Answering the question of whether the Church threatened the secular character of Montenegro, the candidate for prime minister and his advisor mentioned the symphony of church and state power, without explaining how they see the contemporary implementation of that institute from the Byzantine era. But let's go in order.
The Christian church is not only a religious organization, but also an organization that has its own ideology and social-religious ideal of relations in society. The Ten Judean Commandments implicitly request the state to ensure their implementation through the laws and institutions of the state. The two Christian commandments of love - love God and love your neighbor as yourself - are also an implicit requirement for the state to have institutes whose task is the protection of the church and the mutual solidarity of citizens.
After the Roman Empire accepted Christianity, the empire became Christianized. The Roman bishop became the pope - the holy father of all Christians. The emperor (emperor) could become this in various ways, but the pope, by the act of coronation, confirmed that it was also God's will. Several centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, two traditions in the relationship between church and state, Catholic and Orthodox (Byzantine), became established. In the eighth century, the great conqueror Charlemagne knelt before the Pope in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, while the latter proclaimed him the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. When the emperor rose, the pope fell prostrate on the ground in front of him, as the bishops of Rome did in the days of the Roman Empire. What followed was a struggle for supremacy between the pope and the kings of the new states that were being born. After several centuries, papism (papal Caesarism) was established. The Pope is superior to all kings. To each king the pope sends a cardinal to control him in the administration of the country on his behalf.
Another model was established in Byzantium - a symphony of spiritual and secular power. Both are subordinate to the duality of the emperor and the patriarch (although the symphony is realized by the emperor's will and his authority). According to the second epistle of the apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, the antichrist cannot come to dominate people unless he establishes control over the emperor. Since this is not possible while the unity of spiritual and secular power reigns, in the Orthodox tradition the symphony of patriarchs and emperors has become a religious institute of salvation. All Orthodox countries and churches inherited the symphony as an ideal of the relationship between spiritual and worldly authorities.
Luther's and Calvin's reformation of Catholicism also produced a third Christian tradition in the relationship between religion and government. Protestants rejected the sanctity of the Pope and the Church. The church as an organization has effectively disappeared and every Protestant is responsible directly to God. When George W. Bush was asked why he decided to attack Iraq, he replied, "God told me."
The essential difference between the three confessions is that in the Orthodox tradition, the Church is made up of a community of clergy and believers, and in the Catholic tradition, only the clergy. In the Protestant tradition, the clergy does not have a firm organization, nor is it superior to the faithful in the interpretation of dogma. The three traditions produced three very different types of modern society. In the Orthodox tradition - collectivism (congregationalism), in Protestantism individualism and liberal democracy, in Catholicism the state that is between these two poles. That is why in the XNUMXth century communism was "accepted" in all European Orthodox countries (Bernstein said that the Bolsheviks were the illegitimate children of Orthodoxy), also in several Catholic ones, but not in any Protestant one. After in the XNUMXth century the separation of the church from the state (Thomas Jefferson's term) was accepted as a civilizational democratic achievement that contributes to the equality of people, in all three Christian traditions the church struggles to be a corrective factor in matters of tradition and positive morality. This, unfortunately, involves the church in political decision-making, above all in matters of personal freedom and equality.
In Greece, the cradle of Orthodoxy, the authorities emphasize respect for the views of the Church in a symbolic form. For example, the mandate goes to the head of the church for consultation.
Due to specific historical circumstances, the symphony of spiritual and secular power in Montenegro lasted longer than in other Orthodox countries. It was achieved in the first century and a half of the Petrović era by the fact that the bishop, who was appointed by the Montenegrins at the Montenegrin Assembly, was simultaneously an Orthodox metropolitan. Since this lasted until relatively recently (until the beginning of the second half of the 1918th century), the awareness of the unity of the Church and the state is still present today as a tradition in the consciousness of Montenegrins. Until the restoration of the Patriarchate of Peć, the Montenegrin metropolitans considered themselves executors of the throne of Peć, i.e. to the heads of the independent Church, which was once united with the Patriarchate of Peć. Prince Danilo separated secular from spiritual authority, and King Nikola helped the Church, which supported his authority and contributed to the strengthening of the Montenegrin state. During the hundred years since the disappearance of the Montenegrin state in 1918, the Orthodox Church in Montenegro operated within the framework of the Serbian Orthodox Church. In the conditions of secularism, the SPC replaced the unity of spiritual and secular authority with the promotion of the myth of the medieval "holy-born" Nemanjić dynasty, which founded that Church. Because of this, since XNUMX, the Montenegrin Littoral Metropolis has to a certain extent weakened the connection with the Montenegrin state tradition in favor of the tradition of the medieval Serbian state. Therefore, Montenegrin independentists view with suspicion the restoration of intimacy between the government and the Church.
Accidental statesman Đukanović, neither before nor after the referendum on independence, did not think about how to revive the Orthodox Church in Montenegro's connection (i) with the Montenegrin state tradition. It was enough for him to trade with the Church from election to election, in order to preserve his power.
When he recently launched an attack on the property of the Church in order to break its power and influence (perhaps for lucrative reasons), he was not aware that he was attacking the subconscious Orthodox and conscious historical identity of the majority of Orthodox citizens. The people and the clergy united in opposing the dictator. Solidarity with the Church was strengthened by the fact that Đukanović manifested himself as an anti-Christian invader. Nor does he have an understanding of love for God, nor does he love his neighbor as himself (Orthodox tradition demands more - to love one's neighbor more than oneself). For years he has been claiming that he has won over his people, and that only those who are the losers in the transition of which he is the winner criticize him.
By turning the state into a dictatorship, Đukanović questioned the civilizational justification of its existence. It is pointless to discuss whether the Church's participation in the general rebellion was legitimate. The Church played a role in the Orthodox symphony and helped to save the Montenegrin state from further disintegration. But two issues must be discussed. The first is the question of the speed with which political life will return to the constitutional state of secularism. According to the statements of the leaders of the three coalitions, as well as church people, after the formation of the government, the government will move to the institutions, and the church will return to the temples. That is, the state provided for by the Constitution will be established (which was not the case during the rule of Đukanović and DPS).
The second question is more politically sensitive. Any revival of the tradition of permeating the government and the Church inevitably reduces the democratic achievements of secularism. For example, the awareness of public institutions in a multi-confessional state contributes to the weakening of civil harmony in every performance. Dragging the Church into the sphere of political decision-making on issues that are resolved by the sovereign will of the citizens of an independent state would attract attention to the Serbian Orthodox Church and its aforementioned twentieth century.
Both the Church and the government should take care of this. Paraphrasing Berđaev, if tradition is not renewed in a way that makes us stronger, then it can be made into a betrayal committed in the past.
Bonus video:
