PRESENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ORTHODOX AND THE GREEK-CATHOLICS IN ROMANIA

Transcription

1 PRESENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ORTHODOX AND THE GREEK-CATHOLICS IN ROMANIA 2006 Synthesis drafted by the METROPOLITAN SEE OF CLUJ, ALBA, CRIŞANA AND MARAMUREŞ Renaşterea Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca, 2006

2 1. ORTHODOXY AND GREEK-CATHOLICITY IN TRANSYLVANIA GUIDE MARKS OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE ROMANIAN CHURCH IN A THREE CENTURY HISTORY After the fall of the communist regime in 1989, the Romanian Church United with Rome (Catholic) has impetuously tried to legitimate its coming back into the public life, but not so much by virtue of her historical beginning or of the Oriental canonical norms, as by her discrediting campaign launched against the Orthodox Church which she considered guilty in the process of her dissolution in The purpose of all this campaign was to legitimate Catholicism after December While accusing the Orthodox Church of abuse, Catholicism itself committed an abuse, eluding the present realities, as well as the norms of the official dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic one, moreover, disregarding even the orders of Rome in this regard.

3 In fact, it is not the patrimonial question, so much debated that remains the major problem of the United Church, but its equivocal and ambiguous position on the Romanian scene after December In order to have a more realist perception of this subject in this context, it is absolutely necessary to remember a few essential moments in the common history of the two Romanian Churches, as well as the present state of things. 1. THE POLITICAL RELIGIOUS CONTEXT. THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIATISM IN TRANSYLVANIA. From the 11 th 17 th centuries, after the religious separation of the West from the East, there were a few attempts of church unification initiated by the Roman Catholic Church in the Eastern region. The Reform dwindled the number of Catholic faithful, so that the Catholic Church tried to make up for it by approaching the Eastern Orthodox. So, there were the Union at Brest-Litovsk (1596), the Union from Ujgorod (1646) and the unifications made in the territories conquered by the Austrians from the Turks at the beginning of the 17 th century, Croatia, Slovacia and the North-East of Hungary, respectively. These unifications were based on the support of the Catholic monarchies in Poland and Austria and included a vast territory, affecting a few million Orthodox faithful. At the end of the 17 th century, Transylvania passed through a deep political metamorphosis. Transylvania s statute changed completely as a result of the centralisation of power in the hands of Vienna, 1 having in view the loss of any independence of the province. Besides the military administrative factor, an important role in the Austrian expansion and consolidation in Transylvania was played by the Roman Catholic Church. 2 Having been in competition with the Reform, this one brought about serious prejudices in Transylvania, so that the strengthening of its position could be done only by converting the Romanians. 2. ELECTION OF ATANASIE. RESOLUTION OF 14 APRIL 1698 In 1697, Atanasie Anghel was elected metropolitan of the Romanians in Transylvania. According to tradition, his ordination took place in January 1698, in Wallachia (that is in the South of the Carpathians). As a measure of precaution for the new hierarch, he was asked to sign a confession of Orthodox faith. While Atanasie was absent from Transylvania, the Jesuit Paul Baranyi from Alba Iulia went to Vienna, where he presented the Imperial Court a memorial in order to unite the Romanians with the Church of Rome. Consequently, on 14 April 1698,

4 Emperor Leopold I gave a resolution according to which the Romanians could unite with any of the four accepted religions (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvin and Unitarian) or remain in their old faith. The priests who accepted the union were to enjoy the privileges of the clergy of the respective confession. Although, apparently, the Romanian priests were presented with an impartial offer to unite with any of the accepted confessions, the only interest was that the Romanians should join the Catholic Church, not any other confession. Therefore, the impulse to the union was not coming from the Romanians, but from the political authorities and from the Catholic ecclesiastic ones, too. In the social-political conditions of the time, when the Romanians were practically slaves in majority, the offer was alluring 3 from the point of view of the personal liberty (exemption from forced labour and from the pecuniary contribution to the state) in exchange of recognising a single Catholic dogma (the papal primate), so without leaving the rest of the Orthodox faith. An extremely important fact was the one related to the addressee of the offer, as the invitation was addressing only the clergy, not the large masses of faithful. 4 Soon after that, due to the contribution of Leopold Kollonich from Hungary, the conditions of the union were extended from the acceptation of a single dogma, namely the papal primate, to all the Catholic teachings. 3. THE UNION MANIFEST The act said to represent the basic document of the union with Rome is the so-called union manifest dated 7 October 1698, signed by 38 Orthodox archpriests. The statement specified the free desire of the Romanian clergy to join the Church of Rome, in exchange of the privileges the members of the respective Church enjoyed. Nevertheless, the unionist steps of the Orthodox signers were conditioned by the preservation of the entire dogmatic and liturgical background of the Eastern Church, stipulating that the infringement of these conditions brought about the annulment of the document. So, it is clear that the union was not determined by religious causes, by problems of conscience, but by material reasons. The union statement was drafted in Romanian on the first page and in Latin on the second one. Yet, the Document disappeared and nothing more was known about it until 1879, when it was rediscovered in Hungary. Examined by the Romanian historian Nicolae Densuşianu (of Catholic confession) the Latin version turned out to be no other than the forgery of a public document (s.n.). If in the Romanian text, the union with Rome did not affect the dogmatic background of the Orthodox signatories, the Latin one specified that the union should be done by their acceptance of the entire Catholic doctrine. Far from forming a solemn act of union, concluded Densuşianu, the

