Talk:Montenegrin Orthodox Church/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sideshow Bob 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)== What is happening? ==

Montenegrins have always been Sebian-Orthodox, this Montenegrin-Orthodox-Church is just a bad joke? Why do you have to get more and more different from us, All the kings and princes of Montengro were Serbs! You are Serbs! Stay Serb!

"Nexm0d" you're obviously ignorant and unknowledgable about history, your opinion about montenegro and us montenegrins is meaningless...Critikal1

Contents

[edit] Pointing out some Facts

  • It currently does not hold any services as no churches are under its jurisdiction nor has it built any since the creation of the mouvement in 1990. Despite claims of support from abroad, the group has not managed to build a single shrine in North America, South America, Australia or Western Europe, all home to important Montenegrin émigré communities, the totality of which support the SOC with mostly Slavic Muslims supporting the autocephalists [1].

Anyone to challenge that? Why hasn't a single shrine been built? Well, simple because A) There are no Orthodox faithful amongst Muslims, Catholics and Marxists. Montenegrins in the diaspora as well as Montenegro itself keep building Serbian Orthodox Churches.

  • The MOC is frequently forced to hold services in the open

Forced by whom? How long have they existed? Since 1990, 14 years is more than enough time to build a single church. Holding a service means EVERY SUNDAY, not once or twice on an open field as part of a political rally.

  • as only a small number of churches are under its jurisdiction.

Actually that number is zero.

  • The Montenegrin Church maintains that the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC) - following the annexation of Montenegro by Serbia - in early 20th century usurped the sacral movables and immovables in Montenegro.

First Montenegro was not annexed but united with it by a democratic vote. Second no such Orthodox church has ever existed, otherwise they would have a tomos which is basically a confirmation from the Ecumenical Patriarch of autocephaly. Third, the other sister Churches would not recognize the usurpers but rather the usurped. In this case the usurped is the Serb Orthodox Church whose shrines this political movement ransacks every month.

  • The Montenegrin Autocephalic Orthodox Church functioned independently until 1920. With the destruction of the Kingdom of Montenegro, the Church of Montenegro suffered the same fate. In 1920 the Montenegrin Orthodox Church was abolished uncanonically by King of Yugoslavia Alexander Karadjordjevic.

Nonsense, the Kingdom of Montenegro united with Serbia in 1918. Once more, the theologians would not be on the side of the Serb Orthodox Church.

  • Nevertheless, these claims of strong support are not strongly founded as the MOC intends to reclaim around 600 shrines from the SOC back into its rightful posession, and has no intention of building a new parallel network of shrines.

OK fair enough, they just plant to pillage Church property like the Communists who founded them. But what about the diaspora? Surely, they will not be able to usurp Serb churches in Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, Sydney, Germany, South America etc. What shall they do there?

  • Unlike the SOC, which has never distanced itself from the policies of ethnic cleansing against other ethnic groups in the Balkans

This political fallacy says much about who the Montenegrin 'autocephalists' are. Basically a band of revanchist defrocked clergy. Miras Dedeic, prior to his anthema, was an outspoken defender of the Serbs in the 1991-5 war. He publically went on Italian TV (he was officiating in Italy at the time) to defend the Serbs from Croat propaganda.

  • the MOC also has the support of Montenegrin citizens professing other religions (Catholicism and Islam)

Mostly by them and them alone. Which is nice but has nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity as it actually takes ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS to form a semblance of a splinter/schismatic Orthodox Church.

A splinter group, supposedly the group headed by Filaret.

Complete nonsense. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church is a cannonical church and like sister churches is in communion with the Serbian Orthodox Church. Whoever wrote this deserves a good virtual noogie.

Gospodin Miraš (Mihailo) Dedeić je 15. marta 1998. godine, u sabornom hramu Svete Paraskeve u Sofiji, kanonski rukopoložen za episkopa Crnogorske pravoslavne crkve. Hirotoniju je izvršio, sada već blaženopočivši, patrijarh Bugarske pravoslavne crkve Njegova Svetost Gospodin Pimen. Pored njega u rukopolaganju Mihaila Dedeića za episkopa obnovljene Crnogorske pravoslavne crkve prisustvovali su: Inokentije, mitropolit sofijski, Genadij, mitropolit dorostolski i još pet episkopa i četiri svještenika. Ta hirotonija imala je podršku i blagoslov Ukrajinske pravoslavne crkve. Patrijarh Pimen je tada, uz ostalo, rekao: "Našem Svetom Sinodu bila je velika čast da rukopoložimo arhimandrita Mihaila za episkopa Crnogorsko-primorskog i ja mu želim da u službi Hrišćanstva nosi sa sobom pravu snagu Hristove slobode"[23]. O razlozima koji su opredijelili Bugarsku pravoslavnu crkvu da rukopoloži Mihaila Dedeića za episkopa Crnogorske pravoslavne crkve govorio je i Anatolij Balačev, glavni sekretar i portparol Svetog Sinoda Bugarske pravoslavne crkve. [24]
Seen at http://www.moc-cpc.org/Istorija/Istorijat_L.htm and phrased intentionally with the verb "claim". --Joy [shallot]
  • and a less known Italian Orthodox Church[2].

