Ioan Vasile Leb
| Key
words: Romania, Orthodox Church, tolerance, Romanian provinces, minorities, Catholic Church, Calvinist Church, Lutheran Church, state, legislation |
Pr.,
Prof., Ph.D. Faculty of Orthodox Theology Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania |
The
Orthodox Church and the Minority Cults in Inter-War Romania
(1918-1940)
| previous |
|
Abstract: In the context of the Union of Greater Romania, a problem specific to the development of the Romanian society and of the re-united national state was the regulation of the status or the varied religious cults. It is well known that under the Older Romanian Kingdom, the Orthodoxy was a state religion. The other cults - Lutheran, Catholic, Mosaic, and Moslem - represented small numbers of believers and had not been regulated under the law; they were tolerated. Following the Union of 1918, the Romanian State came to accommodate not just one, but several denominations. Consequently, it had to clarify its relations with the cults in the Romanian provinces of Bucovina, Basarabia, Banat, and Transylvania. These cults which had not existed in the Older Kingdom functioned according to the legislative systems they had belonged to before 1918. Thus came the necessity of establishing the unitary status for the minority cults, which, given the diversity of their religious doctrines, rituals and interests, posed new problems to be settled for the government policy. This also should be the focus of the debates surrounding the forthcoming law of the cults in Romania. Let us mention from the start that this topic is as vast as it is complicated, consequently, an exhaustive analysis is hardly achievable. I will try instead to encompass one of the more important aspects of the problem. The ratification of The Declaration in Alba-Iulia on December 1, 1918 has been justly qualified as "the accomplishment of the most significant event in the history of the Romanian people, that is, the Union of Greater Romania"1. Fundamental actions at all levels followed the Union of 1918. Their aim was to achieve the unity of the country. Priority was given to the administrative and legal plans for an efficient and nation oriented governance. As for the intricate social issue following the Union, this had to be mastered and managed at both political and administrative levels. The re-unification of the four historic Romanian provinces had JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 131 called for such measures as would harmonise the institutional system. In this context, a problem specific to the development of the Romanian society and of the re-united national state was the regulation of the status or the varied religious cults2. Under the circumstances, the Romanian state had to clarify its relations with the religious cults of the Romanian provinces: Bucovina, Basarabia, Banat, and Transylvania. These cults had not existed in the Older Kingdom and had just been incorporated shortly before 19183. Moreover, their system was different for they came from different states. It is well known that under the Older Romanian Kingdom, the Church and the State had merged to form a perfect unity. In contrast to other denominations, the Orthodoxy was a state religion and the Orthodox Church was the dominant Church. However, a distinction had been drawn between the two institutions. It was pointed out that the Church enjoyed absolute independence on issues of spirituality while the attributions of the State were limited to the rest of the issues4. Dimitrie Cantemir himself claimed that the governing of the church from without was the duty of the monarch, whereas the `inner' issue of the people's souls was ruled by the metropolitan bishop5. This was the status quo until the Union of 1918 when a religious unity was also deemed necessary. The
other cults - Lutheran, Catholic, Mosaic, and Moslem - represented small
numbers of believers and had not been regulated under the law. They were
tolerated, that is, the State did not interfere with their inter Unfortunately, the attempt was unsuccessful. Moreover, the Constitution of 1866 only specified that "freedom for all cults shall be ensured, unless their services infringe upon public order or ethics". The explanation is to be found in the powerful influence of Germany and Austria, which were directly interested in the fate of their co-nationals and did not readily accept the idea of an emerging nation and state asserting its right to sovereignty over the domestic affairs. The acceptance of Romania in the Triple Alliance aggravated the whole situation to the point where these cults came proximal to exclusion, a situation not encountered in any other country. The Holy See regarded Romania as a "terra JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 132
missionis" ruled by deacons. The two bishoprics in Iasi and in Bucharest
were founded at a later date, without the acknowledgement of the Romanian
state.
