The Ministry of Bishop Sofronie Vulpescu in Râmnic (1913–1918) II

Bishop Sofronie served at the Diocesan Centre for less than four years. Although little is known about his brief tenure, he nevertheless found time to get involved in administrative matters. As a man of culture, he was aware that the town of Râmnicu-Vâlcea would only become a recognised ecclesiastical and cultural centre through a well-organised theological college. For this reason, between 1913 and 1914, he built new premises for the Theological Seminary – the wing facing Carol Street – on land donated by the Diocese. Following an interruption of classes between 1916 and 1918 due to foreign occupation, a second wing of the Seminary was erected, which was completed in 1922 during the tenure of Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu 1. Of particular relevance to our study is the speech delivered by the bishop at the laying of the foundation stone in 1913, from which we shall quote a few lines: ‘It is well known to all that, in order for an institution to fulfil its role properly, it needs, amongst other things, its own premises in good condition. Well, this was what the Diocesan Seminary lacked. Heaven has willed that this deficiency should be remedied today […] From today onwards, the seminary will be established for ever in its own home; from now on, the sons of our Oltenians, the illuminators of villages and towns, will no longer have to contend with the squalor of the dilapidated building which, until just yesterday, had housed them—cramped, dark and damp. From now on, they will be freer to devote themselves to their studies, just like bees, going from flower to flower to gather the spiritual honey, with which they may return to their hive, in the midst of their communities; and there to share with all the nourishment of spiritual and physical life”2.

His steadfast concern for the book is also evident from the official records of the Holy Synod, in which he would say with nostalgia: “I was a parish priest when I used to read with great pleasure the words of the late Bishop Melchisedec in the Holy Synod, who referred to ‘the Printing House and the Journal’ as the two daughters of the Holy Synod. In those days, the Journal had only two or three editors, members of the Holy Synod, whose articles, even today when read, are a great pleasure and are very useful to any clergyman, for they were very well written…’3

A learned hierarch such as Sophronius needed a printing press to publish the works required by the faithful and the clergy of Oltenia in the run-up to the First World War. Thus, to satisfy the hunger for spiritual nourishment among his flock, he took a particular interest in reorganising the diocesan printing press, which had previously served the administrative purposes of the town of 4 for some time. To this end, he wrote a letter to the Ministry of Industry and Trade, expressing his desire to establish a ‘printing press, as there used to be here in days gone by and right here, in the courtyard of the Holy Bishopric, amongst other initiatives’, for “revive the Church’s glorious past, rather than create an institution for speculation and commercialisation”. According to the report by the industrial inspector Gigurtu, drawn up on 11 July 1914, it appears that the proposed printing press was not “yet fully installed”, as a second engine and two printing presses were still awaited, and that exemption from duties and taxes could be granted once it met the requirements. Unfortunately, it was not until the meeting of 9 December 1914 that the industrial commission concluded th5 should be granted the legal benefits.

Aware of his role in the reorganisation of the printing works, Archimandrite Iuliu Scriban wrote that “he had set up a fine printing works, equipped with excellent materials. He had a wonderful passion for printing, but not for associating with skilled people who could help him print good things’6”. In this printing house, as well as in other printing works across the country, he himself published the Orthodox Church Calendar for 21 years 7. From contemporary records we learn that these publications, which were quite useful in the process of educating the faithful, were compiled by the hierarch himself, without allowing any other input: ‘These calendars had become quite useful with each passing year, thanks to a wealth of ecclesiastical data and the catalogue of saints, through which one could very easily find on which day the feast of a particular saint fell. The author, however, would not listen when you told him that he could make the work even more useful, although in some calendars he included a page asking for suggestions on improvements to be made to them. The writer of these lines made such suggestions to him, but the late author was unwilling to follow them”8. It is worth noting that the synodal records from 1913 specify that the printing costs and print run had been paid for out of his own pocket for 15 years, “and that is why I publish the calendar in separate booklets, as this suits me better from a financial point of view”9.

A mere glance through these calendars we can see that their pages dealt with a wide range of religious, cultural, historical, moral, literary, economic and agricultural issues, which were intended to instil in readers a love for their people and country, their language and the faith of their forefathers. For example, on 29 November 1899, Protosinghel Sofronie noted in the calendar’s preface: ‘As calendars are the only publications that penetrate as deeply as possible into the ranks of our people, and the Orthodox Church Calendar in this way, I believe, will succeed in imparting edifying knowledge to the literate public, and it is of keen interest both to the clergy and to every faithful believer to be aware of the progress being made in ‘our Orthodox Church’ on the cultural front’10. In the 1900 calendar, alongside religious, national and royal festivals, there are reports on the fairs in Romania, Sunday rest, the chronological list of the metropolitans of Ungrovlahia, portraits of Iosif Gheorghian and Iosif Naniescu, the synods in Jerusalem, the physiology of laughter, the consistories across the country and the names of the abbots of the monasteries 11. The 1904 calendar features, amongst other things, details of the consecration of Sinaia Monastery 12, whilst the 1907 calendar covers the anniversaries of the Royal House, legislative power in Romania, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Royal Family, the number of churches and monasteries, and the aid available in the event of accidents 13. Particularly noteworthy are the 1914 calendar, which recounts the life of Saint Archdeacon Lavrentie 14, and the 1915 calendar, which contains several instructions from the bishop to priests and deacons regarding the Divine Liturgy 15. In view of his tireless work in ensuring the uninterrupted publication of these works over two decades, we are justified in considering him a true father of the calendar of the Romanian Orthodox Church at the beginning of the 20th century.

Another notable editorial achievement is his bachelor’s thesis, entitled ‘Man’s Free Will as a Principle of Moral Action’, published in 1898 in Bucharest, ‘as a token of true brotherly love’ towards the priest Marin Vulpescu of Lupșan. The work comprises 103 pages, divided into four chapters, in which the author discusses, amongst other things: the importance of human will for moral life, imputation, the origin of evil, the Church’s teaching against Gnosticism, Pelagianism and Protestantism, the existence of free will and liberty in a person who has fallen into sin or is in a state of perfection, the obstacles that may restrict the freedom of the will and the influence these may have on the nature of human actions; and, last but not least, the cultivation of the will 16.

Also worth noting here is the book General Views on the Life and Works of Immanuel Kant. An anthology by various authors, published in 1906 by the Eminescu Institute of Graphic Arts in Bucharest. It comprises 105 pages, organised into seven chapters on: Kant and his times, the pre-critical period, the Critique of Pure Speculative Reason, the Metaphysics of Morals, the Critique of Practical Reason, the Critique of Judgement, and the Philosophy of Religion. Of particular note are the concluding words, which reveal the purpose behind the compilation of this work: ‘We had no other aim than to highlight, after a long period of development and trial and error, the unity and progressive continuity of critical thought. The dualism of nature and freedom does not, in Kant’s view, represent the antagonism of two successive conceptions. Undoubtedly, the logical development of his system led him, at certain moments, to emphasise one or another point of the doctrine with particular insistence’17

In 1908, Sofronie published a 56-page work entitled The Life and Passion of the Holy Great Martyr Catherine, the Most Wise Virgin. In the ‘Preface to the Readers’, signed by the author on 28 January, it is written: ‘This work is merely a compilation of the accounts concerning this saint found in the Minei for the month of November and in the Lives of the Saints by Simeon Metaphrastes, with those published in the Acta Sanctorum of the Bulanists and in other more recent monographs, such as those by the Rev. S. Masson and Abbot Jacquet. This monograph was intended to foster religious sentiment amongst the many readers of that popular newspaper”. Finally, the booklet presents, in a few pages, the life and martyrdom of the first martyr and archdeacon Stephen 18.

