Episcopalian "Mass"

[Brownginger]

I did a quick, unsuccessful search, but I know this must have been discussed many times. I was awake a long time pondering this question after belatedly learning about Fr. Cutie (I haven’t kept up on the news of lost priests). Do the Episcopalians have a liturgy in which there is a Consecration; and, if so, if Cutie is the celebrant, is there transubstantiation? Thanks.

 

[katy]

I did a quick, unsuccessful search, but I know this must have been discussed many times. I was awake a long time pondering this question after belatedly learning about Fr. Cutie (I haven’t kept up on the news of lost priests). Do the Episcopalians have a liturgy in which there is a Consecration; and, if so, if Cutie is the celebrant, is there transubstantiation? Thanks.

I was an Episcopalian for many years and thought it was the same as the Catholic Church, only kind of like the Orthodox or something. At its roots, the Episcopal Church is whatever it says it is at the moment, like most Protestant Churches. In fact, the name used to be Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA. In some Episcopal churches, the looks and actions may be almost identical with the Catholic ones; in others it may lean more to the Protestant.
As for Father Cutie, he has left the Church and has no faculties to celebrate anything as far as Catholics go, except Baptism and maybe marriage. In addition, the Anglican Church, which the Episcopal Church split off from at the time of the American Revolution, does not have valid Orders because they redefined them to be completely different shortly after HenryVII’s time. So, no matter what they wear or do, they are not valid.

 

[Seatuck]

I am pretty sure that Father Cutie still is able to confect the Eucharist if he states the words of consecration the way the Catholic Church does.It would be completely illicit but nonetheless valid. I don’t know if the service that he perfoms does that .

 

[ETEXAS]

I was an Episcopalian for many years and thought it was the same as the Catholic Church, only kind of like the Orthodox or something. At its roots, the Episcopal Church is whatever it says it is at the moment, like most Protestant Churches. In fact, the name used to be Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA. In some Episcopal churches, the looks and actions may be almost identical with the Catholic ones; in others it may lean more to the Protestant.
As for Father Cutie, he has left the Church and has no faculties to celebrate anything as far as Catholics go, except Baptism and maybe marriage. In addition, the Anglican Church, which the Episcopal Church split off from at the time of the American Revolution, does not have valid Orders because they redefined them to be completely different shortly after HenryVII’s time. So, no matter what they wear or do, they are not valid.

Sad as it is…as a Former Anglican…Katy is spot on!!! It one of about 15 SOLID Reasons I left…it is like Jello that has not set! IT is…whatever…whenever…A reed in the Wind if you dig…I could no longer take it…it is “amorphous”… I know it sounds brutal…but I say it with NO ill will! I was a Vestryman…I was A Voting House-Laity Delegate…I was in short an insider…I saw it all…Katy makes an accurate point…sadly…

 

[Spirithound]

…he has left the Church and has no faculties to celebrate anything as far as Catholics go, except Baptism and maybe marriage.

The priest does not require faculties to Consecrate the Holy Eucharist, nor to baptize (although both would be illicit, as he does not do so with the permission of his Ordinary. The validity of his Eucharist depends rather on the form, matter, and intent.
He cannot preside over a marriage either. The priest is not the minister of matrimony; the couple themselves are. The priest is only the witness of the Church, but since this priest has left the Church, he cannot function in that capacity.

 

[curlycool89]

The priest does not require faculties to Consecrate the Holy Eucharist, nor to baptize (although both would be illicit, as he does not do so with the permission of his Ordinary. The validity of his Eucharist depends rather on the form, matter, and intent.
He cannot preside over a marriage either. The priest is not the minister of matrimony; the couple themselves are. The priest is only the witness of the Church, but since this priest has left the Church, he cannot function in that capacity.

He could also hear a confession if someone was in danger of death (or whatever that threshold is, I can’t remember at the moment). Even a laitized priest can do that.

 

[ETEXAS]

The priest does not require faculties to Consecrate the Holy Eucharist, nor to baptize (although both would be illicit, as he does not do so with the permission of his Ordinary. The validity of his Eucharist depends rather on the form, matter, and intent.
He cannot preside over a marriage either. The priest is not the minister of matrimony; the couple themselves are. The priest is only the witness of the Church, but since this priest has left the Church, he cannot function in that capacity.

Greetings. Forgive me if I misread…(not uncommon with me)… my wife and I were Married as Anglicans, I am a convert (duh)…my wife is RCIA…the Church Catholic recognizes our Marriage as “Valid”… unless I misread your Post you seem to challenge this…I am not looking to “lock horns”…I am a laid back sort……I ask more for amplification/clarification. Pax et Bonum.

