Andrei Şaguna and “The Organic Statute” – IV. Andrei Şaguna – metropolitan of Transylvania
IV. ANDREI ŞAGUNA – METROPOLITAN OF TRANSYLVANIA
IV.1 The reestablishment of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania
The year 1864 – “a year of the supreme comfort and joy”– was crowned with a great success of the active bishop: on December 12/24, the emperor approved the reestablishment of the Orthodox Romanian Metropolitanate of Transylvania and Bishop Andrei Şaguna was entitled the archbishop and metropolitan of the Orthodox Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary: “Dear Baron of Şaguna. Listening to the demands of the Greek-Eastern Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary, in accordance with the intention manifested by my resolutions of September 27, 1860, and June 25, 1863, I approved the establishment of an independent Metropolitanate for them coordinated with the Serbian one, and that the Eparchy of Transylvania be raised at the rank of metropolitanate. At the same time, I consider proper to entitle you as the archbishop and metropolitan of the Greek-Eastern Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary. Vienna, December 24, 1864, Francis Joseph m.p.”
On the one hand, the demand to occur first a church assembly made up of clergy and laymen in order to elect the metropolitan followed by the recognition of the elected metropolitan and the new Metropolitanate by the emperor was not taken into consideration. One the other hand, Emperor Francis Joseph himself by the expression “Greek-Eastern Romanians” which replaced the famous one “not-Uniate” opened the path of the equal rights of the Orthodox of Transylvania, and not only of them, in the state legislation of the Austrian Monarchy. As a matter of fact, the elimination of the pejorative name “not-Uniate” used for the Orthodox within the monarchy had been asked explicitly in the meeting of September 11, 1864, of the synod from Karlowitz, because “our Church is called in the symbolic books ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church’; we entitle ourselves ‘Orthodox Christians’ and our Church ‘the Orthodox-Eastern Church’; it is Eastern as opposed to the Latin-Western Church and it is Orthodox, as opposed to the heresies and sects which were born from our Church …”
The same day, on December 12/24, 1864, the emperor announced the Serbian patriarch to have in view the summoning of a national congress at Karlowitz to resolve the separation of the common property of the Romanian canonical jurisdictional units that should be detached from the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz.
Later in time, Andrei Şaguna’s biographer Ioan Lupaş wrote: “For the Romanians it appears as a destiny of justice and for the Serbians as an irony of history that Şaguna who raised among the Serbians, who enjoyed in his youth the trust and favours of the Serbian metropolitans of Karlowitz, even he was called to carry out the plan – as wonderful as difficult it was – of the emancipation of the Orthodox Romanian Church from the Serbian hierarchy.”
Although from the six eparchies conceived by Andrei Şaguna to compose the Metropolitanate of Transylvania – the Eparchies of Sibiu, Arad, Bukovina, Timişoara, Caransebeş and Cluj – were approved only three – those of Sibiu, Arad and Caransebeş, the latter should be founded -, “the joy was great and whole. Such merry Christmas days as they were that year, the poor Romanians won’t have celebrated for centuries.”
Only the Romanians of Bukovina could not fully enjoy “because here do not rule our Saviour’s holly redeeming teachings, but only the human interests and whims.” Austria succeeded in cultivating for some time discord among the Romanians, following its old governing saying: divide et impera! This quarrelling policy led from Vienna found a docile supporter in the person of Bishop Eugeniu Hacman of Bukovina, who sheltered Şaguna’s plan and caused a great affliction in the hearts of many Romanians of Bukovina. The visionary character of Andrei Şaguna’s conception on the unitary organization of the Orthodox Romanians of the Austrian Monarchy was confirmed in 1923, by a Bukovinian: “The decades before the [First] World War and the fate the Church of Bukovina had show how careful was the bishop of Sibiu. How much damages for the Romanians of Bukovina could have been avoided if Şaguna’s plan had been achieved …”
The Romanians of Banat were also dissatisfied; after 1849, when they were incorporated into the Serbian Vojvodina, and more insistently after 1860, when they passed to Hungary, the Romanians of Banat militated in favour of their incorporation into the Romanian Metropolitanate of Transylvania. In 1860, Bishop Andrei Şaguna together with Andrei Mocioni/Mocsonyi and Nicolae Petrino, as representatives of the Romanians of Transylvania, Banat, and respectively Bukovina, began a common action with an aim to re-establish the Metropolitanate.
Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna himself could not either be satisfied with the ecclesiastical situation of the Romanians of Banat, left outside the Metropolitanate, but under the circumstances he could not do more.
Although preparative to enthrone the Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna on the metropolitan see according to the tradition were made, namely in the big church of Răşinari, the enthronement did not happen, because the required diplomas necessary to re-establish the Metropolitanate and his appointment were late. However, Metropolitan Andrei worked in his new ecclesiastical office, considering himself enthroned.
The final document that marked the official inauguration of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania was the imperial resolution of July 6, 1865, by which the separation of the Eparchies of Arad and Caransebeş from the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz was declared, beginning with July 15, 1865. By the imperial Diplomas of July 8, 1865, the new canonical territory of the Eparchy of Arad and the establishment of the Eparchy of Caransebeş were decreed, as suffragan bishoprics of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania.
At the beginning of 1865, the metropolitan leading a delegation of Romanians of Transylvania, Banat and Hungarian territories went to the emperor to thank him for the support given to re-establish the Metropolitanate. During the audience of February 6, Emperor Francis Joseph I declared: “I am glad to greet as archbishop and metropolitan a man richly deserved for the throne and his country, in whom I as well as all the Greek-Eastern Romanians fully trust.”
IV.2 The ecclesiastical autonomy; canonical-organizational attempts
As it was pointed out, after 1700, because of the unsuccessful attempt to annihilate the Orthodox Romanian Church of Transylvania, canonical-jurisdictional inter-Orthodox problems between the Romanians and Serbians came up. Naturally, the process of resolving these problems followed the path of their coming into existence.
The first necessary step was the decision of the Court to re-establish the Metropolitanate of Transylvania, by the imperial resolution of December 12/24, 1864.
The next step, a delicate one, was the division of the common funds and of the monasteries of Banat administrated by the Serbian hierarchy. The beginning of this separation de facto was, according to the above-mentioned imperial resolution of December 12/24, 1864, the congress summoned by the patriarch in February/March, 1865. The debates concerning the church funds and the common monasteries started on February 20, but the Romanian deputies left Karlowitz without coming to an agreement with the Serbians, followed by the fact that the political power had to resolve this aspect.
Because the political circumstances changed in a short time, the cause fell under the competence of the Magyar Parliament of Pest “which gave an unfavourable decision for the Romanians by transferring the problem the civil courts.” There followed a long press’ controversy between the Romanians and the Serbians, on this topic.
Aware that the organizational problems of the Metropolitanate since it was re-established belong to the Church itself, Metropolitan Andrei, soon after his appointment, “using the valuable support of his hardened friend Jakob Rannicher, a counsellor of the government in Budapest” got involved in the convocation of the mixed church synod of the whole metropolitan province that had to work out the church organization of the Metropolitanate. While he was at the synod in Karlowitz, in March 1865, Metropolitan Andrei asked Jakob Rannicher: “strictly confidentially, please do draft: […] 3. […] a representation to the same presidium of the State Ministry […]. By this we wish to ask to be allowed to hold a church assembly in which an organic regulation has to be made up, valid for the entire metropolitanate and its sole parts, then for the church and school funds and other confessional foundations; the regulation should be submitted to His Majesty to be sanctioned. This regulation would contain rules taken from the Church life which point out the path how the clergy and the laity – within a church discipline – can correspond to their confessional position and duty and can also enjoy their rights in the Church. In this respect I have elaborated a draft that will serve the assembly as a project and will regulate the debates. I will summon for this scope, together with the bishops of Arad and Caransebeş, thirty deputies from the clergy and sixty laymen who have to be elected in the solitary church districts of the Archbishopric and of the Eparchies of Arad and Caransebeş.” By another letter addressed to the same recipient Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna sent his “Project of Regulation” concerning the organization of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania, asking to examine its content and translate it into German. This was to be attached to “the representation” and presented the Aulic Chancellery. He mentioned that the last part concerning the right of supreme inspection of the Crown was not yet elaborate and that was the reason why he asked Rannicher to outline his option on this matter.
