Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu – a providential hierarch. Pastoral and missionary achievements

Remembered by future generations as a scholar of the highest academic calibre, a tireless advocate for the rights of the clergy and a champion of ‘social Christianity’, Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu of Râmnic was ‘one of the most influential voices of the Romanian Orthodox Church in the first half of the 20th century’1 To better understand his personality and his importance to the diocese on the right bank of the Olt, we shall first outline his work prior to taking charge of it, especially as there are records from that time, as well as some more recent writings, compiled with great care by enthusiasts of our ecclesiastical past who are interested in his achievements.

His life and work prior to his election as a bishop

Born on 25 August 1875 into the family of Stan Stănescu, in the village of Ciuperceni, Flămânda commune, Teleorman County, at the appropriate age he was sent to school in the local village, then to those in Dracea and Traian, where he distinguished himself through outstanding results, under the guidance of a good teacher who knew how to instil in him a love of learning and a thorough academic discipline. Having a natural inclination towards matters of the faith, he attended the Central Seminary and the Faculty of Theology in Bucharest, graduating with a Bachelor’s degree with Magna cum laude honours. Driven by a desire for a more elevated spiritual life, in 1905, he entered monastic life, being ordained a hierodeacon at the Metropolitan Cathedral in the capital and, in the same year, appointed deacon at the Romanian Chapel in Paris. There, he had his Bachelor’s degree in Theology recognised and, at the same time, the faculties of Catholic and Protestant Theology, as well as courses in Literature, Law and Sociology at the Sorbonne, with the aim of submitting his doctoral thesis under the supervision of Professor Émile Durkheim, the founder of the French school of sociology.

Noted for his outstanding qualities, in 1909 he was summoned back to his homeland by Bishop Nifon of the Lower Danube and ordained archimandrite-vicar of that diocese. After a few months, however, he resigned from the post of vicar and returned to Paris, where he completed the studies he had begun, obtaining his law degree. If he did not manage to complete his doctoral thesis in Sociology, it was only because in 1912 he returned to Romania once more, to be elevated to the rank of Bishop of Roman, with the title of Băcăoanul.

Enjoying a good public reputation, he was appointed, in turn, editor of the journal The Romanian Orthodox Church, abbot of the Saint Spiridon Monasteries in Iași, Inspector-General of the seminaries, a member of the Permanent Council of the Ministry of Education, administrator of the Church Fund, missionary for the organisation of the Church in the Cadrilater region, full professor in the Department of New Testament Exegesis at the Faculty of Theology in Bucharest, and, during the First World War, a teacher of Religion and the Romanian language at the Vasile Lupu Teacher Training College in Bogzești. Although he was the favourite for the seat of Primate Metropolitan, he did not appear on the list of nominees drawn up by the Ecclesiastical Electoral College; instead, Bishop Miron Cristea of Caransebeș 2 was elected.

Election as Bishop of Râmnic

Recognised for his work, in January 1919 he was appointed assistant bishop at Curtea de Argeș, leading the diocese until 1 April 1920, when he took over as acting bishop of the Diocese of Râmnic, in place of Bishop Alexie Șerban of Craiova, who was seriously ill. His tenure as locum tenens lasted until 17 March 1921, when Parliament and the Holy Synod elected him ‘canonical bishop’; he was confirmed on 6–7 April and enthroned later that month, on Palm Sunday (3). On the occasion of his election, he delivered a moving speech in the Grand College, speaking of the country’s clergy, ‘conceived at the same time as the people and afflicted like them’, and of the Cross of the Saviour and of His Church, which he was to receive 4. To better illustrate the significance of the moment and of this election for our Church, Father Cicerone Iordăchescu wrote to the Primate Metropolitan on 4 April 1921: “The election of His Grace Vartolomeu and Father Puiu as bishops of Vâlcea and Argeș was greeted by the clergy here with great enthusiasm. Amidst the current drought in our Church and the whirlwind of passions and strange notions, you have gained two comrades-in-arms, with whose help Your Eminence’s vision will be crowned with even greater success. Both men of culture, with an understanding of the new times and, above all, of the Christian life, they will support you in the struggle to purify and Christianise our Christian and Romanian life”5

As reported by the press at the time, at his installation on 24 April, the newly elected bishop, regarded as “an ornament of the Romanian Orthodox clergy”, delivered his address freely, impressing the audience “with its erudite content and eloquent delivery”6 The mission he had undertaken as early as 1920 led him to declare, with evident emotion: ‘Today I take up the mantle of the entire region of Oltenia, deeply rooted by Christ and by the passage of time in our history and in our souls, and so renowned for the strength of the faith it has fostered in these lands. I tremble at the thought that I am following in the footsteps of so many hierarchs who, from this seat of responsibility and honour, have guided our people towards the Lord. […] Around this altar, both old and young in years, bishops such as Antim Ivireanul—renowned for his learning and talents and a martyr for the faith— Damaschin, the scholar and Romanian with a fiery soul; Chesarie, of whom the people said in his day that ‘the Romanian land shall never again see a bishop like him, however long it may endure’; and Calinic, simple in mind, yet with a soul as deep as calm waters and as pure as a spring from the rock’7 These unique moments in his life were also to be commemorated in a commemorative volume, written on the occasion of his 60th birthday: “He who possessed a manifest power of creativity, of hard work and a sound conception of church organisation is called to be spiritual shepherd and ruler of the most beautiful Diocese in the country. Prince of the Church of Oltenia. A man of lofty ideals, an idealist, a scholar and a thinker, persistent and with an iron will, here he is in the high and holy office of the Episcopate.”

Pastoral and missionary work

Upon taking charge of the diocese, Bishop Vartolomeu sought, from his very first year, to assess the condition of the priests and the faithful. Concerned for the welfare of his spiritual children, he found a spiritual situation in deep crisis, with the clergy disorganised and living in abject misery and poverty, especially in the villages, with no other activity apart from worship services 8, but also numerous offences, such as: mismanagement of parish assets, refusal to conduct church services according to the canons, the levying of unauthorised fees, assaults, insults, disobedience towards the authorities, failure to wear clerical attire, failure to reside in the parishes, drunkenness, debauchery and cohabitation, as evidenced by a report from the diocesan inspector 9. Although the State recognised the priests’ merits, their financial situation remained precarious, with salaries remaining unpaid for months on end 10.