The given page is that of the "The Holy Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy". At its head is the Metropolitan of Italy and Exarch of the Southern Europe Gennadios. This Archidiocese is directly under the tutelage of the Ecumenical Patriarch in constantinople and the page makes that perfectly clear to any partially-literate reader. that particular Archdiocese gathers the Greek Orthodox in Italy. The Serbian Orthodox Church has its own bishop, that of Zagreb-LJubljana who overseas the Serb Orthodox faithful in Italy, Slovenia and Zagorje (Croatia). The joker that appeared in Cetinje in 2003 to support Miras Dedeic was the self-styled Patriarch of the Italian Orthodox Church. Not only is his shadow-title funny but he was never heard of in theological circles before. Neither is he known as a former or current priest. Little is known about other than the fact that he supports Miras Dedeic's group.

--Igor 06:21, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This hardly qualifies as NPOV. Verbs such as "poses" and "pretends" make it POV. Should be rewritten in a more "objective" manner. It should be possible to dicuss the fact that this group is hardly universally recognized while still showing that it does have some active supporters whose numbers may be in dispute and whose place in the Orthodox fellowship may be at best questionable.

207.69.140.35 14:18, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that the text needed a little correction towards the Serbian point of view that was missing. So, I think it is even more NPOV now.

The important thing is that we are talking about a non-existent church that is supported by non-existent movements, all designed to hurt the shadow of the glorified Serbian Orthodox Church.

Yes, religious freedom is seemingly something that needs to be conceded by the Serbian Orthodox Church. We forgot tht rights are to be given by someone, not enjoyed autonomously.

Maybe we should cut down the text to the following:

"The Montenegrin Orthodox Church is a bunch of clowns, compared to the allmighty Serbian Church which is the church of God."

Thank you Serbia, we love you too.

Well, Serbs do have a history of opressing things. CharlesMartel

---

"It claims support from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and a non-existant Italian Orthodox Church that has a non-existent web site at http://www.ortodossia.it/."

I take it this is not meant seriously.

But seriously, how can we fix this article? The whole thing at this point is a mess. --Jonathunder

We're getting there... this whole parody was triggered by a completely biased rewrite by Igor which was, unfortunately, all we had. The anonymous user from verat.net dialup tried to censor/modify/parody it, and received little useful assistance. We just need to work with them... I've managed to cool things down (at least for now) at the page Montenegrins which suffered the same way. --Joy [shallot] 13:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, Joy Jonathunder 18:53, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
I added a link to a CNN.com article, which gives some perspective from both sides of this controversy: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/kosovo/notebook/0127/ Jonathunder 17:59, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
I have reviewed the link. I don't see that it gives perspective from both sides, it gives only MOC perspective, and most claims given in it are wrong. Nikola 21:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As I read the CNN article, it does quote people who have sharply different views on the Montenegrin Orthodox Church. It is written by an international reporter who does not seem to have any axe to grind here. Jonathunder 23:55, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
Pro views are given much more room and more substantial views are chosen. CNN is well known for anti-Serbian reporting which is the case here as well. I'm not against the link, it is an example of Western view of the "church" but want to point this out. Nikola 22:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes it does quote people with different views on Montenegro, but I am afraid that this is exactly the problem. It does not single out the Serbian Church as the only existing Orthodox church in Montenegro and it does not point out that all who are not of this opinion are either Muslims or Croats or on their payroll. Of course, the Montenegrin Orthodox Church is a conspiracy against the great Serbian nation.
We must remember that only one point of view is true and that freedom of worship in Montenegro among Orthodox believers is allowed - if one opts for the Serbian church. Freedom is to be bestowed upon one from above, not taken by oneself. Religion is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of dictate. Or, was it the other way around? I forgot.
Yes, some people were so shameless to suggest that Serbia - throughout the 20th century (and 21st for that matter) - was pursuing a policy of attempted domination over the other Yugoslav republics (except for Tito's time). These kinds of thoughts are pure blasphemy and heresy. There is no way that Serbia would use force to subjugate its neighbours. There is no way that Serbia would let any kind of nationalism come in the way of democracy. Serbia is the bastion of freedom in the Balkans. And Montenegro - like all other selfish former Yugoslav republics - is the living proof that you may be blind to the heavenly fruits that Serbia is offering.

