Another reason why new-rite baptisms are to be rejected

Like Protestant rituals, the new rite of the RC Church for four decades now removed the exorcisms.

Is "Official Orthodoxy" that big? Is True Orthodoxy that small?

An American convert and recently awakened to True Orthodoxy, Nathan Lee Lewis, has finally put some numbers to what I've long suspected-- contrary to official claims, the "official" Church in America ISN'T that big. By comparison, it's fair to say that if there are 120 True Orthodox parishes in America (the number in my directory) that we make up 8-10% of the total of the Orthodox population in America.

Something to consider!

I love stuff from ROCOR-MP like this

The English translation of this text reads as follows (at which point the translator had to add dozens of embarrassing clarifications):

Yesterday evening, for the first time in many years, a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia celebrated the Liturgy at the Holy Sepulchre. Bishop Agapit [of Stuttgart, vicar of the German Diocese] (in gold vestments) celebrated with Metropolitan Aristarchos [of Constantia] of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

During the Soviet period, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (as did the majority of official Orthodox Churches) ceased official relations with ROCOR at the request of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

After the reunification of the Russian Church, on the Feast of the Ascension two years ago, Patriarch Alexy [II] wrote to the Patriarch of Jerusalem. The response came two years later: the Patriarch of Jerusalem, in a benevolent letter addressed to Moscow, formalized the relations between the Church of Jerusalem and the reunited Russian Church.

It is particularly joyful that it was precisely Bishop Agapit of Stuttgart – one of the most humble of our Church – who had the joy of participating in this Eucharistic communion.

Amazingly, hadn't ROCOR-MP's defenders been claiming back when they were just "proponents of the blessed union" for the past nine years or so, that the ROCOR was in communion with Jerusalem the whole time anyway? Hadn't they brushed off the claim that there was no official communion as a lie made up by extremists?

When are people going to tell the truth? Or is it ok to just make it up now as we go along?

I am gushing over new Icons of St Philaret

What a nice new set of icons for St Philaret, provided by the Russian Church in Exile!

In a sense, we are grateful there have been so many local glorifications for St Philaret. Some people see the multiplicity of glorifications as a sign of disunity. I see it as a chance to see something you'd normally miss. I suggest detractors read what the Synod-in-Resistance had to say about glorifications. I also suggest they read on what glorifications are, according to Fr Michael Pomazansky. For those still unsatisfied and convinced a glorification in one jurisdiction and one alone is sufficient, I suggest rereading Ukaz 362, conveniently here on my site.

After that, I would suggest judging icons by their quality, not who made them, provided they are Orthodox. These three are beautiful, though my wife prefers the "New York" icon and I prefer the "Kyiv" icon to the left.

All of the icons are available for download in high-quality images for photo-printing in a .zip file, here. Finally, someone who handled the disbursement of official icons responsibly!

The Two Tomes and the Truth

There has been a lot of discussion on the Internet as to whether or not the Autonomous Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas is adherent to the first tome of autonomy given by Archbishop Auxentios of Athens (+1994) of blessed memory in 1984, or the second tome of autonomy given by Patriarch Volodymyr of Kyiv (+1995) of blessed memory in 1994. Depending on one's personal predilections, one can assume that either the first or the second tome holds weight. This essay maintains that there is a third position, that neither tome, in fact, is relevant to the discussion of the Milan Synod's autonomy, and that in fact the Synod, as much so as the True Orthodox Church of Greece, Russia, or Ukraine, is in fact already an autocephalous Church.

The first issue is that the Synod of Western Europe and the Americas is de facto autocephalous, not autonomous. Autonomous Churches are distinguished by two features: their Primate is submitted and confirmed by a Mother Church, and they cannot consecrate their own chrism. Putting aside the fact that the Milan Synod has never consecrated its own chrism (it has it in sufficient quantity) an implicit right to consecrate chrism has never been questioned. The first primate of the Milan Synod was so granted his right to exist by the True Orthodox Church under Archbishop Auxentios. But the confirmation of Metropolitan Eulogius of Milan by Kyiv was not one of obedience, but confirmation after the fact. So Patriarch Volodymyr did not "make" the Milan Synod autonomous (it was ALREADY autonomous); in fact, Metropolitan Eulogius was immediately ranked the second-ranked see by Patriarch Volodymyr (and this was not by accident), and with the rise of "Patriarch" Filaret Denisenko, Metropolitan Eulogius endeavored to depose him-- the same position that is held today within the Milan Synod so remains.

Yet the conclusion that must be drawn is that in fact the Milan Synod chooses Her own first-hierarch-- making it de facto an autocephalous Church, since de jure it claims autonomy. We must be guided by the canons and the tradition of the Church, and in the end this means that the Synod of the West is itself already an autocephalous body-- because that is precisely what it was a thousand years ago. Now, of course we understand the head of the Autocephalous Western Church was not the Metropolitanate of Milan, but the Pope of Rome. However, circumstances being what they are and witnessing in various sects the miserable result of electing a Pope "in Exile", we see that such an election-- though possible-- would be ill-advised. But on what grounds then is the Milan Synod considered-- indeed, how can She be-- autocephalous?

Ecclesiastical Rank

To understand this, we must understand ecclesiastical rank in the West before the schism, something little explored by Eastern historians (with a few exceptions), who generally limited their understanding of the West to the understanding of Orthodox Popes. This can lead to faulty conclusions, not the least of which is that a Pope for a restored and autocephalous Western Church would be required. In actual fact, every national Church consecrated its own chrism, and could elect their own heads, receiving Papal confirmation after the fact. The sole purpose of the Pope of Rome, as Constantinople is considered normatively (not in times of global crisis) today in the East was as a final court of appeal. (It is worthy of note that in the Orthodox world in general, the term "autocephalous" is not widely used until the 19th century, the concepts being understood in a spiritual, but not a legalistic sense.)

The existence of Primates can be found in the Canons of Carthage: That the bishop of the first see shall not be called Prince of the Priests or High Priest (Summus Sacerdos) or any other name of this kind, but only Bishop of the First See. (can xxxix, Carthage-- Latin text).

Further, the canons make clear that fallen dioceses can be rescued from heresy: Item, it seemed good that if anyone after the laws should convert any place to Catholic unity and retain it for three years without opposition, it should not be taken away from him afterwards. If however there was during those three years a bishop who could claim it and was silent, he shall lose the opportunity. But if there was no bishop, no prejudice shall happen to the see, but it shall be lawful when the place that had none shall receive a bishop, to make the claim within three years of that day. Item, if a Donatist bishop shall be converted to the Catholic party, the time that has elapsed shall not count against him, but from the day of his conversion for three years he shall have the right of making a claim on the places which belonged to his See. (Ibid, can. cxix)

In our case, as in others, the sees restored were themselves ancient sees with Primatial rank.

Thus the restoration of national Orthodox Western Churches in the 20th century has in fact led to these very episcopal formations-- and they have everything they need to continue acting as the Church in the West until the judgment. Indeed, two such international Churches of any size can be labelled, and for all intents and purposes, the other international communion of Western Churches has already fully subsumed in the heresy of our days, ecumenism-- as well as the British joining the Copts and Ravenna becoming New Calendarist-- leaving our Synod alone to stand up for Orthodoxy in the West. Let us assume, however, that no one was in heresy or schism. Let us also leave out various ridiculous vagante groups which can be found in both East and West. What would the Orthodox Church of the West look like?

The Bishops (again, this is assuming that the Western Orthodox were actually united in faith) would be as follows, based upon their historical establishment of rank: I will label our own Bishops in bold.

1) Italy: Metropolitan of Milan and Aquilea (currently held by Metropolitan Eulogius)
2) France: Archbishop of Paris (currently divided between two French factions, the larger of which was that of Vigilius of Paris)
3) Brittany: Archbishop of Glastonbury (currently held by a Copt)
4) Spain: Archbishop of Seville (currently held by Bishop Paul of Seville, with status of ruling Bishop)
5) Belgium: Bishop of the Gauls (itself a provisional rank; currently held by Gregory of the Gauls)
6) Germany: Archbishop of Munich (Freising, currently held by Archbishop Boris of Munich)
7) Switzerland (Currently in dispute between three Bishops)
8) Archbishops and Bishops in Western provinces of the new countries territorialized by the West after the schism (North and South America)

Putting aside the fact that Italy was also regionally divided before the schism, one gets the point. We are no longer dealing some invisible "Western rite Eastern church" or dioceses formed for travellers of Eastern descent of the 1800's, but fully operational hierarchies that have their own traditional Orthodox rituals, divisions and problems, just as in the Orthodox East. If one wanted to be as much a snob about it as many of our Eastern brothers have been, it is perfectly possible for a Western Orthodox Christian to talk solely to other Western Orthodox all over the world and pretend Eastern Orthodox didn't exist, as well as get into just as many fights as he would in our beloved sister Churches of the East. (This would, admittedly, be rather stupid as Orthodox Christians in the West have never done this-- but I am only pointing out it is possible, not a good idea.) In actual fact, there would not be, as Overbeck originally envisioned ages ago, three Bishops, but almost two dozen, and combined make up a few hundred parishes of both Eastern and Western provenance, or "rite".

Indeed, if any of these other Bishops outside us could cease their use of the Papal calendar or their recognition of the Coptic-monophysite heresies, they could return to the bosom of the Church from the confusion of schism, and further a united Orthodox Western witness.

Conclusion: towards the "False-Council".

It should therefore, therefore, that even without a Pope, Synods with a full canonical rank already independently exist, just as they did before the schism. It also follows that if the canons allow the restoration of long-widowed sees (and they do), then there is no actual requirement for a Tomos after the expiration of a number of years in the dioceses if there are no contentions. That time, according to the canons, has long past-- and the Autonomous Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas has no need of "approval" to exist from any Synod-- whether of the West or the East.

Whether our brethren in the True Orthodox Churches of the East wish to accept it or not, we are the Orthodox Catholic Church of the West. Our Synod is not a "Greek Synod", nor a "Russian Synod", nor a "Ukrainian Synod", nor a "Cypriot Synod", nor anything else, but a Western Synod-- though many of our Eastern brethren have come to us as they live in our region. We are simply the Church of God where God has placed us, and indeed, this self-consciousness of our mission is taking place throughout the Church, preserving the ancient tradition of the Fathers and Councils where we are-- and as who we are.

Historically, such Churches formed without great councils, and this is equally true with our own Church, which has returned to the West with dozens of parishes around the world, as well as Her own sacred and ancient traditions. Fearfully, however, in a desire to resolve a problem which has its resolution in the sacred canons, "official Orthodoxy" has found a solution to the overlapping of jurisdictions created by greed: rather than submission to the canons and the restoration of canonical sees as the True Orthodox have done, they resort instead to something far more fearful: an "ecumenical council" with no intention of resolving the issues of heresy and schism that have affected it for almost a century.

Indeed, the "official Church" now promotes the idea that an "Ecumenical Council" will create new dioceses, Synods, and national Churches subject to Constantinople, which introduced the Papal Calendar and other innovations into the Church in 1920. The Russians, usually afraid to lose control in such situations, are today silent. St Justin Popovich spoke out directly to the Serbian council warning them of calling this bizarre council: "Keeping all this in mind and painfully aware of the situation of the contemporary Orthodox Church and of the world in general - which has not substantially changed since my last appeal to the Holy Council of Bishops (May, 1971) my conscience once more obliges me to turn with insistence and beseeching to the Holy Council of Bishops of the martyred Serbian Church: let our Serbian Church abstain from participating in the preparations for the "ecumenical council," indeed from participating in the council itself. For should this council, God forbid, actually come to pass, only one kind of result can be expected from it: schisms, heresies and the loss of many souls. Considering the question from the point of view of the apostolic and patristic and historical experience of the Church, such a council, instead of healing, will but open up new wounds in the body of the Church and inflict upon her new problems and new misfortunes."

In 1930 Archbishop Averky of Jordanville as a young theological student, "heard of the rumors of an approaching "Eighth Ecumenical Council" and asked his Abba, the great theologian of the Russian Diaspora, Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, about it. The latter replied: 'Of an eighth ecumenical council I have as yet heard nothing. I can only say, in the words of St. Theodore the Studite: 'Not every gathering of bishops is a council, but only a gathering of bishops who stand in the Truth.' A truly ecumenical council depends not on the number of bishops gathered at it, but on whether it will deliberate and teach in an Orthodox way. If it will keep away from the truth, it will not be ecumenical, even though it might call itself ecumenical. The famous 'robber council' in its time had more participants than many ecumenical councils, but nevertheless it was not called ecumenical, but received the name of 'robber council'.'" (Letters of Archbishop Theophan, Jordanville, 1976, p. 45.)"

The existence of our Synod in the West is a proof that the canons and history of the Church are sufficient to continue preaching the Gospel throughout the known world; we should become very cautious of the new devices being employed to "resolve issues" in the Church. Wracked by heresy and innovation in the state Churches, the ship of Christ continues sailing with the Rudder of the Canons and Traditions of our Church.

Reader Joseph Suaiden
Martyrs Rufina and Martia at Syracuse. Apostles' Fast. 2009.

How can we be upset?

To the "defenders" of HTM, who seem to be bent on attacking everyone else

It appears, again, that HTM's defenders are once again engaging in slander campaigns against those who left HTM (or their obedience). How tiresome! Immediately we hear "ah, but they are attacking us, they wish to defame the holy monastery!". Forgive me for saying this, but little about a monastery makes it holy except its people. How tiresome! Again we hear the same recycled canards: "monks can never leave!" For this we have excuse to continue referring to laicized monks as "Father", as to imply that (in the case of one former monk) their marriage was concubinage. In defense of this position some or another anonymous "Nikiforov" (unless I missed where they identified themselves) spouts off on the canons and that Holy Transfiguration's position was different than that of the Russian Church. The weakness of this position is obvious to any casual observer. If they didn't want to accept the position of laxity in the reacceptance of monks to lay status they should have never joined the Russian Church to begin with.

Since I am a lay person who still remembers my time at HTM (indeed, I opted to forgo baptism at the monastery, asking to be baptized at a local body of water by the local "white clergy" of HOCNA in the area) I'd like to note that there are a number of reasons that people would leave HTM, whether in the monastic state or not; nor do they have to join "official Orthodoxy", since a True Orthodox Christian is not "bound" by HTM-- or even HOCNA. The Church is bigger than Boston. Nor is it always about Father Panteleimon and whatever accusations he's still under.

1) The labelling of those who have departed as "unwell" or "insane". This is a typical tactic of a cult; to immediately call into question the sanity of any individual who leaves HTM or its obedience. Indeed, I can honestly say, while in gratitude for my time there, that I immediately felt a relief having left the monastery (and I remained in HOCNA another year). That said, it gave me opportunity to speak to those who had left HTM or its obedience for other reasons. I cannot humanly say that anyone, save for one, that I've spoken to who left HTM, or HTM's obedience, was psychologically unwell. Many were quite "well". So the underlying belief system that I encountered there-- where EVERYONE I asked about who argued against HTM was psychologically ill-- is itself ill.

2) The attitude of mistreatment towards those that left HTM or HOCNA, even for ecclesiastical reasons. In this it is difficult to separate the "wheat" from the "chaff". There is so much accusation of impropriety on the part of Fr Panteleimon (and it should be noted that these accusations have been solely directed at Father Panteleimon, whereas other clergy have generally been accused only of either a bizarre "over-obedience" which required that they suspended belief in the rational, or a cult-like "devotion", but never more perversion) that it is impossible to see that people leave for other reasons, and that all of those who left were either transferred in their obedience by their Bishops (this is of course before 1986) or laicized. What always amazed me at HTM was the use of "Greek custom" as a defense against those among Russians who complained and "Russian custom" as a defense against those of the Greeks who complained. In this, HTM demonstrated an inconsistent position on their own defense. Are "Russian customs" only valid when it is convenient to the brotherhood, but not when used by those who leave? The canons on monks are indeed very strict on monks, but if Russian practice basically means that a rassphore can be released with the blessing of his Bishop I can't see a way around understanding the rassaphore as more than that. Certainly this practice was known to HTM, and unless they were acting in secret opposition to their Bishop I cannot see how they could make judgments on those expressly released by same. These people do not deserve to be treated with the disrespect they have received from the partisans of HTM. It's tiresome and offensive.

3) Renovationism. Again, this is NOT true in HOCNA as a whole, but it is true at HTM. By this I am referring to the nature of the "purification" of Orthodoxy, the unsullied bride, that seems to dominate the thinking of too many. Of course, by bringing the issue to the fore in this manner, we can see truth mixed with falsehood. The Church is not subject to everything written in our tradition; She is its intepreter and understands it with the enlightened eyes of the Gospel, as had every earthly generation of the Church before the present one. That said, the falsehood is taking that to the other extreme-- we have no right to remove Saints from calendars. We have no right to "clean" prayers or modify icons (we can stop using some for others, but never go to the extreme of rejecting icons venerated by Saints!) We have no right to rewrite tradition. Yet these are positions clearly taken by HTM.

The simple fact remains that there are things people can easily complain about at HTM, some of which are not easily visible to the casual observer (the food, for example, can only be described in many cases as luxurious; it would be better-- and more cost-effective-- if they followed Metropolitan Ephraim's simpler fare) and people can leave. It happens. I beg the Nikiforovs, whoever they are, to therefore consider-- people leave, people complain. Is it better then to demonize them-- or accept that this is a part of Orthodox life? Many of those who complain feel scarred by their time at HTM (I was not one of them). But what good is it to keep up this fight? Eventually the end will come, and this will be totally worthless. Whether by the winnowing hand of judgment or by earthly repose, this argument WILL end between Father Panteleimon and those who have separated themselves from him-- justified or not. And if the lot of you can't stop fighting now, perhaps God will have a different opinion of your constant warring when this argument is cut short by your own passing.

And that is something the whole lot of you should consider.

"A CLARIFICATION" (1979) by the Greek Clergy of ROCOR

I've been looking for an online copy of this document for some time now, and I have to give the folks at genuineorthodoxchurch.net credit for putting it up, even if I think some of their own writings are screwy. Even HTM won't put it out for obvious reasons: they condemn Akakios of Montreal (whom they later went under) and implicitly condemn Abp Auxentios of Athens (whom they went under after leaving Akakios-- not taking into account a number of factors). Ironically, they also have issue with Bp Peter of Astoria (and if this account is true one can see why) and their dislike of his nephew and successor, Bp Pavlos, is well known. -- Joseph Suaiden

For some years now, we the undersigned clergy and many of our parishioners have been receiving various church publications in the Greek language from both this continent and abroad, from the various groups of Greek Orthodox following the church calendar. Of late the unsolicited circulation among our flock has been increased and new publications have joined the existing ones. The source of these publications is (1) the three "official" synods in Greece of the "True Orthodox Christians" as they call themselves, (2) three Greek bishops on this continent ― two in New York and one in Canada, not in communion with one another, (3) various monasteries in Greece and two parishes in the United States.

These publications, through the use of truths, half-truths, and un-truths, with an abundance of photographs, have created a state of confusion, both among the faithful in Greece and among some of our own flock on this continent. Many are asking us by letter and telephone, both from abroad and here, what exactly is the truth regarding their claims.

As for the arguments and claims as regards which synod the three existing ones, is the true representative of the True Orthodox Christians (TOC) of Greece, we have nothing to say ― this is the internal affair of the TOC of Greece. That which we wish to clarify is the confusion created by these groups and individuals concerning their relationship to us on this continent and vice versa.

Let us begin with Bishop Peter of Astoria, since he holds the first place of seniority among the existing Greek bishops of the TOC of this continent. In 1977, Bishop Peter celebrated the fifteenth anniversary of his episcopal consecration. In his bimonthly publication, the Torch of Orthodoxy of December 11, 1977, many statements are made, some of which are misleading if one does not know the facts. On pages 6 and 7 of the above-mentioned publication under the title "1956 ― Declaration," a quote is given from the "Minutes of the Clergy-laity Congress of the Archdiocese of Brooklyn and New Jersey, 16-2-1956," which informs us that eleven priests of the "archdiocese" gathered in the Church of Saint Nicholas and elected Archimandrite Peter Astifides as bishop of the "Archdiocese of Brooklyn and New Jersey." Yet, in the same publication, we are informed that Archimandrite Peter was finally ordained bishop only in November of 1962, some six years later, and then as Bishop of Astoria, not of the "Archdiocese of Brooklyn and New Jersey" which supposedly elected him bishop. These announcements raise many questions in the minds of the readers of this publication:

1. What was this "archdiocese of Brooklyn and New Jersey"? Who was it affiliated with? Who founded it?
2. How could there be an election of a bishop without a meeting of a synod of bishops, or at least the presence of one bishop at this "congress," as it is called? Can a presbyterian council by itself elect a bishop?
3. Why was the candidate not ordained a bishop shortly after the election in 1956, since almost six years elapsed until he was finally ordained in 1962?
4. When he was ordained in 1962, why was he ordained as bishop of Astoria and not of the "Archdiocese of Brooklyn and New Jersey" which had "elected" him originally six years prior? What happened to this "archdiocese" in the six years since its "congress" of 1956 in the Church of Saint Nicholas (location not given) and the ordination of its candidate in 1962?
5. If an archdiocese, no less, elected Bishop Peter as its bishop, then where were the bishops of the dioceses affiliated with it to take part in the "congress," and as might be expected, to ordain the candidate shortly thereafter?

