Lost Histories: The Good, the Bad, and the Strange in Early American Orthodoxy

Lost Histories

The Good, the Bad, and the Strange in Early American Orthodoxy

Ancient Faith Publishing

Chesterton, Indiana

Lost Histories: The Good, the Bad, and the Strange in Early American History

Copyright © 2024 Matthew Namee

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Published by:

Ancient Faith Publishing

A Division of Ancient Faith Ministries

1050 Broadway, Suite 6

Chesterton, IN 46304

ISBN: 978-1-955890-63-2

Library of Congress

Control Number: 2024933360

Printed in the United States of America

Cover design by Samuel Heble

Cover images are used with permission from OrthodoxHistory. org and from the private collection of Holy Trinity Cathedral, Chicago, IL.

Interior images are used with permission from OrthodoxHistory.org. Copyright

For Catherine

Sample pages only. Purchase the full book at http://store.ancientfaith.com/lost-histories-the-good-the-bad-and-the-strange-in-early-american-orthodoxy/

Foreword

The V. Rev. Andrew Stephen Damick

MY FRIENDSHIP WITH Matthew Namee, begun some twenty years ago when I was in seminary and he was an undergraduate student, was founded on our common love for the history of Orthodox Christianity in America. At the time, one of us reached out to the other through the internet to ask about a source for some piece of research. In the years since, we have swapped sources, told each other stories, run a history symposium, built the OrthodoxHistory.org website and social media, and worked together on more projects than I now can count.

Most notably for this volume, however, I had the opportunity to learn this history together with Matthew over the years. That is why I can say, as historian and then-dean of St. Vladimir’s Seminary Fr. John Erickson said when he introduced Matthew as a conference speaker at SVS in 2009, that I don’t know anyone who knows more about the history of Orthodox Christianity in America than Matthew does. No one else even comes close.

I do know that there are certain areas of this history that have their specialists, almost always focusing on the story of a particular jurisdiction. There are several books available that tell these stories. There are fewer that attempt to tell the story of the whole Orthodox community in America. Those that do tell this broader story essentially compile summaries of those other stories.

Sample pages only. Purchase the full book at http://store.ancientfaith.com/lost-histories-the-good-the-bad-and-the-strange-in-early-american-orthodoxy/

With so much attention spent on telling these larger stories— the establishment of archdioceses, saints’ lives, the rise and fall of bishops, the building of major churches, and so forth—what is often left by the wayside are the details. Some of these details come from the lives of these prominent leaders, but other details concern the ordinary people who aren’t usually included in such histories.

It is these details that Matthew has spent so much time gathering over the years, rescuing them from neglected archives, digging them out of old newspapers, looking them up in limited-run books long out of print. It is these forgotten finds that form the basis for this present book.

Yet if they are usually left out of the major histories, why publish them? Are they actually important? First of all, a good historian looks to the details to get the full picture. It is these apparently minor details which, taken together, told a story that resulted in that talk Matthew gave in 2009 at SVS—“The Myth of Unity and the Origins of Jurisdictional Pluralism in American Orthodoxy”—a paper that changed the course of American Orthodox historiography by radically revising some of its most basic assumptions that had been shared widely for decades.

Second, these stories are worth telling and publishing because they are not only interesting—and you will find some truly interesting tales in this book!—but because they give a more colorful, more fascinating picture of our Orthodox Christian forebears in America. I enjoy reading broad histories, but isn’t it worth it to zoom in on the stuff that doesn’t make it into those overarching summaries?

These stories are also worth telling because, together, they show that the histories of the various Orthodox jurisdictions and ethnicities in America have a lot more in common than just the things bishops do together and say to one another. That counts not only in stories that involve Orthodox people from different

traditions interacting but in the truth that these stories belong to all of us, perhaps precisely because they don’t really serve the interests of a particular jurisdiction.

Who would claim Agapius Honcharenko, for instance, in a jurisdictional history, except perhaps as a kind of embarrassing footnote? What about St. Tikhon’s friendship with the Episcopal bishop Grafton, a story that does not establish any theology or method of ecumenism? Do we really need to remember the time St. Raphael was accused of pulling a gun on a police officer?

These stories and the many more that make up this book not only will interest American Orthodox Christians looking for more than the standard histories but also help to establish our common sense of identity. The identity of Orthodox Christians in America is not made up only of disparate tales of the establishment of jurisdictions in the wake of waves of immigration, nor does it consist purely of the holy lives of its saints. That identity is also constituted by the stories we share of Orthodox Christians— both “cradle” and “convert”—who are all grafted into Christ but also grafted into and, yes, arising from this American culture, trying to figure out what it means to be faithfully Orthodox in the New World.

Preface

THIS BOOK OWES its existence to three people, in reverse chronological order: my wife, Catherine, the great baseball author Bill James, and Bishop Basil of Wichita.

