Fr. Cutie to Become an Episcopal Priest

[GKC]

As we both know there are no authoritative and binding structures within the Anglican/Episcopal communions. All you have are creeds and statements that are non-binding. However, as you well know, transubstantiation was one of the first doctrines the Reformers threw overboard. It is interesting, that within all the variations of Anglicanism/Episcopalianism, no one has been really able to come up with a definition of what transpires at your altars/tables.

As for Fr. Cutie, his “Masses” will not only be illicit but invalid.

Hence, the Episcopal Church has no such doctrine as you said, on transubstantiation. Hence you are wrong in your assertions.

Anglicanism has no formal Eucharistic doctrine, as it has precious little formal or binding doctrine on other matters. Thus, an Anglican may hold with transubstantiation as a how, and the Real Presence as a what. In fact, the majority do affirm some form of Real Presence, while maintaining as much silence on the “how” as do the Orthodox. But there is no way to require it, in Anglicanism, since Henry’s day, the Bishop’s Book and the Six Articles. Which again makes both your assertions in the previous post incorrect. As well as that in your last sentence here, by RC standards. You can no more tell what his intent is than you could while he was RC. Intent inheres in an individual, not in an institution. This is why some responses to Apostolicae Curae, from the Anglican side, including Saepius Officio, miss the point of the criticism of intent, by trying to prove the “intent” of the liturgy. or Anglicanism, generally. Neither apply, as to the validity of the sacramental action.

As to what happens at an Anglican altar, the same thing that happens at an RC altar, assuming matter, form, minister and intent are valid; the confection of the sacrament and the Body and Blood of our Lord. Matter, form and minister are simple to judge, by examination. And the ministerial intent of the action, as always, is judged by the action, absent a positive contrary reason for a determinatio ex adiunctis.

As I said, your assertions were wrong. If you want to meet Anglicans who affirm the Real Presence or transubstantiation, stop by the parish. After the conclusion of the Mass, and the singing of the Angelus, I’ll introduce you.

Impossible to generalize about Anglicans, remember?

GKC

 

[Aramis]

Actually, there are 39 points of binding doctrine for the Anglican union.

anglican.nb.ca/faith/believe.html#39Articles
XXV. Of the Sacraments.

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments are not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation:but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.
[noparse]…][/noparse]
XVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.

The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

XXX. Of both Kinds.

The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

Since logically, there are three approaches to the nature of the Eucarist: Transubstatiation, Consubstantiation, and Symbolic-only…
They flat out deny transubstantiation as “unprovable” and “repungnant”, but declare in the paragraph before that it is the body and blood of christ, not mere symbol, that puts it in the consubstantiation camp.

The only two sacraments that are requisite in the Anglican Communion are Baptism and the Eucharist. The requisite belief is that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood.

They tend to preserve the other 5 sacraments, but tend also to see them as Sacramentals, not true sacraments. Individual anglican sects vary, however. High Church CoE are almost Catholic; High Church Church of Scotland (presbyterians) are about as protestant as protestants get while believing in the real presence during communion.

 

[GKC]

Actually, there are not. The Articles are not binding on any Anglicans, save, in a technical sense, on the ordinands of the Church of England (since it is an Erastian institution, it can make law on the subject) and on one Africa jurisdiction, which made them normative in the past few yeas as a protest against the drift of much the Anglican Communion (not Union).

That is, with these exceptions (and the CoE makes no attempt to enforce them since the fiascoes of the Ritualist trials of the late 19th century), Anglicans are free to affirm, partially affirm (and any Trinitarian Christian would affirm some of the Articles) or cut them from their Prayer Books, and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter (I know of a parish in Calif. that reportedly does). They are simply not binding on Anglicans, generally. They represent a point in history, when Elizabeth chose a particular method of governing her fractious Church, then and there. They are historical, theology as statecraft. I am not a great fan of the 1979 prayer book used in the Episcopal Church, but it has its points. One of which is that the Articles are stuck in a section labelled historical documents. So they are.

I often, in the past, spent time explaining to well-meaning folk, that Anglicans in general are not the same as the Church of England, that Anglicans, generally, do not affirm the Sovereign as the governor of their Church, and that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not any form of Anglican analog of the Pope. The point of the Articles is similar. They are, as binding doctrine, in this form, null and void (as the words are).

You know how RCs have to explain, over and over, that they don’t worship Mary, or the Saints, or statutes, to various people. Sort of the same thing here. Anglicanism is Creedal, not confessional, and the Creeds are the same as yours.

And again, you generalize, as in the seven sacraments. Anglicans distinquish between 2 Dominical sacraments, established by our Lord (Baptism and the Eucharist) and the other 5; the Domincals being required, generally, for salvation. The five are not considered sacramentals by any one I know of. You can find Anglicans who say otherwise, but you can find this, also. Anglicans are variable.

GKC

 

[Aramis]

It is interesting to note, GKC, that the Articles are listed as doctrinal by the EC of Canada (from whom I pulled them) and at least 5 other Epicopalian national churches, as well as the CoS and the CoE.

 

[GKC]

It is interesting to note, GKC, that the Articles are listed as doctrinal by the EC of Canada (from whom I pulled them) and at least 5 other Epicopalian national churches, as well as the CoS and the CoE.

I only know of two, of the 38 comprising the Communion. Where do you find the others? And I presume you mean Anglican, other than the CoS. The Anglican Church of Canada is just that.

Anglicans are variable, as I said. I’m willing to find even more variation. What did you read?

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thank-you for your helpful wonderment. To answer your question, no. I had heard that hope is ineffective in the place that non-RCC assemble and should be abandoned before going there. My real Hope is in my idea to use irony to find an audience that will permit some to find a way out of false complacency by following the truth that will set them free.

BTW, weren’t you that liberal Catholic who recently swam the Thames to punish The Catholic Church for having too many conservatives?

James

Glad to hear it. It has the opposite effect as you know. I’m sure your church is happy to see your expressing your bitter disgust for other faith traditions. It’s so darned helpful and of course helps make sure that some at least want no part of a this kind of “Christianity.” Rudeness and ill-disguised hatred of others beliefs is a surefire way to back them further away. Again, I’m sure that your Church approves of this.

I have no idea what you are referring to in the last sentence. I have no interest to punish the RCC and it would be incredibly absurd to think I could. I know paranoia is rather rampant among some here, but really, you must get ahold of yourself.

I love the adjective “that liberal Catholic”. It seems you have plenty of left over vitrole to throw at even your own. I can just feel the Christian love.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
What sacrileges would you be thinking about?

Indeed, that is exactly what I meant.

Alma

Well I have explained that we Episcopalians do, at least my church certainly does. I’m a bit surprised. Have you not enough concerns in your own denomination that you worry about what is happening in all these Protestant denominations? But no matter, I suspect its got way more to do with thinking that we are somehow unworthy in your mind. Perhaps we do better in God’s mind.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Why can’t everyone simply wish this man well?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sorry, the Episcopal Church does have a doctrine on transubstantiation. They deny it. Those Anglicans/Episcopalians who do believe in it can no longer call themselves Anglicans or Episcopalians. I liken their position to members of the Starship Enterprise who are in the process of being beamed-up from an alien, hostile planet but suddenly, in the middle of the process, a malfunction occurs and they can neither go back to the hostile planet nor return to the safety of the Mother Ship. Get the picture?

Again, Fr. Cutie has shown his interior intent, made it public and embraced Episcopalianism. These are the facts.

And, once again, he is in a state of schism. He has no jurisdiction to celebrate any sacrament, anywhere. He has embraced heresy by formally walking away from the Catholic Church and joining a church which, once again, denies transubstantiation. He cannot have it both ways.

Sorry but it is you who are wrong. I belong to one of the more liberal branches of the Episcopal church and we do not deny the transubstantiation. We believe that the trinity is mystery and are fine with leaving it at that. You have a nice theory and perhaps it is true, but we make no definitive judgment on it since it can be no more than opinion. GKC is correct.

