Ecumenist Statements Attributed to Patriarch Alexey
- Thu Mar 1, 2007 5:22 am, Athanaios Jayne wrote:
AJ: With God as my witness, these are my genuine concerns. If you look at my
> history on this subject, here and inAccepted.
> 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 PatriarchBut these are only allegations and have yet to be proved as heresy.
> 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 awareNever saw it come through.
> 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.
AJ: Well, now you know at least *one* person who is doubtful of the
> reconciliation, who calls Patriarch Alexey "His Holiness." I call Him thisKudos to you for that, but I still find it distressing that you seem to use
> 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
the heresy term lightly.
If you examine the Ecumenical Councils, you will find that every courtesy
> and honor was extended to such men as Nestorius,Would all the anti-Union folk follow such niceties.
> 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'sAJ: In my opinion, our Synod and their appointed Committee should look into
> and now curiously those same journals are cited in Deacon
> Basil's list. What is that all about? <<
> this matter, just as they looked into every other potential obstacle toDo you know if the Committee has looked into this or not?
> 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?
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 thatBut why stop with Patriarch? Perhaps some of our own bishops have uttered
> 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.
some statements that are heretical (Again God forbid.) To be quite frank, as
a devout Orthodox Christian I have never thought of going on a fishing
expedition, to search out heresies that our ruling bishops may be guilty of.
Orthodoxy is the possession of *all* the faithful, from the greatest of
> Patriarchs, to the lowliest of laymen, and all are accountable to God forYes this is true. It is also part of sobornost that we be in Communion with
> what they do with this treasure.
the rest of Orthodoxy and not become a splinter group recognized by none and
recognizing no others. The situation in Greece speaks volumes, since the
initial reason for the Old Calandarists was simply the Calendar change. How
many groups are there now? Why have they split into so many groups? You need
a 3D flow chart to try to figure out the situation. They had none of the
complexities of the Russian Church: revolution, dispersion in the Diaspora,
martyrdom of clergy.
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,Yes, he was a monk and we are laymen. I just read his vitae (it was being
> 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.
sent around as an example for the anti-Unionists). I am afraid I could find
little in common between that situation and the current one we are in.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- The Church lives by the Holy Scripture does it not---its Yea is its
Yea and its Nay is its Nay, NO?
--- In email@example.com, "Athanasios Jayne"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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