Jump to content

Talk:Romanian Orthodox Church

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romanian Catholic Church

[edit]

Dan said when reverting:

Uniate is not Catholic, Bogdane, but Orthodox. Why do you confuse things so much ?)

I am quite sure "The Romanian Greek-Catholic Uniate Church" is a Catholic Church. :-) Bogdan | Talk 19:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oups, you picked the wrong Google:
Uniate Church Any of the Orthodox Churches that accept the Catholic faith and the supremacy of the pope and are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, but retain their own liturgy and separate organization.

In Ukraine, despite being proscribed 1946?89, the Uniate Church claimed some 4.5 million adherents when it was once again officially recognized. Its rehabilitation was marked by the return of its spiritual leader, Cardinal Miroslav Lubachivsky, to take up residence in Lvi?v in western Ukraine after 52 years? exile in Rome.
Bogdane, Bogdane, ai sā devii Gâgā dacā rǎmâi doar la prima paginā din Gâgāl :-)

"first national, first attested, and first apostolic"

[edit]

To the anon, who is re-inserting:

Romanians know their church to be the first national, first attested, and first apostolic (church built by the Apostles themselves) in Europe.

This is a bold claim, and maybe one of those that can never be objectively be decided pro or against. Perhaps you should expand the rationale behind this claim?

Other churches having similiar claims most often back up their claim be given lists of apostilic succession from the apostles. Of course this is not a true objective proof of the fact of apostolic succession but at least of the claim of apostolic succession. See for examples:

Pjacobi 10:55, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism

[edit]

A wise man once said that the only thing he does know is that he does not know anything. Well obviously we can not be as wise, but at least we should try. I noticed that there is one person here who intentionally promotes a POV style in this article. Although I do not disagree with most of his claims (except the with the fact that the Dacians were christianized and a few other minor facts), I do not think it is ETHICAL to impose my point of view to others. Moreover, this article is written with a lot of passion, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is inapropriate, considering the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of objective knowledge. Another thing that is obvious is that whenever someone tries to express their point of view, they are violently silenced by claiming that they are just novices in learning history or even by offending them. I hope you will not offend me when you reply to this message, Dr. Jâpă. It is also obvious that the aforementioned person strongly disagrees with largely accepted Wikipedia policies. Why do you still write here if you do not agree with the Wikipedia NPOV policies?
A, si pe final asa, mai am o intrebare: sunteti cumva un simpatizant al Partidului Romania Mare?
Ioan

Irismeister/Dan Jipa is banned from Wikipedia

[edit]

Dan Jipa, formerly User:Irismeister, is currently under a one-year Arbitration Committee ban (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 3 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Irismeister). Users are encouraged to revert all contributions and admins are encouraged to block all attempts at access. Furthermore, the ban timer is reset with every contribution - David Gerard 20:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) (for the ArbCom)

Well, I should say it was about time. VMORO

The English Wikipedia is huge, so it's hard for people to know of everywhere a banned user might show up again ;-) - David Gerard 00:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Old references

[edit]

Irismeister's references, moved from the article:

  • Mircea Păcurariu, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, Sophia, Bucureşti, 2000 (the standard text in Romanian, well updated, complete, superbly printed - an excellent reference.)
  • The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection (Translated with a foreword by Benedicta Ward, SLG), Cistercian Publications, Kalamazoo, Revised edition 1984.
  • Celălalt Noica: Mărturii ale monahului Rafail, însoţite de câteva cuvinte de folos ale părintelui Symeon, ediţie îngrijită de Pr. Eugen Drăgoi şi Pr. Ninel Ţugui, Editura Anastasia, Bucureşti, 1994 (father Rafail Noica, one of the most accomplished figures in the Orthodox spiritualiy is the "other" Noica because his father Constantin Noica is the most famous Romanian philosopher.)
  • Arsenie Papacioc Scrisori câtre fiii mei duhovniceşti (Editura Mânăstirii Dervent, Constanţa, 2000).
  • Arsenie Papacioc Duhovnici români în dialog cu tinerii (Editura Bizantină, Bucureşti, 1997).
  • Arsenie Papacioc La Mãnãstire te desfiinţezi ca personalitate omenească în personalitate îngereascã - interviu, în Epifania, noiembrie-decembrie 1997.

Dreapta credinţă

[edit]

I've made the article more neutral by removing the fact that the church is most often known as Dreapta credinţă. This is simply untrue. As a Romanian, the most common way that people, both Orthodox and not Orthodox, refer to it, is "Biserica Ortodoxă" and the followers are simply "ortodocşi". Dreapta credinţă is in my view a terribly biased term. Ronline 06:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Boscorodirea (in Romanian)

[edit]

i don't know how NPOV could this link be, being on the site of a baptist organisation with openly criticizes orthodoxism (try reading the section about orthodoxy on that site) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.81.53 (talk • contribs)

Orthodoxy is the right word

[edit]

Let the -isms rest in peace :O) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.53.175 (talk • contribs)

"Uniate"

[edit]

The English term "Uniate" is increasingly seen as offensive. We should reword several portions of the article to reflect current usage. CRCulver 03:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articolul nu ne reprezint&#257!

[edit]

Este castrat, asta este "neutralizat". Asta face "enciclopedia" unui pornocrat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.124.24 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the very helpful comment! bogdan 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Castration and neutralization, bad taste and censorship aren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishimeister (talk • contribs)

Of course, I assume adding only information from trustable sources is considered castration of the imagination, right ? :-) bogdan 22:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What in particular do you object to? Remember, this is a neutral encyclopedia that shouldn't have a pro-Orthodox point of view. Ronline ✉ 06:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image

[edit]

The image is beautiful -- I do not know how to nominate it for use as a featured image, but I suggest it's worthy. Adamdavis 00:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation of Ilie Stănescu as International King of the Rroma at Curtea de Argeş

[edit]

You can find the discussed chapter here.

I added back this chapter, as it was a big scandal at the time.Dl.goe 18:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crculver removed it:Rv non-notable

I added back the content template. The discussion is not yet finished. More opinions are needed.Dl.goe 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitropolitul Banatului

[edit]

A fost uitat Mitropolitul Banatului, IPS Nicolae (Corneanu) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.15.156.186 (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]


List of Patriarchs

[edit]

Following the comments on the talk page of the above, should the list be included here - or have more information on it (why the change in titles etc?)

How does the inter-patriarch-period operate - is it similar to the (Catholic) inter-papacy? Jackiespeel 16:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schools in 1947-48

[edit]
As a result of measures passed in 1947-48, the 2300 elementary schools operated by the church were closed

I would have thought they were taken over by the state, not closed. bogdan (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Ramet does say "closed", though, and she's quite an expert on religion in Romania. On the other hand, one would imagine at least some of those buildings, equipped as they were to be schools, would remain as schools. (I know of a (Catholic) school in Brăila that became a tuberculosis hospital, but that's just one example.) Anyway, that's what the source writes, but adding "or taken over by the state" would probably not be inaccurate, since the number of schools was rather large. Biruitorul Talk 04:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Unique' features

[edit]

I agree that Latinate language is unique in the Liturgy in Rumania; however as I demonstrated the synod of the Church of Cyprus currently has 8 of the chorepiskopous, so it's not unique to Rumania is it? Also I have seen this mentioned for the Patriarchate of Antioch, in the Turkish bit. Eugene-elgato (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blank spaces

[edit]

In my opinion the article explores fairly well the relationship of the church with the Communist regime however mentions in no way its ties with the far-right particularly during the late thirties and the war-years. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and actually at some point I'll be adding in more from Cioroianu on the Communist period. Regarding relations with Antonescu and the Guard: that's a very rich topic much deserving of our attention. I can't promise anything myself soon, but it's planned. - Biruitorul Talk 07:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if we should keep the historically chronological organization or go for a criticism section. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the criticism should go in the history section, not in its own section. bogdan (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of an article more like the one about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That would allow for a vaster range of criticism to be expressed: antisemitism during the last years of Miron Cristea's patriarchate, collaboration with communist totalitarian regime and the Securitate but also more recent xenophobic rhetoric, interference in politics, reluctance to return greek-catholic property, charges of corruption against notable bishops. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm with Bogdan here. "Criticism" articles/sections tend to be POV magnets (I refer you to Criticism of Traian Băsescu), and besides, what was the target of criticism is also an integral part of the Church's history. It seems odd to talk about, say, the cathedrals built in the 1930s in the "history" section and the links to the Guard in the "criticism" section - especially when some churches were built by the Guard. - Biruitorul Talk 14:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you have a point. Historical facts such as the Holy Sinod explicitly taking position in favor of depriving non-orthodox Romanians and ethnic minorities of their citizenship definitely belongs to the History section (and there is no reason to fork it into a criticism section). Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern European calendar: Naming proposal

[edit]

On this glorious Easter Tuesday, united around the world, here is an update on the progress of the ballot.

Option 1 - Meletian calendar - 1 vote (recommended option)
Option 2 - New calendar (Eastern churches) - no votes (this option is not recommended)
Option 3 - No change - 2 votes (this option is not recommended)
Option 4 - "Revised" Julian calendar - no votes (this option is not recommended)

To vote by proxy, write QUICKVOTE and sign with four tildes. If you want your proxy to vote in a particular way, add the option number in brackets. Thus QUICKVOTE (1) means your vote will be cast in favour of option 1.

The tilde is the wavy line ~ sometimes placed above n (in Spanish) or a or o in Portuguese where, following the shorthand of medieval Latin copyists, it marks the omission of a following letter n.