The political changes prevented the display of the things according to the metropolitan’s plans, the first mixed metropolitan assembly being summoned only in 1868, after the promulgation of the Law of the Magyar Diet by which the Metropolitanate of Transylvania was recognized in the new political frame: the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary.
Because at the time when the Article of Law IX/1868 of the Diet of Pest was adopted the discussions between the Romanians and the Serbians concerning the division of common property were not finished, Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna’s intervention in the meeting of the House of Magnates was decisive for the division of common property too. He pointed out eloquently: “I think that if we want to build the Church, we should not turn it into a leasing issue, but really believe that we have to preach about light, culture and freedom because, as Apostle Paul says, the Holy Ghost is freedom.”
It was not until 1873, after many discussions, that the Metropolitanate of Transylvania received 230,000 florins and only the monastery Hodoş-Bodrog on the territory of the Eparchy of Arad.
All that the metropolitan could do before 1868 – regarding the canonical organization of the Metropolitanate – was the consecration and enthronement, on October 31/November 12, 1865, of the bishop of the newly established Eparchy of Caransebeş, in the person of Archimandrite Ioan Popasu. The political situation blocked so much the favourable working on the ecclesiastical level, that by the end of 1867 Metropolitan Andrei was writing: “‘Hermannstädter Zeitung’ brings the news today that the Romanian and Serbian deputies met at a conference, where they discussed the solution of their ecclesiastical cause in the parliament. […] I wish that the deputies produce a valuable thing, because their Church is still a slave.”
The autonomy of the Metropolitanate toward the state became final in 1868. By the imperial resolution of October 1, it was disposed the return of all the eparchial funds – which until then were in the administration of the state bodies – in the direct administration of the Metropolitanate, on the basis of its right of autonomy.
Some of the Church matters of the Orthodox Romanians of Transylvania – older than hundred and fifty years – were resolved like that, as a result of a strong and strained struggle. Beginning with 1864, Andrei Şaguna showed in a private letter to his secretary to be tired of so much work, but confident of the success, owing to his conviction that his cause was just, and to “the weapons” he relied upon all his life: his belief in God, morality and knowledge. “I am tired of fights and I wish peace. But that won’t be easy. Finally, I put all my trust into the Almighty Who holds in his hands the destiny of all peoples. If He gives us courage, we will come off victorious, because we have not had until now but two weapons, moral and intellectual ones. Therefore each of us must improve in his call, because we have enemies as many as the grains of sea sands and we can make them inoffensive only by morality and knowledge; that way can we enjoy the right that is owed to us, as a moral and political individuality.
If you are to know about progress of my life, you should know that such principles led me. But it could not be otherwise. The places where I defeated and the persons of high rank who I met are known. And the door was opened in front of me and I was listened to, because morality and knowledge are not easily ignored or despised.”
The posterity of the most famous metropolitan of Transylvania did not forgot to be grateful for his gain, which was achieved with much sacrifice, after many endeavours: “In the house of humility of the Eparchy of Sibiu he handled and spoke like an old aristocrat, a great lord, a prince of the most glorious Church. It seems that his authority created a respected past the eparchy where he ruled. And thus, in 1864 he became metropolitan and won the [ecclesiastical] independence from the foreigners.”
IV.3 The legal recognition of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania
IV.3.1 The end of the constitutional experimentation in Transylvania: the Diet of Cluj of November/December 1865
On July 30, 1865, the State Minister Anton von Schmerling resigned, which practically meant the end of the parliamentary life of the Romanians of Transylvania, initiated by the political organization of this minister. Within the context of the growth of Magyar pressures “the first sacrifice asked by the reconciliation of the Magyars with the dynasty [Habsburg dynasty] was the autonomy of Transylvania, followed, after two years, by the tearing of the national equal right articulated in the laws of the Diet of Sibiu.”
At the same time, “the sudden changes in the system of the régime had fallen over the Romanians of Transylvania like a thunderbolt and surprised them – in their dizziness – so much, that most of them lost their head. Their situation resembled a shipwreck, out of which everybody – in order to be saved – grasped the other by the hair and hence, instead of redeeming themselves, the more inevitably sank together.”
Around the major changes the monarchy was preparing the emperor called to Vienna several political leaders among whom Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna, who was received in audience on August 22, 1865. The metropolitan avoided to give any explanation on this audience. It is suggested that this was one of the least enjoyable of his audiences at the Court. Within the confused political context Metropolitan Andrei was writing to the Greek Catholic metropolitan: “In such a fatal position and under such critical circumstances, for me nothing is more useful than to hold attention so that the honour of the nation and its just cause should by no means be compromised, or at least not out of the bishops’ fault.”
On the other hand, the fact that the Orthodox metropolitan but not the elected representatives of the Romanians were informed by the emperor himself irritated more the intellectuals, who considered him anyway insufficiently nationalist and sold to the Austrians: “Şaguna’s actions, real and imagined, finally brought their long-smouldering resentment of episcopal leadership to an open break.” Neither the Greek Catholic metropolitan could accept that the Orthodox metropolitan was preferred instead of him: “From now on, the inflamed spirits raised against Şaguna either secretly or openly in the newspapers, like ordered by someone […]. The old Şuluţiu, hurt in his heart of hearts because he had been ignored by the emperor […], did not want to face Şaguna in Sibiu.” Metropolitan Andrei fully felt the tough blows: “for me, this year was very fatal; because some of the Romanian intelligentsia, ahead of them Şuluţiu attacked me in our newspapers.”
Not long after, by the rescript of September 1, 1865, the emperor dissolved the democratic Diet of Sibiu and summoned another one, on November 20/December 2, at Cluj, an aristocratic Diet which had to deal with one issue only: to revise the legal article concerning the union of Transylvania with Hungary. This last Diet in the history of Transylvania “was summoned based on the Transylvanian law of 1848”. Only eleven Romanians obtained seats of deputies as compared with forty-six in the previous Diet of Sibiu; Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna was called by emperor (as “Regalist”) together with other thirty-three persons, out of whom only nineteen came.
The first action of the Romanian deputies was to meet in a national conference “in order to come to an agreement on how they will act in the Diet”. The passivists led by George Bariţiu militated the Romanians should not join the Diet – likewise the Magyars acted toward the Diet of Sibiu – hoping to prevent the union between Transylvania and Hungary from taking place. The activists led by Andrei Şaguna militated in favour of the Romanians representativeness in the Diet of Cluj in order to defend the rights obtained at Sibiu.
In the Diet, the Magyars’ rigid attitude made the Romanian deputies think of presenting a memorandum to the emperor, declaring the Diet illegal, asking for a new one that had to be called based on a liberal electoral law.
The debate of this memorandum was made in the meeting of the Diet of November 20/December 2, 1865. In his speech at that meeting, Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna underlined the fact that the Diet was illegal, as it was based on the legislation before 1848 and as such was not constitutional and consequently, unable to deliver lawful documents. He conceived a motion, asking to be sent an address to the Court in order to approve the electoral law processed by the Diet of Sibiu in 1863-1864 and then, the Diet of Cluj should be summoned according to the electoral law of Sibiu. Finally, the Diet of Cluj so summoned could be able to revise the legal article of 1848, concerning the union between Transylvania and Hungary. Until then, the Romanian representatives in the Diet of Cluj decided to remain active and go, if necessary, even to Pest to defend the national rights by the separate vote.
Among other things, the metropolitan expressed his conviction that in the Orthodox Church the constitutionalism is at home, more than in the political life of the country: “I confess that I am a reserved man; […] I do not go to balls or the theatre, I always sit by my books. Yet, I can perceive certain things and I have a thorough knowledge on the constitutional life, because although I am a new citizen inside constitutionalism – being until now excluded from it [as an Orthodox and Romanian] – this exclusion concerned only the political constitutionalism. In my Church the constitutionalism is so perfect that I would recommend it to the whole world! So I have learnt about the virtue of constitutionalism in my Church; as for political constitutionalism, it is said to be equal rights, but I have not felt it. [our reference][…] Because I am a partisan of the constitutionalism, I came to this Diet, following my own conviction, for to prove that I am acquainted with constitutionalism, legality and their consequences. Well, we are in the Diet, but I feel obliged to confess that it is not made up according to the law, constitutional, and therefore I am not its friend; and I feel obliged to confess too, that I do not like to follow the inconsistence on the constitutional realm.” As his secretary later remarked, “we might say that Metropolitan Şaguna had reached the culmination of his political maturity, at this Diet.”
