Andrei Şaguna and “The Organic Statute” – I.2 Transylvania – a province of the Habsburg Empire


I.2 Transylvania – a province of the Habsburg Empire[1] 

In this chapter a special attention is given to the issue church Union in Transylvania, because, on the one hand its problematic emergence will return in the Neoabsolutist era (1849/1851-1860); on the other hand its consequences influenced a lot the canonistical-organizational struggles of the Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna. 

I.2.1 Centralism and standardization versus historical privileged  

Between 1683 and 1713, the Habsburg Empirefreed Eastern Hungary and the Banat from the Turks. From 1687/1688 Transylvania became a province of the Habsburg Empire, until 1918. Emperor Leopold I (1657-1705) promulgated on December 4, 1691, the Diploma Leopoldinum which constituted the “Constitution” of Transylvania for over a century and a half, until 1848 and a bit modified between 1861 and 1867.[2]

But the military conquest in itself could not provide the subordination of the independent Transylvanian estates, whose majority opposed the imperial authorities, nagging desperately at the self governing rights and the group privileges which dated back to the fifteenth century. The Catholic Austrian rule effaced especially “the competition” of the Calvinist Magyar nobility, who had had the supremacy in the principality for one and a half centuries (1540-1690). So the Austrian policy throughout the eighteenth century was to crush the local peculiarities in the interest of bureaucratic centralization and standardization.

The starting point for a full control over the country was the acknowledgement of the three privileged nations and four accepted confessions: by Article 3 of Diploma Leopoldinum the emperor reconfirmed the system of the old laws of Transylvania (Tripartitum from 1517, Approbatae constitutiones from 1653 and Compilatae constitutiones from 1669).[3] The most numerous population of the principality, the Orthodox Romanians, was further considered a tolerated nation, deprived of rights.

Emperor Leopold I and his councilors had acknowledged for a long time the importance of the Roman Catholic Church as a unifying factor in their heterogeneous kingdom and they aimed to consolidate Catholicism in Transylvania, in order to be able to control the centrifugal tendencies of the Protestants.[4] So the Catholic Church has been given back its rights, the Cathedral of Alba-Iulia being returned and different religious orders have been encouraged to come and develop on the territory of Transylvania.

Furthermore, the Court of Vienna thought to gain the believers of other confessions for the Catholic faith, granting advantages to those who converted/reverted. The Orthodox Romanians, who were outside the legal frame of Transylvania, seemed to be the most eligible group for conversion, offering the possibility to increase the Catholic Church.[5]

The regaining of the economical, political and religious benefits lost in favour of the Calvinists in Transylvania could be accomplished only by increasing the number of the Catholics. To turn the Lutherans, the Calvinists and the Unitarians into Catholics again was practically impossible and thus the Jesuit missionaries turned their attention to the Orthodox Romanians who were more numerous than the other three recognized nations put together.[6] It seems that “from the very beginning the Court of Vienna made a plan to gather Romanian elements spread in the Eastern countries and protect them, so that later it could rely on them for accomplishing the social balance.”[7] For this aim it was chosen an “unorthodox” instrument: the political promoted church Union[8], by which the Court hoped that eventually all the Romanians (more than a half of the population living in the principality) would be brought to the Roman Church. The Viennese Court entrusted the project to Cardinal Leopold Kollonich[9] the primate of Hungary who in 1680 had already scored an important success, expanding the religious union among the Ruthenians of Carpathian Ukraine.

The political decision of the implementation of the church Union among the Orthodox Romanians in order to realize the standardization and centralization of the monarchy had more worldly than spiritual or theological reasons and aspects[10] and consequently, could not be a religious success on the contrary it more disturbed the social and religious life of the principality.

The first from the worldly reasons was that “at the time, the Romanians were not legally part of the country where they lived.”[11] So they could be easy attracted by social-political promised advantages. The Orthodox Romanians were disregarded and according to the law they were considered as misera plebs contribuens, lacking any political and religious rights. On the intercession of Metropolitan Varlaam (1687-1690) meant to bring peace and ease to the Orthodox clergy and faithful, the answer was that Emperor Leopold swore to maintain intact the principles of the Transylvanian Constitution.[12]

Then “any measure taken for the interest of the Romanians had to create a natural resistance on the part of the Magyars […]. This is why the Romanians were told not only once from Vienna: ‘Be patient!’”[13]  A radical improvement of the social-political statute of the Romanians was likely to bring about the anger of the historical privileged, who had built their edifice over centuries.

There was also a political-strategic reason why the Orthodox Romanians in Transylvania could not enjoy the legal protection of their confession from Vienna: after 1699, when the Peace of Karlowitz[14] was concluded, Vienna was preparing a possible war against Russia, a war which the Court considered inevitable and thought to postpone it for a moment when Russia will be weakened. The Romanians – as they were Orthodox – could easy obey the Russians, so Vienna distrusted them. This especially because: “In the eyes of the common people, Russia represented a spiritual refuge, where the old faith could still be safely practiced.”[15]

In spite of the fact that the Orthodox Serbians recently emigrated in the Habsburg Empire from the territories occupied by the Ottomans[16] benefited – out of political reasons – from a privileged situation[17], yet “the Viennese Court did not want to allow a strong Orthodox Church to take shape among the compact Serbian and Romanian populations along the southern frontiers of empire.”[18] In fact, as the Romanian and Serbian Orthodox were aligned in the fifteenth century – the century of the heroic anti-Ottoman resistance at the Lower Danube – likewise a new alliance could be made by them with the Orthodox Russians, against the Habsburgs.

Another argument of the Court in favour of the church Union could have been the extremely precarious condition of the Orthodox Church in Transylvania, at about 1700, as Andrei Şaguna himself presented it in a letter addressed to the prince of Wallachia, meant to obtain financial support for his eparchy after the destructions of the revolution of 1848: “[…] anyone who is little familiar with the history of the Orthodox Church of Transylvania and its events of the last 300 years, will have to admit that its martyrdom was genuine and it is about facts and events which had happened and which are not fantasies of the monks. Because from the history of our Church we can understand that the persecutions of the first centuries of Christianity repeated themselves and they were not exerted by pagans, but by those who still call themselves Christians. They began as the result of the Reform passing through Transylvania. […] at the time when Transylvania fell under the Austrian Royal House, by the end of the seventeenth century, the metropolitan was not surrounded by bishops, there were no monasteries and many communities did not have their own churches.[19] The policy to ignore a Church which was excluded for two centuries from among those legally recognized and was in serious decline was also pragmatic, according to the principle: “it is more profitable to build again than to renovate”. In fact, it seemed easier to suppress a Church (this was intended by the church Union) which represented a potential ally of the enemy on the border of the empire, than to revive it by legal changes and financial support, which would have drawn the jealousy of the accredited confessions and recognized nations.

Skillfully supported by the Jesuit missionaries, Leopold Kollonich decided to concentrate his efforts upon drawing to his side the most influent sections of the Romanian society – the clergy – leaving the conversion of the mass of peasants, “considered so ignorant, as well as too powerfully connected to the ancient religious traditions, to the persuasion of Jesuit sermons or material benefits for a time to come.”[20]

I.2.2 The church Union and its socio-political and religious consequences

The first synod which favoured the church Union took place at Alba-Iulia on February, 1697, being summoned by the Orthodox Metropolitan Teofil III (1692-1697)[21]. In the exchange for recognizing the pope as the visible head of the Church, the communion with the unleavened bread, the acceptance of Filioque and admitting the existence of limbo, there were granted: the validity of the old Orthodox canons, on the condition that they did not oppose the Union; equal rights and privileges of the Uniate Church servants with the Roman Catholic ones; access of the Uniate faithful to Catholic schools and the country offices; an adequate living standard for the Uniate bishop.[22]

Soon, on July 1697, Metropolitan Teofil died “and the people started to show their discontent toward the decisions of the synod, the government and the Court.”[23]

This is why the Court, wishing not to be accused of favouring the Roman Catholic Church, published an imperial Decree on April 14, 1698, which gave the Orthodox Romanians the possibility to accept the union with any of the four accredited confessions of the country thus enjoying the rights granted to the respective confession, or to remain faithful to their own faith.[24] Moreover, the imperial Decree threatened those who would despise and attack the freedom and the religious consciousness of any person, with punishments coming from the civil and religious authorities.[25] “But, the Romanian priests from Hunedoara County who declared that they wished to unite with the Calvinist Church were severely punished!”[26]

In other words, the Court legally proclaimed “the religious freedom” but had already decreed by the Diploma of December 4, 1691, the old system of the four legally accredited confessions, the only “new facility” offered to the tolerated Orthodox being “the liberty to unite”[27] preferably with the Roman Catholic Church.

