Grey Demons

Dear Father Michael Oleksa,

I have long admired the beloved Alaskan diocese, the mother diocese of American Orthodoxy. It is a hallowed land and indisputibly a spiritual oasis that produced the early saints of North America. I also tremendously respect the life and memory of the ever-memorable, loving former archpastor of Alaska, Archbishop Gregory (Afonsky).

However, I must say something that I think is long overdue for saying: the history of American Orthodoxy written by then-Bishop Gregory-- which you invoke authoritatively-- as well as every history of American Orthodoxy published by Metropolia-cum-OCA authors over the years has been, to put it as charitably as possible, replete with well-intentioned falsehoods and thinly-veiled hostility toward ROCOR. In addition to Bishop Gregory's history, this also goes for the 1976 U.S.A. Bicentennial publication edited by Constance Tarasar and John Erickson-- with significant imput by Frs. Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff-- (*Orthodox America, 1794-1976*); the 1994 OCA Bicentennial publication *Orthodox Christians in North America, 1794-1994*, co-authored by Mark Stokoe and (Fr.) Leonid Kishkovsky; all the pieces on oca.org authored by OCA archivist Alexis Liberovsky; all discussions of the American Metropolia/OCA-ROCOR relationship that appeared in any part of publications authored over the years by Fr. Thomas Hopko (such as his famous multi-colored paperback book set from the 1970s), Fr. John Erickson, Archbishop Peter (L'Huillier), and others. Without exception, the discussions are polemic, factually error-laden, and often outright hostile in tone. All this is not to say that ROCOR discussions of the American-Metropolia/OCA in its own histories, such as those of Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) and other references made to the OCA in other works published by other ROCOR-affiliated authors over the years have been less polemical (except in the years since the thaw between Moscow and ROCOC) and seemingly motivated by then-presentist concerns. For decades, there were obvious reasons for the especial hostility between representatives of what were essentially feuding brothers, as were OCA and ROCOR. But from a scholarly perspective this situation is inexcusable. It also makes it impossible to approach the future with a proper posture of openness if one stubbornly insists on misrepresenting the past. Why this historiographical mess? For one thing, not one of these people referred to above had a doctorate in history and thus, none of them was in a position to write proper, professional quality history. I say this again, because it is a dreadful truth when one considers the many years that have passed without an actual historian addressing this question: there was not a single, properly trained professional historian in the lot who put pen to paper. Not one. This is far more significant than we might wish to admit. The time for amateurism is over. Professional historical scholarship is needed... badly.

Someone with such credentials-- and, far more importantly, the historical training such credentials represent-- needs to go and do the hard work of sifting through archives in Syosset, New York City, Moscow, Belgrade, and other places and then will be revealed much that has been obscured about the intertwined history of ROCOR and the OCA. How can I claim to know that there is an obscured reality when I myself have not done this sort of work? Even reading the amateurish and polemic works that have appeared over the years makes it clear enough that facts are ignored with frightening regularity by each “side” when talking about the other such as to make “historical revisionism” an extremely apt phrase to describe the sorry state of affairs. Since this website is produced by a person affiliated by the OCA, who is also the co-author of one of the aforementioned offending books, I will refer primarily to OCA-affiliated publications below.

Rather than pen a lengthy citation of dry facts/incidents that themselves confound the simplistic polemics produced in these so-called histories over the years, let me just take one paragraph of yours, Fr. Michael, from your above posting, and explain in detail--using two thoroughly-explained examples-- the enormity of factual mistakes therein. Here is your paragraph in question:

“And while Soviet interference and Stalinist policies prevented this [American Metropolia] mission from maintaining administrative ties with its Mother Church, it never condemned nor broke communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, nor did it ever derive its canonical or administrative authority from the so-called Synod Abroad, even though some members of that group maintained that it had. The bishops of the Metropolia and later the OCA were appointed by Moscow, not the Synod Abroad, ordained and given their dioceses and their titles by the Church in Russia, from which it was forced to separate for purely political reasons. I think the book by the late Archbishop Gregory (Afonsky) clearly delineates and explains these painful developments in the life of the American Mission after 1917.”

