OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 21, 2014, 02:21:27 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox view of Roman Catholic orders  (Read 7377 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« on: October 03, 2002, 05:04:19 PM »

What is the Orthodox view of Roman Catholic orders?  

If I were to convert to Holy Orthodoxy, would I need to be babtized, chrisated, etc.?

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2002, 05:10:25 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Welcome back Joe,

     It differs by jurisdiction. While many, if not most jurisdictions would welcome you into their fold by chrismnation, others would also require you to be baptised as well. God Bless!
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2002, 05:12:14 PM »

Thanks Nik!  I am sure I will learn alot by being here.  

Joe  Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2002, 06:07:41 PM »

What is the Orthodox view of Roman Catholic orders?  

I am in the midst of a discussion on this very subject with an OCA archdeacon and a tonsured ROCOR reader.  The following is a real story.

A former Roman Catholic priest requested "laicization" (return to the "lay" state) and then married a former Roman Catholic nun.  Both were attracted to Eastern Christianity and began serving as cantor and choir director in a Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish.

This introduction to Eastern Christianity drew the couple into Orthodoxy, where the former Roman Catholic priest was received as a LAYMAN by the rector of the Orthodox church where he was chrismated.  This man was quite happy to be an Orthodox layman.

However, the Orthodox priest who received him felt that he was more than qualified to serve in an ordained capacity and encouraged the convert to apply for ordination to the Orthodox diaconate, which the convert did.

After a "review" of the convert's credentials by the jurisdictions's hierarchy, it was decided to receive this former Roman Catholic priest into the Orthodox priesthood by "vesting," without any "laying-on-of-hands," and despite the fact that this man had been received into Orthodoxy as a LAYMAN, this was actually done!

I asked the Archdeacon: "Does this mean that the Orthodox Church recognizes 'Grace' in the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church?"  His answer: "Yes."

I have a problem with the logistics here though.  He was received into Orthodoxy as a LAYMAN.  How can he then be made a priest by simple "Vesting" WITHOUT Ordination, or at the very least, "Conditional Ordination"?

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,291


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2002, 06:38:07 PM »

I have a problem with the logistics here though.  He was received into Orthodoxy as a LAYMAN.  How can he then be made a priest by simple "Vesting" WITHOUT Ordination, or at the very least, "Conditional Ordination"?


Does Orthodoxy have anything akin to the teaching in Catholicism of an "indelible mark" left on the soul by the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, and holy orders?  If so, then once a priest, always a priest, at least in the sense of having that indelible mark.  It wouldn't make a difference, then, if the person in question was received as a layman; at least that's how I see it.
Logged

The New World Order (1943 to present):

Jesuit Provincial > Jesuit Order > Jesuit Superior > Mor < Roman Pontiff < Illuminati Families < Holy See < UN
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2002, 07:07:18 PM »

[I have a problem with the logistics here though.  He was received into Orthodoxy as a LAYMAN.  How can he then be made a priest by simple "Vesting" WITHOUT Ordination, or at the very least, "Conditional Ordination"?]

I agree!

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
MKG
Guest
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2002, 07:24:53 PM »

In the OCA's Dioceses of Alaska, the South, and Alaska, RC converts might have to be baptised. Generally, everywhere else it would probably be by chrismation (I would guess the norm) or profession of faith.

The GOA and AOA would probably have either chrismation or profession for Catholics. Eastern Catholics would pretty much follow the same, but probably more professions than chrismations.

Some of the less rigourous ROCOR parishes (not newbie convert ones) might follow a more traditional method of recieving Catholics.

Michael King
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2002, 07:34:12 PM »

Quote
Quote
Quote from: Mor Ephrem
[/quote

Does Orthodoxy have anything akin to the teaching in Catholicism of an "indelible mark" left on the soul by the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, and holy orders?  If so, then once a priest, always a priest, at least in the sense of having that indelible mark.  It wouldn't make a difference, then, if the person in question was received as a layman; at least that's how I see it.  

Orthodoxy teaches, Mor, that the Mystery of Holy Baptism may NOT be repeated.  That being said, I guess one could equate that with the teaching of Roman Catholicism's "indelible mark" on the soul as regards Holy Baptism.  The Mystery of Holy Chrismation is normally administered together with Orthodox Baptism.

However, IF a Baptized and Chrismated Orthodox person *apostacizes* from Holy Orthodoxy and embraces a non-Christian religion, e.g., Islam, the rubrics direct that such a person is to be received back into the Church by *Holy Chrismation*.  So, it appears in these very rare instances that, while Baptism may never be repeated, Chrismation can be.

