The mitropolitan see of Transylvania and archbishop of Sibiu was vacant at the end of August 2005, after the death of Archbishop Antonie Plamadeala. The Holy Synod of the Romanian Church designated two candidates for the see, Andrei Andreicut, Archbishop of Alba Iulia and Laurentiu Streza, bishop of Caransebes, the latter being ellected after two rounds of votes. Also in November, the Holy Synod decided to reorganize the Mitropoly of Transylvania on misionary and social motives, resulting the Mitropoly of Sibiu and Covasna, with the see at Sibiu, and the Mitropoly of Cluj, Alba, Crisana and Maramures, with the see in Cluj. The decision came under heavy critics by the faithful in Sibiu and other counties, accusing a separation is taking place.

Press release from Archbishop Bartolomeu referring to the new Cluj Mitropoly
The decision to initiate a new mitropoly in Transylvania, the Mitropoly of Cluj, Alba, Crisana and Maramures, with the see in Cluj, paralel with the existing one of Sibiu and Harghita, with the see in Sibiu, ligers into actuality, obliging me to make further statements. This reorganisation of the Transylvanian Mitropoly, proposed by seven bishops was aprooved by the members of the Holy Synod in November 4th 2005, with 38 votes in favor. This decision made by the highest authority in the Church is and stays definitive. Thus, the new mitropoly is already in place, and the authoritative institution, the National Church Assembly, in which the members of the Synod are also a part, has the authority to introduce the apropriate modifications in article 5 of the Romanian Orthodox Church Statute, modifications regarding exclusively the name and the jurisdiction of the new mitropoly. This would take place probabibly in the beginning of March 2006. Untill then, His Holyness Patriarch Teoctist helds the vacancy – as he did for the vacancy in Sibiu – and it is mentioned during services. ("Renasterea" magazine, January 2006, Cluj).

Archbishop Bartolomeu – Journal pages
December 7th – If the ellection of a new Mitropolite in Sibiu was preceded by a electoral campaign , now the press is infested by a postelectoral campaign. It's not the content that catches my eye, but its lack of style, beyond any critic.

December 8th – A professor (without any shade of irony) admonishes me for not knowing the history of Transylvania. It might be true I do not know it very well from books, but I think I've lived it with my flesh and bones. I would invite the professor to sit in front of each other and show me on behalf of those he represents:
– the heart that, for the sake of Transylvania, lead the great anticomunist strike in the University of Cluj in June 1946;
– the soles of a monk that, for the sake of Transylvania, stepped on every soil of Transylvanian roads in November 1947, escorted by gendarmes from Cluj to Toplita, a 200 km walk;
– the hands that, for the sake of Transylvania, beared hand-cuffs;
– the ankles that, for the sake of Transylvania, beared chains;
– the body that, for the sake of Transylvania, was maltreated.
History can be learnt also this way. ("Renasterea" magazine, December 2005, Cluj)

Besides the pro arguments, a big part of the Transylvanian orthodox community opposes this act, which is seen as yet another way of dividing the Church. Their voices were made clear when, January 15th, a delegation composed of 800 faithful and 200 priests manifested their voice outside the Patriarchal Palace in Bucharest. They were there during the meeting of the Holy Synod, but their voice was silenced by the Mitropolite of Sibiu, exacly the voice supposed to be very interrested by their protest. But their arguments go as follows.

First of all, only the Great Church Assembly has the authority to decide the initiation of a new Mitropoly, not the Holy Synod, then there are no good motifs to torn apart the Mitropoly, only ambitions and interrests. The Holy Synod took an uncanonical decision, because first the new mitropolite was ellected, then came the decision to break in two the mitropoly, usually, this is done the other way round. Two years ago, Archbishop Bartolomeu declared in the Synod that Transylvania, with two mitropolies, one in the North, the other in the South would be a assault against the unity of the hystorical province. Also, archbishop Bartolomeu has made a crucial mistake in dividing the mitropoly in two, because it is a example for those who, in future, would be uncomfortable with the person ellected in a high-Church administration. What if somebody would not like the future patriarch? There will be two patriarchates in Romania? Lacking the culture of dialogue and refusing to be in dialogue with other currents of oppinion inside the Church leads to dangerous consequences. (Arguments read during the January 15th manifestation in Bucharest, "Ziua" newspaper, January 16th 2006).

The Mitropoly of Transylvania, with the see in Sibiu, has a great hystorical importance, because it has been for ober 150 years the only orthodox see in Transylvania, during the Habsburgic and Hungarian rule over the province. To move it or to divide it would be interpreted as a division between Orthodox Romanians, themselves divided over the centuries by political and religious divergence. Also, the see in Sibiu is the result of the work undertook by the Bihsop Andrei Saguna during the XIXth century, regarded as a saint by the local church; a separation would mean a division of his work. But the urge to undertake a major change in the administrative organisation of the Romanian Orthodox Church is of far greater importance, if the Church is to be prepared for the descentralized environment the EU would bring starting with 2007. Instead of calculating the actual reasons of the project (which is, by the way, 80 years old), the two parts engaged is a quarrel, often taking place inside the press, creating a dirty image in the eyes of the third-party observers. Accusations and conspiracy theory emerged, relating one's reasons to political, ethnical and dividing interrests. Nevertheless, it is not one of these cases. The Mitropoly is a simple fact: it is justifyed by the modern needs of the Church, it is welcomed by the people who would be a part of the new mitropoly and it is canonicaly justifyed. But the manner in which it appeared triggers an alarm-signal about the way the Church understands to magage crisis.

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto: