The Ecumenical Patriarchate, together with all other Orthodox Churches, recognizes as the only canonical Orthodox jurisdiction in Montenegro the one under the authority of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Amfilohi of Montenegro, the hierarch of the Most Holy Church of Serbia, announced Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.
The Montenegrin Littoral Metropolitanate delivered to the media a letter that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, as it was announced, sent to the President of Montenegro, Milo Đukanović, on June 21.
From the office of the President of Montenegro, "Vijesti" was unofficially told that they did not even receive the letter.
We are transmitting the letter in its entirety
"It is with joy that we turn to your respected Excellency, wishing you and your faithful people all the highest blessings of God.
Recently, we at the Ecumenical Patriarchate were surprised to learn that you expressed your support for the creation of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church and that the Government of your country adopted a draft law on freedom of religion, which provides for the nationalization of all Orthodox churches built before 1918, as well as other church property. This would mean that your country takes away the property right over churches and property from the Holy Metropolis of Montenegro, as well as from the other three dioceses of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
Your Excellency, with this letter we clearly and completely openly inform you that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, together with all other Orthodox Churches, recognizes as the only canonical Orthodox jurisdiction in Montenegro the one under the jurisdiction of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Amfilohi of Montenegro, hierarch of the Most Holy Church of Serbia.
The Church of Montenegro was never autocephalous, and the current so-called Orthodox Church of Montenegro under Miraš Dedeić does not belong to the Orthodox Church.
Mr. Dedeić is not a Bishop of the Orthodox Church, but a person excommunicated from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The only canonical Hierarch there is our brother, Metropolitan Amfilohije, of the All-Orthodox recognized Patriarchate of Srpska.
We are sending you this letter because we do not want our beloved people of Montenegro to come to a state of ecclesiastical isolation and cut off from the body of the overall community of Orthodox Churches, given that none of them will recognize or support Dedeić's anti-canonical creation.
We repeat what we wrote to you in 2000: "We are convinced that Your Excellency will understand the danger to the spiritual unity of the people of Montenegro, which was caused by the movement of the aforementioned Mr. Miraš Dedeić, and that you will distance yourself from him, for the sake of good and unity of your people."
Your Excellency, we ask you not to understand what was written above as interference in the internal affairs of your country, but as the desire of our Mother Church of Constantinople to help your pious people in critical historical moments. Therefore, we remain with respect, love and best wishes", according to the letter that Patriarch Bartholomew addressed to Đukanović.
Papović: The analysis of the letter may raise doubts about the authenticity of the authorship
The views expressed in the letter allegedly sent by Patriarch Vaseljenski Bartolomej to Montenegrin President Milo Đukanović are not in accordance with the facts, the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) said, stating that the analysis of the letter may raise doubts about the authenticity of the authorship.
The Metropolitanate of Montenegrin Primorska (MCP) delivered to the media a letter that Bartholomew, as reported, delivered to Đukanović on June 21, and in which it is stated that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the only canonical Orthodox jurisdiction in Montenegro, recognizes the one under the authority of Metropolitan Amfilohi.
DPS MP Dragutin Papović said that the office of the President of Montenegro informed that the letter has not yet arrived at that high-ranking address.
"Given the significance of the contents of the letter, it is strange, first of all, that after a week the letter has not yet reached the person to whom it was sent, and it is even more strange that neither His Holiness, nor the person to whom it is addressed, publishes it, but the MCP", Papović believes.
According to him, assuming that the letter is authentic, some of Bartholomew's statements deserve comments.
"Among other things, the patriarch states that he is "surprised to learn" that the President expressed "his support for the creation of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church". President Đukanović never stated what is stated in the letter. He spoke about the restoration of the autocephalous Church in Montenegro," said Papović's response.
As he stated, that there is nothing strange in Đukanović's statement and that it is justified was also confirmed by the Archbishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Danilo Zelinski, who recently stated "that every nation and every country that wants its own Orthodox Church has the right to establish it and ask for recognition from other Orthodox churches and that this includes Montenegro".
"Even the laity know that the sacred canons dictate that the borders of the church's jurisdiction always coincide with the borders of a state. "Also, when referring to his letter to the President of Montenegro from 2000, His Holiness should have kept in mind that Montenegro has meanwhile become an independent, internationally recognized state," Papović said.
Commenting on the fact that the patriarch claims that the Government of Montenegro "adopted a draft law on freedom of religion, which provides for the nationalization of all Orthodox churches built before 1918, as well as other church property", Papović pointed out that such a thing does not exist in the Draft that the Government adopted.
As he stated, there are no claims that "the state is depriving the Holy Metropolis of Montenegro, as well as the other three dioceses of the Orthodox Church of Serbia, of the right of ownership over churches and property."
Papović pointed out that the state of Montenegro will not take away from any religious community anything that religious communities have acquired in accordance with current legal regulations.
With this law, he said, the state wants, through clear administrative-judicial procedures, to determine what is its property and, above all, to protect its rich cultural and sacred heritage.
According to Papović, the opinion of the Venice Commission on the Draft Law fully confirms such an intention of the Government and the State of Montenegro.
By the way, as Papović said, there is no Montenegrin Metropolis, as Bartholomew claims, in Montenegro, but, according to the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC), there is an MCP, a diocese of the SPC, which was formed on November 16, 1931.
"Of the other three dioceses of the SPC that operate in the territory of Montenegro, only the diocese of Budimljansko-Nikšićka, which was formed in 2001, has its seat in Montenegro, while the seats of the dioceses of Mileševska and Zahumsko-Herzegovina are outside the territory of Montenegro," added Papović.
He believes that the wording that "the Church of Montenegro was never autocephalous" is the most surprising.
"The Autocephalous Metropolis of Montenegro, under that name, is listed in the nomocanon of the holy diptych of the Ecumenical Patriarchate ("Syntagma" from 1855). Identical diptychs were also published by the Russian Church. The Ecumenical Patriarchate maintained Eucharistic and canonical unity with the autocephalous Montenegrin Church," Papović pointed out and added that numerous documents testify to this.
One could, he said, ask the logical question of how the tomos for the recognition of the SPC from 1922 abolishes a "non-existent" Church whose autocephaly is mentioned twice in that same tomos.
Also, according to Papović, if the Montenegrin Church was never autocephalous, it would be good for the patriarch to answer the question to whom the Montenegrin Church belonged before it was abolished in 1920 and annexed to the newly formed SPC.
"Even a superficial analysis of this letter, published under somewhat strange circumstances, may raise doubts about the authenticity of the authorship, while it is clear that numerous positions in the letter are not in accordance with the facts. In any case, this will hardly be a contribution to clarifying and solving this complex issue in Montenegro," concluded Papović.
Bonus video:
