Question about converts to Orthodoxy

[BusterMartin]

I posted this in another area of the forums but didn’t get many views or responses, so I’m hoping this section might generate more responses. I was wondering if anyone had information regarding the Church’s viewpoint of Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy (not, Eastern Catholicism, but Orthodoxy). What I’m particularly interested in is this…

Since the Orthodox Church is viewed from the Catholic perspective as part of the holy, catholic, apostolic Church, and all sacraments (including holy orders) are valid, would the Catholic Church view someone who converts to Orthodoxy as being excommunicated from the Catholic Church? Or, since they are still part of the Church as a now Orthodox member, would they still be allowed (by the Catholic Church) to receive sacraments in the Catholic Church?

I know these are somewhat weird questions, but I had a high school teacher who did go through this conversion, and it had me wondering what the Catholic Church would think about this. After all, the Catholic Church allows Orthodox who are properly disposed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church…so what if they are a convert from Catholicism? It almost seems like they wouldn’t be excommunicated, but I can’t find documentation about that.

Someone brought up a latae sententiae excommunication in this instance, but would that really happen? I mean, Orthodox who were never Catholic (and don’t accept papal authority) may receive Communion and other sacraments. However, if someone leaves the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church they are then excommunicated. So then two people (one a former Catholic turned Orthodox, one an Orthodox) with identical beliefs (Orthodox, reject Papal authority) would not have the same availability of the sacraments…one would be able to receive and one wouldn’t. Makes me wonder if this situation would have some sort of exception for those converting to Orthodoxy…

 

[twf]

Firstly, it should be pointed out that the Church teaches that the Orthodox Churches are in an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church; in my opinion, it is a bit simplistic to say that Orthodoxy is “part” of the Catholic Church. That being said, I don’t have an answer to your question. From a Catholic perspective, to knowingly leave the Catholic Communion is a serious matter, and, according to Church teaching, grave matter - even to Orthodoxy I would think. That of course doesn’t determine their eternal fate…which only God can judge.

 

[countertenor]

I’ve never seen the words “grave matter” in any Byzantine Catholic catechetical materials.

 

[countertenor]

I’ve never seen the words “grave matter” in any Byzantine Catholic catechetical materials.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Actually, I’ve consulted with Catholic prelates and theologians on this subject and the message I’ve consistently received from them is: Every Eastern Catholic has the right to return to his or her Mother Orthodox Church. Don’t shoot the messenger please.

I’ve met Roman Catholics (as well as Anglicans and Lutherans) who have become Orthodox Christians.

In most cases, they left their former spiritual homes because they preferred the traditionalism of Orthodoxy, a traditionalism they found lacking where they were.

They fell in love with Orthodoxy’s high rituals, iconography, asceticism, clear rules about fasting, church attendance, preparation for Holy Communion, confession before Communion, long services and mysticism. They love the great devotion to the Mother of God, to the Jesus Prayer, the action of the Holy Spirit, the celebration of the Communion of Saints etc.

Interestingly, one of these once remarked, in response to my overtures about the papacy, that traditionalist Roman Catholics tend to disobey the popes while holding to their own papal supremacist views. They want, he said, “their own pope” so what was I talking about etc.

Alex

 

[BusterMartin]

I’ve met Roman Catholics (as well as Anglicans and Lutherans) who have become Orthodox Christians.

In most cases, they left their former spiritual homes because they preferred the traditionalism of Orthodoxy, a traditionalism they found lacking where they were.

They fell in love with Orthodoxy’s high rituals, iconography, asceticism, clear rules about fasting, church attendance, preparation for Holy Communion, confession before Communion, long services and mysticism. They love the great devotion to the Mother of God, to the Jesus Prayer, the action of the Holy Spirit, the celebration of the Communion of Saints etc.
Alex

So I guess that’s the big question for me…what is the standing of those Roman Catholics who left for Orthodoxy? Are they excommunicated, or is the Orthodox Church an exception for this?

 

[twf]

countertenor: The phrase “grave matter” may be Latin terminology, but surely the Byzantine tradition has a notion of sins that are “serious matter”…that’s what the word ‘grave’ means…very serious. Sacred Scripture is clear that some sins are more offensive to God than others. I was careful to avoid the term ‘mortal sin’ and made it clear that the eternal fate of those who leave for Orthodoxy is left up to God - I was just commenting that in general the Church considers it a serious matter to leave full communion with Her.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

If Papal Infallibility is a core dogma in the Roman Catholic Communion, then wouldn’t rejecting it put the person in danger of damnation?

 

[countertenor]

countertenor: The phrase “grave matter” may be Latin terminology, but surely the Byzantine tradition has a notion of sins that are “serious matter”…that’s what the word ‘grave’ means…very serious. Sacred Scripture is clear that some sins are more offensive to God than others. I was careful to avoid the term ‘mortal sin’ and made it clear that the eternal fate of those who leave for Orthodoxy is left up to God - I was just commenting that in general the Church considers it a serious matter to leave full communion with Her.

I know what the phrase means. I was simply pointing out that from a ByzCath perspective the concept wouldn’t necessarily come into the person’s mind. That aside, I’m not sure that it would be “grave” for an Eastern Catholic to return to his Mother Orthodox Church.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

To leave Roman Catholicism for Orthodoxy can mean one of two things:

1. Roman Catholicism is heretical and therefore not the true Church that the Orthodox Church is;
2. Orthodoxy is the “clearest” expression of the true Church (without denigrating Roman Catholicism). The RC dogmas of the Filioque and papal supremacy and purgatory et alia are later and doubtful accretions that would have to go if the Church is ever to be one again alone the lines of the unity of the first millennium.

Either way, there would be a clear break with one Church as one goes over to the next.

People can and do move between the Churches. Ultimately, it is a matter of what one believes and of one’s convictions as to what the Truth really is.

There is one Truth - one ultimately needs to decide what that is. Absolutely.

Alex

 

[smad0142]

Leaving the Church founded by Christ is wrong. Plain and simple. The Orthodox have valid orders, but so do the SSPX the SSPV, the Society of St. Josaphat, some Anglicans with the Dutch Touch and the Polish Pat, the PNCC, some Old Catholics. The list is seemingly endless. But none of them were founded by and intentionally willed by Christ. Any prelate or theologian who says an EC can go to the Orthodox counterpart and incur no guilt is flat out wrong. I am a practicing Eastern Catholic, and I love the Orthodox and pray for reunion BUT that does not preclude the importance of being Catholic. Leaving the Church for the Orthodox would be a public act of living the fullness of the Church of Christ.

I love the Orthodox, I just think we need to be clear in our positions. For example someone else in this thread mentioned how Orthodox may approach a Catholic Priest for Communion. The Orthodox do not extend the same courtesy. I appreciate the forthrightness of the Orthodox position.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Leaving the Church founded by Christ is wrong. Plain and simple. The Orthodox have valid orders, but so do the SSPX the SSPV, the Society of St. Josaphat, some Anglicans with the Dutch Touch and the Polish Pat, the PNCC, some Old Catholics. The list is seemingly endless. But none of them were founded by and intentionally willed by Christ. Any prelate or theologian who says an EC can go to the Orthodox counterpart and incur no guilt is flat out wrong. I am a practicing Eastern Catholic, and I love the Orthodox and pray for reunion BUT that does not preclude the importance of being Catholic. Leaving the Church for the Orthodox would be a public act of living the fullness of the Church of Christ.

I love the Orthodox, I just think we need to be clear in our positions. For example someone else in this thread mentioned how Orthodox may approach a Catholic Priest for Communion. The Orthodox do not extend the same courtesy. I appreciate the forthrightness of the Orthodox position.

Actually, a lot of the Eastern Churches were founded by the Apostles themselves. Unlike the Anglicans, Old Catholics, SSPX which didn’t have pre-existence apart from the Roman Church, the Eastern Churches do. In fact some of them even existed before the Roman Church was founded by Sts. Peter and Paul as they were able to establish Churches in the Eastern part of the empire before reaching Rome.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

For whatever reason the more i hear the term “valid” the more it annoys me. The preoccupation with whether something is valid seems to be missing a point.

I keep hearing a variation of: “Anglicans, orthodox, orientals and so forth are not part of the church and should not be trusted because they err on doctrine, yet they have valid sacraments.”

What does that mean? Why does it matter?

It shows continuity and the presence of the holy spirit. We can dissect apart a mass for proper parts and claim it does not fulfill the requirements for a “Lawful sacrifice” but that misses the point. I s’pose it comes down to whether the people worshiping believe and profess the immutable truth. But what about if they don’t agree with that you consider to be immutable truth, yet, still are enjoned in that same sacrifice at the mass, and the holy mysteries? How can a person be left to ruin if there too is the ministry of the Holy Spirit?

 

[ciero]

So I guess that’s the big question for me…what is the standing of those Roman Catholics who left for Orthodoxy? Are they excommunicated, or is the Orthodox Church an exception for this?

Their status is that they are now Orthodox, and like any other Orthodox they are in communion with the Orthodox and NOT with Rome. If YOU must see that as being excommunicated from Rome that is YOUR business. But why would someone who decided to become Orthodox be concerned if they were in communion with Rome, as they know going in that there is NOT yet communion between the churches? Why would their status be different then anyone else (sharing in communion with both churches)?

 

[BusterMartin]

Their status is that they are now Orthodox, and like any other Orthodox they are in communion with the Orthodox and NOT with Rome. If YOU must see that as being excommunicated from Rome that is YOUR business. But why would someone who decided to become Orthodox be concerned if they were in communion with Rome, as they know going in that there is NOT yet communion between the churches? Why would their status be different then anyone else (sharing in communion with both churches)?

I’m not asking about how I view them, and I’m not asking about how they view themselves. That’s not what concerns me. I’m asking about the official stance the Catholic Church would take with them, and I’m asking because I’m curious. I know the view of the Catholic Church on someone who leaves for a protestant church, but I’m wondering if that viewpoint changes when one of the flock leaves for Orthodoxy. I started thinking about the situation, and it had me puzzled…so I posted here for any known official word from the Catholic Church on a situation like this.

 

[Wesley7]

I’ve considered myself a Orthodox Christian convert from the last 4-5 years. Peace

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I’m not asking about how I view them, and I’m not asking about how they view themselves. That’s not what concerns me. I’m asking about the official stance the Catholic Church would take with them, and I’m asking because I’m curious. I know the view of the Catholic Church on someone who leaves for a protestant church, but I’m wondering if that viewpoint changes when one of the flock leaves for Orthodoxy. I started thinking about the situation, and it had me puzzled…so I posted here for any known official word from the Catholic Church on a situation like this.

No official word that I know of but the excommunications between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are lifted and the Vatican is bending over backwards in its relations with the Orthodox (sometimes with a cold shoulder aimed at the EC’s).

Given this, it really isn’t an issue at all with the Catholic Church or so it would most definitely appear.

Alex

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Canonically someone who leaves the Catholic Church for one of the Orthodox Churches is guilty of schism.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And in the estimation of Orthodoxy, the Roman church is heretical . . .

This would apply more readily to Latin Catholics who leave the Roman obedience.

Alex

 

[centurionguard]

Canonically someone who leaves the Catholic Church for one of the Orthodox Churches is guilty of schism.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

But really are the Orthodoxy Churches in ((“total”)) schism?

This I believe should be the real question.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy

The biggest difference, however, is Orthodoxy’s “understanding of the Papal ministry within the Church.”[7] For their part, the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches do not consider the Eastern Orthodox Church to be schismatic and heretical, only “defective” for not accepting the universal jurisdiction of the See of Rome. At the same time, Rome’s document Dominus Iesus calls Orthodox Churches “true particular churches”: “an unusual use of ‘true’ referring to any but the Catholic Church.” [8] Needless to say, Rome recognizes that Orthodoxy has valid sacraments and full apostolic succession. Recent declarations between the two churches have also brought the two churches even closer together. For example, a joint commission of Orthodox and Catholic theologians agreed that the Pope is “protos among the patriarchs,”[9], or at any rate would be if the Orthodox and Catholic churches were reunited. But disagreements about the extent of his authority continue, and the Orthodox firmly reject papal infallibility. See also Papal primacy. The Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue reached the agreement in a meeting in Ravenna, Italy, in October 2006.[10] The Orthodox believe that among the five Patriarchs and ancient Patriarchates (i.e., Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), a special place belongs to Rome, a “primacy of honor,” not of supremacy.[11] However, to disassociate the “See of Rome” from this “equalisation,” Benedict XVI recently dropped the title “Patriarch of the West,” seeing the designation as an attempt to Orientalize Western ecclesiology.[12] However, Benedict still considers the five Sees, dating back to the first millennium, to be "Sister Churches within a certain ecumenical context.[13]

In Ukraine, Romania, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere there are Greek Catholics who utilize the Byzantine rite but accept the primacy of the Pope. Many of these Eastern Catholic Churches broke away from the Eastern Orthodox communion during the 17th and 18th centuries and established communion with the Roman Catholic Church. The original impetus for this change was often pressure from national rulers sympathetic to Catholicism, but it should be said in fairness that pro-Orthodox rulers have often used pressure of their own to try to push Eastern Catholic churches away from Rome. Most of these churches follow liturgical practices identical to those of the Orthodox Church.