A Contentious Discussion on the Consecration

of Greek Old Calendar Bishops by Archbishop Leonty

during the 1962 meeting of the ROCOR Council of Bishops
A draft translation from the Minutes of Protocol #24, November 13/26, 1962.

4. Archbishop Leonty [of Santiago] makes a report on the Old Calendarists in Greece.
Archbishop Leonty goes on to say that, as far as he knows, the Synod has not received any
official inquiries about this case. In Russia, under conditions of persecution, such ordinations
were sometimes made on the basis of the 35th Apostolic Canon. In May, he received a practical
request from Greece to come there with the risk of persecution by the civil authorities. He was
taken to a convent and asked immediately to perform the consecrations, which he refused, thus
provoking the approval of Bishop Akakios [of Talantion]. Archbishop Leonty subsequently
performed the consecration of bishops with him. He remained in Greece for two weeks,
visiting the Old Calendarists and worshiping at shrines in various places.
Protopresbyter G[eorge] Grabbe reports on the former correspondence, on the case of the
consecration of old calendar bishops.
Archbishop Leonty additionally says that no one in Greece spoke about the consecration of
Bishop Akakios, allegedly by Archbishops Seraphim [of Chicago] and Vitaly [of Montreal].
He believes that there should be no judgment on what he accomplished in Greece. The Old
Calendarists exist legally and have nothing to do with the official Greek Church.
Archbishop Seraphim explains that Bishop Akakios applied to the Synod for consecration,
but was refused. Therefore, members of the Synod could not perform ordinations. However,
someone did perform this ordination, and Archbishop Seraphim responded to Bishop Akakios’
letter to him as a bishop. This letter is shown as a certificate of legitimate consecration.
Archbishop Vitaly is struck by the reference to him as a performer of a sacrament, to which
he had nothing to do.
Archbishop Alexander [of Berlin] points to the similarity of Archbishop Rothmund, as he
calls himself in Germany, who operates with a response to a congratulations from the Patriarch
of Antioch.
Archbishop Leonty says that the question is whether we are with the New Calendarists or
with the Old Calendarists. If we sympathize with the latter, we should rejoice in the
strengthening of their position.
Bishop Savva [of Edmonton] remarks that when Protopresbyter G. Grabbe was reading the
documents, he thought that the protest was coming from the official Greek Church. Since this
group is not recognized by anyone, we can ignore its protest.

1
[Arch]Bishop Nikon [of Washington, D.C.] reports that on the day of his consecration, he
was approached by Greeks to help them leave the Soviet jurisdiction. He is aware of the secret
ordinations in the Catacomb Church, and his heart trembles with joy at the news of the Greek
Old Calendarists being consecrated. The only thing that caused confusion was the uncertainty
as to who had performed the consecration of Bishop Anthony.
Bishop Anthony [of Geneva] sees two sides to the matter. At the last Council, consecrations
for Greeks were rejected, and if someone performed them in secret, it is not a fraternal act. If
at a future Pan-Orthodox Council the question of interference with the Greek Church is raised,
we will have no excuse and may be excommunicated. Everything that Archbishop Anthony
[of Los Angeles] and Bishop Nektary [of Mahopac] say is a manifestation of their personal
feelings. If he, Bishop Antony, were to be asked about this matter by the Greeks, he could not
give them an answer. On the other hand, the Old Calendarists, too, would be shocked to learn
that Archbishop Leonty belongs to a Church in which there are New Calendarists and even
those who celebrate according to the new Paschalion. If we condemn his act, it will fall on our
heads. The question should be referred to the Synod if the Council does not have time to resolve
it.
Archbishop Seraphim objects to the idea that the act of Archbishop Leonty was allegedly an
interference in the affairs of another Church. The organization of Old Calendarists has existed
entirely independently since 1924. The act of Archbishop Leonty at their request is similar to
the help that Metropolitan Anastasy gave to Patriarch Damian when the latter found himself
without bishops. The Old Calendar Church does not belong to the [official] Greek Church and
has over a million members. This is not interfering in someone else's Church, and no one can
judge us for it. Moreover, as long as the Moscow Patriarchate exists, we will not be able to
participate in any Pan-Orthodox Councils anyway. We need to gather like-minded Orthodox
around the world. Archbishop Leonty can only be officially rebuked for violating a formal law.
Archbishop Athanasius [of Buenos Aires] is horrified by what has happened. What
Archbishop Seraphim says is totally unacceptable. It is not clear to us who Akakios is and on
what basis Archbishop Leonty considers him to be a bishop and not an archimandrite. From
the canonical point of view, all of this is a gamble, as we have called the consecration of [Basil]
Tomaschik. The new Greek Church has now been given a non-canonical start. The matter must
be removed from the agenda, placing all responsibility on Archbishop Leonty.
Archbishop Nikon also points out the other side of the issue. The most important thing for us
is our Church Abroad. If this question had not been discussed with us, the act of Archbishop
Leonty might not have been considered a crime. But the question was discussed by us and it
was decided not to interfere in the affairs of the Greeks. And Archbishop Leonty acted contrary
to our Council decision. Such a precedent is very dangerous. If we act contrary to the Council,
the consequences will be sad.

2
Archbishop Leonty says that in the Church Abroad there have been a number of canonical
violations. One should fear God more than men. He answers to God for his deed and does not
repent.
Archbishop Vitaly supports Archbishop Nikon and says that it is impossible to act contrary
to the decisions of the Council.
The meeting adjourns at 9:30 p.m.

A draft translation of the Minutes of Protocol #28, November 17/30, 1962.

3. The chairman [Metropolitan Anastasy of New York] proposes to continue the debate on
the Old Calendarists' case.
Archbishop Nikon believes that what has been done cannot be changed, but that we must
protect the Church Abroad from the complications of this case.
Archbishop Athanasius finds the act of Archbishop Leonty totally uncanonical. There is no
way the Council can justify this act. Therefore, it is better not to make any determination and
leave all responsibility to those who committed the act. After all, if Akakios is really a bishop,
we must know why. If he was ordained illegally, then Archbishop Leonty participated in the
consecrations with the archimandrite. It can be seen that the Old Calendarists themselves are
not unanimous on this matter either.
The chairman recalls that Bishop Anthony of Geneva spoke quite negatively about the act of
Archbishop Leonty, finding no justification for it.
Archbishop Leonty objects, believing that the whole question is, who are we with? With those
who are against us, or with the Old Calendarists? He is willing to accept all responsibility if
the Council does not want to bear it. The Old Calendarists were in a difficult situation, and we
helped them just as Metropolitan Anastasy helped the Patriarch of Jerusalem in his time, or as
Patriarch Theophanes of Alexandria helped the Russian Church. Archbishop Leonty did it after
their example, risking his life. The complaining, insignificant bunch of Old Calendarists are
not trustworthy. The state of emergency called for their help.
Archbishop [St] John [of Brussels] says that the Old Calendarists have been knocking on our
door for six years. The Council of Bishops could not take a decision, recognizing this as an
internal matter of the Greeks. We must accept Archbishop Leonty's explanations as
satisfactory and end the debate there.
Archbishop Averky [of Syracuse], standing on the ground of canons, would not himself have
dared to perform the consecrations of the Greek Old Calendarists. But at the same time, in his
heart he cannot admire the courage with which Archbishop Leonty committed the act for which

