Fr. Cutie to Become an Episcopal Priest

[CentralFLJames]

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 don’t have that book of Ott’s at hand and could not find an online electronic copy - sorry.

Using reason alone I can state with confidence that there can be no sacraments in an ecclesial community who’s leadership explicitly disavows the sacraments (outside of marriage and baptism). I know, I know, I have heard it from you a thousand times - in spite of what the Anglican Communion says in their official documents we are to ignore all that since Anglicans who were grandfathered in under different beliefs are permitted to believe what they want. So tell me how can you hold me to the higher standard of orthodoxy and formalism when Anglicans have none whatsoever? That’s a double standard.

I see no point in discussing this further since you are using the Catholic Church’s standards of orthodoxy as the only standard and when I point to obvious defects in the Anglican communion you just play rope-a-dope and say “doesn’t apply to Anglicans”. Sorry I am not playing this game anymore…

The simple logic is that an ecclesial community that has no formalized notion of holy orders as a sacrament can not have a priesthood (not even a Catholic priest can be an island onto himself). But an apostolic priesthood is necessary to confect Eucharist. Add in the Pope Leo XIII’s ex-cathedra about Anglican orders utterly null and void and Anglicans have real-presence “in mind only”. There is not a single credible miracle associated with Anglicanized consecrated hosts to give any creedance to it being anything but wishful thinking.

If some Anglicans can escape this juggernaut of problems they then have to get around the fact that the sacrament of Eucharist also requires a valid liturgy to confect. To my knowledge there has been no official Catholic opinion on this - so I am free to form my own conscience just as you are. So we are in a Mexican standoff - each to his own opinion. I will say that the key factor shaping my opinion is the lack of a uniform formal belief or even a majority belief in real-presence at an institutional level. That fact alone tells me I don’t even need to do a side by side liturgy comparison since: 1) The “patient” is already terminally ill without holy orders and further diagnosis of terminality is pointless and 2) The liturgy could not possibly overcome the fundamental defects present at an institutional level (e.g. plurality of beliefs) and 3) I don’t believe for an instant that The Lord would let His Divine Body and Blood be used in an assembly that is in open conflict with The Catholic Church and its teachings and authority since it is His Church.

The only reason I even mentioned liturgy at all is just to show the large number of hurdles that stand between the wishy-washy Anglican communion and getting to real-presence. I also use it to cast more considerable doubt on Cutie’s ability to use his singularly valid apostolic ordination in TEC (if he indeed still is in a valid clerical state) viz a foreign liturgy to effect the sacraments. I maintain that even if his spiritual marks are all still valid and divinely recognized and is still a valid cleric (in God’s eyes) then the liturgy preempts him. God is not mocked and what Cutie is doing is trying to thumb his nose at the Catholic Church. I don’t believe for an instant that Jesus will permit the sacraments to be abused by a renegade Catholic priest anymore so than I would believe that Jesus would permit His Eucharistic presence if a validly ordained priest conducted a Satanic rite that mocked God in place of the Catholic Liturgy. Sorry to use that extreme example but I think you get my point - liturgy matters as much as valid apostolic priestly ordination.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[from prior]

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?

I am not well read on Michael Davies. What I know is that he was a convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism and so likely does have considerable insights into this topic area. But the one thing about him that immediately makes me skeptical is that he also supported French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X. In fact he declined to retract that support after Lefebvre’s decision to consecrate four bishops in 1988 against the wish of Pope John Paul II. There seem to be those old lingering Anglican proclivites for “bucking ecclesial authority” - which gets to the real-substance of the matter at hand - authority, obedience and attitude. We tend to forget that God has a say in all this too. Does anyone really believe for a moment that God would accept the offering of a rouge priest who is using his sacerdotal powers to divide the church just so he can have illicit sex with a divorced woman admist ongoing scandals? It might be good here to reflect on the actual words of consecration - they are in fact conditioned on God’s approval.

*Epiclesis Version 1:

…Bless and approve our offering; make it acceptable to you, and offering in spirit and in truth.** Let **is become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son, our Lord.

Epiclesis Version 2:
… **Let **your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Epiclesis Version 3:
…And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. **We ask **you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.