In any case, Fr. Cutie is no longer your concern as to what he does or doesnt do relative to the TEC.

 

[Aramis]

Actually, Fr. Cutie remains and, until he formally requests release or (given the new rules just promulgated) his bishop does, he will remain, a priest in schism, not an Episcopalian Cleric, in the eyes of the Catholic Church and its faithful.

Given the recent change to the rules, I expect his formal laicization to begin being processed within the year. And I suspect he won’t bother with formal renunciation of his Catholicism, as provided for in canon law.

After his formal laicization, he loses all faculties save emergency confession, even the faculty to say a valid mass, and his marriage also become licit but irregular. At which point, our concerns with him also cease, since there is now no longer licity nor validity to his mass.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Glad to hear it.

It has the opposite effect as you know. I’m sure your church is happy to see your expressing your bitter disgust for other faith traditions. It’s so darned helpful and of course helps make sure that some at least want no part of a this kind of “Christianity.” Rudeness and ill-disguised hatred of others beliefs is a surefire way to back them further away. Again, I’m sure that your Church approves of this.

I have no idea what you are referring to in the last sentence. I have no interest to punish the RCC and it would be incredibly absurd to think I could.

I know paranoia is rather rampant among some here, but really, you must get ahold of yourself.

I love the adjective “that liberal Catholic”.

It seems you have plenty of left over vitrole to throw at even your own. I can just feel the Christian love.

Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi? eh?
(What is permitted Jupiter is not permitted the Ox?)

Rude, bitter, disgust, hatred, paranoia? Strong words for a Christian to charge another. Is there an appeal system in your Inquisitional Court?

Tell you what SpiritMeadow, I am just going to ignore the personal contempt you have for me & your history of hurdling hypocritical ad-hominems & pithy judgements against any Catholic who can effectively point out indefensible contradictions in the secular institutions and dogmas which you support.

But for the record let me at least say, no matter how you would like to paint me, I have no hatred for any man; nor do I suffer truth to curtsy to social protocol after the first round bell is rung and especially when I start to see the telltale signs from glassy eyes and wobbly knees.

Salvation is a serious matter. Jesus was no doubt called worse than “rude” for sending the money changers on their way and for calling the two-faced “hippocrites” to their faces. While there is certainly a place for dandy-boy pandering and for painting on insincere smiles when one is looking for their vig in exchange for services rendered – it’s not exactly de rigueur or at home in an apologetics forum. But what is certainly rude in any forum is publicly sticking one’s tounge out and not expecting to be called to step outside ostensibly for “bad breath” or for a guest to complain to the host if a few house flies happen to take it as an invitation to follow him inside to compete with offsetting fly-spec as well. You think your “stuff” smells better than anyone else’s? I submit that a pragmatic solution is to simply bite one’s tounge to discourage co-joined participation or else try private messaging to appeal to civility.

That’s the difference between your style and mine SpiritMeadow. Except for rare cases such as this OP (which invites a personal assessment of a public figure caught red-handed in shame) I generally speak out only against heretical practices, institutions and their founders; whereas you speak out of both sides of your mouth; judging individuals who don’t agree with your parochial views rather than against the principals they esteem.

Up to the time you detoured here to toss ad-hominems the dialog of this OP had been “pretty-good” - with much nuanced insights and good sub-topical information coming out. I think there’s yet more yardage to be gained in the OP. So, I am going to decline your polite provocation and not play into your stratagem to incite emotions just to get the mods to close a thread that prevails against your personal views. Cowardly street-tactics if you ask me…

So at this point it would be selfishly overindulgent of me to further engage you in a Heckle and Jeckle match since it would not further the OP nor gain me anything I value so much that’s I’d want to take from you at your loss of face.

But let me at least give you back what is yours:
[sign]
Tongue[/sign]

Now we are even & I owe you nothing more.

James

P.S. I thought the term “liberal” to you was a compliment and I honestly thought I saw you on here a year ago calling yourself “Catholic”. My mistake on two occounts?

