Andrei Șaguna and ”The Organic Statute” – VI.2 The autonomy of the Church
VI. THE CANONICAL PRINCIPLES OF ANDREI ŞAGUNA’S ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION
VI.2 The autonomy of the Church
VI.2.1 Notional clarifications
One of the main principles of the church organization, which Andrei Şaguna sustained in his canonical works, was that of the Church’s autonomy: “One could say that above all, his purpose and main preoccupation was the idea of the complete emancipation of his eparchy from the chains of the political as well as the religious slavery, and its organization on solid, autonomous and independent grounds, in the sense of our canons and church laws.”
The natural development of the Transylvanian Orthodox Eparchy, still at the standards of the Middle Age at the date of Şaguna’s involvement in its undertaking, was conditioned by its freedom “because not the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate was his dream, but the creation of a complet independent eparchy which would be able to develop itself according to the requirements of the modern times, the characteristics of the Romanian people, and the human nature imagined in a continuous progress.” Starting from the idea that the autonomy is “a principle of life derived from the divine essence of the Church”, this was also mentioned in the revolutionary programme of Blaj, of May 3/15 1848.
The wording of the above-mentioned demand of Blaj, directly related to Andrei Şaguna by the historians, is referring to the notion of “Church’s autonomy” in both its present-day meanings: external autonomy and internal autonomy.
The external autonomy defines one of the possible solutions to the ancient problem of the relationship between Church and state. It is different from the solution that dominated the entire Middle Age – more precisely, the monolithically unity Church-state – but also different from the radical separation solution offered by the French Revolution. The autonomy of the Church toward the state, the visionary idea and solution promoted and implemented by Bishop Andrei, means “the canonical organization according to which the Church is autonomous, that is to say independent, or, more precisely, unaffiliated in all its religious matters, in relation to any other organization outside itself.” The Church is supposed to clarify all issues that belong to its authority through its own bodies, by strictly preserving and pursuing its own organizational norms, the state thus recognising the Church’s existence, as a self-reliant institution, within the state’s own framework.
The internal autonomy, known under the name of “eparchial autonomy” or “church administrative autonomy”, is the exclusivity right of every eparchial bishop (an auxiliary bishop does not enjoy this right) in his own eparchy; he exercises the Church power in all its dimensions independently of any other bishop, but dependently from the bishops’ college, the bishops’ synod of the respective local Church. The main idea here is that “the church autonomy does not represent a breach of the hierarchical order by a separation from the authority of the metropolitan or from that of the superior patriarch.”
Today, the internal autonomy is referred to in the canonistical language of the Orthodoxy by the use of two terms: “autonomy” and “autocephaly”. Both terms define the status of independence or administrative autonomy of the large territorial Church units, as opposed to others of the same type, all being equally obligated to defend the dogmatic, cultic and canonical treasure which represents the ground on which their unity is based.
In fact, the word “autonomy” (αυτος νόμος) hints more than “autocephaly” (αυτο κέφαλος), because it possesses a more precise, adequate and comprehensive juridical meaning. Through it one could express the fact that one makes a rule for himself, acts according to his own laws, bearing no exterior interference. The word “autocephaly” does not directly and properly express the same reality, but instead it does that in a more indirect and figurative way, without the juridical resonance. In spite of that, by its obstinate use in the church language, it has acquired a major juridical content as opposed to the term “autonomy”, in the sense that it defines a quasi-sovereign independence in the inter-ecclesiastical relationships, as opposed to the term “autonomy” which points out only towards a relative independence, limited by some servitudes. All things considered, the common ground of the autocephaly – purporting to the idea of ruling by own leader -, and of the autonomy – purporting to the idea of ruling by own laws – is the same, the distinction between these two terms being related only to their degrees of intensity in conveying a similar message. But, at the beginning, either the term “autonomy” or “autocephaly” were not used in the church language and that is why, due to their common meaning it have long been non-distinguishable from one another. There is no known precise date attached to the moment when the term “autonomy” began being used in the Church in its proper sense, even though the reality to which it points out was in place starting the thirth century after Christ. It however began being currently used at least in the fourteenth century, starting with the “Syntagma alphabeticum” (“Alphabetical Arrangement”) by Matthew Blastares.
The present distinction between the canonical content of the “autonomy” and the “autocephaly” began being noticeable in the twentieth century, as a consequence of the blurred situation defining the relationship between some Orthodox Churches, this problem being also included on the agenda of the highly expected pan-Orthodox synod. The autocephaly expresses today the reality “according to which a hierarchically, synodally and territorially defined Church unit governs itself completely independent from any other entities of the same type, with which it however obligatory preserves the dogmatic, cultic and canonical unity.”
It is observable that Andrei Şaguna did not ever understand through “autonomy” the same thing with the present day autocephaly.
Taking into account the fact that the term “autocephaly” was being introduced with its specific sense in the canonistical terminology at least from the beginning of the nineteenth century, when it was officialized in “Pedalion”, and that the autocephalic tendencies were fashionable during the nineteenth century in the Church of Rome as well as in that of Constantinople, it is difficult to suppose that Andrei Şaguna avoided the word “autocephaly” by mistake. The Transylvanian bishop was practically looking forward to promoting the autocephaly of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Transylvania in the classical meaning of the term, but he asked, from the beginning, for the granting of the administrative autonomy, not for the autocephaly. Moreover, he regulated an important means of preserving the connection between the Serbian and the Romanian Metropolitanates, more precisely the regularly summoned multinational hierarchs’ synods, included both in the “Project of Regulation” and in “The Organic Statute”. A cautious spirit, he would have realized the danger of the nationalistic exaggerations of the nineteenth century in what concerns the canonical order of the Orthodox Church; that is why he was careful about the use of the term “autocephaly”. More than this, well aware of the history and canons of the Orthodox Church, he would have consciously stayed far away from a term which shall be officialized only later by the Orthodox canonistical language.
In Andrei Şaguna’s canonistical works we only come across the term “autonomy” which term depicts two juxtaposed realities: on one hand, the external autonomy of the Church, its independence toward the state in what concerns strictly religious matters; on the other hand, the internal autonomy of the “social elements” of the Church. The autonomy of the Transylvanian Church practically means, in the historical background of the nineteenth century, the departure from the guardianship of the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz by the reactivation of the Romanian Metropolitanate, and the organization of the reactivated Metropolitanate on the basis of a proper statute which had to assert its autonomy toward the state too.
“The Organic Statute” of 1868 enforced first of all the principle of external autonomy. The independence of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate from the lay institutions, from the state in what concerns strictly ecclesiastical matters, was proclaimed in the first paragraph of the “General dispositions”. The same paragraph included, however, a special mentioning of the right of “supreme inspection” which was reserved to the emperor. The appeal to the intervention of the civil power for the application of the decisions taken by ecclesiastical forums was allowed only in exceptional circumstances, as per paragraph VII.
