 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 9th, 2007 06:53 pm |
|
The Episcopal church where I used to attend is pastored by a man who used to be a Catholic priest. I couldn't bring myself to receive last weekend when I visited (I normally go to Mass), because I was not sure if it was valid.
Since this Episcopal priest received Holy Orders in the Catholic Church, does that make make the Sacrament the Real Presence when he does it in this church?
I know that not being Catholic, I am not yet bound to refrain from receiving within other denominations, but I do not want to receive if it is not the Real Presence.
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
Gnyssa
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 29 |
| First Name: | Gnyssa | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopalian, Roman Catholic since 2003, RC priest 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 9th, 2007 09:45 pm |
|
Dear Daffodil,
It is very painful for me to write this, but it is my advice to you that you do not take the Episcopalian sacraments from this priest, unless you are in danger of your life.
When a man is licitly released from the priesthood in the Catholic Church he is formally barred from administering any sacrament, except in the case of giving the Sacraments to a person who is actually dying. (Any deposed priest is "restored" for the moment of giving, what is incorrectly termed "last rites.") When a man leaves the priesthood without permission from Rome he is excommunicated. The now Episcopalian clergyman knows this point of Catholic teaching and canon law and is apparently in rebellion against it.
This is a hard situation, but the Catholic Church did not create the divison in the Church and the pain that results from them. When I was an Episcopalian priest I had many colleagues who were former RC priests. Many were good men and had effective ministries. But I have to ask the question - how many more people could they have helped if they stayed? Some left to get married and some left because they felt wounded. But they know the rules and took very solemn oaths to obey them.
If your heart is in the Catholic fold, I strongly urge you to attend the Catholic Mass even when you cannot take the Sacrament. I had to go through that period of transition and I know it is a hard one, to be without the Eucharist.
I recall the last time I presided at the Eucharist an an Episcopalian priest. I was in transition, but not yet public about my conversion. (Its a long story . . .) and a friend called me up to ask me to take the service at his Episcopal parish. I was still in valid Anglican orders and not yet Catholic so I said fine, to help a friend. But I felt terrible about it and its hard to say exactly why. It was as if I was lying to all those people in the Episcopal Church, when I shared in a service, which in my heart I was leaving for something greater.
When we accept the loving but firm hand of Catholic canon and teaching there is a spiritual freedom and blessed assurance that comes with that surrender. I pray that in your pilgrimage home, you are blessed by welcoming and good people as you enter the Church which Jesus founded for you. Peace to you good sister.
Fr Gnyssa
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 9th, 2007 10:30 pm |
|
Daffodil wrote: Since this Episcopal priest received Holy Orders in the Catholic Church, does that make make the Sacrament the Real Presence when he does it in this church?
I can't add much to what Fr. Gnyssa said, except to say that there are several requirements necessary for a priest to properly consecrate the Eucharist, and one of the requirements is that he uses the properly approved Catholic liturgy. At this time, in the Latin Rite, the only valid form a priest can use is the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, unless he has specific permission from his bishop.
Even though he left the Church, he is still and always will be a Catholic priest. As Fr. Gnyssa said, he is now under a solemn interdict not to exercise his priestly powers unless the recipient of the sacrament is in danger of immediate death. Otherwise he is committing a grave sin. He has broken his solemn vow to God.
In my opinion, by celebrating an Episcopal liturgy, he is not using the proper form approved by the Holy Father, so the consecration is invalid. Further, it is illicit (illegal), and he is probably guilty of a grave sin. Anyone who receives communion from him and knows better is also guilty of a very serious act, even if they are not Catholic. He is breaking the vow he took at his ordination, and anyone who knowingly participates by receiving the "sacrament" that he "consecrated" is participating in his breaking his vow.
So I agree with Fr. Gnyssa. Not only would I stay away from the sacrament, I would avoid the service completely. But that's just me.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 9th, 2007 11:42 pm |
|
Thank you both for your advice. I'll take it. 
I'm sure this priest could use our prayers.
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
BettyBoopToo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Camas/Washougal, Washington USA |
| Posts: | 538 |
| First Name: | Betty | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Fist Baptist/Calvary Babtist/Secular Confusion/ Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 12:38 am |
|
Thank you Daffodil for asking this question, as I was also wondering and contemplating the other day as to whether Martin Luther still had the ability or authority to have a valid Eucharist.
so Rick and Father Gnyssa. That would be a firm NO. do I understand you correctly. Did he loose this at the time of the Papal Bull or at the point when he was officially excommunicated???
I had read somewhere that many of Luther's lay followers were not even aware at the time that they were not going to have a valid Eucharist in the future and I was not sure if that meant that Luther's validity was gone or whether it was the future pastors would not have holy orders and the ability of a valid sacrament, As they had broken the apostolic succesion.
I just want to understand this better.
