In our time, it would be regarded as absurd that anyone would accuse American Catholics of heresy over a devotion to such staples of American political values. Setting aside for the moment the controversial peculiarities of modern American Roman Catholicism even within the wider Roman communion, it must be admitted that the “Americanists,” such as they may have been, have essentially won. Few American Catholics would say that one cannot be fully American and yet fully Roman Catholic. There has come to be no contradiction seen between these identities. (For an example of a rather less successful merger of such values, one need only look at the liberation theology of South American Catholic Marxists.)

Like those Roman Catholics living in 19th century America, for Orthodox Christians living in 21st century America, the question of how exactly one is to be faithful to one’s communion in this particular place is again paramount. Though the debates about Orthodoxy’s history, present and future in America range widely—from canons to language to proofs to corruption to double-dealing to controversial candidates for the episcopacy or canonization—the question at the heart of all these debates is really this: What is our identity?

One attempt to grapple with our past and our future might also be termed Americanism. Unlike those 19th century Roman Catholics, however, modern Orthodox Americanists (not to be confused with Orthodox Americans) have chosen different elements of American identity with which to interpret and (I would argue) distort not only our history but our faith.

Legalism

Perhaps the clearest and most troubling such element is the spirit of legalism which pervades Americanist readings of our history, accompanied by their prescriptions for our future. The narrative typically follows this shape: Because the Church of Russia was the first in America (in Alaska, 1794), it gained immediate rights to the whole continent. Thus, when in 1970 it granted autocephaly to the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America (the Metropolia), which subsequently renamed itself as the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), the exclusively legitimate Orthodox Church for America finally was born.

There are numerous problems with this narrative even on purely “legal” grounds: Does jurisdiction in Russian Alaska automatically extend to the entire continent, under the control of multiple colonial powers at the time? Did the Russian Metropolia even view itself as exclusively legitimate prior to the establishment of other jurisdictions in America? What does it mean that the Metropolia granted canonical release to the Antiochian parishes operating on its territory? For the purposes of ecclesiastical annexation, do the canons actually allow for appointing bishops outside one’s canonical territory? (The opposite, really.)

But the issue here is not really all these legal grounds. For one thing, it is anachronistic to read our history in this fashion, since there is no indication prior to about 1927 that anyone was making the claim that all Orthodox in America had been united under the Russians, that the Russians enjoyed an exclusive, universally acknowledged claim over the whole continent, or that the Metropolia ever really regarded the other Orthodox in America outside its jurisdiction as illegitimate, uncanonical, etc. But now there are some commentators saying precisely all these things, some even going so far now as to claim that all those outside the Metropolia’s jurisdiction were really not Orthodox. Such a claim, if true, would render most Orthodox Christians currently in America bereft of the sacraments.

What is most troubling, however, is this dedication to legal technicalities. It is certainly a major facet of American life that we like to get the legal authorities involved at the drop of a hat, so much so that, even when we are not actually involving the police or the courts, we still think and speak in such precise technicalities. Even if this anachronistic narrative of our history were actually defensible on purely canonical, legal grounds, this spirit goes wholly against the spirit of the Orthodox Christian faith. We were not appointed by God to be lawyers for His Kingdom, but rather “able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Cor. 3:6). Reading history in order to find ammunition for “claims,” etc., is basically a Westernization, a distortion of our church life along lines foreign to our basic ethos. It is what Fr. Georges Florovsky would have called a “pseudomorphosis” (a term he used when referring to the distortions which accrued in Russian theological life as a result of the “Western Captivity” which led up to the Bolshevik Revolution).

While it is surely an American thing to call out the lawyers and pull out the law books in order to adjudicate nearly every dispute, this is not the content of our Orthodox Christian faith. If we wanted to be Christian legalists, we would find no better home than Calvinism, a theology designed by a lawyer.

Sectarianism

A dedication to “the letter” typically leads to sectarianism, the rigid sense that one particular ecclesiastical faction is right while all the others are wrong. At the foundation of this sensibility is also a historiographical problem, the identification of a sort of “golden thread” which stretches unbroken from some favored moment (e.g., St. Herman landing in Russian Alaska) to the current day. The favored sect is the sole lens through which this history is read.

The theological problem at the heart of this side of Americanism is the refusal to look into the faces of fellow Orthodox Christians and see the Church. This ideological approach to faith is the same one which gives rise to totalitarianism in politics, which always necessarily follows a dedication to ideology. What is most important is the transcendent narrative, not the other person. That is why the other can be dehumanized and demonized, and insulting epithets can be hurled at church leaders who do not represent one’s preferred sect. In politics, this leads to persecution, but in ecclesiology, this leads to schism.

I believe that one of the major elements in the Americanist approach to our history and our future is precisely the schismatic spirit, the one that prefers to be “right” rather than to love, the one that makes demands and sets exclusive terms rather than taking every opportunity to work together and sacrifice for the other. This attitude has been rarely more evident than in the recent Internet storm over the newly formed Episcopal Assembly, which it seems can only be up to no possible good. I very much believe that the Americanists want it to fail in its task. I’m not really sure what they would put in its place, however, other than an entirely unrealistic expectation that the overwhelming majority bow to the small minority of their favored “jurisdiction.”

But all our “jurisdictions” must die in order that our Church may live. We cannot become one Church for America without all giving up what we are in order to become what God has called us to be: a single testament to the Orthodox Christian faith. I cannot see any workable solution which would not require the disbanding of all our current “jurisdictions.”

Demonization

As an example of the demonization typical of the sectarian spirit, many Americanists will point to the controversial claim of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to jurisdiction over all the diaspora (i.e., all areas outside universally acknowledged canonical territories) based on Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council. It is true that such a claim is almost never taken seriously except by Constantinople itself. Yet while Constantinople’s claim is raged about, few of the Americanists, who typically have a much greater affection for Constantinople’s main rival of Moscow, will criticize the much broader claim made by Moscow in its very Statute:

The jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church shall include persons of Orthodox confession living on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Moldavia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Latvia, Lithuania, Tajikistan, Turkmenia, Uzbekistan and Estonia and also Orthodox Christians living in other countries and voluntarily joining this jurisdiction. (emphasis added)

Not only does Moscow define its jurisdiction primarily as one over “persons” rather than simply over geographic territory, the very wording of its Statute permits Moscow jurisdiction everywhere in the world, limited not only to specific territories and the diaspora, but even theoretically to within the territories of existing Orthodox churches.

This disturbing, universalist approach to ecclesiology, with some variations, is not exclusive to Constantinople and Moscow, however. Contrary to the canons, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland and even the OCA also maintain parishes outside their officially claimed canonical territory. This anomaly is rampant, and almost no Orthodox church in the world is innocent of it. We have indeed seen the enemy, and he is us.

Nationalism

The problem of nationalism in Orthodoxy throughout the world is of course also rampant and its sins well-known. For Americanists, it is most often expressed on grounds which are basically Orthodox—a desire to be shepherded by local shepherds—but the expression of those grounds often takes us into a rebellious and nationalistic direction. So-called “foreign” bishops are rejected (which discounts missionaries), total local independence is assumed to be the norm at all times (which discounts the numerous centuries throughout Church history in which various churches were dependent for lengthy periods on “foreign” administrations far away). The ultimate desire of Americanist nationalism is that our bishops would simply thumb their ecclesiastical noses at the “foreigners” in other lands and declare us immediately to be an independent, autocephalous church. As precedent for such an act, they correctly point to when this has happened before.

But with modern communication and travel, “foreign” bishops are not so foreign as they once were. In the past, a unilateral self-declaration of autocephaly was much more practical than it is today, due precisely to these same factors. Though uncanonical, it is now much more possible to have an international, worldwide jurisdiction answering to a single synod. What Rome declared de jure and enforced with anathema has now become de facto for ten Orthodox jurisdictions which operate outside their traditional and/or self-defined territory (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland and the OCA).

Yet with such unilateral self-declarations of autocephaly in the past, the driving factor was practical: the need to form a local, self-sustaining common church life. What we have now is numerous overlapping networks of self-sustaining church life, bound together internationally by easy communication and speedy travel. Globalization has taken a toll on our Church life, permitting it to become distorted beyond the essentially localist approach witnessed to in our canonical tradition, where decisions made by leaders had to be lived with by those leaders. They were shepherding their neighbors.