The Metropolitan Teofil’s successor – Atanasie Anghel – let himself seduced by the Jesuit Paul Ladislau Bárányi, a priest of Alba-Iulia and accepted the union with the Church of Rome, not without protests of the people. As a result of the unionist synods of June 1698 and October 1698, during the synod of September 4-5, 1700, the metropolitan and the protopopes signed “The Union Manifesto”[28]. The purpose of the acceptance of the union with the Church of Rome under the condition of recognizing “the four points by which we were different until now”[29] was that “we would like to live with the privileges with which the faithful and the priests of this Holy Church live and share them as His Highness the Emperor, and our crowned prince make us share.”[30]

As Keith Hitchins concluded “the church Union was not primarily a religious act. The objectives of the Court of Vienna were clearly secular: it was determined to undermine the dominant, independent-minded Protestant estates and thereby hasten the integration of Transylvania, which Habsburg armies had only recently occupied, into the empire as a loyal province. The Roman Catholic hierarchy, for its part, was eager to strengthen Catholicism at the expense of the Protestants and regarded the Union as merely the first step in converting the Romanians to Catholicism.”[31] The attitude of the Orthodox clergy who accepted the church Union was motivated by the hope of material gains rather than by religious convictions: “Those priests who accepted the Union did not have in mind the religious consequences of their own deeds. The Union for this generation was based on calculations, both social and economic, and the doctrines and practices of the Orthodoxy continued to inspire their intellectual and spiritual life.”[32] The Orthodox priests could therefore be freed from their economic burdens and social discriminations, under the condition of a promising agreement, because the four points of the Union – as they have become familiar – did not ask for a meaningful change in the Orthodox religious life: the canon law and the Holy Liturgy remained unchanged; Romanian continued to be the language spoken during the divine services; the priest went on having the right to be married, and the free exercise of other religious practices, which the tradition had rather made more holy than the canons, were not disturbed.[33]

Thus, the Romanian Orthodox Church of Transylvania was divided and the confessionalism deepened. The Church Union has never been completed as it was wished and hoped. Entire villages of Transylvania, especially those which were neighbouring Orthodox Wallachia have never been rooted in the Union.[34]

In order to remove Metropolitan Atanasie Anghel’s personal doubts concerning the rightness of the path chosen, Emperor Leopold I passed a second Decree of the Union, on March 19/30, 1701, known as The Second Leopoldine Diploma[35], which enumerated the advantages which both Romanian clergy and laymen who unite with the Roman Church could hope for. In short, the decree provided to those who were united the same rights as Roman Catholics had, enjoying corresponding social statute. The consequences of this article were really revolutionary because they seemed to offer to the Orthodox serfs a way to get rid of economic and social dependence.[36] But the emperor and his councilors did not interpret the document in this way, because by the Diploma Leopoldinum of December 4, 1691, they had already admitted the inviolability of the previous legal system of the privileged confessions and nations. On the other hand, the leaders of the Uniate clergy interpreted the Diploma from March 19/30, 1701, as a document which promised to raise them to the rank of a fourth nation, which laid the basis of a vigorous Greek Catholic political movement[37].

So mostly owing to the fact that the estates of Transylvania opposed strongly, Vienna proved incapable of accomplishing the promises of equality made to the Uniates: “It is true that the clergy enjoyed some material benefits but the Uniate faithful did not have any special rights as compared with the Romanian Orthodox …”[38]

In their turn, the Uniates got organized during the first half of the following century and they wrote a series of petitions and statements that constituted the substance of a coherent national programme, which was going to obtain the most powerful express in the famous Supplex Libellus Valachorum[39], submitted to the Diet of Transylvania in 1791.

Among the consequences of the church Union strictly related to the Church we mention two remarkable ones: the end of the Romanian Orthodox Church’s leadership in Transylvania; the foundation of the Romanian Uniate Diocese dependent on the Hungarian Catholic hierarchy. After Atanasie Anghel had been ordained as Uniate bishop in 1701, on March 24, within a ceremony which took place at Vienna and was lead by Leopold Kollonics, the ancient Orthodox Metropolitanate of Transylvania ceased its existence, being replaced by a Uniate Diocese, having its centre at Alba-Iulia, subordinated to the Roman Catholic archbishop of Esztergom.[40] Two other Uniate Dioceses followed, that of Făgăraş – in 1723 and Blaj – in 1737. The Uniate Diocese of Alba-Iulia was raised to a Uniate Metropolitanate in 1853 by the pope himself, with three suffragan dioceses, at Oradea (1777), Gherla (1853), and Lugoj (1853).

The natural consequence of this politically sustained act was an increase of the restrictive measures taken toward the Orthodox, so that they not only were not allowed to spread, but also were forced to join the new confession, the Greek Catholic one. Thus, the Orthodox villages which received priests ordained beyond the boundaries of Transylvania were punished; additional measures had been taken at the borders meant to deny the access of the Orthodox priests coming from the outside; if a fourth part of any Orthodox community passed to the Uniates, that automatically meant that the church building was given to that confession; the Orthodox priests who just by mistake celebrated for the Greek Catholics religious services were punished, even being removed from the priesthood or sent to prison; the monks who opposed Uniatism were banished from the country and their monasteries were closed or destroyed; a examination of six weeks was introduced for the Romanian Uniates who would have liked to come back to the Orthodox confession.[41]

The most intense and terrible attempt to annul the Orthodox confession in Transylvania took place between 1761 and 1762, during the reign of Maria Theresa (1740-1780)[42] when by the order of General Adolf Nicolaus Buccow the governor of Transylvania (1762-1764), scores of Orthodox monasteries and churches were destroyed by cannons: “It is fully known, there live people who tell us that the army, the emperor’s militia attacked not only one, but several Orthodox villages and aimed their cannons at churches and monasteries and they were taken by force; the poor Orthodox Romanian villagers were forced either to pass to the Union, or to abandon their houses and set off wandering in the world, keeping their faith. The examples about such cases referring to the Orthodox churches taken by force are all over: at Sălişte, Răşinari, Ocna Sibiului or Olt area etc.”[43]

The imposed church Union resulted in people’s revolts. Three revolts like these ones, each expressing a strong attachment towards traditional religious forms[44], took place in the eighteenth century: the religious people’s rebellion of 1744, instigated by Visarion the monk[45], followed by another one of 1759-1761, urged by Sofronie the monk[46], and the rebellion of 1784-1785, lead by Horea[47]. As a result of these events the Union was massively abandoned, this could not be stopped, and “then in 1759, the empress accepted reluctantly the reality, the Viennese Court gave up its most beloved dream of a complete church Union of the Romanians.”[48]

I.2.3 The Orthodox Church after 1700; Canonical-jurisdictional matters

For almost six decades after the church Union, Vienna, at least officially, considered that the Orthodox Church ceased to exist in Transylvania and therefore did not work out any strategy related to the Romanians, except that of disregard and oppression.[49]

But the church Union, in spite of all the optimistic claims of the Austrian authorities and of some Uniate bishops, was not completed by far. The religious life continued especially in the country as it had been for centuries. From the very beginning there were centres of Orthodox resistance; although there was not such a thing as a formal hierarchy, a network of parishes had been preserved and there was a rudimentary administration all over the principality; priests continued to be ordained mostly in the Orthodox Romanian neighbouring principalities Moldavia and Wallachia.[50]

With the passing of the decades, the Orthodox became more active.[51] They found energetic supporters in the person of the Serbian metropolitans of Karlowitz, eager on the one hand to protect Orthodoxy against the Roman Catholic general offensive launched inside the Habsburg Empire and, on the other hand, eager to expand the jurisdiction of their own eparchies over the Romanians of Transylvania.[52] Despite the severe warnings from Vienna addressed to Metropolitan Pavle Nenadović (1749-1768) that he should end all kind of activity in Transylvania, he frequently interceded in favour of the Romanians, from the beginning of the 1750s.[53]

Since Transylvania was incorporated into the Habsburg Empire the ethnic configuration of the Orthodox Church of Transylvania had also suffered quite important changes: the Serbian element consolidated itself, not only from a quantitative point of view[54], but also from a church administrative point of view. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Eparchy of Arad was born[55], being led only by Serbian bishops until the beginning of the nineteenth century, though the overwhelming majority of the faithful were Romanians. The episcopal sees of Werschetz (the former Eparchy of Caransebeş)[56] and Timişoara, where Romanian bishops had been appointed, were now filled by Serbian bishops, although the great majority of the faithful were Romanians. All those eparchies were suffragan to the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz.[57] The metropolitan of Karlowitz entitled himself “metropolitan of the Serbians and Romanians”.[58] The privileges of the “Illyrian nation”, which the Serbians had obtained after their emigration into the Habsburg Empire, were called forth by the Serbian bishops of Arad and Banat, in order to defend the eparchial autonomy[59] and so their benefits concerned also the majority of the faithful of these eparchies: the Romanians. In this indirect way, the Romanians at least could survive as Orthodox in these areas. But “unfortunately, these rights were not so useful, as they had to fight the Serbians’ supremacy …”[60]

In 1759, as a result of the Chancellor Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz’s suggestion, Maria Theresa asked the Uniate bishop to stop persecuting the Orthodox.[61]

The interest of the monarchy, which was in danger when deep social and religious tensions existed, drove Kaunitz to advise the Sovereign to grant liberties to the Orthodox: “In my opinion without importance for the bright ruling dynasty, the number of the Eastern non-Uniate faithful under the rule of Your Highness is about a few million souls; in the future could be drawn many benefits from them, even greater than until now, only if they are to be exempt from civil and church oppression and if they are advised properly, according to the rules of precaution, with which an uneducated and warlike nation must be ruled.”[62]

Thus, beginning with the rule of Maria Theresa, followed by Joseph II (1780-1790) “the fate of the Romanians of Transylvania became more bearable.”[63]

During the reign of Joseph II, mostly owing to the proclaimed religious tolerance[64], the Orthodox enjoyed a modest renaissance, and of the modest funds granted by the State Treasury for the Orthodox clergy and for the Orthodox elementary schools. The tolerance Decree of 1781 recognized, for the first time after 1700, the existence of the Orthodox Romanians in Transylvania, beside the Greek Catholics. But the Court’s policy remained basically the same as it would continue to be until 1848: a strict control over the Orthodox matters for the state interests.[65]

After 1700, the mass of the Romanians of Transylvania had three distinct spiritual-territorial structures: north of Transylvania to Mureş the Greek Catholics prevailed, penetrating the southern area. The cultural-spiritual centre of this direction was Blaj. The south of the principality, seriously penetrating the northern part was dominated by the Orthodox confession (deprecatingly called “not-Uniate” in the context of the age), having its centre at Sibiu. Beyond the south-western border of Transylvania, in Banat and Arad area of the so called “Hungarian zone”, the Orthodox confession also prevailed. After the acceptance of the church Union by the Orthodox Metropolitan Atanasie of Transylvania, the Orthodox Romanians from the south-western zone were immediately absorbed by the Serbian hierarchy in the area, having therefore together with the Serbians their cultural centre in Vienna, later at Buda and their spiritual one at Karlowitz.[66]

Apart from the new confessional split produced by the church Union in Transylvania, canonical difficulties appeared, concerning the church organization: the new confession, the Greek Catholic, had its own church organization superimposed in terms of jurisdiction over a canonical territory already existent, that of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Alba-Iulia. On the other hand, an inter-orthodox jurisdictional matter came up, which although not intended by the policy of the Court, it was an indirect result of this policy: the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Alba-Iulia being considered “dead”, its canonical territory was gradually “adjudged”, by political support, from the neighbouring Orthodox Metropolitanate of Karlowitz.[67]

So out of the Viennese policy canonical issues were born too. Although according to the initial political calculation the only canonical consequence should have been “the taking over” of the Orthodox canonical territory by the new Uniate Church, by the conversion of all the Orthodox Romanians to Catholicism, something else actually happened. The Orthodoxy continued to survive beside the Greek Catholic confession, without having a normal canonical organization for a long time, beheaded by the Uniate movement.

The Court’s unsuccessful attempt to eradicate the Orthodox Church in Transylvania had as a first effect just the extinction of any Orthodox canonical leadership – not of the Orthodox confession anyway – until the second part of the eighteenth century, over an Orthodox canonical territory which continued to exist in its old form; the territory over which the previous Metropolitanate of Alba-Iulia[68] has had its canonical jurisdiction was not modified by its adding to the Habsburg Empire, the Transylvanian Orthodox Church province preserved its territorial situation within the empire[69] as it has had before 1700, and the Orthodox confession on this territory survived to the Uniate movement.

Later, because the Orthodoxy did not die in Transylvania, as expected, there was practically an attempt to merge the whole previous distinct Romanian Orthodox canonical territory, submitting it to the Serbian Orthodox jurisdiction of Karlowitz, accomplished by above-mentioned political decisions (the imperial Decree 1701 of September 30, 1783, and the imperial Resolution of December 8, 1786).

The partial return of the Orthodox Church of Transylvania to the canonical status it had before 1700 was a difficult task, and it was only in 1864, by Andrei Şaguna’s titanic endeavours and work that the old Orthodox Metropolitanate of Transylvania was restored, but having the jurisdiction over a different (smaller) canonical territory, with its centre at Sibiu, not at Alba-Iulia.

If the Romanian Orthodox from the south-west of Transylvania had been subjected immediately after the church Union to the Serbian “rulers”, the canonical situation of those living in the south and north of the province, who between 1701 and 1761 had no church leader, was quite different. As a result of the protest movement like the one lead by Sofronie the monk from Cioara, the Court of Vienna appointed in 1761 the Serbian Orthodox Bishop Dionisije Novaković of Buda, as an administrator of the Romanians of Transylvania (who did not already belong to the eparchies of Arad, Timişoara, and Werschetz, we can see), having his residence at Răşinari.[70]

The insistence of the first two eparchial administrators, Dionisije Novaković (from 1761) and Sofronije Kirilović (from 1770), together with the priests and the faithful’ requests determined by the long vacancy of the episcopal see and the sharp proselytism of the Uniates[71] lead to the appointment of Archimandrite Gedeon Nikitić as a bishop of Transylvania, on November 6, 1783[72], having his residence at Sibiu and being subordinated to the metropolitan and the Synod of Karlowitz.

After eighty-three years, the Serbian Bishop Gedeon Nikitić (1783-1788) was the first bishop of the Romanians of Transylvania who had remained without any church leader: “This bishop developed many activities in all fields, especially concerning the illumination of his faithful.”[73] Through him, Emperor Joseph II decided to take some measures related to the education of the Romanian people: setting up new schools; repairing the old schools; encouraging the church communities which wanted to open their own schools; the creation of a post of principal meant to supervise the schools, etc.[74] But the condition of the Orthodox Church of Transylvania was so precarious, that “the episcopal see’s city had not a house for him to live in, therefore he was obliged to live in a Romanian village, Răşinari, near Sibiu, where he was offered a house to live in.”[75]

The next one was the Bishop Gerasim Adamović of Transylvania (1789-1796).[76] It is significant that this bishop of Serbian nationality cooperated with the Greek Catholic Bishop Ioan Bob of Blaj, to support the political rights of Romanian people.[77] Thus, he succeeded in obtaining church rights for the Romanian Orthodox. As a result of his endeavour, in the Diet of Transylvania of 1791[78] was passed a law, the Article of Law No. 60, by which the Orthodox confession was taken away from among the tolerated ones and granted the right of free practice[79].

So after the Court’s unsuccessful attempt to destroy the Orthodox Church of Transylvania by means of the political promoted Uniate movement, the Diet was finally obliged to recognize the legally free practice of the Orthodox worship.[80] This was the first step toward the acknowledgement of corporative religious rights for the Romanian Orthodox in Transylvania, after almost three hundred years of outlawed existence.

For fourteen years after the Bishop Adamović’s death the episcopal see of Sibiu was vacant, and only on August 13/25, 1810, did the government communicate to the consistory that the emperor granted the Romanian people’s often expressed desire that the Orthodox episcopal see of Transylvania should be filled by a bishop elected by the clergy, namely by the protopopes of the eparchy and the consistorial vicar.[81]

The first Romanian bishop after 1700, appointed by the Emperor Francis I of Austria[82] among three elected candidates, was Vasile Moga (1811-1845) an unmarried priest from Sassebeş, Andrei Şaguna’s predecessor.

On the one hand, the long opposition of the Transylvanian Orthodox towards the Uniate policy of the Court bore fruits, after many sacrifices: first of all, in 1759, Maria Theresa asked the Uniate bishop to cease the persecutions against the Orthodox; then in 1761 the Serbian Orthodox bishop of Buda was appointed as administrator for the Orthodox Romanians of Transylvania; in 1791 the Diet of Transylvania adopted the Article of Law No. 60 which stated that the Orthodox Church was no longer one of  the tolerated confessions, but enjoyed the right of free practice; finally, in 1810, the Court recognized the right of the Transylvanian Orthodox to have an Romanian bishop elected by clergy.

But, in 1783, once the Archimandrite Gedeon Nikitić was appointed a bishop, the Romanian Orthodox Church of Transylvania as well as that of Bukovina lost their autonomy, being submitted in terms of dogmatic and spiritual issues to the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz[83], and on December 8, 1786, they lost any independence, by the subordinating of all administrative issues to the same Metropolitanate[84]. Thus “the Church hierarchy for the Romanian nation from the Austrian provinces died as a result of political decisions, to the great pain and sorrow of the same Romanian nation; and the Romanian nation was dependent on the other heterogeneous hierarchy, who did not accomplish their responsibilities toward the Romanian hierarchy, but ruled  under the shield of the political power and they did not seek to support the Romanian hierarchy according to the ancient canons; so the Romanian hierarchy was prevented by the political authority from exerting its own function and its own life…[85]

Keith Hitchins opines that: “Joseph II sealed the new relationship by decrees placing the Rumanian Orthodox under the jurisdiction of Karlowitz in order to discourage contacts with the Orthodox Rumanian principalities and to prevent a foreign hierarchy from exercising control over his subjects.”[86]

That way a new problem was born for the Orthodox Romanians of Transylvania – the abuses of the Serbian hierarchy – before the old ones of the year 1700 were solved.