 

[Spirithound]

Greetings. Forgive me if I misread…(not uncommon with me)… my wife and I were Married as Anglicans, I am a convert (duh)…my wife is RCIA…the Church Catholic recognizes our Marriage as “Valid”… unless I misread your Post you seem to challenge this…I am not looking to “lock horns”…I am a laid back sort……I ask more for amplification/clarification. Pax et Bonum.

Greetings to you also. I do not challenge the validity of your marriage. What I should have said is that the priest in question cannot preside over a valid Catholic marriage unless he has the permission of the Ordinary to do so (and the permission would not actually be given to him, but to the couple seeking a dispensation of form). Catholic priests in good standing do not require this permission; it comes with the territory (the territory being the parish ) . The Catholic Church recognizes the marriages of non-Catholics, even those presided over by a non-Catholic, provided (and I could be wrong on this, as it does not often come up on this forum) that the presider has the authority of the couple’s own denomination to witness a marriage. Since this priest now ministers in the Episcopalian ecclesial community, he may witness their marriages.

 

[Aramis]

I did a quick, unsuccessful search, but I know this must have been discussed many times. I was awake a long time pondering this question after belatedly learning about Fr. Cutie (I haven’t kept up on the news of lost priests). Do the Episcopalians have a liturgy in which there is a Consecration; and, if so, if Cutie is the celebrant, is there transubstantiation? Thanks.

The Episcopal/Anglican Liturgy is not, itself, defective per the texts. A valid priest using it who intends to confect a valid eucharist does so.

In point of fact, the Anglican Use Catholic Missal is adapted from it with only minor changes, and those changes were made to connect to the Roman traditions rather than of need for validity.

Fr. Cutie therefore, if he intends to do so, still confects a valid Eucharist. And commits a grave sin if he does so.

 

[ETEXAS]

Greetings to you also. I do not challenge the validity of your marriage. What I should have said is that the priest in question cannot preside over a valid Catholic marriage unless he has the permission of the Ordinary to do so (and the permission would not actually be given to him, but to the couple seeking a dispensation of form). Catholic priests in good standing do not require this permission; it comes with the territory (the territory being the parish ) . The Catholic Church recognizes the marriages of non-Catholics, even those presided over by a non-Catholic, provided (and I could be wrong on this, as it does not often come up on this forum) that the presider has the authority of the couple’s own denomination to witness a marriage. Since this priest now ministers in the Episcopalian ecclesial community, he may witness their marriages.

OH! Cool! I follow you! Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Brownginger]

I am finding out all sorts of things that I might never have even dreamt of!

As to those who receive the Eucharist as consecrated by Fr. Cutie – I waiver between “awesome” for them and “I pray they may know the truth.” Perhaps the good that will come of this whole ugly situation will be that some of those who are fortunate enough to ingest Jesus will turn to the Catholic Faith or, at least, know that they have been touched in a very special way. They may feel intuitively that this is not what they have been receiving in the past and will long to continue licitly the special relationship they can only have in the Eucharist. Hopefully they will not decide to become closer “followers” of Fr. Cutie because of this and they will pray for his atonement and conversion.

 

[Chatter163]

The Episcopal/Anglican Liturgy is not, itself, defective per the texts. A valid priest using it who intends to confect a valid eucharist does so.

In point of fact, the Anglican Use Catholic Missal is adapted from it with only minor changes, and those changes were made to connect to the Roman traditions rather than of need for validity.

Not quite. The Anglican Use requires the use of the Roman Canon (in a very traditional translation of the Latin) or one of the other three standard eucharistic prayers of the Roman Missal, in their current forms. This was done because the validity of the Anglican eucharistic prayers is dubious. Ditto for the offertory prayers, as there are none in the Book of Common Prayer.

(FYI, the term Episcopalian is actually a noun and should not be used as it is in the title of this thread; the adjective is Episcopal.)

 

[ProVobis]

The Episcopal/Anglican Liturgy is not, itself, defective per the texts.

It is per Quo Primum. Every rite created after 1370 A.D. was invalidated. The old Latin Mass in any unapproved translation would have been an invalid form as well, though it could be used by the laity to follow the liturgy.

 

[Brownginger]

Thanks for the heads-up regarding “Episcopalian.” I looked it up in several dictionaries and I guess it can be a noun or an adjective. However, I probably won’t have much need to use it in either sense in the future – but I will use the preferred “Episcopal” when I do.

 

[Spirithound]

Every rite created after 1370 A.D. was invalidated.

