A documentary produced by Radio Trinitas to mark the start of the Centennial of the Romanian Patriarchate presents the evolution of the Orthodox Church on the territory of Romania until it achieved the status of a patriarchate, through the voices and expertise of two renowned professors of church history.
Priests Ion Vicovan and Mihail Săsăujan, professors at the theology faculties in Iași and Bucharest, respectively, were the guests of this special broadcast.
Below, we provide the transcription of the documentary produced by Priest Mircea Toma from Radio Trinitas.
Radio Trinitas: The second half of the 19th century marked essential events for the history of Romania and the Romanian Orthodox Church: the Union of the Principalities (1859), the War of Independence (1877), the Proclamation of the Kingdom (1881), the attainment of autocephaly for the Romanian Orthodox Church in 1885, the Great Union of 1918, and, ultimately, the affirmation of a status befitting the Romanian Orthodox Church.
Greetings to you on this first day of 2025, a year in which we celebrate 100 years since the great event—the elevation of the Romanian Orthodox Church to the rank of Patriarchate. I am Priest Mircea Toma, and in the next hour, I will try to present the key moments in the history of the Romanian Orthodox Church’s elevation to the Patriarchal rank.
Although the events we are recalling took place in the 19th and 20th centuries, as early as the Middle Ages, Romanian Orthodoxy had become, according to university professor priests Ion Vicovan from Iași and Mihail Săsăujan from Bucharest, a significant supporter of Orthodoxy in all the eastern countries occupied by the Ottomans. This occurred at a time when the Orthodox Patriarchates of the East and the Balkan countries, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate, faced great difficulties in organization and survival under Ottoman rule.
Quasi-Autocephaly
Fr. Ion Vicovan: During the Middle Ages, particularly in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, and to some extent in the 18th century, Moldavia and Wallachia were Orthodox states that were somewhat independent or enjoyed extensive autonomy—the only ones of their kind.
Therefore, the assistance that the Orthodox Church—meaning the Apostolic Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as well as Mount Athos—could receive could only come from here.
On the other hand, as the great historian Nicolae Iorga remarked, the Romanian lands were the successors of the Byzantine Empire. He referred to Romania after 1918, saying that we are the Byzantium after Byzantium.
Thus, what the Byzantine Empire and its Church typically did until 1453, the universal Orthodox Church was left without support after its fall under Turkish domination. From here came the aid provided by the two Romanian Churches.
Fr. Mihail Săsăujan: After the fall of Constantinople, the two metropolises in Wallachia and Moldavia asserted an independence equivalent to autocephaly, not allowing any jurisdictional interference from any church hierarchy outside the country. The relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarchate was limited and manifested in the following aspects:
Firstly, after being elected to their positions, Romanian metropolitans received the blessing (the so-called “ekdosis”) from the Ecumenical Patriarch, received the Holy Chrism from the Ecumenical Patriarch, and commemorated him during services.
All other fundamental components of church organization were strictly internal, without any external ecclesiastical interference. The election of hierarchs took place within the country by an assembly composed of high-ranking officials and the abbots of more prominent monasteries.
This election was confirmed by the country’s ruler, who performed the so-called investiture of the newly elected by handing over the crozier, the visible sign of governing authority. Subsequently, the ordination took place, also within the country.
Fr. Ion Vicovan: Even though, at that time, we had not yet obtained autocephaly—which would be achieved in 1885—the presence of the two metropolises, I repeat, in relatively free states where the voivodes were also supporters of the Church, following the model of Byzantine emperors, was significant. The hierarchs were always closely connected with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the other patriarchates.
If we look at Church history, we will see that many hierarchs of these ancient episcopal sees frequently came to the Romanian countries. Some resided here longer than in the places where they were shepherds. This demonstrates, if you will, the maturity of the Churches in the Principalities. Still, it also shows a certain status—what has been called in history, particularly regarding the Orthodox Church in Moldavia, quasi-autocephaly. This means spiritual maturity, a certain capacity for self-governance, and also the ability to support those Churches.
This explains why churches were painted in the Byzantine tradition, both inside and on the outside. It explains why, for instance, the famous Synod of Iași was convened in Iași, during which the Confession of the entire Orthodoxy was discussed, corrected, translated, and later established. It also explains the consistent help that our Church offered to all these patriarchates.
Thus, it shows that it was an ancient, steadfast Church with spiritual maturity, economic means, and, above all, a sense of responsibility to assist its sister Churches, including the mother Church, if we refer to Constantinople, during a difficult period. This demonstrates that it played an essential role within the universal Orthodox Church.
There Could Not Be an Independent Church in a Dependent State
Radio Trinitas: The official attainment of autocephaly and the elevation to the rank of Patriarchate for our Church became possible only after the creation of the modern Romanian state. More precisely, after the Union of the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859, the attainment of state independence in 1877, and the elevation of Romania to the rank of kingdom in 1881.
Fr. Ion Vicovan: All the events mentioned had their importance and purpose in developing our nation, state, and Church. Until 1859, the Romanian countries lived separately, even though we had a consciousness of unity in nationhood, language, and faith because we existed within separate political-administrative and even ecclesiastical structures.
Following the Union of the Principalities, achieved in January 1859—also at the initiative of the Church, of course—the United Principalities gained a new status. The United Principalities, later called Romania, asserted themselves, or the country asserted itself, among somewhat modern states, as the 19th century is known as the century of nations.
This led to the numerous reforms undertaken by the first ruler of the United Principalities, prince Alexandru Ioan Cuza, including reforms within the Church that particularly interest us, as well as in the organization of the newly created state, which established its capital in Bucharest. However, their continued existence led to a very important step: attaining independence.
As long as the two countries were, shall we say, under the supervision or coordination of the great powers, lacking freedom of decision, major reforms or steps could not be accomplished. Therefore, the independence gained by Romania—and not only—in 1877 created the conditions for the country’s proclaimed independence and then its elevation to the status of a kingdom, the Kingdom of Romania. These events naturally led to the attainment of autocephaly because autocephaly means nothing other than ecclesiastical independence.
Thus, there could not be ecclesiastical independence without first achieving state independence. There cannot be an independent Church in a dependent state. The events that occurred in this order demonstrate—and honest historians recognize this—that there was also a divine work at play. The presence of God’s Grace was evident in all the significant events that took place in our country, culminating in 1918.
Radio Trinitas: For a long time, there were only five patriarchates in the Christian world, also called apostolic: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. Over time, other Churches also attained this title. An essential step for the Romanian Orthodox Church was autocephaly. The struggle of the Romanian Orthodox Church to achieve autocephaly was long and arduous, says Father Professor Mihail Săsăujan.
Fr. Mihail Săsăujan: Between the state proclamation of the autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church (1864) and its canonical recognition by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (1885), 20 years passed, during which each side had its own conception of autocephaly, eventually evolving toward a consensus.
In the context of the new unitary state organization, within the framework of the modern, unitary national state established with the Union of 1859, the Romanian Orthodox Church had a specific understanding of autocephaly tied to its national ecclesiastical history and its relationship with the Romanian state.
On the other hand, the Ecumenical Patriarchate rejected Romania’s state ecclesiastical legislation, demanding that the Romanian Orthodox Church remain under its jurisdiction.
Despite this, throughout these 20 years, the members of the Holy Synod, especially the Primate Metropolitan Calinic Miclescu, defended with dignity the territorial ecclesiastical independence proclaimed by the state authority in letters sent to the Ecumenical Patriarchs Joachim III and Joachim IV.
Starting in 1880, they considered it appropriate, for the sake of resolving the conflict with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to fulfil the formal steps required for the recognition of ecclesiastical autocephaly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Glory to God That We Had Cuza
Radio Trinitas: However, up to that point, Alexandru Ioan Cuza played a key role in achieving the administrative independence of the Romanian Orthodox Church through the Organic Decree of December 3, 1864.
Fr. Ion Vicovan: This is the first law issued by a state institution, so to speak, concerning the ecclesiastical organization in our country. It is a decree consisting of five chapters, the most important being the first, which states that the Romanian Orthodox Church is and remains independent—using his term—of any foreign hierarchy in matters of organization and discipline. It is the first time the term “independence” appears, a synonym for the ecclesiastical term “autocephaly.”
As a Church in Moldavia, we had moments of what we might call autocephaly. Rev. Academician Păcuraru calls it—and I have called it too, obviously inspired by him, but history proves it—a quasi-autocephaly.
But Cuza takes it a step further. Just as he did in the political sphere and with reforms, he also does so in the ecclesiastical sphere. He realized that the Church had and has a vital role in the history of this nation and could not achieve great things as long as the Church of this nation remained dependent, not autocephalous. This decree calls it independent.
The first chapter of the law addresses the synod of our Church; it is the first to raise the issue of ecclesiastical organization at a synodal level. To put it simply for listeners, there were two Churches, with two metropolitans and suffragan dioceses in Moldavia and Wallachia. These two were brought together side by side.
There was a need for leadership and a unified status. Of the two metropolitans, one had to take precedence. Then the Church had to be governed, as is the Orthodox tradition from the beginning, synodally—they had to be brought together. The first chapter deals precisely with this organization of the Church, and Cuza declared that it is and remains independent. Undoubtedly, he consulted with theologians and Church hierarchs, stating from the perspective of or regarding its administrative organization and discipline.
This does not refer to the spiritual dimension because autocephaly ensures the Church’s dogmatic, liturgical, and canonical unity. He was referring here to organization and discipline, a stance later supported, as we will see, by the aforementioned Metropolitan Nifon Rusailă.
When faced with the objection or reproach from the Ecumenical Patriarch Sophronius at the time, Nifon said that our Church had always organized itself independently internally, that it needed to improve its organization, and that its connection with the mother Church would continue, according to tradition.
Additionally, this decree issued by Cuza came with two regulations: one concerning the election of hierarchs—until then, there was no law in this regard, and we followed canons, but now, with the Church within the state, some regulation from the state was necessary—and the second regarding the functioning of the synod.
This was a very important step, one I would call bold, considering that in June 1866, when he was no longer at the head of the principalities—having been forced to abdicate on February 11—the idea of autocephaly was included in Romania’s first Constitution. We were not yet autocephalous; we would achieve it 19 years later, but drawing inspiration from the decree Cuza issued in 1864, the Constitution adopted this fact.
Autocephaly, a Process
Although autocephaly, like the Patriarchate, at first glance pertains exclusively to the Church, these are aspects that also concern the country because it is the Church of the Romanian people, the Church of Christ in Romania—what the great poet Mihai Eminescu called the mother of the Romanian people.
Even though it essentially concerned the Church, its activity, work, organization, and status affected the entire country. That is why Cuza had this involvement, and I say, we give glory to God that we had Cuza at those moments because he, in a way, initiated the process of achieving autocephaly.
It would be obtained in 1885, on April 25, but that was the culmination of the process, its finality. The effort began earlier; the steps toward autocephaly had been manifesting for centuries before, timidly, in accordance with the status, context, and the Church’s prudence.
Unlike other Churches in history that self-declared autocephalous, our Church patiently waited for the right moment. It behaved as a Church that was, shall we say, quasi-autocephalous but with propriety and humility.
Now, with the principalities united and the two ecclesiastical structures merged, organized into a metropolis with a primate metropolitan, a Church with a synod, metropolitans, bishops, and hierarchs—where the synod included both laypeople and clergy and even professors and deans of theology faculties were mentioned, though such faculties were not yet established at that time—all these demonstrate the importance of this act and the effort that began and would conclude in 1885.
Fr. Mihail Săsăujan: In 1885, diplomatic negotiations took place between Romania’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Romanian Legation in Constantinople, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with the constant involvement of the Holy Synod of our Church, which ultimately led to the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s agreement to recognize the autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church.
On April 20, 1885, two letters were sent to the Ecumenical Patriarch: one from the Minister of Religious Affairs and Public Instruction, Dimitrie Sturza, and one from the Primate Metropolitan, Calinic Miclescu. In his letter, Metropolitan Calinic Miclescu requested that the Ecumenical Patriarch bless this act, undertaken in the interest of religion, and “recognize the Autocephalous Church of the Kingdom of Romania as a sister of the same rite and faith in all respects.”
“The Holy Synod of the Autocephalous Church of the Kingdom of Romania,” Calinic Miclescu further wrote, “seeks to preserve intact the sacred dogmas of our holy Orthodox faith and the tradition of the Church, and will always take care to grant the Most Holy Ecumenical and Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople, in accordance with the canons and teachings of the Church, the primacy of honour that makes it the first throne of the first prelate of the entire Orthodox Church of the East, and to commemorate the Patriarch residing on the ecumenical and apostolic throne of the East in the first place, as per established custom, by the president of the Holy Synod.”
“And to maintain, through canonical and legal means, the unity of faith, the Holy Synod of the Autocephalous Church of the Kingdom of Romania will always remain in dogmatic and canonical connection with the Most Holy Ecumenical Throne, as well as with the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches.”
Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim IV responded to Primate Metropolitan Calinic Miclescu on April 25, 1885: “Regarding the request that our great Church of Christ grant its blessing to the Most Holy Church of the Kingdom of Romania and recognize it as autocephalous and a sister of the same faith in all respects, and to communicate this fact to the other three patriarchal thrones of the East, as well as to all autocephalous Orthodox Churches, this request, having been considered together with the Holy Synod of the most reverend metropolitans and deliberated upon jointly, we found it rational, just, and following ecclesiastical regulations.”
