One of the controversies surrounding the cathedral is its location, in a downtown, hilly area dominated by architecture from the communist period. It is somewhat ironic, Tateo notes, that the National Cathedral stands next to the former People’s House, now the parliament, built by dictator Nicolae Ceausescu to symbolise the eternal triumph of communism in Romania.
Yet the most hotly debated aspect of the National Cathedral’s construction has been its financing.
The idea of building such a cathedral first emerged shortly after Romania gained its independence in 1878, as part of the broader effort to shape the identity of the young nation.
While attempts were made during the interwar period to begin construction, none succeeded, and under the communist regime [1947–1989] the project was abandoned. It was only in the early 2000s that the idea resurfaced with new vigour.
In 2006, the Romanian parliament granted the Patriarchate a plot of roughly 110,000 square metres, and in the years that followed, work on the cathedral finally began. In 2018, coinciding with the centennial of the modern Romanian state, the altar was consecrated, and a year later, despite the building still being unfinished, it was visited by Pope Francis – a moment of great symbolic significance for Romania’s Christian community.
The project’s cost so far – still in flux given that sections remain under construction, including an underground area meant to host a Museum of Christianity and various cultural activities – is estimated at around 270 million euro.
“Only about ten per cent of that sum came from the Romanian Orthodox Church, through its own funds or parishioner donations,” said Tateo. “The rest was financed with public money from national and local authorities.”
This heavy reliance on state funding has drawn widespread criticism, especially among younger Romanians who question whether such vast public resources should be devoted to a religious monument in a country still struggling with underfunded schools, hospitals, and infrastructure.
According to Tateo, after the fall of Romania’s communist regime, the Romanian Orthodox Church embarked on an ambitious process of “organisational rebirth”, namely a renewal of the Church as an institution. This was reflected not only in reclaiming properties confiscated under communism but also in a wave of new church constructions across the country.
Paradoxically, however, in proportional terms it was not the Orthodox Church that built most new places of worship, but rather other officially recognised denominations, particularly neo-Evangelical communities.
“What distinguishes the Romanian Orthodox Church,” Tateo noted, “is that it has built on a grand scale. No fewer than 34 Orthodox cathedrals have been erected in the past three decades … and such monumental projects naturally required substantial resources, most of which came from public funds”.