The internal autonomy, that is to say the independence of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate from any other local Orthodox Church, especially from the Serbian one, was enunciated in the first paragraph and restated then through the stipulations regarding the common synod of Romanian and Serbian metropolitans and bishops, in the paragraph IX.
VI.2.2 The internal autonomy
VI.2.2.1 The reasons for the administrative separation of the Romanian Transylvanian hierarchy from the Serbian one of Karlowitz
Andrei Şaguna was convinced that to regain the autonomy of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate was, in fact, a normal and canonical act to accomplish: “Bishop Maširević told me at Vienna that a lot of churches of his eparchy feel the acute need to be endowed with ‘Pentecostarions’; but he did not ask me [for such liturgical books which were printed at Sibiu] by an appropriate writing, because he is angry with me on my desire to bring the condition of the Romanian Church to a normal and canonical status. [our reference] The Romanians are treated by them [the Serbians] in the same way the Greek hierarchy treats the Bosniacs, but God is great and justice will win.”
The idea of separation from the Serbian jurisdiction was a key and a milestone of all his church organizational efforts. He tried to clarify the true meaning of this deep desire throughout the brochures “Pro-memory” (“Promemorie”) and “Addendum to Pro-memory” (“Adaos la Promemoria”). In March 1849, in the first of Andrei Şaguna’s official letter to the metropolitan (fresh appointed patriarch) of Karlowitz on the issue of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate, he used the following wording for to describe his idea of church and political autonomy: “Now it is the time for Your Excellency to finally confirm your acceptance of the church and political independence of the Romanian people. Please, do not alarm yourself on a possible breach within the Church that you might cause through such a loyal act; no, the Church will not be harmed in any way, but, on the contrary, it will be more consolidated than one could ever imagine. All I understand by the Romanians’ religious autonomy is that the internal hierarchical administration should be independent from the Serbian one, even though these two separate hierarchies should stay as one in what concerns the religion, the faith and all dogmas, in such a way that nothing could be disputed or decided in these fundamental matters – which compound the being of the Orthodox Church – without both of them giving their approval […]. In what concerns the political aspect, I wish that my Romanian people were granted their existence within the political life [of the monarchy], according to the principle of equality.”
In all the works where he took on this subject, Andrei Şaguna used some types of arguments in sustaining the idea of church internal autonomy: historical, canonical, geographical and ethnical ones.
Apart from the above-mentioned “Pro-Memory” and “Addendum to Pro-Memory”, there were also other official documents which emphasised the historical arguments. Thus, in the memorandum of 1850 submitted to the Ministry of Public Worship and Instruction and to the civil and military Governor Ludwig von Wohlgemuth, the bishop underlined the logic for the reestablishment of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate historically: “The desire of all Eastern Romanians under the Austrian Empire’s crown concerning the reestablishment of the old Metropolitan See of Alba-Iulia is not a phantom imagined by the enthusiastic Romanian coryphaeus, as claimed by the enemies of the Romanians and of the Eastern Church, it is, on the contrary, a fundamental and undeniable right, coming from the fifteenth century and never actually lost through any kind of disloyal deed, for the reinforcing of which each Eastern Romanian of the Austrian Empire constantly craves for…”
The “Memorial” from April 20, 1851, opened the series of the canonical arguments in favour of the autonomy, the apostolic canon 34 being the first on the list. Other canons mentioned were the following: canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council, canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council, canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council. Special attention has been paid the canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council: “It would not be useless to recall the reason that determined the Holy Fathers in creating this canon. During early Christians’ persecutions, in the first Christian centuries, there could be no definite borders between eparchies; later, after the chases ceased, even though the borders were more consciously designed and imposed, there was however no simultaneous change in the interventions of one church leader [bishop] in the eparchy of the other one [it continued to interfere with each other’s affairs and authority], thus giving rise to big disputes between eparchial bishops and maintaining a disorderly climate. In order to put an end to this tormented situation, the Holy Fathers decided that every patriarch or metropolitan should rule over his own eparchy only, which was confided to him in order to love and religiously cherish; no bishop would be allowed to usurp anything on the territory of a different eparchy, or to limit the rights of another Church [eparchy], that is to say never can do ordination to the priesthood or accomplish any other church function within another eparchy, unless he is expressly demanded by the responsible eparchial bishop. In what concerns the churches [eparchies] in danger of chases, they should be lead according to the custom decided by the Holy Fathers, namely the bishops who are the most willing and nearest, territorially speaking, should travel to those eparchies and try to fulfil their needs.
It is obvious both from the text of this canon and the interpretation by the canonists of the reason why the Holy Fathers imposed it, that the Fathers gathered at the Second Ecumenical Council established that the metropolitans should not cross the borders of their eparchial administration, but maintain the original customs, according to canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council. A metropolitan or bishop can intervene in a foreign eparchy only if that is deprived of its shepherd, being exposed to persecutions. But the metropolitan or the bishop can exercise this influence only until the distressed eparchy finds its peace, freedom and rights; the external influence will cease after that for to prevent the original customs from being altered.”
The inefficiency of the canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council determined a new decision of the Third Ecumenical Council: “Although the Fathers who gathered at the Second Ecumenical Council tried to put order in the metropolitans’ administration, still it is unlikely that they had reached their goal, because at the Third Ecumenical Council that was soon held in Ephesus in the year 431 by three hundred bishops it was obvious that a new church rule was needed in order to establish the borders between metropolitanates, as this appears in canon 8 of that synod […].
There can be no doubt on the meaning of this canon, as far as everyone may be convinced either from its content or from its interpretation, that the Holy Fathers of Ephesus decided that no metropolitan should ordain any priest in another eparchy, especially in the eparchies which – in contradiction with the old rules – were subordinated to him by some political laws; on the contrary, he should give them back to the appointed bishops, because only in this way the rights of every [local] Church are respected in their entirety.”
After all this, Andrei Şaguna concluded: “It is obviously true that generally the neighbouring metropolitan has no right over another bordering metropolitanate, not even in the case when both metropolitans are in one and the same state; all the more, he has the duty not to trespass the borders of his metropolitanate, because otherwise, by exercising his influence on another eparchy against the canons he makes for disturbing the peace and good rule of the Church. Only in special circumstances, such as when a metropolitanate is under persecution and therefore lacking its shepherd, should the neighbouring metropolitan see after the spiritual matters, that is travel there and fulfil the ecclesiastical duties that people are deprived of; however, as soon as the persecution ceases, the bordering metropolitan has to come back to his metropolitanate and never hinder the restoration of the other one, because this is the only way in which every metropolitanate’s right can be sustained. A metropolitan who disrespects this commits a sin against the canons therefore the Church disallows his deeds and considers them null.”
