Re: Ecumenist Statements Attributed to Patriarch Alexey
- --- In email@example.com, "Mitin, Stiva"
>recent posts. <<
>> At the risk of offending, I am somewhat taken aback by your
AJ: No offense taken.
>> I want to err on the side of caution and assume that youare bringing these questions up out of your own concern, but
really some of the posts sound more like trolling. <<
AJ: With God as my witness, these are my genuine concerns.
If you look at my history on this subject, here and in
the rocor group and on the Indiana List (or talk to anyone
who knows me, such as my former Priest in AZ, Fr. John
McCuen), you will see and learn that I have been a
consistent supporter of reconciliation for *years.*
It is only since I recently discovered the seemingly
Ecumenist statements which are attributed to Patriarch
Alexey, that I have begun to seriously doubt the
decision to reconcile with the MP at this time.
Initially, I was concerned that we were simply leaving
too many good people behind, who might benefit from
a brief delay, but I was all for the reconciliation.
But since that time, the apparent evidence of heresy
has caused me to doubt the timing of the reconciliation
>> 1) You have posted to the list for awhile so you are awarethat Deacon Basil is also a poster. By list rules, he should
have been the one to post the "allegations". <<
AJ: He did (though nobody but me seems to have read it).
It is orthodox-synod post # 19279, dated Feb. 24. To the
quotes contained in that article, I added one or two more
that I found on my own. Because it was posted by Fr. Basil,
and because of the verbose format of the original article
(by a Hierodeacon Theophan), I suppose many people here
skipped it. Ultimately, however, the message originated with
Hierodeacon Theophan, and was made public here by Fr. Basil.
Thus, though many here may be inclined to dismiss anything
Fr. Basil writes, the fact is, he didn't write these
allegations--he was simply the messenger. The message stands
or falls on its own merits, quite apart from Fr. Basil.
Either the statements are true and accurate, or they are not.
>> 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.<<
AJ: Well, now you know at least *one* person who is doubtful
of the reconciliation, who calls Patriarch Alexey "His
Holiness." I call Him this because it is His rightful
title, and He is due this customary honor until such time
as He goes into schism, or is canonically deposed by the
Church. He is a Bishop and a Patriarch of the Orthodox
Church in Russia, a Grace-filled Church of Christ. This
does not mean that He cannot also be a heretic. If you
examine the Ecumenical Councils, you will find that every
courtesy and honor was extended to such men as Nestorius,
who was called "most religious" etc., by the holy Fathers
until he was examined and condemned by them. In this, I
am following their example.
>> You had asked to purchase some JMPs from the 80'sand now curiously those same journals are cited in Deacon
Basil's list. What is that all about? <<
AJ: I want to see the Patriarch's words with my own eyes,
in an official MP publication, held in my hands. In this
way, I will be able to verify if the quote attributed to
Him therein is accurate, and therefore, to know with greater
certainty whether or not there is credible evidence that
Patriarch Alexey is, in fact, an Ecumenist heretic. The
internet alone is not a reliable source. It must be verified.
It could be that the words of His Holiness are being taken
out of context or twisted by his enemies. I do not wish to
do the Patriarch and injustice, nor do I want to be forced
to leave ROCOR for conscience' sake based upon faulty
>> Who do you propose hold a trial to determine if "MP isknown 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? <<
AJ: In my opinion, our Synod and their appointed Committee
should look into this matter, just as they looked into
every other potential obstacle to reconciliation. Why
should the Patriarch's own public statements concerning
the Faith itself be exempt from the same kind of scrutiny
and attention that was devoted to the glorification of
the New Martyrs, or to the MP' participation in the WCC?
It is not enough to be persuaded that the MP (that is,
the Church in Russia as a whole) is sound and Orthodox.
We must also be assured that the Patriarch Himself is
sound and Orthodox, and I am saying that we have reason
to believe that He is not, and that we ought to examine
this question carefully, just as we have examined
everything else, to know that we are not entering into
a "false union" that is a compromise of our Orthodox
I am not judging the Patriarch. I have never once
said that He is a heretic. I am bringing to the
attention of the Clergy and the faithful reports that
appear to indicate that the Patriarch *could* be a
heretic. I have no "authority" to do this. I do this
because my conscience as an Orthodox Christian would
accuse me if I remained silent. I do not judge the
Patriarch. But I judge the words attributed to the
Patriarch, and I say they are Ecumenist and heretical.
>> Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, the OrthodoxChurch 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 think not. <<
AJ: If Met. Laurus, or any other Bishop, publicly makes
heretical statements, we should withdraw from his
Communion until such time as he repents. Ultimately,
the final judgment is a matter for the Bishops to decide by
means of an Ecclesiastical Court. But until that time, the
faithful who "wall themselves off" from open heresy are
praised by the holy Fathers for doing so.
Orthodoxy is the possession of *all* the faithful, from the
greatest of Patriarchs, to the lowliest of laymen, and all
are accountable to God for what they do with this treasure.
St. Maximus the Confessor, for example, was never Ordained
to the Clergy. He was a only a lay monk. Would you ask him
the same question: "Who are you, Monk Maximus, to say you
will not Commune with the Patriarchs of Constantinople,
Antioch, and Alexandria? Who are *you* to judge them?"
Yes, that's just what they said to him.
I am a sinner and no Saint, but even so, in the fear of God,
I say that the words attributed to His Holiness, Patriarch
Alexey, are Ecumenist and heretical. Let our holy Hierarchs
decide. Let them look into the matter. But they cannot judge
what they have not yet examined. Let the Patriarch be
exonerated of He is innocent. But if not, let us keep our
holy faith unblemished.
"When I see the Church of Constantiniple as she was
formerly, then I will enter into Communion with her
without any exhortation on the part of men. But while
there are heretical temptations in her, and while
heretics are her Bishops, no word or deed will convince
me ever to enter into Communion with her."
(St. Maximus the Confessor's Reply to Theodosius,
Bishop of Caesarea in Bithynia)
- 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