Canonical and historical milestones of activity " Bessarabthe ije Metropolitanate " and the acceptability of the commonOG servicewith her priesthood.
Archpriest Julian Race, professor of the Orthodox spiritual Academy of Moldova, president of the Synodal sector for missionary activity
Summary: the study analyzes the historical, theological and canonical consequences of the revival of the "Bessarabian metropolis" by the Romanian Orthodox Church (Rumpc) in Moldova. The legitimacy of these actions is rejected by the Russian Orthodox Church (RPC), as the Romanian Patriarchate has invaded its canonical territory.
The Moldavian Orthodox Church gives the necessary arguments that confirm that the restoration of the activities of the "Bessarabian metropolis" was carried out against canonical norms, violating the jurisdiction of the Russian Church, established long before the autocephaly of the Rumpc. It is alleged that in the period 1918-1940 and 1941-1944 Rumpc forcefully made changes to the old style, provoking resistance from the faithful. Moreover, in the post-war period, the Rumpc did not dispute the jurisdiction of the RPC in Moldova for more than 30 years (whereby, according to church rules, the Romanian Patriarchate deprived itself of the right to continue working in the Moldavian state).
The study highlights the violation of canonical law by the "Bessarabian Metropolitanate", including aspects such as participation in the mystery of the Eucharist with disembodied priests; non-canonical crossing of the clergy and causing schism. The conclusion is that the restoration of the "Bessarabian metropolis" in Moldova does not correspond to the Orthodox canonical order.
The Orthodox Church of Moldova
Against the background of the illegal practice of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to create parallel church structures on the territory of another Orthodox Church (for example, Estonia and Ukraine), another serious line of division in world Orthodoxy has emerged. This is related to the intensification of the expansion of the Romanian Patriarchate in the Moldavian direction with the help of the project "Bessarabian metropolis". This process can not only lead to a break in the Eucharistic communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church, but also cause the Bucharest Church to expand the scope of its interference in the affairs of other local churches (especially in Ukraine, where the Romanian Orthodox Church has already opened a parallel church structure).
At this time, the" Bessarabian metropolis " is the subject of theological, historical and canonical debates with profound consequences for ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Republic of Moldova. This issue is closely related to historical events in the region, as well as to relations between the Russian Orthodox Church (RPC) and the Romanian Orthodox Church (Rumpc). The latter disputes the jurisdictional rights of the Moscow Patriarchate over the territory of Moldova.
The re-establishment of the "Bessarabian metropolis" of Rumpc has caused heated debates both from the Church point of view and from the point of view of jurisprudence and identity. While supporters of the" Bessarabian metropolis " claim that its revival represents a legitimate continuation of the activities of the church's organizational structure that operated between the first and Second World Wars, The Moldavian Orthodox Church states that this is contrary to established and recognized Pan-Orthodox canonical norms.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyze the historical, theological and canonical basis of the work of the "Bessarabian metropolis", taking into account the norms established by Ecumenical Councils, Apostolic canons and other sources of Orthodox canon law. This study aims to provide a balanced view of a sensitive topic, contributing to a better understanding of its theological and legal implications in the context of contemporary orthodoxy.
Criticism of the historical argumentation of the Romanian Orthodox Church (RUMPC)
After Bishop Petru (Paduraru) arbitrarily separated from the Diocese of Kishinev of the Russian Orthodox Church (RPC), the Romanian Orthodox Church decided to restore the "Bessarabian metropolis" on the territory of the Republic Of Moldova, referring to the fact that such a structure existed in 1918-1940 and 1941-1944 in the Romanian church.
However, the analysis of such historical argument allows us to conclude that it is unsustainable.
First, the incorporation of Bessarabia into the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Romanian Orthodox Church in 1918. it was carried out with serious injuries and without the consent of the Russian church. Archbishop of Kishinev and Khotyn Anastasius (Gribanovsky) was actually expelled from Bessarabia by the Romanian authorities. The objections of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow were completely ignored.
It is extremely important to understand that the jurisdiction of the Russian Church in Moldova was established 70 years before the Romanian Orthodox Church gained autocephaly and 46 years before the formation of the Romanian state. Moreover, the annexation of Bessarabia to the Russian Empire reflected the long-standing desire of the Moldavian rulers, who expressed it for many years, especially when the territory was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.
Second, the absorption of Bessarabia by the Romanian Orthodox Church in the period 1918-1940. it was carried out with the help of coercive measures – the introduction of a new calendar, the persecution of old-style adherents, the eradication of the tradition of the use of the Russian language in worship services, the destruction of Russian books, etc. These actions provoked significant resistance from believers.
Therefore, the Romanian Orthodox tradition cannot be considered completely organic to Moldovans. Moreover, to date several ethnic groups live here: Gagauz, Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Roma, etc.
