Contributions for the sake of accuracy actively solicited and appreciated. Send suggestions and corrections to joseph.suaiden@gmail.com.

Version 2.1

True Orthodoxy thinks only to serve god and to save souls and is not preoccupied with the secular and ephemeral welfare of men. True Orthodoxy is spiritual and not physical or psychological or earthly. In order to protect ourselves from "the spirit of the age" and preserve our fidelity to the true Orthodoxy, we ought firstly and with all our strength live blamelessly: A total and rigorous commitment to Christ, without deviation from the commandments of God or the laws of His holy Church. At the same time, we must have no common prayer or spiritual liaison with the modern apostasy or with anything which "soils" our holy Faith, even those dissidents who call themselves "Orthodox." They will go their way and we will go ours. We must be honorable and tenacious, following the right way, never deviating in order to please men or from fear that we might lose some personal advantage.  Archbishop Averky of Taushev and Jordanville

The true Orthodox way of thought has always been historical, has always included the past, but has never been enslaved by it. . . the strength of the Church is not in the past, present, or future, but in Christ. Fr Alexander Schmemann

Summary

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the position of the various True Orthodox Churches which, save for a present lack of formal administrative unity, retain the original faith and practice of the Orthodox Church from the time of Christ. It is as much an apologetic as a historical and ecclesiological position paper, and the author, himself a True Orthodox Christian, will try to be as objective as possible insofar as he believes his position to be the Truth.

The paper is not meant to be exhaustive but to give at least the general historical outline of the True Orthodox Churches, as well as their reason for existence.

Introduction

Orthodoxy has always been fundamentally divided between those who wish to follow the Gospel and those who wish to gain the friendship of this world (Js 4:4). The history of Orthodoxy and heresy is based upon the ascendancy to power of one or another of these two groups- when the former holds power, the Church is at peace, for She is a faithful Bride of Christ. Yet when the latter takes power, the fruits of such adultery are made manifest, and the people are thrown into confusion. This is, was, and always will be expected: For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you (1 Cor 11:19).

Sacred History and the History of Heresy

The entire Sacred History of the Church can be analyzed through the glass of Christians following the Gospel and Christians following the world; and the conclusions that can be drawn are also quite clear.

Certain key features of the Sacred History repeat themselves whenever the Church is thrown into chaos and are accounted for within the sacred canons and the universal tradition of the Church.

Heresies that require drastic action invariably take hold within the Episcopate. Most heresies begin as unlawful assemblies, but generally do not hold much sway nor cause much disorder until they have Episcopal support.

The reason for this is that the Bishops, being successors to the Apostles, have the power to perpetuate their teaching. The Eucharistic Synaxis is formed around the Bishop; priests are actually deputies of their Bishops, and in general, only Bishops can make priests. Only Synods, or general meetings of Bishops, can make more Bishops. It naturally follows that any heretical group attempting to take power in the Church must attempt to take hold of the Episcopate.

During the Arian controversy, the newly Christianized Empire vacillated on the question of whether Christ was Divine. For a long period after the Council of Nicea, most of the Episcopate had fallen to the new heresy of Arianism (that Christ was actually a Divine Creature, not the Second Person of the Trinity) and it fell to the remaining Orthodox Bishops to protect the Church (the most visible being St Athanasius of Alexandria and St Julius of Rome).

During the controversy created by the Monothelite heresy (the heresy that Christ had one Divine-Human Will, as opposed to a Human and a Divine Will,) at points the entire Episcopate had fallen to heresy, at least temporarily, leading the most vocal defender of Orthodoxy, St Maximus the Confessor, to break communion with all the Patriarchates except Rome, which, under St Martin, remained Orthodox (however, Rome succumbed under Pope Honorius, who was later anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council).

During the Florentine compromise of the 15th Century (the Orthodox Bishops signed documents of union with the Roman Catholic Church for military support against the Turks), the entire Church was protected against most of the Imperial Episcopate by St Mark of Ephesus, a titular Bishop (one without a real diocese), which led to the ascendancy of the Church of Russia. The Church of Russia refused to accept the false union with Rome, and opted to become administratively independent.

These are only three well-known examples of a process that occurs over and over in Orthodox history-- heresy enters into the Episcopate, and the hierarchy of the Church splits between Orthodox and heretical parties. In general, the vast laity, which usually does not pay too much attention to controversy, does not notice until real and visible changes begin to take place during the celebration of the services.

Of course, to imply that every schism in Orthodoxy is justified would be a great mistake, and the nature of lay movement in response primarily to liturgical changes itself leads to problems (a good example is the Old Believer schism in Russia, which, while to a degree deserves some sympathy, had nothing to do with the essence of the faith; and it could be argued that some of the bevpoptsy, or priestless ones, in fact created a new religion.) In general, however, schisms that have less to do with the faith and more to do with individual personalities--so long as they do not become heretical-- will eventually be reabsorbed into the Church (a good example is the Church at Rome under St Hippolytus, who went into schism in the 3rd century-- with the death of himself and Pope St Stephen, the factions of the divided Church simply reunited.

The present day Orthodox Church, however, finds itself in a similar situation to the three examples of heresy listed above, as two issues have arisen in recent years, a double-edged sword to strike at the heart of Orthodoxy, often at the same time: the heresies Ecumenism and Sergianism.

Ecumenism

Ecumenism can properly be defined as the desire for the union of Orthodoxy with non-Christian bodies, which manifests itself in the open recognition of those outside the Church as having the ability to act as the Body of Christ, thereby extending the boundaries of the Church outside those defined by the Church through the councils and canons.

