Fr. Cutie to Become an Episcopal Priest

[Aramis]

As Anglicans normally receive RC priests in their orders, I can’t imagine there are plans to reordain him, that not being something Anglicans believe in either.

Is anything definitive known about the plans?

GKC

He was reordained to the deaconate according to a local (to him) paper. If true, and not a misinterpretation, he’s already committed heresy.

 

[GKC]

He was reordained to the deaconate according to a local (to him) paper. If true, and not a misinterpretation, he’s already committed heresy.

Odd. Very odd. But I don’t pretend to comprehend Episcopalians.

Thank you.

GKC

 

[CentralFLJames]

He was reordained to the deaconate according to a local (to him) paper. If true, and not a misinterpretation, he’s already committed heresy.

This would be quite interesting if true. I don’t believe it is true though. Newspaper reporters don’t know a thing about what “ordination” means. To them ordination, initiation, agreement, acceptance, baptised, received, anointed, blessed, applauded, acknowledged etc. all mean the same thing. Remember this is culturally illiterate American and all denominations are created equal in the eyes of God - since the media see themselves as all knowing and as God. To the media there is nothing “sacred” or “spiritual” really going on here - its a simple change of employer. To them its all a “club” : A Jew = A Christian = A Catholic = a Baptist = a tax-free religious organization etc.

So if your source said “ordained” as a deacon it just as likely is a grade “B” or “C” class journalist reporting that Cutie was “accepted” as a deacon into the TEC.

The interesting thing would be if he really was re-ordained since Cutie HAS to know that is a double ordination and is:

1. Sacrilege
2. The Office can not be stepped-down/deprecated since there is no sacrament of priestly demotion (e.g. orders is one way - once a bishop always a bishop, a priest can only elevate to bishop not step down to Deacon, a Deacon can not step down to laity but can be elevated to priest then bishop). Even laicization just removes the oaths and pledges but it does not “undo” the sacramental marks. I believe it is even impossible to renounce one’s baptismal marks.
3. Permitting a non-conditional re-ordination would for a Catholic Priest be a tacit admission that he did not view the TEC as having valid holy orders and it was only a ritual.

There is no way that Cutie could have lost his faith and renounced his Catholic beliefs all in one week - this was a move of desperation and defiance and anxiety to “have it his way”. But what does not make any sense to me is Cutie’s accepting the humiliation of being demoted to a ROLE of Deacon (a genuine act of humility for a priest) while having the priestly pedigree but not being willing to be as humble to be subordinate to a Catholic Bishop. It’s mind boggling for Cutie to humble himself to an Anglican priest while not humbling himself to a Catholic Bishop - they are light years apart in sacerdotal authority and Cutie knows it in his heart. He has to.

Again, all the evidence points to a condition of severe poor-judgement take together with irrational and inconsistent behavior. The man is in spiritual, mental and emotional melt down and is in denial about it…

James

 

[GKC]

This would be quite interesting if true. I don’t believe it is true though. Newspaper reporters don’t know a thing about what “ordination” means. To them ordination, initiation, agreement, acceptance, baptised, received, anointed, blessed, applauded, acknowledged etc. all mean the same thing. Remember this is culturally illiterate American and all denominations are created equal in the eyes of God - since they seem themselves as all knowing and godly. To the media there is nothing “sacred” or “spiritual” really going on here - its a simple change of employer. To them its all a “club” : A Jew = A Christian = A Catholic = a Baptist = a tax-free religious organization etc.

So if your source said “ordained” as a deacon it just as likely is a grade “B” or “C” class journalist reporting that Cutie was “accepted” as a deacon into the TEC.

The interesting thing would be if he really was ordained since this Cutie HAS to know that double ordination is:

1. Sacrilege
2. The Office can not be stepped-down/deprecated since there is no sacrament of priestly demotion (e.g. orders is one way - once a bishop always a bishop, a priest can only elevate to bishop not step down to Deacon, a Deacon can not step down to laity but can be elevated to priest then bishop). Even laicization just removes the oaths and pledges but it does not “undo” the sacramental marks. I believe it is even impossible to renounce one’s baptismal marks.
3. Permitting a non-conditional re-ordination would for a Catholic Priest be a tacit admission that he did not view the TEC as having valid holy orders and it was only a ritual.

There is no way that Cutie could have lost his faith and renounced his Catholic beliefs all in one week - this was a move of desperation and defiance and anxiety to “have it his way”. But what does not make any sense to me is Cutie’s accepting the humiliation of being demoted to a ROLE of Deacon (a genuine act of humility for a priest) while having the priestly pedigree but not being willing to be as humble to be subordinate to a Catholic Bishop. It’s mind boggling for Cutie to humble himself to an Anglican priest while not humbling himself to a Catholic Bishop - they are light years apart in sacerdotal authority and Cutie knows it in his heart. He has to.

Again, all the evidence points to a condition of severe poor-judgement take together with irrational and inconsistent behavior. The man is in spiritual, mental and emotional melt down and is in denial about it…

James

In general, I agree, without knowing much about the man’s interior states. I don’t understand what is being reported.

Even considering sub conditione ordination, it makes no sense.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

After Vatican II there was honest attempt to open non-polemic dialog between Anglicans and Catholics that had promise of bearing much fruit. But from my perspective it looks to me like Anglican and derivatives have completely “poisoned the pot” by permitting female ordinations since original talks were opened. That act in and of itself COMPLETELY preempts and invalidates a priesthood if ever there was one in and makes it IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile with The Catholic Church. This would remain true even if new evidence were present to warrant re-considering opening a new papal ruling on the matter. Female ordinations by Anglicans/Episcopalians has forever shut the door to regaining valid matter and form and authority.

James

I agree.

GKC

I completely disagree with you guys. If a Bishop “ordains” a women, she does not become a valid priest; but that does not invalidate the orders of the Bishop (assuming that he had valid orders in the first place) much less of the entire church or communion that he belongs to.

You both might want to rethink what you’re saying here.

 

[GKC]

I completely disagree with you guys. If a Bishop “ordains” a women, she does not become a valid priest; but that does not invalidate the orders of the Bishop (assuming that he had valid orders in the first place) much less of the entire church or communion that he belongs to.

You both might want to rethink what you’re saying here.

If that’s what was said, above, then I agree with you. Where is the bishop mentioned there, as being invalidated by laying hands on hairspray? I missed the implication.

I took the general statement that female “ordination” put the quietus on the ARCIC, for all practical purposes, and I agree.

Not all Anglicans do it, though. You know about Anglicans.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

If that’s what was said, above, then I agree with you. Where is the bishop mentioned there, as being invalidated by laying hands on hairspray? I missed the implication.

He didn’t just mention the bishop “as being invalidated by laying hands on hairspray” (btw, what the hell is “hands on hairspray” suppose to mean?) …

After Vatican II there was honest attempt to open non-polemic dialog between Anglicans and Catholics that had promise of bearing much fruit. But from my perspective it looks to me like Anglican and derivatives have completely “poisoned the pot” by permitting female ordinations since original talks were opened. That act in and of itself COMPLETELY preempts and invalidates a priesthood if ever there was one in and makes it IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile with The Catholic Church. This would remain true even if new evidence were present to warrant re-considering opening a new papal ruling on the matter. Female ordinations by Anglicans/Episcopalians has forever shut the door to regaining valid matter and form and authority.

James

 

[jmcrae]

(btw, what the hell is “hands on hairspray” suppose to mean?) …

He is referring to a female candidate, presumably (it seems like someone went out of his way to sound as patronizing as possible - I bet he thinks he’s clever, wot?)

 

[Peter_J]

I hope I don’t come across as uncharitable, but in all honesty it does bother me a bit when the male-only priesthood gets linked with sexism.

 

[RainbowGirl82]

May Fr. Cutie be greatly blessed as an Episcopal priest.

 

[CentralFLJames]

May Fr. Cutie be greatly blessed as an Episcopal priest.

Is is simply not possible for God to bless an incredulous “schismatic of convenience”. One can not be “blessed” while in a state of disgrace - there is no interior supernatural substance of love to respond to. Where sin abounds grace abounds all the more. So in that sense those around Cutie may be blessed by the actual grace that will operate to call him into repentance and back to the Catholic Church. But that actual grace will work in-spite of him to do good works for God in converting others to the true faith or improving other’s sanctification - ultimately to wake him him through others response to grace and get him to repent. But he can do no supernatural good that merits him anything unless he responds to actual grace and returns to repent.

We can not judge his soul but we can certainly judge his behaviors to know that he has disgraced himself. God can not bless the devil nor the devil’s children nor the works of the devil.

