(ex) Catholics becoming Orthodox preists

[Jacob50]

Originally Posted by BusterMartin

Well, here's a question that I keep asking regarding this, but I'm not sure if I've seen the answer. If they are in a state of grave sin from leaving for Orthodoxy, wouldn't that grave sin only be an issue (in the Catholic Church's eyes) until that person receives the Sacrament of Confession in their new Orthodox Church? At that point, since that sacrament is valid in Holy Orthodoxy, all sins would be forgiven, including this grave sin. Wouldn't that be correct?

Either way, their status as a priest would not be in question from either the CC or the EO if they are ordained as an Orthodox priest. They would be an Orthodox priest with valid ordination.

You know..... ive been wondering that for quite some time.............
I'm not sure if ive seen the answer either. Its really not easy to know if a person is in mortal sin if he goes from Catholic to Orthodox, after confessing his sins to an orthodox priest. I mean if a person is convinced orthodoxy is the true church, and for that reason leaves the Catholic Church, then he will not confess his schism sin to an orthodox priest because he wouldn't think of that as a sin in the first place, which is why he left the Church.

I'm fully convinced that leaving the Catholic Church (the same one founded by Christ himself) is in itself a sin of grave matter. If you for instance leave the CC for a protestant church (which lacks of confession), then the grave sin committed is a sin that "could" remain there unless the person comes back to the Church and goes to confession.

But if the person goes to orthodoxy, and if this sin is later forgiven in confession, then the grave sin was only present a limited time...or at least ive come to this conclusion which doesn't fully satisfy my question. But I guess only God knows. Or can anyone address this situation in a different way?

[DaddyGirl]

Consider it clarified, thanks!

Buuuuut....how can each sector call itself Catholic, yet all be the same religion?
Is this the only difference between the different groups?

On the scale of bigness for an issue, this one seems to be a major and important one, non?

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

The Catholic Church's position towards the Orthodox has become highly nuanced, particularly since the time of Pope John XXIII, who spent many years working with the Orthodox in traditionally Orthodox countries. We no longer speak of the Orthodox as "schismatic" but as "Sister Churches" (the Orthodox Church, like the Catholic Church, is actually a communion of a number of particular sui iuris or self-governing Churches). Also, the mutual excommunications that were issued in 1054 were lifted by Pope Paul VI (I think) and Patriarch Athenagoras.

"there is certainly a legitimate use of this expression, an ambiguous use has become prevalent in contemporary writings on ecumenism. "

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfsisch.htm

If this document has already been offered, just disregard my post.

[CarpanzanoAl]

Philip Rolfes - your analysis of the question and the layers of nuances and implications in your right on response/ explanation bely a very great depth of understanding of the recent Holy Fathers, the Council, and the mind of the Church re: the Eastern (Orthodox) Churches which we are not yet in fully perfected communion with. I am a living, suffering, offering mysely in oblation, example of everything touched on in this discussion. I am a Roman Rite Catholic, wedded to a faith filled woman of the Armenian Apostolic Church (OrientalOrthodox)and thus to that most ancient and beautiful rite. Since childhood I was enamored of the Eastern Churches, be they Catholic or Orthodox. I was married with dispensation in the Armenian Orthodox Ch. by an Armenian Archbishop and the Italian Msgr., vested and on the Altar. I have served the Liturgy of the Armenian Church for almost 35 yrs. now, at first out of necessity in dwindling parishes with few or no Altar servers or Deacons. I have learned the Liturgy thoroughly. I serve in humilty and love. I have never abandoned the Catholic Church. (Daily Mass server, communicant, lector, Euch. Minister, funeral server, Parish Council, and more.) 5 yrs. ago I was asked by the local Armenian community to accept ordination to the diaconate by the Primate of the Armenian Apostolic Ch. I have a degree in religious studies & more credentials. I was not asked to reject any Western heresies or reject the Roman Church. I was asked to perform the diaconal functions and serve the Armenian Ch. After seeking spiritual counsel from my Italain Msgr., pastor, who encouraged me ,prayed with me and blessed me I was ordained a Deacon in the Armenian Ch. This all came about too quickly for me to even call on the Chancery, to kneel before our local Catholic Bishop to seek his understanding, benign blessing and dispensation(??) My Msgr. was going to allow me to serve Diaconally in our Catholic Parish. As you have expressed in your forum responses, my ordination is 100% valid but not licit! In 5 yrs. In addition to serving an Armenian Liturgy almost every Sunday somewhere, including Armenian Catholic Churches, I have served numerous times as Deacon at Roman Masses for understanding Priests who either know me personally or accept the validity of the orders. However some reject me. After my Msgr. died, the new Pastor (his father was Byzantine Ruthenian, and he was denied biritual faculties by Rome - very, very unusual - must have been some impediment,) basically threw me out of my familial parish. He lasted 2 yrs. there, offended so many people that the Bishop had to move him. He said he called the Chancery and was told by the Bishop's Secretary, "You can't serve two masters!" It became a bit of a hullabaloo. Another Pastor took me into his Parish where I continue to serve in every way. I have agreed not to serve Diaconally until I get the Bishops' blessing which I am in process of preparing a folio to present to him. My position is this: I am Serving. I am not Concelebrating, even though I have much documentation of such and intercommunion and more between some Eastern Orthodox and Catholics, most especially the Armenians. JPII celebrated the Roman Liturgy on the High Altar of the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchal See in Armenia. The Armenian Orthodox Primate and Dean of their Seminary are both graduates of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, students of then Cardinal Ratzinger, and have kissed the hand of the Pope more times than most Roman Bishops. Fr. Benedict Groeschel was their spiritual couselor and retreat master for some years. I have volumes of examples of the closeness and spiritual unity of our two churches. In me, the Church is breathing with both lungs. I believe I am doing the will of the Holy Fathers in serving the Eastern Church and offering my life and suffering for manifest unity. This past summer I was the only Deacon at the Orientale Lumen Conference, in Washington, DC. We were over 100 Roman, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox in prayer and study. I was the Deacon for all Liturgies! So, I suppose, some day the Devil may lower the boom from both sides upon me and I shall be and outcast,wandering Deacon. In the meantime, I pray and I serve my Lord. I anticipate my story may set this particular forum afire with comments and criticisms and anathemas!!!! Maliciously or otherwise many ask, "How can he do that?" My stock answer has been, "Don't ask, don't tell!" Let us pray unceasingly, that All May Be One.
Deacon Al
Albert Sargavak