Orthodoxy is very clear in how it defines the boundaries of the Church, and the primary definition is always the same: continuity of teaching with the faith of the Apostles. No definition of the Church can be complete without this central maxim. St Vincent of Lerins encapsulated the Orthodox teaching with the simple everywhere, by all, at all times. St Cyprian of Carthage is even more firm in saying that he who does not have the Church as his Mother cannot have God as his Father. There can be no understanding of the Orthodox Church without understanding this simple teaching. In this context, the history of the Church is exceedingly clear. Outside of it, the history of the Church becomes a nightmarish confusion of differing sects, and dooms understanding the essence of Christian ecclesiology to failure.

By contrast, the Ecumenical movement taking place throughout the world, however useful it may be for the disunited heterodox Christians searching for an answer to the constant division and doctrinal variation which has plagued them since their separation from the Orthodox Church, is in direct variance with a fundamental Christian teaching that the Church's belief is, has always been, and will always be one. This teaching was actually shared by all of the liturgical Churches (save the Anglican Church after the 18th century) and remains a cornerstone of Christian belief. The structure of the Church has always been in dispute since the initial separations of bodies from Orthodoxy; but the belief that Christ established a real and visible Church was never in doubt, and certainly was never in doubt in the Orthodox Church.

That is, until 1920.

Early Forays into Ecumenism

In 1920, the Ecumenical (no relation; the Greek word “Oecumene” actually is a reference to the East Roman, or Byzantine, Empire, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople retains this title today) Patriarchate of Constantinople issued an Encyclical Letter which laid out a policy which would shake the Orthodox world called “To the Churches of Christ Wherever They May Be.” The Encyclical was issued during a chaotic period in which the Western powers were exercising considerable influence in the former areas of the Empire. Perhaps the Patriarchate saw the formation of the League of Nations after World War I as a potential ally, perhaps to free Christians who had suffered immeasurably under Turkish rule. Others credibly argue that the Patriarchate had already to some degree been indoctrinated by the Masonic Grand Lodge in England, and was thus acting as a tool of the British crown.

Whatever the case, the document contains a number of terrifying ideas which would become public policy in the Church of Constantinople. Emphasis mine.

Our own church holds that rapprochement between the various Christian churches and fellowship among them is not excluded by the doctrinal differences which exist among them. In our opinion such a rapprochement is highly desirable and necessary. It would be useful in many ways for the real interest of each particular church and of the whole Christian body, and also for the preparation and advancement of that blessed union which will be completed in the future in accordance with the will of God. We therefore consider that the present time is most favourable for bringing forward this important question and studying it together.

Even if in this case, owing to antiquated prejudices, practices or pretensions, the difficulties which have so often jeopardized attempts at reunion in the past may arise or be brought up, nevertheless, in our view, since we are concerned at this initial stage only with contacts and rapprochement, these difficulties are of less importance. If there is good will and intention, they cannot and should not create an invincible and insuperable obstacle.

Wherefore, considering such an endeavour to be both possible and timely, especially in view of the hopeful establishment of the League of Nations, we venture to express below in brief our thoughts and our opinion regarding the way in which we understand this rapprochement and contact and how we consider it to be realizable; we earnestly ask and invite the judgment and the opinion of the other sister churches in the East and of the venerable Christian churches in the West and everywhere in the world.

Thus, the Patriarchate had announced that the separations of faith which had divided Christendom were nothing more than “antiquated prejudices”, and were not an obstacle to a “future union in accordance with the will of God” (he does not cite precisely where God says such a union must take place in Scripture, nor in the Fathers, where they will not be found.)

The Patriarch's letter continues with a number of disciplinary changes which he advises to take effect to advance such unity. Some are indeed innocent enough on the surface, and appear to be gestures of good will. Some would be quite obvious to a Patriarch of the Orthodox Church to be impossible from an Orthodox point of view, to wit:

“1. By the acceptance of a uniform calendar for the celebration of the great Christian feasts at the same time by all the churches.”

“5. By exchanging students for further training among the seminaries of the different churches.”

Such suggestions were immediately rebuffed by Orthodox clergy throughout the Church. In the Church of Russia, the largest Orthodox Church, the idea was strongly rejected.

In 1923, a “Pan-Orthodox Congress” was held to implement some of the changes of the 1920 Encyclical, the most notable being the adoption of the Western Calendar for liturgical uses. The representation at the Congress was, of course, incomplete, but the changes were accepted by some of the bodies of the Orthodox Church.

The reaction in Greece, where the Patriarchate held a great deal of sway, was one of alarm, leading notable clergy of the Church of Greece to argue that such a change was not only impossible, but that its implementation would lead to schism.1

In Russia, the Communists had created a schismatic body known as “the Living Church” to destroy potential monarchist opposition in the body of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Living Church sent representatives to the Congress, and accepted the reforms.2

For More Information on Ecumenism

More can be said about Ecumenism in the Orthodox Church, but it is indeed best to examine documents which deal with it in more detail, as a detailed history of Ecumenism is outside the scope of this essay.

The amount of literature that has been written on Ecumenism, both for and against it, in the 20th century, is massive. What is disturbingly noticeable is the Patristic foundation on the part of those against Ecumenism, and the equal lack thereof on the part of those in favor of it. The best work on the subject in the opinion of this author is still The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement, Fr George Macris, St Nectarios Press, Seattle, WA. The book is a stunning and extremely well-documented exposé of the process by which the official Orthodox Churches of Constantinople and Greece became involved in Ecumenism, and deals with other Orthodox Churches as well. It is this author's hope that the book will one day be made available online.