 

[GKC]

Actually, Fr. Cutie remains and, until he formally requests release or (given the new rules just promulgated) his bishop does, he will remain, a priest in schism, not an Episcopalian Cleric, in the eyes of the Catholic Church and its faithful.

Given the recent change to the rules, I expect his formal laicization to begin being processed within the year. And I suspect he won’t bother with formal renunciation of his Catholicism, as provided for in canon law.

After his formal laicization, he loses all faculties save emergency confession, even the faculty to say a valid mass, and his marriage also become licit but irregular. At which point, our concerns with him also cease, since there is now no longer licity nor validity to his mass.

It is a point that interests me. Ott says that a validly consecrated bishop, even if schismatic, heretic or excommunicated, etc, retains the sacramental authority he possessed, to validly ordain. In what way (mutatis mutandis) do you think Fr. Cutie’s case differs, and what would be the authority? Your doctrine, and ours, says a priest forever, the character indelibly imprinted by the sacrament of order. Even degradation cannot remove that. I agree that any sacramental action he takes is illicit (save baptism), but not that it would be invalid. Why do you think otherwise? To lose his faculties is not to lose his priesthood. Or are you looking at this Cyprianically?

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi? eh?
(What is permitted Jupiter is not permitted the Ox?)

Rude, bitter, disgust, hatred, paranoia? Strong words for a Christian to charge another. Is there an appeal system in your Inquisitional Court?

Tell you what SpiritMeadow, I am just going to ignore the personal contempt you have for me & your history of hurdling hypocritical ad-hominems & pithy judgements against any Catholic who can effectively point out indefensible contradictions in the secular institutions and dogmas which you support.

But for the record let me at least say, no matter how you would like to paint me, I have no hatred for any man; nor do I suffer truth to curtsy to social protocol after the first round bell is rung and especially when I start to see the telltale signs from glassy eyes and wobbly knees.

Salvation is a serious matter. Jesus was no doubt called worse than “rude” for sending the money changers on their way and for calling the two-faced “hippocrites” to their faces. While there is certainly a place for dandy-boy pandering and for painting on insincere smiles when one is looking for their vig in exchange for services rendered – it’s not exactly de rigueur or at home in an apologetics forum. But what is certainly rude in any forum is publicly sticking one’s tounge out and not expecting to be called to step outside ostensibly for “bad breath” or for a guest to complain to the host if a few house flies happen to take it as an invitation to follow him inside to compete with offsetting fly-spec as well. You think your “stuff” smells better than anyone else’s? I submit that a pragmatic solution is to simply bite one’s tounge to discourage co-joined participation or else try private messaging to appeal to civility.

That’s the difference between your style and mine SpiritMeadow. Except for rare cases such as this OP (which invites a personal assessment of a public figure caught red-handed in shame) I generally speak out only against heretical practices, institutions and their founders; whereas you speak out of both sides of your mouth; judging individuals who don’t agree with your parochial views rather than against the principals they esteem.

Up to the time you detoured here to toss ad-hominems the dialog of this OP had been “pretty-good” - with much nuanced insights and good sub-topical information coming out. I think there’s yet more yardage to be gained in the OP. So, I am going to decline your polite provocation and not play into your stratagem to incite emotions just to get the mods to close a thread that prevails against your personal views. Cowardly street-tactics if you ask me…

So at this point it would be selfishly overindulgent of me to further engage you in a Heckle and Jeckle match since it would not further the OP nor gain me anything I value so much that’s I’d want to take from you at your loss of face.

But let me at least give you back what is yours:
[sign]
Tongue[/sign]

Now we are even & I owe you nothing more.

James

P.S. I thought the term “liberal” to you was a compliment and I honestly thought I saw you on here a year ago calling yourself “Catholic”. My mistake on two occounts?

You go, James! This post is dead-on! It’s laughable how a liberal, pie-in-the-sky Episcopalian who approves of gay and lesbian clerics, women priestesses, buddhist bishops (?? LOL), the theology of “Jesus is A way, not THE way,” and who possesses a very deep hatred of Roman Catholicism tries to paint herself this tolerant, open-minded, loving, poetic Christian? My experience is much the same as yours. The Episcopalian leftist like this believes the Catholic to be close-minded, living in the thirteenth century, backwards, and ignorant, polluting the earth with simpletons. We’re not educated in the truth so these folks come onto a Catholic forum supposedly to “dialogue.” But it’s a monologue to condescendingly preach to us how hurtful, spiteful, vindictive, nasty, and beligerent we are. My question is constantly, why do they come on here? Defending the Gospel for folks like this is “hate.” Listening to the admonitions of Christ is “intolerance.” Taking the scriptures literally is “folly.”

For such a poster there will never be anything good about Roman Catholicism; she can only live the moral relativist rant. You reply is superb but I wouldn’t dignify any more of them with a response…

 

[Aramis]

It is a point that interests me. Ott says that a validly consecrated bishop, even if schismatic, heretic or excommunicated, etc, retains the sacramental authority he possessed, to validly ordain. In what way (mutatis mutandis) do you think Fr. Cutie’s case differs, and what would be the authority? Your doctrine, and ours, says a priest forever, the character indelibly imprinted by the sacrament of order. Even degradation cannot remove that. I agree that any sacramental action he takes is illicit (save baptism), but not that it would be invalid. Why do you think otherwise? To lose his faculties is not to lose his priesthood. Or are you looking at this Cyprianically?

GKC

to formally lose his faculties is to lose the power that goes with them. He still remains a priest, but only with those valid capabilities that are not descended from the bishop.

Keep in mind: ONLY a bishop has, by right of ordination alone, the divine faculty to confect the Holy Eucharist; the councils granted that it could be delegated to the presbyterate. A priest only has the ability whilst enrolled as a cleric, and not banned by legitimate authority. Laicization is that process of disenrolling the cleric. Now, if the Anglican bishop he serves happens to have valid ordination (unlikely but possible), and incardinates him, then, even as a laicized priest, he might still have the faculty to confect the Eucharist by Catholic understanding.

So, no, not quite Cyprianically…

 

[GKC]

to formally lose his faculties is to lose the power that goes with them. He still remains a priest, but only with those valid capabilities that are not descended from the bishop.

Keep in mind: ONLY a bishop has, by right of ordination alone, the divine faculty to confect the Holy Eucharist; the councils granted that it could be delegated to the presbyterate. A priest only has the ability whilst enrolled as a cleric, and not banned by legitimate authority. Laicization is that process of disenrolling the cleric. Now, if the Anglican bishop he serves happens to have valid ordination (unlikely but possible), and incardinates him, then, even as a laicized priest, he might still have the faculty to confect the Eucharist by Catholic understanding.

So, no, not quite Cyprianically…

An interesting take, and I thank you.

Which Council(s) so held?

And I agree that there is a possibility, more wide spread than you would imagine, that the Episcopal bishop could possess vaild lines, if you are referring to the Utrecht infusion.

And perhaps semi-Cyprianically, then? I note your distinct affiliation.

GKC

 

[CentralFLJames]

It is a point that interests me. Ott says that a validly consecrated bishop, even if schismatic, heretic or excommunicated, etc, retains the sacramental authority he possessed, to validly ordain. In what way (mutatis mutandis) do you think Fr. Cutie’s case differs, and what would be the authority? Your doctrine, and ours, says a priest forever, the character indelibly imprinted by the sacrament of order. Even degradation cannot remove that. I agree that any sacramental action he takes is illicit (save baptism), but not that it would be invalid. Why do you think otherwise? To lose his faculties is not to lose his priesthood. Or are you looking at this Cyprianically?