It was Bishop Basil who first sparked my love of church history. When I was twelve, he introduced me to St. Seraphim of Sarov and St. John Maximovitch—modern saints whose lives and wonders confirmed the truth of the entire Orthodox Faith. I dipped my toe into church history research by writing letters to people who knew St. John personally, and I was awed by the personal responses I got back. Then, when I was eighteen, I got my dream job: research assistant to the legendary baseball author Bill James, the father of sabermetrics. Bill taught me how to think and how to write, and in many ways, this book is my attempt to ape his brilliant storytelling, applying it to Orthodox history rather than baseball.

While working for Bill, I got access to ProQuest’s digital newspaper archives via my membership in the Society for American Baseball Research. One day, it occurred to me that I could search for topics other than baseball. I searched for “Orthodox Church,” and then “Tikhon,” and then “Raphael Hawaweeny.” I was gobsmacked by what I found: thousands upon thousands of turn-of-the-last-century newspaper articles about the early days of Orthodoxy in America. I had hit the mother lode, and I

became obsessed with downloading every primary source I could get my hands on.

A year or so after this, my wife, Catherine, and I started dating. It is a testament to her grace and my idiocy that I spent hours every day digging through digitized old newspapers while my beautiful girlfriend waited patiently. We’ve now been married for eighteen years and have been blessed with seven amazing children. She also knows more than she ever wanted to about Fr. Ingram Irvine, Fr. Raphael Morgan, and all the other characters in this book. After law school, I went several years without writing about church history, and it was only because of Catherine’s encouragement that I picked up my blog again in 2018. Without her support, there’s no way this book would exist.

This book is not a meant to be a standard railroad-track history (if you’re interested in that, check out Fr. John Erickson’s Orthodox Christians in America). It’s also not a compendium of saints’ lives (for that, a great place to start is Glorified in America, from Holy Trinity Publications). And it’s focused on Orthodoxy in the contiguous United States—what we now call the “Lower 48”—in the period from the Civil War through the end of World War I. There’s not much here about Alaska (see Orthodox Alaska by the recently reposed Fr. Michael Oleksa), and the past century gets only a brief mention in the epilogue.

This book is more of a cabinet of curiosities—a collection of stories, in roughly chronological order, meant to give you a window into the early days of Orthodoxy in the United States. It’s full of saints, yes, but of charlatans too. The stories about saints aren’t hagiographic or even strictly biographical; in fact, I’m deliberately trying to avoid too much overlap with books like Glorified in America. So instead of a life of St. Tikhon, you’ll learn about how his younger brother fell in love with an Italian opera singer in San Francisco and died of a broken heart. Saint Raphael gets a lot of attention in this book because he’s a personal favorite

of mine, and also because there are so many amazing things to tell you about him—perhaps the wildest being his involvement in a gunfight on the streets of Brooklyn, which led to his arrest on charges that he’d pulled a gun on a police officer. But these stories are not only about saints or “important” historical figures, people who made a lasting impact. Some of these stories are here simply because they’re fun and fascinating, like the tale of the rogue Bulgarian monk who trekked around the United States in the 1870s and 1880s before morphing into a ghost story in Idaho.

My hope is that, once you get to the end of the book, you’ll have a good sense of what it was like back then, in the early days of American Orthodoxy. I also hope that you’ll have a great time reading this. My mentor Bill James once told me, “When you are writing for the public, finding interesting things to say is the sun and the moon.” If you find yourself bored at any point, move on to the next chapter, and please accept my apologies in advance.

This book wouldn’t exist without the encouragement of Fr. Andrew Damick, who not only wrote the foreword but had the idea to create my home base, the OrthodoxHistory.org website, back in 2009. My other colleagues on the Orthodox History editorial board—Nicholas Chapman, Sam Noble, and Melissa Kean—have been not only important sounding boards but great friends. Father John Erickson took me under his wing and even let me teach his church history class at St. Vladimir’s Seminary about Fr. Ingram Irvine when I was a twenty-one-year-old college dropout. I’m also grateful to my research assistant, Cassidy Irwin, for helping prepare the manuscript. And to my parents, who first transmitted the Orthodox faith to me.

Most of all, thanks again to my wife Catherine, to our children, Jude, Marina, Elijah, Genevieve, Micah, James, and our new daughter (who is due to be born just as this book is going to print), and also to St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, who is like a second patron to me; I’m eternally grateful to all of them.

Introduction1

ON OCTOBER 18, 1867, the Russian Empire formally transferred control of Alaska to the United States of America. At this moment, the only Orthodox churches in the Western Hemisphere were in Alaska, the product of seventy-plus years of Russian Orthodox missionary work. The greatest of those missionaries was St. Innocent Veniaminov, who, a month after the sale, was elected metropolitan of Moscow. Shortly after his election, Innocent wrote a remarkable letter to the ober-procurator (the Tsar’s official representative) of the Russian Holy Synod:

Rumor reaching me from Moscow purports that I wrote to someone of my great unhappiness about the sale of our colonies to the Americans. This is utterly false. To the contrary, I see in this event one of the ways of Providence whereby Orthodoxy will penetrate the United States (where even now people have begun to pay serious attention to it). Were I to be asked about this, I would reply:

A. Do not close the American vicariate—even though the number of churches and missions there has been cut in half (i.e., to five).

1 In this introduction, I make numerous passing references to stories that are told later in the book. If you run into something like this and want to know more, you’ll probably find the answer on the pages that follow.

B. Designate San Francisco rather than New Archangel the residence of the vicar. The climate is incomparably better there, and communications with the colonial churches are just as convenient from there as from New Archangel (if not more so).

C. Subordinate the vicariate to the Bishop of St. Petersburg or some other Baltic diocese, for once the colonies have been sold to the American Government, communications between the Amur and the colonies will end completely and all communications between the headquarters of the Diocese of Kamchatka and the colonies will have to be through St. Petersburg—which is completely unnatural.

D. Return to Russia the current vicar and all clergy in New Archangel . . . and appoint a new vicar from among those who know the English language. Likewise, his retinue ought to be composed of those who know English.

E. Allow the bishop to augment his retinue, transfer its members and ordain to the priesthood for our churches converts to Orthodoxy from among American citizens who accept all its institutions and customs.

F. Allow the vicar bishop and all clerics of the Orthodox Church in America to celebrate the Liturgy and other services in English (for which purpose, obviously, the service books must be translated into English).

G. To use English rather than Russian (which must sooner or later be replaced by English) in all instruction in the schools to be established in San Francisco and elsewhere to prepare people for missionary and clerical positions. 2

An English-speaking bishop, English church services, books, schools, “converts to Orthodoxy from among American citizens”—the great missionary laid out his blueprint for Orthodoxy to “penetrate the United States.”

2 Paul D. Garrett, St. Innocent: Apostle to America (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1979), 275–277.

Copyright

Unfortunately, this visionary plan was not fully implemented. It is true that a bishop who knew English—John Mitropolsky— was appointed to America, and the diocesan see was moved from New Archangel (Sitka) to San Francisco. But English did not become the norm, and American converts were practically nonexistent. For the next twenty-five years, the diocese added just a single parish in the contiguous United States—the San Francisco cathedral. Apart from this, the only Orthodox churches in what we now call the “Lower 48” were a Greek parish in New Orleans (established at about the same time as the San Francisco cathedral and affiliated with the Church of Greece) and a Russian embassy chapel in New York City (subject to the metropolitan of St. Petersburg and in existence from 1870 to 1883).

By 1890, with the New York chapel closed, there were still only those two parishes in the contiguous United States—New Orleans and San Francisco. The seven largest cities in America had no Orthodox church. The focus of the Russian diocese’s efforts was Alaska, where the indigenous Orthodox people were being targeted by American Protestant missionaries. The rest of the United States was something of an afterthought.

4

IN THE LAST decades of the nineteenth century, Byzantine Rite Christians from the Carpathian mountain region began to arrive in America. It is difficult to label these people: they came from an area that today is divided among Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Moldova, Belarus, and Ukraine, and they were known by a great variety of names, including CarpathoRussians, Rusyns, Ruthenians, Galicians, and others. Their ancestors were originally Orthodox Christians, but in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries they submitted to the pope of Rome through a series of “unions,” which is why they have long

been known to the Orthodox as “Uniates.” 3 Despite their subordination to the pope, they retained most of the external forms of Orthodox worship and practice, including allowing married men to become priests.

Upon arriving in America, these Uniates were met by a well-established Roman Catholic church structure, with bishops who generally felt that these new immigrants should be absorbed into the existing Latin Catholic parishes. As Fr. John Erickson writes, “Their thinking ran: If these people really are good Catholics, let them attend the existing Latin Catholic churches of their Slovak, Polish, and Hungarian neighbors!”4 The Uniates, on the other hand, preferred to start their own parishes and retain their centuries-old liturgy and customs.

All this came to a head in 1889. Father Alexis Toth, a widowed Uniate priest, arrived in Minneapolis to serve the local “Greek Catholic” (Uniate) community. Following protocol, he presented his credentials to the Latin Catholic archbishop, John Ireland. Here is how St. Alexis described the meeting:

I remember that no sooner did he read that I was a “Greek Catholic,” his hands began to shake. It took him fifteen minutes to read to the end after which he asked abruptly—we conversed in Latin:

“Have you a wife?”

“No.”

“But you had one?”

“Yes, I am a widower.”

At this he threw the paper on the table and loudly exclaimed,

3 When it began in the sixteenth century, the Unia was centered on what was then the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which had a Roman Catholic ruler. The newly Uniate parishes were primarily in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania—most of them in the areas that are now Ukraine and Belarus, with some in modern-day Lithuania.

4 John H. Erickson, Orthodox Christians in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 62.

“I have already written to Rome protesting against this kind of priest being sent to me!”

“What kind of priest do you mean?”

“Your kind.”