Although the four Serbian bishops (Dionisije Novaković, Sofronije Kirilović, Gedeon Nikitić  and Gerasim Adamović), who followed up to 1796, did their best to bring order to the Romanian Orthodox Church of Transylvania, yet suspicion began to appear that they, or their rulers from Karlowitz turned this Church into an “object of leasing”.[87]

I.2.4 The ecclesiastical and social-political frame in the first half of the nineteenth century

After the Emperor Joseph II’s death until 1848, big changes were made in the Habsburg Monarchy. His successor, Leopold II (1790-1792), restored the Hungarian Constitution and Francis II of the Holy Roman Empire (1792-1806)/Francis I of Austria (1804-1835) was obliged, as a result of the wars against Napoleon, to give up the title of Romano-German emperor and be titled as emperor of Austria. The Habsburgs began to rely more and more on the Hungarians, who were the most powerful among the dissatisfied peoples of the monarchy. The emperor was surrounded more and more by Hungarian ministers and advisers and the Hungarian circles from Cluj and Pest did their best to accomplish the “idea of Magyarization”, merging all the inhabitants of the previous Hungary in one nation with a Hungarian consciousness. Under the circumstances, the propaganda meant to turn the Orthodox Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary to Catholicism – with the aim of their Magyarization this time – started once again with a force and violence greater than in the eighteenth century, before Joseph II. The Court of Vienna headed by the Chancellor Metternich proposed to accomplish the church Union of the Orthodox, not only of the Romanians[88], but also of the Slavs within the monarchy. The propaganda for Catholicism went hand in hand with the policy of Magyarization.[89]

An essential fact about the situation of the Orthodox Church of Transylvania at the beginning of the nineteenth century was that its administrative dependence on the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz proved to be salutary for its survival, but later it became a burden, because the Serbian metropolitans, the bishops’ synod as a whole were interested in directing the church funds toward the development of their own nation[90], thus the Romanians’ were done an injustice.[91]

The Romanians living on the west part of Transylvania, in Banat and Arad, neighbouring the Serbians felt sharply the Serbian rule. As a result of the victory obtained in 1810 by the appointment of the Romanian Bishop Vasile Moga at Sibiu, they started too to ask for bishops of Romanian origin, who could understand their precarious social-political condition and do something concrete for to improve it.[92]

Toward the middle of the nineteenth century, both the Romanian Transylvanian intellectuals and the clergy with their parishioners felt the injustice done to those living in the south-west, and common actions occurred, aimed at taking their Church out from the Serbian jurisdiction and coming back to its previous status: “The Serbian bishops used all the ways in order to block any access of the Romanians to intellectual and moral culture. They acted in such a way that the Romanian schools would decline or simply be dissolved and the few ones that left – supported by the Romanians’ own money – they had Serbian teachers and instead of becoming institutions of culture, they turned into institutions of Slavonization. One of the promoters of such a mocking view was the Metropolitan Stratimirović, a notorious persecutor of the Romanians, who often said that there was nothing worse than the Romanian language.”[93]

The easiest possible answer did not come late: “The Serbian hierarchy objected that, among the Romanian monks there were not learned, capable men, worthy to hold the episcopal office.”[94] In fact, there were not many Romanian monks in Transylvania, because in the years 1761-1762, General Adolf Nicolaus Buccow had burnt lots of the monasteries, and those lying in the south-west of Transylvania were under Serbian administration and property, although they had been built and maintained by the faithful, whose majority was Romanians.[95]

In the year 1812, Emperor Francis I agreed that a pedagogical institute in the Romanian language meant to train the future teachers of the Romanian schools of Arad, Banat and Crişana should open.[96]

It was only in 1829 that Metropolitan Stevan Sratimirović (1790-1836) accepted the appointment in the Synod of Karlowitz of the Romanian Bishop Nestor Ioanovici for the episcopal see of Arad.[97] It was also agreed, by an imperial document, that the episcopal sees of Timişoara and Werschetz should be filled by those who could at least speak the Romanian language.[98]

Vasile Moga’s election by the protopopes of the eparchy, at Turda, on September 19, 1810, as the first Romanian Orthodox bishop in Transylvania after 1700, gave great hopes to the clergy and intellectuals, because they looked at this as the beginning of a new, bright era for the Romanians.[99]

Yet, although he was a bishop for a long time (thirty-four years), Vasile Moga could not succeed in doing many things for his eparchy: he bought the houses from Sibiu for the bishop’s residence; he created a six months course for the clergy; he also granted some stipends for young people.[100] This anemic activity was due to the fact that the Orthodox “enjoyed” all kinds of restrictions, written or not, concerning their liberty to act, and they were not given the material support that the Uniates became. Moreover, “he was a weak man, lacking will. Besides he did not have the necessary culture to face the circumstances.”[101] According to the imperial instruction of December 21, 1810[102], which accompanied the appointment of the new Orthodox bishop, the latter was limited in his pastoral activity and did not enjoy any authority[103]; he had to keep in mind that his clergy were tolerated only[104]; he did not have any political right and got a symbolic salary paid by the state[105]; he was not allowed to go on canonical visits in the eparchy without the previous consent of the government and only in the presence of two commissaries appointed by the political power[106]. He had to consider himself a bishop only by virtue of the emperor’s willingness, and not by any acquired right of the Orthodox Church.[107] These humiliating restrictions would be described by Bishop Andrei Şaguna in his complaint of December 1, 1855, made to the emperor: “This long instruction, made up of nineteen points and which goes into the minutest details, lowers our Church and makes it a reunion under police guard and its bishop a dependent servant of the secular high officials. If all the other documents were silent about such a sad age for us, if history was silent, this only would suffice to point out  the oppression of our Church, of its clergy and faithful.[108] During Vasile Moga’s episcopate, a great number of the Orthodox passed to the Greek Catholic Church “and some say that the cause of this is the above-mentioned order.”[109]

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the leadership of the Orthodox Church of Transylvania had its roots in the political and social medieval structure of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, which excluded totally the Romanians from the Diet and the state superior councils because of their ethnic affiliation and of their faith. In a social system dominated by the nobility and the upper bourgeoisie and also by the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches, there was no room for Orthodox peasants. Starting with the seventeenth century, the social and religious discrimination was combined with national antagonisms, because the Magyar nobles and the Saxons middle class became more and more aware of the danger the Romanian population continually growing represented for their hegemony.[110]

Impoverished by the nobles, persecuted because of their faith, after the fifteenth century the Romanians as a nation had been banished from the social life and thus they did not have the opportunity to create their own territory or institutions, as the “three nations” could create. By the end of the seventeenth century the Orthodox Church was the only institution representing them and their leader, the metropolitan of Alba-Iulia, had therefore become their national leader.

Then, the role of the Church grew in every field of the people’s life during the eighteenth century, and after the church Union, because of the lack of a national personality, both the Viennese Court and Transylvanian government of Cluj considered the Uniate bishops, if not legally but actually as national leaders. After 1760, when Maria Theresa had to recognize the existence of the Orthodox Church beside the Greek Catholic one, the same was done in the case of the Orthodox bishops. Joseph II, by virtue of his programme of centralization, asked the leaders of the two Churches to place the state interests above any other interests and passed many decrees and instructions which established all the aspects of the Church life. Concerning the Orthodox, Joseph II kept his right to appoint the bishops himself.

Emperor Francis I legalized in 1810 the subordination of the Orthodox Church to civil authorities, enforcing on the new bishop the nineteen conditions which limited his freedom to act. Then, during the next three decades, the Orthodox and the Uniate bishops, who generally enjoyed a little better situation, were forced to represent the official Habsburg policy before clergy and their parishioners, being made responsible for their political behaviour.[111]

The influence of the Church in the cultural life, and the political leadership exercised by the bishops began to be seriously disputed between 1830 and 1840 by the intellectuals. The new intellectual élite, coming out of the Greek Catholic Church mainly had a more advanced education, as a result of the benefits obtained out of the church Union, being concerned with religious and cultural matters. They had also been influenced by the new thinking currents, which circulated from the West to the East. The new spirit of the time, which can be best characterized as a lay spirit, was manifested above all by the lay intellectuals’ attitude towards the Church and its role in society. The rationalism and the empiricism acquired by the intellectuals from the philosophy of the Enlightenment, both directly and by means of “The School of Transylvania” (“Şcoala Ardeleană”)[112], undermined the Church authority and lessened even their faith: their writings dealt with the contemporary man and his happiness in this world.[113]

Both among the Greek Catholic and Orthodox intellectuals a general impression prevailed, according to which the Church leaders and implicitly the national policy had become “aristocratic” and subordinated to the will of some persons, the bishops, with results opposing the people’s general welfare. They were convinced that the failure of the national cause, of the protests which aimed at obtaining concessions from the emperor or from the Diet of Transylvania[114], was due to the bishops, who did not solidarize with the people, did not look for or obtain the people’s support and therefore they were treated by authorities as sheer private petitioners. Besides, the bishops’ close dependence on the civil authorities, as well as the intellectuals’ conviction – justified after 1700 – that the ecclesiastical interests did not concur with the national ones, made the intellectuals’ suspicion toward the Church leadership stronger.[115]

The Romanian press of the time was represented by “The Sunday Newspaper” (“Foaia Duminicii”) in Braşov, from which “The Transylvania’s Gazette” (“Gazeta Transilvaniei”) was born, and “The Newspaper for Mind, Soul and Literature” (“Foaia pentru minte, inimă şi literatură”) under George Bariţiu’s editorship, in Braşov, came out too. In 1847 “The Organ of Enlightenment” (“Organul luminării”), lead by Timotei Cipariu in Blaj came out.[116]

During the “Vormärz” (the period between the Congress of Vienna, from 1815, and the revolution of 1848/1849), the Romanians did not have any political organization and did not take part as a nation in the Diet, apart from the Uniate bishop. The society was already divided between a tiny layer of intellectuals who embraced the Enlightenment, who were suspicious toward the Church hierarchy although not outspokenly opposing the Church, and an overwhelming majority of peasants. The traditional Church of Transylvania (the Orthodox one) had recently been redenominated in terms of confession and was poor.

Against this social, political and religious background became the Archimandrite Andrei Şaguna of Kovil Monastery, in 1846, after Bishop Vasile Moga’s death, the vicar-administrator of the Orthodox Eparchy of Sibiu.

Image: Map of the Habsburg Empire in 1556. A digitally cleaned up map of the dominion of the Habsburgs following the Battle of Mühlberg (1547). Taken from The Cambridge Modern History Atlas, edited by Sir Adolphus William Ward, G.W. Prothero, Sir Stanley Mordaunt Leathes, and E.A. Benians. Cambridge University Press: London, 1912.

[1] The Habsburg Empire was called the Austrian Empire starting in 1814 and the Austro-Hungarian Empire after 1867. Austria’s sovereigns – the Habsburgs – Romano-German emperors by tradition and later also kings of Spain, considered themselves heirs of the St. Stephen’s crown, beginning with the sixteenth century, when they occupied the north-western Hungary. The Habsburgs’ claims were turned into practice only after Vienna had been liberated from the Ottomans (in 1683). In a few decades, Vienna came “to free” Hungary, Croatia, Transylvania, Banat, parts of Serbia and ruled temporarily over Oltenia (called Little Wallachia). Toward the end of the eighteenth century, Austria still conquered large areas from Poland (Galicia, Lodomeria, Little Poland) and one more Romanian territory (Bukovina). New provinces lying north of Italy and Bosnia-Herzegovina were to be added. So beginning with 1700 until 1918, the state ruled by the Habsburgs came to contain almost all the people and populations from Central Europe, partially or entirely: Austrians, Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and of German origin (Saxons, Swabs), Magyars, Romanians, Italians, Poles, Ukrainians, Jews, Slovenians, Croatians, Serbians, Bosnians (Muslims), Russians etc. In this empire there was not such a thing as an ethnic majority of the Austrian or German element, but rather a certain majority of the Slavs, yet without immediate practical consequences, as the Slavic world was very heterogeneous. However, some peoples and races – by no means just among the Catholic and the Protestant ones – were privileged as compared to others, namely the territories inhabited by them were formally recognized as kingdoms, their élite was preserved and educated, their languages were accepted as semi-official (for example: the Czechs, the Magyars, the Croatians, the Italians). Cf. I.-A. POP, Europa Centrală-între hegemonii şi rivalităţi, 571.

[2] By the virtue of the Diploma of 1691, Transylvania remained a separate entity from Hungary, with its own political, economic and juridical institutions. The principality was to be ruled by a governor, appointed by the Diet and confirmed by the Court – the governor was leading a council made up of twelve members (das Gubernium). Apart from Gubernium, in 1694 the Aulic Chancellery of Transylvania was set up, having its centre in Vienna, whose aim was to connect the Court and the principality. The financial issues were on the charge of a Treasury and the military ones were taken over by the War Council, whose representative in Transylvania was the commander-in-chief. The Supreme Court authority was the Royal Table and the legal authority was the Diet. Cf. R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 3-6, 18-19; History of Romania. Compendium, 355.

    See the Latin text and the German translation of the Diploma, in:  R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 327 et seqq.

[3] “Mit seinen Zusatzbestimmungen stellte es [das Leopoldinische Diplom] zwar die – praktisch fehlende – Parität für die Katholische Kirche her, enttäuschte durch maßvolle Regelungen allerdings die katholische Seite in Siebenbürgen. […] Mit dem Leopoldinischen Diplom als Verfassungsgrundtext war Siebenbürgen in konfessionspolitischer Hinsicht die absolute Ausnahme im Reich der Habsburger. Einer (verspäteten) Gegenreformation standen dort die sprichwörtlich gebrauchten ‘sieben Sünden’ [drei privilegierte Nationen und vier anerkannte Konfessionen] entgegen, und Maria Theresia nannte deswegen in ihrem ‘Politischen Testament’ von 1750 nur Ungarn als das Land ‘allwo wegen der Religion noch viel Gutes zu bewürken wäre’, bezeichnender Weise aber nicht Siebenbürgen. Dieses entfernte Erbland im Südosten des Reiches galt der Dynastie als Ort diesbezüglicher Hoffnungslosigkeit. Hier seien die ‘renitenten’ Untertanen – oberösterreichische Protestanten – anzusiedeln, weil ihnen nur dort ‘das freie exercitium religionis […]’ gestattet werden könne.” K. ZACH, Politische Ursachen und Motive der Konfessionalisierung in Siebenbürgen, 64-65.

[4] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 33.

[5] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 32-33; IDEM, The Idea of Nation, 81-82; History of Romania. Compendium, 355 et seq.

[6] Cf. Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, 17; M. PĂCURARIU, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 2, 296.

[7] I. SLAVICI, Dare de samă, 27.

[8] “Es mußten Mittel und Wege gefunden werden, den Text des Leopoldinischen Diploms zu umgehen, daß der katholischen Religion nur eine mit den drei übrigen rezipierten Religionen gleichrangige Stellung einräumte.” D. PRODAN, Supplex Libellus Valachorum, 114.

[9] Leopold Karl Graf von Kollonich/Count Leopold Kollonich (1631-1707), born to a Magyarized Croat Protestant family, had been converted and educated by the Jesuits and became bishop of Nitra (Nyitra), subsequently archbishop and cardinal of Esztergom (1695-1707), being also one of the most influential politicians of the seventeenth century in Vienna. He was the most important figure of counter-reformation and Habsburg absolutism, who also played an important role in devising the plan (1688-1689) according to which the country was restructured after it was freed from the Turks at the beginning of the eighteenth century.  Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 141 et seqq.

[10] We expressly avoided the presentation of the church Union from a theological point of view, because the most important for the subject of this thesis are the social-political aspects of the church Union in Transylvania. Moreover – as the historical approaches of the last decades show – the pure theological aspects played a too little role in the promotion of the church Union in Transylvania. Cf. K. HITCHINS, The Idea of Nation, 80 et seqq.; D. PRODAN, Supplex Libellus Valachorum, 114 et seqq.

For theological approaches of the church Union in Transylvania see Dumitru DEAC, Das Auftreten des Mönches Visarion Sarai in Siebenbürgen. Der Einfluss der neuen Ekklesiologie des 18. Jahrhunderts auf ihn (Diplomarbeit), Wien 2001, 27-53.

[11] I. SLAVICI, Dare de samă, 27. Consequently, the Orthodox Romanians had any economical and political importance for the Monarchy and its centralization policy.

[12] Cf. P. GÂRBOVICEANU, Andreiu Şaguna, 505.

    The man living in the country side, the one who worked the land was a serf or a stockman and he had to work for the landowner; the latter was not under any legal obstruction, by any positive norm, he used the serf as long as he wished, sometimes all long the week, on the clod, at work. The serf was bound by his master’s will, so the latter could dispose of him according to his own will. This was the same for the Romanian priests, who were not too much different from their parishioners: they paid taxes and bore great burdens. Moreover, the Orthodox priests paid quitrents to the priests of other confessions, while the latter were exempt of any tax, belonging to the privileged class. The few Romanian young people who could afford to attend school were excluded from any official position, being received nowhere, unless they changed their confession or nationality passing to one of the four confession and three nations accredited. Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 2, 297; R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 20-21.

[13] I. SLAVICI, Dare de samă, 28.

[14] The peace treaty was signed on January 26, 1699, at Karlowitz (today Sremski Karlovci), north-west of Belgrad. It was concluded between the Ottoman Empire on the one side and Austria, Poland and Venice on the other. The preceding war (1683-1697) had resulted in the Ottoman defeat in 1697, thereby forcing the Ottomans to consent to the treaty. In fact, it was an armistice for 25 years between the Austrian and Ottomans. All Hungary (including Transylvania but not the Banat of Timişoara), Croatia and Slovenia were ceded to Austria by the Ottomans. Podolia and a part of Western Ukraine passed to Poland, and the Peloponnese and most of Dalmatia passed to Venice. Russia, also at war with the Ottomans, captured Azov in 1696 and concluded a separate peace treaty with Turkey in 1700. The Venetian gains were lost again at the Treaty of Passarowitz (1718). The Treaty of Karlowitz, which crowned the successful campaign of Prince Eugene of Savoy, was the beginning of the Ottoman Empire’s disintegration. This marked a great political territorial change, by which the conquests of Sultan Soliman II, between 1521 and 1566, in the Central Europe were annulled and the Ottoman Empire was eliminated from this space. Cf. The New Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 2 Micropædia, 872.

[15] K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 54.

[16] At the end of the seventeenth century, against the background of the fights between the Ottomans and the Austrians, the continuous victories obtained by the latter over the Ottomans made the life of the Christian populations from the Balkans more difficult. Under the circumstances, the Serbian patriarch of Peć (the centre of the Serbian Patriarchate in the Ottoman Empire), Arsenije III Crnojević (1674-1691), together with (about) 36,000 Christian families, the greatest majority being Serbians from Raška, Kosovo, Montenegro, Sandjak, Macedonia, Herzegovina and Bosnia emigrated to the new Austrian territories Vojvodina, Slavonia and eastern Croatia. New waves of emigrants followed in the years to come, yet of less importance. The years 1738-1740 brought a new massive wave of refugees in the Habsburg Empire, this time from northern Serbia, most of whom were colonized in Banat. This massive movement of Serbian population from the south to the north of the Danube lead to a change of the political, church, and cultural national Serbian centre, from the historical areas of Raška and Kosovo to the Danubian area, having its centre at Karlowitz and later at Belgrade. Cf. I.F. DOBRESCU, N.L. DOBRESCU, Românii din Serbia, 81-82.

[17] The Habsburgs granted the new colonists a series of synthesized rights called “Illyrian Privileges”. They provided a large national Church autonomy. Cf. Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, 24.

More on the imperial privileges for the Serbian migrants see at Ljiljana PANTOVIČ, Die Wiener Orthodoxen Serben (Dissertation), Wien 2004, 19-24.