3
his conscience called. One cannot help but be against the formal violation of the canons. But
in the life of other Churches, we see a continuous violation of the canons. In view of this
abnormal general situation, Archbishop Leonty should be treated with leniency. This is further
recommended by the fact that there have been a number of illegal acts on the part of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople with respect to the Russian Church, such as: the rejection of
Poland and the Baltic States, the creation of the Exarchate of Paris, the rejection of Bishops
Orestes and Bogdan in America. Now that everything is irrational, there must be a special
approach. The canons cannot now be approached legalistically. The canons are for the man,
not the man for the canons. The Sabbath is for the man, not the man for the Sabbath. One must
think of the salvation of souls, not of the observance of the form alone. The form can be
Orthodox in appearance and false in substance. In this light, we must evaluate the act of
Archbishop Leonty. He performed a courageous act of assistance to a fraternal Church, which
is now the closest to us in spirit. The Greek Church is now oppressed and persecuted. It was a
great mistake that at one time we were too lenient with the introduction of the new calendar,
for it was intended to bring a schism into the Orthodox Church. It was the work of the enemies
of the Church of Christ. The fruits are already visible. Even in America, there are Greek clergy
who torment their conscience for the adoption of the new calendar. Associated with the
observance of the old calendar is the preservation of all kinds of devotions in various areas.
Along with the removal of the old calendar is the removal of asceticism from the temple. The
Old Calendarists are the ones closest to us in spirit. The only "but" in Archbishop Leonty’s
action is that he acted, as it were, unbrotherly, in defiance of the decision of the Council, though
well-meaning.
Archbishop Seraphim agrees with Archbishop Averky. He speaks of the negative
information concerning Patriarch Athenagoras [I of Constantinople]. It is important that the
Greek Old Calendarists are a completely independent organization, which is recognized by the
state, but has no hierarchy. It is clear that neither the Council nor the Synod had the right to
openly interfere in the conduct of the consecrations. The Council refused to do so, heartily.
The Council could have issued a formal censure for the "outsiders.”
Bishop Nektary fears that issuing a censure might harm the Old Calendar Church and support
a Church led by the dubious Patriarch of whom Archbishop Seraphim speaks.
Archbishop Vitaly wonders about Archbishop Averky's attitude toward the canons. Fidelity
to canonical principle cannot be compared to the Sabbath. Christ spoke of the Sabbath as
applied to the individual, but not to the Church. We do not know the fate of the Greek Church.
It may be that God is destined to destroy it. The canons are set above and beyond our reasoning.
I wish we would hold more firmly to the canons in the future. We are inwardly divided and
would not want to be harsh on our fellow man who acted out of zeal and a desire to do a good
deed.

4
Archbishop Averky argues that the canons, like everything in the Church, are directed toward
eternal salvation. They have a moral value, not a formal one. We must observe their moral
side.
Archbishop Leonty points out that the 35th Apostolic Canon speaks of deviations from the
general rule that sometimes have to be made. This is what Metropolitan Anastasy did in
Jerusalem in defense of the Patriarch. In Russia, one had to be present at secret ordinations.
The Catacomb Church never adhered to the letter. Secret consecrations were made there. And
the bishops ordained there concealed their rank. It is inaccurate to pry into various details.
Archbishop Vitaly observes that Archbishop Leonty is losing his temper and speaks in an
impossibly harsh tone. Everything he says was applicable in his Church of Russia, but now we
are talking about another Church, and it is important to us that there be no such acts of self-
righteousness in the future. Archbishop Leonty committed another act of defiance when he
went to Jerusalem in defiance of the prohibition of the Synod.
Archbishop Averky responds that people's salvation is based on a spiritual and moral
approach. We cannot be based on formalities. This is a time when we may soon find ourselves
in a position where by observing the canons formally, we may find ourselves with the enemies
of the Church. We emphasize that we do not recognize Patriarch Alexey [I of Moscow], while
at the same time all the Patriarchs recognize him. We talk about communion with these
Patriarchs and thus paradoxically find ourselves in communion with Moscow. The result is a
vicious circle. In view of this irrational situation, it is especially important for us to stand on a
firm canonical basis, keeping the way and not the letter, which can lead to the worship of Satan.
Archbishop Athanasius still believes that Archbishop Leonty has taken the non-canonical
path. He is surprised by Archbishop Averky, who speaks only of the moral side of the canons.
Arbitrary interpretation is unacceptable in Orthodox theology. The canons are sacred and we
are sworn to uphold them. We have no right to interfere in the affairs of other churches. The
justification for such interference is casuistic. Archbishop Athanasius does not agree with
either Archbishops Seraphim and Averky or Bishop Nektary.
Archbishop Anthony [of Los Angeles] stresses the need to obey the Council's definitions
even when we do not agree with them. It would be wrong to act on tactical considerations only
for the sake of preserving good relations with the Greeks. We must act precisely according to
our conscience and the very content of the case. The resolution must show our sympathy with
the defenders of the old calendar. In harmony with the Holy Canons, we worship with the old
calendar, which is observed by the best Orthodox Christians throughout the world. We do not
approve of the new calendar. As for Archbishop Leonty, we express our disapproval of his
unauthorized consecrations, but say nothing about the consequences, mentioning only that
Archbishop Leonty has asked for forgiveness.

5
Archbishop Leonty states that he does not ask forgiveness at all. He only regrets that he did
not ask the Metropolitan, but he could not have done so. And the formal side is a tactic of the
Masons who want to bind us with it.
Archbishop Nikon reminds us that the Council is a governing body. Therefore, we must
reckon with the former rulings, and we cannot take the view that any Archbishop can do
whatever he wants outside his diocese. He agrees with Archbishop Anthony and thinks it is
possible to combine their draft resolutions.
Bishop Savva finds that Archbishop Nikon's proposed resolution is good. We sympathize with
the Old Calendarists, but at the same time we must protect the observance of discipline.
The chairman explains that the analogy between the consecrations he performed with
Patriarch Damian and the act of Archbishop Leonty is far from identical. Patriarch Damian
was overthrown illegally, and all the Churches recognized that there was a rebellion against
him on the part of his subordinate bishops, who had violated the canonical order. Metropolitan
Anastasy was then approached for help by the universally recognized Patriarch. No Church
can interfere in the affairs of another Church. Moreover, the Church of the Old Calendarists
had arisen illegally from an unknown source. To treat it as a canonical Church is in no way
acceptable. It is the abuse of the Apostolic Canon to which Archbishop Leonty refers.
Otherwise everyone will be looking for an excuse to violate the canons. From this point of
view, the deed of Archbishop Leonty cannot be justified. But one must take into account all
the circumstances of the case which entitle him to receive leniency. Therefore, Archbishop
Nikon's formula is quite appropriate.
Archbishop Leonty says that the Old Calendarists are a Church under a yoke, like the
Catacomb Church in Russia. Orthodox Greeks should not be allowed to think that we are in
cahoots with the Athenian official Church and not with the true Orthodox. They should either
write nothing or send a letter of approval.
Bishop Nektary says that the Greek Old Calendar Church has no communion with the New
Calendar Church. The Old Calendar Church is autocephalous. She was widowed and asked us
to give her bishops and we went along with her, and the secrecy was conditioned by the fact
that she is persecuted.
Archbishop John recalls that in the last century, there was disorder in the Antiochian Church.
Then the Church of Constantinople intervened. The Church of Cyprus was helped by the
Church of Greece.
Archbishop Seraphim disagrees with the President. The Old Calendar Church is separate and
recognized by the government. It is not hidden, for it has temples and monasteries. It is not a
small group, but has more than a million believers. Why can we recognize the Sinai and
Cypriot Churches as autocephalous, but not the Old Calendar Church, which has more than
one million members, as a separate Church?

6
The chairman objects that there is nothing in common here. The Sinai and Cypriot Churches
were founded legally and recognized by all long ago.
Bishop Nektary points out the difference in that the Old Calendarists remained unchanged as
they were, while the New Calendarists introduced an innovation into the Church.
Archbishop Nikon, at the suggestion of the President, again reads the draft resolution, which
is adopted as follows:
The Russian Church Abroad has never interfered in the affairs of the other autocephalous
Churches throughout her existence, and for this reason, in spite of her fraternal sympathy with
the Greek Old Calendarists, has continually rejected numerous appeals to her by the Greek Old
Calendarists for the consecration of bishops for them. The Council of Bishops greatly regrets
the fact that His Grace Leonty, Archbishop of Chile, Santiago, and Peru, in the month of May
1962, contrary to the above, on his own initiative, without the knowledge and permission of
the Synod of Bishops and the First Hierarch, Metropolitan Anastasy, participated in the
consecration of Greek Old Calendarists. The Council of Bishops henceforth enjoins the Most
Reverend Hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad to refrain from interfering in the affairs of
both the Greek and other Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. As for the participation of some
other hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in the secret consecration of Greek
Old Calendarist hierarchs, as indicated in the correspondence on this issue, neither the Synod
of Bishops nor the First Hierarch gave any permission to any bishops for such participation,
and they are unaware of such consecrations.

Original Russian source: http://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Sobor%201962%20Prot.htm