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

I am looking forward to the precedent the desired result will make for German claims in Poland and the Czech lands, and the Orthodox in Poland and Slovakia (Uzhhorod was allowed to be followed again in 1968: not all went back, but rather stayed back with the "back to Orthodoxy" movement stated in the 1890s, and vigorously persecuted by the Austro-Hungarian authorites to the fall of the empire. Any claims there?). Orthodox claims in Croatian also are going to be interesting. Is this going to enshrine ex post facto in European law?

The Orthodox in Poland, Czech lands, Slovakia and Croatia have chalked it on to experience, and moved on.

[quote=Fr.Coryolan]http://www.cattoliciromani.com/forum/showthread.php/pulizia_religiosa_in_romania_gli_ortodossi_come-30089.html [/quote]

This is the same thing you have linked in Romanian, just this time in Italian.

Christians should not take other Christians to secular courts. St. Paul said as much, and for a long time the canons of the Church prohibited it. As far as I can see, there is no benefit to anyone taking the Orthodox to court to reclaim church properties after twenty years. The Greek Catholics should let go, and begin building new churches in which to worship. The money wasted in lawsuits could go a long way to meeting their needs.

Now, should the Romanian government try to prevent this by withholding the necessary permits, then I would say the Greek Catholics should appeal to the European Court of Justice, because Romania would be violating aspects of the EU Treaty.

But, when one Church sues another Church, all it does is undermine the moral authority of both.

So, it depends on what you consider to be more important--the return of some bits of brick and mortar, or the restoration of a vibrant Christian faith in Romania.

The "Other" side of the story.


It is preferable to die in prison, than to deny my glorious faith" (Confessor Fr. John of Romania 1776)
Declaration of the Romanian faithful in 1757.

"There came a time when we came to the graves of the dead and told them: get out you dead from the graves so that we may move in, us living, for we cannot suffer the torments that are perpetrated on us by the Uniate priests and leaders of the country. We have filled all the prisons due to the Greek Law (namely, the Orthodox Faith that was received from the Greeks), and have robbed us so much, lunging at us like devils on our heads, to the point where we have no idea how to pay the fury of the king"
I, monk Sophronius, demand the release of all those you jailed in the jails of Simbiu, for their faith, and to bring them free infront of me, otherwise let it be known that there will be no peace in this country.
The general Boukof during the spring of 1761 under orders from the Queen of Austria, Maria Teresa, destroyed from the foundations and burned most of the 150 monasteries and sketes in the Transylvania of Romania.
In the meeting that the rich as well as the aristocracy of the district of Hounendoara had, during May 1760, a group of Romanians presented a declaration by one of the most influential representations so far, in which among other it declared: "if you wish to take away something from us or if you require some contribution for the needs of the country, we are prepared to do so, but our religion we cannot deny as long as we are alive. All the nations have their laws and peace of life and only we are continuously persecuted. Why don't you give us peace so that we may relax? Why do you give to the Uniates our churches, which we the downtrodden or our ancestors built at our expense and with our hands? No, we shall not put up with such things while we are alive. Let us be brief, honourable sirs: When the Bishop and Archbishop of our hereditary law (of our religion) will come, they will decide which of the churches should be given to the Uniates, but until then no Uniate will worship in our churches.
"It is a great sin for the churches to stay closed in this time of fasting. Recently we had respectfully asked you but received no answer, as if we never asked you before. We are not animals as your Highness believes but we have our Church. Our churches were not built to stay empty, nor are we going to worship in stables but in our churches. We protest in front of your Highness, for this irregular situation and we beg you to resolve the issues, until our own Archbishop arrives".
The Queen, in reprisals, ordered the most draconian measures against the Romanian Orthodox of Transylvania. The evil peaked with the activities of general Boukof, who began from 1761 to torch the wooden churches, to destroy the stone built monasteries of Transylvania , to terrorize and slaughter innocent people, writing thus the most dark pages of the history of the Church of this district. The Orthodox Christians everywhere declared that they preferred for their enemies to behead them, than deny their faith and follow the Unia to the Pope. In front of this unassailable faith of the people and their common fight, the acts of violence and threats of the governors on the victims of the Unia ceased In the summer of 1754 the town of Halmazy witnessed a great moment. During the period of one week all the people from the surrounding villages of the district, came and declared in front of the imperial council that they will not deny their ancestral Orthodox faith. The most noteworthy and eloquent statement of the Romanian public remains the response of an elder from Simbiu, which was also published in the west. "This fur which I now wear is mine, but if anybody wants it I'll give it to him. With these weak hands and weak legs and weak body I worked hard, day and night, to pay my taxes. The God given things, if anybody wishes to take, I cannot deny him. But I have a soul which I hold for the Heavenly Groom, Christ, and which no human power can take from me unless I surrender it".
The hundreds of arrests, maltreatment, imprisonments, persecutions, burning of the churches and monasteries, on the excuse of the acceptance of the "new faith" by the Austrian Empire, could not manage to bend the morale of the pious Romanian people.