“Therefore, receiving it with brotherly love, we proceeded to draft and sign the holy and lawful patriarchal and synodal tomos, through which, with heartfelt joy, we bless the most holy Church of Romania, recognizing it as autocephalous and fully self-administered and proclaiming its Holy Synod as our beloved brother in Christ.”
The Patriarchal Tomos contained the following essential points:
“The unity of faith of the Church of Christ remaining untouched and unshaken through all ages, matters of ecclesiastical administration and the order of dignities may be modified in view of the position of the countries.”
“The request of the Synod of the Romanian Church is just and in accordance with ecclesiastical regulations and motives, as rightful as they are legitimate.”
“The Orthodox Church in Romania shall be, and shall be called, and shall be recognized by all as independent and autocephalous, administered by its own Holy Synod, presided over by His Eminence the most revered Metropolitan of Hungro-Wallachia and Metropolitan of Romania, as the times dictate, recognizing no other ecclesiastical authority in its internal administration.”
Elevation to the Rank of Patriarchate Was Merely a Formality
Radio Trinitas: The return in 1918 of the provinces of Bessarabia, Bukovina, and Transylvania to the motherland provided the Romanian Orthodox Church with the necessary conditions for its unified organization under the leadership of the Holy Synod in Bucharest. The unification of ecclesiastical organization became imperative. The way the Church was governed in these other provinces was entirely different, and according to Father Professor Ion Vicovan, there were practically four distinct regimes of ecclesiastical organization.
Fr. Ion Vicovan: Specifically, in 1918, as we know, three provinces returned to the motherland, as it was called, to the Kingdom of Romania. Until then, we had two historical metropolises: Hungro-Wallachia or Wallachia, established by the act of 1359, and Moldavia, established by the act of 1401. But now, three more were added to these two metropolises. The first to return was Bessarabia, which had been the last annexed in 1812 and returned first on March 27.
The Church in Bessarabia, as we know, had 13 hierarchs, and except the first, Gavril Bănulescu Bodoni, all were Russians. A process of Russification and denationalization took place, the likes of which were rarely seen. There are accounts that they used Romanian liturgical books printed in Iași as firewood because the ecclesiastical language was Russian, as was the language in schools, and so on.
The Church in Moldavia, renamed Bessarabia by the Russians, was reorganized according to the Russian model, so when it reunited with the mother Church, there were differences in practice, worship, and tradition. In 106 years, many changes had occurred.
The second province was Bukovina, officially annexed in 1775. It had been part of the Habsburg Monarchy and later the Austro-Hungarian Dual Empire. It is described as ultra-hierarchical. It was almost entirely under obedience, and we know what spiritual life meant, especially in Bukovina during the Habsburg and Austro-Hungarian periods—it suffered greatly.
All hermitages were abolished, and most monasteries were closed, leaving only three: Putna, Sucevița, and Dragomirna. Due to the new rulers, the great saint Paisius of Neamț left Dragomirna Monastery, where he had settled after coming from Mount Athos, and went to Secu and then to Neamț Monastery. These were significant foreign influences, and now, upon reuniting with the country and the mother Church, the issue of unification naturally arose.
Finally, Transylvania, conquered by the Hungarian Kingdom in the 11th century, returned in 1918. The first to be annexed, it was under Catholic Hungarian domination, later under Ottoman suzerainty and Calvinist ecclesiastical rule, then under Catholic Habsburg domination, and later, like Bukovina, under the Austro-Hungarian Dual Empire, giving it a different history.
All these provinces returned in 1918. The number of metropolises increased, and the number of faithful grew significantly to over 14 million. There were five metropolises, 18 dioceses, theological schools, seminaries, and so forth, making the elevation of the Church to the rank of Patriarchate a necessity.
Moreover, around this time, in 1925, for example, the Russian Patriarchate was reestablished. In 1917, during the time of Peter I the Great at the beginning of the 18th century, the Russian Patriarchate had been abolished. Paradoxically—without going into details—the Bolsheviks restored it in 1917. The Serbian Church was declared autocephalous in 1920, a Church with half the number of faithful compared to the Romanian Patriarchate.
Furthermore, the entire history we’ve outlined in a few broad strokes shows that our Church was very active and well-organized, with schools, educational institutions, faculties, academies, seminaries, and external aid. Hence, its elevation to the rank of Patriarchate was merely a formality. It did not require an effort as extensive as the one that took place to recognise its autocephaly.
Statute
Radio Trinitas: According to Father Mihail Săsăujan, shortly after the completion of the 1918 Union, requests began to emerge—not only from Church figures but also from laypeople—for a unified organization of the Romanian Orthodox Church.