If we are to regain our localist sensibility for church governance, then we cannot rely on a means which was supported by a different technological age. The unilateral declaration of autocephaly is impractical in our time. Why? It’s because there are already existing international networks for American Orthodox Christians to fall back on. This is why the formation of local networks is so critical. This is why our mother churches have mandated the formation of the Episcopal Assemblies.

It may well be that the Assemblies are just a power grab by whatever jurisdiction we hate the most. But even if that is true, what is happening at them is the formation of a common local identity.

St. Raphael Hawaweeny

All of this fractiousness may be cured by looking no further than our common Creed, which attests to our belief in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As Orthodox Christians living in America, we have no path to unity—indeed, no path to our own salvation—except through love. We must look at one another’s faces and see the Church there. When we cease to do so, we have become sectarians and schismatics.

All of the history of Orthodoxy in America is our common history. It does not matter which “jurisdiction” we are in. The saints, the sinners, the laity, the clergy, the successes, the failures—all of these are mine. All of this history is our history. It is not the history of Russians or Greeks or Syrians or converts, etc. It is the history of the Orthodox. We need to learn to say with St. Raphael of Brooklyn, “I am an Arab by birth, a Greek by primary education, an American by residence, a Russian at heart, and a Slav in soul.” He didn’t just tolerate these other people; he identified himself with them.

Many of these elements of American culture that I call “Americanism” and that are at odds with our faith also are now characteristic of other cultures throughout the world, and we can see their ill effects in other Orthodox churches, as well. Claims and counter-claims, legalism, sectarianism and nationalism are all major pastoral problems plaguing Orthodoxy worldwide, and no doubt we would have a more peaceful and united presence in the world if we could shed these sins. American culture has much that is worth preserving and enhancing, but as truly Orthodox Christian Americans, there are some elements of that culture that need not preservation, but repentance.

We have an opportunity in our time to put aside all of our claims and sectarianism Phariseeism, to see one another as fellow children of God, and to build a common church life. We’ve come a long way, and at least to me, it seems that the future is starting to look a lot brighter.

I really cannot wait to see where we go from here.

[This article was written by Fr. Andrew S. Damick.]

Editorial: The New Americanism, Orthodox History and Unity in America is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Ingram N.W. (Fr. Nathaniel) Irvine and Bishop Alexander Burgess is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Comparing Irvine and Archbishop Arseny is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Indeed, I think we need to develop a new way of telling the story succinctly so that we don’t risk exposing ourselves to historical inaccuracy.  Perhaps this is something I should do in the near term–attempt to write a succinct, blog-post length, history.  The point is not to hit all the details, but to have an overview that is as consistent with those details as possible.

I like this idea a lot — a short-and-sweet history of Orthodoxy in America, comprehensible to anyone. When Fr. Oliver writes one up, we’ll be sure to publish it here at OrthodoxHistory.org.

[This article was written by Matthew Namee.]

A Primer on American Orthodox Christian History is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

On April 16th, 1912, the attorneys for both sides agreed that “the above entitled action be discontinued without costs to either party as against the other; and that an order to this effect may be entered by either party without notice.”

On April 18th, 1912, the Honorable Henry Bischoff ordered precisely that.

This certainly does not add support to those who would claim that Archbishop Arseny was innocent of having raped (or even just slept with) Mary Krinitsky. It is true, of course, that Svoboda could be innocent of libel at the same time that then-Archimandrite Arseny was innocent of accusations of rape (or even simply fathering Mary’s child).  The reason the discontinuance does not help those wanting to canonize +Arseny, however, is that it shows he was unable to demonstrate that the Svoboda article was, without a doubt, a case of libel.  Note, too, that this was during a time in which it was easier to prove libel than it is now.

There is always an inherent risk with a libel case–the person pressing it ends up exposing him/herself to scrutiny while the party charged with libel often walks away relatively unscathed.  When this happens, it can make things look worse for the party filing the libel complaint.  I think that happened here.  Archimandrite Arseny was unable to prove that Svoboda committed libel, leaving those supporting his canonization without a slam dunk case exonerating him.

Make no mistake, the burden of proof lies with those who wish to canonize him.  By failing to prove that the accusation was irrefutably false, Arseny left the question unanswered and we now are in the position of reviewing the evidence at hand to the best of our ability.   We are also in a position, I believe, that demands we acknowledge canonization would be inopportune and imprudent.

There are a few other avenues that may be yet available for investigation but at this point, we have the criminal trial’s transcript (at least most of it) and the discontinuance of the civil case.  It is quite possible we might not have anything else to find with respect to this case, but one never knows.  Should I uncover additional relevant source material, I will post on that as well.

Fr. Oliver Herbel, Executive Director

[This was published on Frontier Orthodoxy: http://frontierorthodoxy.wordpress.com]

Archimandrite Arseny’s Civil Suit against the Ruthenian Publishing and Exchange Company is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Those desiring to read it may find the article here:

http://www.equinoxjournals.com/BT/article/view/6861/6042

This is not the most comprehensive look at any one of the people noted here (for example, I discussed Fr. Raphael Morgan to a greater extent in my dissertation, a work I am editing with the hopes of future publication).  It is, however, the first time in academic print that Fr. Raphael Morgan has been linked to the African Orthodox Church and that church to the Brotherhood of St. Moses the Black.  The former connection is historical and direct, the latter is a thematic connection.

Matthew Namee had mentioned the connection of Fr. Raphael and the AOC in a post on SOCHA’s website:

http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/07/indirect-conversion-of-thousands-theory/

So, interested readers now have the opportunity to learn more about the connections that some of us have known about but not published about extensively.

[This article was written by Fr. Oliver Herbel and originally published on Frontier Orthodoxy.]

Fr. Raphael Morgan, the African Orthodox Church, and the Brotherhood of St. Moses the Black is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

St. Anatolii Kamenskii

Originally, the following was made as a comment over on Frontier Orthodoxy, but I (Fr. Oliver) have asked Fr. Andrew Morbey to write it up as a separate post because I think it is good reading for everyone.  I had forgotten that I had been told that Kamenskii was canonized.  I am very thankful that Fr. Andrew reminded me of this.  I should also point out that Fr. Andrew says he has not actually seen an icon yet at this point.  His references are, at least in part, the Irkutsk diocese website and calendars from ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate.  So, with no further ado, the guest post:

Readers may be interested to note that Fr. Antonii – actually Anatole (Alexey Vasilevich) – Kamenskii is glorified as a Russian New-Martyr on the calendars of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad. His memory is commemorated and heavenly intercessions are especially sought on the Feast of the Synaxis of of the New-Martyrs of the American Land (December 12/25). He is known as the New Hieromartyr Anatole (Kamensky), Archbishop of Irkutsk. Dates of his repose vary – September 20 (1920) and January 24 (1921) are sometimes given.

St Anatole went from Sitka to Minneapolis, btw. He even took a degree from the University of Minnesota – in History! He was born October 3, 1863 in the Samara diocese. In 1888 he graduated from the Samara Theological Seminary. He married and on August 6, 1888 was ordained a priest for the church of the village Hilkova in the Samara diocese.

Following the death of his wife, in 1891 he entered the St. Petersburg Theological Academy and graduated with the degree of Candidate of Theology in 1895. In the same year on August 26, Bishop Nikandr (Molchanov) tonsured him a monk and he was appointed the Rector of Sitka (Alaska) Archangel Michael Cathedral, Superintendent of missionary schools, and Dean of the Sitka District. He became an Archimandrite in 1897. In 1898 he is listed on the staff of the Bishops’ house in San Francisco. In 1899 he was appointed Head of Minneapolis missionary school (founded in 1897 it became the first Orthodox Seminary in North America in 1905). Some material concerning this period of his life can be found in Sergei Kan’s introduction of the recent edition to Tlingit Indians of Alaska. (The University of Alaska Press. Fairbanks, 1999) – a translation of St Anatole’s ethnographic work, Indiane Aliaski, published in Odessa in 1906.

