Tony Blair may become a catholic

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I see the technology of sarcasm has not spread beyond these shores Dauphin

Oh come on! That was a very lame joke. It's not fair.

[Provost Harrison]

The lameness of the joke is not a factor that is taken into consideration. It wasn't a complex joke. You should have got it

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Whaddya mean WTF? It's very simple. Here's Tony Blair, married a Catholic woman, wants to go to church with her, but the Roman Catholic cardinal of England says he can't participate in Communion. If it were the other way around, if he were Roman Catholic and wanted to take Communion at an Anglican Church there would be no problem on the part of Anglican heirarchy or law. We're much more open about these things.

I can't see why anyone would want to become a Roman Catholic. Their hierarchy is so two faced. Twice in the past 50 years the heads of the two churches have met to discuss establishing closer relationships. Twice the head of the Roman church has agreed that the two churches are of the same family, I think the term "sisters" was used and that the sacriments were essentially the same. Yet after the hugs and patting on the back they come up with this same crap. These men who call themselves 'pope' talk love and peace yet sow only bigotry.

After the treatment he received from the Archbishop of Westminister I surprised that Tony Blair still is considering conversion. Maybe he's the better man of the two.

Agreed. We should go back to the old way of dealing with protestants.

[Dinner]

Damn Papists.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Whaddya mean WTF? It's very simple. Here's Tony Blair, married a Catholic woman, wants to go to church with her, but the Roman Catholic cardinal of England says he can't participate in Communion. If it were the other way around, if he were Roman Catholic and wanted to take Communion at an Anglican Church there would be no problem on the part of Anglican heirarchy or law. We're much more open about these things.

You mean that you were serious about this?

The rules for taking the sacrament of the eucharist and their justification (if from a different church, the sacrament signifies a communion that doesn't exist) are laid out from time in the mass program of most major churches/cathedrals. The rules reflect the level of communion between the two churches -- i.e., members of some non-RC churches are welcome to take the eucharist. They also reflect the circumstances, IIRC.

Blair was merely informed of the rule, which isn't enforced by the priest or eucharistic ministers, but rather is left to the individual. Blair had no occasion to learn the rule, and he was violating it inadvertently, so it's not as if he was being scolded, but rather he was being educated. By taking the eucharist, Blair inadvertently was signifying to RCs that he was RC rather than Anglican. I doubt his protocol folks would have approved of that and the good Archbishop was doing him a favor.

If you're an RC in grave sin, you aren't allowed to take the eucharist either. The priest or eucharistic minister does not quiz you on whether you are in grave sin. In lieu of the eucharist, non-RCs and RCs who aren't taking eucharist are welcome to come forward and receive a blessing.

I can't see why anyone would want to become a Roman Catholic. Their hierarchy is so two faced. Twice in the past 50 years the heads of the two churches have met to discuss establishing closer relationships. Twice the head of the Roman church has agreed that the two churches are of the same family, I think the term "sisters" was used and that the sacriments were essentially the same. Yet after the hugs and patting on the back they come up with this same crap. These men who call themselves 'pope' talk love and peace yet sow only bigotry.

After the treatment he received from the Archbishop of Westminister I surprised that Tony Blair still is considering conversion. Maybe he's the better man of the two.

These sound like your personal issues, not the RCC's issues. The Anglican and RC churches aren't in communion, but that doesn't mean that the Pope should refrain from expressing his brotherly love of the Anglican church, or his desire that the bond will become closer. Such meetings aren't the time to stress the differences.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DanS


You mean that you were serious about this?

The rules for taking the sacrament of the eucharist and their justification (if from a different church, the sacrament signifies a communion that doesn't exist) are laid out from time in the mass program of most major churches/cathedrals. The rules reflect the level of communion between the two churches -- i.e., members of some non-RC churches are welcome to take the eucharist.

Really, which ones? Can you name them?

They also reflect the circumstances, IIRC.

Blair was merely informed of the rule,

According to the article he was asked to cease taking communion.

which isn't enforced by the priest or eucharistic ministers, but rather is left to the individual. Blair had no occasion to learn the rule, and he was violating it inadvertently, so it's not as if he was being scolded, but rather he was being educated. By taking the eucharist, Blair inadvertently was signifying to RCs that he was RC rather than Anglican. I doubt his protocol folks would have approved of that and the good Archbishop was doing him a favor.

So if I walk into a Roman Catholic Church and take Communion I'm a Roman Catholic? Gee, most Catholics that I know tell me there is a little bit more to it than that. You fail to understand a vital difference between Anglican and Romans. It doesn't matter to us whether you're baptised Anglican, Roman, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbytarian, Methodist and a number of others, all are welcome to the Lord's table, just as Christ and Paul would have had us do. No Anglican is going to look on an Anglican taking communion with his wife at his wife's church as a betrayal. No Anglican preist, bishop or archbishop would say a word against the practice. If the Roman archbishop thought he was protecting Mr Blair then he was looking at the situation from a Roman pespective, not an Anglican one. Really though you're just putting some spin on the situation.