It is my understanding that the Mysteries (Sacraments) exist only in the Church and not outside of it.  The Church can say that Grace exists where it did not before, e.g., in Baptisms performed outside the Church.  

I find this particular convert's "priesting" by solely *vesting* problematic, however, in that there were time spans between this former Roman Catholic priest's renunciation of his vow of priestly celibacy, his request for laicization, i.e., renunciation of his Roman Catholic priesthood, and his reception into the Orthodox Church as a *LAYMAN* through Chrismation by an Orthodox priest.  That then would be the state in which he "arrived" in the Orthodox Church IMHO: as a LAYMAN.  

How can simple "vesting" by an Orthodox bishop then, without ordination, make a priest?  It is interesting that in order to have been received into the Orthodox Church as a priest from the RCC, the usual norm is: an Orthodox *bishop* would have had to preside simultaneously at his Chrismation and "vesting."  The particular "vesting" in this case is bound to cause confusion among the Faithful, at the very least.  It just seems so illogical to me and makes it appear that we Orthodox are so desperate to "priest" former Roman Catholic priests at any cost.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2002, 07:39:55 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I agree Hypo & 'Doc, (and how nice it is to see both of you out of your self-exiles when it comes to posting at places I have frequented.) it just seems that vesting, especially in this situation just isn't enough. God Bless.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,797


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2002, 08:09:30 PM »

Hello, MKG!

My reply won't shock anyone who knows me.

The short answer to Joe's question is Orthodoxy is agnostic about 'orders' outside itself. If something has the form of orders but is outside Orthodoxy, the bishop, who has the final say in the matter, CAN decide to 'fill in' any grace that MIGHT have been lacking by receiving a man so ordained without another ordination.

That's the way it works with all sacraments received outside of Orthodoxy.

The Orthodox reserve the right to receive a convert by Baptism; few do. I think most bishops will do it if the convert asks.

AFAIK the OCA doesn't REQUIRE reception by baptism anywhere. It's on an ad-hoc, bishop-by-bishop, case-by-case basis.

I think it's wonderful that this priest and former nun didn't turn out to be secular or (worse) quisling dissenter types plaguing the Catholic Church as such too often do but rather became orthodox, starting in a Ukrainian Catholic church. God is at work!

I am not offended that this man was vested as a priest. Throwing around ideas like 'conditional ordination' sounds too Western to me.

Let me put it this way: when this man became Orthodox, any sacrament he received as a non-Orthodox had any possible lack of grace 'filled in' by the Church. So why not acknowledge his priesthood through vesting?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2002, 08:12:39 PM by Serge » Logged

Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2002, 08:38:01 PM »


The short answer to Joe's question is Orthodoxy is agnostic about 'orders' outside itself. If something has the form of orders but is outside Orthodoxy, the bishop, who has the final say in the matter, CAN decide to 'fill in' any grace that MIGHT have been lacking by receiving a man so ordained without another ordination.

That's the way it works with all sacraments received outside of Orthodoxy.

The Orthodox reserve the right to receive a convert by Baptism; few do. I think most bishops will do it if the convert asks.

AFAIK the OCA doesn't REQUIRE reception by baptism anywhere. It's on an ad-hoc, bishop-by-bishop, case-by-case basis.

I think it's wonderful that this priest and former nun didn't turn out to be secular or (worse) quisling dissenter types plaguing the Catholic Church as such too often do but rather became orthodox, starting in a Ukrainian Catholic church. God is at work!

I am not offended that this man was vested as a priest. Throwing around ideas like 'conditional ordination' sounds too Western to me.

Let me put it this way: when this man became Orthodox, any sacrament he received as a non-Orthodox had any possible lack of grace 'filled in' by the Church. So why not acknowledge his priesthood through vesting?

Serge, the problem I have with it is that the man entered the Orthodox Church as a Layman, which was *his* choice.  He had renounced his Roman Catholic priesthood earlier and married while still a Roman Catholic.  Now the Orthodox bishops in question have backtracked through time to when this newly-vested priest was a Roman Catholic priest before his requested laicization from the RC priesthood to fill in the time span with "Grace."  It just seems illogical and is sure to fuel fodder for dissension and confusion among the Faithful down the line.  I know it does with me, and I have great respect and love for the priest who requested this convert to investigate possible ordination as an Orthodox deacon in the first place, but got him vested as an Orthodox priest instead!

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2002, 11:30:14 AM »

What bothers me most about this is that it is against tradition for one in Holy Orders to marry *after* they have recieved the Sacrament.  

Thus widowed Priests are by nature celibate.  

That being said, in RC theology a Priest is a Priest forever.  I know several laicized Priests and much to their dismay I still refer to them as Father when I come across them in the grocery store or elsewhere.

Serge is correct.  Most laicized Priests do become dissenters.  Witness "Priests for rent" and other heretical organizations.  

What Serge said about "filling in the grace" seems logical.  It always bothered me that the RC said my Protestant Babtism was valid.  

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,797


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 04, 2002, 11:51:59 AM »

Quote
What bothers me most about this is that it is against tradition for one in Holy Orders to marry *after* they have recieved the Sacrament.

That's right but 1) bishops can give dispensations and 2) it was right of the Orthodox bishop not to blame this man for a mistake he made when he was not yet Orthodox.
Logged

stavros
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


I'm a llama!


« Reply #13 on: October 04, 2002, 02:04:38 PM »

Quote
What bothers me most about this is that it is against tradition for one in Holy Orders to marry *after* they have recieved the Sacrament.

That's right but 1) bishops can give dispensations and 2) it was right of the Orthodox bishop not to blame this man for a mistake he made when he was not yet Orthodox.

Many Orthodox Bishops base their canonical decisions within the context of pastoral considerations.

By the book--and always by the book--need not always apply....thank God!

We are Greeks...not Latins.

And God love the Latins!

Aleithia,

stavros
Logged

NULL
orthodoxos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


I am a fairly nice guy..who happens of be a Bishop


WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 04, 2002, 03:21:03 PM »

What is the Orthodox view of Roman Catholic orders?  

I am in the midst of a discussion on this very subject with an OCA archdeacon and a tonsured ROCOR reader.  The following is a real story.

A former Roman Catholic priest requested "laicization" (return to the "lay" state) and then married a former Roman Catholic nun.  Both were attracted to Eastern Christianity and began serving as cantor and choir director in a Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish.

This introduction to Eastern Christianity drew the couple into Orthodoxy, where the former Roman Catholic priest was received as a LAYMAN by the rector of the Orthodox church where he was chrismated.  This man was quite happy to be an Orthodox layman.

However, the Orthodox priest who received him felt that he was more than qualified to serve in an ordained capacity and encouraged the convert to apply for ordination to the Orthodox diaconate, which the convert did.

After a "review" of the convert's credentials by the jurisdictions's hierarchy, it was decided to receive this former Roman Catholic priest into the Orthodox priesthood by "vesting," without any "laying-on-of-hands," and despite the fact that this man had been received into Orthodoxy as a LAYMAN, this was actually done!

I asked the Archdeacon: "Does this mean that the Orthodox Church recognizes 'Grace' in the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church?"  His answer: "Yes."

I have a problem with the logistics here though.  He was received into Orthodoxy as a LAYMAN.  How can he then be made a priest by simple "Vesting" WITHOUT Ordination, or at the very least, "Conditional Ordination"?

Hypo-Ortho

I think that the reception of this person into Holy Orders was a Russian one.  There are a lot of Latinizations in the Russian Church.
These are historical and connected to the Westernization under Catherine and Peter the Great.  Such things as "Black Vestments", the use of the "Ego te Absolvo" and reception of clergy by "Vesting", are good examples.  If you ask any Greek or Antiochian Bishop you will not see "vesting" as admittance into Holy Orders.  

The controversy of admittance into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation alone, "might" be the cause of the confusion.  While no Orthodox Christian can say, with any surety, that there is no Grace in Rome, no one  accepts more than a Roman Baptism.  The Orthodox Church doesn't accept the Sacraments of the RCC as the same as the Holy Mysteries of its own.  If it did, we could intercommune.  The issues about baptism, marriage, and ordination can be very confusing, since there are Hierarchs who don't agree.

As to Baptism...Its up for grabs.  The SCOBA churches, Moscow Patriarchate, and (Officially) ROCOR  accept baptisms from the Roman Church, Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church.  So long as it is done with water, 3 times, and in the name of the Trinity, it seems ok.  OTOH, the old calendarists including some ROCOR priests do not.  If you go to the Holy Mountain and are a convert, the Fathers may ask if you received by Baptism.  If not, they may "suggest" a "reparative" Baptism.  
+Elias


Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2002, 05:21:16 PM »

What is the Orthodox view of Roman Catholic orders?  

<snip> <snip> <snip>

After a "review" of the convert's credentials by the jurisdictions's hierarchy, it was decided to receive this former Roman Catholic priest into the Orthodox priesthood by "vesting," without any "laying-on-of-hands," and despite the fact that this man had been received into Orthodoxy as a LAYMAN, this was actually done!

