Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A prod in Rome.......
Options
-
24-10-2018 6:28pm#1OK folks, I'm a prod.
and next week I'll be in Rome.
Very seriously considering taking in a Mass.
so.....
I don't want to step on toes or cause offence.
In the majority of prod denominations Holy Communion is an "Open Table" anyone is welcome.
Is that the same in RC land?
So long as I don't wear a Martin Luther T-shirt, will I be OK to follow the folks in front of me or will this cause folks to have a melt-down?
thanks!1
Comments
-
martinedwards wrote: »OK folks, I'm a prod.
and next week I'll be in Rome.
Very seriously considering taking in a Mass.
so.....
I don't want to step on toes or cause offence.
In the majority of prod denominations Holy Communion is an "Open Table" anyone is welcome.
Is that the same in RC land?
So long as I don't wear a Martin Luther T-shirt, will I be OK to follow the folks in front of me or will this cause folks to have a melt-down?
thanks!
I think the Vatican post office issued a stamp featuring Luther last year actually!
RC churches are closed communion I'm afraid.In fairness many Catholics attend Mass and don't take communion so you won't stand out.
Rome is great,enjoy it.0 -
I was in a group of Prods many years ago in Rome. We were on a tour of St. Peter's while Mass was going on. Honestly, people coming and going all over the place, we didn't leave our tour to attend Mass but I doubt anyone would have noticed if we had. It was strange to see so many tourists wandering around while people were praying, it must be distracting. Would you genuflect or bless yourself though, I don't know if its mandatory but you'd blend in if "when in Rome".
I believe Christchurch Cathedral and St. Patrick's don't allow tours during worship though I can't say myself as I'm not often there. 0 -
I'm a Protestant and receive regularly (a few times a year) Holy Communion in a RC church, often with the priest knowing I'm not a Catholic. Even then Cardinal Ratzinger was seen on TV giving a Reformed pastor the Holy Communion, so you should be ok.0
-
Official position is that you should only take communion in a Catholic church if you are in communion with the Catholic church. There can be exemptions and exceptions and special cases, but these are supposed to be discussed; it's considered poor form simply to grant yourself an exception.
Obviously, this is largely self-policed. If you present yourself at the altar rail at the appropriate time you'll be given communion as a matter of course unless you are simultaneously displaying some highly visible public indication that you probably aren't a Catholic - in which case the priest might ask you if you're Catholic before he gives you the sacrament. If you say you're not you'll be given a blessing, but not the sacrament.
As others have said, it's common to attend mass and not take communion, so if you're concerned about standing out, you needn't be.
You also have the option of approaching the altar rail with your arms crossed over you chest (right hand to left shoulder, left hand to rigth shoulder). This is the conventional indication that you don't intend to take communion. You'll be given a blessing.0 -
Anyone know who thought up the crossing arms over the chest? I've seen it done recently all right, I really don't like it as it looks like they had died and are in a coffin. If I'm not going to receive communion then I just don't approach the communion rail. Seems best all round I think.0
-
Advertisement
-
Very much down to the conscience of the individual churchgoer, Jellybaby1. Not going up is absolutely fine, and nobody will notice or remark. Some go up because they it's a concrete sign of participation that they want to make.Jellybaby1 wrote: »Anyone know who thought up the crossing arms over the chest? I've seen it done recently all right, I really don't like it as it looks like they had died and are in a coffin. If I'm not going to receive communion then I just don't approach the communion rail. Seems best all round I think.
As for the origin of the particular gesture: it's a common and long-standing sign of reverence in the Eastern Christian tradition. Orthodox Christians and Easter Catholics use it when going up to receive communion, and monks and priests also to signify respect for, e.g. a religious superior.
Wild guess here, but it may be that in Western Christianity it became the standard "no communion, thanks" gesture precisely because anyone using it when approaching the altar rail marked themselves out as an Orthodox Christian, and Orthodox Christians generally don't want to receive communion in non-Orthodox ceremonies.
The ultimate origins of the gesture may be secular. By crossing your arms like this to someone you are showing him that you are not armed, therefore not an agressor, but also by not holding your hands out to him you're not a supplicant; you're not making demand on him. Trivial fact of the day: a good deal of of the gesture and ritual associated with Christian liturgies is a secular import, drawn from late Roman and Byzantine court rituals and etiquette. This gesture could be part of that inheritance.0 -
[
Peregrinus, you are teaching erroneously there.
I have studied catholic sacraments and there isn't anything secular in them, unless you mean the manner in which they are reaching out to our human understanding, of course God reached out to humanity like this by giving us his Son Jesus Christ.
If Jellybean1 noticed the arms folded by a person at the altar reminded her of a corpse in a coffin, it shows Jellybean1 has a poetic imagination. This kind of imagination is from the poet's own emotions, needing self expression and acceptance with this need.
Jellybean wasn't arriving at a tangible teaching there, merely noticing the image of a corpse coming up in her vision.
The Catholic church worships God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Religious people crossing themselves or showing reverence at Mass are doing this for God.
If you thought this showing of reverence was for men "leaders" there, you were misinterpreting through your own unknowingness of what was going on during worship of God.
You seem to not know that religious people are worshipping God!!
Politically minded atheists or business minded atheists show this unknowingness all the time.
I'm not sure if it's because the atheist has never experienced God, so then unknowingly guesses at self made myths based on the business or political model in society??
Jesus didn't try to change society through politics, he refused to be king of Israel for example, after he miraculously multiplied loaves and fish for the people who wanted to hear his preaching.
A prod, or someone who doesn't believe in or respect the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is not genuine being at Mass.
Catholics receive teaching in confession and other ways. Jesus is offended by wishy washy types who are just "dropping in" just because they're on holiday.
Sacrilege is sacrilege whether you're on holiday or anywhere. Of course some feel indignant about being told they are wrong.
But it's not about your ability to be right or wrong - it's about Our Lord's command to love God with all your mind, all your heart and all your soul.
If you don't care about commands from God to humankind, at least don't disrespect him.
uote="Peregrinus;108457050"] Very much down to the conscience of the individual churchgoer, Jellybaby1. Not going up is absolutely fine, and nobody will notice or remark. Some go up because they it's a concrete sign of participation that they want to make.
As for the origin of the particular gesture: it's a common and long-standing sign of reverence in the Eastern Christian tradition. Orthodox Christians and Easter Catholics use it when going up to receive communion, and monks and priests also to signify respect for, e.g. a religious superior.
Wild guess here, but it may be that in Western Christianity it became the standard "no communion, thanks" gesture precisely because anyone using it when approaching the altar rail marked themselves out as an Orthodox Christian, and Orthodox Christians generally don't want to receive communion in non-Orthodox ceremonies.
The ultimate origins of the gesture may be secular. By crossing your arms like this to someone you are showing him that you are not armed, therefore not an agressor, but also by not holding your hands out to him you're not a supplicant; you're not making demand on him. Trivial fact of the day: a good deal of of the gesture and ritual associated with Christian liturgies is a secular import, drawn from late Roman and Byzantine court rituals and etiquette. This gesture could be part of that inheritance.[/quote]0 -
[
Peregrinus, you are teaching erroneously there.
I have studied catholic sacraments and there isn't anything secular in them, unless you mean the manner in which they are reaching out to our human understanding, of course God reached out to humanity like this by giving us his Son Jesus Christ.
If Jellybean1 noticed the arms folded by a person at the altar reminded her of a corpse in a coffin, it shows Jellybean1 has a poetic imagination. This kind of imagination is from the poet's own emotions, needing self expression and acceptance with this need.
Jellybean wasn't arriving at a tangible teaching there, merely noticing the image of a corpse coming up in her vision.
The Catholic church worships God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Religious people crossing themselves or showing reverence at Mass are doing this for God.
If you thought this showing of reverence was for men "leaders" there, you were misinterpreting through your own unknowingness of what was going on during worship of God.
You seem to not know that religious people are worshipping God!!
Politically minded atheists or business minded atheists show this unknowingness all the time.
I'm not sure if it's because the atheist has never experienced God, so then unknowingly guesses at self made myths based on the business or political model in society??
Jesus didn't try to change society through politics, he refused to be king of Israel for example, after he miraculously multiplied loaves and fish for the people who wanted to hear his preaching.
A prod, or someone who doesn't believe in or respect the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is not genuine being at Mass.
Catholics receive teaching in confession and other ways. Jesus is offended by wishy washy types who are just "dropping in" just because they're on holiday.
Sacrilege is sacrilege whether you're on holiday or anywhere. Of course some feel indignant about being told they are wrong.
But it's not about your ability to be right or wrong - it's about Our Lord's command to love God with all your mind, all your heart and all your soul.
If you don't care about commands from God to humankind, at least don't disrespect him.
uote="Peregrinus;108457050"] Very much down to the conscience of the individual churchgoer, Jellybaby1. Not going up is absolutely fine, and nobody will notice or remark. Some go up because they it's a concrete sign of participation that they want to make.
As for the origin of the particular gesture: it's a common and long-standing sign of reverence in the Eastern Christian tradition. Orthodox Christians and Easter Catholics use it when going up to receive communion, and monks and priests also to signify respect for, e.g. a religious superior.
Wild guess here, but it may be that in Western Christianity it became the standard "no communion, thanks" gesture precisely because anyone using it when approaching the altar rail marked themselves out as an Orthodox Christian, and Orthodox Christians generally don't want to receive communion in non-Orthodox ceremonies.
The ultimate origins of the gesture may be secular. By crossing your arms like this to someone you are showing him that you are not armed, therefore not an agressor, but also by not holding your hands out to him you're not a supplicant; you're not making demand on him. Trivial fact of the day: a good deal of of the gesture and ritual associated with Christian liturgies is a secular import, drawn from late Roman and Byzantine court rituals and etiquette. This gesture could be part of that inheritance.[/quote]0 -
Jellybaby1 wrote: »Anyone know who thought up the crossing arms over the chest? I've seen it done recently all right, I really don't like it as it looks like they had died and are in a coffin. If I'm not going to receive communion then I just don't approach the communion rail. Seems best all round I think.
I was at a funeral a few years back that was for my wife’s uncle who was a monk, we traveled to Wales for it and we had to sit either side of the altar in pews facing the side of the priest so at communion time he came to me and I sort of waved my arms and shook my head, years later my wife still laughs at me about it. The priest said after to me that I just had to cross my arms, I’d prefer if I’d known about it before.0 -
I was at a funeral a few years back that was for my wife’s uncle who was a monk, we traveled to Wales for it and we had to sit either side of the altar in pews facing the side of the priest so at communion time he came to me and I sort of waved my arms and shook my head, years later my wife still laughs at me about it. The priest said after to me that I just had to cross my arms, I’d prefer if I’d known about it before.
I think as long as the priest gets the message and understands, and the message is polite then all's well. Sometimes I just keep my hands behind my back, shake my head and smile when the communion comes. I then receive a blessing. But mostly if I don't want to receive communion, particularly when I'm in an RC church then I just don't approach the rail. IMHO I'd say the priest would prefer it that way really. I doubt they are happy to have communion refused.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't mean that the gesture is secular when used in a Christian liturgical context; I mean that it's (possibly) an originally secular gesture that (like many other things, e.g. liturgical vestments) was adopted by Christians for use in liturgy.Jessie1965 wrote: »[
Peregrinus, you are teaching erroneously there.
I have studied catholic sacraments and there isn't anything secular in them, unless you mean the manner in which they are reaching out to our human understanding, of course God reached out to humanity like this by giving us his Son Jesus Christ. ....0 -
OOOOOO kay.......
Back from Rome.
the nearest I saw to "Catholics only" at Mass was a sign that said something along the lines of "you need to be baptised and in a state of grace". that was in the Basilica of Santa Maria in Aracoeli.
so as a Baptised Christian, I fit that criteria.
but
Out of respect to those around me we didn't go to mass.
we DID however go to the Vatican in Nov 1st... All saints day... when Pope Francis was praying the Angelus.
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope-francis/angelus/2018-11/pope-francis-angelus-all-saints-day-holiness-beatitudes.html#play
Great to join with brothers and sisters in Christ, even if I did need to wait for the translation!0 -
You and I are both baptised Christians, but although I have been taught by my church leaders that the RCC and CoI have more in common than not, and CoI Clergy all over the country and RC Clergy are very much in communication with each other, officially we are not in Communion and we are not recognised as baptised Christians. I'm open to correction of course, I'm sure I'll be told in due course.0
-
Jellybaby1 wrote: »You and I are both baptised Christians, but although I have been taught by my church leaders that the RCC and CoI have more in common than not, and CoI Clergy all over the country and RC Clergy are very much in communication with each other, officially we are not in Communion and we are not recognised as baptised Christians. I'm open to correction of course, I'm sure I'll be told in due course.
Your baptism is recognised,insofar as if you decided to become Catholic you wouldn't undergo another baptism.The two churches aren't in communion but that's a separate matter to recognition of baptisms.0 -
Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »Your baptism is recognised,insofar as if you decided to become Catholic you wouldn't undergo another baptism.The two churches aren't in communion but that's a separate matter to recognition of baptisms.
Let me get this right then. The RC church does recognise my baptism? Does it recognise that I am a Christian? Are we not in communion because we just don't believe that the bread and wine become Christ nor give Mary the same position as they do? I want to make sure I understand it properly.0 -
Any baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is a valid baptism, as far as the RCC is concerned. There are some Christian traditions which baptise "in Jesus's name", and the validity of these is doubted (on scriptural grounds); if you were baptised in one of these traditions and you want to enter the RC Church you'll be conditionally baptised in a RC ceremony.Jellybaby1 wrote: »Let me get this right then. The RC church does recognise my baptism?
Yes.Jellybaby1 wrote: »Does it recognise that I am a Christian?
That's not really it. Or, it's only a small part of it.Jellybaby1 wrote: »Are we not in communion because we just don't believe that the bread and wine become Christ nor give Mary the same position as they do?
"Communion" is a relationship. All Christian traditions believe in the necessity of the church, the community of Christians gathered together. You can't be a Christian on your own. "Communion" is the relationship which turns what would otherwise be a bunch of individual believers into a church.
Where Christian traditions differ, however, is in relation to what exactly is necessary for communion. There's a spectrum of approaches here, ranging from very low (all that's necessary is shared baptism) to very high (shared baptism, shared eucharist, other sacraments, shared scriptures, shared faith, shared leadership [i.e. Christians grouped around a bishop], mutual recognition of leadership [different bishops, and their local churches, recognising one another as fellow church members], etc, etc.) The RC church tends to be at the higher end of this spectrum.
Obviously, this isn't a simple binary. It's not that you're either in communion or not in communion; there's a whole range of degrees of health or completeness of communion. From the Catholic perspective, all Christians are indeed in a certain degree of communion simply by virtue of their common baptism, but we are called to a higher degree of communion than this.
So, it's a mistake to think that you're not in communion because you don't have RC beliefs about the Eucharist, or about Mary, or whatever. In fact it's more the other way around; because you're not (fully) in communion with the RC church, and so not committed to developing your beliefs collectively with RC Christians, you don't share RC beliefs about these matters. But that's an outcome of the fact that you're not in communion, not the cause of it.0 -
Peregrinus, thanks for taking the time to reply. Your wording confuses me still, but please bear with me as I'm not a theologian. This is putting it crudely I know but it looks like you're saying the RCC has got the hump because Anglicans left 'the fold' and now they won't accept us for Holy Communion. Are they saying to us "look you made your bed now lie in it, but don't come to us for the bread or wine because you won't be accepted until you rejoin 'the true faith'". The way I see it, even if a true believer 'leaves the fold', they carry the true faith i.e. the Christian faith, with them in their heart and mind and soul, wherever they go for the rest of their life. The RCC church cannot limit God, He is without limits. Just because a believer then worships the same God in a different place with a different hierarchy does not make them any less of a Christian.0
-
But it does make him less of a Catholic. From the Catholic perspective the eucharist is not just a nice thing to do. It's a really important thing; it's a really meaningful thing; and one of the things it means is "we are in communion". And therefore, from the Catholic perspective, it's generally not appropriate to take the Eucharist with someone with whom you are not in communion. And it's certainly not appropriate just to rock up and take the eucharist with a particular community without considering how they feel about it.Jellybaby1 wrote: »Peregrinus, thanks for taking the time to reply. Your wording confuses me still, but please bear with me as I'm not a theologian. This is putting it crudely I know but it looks like you're saying the RCC has got the hump because Anglicans left 'the fold' and now they won't accept us for Holy Communion. Are they saying to us "look you made your bed now lie in it, but don't come to us for the bread or wine because you won't be accepted until you rejoin 'the true faith'". The way I see it, even if a true believer 'leaves the fold', they carry the true faith i.e. the Christian faith, with them in their heart and mind and soul, wherever they go for the rest of their life. The RCC church cannot limit God, He is without limits. Just because a believer then worships the same God in a different place with a different hierarchy does not make them any less of a Christian.