The Protestant cult stayed in touch
with that in other states. The Lutheran communities received guidance
from Berlin and the Calvinist by the Hungarian bishops of Cluj, who prior
to 1918 had been under Hungarian administration. As for the Lutheran communities
in Basarabia and Bucovina, their situation was different. In 1920, they
were accepted within the organisation of the Evangelic Lutheran Church
of Transylvania. To conclude, prior to 1918, the status of the religious
cults in Romania was not regulated under the law. From the legal viewpoint, the cults were considered private in nature, all their actions pertaining to common law. Nonetheless, some of the provisions in the Law testified that the Romanian State did not ignore the cults completely. For example, the Moslem communities came under state guidance, which subsidised and trained the religious staff. The status of some Greek churches was regulated by specific conventions acknowledging them as juridical persons on condition that they obey the state laws, with no right, however, to property of rural estates. The relations with the Mosaic and the Armenian communities had been regulated merely by ministerial ordinances, which did not secure them the status of legal entities7. Following the Union of 1918, the Romanian State came to accommodate not just one, but several denominations. Consequently, it had to clarify its relations with the cults in the Romanian provinces of Bucovina, Basarabia, Banat, and Transylvania. These cults which had not existed in the Older Kingdom functioned according to the legislative systems they had belonged to before 1918. The new situation called for the endorsement of specific laws8. This is precisely why Article 22 was introduced in the Constitution of 1923: "Freedom of consciousness is absolute. The State safeguards the freedom and protection for all cults, as long as their actions do not prejudice public order, ethics and the governing laws of the state. The Romanian Orthodox Church and the Greek Catholic Church are Romanian Churches. The Romanian Orthodox Church as the prevailing religion of the vast majority of the Romanians is the dominant church within the Romanian State, while the Greek Catholic Church comes first before all the other cults. The Romanian Orthodox Church is, and remains, independent from any foreign dominion, yet is unified in dogma with the Ecumenical Eastern Church. Across the entire territory, the Romanian Orthodox Church would have a unitary organisation entailing both lay and clerical participation. A specific law was to set the fundamental principles of this unitary organisation, as well as the way in which the Romanian Orthodox Church regulates, governs, and administrates, through its own institutions and under state surveillance, its religious, cultural, foundational activities and sponsorship. The spiritual and canonical matters of the Romanian Orthodox Church will be under the authority of a single central synod. The relationships between the varied state cults shall be regulated under the JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 133
law9. The representatives of the cults themselves admitted
the necessity for a settlement of their relations with the Romanian State10.
As
for the Romanian Orthodox Church, it preserved its hierarchy, and through
consistent efforts it accomplished the unification under Andrei Saguna's
Organic Status11, a document that has remains to this
day the foundation of our church. Congregating vast numbers of believers,
the Romanian Orthodox Church ranked high within the Orthodox Church. Therefore,
the Holy Synod decided in its meeting of February 4, 1925 to set up the
Romanian Patriarchate by up-ranking the See of the Archbishop of Bucharest,
Metropolitan Bishop of Ungro-Vlahia and Primate of Romania. In keeping
with an ancient custom, the rise in order to Patriarchate of the Romanian
Church was announced to all related Churches. The Ecumenical Patriarch
replied by a Synodic Thomos, where he pointed out that the Synod
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate appreciated the decision of the Romanian
Church and gave the approval for this historical event. Blessings and
brotherly greetings were sent by the other eastern Patriarchates and by
all the Orthodox Churches12. By this act, the Orthodox Church
had consolidated its unity, which would further contribute to its future
development. The other Cults of Romania were to elaborate their own organisational
Status to organise their own activities.
The
Cults' relation to the Romanian State was specified in the Law of the
Cults of 1928, a law that had become a necessity after the Concordate
of May 10, 1927, at the insistence of the representatives of the Baptist
cult demanding legal acknowledgement by the Romanian government. They
went for support to Nicolae Titulescu, then the representative of Romania
at the United Nations.