5 document was a forgery made by the Jesuits, not the emanation of the synod of 7 October ATANASIE IN VIENNA Although the metropolitan had not signed the act of union, he had certainly approved it, in principle, but his attitude was extremely ambiguous, hoping that the Habsburgs would provide the Romanians with privileges only on the bases of this formal union. The events precipitated to the end of The Jesuits were fed up with Atanasie s duplicitous attitude, so that they asked him to release a public statement for accepting the union. In spite of the efforts the Jesuit missionaries had made from , the union of the Transylvanian Romanians with Rome had not been achieved. As a result of this failure, the military missionaries replaced the civil ones. Having analysed what had been achieved till then, they reached the conclusion that only a tough tackling could bring about a result favourable to the Union. Early in February 1701, Atanasie was called to the capital of the empire where he had to answer, in front of a court presided by Cardinal Kollonich and made up of Jesuits and imperial officers, the 22 accusations brought against him. He had to choose between being found guilty, deposed from his dignity, maybe even imprisoned, or being acquitted if he unconditionally accepted the union. Atanasie chose the second solution, accepting without protesting whatever the asked him to do. On 7 April 1701, he signed an oath-statement, in 16 points, by which he showed he accepted the entire teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, he recognised the Pope as the only Primate of the Church and he submitted, together with his priests, to his archbishop of Esztergom. Therefore, all the accusations against him were dropped, and on 19 March 1701, the emperor released the Second Leopoldine Diploma, which regulated the organisation of the new Catholic diocese headed by bishop Atanasie. This act meant the dissolution of the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitan See in Transylvania. This document is the birth certificate of the Romanian Church United with Rome, Catholic. So, the United Church in Transylvania obviously appears as the political creation of the Habsburgs, having been conceived as an instrument of submitting the Romanians and of controlling the Reformed in Transylvania. The imperials wished to create a breach among the Romanians, through the religious separation of those inside the Carpathian arch from those outside it, as well as to threaten the positions of the Reformed confessions in Transylvania by strengthening the Catholicity in the principality.

6 On 25 June 1701, Atanasie was officially installed, in Alba Iulia, as united bishop, suffragan of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Esztergom, Hungary. There followed hard days for the Orthodox in Transylvania, as many priests and faithful did not accept the Uniatism. The 18 th and 19 th centuries prove the tumultuous history of the Romanians in Transylvania, confessionally divided. It is true that there were moments of cooperation, one of them being the one related to the revolution of THE MAIN HISTORICAL MOMENTS OF THE 20 TH CENTURY: 1918, 1948, 1989 The united action of the Romanians and the collaboration between the Orthodox and Uniates manifested most obviously at the end of the 1 st World War, when all the Transylvanians accepted in 1918, the Union with Romania, a moment that brought about a reconsideration of the role and place of the United Church within the framework of the new Romanian state. It is also now that the wish to re-establish the Transylvanians confessional unity is expressed, as it had remained only as an intention due to the Concordat between Vatican and the Romanian State in By this treaty, the Roman Catholic Church became a privileged confession in Romania, while the United Church fell from the rank of national Church (which she held together with the Orthodox Church) to that of a simple rite of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, from , tens of parishes and their parish priests, too, left collectively the Uniatism, while a few thousand of faithful and tens of priests left individually the United Church and integrated themselves into the Orthodox Church. The latest official attempt to re-establish the religious unity during the period between the two world wars was done by Nicolae Bălan from Sibiu and by the Greek Catholic metropolitan Alexandru Nicolescu from Blaj. Following their common appeal, on 27 February 1939, a great church national assembly took place in Alba Iulia, favourable to the church reunification, but the outbreak of the World War II compromised this initiative, too. The years were dramatic in the history of Romania, due to the installation of the communist regime. On 4 August 1948, the new law of the religious cults came into force, which imposed a restrictive regime to all confessions submitted to a strict control by the communist authorities. They started from the premise of culpability of the Church in majority, as a mystic-religious obscurantist institution, typical for all the other ones. Having exerted pressure on the church leadership, several Orthodox bishops were forced to resign and several eparchies were dissolved from From 1945 till the end of 1948, the Romanian Orthodox Church lost 10 bishops, three of them dying in suspect

7 circumstances, while the other seven were forced to retire or were exiled to monasteries, or obliged to flee the country. From , five other hierarchs were forced to retire. The persecution of the Orthodox Church started before that of the United Church. Neither the other religious cults were spared oppression. One can see the way in which the communists understood to observe the liberty of conscience when reading the biographies published by 2544 clergy arrested and persecuted by the communist regime, many of them having lost their lives in prisons: 1888 Orthodox, 235, 172 Roman and some other ones of other confessions. In July 1948, the communist government denounced unilaterally the Concordat with Vatican, while decree 243 of September 1948 left only two eparchies to the United Church. Romania had, at that time, the second big United Church in the Eastern Europe. The communist leaders from Bucharest first took steps designed to restrict the power and influence of this Church in the Romanian public life and in the autumn of 1948 dissolved her. The climax of the action coordinated by the Petru Groza government against the United Church in the autumn of 1948, was to be the congress or assembly of reunification in Cluj, on 1 st of October The 37 delegates (5 of them archpriests) representing 431 United priests, would sign the Proclamation of unification of the United faithful with the Romanian Orthodox Church and an Appeal to the United faithful by which they were urged to join their Orthodox brothers. On 18 October 1948, the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church ratified the synodal act for receiving the united faithful within the Orthodox Church, while the official festivity of reception took place in Alba Iulia city, on 21 October. A few observations can be made on this major fact. First of all, the authorities of the communist state, as well as the leadership of the Romanian Orthodox Church presented the decision of 1 October 1948 as an act of unification of the entire United Church with the Orthodox Church. Yet, the United faithful consider the act from Cluj as a statement of some individual persons, which fact did not involve the other United faithful. We think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yet, the 37 delegates represented 431 United priests. On the other hand, the events succeeded later on showed that a large part of the United clergy and the majority of the United faithful supported the act from Cluj. The second observation refers to the role of the Orthodox Church in this process. The United faithful having been received into the Orthodox Church, they were given the opportunity to continue to practice their religious life in the only Romanian speaking Church, with the same Liturgy and rites they had adopted as far back as The ordinary faithful are not very interested if the Pope from Rome or the

8 Metropolitan from Sibiu are remembered at a religious service; they are pleased to see that the baptism, wedding, funeral or administration of the holy communion are true and according to their understanding. This certitude could not be far from the feeling that forced or not, they were coming back where they had left from. The statistics after 1989 fully confirm this state of things. The ordinary faithful does not live his faith according to the administrative circumstances, but only through his direct relationship with eternity. At the same time, the Romanian Orthodox Church became the shelter of many Catholic clergy who had not accepted to return to Orthodoxy, and who used to work as official clerks in the administration of the eparchial centres, able to practice their confession in private. The reaction of the United hierarchs towards the assembly in Cluj of 1 October 1948 was very harsh. They excommunicated all the participants, as well as all the priests who signed for reunification. Yet, the integration of the united clergy and faithful in the Orthodox Church was done without asking them for a public confession of acceptance of the Orthodox confession. The ordinations of the, the liturgical acts and the Holy Sacraments they had celebrated were considered valid. On 28 and 29 October 1948, 6 hierarchs were arrested. Once the hierarchs arrested, a series of arrests of the United archpriests, canonists and clergy followed who openly declared their faithfulness towards their own Church. On 1 December 1948, Decree no. 358 was issued by which the United Church was dissolved. In December 1989, after the fall of Ceauşescu regime, the United Church came out of illegality, getting back its liberty. Yet, its hierarchs had to learn that the places of worship and some other properties that used to belong to the before 1948, were in the possession and usage of the Orthodox now. But all these Orthodox were no other than the former or their descendents. They chose, completely free and in spite of all general prognostications, to continue to belong to the Orthodox Church, so that they felt entitled to keep and use the places of worship inherited from their parents, which they maintained with their own money, where they were baptised, wedded and where they practiced their liturgical life. When asked why the United Church has not restored her places of worship, they answer: Ask the protestants from Cluj, Sibiu or Braşov if they even think of restoring to the Catholic Church the cathedrals that used to belong to them before the Reform. The respective places of worship passed to the Reform at the same time with their faithful. Why should other standard be applied to us?

9 The history after 1989 is characterized by the fight for defending or getting certain goods, by the establishment of a legal frame to resolve the requests expressed, also taking into consideration the concrete realities, as well as by the attempt to solve the issues through central or local dialogue. All these things caused a tensioned context, which did not allow the two Romanian Churches to involve adequately in the serious problems of the contemporary society. II. THE PRESENT STATISTIC SITUATION OF THE ORTHODOX AND THE GREEK-CATHOLIC FAITHFUL According to the official statistic data of the census, in January 1992, the of Romania amounted to 22,810,035 persons, out of whom 19,802,385 declared to be Orthodox (86,80), and 223,327 (0,98). In March 2002, at the next census, the of Romania amounted to 21,680,974 persons, out of whom 18,817,975 declared to be Orthodox (86,79) and 191,556 (0,98). (See Annex 1 with the results of the two censuses at the level of the whole country, for every eparchy, in the canonical order of the metropolitan sees). The official data that the State Secretariat for Religious Affairs published on Internet show that the Catholic Church has, 191,556 faithful, 5 eparchies, with 66 deaneries, 639 parishes and 700 priests, while the Orthodox Church has, for almost 19 million faithful, only 25 eparchies, with 148 deaneries, 10,157 parishes and 10,068 priests. Contributions from the state budget are given to all these administrative territorial structures, both Orthodox, and Catholic, for paying the church staff, for building and restoring the places of worship, without taking into consideration the fact that the number of the faithful organised in the 5 Catholic eparchies represents only 25 of the faithful of a single Orthodox eparchy. If 86,79 of the contributors to the state budget declared to be Orthodox, it would only be moral and correct that from the total amount allotted from the state budget to the religious cults, the same percentage be allotted to the Orthodox Church, observing the principle of proportionality. This principle was not applied, and the Orthodox Church turned out to be rather tolerant not to protest. III. THE JURIDICAL SITUATION OF THE PAROCHIAL GOODS IN THE LEGISLATION BEFORE 1989 AND AFTERWARDS 1. THE LEGAL FRAME