GKC

Well GKC, we seem to have a fundamental problem with the very concept of authority anytime we get Anglican principals trying to rationally interact with its own and when we try to harmonize them with Catholic principals every time we have a priest swimming the Thames or the Tiber. Anglicans have unfortunately insisted on polemicizing their own articles of faith and I think that has unfortunate side-effects which harms the Anglican priesthood worse than the polemics harm Catholics. Have not Anglicans gone on record to explicitly say that “there are only 2 sacraments ordained by The Lord” - and Holy Orders is not among these 2? Nay, Anglicans would seem to have Orders as a secular ritual, or a ceremony or “thing” not ordained by The Lord; rather a “thing” that came out of the corrupt following of the Apostles - an apparent backhanded euphemism for the Catholic Church?

What gives with that?

Here, re-review for yourself from the binding doctrine for the Anglican Union on The Sacraments XXV (anglican.nb.ca/faith/believe.html#39Articles) which I here summarize the particular and relevant articles:

*Anglicans insist that:

1. “There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.”
2. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.*

If Holy Orders are grown partly from the corruptions of Apostolic teachings and they are not the 2 Sacraments ordained by The Lord, just how can Anglicans “ordain” anything without even recognizing Holy Orders as a valid “sacrament”? Are we talking parliamentary procedures here or something like a Kings-man dubbing priest like they dub a knight?

Am I missing something here? It seems to me that the barristers or whoever writes the Anglican rules have managed to pull the carpet out from under the whole priesthood. If there is no Sacrament of Holy Orders then do Anglicans anymore even recognize the priesthood in the same sacerdotal sense that Catholics do? If Orders is not a sacrament in the orthodox sense (Catholic perspective) then it seems to me that you all have not only lost apostolic succession but by fiat have declared yourselves to have no means to effect Orders sacramentally. That sure seems to me like Anglicans have secularized yourselves right out of the priesthood and into something “other”. Perhaps Druids?

And if Anglicans have no sacramental Holy Orders are we not comparing bagels to crumpets so to speak anytime a Catholic priest wants to become Anglican? Is it a priesthood or an inner-circle at a gentleman’s club (that now admits women, homosexuals and defrocked Catholics under the same term).

James

 

[GKC]

Well GKC, we seem to have a fundamental problem with the very concept of authority anytime we get Anglican principals trying to rationally interact with its own and when we try to harmonize them with Catholic principals every time we have a priest swimming the Thames or the Tiber. Anglicans have unfortunately insisted on polemicizing their own articles of faith and I think that has unfortunate side-effects which harms the Anglican priesthood worse than the polemics harm Catholics. Have not Anglicans gone on record to explicitly say that “there are only 2 sacraments ordained by The Lord” - and Holy Orders is not among these 2? Nay, Anglicans would seem to have Orders as a secular ritual, or a ceremony or “thing” not ordained by The Lord; rather a think that came out of the corrupt following of the Apostles - an apparent euphemism for the Catholic Church?

What gives with that?

No, Anglicans have not done that. The Articles said that. And the Articles are not binding on Anglicans, generally. You can believe me or not; I know a lot of the fundamentalists to whom I’ve tried to explain *dulia, hyperdulia *and latria, now and again, just repeat that Catholics worship Mary.

Here, re-review for yourself from the binding doctrine for the Anglican Union on The Sacraments XXV (anglican.nb.ca/faith/believe.html#39Articles) which I here summarize the particular and relevant articles:

*Anglicans insist that:

1. “There are two Sacraments* ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.”

1. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

Yep. That’s what’s written there, all right. And though it is not anything I need defend, I can tell you how it is construed by many Anglicans.

The distinction is between the Dominical sacraments, ordained of the Lord, which are those instituted, with their forms, by our Lord; baptism and the Eucharist, as recorded in the gospels, and those which do not share these characteristics (the other 5). The visible signs of baptism are given, by Christ, those for confirmation are not. Hence the distinction.

Not all Anglicans make the distinction, of course. Not all Anglicans do anything. And Anglicans generally, are not bound to affirm the Articles. As you may have heard. And no doubt will hear again.

Among Anglo-Catholics, seven sacraments. Do try and remember that there is no general statement that can be made accurately about what all Anglicans believe.