Given these sad realities, there was a need for a solid and unified organisation—in missionary, cultural, administrative and economic terms—based on hierarchical authority, initiative, the contribution and freedom of action of the clergy. Aware of the Church’s calling in difficult times, the new bishop carried out excellent pastoral work, making a lasting impression during his visits through the dignity and piety he displayed, as well as through the sermons he delivered in every parish. From the notes of the archpriests, we note the originality of his ideas, his evangelical conviction, his enthusiasm and his ability to provide the country with an active Church, capable of transforming people and contributing to the spiritual and moral strengthening of the nation 11. For example, in the report on the canonical visits made to churches in Gorj County in 1921, his words spoken in the parish of Cartin, in the commune of Turcinești, are recorded, concerning work, the vice of drunkenness and participation in the Holy Services, “where a person can come into contact with God, for here the Saviour is truly present in the sacrament of Holy Communion”12.

Setting as his ideal “the formation of the moral man, the evangelical man, his re-Christianisation and the transformation of society into an evangelical home”13, Bishop Vartolomeu initiated a wide-ranging pastoral project by establishing the Renaissance Society, based in Craiova. Unique for its time, this “vibrant movement for a new endeavour”14, founded in 1923, comprised all active and retired priests and deacons in the diocese 15. Aiming to foster the theological and encyclopaedic development of the clergy, to educate the faithful, to generate income for priests, to assist the needy, to cultivate a spirit of solidarity, and to defend the prestige of the Church and the priesthood 16, it soon became ‘the Gospel in action […] the Holy Altar descending into the home and the entire sphere of activity and life of Christians […] Christ the Saviour, preaching and working anew at the work of salvation, through all those ordained in His name’17. Through it, “He has enabled the ministers of the altar to be part of a true school of solidarity, of evangelical formation and of encouragement towards constructive action”. In this regard, the bishop set out several objectives 18, which required priests to extend their liturgical activity towards the Christianisation of society, as he was to say: “How shall we do this? By combining, of course, our priestly culture with secular culture […] Let us unite morality with hygiene, as in the Old Testament; and let us accustom ourselves to assisting the people in their work and in their domestic and social economy...”19

To achieve these objectives, the members of the Society were organised into 79 parish centres, comprising 8–12 parishes in rural areas and all the local parishes in each town 20. Through these centres, the bishop noted in his circular of February 1922, “we have sought to raise up among the people companions in piety and Christian teaching […] we have sought to call upon the Orthodox clergy of our national Church to support our beloved people, so that through their light, wisdom and entire evangelical mission they may contribute to the moral, religious, cultural and domestic uplifting of this people”. On more than a few occasions, prizes and certificates were awarded at these gatherings, aid was distributed to children, leaflets, small icons and medals were handed out, or collections were organised for the construction of churches, schools, pharmacies, people’s banks or consumer cooperatives, as was the case with the Cernătești Parish Centre in Dolj County, where, with the support of the parishioners, a parish library, a school, a pharmacy and a people’s bank 21 were established. From a speech addressed to the bishop in 1935 by Father Constantin Stănică, chairman of the Society’s Central Committee, we learn that in recent years books and pamphlets worth 1,752,781 lei had been distributed, and aid for widows, orphans and the poor totalling 19,240,000 lei 22. With a view to ensuring the participation of all the faithful in the activities carried out in the parishes, the bishop ordered, in 1937, that in all the villages of Oltenia the villagers should repair the cemetery fences, and that children should clean the graves, planting flowers and straightening the crosses, every 9 March and also on Maundy Thursday and the Ascension, as well as on Heroes’ Day 23.

To better understand his involvement in the smooth running of these centres, it is worth noting that he even attended certain meetings. Thus, the minutes of the meeting held on 29 April 1923 at the Parish Centre in Râmnicu-Vâlcea show that he urged the audience “to draw as close as possible to this movement, which seeks to win over the souls of the faithful and guide them towards Christ’, and that the meetings should include a commentary on a biblical text or a reading from the Holy Fathers or from other religious and moral works 24.

Under the supervision of the parish centres, with the support of the Society’s governing bodies, in every parish, cultural committees and moral councils, through which the tireless hierarch set out to educate the faithful in the tradition of our Orthodox Church. Whilst the former aimed to cultivate a taste for reading, the councils were intended to improve morals and instil virtues in the souls of the parishioners, to prevent divorce and cohabitation, and to provide catechism for children and adults 25. To this end, a circular dated February 1924 stipulated that every priest, in his capacity as chairman of the council, should draw up a list of sins and virtues to be discussed during meetings with parishioners: ‘providing, to aid understanding of the texts of Holy Scripture, vivid cases and examples, drawn both from ecclesiastical and national history, as well as from around the world and from people’s everyday lives’26.

To ensure the smooth running of the cultural committees and moral guidance councils, a parish book distribution scheme was established in every locality, distributing in the first seven months, up to 1925, no fewer than 59,956 publications and 7,087 icons27. Dissatisfied with certain centres which were purchasing books commercially without the approval of the Diocesan Centre, he sent a circular to the archpriests listing the names of those who ‘had not purchased any books for the stated purpose, from the warehouse of this Holy Diocese, with the obligation to convene an extraordinary meeting of their senior clergy, so that they might thus recognise their shortcomings, in which their centres have placed themselves in comparison with the other 42 centres that are in order, and to submit their report regarding the cause of this deviation from the duties imposed by our strict orders in this regard’28

Closely linked to the organised work of the cultural committee for the religious education of parishioners, parish libraries were established, stocked with various religious, moral and scientific books and pamphlets, suited to their level of understanding 29. Two years after the Society’s establishment, 225 parish libraries were operating in Oltenia: 45 in Dolj, 36 in Gorj, 63 in Mehedinți, 34 in Romanați and 47 in Vâlcea 30. Over time, the centres organised their own separate libraries, some of which were mobile, and which they took round the villages on the occasion of their meetings 31. In addition to these were the community libraries, regarded by the hierarchy as ‘a cultural beacon of the community and a living source of religious and social education for the family’. In 1936, across the five counties, the number of home libraries exceeded 15,000, containing over 280,000 volumes, acquired through parish book-selling campaigns or on the recommendation of priests.

Furthermore, this cultural endeavour was complemented by the emergence of church choirs, with considerable efforts being made to establish them in every village. By 1936, they had been organised in more than a third of parishes, consisting in most cases of primary school children. In turn, each centre had its own choir, led by a priest, which took part in the rehearsals organised in the summer at Cozia, under the baton of Sabin Drăgoi, Ion Vidu 32 and Archdeacon I. Mardale 33.