I asked the Archdeacon: "Does this mean that the Orthodox Church recognizes 'Grace' in the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church?"  His answer: "Yes."

I have a problem with the logistics here though.  He was received into Orthodoxy as a LAYMAN.  How can he then be made a priest by simple "Vesting" WITHOUT Ordination, or at the very least, "Conditional Ordination"?

Hypo-Ortho

I think that the reception of this person into Holy Orders was a Russian one.  There are a lot of Latinizations in the Russian Church.
These are historical and connected to the Westernization under Catherine and Peter the Great.  Such things as "Black Vestments", the use of the "Ego te Absolvo" and reception of clergy by "Vesting", are good examples.  If you ask any Greek or Antiochian Bishop you will not see "vesting" as admittance into Holy Orders.  

<snip> <snip> <snip>


This last sentence, Orthodoxos, may solve my dilemma, i.e., "If you ask any Greek or Antiochian Bishop you will not see 'vesting' as admittance into Holy Orders."  Yes, you are right: the reception of this person into Holy Orders WAS a Russian one.  I may be wrong, but I think "vesting" was originally intended in the Russian Church only for Greek Catholic priests who converted to Orthodoxy.  Then it was extended, over the course of time, to include Latin clergy, a further "loosening" of the original act of ekonomia to my way of thinking.

How would a Greek or Antiochian Bishop have admitted this person into Holy Orders?

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
orthodoxos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


I am a fairly nice guy..who happens of be a Bishop


WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2002, 07:23:30 PM »

Quote
How would a Greek or Antiochian Bishop have admitted this person into Holy Orders?

Hypo-Ortho

The GOA, according to several priests I know in the bay area, would have ordained him to the Holy Diaconate. and depending on the level of experience, afterward to the Priesthood.  Of course atleast "some" seminary should have been required.  I don't believe in painting broad statements, but many of the convert clergy I have encountered carry a lot of non- Orthodox baggage.  A couple of years in school MIGHT help...or, a year in a parish filled with Yiayias. <vbg>

When I was in college, a long time ago, I attended an Antiochian Parish.  There was a convert from the RCC who was being ordained to the Diaconate, even though he had been a RC priest.
+Elias
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,797


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 05, 2002, 11:16:00 AM »

Whether someone is received the strict way (Greek and Arab) or economically (Russian) the principle is the same. The Church fills in whatever grace MAY have been lacking in this person sacramentally. How it's done is up to the bishop and according to the situation.

Why is someone who LEFT Greek Orthodoxy pontificating about convert clergy not being Orthodox enough?

I'll take good old 'latinized' Russian Christianity that teaches sodomy is a sin, thanks.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2002, 11:18:45 AM by Serge » Logged

orthodoxos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


I am a fairly nice guy..who happens of be a Bishop


WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 05, 2002, 03:42:11 PM »

Whether someone is received the strict way (Greek and Arab) or economically (Russian) the principle is the same. The Church fills in whatever grace MAY have been lacking in this person sacramentally. How it's done is up to the bishop and according to the situation.

Why is someone who LEFT Greek Orthodoxy pontificating about convert clergy not being Orthodox enough?

I'll take good old 'latinized' Russian Christianity that teaches sodomy is a sin, thanks.

Gee Serge....thanks for your kind comments....If you are looking for a "spitting contest" find another opponent...<VBG>
Perhaps the moderators need to remind you about sticking to the topic?
Economia is an interesting thing....maybe it would be a good topic of discussion...*IF* Serge decided to stay on topic..

Talking about the economia in the administration of Sacraments, if indeed that is what the Russians are doing, proves difficult; because the use of an economia is meant to be a limited issue, not one that becomes a norm.  Perhaps there are some knowlegeable Russian Orthodox who could comment?
+Elias
Logged
dirtyharry667
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2009, 06:53:29 PM »


I asked the Archdeacon: "Does this mean that the Orthodox Church recognizes 'Grace' in the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church?"  His answer: "Yes."

I have a problem with the logistics here though.  He was received into Orthodoxy as a LAYMAN.  How can he then be made a priest by simple "Vesting" WITHOUT Ordination, or at the very least, "Conditional Ordination"?

Hypo-Ortho

Well, I'm not hip on the technicalities of all this stuff, but it seems to me that if the Catholic church is your sister church (remember, Rome used to be just another city that was a headquarters for a Church, along with Constantinople, Jerusalem and the rest) and can trace succession through the apostles.  I would imagine if someone has already been consecrated as a priest, it should be good enough to qualify him to be a priest in the Orthodox church.  This to me is analagous to passing the bar exam in Ohio, being licensed to practice law and being waived in to practice in West Virginia without having to take the bar again. 
Logged

NULL
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2009, 07:02:45 PM »


Does Orthodoxy have anything akin to the teaching in Catholicism of an "indelible mark" left on the soul by the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, and holy orders?

While not certainly true, the most apparent answer appears to be "no". It seems, on the contrary, that we believe that the grace of these Mysteries can be lost.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2009, 07:10:19 PM »


Orthodoxy teaches, Mor, that the Mystery of Holy Baptism may NOT be repeated.  That being said, I guess one could equate that with the teaching of Roman Catholicism's "indelible mark" on the soul as regards Holy Baptism.  The Mystery of Holy Chrismation is normally administered together with Orthodox Baptism.

However, IF a Baptized and Chrismated Orthodox person *apostacizes* from Holy Orthodoxy and embraces a non-Christian religion, e.g., Islam, the rubrics direct that such a person is to be received back into the Church by *Holy Chrismation*.  So, it appears in these very rare instances that, while Baptism may never be repeated, Chrismation can be.

This seems like splitting hairs to me. The numeration of Baptism and Chrismation as two distinct Mysteries among seven is a Western influence that doesn't necessarily reflect the Patristic teaching. Chrismation and Baptism are originally taken as one rite. Chrismation is called "the fullness of Baptism". None of the earliest sources referred to Chrismation as a distinct Mystery from Baptism, but rather actually a part of it. The fact that converts are Chrismated indicates, rather, that they are not regarded as having received the fullness of Baptism itself, and thus Chrismation is rendering a convert legitimately Baptized. As such, it seems evident to me that apostates are regarded as having lost the one Baptism, and that Chrismating them again is an actual completion of receiving the one Baptism again.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2009, 07:15:17 PM »

Hello, MKG!

My reply won't shock anyone who knows me.

The short answer to Joe's question is Orthodoxy is agnostic about 'orders' outside itself. If something has the form of orders but is outside Orthodoxy, the bishop, who has the final say in the matter, CAN decide to 'fill in' any grace that MIGHT have been lacking by receiving a man so ordained without another ordination.

That's the way it works with all sacraments received outside of Orthodoxy.

The Orthodox reserve the right to receive a convert by Baptism; few do. I think most bishops will do it if the convert asks.

AFAIK the OCA doesn't REQUIRE reception by baptism anywhere. It's on an ad-hoc, bishop-by-bishop, case-by-case basis.

I think it's wonderful that this priest and former nun didn't turn out to be secular or (worse) quisling dissenter types plaguing the Catholic Church as such too often do but rather became orthodox, starting in a Ukrainian Catholic church. God is at work!

I am not offended that this man was vested as a priest. Throwing around ideas like 'conditional ordination' sounds too Western to me.

Let me put it this way: when this man became Orthodox, any sacrament he received as a non-Orthodox had any possible lack of grace 'filled in' by the Church. So why not acknowledge his priesthood through vesting?

I pretty much agree with you here.



We often say that "the Holy Spirit heals anything that is infirm" in reference to the grace of the Mysteries.

Chrismation is thus understood as completing Baptism. But I don't see why it wouldn't be viewed also as such with Holy Orders. Should not an Orthodox Chrismation be viewed as the completion of Holy Orders as well?

As such, vesting is not necessarily a recognition of grace in orders outside of the Church, but rather the recognition that those ordinations had proper form and that the Holy Spirit healed those orders through the grace of Chrismation. The only way that I would imagine someone from outside the Church should be "re-ordained" is if the Church is not sure if the form was sufficient.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2009, 07:16:09 PM »


Orthodoxy teaches, Mor, that the Mystery of Holy Baptism may NOT be repeated.  That being said, I guess one could equate that with the teaching of Roman Catholicism's "indelible mark" on the soul as regards Holy Baptism.  The Mystery of Holy Chrismation is normally administered together with Orthodox Baptism.

However, IF a Baptized and Chrismated Orthodox person *apostacizes* from Holy Orthodoxy and embraces a non-Christian religion, e.g., Islam, the rubrics direct that such a person is to be received back into the Church by *Holy Chrismation*.  So, it appears in these very rare instances that, while Baptism may never be repeated, Chrismation can be.

