Fr. Cutie to Become an Episcopal Priest

[GKC]

In an even quicker reply, you’re wrong. See my posts (9, 14 and 27, above, as well as what Bishop Favalora is reported to have said, in 56.

What Apostolicae Curae said about Anglican orders, in 1896, had nothing to do with consecrating the Eucharist, but with ordaining priests and bishops. It was a complicated issue, revolving around form, in the Edwardine Ordinal, in 1552, and the intent of those who used the Ordinal, in consecrating Archbishop Parker in 1559. The result, in Apostolicae Curae, was a judgment that Anglican orders were null and void. That’s an arguable case, but it’s not the case here. The issue is Fr. Cutie’s RC orders and what happens to him when he leaves the RCC . Fr. Cutie’s orders are, as the RCC teaches, de fide, indelible. He is a priest forever, whether he is excommunicated, schismatic, heretic, or what have you. See Ott. It’s what the bishop was saying, in post 56.

Given that, his sacramental ability to validly confect the sacrament remains. But he may not do so licitly. However, as an Episcopalian, for his valid orders to permit him to confect a valid sacrament, he must also meet the other requirements for a valid Eucharist: valid form, matter and intent. His own valid orders, as a RC (indelibly imprinted) supply the valid minister, for the required fourth element. If you read my posts above, you may understand why form, matter and intent are not issues. And I won’t have to type it all over.

And it’s not the matter that is a validly consecrated man, it’s the minister.

GKC

In a quick answer. No, the sacraments would not be valid (and far from licit) – even if say, he became a high church style Anglican. I have seen at least one answer here that says they are valid. Alas, unfortunately they will not be valid.

The King of England and the Church of England way back in the 16th century changed the words of consecration and then promulgated them throughout England it was at that point that the King of England and Church England ceased to be Catholic – long after they cut themselves off of the vine. Grape vines are tenacious things – I can tell you this firsthand. When you prune them and don’t cast them into a fire but rather into a compost pile you end up with scraggly grape vines growing everywhere. They become a total mess and worse yet, they do not produce any fermentable fruit. Similar to apples and other fruiting trees and bushes, grape vines may be grafted and with great hope bear useable fruit. The danger of the graft is always there. If there is a sudden frost or too hot a season or a disease it is the grafted shoots that die along with the fruit proper to the roots. The roots will then send shoots back up which are true to the original vine. This is why rites pass away over time while the core Catholic rite will always be maintained. It may undergo stress but with proper watering and sun, it always springs back true.

Sacraments require proper substance and form. The matter is a validly consecrated man and the proper words of consecration. The matter is also suitable wheat bread and suitable grape wine. In the Anglican Communion the Sacrament proper is made invalid in a number of different ways: the first being the words are incorrect, the second being that there is no episcopal lineage (i.e. no validly ordained men – sadly, except for Catholic/Orthodox apostates), and typically the employment of unsuitable breads and wine, which often have illicit adjunct matter (ingredients) incorporated into them – for instance honey, or baking soda, or artificial flavours and colourings. You notice that I draw the line at yeast bread. Let us remember that the 22 different recognized Catholic rites employ unleavened and yeast leavened breads depending upon the rite. (I think it’s 22 anyway… Here I am quoting Msgr. Sharbel Maroun from his EWTN interview available on my Youtube channel).

Alas… we should be praying and fasting and performing works of charity fervently for Fr. Cutié. It has been vexing me for some days now. It troubles my being. The hands of a priest are holy items – they are in a word, sacramentals, like holy water, or scapulars, and holy oils and holy salts. It is public knowledge what the poor man is going through. He is clearly being drawn away by the Devil. Again a priest’s hands burn like fire for they are so holy. We have nobody to blame but ourselves for the tragic circumstances – we have put a crown of thorns around the Sacred Heart of Jesus in our actions and in our rejection of Him when He makes Himself so vulnerable to insult in the Eucharist.

 

[I_Believe]

Cutie discarded his vows to embrace Lust.

Seems Luther did the same. Except he lured a nun out of the convent.

 

[RevDrNorth]

In an even quicker reply, you’re wrong. See my posts (9, 14 and 27, above, as well as what Bishop Favalora is reported to have said, in 56.

What Apostolicae Curae said about Anglican orders, in 1896, had nothing to do with consecrating the Eucharist, but with ordaining priests and bishops. It was a complicated issue, revolving around form, in the Edwardine Ordinal, in 1552, and the intent of those who used the Ordinal, in consecrating Archbishop Parker in 1559. The result, in Apostolicae Curae, was a judgment that Anglican orders were null and void. That’s an arguable case, but it’s not the case here. The issue is Fr. Cutie’s RC orders and what happens to him when he leaves the RCC . Fr. Cutie’s orders are, as the RCC teaches, de fide, indelible. He is a priest forever, whether he is excommunicated, schismatic, heretic, or what have you. See Ott. It’s what the bishop was saying, in post 56.

Given that, his sacramental ability to validly confect the sacrament remains. But he may not do so licitly. However, as an Episcopalian, for his valid orders to permit him to confect a valid sacrament, he must also meet the other requirements for a valid Eucharist: valid form, matter and intent. His own valid orders, as a RC (indelibly imprinted) supply the valid minister, for the required fourth element. If you read my posts above, you may understand why form, matter and intent are not issues. And I won’t have to type it all over.

And it’s not the matter that is a validly consecrated man, it’s the minister.

GKC

Quite! I think, as you note, we can take Archbishop Favorala’s (Roman Catholic Archbishop) statement that sacraments that Fr. Cutie administered would be VALID but ILLICT as a pretty good conclusion to that issue. They would be valid.

While I do happen to sympathize with Fr. Cutie’s situation, I do agree with the Archbishop that on the surface it would appear things were not handled well. Archbishop Favorala is his superior and common courtesy would say he should have prepared the AB before Fr. Cutie turned up in the company of the Episcopal Bishop and Episcopal priests at a news conference.

Another curiosity is that in one post it appears that Fr. Cutie will have to be a deacon first and then priested in the future. The two churches are not that dissimilar liturgically so are they simply not recognizing his Catholic orders as valid?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This so called “Bishop” obviously wants to provoke Catholics. He should apologize.

You should understand that Episcopalians like most Protestants consider themselves part of the universal catholic church as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church. As such, he has not offended, although his manner might have been more diplomatic.

And he is not a “so called” bishop but an actual one. The fact that you don’t wish to acknowledge him as such changes nothing, but is of course perhaps rude on your part and intended to provoke Episcopalians? Perhaps you might think about apologizing. (Not mad) but bemused perhaps.

 

[Jimzz12]

I disagree.

You are taking a Cyprianic position, which is typical for Orthodox, but not for Latin Catholics.

That may be Cyprian. I do not know much about Cyprian theories or practices. After reading Kyriacos Markides book “Gifts of the Desert” , I got the idea that Catholics are percieved as being too intellectual in their approach, while Catholics generally say those in the ‘Desert’, so to speak, can become overly spirtual. I falling in line with Carmelite/Sanjuanist (San Juan de La Crux) spirituality as dissertated by Thomas Merton of the Cistercians – an even balance of body and spirit in prayer. I do have great respect for everything that goes on in Athos.

I believe I may have gotten this opinion of invalidity from EWTN. Since, that is the only media outlet that I partake in. I may have read it during a book written about the 19th century Anglo-Catholic Oxford Movement. I really can’t afford to recount pages at this moment.

 

[Hesychios]

Cutie discarded his vows to embrace Lust.

Seems Luther did the same. Except he lured a nun out of the convent.

I may be mistaken, but I think he did not meet her until after she left the convent.

They had many descendants, some of whom are Catholic today, I know of one.

 

[Jimzz12]

In an even quicker reply, you’re wrong. See my posts (9, 14 and 27, above, as well as what Bishop Favalora is reported to have said, in 56.

What Apostolicae Curae said about Anglican orders, in 1896, had nothing to do with consecrating the Eucharist, but with ordaining priests and bishops. It was a complicated issue, revolving around form, in the Edwardine Ordinal, in 1552, and the intent of those who used the Ordinal, in consecrating Archbishop Parker in 1559. The result, in Apostolicae Curae, was a judgment that Anglican orders were null and void. That’s an arguable case, but it’s not the case here. The issue is Fr. Cutie’s RC orders and what happens to him when he leaves the RCC . Fr. Cutie’s orders are, as the RCC teaches, de fide, indelible. He is a priest forever, whether he is excommunicated, schismatic, heretic, or what have you. See Ott. It’s what the bishop was saying, in post 56.

Given that, his sacramental ability to validly confect the sacrament remains. But he may not do so licitly. However, as an Episcopalian, for his valid orders to permit him to confect a valid sacrament, he must also meet the other requirements for a valid Eucharist: valid form, matter and intent. His own valid orders, as a RC (indelibly imprinted) supply the valid minister, for the required fourth element. If you read my posts above, you may understand why form, matter and intent are not issues. And I won’t have to type it all over.

And it’s not the matter that is a validly consecrated man, it’s the minister.

GKC

That’s a fantastic answer. Thank you. Every once and a while someone actually knows what they are talking about.

BTW… Awesome name: GKC. Thanks Chesty.

He certainly is a priest forever. That is what I found particularly troubling me. I don’t speak clearly. That is my charism. Not speaking clearly. It keeps souls from being lead astray by my poison tongue.