It is worth noting that the entire activity of the parish centres was overseen by the county assemblies and the diocesan assembly, in which the bishop also took part. Thus, on the occasion of the first constituent session of the Diocesan Assembly, he made a heartfelt appeal to its members that into the ‘new body’, that is, in a united Romania, ‘we should breathe new life, yet one rooted in the old spirit of our race and our history; for only this spirit is for us vigorous and tried and tested’34 From a report to the Diocesan Assembly of 2 May 1926, we learn that, on his initiative, three funds were established at the Bishop’s See for cultural, missionary and philanthropic purposes, for priests suffering from tuberculosis, and another fund, comprising his share of the proceeds from the processions with the relics of Saint Gregory and his waiver of one-third of the income due to him from the arable land at Izbiceni, in Romanați County. Here, too, it is worth mentioning another fund, which came from the ordination fee paid by candidates for the priesthood, established as early as 1921 with the approval of the staff serving at the Episcopal Cathedral, from which the widows of priests were supported, whose children were at school or were minors, and was used to purchase furnishings, rugs and carpets required for the church. Furthermore, the Renașterea Society had its own fund, to which, in addition to a donation of 21,000 lei, Bishop Vartolomeu contributed a further third of his income from the land in Izbiceni. As with the Diocese’s fund, he transferred to the Society, in the first harvest year—1924—the sum of 97,000 lei, plus 69,350.50 lei from the maize harvest, and was to continue this annual contribution 35. On the occasion of the Diocesan Assembly on 13 May 1928, he urged the priests to engage in acts of charity, considering that Oltenia, although a wealthy region of the country, had many orphans, widows and the poor, who needed to be helped by the Church 36.

The fact that the association was constantly supported by its leader was also demonstrated by his presence and speeches at the diocesan congresses, which were “occasions for truly stirring moments of fervent spiritual resonance and cultural vitality”37. Whilst at the first congress, held in 1923 in Craiova, he expressed his desire to establish a Theological Academy, for which he donated 15,000 lei 38, at the second, held in 1924, in Turnu Severin 39, he announced that he had purchased 40 pogoane of land in Râmnicu-Sărat 40 for the Society. The following year, whilst attending the meeting in Râmnicu-Vâlcea, he proposed the establishment of a recreational centre for seminary students at Tismana Monastery, an institute for the education of priests’ daughters at Bistrița Monastery, and a rest home for the clergy at Locuri Rele Hermitage, in the Jiu Valley 41. Of particular importance remains the 1926 congress, at which it was concluded “that the only institution capable of shaping the souls of peoples, and especially of our Romanian people, can be none other than the Church of our nation”, and “the foremost educational influences on the human heart and soul—and especially on the Romanian soul—can be none other than the priests of this Church”42.

In particular, we must also bear in mind the resolution of 28 November 1935, from the proceedings of the 1934 congress, in which the following conclusion is set out: ‘Since the Church of the Saviour of mankind is the source of deeds that endure on earth through their benevolence, as if springing from heaven, we believe that the Priestly Society of our beloved Oltenian clergy has, this year, begun to become such a source. We pray that it may never run dry. We wish it to be ever more vibrant and fruitful’43 It is also worth noting the lecture given in December 1935 in Turnu Severin, where he spoke on the role of women in society, as well as the one in Strehaia, where ‘His Holiness, with vivacity, great verve and fatherly benevolence, expounded on the same subject using carefully chosen, accessible language, bringing it down to a level that everyone could understand’44. Another moment of spiritual reflection was provided by the lectures delivered in the towns of Vâlcea County, particularly the one in Horezu, where he is described as follows: “so absorbed is the hierarch in the times through which his mind and heart wander whilst speaking, that he pays no heed to the beads of sweat covering his forehead and trickling down his cheeks, settling on his white beard like pearls’45”.

Wishing to offer greater protection to the clergy of Oltenia, he also initiated the establishment of priests’ co-operative banks, through which funds were secured for elderly priests or those in need, and to finance soup kitchens and other activities. Priest Ion Marina, the future patriarch, played a key role in the development of this system; in 1929, on the hierarch’s initiative, founded the ‘Ajutorul’ People’s Bank in Râmnicu-Vâlcea, with the signatures of 120 priests 46. Its purpose was to assist priests in hospitals, priests’ wives, theology students and social canteens, providing a grant of 30,000 lei upon the death of each member priest and a further 15,000 lei upon the death of each priest’s wife 47. Subsequently, similar people’s banks were established in all the counties of Oltenia: the Gorj Clergy Bank (1931), the Mehedinți Clergy Bank (1931), ‘Sprijinul’ in Craiova (1933) and the Romanăți Clergy in Caracal (1934). A balance sheet drawn up on 31 December 1940 shows that the Ajutorul Bank had 180 priests as members, with total assets of 4,197,513 lei 48.

To support the clergy, Bishop Vartolomeu urged the priests to establish priests’ hostels in the county towns, the premises of which also housed the offices of the Society’s county branches and various institutions, such as: the deanery, the priests’ bank, the library, and cultural and conference halls 49. The first was the Renașterea residence in Craiova, built between 1933 and 1934, near St Dumitru’s Cathedral, followed by those in Râmnicu-Vâlcea (a building in the town centre), Tg. Jiu, Turnu Severin and Romanați County 50. On the occasion of the inauguration of the one in Craiova, the Primate of Oltenia said that ‘this home, which is a testament to its vitality, can only be regarded as a temple of duty’51

Among the projects carried out at his instigation, with the aim of alleviating the priests’ hardships, we also include the candle factory in Craiova, set up on the Society’s premises, in the basement 52. Its establishment in 1927 was intended to generate independent income for parishes and to stabilise beekeeping in Oltenia, an area in which Mehedinți County excelled 53. Brief records indicate that at the diocesan congress held in the summer of 1929 in Călimănești, it was decided that wax candles, manufactured in Craiova, should be distributed and the cost collected locally. From a report by Father Dumitru Stancu of the Izbiceni Parish, in Romanați County, we learn that in the spring of 1930 he visited 119 parishes, many of them in Vâlcea County, distributing candles worth 300,000 lei 54.

Deeply rooted in the spiritual life of the diocese, the bishop realised that the protoieries played a rather important role. Thus, at the Diocesan Council meeting on 1 May 1926, he proposed that, during the Assembly the following day, a discussion should take place regarding the establishment of 16 new deaneries in addition to the existing eight, for which he had already made representations to the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Since 30 deaneries had been in operation since 1929, often housed in the deans’ own homes, and as maintenance costs were covered solely by contributions from the priests, the archpriests, meeting on 19 June 1931 in Craiova, proposed a return to the administrative system with a single head per county, as in the county administrations. Although only 10 deaneries remained, two in each county, the bishop attempted, in 1937, through an order addressed to the deans of the diocese, to improve the functioning of the institutions they led, enacting several measures: all correspondence between the Diocese and the deaneries should not be delayed for more than a week; investigations should be completed within a maximum of three weeks; and the installation of newly ordained clergy and the inspection of church repairs should not be delayed for more than 10 days 55.