“I am a Catholic priest of the Greek Rite. I am a Uniate and was ordained by a regular Catholic bishop.”

“I do not consider that either you or this bishop of yours are Catholic; besides, I do not need any Greek Catholic priests here; a Polish priest in Minneapolis is quite sufficient; the Greeks can also have him for their priest.”

“But he belongs to the Latin Rite; besides our people do not understand him and so they will hardly go to him; that was the reason they instituted a church of their own.”

“They had no permission from me and I shall grant you no jurisdiction to work here.”

Deeply hurt by the fanaticism of this representative of Papal Rome, I replied sharply: “In that case, I know the rights of my church. I know the basis on which the Union was established and I shall act accordingly.”

The Archbishop lost his temper. I lost mine just as much. One word brought another, the thing had gone so far that our conversation is not worth putting on record.5

The chaos that followed led Fr. Alexis to a momentous conclusion that would have far-reaching consequences: “I made up my mind to do something which I carried in my heart a long time, for which my soul longed: that is, to become Orthodox.”

But at that moment—1889—Orthodoxy barely existed in the United States. Apart from the mission in far-off Alaska,

5 Constance Tarasar, ed., Orthodox America: 1794–1976 (Syosset, NY: The Orthodox Church in America Department of History and Archives, 1975), 50–51.

there were only two parishes, those of San Francisco and New Orleans (the New York chapel having closed several years earlier). A delegation from Fr. Alexis’s parish in Minnesota tracked down Bishop Vladimir in San Francisco, and on the Feast of Annunciation in 1891, the Uniate community of Minneapolis was received into the Orthodox Church. This marked the beginning of a flood of Uniates into Orthodoxy as tens of thousands joined the Russian Orthodox Church in North America over the next several decades. The core of the growing Russian mission— and the core of what we know today as the Orthodox Church in America, or OCA—consisted of these former Uniate parishes. The return of the Unia was one of the two great developments that would shape the future of American Orthodoxy.

4

THE OTHER GREAT development was launched just a few weeks before the Minneapolis parish joined the Orthodox Church. On March 3, 1891, President Benjamin Harrison signed the Immigration Act of 1891 into law. The act paved the way for a flood of new immigrants into the United States. To receive these newcomers, an inspection station was built on Ellis Island in New York Harbor, opening its doors on New Year’s Day, 1892. From this point on, for the next three decades, hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Christians streamed into the United States from Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean.

At this pivotal moment, a change occurred at the top of the Russian diocese: the incumbent bishop, Vladimir, unable to run the diocese effectively due to nonstop conflict and scandal (covered in chapter 9), was recalled. His replacement, Bishop Nicholas Ziorov, was the ideal man for this unique situation. Bishop Nicholas was not only a visionary leader but a skilled administrator, pragmatic and flexible. He spent seven years in America, and while he’s been overshadowed by his successor, St. Tikhon,

much of what St. Tikhon accomplished was, in fact, a continuation of the work of Bishop Nicholas, a further building on his solid foundation.

It was Bishop Nicholas who recruited gifted young men like St. Alexander Hotovitzky, St. John Kochurov, and St. Anatolii Kamenskii (among many others) to serve in America. Bishop Nicholas ordained St. Alexander and St. John to the priesthood, as well as the great American-born Serb, St. Sebastian Dabovich. And it was Bishop Nicholas who first set up special ministries for different ethnic groups, empowering St. Sebastian and importing talented non-Russian clergy, such as St. Raphael Hawaweeny and Fr. Theoclitos Triantafilides. The flood of Uniates into Orthodoxy began with the conversion of St. Alexis Toth shortly before Bishop Nicholas arrived in America, but it was under Nicholas that the return of the Unia really picked up steam, and his welcoming embrace of these former Uniates ensured the success of St. Alexis’s mission.

When Bishop Nicholas arrived in 1891, he found a diocese that was reeling from the scandals of Bishop Vladimir, a diocese that had not experienced hierarchical stability since the drowning/suicide of Bishop Nestor Zass in 1883. While not neglecting Alaska (he was a great advocate for the Orthodox natives, as discussed in chapter 19), Bishop Nicholas oversaw dramatic growth in the rest of the United States, with an average of about two new parishes founded every year. Whereas the diocese was tiny and weak in 1891, by the time of Bishop Nicholas’s departure in 1898, it was thriving and healthy. Saint Tikhon, his successor, was able to accomplish so much not only because he was a genuinely great man but also because he took the reins of a diocese made strong by Bishop Nicholas.

EVEN BEFORE THE Immigration Act of 1891 took effect, Orthodox immigrants had been trickling into the United States. In 1891, the growing Greek community in New York City began to organize itself. The Society of Athena was formed, composed primarily of Greeks from Athens. On January 13, 1892, the Baltimore Sun reported that “since the closing of the Russian chapel, they [the Greeks] have found the lack of spiritual aid and counsel to be a great drawback to happiness.” So in 1891, the New York Greeks wrote to Archbishop Methodius of Syra, Greece. The Sun reported, “[T]he Archbishop conferred with a dignitary at Athens, and the dignitary at Athens wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Patriarch said: ‘To be sure. They must have a priest. As it is their souls are in peril.’” Notwithstanding the involvement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the priest who arrived in January 1892, Archimandrite Paisius Ferentinos, was appointed by the metropolitan of Athens. Thus began Holy Trinity parish.

