18354Re: [orthodox-synod] Is Alexey II a real orthodox priest ?
- Nov 3, 2006Fr. John R. Shaw>> If it did, then all of the bishops of the Russian Church before the revolution would "not have been bishops", because their appointment was always determined by the Tsar, subject to his approval.
Gene T >> Wasn't the Tsar a God annointed head of State and Church ? Isn't it a little different from Communists appointing their chosen collaborators Bishops to "limit the reactionary influence of religion on masses" and wasn't Alexei II mentioned as the one who did this "limiting" particularly well ?
"Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
--- In email@example.com, gene703 <gene703@...> wrote:
> According to orthodox cannons a bishop that gains his appointement from civil
>authorities is not really a bishop, right ?
A bishop who obtains his office by using secular authorities is subject to be deposed; but
even if he is actually guilty of this, he does not automatically cease to be a bishop.
The canons (and the anathemas) do not take on a life of their own: they are church laws,
to be applied by the hierarchy.
But this canon does not apply to situations where the secular authorities themselves
interfere with church life.
If it did, then all of the bishops of the Russian Church before the revolution would "not
have been bishops", because their appointment was always determined by the Tsar,
subject to his approval.
> Alexey Ridiger was appointed an MP Bishop of Tallinn in 1961 when communists were
> fully in charge on MP personell, right ?
JRS: The communists were not absolutely in charge of all MP clergy: but they did interfere
in everything they could.
> Is therefore current MP Patrairch Alexey II (Ridiger) a real orthodox clergyman or an
>impostor according to orthodox cannon law ?
JRS: He is a "real Orthodox clergyman".
Fr. John R. Shaw
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>