Imago Dei--The Anthropomorphite Controversy & St Gregory the Great

In large part because of my great devotion to St John Cassian and his writings, I have long taken a keen interest in the 4^th- to 5^th-century ‘Anthropomorphite-Origenist’ controversy in Egypt, and for the same reason I have for the most part tended to identify heavily with the ‘Origenist’ side of the controversy. St Cassian’s points in Conference 10 in fact seem fairly uncontroversial, and the ‘anthropomorphite’ position seems fairly indefensible from an Orthodox perspective.

This view was beautifully complicated for me by Bishop Alexander’s contribution to the festschrift for Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware)—‘The Vision of God & the Form of Glory: More Reflections on the Anthropomorphite Controversy of AD 399’ (see an earlier contribution by His Grace to the subject here). While I definitely appreciated His Grace’s ‘final word’ attempting to ‘make up a little for the injustices I may have done a Cassian, an Origen, or an Evagrius in the course of making my argument’ [1], I also appreciated in a different sense his main argument that the simplistic ‘Serapion’ of Conference 10 may not be entirely representative of the anthropomorphites themselves or of their position.

Well, today I was finally getting round to reading Tim Vivian’s introduction to his little volume for the SVS Popular Patristic Series—Four Desert Fathers: Pambo, Evagrius, Macarius of Egypt & Macarius of Alexandria. Vivian—in his discussion of Evagrius’s emphasis on imageless prayer and its possible role in the controversy—seems to hold a nuanced understanding of the controversy very similar to that of Bishop Alexander and informed by some of the same sources. Among others, he also refers to an essay by Fr Georges Florovsky that I don’t believe I have yet read myself entitled ‘Theophilus of Alexandria and Apa Aphou of Pemdje’. Vivian quotes Fr Georges’s explanation of the position of one of the ‘anthropomorphites’:

The sting of his argument was directed against the denial of God’s image in man, and there was no word whatever about any ‘human form’ in God. Aphou only contended that man, even in his present condition and in spite of all his misery and destitution, had to be regarded still as being created in the image of God, and must be, for that reason, respected. Aphou was primarily concerned with man’s dignity and honor. Theophilus, on the other hand, was embarrassed by man’s misery and depravity. [2]

I found this connection between the anthropomorphites’ emphasis on the imago Dei in man and the Origenists’ rejection of an imago hominis in God particularly interesting in light of something I had just read this morning in an author rather far removed in time and place from the controversy: St Gregory the Great. In his Homilies on Ezekiel, St Gregory links the human soul and God Himself in the process of mystical ascent, describing a kind of likeness between the two, but specifically rejecting the conception of not only the latter but of the former in terms of images. I shall quote this passage at length:

For we often wish to ponder the invisible nature of Almighty God but by no means avail, and the soul, wearied by the very difficulties, withdraws into herself and makes for herself and from herself the steps of her ascent, so that she first considers herself, if she can, and then examines insofar as she can that nature which is above her. But our mind, if spread out in carnal images, by no means suffices to consider itself or the nature of the soul because it is led by as many thoughts as it is, so to speak, blinded by obstacles. [3]

It is then that St Gregory begins to discuss precisely how God and the soul are connected and why they must both be approached without images. In the next passage the ellipses indicate where I have attempted to shorten the quote without, I hope, obscuring the argument.

9. Then the first step is to compose oneself, the second to see the like of this composure, the third to rise above oneself and by intention submit to the contemplation of the invisible Creator. But one by no means composes himself unless he has first learned to curb the apparitions of earthly and heavenly images from his mind’s eye and cast out and tread down whatever of sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste occurs to his bodily thought, in order that he may inwardly seek such as is free thereof….Then all things are to be driven away by the hand of discernment from the mind’s eye so that the soul may regard herself as she was created, above the body but below God, so that being quickened by her superior she may quicken the inferior which she administers….And when she performs such different actions through the senses she arranges them not by a diversity, but by that one reason in which she was created. When therefore the soul thinks of herself without bodily images she has already entered the first door. But this door leads on to the other in order that something from the nature of Almighty God may be contemplated. So the soul in the body is the life of the flesh, but God Who quickens all is the life of souls. Then if the quickened life is of such magnitude that it cannot be comprehended, who avails to comprehend with his understanding how great is the majesty of the Life which quickens? But the very consideration and discernment thereof is already to enter to some extent, because from her appraisement the soul gathers what she perceives of the uncircumscribed Spirit which incomprehensibly rules those things which He incomprehensibly created. [4]

Now, this is a very difficult passage, in part because St Gregory seems to be speaking of a lofty mystical experience which most of us have not shared. But I note that even in speaking of what one might call the contemplation of one’s own soul, he teaches that images must be driven out. The necessity of imageless contemplation of God, then, is even greater, for if the creature is incomprehensible, how much more the Creator?

What’s interesting to me about this is that it clearly appears to belong to the Origenists’ tradition (I’d be interested to see research on what St Gregory knew of Origen and Evagrius), and yet it does not—as one might expect from the quoted passage from Fr Georges’s essay—deny the imago Dei in man. Indeed, St Gregory seems to make much indeed of the divine image in the human soul—ascribing to it the very incomprehensibility that for the Origenists required the cultivation of total imagelessness in prayer to its divine Prototype.

[1] Bishop Alexander (Golitzin), ‘The Vision of God & the Form of Glory: More Reflections on the Anthropomorphite Controversy of AD 399’, Abba—The Tradition of Orthodoxy in the West: Festschrift for Bishop Kallistos Ware, ed. Fr John Behr, Fr Andrew Louth, & Dimitri Conomos (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 2003), p. 295.

[2] Fr Georges Florovsky, ‘Theophilus of Alexandria and Apa Aphou of Pemdje’, Aspects of Church History, Vol. 4 of Collected Works (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1975), p. 119; qtd. in Tim Vivian, Introduction, Four Desert Fathers: Pambo, Evagrius, Macarius of Egypt & Macarius of Alexandria (Crestwood, NY: 2004), p. 45.

[3] St Gregory the Great, The Homilies of St Gregory the Great On the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, tr. Theodosia Gray, ed. Presbytera Juliana Cownie (Etna, CA: CTOS, 1990), p. 209.

[4] Ibid., pp. 209-10.

A Sober, if Futile, Ecumenical 'Dialogue'

I have recently, and for the first time on this blog, I believe, been called an ‘Extremist’ for my criticisms of the ecumenical movement. But, to be fair, even those mature enough to rise above name-calling—first and foremost, the estimable John Sanidopoulos—appear to suspect that I cannot recognise even the possibility of sober ecumenical dialogue. A perfect way to prove them wrong has occurred to me.

Among the Orthodox delegates to the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission, which met in Moscow in 1976, were exactly two of the men that have been pointed out to me as saintly personalities involved in the ecumenical movement—Archbishop Basil (Krivoshein) of Brussells (MP) and Protopresbyter John Romanides. While I can’t say much about the members of the Anglican delegation—the only ones I know anything about are Canon A.M. Allchin and Revd Hugh Wybrew—I still feel that this meeting was largely an exercise in futility. Certainly, the Anglican Communion as a whole only seems farther from Orthodoxy than ever before.

But that having been said, from a perusal of those exchanges chosen for publication from among the discussions of various points of the resulting ‘Moscow Agreed Statement’, it is clear that in many ways we have an ecumenical dialogue carried on as well as it possibly could be in our day, thanks in no small part to the Orthodox delegates I have named. I shall offer two examples. First, from the discussion concerning section I.2 of the Agreed Statement:

Professor Romanides: There is a close connection between the whole question of inspiration and revelation and the distinction between the essence and energies of God. . . . I wish to ask the Anglicans this question: When the Old and New Testaments speak of the revealed glory of God do the Anglicans consider this glory to be created or uncreated? And if they regard it as uncreated do they consider it to be the essence of God?

The Bishop of Truro [Right Revd Graham Leonard]: I am certain that Professor Romanides and I believe the same things. But I wish to ask Professor Romanides: Is it necessary to my salvation to speak about the relation of God to creation in terms of the essence-energies to distinction? Cannot this teaching be expressed in other terms?

Professor Romanides: We can speak, as the Bible does, in terms of the depth of God and of the glory of God. The Holy Spirit searches the depth of God; but can man do this? There is something that man sees, but something else that he does not see. . . .

Bishop [Robert E.] Terwilliger [Suffragan of Dallas]: I am happy about the essence-energies distinction. But how early is it? Is it found in the early Christian sources?

Professor Romanides: The distinction has roots both in Judaism and in the Greek philosophical tradition. The Church uses the distinction not for philosophical but for experiential reasons.

Archbishop Basil: We should differentiate between (i) the fact itself, as expressed in what the Old and New Testaments tell us concerning the glory of God; and (ii) the terminology, which was used in the Patristic period but not fully developed until the time of St Gregory Palamas. It is difficult to require the Anglicans to accept the terminology of the later period. But do they accept what is said on this matter by the Cappadocians, and especially St Gregory of Nyssa?

The Bishop of Truro and Bishop Terwilliger: Yes.

Professor [Eugene R.] Fairweather: The distinction between essence and energies, as made in thesis 2 [of the Truro sub-commission], is radically unacceptable to many Anglicans. They would consider it unbiblical to affirm that the divine nature or essence is for ever excluded from human knowledge. Also the doctrine of the divine simplicity makes such a distinction problematical. The widely-held Anglican (and Western) view is that, in his present state, man does not receive the essence of God; but, although man will never comprehend or wholly grasp the essence of God, he will at the Last Day see the very being of God.

Bishop [Richard] Hanson: I agree with Dr Fairweather. According to the normal Western view, God is incomprehensible, in the sense that God’s nature can never be wholly grasped by man. But in his state of glory, man will see and know God himself. The Orthodox have their own way of stating this; but this way should not be made compulsory for the Anglicans. . . .

Dr Constantine Scouteris: We Orthodox do not seek to force the Anglicans to accept what they find uncongenial; we ask them to express their own tradition in a positive way.

Archbishop Basil: We are faced by a difference between the Cappadocian and the Augustinian traditions. The Cappadocians represent ancient Christian thought. Augustinianism is a deviation from this. The essence-energies distinction is an intellectual distinction, but it is at the same time a real distinction, because based on the reality of God.

Bishop Hanson: The Cappadocians must be understood in the context of the particular historical situation which they faced; they were concerned to answer the virulent rationalism of the Eunomians. In that situation the response of the Cappadocians is intelligible. But the West has its own reasons to adhere to Augustinianism, which expresses the same convictions in another and equally legitimate way.

Professor Romanides: . . . I return to my earlier question: In the Anglican view, is the revealed glory of God uncreated? If it is, is it the essence of God?

Professor Fairweather: It is a revelation of the uncreated through the medium of the created.

Professor Romanides: Here you follow Augustine.

Canon Allchin: I myself prefer the Orthodox to the Augustinian approach. But Anglicans wish to find room for both; they see advantages in both, but each presents certain difficulties. [1]

The insistence here on the importance of the essence/energies distinction by Fr Romanides and Archbishop Basil—culminating in the latter’s observation that Augustinianism ‘is a devition’ from ‘ancient Christian thought’—is greatly to be commended. Here is another exchange, this one from the discussion of section III.10.(ii)—‘The mind (phronema) of the Fathers, their theological method, their terminology and modes of expression have a lasting importance in both the Orthodox and Anglican Churches’: [2]

Archbishop Stylianos: . . . What Orthodox value is not just the terminology but the message and mind (phronema) of the Fathers.

Professor Galitis: Instead of ‘the Patristic period’, we should say ‘the Fathers’. We do not wish to restrict the Fathers chronologically.

Bishop Hanson welcomed the phrase ‘mind of the Fathers’. We Anglicans, he said, do not always admire the hermeneutical methods of the Fathers, but we do respect the conclusions to which the Fathers came.

The Revd Mark Santer: Let us say ‘the Fathers’ method of theology, whereby theology is linked with prayer’.

Professor Romanides: That is precisely what I mean by the Fathers’ theological method. [3]

Now, the Anglicans make some very revealing statements in both of these exchanges, some of which strike me as (perhaps unwittingly) ironic, and the Orthodox allow much to slide. But keeping in mind that all is provisional and preparatory, since Orthodox could not know at the time that Anglicans would deliberately ignore Orthodox sensibilities by introducing the novel practice of ordaining women, this is on the whole an admirable example of theological dialogue on the part of the Orthodox delegates. Because of changes on both sides—for instance, the rejection of the essence-energies distinction by an important Orthodox ecumenist, Met. John (Zizioulas), and the increasing abandonment of any kind of traditional theological or moral standards by much of the Anglican Communion—such a dialogue would be difficult to produce today. But it stands as a witness that in theory, at least, genuine discussion of theological differences can be had.


[1] Archim. Kallistos (Ware) & the Revd Colin Davey, eds., Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Moscow Agreed Statement (London: SPCK, 1977), pp. 46-8.

[2] Ibid., p. 84.

[3] Ibid., p. 56.

'The Momentary Problem of a Stuck Car'—Hieromonk Ambrose (Young)

I have just learned that Hieromonk Ambrose (Young) was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease a few years ago. Many people in American Orthodoxy will be familiar with Fr Alexey Young, who, after the death of his matushka was tonsured and is now Hieromonk Ambrose. Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen) refers to him as one of the ‘closest spiritual children’ of Fr Seraphim (Rose). [1]

A convert from Roman Catholicism, Fr Ambrose was the founder and editor of an early periodical for converts called Nikodemos, which eventually became the periodical Orthodox America and Nikodemos Orthodox Publication Society, publisher of such books as Lubov Millar’s Life of St Elizabeth the New Martyr and Man of God: St John of Shanghai & San Francisco. Fr Ambrose’s own books include such titles as A Man Is His Faith: Ivan Kireyevsky & Orthodox Christianity [2], The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia: A History & Chronology [3], and, perhaps most importantly, Letters from Father Seraphim: The 12-Year Correspondence between Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) & Fr Alexey Young [4], a volume of Fr Seraphim’s letters beautifully edited with Fr Ambrose’s explanatory notes and reminiscences. Fr Ambrose also wrote an important criticism [5] of the first version of Fr Seraphim’s biography, Not of This World: The Life & Teachings of Fr Seraphim (Rose), by Fr Damascene [6], and Fr Damascene offers him ‘special thanks . . . for his invaluable help and encouragement through the preparation’ [7] of the new version of Fr Seraphim’s Life, Father Seraphim (Rose): His Life & Works [8].

Although he was originally ordained to the priesthood in the Russian Church Abroad, Fr Ambrose transferred for a time to the Antiochian Archdiocese, but was later released back into ROCOR and tonsured at Holy Cross Hermitage in West Virginia (a dependency of Holy Trinity at Jordanville). He eventually transferred to St Gregory Palamas Monastery in Hayesville, Ohio (GOA), and in 2004 was made chaplain to the women’s Skete of St Mary of Egypt in Cleveland (also GOA). He now resides as chaplain at the Entrance of the Theotokos Skete near Hayesville, where Mother Theadelphi of the Skete is his daily caregiver.

This heavy news came to my attention through a letter from Fr Ambrose himself posted (here) on the website of my sister’s former parish in Virginia, All Saints of North America (ROCOR) under Fr John Moses. I offer the letter, and Fr Moses’s introductory comments in full:

[Father Ambrose Young (Fr Alexey Young before his monastic tonsure) is a dearly loved spiritual friend, teacher, guide, and author. He is the God-son of Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, and among other books, published a book of Father Seraphim’s letters to him over the years, Letters From Father Seraphim. He also wrote The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia: A History and Chronology, Teachings of the Holy Fathers on the Body, Teachings of the Holy Fathers on the Passions, Teachings of the Holy Fathers on Illness, The Great Divide, The Rush to Embrace, and other works. Many of us have been blessed to know Fr Ambrose personally, to have heard him speak, to have sought his blessing and guidance. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease a few years ago, and when Father John wrote him, recently, Fr Ambrose sent him this reply, and he granted permission to post it here.

This is a copy of a message I sent to good friends here who were inquiring about the status of my Alzheimer’s Disease and were wondering if it is even even appropriate to ask. After I wrote it I though I would share it with you and a few others, and you may share it with anyone you think might also be interested. Here is the message, below:]

It’s quite all right for you to ask. I am very open about my illness, as is Gerondissa, and we do not hide anything or keep any secrets. And I have very little false pride about my limitations any more—I’ve already been through ‘that phase’ and have been able to embrace my disease in the shadow of the Cross. More than that, I have begun the slow process of climbing up onto the Cross with our Lord, and sharing now in His Passion. This is incredibly sanctifying; I don’t know how else to describe it. So although I don’t talk much about my illness, it’s not out of secrecy or pride or sensitivity, but only because I am keeping the Lord on the cross as close to my heart as I can. And He will get me through. It has frankly become as much a spiritual experience as a mental one.

So, I want to take this opportunity to share with you, since we haven’t really talked about it much. I have discussed it on several occasions with some friends, and they are wonderfully and appropriately sympathetic and helpful. They are more than relatives; they are good friends. I will talk more about it with my other siblings when we have a family reunion this summer. My children are completely on the same page with me already, but for them it is too painful to talk about much.