Also on his initiative, a missionary service was organised within the diocese to combat sects and convert those who had strayed. Thus, Circular No. 3,818/1923, addressed to missionary priests, stipulated that, in order to ensure the smooth running of the mission to combat Adventism and Baptism, religious propaganda was part of the duty of every minister of the Church 56. To this end, he divided the diocese into 36 sectors, each headed by a well-trained missionary priest, under the leadership of an inspector 57. Subsequently, the priests were assigned to 54 sectors, assisted by 14 lay missionaries and colporteurs, who, to ensure they were well-trained, attended courses every summer at the monasteries of Tismana, Cozia and Arnota 58. From a report he read out at the Higher Ecclesiastical Consistory, we learn of his plan for combating heresies: ‘to counter these heresies with a cultural movement, a moral order and Christian social assistance, capable not only of preserving, without any diminution, the ranks of our Orthodox faithful around our altars in the future, but also of bringing back to the Orthodox fold of our ancestors those sons of our Church who have become heretics’59 To counter this, he also set up a cultural, artistic and religious team, comprising 25 final-year seminary students who, under the guidance of several teachers, travelled to various localities, seeking through various artistic programmes, sermons and lectures to stimulate religious sentiment and strengthen respect for the traditions 60. As a result of the measures taken, ‘thanks to the firm hand of His Grace Bishop Vartolomeiu, the clergy of Oltenia have, over these 10 years, to rise to the level now being attained by those in other dioceses, and that in Oltenia more than three-quarters of the heretics (those who had strayed) have returned to the bosom of the Orthodox Church’61”.

A remarkable shepherd of souls, from 1934 onwards, he urged priests towards a new form of spiritual activity, aimed at spiritual development, the strengthening of the apostolic spirit and drawing closer to God through meditation. Testimony to this are the ‘spiritual retreats’, whose programme, drawn up at Tismana Monastery, consisted of the daily celebration of the Divine Liturgy, followed by meditations, commentaries on the texts of the Holy Gospel, moments of reflection and prayers at the tomb of Saint Nicodimus. The value and contribution of these initiations ‘were first understood in all their superiority, grandeur and fruitful richness by His Grace Vartolomeu. The learned hierarch, who so often retreats into the tranquillity of the holy monasteries, living there and everywhere his life of pure and lofty spirituality, was the most suitable person to grant this initiative not only passive approval, but also active encouragement and impetus’. According to his biographer, he had a well-established spiritual routine, which included two hours of daily prayer and a strict fast on Fridays, when he would have only a cup of tea in the evening, spending three to four hours in prayer and meditation. He followed the same routine during the major fasts, which His Holiness62 observed with great devotion, becoming an example to those who knew him: “His Holiness’s life, sober and austere, the fasts and vigils he observed for days on end, combined with lengthy and fervent personal prayers, are a unique and revealing example of His Holiness’s character’63”.

Without going into detail, we must say that, alongside the missionary courses for the clergy, he wished to establish at Arnota Monastery a monastic community, comprising licensed hieromonks and hierodeacons holding degrees in Theology, who would celebrate the Divine Liturgy every morning, then, for no more than three hours, and also after lunch, to take part in the reading and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and other works of the Holy Fathers, and in their spare time to engage in various crafts in the workshops. The value of the courses at Arnota is demonstrated by him in the Address he delivered at their opening, in the autumn of 1937: ‘Through the courses of my humble teaching and through the lectures which you will continue to deliver to complement them, we must demonstrate, this time drawing upon secular knowledge as well, that at the very heart of human life there are two lights, through which man is bound both to earth and to Heaven […] Both these lights were given to him by that Heavenly Father, Who did not limit His love for man merely to the being and life He bestowed upon him, butmade clear, through the Founder of our Holy Church, Jesus Christ, the manner in which man ought to understand and live his life”64.

Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu did not overlook clerical discipline either, establishing, alongside the diocesan and archpriestly courts, ‘juries of honour’ within parish centres—a sort of quasi-ecclesiastical quasi-legal bodies, with members elected by vote, intended to adjudicate disciplinary matters concerning priests in a familiar atmosphere. Serving Christ the Saviour, in word and deed, in due course and beyond, he paid special attention to clerical attire, through the circular issued on 15 November 1930, which addressed priests who went about dressed in lay clothes, considering the cassock ‘a burden or an embarrassment’. Warning them that they would be suspended and tried by the Spiritual Consistory, he reminded them that the wearing of the priestly vestments had been solemnly promised by each of them on the day of their ordination, as required by the ecclesiastical laws in force 65. In 1935, it was decided that priests must wear it when attending meetings of parish centres and county branches or the Society’s annual congress, on pain of suspension from duty for one month, with their salary withheld, except whilst travelling, when they were free to wear a hat or cap, depending on the weather 66.

We should also note here that the Society’s activities were complemented during that period by those of other organisations, such as: the Ciobanul Petrache Lupu Evangelical Settlement and the Evangelical Society of Ladies and Young Ladies of Oltenia, whose aims were: medical assistance, the moral rehabilitation of convicts, care for beggars, vagrants and women in distress, the fight against alcoholism, adapting education to practical life, supporting young people in schools, and organising exhibitions of products made by its own members 67. Interested in the work of this society, the bishop attended several congresses, such as those held in 1924 68 and 1931, where he spoke to those present about the role of women in the world 69. Taking into account the situation of the infirm, who had taken refuge at the Evangelical Settlement, he arranged for missionary monks trained at Arnota Monastery and monks ordained at Mamu Monastery, in Vâlcea County 70. For the wives of priests, the ladies and young women of Oltenia, and the primary school teachers and schoolmistresses throughout the diocese, he founded in 1938 the Society of the Entry of the Mother of God into the Church, which had “the closest working relationship with the priesthood, because all the chairmen of the parish committees are priests; and the honorary chairmen of the county and central assemblies are also priests”71

Founder of places of worship

During this period, Bishop Vartolomeu 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. First and foremost, we note the monastic settlements: Dintr-un Lemn, Cozia, Jitianu, Lainici, Dobrușa, Ostrov, Călui, Surpatele, Pătrunsa and Arnota, which have undergone repairs on his initiative, as well as the parish churches in Berești, Băbeni-Oltețu, Budești, Bujoreni, Buleta, Căzănești, Gorunești-Popești, Folești, Laloșu, Ștefănești and Urșani, in Vâlcea County, Albești, Almăj, Amăraștii de Sus, Apele Vii, Balota, Brădești, Cornetu and Orodelu, in Dolj County; Balș, Brebeni, Cocorăști, Deleni and Doba, in Olt County; Baia de Fier, Boasca, Brădiceni, Găvănești, Ionești, Nistorești and Novaci in Gorj County, and Ciovârnășani, Corlățel, Poiana, Rupturi, Salcia, Valea Marcului and Văgiulești in Mehedinți County. During this period, the new places of worship in Vâlcea County – in Drăgășani, Voicești, Râmești, Pietroasa, Ciumagi and Amărăști72 – were consecrated, alongside those in Bistrețu, Cârcea, Glodu, Orășani, Răcarii de Sus and Răcarii de Jos in Dolj; Bucinișu, Gostavățu, Grojdibod, Horezu-Curtișoara and Praporul, in Olt, Porceni-Sâmbotin and Racoți; in Gorj, Busu, Grozești, Lupșa, Ostrovu-Mare, Piria, Țigănași and Valea Ursului, in Mehedinți; and many other chapels throughout the diocese 73. Among the churches that still preserve his painted likeness today are those in Mădulari, in the commune of Cernișoara, and Măgura, in the commune of Gușoeni, in Vâlcea County.