The same canonical reasons for autonomy are mentioned in “Compendium”.
The geographical and ethnical factor was the third argument for the Transylvanian Metropolitanate’s autonomy: “Let us have a look at the geographical extent of this hierarchy [the Serbian one] and we shall see that this territory started from the Galitian Carpathians and was spread as far as Dalmatia. Now I shall allow myself to say: the geographical position of this Metropolitanate proves that it is extraordinary and, apart from it, there is no other metropolitanate to have been as spread as the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz: from the Galitian Carpathians to Dalmatia. The second reason: I consider this separation of the hierarchies as being solely natural; I do understand the administrative separation, because one cannot speak about a dogmatic one; I repeat, I consider this separation to be natural, because the Slavic people live south of the Danube up to Dalmatia, whereas the Romanian people live north of the Danube up to Galitia, Bukovina and the borders. 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.”
VI.2.2.2 Andrei Şaguna’s interpretation of the thirty-fourth apostolic canon
The canonical argumentation of the necessity to reactivate the Romanian Orthodox Transylvanian Metropolitanate included, firstly, the 34 apostolic canon and, implicitly, a much discussed and controversial issue: the ethnic principle.
According to this canon, the bishops of every “nation” have to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise him as their head. Each bishop enjoys autonomy in his eparchy, being connected to the hierarchical subordination and to the synodality. 
In the “Memorial” of April 20, 1851, Bishop Andrei Şaguna gave the following explanation to this canon: “The comprehensions of this canon are very large, because they contain in themselves several norms concerning the church hierarchy, such as:
First, that canon prescribes that more bishops should have amongst themselves one they should recognize as their superior (the first of all) and never decide anything without his opinion in matters concerning dogmas, divine economy and corrections of the common mistakes, bishops’ consecration etc. This ‘superior’ (‘the first of all’) is called metropolitan, together with whom the bishops are supposed to assemble at certain times and discuss the most important church matters.
Second, this canon teaches us further on that a metropolitan should not do by himself any common work without consulting his bishops; because this is the only way in which there will be communion and love between the metropolitan and his bishops. Through those harmony and love God shall be glorified through His Son and our Lord, Jesus Christ, who says: ‘By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.’ (John, 13.35)
Third, we also learn from this canon that the bishops of a nation must have their metropolitan, who should be of the same origin [language] as the bishops and the people he rules. I hope I have not cut out too much of the quoted canon, because all the organization of the Eastern Church is made up in such a way as to fully consider the languages of all the nations that confess it, and consequently, all the ecclesiastical ministries should be performed in the mother tongue, as well as the ecclesiastical administration. When they conceived the canon, the Holy Fathers considered not only the good rule of the Church, but also the necessity that each metropolitan should be able to celebrate the divine services [in the language of the people], to keep the correspondence with his suffragan bishops, and also to preach the Lord’s word to the people. The necessity of such an organization is clearly visible when we think of the hardships a metropolitan and the bishops might be faced with on the occasion of the provincial synods, if they did not have the same origin or speak the same language, for they would have to resort to a foreign language which not everybody would understand.”
The same canon was explained in a letter written in 1860, to Bishop Eugeniu Hacman of Bukovina: “There may be people who consider over the canons and their good rule the existence of two metropolitanates in the same state. Also in this respect I consult the Holy Canons […]. And I discover immediately in 34 apostolic canon that the bishops of each nation should know a first (the metropolitan) amongst themselves etc. This is how I deduce that the bishops should be part of the same nation which they care for as bishops, for this apostolic canon can only in this way be understood in its true and natural meaning, which is that not only the metropolitan, but also the bishops should be part of the same nation; this is something necessary so that the bishops would be able to perform the divine service in the language of the people and know how to speak understandable for the spiritual flock about God’s liberating word; they would understand and communicate with the priests and the faithful – wherever it is necessary -; then they would understand each other in the same language which is also the language of the church administration, for if the metropolitan and the bishops are not of the same nation, then when they meet they will use a foreign language, as it is happening in our case, that the metropolitan of Karlowitz and the Romanian bishops communicate in a foreign language.”
In “Anthorismos”, Bishop Andrei Şaguna thwarted the speculations of some people of Bukovina who implied that the bishop of Sibiu would reject the idea of a new metropolitanate, that of Bukovina, on the grounds that he would not accept more metropolitanates for one and the same nation, making clear once more the meaning he gave to 34 apostolic canon: “Wir haben in alten Unternehmungen für die Metropolie nirgends gesagt, daß eine Nation so zahlreich und ausgebreitet sie sein mag, nur einen einzigen Metropoliten haben könne, sondern wir behaupten im Allgemeinen, was wir auch heute noch auf Grundlage desselben apostolischen Kanons und des kirchlichen Sprachgebrauchs, was immer und überall auch die Sprache der Christen in einem speziellen Orte ist, aufrechthalten, daß der Metropolit, die Bischöfe und der Klerus aus einer Metropolie derselben Nation mit dem gläubigen Volke angehören müssen. Es versteht sich aber von selbst, daß eine zahlreiche Nation, wo ein Metropolit nicht hinreicht, auch mehrere Metropoliten haben kann und wirklich hat, wie wir ja wissen, daß die Hierarchie bei größeren und zahlreichen Nationen in mehrere Metropolien getheilt ist. Während wir den 34. apostolischen Kanon in diesem Sinne nahmen, die Brüder aus der Bukovina aber in einem ganz anderen, so sehen wir uns gezwungen zu glauben, daß unsere Brüder aus unserem Streben nach einer romänischen Metropolie das ableiten wollen, als wollten das Bisthum Bukovinas der Jurisdiction der alten romänischen Metropolie aus diesen Gegenden unterwerfen. Wir sind in unserem Gewissen beruhigt, daß wir eine solche Zumuthung nicht verdient haben …”
The importance of the linguistic aspect in the Church is visible also in the speech the metropolitan delivered in the Diet of Pest, in 1868, on the legal acceptance of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate in the new political context of the Austrian-Hungarian Dualism: “what has faith to do with nationality? Please, forgive me if I as both a priest and a Christian think that Christian faith lays great emphasis on the language. Very soon we shall celebrate the Pentecost. And what celebration is that? No other that a proof that the language is a practical vehicle for religion. I may speak even more beautifully than Saint John Chyrsostomdid in days of yore, even Saint John Chyrsostom himself could speak, but if he speaks to people who do not understand him, his gold mouth will have no effect whatsoever.”
In the commentary of the 34 apostolic canon in “Enchiridion” we find the wording: “II. This canon puts also the basis for that institution which means that the metropolitanates have to be founded in accordance with the nationality of the Christian people and that the bishops of a people, of a nation must have a metropolitan elected from amongst that nation’s bishops, whom they should acknowledge as their leader.”
