Mattox & Roeber- March 8 2012

Dn. Gregory Roeber has co-authored a book with Mickey L. Mattox.  Mattox presents why he converted to Roman Catholicism and Roeber why he converted to Orthodoxy.  Both discuss it within the context of what Lutherans see in those churches (as both are former Lutherans) and what the larger theological issues are.  This event will happen tomorrow (March 8th) at Marquette University.

Likewise, last fall Amy Slagle published The Eastern Church in the Spiritual Marketplace: American Conversions to Orthodox Christianity which is an ethnographic study of converts from parishes in the Pittsburgh area and Mississippi.  I have read this and would highly recommend it.

I realize neither are strictly historical studies but I do believe they have relevance (directly so) for those of us looking at this question historically and hopefully these books will be of interest to many of our readers.

Recent Books on American Orthodox Converts is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

ARCTIC CROSS PRESS RELEASE

After you’ve read that, if you’d like a foretaste, go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GseuuXrGQoY

Please consider supporting him in his endeavor.

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

Now, on the one hand, one might argue that such is all an encyclopedia can do.  It must simply add up the number of secondary sources making a particular point (that no evidence was presented by the prosecution at the trial–yeah, that was the point).  Anyone stating otherwise, even if supported by primary sources, won’t be given a say.  To some degree, that is what encyclopedias have always done–tried to present the general consensus on a given topic.  Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed journal.  Perhaps it shouldn’t be expected to prioritize primary source scholarship.

On the other hand, it is difficult to understand how a platform that is supposed to be open to editing can dismiss the actual primary sources (say letters or diaries or court documents) in favor of historiographical ignorance (which happens for various reasons–no judgment intended at all toward other scholars of the Haymarket riot and trial).

Furthermore, this is a perennial problem within American Orthodox history.  Both Matthew Namee and I have encountered it on more than one occasion, especially when discussing what we’ve called “the myth of unity”–the idea that all Orthodox in America were always under the Russians until 1917 and/or that the Russians always worked hard to demonstrate that they always clearly had jurisdiction everywhere and anywhere on the North American continent (or perhaps Americas more generally).  Often those screaming the loudest were used to doing “history” work by collecting a bunch of secondary sources together.  Similarly, when discussing Archbishop Arseny of Canada, those who seemed most upset with what I found in the court documents were not those who had actually read the court documents (we at SOCHA read them and made them available).  Sometimes, people simply like the “conventional mendacity” (to quote Lord Acton) built up over the ages.

One of the long-term goals of SOCHA is to provide a platform that highlights primary sources and their importance.  Exactly how this will be done is still coming into view, but certainly this blog is a beginning.  We have posts by the four of us directors as well as by others who are knowledgeable in particular primary sources.  We will continue to provide informative articles based on primary source work.  More than that, once we are able to move forward with our future digitization project, readers will have access to primary sources themselves.  We even envision a platform in which readers will be able to submit primary documents to the database.  This will make it similar to Wikipedia, in that people will  be able to add to the knowledge base and influence what is known and learned.  Yet, it will differ in that it will be source material that is added, not conventional mendacity nor even a well documented interpretation.  There will be limitations, of course, as readers won’t be spoon fed interpretations but would have to read, say, Bjerring’s writings themselves to determine what he tended to emphasize in his extant sermons, but I think this is actually better.  Encyclopedias can be nice starting points, but a platform that forces people to think critically and rely on primary sources is better.

Of course, scholars and researchers are seriously questioning the degree to which people are prepared to think critically (you could follow the trail starting with this: http://chronicle.com/article/Academically-Adrift-The/130743/) but that’s a different discussion for another time.

Wicked Wiki, Primary Sources, and SOCHA’s Ongoing Work is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Digital history has generally meant using digital tools to help analyze historical source materials, though this can be done in different ways, from digital archives and interactive maps to text mining (assessing a text for patterns, perhaps of place-names or certain verbal structures).  By virtue of this blog and our associated Journal of American Orthodox Church History, SOCHA is certainly involved in digital history.  Furthermore, we intend to establish an online digital archive that will be searchable.  It will take time for this to occur, of course, but it is our full intention to work toward that.

That said, there are some areas of caution that one ought to have when thinking about digital history.  This recent blog post by Stanley Fish gets at one way in which text mining can be problematic:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/mind-your-ps-and-bs-the-digital-humanities-and-interpretation/

Essentially, Mr. Fish notes the problem of omitting contextual considerations.  It is too tempting for people in the digital humanities to perform their search, find some pattern of something or other and then make a bold claim.

I think he’s spot on, and even more so when applied to digital history.  It is a temptation in history generally.  It is difficult sometimes for historians not to confuse trivia with history.  Already, historians, especially new (young) historians, find a unique little snippet only to be faced with the challenge of confronting that initial excitement with the prospects of context.  That is, what is the ultimate significance of that snippet?  What does it tell us about American Orthodox Church history, for instance, or religion in American more generally in the nineteenth century, etc.?  That is, the contextual questions are there to keep the historian honest and avoid a myopic vision.  Text mining, though, as noted by Mr. Fish, is already beginning to make the temptation of mistaking trivia for history all too real.  The larger contextual and theoretical questions are sometimes pushed aside all too easily.

So, are we at SOCHA part of the problem?  I don’t think so.  I realize any singular blog post, taken on its own, could certainly seem to be analogous to the context-less argument from text mining, but I think if one realizes that the blog entry ought to be seen within the context of the blog as a whole, and really in the context of SOCHA’s work as a whole, all is well.  Matthew Namee and I have both written on early jurisdictional issues.  We also have JAOCH, which often deals with larger American-Orthodox historical concerns.  It is true that JAOCH is “narrow” in that it is concentrated on certain ecclesiastical histories, but it still requires the articles to be grounded in the larger histories of those various churches.  Also, when we do finally, some year down the road, unveil our digital, searchable archive, the intention will be to further the use of source material and not simply to encourage “pattern finding.”  There is much that digital history has to offer, but in keeping with the concerns raised by Mr. Fish, it is our hope and belief that SOCHA will be part of a creative but historically honest and grounded use of digital technology.

SOCHA, American Orthodox History, and the Digital Humanities is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

http://meta.orthodoxwiki.org/Sophronios_%28Beshara%29_of_Los_Angeles

This begs the question of which is correct and if 1940 is correct, what was he doing during those intervening years?

Well, 1940 is correct and what he was doing was ordaining people to his American Orthodox Catholic Church (an alternative name for HEOCACNA).

Here are two examples of newspaper articles referring to him ordaining men to the priesthood:

1939 Sophronios Ordains a Priest

Sophronios Visits Binghampton 1939

For those interested in the beginning of his episcopal career, these might be of interest:

Sophronios to be Elevated

Sophronios Ordained 1928

Purpose of HEOCACNA and Sophronios

HEOCACNA and Bishop Sophronios(us) is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

http://sites.google.com/site/theoclitostriantafilides/

Indeed, I consulted Mimo when writing my paper on Greeks serving in the Russian Mission, which I presented at this past year’s SOCHA Symposium.  He was very helpful in pointing me to sources and information.

Mimo has dedicated himself to sharing the story of Archimandrite Theoklitos and it’s easy to see why.  In an age when missionaries for the Russian Mission were brought over for short stints and when missionaries of any Orthodox background typically moved about from parish to parish, Theoklitos is a sturdy rock.  He still went to the “hinterlands,” mostly in Texas, but also in Colorado and spent time in San Francisco reaching out to the Greek community there.  He (and others) were ultimately largely unsuccessful in that venture in San Fran, in that the Greeks formed their own parish eventually, but not entirely and his dedication was clear.  He served God and God’s people through the Russian Mission.  He was able to see his way through the difficult hectic life of a missionary priest at a time when not all could.  Indeed, at a time when many laity could not.  He accepted canonical order and he loved the people under his care.  Barring some unbeknownst event in the Galveston Daily News, he should be included amongst those mentioned as possible Greek saints in America.
All that said, here is a recent talk given by Mimo:

http://www.saintjonah.org/podcasts/stherman2011/galveston_talk.mp3

Please be aware that during the introductory part, before Mimo himself begins speaking, there is a lot of background noise.  If you can forebear, you’ll be glad because that quickly goes away and the talk is very nice.  We at SOCHA are very glad that Mimo and Fr. John Whiteford (the talk was at his parish) were willing to allow us to share this with our readers.

Archimandrite Theoklitos Triantafilides is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/11/12/1905-the-busiest-year-in-american-orthodox-history/

I thought I would take the time today to provide us with a slightly fuller account of what it is he was doing.  This article includes the text for a denunciation that was to be read publicly:

Ustvolsky

Imposters at the Altar: The Case of Stephen Ustvolsky is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

http://orthodoxhistory.org/2010/01/26/the-first-english-speaking-parish/

One of the converts he mentioned was a gentleman named Reginald Wright Kauffman.  Kauffman lived from 1877-1957 and was a noted author. He also served as a newspaper editor for a time.  He was raised Episcopalian and apparently considered Mormonism for a time.  He and his wife Ruth authored a book on it in 1912. You may still purchase a reprint from the University of Illinois Press.  Despite this, he became Orthodox at the Transfiguration parish in New York in 1920.  Here is a newspaper description of that event:

1920-07-20 – Reginald Wright Kauffman converts at Transfig Church (NY Times)

To the best of my knowledge, he remained Orthodox, but I am not sure of that.  Fr. Daniel H.B. Montgomery mentioned Kauffman as a “pioneering convert” in “Your Orthodox Mission to America” Word Magazine (1957): 207-8, 212.  This need not mean Kauffman remained Orthodox and if anyone has any information on Kauffman that relates to his Orthodoxy, we welcome feedback.

Reginald Wright Kauffman is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

In addition to the obvious cultural factors (English was not the native language of Eastern European and Middle Eastern immigrants and cultural mores differed), flashes of anti-immigrant violence directed against Orthodox Christians helped create this scenario.

The most well known example may be the anti-Greek riots of South Omaha, Nebraska in 1909.[1]  The instigating event causing the riot was a Saturday night scuffle between a police officer and a local Greek man.  The officer had followed the young Greek man into the home of a lady who allegedly had a reputation for illicit behavior.  A scuffle ensued and the policeman was shot and killed.  The following morning, when the bells of the local Greek Orthodox Church began ringing, a mob gathered together and ransacked the Greek section of town.  The Greek Town of South Omaha burned to the ground and 1,200 Greeks fled.  The precipitating cause was labor tensions, as the Greeks had arrived during a labor shortage and were competing for jobs.  Moreover, they were willing to work for lower wages.

Indeed, Greek Orthodox and other Eastern European Orthodox immigrants were often in the middle of labor disputes.  For example, in Montana, citizens of Great Falls held meetings for the purpose of driving the Greeks from their town.[2]  On another occasion, near Mt. Home, Idaho, some one hundred Greeks cleared land of sagebrush and instead of being paid were run off in the middle of the night by fifty masked men.[3]  Nor was the American reception of Greek Immigrants contingent simply upon labor concerns.  There was a religious dimension to it as well, at least amongst those involved in missionary movements.[4]  American anti-immigration and ethnic sterotypes also affected Slavic immigrants.[5]  In Desloge, Missouri, for example, a 1917 labor riot drove out many of the Carpatho-Rusyn immigrants (who had previously converted from Eastern Catholicism to Orthodoxy).

Of course, it was not just Orthodox who encountered this.  This was a problem for Eastern Catholics from the Austro-Hungarian Empire as well.  And, really, America has a pattern of reacting this way.  Each new wave of immigration encounters this.  In the case of Eastern Europeans, however, the language and cultural distinctions were such that one way of reacting to the situation was to rally around one’s culture, utilizing the local parish as the cultural center.  As I said earlier, though, I don’t believe that’s the entire story to Orthodox history, but it is certainly a part of it.

Early Orthodox Immigrants and Nativism is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Unfortunately, Fr. Boris also seemed to find his way into the courts.  I haven’t had a chance to try to track down this case, but the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of Saturday, April 9, 1932, lists Joseph McKoe v. Boris Burden as a case scheduled for the 8th District Court on April 11th.  As I said, I don’t know what drove that case, but in another case, in 1924, Burden was taken to court for getting into a fist fight.  Here’s the newspaper article from back then (Brooklyn Eagle, October 14, 1924).  By the way, raising a fist against another, if you’re a priest, breaks canon law.  Though I am aware of economia being extended when a priest was defending someone else, in this case, that is not the case.  It is an old fashioned, immature fist fight.  So, sometimes in American Orthodoxy, those who have worked the hardest have also had serious character flaws.  I suppose that’s to be expected in a frontier, marginalized religion, but it is worth remembering nonetheless.

PRIEST HOLDS OWN

IN FISTIC BATTLE

Following a violent altercation last midnight between Hugh Yeo, 23 years old. a taxi drlver, living at 2155 65th st., and Boris Burden of 417 8th St., starters for the Yellow Taxi Cab Company,- at their stand at Ave. 1 and the Brighton line, Patrolman John Maxwell took both men to the Parkville station, where they were charged with disorderly conduct.

Yeo spent the night in the cells. Burden obtained bail. When he appeared before Magistrate Eilperln in the Flatbush Court this morning, the taxi starter of the night before, a tall, good-looking young man of 26. with blond, wavy hair. wore the black gown and round clerical collar of a priest. “Yon could have knocked me over with a feather,” said Yeo, when his fellow prisoner explained to the Court that during the day he was the Rev. Father Boris Burden of the Eastern Orthodox Greek Catholic Church.  He said that he is attached to the general staff of the cathedral at 15 E. 97th St.. Manhattan, and added that he has been working on a sociological study of immigrants. Fred G. Ritta. counsel for the Yellow Taxi Cnb Company, defended the priest taxi starter against the disorderly conduct charge, to which he pleaded not guilty. The client, at the instigation of his employers, also preferred a charge of assault against Yeo.   According to Yeo,  the priest-starter gave as good as he took, both in blows and verbal insults.

Yet Another Priest is Taken to Court is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

http://www.princeton.edu/~florov/history_shortpapers.html

The topics, institutions represented, and authors speaking are all diverse in a most intriguing way and a testament to the breadth of American Orthodox history.  I am very truly thankful to Seraphim Dankaert at Princeton Theological Seminary and to all the scholars who submitted abstracts for this year’s event.  It is my hope and prayer that this will become a regular gathering for SOCHA and all who may be interested in American Orthodox history.

Announcing the 2011 Symposium Papers is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

In this post, I thought I’d mention the People’s University in Chicago and put out a “call for more information.”  I do not know much about this school and therefore would greatly welcome any reader from Chicago (or elsewhere) who has more information on this.  What I do know is that it lasted from 1918 until 1920.  It was a night school that met in public school classrooms with the twofold purpose of Americanizing Russian immigrants and teaching Russian to Americans for business purposes.  Boris Bakhmeteff, the ambassador for the provisional government in Russia, had allocated $10,000 from embassy funds to start this venture.  The financial aspects were overseen directly by the Russian consul, Antoine Volkoff.  Although this venture did not last I find it quite intriguing.  Perhaps others know more about it than the bare-bone basics I’ve been able to find.  I should note I haven’t scoured the Bakhmeteff archives as I maybe should, though a quick skim through the contents (as available online) did not jog anything in my mind.  Nor have I had a chance to figure out what archives in Chicago might contain information on this enterprise.  If someone knows better, please do let me know.   This is no do or die matter but I suspect that a fuller history of the Russian People’s University in Chicago could offer a unique view into the world of the Russian emigre community and those who fled turmoil of Russia for the safe haven of America.

Those interested in Russians in Chicago more generally might wish to start here, though one would have to go far beyond this to learn more:

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1104.html

Self-Educating the Eastern Orthodox Immigrant and an Appeal for More Information is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Georges_Florovsky

The following quote is from “Faith and Culture,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 4:1-2 (1955-56), 44.

“Either Christians ought to go out of the world, in which there is another master besides Christ (whatever name this master may bear: Caesar or Mammon or any other), and start a separate society. Or again they have to transform the outer world and rebuild it according to the law of the Gospel. What is important, however, is that even those who go out cannot dispense with the main problem: they still have to build up a “society” and cannot therefore dispense with this basic element of social culture. “Anarchism” is in any case excluded by the Gospel. Nor does Monasticism mean or imply a denunciation of culture. Monasteries were, for a long time, precisely the most powerful centers of cultural activity, both in the West and in the East. The practical problem is therefore reduced to the question of a sound and faithful orientation in a concrete historical situation.

Christians are not committed to the denial of culture as such. But they are to be critical of any existing cultural situation and measure it by the measure of Christ. For Christians are also the Sons of Eternity, i.e. prospective citizens of the Heavenly Jerusalem. Yet problems and needs of “this age” in no case and in no sense can be dismissed or disregarded, since Christians are called to work and service precisely “in this world” and “in this age.” Only all these needs and problems and aims must be viewed in that new and wider perspective which is disclosed by the Christian Revelation and illumined by its light.”

Definitely wise words to heed as we continue to plan and develop Orthodox engagement with higher education.  Definitely fitting words for this time of year.

