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.

[jude24]

I'm not Catholic, never will be Catholic, and so on and so forth....

But I can't let these slide....

What is the Catholic stance on cannabalism? In which verse does the exception for the Eucharist arise?

Oh, come on!!!! You've been reading too much of the Catholic-bashers like Dave Hunt, et al! Do you realize that "cannibalism" was one of the most frequent allegations made against the Christians in the first 3 centuries when Christianity was an illegal religion?

When you discern, does it still look like unleavened bread? Does it taste like it? Smell? Is there a physical discernment, or do you just "know"?

The Catholic answer is that it is, in its accidence (to all appearence) mere bread, but in its essence, it is the Body of Christ. So, essentially, yeah. You're right.

I don't buy it, but I don't sneer at those who do. I vehemently disagree, but I will not go for the cheap shot that you just did.

[jude24]

oops... didn't read your post.

Apparently, this Protestant got it right, though.

[Kevin Curry]

On its face this is a fully defensible and proper decision. All those on this thread expressing horror that the Pope is somehow denying Blair something essential that, as a Christian, Blair has a right to are impliedly admitting that the Pope has power to "bind on earth and loose in Heaven." That is, they are fully acknowldging the Pope's authority. I'm not sure some of them really want to do that, for in the next breath they argue the protestant position that Christ intended that there be no ntervening layer of clergy and priests between Christian believers and God. If that's the case, Blair can simply act as his own priest and hold his own Eucharist at home, i.e., he has been denied nothing.

What I want to know is, why are Ted Kennedy and other brazen defenders of abortion (including late term-vivesection) considered by the Vatican to be "in full communion with Rome"?

[twigs]

stopping the "for publicity" communion by non-believers

Protestants are NOT non-believers!!!!!

[sandym1313]

I have been reading every reply you have made.

your sanctimonious attitude just reaffirms the reasons why Martin Luther left the catholic church.

You are truly not a model I would want for anyone. Keep your faith.

Lest not ye Judge for you shall be judged.

[lugsoul]

You can read it as a cheap shot if you want. It was intended as an effort to get the Catholic position on what appears to me to be a series of inherent contradictions in the position. And you can read it as a vehement attack if you want. Perhaps you did not read the explicit text of the explanations - one who does not believe it, yet who partakes of the sacrament, is condemned to hell. That includes me. If someone wants to claim that their reading of Biblical text condemns me to hell because I participate in worship, then they ought to be prepared to address the finer points of their claim. Mind you - the interpretation set forth above does not say you are condemned if you participate in the sacrament in a CATHOLIC church. Their is no such distinction.

You've got it backwards. I do not condemn the Catholic Church. They condemn me.

[ninenot]

Odd.

SD's posts are the model of moderation. Informative, just-the-facts, and rather quiet in tone.

Are you hyper-sensitive all the time?

[lugsoul]

Nope - what I am asking is for persons who claim to be Christian to not condemn others who are also Christian because of a difference in belief that is, at best, a matter of interpretation. I do not want to be Catholic. But if I attend a Christian church, I do expect to worship as a Christian. Not as a misguided second-rate Christian who will burn in the flames if he participates in the sacraments.

i.e. - just as a Catholic Christian is welcomed and allowed to worship in my church.

Those who exalt their version of the faith over others seem to have missed the message altogether.

[Kevin Curry]

My, that was certainly a judgmental post.

[jude24]

Perhaps you did not read the explicit text of the explanations - one who does not believe it, yet who partakes of the sacrament, is condemned to hell.

If you grant sacramentalism (I do not, though I confess it arose quite early in Christianity -- probably ~100-200 AD), and you take this text, well, what other conclusion can you come to?

If you believe that, when the priest stands and recites, "This is my body, which was broken for you," that it actually becomes the literal Body of Christ, well, of course it follows that someone like you or I, who do not believe that it is in essence the Body of Christ (but rather a memorial symbol, according to the Calvinist hermaneutic), then, if we partake of that Sacrament, not discerning the Lord's Body, then we do eat and drink judgment upon ourselves.