We have shown that Andrei Şaguna stated as a canonical principle in his preface at “Enchiridion” the use of the believers’ language in the liturgical and administrative life of the Church. The interpretation of the term “ethnos” or “nation” in 34 apostolic canon is sustained with the same argument, mainly, the linguistic one. The continuous appeal to the linguistic argument in interpreting 34 apostolic canon is to be considered and understood last but not least in the historical, political and religious context of the time. The tensions between the Serbians and the Romanians within the common jurisdiction of Karlowitz, caused by the Serbian nationalism which wanted the assimilation of the Romanians, turned the issue of the liturgical and church administration language into a very serious one. Actually, the very essence of the Church was in danger, as long as its teaching power and mission to educate could not be achieved among the Romanian Orthodox who did not speak Serbian. Besides, the disastrous situation of the Transylvanian Orthodox Church was a living proof of the failure of the Serbian nationalistic policy and church jurisdiction.
In a letter from 1858 addressed to the Serbian folklorist and philologist Vuk Karadžić the bishop, concerned at that time by the printing of the Bible and other religious books, complained the fate of the Greek Orthodox Church: “The Greek hierarchy not only did publish its religious books in a dead language that the people do not understand, but it also strove to prevent these books from spreading among the people. It had this unfortunate policy in times when printing was unknown, and I think today things stay the same. Any reasonable man can see that the Greek people are of a crass ignorance and that the cultivated people of today moulded themselves after foreign, not Greek values and schools.” Then he concluded: “mercy on the people who do not understand their own law [faith] and spiritual heritage and who have to meet with many hardships to know their law [faith].”
The above arguments determined Andrei Şaguna to impose the Romanian language in the religious affairs: “Şaguna was the first one who introduced the Romanian language in the church official affairs and who accepted and introduced Latin characters [instead of Cyrillic ones] in his office, after the Philological Commission’s spelling system adopted by the general assembly in Braşov, in 1862.”
In comparation with Bishop Andrei Şaguna’s interpretation of the word “nation” from the 34 apostolic canon, the Serbian Metropolitan Josip Rajačić offered an example of “political” but not Christian correctness: he argued very correct theoretical his opposition toward the restoration of the old Transylvanian Metropolitanate, by taking nationalism out of the Church; actually, he contradicted himself by promoting the Serbian nationalism. Two measures imposed by him are clear in this respect: the interdiction of the custom of using the Romanian language in the Holy Liturgy and sermon on the occasion of the consecration ceremony of the priests for the Romanian communities of Banat, a custom introduced by his predecessors; and the interdiction, stipulated in 1851, of using the Latin alphabet in the Romanian priests’ (official) correspondence. In other words, Metropolitan Josip Rajačić was against nationalisms within the Church, but in favour of only the Serbian nationalism.
However, although Andrei Şaguna gave a somewhat “original” interpretation to 34 apostolic canon, he did it with the conviction that the situation of the Romanian Orthodox could not be improved without having an institutional organization separated from the Serbians. “Salus animarum suprema lex” was for Bishop Andrei the main principle of interpreting the canons. “The Holy and Divine Canons” have been interpreted from the perspective of the concrete necessities of the Church, of the faithful at certain historical times, in order to serve the mission of the Church in the world. Any absolute or out-dated interpretation which is not adjusted to the historical and social context does not sustain the mission of the Church, but on the contrary, it impedes it. The Church as an institution has the mission to facilitate the temporary good and especially the eternal good of the people; anyway, it is not a purpose in itself, just for itself, a “leasing issue” managed by the hierarchy supported by “politically correct” canonical arguments.
Out of the mentioned quotations one can draw two important clarifying conclusions.
First, it is a certain fact that Andrei Şaguna’s interpretation of the apostolic canon 34 did not hint to autocephaly, as it later happened in the local Orthodox Churches. By underlining the importance of the nationality and especially of the language within Church – as the main vehicle through which its first mission can be achieved, the propagation of the Gospel – Andrei Şaguna did not mean to “divide” the Ecumenical Orthodox Church into nations. Fighting for the autonomy of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate he did not intend to harm the unity of the Orthodox Church, but to sustain the natural evolution of this Church. Moreover, the experience had shown that an intact preservation of the same dogmas, cultic life and canons, as defining elements that make any local Orthodox Church into a member of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church could be guaranteed in the Transylvanian Orthodox Church only through an autonomous organization, separated from the Serbians.
Second, Andrei Şaguna did not politicize the meaning of the apostolic canon 34, just as he did not mean to politicize anything related to the Church. The ethnic principle was used by the Slav leaders of the revolution of 1848 to contest the Hungarian principle of the historical state. But the bishop did not understand nor use the ethnic principle in the Church as it was used in the politics of that time. He used the 34 apostolic canon only as an argument to prove the need of the Orthodox Romanians to have their own hierarchy that could easily lead them to salvation if they knew closely their language, customs and needs. The Christian principle of love, which gives every human the right to save his soul, to know and fulfil God’s word, was Bishop Andrei’s principle, not the separation of the Orthodox according to nationalistic ethnic criteria. That is why one cannot state that Andrei Şaguna has any contribution to the paternity of the concepts of nation and nationalism as it took shape in the nineteenth century and as it is known until now, or that he was a supporter of ethnophyletism, on the contrary.
VI.2.2.3 The autonomy of the “social elements” and the representative principle
Apart from the autonomy of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate from the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz, Andrei Şaguna had in view as a principle the autonomy of all the constitutive parts (the “social elements”) of the Transylvanian Church.
“The Organic Statute” stated in the general dispositions, paragraph III, line 2: “Each constitutive part of the Metropolitanate has the right to regulate, manage, and run independently of another itself equal constitutive part its religious, educational, and foundational affairs; each smaller constitutive part continues its religious, educational, and foundational affairs within the bigger constitutive part up to the Metropolitanate, through its representatives.”
The phrase “through its representatives” revived the idea of representation which paragraph I of the general dispositions already referred to. Apart from the autonomy of the constitutive parts, the paragraph I established from the very beginning the representative form of expressing this autonomy: “The Greek Orthodox Romanian Church of Hungary and Transylvania […] regulates, manages, and runs its religious, educational, and foundational affairs independently, all over its parts and constitutive factors, according to the principle of representation.” The representative organs were the synod or the assembly of the protopopiate see, the eparchial synod, and the church national congress for the entire metropolitan province. These organs are composed of one third clergymen and two thirds laymen.
Practically, the representative principle was put into practice in the following way. The basic corporation of the Transylvanian Church’s organization was the parish synod (parish assembly); however, the parish assembly did not have a representative character, but a synodal one, its members being the very Christian community of age who “fulfilled their duties towards the parish”, with the exception of women. The following corporations overlain to the parish had a representative character. The elections of the deputies for the eparchial synod, the protopopiate synod, and the church national congress (the mixed metropolitan synod) were performed by public voting equally and directly, in proportionate elective circles. The vote was public, in principle; it could be made secret only if twenty electors asked for it; the acclamation was forbidden. Therefore, Andrei Şaguna grounded the representation on the elective system with public voting. There is no doubt “that this form could not be borrowed from the modern political life, which did not use the universal voting at that time, but it is a practical application of the Christian spirit of the first centuries.”