Fr. Mihail Săsăujan: On March 9, 1882, within the Chamber of Deputies, a legislative proposal was submitted for debate regarding certain amendments to the Organic Law of the Romanian Orthodox Church from 1872.
Among other things, this bill addressed the “desire, entirely legitimate and consistent with the great development and political significance our state has achieved, to elevate the primate of the Romanian Church to the rank of patriarch.”
With Romania having become independent and elevated to the rank of a kingdom, “it is naturally required that the Romanian Church, in its representation, be raised to a rank corresponding to its dignity as the Church of a state with over 5 million inhabitants. And as far as we know, none of the current patriarchs, not even the one in Constantinople, has such a large population under his jurisdiction.”
In the same legislative proposal, it was noted that the Tsar of Russia had elevated the Metropolitan of Moscow, Job, to the rank of a patriarch in 1589; it also mentioned the journeys of several Constantinople patriarchs to the Romanian countries for aid and the fact that the former Ecumenical Patriarch Niphon had served as shepherd on the throne of the Wallachian Metropolis. The Romanian people venerate him among the saints for his pastoral virtues and strength of character, even building churches in his honour.
This legislative proposal concluded with a powerful statement: “These changes aim at nothing other than providing the Romanian Church with a firm foundation to become the cornerstone that shatters all hostile attempts against the Church and Romanian nationality. Our Church is tied to our nationality; only as long as we have a Romanian Church will we remain Romanians.”
This legislative proposal was drafted in 1882, the very year in which the Holy Synod of our Church proceeded with the consecration of the Holy and Great Chrism in Bucharest, even before the canonical recognition of our Church’s autocephaly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
In the following years, especially after the First World War, increasing voices called for elevating the primate’s seat in Bucharest to the rank of Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church. I want to mention in this regard the Priests’ Congress in Sibiu, held from March 6–8, 1919, during which the diocesan cultural counsellor Gheorghe Ciuhandu from Arad, then also president of the “Andrei Șaguna” Clergy Association in Transylvania, raised this issue and articulated it very well as follows:
“The spiritual unity that has existed until now between the Romanian Orthodox Churches in Romania and its new provinces must be concretized through the unification of the Romanian Orthodox Church, both canonically and under the primacy in Bucharest—either by maintaining the primatial dignity of the Bucharest metropolitan going forward or by creating, following the traditions and practices of the Orthodox East, the patriarchal dignity to which the primatial metropolitan seat in Bucharest should be elevated.”
In this regard, Gheorghe Ciuhandu, a well-known historian and author of numerous studies on church history, wrote an article in the Arad newspaper Church and School titled “The Unification of the Romanian Churches on the Territory of Greater Romania into a Single Church and the Relationship of This Church with the State.”
There were other initiatives as well. Worth mentioning is the so-called Ecclesiastical Constituent Assembly, which elected a 15-member commission to work on a new draft Statute for the organization and functioning of the Romanian Orthodox Church. At the Ecclesiastical Constituent Assembly meeting on May 25, 1921, representatives from Bessarabia requested an urgent decision on establishing the Romanian Patriarchate, stating it was the desire of the entire priesthood.
There were also statesmen and cultural figures who, between 1919 and 1925, brought up the topic of the Patriarchate. I would like to mention Nicolae Iorga. In the newspaper Universul, Nicolae Iorga wrote: “We are the only Orthodox people with just a simple primate metropolitan at the head of an autonomous Church.” He also noted that elevating it to the rank of a patriarchate was an act of the utmost importance, deserving proper attention from public opinion.
The Minister of Religious Affairs at the time, Alexandru Lapedatu, wrote: “The creation of the Romanian Patriarchate is demanded by the current situation of the numerical and moral superiority of the Romanian Orthodox Church compared to other foreign Orthodox Churches, and by the role our Church played in the past—sometimes greater than that of all patriarchates combined—for centuries.”
Fr. Ion Vicovan: Just as in the political sphere, there was a need to draft, approve, and elaborate a new constitution, so too was it necessary in the ecclesiastical sphere; these metropolises had united, but the issue of ecclesiastical unification arose. I’ve already pointed out that each of the returning metropolises had its own specificities.
Now, the question was about a single Church, and it was very necessary for this Church, now whole—thanks be to God—encompassing all Romanians, some of whom had been scattered for centuries, to have a statute. That’s why, for the first time, this issue was raised—again—at the General Priests’ Congress in Sibiu in March 1919. Then, in April, at the Superior Ecclesiastical Council, the adoption of the Şagunian statute was proposed for the first time.
It’s very important to note that, at that time, the Synod of our Church was led by the Metropolitan of Moldavia, Pimen Georgescu, known in history as the Metropolitan of the War or the Great War, who was also the founder of the famous Mausoleum at Mărășești. Alongside him, all the hierarchs of our Church, theology professors, and clergy participated, establishing in principle that we would adopt the statute of the great Andrew Șaguna because, I repeat, the issue was about drafting a Statute for our Church.
Shortly thereafter, in December 1919, the last Primate Metropolitan, Dr. Elie Miron Cristea, was elected, who would later become the first patriarch. Of course, he raised this issue, coming from Transylvania—a sign of Transylvania’s integration into the country called Romania—and it was decided that a commission, called the Ecclesiastical Constituent Assembly, consisting of 15 people, would prepare a Statute.
At that time, the Metropolitan of Transylvania was the great theology professor Nicolae Bălan, a founder of theological education in Transylvania and the second founder of the Brâncoveanu Monastery at Sâmbăta de Sus. Although there was a draft statute for our Church at the time, with Octavian Goga as the Minister of Religious Affairs, he said it wasn’t suitable—it wasn’t, so to speak, complete, thoroughly discussed, or well-enough crafted. He came up with a very important idea: we cannot approve a Church statute until we first have a Constitution of Romania.
Therefore, the process of ecclesiastical unification, which began with the joining of the metropolises in 1918 and continued throughout 1919, especially in Sibiu and then in Sinaia in June 1919, had to wait for the issuance of the first Constitution of Greater Romania in 1923. Through Article 22 regarding the Romanian Orthodox Church, this constitution designated it as the dominant and national Church, recognizing its role in the history of the Romanian people.
Only after the issuance and entry into force of the new Constitution in 1925 was the Statute for the organization and functioning of the Romanian Orthodox Church passed, based on the one from Transylvania.
This statute, given by the great Şaguna—who became a saint of our Church—for the Church in Transylvania in 1868, established, among other things, two fundamental principles by which it operates: synodality and autonomy. This statute was approved by both the ecclesiastical and political authorities through the two institutions, the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, in 1925.
The Act of Establishing the Romanian Patriarchate
Radio Trinitas: February 4, 1925, was the day the Holy Synod established the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate.
Fr. Mihail Săsăujan: On the morning of this day, Metropolitan Nectarie Cotlarciuc of Bukovina made a proposal, signed by seven hierarchs of the Holy Synod of our Church, that the Metropolis of Hungro-Wallachia with its metropolitan seat in Bucharest, be elevated to the rank of Patriarchate, and that the Metropolitan of Hungro-Wallachia, as Primate of Romania—who, by right, is also the president of the Holy Synod—bear the title of Patriarch of the National Romanian Orthodox Church, with his residence in Bucharest.
The same proposal highlighted that, following the war, the Romanian nation had been unified, now forming a single country, Greater Romania, with a single Orthodox Church comprising 14 million faithful, 5 metropolises, and 14 dioceses. It also emphasized that “the sacrifices and great Christian deeds performed by our voivodes and nation in the interest of Christendom give us an incontestable right for our Romanian Orthodox Church to be granted a new legal and canonical status among the other Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates.”
Next, Archbishop Gurie Grosu of Bessarabia took the floor and stated: “We, the Bessarabians, when we came to work on the legislation for the unified organization of the Church, were the first to request that the Church be elevated to the rank of a patriarchate.”
He was followed by Bishop Lucian of Roman, who read a memorandum from the Faculty of Theology in Cernăuți, which also addressed the necessity of elevating the primate metropolitan’s seat to the dignity of patriarch.
Among other points, this memorandum noted that “the Romanian Autocephalous Church is the most prominent, the most unified, and, in terms of the number of faithful, the most significant, especially since the Russian Church is struggling in the grip of Bolshevism, led by non-Christians.” It also pointed out that “the title of primate metropolitan is not in accordance with the tradition of the Orthodox Church. This Eastern tradition, as well as the importance of our Church and the role befitting the Romanian State in Eastern Europe, demands that the Romanian Church be granted the honour it deserves.”
Next to speak was the Minister of Religious Affairs, Alexandru Lapedatu, from the Romanian government at the time. Primate Metropolitan Miron Cristea later praised his speech as an epochal address. Minister Lapedatu stated in his remarks that “the organization of the Romanian Orthodox Church is so closely tied to that of the state that the phases of its development mirror those of the state.”
Lapedatu provided a historical overview, mentioning the Union of the Principalities, which necessitated a new organization of the National Church in relation to the political situation of modern Romania.
