Archbishop Leonty (+1971) and the Greek Old Calendarists [part 14]
(Continue from here)
Archbishop Leonty of Chile (right) and Bishop Petros of Astoria (left)
The Ingratitude of the Beneficiaries
Archbishop Leonty, throughout the internal turmoil in Greece, without focusing on the pettiness and weaknesses of people, remained steadfastly devoted to the two great goods that must be safeguarded at all costs: the Truth of the Faith and the Unity of the Church. "Now that Satan is attacking Holy Orthodoxy from all sides, and Christianity as a whole, is it permissible for us to quarrel?" he wrote to Archbishop Auxentios, and continued imperatively, "We must all unite and fight against the enemy." [1]
And first and foremost, he desired the Unity of all Genuine Orthodox Bishops worldwide. For this reason, on the one hand, he praised Chrysostomos Naslimes of Magnesia, who "acted rightly (i.e., did not create a schism) although he was not satisfied," [2] while on the other hand, he continued to insist on the recognition of Petros of Astoria, whom the Synod of the G.O.C. had not yet acknowledged. [3] They attempted to justify the non-recognition of Petros of Astoria by labeling him as "extraterritorial" and arguing that even Archbishop Leonty himself did not formally have voting rights, as he belonged to a different Synod.
In this legalistic view—namely, the search for Canonicity "in times of necessity" [4] and the attachment to the letter rather than the spirit of the Law [5]—the P.T.E.O.K. justly wondered: "Does not His Eminence Leonty, the savior of our Church after God, have such [voting rights]?" [6]
Archbishop Leonty [7] and the responsible members of the P.T.E.O.K. [8] considered the pursuit of "Canonicity" to be a distraction from the true goal—namely, the preservation of the Faith through a united front of all true Orthodox worldwide, especially in the midst of increasing apostasy. This was all the more so when, in times of heresy, there had always been salvific "irregularities," [9] and when the Innovators themselves, through their actions, had overthrown every trace of Canonicity. [10]
The God-pleasing unifying stance of Archbishop Leonty enraged the “three saints,” who, after being forced to theoretically recognize both Petros of Astoria as a member of the Synod and the right of the laity to participate in the election of its Bishops, turned against their benefactor, Archbishop Leonty. They drafted letters in all directions, in which they not only falsely accused (as evidenced by the research of the sources) all those who refused to offer them blind obedience—according to the Keratea (Matthewite) system from which they originated [11]—but also attacked the venerable person of Archbishop Leonty, slandering him by claiming that he sought to dissolve the Church. [12] At the same time, they had some of their clergy [13] sign documents against him, [14] which they then forwarded to the Synod of the ROCOR. [15]
Archbishop Leonty, as evident from his letters to Metropolitan of New York Saint Philaret and Bishop Petros of Astoria, [16] was deeply shaken by this stance and decided to distance himself from the affairs in Greece. It became clear to him as well that he had been misled both into ordaining Auxentios [17] and into consenting to the ordination of Akakios (about the ordination of Gerontiοs of Salamis, he himself was not asked).
From then on, he would maintain contact only with his beloved spiritual child, Petros of Astoria, and with the P.T.E.O.K.—particularly Komnios. He visited the former again in late 1964 when he traveled to the U.S. for the canonization of St. John of Kronstadt by the ROCOR on October 19 (O.S.).
Despite the bitterness that Archbishop Leonty experienced due to the disgraceful behavior of the leadership of the G.O.C., he never ceased to care for his brethren in his beloved Greece, which he wished to visit again. His sacrifice may have left some trace of shame in the souls of the Greek Bishops, who sent him a letter on the occasion of his name day in May 1965. However, beyond these formal relations, the opportunity for a solid alliance that would have benefited Orthodoxy had been lost.
During the same period, Archbishop Leonty exchanged correspondence with Bishop Petros [18] on the occasion of the repose of Metropolitan Anastasy. Archbishop Leonty, after informing him that he was unable to attend, asked him to relay the news from the funeral. In his reply, Bishop Petros informed him that certain clergy of the ROCOR (the well-known opponents of Archbishops Saint John, Averky, and Leonty) had treated him very offensively. Archbishop Leonty responded, urging him to rise to the occasion and endure the trial, while also remarking that their crosses were identical…
In June 1965, Archbishop Leonty renewed his contact with the laity of the P.T.E.O.K. by responding to their greeting and expressing, without resentment, his joy in learning that things were gradually improving. [19]
The correspondence, mainly on the occasion of feast days, continued into the following year. However, as is natural, friendships weaken when there is no close personal contact.
The year 1966 proved to be yet another year of loss for Archbishop Leonty, as he lost both allies and friends. In April, the most prudent of the Greek Bishops, Chrysostomos of Magnesia, was struck by diabetes mellitus, and, as we read in a letter from the P.T.E.O.K. to Archbishop Leonty, [20] his right side became paralyzed, and he nearly lost his voice. Thus, the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece was deprived of a distinguished and beloved Hierarch. [21]
On June 19, according to the Old Calendar, Saint John Maximovitch reposed. By a fortunate coincidence, Archbishop Leonty was already in the U.S., as we learn from a letter by Petros of Astoria to Konstantinos Komnios, [22] and thus he was able to attend the funeral of the Saint and his beloved friend.
On July 22 of the same year (1966), Archbishop Leonty participated in the festive celebration of the Church of Saint Markella in Astoria. During this Liturgy, Bishop Petros ordained Hierodeacon Nikodemos Kalantis to the priesthood. Another holy figure of the ROCOR, from the same spiritual circle, Fr. Mitrophan Znosko-Borovsky, also took part in this celebration. [23]
At Christmas of 1966, the enlightened Hierarch Leonty sent an important letter to Bishop Petros, in which he wrote the following weighty words: "As we see, a new situation is emerging in the world, in which it is an imperative necessity for us to keep the banner of true Orthodoxy raised for the whole world. And it is possible that we may remain as the only remnant of Orthodoxy." [24]
He once again expresses his sorrow over the inability of the Bishops of the G.O.C. to realize that the mission of the Orthodox Confession concerns the entire world and not just Greece.
APPENDIX
OF TEXTS
REPORT
OF ARCHBISHOP LEONTY TO METROPOLITAN PHILARET (SEPTEMBER 22, 1964)
To His Beatitude
Philaret, Metropolitan of New York and Eastern America, First Hierarch of the
Russian Church Abroad.
Your Beatitude,
First Hierarch, bless.
I received the
telegram you sent and the Russian translation of the letter from the Greek
Archbishop Auxentios, to whose statements I have the honor to respond.
Your Beatitude
knows what compelled me to intervene in Greek affairs, as well as to endure all
kinds of unpleasant consequences for it. I was guided solely by the defense
of Holy Orthodoxy and its triumph.
His Eminence
Auxentios, who was ordained by me, repeatedly turned to me for advice, asking
for my help in various difficult circumstances. There are many written proofs,
signed by all the Bishops, in which they refer to me as their spiritual leader
and similar expressions.
In recent
months, I have begun receiving disturbed letters from them. That is, for some
reason unknown to me, they have come into conflict with the lay figures of the
Church, who had continuously supported them during difficult times of
persecution against their Church and who were the ones who upheld Athens and
the branches throughout Greece.
The laity also
began to send appeals, with reports from all over Greece, seeking help and
protection from neglect, disintegration, and the intention—without the consent
of the popular will—of the Bishops, led by the despot Auxentios, to ordain an
entire group of illiterate Bishops who, however, had promised to obey them in
everything. [25]
Since our
Hierarchical Synod entrusted me with the responsibility for the episcopal
ordinations in Greece, which I carried out—on the one hand, taking into account
the requests of their Bishops, and on the other, supporting the requests of the
laity—I advised them to reconcile with one another and to live in peace, as
before. Otherwise, they themselves would not be able to fulfill such a
tremendous duty as the defense of Holy Orthodoxy. [26]
Moreover, many
times, the primary burden of defending Holy Orthodoxy fell upon the laity, whom
the Bishops (three individuals) are now persecuting—even to the extent of
calling the police, just as had happened in the past when they were persecuted
in the same manner. [27] Both the Bishops and the laity asked me to come to Greece
and judge them, with the latter even offering to send me travel tickets to
Greece immediately. I declined, stating that perhaps at some point, I would
come with Bishop Petros. The laity suggested that we come sooner and secretly
ordain Archimandrite Chrysostomos [Kiousis] and others, to which I responded
with the strongest arguments that this should not be done, that it was neither
beneficial nor necessary. I further stated that their own Bishops could ordain
Archimandrite Chrysostomos—and the others who were to be ordained as Bishops at
that time [28] —but, at the request of the late Bishop [of Talantion] Akakios,
this was temporarily postponed.
The anxiety and
nervousness of the despot Auxentios can be explained by the fact that they are
evidently so entangled in intrigues and arbitrary actions that they are
mortally afraid of my arrival there. On the contrary, the multitude of laity,
clergy, and many Athenians do not approve of their behavior, reprimand them,
and many condemn their use of the police, which testifies against them and
causes them embarrassment—such as recently in Athens at the Church of Saint
Paraskevi.
They also became
irritated by the fact that I advised them to be mindful of their personal
lives, as well as by my request for an explanation of their use of the police.
Subsequently, forgetting all my benefactions, they began to seek other means,
and without abandoning their characteristic flattery, they reproach my stance
and, forgetting everything, accuse me. Thus, they are incapable of anything
else, and God will judge them.
You are right in
your telegram—"forget them"—so I shall do, and they will hear
nothing more from me, since they themselves, through their behavior and their
profound ingratitude, have repaid me for all the good I have done for them. However,
I do not believe that all of Orthodox Greece will praise them for this, nor
will Mount Athos. And if they do praise them, then so be it. But I will no
longer be their advisor—neither to the laity nor to the Bishops. Let them sort
things out on their own and bear responsibility before God and men.
As for Bishop
Petros, when the late Bishop [of Talantion] Akakios was an archimandrite and
arrived in New York with a request for his ordination, Archimandrite Petros
appealed to our Hierarchical Synod. These matters are known to Archbishop [of
Chicago] Seraphim, as well as to Bishop Petros, to whom Your Beatitude may
personally refer for further details if desired. Therefore, the letter of His
Eminence Auxentios has no basis. I must admit that human ingratitude is
profoundly painful and sorrowful.
For my part, I
would also advise our Hierarchical Synod to leave them to their own devices,
letting them "stew in their own juice." The outcome, after
all, will be the same. A pity for the flock—but what can we do?
This was their
way of showing gratitude even to the departed leaders of their Church, [29] and
Archimandrite Nicholas Pekatoros [30] from Washington can confirm this for you.
I ask for your
forgiveness and your holy prayers.
Archbishop Leonty
P.S. Before your
telegram, I sent them two letters within a week—one to the Bishops and a copy
to the laity—urging them to make peace and not to let the enemies triumph.
However, I made no mention of travel or ordinations.
LETTER
OF THE P.T.E.O.K. TO METROPOLITAN PHILARET (DECEMBER 9, 1964)
Athens, December
9, 1964
To His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret,
New York, U.S.A.
Your Eminence, Despota,
We reverently
offer our filial veneration to Your Eminence.
Long ago, we
congratulated you on assuming your high duties as President of the Holy Synod
of the Holy Russian Church Abroad, to which we owe much for the assistance it
has provided us through the episcopal ordinations. Both His Eminence Archbishop
Seraphim of Chicago and His Eminence Leonty of Chile and Peru, acting with
apostolic self-denial, saved our Holy Church from certain dissolution.
Unfortunately,
the enemy of truth, the Devil, has sown his tares in the Lord’s field, creating
certain disturbances. We regret that we find ourselves in the unpleasant
position of having to present to you certain transgressions of our clergy. Those
who were to be ordained as Bishops by His Eminence Leonty had been elected and
approved by all the priests of our Church, as well as by the entire laity.
Unfortunately,
the now His Eminence Akakios of Diavleia convinced his elder, His Eminence
Akakios of Talantion, to disregard those who had been elected and to propose
other individuals for ordination, with the aim of securing his own ordination.
However, he neither had the required canonical age [31] nor the necessary
educational qualifications (he had only completed the fifth grade of primary
school), nor did he possess administrative capability or experience.
His Eminence
Leonty found himself in a difficult position and, not wanting to leave us
orphaned, ordained three Bishops, giving a clear directive that Chrysostomos
Kiousis and Akakios the younger should also be ordained. After the departure of
His Eminence Leonty, Akakios was immediately ordained, while Chrysostomos, who
had been chosen by the clergy and laity, was disregarded and subjected to
persecution by the newly ordained Bishops, even being expelled from his parish.
The ordination
of the young Akakios caused great scandal in our Church, and from it stem all
the present afflictions of our Church. For when the elder Archimandrites,
though illiterate and unfit for the episcopal office, saw the ordination of the
young Akakios, they too demanded to become Bishops. The newly ordained Bishops
were forced to promise them ordination in order to secure their allegiance. However,
the people protested against the episcopal mania of their clergy and
demanded the right to participate in the election of Bishops so that the most
worthy might be chosen. This right was denied to the people by the three
Bishops, who then resorted to harsh and violent measures against the members of
the Lay Administrative Council in an attempt to dissolve it. The Administrative
Council, however, regards them as its spiritual fathers, receives their
blessings, and upholds its request, which is the demand of the entire Greek
Orthodox laity. The dictatorial actions of the three Bishops are indescribable.
Not long ago, they summoned several priests and coerced them into signing a
document addressed to you, falsely presenting it as originating from the
clergy. These priests signed out of fear, against their will. Some of them have
complained to us about this. For further information, you may inquire with His
Eminence Bishop Petros of Astoria. We are also willing to provide you with
detailed clarification should you wish. We take great care in our actions to
ensure they align with the law of God and serve the best interests of the
Church. We hold nothing personal against our holy Bishops, nor do we seek any
material gain from this struggle. We do not attribute malice to our three
Bishops but rather administrative inexperience.
Awaiting your
response, we remain with the deepest respect towards you.
The President
Antonios Zoulias
The Members
Konstantinos Komnios
Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos
Ilias Angelopoulos
Apostolos Joannos
Georgios Sarlanis
Konstantinos Andronikos
Dimitrios Kontizas
Georgios Ntampanlis
Theodoros Danesis
Angelos Angelopoulos
Christos Panagiotopoulos
Dimosthenis Gakikos
The General Secretary
Konstantinos Sideris
NOTES
1. To Archbishop Auxentios on September 16, 1964 (O.S.).
2. To P.T.E.O.K. on April 20, 1964 (O.S.).
3. Such cases are not unknown in Church history, where, for a time, many—even persons of virtue—are led astray by slanders and misjudge a situation (cf., for example, the stance of Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus toward Saint John Chrysostomos). Even Archbishop Leonty himself was initially misled by certain individuals.
4. According to the Apostle, "out of necessity, there is also a change of law" (Heb. 7:12).
5. With the same sterile perspective, we saw how Vitaly of Canada dealt with the ordinations of the Old Calendarists.
6. Letter of the P.T.E.O.K. to Chrysostomos of Magnesia on June 18, 1964 (O.S.).
7. And yet another Father, also a spiritual companion of Saint John Maximovitch, Archbishop Averky, wrote on this matter: "True Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is alien to every dead formalism. In it there is no blind adherence to the 'letter of the law,' for it is 'spirit and life.' Where, from an external and purely formal point of view, everything seems quite correct and strictly legal, this does not mean that it is so in reality. In Orthodoxy there can be no place for Jesuitical casuistry; the favorite dictum of worldly jurists cannot be applied: 'One may not trample upon the law—one must go around it.'"
(https://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/whatis_orthodoxy_arch_averky.htm)
8. In a letter to Archbishop Leonty on April 30, 1964 (O.S.), it was written: "The union of Orthodox Zealots throughout the world, regardless of race and nationality, is necessitated by circumstances."
9. Church history is full of such examples. Let us recall the "uncanonical" promotion by Saint Basil the Great of small towns to episcopal sees when he ordained Saints Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory the Theologian as Bishops, the "uncanonical" transfers of Bishop Gregory of Nazianzus from Sasima to Constantinople and of Bishop Euphronius from Colonia to Nicopolis (to counter the Arians), the "uncanonical" (extraterritorial!) ordination of Saint John, Bishop of Gothia, by the Metropolitan of Iberia (due to the Iconoclasm), and countless other examples.
10. Specifically for our time (regarding the Church of Greece), see:
krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_2103.html
11. One of the fundamental delusions of Matthewitism is indiscriminate obedience through the sacrifice of free will for all (not only for monks) as a prerequisite for salvation.
12. Auxentios sent a vile letter to Archbishop Leonty on September 9/22, 1964, in which, among other things, he wrote the following tragic words: "If you continue to insult us in this manner and take the side of five troublemakers without paying attention to everything we have written to you until now, then the good you have done for our Church will turn into evil, and we will likely soon reach the point where all Christians will curse that blessed day when you, as an Apostle, came to Greece to save our Church"!!!
13. Of these clergy (30 out of a total of 100), some signed out of conviction—mainly Archimandrites such as Theophilos Tsirbas, Gerasimos Vrakas, Paisios Finokalliotakis, Ioustinos Kolotouros, Stefanos Tsikouras, and Paisios Loulourgas, all of whom were eventually made Bishops by Auxentios in 1979! Others signed out of necessity—such as the newly ordained, who were under the influence of the "three saints" who had ordained them—while others signed under pressure or coercion, as was later revealed.
14. Among other things, they threaten him that if he continues to support the laity, they will anathematize him!
15. In a letter from the P.T.E.O.K. to Petros of Astoria on September 24, 1964 (O.S.), we read:
"They wrote to Metropolitan Philaret, the President of the Holy Synod there, perhaps with the intention of discrediting His Eminence Leonty... Also, yesterday, they gathered about 20 priests at the offices and forced them to sign a certain document in which the priests allegedly threatened that if His Eminence Leonty were to come to Greece with you and proceed with episcopal ordinations, then the undersigned priests would in turn pressure the Bishops here to carry out mass ordinations of Bishops in order to depose those ordained by His Eminence Leonty and you, thus creating a schism... Continuing before the 20 priests, many of whom were newly ordained, [Auxentios] said: 'His Eminence Leonty is a foreigner. What does he want in Greece? What business does he have with our Holy Synod?' All this was revealed to us by a married priest who was forced to sign the documents out of fear that he might lose the livelihood of his family, being mindful of the hardships suffered by Fathers Chrysostomos Kiousis, Chrysanthos, and Maximos." Furthermore, in a letter from Komnios to Fr. George of Provata (on April 20, 1965, O.S.), we read: "The good and noble Archbishop and our venerable Father Leonty was thrown into great trials by the 'saints', who slandered him before the Holy Synod of the Russian Church in America as a simoniac!!! …They repaid him with gall instead of manna and with vinegar instead of water."
16. On September 22, 1964 (O.S.) and October 7, 1964 (O.S.), respectively.
17. This happened as follows. Archbishop Leonty had emphasized to the Old Calendarists in 1962 (during his visit there) that he considered it an impediment for someone to desire to be ordained. Taking this into account, the future Akakios of Diavleia presented Auxentios as a suitable candidate for the episcopacy, claiming that he supposedly did not desire to be ordained. This was enough to convince Archbishop Leonty, who had a childlike innocence. Later, even the instigator of this act, Akakios of Diavleia, regretted it, as he himself revealed to the late Epameinondas Primalis, an eyewitness to the events.
18. Between May 9 and May 27, 1965 (O.S.).
19. June 9, 1966 (O.S.).
20. On June 3, 1966 (O.S.).
21. A complete and detailed biography can be found in Bishop Klemes of Gardikion, Bishop Chrysostomos Naslimes of Magnesia (1910–1973): An Indomitable Fighter of Faith and Fortitude, Vol. I (2019) – Vol. II (2020), Athens.
22. "I have had His Eminence Leonty with me since yesterday." (June 3, 1966, O.S.).
23. https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Mitrofan_Znosko_Borovskij/
24. December 25, 1966 O.S. (AKK).
25. When, after the repose of Archbishop Leonty in 1971, the Synod of the G.O.C. (once again, the "three saints") hastened to perform new ordinations, they required the candidates to sign a document imposing terms of blind obedience to the Archbishop. As evidenced by the present report, this document had already been prepared as early as 1964.
26. Yet another prophetic observation by this Holy Man.
27. He refers to the persecutions by the New Calendarist Bishops.
28. He means those who had agreed in May 1962 when he was in Greece, namely Fr. Chrysostomos Kiousis and Fr. George of Provata.
29. This was also confirmed by the blessed Melpomeni Zachariou, niece of Saint Chrysostomos, former Metropolitan of Florina, who said: "My uncle did not simply die; he was broken. The Old Calendarists broke him," clearly referring (since she herself was an Old Calendarist) to those troublemakers who, whether by the issue of "invalid" Mysteries or by one thing or another, continually undermined the Sacred Struggle.
30. See In Memory of Fr. Nicholas Pekatoros (+February 13/26, 1996):
krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2021/02/1326-2-1996.html
31. He was only 36 years old.
[Be continued]
Σχόλια
Δημοσίευση σχολίου