Starting from the fact that the constitutive elements of the Church are the clergy and the laymen grouped in constituencies on parish, protopopiate, and eparchy levels which together form the Metropolitanate, Andrei Şaguna equally divided the power of the “social elements”. On the one hand, each constitutive part of the Metropolitanate had the right to regulate, manage, and run its religious, educational, and economic affairs independent of another constitutive part equal to itself; on the other hand, each smaller constitutive part participated in the activities of the larger constitutive part up to the Metropolitanate, through its representatives.
All the constitutive parts of the Metropolitanate fulfilled their responsabilities in a constitutional form, through the parish, protopopiate, eparchial synods and the church national congress. The executive organs of the synods were the following: the parish committees in parishes; the protopopiate committees in protopopiates (the protopopiate see was the first instance judiciary forum in the Metropolitanate); the eparchial consistories in the eparchies (playing also the role of the second instance judiciary forum in the Metropolitanate); the metropolitan consistory, the supreme administrative body for the entire metropolitan province (and a third instance judiciary forum in the Metropolitanate).
This is how “The Organic Statute” cumulated “all the qualities of a good foundation law of the Church, which takes into consideration all the theoretical and practical requirements of a docile autonomy – both towards the state and the other Orthodox Churches -, and especially the relationships between the solitary constitutive parts among themselves. The way in which it was legislated, especially concerning the above-mentioned relationships is surprising. The autonomy was taken into account and it was ever larger growing upwards to the eparchial level, and what is more, criteria such as unity and uniformity were accomplished, both in the church legislation and administration.”
VI.2.3 The external autonomy
VI.2.3.1 The necessity and importance of achieving the autonomy of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate toward the state
The main priority of Andrei Şaguna’s mitre was the relationship Church-state, a sine qua non condition for the internal organization of his eparchy. The Transylvanian Orthodox Church, excluded by the state legislation ever since the sixteenth century, needed first of all to function legally. The first mixed eparchial synod of March 1850 had on the agenda among other objectives the situation of the Transylvanian Church in the present and future and its relationship with the state. The autonomy toward the state and the equality with the other accredited Churches (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist and Unitarian) were mentioned in the petition addressed by the synod to the emperor.
The principle of church autonomy was Andrei Şaguna’s “constant guide in all his dealings with the civil authority, from the Court in Vienna to the most isolated district official. According to his conception of church-state relations, each party had its own jurisdictions and spheres of activity into which the other might not intrude. […] in his dealings with the civil authority Şaguna was always conscious of the need to assert his own prerogatives and redefine the limits of state power.”
The arguments of the idea of external autonomy of the Church can be best found in two of Şaguna’s canonistical works: “Anthorismos” and “Compendium”. “The Elements of Canon Law” contained also references to the relationship between the Church and the state, which were then systematized in “Compendium”. The principle of external autonomy found its application in the “Project of Regulation” and then in “The Organic Statute”.
What Andrei Şaguna achieved was a “neuter legality”, which means the legal recognition of his Metropolitanate and a minimal intrusion of the state in the internal affairs of the Metropolitanate. A total exclusion of the state from the internal affairs of any Church was not possible to be thought at that time, in the Austrian Empire. So “The Organic Statute” stipulated: “The Greek Orthodox Romanian Church of Hungary and Transylvania as an autonomous Church according to its canon law, guaranteed also by Art. IX of Law of 1868, apart from totally preserving His Majesty’s right of supreme inspection …”; “for to enforce any disposition that was decided by either a ecclesiastical judiciary forum or a[nother] church authority only religious and moral means can be used. However, in extraordinary cases of opposition, in order to keep the good order of things, the civil power may also be requested to give its assistance.”
The complete understanding of both the reason and importance of the church autonomy toward the state requires coming back to the historical context when Andrei Şaguna realized this desire: the nineteenth century in the Austrian Monarchy. Ever since the end of the previous century, the reformer Emperor Joseph II had imposed a strong current – called Josephinism -, which promoted the restriction of the independent life of the Church and its strict subordination to the state laws. Although at first this trend was not directed against the Orthodox Church of the monarchy, but rather the Roman Catholic one, towards the middle of the nineteenth century Josephinism had become a means to achieve the political and ecclesiastical goals of the Magyars in the monarchy. Under the growing influence of the Hungarians on the leading circles of the Austrian Monarchy, they began to restrict the freedom of the Orthodox Church and to promote insistently the church Union with Rome among the Romanian and Serbian Orthodox, with a view to consolidate the old Hungarian kingdom by Catholicization and Magyarization of all the nations belonging to it. So for example, the appointment of the Orthodox bishops and archimandrites by the emperor and the forbiddance of the synodal system of electing them, which was in force by the Orthodox Serbians, were presented as efficient solutions to strengthen the political centralism.
A strong revival of Josephinism took place in the Neoabsolutist period, between 1850 and 1860.
It was against this current that Bishop Andrei Şaguna fought, being aware that the Church has its specific mission and internal organization which the state interfering out of political reasons could only impede. When the Court of Vienna found itself an ally among the Orthodox – Bishop Eugeniu Hacman of Bukovina – in order to achieve the control over the Orthodox Church in the monarchy, the necessity to precisely define the “borders”, the role and place of the Orthodox Church in the state was even stronger. Because of the state intrusion in the Church internal affairs, the canonical order and organization were in danger of being obstructed.
The autonomy of the Transylvanian Orthodox Church toward the state was seen as a great thing, still long time after its statutory achievement in 1868: “And this is Metropolitan Şaguna’s greatest diplomatic success! He had rejected from the very beginning the interference of the state in the internal affairs of the Church as well as the attempt to impose a commissioner of the empire or government in our religious assemblies and corporations, and managed to defend the freedom of his Church and ensure its autonomy and independence, which cannot be found in any other Church, either in the country or on abroad.”
The enforcement of the principle of external autonomy is to be appreciated all the more that it could not be achieved by the Orthodox Romanians of Bukovina, where the Josephinist system managed to be implemented by the Court until the end of the monarchy, in 1918. The Court not only administrated “The Religious Fund” but it did not accept or approve any church congress in the Orthodox Church of Bukovina for the election of the bishops, metropolitan, and others church officials, nor the organization of the eparchy on the basis of the enlarged synodality, through the active participation of the laymen in the ecclesiastical affairs. There the elective synodal system was replaced with the direct appointment of the church officials by the emperor, at the proposal of the regional government.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 71.
