Pope's ruling bars Blair from taking Communion with family

The London Times ^ | April 17, 2003 | Richard Owen in Rome and Tom Baldwin

[SoothingDave]

but it is damned hypocritical for those who have accepted Christ but don't "Conform to Rome".

What is? Do you affirm a true Physical Presence of the Lord's Body and Blood?

If you do not then stay out. We only have the rule to prevent disrespect.

SD

[TSgt]

I wish the Pope felt as strongly about pedophile priests as he does about Protestant Christians.

DITTO!

[Willie Green]

The Catholic church has always allowed those who acknowledge the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament to receive in emergency situations,

As I'm sure you're well aware, Anglicans, Episcopalians and Lutherans are considered to be much closer to Roman Catholicism than most other Protestant denominations. Although I am uncertain as to the specific details where differences still exist, I am certain that the Pope's message is not intended to magnify them. Rather, it is more intended to whoop the more wayward liberal Catholics back into line.

[Bigg Red]

Saying that he merely wished to worship with his family but had not realised his behaviour was causing offence...

If Cherie is Catholic why in the sam hill would she not tell him that his receiving Communion is against the rules?

[SoothingDave]

The POPE has no right to deny one of God's children from receiving communion.

The Pope has every right to prevent God's children from harming themselves through dis-respecting the Presence of the Lord through dis-belief.

Blair didn't choose to receive the sacrement because he wanted a snack- he believes in Jesus, why does that make him unworthy?

Blair hasn't "chosen to receive" any sacraments that I am aware of. Nobody is worthy, it is a question of whether one affirms the faith or not. Not the watered down version, but the entire faith.

SD

[Campion]

Blair is suddenly forbidden to receive Communion, yet known pedophilic priests and CC hierarchal enablers are?

Nope, not unless they repent. Nice try.

[Argus]

Looks like we've got our own Holy War right here on this thread.

Tony Blair should know better than to try and take Communion at a Catholic altar when he is not Catholic. Anyone who is even slightly aware of our doctrine knows that this is sacrilege. Good Catholics won't even take Communion if they are not in state of grace - non-Catholics are completely out of the question. What sets Catholics apart from Protestant denominations is our belief that the Host, by transubstantiation, is the actual Body of Christ. It's true that high-church Anglicans also believe in transubstantiation, but not being in communion with Rome disqualifies them ipso facto from participating. This schism was the Anglican's choice nearly five hundred years ago, not Rome's. If they want back in, they know what it will take.

[jwh_Denver]

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

When has Rome been in "communion" with Jesus Christ?

[SoothingDave]

Although I am uncertain as to the specific details where differences still exist, I am certain that the Pope's message is not intended to magnify them. Rather, it is more intended to whoop the more wayward liberal Catholics back into line.

Don't try to talk sense to 'em, Willie. As long as they can act smug, offended or bring up "pedophiles" they feel more holy than the dirty Catholics.

SD

[Bigg Red]

Wow! There's nothing like a thread like this to bring out a lot of anti-Catholic attacks. You are replying quite well, however.

[DeathfromBelow]

You need to affirm a true personal relationship with Jesus or He will tell you to "Stay Out" "I did not know you"

[ellery]

Can't we all just get along?

[ex-snook]

"but it is damned hypocritical for those who have accepted Christ but don't "Conform to Rome"."

You are going overboard. It was Jesus who said 'this is My body'. The Catholic Church agrees and says that the Communion Host is the Body of Jesus just as Jesus said it was. If one can't say Amen to that, then don't receive Communion. Rome is 'accepting Christ' completely not symbolically.

[ellery]

(grin)

[TSgt]

When has Rome been in "communion" with Jesus Christ?

Hummmmmmm...Now that you mention it... But isn't the Pope infallible?

[JohnGalt]

No, you misunderstand.

Catholicism is an institution and the Pope is in charge. Since I am a conservative, I respect his right to enforce standard church doctrine even if I wish he would excommunicate Ted Kennedy as well.

Anglicans traditionally accept all Christians as a compromise between church doctrine under the Catholics, and the need to attract Catholics into the church in the early days of the Anglican Church. Anglicans are very pragmatic.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

This is why I am Methodist. We believe that the sacraments of the Son of God belong to all not just Catholics.

[lugsoul]

Nope - it's a question of whether one accepts the faith as decreed by Rome , not whether one accepts the faith as set forth in the Bible.

I am a Protestant. My wife is Catholic. We had planned to take our daughter to her first Easter mass this weekend. If I can't participate, I am not going to sanction such a divisive and exclusionary practice by going to get my "blessing." The requirement of belief in transsubstantiation is man-made law, and the Church does itself a disservice by turning away believers based upon it.

[ellery]

Just out of curiosity, what would the Anglican church have to do to rejoin the Roman Catholic church?