Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro and Litoral did not sign controversial document at Crete

Cetinje, July 7, 2016


Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro and Litoral has
stated that he did not sign the document “Relations
of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian
World” adopted during the work of the Council held
on Crete June 18-26, 2016.

The bishop spoke about it on the program “Living
Truth” of the Montenegro channel
“Atlas,” reporting that namely this document
caused sharp controversy at the meeting on Crete.

At the same time Metropolitan Amfilohije considers that
the document itself was inadequately prepared, which the
Serbian delegation pointed out at the preceding
preparatory meetings on Crete.

“I must tell you that I was one of those who did not
sign the sixth document,” emphasized Metropolitan
Amfilohije, answering the question of journalist Darko

The message itself states that the number of Serbian
bishops not signing the controversial document could be
much bigger. Greek media has reported the name of Bishop
Irinej of Bačka in this context, and several other
sources have reported that the document was not signed by
a few Serbian bishops. However, in Serbian media itself
this question until now remains veiled in mystery.

It is noteworthy that the publication of the adopted
documents on the official site of the Council
doesn’t allow for accurately understanding who
precisely signed the document and who not. Under the
document itself stands the names of every member of the
delegations without exception, which gives the impression
that they were all signatories.

The names of the Local Church representatives who refused
to sign the document were earlier reported by the media.
Among them were Metropolitan Athanasius of Limassol,
Neophytos of Morphou, Nikolaos of Amathus, Epiphanios of
Ledra, and Porphyrios of Neapolis of the Church of Cyprus,
and Met. Hierotheos Nafpatkos (Greek Orthodox Church).

Some of the bishops enumerated came forward at the end of
the meeting on Crete with open theological criticism of
the document, stating that they were prepared to defend
their position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *