NR. 1 – 2024

In Romania, these healthcare and social institutions were initially intended for the sick monks and nuns of all ages, who could not manage without assistance. However, there were also cases, for example at Neamț Monastery, where besides the monastery’s monks—sometimes very numerous (almost 1,000 during the time of Saint Paisius)—relatives of the monastery, former benefactors, and people from neighbouring villages who had no one else to care for them were also received. Therefore, the infirmaries also sheltered lonely and suffering laypeople, individuals who sometimes remained there until the end of their lives. In such cases, the monastic community also took care of their burial and commemoration needs.

Monastic infirmaries practiced what is known as monastic medicine. There were certain traditions preserved from ancient times, such as the use of herbal teas, plant baths gathered from the meadows surrounding the monastery, or the use of recipes and treatments brought from the East or the West. Later on, these infirmaries received support from apothecaries (pharmacists), who began to learn more about the medical knowledge of those times. In fact, allopathic medicines began to be used especially from the second half of the 19th century, and the monks incorporated many of the discoveries of modern medicine into their infirmaries, to the extent they were able to assimilate the new practices and administer the new medicines.

The functioning of these infirmaries was sustained through substantial donations from rulers, nobles, and the special efforts of the Church. Regarding the infirmary of Neamț Monastery, it is important to mention the decisions of Abbot Paisius, who was canonized by our Church in 1992. The first references to the care of infirm monks are found in the regulations he established at Dragomirna (1763), the first place he settled after returning to the Romanian lands from Mount Athos. Some of these provisions were renewed in the rules given to the Monasteries of Secu and Neamț (1778), where Saint Paisius succeeded in organizing a model infirmary.

The history of the Neamț and Secu Monasteries tells us that, upon his arrival in the Neamț area, Saint Paisius found a functional infirmary, built by one of his predecessors, Archimandrite Varlaam. After restoring and renewing it in order to receive not only monks but also laypeople for care, Saint Paisius founded a new infirmary around 1791, called “spitălaș” (a small hospital), dedicated to the care of those with unclean spirits or mental and neurological disorders. 30 years after the death of Saint Paisius, in 1822, Abbot Ilarie raised a new building for the infirmary and a row of cells with a chapel dedicated to Saint Panteleimon in the middle. This building was destroyed by fire in 1841. Abbot Neonil also continued this tradition of building healthcare centres, constructing the new infirmary, which still stands today, with significant contributions from Elenca Donici. In addition to infirmaries, there were also dispensaries or pharmacies. A dispensary at Neamț Monastery is attested to at least 20 years before the arrival of Abbot Paisius Velicicovski; and information about it is preserved in the monastery’s tradition. These sources reveal that medicinal plants, which were collected and dried by the monks, were primarily used there. Among the well-known pharmacists of Neamț Monastery is Monk Iov Burlacu, who lived in the monastery for over 30 years. He proved to be a skilled connoisseur of medicinal plants, making teas, syrups, and various ointments.

Although he was highly appreciated in the first half of the 20th century for his total dedication to serving the sick and elderly monks in the infirmary, Father Iov Burlacu is not frequently mentioned in specialized works concerning monastic life in the last century. He gathered knowledge about natural medicine, the cultivation of medicinal plants, their harvesting and preservation times, and especially their usefulness and importance in healing diseases, from the elderly in the village, possibly from his family, and later from the monks at Neamț Monastery. All the knowledge Father Iov Burlacu had accumulated was later put to good use in caring for the suffering. He continuously demonstrated a deep concern for collecting medicinal plants, gathering all kinds of herbs, flowers, and roots during the summer months. Some he dried, while others he boiled in clay pots. He mixed them according to recipes he had learned from the elder monks and then passed on in the monastery, pouring the contents into small glass containers that were specially prepared for this purpose. From spring until September, he often walked mountain paths, through meadows, and the monastery gardens, collecting dozens of different plants and flowers. These were tied into bundles with twigs of weeds, which he then secured to one another while quietly reciting the Jesus Prayer. On rainy days, he would prepare the medicines, doing so in a prayerful atmosphere. His medicines were sought not only by the monks of the monastery and the poor but also by nobles from different parts of the country. Prepared with skill and passion, in an atmosphere of prayer, they brought healing. For 30 years, until his death, Father Iov Burlacu was a well-regarded healer of the sufferings of both the monastic community of Neamț Monastery and many laypeople from various localities.

