Vartolomeu Stănescu – a revered hierarch and patriotic senator (II)

Work in the Senate

Special mention must be made of his work as a member of the Senate, where he delivered countless speeches and raised numerous questions on issues relating to educational reform, civil servants’ pay, administrative law, the introduction of divorce in Bukovina, the 1923 Constitution, as well as matters relating to the Church, which he supported in every sitting in which he took part. “He was perhaps the only hierarch who fought a fierce battle for the restoration of our Holy Church’s natural rights […] His Holiness’s speeches and addresses are true gems of thought and oratory that warm and uplift the soul of even the most hardened of hearts!”1

It is fitting to mention, first and foremost, the remarkable speech delivered at the Senate sitting on 25 May 1921, on the Education Act tabled by the Minister of Public Instruction, Dumitru P. Negulescu, on the Education Bill, when he pointed out that in Râmnicu-Vâlcea he had laid the foundations for a ‘school family, in which pupils are called upon to take part in public lectures and choirs and, above all, in acts of sacrifice’, proposing that teachers of Religion be appointed as deputy headteachers, to focus more on the educational aspect, whilst the pedagogues should be clergymen, who would oversee the pupils from the start of their schooling until the completion of their studies 2. In the same year, he delivered a speech at the meeting on 28 June concerning the Law on the People’s Cultural Centre for the Prince Carol Cultural Foundation, recommending gymnastics to townspeople and recreation and plenty of spiritual culture to those in the countryside 3. Wishing to defend the dignity of the family, on 14 July, during discussions on the Bill to introduce divorce in Bukovina, he stated that ‘The Orthodox Church is a Church of forbearance, even towards human weaknesses, of the forbearance naturally required by the law of nature, and this is why this Church is prepared, even in cases of manifest guilt, to forgive not only seven times, but seventy times seven’4.

To realise that we are in the presence of a ‘born missionary, aware of the gifts with which God has endowed him’5, it is worth noting that, at the meeting on 2 February 1923, he made various requests to the Government regarding the most urgent needs of the Church and the Orthodox clergy: measures to be taken for the construction of parish houses in villages, the payment of salary increments to choristers in bishoprics and metropolises, the payment of rent allowances to church staff, the reservation in Romanian villages of the land necessary for the construction of churches, parish houses, halls for cultural and ecclesiastical activities, and cemeteries; pension rights for church staff with their own income; and observance of Sunday rest 6. A few days later, on 10 February, whilst discussing the Finance Bill, he assured the senators that the Church would urge the faithful to pay their taxes to the State, ‘for otherwise public life will be impossible’, and he proposed a surtax on inheritances and the introduction of a progressive tax, as these have a negative influence on both the person accumulating the wealth and on the children as recipients of the inheritance, encouraging them to cease contributing to the public good 7.

Also significant is his address on 6 March 1923, on the Bill for a church museum at the ‘Saint Visarion’ Church in Bucharest, in which he expressed his intention to establish such an institution in Oltenia as well 8, as well as the speech he delivered a few days later, on 14 March, when he called for the introduction of compulsory labour into the text of the Constitution, because “labour creates and consolidates virtues; labour perfects progress”9. She considered the Law on Legal Persons to be just as necessary, proposing on 27 November that “rights be granted both to members of associations and to any citizen to report to the judicial authorities – the public prosecutor, for example – any misconduct on the part of associations of legal persons’10. With regard to the Land Ownership Act, he called for the State to set aside land for the establishment of cemeteries and the construction of churches and centres for religious culture, arguing that the French state had continued to fulfil this responsibility even after 1905.

Endowed with the gift of eloquence, the hierarch from Râmnicu Vâlcea also called in the Senate for better remuneration for the clergy, “so as not to make a mockery of them and not to lead them to have concerns other than spiritual ones”. In his view, the State should have returned the properties seized following the reforms of Alexandru Ioan Cuza, or set up a fund into which the relevant compensation could be paid, or continued to pay their salaries until the Church had built its own infrastructure 11. Concerned about the financial situation of the priests, in his parliamentary question of 28 December 1923, he demonstrated that church assets were being administered by the secular authorities, “to such an extent that this already impoverished Church has gone from the poverty of the post-1864 era to the destitution of 1923”, and that the remuneration of the clergy “seems more a mockery than a wage”12. Since the Ministry of Finance’s imposition of a 12 per cent tax on the income of the epitrachelion constituted a further injustice, he wrote to the Ministry asking it to remove this provision from the law, so as not to give “our clergy the impression that their mission is being equated with other civilian occupations, which are of a worldly nature”13.

Remaining steadfast in his support for the clergy, in March 1935 he asserted that “the parish priest is thus placed on an equal footing with all civil servants who have the same number of years’ education as he has”14; he then proposed to the Minister of Religious Affairs that salaries should no longer be proportional to the number of parishioners, but rather based on the diocese’s activities and the number of documents received and dispatched through the registry, which might indicate the number of staff required and the activities carried out 15. Persevering in his efforts, he once again raised the issue of the State’s role, which, although it had made use of priests during the First World War, had failed to transfer to his Diocese’s funds even the sums owed, in accordance with the provisions governing the financing of religious denominations: “Recently, we have been forced to spend our monthly salary of 14,147 lei, which has been reduced by the vicissitudes of the past”16).

We must not overlook the fact that his name also appears in the minutes of the meeting of 28 February 1924, when the Law on the Organisation of the Army was discussed, and he proposed introducing culture into the army, for the education of soldiers, that a military academy be established, and that a grand military and political council be formed to elect the person who would lead the country’s army 17. He is also credited with proposing, in relation to the Trade Act, that ‘the State should capitalise on the assets it considers its own, utilising, as I said from the outset, the creative energies of the nation for their economic exploitation’, and that the Higher Economic Council should be transformed into an Academy, which would send as many young people as possible “to study these matters in depth abroad, not only at theoretical institutions, but above all in practical institutions, where they may acquire the necessary skills’18

Particularly useful to our endeavour is also his speech on the Primary and Teacher Training Education Act, delivered on 12 June 1924, in which he highlighted its necessity, since “all Romanian children are obliged, are facilitated, and are also constrained to benefit from the same education which, year by year and little by little, will shape their very souls”19. Although he presented himself as a fervent defender of our nation’s interests, by his own admission, due to the numerous obstacles placed in his path by the authorities, from 1927 he ceased to speak in the Senate, “where there was no matter of public good which he had not highlighted and explained in its entirety and benefits”20.

Other activities

To gain as comprehensive a picture as possible of his work, it should be noted that he also took part in other significant events in the life of our Church. Brief records show that he attended the commemoration of the nation’s heroes at Cetățuia Cemetery in Râmnic 21, and on 14 June 1925 in Sibiu, at the consecration of Bishop Grigorie Comșa of Arad, receiving thanks from Metropolitan Nicolae Bălan, because “since the unification, he has given us his full support at all consecrations”22. Subsequently, we note his presence at the unveiling of two busts of deans of the Craiova Bar Association, on 18 October 1926 23, as well as at the funeral service for Ion Gh. Duca on 2 January 1934, when he spoke of the selfless support given by the Prime Minister to the Church in Oltenia: ‘Although we have never been members of any political party, from the time of our foundation to the present day, and although we have never sought to join the party which he adorned with the most brilliant qualities and virtues, Ioan G. Duca has nevertheless supported us unceasingly, ensuring that all the needs—both those of the Diocese and the Episcopal residence, as well as those of the Holy Monasteries and Hermitages under our hierarchical leadership—were fully met’24”.

Regarded as a ‘journalist of the written and spoken word’, on 6 September 1934 he was once again invited to the capital of the Banat region for the Congress of the Provincial Press Federation, where he urged journalists “to form a single flock with a single shepherd: His Majesty King Carol II”, in order to meet the demands of public opinion and their own interests 25. From other sources, we know that on 19 April 1936, he officiated at the funeral service for Bishop Nichita Duma of Argeș at Turnu Monastery 26, and on 7 June, he welcomed the new hierarch, Grigorie Leu, to the Cathedral in Curtea de Argeș, conducting the installation service alongside Bishop Gherontie Nicolau of Constanța. In the same year, on 31 May, he attended the ordination service for the new Bishop of Cluj, Nicolae Colan, followed by that of Nicolae Popoviciu of Oradea 27. Last but not least, it should be noted that on 15 May 1938, to mark the 520th anniversary of the death of Prince Mircea the Great, he presided over, in the presence of numerous dignitaries, a service was held to reburial his remains beneath a new stone slab, placed in the narthex of Cozia Monastery 28.