 I. SLAVICI, Dare de samă, 44-45.
 I. MATEIU, Mirenii şi drepturile lor în Biserică, 49.
 See the chapter III.1.2 herein. “The Romanian nation declares that the Romanian Church, regardless of denomination, is and shall remain free and independent of any other Church and shall enjoy the same rights and benefits [within the state] as the other Churches of Transylvania.” (“Protocolul adunării generale a naţiunii române din Transilvania, care s’a ţinut la Blaj în anul Domnului 1848, Maiu 15/3” “The Protocol of the general meeting of the Romanian nation of Transylvania which was held at Blaj in the year of the Lord 1848, May 15/3”), point 2 of the decision of the second meeting of May 4/16, 1848, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 59. Cf. also K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 49.
 The visionary character of this solution is more clearly visible if it is analysed in the ecclesial context of the time. Thus, when Andrei Şaguna proposed, fought for and achieved the autonomy of his eparchy within the state, the Catholic Church took a firm position on the Middle Age barricades, Pope Pius IX calling the idea of separation between the state and the Church a mistake, in the point 55 of the annex “Syllabus errorum” to the Encyclical “Quanta cura” of December 8, 1864 (§VI. Errores de societate civili tum in se tum in suis ad Ecclesiam relationibus spectata/Irrtümer über die bürgerliche Gesellschaft, sowohl in sich als auch in ihren Beziehungen zur Kirche betrachtet: 55. “Ecclesia a statu statusque ab Ecclesia seiungendus est./Die Kirche ist vom Staat und der Staat von der Kirche zu trennen.” H. DENZIGER, Enchiridion symbolorum, 806).
 L. STAN, Legislaţia Bisericii Ortodoxe Române în timpul arhipăstoririi Prea Fericitului Părinte Patriarh Justinian, 285.
 Details on the eparchial autonomy, and also on the autonomy of the other administrative ecclesiastical units (metropolitanates, parishes, monasteries, and other church-related institutions and establishments) see at L. STAN, Despre autonomia bisericească, 379-389.
The principle of eparchial autonomy, of the sovereignty of any eparchial bishop in his eparchy, within the synodal structure and without removing the hierarchical order, represents a major difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. The only exception to this principle is the so-called devolution right of the metropolitan, respectively the patriarch, which is not identical with the canonical provisions of the Roman Church concerning the pope’s reserved rights. The eparchial autonomy can be broken by the right of devolution, based on the disposition referred to in canon 11 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, or when any special limitation of autonomy is mentioned, as an exception to the general rule (for instance, canon 55 Carthage). “Should a bishop fail to fulfil his administrative duties in his eparchy, in cases of sickness or inability etc., canon 11 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council accepts the interference of his metropolitan. Should the metropolitan fail to fulfil his obligations, too, then the patriarch must intervene. This shall happen for superiour reasons and be in the Church’s best interest.” V. ŞESAN, Autocefalia, Autonomia, 245-246.
More on the devolution right of the metropolitan, respectively patriarch at V. ŞESAN Dreptul de devoluţiune al Patriarhului şi al Mitropolitului, 723-737.
For the Catholic comprehension of the diocesan autonomy see Georg BIER, Die Rechtsstellung des Diözesanbischofs nach dem Codex Iuris Canonici von 1983, Würzburg 2001; Christian HUBER, Das Amt des Diözesan- bzw. Eparchialbischofs zwischen Autonomie und Bindung, in: S. DEMEL, L. MÜLLER (Hrsg.), Krönung oder Entwertung des Konzils?, 147-176; Ludger MÜLLER, Der Diözesanbischof – ein Beamter des Papstes?, in: AfkKR 170 (2001), 106-122; K. MÖRSDORF, Schriften zum Kanonischen Recht, 284-321.
 Cf. I. IVAN, Legiuirile Bisericii Ortodoxe Romîne sub Înalt Prea Sfinţitul Patriarh Justinian, 93.
 V. ŞESAN, Autocefalia, Autonomia, 243.
 Cf. I. G. ROŞESCU, Principiul autonomiei şi principiul autocefaliei, 310.
 A detailed analysis of the etymology, evolution and meaning of the word “autocephaly” in the canonistical language see at L. STAN, Obârşia autocefaliei şi autonomiei, 85-98.
On the issue autonomy and autocephaly see Grigorios D. PAPATHOMAS, Essai de bibliographie (ad hoc) pour l’étude des questions de l’autocéphalie, de l’autonomie et de la diaspora (contribution bibliographique à l’étude des questions – essai préliminarie), Katerini 2000.
 Cf. L. STAN, Despre autonomia bisericească, 379; “Sýntagma ton theíon kai hieron kanónon”, ed. by G. A. Rhalles – M. Potles, VI, Athens 1859, 85.
 Cf. A. JENSEN, Die Zukunft der Orthodoxie, 225 et seqq.; V. PHIDAS, Droit canon, 119-135, 164.
 L. STAN, Legislaţia Bisericii Ortodoxe Române în timpul arhipăstoririi Prea Fericitului Părinte Patriarh Justinian, 287.
 At length on the terms “autocephaly” and “autonomy” in the canon law and their usage and evolution in time see L. STAN, Obârşia autocefaliei şi autonomiei, 90-112.
 According to a pattern existing since the late Middle Age, the birth of national states was followed by the attempt to establish independent, autocephalous Churches. Both in the West and in the East was taken a stand against this “fashion”.
Pope Pius IX condemned any autocephalic tendency through points 36 and 37 of the annex “Syllabus errorum” to the Encyclical “Quanta cura” of December 8, 1864: “§VI. Errores de societate civili tum in se tum in suis ad Ecclesiam relationibus spectata/Irrtümer über die bürgerliche Gesellschaft, sowohl in sich als auch in ihren Beziehungen zur Kirche betrachtet: 36. Nationalis concilii definitio nullam aliam admittit disputationem, civilisque administratio rem ad hosce terminos exigere potest./Die Definition einer nationalen Synode läßt keine weitere Erörterung zu, und die bürgerliche Verwaltung kann die Sache nach diesen Bestimmungen einfordern. 37. Institui possunt nationales ecclesiae ab auctoritate Romani Pontificis subductae planeque divisae./Es können nationalen Kirchen eingerichtet werden, die der Autorität des Römischen Bischofs entzogen und völlig von ihr getrennt sind.” H. DENZIGER, Enchiridion symbolorum, 803.
 The Holy and Great pan-Orthodox Synod convened in 1872 by Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimus VI in Constantinople blamed phyletism – the means by which the autocephaly of local Orthodox Churches was consolidated beginning with the nineteenth century. The following condemnation was issued on August 10, 1872: “We renounce, censure and condemn racism, that is racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the Holy Canons of our Blessed Fathers which support the Holy Church and the entire Christian world, embellish it and lead it to divine godliness.” Cf. Nikolaus THON, Neuzeitliche Kirchengeschichte, 3. Ostkirchen, in: EKL, Bd. 3, 729 et seqq. here 730; J. BINNS, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, 12.
