(ex) Catholics becoming Orthodox preists

[Paul_theApostle]

What does ‘valid but not licit’ sort of mean?

Thanks

 

[John_of_Patmos]

Valid=legitimate, real
licit=lawful
I believe not licit means not lawful in regards to canon law.
I absolutely agree with 1ke: schism=big trouble. Probable mortal sin with excommunication added.:crying:

 

[Hesychios]

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

I don’t know from the RC point of view, but I have known of several former Roman Catholic priests and deacons with holy orders in the Orthodox church in my area and I have met a few of them. I don’t know how many former Roman Catholic laymen are also in Orthodox orders but it is considerably more.

If the Roman Catholic church insisted that these men stand down as a condition of reconciliation with Rome, we would have none of it. As far as we are concerned they are valid clergy and Rome has no right (has never had the right) to judge them. So in that sense the continued presence of former Roman Catholics in the Orthodox clergy ranks could be a deal breaker, but only if the Papacy makes it so.

I should note that Orthodox and Roman Catholics have dialogued officially for decades now, and I don’t believe the issue has ever come up. I also have a suspicion that Father Thomas Fitzgerald (a prominent Orthodox clergyman and dean of an Orthodox seminary, involved in ecumenical discussions) is himself a former Roman Catholic, but it is something I haven’t been able to verify.

 

[ConstantineTG]

A convert to Orthodoxy can certainly be declared a schismatic and apostate. HOWEVER, this is not automatic and one must face a tribunal before being excommunicated.

Someone in the know told me about it.

 

[Nine_Two]

A convert to Orthodoxy can certainly be declared a schismatic and apostate. HOWEVER, this is not automatic and one must face a tribunal before being excommunicated.

Someone in the know told me about it.

Which raises a question, why would a convert to Orthodoxy care enough to face a tribunal?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Which raises a question, why would a convert to Orthodoxy care enough to face a tribunal?

He doesn’t have to face it, the tribunal can just go with the trial and excommunicate him/her. I’m thinking in most ordinary cases the Vatican wouldn’t bother, but in some special cases they might decide to do it.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

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

Yes, let’s please be both careful and respectful. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Holy Orders in the Orthodox Church. So, while it might be unfortunate that a canonically Catholic man would become Orthodox in order to enter the Holy Priesthood, it happens.

And I would bet that more often than not, it is a former American-born Eastern Catholic that coverts to Orthodoxy to become a priest.

And why is that? Isn’t married priesthood permitted in the Eastern Churches? Well, yes and no …

Beg mercy that we not resort to labeling these men with true callings from acting in conscience. Especially in the case of former Eastern Catholics, we should instead perhaps look to that which prevents them from finding their calling within their Catholic faith of origin. I know too many men and very good Eastern Christians who were Catholic, now Orthodox priests, simply because of the loss of tradition imposed on the Eastern Catholics in America.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Why is it confusing? Churches are defined more by tradition than “affiliation” (meaning who they are in communion with in this case). Communion doesn’t mean you just take in all the praxis of those you are in communion with. If that is true, then the Catholic Church would either be all Latin, or a mishmash of the 6 different Rites.

Think of it this way, my sister lives in the US and is now American. I am in Canada and I’m Canadian. But we’re still brother and sister. There’s nothing being Canadian or American that will separate us. We can’t vote in each other’s country, and we would need special permits to work in each other’s country, but the bottomline is still we’re bother-sister. Thats how Eastern Catholics and Orthodox are, especially those belonging to the same Church.

 

[DL82]

The only time the question would need to be asked would be if:

a) the person had left the Catholic Church while still believing it to be the true Church, i.e. they left, not because they disagreed with her, or believed the Orthodox Church to be the fullness of the truth, but rather, because they wanted to belong to something ‘different’, because they were bored, because they were going to gain some material advantage, or perhaps because they really wanted to be a married priest, and weren’t going to let the Church tell them otherwise.

and/or

b) the person wanted to return to the Catholic Church.

I am guessing, in the latter case, if they followed their conscience out of, and back into, the Catholic Church, then they would only need to make an act of faith, as they had been receiving true sacraments, including reconciliation, as an Orthodox Christian.

On the other hand, if he had left the Catholic Church in a deliberate bad-faith act of schism (note that I am not saying that all Orthodox are schismatics, nor that they are in bad faith - I am speaking of the conscience of an individual convert, who chooses to convert for bad reasons instead of good) then I think it is unlikely the Orthodox hierarch will ordain him. The Orthodox Church would be able to see it a mile off if this was just a married man with a chip on his shoulder about not being allowed to be a priest in his own Church, for example.

If someone did come back to Catholicism after being ordained Orthodox, would they still be able to practice their priesthood?

 

[nickybr38]

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?

I think people may be misunderstanding your question and/or I am.

These people were NOT priests before they left the Church? But were ordained within the Orthodox church?

If the Orthodox ordination is recognized by the Catholic Church then they are priests and will be even if they decide to come home later. If the Orthodox ordination is not recognized by the Catholic Church they are priests within the Orthodox tradition alone.

 

[BusterMartin]

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

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.

 

[dcointin]

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.

In this case they would have to confess that it was a sin for them to leave the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church, correct? I can’t imagine that happening unless they intended to return to the Catholic Church, in which case the confession would be to a Catholic priest.

 

[DL82]

But if they are married and having sex…would the Catholic church still consider them “real” preists? They wouldn’t be considered as such in the Catholic church, right?

They would indeed be considered priests in the Catholic Church, just like the many married priests there have always been in the Eastern Catholic Church, the married priests in the 1st millenium, and the many married Roman Catholic priests who converted from the Anglican tradition. Being married isn’t an objective barrier to receiving the sacrament of Orders, it is just that the Roman Church maintains a discipline of not ordinarily ordaining married men.

 

[BusterMartin]

In this case they would have to confess that it was a sin for them to leave the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church, correct? I can’t imagine that happening unless they intended to return to the Catholic Church, in which case the confession would be to a Catholic priest.

I’m not sure they would need to confess that. In the CC view, only mortal sins must be confessed to a priest. If the person switching Churches truly didn’t realize it was a mortal sin, and I guess that’s up for some debate if it is or not, then it would not be a mortal sin for that person and that would not need to be confessed for a valid confession and absolution. From the Orthodox view (assuming I understand correctly), mortal sin doesn’t really come into play, and all sins that one can remember from their self examination should be confessed. If they forget a sin, or didn’t realize something was sinful (which switching to EO from CC wouldn’t be sinful in the EO view anyway), those sins would still be forgiven when absolution is given.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

This is terrific! I didn’t know this!

So…if a man is already married, and then feels he is called to be a priest in the Cath church…it is possible for him to do so??

This is only permitted in the Eastern Catholic Churches (and then not all of them, sadly). A Roman Catholic married man is not permitted ordination to the priesthood in the Roman Church except under very VERY abnormal circumstances.

Within the Eastern Catholic Churches in the U.S. some are more favorable to a married clergy, others less so. The Melkites and Ukrainians encourage a married clergy. The Ruthenians don’t.

 

[Big_Feet]

This is only permitted in the Eastern Catholic Churches (and then not all of them, sadly). A Roman Catholic married man is not permitted ordination to the priesthood in the Roman Church except under very VERY abnormal circumstances.

Within the Eastern Catholic Churches in the U.S. some are more favorable to a married clergy, others less so. The Melkites and Ukrainians encourage a married clergy. The Ruthenians don’t.

We must also remember that the opposite is not true. One who has received the Sacrament of Orders (both in Catholicisim and Orthodoxy) cannot marry later (without express, and unusual dispensation). One must be married prior to receiving Orders.
(also remember that the Sacrament of Holy Orders includes deacons, permenant or transitional)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

This is only permitted in the Eastern Catholic Churches (and then not all of them, sadly). A Roman Catholic married man is not permitted ordination to the priesthood in the Roman Church except under very VERY abnormal circumstances.

Within the Eastern Catholic Churches in the U.S. some are more favorable to a married clergy, others less so. The Melkites and Ukrainians encourage a married clergy. The Ruthenians don’t.

The Ruthenians in the US got the urge beaten out of them (sorry, I’m usually not that direct, but it happens to be true, and the consequences were very serious)!

That said, it is still the case that Eastern Catholics must be married before being ordained. This must be clarified for DaddyGirl’s benefit.

 

[dcointin]

The Ruthenians in the US got the urge beaten out of them (sorry, I’m usually not that direct, but it happens to be true, and the consequences were very serious)!

That said, it is still the case that Eastern Catholics must be married before being ordained. This must be clarified for DaddyGirl’s benefit.

This is an example of why reunion will probably not occur without a serious change in what’s expected of the Eastern Catholic churches. We view them as the model of what reunion will look like, and we don’t like all of what we see.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The Ruthenians in the US got the urge beaten out of them (sorry, I’m usually not that direct, but it happens to be true, and the consequences were very serious)!

That said, it is still the case that Eastern Catholics must be married before being ordained. This must be clarified for DaddyGirl’s benefit.

Yes. I’m aware of that, and the situation makes me sad. Now the Ruthenians have to jump through so many hoops just to ordain a married man that I can understand why the bishops would be hesitant.

Rome attempted to beat the urge out of the Melkites, but the Patriarch stood up to Rome and basically said, “I dare you to even try.” Rome backed down.

The Ukrainians simply went ahead and did what they’ve always done.

The current Romanian bishop, John Michael Botean, ordains married men to the priesthood, but just doesn’t publicize it very much.

I honestly feel very bad for the Ruthenians. Being the first Eastern Catholic Church in the U.S., they bore the brunt of suspicion from their Roman Catholics brethren. The history is very sad indeed. Given the circumstances, who can blame St. Alexis Toff (is that correct?) for transferring to Orthodoxy along with his entire parish, thus initiating the beginning of the American Carpatho-Russyn Orthodox Diocese?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

This is an example of why reunion will probably not occur without a serious change in what’s expected of the Eastern Catholic churches. We view them as the model of what reunion will look like, and we don’t like all of what we see.

We’ll pray that this will all work itself out, and reunion can be a reality!

The Pontiff approved a new Metropolitan Archbishop for the Ruthenian Church in the US today. Let’s see if he continues in his recent predecessor’s footsteps, continuing the de-Latinization process. I also think the Ruthenians need to re-unite with their Eastern European counterparts, now that it is possible politically to do so once again. This would likely give them the clout and the structure (hopefully, the same as that enjoyed by the Ukrainians) to be able to truly be self-governing.

FWIW - the Ukrainians and Melkites seem to be making headway, and at least one of the Ruthenian Eparchs in the US were willing to elevate a married deacon to the priesthood a few years ago. Married priests are once again being brought over from the “Old Country” occasionally. However, until we see married seminarians, many will remain skeptical that things have truly changed.

And until then, we will likely still see Eastern Catholic men moving to Orthodoxy in order to follow both vocations - priesthood and parenthood.