The 1866 Constitution stipulated that the Romanian Orthodox Church is and remains independent of any foreign hierarchy. He then referenced the Organic Law of the Romanian Church from 1872, which declared the metropolitan seat of Hungro-Wallachia as the primate of Romania. He mentioned the War of Independence of 1877–78, the proclamation of the kingdom in 1881, and the autocephaly recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1885.
He also mentioned that, in 1923, the Romanian Constitution declared the Romanian Orthodox Church as dominant in the Romanian State. Alexandru Lapedatu concluded his speech with the following words: “The Romanian Orthodox Church, by virtue of its autocephaly, and the Romanian State, by virtue of its sovereignty, consider that elevating the metropolitan seat to the rank of patriarch is a necessity for the new ecclesiastical organization within the Romanian State and its position among other Orthodox states, as it has, except for Russia, the largest number of Orthodox faithful.” Lapedatu stressed that this was indeed a necessity of national importance.
This was followed by the reading of the Act of Establishing the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate. Bishop Bartolomeu of Râmnic, New Severin, read this act. The Act of Establishment stated: “From this day forward, the Romanian people, through their own political and ecclesiastical sovereignty, establish a Patriarchate for the Romanian Orthodox Church, recognizing the Metropolitan of Bucharest as Patriarch of Romania, replacing the previous title of Primate of Romania.”
“From this day forward,” the act specified, “the Metropolitan of the capital of Romania shall bear the titles of Archbishop of Bucharest, Metropolitan of Hungro-Wallachia, and Patriarch of Romania.”
The session concluded with a speech by the then-Primate Metropolitan Miron Cristea, who brought four essential ideas to the attention of the Holy Synod members.
First, he proposed that the Romanian state provide the Church with as many scholarships as possible to send young people to study theology in Western and Eastern cultural centres, who, upon returning home, would create a theological cultural centre in Bucharest capable of attracting other Orthodox Churches.
Second, he suggested that the Faculty of Theology in Bucharest become an institute of solid Orthodox theological culture, attracting young people from across Orthodoxy. In this regard, he mentioned the need to establish chairs of Slavic and Greek theology at the Bucharest Faculty, through which, Miron Cristea said, “we can connect with Slavic and Greek Orthodoxy.”
Third, he raised the idea of founding an Academy of Church Music.
In the fourth point of his speech, he stated: “As an outward sign of the patriarchate, we need, as soon as the financial situation permits, a majestic Cathedral of the Salvation of the Nation.”
The Patriarchal Tomos
Radio Trinitas: On February 7, 1925, the Holy Synod communicated to the Ministry of Religious Affairs the decision to establish the Romanian Patriarchate, which was then presented to the Government. The government drafted a bill that was approved by the Senate and then by Parliament. Subsequently, on February 25, 1925, the law was promulgated, elevating the archdiocesan and metropolitan seat of Hungro-Wallachia as Primate of Romania to the rank of a patriarchal seat.
Fr. Ion Vicovan: Although it was an ecclesiastical matter, the elevation of the Church to the rank of Patriarchate was also supported by state authorities. Having been achieved through a decree signed by King Ferdinand in 1925, the then-Patriarch, former Primate Metropolitan Miron Elie Cristea, requested the Tomos of recognition from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as was customary.
Patriarch Basil of Constantinople issued the Tomos on July 30 of the same year, as was fitting, granting recognition. Then, Patriarch Miron Cristea sent word to all sister Orthodox Churches, informing them that our Church had been elevated to the rank of Patriarchate. The Ecumenical Patriarch did the same, notifying all Churches, because we are in unity, so that the Patriarch could be commemorated in his proper rank.
Fr. Mihail Săsăujan: However, the bringing, reading, and presentation of the Patriarchal Tomos took place later, on September 27, 1925.
A delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, consisting of Metropolitan Joachim of Chalcedon, Germanos of Sardis, and two other persons, brought the Patriarchal Tomos to Bucharest on their way back from Poland to Constantinople. They had been in Poland to deliver the act of proclamation or recognition of the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church in Poland. Stopping in Bucharest on their return journey, they presented the Patriarchal Tomos to Patriarch Miron Cristea at the Patriarchal Cathedral.
The Patriarchal Tomos contained several key points. The Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized what had been accomplished in Romania through the joint decision of the Church and the State. The Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate expressed its consent and blessing regarding these fundamental events for the Romanian Orthodox Church.
The phrases “loving mother Church,” “daughter Church,” and “sister in Christ” were explicitly mentioned. The Tomos also stated that, in the context of political unification, the elevation of the Romanian Church to the dignity of a Patriarchate was welcome, justified, necessary, and beneficial.