Montenegro 17:16, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Све што ћу рећи је: нема ничег смешнијег од македонског национализма, и нема ничег глупљег од црногорског национализма. Nikola 22:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ima, ima - jedna gluplja i jadnija stvar.

Па оно јесте, могао бих са тим да се сложим - остављање глупих коментара на Википедији, не смети потписати их именом и презименом или макар надимком, живљење у Србији и коришћење српског гостопримства да би се пљувало по српству - све су то јако глупе и јадне ствари. Nikola 08:49, 25 Nov 2004

Nikola - Cestitam na nezavisnoj Crnoj Gori! Da nije bilo takvih kao ti... mogli smo se jos i predomisliti! Drzao si nam plamen! [User:Montenegrins|Montenegrins]] 15:49, 11 Jan 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense vs. Absurd

I would like to point out one odd thing. Montenegrin nationalists claim on one hand that the Metropolitan of Cetinje was autonomous and that consequently there existed a Montenegrin Orthodox Church. On the other hand, to deal with all the mentioning of Serbs in historical sources from Montenegrins in the past they tend to use the phrase that "Serb" in fact meant "Orthodox". There must be something (some would say everything) wrong here cause if "Serb" and "Orthodox" are synonyms than it must be that Montenegrins themselves didn't know that they had a church separate from the Serb Orthodox one. --Dultz 22:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move page?

Why isn't this article under Montenegrin Orthodox Church? Articles link to that, but it redirects here. No articles link to this page, except for that redirect and talk or user pages. Should this article be moved? Jonathunder 23:24, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

It was there but then Igor moved it here because he objects to the title. Granted, it is inherently ambiguous, but "Autocephalists" also sounds biased... --Joy [shallot] 12:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Note that all moves that aren't done with the "move page" function (available to User:Montenegro, too, when he logs in) will be reverted. --Joy [shallot] 14:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't the naming convention call for using the English version of the name the organization itself uses? Jonathunder 03:49, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
Google gives about 157 results for "Montenegrin Autocephalists", but most seem to be derived from wikipedia. There are 865 results for "Montenegrin Orthodox Church", so that term seems much better known.
Going back and reading history, it seems necessary to point out that the page was created under the title MOC and then moved manually (and thus completely improperly) by Igor [3]
I didn't revert it back then because I didn't have the admin power to delete pages and merge histories in order to move things back, I guess, but I could do it now. The title would remain a topic of discussion, but without having copy&paste moves and having two different histories for what is actually one single page. --Joy [shallot] 20:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm neutral about this. Nikola 08:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that the article that was here before this was uncorect and writen by a Serb nationalist,probably from Serbia (verat.net is not used as an internet provider in Montenegro) Best thing to do would be to hawe an honest mind-opened article about one of Ortodox churches in Montenegro.Hector

I think that Hector's comment is uncorrect and written by a Montenegrin nationalist,probably from Serbia (yubc.net, is not used as an internet provider in Montenegro). :))) Nikola 09:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This article is blatantly incorect

Montenegrin orthodox church is not only NOT RECOGNIZED by the official orthodox representatives (Ecumenical Patriarch), but its leader is also anathemized and banished from the orthodoxy by the Ecumenical Patriarchy.

[edit] What's the fuss?

As an American Anglican with absolutely no stake in the discussion, I really have to wonder what all the fuss is about. The article goes through pains to explain how little support the MOC really has. From here, it really looks like most of the folks upset by the article are merely angry that anyone at all supports the validity of the MOC. The only problem is that there are people that support the MOC. In the very least, the Christians of the MOC sect believe in their own validity, and the article is only reasonable to point that out.

