On August 23, 1944, the advance of the Red Army provoked a coup d’etat in Romania. It broke the war coalition with Nazi Germany but preserved the monarchy with its ruling dynasty. The political change was supported by Patriarch Nicodim (Munteanu), who declared the loyalty of his church to the new government in a telegram to King Michael.7 Such behavior, however, was not in tune with the Kremlin’s plans. August 28, one of the CAROC’s vice-chairmen, Konstantin A. Zaytsev, submitted to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union the draft of an appeal fTom the Moscow locum tenens to Romanian clergy and their flocK.8 On August 30, its text was approved for publication in 3,000 copies to be distributed in Romania. The document referred to the epistle of the late Patriarch Sergii (December 9, 1942), which called upon the Orthodox Romanians to reject their alliance with Hitler the Theomachist. Therefore, the temporary successor of the late Patriarch Sergii, Metropolitan Alexii (Simanskii), welcomed the break of Romania’s relations with Nazi Germany. He saw this act as proof that the new government in Bucharest had heard the voice of the people. At the same time, the Moscow locum tenens did not make any reference to the king and monarchY.9
On September 12, when all Romania was under the control of the Red Army, its government signed an armistice with the Soviet Union that transferred Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the latter. In ecclesiastical terms, this meant a restoration of Moscow’s jurisdiction over the eparchies in these areas. The Romanian Patriarchate did not protest against the reduction of its territorial jurisdiction eastward, as the same agreement returned Northern Transylvania under Bucharest’s control. In a pastoral letter of October 9, Patriarch Nicodim demonstrated a new attitude to Soviet Russia by calling it Romania’s “elder sister in the right faith.” He also expressed hopes that the armistice between the two countries would guarantee their good relations.10 At the same time, he continued to eulogize “King Michael and his advisors who turned out Marshal Antonescu.”11
The Soviet leadership detested this devotion to monarchy. Therefore, it stimulated a bottom-up rapprochement between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Romanian Orthodox Church, seeking the assistance of the latter’s lower-rank clergy instead of its hierarchy. It made use of the “Alliance of Patriots” established in the autumn of 1944 by a group of anti-fascist Orthodox priests under the leadership of Petre Constantinescu-Ia§i fTom the Theological Faculty of Bucharest University. In January 1945, this group was transformed into the Union of Democratic Priests, which united abouT 100 members. Its new chairman became Father Constantin Burducea, who was also a member of the Romanian Communist Party.12 On January 13, 1945, he visited S. A. Dangulov, the secretary of the Allied Control Commission in BucharesT. ' 3 During their meeting, Father Burducea requested that a Russian clerical delegation visit Romania or, if this was impossible, sought permission for Romanian clerics to go to MoscoW.14
Several days later, Dangulov was approached by Patriarch Nicodim with an invitation to visit him together with the deputy head of the Political Department of the Allied Control Commission, S. P. Kirsanov. During their audience on January 18, the patriarch expressed his gratitude for the exemption of a female monastery from the list of buildings scheduled for the accommodation of Soviet military units. After consultations with the Soviet government, Karpov informed his colleagues in Bucharest that the locum tenens of the Moscow patriarchal throne had agreed to accept a small delegation of Romanian priests, including Patriarch Nicodim. Their visit to the Soviet Union was scheduled for the second half of February 1945, after the patriarchal electionS. i 5 HOwever, the Russian church leader changed his mind and Romanian delegates were able to attend the Sobor for the election of the new Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, but Patriarch Nicodim was not among them.16 The delegation arrived in Moscow on JanuarY 31. It was led by a bishop accompanied by three other clericS.17 One of them was Father Constantin Burducea, who became minister of religious cults upon his return from Moscow.18
Although the attendance of representatives of the Romanian Orthodox Church at the elections of the new Patriarch of Moscow marked the restoration of the canonical communication between the two churches, their relations remained tense. On April 6, a Russian church delegation, led by Bishop Segii (Larin) of Kirovograd, stopped in Bucharest on its trip to Belgrade. In the evening the Russian hierarch paid a visit of courtesy to Patriarch Nicodim. During the talks, the latter mentioned that he had never gone to Odessa when it was under Romanian control because “in the end this city will be Russian.”19 On the next day, before continuing their trip to Serbia, the Russians also visited the Ministry of Religious Cults.
