Metr. Jonah among the bishops of the Episcopal Assembly

Listen to both his prepared speech as well as questions and answers here (courtesy of Ancient Faith Radio).

Metr. Jonah on the Episcopal Assembly and the OCA 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.

Archbishop Arseny Chagovtsov and Metropolitan Theophilus Pashkovsky at St. Tikhon's Monastery, 1930s

(Editor’s note: Today, we are very pleased to introduce a new author here at OrthodoxHistory.org. Deacon Matthew Francis lives in Edmonton, Alberta, and is one of the leading historians of Orthodoxy in Canada. For some time now, he has been conducting independent research into the life of Archbishop Arseny Chagovtsov, among many other aspects of Canadian Orthodox history. The article that follows is helpful in understanding why so many people in Canada have such great affection for Abp Arseny, who, indeed, had a significant impact on Orthodoxy in both Canada and the United States.)

Over the past several weeks, much has been written – both on OrthodoxHistory.org and elsewhere – about the 1909 libel trials involving Archbishop Arseny (Chagovtsov). Unfortunately, for many casual observers, this episode, while very important, may be all they know of this fascinating figure, who played a significant role in Orthodox history in North America.

In the interests of full disclosure, and by way of personal introduction, I acknowledge up front that I write as both a deacon of the Archdiocese of Canada and as a historical researcher. While I was not a member of the Archdiocesan Committee that researched and prepared the Vita, I have over the past few years conducted oral history relating to Vladyka Arseny’s legacy, interviewing elder clergy and faithful that knew him personally. In December of 2009, I was asked by His Eminence, Archbishop Seraphim, to continue this research work, collaborating with Fr. John Hainsworth. I have been carrying out this task, and continue to do so. While there is much that we know about Archbishop Arseny’s life, there are also many elusive questions for which we still seek greater knowledge. So, as time permits, we endeavor to track down the various sources and pursue leads to understand more deeply the context and meaning of Archbishop Arseny’s work. It is hoped that all of these efforts, now spanning approximately twenty years within the Archdiocese of Canada, will be useful to the renewed Canonization Commission of the Orthodox Church in America as they carry out their investigative work with all prayerful diligence, faith, and prudence.

In this light, I am grateful for the work of OrthodoxHistory.org, and of both Matthew Namee and Fr. Oliver Herbel for bringing to light the sources around the 1909 criminal libel trial against the publication Svoboda. I do, however, differ from Fr. Oliver in my conclusions about the alleged 1906 rape of Mary Krinitsky. While acknowledging that it is probably impossible to establish his guilt or innocence with certainty, Fr. Oliver leans towards the possibility of Archbishop Arseny’s guilt. I believe that that there is a strong case to be made that he was, in fact, innocent. While I will articulate this claim in future posts, it should be clarified that Mary Krinitsky ultimately denied that any such assault ever happened in the first place.

The purpose of this post is not to re-state the basic introductions to Archbishop Arseny available elsewhere online, such as the Orthodox wiki article or the Vita prepared by the Canonization Committee of the O.C.A.’s Archdiocese of Canada. Rather, my purpose in writing is to briefly highlight some specific aspects of his life and career, indicating along the way some of the context behind why Archbishop Arseny has been considered for glorification as a saint. In future articles, I intend to introduce readers of this site to other aspects of Orthodox history in Canada. Along the way, I will address in detail important vignettes from the life of Archbishop Arseny, such as the occasion of his being shot in Canora, Saskatchewan while attending a clergy assembly in 1935.

Archbishop Arseny’s ministry is broad in scope, spanning continents and many different types of service over six tumultuous decades. In this post, I would like to highlight some of the historical roles that this intrepid man took on. I believe that sketching out these roles provides an appropriate balance and context to the ongoing, and essential, discussion of the serious accusations made against Archbishop Arseny. Sound discernment of whether he should be formally recognized as a God-bearing saint will emerge from this kind of balanced searching for truth, taking all things into account. While some may dismiss these themes as overtly hagiographic, they are apparent in the historical record, in letters and articles in the Vestnik, and must be given their due. St. Tikhon’s Monastery has a cache of highly relevant material easily accessible.

Archbishop Arseny transmitted Orthodox monastic life to North America

In early 1905, the young Hieromonk Arseny was serving in the North American Diocese as Rector of the Parish of St. John the Baptist in Mayfield Pennsylvania. He dreamed of developing a monastery that could serve as a spiritual heart for the mission in America. The story of the founding of what would become St. Tikhon of Zadonsk Monastery has Archbishop Arseny as its protagonist. He traveled in a horse and buggy with St. Tikhon over the hills of Pennsylvania when the Archbishop chose the lands. He raised the money and created the plans. He fostered the Brotherhood and welcomed the first monks. He built the buildings and paid for the establishment and sustenance of the Orphanage out of his own funds. Most of all, however, Father Arseny established the first monastery in North America, rooted in the ascetic and spiritual traditions of the Orthodox faith. Working closely with Sts. Tikhon, Raphael, Alexis (Toth), and Alexander (Hotovitsky) in the years 1905-1908, Father Arseny, is described by them all with deep respect. In 1906, he was raised to the rank of Igumen by St. Tikhon, and in 1909 to Archimandrite by the Holy Synod.

I suppose such ‘external’ recognition has its place. I found it compelling, however, that in my conversations in the Summer of 2009 with a few esteemed archpriests of the O.C.A., who, as young seminarians knew the Archbishop in his last years, the word they used to describe his attitude was “repentance.” It is repentance that is at the heart of the monastic life. I hope, in due time, with their permission, to publish the transcripts of these interviews. They convey something of Archbishop Arseny’s own life and attitude – one of quietness and love, that should not be disregarded.

Archbishop Arseny proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ

During his early ministry in Canada, then Archimandrite Arseny distinguished himself and served his flock by his Gospel preaching. A few allusive quotations shed light on this aspect of +Arseny’s ministry. It was during this time, 1908-1910,

that he gained the affectionate title, “The Canadian Chrysostom” for his extraordinary preaching talents. He became famous for his sermons, which being published in an Orthodox journal of the day, The Canadian Field, eventually were read in Russia by Czar Nicolas II. The Russian Emperor was so taken with his sermons that “in order to thank him for this ‘food for the soul’ (as he referred to the articles written by Archimandrite Arseny) – bestowed on him a gold pectoral cross sent directly to him by His Majesty’s offices.” (Historical Chronology, p. 17)

We hear, for instance, in July 1909, Andrij Herbut, who was Starosta (Board Chairman) of St. Barbara’s Church in Edmonton, Alberta, about one of Arseny’s visits where many came from all over: “But when they heard the famous preacher the hearts of lost sinners were softened and many of them shed tears.” (The Life of Archbishop Arseny, p.10)

Archbishop Arseny exercised oversight of the Church

In all phases of his ministry, +Arseny intentionally looked to many dimensions of the Church’s work, both in its personal and ‘institutional’ dimensions. This is apparent in his development and initiation of many endeavours. Wherever he served for any length of time, he began to establish not only monastic life, but also pastoral schools for training potential clergy. This is evident not only at St. Tikhon’s, where he founded the school that eventually became St. Tikhon’s Seminary, but also in Canada, at Sifton, and in Winnipeg. He gave attention to such practical elements of the Church as stewardship and fundraising, personally eliciting generosity and fostering a pioneering spirit in the work of sustaining “the Mission” in North America.

These three themes are but a few of the historical threads running through the missionary career of Archbishop Arseny, whose legacy is still felt throughout the Orthodox Church in North America. This post merely sketches some of these elements, and they will be drawn together in more detail later. For now, we must let the historical task of S.O.C.H.A. and others continue to examine the life and work of Archbishop Arseny.

