Bishop Atanasie Mironescu (1898-1909)

Cultural activity

At that time, Bishop Athanasius was one of the most distinguished scholarly hierarchs of our Church. Alongside his pastoral and missionary work, he also found time for scholarship, writing or editing – with great effort, meticulous care and dedication – several works of particular importance to church history. Of particular note are: The Yearbook of the Diocese of Râmnic – Noul Severin (Bucharest, 1899), Morals for Children (Bucharest, 1899), Saint Athanasius the Great of Alexandria, translated from German based on Möhler’s book (Bucharest, 1900), Eusebiu Popovici’s Universal Church History, translated from German in collaboration with Bishop Gherasim Timuș of Argeș (2 vols., Bucharest, 1900–1901), The Fourteen Epistles of Saint Paul the Apostle by Theophylact of Ohrid, a translation by Metropolitan Veniamin Costachi (3 vols., Bucharest, 1904–1906), also in collaboration with the hierarch of Argeș, and The Holy Bishopric of the Diocese of Râmnic–Noul Severin: Past and Present, together with several priests (Râmnic, 1906). 1

In 1899, the Church Books Printing House published a prayer book containing 49 beautifully executed miniatures within the text, compiled by a committee of which he was also a member, alongside Primate Metropolitan Iosif Gheorghian and Bishop Silvestru of Huși.2 A few years later, on 28 March 1902, to mark the quarter-century anniversary of the launch of the magazine The Romanian Orthodox Church, he wrote an article in Râmnicu Vâlcea about the relics of the saints housed in the Episcopal Cathedral, in particular about Saint Mercurie, whose head had been found in a church in Ocnele Mari during the time of Bishop Damaschin.3

Constantly taking an interest in the lives of his priests, he wrote several pastoral books for them, so that they, in turn, might watch over the religious and moral lives of their parishioners. For example, in 1909, seeing that works full of spiritual poison were spreading through the parishes of Oltenia, he wrote to them to uphold the law, advising them to guard against the dangers arising from reading such works: ‘To spare you such bitter trials in the future, I urge you, my beloved, to seek spiritual nourishment through the reading of wholesome writings, such as, in particular, those on the cover of which it is stated that they were composed by men known to be lovers of the common good, or those printed by enlightened societies, which are specifically dedicated to the composition of good writings and their dissemination amongst the people, such as the ‘Steaua’ Society in Bucharest, as well as writings printed with the approval of the Minister of Education or with the blessing of the Holy Synod. Priests and teachers can show you such writings if necessary. When some Christians have asked me whether it is right to read a particular book and to put into practice what they learn from it, or have even asked me for specific books, I have gladly replied, giving them the appropriate guidance and sending them books to read. I shall continue to do so with pleasure as far as I am able, for the spiritual welfare of my flock is very dear to my heart […] So, my beloved, set about learning the laws by reading books or by listening to them being read in church, at school and even at the town hall, and you will gradually come to realise that the happiness of a people lies in love for and observance of the laws. Love true knowledge, which guides you towards purity, modesty, justice and manliness, for nothing is more precious in human life than these. Guard yourselves and keep away from those who cause discord and confusion against the good order of society. Admonish those who are disorderly, comfort the downcast, support the weak, and be patient with all; do not repay evil with evil. Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting, in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh towards them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing in the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, lest they become disheartened, but bring them up in the wisdom and instruction of the Lord; send them to school; teach them a trade. Servants, obey your earthly masters in everything; do not merely serve them when they are watching, as though trying to please people, but with sincerity of heart, fearing God. And whatever you do for your masters, do it wholeheartedly, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that you will receive your reward from God. Masters, give your servants what is right and fair, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.”4

Although he was sometimes ill, and even forbidden by doctors to work, ‘he knows no idleness, but is ever at work, ever striving towards holy deeds and good works’. In the summer he never travelled abroad in search of better health, but would traverse the country’s mountains or read and write in the monasteries of the diocese.5 Having known him for nearly 20 years, from the time when he was ‘the best and most diligent student amongst the theologians’, Archimandrite Damaschin Popescu, spiritual father of the Celic-Dere Monastery in Tulcea, said in May 1911: ‘I have come to know you closely and personally, and witnessed your blameless and moral conduct in society, whilst you were still Bishop of Râmnic and I was the superior of the Holy Monastery of Cozia, where Your Grace, together with Mr Constantin Erbiceann and His Grace Bishop Gherasim Timuș of Argeș, worked like industrious bees on the monumental work Church History and other works (during the summer at Cozia)”.6

A good father, a skilful preacher and ecclesiastical writer, 7 the worthy hierarch “had gathered around him several people of merit, who embarked on a fine campaign of purification within the ecclesiastical press and the theological arena”. 8 At his urging, between 1902 and 1909, the clergy of Oltenia published the bimonthly journal Cuvântul Adevărului in Râmnicu Vâlcea, to which he himself contributed many valuable articles,9 such as Advice for Priests Based on Various Authors (1909).10 His wish was “for it to serve as a forum where every priest could express his views regarding the welfare of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church, so that the finest sermons delivered by priests might be published therein and, finally, to maintain a stance of objectivity and moderation in accordance with Holy Scripture, tradition and the holy canons”.11

A cultured and noble soul, a lover of the arts, he enriched the historical and artistic museum at the Bishop’s Palace and took all necessary measures to ensure that the churches in the diocese were painted by specialists, and that the schools for cantors would increase the number of competent graduates serving in the churches of Oltenia. 12 Consequently, in the 1901/02 academic year, the School of Chanters in Râmnicu Vâlcea was attended by 65 pupils, divided into three classes, 13 whilst in 1903/04, the school in Craiova had 81 pupils. 14

In addition to this, the bishop is credited with re-establishing the Râmnic Seminary in 1908, locating it at Bistrița Monastery. 15 He carried out his work there only until 1911, when the Bishop of Râmnic, Ghenadie Georgescu, requested the Ministry to relocate it to its former building in the Bishop’s courtyard. 16

In recognition of his efforts and his rich cultural output, on 25 May 1909 he was elected an honorary member of the Romanian Academy. 17 This was a testament to the prestige he enjoyed amongst the country’s cultural figures thanks to his immortal work. In gratitude, he sent a letter of thanks to the distinguished academic body, which was read out at the meeting on 28 May by Vice-President I. C. Negruzzi: “Deeply moved by the notification you have kindly sent me, informing me that I have been elected an honorary member of the Academy, I ask you to convey my heartfelt thanks to the honourable Members of the Academy for this gesture bestowed upon my humble person. In the modest works which, with God’s help, I shall compose in the future, I shall always be guided, as regards the formal aspects, by the insights of this learned body, to which we owe, for the most part, the progress made by our literature in all fields of human culture. Thanking the Honourable Academies once again for the distinguished honour they have bestowed upon me, I ask you, Mr President, to accept the assurance of the high regard in which I hold you and of my archiepiscopal blessings.”18

Administrative work

Continuing the work of his predecessor, Bishop Athanasius completed many projects, both within the administration of the Holy Diocese and in the monastic settlements of the diocese, “where he introduced the most perfect order”, helping the poor with his own resources, procuring consecrated vessels, liturgical books, sacred vestments and other items necessary for divine worship.19 According to those close to him, he made “a mark on his era”, with “collections of old and new artefacts, for the acquisition of which he spent thousands of lei and a great deal of effort, until he had selected what was worth preserving”.20 To bear witness to the zeal he displayed in the sound management of administrative affairs, on 28 March 1905, the editorial staff of the magazine Cuvântul Adevărului (The Word of Truth), who had followed him from his very first steps in Oltenia, presented the results of his financial management, to the glory of the Church and the prestige of the clergy: ‘the construction and repair of numerous churches, many of which were consecrated by His Grace His Grace, the establishment of priests’ societies, the gathering of priests in circles and conferences, and above all, the improvement of the material circumstances of the priests and, in particular, of the faithful”.9

First and foremost, it is worth noting that he took particular care of the diocesan cathedral, where he replaced the stone floor with a mosaic one, ‘exquisitely crafted’, altered the entrance to the narthex and, at his own expense, the icon of Saint Nicholas and the Ascension of the Lord on the linden-wood iconostasis, masterfully carved and gilded.21

Noting that Cozia Monastery had no bells, he donated one from the Seminary in Râmnicu Vâlcea, then appealed to the priests to contribute financially towards the casting of a larger one, worthy of a voivode’s endowment, and towards the construction of a belfry to house them.22 By August 1903, he had also donated the following books to the Vâlcea monastery: ‘12 minees, the Didache of Ilie Miniat, a large clock, a Pentecostarion, an Euchologion, an Aghiasmatarion, a psalter, 64 sermons by St John Chrysostom, a liturgical typikon, a book of Te Deums, an archiepiscopal typikon, the akathist to St Philothea, the akathist to St Paraskevi, the Akathist to the Mother of God, the Akathist to St Catherine and the Akathist to St Demetrius the New”.23

From statistics on donations to the church in the Diocese of Râmnic–Noul Severin, we learn that since his election in 1898, 102 collection envelopes had been issued by 1902 to raise funds for the construction and decoration of churches throughout the country. In this context, 39 collection boxes raised the sum of 74,163 lei and 53 bani. Upon examining the journal The Romanian Orthodox Church, we find that for religious purposes—namely the construction of churches, repairs, liturgical books, sacred vessels and other items— donations totalling 204,028 lei and 08 bani were made during this period, in addition to buildings, land and other priceless items, which amounted to a considerable sum. 24

It should be noted that, in 1905, Archimandrite Damaschin Pandelescu, the abbot of Bistrița Monastery, donated 500 lei to the Diocese as an offering, which the Bishop used to repair and embellish the reliquary containing the holy relics housed in the cathedral. 25 In the same year, he received two beautiful carpets from Eufimia Dimancea, so that her two sons might be commemorated during the holy services; he also placed these in the cathedral.26

For the items made and repaired at her own expense in the Church of the Holy Bishopric, she received public thanks in 1909 through the magazine The Romanian Orthodox Church, which also lists them: “Two imperial icons on the iconostasis for the patronal feast (St Nicholas) and the Ascension of the Saviour, set in silver and partially gilded, made from the silver of the church’s old candlesticks, and the entire cost borne by His Eminence; a silver box with a lid and lock, partially gilded, containing the holy relics, repaired at His Eminence’s expense; a seven-branched candlestick, crafted from the church’s silver and also partially gilded at His Eminence’s expense; a censer, gilded with gold paid for by His Eminence; Twenty-one large candles from the main church, repaired with silver, some of which are gilded; two altar cloths for the Holy Table in the main church, one of which is made of white silk fabric with yellow flowers, and the other of woolen damask, made at His Eminence’s expense; two curtains for the royal doors, one of which is of yellow silk with embroidery and the other of black silk; a pair of silver candlesticks matching those in the church, commissioned at His Eminence’s expense; a set of 22 minee, of which 17 are in morocco leather and 5 in imitation cloth, all paid for by His Eminence; two sets of deacon’s vestments of blue cloth, with silvery-white flowers, together with their oraria; a brown cloth stole for the analphagon on which the Psalter is read; one green velvet vestment with crosses and thick braids of pure silver thread, used on the table before the imperial icon of the ‘Mother of God’; one green silk dver with silver crosses for the Vespers service; The Idiomelaria by Dimitrie Suceveanu and an Anastasimatar by the same author, a Matins book, as well as the anthology by Nectarius and a Doxastar by Zmeu; a round silver tray engraved with inscriptions, as well as six small cups, shaped like small chalices and gilded on the inside, required for the service at the Holy Altar, made at His Eminence’s expense from the house’s silver”.27

A diligent steward during his ministry, he also devoted himself to the construction of new churches or the restoration of existing ones, which he consecrated with deep spiritual gratitude, endowing them with liturgical books, vestments and all that is necessary for a holy place of worship. Among these, we note the churches founded in the villages of: Copăcioasa, Gorj County (22 October 1900), Pesceana-Cermegești, Vâlcea County (29 October 1900), Traian, Romanați County (5 November 1900), Leotești, Romanați County (12 November 1900), 28 Arcani, Gorj County (Câmpu Tomei Parish, 27 April 1903),29 Pietrari (Pietrarii de Sus Parish, 25 February 1904),30 Fârtățești (Secu Parish, 1905), Glăvile (Olteanca Parish, 1906), Lădești (Găgeni Parish, 1906), Pietrari (Pietrarii de Jos Parish, 1907), Stoenești (Dobriceni Parish, 1907), Stănești (Cuculești Parish, 1908), all in Vâlcea County, etc. 31

From a report by the archpriest of Vâlcea County, no. 381/99, to the bishop, we learn that during the year 1898 there were 7 urban parishes, with 19 branch churches, served by 7 parish priests, assisted by 17 supernumerary priests, 20 cantors and 18 church wardens. There were 355 rural parish and branch churches, with 121 parish priests, 58 supernumerary priests and 244 church wardens, one of the parishes being vacant. Also in 1898, the foundations were laid for two churches, which were rebuilt in timber on the sites of older ones that had been closed due to dilapidation, poverty and deterioration, and three churches, also rebuilt in timber, were consecrated at Mădularii de Olt, Colțești and Lăpușata. 32

According to statistics, on 15 January 1904, in Oltenia there were: 273 churches in 74 communes in Dolj County, 400 churches in 39 communes in Gorj County, 322 churches in 63 communes in Mehedinți County, 208 churches in 51 communes in Romanați County, and 312 churches in 46 communes in Vâlcea County.33 From the History of the Diocese, published in 1906, we learn that in Dolj County there were 307 churches, served by 221 priests and 2 deacons, in Gorj County there were 402 churches, with 156 priests and 1 deacon; in Mehedinți County there were 335 churches, with 197 priests and 1 deacon; in Romanați County there were 217 churches, served by 151 priests and 1 deacon, and in Vâlcea County there were 396 churches, with 173 priests.34 Ten years after its establishment, records show that 152 churches were consecrated in the diocese during this period, namely: 20 in Romanați County (9 of them), in Dolj County 35 (6 by him), in Gorj County 34 (7 by him), in Mehedinți County 36 (5 by him), and in Vâlcea County 27 (11 by him).35

But the great hierarch was not content merely to consecrate them; on each occasion, he would offer genuine fatherly advice on the significance of the act being performed and the efforts of those who had contributed to their construction. To begin with, we present a short excerpt from an impressive sermon delivered at the consecration of the Church of the Holy Voivodes in Tg. Jiu on 7 April 1902, from which we can see how he understood the education of the faithful: ‘However far we may go with human knowledge, however deeply we may penetrate the depths of the earth and the heavens, however high the stars may soar and however vast the riches of the earth’s depths may be, one thing will remain eternal – faith in God and devotion to heavenly things, which are the comfort and upliftment of souls towards Him who is the good and perfect gift, towards Him who has given us life and our very breath. You are left with that spiritual comfort that in this life all things are transient; the soul alone will survive to be the eternal companion of its Creator. This is the greatest source of strength for weak hearts and minds that often waver in difficult circumstances’. Finally, he officiated a Te Deum for the king, speaking to the soldiers of his valour and urging them to obey their superiors and uphold the laws, “which are designed to instil in them as deeply as possible a sense of duty and love for their country, so that when the trumpet of war sounds, they may be ready to gladly shed their blood for their country”.36

Here, too, we deem it fitting to quote a few words spoken on 13 November 1902, following the Vespers service and the enshrinement of the holy relics, on the occasion of the consecration of the Church of the Life-Giving Spring in the village of Tismana, Gorj County: “As we begin the divine service for the consecration of this church, built at the expense and with the help of God-loving believers, I first called upon the intercession of those saints whose relics are enshrined in the sanctuary, that they might unite their prayers with ours and move God to mercy, that He might protect this sanctuary from any misfortune, pouring out His abundant grace upon it and making it a welcoming home for all who come and worship in faith to find the solace and peace they seek”.37

He delivered another “beautiful and well-consecrated sermon” on 21 September 1903, when the church in the village of Vlăduceni, in the commune of Păușești-Măglași, built through the perseverance of the family of the future Bishop Antim Petrescu. Deeply connected to his flock, he spoke to those present about the church and its benefits, describing it as “the mother of the community and the comforter of all the faithful”, how Christians should prepare themselves to enter it, and what spiritual benefit comes from heeding the word of God. Finally, he expressed his gratitude to the founders and to all those who had worked hard to build and adorn the church, whilst also highlighting the difficulties encountered during its construction, and urged the parishioners to love it, by visiting it as often as possible and providing for its needs. 38

Concerned for the salvation of his spiritual children and cherishing the beauty of the House of the Lord, in September 1904, he consecrated three churches in the parishes of Cetatea, Dolj County; Nicolcioiu, Gorj County; and Călinești, Vâlcea County. Over 5,000 worshippers attended the service at the church in Cetatea, many from Bulgaria and Romanians from the villages along the Danube, including priests, with whom he spoke, distributing religious books to them. Before the service held at the church in the parish of Nicolcioiu, he gave “a talk on the importance of the church, the act of consecration and the gift bestowed upon them by God on that day, offering them several pieces of advice beneficial to the soul”.39

To these we add the sermon delivered at the consecration of the Church of Saint Demetrius the Martyr in Corabia, in the Dașova neighbourhood, where “he spoke of the significance and spiritual benefit that Christians can derive from the sight of the church, both from the outside and from those within it, he then spoke of the care of the body and that of the soul, drawing moral lessons that will remain indelibly etched in the minds and hearts of his audience”.40

A new account reveals that on 9 October 1906, when the Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in the village of Ștefănești, in Vâlcea County, he delivered “a sermon full of uplifting teachings and wise counsel”, in which he explained the importance of the new house of God to the parishioners, urging them to gather there with spiritual zeal for their spiritual comfort and to always strive to maintain it in its proper splendour and grandeur. After praising the dedication of those who had worked on the project, particularly the parish priest Teodor Bălășel, and describing in moving terms the role of the church in the salvation of mankind, finally, he urged them to attend services on Sundays and feast days, so that they might fill their souls with the exquisite and comforting teachings of the Holy Gospel and with the wise counsel of their worthy shepherd.41

It is also worth noting that he was welcomed everywhere with great warmth and love. For example, when he consecrated the church in Pătulele, Mehedinți County, on 22 May 1905, ‘there was not a single village along the entire route from T.-Severin to Pătulele where the people did not give him the warmest of welcomes, greeting him with heartfelt speeches and tears of joy, each sharing their innermost feelings regarding their spiritual lives, and His Grace responded to them all by pouring healing balm upon their spiritual wounds”. At the consecration service, “through a heartfelt sermon he drew the Christians’ attention to the act being performed, urging them to love the church, to be good Christians through their deeds, and to understand the significance of the church, which brings them so many benefits in all circumstances of life”.42

The same joy was felt on 22 October 1906, on the day of the consecration of the church in Isvorul Bârzei: “The love shown towards His Grace our Bishop by the authorities, the church council and all the faithful was further proof of the strength of Christian sentiment; and His Grace’s gentle, authoritative voice, full of Christian counsel, moved the vast majority of the faithful and encouraged the devout in the practice of virtue”.43

He was greeted just as triumphantly by the faithful at Butoești railway station on 14 August 1907, on the occasion of the consecration of the Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in the village of Stângăciaua de Jos, Mehedinți County. Deeply moved, the hierarch thanked them all “for the warm welcome they had given him”, then urged them to be obedient sons of the Church and the fatherland, “which are our mother, caring for our spiritual and physical well-being”, and exhorted them to obey the laws and the authorities and to love one another, “for only then, in the words of the Saviour, will they prove themselves to be His followers and sons of one and the same Father who dwells in heaven”. The following day, after the consecration, he delivered another sermon, in which he explained to those present the importance of the Church within the state, its role in humanity, the purpose of man, the significance of the consecration service, the benefits that man receives from the Church, the role of the priest as teacher and minister of the altar in the celebration of the sacraments, and concluded with some advice to the people, which moved many to shed tears of sorrow and joy.44

A leader amongst priests

From the sources of the time, we glean a range of information about the clergy of Oltenia, most of it concerning the ordination of priests, their worthy deeds, but also their transgressions or vices, which the hierarch was quick to punish. Among those ordained during his time, we note: Gh. Mihălcescu (31 March 1902, Madona Dudu Church in Craiova),45 Gh. Popescu (29 September 1902, Horezu Parish-Poenari, Dolj County), Ilie Neagoe (29 September 1902, Rojistea Parish, Dolj County),46 Dumitru Popescu (1 November 1902, Preajba Parish, Romanați County), Constantin Popescu (1 November 1902, Lăpușata Parish, Vâlcea County), Grigorie A. Roșioga (9 November 1902, Aninoasa Parish, Gorj County), Nicolae Popescu (10 November 1902, Ciurari Parish, Dolj County), 47 Dumitru Mărgăritescu (19 June 1905, Găvănești Parish, Romnați County), 48 Nicolae Călugărescu (26 June 1905, Coțofenii din dos Parish, Dolj County), Teodor Popescu (3 July 1905, Rojiștea Parish, Dolj County),49 Ioan Tucu (September 1905, Calopăru Parish, Dolj County).50 On 3 July 1905, he ordained the monk Inochentie Radu as a deacon for Tismana Monastery,49 and on 6 August 1905, he ordained the hierodeacon Calinic Popescu as a priest for the same monastery.51 During this period, up until 1908, 160 priests and 4 deacons were ordained in the parishes of the diocese. 35

In general, the priests of Oltenia fulfilled their mission and duties towards the Church and their parishioners with honour, being involved in the construction of new places of worship and parish houses, or in the establishment of cultural societies and people’s banks, to the extent that many were worthy of praise. For example, through the efforts of Archpriest Meletie Răuțu, a joint-stock cooperative society called ‘Providența’ was established in Râmnicu Vâlcea, the aim of which was, on the one hand, to manufacture candles from pure beeswax and to undertake any industry beneficial to the Church and the School, and on the other, to provide material assistance to the widows and orphans of its members.45 In 1903, on the initiative of the priest Teodor Bălășel, a people’s savings and loan bank called Dobrușa was established in the village of Ștefănești, with over 60 members.52

Enjoying the esteem and respect of the entire clergy, many regarded him as a true father figure and a righteous man, who rewarded acts of faith, sometimes even with ecclesiastical ranks.53 Thus, on 17 February 1904, following a request from the commander of the 1st Army Corps, he ordained Father Alexandru Petrescu as a spiritual father and confirmed him in the post of confessor for the Craiova garrison; at that time, Father Petrescu was a supernumerary priest at the Parish of the Holy Voivodes. 54 On 28 June 1905, he ordained Teodor Bălășel and Dimitrie Bănescu—a priest at the Diocesan Infirmary and choirmaster of the Cathedral—as sacellars, 49 and on 6 August, he conferred the rank of archimandrite upon Protosinghel Damaschin Pandelescu, the superior of Bistrița Monastery. 55 In recognition of his service over 35 years of priesthood and the zeal he had shown in beautifying the holy place, on 4 December 1905, he elevated Father Iorgu Stănescu of the Church of the Dormition in Turnu Severin to the rank of iconom-stavrofor, expressing his hope that in future other clergymen would follow the example of this venerable priest. 56

Although many were aware of their calling, there were nevertheless instances of clerical misconduct, and the penalties imposed ranged from suspension to dismissal or removal from priestly ministry. On this matter, Archpriest Meletie Răuțu stated that Bishop Atanasie was measured in his approach when he had to impose punishment, guided by the ancient principle: ‘To err is human; but to persist in error is… a… devilish thing’. Here is his testimony: “As a former teacher of young people; and now as a shepherd of spiritual shepherds, in disciplining those who have strayed, he employs a gradual pedagogical approach and the evangelical gradation of the most measured punishments; always guided by the unshakeable principle ‘erare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum’.”57

Next, we shall mention a few interesting cases involving priests and church singers which have caught our attention. For example, in 1902, a parish priest in Vâlcea County was suspended from his priestly duties until he had brought his home to a state of perfect cleanliness, because during an inspection carried out by the archdeacon, it had been found to be in a state of reprehensible untidiness. Also due to untidiness in their homes, two other priests from Vâlcea were penalised with 10 and 15 days’ service at the Diocese respectively, whilst another, due to excessive consumption of spirits, was dismissed from his post as parish priest.58

On 15 June 1903, the diocesan magazine reported that Mr Ceaușescu, a cantor at the Church of St John the Baptist in Râmnicu Vâlcea, had been suspended from duty until he had entered into both a civil and religious marriage with the woman with whom he was cohabiting, 59 and on 1 July, it noted that a priest from Dolj County had been suspended from his parish duties and barred from all priestly work until he could prove that he had married his underage daughter, who was living in a common-law relationship, both civilly and in the Church.60 In the same year, three priests from Caracal were given a seven-day penalty of service at the Diocese for negligence regarding the cleanliness of the church. 61

From the report by the archpriest of Vâlcea County, No. 381/99, to the bishop, we learn that there were many priests who, with an almost savage stubbornness, refused to comply with the Holy Synod’s regulations regarding the standardisation of clerical attire, including among them: Dincă Berenu of Călina, Stanciu Gârdescu of Drăgășani, Ion Petroniu of Colțești, Ilie Popescu of Broșteni, C. Rădulescu of Ocnele-Mari, Gheorghe Ion Petre of Bunești, Ion Nedelcu of Nemoiu and Petre Stănescu of Lungești.62

Upon examining the sources of the time, we find significant information regarding the conferences held in the diocese, in which the bishop either participated or approved the topics put forward for discussion, with a view to improving the religious and moral life of his flock. First and foremost, we must note the teachers’ conferences held between 5 and 12 April 1901 in Râmnicu Vâlcea, where, amongst other things, the teaching of Religion in primary schools was discussed. After the religious service had ended, he advised them to teach initially through parables and examples, and once the pupils had reached a higher level of understanding, to provide them with more advanced theoretical knowledge. “Here, however, great care must be taken, for, in accordance with the recommendations made by the great educators, we must guard against instilling in the pupils’ minds any doubts or uncertainty regarding religious truths. When teaching Religion, the teacher should adhere to the historical method, whereby truths are taught without question, as they are based on documents”.63

His concern for the smooth running of the Diocese of Râmnic is also evident from the guidance he gave to the priests of Vâlcea at the conference on 30 October 1902, when “he held the attention of the priests and all those present—numbering some 70—for a full hour, offering so much fatherly advice, sealed with so many quotations from Holy Scripture, that he summarised and brought to the fore the whole of the priest’s moral and pastoral work. His pastoral exhortations, his calls for honest and unceasing labour—which everyone is duty-bound to dedicate to the altar of the nation and the Church—and the wealth of examples drawn from the history of nations, the nation itself and the Church; nourished the souls of the listeners and held their interest so deeply that even those who once regarded the lectures as a burden, have now spent a pleasant time in divine comfort […] now more than ever, the priests of Vâlcea have had the opportunity to get to know their shepherd even more closely; now more than ever, to realise the wealth of knowledge possessed by their spiritual guide, and each one learnt that every person, through unceasing labour and diligence, adds ever more to their store of knowledge, and through unceasing reading, they acquire knowledge and prepare themselves to be ever ready to preach, to exhort, to advise and to command respect from their younger fellow-men, and even from their elders’. Finally, after the church singers had left the hall, ‘he pointed out, with boundless caution, some of the serious errors of the priests, and in particular those who were at odds with fate, offering them a new series of fatherly admonitions, warning them of the moral dangers to which they expose themselves and of the consequences of the severity of the canons, to which the reckless and the heedless inevitably expose themselves to falling victim of their own free will. Up to this point, the Shepherd had advised, guided and exhorted; but here he commanded and even threatened those who, devoid of scruples, would bring their own deserved punishment upon themselves.”64

In this context, we must highlight the fact that in 1903, with his blessing, the ‘Lumina’ Society of the Oltenian clergy was founded, which had, amongst other aims, a cultural and educational purpose through the organisation of lectures and the establishment of priests’ cultural circles. In Gorj County there were 20 cultural circles for priests, matching the number of teachers’ circles. In 1903–04, these were combined with those of the teachers, as several priests deemed appropriate.65

Without going into detail, we note that on 26–27 August 1903, the priests of Gorj County took part in general conferences, with two topics for discussion: the establishment of religious cultural circles and Christians’ observance of the Ten Commandments.66 The following year, the priests of Gorj and the General Assembly of members of the ‘Lumina’ Society of the county’s clergy met on 25–26 August, with the following items on the agenda: a report on the activities carried out in the religious cultural circles during the year 1903/904, the conduct of the priest within and outside the parish, the hardships suffered by the villagers and who is called upon to eradicate them, a report on the financial and moral situation of the Lumina Society for the first two quarters, etc.67

It is also worth noting here the church meeting held on 30 November 1904 in the hall of the Episcopal Library under his chairmanship, to present the activities of the Church Administration for the year 1904 and the work of the Church Consistory during that same year, at which he delivered a speech on the great Metropolitan Veniamin Costachi, entitled: ‘A Model Shepherd of Our Church’.68 At this meeting, a committee was appointed to draw up regulations for the holding of pastoral conferences in the diocese. The draft provided for: 1) the regulation, mandatory nature, purpose and content of the conferences; 2) the types, duration, timing and external organisation of the conferences; 3) the internal organisation of the conferences; 4) the administration of the conferences.69

As contemporary sources indicate, the general conferences for the year 1905/06 debated seven issues, including: the means and ways by which a priest might better fulfil his duties and enjoy his rights; the domestic virtues of the priest and his wife; the characteristics by which our Church is distinguished from other Christian churches and recognised as the true Church of Christ, and what had been achieved for the Church and the clergy during the 40-year reign of King Carol I, etc. In Dolj County, the general conferences were held on 29–30 December 1905, under his chairmanship. 70

Having taken note of the regulations governing pastoral conferences, the priests of Gorj sent him a telegram on 1 November 1906 “expressing their deepest gratitude for the care shown towards the clergy, so that they may remain true to their calling”, accompanied by wishes for fruitful work and long life. In reply to this telegram, he wrote: “I am deeply moved by this beautiful expression of sentiment from the beloved clergy of Gorj regarding the organisation of the pastoral conferences; I extend my warmest thanks and hope that, united in faith and deed, all may prosper for the glory of God and the enlightenment of our faithful people”.71

His devotion to his flock is also evident from the telegram sent by the priests of Dolj County, who gathered on 23–24 June 1908 at the conference in Craiova, in which they expressed their feelings of respect, accompanied by wishes “for good health, so that you may remain a shining example for us to follow in our ministry and for the honour of our Church”. Once again, he replied to them with great consideration: ‘It was with particular joy that I learnt of the gathering of the clergy of Dolj County at their general conference and, hoping that its proceedings may aim to strengthen brotherly love and to further pastoral ministry for the uplifting of Christian morality amongst the people, I bless you”.72

Finally, it should be noted that on 5 February 1905, the Ordinary Meeting of the members of the Providence Society of Râmnicu Vâlcea, comprising priests, teachers and several devout Christians, took place in the hall of the Episcopal Library. In addition to removing the counterfeit candles from the church and providing assistance to the widows and orphans of its members, the society had also established, that year, the Credit and Economy Section to assist members and others with the sums required for various needs in their lives, or for the peasants, who were often in straitened circumstances.73

Synodal activity

Also in connection with Bishop Athanasius, we must highlight his role within the Holy Synod, where he raised numerous questions and was elected to several committees. Given his status as a member of the Committee for the Audit of the Accounts of the journal The Romanian Orthodox Church and the Church Book Printing House, he read out a report at the meeting in May 1900 concerning a request from the monk Dionisie Barbu of Cheia Monastery, who was asking for a half-price subscription, that is, 5 lei, for the publication in question, as he lacked the necessary means to pay the full subscription fee. 74

In another address, delivered during the spring session of 1903 on 5 May, he proposed the publication of the 14 Epistles of the Apostle to the Gentiles according to Theophylact, which were held in manuscript form in the Library of the Faculty of Theology, as a tribute to Metropolitan Veniamin Costachi on behalf of the Holy Synod, to mark the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Seminary in Iași. 75 At the meeting on 8 May, he was elected to the Commission for the review of religious education textbooks, drawn up in accordance with the new syllabuses for seminaries, and was tasked with reviewing and approving, together with members of the Ministry, the textbooks, and to draw up a report on the works examined, to be presented at a future session. At the same time, his proposal and that of the Bishop of Huși regarding the printing of the Commentary on the Epistles of Saint Paul the Apostle according to Theophylact, compiled by the great Moldavian Metropolitan, and of the Gospels, also based on the work of the Archbishop of Bulgaria, were approved. He was delegated, together with the Bishop of Argeș, to oversee these publications.76 The following day, he proposed that the Holy Synod’s Printing House and journal, which were in financial and even moral disarray, should be placed under the supervision of the Ministry of Religious Affairs.77

It is worth noting that, during the autumn session of that same year, he was elected a member of the Commission for the examination of the documents and writings of candidates applying for the Chair of Canon Law at the Faculty of Theology in Bucharest, as well as to the committee for the journal The Romanian Orthodox Church and the Church Books Printing House, and to the committee for the examination of textbooks for religious education at primary level.78 It should be noted that at the meeting on 22 October, whilst discussing the request from the clergy of the town of Huși and Fălciu County to receive the pay scale provided for by the Clergy Act, the Bishop of Râmnic pointed out firstto the Minister that the hierarchy had always urged priests to conscientiously fulfil their duties as servants of God and as good guides for the faithful on the path of goodness and faith. However, there were also priests who were dissatisfied because their salaries were not being paid regularly, such as those in Craiova, whom he asked to remain calm, as justice would be done. 79

During the discussions regarding the Bishop of Roman’s decision not to allow military music to be played at soldiers’ funerals, in the May 1904 session, the Oltenian hierarch once again expressed his view, stating that “it is appropriate to maintain the custom of playing military music at military funerals, but not in the churchyard, nor in cemeteries, but only at the deceased’s home and on the way to the cemetery”. He then cited the case of a church in Craiova, where the choir had sung some hymns, drawing the attention of the church wardens, who subsequently forbade such singing, as it was prohibited by Canon 59 of the Council of Laodicea. Following the debates, it was decided that the Moldovan hierarch should reconsider the provision, as the custom of playing music at funerals had long been practised in all dioceses. Also during this session, Athanasius proposed several measures: “1) to require certificates of good character from those who make accusations against priests, and then to proceed with an investigation, as this would reduce the number of accusers. 2) The Minister for Religious Affairs should take steps to ensure that church wardens, particularly those at churches with their own funds, confine themselves solely to exercising the powers granted to them by law and comply with the provisions laid down by the hierarchy. 3) The new regulations concerning church construction must be observed, as they contain provisions that hinder the work. For example, proof is required of the existence of the necessary funds for the construction of a church, when it is well known that most churches, particularly in rural areas, have been and continue to be built by Christians through voluntary contributions.”80

To ensure the smooth running of the Church Books Printing House and its journal, the members of the Holy Synod established, at their autumn session in 1905, a committee of which he was also a member, to carry out unannounced visits to the editorial office and supervise the printing works on a daily basis, in order to ensure that the text of the liturgical books was accurate and free from errors. This decision was taken as a result of the numerous errors that had crept into the Psalter, 3rd edition, printed by Constantin Chiricescu. 81

Also worthy of note is his intervention during the May 1907 session, when he read a report setting out the reasons against festivals not recognised by the Church, arising from credulity or vain beliefs, but celebrated improperly by the faithful in the villages. Of particular note is the conclusion of this speech, which called for the issuance of a circular throughout the country, leading to the abolition of all pagan festivals: ‘Considering that the holy canons prescribe severe reprimands for priests and laypeople who observe pagan festivals; and having regard to the regulation of the Holy Synod of 29 May 1874, which, in Article 3, prohibits pagan festivals; and having regard to the fact that villagers in various parts of the country still observe such festivals, as also stated by Mr Minister for Religious Affairs, Spiru Haret; considering that this constitutes an abuse with consequences that lead to the loss of souls, and which brings even greater poverty upon the rural population, the Commission is of the opinion that the Holy Synod should immediately issue an encyclical throughout the country to denounce this abuse, whilst also reminding people of the festivals which Christians are obliged to observe, in accordance with the relevant regulation of 1874. As regards the role of priests in combating this abuse, the Commission recommends that priests be required to advise the villagers earnestly on all occasions, both in church and amongst the parishioners, that they should no longer celebrate pagan festivals. Priests found to have disobeyed this exhortation of the Holy Synod are to be disciplined at the seat of the respective metropolitan, at his discretion. To this end, priests shall be obliged to report through the hierarchical channels on the measures they have taken to eradicate pagan festivals, and whether the parishioners have heeded them, and to what extent. And those priests who not only fail to urge the villagers to abandon this custom, but even announce it by ringing the bells and holding a service in church, with the aim that the parishioners, having no work of their own to do, might come out to assist the priest in his labours. Bearing in mind that St Basil the Great says: ‘Piety ought not to be an excuse for idleness’, such priests, in accordance with Canon 70 of the Holy Apostles, should be suspended from all priestly duties for a period of one month to two years, and should forfeit their salary during the period of suspension…”.82

In conclusion, we note that at the meeting of 20 October 1908, the Bishop of Râmnic outlined the three calls of the Church upon which the Holy Synod must deliberate: “to preach or teach the Word of God, to celebrate the holy divine services, and to guide the faithful in the performance of good deeds”. Regarding the first, he highlighted the dissatisfaction of two teachers who complained that the Ministry had not increased the salaries of religious education teachers in the same way as those of other teachers, even though they work just as hard, and are also required to hold academic qualifications and pass competitive examinations. With regard to seminaries and the Faculty of Theology, he maintains that the necessary resources must be found so that these institutions can produce graduates who may be ordained as priests in both towns and villages, “for there are many parishes without a priest, and the lack of priests causes the people to become estranged from religion and the Church, and the consequences of this estrangement are very harmful”. As regards the Faculty of Theology, he considered that lecturers must maintain a spiritual connection with the hierarchs and the Holy Synod, whilst students must acquire a more solid grounding of knowledge in their courses.83

Speeches in the Senate

A preacher of great merit and a leading orator, he devoted his entire life to the Church and his nation, becoming known for his speeches in the Senate as well, where he frequently attended sessions and often took the floor. Demonstrating exceptional qualities, the members of the upper house held him in high esteem and had great respect for him.84 Seven years after his installation in Râmnic, the editors of Cuvântul Adevărului, noting his extensive work in the service of the Church and the country, remarked with great esteem: ‘In defending the Church, he was not guided by short-term considerations, but in the Senate he expressed his views with dignity during debates on various laws, such as: conscription, the rural gendarmerie, amendments to civil procedure, secondary education, primary and teacher-training education, and the establishment of the Church Fund, etc., proposing what he deemed to be in the best interests of the Church and the clergy”.9

To begin with, we note that during the meetings in the autumn of 1899, in his capacity as chairman of the sub-committee responsible for drawing up the syllabus for Religious Education—which was taught for one hour a week at lower secondary and upper secondary schools, as well as in Years 5–6 of senior secondary school, he proposed a draft syllabus for Years 7–8 for boys, so that they might supplement their knowledge—knowledge that is absolutely essential for any Christian and, above all, for future citizens and statesmen. Unfortunately, the Minister for Religious Affairs removed the subject from those two year groups, citing the need to lighten and simplify the curriculum rather than burden it further. 85

Also of interest is the statement of 17 January 1900, in which he responded to a proposal by a senator who had called for the prosecution of all those who attacked religion, authority, property, etc. in the press. To demonstrate that the Church does not wish to punish such people harshly, he referred to the work of the Holy Synod, which was fulfilling its duty by facilitating the distribution of religious and moral books amongst the people, and by encouraging the finest Christians to publish a series of works designed to counterthe anti-religious and anti-Christian tendencies of certain individuals and refuting these slanders by disseminating sound religious, moral and social knowledge amongst the people.86

During the discussion on the amendments to be made to the civil procedure, in Article 196, at the sitting in the spring of 1900, whilst analysing the legitimacy and usefulness of the oath, he requested “that priests should not be required to take an oath, but should be believed on their word alone” and proposed two amendments: the first that the witness should take an oath before a priest dressed in vestments and holding the Holy Gospel in his hands before giving evidence, and secondly, that priests should not be required to take an oath. 87