This is not accurate. The various Divine Liturgies less than 200 years old at that time were barred from being celebrated, but in no ways were they declared to be invalid.

 

[ProVobis]

This is not accurate. The various Divine Liturgies less than 200 years old at that time were barred from being celebrated, but in no ways were they declared to be invalid.

I suppose technically that’s true but where does it say that any of them are valid? The Church does supply the validity, after all.This is not a matter that everything is valid until it’s declared invalid. As I’ve mentioned some priest can recite 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 in Latin and claim validity but it doesn’t make it so. See recent thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=573265

 

[Spirithound]

It is per Quo Primum. Every rite created after 1370 A.D. was invalidated. The old Latin Mass in any unapproved translation would have been an invalid form as well, though it could be used by the laity to follow the liturgy.

I suppose technically that’s true but where does it say that any of them are valid? The Church does supply the validity, after all.This is not a matter that everything is valid until it’s declared invalid. As I’ve mentioned some priest can recite 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 in Latin and claim validity but it doesn’t make it so. See recent thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=573265

72 post thread is too long to read.

The Church does not supply the validity of the sacraments, She discerns the validity of the sacraments. Anything that the Church defines infallibly is not true simply because the Church said so, it is true because God says so.

I will acknowledge here that I am not sure exactly how the Ordinary Magesterium of the Church works, but I am certain that the earlier forms of the sacraments were/are protected by the Ordinary Magesterium. Thus, while being illicit to celebrate today, they remain valid.

 

[Aramis]

It is per Quo Primum. Every rite created after 1370 A.D. was invalidated. The old Latin Mass in any unapproved translation would have been an invalid form as well, though it could be used by the laity to follow the liturgy.

Quo Primum suppressed known-to-be valid rites, and a few questionable ones.

The Anglican rite was suppressed not for a defective liturgy, but for a defective succession and ordination… as Ordination is not properly a sacrament in the Anglican phronema.

Having heard several cardinals since 1997 state that the consecration text wasn’t defective in the Anglican missal, and, having read St Tikhon’s assessment (which finds it defective mostly for lack of an explicit epiclesis…), I have little doubt that Fr. Cutie could confect a valid eucharist with the Episcopal missal. It would still be a sinful act on his part, and on the part of any Catholic who participated.

Many Anglicans do believe in the real presence. Not all of those believe in transubstantiation; some believe in consubstantiation, and still others don’t make a distinction.

the AUM restores some elements deleted by the Anglican church; those elements are not ones essential for validity.

 

[Chatter163]

Quo Primum suppressed known-to-be valid rites, and a few questionable ones.

The Anglican rite was suppressed not for a defective liturgy, but for a defective succession and ordination… as Ordination is not properly a sacrament in the Anglican phronema.

The Anglican rite (actually, the Bok of Common Prayer) was not “supressed” in the sense that Quo Primum suppressed certain non-Roman rites. The latter were valid and licit Catholic rites that the Holy See suppressed, to achieve uniformity in its Tridentine missal. Anglicans broke away from the Holy See and later came up with their own rites, no longer Catholic. Rome did not suppress them; they chose to break away and later devise their own rites. One situation is within a Catholic context; the other is not.

(While the traditional Anglican eucharistic prayer does not contain anything contrary to Catholic doctrine, it intentionally removed certain unambiguously Catholic language regarding the sacrificial nature of the Mass, prayer for the dead and the communion of saints. Ditto for its ordination rites and the power to offer the Holy Sacrifice for the living and dead. It was these deletions that caused the Holy See to take notice, as they implied a rejection of these Catholic beliefs. Later history, before the Oxford Movement, seemed to confirm the rejection of these and other doctrines, as Protestant influence took hold. The Oxford Movement began to reverse this trend, but damage had already been done for centuries.)

 

[ProVobis]

It looks like it’s becoming more of a belief issue. The Anglican liturgy which was supposed to be a translation of the Tridentine Mass had a lot of problems and was criticized even for minor things like using the word “host” instead of “Victim” in the offertory and for other words that would soon lose their original intended meanings. Some saw the whole translation as an insult and/or mockery to/of the Church, so much so Trent forbade the vernacular in the liturgy and effectively excommunicated anyone who even said it should be vernacularized.

Then in the 60’s, there were many who started doubting the validity of the English translations. Omlor and others wrote essays on them even before the New Mass was promulgated. I’m one of those who think the new translations are in response to such criticisms. But that also brings up an interesting question. Would the “for all” consecration still be valid (though illicit) after Nov. now that the Church has implied that it does deviate substantially from the “pro vobis et pro multis” ?