Talk:Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

False translation of the name of the Church. Why not either go back to calling the article "Romanian Catholic Church" or else use the exact name the Church uses for itself: "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic"?

Lima 04:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I asked a friend of mine who is a native Romanian speaker about this, and this is what he said:

"it's really the same as 'uniate'

we do not have two separate words in Romanian, that would correspnd to uniate and united.

"unita" in this context is really uniate.

they do not like to call themselves 'unitii' (uniates)

"Romanian Church United with Rome" seems a correct translation.

This is still different then calling their members "uniti", which they do not particularly appreciate. I believe the most common word they use about themselves is greco-catolici

——Preost ^talk contribs June 28, 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Why is the article still under a false name? As you say, "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic" is the correct translation of the name the Church uses. ("Romanian Church Uniate with Rome" would be nonsense.) Do you know who corrects titles of articles? -- Lima 19:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Orthodox propaganda 2 Similitude 3 Repression 4 References 5 problems with the atheist repression section 6 section on Latin Rite Roman Catholic repression 7 Date format

[edit] Orthodox propaganda

The word "Uniate" is used with offensatory purpose from the Orthodox propaganda

Not really. It is the name used in the official site http://www.bru.ro/ bogdan 10:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the English "Uniate" term as not being a translation of "Unită cu Roma". OK. I'm moving to "United with Rome". bogdan 10:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven´t found the word "uniate" on http://www.bru.ro/ Please be more explicit. --Mihai Andrei 13:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is both an offensive term and the official name. So is Melkite (another E. Church) at least according to a Melkite Bishop of my acquaintance. There has been considerable debate over the years internally (I'm a lay leader) over whether to be insulted or not. Frankly, it bores me but whatever floats their boat. TMLutas 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similitude

The article about the most important greek-catholic church, the Ukrainian one, has the title Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Therefore I think that the right place of the article about the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church is at Romanian Greek-Catholic Church. --Mihai Andrei 14:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's just that the official name of the "Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church" is the "Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church". (see their website) The official name of the Romanian church is really "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic". bogdan 14:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, standardization among eastern churches has far lagged behind the West. It is sometimes, but not always a wise thing to transfer a style from one parish to another, much less one church to another.

TMLutas 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repression

Before I set up this section I thought I'd put it up here to discuss it. There are three sources of pressure in the history of this church. 1. Islam was a problem. 2. Orthodoxy has proven hostile though it's frankly a very weird relationship. 3. Catholicism itself is coming out of a period where some pretty severe errors were committed, especially in the US and to a lesser extent the english speaking world. The Vatican recently (1996) issued something of an apology for messing with the Rite, with all E. Rites really starting in 1717 and going on for better than a century and a half. The US was particularly bad with requests for partial or complete suppression of the rite in the US only ceasing around the time of Vatican II. ^[1]

---

I put up a first stab at a repression section and added an atheist repression section (how could I forget?) to cover communist era repressions. TMLutas 19:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

1. ^ http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/eastinst.htm

[edit] problems with the atheist repression section

which he revealed only on 5 March 1973, three years after Bishop Hossu's death.

however, Iuliu Hossu article says † May 28, 1977, Bucharest

He remained under house arrest, and each year sent a memorandum to the President of the Republic, asking that the country's laws and Romania's international agreements be observed with regard to the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church

if he really died in 1973, it couldn't send any memorandum to the president of romania, since there was no "president" until 1974 (however President of the Republic is, from what i know, the official title of the Italian president, so maybe the article refers to him)

Restitution of theft is an accepted christian principle but there is also something of a poisoned pill aspect to the stolen properties handed over to the Romanian Orthodox Church. It severely undermines the moral authority of a Church to preach the 10 commandments from a stolen church."

this fragment doesn't look NPOV

Anonimu 21:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The legislation that gave those churches over to the Romanian Orthodox Church was overturned as being not just wrong headed but odious and defamatory to national reputation. Out of the whole panoply of communist era evil and stupidity this is one of only a handful that have been characterized that badly and repealed with such language attached. There is absolutely zero legal justification for the effects of such an immoral law to remain in force yet lawyers can and will spin things out for an awfully long time when instructed to do so.

But let's say that you're right. How do you properly NPOV characterize (without using the term stolen) the physical retention of a church without legal cover when the church was originally handed over as part of an odious piece of legislation, later repudiated with prejudice? Sometimes stolen isn't just an insult; it can also be a description.

TMLutas 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether in a communist state or a democratic one, law is law and it's legal. The numerous romanian agrarian reforms were all made by expropriation. And they're all considered perfectly legal and are the basis for most present-day properties in romania. I think you're not objective in this matter. A good word for that action is expropriated, while stolen it's just you being judegemental. Anyway the whole fragment i put here is not NPOV. Anonimu 16:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] section on Latin Rite Roman Catholic repression

This section needs some clean-up to clarify what is being said. There are a few sentence fragments, perhaps created by mistakes in punctuation. Also the article has an instance of inflammatory language ("theological fratricide").

Some dates need to be clarified. E.g.: The pressure grew with the creation, 17 years after Romania's greek-catholics recreated a full communion with Rome of the Commission for the correction of the liturgical books of the Church of the East. The reader has to go back to the start of the article to calculate that the year referenced is 1717 (is that the correct year?)

Also: Roman Catholic repression of this Church recently centers in the United States and consists of repeated, and sometimes successful requests for partial or total suppression of the Church's Rite. Could someone make this more specific by referring to particular actions and dates? The IMHO lamentable document Cum data fuerit was issued over 75 years ago, in 1929; if this is what is meant by recent, it really is not clear.

Also, please cite published sources that mention these historical events. Chonak 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date format

On 2006-08-08, anonymous editor 80.235.122.220 changed some dates from "Month Day, Year" format to "Day Month Year" format. Neither of these is wrong. However, it would be good to use the more flexible numeric format "YYYY-MM-DD" (in double-brackets, of course), which is displayed according to user-specified preferences. Chonak 15:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)