AT any rate, it is strictly your conjecture as to what direction it would take - there is no clear policy because there is no clear authority.
There is no clear policy since we're all different people. There are guidelines, yes. We believe that the Holy Spirit will correct an eventual mistake - we do not obsses if something is valid or invalid (as Old Calendarists commonly do). We know that the Grace of the Holy Spirit is found in the Orthodox church. Heterodox ordination cannot have grace. But if a Bishop decides that the priest has to be ordianed, he recieves grace. If a Bishop decides that he doesn't have to be ordained, we believe that Chrismation makes up for that. This is essentially a debate between Orthodox and extremly legalistic Roman Catholic mentality. Holy Spirit is not someone Who comes at proper incantations - He is more than capable of descending when He feels like it.
And this is not legalistic how? Ordinations are graceless but might not be if the bishop determines that it was with grace, and chrismation can make up for what is lacking? Of course some bishops - like folks from ROCOR - will belong to schools of thought that would likely demand a re-ordination. Others, like some Ukrainians, would simply recieve a Greek Catholic parish. I will have to do more research to see how Fr. Toth and the Carpatho Rusyns were recieved.
When you say "This is essentially a debate between Orthodox and extremly legalistic Roman Catholic mentality." I notice that you add no adjective to the Orthodox but call the Romans "exremely legalistic".
If it can be said that Romans obsess and are legalistic, why can't they turn around and claim that Greeks turn, when in doubt, can always through a veil over an ieeus, cry "oeconomeia" and leave a question unresolved.
You see the cry "legalism" is a nice tidy one. It tends to be a nice end to a debate by leveling a term that sounds rather pejorative "Those Catholics are so legalistic" as though that explains an error and dimisses the party in error very tidily.
I say it is incumbant upon the person crying legalism to explain why legalism (which I believe is just rational well orderd thinking in coming to understand theology) is bad, not in keeping witht the tradition of the Church (look at how "leaglistic" the canons of the councils or the Nicene creed is)
I know that Silent. But who is his authority?
I just said - the Bishop.
Do you presume I cannot read? I DID read what you first wrote and found it lacking. Does each bishop have his own under-defined parameters allowing him to exercise his authority? Here in America there has been debate over how the Greek Orthodox can or will intereat witht he "western rite" parishes of the Antiochans. What seems to be the trouble there? Each bishop can himself decide who is graceless and what is orthodox? This is not legalism. This is logic.
How do you determine when a bishop is "off the reservation?"
The Synod of Bishops.
Additionally the distinction you make over the calendar is one that calls for prudential judgement - why ARE you right to say that? Why are they wrong to argue their views?
This is quite easy. They
fell into a heresy - a new teaching according to which calendar is dogmatic. They
caused the schism. The issue cannot be more clear. We do
have final authority (Consensus of the Fathers), and it is more than clear that they
're wrong on this issue. Most Roman Catholics are no better than Orthodox who accuse Catholics of thinking of the Pope as God (although, I'm starting to go in that direction, with this worship of 'final authority').
Which kisses Qorans.
Don't be childish. The so called "worship of final authority" is actually the challenge of who can and does posess an authority to say "the buck stops here"
As for the "Koran kissing" episode, that is a cheap and easy isolated shot. I would expect a little better from you. I am getting really tired of it. Explanations have been offered as to the nature of that meeting - there were - thought it is NEVER discussed - numerous Christian leaders there as well with Chaldeans, Maronites and Melkites who had also brought with them sacred Christian books. In the melee of of numerous delegations from numerous creeds speaking numerous languages, it is not clear that the Pope knew that to be a Koran. STILL, a 26 year pontificate filled with enough writing and actions to feill a small library and THIS is the best defense one can offer? "The pope you worship like God kissed a Koran!"
Cannot a Catholic controversialist then turn around and point to the liquidation of the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine and the athiest Patriarchs of Moscow and other satelite nations during the communist era?
Further, Serbia is in communion with ROCOR that is in communion with the Old Calendarists in Romainia, Greece and Bulgaria. Seems like with a clear understanding there is lacking. What of the communities that broke with communist controlled bishops when it was clear they were puppets of the state?