Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Ecumenist Statements Attributed to Patriarch Alexey

Expand Messages
  • Athanasios Jayne
    ... recent posts.
    Message 1 of 62 , Feb 28, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Mitin, Stiva"
      <pravoslavnajaRU@...> wrote:
      >
      >> At the risk of offending, I am somewhat taken aback by your
      recent posts. <<

      AJ: No offense taken.

      >> 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. <<

      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
      altogether.

      >> 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 "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's
      and 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
      information.

      >> 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? <<

      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
      faith.

      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 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 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)

      In Christ,

      Athanasios Jayne
      (ROCOR)
    • Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
      The Church lives by the Holy Scripture does it not---its Yea is its Yea and its Nay is its Nay, NO? ... The ... Patriarch.
      Message 62 of 62 , Mar 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        The Church lives by the Holy Scripture does it not---its Yea is its
        Yea and its Nay is its Nay, NO?




        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Athanasios Jayne"
        <athanasiosj@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.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.
        The
        > Patriarch signs the official Journal, after which the decision is
        > 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
        Patriarch.<
        >
        > 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
        > (ROCOR)
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.