The book's major flaw, as well as the achilles' heel of most (but not all) of the texts which analyze Ecumenism, is that it clearly identifies the problem of Ecumenism as a heresy, but does not clearly delineate the solution to the problem of Ecumenism.

The reason for this is that many of these books (but again, thankfully, not all) are written from the perspective of members of individual True Orthodox bodies, which will be discussed below. Lacking administrative unity, the authors are, logically, generally biased towards their own True Orthodox body (the above book was written, however, from no particular Synodal perspective, and thus has the advantage of being unbiased, but the disadvantage of producing a fairly hopeless picture of the present and future for Orthodoxy.)

There are notable literary exceptions to the “rule of Synodal bias” even today (Fr. Michael Azkoul immediately comes to mind) but regardless of the biases of individual authors, the consistency and through examination of the Patristic teaching on the boundaries of the Church against the new boundaries written by Ecumenism are worth examining, and a list of suggested texts follows this essay.

Sergianism

Sergianism is somewhat more nuanced as a heresy, and finds its origin in the capitulation of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927 to the Soviet state, during which he publicly associated the “sorrows” of the anti-Christian authorities with the suffering of the Church. A definition for Sergianism is at times difficult to clarify, but it has been best defined as the Church submitting to the worldly authorities for the sake of its own survival.

Immediately after his erection by the Soviets as “Patriarch” in 1943 (Sergius could not be considered “elected”, as most of the Bishops of the Church were in hiding, and did not assent to the election3), the state had in its hands an effective tool for introducing Soviet propaganda to the world, and this it did through the newly formed World Council of Churches, a worldwide Ecumenical organization of different Christian bodies.

More information on Sergianism can be found in the bibliography below.

The History of the True Orthodox Churches

From the above, it can be easily guessed that the beginning of the True Orthodox Churches can be traced to the early part of the 20th Century. Below there will be a description of the major divisions found among the True Orthodox bodies which have arisen since this time, as well as a short historical background.

The Church of Greece

In 1924, the Bishops of the Church of Greece implemented the calendar change discussed at the pan-Orthodox congress. In protest, the former Primate of the Church of Greece, Germanos of Demetrias, retired in protest. Lay groups and brotherhoods formed to keep the use of the Orthodox calendar alive, despite state persecution (Greece was an Orthodox country, and the Church enjoyed certain privileges from the state) and finally, in 1935, three Bishops, certain that waiting for a reversal of the calendar change was irresponsible to their flocks, immediately declared their separation from the official Church and declared that the calendar change was a schismatic act.

A great deal has been written on the True Orthodox Church of Greece, as it came to be called, and some of the writings available on them will be listed at the end of this paper. We will define the major groupings within the True Orthodox Church of Greece below.

The Florinite/Matthewite Schism. By the 1940's, two parties had formed within the Church of Greece: the Florinites (under Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina) and the Matthewites (under Bp Matthew of Bresthena). The issue had been the former's vacillation on whether the mysteries of the State Church were still grace-filled. Both sides had their respective justifications for their positions, and both were violently persecuted by the state. In actual fact, the Matthewites were holding the Church's position consistently. That they labelled the Florinites as a whole as opportunists who were trying to ingratiate themselves with the state was unfortunate, and not altogether true for the followers of Metropolitan Chrysostom, and so the parties became psychologically distinct.

In the end, a real physical division was formed, whereas a real doctrinal division ended: Bishop Matthew singlehandedly consecrated another Bishop, and together they made more new Bishops. After the death of Bishop Matthew, however, Chrysostom of Florina reaffirmed the decision of 1935 declaring the New Calendar State Church as schismatic. (The reasons for this are unclear, and speculations give various answers.) In any case, the Matthewites proceeded to elect Archbishop Agathagelos to the rank of Primate of Athens in 1958.

We will deal first with the major divisions of the Florinites, since their divisions have generally been larger and more permanent in nature, and then the Matthewites.

Divisions within the Florinites

After the death of Metropolitan Chrysostom, the Florinites had no Bishops, and it is said that Metropolitan Chrysostom advised his flock to go under the protection of the Matthewite Bishops. Fearing the repercussions, however, the Florinites opted to seek a new hierarchy and appealed to Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR, see “Outside Russia”, below) to help them. In 1960, Archimandrite Akakios Pappas was made a Bishop for these communities without the official blessing of the ROCOR by Archbishop Leonty of Chile and Bp Theophilos Ionescu, a Romanian New Calendar Bishop under the ROCOR.  Later Bp Akakios and Bp Theophilos made 5 more Bishops, and they proceeded to elect Auxentios of Patras to be their new leader as Archbishop of Athens.  The ROCOR under Metropolitan Philaret eventually recognized the validity of the secret consecrations in 1969.

All of the current divisions of the Florinites come from one of the three groups below.

The Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece under Archbishop Auxentios of Athens (1969-1994)

The First Florinite Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece was fraught with problems by the 1970s, and two major separations occurred during the lifetime of Archbishop Auxentios. However, few doubt that Archbishop Auxentios himself was of a saintly character. Recently both the Makarian and the Chrysostomite Synods (see below) rehabilitated his memory (Archbishop Auxentios died in 1994); his Synod, fraught by schism in the 1980's, basically dissolved into more jurisdictions listed below after his death.