There's a fundamental Catholic/Protestant distinction at work here. The Protestant tradition lays great stress on the unmediated relationship between the individual and God, and the eucharist is seen primarily in those terms. Whereas the Catholic tradition is more collective and collaborative; the relationship with God is communal as well as individual, and the eucharist is seen in terms not only of the connection between the individual believer and God but also the connection between believers.
That's not, obviously, how Protestants see it, and the Protestant perspective is reflected in a (mostly) very open attitude to eucharistic sharing. But to criticise the Catholic church for not sharing this perspective is, basically, to criticise the Catholic church for not being Protestant which, when you think about it, is a pretty unreasonable thing to do.
(It's worth pointing out that the Catholic take on this isn't completely foreign to the Anglican tradition. Back in the days when it mattered whether you were Anglican or not - when this determined whether you could hold certain offices or be given certain jobs - the test was "Will he take communion at the hands of an Anglican minister?" It was understood then in the Anglican tradition that taking the sacrament was a powerful, even irrefutable sign of membership of the Anglican communion.)0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »But it does make him less of a Catholic. From the Catholic perspective the eucharist is not just a nice thing to do. It's a really important thing; it's a really meaningful thing; and one of the things it means is "we are in communion". And therefore, from the Catholic perspective, it's generally not appropriate to take the Eucharist with someone with whom you are not in communion. And it's certainly not appropriate just to rock up and take the eucharist with a particular community without considering how they feel about it.
There's a fundamental Catholic/Protestant distinction at work here. The Protestant tradition lays great stress on the unmediated relationship between the individual and God, and the eucharist is seen primarily in those terms. Whereas the Catholic tradition is more collective and collaborative; the relationship with God is communal as well as individual, and the eucharist is seen in terms not only of the connection between the individual believer and God but also the connection between believers.
That's not, obviously, how Protestants see it, and the Protestant perspective is reflected in a (mostly) very open attitude to eucharistic sharing. But to criticise the Catholic church for not sharing this perspective is, basically, to criticise the Catholic church for not being Protestant which, when you think about it, is a pretty unreasonable thing to do.
(It's worth pointing out that the Catholic take on this isn't completely foreign to the Anglican tradition. Back in the days when it mattered whether you were Anglican or not - when this determined whether you could hold certain offices or be given certain jobs - the test was "Will he take communion at the hands of an Anglican minister?" It was understood then in the Anglican tradition that taking the sacrament was a powerful, even irrefutable sign of membership of the Anglican communion.)
Your Para:1
I agree with you that a believer who leaves the RCC is indeed much less a Catholic, but I insist once more they are still Christian. I agree that the Eucharist is a really important thing to RC’s, and lest anyone thinks differently the Eucharist is also really important to the CoI. I personally feel it is a very spiritual and emotional experience to receive the bread and wine. I agree that it is inappropriate to take the Eucharist with a community without considering how they feel about it. That is why I do not approach for communion in a RC church. I know they would not approve of me doing that.
Your Para:2
I agree that the Protestant tradition believes in an unmediated relationship between the believer and God. We don’t rely on any other individual alive or dead to mediate for us. From what you say it looks to me that taking part in the Eucharist in the RCC is essentially the mark of a Catholic. I would say (my personal opinion of course) that my faith in Christ is my mark of being a Christian. My attendance at CoI church services and my service to God within that church is my mark of being a member of the CoI. I believe my Christianity is of higher value than my religion because I see my religion only as tool with which to worship God and to profess and practice my faith.
Your Para:3
I agree that the Protestant Eucharist is shared and open to all baptised believers. But I do not criticise the RCC for not being Protestant that indeed would be unreasonable. I could criticise the RCC for withholding the bread and wine, the Holy Communion, the Eucharist from me. Doesn’t the RCC criticise me for not being RC?
Your Para:4
You are of course right in saying in the past it was important to some Anglicans that someone would need to be Anglican to get a particular job. That is part of our history but is not that relevant today particularly in the CoI where I know many members of the RCC already hold positions without giving up their Roman Catholicism. There may be Anglicans holding positions in the RCC, however I really don’t know of any personally but you may know of them yourself and if so I’d be happy to learn of them.