Here are facts that create severe difficulties with your conclusion above. I offer them in two parts:

1) All four metropolitan districts of the emigre Russian Orthodox communities in existence after the Russian Revolution-- including the metropolia of America-- at some point[s] in time recognized the famous theologian Met. Antony (Krapovhitsky) of Kiev and Galicia as the temporary head of Russian Orthodox emigre communities in the early 1920s. This sometime-recognition kept appearing and vanishing off and on at least through 1926. Why did they ever do this? Because the idea for Antony's oversight came from directive of Patriarch-St. Tikhon [Bellavin] himself (Patriarchal Directive #362, issued in 1920). In ever choosing to recognize Metropolitan Antony's authority, they were only following the lead of the first among equals of the Orthodox world, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who provided temporary canonical hospitality to the temporarily-resident ROCOR bishops from Russia in Turkey in 1920. Had the Constantinopolitan patriarch thought the Russian emigre bishops under Antony were rogue bishops rather than true pastors legitimately given authority by their own Patriarch (Tikhon), he certainly would have demanded they submit to his local diocesan/patriarchal authority rather than let them run the affairs of the Russian Orthodox emigre flock in Constantinople themselves, as he did allow.

It is true that Patriarch Tikhon's directive #362 was later revoked in 1922 by a about-to-be arrested Patriarch Tikhon, but the fact that this was a revocation made under duress is pretty clear. If it were not, then one would have to also accept the similarly-coerced official deposition of Metropolitan Platon (Rozdestvensky) by the same Patriarch Tikhon in 1924 (which the Detroit Council of the Metropolia properly refused to accept as the legitimate wish of Patriarch Tikhon) Platon was actually summoned by Tikhon to Russia to be tried in ecclesiastical court. That this was a bogus decree forced by the Soviet authorities to advance the schism of the so-called "Living Church" in America is clear. Equally clear is the fact that the reversal by Patriarch Tikhon that same year of his own previous decree establishing the authority of the 34 emigre bishops abroad under Metropolitan Antony Krapovhitsky's leadership was coerced and fraudulent. Even the well-known Metropolitan Evlogy of Western Europe submitted to Metropolitan Antony's ROCOR synod. At one point, he sought out Metropolitan Antony for absolution after he himself publicly rejected the latter's prerogatives as chief representative of the Russian Orthodox Church outside the boundaries of the U.S.S.R. under the influence of Living Church renovationists in France. This absolution restored him to the authority of Metropolitan Antony (Evlogy subsequently separated himself again. But one must seriously ask why he *ever*, even for a moment, would have submitted himself to Met. Antony had the latter's claims been as outlandish as the pseudo-histories suggest. After all, Metropolitan Evolgy was not a fool).

-- Still, this is an argument that has long been made by ROCOR folks wanting to assert the Patriarch-St. Tikhon-derived origins of their administrative existence. While the fact that this has been a longstanding invocation doesn't make the facts any less true or valid, they are not liable to persuade people who have listened to this argument in the old "Cold War" days of the OCA and ROCOR. Surely Bishop Gregory (Afonsky), himself of Russian background, did not find the argument persuasive.

Let me, therefore, proceed to my second historical point. This one has not frequently been made, but it much more directly speaks against your claim, Fr. Oleksa, about ROCOR authority in the U.S.A. itself. This time, I will use specific secondary sources to make the case.

2) Several other of the Eastern Patriarchs treated Metropolitan Antony, and his successor Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky) as the authoritative leader over the various metropolitan districts. As but one example of how this relationship between the Eastern Patriarchs, the ROCOR, and the American Metropolia worked [on American soil], we find that Metropolitan Theophilus (Pashkovsky) himself appealed to Metropolitan Antony's successor, Metropolitan Anastasy as a senior authority when trying to avert a demand by the Patriarch of Antioch (Alexander III) that Metropolitan Anastasy depose three metropolia bishops for having dared to consecrate Bishop Samuel (David) as Syrian-Antiochian Bishop of Toledo, Ohio on very the same day (April 19, 1936) that ROCOR Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) and the Antiochian Patriarchate's Metropolitan Theodosius of Tyre and Sidon co-consecrated Metropolitan Antony (Bashir) as a bishop under the omophorion of the Patriarchate of Antioch in St. Nicholas Orthodox Cathedral in Brooklyn, NY. Bashir had been elected to the Synod of Antioch for this purpose. It was a ROCOR bishop chosen by the Antiochian Patriarchate to co-consecrate its bishop with one of its own metropolitans, on American soil. The facts here speak for themselves, especially that the Patriarch Alexander implored Metropolitan Anastasy of ROCOR depose Metropolia bishops. In this case, we are talking about a non-Russian-affiliated, and thus-- non-”biased” Orthodox 'source' for the then-contemporary views: the Patriarchate of Antioch in 1934.

For another non-Russian, or Russian-American (and in this case, a non-Orthodox) source confirming the machinations involved at the time and what was seen as legitimate and what was not, see TIME magazine's short article Religion: Smart Syrian (May 4, 1936). This source makes clear who was seen as the most authoritative group on Amerian soil by the Patriarchate of Antioch.

Beyond those sources there is another source that can be consulted on these matters. Although this one doesn't mention the part about Anastasy being asked by Patriarch Alexander to depose the metropolia bishops, even Tarasar's Orthodox America says that the ROCOR Archishop Vitaly was acting with the full authority of Patriarch Alexander III of Antioch to co-consecrate Antony Bashir on American soil and that the metropolia bishops were clearly transgressing proprt church authority and order by their act of consecration (Tarasar and Erickson, eds, *Orthodox America*, p. 194-195).

This episode, aside from forcing away some historial amnesia, invites another question: Imagine the different turn American Orthodoxy would have taken had the charitable and kind Metrpolitan Anastasy not assuaged the Patriarch of Antioch's ire such that he was not forced to carry out the depositions. Why? Because two of the three American metropolia co-consecrators of the schismatic Samuel David (whose “Toledo schism” plagued the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America through 1975) were rather noteworthy figures: Leonty (Turkevich), Arseny (Chagovtsov).

Perhaps you don't believe my account of the events that Tarasar, et al, mention but plaster over. How about another source, then: Paul D. Garrett, the same Paul Garrett who authored the superb life of St. Innocent, Apostle to America in 1977? This is how Garrett described how Metropolitan Theophilus responded to the situation created by Metropolia Bishops Leonty, Arseny and Adam (Phillipovsky):

“The Primate of the Russian Church in America, Metropolitan Theophilus Pashkovskii, pleaded ignorance of their actions, which were in flagrant violation of the canons when confronted by an outraged Metropolitan Theodosius and Archbishop Antony first thing Monday morning. Theophilus first deferred to the Patriarch of Antioch, next called a synod in Pittsburgh to hear the offending bishops' explanations, then ultimately referred the matter to the bishops in Karlovci. The latter, receiving demands from the Patriarchate that Adam, Arsenii, and Leontii be defrocked for their deed, and feeling themselves so utterly overwhelmed by the forces dividing the Orthodox Russians in America into three warring camps, excommunicated Samuel David and ended their involvement with the "Syro-Arab Mission" by transferring it to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Antioch.” (http://www.stsophiadstx.com/misc/bashir_full.htm)

Let us review Garret's arguments: Who exactly was it that “transferred” jurisdiction to the Syro-Arab mission to Antioch (meaning who had the authority to do so)? Who was approached by the Patriarchate of Antioch to defrock the American Metropolia bishops? To whom did Metropolitan Theophilius “refer” the matter?