[Searching Heart]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

As I pointed out in my previous post, the Church's stance towards the Schism and the Orthodox Churches is much more nuanced. Their Sacraments are indeed valid and licit. And I don't know that the Church actually considers converts to Orthodoxy from Catholicism to be in any sort of grave sin.

May our Lord's will be done, as we reach toward and follow Him.

[BertBlyleven]

Originally Posted by dochawk

That is the Augustinian view of Holy Orders--which has never been accepted in the East, which takes the Cyprianic vie, in which the Orders have no existence outside of the Church. Under this view, a cleric who leaves his Church is no longer clergy.
hawk

I understand this is taught in the East. However, mainline Eastern Orthodox views of Non-Chalcedons, Old Calendarist sects, Old Believers, some views of Catholics, and other independent churches (e.g. Ukranian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate) seem to contradict Cyprian views of orders (unless a schismatic priest/bishop holding the same Orthodox faith hasn't actually left the Church). Can one from the Eastern camp elaborate?

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by BertBlyleven

I understand this is taught in the East. However, mainline Eastern Orthodox views of Non-Chalcedons, Old Calendarist sects, Old Believers, some views of Catholics, and other independent churches (e.g. Ukranian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate) seem to contradict Cyprian views of orders (unless a schismatic priest/bishop holding the same Orthodox faith hasn't actually left the Church). Can one from the Eastern camp elaborate?

Here is a quotation from St. Basil's first canonical epistle, approved by Trullo and Second Nicaea:

The Cathari are schismatics; but it seemed good to the ancient authorities, I mean Cyprian and our own Firmilianus, to reject all these, Cathari, Encratites, and Hydroparastatæ, by one common condemnation, because the origin of separation arose through schism, and those who had apostatized from the Church had no longer on them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken. The first separatists had received their ordination from the Fathers, and possessed the spiritual gift by the laying on of their hands. But they who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain. And therefore those who were from time to time baptized by them, were ordered, as though baptized by laymen, to come to the church to be purified by the Church’s true baptism. Nevertheless, since it has seemed to some of those of Asia that, for the sake of management of the majority, their baptism should be accepted, let it be accepted. We must, however, perceive the iniquitous action of the Encratites; who, in order to shut themselves out from being received back by the Church have endeavoured for the future to anticipate readmission by a peculiar baptism of their own, violating, in this manner even their own special practice. My opinion, therefore, is that nothing being distinctly laid down concerning them, it is our duty to reject their baptism, and that in the case of any one who has received baptism from them, we should, on his coming to the church, baptize him. If, however, there is any likelihood of this being detrimental to general discipline, we must fall back upon custom, and follow the fathers who have ordered what course we are to pursue. For I am under some apprehension lest, in our wish to discourage them from baptizing, we may, through the severity of our decision, be a hindrance to those who are being saved. If they accept our baptism, do not allow this to distress us. We are by no means bound to return them the same favour, but only strictly to obey canons. On every ground let it be enjoined that those who come to us from their baptism be anointed in the presence of the faithful, and only on these terms approach the mysteries. I am aware that I have received into episcopal rank Izois and Saturninus from the Encratite following. I am precluded therefore from separating from the Church those who have been united to their company, inasmuch as, through my acceptance of the bishops, I have promulgated a kind of canon of communion with them.

