Talk:Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Romania  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Stock post message.svg
To-do list for Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic:
No to-do list assigned.

False translation of the name of the Church. Why not either go back to calling the article "Romanian Catholic Church" or else use the exact name the Church uses for itself: "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic"?

Lima 04:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I asked a friend of mine who is a native Romanian speaker about this, and this is what he said:
"it's really the same as 'uniate'
we do not have two separate words in Romanian, that would correspnd to uniate and united.
"unita" in this context is really uniate.
they do not like to call themselves 'unitii' (uniates)
"Romanian Church United with Rome" seems a correct translation.
This is still different then calling their members "uniti", which they do not particularly appreciate. I believe the most common word they use about themselves is greco-catolici
——Preost talk contribs June 28, 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Why is the article still under a false name? As you say, "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic" is the correct translation of the name the Church uses. ("Romanian Church Uniate with Rome" would be nonsense.) Do you know who corrects titles of articles? -- Lima 19:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox propaganda[edit]

The word "Uniate" is used with offensatory purpose from the Orthodox propaganda

Not really. It is the name used in the official site http://www.bru.ro/ bogdan 10:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the English "Uniate" term as not being a translation of "Unită cu Roma". OK. I'm moving to "United with Rome". bogdan 10:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I haven´t found the word "uniate" on http://www.bru.ro/ Please be more explicit. --Mihai Andrei 13:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is both an offensive term and the official name. So is Melkite (another E. Church) at least according to a Melkite Bishop of my acquaintance. There has been considerable debate over the years internally (I'm a lay leader) over whether to be insulted or not. Frankly, it bores me but whatever floats their boat. TMLutas 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Similitude[edit]

The article about the most important greek-catholic church, the Ukrainian one, has the title Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Therefore I think that the right place of the article about the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church is at Romanian Greek-Catholic Church. --Mihai Andrei 14:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's just that the official name of the "Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church" is the "Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church". (see their website) The official name of the Romanian church is really "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic". bogdan 14:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, standardization among eastern churches has far lagged behind the West. It is sometimes, but not always a wise thing to transfer a style from one parish to another, much less one church to another.
TMLutas 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Repression[edit]

Before I set up this section I thought I'd put it up here to discuss it. There are three sources of pressure in the history of this church. 1. Islam was a problem. 2. Orthodoxy has proven hostile though it's frankly a very weird relationship. 3. Catholicism itself is coming out of a period where some pretty severe errors were committed, especially in the US and to a lesser extent the english speaking world. The Vatican recently (1996) issued something of an apology for messing with the Rite, with all E. Rites really starting in 1717 and going on for better than a century and a half. The US was particularly bad with requests for partial or complete suppression of the rite in the US only ceasing around the time of Vatican II. [1]


I put up a first stab at a repression section and added an atheist repression section (how could I forget?) to cover communist era repressions. TMLutas 19:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/eastinst.htm

problems with the atheist repression section[edit]

which he revealed only on 5 March 1973, three years after Bishop Hossu's death.

however, Iuliu Hossu article says † May 28, 1977, Bucharest

He remained under house arrest, and each year sent a memorandum to the President of the Republic, asking that the country's laws and Romania's international agreements be observed with regard to the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church

if he really died in 1973, it couldn't send any memorandum to the president of romania, since there was no "president" until 1974 (however President of the Republic is, from what i know, the official title of the Italian president, so maybe the article refers to him)

Restitution of theft is an accepted christian principle but there is also something of a poisoned pill aspect to the stolen properties handed over to the Romanian Orthodox Church. It severely undermines the moral authority of a Church to preach the 10 commandments from a stolen church."

this fragment doesn't look NPOV

Anonimu 21:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The legislation that gave those churches over to the Romanian Orthodox Church was overturned as being not just wrong headed but odious and defamatory to national reputation. Out of the whole panoply of communist era evil and stupidity this is one of only a handful that have been characterized that badly and repealed with such language attached. There is absolutely zero legal justification for the effects of such an immoral law to remain in force yet lawyers can and will spin things out for an awfully long time when instructed to do so.
But let's say that you're right. How do you properly NPOV characterize (without using the term stolen) the physical retention of a church without legal cover when the church was originally handed over as part of an odious piece of legislation, later repudiated with prejudice? Sometimes stolen isn't just an insult; it can also be a description.
TMLutas 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether in a communist state or a democratic one, law is law and it's legal. The numerous romanian agrarian reforms were all made by expropriation. And they're all considered perfectly legal and are the basis for most present-day properties in romania. I think you're not objective in this matter. A good word for that action is expropriated, while stolen it's just you being judegemental. Anyway the whole fragment i put here is not NPOV. Anonimu 16:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

section on Latin Rite Roman Catholic repression[edit]

This section needs some clean-up to clarify what is being said. There are a few sentence fragments, perhaps created by mistakes in punctuation. Also the article has an instance of inflammatory language ("theological fratricide").

Some dates need to be clarified. E.g.: The pressure grew with the creation, 17 years after Romania's greek-catholics recreated a full communion with Rome of the Commission for the correction of the liturgical books of the Church of the East. The reader has to go back to the start of the article to calculate that the year referenced is 1717 (is that the correct year?)

Also: Roman Catholic repression of this Church recently centers in the United States and consists of repeated, and sometimes successful requests for partial or total suppression of the Church's Rite. Could someone make this more specific by referring to particular actions and dates? The IMHO lamentable document Cum data fuerit was issued over 75 years ago, in 1929; if this is what is meant by recent, it really is not clear.