[18] K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 53.

[19] Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Barbu D. Ştirbei, from October 1851, in: Gh. MOISESCU, O scrisoare a lui Andreiu Şaguna către Barbu D. Ştirbei, 598.

[20] K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 33-34.

[21] There is an opinion which states that this synod never existed in fact and Metropolitan Teofil was not involved in church Union. See M. PĂCURARIU, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 2, 297-298.

[22] Cf. D. PRODAN, Supplex Libellus Valachorum, 117-118.

[23] P. GÂRBOVICEANU, Andreiu Şaguna, 677.

[24] Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 2, 299; D. PRODAN, Supplex Libellus Valachorum, 119.

[25] Cf. P. GÂRBOVICEANU, Andreiu Şaguna, 677-678.

[26] Ibid., 678-679.

[27] See “Guvernatorul Schwarzenberg scrie ministrului luând în apărare biserica ortodoxă română din Transilvania” (“Governor Schwarzenberg writes to the minister defending the Romanian Orthodox Church of Transylvania”), No. 54/1856, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 155-160 here 157.

[28] See “Manifestul de unire” (“The Union Manifesto”), in: M. PĂCURARIU, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 2, 300-301.

[29] Ibid., 301.

[30] Ibid., 300. Emperor Leopold I – in the First Leopoldine Diploma of the Union, issued on February 16/28, 1699, and addressed to all the Romanians, Greeks and Ruthenians of Hungary, Croatia, Slavonia and Transylvania – granted the clergy who accepted the terms of the church Union all the rights and privileges of the Roman Catholics. Cf. D. PRODAN, Supplex Libellus Valachorum, 121. See the text of the Diploma, in: Nicolao NILLES, Symbolae ad illustrandam historiam Ecclesiae Orientalis in Terris Coronae S. Stephani, vol. 1, Innsbruck 1885, 224-227.

[31] K. HITCHINS, The Idea of Nation, 82. Cf. D. PRODAN, Supplex Libellus Valachorum, 130 et seqq.

[32] K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 35.

[33] Ibid., 34. Cf. also “Guvernatorul Schwarzenberg scrie ministrului luând în apărare biserica ortodoxă română din Transilvania” (“Governor Schwarzenberg writes to the minister defending the Romanian Orthodox Church of Transylvania”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 155-160 here 160.

[34] “One of the most obvious and far-reaching results of the church Union was the division of the Rumanians into two confessions. For most of the century and a half between the beginnings of the Union and the revolution of 1848 the relations between the Uniates and Orthodox were strained. The causes of antagonism were legion, but at the center of most disputes lay the competition for converts and the claims of the Uniates to supremacy. As late as the eve of the outbreak of revolution in 1848 many Rumanians sadly acknowledged that they formed not a single nation but two.” K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 4.

Even in 1870, a Transylvanian wrote bitterly: “The confessional difference is still one of the greatest obstacles for the advancement of our national-political matters, as well as for the development and progress of the Romanians everywhere and in all directions.” N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 138.

[35] See the text of the Diploma, in: Nicolao NILLES, Symbolae ad illustrandam historiam Ecclesiae Orientalis in Terris Coronae S. Stephani, vol. 1, Innsbruck 1885, 292-301.

[36] At length on this Diploma see D. PRODAN, Supplex Libellus Valachorum, 125-126.

[37] The Uniate political movement grew during the time of Bishop Ioan Inocentiu Micu Klein (1692-1768) who, since his appointment as a bishop in 1729, launched himself into an intense campaign of raising his clergy’s political and social status. In his position as an estate owner he asked and obtained a seat for himself in the Diet of Transylvania, in 1732, enjoying the right to vote. Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Istoria bisericească a românilor ardeleni, 144; D. PRODAN, Supplex Libellus Valachorum, 135-227.

[38] N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 128. Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Istoria bisericească a românilor ardeleni, 165. Being unable to support the Uniates by the exclusionary system of the legislation in the principality, owing to the known opposition of the three nations, the monarchs from Vienna gave up turning into practice the Leopoldine Diplomas, especially the second one, providing additional help and encouraging them in a way which was not systematic, yet not lacking efficiency. If we were to identify the material foundation of the culture of Transylvania during the age of the Enlightenment we could identify it in this help. Cf. I. CHINDRIŞ, Un caz iluminist: Petru Maior, 458.

[39] This memorandum asked the Romanian nation to be recognized as a political nation having the same rights as the other three privileged nations of Transylvania (Magyar, Szekler and Saxon). The reasons were based on the ancient history of the Romanians in Transylvania, their demographical importance in the country and the contribution to the taxes. The emperor sent the document to the Diet of Cluj, where the Hungarian majority rejected the requirements.

    See the original Latin text and a German translation of the Supplex Libellus Valachorum, in: D. PRODAN, Supplex Libellus Valachorum, 463-491.

[40] See M. PĂCURARIU, 100 de ani de la reînfiinţarea Mitropoliei Ardealului, 814.

[41] Cf. P. GÂRBOVICEANU, Andreiu Şaguna, 683; Eudoxiu HURMUZAKI, Documente privitoare la istoria romanilor, vol. XV, part 2 (1601-1825), Bucureşti 1913, 1675 et seqq.; Silviu DRAGOMIR, Istoria dezrobirii religioase a românilor din Ardeal în secolul al XVIII-lea, 2 vols., Sibiu 1920, 1930.

[42] On the Viennese church policy in Transylvania in the first twenty years of Maria Theresa’s reign see Mihail Simion SASAUJAN, Die Kirchenpolitik des Wiener Hofes in Siebenbürgen zur Zeit Maria Theresias (Dissertation), Wien 1996.

[43] N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 124.

[44] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 30-31.

[45] See Dumitru DEAC, Das Auftreten des Mönches Visarion Sarai in Siebenbürgen. Der Einfluss der neuen Ekklesiologie des 18. Jahrhunderts auf ihn (Diplomarbeit), Wien 2001, 58-71.

[46] See D. PRODAN, Supplex Libellus Valachorum, 205 et seqq.

[47] Ibid., 281 et seqq.

[48] K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 47.

[49] In order to help the Uniate confession to resist the arrows of the Sofronian secessionism, for example, Maria Theresa delivered a Decree of November 23, 1746, by which she opposed the penetration of the religious books from Wallachia and Moldavia to Transylvania. Cf. I. CHINDRIŞ, Un caz iluminist: Petru Maior, 458.

[50] Cf. Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, 19. Governor Karl Schwarzenberg of Transylvania was to talk about these historical realities, in 1856, to Minister Leo Thun of Public Worship: “Als im Jahre 1698 Bischof Tanasie mit 51 Protopopen und 1475 Popen, also fast mit der ganzen Geistlichkeit die Union mit der römisch-katholischen Kirche, d.h. die vier dogmatischen Punkte: 1. Anerkennung des Papstes als sichtbares Oberhaupt der christlichen Kirche. 2. Annahme des Fegefeuers. 3. Kommunion unter einerlei Gestalt. 4. Ausgang des Heiligen Geistes vom Vater und vom Sohne, annahm und beschwor, hielt man die alte griechische Kirche für aufgelöst, ihre wenigen Anhänger wurden Dissidenten genannt und genossen keine Korporationsrechte, doch bald zogen sie aus der Walachei und Moldau frische Kraft und schon im Jahre 1701 war die Macht der Nichtunierten wieder so stark gewachsen, dass Kaiser Leopold für rätlich hielt, die grösste Aufregung im Lande durch einen kaiserlichen Befehl vom 12. Dezember 1701 zu beschwichtigen …” “Guvernatorul Schwarzenberg scrie ministrului luând în apărare biserica ortodoxă română din Transilvania” (“Governor Schwarzenberg writes to the minister defending the Romanian Orthodox Church of Transylvania”), No. 54/1856, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 155-160 here 158.

[51] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 3.

[52] Cf. Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, 19.

[53] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 52-53.

[54] Groups of Serbians who ran away fearing the Turks settled in the areas of Tisza and Mureş rivers among the Romanians by the end of the fourteenth century. The most important Serbian exodus into Transylvanian areas took place in 1690, under the guidance of the patriarch Arsenije III Crnojević who organized the church life of the Serbians settled on the Romanian land too. Cf. A. HUDAL, Die serbisch-orthodoxe Nationalkirche, 39; Th. BREMER, Ekklesiale Struktur, 16.

[55] The Romanian Orthodox Eparchy of Arad was founded in 1705, out of the old eparchies of Inău (Ienopole) and Oradea-Mare; Bishop Isaia Diacovici of Ienopole moved its residence at Arad and passed the Romanian Eparchy under the jurisdiction of the Serbian Metropolitanate of Karlowitz. Both former eparchies depended before 1700 on the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate of Alba-Iulia. Cf. S. RELI, Politica religioasă a Habsburgilor, 29.

[56] About the addition of the Eparchy of Caransebeş to that of Werschetz, in the eighteenth century, see Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, 33.

[57] The Serbian Metropolitanate of Karlowitz, which exercised its jurisdiction over Slavonia, Croatia, Hungary and Banat, had seven suffragan eparchies, namely Novi Sad (Neoplanta), Pankrat, Karlstadt, Buda, Arad, Werschetz and Timişoara. In 1814 the Bishopric of Dalmatia was added, until 1870, when it was divided in two eparchies (Zara/Zadar and Cattaro/Kotor) and incorporated in 1873 in the newly-created Metropolitanate of Bukovina. Cf. Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, 24-25.