Epiclesis Version 4:
…Father** may **this Holy Spirit sanctify these offerings. **Let them become **the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord as we celebrate the great mystery which he left us as an everlasting covenant. *

Notice all those conditionals in each of the Epiclesis fragments that ask God to convert the communal sacrifice (but Anglican do not even say they have a sacrifice)? It is all conditioned on God’s acceptance of the sacrifice and again my personal opinion is that its is HIGHLY doubtful that God would permit Cutie to confect the sacraments against the wishes and authority of The Catholic Church and in a congregation that has no uniform belief on real-presence and who is in open rebellion against His appointed ecclesial leaders. Let’s not even go to the matter of how many TEC congregation are in a state of grace and have fasted and could receive worthily or escape committing sacrilege by refusing to believe in real transubstantiated presence.

Another Idea:
Let’s forget the academic arguments for the moment and get to common sense - the original apostles were afterall simple fishermen. Save St. John’s profoundly heady insights I’d say that the highest-ordered cerebral insights the apostles initially understood (before receiving diving enlightenment) could probably be generalized with the modern day popular fisherman’s ditty - “fish or cut bait”. As that might apply here it seems to be a simple projection to imagine that The Lord simply would not permit himself to become a source of division within His own body, house and bride (The Church). While He might permit his garments to be divided among the needy I find it unconscionable and inconceivable that He would permit his framework (e.g. his bones) to be broken and his body “divided” in parts between those who follow the apostolic lineage and then also share it with those who operate disobediently to undermine that communion. No, my friend “drawing and quartering” was a monarchical tradition employed in King Henry VIII’s day against his enemies (Those who would not approve of his illicit marriage) and not a tradition never practiced in The Church . Nor was there ever a Church tradition for a free-range sort of franchise Christianity to as we say “have it your way” (e.g. ‘hold the pickle and lettuce please’).

Sorry if this come across cheeky or impolite but its really high-time to address the issues directly - Anglicans/Episcopalians et-all are in open indifference to any sort of Catholic orthodoxy and apostolic authority and pretty much do what ever they want to. Ecumenical pandering aside - does anyone for a moment really believe that The Lord would permit himself to be the the main course within a divided Church or would God do what He has always done - preserve and protect a main lineage (Davidic) and cut of the rest? More to the point, using simple logic let’s ask - ‘would God let manna fall from the sky to feed the Jews as well as the Canaanites and dessert-Jackals (and any Jews who might have broke ranks to wander off to do their own thing)’?

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[from prior]

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

I see your point but the priest must have a shared common belief with the people he is effecting the sacrifice for. But again, I want to go back to my extreme example. If the assembly was all a bunch of Satanists who paid a rouge Catholic priest to say mass to confect the sacraments for them just so they could commit sacrileges against it do you really think God would go along with it? It is essential that one has an apostolic priest but that is not in and of itself sufficient. EVERYTHING is conditioned on God permitting the conversion of the sacrifice to the sacrament. God can do anything He desires and I doubt could be compelled to go along with open defiance to His Church nor be an occasion for mass sacrilege by a congregation who does not know that is must receive worthily.

Cutie has opened up a true can of worms for a lot of people.

Sorry to run so long.

James

 

[GKC]

Yes, you have heard it a multitude of times. And it is so.

There are no official documents for the Anglican Communion, aside from the Creeds. And you did note that not all Anglicans are in the Communion, certainly.

Have you ever read Newman’s Tract #90? Just curious.

Your problem with the structure of the discussion is primarily one of failing to see what I am doing. I am not interested in what you think about what Cutie is able to do. I am interested in what the RCC, by virtue of what it holds in its official doctrine, or by binding statements such as Apostolicae Curae, would say he was able to do, due to my interest in the general subject of validity . IMO, I have a better grasp of this, as I did, way back when when we first discussed AC, than you do. Ott, for example. In the place cited, references both Denzinger and the CIC (I assume pre-1983). The parallel is obvious, to Cutie’s situation. And I offer for your consideration what one of the RCs on the other site I’ve been talking to said, in agreeing with me: St, Thomas, ST, Third Part, Q. 82, ARTs. 5, 7, 8, 9. But if there were definitive reasons otherwise, I’d love to know them. Hence I discuss. And I also discuss, for the same reason I first posted, any where, around 10 years ago; RCs don’t know much (generally) about Anglicans. I fill the gap. And what I say about the Anglican praxis is that there is no RC judgment that invalidates the Anglican form (as you say, liturgy), intent (as determined sacramentally) or matter (as used in the Anglican Mass). Only the minister. Since you are at a loss to identify such (which I’d be glad to hear, if it were otherwise), you must rely on what you feel must be true. I can understand why you would want to stop the game. I’m playing polo; you’re playing water polo. I’m not holding you to a higher standard. I’m holding you to that of the RCC, not your own. Your beliefs are noted. I’m not concerned with them.

(I’m reading and replying mostly, but not exclusively, ad seriatum as you might guess.)

AC is not ex cathedra,but it is to be held de fide.

I’ll jump to the next post, and see if this is too long.

GKC

I don’t have that book of Ott’s at hand and could not find an online electronic copy - sorry.

Using reason alone I can state with confidence that there can be no sacraments in an ecclesial community who’s leadership explicitly disavows the sacraments (outside of marriage and baptism). I know, I know, I have heard it from you a thousand times - in spite of what the Anglican Communion says in their official documents we are to ignore all that since Anglicans who were grandfathered in under different beliefs are permitted to believe what they want. So tell me how can you hold me to the higher standard of orthodoxy and formalism when Anglicans have none whatsoever? That’s a double standard.n

I see no point in discussing this further since you are using the Catholic Church’s standards of orthodoxy as the only standard and when I point to obvious defects in the Anglican communion you just play rope-a-dope and say “doesn’t apply to Anglicans”. Sorry I am not playing this game anymore…

The simple logic is that an ecclesial community that has no formalized notion of holy orders as a sacrament can not have a priesthood (not even a Catholic priest can be an island onto himself). But an apostolic priesthood is necessary to confect Eucharist. Add in the Pope Leo XIII’s ex-cathedra about Anglican orders utterly null and void and Anglicans have real-presence “in mind only”. There is not a single credible miracle associated with Anglicanized consecrated hosts to give any creedance to it being anything but wishful thinking.

If some Anglicans can escape this juggernaut of problems they then have to get around the fact that the sacrament of Eucharist also requires a valid liturgy to confect. To my knowledge there has been no official Catholic opinion on this - so I am free to form my own conscience just as you are. So we are in a Mexican standoff - each to his own opinion. I will say that the key factor shaping my opinion is the lack of a uniform formal belief or even a majority belief in real-presence at an institutional level. That fact alone tells me I don’t even need to do a side by side liturgy comparison since: 1) The “patient” is already terminally ill without holy orders and further diagnosis of terminality is pointless and 2) The liturgy could not possibly overcome the fundamental defects present at an institutional level (e.g. plurality of beliefs) and 3) I don’t believe for an instant that The Lord would let His Divine Body and Blood be used in an assembly that is in open conflict with The Catholic Church and its teachings and authority since it is His Church.

The only reason I even mentioned liturgy at all is just to show the large number of hurdles that stand between the wishy-washy Anglican communion and getting to real-presence. I also use it to cast more considerable doubt on Cutie’s ability to use his singularly valid apostolic ordination in TEC (if he indeed still is in a valid clerical state) viz a foreign liturgy to effect the sacraments. I maintain that even if his spiritual marks are all still valid and divinely recognized and is still a valid cleric (in God’s eyes) then the liturgy preempts him. God is not mocked and what Cutie is doing is trying to thumb his nose at the Catholic Church. I don’t believe for an instant that Jesus will permit the sacraments to be abused by a renegade Catholic priest anymore so than I would believe that Jesus would permit His Eucharistic presence if a validly ordained priest conducted a Satanic rite that mocked God in place of the Catholic Liturgy. Sorry to use that extreme example but I think you get my point - liturgy matters as much as valid apostolic priestly ordination.

[continued]

James

 

[GKC]

That fit. I’ll try to be as brief, again.

Davies was an uber-traditionalist, yes. But his CRANMER’S GODLY ORDER is a good read. And the point was that he recognized that the RCC had made no statement on the validity of the Anglican form of the Mass, only of the form for ordination/consecration. Which is my point, too.

Again, I have no insight into either Fr. C’s thought processes, or (save as I see them enunciated by the RCC), God’s, on this matter.