If you're an RC in grave sin, you aren't allowed to take the eucharist either. The priest or eucharistic minister does not quiz you on whether you are in grave sin. In lieu of the eucharist, non-RCs and RCs who aren't taking eucharist are welcome to come forward and receive a blessing.

One of Paul's letters begins with the sentence: "I, Paul, a sinner." Well, if the Romans are going to turn him away from Communion we'll take him. Anglicans, at least Episcopals, are asked if they are at strife with any other communicant and if so to go and make peace first. Sinners aren't asked to leave, sinners are the main business of the Catholic Church.

These sound like your personal issues, not the RCC's issues. The Anglican and RC churches aren't in communion,

The bishop of Rome declared that the Roman and Anglican Churches shared the same sacraments which to me sounds like a declaration that the two churches were in communion. I'm sure that some spin can be put on this to explain how it doesn't mean what it appears to say, but really, at what point does sincere dialogue begin? If Roman Catholics aren't in communion with their fellow Christians then the RCC doesn't deserve to bear the title of "Catholic".

but that doesn't mean that the Pope should refrain from expressing his brotherly love of the Anglican church, or his desire that the bond will become closer.

If the declarations are just for show then they are, to quote Paul merely "sounding brass."

Such meetings aren't the time to stress the differences.

Actually they are. If they are not then when exactly is the time? How can you work to make a bond closer without confronting and working through the differences. Here's the thing. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't want closer bonds, it wants submission. The Anglicans aren't the only church that has had the same problem with the Romans. The Orthodox have had the same problem. At the end of the last meeting with the Roman prelate the Metropolitan of Constantinople had been so offended that he declared that the Roman Church had learned nothing in the past one thousand years.
It's not my personal problem. It's the Roman church's problem. The Roman Church is one of the great obstacles to Christian unity.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DaShi


Agreed. We should go back to the old way of dealing with protestants.

You mean getting you a**es whipped? Which of the wars between the Catholic nations and the Protestant nations did the Catholic nations win? I don't seem to be able to name any, but maybe I'm missing something.

[Jon Miller]

When I was at my freinds Catholic wedding, we were instructed to come forward for a blessing when it came time for communion

I think that a Bishop did the wedding

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Read the article. Cardinal Hume, the Archbishop of Westminister asked him to stop taking communion at a Roman Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure Cardinal Hume is a Roman Catholic Cardinal since Anglicans don't have Cardinals.

Yes, Cardinal Hume is the Archibishop of the Catholic Cathedral in Westminster.

Why is this so offensive? No catechumen can take communion until they are confirmed. Not only did they insist that we could not take the Catholic communion, they insisted that prior to becoming Catholic that I refrain from taking communion anywhere else, even in my former Mennonite church.

Tony Blair is no different, he shouldn't be taking communion in the Catholic church until he is confirmed. It's nothing to do with bigotry, the Anglicans chose to remove themselves from communion with Catholicism when Henry VIII wanted to bang Anne Bolyn.

Mr. Blair, as a member of the Church of England, isn't white enough to take communion in a Roman Catholic Church.

No one, besides those who are confirmed Catholic can take communion. Not even children baptised can take communion until their confirmation and then they take their communion afterwards. It has nothing to do with the fact that he isn't 'white enough' but everything to do with the fact that he is not Catholics.

Catholics believe that the communion is the true body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that the priest transubstantiates the wine and the bread into the blood and body of Christ. I don't think it's proper for those who do not believe in this to accept communion in the Catholic church.

Now that the Iron Curtain has fallen there is no further need for English speaking boys to arm and place themselves between the Holy See and harms way, so there is no further need for these meetings.

It was the Church of England that decided they didn't want to listen to the Pope and to priests appointed by the pope. They wanted their own church. I don't see why the Catholics are obligated to accept the same folks who rejected them back into communion, unless it's on the terms of the Catholic church.

Frankly, I don't understand why any Anglican remains a part of the Anglican church. What beliefs are there that you will not find in the Catholic church at all? Doc, what it is that keeps you in the Anglican church and not the Catholics, if as you say, there are no significant differences between the two?

[Ben Kenobi]

Blair was merely informed of the rule,
According to the article he was asked to cease taking communion.

Yes, that is common practice to all catechumens who are in the process of entering the Catholic church. I can confirm that this was also asked of me when I entered, as it was of all others who were interested in joining. Frankly I totally understood the rule, and the priest allowed us to come forth and take the blessing. I am glad to see that Tony Blair is being asked to do the sam as the rest of us rather then getting special privileges.

So if I walk into a Roman Catholic Church and take Communion I'm a Roman Catholic?