These are a few of the many questions that arise in the minds of the readers of the Torch of Orthodoxy. There are answers to these questions, but they are not to the advantage of Bishop Peter, therefore they are passed over in silence, both by him and his followers.

The "Archdiocese of Brooklyn and New Jersey" was founded by the late Bishop Arsenius Saltas, who had a very sad ending. He had been ordained by Archbishop Christopher Contogeorge, a former priest of the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America who had been ordained an independent bishop in the United States by Archbishop Adam of the Moscow Exarchate and Bishop Fan Noli of the Albanians. Prior to his death in 1949, Archbishop Christopher had been recognized by the Patriarchate of Alexandria as metropolitan of Pentapolis and as exarch in the United States. Bishop Arsenius, having been ordained a bishop by Archbishop Christopher and a bishop of the Moscow Exarchate, declared himself independent of Archbishop Christopher, and having his cathedra in the Church of Saint John the Baptist in Brooklyn (which church had once been a metochion of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem), proclaimed himself Archbishop of Brooklyn and New Jersey. (No one seems to know how New Jersey got in. It may be that he had a church in that state.) Bishop Arsenius had a collection of independent priests and parishes which came and went at will, and was famous for his irresponsible ordinations. The present independent "bishop," Joachim Souris, had been ordained a priest with the name Arsenius by Bishop Arsenius. Later, this Fr. Arsenius was "ordained" a bishop by the late "prophetess" Barbara and still later "ordained" again a bishop by the late patriarch of the Living Church, Joseph, who resided in Springfield, Massachusetts, until his death. Somewhere along the line, this Arsenius Souris changed his name to Joachim.

Bishop Peter had arrived in the United States from Greece as an archimandrite in 1952, a few years prior to the sad death of Bishop Arsenius, and upon the sad death of the latter, inherited this collection of independent priests and churches called the "Archdiocese of Brooklyn and New Jersey." It is sad that he even involved himself with this group, but it was evident from the beginning that he was seeking to become a bishop, and thus needed a following to justify his candidacy.

After the demise of Bishop Arsenius, he presented himself as the chancellor of the "archdiocese" and leader of the TOC among the Greeks in the United States. He therefore organized the "congress" of 1956 and had himself "elected" bishop of the "archdiocese." So far everything looked well for him; the only draw back was that there were no bishops of any jurisdiction or persuasion who recognized this "archdiocese." Thus, there followed a period of literal "jurisdiction shopping" by Archimandrite Peter until bishops were found to ordain him. In the beginning, he put himself and those with him under the Metropolia, asking to be ordained bishop. The late Metropolitan Leonty made him a mitrophore according to the Russian usage, but did not ordain him a bishop. He approached the Synod of Bishops Outside of Russia for episcopal consecration but was also refused. He therefore left the jurisdiction of the Metropolia and went under the Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate in New York, again with the petition to be ordained a bishop.

All this jurisdiction hopping and shopping to find bishops to ordain him took place during the six years' interim since Bishop Peter's "election" in 1956 and ordination in 1962. By this time, under the able leadership of Archimandrite Peter, there was nothing left of the once illustrious "Archdiocese of Brooklyn and New Jersey." A few of the parishes turned new style and joined the Greek Archdiocese, one of them retained the church calendar but also joined the Greek Archdiocese, one or two became independent, and the remaining "parishes" (if one could call them parishes, being store fronts and boarding room churches) just closed shop and ceased to exist. Thus, when Archimandrite Peter was finally ordained a bishop in 1962, there was no "archdiocese" left which had "elected" him, and he took a title of his own choosing, which was "of Astoria," since it is in this place that he had founded his own parish of Saint Marcella.

It is interesting to note that when he was ordained a bishop by two bishops of our Synod Abroad, Archimandrite Peter was still in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, being a priest of their exarchate in the United States. He had neither requested, nor received, a release from this jurisdiction. Actually, his petition to be ordained a bishop for the Greeks of the United States was still pending in Moscow and, as was ascertained later, there was a good chance that Moscow would have ordained him in retaliation for the refusal at the time of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to give up the Russian Exarchate of Paris. If the Greeks could have a Russian exarchate in Europe, then the Russians could have a Greek exarchate in the United States. Bishop Peter was not aware of this at the time, and furthermore ― if at all possible ― would rather not have been ordained by Soviet churchmen since some of his opponents were already accusing him of being pro-Red in that he was a clergyman of the Moscow Patriarchate and a bishop of the Soviet church had officiated at Bishop Peter's church of Saint Marcella during Holy Week. It is also interesting to note that although Bishop Peter came from the ranks of one of the Greek TOC groups in Greece, and although they had acquired bishops in 1960, two years before Bishop Peter's ordination, they neither elected him bishop nor ordained him, nor even recognized him as a bishop after he was ordained, so that for a number of years he was an independent bishop belonging to no synod whatsoever, even as his present status is again.

In the same issue of the Torch of Orthodoxy, Archimandrite Nicodemus of the brotherhood of Bishop Peter writes in an article entitled "An Unforgettable Day":

That evening, I transported him [i.e., the late Archbishop Leonty of Chile of the Russian Synod Abroad] with my car to New York. He had come to Astoria in order to bring to the elder [i.e., Archimandrite Peter] the joyous proclamation. He was going to take him with him to Chile in order to ordain him bishop. I remember that he asked me in the car if I were pleased with the decision which the Russian bishops came out with. "Fr. Nicodemos, are you happy that your elder is going to become a bishop?" "No!" I answered him. He looked at me bewildered. "Are you not pleased that I will ordain him a bishop?" "No." I said again. "But I thought that you loved your elder. What is wrong, therefore? What do you know? Tell me." "I love my elder and I respect him, but how is it that you wish me to be happy when I will not be at his ordination?" "Then you also come to Santiago." "That cannot be. Our elder should be ordained here in Astoria, so that the whole brotherhood can rejoice." He looked at me with emotion. In the meantime we had reached Park Avenue outside of the offices of the Russian Synod. "Wait a little," he told me, "I shall return." I waited about half an hour in the car. When he returned, he appeared very joyous. "Fr. Nicodemos, your wish shall be done. Go to Astoria and tell Archimandrite Peter to prepare for the Divine Liturgy. In the morning I shall ordain him bishop." [P. 8]

If one did not know the facts, he would be led to believe by this account that the ordination of Bishop Peter was a "decision which the Russian bishops came out with," that is, that it was a synodal decision. If this was so, then a great question arises, Why did Fr. Peter have to go to Chile to be ordained a bishop when he could have been ordained right there in New York at the Synod Cathedral by the very bishops who supposedly came out with the decision? The impression is also created that when Archbishop Leonty entered the Synod headquarters and came out again in a half hour to Fr. Nicodemos who was waiting, that he had presumably conferred with the "Russian bishops" (how he found them all is a mystery unless they were all in session) and had received their consent to change the "decision," so that the ordination could take place the next morning in Astoria.

Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The ordination of Bishop Peter was done secretly and without the knowledge and consent of the then Metropolitan Anastasius of blessed memory and the majority of the bishops, even as two years earlier the ordination of the now deceased Bishop Acacius Pappas of Greece also was done secretly without the knowledge and consent of the Synod. Actually all these ordinations took place against the Synod's decision that it would not be involved in them. It is a fact that in November of 1962, no public announcement preceded the ordination of Bishop Peter, nor did any follow telling of the details, and who the bishops were that ordained Bishop Peter, and this for fear that canonical sanctions would be taken against the bishops should their names become known.

Thus, for a period of time, which lasted for several years, no one outside of the brotherhood of Bishop Peter knew who the ordaining bishops had been. A little after the ordination, Bishop Dositheus of the Moscow Exarchate who was canonically still the bishop of "Fr." Peter saw Bishop Peter wearing a panagia and was surprised since he had not ordained him a bishop, nor had he given him a release that he might have been ordained in some other jurisdiction. He asked him, therefore, with great perplexity, "Fr. Peter, how is it that you are wearing a panagia?" "No, no, now I am no longer Fr. Peter, but Bishop Peter!" To the insistent question of Bishop Dositheus as to who ordained him, the only answer was, "Now I am a bishop."

At the time, the newly ordained bishop left for a trip to Greece in order to see if he would be accepted into communion by the bishops there ― which he was not ― and he also visited the Holy Land. Upon his return, more people began to find out that he was now a bishop, and since he would not reveal when he had been ordained and by whom, a rumor began to spread, which for obvious reasons Bishop Peter did nothing to stop, that he was ordained in Jerusalem. When this reached the ears of the Greek Archdiocese, Archbishop Iakovos wrote Patriarch Benedict and asked if this were true. Patriarch Benedict wrote in reply that no bishops of the Jerusalem Patriarchate had ordained Peter Astifides. Our Synod also was asked and answer was made that none of our bishops had ordained Bishop Peter ― and this was not an attempt to misrepresent the truth on the part of our Synod, since neither Metropolitan Anastasius nor anyone else at the Synod had any knowledge of this ordination, and when some of the bishops were individually asked, they denied having any knowledge of it.

At the same time, a representative of the newspaper Orthodox Typos of Greece visited the United States and asked the Synod officially if it could state who the bishops were that had ordained Bishop Acacius Pappas in 1960, since it had been rumored that bishops of the Russian Synod had ordained him. A reply was made in behalf of Metropolitan Anastasius in the form of a letter by Archpriest George Grabbe, the present Bishop Gregory, denying any knowledge of this ordination or that bishops of the Synod had taken part in it. This letter was printed in the paper Orthodox Typos. Again Metropolitan Anastasius was not trying to cover up nor to misrepresent the facts, but rather believed that none of his bishops had taken part in these and subsequent ordinations, since whenever any of the bishops had been asked, they had denied any knowledge of them or implication in them. Thus, it was that the opponents of Bishops Acacius Pappas and Peter Astifides began to call them kouklo episkopoi ("doll bishops"), that is, that they donned episcopal vestments on their own and pretended that they were bishops without having received any episcopal ordination whatsoever. The fact that in both instances there was no public ordination with many witnesses and that no certificate of ordination stating when, where, and by whom the candidates had been ordained lent itself to this accusation. Now this was a very grievous charge and, therefore, in time forced them to reveal who had ordained them.

In the meantime, some years had passed with rumors coming and going, and confusion being created without end. When the Synod finally learned the facts, it was greatly grieved and strictly censured those who took part in the ordinations, warning all that if any further ordinations took place secretly, without the decision and blessing of the Synod, canonical censure would follow.

In 1965, Metropolitan Anastasius of blessed memory reposed in the Lord. Shortly thereafter, both Bishop Peter and the bishops in Greece (Bishop Acacius Pappas in the meantime, had also reposed) who had been ordained uncanonically by the late Archbishop Leonty of Chile sought to regularize their position and to receive documents attesting to their ordinations, which had taken place some years previously. The Synod granted their request, yet in the instance of Bishop Peter, he still was not recognized by the bishops in Greece, since he had not been elected by them and because of other reasons known to them. Thus, for some years Bishop Peter continued being an independent bishop belonging to no synod.

It is a fact, therefore, that the ordination of Bishop Peter was uncanonical for the following reasons:

1. No synod of bishops, either on this continent or abroad, had elected him.
2. The so-called "Archdiocese of Brooklyn and New Jersey" whose eleven priests elected him at a congress in 1956 was no longer in existence in 1962, when he was finally ordained. In actuality, therefore, he was ordained at his own request.
3. The ordination took place secretly, without the names of the bishops who took part being revealed.
4. The two bishops who performed the ordination did so without a blessing, independently, secretly and without the knowledge of their synod and this not in their own dioceses in South America, but in the diocese of another bishop (in this instance of the First Hierarch of the Synod) without his knowledge and consent.

The uncanonical nature of the ordination of Bishop Peter is attested to in an official document issued by the Synod at the time of the regularization of the ordinations of the late Bishop Matthew of Greece. The document states:

Every consecration performed without observing the canons is already essentially invalid even if it is performed by canonically consecrated bishops. The fourth canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, for instance, does not depose Maximus the Cynic for his misdeeds, but declares his consecration not valid. Even though it was performed by canonical bishops, it was performed in violation of the canons. This refers also to the ordination of priests. In his letter to chorepiscopus, Saint Basil the Great writes that those irregularly ordained to the priesthood should be deposed. He closes the canon with the words: "He will be a layman whom you have admitted to the service without our consent and approval." (canon 89). Even clearer that important principle is expressed in the sixth canon of the First Ecumenical Council: "In the case in which anybody has been made a bishop without the metropolitan's approval, the Great Council has prescribed that such a person must not be a bishop."

Only the Roman Catholic church, distorting the idea itself of granting grace in the Church, recognizes as valid every ordination performed by canonically consecrated bishops even if it is otherwise uncanonical. The granting of the grace by them is indissolubly connected with the properly pronounced formula of consecration which acts as validation independently from it being done unilaterally, or not in the execution of the will of the Church. Such a doctrine is foreign to the Orthodox Church. It is, therefore, understandable that the consecration of Archbishop Acacius and the consecrations which followed it, raised doubts by many until it was confirmed and legalized by a decision of the Synod.

Decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.
15/28 September 1971 (Protocol # 16-II)

Bishop Peter of Astoria, therefore, provided the example for the others that followed to set themselves up as bishops by any and all means. Bishop Acacius "of Montreal" was the second to follow. Although as a layman he had attended the Synodal Cathedral of Saint Nicholas in Montreal and had served as a sub-deacon to Archbishop Vitaly, seeing that Bishop Peter had set himself up in Astoria with his own parish and diocese as his own personal property, he had himself ordained to the priesthood secretly in New York in 1962, and then set up his own parish in Montreal. He refused to recognize the authority of the Archbishop of Montreal, the Most Reverend Vitaly, and for some time would not reveal who had ordained him. Having begun in a house chapel, he eventually built his own church. Observing that Bishop Peter gave account to no one, he refused to accept the authority of anyone over himself, including Bishop Peter who claimed to be bishop of the Greeks following the church calendar on this continent. There were still a few independent Greek churches in the United States following the church calendar, but they also refused to recognize Bishop Peter. Among them was that of Saint George in Lowell, Massachusetts, which continued to remain independent for some years until it finally went under the Greek Archdiocese of Iakovos, and that of Saint Spyridon of Detroit which for many years was under Bishop Dionysius of the Serbs, and is presently under Bishop Peter, although it is still legally an independent parish and thus changes jurisdictions at ease, vowing allegiance to whomever can supply them with a priest of their liking.

Seeing that after some years Bishop Peter, through various and devious means, was recognized as a bishop by the synod of Archbishop Auxentius in Greece (he is not recognized again at present, nor has he been for some years), and being embarrassed again and again by inquiries as to which jurisdiction he belonged, since he belonged to none (this also complicated his tax exempt status from a governmental point of view), Fr. Acacius of Montreal sought to become a bishop and thus head his own jurisdiction. He, thus, began to gather signatures of whoever greeted him ― irrespective of whether the people were residents of Canada or only visitors from the United States and abroad ― attesting to the great need of a Greek bishop in Canada for the TOC and asking that Fr. Acacius be ordained. In this manner he gathered several thousand signatures. When Archbishop Auxentius with Bishop Gerontius visited the United States and Canada in 1971, he gave them a red carpet reception in Montreal and presented them with the petition, promising besides to give them the title of the church which he built. Thus, over the protest of Bishop Peter, Acacius was ordained bishop.

Before his ordination, he had claimed that Canada was anxiously waiting for a bishop so that many young men could be ordained and parishes of the TOC be opened among the Greeks. Of course, no such thing happened. As in the case of Bishop Peter, no one recognized the new Bishop Acacius. To this day some eight years after his ordination to the episcopate, he has not been able to establish a second parish in Canada. Although he has made a number of irresponsible ordinations (in this he has become notorious like the late Bishop Arsenius Saltas of sorry memory), not one has lasted. All abandoned him after a short time. Seeing that he was looking after his own profit, they did likewise. Noting that the Greeks in Toronto under the Synod have two parishes with three full time priests, Bishop Acacius has made six attempts to open a church in that city, and is still attempting. Yet, the only thing that he has accomplished has been to create scandals, disturbances, fights, with the police intervening, etc. In essence, Bishop Acacius, as in the instance of Bishop Peter, became a bishop for himself.

His relationship with the Auxentius synod in Greece did not fare much better either. Shortly after he became a bishop, a dissension arose in Greece as to who was entitled to his personal properties, concerning which articles have appeared in the Greek press of Montreal. Archbishop Auxentius claimed that since he tonsured Bishop Acacius to the Great Schema when he visited Canada in 1971, he was entitled to the properties and assets. Bishop Gerontius and the synod in Greece claimed that the synod was entitled since Bishop Acacius was ordained by its "decision." Anyhow, something had to be done with the properties and assets of Bishop Acacius, since they had become a public scandal and many were writing to the synod in Greece saying that the church was being used by Bishop Acacius for personal gain. Well, Bishop Acacius quickly put a stop to all this squabbling by informing all parties concerned that he was the sole owner of all the properties and assets which he himself had created, and that he would more readily blow up his church in Montreal with dynamite than hand it over to anyone. Besides, the properties of Bishop Acacius were held in partnership with his brother-in-law who had financed him in the beginning and set him up, thus it was all a family affair and of no concern to anyone else.

Very quickly, therefore, the relationships between Bishop Acacius and his synod cooled off. There were no further visits of any bishops from Greece to Canada, and the visits of Bishop Acacius to Greece were very rare. In time, a layman from Montreal with a sizeable amount of money appeared in Greece and sought to be ordained a priest so that he could set up a parish, monastery, cemetery, etc. in Montreal. He approached Archbishop Andrew of the Matthewite synod, but since that synod at the time was in communion with the Russian Synod Abroad, Archbishop Andrew wrote to Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal asking his opinion. The response being negative, Archbishop Andrew wisely refused to ordain him, and the candidate then approached the other synod, that of Auxentius (today he would have been able to approach even a third synod) which presumably had an exarch in Canada, in the person of Bishop Acacius. Disregarding their exarch, Bishop Gerontius tonsured and ordained the man with the name Victor, hieromonk. This Fr. Victor then returned to Montreal and opened his own parish, refusing not only to recognize the authority of Bishop Acacius, but even denouncing him publicly. In the Liturgy, Fr. Victor commemorated Archbishop Auxentius directly. Thus, for some years now we have had the phenomenon of a bishop and priest belonging to the same synod a living in the same city, yet in no way being in communion with one another, but rather denouncing each other publicly. At the beginning of this year (1979), the synod of Auxentius announced that their new exarch of North and South America was Archimandrite Paisius of Astoria. Thus it seems that this synod has officially dropped Bishop Acacius from its membership, as it did Bishop Peter some years previously. Presumably, we are to expect that Fr. Victor will in the future become a bishop also, especially if he increases his donations to the charities of the Auxentius synod. If Astoria and its surroundings can boast of nine independent Greek bishops, why cannot Montreal have at least two?

A third clergyman to follow the example of Bishop Peter in setting himself up independently and finally becoming a bishop is the new Bishop Paisius of Gardyciae, who resides in Astoria. In 1971 he was one of the archimandrites that accompanied Archbishop Auxentius to the United States. When Archbishop Auxentius returned to Greece, Archimandrite Paisius chose to stay on, since there was no future for him in that country where he was well known. In the beginning, he was given hospitality by Bishop Peter who was exarch of their synod at that time. As soon as he obtained his residence permit for the United States, he denounced Bishop Peter and became independent. He first served the parish of Saint George of White Plains. At this time, he put advertisements with his photograph in the Greek newspapers of New York announcing that he was the new pastor of Saint George and that he offered "free Mysteries," that is, Mysteries (Sacraments) without charge. We are accustomed to seeing and hearing many strange things when it comes to these independent clergymen, yet this was a first ― that one would open shop and then advertise in the newspapers, "come one, come all, we offer free Mysteries to our customers."

This, of course, is the case with all the independent Greek churches, yet this was the first time that we saw someone put it in print. Usually, one would open an independent church and then spread the news by word of mouth that whosoever of the Greek faithful wished, they could have the Mysteries performed without the large sum of monies one has to pay as membership dues in the churches of the Greek Archdiocese, and without which one is not eligible to have the Mysteries performed. The Greek Archdiocese on its part tries to justify this policy (abuse) of "no dues, no Mysteries," arguing that there are many "Easter Christians" who appear in church only at Pascha or when they want to get married or have a child baptized or have themselves buried (of course after dying first), and that it is not fair to the Christians that pay faithfully yearly to support the archdiocese and their local parishes to have these Easter Christians use the church facilities without paying dues. One should note here that if someone appears at an archdiocese church in order to have a Mystery performed, and he is not "in good standing," he is obliged not only to pay the parish and archdiocese dues for that year, but for all the preceding years also, since he turned twenty-one, or last paid his dues. This can run into quite a large sum of money. All this insults Greek pride (no one seems to care what the canons have to say), and causes much dissatisfaction among the Greeks, therefore independent Greek churches always have a clientele from among these dissatisfied Christians.

Now although in the independent churches the Mysteries are offered without charge, it goes without saying that no Greek will have a Mystery performed without leaving a free will offering of at least thirty to forty dollars and, in most instances, double that or more for the priest, the chanters, and the church. Personal pride would not have it otherwise, especially Greek personal pride. Now if the church belongs to the clergyman and he has a nun or a relative serving as chanter and caretaker, then one can understand how all these independent priests and bishops get established and build churches and gather large sums of money.

According to the Greek newspapers of Montreal, Bishop Acacius, during the eight years that he was a priest and for the first few years following his ordination as bishop, had performed ― by a conservative estimate ― several thousand baptisms, not counting all the other Mysteries and ministrations. Multiply this by forty or fifty dollars, if not more, and one can begin to understand the psychological appeal of Mysteries without charge.

But to return to Fr. Paisius, as we said, he was the first to advertise in print concerning free Mysteries. This alone is enough to show the character of the man. He was not long in staying at Saint George's. Since he was not able to obtain the property of the church from its owners, he established his own parish of Saint Irene Chrysovalantou in Astoria, within walking distance of Bishop Peter's church of Saint Marcella. At the time, both he and Bishop Peter belonged to the same group in Greece, even as did Fr. Victor and Bishop Acacius in Montreal, yet both mutually denounced each other privately and publicly.

With the dropping of Bishop Peter several years ago from the Auxentius synod because of an internal power struggle (reasons of Faith were used as an excuse), Fr. Paisius was left as the sole representative of this group in the United States. All together, there were only three parishes with priests in the United States ― Fr. Paisius' parish in Astoria, the Holy Unmercenaries in Chicago, and Saint Nectarius in Detroit. Thus, the road was now paved for Fr. Paisius to become a bishop. The only thing was that his reputation both in Greece and in the United States was not the best, thus there was great opposition to such an ordination ever taking place. But those that know how things always go with these groups predicted over a year ago that it was only a matter of time, before, either by hook or by crook, as the saying goes, Fr. Paisius would be a bishop.

In the beginning of 1979, Archimandrite Paisius was declared exarch of North and South America by Archbishop Auxentius. This made many within the group nervous, and reading the handwriting on the wall, they began inquiring of Archbishop Auxentius what this meant. He in turn tried to quiet their fears and assured them that Fr. Paisius would not be made a bishop. He argued that it just so happened that there was no one else in the United States at the time, so Fr. Paisius was made their official representative. This excuse was not accepted by the two parishes in Chicago and Detroit, and they immediately ceased commemorating Archbishop Auxentius, for under no means would they accept Fr. Paisius as their representative. These two parishes were not unjustified, for as it was revealed several months later, Fr. Paisius at the time had quietly gone to Greece and there been ordained bishop by Archbishop Auxentius privately, with utmost secrecy. Since no one knew that he had even gone to Greece, let alone that he had been ordained a bishop, everyone concerned in the United States still regarded him as a priest ― the only difference being, that he now had the title of exarch and was allowed to wear the episcopal mandya and hold a staff in his hand, something not unusual for an archimandrite and an exarch. Some time later, it was revealed that he was now a bishop, without details of when and where he was ordained being given.

In the Spring of 1979, a third synod of the TOC ― consisting of ten members ― emerged in Greece. This synod was created by two bishops who were formerly of the Auxentius synod and who protested certain irregularities of Archbishop Auxentius and those with him, among which was the secret ordination of Bishop Paisius. This new synod proceeded to defrock Paisius from the priesthood on the basis of charges against him in Greece, not even taking into account his ordination as a bishop, since it was done in secret. Archbishop Auxentius retaliated by deposing all the members of the new synod as having created a schism.

Bishop Paisius has been in the United States for eight years now. What has been the outcome of his career? The same as that of Bishop Acacius, scandals, public denunciations of Bishops Peter and Acacius, counter-denunciations on their part, fist fights, dissensions, accusations, etc.

All three bishops ― Peter, Acacius, and Paisius ― have certain traits in common. All three desired greatly to become bishops and sought to accomplish this by any means. In all three instances there was no pastoral need for a Greek bishop of the traditional church calendar churches, since there were very few such parishes and priests ― if any ― to warrant this. Even after many years of "service," they have nothing to show but their own personal parishes. Neither clergy nor faithful of any consequence have followed them. In all three cases secret ordinations were involved. In all three cases, the accusation of simony has been heard, and since the ordinations were performed secretly and with the breaking of canons, if this accusation cannot be proven, yet again it cannot be disproved. When from the beginning things are not done right, but rather uncanonically and secretly, then all sorts of suspicions and accusations are bound to arise. All three have sought to associate themselves with our bishops and clergy so that they might gain credibility among our people, both on this continent and in Greece. Bishops Peter and Paisius are famous for having their court photographer wherever they appear, and they make extensive use of photographs to prove their canonicity. They pride themselves in being photographed with our metropolitan, but always omit to mention that they have never concelebrated with him. Of course, one good thing is that all of these groups can display photographs of themselves with Metropolitan Philaret, and thus the total effect is somewhat ludicrous!

Bishop Paisius has sought to impress us with the fact that he received a telegram from President Carter on the occasion of the feast of his parish. It does not take much intelligence to know that if one sends a donation to the campaign fund of the president, it will be acknowledged with greetings on any occasion one wishes. If one sends a sizeable enough sum, the President will even come in person. Treat politicians and promise them votes, and they will kiss all the babies in the parish. Should you wish, they will even become godfathers to them. Telegrams and photos do not impress us nor do they change the facts.

Bishop Peter, in his fifteen year jubilee issue of the Torch of Orthodoxy printed ten photos from his photo album, yet he omitted to print one from the jubilee itself. It would have been very revealing. The absence of any bishops and of any clergy, outside of his own brother who had come from Greece for the occasion, and those of his own brotherhood, would have been very evident. Nothing can speak more clearly and strongly concerning Bishop Peter's episcopal career than the fact that after fifteen years of being a bishop not one bishop of any jurisdiction either from this continent or from abroad was found to accept his invitation and attend the festivities. He claims that in 1956 eleven priests elected him bishop. In 1977, twenty-one years later, there were not found eleven priests to attend his anniversary. One would have thought that with the rise of the heresy of Ecumenism and the dissatisfaction of many of the Greek faithful with the Greek Archdiocese during those years, the number of clergy would have doubled and tripled instead of diminished.

