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.
One would think that any reaonable adult would understand that. When I went to Japan I removed my shoes before entering a home. I don't know what kind of reasoning there was for it, I just respected my hosts.
Some people have a juvenile need to break the rules of the Mother Church they have rejected.
SD
It seems to me that it would be impossible for the Anglican church to rejoin the Roman Catholic church, because at that point it would cease to exist. I think it would rather have to be a process of everybody in the Anglican Church going through the Rite of Christian Election and being recieved into the Roman Catholic Church on an individual basis. I imagine clergy could do the same, and then be re-ordained, or not, as the Roman Catholic Church saw fit.
And my question, which you did not answer, is whether the verse you cite is subject to a different interpretation than the one you give to it. Your lack of an answer all but answers that question.
My last question is intended to determine what your interpretation actually means. What is "discern"? What does it look like? Taste like? Smell like? Or is it a spiritual feeling, a sense of communion with God?
Of course, you didn't answer that one either.
Rumors are that he will inded convert once he is finished in office. There are no legal boundaries to a Catholic being prime minister, but it would not play politically.
Wilder rumors are that he has already, secretly converted.
SD
I understand, but I still disagree. One missing a Holy Day because of location could be confessed if it is a sin at all. Now, if one got malaria or something and was in fear for life, I consider that an emergency. But that is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
SD
I have a pal that mentioned that goes on in his Catholic church. Didn't Jesus clear out a market at a temple over that?
The point turns on the difference between "substance" (what an object really IS) and its "accidents" (physical characteristics such as smell, taste, appearance, etc.) The "accidents" of the bread and wine do not change, but the "substance" does. That's why the doctrine is called "transubstantiation." "How you know" is determined by whether a duly ordained priest exercised the power delegated to him by Christ and the Apostolic Succession to perform the necessary rite to work the transubstantiation. Since you have to show up by the Gospel to receive, you have the opportunity to witness this being done.
Indeed.
And my question, which you did not answer, is whether the verse you cite is subject to a different interpretation than the one you give to it. Your lack of an answer all but answers that question.
My use of the phrase "as we interpret it" all but spells out that there could be other interpretations.
Yes, I am aware of Protestants and their symbolic views of the Eucharist.
My last question is intended to determine what your interpretation actually means. What is "discern"? What does it look like? Taste like? Smell like? Or is it a spiritual feeling, a sense of communion with God?
Discern is defined at dictionary.com, first entry, as "To perceive with the eyes or intellect; detect."
I would find it hard to "detect" or "perceive" something that is not there.
We believe that in Communion the Body and Blood of the Lord are there. Physically there. And one who does not discern this should not partake.
SD
58. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61. When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62. [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. 64. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66. From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68. Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71. He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
------
It is a 'hard saying' and many left Him. Maybe they will return some day. God Bless.
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.