I wonder how many of those who expressed their opinion about the case of the “Tomis Metropolitan” read the Statute of the Organization and Activities of the Romanian Orthodox Church, practically the “constitution” of the BOR, which cannot be ignored?

Let’s analyze one by one the ideas that are most common recently and see what kind of coverage they have in church legislation.

First, let’s consider the idea expressed by some of them The metropolitanate of Tomsk would be the first in the hierarchy of honor among the Romanian metropolitanates and thus IPS Teodosie would be the main favorite for the patriarchal seat. (he would even become an automatic patriarch).

Answer: even if it was established, it is not necessary to place Tomisul in the diptychs in front of the metropolitan residence in Iasi. The case of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, which is only the fifth in the pentarchy, is known, and there are many examples.

About who can apply for the patriarchal chair, Art. 127 (1) clearly states: “For the service, dignity and responsibility of the Patriarch of Romania, any of the metropolitans, archbishops and diocesan bishops in office who are doctors or have graduated in theology and established themselves in the consciousness of the Church and society through love for God and Churches, pure life, theological culture, church dignity, missionary zeal and economic sense, having at least 7 years of service as a diocesan Bishop, on the day of election as Patriarch. The list of candidates is drawn up by the office of the Holy Synod on the basis of the Holy Agreement on episcopal ordination and is an advisory bulletin.” So we are talking about a whole list of contenders, IPS Teodosie is just one name in that list. Otherwise, why did IPS Bartolomeu run in the previous elections? Just a form?

Therefore, it is not because of the termination of the accession of IPS Theodosius to the patriarchal throne that the throne of Tomis is not elevated to the rank of metropolitan, but, as has been shown several times, because there are no other dioceses that wish to be part of the metropolitan area headed by His Holiness Theodosius. Why do fellow bishops not trust the Constantinian hierarch? Only God and the Holy Synod know this. Or a metropolis without suffragan dioceses is unthinkable in the Romanian Orthodox Church.

Here are some excerpts from the statute to support this idea:

“Art. 110. — (1) According to the canonical and administrative relationship, bishoprics and archbishoprics are united in the metropolis.

111. — (1) The metropolitan together with archbishops, bishops, as well as vicar bishops and vicar bishops from suffragan dioceses make up the Metropolitan Synod.

(2) The Metropolitan Synod coordinates the joint activities of the dioceses in the Metropolis within the limits defined by the Holy Canons, as well as the current statutory and normative norms.

C. Metropolitan

114. — (1) The metropolitan is the canonical head of the metropolis, he enjoys the rights and fulfills the duties stipulated by the Holy Canons, church tradition and this statute.

(4) The metropolitan has the following powers:

a) convenes and presides over the Metropolitan Synod;

b) presides over the meeting of the Holy Synod for the election of archbishops and suffragan bishops;

c) together with other hierarchs, he ordains archbishops and suffragan bishops, as well as vicar bishops and vicar bishops from metropolitan dioceses together with their hierarchs;

d) issues a metropolitan charter for the enthronement of archbishops and suffragan bishops and enthrones them;

e) appoints deputy archbishops and bishops, in case of vacancies, in suffragan dioceses;…”

Therefore, IPS Theodosius cannot be a metropolitan only over the diocese he currently oversees.

In the context of the debate, it was also about in the case of metropolitans and honorary archbishops. So far we have had two situations after 1990: Archbishop Justinian from the Diocese of Maramures and Satmar and Metropolitan Nifon from the Archdiocese of Tirgovishte. In Art. 7, paragraphs 3-5, this case is clearly regulated, which in fact has nothing to do with the issue of the Metropolitanate of Tomis:

“(3) Diocesan hierarchs from some episcopal thrones with a recognized historical past and with pastoral-missionary, administrative and cultural-national significance, who were distinguished by special and long-term episcopal service to the Church, at the proposal of the Patriarch of Romania, made in agreement with the Permanent Synod, may receive , with the approval of the Holy Synod, the personal rank of metropolitan emeritus among the archbishops and archbishop emeritus among the bishops, while the diocese still retains its place established in the canonical and administrative diptychs of the Romanian Orthodox Church. In addition, old bishoprics can become archbishoprics based on a strong motivation.

(4) Members of the Holy Synod, who have been given honorary titles in their personal capacity, will be entered in the list of members of the Holy Synod and will be mentioned at divine services, respectively, after metropolitans, after archbishops of administrative rank. Romanian Orthodox Church.

(5) Successors to the office of archbishops and bishops who have received honorary titles in a personal capacity do not transfer to the right to use these titles.”

Pay attention to point (3): “Furthermore, old dioceses can become archbishoprics based on healthy motivation.” This is not at all in accordance with the wishes of IPS Teodosie, since there is an archbishopric in Constanta by virtue of the argument of seniority. So, Constance has already used this advantage and can no longer use it to create a metropolis.

Finally, a key article: “Art. 7. — (1) The establishment, liquidation, territorial change and title change of metropolitans, archbishoprics and bishoprics are carried out by decisions of the Holy Synod taking into account pastoral and missionary requirements and taking into account the administrative and territorial organization of the state. “

Therefore, when special pastoral missionary needs demand it, or when the eight regions of Romania’s development pass from the stage of fantasy to the stage of administrative reality, perhaps then it will be possible to discuss the establishment of a metropolis in the southeast of Romania.

In conclusion, in order to succeed in his endeavors, IPS Teodosie must do several things: prove to the Holy Synod that the confessional situation in Constanta is more difficult than in Cluj-Napoca, which requires the establishment of a metropolitanate, convince the bishops in the vicinity of Constanta of his good intentions and to hope that the politicians will finally carry out the administrative reform of Romania, which has been talked about for years.-

Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro