Archbishop Leonty (+1971) and the Greek Old Calendarists [part 12]

(Continue from here)

Bishop Peter of Astoria and Archbishop Leonty of Chile (Astoria DC, 60s)

New Primates in the Churches of the G.O.C. of Greece and ROCOR 

(and concerning the election of Bishops)

Within a six-month period (December 1963 – May 1964), new Primates were elected in the Churches of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece and for the Russians Abroad. The manner in which these elections were conducted in the two cases was not only entirely different, but also resulted in completely opposite outcomes. In the Church of the G.O.C., the election of the new Primate was conducted hastily and caused divisions, whereas in the ROCOR, the election was carried out after many days of discussion, much prayer, and daily Liturgies, leading to unity and progress.

In detail, in Greece, the issue arose with the repose of Bishop Akakios of Talantion on December 1/14, 1963. The election of the new Primate was decided by Bishops Auxentios of Gardikion, Akakios of Diavleia, and Gerontios of Salamis to take place hastily—only six days later! This decision was opposed by Bishop Chrysostomos of Magnesia, who requested that the election be held after forty days had passed since the repose of Akakios of Talantion. He proposed the following: "Since the Orthodox Church of Christ, even on administrative matters, walks the middle path, the democratic one, as opposed to the absolutism of the Pope and the anarchy of the Protestants, the election of Bishops and Archbishops must be conducted in a democratic manner, according to the ancient Apostolic order of the Church. The election of the Archbishop must be conducted by the vote of both clergy and laity. All priests of our Church in Greece should be summoned, along with one lay representative from each organization. Once all are gathered in a consecrated church in the capital, following the appropriate sacred rites and in the presence of the Hierarchs, a ballot box should be placed before the Holy Altar. After an electoral committee is appointed, all those eligible to vote should cast their votes, and after the ballots are counted, the enthronement of the elected Archbishop should take place festively. Journalists and photo reporters should be invited, the Greek daily and periodic press should write about it, and there should be a special edition of The Voice of Orthodoxy. We should say to everyone, 'See how the Old Calendarists, whom you consider backward, elect their Archbishop: openly, and not behind closed doors.' The day of the election of the new Archbishop should be a day of joy and gladness, not of turmoil and sorrow for the holy flock of our martyric Church." [1] He also emphasized that this method of election would restore the order that had been disrupted by the overturning of candidates during the ordinations of 1962. [2]

To the prudent approach of Bishop Chrysostomos Naslimes, the other three Bishops (Auxentios of Gardikion, Akakios of Diavleia, and Gerontios of Salamis) reacted by deciding to proceed immediately with the election of a Primate. Bishop Chrysostomos of Magnesia abstained, and Auxentios of Gardikion  was elected as the new Primate, irregularly (with only two votes out of four!).

These events became known, and dozens of lay representatives from both Athens, the capital, and the provinces gathered in protest at the offices of the Synod, forcing Auxentios of Gardikion to declare that he considered the matter of the Archbishop's election still open and that he would summon them after Theophany to decide together on the manner of the election. Unfortunately, however, he did not keep his promise, and later Akakios of Diavleia justified this inconsistency by stating that "the promise was deliberately given to disperse the gathered crowd!!!" The disregard for the laity compelled the P.T.E.O.K. to remind the Synod not only that it was the laity who were the first to resist the calendar innovation but also of more recent events, such as: 1) "The laity, acting as collaborators with the grace of Christ, contributed 60% to the arrival of Archbishop Leonty here, through whom you received the grace of episcopacy; 2) The laity provided, under its responsibility, the 30,000 drachmas for the travel expenses; 3) The laity entirely and by itself prevented Archbishop Leonty from departing after the well-known sorrowful event; 4) The laity lent, under its responsibility, another 30,000 drachmas to cover the remaining expenses of the Most Reverend Leonty; 5) The laity, after failing to resolve the issues that arose following the turmoil of the ordinations in a proper manner, separated its responsibilities before God and men concerning the method of the ordinations and laid down its arms to avoid the danger of creating a schism; 6) The laity subsequently appeared as a staunch supporter of the ordinations, neutralizing the opposition that had arisen from the theologians and other elements who had withdrawn; 7) The laity, with the support of seven active Ministers, six former Ministers, and an additional 45 friendly Members of Parliament (an unprecedented occurrence in the annals of our sacred struggle), succeeded in bringing attention to our movement before these officials and securing tolerance for the ordinations, despite the fact that the State Church moved against us, ensuring the free movement of our Most Reverend Hierarchs throughout Greece." [3]

The three Hierarchs, however, began a campaign against the laity of the P.T.E.O.K., initially accusing that they have fallen into the "cult of personality" (because their positions aligned with those of Bishop Chrysostomos of Magnesia) and subsequently employing unacceptable methods against them, as we shall see below. The P.T.E.O.K., however, continued its struggle for Orthodoxy fearlessly and impartially, with selflessness and without favoritism; moreover, that same year, it undertook the organization of the celebration of Theophany.

Newspaper "Nation" [=Έθνος] (20-1-1964): Bishop Auxentios of Gardikion throws the Cross into the waters. Bishop Akakios of Diauleia can also be seen in the middle.

At that time, Archbishop Leonty was focused on the upcoming election of a new Primate in ROCOR. Metropolitan Anastasy had already announced his resignation due to advanced age, and the Synod to elect his successor was scheduled for May 4/17, 1964. The leading candidates for his succession were Saint Archbishop John Maximovitch of San Francisco and Archbishop Nikon of Washington, who represented two different tendencies within ROCOR.

Archbishop Leonty discerned that the election of the new Primate would be "an event of great significance for the future of the Old Calendar and Orthodoxy" [4] and considered it necessary to support his friend, Saint John, with his vote (since the strength of the two candidates was evenly divided) and to attend the said Synod. However, as we mentioned, some members of the Synod did not desire his presence and, for this reason, did not send him the ticket.

The Synod for the election of the new Metropolitan convened on May 4/17, the Sunday of the Myrrhbearers, and lasted ten days. At the Synod, the votes were split between Saint John and Archbishop Nikon. As a contemporary learned Bishop observes, "faced with the impasse or even the risk of causing a schism, Saint Archbishop John proposed that the youngest Bishop by seniority, Philaret, be elected, which was accepted, and thus he was elected as the First Hierarch." [5]

The ROCOR Synod that elected the new Primate in 1964. Archbishop Leontios in the upper right corner.

Archbishop Leonty also refers to the election as follows: "In these days, we unanimously elected Bishop Philaret Voznesensky as Metropolitan and leader of the Russian Church. The other two candidates were compelled to withdraw their candidacies for the sake of peace and unity. The new Metropolitan Philaret holds great love and esteem for us Old Calendarists, and I hope he will support us accordingly." [6]

***

In response to what transpired during the election of the new Primate, the officials of the P.T.E.O.K. published a 20-page pamphlet containing examples from ecclesiastical history and writings that support the participation of both the Clergy and the Laity in the election of Bishops. Their aim was to safeguard the dignity of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians from future ordinations of potentially unfit individuals.

On the other hand, the three Bishops used as their main argument the fact that the Synods abolished the rights of the laity and granted exclusively to the Hierarchs the right to elect Bishops. Specifically, Akakios of Diavleia invoked the following Canons: the 4th of the First Ecumenical Council, the 4th of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the 19th of the Council of Antioch, and the 12th of the Council of Laodicea.

The esteemed canonist, Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, correctly interpreting the Sacred Canons, points out that these do not exclude the participation of the laity but rather that of the mob (since the number of faithful had increased compared to the early Christian years), in order to avoid disputes and divisions. He writes: "The laity must also be asked whether they consent to the vote, either all of them or the majority of them, (a) because if they have any true accusation against the candidate, his ordination must be prevented, and (b) if they do not consent to his vote, it is possible that they will not accept the Bishop elected solely by the Synod, and from this, confusion and division may arise between the Bishops and the Christians." [7] Elsewhere, he writes: "The votes of the Bishops and Clergy must take place openly before all the people of the Church so that anyone who wishes may express their opinion. Thus, the same is stated by the Carthaginian Canon 59, which specifies that, if during the votes and elections of Bishops any objection arises from some persons concerning accusations or crimes, those objecting must be examined. Once the candidate is shown to be free of the accusations before the entire body of the people, then he may be ordained a Bishop. It is evident that what the Synod says here about Bishops also applies similarly to Clergy." [8] In another passage, the Saint emphasizes that for ordinations, "the wisest and most devout among the laity must be consulted as to whether they consent to them." [9] And again: "This Canon prevents the mobs and disorderly crowds of cities from participating in the votes and elections of those to be ordained Priests (or Bishops), (a) because, as mentioned earlier, such persons must be voted on by the Bishops and co-Bishops, and subsequently also by the laity, and (b) because perhaps the wiser and more devout laity should co-vote with the Bishops and Clergy for the one to be ordained as their Priest (or Bishop), but not the general and disorderly mob, to avoid the disputes and conflicts that could arise during their voting, with some voting for one and others for another." [10]

Indeed, the participation of the laity in the election of their Shepherds, according to Saint Chrysostomos, the former Metropolitan of Florina, is an act of responsibility, for which they also bear accountability if the clergy prove unworthy: "Priests are appointed by the Governing Church but are voted on by the people... Yet, when a Clergyman of any rank is shown through his overall conduct and behavior to be unworthy of his high mission and a cause of scandal, and the people passively tolerate him as if by fatalism, this testifies vividly to the moral decline of the people." [11]

The positions of Saint Nikodemos [12] and the P.T.E.O.K. are confirmed by the very practice of the Church, from which there are countless examples throughout the centuries (i.e., after the aforementioned Synods) of the election of bishops "by the vote of clergy and laity." Such examples include, for instance, Saint Nikephoros the Confessor (9th century), [13] Saint Meletios Pegas (16th century), [14] Hieromartyr Benjamin of Petrograd (20th century), [15] and many others.

Before the dissenting parties (namely, the three Hierarchs and the P.T.E.O.K.), who at times overstressed their positions, stood Archbishop Leonty and Fr. George of Provata, emphasizing that the paramount issue in the Church is unity.

The latter wrote to a member of the P.T.E.O.K.: "In our case, the issue of the election of the Archbishop should not concern us, as neither can the President of the Holy Synod act without the opinion of the three, nor can the three act without the opinion of the President. All of us, the Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.), for the well-known canonical reasons, have separated ourselves from the canonical [i.e., official] Bishops not to establish a new Church but to avoid the responsibilities of innovation and to struggle for the restoration of Orthodoxy, united in one organization with the Holy Synod of our Bishops at the helm. Thoughts about who will lead, and the contentious form that this issue has taken, divert us from the objective goal of the Holy Struggle and render us all (myself included) far inferior in the eyes of our opponents. There must always be agreement among us through mutual concessions. You, the laity, must be accommodating towards the Bishops. Likewise, the Bishops must always take the laity into consideration. Persistence in opposing views is harmful and fosters discord among brethren, which will inflict a critical blow on our Orthodox faction. I brotherly recommend to you that our only beneficial effort must be to urge all four Bishops to reach an agreement through mutual concessions; only then will we preserve unity and avert all the resulting evils." [16]

Archbishop Leonty emphasized the same points: "Do everything possible to preserve peace and unity." [17] "Work, I beg you, and do not tire in your efforts for the reconciliation and progress of our afflicted Church. Others strive to unite with Catholics and Protestants, while we concern ourselves with division rather than the unity of the faith." [18]

All prudent and reasonable supporters of the struggle, such as Chrysostomos of Magnesia, Petros of Astoria, and the well-known Athonite monk Fr. Antonios Moustakas, agreed with these unifying positions. Fr. Antonios wrote to Komnios: "The fact that the promotion of His Eminence [Auxentios] of Gardikion to the Archiepiscopal title was in no way appropriate or inspired by the spirit of the Gospel, and was rather revolutionary and aimed at a specific purpose, cannot be denied by any prudent, impartial, and dispassionate judge. However, from this point to the dissolution of our sacred and holy struggle, I believe that there is big distance, not commendable." [19]