 

[kalt]

You should understand that Episcopalians like most Protestants consider themselves part of the universal catholic church as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church. As such, he has not offended, although his manner might have been more diplomatic.

And he is not a “so called” bishop but an actual one. The fact that you don’t wish to acknowledge him as such changes nothing, but is of course perhaps rude on your part and intended to provoke Episcopalians? Perhaps you might think about apologizing. (Not mad) but bemused perhaps.

Roman Catholic means Roman Rite Catholic and doesn’t encompass all of the rites within the Catholic Church, the whole Catholic Church.

If you mean to say all of the Catholic Church, meaning the whole of Catholicism, all of the rites included, then you simply say, the Catholic Church.

This is why his statement doesn’t seem to make sense to Catholics. FWIW, I read it to be inflamatory, too.

 

[GKC]

That’s a fantastic answer. Thank you. Every once and a while someone actually knows what they are talking about.

BTW… Awesome name: GKC. Thanks Chesty.

He certainly is a priest forever. That is what I found particularly troubling me. I don’t speak clearly. That is my charism. Not speaking clearly. It keeps souls from being lead astray by my poison tongue.

You are very welcome. That’s one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about a post of mine. Apostolicae Curae, and the issue of Anglican orders, is a long-time hobby of mine. And Chesterton is an even longer one, going back almost 50 years.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[BareKnuckler]

I don’t believe Ray Arroyro, host of the above show, was anything other than Catholic. Marcus Grodi (sp?) was, I believe, a Baptist minister before his conversion. He hosts The Journey Home which is also excellent. Scott Hahn, excellent author who has a show, was a former Presbyterian minister. There are a couple of others too. All their stories have made me a stronger Catholic.

Yes, a former priest who marries and is no longer allowed to preach, is in a difficult situation. He could have remained in the Church but would not be allowed to receive the sacraments.

As a lay person, I couldn’t be anything but Catholic. I don’t know how he is going to do this as a former priest.

The 2-3 times I watched it, to the right was the host, the other was a Lutheran Priest/Minister (maybe he was a convert, but he never talked about the RCC, just about the Lutheran Church).

 

[GKC]

Roman Catholic means Roman Rite Catholic and doesn’t encompass all of the rites within the Catholic Church, the whole Catholic Church.

If you mean to say all of the Catholic Church, meaning the whole of Catholicism, all of the rites included, then you simply say, the Catholic Church.

This is why his statement doesn’t seem to make sense to Catholics. FWIW, I read it to be inflamatory, too.

It probably wasn’t meant to be, as Spiritmeadow said. I say RCC for a short term for all Catholics in communion with the Holy See. And Catholic for those not in communion. It’s not something that an Anglican expects an RC to agree with. But it’s how a (Anglo-Catholic) Anglican speaks of the situation. No offense is intended.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

Quite! I think, as you note, we can take Archbishop Favorala’s (Roman Catholic Archbishop) statement that sacraments that Fr. Cutie administered would be VALID but ILLICT as a pretty good conclusion to that issue. They would be valid.

While I do happen to sympathize with Fr. Cutie’s situation, I do agree with the Archbishop that on the surface it would appear things were not handled well. Archbishop Favorala is his superior and common courtesy would say he should have prepared the AB before Fr. Cutie turned up in the company of the Episcopal Bishop and Episcopal priests at a news conference.

Another curiosity is that in one post it appears that Fr. Cutie will have to be a deacon first and then priested in the future. The two churches are not that dissimilar liturgically so are they simply not recognizing his Catholic orders as valid?

That would be most unusual. Anglicans receive RC clergy in their orders. I have never heard of it not being so. Anglicans fully recognize the validity of RC orders. It’s the reverse that is the problem.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Roman Catholic means Roman Rite Catholic and doesn’t encompass all of the rites within the Catholic Church, the whole Catholic Church.

If you mean to say all of the Catholic Church, meaning the whole of Catholicism, all of the rites included, then you simply say, the Catholic Church.

This is why his statement doesn’t seem to make sense to Catholics. FWIW, I read it to be inflamatory, too.

As I said, we say Catholic church to mean the universal church of Christendom.

 

[RevDrNorth]

That would be most unusual. Anglicans receive RC clergy in their orders. I have never heard of it not being so. Anglicans fully recognize the validity of RC orders. It’s the reverse that is the problem.

GKC

That is what I thought but Religio71 quotes Bishop Frade as saying, “This is the best place for Father Cutié," Bishop Frade said at a news conference on Thursday at the Episcopal Church. “We welcome him and his fiancée. We are the Catholic Church. He has not abandoned the Catholic Church. He has left the Roman church. As a deacon, he can read the sermon, perform mass, but not give holy sacrament [of communion.]””

