Pope's ruling bars Blair from taking Communion with family

The London Times ^ | April 17, 2003 | Richard Owen in Rome and Tom Baldwin

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

ANY hope that Tony Blair had of enjoying a happy, Catholic Easter with his family will be crushed today by the Pope.

John Paul II is issuing a new encyclical that The Times has learnt will explicitly forbid Protestants like the Prime Minister taking Communion with Catholics such as Cherie Blair and their children.

The 83-year-old Pope has chosen Holy Week to stamp on what he sees as dangerously “liberal” interpretations of the Roman Catholic doctrine that only those “in full communion with Rome” can take part in the Eucharist.

Mr Blair, who remains a committed, if ecumenical, member of the Church of England, regularly attends Catholic Mass with his family. He also used to take Communion with them at the St Joan of Arc church in Islington.

But in 1996, he received a letter from Cardinal Basil Hume asking him to desist. In his reply, Mr Blair did not conceal his dismay at such theological conservatism. Saying that he merely wished to worship with his family but had not realised his behaviour was causing offence, he promised he would not do so again. The letter added: “I wonder what Jesus would have made of it?”

Since then Mr Blair, who admits he is strongly drawn to Catholicism, has more than once explored the limits of this doctrine. Britain has never had a Catholic prime minister and in 1998 he had to deny reports he had converted after being spotted going to Westminster Cathedral for Mass unaccompanied by his family. Suggestions that he had received the Eucharist on this occasion were never confirmed.

There have also been rumours that when Mr Blair is on holiday abroad he has taken Communion with his family.

The Pope´s fourteenth encyclical slams the door on the many Catholics and Protestants who currently take Communion together and represents a setback for Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is a firm advocate of ecumenism. When Mr Blair visited the Pope at the Vatican last month, he may have got a hint of what was to come. While his family went to take Communion with the Pope, the Prime Minister only received a blessing. The Pope also made it clear that he disagreed with Mr Blair about war in Iraq.

[Northern Yankee]

Nice replies to some vexing questions.

Yes... the Church has laws that are expected to be obeyed, and yes... it can be an affront to others who are not of the same opinion, or belief. But what good would Cannon Law be were it not to be followed strictly?

Those who oppose such rules should repect the Catholics who do.

In the end God will decide what's just.

As a practicing Catholic I choose to follow the teachings of the church.

I could not simply walk into a Jewish Synagogue and expected to be treated as a Jew, even though we are all of the belief in one God. You respect the differences that are out there, and choose your own faith, and practices.

[Iowegian]

The biblical warning was clearly to the individual to examine himself and determine properly or face the consequences. Why have some churches taken it upon themselves to come between the individual and God? Don't they trust in God's judgement? Remember: "vengence is mine, saith the Lord".

[AnalogReigns]

It almost seems like there are interesting federalist parallels here -- that the RC and Orthodox churches are organized based on strong, central governance, and other Christian denominations are more decentralized. It's Adams vs. Jefferson! (no offense meant to anyone...not trying to minimize theological differences)

Very cogent observation. Many of our founding fathers had at least a Protestant and specifically Calvinist education--and John Calvin in particular helped define (from the Bible) the basis of representative leadership (rule by elders or deacons) found in most Protestant churches (theologically Calvinist or not) today.

That we providentially also have a representative secular government--from a constitution formed by Calvinistical Protestant educated (that doesn't make them Calvinist or even necessarily Christian) founders I think is no accident.

(but hey, Calvinists like me never think anything is by accident...)

[Northern Yankee]

Careful... Most Catholics are very proud of their faith, and are willing to defend it to their death.

During the Boxer Rebellion in China, over 1300 Catholics were given a chance by the Chinese to step on the crucifix and live, or to walk around it and die.

These Catholics chose to walk around the crucifix, and were shot to death.

Most people who truly live their faith are not willing to compromise on this faith.

Have a blessed Holy Thursday!

[Twinkie]

This passage of scripture refers to taking communion in
a state of unforgiveness toward your brother. If you're
a Catholic and take communion while holding a grudge
against anyone, you eat and drink with the probability
of becoming physically sick or even falling asleep in
death as many had already done. I personally don't want
to take communion in any group where I'm not welcome.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

A large part of my family is Catholic and when I attend Church with them or go to one of their funerals it is always made clear that the Communion is for Catholics and the rest of us may receive a blessing.

On the other hand at my Presbyterian Church our minister always makes it clear that all Christians are welcome at the Lord’s Table.

An interesting difference, and one that has made me keep my seat, even when a pall bearer, rather than receive a blessing where I am not really welcome.

[Mr. Lucky]

Sorry, but terms such as true presence or real presence, refer to the physical presence of Christ at the Eucharist. The fact that you don't share this belief seems to me to speak in favor of the Pope's actions in this instance.

The Lord's Supper has a different meaning to you than it does to Catholics and others who believe Christ to be physically present. It's fair that we don't impose our belief upon your church just as it's fair that you don't impose your belief upon ours.

As a member of a Protestant congregation which believes in the true presence, I generally attend Catholic Mass when I can't find a church of my own denomination within range; I prefer to observe a service where Christ is believed to be present than to participate in a service where He is believed not to be present.

[Northern Yankee]

I didn't realize that Catholics were more precious to him...

We aren't. We do however believe in a faith that is precious to us, and follow the Laws that are governed by our church.

I assume you follow the laws that are handed down by your church?

I would never dream of being so presumptious as to think that your rules, or Laws were any less important to you as the doctrine that I believe in.

God Bless, and have a Holy Thursday!

[lugsoul]

Please understand. I do not intend to participate in teaching my daughter that a church hierarchy decides who participates in the sacraments by determining whose faithful interpretations of the Bible are satisfactory for them to be qualified as "real" Christians.

[Paleo Conservative]

John Paul II is issuing a new encyclical that The Times has learnt will explicitly forbid Protestants like the Prime Minister taking Communion with Catholics such as Cherie Blair and their children.

As far as some Catholic theologians are concerned, Protostants are equally as much heretics as Muslims.

[APBaer]

"alter" ??????????

(Class of '98)

[Iowegian]

I prefer to observe a service where Christ is believed to be present than to participate in a service where He is believed not to be present.

Whenever two or more gather in His name He is present, that is the Biblical standard, regardless of whether anyone is taking the Lord's table or not.

[BigLittle]

No Toad-in-the-holes for the Pope, either.

[katana]

Thank you for the information. My mother was brought up Episcopal (father was hard shell Baptist and most all of my friends growing up were Catholic, so I certainly was exposed to some "diversity") and I was baptised Episcopal.

My wife (raised Methodist) and I "church shopped" for some time and finally found a home in a Disciples of Christ congregation. It's a very personal decision and one conclusion I got from the process was that finding the right congregation and minister is the hard part.

The fact that Blair takes his faith seriously conflicts with my image of a leader of the Labour Party, but I'm glad he does. It may be the main thing that has created what seems to be a sincere personal bond between him and Bush.

[Northern Yankee]

PING!

Interesting discussions...

[firebrand]

Not the same thing at all. The Eucharist is for a community of believers, and perhaps Mr. Blair considers himself to be a part of that community, even if he has yet to declare his conversion publicly. Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, is a piece of manure.

[BnBlFlag]

As a lifelong Episcopalian, I was unaware that our Doctrine recognizes the "real presence" in the Eucharist. Christ is present only in the "spiritual" sense in our Communion according to everything I,ve been taught. Also no parish I,ve belonged to had "High Holy Days of Obligation". Maybe you are so "High Church" you are indistinguishable from real Catholics.

[ex-snook]

" I do not intend to participate in teaching my daughter that a church hierarchy decides who participates in the sacraments by determining whose faithful interpretations of the Bible are satisfactory for them to be qualified as "real" Christians."

Sorry, two matters seem to be mixed up. First who is a 'real' Christian and secondly, what is the 'real presence'. Catholics rites consider all who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as Christians.

In the coming Saturday night Easter vigil Protestants coming into the Church are considered Christians and not considered Catechumens (Unbaptized). Those that were Protestants receive the Sacraments of Reconciliation, Confirmation and the Eucharist but not Baptism because they are Christians.

In our Communion, you are asked to say Amen if believe you are receiving the actual body of Christ. If you can't truly say Amen, just don't go to receive. You are a Christian if you believe in Christ, you are a Catholic if you believe in the real presence. Go to the Easter vigil and see for yourself.

[lugsoul]

That is an interesting dichotomy. So, are you saying that Catholics believe that some Christians cannot participate in a holy sacrament. What other categories and strata of Christians are there?

[AnalogReigns]

Traditionally churches and communities have been less individualistic than we are today in urban America. You may be correct that churches shouldn't concern themselves in the examination of conscience, however, historically its rather new that they have not. Closed or open communion isn't a Protestant/Catholic issue, its really a modern vs. traditional approach issue. In your typical small community (where most throughout most of history have lived) everyone knew everyone's "lifestyle" anyway, so it wasn't a long stretch for the church to believe it was a part of their pastoral responsibility to help its member's examine themselves--forbidding communion to those who didn't measure up.

Always, ALWAYS, closed communion has been a contentious issue--involving the necessary nettlesome confrontation of Church discipline, which is probably the real reason most modern churches have done away with it.