T WO “R OMANIAN ” C ATHEDRALS IN C LUJ ? S EARCHING FOR A LTERNATIVE S OLUTIONS

CEUeTDCollection

3.2. Two “Romanian” Cathedrals in Cluj? Searching for Alternative

CEUeTDCollection

would be organized on numerous occasions in Transylvania’s unofficial capital. Constructing the Cathedrals was therefore clearly a part of a larger political agenda.²²¹ On April 1923, special funds for the construction of the Orthodox Cathedral were already included in the state budget. Following a similar political agenda, it was hoped that “the construction of the Greek-Catholic Cathedral would also begin soon, since both would become not only places where our ancestors’ faith would be worshipped, but also testimonies of our ruling presence in this provincial capital still dominated by Hungarians and Jews”.²²²

Building the Cathedral was not an easy task given the financial difficulties of the country recovering after the war. The construction of a large architectural monument would require time and consistent funding, let alone the efforts of initiating and coordinating the works. Therefore, the representatives of both Churches thought about temporary solutions as well, for example, they attempted to claim one of the religious buildings already existing in the city for their own use. The Greek-Catholics were more successful in this strategy, given their connection with Vatican.²²³ Therefore, in 1924, after successful negotiations with the Holy See, the Pope donated to the Greek-Catholic Metropolitan Church in Transylvania the building of the former Franciscan Monastery built at the beginning of the 19^th century.²²⁴ On November 8, 1926, the church was officially occupied by Greek-Catholics, who declared that this religious edifice would contribute to the reinforcement of the Romanian life and Christian faith in the city.²²⁵

221Patria 2 nr. 10 (1920).

222Clujul,April 23, 1923.

223 The Franciscan Monastery was just one of the Catholic churches in Cluj. At the beginning of the 1920s, the order was represented by one monk only, father Leonard Szikra. Since the Franciscan Order in Cluj lacked continuity, Szikra agreed on donating the building of the monastery to Vatican. In these circumstances, the Greek-Catholic Metropilitan Bishop Vasile Suciu made several requests to the Pope, presenting situation of the Catholic Church in Cluj. Local newspapers reported on the negotiation process and the success of Greek-Catholics in obtaining the religious edifice, together with other properties that had belonged to the Franciscan Order. The entire procedure was in fact an internal affair of the Catholic Church, in which nor the Romanian state, nor the local authorities in Cluj was entitled to interfere. See for example the articles inClujul,June 15, 1924;Patria,November 12, 1926 and November 24, 1928.

224Patria,June 26, 1926.

225Patria,November 8, 1926.

CEUeTDCollection

Similar attempts were made by the Orthodox Bishopric of Cluj. Starting in 1920, the Orthodox Diocesan Council entrusted Onisifor Ghibu²²⁶ to investigate the legal history of the University Church, originally built in the 18^th century by the Jesuit order. Although used by the Catholics, Ghibu aimed to demonstrate that the building was the legal property of the Hungarian state. Therefore, the Romanian administration could theoretically claim property rights and yield it to the Orthodox Church had it wished to do so.²²⁷ However, despite the numerous petitions by the Orthodox community to the central government, the final decision was not favorable to the Orthodox Bishopric in Cluj. The Romanian government decided to adopt a prudent attitude in this regard and considered the building as a property of the Catholic Church.

Although petitioning for obtaining the University church, Nicolae Ivan did not renounce the idea of constructing the Cathedral. This chapter discusses the story of the founding and construction of the Orthodox Cathedral in Cluj, arguing that the two main actors involved in the building process, the state on one side, and the Bishop supported by a group of local intellectuals on the other, had different visions concerning the meaning of this monument. Taking as a starting point the current debates on the manifestations of the Romanian national style in church architecture, I analyze the case of the Orthodox Cathedral in Cluj from the perspective of the local actors, showing that this monument was more than a marker in the Romanian state’s attempt of mapping the territory. More specifically, the local

226226

Born near Sibiu, Ghibu was in 1920 working for the Department of Public Education and Religion of the Directing Council. A fervent nationalist, Ghibu was entrusted with the nationalization of schools in

Transylvania. In Cluj, he was the main protagonist during the takeover of the University on the behalf of the Romanian state, advocating a radical solution. For his activity at the beginning of the 1920s, see Irina Livezeanu, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania,133, 155-161, 219-227.

227 Sebastian Stanca,Episcopia ortodoxa romana a Vadului, Feleacului si Clujului (1919-1929)(The Romanian Orthodox Bishopric of Vad, Feleac and Cluj) (Cluj: Tiparul Tipografiei Eparhiei Ortodoxe Romane, 1930), 100-103. See also the documents referring to this issue that can be found in Arhivele Mitropoliei Clujului, Fond II-21-920, doc. 1509-923 (the conclusions of the investigation made by Alexandru Dragomir and Valer Moldovan concerning the legal history of the former Jesuit Monastery), doc. 1711-924 (letter addressed by Nicolae Ivan to the Ministry of Cults and Arts), doc. 3856-924 (discussions in the Church Synod on the same problem), doc.

7948-924 (letter from the Ministry of Cults and Arts). The debate culminated with an elaborated letter addressed by Nicolae Ivan to the King in 1930 (doc. 7355-930).

CEUeTDCollection

Orthodox Romanian elite involved in this project perceived it as a “Transylvanian affair”

aimed to “repair” the injustices of the past. The main narrative describing the significance of the monument was connected with Transylvania’s history, and more specifically with the past of the city. Finally, I will show that the successful completion of the project and the consistent financial support by the central state authorities was partly due to the activity of Transylvanian-born ministers in both Liberal or Averescu government²²⁸ in Bucharest, such as Alexandru Lapedatu, Octavian Goga, and Alexandru-Vaida Voevod. Another group particularly important for the successful achievement of the Cathedral was constituted from the members of the Diocesan Assembly. The majority of these laymen transferred to Cluj in order to teach at the new University (i.e. Ioan Lupas, Vasile Bogrea, Marin Stefanescu, Silviu Dragomir, Sextil Puscariu or work for the local administration (i.e. Petru Metes).²²⁹ Therefore, although focusing on local actors, my perspective is still framed from above i.e. from the point of view of the local Orthodox elite.

Irrespective of such frictions with the religious and political authorities in Bucharest, or perhaps precisely because of these frictions, the local Orthodox leaders of Cluj involved in an aggressive spatial politics aiming to conquer the city center from other religions and do

“historic justice” to their congregation. Via the means of such strong offensive, however, the Orthodox thereby deprived the Greek-Catholics (and other non-Orthodox Romanians) from the right to belong to the very same nation they were aspiring to support and represent. While the Orthodox Cathedral built in the current national style became an undisputed landmark of Romanian identity, the Greek-Catholic church located in an adapted late-Baroque convent building carried no such symbolical connotations. By concentrating on practical issues that concerned their congregation only, Greek-Catholics failed to create an impact on the city’s

228 Referring to the name of General Alexandru Averescu, the leader of the People’s Party and prime-minister during the 1920s.

229 Sebastian Stanca,Episcopia ortodox român , 36.

CEUeTDCollection

public space though a well-orchestrated display of national identity symbolism similar to that initiated by the Orthodox.