On Union of "True/Genuine Orthodox" and Autonomous

[尼古拉前执事]

I am going to post a number of articles on this topic from portal-credo.ru

Interview with the Archbishop Chrysostomos II, the Head of The “Florinites” Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece

Credo.ru: Please, tell about the present state of your Church: how many eparchies, monasteries and parishes do you have and in what countries.

Archbishop Chrysostomos: The statistical data you request can be found in detail in the annual almanac issued by our Holy Synod.In summary, I can tell you that our Holy Synod has 10 bishops in Greece and two in America.Under the Holy Synod there are around 180 parishes and 85 monasteries which are served by around 145 clerics in Greece and abroad.Abroad we have a presence in North America and some European countries. Our clerics are insufficient in number to meet the needs of our flock and many of them serve in more than one parish.

Credo.ru: Do you have any contacts with other True-Orthodox Churches?

Archbishop Chrysostomos:We were in dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Following the schism which occurred within that Church there has been no progress and we have a ‘wait and see’ attitude until the situation becomes clearer.

Theological dialogue with the Matthewites was also terminated due to their own internal problems.

Credo.ru: What is your difference from other Greek True Orthodox Churches? Could you please explain the reasons of your recent division with the Synod of Metropolitan Kallinikos? Do you see any possibility of re-union with them?

Archbishop Chrysostomos: There are no other local Churches in the same area. We are the True Orthodox Church of Greece from which the Matthewites, the Auxentiites, the Cyprianites and the supporters of Kallinikos (Chaniotis) broke away.

We have no substantive difference on matters of faith with the Matthewites.There is – in my opinion – only a difference in mentality. We look upon them with a friendly eye but the bad thing is that they do not do the same and they are extremely fanatical. Following their internal splits they are extremely weakened and I do not consider they have a future.

With the Cyprianites we have differences on ecclesiological matters.We condemn the theory of the ‘Mother Church" as put forward by Cyprian and his supporters in the New Calendarist Church. The Cyprianites have no real influence in Greece.They are all New Calendarists. However, they do have good ‘public relations’, something which we lack in.

The Auxentiites in Greece have split among themselves to a great extent and the remaining few are tending towards extinction.

The supporters of Kallinikos (Chaniotis) of Lamia are another case.They broke away from our Church in 1995 without there being any dispute over dogma.In their declaration the then 6 bishops cited two issues: the manner in which the case of the then Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, Efthymios, was handled for canonical offences and the review of the Paisos – Vikentios case, who had renounced our Church going over to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and later returning under agonizing conditions.Those were the reasons for their secession in 1995 and the Synod deposed them.However, God has condemned those who broke away, resulting in many internal splits among themselves. Two of them, the Metropolitans of Chios, Stefanos, and Evripos, Justinos, returned having repented and were re-admitted into the Church, were rehabilitated and are again members of our Holy Synod.

Another two, Paisos and Vikentios betrayed their faith and went over to the Patriarchate of Constantinople accepting re-ordination. That being a sign of the condemnation and abandonment of God.

The remaining two, Kallinikos (Chaniotis) and Efthymios (Orfanos) began performing ordinations and formed an anti-Synod and anti-Church.They gathered all the unruly clerics in order to show some supposed power.In effect, however, they have a handful of followers and for this reason their annual almanac includes all our parishes and monasteries so that their small size does not show.

In relation to the matter of ‘re-union’ as you call it, we do not put it like that. Our Church is not divided. Whoever left from under its wing can return having repented. The door of repentance always remains open.

Credo.ru: What is your opinion about the present canonical state of ROCOR and ROAC? Do you think that True Orthodoxy is presented in Russia?

Archbishop Chrysostomos: We consider that following the imposition of Communism on Russia the True Orthodox Church of Russia is represented by ROCA abroad and by the Church of the Catacombs in Russia. For the last 15 years the situation has become extremely complicated and great confusion reigns.We here in Greece, having so many problems to face, have not been involved to the extent that perhaps we should in examining the situation in Russia. For this reason we cannot give a categorical answer to your question. What we are sure off is that in Greece the True Orthodox Church is represented by our Church. Beyond that we cannot add anything.