A
priority agenda was agreed upon when the process of relation settlement
was initiated. First, on May 6, 1925 the Law and the Statute of the
Organisation of the Romanian Orthodox Church was passed, acknowledging
the Romanian Orthodox as the dominant Church within the Romanian State.
Next came the necessity of establishing the unitary status for the minority
cults, which, given the diversity of their religious doctrines, rituals
and interests, posed new problems to settle for the government policy.
Minister Alexandru Lapedatu, the artisan of the cult law, asserted that
in 1928 Romania included the following historical cults: the Romanian
Greek Catholic Cult, the Catholic Cult (in Latin, Greek, and Armenian
rite), the Calvinist Cult, the Evangelic Lutheran Cult, the Unitarian
Cult, the Mosaic Cult, and the Moslem Cult. In his defence of the law,
Alexandru Lapedatu argued: "After voting the law on the organisation
of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the establishment of a unitary status
for the other cults in the country has become a primordial issue in the
unification of the State. Its legislative solution suffers no further
postponement". Further on, Lapedatu stated: "The Romanian State
wishes to establish a new status for the cults. This status can no longer
be that of the former medieval clerical states, but a novel one observing
the principles of liberty and democracy as propounded
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 134
by revolutionary Europe in the first half of the 19th century. The organisation
of the new Romanian State is founded on its ancient traditions, the axis
of the political and historical development of the Romanian people. The
new Romanian legislation has to consider the new conjecture. We do not
hoard the past and destiny of other nations, but our own"13.
Given
the complexity of the matter, beginning with 1925 the legislators consulted
with the representatives of all cults. First came Minister Vintila Bratianu,
then Lazar Triteanu, the Bishop of Roman. Next came the representatives
of the congressional Mosaic communities and the status in Ardeal
and Banat, the Union of the Romanian Jews, the Union of the Israelite
Communities of the Old Kingdom, the Union of the Baptist Communities of
Romania, the Consistory of the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitan See of Ardeal,
Banat, Crisana and Maramures, the Lutheran Consistory of Transylvania,
the Catholic Archbishopric of Bucharest, the Greek Catholic Metropolitan
See of Blaj, the Roman Catholic Diocese in Latin rite of Oradea, the Directory
Council of the Lutheran Diocese of Ardeal, the Consistory of the Unitarian
Church, the Lippovan Bishopric, the Israelite Central Bureau of Transylvania.
All the representatives of the minority cults requested an increased independence
and autonomy from the State. The theological arguments brought in support
of such responsibilities as they may have towards their own believers
were deference to the past and respect for their gained historical rights.
On this point all of the minority cults proved to be singularly consensual.
After
1918, the relations between the Romanian State and the various religious
cults were settled under the State's new sovereignty over the re-united
territory, as materialised into the taking into possession of all properties
belonging formerly to other states. Placing all church properties under
the state jurisdiction entitled the State to regulate its relation with
all and any church institution. Under the principle of the separation
between the Church and the State it was compulsory that the authorities
of Greater Romania norm the relations with the various religious cults
in order to promote the national interests, which did not concord at times
with those of the cults on some issues. Let's not forget that after World
War I the Romanian State was in a rather delicate position. It had to
clarify the varied aspects of the new Romanian society emerging after
the Union. The State was compelled to deal with the challenges posed by
the new norms in the international relations and the provisions of the
new peace treaties, even while it had to prove itself as a powerful and
coherent structure capable of administrating and solving any domestic
or foreign problem. All these turned the project for a Law for the Cults
of 1928 into a milestone, concentrating all Romanian political and institutional
thought and action on the issue of national integrity, independence, sovereignty,
and security, and on the observance of the constitutional norms14.