Thanks Peregrinus for your explanations. I am indeed learning.0 -
Absolutely you’re a Christian. I don’t think the RCC would suggest otherwise. And, yes, the Protestant traditions, including the Anglicans, do regard the Eucharist as being of central importance. It’s just that there’s some difference of emphasis between the Catholics and the Protestants as to why it’s important (as well as much common ground on the subject, of course).Jellybaby1 wrote: »Your Para:1
I agree with you that a believer who leaves the RCC is indeed much less a Catholic, but I insist once more they are still Christian. I agree that the Eucharist is a really important thing to RC’s, and lest anyone thinks differently the Eucharist is also really important to the CoI. I personally feel it is a very spiritual and emotional experience to receive the bread and wine. I agree that it is inappropriate to take the Eucharist with a community without considering how they feel about it. That is why I do not approach for communion in a RC church. I know they would not approve of me doing that.
I think the Catholic tradition would say, no offence, that you’re setting up a false dichotomy there between your Christianity and your religion. Anglicanism (or Catholicism, or Presbyterianism, or whatever) is a way of being Christian; they are not opposed, and it doesn’t make sense to prioritise one over the other, and you shouldn’t ever need to do that.Jellybaby1 wrote: »Your Para:2
I agree that the Protestant tradition believes in an unmediated relationship between the believer and God. We don’t rely on any other individual alive or dead to mediate for us. From what you say it looks to me that taking part in the Eucharist in the RCC is essentially the mark of a Catholic. I would say (my personal opinion of course) that my faith in Christ is my mark of being a Christian. My attendance at CoI church services and my service to God within that church is my mark of being a member of the CoI. I believe my Christianity is of higher value than my religion because I see my religion only as tool with which to worship God and to profess and practice my faith.
Um. Bit of a contradiction there. On the one hand, you don’t criticise the RCC for not being Protestant. On the other, you could criticise the RCC for not offering you the Eucharist. But the reason they don’t offer you the Eucharist is precisely because they don’t hold Protestant views about what offering the Eucharist means. So in fact it seems to me that you could criticise them for not being Protestant, or at least for not acting like Protestants, which is much the same thing.Jellybaby1 wrote: »Your Para:3
I agree that the Protestant Eucharist is shared and open to all baptised believers. But I do not criticise the RCC for not being Protestant that indeed would be unreasonable. I could criticise the RCC for withholding the bread and wine, the Holy Communion, the Eucharist from me. Doesn’t the RCC criticise me for not being RC?
Does the RCC criticise you for not being RCC? I’d say no, not criticise, and not you personally. The RCC does believe that Christians are called to a higher degree of communion than we currently have, but doesn’t hold that the fact that we don’t have that degree of communion is All The Fault Of You Lot, and also sees restoration of communion as a communal matter more than an individual matter. The RCC ideal is not that you, Jellybaby1, should abandon Anglicanism and embrace Rome (though if you ever want to do that, no doubt they will welcome you) but that communion should be recovered between the entire Anglican community and the RCC.
By bringing up the history of religious tests and religious exclusions I wasn’t meaning to have a go at anybody over old sores; just to make the point that when a test for “is an Anglican” was needed, the test was “takes communion in an Anglican ceremony”. And, therefore, that the Catholic notion that taking communion in a Catholic ceremony is linked to membership of the Catholic church isn’t completely foreign to the Anglican tradition.Jellybaby1 wrote: »Your Para:4
You are of course right in saying in the past it was important to some Anglicans that someone would need to be Anglican to get a particular job. That is part of our history but is not that relevant today particularly in the CoI where I know many members of the RCC already hold positions without giving up their Roman Catholicism. There may be Anglicans holding positions in the RCC, however I really don’t know of any personally but you may know of them yourself and if so I’d be happy to learn of them.