Credo.ru: The churches of "World Orthodoxy" now withdraw their participation in the Ecumenical movement. Several official churches have already left World Council of Churches. Moscow Partiarchate is also preparing for this step. Does it allow to speak that World Orthodoxy is slowly breaking with its heretical faith and slowly self-purifying?

Archbishop Chrysostomos:Your question is hypothetical.We have no indications to be so optimistic. I wish they would all return to True Orthodoxy. It would be our great joy. In relation to the process of self-purifying about which you speak, our opinion is that if the official Orthodox Churches returned to True Orthodoxy their canonical rehabilitation should be done via a Pan-Orthodox Synod which would vindicate the confessors of the faith and in which the entire body (if possible) of Orthodox Bishops upholding our traditions would participate, also with the participation of repentant bishops, who in the presence of the former would declare their repentance just like the Iconoclasts at the 7th Ecumenical Synod.

Credo.ru: How possible form your point of view is the break between Moscow Patriairchate and Ecumenical Patriarchate? Will it be useful for Orthodoxy?

Archbishop Chrysostomos: This question is also hypothetical. If the schism had occurred for matters of faith, namely the return to True Orthodoxy and the renunciation of Ecumenism, clearly it would be positive for Orthodoxy. However we do not see something such on the horizon.

Credo.ru: The present head of New-Calendarists Greek Church archbishop Chrystodulos is known as a "conservative". Does it influence the popularity of New-Calendarists in Greece and does it cause the reduce of Old-Calendarists?

Archbishop Chrysostomos:Your information is probably not correct.Christodoulos is not considered ‘conservative’ not even by the New Calendarists. On the contrary he is considered a ‘reformer’ while wants to impose functional innovations and who recognized the Pope as Bishop of Rome welcoming him to Athens.The conservative New Calendarists are highly critical of him, lead by two priests – University professors, father Georgios Metallinos and father Theodoros Zisis.

We are not aware of any Old Calendarist who became a New Calendarist attracted by the influence of Mr. Christodoulos!Anything but.

Credo.ru: What do you think about the process Greece integration of into the European Union? What spiritual dangers does this process present for True Orthodox Christians?

Archbishop Chrysostomos:The risk of deconsecration lurks at all time either inside or outside the European Union. Our effort lies in building up the true faith of our followers. When the faithful are vaccinated with the spiritual anti-bodies of True Orthodoxy, when they are living members of our Church, then they can withstand any pestiferous environment. No one can harm our soul if we do not betray it ourselves. Spiritual alertness is required. 

[尼古拉前执事]

Vera Zemskova. Official Mass Media of Old-Calendar Greek Synods as a Barometer of the Forthcoming Schism And Unification

Two official magazines of the Matthewite Synod of the Greek Old-Calendarists– "Kirix Gnision Orthodoxon" (The Bulletin of the True Orthodox) and "Orthodoxos Pnoi" (The Breath of Orthodoxy), and also the official edition of the Chrysostomos Synod "Foti tis Orthodoxias" (The Voice of Orthodoxy) published a number of materials, which show that in the nearest future a schism will occur in the "Matthewite" Synod. And, however strange this may seem, this schism will become a certain milestone in the way of the important church unification.

Some facts from history

The division of the Greek Old-Calendarists into two big groups – the Matthewites and the Florinites - happened in 1937 after Bishop Chrysostomos of Florina in his private letter called the official new-calendar Hellas Church only potentially, but not actually, schismatic and graceless. The final decision on this matter, in his opinion, could be made only by the All-Orthodox Council. This announcement was contrary to the confession of Greek Old-Calendaristsof 1935, and Bishops Germanos of Cicladon and Matthew of Bresthena broke the communion, forming the Matthewite Synod of Greek Old-Calendarists .

In 1948 Germanos of Cicladon left Matthew of Bresthena, and Matthew had to consecrate new bishops himself in order to restore the hierarchy. Such consecrations occurred in the history of Church several times. They were performed when there was no other possibility to find the second bishop. In 1971 bishops of the ROCOR performed the so-called cherotesia on two Matthewite Archbishops so that to compensate for the dubious consecration.

