Talk:Romanian Orthodox Church

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 :-)

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:

• List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch
• List of Patriarchs of Babylon
• de:Liste der Patriarchen der Armenischen Apostolischen Kirche
• List of Patriarchs of Alexandria

Pjacobi 10:55, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

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

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)

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.

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

IMO, the criticism should go in the history section, not in its own section. bogdan (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

> 13 of its 15 theological seminaries were closed

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

• Seminarul Ortodox Cluj
• Seminarul Ortodox București
• Seminarul Teologic Craiova, graduated by this guy in 1979
• Seminarul Teologic de la Mănăstirea Neamț, where this guy worked in 1959-1961
• Institutul Teologic din Sibiu (graduated by Patriarch Daniel of Romania in 1970)
• Seminarului Teologic „Kesarie Episcopul” din Buzău, graduated by this guy in 1975
• Seminarul Teologic „Ioan Popasu” din Caransebeș (where ro:Nicolae Corneanu worked in 1958)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Reliable sources give similar but slightly varying estimates of membership, likely due to how membership is counted in each. For consensus, I support giving the range of estimates and keeping RS, especially within the last decade per research guidance that data collected from within the last decade are likely to be most accurate. SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, WP:Verifiability applies here; "If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Simply saying that exact membership is difficult to define and choosing only one reliable source is not consistent with WP: Verifiability. A neutral point of view should be maintained and the information presented according to the reliable source. In this case, the reliable sources do not differ wildly either, the range cited in the article is 14 million (the count given by the Romanian Orthodox Church itself on its own official website), 16 million (World Christian Database), 19 million (EBSCO). They are fairly close and not at all difficult to present. SeminarianJohn (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe better sources are needed or that the phrasing of the article should be changed. Currently, two reliable sources are cited but neither substantiates the in-text claim that "several million" Romanian Orthodox Christians are living abroad. I do not think the claim is necessarily wrong (I grew up Orthodox and attended a Romanian Orthodox church outside of Romania), but sources that explicitly say this should be cited and, preferably, the data they provide be cited. For example, the Italian-language article currently says the majority of the Orthodox Christians in Italy are Romanian, but it does not provide an estimate of several million; the article only says that of 3,639,000 foreign residents in Italy, 27% are Orthodox Christians. Of those who are Orthodox Christians, 62.2% are Romanians. That does not say "several millions." SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

1. The source you cited refers only to Romania and presents the results of the 2021 Romanian census, specifically the figure of 14,025,064. Using this source to claim that the ROC has only 14 million adherents is misleading, as it pertains solely to the population of Romania and does not reflect the total number of adherents worldwide.

2. The Italian-language source was taken by me from another Wikipedia article without being read, and I acknowledge that this was a mistake. However, more than one million Romanians reside in Italy, and it is reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of them are, at least nominally, Orthodox. I will look for more appropriate and reliable sources to support this point. Ackerman200 (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The source I cited is the Romanian Orthodox Church and it claims, without ambiguity, that they have 14 million members. Accusing other editors of being misleading does not assume good faith. A church’s explicitly stated claim of membership is not the only source that is valid on Wikipedia, not by any means, but neither should it be excluded. The consensus-driven approach is to follow WP:Verifiability and present the range in a neutral fashion. You will notice I have not deleted your contributions; neither should you delete other users’ contributions when they are cited with WP:RS. Furthermore, many of your edits lack edit summaries. I counted more than 30 at least across Orthodox articles.

It is important to read articles before citing them to avoid issues such as the phrasing in this article about “several million” when neither source says that. Since you acknowledge that you did not read the article, that sentence should be rephrased to match the sources cited or removed. SeminarianJohn (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The source you cited refers specifically to Romania and is based on the 2021 census. This is also clear from the exact figure 14,025,064 which is a census number and therefore limited to Romania. Presenting this as the total membership of the Romanian Orthodox Church is misleading because it does not include adherents outside Romania.

I am not saying that the source should be excluded, but it needs to be used in the proper context. The figure should be clearly presented as referring to Romania rather than being understood as a global total.

I have already acknowledged my mistake regarding the Italian-language source, and I will correct or remove that part so it properly reflects the sources.

Also, you have placed one of the footnotes in the wrong position in the table here. It can be seen in the middle and has not been corrected yet.

I also apologize if my earlier wording came across as harsh. That was not my intention, I just did not phrase it well. Ackerman200 (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not think that is not in the wrong position. A table can have footnotes in any box. You will find that across articles. I frequently collaborate with the editor who made the table; we worked together on it. However, that’s not a hill I’m going to stake it on so I’m okay if you want to move the footnote.

“The figure should be clearly presented as referring to Romania rather than being understood as a global total.” That isn’t exactly what the source says (I speak Romanian), but regardless I had just proposed to word it in a similar way and it seemed you were rejecting the re-wording, saying it’s unnecessary. If you are saying we can reach consensus by re-wording it, I’ll re-word my addition and you can review it and we can discuss again here and you can do likewise for the membership abroad. SeminarianJohn (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. As for the wording, I think this has been resolved with the latest revision. The part about membership abroad still needs to be discussed, and we can continue the discussion to reach a consensus. I would also be interested in hearing the views of more experienced editors. Ackerman200 (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I reworded and revised my contribution. Let me know what you think. SeminarianJohn (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I have no objections to this version, it looks better now. Ackerman200 (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Awesome, friend. Thank you for discussing here. SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

In the interest of consensus, I was thinking about a wording that would accurately convey the ROC’s claim without implying that they only have the members they cited on their publication (sometimes churches publish multiple metrics).

I propose wording it this way: “The ROC themselves claim approximately 14 million members in Romania.” SeminarianJohn (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not think this is necessary, as the results of the Romanian census are already cited, and the ROC is simply repeating them. Ackerman200 (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, part of this project is consensus building and reading the sources being cited. Not liking what a source says, verbatim, is not sufficient to remove it entirely. SeminarianJohn (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)