This is not the place to vote. Click on this link Talk:Revised Julian calendar#Proposal to change article name, read the manifestos and then add your vote underneath the others. 212.85.12.219 (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Paschoa muito feliz a todos. O povo unido jamais sera vencido. 212.85.12.219 (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Founder

[edit]

Please ad the Moldavian metropolis as a co-founder metropolis or delete the Wallachian metropolis on the "founder" tab! That'd wrongly imply that the Romanian Patriarchy has been evolved only from Wallachian metropolis.Fabricio (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mitropolia Iasi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Mitropolia Iasi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:420 Conducatorii de partid si de stat.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:420 Conducatorii de partid si de stat.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed seminaries

[edit]

> 13 of its 15 theological seminaries were closed

I can find more than two theological seminaries being in use during the Communist era:

etc. bogdan (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Locum tenens?

[edit]

The article says that the patriarch is locum tenens of Caesarea in Cappadocia. That would mean that he is now temporarily doing the duty of the holder of that post while the incumbent is away or indisposed. This seems wildly unlikely. What is his actual relationship to that see? Is he, at a wild guess, its titular archbishop? J S Ayer (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. His full title, with which he is commemorated every Sunday at the Liturgy, (which is aired on a weekly basis, either on Romanian National Television [when I was younger], or on the Patriarchy's own television-and-radio station [today]), is "Archbishop of Bucharest, Metropolitan of Muntenia and Dobrogea, placeholder of the throne of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church". Cappadocia is a region in Turkey, and Turks obviously aren't Orthodox (or Romanians, for that matter), but the region was indeed Christian once (see Cappadocian Fathers), and the title remains, as a honorary distinction, devoid of practical meaning. — 79.113.237.42 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State Funding

[edit]

The paragraph headed 'After 1989' includes the following: "Currently, the state provides the funds necessary for paying the salaries of priests, deacons and other prelates and the pensions of retired clergy, as well as for expenses related to lay church personnel. ... The same applies to all state-recognised religions in Romania."

Is this still the case? Does it apply to authorised ministers of the neo-protestant denominations, or even to non-Christian religious office-holders? Douglasson (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, except Adventists are proud and don't want state funding. Most of the funding to ROC goes to maintaining its historical patrimony. ROC is generally politically quietist, with the notable exception of the 2018 Romanian constitutional referendum. There are some Orthodox radicals, but the large majority are moderates or even nominal Christians. Or as somebody put it You can't live decently from a priest's wage. Churches have to produce money in order that priests have enough money. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Missing Years

[edit]

Twelve years ago I was noting on this very talk page that there were some blank spaces in the history of the Romanian Orthodox Church. "The Missing Years" conveniently covered the period 1925-1945. Well I reckon it's never too late so, today I added two paragraphs that I plan to expand over the next few weeks. I'm looking forward to any help and feedback. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Plinul cel tanar. Are you aware of the existance of this page in Romanian Wikipedia?: ro:Misiunea Ortodoxă Română din Transnistria. Just saying because I found what you wrote about Transnistria interesting and wondered if it could have an article of its own. Super Ψ Dro 12:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhh, yes. Popa has a whole chapter about the Church's whitewashing strategy and this is tangible proof that he is right. There would be more to write about Transnistria. My plan is to tackle all the issues related to BOR and the Holocaust/Antisemtism over the next months. I intend to start here at en.wiki then move to ro.wiki, fr.wiki... etc. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands today June 10, 2021, although not perfect, suits me for the time being. I tried to make the narrative as smooth as possible from the 1920s to the early years of communist rule. It was not my intention to turn the article into an indictment of the Romanian Orthodox Church for its interwar and wartime policies but the literature is what it is. After all, as Ion Popa puts it, the facts are overwhelmingly incriminating. I didn't use all the literature available since I plan to write an extended article but I can provide additional references if needed. Looking forward to any feedback and contributions. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem

[edit]
Russian Orthodox Cross
ByzantineCross

There is a common misconception that the Russian Orthodox cross (which is correctly called "Russian" Orthodox Cross, not to be confuseed with the Russian cross) is the "Easter Orthodox Cross". This is due to the Russian Orthodox Church making up about 50% of all eastern orthodox in the world. Also the Eastern Orthodoxy in North America template contributes to this misconception as well. Yes, other orthodox churches of the slavonic tradition use this cross as well (American, Polish, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Czechs and Slovaks), but Romanian, Albanian, Georgian and the Greek Churches (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Greece and Cyprus) do not. This is why on the Eastern Orthodox wikipedia page this cross is not used as emblem and the Byzantine cross is used instead. There are very few Romanian churches (which are all labeled "russian", referring to architecture) that have this cross on their dome or bell tower and it is most certainly not the official emblem of the Romanian Church. Barumbarumba (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and anyway, per WP:V and WP:BURDEN, we need references, not speculation. — Biruitorul Talk 18:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concordant of 1927

[edit]

There is an article on the Concordant of 1927 at ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordatul_din_1927. Translation would be welcome. There are English articles on concordants of '26 and '27. Is there a article (not a list) that brings this together? It must have be an general movement by the Latin church? 1.159.58.220 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romanian_Orthodox_Church&oldid=1207802045"