Ok, for the epiclesis. Here’s ours (1928 Book of Common Prayer, accept no subsitutes):

“And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood”.

(If I had time I’d type out the Supplices Te Rogamus from the Anglican Missal. You’d like it. It sounds a lot like the Missale Romanum of 1962).

In your Anglican Use/Book of Divine Worship, it goes like this:

“We humbly beseech thee, almighty God: command these offerings to be brought by the hands of thy holy Angel to thine altar on high, in sight of thy divine majesty: that all we who at this partaking of the altar shall receive the most sacred Body and Blood of thy Son, + may be fulfilled with all heavenly benediction and grace”.

Which is approximately what it is in our Missal.

Yep. Sacrifice.

So much for the Epiclesis. We could also compare the verba, words of institution, with similar results.

And sure, let’s not do that, with respect to either the Episcopal, or the RC congregation. It doesn’t bear on the validity of the Eucharist what the state of the recipients are. And you can’t tell by looking, at either group. Hence, the action, for the intent.

I note your musing, below. I don’t mean there is no interest to be found there. But no formal RC doctrine, either. And if you want to talk Horny Hank and his great matter, I’m your huckleberry. It’s more a hobby with me than is AC

No offense taken, James, rest assured. Everyone has opinions. And do remember. Anglicans are a variable lot, etc, etc. And include Anglicans who affirm Catholic orthodoxy and apostolic authority and pretty much scorn what the current Anglican Communion has become.

Will now see if this fits.

Nope. Had to cut yours out.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Nothing new to add here. Nothing that touches on sacramental form, matter, intent and minister, as defined by the RCC, which is what I’m interested in (in your extreme case, though, I think it likely there would be a sufficient cause for a determinatio ex adiunctis, and invalidate the ministerial intent, but I’m no expert).

But your length was fine. And I certainly would have suggested to Fr. C that he stay where he was, and take up drinking, or something.

Drop by the parish tomorrow. Corpus Christi, and Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. I was pressed into assisting at such a Benediction, years ago. Short of acolytes. I was fetching and carrying the humeral veil and cope, etc.

GKC

[from prior]

I see your point but the priest must have a shared common belief with the people he is effecting the sacrifice for. But again, I want to go back to my extreme example. If the assembly was all a bunch of Satanists who paid a rouge Catholic priest to say mass to confect the sacraments for them just so they could commit sacrileges against it do you really think God would go along with it? It is essential that one has an apostolic priest but that is not in and of itself sufficient. EVERYTHING is conditioned on God permitting the conversion of the sacrifice to the sacrament. God can do anything He desires and I doubt could be compelled to go along with open defiance to His Church nor be an occasion for mass sacrilege by a congregation who does not know that is must receive worthily.

Cutie has opened up a true can of worms for a lot of people.

Sorry to run so long.

James

 

[AJV]

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.

Well, strictly speaking, the classic scholastic answer would be that he would sin greviously (a) by celebrating sacraments outside the Church (b) by using a rite not approved by the Church BUT the Eucharist would be ‘validly confected’ if the Words of Institution are included in the rite and he has the intention of consecrating. I suppose this opens up the can of worms of what belief exactly (Fr.) Cutie has now, given the plurality across the Anglican spectrum, and to what extent that could be said to be conditioning his intention.

The Almighty may certainly choose not to ‘show up’, but we can’t presume that He will.

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.

He can in fact, hear confessions validly in danger of death with no Catholic priest. The sacramental character imprinted on him at sacred ordination does not disappear when he is laicizied.

Thi teaching is embodied in the laws of the Church as found in the Code

290 Once validly received, sacred ordination never becomes invalid. A cleric, nevertheless, loses the clerical state:

1.by a judicial sentence or administrative decree, which declares the invalidity of sacred ordination;

1. by the penalty of dismissal imposedl awfully

1. by rescript of the Apostolic See which grants it to deacons only for grave causes and to presbyters only for most grave causes.

291 Apart from the case mentioned in can. 290, n. 1, loss of the clerical state does not entail a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which only the Roman Pontiff grants.

292 A cleric who loses the clerical state according to the norm of law loses with it the rights proper to the clerical state and is no longer bound by any obligations of the clerical state, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 291. He is prohibited from exercising the power of orders, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 976. By the loss of the clerical state, he is deprived of all offices, functions, and any delegated power.

