As one who is neither Matthewite nor Florinite, but who has belonged to both Churches, I should like to summarise what I think are the strengths and weaknesses of the two sides. My aim is eirenic: that is, if what I write is accepted (a big “if”, of course!), I think it will be seen that there is in fact not only a large measure of agreement on the two sides, but that with some good will unity could be reached without the sacrifice of any fundamental principles on either side.
The Constantinopolitan Patriarchate fell into heresy in 1920 with its ecumenist encyclical “To all the churches everywhere”. Since nobody believes that the patriarchate was actually deprived of grace in that year, and since everybody remained in communion with a patriarchate that had officially and openly and without any ambiguity confessed the pan-heresy of our time, I think it must be accepted that some leeway, some “grey area” between the official confession of a heresy by a church and the latter’s complete falling away from the One, Holy, Catholic Church, does indeed exist.
In 1924 heresy was compounded by schism, the schism of the new calendar, which was introduced in the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate, the official Church of Greece, and the Romanian Church. That this was indeed a schism requiring decisive action on the part of the faithful was indicated by the Lord Himself through the appearance of the Honourable Cross in the sky over the Old Calendarists in 1925. The Greek and Romanian Old Calendarists, to their eternal honour and glory, broke communion with the innovators at that time. But none of the other patriarchates did. Again, I think we must conclude that it is possible to remain in communion with heresy and/or schism for a time without oneself falling into heresy or schism.
In 1935 the three metropolitans returned to the old calendar and, together with the four new bishops they consecrated, proclaimed that the new calendarists were schismatics and deprived of the grace of sacraments. Since the Old Calendarist bishops constituted 100% of the confessing bishops of the Church of Greece, and since they were simply confirming the decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Councils of 1583, 1587 and 1593, I can see no canonical reason for doubting the validity of this decision, at least as it related to the official Greek Church.
In 1937 Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina declared that the new calendarists were only potentially, but not actually schismatics, which led to a schism between them and Metropolitans Germanos of the Cyclades and Matthew of Bresthena. Insofar as Metropolitans Germanos and Chrysostomos repudiated a canonical conciliar decision which they had themselves signed, they must be considered primarily responsible for introducing confusion and division in the ranks of the Old Calendarists. The two metropolitans would have been justified in going back on their original decision only if they had succeeded in demonstrating that the original decision was uncanonical. This, in my view, they failed to do. Their main argument, that the local council of 1935 needed to be confirmed by a Pan-Orthodox or Ecumenical Council was unsound: first, because local Councils are sufficient to expel heretics or schismatics from the Church, and secondly, because in any case several Pan-Orthodox Councils had already condemned the new calendarists. I believe that the two metropolitans’ motivation was not in fact evil: they were very hopeful of getting support from some of the patriarchates, and feared that the sharply worded decision of 1935 would put them off. However, such tactical considerations, even if they had had some basis in fact (which is dubious in view of the later history of these patriarchates), could not justify the repudiation of a canonical decision of the True Church and the consequent confusion and division that this repudiation caused. In retrospect, I think M. Chrysostomos recognised this, which is why he humbly and openly repented of his actions in 1950.
In the same year of 1937 Bishops Germanos of the Cyclades and Matthew of Bresthena separated from the other two metropolitans. Matthew called the president of the Synod “the former metropolitan of Demetrias”, as if he had already been defrocked. Although understandable in view of the situation, such extreme language was, in my view, unjustified and could not fail to inflame tempers and make reconciliation more difficult. It is not clear to me whether Matthew actually considered Chrysostomos to have fallen away from grace – his remark on his deathbed: “Why are we divided?” appears to imply not. Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades certainly did not. In any case, such a conclusion is, in my view, impossible to sustain. At worst, Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina transgressed the 46th Apostolic canon: they were sinners, but not heretics or schismatics. There was no way they could be compared to the Roman Catholic heretics or the new calendarist schismatics. The other main charge against Chrysostomos, that he refused to consecrate any more bishops, likewise does not constitute heresy or schism: no bishop can be forced to ordain other bishops against his will, whatever the motivation for his refusal. In any case, a canonical trial was required in order to defrock him, and no such trial took place. He remained Orthodox. And that, in my view, is the reason why the majority of the Old Calendarists remained with him. My reading of the evidence is that the majority did not in fact believe that the new calendarists were still Orthodox: the predominant confession of the Old Calendarists of both factions remained that of the 1935 Council. But they were convinced that Chrysostomos had been treated unjustly, that he was still Orthodox, and they refused to be separated from their Orthodox archpastor.