This seems like splitting hairs to me. The numeration of Baptism and Chrismation as two distinct Mysteries among seven is a Western influence that doesn't necessarily reflect the Patristic teaching. Chrismation and Baptism are originally taken as one rite. Chrismation is called "the fullness of Baptism". None of the earliest sources referred to Chrismation as a distinct Mystery from Baptism, but rather actually a part of it. The fact that converts are Chrismated indicates, rather, that they are not regarded as having received the fullness of Baptism itself, and thus Chrismation is rendering a convert legitimately Baptized. As such, it seems evident to me that apostates are regarded as having lost the one Baptism, and that Chrismating them again is an actual completion of receiving the one Baptism again.

I'm not going to discourage you from responding to posts on the site; I just hope you don't expect an answer in this case.  John (God rest his soul) passed away years ago.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2009, 07:16:55 PM »


What bothers me most about this is that it is against tradition for one in Holy Orders to marry *after* they have recieved the Sacrament.  

Again, you're assuming that his orders before his Chrismation were regarded as legitimate Holy Orders.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2009, 07:17:58 PM »


Orthodoxy teaches, Mor, that the Mystery of Holy Baptism may NOT be repeated.  That being said, I guess one could equate that with the teaching of Roman Catholicism's "indelible mark" on the soul as regards Holy Baptism.  The Mystery of Holy Chrismation is normally administered together with Orthodox Baptism.

However, IF a Baptized and Chrismated Orthodox person *apostacizes* from Holy Orthodoxy and embraces a non-Christian religion, e.g., Islam, the rubrics direct that such a person is to be received back into the Church by *Holy Chrismation*.  So, it appears in these very rare instances that, while Baptism may never be repeated, Chrismation can be.

This seems like splitting hairs to me. The numeration of Baptism and Chrismation as two distinct Mysteries among seven is a Western influence that doesn't necessarily reflect the Patristic teaching. Chrismation and Baptism are originally taken as one rite. Chrismation is called "the fullness of Baptism". None of the earliest sources referred to Chrismation as a distinct Mystery from Baptism, but rather actually a part of it. The fact that converts are Chrismated indicates, rather, that they are not regarded as having received the fullness of Baptism itself, and thus Chrismation is rendering a convert legitimately Baptized. As such, it seems evident to me that apostates are regarded as having lost the one Baptism, and that Chrismating them again is an actual completion of receiving the one Baptism again.

I'm not going to discourage you from responding to posts on the site; I just hope you don't expect an answer in this case.  John (God rest his soul) passed away years ago.

Wow, I just realized how old this thread is!
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2009, 07:20:09 PM »


Thus widowed Priests are by nature celibate.

That is a matter of canon law that is not binding in a legalistic fashion. I've heard of a handful of priests who received a dispensation to re-marry once they were widowed.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2009, 07:22:48 PM »


Does Orthodoxy have anything akin to the teaching in Catholicism of an "indelible mark" left on the soul by the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, and holy orders?

While not certainly true, the most apparent answer appears to be "no". It seems, on the contrary, that we believe that the grace of these Mysteries can be lost.

No Indelible Mark of the Priesthood in Patristic Teaching

"....no evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in
Patristic teaching. On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that
a defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back
his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the
defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood."

___________________________________________

"Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity: Some Theological and Canonical
Considerations"


By Professor Constantine Scouteris
School of Theology of the University of Athens

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/scouteris_priesthood_unity.htm


This.... comes to point that the priest does not possess in himself an
indelible mark as if it were a magical seal which grant him a private
efficacy to perform the Eucharist or any other liturgical action, apart from
the ecclesial body. The priestly ministry is rather a charismatic gift to
serve and edify the body of the Church. It is a permanent rank of service
only in union and by the discerning authority of the Church.

The doctrine of the "indelible mark" attained at ordination to the
priesthood seems to have originated in the Scholastic period of the Western
Church. This same conception was at times borrowed by Eastern theologians
thereafter. The teaching purports the grace of ordination as an indelible
irrevocable mark upon the soul of the ordained individual that sets him
apart for priestly service analogous to the Levite rank and the priesthood
according to the order of Melchizedek in the Old Testament. It is
interesting to mention here that the sixth Ecumenical Council in its 33rd
canon condemns the practice of Armenian Christians who had embraced the Old
Testament custom concerning the Levitic rank and did not accept for the
priesthood anyone who was not of this so called "priestly lineage". The
reasoning for the adoption of the Old Testament typology in both cases seems
to be that an identification mark is a constitutive element of priesthood.
In the later case it is conceived as an inherited trait, while in the former
which concerns us here, it is viewed as irrevocably and individually
attained at the ordination rite.

