Response to Accusations Against Metropolitan Petros of Astoria

Source: The Lion of Orthodoxy: Archbishop Leonty Philippovich (1904–1971) and His Contribution to True Orthodoxy [in Greek], by Nikolaos Mannis, Athens, 2021, pp. 213-229.

It appears that various slanders had been spread against Fr. Petros [Astyfides], supposedly concerning moral matters as well as other issues, already from the time when he was on the Holy Mountain. [246] These slanders had been circulated among the Zealots, who then wrote to the Synod of the G.O.C. against his consecration; and the Synod, more in order to avoid a scandal than because it gave credence to these slanders, did not want the consecration to take place. [247]

With the recent publication of the letters of Elder Joseph, the so-called Hesychast, [248] to Fr. Panteleimon of Boston [also published in English in 2023 by the Athonite Monastery of Vatopedi], it was revealed that the latter’s hatred toward Bishop Petros was due to Elder Joseph himself, who was spreading such a slander by writing the following: “This [Petros] is a spiritualist. He had a fiancée here at first. He was not meant to be a priest; the Old Calendarists made him one contrary to the Canons. He left and found his fiancée, learned spiritualism from her, and considered her to be a saint. He came again to the Holy Mountain, and no one accepted him. He left with her and came here to America. What happened I do not know now. The Lord informed me, [249] and I am writing to you to get away from him so that you may not be condemned.” [250]

The consecration of Bishop Petros was the occasion not only for the revival of these slanders but also for the invention of new ones. The well-known enemy of Archbishop Leonty, Fr. George Grabbe, [251] began to spread that this consecration was simoniacal. Let us, however, look at this slander from the very writings of Grabbe himself, who spread it for over 30 years (!): “The Greek Gerasimos Stakatos, [252] who worked in the Synod as a janitor, repeatedly tried to arrange the consecration of Archimandrite Petros and for this turned to our various Bishops. Specifically, I knew personally from the blessed Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago that Gerasimos offered him five thousand dollars for this consecration. Vladyka Seraphim categorically refused, but Archbishop Leonty of Chile agreed. The secret consecration of Petros was carried out by him in cooperation with Archbishop Seraphim of Venezuela, who committed this crime due to his exceptional naivety… When asked about this, Gerasimos told everyone that there was no simony, but only a donation of olive oil to Archbishop Leonty. [253] Subsequently, the consecration certificate, which was issued illegally for Bishop Petros, was annulled by Metropolitan Philaret, of which Bishop Petros was officially informed.” [254]

The above slanders, however, are refuted very easily. First of all, if there had been moral issues, then the blessed Petros would not have been worthy even to be a priest. Therefore, since he was worthy to be a priest, and no one complained about this, he was also worthy to be a hierarch, that is, from a moral standpoint. Regarding the supposed rejection of the consecration of Bishop Petros by Saint Philaret, [255] the documents testify to the opposite. For not only did the Saint accept it, but he himself, in 1968, also issued a certificate of validity for the consecration of Bishop Petros, with whom he even communed until 1979, the year in which the Grabbe/Panteleimon group, which was then dominant within the ROCOR, managed to cut it off [256] (it was restored with the ROCOR in 1994). [257]

As for the slanders concerning “spiritualism” and “simony,” apart from the refutation made by Bishop Petros himself, [258] the things written in his letters by the blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose [259] are enlightening: [260]

"We should tell you frankly that we do not trust Fr. Panteleimon’s 'political' acts with regard to the Greek Old Calendarists; since he began interfering with the Greek Church situation (is this with the blessing of the Synod or his own Bishop?), [261] he has only made things much worse. Things were much better when our Russian Bishops were ordaining Old Calendarist Bishops 'uncanonically,' but out of love, not for 'politics'... Up until now, Fr. Panteleimon’s attitude towards Bishop Petros seems to have been based on emotions and jealousy, and if that is why he has “broken communion,” is it not time that a rebuke were given to him in order to humble him a little?" [262]

"Why do you speak of 'Bishop' Petros? Is it really only because he is out of communion with his own Synod? Or is it because Fr. Panteleimon’s feelings about him are so strong that you involuntarily reflect his feelings? Many of Fr. Panteleimon’s spiritual children had an absolute hatred for Bishop Petros even when he was still in quite good standing with our Synod. Perhaps we are hopelessly naive (and certainly we are 'out of things' and don’t even hear most rumors)—but we know that Bishop Petros has a document from our Synod testifying to his valid consecration as bishop, and that he is out of communion with his own Synod solely (or at least chiefly) because he refused to state that the New Calendar Church no longer has grace—a statement which our own bishops refused to sign. [263] Why this disdainful attitude toward Bishop Petros? By the way, our Archbishop John told us, when Fr. Panteleimon was about to join our church ten years ago, that he should probably be placed under the jurisdiction of Bishop Petros. As a special favor, he was not, but was allowed to form, in effect, a second jurisdiction of Old Calendar Greeks in America—obviously an occasion for scandal in future, which has since begun to occur. We strongly suspect 'rivalry' plays at least some part in this whole situation, and until we are given very good cause we cannot but apply to Bishop Petros the same standard we must apply to Fr. Panteleimon and everyone else: we will not believe rumors about him. Of course, we must obey any directives of the Synod concerning him, but the directive itself is a conditional one: until his situation is rectified with his own Synod. Even if Bishop Petros is some kind of 'monster' or 'magician'—and several bishops of our Synod tell us he is not, in their opinion—our attitude toward him in any case should be objective, not based on feelings or on making him a special case for disfavoritism." [264]

"We ourselves cannot pass judgment on the question of Bishop Petros, because we have never received any actual evidence for or against him. You seem to think that our bishops have been against Bp. Petros for many years; but all the bishops whose opinion we know have been, on the contrary, very favorable towards him. The campaign against him in our Church is Fr. Panteleimon’s work, and it is solely Fr. Panteleimon’s idea that our Russian Church Abroad is the 'only canonical American jurisdiction' and that the Greeks therefore have no right to their own jurisdiction here. [265] Our bishops are so much occupied with the cares of their own exiled flocks that they do not have the leisure to indulge in useless disputes over 'canonical rights,' and being very practical-minded, they are quite willing to live on friendly terms with a Greek jurisdiction of Old Calendarists in America. When Fr. Panteleimon was preparing to join our Synod in 1965, Archbishop John told me that the logical place for him was under Bishop Petros, whom Archbp. John greatly respected. When Fr. Panteleimon persuaded our bishops to accept him under the Synod, an act which could not help but cause troubles in future, as long as Fr. Panteleimon regarded himself as a rival with Bishop Petros for influence with the Greeks in America—which sadly, is just what he did, instead of remaining quietly in his monastery, as our bishops undoubtedly expected him to do. But despite Fr. Panteleimon, Bp. Petros has been in communion with our Synod, and I think it is only a few bishops like Archbishop Vitaly who have taken sides with Fr. Panteleimon against Bp. Petros. With this background, I hope that you will be able to understand the position of Archbishop Averky. Archbp. Averky has allowed Bp. Petros to serve at Jordanville for many years, and he has not been informed (to our knowledge) of any accusations against Bp. Petros except that he refuses to deny the validity of New-Calendar Sacraments (which our bishops also refuse to deny). If any serious report of 'ecumenical' activity on Bp. Petros’ part had been reported to Archbishop Averky, he would certainly have taken it most seriously and investigated it. All Archbishop Averky can see is the private rivalry of Fr. Panteleimon with Bishop Petros and he quite rightly refuses to take sides in this political battle. Archbishop Averky, therefore, finds the insistence of the 'brazen young Archimandrite' Panteleimon that he not let Bp. Petros serve at Jordanville to be an intolerable impudence—as if Russian bishops must be forced to 'take sides' in a 'Greek quarrel,' which until now has seemed to be of a purely personal nature. Further, whether rightly or wrongly, our bishops do not feel the decisions of the Synod of Auxentios to be binding upon them; why, indeed, should Archbishop Averky not allow Bishop Petros to serve, when several of our bishops have allowed Bishop Callistos to serve [266]—who is also not in communion with the Synod of Auxentios? Very likely our Synods dealings with the Mathewites at the 1971 Sobor were a mistake—but now the situation has become more complicated and it is difficult to see how a normal relation of our Church to yours can be restored. Perhaps all we can hope for is that at least communion will not be broken, despite many 'irregularities' on both sides." [267]

