Re: [tied] Re: Historical implications of Romanian ecclesiastical t

george knysh wrote:

> *****GK: We'll get back to these hypotheses (both (a)
> and (b)) after a review of some other ecclesiastical
> terms. Where do you get the impression that I
> suggested they "had no other Romance neighbours but
> themselves"? What I had intended to convey under THIS
> hypothesis is that the PR might have been those whose
> contact with Christianity (unlike that of their
> equally Latin-speaking neighbours ==perhaps those of
> the cities above all==) was rather superficial.******
>

and a such supposition won't be so strange. So far I am informed, the
oldest church in Romania is the one of NiculiTel made in the IX century.
One argued that the PR builded church of timber , thus this is why there
is nothing to find. That can be. But too , it can be they simply have
had no churches keeping a very simply rite of christianity or what
remained of it ( as per your hypothesis) as the one of Sinca Veche. But
how can we converge such observations with them living in Bulgaria,
knowing about christianity becoming christians and later migrating in
North and lossing everything of it?

alex