Fr. Cutie to Become an Episcopal Priest

[SpiritMeadow]

Ok, I stand corrected on this.

Wouldn’t they, however, be considered part of the universal catholic church?

I’ve learned (maybe incorrectly) that even though Protestants consider themselves part of the “universal catholic church,” they aren’t really since they are not in communion with Rome. Are these churches you listed in communion with Rome? I’m not entirely clear on that.

You are correct. As to creedal Protestants, we believe that catholic means universal and we are part of the universal catholic church. We recite the same apostles and nicean creeds. Oddly I was taught this as a RC by the nun who taught the RCIA program in the parish. The Priest agreed. Some RC’s I have found wish to keep catholic to themselves and seem in some cases rather put off that we even use the creeds. One would assume that belief in Jesus Christ in the creeds would be a thing to be applauded, but in some cases it seems not to be. Blessings.

 

[Hesychios]

…Oddly I was taught this as a RC by the nun who taught the RCIA program in the parish. The Priest agreed. Some RC’s I have found wish to keep catholic to themselves and seem in some cases rather put off that we even use the creeds…

This is probably because the papacy has flip-flopped over the issue in the past.

One can get supporting quotations for almost any position if one digs a bit.

 

[GKC]

Yep.

Just to be clear, tho’, as explained in that statement, if Catholics attend a Mass conducted by him, it would not fullfil their obligation to attend Mass.

I realize that Anglicans believe they have a valid eucharist, but as Catholics we don’t believe anyone outside of the Catholic church as the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

If you include the Orthodox, and the various schismatics centered on the original Old Catholic movement.

But, yep, Anglicans think we have it too, in certain places where the rules are followed. Certainly, no RC should agree with that.

GKC

 

[GKC]

the bolded is wrong. We do believe the Eastern Orthodox Communion, the Oriental Orthodox Communion, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Polish National Catholic Church, the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox, and a few other groups to have valid sacraments.

It is in fact even in Canon Law that they do!

Yep.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Yep,

Bread and wine before, during and after the service.

Which all RCs should certainly affirm.

GKC

 

[Aramis]

Ok, I stand corrected on this.

Wouldn’t they, however, be considered part of the universal catholic church?

I’ve learned (maybe incorrectly) that even though Protestants consider themselves part of the “universal catholic church,” they aren’t really since they are not in communion with Rome. Are these churches you listed in communion with Rome? I’m not entirely clear on that.

The ACE, the Syrian Orthodox, and the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox are in “limited communion”; the others are not in union.

That limited communion does not formally permit concelebration by priests and bishops (tho’ that does sometimes occur, and is not invalid). The faithful of these churches are permitted by their churches to fulfill their obligations in their Catholic parallel, and their Catholic brethren are permitted to fulfil their obligations in those particular churches. For the ACE, the parallel is the Chaldean (Catholic) Church; For the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Catholic Church; For the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox, the Armenian Catholic Church.

None of those groups, however, is part of the Visible union of the Catholic Church, and none are formally in union with Rome.

But they are all “True Churches” rather than “Ecclesial Communities”, and all have valid apostolic succession, valid sacraments, valid orders, and Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and faithful.

And for clarity: The Syrian Catholic Church, The Armenian Catholic Church, and the Chaldean Church are in full union and communion with Rome.

 

[CentralFLJames]

As I thought. Valid, but illicit.

GKC

Catholic Bishop John C. Favalora did not say this.
What he said is the following:

*His [Cutie’s] actions could lead to his dismissal from the clerical state.

This means that Father Cutié is removing himself from full communion with the Catholic Church and thereby forfeiting his rights as a cleric. Roman Catholics should not request the sacraments from Father Cuité. Any sacramental actions he attempts to perform would be illicit. Any Mass he says would be valid but illicit, meaning it does not meet a Catholic’s obligation. Father Cutié cannot validly officiate at marriages of Roman Catholics in the Archdiocese of Miami or anywhere. *

Note that the word chosen here is MASS. Eucharist can ONLY be effected in the context of the Holy Mass. This means a true apostolic mass with a FULL liturgy that has the essential elements of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). Orthodox and other true ordained apostolic faiths that have a true apostolic full liturgical form of The Mass can confect Eucharist. I do not believe that Episcopalian Liturgy taken together with their stated Communion/Confession that denies the sacrificial nature of Eucharist AND which slso denies itself even a sacramental Holy Orders or sacramental nature of Eucharist can be considered “A MASS”. It is NOT a mass - it is a Protestant ecclesial community worship gathering - liturgical readings, prayers, songs of praise and a Protestantised “ritual” that emulates in part the Catholic Mass. But what TEC does is NOT A MASS.

Further the Bishop goes on record as saying it’s entirely possible that Cutie has completely invalidated his standings as a cleric. Normally a defrocked priest or laicized priest can and is obliged in fact to give last rights and hear confessions on death beds for emergencies etc. But if Cutie has lost his clerical rights and is no longer in “a clerical state” he can’t even do last rights and emergency confessions.

What the Bishop is signaling is that if Cutie attempts to hold true Catholic masses conformant to GIRM OUTSIDE of the context of TEC to give private masses to the local constituency (Hispanic community) the sacraments may be valid but illicit. The bishop is clearly concerned that he does not trust Cutie and expects he will try to lure people away from Catholicism by giving unsanctioned private masses conducted to the local Hispanics to try to evangelize away good Catholics who will not know any better. Personally I expect this is Cutie’s true goal - to use TEC as a staging ground to get his own following then break away a new Catholic “style” church with himself as leader.

Frankly it is better that Cutie not be able to effect the sacraments since this will just be an occasion of sacrilege for both himself (when he partakes) and for whatever church must now suffer “his services”. There is no rational concept of “communion” when some in the service believe in real-presence and others do not. The sacrament can not “invalidate itself” into symbolic form (it if is in fact confected) as a courtesy to those who do not believe in real-presence to prevent them from committing sacrilege? Cutie is a disaster to himself and everyone around him…

James

 

[GKC]

Your interpretation of an Anglican Mass is appropriate, for an RC. Anglicans do not accept it, but I understand your doing so. Though again, as with the issue of the tabernacle, and the related points I posted, you do not know what an Anglican may affirm (or much about Anglicans at all), re: the Eucharistic sacrifice as a re-presentation, of the One Sacrifice, made present on the altar, at the hands of the sacerdotal alter Christus; Calvary made present to the faithful, as time and eternity intersect.

I can see a plausible side to what you say about the idea of making it plain what a valid, but illicit Mass would be, for an RCs who might be mislead by what was going on. But as to the general concept, I’m still of the same mind. As is a scholarly and orthodox RC acquaintance who discussed it with me, on another site.

Absent some definitive authoritative counter to the analogy in Ott, p. 458, I remain convinced that Fr. Cutie would confect a valid/illicit Mass. Per the bishop’s rather straight-forward words, saying that.

Your insight into the bishop’s meaning, as into Fr. Cutie’s motives, are your own, and I can’t offer any further elucidation on either. Fortunately, neither you or I are going to be expected to make the final ruling on what Fr. C is doing, or might do, and whether it’s valid or illicit.

GKC

Catholic Bishop John C. Favalora did not say this.
What he said is the following:

His [Cutie’s] actions could lead to his dismissal from the clerical state.

This means that Father Cutié is removing himself from full communion with the Catholic Church and thereby forfeiting his rights as a cleric. Roman Catholics should not request the sacraments from Father Cuité. Any sacramental actions he attempts to perform would be illicit. Any Mass he says would be valid but illicit, meaning it does not meet a Catholic’s obligation. Father Cutié cannot validly officiate at marriages of Roman Catholics in the Archdiocese of Miami or anywhere.

Note that the word chosen here is MASS. Eucharist can ONLY be effected in the context of the Holy Mass. This means a true apostolic mass with a FULL liturgy that has the essential elements of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). Orthodox and other true ordained apostolic faiths that have a true apostolic full liturgical form of The Mass can confect Eucharist. I do not believe that Episcopalian Liturgy taken together with their stated Communion/Confession that denies the sacrificial nature of Eucharist AND which slso denies itself even a sacramental Holy Orders or sacramental nature of Eucharist can be considered “A MASS”. It is NOT a mass - it is a Protestant ecclesial community worship gathering - liturgical readings, prayers, songs of praise and a Protestantised “ritual” that emulates in part the Catholic Mass. But what TEC does is NOT A MASS.