On December 2/14, 1865, the Magyar Diet of Pest opened, and on December 13/25, Emperor Francis Joseph gave an answer to the address of the Diet of Cluj, inviting the people of Transylvania to designate their representatives for the Diet of Pest, elected according to the electoral law of 1848. He promised that the already approved laws “would not be changed at all” and suspended the Diet of Transylvania for an unlimited time. Because he has never summoned it again, this document marked the end of the legal historical period of Transylvania under the Habsburg reign, which had started with Diploma Leopoldinum in 1691; Transylvania ceased de facto to exist as an autonomous principality.
IV.3.2 The Article of Law IX/1868 of the Diet of Pest
Until June 1866, a committee of the Diet of Pest had already worked out a project concerning the relationships between Hungary and Austria, with some concessions made to the Austrian Empire from the part of the Magyars. The same year, by the peace of Prague, of August 23, the Habsburg dynasty entered under the hegemony of Prussia and by the peace of Vienna, of October 12, it lost Venice.
Under the influence of these events, the dispute between the passivists and the activists in Transylvania became extremely. The distinctive sign of the activists was their wish to act within the existing system. Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna was the promoter of the idea that the most effective way to defend the Romanians’ rights was their full participation in the political life of the state, in the new form it was shaping.
The culmination of the conflicts among the Romanian political leaders was reached in 1866, at Alba-Iulia, when in a private conference of the political leaders gathered to participate in the general assembly of “The Transylvanian Society for the Romanian Literature and the Culture of the Romanian People” (ASTRA) Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna was charged to present a new memorandum to the emperor. But this memorandum was neither conceived, nor sent. Instead, it was decided that George Bariţiu and Ioan Raţiu go to the emperor with a petition signed by 1,000 people. This thing made behind the Orthodox metropolitan “broke totally the Romanians’ solidarity, re-made whole so many times and sustained with many difficulties, producing again hate and groups among Romanians and discord between the two metropolitans.” This final break was followed by many controversies and poisoned articles in the newspapers against the Metropolitan Andrei, “discomfort and other many troubles”: “The hate some Romanian Uniate intellectuals show me in ‘The Transylvania’s Gazette’ and even in ‘The Romanian’- an offensive paper from Bucharest – is for me the most bitter cup, which of course, I have not deserved […]. And thus, a controversy started between ‘The Romanian Telegraph’ and the other Romanian newspapers. See, my dear friend, this is the reward of the world!” At the same time, the metropolitan felt obliged to notice the involution of the political situation in the empire: “the misfortune lies in the existence of a conservative old government. And so, we are where we started, because here are normative not the persons, but the principles. I emphasize my opinion with the assertion that our Church and school matters are discussed at Buda, still following Count Thun’s principles, so what is the use of the changing of the persons?”
On February 17, 1867, the reestablishment of the Magyar constitution of 1848 – The April Laws – was proclaimed, followed on February 18, by the appointment of a responsible Prime Minister, in the person of Count Julius Andrássy. Baron József Eötvös – Andrei Şaguna’s friend from his youth – was again appointed minister of public worship and instruction.
In 1867 Metropolitan Andrei took part in the Diet of Pest, and on June 8, in the coronation ceremonies of the emperor as king of Hungary, as ratification act of Dualism.
The reconciliation of the Magyars with the dynasty of Habsburg being sealed like this, Schmerling’s system of centralization was buried for ever. The beginning of Dualism meant not only the loss of the Romanians’ rights pledged by the laws of the Diet of Sibiu of 1863-1864, the shattering of the dream of Transylvania’s autonomy, for which they had fought two decades, the end of Vienna’s political competences in Transylvania’s matters, but also a regrettable hatred among the leaders of the Romanians and a total break up of their actions in the years to come.
The Article of Law of 1863, by which the Romanian nation and its confessions, the Greek Eastern (Orthodox) and Greek Catholic Churches, were recognized as equal with the other nations and confessions of the country being cancelled, the legal status of the Orthodox became ambiguous. Metropolitan Andrei had to deal again with it. The legal frame of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania had to be completed by moving its cause from Vienna to “the new and uncertain front of Budapest”.
The passivists had won more and more adherents owing to an unrealistic assessment of the successes the Magyars had obtained by this kind of policy, or the Croatians’ resembling actions. But Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna remained constant in his opinion that the Romanians must be active under any circumstances or political context, in order not to lose the ground obtained with so much difficulty.
At the general assembly of “The Transylvanian Society for the Romanian Literature and the Culture of the Romanian People” (ASTRA) from Cluj, on August 27, 1866, the metropolitan was removed ungratefully as a president of the association he himself had founded and led from the very beginning. Thus “seeing himself abandoned by the whole nation – not only on the political, but also on the literary level – he retired in his ostracism within the Church domain, to try to redeem at least it from the dangers it was threatened by, as much as it would be possible.”
The year 1868 marked the end of Andrei Şaguna’s political public activity. He took part for the last time in the meetings of the Diet of Pest, pleading for the legal recognition of his Metropolitanate at the same time at Court, at the new Magyar Ministry of Public Worship, but especially “at his school mate and childhood friend, Baron Eötvös”.
As a result of Metropolitan Andrei’s insistency, a special Law came up, presented by the minister of public worship at the meeting of the parliament of March 30, 1868, and after “serious debates” this Law was passed and also sanctioned by the emperor, on June 24, 1868. That was the legal recognition, in the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary, of the existence of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania, equal with that of Karlowitz. The law confirmed the faithful’ right to decide and regulate in church assemblies – called congresses – their ecclesiastical, school and economic matters; to administrate them independently, by their own bodies. It was disposed the convocation of the Romanian church congress without delay, and at the same time established the number of deputies of the congress. The church autonomy within the state – an important principle of Andrei Şaguna’s church organization – was infringed only by the Crown’s right of “supreme inspection”.
Although accustomed with laws which theoretically granted equal corporate rights with other confessions, but which practically were either not respected or annulled, the Transylvanian Orthodox showed this time more confident. Yet, “this law (IX/1868) had a fatal part for the Romanians. The Greeks of Braşov and Pest sharing the churches with the Romanians went to Court since the last century (1786), because they wanted the hegemony of Greek language and to remove the Romanians from church; these litigations were not over yet and made the existence of Romanians and Greeks together unbearable. That is why the Greeks found in the incident of separation of the hierarchical structures of the Romanians from the Serbians the most welcome occasion to emancipate from both Romanians and Serbians.” The fruit of their insistence was the article 9 of the Law, by which the church autonomy was pledged to those Orthodox who were neither Serbians, nor Romanians. The follow up of this article was that the Greeks of Pest did not receive anymore in their church community any Romanian, and then, drawing on their side some of the Macedo-Romanians they withdrew the Romanian language from church, beginning with February 6, 1888; the Greeks of Braşov obtained – by trial – the removing of the Romanians from the church they shared with, without returning the big fortune which the Romanian prince George Brâncoveanu had left to this church, in 1823.
Through the Article of Law IX/1868 was reached the legal recognition of the Transylvanian Orthodox in the new political context – the first fundamental desiderata of Andrei Şaguna’s political involvement. After that he gave up the second desideratum – to obtain corporate rights for the Romanian nation – withdrawing from politics: “As a result of all those [misunderstandings and conflicts with the Romanian politicians], Metropolitan Şaguna, deeply disgusted, withdrew completely from political national realm, to the ruin of the Romanian cause and the bitterness of all sensitive Romanians.”
Although he withdrew disappointed from politics, Metropolitan Andrei remained unique in his art of getting involved in the social-political issues: “none of its [the Church’s] leaders, either Uniate or Orthodox, ever enjoyed the preeminent position in national affairs that Şaguna had held between 1848 and 1865.”
A last attempt of some political leaders to co-opt him again in the leadership of the national cause, in the years 1871-1872 – to which the metropolitan responded well, signing even the convocation of a national congress which was planned to be held at Sibiu, in August 1872 – failed because of confessional splits, supported and well speculated by the Magyars: Ioan Vancea, the new Greek Catholic metropolitan refused to sign the appeal, because he had started some reconciliation negotiations with the Magyars.
IV.4 The canonical organization of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania
IV.4.1 The first church congress of autumn 1868; “The Organic Statute”
According to the §6 of the Article of Law IX of 1868, Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna organized the first Romanian church congress at Sibiu, between September 16/28 and October 7/19, 1868, in order to constitute and organize the metropolitan province. Ninety elected deputies from all the eparchies of the Metropolitanate, thirty priests and sixty laymen gathered.
