Archbishop Leonty (+1971) and the Greek Old Calendarists [part 10]

  (Continue from here)

From the left: Archbishop Leonty of Chile, Bishop Peter of Astoria and Bishop Seraphim of Venezuela (November 29, 1962)

New ordinations, consolidation of the Greek Orthodox in America, and new slanders

The fact that the majority of the Russian bishops sided with Archbishop Leonty and the Old Calendarists [1] was not the only reason the confessor Hierarch had the courage to proceed with new ordinations of the Genuine Orthodox. He was absolutely convinced that true Orthodoxy needed to be strengthened throughout the world and that centers of resistance had to be created in view of the impending general apostasy.

Thus on Wednesday, November 29, 1962 (Julian calendar), the day commemorating the Holy Martyrs Paramon and Philoumenos, Archbishop Leonty, along with Bishop Seraphim of Caracas and Venezuela, ordained Archimandrite Petros Astyfides as the Bishop of the Greek Old Calendarists in the U.S., with the title "of Astoria." The ordination was initially planned to take place in Caracas, Venezuela, or Santiago, Chile, but at that time, Hierodeacon Fr. Nikodemos Kalantis, the disciple of Fr. Petros, managed to convince Archbishop Leonty to perform the ordination in their parish, St. Markella of Astoria. Here is how he himself describes the event:

"It was end of November, the 27th of the month, in 1962. An unforgettable day for me. The late Leonty Filippovitch, Archbishop of Chile at the time, was in New York. He had come to attend the proceedings of the Synod. The Metropolitan of the Russian Church Abroad at that time was the late Anastasy. Vladyka Leonty held my elder in high esteem and showed great affection towards me. That afternoon, I drove him in my car to New York. He had come to Astoria to bring the good news to my elder. He would take him with him to Chile [2] to ordain him as a bishop. I remember him asking me in the car if I was pleased with the decision the Russian bishops had made. 'Father Nikodemos, are you happy that your elder will become a bishop?' 'No,' I replied. He looked at me strangely. 'Aren’t you pleased that I will ordain him as a bishop?' 'No,' I said again. 'But I thought you loved your elder. What’s the matter? What do you know? Tell me.' 'I love and respect my elder, but how can I be happy when I won’t be present at his ordination?' 'Then come with us to Santiago.' 'That’s not possible. Our elder must be ordained here in Astoria so that the whole brotherhood can rejoice.' He looked at me with emotion. Meanwhile, we had arrived at Park Avenue, outside the offices of the Russian Synod. 'Wait a moment,' he said to me, 'I’ll be back.' I waited for about half an hour in the car. When he returned, he looked very happy. 'Father Nikodemos, your wish will come true. Go to Astoria and tell Archimandrite Petros to prepare for the Divine Liturgy. We will ordain him as a bishop in the morning.' An unforgettable day. The feast of the Holy Martyrs Paramon and Philoumenos. Archbishop Leonty Filippovitch of Chile, having canonical Apostolic succession, together with Bishop Seraphim of Venezuela, members of the Russian Orthodox Church, ordained my elder Petros as Bishop of Astoria." - Archimandrite Nikodemos Kalantis. [3]

The ordination was done in secret with very few present, [4] as also mentioned by the eyewitness Gerontissa Synkleitiki, a spiritual child of Bishop Petros. [5] She also notes that some in Greece did not desire this ordination. It seems that various slanders had been spread against Fr. Petros, supposedly concerning moral and other issues, even from the time he was on Mount Athos. [6] These slanders had circulated among the Zealots, who then wrote to the Synod of the G.O.C. opposing his ordination; and the Synod, more to avoid causing a scandal than because they gave credence to these slanders, did not want the ordination to take place. [7]

With the recent publication of letters from Elder Joseph, the so-called Hesychast, [8] to Fr. Panteleimon of Boston, it was revealed that Elder Joseph himself was responsible for Fr. Panteleimon’s hatred against Bishop Petros, as he spread such slander, writing the following: "He [Petros] is a spiritualist. At first, he had a bride here. He was not suitable to become a priest; the Old Calendarists made him one against the Canons. He left and found his bride, and learned spiritualism from her. He considered her as a saint. He returned to Mount Athos, and no one accepted him. He left with her and came to America. I do not know what happened now. The Lord enlightened me, [9] and I write to you to stay away from him so you do not lose your souls." [10]

The ordination of Bishop Petros not only served as a cause for the rekindling of these slanders but also for the invention of new ones. The great enemy of Archbishop Leonty, Fr. George Grabbe, began spreading the claim that this ordination was simoniac. Let us examine this slander from Grabbe's own writings, which he propagated for over 30 years (!): "The Greek Gerasimos Stathatos, [11] who worked at the Synod as a cleaner, repeatedly tried to organize the ordination of Archimandrite Petros and for this purpose approached various of our Bishops. Specifically, I personally knew from the late Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago that Gerasimos offered him five thousand dollars for this ordination. Vladika Seraphim categorically refused, but Archbishop Leonty of Chile agreed. The secret ordination of Petros was carried out by him in cooperation with Archbishop Seraphim of Venezuela, who committed this crime due to his extreme naivety... When asked about this, Gerasimos told everyone that there was no simony, only a donation of oil [12] to Archbishop Leonty. Later, the ordination certificate, which was illegally issued for Bishop Petros, was annulled by Metropolitan Philaret, about which Bishop Petros was officially informed." [13]

The above slanders, however, are very easily refuted. First of all, if there had been moral issues, the late Petros would not have been worthy even to be a priest. Since he was deemed worthy to be a priest, and no one objected to this, he was therefore also worthy to be a bishop, at least from a moral standpoint. Regarding the alleged rejection of Bishop Petros' ordination by Saint Philaret, the documents prove the opposite. For not only did Saint Philaret accept it, but in 1968, he himself issued a Certificate of Validity for the ordination of Bishop Petros, with whom he even communed until 1979, the year when the Grabbe-Panteleimon faction, which then held sway within the ROCOR, [14] managed to sever it (it was restored with ROCOR in 1994). [15]

The Certificate of Ordination of Peter of Astoria, signed by Archbishop Leonty of Chile and Archbishop Seraphim of Venezuela.

The Recognition of the Ordination of Bishop Peter, signed by Metropolitan Saint Philaret, Bishop Nikon of Washington and Bishop Lavrus of Manhattan (1968)

Regarding the slanders of "spiritualism" and "simony," in addition to the refutation made by Bishop Petros himself, [16] the writings in the letters of the late Fr. Seraphim Rose are also enlightening. [17]

"We should tell you frankly that we do not trust Fr. Panteleimon’s 'political' acts with regard to the Greek Old Calendarists; since he began interfering [18] with the Greek Church situation (is this with the blessing of the Synod or his own Bishop?), he has only made things much worse. Things were much better when our Russian Bishops were ordaining Old Calendarist Bishops 'uncanonically,' but out of love, not for 'politics.'" [19]

"Why do you speak of 'Bishop' Petros? Is it really only because he is out of communion with his own Synod? Or is it because Fr. Panteleimon's feelings about him are so strong that you involuntarily reflect his feelings? Many of Fr. Panteleimon’s spiritual children had an absolute hatred for Bishop Petros even when he was still in quite good standing with our Synod. Perhaps we are hopelessly naive (and certainly we are “out of things” and don’t even hear most rumors)—but we know that Bishop Petros has a document from our Synod testifying to his valid ordination as bishop, and that he is out of communion with his own Synod solely (or at least chiefly) because he refused to state that the New Calendar Church no longer has grace—a statement which our own bishops refused to sign. [20] Why this disdainful attitude toward Bishop Petros? By the way, our Archbishop John told us, when Fr. Panteleimon was about to join our church ten years ago, that he should probably be placed under the jurisdiction of Bishop Petros. As a special favor, he was not, but was allowed to form, in effect, a second jurisdiction of Old Calendar Greeks in America—obviously an occasion for scandal in future, which has since begun to occur. We strongly suspect 'rivalry' plays at least some part in this whole situation, and until we are given very good cause we cannot but apply to Bishop Petros the same standard we must apply to Fr. Panteleimon and everyone else: we will not believe rumors about him. Of course, we must obey any directives of the Synod concerning him, but the directive itself is a conditional one: until his situation is rectified with his own Synod. Even if Bishop Petros is some kind of 'monster' or 'magician'—and several bishops of our Synod tell us he is not, in their opinion—our attitude toward him in any case should be objective, not based on feelings or on making him a special case for disfavoritism." [21]

Church of St. Markella in Astoria (1964). From left: Bishop Savvas, Archbishop Leonty, St. John Maximovich, Bishop Petros, Archbishop Averky, Bishop Nektary.

"We oursleves cannot pass judgment on the question of Bishop Petros, because we have never received any actual evidence for or against him. You seem to think that our bishops have been against Bp. Petros for many years; but all the bishops whose opinion we know have been, on the contrary, very favorable towards him. The campaign against him in our Church is Fr. Panteleimons work, and it is solely Fr. Panteleimons idea that our Russian Church Abroad is the 'only canonical American jurisdiction' and that the Greeks therefore have no right to their own jurisdiction here. [22] Our bishops are so much occupied with the cares of their own exiled flocks that they do not have the leisure to indulge in useless disputes over 'canonical rights,' and being very practical-minded, they are quite willing to live on friendly terms with a Greek jurisdiction of Old Calendarists in America. When Fr. Panteleimon was preparing to join our Synod in 1965, Archbishop John told me that the logical place for him was under Bishop Petros, whom Archbp. John greatly respected. When Fr. Panteleimon persuaded our bishops to accept him under the Synod, an act which could not help but cause troubles in future, as long as Fr. Panteleimon regarded himself as a rival with Bishop Petros for influence with the Greeks in America—which sadly, is just what he did, instead of remaining quietly in his monastery, as our bishops undoubtedly expected him to do. But despite Fr. Panteleimon, Bp. Petros has been in communion with our Synod, and I think it is only a few bishops like Archbishop Vitaly who have taken sides with Fr. Panteleimon against Bp. Petros. With this background, I hope that you will be able to understand the position of Archbishop Averky. Archbp. Averky has allowed Bp. Petros to serve at Jordanville for many years, and he has not been informed (to our knowledge) of any accusations against Bp. Petros except that he refuses to deny the validity of New-Calendar Sacraments (which our bishops also refuse to deny). If any serious report of 'ecumenical' activity on Bp. Petros’ part had been reported to Archbishop Averky, he would certainly have taken it most seriously and investigated it. All Archbishop Averky can see is the private rivalry of Fr. Panteleimon with Bishop Petros and he quite rightly refuses to take sides in this political battle. Archbishop Averky, therefore, finds the insistence of the 'brazen young Archimandrite' Panteleimon that he not let Bp. Petros serve at Jordanville to be an intolerable impudence—as if Russian bishops must be forced to 'take sides' in a 'Greek quarrel,' which until now has seemed to be of a purely personal nature. Further, whether rightly or wrongly, our bishops do not feel the decisions of the Synod of Auxentios to be binding upon them; why, indeed, should Archbishop Averky not allow Bishop Petros to serve, when several of our bishops have allowed Bishop Callistos [23] to serve—who is also not in communion with the Synod of Auxentios? Very likely our Synods dealings with the Mathewites at the 1971 Sobor were a mistake—but now the situation has become more complicated and it is difficult to see how a normal relation of our Church to yours can be restored. Perhaps all we can hope for is that at least communion will not be broken, despite many “irregularities” on both sides." [24]

"Bishop Petros. You think it is a terrible scandal and inconsistency that he is allowed to serve with us, and in your ignorance you blame this all on Vladika Laurus. Have you even tried to understand what others think of this? Fr. Panteleimon says he presented his 'evidence' on Bishop Petros to our bishops; well, our bishops were not convinced by this 'evidence'… You blame Bp. Laurus for letting Bp. Petros serve—but we know that many of our bishops are weary of this 'Greek fighting' and want no part in 'taking sides' in it, and we know for certain that it was Metropolitan Philaret himself who made the final decision to allow Bishop Petros to serve at the funeral of Archbishop Averky. We ourselves are not 'taking sides' in this matter—but since no one else seems to do so, we must tell you that your over-zealousness on such points is giving you many enemies in our Church and among Old Calendarists in Greece. If your objections against Bishop Petros are indeed sound, then we and many others would be much more inclined to believe you if you acted with more sense and moderation. Your very violence and 'demonstrations' on this subject make it indeed look like a battle over 'who is to rule the Greeks in America'; our bishops don’t want any part of such a battle, and if they sometimes 'back down' before your demands, it is solely because they treat you as spoiled children who might get violent if you don’t get your way. Is that the role you want for yourselves? Is that true zeal? Be humbler!" [25]

