When you try to portray the life, work and achievements of a notable figure, you come up against a brick wall right from the start. If you have the courage to break through that wall, you find yourself, like Dante’s characters, in dark places, and you absolutely need Ariadne’s thread. Once you’ve found it, you need the courage of Theseus to fight the monster, and, in our case, against time, against the proponents and opponents who have left behind information, but also against yourself, so as not to err in your presentation, whilst striving to follow the words of the Roman historian Titus Livius: ‘Sine ira et studio!’.
As a rule, great figures are providential individuals through whom God exercises His providence. He intervenes at crucial moments, in a decisive manner, intended to alter the course of events in the life of a nation with all its components, including its spirituality.
One such man was Patriarch Justinian Marina who, providentially chosen to lead the Church of Christ, carried out his ministry during the most trying of times, knowing ‘that he was a willing sacrifice for the Church’s need to survive in difficult times’1).
To better understand Patriarch Justinian’s work and achievements, we believe a brief overview of his biography is necessary.
He was born at the beginning of the 20th century – on 22 February 1901 – in Suieștii Cermegeștilor, in the Cerna Valley in Vâlcea County. Within his family, he had the opportunity to experience “an authentic Christianity, founded on acts of love for God and neighbour”2). After completing primary school in Stănești, guided by this “authentic Christianity” and at his mother’s urging, he set out for the “Saint Nicholas” Theological Seminary in Râmnicu-Vâlcea. Out of more than three hundred candidates, he was among the thirty students admitted – and not just any student, but a scholarship holder. During his eight years at the seminary – 1915–1923 – he endured many hardships due to the First World War, but he distinguished himself “through his intelligence, diligence in his studies, dignity, courage and, above all, the seriousness with which he regarded, even then, the importance and responsibilities of the priestly vocation”3.
All these qualities would earn him the respect of his colleagues and catch the eye of the watchful bishop, the late Vartolomeu Stănescu, who oversaw the Eparchy and the Seminary. The latter, desiring a moral and spiritual revival of the Diocese over which he presided, required young people of sound moral, spiritual and intellectual character. That is why he was very close to the Seminary, its teachers and students, whom he observed with great attention. Thus, the learned Bishop Vartolomeu heard him ‘preach several times in the episcopal cathedral’ and was left ‘deeply moved by the inner fire, the strong faith in Christ and the ardent love for His Holy Church, which he saw bursting forth from the young seminarian’s soul’3
Upon completing his seminary studies, in June 1923 he sat his final examination for his graduation diploma before a committee chaired by Ioan Mihălcescu, a professor at the Faculty of Theology in Bucharest. It was his first encounter with this professor of great theological stature, the man who would leave an indelible mark on his life. His second meeting with Professor Ioan Mihălcescu would take place years later, when the latter became lieutenant bishop of the Diocese of Râmnicu-Noul Severin on 13 November 1938 4, following the retirement of Bishop Vartolomeu, and the third meeting would take place in 1945, when Ioan Marina was appointed vicar bishop at the Archdiocese of Iași, where Ioan Mihălcescu was metropolitan 5. Also in 1923, the young seminary graduate sat the teachers’ examination at the Teacher Training College in Râmnicu-Vâlcea and was awarded diploma number 10/1923, on the basis of which “he was assigned as a teacher to the village of Olteanca, in the Pescena Valley”. Another graduate of the Vâlcea Seminary – Gheorghe Dumitrescu – Bistrița – the great folklorist6 – had previously taught there, ten years earlier.
The year 1924 brought many achievements for the young teacher: he married the young Lucreția Popescu, the daughter of a priest; then, on 1 September 1924, he transferred, as a teacher, to Băbeni, and on 14 October 1924, Bishop Vartolomeu ordained him as a priest for the Parish of Băbeni-Bistrița, ‘spreading the light of truth and culture amongst his flock’7.
To complete his studies, he enrolled in 1925 at the Faculty of Theology in Bucharest, and on 17 December 1929, a Bachelor’s degree in Theology, receiving his diploma bearing the number 14920/19298.
“His wide-ranging work in the cultural, missionary, moral and social spheres”9 impressed the Vâlcea hierarch Vartolomeu, who summoned him and appointed him, on 1 September 1932, as professor and director of the ‘Saint Nicholas’ Theological Seminary, where he had been a student a few years earlier. He was also transferred from his priestly post in Băbeni to the Episcopal Cathedral.
His tenure as director was particularly difficult, as it coincided with the years of the severe economic crisis 10. Later, as Patriarch, he would reflect at length on his time as director of the Seminary and exclaim, in Apostolatul Social: ‘Those were hard times for the Seminary too, and I spent whole nights without sleep in order to save it’11. He remained in this post until 1 September 1933 when, “because of the interference of the political parties of the time in our ecclesiastical affairs”12, he resigned. Following his resignation, he was appointed parish priest at St George’s Church in Râmnicu-Vâlcea, replacing Father Constantin Găiculescu.
An energetic and active man, Father Ioan Marina became involved in all aspects of society, including politics. Thus, on 10 June 1929, he founded the ‘Ajutorul’ People’s Bank, established and organised on the basis of statutes he had drawn up, so that, in 1939, he could turn round the Diocesan Printing House entrusted to him, and so that “the books remaining in storage, following ten years of book distribution, might be sent to the parishes to be given as gifts to the faithful”13.
As a minister of the Holy Altar and one who prayed “for the peace of the whole world”, the priest of “St George’s” Church, Ioan Marina, would experience a tragic moment: he would lose his wife, Lucreția, in 1936, and he would also act as a mother to their two children – Ovidiu and Silvia – 14.
As early as 1935, Father Marina had taken a stand against fascism and, subsequently, against the military-fascist dictatorship established in Romania15, likely influenced by his political convictions.
In his Memoirs, Valeriu Anania noted: “He liked to tell stories, and it was not difficult for me to discover that he had been a militant Peasant Party politician, but in the left-wing faction of the Peasant Party. He made no secret of the fact that – whilst he was a priest in Râmnic – he had given shelter to Gh. Gheorghiu-Dej after his escape from the camp at Tg. Jiu, (indeed, it was evident that this act of hospitality had been decisive in Father Ioan Marina’s rapid rise to the vicariate in Iași … Gheorghiu-Dej’s network of hosts from Tg. Jiu to Bucharest had consisted solely of members of the Peasants’ Party, with not a single Communist); Father Marina had merely been a link in the chain’16).
After 12 years of fruitful ministry at the Church of ‘St George’ in Râmnicu Vâlcea – during which he achieved much – in March 1945, Father Ioan Marina was summoned to Iași by the Metropolitan of Moldavia and Suceava, Irineu Mihălcescu, who “appointed him to the post of vicar of the Metropolis of Iași, considering him a worthy and capable person for the important role of the Holy Metropolis”. The State authorities confirmed his appointment as vicar on 1 April 1945 17. Following Metropolitan Irineu’s intervention with the Holy Synod, at the meeting of 30 July 1945, the elevation of “Priest Ioan Marina to the honorary rank of vicar-bishop of the Metropolis of Moldavia and Suceava, with the title of Vasluianul”, was approved. On 11 August 1945, he was tonsured a monk at Cetățuia Monastery, near Iași, and received the name ‘Justinian’, being ordained ‘on the same day as archimandrite’17.
Aware of the enormous responsibility weighing upon his shoulders, Vicar Bishop Justinian made the following ‘pledge regarding how he intended to carry out his work in the future:
Where there is doubt, I shall sow faith!
Where there is sorrow, I shall sow joy!
Where there is despair, I shall sow hope!
Where there is strife, I shall sow peace!
Where there is hatred, I shall sow love!
Where there is darkness, I shall sow light!’18
Events would come to a head towards the end of August 1947, when Metropolitan Irineu would step down from his see, and Patriarch Nicodim will entrust “the leadership of the Archdiocese to Bishop Justinian, who became … locum tenens of the Metropolitan of Moldavia and Suceava. On 19 November 1947, the Ecclesiastical Electoral College elected him to the vacant see of Metropolitan, and his enthronement took place on 28 December 1947 in the Metropolitan Cathedral in Iași’19.
In the See of the Metropolitan of Moldavia, which had been held by such great hierarchs as Teoctist I and II, Atanasie Crimca, Varlaam, Dosoftei, Iacob Putneanul, Iacob Stamati, Veniamin Costachi and others, Metropolitan Justinian held the position for only a short time, as on 27 February 1948 the elderly Patriarch Nicodim Munteanu passed away at the age of 83. Three months later – on 24 May 1948 – the Electoral College convened in the hall of the Grand National Assembly to elect the new patriarch. The country’s newly installed leadership, headed by the Prime Minister, Dr Petru Groza, the President of the Grand National Assembly, Dr C.I. Parhon, Vice-President Mihail Sadoveanu, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, Ștefan Voitec, ministers, MPs, bishops, as well as the 428 members of the National Ecclesiastical Assembly with voting rights.
Following the opening address by the acting Patriarch, Justinian, who spoke in glowing terms of the late Patriarch Nicodim, the Minister for Religious Affairs, Stanciu Stoian, who was keen to emphasise that the new Patriarch “must faithfully shepherd the flock entrusted to him, but through the Church he must help the people, assist in the development of people’s democracy … and be a lover and champion of peace and the consolidation of democracy in the world”.
The result of the election, presided over by the Metropolitan of Transylvania, Nicolae Bălan, was announced by George Stan, Justinian’s personal physician, who said: “Out of a total of 428 votes cast, 383 were cast for His Eminence Justinian, 40 for Metropolitan Nicolae Bălan, 3 votes for His Grace Nicolae Popovici, 1 vote for His Grace Chesarie Păunescu, and 1 vote for His Grace Emilian Antal’20”.
After being presented with the patriarchal staff, the new patriarch said that “the first and most important thing I shall have to do, within the bounds of our ecclesiastical traditions, is to preserve the faith, which, throughout history, has proved to be a strong cornerstone … Therefore, our Orthodox faith cannot remain alive, vigorous and fruitful amongst our people through acts of love, of peace, and of holiness, except through a well-trained clergy, full of dignity and devotion, with their hearts and minds devoted to their holy calling. The training of the clergy will be one of the foremost concerns of my patriarchal office”.
These words seemed almost prophetic, for in the Official Gazette of 4 August 1948, issue number 178, Decree No. 177 of 4 August 1948 was published, concerning the General Regime of Religious Denominations. Article 53 of the Decree, stating that ‘the current theological seminaries, in which general education is also taught, are to be abolished’, struck like a bolt from the blue. However, even before this bolt from the blue, Article 48 of the same Decree had prepared the Church, informing it that it might have:
– schools for cantors, to which candidates who have completed the single-stage secondary school or seven years of primary education may enrol;
– theological seminaries with the same educational requirements as the basis for selection;
– theological institutes open to those who have completed secondary school or teacher-training college;
– university-level institutes, to which graduates of secondary school or teacher-training college, holding a baccalaureate diploma, may enrol.
At first glance, the offer seemed generous, but all these schools had to be organised by the Church. It needed premises, teaching staff willing to deliver the courses, a curriculum, a syllabus, as well as students.
Faced with a fait accompli, Patriarch Justinian, who had been aware of the need for a reorganisation of seminary education as early as 1938 21, conceived “a very broad plan concerning the reorganisation of theological seminaries and schools for cantors, and the establishment of monastic seminaries and schools”, under the leadership of the patriarchal inspector for religious education, Valeriu Anania 22.
From his experience as a seminary student, then as a teacher and, for a short time, as headmaster, he was aware of the shortcomings in theological education and often said: “What sort of religious education and instruction could seminaries provide, for example, when students were overwhelmed by the teaching of secular subjects, whilst religious subjects were treated merely as practical skills? The lay teachers did not attend church with the pupils on Sundays and feast days; they did not fast, they did not receive Holy Communion, and they did not, in any way, exemplify through their own lives the education they were imparting to the young seminarians with a view to their priestly fulfilment… However, throughout my years at the seminary, I never saw any of the school’s teachers – neither laypeople nor priests – praying the rosary or receiving Holy Communion alongside the seminary students”23
Now brought under the Church’s umbrella, theological education was meant to revitalise religious life with active ministers, for, for a long time, it had become apparent just how damaging the practice of admitting people to the clergy had been – “O, tempora!” – and how mistaken the notion was that erudition alone makes a theologian.
That is why, in the vision of a sound organisation of theological education, there was a need for curricula that would combine study with prayer and meditation, strengthen religious sentiment and devotion to the Church, cultivate respect for Romanian traditions, love for one’s people and country, and integrate religious life into boarding school life. In his view, Patriarch Justinian never separated theological education from Christian practice and authentic Christian living, knowing that the priestly vocation entails first and foremost a calling – as seen in Saul on the road to Damascus – and then preparation and ordination.
When everything was ready, those working under the Patriarch’s careful supervision drew up the Regulations for Theological Education Schools, which ‘in their final form came into force on 1 September 1952’24).
Schools for church singers began in 1949 and were intended “to train choir singers, choir conductors and assistants to the priest in his pastoral and catechetical work”25. Although they were initially two-year courses, the summary tables for 1952/1953 and 1953/1954 nevertheless show graduates as having completed three years of study 26. This was Patriarch Justinian’s strategy to have them operate alongside the metropolitan sees, and a further two years were added to the original three, so that the 1955/1956 academic year began with the six theological seminaries, bearing the title ‘Schools for Church Chanters and Theological Seminaries’ in Curtea de Argeș (later moved to Bucharest), Buzău, Neamț, Cluj, Craiova and Caransebeș 27, and remaining in operation until 1990.
“Monastic seminaries were secondary educational institutions with a four-year duration, equivalent to secondary schools’28, and ‘were intended to provide monasteries with teaching staff for the establishment of monastic schools of lower theological education’29.
They operated at Agapia and Hurezi for nuns 30 – abolished by the communist authorities in 1959 – and one for monks at Neamț, whose first intake – including Nestor Vornicescu, Pimen Zainea, Epifanie Norocel, etc. – graduated in 1951 31. The curriculum for these seminaries is particularly interesting 32. In the summary tables up to 1 September 1952, the monastic seminary in Neamț is listed as having a four-year course, whilst from 1 September 1952 it is listed as having a three-year course 33.
University-level theological institutes opened their doors in January 1949 in Bucharest and Sibiu 34. They were intended for “the training of future priests and teachers of religious education to meet the needs of the Church, but also to guide the clergy in their pastoral, liturgical, missionary and social work”35.
Patriarch Justinian brought the best lecturers from the other abolished faculties to the two theological institutes36.
The new theological schools, reorganised from the ground up, nurture future priests and pay great attention to shaping their consciousness as servants of God in the service of society. The syllabus for each subject, organised by year of study, was drawn up by specialist lecturers, approved by the Holy Synod and followed ‘from start to finish’.
The Primate of the Church was very close to the teachers, students and pupils. He affectionately referred to the teachers—the mentors of both mind and spirit—as ‘my teachers’, whilst the pupils from Bucharest and the students would often find him either at breakfast, in the library, or at the service. “He spoke very beautifully, fluently and freely, most often in authentic Romanian, interspersed with parables from the Theology of the Holy Fathers, and when he spoke of the priesthood, he was transformed. He made you believe that it is, indeed, the most beautiful work a person can do on earth. He had a special devotion to the Liturgy, to the Divine Service,” recalled Rev. Prof. Dr. Nicolae Necula of Patriarch Justinian 37. “His life was deeply connected to the seminary, as a student, as a director, and then as the reorganiser of the vocational seminaries in Romania”38; “his presence was a guarantee that we, the theology students, would not be marginalised”39, and “he had the kindness to come down to my level and that of others like me, encouraging us and showing us that he was close to us”40. “He had a special love for good and diligent students, whom he supported and promoted”41, just as Bishop Vartolomeu had done for him.
Patriarch Justinian served during very difficult times for the country and the Church. He set himself the minimum objective of ‘the survival of the Church’, and when circumstances allowed, he transformed this into a project for the development of the Church. In his public discourse, he essentially stated that the Church and the regime could coexist and cooperate to contribute to the greater good of the people. In this way, ‘he curtailed other influences of the state within the Church, thereby preserving the living spirit of the Church’42).