By way of exhortation, I hope that we will use this experience of this hierarch’s potential glorification as an opportunity for growth and maturation in the Orthodox faith. As many have said, “God knows if Archbishop Arseny is a saint, or not!” Our task is to attend to what the Lord reveals to us, and to receive from Him what is given. Let us calm our passions and endeavor to sustain wholesome relationships in the midst of this conversation. That is to say, let us all heed the good word of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Corinthians. Let none of us say, “I am for Arseny,” or “I am against Arseny.” I have a feeling the Archbishop himself would be aghast at such an attitude. Rather, as we pour through the historical sources, let us all, as Orthodox Christians, seek to be for Jesus Christ, to draw near to Him – Who Is the Truth – in faith and love, and to discern with all reverence and diligence, those bearers of His love to us.

[This article was written by Deacon Matthew Francis.]

Archbishop Arseny: The Context for Canonization — Part One is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

In a follow-up post, Fr. Oliver responded to the charge that he was employing a “hermeneutic of suspicion.”

Finally, on his own blog, Gabriel Sanchez used Fr. Oliver’s comments a springboard to reflect upon the nature of historical inquiry in the Orthodox Church.

For anyone interested in the Abp Arseny story, or in historiography more generally, these articles (and the thoughtful comments that follow them) make for fascinating reading. At the very least, I would strongly encourage you to read Fr. Oliver’s first article, on his position vis-à-vis the Abp Arseny canonization.

Tomorrow, we’ll be back with more new material, from a new contributor to OrthodoxHistory.org.

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

Metropolitan Leonty

Here at OrthodoxHistory.org, we haven’t yet done a whole lot of work on Metropolitan Leonty, but he is a giant of an historical figure. The OCA statement provides a brief outline of his life:

Metropolitan Leonty [1876-1965] came to America as a young priest in 1906 to assume duties as rector of the seminary in Minneapolis, MN, which had been established by Saint Tikhon, at the time Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America. As a delegate from the North American Diocese to the All-Russian Church Council of 1917-18 in Moscow, he had experienced first-hand the horrors of the Russian Revolution. Upon returning to America, he sought to incarnate the conciliar spirit and groundbreaking decisions of the Moscow Council into the life of the Church in America in his every action. After the death of his wife, he became Bishop of Chicago in 1933. In 1950, he was elected Metropolitan of All America and Canada by a nearly unanimous vote. Many who knew him remember his personal holiness.

My favorite Leonty anecdote comes from Fr. Alexander Schmemann:

Great Lent, 1964. The special solemn service for all those persecuted for the Orthodox faith just ended at New York’s Greek Cathedral. At the end of the service Metropolitan Leonty approaches Archbishop Iakovos to thank him on behalf of the Metropolia. Something extraordinary takes place: the Greek Hierarch, in all his majesty, bows before the Elder in white, kisses his hand and says, You have a great soul.

Anyway, the statement goes on to outline Abp Arseny’s life as well. If you’ve been following our website recently, you know that we’ve devoted a good deal of attention to Arseny, particularly the 1909 rape allegations against him, and the subsequent criminal libel trial. In response to this, Liberovsky said, “The Canonization Commission has been aware for some time of the controversy surrounding Archbishop Arseny arising from allegations of serious moral transgression and unethical behavior, which has recently been publicized on the internet. These allegations, which Archbishop Arseny challenged in the courts a century ago, and attendant issues require further study and verification.”

Archbishop Arseny

It’s important to understand that there are actually two committees looking into the canonization of Abp Arseny. There is the main OCA Commission, of which Liberovsky is the secretary, and there is also a separate Canadian committee. Liberovsky explains, “[S]everal years ago His Eminence, Archbishop Seraphim of Ottawa and Canada established an Archdiocesan Canonization Committee in Canada, which conducted extensive research.”

Both the Timeline and Life of Arseny were produced by the Canadian committee, not the main OCA Commission. Having recently spoken with Alex Liberovsky, I am confident that the OCA Commission will exercise due diligence in its investigations into both Leonty and Arseny.

If anyone has information or source materials that might help the Commission’s work on either Leonty or Arseny, they can send an email to canonization@oca.org; write to PO Box 675, Syosset, NY 11791; or call 516-922-0550 extension 121.

[This article was written by Matthew Namee.]

OCA Canonization Commission issues statement 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.

• Part 1 – Introduction
• Part 2 – the Prosecution
• Part 3 – the Defense begins
• Part 4 – the Defense concludes
• Part 5 – Addendum

Keep in mind, Arseny was not the one on trial. The defendants were in charge of Svoboda, a Uniate (Greek Catholic) journal which had accused Arseny of rape. The trial focused on whether the defendants had committed criminal libel. As with most libel suits, this led to a serious scrutiny of Arseny himself, since, if he was guilty of rape, the defendants could not be guilty of libel. But, to keep things straight, remember that the prosecutor is pro-Arseny, and the defense is pro-Svoboda.

If you haven’t done so already, I would strongly encourage you to read Fr. Oliver’s summary articles before digging into the whole trial transcript. Also, please note Fr. Oliver’s words from his fourth article: “ 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.” This is very strange, and we continue to investigate the whole affair. But, in the interests of transparency and to allow the public to come to its own conclusions, we are making the source documents available to all, immediately.

The transcript is very large, and we have broken it into six parts to make for more convenient downloading. Click on the following links to download the transcript:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6

And finally, to give credit where it is due, Fr. Oliver is the one who tracked down the transcript. He sent a hard copy to my office, where we had it digitized and then sent to Fr. Andrew Damick, who uploaded it to OrthodoxHistory.org. It was a team effort, but in the end, it was Fr. Oliver’s research that got this thing done.

[This article was written by Matthew Namee.]

The Archbishop Arseny Trial Transcript 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.

Fr. Alexander Schmemann in 1963

Fr. Alexander Schmemann was one of the observers at Vatican II, the landmark 1960s council of the Roman Catholic Church. His reaction to the event is priceless — Schmemann took the “opportunity to thank God” that he was Orthodox. Here’s the story, from the New York Times (11/16/1963):

A Russian Orthodox theologian-observer at the second session of the Vatican Council said Thursday that the gathering in Rome was “sobering from the Orthodox point of view.”

The Rev. Dr. Alexander Schmemann, dean of St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary in Tuckahoe, N.Y., said that he had “no doubt the actions of the council thus far are good for the Roman Church itself.” But, he added, “the reality, unfortunately, is that they are far from ecumenity.”

Dr. Schmemann delivered his report on the council at the quadrennial sobor, or convocation, of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America. The sobor, at the Holy Virgin Protection Cathedral, 59 East Second Street, ended yesterday.

Dr. Schmemann, who was also vice chairman of the sobor, emphasized that he had not gone to Rome as an official delegate for his denomination but rather as a special guest.

He explained that the Moscow Patriarchate of Russian Orthodoxy had several official delegates at the council, as had the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. The Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church severed administrative relations with the Moscow Patriarchate in 1924 and regarded the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia as a splinter group.

In his report to his denomination, Dr. Schmemann said he did not bear “any bad will” to Roman Catholicism. But, he said, considering the actions of the council in their ecumenical aspect, he had “opportunity to thank God” that he was Orthodox.

Dr. Schmemann’s objections to the council’s discussions were based on the Roman Catholic view of the papacy. “What builds a wall between the Roman Church and Eastern Orthodoxy is the doctrine of papal infallibility,” he said.

“There may be democritization going on,” the theologian added, “but so much of the Catholic Church is built on reverence of the Pope.”

He said that even the collegiality of the bishops was defined purely in its relationship with the papacy.

“In 17 lines of definition of the bishop in the schema on the church,” he went on, “the word ‘pope’ appears four or five times.

“In Eastern Orthodoxy it is our understanding that teaching about the Pope should be balanced with teachings about the bishops.”

Now, I’m no expert on Vatican II or Orthodox-Roman Catholic relations in general, so I don’t really have any commentary to add. But I stumbled upon this article in my collection and thought it might be of interest to others, so I figured I’d publish it here.

