Romanian Orthodox Mission in Transnistria

Content sourced from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

During World War II, Romania fought alongside Nazi Germany and occupied parts of the Soviet Union, including Transnistria. In August 1941 the Romanian Orthodox Church set up a mission there to revive Orthodox life, believing that Soviet atheism had destroyed the church and that it should re‑evangelize the local people. Archimandrite Iuliu Scriban led the effort at first, while the government pressed to reopen churches and restore religious practice in the area.

The plan faced a problem: canon law still gave nominal authority to the Russian Patriarchate over the region. In 1942 Scriban was replaced by Visarion Puiu, who became bishop of Odessa and all Transnistria. Puiu hoped to grow the exarchate into a metropolitan see with two new bishoprics, Balta and Tulchyn, but the Axis retreat prevented many of these steps. He also reported that the mission should both organize civil life and renew religion through the church and schools.

The occupation did bring a significant revival of church life. By the end of 1942 hundreds of churches were open again, along with monasteries and seminaries. But the mission was controversial. Some missionaries had ties to the Iron Guard, and there were widespread abuses against Jews and local Christians, plus corruption and money problems. A 1942 report cited priests who damaged the church’s reputation by illicit acts. Puiu himself was accused of promoting antisemitic ideas and of tolerating violence by some clergy, though some historians note he was less radical than Scriban and sometimes acted with caution.

In 1943 Puiu resigned as metropolitan, citing resource shortages and too few priests. He spent time in monasteries and then returned to Bucharest. There were acts of bravery as well: Gheorghe Petre was later recognized as Righteous Among the Nations for saving Jews in Kryve Ozero. Some priests, including Archimandrite Scriban, were praised for protecting Jews during persecution, while others were blamed for abuses. The episode remains debated: it shows both a religious revival and serious wrongdoing, reflecting a complex and troubled legacy in Transnistria.