Fr. Cutie is back on television.
.
He's still an active priest, so I call him Father - but now he's an Episcopal priest of course. Most likely very few people outside the Catholic Church think there is much difference between Catholic and Episcopal. Non-religious people could care less, I'm sure. What does it say to me that he's back in business? That celebrity priests like the limelight, the fame and adulation, as well as the money.
.
Anyway. My friend Paula sent me a couple questions regarding Cutie's Eucharist - what happens at his Episcopalian Masses/Communion Services?
.
1. Here is my question: Since by ordination Fr. Cutie is a priest forever, whenever he celebrates Mass in the Episcopal Church does the host and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ?
.
2. And if transubstantiation takes place, does that mean the communicants receive the Eucharist sacrilegiously?
.
One more question I thought of: Could a Roman Catholic attend Fr. Cutie's Mass and fulfill his Sunday obligation, as well as receive Communion? Many people seem to think they can do so in good conscience at SSPX chapels - so what about at Fr. Cutie's?
.
These are obviously questions for a priest to answer: And Fr. Richard does so in the combox. Thank you Fr. Richard.
.
Oh. But to answer the title question of this post, "Will Fr. Cutie be as big a success now that he is married?"
.
I say: Probably.
The Episcopal Church statements of sacramental belief in the Holy Eucharist are to be found in the Catechism, page 859, of the Book of Common Prayer 1979.
ReplyDelete"Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
Because the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself."
"What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist?
The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith."
The Book of Common Prayer 1979 can be found online at
http://www.bcponline.org/
-Rob in Fargo
I have a very good friend, with whom I have had many conversations regarding the beliefs of the average Anglican.
ReplyDeleteAccording to him, there is no common Anglican belief on Communion, or anything else, but that's another comment.
He once worded it like this: High Anglicans believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Low anglicans beleive it's symbolic.
But, but, but.
What you have here is some Anglican faithful disagreeing with Church documents on matters of faith, tsk, tsk. We shouldn't chide them though, it's not like we have never seen that before. (snark)
Terry,
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that Fr. Cutie is a validly ordained Catholic priest if he celebrates an Episcopal prayer service; it can't be called a Mass from a Sacramental perspective because the Episcopalians despite what is stated in the book of Common prayer have broke the apostolic bond with the original apostles when they changed the prayers and meaning of consecration and ordination of priests back in the 1500's. What makes it tricky here is Cutie is a validly ordained Catholic priest, but the other needed aspect to have a valid Eucharist which truly becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus is having the proper words of institution- which are approved by the Holy Father- it's the old needed Matter (bread and wine)and form(proper words), with then the intention to consecrate and offer the Sacrifice-all 3 are needed to bring about the Miracle of the Eurcharist at Mass. I hope this makes sense. So no Catholic could attend and fulfill one's obligation- this is different in the Orthodox Church since they haven't broke the Apostolic bond- although there is some question there on some level since they may have changed the words of Institution a bit- but I don't know how much- I just know that the Catholic Church accepts their Eucharist as being valid as well as the Polish National Catholic Church- but not any Anglican or Episcopalian Church. I hope this helps. God bless.
Terry,
ReplyDeleteA P.S. on that, obviously even though the Orthodox and Polish Nations have a valid Eucharist, a Catholic could only fulfill their Sunday obligation in those Church if a Catholic Church was not readily available in the area. The same does not apply for any Anglican Church. God bless.
Terry,
ReplyDeleteSorry I meant Polish National Church in the last comment, not Polish Nations- haha. I am rushing to get ready to go over for Mass and was trying to type too quickly. All this is explained on the inside of the back cover of most missalettes- who can receive Holy Communion and why in the Catholic Church and in this case you would just reverse that principal. Have a great Sunday.
Thanks Fr. Richard for answering these questions for us.
ReplyDeleteSuch defections from the Church engender even greater confusion.
I am praying for priests!
BTW - I took my answers down lest I add to the confusion.
ReplyDeleteRob in Fargo - thanks for including the information from the Book of Common Prayer.
Puff - thanks - I know - it's not as if the Anglicans are alone in suffering their members to disagree on doctrine.
Fr. Richard:
ReplyDeleteWhat bout the Chinese National Church? I know they have broken union for political reasons, but would a Catholic who visits China be able to fulfill his Sunday obligation since the only in-union-with-Rome churches are for the most part either in Hong Kong of Macau or are completely underground, thus hard to find (I imagine the traveler asking random Chinese people if they know where the nearest underground Mass is being held, haha :) )?
As I understand it, there's a weird situation in which certain bishops in the Chinese National Church are in union with Rome, but the church as a whole isn't. That sounds pretty confusing.
I am guessing that "Fr. Richard" has never been to the Eucharist in either an Anglican or Orthodox church, but the words of institution in both are the same or identical enough to those used in the Roman Eucharist. And BTW, the Orthodox don't consider the change in the gifts as taking place at the words of institution, as the Romans and Anglicans do. And let's not even talk about the fact that Chaldean Christians don't even have the words of institution in their Anaphora (or Eucharistic prayer) of Addai and Mari, and yet have a "valid" Eucharist.
ReplyDeleteMercury: re underground churches...same in Saudi Arabia...although when I was there the secret code was the dove with the olive branch...people would wear them as decoration, a patch or embroidery on their clothing, as wearing a cross or cricifix would get you arrested. You don't want to get arrested by the religious police in Saudi believe me. You could approach one of these people and they would give you the scoop. Most of the time they weren't masses but communion services, and never in the same place twice.
ReplyDeleteThe chinese underground church is probably alot like that.
Sara
Mercury,
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand it is legit for a Catholic to attend a Chinese national Catholic Church if you cannot find an underground one in China. The sacraments are legit and the Holy See has been working behind the scenes for many years to try to reconcile the two, but the Chinese gov doesn't want it. In fact the Vatican has gone so far as to invite Chinese national Catholic Church seminarians to study in legit Roman Catholic seminaries- we had two such guys at my seminary. I hope this helps. God bless.
Sara - those Saudis, eh? Did you actually make it to the underground services?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, thanks Fr. Richard. China fascinates me, and I'd love to go there one day. I've got many students from there, and being a linguist, the language is very interesting.
What's odd is that the Chinese apparently perceive Catholics and Protestants as belonging to two separate religions. I was trying to explain the difference between them to a Chinese student friend the other day, and it's hard when you're speaking with someone who knows literally NOTHING about it. There's not even a common Chinese word for "Christianity", just "Lord of Heaven Religion" (us) and "Jesus Religion" (Protestants).
Ha, my friend even asked me "so the difference is that they worship Jesus and you worship Maria, right?" *slaps forehead* I wasn't about to explain "latria" vs. "hyperdoulia" to him, since I don't really understand it myself.
Terry,
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that IF Fr. Cutie had the three essential elements of form, matter and intention he would be able to validly confection the Eucharist, although he has become schismatic. The Eucharist, if he "intended to do what the church does" would be valid, though illicit.
There are cases, the former Anglican bishop of London who was ordained conditionally because of the real possibility of the validity of his priestly orders through the continuance of the Apostolic Succsession through Old Catholic lines. If he was validly ordained while an Anglican, then his Eucharist was valid assuming he used the prayerbook formula of institution, used bread and wine and had the proper intention. As a High Anglican I am sure he intended to validly consecrate the elements.
However the Church, in prudence, cannot give the faithful a pass on attending a licit and legitimate Mass. Even when the church allows one to attend an Othodox Liturgy out of necessity, the precept of participating in the Mass at a Catholic Church still binds if it is possible.
Does Fr. Cutie intend for the elements to be transubstantiated, only God knows. Perhaps but with his stands on other elements of doctrine, there may be an element of doubt. For this reason and the very visible schism which he has entered a catholic could not in good conscience, if his or her conscience were truly formed, participate in Fr. Cutie's Mass, if only for the fact that it would be a show of schism and a break if communion with the bishop who is the legitimate coordinator of the confection of the sacraments, and by extent a break with the pope and the universal church.
P.S. If you attend a happy clappy mass and the priest isn't even sure what planet he is on, don't worry if the priest doesn't have the right intention. The Church will supply it in that case and legitimate the Eucharist for the good of the faithful. Something she has no authority to do outside of her ecclesiastical structure.