However, both Konstantinos Komnios, the most prominent and learned among the laity—and the "soul" of the P.T.E.O.K.—and the other laity often extended a hand of cooperation to the "three saints," who, unfortunately, dismissed every such effort with contempt, demanding blind obedience from their "inferiors." Komnios wrote to Akakios of Diavleia: "Those who willingly submit to their elders, renouncing their freedom for the love of Christ the Most High, offer the highest of sacrifices to God. Here, unfortunately, lies the misunderstanding, and the resulting conflict between us and you. For one to submit to another in such a way involves a contract between the two, through the Mystery of Confession and the monastic tonsure, before the altar, according to the free will of both parties up until that moment, and which applies only to those two. But we, as lay Christians, have entered into no such contract with you. Moved by our piety and voluntary reverence toward the episcopacy, we accept you as our shepherds, 'considering the outcome of your conduct' [20] in the world, according to the express command of the Holy Spirit, but not blindly or without examination (Hebrews 13:7)." [21]

The only condition the laity requested was the signing of a Protocol by the Hierarchs, according to which the participation of the clergy and representatives of the laity in the election of bishops would be acknowledged. This was because rumors had begun to circulate that some clergymen had rushed to request episcopal ordination from the three Hierarchs in exchange for their support.

In agreement with this just request of the laity was an earlier letter (dated March 24, 1962) from Archbishop Leonty, in which he stated: "The ordination to the episcopate must take place following a joint decision of the clergy and the faithful. I ask that you always keep this in mind, as it is absolutely essential for the future." [22]

Nevertheless, Archbishop Leonty urged the laity to maintain harmony and cooperation with the Hierarchs and to refrain from exceeding their rights:

"The laity should certainly participate, but the Bishops must have the final say. It cannot happen that the laity insist on the ordination of a person whom the Bishops do not wish to ordain. Otherwise, it would no longer be a Church but a lay oligarchy... The laity must not abuse their authority or regard their Bishops and priests as subordinates to whom they can dictate their will at will. For then, we would not have a Church but a lay democratic assembly, where the very Idea would no longer exist." [23]

The beginning of the surviving original letter.

He proposed that a Clergy-Laity Conference ("with the participation of Bishops and the People") be convened, "and then everything will be decided and resolved." However, on May 12/25, 1964, the three Hierarchs convened a Clerical Conference, not only excluding the representatives of the laity but also refusing to receive the Resolution of the Laity's Conference, which had been convened urgently the previous day. The Clerical Conference was attended by 64 priests (out of approximately 100), of whom 38 voted in favor of the election of Bishops solely by the Hierarchs. [24]

Thus, just as Auxentios of Gardikion was elevated to Archbishop with a fabricated majority, the Clerical Conference similarly decided, with a fabricated majority, that the right to elect Bishops belongs solely to the Hierarchs. This decision, which paved the way for priests "seized by the desire for episcopal status" and "over whom the holy Hierarchs had influence due to their promises of episcopal ordination," was rejected by the laity. The laity, striving "to avert what we consider an irreparable evil through the ordination of Bishops lacking the basic qualifications," prophetically emphasized: "If the three Bishops, following the decision of the Priestly Conference, proceed to ordain Bishops of the same caliber, our Church will be fragmented into pieces." [25]

Like a deus ex machina, Archbishop Leonty at that time put a stop to the plans of the "three saints." In a letter to the Synod of the G.O.C., he both prohibited the ordination of Bishops for two years and demanded the recognition of Bishop Petros of Astoria as a member of the Synod. [26]

Another photo from a service of Archbishop Leonty at the Church of St. Markella in Astoria (where he was a guest of Bishop Petros from 1964, May 2/15, until early July).