According to St. Basil, those who are in schism have no grace, and so become laymen. Those who are baptized by schismatics, therefore, should receive true baptism, since they were not truly baptized outside of the Church. This seems to be the Orthodox view, for the most part.

[Pambo]

Originally Posted by Jacob50

You know..... ive been wondering that for quite some time.............
I'm not sure if ive seen the answer either. Its really not easy to know if a person is in mortal sin if he goes from Catholic to Orthodox, after confessing his sins to an orthodox priest. I mean if a person is convinced orthodoxy is the true church, and for that reason leaves the Catholic Church, then he will not confess his schism sin to an orthodox priest because he wouldn't think of that as a sin in the first place, which is why he left the Church.

I'm fully convinced that leaving the Catholic Church (the same one founded by Christ himself) is in itself a sin of grave matter. If you for instance leave the CC for a protestant church (which lacks of confession), then the grave sin committed is a sin that "could" remain there unless the person comes back to the Church and goes to confession.

But if the person goes to orthodoxy, and if this sin is later forgiven in confession, then the grave sin was only present a limited time...or at least ive come to this conclusion which doesn't fully satisfy my question. But I guess only God knows. Or can anyone address this situation in a different way?

Maybe someone should "Ask an Apologist" about this.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by Pambo

Maybe someone should "Ask an Apologist" about this.

I don't think that would help at all.

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by CarpanzanoAl

Philip Rolfes - your analysis of the question and the layers of nuances and implications in your right on response/ explanation bely a very great depth of understanding of the recent Holy Fathers, the Council, and the mind of the Church re: the Eastern (Orthodox) Churches which we are not yet in fully perfected communion with. I am a living, suffering, offering mysely in oblation, example of everything touched on in this discussion. I am a Roman Rite Catholic, wedded to a faith filled woman of the Armenian Apostolic Church (OrientalOrthodox)and thus to that most ancient and beautiful rite. Since childhood I was enamored of the Eastern Churches, be they Catholic or Orthodox. I was married with dispensation in the Armenian Orthodox Ch. by an Armenian Archbishop and the Italian Msgr., vested and on the Altar. I have served the Liturgy of the Armenian Church for almost 35 yrs. now, at first out of necessity in dwindling parishes with few or no Altar servers or Deacons. I have learned the Liturgy thoroughly. I serve in humilty and love. I have never abandoned the Catholic Church. (Daily Mass server, communicant, lector, Euch. Minister, funeral server, Parish Council, and more.) 5 yrs. ago I was asked by the local Armenian community to accept ordination to the diaconate by the Primate of the Armenian Apostolic Ch. I have a degree in religious studies & more credentials. I was not asked to reject any Western heresies or reject the Roman Church. I was asked to perform the diaconal functions and serve the Armenian Ch. After seeking spiritual counsel from my Italain Msgr., pastor, who encouraged me ,prayed with me and blessed me I was ordained a Deacon in the Armenian Ch. This all came about too quickly for me to even call on the Chancery, to kneel before our local Catholic Bishop to seek his understanding, benign blessing and dispensation(??) My Msgr. was going to allow me to serve Diaconally in our Catholic Parish. As you have expressed in your forum responses, my ordination is 100% valid but not licit! In 5 yrs. In addition to serving an Armenian Liturgy almost every Sunday somewhere, including Armenian Catholic Churches, I have served numerous times as Deacon at Roman Masses for understanding Priests who either know me personally or accept the validity of the orders. However some reject me. After my Msgr. died, the new Pastor (his father was Byzantine Ruthenian, and he was denied biritual faculties by Rome - very, very unusual - must have been some impediment,) basically threw me out of my familial parish. He lasted 2 yrs. there, offended so many people that the Bishop had to move him. He said he called the Chancery and was told by the Bishop's Secretary, "You can't serve two masters!" It became a bit of a hullabaloo. Another Pastor took me into his Parish where I continue to serve in every way. I have agreed not to serve Diaconally until I get the Bishops' blessing which I am in process of preparing a folio to present to him. My position is this: I am Serving. I am not Concelebrating, even though I have much documentation of such and intercommunion and more between some Eastern Orthodox and Catholics, most especially the Armenians. JPII celebrated the Roman Liturgy on the High Altar of the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchal See in Armenia. The Armenian Orthodox Primate and Dean of their Seminary are both graduates of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, students of then Cardinal Ratzinger, and have kissed the hand of the Pope more times than most Roman Bishops. Fr. Benedict Groeschel was their spiritual couselor and retreat master for some years. I have volumes of examples of the closeness and spiritual unity of our two churches. In me, the Church is breathing with both lungs. I believe I am doing the will of the Holy Fathers in serving the Eastern Church and offering my life and suffering for manifest unity. This past summer I was the only Deacon at the Orientale Lumen Conference, in Washington, DC. We were over 100 Roman, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox in prayer and study. I was the Deacon for all Liturgies! So, I suppose, some day the Devil may lower the boom from both sides upon me and I shall be and outcast,wandering Deacon. In the meantime, I pray and I serve my Lord. I anticipate my story may set this particular forum afire with comments and criticisms and anathemas!!!! Maliciously or otherwise many ask, "How can he do that?" My stock answer has been, "Don't ask, don't tell!" Let us pray unceasingly, that All May Be One.
Deacon Al
Albert Sargavak