Equally significant from an editorial perspective is the Abridged New Testament, that is, Selected Passages from: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul; the General Epistles and the Book of Revelation. From the ‘Foreword’ we learn that this 255-page book was completed on 7 January 1911 19. It should be noted that in 1913, the Commission for the Examination of Religious Works and Textbooks approved the Abridged New Testament, which, ‘by arranging the sacred texts by subject, filled a gap in our ecclesiastical literature’20. Two years later, the book was on sale for 3 lei 21.

In 1916, he had another work printed in Bucharest, entitled The Wonderful Life of Saint Nicholas, Archbishop of Miralichia, handwritten and lithographed. As indicated in the opening pages, this small-format book, comprising 95 pages, was translated by him personally from earlier writings. Within its pages, we find extensive information about the saint’s homeland and parents, his theological studies, his journey to the Holy Places, his sufferings during the persecutions, his participation in the Council of Nicaea, and the miracles he performed22

A skilled printer, Sofronie published Luther: His Life and Teachings. The Origins of Protestantism in 1923, also in Bucharest; a 44-page work comprising seven chapters. After presenting Wittenberg, Luther’s youth and rebellion, the founding of the Protestant Church, the reformer’s final years, his portrait and doctrine, the author concludes by writing: ‘Such, in broad outline, was the narrow doctrine of Luther. It offered nature’s instincts such facile excuses and such thinly veiled encouragement that it was bound to drag souls in that direction, but just as much to provoke disorder’23”.

Without going into detail, it should be noted that, also bearing Sofronie’s name, other works have come off the press which round out his cultural profile: Wall Poster, Map of the Dioceses of the Holy Autocephalous Romanian Orthodox Church, The Little Orthodox Catechism, Ecclesiastes and the Apocalypse (Commentaries) and The New Testament 24, sold in 1910 for 4 lei at the Church Books Printing House 25. To gain a better understanding of his cultural interests, we must also mention other writings published during his ministry in various periodicals of the time: Kant’s Scepticism, A Historical Study Based on the Coptic Manuscripts of the Councils of Nicaea and Alexandria, Saints Constantine and Helena, The Beheading of St John the Baptist, St Elijah the Tishbite, The Nativity and Dormition of the Mother of God, The Transfiguration, The Finding and Exaltation of the Holy and Life-Giving Cross, Our Pious Mother Euphrosyne, St Gregory the Illuminator of Greater Armenia, the Councils held in Jerusalem, St James the Apostle, son of Alphaeus, St Athanasius the Great, Almsgiving, The Transfer of the Relics of St John Chrysostom to Constantinople, St Ephrem the Syrian, Isidore of Pelusium, Meletius, Archbishop of Great Antioch, the Apostle Philemon, the Apostle Onesimus, Orthodoxy, the Forty Martyrs, St Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, St John Climacus, Thomas Sunday, Saints Bartholomew and Barnabas the Apostles, Administrative map of the Church in the Kingdom of Romania, St Simeon the Holy Martyr, Bishop of Jerusalem, the Kinship of the Lord, the Fear of God, St Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna 26, Niphon, Metropolitan of Ungro-Wallachia († 5 May 1875)27, Titular Bishops in our Church 28. In addition to these publications, in 1910 he was granted permission to publish the manuscript The Acts of the Holy Apostles. The Epistles of St Paul the Apostle. The Ecumenical Epistles and the Book of Revelation 29. Although towards the end of his life he wished to publish a more extensive treatise on Christian doctrine, he did not manage to edit it, as he fell ill 8.

Synodal activity

An important chapter in the life of Bishop Sofronie Vulpescu was his dynamic involvement in the meetings of the Holy Synod, where, on 1 May 1901, he was elected to the Commission for the review of religious textbooks for primary education, and to the Committee for the Accounts of the Printing House and the magazine The Romanian Orthodox Church, replacing Bishop Silvestru Bălănescu of Huși, who had passed away 30. To highlight his contribution, we consider it appropriate to note that on 16 November 1900 he presented to the Accounts Committee report no. 82 to the Accounts Committee, concerning the request by the priest from the hamlet of Satischioi, in the commune of Șiriu, Constanța County, to receive the collection of the journal The Romanian Orthodox Church free of charge for the parish library. During this meeting, he also read Report No. 99, in which the Diocese of Huși requested liturgical books for the young seminary students who found it difficult to read the Cyrillic script during services at the cathedral 31.

A careful analysis of the documents from the meeting of 24 October 1907 shows that Sofronie was commissioned by the Holy Synod to produce the calendar in both wall-hanging and booklet formats, but the Church Fund Administration had approved the printing of only the large-format calendar. Following his intervention, the Minister of Religious Affairs agreed to its publication in booklet form as well, even though ‘last year some 3,000 extra copies were printed’32).

Highly regarded by the hierarchs of the Holy Synod, on 1 May 1908 he was elected to the Petitions Committee and to the Committee for the Journal, the Printing Press and the Revision of Liturgical Books. The minutes of the meeting show that his merits were recognised, and in 1907 he was paid 250 lei per month for proofreading liturgical books. At the same time, he presented to the members of the Synod the work *The Life and Passion of St Catherine the Great Martyr and St First Martyr Archdeacon Stephen, which he had written and printed himself, presenting several copies to the bishops and to the Holy Synod Library 33.

Equally important was the meeting of 5 May 1908, at which he submitted a petition for the examination of the manuscript entitled ‘Orthodox Church Calendar for the Year 1909’, which he had compiled himself. During this meeting, he then read out the reports of the Petitions Committee regarding several requests for tonsure into monastic life at the monastic settlements of Gorovei, Rarău, Râșca, Almaș, Agapia and other monasteries across the country 34.

It is worth noting that, at the meeting of 17 May 1910, he read out the draft regulations for cases of excommunication and anathema, and the report of the Petitions Committee concerning the petition of the priest Simion Popescu, with which he submitted the pamphlet ‘A Response to the Report by Professor Dr I. Cornoiu and Rev. I. Popescu-Mălăești concerning another pamphlet entitled ‘The Septuagint and the Hebrew Text in the Orthodox Church’, both of which he had written. He also read the report concerning the Sermon Manual by Father Ioan Grigoriu of Vaslui, which received the approval of the Holy Synod, with the stipulation that it should not be imposed on parish libraries 35. Just a few months later, on 13 October, at the meeting of the Higher Ecclesiastical Consistory, Bishop Sofronie’s petition was read out; he had submitted 37 copies of the Small Orthodox Catechism, compiled on the basis of the teachings of the Orthodox Confession and printed with the approval of the Holy Synod 36.