"For about two years (1971 to 1973) we were enthusiastically defending Fr. P[anteleimon] and Fr. N[eketas] against all these accusations, denying some of them and covering others with love and understanding. (We were so sympathetic to Fr. P[anteleimon]. that even the most extreme thing we knew that he had done—to call Bishop Peter of Astoria a 'simoniac' and 'sorcerer'—we justified as the weakness of someone who was zealous but who sometimes did make mistakes of judgment.) But then, in 1973, several of the actions of Fr. P. and Fr. N. began to upset us… We believe that Fr. P. is very mistaken in his desire to know everything that goes on in our Church as well as outside it, more even than our bishops know; this desire is prompted by his involvement in church politics and is a very unhealthy thing, both for himself and for those many people whom he inspires to be interested in church matters which are none of their business… he 'innocently' repeats such tales, and by his authority actually causes many people to believe them. This he has done time after time; especially among the Greek Old Calendarists his words have had a poisonous effect; many to this day believe that Bishop Peter of Astoria is a 'simoniac' or a 'sorcerer,' that Archimandrite Chrysostomos of Ohio is 'not a Greek' (as though that were a crime even if it were true), is 'a former Roman Catholic,' 'has forged his doctors degree,' etc." [26]

At the same time as the ordination of Bishop Petros (perhaps even on the same day, as indicated in the related Certificate of Ordination [27]), Fr. Akakios Ntouskos, [28] who later became the Bishop of Montreal [Canada] of the Greek Old Calendarists, was also ordained a priest. Archbishop Vitaly of Canada objected to the ordination not only because he was an enemy of Archbishop Leonty, [29] but also because he shared Fr. Panteleimon's view on the exclusivity of ROCOR's jurisdiction in the U.S. and thus could not tolerate an independent Greek jurisdiction of Genuine Orthodox Christians, of which Archbishop Leonty, by the grace of God, was the founder.

The Certificate of Ordination to Priest of Fr. Akakios (in the world Elias) Douskos, signed and sealed by Archbishop Leonty.

About this matter, a decade later, in a Montreal Greek newspaper, Archbishop Vitaly stated: "Leonty was a good hierarch, combative and dynamic. However, he committed a serious offense. With full awareness, he violated one of the Canons of the Orthodox Church, which forbids any bishop from ordaining deacons, priests, or bishops in a diocese other than his own. In the case of Mr. Ntouskos, this is exactly what happened. Thus, I do not recognize him, not only as a bishop but not even as a priest... Leonty, due to his deposition from the current Russian [Soviet] Church, was particularly sensitive to issues related to the treatment of Christians. He believed he was providing a service to the 'persecuted' Old Calendarists by ordaining Akakios. Nevertheless, aside from the aforementioned violation of the sacred Canon of Orthodoxy, this act itself constitutes a transgression, given that there is a synodal decision to avoid interference in the internal affairs of another Church. In this case, the issue of the Old Calendarists is an internal matter of the Greek Orthodox Church!" [30]

However, what Archbishop Vitaly writes here is completely unacceptable and stands in absolute contradiction to what he had written just two months earlier in a letter to "Archbishop" Andreas of the Matthewites, in which he justifies ROCOR's intervention in the Church of Greece with the cheirothesía of the Matthewites in 1971. Since nothing remains hidden forever, here is the relevant excerpt, which demonstrates the immense hypocrisy of Archbishop Vitaly: "But does not our involvement in the affairs of Greece constitute the greatest proof of the purity of our confession? You yourselves will be our witnesses that we intervened in the realm of the Church of Greece — having been invited to do so by the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece — not acting out of sentiment or for any other reason, as we did not even know you beforehand, but compelled by our episcopal conscience regarding the benefit and stability of the Genuine and worldwide Orthodox Catholic Church." [31]