In the opening speech of this congress, the metropolitan underlined once more the importance and necessity of the mixed synods within Church: “Because His Majesty appointed our metropolitan only once, at the foundation of our Metropolitanate, without to indicate in advance about the legal future modality to elect the metropolitan or the bishops, therefore assigned me together with the bishops, to suggest such a modality of the future elections. We, the bishops, approached this subject at the synod of August 16, 1865, and found out unanimously that we do not have the authority to deal with this subject without the intervention of the representatives of the clergy and the faithful from all over the Metropolitanate; consequently, only a Romanian congress is authorized to legally approach this. […]
If we sometimes used to impose something, we did this just because of the circumstances, having the conviction that our clergy and faithful will be content, but in no case did we that with the intention to ascertain or establish in our church, school or foundation matters any hierarch’s absolutism. Because of this, I have to underline that if we have sometimes used imposed matters, these are not to be understand strictly us imposed; because something which is imposed always means an arbitrary measure in the Church. I did not take any arbitrary measure concerning the issue of the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate, but being prevented by the circumstances to consult our men, I worked alone in the sense of the positive Church’s laws. And thus, I have sometimes worked alone to accomplish our ecclesiastical wish, as canons dictated me, but not to introduce and establish any hierarch’s absolutism, which I have always opposed to …”At the same time, faithful to the anti-clerical and anti-authoritative conception on Church and its administration, he assigned out of his own initiative major administrative competences to the congress, making it responsible regarding the future destiny of the Metropolitanate: “From now on, I entrust the responsibility regarding the future destiny of the Church in the hands of this congress and the following ones …”
In the third meeting of the congress, of September 18/30, the “Project of Regulation” conceived by Andrei Şaguna himself meant to organize the Metropolitanate was submitted again to a committee of the congress, made up of twenty-seven people – three clergy and six laymen from each eparchy. Then, beginning with the eighth meeting, of October 3/15, until the eleventh meeting, of October 6/18, the congress itself debated the changes which the committee made at Andrei Şaguna’s “Project of Regulation”, and thus was born “The Organic Statute” – the church constitution of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania. “In the twelfth meeting of October 7, the debate on ‘The Organic Statute’ was finished and it was agreed unanimously that after its approval by His Majesty it will become final and turned into practice; until then it should be used provisory in each parish and protopopiate.”
Aware of the content and the essential provisions of his “Project of Regulation”, conceived on a thorough research of the Tradition and Orthodox canons, Metropolitan Andrei warned cautiously the members of the congress: “Take care, gentlemen, not to ruin things, instead of setting them in order; I draw your attention that this great concern I had the honour to present like a project is many years old, not just one day old!” It is exactly this warning that has not been taken into consideration, and the changes brought to the project “precisely in which they differ from it, do not correspond to the nature of such a thing, to the canons and church institutions.”
This happened because: “The ambitious and frustrated national leaders who were present had no intention of letting such an opportunity to achieve their goals slip by. Moreover, many of them were opponents of political activism and were eager to use the congress to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with ecclesiastical leadership of the nation’s affairs. It quickly became evident from the debates that they had a very different conception of the nature of the Church and the significance of its role in society than did Şaguna. Şaguna believed that the clergy should stand at the head of all the constituent organs of the Church, from the village parish to the synod of bishops, as a consequence of the powers conferred upon it by both ancient custom and canon law. He contended that certain matters such as the purity of dogma and of ritual and the dispensing of ecclesiastical justice were exclusive prerogatives of the clergy.”
One of the changes aimed at the consistorial assessors (bishop’s councillors): according to the metropolitan’s project the consistorial assessors had to be selected among the priests and appointed by the respective bishop, while the committee of the congress suggested that laymen should also be part of the consistory and they should be elected by the synod, not appointed by the bishop. Moreover, the committee made the consistory’s decisions compulsory for the bishop. “He tried in vain to convince the congress that this institution would be against the canons and practice of the Church; all his explanations were useless, the committee insisted and the congress approved it by a majority of votes, thus the metropolitan remained in the minority. […] the metropolitan retired very upset and one could believe that this incident would bring the dissolution of the congress itself.” The misunderstandings between the metropolitan and the laymen consisted in the different fundament and motivation of their activity within Church: “The lay majority of the congress showed little knowledge of church history and even less appreciation of the subtleties of canon law. The motivation behind their actions sprang chiefly from liberal political ideas, as was evident from their eagerness to transplant the practices of Western European parliamentary democracy into Orthodox Church government. Their aim was to use the Church to carry out their ambitious social and political program.”
At the end of this congress “Metropolitan Şaguna, tired of fighting, traveling and work, older but also totally disgusted with the misunderstandings among the Romanians, began to travel less, to retire; even so, retired, he continued to serve the common good.”
The project of statute approved by the congress was submitted to the Ministry of Public Worship of Pest, to be sanctioned. Minister József Eötvös set up a board meant to check it, led by himself. The board read and analyzed excerpt by excerpt everything. Nine points were subject to change, but the Romanian referents preferred that they should be rectified by the ministry, without sending the whole statute for a new check up to a future Romanian congress. Their decision proved to be providential, because the minister died soon. Because of the old friendship between József Eötvös and Andrei Şaguna, but also owing to the respect and authority József Eötvös enjoyed in the Andrássy government, he passed the statute easier beyond Andrássy’s vigilant eye. Later, when the Serbian Orthodox conceived such a statute, “it was censured by Andrássy, who – when he was told by referent Mandics that the Orthodox Romanian bishops are elected by the eparchial synod – would not believe it, and – when he was shown the respective paragraph from ‘The Organic Statute’ of the Romanians, sanctioned by His Majesty – exclaimed: ‘poor Eötvös! He had before his eyes only American institutions, and things go not like this in America, either!’”
On May 28, 1869, “The Organic Statute” proposed by the Romanian church congress, with the changes introduced by the Magyar Ministry of Public Worship was sanctioned by the emperor. After that Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna began to turn it into practice and organize the entire metropolitan province following the provisions of the statute.
IV.4.2 The mixed arch-eparchial synod and the second church congress of 1870
According to “The Organic Statute” the mixed eparchial synod was held annually and the metropolitan congress gathered every three years. “This year  on Thomas’s Sunday, we held the eparchial Synod, the first one according to ‘The Organic Statute’.” Then, between 1/13 and 16/28 October 1870, the second church congress was held. Like at the previous congress, misunderstandings and controversies among the participants came up, some of them insisted to be taken steps in order to reject the changes of “The Organic Statute” made by the Magyar Ministry of Public Worship. On the other hand, an article of “The Romanian Telegraph” of July 1869 had reported that the changes made in the text of “The Organic Statute” by the Magyar Ministry are regrettable, but it thought that it were well to accept this statute how it was, because “any constitutional life does not start with the perfection”.
A very bothering incident for the metropolitan occurred during this congress, when he drew the attention on some disciplinary-moral misbehaviours some priests, even protopopes were accused of, by the faithful: “Look! Some of the deputies felt hurt by the fatherly words addressed by the venerated metropolitan, although he had uttered the pure truth; they pulled the alarm, laid the blame on the metropolitan in a private conference, asking that he should be punished, because he hurt the clergy! […] Metropolitan Şaguna was upset in his heart of hearts and when he came out of the meeting, he tore his testament and threw it into the fire!” The metropolitan himself was describing the event sadly: “Well! Another thing concerning my person: the commission referred about the necessity of a reduction of the clergy and mentioned that the clergy’s culture won’t be enough, if their number is not reduced. I showed the great lack of clergy’s culture, because only through culture its morality will be accomplished; and I added that among them there are priests who are drunkards, or accustomed to play cards, or attend the pub, and only few who endeavour to make progress for their own culture, I could count them on my ten fingers. And listen, when I stepped out of the meeting Borlea attacked me that I have blamed all the priests, which does not suit me, in short he faced and defied me before the others, and together with Măcelariu worked and sent to me a deputation in order to withdraw my words, but the deputation stayed outside; the following day, in public meeting, Borlea and Măcelariu imputed me those words and I dissimulated do not understand them, because I stay away from furious people. What is your opinion on this? The archdiocesan synod and the metropolitan congress watch every occasion to dishonour me.”