The Holy Council of the Romanian Orthodox Church at a meeting on February 28, 1950, decided to elevate the hieromonk Bissarion to the place of the Saints for his virtue he displayed and the struggles he fought for the protection of the Orthodox Faith. He is commemorated on October 21. May their memory live for ever.

http://www.impantok ratoros.gr/ B8D9F008. en.aspx

Alexandr

This is interesting:

"Under the dualist Austrian-Hungarian rule, the Metropolitan see was entrusted to Ioan Vancea (1868-1892). In this period, three episcopal synods were called: in 1869, 1882 and 1889, where norms of Church organization were stipulated. Romanian education activities in Blaj were reorganized and the memorandistic movement was continued. The latter demonstrated the Metropolite's strategic dynamism. Together with the Bishop of Oradea, Iosif Pop Silaghi (one of the famous Oriental canonists of the time), he took part in the Vatican I Council; there he showed his disagreement towards the solemn proclamation, at that moment of history, of the dogma of papal infallibility....Ioan Vancea was followed by Victor Mihaly de Apşa (1893-1918). Among the problems he had to face the most difficult was raised by the creation of a diocese whose liturgical language was Hungarian. This diocese was wished for by the representatives of Austrian-Hungarian dualism, but refused by Romanian and Ruthenian bishops. Upon insistent demand from the Imperial Chancellery, a new diocese, of Hajdudorog, was created in 1912, with the papal Bull Christifideles graeci. Thus, over 70,000 Romanian faithful of 83 parishes and a still greater number of Ruthenian faithful were eventually obliged to attend celebrations in Hungarian. This fact was opposed by the Metropolitan see of Blaj, which sent a delegation of theologians to the Secretariat of State in Rome.

After the death of Victor Mihaly de Apşa, in the new political context created by the union of Transylvania with Romania, the appointing of the new Metropolite, Vasile Suciu (1920-1936), was made with approval from Rome and consent from King Ferdinand of Romania...An important event of the time was the Concordat signed between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Romania, on May 10th 1927, which the government headed by Iuliu Maniu ratified on July 7th 1929.

The next Metropolite was Alexandru Nicolescu (1936-1941), former ecclesiastic counsellor of the Romanian Legation at Vatican and Bishop of Lugoj. After his death, the Metropolitan see remained vacant; the archdiocese had only Apostolic Administrators (Valeriu Traian Frenţiu between 1941 and 1946, followed by Ioan Suciu, between 1946 and 1948)."
http://www.christusrex.org/www2/greek-catholic/eparchys/blaj_history_e.html

Why had there only been an administrator for seven years prior to 1948?

As I've menitoned, there is a question on the constitutionality of the concordant.

Did you take a good look at that www.christusrex.org [christusrex.org] website you are quoting from? That is one scary hodge-podge of reality and fantasy and just plain wackiness! I almost can't believe it. Do you think it is objectively a good source of information on anything?

I think Mel Gibson might like it though.

[quote=Rybak]Did you take a good look at that www.christusrex.org website you are quoting from? That is one scary hodge-podge of reality and fantasy and just plain wackiness! I almost can't believe it. Do you think it is objectively a good source of information on anything?

I think Mel Gibson might like it though. [/quote]

Good, because I like Mel Gibson.

How about CNEWA?
http://www.cnewa.org/mag-article-bodypg-ca.aspx?articleID=893

The other facts can otherwise be documents: why not address these facts?

It is very interesting in hundreds of villages of Transylvania that were completely greek-catholic until 1948 and the churches are still illegally in the hands of orthodox many faithfull are in confusion regarding their confession.

Interesting indeed, as it raises the question of how "completely greek-catholic" they were. I would say the this "confusion" resembles that of the aftermath of 1701, but it seems the Faithful then weren't not all that confused, and opposed the "union." Florence all over again. It would seem a whole lot of the "greek-catholics" were like the family of Met. Andrei Saguna, who were officially in communion with the Vatican, but seemed not to have taught young Andrei submission to the Vatican at home: unlike the duplicity of Athanasius' seeking consecration from the Ortodox Metropolitan of Ungro-Valahia, Met. Saguna enrolled in the seminary of the Orthodox Metropolitan of Karlovitz, the Serb who was allowed to have Orthodox in the AH empire. It seems to have been a coming out rather than a conversion.