The Episcopal Church in the United States has spawned its own batch of schismatic sects of questionable validity, but far be it from me to contest their existence, or even contest that they believe in their own validity. Zach82 20:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)]]

Welcome to the Balkins, my friend. Jonathunder 04:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] recognition

The fact MOC is allowed to be called an orthodox church by Djukanovic's government doesn't mean that it is recognized as such. No government is in a position to recognize anything as a church since secular governments have no religious authority. Those who have religious authority to recognize MOC as a church did not do so and that is why this organization is unrecognized for what it claims to be. The article very clearly states what this organization is registered as with the Montenegrin government. If I myself founded something and registered it under a name "church", it would be ridiculous to claim recognition based on the fact that I was allowed to enter it in the governemntal-register when no religious authority recognized me. 65.94.140.85 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A religious authority does recognize the MOC, though. The MOC is a religious organization, and it recognizes its own authority. Whether or not the ecumenical patriarchs recognize the church is really besides the point, since Wikipedia should not recognize a non-neutral point of view. The article does mention that the ecumenical patriarchs do not recognize the MOC, and it is left to the reader to decide for themselves whether the ecumenical patriarchs are right or not. Zach82 19:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The MOC is officially recognized as a church in Montenegro by the state of Montenegro. You are right that the state does not have to recognize a church for it to be called a church, it just a FURTHER confirmation of its existence. The government of Montenegro and its representatives officially congratulate the MOC on its religious festitivites every year, as a further confirmation of its existence.Its dignitaries are invited to official ceremonies, they have the seat of their church in Montenegro, they hold religious ceremonies, they have faithful in Montenegro. If you do not recognize it, tough luck. Montenegrins 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It is absolutely irrelevant to what we're discussing here (MOC's recognition) what the official insitutions of the state of Montenegro think about MOC. If you decide to call yourself an Orthodox Church (which MOC obviously did decide) than your legitimacy can only be judged and awarded by relevant institutions of the faith you purport to represent (in this case Orthodox faith). None of those relevant institutions recognize MOC as a church. And Ecumenical Patriarch and other Orthodox institutions aren't some dudes who happen to have an opinion, but institutions that define Orthodox faith.
The fact that someone calls himself an engineer and 10 people believe him and adress him as such, while every university refuses to give him a diploma certainly does not mean he is recognized as an engineer.65.92.173.243 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That may indeed be your understanding of the Orthodox religion. But that is clearly not the understanding of the MOC. The Christians of the MOC sect think they are fully Orthodox. The wider Orthodox world doesn't. Who is to decide who is right? God perhaps, but it certainly isn't Wikipedia's job to decide. Zach82 03:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not about deciding who's Orthodox and who's not, but about the clerical legitimacy of the organization calling itself Montenegrin Orthodox Church. We're also not debating philosophical aspects of religion, but merely reporting cold hard facts. And they state that MOC is unrecognized as Orthodox church by every relevant institution in Orthodoxy. Meaning it is not recognized by the very group it claims to be a part of (as indicated by its name).
This is not a case of MOC's followers (however insignificant their number might be) being denied whatever it is they feel they're getting from MOC. It is a case of organized religion (in this case Orthodox faith) having certain official structure.65.94.137.183 03:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The article fully admits that the MOC is not recognized by the rest of Orthodoxy, so I hardly see what you are complaining about. Zach82 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining. I was respondning to your previous post by pointing out fallacies in it as they relate to this case.69.156.114.118 02:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As much as I don't want this to desolve into two of us sniping back and forth, I'll again point out that the article already admits the MOC is not recognized by the rest of Orthodoxy, so there really isn't anything for you to object to. To anything. Zach82 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claims to SOC churches

