Orthodox, Catholics Share Parish Church
July 8, 2010 by Irenaeus
Hailed for Peacemaker Spirit
.
ZALAU, Romania, JULY 7, 2010 (Zenit.org) – Greek Catholics celebrated on July 4 their first Mass in 62 years in the parish church of Bocsa, with what was described as a “festive and moving” atmosphere.
.
The Bosca parish is unique because, thanks to an agreement between Orthodox and Greek-Catholics, it will be shared between the two Churches.
.
The parish has been hailed as an example of conflict resolution between the two Churches, often at odds over patrimonial issues in former Soviet countries.
.
The Bocsa parish was confiscated by the Communist authorities in 1948 and given to the Orthodox Church, after the forced abolition of the Greek-Catholic Church. Catholics went underground until legalization was regained. Pope John Paul II re-established their hierarchy in 1990.
.
Since then, the Greek-Catholic community has worked legally for the devolution of confiscated churches (some 2,600 properties), whereas the Orthodox requested that the new balance of faithful be kept in mind, given that the Greek-Catholics have decreased significantly in numbers over the last decades.
.
In the specific case of Bocsa, the Greek-Catholic community asked the Orthodox to return the parish, or to seek an alternative over the use of the church.
.
The case was taken to court, while the Greek-Catholics continued to propose an agreement. At the beginning of 2010 the court decided in favor of the Greek-Catholics, though they continued to offer an agreement to the Orthodox.
.
The court proceeded last July 1 with the execution of the sentence, returning the church to the Catholics. A few hours later, the Orthodox accepted the proposal of an agreement, which was subsequently signed before the judicial authorities of Salaj.
.
Now both communities have committed themselves to share the use of the church with different timetables.
.
The first Greek-Catholic Mass was celebrated at 9 a.m. last Sunday. It was presided over by Father Valer Parau, dean of the Greek-Catholic Church of Zalau.
.
Father Valer insisted on forgiveness “to be able to heal wounds,” the Romanian Catholic agency Catholica.ro reported.
.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God,” he recalled. “We believe that with this realistic, pragmatic relationship in accord with the spirit of the Lord’s Gospel, other cases can be resolved in which Greek Catholics are obliged by the circumstances to pray in inadequate places. There is space for one another in the same church.”
.
Two (largely irrelevant) questions:
1) Why does this Romanian church have pews? Is this common in Romania?
2) Why are some people kneeling and others standing?
While pews are not traditional in either Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox Catholic parishes, they are more and more becoming acceptable and used.
Orthodox traditionally stand during the anaphora, however, having been in Albania and Greece many Orthodox kneel (Even on Sunday when their is never to be any kneeling). Often Byzantine Catholics adopted Latin Rite liturgical customs such as this. However, in my diocese it is standard practice to kneel during the anaphora except during the Paschal season.
Our diocese being formerly Byzantine Catholic, now Orthodox Catholic, has kept this custom of kneeling at the anaphora. In a way it has become part of our tradition so to speak.
I would add that we open our diocesan camp to the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Pittsburgh. They have the full use of our altar, but, they must use their own antemens for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy.
It is just another example of cooperation.
Romanian Orthodox churches in Romania don’t have pews. Some of those that were originally Greek-Catholic have them, a Roman Catholic influence.
Kneeling is done routinely on Sundays, that being the local tradition of both the Orthodox and the Uniates.
The only people scandalised by this that I have seen, were some American converts dissaponted that reality doesn’t always match “the canons” :)
This is a very important development and I Thank God for this agreement between the Byzantines in union with Rome and those out of union.
The question is a very difficult one: since the fall of Communism the Greek Cathoics did have the right to have their buildiungs returned to them – but their basically no longer had the faithful they were once built for. The vast majority were basically forced to become Orthodox in order not to suffer from persecution.
Now: what should one do? Stand fast on the judicial aspect and claim your right (in many cases, the Orthodox clergy – with one bishop from Timisoara as an exception – did not even follow a court decision or sometimes even destroyed the Church before turning it over to the Greek-Catholics)
I am realy grateful the the Greek-Catholics were kind enough to offer that agreement and that the Orthodox can remain in the sacred place their faithful see as a home.
May that be a model for the future!
The Greek Catholics might have been forced to become Orthodox, that’s true, but it is also true that the vast majority of them stay Orthodox to this day, when nobody forces them to do so.
CNI, I’d heard just the opposite — that many reverted to Catholicism the moment they were able to do so.
Do you have a source for your claim? (I will try to find a source for mine.)