Furthermore, we note the steps he took in April 1900, during the discussions on the laws governing primary, teacher-training, seminary, secondary and higher education, in which he drew attention to the amendment of Article 19 of the draft under debate, which provided for the abolition of lower seminaries as higher primary schools were established. Having outlined the state of Romanian education, he asked the senators to retain all the lower seminaries, and even to establish a further higher seminary, in addition to the two already in existence, in order to ensure there were sufficient priests in the villages. He considered this request justified given the number of vacant parishes throughout the country. Râmnic, for example, had 22 parishes available at that time, which could not be filled by supernumerary priests, as the latter would rather forgo their salary than leave the household for which they had worked throughout their youth. The establishment of a third seminary was essential, as the number of surplus priests had fallen significantly since the implementation of the Clergy Act, with his diocese having only around 200 such priests for nearly 800 parishes. At the end of his speech, he called on the Government not to make cutbacks at the expense of education, but to establish a third higher seminary, necessary for future priests, thereby proving thus that they are “faithful heirs not only to the traditions of the Conservative Party regarding the organisation of our Church, but also to all men who care for the good and the future of this country”.88

At the meeting on 24 February 1904, whilst discussing amendments to certain articles of the Law on Primary and Teacher Training Education, the Bishop of Râmnic proposed an amendment to address the shortage of priests in rural areas. Drawing on the Law on the Lay Clergy, which stipulated that no new priests would be ordained except at a rate of one for every four vacancies, should there be surplus priests, he outlined to the senators the consequences of this decision, which meant that, ‘within 10 years, in the Diocese of Râmnic alone, of the 319 surplus priests who existed in 1894, no more than 130 remained in the rural parishes; the 189 posts, therefore, which remained vacant, could not be filled, not even in part, despite the repeated requests from the inhabitants for priests to be sent to them, as they are suffering”. As a parish priest’s post had been advertised in Oltenia, for which 14 candidates applied, he proposed that these young men should take up a post as assistant teachers in hamlets with 40 school-age children, and then to be ordained and paid solely from their teaching salary, “for such a number of children implies the existence of a sufficiently large population to necessitate a priest at the church”.89

Equally significant is his report on the draft amendment to the Law on the Lay Clergy, adopted by the Senate on 14 December 1905. To illustrate this, we reproduce below the concluding part of the speech, which emphasises the importance of this initiative for better church administration and the improvement of the lives of the faithful in rural areas: ‘By appointing qualified priests to the villages, with sufficient training to be true spiritual shepherds, possessing intellectual and moral influence over the villagers, and leading exemplary lives and conduct amongst them, this project pursues the lofty and patriotic aim of improving the lot of the Romanian peasant, of working by every means to reduce all manner of breaches of the law, which, according to the latest statistics, are unfortunately all too frequent amongst our villagers; to curb cohabitation and divorce to an ever-greater extent, to assist in the economic advancement of the rural population, in short, to raise the moral standards of our beloved villagers […] By requiring priests in future to teach religious instruction in primary schools, the bill aims to instil in the hearts of tomorrow’s citizens, from the earliest age, the fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom, respect for and obedience to one’s elders, a pure sense of duty, and a readiness to make sacrifices for one’s country and the throne […] It suffices to consider that there are over three thousand villages in the country without churches and that a large number of villagers still have no places of worship in which to learn, little by little, to pray to God and to partake of the consolations of religion. This present project, however, by establishing assistant priests, remedies this evil as well, for the priests will endeavour, as St John Chrysostom says, to ensure that every home is a church, until such time as they come to have proper church buildings, for which we are delighted to note that the villagers are already prepared to make any sacrifice.”90

It is worth noting that, on the issue of ordinations, he proposed, among other measures designed to meet the numerous requests for priests, that Article 11 of the Clergy Act be interpreted more broadly and that even four deaths of supernumerary clergy should entitle the parish to an ordination. Although the Minister of Religious Affairs initially opposed this, the requirement was revised by letter No. 57/1905 to the Diocese of Râmnic, thereby restoring the meaning of the aforementioned article: “As soon as four priests, whether parish priests or supernumerary priests, have died, or four supernumerary priests have refused to be appointed as parish priests, a legal vacancy has arisen and ordination may take place either as a parish priest or as a supernumerary priest”.91

At the Senate meeting of 2 March 1906 concerning the organisation and administration of the Church Fund, it was requested that the director of the Church Book Printing House be appointed by the Holy Synod, as had been the case until then, and that this person should be distinguished by learning and integrity, and should provide a guarantee of at least 10,000 lei. With regard to the magazine The Romanian Orthodox Church, administered by the Church Fund, he considered that it was neither fair nor legal to impose a levy on priests to force them to subscribe, but that they should be free to decide for themselves. Finally, he urged the Minister to comply with the regulations in force, so as not to undermine ‘the people’s faith in the purity of our ritual books, should you proceed as envisaged in the present draft bill, by declaring the printing of church books to be an institution in which the Holy Synod has no say whatsoever, save only to pay the fees required for printing and nothing else’.”92

Equally important was his role in 1907, during the peasant uprising, when he defended the clergy with compelling evidence against the unjust accusations levelled at them in a detailed petition to the Ministry of Religious Affairs, as well as on various other occasions, thereby safeguarding the honour of the Church.12 Combative by nature as he was, in 1908, when the law on the Higher Ecclesiastical Consistory was passed, he waged a fierce battle against it and against Minister Spiru Haret, eventually becoming the rapporteur for the bill in the country’s Senate.93

Finally, we recall his speech on the draft law concerning the manufacture of candles, which was brought before the Senate for deliberation on 4 February 1908. As the practice of counterfeiting candles could not be prevented by the Act of 28 February 1906, a committee was formed two years later—of which he was also a member—to re-examine the original bill. Following the review, the committee adopted it on the following grounds: ‘That law appears to have been enacted primarily out of a concern to increase the revenues of the Holy Church […] Its sole result was the abolition of the church shop, to the detriment of the churches. Another drawback of the said law is that the duties it imposed on the manufacture of candles and their sale, even in minute detail, prevent small traders from dealing in this commodity as well […] The present law is intended to remedy all these drawbacks. Its sole purpose is to put an end to the abuse of the manufacture and sale of counterfeit candles for use in our churches, but not to generate revenue for the Church Treasury, save for any proceeds from fines. It also preserves the church shops for their own benefit and exempts them from taxes […] this Act does not impose taxes on the manufacture or sale of pure wax candles, apart from those provided for in the Commercial Code for manufacturers in general […] this law permits the manufacture of pure beeswax candles for the personal use of an individual or their family, at home or in church; it does, however, provide for a fine of between 500 and 1,000 lei and the confiscation of candles manufactured at home, should it be proven that they have been placed on the market…”. As rapporteur, he concluded by addressing the senators, stating: “I have emphasised, gentlemen, in the report, specifically that the manufacture of candles made from genuine beeswax is permitted for the personal use of every household head at home and in church, so as to enable Romanian peasants to keep bees even more than before, so that they may have the means to make candles for their homes or to give them as alms, lit or unlit, in accordance with Christian custom […] Do not, then, accuse us of not being in favour of the peasants’ interests; on the contrary, it was precisely the peasants whom we had in mind first and foremost when drafting this law; for they, like the priests, are protected so that they may make candles in their own homes; this will give them even greater incentive to keep bees and use the wax, as much as they need for their homes, and to sell the rest to meet their other needs…”.94

A man of prayer and good deeds

To highlight his personality as clearly as possible, it is fitting to present some aspects of his religious and moral life, as well as the acts of philanthropy recorded by those close to him. First and foremost, it is worth noting the words left by Father Meletie Răuțu of the All Saints Parish in Râmnicu Vâlcea, who served under him as archpriest for 11 years, accompanying him to the holy services both at the Episcopal Cathedral and at other places of worship in Vâlcea County: ‘He encouraged and urged everyone to work hard and to fulfil their duties precisely, both within and outside the church. He himself set an example of the most diligent work and the most regular performance of church services, without which no evening or morning service begins in the churches of the Holy Diocese, nor in the churches of the Holy Monastery of Cozia, where he spends a good part of the summer, His Grace himself being a consummate expert in the hymns, the liturgical order and all internal church rites, as there are few others in the church hierarchy who are.”19

The editorial staff of the magazine Cuvântul Adevărului were to write just as convincingly on the occasion of his tenth anniversary as a pastor: “Pious and entirely obedient to monastic discipline, he leads an austere life entirely in keeping with the monastic order. His bed, his meals and his prayers are such that in no other monastery could they be carried out more simply or more strictly in accordance with the austere church rules. He never fails to attend any church services, celebrating the Divine Liturgy himself on almost every Sunday and feast day throughout the year.”

