Fr. Cutie to Become an Episcopal Priest

[happilycatholic]

“Cutié said priestly celibacy is good, but should be optional”.

How convenient. Let’s take Christ’s Church and make it fit our own needs.

The Priesthood is “optional”, not it’s precepts. When did we go this far astray as to make such a comment? This man had the option to be a priest or not be a priest according to the precepts of priesthood and now he wants to be a priest according to his own rules. :hypno::doh2:

Let him not be a priest. That is obviously the answer. He will remain however, Catholic - rebellious but still Catholic. Inasmuch as he would love to just walk away, you can’t make a promise to God and walk anywhere He can’t find you.

The only reason these things make headlines is that it is good fodder for the anti-Catholic media. It only proves how weak and watered down Christ’s (c)hurch has become. There are those that have made their own way for 1500 years. Let them continue on their course. People will always get mad and take their toys and leave. Hence the reason for 40,000+ modifications of Christ’s Church.

I’m sorry if this offends, but it’s just my opinion.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

What do you base this statement on?

He was a validly ordained Roman Catholic priest, yes, but once he converts to Episcopalian, is he still considered a Catholic priest? Do Episcopalians have valid form and matter? Is his intent to consecrate a reflection of Catholic intent or Episcopalian intent?

As far as I’m concerned, he is no longer a Roman Catholic priest.

Correct. And to turn away from the one true church of Christ is a grave sin. All for the love of a woman, but that’s what happens when the flesh gets weak.

 

[GKC]

Great - thanks.

But now I have to ask another question that is off OP. What happens in the case in The CATHOLIC Church where a priest is losing his faith and no longer believes in real presence internally? Do we get Eucharist or not at the completion of the Eucharistic Rite?

I can’t imagine any priest who is losing faith being so morally corrupt that he would not at least internally “hope” for the real presence for the sake of the rite and for his congregation but I don’t know if that would be sufficient.

I am curious now. Have any opinions?

James

I do. If said priest still intends to do what the Church does, whether he believes it or not, he will confect the sacament validly. That is the minimum intention (facere quod facit Eccelsia) that the Church requires for a sacrament.

GKC

 

[Tomster]

Correct. And to turn away from the one true church of Christ is a grave sin. All for the love of a woman, but that’s what happens when the flesh gets weak.

Agreed. And as much as I am saddened by Fr.'s defection it still has to be said that the consequences of his actions are the further weakening of the will and the further darkening of the intellect. So very, very sad.

 

[happilycatholic]

“Cutié said priestly celibacy is good, but should be optional”.

How convenient. Let’s take Christ’s Church and make it fit our own needs.

The Priesthood is “optional”, not it’s precepts. When did we go this far astray as to make such a comment? This man had the option to be a priest or not be a priest according to the precepts of priesthood and now he wants to be a priest according to his own rules. :hypno::doh2:

Let him not be a priest. That is obviously the answer. He will remain however, Catholic - rebellious but still Catholic. Inasmuch as he would love to just walk away, you can’t make a promise to God and walk anywhere He can’t find you.

The only reason these things make headlines is that it is good fodder for the anti-Catholic media. It only proves how weak and watered down Christ’s (c)hurch has become. There are those that have made their own way for 1500 years. Let them continue on their course. People will always get mad and take their toys and leave. Hence the reason for 40,000+ modifications of Christ’s Church.

I’m sorry if this offends, but it’s just my opinion.

Wow, that sounded bad…

Sometimes I get so emotionally charged I say things that don’t come out quite the way I intended.

This is the part that bothers me, “It only proves how weak and watered down Christ’s (c)hurch has become.”

Notice I did not capitalize “church” because I meant and still do mean Christ’s church outside the catholic Church. I mean that the Church Christ founded that is the catholic Church has lost members to exactly this type of thing with Fr. Cutie and that is what promotes the weakening and watering down of the faith that Christ founded. That is not to say that people outside the Church don’t have all the faith that those within His Church do, it just means they’ve taken the easy, simple, less complicated, (whichever you choose) way of expressing it.