These, then, are the accomplishments of Bishop Peter and those who followed his example. He should in no way be bitter or distraught with Bishops Acacius and Paisius. They only did what he did. They followed his example, and for a certainty, there will be others also who will follow ― there are already two on the horizon. All desired to obtain episcopal mitres and to establish themselves. This they have accomplished, but in the process they have lost the respect and confidence of the Greek people. Now they are disappointed, for they have mitres, they have money, but they do not have recognition.

Seeing that there are well organized Greek parishes and clergy under the Russian Synod Abroad, they are both embarrassed by this and envious. Thus, they seek with cheap phyletist arguments to win us over, arguing that since they are Greek bishops, there is no need that we should be under foreign bishops. Of course, it goes without saying that they appeal to us as individuals and not as a group, for each one of them claims that he is the sole leader of the Greek faithful to the exclusion of the others. Some years ago, a few of our people were affected by their arguments and began to ask us questions as to why we do not recognized them or cooperate with them. Not wishing to scandalize these few, we explained to them that there were serious reasons for not recognizing these self-called and self-elected bishops, and that if they trusted us, they should continue in the obedience and unity which we have in the Russian Synod Abroad. Fortunately they listened to us, and today, having seen many things that have transpired both here and in Greece, they thank God that we are under the Synod, and they appreciate the unity and church order that we have both in the United States and in Canada in our parishes. Because of recent events in Greece, many of the faithful there are envious of our peaceful church life here and communicate this to us both by letter and by telephone, warning us not to recognize any of the groups there and thus become entangled in that utter confusion.

If the matter were not serious and tragic, it would have a humorous side to it also, both here and in Greece. For in this continent, there are not only the three above mentioned independent Greek bishops, but at least another ten that we know of. In the New York area alone there are nine ― Theocletus [Kantaris], Peter, Pancratius, Laurence, Paisius, Macarius, Eugene, George (sometimes priest and sometimes bishop, who knows? God knows) and, of course, the new "Patriarch of the Americas" Basil Constantinides. Add to these Joachim, Spyridon, Dionysius, Nicholas, and one has thirteen independent Greek bishops.

The mentality of all these vagante type bishops is: "Get ordained by all and any means ― by canonical or uncanonical bishops, by true or false bishops, just get ordained. Then it is only a matter of time until you are recognized by someone." Each takes a title of his own choosing. Macarius calls himself Bishop of the Bronx. Nicholas (the famous Katsounakis) calls himself Bishop of Venezuela and all South America, but still makes appearances in North America. Pancratius, a former priest of the Greek Archdiocese, has the impressive title of Bishop of Vassiloupolis which in Greek means "reigning city." Some of us thought that it must be of an ancient episcopal see "which had shone forth in antiquity" as the saying goes in Greek, and therefore is a titular see. We inquired of those who should know, only to be informed that Vassiloupolis was a translation into Greek of Queensborough ― it sounded more sanctimonious in Greek than in English.

How sad that the Greek church has come to such a state, and the one primarily responsible for this is the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Since it has espoused renovationism, modernism, and the heresy of Ecumenism, it has given rise to divisions and confusion. It is a very revealing fact that when the late Archbishop Michael of the Greek Archdiocese demised in 1958, there was not one independent Greek bishop in this continent. The few which he had inherited from his predecessor, Patriarch Athenagoras, had demised before him in the ten years of his reign. But in the twenty years of Archbishop Iakovos' reign in this hemisphere, because of his modernisms and the dissatisfaction of the Greek faithful, scores of independent parishes have sprung up and we have now an inundation of independent Greek bishops.

All of the above has been written in order to inform any and all concerned, some of the reasons why we do not recognize the existing independent Greek bishops. Some of these bishops were already in existence when we came to the Russian Synod Abroad, and one of the very reasons why we came to the Synod was because they did not inspire any confidence in us. In leaving the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, we left ― according to the fifteenth canon of the First and Second Council of Constantinople ― "false bishops" who "preached heresy bareheaded." But in leaving false bishops, we had no intention of attaching ourselves to hirelings and not true shepherds, who have entered into the sheepfold not through the gate, but through another way.

We have never attended their feasts or responded to their festal greetings and invitations to take part in their celebrations. They continue to show up at our feats and invite us to visit them. On occasion, when two opposing factions show up at our feasts, they cause disturbances, taunting and jeering each other to our sorrow and dismay, and we are forced to ask them either to respect the feast or go out into the street in order to carry on their verbal niceties.

Because, therefore, of the rumors circulated of late and the impression caused by publications and photographs that these bishops are in communion with us, we categorically state:

1. We were never at anytime in communion with these bishops, either before we came into the Synod or after our reception.
2. We are not presently in communion with them, nor do we recognize their claims.
3. We do not intend at anytime in the future to be in communion with them.

We thank God for the existence and presence of the Synod on our shores, and see in it the fulfillment of our Savior's promise that He shall never abandon us, but that He shall always be with us. Had the Russian Synod Abroad not been on this continent, we still would not have come under Bishops Peter, Acacius, Paisius, and the like, but would rather have searched till we had found Orthodox bishops of integrity and honor, if not here, then elsewhere in the world. To recognize bishops such as Peter, Acacius, and Paisius, is to recognize ecclesiastical vagantism ― it is to reward opportunism and egoism in the extreme.

We repeat: We left the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate because of the heresy of Ecumenism. We left false bishops who preach heresy bareheaded. We left the Patriarchate of Constantinople in order to remain Orthodox, since it ceased being such. The events that have transpired in the last fifteen years in the Church of Constantinople have totally justified us. According to the fifteenth canon of the First and Second Council of Constantinople, we are not only exonerated but are also esteemed worthy of honor for separating ourselves from false bishops and thereby preserving the unity of the Church. Yet in leaving false bishops, we neither had, nor have, any intention to attach ourselves to self-called and self-elected bishops.

We are sad that we have been forced to make this public clarification. It is long overdue. Our long-suffering and silence through the years has, alas, been interpreted by these bishops as a weakness on our part, or reluctance due to an inability to answer their many claims and false statements. We have only stated a few of the many things that could be said. We hope that we do not have to return to this subject.

Trusting that what we have written will clear up all rumors and talk concerning our present ecclesiastical status, we state again that we have no intention of leaving the Russian Synod Abroad and seeking communion with any of the groups in Greece or the above mentioned bishops on this continent.

+ Archimandrite Panteleimon
+ Hieromonk Haralambos
+ Hieromonk Isaac
+ Fr. George Makris
+ Fr. Neketas Palassis
+ Fr. Panagiotes Carras
+ Fr. Anthony Gavalas
+ Fr. Alexander Dizes
+ Fr. George Turpa
+ Hierodeacon Luke
+ Deacon Photius Touloumes
+ Deacon John Mihopoulos
+ Deacon Christus Constantinou

CC. Metropolitan Philaret of New York
Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal
Bishop Gregory of Manhattan