Message on the Boston Affair (1987)

 Message to the Pastors and Flock Regarding the Boston Affair

Archbishop Anthony of Geneva | April 10, 1987 | Geneva, Switzerland

 

"Blessed are you when they revile you and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake." (Matthew 5:11)

Dear and faithful fellow pastors with us, and beloved and devoted flock of our Church, Christ is in our midst! We assume that the rumors reaching you from America may trouble you, as you may not understand what is happening there in our Church.

Here's what's happening there. Several decades ago, Greek priests and their flock, seeking refuge from modernism and ecumenism that had infiltrated the Greek Church, were accepted into our dioceses in America. Our bishops, being opposed to modernism in all its forms and wishing to help our fellow believers, welcomed them with love, and our clergy peacefully coexisted with the Greek clergy. The Greek monastery in Boston, founded by Archimandrite Panteleimon, became widely known in America, and unfortunately, this is where it all began.

At the meeting of the Hierarchical Synod on May 28 of last year, which took place in Mansonville, Canada, American monks from the Boston monastery, who had fled from it, appeared with accusations against their abbot. They accused him of moral misconduct. The accusation was serious, so Vladyka Metropolitan, in whose diocese the monastery is located, prohibited Archimandrite Panteleimon from serving until the matter was investigated. However, the latter did not comply.

He went to Greece and there conspired with two "independent" (in other words, non-canonical) hierarchs, Gabriel and Akakios, who are not members of any of the existing Old Calendarist Synods in Greece. Being accepted by them, Archimandrite Panteleimon fled from our Church, evidently fearing further investigation of his case, thereby confirming the accusation placed upon him.

One can't help but recall Father Panteleimon's own story about how, in Greece, an arrested monk who had stolen a goat was being led through the street, shouting: "I suffer for the Old Calendar!" Now, Archimandrite himself, like this monk, has cried out across America: "I suffer for true Orthodoxy! I suffer because the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, after the death of Metropolitan Philaret, has changed its confession of faith, turning towards Ecumenism, thereby losing the canonical basis for its existence, and increasing its contacts with representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate and other Churches behind the Iron Curtain."

Unfortunately, about 20 Greek priests and deacons, along with their parishes and flocks, have joined in this accusation against the Hierarchical Synod for all sorts of sins—a claim made only now, when Archimandrite Panteleimon found it necessary. The reason for this is evidently Greek solidarity and ignorance or unwillingness to know what their brother has been accused of.

Thus, it is clear that no schism occurred in our Church. The Greeks came to us, stayed with us for some time, and then left, blaming us rather than themselves for their departure. God is their judge! Two Russian priests and a few parishioners, who lived not far from the Greek churches and went there to pray, also left due to a misunderstanding.

Eight of the departing clergy, led by Archimandrite Panteleimon, remain under prohibition from serving. Regarding the others, the Hierarchical Synod at its last session on February 18 of this year adopted the following resolution:

The clergy who have willfully left our Church have committed a canonical offense and are deserving, according to the canons, of prohibition from serving until they repent. However, considering that they have led away a large flock that does not fully understand what has happened, the Hierarchical Synod, not wishing to deprive the flock of God's grace, condescending to human weakness, and allowing for ecclesiastical economy, DOES NOT IMPOSE A PROHIBITION on the unworthy clergy, leaving the canonical offense on their CONSCIENCE and entrusting them to the JUDGMENT OF GOD.

However, the Hierarchical Synod must sorrowfully warn the flock and pastors who consider themselves the only true Orthodox Christians that the path of self-will they have taken leads their Church into a sect. Those who understand this and repent, we are ready to receive back into our Church with love.

Pride has clouded the minds of the Greeks who adhere to the Old Calendar. They have imagined themselves, no more, no less, as the only true Orthodox Christians, while believing that all the Churches of Christ and all Orthodoxy are deprived of God's grace. Is this not demonic pride, which has evidently deprived these self-willed, Old Calendarist groups of grace? What a pitiful sight they present to the world, quarreling among themselves, accusing each other of unorthodoxy, splitting into ever smaller groups, each claiming "catholicity," ordaining bishops even outside of Greece without regard for the qualities and merits of the candidates, and being unable to oversee their activities abroad. Father Panteleimon and his brethren are creating yet another Old Calendarist sect, leading others astray and forgetting the words of the Savior that "if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch" (Matthew 15:14).

