Ecumenist Statements Attributed to Patriarch Alexey
- At the risk of offending, I am somewhat taken aback by your recent posts. I
want to err on the side of caution and assume that you are bringing these
questions up out of your own concern, but really some of the posts sound
more like trolling.
1) You have posted to the list for awhile so you are aware that Deacon Basil
is also a poster. By list rules, he should have been the one to post the
2) The opening remark certainly leaves me with a distaste. "Allegations that
His Holiness ALEXEY II, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, is an
Ecumenist... Below are statements attributed to His Holiness..."
Give me a break. No one who is against Union ever calls the Patriarch by
that title. It is always Alexey Ridiger this if you are lucky or simply
Ridiger. Calling him that and His Holiness is at best insincere if not
downright hypocritical. It leaves one thinking that you and the Patriarch
were one and all of a sudden these allegations have cropped up, forcing you
to rethink your relations with His Holiness.
3) The allegations. Boy, someone or some people must have a lot of spare
time on their hands to do such a thorough search of archives, that they come
up with a speech His Holiness made in 1966 to a German Evangelical
Conference?! And BTW, this smacks more of some American political campaign
than anything in common with Orthodoxy!
You had asked to purchase some JMPs from the 80's and now curiously those
same journals are cited in Deacon Basil's list. What is that all about?
In previous posts you ask that the Act not be signed because people in ROCOR
may not be ready. As Fr John and others pointed out, these talks have been
going on for some 6 yrs. The USSR fell some 15 yrs ago. I know I was asking
myself back in 1992 what would the ramifications be for our Church; surely
others did as well.
Now you write that although the conditions have been met, suddenly
"allegations that the Patriarch is an ecumenist" have arisen, which
necessitates putting the whole thing on hold?! Who do you propose hold a
trial to determine if "MP is known to be fully Orthodox in the person of its
Patriarch." And more importantly, who has granted you the authority to even
make such an accusation? Have you no fear of God to judge a Patriarch?
Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, the Orthodox Church functions
through sobornost and there are many bishops who meet and run the Church; it
is not the papacy with just the Patriarch at the helm. Perish the thought,
but if Met. Lauras began to teach heresy would we all become heretics? I
In the link to Nazarov's letter to our Metropolitan, there were some other
links which I glanced at. It boggles the mind that there are people with
nothing better to than sit around and keep track of every single word
that the Patriarch makes, that Pres. Putin makes. These words are then
dissected and parsed for every nuance which they can then accuse either the
Patriarch or the President with. This IMHO has nothing to do with the
Orthodox Church or Orthodoxy or even "defending Orthodoxy." It is simply a
case of people with idle time who feel that they have been appointed to
Wishing one and all a beneficial Lent. May the New Martyrs and All the
Saints of the Russian Lands preserve us through these difficult temptations.
To my mind, the conditions for reconciliation between
> ROCOR and the MP have otherwise been sufficiently met.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> However, if the allegation of heresy against His Holiness
> can be proven, ROCOR, even now at this late date and in
> the eleventh hour of the planned "Act of Canonical
> Communion," must not, under any circumstances or at any
> cost, enter into Communion with the MP, until such time
> as the MP is known to be fully Orthodox in the person of
> its Patriarch.
> All other conditions, all other hopeful signs and
> improvements, and all the Orthodoxy of the other Bishops
> and faithful of Russia, are of no avail if the Patriarch
> Himself is not Orthodox, insofar as ROCOR's Communion with
> His Holiness is concerned.
> The following are reported Ecumenist statements attributed
> to His Holiness Alexis II, Patriarch of Moscow and All
> In 1966, in His speech before the delegation of the
> German Evangelical church at a conference in Moscow,
> the future head of the MP in the name of Christ Himself
> declared that:
>  "Jesus Christ considers His own, that is, as
> Christians, all those who believe in Him and obey Him,
> and this is more than the Orthodox Church."
> In His report to the 8th General Assembly of the World
> Council of Churches, published in the Journal of the
> Moscow Patriarchate in 1980 (nos. 1-3):
>  "We, the Orthodox, are lovingly disposed to our
> non-Orthodox brothers, for we have all been baptized
> in one Spirit, and we have all been made to drink into
> one Spirit" [ref. I Cor.12.13]
> A the beginning of 1990 the head of the MP together with
> the Synod again confessed that:
>  "the Evangelical and Orthodox Churches have been
> called in an equal way by Jesus Christ, their Lord, to
> witness and serve."
> In His welcoming Address to the 7th Assembly of the
> WCC, Patriarch Alexy II of All Russia writes that he
> prays that the:
>  "World Council of Churches should remain faithful
> to its initial calling to be the Council of the Churches
> which strive for the joint fulfillment of their common
> calling to attain unity in faith and in the eucharistic
> (Assembly Line, No. 8, Canberra, 16.2.1991, p. 3, col.
> 1; see also JMP No. 6, Moscow, 1991, p. 60.)
> May. 10, 2006 (CWNews.com) - Russian Orthodox
> Patriarch Alexei II has said that he thinks Pope
> Benedict XVI will bring changes "for the better" in
> relations between Rome and Moscow. In an interview
> with the ANSA news agency, the Russian prelate said
> that the Catholic and Orthodox churches should not be
> in conflict. "It is quite obvious that we should not
> compete with each other," he said.
>  "Rather we should unite in order to fulfill our
> great mission of proclaiming the Word of God."
> During Patriarch Alexis' visit to Armenia in May,
> 1996, he together with the hierarchs accompanying him
> took part in a session of the synod of the Armenian
> church at which questions of "the further merging
> together of the two sister churches" were discussed.
> Speaking in front of the hierarchy of the Armenian
> church, Patriarch Alexis highly valued:
>  "the striving for union of the ancient Eastern
> Orthodox Churches", and called the existing division
> "an unhealed wound on the body of the church."
> In Christ,
> Athanasios Jayne
- The Church lives by the Holy Scripture does it not---its Yea is its
Yea and its Nay is its Nay, NO?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Athanasios Jayne"
> --- In email@example.com, "Rev. Alexander Lebedeff"
> <lebedeff@> wrote:
> > The document you refer to was approved by a Resolution of the
> Council of the Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. This approval
> is recorded in the official record of the Council -- the Journal.
> Patriarch signs the official Journal, after which the decision isPatriarch.<
> official and is binding on the Church.
> > Therefore the Document is officially the policy of the Church of
> Russia and that has been confirmed by the signature of the
> Father bless!
> Thank you for this information. Finally, I would ask: Is
> there any known record of the Synodal *vote* on this
> document, i.e., which Bishops were in favor of it, and which
> against or who abstained? I would like to know if there is
> any record indicating that Patriarch Alexy voted in favor of
> this document, though I do regard it as significant that He
> did sign the final result. Or would the record of the actual
> vote be regarded as part of the Synod's "minutes," which are
> not made public?
> Thank you, Father, for any further information. You are one
> of the few people who can answer questions of this kind, and
> I am most appreciative that you are taking the time to answer
> my questions--questions I am ask in all sincerity and honesty.
> Athanasios Jayne