As to Chrysostomos of Florina, he kept sticking to an uncertain opinion on new-calendarists (even in spite of the fact that in 1950 he published an encyclic, in which he denied the announcement of 1937 and returned to the general Old-Calendaristsopinion). He refused to consecrate new bishops in view of the forthcoming solution of the matter – therefore, by the moment of his death in 1955 he had no successor left for him. After his death, a council of twelve members was formed to manage church matters, which began to look for a way to reestablish the hierarchy. This was accomplished only in 1961 with the help of the Episcopacy of the ROCOR.

It should be mentioned that the Matthewites and the Florinites adhered to the same confession. Their schism was not conditioned by the theological disagreement, but by the origin and personal features of the founders (Matthew’s rigor was inherited by his followers, the Florinites show a high degree of economy). After a number of years, the Greek Old-Calendaristsbecame more and more obsessed with perception of the common position. The unification of Matthewites and Florinites was negotiated during the years 1989-1991. Common belief was assumed as the basis of unification, and sorting out of old discrepancies was supposed to be put off till the better times. Once again, similar parallel existence of Orthodox hierarchies occurred more than once in the history of Church.

But certain complications emerged in the process of unification of two Synods – an opposition to the ongoing approach appeared inside the Matthewite Synod. Its inspirer was the theologian Eleutherios Goutzidis, and its main representative – Metropolitan Kirykos of of Mesogea and Lavreotiki. In 1988 they established an eparchial magazine of Metropolitan Kirykos "Orthodoxos Pnoi". This magazine, edited by Anthony Markou, became the second official Matthewite magazine after the Synodal magazine "Kirix Gnision Orthodoxon".

In July 2001 one more Bishop took the side of Eleutherios Goutzidis and Metropolitan Kirykos – Metropolitan Panaretos of Larisa and Tyrnavos. This changed the prospective of ongoing polemics, for having two bishops is an opportunity to create a new Synod, which will be able to consecrate the episcopacy. The threat of schism was formulated immediately – announcements of Metropolitan Panaretos directed against the Synod in "Orthodoxos Pnoi" are much more threatening than those of Metropolitan Kirykos.

Accusations from the opponents of unification

The majority of publications in "Orthodoxos Pnoi" is the articles of Metropolitan Kirykos (which consist of quotations from Synod records and responses of Metropolitan himself and his followers), and the articles of Eleutherios Goutzidis, which look approximately that same, but have stronger theoretical grounds. The magazine more and more firmly expressed the resistance to unification with the Florinites, and the movement to unification as such was called neither more nor less than an "old-calendar ecumenism".

Claims against the participants of the "theological dialogue", as the publishers of "Orthodoxos Pnoi" put it, can be summed up in four points:

1) Accusing the Florinites of the schism of 1937. These accusations run into absurdity – allegedly, the Florinites' position automatically leads to approach to new-calendarists, which will entail the abolition of the 13-day difference between the calendars. It's impossible to see in the publications of "Orthodoxos Pnoi", what is the reason for such an apprehension, but the thesis of "old-calendar ecumenism" is repeated endlessly.

2) Non-recognition of consecrations of 1961 performed by the Russian bishops, as well as cherotesias over the Matthewite hierarchs. The most offending for the publishers of "Orthodoxos Pnoi" seems the assumption of the possible equality of imported from America (Synod of the ROCOR is located in New York) consecration and personal consecration by the founder of the Matthewite branch of Old-Calendarists .

3) The might-have-been reception of the Romanian Bishop Cosmas and the believers who were with him, which lead to establishment of contacts between Romanian True Orthodox Church with the Kallinikites, and not with the Metthewites.

4) The absence of an official reaction to the separation of five bishops in 1955 in connection with the dispute about the icon veneration.

The demand for official definition of what happened in 1995 turns on the pages of "Orthodoxos Pnoi" into accusing Synod of ineffectiveness, tolerance to heresy, of unorthodoxy, of treachery of Orthodoxy, and so on. In the issue of January 2002 the separation of five bishops in 1995 is straightforwardly compared to the schism in 1937, and a parallel is drawn – though Bishop Matthew blamed Bishop Chrysostomos of Florina in public, the present Synod doesn't try to do the same in a similar case (p.25).

February issue of "Orthodoxos Pnoi" of this year gives an awesome selection of quotations about the ban to break the laws of Church. In his article with an epigraph from John the Apostle: "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shakk come" (I John 2:18-19, 28)" - Metropolitan Kirykos puts the question straight: Does the Synod act canonically, refusing to express their opinion on the matter of "the schism of the five". He calls the decisions of the Synod unorthodox, serving the old-calendar ecumenism(p. 45, 47, 49). In the same issue Metropolitan Panaretos announces that the chairman of the Synod Archbishop Andrew absorbed the views of the schismatic (i.e., Florinite) bishops (p.59).

May issue of "Orthodoxos Pnoi" goes on saying: "schism of the five" repeats what already happened in history, and namely, the schism with new-calendarists in 1924 and with the Latins in 1054, and the Synod doesn't show any concern in this regard (p.189). The Florinites received the consecration from America (even here the ROCOR is called Russian Church in America (!) (p. 227)).

The latest issue of "Orthodoxos Pnoi" (June issue) doesn't add anything new to the present situation, and only strengthens the belief that the schism in the Matthewite Synod is inescapable, if it has not yet taken place.

Accusations from the supporters of unification

The principal attacks of supporters of the unification of Greek Old-Calenderists are aimed at the theology of Eleutherios Goutzidis, the main ideologist of Metropolitan Kirykos's group. Yet in 1978 Goutzidis published a report "The Notion of the Church Mystery and the Place of the Clergy and People in It", where he argued that The Holy Trinity (i.e. Contact and unity of the single and indivisible Trinity) is the first and the perfect Church; the first creatures (Adam and Eve) are the second Church, in which these first creatures are in contact and unity with the Holy Trinity. Later, in 1985, Eleutherios Goutzidis stated his views in more detail in the book "Introduction to Orthodox Ecclesiology". Then the story didn't cause any consequences.

Actual stimulus for the present discussion of Eleutherios Goutzidis views was his article, published in 1997 in Kirix Gnision Orthodoxon. Perhaps, it would've passed unnoticed, if in 1999 the Florinites hadn't called the views of Eleutherios Goutzidis "cacodoxy" (literally Slander) in their official magazine "Foti tis Orthodoxias" (The Voice of Orthodoxy). Then the response of Eleutherios Goutzidis was published in Kirix Gnision Orthodoxon; Dmitry Katsuras, the editor-in-chief of Kirix Gnision Orthodoxon, took the side of Eleutherios Goutzidis in the editorial article.

Polemics went on in the periodicals of two Churches of during the year 1999.In the same year 1999 Eleutherios Goutzidis published a report of 100 pages, entitled "Pocket Account of the Orthodox Ecclesiology and the Weapon against Heretics and All-Heresy of Infidelity and Antichrist Ecumenism" (p. 52). The Synod had had to pay attention to the problem and had tried to bring Eleutherios Goutzidis to reason several times, in 1999, 2000, and 2001, first mildly, but last time it had to put a curse on him through excommunication (p. 41, 61).

The views of Eleutherios Goutzidis on the nature of Church are set forth in "Orthodoxos Pnoi" in February 2001, and also in "Kirix Gnision Orthodoxon" in February of this year. The final decision of the Synod on the matter of the theology of Eleutherios Goutzidis, made in the Synod session on 14/27 of February 2002, was published in this issue.

It's hard to say what role the theology of Eleutherios Goutzidis played in the development of polemics within the Matthewite Synod, although Metropolitans Kirykos and Panaretos defended him a few times. Unfortunately, the system of Eleutherios Goutzidis was formed under the influence of liberal and ecumenically-minded authors: Greek authors G. Metallinos and S. Bilalis, Serbian A. Jevtic, and Russian emigrant Pavel Evdokimov. The latter is quite well-known in Russia. (He took the idea of Church being the completeness of Trinity from Origen (PG 12, 1265 P), cf.: P. Evdokimov, Lafemmeetlasalutdumond (Paris 1958) 265.)

At the same time the theology of Eleutherios Goutzidis is rooted in the Holy Fathers' teaching. Probably, he just didn’t have enough pathrological knowledge to formulate his theory more correctly.

Incorrect sources of the theology of Eleutherios Goutzidis were pointed out by Metropolitan Kallinikos of Achaia (Sarantopoulos), who negotiates with the Matthewite Synod in the name of the Florinite Synod (cf. the official Florinite magazine Foti tis Orthodoxias, No 906, 908, p. 6-10 (2001)).