This seems to imply that he will have to be a deacon first and then priested later on? Any ideas about what is up with that GKC?

I know in the reverse case there are some Anglicans who are re ordained through the process (deacon and priest) and then there are others that are ordained sub conditione. If I recall correctly there was at least one case posted some time ago where an Anglican priest had orders provably through the Utrecht lines and so was simply re ordained subconditione by the Catholic Bishop rather than outright since the orders the Anglican priest received seemed to be valid.

 

[Jimzz12]

It probably wasn’t meant to be, as Spiritmeadow said. I say RCC for a short term for all Catholics in communion with the Holy See. And Catholic for those not in communion. It’s not something that an Anglican expects an RC to agree with. But it’s how a (Anglo-Catholic) Anglican speaks of the situation. No offense is intended.

To clear the air on this debate might I recommend the chapter on "Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica" from God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office by Pope Benedict XVI, Ignatius Press, San Fransisco, 2008. (ISBN 978-1-58617-179-7)

After scantly recalling what it contains, I only pulled it quickly from a bookshelf to get the bibliographic information. I am too busy to read any of it all over again. My head is stuck in another book trying to mop it up so that I can regress to Robert Frost for the night.

 

[GKC]

That is what I thought but Religio71 quotes Bishop Frade as saying, “This is the best place for Father Cutié," Bishop Frade said at a news conference on Thursday at the Episcopal Church. “We welcome him and his fiancée. We are the Catholic Church. He has not abandoned the Catholic Church. He has left the Roman church. As a deacon, he can read the sermon, perform mass, but not give holy sacrament [of communion.]””

This seems to imply that he will have to be a deacon first and then priested later on? Any ideas about what is up with that GKC?

I know in the reverse case there are some Anglicans who are re ordained through the process (deacon and priest) and then there are others that are ordained sub conditione. If I recall correctly there was at least one case posted some time ago where an Anglican priest had orders provably through the Utrecht lines and so was simply re ordained subconditione by the Catholic Bishop rather than outright since the orders the Anglican priest received seemed to be valid.

I commented on this post above. My point was that what the good bishop said about Fr. Cutie did not make sense. He, if he was considered a deacon, for some reason, could assist at a Mass, yes, but he couldn’t “perform” Mass, in the sense of celebrating it. Not as a RC, not as an Episcopalian. Not sure what was intended by that statement. OTOH, as a deacon he could “give” the sacrament, once a priest confected it, as either a RC or an Episcopalian. Even amongst all us Anglicais who don’t accept the concept of EMs, the deacon distributes (gives?) the sacrament. I received the Blood today, from our deacon, who assisted at the Mass, and distributed the Blood. But he couldn’t “perform” Mass. He could do a sermon, chant or read the Gospel, and a few other things, sure. My deacon SIL does.

And no idea why he would have to start at square one, either. A priest is a priest.

I think there is something garbled in the transmission here.

Only 2 known cases of sub conditione ordinations of Anglican priests heading Romeward, Graham Leonard and John J.Hughes, both good men, and priests. Neither of them were so ordained specifically due to the Utrecht line, though that may have been a factor. It is not so stated, though.

GKC

 

[GKC]

To clear the air on this debate might I recommend the chapter on "Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica" from God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office by Pope Benedict XVI, Ignatius Press, San Fransisco, 2008. (ISBN 978-1-58617-179-7)

After scantly recalling what it contains, I only pulled it quickly from a bookshelf to get the bibliographic information. I am too busy to read any of it all over again. My head is stuck in another book trying to mop it up so that I can regress to Robert Frost for the night.

And that has made all the difference.

GKC

 

[aicirt]

The 2-3 times I watched it, to the right was the host, the other was a Lutheran Priest/Minister (maybe he was a convert, but he never talked about the RCC, just about the Lutheran Church).

Viewing the programs, Ray Arroryo sits to the right on his program, The World Over, a news show. Each week, there is a new guest sitting on the left.

Marcus Grodi sits on the left on his show, The Journey Home. His guest, a new one each week, sits on the right.

I watch both each week and I’ve learned a lot. I think you will too. Very interesting.

 

[BareKnuckler]

Viewing the programs, Ray Arroryo sits to the right on his program, The World Over, a news show. Each week, there is a new guest sitting on the left.

Marcus Grodi sits on the left on his show, The Journey Home. His guest, a new one each week, sits on the right.

I watch both each week and I’ve learned a lot. I think you will too. Very interesting.

k I am confused, but ok. May you reach enlightenment in life.

 

[April4442]

He spent the last two years considering conversion. So it’s not as if he made a sudden jump from Rome to Canterbury.

He spent the last two years living in sin. I think if he was not caught by the paparazzi he would still be keeping it a secret.