The  Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece under Archbishop Chrysostom of Athens (1985-)

Amidst charges of maladministration, the majority of the Florinite Synod chose a new leader in Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis), who demonstrated rather effectively that the True Orthodox in Greece were a force to be reckoned with. Choosing to take on the Greek legal system, court cases were held where it was demonstrated that the Old Calendarists of Greece were not schismatics. Though their public reputation had been tarnished over decades, their legal existence was, and is presently, safe. The Synod of Chrysostom of Athens is today the largest Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece.

The Synod of Chrysostom II formed in 1985 after declaring Archbishop Auxentios and those with him to be outside the Church due to the "consecration" of Dorotheos Tsakos, a man of ill repute, after a series of arguments erupted during the investigation of the alleged consecration.

The Holy Orthodox Church in North America under Metropolitan Makarios of Toronto (1986-)

By 1985, the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios still consisted of a number of Bishops in Greece and others loosely grouped in Western Europe and America.  The Western European Bishops had been given, the year before the first permanent schism in the True Orthodox Church of Greece, a tomos of autonomy in Western Europe and America in 1984, allowing them to operate freely in formerly Orthodox territories, containing only the provision that the Bishops attend general meetings of the Church each October. 

In 1986-1987, approximately one-third of the parishes of the ROCOR, the vast majority of which were in North America, left the ROCOR and, after a short period under a single Bishop, joined the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios (see above). The Church styled itself the Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA) was given two American Bishops, after which a third was made: currently the HOCNA Synod, which in 2001 declared itself "administratively independent" of its mother Church in Greece, has four Bishops.

The formation of this synod remains questionable.  HOCNA's leaders went under the Auxentios Synod, contrary to their statements to the contrary, completely against the will of their Bishop, who felt that Archbishop Auxentios was unfit to lead the Church.  Many later TOC writers assume this "change of heart" on the part of the HOCNA leadership was to manipulate the Greek hierarchy to make them an independent Church.  HOCNA's work to gain Bishops was indeed curious; and they resorted to strange methods to accomplish their goals.

As there were already Bishops in Western Europe and America in the Auxentios Synod, slander campaigns similar to those utilized against the ROCOR were promoted against those Bishops, and finally, lacking a formal charge, the HOCNA leadership charged the European Bishops with having refused to appear at Synodal meetings. The charge being sufficient for some of the Bishops in Greece, and the West Europeans uninterested in the politics in Greece, the HOCNA proceeded to make the claim for becoming the Church of North America.  After having two of their own made Bishops, they proceeded to scandalize the remaining Bishops in Greece. With the death of Auxentios in 1994, HOCNA, after nine months of recognizing the new Archbishop of Athens, Maximos (formerly of Kephalonia), declared the first hierarch to be invalid due to his illegal consecrations of other Bishops.  However, this coincided too closely to the Archbishop's request to see documents used in the ROCOR investigation of immorality in HOCNA's Boston monastery.  HOCNA declared itself to be, without a single Bishop in Greece (except for Theonas of Thessaly, who died shortly after his consecration) -- the True Orthodox Church of Greece.  The HOCNA declared itself "independent" from the Greek Church altogether a few years, making de jure what was already de facto.

The Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece under Archbishop Makarios of Athens; "The Lamian Synod" (1995-)

In 1995, a resistance faction formed within the Synod of Chrysostom (Kiousis) and separated itself over what they claimed to be a series of canonical infractions and combined with other Bishops of the remainder of the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios, which was then headed by Archbishop Makarios. The group was headed by Metropolitan Kallinikos of Lamia. In 2003, they finally decided to elect a primate, and elected Makarios of Athens. A good deal of their membership was then lost, as many who did not see themselves as separate from the Kiousis Synod were forced to decide between the two.

The Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas under Metropolitan Evlogios of Milan;"The Milan Synod" (1984-)

The True Orthodox Church of Greece under Maximos of Athens remained on friendly terms with the Western European Old Calendar Bishops, now commonly known as the Milan Synod,(which derives its name from the see of its primate since 1990, Metropolitan Evlogios of Milan and Aquilea) although its official name is the Autonomous Orthodox Synod of Western Europe and the Americas.  While there is no official communion between the two bodies, there is also no condemnation from one or the other side.

The Milan Synod's history is somewhat less complex than many of the other jurisdictions. In 1978, the True Orthodox Church of Greece elevated Fr John Rosha, a former priest of the Church Abroad, to the rank of Bishop of Portugal. This became a major point of contention with the ROCOR, as the Bishop had been baptized in the TOC of Greece, and had already been received by chrismation by the ROCOR.  As more West Europeans joined the True Orthodox Church of Greece, more Bishops were elevated until 1984, when Archbishop Auxentios, forseeing the schism in the Church of Greece, gave the Western European Bishops the right to act as an autonomous Eparchial Synod.  They remained estranged from the rest of the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios until his death due to the machinations of the HOCNA Bishops now in the Synod, although they continued to meet and celebrate with the Archbishop until his death in 1994.  As they were alone, they decided to enter into communion with Patriarch Volodymr (Romaniuk) of Ukraine, a dissident imprisoned for many years under the Communists, and with his mysterious death in 1995, the Synod broke communion with Ukraine.

In 2008, the Synod entered into communion with a single former Bishop of the Synod of Makarios of Athens and assisted in the elevation of another Bishop in Greece and announced that they were in communion with no other Bishops in Greece.

The Synod-in-Resistance of Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili (1985?-)

While this Church's official ecclesiology is peculiar, the amount of work that Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili and his Synod have done to assist True Orthodox throughout the world is impressive, and must be noted. The Church itself is rather small, but has been very effective in presenting intellectual arguments against the New Calendar State Church. It is headed by another defector from the Auxentios Synod, Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) of Fili, and holds a unique ecclesiology of "sick" and "healthy" churches, thus avoiding the repercussions that inevitably follow referring to the majority as subject to a schismatic body. Their ecclesiology is generally considered heretical or at least deeply flawed by the True Orthodox as a whole.

In 2007, it was announced that Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili had fallen into a coma, and that Bishop Cyprian of Oreoi is the acting head of the Synod.

Divisions within the Matthewites

The first Primate of Athens selected by the Matthewites was Agathelos of Athens, who reposed in 1967. 

The Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece under Archbishop Andrew of Athens (1967-2003)

Archbishop Andreas of Athens, one of the original three Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Matthew, was elected to the primacy in 1972. They remained united until 1995, when five of the nine Bishops formed the "Gregorian Synod".

The Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece under Archbishop Gregory of Messinia (1995-)

Under the primacy of Andreas of Athens, there were virtually no divisions in the Matthewites until 1995, when Metropolitan Gregory of Messinia separated with a small majority of the Synod (five versus four), ostensibly over the issue of the "God the Father" icon and the related issues of Western-style icons in general. However, with the death of three of their Bishops, the remaining two split, one remaining completely alone from the eldest hierarch, and the with Gregorios of Messinia naming three more Bishops (Abramios, Pavlos, and Nectarios).

The Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece under Archbishop Nicholas of Athens (2003-)

In February, 2003, Archbishop Andreas of Athens retired, and Archbishop Nicholas of Athens, considered by many to have a progressive vision for the Matthewite Church, was elected. Extremely popular with younger Matthewites, Archbishop Nicholas seems generally poised to keep the Matthewite Synod united.  However, it has been advanced that Archbishop Andreas retired in violation of the canons. In 2008, the Synod of Archbishop Nicholas undertook the great blessing of chrism.

The Synod of True Orthodox Christians under Metropolitan Kyrikos of Mesogaia (2005-)

Metropolitan Kirykos and two other Bishops of the Synod refused to recognize the retirement of Archbishop Andreas or the enthronement of the new Archbishop, but continued to remain a member of the Synod of Archbishop Nicholas. One of Kyrikos' vocal supporters had died; another Matthewite Bishop of the Synod has passed on recently in Metr Gorgonios, and there were rumors he too supported Metropolitan Kirykos.  The Synod reconstituted with an Old Calendar Romanian Bishop, who then consecrated a Bishop for Kenya.

Other Groupings

There was once a list posted of over 30 True Orthodox Greek Churches. This is in fact an unrealistic number. The number comes from an Old Internet listing of Bishops and Synods, some of whom had no following, and had one, if any Bishop. A demented compilation designed to confuse as well as convert, this infamous list indicated even temporary unions as existing jurisdictions. As well, even the Moscow Patriarchate was involved in the formation of one of these Bishops (Joachim Souris), and so the author is limiting the discussion to True Orthodox Churches with actual memberships and hierarchies-- in other words, actual Churches which come from True Orthodox Churches.

The Church of Russia

Inside Russia

With the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927, Orthodox Bishops in Russia began to apply Ukaz 362 of Patriarch St Tikhon and became administratively independent until such time as they could operate freely.

Ukaz 362 was written to preserve the Orthodox Church in times of persecution so that the Churches could survive. It gives the Bishops of the Russian Church, temporarily, the right to self-govern apart from each other until such time as they can organize. It is a masterpiece of self-preservation in a time where the rules of canonical order could not be followed to the letter due to the difficulty of travel, etc.

The number of Catacomb Churches in Russia is to date fairly large and to this day, no one knows where all of the catacomb Churches are. The history of the different catacomb Episcopates since 1927 is still not completely documented. There are also questions as to the legitimacy of certain catacomb Bishops. Sadly, these questions will have to be determined by a future all-Russian Council.

Outside Russia

The History of the Church outiside Russia is best summarized by St. John (Maximovitch), Archbishop of Shanghai and San Fransisco (+1966):

In November of 1921 in Sremsky-Karlovtsy in Yugoslavia the first Sobor abroad was held, in which in addition to 24 bishops, representatives of the clergy and laity took part. Being thus the voice of all Russians who had succeeded in leaving the Soviet authority, the Sobor considered itself obligated to express its opinion regarding the situation in Russia, where all the rest of the population of Russia was languishing under the oppression of that authority. The Sobor appealed to the Genoa Conference with the request not to support the Bolshevik regime and to help the Russian people to become free of it.

Thus was formed the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), which held, until recently, the banner of Russian Orthodoxy outside of the Russian territory.

The Russian Church Today

Today the situation is considerably clearer than it was 20 years ago; many of the groups that exist today have either been merged into other jurisdictions or have formed small, independent groups, administratively separate from the rest of the Church. Much of their current history is tied together with ROCOR, as most of the original Catacomb Bishops had been killed during state persecutions or died in hiding.

Russia Abroad: Divisions

The Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR) enjoyed relative stability until after the death of Metropolitan St Philaret of New York (+1985) and is currently in the process of uniting with Moscow. Since the death of St Philaret, three major groupings of True Orthodox Churches can be categorized.

The Holy Orthodox Church in North America. In 1986-1987, approximately one-third of the parishes of the ROCOR, the vast majority of which were in North America, left the ROCOR and joined the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios (see above). The Church styled itself the Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA) was given two American Bishops, after which a third was made: currently the HOCNA Synod, which in 2001 declared itself administratively independent of its mother Church in Greece, has four Bishops.

The Free Russian Orthodox Church. In 1994, the majority of the parishes of the Free Russian Orthodox Church (see below) broke communion with the ROCOR over their sudden inclination towards union with the Moscow Patriarchate, made manifest by their desire to “break apart” the Russian Parishes.

The Tragedy of the 2001 Sobor

In 2001, after the ROCOR made a clear commitment to union with the Moscow Patriarchate, the head of the ROCOR Synod, Metropolitan Vitaly, retired in clear disgust from the proceedings.

Almost immediately afterwards, Metropolitan Vitaly, Archbishop Varnava of Cannes, and the two of the Russian Bishops of ROCOR, separated from the ROCOR and made new Bishops. The proceedings that led up to these events are well documented on the Internet and the treatment of the retired head of the ROCOR was painful to watch, for even the most casual observer. Since then, Metropolitan Vitaly has headed the reorganized ROCOR from his home in Mansonville. Until recently, they were known as the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile, having since returned to the original name of ROCOR.

The Russian Church in Exile. The Russian Church in Exile has since primarily split into two parts-- the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (North America) and the True Russian Orthodox Church in Russia (see below). Both claim to be under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Vitaly. However, the Russian Church in Exile immediately made new Bishops for Russia; most of the Russian parishes of the ROCOR are still under the Exile Church.  Most recently, in 2004, the Athonite community of Esphigmenou (the sole monastery of the Holy Mountain that still refuses to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch since the calendar change) had declared its recognition of Metropolitan Vitaly as the legitimate First-Hierarch of ROCOR.  Sadly, due to a moral crisis, Bishop Varnava betrayed his church structure and returned to the ROCOR under Metropolitan Laurus.

Metropolitan Vitaly reposed in 2006, and the Church broke into three parts due to the fact that a Sobor was not called to establish continuity within the ROCOR.  With the exception of the small remaining provisional Synod of Bps Vladimir of San Fransisco and Anastassy of Vladivostok, most of the Russian groups refer to the destruction of the new ROCOR as "Zhukovite"-- meaning that Protopriest Benjamin Zhukov was responsible for the collapse of the Russian Church.

The Russian Orthodox Church in Exile under Archbishop Anthony of San Fransisco (2006-)

The announcement of the consecration of a married priest named Fr Nikita Orloff who was separated by his wife as a secret Bishop for the Latin America shocked the ROCOR, and may have sped the process of schism. In any case, in conjunction with Russian Bishops made recently, notably Bp Victor (Pivovarov), Archbishop Anthony (Orloff) was elected the new hierarch for the ROCOR after a hierarchical Sobor was not called to clarify the position of the administration.

The Russian Orthodox Church under Bishop Damascene of Moscow (2006-)

Within a few months it was clear that another split would take place over who controlled the Russian Orthodox Church. Thus Bishops Damascene of Moscow and Central Russia and a newly elected Bishop John of south Russia broke from the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile to form a new provisional Synod for Russian Parishes. The formation of the Provisional Synod of Bishop Damscene of Moscow has seen considerable growth in the past three years with and without the help of the higher authority, accomplishing a great deal on its own.

Other divisions continue to form from the Russian Bishops. Notably, Archbishop Anthony of Beltsk and Moldova single-handedly consecrated a Synod of Bishops, which will not be discussed here.

The Provisional Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (2008-)

Finally, in April of 2008, two remaining Bishops of the original Russian Church in Exile Synod, Bishops Vladimir of San Fransisco and Anastassy of Vladivostok, called what remained of the original ROCiE that had not joined another grouping into a Sobor, reorganizing into two districts: Eurasian and American, as well as glorifying Metropolitan Philaret.

The Free Russian Orthodox Church: Divisions

In 1990, ROCOR had announced that a Bishop had secretly been consecrated to assist the believers in Russia (Bishop Varnava of Cannes), who then proceeded, with the blessing of the Synod, to make more Bishops for Russia, the most prominent being Bishop Valentine of Suzdal and Lazarus of Tambov.

The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church under Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal (1994-)

The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) is by far the largest of the Russian True Orthodox Churches with hundreds of parishes in Russia and abroad, and one of the most controversial. Headed by the-now-Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal, the Synod has twelve Bishops and is enjoying a period of relative stability amidst intermittent persecution on the part of the state Church, the former Soviet Moscow Patriarchate. One Bishop, Gregory of Colorado, recently went into schism, but took no parishes with him save four.

The Russian True Orthodox Church under Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia (2006-)

Bp Lazarus of Tambov, himself well-known in Russia, rejoined the ROCOR after the Free Russian Orthodox Church separated, leaving again after the formation of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (see above). He and Bishop Benjamin of Kuban consecrated a new set of Bishops, claiming that they had the right to form administratively.  Bp Lazarus reposed in 2007, and was replaced by Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia. They are currently in negotiations with the True Orthodox Church of Greece under Archbishop Chrysostomos.

The Union of 2007 and After

In May of 2007, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, now under Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) finally entered into full communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, with the exception of Bishop Agafangel, who proceeded to organize parishes of the Church Abroad into a "provisional Synod" which was given Bishops by the Cyprianites (see above), meaning that since 1986, well over 40% of the Church Abroad's original membership had departed.

