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.

[lugsoul]

No one said anything about demanding. It is about being refused, and condemned.

[lugsoul]

One more thing - as to your point about certain Protestant churches - I have already stated that I feel exactly the same way about those practices.

[F16Fighter]

"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.

I don't quite recall the Scripture where Christ interrupts the last supper in the middle of the pouring of wine and breaking bread by questioning the participants brand of 'Christianity'...

How is Blair to blame for expanding the paradigm of 'Catholicism'? Everyone knows the CC is famous for extending courtesy and special privilidges to the elite anyway.

And how else could anyone explain front row center seats at services to devout 'Catholics' as Teddy Kennedy and Tom Daschle??

[F16Fighter]

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

Unfortunately, this is true.

[Mr. Lucky]

Uh, your story would be more believable had the Romans spoken English. They spoke Latin, however.

The term "Mass" as applied to a church service where the Eucharist is served derives from the Latin word for a dismissal (dimissio). After the Eucharist, the words missa est were spoken, signifying the formal end of the service.

[F16Fighter]

"You've been reading too much of the Catholic-bashers like Dave Hunt..."

Oh?? Dave Hunt is a "Catholic-basher" because...I assume he exposes inconsistancies, hypocracies, and non-scriptural dogma??

Is Dave Hunt lying about something?? And please do explain how he has made you a victim.

[ex-snook]

Lead Kindly Light. You are on the right path. Keep questioning and you will find the truth like Cardinal Newman said. Converts come to the Catholic Church "not so much to lose what they have, but to gain what they have not, by means of what they have more may be given to them". You can't keep kicking against the goad forever on your journey. Happy Easter

The Pillar of the Cloud (John Henry Newman)

Lead, Kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom
Lead Thou me on!
The night is dark, and I am far from home—
Lead Thou me on!
Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see
The distant scene—one step enough for me.


I was not ever thus, nor pray'd that Thou
Shouldst lead me on.
I loved to choose and see my path, but now
Lead Thou me on!
I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears,
Pride ruled my will: remember not past years.

So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still
Will lead me on,
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone;
And with the morn those angel faces smile
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.


At Sea.
June 16, 1833.

 

[omegatoo]

We do not judge you, we believe that God will judge you, and we do our best to guide you to a favorable judgement according to our beliefs. Our interpretation of what we have read and studied is that if you do not believe in transubstantiation and the true physical presence, you should not participate in communion because we believe that is what God wants.

We could be wrong.

But we still believe what we believe, and expecting us not to believe it or to allow non-believers to accept communion anyway would be asking us to change our faith or to knowingly help you risk your soul.

Neither of those is going to happen.

By continuing to argue this point, you are questioning the basic beliefs of Catholicism, and although I am not a scholar, I suspect you are not the first to do this. If these things could be explained scientifically or proved conclusively, they would not be called mysteries, and no faith would be required, and everybody on earth would be of the same faith.

You ask how we know Christ is physically present in the host. Can you explain how you know He is spiritually there?
Of course not, no one can. It is a matter of faith. You have yours, we have ours, and they are different. They are not, however, incompatible. Catholics don't believe that everyone else is condemned to hell. We don't believe that everyone who receives a sacrament 'unworthily' goes straight to hell. They might, but we won't find out until we get there. Until then, we just follow the rules as we interpret them. Like I said, we could be wrong.

Besides, nobody on this forum made the rules, nobody on the forum can change the rules, and I doubt that you are going to cause any Catholics on this forum to give up their beliefs.

Go to church, don't go to church. Take communion or don't. If you break the rule, odds are no one will notice. If you don't break the rule, odds are no one will notice. Except you. And your wife.

O2

[lugsoul]

You have really stated my problem - the "basic beliefs of Catholicism." I've attended a lot of Christian churches. In almost every one of them, the "basic beliefs" have to do with things like God's love, the Trinity, guidelines for living a Christian life, guidelines for interaction with God and with other people, etc. Yet, somehow, whenever I get into a discussion with Catholics talking about their "basic beliefs" they are always referring to some isolated part of their dogma that is based upon some less-than-certain interpretation of Biblical language. In other words, the focus is on why they are different, and better (or more correct), than other Christians. And I cannot imagine how anyone can read the Gospel and conclude that this approach is what Jesus wanted.

[jude24]

Oh?? Dave Hunt is a "Catholic-basher" because...I assume he exposes inconsistancies, hypocracies, and non-scriptural dogma??

Ever read his A Woman Rides the Beast? I have. The historical scholarship is woefully lacking (he has no sense of perspective in church history.) He just assumes the worst about the Catholic church, without examining the motivations of the people who wrote against her. Not every Reformer had noble intentions (and remember: I'm Calvinist!). Many were Reformed because of political or economic considerations. Some of the pamphlets written about the Catholic church are sort of like the articles about Bush that you'll find on DU.

