Roman Catholic priest to transfer to Orthodoxy

[Nine_Two]

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.

In both those jurisdictions I believe it is up to the diocesan bishop. Others may be stricter.

 

[Ion]

I have seen their website…Bunch of crazy old women. So the guys started with a small difference of opinion and ended up well way away…My opinion is the guys lost members then they were willing to accept anything to keep the appearance. There are guys who gave up faith because was not convenient, but to keep up with their conscience they choose this kind of heretic church where they can do their thing. Or socialize…
There is a recent post asking how do you know your church is a good one…
Good question.

 

[babochka]

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.

Yes, this seems to be a more intelligent and respectful way to explain the position of the Catholic Church. Certainly better than stating that the church believes that Sacramental grace is nothing more than magic, conjured up by muttering a magical formula.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes, this seems to be a more intelligent and respectful way to explain the position of the Catholic Church. Certainly better than stating that the church believes that Sacramental grace is nothing more than magic, conjured up by muttering a magical formula.

It is always appreciated when a disagreement is done gracefully and in a Christian manner. While it keeps the discussion charitable and less draining, it is also more effective because of less chance for altercation.

Catholic stating that Baptism is permanent and therefore would always remain Catholic (Baptized), I think, drawn from the promised that when a person believed, he will be marked with the seal of the Holy Spirit.

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:13-14)

Of course that is a Catholic statement where the issue that there are other churches too does not arise.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That is fine, but do we believe that the grace that comes with the Sacrament is still full for someone who has separated from the Church? The Orthodox accept the Catholic priesthood and most will accept a converting priest by vesting. Correct me if I am wrong, but he is accepted as a person into the Church by Chrismation, then accepted as a clergyman by Vesting. But there is still this notion that one who separates from the Church loses the grace, in whole or in part, so that they cannot perform the same function outwide the Church which is intended to be used for the Church and within the Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

That is fine, but do we believe that the grace that comes with the Sacrament is still full for someone who has separated from the Church? The Orthodox accept the Catholic priesthood and most will accept a converting priest by vesting. Correct me if I am wrong, but he is accepted as a person into the Church by Chrismation, then accepted as a clergyman by Vesting. But there is still this notion that one who separates from the Church loses the grace, in whole or in part, so that they cannot perform the same function outwide the Church which is intended to be used for the Church and within the Church.

The way I understand it is that certain sacraments like baptism, chrismation and ordination do in fact leave some sort of indelible mark on the soul. Even if one goes into complete apostasy, he still remains baptized, and the effects of the sacrament, namely, the freeing of the will and the slaying if the old man remain in effect. This is why those who go into apostasy are never received back with another baptism. Ordination is much the same. One may only be ordained to some level of the priesthood once. A deposed bishop may never be ordained again, because ordinations are not to be repeated.

Our disagreement with the Roman Catholics seems not to be over the indelible nature of certain sacraments, but over whether the authority to confer sacraments upon others remains by necessity after one has gone into schism. The Roman Catholics seem to believe that a bishop in schism, so long as he maintains proper sacramental intent, may still perform the sacraments, notably, ordination. We Orthodox on the other hand believe that the Church possesses the authority to declare invalid the ordinations and other sacraments performed by any non-canonical bishop, for any reason.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The way I understand it is that certain sacraments like baptism, chrismation and ordination do in fact leave some sort of indelible mark on the soul. Even if one goes into complete apostasy, he still remains baptized, and the effects of the sacrament, namely, the freeing of the will and the slaying if the old man remain in effect. This is why those who go into apostasy are never received back with another baptism. Ordination is much the same. One may only be ordained to some level of the priesthood once. A deposed bishop may never be ordained again, because ordinations are not to be repeated.

Our disagreement with the Roman Catholics seems not to be over the indelible nature of certain sacraments, but over whether the authority to confer sacraments upon others remains by necessity after one has gone into schism. The Roman Catholics seem to believe that a bishop in schism, so long as he maintains proper sacramental intent, may still perform the sacraments, notably, ordination. We Orthodox on the other hand believe that the Church possesses the authority to declare invalid the ordinations and other sacraments performed by any non-canonical bishop, for any reason.