Renowned for his erudition, the bishop 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 or consecrated, offering words of teaching, comfort and encouragement to his listeners. “He knew how to combine gesture with melody, soul with reason, enthusiasm with moderation, a wealth of knowledge with refined style, the power of the word with the nuance of pure speech; all of which came together to form the synthesis of the form and substance of his speech’74 We may recall here the sermon delivered at the consecration of the church in Costești, in Vâlcea County, on 15 August 1937, when he spoke to the faithful about the Power of Faith, which urged them to build the holy place and to have a well-rehearsed choir to delight the congregation 75, as well as the address at Mântuleasa Church in Craiova, in which he appealed to intellectuals “not to stand in our way as they have done until now; but to help us as integral members of our holy Church, destined for salvation on earth and bliss in heaven through the immortal soul”76.

On the other hand, it must be said that the Bishop of Oltenia was close to his flock through his occasional pastoral letters, which served as an effective means of communicating directly with ordinary people, as well as with the authorities of the time. For example, in 1929, he issued a pastoral letter to clarify the date of Holy Easter for the faithful, in which he stated that the involvement of laypeople, without the Church’s authorisation, ‘in public church sermons of any kind, amounts to breaking with the Church and incurring a forty-day excommunication, even if they had not opposed the Holy Synod or mocked it and its hierarchs, as was the case with the matter of Holy Easter this year in our country’77”. We may also cite, by way of example, the pastoral letter of 12 January 1936, issued on the occasion of the consecration of the church in the village of Verdea, in which he asked the elderly to give one leu a month to the priest of the church in Maglavit for the building of a monastery, which was to house religious institutions for missionary work, aid for the sick, and to provide scholarships for pupils 78.

The Revival of Monastic Life

It should not be overlooked that Bishop Vartolomeu paid particular attention to monasticism in Oltenia, going down in history as ‘the great founder and reviver of monasteries and hermitages in this corner of the country’. Whilst there were 15 such places at the time of his arrival, over time 30 became operational79; the monasteries of Surpatele, Jitianu, Mamu, Slătioara, Bucovăț, Dobrușa, Pătrunsa, Topolnița, Strâmba and Jghiabul. To revive monastic life, he employed several measures, including: securing new land and funds from the State for the more important monasteries, organising monastic workshops, establishing a Monastic Ephorate for the monasteries of Oltenia, the introduction of communal life, the establishment of the Grand Council of Abbots, the organisation of monastic consistories in the most populous monasteries, and the establishment of the exarchate as a body for research and consultation for the monasteries 80.

Seeing the precarious situation of the monks, on 30 March 1921, he requested the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Arts to make up the shortfall in subsidies for monastic staff in the diocese for the months of April and July of the years 1920–1921. Upon receiving approval, he ordered the monasteries to draw up ‘supplementary lists for the specified period, showing the names and attendance records of the administrative staff at that monastery’, to undertake certain monastic activities, to submit quarterly reports on how the monks spend their free time, and, in future, in addition to the regulatory documents, candidates for monastic life should state their age, as well as the skills and worldly possessions they bring to the monastery 81. As is evident from the records of the time, at the meeting of the Great Council in 1927, he spoke to those present about the four evangelical aims of monastic life, urging the monastics to undertake charitable works by: establishing homes for the elderly and workshops attached to the monasteries, where orphans and the poor might learn a trade, supporting hospitals and schools from the monasteries’ income and public collections; and carrying out active missionary work in villages by trained monks who would preach the Gospel and teach parishioners various trades 82. At the session of the Great Council in 1936, the recovery of property expropriated during various periods was discussed, with the abbots of the monasteries being obliged to submit a report to the Diocese concerning the assets and items in question. Consequently, in 1937, through the Law on the Endowment of Certain Monasteries and Hermitages, numerous monastic settlements were granted ownership of woodland, arable land and hay meadows 83.

Another significant achievement during his time was the introduction of communal life in all monasteries, beginning with the last week of Great Lent in 1924, making it the first diocese in the country to organise the monks canonically according to monastic rules: ‘Communal life is so significant for monasticism that without it, and especially without communal meals, monasticism no longer has the right to exist’84 As an example of this way of life, he highlighted the Frăsinei Hermitage which, although poor, was the most populous in the entire diocese, since ‘they all procure their means of subsistence through labour, each having a specific task within the hermitage’85. The settlement was recommended by the bishop to monks eager to practise a more austere monastic life, who—especially the talented ones—were able to produce works of painting and sculpture there 86.

Seeking to improve the material and spiritual conditions of monastic life, the bishop obtained, in 1923, with the support of the former Minister of State Lands, Alexandru Constantinescu, from the State’s assets, 308 pogoane of arable land in Deveselu, where the Comanca estate was situated – formerly owned by Comanca Monastery in Romanați – on behalf of three monasteries (Cozia, Govora and Tismana) and three hermitages (Crasna, Lainici and Frăsinei) in Oltenia. To manage this land, an Eforie was established, which was approved, together with the reintroduction of communal life, at the session of the Great Council on 7/20 December 1923 87. Through the reintroduction of communal life and the acquisition of the Comanca estate for the monasteries of Oltenia, not only were those devastated by the War of Reunification restored, but a further 10 monasteries and hermitages, abandoned due to the hardships of the times, resumed their natural life 88. As a result of his interventions, a significant number of hectares of woodland were allocated to the following monasteries and hermitages: Tismana (600 ha), Hurezi (600 ha), Cozia (500 ha), Polovragi (400 ha), Crasna (100 ha) and Strâmba (100 ha), whilst the following were granted land: Jitianu (15 ha), Bucovăț (10 ha), Govora (10 ha), Mamu (10 ha), Dintr-un Lemn (22 ha) and the Păpușa Hermitage (8 ha)89.

