Ecumenism: hierarchies out of touch with flock?
Cat(h)
priest invites Church of Ireland Minister in the same locality to
concelebrate Easter Sunday mass in commemoration of the 1916 Easter
Rising. Congregations are happy at that, and a number of the CoI
congregation attend and partake in Holy Communion.
But neither of the two fellas advised their Hierarchies - so mayhem
ensues - at least on the Catholic Hierarchy's side (and from what I
have heard from radio reports, some level of enquiry is also happening
on the CoI side). Yet it would appear from news reports that the
ordinary Joe Soap Christians of both ilk find the whole thing rather
cool.
Is it a case that the Hierarchies are out of touch, and that their
respective flocks are far more committed to ecumenism than they are?
And what is "true ecumenism" as defined by Archbishop Brady?
I would be most interested in the views of the SCI Christians of all
hues on this fascinating little story?
>From the Irish Indo:
Unholy row over Mass invite to Protestants
ADVERTISEMENT
Rev Michael Graham of St Peter's Church of Ireland and Fr Iggy
O'Donovan OSA celebrating the Easter Sunday Eucharist mass in the
Augustinian church. ,6 COLIN BELL
Bishops vent their anger over ecumenical Easter service
THE Catholic hierarchy has ordered an inquiry into how a Protestant
clergyman was allowed to say Mass in an Augustinian church.
The unprecedented ecumenical service took place on Easter Sunday.
Church of Ireland clergyman, the Reverend Michael Graham, concelebrated
Mass with Fr Iggy O'Donovan and two other priests at the Augustinian
Priory in Drogheda, Co Louth.
The row has echoes of the uproar that followed President Mary
McAleese's decision to receive communion at Christ Church Cathedral in
1997. The resultant furore forced Cardinal Desmond Connell, the then
Archbishop of Dublin, to explain that the Anglican communion was "not
what it appeared to be".
In the latest case, Mr Graham, of St Peter's Church in Drogheda,
brought 20 members of his congregation to the Mass, where they joined
their Catholic neighbours in receiving Communion.
The concelebration has provoked an angry response from the Catholic
hierarchy. Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, Sean Brady,
has ordered an inquiry into the service, which he said was not in the
interests of "true ecumenism".
"I intend to seek further details about the exact circumstances of the
concelebration, which is contrary to Catholic Church rules," Dr Brady
said.
"True ecumenism is best served by initiatives that are respectful of,
and sensitive to, the traditions, ethos and discipline of all those
involved.
"Otherwise, there is a real danger of causing widespread confusion,
raising false hopes and creating situations that are open to
misunderstandings and manipulation."
Dr Brady has the responsibility for ensuring adherence to church rules
and discipline in churches in the archdiocese of Armagh, which covers
Drogheda in Co Louth.
Ecclesiastical protocol will require him to write to the Provincial of
the Augustinian Order in Ireland, Fr Gerry Horan, who is based in
Dublin.
Fr Horan was not available for comment last night.
It is likely Dr Brady will give a report on his findings to the Papal
Nuncio, Dr Giuseppe Lazzarotto. The Nuncio will report to Rome on what
is regarded as a serious breach of the rules upheld by both the late
Pope John Paul II and his successor, Pope Benedict XVI.
Significantly, last night the Church of Ireland Primate and Archbishop
of Armagh, Robin Eames, said he shared Dr Brady's concern over the
implications for ecumenical relationships. He said he would similarly
be requesting more information.
"Such occasions, while well-intentioned, can lead to misunderstandings
at a time when relations between our churches have improved so much."
Rebel priest Fr O'Donovan was unrepentant. He denied he had set out to
defy the Church's rules, which strictly prohibit intercommunion, when
he organised a special Mass to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the
Easter Rising. And he said it was Taoiseach Bertie Ahern who had
inspired him to organise the service, which marks a landmark in
inter-church relations in Ireland.
"I am not saying that I spoke to the Taoiseach personally, but it was
Bertie Ahern who gave me the inspiration when I heard him appealing for
an 'inclusive' commemoration of the 1916 Rising," he said.
"I was taken by the Taoiseach's invitation to Ulster Unionists to
attend last Sunday's parade in Dublin's O'Connell Street, and I got the
idea of inviting the Rev Michael Graham, the local Church of Ireland
rector, to take part in the Mass and to receive Holy Communion at our
own service in the priory on Easter Sunday."
Cat(h)
Ex_OWM
"Cat(h)" <cath...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145537557.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>Yet it would appear from news reports that the
> ordinary Joe Soap Christians of both ilk find the whole thing rather
> cool.
> Is it a case that the Hierarchies are out of touch, and that their
> respective flocks are far more committed to ecumenism than they are?