Athanasius' deal never won over the majority (although the emperor seized ALL Churches, etc. and gave them to Athanasius), a fact that became clear when Marie Therese was forced to acknowledge the existence of the Orthodox in 1759, and stop the official denial. Hence Met. Andrei's success over the powers that be (Lajos Kossutj, whose last stronghold was Lugoj, specifically stated that no amnesty would be given Saguna. Sagnua was a Russian agent: he induced the Russian army to come in and save the Habsburg Ausrian army. Of course, the saved Habsburg renigged on their promises to Saguna), to finally realizing his dream of an Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate in Transylvania (after founding schools, reestablishing the seminary etc.). When Transylania was united (something that the future first Patriarch of All Romania, Miron Cristea, himself a Transylvanian, had opposed and proclaimed his support for the Hapsburgs), the priviledged status of the "Romanian Church united to Rome" continued, bolstered by the concordant the Vatican continued with its son, the Romanian King (Romania wouldn't get an Orthodox King until later). The Orthodox Church complained that the RCUwR,GC had a superior status to the Orthodox Church, the majority Church, unconstitional, in particular as it was exempt from state supervision but was bound to foreign control. It was also given the Crown patriomony of the Hapsburgs as her own. It is also interesting that the strongholds of the RCUwR,CG, according to the latest census, GC overlapp with Northern Transylvania, which was annexed by Hungary between the wars.

It might be noted that in Czechoslovakia, the sister church of the RCUwR,GC was abolished, but then restored in 1968. Not everyone went "back," although in 1989 the properties etc. of those who stayed with the Orthodox were confiscated. Why was the primateship of the RCUwR, GC vacate for so long before the coming of the communists or the reunion of Alba-Iulia?

I would like to know how these Romanians "are in confusion regarding their confession." Do they know if the pope at Rome is their supreme head or not?

Nobody reading the above should ever accuse me of being polemical, not ever again.

The Apostolic Nunciature in Romania

at the Beginning of the Communist Regime

1945-1950
Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 4 (2002), edited by Şerban Marin, Rudolf Dinu and Ion Bulei, Venice, 2002
http://www.geocities.com/serban_marin/vasile2002.html#_ftn5

deals with attempt by the Vatican in uniting the Romanian Orthodox Church to itself against the communist prior to 1948.

According to the census [recensamant.ro] from 2002, 195481, 0.9%, persons declared Greek-Catholic. Church belongs to the community, I sincerely see here a big tragedy in many ways. If a church who belonged to the BRU would be returned, would be returned to a few. What about the vast majority of the most believers, Orthodox? What is their fault for the past? And they remain Orthodox. If a few leave, they go to the neo-protestants denominations, as penticostals, so sad. According to the same census, the Romano-Catholics are 1028401, around 4.7%. What is the solution for this conflict?

The census data was, according to a number of outside observers, distorted and misleading in a number of ways, not the least being the manner in which the question was posed on a number of surveys, e.g., "Are you Orthodox or Hungarian?"

I believe that the number of people who consider themselves Greek Catholic has been significantly undercounted, while the number of people who are actually practicing, as opposed to nominal Orthodox.

A real census would involve a head count of all actual congregations (wherever they happen to meet) over the course of several Sundays chosen at random (and not including any major feasts), which total would then be averaged to come up with a total of real, live, practicing worshipers for each Church.

Difficult, but in my experience, the only way to get a number that even vaguely approaches reality.

The people were free to answer according to their consciousness, not like in the past. I was asked all those questions, and the lady wrote exactly my answers. The questions were clear, without mixing categories, as in the above post.

I consider all the Catholics my brethren in Christ, and I have no problem at all, because I strive to be Christian.

Problem remains. Now the BRU is in much turmoil, the believers are not numerous, BRU had properties, now what would be the solution?

A good idea to be included in a census how often attends a believer the Divine Liturgy, Sundays. The religious life in general is not too according to the Holy Evangelia. Sad that we talk and talk, and the secular world invades the Church's space.

I pray it arrives the time when the Greek-Catholic Church will know healing, and we all will not remember in a painful manner the shadows of the past.

This forum has participants, most are over the ocean, and there is surely a different mindset and feeling of some matters.

Sincerely we name ourselves Christians, but if we meditate on many words and commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are not. Many to say, little time.

My experience with opinion research is people lie about three things--money, sex and religion. And when they lie, they either give the answer that they think people want to hear, or they give the answer that they think makes them look good to others.

As the the solution to the BRU properties issue, I've given my opinion: just walk away. Put not your trust in things of this world. The Church is not a building, the Church is people celebrating Christ's Eucharist, which is something they can do anywhere. Buildings you can always erect, but people have to be convinced there is something worth building.