Further the Bishop goes on record as saying it’s entirely possible that Cutie has completely invalidated his standings as a cleric. Normally a defrocked priest or laicized priest can and is obliged in fact to give last rights and hear confessions on death beds for emergencies etc. But if Cutie has lost his clerical rights and is no longer in “a clerical state” he can’t even do last rights and emergency confessions.

What the Bishop is signaling is that if Cutie attempts to hold true Catholic masses conformant to GIRM OUTSIDE of the context of TEC to give private masses to the local constituency (Hispanic community) the sacraments may be valid but illicit. The bishop is clearly concerned that he does not trust Cutie and expects he will try to lure people away from Catholicism by giving unsanctioned private masses conducted to the local Hispanics to try to evangelize away good Catholics who will not know any better. Personally I expect this is Cutie’s true goal - to use TEC as a staging ground to get his own following then break away a new Catholic “style” church with himself as leader.

Frankly it is better that Cutie not be able to effect the sacraments since this will just be an occasion of sacrilege for both himself (when he partakes) and for whatever church must now suffer “his services”. There is no rational concept of “communion” when some in the service believe in real-presence and others do not. The sacrament can not “invalidate itself” into symbolic form (it if is in fact confected) as a courtesy to those who do not believe in real-presence to prevent them from committing sacrilege? Cutie is a disaster to himself and everyone around him…

James

 

[Peter_J]

GodIsGracious;5318730:

Yep.

Just to be clear, tho’, as explained in that statement, if Catholics attend a Mass conducted by him, it would not fullfil their obligation to attend Mass.

I realize that Anglicans believe they have a valid eucharist, but as Catholics we don’t believe anyone outside of the Catholic church as the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Yep,

Bread and wine before, during and after the service.

Vintage internet: GodIsGracious already admitted (in post #294) that he made a mistake with respect to the highlighted words, and yet people are still chiming in to “agree” with him.

 

[Peter_J]

Priests cannot be married.

Priests and deacons can’t get married. (Or, more precisely, they are required to be laicized in order to marry.)

 

[CentralFLJames]

Your interpretation of an Anglican Mass is appropriate, for an RC. Anglicans do not accept it, but I understand your doing so.

Anglicans do not accept it?

Don’t mistake my partially incorrect statement about Anglicans and Presbyterians [not all] having a tabernacle as a complete lack of knowledge of Anglicans. I suspect that I have more knowledge of Anglican beliefs and history than even a majority of Anglicans do about their own faith.

But let’s put this aside for the moment and consider that based on your own admission about the plurality of belief within the so called “Anglican Communion” it is a complete non-sequitur to assert “Anglicans do not accept it”. This is only possible true to the degree that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON ANYTHING in the Anglican community and therefor its an oxymoronic concept and irrational to even try to speak authoritively on anything. What we can say is that apart from that one error of believing in submission to the pope ( ) Anglican’s permit “the religion” to promulgate and accept a plurality of beliefs. It’s as if that legion of ideas was itself a core dogmatic tenant of the faith. Heterodoxy is a core dogma and the only thing affirmable. But disunity of belief and the supremacy of personal conscience is not a rational organizing principal…

Besides, I want to remind you that not even you believe that you speak for everyone in the Anglican Communion - yet here you seem to do so.

But as a side topic - this brings forward an interesting generic question. Could ANYONE in the entire Anglican Communion speak for ALL Anglicans? Not even the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to have the authority to speak for the entire Anglican Church correct?

Absent some definitive authoritative counter to the analogy in Ott, p. 458, I remain convinced that Fr. Cutie would confect a valid/illicit Mass. Per the bishop’s rather straight-forward words, saying that.

Ott while a terrific theologian is not called to referee on the validity of heretical masses.

Note that not even a Catholic priest in GOOD STANDING and in communion with The Church can effect the sacrament of Eucharist without conducting FULL Catholic Mass using all the essential elements of the mass (GIRM). So, I stand on my opinion that the TEC ecclesial service is NOT a valid liturgy and lacks proper form and is therefor not a Mass. Cutie could possibly say a private mass at TEC using the Catholic Liturgy (GIRM) and effect the sacraments if he has not invalidated himself but that would be a definate case of valid and illicit. But in the context of Anglican liturgy and its beliefs it can’t be proper form and so is invalid and illicit just as it would be for a Catholic Priest to pick up an unconsecrated host, wave his hands over it and say “this is the body of Christ”. No - not possible - full liturgy and worship and sacrifice is required.

Again, back to form, the proper intentions are not even present in the public attestation of belief of Anglicans on critical matters of real-presence, sacraments, and sacrificial beliefs. Yet you assert that what the leadership of the Anglican assembly puts forward as belief are not binding on anyone. This is ridiculous - its like going to a court room and the judge asking an atheist to “swear on the bible to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth” and feeling secure in his “amen”.

This so reminds me of a funny sequence of dialog in the movie* Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl*. The last line tells all…
Pirates of the Caribbean: Barbossa and Elizabeth Parley:

• Elizabeth: Captain Barbossa , I am here to negotiate the cessation of hostilities against Port Royal .
• Barbossa: There are a lot of long words in there, Miss; we’re naught but humble pirates. What is it that you want?
• Elizabeth: I want you to leave and never come back.
• Barbossa: I’m disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means “no”.
• Elizabeth: Very well. I’ll drop it.
  [dangles medallion over the sea]
• Barbossa: Me holds are burstin’ with swag. That bit of shine matters to us? Why?
• Elizabeth: It’s what you’ve been searching for. I recognized the ship. I saw it eight years ago on the crossing from England .
• Barbossa: Did ya, now?
• Elizabeth: Fine. Well, I suppose if it is worthless then there’s no point in me keeping it.
  [it drops a bit, the pirates lunge forward]
• Barbossa: No! Ah. [chuckles] You have a name, Missy?
• Elizabeth: Elizabeth… Turner. I’m a maid in the Governor’s household.
• Barbossa: Miss Turner…? [turns to face the pirates]
• Pintel: Bootstrap. {they make the connection to how she came into possession of the gold medallian they seek to possses so to be relased from their curse - but she is clueless as to its powers}
• Barbossa: And how does a maid come to own a trinket such as that? Family heirloom, perhaps?
• Elizabeth: I didn’t steal it, if that’s what you mean.
• Barbossa: Very well, you hand it over and we’ll put your town to our rudder and ne’er return.
• Elizabeth: [she hands it over] Our bargain?
• [Barbossa walks away from her] Bo’sun: Still the guns and stow 'em, Signal the men, set the flags and make good to clear port.
• Elizabeth: Wait! You have to take me to shore. According to the Code of the Order of the Brethren…
• Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate’s code to apply and you’re not. **And thirdly, the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules. **Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner .

 

[GKC]

I will consider any signs you have much knowledge about Anglicanism, as they might appear.

As to whether it is accurate to say that “Anglicans don’t accept” the RC judgment on the Anglican Mass, as speaking for all Anglicans, probably not. For some it is simply not a factor, some don’t accept it. But if you look around, you might find some, of the reformed persuasion, who wouldn’t blink at what you said.

Lots of Anglicans out there. All sorts, including those who have broken, with the Anglican Communion, around 30 years ago, over the lack of standards we’re musing on. And since that’s the case, you have to specify which Anglicans you are speaking of. Generalizing is generally inaccurate, as you have seen me say, over and over (and sure, draw my attention to when I need to say it again; I don’t mind repeating myself) but some generalizations are more nearly accurate, or useful, than others. Such as that most Anglicans will affirm some sense of the Real Presence, though not necessarily transubstantiation, and, for the most part, Anglicans may be classified as Homo sapiens, (AFAIK). So, generalizing is sometimes possible, to some extent. But to say “Anglicans believe XXX” or (whatever helps your argument) is likely to be wrong. And more likely to be wrong in the past 50 years or so, then prior.

Catch me speaking, consciously, for all Anglicans, and you can take two free shots on goal.

Absolutely correct. Not even good old Cantaur. With whom not all Anglicans are in communion, of course. I don’t set this up, I just report it.

Ott is no sort of theologian, he codifies Church doctrine and categorizes it. If you want to disagree, not with what he asserts, of his own, but with what he asserts is RC dogma and doctrine, have at him. It’s p. 458. How is he wrong, how does it not apply, mutatis mutandis, to Fr. C’s situation.