Conclusion

One could say that in the last ten years Greek Old-Calendaristshave established a solid ground for unification. What prevents a final, peaceful unification is the group, which has gathered round the magazine "Orthodoxos Pnoi": Eleutherios Goutzidis and Metropolitans Kirykos and Panaretos. Their division from the Synod of Archbishop Andrew is as good as predetermined.

This event can be of importance for Russia too, because all the Matthewite communities in Russia are under a scapular of Metropolitan Kirykos.

[尼古拉前执事]

Bishop Gregory of Denver (ROAC): All True Orthodox Christians should be united (a short intreview)

PORTAL-CREDO: Vladyka, what would you say about the possibility for all True Orthodox Christians to unite?

BP. GREGORY: I would like to state, first of all, that all True Orthodox Christians all over the world who have Christ as their true and only love should be united, whether we are Greeks, Russians, Romanians, Americans or whatever other nationality. This is mandatory for us because of our common love for Christ and desire to do His will. *

And it is only natural and right to believe, that if we are united, we are stronger. This will help us with our efforts to keep the Faith in the face of so many heresies in the world. If all heretics in the world are united in the common cause of evil, the greatest disappointment for us would be to see the True Orthodox divided so that our voice would not be strong and falsehood would threaten to prevail over the truth.

Now the question is 'Who are those that have remained faithful to Christ and are at the present time divided?'

When I speak of faithfulness to Christ, I look for two indispensible things: first, a proper confession of Faith, and, secondly, a canonical foundation. The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church under Vladyka Metropolitan Valentine, of course, possesses both a sound confession of Faith and an indisputable canonical foundation. The only other Church that I know of which also possesses both of these characteristics is the GOC of Greece, under Metropolitan Kallinikos of Lamia. It would utter foolishness to enter into communion with any other jurisdiction that is not identical to us in Faith and in canonicity. If we share the common cup, it is only the expression of a common Faith and canonical order. The GOC of Greece under Met. Kallinikos of Lamia, like the ROAC, received its episcopacy from the Russian Church Abroad, and its Faith is identical to ours in that they reject Sergianism, Ecumenism, Masonry, and Modernism, all of which have sought to destroy the Church in these last times.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Thank you for posting these Nicholas.

I have heard the Mathewite union was imminent from several independent sources within that group. I have heard 10 out of the 12 bishops support it.

But this it the first time I've seen it in print.

[Daniel]

Thank you for posting these Nicholas.

I have heard the Mathewite union was imminent from several independent sources within that group. I have heard 10 out of the 12 bishops support it.

But this it the first time I've seen it in print.

Would you be able to explain more of the circumstances of Metropolitan Kallinikos seperating from Archbishop Chrysostomos?

Daniel

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Daniel,

I am always hesitant to get into these types of discussions because they tend to do more harm than good. At the same time, silence might contribute to another type of harm.

Therefore, I will write this only once and will not respond any further except in a private message.

Briefly, in 1995, the Holy Synod started a corporation to protect its property from the Greek government, who were being used by the Church of Greece claim our churches as theirs. Without being incorporated in Greece, our Synod could make no claims and defend itself in court. It is far more complicated, but this is the cliff note version.

Also, around the same time, the Bishop of Thessoloniki was accused of homosexual activity. Naturally the synod wanted to conduct an investigation. But before the investigation could happen, a few other bishops rallied around him in support and would not allow it. This contributed to their schism.

In the end, six bishops left. Not for heresy, but because of "administrative" reasons. Of the six, 2 repented and returned to the Holy Synod. 2 joined the heretic Bartholomew, and the other two started an anti-synod, and have since collected many clergy with questionable pasts.

One of their "bishops" even went so far as to write letters supporting the idea of kicking out the monks of Esphigmenou because they would have nothing to do with them, and maintained communion with the Holy Synod.

In the end, I pray for the situation to be healed, all those in the Church suffer because of things like this.

[Daniel]

I am always hesitant to get into these types of discussions because they tend to do more harm than good. At the same time, silence might contribute to another type of harm.

I understand you concern. Thank you very much for the information. I have only been able to find the other side of the story.

Daniel