Romanian Bishop communes with Roman Catholics

[Jean-Serge]

The 20 monasteries of Mount Athos ahve sent an epistle to the Romanian Synod calling to treat according to the canons the cases of Nicolas of Banat who communed with the uniats and Virgil of Oradea who concelabrated the rite of the Blessing of the water for Theophany with the Uniat bishop of Oradea.

The video of this event can be see hereand there.

The letter is available in Romanian and Greek here.

[Jean-Serge]

It seems according to some Romanian websites that the trial of these two bishops is taking place today. See here and here.

UPDATE The synod has decided to forgice the two bishops on account of their repentance. A repentance that nobody saw by the way... At the same time, it remembers that thos communing with heterodox faces deposition or excommunication. Strange that it does not apply this to this two bishops!

The source is in Romanian : http://www.razbointrucuvant.ro/2008/07/09/compromis/

[Suaidan]

It seems according to some Romanian websites that the trial of these two bishops is taking place today. See here and here.

UPDATE The synod has decided to forgice the two bishops on account of their repentance. A repentance that nobody saw by the way... At the same time, it remembers that thos communing with heterodox faces deposition or excommunication. Strange that it does not apply this to this two bishops!

The source is in Romanian : http://www.razbointrucuvant.ro/2008/07/09/compromis/

Innocent!

... what a surprise!

[costaswright]

Joe Suaiden wrote:

Innocent!

... what a surprise!

Hardly.

http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13197

Romanian Orthodox synod disciplines bishop for intercommunion with Catholics

Bucharest, Jul 11, 2008 / 06:03 am (CNA).- The Holy Synod of the
Romanian Orthodox Church has decided to "forgive" two Orthodox
bishops for their participation in religious rites with Eastern
Catholics. However, it warned that no Orthodox cleric may celebrate
sacraments or blessings with ministers of other religions on pain of
excommunication.

Nicolae Corneanu, the Orthodox Metropolitan Bishop of Banat, had
provoked controversy after receiving Holy Communion during a Greek
Catholic Mass in Timisoara on May 25. The synod's forgiveness has
reportedly settled the controversy, according to the SIR News Agency.

"The Holy Eucharist is not a means and a stage towards the unity of
the Christian Church, but the deepest manifestation of the unity of
the Church, its highlight," stated Patriarch Daniel of the Romanian
Orthodox Church in a speech to the synod.

Patriarch Daniel reportedly intended to reassert the fundamental
principle of Orthodox ecclesiology and ecumenism. He said that such
gestures of "so-called inter-communion" in fact "reduce the dogmatic
differences between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church and
undermine the unity of faith as the foundation of the reconstruction
of the communion between the two Churches."

The Patriarch reiterated that it is forbidden for Orthodox believers
to receive the Eucharist in a different Church.

He also said the decision does not intend to treat other Christians
"with arrogance or contempt" or to interrupt theological dialogue.

"Through a sincere, deep theological dialogue, the dogmas that
separate the Catholic Church from the Orthodox Church can be
redefined," he concluded.

Father Francisc Dobos, spokesman for the Catholic Archdiocese of
Bucharest, responded to the decision, saying in a press release, "We
believe it is right for every Church to solve its own problems
according to its own principles and regulations. We are convinced
that the dialogue between the two Churches will move on, towards a
communion from the same chalice."

The Romanian synod also "forgave" Bishop Sofronie of Oradea, another
Orthodox prelate, who had celebrated the blessing of holy water with
the Greek Catholic Bishop of Oradea, Virgil Bercea, on "Twelfth
Night," the evening of Epiphany.

"The Holy Synod disapproved of the non-canonical gestures made by the
two leaders and accepted their change of mind and repentance as a
first sign of their correction," read a press release from the

Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate.

Forwarded by Rd. DC

[Sean]

http://www.razbointrucuvant.ro/2008/11/ ... apocaiesc/

Corneanu defies up to the end and underlines : “the gesture remains, I do not repent”

For which “repentance” was Nicolae Corneanu excused ? On the site http://www.revistalumeacredintei.ro a shocking interview to the Italian Magazine Il Regno was published… (N.B.: the interview dates back to august and is translated by us only now in November)…

• Your Eminence, I summarize the facts which led to the emotion of the Christian world. Sunday May 25, 2008, in Timisoara (Romania) a new Greek-catholic church has been consecrated, dedicated to the Holy Virgin Maria, queen of peace and unity. The service was conducted by the Greek-catholic bishop of Lugoj, Alexandru Mesian. Present at the service were the Nontium in Rumania, archbishop Francisco-Javier Lozano and the Latin bishop Mgr Martin Roos, together with some priests, in the middle of many faithful. At this occasion you approached Holy Communion and communed. The episode provoked bewilderment and produced a vast echo, with voices pro and contra, and stormy comments. The Synod of the Orthodox Church of Romania intervened on July 8-9 (cf. Il Regno, nr. 12, 2008, 369).. But how did all the episode really come about ?