Among his disciples was Brother Ilie Iacob, who, for two or three years, learned from Father Iov before becoming Monk Ioan Iacob in 1936. In the same year, he travelled to the Holy Land, where he passed away in 1960. Saint Ioan Iacob longed to enter monastic life after spending his childhood and youth in great trials and hardships, having been orphaned at a very young age. Deprived of the joys and warmth typically found in a family environment, the child Ilie turned early on to God, rather than to people, for solace. In the beginning of his monastic life, he served under the guidance of Monk Iov Burlacu. Saint Ioan Iacob got used to the strictness of Father Iov from the very start and kept the same spirit throughout his life, which ended when he was only 47 years old. Father Iov had acquired extensive medical knowledge: he would diagnose illnesses, dress wounds, and even administer injections. In the infirmary, he set up a proper consultation room. It is said that he was like the Good Samaritan, full of compassion and care for those in need, offering both physical and spiritual healing to those who came to him.

The one being petitioned to bring healing to the sick is the Almighty God, who has destroyed the power of death – a decisive act, incomparably more significant, in comparison to which physical healing seems minor. Through the work of healing both components of human nature (body and spirit) – hence the frequent expression “Holy Father, the Healer of souls and bodies” – God remains faithful to His own covenant to “care” for the creation of His hands: “You keep Your covenant and give Your mercy to those who know You.” God honours this covenant He made with man; the biblical history shows the divine effort to preserve and renew, when necessary, the covenant made with Adam, Noah, and Abraham.

Regarding the second part of the quoted prayer fragment – “You give Your mercy to those who know You” – knowing God is not only a condition for receiving divine mercy, but it can also be understood as an effect, a consequence, a desirable goal: it is desired that the healed one, the one who has benefited from God’s immeasurable mercy, should grow and deepen in this “knowledge of God.” There are numerous expressions in the prayers of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick that refer to penitential theo­logy; before the healing of bodily afflictions, there must be healing of the diseases of the soul, which is often the main cause (though not always) of physical ailments. Our God is the “One who loves the righteous and shows mercy to sinners”, “You who give sight to the blind and raise up the fallen”.

We dare to ask for forgiveness because we know, from the Holy Scriptures, that He grants it almost instantly, without many conditions, out of His great love. Moreover, it is said of God that He is “the One who grieves over the wickedness of men.” First and foremost, God grieves over my sin, He, through the humanity that I also share and which He made His own, “feels” my sin – of course, without any emotional-psychological connotation; He grieves before me, before my repentance, which He awaits and even inspires. We have boldness in prayer, knowing that God, knowing all things, and bearing our human nature with all its limitations and shortcomings, has a much broader understanding of the weaknesses of our nature. This is why we invoke Him, with hope, as the One “who knows that the thoughts of man are inclined to evil from a young age”.