This truly remarkable cultural achievement was also noted by the members of the Holy Synod, who, at their meeting on 2 November 1911, elected him as rapporteur to the Holy Synod’s Bible Commission 37. On 30 October 1913, the records show that the Abridged New Testament, written by the Oltenian hierarch, is well-drafted, ‘filling a gap in our ecclesiastical literature by arranging the sacred texts by subject. The Holy Synod may therefore grant it the approval it deserves, whilst the committee wishes to humbly thank His Grace the author for such meritorious endeavours’38’.

Of particular importance to our endeavour is the meeting held a day later, on 31 October, during which the bishop regretfully outlined the pastoral and missionary situation in the country: “We have 5 vacant urban parishes and 62 branch parishes throughout the country. These are easy to fill, as a priest from one parish can easily serve the neighbouring vacant parish as well. But in the countryside this is not possible. There are 2,182 rural branch churches; there are entire villages of as many as 200 families that remain without a priest to this day. In the establishment of parishes – forgive me for saying so – a great injustice was done in some places. You travel for miles and it is called such-and-such a parish, comprising 5–6 villages! When we say 2,182 branch churches, we mean 2,182 villages! So let us not neglect this aspect, for it is of great importance. We must take great care of the villages, for all manner of unbelievers are swarming there’39”.

Like other ministers of the Church, he raised his voice when necessary, making several interventions that were welcomed by the members of the Holy Synod. Thus, at the meeting of 31 May 1912, he requested “that the matter concerning the establishment of titular bishoprics at churches whose founders’ wills stipulate that they should also have a bishop be followed up, which they did indeed have, as can be seen from the old documents, until the respective church councils abolished the bishop’s post for budgetary reasons’40”. As there were few priests in the country, he went on to propose to the minister, at the meeting of 24 October 1913, that a bill be drafted to amend the law passed in 1893, ‘so that these graduates with four years’ seminary education might also be ordained, on this one and only occasion’41.

From the notes we have, it is clear that Bishop Sofronie was well versed not only in the ecclesiastical realities of the country, but also in those of the Romanian province between the Danube and the Black Sea, where, in the past, several episcopal centres had operated. Thus, on 30 March 1914, on the occasion of the vote on the Law on the administrative organisation of New Dobruja, he called in the Senate for the establishment of a metropolis in Constanța, as had been the case between the years 290–530, and an ‘42’ diocese in Silistra. Although he had called for the re-establishment of the Metropolis of Tomis, it was not reorganised until 1923, under the name of the Diocese of Constanța, with Bishop Ilarie Teodorescu as its first bishop.

Founder of places of worship

During this period, Bishop Sofronie was involved in the renovation and consolidation of several places of worship within the diocese, and others, which have now been built, will be consecrated. Of particular note are the churches of St Nicholas in Zgubea (1907–1915), St Nicholas in Ioneștii Govorii (1909–1916), St Nicholas in Voineasa (1910–1914), St Nicholas in Alunu (1910–1920), St Nicholas in Băbeni (1911–1915), St John the Baptist (1911–1923) and St Demetrius (1912) in Băile Govora, St Paraskevi in Râmești (1912), St Nicholas in Rusănești (1912), the Dormition of the Mother of God in Risipiți (1912), the Annunciation in Scăueni (renovated, 1912), Saint Paraskevi in Bărcănești (1912–1915), St John the Baptist in Modârceni (1912–1916), St Nicholas in Diculești (1913), St Paraskevi in Sinești (1913), St Philothea in Greblești (1913), St John the Baptist in Urși (1913), the Venerable Paraskevi in Bărbătești (1913), St Nicholas in Izvoru (1913), The Holy Voivodes in Mitrofani (1913–1914), The Entry into the Church in Afumați (1913–1914), Saint Nicholas in Diculești (1913–1915), St Dumitru in Râmnicu-Vâlcea (renovated, 1914), St Dumitru in Predești (1914), the Holy Trinity in Băluțoaia (1914), St Nicholas in Orlești (1914), St Nicholas in Bereni – Drăgășani (1914), the Dormition of the Mother of God in Câmpeni-Măneasa (1914), the Church of the Entry into the Church in Gușoeni (1915) and Saint Demetrius in Fumureni (1916–1920), all in Vâlcea County 43. To these are added the churches of St Nicholas in Deveselu (1905–1912), St Nicholas in Fărcașul de Jos (1910–1911), the Annunciation in Caracal (1910–1912), St Dumitru in Balș (restored, 1913), the Ascension in Sprâncenata (restored, 1914), the Dormition of the Mother of God in Drăgănești-Olt (restored, 1914) and All Saints’ Sunday in Frumoasa – Seaca (renovated, 1915), in Olt County44; and also the church in Măceșu de Sus, in Dolj County, consecrated on 17 May 1914 45. It is also worth noting two churches in Ialomița County, which he oversaw the construction of and subsequently consecrated: the Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in Condeești (1907) 46 and the Church of Saint Nicholas in Ciulnița (1910) 47. It should also be noted that, on 23 April 1915, he took part in the consecration of Căldărușani Monastery, alongside Ghenadie Petrescu, the former primate metropolitan, and Bishop Evghenie Humulescu 48. We assume that other monasteries in the counties of Gorj and Dolj, which at that time belonged to the Diocese of Râmnic, and which were built during his tenure, were also consecrated by him.

His likeness remains painted on the walls of the churches of Saint Dumitru in Râmnicu-Vâlcea and Saint Nicholas in Voineasa, as a testimony through the ages. According to certain sources, in 1914, on the occasion of the consecration of this settlement, he read the ‘Great Absolution’ prayer, much to the satisfaction of the villagers, as ‘it has long been said that His Grace Calinic, the former Bishop of Râmnic, on some occasion had cursed these places here, that is, the people of Voineasa”. After blessing the faithful, urging them “to be united and strong in the faith, for only thus shall we overcome our enemy and only thus shall we have the joy of living in a great Romania, we and our children”, on his departure he donated “the sum of 200 (two hundred) lei to the church in Voineasa, so that he might be commemorated at the services to be held in the holy church”49.

