(ex) Catholics becoming Orthodox preists

[Paul_theApostle]

I know a few men who having left the Catholic church have gone on to become Eastern Orthodox priests

So how would/does the Catholic church look upon this?

Would they be real Preists,seeing that they were previously Catholic?

 

[RyanBlack]

I know a few men who having left the Catholic church have gone on to become Eastern Orthodox priests

So how would/does the Catholic church look upon this?

Would they be real Preists,seeing that they were previously Catholic?

Why would they not be real priests, since the Orthodox Church is a true Church, with valid holy order?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Once a priest, always a priest. However, that would be very bad for him.

 

[Jacob50]

As the above poster stated once a priest always a priest. If they go to heaven they will be priests. Even if they go to hell, they will still be priests. If they leave the Catholic Church for orthodoxy, they are still priests. If they become protestants/muslims/buddhists, they are still priests. Yet this would be very bad for them, due to the fact that they would become schismatics/heretics.

 

[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

 

[Nine_Two]

My understanding is the Catholic Church holds our ordinations to be binding, regardless of a priests past.

 

[YoungTradCath]

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

He is always an ordained man, but he has no faculties to minister (beyond the extreme exceptions noted in Canon Law).

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

He is always an ordained man, but he has no faculties to minister (beyond the extreme exceptions noted in Canon Law).

Again you are following an Augustinian view to which the East does not hold. In the East the priesthood is completely dependent on the bishop. If one leaves communion with one’s bishop, i.e. leaves the Church, one’s priesthood no longer exists in an Eastern mindset. At least that’s what I’ve always been told.

There seems to be some misconceptions coming from other posters. The OP did not ask if a Catholic priest who becomes an Orthodox priest has a valid priesthood. He’s asking if the Catholic Church considers valid the priesthood of a former Catholic layman who becomes an Orthodox priest. The answer is, most definitely.

 

[Melchior_1]

Again you are following an Augustinian view to which the East does not hold. In the East the priesthood is completely dependent on the bishop. If one leaves communion with one’s bishop, i.e. leaves the Church, one’s priesthood no longer exists in an Eastern mindset. At least that’s what I’ve always been told.

There seems to be some misconceptions coming from other posters. The OP did not ask if a Catholic priest who becomes an Orthodox priest has a valid priesthood. He’s asking if the Catholic Church considers valid the priesthood of a former Catholic layman who becomes an Orthodox priest. The answer is, most definitely.

Interesting! Would this be one of the stumbling blocks between a full unification of the Orthodox and Rome?

(I personally subscribe to the Augustinian view).

 

[Paul_theApostle]

As Philip said ,i meant Catholic laymen leaving the C Church and becoming Orth priests

I thought it was bad for any Catholic to leave the the CC and go into schism by going to Orthodoxy ??

and not only that ,if they were to become clergyman or Priests of that schismatic church ,wouldnt that be even worse??

or maybe the whole ‘schismatic’ thing doesnt apply these days anymore ?? and Orthodoxy is no longer seen as schismatics??

thanks

 

[1ke]

As Philip said ,i meant Catholic laymen leaving the C Church and becoming Orth priests

I thought it was bad for any Catholic to leave the the CC and go into schism by going to Orthodoxy ??

and not only that ,if they were to become clergyman or Priests of that schismatic church ,wouldnt that be even worse??

or maybe the whole ‘schismatic’ thing doesnt apply these days anymore ?? and Orthodoxy is no longer seen as schismatics??

thanks

Paul, you have asked two separate questions.

Question 1: Would a Catholic who becomes Orthodox and is then ordained be a validly ordained priest, I believe you asked would they be a “real priest”. The answer to that question is yes. He would receive valid Holy Orders because the Orthodox have valid Holy Orders. His ordination would be illicit, but valid.

Question 2: How does the Church look upon this? A person who leaves the Church commits and act of heresy, aspostacy, or schism (depending upon what they leave for and to whom they go). In the case of the Orthodox, the person commits an act of schism. This is an excommunicable offense. The person can be reconciled with the Catholic Church, through following proper channels within the Catholic Church. But, until and unless they repent and reconcile they are in an objective state of grave sin.

 

[A_G]

Our Catholic Church does in fact recognize Orthodox ordinations to be valid. We believe the Orthodox to have apostolic Succession.

At the same time however, if you become an ex-Catholic and go to an Eastern Orthodox Church, you just broke off your Communion with the successor of Saint Peter, the Pope.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As Philip said ,i meant Catholic laymen leaving the C Church and becoming Orth priests

I thought it was bad for any Catholic to leave the the CC and go into schism by going to Orthodoxy ??

and not only that ,if they were to become clergyman or Priests of that schismatic church ,wouldnt that be even worse??

or maybe the whole ‘schismatic’ thing doesnt apply these days anymore ?? and Orthodoxy is no longer seen as schismatics??

thanks

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.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the Orthodox Churches have an “imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church since we pretty much share the same Faith, minus communion with each other, and that they possess the full means of salvation. Their Sacraments are totally valid and licit from the Catholic perspective.

The “us vs. them” mentality has been dropped, thanks in large part to attempts at an unbiased study of the history of the 1054 Schism. The Catholic Church now officially recognizes that She is just as much to blame for the Schism and its perpetuation as Orthodoxy - Catholicism perhaps more so since the Pope is supposed to function as a symbol of unity in the Church and not a source of division (the over-centralization of the Catholic Church being one of the sources of division with the Orthodox). It is for this reason that both John Paul II and Pope Benedict have called for a reformation of the Papacy along the lines of the experience of the First Millennium, while keeping in mind the peculiarities of modern times.

Finally, the Catholic Church has officially condemned proselytism, the attempt at converting individuals or groups of Orthodox faithful to the Catholic Church. Proselytism is in part what led to the formation of the majority of the Eastern Catholic Churches (with a few exceptions), which were once part of Orthodoxy. Such methods, instead of serving the ultimate goal of unity, actually only led to further divisions with the Orthodox. Of course, if an individual Orthodox person approaches the Catholic Church wanting to be received within Her communion, the Church will not refuse them. But the method of going out and trying to make “converts” from Orthodoxy to Catholicism has been condemned.

I don’t really know how the Church feels about members who become Orthodox. Among Eastern Catholics it’s not seen as being a very big deal, especially in their home countries, and most especially among the Melkites. This is so because families in these countries tend to be a mix of Orthodox and Eastern Catholic faithful, and going back and forth between the two is quite normal. Whether or not the Church officially frowns on such a thing, I do not know. I’ve never heard an official condemnation of it.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Paul, you have asked two separate questions.

Question 1: Would a Catholic who becomes Orthodox and is then ordained be a validly ordained priest, I believe you asked would they be a “real priest”. The answer to that question is yes. He would receive valid Holy Orders because the Orthodox have valid Holy Orders. His ordination would be illicit, but valid.

Question 2: How does the Church look upon this? A person who leaves the Church commits and act of heresy, aspostacy, or schism (depending upon what they leave for and to whom they go). In the case of the Orthodox, the person commits an act of schism. This is an excommunicable offense. The person can be reconciled with the Catholic Church, through following proper channels within the Catholic Church. But, until and unless they repent and reconcile they are in an objective state of grave sin.

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.

 

[dochawk]

Interesting! Would this be one of the stumbling blocks between a full unification of the Orthodox and Rome?

Nah, this one isn’t even on the radar

also, though you’ll have to get them from someone else, the RC view is showing signs of a glacially slow shift towards the Cyprianic view.

hawk

 

[w_s_s]

Again you are following an Augustinian view to which the East does not hold. In the East the priesthood is completely dependent on the bishop. If one leaves communion with one’s bishop, i.e. leaves the Church, one’s priesthood no longer exists in an Eastern mindset. At least that’s what I’ve always been told.

I doubt Eastern Catholics hold that view, because it contradicts Catholic dogma. Just as Baptism and Confirmation, the sacrament of Holy Orders imprints an indelible mark or character on the soul.

Here are some quotes from Trent:

“But, forasmuch as in the sacrament of Order, as also in Baptism and Confirmation, a character is imprinted, which can neither be effaced nor taken away”

“If any one saith, that, by sacred ordination … a character is not imprinted by that ordination; or, that he who has once been a priest, can again become a layman; let him be anathema.”

“If any one saith, that, in the three sacraments, Baptism, to wit, Confirmation, and Order, there is not imprinted in the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible Sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema.”

 

[TrueLight]

I doubt Eastern Catholics hold that view, because it contradicts Catholic dogma. Just as Baptism and Confirmation, the sacrament of Holy Orders imprints an indelible mark or character on the soul.
"

He might be right. I find that some Eastern Catholics identify more with Orthodoxy than the Catholic Church, just from stuff I’ve read on the Eastern Catholic forum.

Very confusing.

 

[1ke]

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.

Licit for a member of the Orthodox. Not for a Catholic to receive them.

And I don’t know that the Church actually considers converts to Orthodoxy from Catholicism to be in any sort of grave sin.

Certainly they do.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Licit for a member of the Orthodox. Not for a Catholic to receive them.

Certainly they do.

Catholics are permitted by the Catholic Church to receive Communion and Confession at an Orthodox parish. The question is really a matter of whether or not the Orthodox priest will allow a Catholic to receive.

I have never heard any official statement from Rome saying that Catholics are in grave territory if they convert to Orthodoxy. In fact, in cases of a mixed marriage couple (one Catholic the other Orthodox) I believe the Church encourages the couple to raise the children as Orthodox - although it is really left to the discretion of the couple. I am good friends with a couple that is struggling through this very issue right now.

 

[1ke]

Catholics are permitted by the Catholic Church to receive Communion and Confession at an Orthodox parish. The question is really a matter of whether or not the Orthodox priest will allow a Catholic to receive.

The OP did not ask about Confession or Communion. The OP asked about receptionn of Holy Orders. To receive them in the Orthodox Church is valid but not licit for a Catholic.

I have never heard any official statement from Rome saying that Catholics are in grave territory if they convert to Orthodoxy.

What do you suppose schism to mean, then?

In fact, in cases of a mixed marriage couple (one Catholic the other Orthodox) I believe the Church encourages the couple to raise the children as Orthodox - although it is really left to the discretion of the couple.

Nope. Canon 1124 and 1125.1 cover this. The Catholic must promise to baptize and raise the children in the Catholic Church.