História Ecclesiastica, II, 2011, 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
História Ecclesiastica, II, 2011, 2 TRAVELLING IN A WOUND. THE TRANSYLVANIAN ROMANIANS CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 18™ CENTURY Laura STANCIU Abstract: The Study intend to offer the possibility to understand the complica- ted political and confessional situation of Transylvania in the Middle of the 18th and read the opinions of the agents directly involved in the events, as they appear in the documents. The series of questions to which an answer can be given make reference to the period of time characterized by the vacancy of the Episcopal see (1744-1754). We can imagine the way in which the Romanian Church was seen by the central laic power (The Viennese Court) and the local authorities (The Govern- ment of Transylvania). On the one hand, we might understand more aspects about the way in which the papal curia related itself to the crisis of authority within the Transylvanian Romanian Church, and we might become familiar with the way in which the Metropolitan Church of Karlowitz infiltrated into Transylvania and the consequence of its act, on the other hand. Last, but not least, we have the possibility to track down the way in which the Transylvanian believer saw himself, the way in which the united and non-united faithful people defined themselves and perceived each others, and how they were perceived by the other Transylvanian believers, and especially the central and local, political and ecclesiastical authorities of the time. Keywords: Transylvania, Romanian Uniate Church, confession, union, elite, Blaj, Enlightenment, diocese. In order to understand the inter-confessional relations in Transylvania, as well as the subsequent evolution of the Romanian Church in the second half of the 18th century, it is essential to reflect upon a decade with mul- tiple meanings for this church and the Transylvanian Romanians: 1744- 1754. The complicated crisis of authority in church leadership (starting with Bishop Micu's departure to Vienna, and then Rome, in 1744, and ending with the ordination for the new bishop, Petru Pavel Aron, in 1754) caused confusion both among the members of the clerical elite and priesthood, and people, and brought anxiety to Vienna and Rome. Then, a profound crisis of the Romanians' conscience and their individual and group identity manifested itself with regard to the religious union. At the same time, the clerical elite attempted to define its own Church and justify the role and position of the united and non-united people in the Transylvanian confes- sional area many times. I. The Tension between Tradition, (Salvation) Doubt and Reason The historiography of the problem registered a fidelity crisis as far as the Union with the Church of Rome is concerned. The crisis manifested itself through Bishop Micu-Klein's position-taking in the Diet of Transylvania (1742-1744), but especially during the synod from July 25, 1744. His attitude was the result of the fact that Vienna did not respect the social stipulations of the Second Leopoldine Diploma of the Union1. This crisis was ampli- fied among the high clergy after Inochentie Micu's departure from his dio- cese because of the stubbornness of the imperial authority that manifested against the Bishop's coming back to Transylvania2. This fact confused and oppressed the mind of the priests and people of Transylvania. We might notice the way of thinking and the church considerations of a state minister who was contemporaneous with the events due to the cor- respondence between two ministers, Bartenstein and Kaunitz (1750). Bar- tenstein stated that numerous " [...] learned and religious men wrote in their printed books that had not been ordered by the see of Rome that the non- united Greeks were only schismatic, and not heretical; if a non-united priest had jointed the Union, a new ordainment would not have been necessary; on the other hand, many of those who show great zeal towards the Union do not even know to make the difference between the united and the non- united ones". The same minister considered that the non-compliance with one of the abovementioned principles might determine even the most well- meaning zeal to easily put the Austrian monarchy, religion and Christian- ity itself in danger3. The conclusion was drawn after analysing the events of Transylvania that took upon themselves the reasons that had generated and maintained the confessional conflict between the Transylvanian Ro- manians. 1 PÄCLI$ANU, Z. Corespondenta din exil a episcopului Inochentie Micu - Klein. 1746- 1768, Bucharest, 1924, p. 310. STANCIU, L. - H1TCHINS, K. - DUMITRAN, D. Des- pre Biserica Románilor din Transilvania. Documente externe (1744 - 1754). Cluj Na- poca : Mega Publishing House, 2009. Document no. 373 (January 30, 1752). 2 BÄRLEA, O. Biserica Romána Unitä fi ecumenismul Corifeilor Renafterii cultural. In Perspective, V, 1983, no. 3 - 4., München, p.115. 3 STANCIU, L. - HITCHINS, K. - DUMITRAN, D. Despre Biserica Románilor... Docu- ment no. 311 (November 4, 1750). In the opinion of the non-united (schismatic) Transylvanian Romanian, the real cause of the conflict was the evil produced by the impression of changing the rite, since they were told that nothing had been changed in their religion4. The signers of the multiple memorials sent to the central and provincial authorities complained about the fact that they and their countrymen persisted in their old religion, and only the priests feigned and swore to accept "the German faith" or the Union, on the one hand, and as- sured the parishioners that they pretended to be united only because they were obliged to do that; they told that the truth is that they preserved their old religion and the oath made by those priests had no value at all. The authors of the memorials mentioned the fact that if the united priests pre- tended that the people had been united, they have to demonstrate that the people gathered and accepted the Union in front of His Majesty; but they cannot do it since the Union was accepted only by the priests and no one else but the priests5, through their sub-writings. The provincial authorities were therefore obliged to confront an almost intelligible reality and explain to the central authority what had happened in the province. They were summoned to involve themselves and bring peace in the province. They concluded that "the wandering Eastern monk Visarion" started to accuse the Roman Catholic Church of idolatry. Other offences had been added, too: church robbery, the profanation of the Eucha- rist consecrated by the united priests and the chrism hallowed by the united Bishop, the primness of the priests out of the province, and the working without soliciting the confirmation of the united Bishop, the abuses and superstitious practices of the "new" priests as far as the sacraments are con- cerned, the spreading of the idea about the invalidity of the sacraments received from the united priests. The opinion of the Aulic Chancellery, for instance, was expressed and it focused on the making evident of the crimes that had been committed by the non-united people against His Majesty. They were worthy of punishment not because of the religious choice they had made, but because of their conspiracy and contempt for the imperial stipulations and the correspondence with "the Turkish provinces", etc6. 4 STANCIU, L. - HITCHINS, K. - DUMITRAN, D. Despre Biserica Románilor... Docu- ment no. 273 (March 8, 1749); Document no. 509 (May, 1756). 5 STANCIU, L. - HITCHINS, K. - DUMITRAN, D. Despre Biserica Románilor.... Doc- ument no. 301 (1749 - 1750); Document no. 305 (May 26, 1750); 387 (April 14, 1752). 6 STANCIU, L. - HITCHINS, K. - DUMITRAN, D. Despre Biserica Románilor... Docu- ment no. 251 (January 11, 1749); 281 (post March 14, 1749); 311 (September 13, 1750); 313 (ante November 7, 1750). We may also trace back the way in which the actors involved in the events (the Romanian Church and its hierarch, Petru Pavel Aron, the Papal Curia, the Court of Vienna together with the local Transylvanian authorities, the Government actions and those of the governor and the Government Cath- olic counsellors7) tried to overcome this crisis. The solution was born precisely out of this crisis, and proposals in this respect were expressed by Bishop of Munkács, Manuel Olsavszky, and Jesuit Iosif Balogh8. It was in 1746 when the imperial central political authority developed the first strategic measures as far as the confessional policy is concerned thanks to Maria Theresas decrees. The authority tried to prevent other confessional conflicts and confrontations. Now it was the time and the atmosphere when the united and non-united com- batants represented by the voice of the elite — Visarion Sarai and Gherontie Cotore - proceeded to the drawing up of some identitary discourses. It was a literature generated and influenced by the already traditional dispute between the Greeks and the Latin people with regard to the four Florentine issues9. The discourse of the non-united elite was synthesised in the work about the third law10 written by Visarion of Sâmbăta. It is the literature that nurtured the discourse of the Serbian monk Visarion Sarai. He popularized it with suc- cess. Visarion of Sâmbăta drew his inspiration from the ideas and arguments of the anti-Catholic Eastern literature. He was part of the dispute between tradition and innovation specific to the age, and discussed the differences be- tween the Greeks and the Latin people. Visarion of Sâmbăta took over the idea that the united ones were condemned "to dive into the depths of Hell", and their salvation was seriously put in danger because the sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Marriage etc.) carried out by the unclean priests were not valid; the idea was based on the novelties introduced by the united people in their ances- tors' religion, and it was probably taken from the works written by Dosithei 7 STANCIU, L.