10 In the Romanian Orthodox Church, the juridical regime of the church goods, both in the period of the communist regime and today, is regulated by a series of normative documents, church and civil as well. The church laws comprising norms concerning the juridical Status of these goods are the following: 1. The Status for the Organisation and Functioning of the Romanian Orthodox Church (st), 2. The Regulations for the Administration of the Church Property (in Romanian: RAB), 3. Regulations for the organisation and functioning of the parochial and monastic cemeteries within the eparchies of the Romanian Orthodox Church. These laws have been worked out by the legislative deliberative authorities, with the observance of the basic canonical principles, as they represent the legal frame for the administration of all goods making the property, possession and usage of the component parts and of the local bodies of the Romanian Orthodox Church, regulating the division, administration, acquiring, alienation, entailment or loss of the church goods. We remember some of the state or civil regulations: 1. The Romanian Constitution, 2. Decree no. 177/1948 for the general regime of the religious cults. Other laws and decrees emanated after 1989 can be added to these normative acts, as they refer explicitly to the church goods DIVISION OF THE CHURCH GOODS While following the classification in the civil legislation, the church goods are divided into personal property and real property. Besides this classification, the church authority divides the church goods according to their destination, into holy good and ordinary goods (article 169 St.). The Holy Goods are those assigned to the divine rite through consecration or blessing: the places of worship, vestments, books and cemeteries (article 2 RAB, article 181 St.). The ordinary goods are those designed to be used for maintaining the places of worship, the church servants, the charity work as well as some other activities. This category comprises the parochial houses, the church school buildings, museums, terrains, etc. (article 2 RAB). 3. ADMINISTRATION OF THE PAROCHIAL GOODS The general norm providing autonomy to the parishes in the administration of their own patrimony is article 40 in the Status for the organisation and functioning of the Romanian Orthodox Church, that stipulates the following: According to

11 the regulations of the present Statute, each of the component parts of the Church is entitled to lead and administrate itself independently from any other component part of the same degree and to participate, through its representatives, in the works of the higher component parts. Further explanations are given by article 3 in the Regulations for the administration of the church property: Each of the component part of the Romanian Orthodox Church administrates its own property through its own bodies, under the supervision and patronage of the higher authorities, in accordance to the law of the country, with the stipulations of the Status for the organisation and functioning of the Romanian Orthodox Church and with the Regulations for the administration of the church goods. According to the Status, the component parts of the Romanian Orthodox Church are: a. the parish, b. deanery, c. monastery, d. eparchy, e. metropolitan see. The Regulations for the administration of the church goods (articles 3-18) mention the authorities appointed and their attributions for exerting the administrative function for each of the component parts of the Romanian Orthodox Church. So, as an example, in the parish, the parochial goods are administrated by the Parochial Council through the trustee, under the supervision and control of the parish priest (article 4). The parishes are legal persons (cf. article 186 St.) fulfilling all conditions requested by the civil law in this sense (article 26 in Decree no. 31/1954). The principle of the administration of the parochial goods by the parochial community, through the parochial council and trusteeship, based on the fact that the parish is a legal person and owner de jure and de facto of the parochial goods, has not been borrowed from the communist ideology of the collective property, but used permanently by the Romanian Orthodox Church. One should also mention that the right of property is the real right that confers the titular the attributes of possession, usage and disposal of a good, attributes that only he can exert in their plenitude, in their own power and interest, with the observance of the juridical norms in force (cf. article 480 Romanian Civil Code). Therefore, the parochial places of worship, or their branches, as well as all the other estates have only one owner, who, according to the legislation of the Romanian Orthodox Church is not the Church in its entirety, the Patriarchate, the Patriarch, or the parish priest, but the parish, that is the community of the faithful, both clergy and lay, practicing the Christian Orthodox religion, living in a certain territory, under the leadership of a parish priest (article 41 St); in this sense, article 173 in the Status stipulates: The belongs to the parish. 4. THE JURIDICAL REGIME OF THE CHURCH PARISH GOODS 4.1 CHANGE, ENTAILMENT AND ALIENATION OF THE PAROCHIAL GOODS