Shepherd of souls

No doubt the Bishop would also have made some canonical visits to his diocese, to ascertain the religious and moral state of the faithful, as well as the material circumstances of the priests. He served both at the Episcopal Cathedral in Râmnicu-Vâlcea and in numerous other churches throughout the region of Oltenia. Although he ordained priests and deacons and tonsured many young men who wished to enter monastic life, in 1913 he presented to the Holy Synod a bleak picture of the ancient Diocese, in which there were 120 churches without priests, proposing, like the Bishop of Argeș, that seminarians who had completed four years of study be ordained ‘not in the Cadrilater, but right here, for here we have a great need’50

A remarkable man of culture, Bishop Sofronie Vulpescu delivered hundreds of sermons during the services he conducted, whether from the pulpit of the Episcopal Cathedral or from those of the churches he visited and consecrated, bringing words of teaching, comfort and encouragement to his listeners. Here, for example, is what he said in 1913 at Sărăcinești Monastery, on the occasion of its re-establishment: ‘This holy place should have been preserved with the utmost reverence by posterity; and yet, by a cruel irony of fate, brought about by the harshness of the times, its estates were put up for auction, and the hermitage – swept away on the wings of destruction – would have been doomed to fall into ruin and oblivion, had it not been for a providential turn of events whereby one of its estates fell into the hands of a good Christian, such as yourself, Minister, who, perhaps, here in the vicinity of this holy place, have felt inspired by many of the generous and benevolent impulses that have made of you a profound metaphysician, a contemplator of the ways of the Lord…’51

On the other hand, the bishop was also among his flock through his occasional pastoral letters, which constituted an effective means of communicating directly with both ordinary people and the authorities of the time. We may cite, by way of example, a few words from the toast delivered at the Bishop’s Palace on 22 March 1915, on Easter night, before local representatives: ‘The Resurrection of the Lord, which all of Christendom, of every denomination on earth, celebrates today, may be the symbol of an end to the slaughter of one’s neighbour, which others, blaspheming against God, carry out in the name of the Cross whilst claiming to be Christians […] And our scattered nation has gathered, so that under the same banner we may cry out: ‘Long live our nation!’—ever crucified by the deluge of so many nations, yet, by God’s will, resurrected in the flame of so many gifts…”52

Concerned for the welfare of his flock, he initiated a series of conferences within the diocese, which debated theological, historical, literary and social issues of particular importance for those times. Thus, the minutes of the Archdeacons’ Conference of 15 September 1915, which he chaired, show that the following were discussed: the compilation of parish monographs within a year, in place of the general conferences cancelled due to current events, conferences organised by district, the provision of missing items for churches, the upkeep of churchyards and cemeteries, and instructions regarding the priest’s attire in accordance with the Holy Synod’s Regulations (the carrying of a staff)53.

In the same year, on 21 October, another archpriestly conference, held under his chairmanship, approved several measures for the Diocese of Râmnic, concerning the holding of general pastoral conferences, without any exemption from holding them annually, as stipulated in the regulations drawn up by the Higher Ecclesiastical Consistory; the topics of these conferences; the preservation of the fire used in the censer until more favourable times; in an earthenware basin placed on a wooden pedestal, and the introduction into every church of an anaphora cutter, in accordance with the model sent by the hierarch to each Deanery 54. Also worth noting is the Conference held with the deans on 20 January 1916, during which matters of particular significance for the entire Oltenian Church were discussed: the expansion of several urban parish boundaries, in order to ensure a fair distribution of parishioners amongst the respective priests (for the towns of Craiova and Târgu Jiu), the case of certain choristers who had been conscripted into the army and were requesting to remain in their posts, the extension of the church shop and the procurement of clay braziers, following the example of the village of Glogova and the appeal by engineer Iosif Armășescu of Turnu Severin, who sought the clergy’s assistance in putting his invention into practice: an aircraft equipped with a flotation device for swimming and floating in the air in the event of an accident 55.

We must also mention here the Minutes of the Archpriest’s Conference of 17 March 1916, which set out other matters debated under his direct supervision, despite the unfavourable circumstances of those times: the establishment of charity shops within the diocese and a collection amongst priests to support an orphanage in Sibiu, for the sons of soldiers who had died on the battlefield, the fencing off of cemeteries at a certain distance from the village, and the recognition by the Senate of the ‘Vistieria Ajutorul’ Society 56. Last but not least, to these documentary accounts we add the Conference with the archpriests on 24 May 1916, during which the aforementioned society was discussed, the magazine Crucea, the priests’ pilgrimage to Queen Elisabeth’s grave, and the inspection of the churches, which was to be carried out by a commission of archpriests 57.

Endowed with a rarely seen capacity for hard work and exceptional intelligence, the hierarch knew how to maintain close ties with the Valcea Scouts Organisation as well. From the records of the time, we learn that on 7 June 1915 he took part in the swearing-in ceremony of the scouts, the Constantin Brâncoveanu Cohort, alongside Princes Carol, Grand Commander of the Scout Legion, and Nicolae, and the authorities from Râmnicu-Vâlcea58

Correspondence

In order to paint as accurate a picture as possible of his character, it should be noted that he maintained an extensive correspondence both with the authorities of the time and with the country’s hierarchs and his own parishioners. For example, on 12 March 1914, he received a telegram from the prefect of Vâlcea County requesting that he officiate at the Te Deum service at the Cathedral two days later, to mark the anniversary of the proclamation of the kingdom 59. The following month, on 22 April, the prefect sent him another telegram, asking him to take part in the service at the Cathedral to mark the Queen’s Name Day on 24 April 60. Equally important is the letter dated 15 October 1914, in which the hierarch is once again invited to take part in the service held in honour of the Queen on the occasion of her birthday 61. The end of 1914 also brought him a telegram from the Prefecture, requesting that he perform the blessing of the waters on Epiphany and provide the names of all members of the clergy who would take part in this procession 62.

Aware that ties must be cultivated both with the county authorities and with the sovereign of the country, in 1915, when King Ferdinand celebrated his 50th birthday, Sofronie sent him a telegram, as a token of esteem, praying that ‘God may protect Your Majesty’s Sceptre for the prosperity of the Romanian people and the fulfilment of the entire national ideal…’53. It is also worth mentioning, incidentally, the letter sent to the King on the occasion of their 23rd wedding anniversary, in which he thanks the Almighty that “He has shown mercy and revealed His boundless goodness by uniting two great souls in a single spirit of love, so that they might work together to strengthen the Romanian state”63. Holding him in the highest esteem, she felt the need to send him a further telegram at Easter, praising his deeds: “In alleviating the sufferings of the oppressed, he was received with tenderness and tears of joy by the entire nation. May the Lord grant that Your Majesty’s fine example may serve as a moral inspiration for the alleviation of the sufferings of the helpless and those in need of mercy’64”.

We should also note that the Bishop of Râmnic exchanged letters with the Primate, Metropolitan Conon Arămescu-Donici. Thus, in 1916, on the occasion of the New Year, he wrote a letter to the Primate of the Church, in which he referred to “the tireless and fruitful work you carry out”, which “has borne such brilliant fruit day by day, serving as a powerful incentive for all those called to serve the Church and the Nation to fulfil their duty”65. Also significant is the letter from Conon, who, in his capacity as president of the Society for Civic Education, went on to express his gratitude to him that same year for the gesture shown towards children who were diligent in their studies: “The Executive Committee of the Society for Civic Education, having taken note of Your Grace’s generous donation of 5,000 lei as an endowment fund, the income from which is to be used to assist deserving peasant children, in accordance with Article 3, Section V of the Articles of Association, has tasked us with expressing its sincere thanks to you. In accordance with Article 5 of the Statutes, we have the honour of informing you that you have hereby been conferred the title of ‘Donor Member of the Society for Civic Education’66”.

