Synodality of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church (1964–2024): Evolution, Institutional Forms, and Identity Significance

Abstract

The Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic, boasts a long and rich synodal tradition, with roots tracing back to the Metropolitanate of the Orthodox Romanians of Alba Iulia, which, at the close of the seventeenth century (1697–1700), re-established communion with the Church of Rome. The aim of the study I put forward is to analyse the evolution of synodality in the Greek-Catholic Church of Romania between the years 1964 and 2024, employing a methodology that will systematically relate historical, ecclesiological, and canonical aspects, thereby highlighting their identity implications. The structure of the article is determined by the principal stages through which the Greek-Catholic Church has traversed during the specified period: 1964–1989; 1989–2005; 2005–2024. These stages have witnessed profound transformations within the Greek-Catholic Church, including modifications to its canonical status that have also impacted its synodal life. In the year 1964, as the Second Vatican Council concluded and the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum was approved, the Greek-Catholic Church of Romania was in the midst of severe communist persecution, having been outlawed since 1948. Its canonical status as a metropolitan province extra Patriarchatus was regulated by the Motu Proprio Cleri Sanctitati (2 June 1957), which recognised the institution of the provincial metropolitan synod, yet not that of the diocesan synod. Due to the persecution, the celebration of the metropolitan synod was not possible; however, privy conferences of bishops and diocesan ordinaries were held, which had significant effects on the life of the Church. The fall of communism, in December 1989, and the legalisation of the Greek-Catholic Church were followed by the publication, on 18 October 1990, of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium. According to the new legislation, the Greek-Catholic Church regained the status of a Metropolitan Church sui iuris, a status unsuitable to its dignity and tradition since it lacked the institution of the synod. Indeed, the Council of Hierarchs, which under the presidency of the metropolitan archbishop governed the Church, did not constitute a synod but merely a form of exercising episcopal collegiality. Nevertheless, with the approval of the Holy See, the Fourth Provincial Council was held in Blaj (1997–2000). On 14 December 2005, Pope Benedict XVI elevated the Greek-Catholic Church of Romania to the dignity of a Major Archbishopric. Thus, the full attainment of synodality was achieved, with the supreme governing authority being the Major Archbishop and the Synod of Bishops. The proceedings of the Synod of Bishops of the Greek-Catholic Church have prompted institutional development, to be detailed in the article. This research will also illustrate the limitations of the current Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium concerning the synodality of the Greek-Catholic Church.

1. Introduction

Upon the 21 November 1964, when Pope Paul VI did promulgate the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum, concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic, did find itself subjected to the fierce persecution at the hands of the communist authorities of Romania. Declared unlawful on 1 December 1948, following the Soviet model used to suppress the Greek-Catholic Church in Ukraine, it continued to exist in secrecy, remaining steadfast in its communion with the Holy Apostolic See of Rome (Bucur 2003, pp. 133–262; Vasile 2023, pp. 55–160, 205–52; Cosmovici 2020a, 2020b).1 Of the Greek-Catholic bishops who were in office in 1948 and subsequently arrested—many subjected to severe physical and moral suffering—only one still survived by the 21st of November 1964: Bishop Iuliu Hossu of Cluj-Gherla, who was kept under house arrest at the Orthodox Monastery of Căldărușani. Among those ordained in secret, all but one lived on. Tit Liviu Chinezu had met a martyr’s death in the extermination prison of Sighet, but Ioan Ploscaru, Ioan Dragomir, Iuliu Hirțea, Ioan Chertes, and the future Cardinal Alexandru Todea had survived.

News regarding the proceedings of the Second Vatican Council reached the Greek-Catholic bishops and clergy only with the greatest difficulty and in a fragmented manner, being closely monitored by the Securitate (Soica 2016, pp. 343–44, 383–84). Amidst the tensions of the Cold War, the sole Romanian Greek-Catholic bishop to attend the Council was Vasile Cristea, who, on 2 July 1960, had been appointed Titular Bishop of Lebedus and entrusted with the pastoral care of Greek-Catholic Romanians in exile. Iuliu Hossu received an invitation to participate in the final session of the Council (14 September—8 December 1965)2; however, fearing that the communist authorities would deny him re-entry into Romania and thus prevent him from standing by his persecuted Church, he took no action in this regard (Soica 2016, pp. 385, 407). He maintained the same stance in 1969, when the Romanian authorities conditioned Pope Paul VI’s intention of elevating him to the cardinalate upon his permanent departure from Romania. For this reason, Roman Pontiff created him a cardinal in pectore during the Consistory of 28 April 1969.3

We do not know to what extent the ecclesiological texts of the Second Vatican Council, and particularly the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, became known to Cardinal Iuliu Hossu. However, we have strong reasons to believe that the Council, through its rediscovery of the Church’s communal dimension, its affirmation of unity in diversity and synodality, its recognition of the equal dignity of all particular Churches and rites, and, lastly, its guarantee of the identity of the Eastern Catholic Churches, would have brought him joy and deep satisfaction. The long and storied history of the Greek-Catholic Church attests to a constant endeavour to defend and affirm its own Eastern identity.4 Nevertheless, Orientalium Ecclesiarum would also have given him cause for concern, as the text contains a general reference to Eastern synods and two specific mentions of Patriarchal and Archiepiscopal synods (Second Vatican Council 1964, nos. 1, 9, 19), yet omits any mention of the synodal institution within Metropolitan Churches.

Among the identity-defining themes for the Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic, synodality has always held a place of great importance, as it bears ecclesiological, liturgical, disciplinary, and pastoral implications. It embodies a model of communion linked to a canonical configuration and a certain degree of autonomy within the Catholic Church. The Greek-Catholic Church possesses a rich synodal tradition, whose origins may be traced to the synodal life of the Orthodox Metropolis of Alba Iulia. This tradition was notably affirmed through the Great Synods presided over by Metropolitan Theophilus in 1697 and Metropolitan Athanasius between 1698 and 1700, during which communion with the Church of Rome was solemnly declared. With regard to the typology of synodal institutions within the Greek-Catholic Church from 1700 to 1948, the following have been identified: the Great Synod or Great Sobor; the Elective Synod; the Synod convened for the oath of fidelity to the new emperor; the Eparchial and Archeparchial Synod; the Provincial Synod or Council; the Vicarial Synod; and the Protopresbyterial Synod (Barta 2014, pp. 68–78, 83–88; Stanciu 2017, pp. 92–94).

Recent research has revealed that the synods of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries constituted privileged instruments of the post-Tridentine strategy promoted by Rome and by the Catholic Archbishop of Esztergom, the Primate of Hungary, regarding the strengthening of Catholic confessional identity within the Greek-Catholic Church of Transylvania. This strategy, which had positive and modernising effects on both the Church and society, included theological education and the formation of priests, the consolidation of confessional schools, the improvement of the financial situation and morality of the clergy, and the regulation of the organisation and functioning of ecclesiastical institutions. For Romanian Greek-Catholics, the synods represented the essential means for consolidating the religious union with the Church of Rome and for preserving their Eastern individuality and identity. Moreover, in the second half of the nineteenth century, through the synods, they defended the autonomy of the Metropolitan Province of Făgăraș and Alba Iulia in relation to the Catholic Church of Hungary (Stanciu 2021, pp. 103–14).5

In the year 1948, the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church held the dignity of a metropolitan province under the title of Făgăraș and Alba Iulia, comprising the Archieparchy of Făgăraș and Alba Iulia, the Eparchy of Oradea Mare, the Eparchy of Cluj-Gherla, the Eparchy of Lugoj, and the Eparchy of Maramureș.

The present article aims to examine the evolution of synodality within the Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic, between the years 1964 and 2024, tracing perspectives on its principal ecclesiological and canonical aspects. This study will highlight the manner in which the ecclesiology of communion of the Second Vatican Council was received within the Romanian Church United with Rome, as well as its impact on the Church’s institutional development and its ecclesiological identity. The structure of the article delineates three distinct phases in the life of the Greek-Catholic Church during this period: 1964–1989, a timeframe marked by the promulgation of the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum and the fall of the communist regime in Romania, when the Greek-Catholic Church regained its legal status; 1989–2005, culminating in Pope Benedict XVI’s elevation of the Greek-Catholic Church to the dignity of a Major Archiepiscopal Church in 2005; 2005–2024, a period characterised by the reorganisation and flourishing of synodal life.

2. Metropolitan Province Outside the Patriarchate (1964–1989)

In the year 1964, the Greek-Catholic Church in Romania, suppressed by the communist authorities through a series of violent, immoral actions and legislative measures, culminating in Decree 358 of 1 December 1948, continued to exist illegally but canonically. The Annuario Pontificio would include, year after year, the Romanian Greek-Catholic eparchies, attesting that, in the eyes of the Holy See, they continued to exist despite the persecution.

The canonical status of the Greek-Catholic Church was determined in accordance with the first codification of Eastern legislation, initiated in 1929 by the will of Pope Pius XI and partially completed with the promulgation of four documents: Crebrae allatae sunt (22 February 1949), Sollicitudinem nostram (6 January 1950), Postquam apostolicis litteris (9 February 1952), and Cleri sanctitati (2 June 1957). The latter, dealing with issues concerning Eastern rites and persons, holds canonical and ecclesiological significance, as in Canons 316–320 it regulates the situation of metropolitan provinces extra Patriarchatus, a category into which the Romanian Church United with Rome fell.

It is worth noting that the Romanian Church United with Rome had received Metropolitan dignity as early as the mid-19th century, when, by the decision of Emperor Francis Joseph I on 12 December 1850, and by the Bulla Ecclesiam Christi of Pope Pius IX, promulgated on 26 November 1853, the Metropolis of Alba Iulia and Făgăraș was established, directly subordinate to the Roman Pontiff. Its canonical legislation was to be essentially clarified in the documents of the Provincial Councils held in Blaj in the years 1872, 1882, and 1900, which played a crucial role in the organisation of ecclesiastical life.

By comparing the acts of the First Provincial Council with the provisions of Cleri sanctitati, we observe a continuity regarding the metropolitan dignity and synodality. The legal concept used by Cleri sanctitati, namely metropolitan province extra Patriarchatus, served the purpose of distinguishing Eastern Catholic metropolises directly subordinate to the Roman Pontiff from those belonging to an Eastern Catholic patriarchate. In this regard, the situation of the Romanian Church United with Rome remained unchanged. Furthermore, Cleri sanctitati mentioned the institution of the provincial synod for metropolises extra Patriarchatus (Pius PP. XII 1957, 340 §2), specifying that the members with deliberative votes in the synod, which was convened and presided over by the metropolitan, were the residential bishops, who could delegate their coadjutor or auxiliary bishop, titular bishops, apostolic administrators of eparchy, exarchs, and administrators of vacant sees. Other clergy members invited to the synod only had consultative votes, except in cases where the Holy See or the synodal Fathers, by secret vote, explicitly granted deliberative votes to the presidents of monastic congregations or confederations (Pius PP. XII 1957, 341 §1–2). We note the fundamental correspondence between Cleri sanctitati and the First Provincial Council in this regard (Concilium Provinciale Primum 1882, Tit. III, Cap. III).

Nevertheless, we note two significant differences concerning the rights of the metropolitan and the synod, through which Cleri sanctitati diminished the autonomy of Eastern Catholic metropolises that did not belong to a patriarchate.