Some photos of St Anatole in Alaska can be found at:

http://vilda.alaska.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/cdmg21&CISOPTR=4987&REC=5

http://vilda.alaska.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/cdmg21&CISOPTR=5140&REC=6

http://vilda.alaska.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/cdmg21&CISOPTR=815&REC=7

In 1903 he returned to Russia and was appointed Rector of the Odessa Theological Academy. On December 10, 1906 he was consecrated Bishop of Elizavetgrad, vicar of the diocese of Kherson. The consecration was held at the Holy Trinity Cathedral of Alexander Nevsky Lavra. Consecrators: Anthony, Metropolitan of St Petersburg and Ladoga; Metropolitan Vladimir of Moscow; Metropolitan Flavian of Kiev, and other archbishops and bishops. On July 30, 1914 he was appointed Bishop of Tomsk and Altai. [Curiously, my son Rowan, also a University of Minnesota graduate in History ended up in Tomsk too] He was a member of the State Duma convocation. He attended the 1917-18 All-Russian Church Council in Moscow. In 1919 he was one of the main organizers of *Teams of the Sacred Cross* in the White Army of Admiral Kolchak. (There is an interesting story about his involvement in the attempt to move precious icons and relics to the east) After the defeat of Kolchak’s armies, however, he remained in Russia. In 1920 he was appointed Bishop of Irkutsk.

In April 1922, St Anatole was arrested by the Bolsheviks, charged with concealing church property, and in July he was sentenced to execution. His sentence was commuted to 10 years imprisonment in strict isolation, and he was retired as Bishop. In 1924 he was released from prison, and re-appointed by Patriarch Tikhon as Archbishop of Irkutsk. However,the Provincial Administration refused to allow him to register as Archbishop of Irkutsk or to occupy his Cathedral, which was then in the hands of the Living Church. St Anatole therefore resided in Omsk.

His repose is variously dated November, 1924 or September 20, 1925. One account has him dying in Omsk: “He was vouchsafed a blessed repose in the altar of the Bratsk church during the Vigil for Sunday. Sensing the weakness of his heart, he said good-bye to all and, sitting in a chair as the choir was singing ‘Glory to God in the highest’ he quietly died.

Holy Hieromartyr Anatole, pray to God for us!

St. Anatole Kamenskii: A Guest Post by Fr. Andrew Morbey is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Orthodoxy in Alaska after 1885 and Protestant Missionaries is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

First, I should state that there are aspects of the case and testimonies that I have not highlighted that may deserve further scrutiny and there are some details I have examined and/or questioned about which I could be wrong.  When trying to see one’s way through such a convoluted situation as this case presents, that is natural.

My second note, here, is precisely along those lines.  I had stated that it is my conclusion that then-Archimandrite Arseny perjured himself.  I have since learned (through a lawyer-friend) that lying under oath and perjury are a little like squares and rectangles.   Just as all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares, so all perjuries are lies under oath but not all lies under oath are perjuries.  To perjure oneself, one has to make a statement that can be proven false and that can be shown known to be false by the person under oath.  Further, that lie has to be material to the case at hand.  The first criterion is fulfilled in this case.  Fr. Arseny knew he had a son and lied about it.  The second criterion does not seem fulfilled since the question would have to be material to the alleged libel published in Svoboda.  Svoboda published an article on the alleged rape, not on Arseny’s prior life in Russia.  At the very least, it would take some proof and arguing to show how the questions concerning +Arseny’s life in Russia prior to coming to America were material to the alleged rape.

In light of this legal clarification, I must state that it seems to me that Archbishop Arseny likely did not perjure himself even though he did lie under oath.

The clarification doesn’t make me feel a whole lot better about +Arseny’s testimony, as he still lied, but I think this is an important clarification to note.

Anyhow, as I have already noted, there is more work to do and the evidence concerning +Arseny’s rape of Mary Krinitsky is inconclusive.  May the OCA in Canada address all of this with due diligence and prudence.

Fr. Oliver Herbel, Executive Director

[This entry has been posted at http://frontierorthodoxy.wordpress.com]

Archbishop Arseny Addendum is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Ok, now back to the defense’s case and Hrycko Chaly, the next witness in line to be mentioned.  Chaly gave an account of the meeting with Mary that is consistent with what was just heard from Eugene Wasylenko (277-279).  Chaly then admits to writing the article and sending it in along with the letter (280-281).  Garvan then cross examines, highlighting an article from April 30th in Svoboda that Chaly wrote (an article critical of Metropolitan Platon).  Garvan was attempting to discredit Chaly.  He admitted, as well, that he had been Orthodox until August of 1908.  So, he was Orthodox while writing the pieces critical of the Orthodox Church for a Greek Catholic paper.  This is important inasmuch as it shows an important context to this entire situation–Carpatho-Rusyn distrust of the Russification of Carpatho-Rusyns that returned to the Orthodox Church.  This would later be instrumental in developing the Carpatho-Rusyn jurisdiction under Constantinople here in America.

Garvan also asked Chaly to name people, especially priests, who were  talking about the incident between Archimandrite Arseny and Mary Krinitsky.  Chaly named three priests:  Fr. Vladimir Znosko, Fr. Alexis Bogoslovsky, and Fr. Leonty Vladishevsky.  All three were later called to the stand by Garvan and all three denied this.  Garvan also recalled Chaly later and questioned Chaly about obtaining work from Greek Catholics and about a letter to Fr. Vladimir Znosko.  The letter was signed with the last name Navrushenko, which he admits is his real last name.  When Garvan presses him on why he gave the name Chaly, Chaly thought he was supposed to give the name which he used as a correspondent, or his “pen name,” if you will.  Shortly thereafter a translation of the article against Metropolitan Platon and the Russians was introduced and is available in the text (386ff).

Before Garvan called the three priests and recalled Hrycko Chaly, however, the defendants themselves took the stand.  Anthony Kurcowsky said he was the editor of the paper, noted that the article sent to him by Chaly included a letter testifying to its authenticity, and pointed out that the piece Chaly wrote was written while Chaly was Orthodox, before he went back over to the Greek Catholic Church.  Konstantine Kirczow said he wrote to Chaly asking to meet Mary Krinitsky.  He then described going to Mendelson’s store and meeting Mendelson.  According to Kirczow, Mendelson stated he did business with Arseny and that was why he got the second affidavit from Mary Krinitsky.  Mendelson was later recalled and said he only sold a cigar to Kirczow.

This basically brings us to the end.  I have not covered everything or everyone in my analyses. I have, rather, tried to highlight some of the main points.  Furthermore, there are a few exchanges and lines of questioning in the transcript that I’d like to have a few lawyers’ opinions on myself.  Anyhow, the transcript itself will soon be online (on Monday).

Before doing that, I want to note the way the transcript ends.  The transcript itself ends with an adjournment due to the illness of juror number six.  The court adjourns for a week and then there is nothing.  To be sure, this is not ideal.  There are several possibilities as to what this means.  First, as Fr. John Hainsworth (a member of the canonization committee) has suggested, Metropolitan Herman may have the final pages.  If this is true, then they were obtained well before they were lost prior to the microfilming of the transcript in 1984.  This could be possible but if it is, it raises the question of whether the pages would become available.  Second, it could be the pages were simply lost early on and no one has them.  Third, the DA office might have dropped the charges.  Fourth, there could have been a settlement.  I cannot imagine a criminal case simply ending at an adjournment, but I’m open to legal experts to correct this belief of mine.

Even if we are unable to obtain the final pages, there are a few things that can be done.  First, I hope to pursue the civil case.  It was tried in April/May of 1909, so it is possible the criminal case is referenced in it.  Also, it may yet be possible to find a recording of the decision, even if the transcript remains incomplete.  One thing people may find intriguing is that both defendants remain in their positions at Svoboda subsequent to this trial.  This need not mean the jury ruled in their favor, but it is worth noting.

So, what do I make of this trial?  Well, there are a few points I take from this.

1) With regard to the charge of libel, I don’t think it was proven.  The defendants could both point to a letter testifying to a sworn affidavit, which the notary public, Harry Needle verified.

2) With regard to Archbishop Arseny and whether he raped Mary Krinitsky back in 1906 while an archimandrite, I find things to be inconclusive. On the one hand, Arseny and Mary Krinitsky testify it didn’t happen and Mendelson says he did not discuss the situation with Kirczow and obtained an affidavit from Krinitsky giving a different name for the father.  On the other hand, I find it plausible that Krinitsky felt threatened and so chose the side she felt was best for her own self-preservation.  I also find the time line of Arseny’s movements to be suspicious and it intrigues me that Garvan never challenged the statement that no man with the name “Andrew Pretash” existed.  Why was that not pursued?  Did Mendelson make up the name?  I could go on, but in the end, I find it all inconclusive.   This troubles me because I am not comfortable canonizing someone who might have raped a lady.  In many situations in life, having inconclusive evidence is just fine, and we give the person the benefit of the doubt and move on, but when considering someone for canonization?  I think we should perform due diligence to a higher standard.