On the topic nation-confession see Nicolae BOCŞAN, Ioan LUMPERDEAN, Ioan-Aurel POP, Ethnie et confession en Transylvanie (du XIIIe au XIXe siècles), Cluj-Napoca 1996; Emanuel TURCZYNSKI, Konfession und Nation. Zur Frühgeschichte der serbischen und rumänischen Nationsbildung, Düsseldorf 1976.
 Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §15-§16.
 Cf. Statutul organic, IX.
 Cf. the chapter V.4 herein.
 To give the Transylvanian Metropolitanate re-established by Andrei Şaguna as an example of autocephal Church unit (in the present-day perception of autocephaly) is a far-fetched argument in the historical and political nationalistic contexts, like the interwar period or the Communist one in Romania. For the assertion that the Transylvanian Metropolitanate was autocephal see V. MOLDOVAN, Biserica Ortodoxă Română şi problema unificării, 21; P. MORUŞCA, Organizarea Bisericii ortodoxe române, 329 et seqq.; The speech of Alexandru Lepădatu, the minister of religions and arts, in the session of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church of February 1925, in: T. SIMEDREA, Patriarhia românească. Acte şi documente, 30-34 here 32-33.
 See Statutul organic, I.
 “Pentekostarion” (Πεντηκοσταριον) or “The Easter Triodion” (literally “The Flower Triodion”) is one of the two special liturgical books for the Easter cycle of worship, in the Orthodox Church, next to “The Lenten Triodion”. The books are called “Triodions” because of the “three odes” which are often sung during the church services of these seasons. The “Pentekostarion” contains the “propers” or variable elements for the 50-day Pentecost season, including Pentecost Week and its following Sunday, All Saints Day. Cf. Pentekostarion, in: The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3, 1627.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Protopope Meletie Drăghici from Timişoara, dated Sibiu, March 19, 1860, in: T. BODOGAE, Dintr-o corespondenţă timişoreană, 36. Cf. also A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 203.
 Cf. the chapter V.1.1 herein.
 The metropolitan of Karlowitz being also the Serbian voivode, he represented officially both the Serbian Church and nation; that is why Andrei Şaguna addressed him both in the issue of the church autonomy and that of the Romanians’ political independence.
 “Adresa primă a episcopului Andreiu Şaguna cătră patriarchul sârbesc Iosif Raiacics în causa independenţei ierarchice a românilor de sârbi” (“Bishop Andrei Şaguna’s first letter to the Serbian Patriarch Josip Rajačić regarding the hierarchical independence of the Romanians from the Serbians”), dated Vienna, March 16/28, 1849, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 38-39.
 “Memorand aşternut de episcopul Andreiu Şaguna ministeriului şi în copiă guvernatorului civil şi militar Baron de Wohlgemuth despre dorinţele şi lipsele naţiunii române şi a bisericii răsăritene cu ocasiunea organisării nouă a Ardélului” (“Memorandum written by Bishop Andrei Şaguna to the ministry and, in copy to the civil and military governor Baron of Wohlgemuth about the wishes and needs of the Romanian nation and the Eastern Church, by the new organization of Transylvania”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 46-55 here 51-52: “Die Sehnsucht der morgenländischen Romanen aus den österreichischen Kronländern nach Herstellung ihrer uralten Karlsburger Metropolie ist nicht, wie die Gegner der Romanen, und der romanisch morgenländischen Kirche behaupten, ein den Köpfen einiger romanischen Koriphäen entsprossenes Phantom, nein, es ist ein unwiderlegbares, während einer Dauer seit 15. Jahrhundert ausgeübtes und durch keine hochverrätherische Handlung verwirktes Recht, nach dessen Wiederherstellung jeder österreichisch morgenländische Romane strebt …”
 According to ap. c. 34 the bishops of every “nation” have to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise him as their head. Each bishop enjoys full autonomy in his eparchy, being connected to the hierarchical subordination and to the synodality.
See the text of the canon. See also the interpretation of this canon by Andrei Şaguna in the chapter VI.2.2.2 herein.
 According to c. 6 of the First Ecumenical Council was maintained the ancient custom to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts (Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis), since this was also the treatment usually accorded to the bishop of Rome. The same was to be respected with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces. It is the rule: each province has a head (metropolitan, later patriarch). See the text of the canon in the annex XV herein.
 According to c. 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council the bishops must not leave their own eparchy and go over to churches beyond its boundaries; but, on the contrary, each bishop administrates only his eparchy in accordance with the canons. They do not go beyond their own province to carry out an ordination or any other ecclesiastical services unless (officially) summoned thither. Each province will confine itself to the affairs of that particular province, in accordance with the regulations decreed in Nicaea. The churches situated in territories belonging to barbarian nations must be administered in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers.
 According to c. 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council the rights (jurisdiction) of every province, formerly and from the beginning belonging to it, will be preserved clear and inviolable. It was not allowed anymore to the bishop of Antioch to ordinate bishops for Cyprus, as he – contrary to the ecclesiastical laws and the canons of the Holy Apostles – did. Those who preside over the churches of Cyprus shall retain their privilege and ancient custom to perform themselves the ordinations of the bishops for their province. No one of the bishops shall take hold of any other province that was not formerly and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not held by his predecessors. If anyone has taken possession of any and has forcibly subjected it to his authority, he shall re-give it back to its rightful possessor.
 A. Baron de ŞAGUNA, Memorialu, 7-9.
 Ibid., 9-11.
 Ibid., 11-12.
 Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUN`A, Compendiu, §257-§258.
 “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.
 See the text of this canon in the annex XV herein.
On the issue 34 apostolic canon see Panteleimon RODOPOULOS, Ecclesiological Review of the Thirty-fourth Apostolic Canon, in: Kanon IV (1980), 92-99.
 A. Baron de ŞAGUNA, Memorialu, 5-7.
 “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, on October, 1860”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 177-180 here 179.
 A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 26-27.
 St. John Chyrsostom (golden-mouthed) (347-407) is considered one of the greatest hierachs and theologians of the Eastern Church. He is the Patron Saint of orators, preachers, and speakers.
 “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.
 A. Baronu de SIAGUN’A, Enchiridionu, 21.
 Cf. the chapter V.1.2 herein.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Vuk Karadžić, dated Sibiu, April 7, 1858, in: T. BODOGAE, Două scrisori ale lui Şaguna către Vuk Karagici, 680-682 here 681.
 Ibid., 681.