For his lifetime’s work, he was awarded numerous medals, which today stand as precious testaments to his indisputable merits: the Carol I Jubilee Medal, Knight of the Order of the Star of Romania, the First Class Award for Service to the Church, the First Class Medal for Valour and Faith, the Star of Romania in the rank of Officer, the Crown of Romania in the rank of Grand Officer, the Grand Cross of the Order of the Crown of Romania, the Peleș Medal, the Eagle of Romania in the rank of Commander, Class II, etc. 29 Undoubtedly, we agree with Father Gh. I. Ghia, editor of the magazine Renașterea, who remarked as follows: ‘These achievements could not have been realised without the daily personal dedication of His Grace Vartolomeiu and without the constant fostering of a sense of duty and cooperation amongst the clergy, whose activities were organised, supervised and guided with a view to fostering corporate solidarity and enhancing the role of the clergy within today’s society, which is rather demanding and spiritually ailing’30”.

The withdrawal of priests from politics

A significant aspect of his concerns was the campaign for the withdrawal of priests from the politics of the time, based on the observation that a third of their time and energy was absorbed by political matters, which seriously detracted from their priestly and missionary duties, damaging the Church’s reputation 31. Of particular importance was the Priests’ Congress held in Turnu Severin in 1930, where he spoke about the Church’s purpose in the world, proposing that the clergy withdraw, within a year or two, from all clubs and political parties 32, as well as the encyclical of 1 October 1933, in which he emphasised that the call for the clergy to detach themselves ‘from worldly matters’ is rooted in divine and ecclesiastical laws, and that compliance with them is ‘so obligatory for members of the evangelical apostolate that any violation thereof entails for the guilty party not only defrocking from the clerical rank, but also excommunication from the divine body of the Church’33. Whilst on 29 March 1934 he issued a circular requiring every priest to submit to the Diocese, by 15 May, either his resignation from the political club to which he belonged or proof that he had never been a member of any party, confirmed by the local archpriest, at the priests’ congress held on 20 October 1936 in Turnu Severin, he stated that priests must withdraw from politics, as it is a poison and a breeding ground for selfishness and passions, and when voting, they must be guided by economic, cultural and moral considerations – teachings which do not sit well with politicians 34.

It should not be overlooked that, at the end of 1935, during a conference of the Oltenian clergy, he had called on priests to withdraw from political parties, imposing several sanctions on those who disobeyed: removal from their posts, clerical residences and sanatoriums, the loss of rights guaranteed by the Society and of ecclesiastical ranks, suspension from duty and the withholding of one month’s salary, to which was added a month of penance at Frăsinei Monastery. In return, the hierarch requested that the priests have representatives in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate to defend their interests 35 and agreed that they might stand for election to Parliament or other offices, in counties or municipalities, but to serve solely as priests, their primary mission being to defend the Church 36. Following his request, all the priests in the diocese signed declarations of withdrawal from political parties in the presence of the archpriests, which were subsequently submitted to the Diocese’s headquarters 37. The shock was so great that on the night of 1 January 1937, between 2 and 3 o’clock, an attack was carried out using two sticks of dynamite at the bishop’s palace, largely destroying the woodwork, ironwork and windows in the hall. Fortunately, “he was unharmed, but suffered a momentary fright. It is believed that the attack was the work of the communists or the revenge of a few enemies’38’.

Conflicts with the political establishment

His great achievements were overshadowed by numerous conflicts with local politicians, who were dissatisfied with his interventions in the Senate, but above all by his decision to withdraw the Diocese’s funds from banks run by Liberal and Peasant Party politicians and to deposit them in a Church-owned bank. Consequently, he was attacked both in the press and in Parliament, being accused of a lack of authority within the diocese, of the fraudulent management of the diocese’s funds, of persecuting the vicar bishop Nifon, of selling priestly posts, in return for undue financial contributions, of political involvement and of collaborating with the ‘39’ Legionaries. An important role in these attacks was played by the Prefect of Dolj, Constantin Milcoveanu, a member of the Diocesan Assembly 40, who accused the diocese’s administrators of abuses, through the illegal transfer of priests and the establishment of new parishes, and reproaching the bishop for having purchased, at great expense, estates at Orlești, in Vâlcea County, and Budești, in Argeș, for the Diocese. At the Chamber’s sitting on 2 April 1936, during the debate on the draft clergy bill, MP I. Plessia gave an account of the ‘state of anarchy’ at the Diocesan Centre, requesting, amongst other things, that the hierarch be referred to a medical commission to ascertain whether he possessed sound judgement; should this be proven, he was to be brought before the Holy Synod and the High Court of Cassation 41.

However, the numerous financial audits revealed no breach of the law; all the allegations were “found to be entirely unfounded”42, as was the accusation of selling priestly posts, which proved equally unjustified, as the tithes of those who had been defrocked or transferred were earmarked for providing assistance, upon request, to widowed priests’ wives and to the orphaned children of priests attending secondary schools 43. As for the accusation of fraudulent misappropriation of funds, the accused bishop cited the personal donations he had made up to 1936, which totalled 4,773,060 lei. In addition to these donations, he stipulated, in a will drawn up in Bucharest in February 1936, that upon his death his entire estate should pass to the Diocese for charitable purposes 44. Accused of sympathising with the Iron Guard in April 1938, he replied that he had no links with this organisation and declared to the Patriarch that he wished, through a special circular, to dispel “once and for all the belief held by public opinion in our country that I had ever been not only an active member of ‘Everything for the Country’, but of any political party whatsoever”. At the same time, he asked all the political parties in the country for proof of his membership of any party 45.

Numerous prominent figures of the time came to his defence, such as C. Nicolau Stroiești, who demonstrated the groundlessness of the accusations, pointing out that, following numerous audits, no financial irregularities had been found to support the claims made by the so-called ‘conspiratorial gang’, which was working against the hierarch 46. For his part, the priest and Member of Parliament D. G. Popescu stated at the session of the Chamber of Deputies on 2 March 1933 that the money collected had been used by the bishop for church works, a fact acknowledged by priests throughout the country. Joining them were the poet Octavian Goga 47, as well as the philosopher Nae Ionescu, who stated: “I believe that His Eminence Vartolomeu does not need our defence […] His Eminence is one of our few high-ranking hierarchs who truly works within his diocese. Therefore, if there is pastoral work whose fruits are evident, His Eminence is defended against any attack by this very work itself’48’. Nor should we overlook the faithful of the diocese, the lecturers at the Theological Seminary in Râmnicu-Vâlcea and the abbots of the monastic settlements, who wrote to the King, the Patriarch and the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs, asking them to take measures “against the misguided or self-serving slanderers”49.

Retreat to Bistrița Monastery

The extraordinary efforts he had made throughout his life had taken a toll on his health, prompting him to take a two-year leave of absence, from 1 November 1938 to 1 November 1940, when his retirement was approved. Thus, ‘after a long and fruitful ministry marked by many acts of service to the spiritual flock’50 he was forced to step down from his post, to Bistrița, where he had built a house 51, living in an atmosphere of prayer, surrounded by the books he had brought back from Paris. As he retained his status as a senator, on 5 August 1939 he justified his absence from the swearing-in ceremony by citing his departure from the country, following a leave of absence granted by King Carol II, his financial situation, and his decision to retire 52. During this period, he had travelled to Paris on several occasions to study English, German and Italian so that his writings might be accessible to the international academic community 53.

It should, however, be emphasised that before stepping down from the episcopal see on 9 July 1938, he requested that the country’s Prime Minister, Patriarch Miron Cristea, to issue a decree-law transferring ownership of the building erected on the grounds of Bistrița Monastery to the Diocese, together with its furnishings and library, as well as the family vault, all valued at 3,594,000 lei, reserving for himself only the right of life tenancy over the building and the associated land. Consequently, on 3 August, the King issued a decree granting him the right “to have the use of the villa he had built at the Bistrița Monastery, its ownership passing to the diocese upon his death”54. From a brief history of the monastery, we learn that visitors will find here “the library of a scholar, which can belong only to a country at an advanced stage of civilisation”. He lived in the Oltenian monastery, “among books, a natural part of his being”55, until 2 November 1954, when, following a prolonged illness, he passed away and was buried on 4 November in the tomb next to his private residence 56. As a mark of respect, in 1987, Archimandrite Veniamin Micle built a stone-walled terrace around the tomb and enclosed it with an artistically crafted wrought-iron fence.

A Sketch of His Character

Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu’s character was highly regarded in his own time, and several evocative descriptions have survived to this day, of which we note first and foremost that left by Nae Ionescu: “His Eminence Vartolomeu is a man of letters, something quite rare in our Church; and furthermore, a man of action. His Eminence is making a difference in the Diocese. It is a vast cultural endeavour, launched on a broad scale and carried out with great vigour.”

In particular, we must then bear in mind the reports in the newspaper Cuvântul, from the time when the poet Nichifor Crainic was there: ‘In ecclesiastical circles, His Grace Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu has a well-established place, as a distinguished scholar, as a philosopher of the Church, and as one who strives, with all his might, towards innovations intended to elevate the clergy. A highly talented orator and a valiant fighter, His Grace Vartolomeu of Râmnic deemed it appropriate to launch a cultural offensive on ecclesiastical grounds, in the diocese where he is both prince and soldier of Christ. It has been several years since His Eminence called upon his flock, the priests, to undertake a task whose details he outlines. The clergy, at the hierarch’s call, responded without exception.”

It is fitting to recall here the description left by Pamfil Șeicaru in the newspaper Curentul: ‘Bishop Vartolomeu was regarded as one of the few learned hierarchs of our Orthodox Church, a lively intellect, imbued with a varied and thorough cultural knowledge, which found expression in a genuine oratorical talent; a great hope for the Church, and he came very close to being elected, in 1919, as Primate Metropolitan […] but even without this election, His Eminence Vartolomeu remains a formidable authority within the Synod and in the wider sphere of church life’57”.

His personality also caught the attention of Teodor Păcescu, editor of the publication Noua Revistă Bisericească, who went on to describe him as follows: “A journalist. Surprisingly, a monk. At first, an enigma. In the middle, a question. In the end, an explanation. Luckier than he might have thought: he leads the Church within the state. He tries his hand at teaching. He rises to the episcopate. At times too ambitious in his plans, at times too bound by calculations. The rapid alternation of winter and summer both scolds and embraces you on the very same day. He fears criticism and imagined conspiracies. He persists with his plans, but yields in conflicts. At times too democratic due to a hierarchical legacy, at times too autocratic due to an evangelical mission. Present where he ought to be, His Grace Vartolomeu appears: in the Synod as a leader, in the Senate as an autonomist. In the public eye, as a bridge-builder between Christianity, philosophy and science. Exaggeratedly clerical, he lives in the Middle Ages. Authoritarian, he imposes a command-and-control method on the community. A strategic organiser, he commands through subordinate officers. Feared and loved, defended and criticised, he builds, in Oltenia, the citadel of clerical power. Like the master builder Manole, he remains within the structure58”.

We must not overlook C. Nicolae Stroești, who proposed “a protest rally and the organisation of a citizens’ league to defend a man of the calibre and merits of Bishop Vartolomeiu, who is subjected almost daily to shameless and criminal attacks launched from the parliamentary rostrum through pamphlets and tabloid newspapers, fuelled by the enemies of the Church and of our national cause”. For him, Bishop Vartolomeu “is an ornament of the Church and a source of pride for the nation, and Oltenia claims him as one of its worthy sons. Such a colossal undertaking, yielding such marvellous results, deserves but one reward: ‘national gratitude’!”59

His character was also broadly captured by the colleagues and priests who stood by him in his ministry to the Oltenian diocese. Thus, for the vicar bishop Galaction Cordun, the Bishop of Râmnic “is the unique man of our Church, the most precious and priceless gift, bestowed by Providence upon our ecclesiastical circumstances of the past and present. Within our Church, in our ecclesiastical and socio-national life, His Grace Vartolomeiu Stănescu embodies, in an unrivalled manner, the thinker, the guide, the achiever and the mystic. His Grace is the Christian philosopher, the orator, the writer, the poet, the priest and the triumphant victor in the most difficult problems and endeavours of the Church and the nation in adverse times, leaving a powerful mark and creating the currents demanded by the times for the uplifting and strengthening of the Church and the nation […] His Grace is characterised by willpower, steadfastness, character and an unwavering commitment to his goal. Imbued to the very core of his being with the mission he had and still has to fulfil, he has presented himself—and we continue to see him—constantly inspired by the beauty of the Gospel, by the sentiments of the saints as well as by the idyllic beauty of human feelings and states of mind, from which he draws the consummate and unrivalled strength for his struggles in pursuit of the ideal within our Church”60

To all these testimonies, we ought to add that of Father Constantin Stănică, chairman of the Central Committee of the Renaissance Society, who, on the occasion of the honouree’s 60th birthday, remarked about the celebrated bishop: “Day and night he sows the seed of re-Christianisation everywhere in accordance with the Holy Scriptures; he counsels, exhorts and admonishes both clergy and laity, and stands up with all his might against those who seek to undermine his authority […] His Holiness’s success is due in large part, alongside the tenacity of his character and his vigour, to his great sensitivity and penetrating spirit, knowing how to slip into people’s souls, captivate them and win them over […] Enthusiastic to the point of fervour, resolute, energetic and stern, he does not shy away from danger. He grieves and rejoices, is indignant, is moved by compassion, is tender and ironic, prays and satirises, is gripped by fear and hope, is gentle and forgiving. In short, all these contrasts are evident in this brilliant intellect, in this insight so keen as to reach the finest sensibility, and in this iron will in the pursuit of his goal’61

From this brief overview of his work, we can easily see that he was a great ecclesiastical figure, a skilled organiser and shepherd of souls, but also an eminent theologian and politician, who constantly championed the legitimate rights of our people. There is no doubt that he would have achieved far more remarkable results had he not retired from his ecclesiastical office earlier than was necessary. We consider it fitting to conclude these lines with the confidence that, in the future, other works will appear which will honour his memory and bring to light achievements as yet unexplored, placing him amongst the great hierarchs who have shepherded the Diocese of Râmnic with dignity.

Imagine

• 1

  Fr. Gh. I. Barbu, ‘A tribute on the occasion of the name day of His Grace Bishop D. D. Vartolomei’, in: R, vol. XV (1936), no. 8, p. 278.

• 2

  †Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 799–802.

• 3

  †Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 815–816.

• 4

  †Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, p. 822.

• 5

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, p. 153.

• 6

  †Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 205, 825.

• 7

  †Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 828–829; †Vartolomeiu, Spiritual Works…, pp. 243–252.

• 8

  †Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, p. 833; Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu – In the Light of the Word, edited by Emilian Lovișteanul, Vicar Bishop of the Archdiocese of Râmnic, Sfântul Antim Ivireanul Publishing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 2013, p. 216.

• 9

  †Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 859–860; D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, p. 168.

• 10

  †Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, p. 863.

• 11

  Cătălin Raiu, Democracy and Statolatry…, pp. 129–130.

• 12

  †Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 889, 903, 908; †Vartolomeiu, Spiritual Works…, pp. 302–303.

• 13

  †Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 901–902; His concern for the rights of the clergy is also evident in the work Index of Emeritus and Rewarded Priests of Oltenia for the Year 1929, which lists the names and activities of each priest who received a reward. cf. †Galaction Cordun, His Personality and Work…, p. 308.

• 14

  †Bishop Vartolomeiu of Râmnicu Noul-Severin, ‘The Consequences of the Impoverishment of the Clergy and the Church’, in: BO, vol. IV (1935), no. 4, p. 239.

• 15

  †Bishop Vartolomeiu, ‘Statement by His Grace Bishop Vartolomeiu to the Ministry of Religious Affairs regarding support for the remuneration of the clergy’, in: R, vol. XIV (1935), no. 5, pp. 198–199; see also Cătălin Raiu, Democracy and Statolatry…, p. 131.

• 16

  †Bishop Vartolomeiu, ‘Can the Romanian Orthodox Church nourish our souls and strengthen our virtues, transforming them into ingrained habits and states of being?’, in: R, vol. XIV (1935), no. 1, p. 3; Cătălin Raiu, Democracy and Statolatry…, p. 132.

• 17

  †Vartolomeiu et al., Yearbook for the years 1921–1925…, pp. 918–922.

• 18

  †Vartolomeu, Spiritual Works…, pp. 350–368; Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu – In the Light of the Word…, pp. 358, 369.

• 19

  †Vartolomeu, Spiritual Fruits…, pp. 368–370.

• 20

  †Vartolomeu, Missionary courses for priests of the dioceses, delivered by His Grace Bishop Vartolomeu of Râmnicu-Noul Severin from October 1937, vol. I: Living the Christian Life through Acts of Personal and Communal Service, Published by the Holy Diocese of Râmnicu-Noul Severin, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1938, p. 98.

• 21

  Tudor Ionescu, ‘From the Words of the Apostles’, in: R, vol. VII (1928), no. 8, p. 293.

• 22

  Archimandrite Scriban, ‘Church Chronicle: The Ordination of the Bishop of Arad’, in: BOR, vol. XLIII (1925), no. 7, pp. 436–437.

• 23

  †Vartolomeu, ‘Speech delivered on 18 October in Craiova, on the occasion of the unveiling of two busts of deans of the Bar, in the great hall of the Palace of Justice in Craiova”, in: BOR, vol. XLIV (1926), no. 2, pp. 91–93.

• 24

  †Bishop Vartolomeiu, ‘The Address by His Grace Bishop Vartolomeiu of Râmnicu-Noul-Severin, at the funeral of Ioan G. Duca’, in: BO, vol. II (1933), no. 12, pp. 524–525.

• 25

  Rev. Ioan F. Popescu, ‘Internal Chronicle: The Visit of His Grace Bishop Vartolomei to Craiova’, in: R, vol. XV (1936), no. 9, pp. 357–358.

