Hey!
After reading all you wrote, there is still something I would like to know:
…
You bring up some interesting points.
Yes, its appears that Cutie still retains his priestly ability to consecrate the bread offerings
if the Episcopalian liturgy is “close enough” in the intentions of the consecration and the form of the matter is valid. I’d like to hear a Catholic Liturgy scholar weigh in on it since Anglicans/Presbyterians “in the pews” have a potpourri of Eucharistic belief ranging from symbolic, to consubstantial to “whatever works”. I suspect their liturgy is sufficiently vague by design to cover their many bases of church membership.
Even though Cutie is most likely in a state of disgrace (mortal sin) that does not change the fact of the matter that he has the priestly authority to transform the species into the sacred and precious Body & Blood of Christ.
Note that Orthodox consider that “unity” of the priesthood with other apostolic bishops and priests and The Church itself is also another necessary aspect of “proper matter and intention” such that being outside of that unity renders it impossible to effect the sacraments. I was wondering if this theological principal might itself invalidate Brother Cutie’s ability to effect the sacraments.
Back to the Presbyterian liturgy – which I think is a very dubious area. The Catholic Church of course has declared through
Apostolicae Curae that the Anglicans Holy Orders became utterly null and void centuries ago. But in addition to the ordination rites being progressively “Protestantized” by King Henry’s successors (his son King Edward in particular) the liturgy was gutted of Catholic influence and secularized according to the neo-Christian ideas of the Protestant theory. So the liturgy itself was corrupted as well. Presbyterians flowed out of this and further redefined their own ecclesial rituals and we have over the centuries a cascade of change that renders the Presbyterian liturgy completely alien to anything The Catholic Church recognizes as a “mass” in so far as liturgical content - even if structure is loosely akin to Catholic mass rites. But the only relevant part that effects the sacraments is the part that would be “emulating” the Catholic Liturgy of The Eucharist. Presbyterians could do anything in the assembly from playing bingo to holding a pep-rally before and after the place in their service where they try to do the equivalent of the Liturgy of The Eucharist and it would not matter if they had a valid Liturgy of the Eucharist. This is what I don’t personally know - if the Episcopalian service has a legitimate rite. Within this rite is a segment called the
The Epiclesis where the celebrant (the priest) invokes the Holy Spirit to accept the sacrifice of prayers and the gifts of bread and wine and convert those into the sacrament of Eucharist. If this part of the Episcopalian service is valid and the gifts of bread and wine are proper form, and the priest’s intentions are valid and the priest is a valid apostolic priest then it appears to me they get real presence in Eucharist. Cutie has valid apostolic rites but I need to research these others factors.
But you raise an interesting point. Previously Anglicans and Presbyterians were exempt from having to receive the sacraments worthily since they were not receiving real Eucharist - only symbolic bread and wine (Catholic perspective obviously). It was nothing but a shared community snack sandwiched with prayers and singing so to speak. But now everyone who receives unworthily is going to add to their grave sins by committing sacrilege each and every time they receive Eucharist effected by Cutie (if its all valid). That means anyone who has committed any post-baptismal grave sins (e.g. fornication, adultery, murder, calumny, homosexual acts, masturbation, divorce and remarriage, abortion etc.) or anyone who does not believe in real-presence commits sacrilege. I don’t think ignorance is an excuse - the offence to God is as real as pouring the divine blood into the toilet since presence is NOT a function of belief or knowledge. This of course flies in the face of the entire Protestant justification theory of “belief alone” and no need to confess sins and be forgiven of them by a valid apostolic authority to keep oneself holy. I know that Episcopalians are a bit different here from newer Protestant thinking but they still have no way of being sacramentally forgiven of sins without apostolic authority - a different topic for later.
So it seems to me that in real-terms Cutie worsens the profanation against God by conducting services and effecting the sacraments outside of The Catholic Church and is only serving his own desire to remain “relevant” (in his own mind) and employed and can not be serving God if he is creating an occasion for sin for virtually everyone present at HIS own particular ecclesial services.
Bottom Line:
For the rare Presbyterian who has managed to escape grave post-baptismal sin and keep himself Holy - receiving Eucharist from Cutie will be a source of amazing grace. But most probably for most Presbyterians attending a service with Cutie will be an occasion to commit grave sacrilege. As for Cutie, while he remains in separation from the Catholic church he remains in grave sin and therefor can do NO supernatural good that merits him anything in the afterlife. Surely he knows this - so who does Cutie really imagine he serves?
James