Of course, the fact that their confiscated churches still have not been returned may play a role in limiting their options. Ya think? ;-)
It’s true. Unlike in Ukraine and Slovakia, for complex reasons, most Romanian Greek Catholics did not revert when given the opportunity in 1991.
The source for my claim is my experience of having been born and lived in Transylvania. These are things I’ve seen with my own eyes.
Michael and CNI — I was not rreferring specifically to Romania (although I know that’s the OT of this thread). Sorry for the confusion.
Among the “complex” reasons which prevented the Romanian Greek Catholics to revert to Catholicism, was the sincerity of their reversion to Orthodoxy in 1948. The “Unia” really is dead in Romania.
While that may have been correct in some cases, it was not true generally. Eastern Catholics in Romania had been free to convert from 1918 onwards and yet had to wait Stalinist repression before apparently following through on this “sincerity.”
It would be more correct to say that union with Rome may have been less import to the ethnic identity of pre-war Eastern rite Catholics than elsewhere in Eastern Europe. As a result those who have secularized since 1948 see no point in holding fast to a Catholic identity, and yet are commonly ticked into the Orthodox column even though they no longer practice or even beleive. For those who do wish to practice, the Orthodox refusal to return their parents’ stolen churches was a major disincentive to revert to Catholicism.
Nevertheless, the contrast between what has happened in Transylvania vs. the experience in Slovakia and Western Ukraine is significant and is probably related to role of the Eastern rite Catholic Churches in sustaining Ruthenian and Ukrainian national identity, — a role not notably played in Romania.
Your triumphalism, btw, is an insult both to those who were martyred and to the hundreds of thousands that have since resumed communion with the Holy See. Continuing efforts to relativize and justify the grotesque suppression of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and implicitly the theft of their property, are just contemptible and yet all too common in anti-ecumenist circles.
It is funny that the Greek-Catholic Church, first through the so-called “Blaj School” and then through a great number of other intellectuals did indeed greatly contribute to the formation of a modern Romanian identity in Transylvania, now, because of their submission to the Pope, and given the circumstances of their appearance, by Leopold’s imperial decree, are seen as somehow “less Romanian” than the Orthodox, as if Orthodoxy were a uniquely Romanian creation.
This is the sort of polemic that still goes on between the Orthodox and Uniates there:
The Uniates: You were tricked into a Bulgarian/Slavic church (their historians contend that proto-Romnians only switched allegiance from Rome in the 9th century, because of the Bulgarians). Come back to the true latin church.
The Orthodox: You have sold yourself to the Hungarians/you were a tool intended for the Transylvanian Romanians’ de-nationalization.
To many small people these polemics are just incomprehensible. They do not see much of a difference, except a few differences in the language used in the liturgy.
I actually talked to and old man, a peasant, in his nineties, who’s now in America. He was born into the Greek-Catholic Church stayed there until it was legal to do so. Afterwards he said, at liturgy, if they knew they had spies from the secret services or “Departamentul Cultelor” they would sing “Doamne miluieste”, the Orthodox way of saying “Lord have mercy”; when they were left alone they would go back to “Doamne indura-Te spre noi”, the Greek Catholic way of saying “Doamne miluieste”.
I asked him: what church was better?
He said: both of them were good.
CNI
I wouldn’t call the ninety year old a “small person”, ( I think you mean the “little people”.
That man shows a spirit of great tolerance which, I think, is typical of many Romanians.
If only his wisdom could be transferred to the hiearchy of both sides.
Michael,
You dismiss the Orthodox discourse about Catholicism because they cannot know better than a Catholic who knows what he believes and ask them to be more “educated” in that matter. But you know better what the Orthodox believe than the people in the field! You assume that the Orthodox don’t know why they are Orthodox. And to limit the whole matter to just “theft of properties” is the reverse insult.
It is funny that the Unia pretended to have had a crucial role in defining the Romanian ethnic identity by asserting that Romanians should “revert” to the use of Latin instead of the barbaric Slavonic (imposed by the barbaric Bulgarians) because Romanians are Latins (descendants of the Romans), while keeping the Slavonic for the Uniates from Ukraine. The truth is that Romanians introduced the vernacular Romanian in the Liturgy long before the Unia.
Seraphim,
I don’t pretend to know the mind of Romanian Greek Catholics in 1948 (though apparently you have no such qualms). I do recall eschewing simplistic explanations and describing the situation as “complex.” I do note, however, that the Greek Catholic archbishop was offered succession to the Patriarchate if he agreed to join the Orthodox Church. He refused and he along with three of the other four Eastern rite bishops were to die in Communist jails.