[58] Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, 100 de ani de la reînfiinţarea Mitropoliei Ardealului, 815.

[59] It is about two imperial Diplomas, one of August 20, 1691, the other of March 4, 1695 which regulated the hierarchical organization of the emigrated Serbians. Cf. A. HUDAL, Die serbisch-orthodoxe Nationalkirche, 40; “Memorial, prin care se lămuresce cererea românilor de religiunea răsăriténă în Austria pentru restaurarea metropoliei lor din punct de vedere a ss. canone, – aşternut c. r. ministeriu pentru cult şi instrucţiune în 1851, de Andreiu Bar. de Şaguna, episcopul bisericei răsăritene în Ardeal” (“Memorandum which clarifies the petition of the Romanians of the Eastern confession from Austria meant to restore their metropolitanate from the point of view of the holy canons, submitted to the Ministry of Public Worship and Instruction in 1851, by Andreiu Baron of Şaguna the bishop of the Eastern Church in Transylvania”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 88-97.

    More about the privileges of the Orthodox Serbians see at Ljiljana PANTOVIČ, Die Wiener Orthodoxen Serben (Dissertation), Wien 2004, 19-24; Th. BREMER, Ekklesiale Struktur, 17-18.

[60] I. SLAVICI, Dare de samă, 29. Cf. N. IORGA, Istoria românilor din Ardeal  şi Ungaria, vol. II, 126.

[61] Cf. P. GÂRBOVICEANU, Andreiu Şaguna, 684; M. PĂCURARIU, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 2, 500.

[62] From chancellor Kaunitz’s Report to Maria Theresa, as cited in: P. GÂRBOVICEANU, Andreiu Şaguna,  684.

[63] G. JOANDREA, Andrei, baron de Şaguna, 5.

[64] At length on this topic see Peter F. BARTON ed., Im Zeichen der Toleranz. Aufsätze zur Toleranzgesetzgebung des 18. Jahrhunderts in den Reichen Joseph II., ihren Voraussetzungen und ihren Folgen, Wien 1981; IDEM, Im Lichte der Toleranz. Aufsätze zur Toleranzgesetzgebung des 18. Jahrhunderts in den Reichen Joseph II., ihren Voraussetzungen und ihren Folgen, Wien 1981.

[65] The effect of Emperor Joseph II’s reforms in Transylvania undermined the very foundation of the authority of the three nations; in his policy Joseph II has been guided by the wish to consolidate the power of the central government and to concentrate it in Vienna. The most important legal measures which concerned the Romanians of Transylvania were: “The Decree of con-civility” of July 4, 1781, which granted equal civil rights to all the inhabitants of “Fundus regius”; the Decree of Tolerance of October  13, 1781, by which the Orthodox Romanians were granted the right to build churches and open schools in the communities where there lived at least 100 families; the Decree of July 3, 1784, which dissolved the ancient administrative organization of the country and placed in each county a prefect appointed by the central government, who was responsible toward it; the preliminary Decree of emancipation of the serfs, of August 16, 1783, followed by a Decree of emancipation of August 22, 1785; the consent given to organize a system of elementary schools for the Uniates in 1781, and for the Orthodox, in 1786. Cf. K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 69-70; IDEM, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 6

[66] Cf. I. CHINDRIŞ, Un caz iluminist: Petru Maior, 457.

[67] Until the end of the eighteenth century the entire Orthodox Church of Transylvania and that of Bukovina were under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz (called Patriarchate since 1849). See “Decretul împărătesc din 30 Septembre 1783 Nr. 1701, privitoriu la încorporarea eparchiei ortodocse române din Transilvania la metropolia sârbéscă din Carloviţ” (“The imperial Decree from September 30, 1783, No. 1701, concerning the incorporation of the Romanian Orthodox Eparchy of Transylvania in the Serbian Metropolitanate of Karlowitz”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 1; “Resoluţiune împărătéscă din 8 Decembre 1786, prin care eparchiile din Transilvania şi Bucovina se pun cu cele disciplinare sub metropolia sârbéscă din Carloviţ” (“The imperial Resolution from  December 8, 1786, by which the Eparchies of Transylvania and Bukovina are under the Serbian Metropolitanate of Karlowitz, together with the disciplinary matters”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 1-2.

[68] The Metropolitanate of Alba-Iulia existed at least since the beginning of the seventeenth century under the reign of Prince George Rákóczi I (1631-1648), and had the canonical jurisdiction over the entire territory of Transylvania, an autonomous principality under Turkish suzerainty, at the time, a province of the Habsburg Empire since the end of the seventeenth century. It comprised the following eparchies: Alba-Iulia, Maramureş, Silvaş and Vad. See A. ŞAGUNA, Promemorie, 3.

[69] The situation of Bukovina, another Romanian territory added to the Habsburg Empire in 1774/1775 was different; here happened a physical split of an old geographic and canonical territory, namely of the Metropolitanate of  Moldavia, having its centre at Iaşi, which remained after 1775 without the territory of the suffragan Eparchy of Rădăuţi. In fact, Bukovina did not exist as a geographic-political entity but for 143 years only, under the Habsburgs, between 1775 and 1918. This territory constituted the main embryo of Moldavia principality, one of the three Romanian traditional provinces which it belonged. Cf. History of Romania. Compendium, 398 et seq., 483 et seq.

[70] The village of Răşinari, near Sibiu, where Andrei Şaguna chose to sleep his eternal sleep, was episcopal residence between 1761 and 1796. See E. CIORAN, Mitropolitul Şaguna şi comuna Răşinari, 425 et seqq.

[71] For example, on November 6, 1762, the empress issued a Decree concerning the Orthodox bishop, containing eleven restrictions, all revolving around the one which said not to oppose the church Union. Apart from the eleven restrictions “inherited” from Novaković, Kirilović were added two more: not to communicate with his priests without governmental consent and not to accept in the eparchy priests ordained beyond the borders of Transylvania; on the contrary he should denounce them. Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 2, 502, 504.

[72] See “Diploma împărătéscă pentru denumirea lui Gedeon Nichitici de episcop în eparchia ortodoxă română a Ardélului” (“The imperial Diploma which appointed Gedeon Nikitić as a bishop of the Romanian Orthodox Eparchy of Transylvania”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 418-419.

[73] N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 147.

[74] Cf. P. GÂRBOVICEANU, Andreiu Şaguna, 913-914.

[75] Ibid., 913.

[76] See “Diploma împărătéscă pentru denumirea lui Gerasim Adamovici de episcop în eparchia ortodoxă română a Ardélului” (“The imperial Diploma which appointed Gerasim Adamović as a bishop of the Romanian Orthodox Eparchy of Transylvania”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 419-420.

[77] Cf. P. GÂRBOVICEANU, Andreiu Şaguna, 914.

[78] Between 1762 and 1790 the Transylvanian Diet was not summoned; between 1790 and 1866 only twelve times. The centuries-old custom that the decisions were made by the three nations (Hungarians, Szeklers, Saxons) was abolished in 1791 and replaced by proportional representations. At length on the Diet of 1790/1791 see R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 92-110.

[79] “Den Angehörigen der griechisch-orthodoxen Kirche, die in Siebenbürgen zu den tolerierten Glaubensbekenntnissen zählte, wurde die freie Religionsausübung unter der Leitung eines durch den Monarchen zu ernennenden Bischofs zugestanden; sie erhielten die Versicherung, daß die Mitglieder dieser Kirche keine anderen Abgaben als die der anderen Glaubensangehörigen zu leisten hätten (Art. 60).” R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 108.

[80] Although it was a progress, the law turned to be rather a theory and not a real improvement of the statute of the Romanian Orthodox of Transylvania, as Andrei Şaguna will point out in his complaint to the emperor, on December 1, 1855: “[…] nachher gelang es den Glaubensgenossen im 60. Landes-Artikel vom J. 1791 endlich ein Gesetz zu erhalten, worin ihnen die Freiheit der Religionsübung gewährleistet und gesagt wird, dass die Anhänger dieser Religion von dem Bischofe ihres Ritus abhängen und gleich wie die übrigen Landesbewohner behandelt werden sollen. Dies Gesetz nennt unsere Religion die ‘Religio orientalis graeci Ritus non unita’. Das war aber auch alles, was die Kirche erreichen konnte. Ja, selbst der Wohlthat dieses Gesetzes, des einzigen aus dem ganzen Codex der siebenbürgischen Legislation, welches für die griechisch-orientalische Religion wenigstens nicht ungünstig lautet, sollte sie nicht mit vollem Genusse sich erfreuen. Ein Beweis dessen ist die Instruction, welche im J. 1810 dem neu gewählten Bischofe Basilius Moga, meinem Vorgänger, vorgeschrieben wurde, wo es schon wieder heisst, dass der griechisch nicht unierte Klerus ‘toleratus solum habeatur’ …” “Gravamenul episcopului Şaguna la Împăratul contra ministrului, cerând între alte şi reînfiinţarea metropoliei românilor ortodocşi” (“Bishop Şaguna’s complaint lodged to the emperor against the minister, asking among other things the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate of the Orthodox Romanians”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 122-151 here 125.

[81] Mircea Păcurariu the historian gives the admission date of this desire as May 13/25, 1809. See M. PĂCURARIU, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 3, 65.

[82] He is known as Francis II (1792-1806) – the last emperor of the Holy Roman Empire; or as Francis I (1804-1835) – the first emperor of Austria.

