Fr. Cutie to Become an Episcopal Priest

I had a curiosity question after seeing the news that Fr. Cutie is going to become Fr. Cutie (Episcopal Priest). Would the sacraments he administers be valid (though illicit) since he is a validly ordained Roman Catholic Priest though will be administering them as an Episcopal Priest?

Yeah he decided to become a wild and crazy protestant.

I heard that on Michael savage today haha

Here is a link. Though I do not think he considers it Protestant. As I recall from his interview he mentioned continuing his Priestly vocation (just as an Episcopal Priest).

cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/29/national/main5048651.shtml

The sacraments would all be valid…:thumbsup:

God Bless!

What do you base this statement on?

He was a validly ordained Roman Catholic priest, yes, but once he converts to Episcopalian, is he still considered a Catholic priest? Do Episcopalians have valid form and matter? Is his intent to consecrate a reflection of Catholic intent or Episcopalian intent?

As far as I’m concerned, he is no longer a Roman Catholic priest.

except that Holy Orders is a sacrament, which creates a real change of the spirit, right?

Yes…I do not think a Catholic Priest ever ceases to be a Catholic Priest. The character of priesthood is such that you do not simply cease to be a Priest.

yeah that’s what I was thinking about. So his orders are now valid but illicit. It seems that the logical conclusion then is that, by virtue of his sacramental, Catholic priesthood, his masses would be valid, with a valid consecration, but illicit. Is this correct? Does it also depend on him holding the same view on the Real Presence? :confused:

For RCs (and for Anglicans, but let’s pass over that for a moment), valid ordination imparts an indelible character; he is a priest (if validly ordained), forever. This (and I am open to correction) holds even of he becomes a schismatic, apostate or heretic, as I read Ott. I am not aware that even the act of degradation would affect this, degradation not removing the character, but the right to exercise it…

The sacramental power to confect the Eucharist remains, providing he holds to the minimum of intent, *facere quod facit Ecclesia *, and assuming valid matter and form. Intent is usually assumed to be valid, by the act, absent some point that permits a determino ex adiunctius. Generally the Anglican form for confecting the Eucharist is considered weak by the RCC, but I am not aware it would be considered invalid; indeed I have read the opposite, in Michael Davies. The matter would not be an issue; unleavened bread and fermented wine. Generally, what I’m saying is that the Anglican Eucharist is not judged invalid on the points of matter, form, or intent, but on the minister; who is not judged to possess valid orders. A RC priest, now in the Anglican Church, would possess such. Hence (as I understand it) the Eucharist he confected (other points being equal) would be valid, but illicit. I am open to correction.

GKC

I agree, the Eucharist would be valid but illicit if he says ‘this is My body’ and ‘this is the cup of my blood’. He remains a Catholic priest so he has the power to consecrate the Eucharist. His faculties (the right to do so) comes from the Catholic bishop. So, from the Catholic point of view, he has the power but not the right to do so. He was unfaithful to his vows. He gave scandal as a Catholic priest. From the outside, it appears that he moved to the Episcopal church so he could have his priestly ministry and his girlfriend too. It seems dishonest to me. But I don’t really know anything about the case and can’t judge his motives.

I am glad he has found love, and glad he has found a way to go, but I do thank it sad that he couldn’t remain a Catholic Priest, and still have his wife, but I do not run the RCC, so it’s not my choice, I just voice my opinoin.

I think we are not having a meeting of the minds.

The OP asked, “Would the sacraments he administers be valid (though illicit) since he is a validly ordained Roman Catholic Priest though will be administering them as an Episcopal Priest?

Yes, Fr. Cutie is and always will have valid Holy Orders. He can validly perform sacraments in the Catholic Church, because in the Catholic Church he is a valid minister using valid form and matter, intending what the Church intends.

However, having valid Holy Orders is only one part of the sacramental equation. Now that he is Episcopalian, he won’t be performing sacraments in the Catholic Church any longer. To perform sacraments in the Episcopalian Church means using their form, their matter, their intent, and that changes everything.

I don’t think it’s a simple matter of substituting a validly ordained priest for an Episcopalian priest and, viola, you have the Eucharist at Episcopalian Mass. No, I thnk in the Episcopalian Church there is not a belief in the Real Presence, and therefore their form and intent would reflect that.

Except for the fact that the Anglican mass is essentially valid when done by a valid minister. And some churches in the Anglican Union have valid succession via either the Antiochian Orthodox and/or the Utrecht Union (who are a schismatic group that left over Vatican I…)

The problem being that tracing that apostolicity is not universal in the Anglican Churches, including the Episcopal Church of the USA. Further, women are not considered valid matter for ordination to major orders by Catholics, so anyone ordained by a woman bishop can’t have valid orders from our point of view.

Now, when the Fr. Cutie accepts ordination in the ECUSA as a deacon and then as a priest, he will be committing heresy.

As I said, the form and matter are not an issue. The liturgical form is valid, only the epiclesis (IIRC) was changed slightly in adapting it to the Anglican Use. Matter is identical. And intent is not an aspect of Anglican or RC, it inheres in the minister, and is accepted as being facere quod facit Ecclesia, by the act itself, unless there is direct contrary evidence (this is brought out in Apostolicae Curae. While belief in the Real Presence is commonplace in Anglicanism, it would not be required for a valid confection, provided the intent was to do whatever the Church does in the action. Even an atheist can validly baptize, with such an intent, of doing whatever the Church does.

The issue is a validly ordained minister. Which, by RCC dogma (de fide), Cutie is.

GKC

With a detail here and there shaded a little, I agree.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus

an atheist can baptize, but would they be able to consecrate the eucharist??

By the logic of what I posted, yes, and for the same reason. Intent, form, matter:water, Trinity, living human subject. The minister need only be a human with intent of doing what the Church does.

GKC

I can’t believe he would LEAVE the Church??? :eek:

Isn’t there some way to stop being a Priest or to be relieved of his duties somehow so he could marry his girlfriend and remain Catholic just not as a Priest?

He’d have to both admit his error, appeal to the pope for laicization, wait for that permision, and give up public ministry.

He’s apparently unwilling to do that last item.

Apparently. :mad:

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.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.