1. The first concerns the election of bishops, which was a constitutive element of the autonomy of the Romanian Church United with Rome. Inherited from the Orthodox Church in Transylvania, to which the Diet of Turda, in 1579, had granted the right for the clergy synod to elect the new bishop, who would then be confirmed by the prince (Alzati 2003, p. 225) and ordained by the Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia, this right would be reaffirmed even in the acts of the Union Synod with the Church of Rome, convened in Alba Iulia on 7 October 1698:

“And no one shall have the power to disturb our Reverend Vladik (Bishop) Athanasius in his seat until his death; and if it happens that he dies, the Synod shall elect, as before, a Vladik, whom, having been elected, His Holiness the Pope and His Majesty the Emperor shall confirm, and the Patriarch from His Majesty’s domain shall consecrate”.6

This request of the Synod, which, together with the full preservation of the rite, constituted a condition for union with the Church of Rome, reflected a manner of restoring communion in the spirit of the Ecumenical Council of Florence and within the new political situation characterised by the fact that Transylvania had come under the authority of the Habsburg Empire. Similarly, however, it expressed the identity consciousness of the Romanian Church, which declared its unity with the Catholic Church but wished to remain itself, an Eastern Church with its own Byzantine-Roman rite and specific autonomy. The second Leopoldine Diploma, dated the 19th of March in the year 1701, in Article XII, maintained the involvement of the clergy in the selection of the hierarchy but diminished it in the sense that the priests’ right was reduced to proposing three candidates to the emperor, from whom the emperor would choose and appoint the new bishop. In practice, the clergy’s involvement took place in the form of an electing synod, which proposed the first three candidates in the order of votes received. This procedure would be applied in the Eparchy of Făgăraș. Later, it was also used in the Archieparchy of Făgăraș and Alba Iulia, where the electing synod included not only priests of the Archieparchy but also representatives of the clergy from the suffragan eparchies. However, this procedure was not applied in the Eparchy of Oradea Mare or in the other suffragan eparchies, where the emperor, based on a jus patronatum, directly appointed the new bishops, and the Pope canonically instituted them (Andrei 2004, pp. 131–38).

The First Provincial Council, whose acts were approved by the Holy See only in 1882, after almost ten years of deliberations, carefully included the right to elect the metropolitan:

“When the episcopal metropolitan seat becomes vacant, the senior bishops of the suffragan eparchies, after consulting with the metropolitan ordinary and other provincial bishops, are obliged to take care that the metropolitan see be filled, moderating the act of election or designation, examining the suitability of the candidates, and submitting a proposal to fill the metropolitan vacant seat”.7

Following the union of Transylvania with the Kingdom of Romania, the Concordat (10 May 1927) decreed that episcopal appointments would fall under the jurisdiction of the Holy See. However, the Holy See was also required to inform the Romanian government regarding the identity of the future bishop in order to ascertain whether any political impediments existed.8 Notably, the text of the Concordat made no mention of the involvement of an electing synod in the event that the metropolitan see became vacant. The efforts of the Romanian Greco-Catholic episcopate to secure a concession from the Holy See began immediately upon the signing of the Concordat between Romania and the Holy See, for Metropolitan Vasile Suciu and his suffragan bishops were profoundly dissatisfied with the prospect of the Greco-Catholic Church losing its long-held right to elect, or at the very least participate in the election of, the future metropolitan. They did not dispute the Holy See’s competence over episcopal appointments. After much deliberation, the Greco-Catholic bishops succeeded in convincing the Holy See to approve the convening of electing synods, which would propose, in order of votes, three candidates in 1935 (Turcu 2017, p. 583) and again in 1946 (Bucur 2003, pp. 155–63). It is, however, worth noting that the Holy See approved these synods with reservations, granting them provisional approval.

Cleri sanctitati, on the other hand, specifies that the Roman Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those chosen legitimately (Pius PP. XII 1957, can. 392 §2). The procedure for election is established for patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans, and bishops within the framework of Patriarchal or Archiepiscopal synods (Pius PP. XII 1957, can. 221, 251–253, 325), but this does not apply to the metropolitans of the provinces extra Patriarchatus, who, consequently, are not merely confirmed by the Pope but are appointed. Through Cleri sanctitati, the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church retained the institution of the provincial synod, yet its autonomy was diminished due to the loss of the synod’s right to be involved in the election of a new metropolitan.

Upon a cursory examination, one might contend that this limitation was more theoretical than practical, for the Greek-Catholic Church, being both clandestine and persecuted, was scarcely in a position to convene provincial synods or elective synods. Moreover, the decree issued by Pope Pius XII, De nominatione substitutorum, dated 29 June 1948, and subsequently reconfirmed and supplemented with Facultates specialissime on 29 July 1948 (Birtz 2007, pp. 15–16, 88–94; Birtz and Kierein 2010, pp. 282–90), conferred special prerogatives upon bishops operating in a state of necessity induced by persecution, thereby regulating the means of ensuring the leadership of eparchies through the appointment of substitute ordinaries. However, it did not address the matter of appointing a metropolitan. In fact, the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church had been without a metropolitan since 5 June 1941. Owing to the Second World War and the Hungarian occupation of Northern Transylvania, it proved impossible to initiate the canonical procedures until 16 March 1946, when the elective synod in Blaj proposed Bishop Alexandru Russu with the highest number of votes. Although the Holy See acquiesced to the proposal, the pro-Soviet Romanian government withheld approval for the confirmation of Alexandru Russu.

Following the suppression of the Greek-Catholic Church, the preeminence within the episcopal body was granted to the hierarch with the longest years of episcopal service. Each of them, in accordance with the decree De nominatione substitutorum, appointed two substitute ordinaries, who, in the event that the bishop was prevented from exercising his authority, would assume the leadership of the eparchy in the order established by the bishop.