976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.

Both Commentaries on the Code, and rescripts of laicization link canon 976 with 982, 2

1. In urgent necessity, any confessor is obliged to hear the confessions of the Christian faithful, and in danger of death, any priest is so obliged.

 

[Hesychios]

So then, has Father Cutie taken charge of a parish in his new affiliation yet?

 

[AJV]

So then, has Father Cutie taken charge of a parish in his new affiliation yet?

I thought he was a deacon or reader or something about the Episcopalians and will be so for a year.

 

[GKC]

Well, strictly speaking, the classic scholastic answer would be that he would sin greviously (a) by celebrating sacraments outside the Church (b) by using a rite not approved by the Church BUT the Eucharist would be ‘validly confected’ if the Words of Institution are included in the rite and he has the intention of consecrating. I suppose this opens up the can of worms of what belief exactly (Fr.) Cutie has now, given the plurality across the Anglican spectrum, and to what extent that could be said to be conditioning his intention.

The Almighty may certainly choose not to ‘show up’, but we can’t presume that He will.

He can in fact, hear confessions validly in danger of death with no Catholic priest. The sacramental character imprinted on him at sacred ordination does not disappear when he is laicizied.

Thi teaching is embodied in the laws of the Church as found in the Code

Both Commentaries on the Code, and rescripts of laicization link canon 976 with 982, 2

The Words of Institution are also parallel, as I stated above. Absent a positive indication to the contrary, the assumption on intent would be facere quod facit ecclesia..

GKC

 

[BWNM]

Apparently.

What a terrible message for the people of his parish! If being Catholic is too difficult for you, just go find a church that’s easier.

I hope he goes quickly and quietly.

And to all

And this is a core of the problem, right. Hey you don’t like it, pack your things, go ahead find your self new denominations and great - feel good as you go along.

Let me make something clear here and I notice on this forum that people are coming up oh how sad and what about performing duties and being able to Consecrate etc…does anyone here know what full suspension of priest activities means anymore in nowadays?
Try excommunication in different form and consequences of it, just for a thought.

People are coming up with excuses and kind of way playing ping pond with God Laws and offenses committed by chosen ones, and these are not something to take delight in it. Going around and trying to just say - oh well, feel sad about it etc. its poor baloney.

First of all, did ever occur to anyone that he has put aside calling of the Lord and decided that earthly things are more important. There are numerous services in Church to help priests with problems and no one on this planet is going to tell me otherwise. I have been involved with seminarians and priests for too long how this is so no for him and others there are only excuses and that it is.

I’m angry in just cause, because I hate, absolutely hate seeing people leaving a high calling for something so pathetic as earthly moments of adventure when there is so much to be done, for using gifts giving for souls salvation to just turn around and think, well maybe I made mistake. Let me tell you, no there was no mistake, mistake was allowing opening your free will to temptation and rest assure devil is master of that.

For many today feel good talk from pulpit about of that Lord is forgiving, and on this it is absolutely true for Lord doesn’t take pleasure in death, no - He wants a sinner to convert and live, but by same token understand the position of a priest and maybe you will see this in totally different manner. What this priest and many I have met has done is piercing Lord in a way that no human or angle can fathom. And how can we stand here and just say, pack your things and go, enjoy. This is a problem that will not go away; rather it will get worst, count on it.

People should reflect upon these four things before jumping like drunken sailors and making decisions which can be profound - death, judgment, heaven or hell. Read some of Saints visions of Heaven and hell, especially Saint John Bosko, and I can assure you hell basement is pave with skulls of many religious people. Is this worth it for so short time of pleasure on this earth, or rather taking more delight on performing duties to bring souls to the Lord, for that is main purpose of the priests, monks, missionaries etc.

I will not play around feel good when it comes to these matters, for I have seen too many of this before, I pray with many, for that is only thing we can do, but don’t play games with the Lord, for end will be catastrophic. You can’t serve two masters, choose wisely, this earthly life is just a second, think as you will die today and stand in front of the Lord. Think of souls who need help, concentrate on the Lord totally, which means totally - no little bit here or there, thus he will give you strength, and then and only then will you be able to overcome temptations and snares of the devil. Otherwise, you will lose focus and that’s where he gets you.

