Thanks Dalibor for some clarification. TBH church questions are not my stronger side. I know that Formica posted most of the things mentioned above. I posted because it seemed to me like some "compilation" of montenegrin  "facts". So you are a fellow historian, glad to know. I have some questions regarding the Orthodox church in our region, so don`t be suprised if i sent you a message :)

I love history, but I am theologian after all. Just to try to make my views clear. I do not negate Montenegrin nation and ethnicty. Its based on subjective choice. But subjective choice applies to itself. Somebody in past, expressed his ethnic feelings in written form. Most of Montenegrin claims are historic revisionism, from my point, and thats why I dispute them.

We have similar debates elsewhere. Mozart is Austrian composer right? Not so. He was pretty stubborn in expresing his German ethnic feelings. He even went so far to disobey Austrian court, then still officialy German. :)

What about Garašanin, Zach, Načertanije, 1840s.? AFAIK Načertanije was official programme of two serbian governments and one montenegrin (Petar II. P. Njegoš). At least, croatian historians consider that plan, among others, as plan for Greater Serbia. I think that S. Marković (serb. politician and socialist) was very critic about that plan.

Well, Načertanije was translation and redaction of allready existing plans made by Polish emigrees centered arround Prince Czartorisky, former Russian foreign minister. Garašanin was Yugo-sceptic, so he changed pro-Yugoslav plan in pro-Serbian. But it's no what people imagine today. His Serbia would encompass Modern Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Hercegovina. Now there is allways room for controversy, since he saw Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks as Muslim Serbs… But in XIX century such plans were nothing controversial. 

Svetozar Marković was, socialist in full sense. He wanted united Balkanic republic, as federation of small peoples.