Posts
Father Agapius Honcharenko, first Orthodox Missionary priest of the United States Here is a link to a reply to Fr. Oliver Herbel by George Michalopulos. I will not touch upon every error I see in his reply, but I do want to point out a few errors he makes regarding the Greek presence in America and some questions he raises regarding the establishment of Greek parishes prior to 1922.
One point he raises is the lack of a Greek episcopal presence in America prior to 1922. Of course, Michalopulos has an agenda which implies that a lack of such a presence means an uncanonical presence of Greek parishes in America. As a historian of American Orthodoxy, however, he should know better.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia published in 1909 which records the statistics of 1908, there were 130,000 Greeks in the United States with 32 parishes in the United States and 2 parishes in Canada. The clergy consisted of 7 archimandrites, 3 celibates, and 25 married priests. Of the Greek clergy, 15 were subject to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and 20 to the autocephalous Church of Greece. We are also told why there was no Greek episcopal presence in America - because some Greeks had come from Asia Minor and some from Greece and there was no agreement as of yet as to who should have jurisdiction in America. It is also stated that neither the Ecumenical Patriarchate nor the Church of Greece recognized the authority of the Russian bishops over the Greek parishes in 1908.
What happened after 1908? Under an agreement made in 1908 between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Holy Synod of Athens, jurisdiction of the Greek churches in America was given to the Church of Greece under Archbishop Theoklitos I. However because there was still disorder the new Archbishop of Athens, Meletios Metaxakis, tried to bring healing and unity to America. He visited America in 1918 to survey the situation, and upon his return to Greece three months later appointed Bishop Alexander of Rodostolou as his resident American legate. Alexander was delegated the unenviable task of initiating canonical order among the independent Greek parishes throughout North America.
Due to political intrigues, Meletios was exiled from his position in the Church of Greece and came to America on February 21, 1921. On September 15, 1921 he incorporated the Greek Archdiocece of North and South America which was recognized by the state of New York in 1922. Two months later on November 27, 1921 he was elected Ecumenical Patriarch. One of his first decisions was to get the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to repeal the Tomos of 1908 and on March 1, 1922 transferred the jurisdiction of the Church of Greece in America back to Constantinople based on Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod.
Now what does this say concerning the points brought up by Mr. Michalopulos? First, there was a Greek episcopal presence in America in the representation of the priests who presided over the Greek churches in America. A priest is never a priest based on his own authority, but exists as a representative of his bishop. These priests either represented the Synod of the Church of Greece or the Ecumenical Patriarch himself. Second, a parish does not require the physical presence of a bishop for consecration, but this can be done through a priest with the proper antimension from his representative bishop. No doubt this was done and there is no evidence to suggest anything to the contrary.1
Michalopulos goes on to make some very foolish remarks regarding the Greek parishes of America, even going so far as to suggest the possibility that these parishes are uncanonical, the Holy Mysteries invalid, and the priests of dubious backgrounds. Again, as a historian of American Orthodoxy, he should know better. Each Greek parish established before 1922 has very good records of their history, and if he had looked to the right sources he could get this accessible history.
One example he brings up is Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in New Orleans. He writes as if he researched its history, but all he did was hear from a friend who talked to the secretery of the parish who probably had no idea of these historical matters. A Google search would have served him better which reveals that the church was consecrated by a Greek Orthodox priest, Father Agapius Honcharenko, the confessor of Leo Tolstoy, who was of a Ukrainian background and had immigrated to the USA via Athens, Greece in 1865 while under the Church of Greece. He came to America via Boston on January 2, 1865 to serve as a missionary to the Orthodox by establishing churches and feeding the faithful with Holy Communion. As far as the antimens is concerned, one should keep in mind that the original church was demolished with a new edifice constructed in its place in 1950 and consecrated as a Cathedral in 1960 by Bishop Silas. It could also be possible that the early antimensions belonged to the priests for the purpose of serving the Divine Liturgy and never actually belonged to some parishes.
The other great error of Michalopulos is his assertion that the Russian mission was the only canonical presence in America prior to 1922. From the information above alone his conclusion is clearly faulty. There is no excuse in making such an ignorant statement such as: "There were no non-Russian bishops in North America prior to 1922 nor were there any non-Russian exarchates, dioceses, eparchies, or jurisdictions on this continent before this time." I already gave two examples above and there are a few others, such as Metropolitan Germanos from the Patriarchate of Antioch who served the Antiochian community in New York after 1915 and presided at the funeral of St. Raphael of Brooklyn in 1915.
There are very few valuable points in Mr. Michalopulos' reply to Fr. Herbel. As far as I'm concerned, the two letters could have been reversed with Fr. Herbel's reflection being a response to Mr. Michalopulos. The former still refutes the latter.
1. We know from a Russian text written in 1868 that Fr. Agapius understood the importance of the antimension and it seems that the missionary priests carried them. See:
Thanks for this! It's refreshing to see some serious engagement with our history after so much triumphalism and propagandizing ruling much of our historiographical history thus far.
ReplyDeleteBTW, a historical society is forming that intends to deal with this and many other subjects. Keep your eyes peeled!
You have done a service, linking to the report of Fr. Kovrigin to his bishop in Alaska about Fr. Agapius. I am mystified as to how it helps your case, in particular in light of your (correct) statement: "A priest is never a priest based on his own authority, but exists as a representative of his bishop." The report clearly states the Fr. Agapius was demanding an antimens and vestments from the Russian Mission Diocese. Why did he need one? If he needed one from the Russian bishop, what, if any bishop was he representing, not only in SF, but also in New Orleans? HT New Orleans has no record of its antimens, but does have the vestments Czar Alexander II (the Czar reiging at the church's founding, and the one whose ascension to the throne Fr. Agapius commemorted on his arrival in New York (not Boston)) sent.
ReplyDeleteBurgess, a near contemporary to the events (1914) and well informed, states "in all these places [he lists a number of Pan-Orthodox founding parishes, under the Russian bishops], as soon as the Greeks became numerous enough, they established their own purely Greek church communities under the jurisdiction of Constantinople or Athens." Over 4 decades earlier, the NY Times records the Greek colonies all over the US, and comments on that of San Francisco as the best organized, largest and in possession of a Church. Since the only Orthodox Church at the time was that founded by the Russian and Greek consuls in San Francisco, the cathedral of the Russian bishop, Burgess' assessment is longstanding.
So the CoG and the EP made a deal in 1908? So? Canon 6 of Ephesus would call for their deposition, as the record shows they were well aware of the bishops throughout North America under the Russian Church. The fact that Archb. Meletios denies this in his report to the CoG is telling, as he himself was in SF and knew of the Russian Cathedral there. And yet he set up the GOA Charter with a bishop in SF (the "see" was vacant for some time, without a Greek bishop).
As for intrigue and unity, Met. Meletios gained the see of Athens when his relative took over the Greek government, and he split the Greeks in the US (including spliting the Greek parish in SF) along Royalist/Venizelist lines). He fell when his uncle Eleutherios fell from power.
Fr. Agapius, according to his own report, arrived in Boston before he arrived in New York. It is logically assumed that he used a consecrated antimension in New Orleans since he obviously felt the need to use one in San Francisco. It is also logically assumed that since he left behind his vestments, as you pointed out, then he probably left behind the antimension. There are dozens of possibilities as to what may have happened to it, and we are only left with speculation. But the fact that Fr Agapius went out of his own way to get what he needed to serve a Divine Liturgy in San Francisco (in Greek by the way, as we know from the complaints of Fr Kevrogin) with the required antimension goes to show the importance he placed upon it, and it establishes a solid argument that he would have felt this need in New Orleans as well since according to Fr Agapius his primary concern in coming to America was sacramental in nature, that is, to feed the faithful with the Body and Blood of Christ.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened between the Church of Greece and the EP was not uncanonical since it has always been the canonical position of the EP since the 5th century to establish the boundaries of the autocephalous churches it established. The Russians had no canonical authority to set up any diocese in a land outside of their established boundaries without the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It is only by oikonomia that the EP allowed the dioceses of the other jurisdictions to exist to serve the needs of its own faithful in the diaspora.
Isa Almisry said:
ReplyDelete(I have problems with the comment choice, and dislike being "anonymous")
With Fr. Agapius (and I err on the side of caution here: his orders are suspect and in any case, marrying after taking them would have defrocked him), you assume much. His accounts do not add up.
What makes you think that he served in Greek? So did Fr. Koverigin, and we know that the Cathedral alternated Sundays between Greek and Slavonic, as is refered in Chicago in 1888, and elsewhere.
If it was always the "canonical position of the EP since the 5th century," how is it that Antioch made Georgia autocephalous in 486? What was all the argument between Constantinople and Rome over Bulgaria in the 9th century? Why did SS. Cyril and Methodius get the blessing of Rome before proceeding to the Czech lands? How did Greece get its autocephaly? Why is it that the Pedalion, written when the Russians were founding their diocese, knows nothing of the novel interpretation of canon 28?
If it was only the economia of the EP that allowed the Russians to exist in North America, why was it so necessary for the EP in the turn of the last century to feign ignorance of the Russian hiearchy here? And finally, why did the EP, when the Metropolia approached in the 60's to come under his omophorion, did the EP tell the Metropolia/OCA that they would have to go to their Mother Church, Moscow?
Well now you are asking me to write a whole book which I don't intend to do. Though I know the answers to all of your questions, I would just suggest you do your own honest research on these questions.
ReplyDeleteI will only say that your comment that I "assume much" is no argument at all. My assumptions I based only on pure logic whereas yours are just baseless speculations that we can just run around in circles trying to figure out for fifty lifetimes. What I am doing is avoiding speculation, since speculation is what your arguments thrive on.
Isa Almisry said:
ReplyDeleteWhat speculation?
Fr. Agapius, according to all reports, arrived in America a priest, celebrating a DL in New York. He thereafter married woman in Philadelphia, i.e. after his ordination. Like Bp. Aftimos, such things lead to deposition. He claimed to be fleeing the Russian Church, and then nearly circumnavigates the globe to demand an antimens from the Russian Dicose in North America. I could go on, but it should suffice to say that any of his actions are tainted, and we cannot speculate that his altercation in SF means that he had canonical order foremost in is mind.
I have done the honest research. That is how I found the answers. The questions are not interogative, they are rhetorical.
There is one question I don't know the answer to, at least I am open to another answer: what evidence, what application, of the present EP interpretation of canon 28 do we have before the previous century? Because I've yet to see an example offered. Just one should suffice.
I agree Fr Agapios was a sketchy character. Your speculations are loudly proclaimed in your denial and your questioning. You obviously have an agenda that is trying to propagate the arrogance of the Russian Patriarchate and the OCA in its irresponsible mishandling of ecumenical and God-inspired synodal rulings.
ReplyDeleteSo basically you are telling me you want some other proof besides St Nikodemos' quote that I posted for you here: http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/04/oca-is-being-lead-astray-brief-response.html. Canon 28 made provisions for all the lands under no patriarchal or independent jurisdiction to be under the EP, so you are just presenting a loaded question because canon 28 covers the whole inhabited earth beyond these points of boundary. Its very clear and only arrogance blinds this clear reading, albeit controversial as it is. Also the boundaries of canon 28 are not "clearly defined" as Prof. John Erickson likes to proclaim since this canon covers all boundaries outside of the established boundaries thus making it boundarieless. This canon was ratified by all subsequent Ecumenical Synods. The application of canon 28 was seen in the evangelization of the barbarian lands under Patriarch Photios and his successors who sent missionaries throughout Eastern Europe and Russia which was uncanonically being missionized by Old Rome and the Franks and for it received a reproof. Besides the fact that there were a few churches in America under the EP in the 19th century, there are other examples. From the date of the official schism in 1054 the EP had jurisdiction over all Orthodox throughout Europe and wherever Europe extended that did not accept a Frankish Pope. This would automatically include the United States which had the schism not occurred would have likely fallen under the authority of Old Rome with the approval of the EP. As the great canonist St Balsamon says: "The Second Ecumenical Council and the Fourth gave the patriarch of Constantinople the privileges of the pope, and decrees with respect to this all honor, from necessity there is not appeal over his decision." This leaves no other territory in which christians existed in new territories until there was a Greek presence in the United States which originally was diasporatically divided and later unified.
During Ottoman times this jurisdictional authority of the EP continued and expanded a bit by necessity over all Romans (Byzantines), though fully within canonical boundaries. When Orthodox lands began gaining their independence in the 19th and 20th century they were proclaiming autocephaly and independence which was rejected by the EP. This rejection is a clear application of canon 28. This lead to schisms that were eventually resolved by the EP and repented of and accepted by the various schismatic churches such as Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc. They eventually accepted the authority of New Rome and only then were brought back into communion and granted their independence.
