Source: https://www.mariamihaelastan.ro/2017/01/09/iv-andrei-saguna-metropolitan-of-transylvania/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:48:44+00:00

Document:
The same day, on December 12/24, 1864, the emperor announced the Serbian patriarch to have in view the summoning of a national congress at Karlowitz to resolve the separation of the common property of the Romanian canonical jurisdictional units that should be detached from the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz.
The Romanians of Banat were also dissatisfied; after 1849, when they were incorporated into the Serbian Vojvodina, and more insistently after 1860, when they passed to Hungary, the Romanians of Banat militated in favour of their incorporation into the Romanian Metropolitanate of Transylvania. In 1860, Bishop Andrei Şaguna together with Andrei Mocioni/Mocsonyi and Nicolae Petrino, as representatives of the Romanians of Transylvania, Banat, and respectively Bukovina, began a common action with an aim to re-establish the Metropolitanate.
Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna himself could not either be satisfied with the ecclesiastical situation of the Romanians of Banat, left outside the Metropolitanate, but under the circumstances he could not do more.
Although preparative to enthrone the Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna on the metropolitan see according to the tradition were made, namely in the big church of Răşinari, the enthronement did not happen, because the required diplomas necessary to re-establish the Metropolitanate and his appointment were late. However, Metropolitan Andrei worked in his new ecclesiastical office, considering himself enthroned.
The final document that marked the official inauguration of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania was the imperial resolution of July 6, 1865, by which the separation of the Eparchies of Arad and Caransebeş from the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz was declared, beginning with July 15, 1865. By the imperial Diplomas of July 8, 1865, the new canonical territory of the Eparchy of Arad and the establishment of the Eparchy of Caransebeş were decreed, as suffragan bishoprics of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania.
As it was pointed out, after 1700, because of the unsuccessful attempt to annihilate the Orthodox Romanian Church of Transylvania, canonical-jurisdictional inter-Orthodox problems between the Romanians and Serbians came up. Naturally, the process of resolving these problems followed the path of their coming into existence.
The first necessary step was the decision of the Court to re-establish the Metropolitanate of Transylvania, by the imperial resolution of December 12/24, 1864.
The next step, a delicate one, was the division of the common funds and of the monasteries of Banat administrated by the Serbian hierarchy. The beginning of this separation de facto was, according to the above-mentioned imperial resolution of December 12/24, 1864, the congress summoned by the patriarch in February/March, 1865. The debates concerning the church funds and the common monasteries started on February 20, but the Romanian deputies left Karlowitz without coming to an agreement with the Serbians, followed by the fact that the political power had to resolve this aspect.
Because the political circumstances changed in a short time, the cause fell under the competence of the Magyar Parliament of Pest “which gave an unfavourable decision for the Romanians by transferring the problem the civil courts.” There followed a long press’ controversy between the Romanians and the Serbians, on this topic.
Aware that the organizational problems of the Metropolitanate since it was re-established belong to the Church itself, Metropolitan Andrei, soon after his appointment, “using the valuable support of his hardened friend Jakob Rannicher, a counsellor of the government in Budapest” got involved in the convocation of the mixed church synod of the whole metropolitan province that had to work out the church organization of the Metropolitanate. While he was at the synod in Karlowitz, in March 1865, Metropolitan Andrei asked Jakob Rannicher: “strictly confidentially, please do draft: […] 3. […] a representation to the same presidium of the State Ministry […]. By this we wish to ask to be allowed to hold a church assembly in which an organic regulation has to be made up, valid for the entire metropolitanate and its sole parts, then for the church and school funds and other confessional foundations; the regulation should be submitted to His Majesty to be sanctioned. This regulation would contain rules taken from the Church life which point out the path how the clergy and the laity – within a church discipline – can correspond to their confessional position and duty and can also enjoy their rights in the Church. In this respect I have elaborated a draft that will serve the assembly as a project and will regulate the debates. I will summon for this scope, together with the bishops of Arad and Caransebeş, thirty deputies from the clergy and sixty laymen who have to be elected in the solitary church districts of the Archbishopric and of the Eparchies of Arad and Caransebeş.” By another letter addressed to the same recipient Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna sent his “Project of Regulation” concerning the organization of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania, asking to examine its content and translate it into German. This was to be attached to “the representation” and presented the Aulic Chancellery. He mentioned that the last part concerning the right of supreme inspection of the Crown was not yet elaborate and that was the reason why he asked Rannicher to outline his option on this matter.
The political changes prevented the display of the things according to the metropolitan’s plans, the first mixed metropolitan assembly being summoned only in 1868, after the promulgation of the Law of the Magyar Diet by which the Metropolitanate of Transylvania was recognized in the new political frame: the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary.
It was not until 1873, after many discussions, that the Metropolitanate of Transylvania received 230,000 florins and only the monastery Hodoş-Bodrog on the territory of the Eparchy of Arad.
The autonomy of the Metropolitanate toward the state became final in 1868. By the imperial resolution of October 1, it was disposed the return of all the eparchial funds – which until then were in the administration of the state bodies – in the direct administration of the Metropolitanate, on the basis of its right of autonomy.
Some of the Church matters of the Orthodox Romanians of Transylvania – older than hundred and fifty years – were resolved like that, as a result of a strong and strained struggle. Beginning with 1864, Andrei Şaguna showed in a private letter to his secretary to be tired of so much work, but confident of the success, owing to his conviction that his cause was just, and to “the weapons” he relied upon all his life: his belief in God, morality and knowledge. “I am tired of fights and I wish peace. But that won’t be easy. Finally, I put all my trust into the Almighty Who holds in his hands the destiny of all peoples. If He gives us courage, we will come off victorious, because we have not had until now but two weapons, moral and intellectual ones. Therefore each of us must improve in his call, because we have enemies as many as the grains of sea sands and we can make them inoffensive only by morality and knowledge; that way can we enjoy the right that is owed to us, as a moral and political individuality.
Not long after, by the rescript of September 1, 1865, the emperor dissolved the democratic Diet of Sibiu and summoned another one, on November 20/December 2, at Cluj, an aristocratic Diet which had to deal with one issue only: to revise the legal article concerning the union of Transylvania with Hungary. This last Diet in the history of Transylvania “was summoned based on the Transylvanian law of 1848”. Only eleven Romanians obtained seats of deputies as compared with forty-six in the previous Diet of Sibiu; Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna was called by emperor (as “Regalist”) together with other thirty-three persons, out of whom only nineteen came.
The first action of the Romanian deputies was to meet in a national conference “in order to come to an agreement on how they will act in the Diet”. The passivists led by George Bariţiu militated the Romanians should not join the Diet – likewise the Magyars acted toward the Diet of Sibiu – hoping to prevent the union between Transylvania and Hungary from taking place. The activists led by Andrei Şaguna militated in favour of the Romanians representativeness in the Diet of Cluj in order to defend the rights obtained at Sibiu.
In the Diet, the Magyars’ rigid attitude made the Romanian deputies think of presenting a memorandum to the emperor, declaring the Diet illegal, asking for a new one that had to be called based on a liberal electoral law.
The debate of this memorandum was made in the meeting of the Diet of November 20/December 2, 1865. In his speech at that meeting, Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna underlined the fact that the Diet was illegal, as it was based on the legislation before 1848 and as such was not constitutional and consequently, unable to deliver lawful documents. He conceived a motion, asking to be sent an address to the Court in order to approve the electoral law processed by the Diet of Sibiu in 1863-1864 and then, the Diet of Cluj should be summoned according to the electoral law of Sibiu. Finally, the Diet of Cluj so summoned could be able to revise the legal article of 1848, concerning the union between Transylvania and Hungary. Until then, the Romanian representatives in the Diet of Cluj decided to remain active and go, if necessary, even to Pest to defend the national rights by the separate vote.
On December 2/14, 1865, the Magyar Diet of Pest opened, and on December 13/25, Emperor Francis Joseph gave an answer to the address of the Diet of Cluj, inviting the people of Transylvania to designate their representatives for the Diet of Pest, elected according to the electoral law of 1848. He promised that the already approved laws “would not be changed at all” and suspended the Diet of Transylvania for an unlimited time. Because he has never summoned it again, this document marked the end of the legal historical period of Transylvania under the Habsburg reign, which had started with Diploma Leopoldinum in 1691; Transylvania ceased de facto to exist as an autonomous principality.
Until June 1866, a committee of the Diet of Pest had already worked out a project concerning the relationships between Hungary and Austria, with some concessions made to the Austrian Empire from the part of the Magyars. The same year, by the peace of Prague, of August 23, the Habsburg dynasty entered under the hegemony of Prussia and by the peace of Vienna, of October 12, it lost Venice.
Under the influence of these events, the dispute between the passivists and the activists in Transylvania became extremely. The distinctive sign of the activists was their wish to act within the existing system. Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna was the promoter of the idea that the most effective way to defend the Romanians’ rights was their full participation in the political life of the state, in the new form it was shaping.
On February 17, 1867, the reestablishment of the Magyar constitution of 1848 – The April Laws – was proclaimed, followed on February 18, by the appointment of a responsible Prime Minister, in the person of Count Julius Andrássy. Baron József Eötvös – Andrei Şaguna’s friend from his youth – was again appointed minister of public worship and instruction.
In 1867 Metropolitan Andrei took part in the Diet of Pest, and on June 8, in the coronation ceremonies of the emperor as king of Hungary, as ratification act of Dualism.
The reconciliation of the Magyars with the dynasty of Habsburg being sealed like this, Schmerling’s system of centralization was buried for ever. The beginning of Dualism meant not only the loss of the Romanians’ rights pledged by the laws of the Diet of Sibiu of 1863-1864, the shattering of the dream of Transylvania’s autonomy, for which they had fought two decades, the end of Vienna’s political competences in Transylvania’s matters, but also a regrettable hatred among the leaders of the Romanians and a total break up of their actions in the years to come.
The Article of Law of 1863, by which the Romanian nation and its confessions, the Greek Eastern (Orthodox) and Greek Catholic Churches, were recognized as equal with the other nations and confessions of the country being cancelled, the legal status of the Orthodox became ambiguous. Metropolitan Andrei had to deal again with it. The legal frame of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania had to be completed by moving its cause from Vienna to “the new and uncertain front of Budapest”.
The passivists had won more and more adherents owing to an unrealistic assessment of the successes the Magyars had obtained by this kind of policy, or the Croatians’ resembling actions. But Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna remained constant in his opinion that the Romanians must be active under any circumstances or political context, in order not to lose the ground obtained with so much difficulty.
The year 1868 marked the end of Andrei Şaguna’s political public activity. He took part for the last time in the meetings of the Diet of Pest, pleading for the legal recognition of his Metropolitanate at the same time at Court, at the new Magyar Ministry of Public Worship, but especially “at his school mate and childhood friend, Baron Eötvös”.
As a result of Metropolitan Andrei’s insistency, a special Law came up, presented by the minister of public worship at the meeting of the parliament of March 30, 1868, and after “serious debates” this Law was passed and also sanctioned by the emperor, on June 24, 1868. That was the legal recognition, in the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary, of the existence of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania, equal with that of Karlowitz. The law confirmed the faithful’ right to decide and regulate in church assemblies – called congresses – their ecclesiastical, school and economic matters; to administrate them independently, by their own bodies. It was disposed the convocation of the Romanian church congress without delay, and at the same time established the number of deputies of the congress. The church autonomy within the state – an important principle of Andrei Şaguna’s church organization – was infringed only by the Crown’s right of “supreme inspection”.
Although accustomed with laws which theoretically granted equal corporate rights with other confessions, but which practically were either not respected or annulled, the Transylvanian Orthodox showed this time more confident. Yet, “this law (IX/1868) had a fatal part for the Romanians. The Greeks of Braşov and Pest sharing the churches with the Romanians went to Court since the last century (1786), because they wanted the hegemony of Greek language and to remove the Romanians from church; these litigations were not over yet and made the existence of Romanians and Greeks together unbearable. That is why the Greeks found in the incident of separation of the hierarchical structures of the Romanians from the Serbians the most welcome occasion to emancipate from both Romanians and Serbians.” The fruit of their insistence was the article 9 of the Law, by which the church autonomy was pledged to those Orthodox who were neither Serbians, nor Romanians. The follow up of this article was that the Greeks of Pest did not receive anymore in their church community any Romanian, and then, drawing on their side some of the Macedo-Romanians they withdrew the Romanian language from church, beginning with February 6, 1888; the Greeks of Braşov obtained – by trial – the removing of the Romanians from the church they shared with, without returning the big fortune which the Romanian prince George Brâncoveanu had left to this church, in 1823.
A last attempt of some political leaders to co-opt him again in the leadership of the national cause, in the years 1871-1872 – to which the metropolitan responded well, signing even the convocation of a national congress which was planned to be held at Sibiu, in August 1872 – failed because of confessional splits, supported and well speculated by the Magyars: Ioan Vancea, the new Greek Catholic metropolitan refused to sign the appeal, because he had started some reconciliation negotiations with the Magyars.
According to the §6 of the Article of Law IX of 1868, Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna organized the first Romanian church congress at Sibiu, between September 16/28 and October 7/19, 1868, in order to constitute and organize the metropolitan province. Ninety elected deputies from all the eparchies of the Metropolitanate, thirty priests and sixty laymen gathered.
On May 28, 1869, “The Organic Statute” proposed by the Romanian church congress, with the changes introduced by the Magyar Ministry of Public Worship was sanctioned by the emperor. After that Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna began to turn it into practice and organize the entire metropolitan province following the provisions of the statute.