On their way back from Belgrade, the Moscow envoy made another stop in Bucharest as a result of bad weather. This time Bishop Sergii met Russian clerics who had collaborated with the Germans during the war and then found asylum in Romania. He also had a conversation with Bishop Antim (Nica) of Galafi, the head of the Romanian mission in Odessa during the war. In his report, Bishop Sergii (Larin) stressed the past fascist activities of Antim and the fact that he had stolen many church items fTom the occupied area. At the same time, Sergii pointed to Antim’s postwar metamorphosis: his membership in the Romanian Union of Democratic Priests and his support for the restoration of the old church calendar in Romania. The Russian bishop finished his report with a summary of his conversation with Dangulov, who informed him of the pro-Hungarian and pro-Fascist opposition in Transylvania and particularly about the separatist behavior of its Orthodox Metropolitan, Nicolae, who did not show Patriarch Nicodim respecT.20
It seems that the aim of the conversation that Bishop Sergii had in Bucharest was to investigate the positions of Romanian hierarchy on several questions important for his church in the Soviet Union. On January 18, Patriarch Alexii approached Georgii Karpov with a request to send a delegation to Romania. For this purpose, the CAROC prepared a special analysis of the Romanian Orthodox Church development between 1918 and 1941. It paid special attention to the damages caused to the Moscow Patriarchate by the Romanian Patriarchate during its rule in the former Russian eparchies in Bessarabia and Transnistria. The analysis ended with a list of conditions to be fulfilled by the Romanian church leadership. It had to restore the old calendar as a basis for the liturgical services and the celebration of Easter in accordance with Eastern Paschalia; to publish, at its own expense, liturgical books in Church Slavonic for the needs of the Orthodox parishes in Transnistria as a compensation for the literature, church items, and garments destroyed in these areas; to plead before the government in Bucharest for the release of all Russian Orthodox priests thrown in jail for their resistance To the Romanian church reforms and policy before World War II; and to declare that the Romanian episcopate and ordinary clergy would not speak and write against the Soviet UnioN.2 1 On May 6, these requirements, though in a softer form, were repeated by Patriarch Alexii in his Paschal letter to Patriarch
NicodiM.22
On May 12, 1945, with Stalin’s personal consent, a Russian church delegation arrived in Bucharest to negotiate these problems. It consisted of three clerics led by Bishop leronim (Zakharov) of Kishinev and Moldavia. The Moscow envoys had talks with Patriarch Nicodim as well as with the Minister of Religious Cults, Father Burducea; the secretary of the Allied Control Commission, S. A. Dangulov; and the prime minister, Petru Groza. The negotiations with the church authorities, however, were not as successful as those with the state. The Romanian hierarchy did not raise any objections against the joining of the diocese of Kishinev to the Moscow Patriarchate, but gave evasive answers regarding the other issues. According to Patriarch Nicodim, the new calendar was not considered a deviation from true Orthodoxy. Concerning the items taken away from the churches in Bessarabia and Transnistria, it was recognized that there were some occasional incidents and it was promised that measures would be undertaken for their return. At the same time, the Romanian church leader rejected the accusation that Russian priests had been thrown in jail because of resistance against the reforms introduced by his predecessor, Miron (Cristea). He also evaded the question about the repatriation to Soviet Moldavia of abbots and priests accused of the stealing church treasures fTom Russian monasteries and churches there.23
On May 20, 1945, the Romanian Patriarch restated this position in a letter to the head of the Russian Orthodox ChurcH.24 HE stressed that the adoption of the new calendar was not a voluntary or unilateral act of the Romanian Church, but was taken in agreement with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other Orthodox churches. Concerning the liturgical books and other religious objects taken fTom the churches in Bessarabia and Transnistria, he promised their return. In fact, between April and August 1945, with the mediation of the Allied Control Commission, the Church of Moscow received some of them. Patriarch Nicodim ended his letter by declaring once more that his church had neither persecuted nor imprisoned Russian priests.
On August 4, at the opening of the Holy Synod’s session, Patriarch Nicodim issued a pastoral letter in which he expressed the gratitude of Romanians to the Red Army for the liberation of Northern Transylvania fTom Horti’s regime and mentioned the merits of all anti-Hitlerite allies. He also declared his church’s support for the initiatives of the new government and especially for its efforts to strengthen the friendship of Romania with the Soviet Union and to establish close relations between the two Orthodox churches and nations. At the same time, the document left no doubts about the devotion of the Romanian episcopate to King MichaeL.25 Such an alliance of the Orthodox hierarchy with the monarchy, however, was dangerous for the Kremlin’s plans. Moreover, the Soviet leadership was also irritated that the pastoral letter was issued at a moment when the king refused to sign the decrees of the communist government of Petru Groza, made at the beginning of the so-called royal strike (August 1945 to February 1946).