I note your opinion as to the form of the Anglican Mass. I also note the late Michael Davies as holding a contrary opinion. I also note a lack of citation as to where (analagous to Apostolicae curae,) the RCC has made a formal judgment on the liturgical rite. You got any idea? Where is the invalidity of form, in the Anglican liturgy (remember, not the Ordinal. The canon of the Mass). In what does it consist? Go take a look at the Anglican Use, and compare it to its origin in Rite I of the 1979 Episcopal prayer book (note the best choice, IMO). There are changes. Which one do you suppose made the form a valid form, for RC use?

Liturgy doesn’t have beliefs; people do. You sound a lot like the Anglican Archbishops replying to Apostolicae Curae, with Saepius Officio. This is also at the heart of your error about sacramental intent. It inheres in the act of an individual. How it is judged, as to whether it complies with the (rather minimal) requirement, facere quod facit ecclesia, has been laid out before. Go read para 9 of *AC *again. The intent is demonstrated by the action, absent a positive indication to the contrary, to permit a *determinatio ex adiunctis *.

Again, as in the past, we are mainly dealing with your opinions. Give me some definitve references. Anglicans got plenty of opinions already.

GKC

 

[GodIsGracious]

Vintage internet: GodIsGracious already admitted (in post #294) that he made a mistake with respect to the highlighted words, and yet people are still chiming in to “agree” with him.

Before you go spouting anything off about me being corrected, please keep things in context. I said I “stood corrected” on which SPECIFIC churches had the Real Presence in the Eucharist and here is the post I am referring to. You conveniently left off the churches that have valid communion so please don’t imply that I am saying that all churches have a valid communion because THEY DO NOT HAVE VALID COMMUNION. Note too that in this post that I referenced that the Episcopal and Anglican churches ARE NOT LISTED as having valid communion. Do NOT try to use my post justify your juice & crackers or bread & wine as being the real thing. It is NOT.

Tomster, I believe, was referring to the Anglican church, or perhaps the Episcopal church, since this thread is about an RC priest going over to the Episcopal Church.

Here is the FULL CONTEXT of that discussion:

Aramis;5318781:

GodIsGracious;5318730:

Yep.

Just to be clear, tho’, as explained in that statement, if Catholics attend a Mass conducted by him, it would not fullfil their obligation to attend Mass.

I realize that Anglicans believe they have a valid eucharist, but as Catholics** we don’t believe anyone outside of the Catholic church as the Real Presence in the Eucharist.**

the bolded is wrong. We do believe the Eastern Orthodox Communion, the Oriental Orthodox Communion, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Polish National Catholic Church, the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox, and a few other groups to have valid sacraments.

It is in fact even in Canon Law that they do!

Ok, I stand corrected on this.

Wouldn’t they, however, be considered part of the universal catholic church?

I’ve learned (maybe incorrectly) that even though Protestants consider themselves part of the “universal catholic church,” they aren’t really since they are not in communion with Rome. Are these churches you listed in communion with Rome? I’m not entirely clear on that.

Aramis was kind enough (Thank you Aramis!) to further clarify:

The ACE, the Syrian Orthodox, and the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox are in “limited communion”; the others are not in union.

That limited communion does not formally permit concelebration by priests and bishops (tho’ that does sometimes occur, and is not invalid). The faithful of these churches are permitted by their churches to fulfill their obligations in their Catholic parallel, and their Catholic brethren are permitted to fulfil their obligations in those particular churches. For the ACE, the parallel is the Chaldean (Catholic) Church; For the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Catholic Church; For the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox, the Armenian Catholic Church.

None of those groups, however, is part of the Visible union of the Catholic Church, and none are formally in union with Rome.

But they are all “True Churches” rather than “Ecclesial Communities”, and all have valid apostolic succession, valid sacraments, valid orders, and Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and faithful.

And for clarity: The Syrian Catholic Church, The Armenian Catholic Church, and the Chaldean Church are in full union and communion with Rome.

BTW, I’m not a “him.” At least, not last time I checked.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Note too that in this post that I referenced that the Episcopal and Anglican churches ARE NOT LISTED as having valid communion. Do NOT try to use my post justify your juice & crackers or bread & wine as being the real thing. It is NOT.

Just a slight correction here. You conclude the above as your opinion and as the stated opinion of your church. You are most aware I would assume that Anglicans and Episcopalians not only disagree, but do not seek or inquire as to the opinion of the RCC on such matters. As you no doubt do not seek our advice on matters pertaining to your liturgy and Mass.

