Question about converts to Orthodoxy

[mardukm]

Dear brother Buster,

Yes, of course they would be excommunicated. As others have pointed out, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not in communion. That is what “excommunication” basically means.

I suspect the real question you are asking is “are those who leave the Catholic Church CONDEMNED TO HELL.” This is a different question altogether. The answer is either “No” or “We don’t know, and leave them to the mercy of God.”

The Catechism states that those who leave the Catholic Church knowing she is the true Church Christ established are in danger of damnation. So far, I’ve never personally met a single convert to Orthodoxy who truly understood what the Catholic Church is and what she teaches (they may be out there, but I’ve never met one).

The only ones who I suspect might fall under the category given by the Catechism are those who leave the Catholic Church for the sake of fear, marriage, or because they could not adhere to her moral teachings. Only God truly knows the motive in a person’s heart for his or her actions.

Blessings,
Marduk

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…

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Dear brother Buster,

Yes, of course they would be excommunicated. As others have pointed out, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not in communion. That is what “excommunication” basically means.

I suspect the real question you are asking is “are those who leave the Catholic Church CONDEMNED TO HELL.” This is a different question altogether. The answer is either “No” or “We don’t know, and leave them to the mercy of God.”

The Catechism states that those who leave the Catholic Church knowing she is the true Church Christ established are in danger of damnation. So far, I’ve never personally met a single convert to Orthodoxy who truly understood what the Catholic Church is and what she teaches (they may be out there, but I’ve never met one).

The only ones who I suspect might fall under the category given by the Catechism are those who leave the Catholic Church for the sake of fear, marriage, or because they could not adhere to her moral teachings. Only God truly knows the motive in a person’s heart for his or her actions.

Blessings,
Marduk

I Love It When You Are Blunt And Get To The Essence Of The Issue, MardukM. :thumbsup:

 

[Lancer]

**For your consideration… **
First…from James Likoudis (former Greek Orthodox)…an excerpt of His Bio…

A convert to the Catholic Church in 1952, Mr. Likoudis has since devoted a great deal of his efforts to foster the reunion of the Eastern Orthodox churches with the Catholic Church. His book “Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism” (2nd revised edition, 1992) dealing with historical and theological issues raised by Eastern Orthodoxy, witnesses to the author’s longstanding preoccupation with ecumenism and his desire for the full reconcilation of the separated Byzantine Greco-Slav church with the Chair of Peter.
His second work on ecumenism and Orthodoxy is: “The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church” which is a powerful refutation of objections to the Papacy made by Protestants and Eastern Orthodox and an impressive demonstration of the evidence for the universal jurisdiction of the Pope over the entire Church, both East and West during the first Millennium of the Church’s history.

(Bio credo.stormloader.com/jamlibio.htm)

Second…links to two Catholic Answers Radio Q&A shows with Dr. Likoudis

Sep 8, 1999 3:00 PM
The Eastern Orthodox Church
James Likoudis

catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=&event=1076&date=1999-09-08

Dec 9, 2009 4:00 PM
Eastern Orthodoxies
James Likoudis

catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=&event=6025&date=2009-12-09

**Third…an excerpt (with link to the complete) reply to a lapsed Catholic…now Eastern Orthodox
**

**Reply to a Lapsed Catholic, now Eastern Orthodox ** By JAMES LIKOUDIS The Catholic Church has always acknowledged that the separated Eastern churches have, by the Providence of God, retained almost the entire orthodox faith in its integrity (whatever the negations of individual theologians or local Councils and Synods), but it has also professed that the fullness of orthodoxy is to be found only where the indefectible faith of Peter is safeguarded by the See of Peter. Only the Catholic Church maintains the visible unity of the Church as understood in the ancient patristic Church. There can be no fullness of orthodoxy without the Pope, and that is the evidence of all Church history during the First Millennium when various heresies were successively supported by hundreds of bishops. It was only communion with the See of Peter which preserved orthodoxy in the East when patriarchs and bishops fell into heresy.
credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/eocritic.htm

**Fourth…from the Catechism:**833 The phrase “particular Church,” which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful **in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession.313 These particular Churches "are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists."314
834 ** Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome "which presides in charity."315 "For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord."316 Indeed, "from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her."317

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches**,** this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

**Lastly…my “2 cents”…after reading these parts of the Catechism…I do not believe that it is the teaching/position of the Catholic Church that it is “OK” for a Catholic to “switch” to an Orthodox Church…which is not in communion with the Pope…to an Eastern Rite Catholic Church…no problem…but to an Orthodox Church…is a “serious decision” as it removes the person from communion with Peter…the Pope…the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Again…for your consideration…

Pax Christi**

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

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.

Rightly So. Good Show.

 

[BusterMartin]

Dear brother Buster,

Yes, of course they would be excommunicated. As others have pointed out, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not in communion. That is what “excommunication” basically means.

I suspect the real question you are asking is “are those who leave the Catholic Church CONDEMNED TO HELL.” This is a different question altogether. The answer is either “No” or “We don’t know, and leave them to the mercy of God.”

The Catechism states that those who leave the Catholic Church knowing she is the true Church Christ established are in danger of damnation. So far, I’ve never personally met a single convert to Orthodoxy who truly understood what the Catholic Church is and what she teaches (they may be out there, but I’ve never met one).

The only ones who I suspect might fall under the category given by the Catechism are those who leave the Catholic Church for the sake of fear, marriage, or because they could not adhere to her moral teachings. Only God truly knows the motive in a person’s heart for his or her actions.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

Thanks for the reply, but I actually am not wondering whether or not someone is condemned to hell. I believe that to ultimately be up to God’s mercy and judgment. What I’m questioning is truly the viewpoint of the Catholic Church as it relates to Catholics who leave the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church.

For instance, an Orthodox Christian, according to the Catholic Church, may receive Communion in a Catholic Church given they are properly disposed to receiving Communion and believe in the Real Presence in the Catholic Church’s Eucharist. However, what if that same Orthodox Christian were someone who, instead of being baptized and raised in the Orthodox faith, left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy? Would that person then be allowed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church provided the same “givens” were true? Or would it be that since they left the Catholic Church they may not receive Communion in a Catholic Church until they come back to Her?

I guess that example is more along the lines of what I’m referring to when I inquire about the standing, in the Catholic Church’s eyes, of Catholics who become Orthodox.

In Christ,

Buster

 

[Pambo]

Hello everyone,

To those who say conversion to Orthodoxy is wrong, please answer this question I am struggling with:

Many Catholics state that converting to Orthodoxy could put one's soul in mortal danger.  If this is true, WHY then has the Catholic Church so strongly encouraged the faithful to familiarize themselves with and to foster a great love for the traditions and spirituality of the East, MOST of which lie outside communion with Rome?  Couldn't they forsee a great many becoming so attracted to the Orthodox Churches as to want to join? :shrug:

Please don’t think I am questioning the wisdom of the Church’s invitation to search Eastward! I am grateful beyond words! I ask this question because I myself am extremely drawn to Orthodoxy and greatly struggle with my conscience about these issues!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

For instance, an Orthodox Christian, according to the Catholic Church, may receive Communion in a Catholic Church given they are properly disposed to receiving Communion and believe in the Real Presence in the Catholic Church’s Eucharist.

We must state this correctly.

The Church says that any properly disposed Orthodox may approach to receive the Eucharist but that they must follow what their Church says.

I know of no Orthodox jurisdiction that allows for this. There may be individual cases but no Orthodox Church says that their faithful may receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.

So while the issue may be there, it is not truly. After all, a Catholic who knows that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of the Truth yet still leaves and joins the Orthodox, they would not be “properly disposed” as they would be in a state of excommunication and schism. That is if they truly knew it, as Markdum points out

 

[PennyinCanada]

Marduk,

Thanks for the reply, but I actually am not wondering whether or not someone is condemned to hell. I believe that to ultimately be up to God’s mercy and judgment. What I’m questioning is truly the viewpoint of the Catholic Church as it relates to Catholics who leave the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church.

For instance, an Orthodox Christian, according to the Catholic Church, may receive Communion in a Catholic Church given they are properly disposed to receiving Communion and believe in the Real Presence in the Catholic Church’s Eucharist. However, what if that same Orthodox Christian were someone who, instead of being baptized and raised in the Orthodox faith, left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy? Would that person then be allowed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church provided the same “givens” were true? Or would it be that since they left the Catholic Church they may not receive Communion in a Catholic Church until they come back to Her?