Under such circumstances, it seems that the congress convoked by the Romanian Union of Democratic Priests in October 1945 had been initiated by the communists as a means of exerting pressure over the church leadership.26 According to its organizer, the Ministry of Religious Denominations, this forum was to mobilize the support of Romanian clerGy for Groza’s government. Although the Moscow Patriarchate was invited to send its delegates, it did not do so because of a ban imposed by Vyacheslav M. Molotov on October 12.27 Most Probably his decision was influenced by the negative reaction of the United States and Great BritaiN.28 Meanwhile, the congress (October 16-17) was attended by “democratic priests” from Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Greece. In aDdition to the 2,000 Romanian Orthodox clerics who took part in its sessions, there were also 80 Muslim imams, 17 rabbis, and single representatives of the Lutheran, Reformist, and Armenian churcheS.29 THe congress discussed the problems of the Russian-Romanian church friendship and defined as its primary task its aim to work for fraternal communication between the Balkan Orthodox churches and nationS.30 Its main speakers paid special attention to Transylvania and called for fighting against attempts to turn it into an object of conflict between Romania and Hungary.31
In the beginning of 1946, the Kremlin organized a visit to Moscow for Patriarch Nicodim. He postponed it, however, with the excuse that he was ill. According to Romanian archival sources, by that time Nicodim had been approached by Apostolic Nuncio Andrea Cassulo with a proposal for his appointment as “cardinal of the East” by the Pope. In this way, the Romanian Patriarch “wouLd represent all of Eastern Christianity, thereby achieving unity between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches.”32 Most probably to prevent such a development, Bishop Sergii (Larin) paid a short visit to the head of the Romanian Church in the spring of 1946. There is no information about the talks he had, but the pressure on Patriarch Nicodim was increased. After Groza’s intervention, he had no other choice but to go to Moscow. Still, he succeeded in limiting the visit to five days, fTom October 27 to November 1. During his stay, the patriarch also forbade his delegates to take part in liturgy with Russian clergy.33
Nicodim was not free to select the staff of his delegation, however. Composed under communist control, it included Bishop Nicolae (Popovici) of Oradea and Justinian (Marina), the vicar bishop of Moldova and Suceava. Both were regarded by the Kremlin as the most suitable successors of Patriarch Nicodim and hence were sent to Moscow to be examined by the CAROC. The delegation also included two priests: the new president of the Union of Democratic Priests, Father loan Vasca, who was also secretarY general of the Romanian Ministry of Religious Cults, and another leader of the same union, Father Mihail Mladan. Their task was to watch after the patriarch and to report on his behavior to the corresponding Soviet and Romanian authorities.34
During the visit, the Romanian guests and their hosts—Patriarch Alexii; his “foreign minister,” Metropolitan Nikolay (Yarushevich); the CAROC’s chairman, Karpov; and his deputy, Blinov—discussed several questions. The first issue concerned the attitude of the Romanian Church to the new government in Bucharest. Patriarch Nicodim responded that his synod supported the democratic reforms in Romania and that after his return from Moscow he would support the Democratic Front in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. He also declared the readiness of his church to work for the consolidation of Orthodoxy and peace between the nations in Eastern Europe. The second question addressed the attitude of the Romanian ePiscopate to the ecumenical movement. In this regard, an agreement was reached that both churches would not take part in the ecumenical movement because of its “political and anti-democratic nature.”35 The third issue concerned the Catholic Church. In regard to this, the bishops Nicolae and Justinian declared that “Moscow had to become the center of Orthodoxy and that the Russian Orthodox Church had to take the leadershiP of the struggle against Catholicism.” Finally, Patriarch Nicodim signed the declaration “To Christians from All over the World” of February 1945, which had already been signed by the leaders of the other Orthodox churches who attended the elections of Patriarch Alexii. In this way, he confirmed the anti-Vatican position of his church. The Romanian delegates also declared that they would insist before their governments on breaking the concordat with the Vatican. Finally, some steps aimed at strengthening Russian-Romanian church friendship were discussed. Patriarch Nicodim promised to place an Orthodox temple in Bucharest at the disposal of a priest appointed by the Moscow Patriarchate and asked that a similar church in Moscow to be given to his patriarchate. An agreement about the annual exchange of four or five students in theology was signed as well. Before leaving Moscow, Nicodim invited Alexii to return the visit in the first half of 1947.36
