The Romanian Orthodox Church

At first glance, the nationalist ideology of the French Revolution seems to have had little impact on the Orthodox Church in Romanian-speaking territories. Romanians were the predominant inhabitants of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia and the neighboring territories of Transylvania (including Crişana, Maramureş and Banat), Bukovina, Bessarabia, and Dobrudja. The majority of ethnic Romanians belonged to the Orthodox faith while their communities were at the intersection of geopo liti cal interests of the Rus sian, Ottoman, and Habsburg empires. In 1859 the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia (known as the Old Kingdom between 1866 and 1918) united into a single state under the rule of a local prince. The term "Romania" began to be used by the new state in its of cial documents in 1862. Two years later, the state supported the declaration of a Romanian autocephalous (in de pen dent) church that was recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1885. As an integrative part of the Orthodox commonwealth, the church was situated between the competing jurisdictions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Rus sian Orthodox Church, while its declaration of autocephaly followed a pattern in the spread of national churches in Southeastern Europe. From the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainardji of 1774 to the beginning of the Greek War for In de pen dence in 1821, the Romanian principalities were under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire, which had full control of their po liti cal and economic affairs. The sultan appointed princes, and the Porte determined their po liti cal and judicial status. The princes were drawn from the "Phanariots," and were directly appointed by the Porte from preponderantly Greek elite rather than the Romanian local elite, the boyars (boieri).1 In each principality, the church was headed by a metropolitan who was under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. That religion mattered to local population as a means of social cohesion was suggestively depicted by Anatole de Demidoff, an En glish traveler in the region in 1837. Arriving in Bucharest, the capital of Wallachia, he claimed that: I know of no city in Europe in which it is possible to find more agreeable society, or in which there is a better tone, united with the most charming gaiety⋯. Religion, which is here of the schismatic Greek creed, does not, properly speaking, hold any great empire over the minds of the Wallachian people, but they observe its outward forms, and particularly the austerities of fasting, with scrupulous exactitude. The people are seen to attend divine ser vice with every sign of respect, and the great number of churches existing in Wallachia, bear witness to the ardent zeal with which outward worship is honored.2 The Romanian Orthodox Church was a national institution, closely linked to social, economic, and po liti cal structures. In most cases, Orthodox hierarchs were appointed from the families of boyars, thus ensuring a close relationship with the state authorities and its policies. As one of the largest landowners in the principalities, the church had a prime role in administrating healthcare and education. Although the majority of the clergy was uneducated, it dispensed both ecclesiastical and civil justice and in many cases worked closely with boyars in local administration.3 The lower clergy not only contributed directly to the economy but also benefited from tax privileges. Some small villages had an unusually high proportion of clergy in comparison to the overall population. For example, in 1810, Stənisləveşti, a village in the south of Wallachia, was composed of eleven houses and had two priests, five deacons, and three cantors; similarly, the Frəsinet village of nineteen houses had two priests and five deacons.4 Although these cases were exceptional, they indicate both the economic value of being a member of the clergy and the wider canonical dimension of church jurisdiction. The special status of the clergy was reflected not only at lower but also at higher levels. Bishops and metropolitans engaged with state policy and in many cases opposition to the authorities led to the loss of a spiritual seat. The metropolitan of each principality worked with the prince and was president of the divan, the gathering of all boyars. He held the right to be the first person to comment on state policy and to make recommendations when the prince was absent. The metropolitan replaced the prince when the principality had no political ruler, such as in the cases of Metropolitan Veniamin Costachi of Moldavia in 1806 and Metropolitan Dositei Filitti of Wallachia, while the bishops of Buzəu and Argeş were members of the provisional government during the Rus sian occupation of the principalities in 1808. The higher clergy had both religious and political prerogatives in relation to foreign powers as evident in their heading of the boyars' delegation to peace negotiation between the Rus sian and Ottoman empires at Focşani in 1772 and addressing memoranda to the Austrian and Rus sian governments in 1802.5 The primary role of the church in the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia was paralleled by the national mobilization of Orthodox communities in the neighboring territories that had Romanian inhabitants. Although throughout the region Orthodox communities were incorporated into church structures as part of the Habsburg, Austrian or Rus sian empires, the nineteenth century was characterized by the leadership's search for political autonomy and the building of a Romanian national identity. The Orthodox communities outside the Old Kingdom maintained relations with the faithful in principalities across the Carpathian Mountains and the Dniester River and sought support in their struggle for political and religious rights.

Religious diplomacy and socialism. The Romanian Orthodox Church and the Church of England, 1956-1959

This article analyzes the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the communist regime during one of the most intense periods of religious persecution in the Romanian People's Republic from 1956 to 1959. The church hierarchy demonstrated its support for the socialist construction of the country, while, at the same time, the regime began a campaign against religion by arresting clergy and reducing the number of religious people in monasteries; rumours even circulated that in 1958 Patriarch Justinian was under house arrest. Seeking closer contact with Western Europe, the regime allowed the hierarchy to meet foreign clergymen, especially from the Church of England. These diplomatic religious encounters played a double role. The regime realised that it could benefit from international ecclesiastical relations, while the image of Justinian in the West changed from that of "red patriarch" to that of a leader who was genuinely interested in his church's survival.

Constructing communism in the Romanian People's Republic. Orthodoxy and state, 1948 - 49

This article analyses the ambiguous and contradictory relationship between the Orthodox Church and the communist regime during the first two years of the Romanian People's Republic. The installation of communism and the process of Stalinisation led to an unprecedented control of the church. The church was actively employed in propaganda and the regime imposed its own people in the hierarchy. On the one hand, Romanian communists followed the Soviet model regarding the place of the church in the communist state while, on the other hand, the church hierarchy adapted to the new political system by creating a theory of 'social apostolate'. Lacking popular support, the communists used the church as an instrument through which they could acquire the political support of the masses. The church thus enjoyed a favoured position in society mainly because the communists employed it in their ideological expansionism and confrontation with the West.