I guess that example is more along the lines of what I’m referring to when I inquire about the standing, in the Catholic Church’s eyes, of Catholics who become Orthodox.

In Christ,

Buster

Thank you Buster. I was wondering the same thing since recent friends have ‘moved over’ to the Orthodox from the Eastern church. If they were to attend an Eastern church on a Sunday, say for a special occasion, I too wondered if they would/should go up for communion.
I wasn’t wondering if they were ‘going to Hell’ or not. They have their reasons for the change which they haven’t discussed with me, nor will I ask.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friends,

I was intrigued by the issue of the Orthodox not extending the same privileges re: Communion et al. to the Catholics as occurs vice-versa.

But there are Catholics who are traditionalist and even “triumphalist” who would have the same attitude toward the Orthodox.

Again, when we say the Pope is the guarantor of unity - may I ask where that unity is expressed? Don’t know about your parishes, but in my neck of the woods there are all kinds of disagreements among Catholics re: liberal vs conservative and the like. I have found that I can’t even speak to my former Catholic school teachers, all priests, because they think I’m “over the top wacko conservative.” (I find that hurtful, not what they think of me, but that they find me off limits because I call a church canon - a church canon.).

So if being in union with the Pope is a guarantor of unity - I would like to know where that unity really is today.

In addition, the primacy of the Pope was, in the first millennium, exercised very much like how the Patriarch of Constantinople exercises his primacy - he will only intervene in other Churches’ business when a canon is broken or when called upon to do so.

The idea that the Pope is “over” the Eastern Catholic Churches in the full jurisdictional sense as he is over the Latin Church is a very recent (in terms of church history) phenomenon.

The UGCC Synod now tends to act as a Particular Church, only informing Rome AFTER it has taken an action (e.g. when Patriarch Lubomyr established the feast of the translation of the relics of St Nicholas Charetsky - “Blessed” meaning a saint with local veneration only is foreign to the hagiographical traditions of the East where the local saint is just that, a “saint” whose cultus then grows in terms of width of jurisdictional territory until he or she becomes “universal.”

As one Redemptorist acquaintance indicated, there is no reason why real unity between the Churches cannot be had again if Rome “adapts” papal infallibility to the ratification of decisions of Ecumenical Councils and papal jurisdiction in such a way as it does not “offend” the right of Particular Churches to govern themselves.

Alex

 

[Seamus_L]

Catholic-Orthodox relations are a one way street. The Orthodox simply do not see the Catholic Church as Catholic hierarchs see the Orthodox.

 

[malphono]

As one Redemptorist acquaintance indicated, there is no reason why real unity between the Churches cannot be had again if Rome “adapts” papal infallibility to the ratification of decisions of Ecumenical Councils and papal jurisdiction in such a way as it does not “offend” the right of Particular Churches to govern themselves.

Yes, but let me add this: not only the concept of infallibility, but also that of primacy. In any case, all of that sounds suspiciously like the “High Petrine view” (to which I subscribe, but doubt that it will come to pass in Rome) which has been discussed numerous times in this forum.

 

[chrisb]

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

Grace and Peace,

I agree with them 100%. I’ve managed to hold out as a struggling Roman Catholic but the draw to Orthodoxy is very very powerful. Without a Pope, they’ve managed to hold their faith together for 1000 years and we’ve managed to just about loss it in 50…

I simply stand ashamed when I see what my daughter is being taught in her Catechesis Classes.

 

[Montalo]

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.

accepting this as true, at what point does one enter into schism?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

accepting this as true, at what point does one enter into schism?

When they physically leave communion with the Holy Father. The Canon is very clear.

 

[chrisb]

When they physically leave communion with the Holy Father. The Canon is very clear.

I don’t think you can have it both ways… either the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of the Eastern Orthodox Churches apart from communion with the Pontiff or it does not. Which is it?

 

[Aramis]

I don’t think you can have it both ways… either the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of the Eastern Orthodox Churches apart from communion with the Pontiff or it does not. Which is it?

Validity, Licity and Schism are 3 very separate issues. The Orthodox not in Communion with Rome, but in communion with their traditional patriarchs, are both valid and licit.