The
discussion of the Law of the Status of Cults of 1928 generated hot debates
involving personalities of the religious and cultural life, advocates
of diverging opinions. We shall not insist on this any further. It
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 135
should be mentioned, however, that the most animated debate was that between
the Greek Catholic and the Orthodox representatives. The situation was
aggravated by the joint Concordate with the Holy See. This is "The
Declaration of the Episcopate of the Romanian Orthodox Church" in
the reading of N. Balan, the Metropolitan Bishop, during the Parliament
debate: "(…) This Episcopate is aware of its mission and can
not overlook that the High Legislative Body has been forced into the awkward
position of promulgating the law without having first ensured the complete
freedom of consciousness and action. Therefore, the Romanian Orthodox
Episcopate has noted with deep regret that its desiderata have been overlooked,
the desiderata deriving from the logic of things, based on the indefeasible
rights of the ROC, which represents the sweeping majority of the Romanian
population. In virtue of its dignity and lofty patriotism, ROC rejects
any restriction or constraint upon the national sovereignty. (…)
Contrary to elementary international principles, subordinating the ideal
of national sovereignty to an opportunism transgressing the principle
of truth, the Romanian government believed it was legitimate to adopt
and harmonise the provisions of the law of the cults with the text of
the convention signed with the Holy See. It has thus imposed upon the
whole country to observe the will and the interests of an ecclesiastic
organisation from without the borders of Romania. The Romanian Orthodox
Episcopate has made public its reservations as well as its will to see
justice done and the national sovereignty safeguarded. (…) We shall
not cease even for a moment to fight for a greater cause that is shared
by us all, the Romanian government included. And we shall try by persuasive
means (…) to restore the ROC in the plenitude of its rights so that
it should fulfil its mission."15
The
Orthodox objection was clarified by Ioan Mateiu at the Deputy Assembly
in the report submitted by the Permanent Commission of Public Instruction,
Cults and Arts: "Our country, founded on the solid bases of historical
Christianity, has been fully aware at all moments of the high spiritual
mission of the Church, the institution fundamental to the shaping and
advancement of the human society. (…) This is why Romania has accepted
the political doctrine of the relation between the state and the cults,
choosing from among the various systems that of the State's supremacy
over the Church, also called the system of Church autonomy. Considering
the system to be opportune not just in the current stage in our evolution,
but also in the tradition of the different religious cults, the Romanian
State has persuaded itself that it is only sensible to prolong the autonomy
of the cults, one they have enjoyed for centuries, and extend it to all
the others with a view to providing equal protection for all."16
As
submitted in the Senate session of March 31, 192817, the law
includes four chapters: regulation of obligations for the cults', rights,
the state-cults relation, and the relation between the cults. Essentially,
the law stipulated equal liberty for everyone regardless of their religion,
the interdiction to set up political organisations on denominational bases,
the interdiction to debate
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 136
public issues within the Church, the lay nature of the Romanian State,
the minimal requirements for the clergy (i.e. Romanian citizenship, beneficiary
of all civil and political rights), the right for cults to set up, administrate,
and control the cultural and the humanitarian institutions under the law,
the moulding of the state and cults relation on the principle of equal
protection as stipulated in Article 22 of the Constitution, the state
checks that the activity of the cults do not endanger the public order
and the security of the country, acknowledgement of the Leaders of the
Cults only on the approval of the King of Romania, state checks the budget
money granted by destination, regulates the status of religious orders
and congregations, all mail despatches between the church institutions
and the Romanian State will be carried exclusively in Romanian, compulsory
study of Romanian history, language and literature in the denominational
schools. The law regulated the relation of the state with all the minority
cults in Romania such as to provide an improved functioning of the Romanian
society. Thus, under the law, the state had important attributions, as
the fundamental institution that established the relations between the
religious cults, as well as the authority that controlled the activity
of the cults in accordance to the legal norms18. The issue of the Concordate with the Holy See Although considered "a modern law, inspired by the historical, spiritual and denominational realities of Romania and founded on the international legislative norms, the law overlooked the legitimate requests of the ROC. This is the reason why the ROC had its reservations."19The main cause was the Concordate signed by the Romanian State with the Holy See on May 10, 1927, and voted by the Parliament on May 23, 1929, assigning the majority Church a position inferior to the minority Catholic Cult. To fully understand the position of the ROC, one has to take into consideration the delicate problem of the Roman Catholic Church in Transylvania. The majority of its believers were of Hungarian nationality, having for their supreme leader the Pope, whose seat was outside the borders of our country. Furthermore, many of the parishes of the Hungarian Catholic dioceses in Satu-Mare, Oradea and Timisoara were on the territory of Hungary. The Catholics of Bucovina (Poles, Germans, etc) were under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Archbishopric of Lvov (Poland), the Ukrainian Unitarians of Maramures and Satu-Mare were under the jurisdiction of the Unitarian Episcopate of Uzhorod (Czechoslovakia), while the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bucharest, Raymond Netzhammer (1905-1925) was not a Romanian citizen, who moreover had expressed hostile feelings towards the Romanian State during the War20. JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 137 The Romanian officials had begun diplomatic discussions with the Holy See as early as 1920. In 1921 they established a Romanian Legation at Vatican and an Apostolic Nunciature in Bucharest, preparing all the necessary documents. Following lengthy discussions, on May 10, 1927, the Concordate was signed by Minister Vasile Goldis on behalf of Romania, and by cardinal Gasparri representing the Holy See and Pope Pius XI. The text of the Concordate was made public only at a much later date. An early reaction was published in Telegraful roman on February the 8, 1928, only to be followed by other protests. On March 27, 1928, Nicolae Balan, the metropolitan bishop, protested in a speech delivered in the Senate during the debate of the Law of the Cults21. Later on, the same metropolitan bishop criticised the Concordate in Senate on May 23, 1929, considering it "anti-constitutional, excessively in favour of the Catholic cult, completely unjust towards the Orthodox Church, disturbing the public order, and anti-patriotic." Nonetheless, despite all the Orthodox protests, the Concordate received the vote of the Senate and of the Deputy Assembly in May 1929. On July 7, 1929 the ratified documents were exchanged and on May 30, 1939 the Agreement with Rome was signed regarding Article 9 of the Concordate, which proclaimed the so-called "Ardelean Roman Catholic Status". The
Orthodox representatives criticised a series of fundamental principles
of the Concordate considered to be adverse both to the Orthodox Church
and to the Romanian State. First of all, the Concordate was considered
anti-constitutional, for Article 22 of the Consti Article 2 of the Concordate stipulated the formation of the Catholic hierarchy. Therefore, the "Greek rite" held the Metropolitan See in Blaj and four dioceses: Oradea, Lugoj, Gherla, and a one new in the north of the country. In 1931, the diocese of Gherla was moved to Cluj, and a new diocese was founded in Baia-Mare. The latter held under its jurisdiction the Unitarian Ruteni, by special administration. The "Latin rite" held a Metropolitan See in Bucharest and four dioceses: Alba-Iulia, Timisoara, Satu-Mare/Oradea (united under the "aeque principaliter", that is, they were under one bishop, with the possibility to separate, precisely what happened in 1941), and Iasi. As for the Armenian Catholic Rite counting some 3,000 believers, they had in mind a "spiritual leader" in the city of Gherla. With almost two thousand believers, the Catholic Church held 11 dioceses (of which 5 were Roman Catholic, or perhaps 6, if we consider the position of the diocese in Satu-Mare/Oradea), 5 Greek Catholic dioceses and a leader for the Armenians in Gherla, whereas the ROC only held 18 dioceses for 14 millions of believers. Some dioceses, such as the Roman Catholic ones in Bucharest or in Iasi, or the Greek Catholic in Lugoj and Oradea, had JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 138
only some 50,000 believers as compared to the ROC where an archpriest's
district alone exceeded the number by far. The large number of dioceses
were staffed by a number of Greek and Roman Catholic canonical priests,
archpriests and priests exceeding that of the Orthodox.
Article
4 of the Concordate guaranteed the right of bishops, of the clergy and
of the people to communicate directly with the Holy See outside the control
by the Romanian State. The bishops were appointed by the Holy See, which
communicated the Romanian government the person appointed to check whether
there were any political reasons to oppose the nomination. (Article 5)
The bishops took the oath to the King rather than to the Romanian State.