What I have said above is not the whole story about the distortions sold as history for so long. In other words, Bishop Gregory (Afonsky's) and others' story of the marginal and ignored status of ROCOR in the U.S.A. during the periods of Metropolitans Antony and Anastasy's leadership is simply wrong. As a teaser for a future, serious researcher, how about this primary source tidbit: It can be found on pg. 407 of an American religious directory written by George Holmes Howison during the ROCOR episcopate of Metropolitan Anastasy (it's available on Google Books). The section the following information appears under in that book is “The Eastern Episcopate.” In this section, one finds this entry: “Rt. Rev. Bishop Theuphilos (Ionescu), Suffragen to Metropolitan Anastasy, 2480 John R. St. Detroit, 3, MI.”

In other words, as I said before; some facts, such as those about the Bashir/David consecrations, speak for themselves. Others, such as this cryptic account of a Romanian bishop in America listed as an auxiliary to Metropolitan Anastasy in an official American church directory, beg for someone to speak truthfully, and in a scholarly way, on their behalf.

In sum, I wish to point out that historical distortions-- intentional or unintentional-- serve no one and nothing good. It is possible that many decades of pseudo-history had been the product of people with the best of intentions. But enough is enough. The OCA-ROCOR Cold War is over. For the sake of the future (let alone the past), let no one reading this "take my word" for what I have discussed. No. DON'T take my word for it. Instead, let a professional historian, or better yet, several professional historians, do the dirty work, the archival dirty work, to bring the truth to light. Then we will be in a position to talk about the future with an honest light having been shed on the past.

(Editor's note: Fascinating stuff, and I thank you for sharing it all with us. Unfortunately, as any "real" historian will tell you, truth is not just a matter of more and more "facts". It is how one interprets those facts. To quote your own essay: " It is true that Patriarch Tikhon's directive #362 was later revoked in 1922 by a about-to-be arrested Patriarch Tikhon, but the fact that this was a revocation made under duress is pretty clear." Pretty clear to whom? The "fact" is that he made it. The Synod denies #362 as valid - even though the Patriarch made it. The OCA accepts it as valid - even though he was about to be arrested. The "fact" is not in question - it is how one interprets that "fact" that makes all the difference. No amount of "new" evidence is going to change how the "facts" of the day were interpreted then.

That being said I totally agree more work, fundamental work, is needed. Not for the purpose of jurisdiction-bashing, and one-up-manship, but for coming to ever greater clarity about the turmoil and troubles and decisions taken during horrible, confusing years. The differences between the OCA and ROCOR, like feuding brothers, is not about origins and rights; it is really about fundamental values in Church life, to which each assigns different importance. Can we agree to disagree and come together? Or, are our differences too profound for amity? That is a question to be discussed by the Committee currently empowered to hash it out. God bless them in this work, no matter what resolves or fails to resolve.

Here's what I think will happen: When I worked in SYNDESMOS, the Americans, often from 4-5 jurisdictions often quarrelled amongst themselves, and you could often hear one of youngsters say " He is so Greek", or "He is typically Russian", or "What do you expect, she's an Arab..." Yet, when they actually met Greeks, Russians and Arabs from the Old World, it was soooooooo obvious to even the youngesters that whatever our jurisidictional experiences and ethnic backgrounds, the Greeks, Russians, and Arabs saw us as "Americans" first of all. We too had the same experience in reverse - after meeting the others, whatever our jurisdictional differences, we recognized we were "American Orthodox" whether we had a previous consciousness of that or not. So too, I imagine, will occur with the OCA-ROCOR discussions. We will see major differences. Put the two of us in the same room with the Russians, and suddenly, we will be the "Americans", no matter how "Russian" some of us may want to be. That dawning consciousness can be the start of reconciliation, as we seek to find our way forward on this continent together. )

So too, I am guessing, will occur with the OCA and ROCOR. Whatever our Russian or Carpatho-Russian backgrounds, in the face of Russians, we shall discover we are mostly "American Orthodox