Fr. Cutie to Become an Episcopal Priest

[GKC]

Orthodox is Catholic and have legitimate sacraments

I agree, though I would have thought the appropriate term would be valid sacraments. Would you say then that on that respect, there is no distinction between the Orthodox Eucharist, and the RC Eucharist? If, as has been suggested above and as your post seems to suggest to me, the faculties constitute the sacramental authority, and not the indelible character imposed on the priest by ordination, is there any distinction, as to validity, licitness, or effectiveness, to be drawn between an Orthodox sacrament and that of the RCC? How about other schismatics, such as the Utrecht Old Catholics (assuming valid minister).

I am not an advocate of Fr. Cutie, who seems to be a ninny. Just curious, on this subject.

GKC

 

[Tomster]

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

Providing the schismatic, heretical or excommunicated bishop use the proper form. Anglicanism lost their bishops centuries ago by using an improper form. Hence, no bishops and no priests in Anglicanism

 

[genealogist]

How sad that a man of the cloth would be welcomed into another communion under these circumstances. He was not married to this woman and even if the Episcopalians recognize divorce and re-marriage, his wanting to come aboard is not based on faith and belief but convenience and selfishness.

The Episcopalians have enough trouble in their ranks. Now their most recent converts headed for ministry are former Gov. Jim McGreevy and Fr. Cutie. An adulterous homosexual with two failed marriages and a priest who sleeps with a parishioner.

I know the Catholic Church has plenty of sinners but we should not welcome someone like Rev. Haggard with a red carpet even if he repents and wants to join. There should always be a period of silent membership so one does not get a loony toon that no one knew about that causes greater scandal.

 

[Tomster]

And, as the Angelic Doctor stresses, that for validity it is necessary to observe the form prescribed by the Church: “Some heretics in conferring Sacraments do not observe the form prescribed by the Church, and these confer neither the Sacrament nor the reality of the Sacrament.” No priests, no bishops, no jurisdiction, ambiguous teachings among ministers and laity, some believe, some do not, no authority to sort it all out. What a mess!

 

[Tomster]

How sad that a man of the cloth would be welcomed into another communion under these circumstances. He was not married to this woman and even if the Episcopalians recognize divorce and re-marriage, his wanting to come aboard is not based on faith and belief but convenience and selfishness.

The Episcopalians have enough trouble in their ranks. Now their most recent converts headed for ministry are former Gov. Jim McGreevy and Fr. Cutie. An adulterous homosexual with two failed marriages and a priest who sleeps with a parishioner.

I know the Catholic Church has plenty of sinners but we should not welcome someone like Rev. Haggard with a red carpet even if he repents and wants to join. There should always be a period of silent membership so one does not get a loony toon that no one knew about that causes greater scandal.

Not to mention Bishop Vicky.

 

[GKC]

Providing the schismatic, heretical or excommunicated bishop use the proper form. Anglicanism lost their bishops centuries ago by using an improper form. Hence, no bishops and no priests in Anglicanism

Yes, that is the RC position, not shared by Anglicans, and traces to the logic in
Apostolicae Curae (except that the issue of intent has to be considered simultaneously with that of the form of the Edwardine Ordinal, since the form is the same as found in a number of rites that the RCC considers as transmitting valid orders). But that’s not what I’m asking. Ott states as much, as to the schismatic, etc, bishop, and one would assume a requirement for valid intent, form and matter, certainly, in any actions of the bishop, taking him as a valid minister, per Ott, p. 458. What I’m asking is how the analogy bears on Fr. Cutie, and his status as a valid minister, though excommunicated, schismatic, heretical, etc. And what I think I’m hearing here is that the faculties of a priest are the source of the sacramental authority, not the indelible character imprinted in ordination and that this is related, not to any issue of licit/illicit, but to validity, merely. This raises some other issues, which I’m going to discuss with some other RC friends in another venue, and I seek further information from here, as I do so.

GKC

 

[GKC]

And, as the Angelic Doctor stresses, that for validity it is necessary to observe the form prescribed by the Church: “Some heretics in conferring Sacraments do not observe the form prescribed by the Church, and these confer neither the Sacrament nor the reality of the Sacrament.” No priests, no bishops, no jurisdiction, ambiguous teachings among ministers and laity, some believe, some do not, no authority to sort it all out. What a mess!