Orthodoxy in Higher Education: Transforming the World is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

On the one hand, I do not think Orthodoxhistory.org is intended to publish, regularly, with the same level of detailed investigation that is required for a peer reviewed article.  I am in the process of putting together Prairie Parish Press, which will publish the Journal of American Orthodox Church History.  So, God-willing, we will have such a journal publicly available in a few months.

On the other hand, Orthodoxhistory.org isn’t mere opinion, and certainly is not intended to be armchair opinion.  To me, I see Orthodoxhistory.org as having three possible goals with any post:

1) Publication of something researched nearly to the point where it could be submitted for peer review.  With my Archbishop Arseny posts, I did that.  No, I never wrote an article that could be submitted (for I would never submit something I write online anyhow), but the research into his trial was a serious beginning of something that could have been developed in that direction with some additional work.  So, sometimes, we will post on new primary source research that is analyzed in detail.  That is one possible goal any given post may have.

2) Publication of a piece with commentary that simply points to a larger issue without making any strong claims about anything in too much detail.  I did that in my last post on SVS’s beginning.  I didn’t research the whole beginning.  I simply posted a single newspaper article and then pointed to the larger picture.  So, sometimes, we will write posts that do little else than point to a larger area of investigation or interest that others might want to pursue.  These are reminder pieces, I suppose, and for some people, maybe new info, but not overwhelming info.

3) Publication of preliminary research intended for engagement by our readers.  This is probably the main kind of posting that Matthew does (though he also does sometimes do 1 and 2 too).  I think sometimes we might forget that.  We might think he simply describes what he found so quickly that he must mean it to be comprehensive.  That’s not entirely fair to him, though.  And, to be fair, I did something similar with my post on the OrthCathA collection at the University of Buffalo.  I didn’t actually go there and look at the collection before I posted, so I couldn’t have told you specifically what kind of volumes were donated by Fr. Michael Gelsinger and Fr. Boris Burden.  I certainly would not have minded had someone done that.  That would have been fine.  Likewise, Matthew is open to people providing information that may change his conclusions.

So, those are the three main goals I see.  I may tend toward goals one and two, but that does not mean goal three ought to be suspect.  I think it’s venerable to want engagement from our readers in furthering research and discussion.  In a way, goal three is like “peer reviewing,” at least peer review in a blog context.  This makes the discussions in the comments section so important.  Should more non-English sources be scoured?  As a general rule, of course, but I also hope we don’t presume that people writing tentative conclusions are simply dismissed because they did not have the time and money to do so.  Also keep in mind, that tentative research is still research.  It may only be the very beginnings, but throwing that stuff out there can lead to engagement, which can lead to new leads.  Some of our posts will be attempting to do little more than that.  I hope, though, that that will not dissuade people from reading nor turn people away but, rather, encourage people to join us in our journeys.

This article was written by Fr. Oliver Herbel.

How I View the Church History Work of Orthodoxhistory.org is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

SVS Genesis

This was necessary because St. Platon’s seminary had been closed finally and officially in 1924 (after having been moved to New York from its original location in Tenafly, NJ in 1922).  The financial problems following the Russian Revolution and Civil War had been extreme and the Russian Mission suffered significantly.  This would affect the mission as it later became the Metropolia.  By the 1930s, though, the need for a seminary was significant.  In 1937, real headway was made on this front.

A Reminder of the Difficulties in Starting Orthodox Seminaries is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

I am honored to have been invited to be a guest of the pan-Orthodox clergy group in the Buffalo, NY area for the weekend and thought I’d call your attention to the Sunday of Orthodox Vespers to be held at Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church.  If you are in Western NY or Ontario and are interested in a talk on early converts, with a special mention of some important happenings in Buffalo, please stop by.  Also, don’t hesitate to introduce yourself.  One of the best ways we can all further reflections on American Orthodox church history is through personal contact and communal worship.

Buffalo Before Chicago is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Although the link to the OrCathA Byzantine collection is currently down, it may be found here:

http://www.classics.buffalo.edu/research/research_facilities/other_facilities/

An Orthodox Library is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Fr. Oliver “reboots” the St. Peter discussion is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

A Meeting of Hierarchs of both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian churches

If you have a Facebook account and read the responses to these comments, you will see some very good reasons. Foremost among them is that this website is a private, cooperative endeavor between those who happen to be spending their own time on it. We don’t receive funding from anywhere other than our own pockets, so there’s no reason why anyone should fear that official funds are being used in some objectionable way.