I always have (even when I was protestant) and still do believe that the catholic Church practices the faith more closely than any other faith under the umbrella of Christ’s Church. If that were not true, there would be no protestants today. They would have nothing to fall away from. It is as it was in the beginning for the catholic Church and it will be to the end. Amen.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I do. If said priest still intends to do what the Church does, whether he believes it or not, he will confect the sacament validly. That is the minimum intention (facere quod facit Eccelsia) that the Church requires for a sacrament.

GKC

Thanks GKC, as a Catholic-Anglican you are exceptionally well informed of Catholic doctrine and history - orders of magnitude more than most Catholics. We really need to get you to Swim the Tiber brother.

James

 

[GKC]

Thanks GKC, as a Catholic-Anglican you are exceptionally well informed of Catholic doctrine and history - orders of magnitude more than most Catholics. We really need to get you to Swim the Tiber brother.

James

You are very kind, sir. Thank you.

I post on another RC board, also, and my friends there keeping pushing me toward the river, too, with similar sentiments. It is heart-warming.

Thank you again.

GKC

 

[Tomster]

Great - thanks.

But now I have to ask another question that is off OP. What happens in the case in The CATHOLIC Church where a priest is losing his faith and no longer believes in real presence internally? Do we get Eucharist or not at the completion of the Eucharistic Rite?

I can’t imagine any priest who is losing faith being so morally corrupt that he would not at least internally “hope” for the real presence for the sake of the rite and for his congregation but I don’t know if that would be sufficient.

I am curious now. Have any opinions?

James

Before I get into the nuts and bolts of it a true story. At our former parish, the assistant pastor stated, more than once from the pulpit, that the consecration at Mass was effected by the Epiclesis prayer. Any Catholic who has ever even been marginally catechised properly knows this to be false. It is the words of institution that effect the consecration. As an ordained Catholic priest he should have known better, to say the least. But, by insisting that the Epiclesis prayer effects transubstantiation we were better able to understand that his interior intention was not in line with the teaching of the Church.

To answer your question, “Not to worry.” Priests by their profession are obliged to place sacred rites as acts of divine worship. They are not mere functionaries engaged in religious mummery (external intention). In order not to have an internal intention, the priest would positively have to reject such an intention as in the case of Fr. Cutie and our former assistant pastor.

A minister who does not intend at least the general meaning of an action enjoined by his superior, is not truly a minister.

But the minister of a sacrament who does not have an internal intention does not intend the general meaning of the sacraments as enjoined by Christ.

Therefore, the minister of a sacrament who does not have an internal intention is not truly a minister.

 

[GKC]

Before I get into the nuts and bolts of it a true story. At our former parish, the assistant pastor stated, more than once from the pulpit, that the consecration at Mass was effected by the Epiclesis prayer. Any Catholic who has ever even been marginally catechised properly knows this to be false. It is the words of institution that effect the consecration. As an ordained Catholic priest he should have known better, to say the least. But, by insisting that the Epiclesis prayer effects transubstantiation we were better able to understand that his interior intention was not in line with the teaching of the Church.

To answer your question, “Not to worry.” Priests by their profession are obliged to place sacred rites as acts of divine worship. They are not mere functionaries engaged in religious mummery (external intention). In order not to have an internal intention, the priest would positively have to reject such an intention as in the case of Fr. Cutie and our former assistant pastor.

A minister who does not intend at least the general meaning of an action enjoined by his superior, is not truly a minister.

But the minister of a sacrament who does not have an internal intention does not intend the general meaning of the sacraments as enjoined by Christ.

Therefore, the minister of a sacrament who does not have an internal intention is not truly a minister.

I agree, in general. But, as para 9 of* Apostolicae Curae* says, the Church cannot judge of internal intent, absent something external permitting a *determinatio ex adiunctis *. Whether merely by joining the Episcopal Church (where you will certainly find priests who affirm all of the canons of Trent, Session XIII) constitutes such a positive contrary intent is beyond my pay grade.

What in your example, of the priest insisting on the Epiclesis revealed a positive contrary internal intent, rather than a poor theological and liturgical grasp?