Meant to reply to this earlier, Cat(h) but I've been busy.
It's all down to rules and how rigidly they are applied.
The Catholic Church has a fundamentally different interpretation of Holy
Communion to the Church of Ireland. The CC takes the words of Christ
literally when he said at the Last Supper "This is my body ... this is my
blood" and believes that during consecration, the bread and wine literally
become the body and blood of Christ - a process known as
'transubstantiation' - and that is why the Eucharist has a very special
place.
The CoI - like most protestant churches - do not believe in this
transubstantiation. They take Christ's follow up words at the Last Supper
when he said " ... do this in memory of me" and they teach that it's the
*act* of receiving the Eucharist that is important and that the bread and
wine themselves have no particular significance.
This difference in opinion is actually one of the major stumbling blocks to
achieving Christian unity.
> And what is "true ecumenism" as defined by Archbishop Brady?
When Archbishop Brady talks about "true ecumenism" he means that differences
in the churches have to be explored and efforts made to reconcile those
differences, but that until they are reconciled, the different beliefs
should be fully respected by each side. His argument is that the Catholic
Church regards the Eucharist as the real body and blood of Christ, that
Eucharist consecrated in a Catholic mass should only be received by people
who believe in that - other Christians with different beliefs should respect
that and not participate in the Echarist within a Catholic mass.
> I would be most interested in the views of the SCI Christians of all
> hues on this fascinating little story?
>
To some extent, I can agree with Archbishop Brady's logic, although I would
personally would have no serious issue with a non-Catholic receiving the
Eucharist provided they do so in a respectful way and treat it as an act of
worship. I believe, however, that the priest who organised this is totally
out of order - he is an ordained member of the Church, he knows the rules
and is fully entitled to argue against them within the church but a
flagrant, public breach of the rules regarding a fundamental teaching of the
Church is not the way to go about it. Unless he is incredibly stupid, he
knew well that this would cause controversy and end up causing embarassment
to the CoI people participating in what I'm sure they thought was a simple
Christian gesture - that embarassment is indeed echoed in Robin Eames'
comments.
FWIW, I'm totally at odds with the other side of the Catholic Church's
teachings on this - that it is wrong for a Catholic to receive the Eucharist
in a CoI ceremony which was what led to the row about President McAleese a
year or so ago. Their argument is that although it is not disrespectful to
the CoI who actually welcome non-members to participate, that Catholics
doing so are being disrespectful to their own beliefs. I totally disagree
with that - I have participated in the Eucharist several times in the CoI
without it in anyway impinging on my own Catholic beliefs; I believe that
for me to attend a CoI ceremony, to be invited to participate in the
Eucharist and decline to do so on the grounds that their cermeony is somehow
inferior would be extremely disrespectful and un-Christian.
Cat(h)
Ex_OWM wrote:
> "Cat(h)" <cath...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145537557.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Yet it would appear from news reports that the
> > ordinary Joe Soap Christians of both ilk find the whole thing rather
> > cool.
> > Is it a case that the Hierarchies are out of touch, and that their
> > respective flocks are far more committed to ecumenism than they are?
>
> Meant to reply to this earlier, Cat(h) but I've been busy.
Not a problem. Thanks for your thoughtful, and thought provoking,
reply.
>
> It's all down to rules and how rigidly they are applied.
>
> The Catholic Church has a fundamentally different interpretation of Holy
> Communion to the Church of Ireland. The CC takes the words of Christ
> literally when he said at the Last Supper "This is my body ... this is my
> blood" and believes that during consecration, the bread and wine literally
> become the body and blood of Christ - a process known as
> 'transubstantiation' - and that is why the Eucharist has a very special
> place.
>
> The CoI - like most protestant churches - do not believe in this
> transubstantiation. They take Christ's follow up words at the Last Supper
> when he said " ... do this in memory of me" and they teach that it's the
> *act* of receiving the Eucharist that is important and that the bread and
> wine themselves have no particular significance.
>
> This difference in opinion is actually one of the major stumbling blocks to
> achieving Christian unity.
>
I am aware of the transubstantiation issue being the main point of
contention in this debate. But it is clear that, as a Catholic, you
resolve it in your own mind when attending CoI services, and partaking
of communion. I would imagine that a CoI member who partakes of
communion in a Catholic service does not do it for giggles. They may
be commemorating the death of Christ rather than believing they are
consuming his body, but they are undoubtedly giving the occasion their
absolute respect. From the response to the event, it appears that is
the view of the majority of ordinary church goers of both persuasions
for whom the finer theological points may not feel all that relevant,
weighed up against the benefits of celebrating Easter together.