And no, as you may think, who am I to judge him, I don’t - that belongs to the Lord himself, but there is a limit. Greatest tragedy in human life is disobedience for there you have pride and blindness for it leads to hell.

God Bless

 

[Peter_J]

I’m reluctant to open this can of worms, but will Fr. Cutié’s marriage be valid? Or, more precisely, what would it take for his marriage to be valid? (I’m not trying to be uncharitable or judgemental here. Just asking.)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.”

I am thrilled you see the difference. You cannot know how many hear refuse to get that.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

Gosh, I’m really sad to hear this about being harassed by Protestants. I was RC for years and recall only once that a Protestant ever even suggested there was something wrong with my faith from their prospective. Being a lawyer, I was in the public constantly and conversed with dozens of people per day, yet oddly I was never “attacked.”

I do admit there are a good number of other RC’s HERE who agree with you. Among my Catholic friends online and in real life, again, I’d never heard this. Perhaps it has something to do with the area you live in?

I’ve been on these boards for a good while. I see little of the proselytizing you speak of. In fact I don’t recall any Protestant encouraging a RC to convert to their faith. Plenty the other way though. I’ve actually told at least three people who were considering Catholicism but put off by the extremism of some RC’s here to visit parishes and talk to the priests, since I am convinced that most every parish is a good deal less extreme than some folks here are.

I surely hope that we can get along. I assure you, I don’t believe in trying to talk anyone into another faith tradition. That is between God and each person I think, and moreover, I think one is more convincing in that respect by their manner of behavior than by proselytizing anyway. As a Catholic nun told me many years ago, that is for the Hari Krisna!

 

[Peter_J]

I was RC for years and recall only once that a Protestant ever even suggested there was something wrong with my faith from their prospective.

Were they gold miners?

(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

Being a lawyer, I was in the public constantly and conversed with dozens of people per day, yet oddly I was never “attacked.”

There are significant differences between internet discussion forums and “real life”. In particular, you’ll find much less Protestant-bashing in real life than you will on a Catholic discussion forum, and much less Catholic-bashing than you’ll find on a Protestant discussion forum. (There was a brief discussion on another thread about whether this relates to the “Online disinhibition effect”.)

It would seem reasonable for one of two things to happen with these discussion forums (Catholic and Protestant alike) in the future:

• some kind of significant reform, or
• a mass exodus away from them (or, at least, a mass exodus of Catholics away from Protestant forums, and a mass exodus of Protestants away from Catholic forums)
  But which of those is more likely to happen, I really couldn’t say.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m reluctant to open this can of worms, but will Fr. Cutié’s marriage be valid? Or, more precisely, what would it take for his marriage to be valid? (I’m not trying to be uncharitable or judgemental here. Just asking.)

Since he is no longer a practicing Catholic, and since the woman he is living with has probably never been Catholic, it seems extremely unlikely that she will apply for a Declaration of Nullity for her previous marriage. It also seems that Father Cutie refuses to be formally laicized, which would allow him permission to marry, as well - so, no - for as long as both of them remain not free to marry, their “marriage” will not be valid.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

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

Deacons are married that is why they are called Deacons.

 

[Peter_J]

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve been on these boards for a good while. I see little of the proselytizing you speak of. In fact I don’t recall any Protestant encouraging a RC to convert to their faith.

You should start following the threads of “heiscominginthe” for one example among many. (Unless you don’t consider him to be Protestant? But he is definitely trying to persuade us all of his belief system, and spending a great deal of bandwidth “teaching us” the “errors” of the Catholic faith.)

 

[Aramis]

Deacons are married that is why they are called Deacons.

WRONG!

All priests have been deacons. All bishops have been deacons.

And not even all permanent deacons are married.

Archbishop Roger of Anchorage just ordained a celibate permanent deacon.

I’ve known two permanent deacons who were Dominican friars. One, after 12 years as a deacon, was finally convinced by the order to accept ordination to the priesthood; Friar Anthony Patalano, OP. Friar-Deacon Norbert Finh, OP, also was a permanent deacon.

There is no difference between a permanent and a transitional deacon aside from the shared intent of the deacon and the bishop for him to become a priest or not.

Also, Rev. Fr. Scott Medlock is married, and is a priest. This means he’s also a deacon, but he’s functioning as a priest.