Bishop Gregory served the Church in many ways.  He was ROCOR’s foremost historian and expert on canon law, and as such testified in many court cases in which our Church was involved.  He encouraged ROCOR to receive Old Believer and OCA parishes, and established numerous missionary communities throughout the United States.  He personally received many converts into the Church Abroad and was a strong supporter of the use of the English language in the divine services.  He also supported the veneration of pre-Schism Western saints and not only visited their shrines (especially in England), but also supported our Church’s endorsement of the sanctity of our beloved St. Edward, and in 1984, as representative of the Synod, received the precious relics of that saint and presided over their enshrinement.

 

            Bishop Gregory’s son, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are faithful members of ROCOR to this day.

 

            You claim that he and his family tried to “impose extreme views on ROCOR,” and you focus your discussion of these extreme views on the Old Calendar question.  With regard to the Old Calendarist issue, Bishop Gregory did not consecrate any Greek Old Calendarist bishops.  Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago, Archbishop Seraphim of Caracas, and Bishop Leonty of Chile consecrated them.  They were diocesan bishops of formidable character and stature.  Though he declined to participate in episcopal consecrations, Saint John (Maximovich) also demonstrated considerable sympathy for the Old Calendarists and visited Old Calendarist churches on many occasions.  And in this sympathy he was not alone: many of ROCOR’s bishops in the 1950s were appalled by the brutal persecution and ill-treatment to which the Old Calendarists were subjected at the instigation of the State Church in Greece.  In 1994, long after Bishop Gregory’s retirement from the Chancery, ROCOR formally recognized the Old Calendarist Church headed by Metropolitan Cyprian.  This was done after the bishops heard the report on the issue prepared by the two hierarchs they had assigned to examine it: Bishop Daniel of Erie and Bishop Mitrofan of Boston, neither of whom has a reputation as an extremist or fanatic.

 

            You contend that “most ROCOR people and clergy (centered at the true heart of ROCOR in Jordanville) patiently defied him ....”  But you do not provide any acts to support such a view.  What form did that defiance take?   Bishop Laurus was Bishop of Manhattan from 1967 until the death of Vladyka Averky in 1976, at which time he became Bishop of Syracuse and Holy Trinity.  And in 1984, at the urging of Bishop Gregory and the other bishops, our current Metropolitan (then a monk of the monastery) came to Synod and was consecrated as Bishop for Manhattan and Deputy Secretary of the Synod, where he remained until he was transferred to Australia in the 1990s and whence he has now returned.  Synod and Jordanville have been intimately connected throughout the decades of ROCOR’s existence.  Many seminarians have come to serve at Synod, some as cell attendants, some as readers, and some even as priests and bishops, with Bishop Gabriel a case in point.

 

            I will not address the rumors that you mention about Bishop Gregory being a CIA agent.  These are, of course, completely unfounded.

 

Metropolitan Philaret

 

            Concerning Metropolitan Philaret, you write that he was “a saintly monk but weak administrator, who in his innocence consecrated the Secretary bishop.”  Your description of Metropolitan Philaret diminishes him.  First of all, Metropolitan Philaret, though indisputably a saintly monk, was also the First Hierarch of ROCOR and was completely cognizant of his duties as First Hierarch.  He comported himself in that capacity with all the dignity and strength one would expect.  Moreover, though he was innocent in soul, he was never naïve or foolish, as you imply by this description of his alleged weakness.  Furthermore he did not consecrate Bishop Gregory singlehandedly, but with the full approval of the 1979 Council of Bishops.  To portray it otherwise is to play fast and loose with the facts so as to support your own arguments; but the facts speak for themselves.

 

            Your reference to Metropolitan Philaret’s alleged weakness reiterates a common misconception about him and about his relationship to Bishop Gregory.  In my daily personal encounters with Metropolitan Philaret and Bishop Gregory during the years I worked at Synod, I found that they worked together harmoniously and showed each other the utmost respect and reverence.  Theirs was not a relationship based on uneven power – one strong and one weak, but rather an equal relationship between two churchmen totally dedicated to the cause they served – the Church and their flock – a cause which occupied them for the better part of their lives, and which they served together for 21 years, from 1964 when Bishop Philaret became Metropolitan until 1985 when he reposed in the Lord.

 

            You write, “There is no doubt, as the late Fr. Roman Lukianov pointed out two years ago, that Metr. Philaret would have been for the rapprochement today.”  Because I was close to Metropolitan Philaret, many people have asked me what I think he would have done about reconciliation.  The answer is, “I don’t know.”  And Fr. Roman could not have known either.  The conditions that made the rapprochement possible could not have been predicted in 1985, when Metropolitan Philaret died.  Adherents of each side of the issue have claimed that Metropolitan Philaret would have done this or that to validate their own choices, but no one can say for with any certainty, and we do him a great injustice when we presume to say what he would have done and to use those presumptions to validate our own action.

 

            If you have any questions or would like to make any comments about my remarks, please do not hesitate to contact me.  In all details, you can check Dr. Seide’s book (the English translation of which I hope to see published before long) or the Synod archives, or you can ask Archbishop Mark, who is well acquainted with the facts.

 

I remain,

 

            Your unworthy servant in Christ,

 

Xenia Endres-Nenchin

 

  Editor’s Note:  Ms. Endres-Nenchin omits one important point.  In the original article, the writer had stated: “The Secretary’s end was tragic indeed, for, like his son, he died outside the Church. He himself forbade anyone from ROCOR to attend his funeral.” For some undisclosed reason, throughout his article, the original author had referred to Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) as “the Secretary.”  In fact, his assertion here, as elsewhere, is simply not true.  Bishop Gregory remained in ROCOR till his death.  He simply stipulated that he did not want any of the bishops to serve at his funeral.  Hegoumen Adrian served instead.  Fr Adrian was at that time a ROCOR clergyman.  He had worked closely with Bishop Gregory for many years in the Synodal offices, and was his spiritual son.  Bishop Gregory, when nearing his end, in fact recommended others of his spiritual children to accept Fr Adrian as their spiritual father.  Bishop Gregory was laid to rest in the cemetery at Spring Valley, N.Y., which is attached to the Novo Diveyevo Convent there.