I believe it is worth noting that, at that time, on 16 July 1915, the Romanian Clergy Society ‘Vistieria Ajutorul din Oltenia’ was founded in Râmnicu-Vâlcea, with the aim of supporting the poor families of deceased members, to provide aid to infirm and destitute members, to pay for the funeral expenses of members upon their death, and to assist the needy from the public assistance fund 67. On the occasion of the meeting of priests from Vâlcea County and the authentication of the statutes, Archpriest D. Bănescu sent a telegram highlighting his concern for the establishment of the Society: “The priests of Vâlcea County, gathered today in Râmnicu Vâlcea, have voted in favour of the statutes of the ‘Vistieria Ajutorul’ Society, which the Honourable Court authenticated at their request and following their collective visit to the Court, respectfully thank you for the guidance you have given them…”. Realising the significance of the moment, the bishop replied quite promptly, blessing this institution, which sought “solely to alleviate the suffering of the helpless and the afflicted”, and praying to “the God of mercy, that, watching over the Society of Vâlcea Priests from His holy heaven, He may keep it under His Holy protection for ever, for the good of the Romanian people and the glory of the Romanian Orthodox Autocephalous Church”68.

The following year, on 30 June, on the first feast day of the Society’s patron saints, the Holy Apostles, he celebrated the Divine Liturgy at the Church of All Saints in Râmnicu-Vâlcea, together with members of the branches from all the county capitals within the diocese. On this occasion, he conferred the rank of sachelar upon several priests who were members of the committees, and after the service, he donated the sum of 5,000 lei as the Society’s initial endowment, which he handed over to the president of the central branch,69

Other notable achievements

In particular, it is worth noting that Bishop Sofronie Vulpescu was involved in organising events of a national character. Highly regarded for his qualities, on 20 July 1905 he presided over a large protest rally in the Dacia Hall, ‘against the persecution of our brothers in Macedonia at the hands of the Greeks’, reading out the numerous telegrams received from all corners inhabited by Romanians, expressing solidarity with the anti-Greek rally, as well as the motion condemning the behaviour of the Greeks in Romania and urging Romanians everywhere to sever all ties with them. It was the first time in history that a Romanian hierarch had presided over a political gathering, making a strong impression on society, since “the struggle waged by the Romanians in Macedonia is for their language and for the Church”70

Other reports show that, on 25 January 1914, Bishop Sofronie, accompanied by the diocesan administrative staff, the abbots of the monasteries and the priests of Râmnicu-Vâlcea, a memorial service to mark the sixteenth anniversary of the death of Bishop Ghenadie Enăceanu, whose remains lie beside the infirmary of the Archdiocese of 71. Taking into account the documents of the time, we know that on 15 August 1914, the hierarch celebrated at Hurezi Monastery, in a special manner, the bicentenary of the martyrdom of Saint Constantin Brâncoveanu, its founder 72. As a token of gratitude, the festivities were subsequently moved to Bucharest, culminating in a fine address delivered by the great historian Nicolae Iorga 73.

Finally, it is worth noting, without going into detail, that on 18 May 1917, Sofronie officiated at the funeral service for Bishop Calist of Argeș, together with the hierarchs Valerian Râmniceanu and Meletie Constănțeanul 74.

The Diocese of Râmnic during the First World War

During the First World War, the Diocese of Râmnic made a significant contribution, supporting the ideals of freedom and national unity. Identifying with their flocks, numerous priests fulfilled their duty to their people and country, suffering beatings, interrogations, robbery, sentences of many years’ imprisonment, or execution by firing squad.

Called upon to organise ‘a more extensive and regular production of monastic cloth for the army’, in the monastic workshops, the Diocese of Râmnic, through its nunneries, produced 20,000 metres of cotton fabric for the 1st Light Howitzer Regiment in Slatina. At the same time, in the spring of 1916, money was collected from the parishes in Vâlcea to support the Romanian orphanage in the city of Sibiu, established to care for children who had lost their parents, who had been conscripted into the Austro-Hungarian army on the Italian and Galician fronts and had fallen in battle; and in September, soldiers undergoing convalescence received prayer books and small icons from the Diocese. Although on 1 October 1916, the Military Committee requested the printing of hospital admission forms (4,000), ration cards (5,000), telegraphic reports (1,000) and nominal lists of the wounded (2,500), the Diocesan Centre replied that ‘The Holy Diocese does not have its own printing press, and the one that is the personal property of His Grace Sofronie is not operational, as the staff have been mobilised since 15 August this year’.

Unfortunately, during this period, the Church of Oltenia, led by Bishop Sofronie, suffered greatly at the hands of the occupying forces; places of worship were desecrated or looted, and often destroyed by bombing. In addition to taking in entire families of priests and laypeople, refugees from Transylvania, as evidenced by a telegram dated 21 September 1916, Sofronie also composed a moving prayer, to encourage the soldiers at the front, which was read by priests in churches and from which we quote a short excerpt: ‘Thus, O Lord, God of mercy, hear us, your humble and unworthy servants, at this hour […], and grant strength to the armies that have crossed the borders to unite the Romanian people and bring about the realisation of a Greater Romania, from all quarters’75”.

Years of turmoil

In these times of distress for the people, the worthy hierarch endured severe trials, being forced to retreat to Bucharest towards the end of 1916 or the beginning of the following year 76 or, rather, on 13 May 1917. Upon leaving the episcopal residence, the bishop entrusted all his possessions to the care of three authorised representatives, ‘each managing matters in his own way, with each making receipts and payments without any order’77. Owing to his hostile attitude towards the occupying forces, on 19 May 1917 he was arrested by the German authorities 76 and held for a month and a half in the prison beneath the Military Circle in the capital, in complete darkness 78. A report from the Vâlcea Prefecture, submitted on 28 August 1917 to the Ministry of Religious Affairs to highlight the abnormal situation at the Bishopric – which had three administrators – states that the county authorities had not been informed of his imprisonment 79. The priest Marin Vulpescu from Bucharest was to speak of this fact, and he also gives a brief description of him: “Bishop Sofronie, however, had a curious nature, perhaps inherited from some unknown ancestor. That’s how the mountain folk are—bold people who speak the whole truth, striking with the full force of their sword and their words. People of integrity. They have the fangs of a snake when something does not suit them. Yet this way of being did not sit well with the humility required of the monastic order. How could this Dacian, highlander-like stubbornness have been reconciled with the oppression of the enemy who had invaded the country in the autumn of 1916? When he walked along the road, he would spit at them and curse them loudly. Such was Sofronie. He could not control his hatred towards them. This behaviour could not fail to have unpleasant consequences for him, however ‘bishop-like’ he might have been80