Orthodoxy and the Cold War:religion and political power in Romania, 1947-65

This book examines the unique dynamics between Orthodoxy and politics in Romania. It provides an accessible narrative on church-state relations in the early Cold War period within a wider timeframe, from the establishment of the state in 1859 to the rise of Nicolae Ceausescu in 1965. In the 1950s Romania began to distance itself from Moscow's influence, developing its own form of communism. Based on new archival resources, the book argues that Romanian national communism, outside Moscow's influence, had an ally in a strong Church. It addresses the following questions: How did the Church, which openly opposed communism in the interwar period, survive the atheist regime? How did the regime use religion to its political advantage? What was the Church's influence on Romanian politics? The book analyses the political interests of the Romanian Orthodox Church and its religious diplomacy with actors in the West, in particular with the Church of England.

The concept of symphonia in contemporary European Orthodoxy

The relationship between the religious and political fields in the Orthodox Church is defined by the concept of symphonia which dates back to the Byzantine Empire. The concept suggests that the religious and political authorities should work together in a symphonic agreement towards achieving the material and spiritual welfare of the faithful. This article argues that an investigation of the theory of sign and symbol offers a better understanding of symphonia and, in particular, of its relationship with the nation-building process. From this perspective, by corroborating the data provided by the European Values Survey from 1990 to 2000 with this theory, this article demonstrates that the enlargement of the European Union represents the most significant challenge to symphonia, shifting its national focus to a supranational level. © 2011 Taylor & Francis.

Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Southeastern Europe

Nation-building processes in the Orthodox commonwealth brought together political institutions and religious communities in their shared aims of achieving national sovereignty. Chronicling how the churches of Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia acquired independence from the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the wake of the Ottoman Empire’s decline, Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Southeastern Europe examines the role of Orthodox churches in the construction of national identities. Drawing on archival material available after the fall of communism in southeastern Europe and Russia, as well as material published in Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Russian, Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Southeastern Europe analyzes the challenges posed by nationalism to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the ways in which Orthodox churches engaged in the nationalist ideology.

Eastern Christianity and politics in the Twenty-First Century

This book provides an up-to-date, comprehensive overview of Eastern Christian churches in Europe, the Middle East, America, Africa, Asia and Australia. Written by leading international scholars in the field, it examines both Orthodox and Oriental churches from the end of the Cold War up to the present day. The book offers a unique insight into the myriad church-state relations in Eastern Christianity and tackles contemporary concerns, opportunities and challenges, such as religious revival after the fall of communism; churches and democracy; relations between Orthodox, Catholic and Greek Catholic churches; religious education and monastic life; the size and structure of congregations; and the impact of migration, secularisation and globalisation on Eastern Christianity in the twenty-first century.

Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism:an introduction

On the morning of January 5, 1859, at the end of the liturgy in the Orthodox cathedral in Iaşi, the capital of the principality of Moldavia, Father Neofit Scriban addressed the congregation. He had given many sermons in the cathedral; however, on this par tic u lar date Father Neofit faced an unusual audience. Among the faithful who regularly worshipped at the relics of Saint Parascheva, the protector of Moldavia, were the members of the assembly who would decide the future of the principality. They had a specific mission: to elect a new prince, a key figure in their plan to unite Moldavia with the neighboring principality of Wallachia. Father Neofit, a supporter of the unionist cause and fully aware of the significance of the moment, stated: Brethren, Jesus Christ has said that "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." You, Brethren, are not two, or three, but a real gathering in the name of God. God is in your midst. You are here in the name of the Romanian nation [and] the Romanian nation is in your midst. On the flag under which you have assembled, the flag of the Romanian nation, great events, the Romanian faith, unity, are written in large letters. The church, which is founded on faith, blesses the flag of this faith⋯. You, Brethren, through the faith of the Romanian nation, by remaining faithful to this flag, will find the same strength as the church [finds] in its own saints. The faith of the Romanian nation was not, is not, and will not be anything else, but the unity of all Romanians in a single state, the only anchor of salvation, the only port in which the national boat could be saved from surrounding waves. You, Brethren, have gathered here in the church of Stephen the Great; looking at the altar that he raised to the God of your parents, I think that, through this [altar], you will be able to enter into the wishes of this hero of our nation. You, [remember that] by leaving this place, you are leaving [in order to fulfill] a great gesture that for many centuries has been lost for us; you are about to elect a successor to this great hero; therefore, as his true sons, you could not be anything other than the true expression of his wishes. Myself, [as] last year, from this altar, I said and I will continue to say that this great hero has told us that "the God of our parents will send us a Redeemer who will heal our wounds and accomplish our wishes." May your chosen leader today be the redeemer expected by the Romanian nation. May he heal its wounds and achieve its wishes. Therefore, Brethren, may your election today be that of a real Messiah of Romania. God and the world are looking at you, the church is blessing you and the whole Romanian nation is waiting for you!1 A few hours after Father Neofit's sermon, the assembly elected Alexandru Ioan Cuza to be the prince of the principality of Moldavia; a few days later, on January 24, 1859, the assembly of the neighboring principality of Wallachia decided that Cuza should also be their prince, thus confirming the unification of the two states. A new country was inscribed on the map of Southeastern Europe, titled "The United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia," also known as "The United Romanian Principalities".