12 The change, entailment and alienation of the parochial goods are submitted to a special juridical regime in accordance with the purpose of the respective goods. The juridical situation of the common real estates is different from this point of view, as they can be changed, entailed or alienated according to special legal proceedings only in case the vital interests of the Church justify them and if such transactions bring advantages to the Church (cf. article RAB). So, in case a building is sold, the following legal proceedings will be applied: the decision to sell the respective building will be submitted to the parish council which must deliberate upon it with at least 2/3 of the Council members; the decision of the parish council will be submitted to the parochial assembly for approval; the official reports, accompanied by the report of the parish priest will be then presented to the deanery, asking for the official reports to be sent to the Eparchial Council. While analysing the entire documentation the Eparchial Council must decide with absolute majority of votes for the alienation of the respective goods. The decision of the Eparchial Council must have the approval of the juridical counsellor and of the bishop (article 32 RAB). In case of change or entailment of a real estate, it must be done by common agreement, following the same proceedings as in case of selling (art. 41 RAB). The change of the juridical situation of the sacred or common parish goods through donation documents can be done only in exceptional cases and only to churches or church institutions, with the approval of the eparchial council and of the bishop as well. (Article 55 RAB). 4.2 THE JURIDICAL REGIME OF THE PARISH GOODS IN CASE OF RELIGIOUS PASSAGES The parish priest, as leader of the parish administration and executive body of the Parish Assembly and of the Parish Council, is the one who represents concretely the parish in the court, in front of the authorities and of third parts, personally or by delegates legally authorized, with the previous approval of the local hierarch (Article 47; Article 48 b St). Therefore, the priest has the right to administrate the parish goods, but not to dispose of them, as this right is conferred only to the parish assembly as deliberative organ and to the Parochial Council as executive body (cf. Art. 52 St.). The parish community is the only one having the right to dispose of the parish goods. This is why in case of religious passages from one cult to another, the parish property follows the faithful in accordance with the number of those who make this passage. This procedure is regulated by the civil law, in article 37 in Decree no. 177/19448 for the general regime; this is not an innovation, but it is based on the principle of the legal persons reorganisation by detachment, which does not dissolve the existent legal person, but sets up another, its rights and

13 duties to be distributed proportionally to the legal persons existent at present THE JURIDICAL REGIME OF THE GREEK-CATHOLIC PARISH GOODS IN THE PATRIMONY OF THE ORTHODOX PARISH COMMUNITIES In 1948, the Romanian Orthodox Church was faced with a situation similar to the one regulated by Article 37 in Decree no. 177/1948, when the majority of the local Catholic communities passed to Orthodoxy with all their parish patrimony, as natural, so that, in fact, neither the destination of the money nor the owners were changed, as they remained the same, according to the civil and church legislation, but constituted now into an Orthodox parish. As a result of this state of things, the Romanian State would issue Decree no. 358/1948 for establishing the lawful situation of the former Catholic cult, which regulated the following: Article 1. Following the return of the local communities (parishes) of the Catholic cult to the Romanian Orthodox cult, and in accordance with Decree no. 177 of 1948, the central statutory organisations of this cult (metropolitan see, bishoprics, capitularies, foundations, associations as well as any other institutions and organisations of any kind or by any name) cease to exist. Article 2. The personal property as well as the real property belonging to the organisations and institutions mentioned in Article 1 in the present decree, except for the express goods of the former parishes (s.n.) will go to the Romanian State, which immediately takes it into possession. An inter-ministry commission, made up of delegates of the Ministry for Religious Affairs, for Finances, Interior and Agriculture and Domains and Public Instruction will decide the destination of these properties (others than the parochial ones); it will assign a part of them to the Romanian Orthodox Church or to the other component parts. This normative act did not dissolve the Catholic cult itself, as it did not refer to the Greek Catholic Church as an institution, but only to its administrative units and organisations with legal personality, which following the stipulations in the respective decree ceased to exist; the dissolution of this Church was practically done by the act of 21 October Both the personal property and the real property, that used to belong to the former Greek Catholic parishes, were excepted from nationalisation by Decree no. 358/1948 were, as they passed, by law, to the Orthodox parishes adopted, according to Article 37 of the Law of the Religious Cults (Decree no. 177/1948). On 27 December 1948, the Decree of the Council of Ministers no. 1719/1948 was issued, the administrative act by which the stipulations of article 2 of Decree 358/1948 were implemented, establishing the juridical situation of the other goods that used