3)  After thinking through scenarios in which one could try to get him off the hook, it seems an inescapable conclusion to me at this time that Archbishop Arseny perjured himself in this trial.  What I don’t know is why.  This is serious and needs to be considered when discussing whether to canonize the archbishop as a saint.

4) Libel trials often backfire.  Instead of hurting Kirczow and Curkowskyz, this trial led to Archimandrite Arseny committing perjury and having his character questioned.

5) St. Alexis Toth once told Bishop Nicholas that Bishop Nicholas was wrong to have written in to Svoboda because it added fuel to the fire.  It was better, St. Alexis held, to just ignore them.  It would have been better for then-Archimandrite Arseny to have done the same.  The fact that he did not suggests at least two possibilities to me: he had a temperament such that he was always looking for a fight or what Chaly wrote was something already being spread around as gossip and Fr. Arseny desperately felt he had little choice but to try to do something to put a stop to it and fight back.

I do hope people will take the time to read the transcript.  I do not know how long it will take me to pursue the other angles relating to this case.  I had no idea I was getting into such a hornets’ nest when I requested this microfilm.  I do have many other things to do that need my attention.  I will continue to pick away at this, though. As for other aspects of Archbishop Arseny’s life, I have no current commitments.  Perhaps, some day, I shall turn to those as well, but for now, I beg for patience.  Besides, why the rush to canonize him?  Should we not show patience and balance?  Why be in such a hurry to have institutions dedicated in his name and complete icons painted already?  Why not proceed slowly, carefully, cautiously, and prayerfully?

Fr. Oliver Herbel, Executive Director

[This entry is cross posted at http://frontierorthodoxy.wordpress.com]

Archbishop Arseny Post 4: The Defense Completes its Case is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

First, I suggested that relative to the documents the canonization committee claims it has, Arseny perjured himself.  Here is how I came to that conclusion.  The documents the canonization committee says it has from Kharkov would show that a son was born to the Chagovtsov family, after the first year of marriage, apparently.  Fr. Andrew Morbey, in a comment on Frontier Orthodoxy, has stated that Archbisop Arseny’s wife died in childbirth, which may well be true, but it seems it would have been with their second child, who would have also died in the process unless we simply have no records of a second son/child.  I base this on the online sources that say his wife died in the 1890s.  Now, if that is true, then the following testimony seems very odd:

Smitkin: Were you a married man in Russia?

A: Yes.

S: Had children, didn’t you?

A: No.

[. . . other testimony, which, by the way, is fairly hard-hitting--including questioning about a lady who lived with him in New York; the judge upheld Garvan's objection, noting that Archimandrite Arseny's character was not on trial . . .]

S:  How long had you lived in Kharkov?

A: Not in Kharkov, near Kharkov.

S: Well, near that place, how long had you lived there?

A: About thirteen years.

S: Didn’t your wife give birth to a son to you?

A: No.

[This may be found on pp. 45-46.]

Now, I am accepting the canonization committee’s evidence and the sources that give her death as the 1890s (though really, she could have died earlier and we’d have the same likelihood of perjury).  If I am wrong in accepting the committee’s claim to documentation, then perhaps there is no perjury.  Perhaps Dionysius is not really +Arseny’s son (i.e., his wife had an affair and answering “no” to a question that includes the phrase “to you” avoids perjury).  Or, perhaps Dionysius is a son to +Arseny through other means (an affair with another woman or adoption, though the adoption option would seem to make the first denial of any children an example of perjury).   I realize some might want to claim something was lost in translation or that Arseny misunderstood the question, but I find that misguided and, frankly, incorrect.  Fr. Arseny comprehended the Russian translator well enough to clarify details and respond in a way that suggests good communication.  The question is whether the documentation from the canonization committee is as solid as it claims.  If it is, then relative to that documentation, I think there is perjury.  If that documentation is wrong or has been misunderstood, then any of the other scenarios I mentioned could be correct, but none of them would be entirely exonerating of Archbishop Arseny either.

Second, when I mentioned Mary Krinitsky appearing nervous or confused, that is a judgment call I am making on the basis of the readings and exchanges and one I am making despite the clear translation difficulties.  Her native Carpatho-Rusyn caused difficulty for the Russian translator and juror nine, the Pole, gave it his best shot in order to help.

Third, I wish to apologize to all the lawyers out there who want a sense for the momentum and flow of the trial, a better sense for what’s being objected to and how objections are handled, what kinds of questions are asked, etc.  That is not the kind of analysis I am providing here.  The trial transcript will be up on Monday, so any and all legally trained experts will be able to read the transcript for themselves at that time.  In the meantime, know that my analysis is one that is simply looking for consistencies and inconsistencies within the narratives given and arguments made.

Now, I turn to the defense’s case.  Due to its length, I’m going to divide it into two, maybe three parts.  I ask that the readers forgive me for stringing this out.  My intent is not to keep everyone hanging, but rather to keep the posts both an easily typable and readable length.  The defense opened its case on page 175.  Smitkin asked that the charges be dropped due to the state’s inability to make a strong enough case, but the court overruled and he continued on.

The first witness the defense called was Harry Needle, the notary public who validated the first affidavit that Mary Krinitsky had signed, naming Archimandrite Arseny as the biological father.  Needle claimed Mary Krinitsky had been informed of the contents of the affidavit she signed (181) and that he knew nothing of the alleged offer of marriage and/or money to Mary Krinitsky in return for signing the affidavit (182).  Furthermore, the affidavit stated that Archimandrite Arseny and Yatsko Adamiak threatened her and Mr. Needle, who testified to being able to speak both Russian and Carpatho-Rusyn, said Mary Krinitsky had stated the contents of the affidavit to him and she was fully aware of what it said (191-95).  We also learned during this time that Hrycko Chaly was instrumental in getting Mary Krinitsky to sign an affidavit.

Mitrofan Biluszenko was called next.  Biluszenko testified that Mary Krinitsky had approached his wife, hoping they might adopt the boy (211).  This contradicted Krinitsky’s own testimony, for she had said that although she knew Biluszenko, she had not spoken to him.  Biluszenko describes the incident of the rape and Krinitsky’s subsequent stay at the monastery until she began to show (215).  He claimed that Krinitsky told this to him.  He also claimed that Krinitsky told him she had been “paid off” and told to leave (215, 220).  In cross examination, Garvan tied to show that Biluszenko had not obtained a painting job/contract for the monastery and was upset at Arseny and only testifying out of revenge, but Biluszenko denied such an accusation (denying both the attempt to obtain the job and that he was out for revenge).  A week or two before the Svoboda article came out, Biluszenko came home to find Hrycko Chaly and Mary Krinitsky at his house along with Biluszenko’s wife and Eugene Wasylenko.

Bishop Soter Ortinsky was called as a character witness for the defendants.  Ortinksy frustrated Garvan because Garvan asked whether any decent Christian man would write such an article as appeared in Svoboda.  Ortinksy (240) informed Garvan that if the accusation was false, no, but if true, then it would depend on the laws of the country and what was allowable.  Garvan was upset, likely seeing this as an evasive answer.  Ortinksy also noted, in response to questioning by Smitkin, that he ignores the bad press he receives (244-45) rather than pursuing libel suits.

Fr. Nicholas Pidmorecki and Fr. Demetrius Dobrotwor, Greek Catholic priests were also called as character witnesses.  During cross examination, Garvan asked Dobrotwor whether it was appropriate to publish an article sent into a paper with only an unsigned letter.  Smitkin then objected and held up the very letter, noting it was signed.  Thedosius Labowky was then called as an expert witness to verify the letter’s contents (as it was in “the Ruthenian language”).

Following that, Eugene Wasylenko, who had been at Biluszenko’s house, was called to the stand.  Wasylenko gives the same recounting of Mary Krinitsky’s tale that Biluszenko had given, noting the buggy was the “first time” (261).  He further claimed there had been no one in Mayfield by the name of “Andrew Pretash” (265) and that Mary Krinitsky had said she felt “threatened” by Arseny (270).  Like Biluszenko, Wasylenko denied to Garvan that he had ever attempted to obtain work at the monastery.

The next witness to take the stand is Hrycko Chaly and it is with him that I shall pick up in post four.  At this point, the defense as started to muster a case against the prosecution’s.  Some headway has been made, as there is a notary public (Harry Needle) who testified to the affidavit that lies behind the Svoboda article and Biluszenko and Wasylenko now give the jury a testimony that contradicts Mary Krinitsky and offers a reason she may have changed her mind and lied (she had been threatened).  This is becoming a he said/she said affair with an affidavit to back up the allegedly libelous article.  The defense is not done yet, however.