Also, please cite published sources that mention these historical events. Chonak 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has provided documentation on the "recent" Latin-rite "repression" against the Romanian church in the past two years, I will revise the paragraph accordingly. Chonak (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Date format[edit]

On 2006-08-08, anonymous editor 80.235.122.220 changed some dates from "Month Day, Year" format to "Day Month Year" format. Neither of these is wrong. However, it would be good to use the more flexible numeric format "YYYY-MM-DD" (in double-brackets, of course), which is displayed according to user-specified preferences. Chonak 15:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The practice of using linked dates is no longer preferred style. Chonak (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Restitution of properties as a separate article ?.[edit]

I was going to add a section on the restitution of properties using [1] and similar as it has a good number of primary sources that is uses but actually we could probably do with a whole separate article on this given the sheer number of properties and the numerous religious groups involved (protestant, catholics, evangelicals and even jewish properties). This note is just a ping so this stays in my watchlists and if anyone has a more recent reference. AFAIK the 2009 Romanian budget increased allocations for church building works and salaries quite dramatically but as the funding is proportional to the churches so who controls the churches controls the funding which makes such an article of significant encyclopaedic worth. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Date incorrect[edit]

The churches in Wallachia and Moldova had abandoned Slavonic as a liturgical language by the mid-18th century. I think that the author may be confusing the abandonment of Slavonic with the adoption of Latin, rather than Romanian Cyrillic, script, which did indeed happen in the 1860's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.132.187 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate content[edit]

Quote: "Since the fall of Communism, Church leaders have claimed that the Romanian Greek-Catholic Community is facing with a cultural and religious wipe-out: the Greek-Catholic churches are allegedly destroyed by the Romanian Orthodox Church representatives, whose actions are supported and accepted by the Romanian authorities."

This is such an untrue statement from the leaders of the Greek-Catholich Church and I consider totally inappropriate to publish it without making public also what the other side has to say. The propaganda they led against the Orthodox Church is never made public: offensing booklets, invading churches in communities where they were a minority while presenting itself as victims. Why then the former Greek-Catholics do not return to their Greek-Catholic belief? Maybe because the Greek-Catholics are nothing else than Orthodox forced to embrace the Catholicism, and which now do not feel the need to return to something foreign to their beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.114.63.54 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Material about Latin-Eastern conflicts[edit]

Anonymous user 188.25.31.73 in Bucharest removed these sections on 27 May 2012 without explanation. I'm not sure that these paragraphs are perfect -- some of the language seems opinionated to me, but deleting them is probably not the best way to improve the article. Would any knowledgeable readers care to work on this material a little and reincorporate it to the article? --Chonak (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


[Conflict with the Latin Rite] Unlike other sources of pressure, Latin Rite pressure against this Church came from within Catholicism, one segment of the same Universal Church attempting to modify, suppress or even outright ban another part.

Historically, Eastern Catholic Churches in general came under pressure to modify their practices, to Romanize. In the case of the Byzantine-Rite Romanian Catholic Church, the pressure grew with the creation, 17 years after Romania's Greek-Catholics recreated a full communion with Rome, of the "Commission, created in 1717 and operational in the heart of the Congregation for the Propagation of Faith ('Propaganda Fide') until 1862, for the correction of the liturgical books of the Church of the East.

These interventions felt the effects of the mentality and convictions of the times, according to which a certain subordination of the non-Latin liturgies was perceived toward the Latin rite liturgy which was considered 'ritus praestantior.' This attitude may have led to interventions in the Eastern liturgical texts which today, in light of theological studies and progress, have need of revision, in the sense of a return to ancestral traditions."[1]

Given that the Commission came into being so close to the date of reunification, Romanian Byzantine Catholicism is naturally the most profoundly affected of all the eastern churches as it never had a chance to gain its legs and get a sense of self within Catholicism prior to the creation of this innovating Commission. Another reason Romanizing pressure was more intense was the fact that the Romanian language itself is derived from Latin, not Old Church Slavonic or Greek, and Romanization was therefore more attractive to Romanian Byzantine Catholics than it was to, say, Ukrainian Catholics.

[Problems in diaspora territories] Starting in the late 19th century, two issues, trusteeship (lay ownership of parish property) and the ministry of married Greek-Catholic clergy in the United States and Canada became points of conflict between Latin-rite church authorities and the Greek-Catholic clergy and faithful. At the time, ecclesiastical structures for the Eastern Churches had not been erected in those countries, and Greek-Catholic parishes and their priests' ministry were under the jurisdiction of local Latin-rite diocesan bishops.

At the request of these bishops, the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decreed that Byzantine-rite Churches would have to follow the custom of the predominant Latin Church: married priests would not be allowed to serve in such diaspora mission settings.[2] This restriction on the Eastern churches' exercise of their established customs remained a contentious issue for years, and even provoked schism, as in the 1889 case of the conflict between Irish-American Archbishop John Ireland and Ruthenian priest Alexis Toth in Minnesota.[3] Most Romanian emigration came after this period, so it was less an issue but still a problem. Today, most priests of the Romanian Greek Catholic diocese of the United State are married and there is no bar to ordination of married men.

  1. ^ Congregation for the Eastern Churches, Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1996)
  2. ^ James Murray, "Ordination of Married Men in the Eastern Church".
  3. ^ See also the article on Archbishop John Ireland.