Would it be wrong to encourage a Roman Catholic priest who left the Church to join an Orthodox order?

[Lead_Me_Home]

I was talking my teacher (Presbyterian) one day who asked me about Orthodox christianity. The conversation started because one student did a presentation on Isaac Newton who, was said to be a heretic at his time in England. This was because he was Orthodox, not Roman Catholic or Anglican. When she asked about it I said that he was Catholic he just was not Roman Catholic. I told her that now the Orthodox and Roman Churches are very close now and also the Anglicans to a degree, after the advent of so many extreme protestant denominations. I told her a few differences I know about the Orthodox/Eastern Churches, like married priests.

Then she told me that her brother in law was a Roman Catholic priest and is now leaving the Church because he married her sister in law. (too much information, I thought) She said he is thinking about joining the Anglican church. This is where I became morally unsure.

I contemplated telling her, to tell him about the Orthodox Church but I didn’t because it was a grey area to me. I don’t have anything against the Orthodox Church, I am just familiar with the Latin rite. I thought that it showed a lack in character for the priest to not only go against his vows, but also leave the Church. Because of this I did not say anything more about the Church (Eastern or Roman) to her. I did not think he would be a good priest for either of the Churches.

Was this right or would it be okay for him to join an Eastern/Orthodox Church (as a priest)?

 

[Ghosty]

If he was a priest first and then married, he wouldn’t work out in Eastern Orthodoxy because priests can’t marry. Married men can become priests, however. If he entered Eastern Orthodoxy it would come down to whether or not they accepted his previous ordination to the priesthood. In all likelyhood, however, he might not be viewed as a good candidate for the priesthood given his history, even if they viewed his previous ordination as invalid.

That being said, I would see nothing morally wrong with encouraging someone who left the Catholic Church to consider Eastern Orthodoxy, but I would discourage it if the person held to anti-Catholic views. This is because the path towards reunion is not served by people with a lot of bitterness switching to the other Churches, in either direction.

On a side note, Isaac Newton wasn’t Orthodox, he was Arian and Deist, and he denied the existence of the Trinity. He also believed in an absolute literal reading of Scripture; he was about as far from Orthodox as it’s possible to get and still be nominally considered a Christian.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Hesychios]

I was talking my teacher (Presbyterian) one day who asked me about Orthodox christianity. The conversation started because one student did a presentation on Isaac Newton who, was said to be a heretic at his time in England. This was because he was Orthodox, not Roman Catholic or Anglican. When she asked about it I said that he was Catholic he just was not Roman Catholic. I told her that now the Orthodox and Roman Churches are very close now and also the Anglicans to a degree, after the advent of so many extreme protestant denominations. I told her a few differences I know about the Orthodox/Eastern Churches, like married priests.

Then she told me that her brother in law was a Roman Catholic priest and is now leaving the Church because he married her sister in law. (too much information, I thought) She said he is thinking about joining the Anglican church. This is where I became morally unsure.

I contemplated telling her, to tell him about the Orthodox Church but I didn’t because it was a grey area to me. I don’t have anything against the Orthodox Church, I am just familiar with the Latin rite. I thought that it showed a lack in character for the priest to not only go against his vows, but also leave the Church. Because of this I did not say anything more about the Church (Eastern or Roman) to her. I did not think he would be a good priest for either of the Churches.

Was this right or would it be okay for him to join an Eastern/Orthodox Church (as a priest)?

If he knows and understands Orthodox theology it should be OK in my opinion. Far better than Anglican.

It has happened before that Latin priests have married, and then become Orthodox. But I believe they should ideally be laicized by the Latin church first.

Abrogating one’s vows is serious business, and I can imagine Orthodox bishops thinking long and hard over it before accepting such a candidate.

Some Catholics would look at switching churches like that as a damnable exercise, and I certainly can’t comment from their perspective.

 

[malphono]

My opinion is leave well enough alone and keep mum about Orthodoxy. Or anything else for that matter.

I assume the person was ordained a priest in the Latin Rite, so I’m sure he’s aware of the existence of the Orthodox. As I see it, it’s likely that “going Orthodox” wasn’t raised because either (a) the person is not theologically and/or liturgically of that mindset, or (b) he already investigated that possibility (including the so-called “Western Rite Orthodox”) and has already decided not to pursue it for whatever reason.