Fr. Oliver Herbel, Executive Director

[This post is cross posted at http://frontierorthodoxy.wordpress.com]

Archbishop Arseny Post 3: Clarifications and the Defense Begins its Case is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

As mentioned in the last post, the criminal libel charge was pressed because of an article that appeared in Svoboda.  Those interested in the original article may look here (p. 5, but half of the first column did not get copied–blame Svoboda, not me):

http://www.svoboda-news.com/arxiv/pdf/1908/Svoboda-1908-26.pdf

Likely, I’ll request microfilm for the article.  In the meantime, this online version is the best we have.  The article is translated in the trial transcript and the translations that were read were by St. (Fr.) Alexander Hotovitsky (in the transcript, it appears to be misspelled as “Holovitsky”).

What I need to make clear from the outset is that the trial I am analyzing is a criminal trial.  The defendants are Anthony Curkowskyz (the editor of Svoboda and Konstantine Kirczow (who was in charge of many of the operations).  A civil suit had also been filed by Archimandrite Arseny personally (for $25,000 in damages), with them as the defendants together with the Little Russian National Union, but that is not the trial being discussed here.  I am providing an analysis of the criminal trial that proceeded because Arseny wished to have criminal charges pressed against Curkowskyz and Kirczow personally.

Now, as I had mentioned in the last posting, the trial centered on whether Archimandrite Arseny had sexually forced himself on Mary Krinitsky, during an evening buggy ride of several miles from Simpson, PA, to St. Tikhon’s Seminary.  Also relevant is whether Arseny continued the abuse for a few months longer, before Mary obtained work elsewhere under the employ of Mr. Mendelson.

What the prosecution needed to do was prove that the accusation in Svoboda was criminally libelous.  I am not a legal historian, so I do not presently know what the New York law on libel was at the time.  I know that today, libel is extremely hard to prosecute and many states do not even have criminal libel laws on their books.

We also should note at the outset that there are two important but different issues that concern us today: the trial’s focus, which is whether Kircowz and Curkowskyz were guilty of criminal libel and whether Archbishop Arseny is worthy of canonization.  These are two separate issues, so I beg the reader’s indulgence as I try to navigate the trial with these two distinct concerns in mind.

At the very beginning of the trial, the defense attorney, one L.A. Smitkin, argued that the case ought to be delayed until after the civil case had been decided, lest the criminal court appear to be aiding the plaintiff in that suit.  Francis Patrick Garvan, the assistant DA (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Patrick_Garvan) said he had seen no such decision ever made in his eleven years prosecuting cases and the court (Judge Joseph F. Mulqueen) stated that Smitkin’s motion would be upheld only if “public peace” were being threatened by doing so.  Therefore, the trial continued.

Now, let me state from the outset that this opening sets the tone for what one would read the rest of the way through.  Smitkin makes numerous objections and takes numerous exceptions to them being overruled.  Yes, Garvan is overruled at times, too, but not nearly as many times as Smitkin.  Really, I wouldn’t be surprised if the ratio were 15:1, but I am digressing into the sort of area that might be nice for the next post concerning the “lighter side” of the case.

As is normal practice, the prosecution produces its witnesses first.  The testimonies here are significant.  The witnesses include Fr. Arseny, Mary Krinitsky, and Edward A. Delaney, Archimandrite Arseny’s lawyer from Pennsylvania.  The case, by the way, was held in NY because that’s where Svoboda’s office was.  Delaney testified that he tried to get a retraction from Svoboda but it was to no avail.  He claims not to have been told that Svoboda had printed the article based on an affidavit from Mary Krinitsky herself.  Interestingly, Delaney did claim that the reason he tried to obtain the retraction was “so the priest could go back to his parish at Mayfield” (p.35).  In other words, the allegation had been taken so seriously that Metropolitan Platon had removed Fr. Arseny from the parish.

When Archimandrite Arseny took the stand, he stated that Mary Krinitsky worked at the orphanage from May until November of 1906, at which point she went to work for Mr. Samuel Mendelson.  In both places, she worked as a “domestic,” i.e. low wage earning servant-lady.  He also stated that Mary was in Simpson during the cemetery service on July 29, 1906, where she was working for Fr. Alexi Vogolovsky.  He also said he gave her a ride from the cemetery to St. Tikhon’s monastery (estimated at about seven miles) (p.43).  He also denied having kicked Mary out of the monastery and denied having refused her the opportunity to place her child in the orphanage later the following June (June 4th of 1907).

Under cross-examination, Smitkin tried to implicate Fr. Arseny in something else that happened in Russia, but Archimandrite Arseny side steps it.  An interesting thing to note, however, is Arseny’s claim that he did not have any children while in Russia (prior to his wife’s death).   He even specifically denied having a son pp. 45-46).

The denial of any children, especially a son, is an important point to note because according to the canonization committee’s life of Archbishop Arseny, there was a son from Arseny’s area of Russia (Kharkov) who died in 1937.  Furthermore, the committee’s life refers to documentation received from Metropolitan Nikodim that claims a son was born to Fr. Arseny and his wife after the first year of marriage.  In addition to the life, one may go here:

http://www.uralteologia.ucoz.ru/news/kanadskij_zlatoust_o_zhizni_arkhiepiskopa_arsenija_vinnipegskogo/2010-03-24-126

Therefore, relative to the documentation that would support the birth of the son, Archimandrite Arseny perjured himself.  It is natural to ask why, but I presently do not know why he perjured himself.

On page 54, Archimandrite Arseny seemed to fudge on the degree to which he was aware of the status of his civil suit against the defendants.  Smitkin was also able to introduce as evidence a statement from the filing of that civil suit in which Archimandrite Arseny claimed he was forced to resign as rector of the parish in Mayfield and withdraw to St. Tikhon’s monastery.  Arseny tried to clarify that the way it had been translated to him was that if he was guilty, he was not fit to occupy any position in the Church.  Whether Archimandrite Arseny misunderstood, lied on the stand (again?), or just had bad legal counsel on this particular point is impossible to tell.

Mary Krinitsky took the stand for the prosecution and supported Archimandrite Arseny’s testimony.  In fact, she went so far as to name “Andrew Pretash” as the father of her child.  Ms. Krinitsky claimed Archimandrite Arseny did not even touch her (p.73) and that the defendants tricked her into signing an affidavit claiming Arseny was the father by offering her either ten thousand dollars from one and  marriage from the other (p.77).   A few sentences later, however, she claimed the defendants were not present when she was tricked by false offers of money and marriage (p.78).  The judge then threw out her claim that the defendants had said as much.    She then claimed she didn’t know what she was signing, only that she was told to sign something that was “the truth” (p. 81).

In general, Mary Krinitsky comes across as nervous, scared, intimidated, and/or confused.  She couldn’t even remember when her own son died, and the child did die (p.89).  He lived fourteen to sixteen months.  The birth certificate had Krinitsky as the surname, not Pretash (92).  She also was not able to remember the name of the priest whose wife she worked for in Simpson during the service at the cemetery.  Finally, we learn that one Hrycko Chaly brought her to a notary to sign the affidavit, not the defendants, and that the defendants did not make the false promises stated earlier (p.137).  As a related side-note, reading her testimony is painfully slow because translation was a serious issue.  She spoke Carpatho-Rusyn.  One juror (number nine) could speak Polish and he conversed with her as did the the Russian translator for the court.

Samuel Mendelson was also a witness for the people and he claimed (156-7) that he filed a warrant for Andrew Pretash, after talking to Mary Krinitsky (who was working for him).  Judge Mulqueen allowed this to be entered in, though he was concerned for hearsay because this statement was not made in the presence of the defendants.  Mendelson was able to state that Mary Krinitsky signed an affidavit so that he (Mendelson) could follow through on procuring a warrant for Andrew Pretash (169).  Mendelson’s description of this event is that Yatsko Adamiak, an assistant to Archimandrite Arseny, and Archimandrite Arseny himself paid Mendelson an unannounced visit.  They asked to see Mary.  Samuel Mendelson called her into the room and they confronted her with the article.  She then denied that it was true and the affidavit to that effect was drawn up.  This became the second affidavit Mary Krinitsky had signed and one that substantiated her testimony within court.