In a state of necessity, the elective principle, whether in the case of appointing a new bishop or when the episcopal seat became vacant or the episcopal leadership was hindered, posed a vulnerability from the perspective of the Holy See, as it could potentially be influenced by political powers. Therefore, when episcopal ordinations took place in secrecy, they were performed with the consent of the Holy See, albeit in a clandestine manner.9

Nevertheless, on 30 April 1985, during the funeral of Bishop Ioan Dragomir, the bishops and ordinaries of the Greek-Catholic eparchies present decided that Alexandru Todea would lead the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church until further canonical provisions. Later, on 14 March 1986, in Cluj-Napoca, a conference of bishops and ordinaries of the Greek-Catholic eparchies took place, during which Bishop Alexandru Todea was elected metropolitan, “with all the rights and duties prescribed by our Provincial Councils and the universal canons in force”. This election, subsequently communicated to the Holy See, was in accordance with the provisions of the First Provincial Council but not with those of Cleri Sanctitati, which were probably unknown at the time. In the ensuing period, Alexandru Todea acted as metropolitan, appointing Father Lucian Mureșan as ordinarius of the Eparchy of Maramureș, assuming jurisdiction over the Eparchy of Cluj-Gherla following the retirement of Father Prunduș, and appointing Father Tertulian Langa as episcopal vicar general for the same eparchy (Prunduș and Plaianu 1992, pp. 37–38).

This act, justified by the necessity for central leadership in an exceedingly difficult period for the Church, was not immediately followed by confirmation from the Holy See. In fact, it was only after the fall of communism that Pope John Paul II appointed Alexandru Todea to the office of Archbishop and Metropolitan of Făgăraș and Alba Iulia. The text of the papal bull (Prunduș and Plaianu 1992, pp. 49–50) refers to the appointment rather than to confirmation, though it was interpreted within the Greek-Catholic community as a confirmation of the election made on 14 March 1986 (Prunduș and Plaianu 1994, p. 139). Nonetheless, there exist opposing perspectives (Birtz 2019, pp. 404, 411–14).

2. The second distinction between Concilium Provinciale Primum and Cleri Sanctitati pertains to the right of the metropolitan to ordain and enthrone new bishops. This right is acknowledged by Concilium Provinciale Primum (Conc. Prov. I, Tit. III, Cap. III, 3) but is not recognised in Cleri Sanctitati, which acknowledges this right for metropolitans under the authority of a patriarch (Pius PP. XII 1957, can. 319 §1) but not for metropolitans in provinces extra Patriarchatus (Pius PP. XII 1957, can. 320).

The significance of this right extends beyond the legal relationships of superior/subordinate, such as the metropolitan/suffragan bishop dynamic, as episcopal ordination, where alongside the metropolitan, two other bishops participate as co-consecrators, and the enthronement of the newly ordained bishop represent a way of manifesting and even constituting the communio Ecclesiarum (Szabó 2005, p. 154).

3. The Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris (1990–2005)

Upon the promulgation of canonical legislation for the Eastern Catholic Churches, Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (1990), on 18 October 1990, the Romanian Church United with Rome was recognised as a Metropolitan Church sui iuris.

Regarded in its full breadth, this codex constituted a laudable progression, being imbued with the lofty ecclesiological principles espoused by the Second Vatican Council and animated by a steadfast resolve to uphold the canons of the Eastern tradition. The juridical construct of Ecclesia sui iuris (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 27), wherein was enshrined the singular status of the Eastern Catholic Churches within the embrace of the Catholic Church, vouchsafed unto them an autonomy, permitting them to govern themselves in accordance with their own discipline, ever within the bounds of that law which hath been ratified by the Supreme Authority. This provision afforded them the means whereby they might preserve and cultivate, untrammelled, the unique identity. It is most fitting to note that, throughout the storied annals of the Romanian Church United with Rome, its hierarchy and theologians have upheld the incontestable verity that their Church is possessed of an Eastern discipline most proper to itself. Indeed, invocations of the Pravila10, or Directorium legis—a compendium of canonical jurisprudence wherein were contained the disciplinary precepts of the East, long employed in Transylvania by Greek-Catholic and Orthodox Romanians alike—are found as late as the latter portion of the nineteenth century. The recognition of sui iuris status, therefore, did not introduce a new reality but rather confirmed a long-standing conviction regarding the Church’s identity. Furthermore, the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, by acknowledging not only the common legislation applicable to all Eastern Catholic Churches but also the role of particular law, furnished the requisite foundation upon which each Church might further elaborate its own specific regulations in accordance with its tradition.

For the Greek-Catholic Church in Romania, the canonical recognition as a Metropolitan Church sui iuris introduced a matter of considerable complexity, one that stood at variance with its established synodal tradition. According to the newly promulgated code, a Metropolitan Church sui iuris is presided over by the Metropolitan of a designated see, appointed by the Roman Pontiff, and is assisted, in accordance with canonical norms, by a Council of Hierarchs (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 155§1). This Council of Hierarchs comprises all consecrated bishops of the Metropolitan Church, save for those rendered incapable or subjected to canonical censure. However, deliberative voting rights are accorded solely to eparchial bishops and their coadjutors, while all other bishops may exercise such a right only if expressly stipulated by particular law (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 164§1–2). In the case of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church, the Council of Hierarchs likewise included the bishop of the Eparchy of Saint George in Canton, Ohio, an ecclesiastical jurisdiction established by Pope John Paul II on 26 March 1987, for the pastoral care of Romanian Greek-Catholics residing in the United States.

The institution of the Council of Hierarchs, despite its resemblance to the synodal assembly, does not possess a truly synodal nature. From a canonical perspective, the Council represents a significant innovation. This gathering of bishops within a sui iuris Metropolitan Church undeniably reflects the episcopal collegiality of the Church; however, it does not embody a fully synodal nature. Federico Marti, in his analysis of the Council of Hierarchs, particularly considering the specific criteria for its composition and the relationship between the metropolitan and the Council of Hierarchs, has described it as a theological and juridical hybrid. In his view, it is not an expression of the collegialitas effectiva that is characteristic of true synodality. Rather, the Council of Hierarchs is indicative of the emotional collegiality of the bishops within the sui iuris Metropolitan Church, a symbol of their communion and unity, but it does not manifest the effective collegiality that is a hallmark of synodal governance (Marti 2011, pp. 162–66).