What they teach regarding the guarding of the Sacraments logically follows from what they believe about Transubstantiation. If you want to discuss transubstantiation, that's cool -- there's a fertile ground for debate there. But don't take personal offense at the teaching. They're just being consistant.

Furthermore, I don't think I could just waltz into certain Protestant churches and partake in Communion. I know of some denominations that require you to be cleared by their elders first, so as to "guard the Lord's Table."

[Kevin Curry]

You are making the same sort of argument that gay activists make about melding homosexuality with Christian worship.

[Kevin Curry]

I have long believed that the parable of the wheat and the tares offers insight into the dangers of ecumenicism. The Church fully formed after the ressurection of Christ was of a single Spirit, but the enemy soon sowed discord within it to try to destroy it. Over the centuries factions have spilt and yielded dozens of new factions, each with its limited vision as "peering through a glass darkly." None can see clearly or well enough to separate all error from truth.

So until the One comes to reign who can accomplish this separation perfectly, it is best for the believer to find and remain fully satisfied in his place, living as faithfully as limited vision permits.

Of a necessity that will mean resisting external pressures of ecumenicism. For ecumenicism undertaken or forced by men will NOT yield church of original purity, but a field of chaos, uncertainty, and mewling mediocrity.

[jude24]

Don't confuse me with an ecumenical -- I think the Catholic church is dead wrong on certain things.

When the priest prayed, "God, please accept this, our sin-offering" at mass, my jaw hit the floor.

[Kevin Curry]

The willingness to see error and to stand against it is a good thing. >i>I wasn't so much critiquing your post as I was building a comment from it.

I am a Christian, but I am not Catholic, and I would never presume to show up at a Catholic service and demand the Sacrament. I believe Blair has helped to create a silly issue.

[SuziQ]

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.

There's nothing new about what the Pope is saying. He's having to put it in writing because of the abuses by 'compassionate' Priests over the years. My b-i-l, who is a Priest, always explains before Communion why people who are not baptized Catholics may not receive Holy Eucharist, and he invites them to come forward with their family and friends to receive a Blessing as they reach the front of the line. Ecumenism isn't supposed to mean giving up an essential part of the Faith so as not to offend others who do not share that Faith.

I guess this writer was looking for a way to take a cheap shot at Tony.

[SuziQ]

I don't see where Jesus said anything about being, "in full communion with Rome."

At the time, there wasn't a need to say it.

[jude24]

I am a Christian, but I am not Catholic, and I would never presume to show up at a Catholic service and demand the Sacrament. I believe Blair has helped to create a silly issue.

Ditto here.

I've visited Catholic Masses a few times, just to get a feel for what it's all about. I would never have gone forward to receive Communion, knowing what they believe that entails. It would be an insult, both to what I believe (that its merely a memorial service), and to what they believe (that it is the literal Body and Blood of Christ.)

[SuziQ]

If those who don't share the faith are allowed to communion, then we are expressing a lie, pretending that we are united when we are not.

I think it is more like those who are not in a position to receive Communion; non-Catholics, Catholics who are not in a position to receive because of a marrieage situation, etc, are living the lie. They, by their presence at the Eucharist are claiming that they ARE in Full communion with the teachings of the Church. If they aren't, it is THEIR souls which will bear the burden of the lie.

[lugsoul]

No - your point relies on one interpretation of the passage from 11 Corinthians. First, it seems far from clear that "not discerning the body" means, and must only mean, "not believing in a physical transformation of bread and wine into Body and Blood." It could just as easily mean that one is taking the sacrament without belief in Christ or that the performance of the ritual in remembrance of him is a sacramental effort. Also, that is not the only translation of the phrase. I have also seen "not rightly judging the body" and "not honoring the Body of Christ" etc. These could easily mean something other than belief in transubstantiation.

BTW - if it is really physical presence, what does "Do this in remembrance of me" mean? Why is it in remembrance if He is physically present?

[lugsoul]

Why don't you try to articulate a position instead of a slur?