It was not long before a disagreement arose in the community. A faction appealed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which responded by sending another priest, Archimandrite Kallinikos Delveis, who started Annunciation parish. This appears to be the first time the Ecumenical Patriarchate established a parish, and appointed a priest to serve it, in the Western Hemisphere.

The Russian Archdiocese returned to New York City in 1895, more than a decade after closing its embassy chapel. A Russian-American journalist explained at the time that the Russian Orthodox “resident in New York are soon to have their own house of worship in the place of the Greek Church organized by the Hellenic colony.”6 New York now had three Orthodox churches, each under a different bishop. The problem of overlapping jurisdictions was present from the very beginning of organized Orthodoxy in the United States.

6 Valerian Gribayedoff, “A Russian Greek Church,” Outlook 51:15 (April 13, 1895), 623. Copyright

In Chicago in the late 1880s and early 1890s, a failed attempt was made to form a multiethnic Orthodox parish under Russian jurisdiction. In 1892, the Greeks of the city petitioned the metropolitan of Athens to send them a priest, which he did that spring. A month later, the Russian diocese opened a church. And for several months, there was the beginning of a third parish, with a priest from Serbia. The Serbian community never got off the ground, and the priest returned home later in the year. But Chicago now had two Orthodox parishes, each under a different bishop—the first city in the Western Hemisphere where this happened, two years ahead of New York.

In both New York and Chicago—the two largest cities in America at the time—independent Greek parishes preceded their Russian counterparts. The Greeks in these cities had established a precedent which would be followed by their countrymen throughout the United States. From 1900 to 1917, more than 340,000 Greeks—nearly 19,000 per year—came to America. Bishop George Papaioannou writes that “administratively there was complete chaos.” 7 The Greek parishes had virtually no episcopal oversight. Father John Erickson notes, “In practice [the Greek] parishes were independent of any authority beyond the local community.” 8

One of the earliest Greek parishes in America was established

7 George Papaioannou, “The Diamond Jubilee of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, 1922–1997,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 45:1–4 (Spring 2000), 223. This article was written in 1997 and published posthumously.

8 John Erickson, “Organization, Community, Church: Reflections on Orthodox Parish Polity in America,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 48:1 (Spring 2003), 72. This does not mean that the Greek parishes were entirely unconnected with each other. In 1893, for instance, the newly formed Greek churches in New York and Chicago provided funds to aid in the establishment of a short-lived parish in Baltimore, Maryland. “Greek Church to Celebrate Christmas,” Baltimore Sun (January 6, 1894), 8.

in Lowell, Massachusetts. In 1900, the Lowell parish was divided: one portion of the parish wanted to discharge their priest, Fr. Nathaniel Sideris, and “hire” another. “We have the right to tell a priest that he is no longer needed and to engage another priest,” one parish leader explained. Other parishioners were appalled at such an approach. “Our complaint,” said the leader of the opposition, “is that the people upstairs are conducting the affairs of a Greek church different from anything to which we have been accustomed, and we do not consider it right. The bishop of the Greek church in Athens alone has the power to assign a priest.” 9

Eight years later, virtually the same scenario repeated itself in Lowell: part of the community decided not to retain their priest, and the priest himself appealed to the metropolitan of Athens. “If the Greek Orthodox community here refuses to recognize the authority of the metropolitan of the Greek church in Athens [the priest] will be transferred to some other Greek Orthodox church in this country.”10 The striking fact about both these incidents is that the Russian bishop is not mentioned by either party. One side wanted total independence from all hierarchy; the other acknowledged the authority of the Church of Greece. The Russians were irrelevant.

Both the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate oversaw Greek priests and parishes in America. Greek churches in Norfolk, Salt Lake City, and Washington, DC, were under Athens; those in Lynn, Massachusetts, and Savannah, Georgia, acknowledged the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The first Orthodox services in Birmingham, Alabama, were celebrated by an Archimandrite Dorotheo, who commemorated both the ecumenical patriarch and the metropolitan of Athens during the Divine Liturgy. When a Greek parish was formed in

9 “Lowell Greeks at Odds,” Boston Globe (April 30, 1900), 6.

10 “Appeals to Athens,” Boston Globe (April 1, 1908), 8.

Copyright

Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Inquirer noted, “The church is governed from Athens and is not connected with the Russian Greek Church, although the doctrines are essentially the same.”11 Two years later, a black Episcopal deacon who had been attending the Philadelphia parish traveled to Constantinople—not Athens—to be ordained an Orthodox priest. This man, Fr. Raphael Morgan, was then sent back to America by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to “carry the light of the Orthodox faith among his racial brothers.”