In June of 2008, the Russian Church Abroad attended their first Sobor of the Moscow Patriarchate, where Bishop Diomid was defrocked for his opposition to ecumenism.  Bp Diomid's diocesan secretary, Hegumen Elia, immediately joined the Russian True-Orthodox Church (see above).

Other Groupings

The amount of confusion among the remaining Russian Orthodox parishes is not really worthy of note, as most have almost no visible membership, though two groups of historical value are the Church under Ambrose (Von Sievers) and the Seraphimo-Gennadite Church. Questions about their legitimacy and ecclesiology abound, however, and due to their small membership, there is a serious question as to how much discussion such groups actually merit, since they are usually reabsorbed into larger Churches.

Other National Churches

Other countries have been given True Orthodox hierarchies by the above groups.

Romania

The history of True Orthodoxy in Romania has a rich history and goes back to 1924. 

Most of the faithful are currently under the omophor of Metropolitan Vlasie of Romania and his subordinate Bishops. Romania was given Bishops by the Synod under Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili (see above).

One parish is under the Lamian Synod (see above).

Bulgaria

The majority of the faithful are under the Cyprianites (see “Cyprian of Fili” above) and comprise a few dozen parishes, their Bishop being Photios of Triaditsa.

Two Churches are under Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal, and two left with Bishop Gregory of Colorado during his departure.

Georgia

In Georgia, dozens of monastics fled the official Patirarchate of Georgia in protest over ecumenism in 1998. HOCNA (see above) absorbed many of them, and they style themselves the True Orthodox Church of Georgia. They currently have no Bishop and are administratively under North America.

One Cyprianite priest, Fr Basil Mklavilishki is well-known for acts of heinous violence against Western religious groups. Sadly, he has the ear of the state and routinely escapes prosecution, giving a bad name to the True Orthodox who do not support his actions, and, sounding like a member of the official Georgian Church (which has a policy of religious intolerance) is a prime example of the new thinking of the state Church in Georgia.

Ukraine

The situation in Ukraine deserves its own paper and is beyond the scope of this essay. The Churches there deserve mention, however, since most of the Russian groups have parishes in Ukraine (ROAC has two Bishops in Ukraine.) Worthy of note is the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church (UAOC) under Metropolitan Methody Kuriakov; while the ecclesiology of the UAOC is not particularly firm, they consecrated Bishops for at least one True Orthodox group in Russia.

The Right to Secede

After reading the above, the first question that comes to mind is: is this lawful and the way Christ intended the Church? The answer is that under normal circumstances, this is absolutely unlawful. However, these are not “normal circumstances”. When one considers the level of persecution these Churches have suffered, the fact that they have maintained such a level of order and stability is a testimony to their faith. Even today, many of these Bishops have suffered time in prison for their faith, their flocks subject to harrassment and mockery at the hands of mainstream religious media. Yet they have not introduced any bizzare innovations to merit such mistreatment and derision, and in response, they say: we are reviled: and we bless. We are persecuted: and we suffer it. (1 Cor 4:12)

If we put aside the question of the confusion in which these Churches formed, however, we have to return to the question of whether these Churches have a right to exist outside of the communion of the official Orthodox Church, or not.

The central question is: are these Churches schismatic bodies? -- Have they separated themselves from the Orthodox Church?

The canons of the Orthodox Church were compiled over the first nine centuries of Christianity. In them, all the general rules of canonical order are covered, particularly governing questions of schism, separation from a Bishop or Synod, and in almost all cases such separation is punishable by deposition from the clerical state, or excommunication of the laity.

However, canon XV of the First-Second Synod in the 9th Century allows for one exception. The canon is quoted in full here.

The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter's name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgement against him, creates a schism, the holy Synod has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and disrupt the union of the Church. But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.

The above clearly demonstrates that when necessary, Orthodox Christians have the right to organize in cases of heresy being preached. It also makes clear another fact-- they have the right to do so because the Bishops they are separating from have lost the right to refer to themselves as lawful hierarchs.

Let us consider from 1920 to the year of this writing, 2004.

Both the national Churches of Greece and Russia (as well as the other ones mentioned) are now member Churches of the World Council of Churches, whose stated aim is to unite all Christians into a “future Church” (denying, therefore, that there is an existing Church.)

In 1965, Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople reversed the decision of the Orthodox Church in 1054 to anathematize Cardinal Humbert for beginning the schism which ultimately created the Roman Catholic Church, thus after a thousand years validating the largest schism from the Orthodox Church in history.

Since 1965, regular concelebrations between official Orthodox and Roman Catholics have been held at Rome, although this is in violation of the canons against concelebrating with heretics4.

The official Church of Russia made it a policy in the 1970's to give communion to Roman Catholics if their Churches were not available.

The Balamand declaration made it impermissible for Orthodox to evangelize Roman Catholics in their territories.

The Antiochian Patriarchate, since 1990, officially recognizes the mysteries of the Syrian Jacobite Church, which had not been the case for over a thousand years.

Since the True Orthodox of Georgia left the state Church, the Patriarch reaffirmed his commitment to ecumenism.

The Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Antiochian Orthodox Patriarch recently concelebrated a liturgy together (Feb 6, 2004).

The real question is not are the True Orthodox in schism-- but when does it end?

When do Orthodox have the right to say “this is too much heresy for me?”

Do we have to wait for pagan ceremonies to be introduced? (They have been at the WCC general assemblies, such as Canberra in 1990.)