The form of the Anglican Mass has not been judged invalid by the RCC, and it is found, with only a couple of changes, in the adopted Anglican Use.

GKC

 

[Tomster]

And where will you find this authoritative source on what doctrine Episcopalians must believe on transubstantiation that you refer to? And how does the Episcopal Church, or any Anglican Church, enforce it?

And yep, I’m thinking I have the picture, on that point. You’re wrong. Esp. if you are looking at the Articles.

And as to Fr. Cutie, he certainly doesn’t have the jurisdiction to celebrate the Mass. Hence, when he does, it’s going to be illicit.

GKC

A interesting volume titled “Cranmer on the Lord’s Supper” written by the late Archbishop should help you out. He denies Transubstantiation vociferously. But, from what I understand, it’s perfectly fine for Anglicans and Episcopalians to differ with their Enlightened forefathers.

Not only will it be illicit, it will be invalid.

 

[Tomster]

The form of the Anglican Mass has not been judged invalid by the RCC, and it is found, with only a couple of changes, in the adopted Anglican Use.

GKC

Pope Leo’s reference to the exterior manifestation of the intention of the minister is of crucial importance. Father Francis Clark explains that if a minister gives a clear indication, a deliberate act of will, directed against something essential to the Sacrament, “then the Church can judge with canonical certainty that his positive anti-sacramental intention necessarily vitiates and nullifies his whole ministerial intention.” He goes on to explain that this “principle of positive contrary intention”, solidly established in Catholic theology, is essential for an understanding of Pope Leo’s judgement on the ministerial intention of those who initiated the Anglican hierarchy by "consecrating " Matthew Parker in 1559. Had the Catholic rite been used as restored under Mary, then the Pope could not have pronounced with certainty that Parker’s “consecration” would have been invalid, despite the notoriously heretical views of Bishop Barlow and his assistants who conducted the rite. However, by reverting to a rite designed specifically to exclude Catholic teaching on Holy Orders, they provided an irrefutable external manifestation of their positive contrary intention. Apart from anything else, it would be manifestly unjust to those who first used the Cranmerian Ordinal to claim that they intended to perpetuate a sacrificing priesthood when they wished to do precisely the exact opposite - as they indicated by using a rite intended to exclude any possibility of ordaining a sacrificing priest.

Take a look at Apostolicae Curae, paragraph # 33.

 

[GKC]

A interesting volume titled “Cranmer on the Lord’s Supper” written by the late Archbishop should help you out. He denies Transubstantiation vociferously. But, from what I understand, it’s perfectly fine for Anglicans and Episcopalians to differ with their Enlightened forefathers.

Not only will it be illicit, it will be invalid.

It is certainly fine, Anglicans not being Cranmerians, of necessity.

And yet, the Anglican Use is based directly on Rite I from the 1979 Episcopal prayer book (not the best choice in my opinion). Certainly, I’ve seen books that object to that, but so it is, in the eyes of the RCC.

I note your opinion: invalid, as to form, as well as minister. What do you know of that shows the RCC has declared the form of the Anglican liturgy itself invalid? It isn’t the point of Apostolicae Curae.

As to Cranmer, the standard work I know is CRANMER AS THEOLOGIAN (or something like that, I can’t find the thing). Dugmore’s THE MASS AND THE ENGLISH REFORMERS is also of use, as is Davies’ CRANME’RS GODLY ORDER.

But remember, Anglicans are not of necessity Cranmerians, and a form must be objectively invalid on some point, to be, well, invalid. How, where and when has the RCC found the Anglican liturgical form invalid?

GKC

.

 

[GKC]

Pope Leo’s reference to the exterior manifestation of the intention of the minister is of crucial importance. Father Francis Clark explains that if a minister gives a clear indication, a deliberate act of will, directed against something essential to the Sacrament, “then the Church can judge with canonical certainty that his positive anti-sacramental intention necessarily vitiates and nullifies his whole ministerial intention.” He goes on to explain that this “principle of positive contrary intention”, solidly established in Catholic theology, is essential for an understanding of Pope Leo’s judgement on the ministerial intention of those who initiated the Anglican hierarchy by "consecrating " Matthew Parker in 1559. Had the Catholic rite been used as restored under Mary, then the Pope could not have pronounced with certainty that Parker’s “consecration” would have been invalid, despite the notoriously heretical views of Bishop Barlow and his assistants who conducted the rite. However, by reverting to a rite designed specifically to exclude Catholic teaching on Holy Orders, they provided an irrefutable external manifestation of their positive contrary intention. Apart from anything else, it would be manifestly unjust to those who first used the Cranmerian Ordinal to claim that they intended to perpetuate a sacrificing priesthood when they wished to do precisely the exact opposite - as they indicated by using a rite intended to exclude any possibility of ordaining a sacrificing priest.

Take a look at Apostolicae Curae, paragraph # 33.

You are correct, that is the basic conclusion found in Merry del Val’s words, over Leo’s signature… But it is (in my copy), para 9 of * Apostolicae Curae* that the subject of intent arises; AC only running to 10 paras. And it states, clearly that there has to be a positive expression of contrary intent, that is, not to facit quod facere Ecclesia. Otherwise the action is taken to demonstrate intent. The positive action which permits (according to* AC *) this determinatio ex adiunctis is the use of the Edwardine Ordinal. But that form is not exceptional, the supposed defect also appearing in a number of rites which the RCC feels do convey the sacrament. Hence, as I have said, intent and form must be considered together, in discussing AC; and the external indication of positive contrary intent is the use of that particular form, derived as it was, at that particular time, by those particular men. The defect is otherwise commonplace.

Fr. Clark’s (then a Jesuit, afterward laicized) ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is certainly the best exposition of all this, from the RC standpoint. I own it and often recommend it. The best counter exposition is (RC) Fr. John J. Hughes’ two books ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. I recommend those also.

When I say have been looking into AC for around 10 years, you can believe me.

Now, what is the corresponding finding, published as was AC ("…If the rite be changed…"), on the form of the liturgy itself?

In haste,

GKC

 

[Aramis]

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

The Orthodox are both valid and licit, despite being in schism, since they are traditionally from areas that had no latin presence before the schism.

Validity for a priest flows from the bishop. But, in 1917, Rome withdrew the authority for bishops of the Roman Church Sui Iuris to disenroll clerics, to cut them off from their authority. There had been abuses in the US and other countries, where a bishop was doing so for unjust reasons; Rome stopped the practice by requiring the priest to request such release from Rome. Tradition, however, has held that only a Patriarch may release from perpetual vows, so release from clerical enrollment by a bishop was not sufficient to return to lay praxis anyway. Now, in 2009, the Pope has released the authority to dispense vows for clerics unto one of the commissions, and has granted the bishops permission to apply for laicization, not just the priest.

The only sacraments for which a laicized priest receives “supplied jurisdiction” are emergency confession and last rights… the sacraments of mercy… and only in cases where someone is dying and no non-laicized priest can be expected.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

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

The Universal church IS the Catholic church. Why can’t you accept this? Don’t you believe even what the Early Church Fathers said? What Jesus said? There is only ONE Universal church and that is the CC.

 

[GKC]

The Orthodox are both valid and licit, despite being in schism, since they are traditionally from areas that had no latin presence before the schism.

Validity for a priest flows from the bishop. But, in 1917, Rome withdrew the authority for bishops of the Roman Church Sui Iuris to disenroll clerics, to cut them off from their authority. There had been abuses in the US and other countries, where a bishop was doing so for unjust reasons; Rome stopped the practice by requiring the priest to request such release from Rome. Tradition, however, has held that only a Patriarch may release from perpetual vows, so release from clerical enrollment by a bishop was not sufficient to return to lay praxis anyway. Now, in 2009, the Pope has released the authority to dispense vows for clerics unto one of the commissions, and has granted the bishops permission to apply for laicization, not just the priest.

The only sacraments for which a laicized priest receives “supplied jurisdiction” are emergency confession and last rights… the sacraments of mercy… and only in cases where someone is dying and no non-laicized priest can be expected.

I thank you for this. But it does seem to be reflective of a case working within the system, that is, of a priest requesting release from his vows, and laicization, while remaining with the Church, not as one excommunicated or schismatic. To be clear then (I am going to approach some other RC friends, in this discussion, and do not want to appear more dense than absolutely necessary), in Fr. Cutie’s case, he would have lost the authority to confect a valid though illicit, sacrament, by virtue of the loss of faculties attendant on his leaving the Church? What is then retained, of the indelible imprint of character?

