www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Romania:greek-catholics and orthodox in a difficult dialogue

http://www.bru.ro/documente/interventia-pr-coriolan-la-eea3-sibiu-2007/

dialouge link above [bru.ro]

My experience and that of my daughter in Romania at different times and in different parts of the country, is few people at the parish level, particularly in the countryside, pay much attention to jurisdictional issues. Greek Catholic Bishop Florian of Cluj once told me things were pretty laid back before World War II.

I know from personal experience that many Orthodox Romanians have feelings of antipathy toward the Catholic Church and specially toward the Greek Catholic Church and I can somehow understand the reason.

I visited some BRU Churches in the area of Cluj and surroundings and I was very dissapointed when I saw that some new churches built by the BRU are built in neo-protestant Novus Ordo style not looking byzantine at all (without iconostas, without icons, without religious images at all and a table in the middle like in the modern western rite). There's a possibility that these might be Roman churches lent to the BRU but I doubt so, as they were newly built (the BRC usually kept its old churches).

In Iasi, the Byzantine catholic liturgy is celebrated in the old Roman Catholic Cathedral (for those who haven't seen it, the RC new cathedral is an example of the post-Vatican II architecture, it's so sad). The liturgy there was fine (no latinization or I didn't notice it, even though the church isn't adapted to the Byzantine liturgy). However, from a foreigner's perspective, it lacks what you can find during an Orthodox liturgy in Romania (the mystic ethos, the Byzantine authenticity). Maybe I just had bad luck and did not find the correct church, I'm sure there must be Greek Catholic churches where the liturgy is beautifully celebrated.

I hope you don't get offended by my comments, I really love that country and it saddens me that the Greek Catholics face this kind of discrimination. But I think that the public image of the Greek Catholic Church is damaged by these modern influences coming from the Western Church. It's my understanding that somehow some Greek Catholics defend these influences because they don't want to be a copy of the Orthodox (even though it in fact should be that way, liturgically there should not be a difference between Orthodox Churches and their Catholic counterparts).

Some Orthodox from Western Romania have told me they don't convert back to the BRU because of the way those priests celebrate the rites not strictly following the typicon and the modern influences. Some Greek Catholic bishops have no beards and do not wear the epanokamelaukion but a "capuciu" (I might be wrong in the words I don't know how to translate them to English).

There is a video in youtube about a man who plays the guitar (not during the liturgy, but during a secular concert) inside a beautiful Greek Catholic church. From what Romanians told me, this would not be allowed inside an Orthodox Church.

A traditional Latin magazine reported that JPII's visit in 1998 in fact strenghtened the position of the BOR on this matter and actually gave legitimacy to Patriarch Teoctist at at time when some people inside his own Church wanted him to resign.

Any thouhgts?

1.I don't see how the way of celebration in the Romanian Greek-Catholik Church could be a reason for the orthodox to keep stolen churches.

2.The Romanian Greek-Catholic Church is a "sui iuris" Church and only the Synod of its Bishops decide in liturgical matters.

3.The demolition of churches in order not to be given back, the anticatholic policy of some of the orthodox bishops in Romania is a reality and has no real reason.

4.It is obvious not few orthodox would like to see the end of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church and the end of the Oriental Catholic Churches generally speaking.

I went to Liturgy at quite a few Romanian Orthodox churches in and around Bucharest. The style of the services varied quite widely (as did the architecture of the churches, by the way). In some of them, a cantor in the kliros led the people in congregational chanting; in others, a professional-caliber choir sang all the responses using 19th and 20th century composed pieces of an operatic bent. In one of the the latter sort, the Orthodox archpriest who celebrated was beardless, as was his deacon, a tenor in the Romanian national choir. in some of the smaller, poorer churches, the priest was lacking some elements of the vestments--either they had been lost, or worn out, or he had never had them, but they lacked the money to buy new ones. I don't place much importance on such matters.

In none of the churches I visited was the Typicon followed to the letter--and this is my experience of Orthodox liturgy both in the United States and in a host of foreign countries, regardless of jurisdiction. Parochial usage is tailored to local customs and requirements.

I'll also reiterate that I had no problems as a Greek Catholic attending Romanian Orthodox services, and out in the countryside, neither did my daughter. I believe that the fundamental basis of the problem is political, not theological (Greek Catholics are, for some reason, associated with the Magyar minority in Romania), and the pot is kept boiling by a small number of people with an agenda.


When I was in Bucharest, I attended a secular music concert inside an Orthodox church. They seemed very pleased with the turnout, too.

Do you feel the same way about Churches stolen by Austro-Hungary from the Orthodox? The ones the Austro-Hungarians destroyed? The property awarded by the unconstituional concordant between the Vatican and her loyal son, King Ferdinand?


I'm not sure what relevance is that claim, but the fact remains, the Vatican gets the last word.


LOL. Those who know history are determined not to repeat it.


The Romanian of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" came out in 1992-3 on the heels of the first (French) version, and years before the English. Now, since the Vatican has millions of followers in English, but few in Romania, and those in Romania are mostly Hungarian and German speakers, why the need for the boxes of copies I saw in Bucharest in the early 90's?

1 million plus Latin, to about .75 mil Byzantine on a very rough and quick count.

Please consider that the Orthodox Church in Romania is considered a State-Church: all the parish priests receive their salary from the State (yes, also in the Communist age and under Ceauşescu !).