Thank you
Betty
____________________
Patience
"Whenever anything disagreeable or displeasing happens to you, remember Christ crucified and be silent."
St. John of the Cross
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 01:26 am |
|
BettyBoopToo wrote: so Rick and Father Gnyssa. That would be a firm NO. do I understand you correctly. Did he loose this at the time of the Papal Bull or at the point when he was officially excommunicated???
This is my opinion as it is not explicitly covered in Canon Law. The presumption is that a priest who has left the priesthood has done so voluntarily, and it is assumed he will honor his vows.
A priest who is validly ordained and uses the proper form can consecrate the Eucharist. An excommunicated priest who does so still validly consecrates the Eucharist, but he has broken his vow and his action is therefore illicit. Those who receive the sacrament without knowing he no longer has the authority to celebrate mass receive a valid Eucharist; those who receive knowing he does not have the authority to do so have willingly participated in an illicit act, and so they have also sinned.
The action is effective as of the moment his bishop withdraws permission for him to celebrate the sacraments. A bishop may celebrate mass anywhere; a priest may only celebrate a public mass if he has permission from the local ordinary and from his own bishop. The priest who relieves my pastor is from an abbey in the Archdiocese of New Orleans. In order for him to celebrate mass in my parish, he must have the permission first of his abbot; second of the archbishop of New Orleans, and third of the bishop of my diocese. (Such permission is routinely granted and under ordinary circumstances may be assumed, since the bishops in question are notified that he will be in our parish. They can object if necessary, but there is no reason to object if the priest is validly ordained and in good standing.)
And that's an important distinction. If a priest is in good standing in his own diocese, he may go to another diocese and celebrate mass privately, say for his own family and a few close friends. He may preside at a wedding or funeral, as long as the appropriate notices are given.
However, no priest has the authority under any circumstances to use any liturgy other than the properly approved liturgy for his rite without the explicit permission of the bishop. Some priests are "bi-ritual" in that they are permitted to use the liturgy of their own rite and a second (or even a third) rite. Also, priests from one rite can concelebrate at the mass of another rite under certain circumstances. But as of today, no priest in the Catholic Church can celebrate mass using the 1962 Roman Missal unless he has the explicit permission of his bishop. (That will change on September 14th when all Latin Rite priests will have permission to use the "extraordinary rite".)
So a Catholic priest who uses the Anglican liturgy as an Episcopal priest cannot validly consecrate the Eucharist under any circumstances, even though he has received the indelible mark of consecration to the priesthood. If he used the Catholic liturgy the consecration would be valid, but all who participate would be guilty of a serious sin unless in danger of immediate 0death.
That is my interpretation of Canon Law. I am not a Canon Lawyer, so read it with that in mind.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 11:13 am |
|
| Do you mean that all Catholics who receive are guilty of a mortal sin? I want to clarify whether or not the congregation, or I, would be considered guilty of a mortal sin for partaking.
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
Angie_Rivas1
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | Downey, USA |
| Posts: | 110 |
| First Name: | Angie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 03:22 pm |
|
Okay, to follow up on Rick's last response. A priest who chooses to leave the RC with permission is not sinning, right? Will he always be a priest? A while back, I found out that one of our fine teachers at work is married to a former RC priest. This is a well-respected, beautiful couple. He was a RC priest for 15 years. She was working in the Archiodese's office when they met and fell in love. He left the church with much pain but was granted an official "special letter" to live his life as any other person. They got married in the catholic church and are proud parents of three great children. When you meet this gentleman, you can tell that he is a very special person. There is something about his way of talking to a person and he transmits such peace. He also makes a wonderful high school principal. I asked my colleague if she felt any type of remorse. She responded none because they are very active in the RC and he even talks and gives advice to people from his old parish. Some still call him father. So starting a new life is acceptable if they have the okay from the Vatican? How about his oath to the Lord?
Angie
Sorry Rick I hope this question does not need to go in a new thread  Last edited on Tue Jul 10th, 2007 03:26 pm by Angie_Rivas1
____________________
"Be not afraid" JPII
|
|
|
Gnyssa
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 29 |
| First Name: | Gnyssa | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopalian, Roman Catholic since 2003, RC priest 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 04:12 pm |
|
Angie
The gentleman you described is not sinning, so long as he does not violate the canons in other ways. One who is legally dismissed from the priesthood and does not presume to function is in no danger. May "ex-priests" have gone on to make valuble contributions to their parishes.
When Rick says that thay are still priests he is correct - a sacrament cannot be undone. But they are in a situation like a seperated and divorced Catholic (I speak by was of analogy) who is still married but not living the married lifestyle. Again, they are like a veteran from the Army - their service was valid but they are not presently serving.
Gnyssa
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 10:32 pm |
|
Angie_Rivas1 wrote: So starting a new life is acceptable if they have the okay from the Vatican? How about his oath to the Lord?