To summarize:

In Archimandrite Arseny’s favor, both he and Mary Krinitsky deny that the event ever occurred.  Assistant DA Garvan is also able to show that although Svoboda might have had an affidavit (Garvan avoids getting into this), Mary Krinitsky signed a subsequent affidavit in which she claimed one Andrew Pretash was the father of the child and had abandoned his legal responsibilities and fled the town (allegedly going to Ohio somewhere).

Relative to the documentation given to the canonization committee from Metropolitan Nikodim, Archimandrite Arseny perjured himself.  Smitkin must have known that many (not on the jury) would have believed Archimandrite Arseny had lied and likely Smitkin believed Arseny lied as well.  Because Smitkin had no document to contradict Arseny’s testimony, however, the perjury has remained unknown.  Overall, things look to be in favor of the DA office.  There are cracks in the DA’s case, of course.

Mary Krinitsky was nervous and/or confused.  It may well be that she was not the brightest woman and a Carpatho-Rusyn peasant girl could have easily found her role in the American court system intimidating.  Another reason for finding the situation intimidating will be raised by the defense’s case shortly.  She also does not help her credibility by not being able to say when her son died and not remembering whose house she was working in during the cemetery service event in Simpson.  Although it could be a translation problem or simply her being nervous or perhaps a little mentally deficient, it could also be the sign of a witness trying to remember all of the right details of a scripted testimony.  Mary claimed, however, that Mendelson never once mentioned the court case or why she was traveling to New York with him.  Do we believe her?  It is hard for me to imagine he never once mentioned the case and that Mary had no idea why she was going to New York, but that is what the testimony says.

At this point in the trial, what probably is working the most against Arseny in addition to the question of witness credibility (though again, remember, no one at the trial would have known Archimandrite Arseny almost certainly perjured himself) is the time line of events.  Mary Krinitsky leaves the monastery at what would have been just after her first trimester had passed.  Metropolitan Platon removed Archimandrite Arseny from the Mayfield parish just after the newspaper article went public and Archimandrite Arseny’s timing of his trip to Russia also looks suspicious (February to April, 1907) and when he returns, he is assigned to Canada.  None of that proves guilt and the DA’s office has two strong collaborating witnesses in Arseny and Mary but the time line might look a little suspicious to some readers.

Is this enough to demonstrate criminal libel beyond a reasonable doubt?  We shall see.  In the next posting, I will analyze the defense’s case.

Fr. Oliver Herbel, Executive Director

[This post is cross posted on http://frontierorthodoxy.wordpress.com]

The Criminal Libel Trial and Archbishop Arseny, Part 2 is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

This is the first of a three part series looking into a court case that relates to Archbishop Arseny (1866-1945), who is being considered for canonizatiion as an Orthodox saint by the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).

Those wanting a bit of a biography may check out the OrthodoxWiki entry for him.

Basically, in a nutshell, +Arseny had served as a married priest in Russia until his wife died.  In 1902, he came to America and served under St. Tikhon.  He was instrumental in founding St. Tikhon’s monastery and the accompanying orphanage.  Late in 1908, he was sent to Canada to administer the parishes there.  In 1910, he returned to Russia and in 1920, was in a Serbian monastery when some Canadians asked that he return to serve them.  In 1926, he was consecrated as the Bishop to Canada.  He died in 1945 and is buried at St. Tikhon’s monastery.

At the time of the court case I am about to discuss, Arseny was an Archimandrite in charge of the newly formed St. Tikhon’s Monastery.  In June of 1908, Svoboda, a Greek Catholic (Uniate) paper published an article in which the author claimed Archbishop Arseny sexually forced himself upon one Mary Krinitsky on a buggy ride in the middle of the night.  She had gone to a dedication of a cemetery near Simpson, PA, but missed her train back home.  He offered her a ride and allegedly forced himself upon her after treating her nicely.  Allegedly, this was the first occurrence, because after nearly a year later, she gave birth to a son.  On the basis of an affidavit signed by Mary Krinitsky herself, Svoboda claimed Archbishop Arseny (whose last name is rendered as Chagovtsov, Chagovets, and/or Chahovtsov in the documents) fathered the child. Archimandrite Arseny filed two libel suits against the paper–one in civil court and the other in criminal court.

These cases and their larger context deserve further exploration.  The OCA has a canonization committee established for looking into the life of Archbishop Arseny.

Fr. John Hainsworth has written a life of Archbishop Arseny on behalf of the canonization committee.  In an early online version, he provided this intriguing reference:

“Little is known of his first assignments when he arrived except that by his own recollection he worked in parishes in Troy, Mayfield, and Simpson in the Eastern United States. Curiously, his work with the returning Uniats is not mentioned in any of the memorial articles and accounts of his life, even though it was substantial enough to incur a case of libel against him by Uniats frustrated by his success.”

That version is no longer online.  His current version omits this.

The Orthodox Wiki page (which borrows directly from Fr. John’s piece) also omits this.  I was unable to find any other online or published discussion of this anywhere else.  I had originally asked a member of the committee several times over for a copy of any court transcripts and emailed another member about the case as well, but after waiting about a year, I took it upon myself to track down the criminal case.  Independently, I obtained a microfilm of the criminal court case that began in January of 1909.  I intend to digitize this transcript and place it on SOCHA’s website so that it is readily available to all without delay.

I assure forthright discussion on my end.  Although I won’t be sharing news each step of the way as I continue my research, I do want to share with you what I have gleaned from this first transcript.  I also want to inform you that I will make this court transcript available on SOCHA’s website in the near future because the interest in this case has been a collective one between those of us on the executive board of SOCHA.  You will see nothing but transparency from me, not to mention SOCHA, in this matter.  Even if you disagree with my interpretation, I hope you will at least be thankful that you had an opportunity to examine the sources and so disagree!

In the next post, I will provide a general interpretation of what I have in the transcript.  In the third post, I’ll simply provide a few mildly amusing quotes from the transcript, to lighten the mood a bit.  If I deem it appropriate, I may post a fourth piece, as an addendum, clarifying or correcting as is necessary.

Fr. Oliver Herbel, Executive Director

[This post is cross-posted on http://frontierorthodoxy.wordpress.com]

Archbishop Arseny’s Canonization, Part 1: Introducing His Alleged Rape of Mary Krinitsky and the Subsequent Criminal Libel Case is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

http://library.ucsc.edu/help/howto/distinguish-between-primary-and-secondary-sources

[Note: This piece is authored by Fr. Oliver Herbel and is cross posted at http://frontierorthodoxy.wordpress.com]

Primary Sources and Secondary Sources is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Otherwise, here are the links to the documents themselves:
Orthodox Christian Leaders meet at Ecumenical Patriarchate-1

2009Canonismos_EN_OFFICIAL-1

2009Diasporadecision_EN_OFFICIAL-1

10-27-09HAHAddressfinal

SCOBA hierarchs issue Orthodox Sunday message

Thank you to George Matsoukos for providing these.  I would also encourage people to join the Orthodox Christian Laity (OCL) and others in praying for unity, if you do not already do so:
http://frontierorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/orthodox-christian-laity-and-the-episcopal-assembly/

None of this will identify old clergy photos, but I think we’ll find the work of the Episcopal Assembly to be much more historically significant

The Ongoing Work of the Episcopal Assembly is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

http://frontierorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/fr-leonid-metropolian-leonty-turkevich-and-orthodoxys-twofold-problem-in-america-evangelization-and-jurisdictional-disunity/

Turkevich on Evangelism and Disunity in 1915 is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

In the meantime (and beyond) I hope each of you who has found Frontier Orthodoxy worthwhile will continue to read it at its new location.

A New Frontier is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

On January 18, 2003, Archbishop Job ordained me to the priesthood at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.  Following this liturgy, knowingly in the presence of extended family who were not Orthodox, he gave basic but important pastoral advice that I remember to this day—a priest must love his parishioners.  Love must come above all other feelings.  Everything must be done out of love for them.  I am sure I am hardly alone.  I would think that all priests remember the advice given to them on the day of their ordination.  Perhaps, this was Archbishop Job’s standard admonition at priestly ordinations.  Regardless, this advice speaks of the concern His Eminence had for the life of the Church.  It must be founded on love because that is how people are to know that we are the true followers of Christ.  That is our evangelism!  If a person wants to know how to succeed in parish life, both in terms of sustaining the life already there and increasing the life of the parish, one need only read St. John the Theologian’s epistles.  We don’t need schemes and programs.  We need love.

