As authors and publishers of The Struggle Against Ecumenism, we ought not respond to any review, good or bad, of our book; it is forthe reader to determine whether a review has hit the mark in its judgment.A recent review of The Struggle by Bishop Auxentios of Photiki,however, which appeared in Orthodox Tradition (Volume XV, #4 1998),requires a response, since it deals more with the motives, morals, andmethods of the publishers rather than being a measured and scholarly responseto the historical and canonical subjects and documentation presented. Wefelt that these questions should be answered in order to demonstrate oursincerity, but also to dispel some mistaken information expressed by BishopAuxentios which he presents as being commonly believed. As for The Struggle,we will leave it to each reader to determine whether it is full of "viciousslander," "rumor," "unscholarly chicanery," "ugly innuendo," "unsophisticatedtrash," "name-calling," "racial slurs," "unfair and misleading questions,"and "open fabrications," in the words of Bishop Auxentios.

In The Struggle, we published in English for the first time many documents pertaining to the Old Calendarists, e.g., theEncyclicals of 1935. Twice, Bishop Auxentios refutes this statement, sayingthat they have published the same documents "here at the Center for TraditionalistOrthodox Studies and at our Mother Monastery in Fili, Greece". We certainlywould have been grateful to have been relieved of the labor of translation.Yet we have not seen these published documents, referred to by Bishop Auxentios,not in English certainly. They do not appear in the third edition (1991)of The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece, published by theCenter at St. Gregory Palamas Monastery in Etna, California. It would seemnatural that such documents should appear in a history of the movement,if they were available, since they are important landmarks. Rather thanasking the reader to make "a leap of faith" -- as does Bishop Auxentios'co-author, Bishop Chrysostomos, on page two of the Introduction -- presentingthe pertinent documents would have been more serious scholarship.

In their published history, in the third edition at least, they do not discuss the Encyclical of 1935 and its points of agreementor disagreement with Archbishop Chrysostomos' private letter of 1937, andthe Encyclical of 1950. Their contention that the Encyclical of 1950 wassigned by Archbishop Chrysostomos under duress is nowhere supported byany evidence. The "simple psychological analysis of language and events[which] renders such a conclusion inevitable" [pg. 42, III ed.] is neverdemonstrated.

All in all, documentation has apparently not been a priority with Bishop Chrysostomos. In his letter to Christopher Liles on the Internet (Orthodox@IUBVM.UCS.Indiana.edu) on April 9, 1997, he states, "Since Ihave little penchant for lying or making up references, I will leave mystatements from Metropolitan Chrysostomos' personal correspondence andmemoirs, as well as the reminicenses of my grandfather, who knew well theOld Calendar movement, in place. I see no reason to respond carefully tothe suggestion that my interpretations, since they are based on materialsnot available to Mr. X, will have to suffice for the moment." Oral historyis certainly valid, but unless confirmed by creditable witnesses or supportedby evidence, it can only be anecdotal. A true service would be done toserious and genuine historical research if Bishop Chrysostomos would reversehis position and permit this material, as well as the other material mentionedabove by Bishop Auxentios, to be taken from their monastery files and bepublished.

The documentation presented or referred to in The Struggle is full of references to the secrecy of the ordinations performed by Metropolitans Kallistos and Anthony in 1979. Their first proclamation in Guardiansof Orthodoxy, (Vol. 1, 1979, pp. 1-2 [in Greek]) attempts to justifythe secrecy and uncanonicity of the ordinations because only as bishopswould they be able to cleanse the church of turpitude. The clandestinesecrecy of the ordinations was never in doubt, but some claimed the tacitapproval of Archbishop Auxentios for these ordinations (The Old CalendarOrthodox Church of Greece, pp. 20, 44). The immediate response of depositionby Archbishop Auxentios confirmed his explicit denial that he had had anyknowledge of the ordinations. However, the witness to Archbishop Auxentius'lack of complicity by Metropolitan Kallinikos (The Struggle, p.103, n. 6) is important evidence since he was one of those who was secretlyordained. We do not carry a brief on Metropolitan Kallinikos, but it iscertainly excessive to call him a "renegade," as if his were the only testimonyto the secrecy of the ordinations and the ignorance of the Archbishop.It is first-hand, personal historical evidence, which gains reliabilitybecause Metropolitan Kallinikos is not shown to his advantage and it agreeswith all the public evidence. Furthermore, the other bishops who were receivedback into the Synod of Archbishop Auxentius had to admit their guilt andoffer repentance as the condition of their acceptance.

