It is my understanding that there is a fundamental difference between the Catholic and Orthodox nature of priesthood and how priesthood is lived and experienced.
Anecdotally, in Orthodoxy, preisthood is seen primarily as a form of service to the Church and is always entered into with the blessing of a particular bishop - a bishop who will
personally bless the candidate to become a seminarian and then a priest, and under whose authority the preist is to function. Likewise, in Orthodox monasteries, one is ordained to the preisthood to fill a functional need of the monastery. Being a monk and being a priest are quite different. In Catholicism the idea of "calling" and "having a vocation" seems to predominate, and that this priesthood can function in a variety of ways (diocesan or religious). It seems a much more subjective way of approaching the priesthood. (I say this because the Orthodox seminarians I have met do not constantly speak of "having a vocation" whilst this does seem to be the mantra of the RC's I have read about).
Likewise, though both churches count ordination as a sacrament, in Orthodoxy, one must have the blessing of the bishop in order to Liturgize and to minister the sacraments. "Once a priest, always a priest" doesn't appear to have the same meaning in the Orthodox Church since once a man has been "laicized" or "defrocked" he is unable to celebrate the mysteries, since this must be done under and with the blessing of an Orthodox bishop. If an ex-Orthodox priest did such a thing it would be rejected as meaningless, or worse. Whereas the Catholic priest who 'leaves' still has "the priesthood" though his sacraments would be technically illicit, they would still be valid?
I had dinner a while back with my old priest (Byzantine-rite RC) and tried talking about this with him but he didn't get it?
Does anybody?!
I'm curious if the Eastern Christians in union with Rome accept the RC theological understanding of priesthood or the Orthodox understanding. There seems (to me) to be a very significant difference in the nature of the priesthood, if what I write is correct.

In Christ,
John

Oh, please forgive my numerous typo's (priest or preist!)

John

John,

I think you are on to something, but slightly exagerrating.

I have heard Orthodox speak of the "vocation crisis" and "decrease in vocations", etc -- so I think the word is used in East and West.

Having said that, in the Eastern view the priest is the person who serves the liturgy in lieu of the Bishop. The principal celebrant of the Liturgy is the Bishop, and the priest is there to play the role of the Bishop, in sacramental terms, in the liturgies in the local parishes for practical reasons.

The issues as to valid/licit vs. invalid/illicit relate to Latin-influenced legal ideas. The jist is that the Roman catholic church views sacramental life as either "valid" or "invalid" based on a set of objective criteria, including a validly ordained priest celbrating the sacrament. The Orthodox view is that sacramental life is not dependent upon everything on a checklist being fulfilled, but is instead intimately connected with the Church -- sacraments performed outside the Church or against the laws of the Church are not effective in any meaningful way, for Orthodox, because all sacramental life comes from and is lived within the Church. This is why the Orthodox are reluctant to admit that Catholics have effective sacramental life -- because in Orthodox minds, sacraments performed outside the Church (meaning the Orthodox Church) are not effective.

As Eastern Catholics, we take a middle position here. We believe that the "Church" includes both those who are in communion with Rome as well as the Orthodox -- so that the sacramental life of the Orthodox is effective as is the sacramental life of the Catholic Church, all parts of it included. We would be reluctant to reduce the issue to a matter of valid vs. invalid, as this reflects more of a Latin ethos, but, at the same time, we do not hold the Orthodox view that the Church is limited to the collection of local churches that calls itself the "Orthodox Church." Effective sacramental life takes place within, and draws its efficacy from, the Church -- and that "Church" includes the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.

Orientale

John P.,

Your questions are valid and worthy of discussion but I would like to first point out that there is no such creature as a "Byzantine-Rite RC". The term "Byzantine-Rite Roman Catholic" is incorrect as well as considered derogatory. It is used mostly by uneducated Roman Catholics and by Orthodox who try to insist that Byzantine Catholics share no kinship with (Byzantine) Orthodox. Byzantine Catholics are members of the Byzantine Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that both are in full communion with one another does not change this.

In both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism a priest cannot function apart from his bishop. Also in both it is normal to discuss the ideas of 'vocation' and 'calling'; although, as you point out both Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics have been almost more likely to pick a person to fill the need rather than to openly encourage vocations. Part of this might be because of the existence of priestly families. If the priest had children there was a good chance that one of them would wind up a deacon or priest.

There is no hard and fast rule about the legitimacy or non-legitimacy of Sacraments effected by Orthodox priests who have been laicized. A priest certainly needs the blessing of his bishop and those who have left the Church are considered unable to effect the Sacramental Mysteries. But a priest who strays into heresy (and thereby separates himself from the Church) is not ordained again when he repents and comes back into the Church. This case, however, is different from those who are laicized and remain in the Church. If anyone has specific directives from a council or synod on how these issues are handled within Orthodoxy, please post it. My understanding is that the Byzantine Catholic practice on this is the same to the Orthodox but that overall the Eastern and Western practices are not really that far apart (even if expressed differently). I would also suspect that the Lain ideas have established some roots among Byzantines, especially among the laity.

Curiously, while there are some Orthodox who do not recognize the efficacy of Catholic Sacraments, the majority of the Orthodox do. The recent paper by the North American Orthodox / Catholic Dialogue (available on this site) held this past June at St. Vladimir's outlines this clearly. I suspect that the diversity within Orthodoxy will also extend to various canons on how these situations are handled within Orthodoxy.

Thank-you both for your very well stated replies. Although I am Orthodox I have a fondness for my old Byzantine-rite Catholic Church (hence, dinners with my old priest - with whom I am still friendly). The differences between the two (Orthodox and Catholic) continue to pop up at me every once and awhile. And then as you imply - there is the "middle way" of being an Eastern Catholic. I cannot accept that way, neither in ecclesiology (are there any Holy Fathers or saints in Orthodoxy who believed in such a thing?) nor spiritually, but I do see much good in common (as I also see so much that separates). Thanks for your answers - John