Another contemporary of Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna, namely Ilarion Puşcariu wrote also, in 1909, about the episode in which the metropolitan tore the testament, but in a different way: “Metropolitan Şaguna, since the beginning of his ministry in the Transylvanian Church, observing the total lack of material resources looked for sources of church revenues adding kreutzer by kreutzer and thus he set up the actual arch-eparchial funds, which in 1870 did not look like a considerable fortune so that one might spend easily without jeopardizing the whole. In spite of all this, in the arch-eparchial synod of 1870 the first thing for some interested lay members of the synod was to create more posts of school referents in the consistory – with big salaries – for school matters which until then were solved by the president and secretary of the consistory; but it took several years of development until more referents were suddenly needed. The metropolitan saw on the one hand that not the necessity of two referents, who were maybe welcome, led the majority of the synod when it decided to create two posts, but rather the ardent desire of some members of the synod to occupy those posts; on the other hand he saw that the funds created by him are jeopardized by assigning too heavy tasks, even unbearable. He also noticed that his good advice – to take care of the funds created with so much difficulty – was not taken into account. Consequently, he got so upset, that when he arrived home from the synod he tore his testament which he had written a few months before. From here it followed that he wrote another testament and, as a sign of his distrust toward the ecclesiastical bodies, he took his personal funds – one bearing his name and another on behalf of the printing house – from the direct administration of those bodies, and gave them to some special boards, a thing that, without these explanations, many cannot explain it themselves.”
Even if the tearing of the will is presented as being done in two different circumstances, it is to believe that both events were real, owing to the fact that those who reported were theirs contemporaries. It is an extra proof that Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna had enough reasons to be disillusioned, after such a titanic work for the benefit of the Church, because many understood by the Church just an institution behind which one could live profitably.
His state of mind by the end of 1870 is best described by himself, in a letter to a friend – Ioan Cavalier of Puşcariu (Ilarion Puşcariu’s brother) – : “I supposed that you would get astonished because I wanted to have that ABC [of the Hebrew language]; but if you knew my life which thousands of unpleasant circumstances influence on, and if you knew how those fatal circumstances work upon me, then you would recognize by yourself that the study of languages is the only comfort which sustains my spirit in a normal state, I could say which keep away the spiritual despair, which is the most terrible disease. Believe me, there have been two weeks since the congress, and I still feel the arrows and wounds in my heart bleeding, which the congress provoked. I can add that the congress renewed the wounds made by the [arch-eparchial] synod. And when I think of the arch-eparchial synod near coming, believe me that I am taken by the creeps. […] It is true that I have good and capable men, but I also have malicious and envious ones, who can make the good and active ones get paralyzed.”
One of the theology professors and collaborators – Ilarion Puşcariu – remembered: “In the year 1868 Metropolitan Şaguna was in perfect health, he was vigorous, in spite of his grey hair which showed early in his life, he was agile and extremely in love with hard work. That year Metropolitan Şaguna participated and spoke with great success in the House of the Magnates [of Pest], insisting on the separation from the Serbian hierarchy, on the autonomy of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Hungary and the legal recognition of the Metropolitanate; that year he also led the Romanian church congress, where ‘The Organic Statute’ of our Church was worked out. A big difference in his state of mind and the condition of his body was noticed after two years, in the arch-eparchial synod and the church congress of 1870.”
IV.5 The last years of Andrei Şaguna’s life
During the summer of 1871, the symptoms of the disease (hypertrophy and dilation of the heart) which will be fatal to the metropolitan became acute. The fact that Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna knew and lived in the spirit of the canons is shown by the episode of re-writing of his testament, as a result of the sharp outbreak of the disease. His secretary Nicolae Popea narrated: “He had become highly perplexed at the beginning of his disease, because of the will which he was lacking. He said: ‘For God’s sake, I do not have a will and the canons ask for, in the case of a bishop!’ Suddenly, very frightened, eyes in tears, he began to re-write his will.”
On August 21/September 2, 1871, the clergy and faithful organized the anniversary of the twenty-five years since Andrei Şaguna began his activity in the Church of Transylvania. Invited to take part in the jubilee, the metropolitan gave a noble answer: “The truth is that the Almighty was willing, by His mercy only, to redeem and set free our Church and nation from the condition of slave, in the days of my pasturing; but from here I cannot deduce any consequence meant to glorify my name, so that a jubilee of twenty-five years to be held in my honour. You know, gentlemen! That all the gifts and the grace come from heaven, from our Father of the Light; from this liturgical prayer I draw the consequence that we have to bring our thanks during all the days of our lives to God and to His Majesty, because we were freed from political bondage and church slavery. If it is your wish to celebrate the jubilee of twenty-five years of my working within the Church of Transylvania, appreciating you as free and independent men I do not stop you, only please, receive my sincere discovery that along all these twenty-five years I avoided any applause; hence, I will avoid the ovations of this day too and stay alone, in fasting and prayer, to thank God and His Majesty for all the good graces which were shed upon our Church and the Romanian nation along these twenty-five years.”
So he reserved the right to be absent from the festivities, retiring at Răşinari. There he wrote the dedication from the beginning of the collection of canons which he had just finished to prepare: “Dedicated by the author to the faithful of the Romanian Metropolitanate of Greek-Eastern confession in Hungary and Transylvania.”
In the same year, 1871, the ancient Romanian Academic Society, the present day Romanian Academy made the venerable metropolitan a member of honour, in the meeting of September 7.
As his disease grew worse, this made him declare in a private letter by the end of the year that he was already prepared for death: “My physical strength diminishes. Today I have celebrated liturgy in the inner chapel, because I had to ordain a priest and I was so weak that I could hardly finish the Holy Liturgy. It does not matter; I am prepared and I quietly wait for what has to come.”
The same collaborator Ilarion Puşcariu wrote: “Metropolitan Şaguna’s disease progressed and aggravated successively, following his restless and unquiet state of mind which he had experienced in the last years of his life, owing to the continuous, undeserved attacks, especially in the Romanian newspapers, from those most of whom owed him thanks. Even those who were appointed in high positions by Şaguna, in their ignorance not to say wickedness, believed to bring a national sacrifice if they hurt him too.”
Because of the often attacks of his disease, in the last two years of life Metropolitan Andrei wrote little, the last literary composition of him being the pastoral letter on Easter, of the year 1872. Yet, “at the time he also led the church administration until he felt short of powers. In the official matters he was not the man of clichés, he was very prompt. Three words written with the ballpoint pen by him, accompanied by an A. [from Andrei], they were a more valuable conclusion than one on papers beautifully written, because what he wrote was written and it was not changed and everybody could rely on.” He “regularly went to church, during the Lent too, on Wednesday and Friday, to the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. He stood in the pew, showing a majestic appearance. He noticed the tiniest mistakes made during the celebration; he invited at home the one who made mistakes and kindly showed him the ritual.”
The discontentedness did not avoid him till the moment of his death. Thus, in February 1872 the metropolitan was writing: “I assisted at the clerical exams and I was content only with Ilarion’s [Ilarion Puşcariu, Ioan Cavalier of Puşcariu’s brother] professorship; the others were horrible; I found out there is no harmony among the theological studies, because the professors are not acquainted with the knowledge of our theology and are not inspired by the teachings of our Church, which are classical and which no other Church can be proud of; I am sure that they treat their profession as an accident and spend their time outside professorship trying to make profits and get money.”
In the summer of 1872, Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna made another attempt to bring the Romanians to a political agreement, urging them to be active and send deputies in the Diet of Pest. To this purpose he sent to Blaj representatives to talk to the Greek Catholic metropolitan; at Sibiu was held a political conference and was published a brochure entitled “The Romanian cause in 1872” (“Cauza română la anul 1872”) in which the starting and directing points of the political situation were made clear; “but everything was in vain”. Overwhelmed by illness, the metropolitan could not turn into practice a last attempt to improve the political situation: an appeal to the people. “He strongly wished to see his people once more, that people he so much loved, to speak to it from the bottom of his heart, to show it the real state of things and at the same time the root of evil, being sure of the good result of his enterprise.”
During the sessions of the mixed arch-eparchial synod of 1873, on a visit paid by the members of the synod at his residence, although he was so ill, the metropolitan wished to assure once more his collaborators about the importance of “The Organic Statute”, and about their responsibility for keeping and correct turning into practice of this church constitution. He drew their attention “on the beautiful church constitution we have, recommending it to be taken care of by the synod, so that it should not be damaged, but stay pure and keep its good name together with the faithful of our Church, from the young to the old ones, in front of other confessions and nations of the state.”