Source of the week: Schmemann on Vatican II is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

• 3241 Mission St. (the home of a parishioner named Mr. Seculovich)
• 509 Greenwich St.
• 911 Jackson St.
• 1108 Pierce St.
• 829 Greenwich St. (owned by a German Lutheran church)
• 1713 Powell St.

Most of those buildings were occupied for only a few years each, but in the Powell St. location, the cathedral found a long-term home. They took up residence there in 1881, and remained at that address until the 1906 earthquake. The present cathedral was built on Green St., in 1909.

In 1889, the Powell St. cathedral was seriously damaged in a fire, and had to be completely renovated. There were all kinds of conspiracy theories about the cause of the blaze, and many parishioners suspected arson. This took place in the middle of the Bishop Vladimir scandals. I’ll talk about those scandals, and the fire itself, another time. Today, I want to present a rather exciting new discovery — photos of the Powell St. cathedral both before the fire, and after the 1889 renovation.

Here is the “before” shot, taken sometime in the 1880s:

Russian cathedral at 1713 Powell St. (right), San Francisco, prior to the 1889 fire. (Photo from the Roy D. Graves Pictorial Collection, Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley)

And here is a photo of the cathedral after the renovation. This latter image is from sometime in the 1890s:

The Powell St. cathedral after the 1889 renovation. (Also from the Roy D. Graves Pictorial Collection at Berkeley)

The latter photo appears in the 1975 OCA book Orthodox America: 1794-1976, but I don’t know if any Orthodox are aware of the existence of the earlier image. Taken together, these two photos clearly show how dramatic the 1889 renovation was.

UPDATE: I had erroneously said that the Powell Street cathedral was occupied until 1909. In fact, it was destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. I’ve corrected the above text to indicate this.

In the comments, Fr. Andrew Damick posted a link to another photo of the post-1889 Powell St. cathedral. It appears to be from the back of the church, and it’s such a great shot that I have to post it here:

The post-1889 Powell Street cathedral, from the rear. The Bancroft Library website indicates that the photo was taken in 1885, but since the renovation didn't take place until 1889, it must be sometime after that date.

The San Francisco Cathedral: Before and After 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.

Abp. Kyrill Yonchev, 1964-2007

The OCA’s Bulgarian diocese, like one of its other ethnically defined dioceses (the Romanian), had its origins in a schism within the American jurisdiction of an Orthodox church based in a then-Communist nation. In both cases, there were factions dedicated to remaining within the canonical purview of the mother churches, but there were also factions who felt that such a stance represented capitulation to Communism, which had, to one extent or another, compromised the church authorities in the homeland. Communism split not only the Bulgarians and Romanians in America, but also the Russians and Serbs. (Of these, only the Serbs have subsequently reunited.)

In the case of the Bulgarian diocese, the dissent against Metr. Andrei Petkov, the bishop aligned with the homeland, was led by one of his clergy, an archimandrite named Kyrill Yonchev. During World War II, Andrei broke relations with authorities in Bulgaria, and then in the late 1950s petitioned the Russian Metropolia (itself then on bad terms with its mother church) for admission, but was rebuffed. In 1964, he regularized his relations with the homeland. This latter move stirred significant rancor in the Bulgarian-American ranks, and Kyrill broke relations with the aging Andrei and persuaded several parishes to follow him.

Kyrill was subsequently consecrated by the ROCOR, renowned for its anti-Communist feelings, to serve as the head of the Bulgarian Diocese in Exile. His career as a ROCOR bishop came to an abrupt end, however, when in 1976 he led his diocese of nine parishes into the OCA, where he served until his death in 2007, acquiring a second diocese (Western Pennsylvania) in 1978. At the time of this development, in the wake of the Metropolia’s reconciliation with Moscow and subsequent independence as the OCA, ROCOR/OCA animosity was perhaps at its apex.

In 1976, the energy from the OCA’s newly-proclaimed autocephaly was still flowing freely, and the entry of the Bulgarian Diocese in Exile into its ranks was regarded as another sign of the inevitability of the OCA as a catalyst for American Orthodox unity, particularly at the OCA’s Fifth All-American Council that year, which also elected Theodosius Lazor to be the new OCA primate.