He also paid particular attention to the monastic workshops, ensuring that the monasteries and their staff were provided with the necessary supplies, and decided that the works produced should be exhibited at Cozia Monastery during the summer. At his request, the carpets woven at the monasteries of Sărăcinești, Hurezi and Dintr-un Lemn adorned the episcopal palace, covering over 200 m², in 1922, and later the beautiful carpets woven at Sărăcinești Monastery were intended for the episcopal villa in Bistrița90 Whilst at Frăsinei Monastery they carried out carpentry, woodcarving, woodturning, blacksmithing and tailoring, at Govora Monastery they painted, at Căluiu Monastery rush mats and mats were made from cattail, at Bistrița Monastery there was a seminary, a primary school and an orphanage, and at Hurezi Monastery a school for girls 91. As Govora Monastery was very well managed, he arranged for it to be set aside for a more diversified economy, with workshops for carpentry, boot-making, rope-making and other activities necessary for monastic life 92.

At the same time, the bishop of Râmnic also took charge of the monastic consistories, to ensure the discipline of the monks. Thus, in 1932, it was decided that Tismana Monastery should become the court of jurisdiction for the counties of Gorj, Mehedinți and Dolj, Cozia Monastery for Vâlcea and Romanați, whilst the monasteries of Frăsinei, Hurezi, Dintr-un Lemn, Sărăcinești and Surpatele, each with a community of at least 12 members, were to have their own courts; in the case of serious offences, monks were to be sent to Frăsinei, whilst nuns are to be sent to Hurezi93. Being constantly concerned with maintaining discipline and episcopal authority amongst the monks, on 30 November 1922, he informed the Holy Synod that numerous monks were roaming the dioceses of the country, “without being required to produce a permit authorising them to leave the diocese to which they belong”94, and proposed several measures to put a stop to this vagrancy: monks in monasteries and Christians in parishes have the right to inform abbots and priests of the presence of any passing monk, who, in turn, shall notify the bishop within 24 hours; abbots and priests are obliged to request canonical authorisation to leave one’s own diocese and place of obedience, which must be communicated to the bishop within 24 hours; hierarchs shall, within seven days, send back to their dioceses those who do not present a document authorising their departure from the diocese; any deviation from these provisions shall result in the suspension, for a period of six months to one year, of abbots and church and diocesan administrative bodies, as well as the withholding of priests’ salaries for 15 days 95.

Aware of the importance of monasticism in the spiritual life of our nation, towards the end of his tenure he intended to establish a school for all novice monks and a general infirmary for the monasteries of Oltenia. With regard to education, he announced in a circular at the end of 1938 that a school was to be established at Arnota Monastery, from 1 January, where all monastic seminarians and theology students from Oltenia would be enrolled; upon completing their studies, they would settle at this monastery. To fund its upkeep, it was decreed that the land at Comanca, managed by the Monastic Eforia, should be transferred from 1939 onwards to the use of Arnota Monastery 96, which he personally assisted with the sum of 60,000 lei 97 for its renovation.

Following these achievements, Bishop Vartolomeu proposed the establishment of monastic councils throughout the country, to be organised into a representative monastic body, with a president within the Holy Synod, aimed at ‘the legal consolidation of both the monasteries’ material assets and the cultural and moral formation of the monks’98.

This, in broad terms, constitutes the pastoral and missionary work of the venerable hierarch of Râmnic, who left a profound mark on the diocese on the right bank of the Olt, by founding the ‘Renaissance Society’, the Monastic Administration and the Great Council; by establishing libraries and priests’ residences; by promoting choirs and clerical conferences; and, last but not least, through his sermons and pastoral letters, ‘out of an unquenchable thirst for faith, conviction, sacrifice and creativity’. In conclusion, we can say, together with his biographer: ‘You are the Orthodox missionary who, out of deep conviction, strives for the moral value of the Gospel and for its ultimate fruits. You are the thoughtful and impassioned missionary in the work of the Gospel who makes it his ideal to preach Christ and His holy teaching’99

• 1

  †Gherasim, Bishop of the Diocese of Râmnic, ‘A Great Hierarch from Râmnic: Vartolomeu Stănescu’, in Renașterea, vol. 15, July–September 2004, p. 1 (hereinafter cited as R).

• 2

  G., ‘Church Chronicle. Three Young Theologians in the Monastic Clergy’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, vol. XXIX (1905), no. 3, pp. 340–341 (hereafter cited as BOR); His Grace Bishop Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925, Tipografiile Române Unite S.A., Bucharest, 1924, p. 306; Rev. C. Stănică, ‘His Grace Bishop D. D. Vartolomeiu as a Man of Temperament, Theological Scholarship and Christian Virtues’, in R, vol. XIV (1935), no. 9, pp. 317–318; Rev. P. Partenie, ‘Tribute from the General Association of the Clergy’, in R, vol. XIV (1935), no. 9, pp. 324–325; Rev. D. Cristescu, The Life and Achievements of His Grace Bishop Vartolomeiu up to the Age of 60, Bishop Vartolomeiu Press, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1936, pp. 6–82; Rev. Niculae Șerbănescu, ‘The Bishops of Râmnic’, in Mitropolia Olteniei, vol. XIV (1964), no. 3–4, p. 208 (hereafter cited as MO); Niculae Șerbănescu, ‘The Hierarchs of the Oltenian Lands in the First Hundred Years of the Autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church (1885–1985)’, in MO, vol. XXXVII (1985), nos. 5–6, p. 352; Rev. Prof. Dr Mircea Păcurariu, Dictionary of Romanian Theologians, Andreiana Publishing House, Sibiu, 2014, pp. 610–611; Rev. Dr Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, Basilica Publishing House, Bucharest, 2014, pp. 22–24; Cătălin Raiu, Democracy and Statolatry. Social Christianity in the Thought of Vartolomeu Stănescu, Bishop of Râmnicu-Noul Severin (1875–1954), University of Bucharest Press, Bucharest, 2014, pp. 71–106.

• 3

  Niculae Șerbănescu, The Bishops of Râmnic…, p. 208.

• 4

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 789–791.

• 5

  † Antonie Plămădeală, Historical Contributions Concerning the Period 1918–1939 – Elie Miron Cristea – Documents, Notes and Correspondence, Sibiu, 1987, p. 202; Cătălin Raiu, Democracy and Statism..., pp. 114–115.

• 6

  Dreptul Iov, ‘The Installation of the Bishop of Râmnic’, in Telegraful Român, vol. LXIX (1921), nos. 31–32, p. 5.

• 7

  P. S. Bishop Vartolomeiu, ‘Spiritual Works and Verified Realities’, Cozia Printing House of the Holy Diocese, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1934, pp. 202–205.

• 8

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, pp. 90–91, 94.

• 9

  † Vartolomeiu, ‘Report on the legal status of the clergy in the Diocese of Râmnicu Noul Severin for the period 1 July 1921–1 July 1922’, in R, vol. I (1922), no. 5, p. 91.

• 10

  Prof. Dr Sorin Oane, “‘The Epic’ of the Diocese of Râmnicu-Noul-Severin”, in Historia, vol. VII, January 2007, p. 15.