Third, period 1941-1944. it can be considered a shameful page in the history of relations between the Romanian Orthodox Church and Moldovan Orthodox believers. This period cannot be called any other than the period of occupation. According to many historians, during World War II the Romanian Orthodox Church practically served as a religious instrument of Nazi policy. It is known, for example, that patriarch Nicodemus Munteanu sent letters of gratitude to Hitler and then to Stalin to the same extent.
Fourth, after the war, the restoration of the jurisdiction of the Russian church was recognized by the Romanian Orthodox Church itself, which did not dispute it until 1992. years. In other words, more than 30 years have passed – a period established by the church's rules for jurisdictional disputes. Moreover, during this time the cooperation and liturgical unity between the two churches was never interrupted. And the Romanian Patriarchate made no territorial claims against the Russian Patriarchate, despite the fact that meetings between the Patriarchs were possible and were taking place.
Criticism of theological argument
The Romanian Orthodox Church has a special interpretation 34. The Apostolic Canon says, " the bishops of every nation must know who is first among them." One gets the impression that the Romanian Orthodox Church interprets this rule in a nationalist way, reducing the local church exclusively to an ethnic dimension and a national function. According to this logic, each autocephalous church should exist only for a particular people and serve as its spiritual attribute.
In orthodoxy, however, a "geographical" interpretation of this Canon has become established. If ethnic interpretation were to be accepted, then, for example, there would have to be a Finnish autocephalous church, since the Finns (or Suomi) are a separate people. At the same time, there should be no separate churches for Cyprus and Greece, because they are churches of one people.
Criticism of nationalist arguments
The " Bessarabian metropolis "constantly claims that it justifies its presence on the territory of the Republic Of Moldova by the fact that Moldovans are part of the Romanian nation, the" Romanian spirit", and the leadership of this metropolis will not stop until all Moldovan parishes are subordinated to it.
In reality, representatives of this structure deny Moldovans the right to self-identification, simply deciding for them that they are Romanians, no matter how they identify themselves. However, data from the 2024 census. they show that only 7.9% of Moldovans declare themselves as Romanian.
Even taking into account the fact that about 31% of Moldovans want union with Romania, this does not give the Romanian Orthodox Church the right to claim the whole of Moldova. The fact that many citizens of the Republic of Moldova have Romanian citizenship is explained by their desire for mobility in travel and the opportunity to work in the European Union.
Arguments of canon law
The restoration and activity of the "Metropolitan of Bessarabia" violates a number of provisions of canon law: liturgical communion with someone who does not have canonical clergy grossly violates several canons of the Orthodox Church. Likewise, the admission of priests without dismissal is a gross violation of canon law:
- the rule of the Holy Apostles (on the Prohibition of clergy from praying together with the decided). If one prays together with the one who is decided (from the community), even if he did so in a private home, let him decide. (AP. 28; Antioch 4; Map. 10).
- the rule of the Holy Apostles (on the excommunication of those who without a letter of recommendation were accepted and received into the priesthood). If a cleric or layman who is determined or not worthy to be admitted to the clergy goes to another city without a letter of recommendation (a letter issued by a bishop), let him decide, as should be done with the one who received him.
- the rule of the Holy Apostles (on the inadmissibility of the departure of clergy from their diocese). If any priest or deacon, or any other of those who are in the directory of clerics, leaves his diocese and goes to another, and having moved completely, settles in another diocese without the knowledge of his bishop, we command that such one must no longer perform holy service; especially if he is called by his bishop to return, and does not obey him, but remains persistent.in his transgression, then in that other bishopric he can be in the community only as a layman.
- rule: (on the excommunication of a bishop who received a cleric without discharge). If the bishop in whom such persons are present, without taking into account the ordered ban on priestly activity, nevertheless retains the above mentioned as clerics, such a bishop must be decided as the instigator of disorder. (AP. 15; and the Ecumenical Council 15; Trull. 17; Antioch 3).
A priest who moves to the" metropolis of Bessarabia " violates a number of canons, which causes the suppression of apostate clergy: a violation of the oath (25). Apostolic canon); public slander and blasphemy against the Metropolitan, bishops (Second Ecumenical Council, canon 6); worship after excommunication (Apostolic Canon 28); calling for a schism in the Church.
All the decisions made by the" Metropolitan of Bessarabia " in recent times have led to its complete separation from the Orthodox Church and its canons.