According to “The Organic Statute” the mixed eparchial synod was held annually and the metropolitan congress gathered every three years. “This year  on Thomas’s Sunday, we held the eparchial Synod, the first one according to ‘The Organic Statute’.” Then, between 1/13 and 16/28 October 1870, the second church congress was held. Like at the previous congress, misunderstandings and controversies among the participants came up, some of them insisted to be taken steps in order to reject the changes of “The Organic Statute” made by the Magyar Ministry of Public Worship. On the other hand, an article of “The Romanian Telegraph” of July 1869 had reported that the changes made in the text of “The Organic Statute” by the Magyar Ministry are regrettable, but it thought that it were well to accept this statute how it was, because “any constitutional life does not start with the perfection”.
Even if the tearing of the will is presented as being done in two different circumstances, it is to believe that both events were real, owing to the fact that those who reported were theirs contemporaries. It is an extra proof that Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna had enough reasons to be disillusioned, after such a titanic work for the benefit of the Church, because many understood by the Church just an institution behind which one could live profitably.
In the same year, 1871, the ancient Romanian Academic Society, the present day Romanian Academy made the venerable metropolitan a member of honour, in the meeting of September 7.
Simplicity of the funeral did not exclude grandiosity, on the contrary. The general sympathy he had always enjoyed manifested itself on the occasion of his death too, by the common spontaneous mourning, by the ringing of the bells in all the churches of Sibiu, by the participation of people from all the social classes of Sibiu in his funeral, as well as by the obituaries in all the newspapers.
On the jubilee of twenty-five years since he became emperor of Austria, in December 1873, Emperor Francis Joseph I expressed his regret for the Transylvanian metropolitan’s death, naming it “a multilateral loss”.
 Cf. “Adresa deputaţiunii române cătră împăratul presentată la 3/15 Martie 1862” (“The Romanian deputies’ address presented to the emperor on March 3/15, 1862”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 200-205; “Respunsul lui Şaguna cătră Nadasdy” (“Şaguna’s answer to Nádasdy”), dated Sibiu, July 26, 1863, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 210-216.
 Cf. J. SCHNEIDER, Der Hermannstädter Metropolit, 93.
 “Protocolul şedinţei sinodale, ţinută la Carloviţ în 11 Septembre 1864” (“The protocol of the synodal meeting, held on September 11, 1864, at Karlowitz”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 291-292 here 292.
 See “Autograful împărătesc îndreptat cătră patriarhul sârbesc privitoriu la întrunirea congresului sârbesc în causa împărţirii averii” (“The imperial autograph to the Serbian patriarch concerning the summoning of the Serbian congress on the matter of the division of property”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 305-306.
 See “Respunsul lui Şaguna cătră Nadasdy” (“Şaguna’s answer to Nádasdy”), dated Sibiu, July 26, 1863, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 210-216.
 N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 296.
 The Romanians’ of Bukovina address to Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna, dated Czernowitz, January 1865, in: N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 299-301 here 300.
 Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Importanţa Mitropolitului Andrei Şaguna în istoria noastră naţională, 1105.
The Eparchy of Bukovina was raised at the rank of metropolitanate on January 23, 1873; it was given two suffragan Slavic eparchies in Dalmatia: Zara and Cattaro, which from a historical, geographical or ethnical point of view had nothing in common with Bukovina. In spite of his struggle and wish to be a metropolitan, Eugeniu Hacman was not enthroned, because he died on March 31, 1873. The first metropolitan of this metropolitanate was Teofil Bendela, consecrated bishop at Sibiu, on January 1874. Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, 100 de ani de la reînfiinţarea Mitropoliei Ardealului, 828.
 R. CÂNDEA, Andreiu Şaguna, 182.
 The new crown land of the “Serbian Vojvodina and the Banat of Timişoara” proclaimed by the Court of Vienna in 1849 for to punish the Magyars, in which the Romanians were a majority, ended in December 1860 when the bulk of Serbian Vojvodina’s territory was reincorporated in Hungary. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 427.
 See “Petiţiunea senatorilor imperiali Bar. Şaguna, Andreiu de Mocsonyi şi Bar. Petrino, din 21 Aug. 1860 pentru reînfiinţarea metropoliei ortodoxe române” (“The petition of the imperial senators Baron Şaguna, Andreiu of Mocsonyi and Baron Petrino, of August 21, 1860, concerning the reestablishment of the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 166-167.
 See Il. PUŞCARIU, Chestiunea instalării lui Andreiu Baron de Şaguna în scaunul metropolitan, 97-99 and 145-150; A. GRAMA, Memoria urmaşilor: Secvenţe, 125-126.
 The historians’ opinions concerning these diplomas are different: Ilarion Puşcariu denies their existence on the ground that they “are not to be found among other diplomas left from Metropolitan Şaguna, nor is it mentioned that someone else had seen them” (Il. PUŞCARIU, Chestiunea instalării lui Andreiu Baron de Şaguna în scaunul mitropolitan, 149); Ioan Mateiu on the contrary states that they were obtained “in January 1866”. (I. MATEIU, Şaguna şi restaurarea Mitropoliei, 21).
 Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, 100 de ani de la reînfiinţarea Mitropoliei Ardealului, 835.
 Cf. “Ministru-preşedinte Schmerling cătră metropolitul Şaguna privitoriu la resolvarea finală a despărţirii ierarchice” (“Minister President Schmerling to Metropolitan Şaguna concerning the final solution of the separation of hierarchy”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 388-389.
 See “Cuprinsul diplomei împărătesci despre estinderea eparchiei Aradului” (“The content of the imperial Diploma concerning the extension of the Eparchy of Arad”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 397-398.
 See “Cuprinsul diplomei împărătesci despre înfiinţarea eparchiei Caransebeşului” (“The content of the imperial Diploma concerning the establishment of the Eparchy of Caransebeş”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 396-397.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 96. See also “Cuvântarea mea cătră Împărat, când m’am înfăţişat la Prea înalt Acelaşi cu deputaţii din întréga metropolie de ai mulţămi pentru resolvirea metropoliei” (“My speech before the emperor, when I was together with the deputies from all our Metropolitanate to thank him for the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 320-322.
 G. BARITIU, Parti alese din istori`a Transilvaniei, 296-297.
 See the chapter I.2.3 herein.
 Cf. P. BRUSANOWSKI, Reforma constituţională, 121.
 See Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Jakob Rannicher, dated Karlowitz, March 2, 1865, in: Spicuiri şi fragmente din corespondenţa lui Şaguna, 488-492.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 96.
 The Austrian defeat by Prussia in the summer of 1866 and the internal agitation by the various nationalities of the empire determined Austria to conclude the Compromise of February 1867, known in German as the Ausgleich, which was signed by Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria and a Hungarian delegation led by Ferenc Deák, establishing the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary. Under the new arrangement, the Magyar dominated government of Hungary gained near equal status to the Austrian government based in Vienna, while the common monarch government had responsibility for the army, navy, foreign policy, and customs union. “The Compromise of 1867, which signified a victory for Deák’s policy, brought Hungary a degree of autonomy unprecedented since 1526. Moreover, internal power was almost entirely retained by the Magyars.” (R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 351) Both Austria and Hungary had their own Prime Minister and parliament. While in Hungary the legislative and executive authority followed the pattern established in 1848, the non-Hungarian Lands acquired separate constitutional laws (Staatsgrundgesetze), the so-called December Constitution, which in essence retained the narrower Reichsrat and the diets of the February Patent of 1861. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 300.
 N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 322.
 I. MATEIU, Şaguna şi restaurarea Mitropoliei, 15. On the friendship Andrei Şaguna – Jakob Rannicher see the chapter III.2.8 herein.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Jakob Rannicher, dated Karlowitz, March 5, 1865, în: Spicuiri şi fragmente din corespondenţa lui Şaguna, 492-496.
 This undated letter was published by Tschurl Max in the study “Biserica regnicolară evanghelică în ultimii 10 ani” (“The regnicolar Protestant Church in the last ten years”) in “Monografia Transilvaniei şi Bănatului” (“The Monography of Transylvania and Banat”), published in 1929. Cf. I. MATEIU, Şaguna şi restaurarea Mitropoliei, 17.
 See the chapter IV.3.2 and a copy of the German text of the Law in the annex XIV herein.
 “Cuventarea Escelenţiei Sele Andreiu Baronu de Siagun’a, Metropolitulu Româniloru din Transilvani’a si Ungari’a, rostită in siedinti’a casei Magnatiloru dela 16 Maiu a.c.” (“The speech of His Excellency, Baron Andrei of Şaguna, the metropolitan of Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary, given in the Magnates’ Hall on May 16, of this year”), in: Telegrafulu Romanu, No. 37, May 9/21, 1868, 145.
 Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, 100 de ani de la reînfiinţarea Mitropoliei Ardealului, 836.
 Cf. “Ioan Popasu către Andrei Şaguna” (“Ioan Popasu to Andrei Şaguna”), dated Caransebeş, October 3, 1865, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 158-159.
 Archimandrite Ioan Popasu of Braşov had been elected by the bishops’ synod (made up, at that time, only of Metropolitan Andrei Şaguna and the bishop of Arad) and confirmed by the imperial resolution of July 6, 1865.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Jakob Rannicher, dated Sibiu, November 11, 1867, in: Spicuiri şi fragmente din corespondenţa lui Şaguna, 515-519 here 518-519.
 Cf. N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 345.