Not long after my ordination, he showed me that love personally.  I had applied to a few doctoral programs in the Midwest, but had heard negatively from all but one.   Therefore, I was likely soon to be assigned to a mission in the Upper Midwest.  Not long after +Job and I had begun discussing the details, Saint Louis University, the only school from which I had not yet heard, accepted me and offered me a research assistantship to cover my costs.  I did not know what to do, so Lorie and I received counsel from two priests whom we trusted.  They suggested we lay it out before +Job, which we did.  His Eminence, being reasonable and prudent, agreed with the perspective of these priests, that academic doors do not open often, and gave me his blessing to attend SLU.  He knew of our commitment to being in the Diocese of the Midwest and he spoke of how things are directed by God’s providence.  Not all bishops would have done this, but Archbishop Job did.  He has done much more for other priests, for I have seen that as well.  Mine is but a small example of how he loved his priests.

As a pastor who has spent several years attached to another parish, where I assisted the rector in his ministry, and who has been pastoring a mission with its own turbulant yet admirable history, I have come to see the full dimensions of what it means for a priest to love his congregation.  When times are difficult, we are there.  When times are good, we are there.  When people cower in the sight of parish life and run, we remember that love entails free will and allow them such freedom, all the while keeping the door open for their return.   When parishioners struggle with aspects of Church life or tradition, or even something we have said, we show patience and endurance.  In rare cases, we even know that loving the congregation means the vine must occasionally be pruned, painful though this process is to all.  We also know that when the times are difficult, we are the ones who must step up and take the blame, for we will receive it, and when times are joyous, we praise the parish.

Archbishop Job himself knew of the struggles of loving the flock under his care.  I have seen him in deanery meetings, providing solutions to problems.  We have all seen him as he stood up and asked whether the allegations of financial misconduct were true or false.  Yes, it is true that it took behind-the-scenes cajoling and much support to encourage him but he did it.  He asked the question all other OCA bishops were too scared to ask or refused to ask.  What he did was not miraculous, but it was episcopal, it was what a bishop must do—ultimately, when push comes to shove, stand for what is good and true.  Would that the Churches in America would have many bishops willing to ask such questions and take such stands!

We have also seen His Eminence demonstrate extreme humility even when there was no need to do so.  We know he prostrated before Bishop Nikolai and asked forgiveness.  This was unnecessary, but in the heat of the moment, Archbishop Job chose to forego any pretense, even though there would have been no sin at all not to have done this.

Recently, I and the parishioners here in Fargo, North Dakota, also benefitted from his willingness to stand firm and further the development of Orthodox Christianity within the diocese of the midwest.  Archbishop Job responded to the actions and appeals of the faithful themselves.  Not every bishop would have done this, but he did what he felt was best for the growth of Orthodoxy in the Upper Midwest.

Ultimately, it is this concern for the ongoing health of Orthodoxy that I hope we take from his memory.  He cared about the health of Orthodoxy in the Midwest.  We must care for the health of Orthodoxy wherever we are.  Without good health, it will not matter what methods are devised for uniting Orthodox jurisdictions in America.  Without good health, it will not matter what we enact in our parishes to build them into even more loving communities.  Without good health, we will fall far too short of the glory of God to attract others or save ourselves.  Archbishop Job has served Christ’s Holy Church to this end.  May we do the same, and may his memory be eternal!

May Archbishop Job’s Memory Be Eternal is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Micah doesn’t share daddy’s physique-challenged predicament.  He is nothing but sinew and bone, but on this night, his belly popped up and plunged down with the rapidity of the lid on a John Deere’s smoke stack as he laughed his so-deep alto three-year-old laugh.  As enjoyable as that laugh was, we were watching the Charlie Brown special because I had one thing in mind, Linus’s monologue about the Gospel-centered meaning of Christmas and the change in behavior it brought to the other characters in the cartoon.  The cartoon ends with “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing!”

I was reminded of this event because our parish has just hosted its first St. Nicholas Day retreat as part of celebrating the memory and intercessions of St. Nicholas, our parish patron.  St. Nicholas, though a saint, is hardly known as such by most in America, but in my mind, he has always been linked to Christmas and gift giving ever since I learned of his story (before becoming Orthodox).

I realize that others of you are on the Julian Calendar and so that day will not arrive until December 19^th.  Regardless, St. Nicholas Day falls during a fast.  For American Orthodox, this fast occurs right in the midst of a time of feasting and stuffing oneself, at least for many within the surrounding culture.  It also occurs in the midst of the same kind of consumerism that bothered Charlie Brown so much.  Ok, the consumerism is now worse.

How we got to this point has a fascinating history all of its own.  Early Puritans had actually made it illegal to mention St. Nicholas’ name and celebrate Christmas, but it did not take all that long, historically, for Christmas to begin spreading across the country in the nineteenth century.  During this time, the poem “The Night Before Christmas,” in which “Santa Claus” is portrayed as an elf, gained popularity.  In the twentieth century, Christmas became a much more public spectacle, not something confined to home and church alone.  Initially, this helped in some ways to lessen the commercialization because the focus shifted from store windows to community activities (such as the festival surrounding the city Christmas tree on main street).  In the midst of these changes, “Santa Claus” became a grossly overweight old man, though apparently he was still able to go up and down the chimney with the same agility as his old, magical elfin self.  Before long, however, the commercialization not only reestablished itself, but flourished even more precisely because the celebration of Christmas had morphed into “the pluralism of a publicly celebrated Christmas. … Still, we cannot overlook our own collusion … customers have responded approvingly to strategies that fuse the spheres of sacred and profane into a compelling certainty.”[1] More on this sacred/profane problem in a second.

So, here we Orthodox sit, observing the feast of a saint, whose vita (written life) tells us he fasted on Wednesday and Fridays even as an infant (not suckling on those days), in the midst of a season that might be labeled pluralistic, secular, even profane.  What are we to make of our situation?  Even our own practices have changed during our time in America.  Increasingly, we have more and more Orthodox parishes celebrating according to the “new calendar” or Gregorian calendar rather than the Julian calendar, or “old calendar,” for which December 25 falls on January 7 (on the new calendar, which American society follows).  With an increasing number of both converts to Orthodoxy and third and fourth generations of traditionally Orthodox families, many of the traditional Eastern European cultural practices surrounding Christmas have faded.  To be fair, of course, some families have held fast to those religio-cultural traditions and there are new immigrants arriving every day.  Nonetheless, many parishes are filled with people whose great-grandparents or grandparents kept the sviata vechera (“holy supper”) on Christmas Eve but who do not hold it themselves.

In the midst of the ever changing, perhaps ever secularizing, trajectory of Christmas in America, the Nativity Fast stands as an opportunity to solidify our calling as Orthodox in America.  I’m not saying the discipline of fasting before Christmas has not changed during the course of Church history.  It has.  What I am saying is that keeping the fast anchors our Orthodox praxis in contemporary America.

Fasting reminds us poignantly that we are not of this world.  American society has it bass ackwards and frankly, so do a lot of American Christians (including—alas—Orthodox).  No longer are there really twelve days of Christmas, which would start on Christmas day.  Instead, we have about thirty days of food, shopping, and advertisements.  We go from one Christmas party to another and in between load up on some extra baking and cooking of our own.  The average American gains a small amount of weight during a time of preparation for the Nativity of Christ and a minority gains significantly more.[2] My point here is not the evils of gaining a pound or two, especially since one may reenter his or her normal schedule and reestablish a workout routine.  My point is that during a time in which we should be preparing for the Nativity of Christ, we are all too often being lazy, gluttonous, or simply disregarding the “true meaning” of the season—that the Crucified and Risen One has entered into the fallen history of our world.

So, what should we do and how can the Nativity Fast anchor us during this time?  First, we must find the meaning of Christmas not in touchy feely television specials or the commercialized trimmings but in the Gospel itself—the birth of our Savior, Emmanuel.  This will enable us to fast from the misdirected forces around us and within us.  Within our own house, for example, we do not “do Santa Claus.”  We talk about St. Nicholas and celebrate St. Nicholas Day.  We do, however, have Christmas trees and share gifts.  Whatever criticisms of me and my family this might encourage you to send my way, I ask that the general point be something we can all agree upon, that we must fast from what distracts us and keep only the things that can help lead us to Christ and the celebration of his Nativity.  Avoid the things that distract from the Gospel and perpetuate commericialization.