And so, between great pains and hard sufferings, Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna resisted until Saturday, June 16/28, 1873, 6 o’clock p.m. According to the testimony of those present, his last words addressed to the eparchial vicar were: “I’m ready, Nicolae! God’s will be done, everything is in order. Peace be with you all, do not quarrel!” At the end of a life full of events, he had a feeling of accomplishment, and also the one of his own value; the words addressed to one of those close to him, during his illness, remained famous: “When you come back from my tomb, you will know who you have lost!”
By his will, the metropolitan expressed the wish to be buried in a simple way: “My funeral shall be done before noon, without pomp, music and sermon. […] my confessor alone shall celebrate the Holy Liturgy and accomplish the funeral service …”
Simplicity of the funeral did not exclude grandiosity, on the contrary. The general sympathy he had always enjoyed manifested itself on the occasion of his death too, by the common spontaneous mourning, by the ringing of the bells in all the churches of Sibiu, by the participation of people from all the social classes of Sibiu in his funeral, as well as by the obituaries in all the newspapers.
One of the periodicals of Sibiu, the German newspaper “Hermannstädter Zeitung” was writing: “he understood the spirit of his time and the spirit of his time understood him; we cannot do anything else, than express and place on the great man’s grave a wreath of veneration and glory. Our paper is a German one. The Romanians, who have lost in Şaguna more, see in our deep condolences that they are not the only ones able to understand and value his real and historical greatness.”
On the jubilee of twenty-five years since he became emperor of Austria, in December 1873, Emperor Francis Joseph I expressed his regret for the Transylvanian metropolitan’s death, naming it “a multilateral loss”.
In 1908 Ioan Lupaş – the first Andrei Şaguna’s biographer in the twentieth century – questioned rhetorical: “And where would the Orthodox Romanian Church of Transylvania be without him? If the redeeming work of this lawgiver ‘strong in deed and word’ had missed, who could have ‘turned away the offenders, scolding them’, who would have put together ‘those destined to perish’, direct and advise them in order to reach the redemption? It would have been difficult to find another one, able to accomplish so brightly a so important historical, religious, cultural and political call, as was Şaguna’s call.”
Image: a picture of Andrei Șaguna colored by Paul Kerestes. Source: Internet
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 95.
 “Autograful împărătesc pentru înfiinţarea metropoliei române şi denumirea episcopului Şaguna de archiepiscop şi metropolit” (“The imperial autograph for the establishment of the Romanian Metropolitanate and appointment of Bishop Şaguna as an archbishop and metropolitan”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 305: “Lieber Freiherr von Schaguna! Den Bitten der griechisch-orientalischen Romanen in Siebenbürgen und Ungarn willfahrend, habe Ich in Übereinstimmung mit der durch Meine Entschliessungen vom 27-ten September 1860 und vom 25-ten Juni 1863 kundgegebenen Absicht genehmigt, dass für dieselben eine selbstständige, der serbischen koordinirte Metropolie errichtet und die bischöfliche Kirche in Siebenbürgen zur Metropolitanwürde erhoben werde. Zugleich finde Ich Sie zum Erzbischofe und Metropoliten der griechisch-orientalischen Romanen in Siebenbürgen und Ungarn zu ernennen. Wien, 24-ten Dezember 1864, Franz Josef m.p.“
 Cf. “Adresa deputaţiunii române cătră împăratul presentată la 3/15 Martie 1862” (“The Romanian deputies’ address presented to the emperor on March 3/15, 1862”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 200-205; “Respunsul lui Şaguna cătră Nadasdy” (“Şaguna’s answer to Nádasdy”), dated Sibiu, July 26, 1863, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 210-216.
 Cf. J. SCHNEIDER, Der Hermannstädter Metropolit, 93.
 “Protocolul şedinţei sinodale, ţinută la Carloviţ în 11 Septembre 1864” (“The protocol of the synodal meeting, held on September 11, 1864, at Karlowitz”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 291-292 here 292.
 See “Autograful împărătesc îndreptat cătră patriarhul sârbesc privitoriu la întrunirea congresului sârbesc în causa împărţirii averii” (“The imperial autograph to the Serbian patriarch concerning the summoning of the Serbian congress on the matter of the division of property”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 305-306.
 I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 324.
 See “Respunsul lui Şaguna cătră Nadasdy” (“Şaguna’s answer to Nádasdy”), dated Sibiu, July 26, 1863, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 210-216.
 N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 296.
 The Romanians’ of Bukovina address to Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna, dated Czernowitz, January 1865, in: N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 299-301 here 300.
 Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Importanţa Mitropolitului Andrei Şaguna în istoria noastră naţională, 1105.
The Eparchy of Bukovina was raised at the rank of metropolitanate on January 23, 1873; it was given two suffragan Slavic eparchies in Dalmatia: Zara and Cattaro, which from a historical, geographical or ethnical point of view had nothing in common with Bukovina. In spite of his struggle and wish to be a metropolitan, Eugeniu Hacman was not enthroned, because he died on March 31, 1873. The first metropolitan of this metropolitanate was Teofil Bendela, consecrated bishop at Sibiu, on January 1874. Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, 100 de ani de la reînfiinţarea Mitropoliei Ardealului, 828.
 R. CÂNDEA, Andreiu Şaguna, 182.
 The new crown land of the “Serbian Vojvodina and the Banat of Timişoara” proclaimed by the Court of Vienna in 1849 for to punish the Magyars, in which the Romanians were a majority, ended in December 1860 when the bulk of Serbian Vojvodina’s territory was reincorporated in Hungary. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 427.
 See “Petiţiunea senatorilor imperiali Bar. Şaguna, Andreiu de Mocsonyi şi Bar. Petrino, din 21 Aug. 1860 pentru reînfiinţarea metropoliei ortodoxe române” (“The petition of the imperial senators Baron Şaguna, Andreiu of Mocsonyi and Baron Petrino, of August 21, 1860, concerning the reestablishment of the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 166-167.
 See Il. PUŞCARIU, Chestiunea instalării lui Andreiu Baron de Şaguna în scaunul metropolitan, 97-99 and 145-150; A. GRAMA, Memoria urmaşilor: Secvenţe, 125-126.
 The historians’ opinions concerning these diplomas are different: Ilarion Puşcariu denies their existence on the ground that they “are not to be found among other diplomas left from Metropolitan Şaguna, nor is it mentioned that someone else had seen them” (Il. PUŞCARIU, Chestiunea instalării lui Andreiu Baron de Şaguna în scaunul mitropolitan, 149); Ioan Mateiu on the contrary states that they were obtained “in January 1866”. (I. MATEIU, Şaguna şi restaurarea Mitropoliei, 21).
 Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, 100 de ani de la reînfiinţarea Mitropoliei Ardealului, 835.
 Cf. “Ministru-preşedinte Schmerling cătră metropolitul Şaguna privitoriu la resolvarea finală a despărţirii ierarchice” (“Minister President Schmerling to Metropolitan Şaguna concerning the final solution of the separation of hierarchy”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 388-389.
 See “Cuprinsul diplomei împărătesci despre estinderea eparchiei Aradului” (“The content of the imperial Diploma concerning the extension of the Eparchy of Arad”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 397-398.
 See “Cuprinsul diplomei împărătesci despre înfiinţarea eparchiei Caransebeşului” (“The content of the imperial Diploma concerning the establishment of the Eparchy of Caransebeş”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 396-397.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 96. See also “Cuvântarea mea cătră Împărat, când m’am înfăţişat la Prea înalt Acelaşi cu deputaţii din întréga metropolie de ai mulţămi pentru resolvirea metropoliei” (“My speech before the emperor, when I was together with the deputies from all our Metropolitanate to thank him for the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 320-322.
 G. BARITIU, Parti alese din istori`a Transilvaniei, 296-297.
 See the chapter I.2.3 herein.
 Cf. P. BRUSANOWSKI, Reforma constituţională, 121.
 See Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Jakob Rannicher, dated Karlowitz, March 2, 1865, in: Spicuiri şi fragmente din corespondenţa lui Şaguna, 488-492.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 96.