Dimitrios Salachas has highlighted the similarities between the Council of Hierarchs and the Episcopal Conferences found in the Codex Iuris Canonici, but he also pointed out the key differences, particularly stemming from the fact that the Council of Hierarchs, having the role of assisting the Metropolitan in the governance of the entire sui iuris Church, is entrusted with a deliberative power according to the norms. Nevertheless, the possession of deliberative power, as opposed to merely consultative power, does not transform the Council of Hierarchs into the juridical figure of a Synod as seen in the Patriarchal or Major Archiepiscopal Churches (Salachas 2003, p. 198).

The absence of a synodal institution has a limiting and problematic consequence for the autonomy of a metropolitan institution: the Council of Hierarchs does not have the competence to elect the metropolitan in the event of a vacant see, nor the authority to elect new bishops. It is only responsible for compiling a list of three candidates deemed most suitable, which will be sent to the Apostolic See (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 168). The appointment of the metropolitan and bishops belongs solely to the Roman Pontiff (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 155§1; 181§2).

The Romanian Church United with Rome, by virtue of recognising its status as a sui iuris Metropolitan Church, was afforded a clear guarantee of the preservation of its ecclesial identity and its right to govern in accordance with its own discipline. The office of the metropolitan was canonically accompanied by rights and prerogatives far more extensive than those prescribed by the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium concerning the rights of a metropolitan within a metropolitan see that falls under a Patriarchal or Major Archiepiscopal Church (Marti 2011, pp. 166–67). Fortuitously, the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium acknowledged the metropolitan of a sui iuris Church’s competence in the ordination and enthronement of bishops (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 159§1). Nevertheless, the inherent autonomy of the sui iuris metropolitan figure did not align with the historical and ecclesiological reality of the Romanian Church United with Rome, for it was devoid of two fundamental elements from its tradition: synodality and the right to elect the metropolitan. The continuity of these intertwined elements, historically attested in various institutional forms within the tradition of the Romanian Church United with Rome, was now interrupted, a fact not lost upon the Greek-Catholic clerical and lay elite.

Evidence of this situation is provided by the fact that the Romanian Church United with Rome convened the Fourth Provincial Council between 1997 and 2000. However, how could a Provincial Council have been celebrated under circumstances wherein the Codex Canonum Orientalium Ecclesiarum made no provision for such a synodal institution? In the absence of access to the ecclesiastical archives of the Greek-Catholic Church in Romania and the pontifical archives from this period, our reflection shall rely upon the communiqués issued by the Council Secretariat, information gleaned from pastoral letters, and both ecclesiastical and secular press reports.

After a year and a half of preparations, the Fourth Provincial Council was inaugurated in Blaj on 17 March 1997, with a solemn celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, officiated by Metropolitan Lucian Mureșan. The event was attended by the Greek-Catholic bishops, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bucharest, His Grace Ioan Robu, who was also the President of the Romanian Catholic Episcopal Conference; Mr Gheorghe Anghelescu, the Secretary of State for Religious Affairs; as well as various local dignitaries, numerous members of the clergy, and faithful adherents. Representing the Holy See, the following participated: His Excellency Archbishop Janusz Bolonek, the Apostolic Nuncio to Romania; Monsignor Marco Brogi O.F.M., Undersecretary of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches; and Monsignor Krzysztof Nitkiewicz, an official of the same Congregation. Alongside the bishops, the composition of the Council included general vicars, superiors of religious orders and institutes of consecrated life, rectors and professors from the Theological Institutes, proto-presbyters, and laypeople from all the eparchies.

The event was conceived by the Greek-Catholic hierarchy within a framework imbued with profound symbolic significance, reflecting both the communion with the Church of Rome and its synodal tradition (Zubașcu 1997a, p. 20). The commencement of the council took place in the context of the 300th anniversary of the declaration made on 21 March 1697, when Metropolitan Teophilus and the 12 proto-presbyters in Alba Iulia expressed their decision to unite the Orthodox Church of Transylvania with the Church of Rome. Furthermore, in 1997, it also marked the 125th anniversary of the celebration of the First Provincial Council of the Greek-Catholic Church. The final session of the Fourth Provincial Council was scheduled for the autumn of the year 2000, when it was to commemorate 300 years since the Union Synod with the Church of Rome, presided over by Metropolitan Athanasius in Alba Iulia on 4 September 1700, as well as the centenary of the Third Provincial Council. Finally, the year 1997 also marked the 32nd anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council.

Though the official designation was that of a Provincial Council, a title also adopted by representatives of the Holy See, from a canonical standpoint, the event was structured upon the canons which govern the Assembly of a sui iuris Metropolitan Church (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 140–145, 172). Thus, whilst in the perception and intentions of the local Church, the event sought to be a continuation of the previous Provincial Councils or, at the very least, a symbolic and practical restoration of the synodal tradition, in the view of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, the gathering at Blaj was, in structural terms, akin to the Assembly of a Metropolitan Church (S.I.C.O. 1997, p. 196). This structural correspondence, however, did not remove the peculiarities associated with such an assembly, which was to unfold over several sessions during a span of four years, its deliberations being conducted in accordance with its own Vademecum Synodi11. Nevertheless, within the Greek-Catholic theological sphere, it was credibly argued that the Fourth Provincial Council was, in truth, the inaugural meeting of the Metropolitan Assembly of the Greek-Catholic Church in Romania (Muntean 2000, p. 59; Bleiziffer 2016, p. 257; Cristescu 2011, p. 302).

In his message to the participants, which was read by the Apostolic Nuncio, Janusz Bolonek, His Holiness Pope John Paul II exhorted the Greek-Catholic Church in Romania to engage particularly in the formation of theology professors and future priests, as well as in the apostolate with the youth (S.I.C.O. 1997, p. 197). The pastoral horizon was likewise underscored in the message of Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, who expressed his desire that the participants contemplate together the objectives and pastoral methods in pursuit of an authentic evangelical witness, favouring the human person and society. Simultaneously, Cardinal Silvestrini brought to their attention the necessity for the proceedings of the Fourth Provincial Council to draw inspiration from the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, and the post-conciliar ecumenical vision (S.I.C.O. 1997, p. 198).

The first session of the Fourth Provincial Council, held between 17 and 21 March 1997, addressed matters concerning the identity and legal configuration of the Greek-Catholic Church (S.I.C.O. 1997, p. 199). Metropolitan Lucian Mureșan, in the pastoral letter written on the occasion of the Easter celebrations of April 1997, highlighted the following objectives and accomplishments of the first session: the affirmation of full communion with the Catholic Church and the preservation of the Eastern identity; the initiation of an evaluation concerning the past, to better comprehend the present and to delineate the path forward in the third millennium, within the Universal Church and amidst the Romanian people (Mureșan 1997, pp. 5–6). From the communiqué issued by the Press Office of the Council (Biroul de Presă 1997, p. 1) on 21 March 1997, as well as from other journalistic accounts (Zubașcu 1997b, p. 6), it is understood that the first session was devoted to discussions concerning the martyrs of the Communist era, the rediscovery and redefinition of the identity of the Greek-Catholic Church, the draughting of particular law in continuity with the first three Provincial Councils, and, lastly, the implementation of the documents of Vatican II and other magisterial texts pertaining to the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The second session was held at Blaj, between 28 September and 9 October 1998, taking place under the sign of the fiftieth anniversary of the suppression of the Greek-Catholic Church by the Communist regime. Five themes were addressed: the Holy Scriptures, the Liturgy, the ongoing formation of the clergy, the spiritual formation of the laity, and consecrated life (Zubașcu 1998, p. 10).

At the third session, held once more in Blaj from 15 to 19 March 1999, the principal subjects of deliberation encompassed Greek-Catholic education at all levels and catechesis (Mureșan 1999); the internal organisation of the Church at every hierarchical tier; an examination of its status as a Metropolitan Church sui iuris and the prospects of attaining the dignity of a Major Archiepiscopal Church; as well as its relations with the Roman Catholic Church (Bleiziffer 2016, p. 258).

The fourth session took place between 27 September and 1 October 1999, again at Blaj. According to the press release issued by the Secretariat of the Council, signed by Archbishop George Guțiu ad personam, the proceedings were focused on the situation and role of the Greek-Catholic Church in contemporary society:

“Through this reflection, we sought to broaden our gaze of faith from the perspective of the Second Vatican Council on matters of the utmost importance: ecumenical relations, the promotion of the family, the defence of life, as well as the healing of the morality of contemporary society” (Guțiu 1999, p. 8).

The final, fifth session was hosted at the Franciscan Monastery in Oradea, from 19 to 22 September 2000, and concluded with a solemn celebration of the Divine Liturgy, officiated by Metropolitan Lucian Mureșan and the Greek-Catholic bishops, accompanied by thirty-five priests. The press release from the General Secretariat of the Council stated the following:

“The themes addressed in the five conciliar sessions encompassed a broad horizon: the fundamental doctrine of the Church, the formation of the clergy and the laity, theological education, the internal organisation of the Church, and ecumenism. In this final session, the conciliar documents were finalised, and reflection was given to the events of the past year: the visit of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to Romania, the national pilgrimage of Romanians to Rome, and the Apostolic Letter of the Sovereign Pontiff on the occasion of the third centenary anniversary of the Union with the Church of Rome” (Secretariatul General al Sinodului 2000, p. 5).

Although the Fourth Provincial Council did indeed produce a series of important documents, it was not followed by their formal approval either by the Council of Hierarchs or the Holy See. Yet, this should not be understood as rendering the event devoid of ecclesiastical significance in the annals of the Greek-Catholic Church. Quite the contrary, the Fourth Provincial Council remains an occasion of considerable importance, for it marked a pivotal moment in the life of the Church, as it arose from the cessation of persecution and the restoration of public life within a society still much influenced by the mentality of the communist era and struggling with the monumental task of rebuilding its structures and communities. In this context, the Council provided a crucial platform for reflection and analysis on the identity and multifaceted mission of the Greek-Catholic Church and its pastoral, educational, cultural, and social responsibilities. This reflective process was enriched by the dialogue between generations, for present at the Council were clergy who had served prior to 1948, priests, monks, and laity who had suffered imprisonment for the sake of their Catholic faith under the communist regime, clergy formed and ordained in secrecy, as well as young priests and laypersons educated in the post-1989 era. The diversity of life experiences, sensitivities, and spiritual-cultural perspectives brought to the proceedings proved an invaluable resource. Moreover, the participation of not only the clergy—bishops and priests—but also consecrated persons and laity created an atmosphere conducive to meaningful debates for the entire Church, fostering the crystallisation of thoughtful and significant directions for the future.

It is no mere coincidence that the discussions of the first session, concerning the martyrs and confessors of the Catholic faith during the communist persecution, would be followed, on 16 January 1999, by the commencement of the beatification process for the seven Greek-Catholic martyr bishops: Valeriu Traian Frențiu, Vasile Aftenie, Ioan Suciu, Tit Liviu Chinezu, Ioan Bălan, Alexandru Rusu, and Iuliu Hossu12.