In the patriarchal tomes of 1589, 1591 and 1593 the jurisdictional boundaries of the Church of Russia were clearly defined by the Holy Synod of New Rome. When the first Russian diocese was established in the United States outside of Alaska (which was under Russian territory), this act was a violation of the Russian Church which would continue throughout the world in regions that canonically fall under the EP, such as in Western Europe, Oriental regions, Australia, etc. The three tomes never provided for such expansiveness on the part of Russia.
In the 20th century the EP has been trying to resolve all these issues by convening Pan Orthodox Synods, which are accepted (by canonical necessity) by all independent churches. And in these synods the EP has chosen to work with all the other independent churches to bring a resolution to these jurisdictional problems, since, in the 19th century and early 20th these jurisdictional issues were the cause of schism after schism in the Body of Christ. All independent churches have accepted this resolution of the EP, hence another application of canon 28 accepted by all in the 20th century.
ReplyDeleteIt should also be pointed out that canon 28 as well as others allowed only the EP to establish stavropegial monasteries in the lands of other jurisdictions, and no other independent church is granted such authority, not even Russia.
Now let me ask you a question since you're doing all the questioning and not doing any answering, though you claim to know answers. What canonical authority does Russia have in establishing dioceses outside of its prescribed jurisdiction? As far as I know, there is none and until such authority exists Russian territorialism, based on its Third Rome propaganda, will never be accepted. Just because the Russian Church was founded later than most of the other independent churches does not place it above the canons.
You cannot have any clearer evidence than this without going into the details.
I forgot also to mention Mount Athos as an application of canon 28. Read here: http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/04/ecumenical-patriarchate-mount-athos-and.html
ReplyDeleteIsa Almisry said:
ReplyDeleteI seem to have missed your questions. I've answered already on the Orthodox History website, i.e. the jurisdictional status of the Russian Diocese in the US and the implications pursuant to canon XVII of Chaldcedon:
http://orthodoxhistory.org/?p=1240
The Russian Church expanded by this, the canons of Carthage, etc.
Btw, other jurisdictions have stavropegal institutions. Sinai and Jerusalem, for instance, owned nearly a third of the land holdings in Romania through such arrangments, until the mid 19th century.
St. Photios did send SS Cyril and Methodios. They went to Rome, where they received their consecration to Evangelize the Slavs.
As for Balsamon, what can you say about a Patriarch who never sets foot in his Patriarchate?
As Mt. Athos is in the patriarchate of Constantinople, and has never been in the Church of Greece, how is it an example of canon 28?
"What happened between the Church of Greece and the EP was not uncanonical since it has always been the canonical position of the EP since the 5th century to establish the boundaries of the autocephalous churches it established. The Russians had no canonical authority to set up any diocese in a land outside of their established boundaries without the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It is only by oikonomia that the EP allowed the dioceses of the other jurisdictions to exist to serve the needs of its own faithful in the diaspora."
ReplyDeleteGrandiose nonsense that is accepted by no one in Orthodoxy except those deluded by the contemporary claims of Constantinople. Russians, Romanians, Serbs, Georgians, everyone(quite literally 90% of the Church) rejects this sort of neo-papal ambition as completely foreign to Orthodox canonical law and faith.
It is these sorts of delusions of grandeur and imaginary canonical principles that sustain the current situation in the diaspora.
In the turmoil following the Russian Revolution, the Russians Bishops in the U.S. gave up whatever authority they had over non-Russian parishes. After the pro-Soviet Living Church sent "Bishop" John Kedrovsky to claim authority over American Orthodoxy and successfully won control in a court case over St. Nicholas Cathedral in New York, the Russian Bishops encouraged each parish to incorporate itself as an independent unit and the non-Russians to seek episcopal supervision from Bishops from their mother Church. For example, the Patriarchate of Antioch assumed jurisdiction over parishes in America with the blessing of Moscow, the Synod of Bishops that formed the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and the Metropolia. Thus the successor to the Metroplia, the OCA has no grounds to claim to be the local American autocephalous Orthodox Church.
ReplyDelete