 The Austrian defeat by Prussia in the summer of 1866 and the internal agitation by the various nationalities of the empire determined Austria to conclude the Compromise of February 1867, known in German as the Ausgleich, which was signed by Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria and a Hungarian delegation led by Ferenc Deák, establishing the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary. Under the new arrangement, the Magyar dominated government of Hungary gained near equal status to the Austrian government based in Vienna, while the common monarch government had responsibility for the army, navy, foreign policy, and customs union. “The Compromise of 1867, which signified a victory for Deák’s policy, brought Hungary a degree of autonomy unprecedented since 1526. Moreover, internal power was almost entirely retained by the Magyars.” (R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 351) Both Austria and Hungary had their own Prime Minister and parliament. While in Hungary the legislative and executive authority followed the pattern established in 1848, the non-Hungarian Lands acquired separate constitutional laws (Staatsgrundgesetze), the so-called December Constitution, which in essence retained the narrower Reichsrat and the diets of the February Patent of 1861. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 300.
 N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 322.
 Ibid., 323.
 I. MATEIU, Şaguna şi restaurarea Mitropoliei, 15. On the friendship Andrei Şaguna – Jakob Rannicher see the chapter III.2.8 herein.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Jakob Rannicher, dated Karlowitz, March 5, 1865, în: Spicuiri şi fragmente din corespondenţa lui Şaguna, 492-496.
 This undated letter was published by Tschurl Max in the study “Biserica regnicolară evanghelică în ultimii 10 ani” (“The regnicolar Protestant Church in the last ten years”) in “Monografia Transilvaniei şi Bănatului” (“The Monography of Transylvania and Banat”), published in 1929. Cf. I. MATEIU, Şaguna şi restaurarea Mitropoliei, 17.
 Cf. ibid., 17.
 See the chapter IV.3.2 and a copy of the German text of the Law in the annex XIV herein.
 “Cuventarea Escelenţiei Sele Andreiu Baronu de Siagun’a, Metropolitulu Româniloru din Transilvani’a si Ungari’a, rostită in siedinti’a casei Magnatiloru dela 16 Maiu a.c.” (“The speech of His Excellency, Baron Andrei of Şaguna, the metropolitan of Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary, given in the Magnates’ Hall on May 16, of this year”), in: Telegrafulu Romanu, No. 37, May 9/21, 1868, 145.
 Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, 100 de ani de la reînfiinţarea Mitropoliei Ardealului, 836.
 Cf. “Ioan Popasu către Andrei Şaguna” (“Ioan Popasu to Andrei Şaguna”), dated Caransebeş, October 3, 1865, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 158-159.
 Archimandrite Ioan Popasu of Braşov had been elected by the bishops’ synod (made up, at that time, only of Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna and the bishop of Arad) and confirmed by the imperial resolution of July 6, 1865.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Jakob Rannicher, dated Sibiu, November 11, 1867, in: Spicuiri şi fragmente din corespondenţa lui Şaguna, 515-519 here 518-519.
 Cf. N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 345.
 “Andrei Şaguna către Nicolae Popea” (“Andrei Şaguna to Nicolae Popea”), dated Sibiu, November 15, 1864, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 175-176.
 N. IORGA, Oameni cari au fost, 47.
 About this minister, a Transylvanian contemporary of him gave testimony: “The most good-willing toward our Metropolitanate among the ministers of the time was Minister Schmerling. And if we are to confess the truth, we have to highly thank him for the reestablishment of our Metropolitanate.” N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 293-294.
 I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 274.
 I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 84.
 Ibid., 85; Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 97.
 Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 275.
 “Nr. 230, Sibiiu 11/23 Septemvre 1865” (“No. 230, Sibiu, September 11/23, 1865”), in: A. SIAGUN’A, Scrisori apologetice, 3-4 here 4; “Andrei Şaguna către Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu” (“Andrei Şaguna to Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu”), dated Sibiu, September 11/23, 1865, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 453-454 here 453.
 K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 149.
 I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 86-87.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 98.
 See I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 84-85; R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 140.
 The rebellion of the Magyars against the Austrian rule (1849) did not succeed, but during the reign of Austrian absolutism (1849-1860) there was no room for the Transylvanian Diet. The attempt of 1863/1864 to establish a Diet consisting of all three nationalities represented in Transylvania, namely the Hungarians (together with the Hungarian-speaking Szeklers), the Saxons and the Romanians failed after one year (1865) because of a boycott by the Hungarian deputies. As emperor Francis Joseph could not rule his multi-ethnical state without the help of the Magyars, he finally agreed to the unification of Transylvania with Hungary (1868). With this decision the Diet (Local Parliament) of Transylvania ceased to exist, because all future laws had to be decreed be the Hungarian Parliament in Budapest. Cf. R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 371.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 97.
 Cf. I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 90.
 Ibid., 91.
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 154. See also G. BARITIU, Parti alese din istori`a Transilvaniei, 347.
 Andrei Şaguna’s speech in the Diet of Cluj of 1865, stenographical notices, in: Telegraful Român, No. 92, year XIII, Sibiu, Nevember 21/December 3, 1865, 366.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 297.
 “Der für den 10. Dezember 1865 nach Pest berufene Landtag wurde am 14. Dezember vom Kaiser persönlich eröffnet. In seiner Thronrede stellte sich Franz Joseph auf den Boden der für König und Nation staatsrechtlich gleich verbindlichen Pragmatischen Sanktion und stimmte der magyarischen Forderung nach Wiederherstellung der territorialen Integrität des Stephansreiches in seiner durch die Achtundvierziger-Gesetze erreichten Gestalt zu.” F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 220.
 Cf. G. BARITIU, Parti alese din istori`a Transilvaniei, 347-348.
 Ibid., 348.
 Transylvania ceased de jure to exist as an autonomous principality, on December 1868. After the Austro-Hungarian dualism was inaugurated, in 1867, Emperor Francis Joseph finally promulgated the Law of the unification of Transylvania with Hungary, on December 9, 1868. See the Magyar text and the German translation of the Law, in: R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 359-369.
On the other hand, the Hungarian Parliament dissolved the Transylvanian National Government (Das Landesgubernium), too, by the Law XLVIII,7/1868. The government of Cluj worked until 30 April 1869, when it ceased to exist, after 178 years. Cf. R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 310.
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 155.
 Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 282; F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 220-221.
 “Am 3. Juli  wurde die österreichische Nordarmee aber bei Königgrätz geschlagen, und damit änderte sich die Stellung der Krone und der Regierung den Völkern der Monarchie gegenüber entscheidend. Daß der Tag von Königgrätz für die Gestaltung Mitteleuropas, ja vielleicht der ganzen Welt ein Tag des Unheils war, läßt seine Rückwirkungen auf den Bereich der Innenpolitik der Monarchie fast ohne Gewicht erscheinen.” F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 221.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 305.
 Ibid., 305.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Jakob Rannicher, dated December 22, 1866, in: Spicuiri şi fragmente din corespondenţa lui Şaguna, 506-509 here 508.
 Ibid., 509.
 Through the Compromise of 1867, the former revolutionaries – German and Magyar – became de facto “peoples of state”, each ruling half of a twin country united only at the top through the King-Emperor and the common Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of War. Each half of the country had its own Prime Minister and parliament.
Aside from the common affairs, the organization of legislative and executive authority in Hungary after the Compromise of 1867 followed the pattern established in 1848. The Diet turned into a parliament with the Table of Magnates (renamed the Upper House) – remaining partly hereditary and partly appointive – and the Lower Table (now called the House of Deputies) of 453 members being elected on the basis of a highly restrictive franchise. The special status of Transylvania and the Military Border ended, because The April Laws had brought Transylvania under Hungarian rule. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 351 et seq.
 The fact that Baron József Eötvös appreciated much the Metropolitan Andrei is reported by a former royal school inspector Rethy, Eötvös’s collaborator during this ministry: “It was 1869, when the minister of public worship and instruction Baron Eötvös sent me as school inspector in Hunedoara county, and he told me like that: ‘go to Metropolitan Şaguna first and bow before him. But take care how you appear before him, because that is a man who is so brainy, as half of the people in the country putted together’.” I. LUPAŞ, Şaguna şi Eötvös, 20.
 Cf. I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 114-118.
“Am 8. Juni 1867 wurden Franz Joseph und Elisabeth unter ungeheurem Jubel des Volkes und mit dem bekannten prunkvollen, das Auge blendenden Zeremoniell gekrönt. Am 12. Juni sanktionierte der gekrönte König dann den für den Ausgleich grundlegenden Gesetzartikel XII…” F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 225.
 The laws of the Diet of Transylvania of 1863-1864 were annulled by a royal rescript. Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 99.
