Archbishop Leonty (+1971) and the Greek Old Calendarists [part 9]
(Continue from here)
The Synod of ROCOR of 1962. Archbishop Leonty: second from the left, seated (marked with the cross above) . Photo from the official magazine of the True Orthodox of Greece "The Voice of Orthodoxy" (issue 407 / December 3, 1962)
The Examination of the Consecrations of Archbishop Leonty at the Synod of 1962
In August 1962, the First Hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan Anastasy, sent a critical note to Archbishop Leonty regarding the consecrations conducted without his knowledge. On the contrary, Archbishop Averky of Syracuse sent Archbishop Leontios a brief but very significant letter (dated August 16/29, 1962), in which he praised the Old Calendarists for remaining in true Orthodoxy, as they did not accept the [calendar] innovation, and wondered why (as ROCOR) they were not in communion with them. Regarding the consecrations, he is clear: he considers them not only canonical, but certainly fully justified.
During the same period, Archbishop Leonty exchanged correspondence with Bishop Akakios of Diavleia, who informed him about the situation in Greece, from his perspective, and expressed his support, as well as the support, love, and greetings of those who knew him. Additionally, in a letter to Bishop Chrysostomos of Magnesia (in September 1962), Archbishop Leonty stated that he was ready to depart for the USA in early October to attend the ROCOR Synod and to defend the consecrations. He also expressed his desire to move permanently to Greece.
During the ROCOR Synod, [1] specifically at the ninth session (October 23 / November 5), the topic of the new calendar was initially addressed. Archbishop Leonty recalled that in 1923, Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, having been misled, agreed to the introduction of the new calendar, but this caused outrage among the clergy and the laity, forcing the Patriarch to rescind his decision due to the general outcry. Archbishop Averky stated that he is surprised to hear some defensive comments regarding the new calendar and emphasized that it is a papal innovation of Gregory XIII, which even the Protestants did not accept for over two centuries, while it is known that the Julian calendar was adopted by the First Ecumenical Council.
During the twenty-fourth (November 13/26) and twenty-fifth sessions (November 14/27), discussions were held regarding the Second Vatican Council and the Ecumenism of the "World Council of Churches." After Bishop Anthony of Geneva (one of the observers at the Vatican Council) submitted an informative report, Archbishop Athanasius of Argentina criticized the presence of observers, as it scandalizes the faithful and gives papal propaganda an opportunity to exploit this to promote the Unia. Similarly, Archbishop Averky and Bishop Sava of Edmonton also criticized the participation of observers. Archbishop Leonty informed the Synod that, according to his information, after strengthening the position of the Old Calendarists with episcopal consecrations, the Church of Greece refused to send observers out of fear of losing its flock. Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles pointedly noted that "when Rome speaks of unity, it means union with it," while Archbishop Leonty added that the goals of the World Council of Churches and the Vatican are the same, and expressed his concern that the Synod sent observers to the Vatican.
At this Synod, the consecration of Old Calendarist Bishops in Greece by Archbishop Leonty was discussed at length. The discussion began at the twenty-fourth session (November 13/26), where Archbishop Leonty submitted a Memorandum on the Old Calendarists of Greece, and then, after informing the Synod about his trip to Greece and the consecrations, he concluded: "We must ask the question of whom we are with: the New Calendarists or the Old Calendarists. If we sympathize with the latter, then we should rejoice in the strengthening of their position."
Fr. George Grabbe then read the protest documents from the parasynagogue of Fr. Kalliopios, [2] but Bishop Sava (Saracevic) of Edmonton countered that since "this group is not recognized by anyone, we can ignore their protest."
