Page - 351 - in Der griechisch-orientalische Religionsfonds der Bukowina 1783–1949 - Kontinuitäten und Brüche einer prägenden Institution des Josephinismus

Zusammenfassungen 351 the process of lay people participation in the Orthodox Church of the country and not necessarily those of the national population they were supposed to represent. The bishopric of S. Morariu-Andriewicz, which did not immediately follow Hack- mann, but shaped the Greek-Oriental Church and its Religious Fund in most aspects, was characterised by two potentially opposed basic trends. While E. Hackmann, on the basis of his understanding of his role, demanded absolute and unconditional loyalty of the priests to the bishop and had little time for any participation of the humble congre- gation  – no matter how it was conceived  –, Morariu-Andriewicz used it deliberately to underline the national Romanian basis, as he saw it, of the Orthodox Church of the country and its fund. As a priest, Morariu-Andriewicz repeatedly withheld the loyalty demanded by his bishop. Once he became bishop, the internal discourse around inter- nal hierarchy and control of the Religious Fund opened out onto the political public. While this furthered the debate about the nationalisation of the Church, it also meant that actors like the bishop were able to fuel the discourse on the national orientation of dioceses and Fund, but were limited in their power to control it. Church and Fund had entered the political arena, they became a central theatre within the complex discursive weave of national interests between Romanians and Ruthenians in the crown land. Pol- itics, at imperial as well as crown land level, came to take on a much more decisive role in the positioning of these two institutions as well as in their activities. Individual actors provided a link to the regional parliament and the university, especially the Greek-Ori- ental theological faculty, but also the philology and history chairs. Even contemporaries outside Church and Religious Fund found it practically impossible to distinguish clearly between the institutions involved in this discourse in the crown land. The conflation of social and national concerns, deliberately furthered by some po- litical trends in the crown land, brought about the gradual mobilisation of the peas- ants in favour of modern mass parties, something that also happened in other parts of the monarchy. The Religious Fund had to maintain a dual position here : as large land owner, on the one hand, and, with supposedly historic legitimisation, as administra- tor of a national Romanian cultural heritage of enormous economic power. As such, it had political capital, ring-fenced for use in favour of a Romanian nation. Actors within and outside the Fund were unable to pursue a consistent line of argument, instead they were more or less forced to adapt their position to each situation, which, in the long run, damaged their personal and institutional credibility with a public already politically sensitised. Therefore, in sum, the processes inside the Religious Fund of institutional change and the national question not only reflect much of the political discourses domi- nating the crown land before 1914, they were also, in varying intensity, themselves driv- ers of these discourses.