On its way back, the Romanian delegation traveled by train. It was also accompanied by the Russian bishops of Odessa and Kishinev, as well as by Karpov’s deputy, Blinov. The Romanian guests stopped in Kiev, where they were welcomed by the local metropolitan, Yoann, and his clergy. They also had audience with Khodchenko, the head of the CAROC branch in Ukraine. It seems that the aim of this stop was to discuss the reunion of the Ukrainian Uniates and Romanian plans for a similar action in Transylvania. By the end of the visit, Bishop Nicolae held confidential talks with Blinov about Nicodim’s behavior. According to the bishop, his patriarch belonged to reactionary circles in the Romanian Church, and this was the reason behind his attempts to avoid the visit to MoscoW.37
On May 30, 1947, Patriarch Alexii, accompanied by the Metropolitan of Leningrad, Grigorii (Chukov), Archbishop Vitalii (Vvedenskii), and two priests, returned the visit of his Romanian colleague. Its major aim was to secure the participation of the Romanian Church in a pan-Orthodox precouncil conference in Moscow scheduled for the autumn of 1947.38 The guests were welcomed on the postwar Soviet-Romanian border by a church delegation and the Romanian ambassador to Moscow. In every city through which the Russian clerics passed, they were met with solemn ceremonies. On June 1, at the Bucharest railway station, they were welcomed by Patriarch Nicodim, Prime Minister Groza, members of the Romanian government, the Soviet ambassador, and other digni-taries.39 In the course of the negotiations about the conference, however, the Romanian patriarch expressed serious reservations and did not want to take part in it. His resistance was soon overcome by Petru Groza, who made firm stateMents against the ecumenical movement and Roman Catholicism. He called for a common front against Western Christianity under the leadership of the Patriarch of Moscow, which was expected to bring “a full victory of Orthodoxy.”40 Under Groza’s pressure, Patriarch Nicodim had to accept an invitation to the planned pan-Orthodox forum.
One of the main targets of the Russian delegations was Transylvania. Most probably the fact that Prime Minister Groza was born there in the family of an Orthodox priest was an additional stimulus for this enterprise.41 During the special church conference that was convoked in Cluj, the local metropolitan, Nicolae (Colan), declared the gratitude of his people to Russia. He said:
The Romanian people will never forget the generous help given to them by Orthodox Moscow in the most decisive moments of the destiny of the Church and nation. They will never forget that thanks to the heroic sacrifices of the Soviet warriors, who mingled their blood with that of our brave solders, Transylvania has become Romanian again.42
During the conference, the Russian guests and their hosts agreed that the Vatican attempted “to create a world fTont, fTom America to Rome, in order to break the unity of democratic countries.”"*3 Therefore, they concluded that the Orthodox nations had to unite their efforts in the fight against the warmongers And in defense of peace on earth. The Russians stayed in Romania through June 11. By this time they had also arranged for the establishment of a podvorye, that is, special Russian representative church, in Bucharest. The selected temple, however, needed renovation, the costs of which were covered by the Soviet government. The Romanian church leadershiP also agreed to accept a priest appointed by the Moscow Patriarchate, who was to serve in its podvorye in the Slavonic languagE.44 On their way back, the Russian delegates received as a gift copies of a book about the Moscow trip of Patriarch Nicodim (October 27-31, 1946), as well as of his interview with the correspondents of the Soviet Informburo.45 ACcordinG to the CAROC’s analysis, Alexii’s visit to Romania was “a triumph of the Russian Orthodox ChurcH.”46 At the same time, it was noticed that the behavior of the Romanian Patriarch was not sincere and that his support came only after pressure from the government. The CAROC’s experts believed that Nicodim’s thoughts about the contributions Dimitrie Cantemir made to Russian culture in the past were an attempt to imply that “the Romanians have nothing to learn fTom the Russians, [and] the Russian Orthodox Church lacks enough merit to claim leadership over the Romanian Orthodox Church.”47
World History