Metodije, it was called Montenegrin Metropolitanate(Mitropolija Crnogorska), and it was autocephalous before unification with Serbian Orthodox Church(king Nicholas' documents clearly state this), so it was not a "Serb bishopric", as you called it. Sideshow Bob 03:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to discuss this right now, but I will be coming back. You pesky kids...--Methodius 12:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Methodus, it was autocephalous for about 15-20 years or so. --PaxEquilibrium 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm used to your hipocrisy regarding this issue, but claiming the same absurd again and again doesn't make it less false. If you find a single proof that any vladika from Petrovic dynasty was subordinated to the Serbian patriarch, then we can talk about your allegations. Good luck with that... Sideshow Bob 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Gladly. The Church of Serbia was (re)created in 1557 (after previously abolished in 1532) with the blessing of Ottoman vizier Mahmut-pasa Sokullu of Serbian origins. this was the map of the Church, and it, as you can see, of course included Montenegro. Every single Metropolitan of Cetinje before Vladika Danilo Scepcevic was named by the Patriarchs of Pec, but here's the info you asked:
As you know, Serb Patriarch Arsenije III Čarnojević (himself a Montenegrin noble priest) led the Serbs around 1690 after the fall of the Austrian army in retreat together with the Austrians into Hungary (btw this is the moment when Serbs stop to be in majority in Kosovo and the rest of Old Serbia, and become the absolute majority of the population of southern Hungary (including Croatian Slavonia). Then he was granted Serbian autonomy, and a little autonomous ecclesiastic organization. As you know, Danilo Scepcevic was elected in 1697 (or 1696, as folk tradition erroneously remembers) for the seat of Metropolitan of Cetinje. He was elected as per the decision of Arsenije III Carnojevic, while other candidates (like that of the Phanariot Patriarch of Pec) were soundly refused as illegal. However, that decision could've never become real without direct beatification of the highest authority. Despite the fact that the new Patriarch of Pec was already elected - Arsenius Charnojevich had remained "Patriarch Serbian" because the new Pec Patriarch Kalinik was a Greek Phanariot, so Danilo started preparing (whatever that meant, "saving money" I suppose) for a journey to Sečuj, where he was enthroned by Arsenius III in 1700 (source and other source), then the Metropolitan of Saint Andrews, as advised by his advisers (they worried that he won't be accepted well amongst the people, without proper legitimacy). This
Very soon Bishop Danil had considered, of course, someone for an heir - and that was his nephew Sava. But no such decision could've been made without the Serb Patriarch's consent. Since Arsenius died alread long ago, Patriarch of Pec Moses held the title, he wrote to him. In 1719 Serb Patriarch of Pec Mojsije was visiting Montenegro to study if Danil was taking good care of the Church's property. Then, he beatified Sava for his successor.
In 1750 Vasilije became the parallel Metropolitan as he went to Belgrade, where he was entitled and sanctified by the Serb Patriarch of Pec Atanasius II.
Sava elected Arsenije Plamenac to be the next Montenegrin Metropolitan. The Phanariots took over the Church of Serbia and abolished it with Ottoman blessing in 1766. However, the last Serb Patriarch, Vasilije Brkic, after exiled from Pec went to Montenegro where he found refuge. The Church of Serbia did not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate's decisions, and Vasilije remained still de facto head of the Church of Serbia as per being followed by the people. In the same way he was still recognized in Montenegro. It is thus that in 1768 Serb Patriarch in exile Brkic beatified and declared Arsenije Plamenac as the successor of Metropolitan Sava (and he indeed succeeded him).
After the Second Great Migration of Serbs to Vojvodina in the 1730s the Metropolinate of Karlowitz became some form of a successor to the Patriarchate of Pec. The abolition of the Pec Patriarchate caused a terrifying confusion an nearly a chaotic atmosphere across the former Pec Patriarchate's domains. It is thus that Petar Petrovic Njegos immediately traveled to Sremski Karlovci, where he was beatified by Serb Metropolitan Mojsije Putnik on 13 October 1784.
Subsequently after that Petar II Petrovic-Njegos went on a campaign to construct an autocephalous Orthodox Church in Montenegro with the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church, in order to preserve and later in the future reconstruct the Church of Serbia (as happened in 1920) by retaking Pec and renewing the entire former Patriarchate of Pec's dominion. It is this same policy that helped in the establishment of a Montenegrin secular state and that would lead to the Christmas rebellion and the 1920s covert civil war in Montenegro.
Satisfied? ;) If beatifying and answering isn't enough, I'm sure I'll be able to search and find some occasions on which the Petrovic-Njegoss were addressing some canon law matters, and that the Serbian Patriarchs were always mediators in ecclesiastic conflicts. --PaxEquilibrium 21:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Who said tha vladikas were subordinated? They considered themselves Serb Orthodox and were the claimants to the Patriarchate of Peć. For long periods they were the only surviving branch of the Serb Orthodox Church and were the most senior Serb Orthodox religious authorities. You should know this Bob, because this is one of the things your beloved greens were so pissed off about - they thought Montenegrin branch deserved the Patriarchate, as Montenegro was home to the most hard core Serbs (descended in large part from Kosovo Serbs) who had fought and remained free throughout the centuries when Srbijanci were acquiescing to foreign rule and converting to Islam. :) --Methodius 02:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Read up what I wrote to the up. They were subordinate till 1833. --PaxEquilibrium 11:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Subordination" implies some kind of compulsion - and there wasn't any.--Methodius 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

The MOC is an organization - the official status. Even the government of Montenegro currently inforces that view. This means:

  1. Article can't have "Orthodox Church Infobox" template, but rather "Organization Infobox" template.
  2. Article can't call MOC a church, but merely an organization.
  3. Miraš Dedeić is not a "metropolitan", he is a man who proclaimed himself as such. Only churches have metropolitans, but we've already established that the MOC is not a church.