Sent into forced residence at Cheia Monastery, in Prahova County, he was subsequently exiled to the Peștera Ialomicioarei hermitage, where he lived in great misery and despair. To put an end to this situation, he wrote to Field Marshal Mackensen in Bucharest, asking to be “beheaded here where I am, or else deported to Germany. I can bear suffering more easily on foreign soil than on Romanian soil”. In his reply, the Field Marshal informed him that he ‘had no knowledge of his detention’ and permitted him to choose ‘a fixed place on this side, between the Carpathians and the Danube, suitable to Your situation, P.S. , close to the German observation posts, where you may enjoy better food, be near people you know, and be free to resume your former occupation of writing ecclesiastical works”. Thus, after lengthy negotiations, he settled in Căldărușani, then moved to Bucharest to stay with his nephew, the priest Marin Vulpescu of the Crețulescu Church 81. Brief notes indicate that in Căldărușani he met the priest Ilie Roșoga, from Gorj County, who “has much to tell of the time he spent living with his bishop”8

Following his arrest, the Diocese remained without a leader until the autumn of 1917, when Bishop Meletie Dobrescu was approved as his deputy 82. Released in the spring of 1918, he travelled to Iași, following the signing of the Treaty of Bucharest on 7 May, to take part in the meetings of the Holy Synod 83. Unfortunately, whilst travelling to Iași, he fell victim to two robbers, who “stole his episcopal mitre, crosses, jewellery and a sum of money amounting to approximately 15,000 lei, which they divided equally between themselves”84. It is not known whether he took part in any meetings, because, on 8 June, in a letter addressed to the king and forwarded to the Minister of Religious Affairs, he requested to be relieved of his office as bishop, as he was physically weakened following the events that had occurred during his exile. It seems that the hardships he endured had weakened him to such an extent that “he could no longer lead the Diocese of Râmnic with the zeal of the past”, but he expressed his wish to remain a member of the Holy Synod, being appointed to the post of bishop with the title of Bârlădeanu, in place of Calistrat Bârlădeanu, who had passed away in 1916 85.

As only his resignation had been approved, in the following years he requested the Holy Synod to admit him as a member, either as a bishop with the title of Bârlădeanu or as acting bishop at Râmnic, at a time when that see had no incumbent. The High Council, however, rejected his application on each occasion, on the grounds that his resignation had been legally accepted 86. Aware of his situation, the priest Marin Vulpescu noted with regret a few years later in one of his communications: “The fact that he did not retire to Moldova, as well as the protection afforded by Mackensen and his own character, contributed to the loss of his episcopal see”87. On the other hand, his decision to leave Râmnicu-Vâlcea whilst Oltenia was under occupation was condemned both by the authorities of the time and by the metropolitan, who, on 18 September 1917, stated that “as early as last autumn, without our canonical permission or any proper leave, after several months’ absence from his see […] he has now been taken hostage […] The vicar, His Grace Alexie of Craiova, is also absent; His Grace Sofronie himself refused to allow him to live there with him, but he has moved to Iași’88

The final years of his life

Throughout this period, Pro-Bishop Sofronie Vulpescu lived in Bucharest as a pensioner, publishing church calendars as well as other writings, as noted above 89. On 6 September 1923, he passed away and was buried, at the age of 67, in the cemetery of Cernica Monastery 90. Shortly afterwards, Archimandrite Iuliu Scriban wrote an article in the church press about his work as a hierarch, which shows us that, although he was a man of letters, with numerous books and pamphlets to his name, he did not receive much recognition from his contemporaries.

Above all, however, we must mention that he left behind a house on Romană Street and a rich library, which, upon his death, he bequeathed to the Nifon the Metropolitan Seminary, where he had studied and completed his lower secondary education. After 1948, his book collection, together with the library, was incorporated into the Library of the Romanian Patriarchate 91.

This, in broad terms, is the life and work of Bishop Sofronie Vulpescu, appointed head of the Diocese of Oltenia during the turbulent years of the First World War. Having risen through his own efforts, he knew how to overcome all the difficulties he encountered with determination and confidence, although he was criticised by some of his contemporaries, who perhaps did not know enough about his life and experiences, and above all his deeds in the service of the Church and the nation. Whilst acknowledging that he was not appreciated by those around him, we must not forget that he left his mark on the cultural life of his time, re-establishing a printing press in Râmnicu-Vâlcea—which had been left for many years in the care of local craftsmen—and constructing a new building for the Oltenian Theological Seminary. An author of theological works, a shepherd of souls and a capable administrator, he accepted his retirement from the episcopal office with resignation, being forced to live, almost forgotten, until the end of his life, although he was the only Romanian hierarch to have suffered during the war. In a way, perhaps he too contributed, through his attitude and convictions, to the realisation of the Great Union of 1918, just as other ministers of the Church did, as attested by numerous sources.

We consider it fitting to conclude this brief account of his work in the confidence that, in the future, other commemorative works will appear to honour his memory and highlight his achievements, placing him amongst the hierarchs who have shepherded with dignity in the bishopric of Râmnic.

Imagine

• 1

  P. GÂRBOVICEANU, ‘The Seminary in Râmnicul-Vâlcei’, in BOR, vol. XXXVII (1913), no. 10, pp. 489–518, Fr. PARTENIE, Yearbook of the ‘St Nicholas’ Seminary in Râmnicu Vâlcea for the academic year 1924–25, with a brief history from its foundation to the present day, Matei Basarab Press, Râmnicu Vâlcea, 1926, p. 112; Rev. Const. GRIGORE, Yearbook of the St Nicholas Seminary in Râmnicu Vâlcea for the academic years 1925–1929, Printed by the Cozia Press of the Holy Diocese of Râmnicu-Vâlcea, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1930, pp. 112–113.

• 2

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnicu Noul-Severin, The Orthodox Church Calendar for the months of October, November and December 1913, Dimitrie C. Ionescu Professional Printing Works, Bucharest, 1913, pp. 123–125.

• 3

  “Official Documents. Minutes of the Holy Synod’s meetings. Autumn session of the Holy Synod. Meeting of 22 October 1912”, in BOR, vol. XXXVI (1913), no. 11, p. 17.

• 4

  General Directorate of the State Archives of the Socialist Republic of Romania, Vâlcea in Documents 1865–1881, vol. II, Bucharest, 1986, no. 8, pp. 145, 312.

• 5

  Gheorghe PÂRNUȚĂ, Nicolae ANDREI, A History of Books, the Press and Printing in Oltenia, Craiova, 1994, pp. 303–304.

• 6

  Archimandrite SCRIBAN, ‘The Death of Bishop Sofronie’, in BOR, vol. XLI (1923), no. 12, p. 938.

• 7

  Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Hierarchs of the Oltenian Lands…, p. 347; Rev. Dumitru SANDU, The Diocese of Râmnic and Argeș. A Monograph, vol. I, Râmnicu Vâlcea, 1976, p. 138, states that “in Râmnic he established a printing press where he printed the ‘Calendar of the Orthodox Church’ on several occasions over a period of 20 years”.

• 8a8b8c

  Archimandrite SCRIBAN, The Death of Bishop Sofronie…, p. 938.

• 9

  “The Meetings of the Holy Synod. Autumn Session”, in BOR, vol. XXVII (1913), pp. 139–140.

• 10

  Protosinghel Sofronie VULPESCU, Orthodox Church Calendar for the Year of Salvation 1899, Church Books Printing House, Bucharest, 1899, p. 4.