One can not love the creature over the Creator to renounce the true faith and ever expect God to bless any endeavor. If Cutie ends up marrying his divorced girlfriend God it will also be impossible for God to bless that marriage since both already took vows - her to her prior spouse and he to God as a priest - a vow as best we know that he never asked release from. Further that vow consecrated Cutie to God and commits a sacrilege when he tries to confect the sacraments as a heretic and double compounds his grave sins. Cutie having known the fullness of the true faith can not repent while he remains excommunicated. This means he can not even be forgiven of his many grave sins that just compound daily. So Cutie is not blessed - rather he is damming himself by his own choice and fault and can not merit any supernatural merit even if God chooses to do some good work through him. What would be an ironic blessing to others would be if Cutie’s Catholic background (or later reversion and repentance) touched others and inspired many to come into the Catholic Church from the Presbyterian Church.
Some Related Catholic Catechisms:

2093 Faith in God’s love encompasses the call and the obligation to respond with sincere love to divine charity. The first commandment enjoins us to love God above everything and all creatures for him and because of him. 12

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” 612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. 613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

1578 No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed no one claims this office for himself; he is called to it by God. 69 Anyone who thinks he recognizes the signs of God’s call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his desire to the authority of the Church, who has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive orders. Like every grace this sacrament can be received only as an unmerited gift.

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication. 69

2120 Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us. 52

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” 11

–
To fellow Catholics:

I must wonder in light of CC 1463 above if Cutie will deny himself the blessed sacraments that he confects in the Episcopal Church to further prevent sacrilege.

James

 

[jmcrae]

–
To fellow Catholics:

I must wonder in light of CC 1463 above if Cutie will deny himself the blessed sacraments that he confects in the Episcopal Church to further prevent sacrilege.

Somehow, I doubt it. Someone who does the things that he does, it seems as if he has no fear of God; no sense of the majesty and awesomeness and “otherness” of God.

A generation ago, I caught some kids (brothers) passing notes in class one time - the one said, “God is going to get you.” The reply: “Never mind God. God is a wuss. But Mom’s going to get you!”

Today’s generation doesn’t even have any fear of Mom, let alone God.

 

[GKC]

He didn’t just mention the bishop “as being invalidated by laying hands on hairspray” (btw, what the hell is “hands on hairspray” suppose to mean?) …

It’s a phrase used to referer to “ordaining” females. It does not connote approval.

BTW, to you, and all my other friends and acquaintances, I may be about to disappear from here. My new computer system, which I have been using to post here, suddenly, yesterday, started to refuse to find the forums. I can get to the Catholic Answers site, but not into the forums, no matter what approach I take. I’m posting this from a wonky, dial up computer I still have running, which will be shut down in two weeks. If I can’t figure out why my new computer says “Cannot Connect to Server” every time I try to get here, then I’m going to become as scarce as an orthodox Episcopalian.

If so, farewell to all my friends and acquaintances here, and God speed.

GKC

 

[GKC]

He is referring to a female candidate, presumably (it seems like someone went out of his way to sound as patronizing as possible - I bet he thinks he’s clever, wot?)

Yes, but not necessarily because of that.

P.S. This will not be a prolonged exchange; see my post above.

GKC

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Of course, in certain circumstances, the church currenly allows married priests.

Absolutely not. Only Deacons can be married. Much different than priests.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s a phrase used to referer to “ordaining” females. It does not connote approval.

BTW, to you, and all my other friends and acquaintances, I may be about to disappear from here. My new computer system, which I have been using to post here, suddenly, yesterday, started to refuse to find the forums. I can get to the Catholic Answers site, but not into the forums, no matter what approach I take. I’m posting this from a wonky, dial up computer I still have running, which will be shut down in two weeks. If I can’t figure out why my new computer says “Cannot Connect to Server” every time I try to get here, then I’m going to become as scarce as an orthodox Episcopalian.

If so, farewell to all my friends and acquaintances here, and God speed.

GKC

Others are having similar issues - perhaps the remedy suggested would work for you?

 

[GKC]

Absolutely not. Only Deacons can be married. Much different than priests.

I’m going to miss this kind of post.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Others are having similar issues - perhaps the remedy suggested would work for you?

It might.

But, given my technical acumen, it might as well suggest I preform brain surgery on myself.

I’ll try to send that data to my other computer. This one is almost dead, for other reasons. And I thank you for the suggestion. At least there is a reason for my disappearance.

GKC

 

[jmcrae]

Absolutely not. Only Deacons can be married. Much different than priests.

For pastoral reasons, there are circumstances when married men have become Catholic priests. It is rare, but it is not completely unknown. Also, in the Eastern rites (which are in full communion with the Church), married men become priests quite routinely.

 

[Aramis]

Absolutely not. Only Deacons can be married. Much different than priests.

Wrong. There are MANY married men who are ordained to the Priesthood in the Catholic Church.

Further, it is at diaconal ordination that the bar to entering into a new marriage occurs.

While the Roman Church, one of the 23 churches sui iuris comprising the Catholic Church, normally does not ordain married men past the diaconate, it does make exceptions for both widowers and for protestant ministers who convert.

Many of the other Churches sui iuris routinely ordain married men. The Largest of the other churches, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, has a great many married priests, and some it its bishops have been widowers.