St. George Bulgarian Orthodox Cathedral, Toledo, Ohio

Update Dec. 26, 2009: Fr. Alexander Lebedeff writes with some corrections to this post:

Archbishop Antony (Sinkevich) of the ROCOR was consecrated Bishop of Los Angeles in August 1951 and served until he was retired in 1995. He reposed July 31, 1996. He was a bishop for 45 years.

Of course, Metropolitan Vitaly (Oustinoff) of the ROCOR was made bishop in 1951 and retired in 2001 after celebrating 50 years as a bishop (he reposed in 2006). However, he did not come to North America until 1955. Still, 1955-2001 is 46 years. There are those in offshoots of the ROCOR who consider him to have continued being First Hierarch of the ROCOR up to the point of his repose. In any case he was a bishop for 55 years and a bishop in North America for 51.

The Bulgarian Diocese in Exile is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

• Sobornost: Uniting Orthodoxy in America, February 19, 2005

• De-Mythologizing American Orthodox History, July 22, 2005

The second column is incorrect in at least one point: Germanos Shehadi was not sent to the U.S. by the Antiochian synod in Damascus, but was here on his own recognizance, eventually staying against the express wishes of the synod.

Two Columns from 2005 is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.

The video takes a few minutes to get going, but here is a roughly 80-minute history of the Russian council of 1917-18, bracketed by history of the Russian Metropolia, entitled True Faith and the Ground of Liberty (subtitled St. Tikhon and the 1917-1918 Council: Architect and Blueprint for the Orthodox Church in America), delivered by OCA chancellor Fr. Alexander Garklavs. It was delivered on June 18 at the recent conference held at St. Vladimir’s Seminary (the same conference which featured our own Matthew Namee).

The first fifteen minutes or so are the conference’s opening talk by seminary dean Fr. John Behr and the introduction of Garklavs by seminary chancellor Fr. Chad Hatfield.

Toward the beginning, Garklavs does include some sidelong remarks indicating he agrees with the conventional depiction of a mono-jurisdictional Orthodox administration prior to 1921, but his narrative largely avoids this question. He does comment at one point when mentioning the Greeks under the Russians that there were also Greeks outside the Russian jurisdiction.

Regarding America, he mainly focuses on the life of St. Tikhon and his work in America, as well as the effect of the Russian council of 1917-1918 on the Russian Metropolia and, subsequently, the OCA (and Tikhon’s effect on it, based on his experience in America). The bulk of the talk is on the council itself, based on reading primary sources coming out of the council. The last fifteen minutes come back to America and cover mainly administrative history.

There’s nothing too controversial here, as the parts of this speech concerned with America revisit well-worn ground regarding one of the great heroes of Orthodox history in America. One controversial comment is his suggestion that Tikhon’s model for administration—independent bishops whose jurisdiction is based on ethnicity rather than geography, but sitting together in synod—might represent a best hope for Orthodox unity in America.

It is probably not terribly controversial when Garklavs hails the 1917-18 Russian council as a proper “blueprint” for the OCA. What is more debatable, of course, is whether the blueprint was followed in the construction. Despite this conventional take on the council, I do recall one of my seminary professors (a cleric of the Moscow Patriarchate), who seemed to believe that the council was largely a failure and that the Bolshevik Revolution was God’s final judgment on such a colossal apostasy. That, I think, is somewhat of a minority view, at least here in America. I’d be interested to read what modern Russian Orthodox have to say about the council. To be sure, its effects are not felt there hardly at all (probably at least partly because of the later association of anything “progressive” with the Soviet-sponsored “Living Church” movement). I imagine American Orthodox talk about it quite a lot more.

Hat tip to Byzantine, TX.

St. Tikhon, the Russian Council of 1917-18, and the Metropolia is a post from OrthodoxHistory.org. All rights reserved. Your use of this article is subject to our Terms of Use.