For some reason, the fact that various hierarchs werenamed with their family names put after in parentheses was perceived byBishop Auxentios as belittling on our part. In works of history, especially,this is common practice to insure accuracy, or in any writing to avoidconfusion. In his review when he referred to "Bishop Gregory (Grabbe),"Bishop Auxentios himself did the same. That this practice is not derogatory,the patron saint of his monastery should be uncontrovertible evidence.St. Gregory is almost always referred to with his surname: Palamas.

This matter of surnames has produced some unexpected ire which could easily be avoided. Most people have one surname, used socially and for legal purposes. Some aristocratic families conjoin two lines, with a dash or the word "and" to form a surname. The Windsors, until the First World War, when it was changed, rejoiced in the surname of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. In any case, Bishop Chrysostomos as a layman signed the surname Gonzalezin his correspondence; and his frequently mentioned academic credentialswere obtained and are filed under that name. If in the meantime he haslegally changed his surname, a simple announcement by him would obviateany confusion and distress.

Returning to Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) and his memorandum to the Synod on the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Cyprian, Bishop Auxentios calls it "an attack against Metropolitan Cyprian," implying a personalanimosity on the part of Bishop Gregory. Bishop Gregory, however, had nopersonal differences or grievances with Metropolitan Cyprian. Furthermore,to state that Bishop Gregory wrote the memorandum since he was personallyaffronted and disgruntled because he had been retired is unwarranted. Ifit were so, there are many other issues which would have satisfied anypersonal vindictiveness on his part. Bishop Gregory in many letters, especiallyin his lengthy and eloquent letter of March 24/April 6, 1994 to MetropolitanVitaly, expressed himself as not being offended or grieved by his retirement;his only fear was the future of the ROCA and proper maintenance of Synodheadquarters. In a letter to S.Y. Krasovitsky of October 31, 1987, he succinctlywrites: "But it's all the same to me; no doubt I would have been obligedto retire soon anyway because of age and ill health. After 85, one's capacityfor work is not what it used to be. In any case, nothing happens withoutthe will of God, either directing it, or permitting it. . ." Bishop Gregory'smemorandum was not a personal attack on Metropolitan Cyprian nor motivatedby animosity and thwarted ambition. The issues raised in it are theologicaland canonical, for his concern was ecclesiological principles and canonicalorder in the church body he had served so long as secretary, theologian,and canonist. To impute unworthy motives with no supporting evidence butfounded only upon conjecture in order to refute the issues raised withoutanswering them is inappropriate for a serious review and resembles "artlessmisrepresentation of facts and motivations" and that "unscholarly chicanery"with which Bishop Auxentios charges us.

Bishop Auxentios castigates us sufficiently for the fault of "anecdotal history," but his second question-challenge is plainly anexample of such and of hearsay.

Bishop Auxentios accuses us furthermore of not mentioning very recent events and conditions in Greece. The sub-title of The Struggle gives him the answer quite simply: The History of the True OrthodoxChurch of Greece from 1924 to 1994. We did not attempt or claim towrite any history outside that time. We chose Archbishop Auxentios' reposeas a natural watershed of history. A subsequent book, God willing, willchronicle later events, which are yet unstable and in constant flux, withfactions forming and dissolving in a matter of weeks. However, in answerto Bishop Auxentios' question:

We hardly can be held responsible for not recording events outside the stated limits of our history. Certainly, we also do not haveto answer accusations which ignore what was printed in The Struggle.One might not agree with the solutions offered or with the events as presented, but vague accusations do not constitute a rebuttal. Disagreement does not permit ignoring what has been printed without mention or reference to them, and then opening the discussion de novo.

More careful reading would also not have permitted Bishop Auxentios' first question:

Bishop Auxentios refers to an investigation. What investigation? The "accused" were never informed in writing of any accusations or of who the accusers were. In every single case, witnesses, unacceptable in theeyes of the holy canons, were permitted to make accusations, without theircharacters first being examined. The so-called "investigating bishops"-- as witnesses can testify -- waged a campaign of slander against theaccused, sending defamatory letters to others, but not having the courageor even the civility to send them to the accused themselves. By this actalone, the investigating bishops themselves should have been placed underinvestigation. Despite the fact that the alleged accusers had perjuredthemselves, as their own letters (still in the monastery's possession)testify, this too was dismissed. Any reasonable person would conclude thatwitnesses who write letters in praise of the "accused" (even after they'veleft the monastery), who rob the monastery of thousands of dollars of materials,or who boast to other members of the community that they lie during holyconfession, can hardly be considered trustworthy witnesses. If one tellsfalsehoods during holy confession, then there is nothing to prevent himfrom telling falsehoods elsewhere to justify his own fall.

Furthermore, repeated requests for a canonical trial were ignored, as was the same request which was expressed in a letter of September 16/29, 1986, written by clergy of the New England deanery. In addition,despite many written requests for materials pertaining to this investigation-- as the monastery letters of August 28/September 10, August 30/September12, and September 27/October 10 of 1986 testify -- the accused receivedno response to these valid petitions.

In fact, except for the Ukase of September 4/17, 1986(which mentioned no accusations), the "accused" received no written communication from the ROCOR hierarchy while still with the Russian Church Abroad.

Finally, the bishops -- that is, the leaders -- of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America, have never been accused of immorality -- at least, not in writing or to their knowledge. As a matter of fact,they were all simply monks when the departure from the ROCA took placeand they were ordained priests and bishops by the Synod of Archbishop Auxentius.

In contrast, Archbishop Auxentius, upon the request of the accused immediately carried out a proper and canonical investigation, with canonical witnesses and written statements which cleared the "accused" of all the defamatory rumors and slanders that were circulating.

One other piece of information is noteworthy. There were thirty-five clergy that left the ROCA in 1986. Twenty-five of them weremarried, two of them were diocesan deans. Many of them had left their well-payingpositions in innovating jurisdictions for matters of faith and were wellknown and admired (or intensely disliked) for their uncompromising integrity.As Fr. Basil wrote in July, 1990, to Bishop Kallinikos of Kalymnos andthe Dodecanese (Kiousis Synod) when he inquired why Holy TransfigurationMonastery and the other clergy had joined themselves to Archbishop Auxentiusand not Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis):

In the final analysis, a jurisdiction that has placeditself under its own anathema (as Bishop Gregory Grabbe wrote of the ROCA)is certainly in no position to defrock anyone.

The Apostles themselves, along with the early Christians, suffered slander of the vilest sort (definitely a "bad press"). Since the malice of the devil is incited by any who oppose his kingdom, the clergyand the monasteries are singled out for his special attention. Christiansmust be vigilant for the devil's traps presenting occasions for the sinof slander in order to destroy the Christian concord of love and trust.Every Christian should be forewarned and prepared to recognize his tactics.Archimandrite Akakios of St. Gregory Palamas Monastery wrote an articletitled "A Long-Overdue Comment on the Abbotcy of Bishop Chrysostomos,"published in Orthodox Tradition (vol XII, no. 4, 1995) to defendhis monastery from rumors and slanders. Some cogent words on page 51 ofhis article bear repeating:

In The Struggle, we have presented an Orthodoxecclesiology based upon the Canons of the Church, and precedents in ChurchHistory, and statements of the Holy Fathers, portraying the breadth ofstrictness and economy in which the Church is piloted by the Holy Spirit.Bishop Auxentios, and, in general, the whole jurisdiction of MetropolitanCyprian, do not answer or refute the ecclesiology set forth in The Struggle(this is examined in detail on pp. 115-120 and Appendix J of The Struggle).Perhaps this arises from the fact that they are sincere enough believersto respect the authority of the canons and precedents cited, yet they disregardor even misconstrue them because they are overly attached to their ownunique ecclesiology, which stretches economy to limits prohibited by theLord, when they use unjustifiable and unconvincing attempts to resolvecontraries and uncompromisable matters of the Faith. If Ecumenism is aheresy -- and it is demonstrably so -- then "what fellowship hath righteousnesswith unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? andwhat concord hath Christ with Belial?" (II Cor. 6:14-15).