• There is no question of any condemnation from the side of the Synod of the Rumanian Orthodox Church, as was written and said, but of a position taken in order to establish the correct terms about intercommunion. In order to clarify a number of points, the Synod said that the relations between our churches, the Catholic and the Orthodox, are doing well, but that there is no intercommunion yet. At least not now. And, because of this, the Holy Synod wanted to clarify that, despite the fact that the relation between our Churches is very advanced, we are not in a position to admit intercommunion. Certainly, this is a real stage towards which we direct ourselves. Therefore, there is no question of any condemnation of my gesture, but the need was felt of a clarification, reaffirming that, for the moment, despite the fact that the Churches approached a lot towards each other, they did not reach intercommunion yet.

A MOMENTUM, AN IMPETUS

• You explained your gesture to the faithful defining it as a feeling of fraternity with respect to the unity of the Christians”. What did you intend to say?

• It is a gesture full of feelings. As is known, I participated to the liturgy of the Greek Catholics. In the newly sanctified church the majority of the Christians, as I noticed, was made by faithful which usually participated to the Liturgy served in the Orthodox cathedral. There was a state of fraternity. I knew the Greek-catholic faithful and I felt them as brothers. When the moment of Communion has come, in my bosom I felt like an impetus, an impulse, which led me to the Eucharistic communion. This was a spontaneous gesture, unforeseen. At that moment I had no more discernment, I did not calculate the consequences. I was taken into the turmoil of the event.

I knew that the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox did not reach intercommunion yet, but I let myself driven by an intense emotion. From the point of view of the canonical discipline of my Church, which corresponds to that of the Catholic Church in respect to bishops and clergy, it is evident that I should not have done this gesture. I never imposed to my faithful to commune with the Catholics. I repeat, it was a spontaneous gesture. There exist certain moments, certain peculiar conditions, under an intense spiritual climate, in which we are determined to make courageous gestures.

• But, as a consequence, this created the impression that the moment has come, in certain circumstances, to perform such gestures ?

• I also believe that such gestures can be repeated in order to reach, at a certain moment, intercommunion. , because it is absolutely normal to reach such a point. Between the two Churches there are no dogmatic differences. I lived the impression that our Churches are sisters and that all the faithful of our churches are brothers and sisters. Thus, intercommunion is a stage.

A disciplinary, rather than dogmatic, question

• In Rumania, my gesture led to the publication of articles and studies about intercommunion. Many commentaries followed. From the canonical point of view, I am aware that I committed an error, there is no doubt, but what is at stake is a spontaneous gesture, dictated by a particular circumstance.

• Did you receive critics from the part of the bishops, from the monks, from the theologians, from the faithful ?

• No critic from the side of the bishops (A vulgar lie, as evidenced by the alas singular attitude of archbishop Bartolomeu Anania within the Synod, but also the critical attitude o His Eminence Andrew after the Synod of July 8 – our note). None of my brother bishops attacked me verbally or in written. I participated to the Holy Synod meeting, which clarified the problem without going into details. The Holy Synod treated the case pretty rapidly. Only the Patriarch, who delivered a press release, did make comments about my case. From the monastic side, I did receive critics from Mount Athos. They could not miss it ! They did not surprise me. I do keep my way. The differences will be overcome by looking towards Christ. We have to take into consideration the canonical norms, but the ideal is to reach intercommunion. As far as theologians are concerned, as I said, I enter the debate with seriousness and with the consciousness and I say that we cannot always remain as simple observers. As for the faithful, there has been a whole defilé of thousands of persons which approved my gesture.

NEW HORIZON: ECUMENCIAL FRATERNITY

• Once the gesture done, in the middle of the scandal, did you consult the Patriarch Daniel, whohad been your vicar bishop in Timisoara, and who consequently knows well your orientation?

• No. We had a restricted meeting of the Synod in a monastery in Moldavia, in June, with the participation of the Metropolitans. I provided information about what happened, but no decision was taken in my regard, the problem having been assigned to the agenda of the Holy Synod in July. What I would like to emphasize is that, without exaggerating, my problem was put to the agenda together with that of the bishop of Oradea, who concelebrated a baptism, (our note : in fact the blessing of the Holy Water on the day of Theophany) with the Greek-catholic bishop.. We talked about my case, but none of the members of the Synod talked, none intervened. By hand vote it was decided that my gesture should not be condemned, with only one exception : that of Metropolitan Bartolomeu Anania of Cluj. He did not know exactly what happened (what a manipulation ! our note); he presented the version of a profane magazine. There was silence in the synodical room. Then the Patriarch asked: what is your opinion ? Once more, all shut up. So it happened.