Is Dave Hunt lying about something?? And please do explain how he has made you a victim.

Try What Love is This, his screed against Calvinism (they're "too Catholic." LOL.) If that is indicative of his scholarship, EVERYTHING he writes is suspect in my mind.

[F16Fighter]

"Ever read his 'A Woman Rides the Beast'? I have."

Yes, I have as well...

Even if you assume 25% of the premises, or "facts" in Hunt's book are out of context or open to interpretation, it still leaves another 75% of which must be seriously considered.

I'll check out 'What is Love'...

"EVERYTHING he writes is suspect in my mind."

In Hunt's defense, just imagine the walls of silence and road blocks he's run into in disseminating truth from fiction under the circumstances.

Let's face it -- all naivety aside, the CC is indeed a powerful force to be reckoned with when it comes to protecting their own interests, traditions, AND especially, history.

[BnBlFlag]

As a "Low Church" Episcopalian, I still believe in the 39 articles and do not consider myself a Catholic in any respect except for the small "c" type. If I leave the decadent and apostate Episcopal Curch, it will be for a more conservative Protestant Church as the Missouri Synod Lutherans.

[jude24]

Even if you assume 25% of the premises, or "facts" in Hunt's book are out of context or open to interpretation, it still leaves another 75% of which must be seriously considered.

I've studied church history at the collegiate level, so I've got a little knowledge in this area. If there's one thing I've discovered in my study of church history, it is that no one had clean hands. Catholics had their Inquistion, the Calvinists had Severtus, and everyone persecuted the Anabaptists.

So you see -- even if the facts are 100% right (which many are not -- Pius XII did NOT collaborate with Hitler), divorced from their context, they serve only to enflame passions. If I recount the horrors of the Inquisition, all but the most biased Catholics will readily admit that it was wrong. But how was the Inquisition any different than Calvin's allowing the Geneva town board (who would rubber-stamp anything he requested) to execute Severtus, who was admittedly a heretic?

[jude24]

Oh, and if you want a more biased source of data for church history, get Doucments of the Christian Church by Bettenson. It's a collection of the important, relevant documents that you'd want to see.

A good (and fair) book about the general history of church is Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley. It's quite readable, but also has a fair amount of information in it.

(These were the textbooks to my "Western Church History" class, taught by a Christian prof who is also the campus director of Campus Crusade for Christ.)

[F16Fighter]

Thanks for the itinerary...

[AnAmericanMother]

MO Synod Lutherans are a good bunch of folks, very faithful, very conservative. The fact that the Lutherans (like the Presbys) have divided make the lines much more clear.

Fortunately we have an excellent parish church with an ex military chaplain for a rector. I'm a "cradle Episcopalian", third generation, the family has always tended towards the "high". My husband's mother was raised Catholic but married a Methodist, he was raised Methodist but joined the Episcopal church about ten years after we married (after his paternal grandfather, a Methodist minister, died. We both felt it would be disrespectful for him to leave the church while the Rev was alive.)

My husband has already said that if the Episcopal Church nationally crosses his "line in the sand", which is approval of homosexual "unions", then he's heading over to the R.C.s. I was very surprised given where he started (and his amazement at the incense, bells, etc. when he first attended church with me), but reflected that his mom has always continued to go to Mass so it's not really that surprising.

[BenR2]

To deny anyone Communion, if they choose to accept it, is FUNDAMENTALLY UN-CHRISTIAN.

---

Hardly. The Apostle Paul warns against careless partaking of the Eucharist in 1 Cor, Chs. 10 and 11. There is a carelessness about Communion in some Protestant circles (e.g., the United Methodist Church) that is simply breathtaking.

I am a Protestant and would NOT expect to be welcome at Roman Catholic Communion anymore than our elders would welcome the local Catholic Archbishop at our Breaking of the Bread service.

I would like to think that Mrs. Blair ought to convert to Anglicanism for the sake of her family, but that is only my opinion.

[ffusco]

Thank you for illustrating my point.

While each "brand" of Christianity has its own rituals, proceedures and customs, there is a common bond.

Mr Blair is a Christian and wants to accept the Eucharist- WWJD? Deny him?

BTW: Why shouldn't Mr. Blair covert for the sake of his wife and child?

[Mr. Lucky]

You know that we (Missouri Synod Lutherans), too, practice closed communion.

[BenR2]

Privately, I say, let him/her partake of the other's tradition.

Publicly, neither tradition can endorse this -- can you not see this?

Tough to fight you on the WWJD.

Why should she (rather than he) convert? Because God is a Protestant (wink), naturally.