Given that by 1948 Transylvania had been part of Romania for 30 years, what was it in your view that held Greek Catholics back from joining the Orthodox majority prior to this date if they all sincerely wanted to be Orthodox?
Another telling point is that in the 2002 census, some 150,000 Romanians still described themselves as Greek Catholic. As the Greek Catholic Church has progressively won some of its churches back and built new ones, this total has now risen to a claimed 750,000 or so. This is roughly half the pre-1948 total, and perhaps a third of what one have expected given Romania’s population growth. When you consider that those who secularized and now practice neither faith have no reason to describe themselves as Catholics, this suggests that about half the Greek Catholics of 1947 and their descendants have reverted to Catholicism. Perhaps another 100,000 will join them when the Greek Catholic Church regains possession of the 300 or so church buildings it still claims.
Overall, however, it appears that perhaps roughly half of former Greek Catholics are content to remain Orthodox. I don’t question *their* sincerity. As 1948 occurred some two generations ago, most of them will not have known anything else.
Rather than writing off the union with Rome, however, and blithely describing the reversion of 1948 as “sincere,” you might give some thought as to why so many did return to Rome when given a chance, even if in lesser proportion than in Slovakia and Ukraine.
I have some misgivings about the numbers. According to the official census of 2002 there were 191,556 Greek Catholics. The Annuario Pontificio for 2005, valid for the end of 2003, gives the figure of 737,900, figure endorsed by the International Religious Freedom Report 2005, based on the estimation of the Greek Catholic clergy which claimed “irregularities” in the census. There are no other more recent estimations, so the claim that the GK population has now risen to 750,000 rests on shaky grounds. It is to be noted that the census of 1992 gave the figure of 223,000, it is a decrease.
A decrease would be more in pace with the general trend of the Romanian population
It was about 16 million in 1948. It’s about 21 million now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Romania
Being a German Roman-Catholic myself and married to a Romanian Orthodox woman and currently studying the Romanian language (I know it well enough to understand quite a bit, though reading literature still remains difficult), I am very interested in this subject of the Greek Catholic Church in Romania (besides, my wife’s aunt worked as a theologian and secretary in the Mitropolia of Sibiu all her life – she’s known many bishops while they still were students).
The Union of the Romanian dioceses in Transylvania initially was a political and not religious project. I do not see any problem to qualify it as such. But, it eventually became for many – at least for the bishops – a religious committment to remain in union with the Apostolic See.
Archbishop Hossu – who was imprisoned under the Communist Regime and had to live his final years under house-arrest in an Orthodox monastery – was offered the Orthodox See iof Iasi, a bishop traditionally being the first to replace a deceased patriarch (the current patriarch was bishop of Iasi before as well)
He refused – his faith was more important to him.
I am very impressed with the deep faith of the “normal people” in Romania. Christianity is deeply rotted in this country. At the same time – as far as I can tell and what I heard from my Romanian family – this deep faith is accompanied by a at least as deep scepticism towards any Church hierarchy. Thus, for the vast majority it is not the question whether they are Orthodox or Catholic but whether they are believing and charitable practising Christians.
The Greek Catholics in Romania do not have the same advantage as in the Ucraine, where a nation is divided between those bending towards the West and thos bending towards Russia/the East (it’s also a linguistic division there). Romania as a whole is a Latin nation. Though the Orthodox hierarchy collaborated to a considerable extent with the communist regime, since the people don’t really care that much about the bishops or theological nuances (as they see it), they remain orthodox even when their family used to be Greek Catholic.
The lack of buildings also is a big problem. Why go to a GC-parish without a building when almost the same liturgy is celebrated in a nice church which is now Orthodox?
For the record, in my comment replying to CNI above, I was not referring specifically to Romania, but to forced “converts” to Orthodoxy in general.
It is remarkable to note the results of recent surveys: in 2008 48% of Romanians attended Church at least once a month across all age groups, a significant increase from 1993 when it was 30%. Already in 2005 Romania ranked first in Europe in the number of practicing believers – 25%. At least 67% are married in Church! They may accompany their deep belief with skepticism towards any Church hierarchy (although other polls indicate that the Church is the most trusted institution). This is because there is a strong monastic life which was always the keeper of Orthodoxy. In any case they don’t want the Pope!
Could we have a source for these statistics?
Evagrius,
Check http://www.basilica.ro/ro/stiri 10.07.2009
Nice site but no indication of the statistics you cite.