14 to belong to the Catholic cult. As a result of this decision, the State assigned the cathedrals, churches, chaples and all the other buildings related to the divine service, the monasteries and sketes, with their surrounding courts and patios, to the Romanian Orthodox Church or to its component parts in whose territory these goods were found (Article 3 e). The Decree-Law no. 9 of 31 December 1989 abrogated the Decree no. 358/1948, but by this normative act, the Romanian State although inheritor of the old communist State is not entitled to restore to the Catholic cult, recognised again, the old parish goods held until Therefore, the State has not the authority to restore the parish goods, as it was not it that confiscated them and neither the Romanian Orthodox Church can be accused of that. The answer of the State Secretariat for Religious Affairs is self-evident in this regard: By its basic law, the lawful Romanian State has not the legal frame to take over or administrate the patrimony of another cult. Such a deed my mean interference in the patrimonial affairs of the cults and so, the infringement of their rights concerning the possession over the places of worship that belong to them ( ) Deprived of a juridical support (based on the national and international norms) the State s interference at this level would create serious confessional turmoil and tension. The State can only mediate in order to facilitate the activity of the joint Orthodox Catholic Commissions dealing with the respective issue, but not attribute the respective place of worship. Article 37 of Decree 177/1948 has been valid, since after the Revolution of December 1989 till today, so that the can still take over their old properties. This is because in the recent project concerning the Bill on the religious freedom and regime of the religious cults in Romania, the three situations regulated by Article 37 of Decree 177/1948, are no longer included, as there is only one paragraph inserted in Article 33, which stipulates the following: The persons who leave a recognised cult cannot have any claim over the patrimony of the respective cult. The majority of the former chose, after 1989, to remain in the Romanian Orthodox Church together with the parish goods with which they came in 1948, so that the representatives of the Romanian Orthodox Church have permanently underlined, ever since the first signs of claims from the Catholic representatives that no retrocession can be done without consulting the faithful of the respective communities, as the goods belong to them. In fact, this was the basic idea of Article 3 in Decree-Law no. 126 of 24 April 1990, which stipulates: The juridical situation of the religious cults and of the parochial houses that used to belong to the Romanian Church United with Rome (Catholic) and have been taken over by the Romanian Orthodox Church will be established by a joint commission made up of the clerical

15 representatives of the two religious cults, taking into account the desire of the faithful of the communities holding these goods. This article has really made the basis of the retrocession of some places of worship and parochial houses in certain communities, but only after the Orthodox faithful in majority has been consulted in this regard. The Church National Assembly of the Romanian Patriarchate met on 17 May 1990, in accordance with the stipulations of Decree 177/1948, Decree-Law 126/1990, Decree law 31/1954 and in observing the legal church provisions, and decided: At the local parish level, the patrimonial issues are up to the Parish Assembly, of which decisions will be approved by the Eparchial Council and confirmed by the Special Commission of the Church National Assembly stipulated by the previous article, set up ad-hoc for the purpose, in order to implement them. The representatives of the Romanian Church United with Rome ignored the real situation and, most of the time, preferred to appeal to the court instead of having a sincere dialogue, hoping to retrieve in this way the patrimony lost in IV. THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE ROMANIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE ROMANIAN CHURCH UNITED WITH ROME (GREEK-CATHOLIC) 1. PREVIOUS PHASES The relations between the Orthodox Church and the Romanian Church United with Rome during the first post-communist decade were marked by many events, passing, unfortunately, through a sinuous evolution hard to characterize. Article 3 of Decree-Law no. 126/1990, drafted in the presence both of the representatives of the and of the Romanian Orthodox Church, clearly stipulates that the patrimonial issues, the places of worship, respectively, will be solved by the joint Orthodox Greek Catholic commissions. So, the principle of dialogue has been from the very beginning one of the essential points trying to build durable relations between the two Romanian Churches. Unfortunately, the Greek Catholic Church preferred to communicate with the Romanian Orthodox Church through the Court, Government, Presidency, Commissions and Parliament commissions, mass-media and, last but not least, through foreign pressures. A new hope appeared due to the positive results registered after the debates in Balamand between the delegates of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches (1993). All these results were noted down in the Balamand Document, also signed with the agreement of the representatives of the Catholic Church in Romania, who refused to accept it later on. 7 Although a positive answer of the United Church has been waited for quite

16 a long time in order to start the official dialogue to lead to a peaceful solution of all disagreements, it did not come for quite a long time. Attempts to settle the tensions have been made in certain eparchies, at the local level at the initiative of certain Orthodox hierarchs. Although the results have not been those expected, the Romanian Orthodox Church continued to think that dialogue was the only way to solve all disagreements. In fact, this was the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church too, expressed by her signing the Balamand Document and strengthened by the speech of Pope John Paul II, delivered in front of the Romanian United Bishops on the occasion of the their visit to Vatican in January Unofficial discussions between the Romanian Orthodox and the also took place on the occasion of the 79 th Symposium of the Pro Oriente Foundation held in Vienna, from May Other attempts to settle the conflicts have been made during the next years through the Appeal to reconciliation and unity of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church 1997, through the Statement on the ecumenical engagement of the Catholic Oriental Church June July 1997, through the Statement of the Greek Catholic Metropolitan Lucian Mureşan, delivered in front of Pope John Paul II in January The Holy Synod instituted, in its working session of 19 February 1998, a Central Commission for the dialogue with the Catholic Church, whose first purpose was to settle the present patrimonial litigations between the two parts at local level. Two months later, as a result of the repeated insistences of the Holy Synod, His Eminence Metropolitan Lucian would give a positive answer, conveying the willingness of the Catholic hierarchy to participate, finally, in the dialogue with the Central Commission proposed by the Romanian Patriarchate. The Commissions would be made up of hierarchs of the two Churches, with good knowledge of the situation in the territory, besides the delegates from Vatican and from the Romanian Patriarchate, as guests; sometimes, due to objective reasons, the commissions composition was slightly changed. The official acceptance of the Catholic side to participate in the dialogue represents an important step forward, a new stage in the Orthodox Catholic relations since the reestablishment of this cult, in The Orthodox side expressed the hope that all patrimonial disagreements will be solved in this way, showing that the Boila Law voted in the Romanian Senate in June 1997, which proposed restitutio in integrum could not be the only way to settle the patrimonial litigations between the two Churches. In August 1998, the Holy Synod would show that in the perspective of the beginning of the dialogue the basic