Also revealing are the words of the aforementioned Bishop Akakios of Montreal in his letter to the Synod of the G.O.C. on April 6, 1972 (O.S.): "When I was notified by Astoria and learned of your ordinations by the Philhellene Savior of our Church, His Eminence Leonty, I consented to be ordained, but in a telephone conversation with His Grace of Astoria, I emphasized that I am a Greek Orthodox and that I would be ordained for the Greek Church of America and Canada. His Grace of Astoria responded, 'Are you joking? Can we, who have Greek blood running through our veins, become Russians?' This is the reason for the great hatred between Panteleimon and Petros… 'Greeks with Greeks and Russians with Russians,' said the great Savior and supporter of our Church, His Eminence Archbishop Leonty of Chile and Peru. 'Leave aside Vitaly’s fantasies; he is always scheming,' (letter of March 7, 1963, and February 18, 1966). I have many more letters and proofs to bring forward, but I believe you have already understood, with the latest actions of the unlawful ordination of the antichrists of the Matthewites, as Leonty called them, that the aforementioned Panteleimon… seeks our heads on a platter and the eradication of our faction."

Thus, Archbishop Leonty, by the grace of God, was a benefactor and life-giver of the Greek-speaking Church of the True Orthodox, not only in Greece but also in America. The Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece tolerated and, shortly after, officially accepted the ordination of Bishop Petros, while they wrote to Archbishop Leonty asking him to send the ordination certificates of the bishops he had ordained. [32] 

Archbishop Leonty at a celebration in St. Markella (Astoria). 

NOTES 

[1] The Secretary of the Old Calendarists, Konstantinos Komnios, in a letter to Fr. Antonios Moustakas in December 1962, informs him that "regarding the recognition of the ordinations in Greece, 8 voted in favor, 4 against, and 5, including Anastasios, voted with a blank ballot" (Archive of Konstantinos Komnios). Moreover, Fr. Akakios Ntouskos (later Bishop of Montreal of the Greek Old Calendarists), in a letter to Akakios of Talantion on December 11, 1962, mentions that "9 bishops were in favor of the ordinations, 4 were undecided, yes and no, including Anastasios, and 5 were against" (Archive of Akakios Pappas of Talantion).

[2] The ordination was possibly scheduled to take place in Caracas, Venezuela. This is also mentioned by Fr. Nikodemos in his oral testimony, which was recorded in the following documentary about the late Petros of Astoria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLt7cY78eaM (at 26:05).

[3] This article was published in the magazine "Ο Πυρσός της Ορθοδοξίας" ["The Torch of Orthodoxy"] (no. 57/11-12-1977).

[4] Also participating in the Liturgy were Hieromonk Eleftherios Moschos and Hierodeacon Nikodemos Kalantis, while Hieromonk Akakios Ntouskos (later Bishop of Canada of the Greek Old Calendarists) and Presbyter Georgios Markou chanted. Present were Gerontissa Synkleitiki, her sisterhood, Subdeacon Igor, and the driver of the Russian Bishops and later priest Vsevolod Doutsikov. The audio recording of the ordination can be found here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elxc67yGhDM.

[5] See in the aforementioned documentary.

[6] In his book "Ιερές Αναμνήσεις" ["Sacred Memories"] (Athens, 1990, pp. 30-33), Bishop Petros mentions that he had also been accused of supposedly being a "Makrakist" because of his relationship with Hieromonk Gerasimos of Agios Vasileios, one of the greatest Athonite Fathers of the past century, who, following in the footsteps of the Holy Kollyvades, was a strong advocate of frequent Communion.

[7] In a response letter (at the end of November 1962) to Fr. Petros (who had expressed his sorrow about the attacks against him), Akakios of Diavleia wrote, shedding light on the Synod's rejection, that "we the bishops, against our will, were forced to give such an answer" (Archive of Akakios Pappas of Diavleia).

[8] He was recently glorified by the Ecumenists.

