Posted on 04/17/2003 1:05:24 PM PDT by 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.
That's the rub for Romanists...Vatican II finally formally recognized that there are other non-Roman Christians, however it still stubbornly affirmed traditional dogma that there is no salvation apart from the Roman Church...trying to have it both ways. It may be a popular distinction ("Christian" but not Catholic) but one never-the-less recognized, even by the Vatican.
The only thing that has ever made sense to me, is that there are sincere Christians--fully dependent on the mercy of God given by Jesus death and resurrection, empowered by the Holy Spirit, throughout all Christian denominations. Different denominations are wrong or unbiblical on certain issues--but its the person of Christ, not the exact correctness of doctrine--Who saves.
There is an "invisible" church spread throughout the various church denominations (which also means there are fakes and hypocrits in every denomination too...the "tares" Jesus warned about--and warned against seeking to uproot). When a "denomination" becomes SO wrong on key issues (say on the Trinity, or the divinity of Jesus) there can come a time when other Christians won't acknowlege them as Christians--and won't share communion with them--my attitude toward various cults, however God alone judges hearts--and who knows but some from some cults are trusting the real Jesus too in their hearts. Still, one has to call a spade a spade--and when groups get essentials wrong--contradicting scripture, one is obligated to say so.
I'm afraid you're wrong on that matter. There are a number of churches within the Anglican Communion, including the parent Church of England, that have ordained women priests and some of them are excellent.
Historically the reason the Episcopal Church of the United States is called the Episcopal church is that the parent church is actually The Epicopal Church of Scotland. Bishops in the Church of England must swear fealty to the monarch. Scottish Episcopal Bishops did and do not and US bishops were barred under Article I section 9 of the US constitution from following that custom. At the time of the Constitutional Convention a number of states had "Established" churches whose priests in some cases were paid through the public purse. The no establishment clause specifically targeted that practice rather than the barring of religion from the polity which the courts have falsely inferred.
Fortunately this time the matter appears to have passed with little notice from the readers and posters here.
And this is part of the problem -- from the top down to the bottom. There has been no consistancy in either "juristiction" protocol of receiving communion; nor dealing with the CC's awkward events of pedophilia which have been brought to light over the last several months, and NOT dealt with openly AND decisively...
"And pedophiles are not in a state to receive communion either. But if you knew anything instead of wanting to cast stones, you would know that already."
Huh?? Just how many wink-winks transpired that allowed the guilty parties to continue receiving the 'Body of Christ,' though CC hierarchy looked the other way? How many characters of ALL sorts (Kennedy, mobsters, media/Hollywood elite) are shuffling up to receive their "courtesy communion" while ignoring the confessional and penance beforehand?
Let's not pretend Rome is suddenly inflexible, and simply attempting desperately to maintain liturgal purity in this case.
True, it is the CC's prerogative to enforce theological protocol, but which protocol??
The rules change from church to church to church.
An interesting observation.
Most of the Sturm und Drang in the Roman Catholic Church can be laid at the feet of a deviation called "Americanism," which was detected back in the mid-to-late 1800's.
In a crude reduction, Americanism would shape the RC Church in a more 'democratic/republic' structure and adopt a notably more secularized philosophy.
A very Catholic point. Tom Clancy's very Catholic Jack Ryan also made that observation...that 'there is NO SUCH THING as co-incidence.'
You're on the road to Rome, my man....
The old "Thirty-Nine Articles" was fairly hard-line Protestant in its ultimate form, having been subject to the tender mercies of Edward VI's advisers (they are also the loons who changed the words of consecration for bishops and thus started the whole Apostolic Succession controversy. Coulda done without that.) But those have now been relegated to the status of "Historical Documents" rather than articles of faith.
"Consubstantiation" is a Lutheran, not an Episcopalian doctrine. We don't have High Holy Days of Obligation, just Holy Days of Obligation - and while it's not required in the sense that it is a sin to skip, the faithful are urged to attend.
Part of the confusion is due to Queen Elizabeth I's intention of making the English Church a "big umbrella". There are parishes that are "Higher Than Rome", and there are parishes that are so low they are indistinguishable from Mainline Baptist. I've attended both.
I have a friend of mine who calls coincidences as anonomys gifts from God. A poetic, and lovely way to think.
Only God knows that for certain.
Actually not all Protestant denominations are as you say. Many Baptist denominations for instance do not allow communion to be served to non-Baptists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.