Further, if validity flows from the bishop (a good phrase I’ll retain, for discussion) whence flows the validity of a schismatic, excommunicated, etc, bishop, per Ott?

And, slightly further, would one conclude from your 1st statement that there is no distinction drawn, by Rome, as to efficacy, between an Orthodox and a RC sacrament (validity and licitness being a given?) That is, schismatic sacraments are efficacious, and there are no other distinctions to be made?

All data willingly absorbed.

GKC

 

[Tomster]

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.

GKC,

I really do not like repeating myself. It seems as though James was correct in his critique. Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is riddled with pragmatism.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Yes, that is the RC position, not shared by Anglicans, and traces to the logic in
Apostolicae Curae (except that the issue of intent has to be considered simultaneously with that of the form of the Edwardine Ordinal, since the form is the same as found in a number of rites that the RCC considers as transmitting valid orders). But that’s not what I’m asking. Ott states as much, as to the schismatic, etc, bishop, and one would assume a requirement for valid intent, form and matter, certainly, in any actions of the bishop, taking him as a valid minister, per Ott, p. 458. What I’m asking is how the analogy bears on Fr. Cutie, and his status as a valid minister, though excommunicated, schismatic, heretical, etc. And what I think I’m hearing here is that the faculties of a priest are the source of the sacramental authority, not the indelible character imprinted in ordination and that this is related, not to any issue of licit/illicit, but to validity, merely. This raises some other issues, which I’m going to discuss with some other RC friends in another venue, and I seek further information from here, as I do so.

GKC

I am no theologian but it seems to me that the “faculties”, if this semantic is the best one to use here, subsists simultaneously in BOTH the communion or “College of Bishops” of the apostolic ministerial priesthood as a whole AND in the indelible character imprinted on the soul of each bishop and priest. It’s not *either-or *but rather both-and. The concept here is indivisible unity - two faces of the same coin. Defacing a particular Vatican coin AWOL from the Catholic Treasury by lifting the reverse face (e.g. Fr. Cutie) only renders that particular coin worthless. It’s useless for anything good to itself except for perhaps under gravity still being able to ring a beggar’s tin-cup as a charitable gesture. But the beggar is the best judge of worth and its a matter of heads-or-tails if its going to yield anyone else a curse or a blessing.

I’d like to ask ‘just how long will TEC permit disenfranchised Catholics to use its “facilities” as a safe-house’ that some Catholics (certainly me) are starting to see as a minimum-security debtor’s prison for bad VIP catholics? Is this all part of the ecumenical agreements - prisoner exchanges and shelter for the runaways?

No, under greater scrutiny this whole idea sounds highly dubious to me. Apart from the impossible logic just how can it possibly be valid to lift away the indelible character from the Catholic priest and press it into new service as one might press the symbol of a man’s soul into the tail side of a new coin-slug (made from the crown’s finest Stirling of course ). How shall Anglican/Presbyterians complete the process? Does TEC send Cutie off to “schooling and orientation”, make him publicly disavow all his prior Catholic beliefs then stamp the obverse of the new man with the emblem of St. George’s cross (or the Compass Rose), re-date it, and declare it a prize to the crown treasury, er, King’s Church? What of all those imperfections and Catholic proclivities? I think purgatory is trying to make a case here.

I recollect histories of Scottish court cases in the UK where “Churches” argued that The State could take away what it gives (license) but it can not compel through coercion one to change their beliefs once license is given. Is it “every man his own Church” in the Anglican Communion as long as he pays his Church Tax?

At an operational and pragmatic level I observe that what is going on is just like fusing together two dissimilar metals in an incompatible “hybridization of convenience”. Everyone knows that this can only create weak galvanic under-currents and the analogies scale to sociological systems. Ironically Cutie quite possibly might serve as a fairly good low-capacity battery capable of doing some serendipitous Catholic “works” from the inside out; pity he can’t participate in any spiritual merit therein - but the work must benefit somone (First Law of Preservation of Grace I just invented). What is normal in galvanic action that is not properly grounded through a sacrificial anode ( ex-Mrs., now fiancee, Ruhama Canellis ? ) is that it is certain to to tarnish and corrode everything in-circuit that it influences. I would not be surprised here to see a new ugly-duckling or yet another new species of ecclesial community coming out of this whole “affair”. Now that would be Yankee ingenuity at its finest – parasitically infecting the whole Anglican Union and threatening with the possibility of hijacking it all back to America and force the King to say “Yankee PLEASE STAY home!”.

Hmm, the Atlantic is very wide. I need to go calculate just how many skips it takes for a rejected coin to “jump the puddle” back. I want to properly assess the odds that it may later find a home back in Peter’s Pence (Catholic Charity). At least most of what lands in there (except rusty slugs)is fungible among the “poor of spirit” and “the poor of means” – irrespective of who’s flag or face is on the obverse .

In all cases - “In God We Trust”,

James

 

[GKC]

GKC,

I really do not like repeating myself. It seems as though James was correct in his critique. Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is riddled with pragmatism.

Could be. As to the intent issue, I think you are mistaken. If you have anything other than your assertion on the point, I’d be glad to hear it. If not, understood.

Anglicanism has no formal Eucharistic doctrine. And Catholics do not worship Mary, though you can find folks who believe otherwise, around.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I am no theologian but it seems to me that the “faculties”, if this semantic is the best one to use here, subsists simultaneously in BOTH the communion or “College of Bishops” of the apostolic ministerial priesthood as a whole AND in the indelible character imprinted on the soul of each bishop and priest. It’s not *either-or *but rather both-and. The concept here is indivisible unity - two faces of the same coin. Defacing a particular Vatican coin AWOL from the Catholic Treasury by lifting the reverse face (e.g. Fr. Cutie) only renders that particular coin worthless. It’s useless for anything good to itself except for perhaps under gravity still being able to ring a beggar’s tin-cup as a charitable gesture. But the beggar is the best judge of worth and its a matter of heads-or-tails if its going to yield anyone else a curse or a blessing.

I’d like to ask ‘just how long will TEC permit disenfranchised Catholics to use its “facilities” as a safe-house’ that some Catholics (certainly me) are starting to see as a minimum-security debtor’s prison for bad VIP catholics? Is this all part of the ecumenical agreements - prisoner exchanges and shelter for the runaways?

No, under greater scrutiny this whole idea sounds highly dubious to me. Apart from the impossible logic just how can it possibly be valid to lift away the indelible character from the Catholic priest and press it into new service as one might press the symbol of a man’s soul into the tail side of a new coin-slug (made from the crown’s finest Stirling of course ). How shall Anglican/Presbyterians complete the process? Does TEC send Cutie off to “schooling and orientation”, make him publicly disavow all his prior Catholic beliefs then stamp the obverse of the new man with the emblem of St. George’s cross (or the Compass Rose), re-date it, and declare it a prize to the crown treasury, er, King’s Church? What of all those imperfections and Catholic proclivities? I think purgatory is trying to make a case here.

I recollect histories of Scottish court cases in the UK where “Churches” argued that The State could take away what it gives (license) but it can not compel through coercion one to change their beliefs once license is given. Is it “every man his own Church” in the Anglican Communion as long as he pays his Church Tax?

At an operational and pragmatic level I observe that what is going on is just like fusing together two dissimilar metals in an incompatible “hybridization of convenience”. Everyone knows that this can only create weak galvanic under-currents and the analogies scale to sociological systems. Ironically Cutie quite possibly might serve as a fairly good low-capacity battery capable of doing some serendipitous Catholic “works” from the inside out; pity he can’t participate in any spiritual merit therein - but the work must benefit somone (First Law of Preservation of Grace I just invented). What is normal in galvanic action that is not properly grounded through a sacrificial anode ( ex-Mrs., now fiancee, Ruhama Canellis ? ) is that it is certain to to tarnish and corrode everything in-circuit that it influences. I would not be surprised here to see a new ugly-duckling or yet another new species of ecclesial community coming out of this whole “affair”. Now that would be Yankee ingenuity at its finest – parasitically infecting the whole Anglican Union and threatening with the possibility of hijacking it all back to America and force the King to say “Yankee PLEASE STAY home!”.

Hmm, the Atlantic is very wide. I need to go calculate just how many skips it takes for a rejected coin to “jump the puddle” back to properly assess the odds that it may later find a home in Peter’s Pence. At least there most everything except rusty slugs, irrespective of who’s flag or face is on the obverse, is fungible with the “poor of spirit” and “the
poor of means”.

“In God We Trust.”

James

About the only point I can safely address here is your para 2. I have no idea.

The point you make in para 1 is precisely what I’m seeking info on. The analogy is Apostolicae Curae, with respect to orders, and that has quite specific issues, on intent/form, and has nothing whatever to do with communion with Rome. What is the analogy here? What has Rome said would be the result in this sort of case, formally, and why? The faculties are the authority extended from the Ordinary, to practice as a priest in his diocese. It is this that I seem to hearing as what constitutes the ability to confect a valid sacrament, and that no further distinction of licit/illicit is drawn. How that relates to the character I cannot fathom. I hope to take it up with a few wise friends, in a few places.

All data willing absorbed.

GKC

 

[CentralFLJames]

Another observation I’d like to make.

It seems to me that the conspicuous absence of a tabernacle in Anglican and Presbyterian Church’s is itself a tacit institutional admission of non-real presence. If not then it would be a claim that Anglican/Presbyterian “priests” are also perfect seers to predict how many hosts to “consecrate” for those who just happen to believe in real-presence and how many to leave in symbolic presence for those others (to prevent sacrilidgeous reception of the sacraments unworthily of “symbolic-only believers” who might be in sin [even though Anglicans declare its not a sacrament under Anglican articles of faith] ); and not leave any in excess that was more than the priest could personally consume. How does an Anglican priest leave no leftovers to profinatating those residual hosts that were “real-presence”?

In other words how do Anglicans interim leftovers with no tabernacle so as not to create a sacrilege by leaving the consecrated hosts laying about somewhere so they are not in danger of being profinated?

James

 

[GKC]

How many Anglican churches have you been? I can’t think of one without a tabernacle (though, sure, I haven’t been in all). In my parish church, the tabernacle is located on the main altar, which is situated for celebration *ad orientem * (you will recall it), and the Sacrament is reserved, as announced on the tablet on the wall in the narthex. Hence the tabernacle is veiled, as appropriate for the liturgical season, or feast. Hence the Sanctuary lamp. Hence the Altar of Repose, and stripping of the altar, at Easter. And hence no EMs; no one not in orders touches the Body or Blood. Hence the fact the Blood is consumed, as part of the Mass (my SIL, a deacon has had occasion to be glad he is of a large size, as he was often the one to consume the Blood, afterward). Hence the piscina, which communicates with consecrated ground, hence the purificators, and the use of Holy Water, if there is a spill, the paten, used reguarly. Hence the honoring and reverencing of the Presence on the altar, when approaching or passing it, at any time. Hence the genuflection to the Presence, in the tabernacle, entering and leaving. And hence the Benediction and Adoration of the exposed Blessed Body, at which service I have assisted. Hence the monstrance. Hence a number of other things you seem unaware of.

This is true of not all (remember about Anglicans), but certainly of most Anglican churches.

As to Presbyterians, you’d have to ask one. But what made you thnk you could make a valid observation about Anglicans and tabernacles? Ask a question sometime.

Another error: Anglicans have no binding articles of faith. And Mary is not worshipped by Catholics. Not even by those of us Anglicans who sing the Angelus, or the
*Regina Coeli *(as appropriate) or have a Mary Shrine, of OL of Walsingham.

GKC

Another observation I’d like to make.

It seems to me that the conspicuous absence of a tabernacle in Anglican and Presbyterian Church’s is itself a tacit institutional admission of non-real presence. If not then it would be a claim that Anglican/Presbyterian “priests” are also perfect seers to predict how many hosts to “consecrate” for those who just happen to believe in real-presence and how many to leave in symbolic presence for those others (to prevent sacrilidgeous reception of the sacraments unworthily of “symbolic-only believers” who might be in sin [even though Anglicans declare its not a sacrament under Anglican articles of faith] ); and not leave any in excess that was more than the priest could personally consume. How does an Anglican priest leave no leftovers to profinatating those residual hosts that were “real-presence”?

In other words how do Anglicans interim leftovers with no tabernacle so as not to create a sacrilege by leaving the consecrated hosts laying about somewhere where they are not in danger of being profinated?

James