"You think it is a terrible scandal and inconsistency that he is allowed to serve with us, and in your ignorance, you blame this all on Vladika Laurus. Have you even tried to understand what others think of this? Fr. Panteleimon says he presented his 'evidence" on Bishop Petros to our bishops; well, our bishops were not convinced by this 'evidence'... You blame Bp. Laurus for letting Bp. Petros serve—but we know that many of our bishops are weary of this 'Greek fighting' and want no part in 'taking sides' in it, and we know for certain that it was Metropolitan Philaret himself who made the final decision to allow Bishop Petros to serve at the funeral of Archbishop Averky. We ourselves are not 'taking sides' in this matter—but since no one else seems to do so, we must tell you that your over-zealousness on such points is giving you many enemies in our Church and among Old Calendarists in Greece. If your objections against Bishop Petros are indeed sound, then we and many others would be much more inclined to believe you if you acted with more sense and moderation. Your very violence and 'demonstrations' on this subject make it indeed look like a battle over 'who is to rule the Greeks in America'; our bishops don’t want any part of such a battle, and if they sometimes 'back down' before your demands, it is solely because they treat you as spoiled children who might get violent if you don’t get your way. [268]

"For about two years (1971 to 1973) we were enthusiastically defending Fr. P[anteleimon] and Fr. N[eketas Palassis] against all these accusations, denying some of them and covering others with love and understanding. (We were so sympathetic to Fr. P. that even the most extreme thing we knew that he had done—to call Bishop Peter of Astoria a 'simoniac' and 'sorcerer'—we justified as the weakness of someone who was zealous but who sometimes did make mistakes of judgment.) But then, in 1973, several of the actions of Fr. P. and Fr. N. began to upset us... We believe that Fr. P. is very mistaken in his desire to know everything that goes on in our Church as well as outside it, more even than our bishops know; this desire is prompted by his involvement in church politics and is a very unhealthy thing, both for himself and for those many people whom he inspires to be interested in church matters which are none of their business... [He spreads rumors and] 'innocently' repeats such tales, and by his authority actually causes many people to believe them. This he has done time after time; especially among the Greek Old Calendarists his words have had a poisonous effect; many to this day believe that Bishop Peter of Astoria is a 'simoniac' or a 'sorcerer,' that Archimandrite Chrysostomos [Gonzalez-Alexopoulos] of Ohio is 'not a Greek' (as though that were a crime even if it were true), is 'a former Roman Catholic,' 'has forged his doctors degree,' etc. [269]

In the same period as the consecration of Bishop Petros (perhaps even on the same day [Nov. 29, 1962 O.S.], as appears on the related ordination certificate) [270] there also took place the ordination as presbyter of Fr. Akakios Ntouskos, [271] who later became Greek Old Calendarist Bishop of Montreal (Canada).

Archbishop Vitaly of Canada reacted to the ordination not only because he was an enemy of Archbishop Leonty, but also because he was of one mind with Fr. Panteleimon in the theory of the exclusivity of the ROCOR jurisdiction in the U.S.A., and thus could not tolerate an independent Greek jurisdiction of Genuine Orthodox Christians, of which Archbishop Leonty, by the grace of God, was the founder.

Regarding this, a decade later, in a Greek newspaper of Montreal, Archbishop Vitaly stated: "Leonty was a good hierarch, learned and dynamic. However, he fell into a grave offense. Knowingly he violated one of the canons of the Orthodox Church, which forbids any bishop to ordain deacons, priests, or bishops in another episcopal district other than his own. In the case of Mr. Ntouskos, this is exactly what happened. Thus, I do not recognize him, not only as a Bishop, but not even as a priest… Leonty, due to his deposition from today’s Soviet Church, was particularly sensitive to matters concerning the treatment of Christians. He believed that he was offering a service to the ‘persecuted’ Old Calendarists by ordaining Akakios. Nonetheless, apart from the aforementioned violation of the holy canon of Orthodoxy, this act of his also constitutes a transgression, given that there is a synodal decision about avoiding interference in the internal affairs of another Church. In this case, the matter of the Old Calendarists is an internal matter of the Greek Orthodox Church." [273]

However, what Archbishop Vitaly writes here, which is unacceptable, is in complete contradiction with what he wrote just two months earlier in a letter to Archbishop Andreas of the Matthewites, in which he justified the intervention of the ROCOR in the Church of Greece with the cheirothesia of the Matthewites in 1971. Since, therefore, nothing is hidden under the sun, behold the disputed passage, which proves the hypocrisy of Archbishop Vitaly: “But perhaps our involvement in the affairs of Greece does not constitute the greatest proof of the purity of our confession? You yourselves are our witnesses that we intervened in the territory of the Church of Greece—being invited to do so by the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece—doing this not emotionally or for any other reason, since we had not even known you beforehand, but subjecting ourselves to our hierarchical conscience with regard to the benefit and stability of the Genuine and of the entire Orthodox Catholic Church everywhere.” [274]

Revealing also are the things written by Akakios of Montreal in his letter to the Synod of the G.O.C. on April 6, 1972 (N.S.): “When I was informed by the Bishop of Astoria and learned of my appointment to be ordained by the philhellene Savior of our Church, His Eminence Leonty, I agreed to be ordained, but in a telephone conversation with the holy Bishop of Astoria I stressed that I am a Greek Orthodox and that I should be ordained by the Greek Church of America and Canada, and the reply of the holy Bishop of Astoria was: ‘Are you joking? Can we, in whose veins runs Greek blood, become Russians?’—and this is the reason that there is great hatred between Panteleimon and Petros… ‘The Greeks with the Greeks and the Russians with the Russians,’ said the Great Savior and supporter of our Church, His Eminence Archbishop of Chile and Peru, Leonty. ‘Leave Vitaly’s fantasies—he is always looking to make maneuvers’ (letters of March 7, 1963, and February 18, 1966). I have many other letters and proofs to bring, but I believe you have understood, also from the recent actions of the uncanonical consecrations of the antichrist Matthewites, as Leonty called them, that the aforementioned Panteleimon… seeks our heads on a platter and the disappearance of our faction.”

Archbishop Leonty, therefore, was, by the grace of God, a benefactor and life-giver of the Greek-speaking Church of the Genuine Orthodox, not only in Greece, but also in America.

The Synod of the Genuine Orthodox of Greece eventually tolerated (and later accepted) the consecration of Bishop Petros, while writing to Archbishop Leonty requesting from him the sending of the consecration certificates of the hierarchs he had ordained. [275]

FOOTNOTES

246. In his book Holy Memories (Athens, 1990, pp. 30–33), Bishop Petros mentions that he had also been accused of being supposedly a “Makrakist” because he had relations with Hieromonk Gerasimos of Agios Vasileios, one of the greatest Athonite Fathers of the past century, who, following in the footsteps of the Holy Kollyvades, was a supporter of frequent Communion.

247. In a reply letter (at the end of November 1962) to Fr. Petros (who expressed his sorrow for the war against him), Bishop Akakios of Diavleia wrote enlighteningly regarding the Synod’s negative reply that “we the Hierarchs, against our will, were forced to give such an answer” (Archive of Metropolitan Akakios Pappas of Diavleia).

248. Recently canonized by the Ecumenists. 

249. Concerning the reliability of the “information” and visions of Elder Joseph, two observations must be made. First, Elder Joseph followed a schism (the Matthewite) and, through a vision, returned to the True Church (under Saint Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina), while through a new vision he left Her and followed the pan-heresy of Athenagoras! Second, the world-renowned Elder Paisios very rightly taught that out of 200 visions that one may see, 199 are from the devil. Therefore, the Genuine Orthodox should not give credence to “visions” and “information,” but should accept with humility what the Holy Scripture tells us and what the Orthodox Synods and the Holy Fathers proclaim and accept in agreement.

