Carthaginian wrote:validly ordained priests and bishops, as long as they do not teach heresy, is absolute.
The concept of "validity" is Latin (RCC) I would prefer to use the term "Correctly" is more "correct" for the Orthodoxy, and in the case of the MP´s "validity" would be very relative since most of their bishops were agents of KGB before being ordered.
You surely heard speak of the Sergianism, this is worse than any heresy since it is the entrance door of all of them
Priest Siluan wrote:The concept of "validity" is Latin (RCC) I would prefer to use the term "Correctly" is more "correct" for the Orthodoxy,
Whether "valid" or "correct", the authority and grace of a bishop/priest is not dependent on his personal character. He will answer to God, not men, for that.
and in the case of the MP´s "validity" would be very relative since most of their bishops were agents of KGB before being ordered.
Doesn't affect the ordination. The individual priest or bishop, considered as such, is immaterial. What matters is the position.
You surely heard speak of the Sergianism, this is worse than any heresy since it is the entrance door of all of them
What teaching of "Sergianism" is there? Is it not instead true that "Sergianism" is not a doctrine at all, and therefore cannot be heresy? It is an administrative plan (and, I agree, a very bad one), not a doctrine.
Canonically speaking, a bishop who got his seat thanks to the political power should be deposed. So are they real bishops? I doubt it and I do not know. In the former communist countries this was the case for many bishops, including Patriarchs : Alexis of Russian, Theoctist of Romania and Maxim of Bulgaria... The problem is unsolved because those people had kept their functions.
Worse even, they di not repent but found justifications to their collaboration with the communist regime saying, we saved the church through collaborating etc... I have never seen such a fake repentance. The problem is not that they collaborated. The case happened during persecution by the Romans. But people were asked after that to repent sincerely and had an epitimy... Read the canons about similar cases too...
Today, they present themselves as the Saviors of the Church... But the Church does not need Savior because the church is the one who saves...
Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.
One does not "save" the Church as you express it dear Jean-Serge.
This was brought our quite poignantly at the historic November
27 Delegation of the Petrograd diocese. I love to tell this story:
"By my new church policy I am saving the Church,"
Metropolitan Sergius replied deliberately.
"What are you saying, Vladika!" all members of the
Delegation exclaimed with one voice.
"The Church does not have need of salvation," added
Archpriest Dobronravov;
"the gates of hell shall no prevail against it. You yourself, Vladika,
have need of salvation through the Church." CATACOMB SAINTS
OF RUSSSIA
The Church saves, one does not save the church by collaboration
with the government. Unfortunately the "sergianist church"of
1927 remains just that.
Sbn/Jerjis/Dr Alajaji
Simony, the purchasing of the Holy Spirit is the chief heresy and begining of them all according to the Fathers. As Caesar controls the mint, it seems that Priest Siloan's words "You surely heard speak of the Sergianism, this is worse than any heresy since it is the entrance door of all of them" seem to be valid, because Sergianism is a form of Simony who was the author of Gnosticism etc....
On the other hand, historically the Turks demand huge sums from the Ecumenical Patriarchs etc.... I have heard of accusations against St. Photius in that regard (pre-Turkish rule) so maybe, one has to painstakingly go through each hierarch one by one and patiently establish the facts.
andy
AndyHolland wrote:Simony, the purchasing of the Holy Spirit is the chief heresy and begining of them all according to the Fathers.
Simony is not a heresy; it is a sin. It is no more a heresy than theft or malicious thoughts are.
As Caesar controls the mint, it seems that Priest Siloan's words "You surely heard speak of the Sergianism, this is worse than any heresy since it is the entrance door of all of them" seem to be valid, because Sergianism is a form of Simony who was the author of Gnosticism etc....
It is true that simony can lead to heresy, as it will result in bishops holding their position who have no true concern for the truth of the Church. But the question always is, has it? What heresy has the MP officially endorsed this century? Has it revived gnosticism, or nestorianism, or arianism, or any of the others? The patriarch and other MP authorities will answer to God for the decisions they have made, but their own decisions (or sins, if you choose to so call them) do not expel those under them (the laity) from the communion of the Church. Only maintaining communion with heretical hierarchs, or breaking off from Orthodox ones (let those who oppose the upcoming union hear) can do that.
On the other hand, historically the Turks demand huge sums from the Ecumenical Patriarchs etc.... I have heard of accusations against St. Photius in that regard (pre-Turkish rule) so maybe, one has to painstakingly go through each hierarch one by one and patiently establish the facts.
You hit on an interesting point here. Every last patriarch of Constantinople under the Turks obtained his position by simony, and to pay for this simony, imposed similar conditions on his subordinates. Even earlier, under the Byzantines, many patriarchs got their position because of political pressure, or even simony. I don't know personally about the case of St. Photios, but St. John Chrysostom became patriarch for one reason, he was liked by the emperor's favourite, who largely controlled the government. Byzantine (and Russian) history are rife with examples like these, yet the church went on, and does go on.