Talk:Montenegrin Orthodox Church

History
Hadzija, its history is not closely related to the SOC. --PaxEquilibrium 21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see I have hit a wall of nationalism. Have it your way, but know that the reality is there whether you choose to face it or not.--Hadžija 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * MOC uses montenegrin, not serbian language. Nenaad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.255.145 (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Support section
... is full of POV pushing, unsourced claims, personal opinions... should be rewritten. I don't have the time to do this right now, but I just wanted to give heads up to anyone interested. --RockyMM (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole paragraph is completely unfounded POV and I am removing it.


 * "It must be noted that the current Montenegrin Orthodox Church is absolutely in character and aims similar to the old Church of Montenegro. While the latter based itself upon successorship to the abolished Serbian Orthodox Church by Ottoman decree in 1766, with its Metropolitans asserting the title "Exarch of the Slav Throne" which they hold up to today, who were also great proponents of the enforced unification of the Serbian and Montenegrin Churches which has unfortunately occurred in 1920 as well as the national occupation and oppression of Montenegrins based on medieval Serbian hegemonistic myths, the MOC presents itself as a church of just Montenegro, is a supporter of the Montenegrin nation and a proponent for a separate Montenegrin language as well as a sovereign and independent Montenegro, trying to gather not only Orthodox Christians, but all of Montenegro's faithful as well. The Church of Montenegro also achieved the legal recognition of autocephaly from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Also an important thing is that the Montenegrin Church's name was the "Orthodox Church of Montenegro", and in late 1918 its Holy Synod was bribed to adopt the decision of alleged "unification" with Serb-Orthodox Churches in Yugoslavia into a single Serbian Orthodox Church, as well as supporting the "unification" of Montenegro with Serbia."


 * --A.Molnar (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only that section. History section is completly unsourced, and I believe full of propaganda, and really really hard to understand. It is clear to me that it was written by someone with a poor command of English language. Also many following sections are completely without sources and read more like excerpts from yellow press. I would rather blank whole article and leave just verifiable information than having it in this state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyMM (talk • contribs) 15:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Njeguši?
According to the article about Njeguši, there are 17 people in that village. But then there are a dozen settlements of the tribe of the same name, and according to the present page, at least 5 churches? – Kaihsu (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20061019062102/http://www.mitropolija.cg.yu/aktuelno/saopstenja/e000808.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Montenegrin Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110722171733/http://www.cedem.me/fajlovi/editor_fajlovi/istrazivanja/CEDEM_oktobar09.pdf to http://www.cedem.me/fajlovi/editor_fajlovi/istrazivanja/CEDEM_oktobar09.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050516153636/http://90.1911encyclopedia.org:80/M/MO/MONTENEGRO.htm to http://90.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MO/MONTENEGRO.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Montenegrin Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110823062145/http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/10958/ to http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/10958/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927003339/http://www.vijesti.cg.yu/naslovna.php?akcija=vijest&id=232898 to http://www.vijesti.cg.yu/naslovna.php?akcija=vijest&id=232898

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Montenegrin Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.moc-cpc.org/Istorija/Istorijat_L.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.moc-cpc.org/Istorija/Istorijat_L.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041028022854/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/kosovo/notebook/0127/ to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/kosovo/notebook/0127/
 * Added tag to http://www.montenegro.org/religion.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Montenegrin Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224025341/http://www.alo.rs/vesti/22668/Ustasa_osniva_pravoslavnu_crkvu to http://www.alo.rs/vesti/22668/Ustasa_osniva_pravoslavnu_crkvu
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606223506/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=01&dd=12&nav_id=46869 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=01&dd=12&nav_id=46869
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110912011410/http://www.cedem.me/fajlovi/editor_fajlovi/istrazivanja/CEDEM_februar07.pdf to http://www.cedem.me/fajlovi/editor_fajlovi/istrazivanja/CEDEM_februar07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Reorganized and added another infobox to differ the two to reduce seemly an bias in the current version of the page's infobox
When I visit this page last time, the infobox was already good as going for. But, when I seeing this again for a while now, this new version of the page's infobox may lean to not belong here, and possibly written in a more pro-Serbian nationalist point of view, if it's given away on the user's categories under the user's prime page. As given it's meant to be a internationally noncanonical Eastern Orthodox Church, not treated as only just the property of Montenegrin government, given what that user thinking when trying to 'cleaning' this part. And if this one is somehow special, comparing to the noncanonical (and independent) Eastern Orthodox Churches like Abkhazian Orthodox Church and the second Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Kiev Patriarchy. Chad The Goatman (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Description
Not sure why the term "canonically unrecognized" has repeatedly been removed from the article. That is precisely how the CPC is described in a myriad of reliable sources. A few examples:













It's good to see that the latest removal was reverted. I would encourage any editors who wish to remove the term "canonically unrecognized" to use the talk page and try to form a consensus. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

21 percent
Last month, one user added the claim that 21% of Orthodox Christians in Montenegro are adherents of the CPC. The lead, citing the U.S. State Department, puts this figure at 10%. The source used to back up the 21% figure cites the Twitter comments of a Montenegrin pundit, who claims a survey was conducted in July 2021 that reported these results. In the meantime, this pundit's Twitter comments (rather than the actual survey) have been cited by news outlets. I for one have not been able to find such a survey. If anyone is able to find it, I would encourage them to provide it soon, otherwise this claim is liable to be removed for lack of verifiability. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per explanation. Theonewithreason (talk)  1 December 2021 (UTC)