250. Letter of March 29, 1959 in Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Letters and Poems, Holy Monastery of Vatopedi, 2019, p. 394. [Letter No. 122, p. 418 in the English 2023 edition.]

251. See Ch. 18.

252. Those belonging to the so-called “Suzdal Schism” (a schism supported by Grabbe toward the end of his life) attribute to this Gerasimos the surname “Stemidis” (see in their periodical Church News, no. 142/July 2015), a fact which reveals the unreliability of the slanderers.

253. Is the donation of oil (for the lamps of the poor region of Chile) “simony” or almsgiving?

254. Letter of Bishop Gregory (the name which Fr. George Grabbe received at his monastic tonsure) to the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR (February 8/21, 1995).

255 For Saint Philaret, see the work of the Right Reverend Bishop Klemes of Gardikion here: 

ecclesiagoc.gr/images/stories/pdfs/AgFilaretosNY.pdf

256 Letter of March 5/28, 1979, of Saint Philaret to Bishop Petros (Archive of ROCOR).

257 Letter of September 3/16, 1994 of Bishop Hilarion (now First Hierarch of the official ROCOR) to Bishop Petros (Archive of ROCOR).

258 “Open Letter” of July 16, 1985 (Archive of Bishop Petros of Astoria).

259 Vyacheslav Marchenko (ed.), Letters of Fr. Seraphim Rose: 1961-1982, U.S.A., 2016.

260. Hieromonk Seraphim, in the world Eugene Rose, was born in 1934 in California (U.S.A.). He converted to Orthodoxy and was a spiritual child of Saint John Maximovich. He became a monk and hieromonk, and through his writings emerged as one of the greatest teachers of English-speaking Orthodoxy. He reposed on August 20, 1982 (N.S.).

261 His intervention (with the cooperation of Fr. Kalliopios!) was the reason for the acceptance through cheirothesia of the Matthewites in 1971, which was done without their repentance, and for this reason they returned shortly afterwards to the Schism.

262 Letter of August 13/26, 1975 to Bishop Laurus.

263. This refers to the famous “Encyclical of 1974,” which was rejected, apart from Bishop Petros, by very many clergy, monks, and laity in Greece, refusing to usurp the rights of a Great (Pan-Orthodox or Ecumenical) Council.

264. Letter of December 1/14, 1975 to Fr. Hilarion (now First Hierarch of the official ROCOR). Our translation.

265. Although the issue of jurisdictions in the diaspora is multifaceted (the official Churches have included it in the agenda of a future Great Council), according to the practice of true Orthodoxy, each national group in the diaspora has the right to constitute a separate jurisdiction, without breaking communion with other jurisdictions of true Orthodoxy, regardless of nationality.

266. Kallistos Makris of Corinth was “consecrated” in 1948 only by Matthew of Bresthena, to whose schism he belonged. He was received through cheirothesia (according to others, reconsecrated) in 1971 by Bishops of the ROCOR, and in 1977 he joined the Church of the G.O.C. under Archbishop Auxentios.

267. Letter on January 21, 1976 (N.S.), to Doctor Alexander Kalomiros.

268. Letter of July 16/29, 1976, to Fr. Neketas Palassis.

269. Letter of November 1/14, 1979, to Fr. Roman Lukianov.

270. According to indications and testimonies, it had taken place a few days earlier.

271. He had become a monk and had been secretly ordained deacon by Archbishop Leonty during that period.

272. Fr. Akakios Ntouskos, in his aforementioned letter to Akakios of Talantion (December 11, 1962), writes: “Our false friend Vitaly, who unfortunately was seeking the deposition of Archbishop Leonty… I begged him to help us in the Synod regarding the matter of our hierarchs, but he became furious with anger; I left and reported his stance to Despota Leonty, and he made it clear to me to be very cautious with this man and to avoid him from then on.”

273. Newspaper Anagennesis, no. 65/28-9-1972.

274. Herald of the Orthodox Church (no. 11-12, Aug.-Sept. 1972, p. 25).

275. Letter of December 20, 1962 (not found, but we know its summary from the Protocol Book of the Synod).