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

Alleged behavior. I posted it only for the purpose that the Romanian challenged would know what was being claimed. The Romanian Orthodox Church has a different story, the communique referenced by the GCRC:
PRESS RELEASE:IT IS NECESSARY FOR A NEW SOLUTION FOR AN OLD ISSUE!

- Legislative measures and practical solutions to solve the patrimonial disagreements between communities and Greek Orthodox - Catholic in Transylvania --

Today, September 29, 2009, at the patriarchal residence, His Beatitude Daniel, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, received a group of 30 priests of the Orthodox Diocese of Maramures led by Fr John Socolan Protopriest of Satu Mare and Rev. Marian Announcer , Protopriest of Carei.

The priests in the Diocese of Maramures and Protopriests of Satu Mare have informed the Primate of the Romanian Orthodox Church on patrimonial disagreements with the Catholic Church Eastern of the Byzantine Rite (Greek Catholic), indicating their concern about the clearly biased attitude of the courts (consisting of judges with a majority of the Greek-Catholic confession) and representatives of local authorities in resolving ligation disputes between the two situations of the two religious communities. In this regard, there have been reported, for example, situations in which the Orthodox parishes in the counties of Maramures and Satu Mare were called to court, even if there is no faithful of the Greek Catholic there, or others in which, although Orthodox Christians contributed financially to build a new house of worship for the Greek Catholics, nonetheless, they are brought to court for reclaiming the church belonging to the orthodox majority of the respective locality. It is therefore an obvious attempt of Greek Catholic Church to seize the property of Orthodox religious sites in the hope to seize the Orthodox believers who attend them, concluded the two arch-priest fathers.

His Beatitude Daniel Patriah noted that the issue raised by the priests of the Diocese of Maramures and Satu Mare remains in the permanent attention of the Romanian Patriarchate who tried several times to raise the issue to the state authorities to adopt legislative measures and practical solutions to resolve disagreements over the property of the two Romanian Churches in accordance with the religious reality of the territory. Meanwhile, the Patriarch of Romania took the view that it requires both the Orthodox parishes in dispute, and the dioceses of Transylvania to better inform the authorities and public opinion in the country and abroad about the problems faced.

At the conclusion of the meeting, His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel has brought to the attention of the priests of the Diocese of Maramures and Satu Mare in the Chancery that the Holy Synod is already preparing a new address on the above issues, which will be submitted next week the Romanian Presidency, Parliament and Government of Romania . This issue will be discussed within the government-Patriarchal Joint Commission in the near future.

The group of priests from the counties of Maramures and Satu - Mare today also presented their point of views on the dispute with the different patrimony of the Greek - Catholic Church also to the Romanian President, the two Houses of Parliament of Romania and the Ministry of Culture.

Press Office of the Romanian Patriarchy
http://www.basilica.ro/ro/comunicat...olutie_noua_pentru_o_problema_veche.html

Dear brother StuartK

I don't see how you can dogmatically impose that mindset on the Romanians. I have a sneaking suspicion that if these small changes were not originally present in the Latin Church, no Eastern would see anything wrong with these minor changes at all(as I asked in another thread - how do these minor changes affect the Byzantine Faith and spirituality of the Romanians?). I suspect that there is more anti-Latinism coming from those who seek to preserve their Traditions, then there is anti-Byzantinism coming from those who seek to adopt a few different practices (which just coincidentally happen to exist in the Latin Church). Anti-Latinism and anti-Byzantinism are both sinful attitudes to take, IMO.

Which is how the schisms in EO'xy came about.

According to the Old Calendarists, it is part of capital "T" Tradition, and goes to the heart of their celebration of Easter. So it certainly has a Liturgical dimension.

Could you explain this a bit more? I'm not sure what your premises are for this conclusion.

Blessings

Dear brother Isa,

That seems very fair. Now, I would ask, this is obviously the case for the two dioceses mentioned in the article. Are there situations in other dioceses where there is a heavy enough presence of Romanian Catholics, yet their original churches are still not returned to them?

Blessings

We discuss about more than 2000 churches/monasteries in all the Romanian Greek-catholic Eparchies.