The language in which to take the oath was not stipulated, and no mention
was made as to the priests' oath. (Article 6) The bishops enjoyed complete
freedom in exerting their rights, along with the prerogatives conferred
by the office, and under the norms of the Catholic Church they were at
liberty to establish new parishes, to appoint priests without the government's
approval, except for foreign priests. (Articles 8 and 12). It is worth
recording that in the Catholic Austria-Hungary (Transylvania, included)
the priests were appointed by the state, whereas the Romanian state permitted
the appointment of bishops, canonical priests, priests and theology teachers
even if of a different nationality. (Articles 5,11, 12, 16). This was
not the situation with the other Concordates after the War.
In
terms of possessions, the Catholic Church received incomparably larger
estates than any other it had owned under Catholic Austria-Hungary. Article
13 stipulated a "patrimonium sacrum" of the Catholic cult with
the purpose to support the bishoprics, the seminaries, other related institutions,
and the corresponding staff. This "patrimony" represented state
rent titles in exchange for the expropriation of the Catholic Church properties.
In contrast, the Austro-Hungarian State had given them for usufruct only
to the Catholic Church. Thus, in 1918, the property rights belonged to
the Romanian State. The Romanian politicians after 1918 were not aware
of these juridical and historical realities, and when the agrarian reform
was initiated the Romanian State considered them as the rightful properties
of the Catholic Church, and thus expropriated them by paying the Church
considerable sums of money. The Romanian State agreed to constitute the
holy patrimony out of its own budget and the Catholic Church became the
owner of considerable funds and fortune administered by the Council of
Bishops, under the norms drawn up by the council and signed by the Romanian
government and the Holy See.
Further
critics addressed the status of the schools where the Catholics benefited
from extended privileges and conducted a chauvinistic instruction.
Some
historians believe the Greek Catholic Church was at a disadvantage by
signing the Concordate for it then became merely a Catholic "rite",
thus losing both its national character and the autonomy it had enjoyed
until then. The Greek Catholic bishops were appointed
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 139
by the Holy See ignoring the Church's traditional canonical right to elect
its own priests.
It comes as no surprise that the Orthodox
representatives rejected the Concordate. They considered that the Roman
Catholic Church had created a `state in state' situation prejudicing the
sovereignty of the Romanian State and placing the Orthodox Church in a
position of inferiority, contrary to the Constitution of 1923, which had
ensured freedom and equality for all cults22. This is the reason
why the law on the status of the cults in Romania had been received with
reservations both between the World Wars and later. To illustrate this
state of affairs we quote Archbishop Bartolomeu Anania who declared in
1993: "Despite all the changes operated, the Law of the Cults of
1928 could not be brought to agree completely with the Constitution, nor
with the Concordate, but remained a hybrid."23 This should
be the focus of the debates surrounding the forthcoming law of the cults
in Romania.
Notes:
* Translated by Ana-Elena Ilinca
1 Vesa, V. "Infaptuirea Romaniei
Mari" [The Making of Greater Romania], in Fischer-Galati, St., Giurescu,
D. C., Pop, I. A.: O istorie a romanilor. Studii critice, [A History
of the Romanians. Essays] Fundatia Culturala Romana, Centrul de Studii
Transilvane, Cluj-Napoca, 1998, p. 227.
2 Schifirnet, C. "Biserica,Stat si
Natiune," [Church, State, and Nation], Introductory study in Biserica
noastra si cultele minoritare [Our Church and the Minority Cults],
edition directed and annotated by Schifirnet, C., Albatros, Bucuresti,
2000, p. V.
3 Ibidem.
4 Mateiu, I. Dreptul bisericesc de
stat în Romania reîntregita. Regimul general al cultelor
[State Church Law in Greater Romania. The General Status of the Cults],
Bucuresti, 1926, p. 23.