Alas, critics have also emerged within our diocese. For example, on February 20 of last year, they demanded from us an answer to the question: does the clergy of the "Synodal" Church (in other words, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, to which those demanding the answer belong) serve together with the New Calendarists and ecumenists? The aim of the question was to accuse US of the "sin" of concelebration. But why did this question not trouble them when they were receiving the grace of the priesthood from US? At that time, evidently, the bishop laying hands on them was Orthodox; now, however, they seek a reason to accuse him of abandoning true Orthodoxy.

A clear and definite answer was given to them regarding how our Church has always regarded and continues to regard the canonical Churches that have adopted the new calendar in their liturgical practice.

Back in 1925, shortly after the adoption of the new calendar into church practice by five Orthodox Churches at the 1923 congress, the Romanian Church (one of the five) invited Metropolitan Anthony, the founder of our Church Abroad, to participate in the celebrations for the enthronement of the Romanian Patriarch Miron. Metropolitan Anthony, known worldwide as a zealous defender of Orthodoxy, went to Bucharest and conducted services with the New Calendarists. At that time, he also served in the Russian church in Bucharest with Metropolitan Dionysius of the Polish Church, who had also adopted the new calendar.

On September 27, 1961, our Hierarchical Synod sent a letter to the Greek Old Calendarists, copies of which were sent to the Greek Archbishop of America and the Ecumenical Patriarch. The letter stated: "Our Church adheres to the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar a great mistake. Nevertheless, its policy has always been to maintain spiritual communion with the Orthodox Churches that have adopted the new calendar, as long as they celebrate Pascha according to the decision of the First Ecumenical Council... We have never broken spiritual communion with the canonical Churches in which the new calendar was introduced." This clear position, signed by Metropolitan Anastasy, is upheld by our Church to this day.

Our Hierarchical Councils and individual hierarchs have repeatedly stated: the new calendar is not heresy, but a significant and gross mistake. Based on this, Metropolitan Philaret, who often visited France, would serve Sunday liturgies in the Romanian church in Paris, praying with his New Calendarist flock.

Metropolitan Vitaly, faithful to his predecessors, writes in this year's Christmas message: "At the present time, most local Churches are shaken by a double blow: the new calendar and ecumenism. However, even in such a dire condition, we do not dare, and may God forbid us from doing so, to say that they have lost God's grace." This is the acknowledgment that Greek Old Calendarist groups have been trying to obtain from us for decades.

We must know and remember that back in 1953, Archbishop John (Maximovitch), then Archbishop of Brussels and Western Europe, with the permission of Metropolitan Anastasy, jointly with Romanian Metropolitan Visarion, a refugee living in France at that time, ordained a New Calendarist bishop, Theophil, for the Romanian refugees. Bishop Theophil then headed the autonomous Romanian diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Since then, we have had the first New Calendarists within the fold of our Church, under the direct guidance of its Head — the Metropolitan. And if we served with them and continue to serve with them, does that mean that since 1953 we have betrayed Orthodoxy? God forbid! By written directive from Metropolitan Philaret, WE ordained the Romanian priest Michael Constandache for the Romanian autonomous diocese, who currently manages the widowed diocese. All of this should have been known to Panteleimon and his brethren, who claim that our Synod only changed Orthodoxy after the death of Metropolitan Philaret.

The same Archbishop John accepted into his Brussels and Western European diocese a second New Calendarist group — Orthodox Dutch who had left the Moscow Patriarchate. These Dutch, who used the new calendar, remained in our Church for 22 years, and their leader, Archimandrite Jacob, was elevated by the Hierarchical Council to the rank of Bishop of The Hague and the Netherlands. It is evident that he would have remained our bishop to this day if he had not left us with his flock. What will the critics say about this?

Finally, Archbishop John accepted into our diocese a third group of New Calendarists, led by Protopriest Eugraph Kovalevsky. This group also included the current Head of the French Deanery — Archimandrite Ambrose (then a hieromonk). Metropolitan Anastasy supported the elevation of Protopriest Eugraph Kovalevsky to the rank of bishop, without raising the issue of the calendar, and thus he was ordained by Archbishop John as Bishop of Saint-Denis, with the monastic name John."