17 principles on which the dialogue could be held had to be considered as themes of discussions. The Orthodox Commission had a first meeting on the 2 nd of Septem-ber 1998, where a few principles of dialogue were drafted: 1. Acceptance of the dialogue as the only way of reconciliation between the two Churches; the retrocession to the Orthodox Church of the places of worship occupied by force; cease to occupy the churches by force; cease the trials in court and the legislative initiatives; cease the violent accusing polemical language in mass-media; give up any form of proselytism. 2. The real situation in the territory will be taken into consideration: how many places of worship the Greek have in comparison with their faithful (given by the Orthodox, taken by force, built again, in how many places alternative services take place); how many real properties they received from the state and how many the Orthodox received. 3. After finding the real situation in the territory, the majority of faithful will remain with their church and the minority will be helped to build a new place of worship (in case of the with the help of the Roman Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Church). 4. As the situations differ from one case to another, if a significant number of Catholic parishioners present today in a rural locality ask for one of the two churches, the faithful of the parish that holds them will be consulted; 5. As in the cities there are only a few churches, both confessions will build new places of worship. 2. THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE ROMANIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE ROMANIAN CHURCH UNITED WITH ROME (GREEK-CATHOLIC). THE MEETINGS OF THE JOINT COMMISSION FOR THE ORTHODOX GREEK CATHOLIC DIALOGUE 2.1 THE FIRST MEETING: 28 OCTOBER 1998, BUCHAREST THE PALACE OF THE ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE Due to the tense situations in certain localities, the beginning of the dialogue of reconciliation between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Church United with Rome ( Catholic) was an event that the faithful of both Churches expected with much interest. The Joint Commission established four points of orientation for continuing the dialogue: 1. As the dialogue is the only form of reconciliation, it must be continued in an atmosphere of sincerity, mutual

18 respect and brotherhood, must stop occupying the churches by force, give up the juridical or legislative actions, the polemical language in mass-media, as well as any form of proselytism. 2. The usage of the places of worship will be solved through dialogue, analysing at eparchial and parochial level the cases in which the minority has no place of worship. 3. Until the next common meeting of the Commissions for Dialogue, the Orthodox and Catholic hierarchs from every eparchy will meet and analyse at local level every separate case, taking into consideration the real possibilities to solve the issues, after consulting the clergy and faithful; the data in the field will be presented to the next common meeting of the Commission for Dialogue, which will take place on 28 January 1999, in Blaj. 4. A climate of mutual confidence at the level of Diocese, clergy and faithful is badly needed today, so that the bishops who have dialogue should be supported by the priests and faithful whom they represent in this work of reconciliation. The first meeting between the two commissions ended with the hope that the complex situation in the field between the two Churches concerning the patrimonial disputes can be resolved with the help of God, only in the spirit of peace and good understanding. 2.2 THE SECOND MEETING: 28 JANUARY 1999, BLAJ GREEK CATHOLIC METROPOLITAN SEE Taking into account the fact that in the great majority of the former United Churches there are former United faithful, declared Orthodox today and, on the other hand, that there are still United communities in minority which do not dispose of places of worship, the Orthodox side committed itself to recognize de facto that more than 100 places of worship which in 1989 made the possession of the Orthodox communities, but owned and used by the Catholic communities today, should remain as they are now, in spite of the way in which they were taken into possession, and not make the object of future claims by the Orthodox side. The Catholic commission mentioned again the fact that in the parishes where there are two churches and one of them used to belong to the Catholic confession they must see if it is possible that wherever there are Catholic communities, one of the places of worship should be given to them. The Orthodox side showed that this thing was not possible to be done without the approval of the faithful in the respective localities. The Catholic Commission claimed again the retrocession of the Cathedrals in Baia Mare and Oradea.

19 The Orthodox Commission showed that that was not possible, at least not for the time being, as, besides the fact that the laws mentioned above were ignored, the situation did not reflect the right situation, as after such a retrocession thousands of Orthodox faithful would be left aside in favour of a few ten thousands of Catholic families, for whom a solution might be found. Both parts agreed to set up local commissions at the level of every Diocese so that the dialogue should continue at local level, too. An important subject of the discussions was the visit of the Pope John Paul II to Romania. 2.3 THE THIRD MEETING: 10 JUNE 1999 THE ORTHODOX MONASTERY OF RÂMEŢ A special event for the Romanian Orthodox Church was the visit of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to Romania, from 7-9 May It was for the first time in history, after the Schism of 1054, when a Pope came on an official visit to the canonical territory of a country Orthodox in its majority, at the invitation of the Primate of the respective Church. His Beatitude Patriarch Teoctist said, at his meeting with the Roman Pontiff: We hope that the visit of Your Holiness to Romania should be a positive impulse for the dialogue that has already brought positive results, that our Church has initiated with the Romanian Church United with Rome (Catholic) in Romania. 9 In his answer the Pontiff Sovereign affirmed: I observed with great attention the works of the Joint Commission of the Romanian Orthodox Church and of the Catholic Church concerning the issued mentioned (the retrocession of the goods). In spite of all difficulties, there is no doubt that this Commission had a positive role. I convey my best wishes for both parts to continue to treat this problem through a sincere respectable dialogue and I hope that this visit of mine should bring a further contribution to this brotherly dialogue in truth and charity. 10 The meeting at Râmeţ was held in the spiritual climate obviously inspired by the visit of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to Romania, an aspect underlined by both parts. In the second part of the meeting the balance sheet of the practical dialogue of the local commissions was done. The names of the localities with problems related to the places of worship were mentioned, as well as the cases where no progress was done. The Orthodox side underlined it was difficult to find fast practical solutions for solving the present problems and showed that it was not the priests who were guilty of the patrimonial claims, but, as underlined on other occasions, the places of worship did not belong to the priests, but to the faithful. The Orthodox have also emphasised that

