Saint Calinic preached the Holy Scriptures ‘not with the wisdom of the word, lest the cross of Christ be made of no effect’1 but by the demonstration of deeds; and not himself, but ‘Christ crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews, folly to the Gentiles’2. Therefore, the brief yet powerful teachings contained in his correspondence are not “persuasive words of human wisdom” but “the hidden wisdom of God, which…”, ‘explaining spiritual things to spiritual people’, which ‘the natural man’ cannot understand ‘because they are judged spiritually’3. Although he walked in the flesh, he did not fight in the flesh, for the weapons of his struggle are not of the flesh, but he brought down the arguments of the mind “and every pride that exalts itself against the knowledge of God”4. Therefore, the purely Orthodox attitude towards other denominations, which we shall see in the details below, should come as no surprise to us whatsoever.
A letter revealing Saint Calinic’s views on Calvinist worship, dated 8 December 1852, was sent to Prince Barbu Știrbei from the episcopal residence in Craiova. It was first discovered by the distinguished researcher T. G. Bulat, who published it in 1927 without mentioning its place in the archival inventory. After we too discovered it in the Archives of the Archdiocese of Râmnic, we have made a slight adaptation to current linguistic standards and affirm once again that the core of its content remains particularly relevant to this day, even though the events take place in the nineteenth century. The Calvinists, of the Reformed faith, wished to be granted a plot of land right in the centre of Craiova so that they might build a church, and the location they had envisaged, along with the petition sent to the Ministry of Religious Affairs, came to the attention of Saint Calinic, who naturally took a stand, as befitted a pastor of such spiritual stature.
‘Your Excellencies,
We have been informed by certain people of the faith in this capital that, near the national school here, not far from the Church of the Holy Trinity, a plot of land is to be purchased for the building of the Calvinist church, and that they are keen to contribute to its construction, as are some of our true believers; which is a grave error to associate with heretics. Your Highness, as regards the first point, we consider it entirely contrary to our Holy Eastern Church for such a building belonging to heretics who oppose Orthodox dogma to be situated near these two holy places: the Church of the Holy Trinity and the school, where the fear of God and other moral sciences are taught. They have caused us no small amount of spiritual distress, all the more so in the case of the latter. We were deeply distressed, wondering to ourselves how this heretical contribution could fail to be directed towards the holy Christian churches, those without income, to assist them and adorn them with what they lack, to the glory of the Almighty God and for the eternal remembrance of the Lords’ lineage, interred in those holy places.5
With the undersigned’s signature, we submit this humble petition to Your Highness: should the construction of that church prove impossible to halt entirely, may you, as our spiritual father, graciously issue a clear command that it be erected elsewhere, outside the city, at a distance from our holy churches, for the burial ground of such strangers to our law is also situated outside the city walls.
In accordance with our archiepiscopal duty, we have felt compelled to bring these matters to the attention of Your Majesty, the guide of all, in matters both ecclesiastical and political…”6
As a result of Saint Calinic’s stance, no Calvinist church was built, so that the description of ‘heretics opposed to Orthodox dogmas’ is by no means an exaggeration in the light of the canons of Orthodoxy and the polemical works of the Holy Fathers.
Following the chronology of events, we turn our attention to Râmnic to learn of another episode from Saint Calinic’s life as a bishop, this time a lesser-known event. The Franciscan Chronicle of 1764, a veritable history of Râmnic, convinces us that the Catholic Bulgarians who had come here several decades earlier had built ‘a house of prayer with dwellings’ and a ‘chapel on Capela Hill’7; a right which they had since lost, but which they always spoke of with nostalgia. Since then, Catholics have always been restricted, and even though there was a Franciscan monastery in the time of Saint Calinic, it will be understood that they did not have full rights to expand as they wished. Drawing on the history of their arrival in the town, they would try once more to take possession of some land and might well have succeeded, had they not come up against the shrewdness of Saint Calinic.