• 11

  Protosinghel Sofronie VULPESCU, Orthodox Church Calendar for the Leap Year 1900, Church Books Printing House, Bucharest, 1900, pp. 1–187; G., ‘Bibliography. “Orthodox Church Calendar for the Leap Year 1900” printed by Protos. Sofronie Vulpescu’, in BOR, vol. XXIII (1900), no. 11, p. 1059.

• 12

  † Sofronie VULPESCU, Orthodox Church Calendar for the visect year 1904, Gutenberg Publishers, Bucharest, 1904, pp. 125–128.

• 13

  † Sofronie CRAIOVEANUL, Orthodox Church Calendar for the Year 1907, Church Books Printing House, Bucharest, 1907, pp. 1–162.

• 14

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnicu-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for July, August and September 1914, Church Books Printing House, Bucharest, 1914, pp. 1–162.

• 15

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnicu-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for the months of April, May and June, the second quarter of 1915, Bishop Sofronie’s Printing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1915, p. 42.

• 16

  Protosinghel Sofronie VULPESCU, ‘Man’s Free Will as a Principle of Moral Action’, Bucharest, Gutenberg Joseph Gobl Printing House, Bucharest, 1898, p. 108.

• 17

  † Sofronie CRAIOVEANUL, ‘An Overview of the Life and Works of Immanuel Kant’. A collection of essays by various authors, published by the Eminescu Institute of Graphic Arts, Bucharest, 1906, p. 109.

• 18

  † Sofronie CRAIOVEANUL, The Life and Passion of the Holy Great Martyr Catherine, the Most Wise Virgin, National Bookshop Press, Bucharest, 1908, pp. 1–56.

• 19

  † Sofronie CRAIOVEANUL, The Abridged New Testament, that is, Selected Passages from: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul; the General Epistles and the Book of Revelation, Bucharest, 1913, pp. 5–11.

• 20

  “Meetings of the Holy Synod. Autumn Session. Meeting of 30 October 1913”, in BOR (1913), p. 197.

• 21

  “For Information”, in BOR, vol. XXXIX (1915), no. 4, p. 446.

• 22

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic, The Wondrous Life of Saint Nicholas, Archbishop of Miralichia, Bucharest, 1916, p. VI.

• 23

  † SOFRONIE, the Bishop, Luther: His Life and Teachings. The Origins of Protestantism, Tipografia Profesională, Dim. C. Ionescu, Bucharest, 1923, p. 42.

• 24

  G…, ‘Religious Literature’, in BOR, vol. XXXIII (1909), no. 8, p. 950 (reviews); † SOFRONIE, the bishop, Luter…, cover.

• 25

  ‘For your information’, in BOR, vol. XXXIV (1910), no. 2, p. 120.

• 26

  B., Bishop Sofronie Vulpescu…, p. 53.

• 27

  † Sofronie CRAIOVEANUL, ‘Nifon, Metropolitan of Ungro-Wallachia († 5 May 1875)’, in BOR, vol. XXVI (1902), no. 1, pp. 67–68.

• 28

  † Sofronie CRAIOVEANUL, Bishop, ‘Romanian Titular Bishops in Our Church’, in BOR, vol. XXXVI (1912), no. 8, pp. 744–751.

• 29

  “Minutes of the Holy Synod’s meetings. The meeting of 19 May 1910”, in BOR, vol. XXXIV (1910), no. 4, p. 419.

• 30

  “The debates of the Holy Synod during the spring session. The year 1901. Minutes of the meetings of the Holy Synod during the spring session of 1901”, in BOR, vol. XXV (1901), no. 4, pp. 7–9.

• 31

  “The Debates of the Holy Synod during the Spring Session. The Year 1901. Minutes of the Meetings of the Holy Synod…”, pp. 55–57.

• 32

  “Official Documents. Summary of the meeting of 24 October 1907”, in BOR, vol. XXII (1908), no. 3, p. 245.

• 33

  “Official Documents. Summary of the meeting of 1 May 1908”, in BOR, vol. XXII (1908), no. 3, pp. 246–252.

• 34

  “Official Documents. Minutes of the meeting of 5 May 1908”, in BOR, vol. XXII (1908), no. 3, p. 258.

• 35

  “Minutes of the Holy Synod’s meetings. The meeting of 17 May 1910”, in BOR, vol. XXXIV (1910), no. 4, p. 413.

• 36

  “Official Documents. The Higher Ecclesiastical Consistory. Meeting of 13 October 1910”, in BOR, vol. XXXIV (1910), no. 8, p. 863.

• 37

  “The Meetings of the Holy Synod. Autumn Session. The meeting of 30 October 1913…”, pp. 187–188.

• 38

  “The Meetings of the Holy Synod. Autumn Session. The meeting of 30 October 1913…”, p. 197.

• 39

  “Meetings of the Holy Synod. Autumn session. Meeting of 31 October 1913”, in BOR (1913), p. 207.

• 40

  “Official Documents. Minutes of the Holy Synod’s meetings. The meeting of 31 May 1912”, in BOR, vol. XXXVI (1913), no. 11, p. 2.

• 41

  “The Meetings of the Holy Synod. Autumn Session. The meeting of 24 October 1913…”, p. 130.

• 42

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnicu Noul Severin, The Orthodox Church Calendar for the months of April, May and June 1914, Dim. C. Ionescu Professional Printing Works, Bucharest, 1914, pp. 62–64; ‘Address by His Eminence D. D. Sofronie of “Râmnicu Noul Severin” to the Senate on 30 March 1914, on the occasion of the passing of the law on the administrative organisation of the annexed territory’, in BOR, vol. XXXVIII (1914), no. 3, pp. 270–274. Fr Claudiu COTAN, ‘Bishop Sofronie Vulpescu and the Diocese of Râmnicu-Noul Severin in the years 1913–1918’, in Orthodoxia, Series II, vol. VIII (2016), no. 1, pp. 149–150.

• 43

  Rev. Dr Laurențiu RĂDOI, Vâlcea: A Cradle of Romanian Culture and Spirituality, Alma Mater Publishing House, Sibiu, 2012, pp. 151–450 (with bibliography).

• 44

  Dumitru SANDU, The Diocese of Râmnic…, pp. 512–591.

• 45

  “Măceșu de Sus commune, Dolj County”, http://www.comunamacesudesus.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=17&limitstart=2, accessed on 28 December 2018.

• 46

  Prof. Dr Ștefan Sava GRIGORESCU, ‘The Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God – Condeești’ http://marketbiz.ro/d/condeesti/-info/154/istoric-condeesti/, accessed on 28 December 2018.

• 47

  “Ciulnița Parish”, https://lacasuriortodoxe.ro/d/ciulnita/-info/376/istoric-ciulnita/, accessed on 28 December 2018.

• 48

  P. G., ‘Two churches, historic monuments’, in BOR, vol. XXXIX (1915), no. 2, p. 170.

• 49

  Nicolae MOGA, Gheorghe STANCIU, Voineasa – the paradigm of identity. A monographic study, Timpul Publishing House, Reșița, 2002, p. 151.