In various formulations, God is presented as the One to Whom we dare to turn to receive forgiveness of sins, addressing Him as “He who is swift to help and slow to anger”, “He who desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth”, “He who gives comfort to the weak in spirit and life to the broken-hearted”. The forgiveness God offers is not a legal one, imposed externally, but is seen as an act of healing for the human being. Similarly, in order to encourage the one suffering from physical ailments, who may through these ailments become more aware of his soul’s diseases, several biblical examples of repentance are mentioned in the prayers of the sacrament. God is portrayed as “He who accepts the repentance of sinners and has the power to forgive many and grievous sins.” In other words, only God can offer forgiveness, for it is before Him that we have sinned, and only He can heal the human nature corrupted by sin. The examples of repentance are both personal and communal: “You who forgave the debt of the two debtors and granted forgiveness to the sinful woman”; “You who, by Your word, forgave the tax collector” (that is, forgiveness does not involve a “struggle” on God’s part, but occurs “through the word,” also pointing to the idea of creation being brought to existence by the “word”/the Word); “You received the thief through his final confession.” Once again, certain figures are mentioned, such as the tax collector, the harlot, the thief, and even the blasphemer and persecutor, the great Paul, whom God received through repentance, concluding with Peter’s fall and his return/repentance. A slightly smaller space is dedicated to statements about God in relation to physical illness. Specifically, three examples of healing performed by the Lord Jesus Christ are mentioned: “You who touched Peter’s mother-in-law and the fever left her”, “You who healed the woman with the issue of blood for twelve years,” “You who granted healing to the paralytic along with the forgiveness of his sins,” and a fourth could be added – “You who delivered the Canaanite’s daughter from the terrible demon” – considering that demon possession, besides its spiritual component, also has somatic consequences. It is worth noting that even here, at least in the case of the paralytic, physical healing is mentioned together with spiritual healing (forgiveness of sins). Other references in the prayers are more general: “You who heal all disease and all weakness in the people,” “You who heal long-lasting suffering,” or “You who grant healing to all who endure long-term weakness and illness”; “You who correct the bodily pains of men.” Expanding the scope of addressability, God is called “The Father of the orphans, the refuge of those who are storm-tossed, and the physician of the sick,” in the sense that God does not just alleviate physical suffering, but He brings comfort in many forms: He is the One who, full of mercy, compassion, and love, compensates for the absence of a physical parent to soothe the pain of the orphan, and, often, when all possible solutions have been exhausted through human means, capacities, or relationships, He becomes the only refuge and provides solutions in the difficult situations of people who are engulfed by the “waves” of problems, intensified by the “winds,” “storms” from both outside and within.

In understanding how the suffering person relates to God, but also how any Christian should ultimately relate to God, the ecphoneses (final phrases) of the prayers are especially interesting. The first three prayers end with the phrase “For to You belongs the glory and the power to save us…” and continue with the Trinitarian doxology. The ecphonesis of the fourth prayer, while very similar, actually sheds even more light on the meaning of the previous ones: “Yours it is (emphasis added) to show mercy and to save us.” Trying to interpret it, we confess that it is characteristic of God, it is His specific act, to show mercy and to save. It is fitting and right for Him to do so because “mercy” – but especially “salvation” – are strictly divine actions. In the fullest, perfect sense, only God shows mercy, and the human form of “mercy” is a diminished, inferior form, although it strives to follow and imitate the divine mercy.

When psychologists express their worldview, it significantly impacts the development of psychological theories, hypothesis testing, and their practical application. Both social phenomena and the individual are no longer considered to be oriented toward a transcendent purpose. As a result, both social phenomena and the human being (and their psyche, in particular) are explained without reference to a transcendent framework. Consequently, the purpose and meaning of human life, as well as humanity’s vocation, remain confined within this “immanent framework”. Science begins to study humans as psychobiological, psychosocial, or historical beings, but not as spiritual beings created in the image of God and oriented toward eternity. The influence of this way of presenting the world becomes evident when Western psychologists place a strong emphasis on self-determination and individual subjective satisfaction in their understanding of mental health, maturity, and success.

One of the fundamental features of secular anthropo­logy is reductionism. Within this approach, higher levels of organization are simplified by reducing them to elementary, easily understandable objects. In rational knowledge, the subject and object are seen as being in opposition. From this perspective, human personality and behaviour are reduced to biological and psychosocial processes, while ignoring or rejecting the spiritual dimensions of the human person. Secular psychology also tends to approach personality and mental health through the lens of individualization and personal autonomy. This perspective is illustrated in the humanistic psychology of Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. Humanistic psychology asserts that the ultimate goal of humanity is self-actualization – the pursuit of developing one’s full potential and achieving personal success and satisfaction. However, this secular ideal often overlooks the transcendent aspects of human nature, which, according to Orthodox anthropology, are fundamental for the authentic realization of one’s personality. Within a holistic approach, such reductionism is impossible, as each science aims to create a complete image of the studied world, using its own unique concepts. In this context, the subject of knowledge merges with the object of knowledge.

Recently, many sciences have increasingly shown a tendency to shift from a reductionist approach to a more holistic one. While the foundation of rational, reductionist science lies in mathematics and physics, modern holistic science primarily expresses itself through the principle of biocentrism. In contrast, the foundation of hierarchical science is based on Christian theology and anthropo­logy. The main difference between these scientific approaches lies in the fact that in rational science, the explanation of phenomena at a certain level of the world’s hierarchy is achieved by reducing that level to a lower one. On the other hand, holistic science seeks explanation at the same level, reducing the entire world to a horizontal plane. According to the Christian approach, the explanation of phenomena occurs at a higher level in the world’s hierarchy, where the lower level is governed by the higher one. The rigorous application of the principle of hierarchy leads to the principle of Christocentrism (or Theocentrism). Therefore, Orthodox anthropology finds its foundation in Christology.

From the perspective of Christological anthropocentrism, as a fundamental principle of Christian epistemology, the entire nature constitutes an “anthroposphere.” The purpose of humanity is not only personal salvation but also the transfiguration of nature and the restoration of the dynamism of matter, disrupted by the fall into sin. According to the principle of hierarchy, the explanation of processes at a certain level of the world’s hierarchy must be sought (in contrast to the principle of reductionism) at a higher level of the universe’s hierarchy. The principle of Christocentric anthropocentrism implies a hierarchy in science: psychology seeks the explanation of the phenomena it discovers, not in biology (physiology), but in anthropology, while anthropology finds its explanations not in psychology, but in theology. The incarnate Word, the God-Man Jesus Christ, is both perfect God and perfect man. In contrast to secular psychology, Orthodox anthropology draws clear boundaries regarding the human norm, both on a psychosomatic and spiritual level. Thus, the Christological character of Orthodox anthropology is essential for Orthodox psychology and, consequently, for Orthodox psychotherapy, which will inevitably be based on the principles of Orthodox asceticism.

In Orthodox anthropology, the doctrine of humanity being created in the image and likeness of God holds a central place, allowing for a clear connection between the main dogmatic doctrines – Trinitarianism and Christology – within a well-defined soteriological perspective. This doctrine is fundamental to Orthodox anthropology, emphasizing the uniqueness of humanity within all creation. The creation of man involves not only the body but also the soul, which is an essential aspect of Orthodox anthropology. The human being is a unity of soul and body, both created by God and possessing intrinsic value. In Orthodox teaching, the body is not merely a physical shell but an inseparable part of human existence, called to eternal life and resurrection. In contemporary Orthodox anthropology, the attitude toward humanity is grounded in the recognition of its natural, historical, and spiritual dignity. The theological justification for this dignity comes from the doctrine of the likeness to God, not from biological superiority in the animal kingdom or from the achievements of progress, as asserted by secular humanism. To advance on the path of salvation, humanity must, first and foremost, step into the ark of salvation – the Church of Christ – and, secondly, make personal efforts to remove everything that hinders its union with God. Although sin has altered human nature, both physically and spiritually, it has not completely destroyed the spiritual gifts of humanity, such as freedom and love; these have merely been overshadowed and distorted. In this fallen state, man remains capable of awakening, seeking the truth, loving God, and consciously following His commandments.

Căsătoria în islam se prezintă ca un contract juridic bilateral, bazat pe consimțământul liber al ambelor părți, fără a avea caracter sacramental, specific tradiției creștine. Ea urmează modelul general al contractelor civile, dar impune prezența a cel puțin doi martori de confesiune musulmană, condiție esențială pentru validitatea sa, ceea ce o diferențiază de alte tipuri de contracte. Importanța acestei instituții derivă din influența normelor religioase, morale și sociale care guvernează relațiile dintre soți, dar și din dezbaterile contemporane legate de drepturile femeii, inclusiv posibilitatea de a pune capăt unilateral mariajului. În acest sens, stipulațiile incluse în contractele de căsătorie variază semnificativ între școlile juridice islamice: hanbaliții acceptă orice condiții convenite de către părți, dacă nu contravin clar sharîʿah, în timp ce celelalte școli resping clauzele care limitează drepturile soțului, precum interdicția de a contracta un mariaj poligam. Aceste diferențe evidențiază complexitatea juridică și culturală a căsătoriei islamice și adaptabilitatea sa la contextul modern.