We first note that, following complaints from townspeople to the Vâlcea Magistracy, which criticised the Franciscans’ practice of continually expanding the burial grounds of deceased Catholics, the monastery in question received a letter (no. 616) requiring them to seek another site, on the outskirts of the town, for this purpose, with the additional instruction to specify the size of the plot of land they would require. On 28 June 1855, the abbot, Aron Elekeș, replied: “…it is respectfully brought to your attention that, given the current circumstances, the monastery considers that twenty-two ‘stanjini’ of stony ground would suffice for that purpose, which is worthy of praise before God…”8 It was also at this time that they chose the location for this plot of land, namely at the foot of Capela Hill, near the Bishop’s Palace, or, as will become apparent, on the Bishop’s Palace grounds themselves. Saint Calinic’s reply to the Honourable Administration of Vâlcea District is signed in the original on 21 July 1855: ‘The letter from the Honourable Administration, No. 7112, and have reviewed the request for the allocation of a plot of land belonging to the Bishop’s House, regarding the Catholic community’s burial ground, to which we honourably reply that the Bishop’s House has no vacant land, as all have been allocated to the ‘9’ tenancies; and even if it did have any, it could not make any of them available for such a purpose, when it is known with certainty that the Catholic Church here has more land than the Diocese, fortified all round the town and far more suitable for the stated purpose than those beneath the Chapel, belonging to the Diocese, which, it appears to us, have been requested by the abbot of the Catholic church.”10 Saint Calinic’s reply is prompt and correct; it does not appear offensive, nor does it give rise to disputes or difficulties. The most open to interpretation phrase, ‘…but also so that, and he could not release any of them for such a purpose…”, has a meaning quite specific to the Orthodox canonical tradition, which does not permit the alienation of Church lands for any reason whatsoever. This does not seem clear enough to the Franciscan abbot, as he composes an offensive letter addressed to Saint Calinic, containing inappropriate insinuations regarding his actions concerning the Diocese’s lands. On 27 July 1855, he wrote: ‘It is with great regret that the monastery has observed that His Grace the Bishop of Novi Severin seems to be afraid of those soldiers whobe buried on the site of the Chapel, which is of no use whatsoever to the Holy Diocese (…) He then adds that the Roman Catholic monastery has more sites around the town than the Holy See, and that even if the Holy See did have them, it would not make them available for such a purpose. – What a wretched and base statement to come from the chancery of a Most Holy Bishop! For the Holy See has two large gardens on the outskirts of the town, which could serve the needs of the entire town, and not just the seven monk-priests it has…” And this attack concludes with a threatening allusion, to the effect that ‘if anyone requests to be buried, they will be laid to rest in the cemetery of the Holy Diocese’s Hospital, which is outside the town, and where we shall prove that one of the members of the KK 11 was buried there previously.”12. We believe this allusion refers to Bishop Ilarion of Râmnic (1693–1705), who was deposed following accusations of sympathising with the Roman Catholics 13, having allowed them to bury their dead in the Bolnița cemetery. This information was passed down until 1855, to the extent that Abbot Aron used it against Saint Calinic. No response to the Franciscan abbot’s attack can be found in the archives, which leads us to believe that Saint Calinic stood by his position, as set out in the signed document, or indeed that he chose to quell the abbot’s outbursts through a wise silence. What is certain is that nothing from the Diocese’s estates will be given in response to such a demand.
Another brief detail illustrates the limits of dialogue and engagement with the Roman Catholics, since in the year 1863, when, on the birthday of Prince Alexandru Ioan Cuza, the Principalities were frequently visited by princes and boyars, Râmnic was also visited by the Prince of Austria. Upon receiving the telegram announcing the visit of ‘His Austrian Eminence’14 the Prefect of Vâlcea considered holding a Te Deum service in the town’s Catholic church, as would have been customary, but he did not refrain from inviting Bishop Calinic to this lavish reception as well, largely to lend the occasion a greater sense of significance. Of course, Saint Calinic’s refusal to attend is evident from his telling silence; he gave no reply to such an invitation.
Another document illustrating Saint Calinic’s zeal for the true faith was also found in the Vâlcea County Archives, this time covering a unique subject. The story takes us back to 1863, when Austrian merchants appeared in the town of Râmnic, some of whom were selling souvenirs and handicrafts, including icons. Saint Calinic denounced this situation and sent a complaint directly to Bucharest, from where the County Prefect was alerted. This letter contains extensive excerpts from Saint Calinic’s complaint.
‘Your Excellency the Prefect
, the Most Reverend Bishop of Râmnic, in his letter no. 63, states that certain people from the region of Austria who have come here to the Principalities with various items for sale, are also bringing, amongst other things, a sort of so-called icon so poorly crafted that it depicts nothing but caricatures, and all the more so as they differ from the icons of the saints recognised by our Church; they also bring some paintings, still called icons, on which a cockerel is depicted, selling these too to some of the villagers as icons, deceiving them into believing that it is the cock that crowed when our Saviour Jesus Christ was arrested and handed over to the Jews to suffer, and on that basis, in their simplicity, they believe them to be good. Furthermore, since such false icons not only bring dishonour upon the true images of the saints recognised by our Church, but the people are also led astray, as devotion to ecclesiastical matters is diminished, and causing thousands of Christians to worship a cock as if it were one of our true icons.
