Mănăstirea Secu. Buletin istoric şi cultural, I, Galaţi, 2025, pp. 175-192
SECULARIZAREA AVERILOR MĂNĂSTIREŞTI ŞI PROBLEMA VECHILIMELELOR PENTRU PROPRIETĂŢILE DIN BASARABIA
AUTOR: Ion GUMENÂI
Cuvinte Cheie: Vechilime, Teofan Cristea, Basarabia, Mănăstirea Neamţ şi Secu, Chiţcani, Copanca
Keywords: stewardship, Teofan Cristea, Bessarabia, Neamţ and Secu Monastery, Chiţcani, Copanca
THE SECULARIZATION OF MONASTIC PROPERTIES AND THE ISSUE OF POWER OF ATTORNEYS FOR PROPERTIES IN BESSARABIA
(Abstract)
The religious policy of Al. Ioan Cuza’s government is known especially for what historiography refers to as the secularization of monastic properties. Naturally, this measure was received without enthusiasm by the monastic segment of Romanian society – or more precisely, with a hostility that was either hidden or openly expressed, which is perfectly understandable. A special situation in this process was represented by the monastic properties from the former Principality of Moldavia, which at that time were located in Bessarabia – territory annexed by the Russian Empire and thus, de jure and de facto, within the borders of a foreign state.
In that difficult situation, Metropolitan Sofronie issued a stewardship (a document granting administrative power) in the name of Teofan Cristea, who was at that time the steward (vechil) of the properties of the Neamţ and Secu Monasteries in Bessarabia, empowering him with the administration of all monastic assets in the region.
However, the situation changed when other stewardship were issued in the name of different individuals, such as Teodosie Aroneanul or Pavel Samsonov. This created a conflictual context, which involved various decision-makers: Teofan Cristea – who had been appointed by Metropolitan Sofronie as steward – and the abbot of the Neamţ and Secu Lavra, Timotheiu, as well as Russian authorities, both local and central, including the consular service and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Thus, the material presented here aims to trace both the arguments put forward by the parties in conflict and the decisions taken by the Russian authorities in order to ensure a favorable outcome for themselves in the matter, as well as the reasoning they used to justify the correctness of these decisions – ultimately confirmed and sealed by the supreme authority: the Tsar.