After the death of Archbishop John, Bishop John of Saint-Denis (Kovalevsky) willfully left our Church, for which he and all those who left with him were deprived of their rank. A small group of his clergy remained in our Church and asked US to accept them under OUR omophorion, which WE did. Those who were thus accepted continued for some time to serve according to the new calendar. Now, as the saying goes, becoming more royalist than the king himself, they accuse US, who have never served according to the new calendar, of concelebrating with New Calendarists.

Of the three New Calendarist groups, only the Romanians remain in our diocese to this day. Of course, we have been serving and continue to serve with them, who belong to our Church but not to our diocese, for 34 years now, as brothers in Christ, even though they practice the new calendar, which is undesirable for us. With the clergy of the Orthodox Churches that have adopted the new calendar, WE do not generally serve, although we occasionally make exceptions depending on the circumstances. Making exceptions is the right of a bishop who "rightly divides the word of Christ's truth."

Such is the history and practice of our Church in relation to those who have adopted the new calendar. From what has been said, it is clear that WE follow the example of Metropolitans Anthony, Anastasy, Philaret, Vitaly, and Archbishop John in this matter, considering them worthy examples to emulate. They knew how to avoid dangerous extremes that could mislead even the best children of the Church. But the Greeks in America and any other critics, in order to justify themselves, falsely claim that the Hierarchical Synod of our Church has recently departed from the precepts of Metropolitan Anastasy and is now following a new path. They insist that, after the death of Metropolitan Philaret, we have changed "our confession of faith," leaning towards ecumenism. This is a baseless accusation.

By throwing this stone into OUR garden, they evidently mean that WE allow clergy from the Orthodox Serbian Church to concelebrate with US. Our metropolitans and bishops did the same, as they firmly knew that the Serbian Church, despite the difficult conditions of the communist regime, managed to preserve its internal freedom and, while officially participating in the ecumenical movement, essentially remained outside of it.

We must not forget that the Serbian Church had, in the person of Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), a great Orthodox theologian of worldwide renown, far beyond the reach of modern critics. Archimandrite Justin spoke and wrote extensively and firmly against ecumenism without separating from his patriarch. He had a tremendous influence on his flock, creating an entire movement of scholarly monks who, continuing his work, educate the young in the spirit of Orthodoxy. We rarely have the occasion to serve with clergy of the Serbian Church, but every time we do, it is with the joyful consciousness of our pan-Orthodox unity.

The other "ecumenists" with whom WE sometimes dare to have prayerful communion are, evidently to our critics, the Russian priests of the Constantinople Exarchate in Western Europe. "Someone" informed Vladyka Metropolitan that in the church in Meudon on April 20 of last year, the day of the arrival of the myrrh-streaming Icon of the Mother of God, WE allowed an "ecumenical service." The reason for such an incredible report was evidently that during our service of the moleben, three priests from the Exarchate participated, and WE prayed together with them as brothers in Christ. Moreover, WE did not prevent them from serving a moleben separately from us, before the great Holy Icon, in our church. Such a "report" is a fitting characterization of our ill-wishers. This, apparently, is where our "orientation towards ecumenism" ends. WE have never prayed together with Catholics or Protestants, as you, our fellow pastors and faithful flock, can yourselves testify.

To accuse our Hierarchical Synod of increasing contacts with representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate, with whom it generally has none, requires undeniable proof; otherwise, it is an outright lie. Blind fanatics and unreasonable zealots may only be dissatisfied because our hierarchs have never asserted that the Moscow Patriarchate is without grace. Because of this, they have always accepted bishops and priests from the Moscow Patriarchate into our Church in their existing rank. We believe and know that the love of God remains with the long-suffering Christians of our homeland, and even with those who seek it from the officially recognized clergy and in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Regarding the "ecumenists," the unresolved question is who exactly can be considered a full-fledged, one hundred percent ecumenist, and who can be considered as such only by two percent, three, ten, forty, sixty, and so on? And the second unresolved question is who can judge this infallibly, who would serve as the highest Authority for such judgment? It is frightening to say, but our critics already imagine themselves to be such an authority, expecting from us obedience and blind submission to their decisions.

They are also ready to apply anathema to whomever they wish and however they wish, forgetting or not wanting to know that it is applicable only to the unwise children of our Church, as Vladyka Metropolitan reminded us once again in this year's Christmas message.

Beloved brothers and sisters, let us rejoice that in the Church we have a firm and reliable refuge from the storms of life, which is our Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Let us trust its spiritual Leaders, love our flock and its pastors, and forgive those who offend us.