 “Andrei Şaguna către Nicolae Popea” (“Andrei Şaguna to Nicolae Popea”), dated Sibiu, November 15, 1864, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 175-176.
 N. IORGA, Oameni cari au fost, 47.
 About this minister, a Transylvanian contemporary of him gave testimony: “The most good-willing toward our Metropolitanate among the ministers of the time was Minister Schmerling. And if we are to confess the truth, we have to highly thank him for the reestablishment of our Metropolitanate.” N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 293-294.
 Ibid., 85; Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 97.
 Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 275.
 “Nr. 230, Sibiiu 11/23 Septemvre 1865” (“No. 230, Sibiu, September 11/23, 1865”), in: A. SIAGUN’A, Scrisori apologetice, 3-4 here 4; “Andrei Şaguna către Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu” (“Andrei Şaguna to Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu”), dated Sibiu, September 11/23, 1865, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 453-454 here 453.
 K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 149.
 See I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 84-85; R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 140.
 The rebellion of the Magyars against the Austrian rule (1849) did not succeed, but during the reign of Austrian absolutism (1849-1860) there was no room for the Transylvanian Diet. The attempt of 1863/1864 to establish a Diet consisting of all three nationalities represented in Transylvania, namely the Hungarians (together with the Hungarian-speaking Szeklers), the Saxons and the Romanians failed after one year (1865) because of a boycott by the Hungarian deputies. As emperor Francis Joseph could not rule his multi-ethnical state without the help of the Magyars, he finally agreed to the unification of Transylvania with Hungary (1868). With this decision the Diet (Local Parliament) of Transylvania ceased to exist, because all future laws had to be decreed be the Hungarian Parliament in Budapest. Cf. R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 371.
 Cf. I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 90.
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 154. See also G. BARITIU, Parti alese din istori`a Transilvaniei, 347.
 Andrei Şaguna’s speech in the Diet of Cluj of 1865, stenographical notices, in: Telegraful Român, No. 92, year XIII, Sibiu, Nevember 21/December 3, 1865, 366.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 297.
 “Der für den 10. Dezember 1865 nach Pest berufene Landtag wurde am 14. Dezember vom Kaiser persönlich eröffnet. In seiner Thronrede stellte sich Franz Joseph auf den Boden der für König und Nation staatsrechtlich gleich verbindlichen Pragmatischen Sanktion und stimmte der magyarischen Forderung nach Wiederherstellung der territorialen Integrität des Stephansreiches in seiner durch die Achtundvierziger-Gesetze erreichten Gestalt zu.” F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 220.
 Cf. G. BARITIU, Parti alese din istori`a Transilvaniei, 347-348.
 Transylvania ceased de jure to exist as an autonomous principality, on December 1868. After the Austro-Hungarian dualism was inaugurated, in 1867, Emperor Francis Joseph finally promulgated the Law of the unification of Transylvania with Hungary, on December 9, 1868. See the Magyar text and the German translation of the Law, in: R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 359-369.
On the other hand, the Hungarian Parliament dissolved the Transylvanian National Government (Das Landesgubernium), too, by the Law XLVIII,7/1868. The government of Cluj worked until 30 April 1869, when it ceased to exist, after 178 years. Cf. R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 310.
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 155.
 Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 282; F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 220-221.
 “Am 3. Juli  wurde die österreichische Nordarmee aber bei Königgrätz geschlagen, und damit änderte sich die Stellung der Krone und der Regierung den Völkern der Monarchie gegenüber entscheidend. Daß der Tag von Königgrätz für die Gestaltung Mitteleuropas, ja vielleicht der ganzen Welt ein Tag des Unheils war, läßt seine Rückwirkungen auf den Bereich der Innenpolitik der Monarchie fast ohne Gewicht erscheinen.” F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 221.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 305.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Jakob Rannicher, dated December 22, 1866, in: Spicuiri şi fragmente din corespondenţa lui Şaguna, 506-509 here 508.
 Through the Compromise of 1867, the former revolutionaries – German and Magyar – became de facto “peoples of state”, each ruling half of a twin country united only at the top through the King-Emperor and the common Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of War. Each half of the country had its own Prime Minister and parliament.
Aside from the common affairs, the organization of legislative and executive authority in Hungary after the Compromise of 1867 followed the pattern established in 1848. The Diet turned into a parliament with the Table of Magnates (renamed the Upper House) – remaining partly hereditary and partly appointive – and the Lower Table (now called the House of Deputies) of 453 members being elected on the basis of a highly restrictive franchise. The special status of Transylvania and the Military Border ended, because The April Laws had brought Transylvania under Hungarian rule. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 351 et seq.