On occasion, the Russian hierarchy attempted to assert ecclesiastical authority over trustee-governed Greek parishes. The Greeks weren’t so keen on this. For example, on Great and Holy Friday in 1904, St. Tikhon, the Russian archbishop of North America, visited Holy Trinity, the uptown Greek church in New York City. “[H]e was barred from entering by its angry trustees,” writes Erickson, “who feared a Russian takeover of their parish properties.”12 To understand this reaction of the Greeks, consider that just weeks earlier, Fr. Raphael Hawaweeny, the leader of the Russian-affiliated Syrian contingent, was ordained in Brooklyn by the Russian hierarchs, and it was widely reported that this took place on orders from the Tsar. The Greeks viewed this as a Russian imperial encroachment into the affairs of Orthodox church life in America, and they felt threatened. This tension was exacerbated in 1909, when the New York Greeks protested legislation that would have placed them under the legal authority of the Russian consul.

There are, however, examples of cooperation; for instance, in 1902 Archbishop Tikhon celebrated the Divine Liturgy in a Chicago Greek parish, serving entirely in the Greek language. In the 1910s, Fr. Demetrios Petrides (the Greek priest in Atlanta)

11 “Their Christmas Two Weeks Later,” Philadelphia Inquirer (December 24, 1905), 8. Also see “Christmas is Celebrated by the Greek Christians,” Philadelphia Inquirer (January 8, 1906).

12 Erickson, Orthodox Christians in America , 73.

Sample pages only. Purchase the full book at http://store.ancientfaith.com/lost-histories-the-good-the-bad-and-the-strange-in-early-american-orthodoxy/

and Fr. Leonid Turkevich (a leading Russian priest and the future Metropolitan Leonty) were the two Orthodox representatives to an official dialogue group called the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union.

In 1900, St. Tikhon wrote:

There are in America several Greek clergymen. Ecclesiastically they depend either upon the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Archbishop of Athens, but in fact they are dependent upon neither, and remain without any kind of oversight. [. . .] The Greek clergy ought to submit to some sort of diocesan oversight, all the more so because they are now living with the Orthodox North American Diocese; but this issue is beyond my competence.

Five years later, he expressed a similar view:

[I]t is difficult to trust the Greeks: although they have parishes in America, some are dependent upon the Synod of Athens, some on the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and some on Jerusalem (quite a weak dependence!), and, according to the politics characteristic of Greeks, they would hardly wish to be under any kind of subjection to the Russian hierarchy.13

In March 1908, the Ecumenical Patriarchate issued a tomos, ceding to the Church of Greece “the right of oversight of all Greek Orthodox Churches in the diaspora.” Fr. Alexander Doumouras explains that this was done in response to pressure from the Ottoman government in Turkey, which was upset about the anti-Turkish stance of many Greek priests in Amer ica.14 The

13 Andrew Kostadis, Pictures of Missionary Life According to the Russian Clerical Press in America and the Ruling American Bishops About the Life of the American Mission in 1900–1917 (unpublished MTh thesis, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, 1999), 193–194 and 217.

14 Alexander Doumouras, “Greek Orthodox Communities in America Before World War I,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 11:4 (1967), 190.

Copyright

tomos stipulated that the Church of Greece was supposed to send a bishop to America, but for the next decade, this didn’t happen, and chaos continued to reign among the Greek churches.15

To summarize, then: the typical Greek parish in America was founded and run by a lay board of trustees without the participation, consent, or even, at times, knowledge of the Russian hierarchy. It was pastored by clergy sent from Greece or Constantinople, again without the participation, consent, or knowledge of the Russian bishops. These parishes were privately incorporated; legally, they were independent entities.

4

THE SERBS HAD a mixed relationship with the Russian hierarchy. The founding members of the Russian cathedral in San Francisco were predominantly Serbian and Greek, with few Russians. The California-born Serb Sebastian Dabovich was the first cradle Orthodox US citizen to be ordained a priest. The first specifically Serbian parish in America—Jackson, California—was founded by St. Sebastian in 1894 as a parish of the Russian diocese. And from then until the Serbian Orthodox Church established a diocese in the United States after World War I, the Serbs were at least nominally subject to the Russian archbishop.

All that said, the Serbs often chafed under Russian authority, and the practical reality of Serbian parish life was not terribly different from that of the Greeks. When St. Sebastian established the Jackson, California, parish, Bishop Nicholas expected it to be chartered as a “Russian church,” which provoked frustration among the Serbs. Saint Nicholai Velimirovich, who wasn’t in America at the time but later became close to St. Sebastian,

15 For background on this tomos, with links to the original Greek and an English translation, see my paper “The Origins of the ‘Barbarian Lands’ Theory,” Orthodox History (October 12, 2022), https://orthodoxhistory. org/2022/10/12/the-origins-of-the-barbarian-lands-theory/.