GKC

 

[CentralFLJames]

What in your example, of the priest insisting on the Epiclesis revealed a positive contrary internal intent, rather than a poor theological and liturgical grasp?

GKC

Maybe raising his eye brows, rolling his eyes and making a clown expression with his tounge visibly stuck in his cheek while shrugging his shoulders?

James

 

[Tomster]

I agree, in general. But, as para 9 of* Apostolicae Curae* says, the Church cannot judge of internal intent, absent something external permitting a *determinatio ex adiunctis *. Whether merely by joining the Episcopal Church (where you will certainly find priests who affirm all of the canons of Trent, Session XIII) constitutes such a positive contrary intent is beyond my pay grade.

What in your example, of the priest insisting on the Epiclesis revealed a positive contrary internal intent, rather than a poor theological and liturgical grasp?

GKC

First of all, there are no priests in the Episcopal Church as Apostolicae Curae states. (I think we have been through this once before.)

Secondly, the internal belief of Fr. Cutie and our former associate pastor were made known to all by each of them verbally. It is quite unthinkable for any Catholic in the pew to believe that our former associate pastor received poor theolgical training and have a poor theological grasp of the core Catholic doctrines regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and how the sacrament is confected.

 

[Tomster]

Maybe raising his eye brows, rolling his eyes and making a clown expression with his tounge visibly stuck in his cheek while shrugging his shoulders?

James

Seriously James, it was simply his statement form the pulpit.

 

[Eljams91]

All of the Spanish gossip tv shows wont stop talking obout this!! And did U guys know that his girlfriend was the one who talked with the guy who took the photos for the magazine ? ? Meaning that she is the one who pushed him…

 

[GKC]

First of all, there are no priests in the Episcopal Church as Apostolicae Curae states. (I think we have been through this once before.)

Secondly, the internal belief of Fr. Cutie and our former associate pastor were made known to all by each of them verbally. It is quite unthinkable for any Catholic in the pew to believe that our former associate pastor received poor theolgical training and have a poor theological grasp of the core Catholic doctrines regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and how the sacrament is confected.

What was the occasion on which Fr. Cutie declared his internal intent, as to the Eucharist. What did he say? And I don’t claim to know what would constitute adequate contrary intent on this point. If mistaking the Epiclesis for the Words of Institution would be adequate evidence, that is. And I’m unsure how such an opinion would constitute such positive contrary intent, with respect to the Real Presence.

And we may well have been through the Apostolicae Curae issue before, I deal with it a lot. It’s been a hobby and study area for me for around 10 years. I always remind RCs that they should affirm it. As an Anglican, I don’t. Anglican, that is, not an Episcopalian.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[CentralFLJames]

All of the Spanish gossip tv shows wont stop talking obout this!! And did U guys know that his girlfriend was the one who talked with the guy who took the photos for the magazine ? ? Meaning that she is the one who pushed him…

Not surprising - I don’t want to stereotype the demographics of the situation too much but in south FL it is now essentially the new capital of South America for a virtual Hispanic Nation within a nation and the manipulative behaviors of these divorced Hispanic woman is well known. I am certain that with his prestige in the Hispanic community as a TV celebrity Fr. Cutie was seen as a huge catch. I suspect that he basically was pre-targeted by this fluzie and being naive was probably clueless that this woman had a deliberate plan from the get-go. At least with him leaving the Church we won’t get sued for unfair influence of the “confessional” over this woman when it all falls apart (which it will sooner than later I am betting). Notice that they “converted” as a pair - so the common shared Catholic faith was not the primary appeal. It’s likely the typical power and social esteem among the local culture & young chemistry that is driving this relationship - not religious beliefs.

I suspect that the stress cracks of this relationship will start to show when cultural hubris and self identity inter-clash. So before too soon I expect that Fr. Cutie (if he ever gets his self-esteem back and his brains relocated back to north of his belt line) will see that he was played for s sucker. Anyone with an ounce of sociological insight can see that these two people have incompatible psychology profiles. I have to laugh imaging Fr. Cutie advising everyone to go to pre-canna discernment before marriage and him doing the old “kick the tires and test ride” before becoming engaged (if we can believe the news reports that he is now engaged). On that point it would certainly have been utterly stupid of Fr. Cutie to to not get a commitment to marriage before he decided to become Episcopalian so he could function as a married “priest” there. But then again it does not look like Fr. Cutie has manged to engaged his higher ordered good-senses lately…

There should be a mandatory seminary course for new seminarians: “How to Avoid Becoming a Target to Rebounding Divorcees Looking To Save Face In The Church”. Our young priests are just ill-equipped to deal with the Machiavellian realities of the social-dynamic that exist in today’s world. There are some cold-and-calculating women out there and I have seen it first hand and been told the same by female friends too…

What a disaster this is to all …

James

 

[Peter_J]

Understand your just sensitivity to the topic at hand

What sensitivity would that be?

but we all know that there are Catholics in “name only” and those not properly catechized

True. There’s a great line from C.S. Lewis. I would quote it here, except that might be a little greedy since I quoted it this morning on the “What do you think is the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians?” thread.

 

[Peter_J]

Uh-huh. I don’t want to judge here, but it is very strange that in such a short time he’s decided to leave the RCC. You know what I mean? It would be a little easier to respect him if he had first spent a couple years as a married, laicized Catholic before deciding to become Episcopalian to continue his ministry.

That analogy doesn’t really work, since Episcopalian priests are allowed to marry – even after ordination, without any requirement of laicization.

Also, as someone else pointed out, Fr. Cutié must have taken a vow of celibacy before his ordination. Episcopalians might say that he shouldn’t have taken such a vow (and shouldn’t have been required to do so), but nevertheless he did take a vow of celibacy. So shouldn’t the Episcopal Church care about the fact that he hasn’t been released from his vow?

 

[CentralFLJames]

So shouldn’t the Episcopal Church care about the fact that he hasn’t been released from his vow?

Well if we take their practise of permitting divorcees to marry priests or anyone else for that matter then it would seem that the vow of marriage is meaningless in an Episcopal Church as well. Perhaps Episcopals view “oaths and vows” as merely “symbolic” of “intention” that are not “real” and binding or perhaps even sinful since everyone usually ends up breaking them anyway?

Pragmatism seems to be a new sola that Protestants should add to the essential confessions of faith…

James

 

[Tomster]

What was the occasion on which Fr. Cutie declared his internal intent, as to the Eucharist. What did he say? And I don’t claim to know what would constitute adequate contrary intent on this point. If mistaking the Epiclesis for the Words of Institution would be adequate evidence, that is. And I’m unsure how such an opinion would constitute such positive contrary intent, with respect to the Real Presence.

And we may well have been through the Apostolicae Curae issue before, I deal with it a lot. It’s been a hobby and study area for me for around 10 years. I always remind RCs that they should affirm it. As an Anglican, I don’t. Anglican, that is, not an Episcopalian.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[Tomster]

What was the occasion on which Fr. Cutie declared his internal intent, as to the Eucharist. What did he say? And I don’t claim to know what would constitute adequate contrary intent on this point. If mistaking the Epiclesis for the Words of Institution would be adequate evidence, that is. And I’m unsure how such an opinion would constitute such positive contrary intent, with respect to the Real Presence.

And we may well have been through the Apostolicae Curae issue before, I deal with it a lot. It’s been a hobby and study area for me for around 10 years. I always remind RCs that they should affirm it. As an Anglican, I don’t. Anglican, that is, not an Episcopalian.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

As I mentioned in a previous post, the simple fact that Fr. Cutie has entered into the Episcopal Church and left the Catholic Church was sufficient. By embracing the Episcopal Church he has accepted their teachings in regards to Transubstantiation which is, simply put, that they all deny it.

In regards to our former associate pastor, he gave us his belief in regards to the Epiclesis which is incorrect. His beliefs would be in accord with the Orthodox tradition.

Not meaning to be pugnacious, but why would you always remind RCs to affirm Apostolicae Curae when, as an Anglican, it is something you do not affirm?