www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Romanians proclaim day of prayer and fasting

It never ceases to amaze me, this selective condemnation of Caesaropapism.

In the case of Transylvania, the Vatican didn't even do the pretense of a Church council. Emperor Leopold I's simple decreed that the Orthodox were one with the Vatican.

Actually, the return to Orthodoxy predates the coming of the Orthodox rulers.

In the case of Romania, the status of property and other issues is particularly muddled: the state made a deal with the Vatican without consulting the Romananian patriarchate, compensated with state funds properties and land that had been Hapsburg crown property (and hence should have been the states), allowed foreign juridiction to extend into Romania (a touchy subject for a newly reunited country), etc.

People baptized under the Hapsburg oppression are still alive.

There are two criteria which can reasonably be applied - since nobody has title deeds that go back to Adam and Eve:

1. Was the property transfer done correctly according to the legal standards of the time when it took place? Thus, for example, at a time when cuius regio, ejus religio, was an accepted principle, we cannot mount a legal challenge to the Church of England, demanding the return of all properties which were Catholic at the beginning of the reign of Henry VIII!

2. Is there a substantial living memory of the earlier ownership of the properties? Not only are there people still alive who were baptized - as Greek-Catholics - in the disputed church edifices in Romania; there are people still alive who were married as Greek-Catholics in those churches. There are people still alive who remember Greek-Catholic family funerals in those churches.

As to the Hapsburgs, by the beginning of the twentieth century the Romanian Orthodox Church was legal in Transylvania, which makes it wildly unlikely that anyone is still alive who can remember church edifices which were in the hands of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church in 1945 but were Romanian Orthodox in 1890.

And as to Belarus, Tsar Nicholas I, Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow, and some others compelled the Greek-Catholics to become Russian Orthodox (State Church) in 1839. Nonetheless, the Greek-Catholic Church in Belarus nowadays is not seeking to challenge Orthodox possession of these church edifices.

The Romanian Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church of Bukovina - and, of course, the Russian Old-Ritualist Orthodox Church - were all legal under Emperor Franz Joseph and the Blessed Emperor Charles. Serbian Orthodox service-books were even printed at Imperial expense. This is oppression?

Fr. Serge

That's between the Vatican and London. Neither in the East, though I'll mention that on a more ecclesiastical level, what about the interdict of any but Church of England Anglican bishops having a title of a historical see in Britain?

Cuius regio eius religio was never an accepted principle in the East, which the Emperors, whether iconoclast, monophysite, monothelite or those submitting to the Vatican found to their sorrow. It was a compromise between the Vatican and her Protestant progeny. And in Transylvania the Unio Trium Nationum (the progeny of the Edict of Turda (1366) which called for the extermination of the Orthodox Romanians) estopped the application of CR ER in its second Edict of Turda (1568): Lutheranism, Calvinism and Unitarianism were co-official despite the Catholic overlord. Orthodoxy, despite the first Edict of Turda the overwhelming majority religion, was only "tolerated." This was reaffirmed by the Peace of Vienna (1606). Btw, during the time of CR ER, Transylvania was under the Muslim Sultan.


There are those still alive who remember the disabilities under the Hapsburgs, revived when Hungary annexed Transylvania between the wars. And how the Romanian government, led by King Ferdinand of Romania, himself not Orthodox but a loyal son of the Vatican, signed the Concordate with the pope of Rome, which left foreign control (Lvov, Poland: Uzhhorod, Czechoslovakia) in place, alongside the problem of Bishops like that of Timisoara whipping up anti-Romania sentiment, much like the Archbishop for the Vatican in Bucharest did during WWI. As a result, the Vatican got an exemption from land reform, and all assets under the Hapsburgs with "Roman-Cathoic status." In fact, the status of the Vatican's churches in Transylvania was superior to that of the Romanin Orthodox.

Speaking of memories: when I was in Romania in 1992, I saw ads all over for the "Catechismul Bisericii Catolice" all over the place. Shortly before, JP II had said that "if the Romanians were really Romans, they would be Roman Catholic" (no recognition of the fact, that while the Romans were in Dacia, ancient Romania, the mass at Rome was in Greek). When I went to the cathedral of Bucharest, plenty were to be had, although the masses I recall were in Hungarian. This, when the English version was unavailable (that would be 5 more years), though the Vatican has far, far more Anglophones than Romanophones, and only a year after it had come out. What was that all about?


Interesting date: In 1892 the Romanians in Transylvania, led by those in submission to Rome, petitioned Emperor-King Franz Josef in the Transylvanian Memorandum to stop the persecution, disenfranchizement and Magyarization of all Romanians in Transyvania (submitted or Orthodox). Franz Josef sent it to Budapest, who tried its signers for "the treason of homeland betral" in Cluj (i.e. on Romanian soil) and sentenced them, including those in submission to the Vatican, to long prison terms. Many lived on to take part in the assembly of Alba Iulia, Transylvania (also where the church you are speaking for came into being) which proclaimed reunion with the rest of Romania. Communist Hungary responded by trying to reconquer Transylvania.

So much for legal.


Josaphat Kuntsevich.

btw, 1839 was the aftermath of the Polish rebellion against the Czar. And btw, I know Byelorussians who are living who remember how the Poles used their freedom once they got it during the interwar years: exterminating any non-Polish non-Latin non-Western they could to the best of their ability.