Thanks! And that has always been my question about the Catholic understanding of Sacraments. How can someone outside the Church have the same intent as someone who is within the Church? I’m disappointed that the Church who loves to define everything to its miniscule detail left something as Sacramental Intent very vague.

 

[babochka]

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.

Of course, it is impossible for a Bishop in Communion with Rome to ordain a woman, as the attempted ordination brings about automatic excommunication. Seems pretty clear to me. There is no question as to the validity of such ordinations by anyone who accepts the authority of the church. To use Latin terminology, there is no valid matter. Those who are asking the question dissent from the clear teaching of the church.

 

[crux_84]

Huh? Not accept RC baptism? Where is the falsehood of:

I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

The Nicene Creed is a Life-giving root.When you alter the root the plant grows up deformed and sick.Around 1054 people who broke off into the Roman Catholic Church added something to the Creed.They said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.(right?)According to the earliest Church Fathers this notion is not a spiritual scientific fact.

 

[babochka]

That is fine, but do we believe that the grace that comes with the Sacrament is still full for someone who has separated from the Church? The Orthodox accept the Catholic priesthood and most will accept a converting priest by vesting. Correct me if I am wrong, but he is accepted as a person into the Church by Chrismation, then accepted as a clergyman by Vesting. But there is still this notion that one who separates from the Church loses the grace, in whole or in part, so that they cannot perform the same function outwide the Church which is intended to be used for the Church and within the Church.

Again, there seems to be little consistency within Orthodoxy. It seems at least one Orthodox Bishop feels strongly that even Chrismation is not necessary for Catholic converts, that a profession of faith and Confession is sufficient.

I would like to point to the reception of St. Alexis Toth (Tovt) of Minneapolis and WilkesBarre. St. Alexis was received according to the rite outlined in the attached document, i.e., by Confession of Faith, Penance, and vesting in the Altar after the Cherubicon. How could it be otherwise? Can one imagine Bishop Vladimir or Bishop Nicholas, the two Russian hierarchs of the day, contravening the established practice of the Russian Church and insisting the St. Alexis be ordained according to the formula for ordaining Laity? (And I may remark that St. Alexis came to the Russian Orthodox bishop in San Francisco in the first place because a Roman Catholic hierarch did not recognize his Priesthood! One may only imagine how history might now differ if the Russian Orthodox Bishop in San Francisco had also refused to recognize his Priesthood and that of many subsequent Clergy of the Church!)
Recently a Hierarch of our Orthodox Church In America received a Priest from the Roman church exactly as our Tradition requires, yet this action was, scandalously, publicly decried by a few clergy and laity of the Orthodox Church in America, and at least one temporarily lost soul went so far as to adopt the custom of the heretical Amish and shunned the Priest that had been received into the community of Orthodox clergy in the prescribed fashion! Dearly beloved and esteemed brother Priests and Shepherds! Let’s always be governed in our conduct by the Tradition of our Church and not by the temporary passions of the day that may splash like waves of the sea of life against the hull of the holy Ship of our salvation, Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Let’s preserve what has been handed on to us! Neither I nor His Beatitude, nor any of the Hierarchs of the Orthodox Church in America are reckless opponents of Church Order or Discipline. We do not “take our cues” from anything but what we have received. The Orthodox practice of receiving Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans as described by the Serbian Bishop Nikodim and the Orthodox reception of Roman Catholic priests as outlined in Nikol’sky are not any sort of indications that our Hierarchy is hostage to ecumenism, branch theory, relativism, positivism, scholasticism, liberalism, indifferentism or any other “ism” conflicting in any way with the Holy Tradition, but a sign of their obedience.

The entire document is very strongly worded and can be found at holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html.

 

[babochka]

Thanks! And that has always been my question about the Catholic understanding of Sacraments. How can someone outside the Church have the same intent as someone who is within the Church? I’m disappointed that the Church who loves to define everything to its miniscule detail left something as Sacramental Intent very vague.

Therefore, being governed, on the question of Baptism done by a nonOrthodox community (obschestvo), by the general injunctions (predpisaniyami) of the councils and Fathers, one may thus delineate the principle of the Orthodox Church: Baptism as something instituted by Jesus Christ may be accomplished only in His Church and consequently only in the Church may it be correct and salvific; however, if other Christian communities located outside the Orthodox Church hold the conscious intention of bringing the newlybaptized into Christ’s Church, i.e., have the intention to communicate to him Divine Grace through Baptism in order that he would become through the power of the Holy Spirit a true member of the Body of Christ and a reborn child of God, then this Baptism also may be considered effective insofar as it is done on the foundation of faith in the Holy Trinity, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, for where such a Baptism is given and received, there it must operate with Grace (deistvovat¼ blagodatno) and Christ’s support cannot fail to be there. Every community that perverts the teaching about God and does not recognize the Trinity of holy Persons in the Godhead cannot perform a correct baptism, and a baptism done in it is not Baptism because such a community lies outside Christianity. By virtue of this, the Orthodox Church recognizes as effective and saving the Baptism of every Christian community located outside Her boundaries, whether it be heretical or schismatic, truly (istinno) done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

This example from an Orthodox source seems to indicate that it is possible for someone outside the church to have the same intent as someone within the church. While the sacrament in this example is baptism, I think the principle can be applied to answer your question.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Again, there seems to be little consistency within Orthodoxy. It seems at least one Orthodox Bishop feels strongly that even Chrismation is not necessary for Catholic converts, that a profession of faith and Confession is sufficient.

Reception by chrismation and by penance are not all that different in reality, because there existed non-sacramental applications of chrism for receiving apostates and heretics (Nicholas Cabasilas witnesses to this practice in The Life in Christ). The practice of Churches which receive Roman Catholics through chrismation is usually also to receive Roman Catholic priests by vesting, which signals that they recognize some validity of Roman Catholic orders, and are chrismating Roman Catholics in the same way that apostates were chrismated again upon reentering the Church, and not as an affirmation that Roman Catholic priesthood is graceless.

 

[babochka]

Reception by chrismation and by penance are not all that different in reality, because there existed non-sacramental applications of chrism for receiving apostates and heretics

I have heard this, but have been unable to find any documents confirming this. Is the rite for non-sacramental chrismation substantially different from sacramental chrismation? Do you know of a source online where I could read the rite?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I have heard this, but have been unable to find any documents confirming this. Is the rite for non-sacramental chrismation substantially different from sacramental chrismation? Do you know of a source online where I could read the rite?

You may find such a use of chrismation for apostates referenced in Cabasilas’ The Life in Christ 2.11, where he writes: It would be fitting were the sacred ordinance to lead them [apostates] back to the baptismal washing and repeat the mystic rites from the beginning, as through they had lost all. Yet is merely signs their bodies with the divine chrism and adds no more and enrolls them in the circle of the faithful.

Also, from the seventh canon of First Constantinople, and from the 95th canon of Trullo, we can see that chrismation was the standard way for receiving converts from certain sects.

Non-sacramental chrismations do not seem to differ externally, at the current time, from sacramental ones, but if we accept Roman Catholic priests by vesting (signalling an acceptance of Roman Catholic priesthood), then it should be true that the chrismation performed upon Roman Catholics upon their entry into Orthodoxy is not sacramental in nature, since they have already been chrismated, but is rather like the chrismation performed upon apostates. All in all, the point I am trying to make is that receiving people from another group by chrismation does not necessarily signal a rejection of that group’s priesthood, although a rejection of that group’s priesthood may be the cause for receiving converts from that group by chrismation. In this way, there is very little difference between the reception of converts by chrismation and by penance, if the former is not caused by a rejection of the priesthood of the group which originally chrismated the convert.