I salute you, Rev. Fr. Deacon! (With you and Phillip here, two such great spiritual giants - it is just a spiritual blessing to read your posts! )

Alex

[Alexander Roman]

I know more Eastern Catholics who have become Orthodox than RC's. In any event, when they become Orthodox, they repudiate Roman Catholicism itself as a heresy although there are those who have a more nuanced view.

My cousin was an impassioned Greek-Catholic priest and now he is an impassioned Orthodox priest. He doesn't like anything about RCism and can't stand ECism. He has tried to convert me on more than one occasion.

I also attended an Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite conference in Toronto (this Church has two Western Rites, the Gregorian and that of St Tikhon for former Anglicans). Numbers of RC's and Anglicans came forward affirming their desire to convert. The RC's were very disparaging in their public remarks about RCism, that RC's were hopelessly in heresy etcc.

The Anglican potential converts just didn't have anything good to say about Anglicanism, period.

However Catholics see them, those converts feel themselves to be liberated from a heretical institution and they evince varying degrees of anger and disgust toward their former ecclesial home.

I will talk to such if they remain courteous, but will abruptly just walk away if they are just downright offensive. Ultimately, I prefer to avoid their company. And if I ever wished to become Orthodox and did so, I would never be bitter. If one is bitter about anything - that is just not a good reason to leave the Catholic Church.

Alex

[Elizium23]

Originally Posted by Pambo

Maybe someone should "Ask an Apologist" about this.

In the end, Ask An Apologist is just one more opinion of a stranger on the Internet, with little authority over our spiritual lives. If you really want a definitive answer, ask your pastor, or write to your bishop or ordinary, because they are the ones who can speak with authority.

To me, this seems like a lot of speculation about a hypothetical situation. We can guess at what happens all we want in this forum. Giving concrete examples would only lead us into the sin of gossip. There is no right answer to be had here on the Internet.

[Byz Guy]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

I will talk to such if they remain courteous, but will abruptly just walk away if they are just downright offensive. Ultimately, I prefer to avoid their company. And if I ever wished to become Orthodox and did so, I would never be bitter. If one is bitter about anything - that is just not a good reason to leave the Catholic Church.

Alex

You've nailed it on the head about some Orthodox and their attitudes. However, I've found that it's much different in the parishes and away from the Internet.

There are many Orthodox who express a different view, as can be seen from this document that was posted on the SCOBA page:

http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards...ed-church.html

But for those who seek a possible unity someday, there are no easy answers.

[dochawk]

Originally Posted by BertBlyleven

I understand this is taught in the East. However, mainline Eastern Orthodox views of Non-Chalcedons, Old Calendarist sects, Old Believers, some views of Catholics, and other independent churches (e.g. Ukranian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate) seem to contradict Cyprian views of orders (unless a schismatic priest/bishop holding the same Orthodox faith hasn't actually left the Church). Can one from the Eastern camp elaborate?

Gosh, you're expecting consistency?

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by dochawk

Gosh, you're expecting consistency?

Even St. Basil leaves it rather open ended in his first canonical epistle. He basically says that those baptized by schismatics should be received by baptism. But he also recognizes that the fathers in the past received some schismatics by chrismation, so he also says that it is up to the judgment of the bishop or synod.