When the meeting was over, The patriarchal administration released a communiqué, which was as a matter of fact a bit too tough, in which words such as „troubling” in the bosom of the Romanian Orthodox Church, „inconvenience”, „repentance”, „punishment” (here Corneanu smiles!!!) were used. I am sincere: I did express my displeasure because my gesture produced scandal in the mass-media. That’s all. It was evident that the communiqué from the Patriarchy was deemed against the benevolent in respect to the relations with the Catholics. But the meeting of the Holy Synod was held without anathemas, without accusations. I understand that that we deal with difficult moments for the Romanian Patriarchy, which is under severe critics from the part of certain churches of the Orthodoxy, as is the case of the Russian Church, of the Serbian Church, and others. Among others, he felt obliged – if I may so express myself – to do something in order to face the critics. But the fact remains that that communiqué was a bit too hard.

• Your Eminence, do you feel innocent ?

• Yes, absolutely. Now the storm is over. I believe that, for the moment, all is finished. At least I hope so.

• But the gesture remains.

• Oh, yes. The gesture remains. I do not repent. I did not commit a crime.

• After the cool meeting in Sibiu (cf. Il Regno nr. 16, 2007, 522ss) such a gesture was awaited, and it did arrive. A spontaneous gesture, a prophetic one, a fraternal one.

• In Timişoara, from many years on one breathes an ecumenical air. We hold close relations with the Catholics of both rites. But also with the faithful of other religions. With the Jews, for example. With the neo protestant. I always say it: we need not only ecumenism, we also need fraternity, which is a bit more than ecumenism. Fraternity presupposes deep sentiments, a table around which we sit in order to brake the bread and to share the same faith. One will reach fraternity in order to overcome any type of difficulty or divergence. It will be needed to take into account, without doubt, the concrete situations ; without doubt it will be needed to respect the canonical, dogmatic, norms. I repeat: I neither ignore the faith of my Church, nor its discipline. I did this „personal” gesture, but I strongly wish it to be a „common” gesture. My personal gesture was motivated by the strong intensity of the moment of fraternity, the common gesture will be motivated by the consciousness that it was fraternity that generated such a gesture. I remain on my position. I cannot change it. I rest on my faith.

INTRECOMMUNION: WE WILL REACH IT, WE WILL REACH IT

• An historical gesture?

• You’re exaggerating. I was a spontaneous gesture. I respect the regulations of my Church, its discipline, but I found myself in a totally exceptional moment, that I lived with such inner intensity that I closed the eyes. I found myself in front of the mystery of fraternity, and I was covered by divine grace [translator’s note : if it was not a vulgar lie, this would be vulgar prelest]. But I am convinced that many years will pass until similar gestures will be reached. Only then will they appear as normal.

As a member of the Ecumenical Council of the Churches I participated at so many discussions about intercommunion. The document “Baptism, Eucharist, Mystery” has been reached (BEM; EO 1/3032ss; cf. Il Regno nr. 15, 1982, 473). In Romanian the word BEM means “we drink”. Once, at lunch, a bishop stood up and said : „Bem! Bem!”, or „We drink ! We drink !”. A rumour followed. In fact this document should be fully sprinkled, since in it we, the Orthodox, recognise the validity of the Mystery of the Eucharist administered by the Catholics. Certainly the disciplinary rules should be respected. But for myself I did transgress them (he smiles). Anyways, I don’t intend to press others to repeat my gesture.

• Did anybody ask the anathema for this gesture ?

• I am not a heretic. We must arrive at intercommunion, we must not send the people to the hell!

• Are you planning a meeting with Patriarch Daniel in the following months?

• Only if he so wishes, because I do not want to provoke the meeting. He is a very objective man, and he maintained an equidistant position, which I very well understand. It is nearly mandatory for him to proceed so. But I repeat that at the Holy Synod only Bartolomeu Anania unravelled an attack, the others preferring to be silent. He has a bit of a volcanic temperament, frequently aggressive. The other Metropolitans and Bishops preferred no to be involved.

Interview realized by Francesca Strazzari

The Metropolitan also comments: “I recall well Anania when, in 1990, the students from Bucharest entered the Patriarchal Palace and constrained Theoctist to resign. He was among the agitators” (cf. Il Regno 4, 1990, 120).

Interview taken to Metropolitan Corneanu in August 2008, and published in the last issue of the Italian magazine Il Regno, n° 16, pp. 517-518