• 50

  “Meetings of the Holy Synod. Autumn Session. The meeting of 21 October 1913”, in BOR (1913), pp. 92–93.

• 51

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnicu Noul-Severin, The Orthodox Church Calendar for the months of October, November and December 1913…, pp. 126–127.

• 52

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for the month of September 1915, ‘Bishop Sofronie’ Printing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1915, p. 134.

• 53a53b

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for the month of September 1915…, p. 130.

• 54

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for the month of November 1915…, p. 167.

• 55

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for February of the Visect year 1916, Bishop Sofronie’s Printing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1916, p. 40.

• 56

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for the year 1916, April, Bishop Sofronie’s Printing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1916, p. 96.

• 57

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for June 1916…, p. 146.

• 58

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for June 1916…, p. 155.

• 59

  VÂLCEA STATE ARCHIVES, Vâlcea County Prefecture, 1914, file 24, p. 14 (to be cited as ASV).

• 60

  ASV, Vâlcea County Prefecture, 1914, file 24, p. 21.

• 61

  ASV, Vâlcea County Prefecture, 1914, file 24, p. 42.

• 62

  ASV, Vâlcea County Prefecture, 1914, file 24, p. 54.

• 63

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for the year 1916, January, Bishop Sofronie’s Printing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1916, p. 18.

• 64

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for May 1916, Bishop Sofronie’s Printing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1916, p. 134.

• 65

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for the year 1916, January…, p. 18.

• 66

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for June 1916…, p. 159.

• 67

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for the month of February in the visect year 1916…, p. 43; † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for the month of March in the Visect year 1916, Bishop Sofronie’s Printing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1916, p. 86.

• 68

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for the year 1915, August, Bishop Sofronie’s Printing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1915, p. 111.

• 69

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for July 1916, Bishop Sofronie’s Printing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1916, pp. 177–183.

• 70

  C., ‘Letter from Bucharest’, in Gazeta Transilvaniei, 1905, no. 162, p. 2.

• 71

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for the month of September 1915…, pp. 122–123, 128.

• 72

  † SOFRONIE, Bishop of Râmnicu Noul Severin, Orthodox Church Calendar for the year 1915, August…, unnumbered; Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Hierarchs of the Oltenian Lands…, p. 348.

• 73

  Claudiu COTAN, Bishop Sofronie Vulpescu…, p. 150.

• 74

  Archimandrite I. SCRIBAN, ‘Internal Church Chronicle: The Death of Bishop Calist’, in BOR, vol. XL (1922), no. 6, p. 461.

• 75

  Laurențiu RĂDOI, Vâlcea, a cradle of culture…, pp. 487–490 (with bibliography).

• 76a76b

  Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Hierarchs of the Oltenian Lands…, p. 348.

• 77

  Prof. Dumitru GAROAFĂ, ‘The Fate of Places of Worship in Vâlcea during the Years of Foreign Occupation (1916–1918)’, in Misiunea, vol. V (2018), no. 1 (5), p. 116.

• 78

  Grigore N. POPESCU, The Romanian Priesthood…, p. 347.

• 79

  Dumitru GAROAFĂ, The Fate of Places of Worship in Vâlcea…, p. 119, note 73.

• 80

  Grigore N. POPESCU, The Romanian Clergy…, p. 347.

• 81

  Archimandrite I. SCRIBAN, ‘Internal Church Chronicle. The Resignation of Bishop Sofronie’, in BOR, vol. XL (1922), no. 6, p. 461; Grigore N. POPESCU, The Romanian Clergy…, pp. 347–348; Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Bishops of Râmnic…, p. 206; Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Hierarchs of the Oltenian Lands…, p. 348.

• 82

  Archimandrite I. SCRIBAN, ‘Internal Church Chronicle. The Bishops during the German Occupation”, in BOR, vol. XL (1922), no. 6, p. 462; Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Hierarchs of the Oltenian Lands…, p. 349; “Bibliography. ‘Yearbook of the Diocese of Râmnicu-Noul Severin for the years 1921–1925’ compiled by His Grace Vartolomei of Râmnicu-Noul Severin”, in BOR, vol. XLIII (1925), no. 4, p. 256; Dumitru GAROAFĂ, The Fate of the Places of Worship in Vâlcea…, p. 116 (On 14 September 1017, in a letter, the Church Administration informed the Prefecture that ‘shortly all the shortcomings at the Holy Diocese of Râmnic will be rectified, as the Military Administration has decided to send a guarantor to the Holy Diocese’).”

• 83

  Grigore N. POPESCU, The Romanian Clergy…, p. 348 (On the occasion of the first prisoner exchanges between the Romanians and the Germans, he managed to cross into Moldova through the mediation of university professor Dragomir Demetrescu.); Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Hierarchs of the Oltenian Lands…, p. 348.

• 84

  Carmen ANGHEL, Father Christmas. The thief who became a comic-book hero, https://m.jurnalul.antena3.ro/special-jurnalul/reportaje/tata-mosu-hotul-devenit-erou-de-benzi-desenate 683825.html https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Sofronie_Vulpescu, accessed on 28 December 2018.

• 85

  Grigore N. POPESCU, The Romanian Clergy…, p. 348 (Father Marin Vulpescu of Bucharest states that in Iași he was no longer permitted to attend Senate meetings, and was even advised to resign, which he did on condition that he be appointed auxiliary bishop for life in a diocese in Moldavia.); I. SCRIBAN, Internal Ecclesiastical Chronicle. The Resignation of Bishop Sofronie…, p. 463; Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Bishops of Râmnic…, p. 206; Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Hierarchs of the Oltenian Lands…, p. 348; Claudiu COTAN, Bishop Sofronie Vulpescu…, pp. 153–154, cited in THE CENTRAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL ARCHIVES, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Public Instruction, Accounting Department, File No. 773/1918, f. 2.

• 86

  Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Bishops of Râmnic…, p. 206.

• 87

  Grigore N. POPESCU, The Romanian Clergy…, p. 348.

• 88

  I. SCRIBAN, Internal Ecclesiastical Chronicle: The Bishops during the German Occupation…, p. 462; Ciprian-Marius SÂRBU, ‘The Bishops of Râmnic and Romanian Political Life between 1859 and 1918’, in Buridava, X, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 2012, pp. 168–169.

• 89

  I. SCRIBAN, Internal Church Chronicle. The Resignation of Bishop Sofronie…, p. 464; Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Hierarchs of the Oltenian Lands…, p. 348.

• 90

  Archimandrite SCRIBAN, The Death of Bishop Sofronie…, p. 938; Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Bishops of Râmnic…, p. 206.

• 91

  Archimandrite SCRIBAN, The Death of Bishop Sofronie…, p. 938. (“It is said that he bequeathed his fine library to the Nifon Seminary, where he had studied; however, this was later denied. He died without having made any arrangements regarding his estate”.) Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, The Bishops of Râmnic…, p. 206; N. Șerbănescu, The Hierarchs of the Oltenian Lands…, p. 348.