Tutela matrimonială în dreptul islam este singurul element juridic fără o bază reală în Coran, care nu cere consimțământul unui tutore pentru femeile libere. Rolul tutorelui (walî) a fost introdus de savanți pentru a proteja femeile, fiind rezervat bărbaților din familie sau, în lipsa acestora, unui judecător. Există două tipuri principale de tutelă: cea de constrângere, aplicabilă minorilor și persoanelor cu tulburări mentale, și cea de asociere, care presupune consimțământul femeii. Divergențele dintre școli includ dreptul femeii de a încheia singură căsătoria, acceptat de hanafiți, dar respins de celelalte școli, care impun restricții stricte. Tutela reflectă influențe preislamice și rămâne un subiect controversat în islamul contemporan. În ceea ce privește impedimentele la căsătorie, ele pot fi temporare sau permanente. Cele temporare includ diferențele de religie – femeile musulmane se pot căsători doar cu musulmani, în timp ce bărbații au mai multă libertate –, existența unui mariaj anterior sau a perioadei de așteptare (ʿiddah), legăturile colaterale (de exemplu, căsătoria cu două surori) și limitările privind poligamia sau repudierea ireversibilă.

Impedimentele permanente includ legătura de sânge (cum ar fi interdicția de a se căsători cu rudele apropiate) și legătura de alăptare, care creează o relație similară cu cea de sânge, precum și alianțele directe stabilite prin căsătorie sau relații sexuale. Aceste reguli sunt fundamentate pe texte coranice și aplicate diferit de școlile juridice islamice. Darul nupțial (mahr) este un element esențial al căsătoriei islamice, reprezentând o donație obligatorie oferită de soț soției, conform prevederilor coranice. Percepția asupra mahr-ului variază între școlile juridice: unii îl consideră un preț pentru căsătorie (ex. malikiții), alții un dar matrimonial respectuos (ex. hanbalite). Valoarea sa este stabilită în funcție de statutul social al soților, fără limite stricte, și poate fi plătită integral sau eșalonat. Inițial, darul era oferit părinților miresei, dar reforma coranică a stabilit că acesta aparține soției. În perioada medievală, mahr-ul simboliza statutul personal, fiind deseori stipulat în aur, chiar și pentru familii fără mijloace financiare semnificative.