He’s thinking of going “Anglican” (from the location, I assume that really means Episcopalian)? All I can say is Mazel Tov.

 

[Lead_Me_Home]

He’s thinking of going “Anglican” (from the location, I assume that really means Episcopalian)? All I can say is Mazel Tov.

Thanks. I’m just wondering I use Anglican and Episcopal interchangeably. I usually use Episcopal when describing those churches that I know, but for some reason I thought it was just a southern term. When one says Anglican must you be referring to those churches specifically in England. Beets me.

Oh and about Isaac Newton I thought that sounded “fishy” but that’s what sparked the conversation.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Isaac Newton was NOT Orthodox, or anything close to it, as in his own beliefs he seems to have been an Arian.

 

[malphono]

Thanks. I’m just wondering I use Anglican and Episcopal interchangeably. I usually use Episcopal when describing those churches that I know, but for some reason I thought it was just a southern term. When one says Anglican must you be referring to those churches specifically in England. Beets me.

Oh and about Isaac Newton I thought that sounded “fishy” but that’s what sparked the conversation.

In the US it’s called the Episcopal Church. It’s part of the “Worldwide Anglican Communion” (well, at least technically it still is … I think. Lots of strange divisions within that group these days.)

 

[Bible_Reader]

I’m quite certain that almost all Catholic priests are well aware of the Orthodox church and of the various marriage practices of different denominations.

 

[Aramis]

I’m quite certain that almost all Catholic priests are well aware of the Orthodox church and of the various marriage practices of different denominations.

I’ve met Roman priests not even aware of the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches… so don’t be so certain.

Priestly formation isn’t required to include comparative religions, and often doesn’t. Several priests ordained in the Philippines were quite shocked to hear about Byzantine Catholocism… one outright called it a heresy. (The pastor of the parish he was subbing in soon quietly corrected him.)

 

[Bible_Reader]

I had understood that training in Church history was a mandatory part of Priestly formation, e.g., paragraphs 169, 202, 210, and especially 223 of the Program of Priestly Formation, Fifth Edition, 2006 (USCCB)

Here is paragraph 223: Courses in theology, history, and liturgy, where appropriate, should include the role and contribution of the Eastern Churches

(footnote: See Congregation for Catholic Education, *Circular Letter Concerning Studies of the Oriental Churches *1987)

 

[Patchunky]

Abrogating one’s vows is serious business, and I can imagine Orthodox bishops thinking long and hard over it before accepting such a candidate.

I know one man who was laicized by the Byzantine Catholic Church, married and then “ordained” by ACROD all in the span of 10 days…

 

[Aramis]

I had understood that training in Church history was a mandatory part of Priestly formation, e.g., paragraphs 169, 202, 210, and especially 223 of the Program of Priestly Formation, Fifth Edition, 2006 (USCCB)

Here is paragraph 223: Courses in theology, history, and liturgy, where appropriate, should include the role and contribution of the Eastern Churches

(footnote: See Congregation for Catholic Education, *Circular Letter Concerning Studies of the Oriental Churches *1987)

That’s the USCCB. Many priests in the US took their formation in their native countries. I’ve seen, in Anchorage, priests from 5 countries who have served in the Archdiocese of Anchorage… Nigeria, Ireland, the Phillipines, Canada, Mexico…

Remember, the USCCB is NOT the whole of the church.

 

[Hesychios]

I know one man who was laicized by the Byzantine Catholic Church, married and then “ordained” by ACROD all in the span of 10 days…

Hmmm . Well, that’s longer than nine days! :juggle:

 

[Ignatios]

…Then she told me that her brother in law was a Roman Catholic priest and is now leaving the Church because he married her sister in law…

Hmmm… I wonder in what church did he get married?
And assuming that he got married by the justice of peace, while he is a RC preist… Boy…what a mess that would be.

If my first assumption is true, then let him go to the same church that he was married in, I don’t think or I hope it is not a RCC though.

And if my second assumption is true, then, I guess he doesnt belong to anything that it calls itself a church …
But after all we shouldnt judge others, besides if “he” doesnt go to the church to repent, then what the Church is for, the righteous?.. I Beleive since he is a sinner than he belongs to the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD because we all are sinners there and need a “hospital=Church” to be healed.

GOD bless †††