[9] Regarding the reliability of the "revelations" and visions of Elder Joseph, two points must be made. First, Elder Joseph followed a schism (the Matthewite) and, through a vision, returned to the True Church (under Saint Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina), while through another vision, he left it and followed the pan-heretical Athenagoras! Second, the world-renowned Elder Paisios of Mount Athos rightly taught that out of 200 visions one might see, 199 are from the devil. Therefore, the Genuine Orthodox should not pay attention to "visions" and "revelations" but should humbly accept what the Holy Scripture tells us and what is proclaimed and accepted in agreement by the Orthodox Synods and the Holy Fathers.

[10] Letter of March 29, 1959, in Saint Joseph the Hesychast, Letters and Poems, Holy Monastery of Vatopedi, 2019, p. 394. [p. 418 English edition.]

[11] Those belonging to the so-called "Suzdal Schism" (a schism supported by Grabbe towards the end of his life) attribute the surname "Tsemidis" to this Gerasimos (see their magazine "Church News," no. 142/July 2015), a fact that reveals the unreliability of the slanderers.

[12] The donation of oil (for the lamps of the poor diocese of Chile) is "simony" or almsgiving?

[13] Letter from Bishop Gregory (the name Fr. George took upon his monastic tonsure) Grabbe to the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR (February 8/21, 1995).

[14] Letter of March 5/28, 1979, from Saint Philaret to Bishop Petros.

[15] Letter of September 3/16, 1994, from Bishop Hilarion (later First Hierarch of ROCOR) to Bishop Petros.

[16] "Open Letter" of July 16, 1985.

[17] Vyacheslav Marchenko (ed.), Letters of Fr. Seraphim Rose: 1961-1982, U.S.A., 2016.

[18] His intervention (in collaboration with Fr. Kalliopios!) was responsible for the acceptance of the Matthewites through cheirothesia in 1971, which took place without their repentance, which is why they returned to the Schism shortly thereafter.

[19] Letter of August 13/26, 1975, to Bishop Laurus.

[20] It refers to the famous "1974 Encyclical" (of Matthewite ecclesiology), which questioned the validity of the Sacraments of the official Church of Greece. This encyclical was rejected not only by Bishop Petros but also by many clergy, monks, and laypeople in Greece, who refused to usurp the rights of a Great (Pan-Orthodox or Ecumenical) Council.

[21] Letter of December 1/14, 1975, to Fr. Hilarion (later the First Hierarch of the ROCOR-MP). Our translation.

[22] Although the issue of jurisdictions in the diaspora is complex (the official Churches have included it in the agenda of a future Great Council), according to the practice of Orthodoxy, each national group in the diaspora has the right to constitute a separate jurisdiction, without breaking communion with other Jurisdictions of Orthodoxy, regardless of nationality.

[23] Kallistos Makris of Corinth was "ordained" in 1948 by Matthew of Vresthena alone, to whose schism he belonged. He was received by cheirothesia (according to others, re-ordained) in 1971 by Bishops of ROCOR, and in 1977 he joined the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians under Archbishop Auxentios.

[24] Letter on January 21, 1976 (O.S.) to Dr. Alexander Kalomiros.

[25] Letter of July 16/29, 1976, to Fr. Neketas Palassis.

[26] Letter of November 1/14, 1979, to Fr. Romanos Lukianov.

[27] According to indications and testimonies, it had taken place a few days earlier.

[28] He had become a monk and was secretly ordained deacon by Archbishop Leonty during that time.

[29] Fr. Akakios Ntouskos, in his letter to Akakios of Talantion (November 12, 1962), writes: "Our false friend Vitaly, who unfortunately was seeking the deposition of Archbishop Leonty... I asked him to help us in the Synod concerning the issue of our bishops, but he became furious with anger. I left and reported his stance to Bishop Leonty, and he advised me to be very careful with this man and to avoid him."

[30] Newspaper Anagennisis, no. 65/28-9-1972.

[31] Magazine "Κήρυξ Εκκλησίας Ορθοδόξων" [Herald of the Orthodox Church] (no. 11-12, Aug.-Sept. 1972, p. 25).

[32] Letter to Archbishop Leonty of December 20, 1962.

[Be continued]