On this occasion, in this joyful context for the Romanian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Miron Cristea delivered a speech before the delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and those present on September 27, 1925, at the Patriarchal Cathedral. His response seems to me very significant for Patriarch Miron Cristea’s vision regarding Orthodox autocephaly in general and the unity of Orthodoxy on the other hand.
Patriarch Miron Cristea emphasized that “throughout history, it has been a natural necessity for provincial, national, and autocephalous Churches to be led by a national authority that does not create harmful conflicts between the Church’s actions and the higher interests of the state and nation—interests that do not contradict the eternal principles of Christ’s Law and should not hinder a nation on its path toward its holiest ideals. Thus, over the centuries, Orthodox churches have been able to render immense services to their nations without losing sight of the Church’s supreme mission to prepare souls for their salvation, both in this life and in eternity.”
“But the autocephaly of Churches, under the overwhelming force of extremely unfavourable political circumstances, and especially still feeling the effects of the unfortunate oppression of Orthodox peoples by the formidable power of the crescent, has neglected and failed to maintain more prominently the much-needed ecclesiastical unity, without which Christianity cannot be complete. We daily profess: ‘I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.’ This has significantly weakened the strength of Orthodoxy, and in many small countries, it has dimmed its days of glory and more conscious activity.
Vital interests oblige us all to renew the bonds of closer unity among all national Orthodox Churches, without undermining the normal course of autocephalous life—indeed, even allowing it to develop into national patriarchates according to countries and peoples. Any local ambitions of national patriarchates must give way before the great principle of Christian unity, led by our ecumenical and historical authority.
In this regard, the delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate from Constantinople takes a powerful historic step by coming to Bucharest to bring the loving blessing of the Ecumenical Church, the mother, upon the acts of elevating the Romanian Church to the rank of a patriarchate, along with the fraternal greeting to its first holder.”
The First Patriarch
Radio Trinitas: After all this, the final acts of such an ecclesiastical event—the investiture and enthronement—were to follow.
Fr. Ion Vicovan: The installation of the first patriarch, however, took place on November 1, 1925, which is noteworthy because it was the first time our Church had a patriarch at its head. Until then, there had only been primate metropolitans, starting in 1865.
The installation of a metropolitan entailed something different; it was a different status. Therefore, the primate metropolitan, already declared patriarch, inquired about how the installation of the head of the Greek Church and the chief shepherd of the Russian Church took place. By November 1, a rite was prepared, and the first patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Miron Cristea, was installed accordingly.
Fr. Mihail Săsăujan: The investiture ceremony took place at the Royal Palace on November 1, 1925, in the presence of 21 representatives from sister Orthodox Churches, as well as members of the Holy Synod, state representatives, and leaders of other religious denominations in Romania. The King presented the pastoral staff to Patriarch Miron Cristea and delivered a short but meaningful speech to those present, demonstrating an understanding of the relationship between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Romanian State.
King Ferdinand stated: “Since the times of the Basarab and Mușatin founders of the land, no more brilliant page has been written in the history of the Romanian Orthodox Church than that accomplished this year through the elevation of Romania’s primate to the rank of patriarch. National history proves that nation and religion have always been closely united for us Romanians. The state grew alongside the Church; the language was created as one and indivisible through the Church, beyond temporary borders—from Oltenia’s earliest monastic sites to Maramureș, which gave us the first monuments of the Romanian language—while the national spirit followed this unified development of language and culture.”
He also noted: “The Almighty has deemed us worthy, alongside the fulfilment of the Romanian State’s unity within its natural borders and after the unified organization of the entire Romanian Orthodox Church, to experience the rare joy of seeing the highest ecclesiastical dignity, the Patriarchate, established.”
After receiving the pastoral staff from the King, Patriarch Miron Cristea also delivered a brief speech, highlighting the fundamental idea that “the spiritual unity of millions of Romanian Orthodox faithful will enhance the life-giving spirit for our people and their country, forming the most solid cement from this spiritual bond to strengthen the country and ensure its normal development in the future within an increasingly strong national unity.”
On the other hand, Miron Cristea said, “The ecclesiastical unity of all church provinces will strengthen the Romanian Orthodox Church’s capabilities to revitalize its current institutions and create new ones.” He also mentioned the significance of the Church’s theological, missionary-pastoral, and philanthropic work for Romania, which he defined as “a joyful Christian Romania.”
Radio Trinitas: With the investiture and enthronement ceremony of the first Patriarch of Romania, a long process of reaffirmation and international recognition of the Romanian Orthodox Church concluded. The daughter Church of the Ecumenical Patriarchate became, forever, a sister Church.
Photo: Doxologia