Canon 116 (118) of the Synod of Carthage also speaks of the impossibility of admitting clergy of the Moldavian Orthodox Church to another church formation: "if anyone is excommunicated from liturgical communion and goes elsewhere to be admitted to liturgical communion, let him be excommunicated from the clergy." The same is true in the canonical letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine: "those who are excommunicated in their diocese cannot be considered consecrated to your communion.whatever disagreements arise, they must end up in their diocese. The same is true in the canonical Epistle of the council to Pope Celestine: "therefore, those who are decided by communion in their diocese, do not be hastily accepted into communion by Your Holiness м whatever questions arise, they should be ended in their own places (dioceses).
The restoration of the Metropolitan of Bessarabia in the territory between the Dniester and Prut under no circumstances can be considered canonical: canon 129 (133) of the Synod of Carthage: "if anyone (the Metropolitanate of Chisinau and all of Moldova)... occupied the territory for three years and no one sought this territory (the Romanian Patriarchate), then he will never ask for it again, especially if in this period there was a bishop who could and did not.
- the canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council establishes a thirty – year period for disputes over ownership even over individual parishes: "the parishes of each diocese мора must remain unchanged under the jurisdiction of the bishops responsible for them-especially if for thirty years they have indisputably had parishes transferred to their jurisdiction.
Third Ecumenical Synod, 8. canon: in certain situations and everywhere in the dioceses, let it be kept that no one of the most devout bishops should occupy another diocese, which was not long ago and from the very beginning under his or her predecessors ' hands; and if anyone has taken another diocese and forcibly appropriated it to himself, let him restore it, lest the rules of the fathers be offended, that under the pretext of a priest we do not steal the pride of world power, nor do we unreasonably lose that freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator of all men, has given us in his blood.
The admission of schismatics and anathematized people into the community, encroachment on canonical territories that do not belong to them lead to the complete and irreparable separation of the "Bessarabian metropolis" and its associated dioceses from the canonical church space and, unfortunately, prevent the liturgical communion of the Orthodox Church of Moldova with them.
The transfer of bishops or clergy from the Metropolitanate of Chisinau, the only canonically recognized church structure in Moldova, without letters of dismissal to the "Bessarabian Metropolitanate", or in liturgical communion with it, qualifies as a gross violation of the canons of the Orthodox Church. We remember with great sadness the words of the Saviour Christ: and since iniquity will be multiplied, the love of many will cool. 24,12).
In the present circumstances, the Moldavian Orthodox Church (Metropolitanate of Kishinev) is forced to take a firm stand and preserve the tradition and Canons of the Orthodox Church.
In conclusion, we can state the following: the renewal of the activities of the "Bessarabian metropolis" creates numerous canonical and theological problems and contradicts the basic norms of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church. Its activities violate the traditional jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church and show a tendency towards a nationalist approach to the detriment of the geographical principles of orthodoxy. Moreover, such a situation causes a schism among the faithful, creates the preconditions for long-lasting church conflicts and the formation of a new serious line of division in world Orthodoxy.
A canonical and peaceful solution to this problem would require a re-examination of the principles of church order in accordance with the Ecumenical Orthodox tradition. In this regard, dialogue based on respect for canonical norms and jurisdictional rights could contribute to reconciliation between church structures involved in the confrontation. Only a balanced approach in accordance with the traditional principles of the Orthodox Church, and not a further unilateral violation of canon law by the "Bessarabian metropolis", can ensure the spiritual stability and unity of the faithful in our territories.
Source: Center for Geostrategic Studies
31. March 2025.
Instructions:
1. The Bible or the Bible, 2015
2. Ioann N. Floka, Canons Of The Orthodox Church. Comments and comments, 1992
3. Resolution Of The Vselenskih Synods-Bucharest, 2003
4. Перепись населения Республики Молдова-2024, Национальный иститут статистики.
5. Avksenti Stadnitsky, Gavriil Běnulescu-Bodoni, Exarch of moldovlachian (1808-1812) and Metropolitan of Chişinău (1813-1821), Chişinău, 1894;Iosif Parhomovich, short-lived father of life and actions of Vysokopreosvashchennago Gavriil Běnulescu-Bodoni, în “Trudy bessarabskogo Cerkovnogo Istoriko-Arheologičeskogo Obščestva”, Vol. V, Chişinău, 1910; Gh. Gheorghiu, Gavriil Bănulescu-Bodoni, Metropolitan al Moldovei, exarh al Valahiei, Bucureşti, 1899;Simeon Damaschin, Metropolitan Gavriil Bănulescu-Bodoni şi cultura românească în Basarabia, în ziar. "Literatura şi arta", Chişinău, 22 iunie 2000;Nikolai Florensky, Žizni i dejatel'nost' Metropolitan Gavriil Běnulescu-Bodoni, Chişinău, 2005.
Српски језик 
English 
Русский 
العربية 
Español 
Português 
Deutsch 
Français 
Italiano 
简体中文