 The fact that Baron József Eötvös appreciated much the Metropolitan Andrei is reported by a former royal school inspector Rethy, Eötvös’s collaborator during this ministry: “It was 1869, when the minister of public worship and instruction Baron Eötvös sent me as school inspector in Hunedoara county, and he told me like that: ‘go to Metropolitan Şaguna first and bow before him. But take care how you appear before him, because that is a man who is so brainy, as half of the people in the country putted together’.” I. LUPAŞ, Şaguna şi Eötvös, 20.
 Cf. I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 114-118.
“Am 8. Juni 1867 wurden Franz Joseph und Elisabeth unter ungeheurem Jubel des Volkes und mit dem bekannten prunkvollen, das Auge blendenden Zeremoniell gekrönt. Am 12. Juni sanktionierte der gekrönte König dann den für den Ausgleich grundlegenden Gesetzartikel XII…” F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 225.
 The laws of the Diet of Transylvania of 1863-1864 were annulled by a royal rescript. Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 99.
 The Nationality Law of 1868, drafted by Eötvös failed to satisfy the wish of the non-Magyar nationalities for territorial autonomy. Moreover, Magyar became the official and state language to be used in the parliament, the courts, the higher education. Other languages were admissible in churches, county and municipal governments, and primary and secondary schools. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 351.
 See the chapter III.3.3 herein.
 I. MATEIU, Şaguna şi restaurarea Mitropoliei, 30.
 See K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 166-172.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 98; I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 118-119.
 Ibid., 119. “Enlightened and liberal spirit, enjoying a great authority in the government, Eötvös was a warm supporter of the equal rights of all nationalities and consequently, he tried to be more prudent and generous, in his sphere of action.” I. MATEIU, Şaguna şi restaurarea Mitropoliei, 30.
 The fact that the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate was legally recognized, on the one hand out of Andrei Şaguna’s insistency, on the other hand because of Eötvös’ bright and generous ideas, determined the blame of József Eötvös from his ultra-nationalist co-nationals. See I. LUPAŞ, Şaguna şi Eötvös, 16-17.
 See “IX. Gesetzartikel. In Angelegneheit der griechisch-orientalischen Gläubigen”, in: [Ungarische] Landesgesetz-Sammlung für die Jahre 1865/67 und 1868, 81-83; “Lege in caus’a celoru de confessiunea greco-orientală” (“Law concerning the faithful of Greek-Eastern confession”), in: N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 328-329. See a copy of the German version in the annex XIV herein.
 Ibid., § 2 of the Law.
 Ibid., § 3, 4 of the Law.
 Ibid., § 6 of the Law.
 See the chapter VI.2.3 herein.
 Cf. § 3 of the Law.
 See Telegraful Român, No. 26, year XVI, Sibiu, March 30/April 11, 1868, 101.
 “Baron Eötvös’ idea was, since that time, to create a Greek hierarchy, believing that in Hungary there were about forty up to fifty thousands Greeks …” I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 122.
 Cf. I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 144.
 K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 172.
 See “Andrei Şaguna către Ioan Vancea” (“Andrei Şaguna to Ioan Vancea”), dated Sibiu, July 14, 1872, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 540-541.
 See “Ioan Vancea către Andrei Şaguna” (“Ioan Vancea to Andrei Şaguna”), dated Blaj, July 17, 1872, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 541-542.
 Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Importanţa Mitropolitului Andrei Şaguna în istoria noastră naţională, 1032.
 See Protocolul Congresului Naţional Bisericesc român de religiunea greco-răsăriteană conchiamat în Sibiiu pe 16/28 septembrie 1868, Sibiiu 1868; P. BRUSANOWSKI, Reforma constituţională, 125 et seqq.
 In the petition from 1862 to the emperor there were proposed forty clergy and sixty laymen, maybe because at that date the representatives of Bukovina to the congress were also taken into consideration; but after 1864, only thirty clergy are proposed and this number was also approved by law. Cf. I. MATEIU, Şaguna şi restaurarea Mitropoliei, 15. Cf. also “Adresa deputaţiunii române cătră împăratul presentată la 3/15 Martie 1862” (“The Romanian deputies’ address presented to the emperor on March 3/15, 1862”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 200-205.
 Protocolul Congresului Naţional Bisericesc…1868, 4 et seqq.
 See the chapter III.3.4 herein.
 Protocolul Congresului Naţional Bisericesc…1868, 41 et seqq. ; N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 344.
 N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 346.
 Protocolul Congresului Naţional Bisericesc…1868, 12.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 56.
 K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 245.
 At length on the changes of Andrei Şaguna’s “Project of Regulation” made by the church congress of 1868 see the chapter V.3.2 herein.
 Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §115, §116.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 57.
 K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 246.
 József Eötvös died on February 2, 1871. Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Şaguna şi Eötvös, 25.