I've seen that no Orthodox user has dared to condemn the above behaviour

This has confirmed my feeling that most Orthodox users here are not interested in the True, but only in the glories of their party.
And this is further confirmation for me. In the past I was going to became a Orthodox converted, but luckily I stopped in time when I saw that I was entering in a party, not going to serve Christ.

Oh, yeah--and we Catholics are above all that. Right.

Well, Catholics have been many time so True-Lovers and admitted their faults. The Pope by first.
I
t is not easy to admit out faults, but it becomes natural if we look for Christ who is the True
None is without fault (only Christ). The difference is recognize or not our faults.

First, the accusers haven't proved that behavior.

Second, while apologists would like us Orthodox to think relations with the Vatican started with Vatican II, we know better.

In the case in point, many fellow Orthodox (Sinai, Jerusalem, Constantinople) racked off the wealth of Romania for their own purposes. The establishment of the Romanian Patriarchate put a stop to this. But in the Austro-Hungarian area, the ill gotten gain was given by the dutiful son of the Vatican, King Ferdinand of Romania (Romania, Bulgaria and Greece all had Kings in communion with the Vatican who had authority over the Holy Orthodox Synods of the majority Orthodox countries. Would such a thing have been allowed in Austro-Hungary? Italy? Poland? Spain?...) to those Churches under the Vatican. Despite the "Greek Catholic Church ha[ving] primacy before other faiths" according to the Romanian Constitution (would such a thing happen where the majority were in submission to the Vatican?), said concordant was quite unconstitional.

I know Protestant missionaries in Ireland and Latin America who have been subjected to your list above. I don't see the sons of the Vatican rushing to condemn that. Do you?

I've yet to see the Truth presented on the formation of how Transylvania was united to the Vatican.

I
Whether you like it or not, whether you will admit it or not, the simple truth is a number of Orthodox bishops in Transylvania believed that it would benefit their Church and their people to be in communion with the Church of Rome. You may disagree with their reasoning, you may think they were coerced, but they did not, and that is all that really matters. It's water under the bridge, a past that cannot be changed. What can be changed is the current situation in Romania.

Now, I have stated my belief that the Greek Catholics should just let it go and start over. That assumes, of course, that the political situation will actually allow for freedom of conscience in Romania. Will the government treat the Greek Catholics fairly, allowing them to buy land and build churches upon that land, or will it set up insurmountable roadblocks, thereby discriminating against the Greek Catholic Church? Will the Orthodox Church allow the Greek Catholics to rebuild, even if all claims to existing properties are dropped? Just how serious is the Orthodox commitment to freedom of conscience, which is a cornerstone of modern liberal democracy?

The Fathers held that true belief could not be coerced, but their successors seem willing to give it a try. To its credit, the Catholic Church is now committed to freedom of conscience, and in most cases lives up to that (ironically, when it has not, the affected groups have usually been other Catholics). So just where does the Orthodox Church stand on this issue, other than to pick at old scabs as an excuse to engage in behavior that the rest of the civilized world has abjured?

(This is going to be interesting, considering how many of my fellow Catholics think I am much too pro-Orthodox).

Stuart, you speak of a modern liberal democracy as if it were a good thing. In Orthodoxy, the only "good" government is an Orthodox Emperor or a right believing King or Queen.

Alexandr

What about Mr. Putin's government? He is continually trying to show off his religious credentials, isn't he?

I condemn the above behaviour. BUT I am not sure that this is a fair presentation of what the Orthodox have done. Were these actions undertaken under the command of the Church authorities? Or were they incidents by village idiots?

I think that is why the Orthodox here have been hesitant to come forward and condemn the actions as stated above. The article could be painting with too broad a brush.

Alexandr, you are too totally liberal. The only good government is a theocracy - such as the Bishop-Princes of Montenegro, the Prime Minister-Bishop of Cyprus Makarios, the Bishop-King Cormac of Cashel in Ireland.

Aha, so the only good government today is that of the Prince Bishop of Andorra [en.wikipedia.org], and, I suppose, Pope Benedict XVI as Head of the Vatican City State. No, wait, the latter has just been condemned by Mount Athos for its "secular character"!