More than that, when we fast, let us keep the culinary fast as well, but go one step farther: keeping ourselves to cheap foods.  Eating food that was cheap and common was at the heart of the fasting of the Desert Fathers.  Yet, today, we can spend a fair amount of money on shrimp and organic produce.  Let us discipline our bodies, for that same discipline will carry over into other spheres of our lives.  Let us repent for the sins we have committed.  Let us remind ourselves that all is from God, and not ourselves.  Let us spend less on ourselves, to have more for others.  Let us be thankful.

The second thing we should do is question the simple sacred/profane distinction that has come to characterize this season.  Fr. Alexander Schmemann has discussed this in his book For the Life of the World in a way more profound than I could do.  One way to do this would be to encourage the watching of the Charlie Brown Christmas special.  Yep, that’s right!  In the midst of commercialization and secularization, I am saying we should watch a cartoon program aired by ABC.  Let us all laugh at Snoopy as we journey to the climactic monologue from the Gospel of Luke.  Let us also be willing to have Christmas trees, share Christmas letters and Christmas cards, and bake and prepare Christmas meals for family and friends.  We are Orthodox, after all, not New England Puritans.  Discernment is required to do this appropriately, however, and so we should not simply accept all of the commercialized and secularized aspects of Christmas.  We are not non-Christians celebrating a secular version of the feast, with Santa the giant elf (or morbidly obese man), flying deer, and no connection between gift giving and The Gift Himself.  The history of how America celebrates Christmas will continue to be written.  I proffer that it will continue to become increasingly secularized.  For those of us who are grounded in the Nativity fast, however, preparing for the birth of Christ, none of that will dissuade us from knowing and proclaiming, “For unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ, the Lord.”

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/687024.stm

Fasting for the Nativity of Christ in America is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Gov. Thomas Dewey of New York signs the bill creating the Federation

I also wish to note that I failed to make an important connection within the interview itself. Near the beginning of the podcast, I mentioned the difficulties Fr. Boris Burden had with Metropolitan Platon. I meant to return to this later to note that the tense relationship between the two may have also been a factor that excluded the Metropolia from membership. It was not the only factor, as I mentioned the FOGCPJA’s requirement that each jurisdiction be under a Mother Church/Patriarch, but it may well have played a role. Metropolitan Benjamin (Moscow Patriarchate) relied quite heavily on Fr. Boris Burden.

I should further note that Phillies’s membership in the Masons may not have been as ill received since Archbishop Athenagoras and Metropolitan Antony were also Masons. Although Masonic membership would have likely concerned Fr. Boris Burden, it is possible that Metropolitan Benjamin showed some restraint in this regard.

Fall of 1942 (September or October): The Selective Service attempted to draft Fr. John Gelsinger. When that happened, Fr. John Gelsinger, and his father, Fr. Michael Gelsinger, contacted George E. Phillies, a family friend and local attorney in Buffalo, New York.

October 9, 1942: Phillies appealed to the federal authorities, via General Lewis B. Hershey, having gone before the local and state selective service boards. The response from Washington D.C. was that they needed to see proof of an organized Orthodox Church in America. In response to this, the hierarchs of the four primary jurisdictions met.

Fr. Michael Gelsinger (New York Syrian) and Fr. Boris Burden (Moscow Patriarchate) were the instrumental people behind the movement. Fr. Michael received commitments from Archbishop Antony Bashir and Archbishop Athenagoras and Fr. Boris Burden convinced Metropolitan Benjamin and the Bishop Dionisije, the Serbian bishop.

At the subsequent hearing at the Pentagon, Bishop Germanos, an auxiliary bishop of Constantinople, was the only testifying witness. U.S. Senator James Mead (NY, hometown of Buffalo) and Representative James Wadsworth (NY) also appealed on behalf of the Orthodox Church.

December 8, 1942: Major Simon P. Dunkle signed the paperwork instructing the selective service of New York to recognize Fr. John Gelsinger as a priest and providing Orthodox the Opportunity to enlist as Orthodox. Orthodox priests were granted the opportunity to serve as chaplains.

Phillies hailed this as the first time the four primary jurisdictions had provided a united front in America. He quickly built upon this momentum to pursue another venture: amending New York state law for religious corporations. He did this because his reading of the laws of New York convinced him that it was possible the Roman Catholic Church might claim sole legal right to the terms Greek, Catholic, and Orthodox. He also had found no legal incorporation of an Orthodox Church (jurisdiction) that would mitigate this. Individual parishes had incorporated, but the only large scale incorporations were Roman Catholic, such as the Greek Catholic incorporation in Pennsylvania.

February 10, 1943: George E. Phillies wrote to Gov. Dewey, recommending that the hierarchs visit and Dewey replies by stating they should do so after the signing.

February 19, 1943: Charles J. Tobin, secretary of the New York State Catholic Welfare Committee, wrote to State Senator Charles Burney, objecting to the proposed legislation, claiming that only Rome could use the terms Catholic or Greek Catholic.

February 25, 1943: Rev. Philemon Tarnavsky (chancellor of the diocese of Philadelphia) also wrote to Gov. Dewey and agreed with Tobin. He objected to the use of the word Catholic, which he said was linked to the Holy See in Rome. He even noted that the word Orthodox is also used by Greek Catholics, questioning whether Orthodox should use it as a self designation. Rev. Turnavsky was a Greek Catholic himself.

March 5, 1943: Episcopal diocese of Western New York wrote to support the bill (Rt. Rev. Bp Cameron J. Davis)

March 8, 1943: Phillies asked “Charlie” [Burney] for a moving picture crew and claimed there were five million Orthodox in America.

March 10, 1943: Tobin wrote to consul of the governor to object again. He included the assessment of Monsignor Tarnavsky.

March 15, 1943: Memorandum by Phillies stated the purpose(s), excluded the Metropolia, responded to Roman Catholic critics, and noted that the FOGCPJA was set up to parallel the federal/state division in the United States of America.

March 25, 1943: Governor Thomas Dewey signed the bill.

August 2, 1943: The Buffalo Evening News called Phillies the “lay head,” noted that he had dual membership in the GOC and the PEC, and was a Mason.

August 8, 1943: Concelebration.

August 22, 1943: Divine Liturgy in Kleinhans Hall (GOC too small). Archbishop Athenagoras presided, with Metropolitan Antony and Bishop Bogdan assisting (Ukrainian). By this time, the Ukrainians and Carpatho-Russians who were under Constantinople were participating in the FOGCPJA. A small internal disagreement ensued, because Frs. Boris Burden and Michael Gelsinger thought the service should have been in a larger non-Orthodox church building rather than one that was strictly secular.

Bishop Dionisije was bothered by the fact that the Carpatho-Russians and Ukrainians were under Constantinople and had other unnamed concerns. He soon quit participating.

October 3, 1943: At a meeting in Bayonne, NJ, the officers of the FOGCPJA passed the “Bayonne Resolution.” This resolution stated all officers of the Federation must be Orthodox, with no sacramental participation in non-Orthodox churches. Another problem that arose was that the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America had received a letter (likely sent by Phillies) asking for membership.

October 7, 1943: Articles signed by the bishops and the Federation is legally incorporated. Archbishop Athenagoras had been chosen as the presiding hierarch. Fr. Peter Horton-Billard was chosen as secretary, replacing Fr. Boris Burden. Phillies remained the elected chancellor.

October 8, 1943: Burden called the elections “conditional.”

November 1, 1943: Russians threatened to leave over concerns with Phillies.

December 18, 1943: Marriage served jointly by Fr. E Wolkodoff, a Metropolia priest, and PE priest J. Coseby. Metropolitan Benjamin suspended the priest. At this point, the Federation was suspended.

February 2, 1944: Meeting: 1) no “lay head” 2) hierarchs are the leaders 3) Orthodox cannot be communicants elsewhere 4) “chancellor” means “legal advisor” and nothing more. Metropolitan Benjamin also said he had the support of Patriarch Sergius.

Around this same time, Patriarch Sergius wrote to Metropolitan Benjamin, offering permission to be active in the Federation, but Metropolitan Benjamin and Fr. Boris Burden were preparing to renege on the FOGCPJA.

Early October 1944: Metropolitan Benjamin said Phillies was no longer the chancellor. Phillies claimed he was.

November, 1944: Russians officially pulled out. By early 1945, the FOGCPJA was basically dead, though Metropolitan Antony Bashir kept it alive on paper.

Federated Orthodox Greek Catholic Primary Jurisdictions in America is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.