Bishop Anthony of Geneva criticized those who ordained Old Calendarists without Synodal permission (i.e. Bishop Seraphim of Chicago and Archbishop Leonty), saying that there is a possibility that at a future Pan-Orthodox Synod, ROCOR might be accused of interfering in the internal matters of another Church. However, Bishop Seraphim of Chicago objected to the idea that Archbishop Leonty’s actions constituted interference in the affairs of another Church because the Old Calendarists have been a separate ecclesiastical organization since 1924. "For this reason," he continued, "Archbishop Leonty’s actions at their request are similar to the assistance Metropolitan Anastasy provided to Patriarch Damian when the latter found himself without bishops. [3] The Old Calendarist Church does not belong to the official Greek Church and has over a million members. This is not interference in someone else's Church, and no one can criticize us for this. Moreover, as long as the Patriarchate of Moscow exists [i.e. under communist yoke], we will not be able to participate in any Pan-Orthodox Synod. We must unite Orthodox Christians of the same spirit all around the world."
On the contrary, Athanasius of Argentina not only criticized Archbishop Seraphim's opinion, but also the consecrations and called for the punishment of Archbishop Leonty. Likewise, Nikon of Washington disapproved of him, stating that the Synod had decided not to intervene in Greece and that Archbishop Leonty was disobedient and a violator of the Canons. Vitaly (Ustinov) of Canada agreed with them.
Archbishop Leonty said that there have been many violations of the Canons in ROCOR and that we should fear God more than men. "I am accountable to God for my actions, and I do not repent," he concluded, while it was set to discuss the matter again in another session.
Indeed, in the twenty-eighth session (17/30 November), Metropolitan Anastasy proposed and continued the discussion on the topic.
The aforementioned Archpriests Nikon and Athanasius once again opposed Archbishop Leonty, who reiterated the fundamental question: is ROCOR with those who are against it or with the Old Calendarist brethren? He stated that he is ready to take full responsibility and continued: "The Old Calendarists were in a difficult situation, and we helped them in the same way that Metropolitan Anastasy helped the Patriarch of Jerusalem in his time, or as Patriarch Theophanes of Jerusalem helped the Russian Church." Archbishop Leonty claimed that he acted following their example, risking his life. The faction of the Old Calendarists which is protesting (referring to those around Fr. Kalliopios) is untrustworthy. It was an emergency situation that required aid. St. John Maximovitch agreed and expressed his support for Archbishop Leonty, while Archbishop Averky stated the following significant points: "I myself would not dare to ordain the Greek Old Calendarists. But at the same time, in the depths of my soul, I cannot help but admire the courage with which Archbishop Leonty carried out this act, to which his conscience called him. This act cannot be considered a canonical violation. On the contrary, in the life of other Churches, we observe a total disregard for the Canons, and taking into account this extraordinary general situation, Archbishop Leonty must be treated with leniency. This is further reinforced by the fact that there have been certain illegal actions by the Patriarchate of Constantinople concerning the Russian Church... Now that everything is illegal, a special approach is needed. We cannot now approach the Canons legalistically. The Canons were made for man, not man for the Canons. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. [4] It is necessary to think about the salvation of souls, not just adhering to the outward form. The form can be orthodox in appearance but false in essence. From this perspective, Archbishop Leonty’s act should be appreciated. He performed a courageous act by helping the sister Church, which is spiritually closest to us in our time. The Greek Church was and is being persecuted. It was a great mistake that we were once too lenient about the introduction of a new calendar, because this introduction was intended to divide the Orthodox Church. This was an act of the enemies of the Church of Christ, and the fruits of this act are already visible. Even in America, there are Greek clergy who have a guilty conscience about adopting the new calendar. Adherence to the old calendar is linked to preserving all church traditions. Along with the removal of the old calendar, the principle of asceticism is also removed from the Church. The Old Calendarists are the closest to us in spirit. The only 'offense' in Archbishop Leonty’s action is that he acted without fraternal consultation and contrary to the decision of the Synod, although with good intentions."
Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago also agreed with Archbishop Averky, but Vitaly of Canada reacted and expressed his surprise at Archbishop Averky's stance towards the Canons, saying that faith in the Canons cannot be compared to the observance of the Sabbath and that no one knows the future of the Greek Church, for perhaps the Lord has destined it to be destroyed... He would like the Canons to be followed more strictly in the future, although in this case he does not wish for Archbishop Leonty to be dealt with harshly, as he acted zealously in wanting to do a good deed.
Archbishop Averky countered that the Canons, like everything in the Church, point towards eternal salvation. They have a moral, not a formal meaning, and therefore their moral aspect, that is, their spirit, must be respected and there must be no [undue] attachment to their letter (formalism).
Archbishop Leonty, referring to the 35th Apostolic Canon, [5] pointed out that there is room for deviation from this Canon, especially when there is an invitation from the local Bishop (in this case, Akakios of Talantion). This is what Metropolitan Anastasy did in Jerusalem for the defense of the Patriarch. "In Russia too," continued Archbishop Leonty, "I attended such secret consecrations. The Catacomb Church never adhered to the letter of the law. Secret consecrations took place, and the bishops who were consecrated hid their titles. However, it is not appropriate to go into details." [6]
After this intervention, Archbishop Vitaly began to accuse Archbishop Leonty, saying that what he mentioned "was applicable to his Russian Church, but now we are talking about another Church, and it is important for us that there are no such acts of self-will in the future." He also accused Archbishop Leonty of being disobedient.
Archbishop Averky intervened and responded that if we adhere strictly to the letter of the Canons, it is possible to find ourselves aligned with the enemies of the Church. He mentioned that while the ROCOR Synod emphasizes that it does not recognize Patriarch Alexy [I] of Moscow, it communes with the Patriarchs who commune with him (and thus indirectly with Moscow), creating a vicious cycle. "Because of this absurd situation," continued Archbishop Averky, "it is especially important for us to stand on a firm canonical basis, maintaining the right path and not the letter of the law, which can even lead us to the worship of Satan."
Archbishop Athanasius of Argentina fully agreed with Vitaly of Canada, while Bishop Nektary (Kontzevich) of Seattle expressed his support for Archbishop Leonty, agreeing with Archbishop Averky.
Bishop Anthony of Los Angeles expressed his support for the Greek Old Calendarists, as ROCOR also follows the old calendar, "which is kept by the best Orthodox Christians around the world." "We do not approve of the new calendar," he continued, adding, "Regarding Archbishop Leonty, we must express our disapproval of the consecration he performed without permission, but we will not say anything about the consequences, only stating that Archbishop Leonty asked for forgiveness."
However, Archbishop Leonty stated that he was not apologizing at all. He only regrets not informing the Metropolitan, but he could not. Archbishop Nikon said that every Bishop cannot do whatever he wants outside his own diocese, while Bishop Sava declared that sympathy for the Old Calendarists is a given, but at the same time, discipline within the ROCOR must be maintained.
Metropolitan Anastasy believes that the case of the consecration he conducted with Patriarch Damian has nothing to do with the act of Archbishop Leonty. Patriarch Damian was unlawfully overturned, and all the Churches recognized that there was a rebellion against him by the bishops subject to him, who violated the canonical order. "No Church," he said, "can intervene in the affairs of another Church, and moreover, the Old Calendarist Church emerged illegally from an unknown source. [7] It is impossible to construe it as a canonical Church, and it is an abuse of the Apostolic Canon referenced by Archbishop Leonty. Otherwise, everyone would seek excuses for themselves for every violation of the Canons. From this perspective, Archbishop Leonty’s act cannot be justified. But we must take into account all the circumstances of the case that give him the right to receive clemency."
Archbishop Leonty said that the Old Calendarists are a persecuted and enslaved Church, just like the Catacomb Church in Russia. We must not allow Orthodox Greeks to believe that we are with the official Church and not with the truly Orthodox one.
Bishop Nektary of Seattle said that the Old Calendar Church of Greece does not have communion with the New Calendar Church. The Old Calendar Church is autocephalous. It was without bishops and requested bishops, which is why we went to meet her; the secrecy was due to the fact that she was persecuted.
St. John Maximovitch recalled that when there were disturbances in the Church of Antioch in the 19th century, the Church of Constantinople intervened, and in a similar case, the Church of Cyprus was helped by the Greek Church.
And Seraphim of Chicago did not agree with Metropolitan Anastasy and wondered why the small Churches of Sinai and Cyprus are recognized as autocephalous, but the Old Calendar Church, which has more than a million faithful, is not recognized as a separate Church. To this, the Metropolitan replied that the Churches of Sinai and Cyprus "have long been recognized by all."
However, Bishop Nektary pointed out the difference in the fact that the Old Calendarists remained unchanged as they were, while the New Calendarists brought innovation into the Church.
Archbishop Nikon, following the proposal of the Metropolitan, drafted the following Resolution, which was approved as follows: "Throughout its existence, the Russian Church Abroad has never interfered in the affairs of other autocephalous Churches, and for this reason, despite its fraternal sympathy for the Greek Old Calendarists, it has continually rejected many of their appeals for the consecration of Bishops. The Synod of Bishops deeply regrets that His Eminence Leonty, Archbishop of Santiago, Chile, and Peru, in May 1962, contrary to the above, on his own initiative, without the knowledge and permission of the Synod of Bishops and the First Hierarch, Metropolitan Anastasy, participated in the consecration of Greek Old Calendarists. The Synod of Bishops also instructs the honorable Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad not to intervene in the affairs of both the Greek and other Orthodox Autocephalous Churches. Regarding the participation of certain other Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in secret episcopal consecrations of Greek Old Calendarists, as mentioned in the correspondence on this matter, neither the Synod of Bishops nor the First Hierarch gave permission to any of Their Eminences to participate and are unaware of such consecrations."
We see in this Resolution, apart from the initial statement of non-interference in the internal affairs of other Churches (a statement which reveals that the President and several members of the Synod did not want to come into conflict with the so-called official Churches), the following paradox, which also demonstrates the disagreement among the members of the Synod of the ROCOR, as we observed through the reading of the Minutes: on the one hand, without clear recognition, it states Archbishop Leonty’s participation in the consecration of the Old Calendarist Bishops of Greece in May 1962; on the other hand, without explicitly denouncing them, it declares ignorance of the consecration in 1960 (i.e., of Akakios of Talantion). This rather favorable stance towards the Old Calendarists is apparently due to the fact that most Bishops of the Synod of the ROCOR were in favor of them. This attitude will later lead, as we shall see, to the full recognition of these consecrations.
NOTES
[[1] The Minutes of the 1962 Synod can be found here (in Russian):
https://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Sobor%201962%20Prot.htm
[2] See previous chapter.
[3] In 1921, the Bishops of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem rose up against their Patriarch. Patriarch Damian, taking advantage of the arrival in Palestine of Archbishop Anastasy at the time, with his participation, proceeded to consecrate new Bishops. After these consecrations, the rebellious Bishops submitted their repentance, and peace was restored in the Church of Jerusalem. Incidentally, one of those ordained with the participation of Archbishop Anastasy was the future Patriarch of Jerusalem, Timotheos Themelis (+1955).
[4] Cf. Luke 6:1-10.
[5] “Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits, in cities and places not subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so, without the consent of those persons who have authority over such cities and places, let him be deposed, and those also whom he has ordained.”
[6] In times of persecution or heresies, as ecclesiastical history teaches us, temporary canonical deviations are often observed, for the sake of the supremacy of Orthodoxy, of course, and not out of contempt for the Canons and institutions. Cf. See also “of necessity a change also of the law” (Heb. 7:12).
[7] They did not yet know (because it had been kept secret) that Akakios of Talantion had been consecrated by Seraphim of Chicago and Theophil of Sevres!
[Be continued]
Σχόλια
Δημοσίευση σχολίου