All these factors led the Securitate to keep him under close surveillance. In a 1950 report by the feared organisation, we read: ‘Although the democratic world had placed great hopes in Patriarch Justinian’s good faith, through his conduct following his election as Patriarch, he managed to disappoint all those who had supported him. As Vicar Bishop and then as Metropolitan, he followed a democratic line; the change only came about after his election as Patriarch. His current attitude is entirely inappropriate, both politically and in practical terms, as he is playing both sides. He intends to turn the priests into a mass that obeys only him, so that, from the shelter of the priestly ranks, he can deal with the Party ‘on an equal footing’43”.
Nevertheless, “the image of Patriarch Justinian is strongly marked by the memory of Romanian communism”, noted Dr Bogdan Duca on 11 January 2017, before continuing: “His detractors called him (even during his lifetime) the ‘Red Patriarch’, whilst his admirers still regard him as Justinian ‘the Great’, the man who successfully led the Church during a particularly difficult period in Romania’s history”. Following these two points, the author poses a question and then draws the conclusion: “Was he ‘red’? Was he ‘great’? My answer: he was a Patriarch like the patriarchs of the Old Testament: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, whose lives were so complex, full of delicate or tense moments”44.
He “accepted communism as an inevitability, seeking to limit its perverse effects”45, as Theodor Baconski aptly noted.
The inner turmoil of a man is hard to put into words and, subsequently, even harder to commit to paper. For example: when, in 1958, the communist authorities launched a devastating persecution against the Church, targeting the ecclesiastical elites of conscience 42, the patriarch was deeply troubled, as even members of the Synod had aligned themselves with the idea. Then, during the patriarchal strike in 1959, the distinction made – and subsequently expressed – by the Government became apparent: ‘Justinian acts first and asks questions afterwards, whereas Iustin (the Metropolitan of Moldova, ed.) asks questions first and acts afterwards’46 It was then that the question of his replacement by the Government was raised. Here is the testimony of a possible successor, Bishop Valerian Zaharia of Oradea: “Patriarch Justinian is an enemy of communism … I had the opportunity to speak with him and have him confirm this to me. I was walking through the Patriarchate’s park and he said to me: ‘We must not get too involved in politics because communism will fall and I do not want the Church to fall with it. The Church is eternal and we must bear this in mind’47.
“Faced with ever-increasing political pressures,” said His Eminence Varsanufie of Râmnic, “Patriarch Justinian managed to administer our ancestral Church with great wisdom, so that it would not be entirely subjugated to communist authority”48.
In my view, I believe that the best witnesses in his defence are his deeds and achievements over more than thirty years of episcopacy. He “was the right man in the right place, making the good even better, the zealous even more zealous, and pacifying his opponents through patience and measured words,” said Archbishop Pimen Zainea of Suceava in the foreword to a book 49.
He was, for better or for worse, the man through whom Providence worked in the Church, but also “the man of the Church in the devil’s lair” 45.
As if sensing the great number of detractors, he added the following to his will on 7 March 1976: ‘I bless with all my heart and with all my soul those who hate me and have hated me, those who have wronged me and done me harm, both openly and in secret, praying to the Merciful God not to judge their deeds, but to forgive them all with mercy, just as I have forgiven them’50.
Great men with even greater deeds who cannot escape the malice of those around them. They have been, and will continue to be, observers of events from the sidelines, not caught up in the turmoil, unaware of the words: ‘Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, and nothing is hidden that will not become known’ (Matthew 10:26).
- 1
Valeriu Anania, Memoirs, Polirom, 2008, p. 177.
- 2
See B.O.R., year LXXII, no. 10, (1954), p. 998.
- 3a3b
B.O.R., vol. LXXII, no. 10, (1954), p. 998.
- 4
See Renașterea, 1938, pp. 442–443.
- 5
See B.O.R., no. 10, (1954), p. 998.
- 6
Costea Marinoiu, Fr. Ilie Stuparu, Mihai Popa, Patriarch Justinian, a lover of the faith and his ancestral land, Silviana Publishers, Râmnicu Vâlcea, 2011, p. 24.
- 7
See B.O.R. No. 10, (1954), p. 1002.
- 8
B.O.R., no. 10, (1954), p. 1002.
- 9
Costea Marinoiu, Fr Ilie Stuparu, Mihai Popa, op. cit., p. 27.
- 10
Rev. Prof. Mircea Păcurariu, ‘His Beatitude Patriarch Justinian’, in M.O., vol. XXV, no. 5–6, May–June 1973, p. 408; see also Costea Marinoiu, Rev. Ilie Stuparu, Mihai Popa, Patriarch Justinian…, pp. 28–29.
- 11
Social Apostolate IV, p. 3.
- 12
Rev. Prof. Mircea Păcurariu, op. cit., p. 408; see also C. Marinoiu, Rev. Ilie Stuparu…, p. 29.
- 13
‘The Printing House’s Annual Report for 1939’, in the Yearbook of the Metropolis of Oltenia, 1941, p. 56.
- 14
Vasile Bălănescu, Corneliu Tamaș, The History of the Church of St George, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, Conphys, 1998, p. 205.
- 15
Rev. Prof. Mircea Păcurariu, op. cit., p. 400.
- 16
Valeriu Anania, op. cit., pp. 175–176.
- 17a17b
Rev. Prof. Mircea Păcurariu, op. cit., p. 410.
- 18
Social Apostolate II, p. 32; see also Rev. Prof. Mircea Păcurariu, op. cit., p. 411.
- 19
Rev. Prof. Mircea Păcurariu, op. cit., p. 412.
- 20
George Stan, Patriarch Justinian Marina, IBMBOR., Bucharest, 2005, p. 27.
- 21
See Renașterea, 1938, pp. 240–242.
- 22
Valeriu Anania, op. cit., pp. 186–187.
- 23
See B.O.R., vol. LXXII, no. 10, Oct. 1954, p. 1018.
- 24
See B.O.R., vol. LXXII, no. 7, July 1954, p. 764.
- 25
Fr. Gheorghe Moisescu, Fr. Ștefan Lupșa, Fr. Alexandru Filipașcu, History of the Romanian Church, vol. II, I.B.M.B.O.R., Bucharest, 1957, p. 645.
- 26
See B.O.R., Year LXXII, No. 7, July 1954, pp. 765–766.
- 27
Alexandru Moraru, The Romanian Orthodox Church, 1885–2000, vol. III, part I, I.B.M.B.O.R., p. 353.
- 28
Fr. Gheorghe Moisescu…, op. cit., p. 644.
- 29
Valeriu Anania, op. cit., p. 194.
- 30
Alexandru Moraru, op. cit., p. 353.
- 31
See B.O.R., Year LXIX, Nos. 7–9, 1951, pp. 340–346.
- 32
See B.O.R., Year LXXI, No. 7–8, 1953, pp. 786–804.
- 33
B.O.R., vol. LXXI, no. 7–8, 1953, pp. 741–742.
- 34
Fr. Gheorghe Moisescu, op. cit., p. 641; for the Institute in Bucharest, see B.O.R., vol. LXXV, nos. 11–12, 1957, pp. 1213–1251.
- 35
Deacon Prof. Nicolae Nicolaescu, ‘The Reorganisation of Theological Education and its Placement under the Authority of the Church’, M.O., Vol. VI, No. 7–8, p. 363.
- 36
Alexandru Moraru, Op. cit., pp. 374–376; see also B.O.R., vol. LXXV, nos. 11–12, 1957, p. 1215 and pp. 1224–1227.
- 37
Lumina newspaper, 18 March 2017.
- 38
Lumina newspaper, 24 February 2017.
- 39
Lumina newspaper, 30 January 2017.
- 40
Lumina newspaper, 20 January 2017.
- 41
Lumina newspaper, 11 May 2017.
- 42a42b
Lumina newspaper, 26 March 2017.
- 43
Cristina Păiușan, Radu Ciuceanu, The Romanian Orthodox Church under the Communist Regime, vol. I, Bucharest, National Institute for the Study of Totalitarianism, 2001, p. 186.
- 44
https://www.qmagazine.ro/patriarhul-justinian-marina-cel-mare-si-cel-rosu/).
- 45a45b
Dilema veche, no. 690, 11–17 May 2017.
- 46
Valeriu Anania, op. cit., p. 214.
- 47
Lumina newspaper, 10 April 2017.
- 48
Lumina newspaper, 23 March 2017.
- 49
Constantin Tudosă, Patriarch Justinian Marina (1948–1977), published by Cetatea de Scaun, Târgoviște, 2016.
- 50
Gheorghe Vasilescu, Ecclesiastical Almanac, 2001, p. 88.