Congregations Meet...

[manxchatterbox]

what's wrong with meeting to experience others beliefs??

 

this is reported in Ireland:-

 

Unholy row over Mass invite to Protestants - 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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."

[Charles Flynn]

I went to the funeral of a friend who had been an Anglican but near the end converted to Roman Catholicism.

 

It was a Mass so none of the Anglicans who he had known all his life could share the communion. What a division for Christianity!

[manxchatterbox]

who knows if you walk into and sit with the congregation of another "church"..how can anyone tell if your from another "church"...it just seems like some sort of divisiveness to suit...

[Charles Flynn]

You know who is who and most people respect the rules even though they don't seem right.

 

Having said that some local priests interpret the situation in their own way to make strangers feel at home.

 

In some places the congregation themselves sort the divisions out e.g. I took communioon at El Roccio, Spain in an RC Church at Christmas some years ago. The congregation would have it no other way.

[Chinahand]

As I don't have a christian bone in my body, I probably shouldn't comment, but what the heck.

 

Isn't it a theological fact that the division within Christianity is such that both sides view parts of the others beliefs as heretical. Actively accepting the communion of a heresy is pretty serious if you think God takes an interest in such things.

 

So as the respective Church hierachies have got to defend the fact that their particular branch is correct the respective Bishops have to condem such things. The fact that the vast majority of the congretation are much more practical doesn't change the theological point.

 

I'm sure Christians will say there's nothing particularly wrong with taking the communion with another denomination, praying in a mosque, showing respect in a Hindu temple, lighting incence in a Buddist shrine ... but what about drinking wine with a Wickan, or celebrating all hallows eve with a witch.

 

The Hierachies can't and don't allow this slippery slope; there are ecumenical rules and they keep the different faiths separate.

 

As far as I'm concerned its all mumbo jumbo ... water into blood ... what did that Spanish wine taste like Charles? Millions have died over the centuries over that taste.

[manxchatterbox]

"You know who is who"..how is that then CF? ...when I walk down the Street I see men and women not Catholics/Baptists/Methodists/Anglican's/Muslims etc...the only thing that I consider is is the person honest/trustworthy/reliable/open-minded etc

[Charles Flynn]

If you are in a local church you tend to know the people of other denominations. One of the biggest give aways of course is that people tend to club together in church - anglicans, RC's, Methodists etc. It is rather sad if you believe in one God trying to unite the world.

 

I'm happy to go with the practical issues not to stand necessarily on obscure theological points.

 

Chinahand, the wine was good. Spanish wine has come on quite a lot over the years and stands comparison with any other country's these days.

[Albert Tatlock]

what's wrong with meeting to experience others beliefs??

I know what you mean. I worship 'Harry - the omnipotent squirrel' - but didn't get an invite!

 

And before any snide comments - you can't prove he doesn't exist!

[simon]

Isn't it a theological fact that the division within Christianity is such that both sides view parts of the others beliefs as heretical. Actively accepting the communion of a heresy is pretty serious if you think God takes an interest in such things.

 

Well the Church of England is, as they say, a broad church and certainly has a strong apostolic and catholic tradition within it. But even forgetting that:

 

Have a look at the Wikipedia page about heresy. It's interesting.

 

In simple terms - heresy isn't such a serious matter. Perhaps the religious equivalent of, say, double - parking or shoplifting. The word doesn't carry so much weight.

 

And certainly not an objective description even within a particular tradition. Nothing to bother God about since AFAIK - heresy is always an essentially mortal matter.

 

Granted that the Inquistition used to burn people at the stake for heresy.

[lectro]

>>The concelebration has provoked an angry response from the Catholic hierarchy.

 

This is the interesting bit.

 

The congregation obviously weren't bothered about it and I'm sure 99.9% of Catholics would either not care or applaud Fr Iggy for trying to build bridges at a grass root level.

 

A few years ago I went to a Catholic Christening in Ireland and the new younger priest in the parish had invited a relative of one of the families (obviously one side of the family was Protestant) who was a vicar, to help in the proceedings. He also insisted that the younger kids be allowed to wander around the church if they wanted to and sit on cushions near the altar so that they were more involved. The place was in uproar as a 4 year old kept interrupting him and asking questions.

"Is that Jesus in the box?"

"I got new shoes for today"

"I need a wee wee"

The priest laughed his head off and made it a family day for everyone, and took the time and effort to make the vicar and his family feel very welcome. He explained some of the finer points that differ in the services briefly to them (and everyone else) that they might not have known about. It made me think that there are some of the clergy who have it right and actually put people first rather than sticking to the letter of the doctrine.

[Chinahand]

Simon, from the Wikipedia article you posted:

 

The penalty for a baptized Catholic above the age of 18 who obstinately, publicly, and voluntarily manifests his or her adherence to an objective heresy is automatic excommunication ("latae sententiae") according to Can. 1364 par.1 C.I.C..

 

That doesn't sound like a parking fine to me ... its the most serious censure the church can give!

 

From the Wikipedia article on Mortal sin

 

In Catholic moral theology, a mortal sin, as distinct from a venial sin, must meet all of the following conditions:

 

its subject must be ‘grave matter’;

it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense;

it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.

 

These two would seem to link together to make a person guilty of an excommunicable heresey also guilty of a mortal sin. Obviously there are lots of theological nit picking involved ... but I'd be careful if I was a devoute Catholic accused of holding a heretical view. Definitely you'd have to be concerned about how sinful this heretical view might be.

 

The result of a mortal sin:

 

The Catholic teaching on mortal sin was called into question by some within the Church in the late 20th century after the Second Vatican Council. In response to these doubts, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the teaching in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. It is maintained in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says in section 1035, "Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell."

 

Now you could say, and I'd agree, that is so much bull ... but I'm not religious and so don't have to worry about an immortal soul.

 

If you believe in hell and believe some people end up there ... then you have to be careful about dying in a state which might "offend God" ... and I think even the most forgiving Christians would agree that if you end up outside the Pearly Gates in that state then your future may well involve wailing and the nashing of teeth ... for eternity.

[simon]

AFAIK:

 

Arguably, all Church of England clergy have been ordained within the Catholic apostolic tradition - so the question of the validity of their orders may never arise. Granted - it's an arcane tradition ... but the Church of England remains, essentially, an offshoot, or branch, of the Roman church. Back to St Peter if you believe that.

 

Many Anglicans are much closer to Rome than to the Wesleys (or Henry VIII for that matter). As the Romans have long acknowledged. Though the matter has been argued for centuries. And particularly since the days of the Oxford Movement. And there have been multiple rulings from Rome, over the years, re the validity of the holy orders granted to different clergy including Anglicans. You'll certainly find articles on the web which appear to show that Rome does not recognise Anglican orders - and yet, if you dig deeper - then you'll also find much fuzzier logic.

 

Meanwhile - from the 'Creed' - from the book of Common Prayer - and which is repeated each Sunday in the Anglican churches:

 

And I believe in one catholic and apostolic Church.

 

The question of heresy is clearly very much of this world - rather than being a matter for God, who I doubt will ever involve herself in such lowly matters.

 

I'm not saying that I believe in any of this. But it's certainly interesting.