Author: Administrator
December 5, 2011
The Romanian Orthodox Church promotes Romanianism and not Orthodoxy in her “Diaspora”.
In the Nov. 23 2011 edition of the Ziarul Lumina newspaper, an article appeared (please see the preceeding article on this website) where it is clearly obvious that the Romanian Orthodox Church (BOR) is more interested in promoting Romanianism in the “Diaspora” than Orthodoxy – its sacred role. The first words in that article are explicit: “…Father Ion Armasi’s [doctoral] work is the first scientific study which details aspects of the mission and Romanian pastoral care given at the global level…” As well, We see that Father Ion Armasi Vartan speaks with authority being: “…Patriarchal Counselor for foreign communities, in the Church interreligious relations sector of the Romanian Patriarchate… “
Fr. Ion Armasi presents a position (well-documented from BOR archives to which he had access) regarding three problems with the ethnic notion of Diaspora and universal Orthodox thinking, and justifications for the points of view taken by BOR: 1) the problem of canonical jurisdiction when going beyond national frontiers into non-bordering, non-orthodox lands, and organizing Church structure along ethnicity rather than a territorial basis. – (phyletism) 2) the problem of canonical jurisdiction in the context of Romanian communities along the national borders – (Romanian neighbours – from Bessarabia/Hungary) and 3) the problem of canonical jurisdiction when it is clear you are on the canonical territory of another Orthodox Church. – (Jericho). In short, these are current BOR problems, almost impossible for her to resolve given current policies, which the poor priest attempts to justify in his doctoral thesis :
1)- Phyletism, which means organizing the Orthodox Church along ethnic lines is not canonical in Universal Orthodoxy because its organizational structure must be based on territoriality from the geographic perspective. We see that BOR has “600 clerics (of whom 13 are Bishops and metropolitans)… 500 parishes and 40 monasteries, chapels in jails and hospitals” throughout the Diaspora, organized along strictly ethnic lines under BOR control. Here is the problem by way of an example : What are BOR’s Archbishop Nicolae and his clerics doing in the USA, on the geographic territory already occupied by Archbishop Nathaniel of the Vatra Episcopate, a part of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA)? Hasn’t BOR seen that the Romanian phenomenon reduces significantly after 2-3 generations, but that the Orthodox one can continue and even grow, but only if it is well integrated in the society of adoption, that is an American Church where services are held in English here? In other words, is the goal of BOR to promote orthodoxy accross the globe, or does BOR reduce itself to the position of being but a tool in the hands of the Romanian government, promoting their policies and Romanianism in order to control the Romanian Diaspora and as such influence those countries, even while it naturally shrinks as it is assimilated in the foreign lands of adoption, where Romanians have immigrated?
2)- Romanian neighbours, that is those that are Orthodox on the one hand and those that are not on the other, who, after generations and generations, continue to live a Romanian life. Bessarabia on the one hand, which is in present day Moldova, is seen by the Russians, who at one time controlled it, as a part of their canonical territory. Not only did Bessarabia constitute an informal part of Greater Romania before European nationalism took root and created these countries with formal borders, but here the Romanian language has always been spoken. And so, Bessarabia is more a part of the Romanian Patriarchate than it is of the Russian Patriarchate. And it is in this way that territorial disputes between Orthodox neighbours should be resolved, but unhappily for Romania, Russia is politically much more important than Romania on the world scene, and consequently, this dispute might drag on ad infinitum… On the other hand, we have the example of non-orthodox neighbours, like the Hungarians, where it is easier to have Orthodox Romanian national eparchies which are BOR dependent, for the Romanian neighbours who find themselves on foreign territory. But this can only occur until an Hungarian Orthodox Church emerges, where surely room will be made for those who, after so many generations, continue to live Romanian. Anything else is hard to argue.
3)- Jericho is the example of what not to do as an Autocephalous Orthodox Church. BOR entered the canonical territory of the Jerusalem Patriarchate and without obtaining their approval, built a church in Jericho under BOR. This is inadmissible in Universal Orthodoxy (what would BOR say if the Antiochian Patriarchate would open a church under Antioch in Bucharest, without BOR’s authorization?) In this context, the Jerusalem Patriarchate broke off communion with BOR and a schism in Orthodoxy now exists because of the pride of certain individuals. A sin difficult to justify …
Pr. Ion Armasi tells us how important it is that “the Romanian Patriarchate has constantly been preoccupied with ensuring Romanians across all meridians a place for the soul, where they could participate in a service held in the Romanian language, officiated by a Romanian priest…” Yes, we’ve understood. Outside Romania, BOR has room only for immediate neighbours living in Romanian, Romanian migrants and first generation Romanian immigrants. There is no place for the children of immigrants who no longer speak Romanian after 2-3 generations. (We have proof of this reality in our communities in the USA, Canada, France, Germany, England, wherever a Romanian immigration occurred focussing on Romanianism, and where we can speak with those of the 2-5 generation born in these foreign lands of Romanian immigrant parents.) As well, BOR is preoccupied mostly with Romanian Orthodoxy and does NOT accentuate promoting orthodoxy in foreign lands, in local languages, even for Romanian offspring who now only speak English, French, etc., let alone promoting Orthodoxy among the local population who finds Orthodoxy to be something strange, even an aberration. By its words and actions it is clear that BOR promotes Bucharest control and Romanianism, and not the spreading of Orthodoxy across the globe, in the respective local languages and cultures. Can this be the policy of an Orthodox Church? This is what phyletism brings and yet another reason why Universal Orthodoxy condemns it. This is BOR’s chosen path. What a huge sin…
Finally, the referees of this doctoral presentation recommended this work not only to professors and students, but also for Romanian “politicians in diplomatic missions outside the countries’ borders.” And with this last recommendation we understand more… Welcome to the State Church; used for the needs of the State, paid for and controlled by the Romanian government… and not by the American or Canadian governments here which refuse this type of relationship.
And we from Vatra ROEA/OCA should abandon our American Orthodox Church and subject ourselves to BOR, a foreign Church controlled by a foreign State? Let’s think this one through carefully … very carefully. There is no road back. Even if we become an autonomous Metropolitanate, a “maximal” one, we will not be able to leave BOR without BOR’s approval. And once we sellout, turning our backs on the OCA, no one would want us in any case …! And for what reason would we do this? Enough.