The logical conclusion of the "indelible mark" is that the ordained
individual possesses forever this peculiar mark of priesthood which can
never be removed by anyone nor can it be surrendered in any circumstance. It
is evident that such a doctrinal consideration absolutizes and isolates
priesthood from the event itself of the ecclesial communion. Priesthood here
is distortingly objectified and over-estimated assuming a totalitarian
magnitude. It is imposed over the Church which is unable to deprive the
ordained. individual of its characteristic mark, even if he is unworthy to
maintain the ecclesial grace. In fact this doctrine concerning the indelible
mark divorces the priesthood from its organic context of the ecclesial life.
Thus the ordained person possess a self sufficient power which is higher
than the Church itself And the Church is not able to take back the indelible
mark from an individual even if he is defrocked and excommunicated.

Interpreting the 68th Apostolic Cannon which refers to the impossibility of
repeating the sacrament of ordination16, St. Nicodimos the Agiorite explains
that ordination cannot be repeated because it is done according to the Type
of the First and Great Priest who entered once and for all into the holy of
holies and there granted eternal salvation. Yet, he unswervingly rejects the
doctrine of the "indelible mark" of priesthood and attests that it is the
"invention of scholastics"17. Nevertheless, according to St. Nicodimos, the
doctrine is borrowed by Nicholas Bulgaris, Koresios and many other
theologians of the past century and some still somehow adhere to it today.

Despite the fact that the indelible mark theory acquired dogmatic
formulation in the Council of Trent18, in most circles of the Roman Catholic
Church, after the Second Vatican Council, the foundational framework of
effecient causality and ex opere operato, which gave rise to such an
understanding of priesthood, is reckoned as belonging to a bygone age and
abandoned for a more dynamic and ecclesiological approach of sacrament19.

It should be mentioned in this connection that as far as we know, no
evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in Patristic
teaching.  On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that a
defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back
his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the
defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood. The
canonical tradition that in the case of his ministerial rehabilitation this
person is not re-ordained does not imply a recognition that he was a priest
during the period of his punishment20. It simply means that the Church
recognizes that which had been sacramentally performed and the grace of
ecclesiastical ministry is restored upon his assignment to an ecclesial
community with no other sacramental sign or rite.

Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2009, 07:23:10 PM »


I'll take good old 'latinized' Russian Christianity that teaches sodomy is a sin, thanks.

What are you talking about?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2009, 07:23:58 PM »


Does Orthodoxy have anything akin to the teaching in Catholicism of an "indelible mark" left on the soul by the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, and holy orders?

While not certainly true, the most apparent answer appears to be "no". It seems, on the contrary, that we believe that the grace of these Mysteries can be lost.

No Indelible Mark of the Priesthood in Patristic Teaching

"....no evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in
Patristic teaching. On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that
a defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back
his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the
defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood."

___________________________________________

"Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity: Some Theological and Canonical
Considerations"


By Professor Constantine Scouteris
School of Theology of the University of Athens

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/scouteris_priesthood_unity.htm


This.... comes to point that the priest does not possess in himself an
indelible mark as if it were a magical seal which grant him a private
efficacy to perform the Eucharist or any other liturgical action, apart from
the ecclesial body. The priestly ministry is rather a charismatic gift to
serve and edify the body of the Church. It is a permanent rank of service
only in union and by the discerning authority of the Church.

The doctrine of the "indelible mark" attained at ordination to the
priesthood seems to have originated in the Scholastic period of the Western
Church. This same conception was at times borrowed by Eastern theologians
thereafter. The teaching purports the grace of ordination as an indelible
irrevocable mark upon the soul of the ordained individual that sets him
apart for priestly service analogous to the Levite rank and the priesthood
according to the order of Melchizedek in the Old Testament. It is
interesting to mention here that the sixth Ecumenical Council in its 33rd
canon condemns the practice of Armenian Christians who had embraced the Old
Testament custom concerning the Levitic rank and did not accept for the
priesthood anyone who was not of this so called "priestly lineage". The
reasoning for the adoption of the Old Testament typology in both cases seems
to be that an identification mark is a constitutive element of priesthood.
In the later case it is conceived as an inherited trait, while in the former
which concerns us here, it is viewed as irrevocably and individually
attained at the ordination rite.

The logical conclusion of the "indelible mark" is that the ordained
individual possesses forever this peculiar mark of priesthood which can
never be removed by anyone nor can it be surrendered in any circumstance. It
is evident that such a doctrinal consideration absolutizes and isolates
priesthood from the event itself of the ecclesial communion. Priesthood here
is distortingly objectified and over-estimated assuming a totalitarian
magnitude. It is imposed over the Church which is unable to deprive the
ordained. individual of its characteristic mark, even if he is unworthy to
maintain the ecclesial grace. In fact this doctrine concerning the indelible
mark divorces the priesthood from its organic context of the ecclesial life.
Thus the ordained person possess a self sufficient power which is higher
than the Church itself And the Church is not able to take back the indelible
mark from an individual even if he is defrocked and excommunicated.