While one cannot, with certainty, establish a direct causal link between the Fourth Provincial Council and the actions undertaken after the year 2000 by Metropolitan Lucian, in concert with the Council of Hierarchs, aimed at obtaining from the Holy See the elevation of the Greek-Catholic Church to the dignity of a Major Archiepiscopal Church, it is indubitable that the conciliar debates regarding the canonical configuration of the Church did indeed (Bleiziffer 2016, p. 258) crystallise the awareness of the necessity of such an initiative. For these deliberations clearly illuminated the fact that the canonical status of a sui iuris Metropolitan Church was wholly unsuitable for the ecclesiological identity, synodal tradition, and disciplinary heritage of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church.

4. The Major Archiepiscopal Church (2005)

Although the specific deliberations that transpired within the pontifical fora regarding the request made by metropolitan Lucian Mureșan and the Council of Hierarchs remain obscure, it is evident, from the testimony of Mons. Cyril Vasiľ S.J., that the distinguished canonist Ivan Žužek S.J., consultant to the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, and Secretary-General of the Pontifical Commission for the Codification of the Eastern Code, advocated as early as 1994 for the canonical establishment of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church as a Major Archiepiscopate. He underscored that during the initial codification of the Eastern canon law, the canons within the Motu Proprio Cleri Sanctitati regarding major archbishops were specifically devised with the Romanian Greek Catholic Church in mind, thereby positioning it ahead of other analogous Churches, including the Ukrainian Church. The seven prerogatives of the metropolitan, delineated by the First Provincial Council of Blaj in 1872, contributed significantly to the definition of the archbishop with near-patriarchal jurisdiction, as articulated in Cleri sanctitati, and subsequently, the major archbishop in the Codex Canonum Orientalium Ecclesiarum. Accordingly, Ivan Žužek contended that the Romanian Greek Catholic Church should have been recognised as a Major Archiepiscopate as early as 23 December 1963, the precise moment when the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was granted such a status. In this manner, the debates surrounding the clergy’s participation in the election of the metropolitan, though historically attested but incongruent with ancient canons, could have been canonically resolved through the Synod of Bishops (Vasiľ 2016, pp. 270–73). Undoubtedly, these cogent arguments, reiterated by Ivan Žužek in late 2003, shortly before his passing, must have held substantial influence in the decision-making process of the Holy See.

On 14 December 2005, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI responded favourably to the petition submitted by metropolitan Lucian Mureșan on behalf of the Council of Hierarchs and, through the Papal Bull Ad totius Dominici gregis, elevated the Romanian Church United with Rome to the dignity of a Major Archiepiscopal Church, bearing the title of Făgăraș and Alba Iulia of the Romanians, with its seat established at Blaj13.

The Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium defines a Major Archiepiscopal Church as an “Eastern Church sui iuris which is not vested with the patriarchal title” (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 151). Consequently, the common law applicable to Patriarchal Churches extends likewise to the Romanian Major Archiepiscopal Church, save for instances wherein the law expressly dictates otherwise or where such distinctions arise from the nature of the matter at hand (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 152). The principal distinction between a Patriarchal Church and a Major Archiepiscopal Church lies in the procedure governing the election of the patriarch and, respectively, the major archbishop. A duly elected patriarch, following his proclamation and enthronement (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 76 §2), is required to seek ecclesiastical communion with the Roman Pontiff (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 76 §2). In contrast, a canonically elected major archbishop must petition the Roman Pontiff for confirmation of his election, and only upon receiving such confirmation may he be proclaimed and enthroned (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 153 §2–3).

This new canonical legislation faithfully embodies the vision articulated in the decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum, according to which patriarchs and major archbishops, together with the Synod of Bishops, constitute the supreme authority within their respective particular Churches (Second Vatican Council 1964, 9–10).

From an ecclesiological and canonical perspective, the Papal Bull of His Holiness Benedict XVI bore consequences of profound significance for the Romanian Church United with Rome, as it endowed the Church with two distinguishing marks of autonomy: the institution of the Synod of Bishops (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 102–113) and the right to elect bishops within the canonical territory of the Major Archiepiscopal Church (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 181 §1; can. 182–89), including the election of the major archbishop himself (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 63–75). The Synod’s prerogative to elect both the major archbishop and the bishops constitutes a fundamental attribute of autonomy, at once a living expression and a safeguard of the Church’s self-governance.

The elevation to the status of a Major Archiepiscopal Church provided an impetus for the institutional development of the Romanian Church United with Rome. His Beatitude Lucian Mureșan, enthroned as major archbishop at Blaj on 30 April 2006, formally established the Synod of Bishops by Decree 1025/06 on 20 June 2006. Furthermore, he instituted the Curia of the Major Archiepiscopate, equipping it with the structures and functions delineated by canonical law (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium 1990, can. 114–25), while tailoring them to the particular circumstances of the Greek-Catholic Church. Among these, one may enumerate: the Permanent Synod, the Bishop of the Curia, the Ordinary Tribunal, the Economic Council, and the following Synodal Commissions: the Commission for the Codification of Particular Law; the Commission for Patrimony; the Commission for Catholic Education; the Liturgical Commission; the Theological-Historical Commission; the Pastoral Commission; the Missionary-Ecumenical Commission; and the Social Commission (Bleiziffer 2016, pp. 214–24).

The Synod of Bishops, adhering scrupulously to canonical procedures, proceeded with the election of new auxiliary bishops14 and bishops for the Curia of the Major Archiepiscopate15. Furthermore, His Beatitude Cardinal Lucian Mureșan, with the consent of the Synod, effected the transfer of bishops as deemed necessary for the governance and pastoral needs of the Church16.

Of singular importance in the institutional evolution of the Greek-Catholic Church in Romania was the establishment of the Eparchy of Saint Basil the Great of Bucharest on 29 May 2014. This momentous step was undertaken by His Beatitude Lucian Mureșan, following the unanimous assent of the Synod of Bishops and in consultation with the Apostolic See, marking a significant milestone in the ecclesiastical organisation and mission of the Church.