 N. POPEA, Arhiepiscopul, Discurs, 33.
 “Jesus Christus unser Erlöser und seine Jünger die Apostel haben keine jüdische, keine griechische, keine romanische, keine serbische oder wie sie heißen, keine nationale, sondern eine, heilige, katholische apostolische Kirche gegründet …” Antwort auf die Angriffe einiger Romanen und der Presse gegen die Einheit der Hierarchie der morgenländischen katholischen orthodoxen Kirche und die serbische Nation in den k.k. österreichischen Staaten, Wien 1851, 18.
 Not only the Serbian patriarch was obviously at odds with himself, but also Bishop Eugeniu Hacman of Bukovina, who, although he used the 34 apostolic canon as a “correct” argument based on territoriality in order to refuse the incorporation of the Eparchy of Bukovina in the Transylvanian Metropolitanate, infringed the same canon willingly by accepting under his metropolitanate’s jurisdiction two Dalmatian eparchies (Zara and Cattaro), which had no territorial nor linguistic elements in common with Bukovina. Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, 100 de ani de la reînfiinţarea Mitropoliei Ardealului, 828.
 Cf. J. SCHNEIDER, Der Hermannstädter Metropolit, 183.
 The inference from 34 apostolic canon of the necessity of the identity of origin and language of one’s nation’s metropolitans with its bishops and believers seems to be original.
 J. SCHNEIDER, Der Hermannstädter Metropolit, 210: “Auf der anderen Seite läßt sich die später einsetzende Autokephaliebewegung innerhalb der rumänischen, bulgarischen, serbischen und anderen Kirchen keineswegs auf Şaguna zurückführen, da er sich in seinem Werk ausschließlich auf die Pentarchie bezieht …”
 One might say that the interpretation of 34 apostolic canon by Andrei Şaguna is more an “anticipation” of the Second Vatican Council, which abolished the exclusivity of the Latin language in the divine services of the Catholic Church (Cf. The Constitution on Sacred Liturgy – Sacrosantum Concilium – Chapter III, 36), rather than one of the Orthodox ethnophiletist arguments circulating especially beginning with the nineteenth century.
 “Die von der orientalischen Kirchenkonstitution bedingte Einheit der Bischöfe, Erzbischöfe und Patriarchen der verschiedenen Völker eines und desselben Glaubens findet ihre Begründung nicht in administrativen, sondern rein dogmatischen Rücksichten; nämlich in der Bekennung derselben Dogmen und in der Beobachtung einiger, bloss ceremonieller, beim Gottesdienste vorkommender Kirchengebräuche, die darin bestehen, dass der pontifizirende Bischof in einigen bei gottesdienstlichen Funktionen vorkommenden Gebeten des Metropoliten und dieser wieder des Patriarchen (wenn derselbe auch fremd ist) erwähnt. Die orientalische Kirche erkennt im Sinne ihrer Dogmen Christus zu ihrem Oberhaupte an, sie glaubt an ein unsichtbares Haupt; weicht aber von der römisch-katholischen Kirche darin ab, dass sie hinsichtlich ihrer Verwaltung für jede einzelne Nation einen eigens gewählten Vorstand hat, welcher bei verschiedenen Nationen desselben Glaubens auch verschieden (mystisch oder physisch) sein kann, wie z.B. bei den Russen und Griechen wird die Kirche durch eine Synode, und in der Walachei durch einen von dem Metropoliten der Moldau unabhängigen eigenen Metropoliten verwaltet; während die katholische Kirche sowohl in dogmatischer als auch administrativer Hinsicht eine vollkommene Einheit bildet und ihrer Hierarchie ein System zu Grunde liegt, welches auf keine Nationalität Bedacht nimmt.” “Petiţiunea cătră minister pentru separarea hierarchiei române de cea sârbească şi ţinerea unui sinod general” (“The petition to the ministry asking the separation of the Romanian hierarchy from the Serbian one and the meeting of a general synod”), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 385-389 here 386.
 One of the main representatives of this principle was the Czech leader František Palacký, who thought that Austria’s only chance of survival as monarchy was its transformation into a federation of nations equal with each other, based on the moral fundament of its power, which was the total respect of certain ethnic groups. Cf. D. SUCIU, Lupta naţionalităţilor din Imperiul Habsburgic, 178; Hartmut LEHMANN, Silke LEHMANN, Das Nationalitätenproblem in Österreich 1848-1918, Göttingen 1973, 9-14.
 Cf. the chapter III.1.1 herein.
 Andrei Şaguna’s concept of “ethnos” or “nation” did not have the same role and meaning as what the cultivated politicians of his time understood by it, as the very educational and spiritual background in which they had grown up was considerably different. The Uniate intellectuals of the mid-nineteenth century offered the Romanians in Transylvania a new developing direction based on the idea of nationality. They were the fruit of that vigorous Greek Catholic political movement which gradually developed from the seeds of the Leopoldine Diplomas (Cf. the chapter I.2 herein), and seemed to place the requirements of ethnic nationality before religion. Cf. K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 59-60.
 See A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §5.
 Statutul organic, page 8.
 See A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §6.
 Statutul organic, page 7.
 Statutul organic, §6.
 Cf. Statutul organic, §38-§40, §91, §148.
 Cf. Statutul organic, §91 e).
 I. MATEIU, Contribuţiuni la istoria dreptului bisericesc, 234.
 V. MOLDOVAN, Biserica Ortodoxă Română şi problema unificării, 31-32.
 Cf. “Petiţiunea sinodului eparchial din anul 1850 cătră Maiestatea Sa Preaînălţatul nostru Monarch aşternută pe calea guvernului ţării” (“The petition of the eparchial synod of 1850 to His Highness, our Monarch, sent through the country government”), dated Sibiu, April 10, 1850, in Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 65-68 here 66: “1. Geruhen Eurer Majestät durch einen in die zukünftige Landesverfassung des Grossfürstenthums Siebenbürgen eigens einzuschaltenden Artikel die Freiheit der morgenländischen Kirche in Siebenbürgen, und die Gleichberechtigung derselben mit den anderen christlichen Landesreligionen Allergnädigst zu gewährleisten.”
 K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 225.
 See the chapters VI.2.3.2 and VI.2.3.3 herein.
 See A. Baronu de ŞAGUNA, Elementele dreptului canonic, 21855, 3-4.
 Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §224-§225.
 Statutul organic, I.
 Statutul organic,VII.
 Cf. S. RELI, Politica religioasă a Habsburgilor, 42.
 Cf. the chapter III.2.1 herein.
 V. MANGRA, Şaguna ca organizator constituţional, 443.
 See the chapters III.3.2 and VII.5 herein.
 Cf. S. RELI, Politica religioasă a Habsburgilor, 43; V. ŞESAN, Proiect de unificare a organizaţiei Bisericii autocefale ortodoxe din România întregită, 20: “A church congress was created in 1871 in Bukovina too, but it did not function at all, being suppressed by the government that did not like it.”
January 18, 2017 Drept si Religie