Do we have to wait to see Orthodox Bishops giving medals of honor to atheist leaders? (While this was done by Metropolitan Sergius, it has also been done outside Russia: Ecumenical Patriarch awarded Fidel Castro for "humanitarian efforts"--! -- shocking and horrifying the Cuban exile community in America.)

The Church's teaching on the matter is clear. True Orthodox are not schismatics. They are doing their job and living as Orthodox Christians should, under Orthodox Bishops.

The Position of the True Orthodox Churches Concerning Priests and Parishes Under the Innovating Bodies

True Orthodox have divergent positions on how to treat laypeople and clergy of the innovating Churches. In general, the practice leans towards economy, depending on how the individual was received into Orthodoxy. Generally, True Orthodox try to recognize as much as possible the Orthodoxy of the laity of these innovating Churches, insofar as they may not be aware of the guilt of their hierarchies. Insofar as the official Orthodox are increasingly changing even the way their services are performed, this is becoming more and more difficult.

In most cases, True Orthodox in Russia bring people in from the Moscow Patriarchate through either confession or chrismation. In Greece, they are usually brought in through chrismation, although of late there has been a tendency to baptise since the form of baptism is changing in the state Church. However, these are officially Orthodox countries. In other countries the practice seems to vary based on the individual case.

The general teaching of the True Orthodox when using economy is that false mysteries are being “filled” with grace, not that the mysteries of the innovating Churches are valid.

In general, clergy of innovating Churches are either vested or reordained. It occasionally happens that a priest may be baptized and ordained anew, but is usually rarer, as they have in many cases been born and raised in a national Church, and by virtue of their age likely were baptized properly.

The Future of True Orthodoxy as Seen Through the Eyes of the Past

The Orthodox world of today is an adventure. The fight for survival on the part of the True Orthodox Church is taking Orthodox to places they have not been in two millenia. People who are part of the ancient Church of Christ, historically for the past few hundred years a state religion, find themselves in a new-- but strangely old historical context.

The partisans of traditional Orthodoxy now find themselves fighting for their right to exist.

This has led to a peculiar irony--by the close of the 19th century, Orthodox countries were known for their difficulties in dealing with religious minorities, and the rise of ecumenism came through the preaching of an end to religious intolerance....

But now, at war in the courts and on the streets with the state Churches, the True Orthodox, the legitimate heirs of these national Churches, find themselves in the news as accidental guardians of religious liberty, themselves regarded as sectarians, sometimes desperately fighting to keep temples they built with their own hands from being taken from them in the name of “Orthodoxy”.

Yet they are no sect, for a sect needs a teaching, and they teach Orthodoxy. They are treated as cults, but cults need a leader, and their leader is Jesus Christ.

As in the early days of Christianity, the highest authorities in the Church know their flocks by name, and the flocks know their shepherds. Stripped of earthly wealth, True Orthodox Christians have chosen instead the greatest wealth, the wealth of the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church. Many of the holiest men of prayer and the finest ecclesiastical thinkers have been-- and are part of-- the True Orthodox Church, and die as confessors of the faith, some lucky enough to be martyrs. Yet from the new confessors such as St Philaret to the oldest grandmother lighting a candle, the hope is the same. The hope is for peace, but not earthly, but for the peace from on high, the salvation of our souls, and the union of all.

For Further Reading

This is a “short list” of titles in English that should be in every bookcase for those wanting to learn more about the True Orthodox Churches in Greece and Russia and the mindset behind True Orthodoxy in general. I have selected as much as possible that can be found online.

Andreyev, I.M. Is the Grace of God Present in the Soviet Church? Monastery Press, Alberta, Canada.

Andreyev, I.M. Russia's Catacomb Saints. St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, CA. (Out of Print. Available Online.)

Azkoul, Fr. Michael. Once Delivered to the Saints: An Orthodox Apologia for the New Millenium. St. Nectarios Press, Seattle WA.

Holy Orthodox Church in North America. The Struggle Against Ecumenism. Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston, Boston, MA.

Kailomiros, Dr. Alexander. Against False Union. St Nectarios Press, Seattle, WA. (Available Online.)

Kailomiros, Dr. Alexander. The Touchstone. Previously Unpublished in English. (Available Online.)

Macris, Fr. George. The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement. St Nectarios Press, Seattle, WA.

Maximovitch, Abp. St. John. The History of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Orthodox Word, March-April 1971, Vol VII, #2. (Available Online).

Moss, Vladimir. The Free Russian Orthodox Church: A Short History. (Available Online.)

Voznesensky, Met. Philaret. The Sorrowful Epistles of Metropolitan Philaret of New York. (Available Online.)

---

For More Information About True Orthodox Churches From Their Official and Unofficial Websites, visit http://www.trueorthodox.tk.

---

4The canons in question are Canon XLV and LXV of the Holy Apostles and Canon IX and XXXIII of Laodicea.

---

Versions and changes reflected in each page.

1.1. Corrections on GOX.
1.1.1. Corrections on GOX (Matthewites). Title change.
1.1.2. Missed Correction on GOX (Matthewites) fixed.  Explanation of version numbers for people who thought the version numbers referred to the Churches in question, not to the paper.
1.2. Introductory quotes added.
1.3. Moved to Geocites.  Information added concerning Esphigmenou recognition of ROCOR (V).
1.5. More information on the Milan Synod added.
2.1 Restructured most jurisdictional sections of pages. Added information on Milan, ROCOR, RosOC, RTOC, PSCA, Kirykites.