• 26

  Rev. Victor N. Popescu, ‘Internal Chronicle: Bishop Nichita of Argeș’, in: BOR, vol. LIV (1936), no. 3–4, pp. 204–205.

• 27

  Dimitrie I. Balaur, ‘Internal Chronicle: The Consecration of Bishops’, in: BOR, vol. LIV (1936), nos. 5–6, pp. 339, 345.

• 28

  Deacon Gh. I. Moisescu, ‘Internal Chronicle. The reburial of the remains of Mircea Vodă the Elder at Cozia Monastery’, in: BOR, vol. LVI (1938), nos. 7–8, pp. 462–465.

• 29

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, p. 274.

• 30

  Gh. I. Ghia, ‘A Moment of Gratitude’, in: R, vol. XV (1935), no. 9, p. 327.

• 31

  D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, p. 252.

• 32

  Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu – In the Light of the Word…, p. 23.

• 33

  Bishop Vartolomei of Râmnicu Noul Severin, ‘Episcopal Encyclical, 1 October 1933, addressed to all our priests in Oltenia’, in: BO, vol. II (1933), no. 11, pp. 459–470; D. Cristescu, Life and Achievements…, pp. 251–252; Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 87–88; Petre Sperlea, Involvement…, p. 126.

• 34

  ‘Church News’, in: NV, vol. VII (1934), no. 81–82, p. 253; Petre Sperlea, Implicarea…, p. 126, note 15.

• 35

  ‘Church News’, in: NV, vol. VIII (1935), nos. 95–96, pp. 347–348; Bishop Vartolomeiu of Râmnicu Noul Severin, ‘The Priest in Politics. A Clarification by His Grace Bishop Vartolomeiu’, in: BO, vol. V (1936), nos. 1–2, pp. 8–10; Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 102–103.

• 36

  Prof. Dr Sorin Oane, ‘Is Vartolomeu Stănescu to blame for the abolition of the Diocese of Râmnic in 1939?’, in Cultural and Spiritual Activity..., p. 152.

• 37

  George Enache, ‘Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu, promoter of “social Christianity” in interwar Romania’, in Cultural and Spiritual Activity..., p. 78.

• 38

  ‘Church News’, in: NV, vol. X, January–February 1937, nos. 109–110, p. 21; Bishop Vartolomeiu, ‘To His Excellency the Minister of the Interior, Mr Iuca’, in: BO, vol. V (1936), no. 12, p. 457. (In a telegram dated 2 January 1937, sent to the Minister of the Interior, the bishop informed him “of the plot to shoot me at the christening of Petre Lupu’s child”, when the Craiova Gendarmerie intervened).

• 39

  Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 33, 90, 95–96; George Enache, The Christian Conscience in the Modern Age: Figures and Events, Galați History Museum Press, Cluj-Napoca, 2004, pp. 174–175; In February 1936, he was accused of mismanaging the funds raised during the pilgrimage to Maglavit. See also George Enache, Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu…, p. 78.

• 40

  “The address by Fr. Bishop D. D. Vartolomeiu delivered at the Extraordinary Diocesan Assembly on 1 July 1928’, in: R, vol. VII (1928), no. 11, pp. 401–403. Milcoveanu regarded the hierarch’s works as a sort of personal folly, and the assemblies and congresses as heavy burdens to be borne by the clergy and not demanded by the people.

• 41

  Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 90–91; ‘Church News’, in: NV, vol. IX (1936), nos. 101–102, p. 77. (Sixty members of parliament accused him of threatening public order in Oltenia and of committing abuses in the administration of the diocese, demanding that he be brought before the Holy Synod and that his assets be investigated. The entire clergy of Oltenia, however, requested that no action be taken on the complaints, as they were unfounded.).

• 42

  In its letter No. 4,095 of 1932, the Central Church Council, signed by Patriarch Miron Cristea, states verbatim: “No financial fraud, committed with proven bad faith, has been uncovered nor does any exist in the Diocese of Râmnicu-Noul-Severin, either in relation to state funds or to the diocese’s own funds.” cf. C. Nicolau Stroești, ‘The Apocalyptic Knights and the Sons of Satan. A Documentary Study and Indictment’, in: Signs of the Times in Our Church. Special publication for extraordinary cases, Oct.–Nov. 1936, no. 22, pp. 49, 110.

• 43

  †Vartolomeiu, ‘Clarifications to the people and to the Oltenian Diocesan Assembly regarding the accusations levelled by Colonel Milcoveanu and the newspaper Curentul against His Grace Bishop Vartolomeiu’, in: R, vol. VIII (1928), no. 7, p. 243.