This illness is the oddest feeling of being somehow detached and experiencing a slow metamorphosis from being one person into another; not dramatic, but disconnected, and yet still able to pray, read, do email, recognize others (although my short term memory and my malapropisms have gotten worse over the last week). But at the same time it’s oddly not depressing. (I went through the depressing stage last year.) In fact, I woke up this morning with Finn having crawled up and curled into my left arm, and at the same time I had the most intense longing for heaven, which made me very happy.

The neurologist told me some time ago that there is a small percentage of AD victims who in some way consciously ‘know’, all the way through, what is happening to them, and he thinks I am one of them. I don’t know if that’s a blessing or not, but I do think it’s a blessing that I can share with others the various stages of this illness as long as possible. That sharing is helpful to me, and perhaps for others if they see that there is a spiritual way to ‘do’ something that is otherwise so awful.

As you know, Alzheimer’s is a long and slow process, for which reason it’s called ‘the long goodbye’. But I read Patty Davis’ fine book about her father, President Reagan, ‘The Long Goodbye’, and she said that he remained cheerful, happy and polite as a three year old, right to the end. And I also know about the Alzheimer’s of some great and holy Elders of our time, who were able to serve Liturgy and say the Jesus Prayer right to the end, even when they no longer recognized anyone else. So Alzheimer’s doesn’t have to be grueling and ugly, the way it is so often portrayed. I think that the perceived ‘terribleness’ of this disease is at least in part a reflection of our incredibly morally and spiritually bankrupt culture.

With drugs and medical help, and very good care from Mother Theadelphi, I have had three years of relatively slow deterioration, and I think that ‘slowness’ will continue yet for some years. Right now is a different phase, though. I am very blessed to be in monastic life and here with Mother and the Fathers and Brothers just down the road, who also stay in contact and are very affectionately supportive. I feel safe and well cared for. There are many in my condition who cannot say that. Mother is a good friend, caretaker, intellectual and spiritual companion, but you and Tim will have to help her to harden her heart as time goes on and my symptoms become worse. I have already spoken to her about this, too. She is very tender-hearted and quietly suffers over my illness, although she’s no drama-queen about it, as you can well believe. That’s not her style. She only quietly says, ‘I don’t like it’, and that, coming from her, actually says a great deal.

From a purely spiritual standpoint I want to share with you the insight I believe God gave me from the time of my diagnosis. My greatest and overriding sin—indeed, even vice—has always been pride. Pride of mind, of ‘knowing better’ and judging others inappropriately, sometimes thinking of them as being less than I am. This is a most grievous sin, and one that many people don’t even recognize in themselves, but it is the one sin that will, above all, consign us to hell if we don’t overcome it! It was the sin of Satan, the sin of Adam and Eve.

I understand fully how I got this way. I have throughout my life been inordinately proud of my mind, my intellect, my ability to think clearly about difficult and complicated things, to speak and write well, understand, process, and explain difficult things, etc. Growing up, I wasn’t good at sports, I wasn’t attractive to the ladies, I couldn’t dance, I was an intellectual bookworm and loner, I had no other skill than my brain, and I used it and developed it as far as I possibly could, although actually I wasn’t particularly academically brilliant, as all of that just seemed like some kind of superficial ‘game’ to me. But that was my path in life. And although I have put these gifts to the service of Christ and the Church, as best I could, the pride has still been there.

Now the Lord has offered me a chance to mortify and humble down that pride, by accepting without complaint the slow crumbling of my mind. And I do accept this, with my whole heart, even if with the occasional tear, as a gift from Him for my salvation. So it sometimes ‘feels’ as though this dying of various parts of my mind is also a dying of self, a dying of ego, a dying to pride. And isn’t that the purpose of spiritual life, after all, anyway? The Lord looked down and saw that I wasn’t going to do it any other way, and so, because He loves me very much (unworthy as I am) and wants me to be with Him forever, He offered me this incredible opportunity to die to self. I see this as a great, if sometimes painful, blessing!