I invite you, Mr Prefect, to take the necessary measures to prevent such icons from being brought into the Principalities. Please accept, Mr Prefect, the assurance of my highest regard. The Minister of Finance: D.D. Stuparu.”15
This case ranks amongst the acts of the hierarchs with a particular feature that attests to the character of Saint Calinic as a defender of the true faith, not so much for his own sake as for the sake of the simple, orthodox faithful who needed such reinforcement. His attention to such detail and his focus on the painting of icons demonstrate a high degree of spiritual depth, without which ‘no one will see the Kingdom of Heaven’. Nor could he have been indifferent to iconography, given that His Grace himself had, a few years earlier, given his blessing for icons to be painted for every class in the county’s state schools, to ensure the preservation of the true faith. This is evident from the gratitude expressed to the monk Gherontie of the Holy Monastery of Hurezi, who will paint these icons free of charge.
Such attention to detail and care in the painting of icons denotes a high degree of spiritual depth, without which ‘no one will see the Kingdom of Heaven’.
‘The High Board of Education, by letter No. 1747 of the year 1854, requested the Department to arrange for an icon of the Lord Jesus Christ to be placed in every classroom, for the fulfilment of religious duties; following this, the appropriate instructions were issued to the headteacher of that town, by Order No. 6338 of 1853, we have now received Report No. 672, which states that, following the invitation extended to Father Gherontie, the monk from the Holy Monastery of Horezu, he gladly agreed to paint them without any payment whatsoever. Having been provided with the wooden panels, he has now completed them, in the year 1855. For this, the aforementioned Magistrate requests that due thanks be extended to His Holiness. The Department has brought this to the attention of the High Authority and writes to convey to His Holiness, on behalf of the Department, its gratitude for this generous act16’.
Thus, the words and deeds of Saint Calinic reveal to us not merely a way of life or a return to the past, nor do they present an intellectual approach to everyday problems; rather, they point us towards a moral solution to the challenges of the day. What is contained in this correspondence is not mere academic theory, but genuine guidance in the face of the onslaught posed by today’s problems. Although these words come to us from afar, from a distant time, they continue to this day to provide the guidance towards rectification and the necessary strength.
- 1
1 Corinthians 1:17.
- 2
1 Corinthians 1:23.
- 3
1 Corinthians 2:4–14.
- 4
1 Corinthians 10:5.
- 5
In front of the Holy Trinity Church, which can still be seen today in the town centre, lies the Bibescu family tomb.
- 6
Archive of the Archdiocese of Râmnic, Râmnicu-Noul-Severin Diocese Collection, File 1/1852, f. 21 and T.G. BULAT, From the Correspondence of Bishop Calinic of Râmnic (1850–1868), Râmnicu-Vâlcea, ‘Matei Basarab’ Press, 1927, pp. 24–25.
- 7
George GEORGESCU, ‘The Chronicle of Râmnic from 1764’, in Studii Vâlcene, New Series, No. VI (XIII), 2010, pp. 13–30.
- 8
National Archives, Vâlcea County Directorate, Vâlcea County Prefecture Collection, File 9/1855, fol. 37.
- 9
‘Embatic’ – a form of long-term lease (up to 49 years) during which the tenant enjoys full rights of possession; payment for the use of these lands.
- 10
National Archives, Vâlcea County Directorate, Vâlcea County Prefecture Collection, File 9/1855, f. 147 (bearing the original signature).
- 11
The Austrian Community in Vâlcea.
- 12
National Archives, Vâlcea County Branch, Vâlcea County Prefecture Collection, File 9/1855, f. 187.
- 13
Atanasie MIRONESCU, The Holy Diocese of Râmnicu Noul Severin – Past and Present, Bucharest, Gutenberg, 1906, p. 74.
- 14
National Archives, Vâlcea County Directorate, Vâlcea County Prefecture Collection, File 49/1863, f.12 (sketch).
- 15
National Archives, Vâlcea County Directorate, Vâlcea County Prefecture Collection, File 14/1863, vol. I, fol. 112 and verso.
- 16
National Archives, Vâlcea County Directorate, Vâlcea County Prefecture Collection, File 9/1855, f. 167.