 See I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 135-136.
 Ibid., 136. Baron Eötvös’s progressive humanistic ideas – still as a minister of public worship in Batthyány’s government he wished to support the progress for all the inhabitants from Hungary and from the territories administrated by it at that time, irrespective of nationality and language – have always constituted his “weak” side, criticized on any occasion by the Magyar ultra-nationalists. From the time of his first mandate as a minister of public worship, a law project dates back to 1848 meant to organize the people’s educational system, which in § 13 stipulated that the state was obliged to support school in one and the same village for each confession separately, if the confession has at least fifty schoolchildren. He considered Hungary a state like the others within the monarchy, contradicting Julius Andrássy, his friend’s nationalistic vision. Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Şaguna şi Eötvös, 9-14.
 At length on “The Organic Statute” see the chapter V.3 herein.
 It is the first Sunday after Easter, in the Orthodox Church.
 See P. BRUSANOWSKI, Reforma constituţională, 132-135.
 See “Statutulu Organicu” (“The Organic Statute”), in: Telegrafulu Romanu, No. 54, year XVII, Sibiu, July 10/22, 1869.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 58.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Ioan Cavalier of Puşcariu, dated November 21, 1870, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 409-411 here 410-411.
 Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 406-407.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Ioan Cavalier of Puşcariu, dated November 21, 1870, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 409-411 here 409.
 Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 414-415.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 100.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 59.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 100. More on this subject see at A. GRAMA, Jubileul din august 1871, ca un cântec de lebădă, 110-118.
 Cf. James 1.17: “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” This is also a part of a liturgical prayer in the Orthodox Church – the prayer behind the ambon from the Saint John Chrysostom’s Liturgy.
 “Iubileulu de 25 de ani” (“The Jubilee of twenty-five years”), in: Telegraful Român, No. 53, year XIX, Sibiu, July 4/16, 1871.
 A. Baronu de SIAGUN’A, Enchiridionu, III.
 Cf. I. NAGHIU, Aspecte ale activităţii culturale a Mitropolitului Şaguna, 294.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Ioan Cavalier of Puşcariu, dated December 17/29, 1871, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 411.
 Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 414.
 The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts consists of vespers, with special prayers together with a portion of the Divine Liturgy, omitting its most important part, the consecration of the Holy Gifts; and the third, sixth and ninth hours (with the typical Psalms) are used in a particular manner at the beginning.
It received its present form from St. Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome in the sixth century. It became a Canon at the Quinisext Council in 692 AD. Today, it is used in the Orthodox Church only during the Great Fast, on Wednesdays and Fridays; on Thursday in the fifth week of Great Fast; and on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in Passion (Holy) Week. It is anyway a longer Liturgy as compared to the other two used in the Orthodox Church. Cf. Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, in: The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3, 1714-1715.
 Il. PUŞCARIU, Din anii ultimi, 416.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Ioan Cavalier of Puşcariu, dated February 5, 1872, in: I. LUPAŞ, Şaguna şi Eötvös, 24.
 Il. PUŞCARIU, Un episod din vieaţa Societăţii seminariale “Andreiu Şaguna” in Sibiiu, 395.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 307.
 Ibid., 60. See also H. S. BORDEAN, Din amintirile unor foşti teologi şagunieni, 91.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 63.
 Andrei Şaguna’s testament, in: N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 178-187 here 179.
 “Einfach und grossartig, wie fast alle Schöpfungen Schagunas, war auch sein Leichenzug. Leider war der Schöpfer dieses letzten Werkes nicht mehr Zeuge desselben. Wäre es das gewesen, so hätte er wahrgenommen, dass in diesem Leichenzuge sich noch eine Macht geltend machte, die kein Programm und keine Disposition verträgt. Diese Macht hat im Herzen ihren Sitz und heisst Verehrung und Liebe. Sie bildete gewissermassen das Erdreich und die Atmosphäre, welche den abstrakten Programmpunkten ein so ergreifendes Leben gab.” Hermannstädter Zeitung, Hermannstadt am. 3 Juli 1873, Nr. 154, 731. Cf also G.-L. ITTU, Presa sibiană de limbă germană la moartea lui Andrei Şaguna, 130-131.
 Cf. N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 348; G.-L. ITTU, Presa sibiană de limbă germană la moartea lui Andrei Şaguna, 131.
 Hermannstädter Zeitung, Hermannstadt, am 30. Juni 1873, Nr. 151, 718.
 Cf. Telegrafulu Romanu, No. 95, year XXI, Sibiu, November 25/December 7, 1873, 362.
 I. LUPAŞ, Anastasia Şaguna, 37.

References: §6
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 § 2
 § 3
 § 6
 § 3
 §115
 §116
 § 13