> > And what is "true ecumenism" as defined by Archbishop Brady?
>
> When Archbishop Brady talks about "true ecumenism" he means that differences
> in the churches have to be explored and efforts made to reconcile those
> differences, but that until they are reconciled, the different beliefs
> should be fully respected by each side. His argument is that the Catholic
> Church regards the Eucharist as the real body and blood of Christ, that
> Eucharist consecrated in a Catholic mass should only be received by people
> who believe in that - other Christians with different beliefs should respect
> that and not participate in the Echarist within a Catholic mass.
>
Thanks for that. At the risk of sounding cynical, I have to say much
of this logic is also about self-preservation - a natural instinct for
any institution :-)
> > I would be most interested in the views of the SCI Christians of all
> > hues on this fascinating little story?
> >
>
> To some extent, I can agree with Archbishop Brady's logic, although I would
> personally would have no serious issue with a non-Catholic receiving the
> Eucharist provided they do so in a respectful way and treat it as an act of
> worship.
In that, you seem to reflect the view of most of those who have
expressed themselves around this issue, except the Hierarchies.
I believe, however, that the priest who organised this is totally
> out of order - he is an ordained member of the Church, he knows the rules
> and is fully entitled to argue against them within the church but a
> flagrant, public breach of the rules regarding a fundamental teaching of the
> Church is not the way to go about it. Unless he is incredibly stupid, he
> knew well that this would cause controversy and end up causing embarassment
> to the CoI people participating in what I'm sure they thought was a simple
> Christian gesture - that embarassment is indeed echoed in Robin Eames'
> comments.
I think the worse thing you could accuse Father Iggy whatshisname of is
naivety - it was probably silly of him to think concelebrating mass -
not an ecumenical service - fitted into the box of ecumenism. But I
must say I can see the friendship with his CoI colleague and the
enthusiam to celebrate Easter as a united community leading him to this
- I would not condemn him too hard.
>
> FWIW, I'm totally at odds with the other side of the Catholic Church's
> teachings on this - that it is wrong for a Catholic to receive the Eucharist
> in a CoI ceremony which was what led to the row about President McAleese a
> year or so ago. Their argument is that although it is not disrespectful to
> the CoI who actually welcome non-members to participate, that Catholics
> doing so are being disrespectful to their own beliefs. I totally disagree
> with that - I have participated in the Eucharist several times in the CoI
> without it in anyway impinging on my own Catholic beliefs; I believe that
> for me to attend a CoI ceremony, to be invited to participate in the
> Eucharist and decline to do so on the grounds that their cermeony is somehow
> inferior would be extremely disrespectful and un-Christian.
Though an atheist - or perhaps more accurately an agnostic - I can
relate a lot more to your view of the world than to that of those who
took major offense at the Mary McAleese gesture.
Thanks again.
Cat(h)
Ex_OWM
>
> Ex_OWM wrote:
>> "Cat(h)" <cath...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1145537557.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I am aware of the transubstantiation issue being the main point of
> contention in this debate. But it is clear that, as a Catholic, you
> resolve it in your own mind when attending CoI services, and partaking
> of communion.
No offence to the hierachy of my church in this regard but in issues like
this I tend to ask myself "What would Christ have said?" If I could ask him
if it was ok to take part in another Christian ceremony, I'm absolutely
certain he would have said "yes". Any religious ceremony, indeed - I've
prayed at the Wailing wall and in a Hindu temple, I found both of them
moving experiences.
>> > And what is "true ecumenism" as defined by Archbishop Brady?
> Thanks for that. At the risk of sounding cynical, I have to say much
> of this logic is also about self-preservation - a natural instinct for
> any institution :-)
Maybe, but I think there is a genuine point here. To take a different
example, may priests struggle with cohabitating couples coming to communion;
in the eyes of the Church, they are "living in sin" and not in a fit state
to receive communion, yet very few priests would want to turn them away. In
practice, most priests ignore the issue but I think that is the wrong
approach, the issue should be properly faced up to one way or the other.
> I believe, however, that the priest who organised this is totally
>> out of order - he is an ordained member of the Church, he knows the rules
>> and is fully entitled to argue against them within the church but a
>> flagrant, public breach of the rules regarding a fundamental teaching of
>> the
>> Church is not the way to go about it. Unless he is incredibly stupid, he
>> knew well that this would cause controversy and end up causing
>> embarassment
>> to the CoI people participating in what I'm sure they thought was a
>> simple
>> Christian gesture - that embarassment is indeed echoed in Robin Eames'
>> comments.