• 11

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, pp. 92–94; The purpose of the Church is to make every member of the family a moral person, prepared to fulfil their duty, to work hard and to love selflessly. Bishop Vartolomeiu, ‘What the Years of Our Time Tell Us’, in the Official Bulletin of the Diocese of Râmnic and Noul Severin, vol. V (1936), nos. 1–2, p. 12 (hereafter cited as BO).

• 12

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 732–733.

• 13

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, p. 91.

• 14

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, p. 143.

• 15

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 1–3.

• 16

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, pp. 108–109.

• 17

  P. S. Vartolomei et al., Principles and Achievements of the Diocese of Râmnic and Noul Severin; and the proceedings of two sessions of the Diocesan Assembly, Bucharest, 1927, p. 59.

• 18

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, pp. 97, 113.

• 19

  † Vartolomeiu of Râmnicu-Noul-Severin, ‘What we aim to achieve with the Oltenian clergy’s society “Renașterea” and its propaganda organs’, in R, vol. I (1922), no. 1, pp. 5–6.

• 20

  † Vartolomei et al., Principles and Achievements…, pp. 59–60.

• 21

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 32, 43–46.

• 22

  C. Stănică, His Grace the Bishop…, p. 322.

• 23

  ‘Church News’, in Naționalul Vâlcii, vol. X, (1937), nos. 112–113, p. 104 (hereafter cited as NV).

• 24

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, p. 48.

• 25

  † Vartolomei et al., Principles and Achievements…, pp. 63–64; D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, pp. 102–103, 116, 130–133.

• 26

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, p. 15.

• 27

  † Vartolomei et al., Principles and Achievements…, pp. 66–67.

• 28

  *** ‘Church Chronicle. A Well-Raised Question’, in BOR, vol. XLIV (1926), no. 9, pp. 544–545.

• 29

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, pp. 121–123, 137–138.

• 30

  Archimandrite Scriban, ‘Books, magazines, newspapers’, in BOR, vol. XLIII (1925), no. 5, p. 308; † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 24–25.

• 31

  † Vartolomei et al., Principles and Achievements…, pp. 61–62, 66–67.

• 32

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, pp. 117, 121–127, 137–138.

• 33

  Bishop Vartolomeiu, ‘The realities and conclusions I have reached after 10 years as a bishop’, in R, vol. X (1931), no. 7, p. 258.

• 34

  † Vartolomeiu, ‘Address by Bishop D. D. Vartolomeiu of Râmnicu Noul Severin at the opening of the Oltenian Diocesan Assembly’, in R, vol. V (1926), no. 4, p. 127; † Vartolomei et al., Principles and Achievements…, p. 34.

• 35

  † Vartolomei et al., Principles and Practices…, pp. 78–82.

• 36

  † Vartolomeiu, ‘The Address Delivered by His Grace Bishop Vartolomeiu at the opening of the Diocesan Assembly on 13 May 1928’, in R, vol. VIII (1929), no. 6, p. 205.

• 37

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, p. 141.

• 38

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, p. 124.

• 39

  Fortunato, ‘The Cultural Movement in Oltenia’, in Arhivele Olteniei, vol. III (1924), no. 14, p. 354 (to be cited as AO), Georgeta Ghionea, ‘The “Renașterea” Priests’ Society: A Social Project in Interwar Oltenia’, in the Yearbook of the ‘C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor’ Institute for Social and Human Research, 1913, no. XIV, p. 117.

• 40

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 124–125, 150–151.

• 41

  † Vartolomei et al., Principles and Achievements…, pp. 68–69, 110, 126–127.

• 42

  † Vartolomei, ‘A Message from Bishop Vartolomei. How His Holiness views this year’s Congress of the Oltenian clergy’, in BOR, vol. XLIV (1926), no. 8, pp. 450–451.

• 43

  Fr. Gh. Udrescu, ‘Internal Chronicle. Episcopal Resolutions’, in R, vol. XIV (1935), no. 3, p. 116.

• 44

  Fr. Șt. Popescu, ‘Report on the lectures given by His Grace Bishop D. D. Vartolomeiu in the towns of T.-Severin and Strehaia-Mehedinți on 7 and 9 December 1935’, in BO, vol. V (1936), nos. 1–2, pp. 28–29.

• 45

  Fr. Gh. Sacerdoțeanu, ‘Report on the lectures given by His Grace Bishop D. D. Vartolomeiu in the towns of Vâlcea County’, in BO, vol. V (1936), no. 1–2, pp. 45–46.

• 46

  The Holy Metropolis of Oltenia, Râmnic and Severin, Church Life in Oltenia. Yearbook of the Metropolis of Oltenia, Craiova, 1941, pp. 77–78 (hereinafter cited as Church Life).

• 47

  Church Life, p. 79; Rev. Constantin Nonea, ‘Social Work through the Church’, in BOR, vol. LXIX (1951), nos. 3–6, pp. 126–127.

• 48

  Church Life, pp. 70–78.

• 49

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, p. 150.

• 50

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, p. 151; Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 128–129.

• 51

  † Vartolomeiu, ‘The “Renașterea” Hall – a temple of duty’, in R, vol. XIII (1934), no. 11, p. 393; ‘Church News’, in NV, vol. VII (1934), no. 84, p. 349.

• 52

  Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, p. 151.

• 53

  Georgeta Ghionea, The Priestly Society…, p. 117.

• 54

  † Vartolomeiu, Realities and Conclusions..., pp. 252–254.

• 55

  † Vartolomei et al., Principles and Achievements…, p. 107; Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 130–132.

• 56

  P., ‘The Literary Movement: The Renaissance’, in Revista Teologică, vol. XII (1922), no. 10–11, pp. 294–295 (hereafter cited as RT); † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, p. 205.

• 57

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, p. 231; † Vartolomei et al., Principles and Achievements…, pp. 73, 79.

• 58

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, p. 156; Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, p. 70.

• 59

  Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu – In the Light of the Word, edited by †Emilian Lovișteanul, Vicar Bishop of the Archdiocese of Râmnic, St Antim Ivireanul Publishing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 2013, p. 211; He proposes that the State should assist the Church, that the Law on Religious Denominations should be purged of provisions that encourage the growth of sects, and that the Church should provide the State with reports on the work undertaken for Orthodox Christians and their protection from heretics. † Vartolomeiu, ‘The Causes of the Emergence of Heretical Sects in Our Holy Ecumenical Church’, in R, vol. XV (1936), no. 3, p. 89.