Specifically, Archbishop Leonty wrote in his letter: "I do not grant you my blessing and do not permit you to ordain Bishops for two years because you are not living in peace. Ordain priests and live in peace. And do not allow yourselves to bear the title of Metropolitan. Even to Bishop [of Talantion] Akakios, I did not grant the right to call himself Archbishop, [27] but only the one who holds the primacy. However, you acted in this matter without my counsel. You must not disregard the people and the clergy, and you are obliged, as far as possible, to convene a Clergy-Laity Conference, for only then is the Church complete, and it is inconceivable for you four alone to govern everyone. According to the sacred canons, the decisive vote belongs to you as Bishops, and the people and the clergy are obligated to be with you. Remember the life of our Holy Church during the first centuries of Christianity." [28]

NOTES 

[1] Circular of the P.T.E.O.K. to the administrations of the brotherhood Communities in Greece, protocol no. 476, without an exact date (drafted and sent between December 12 and December 20, O.S.).

[2] Letter of the P.T.E.O.K. to the Holy Association of Zealot Athonite Fathers (12-12-1963, O.S.).

[3] Letter of the P.T.E.O.K. to the Hierarchs (Dec. 6/19, 1963).

[4] Letter of Archbishop Leonty to Akakios of Diavleia (January 1964).

[5] Bishop Klemes of Gardikion, Saint Philaret of the Russian Diaspora, Fyli, Attica, 2015, p. 52.

[6] Letter of Archbishop Leonty to the Athonite Hieromonk George of Provata on May 20 (O.S.), 1964.

[7] The Pedalion, Interpretation of the 30th Apostolic Canon.

[8] Ibid., Interpretation of the 61st Apostolic Canon.

[9] Ibid., Footnote on the 5th Canon of the Council of Laodicea.

[10] Ibid., Interpretation of the 13th Canon of the Council of Laodicea.

[11] Periodical "The Voice of Orthodoxy", no. 190/Sept. 13, 1954.

[12] In another work, he writes about the candidate Shepherd that "it was necessary for him to be either called by God or called by the people" (Advisory Handbook [=Συμβουλευτικόν Εγχειρίδιον], 1801, pp. 21–22).

[13] "Nikephoros, the most holy patriarch, was ordained by the vote of the asekretis, of all the people and the priests, as well as the emperors" (Theophanes the Confessor, Chronography, P.G. 108, 968).

[14] "With the entire Church insisting upon him" (E. Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique, vol. 2, Paris 1885, p. 116).

[15] He was elected by the vote of the clergy and laity of Petrograd, receiving 976 votes out of 1,561: ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вениамин_(Казанский)

[16] Letter dated Jan. 27, 1964 (O.S.), from Hieromonk George of Provata to Apostolos Tzoannos.

[17] To Akakios of Diavleia in January 1964.

[18] To the P.T.E.O.K. on May 22, 1964 (O.S.).

[19] Letter dated March 28, 1964 (O.S.), from Monk Antonios Moustakas to Konstantinos Komnios.

[20] The verb "ἀναθεωρέω" means "to examine something carefully," while "ἀναστροφή" is interpreted as "manner of conduct, way of life."

[21] Letter dated Feb. 8, 1964 (O.S.), from Konstantinos Komnios to Akakios of Diavleia.

[22] To the P.T.E.O.K. on April 1/14, 1964.

[23] To the P.T.E.O.K. on April 20, 1964 (O.S.).

[24] From letters of the P.T.E.O.K. to Archbishop Leonty.

[25] The fears of the laity were later justified when (immediately after the repose of Archbishop Leonty!) the Synod began proceeding with the ordination of Bishops, who ultimately fragmented the Church of the G.O.C. into factions.

[26] This action brought great joy to the laity, who wrote: "His Eminence Archbishop Leonty, enlightened by God, imposed the two-year restriction on ordinations and raised the demand for the immediate recognition of His Eminence Petros of Astoria… The restraint of the Holy and Apostolic Father, His Eminence Leonty, will save the situation" (Letter of the P.T.E.O.K. to Bishop Petros on May 29, 1964, O.S.).

[27] This was also the position of Saint Chrysostomos, the former Metropolitan of Florina.

[28] To the Synod of the G.O.C. on May 20, 1964 (O.S.).

[Be continued]