5. Conclusions

The commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council stands as an event that ought not to be merely reduced to festive remembrances but is rather an occasion for a critical reflection upon the reception of the conciliar documents within the Catholic Church and their impact upon the local Churches. For the Romanian Greco-Catholic Church, the conciliar documents have, in essence, served as a confirmation of its ecclesiological vision, which had been crystallised throughout history. According to this ecclesiological conception, its reality as an Eastern Catholic Church was a mode of existing within the communion of the Catholic Church, with an identity marked by a dual belonging: Catholic, determined by faith and by hierarchical communion with the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, and Eastern, by virtue of the spiritual, liturgical, theological, and disciplinary patrimony specific to the Byzantine-Romanian Rite.

Owing to its strong sense of identity, the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church has consistently asserted its ecclesiological individuality within the Catholic Church. The debates held with the pontifical authorities concerning its canonical configuration, its synodal institutions, and the right to elect the metropolitan cannot be separated from the way in which it has understood its own ecclesial reality. The Church is more than its status. In fact, the canonical configuration and synodal structures should accurately reflect the concrete reality of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church and enable an appropriate and efficient organisation to fulfil its pastoral mission.

The Second Vatican Council, through its ecclesiology of communion in Lumen Gentium, by valuing local Churches and affirming the dignity and identity of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), created the appropriate ecclesiological framework for the Greek-Catholic Church in Romania. However, the canonical framework, transposed in the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium through the category of Metropolitan Church sui iuris, did not align with its history and synodal tradition. It would have been more fitting for the canonical configuration to have been that of a Major Archiepiscopal Church immediately after the enactment of Cleri sanctitati, similar to the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, or shortly after the publication of the new Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium.

Synodality and the right to elect or participate in the election of the metropolitan can be irrefutably substantiated within the tradition of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church. One may engage in discourse regarding the concordance or lack thereof between certain synodal institutions and the Eastern venerable canonical laws, or the fact that within the Eastern Churches, certain prerogatives of the metropolitan and the Metropolitan Synod have been subsumed under the auspices of the patriarch and the Patriarchal Synod. This ecclesiastical evolution has engendered reservations within the Holy See concerning the recognition of the right to elect the metropolitan within the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church. Nonetheless, both historically and institutionally, these two ecclesiological and juridical elements have distinctively set it apart from other Greek-Catholic Churches in Central and Eastern Europe, thereby manifesting a well-defined and unwavering ecclesial identity. Hence, the decision of Pope Benedict XVI to elevate the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church to the status of a Major Archiepiscopal Church was, from an ecclesiological standpoint, a perfectly natural and theologically appropriate act, and from a canonical perspective, an entirely sound and just decision.

From the synodal experience of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church, one may extract at least two elements of notable significance, which shall prove invaluable in the ongoing synodal discussions encouraged by His Holiness Pope Francis within the Synod of Bishops. These reflections also hold particular relevance as we look towards the potential revision of the canonical legislation governing the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The first element pertains to the reconsideration of the institution of the Council of Hierarchs within the Metropolitical Churches sui iuris. This canonical structure serves, among other purposes, to distinguish the degree of autonomy of a Metropolitical Church in comparison with that of a Major Archiepiscopal Church, whilst also acting as a demarcation criterion between a sui iuris metropolis and a metropolis within a Patriarchal or Major Archiepiscopal Church. Notwithstanding, its nature is hybrid, and it does not wholly conform to the ancient Eastern canons. Scholarly investigations into the rapport between the metropolitan and the Council of Hierarchs have illuminated the fact that the metropolitan enjoys competences and authority hitherto unparalleled in the Eastern ecclesial-canonical tradition, deviating from the model of the protos, the primus inter pares, in the precise sense of Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons (Marti 2011, pp. 166–67). In light of this, it would be most propitious, in the quest for absolute coherence with the ancient Eastern canons and with the dignity and autonomy of the Eastern Churches, which is particularly articulated through their synodal form, to dispense with the structure of the Council of Hierarchs and supplant it with the institution of the Synod of the Metropolitical Church sui iuris.

The second element pertains to the election of the major archbishop and bishops within the Major Archiepiscopal Churches. At this juncture, we observe a complete harmony between the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium and the Eastern tradition, according to which bishops are elected within the Synod of Bishops. This situation is also in full accordance with the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, which affirms that synodality is both an expression and an instrument of strengthening the communion of the Church, one that is not amorphous but is rather structured on the basis of the apostolic and episcopal hierarchy.

The very composition of the Synod of the Patriarchal and Major Archiepiscopal Churches underscores this principle: an individual is constituted as a member of the episcopal body by virtue of their episcopal consecration. However, the right to partake in the synodal governance of the Church emanates not from an abstract or purely theoretical concept but from the reality of being, through ordination, established as the pastoral leader of a particular Church. Furthermore, the inclusion of both eparchial bishops and those titular or emeritus in the Synod serves to express both the unity of the Major Archiepiscopal Church and the collegial nature of the episcopate (Salachas 2001, p. 107). Within the synodal framework, each bishop represents the interests and the pastoral mission of their respective eparchy, and all bishops, in concert with the major archbishop and in complete unity with the Bishop of Rome, collectively embody the representation of the local Church within the universal communion of the Church.

Nonetheless, should the ongoing synodal path, fervently advocated and propelled by Pope Francis, deem it prudent to involve additional categories of Christians—priests, consecrated individuals, and laity—in the process of episcopal elections, the historical institution of the elective synod within the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church, which historically encompassed the participation of priests, could undoubtedly serve as a significant reference. The incorporation of such diverse members, alongside the bishops, is a practice presently observed within the Orthodox Churches17. When designed in a manner that preserves the preeminent role of the episcopacy within the Synod, perhaps in an advisory and institutional capacity, it would still stand as a profound expression of ecclesial communion and co-responsibility at the level of the local Church.