Tony Blair may become a catholic

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Has he been renamed Cardinal Lazarus ?

That would be ex Cardinal Hume? Cardinal Ex-hume?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


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.

This is the real WTF. Thousands of those "English speaking boys" were Baptists, Congregationalists, Jews, and atheists. Are you suggesting that they did so because the Pope met with the Archbishop of Canterbury?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by DanS


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

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.

Indeed. As I said above, IF there is grave necessity or other important reason, then it is licit; but in general, if you are anglican or Orthodox or other non-Catholic faith, you may not just walk in on Sunday and take Eucharist.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Indeed. As I said above, IF there is grave necessity or other important reason, then it is licit; but in general, if you are anglican or Orthodox or other non-Catholic faith, you may not just walk in on Sunday and take Eucharist.

what if you're REALLY hungry?

Anyone who wanders in to my shul, can partake of the bread and wine we bless with Kiddush and motzi, be they Jew, Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu.

So I must say, that Doc SL and his Anglican church are not nearly as pluralistic as my shul.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


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.

We still have about half of Ireland. And the good part at that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Has he been renamed Cardinal Lazarus ?

As opposed to being a priest in the Anglican church, which was the question. The article above did say he had died already.

[Ben Kenobi]

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?).

Yes, that's a common agreement for everyone, not just the Orthodox. However, AFAIK the Orthodox are considered by Rome to be in communion, but the Orthodox don't consider Rome to be in communion.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes, that is common practice to all catechumens who are in the process of entering the Catholic church. 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.

Odd, I seem to recall that my Catholic neighbor's kids started receiving communion as soon as they were able to kneel at the rail and drink it in a civilized manner, yet I'm really really sure that they hadn't learned their cathecism yet. As an Anglican Mr Blair would already have learned his cathecism.

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.

The way I read DanS' post it seemed to me that he was implying that the British community at large would have gotten in a huff over Mr Blair being a Roman Catholic. I was merely pointing out that was not likely to have been a big deal.

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.

Do you know in fact what the position on the Eucharist is in any of the churches I mentioned? If you were in fact ever an Anglican in Canada you would know the Anglican teaching, yet apparently you do not.

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

You do realise that in the early years of the Church there were women priests and bishops? Are they to be denied?

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.

This is not true. A few years ago one of our receptionists, a Catholic, married an Orthodox man. She had hoped to have the Eucharist at her wedding, but the priest informed her that the groom's Orthodox family would not be able to partake of the Eucharist, so that idea was discarded.
OTOH some time back we had a couple with Orthodox relatives baptise their kid in our church. There was no problem with the family participating in Eucharist afterwards. I'm not sure about the rest of the Anglican Communion, but in the US the Episcopal Church is in communion with the Orthodox and the Lutherans.

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.

Didn't you just say that Mennonites considered the Eucharist to be symbolic instead of the true body and blood of Christ. Didn't you just accuse (without knowing the truth) Anglicans of making the same mistake? Didn't you just claim that the Roman Church and the Anglican Church could never be in communion precisely because, as you claim without justification, the Anglican Church considers the Eucharist to be only symbolic? Now you're telling me that the Roman Church could be in communion with the Mennonites even though the Mennonite's deny a major Roman article of faith?
The Lutherans have female priests.

[Ben Kenobi]

Odd, I seem to recall that my Catholic neighbor's kids started receiving communion as soon as they were able to kneel at the rail and drink it in a civilized manner, yet I'm really really sure that they hadn't learned their cathecism yet. As an Anglican Mr Blair would already have learned his cathechism.

He would still be a catechumen until his confirmation. You get confirmed when you are ready to accept the tenets of the Catholic church, not when you have complete knowledge of the catechism. I agree with you that Catholics need to do a better job of instruction so that people properly understand, but just because you are an Anglican does not mean that you are exempt from doing the same classes as everyone else.

Do you know in fact what the position on the Eucharist is in any of the churches I mentioned? If you were in fact ever an Anglican in Canada you would know the Anglican teaching, yet apparently you do not. quote:

Articles 25 and 28. Look them up for yourself. I think this would be better if we took this to pms, so check your box.

You do realise that in the early years of the Church there were women priests and bishops? Are they to be denied?

It's a recent innovation by the Anglican church. For 450 years the Anglicans were wrong on this issue, and all of a sudden they are right and their old policy was wrong? I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

And the question which you could not answer, does the Catholic church ordain women? They do not. It used to be that the Anglicans and Catholics were much closer, now due to their recent doctrinal innovations, we are not. Is it the fault of the Catholics that the Anglicans changed over that period of time?

This is not true. A few years ago one of our receptionists, a Catholic, married an Orthodox man. She had hoped to have the Eucharist at her wedding, but the priest informed her that the groom's Orthodox family would not be able to partake of the Eucharist, so that idea was discarded.

Yes, because their church wouldn't let them partake. I believe I said that while the Catholic church has no problem with it, but the Orthodox do. I'd love to hear from Elok whether I am correct.

Didn't you just say that Mennonites considered the Eucharist to be symbolic instead of the true body and blood of Christ.

Yes they do.

Didn't you just accuse (without knowing the truth) Anglicans of making the same mistake? Didn't you just claim that the Roman Church and the Anglican Church could never be in communion precisely because, as you claim without justification, the Anglican Church considers the Eucharist to be only symbolic? Now you're telling me that the Roman Church could be in communion with the Mennonites even though the Mennonite's deny a major Roman article of faith?

First I said that the anabaptists (baptists and mennonites, and all their branches), and the Lutherans are closer to the Catholics then the Anglicans are now to the Catholics. This is due to the recent innovations of the Anglican church.

I did not say that they are in communion, because they are not, but if you look at the issues that divide both groups, they are less substantial then the divide between the Anglicans and the Catholics.

And yes I have evidence which I have PM'ed you as to the Anglican church's teachings on communion and the eucharist.

As for the Lutherans, I'm not sure. I see that some, including the ELCA in the US does, but I'm not sure about the rest. I stand corrected, I was not aware that there were Lutheran congregations in the US that were ordaining women.

[Barnabas]

Ben, the C church and eastern orthodox church are not in communion.

The difference is that for catholics, there is a saying which goes, once a priest, always a priest, meaning, if the church consacrates a priest, and the priest later goes mad and starts worshipping horses and sheeps, he is still a priest, or he still has "priest powers", can consacrate the eucharist etc.And if you dont have any catholic church around, you are allowed to go to an e orthodox one to do your weekly duty.

For orthodox christians, even if you were consacrated in a valid way, if you stop being orthodox christian you lose your "priest powers", and for example the bread stays bread instead of becoming jesus.


So, catholics, while not in communion with the eastern orthodox, accept orthodox priests are real priests and their sacraments valid, while the orthodox say no one knows if catholic sacraments are valid, and some plainly deny it.

Anglicans are not considered to be validly ordained by catholics btw

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

That would be ex Cardinal Hume? Cardinal Ex-hume?

This service has been provided by Ecumenical Epitaphs Incorporated...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As opposed to being a priest in the Anglican church, which was the question. The article above did say he had died already.

Ah, but did you show proof of having read it with due diligence ?

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

Note the tense you used....

Exegetical bloom

[Richelieu]

Considering Benedict's age i guess the papal primaries are officially open and Blair is positioning himself for his next job.

His holiness Tony I

[The Vagabond]

Converting to Catholicism won't be able to save him. He'll burn in hell for his sins anyway.