I don’t really understand why some few RC’s seem to be unable to grasp this concept, but it seems they cannot.

 

[Peter_J]

Real classy, GodIsGracious, attacking the very person who stood up for you.

please don’t imply that I am saying that all churches have a valid communion

I never had any intention of doing that, so your request is easy to comply with.

Do NOT try to use my post justify your juice & crackers or bread & wine as being the real thing. It is NOT.

I have absolutely no need to use your post to justify the validity of the Catholic eucharist. It is valid, whether you believe it is or not. (BTW, if you don’t consider Catholic eucharist to be valid, you really ought to change your profile. At present it reads “Religion: Roman Catholic”.)

I normally would say “Welcome to the forum”, but in this case I really have some doubts about the appropriateness of your being here, unless you change your attitude a little.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Real classy, GodIsGracious, attacking the very person who stood up for you.

I never had any intention of doing that, so your request is easy to comply with.

I have absolutely no need to use your post to justify the validity of the Catholic eucharist. It is valid, whether you believe it is or not. (BTW, if you don’t consider Catholic eucharist to be valid, you really ought to change your profile. At present it reads “Religion: Roman Catholic”.)

I normally would say “Welcome to the forum”, but in this case I really have some doubts about the appropriateness of your being here, unless you change your attitude a little.

I agree Peter. I thought you were supporting her and chastizing others for not reading carefully. Go figure. I guess some come here loaded for bear, but perhaps need some glasses so they don’t shoot the scout! lol…

 

[GodIsGracious]

Just a slight correction here. You conclude the above as your opinion and as the stated opinion of your church. You are most aware I would assume that Anglicans and Episcopalians not only disagree, but do not seek or inquire as to the opinion of the RCC on such matters. As you no doubt do not seek our advice on matters pertaining to your liturgy and Mass.

I don’t really understand why some few RC’s seem to be unable to grasp this concept, but it seems they cannot.

I grasp this concept. You seem to think that because we don’t agree or feel differently we can’t grasp the concept. Disagreeing does not mean that we don’t “grasp a concept.”

 

[GodIsGracious]

Real classy, GodIsGracious, attacking the very person who stood up for you.

I never had any intention of doing that, so your request is easy to comply with.

I have absolutely no need to use your post to justify the validity of the Catholic eucharist. It is valid, whether you believe it is or not. (BTW, if you don’t consider Catholic eucharist to be valid, you really ought to change your profile. At present it reads “Religion: Roman Catholic”.)

I normally would say “Welcome to the forum”, but in this case I really have some doubts about the appropriateness of your being here, unless you change your attitude a little.

Catholics are constantly attacked on our own forums. I saw your religion as “Christianity” and took your post to mean that you thought I was saying all communions were valid so I was correcting that.

If that’s not what you intended, my mistake. I’m not above owning up to my errors.

And, uhm, I have no idea where you get the idea that I don’t think that the Eucharist at Mass (a Catholic Mass) is not valid. I most certainly do believe it to be valid and the Real Presence of Christ. Clearly you’ve not read other posts of mine. I think there’s been a misunderstanding here.

I, personally, don’t feel like I have an attitude to correct. Catholics are constantly under attack by Protestants so I do get a bit defensive. (You should have seen the look I got today because of the small crucifix I wear.)

BTW, I’ve been a lurker on the forums for years, I’ve even posted here years ago under another moniker, so I’m not necessarily new. The “non-Catholic” forums didn’t use to be all about non-Catholics coming here and proselytizing Catholics or bashing our religion. It’s changed quite a bit here.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m reminded of one of my favorite C.S. Lewis quotes (perhaps this will also help to get on a positive note):

“Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.”

Edit: At the time that I posted the above, I had not yet seen the latest posts from GodIsGracious, i.e. #314 and #315. But I’ve read them since.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I’m reminded of one of my favorite C.S. Lewis quotes (perhaps this will also help to get on a positive note):

“Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.”

Edit: At the time that I posted the above, I had not yet seen the latest posts from GodIsGracious, i.e. #314 and #315. But I’ve read them since.

Two questions:

First, I came back to ask if I misunderstood your post that I had responded to. Did I? I am thinking I did.

Second, I don’t understand this quote. Could you explain it for me, please?