And I wasn’t thinking of jobs within the church; more of the range of government or public jobs which, in the bad old days, were by law open only to Anglicans. The way you proved that you were eligible for such a job was by rocking up to an Anglican service and taking the sacrament at the hands of an Anglican minister.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus, as you no doubt have noticed, I usually speak personally and my lack of theological training is showing. I'm sure even Prods reading my posts might pull me up over some things but of course the Christian world is wider and bigger than just little old me. It is great to have my comments and questions listened to, and answered so kindly and eloquently. I will doubtless be mulling this over for quite a while. I will need to re-read your comments again. Probably won't be completely happy but, I'm only human. Thanks again. 0
-
I never heard of this (historical) test before, but we'll take your word for it.Peregrinus wrote: »By bringing up the history of religious tests and religious exclusions I wasn’t meaning to have a go at anybody over old sores; just to make the point that when a test for “is an Anglican” was needed, the test was “takes communion in an Anglican ceremony”. And, therefore, that the Catholic notion that taking communion in a Catholic ceremony is linked to membership of the Catholic church isn’t completely foreign to the Anglican tradition.
And I wasn’t thinking of jobs within the church; more of the range of government or public jobs which, in the bad old days, were by law open only to Anglicans. The way you proved that you were eligible for such a job was by rocking up to an Anglican service and taking the sacrament at the hands of an Anglican minister.
However, it seems that this is a very low bar, if indeed it is a test at all.
You previously mentioned that the Anglican communion was open to all (I'm not sure whether that is all Christians, or all people) so then who would be excluded?
It strikes me that only people who excluded themselves could fail this test, ie those who refused to enter a protestant church (of which there many)
For example..
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/high-treason-in-the-park-douglas-hyde-s-presidency-1.2946664It was ironic and sad, however, that during Hyde’s state funeral in 1949, most Catholic politicians remained outside St Patrick’s Cathedral, as it was a reserved sin for Catholics to attend a Protestant ceremony. That funeral was for a president who had been partly chosen to stress that Ireland was religiously tolerant.0 -
Or you could google it. Or you could remember your history classes that touched on "Catholic Emancipation". What did you think Catholics were being emancipated from?I never heard of this (historical) test before, but we'll take your word for it.
So you're fine with a test which requires people to make a religious declaration in order to serve as President of Ireland, or as Chief Justice, or on the Council of State? I mean, this is a very low bar, if indeed it is a test at all. Only people who exclude themselves could fail this test.IHowever, it seems that this is a very low bar, if indeed it is a test at all.
You previously mentioned that the Anglican communion was open to all (I'm not sure whether that is all Christians, or all people) so then who would be excluded?
It strikes me that only people who excluded themselves could fail this test. . .0 -
If we take the presidential oath...
A non-religious person repeating this oath implies in some way that they are a believer, in asking for "direction" from God. But it is not exactly the Nicene Creed.In the presence of Almighty God, I, [name], do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfill my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and the welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me..
Therefore it is quite a low bar. Nevertheless it has been criticised by a UN committee because in this day and age, any religious bar at all is frowned upon, no matter how low it is.
The religious bar you described (was it 18th or 19th century?) does not seem any higher to me, but I'm only going by what you said yourself Peregrinus.
So presumably in this situation, both the Anglican minister and the person joining with him in communion are well aware that the person is not "a protestant". Therefore the ban is not against catholics, jews, or dissenters, but more against those who refuse to celebrate communion in the Anglican ceremony.Peregrinus wrote: ».. And therefore, from the Catholic perspective, it's generally not appropriate to take the Eucharist with someone with whom you are not in communion. And it's certainly not appropriate just to rock up and take the eucharist with a particular community without considering how they feel about it.
There's a fundamental Catholic/Protestant distinction at work here. The Protestant tradition lays great stress on the unmediated relationship between the individual and God, and the eucharist is seen primarily in those terms. Whereas the Catholic tradition is more collective and collaborative; the relationship with God is communal as well as individual, and the eucharist is seen in terms not only of the connection between the individual believer and God but also the connection between believers.
That's not, obviously, how Protestants see it, and the Protestant perspective is reflected in a (mostly) very open attitude to eucharistic sharing. But to criticise the Catholic church for not sharing this perspective is, basically, to criticise the Catholic church for not being Protestant which, when you think about it, is a pretty unreasonable thing to do.
(It's worth pointing out that the Catholic take on this isn't completely foreign to the Anglican tradition. Back in the days when it mattered whether you were Anglican or not - when this determined whether you could hold certain offices or be given certain jobs - the test was "Will he take communion at the hands of an Anglican minister?" It was understood then in the Anglican tradition that taking the sacrament was a powerful, even irrefutable sign of membership of the Anglican communion.)