Yes you are saying that you are in fact a Roman Catholic, when you walk into a Roman Catholic and take communion. Those who are Christians but not Catholic are permitted to take the blessing from the priest, but not to recieve the Eucharist.

Gee, most Catholics that I know tell me there is a little bit more to it than that. You fail to understand a vital difference between Anglican and Romans. It doesn't matter to us whether you're baptised Anglican, Roman, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbytarian, Methodist and a number of others, all are welcome to the Lord's table, just as Christ and Paul would have had us do.

Fair enough. That is your belief. It is not ours. We believe that the eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and that all who accept the eucharist are signifying that they agree with the teachings of the church in their entirety, and that they are presently disposed to receive the eucharist.

All who are Christians are permitted to recieve the blessings of Christ, but not to drink of the blood and eat the body of Christ, because we do not know whether they in fact believe that this is the body and blood of Christ. There are many christians, including myself when I was a Mennonite, that the lord's supper is a symbolic act done to commemorate the death and resurrection of Christ.

If you're an RC in grave sin, you aren't allowed to take the eucharist either. The priest or eucharistic minister does not quiz you on whether you are in grave sin.

Indeed, and scripture says that those who take the sacrament in an unworthy manner will suffer grieviously. No one can be punished for declining the eucharist, but we are not to take it when in grave sin.

The bishop of Rome declared that the Roman and Anglican Churches shared the same sacraments which to me sounds like a declaration that the two churches were in communion.

They share the same sacraments, but you would hardly say that their ordinations are alike. Does the Catholic church ordain women?

Just because they share the form, in that they have extreme unction, ordination, marriage, confirmation, baptism, the eucharist and confession, in the same number, does not mean that the content is exactly the same.

If you look at the Orthodox church, even though they do not have the same number of sacraments, they are considered to be in communion with the Roman Catholic church, because they believe that the communion is the true body and blood of Christ. The same is not true of the Anglicans, and will remain so as long as they believe that the eucharist is a symbol to commemorate the death and resurrection of Christ.

The Orthodox have had the same problem. At the end of the last meeting with the Roman prelate the Metropolitan of Constantinople had been so offended that he declared that the Roman Church had learned nothing in the past one thousand years.

Yet the Orthodox church is in communion with Rome. I don't see why you are bringing up the issues with the Orthodox church, when there are far fewer differences between us and them then between us and you.

In fact, I would say that the Lutherans and even the Anabaptists would be more likely to join then the Anglicans. We have more in common with them now then we do with your recent innovations.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Really, which ones? Can you name them?

I think this is incorrect. Nonmembers may participate in mass, but not accept the Eucharist, except in dire situations. However, I think it is rather more relevant if the church you belong to considers the catholic mass to be acceptable; who cares ultimately what the catholic church thinks if you're an anglican, right?

In any event, the (Eastern) Orthodox church is not in full communion with the Catholic church, so Orthodox members may not receive communion unless in dire need (according to both churches) or if the local dioceses (RC and EO) approve it (perhaps in a town with one Orthodox person and a Catholic church?).

Eastern rite Catholics, on the other hand, are considered to be in full communion with the RC church, and are allowed to partake in the Eucharist.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Yes, Cardinal Hume is the Archibishop of the Catholic Cathedral in Westminster.

Has he been renamed Cardinal Lazarus ?

The funeral of Cardinal Basil Hume, head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales was attended by thousands of people at Westminster Cathedral.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/06/99/cardinal_hume_funeral/377913.stm

We now have Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor.

Who is not actually officially dead...


Anyway, Blair to turn Catholic. Super, first Widdecombe and now Blair.

Are they trying to give the Catholic Church a bad, erm, WORSE name ?

[trev]

The Catholic church should be hesitant to accept as a member someone who as Prime Minister fully supported and encouraged and implemented many policies which were strongly opposed by the church as essential moral issues - gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research etc.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by trev
The Catholic church should be hesitant to accept as a member someone who as Prime Minister fully supported and encouraged and implemented many policies which were strongly opposed by the church as essential moral issues - gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research etc.

When the Catholic Church clears up its own backlog of essential moral issues, then I imagine it can cast the first stone.

See, I object to any prelate who tells me I'm intrinsically morally disordered or evil- simply because of my sexuality.

Especially when the organisation he belongs to has participated in the cover up of child sexual abuse on more than one continent.


Suffer the little children, indeed....

[DanS]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think this is incorrect.

No, it is correct. See the following, which quotes canon law...

3. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.

http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/sacraments/receivingcommunion.html

Members of the Reformation churches, such as the Anglicans may receive communion from an RC priest or eucharistic minister if the following conditions are met.

a. danger of death, or, other grave necessity,
b. the norms of the diocesan bishop, or, the conference of bishops are complied with
c. cannot approach a minister of his or her own community
d. asks on his or her own for it,
e. manifests Catholic faith in the sacraments
f. properly disposed.