 The Nationality Law of 1868, drafted by Eötvös failed to satisfy the wish of the non-Magyar nationalities for territorial autonomy. Moreover, Magyar became the official and state language to be used in the parliament, the courts, the higher education. Other languages were admissible in churches, county and municipal governments, and primary and secondary schools. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 351.
 See the chapter III.3.3 herein.
 I. MATEIU, Şaguna şi restaurarea Mitropoliei, 30.
 See K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 166-172.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 98; I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 118-119.
 I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 119.
 Ibid., 119. “Enlightened and liberal spirit, enjoying a great authority in the government, Eötvös was a warm supporter of the equal rights of all nationalities and consequently, he tried to be more prudent and generous, in his sphere of action.” I. MATEIU, Şaguna şi restaurarea Mitropoliei, 30.
 The fact that the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate was legally recognized, on the one hand out of Andrei Şaguna’s insistency, on the other hand because of Eötvös’ bright and generous ideas, determined the blame of József Eötvös from his ultra-nationalist co-nationals. See I. LUPAŞ, Şaguna şi Eötvös, 16-17.
 I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 119.
 See “IX. Gesetzartikel. In Angelegneheit der griechisch-orientalischen Gläubigen”, in: [Ungarische] Landesgesetz-Sammlung für die Jahre 1865/67 und 1868, 81-83; “Lege in caus’a celoru de confessiunea greco-orientală” (“Law concerning the faithful of Greek-Eastern confession”), in: N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 328-329. See a copy of the German version in the annex XIV herein.
 Ibid., § 2 of the Law.
 Ibid., § 3, 4 of the Law.
 Ibid., § 6 of the Law.
 See the chapter VI.2.3 herein.
 Cf. § 3 of the Law.
 See Telegraful Român, No. 26, year XVI, Sibiu, March 30/April 11, 1868, 101.
 I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 121-122.
 “Baron Eötvös’ idea was, since that time, to create a Greek hierarchy, believing that in Hungary there were about forty up to fifty thousands Greeks …” I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 122.
 Cf. I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 144.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 305.
 K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 172.
 See “Andrei Şaguna către Ioan Vancea” (“Andrei Şaguna to Ioan Vancea”), dated Sibiu, July 14, 1872, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 540-541.
 See “Ioan Vancea către Andrei Şaguna” (“Ioan Vancea to Andrei Şaguna”), dated Blaj, July 17, 1872, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 541-542.
 Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Importanţa Mitropolitului Andrei Şaguna în istoria noastră naţională, 1032.
 See Protocolul Congresului Naţional Bisericesc român de religiunea greco-răsăriteană conchiamat în Sibiiu pe 16/28 septembrie 1868, Sibiiu 1868; P. BRUSANOWSKI, Reforma constituţională, 125 et seqq.
 In the petition from 1862 to the emperor there were proposed forty clergy and sixty laymen, maybe because at that date the representatives of Bukovina to the congress were also taken into consideration; but after 1864, only thirty clergy are proposed and this number was also approved by law. Cf. I. MATEIU, Şaguna şi restaurarea Mitropoliei, 15. Cf. also “Adresa deputaţiunii române cătră împăratul presentată la 3/15 Martie 1862” (“The Romanian deputies’ address presented to the emperor on March 3/15, 1862”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 200-205.
 Protocolul Congresului Naţional Bisericesc…1868, 4 et seqq.
 Ibid., 10.
 See the chapter III.3.4 herein.
 Protocolul Congresului Naţional Bisericesc…1868, 41 et seqq. ; N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 344.
 N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 346.
 Protocolul Congresului Naţional Bisericesc…1868, 12.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 56.
 K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 245.
 At length on the changes of Andrei Şaguna’s “Project of Regulation” made by the church congress of 1868 see the chapter V.3.2 herein.
 Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §115, §116.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 57.
 K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 246.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 57.
 József Eötvös died on February 2, 1871. Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Şaguna şi Eötvös, 25.
 See I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 135-136.
 Ibid., 136. Baron Eötvös’s progressive humanistic ideas – still as a minister of public worship in Batthyány’s government he wished to support the progress for all the inhabitants from Hungary and from the territories administrated by it at that time, irrespective of nationality and language – have always constituted his “weak” side, criticized on any occasion by the Magyar ultra-nationalists. From the time of his first mandate as a minister of public worship, a law project dates back to 1848 meant to organize the people’s educational system, which in § 13 stipulated that the state was obliged to support school in one and the same village for each confession separately, if the confession has at least fifty schoolchildren. He considered Hungary a state like the others within the monarchy, contradicting Julius Andrássy, his friend’s nationalistic vision. Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Şaguna şi Eötvös, 9-14.
 At length on “The Organic Statute” see the chapter V.3 herein.
 It is the first Sunday after Easter, in the Orthodox Church.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 100.
 See P. BRUSANOWSKI, Reforma constituţională, 132-135.
 Ibid., 134-135.
 See “Statutulu Organicu” (“The Organic Statute”), in: Telegrafulu Romanu, No. 54, year XVII, Sibiu, July 10/22, 1869.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 58.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Ioan Cavalier of Puşcariu, dated November 21, 1870, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 409-411 here 410-411.
 Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 406-407.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Ioan Cavalier of Puşcariu, dated November 21, 1870, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 409-411 here 409.
 Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 414-415.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 100.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 59.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 100. More on this subject see at A. GRAMA, Jubileul din august 1871, ca un cântec de lebădă, 110-118.
 Cf. James 1.17: “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” This is also a part of a liturgical prayer in the Orthodox Church – the prayer behind the ambon from the Saint John Chrysostom’s Liturgy.
 “Iubileulu de 25 de ani” (“The Jubilee of twenty-five years”), in: Telegraful Român, No. 53, year XIX, Sibiu, July 4/16, 1871.
 A. Baronu de SIAGUN’A, Enchiridionu, III.
 Cf. I. NAGHIU, Aspecte ale activităţii culturale a Mitropolitului Şaguna, 294.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Ioan Cavalier of Puşcariu, dated December 17/29, 1871, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 411.
 Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 414.
 Ibid., 408.
 The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts consists of vespers, with special prayers together with a portion of the Divine Liturgy, omitting its most important part, the consecration of the Holy Gifts; and the third, sixth and ninth hours (with the typical Psalms) are used in a particular manner at the beginning.
It received its present form from St. Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome in the sixth century. It became a Canon at the Quinisext Council in 692 AD. Today, it is used in the Orthodox Church only during the Great Fast, on Wednesdays and Fridays; on Thursday in the fifth week of Great Fast; and on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in Passion (Holy) Week. It is anyway a longer Liturgy as compared to the other two used in the Orthodox Church. Cf. Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, in: The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3, 1714-1715.
 Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 416.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Ioan Cavalier of Puşcariu, dated February 5, 1872, in: I. LUPAŞ, Şaguna şi Eötvös, 24.
 Il. PUŞCARIU, Un episod din vieaţa Societăţii seminariale “Andreiu Şaguna” in Sibiiu, 395.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 307.
 Ibid., 62.
 Ibid., 60. See also H. S. BORDEAN, Din amintirile unor foşti teologi şagunieni, 91.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 63.
 Andrei Şaguna’s testament, in: N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 178-187 here 179.
 “Einfach und grossartig, wie fast alle Schöpfungen Schagunas, war auch sein Leichenzug. Leider war der Schöpfer dieses letzten Werkes nicht mehr Zeuge desselben. Wäre es das gewesen, so hätte er wahrgenommen, dass in diesem Leichenzuge sich noch eine Macht geltend machte, die kein Programm und keine Disposition verträgt. Diese Macht hat im Herzen ihren Sitz und heisst Verehrung und Liebe. Sie bildete gewissermassen das Erdreich und die Atmosphäre, welche den abstrakten Programmpunkten ein so ergreifendes Leben gab.” Hermannstädter Zeitung, Hermannstadt am. 3 Juli 1873, Nr. 154, 731. Cf also G.-L. ITTU, Presa sibiană de limbă germană la moartea lui Andrei Şaguna, 130-131.
 Cf. N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 348; G.-L. ITTU, Presa sibiană de limbă germană la moartea lui Andrei Şaguna, 131.
 Hermannstädter Zeitung, Hermannstadt, am 30. Juni 1873, Nr. 151, 718.
 Cf. Telegrafulu Romanu, No. 95, year XXI, Sibiu, November 25/December 7, 1873, 362.
 I. LUPAŞ, Anastasia Şaguna, 37.
January 9, 2017 Drept si Religie