Roman Catholic priest to transfer to Orthodoxy

[Ion]

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.

From the :
JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION
OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I

DECEMBER 7, 1965

.
.
.

B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.
.
.
.

 

[Cavaradossi]

From the :
JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION
OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I

DECEMBER 7, 1965

.
.
.

B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.
.
.
.

This does not rescind the anathematisms attached to union councils like Lyons and Florence, nor the anathematisms attached to anti-union councils, like Blachernae

 

[Ion]

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…

According with the statement, any sentence of excomunication that followed the event of 1054 qualifies for oblivion. Doesn’t have sense to cancel one statement and leave active other statements.

Again, does my previous post have meaning?

 

[Rawb]

Ion, you claim to be Orthodox…at least, somehow, in part. I really recommend that before you continue to speak about what The Orthodox Church teaches about these subjects doctrinally in any sort of public forum like this you go to your priest and discuss these issues with him. You’ve had three different Orthodox posters, myself, Cavaradossi, and Nine Two, tell you you are misrepresenting Orthodoxy. That should give you enough pause to realize you aren’t quite understanding something, and your priest is your best bet to clear that up.

 

[Nine_Two]

From the :
JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION
OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I

DECEMBER 7, 1965

.
.
.

B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.
.
.
.

So that’s the one I was aware of. Where are the others? Even if we accept that this revokes all anathemas issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, you still have the other Churches and their anathemas. The EP has no place to revoke theirs.

 

[Ion]

So that’s the one I was aware of. Where are the others? Even if we accept that this revokes all anathemas issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, you still have the other Churches and their anathemas. The EP has no place to revoke theirs.

Well, I can say for sure, the catholic sacraments are valid in eastern orthodox church ond the orthodox sacraments are valid in catholic church. Without full oblivion this is not possible.

There are differences between orthodox and catholics, but it looks like not up to be damned in eternity. If you do believe there is purgatory, thats ok if you are in catholic church, and is not ok if you are in orthodox. I never said the other way…

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, I can say for sure, the catholic sacraments are valid in eastern orthodox church ond the orthodox sacraments are valid in catholic church. Without full oblivion this is not possible.

That’s not quite true. The idea of validity is not quite so cut and dried. Some of what the west calls sacraments are usually viewed as valid, such as baptism. While others rarely. Even when they are rejected, however, it is an agnostic rejection - we do not know of their validity, rather than a certainty.

 

[Ion]

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.)

Maybe if he starts over, all the way up, through scholl?

 

[Ion]

Well, I can say for sure, the catholic sacraments are valid in eastern orthodox church ond the orthodox sacraments are valid in catholic church. Without full oblivion this is not possible.

There are differences between orthodox and catholics, but it looks like not up to be damned in eternity. If you do believe there is purgatory, thats ok if you are in catholic church, and is not ok if you are in orthodox. I never said the other way…

To continue, but I think you have undestood, you must believe all the doctrins in the catholic church to be saved in her. Also you must believe all the orthodox teachings, to be saved in the orthodox church. The whole is ok, even in some parts there are disputes…
In this situation there may be also other oriental churces, which proves their work of salvation through their monks and saints.

 

[Deconi]

To continue, but I think you have undestood, you must believe all the doctrins in the catholic church to be saved in her. Also you must believe all the orthodox teachings, to be saved in the orthodox church. The whole is ok, even in some parts there are disputes…
In this situation there may be also other oriental churces, which proves their work of salvation through their monks and saints.

For mine, taking that statement from Paul VI, you seem to understand Orthodoxy better than the ‘EOs’ here!

I agree with you that the ‘statement’ cannot be true partially and not be inclusive of ALL things it regards, especially up to that point when it was made! The only ‘escape’ would be to be outside of the group - THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS

Interesting…

 

[rinnie]

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 believe they could not. But with that said I believe that even if they leave the Priesthood they are still always considered a Priest.

What I mean by that is, in extra-ordinary situations if someone is about to die, although they have given up the practice of the Priesthood, the orders are forever valid.

 

[babochka]

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

I think we cannot assume that things are uniform in Orthodoxy, even within the same jurisdiction. I have friends (converts from Catholicism) who were re-baptized by the OCA. I also know those who have joined ROCOR and were received by a profession of faith.

 

[babochka]

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.

Is this really your understanding of the Catholic belief of how Baptism works?

 

[Rawb]

I think we cannot assume that things are uniform in Orthodoxy, even within the same jurisdiction. I have friends (converts from Catholicism) who were re-baptized by the OCA. I also know those who have joined ROCOR and were received by a profession of faith.

This is true. In Orthodoxy bishops have much more authority, so yes, even within the same jurisdiction bishops will conduct their affairs as they best see fit. This is eikonomia again, and we trust God to take our intention to heart as we try our best to follow Him.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is this really your understanding of the Catholic belief of how Baptism works?