On the contrary the Catholic-Byzantine was persecuted by the Communists simply because it did not fit in their idea of nation (thus the Communist party expropriate the Catholic-Byzantine properties and gave them to the Orthodox -who gladly accepted)

The problem is not the properties themselves, but the congregations that attend the church-buildings given to the Orthodox: such congregations were actually "stolen" by the Orthodox. The hope is now that with the return of the church-buildings to the Catholic-Byzantine Church also the congregations attending such church-buildings return to the Catholic-Byzantine Church: and this is the true reason of the opposition of the Orthodox

Anyway the Catholic-Byzantine Church is well alive and active, while the Orthodox Church rests on one's laurels: for example the standard Orthodox parish is opened only on Sunday morning: the dont organize any other activity!

About the cure of the liturgy, that is an important mater for us rich Westerns, for such churches there are other more basilar problems to face: thus you will not find always a choir, a deacon or the vespers well celebrated...In such poor countries I think that it is not realistic to ask any parish church to have the same rich liturgy of the cathedral.

In the last 10-15 years the huge problem of Christian Romania are the evangelical sects that are growing: from zero now they are more that 5% of the population: they build schools, offer free instruction, organize many activities, groups of study, etc.
The Orthodox Church is doing nothing (nothing) to resist: always waiting for faithfuls to came the Sunday morning, without organizing any activity. The idea is that if one is Romanian he has to attend the Orthodox Church. Unfortunately this idea, typical of the Communist age, nowadays leads to catastrophe.

The real reason of this difficult dialogue is probably different: the Orthodox don't really accept the existence of catholics of byzantine right.

It is interesting how both sides manage to caricature each other, mindlessly repeating a series of falsehoods and half-truths, unmoved by any real concern for either reality or charity.

So ironic that Byzantine Christians start every Liturgy with "in peace let us pray to the Lord"; that so often during the Liturgy the priest blesses us with the wish "Peace be with you all" and yet we so often act like the Hatfields and McCoys.

Flannery O'Connor once said that the grotesque is the good under construction. I hope that's true. We got a long way to go.As the Bette Davis character in "All About Eve" says: "hang on - it's going to be a bumpy ride". or something to that effect.

[quote=Irish Melkite][quote=IAlmisry]The Romanian of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" came out in 1992-3 on the heels of the first (French) version, and years before the English. Now, since the Vatican has millions of followers in English, but few in Romania, and those in Romania are mostly Hungarian and German speakers, why the need for the boxes of copies I saw in Bucharest in the early 90's? [/quote]

1 million plus Latin, to about .75 mil Byzantine on a very rough and quick count. [/quote]

Perhaps I should have given the context: the previous year to this the Pope of Rome, JPII of blessed memory had said that "if the Romanians were really Roman, they would be Roman Catholic." It didn't go over very well.

Just taking the stated figures as true, that means that only 8% of the population is attached to the Vatican, as opposed to, say, the quarter of the population in the US, 26% of Australia, 12% NZ, 10% UK (8% England/Wales, 40% NI, 17% Scotland), 87% of Ireland, and the use of English as an international language. Given the above context, and the fact that Romania is hardly a major international language nor the mother tonuge of the majority of the Vatican's followers in Romania the early debut and wide promotion of it (in Bucharest at least) raises the eyebrow. And I say that as a fan of the CCC.

One does need a serious adjudication in these matters. The Bible tells us that peace and justice go together.

Fr. Serge

[quote=antv]Please consider that the Orthodox Church in Romania is considered a State-Church: all the parish priests receive their salary from the State (yes, also in the Communist age and under Ceauşescu !).

On the contrary the Catholic-Byzantine was persecuted by the Communists simply because it did not fit in their idea of nation (thus the Communist party expropriate the Catholic-Byzantine properties and gave them to the Orthodox -who gladly accepted)

The problem is not the properties themselves, but the congregations that attend the church-buildings given to the Orthodox: such congregations were actually "stolen" by the Orthodox. The hope is now that with the return of the church-buildings to the Catholic-Byzantine Church also the congregations attending such church-buildings return to the Catholic-Byzantine Church: and this is the true reason of the opposition of the Orthodox[/quote]

Do you use the same verb "stole" when you speak of what Leopold I did in 1699?

[quote]Anyway the Catholic-Byzantine Church is well alive and active, while the Orthodox Church rests on one's laurels: for example the standard Orthodox parish is opened only on Sunday morning: the dont organize any other activity![/quote]

Then things have changed much since I was last there (end '93): partically all the Churches, except those undergoing renovation, were open all day, every day.

When I was there there was a number of tours the ROC had arranged for talks from the OCA, and the Evangelical Orthodox of the Antiochians.

About the cure of the liturgy, that is an important mater for us rich Westerns, for such churches there are other more basilar problems to face: thus you will not find always a choir, a deacon or the vespers well celebrated...In such poor countries I think that it is not realistic to ask any parish church to have the same rich liturgy of the cathedral.

[quote]In the last 10-15 years the huge problem of Christian Romania are the evangelical sects that are growing: from zero now they are more that 5% of the population: they build schools, offer free instruction, organize many activities, groups of study, etc.[/uote]
When I was in Romania, the Protestants were around 5% of the population, so they evidently haven't made much head way.

[quote]The Orthodox Church is doing nothing (nothing) to resist: always waiting for faithfuls to came the Sunday morning, without organizing any activity. The idea is that if one is Romanian he has to attend the Orthodox Church. Unfortunately this idea, typical of the Communist age, nowadays leads to catastrophe.
[/quote]
While I detest complancy among the Orthodox, whether here in North America or in the traditional homelands, I do recall when I was last there that debates were had between monks and the "missionaries." They had some fruit: the priest at the Romanian Exarchate here in Chicago came to Romania as a baptist missionary. Things didn't work out as planned, obviously.