I've heard of talk of the Belarussian "Greek-Catholics" wanting the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom in Polotsk, rebuilt by Kuntsevych and returned to the Orthodox in 1839. The fact of its founding as an Orthodox Cathedral is forgotten, and Josephat and 1839 highlighted, much like the present discussion.


of course the old ritualists were legal. Divide and conquer.

Yes, Cardinal Strossmeyer was a great promoter of Slavic ritual. Of course, his guiding principle was that the Serbs weren't a people and should be merged as soon as possible into his own Croatian nation. Hence his motto "All for the Faith and the Homeland." And printing of Serbian books was to prevent their importation from Orthodox Serbia.

Franz Josef and the Romanians we dealt with above.

What about the opression of the empress Maria Teresa? The canons of general Adolf Bukov? Over 200 Holy Orthodox places ruined? Etc.

It is sad that the Greek-Catholic and the Orthodox cannot reach a solution of love.

I think that the Vatican played with many souls, too much politics. Politics even with the Greek Catholic Church. Sad.

During all these quarrels and disputes the flock of Christ drifts much.

God, mercy!

Simply, marian+

Most Orthodox in Romania would not become Catholic, even if their ancesters were Greek-Catholic because of several reasons, one being the fact that the Catholic hierarchy seems to be very influenced by Modernism (like in the West).

If you go to the Cluj area (and the west) and see the new churches built by the BRU (and there are some pictures posted on the Internet) you would cry: no iconostasis, no icons, church structure built in Novus Ordo neo-protestant style.

The Greek-Catholic liturgy in Iasi's old Roman Cathedral was also heavily latinized.

One of the few places where the Byzantine liturgy is celebrated in its pure form seems to be the Stanceni skete (a greek-catholic monastery).

Not all greek-catholics would like to be completely byzantine. Some believe that latinizations are part of a Catholic identity and fear to become "too Orthodox".

I very much doubt anyone would know what "modernism" is. I do agree the Romanian Greek Catholic Church is a mess in many ways and the photos would make a grown man cry. You might note that photos of Bishop John Michael are as rare as hens teeth on their main internet site, unless the bishop is bare headed. This is I suspect because they wear the Latin zuchetto and he dresses pure byzantine.

Just trying to follow this set of arguments is rather a challenge. Apparently IAlmisry regards anything that Francis Joseph or Blessed Charles - or the Catholic Church - might have done as horrible. Some of us do not agree.

One point - it is a cause of much grief, but no surprise, that the persecution of the Greek-Catholics in Romania is followed by a carnival of Latinization. The Holy See has repeatedly tried to call a halt to this, but without much success.

What does surprise me is this reaction from an Arab Orthodox. Relations between Greek-Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in the Patriarchate of Antioch are generally good, even exemplary. Might I suggest a visit to Damascus?

Fr. Serge

Anything? I think I was quite specific. Leopold act of "union" was as baseless as Zeno's Henotikon, if not more. Franz Josef's throwing his Romanian subjects to the Hungarian woles showed there was no use pursuing loyalty to the AH crowns over the crown in Bucharest. The pact the Vatican made with her son in Bucharest, King Ferdinand of Romania was an affront to the terms of his crown and the nation who conferred it.



Been there, in fact I've been to practically all of Syria (and Jordan and Palestine, in addition to Egypt. My patriarch might be in Antioch/Damascus, but my heart belongs to the Pope of Alexandria). Yes, the submission of the Melkites to the Vatican was probably the most grief free of the "unions." (Except perhaps the Copts). Still is (a lot of us feel that both Old and New Rome, well, a pox on both their houses, and leave us alone). But that doesn't change what happened to our brothers in Romania (heritage of my sons), Greece, Slovakia, Poland, etc.

My knowledge of zoology is not great. What is a Hungarian wole?

Fr. Serge

Sorry, responded too quickly before dashing off to number two son's science fair: wolves.

Though I have to admit, wole sounds like a lot of things I've heard Romanians call Hungarians (they are easily Romania's least favorite neighbor, and with reason).

Has ther been any news on the legal situation in Romania?

"...Unfortunately the reemergence of the Greek Catholic Church was accompanied by a confrontation with the Romanian Orthodox Church over the restitution of church buildings. The Catholics insisted that all property be returned as a matter of justice, while the Orthodox held that any transfer of property must take into account the present pastoral needs of both communities. In 1998 a bilateral commission between the Orthodox and Greek Catholics was established to resolve property issues, but progress was slow and only 16 churches were returned as a result of its work. It has practically ceased activity since 2004. Altogether less than 200 former Greek Catholic churches had been returned by 2006, many of them in the Banat region where Orthodox Metropolitan Nicolae was more willing to allow the return of Greek Catholic property. More than 200 worshipping communities are still without a church and compelled to meet in public places. In the meantime the Greek Catholic Church has reduced its property claims from an initial list of 2,600 to less than 300.

...The size of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church is disputed. The Greek Catholics themselves officially claim 764,000 members, and in some publications have stated that they have many more. According to the 2002 Romanian census, however, the Greek Catholics had 195,481 adherents in the country. Official statistics reported by the Vatican in 2006 show that in Romania the church had 1,225 worshipping communities, 791 priests, 291 women religious and 272 seminarians."

http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=71&IndexView=toc

Why?

I suppose on the principle that one should ask God for a little, then a little more, then a little more . . . or perhaps on the principle that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush!

Fr. Serge

Or over-negotiation: Claim more than you know you will get.