Not sure how accurate these stats are:
Church Attendance Stats
Can’t find another article i read a few months ago, which had Portugal ahead of poland in Church attendance.
Evagrius,
On the site click on Arhiva stiri 2009 select the date 10.07.2009
seraphim, I have to agree that according to my experience especially the papacy raises many eyebrows among Romanian Orthodox, but at the same time I didn’t find any Orthodox who really understood what it’s about and especially what it does not mean. But for the lay people it’s even more important that their “right to marry thrice” (at least that’s how many see it) is not possible in the Catholic Church.
The monks are the pillar of the Orthodox Church in Romania, that’s definitely so
Ralf,
But there are people, and not few, who do understand what papacy is and what is not. And they are capable of expressing cogently their understanding.
seraphim,
I do not doubt that there are people who understand. I do doubt, though, that the vast majority of Catholics or Orthodox understand.
Especially the common notion of “ecclesial monarchy” and so forth show the frequent misunderstandings.
I mostly hear from Orthodox that the Catholic Church only is about power (Hossu is a great example of the opposite), that the pope is in absolute power and much more.
Sad thing.
Ralf,
I am nor sure I follow you.
What Orthodox understand well is the fact that the Pope is NOT the head of the Church.
What Orthodox understand well is the fact that the Pope is NOT the head of the Church
And, of course, simply asserting this “fact” magically makes it so. Especially if you stamp your feet very hard while you’re asserting it.
Whatever.
Sorry, I think I’ll stick with what Jesus understands about the Church He founded upon Peter and Peter’s successors. ;-)
I didn’t find any Orthodox who really understood what it’s about and especially what it does not mean
Ain’t that the truth!
We are constantly told what a tyrannical overlord the pope is. Funny, we NEVER experience the papacy that way, but hey, what does our experience matter? The Orthodox obviously know more about our own Church than we do. [shakes head and rolls eyes]
As the Catholics obviously know more about Orthodoxy than the Orthodox (don’t shake your head to hard, you may get dizzy)
Hi seraphim.
We never really mean that the Pope is the head of the Church, he is just the vicar of the head. Much lower than the head.
Maybe the pope is the neck of the Church and Christ is the head. They must move together but the head controls the movement. :)
Seraphim and Ralf – I agree. Saw a tweet the other day referring to a statement by Thomas Aquinas that Christ alone is the head of the Church. So, “head” was a poor word choice on my part. The “keys” passage in Matthew 16 seems to suggest something closer to a king’s grand vizier or chief steward.
That’s actually a better picture than you might think, Subdeacon Joseph.
The head might think what it wants, without the neck (containing the spinal cord) transferring the head’s will to the entire body, there won’t be any movement. The neck does not enforce movements out of itsself, it only passes on what’s been told by the head.
If you cut the neck out of the body, the body eventually will be dying …
Ralf,
I actually did think it through. I am Orthodox, but I do see a place, and even necessity, for the Bishop of Rome in the Orthodox Church. I am often frustrated by Orthodoxy’s ethno phyletism in America. If we had a bishop with the authority of the bishop of Rome he could come in and clean up the canonical mess other hierarchs, clergy, and laity have made of the jurisdictional ethnic centered Orthodox Church in America. As it stands now I don’t believe we will ever see a united American Orthodox Church like the Roman Catholics have. It is a pitiful shame that one has to become Serbian or Greek, etc. to become Orthodox.
If we had a bishop with the authority of the bishop of Rome he could come in and clean up the canonical mess…
Well, yes, I suppose that the Holy Father could come in and clean up that mess. On the other hand, he also could come in and clean up the various messes in the USCCB (the apathy of the bishops vis-a-vis the sex abuse scandal most notably) and yet Rome has proven rather less than eager to undertake such clean-ups. I doubt that Rome would be any more eager to sort out the disputes between Serbs and Greeks than it is to attend to any other really messy issue. I think that there are many good arguments for the papacy, but honest Catholics must admit that the theoretical benefits do not always accrue in the fashion that the theory might suggest.
That’s pretty unfair. No one has been more proactive in fighting the filth of the scandal than the present pope.
The U.S. sex-abuse mess is certainly in the process of cleanup, and the data show that MUCH progress has been made. Most of the still pending cases date from the 1970s.
The pope is not a micromanager, but when the situation warrants it, he gets it done.
Subdeacon Joseph,
same thing here with Orthodoxy in Western European countries. There are some scattered German-speaking Orthodox parishes (one of them here in Düsseldorf), but the vast majority is ethnically a closed-shop.
And – usually they don’t like each other that much …