Can the Orthodox participate in Catholic Mass? 

Glad it was helpful!

The ancient faith is allegiance to the bishop of Rome. The Orthodox episcopacy is weakened because the true apostolic succession is the one united to the Pope. Is it valid? Sure. Is it licit? Not by a country mile.

@@CatechesisVids When Rome was Orthodox and not in schism it’s good to be in communion. And according to Rome it’s not licit but in reality it’s very licit. Orthodox apostolic succession is not weaker than Rome. It’s way stronger. We’ve retained the ancient liturgies. Just take one quick glance over at you guys and it’s easy to see who has really kept the faith.

For the Same reason you think the orthodox succession is more valid Catholics believe theirs is more isn’t that obvious?

@@CatechesisVids "The ancient faith is allegiance to the bishop of Rome. " That's just not true. Why have Catholics made so many changes over the years if they are so convinced that "The ancient faith is allegiance to the bishop of Rome" ? If your church truly believed that it would remain unchanged.

​@CatechesisVids The Vatican has come out and admitted that not only was submission to the Bishop of Rome not the norm for the first millennia, but have also admitted the documents originally ment to espouse this like the Donation of Constantine were forgeries. Rome does not hold to the ancient faith.

Even if you were correct, the Pope declares what is licit by his authority. So your argument is irrelevant.

​@@CatechesisVids There is no authority to declare what is licit by oneself except in despotism. It seems you're admitting the pope is a despot.

I'm admitting the Pope to be the sovereign of the church on earth, and Christ's vicar. Greater than any other bishop, and the proto bishop from whom all church law flows. As Ad Sinarum gentem says, “The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity.”

@@CatechesisVids The party line. I've heard it before.

@@CatechesisVidsExactly! Exactly the same claim made by king Charles and every monarch from Charlemagne that’s rooted in the Emperor worship of the Ancients and is completely contrary to Scripture. St. Peter, the greatest Apostle never dictated that Judas should be replaced or decided unilaterally who that replacement should be. He didn’t hold authority over James whose jurisdictions was Jerusalem during the council that confronted the controversy of gentile conversion. Surely there was a Christian community I.e., Church in Rome. But why wasn’t this matter settled in one of the other Churches established by Peter if he were the primate Apostles. Neither Peter nor any of his successors in Antioch or Alexandria or Rome ever claimed or wielded the authority demanded by the Papacy until at the earliest Pope Leo III and never fully realized until the retroactive denouncing of the Eighth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople 879-880 some two hundred years later culminating around the 4th Crusades sacking of Constantinople in 1204 the booty of which still decorates St. Peter’s and St. Mark’s.

Have you ever read the Exodus or the book of Numbers? God establishes precise and varied religious rites all the time in the Old Testament.

@@CatechesisVids Old Testament you say? Christ replaced the Law per Christs own words!

Just the opposite, as Christ said in Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." The specific prescriptions of the canons, liturgical books, and rites of the Church today are decided by the ecclesiastical body of the Faith under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

@@CatechesisVids Jesus came as Gods best and ONLY offer of Salvation precisely because of Sinful Mans inability to ever hope to keep the Law! Man’s good works are as “ filthy rags” to God per Scripture. I oppose any sort of Liturgical Constipation as a source of holiness! I fear we are talking past each other due to your legalism. I see things as simply as Jesus wants us to. I reject cartoon religion no matter how skillfully presented.

Nothing you cite is of scripture, save that Christ is the only means of salvation upon which we agree. Do you deny Christ's own words about the preservation of the Old Testament that I cite above? God is not some alien God in the first testament who becomes "nice" in the second. He is still a God who promulgates laws, even if the ceremonial law of the old covenants is abrogated. The way God administers his unique salvation of Jesus is through (sinful, ordinary) men who God endows especially with his grace. Hence Christ endows the Church with the power to forgive or retain sins from a soul (John 20:23), to bind and loose spiritual matters generally (Matthew 16:19), and the assurance of the Holy Spirit's working in the Church forever in its preaching ministry (Matthew 28:20). Men who follow under Christ's yoke must "endure to the end" (Matthew 24:13) to be saved, for though good works do not merit salvation which is a free gift, acts on earth can merit the loss of that salvation (James 2) or increase merit in Heaven (John 14).