Despite the hard times, we can also recall several accounts of a philanthropic nature, which speak of the help he gave to his flock. From children to various institutions, they saw in him a true father who loved and cherished them, knowing the hard life each one led. Here, for example, is what emerges from the pages of the magazine Cuvântul Adevărului regarding his generous nature: “Always gentle, always humble and pious, always ready to help, His Grace He would never even pass by a child without addressing a fatherly word to them and, very often, without giving them a gift […] Like a true monk, His Grace does not set his heart on money nor does he concern himself with it unduly. All financial matters are handled by His Grace’s subordinates. He often uses his own money to pay for the Diocese’s necessities. Who has ever asked His Grace for help and not received it? Whether for the poor or for various organisations, His Grace’s financial aid has always been provided in abundance.”12

To convince us once again of the care he showed towards his fellow human beings, we also note the description left by the priest Meletie Răuțu: ‘Merciful and compassionate towards the needy, he helped everyone without delay. A fervent nationalist, he generously supported any institution or undertaking initiated in the name of the homeland and the Romanian people.”57 For his part, Father Teodor Bălășel of the Ștefănești parish emphasised a few years later: “I confess in all sincerity that whenever I found myself in the presence of His Eminence, I felt like a different person, with a soul greatly uplifted and warmed, ready to fulfil my duty as an apostle of the people with tenfold strength. For this reason, I confess that much of what I have been able to achieve as a priest and as a Romanian is due to the advice and, above all, the character and pastoral care of His Eminence. And it is not only I who say this; the entire Diocese of Râmnic says so, where he has left behind unanimous regret. Always kind, always unhesitating, always clear-minded and ready to offer sound advice, I saw in His Eminence the very model of a hierarch worthy of his lofty calling.”95

Although few in number, these testimonies show that he was a man of prayer and a servant-bishop, who bore witness to Christ the Saviour with his whole being, preaching, consecrating, performing ordinations and, above all, living out the truths of the faith which he proclaimed in word and deed. Quite rightly, therefore, the editorial board of Cuvântul Adevărului wrote six years after his election to the see of Râmnic: ‘The date of 28 March 1898 is worthy of special honour, for it marks the beginning of a fruitful era in all areas of church activity, an era which, in the course of religious development in Romania, represents a step forward. It would take hours to recount the fervour and dignity with which His Grace Athanasie leads the Diocese, though this is now a matter of public record.”96

• 1

  Vasile Romanescu, Metropolitan Athanasie Mironescu..., pp. 12–13; Deacon Dr Haralambie Rovența, ‘The Study of the New Testament in Romania over the Last 50 Years (1881–1931)’, in: ST, vol. III (1932), no. 2, pp. 280–281 (“The work and diligence of the scholar Bishop Athanasie Mironescu had filled a great void by publishing Theophylact’s rich exegetical work in Romanian.”); Nicolae Șerbănescu, ‘The Hierarchs of the Oltenian Lands in the First Hundred Years since the Autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church – 25 April 1985’, in: MO, vol. XXXVII (1985), no. 5–6, p. 345; Mircea Păcurariu, Dictionary of Romanian Theologians..., p. 402.

• 2

  G., ‘Bibliography’, in: BOR, vol. XXIII (1899), no. 7, pp. 711–712.

• 3

  † P.S. Athanasius, Bishop of Râmnic, Holy Relics in the Cathedral of the Holy Bishops of Râmnic..., pp. 27–30.

• 4

  † Athanasie Râmnicu, ‘Pastoral Letter issued by His Grace the Bishop of Râmnic to the spiritual sons of his diocese concerning the observance of the laws’, in: BOR, vol. XXXII (1909), no. 1, pp. 1–17.

• 5

  The Editors, Ten Years of Pastoral Ministry..., p. 224.

• 6

  The Defence of Metropolitan Athanasie..., p. 196.

• 7

  Haralambie Rovența, A Study of the New Testament..., pp. 279–280 (“He was one of the most learned bishops the Church has had in recent decades.”); Biographical Profile and Selected Bibliography..., pp. 34–35.

• 8

  Vasile Romanescu, Metropolitan Athanasie Mironescu..., pp. IV–V.

• 9a9b9c

  Editorial, 28 March..., p. 223.

• 10

  ‘Pastoral Advice’, in: CA, vol. VI (1908), no. 21, p. 173; Mircea Păcurariu, Dictionary of Romanian Theologians..., p. 402.

• 11

  ‘Our Aim’, in: CA, vol. I (1902), no. 1, p. 1.

• 12a12b12c

  Editorial Board, Ten Years of Pastoral Ministry..., p. 225.

• 13

  “The School for Church Singers in R.-Vâlcea. Report”, in: CA, vol. I (1902), no. 8, p. 60.

• 14

  “News. Statistics”, in: CA, vol. III (1904), no. 10, p. 104.

• 15

  Nicolae Șerbănescu, The Hierarchs of the Oltenian Lands..., p. 345.

• 16

  Fr. P. Partenie, Yearbook of the ‘St Nicholas’ Seminary in Râmnicu Vâlcea for the academic year 1924–1925, with a brief history from its foundation to the present day, Matei Basarab Printing Works, Bookbindery and Bookshop, Râmnicu Vâlcea, 1926, pp. 111–112.

• 17

  “Ordinary meetings. The public meeting of 25 May 1909”, in: Annals of the Romanian Academy, Series II, Volume XXXI, 1908–1909, Administrative Section and Debates, Bucharest, 1909, pp. 189–190; Vasile Romanescu, Metropolitan Athanasie Mironescu..., pp. IV–V.

• 18

  Ordinary meetings. The meeting of 28 May 1909..., pp. 210–211.

• 19a19b

  Meletie Răuțu, Ecclesiastical Monograph..., pp. XVI–XVII.

• 20

  Meletie Răuțu, Ecclesiastical Monograph..., pp. XVIII–XIX.

• 21

  † Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Bishopric of the Diocese of Râmnic – Noul Severin..., pp. 182–183; ‘News and Miscellany’, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 11, p. 86 (The Minister for Religious Affairs granted 3,000 lei for repairs to the Cathedral.).

• 22

  ‘Donations’, in: BOR, vol. XXIV (1900), no. 8, pp. 794–795.

• 23

  “News. Donation”, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 9, p. 72.

• 24

  “News. Statistics on aid to the church in the Diocese of Râmnic – Noul Severin – 1898–1902”, in: CA, vol. I (1903), no. 18, p. 144.

• 25

  ‘News. Offering’, in: CA, vol. IV (1905), no. 1, p. 112.

• 26

  “News from the Diocese of Râmnic”, in: CA, vol. IV (1905), no. 12, p. 128.

• 27

  ‘Donations’, in: BOR, vol. XXXIII (1909), no. 2, p. 237.

• 28

  An Assistant, ‘Church Chronicle: Consecrations of Churches’, in: BOR, vol. XXV (1901), no. 1, p. 86.

• 29

  “News. Consecration of a church”, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 2, p. 14.

• 30

  ‘News’, in: CA, vol. III (1904), no. 24, p. 267.

• 31

  Rev. Dr Laurențiu Rădoi, Vâlcea: A Cradle of Romanian Culture and Spirituality, Alma Mater Publishing House, Sibiu, 2012, pp. 152–452.

• 32

  “Copy of the report by the Reverend Archpriest of Vâlcea County, No. 381/99, to His Holiness Bishop of the Diocese of Râmnicu – Noul Severin”, in: BOR, vol. XXIII (1899), no. 3, pp. 346–347.

• 33

  “News. Statistical Notes”, in: CA, vol. II (1904), no. 19, p. 152.

• 34

  † Atanasie Mironescu, The Holy Diocese of Râmnic – Noul Severin..., pp. 516, 559, 607, 640, 681.

• 35a35b

  “News”, in: CA, vol. VII (1909), no. 21–22, p. 230.

• 36

  Popescu-Breasta, ‘The Service at the Cathedral Church in Târgu-Jiu by His Grace the Bishop of Râmnic – Noul Severin, D. D. Atanasie”, in: CA, vol. I (1902), no. 2, pp. 14–16.

• 37

  ‘News’, in: CA, vol. I (1902), no. 18, p. 128.

• 38

  Fr. Al. Petrescu, ‘The Church of Vlăduceni (Vâlcea)’, in: BOR, vol. XXVII (1903), no. 7, pp. 812–821; ‘News. A church consecration’, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 13, p. 104.

• 39

  “News. Church consecrations”, in: CA, vol. III (1904), no. 12, p. 123.

• 40

  “News. A church consecration”, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 15, p. 119.

• 41

  “News. Consecration of a church”, in: CA, vol. IV (1906), no. 13, p. 136; Rev. Teodor Bălășel, ‘Notice’, in: CA, vol. IV (1906), no. 11, p. 112.

• 42

  “News. Church consecration”, in: CA, vol. IV (1905), no. 6, p. 64.

• 43

  Deacon I. V. Raiculescu, ‘The Consecration of the Church at Isvorul Bârzei, in Mehedinți County’, in: CA, vol. V (1906), no. 15, p. 120.

• 44

  Assistant, ‘News. A church consecration’, in: CA, vol. VI (1907), nos. 9–10, pp. 78–79.

• 45a45b

  ‘News’, in: CA, vol. I (1902), no. 1, p. 8.

• 46

  ‘News’, in: CA, vol. I (1902), no. 14, p. 112.

• 47

  “News. Appointments”, in: CA, vol. I (1902), no. 17, p. 136.

• 48

  “News. From the Diocese of Râmnic”, in: CA, vol. IV (1905), no. 6, p. 64.

• 49a49b49c

  “News. From the Holy Diocese”, in: CA, vol. IV (1905), no. 7, p. 71.

• 50

  “News”, in: CA, vol. IV (1905), no. 11, p. 112.

• 51

  “News. From the Diocese of Râmnic”, in: CA, vol. IV (1905), no. 10, p. 104.

• 52

  “News”, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 3, p. 24.

• 53

  Vasile Romanescu, Metropolitan Athanasie Mironescu..., p. 18.

• 54

  ‘News and Miscellaneous’, in: CA, vol. III (1905), no. 23, p. 252.

• 55

  “News. Honour”, in: CA, vol. IV (1905), no. 11, p. 112.

• 56

  ‘An Honour’, in: CA, vol. VI (1906), no. 24, pp. 255–256.

• 57a57b

  Meletie Răuțu, Ecclesiastical Monograph..., p. XVIII.

• 58

  “News. Decisive Measures”, in: CA, vol. I (1902), no. 11, p. 88.

• 59

  “News. Suspension”, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 5, p. 40.

• 60

  “News. Suspension”, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 6, p. 48.

• 61

  “News. Canonisation”, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 7, p. 56.

• 62

  Rev. M. Răuțu, ‘Copy of the report by the Most Reverend Archpriest of Vâlcea County, No. 381/99, to His Holiness Bishop of the Diocese of Râmnic–Noul Severin”, in: BOR, vol. XXIII (1899), no. 3, p. 350.

• 63

  G. ‘Church Chronicle. Lectures by Teachers’, in: BOR, vol. XXV (1901), no. 1, pp. 82–84.

• 64

  An Assistant, ‘A Conference of Priests from Vâlcea’, in: CA, vol. I (1902), no. 15, pp. 118–119.

• 65

  Prot. Ștefan Nicolaescu, ‘Report No. 417/a.c. from the Archpriest of Gorjiu County to the Holy Diocese of Râmnic – Noul Severin”, in: CA, vol. III (1904), no. 8, pp. 82–83.

• 66

  “Report No. 417/a.c. from the Protoiereu of Gorjiu County to the Holy Diocese of Râmnic – Noul Severin”, in: CA, vol. III (1904), no. 5, p. 49.

• 67

  ‘News’, in: CA, vol. III (1904), no. 10, p. 104.

• 68

  “News”, in: CA, vol. III (1904), no. 18, p. 192; ‘The Life and Work of Metropolitan Veniamin Costachi. A Model Shepherd of the Romanian Church’, in: CA, vol. III (1905), no. 21, p. 229.

• 69

  “Notice to the Reverend Priests of the Diocese of Râmnic”, in: CA, vol. III (1905), no. 22, p. 242.

• 70

  “News. Priests’ Conferences”, in: CA, vol. IV (1905), no. 12, p. 128.

• 71

  ‘News’, in: CA, vol. IV (1906), no. 18, p. 144.

• 72

  ‘News’, in: CA, vol. VII (1908), no. 7–8, p. 91.

• 73

  “News”, in: CA, vol. III (1905), no. 22, p. 244.

• 74

  “Minutes of the meetings of the Holy Synod during the spring session of 1900”, in: BOR, vol. XXIV (1900), no. 4, p. 19.

• 75

  “News. The Holy Synod of the Holy Autocephalous Romanian Orthodox Church”, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 5, pp. 38–39.

• 76

  “News and Miscellany. From the Holy Synod. The Spring Session”, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 4, pp. 28–29.

• 77

  “The Question of the Ministry of Religious Affairs’ Control over the ‘Printing House’ and the ‘Journal of the Holy Synod’”, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 13, p. 99.

• 78

  ‘News’, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 14, p. 112.

• 79

  “News. On the matter of the priestly hierarchy”, in: CA, vol. II (1903), no. 15, p. 120.

• 80

  “News. From the Holy Synod”, in: CA, vol. III (1904), no. 7, p. 70.

• 81

  “News. Proposal”, in: CA, vol. IV (1905), no. 14, p. 144.

• 82

  “The report by His Grace Athanasie, Bishop of Râmnic–Noul Severin, on the feast days, read out at the Holy Synod during its May session this year”, in: CA, vol. VI (1907), nos. 7–8, pp. 52–55.

• 83

  “News”, in: CA, vol. VII (1908–1909), nos. 17–18, pp. 209–210.

• 84

  Vasile Romanescu, Metropolitan Athanasie Mironescu..., pp. 18, 25–26.

• 85

  ‘Religious Education’, in: BOR, vol. XXIII (1899), nos. 1–5, pp. 82–84 (The report drawn up and submitted to the Minister stipulated that Year 7 pupils should study ‘An Apology for the Christian Religion in Comparison with Other Faiths’, whilst Year 8 pupils should study ‘An Apology for Christian Morality’).

• 86

  G., ‘Church Chronicle’ in: BOR, vol. XXIII (1900), no. 11, pp. 1043–1047.

• 87

  “Church Chronicle. The Priests’ Oath”, in: BOR, vol. XXIII (1900), no. 12, pp. 1152–1153.

• 88

  Icon. Coman Vasilescu, ‘Church Chronicle: A Speech Delivered in the Senate’, in: BOR, vol. XXIV (1900), no. 2, pp. 212–222.

• 89

  “Church Chronicle. A speech by His Grace Bishop Athanasius”, vol. XXVIII (1905), no. 12, pp. 1402–1407; ‘Address by His Grace Bishop Athanasius of Râmnic, delivered to the Senate on the matter of ordinations’, in: CA, vol. III (1904), no. 16, pp. 161–164.

• 90

  “Report by His Grace the Bishop of Râmnic on the draft bill to amend the 1893 Law on the Lay Clergy”, in: CA, vol. IV (1906), no. 21, pp. 212–216.

• 91

  “News. A welcome measure”, in: CA, vol. III (1905), no. 19, p. 207.

• 92

  “The Address by His Grace the Bishop of Râmnic at the Senate sitting on 2 March 1906”, in: CA, vol. V (1906), no. 16, pp. 121–125.

• 93

  Vasile Romanescu, Metropolitan Athanasie Mironescu..., p. V.

• 94

  “The report and speech by His Grace the Bishop of Râmnic in the Senate on the draft law concerning the manufacture of candles”, in: CA, vol. VI (1908), no. 23, pp. 215–216.

• 95

  The Defence of Metropolitan Athanasie..., p. 202.

• 96

  Editorial, ‘News. An interesting fact’, in: CA, vol. II (1904), no. 24, pp. 191–192.