Yet one must ask why this is supposedly objectionable in the first place. Ironically, we’ve covered a number of apostates and outright non-Orthodox in the past without much protest, yet there are folks who object to Non-Chalcedonians being covered. How they’re okay with the former but not the latter is frankly a bit beyond me.

To be sure, there are some among the Chalcedonian (“Eastern”) Orthodox who look upon the Non-Chalcedonian (“Oriental”) Orthodox as heretics and therefore utterly irrelevant to such a site as this. Readers are left to determine for themselves what they think about this theological issue. At the same time, the official dialogues between the two church bodies have pretty much determined that we have the same Orthodox faith. Whichever may be the case, it is an unmistakable fact that of all the church bodies in the world, the Oriental Orthodox are the closest to the Eastern Orthodox. Although we share the same literal language of Christology as the Roman Catholic Church, anyone who’s ever spent time with both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox church families will find much more in common there than between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome. As such, it only makes sense that we would spend time together. How or if the theological problems will be solved is another matter, to be sure (and an important one), but that is not the point of this website, nor of SOCHA in general.

SOCHA consists of people who like history, both reading it and often writing it. If we happen to like writing about Non-Chalcedonians (something we’ve largely not done as yet because most of us are unqualified), or if we want to invite someone to write about them for the site, then that is simply for furthering our mutual interest in history. If readers want to read it, great! If not, then they can simply skip it. No one’s losing anything by virtue of there being such articles on OrthodoxHistory.org.

At the same time, even if we were to receive funding from a church or foundation or the like, we would still have no problem publishing material about the Non-Chalcedonians. After all, there are print publications that do the same thing—even from Chalcedonian seminaries. And who is harmed by this? I would argue that we are all actually benefited by getting to know each other better. There actually is some real possibility for reunion between the two church bodies in the future—whether readers happen to think this is a good idea or not, it is nonetheless actually a possibility, and it’s being discussed at the official level by both bodies in a way more serious than they treat any other church body.

In any event, I myself am not interested only in Orthodox Christian history (whether one defines that only as Chalcedonian Orthodoxy or to include Non-Chalcedonian), but Christian history in general and even non-Christian religious history. If you’ve ever listened to any of my podcasts comparing Orthodoxy and heterodoxy, you know I’m not particularly “ecumenical” (I like to practice what I call “Ecumenism with a Gun“). So believe me when I say that I think it’s worthwhile for us to include material from the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Indian, Ethiopian and Eritrean churches on this site. And if you don’t believe me, well, then don’t read it! You’re most likely not paying for it, anyway.

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

Editorial: Non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy on OH.org is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

Fr. Oliver’s argument boils down to six main points:

1. Unlike so many Alaskan Orthodox stories (e.g. St. Juvenaly), the St. Peter story has no supporting oral tradition.
2. Fr. Michael Oleksa, the foremost scholar on Alaskan Orthodox history, has written next to nothing about St. Peter. In Orthodox Alaska, Fr. Michael makes not a single mention of Peter’s story. (I would add that Fr. Michael mentions St. Peter only in passing in Alaskan Missionary Spirituality.)
3. No corroborating evidence exists — that is, there is no other evidence of Spanish-Russian violence in California in that era. The St. Peter incident sticks out as an anomaly.
4. On the contrary, there is an internal Roman Catholic document from the period that actually contradicts the idea that the Spanish would torture Native Alaskans.
5. There is no evidence that St. Peter and his alleged persecutors would have been able to converse in the same language, which makes the exchange between them unlikely.
6. There is only one primary account of St. Peter’s martyrdom, and it is suspect for various reasons.

I’d encourage you to read the whole article, as I’ve just barely summarized Fr. Oliver’s observations. And, for the time being, I’m going to stay out of the public debate over whether St. Peter was real (and, if he was real, whether he was really martyred). I do think it is of paramount importance that the original account of St. Peter’s martyrdom be made public and translated into English. We don’t have that account, and I don’t know of anyone who has ever seen it, although in the comments to Fr. Oliver’s post, someone says that it was due to be published in a book.

At some future point, I’ll examine the pro-Peter arguments, and generally discuss the merits of his case.

This article was written by Matthew Namee.

Fr. Oliver Herbel on St. Peter the Aleut is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.