• 60

  † Vartolomei et al., Principles and Achievements…, pp. 67–68; Rev. Ion Tomescu, ‘Report covering the issues and proposals put forward by the Cultural and Missionary Section before the Diocesan Assembly, at the session of 13 May 1928’, in Reports on the issues and proposals put forward by the Cultural, Economic and Administrative Sections of the Holy Dioceses, before the Diocesan Assembly, during the session of 13 May 1928, Cozia Printing House, Cozia Monastery/Vâlcea, 1928, pp. 6–7.

• 61

  ‘Church News’, in NV, vol. IX (1936), nos. 101–102, p. 79.

• 62

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, pp. 156–160, 269–270. (“Anyone who has celebrated the Divine Liturgy with him can appreciate the spiritual focus he displays: orderly in his movements, solemn, and performing all the rites with a sense of profound spiritual strength”).

• 63

  † Galaction Cordun, ‘The Personality and Work of P. S. Vartolomeiu’, in R, vol. XIV (1935), no. 9, p. 312.

• 64

  † Vartolomei, Missionary courses for priests from the dioceses, delivered by His Grace Bishop Vartolomei of Râmnicu-Noul Severin, commencing in October 1937, vol. I: Living the Christian Life through Acts of Personal and Community Service, Published by the Holy Diocese of Râmnicu-Noul Severin, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1938, pp. 6–18; †Varsanufie, Archbishop of Râmnic, ‘Vartolomeu Stănescu of Râmnic, scholar-bishop and philanthropist of Oltenia de sub Munte’, in The Cultural, Spiritual, Social and Missionary Work of Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu of Râmnic, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, Praxis Publishing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea 2020, pp. 6–11. In June 1937, he issued a decision regarding the programme for the commencement of courses for the missionary training of a group of 25 priests who had broken away from the ‘Renașterea’ Society. Bishop Vartolomei, ‘Decision of His Grace Bishop D. D. Vartolomei No. 7,286, dated 30 June 1937’, in BO, vol. VI (1937), no. 7, pp. 207–208.

• 65

  Lecturer Dr Petre Sperlea, ‘The role of Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu of Râmnic in the reorganisation of the diocesan clergy’, in Cultural and Spiritual Activity..., p. 125.

• 66

  Bishop Vartolomeiu of Râmnicu Noul Severin, ‘The Priest in Politics. A Clarification by His Grace Bishop Vartolomeiu’, in BO, vol. V (1936), no. 1–2, pp. 9–10.

• 67

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, pp. 235–250; From the autumn of 1934, the pamphlet entitled Women as a Social Factor by Vartolomeu Stănescu was published. Women in the Church, Family and Society, edited by †Emilian Lovișteanul, Vicar Bishop of Râmnic, Sfântul Antim Ivireanul Publishing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 2011, pp. 139–141.

• 68

  Neculce, ‘Church and Cultural Chronicle. The Congress of the “Orthodox Society of Romanian Women”’, in RT, vol. XIV (1924), no. 6–7, p. 211.

• 69

  Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu – In the Light of the Word…, p. 192.

• 70

  † Vartolomeiu, ‘An Assessment of the State of Mind in All the Towns of Oltenia’, in BO, vol. V (1936), nos. 1–2, pp. 5–6.

• 71

  † Vartolomei, Missionary Lectures..., p. 11.

• 72

  See the complete list in Viața bisericească, pp. 148–887; Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 172–208; Rev. Dr Laurențiu Rădoi, Vâlcea: A Cradle of Romanian Culture and Spirituality, Alma Mater Publishing House, Sibiu, 2012, pp. 103–452.

• 73

  I. L. Atanasescu, ‘Report on the state of church buildings in the Diocese of Râmnicu-Noul-Severin for the years 1935–1936’, in BO, vol. V (1936), no. 7, pp. 297–299.

• 74

  Fr. I. Ioanicescu, ‘Portraits of Preachers from the Oltenia Region’, in MO, vol. XXXVIII (1976), no. 7–8, p. 638.

• 75

  Gh. Bobei, ‘Consecration of a church’, in NV, vol. X (1937), nos. 116–117, p. 249.

• 76

  † Vartolomei, Missionary Lectures..., p. 227.

• 77

  † Vartolomeiu of Râmnic, ‘A Final Clarification Regarding the Date of Easter’, in R, vol. VIII (1929), no. 4, p. 122.

• 78

  ‘Church News’, in NV, vol. IX (1936), nos. 97–100, p. 13.

• 79

  D. Cristescu, Life and Deeds…, pp. 221–222; Archimandrite Veniamin Micle, ‘Monasticism in Oltenia during the time of Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu’, in Oltenia, 2005, no. 1–2, p. 15.

• 80

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, pp. 224–225; P. Partenie, Tribute from the General Association of the Clergy…, p. 325; Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, p. 112.

• 81

  Veniamin Micle, Monasticism in Oltenia…, pp. 16–17.

• 82

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, p. 226; Teodor Bodogae, ‘The Literary Movement. Archimandrite Efrem Enăcescu: An Overview of Christian Monasticism’, in RT, vol. XXIV (1934), no. 7–8, pp. 280; Metropolitan Efrem Enăcescu, An Overview of Christian Monasticism, 2nd edition, Mitropolia Olteniei Publishing House, Craiova, 2007, pp. 147–151.

• 83

  Veniamin Micle, Monasticism in Oltenia…, pp. 20–21.

• 84

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, p. 660; †Efrem Enăcescu, An Overview…, p. 309.

• 85

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, p. 663.

• 86

  Veniamin Micle, Monasticism in Oltenia…, p. 27.

• 87

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 654–656, 663–664; † Efrem Enăcescu, An Overview…, pp. 310–314.

• 88

  † Efrem Enăcescu, An Overview…, p. 309, note 36.

• 89

  Fr Teodor A. Mirescu, ‘Internal Chronicle’, in R, vol. XIV (1937), no. 6–7, p. 273.

• 90

  † Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 653, 662–664; Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, p. 108.

• 91

  † Vartolomei et al., Principles and Achievements…, pp. 160–161.

• 92

  Veniamin Micle, Monasticism in Oltenia…, p. 23.

• 93

  Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 108–110.

• 94

  Veniamin Micle, Monasticism in Oltenia…, pp. 117–118.

• 95

  Bishop Vartolomeiu, ‘Putting an End to Monastic Vagrancy: His Grace Vartolomeiu’s Proposal to the Holy Synod’, in R, vol. II (1923), no. 2, pp. 33–34.

• 96

  Veniamin Micle, Monasticism in Oltenia…, pp. 35–36; Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 108–111.

• 97

  PS Vartolomeu Stănescu, Bishop of Râmnic-Noul Severin, The Social Powers of Christianity. Selected Works, edited by George Enache and Cătălin Raiu, Galați History Museum Press, Cluj-Napoca, 2014, p. 762.

• 98

  Veniamin Micle, Monasticism in Oltenia…, p. 29.

• 99

  † Vartolomei, Missionary Lectures..., p. 16.