[83] See “Decretul împărătesc din 30 Septembre 1783 Nr. 1701, privitoriu la încorporarea eparchiei ortodocse române din Transilvania la metropolia sârbéscă din Carloviţ” (“The imperial Decree from September 30, 1783, No. 1701, concerning the incorporation of the Romanian Orthodox Eparchy of Transylvania in the Serbian Metropolitanate of Karlowitz”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 1.

[84] See “Resoluţiune împărătéscă din 8 Decembre 1786, prin care eparchiile din Transilvania şi Bucovina se pun cu cele disciplinare sub metropolia sârbéscă din Carloviţ” (“The imperial Resolution from December 8, 1786, by which the Eparchies of Transylvania and Bukovina are under the Serbian Metropolitanate of Karlowitz, together with the disciplinary matters”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 1-2.

[85] “Episcopul Şaguna cătră Hacman, episcopul Bucovinei, din sinodul diecesan ţinut în Sibiiu în Oct. 1860” (“Bishop Şaguna to Bishop Hacman of Bukovina, from the diocesan synod held at Sibiu, in October, 1860”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 177-180 here 178.

[86] K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 7.

[87] “This suspicion is not without any fundament, because we can see from some of the Serbian candidates’ petitions that they demanded the Eparchy of Transylvania as a reward for themselves, in exchange for less pious merits. So it was with one of the Serbian bishops from Banat who claimed to administrate the vacant – between 1796 and 1810 – episcopal see of Transylvania, because during the war against the Turks he had got ill with rheumatism, and later another one claimed the same episcopal see for himself arguing that he had lived for thirteen months at Vienna, spending all his money, making debts, above all this.” I. LUPAŞ, Mitropolitul Şaguna ca restaurator şi legislator al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 9-10.

[88] Between 1825 and 1835, during a long vacancy of the episcopal see, over 10,000 faithful from the Orthodox Eparchy and county of Arad passed to the Uniate Church. Cf. S. RELI, Politica religioasă a Habsburgilor, 32.

[89] Cf. S. RELI, Politica religioasă a Habsburgilor, 13-14; R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 226-234.

[90] As a matter of fact, the beginning of the nineteenth century was a turning point in history of the Serbians. The birth of the modern Serbian history exactly begins with the First Serbian Uprising (1804-1813) when, after three hundred and fifty years of living under the Ottoman lordship and pressure (from 1459), the Serbians from the area of central Serbia rose in arms against the Turks. This uprising was the most important, biggest and most glorious national revolt in whole Serbian history. The entire Serbian population who lived outside of the Ottoman rule (i.e. in the Habsburg Monarchy) showed high interest about the fate of the insurrection. All Serbians understood the insurrection as initial event in the process of national liberation and unification within a single national state borders. Metropolitan Stevan Stratimirović (1790-1836) was one of those Serbians who was dreaming about national freedom, independence and unification. His most influential political writing upon national emancipation and political consolidation was a Memorandum, written in June 1804. Cf. Vladislav SOTIROVIĆ, Serbia Rediviva: The 1804 Memorandum of metropolitan Stratimirović on the creation of a Slavonic Serbian Grand Duchy, in: Kalbotyra (=Slavistica Vilnensis), 50(2)/2001, Vilnius 2001, 27-56.

[91] Although somehow favoured within the Habsburg Monarchy by the “Illyrian Privileges”, the Serbians competed with the ever growing benefits which the Hungarians had got (the crowning of the prince as king of Hungary, the introduction of the constitutional life all over Hungary with its own administration and language in schools, counties and the Diet, since 1790), which made them organize in 1747 “the Illyrian deputation” (suspended by 1779), as a church and political fighting body. In this fight, to sustain the schools was a priority, and the great Metropolitan Pavle Nenadović (1749-1768) created a school fund, which came out of the believers’ contributions collected in parishes. As the hierarchy and sometimes the priests were Serbian, all the money coming from the Serbian or the Romanian parishioners was used only to support the Serbian schools. The Orthodox Church was for the Serbians of Austria the treasures of the entire patrimony of cultural, material, economical and political life along three hundred and thirty years under the Habsburg rule. Cf. T. BODOGAE, Activitatea culturală şi politică a mitropolitului sîrb Ştefan Stratimirovici, 383-385.

[92] Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Istoria bisericească a românilor ardeleni, 157. See also “Instanţa clerului şi poporului românesc din diecesa Aradului, dată la împăratul Francisc I. a. 1814, pentru instituirea unui episcop român în eparchia Aradului” (“The Romanian clergy and believers of the Eparchy of Arad’s petition to Emperor Francis I, in 1814, to appoint a Romanian bishop in the Eparchy of Arad”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 3-9; L. GYEMANT, Lupta pentru instituirea episcopilor români, 325-334.

[93] “Suplica pentru despărţirea ierarchiei române de cea sârbéscă şi pentru ţinerea unui sinod român general. Viena 12/24 Octobre 1849” (“The complaint meant to separate the Romanian hierarchy from the Serbian one, and for the summoning of a general Romanian synod. Vienna, October 12/24, 1849”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 25-28 here 26. Cf. Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, 39.

[94] I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 27; Cf. Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, 56.

[95] After 1864, the Orthodox Romanians of Banat submitted a memorial to the emperor, in which they requested to be given three monasteries: Hodoş-Bodrog in the Eparchy of Arad, Sfântul Gheorghe in the Eparchy of Timişoara and Mesici in the Eparchy of Werschetz. Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 3, 89.

[96] Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 3, 78.

[97] Although the emperor had decided in 1815/1816 – as the result of the protests of the Romanians of Transylvania – that the vacant episcopal see be filled by a bishop appointed by the bishops’ synod of Karlowitz among the Romanian candidates, this was accepted late and with great difficulty by the Serbian metropolitan. Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 3, 79-82; R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 284.

[98] Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Promemorie, 14; M. PĂCURARIU, 100 de ani de la reînfiinţarea Mitropoliei Ardealului, 816-817.

[99] Cf. L. GYEMANT, Lupta pentru instituirea episcopilor români, 330.

[100] Cf. P. GÂRBOVICEANU, Andreiu Şaguna, 916.

    Mircea Păcurariu the historian shares another opinion, namely that Bishop Vasile Moga did a lot for his eparchy. See M. PĂCURARIU, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 3, 67-75.

[101] P. GÂRBOVICEANU, Andreiu Şaguna, 919.

[102] See the imperial instruction of December 21, 1810, in: N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 149-152.

[103] Ibid., 149-150: “4. As the consistory was obliged to put on paper every month the protocol to the emperor, like the bishop is also obliged to do it […] and to set his residence where the royal government wished”.

[104] Ibid., 149: “7. The bishop is not supposed to forget that four confessions were officially accredited by the public law and that the Uniate clergy and the faithful were incorporated by law into the Catholic confession which benefited from material goods and privileges, while the non-Uniate ones are only tolerated.”

[105] Ibid., 150: “10. The bishop is obliged to be content with his salary of 4,000 florins.”

[106] Ibid., 150: “10. […] he will go the canonical visits by the royal government consent and in the presence of two commissaries named by the political power …”

[107] Ibid., 149: “2. […] this bishop should know that his duty is just a symbol of the emperor’s grace.”

[108] “Gravamenul episcopului Şaguna la Împăratul contra ministrului, cerând între alte şi reînfiinţarea metropoliei românilor ortodocşi” (“Bishop Şaguna’s complaint lodged to the emperor against the minister, asking among other things the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate of the Orthodox Romanians”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 122-151 here 126: “Diese umfassende, in neunzehn Punkten bis ins Kleinste gehende, Instruction drückt unsere Kirche zu einem polizeilich überwachten Vereine und den Bischof zu einem abhängigen Diener der weltlichen Behörden herab. Wenn alle andern Dokumente einer für uns traurigen Zeit, wenn selbst die Geschichte schwiege, wäre dies Eine genug, um die gedrückte Lage unserer Kirche, ihrer Geistlichkeit und ihrer Bekenner hinlänglich zu bezeichnen.”

[109] N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 148.

[110] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 2.

[111] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 118-120.

[112] The so-called “School of Transylvania” is the ideological and cultural movement having an Enlightenment character to which Romanian Greek Catholic intellectuals belonged at the end of eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century. It is the Romanians from the Habsburg Empire most important way of fighting for national and cultural emancipation, developed as an extension of the programme conceived by Ioan Inocentiu Micu-Klein and materialized in the document known under the name of “Supplex Libellus Valachorum”, from 1791. Keith Hitchins stresses the complex process of the adaptation of the Enlightenment ideas coming from Western and Central Europe that occurred in Transylvania, leading to the formation of the “Transylvanian School”. Cf. Ioan CHINDRIŞ, Cultură şi societate în contextul Şcolii Ardelene, Cluj-Napoca 2001; K. HITCHINS, The Rumanian national movement in Transylvania, 1780-1849, 112-134; History of Romania. Compendium, 453-455.

[113] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 123-124.

[114] It is about the spreading of the Supplex Libellus Valachorum of 1791-1792, then about the memorials of 1834 and 1842, written and addressed to the Court of Vienna, respectively the Diet of Transylvania by the two bishops, Orthodox and Greek Catholic, which remained unsolved for the Romanians. Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 3, 72-75.

[115] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 128.

[116] Cf. N. POPEA, Arhiepiscopul, Discurs, 8-9.


mihaela.stan December 14, 2016 Drept si Religie