Divorțul în dreptul islamic clasic, cunoscut sub numele de ṭalâq, reprezintă dreptul unilateral al soțului de a-și repudia soția prin simpla pronunțare a unei formule consacrate și fără a oferi justificări. Deși licit din punct de vedere juridic, ṭalâq-ul este considerat reprobabil moral și religios. Procedura poate fi clasificată în trei tipuri: repudierea revocabilă, care permite soțului să reia căsnicia în timpul perioadei de așteptare (`iddah); repudierea minoră ireversibilă, ce necesită consimțământul femeii și un nou contract în cazul recăsătoriei; și repudierea majoră ireversibilă, care interzice recăsătoria până când femeia nu s-a căsătorit și divorțat în prealabil de un alt soț. Deși ṭalâq-ul poate fi realizat conform normelor religioase (ṭalâq al-sunna) sau în mod neregulat (ṭalâq al-bid’ah), valabilitatea juridică nu este afectată. Repudierile arbitrare erau rare din cauza obligațiilor financiare impuse soțului, care trebuia să întrețină soția în timpului perioadei `iddah și să achite eventualele datorii. Ṭalâq-ul reflectă tradiția patriarhală pre-islamică, dar continuă să fie o instituție relevantă în dreptul islamic, marcând o intersecție între religie, drept și obiceiuri sociale. Pe lângă divorțul pronunțat de către soț, există și posibilitatea ca femeia să solicite dizolvarea căsătoriei printr-un proces numit khulʿ, în care aceasta plătește o compensație soțului pentru a obține separarea. Procedura este posibilă doar cu acordul soțului și se bazează pe un verset coranic care permite unui soț să își răscumpere soția. Khulʿ este utilizat de obicei de femeile care nu au motive grave pentru un divorț formal, ci doar o aversiune față de soț. În ceea ce privește cuantumul compensației, nu există un prag minim sau maxim stabilit de școlile juridice, însă soțul nu poate cere mai mult decât darul convenit la momentul încheierii contractului. În cazul în care khulʿ este acceptat, efectele sunt aceleași ca și în cazul unei repudierii ireversibile. Pe de altă parte, în situația în care o femeie nu poate obține divorțul prin khulʿ, femeia poate apela la tafriq, procedura judiciară de divorț. Aceasta poate fi solicitată pentru neîndeplinirea obligațiilor de către soț, cum ar fi neîntreținerea sau absența prelungită, dar și pentru cazuri de abuz fizic sau tratamente nepotrivite. Jurisprudența variază în funcție de școala juridică, unele acceptând divorțul pentru neîntreținere, altele nu. De asemenea, femeile pot solicita separarea dacă soțul nu poate plăti darul nupțial convenit sau dacă nu îndeplinește alte obligații esențiale ale căsătoriei. În cazul absenței îndelungate a soțului, unele școli permit femeii să ceară divorțul, considerând că aceasta suferă un prejudiciu din cauza imposibilității soțului în îndeplinirea obligațiilor conjugale.

Există o conexiune clară între prescripțiile Coranului și dreptul islamic clasic, sharîʿah dezvoltând și actualizând reglementările coranice despre căsătorie. Această legislație a fost dominantă în țările islamice până la mijlocul secolului al XIX-lea, când colonialismul a impus treptat sisteme juridice occidentale. În Algeria, de exemplu, s-a aplicat dreptul francez, în timp ce în India s-a introdus cel britanic. Aceste schimbări au generat conflicte pe fondul coexistenței celor două sisteme juridice, dar, în timp, legislația occidentală a fost acceptată de populațiile musulmane. Reforme moderne, precum abolirea căsătoriilor forțate, restricționarea poligamiei și extinderea drepturilor femeilor de a obține divorțul, au adus schimbări semnificative. Totuși, lumea arabo-musulmană este acum divizată între o poziție seculară liberală, care promovează separarea religiei de politică, și una tradiționalistă, care respinge influențele occidentale și susține revenirea la legislația bazată exclusiv pe sharîʿah.

The members of the Antim community were overjoyed by his arrival in the capital, as he was a significant support to them, having provided a solid theological foundation through his translations of the Philokalia and of the works by Saint Gregory Palamas. In 1950, Father Sofian was appointed abbot of Antim Monastery. As abbot, he further deepened his relationship with the distinguished theologian, often inviting Father Stăniloae to participate in liturgical services. In June 1954, Archimandrite Sofian was transferred to Plumbuita Monastery as abbot. There, he sought to enhance the catechetical work by inviting several renowned clergies to preach, inclu­ding Fathers Dumitru Stăniloae, Benedict Ghiuș, and Bartolomeu Anania. This commitment to fostering theological depth and spiritual growth drew the attention of the Securitate, who later accused the abbot of defending and protecting theologians. It was not long before both fathers were arrested: first, Archimandrite Sofian in June 1958, and then Father Stăniloae in September of the same year. Both would suffer together at Aiud Prison between 1959 and 1962. Despite the immense suffering they endured, their time in prison became a profound school of prayer and repentance. Father Stăniloae was released at the beginning of 1963 and was immediately appointed to work for the External Relations Department of the Romanian Patriarchate, with an office in the building housing the Holy Synod Library. He would continue to work at Antim Monastery for many years until 1976.

The long-lasting friendship and shared spiritual link between Fathers Stăniloae and Sofian Boghiu are a testament to their unwavering faith and dedication to the Church, and their story continues to inspire future generations of believers. Meanwhile, Archimandrite Sofian also returns to his beloved monastery. Thus, for at least eight years, the two fathers often met in the courtyard of the monastery, served at the Altar, worked together, served the meal, consulted each other, and endured the pressures of the Securitate directed at them. There are some accounts of the joyful feelings manifes­ted in the meetings between the two, and the fact that, in such circumstances, they were like two old angels. One gave priority to the other, as in the Writings of the Desert Fathers. Father Stăniloae often preached at Antim in those years, twice a month, on Friday evenings, but also on other occasions.

In 1971, Father Dumitru asked Archimandrite Sofian to paint the iconostasis of the church in the Gușterița-Sibiu neighbourhood, where his brother-in-law served. Although he was very busy, Father Archimandrite accepted the request of his good friend, and that is how today we have that unique iconostasis, entirely painted by Father Sofian. During this period, the two also related to some large monasteries in Moldova, especially the Sihăstria Monastery, which they visited quite often. The charismatic Father Cleopa became the spiritual father of the Stăniloae family, and when they were in Bucharest and did not have the opportunity to reach Sihăstria, the one who offered them the sacrament of Confession was, most frequently, Father Dinu Mihalcea, the parish priest of the church “St. Nicolae-Negustori” and, sometimes, the Most Reverend Father Sofian. Also, especially after 1990, when the Revered Professor participated in numerous events organized in his honour, among those present was Archimandrite Sofian, always seated next to Patriarch Teoctist. Even after 1990, when the Romanian Orthodox Student Association (ASCOR) was established in Bucharest, the first generations of young students had as a driving force for (re)starting the spiritual life in Bucharest mainly three points of reference: the sacrifice of the young martyrs of 1989, the spiritual protection of Father Sofian and the patristic spirit brought by Father Stăniloae through the publication of the Philokalia. Many stories testify about the closeness in spirit of the two Fathers and about their mutual validation.

It is emblematic the testimony about some theological uncertainties that the fathers of Antim Monastery had, when some new opinion appeared among the scholars of the Church. Asking Abbot Sofian about these, he instructed them to look for answers in the books of Father Stăniloae. And when Father Sofian theologized as well, the monastery fathers had the feeling that Father Stăniloae himself was speaking to them. Their smiles were still the same, restful and delicate. The two Fathers also shared a significant characteristic: they were not inclined to offer excessive advice, yet possessed a deep sense of wisdom and humility, acknowledging that they did not have answers to every question. Instead, they communicated through their silence. When they did speak, their words were gentle, delivered without a raised voice. However, what truly distinguished them was not merely their words but the life they exuded—an emanation of spiritual vitality that transcended verbal expression. A particularly evocative aspect of their presence was the atmosphere of profound peace in their cells, alongside their readiness to welcome guests with warmth and humility. Despite the abundance of spiritual fruits they bore, both Fathers frequently expressed dissatisfaction with themselves and their work, which they always felt was incomplete. Father Stăniloae’s passing to the Lord brought Archimandrite Sofian to his bedside, where he offered him the final confession and Holy Communion. In an interesting and poignant coincidence, both Fathers departed this life just shy of their 90th birthdays. Father Dumitru’s funeral took place on Archimandrite Sofian’s birthday, October 7, 1993. That evening, the young people who had attended the funeral returned to sing “Happy Birthday” to Father Sofian, a sign of the profound spiritual bond that united the two Fathers, transcending even death. One passed to the Lord, while the other remained a steadfast pillar for the living Church. Nine years later, on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Archimandrite Sofian joined his beloved friend in the eternal light of God’s chosen ones.

The monasteries where they were both laid to rest—Cernica and Căldărușani—once connected by the Paisian monastic tradition, now serve as the final resting places for these two mo­dern-day continuators of that same Paisian heritage. Their remains, however, were exhumed on July 29, 2024, the very day of their canonization. In the soft evening light, their precious coffins were brought to Antim Monastery, accompanied by the ringing of bells, and placed in the former cell of Hieromonk Daniil Sandu Tudor. Now, united once again, these two holy Fathers continue to intercede powerfully on behalf of the faithful.