Sample pages only. Purchase the full book at http://store.ancientfaith.com/lost-histories-the-good-the-bad-and-the-strange-in-early-american-orthodoxy/

would later write that the Serbs clashed with the Russian hierarchy over this issue numerous times in the years to come.16

Of the Serbian priests, writes Fr. Mladen Trbuhovich, “Some were affiliated with their respective church jurisdiction in the Old Country, while others served under the Russian Orthodox Church in America.” When the Serbian parish in Kansas City found itself without a priest in 1909, it did not appeal to the Russian archbishop but instead placed advertisements in the Serbian-language American newspapers. When that failed, the parish considered “writing to the Patriarch of Constantinople asking him to secure for them the service of a young priest.”17 When the Serbian parish of Chisholm, Minnesota, was organized in 1910, the local Serbian society president traveled to Europe in search of a priest.18 When the church building was dedicated two years later, the priest who performed the ceremony did so under the authority of the bishop of Sarajevo.19

As early as 1897, both St. Sebastian and Bishop Nicholas wrote to Metropolitan Mihailo of Belgrade to request that the Serbian parishes in America be placed under the care of the Serbian Church. The metropolitan declined, writing, “We could not do this because We could not support so many churches and priests, schools and teachers there.” 20 Metropolitan Mihailo also deferred to the Russian hierarchy in America:

16 St. Nicholai Velimirovich of Zhicha, “Father Sebastian Dabovich,” The Path of Orthodoxy 42:10 (October 2007), 5. Originally published in the Serb National Federation Commemorative Book (1951).

17 Fr. Mladen Trbuhovich, “St. Vasilije’s on the Mesabi,” Serb World USA (July/August 1994), 57. This article was written in 1953.

18 “Goes to Europe After a Priest,” Duluth News Tribune (June 3, 1910), 3.

19 Trbuhovich, 57.

20 Hieromonk Damascene Christiansen, “Archimandrite Sebastian Dabovich: Serbian Orthodox Apostle to America,” The Orthodox Word 43:1-2 (January-April 2007), 28.

I cannot establish and consecrate an independent Orthodox Church in California and America because there is already an Orthodox Church supported by [the] Russian Orthodox Church. Furthermore, we do not have the resources for this. . . . I think you should agree and listen to your Bishop and he will help you and protect the Serbs and Orthodoxy and he will safeguard Serbian national customs. I think you should reconsider all the above [i.e., establishing an “independent Orthodox Church” in America] and refrain from doing anything that would be against the interests of Serbs living there. 21

In the coming years, the Russian Archdiocese and St. Sebastian in particular would make numerous overtures to the Serbian Church in an effort to obtain a bishop for the Serbs. Yet to many of his fellow Serbs, St. Sebastian was a “Russophile” because of his cooperation with the Russian Archdiocese. The Serbs, writes Fr. Damascene Christiansen, “did not wish to support or be united under the Serbian Orthodox Mission because it was within the jurisdiction of the Russian Church.” 22 The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia reports, “The Servian [sic] Orthodox Church is closely affiliated to the Russian Church in this country, except that some of their churches do not recognize the jurisdiction or authority of the Russian archbishop.” At a convention held in Chicago in 1913, the Serbian parishes voted to secede from the Russian Archdiocese and asked to be received into the Serbian Church. For various reasons, this did not take place until after World War I; however, at the parish level, most Serbs seem to have had no interest in being part of the Russian jurisdiction.

4

21 Krinka Vidaković Petrov, “An Outline of the Cultural History of the Serbian Community in Chicago,” Serbian Studies 20:1 (2006), 46. 22 Hieromonk Damascene, “Archimandrite Sebastian Dabovich,” 50–51.

THINGS WERE SMOOTHER

with the Syrians, at least in the early years. In 1895, the brilliant young archimandrite Raphael Hawaweeny arrived in America, part of Bishop Nicholas Ziorov’s remarkable team of saintly priests. Although an Antiochian by birth, by this time St. Raphael was a clergyman of the Russian Church, in a state of de facto exile from the Patriarchate of Antioch because he had protested against the control of Antioch by ethnic Greek patriarchs. His Syrian parishes in America were unquestionably part of the Russian diocese. In 1899, the indigenous Antiochians succeeded in recapturing control of the patriarchate, and after this, Raphael’s bond with Antioch became very close.

In 1904, the Holy Synod of Russia elected St. Raphael to the episcopacy to be the vicar of the North American archbishop, St. Tikhon. This was part of Tikhon’s visionary plan, drafted the following year in a report to the Holy Synod, to organize American Orthodoxy along ethnic lines: each ethnic group would have its own vicariate, headed by its own bishop. These bishops would sit on a common synod headed by the Russian archbishop. Saint Tikhon pointed out that these different churches have their own peculiarities in canonical structure, liturgical rules, and parish life, and that “these peculiarities are dear to them and are altogether tolerable from the general Orthodox point of view.” He said these peculiarities should be accommodated and preserved. Because of this, St. Tikhon said that each group should have “a chance to be governed directly by leaders of the same nationality.”

Therefore, St. Tikhon wrote,

The Syrian Church here received a bishop of its own (the Right Reverend Raphael of Brooklyn), who nominally is the second vicar to the Archbishop of the Aleutian see, but who in his own field of activity is almost independent. . . . The Serbian parishes are directly subject to a separate leader [here he’s referring to St. Copyright

Sebastian], who at present is an archimandrite, but may be consecrated a bishop in the near future.

Regarding the Greeks, St. Tikhon said that they “have entered into communication with the Synod of Athens” on the subject of getting a bishop for America. Saint Tikhon went on,

In short, it is possible that there will be formed in America an entire exarchate of national Orthodox Churches with their own bishop, whose exarch is to be the Russian archbishop. In his own field of work each of these bishops is to be independent, but the affairs that concern the American Church in general are to be decided by a general council, presided over by the Russian archbishop. Through him will be preserved the connection of the Orthodox Church of America with the Church of Russia and a degree of dependence of the former on the latter. Also we must keep in view that, compared with life in the old country, life in America has its peculiarities, with which the local Orthodox Church is obliged to count, and that consequently it ought to be allowed to be more autonomous than other metropolitan districts of Russia.

In the original Russian, St. Tikhon even put the word “autocephaly” with a question mark in parentheses, so he was clearly thinking several steps down the road. 23

This was a remarkable plan—an attempt by a great bishop to

23 Archbishop Tikhon, “Projected Unity and Independence for America,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 19:1 (1975), 49–50. This is an English translation of a section of a longer document written by Archbishop Tikhon in 1905. A translation of the full 1905 text appears under the title “Views of Questions to be Examined by the Local Council of the Russian Church” in the Russian Orthodox American Messenger (English supplement) (March 1906), 68–70. I address the differences between the 1906 and 1975 translations in “St. Tikhon’s Vision, 1905,” published at http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/10/st-tikhons-vision-1905 (October 21, 2009).

Sample pages only. Purchase the full book at http://store.ancientfaith.com/lost-histories-the-good-the-bad-and-the-strange-in-early-american-orthodoxy/

creatively minister to a complex, diverse flock of Orthodox Christians in an entirely new situation, without helpful precedent. Although his plan was never fully implemented, it continues to this day to be looked to as a model for possible future Orthodox unity in America.

As St. Tikhon readily acknowledged in his 1905 proposal, the various ethnic bishops and leaders were “almost independent.” After his ordination to the episcopacy, St. Raphael would simultaneously speak of the body he oversaw as a vicariate of the Russian Church and as a diocese of Antioch. Syrian parish priests were appointed by St. Raphael, who, in some cases, used the Old Country method of having the local community nominate one of their own for the priesthood. He also recruited priests from abroad. The management of the Syrian vicariate/diocese was entirely in Raphael’s hands; he was the unquestioned leader. At times, though, he acted as a more typical vicar to the Russian archbishop, such as when he consecrated the grounds of the future St. Tikhon’s Monastery or when he chaired a meeting of Russian clergy when the Russian archbishop was not available.

The apparent paradox of the Syrians’ status was resolved in the person of St. Raphael, whom everyone accepted. Immediately after his death, though, his parishes were thrown into turmoil, with some priests recognizing the authority of the Russian hierarchy, while others said that of course they had been under Antioch all along. This conflict was exacerbated by the lack of an obvious successor. All of this is discussed in more detail later in the book; for now, suffice it to say that after St. Raphael’s death the Antiochians split into “Russy” and “Antacky” factions—a division that would take decades to heal.

Humanitarian or Fraud?

Agapius Honcharenko

IDON’T KNOW THE true story of Agapius Honcharenko. I don’t think anyone does. Honcharenko told the biggest fish stories you’ve ever heard, and his autobiographical anecdotes need to be taken with a pretty big chunk of salt. Some people, taking his words at face value, have memorialized him as some sort of folk hero. He’s been described as a “prominent scholar, humanitarian, and early champion for human rights.” The real story is a lot more complicated.

On January 2, 1865, a thirty-two-year-old man going by the name Fr. Agapius Honcharenko arrived by ship in New York City. He claimed to be an Orthodox priest, coming from Greece and affiliated with the Ecumenical Patriarchate but originally hailing from Ukraine, then part of the Russian Empire. Four days later, he served the Divine Liturgy on Christmas Day—Christmas according to the Julian Calendar, which, back then, was the only calendar used in the Orthodox Church. It seems that a handful of Greeks and Slavs in New York attended, but this first liturgy in the United States went unnoticed by the wider world.1

1 Letter from Agapius Honcharenko to the editor of a newspaper called the Orthodox Overview. The letter is undated but was referenced by and Sample pages only. Purchase the full book at http://store.ancientfaith.com/lost-histories-the-good-the-bad-and-the-strange-in-early-american-orthodoxy/