Also, Sideshow Bob, keeps removing referenced text. On Wikipedia:

  1. It is not allowed to remove referenced text if no reason is given. "This is bulshit" is not a reason.
  2. Reversions are not allowed if no reason is given. It is not my duty to explain my edits, it is the duty of the person that has something against my edits to say what he or she thinks is wrong with them. That is a discussion, and pursuing edit war policies should not be tolerated.

All of these things must be taken into consideration. Thank you, --<;small>GOD OF JUSTICE 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Ever heard of Separation of church and state? Government has nothing to do with religious issues. No, MOC is not recognised by the cannonical churches, but the previous article clearly stated that.
  • Since MOC is a church, Mihailo Dedeic is a Metropolitan.
  • Your whole contribution to this and Miraš Dedeić is a clear POV, not to mention the obvious bad faith...
  • Contribute to the article by editing it, rather than removing the sections you don't like and replacing them with your discriminatory POV. Enough said. Sideshow Bob 21:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes it can. It does not matter if they're unrecognized, they're a Church.
2. How about religious institution as a compromise (although, it is a Church, no matter how self-styled it is)?
3. Well then place "self-proclaimed Metropolitan", don't just outright remove it.

What are you doing adding the '""' to the infobox? --PaxEquilibrium 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"so-called" MOC per WP:Weasel cannot be used. It's just like one user constantly kept adding "so-called Republic of Serbian Krajina" to all 17 mentions of it in the Republic of Serbian Krajina article. Similar problems are over at Abkhazia.

People, also take a look at WP:NPOV. --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Religious institution" is a bad term. "Uncannonical church" says it all... I don't care about the people who have issues with reality... Sideshow Bob 22:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Groovy. --PaxEquilibrium 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

MOC is not church, its a non-government institution. It was registered at the Cetinje police. --64.180.254.74 02:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not a user, but a sockpuppet. If not, I suggest you register...(not at Cetinje police, but here on Wikipedia:) Sideshow Bob 19:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My compromise suggestion:
  1. I will accept the term uncannonical church, but the article can't have the Orthodox Church Infobox template, either put a general church template or the one I proposed.
  2. When referring to Miras Dedeic, I will agree to the term self-proclaimed Metropolitan. And I would like the term "self-proclaimed" to appear every time "Metropolitan" appears, or just call him Dedeic or whatever.
  3. Reinstall the referenced text I added, no matter how much you might not agree with it.

--GOD OF JUSTICE 20:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There shall be no compromise between NPOV and your personal views...So:
  1. Orthodox Church template will stay, because MOC is an uncannonical Orthodox church. Or is their name not clear enough? Also, take a look at this article...
  2. Pax explained you that self-proclaimed, as a suggestive term, is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Also, since MOC is a metropolitanate, Dedeic, as its leader, i a Metropolitan.
  3. The referenced sentenced was only expressing the view of Serbian Orthodox Church, which is faaaaar away from neutral. Also, using the same analogy I could put some statements in which MOC priests or newspaper columnists call Amfilohije "Satan", "plague of Montenegrin society", "a colonel" etc.; but, that is the opposite side POV, and is also irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. Sideshow Bob 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't we agree that only cannonical churches should have the Orthodox Church template?! I mean, I can go register my own church at Belgrade, The Belgrade Orthodox Church, and does that mean I can have my own orthodox church? No. Also, Self-proclaimed is appropriate for Wikipedia and I don't see why you can't give in but rather stubbornly hold every view you have. How can I make a compromise with you?! Also, the referenced tect IS expressing the view on the Serbian Orthodox Church, and it doesn't matter if its neutral according to you, but ITS THEIR VIEW, and just because you don't like it, doesn't give you the authority to remove it. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MOC is not an uncannonical church. Uncannonical churches are churches such as the Orthodox Church of Macedonia or Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which were part of the Orthodox church before they split themselves off. MOC is a pseudo-church made anew, without any connection to Orthodoxy, except superficially in having similar customs. Saying that, clearly, some MOC members have religious feelings towards it, so it would be too much to call it just a NGO. However, clearly it is not an Orthodox church, so again it should not be called one too, even implicitly. Nikola 19:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SOC churches claimed by the MOC

Does this section refer to churches they've already invaded and taken over? Because they claim every single Orthodox church in Montenegro...Clarification would be good.--Methodius 08:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)