>
> I think the worse thing you could accuse Father Iggy whatshisname of is
> naivety - it was probably silly of him to think concelebrating mass -
> not an ecumenical service - fitted into the box of ecumenism. But I
> must say I can see the friendship with his CoI colleague and the
> enthusiam to celebrate Easter as a united community leading him to this
> - I would not condemn him too hard.
I'm certainly not condemning his motivation - I fully endorse it - I just
don't know enough about it to decide whether he was naive or deliberately
provocative in the way he went about it.
>> FWIW, I'm totally at odds with the other side of the Catholic Church's
>> teachings on this - that it is wrong for a Catholic to receive the
>> Eucharist
>> in a CoI ceremony which was what led to the row about President McAleese
>> a
>> year or so ago. Their argument is that although it is not disrespectful
>> to
>> the CoI who actually welcome non-members to participate, that Catholics
>> doing so are being disrespectful to their own beliefs. I totally disagree
>> with that - I have participated in the Eucharist several times in the CoI
>> without it in anyway impinging on my own Catholic beliefs; I believe that
>> for me to attend a CoI ceremony, to be invited to participate in the
>> Eucharist and decline to do so on the grounds that their cermeony is
>> somehow
>> inferior would be extremely disrespectful and un-Christian.
>
> Though an atheist - or perhaps more accurately an agnostic - I can
> relate a lot more to your view of the world than to that of those who
> took major offense at the Mary McAleese gesture.
I don't think there were actually that many who took offence, the Bishop
raised it as a point of principle and the media latched onto it.
FWIW, there is a lot of debate and discussion going on within the Church at
all levels about how the Church adapts itself to modern thinking and
culture.
mac...@eircom.net
Ex_OWM wrote:
> "Cat(h)" <cath...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1146142490....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Ex_OWM wrote:
> >> "Cat(h)" <cath...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1145537557.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Maybe, but I think there is a genuine point here. To take a different
> example, may priests struggle with cohabitating couples coming to communion;
> in the eyes of the Church, they are "living in sin" and not in a fit state
> to receive communion, yet very few priests would want to turn them away. In
> practice, most priests ignore the issue but I think that is the wrong
> approach, the issue should be properly faced up to one way or the other.
I agree. the problem with most dogmatic religions is that they pay lip
service to their own rules while criticising others not of their faith.
For example, parish priests ignore the fact that most of the younger
women who attend church are probably using some form of contraception,
while railing against family planning and abortion.
I'm of the opinion that if you buy into the Catholic thing, then you
have to follow the rules! If you don't then you're not a Catholic! Or
is it just a 'badge' nowadays?
Mike
Cat(h)
existence today, lay or priest.
How far do you take this? No-one allowed in who has told a lie since
last confession? No entry unless you go to mass every week? No-one
let in who thinks his neighbour has a far nicer car than he/she, the
fecker? No married person allowed in who has had so much as a sideway
glance at the menu while on a diet?
I'm not much of a judge, not being a religious person myself, but I
cannot believe that many of the people I know who are deeply religious,
but live in the real world of "sinful" cohabitation, of telling the odd
porkie and of generally doing your best in life, are not real Catholics
for that.
Cat(h)
Ex_OWM
> I'm not much of a judge, not being a religious person myself, but I
> cannot believe that many of the people I know who are deeply religious,
> but live in the real world of "sinful" cohabitation, of telling the odd
> porkie and of generally doing your best in life, are not real Catholics
> for that.
Thanks for the vote of confidence ;)
eugene
Ex_OWM" <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4bfe6aF...@individual.net...
Way I see it, if someone accuses a practicing Catholic of being a "bad"
Catholic for disobeying whatever rules, that accuser is someone (more than
likely a no-longer practicing Catholic) who has the need to try and assuage
their own inner feelings of guilt!
"Judge not, lest you be judged"
"Cast the plank out of your own eye before you point out the mote in someone
else's"
etc etc etc"
John P. Mullen
My wife and I were discussing that particular Biblical quote just last
night. Unfortunately, it is probably one of the most ignored bits.
Jesus was quite clear on this point, but too many choose to ignore his
advice.
I think the whole bit of requiring conformity is a residue of the days
in which Royalty rules by "the Grace of God," and depended on backing
from organized religion. (Not too different from certain politicians
today.) The Church survived, in part, due to its willingness to back
the Royalty, so conformity was a very big issue.
This element of Catholicism was introduced into Ireland when Henry II
invaded Ireland and imposed the Roman Catholic religion upon its
inhabitants. Prior to that, people practiced a version of Catholicism
which was introduced by St. Patrick and others that held very different
tenets. Today, almost all Irish Catholics are Roman Catholics, but some
still remember and practice the faith as St. Patrick introduced it.
John Mullen