If Holy Orders are grown partly from the corruptions of Apostolic teachings and they are not the 2 Sacraments ordained by The Lord, just how can Anglicans “ordain” anything without even recognizing Holy Orders as a valid “sacrament”? Are we talking parliamentary procedures here or something like a Kings-man dubbing priest like they dub a knight?

Am I missing something here? It seems to me that the barristers or whoever writes the Anglican rules have managed to pull the carpet out from under the whole priesthood. If there is no Sacrament of Holy Orders then do Anglicans anymore even recognize the priesthood in the same sacerdotal sense that Catholics do? If Orders is not a sacrament in the orthodox sense (Catholic perspective) then it seems to me that you all have not only lost apostolic succession but by fiat have declared yourselves to have no means to effect Orders sacramentally. That sure seems to me like Anglicans have secularized yourselves right out of the priesthood and into something “other”. Perhaps Druids?

James

Yes, you have missed something. That the articles are historical documents for any Anglican who does not affirm them. And, with the exception of the Erastian requirements of the Church of England on their ordinands (ignored since the Ritualist trials of the late 1800s), no individual Anglican is required to affirm them, in a confessional sense, whether a given jurisdiction affirms them or not. In any such jurisdiction you would find X percent who affirm, X per cent who partially affirm ( and so would you) and X per cent who ignore them. The same is true in any jurisdiction which corporately declined to affirm them. Anglicans are variable. The Articles are optional.

And you missed something else: the point of my question. What, in RC doctrine, is the difference between Fr. Cutie’s situation, with respect to his sacerdotal authority, and a schismatic, excommunicated or heretical bishop, as stated by Ott, p. 458?

If you can locate an Anglican for whom the Articles are normative, (and they exist, poor souls) you can ask them for more info.

And Heavens, James. You know that there are no women priests. Invalid matter, old thing. Former RC priests are a different matter altogether.

GKC

 

[marlo]

Contrary to what some have said, Regarding to Fr. cutie’s consecration of the holy Eucharist. If he converted to Episcopalian and consecrate the host, it will not be valid Eucharist. What is missing in the four conditions for a valid sacrament in the consecration of the Eucharist is that the priest must be in union with a Catholic (legitimate) Bishop.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church further explains:

**1369 **The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the *Pope *is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The *bishop *of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a *priest *presides; the bishop’s name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. The community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:

       Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop **or him to whom he has entrusted it.**

Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests’ hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.

Let us be reminded that Only a Bishop has the fullness of priesthood, therefore if Fr. Cuties bishop removed what he has entrusted to him (consecration of valid Eucharist) therefore, it is Invalid

I had a curiosity question after seeing the news that Fr. Cutie is going to become Fr. Cutie (Episcopal Priest). Would the sacraments he administers be valid (though illicit) since he is a validly ordained Roman Catholic Priest though will be administering them as an Episcopal Priest?

 

[GKC]

Contrary to what some have said, Regarding to Fr. cutie’s consecration of the holy Eucharist. If he converted to Episcopalian and consecrate the host, it will not be valid Eucharist. What is missing in the four conditions for a valid sacrament in the consecration of the Eucharist is that the priest must be in union with a Catholic (legitimate) Bishop.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church further explains:

**1369 **The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the *Pope *is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The *bishop *of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a *priest *presides; the bishop’s name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. The community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:

       Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop **or him to whom he has entrusted it.**

Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests’ hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.

Let us be reminded that Only a Bishop has the fullness of priesthood, therefore if Fr. Cuties bishop removed what he has entrusted to him (consecration of valid Eucharist) therefore, it is Invalid

It’s an interesting addition to the subject. What I have taken the point you mention to be is the distinction between a valid and a licit sacament. Not so?

And, raising a delicate point, how would this bear on the question of whether an Orthodox Eucharist is valid?

GKC

 

[marlo]

Orthodox is Catholic and have legitimate sacraments

It’s an interesting addition to the subject. What I have taken the point you mention to be is the distinction between a valid and a licit sacament. Not so?

And, raising a delicate point, how would this bear on the question of whether an Orthodox Eucharist is valid?

GKC