Metropolinate later gave its agreement and joined the SOC because there were numerous disagreements. The sole (or better, the most of it) of the disagreement was the claim (which I consider very justified) of the Montenegrin Metropolinates for the seat of the Serbian Patriarch. Other than that, was the struggle for the historical Pec Patriarchate (which would be on the soil of Montenegro, and under its influence, naturally) to be the new (olden) seat of the SOC. Montenegro's historical successes were greatly unrecognized and diminished by Serbia, especially by the scandal insisting on Belgrade (because its the nation's capital and largest city) to become the seat. This, together with the total abolition of the Montenegrin state and the overthrowing of the dynasty is what caused the Christmas rebellion and the following disorders, by the way.

Just remember Gavrilo Dozic... For the MOC to be the autocephalous metropolinate's successor, it needs to base its claims. Do the two have similar pursuits? No. Are the MOC heads head, or at least descendents/heirs of the Metropolinate? No. Did the Metropolinate exist when the MOC was created in 1993 (and still does)? Yes (and yes). So you see there was no line that was somehow broken and then returned in 1993. There was only slight change (referring to the autonomy - which by the way, lasted only for some 15-20 years).

This is the Montenegrin paper on the 1920 controversy over the Montenegrin Metropolinate - read it carefully

That's why I actually do think that Amfilohije is the only canonical heir to the Montenegrin-Coastal Metropolinate (canonical=legal in Church Law). Understand Dedeic something like (this is gonna be a bizarre comparison, brace yourself) President of Abkhazia (in Georgia). I don't really think that it's "demon-izing", but there are/were usurpers to thrones, and Dedeic (and his predecessor) in some way, are usurpers (although they didn't take it yet, :) - he's trying hard though it seems! :).

Imagine if I gather an institution and created a "Dalmatian Orthodox Church", and claim that I re-created the old Metropolinate (although this is slightly less expressive with this case than with the Montenegrin, the comparison still stands) of Dalmatia. I think I would deserve those words. --PaxEquilibrium 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First off you're wrong Pax, the Montenegrin church was independent for many years, and today the MOC will be written into the constitution and will take back all of the churches, who cares if it's "uncanonical", if the majority of ethnic montenegrins want to be part of the MOC then it WILL be canonical, you have no right to supress the people's church. I wouldnt be suprised if Amofilije of the Montenegrin SOC gets assasinated soon, it'd be something to celebrate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.160.43 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

1. There's no doubt the Montenegrin Orthodox Church is independent for the past 13-14 years

2. It will not be written into the Constitution, because now even the ruling coalition opposes it and because the Constitution will maintain separation of the Church and the State

3. It will not seize (not take back, see WP:WEASEL) the other religious' institutions' property because Montenegro will protect it

4. It matters, just like it matters that Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossettia aren't countries because they're unrecognized. I have no right to surpass the Church - but neither do I have the authority to recognize it (btw it aint quite a "people's" church)

5. The majority of Montenegrins do not want to be subjected to the MOC

6. He may not be nice, but you're calling for open lynch, aggression and violence, please stop acting like the Montenegrin Orthodox Church. ;( --PaxEquilibrium 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)