A priest is always a priest. As Fr. Gnyssa said, the mark of priesthood is indelible. He has made a solemn vow before God to be obedient to his bishop and to the Church. If the Church chooses to release him from his vow, he is then free to live released from his obligations to the priesthood. He has not sinned; he has been released. He is not free, however, to become a priest in another faith. He is permitted to exercise his priestly ministry only to administer sacraments to someone in immediate danger of death. A priest who has been laicized may hear the confession of someone who he believes to be dying if no other priest is available (say, if he comes upon the scene of an automobile accident).
If, on the other hand, he chooses to leave the priesthood without permission and get married, or joins another faith community and functions as a priest in that community, he has broken his solemn vow. As you know, I don't like to judge the sinfulness of another, but given his seminary education, he will be hard pressed to plead invincible ignorance.
Sorry Rick I hope this question does not need to go in a new thread
It's close enough to the original topic that I suppose I'll let it slide this time. Just don't let it become a habit! 
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11th, 2007 12:16 pm |
|
So a Catholic priest who uses the Anglican liturgy as an Episcopal priest cannot validly consecrate the Eucharist under any circumstances, even though he has received the indelible mark of consecration to the priesthood. If he used the Catholic liturgy the consecration would be valid, but all who participate would be guilty of a serious sin unless in danger of immediate 0death. Do you mean that all Catholics who receive are guilty of a mortal sin? I want to clarify whether or not the congregation, or I, would be considered guilty of a mortal sin for partaking. **bump**
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11th, 2007 02:43 pm |
|
Daffodil wrote: So a Catholic priest who uses the Anglican liturgy as an Episcopal priest cannot validly consecrate the Eucharist under any circumstances, even though he has received the indelible mark of consecration to the priesthood. If he used the Catholic liturgy the consecration would be valid, but all who participate would be guilty of a serious sin unless in danger of immediate 0death. Do you mean that all Catholics who receive are guilty of a mortal sin? I want to clarify whether or not the congregation, or I, would be considered guilty of a mortal sin for partaking. **bump**
I can't judge the sinfulness of another. I would be committing a mortal sin.
In order for a sin to be mortal, it must be a grave matter that one does knowingly and willingly. It is certainly a grave matter as there is danger of profaning the Eucharist. There is the possibility of scandal for someone to present themselves for an invalid "sacrament". There is the danger of failing to discern the Body and Blood of Christ by partaking in communion known to be invalid. There are several possible pitfalls.
It would certainly be a sin for me and a very grave one. I cannot judge the sin of another.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
heardclarke
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 199 |
| First Name: | Lisa | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle Episcopalian; confirmed RC Easter 2005 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12th, 2007 01:24 am |
|
Dear Daffodil,
I have been in a similar situation. At one time I found it very hard to say no to communion in the Episcopal Church. It seemed as if I were passing judgement on their whole church by refusing to accept it. People noticed and asked about it. I thought, if it's just bread and wine, why not take it to avoid offending someone?
On the other hand, the reason I began studying the Catholic faith was because I thought it was the true faith and that the Episcopalians had an incomplete understanding at best. What I used to think of as "tolerance" in my Anglican friends had become more like indifference to the truth. Taking communion there was, in effect, saying that I agreed their sacraments were equally valid with the sacraments in the Catholic Church; it seemed like a lie.
Even when I was confirmed, this was still hard at first. I should have stopped taking communion at the EC for awhile beforehand, but I hadn't stopped until right before. It was a few weeks before I felt better, even though I knew I was doing the right thing.
I agree with Rick that avoiding the liturgy of the Eucharist in the Episcopal church altogether is the safest thing to do. I have to go because of my husband's job. As I have learned more about what it really means to be Catholic over the last two years, I really get a knot in my stomach when their priest invokes the "memorial" of Christ's death over the bread and wine. His vestments look the same and his words sound almost the same as ours, but I know perfectly well that neither he nor anyone else there believes that Jesus Christ is present in the elements "body, blood, soul, and divinity."
I have a friend who calls the Episcopal liturgy a "parody" of the Mass. The first time he said this, I cringed; it sounded so harsh. But he's right; sometimes the truth does hurt.
For now the main thing is to keep asking questions. This one was tough, I know, but that's the only way to find out the facts. Have courage. Even the 12 Apostles were kind of confused from time to time!
Lisa
____________________
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12th, 2007 09:40 am |
|
| God's peace. Yes, the Episcopalians (with a few exceptions) will recoil from the notion that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and that the entire Christ is present under the signs of bread and wine. What they do is indeed a parody of the Eucharist, even to the point of being openly so. One outfit--in New York, I think--had the priests dress up in clown suits for a "clown mass" where they distributed "consecrated" popcorn and (I think) fizzy soda to the celebrants! Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
|
|
|
Current time is 05:21 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