20 new places of worship had to be built, especially in the cities, by the Catholic side, as the Orthodox faithful in majority in a certain parish will not be convinced to cede the church, even though it used to belong to the before Also mentioned was the fact that the alternate service in the same church was not an ideal solution, but a temporary one, till new churches are built; the situation in the field proves that the alternate service created tensions among the faithful of the two Churches. 2.4 THE FOURTH MEETING: 4 NOVEMBER 1999 ORADEA, THE GREEK-CATHOLIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY The two Commissions reached the conclusion that, in order to take further steps on the way of rapprochement and to have a solid platform in the next meetings, it was necessary to establish the principles to contribute to the continuation of the dialogue in a constructive manner. Therefore, the Orthodox side proposed that the The Balamand Document signed by both parts, through the Joint International Orthodox and Catholic Commission, should be the basis of the dialogue between the two Churches. 11 Both parts agreed that the settlement of the patrimonial disputed through dialogue, not in the court, is the priority that can lead to the settlement of the conflicts. The Orthodox part underlined again that the best solution for solving all conflicts was the construction of new places of worship; in this sense, the Orthodox proved willing to help, according to their own means, the Catholic communities to build the places of worship they needed. The Catholic part also appeared willing to help the Orthodox communities to build a new place of worship in the localities where the Orthodox Church will restore the place of worship claimed. Yet, the members of the Catholic Commission did not give up their claims for the cathedrals, for the deanery churches, in the localities where there were two churches, one to be restored, and wherever there was only one church, to serve alternatively. After ardent discussions, the Orthodox part said it did not agree with the claims of the Catholic part when it came to retrocession as the desire of the faithful of the respective community, who had maintained the former Catholic places of worship after taking them into their possession, had to be taken into consideration THE FIFTH MEETING: 28 SEPTEMBER 2000 THE ORTHODOX MONASTERY SÂMBĂTA DE SUS, COUNTY OF BRAŞOV If the first four meetings were held in one year (October 1998 November 1999), starting with the fifth meeting, the Commissions for Dialogue between the two Romanian Churches would meet only once a year.

21 The conclusion was that after one year since the first meeting, an improvement of the climate ruling between the two Churches could be noticed. The foreground of the meeting was made by the constructive participation of the clergy and faithful of the two parts to the settlement of their relations in the localities with patrimonial disputes following the reestablishment of the old Catholic parishes, through common agreements concluded at local level concerning the alternate service or exchange of real properties, but especially by building or arranging new places of worship, either by the Orthodox or by the Catholic part. Obviously, besides these important achievements, there are still a series of failures, such as the trials and the occupation of certain places of worship by force. The fact was underlined that the settlement of all patrimonial issues may take a long time, for which reason the following are recommended: restore, where need be, of churches by good understanding, appealing to the local Commissions for dialogue; construction of new churches by both parts; alternate service in exceptional cases, for a temporary period, until building new churches THE SIXTH MEETING: 27 SEPTEMBER 2001 LUGOJ, GREEK- CATHOLIC DIOCESE The Commission ascertained that as a result of the meetings of the local Commissions for dialogue at the dioceses level, certain places of worship have been returned to the Catholic part. The Orthodox part underlined the fact that all the meetings held until then discussed only the patrimonial disputes, so that the diversification of this dialogue by tackling some social and cultural aspects was proposed. The Catholic part asked that the dialogue should prove more good will and generosity at the level of the local Commissions, maintaining at the same time the same claims as at the previous meetings. The hierarchs of the two Romanian Churches have been called to contribute to the settlement of the exceptional situations that may appear at local level between the two communities, by urging the priests and faithful to good understanding and harmony, observing the full confessional option of the faithful of the two parts THE SEVENTH MEETING: 1 OCTOBER 2002 ARAD, THE ORTHODOX DIOCESE The proceedings of the Joint Commission for Dialogue were opened by the President of the Orthodox Commission, His Eminence Bartolomeu Anania, Archbishop of Vad, Feleac and Cluj, who underlined the importance of the direct open relations between the hierarchs of the two Churches by local initiatives, giving the example of the local dialogue initiated in