5 Ibidem, p. 24.
6 Ibidem.
7 Ibidem, p. 25.
8 Schifirnet, C., quoted.
9 "Constitutiunea" [The Constitution].
Adopted by Royal Decree, number 1360 of 29th March 1923, Imprimeria Statului,
Bucuresti, 1923 in Constitutia din 1923 în dezbaterea contemporanilor,[The
Constitution of 1923 Analyzed by our Contemporaries] Humanitas, Bucuresti,
1990, p. 615.
10 Schifirnet, C., quoted.
11 See Statutul Organic al Bisericii
Greco-Orientale Romane din Ungaria si Transilvania, cu un Supliment.
[The Organic Status of the Romanian Eastern-Greek Church of Hungary and
Transylvania with Suplement], second authenticated official edition of
1878, no. 247, Sibiu, 1900.
On Andrei Saguna, see: Lupas, I. Mitropolitul
Andrei Saguna. Monografie istorica [ Metropolitan Bishop Andrei Saguna.
Historic Monograph], Sibiu, 1909 (re-printed in 1911, and 1921; Hitchius,
K., Orthodoxy and Nationality. Andrei Saguna and the Romanians of Transylvania,
1846-1873, Cambridge, London, 1977, translated into Romanian by A.
Jivi, Bucuresti, 1995, Pacurariu, M., Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane
[History of the Romanian Orthodox Church], vol.3, Bucuresti, 1981, p.
92-112; Idem, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane [History of the
Romanian Orthodox Church], Dacia, Cluj-Napoca, 2002, p. 207-208, and 284.
12 Pacurariu, M., Istoria Bisericii
Ortodoxe Romane [History of the Romanian Orthodox Church], vol. 3,
Bucuresti, 1981, p. 392-398.
13 Schifirnet, C., paper quoted [articol
citat], p.VI-VII.
14 Ibidem, p. VIII
15 Ibidem, p. XXVIII.
16 Ibidem, p. XXIX.
JSRI
• No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 140
17 Published in the Official Gazette, no. 89/04.22.1928, p. 3607-3012.
18 Idem, Schifirnet, C., paper quoted, p. XXIX-XXX. 19 Idem, Schifirnet, C., paper quoted, p. XXX-XXXI. 20 See Raymond Netzhammer, Arhiepiscop în Romania. Jurnal de Razboi, 1914-1918 [Raymond Netzhammer, Archbishop in Romania. War Diary, 1914-1918], Bucuresti, 1993; Valoarea Concordatului încheiat cu Vaticanul [The Importance of the Concordate Signed with the Holy See], Sibiu,Tipografia arhidiecezana, 1929. 21 See "Discursul I.P.S. Mitropolitul Nicolae" [The Discourse of His Holiness the Metropolitan Bishop Nicolae], in Schifirnet, C. (ed.) Biserica noastra si cultele minoritare, [Our Church and the Minority Cults] Albatros, Bucuresti, 2000, p. 263-304. 22 Pacurariu, M., Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane [History of the Romanian Orthodox Church], 3rd vol., p. 390-405; Mateiu, I. Politica bisericeasca a statului roman [The Church Policy of the Romanian State], Sibiu,Tiparul Tipografiei Arhidiecezane, 1931, p. 167-197; Nistor, V. Les cultures minoritaires dans le nouveau budget de la Roumanie, 1935; Ghibu, O. Actiunea catolicismului si a Sfîntului Scaun în Romania întregita, [The Activity of Catholicism and of the Holy See in the Unified Romania] Cluj, 1934; Lazar, I. Biserica dominanta si egala îndreptatire a cultelor, [The Dominant Church and the Justified Equality of the Cults] Arad, 1936. 23 Anania, V. Pro Memoria. Actiunea catolicismului în Romania interbelica [Pro Memoria. The Activity of Catholicism in Inter-War Romania], Bucuresti, Institutul Biblic si de misiune al BOR, 1993, p. 27. JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 141 JSRI • No. 3/Winter 2002 |
| previous |