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