In 1948, after years of hesitation, Bishop Matthew, having by this time separated also from Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades, consecrated a bishop on his own. In this way the Matthewite hierarchy was formed. I have described his separation from Metropolitan Chrysostomos in 1937 as “extreme akriveia”: this act, by contrast, I would describe as “extreme oikonomia”. As such, it was bound to be contested; for it formally transgressed the 1st Apostolic Canon. Many – not only Florinites, but also Matthewites - felt that, since there were at least two Orthodox bishops in Greece at the time (Metropolitans Germanos and Chrysostomos), - three if we include Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades - it was an unjustified oikonomia. The issue is not whether, under certain conditions, a single-bishop consecration is valid – there are several examples from Church history. The issue is whether the conditions warranted such oikonomia in this case.
In the same year of 1948, Metropolitan Chrysostomos began to recognise his error of 1937, which enabled Bishop Germanos of the Cyclades to return into communion with him without demanding any public repentance or “reconciliation with the Church”. This, in my view, is how the Matthewites should have acted later, just after Bishop Matthew’s death in 1950, when Metropolitan Chrysostomos issued a public encyclical repenting of his erroneous statements since 1937. Church history shows that such statements have been quite sufficient to resolve Church disputes which did not involve major heresy. If the Matthewites had united with Chrysostomos at that point, the Old Calendarist movement would have been united under two metropolitans confessing that the new calendarists were real schismatics with no grace of sacraments. But the glittering prize of unity in the truth was lost because the Matthewites distrusted Metropolitan Chrysostomos. In view of his later behaviour, they say, and in view of his refusal to consecrate more bishops, the whole thing would have ended in tears. But how do we know? How do we know that the very opposite would not have happened – that God, seeing the love and humility of His servants, would have strengthened them in the struggle for the truth faith, overcoming their weaknesses and allaying their fears? In any case, speculations about the future should play no part in such decisions. Metropolitan Chrysostomos admitted his guilt: no more was required. He sought forgiveness and reconciliation: it should have been given him.
The division continued, and in 1955 Metropolitan Chrysostomos, the last remaining Florinite bishop, died without consecrating any more bishops. According to some reports, he advised his flock to turn to the Matthewite bishops. Should they have done that? I can’t make up my mind. On the one hand, such an act would have been an act of obedience to their beloved archpastor. On the other hand, it would have involved accepting that that same archpastor died as a schismatic, and that they themselves were returning from schism to Orthodoxy. And that was not only objectively false: it was subjectively impossible for anyone who sincerely believed he was already a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
And so, in the early 1960s, the Florinites sought the restoration of their hierarchy through the Russian Church Abroad, and in 1969 Metropolitan Philaret and the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad officially accepted the consecrations of Archbishop Akakios and the other Florinite bishops. In view of this act, I think all discussion of the canonicity of the original consecrations is pointless and quite unnecessarily divisive. The fact is that the Russian Church Abroad, which both sides accepted to be a true Church, accepted them. That should have been the end of the argument. The argument put forward by some Matthewites that the Russians were illegally interfering in the affairs of the Greek Church is, in my view, (i) hypocritical, insofar as the Matthewites themselves asked for the Russians’ mediation only two years later, (ii) invalid, insofar as local Churches have often asked other local Churches to intervene in their affairs. Only on the assumption that the Matthewites were the only True Orthodox of Greece and the Florinites were schismatics could the Russians be said to be illegally interfering. But the official Matthewite publications for the period 1971-76 themselves refute that idea.
In 1971 unity was achieved between the Russians, the Matthewites and the Florinites. This was a golden opportunity to put the past behind them, to forgive if not to forget, for the sake of Church unity and the strengthening of the True Orthodox Church as a whole. That is why I fully understand the desire of the Florinites to discuss only events since 1971 in their discussions with the Matthewites. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the divisions of the period 1937-71, the two sides were now united not only in a common confession of faith (the Florinites reaffirmed the 1935 confession in 1974 and have never repudiated it since), but were actually in eucharistic communion. Of course, many things have happened since 1971, and since more divisions have arisen in both factions, they cannot be ignored. But I believe that the events before 1971 can be, if not ignored, at any rate recognised as not being ultimate barriers to unity in that differences of opinion about those events did not prevent eucharistic communion being achieved in 1971. And for that reason, I am convinced, those differences of opinion should not be resurrected. If we still disagree about them, we should agree to disagree, and get on with other matters. Of course, there are those who consider that the union of 1971 was a false union, a trap, a betrayal. It was not firm, obviously; and it would be naïve to assume that the motivations of all the actors in it were perfectly pure. But the sanctity of the initiator of the union, Metropolitan Philaret, is clearly witnessed to by the incorruption of his relics; and in my view we can all agree that he would never have consented to put his stamp on an act that was a betrayal of the Orthodox Faith.