Well, these are my few thoughts about it. Never hesitate to ask me how I’m doing. I will tell you honestly. But never feel sorry for me, or pity, as I do not for myself, but rather rejoice for me that I am on a sure path to the Kingdom of Heaven. I believe this with all my heart. —Fr A

In conclusion, I offer a passage from Fr Ambrose’s reminiscences about Fr Seraphim [9] in Letters, which Fr Damascene quotes in his review as ‘one of this reviewer’s favorite parts of the book’. Fr Damascene introduces the passage thusly, ‘Describing the end of his first visit to the St Herman Monastery in 1970, at which time his car got stuck in the mud halfway up the mountains, Fr Alexey writes:’ [10]

After a few hours of conversation on my first visit, Fr Seraphim announced that they would walk back down the mountain with me to my car and see what could be done about rescuing it from the mud. On the walk he sang hymns, troparia to various saints, which softly echoed through the forest and mingled with the sounds of birds. When we arrived at the car there was much pushing and shoving and groaning, but the car did not budge. Finally we had to walk into town and call for a tow truck. While we waited back at the car, Fr Seraphim saw that I was frustrated and anxious about the vehicle. Suddenly he said, gesturing to the beautiful mountains and forests around us, ‘Do you see all of this beauty? And those mountains over there—they’ve been here for so long, and it seems they’ll be here forever, doesn’t it? But it’s not true. Even those mountains will one day pass away.’ His point was clear: why get annoyed about the momentary problem of a stuck car, which in any case will shortly be solved, when even the substantial mountains will one day dissolve? It was the first of many times that Fr Seraphim’s own stillness of heart was momentarily communicated to me. I felt suddenly at peace, at rest, all agitation banished, as was so often to happen in his presence over the years to come. [11]

Judging by the letter to Fr Moses above, it looks as though Fr Ambrose learned the lesson well indeed.


[1] Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), Review of Letters from Father Seraphim, The Orthodox Word #228 (2003), p. 46.

[2] Fr Alexey Young, A Man Is His Faith: Ivan Kireevsky & Orthodox Christianity (London: St George Information Service, 1980).

[3] Fr Alexey Young, The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia: A History & Chronology (San Bernardino, CA: The Borgo Press, 1993).

[4] Letters from Father Seraphim: The 12-Year Correspondence between Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) & Fr Alexey Young (Richfield Springs, NY: Nikodemos, 2001).

[5] Fr Alexey Young, ‘From the Bookshelf—Not of This World: the Life and Teachings of Fr. Seraphim Rose’, Orthodox America, Issue 126-127, XIV.2-3 (September—October, 1993) (here).

[6] Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), Not of This World: The Life & Teachings of Fr Seraphim (Rose) (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1993).

[7] Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), ‘New from St Herman Press—Father Seraphim (Rose): His Life & Works’, Orthodox Word #228, p. 5.

[8] Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), Father Seraphim (Rose): His Life & Works (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2003).

[9] For more of these, see Fr Ambrose’s talk at the celebrations of the twentieth anniversary of Fr Seraphim’s repose, here.

[10] Fr Damascene, Review, p. 47.

[11] Letters, p. 16.

Memory eternal!

On checking my e-mail this morning, the first thing I read was that His Holiness, Patriarch Alexey II of Moscow and All Rus', had fallen asleep in the Lord. Although we commemorate him in all of the services in the Russian Church Abroad, I don't know very much about Patriarch Alexey. I can say that it certainly seems praiseworthy that so many wonderful things have happened in the Russian Church since his enthronement, including the rebuilding of countless churches and monasteries, the rejection of Sergianism, the glorification of the New Martyrs of Russia, including the Imperial Family, and the reunification with our Russian Church Abroad. His Eminence, Metropolitan Hilarion writes:

It was with heartfelt pain that I learned of the repose of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia, and on behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, I express our condolences to the Holy Synod, my brother archpastors, reverend fathers, brethren, sisters and children of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In truth, as St Symeon the New Theologian, says, “The beginning of life is the end, the end, the beginning, and I know not whence I come, where I am, I know not where I will go tomorrow.” Such is the lot of each mortal. And now, in our common funereal prayers, we see the bright image of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy, who was truly a kind and selfless podvizhnik, working for the rebirth of the Russian Orthodox Church, which arose from ruin after so many years of godless persecutions. The newly-reposed Patriarch was a preacher of repentance and the return of the Russian nation to its historic roots, its Holy Russian ideals.

I call upon my brother archpastors, clergymen and flock of the Russian Church Abroad to pray for the soul of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy.

You can read a detailed biography of His Holiness here, at the Moscow Patriarchate's official website. May his memory be eternal! Вечная памятъ!