Interpreting the 68th Apostolic Cannon which refers to the impossibility of
repeating the sacrament of ordination16, St. Nicodimos the Agiorite explains
that ordination cannot be repeated because it is done according to the Type
of the First and Great Priest who entered once and for all into the holy of
holies and there granted eternal salvation. Yet, he unswervingly rejects the
doctrine of the "indelible mark" of priesthood and attests that it is the
"invention of scholastics"17. Nevertheless, according to St. Nicodimos, the
doctrine is borrowed by Nicholas Bulgaris, Koresios and many other
theologians of the past century and some still somehow adhere to it today.

Despite the fact that the indelible mark theory acquired dogmatic
formulation in the Council of Trent18, in most circles of the Roman Catholic
Church, after the Second Vatican Council, the foundational framework of
effecient causality and ex opere operato, which gave rise to such an
understanding of priesthood, is reckoned as belonging to a bygone age and
abandoned for a more dynamic and ecclesiological approach of sacrament19.

It should be mentioned in this connection that as far as we know, no
evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in Patristic
teaching.  On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that a
defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back
his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the
defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood. The
canonical tradition that in the case of his ministerial rehabilitation this
person is not re-ordained does not imply a recognition that he was a priest
during the period of his punishment20. It simply means that the Church
recognizes that which had been sacramentally performed and the grace of
ecclesiastical ministry is restored upon his assignment to an ecclesial
community with no other sacramental sign or rite.



Thanks.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2009, 07:26:04 PM »


What bothers me most about this is that it is against tradition for one in Holy Orders to marry *after* they have recieved the Sacrament.  

Again, you're assuming that his orders before his Chrismation were regarded as legitimate Holy Orders.


Thus widowed Priests are by nature celibate.

That is a matter of canon law that is not binding in a legalistic fashion. I've heard of a handful of priests who received a dispensation to re-marry once they were widowed.

And JoeZollars hasn't been on the site in a long, long time.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2009, 07:28:12 PM »

Wow, I just realized how old this thread is!

You don't know the half of it!  In the address line above (the one that says "http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11.....") the # after the word "topic" is a sequential number assigned to each new thread as it is created - so you've decided to resurrect the 11th thread in the history of OC.net - there have been 20,703 started since then!!!
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,358


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2009, 07:30:26 PM »

I wonder why this matter is still being debated. Its seems that for the most part the EO Church is agnostic on the matter of Catholic orders but leans more towards the sceptical side. What else is there to debate? Does it really matter? LOL
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #33 on: September 15, 2009, 07:32:23 PM »

I wonder why this matter is still being debated. Its seems that for the most part the EO Church is agnostic on the matter of Catholic orders but leans more towards the sceptical side. What else is there to debate? Does it really matter? LOL

There really isn't much of a debate... Most of the debate in this thread ended nearly 7 years ago.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,358


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #34 on: September 15, 2009, 07:33:09 PM »

I wonder why this matter is still being debated. Its seems that for the most part the EO Church is agnostic on the matter of Catholic orders but leans more towards the sceptical side. What else is there to debate? Does it really matter? LOL

There really isn't much of a debate... Most of the debate in this thread ended nearly 7 years ago.
Thank God. Now let's all move on and enjoy a nice Cape Cod.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 15, 2009, 07:38:07 PM »

Wow, I just realized how old this thread is!

You don't know the half of it!  In the address line above (the one that says "http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11.....") the # after the word "topic" is a sequential number assigned to each new thread as it is created - so you've decided to resurrect the 11th thread in the history of OC.net - there have been 20,703 started since then!!!

I wasn't the one who necromanced it...
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,358


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #36 on: September 15, 2009, 07:52:01 PM »

Wow, I just realized how old this thread is!

You don't know the half of it!  In the address line above (the one that says "http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11.....") the # after the word "topic" is a sequential number assigned to each new thread as it is created - so you've decided to resurrect the 11th thread in the history of OC.net - there have been 20,703 started since then!!!

I wasn't the one who necromanced it...
What does one have to roll on a d-20 to succeed in necromancing a dead thread?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #37 on: September 15, 2009, 09:26:22 PM »

Thank God. Now let's all move on and enjoy a nice Cape Cod.

Thanks. I think I will go do that....next week.  Smiley



Logged
Tags: roman catholic orthodoxy holy orders oikonomia 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.159 seconds with 65 queries.