Roman Catholic priest to transfer to Orthodoxy

I was wondering if a Roman Catholic priest, bowed out of his holy orders and fell out of communion with Rome, to get married, would he then be able to become a Married Orthodox priest?( I hope I asked my question clearly enough.)

I presume so.

No, this is not permitted in most jurisdictions. I know that the Russians definitely by custom do not allow for it. Priests may not marry once ordained, and since we usually receive Roman Catholic priests by vesting, meaning that they will not be reordained, they may not marry without giving up their orders.

Helen31 : how are you Catholic AND Orthodox…?

Well, Catholics should be orthodox, and the Orthodox should be catholic.

Really? I know the Russians won’t even accept RC baptism, why would they accept RC ordination? Although the OCA does receive by vesting.

The Russian Orthodox Church in Russia has a long history of receiving Roman Catholics by confession. ROCOR essentially went against centuries of Russian tradition when it began to rebaptize Roman Catholics (their argument was that the Roman Catholic faith had changed so much since the time when Roman Catholics were received by confession that it was necessary to rebaptize). The Russian Orthodox Church gets a reputation for being cold towards Roman Catholics, but in the case of its reception of Roman Catholic converts, it has historically had a friendlier attitude than the Greek patriarchates.

Oh, so it was only ROCOR that did that.

I can’t remember the name of the synod, but I believe it was in the pre-Petrine Patriarchate, which ruled that Catholics are to be received through confession.

Huh? Not accept RC baptism? Where is the falsehood of:

I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

The argument would be similar to what the Catholic Church holds regarding Mormon Baptism. I don’t subscribe to this view so I can’t argue the intricacies of it, I can just tell you what it is.

Unlike Roman Catholics, the Orthodox do not look at Sacraments in a mechanical manner. Not just because you say the words it’s like a magician doing a magic show and something magical happens. There are certain other things they look at if a baptism from someone outside the Church can be called a Christian baptism. For example, the OCA priest I know would baptize Evangelical converts. This is because Evangelicals do not believe that baptism is salvific. It doesn’t matter if they say the words correctly, their belief on the baptism if defective. And this can be traced to Scripture when St. Paul met those who were baptized with the Johannine baptism (St. John the Baptist). St. John’s baptism is a baptism of repentance, it is a different kind of baptism. Notice that St. Paul’s contention is the intent of the baptism, not what words were used.

As for the Catholic baptism, some small groups in Orthodoxy believe that Rome is in such a heresy that they have lost the ability to validly baptize. Also note that unlike in Catholicism, the Orthodox do not believe that unbaptized people can baptize validly. Catholics do (it is in the CCC).

What heresy? Didn’t eastern orthodoxy canceled all the anathemas towards catholics?
What small groups? Arent the “small groups” in heresy because they do not respect a decision of the church?

The mutual excommunications dating from 1054 have been removed on the grounds that they were not valid. No anathemas have ever been reversed on our part.

Since the Church as a whole has not made a binding decision, groups that go counter are not heresy. Those who go counter to their local church may end up in schism, which may lead to heresy. But as far as I know, only the Moscow Patriarchy ever made a decision on Roman Catholic Baptism. It is not binding on the rest of the church.

Actually, many decisions have been made regarding Roman Catholic baptisms throughout history. The universal method of reception was originally not through any sort of rebaptism, but either through chrismation or through confession. The Russians at one point began to rebaptize Roman Catholics, but shortly thereafter rescinded the policy. The Greeks in the 18th century made a decision to rebaptize Roman Catholics, and recently, the Antiochians and the Ecumenical Patriarchate have seemingly made a move back to receiving Roman Catholics in the more historical fashion of chrismation. You are absolutely correct in saying that none of these decisions are binding, because none of them have been made at a universal level.

From what I have read on the matter, it seems that the only decisions, which are ever really truly binding, are the decisions to invalidate either the baptisms or holy orders of a group entirely, made on a universal level. Once this is done, it cannot be rescinded, because the Church has used its canonical power to declare such groups completely foreign to the Church, losing their authority to baptize and to ordain, which the Church previously out of economy allowed them to retain, even while in schism. On the other hand, the decision to accept the baptisms or holy orders of a group, even if made on a universal level, can seemingly later be rescinded if that group falls into particularly grave heresy.

Canceled means removed, 0, no problem, NO HERESY. Reversed has no meaning in the sentence.
If somebody continue to say that the grounds of those canceled anathemas are heresy…what sin is this?

I don’t think you are understanding. The mutual anathemas have nothing to do with whether certain beliefs are heresy. It is not a sin for an Orthodox Christian to believe that the filioque or papal infallibility are heterodox beliefs.

What I’m trying to say is that only that one set of mutual anathemas were removed. While I can’t site any others off the top of my head, I have come across them from time to time, in both Latin and Orthodox sources. I can’t speak for the various Latin anathemas, but the Orthodox ones, outside that one, have never been removed so far as I know.

All of them were removed, I remember this for sure.
When we think something is true, we also associate the opposite with false.
This is something that should be clarified.
Now the things are like this: for a catholic person is wrong not to belive a particular doctrine; but it is ok if that person is an orthodox, that person will be saved through that church. The same goes in the opposite direction…
Does this have meaning? I remember somebody saying that you can’t be both catholic and orthodox … Judging like this, indeed you have to make up your mind, one way or the other…

You’ll have to cite where you’re getting them all removed from then, because that would have involved most of the Churches of the Eastern Orthodox Communion. I’m not aware of a meeting of that size with the Pope.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit