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.