That is my understanding of how any Catholic Sacrament works. How else can a heretical, apostate priest still be considered a valid priest and can validly consecrate bread and wine into the Eucharist?

 

[dzheremi]

Well, perhaps a little softer way to put that would be to look at the RC idea of “indelible mark” sacramental thinking: That when you are baptized (or confirmed, or ordained a priest, etc.), it leaves an indelible mark on you, marking you as a baptized (confirmed/ordained/etc.) member of the Roman Catholic Church. As the mark is indelible, it cannot be taken away. This is how baptism was explained to me when I was RC. This is not how we view things in Orthodoxy (if I were to leave and repudiate the Orthodox Church and its faith, I would cease to be Orthodox, as Orthodoxy is not a state that I have been placed in or something that has been placed in me that I cannot remove; rather, it is the choice I make to live and believe in an Orthodox manner that makes me recognizably Orthodox to those who guard the chalice and rightly divide the word of truth, as we say in the liturgy, echoing the second epistle to St. Timothy), but it does explain how there can be episcopi vagantes and the like in the RCC (also how they understand our sacraments as being “valid”, even though we are not in their communion).

It doesn’t really make sense to me (as I wrote, I don’t agree with it), but I can see how it does to them.

 

[rinnie]

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).

I would like to comment on this.

We as Roman Catholics do not look at the Eucharist as a mechanical manner. We look at the Eucharist as we do all of the other Sacraments as an outward sign given to us by Christ for added Grace.

We look at the Sacraments as such a loving and wonderful gift from God that we know we are not worthy of. But we thank him everyday for these great gifts.

When a baby is baptised it is not in a mechanical manner. You can just feel the presence of Christ in the air, you feel so close to God when you see that Priest baptise that baby and that inocent child reaching up like he can actual see God.

You can feel him when you are getting any Sacrament. It is such a great joy and grace given to us from God, and a honor to be a part of.

Even as sad as it is for us, last rites is such a great gift expecially for the dying knowing that are ready to meet God very soon. Our sadness is in the loss, but our reward is in the sacrament.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, perhaps a little softer way to put that would be to look at the RC idea of “indelible mark” sacramental thinking: That when you are baptized (or confirmed, or ordained a priest, etc.), it leaves an indelible mark on you, marking you as a baptized (confirmed/ordained/etc.) member of the Roman Catholic Church. As the mark is indelible, it cannot be taken away. This is how baptism was explained to me when I was RC. This is not how we view things in Orthodoxy (if I were to leave and repudiate the Orthodox Church and its faith, I would cease to be Orthodox, as Orthodoxy is not a state that I have been placed in or something that has been placed in me that I cannot remove; rather, it is the choice I make to live and believe in an Orthodox manner that makes me recognizably Orthodox to those who guard the chalice and rightly divide the word of truth, as we say in the liturgy, echoing the second epistle to St. Timothy), but it does explain how there can be episcopi vagantes and the like in the RCC (also how they understand our sacraments as being “valid”, even though we are not in their communion).

It doesn’t really make sense to me (as I wrote, I don’t agree with it), but I can see how it does to them.

Of course

It was a rhetorical question to highlight the issues of letting Sacraments maintain its full validity outside the Church. And this is why you have womenpriests claiming to be validly ordained because a male Bishop who belongs to the Old Catholics apparently ordained them. We shouldn’t even be asking the question if one can ordain a woman or not, the discussion should have ended with, “were you ordained by a bishop in communion with Rome? No? Then you are not ordained.” And this problem isn’t just with women, so many pseudo-Catholic groups do claim valid Apostolic Succession from breakaway bishops from the Roman Catholic Church, notably the Old Catholics.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would like to comment on this.

We as Roman Catholics do not look at the Eucharist as a mechanical manner. We look at the Eucharist as we do all of the other Sacraments as an outward sign given to us by Christ for added Grace.

We look at the Sacraments as such a loving and wonderful gift from God that we know we are not worthy of. But we thank him everyday for these great gifts.

When a baby is baptised it is not in a mechanical manner. You can just feel the presence of Christ in the air, you feel so close to God when you see that Priest baptise that baby and that inocent child reaching up like he can actual see God.

You can feel him when you are getting any Sacrament. It is such a great joy and grace given to us from God, and a honor to be a part of.

Even as sad as it is for us, last rites is such a great gift expecially for the dying knowing that are ready to meet God very soon. Our sadness is in the loss, but our reward is in the sacrament.

By mechanical I mean that when a validly ordained priest says the words over bread and wine made of the correct ingredients will result in a valid Sacrament regardless if the priest is within the Catholic Church or not.

Mechanical means that just by doing the prescribed actions (and saying words is an action) then you get the same result. Not minding all the other surrounding factors.

 

[ConstantineTG]

A good question here is that does Rome think that Orthodox Sacraments are valid from the time of the Great Schism? Was there any time period where they believed the Orthodox Sacraments to be invalid because of schism and/or heresy?