• 44

  Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 33, 94–95, 258–259; Cătălin Raiu, Democracy and Statolatry…, pp. 149–150; C. Nicolau Stroești, The Apocalyptic Knights…, p. 55. (The donations received upon transfers and appointments were established by the entire clergy of the diocese on the occasion of the ‘Renașterea’ Society’s annual report, and were collected until 1928, when the Diocesan Assembly decided to discontinue them.)

• 45

  Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 75, 103; Vartolomeu supported the completion of St Elijah’s Church in Drăgășani by the Legionaries and blessed the Legionary labour camps at the Arnota and Mamu monasteries, and on 13 February 1937, he was part of the clergy who conducted the funeral service in Bucharest for the Legionaries Ion Moța and Vasile Marin. See Sorin Oane, Este vinovat…, p. 153; Dumitru Bondoc, ‘Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu (1875–1954)’, in Studii Vâlcene, new series, 2015, no. IX (XVI), pp. 161–163.

• 46

  C. Nicolau Stroești, The Apocalyptic Knights..., pp. 109–110. (This group ‘organised a diabolical network of intrigues, slander and unworthy insults against Bishop Bartholomew of Râmnic, whom they accuse of mismanagement and subversive propaganda’.)

• 47

  Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 95, 100–101.

• 48

  C. Nicolau Stroești, The Apocalyptic Knights..., p. 47.

• 49

  Fr. St. Pârligras, ‘Protest addressed to His Majesty the King at the Royal Palace, Bucharest’, in: BO, vol. II (1933), no. 4, p. 160; ‘Telegram submitted by the Abbots and Abbesses of the Holy Monasteries and Hermitages of Oltenia to His Majesty King Carol II, His Holiness the Patriarch Dr Miron Cristea, the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs, in protest against the press and parliamentary campaign against His Grace Bishop D. D. Vartolomeiu”, in: BO, vol. II (1933), no. 4, p. 163.

• 50

  Deacon Gh. I. Moisescu, ‘Internal Chronicle’, in: BOR, vol. LVII (1939), no. 1–2, pp. 99–100. His leave was granted by Decree-Law No. 2,751/938.

• 51

  Niculae Șerbănescu, The Hierarchs of the Oltenian Lands…, pp. 353–354.

• 52

  Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 35–36.

• 53

  CNSAS ARCHIVE, Information Collection, Letter from Bartolomeu Stănescu to Vasile Tivig, 17 January 1939, file no. 53.328, page 133, as cited in Mihai-Liviu Barboșelu, ‘Vartolomeu Stănescu’, in: România Documente, 8 August 2015, https://fdocumente.com/document/vartolomeu-stanescu.html, accessed 1 October 2020.

• 54

  Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, p. 36; In Bistrița, he was monitored by the Securitate through informers among the villagers. He often spent time in the company of the artist Constantin Popian, whose house was near the monastery gate, to discuss, in particular, the political events of the time. See Dumitru Bondoc, The Bishop…, pp. 164–165. From September 1923, on the bishop’s initiative, Constantin Popian and his colleagues established a permanent theatre troupe for the Diocese, which remained active until around 1938–1940. cf. Ion Soare, ‘Culture. The Contemporary Period’, in: Encyclopaedia of Vâlcea County, vol. II, ed. Prof. Dr Ion Soare, Fortuna Publishing House, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 2012, p. 127.

• 55

  Fr. Em. Ned., ‘Bishop Vartolomeu Stănescu’, in: MO, vol. VI (1954), nos. 11–12, pp. 670–671; Veniamin Micle, The Bistrița Monastery in Oltenia…, p. 66.

• 56

  Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, p. 37, note 52 (He was diagnosed with nevritic rheumatism).

• 57

  C. Nicolau Stroești, The Apocalyptic Knights..., pp. 47–48; Petre Sperlea, Vartolomeu Stănescu…, pp. 38–39.

• 58

  Teodor Păcescu, Orthodox Photographs, Published by Noii Reviste Bisericești, Bucharest, 1930, pp. 17–18, quoted in Cătălin Raiu, Democracy and Statolatry…, p. 193.

• 59

  C. Nicolau Stroești, The Apocalyptic Knights..., p. 112.

• 60

  †Galaction Cordun, His Life and Work…, pp. 303–306.

• 61

  Fr. C. Stănică, ‘His Grace Bishop D. D. Vartolomeiu: a man of character, theological learning and Christian virtues’, in: R, vol. XIV (1935), no. 9, pp. 319–321.