Which presumably would have weeded out all those who took a hostile or a hard line towards Anglicans, while allowing through anyone with a more relaxed attitude.
As I say, that's just going by what you said. I don't know much about this test. I tried googling it, but without success.
I got this instead. One look at your wan saying "Lets play", and I'd had enough.0 -
Not at all. The whole point is that taking the eucharist at the hands of an Anglican minister was a public declaration and realisation of membership of the Anglican church. That was how you became an Anglican, if not already one. So the minister would not have been "well aware that the person is not a Protestant"; on the contrary, he would have been well aware that the person was publicly declaring themselves to be a Protestant.So presumably in this situation, both the Anglican minister and the person joining with him in communion are well aware that the person is not "a protestant". Therefore the ban is not against catholics, jews, or dissenters, but more against those who refuse to celebrate communion in the Anglican ceremony.
Which presumably would have weeded out all those who took a hostile or a hard line towards Anglicans, while allowing through anyone with a more relaxed attitude.
Requiring a Catholic to take the Anglican sacrament would have been pretty much on the same level, as an imposition on conscience, as requiring a Jew to accept Christian baptism.
(Which, yes, the British did do. Jewish emancipation didn't come until the Jews Relief Act 1858, nearly thirty years after Catholic emancipation.)0 -
Your interpretation seems to be at odds with what the prods themselves are saying. They don't see it as a declaration of religious conversion at all....Peregrinus wrote: »Not at all. The whole point is that taking the eucharist at the hands of an Anglican minister was a public declaration and realisation of membership of the Anglican church. That was how you became an Anglican, if not already one. So the minister would not have been "well aware that the person is not a Protestant"; on the contrary, he would have been well aware that the person was publicly declaring themselves to be a Protestant.
and...martinedwards wrote: »OK folks, I'm a prod...
In the majority of prod denominations Holy Communion is an "Open Table" anyone is welcome.
Is that the same in RC land?I'm a Protestant and receive regularly (a few times a year) Holy Communion in a RC church, often with the priest knowing I'm not a Catholic. Even then Cardinal Ratzinger was seen on TV giving a Reformed pastor the Holy Communion, so you should be ok.
As for the jews, not being baptised, I agree things would technically have been more difficult for them than for those of the RC faith.
Nevertheless, there are many historical instances of Jews doing very well, eg Sampson Gideon. It seems that any religious restrictions or provisions had a certain amount of "fudge" built into them.Peregrinus wrote: »Requiring a Catholic to take the Anglican sacrament would have been pretty much on the same level, as an imposition on conscience, as requiring a Jew to accept Christian baptism.
(Which, yes, the British did do. Jewish emancipation didn't come until the Jews Relief Act 1858, nearly thirty years after Catholic emancipation.)
Of course even now, the Anglican clergy have places reserved for them in the House of Lords, and the monarch is the head of the CoE. And yet, despite such technicalities, it does not seem that the UK is really a discriminatory society.0 -
They don't now. They did then. Which is why it was the test used for determining whether somebody was a Protestant or not, when that was a question of considerable legal signficance. Which is the point I have been making all along.Your interpretation seems to be at odds with what the prods themselves are saying. They don't see it as a declaration of religious conversion at all....
Did you even read your own link? Eardley was baptised and brought up in the Church of England. That's why all the honours were showered on him, and not on his father, who actaully paid for them, but who was a practising Jew.and...
As for the jews, not being baptised, I agree things would technically have been more difficult for them than for those of the RC faith.
Nevertheless, there are many historical instances of Jews doing very well, eg Sampson Gideon. It seems that any religious restrictions or provisions had a certain amount of "fudge" built into them.
Your point being? Nobody in this thread has suggested that the UK today is a discriminatory society.Of course even now, the Anglican clergy have places reserved for them in the House of Lords, and the monarch is the head of the CoE. And yet, despite such technicalities, it does not seem that the UK is really a discriminatory society.0 -
Fair point, although the father seemed to be doing quite well himself, in a fudgey sort of way, being a trusted "adviser of the Government".Peregrinus wrote: »Eardley was baptised and brought up in the Church of England. That's why all the honours were showered on him, and not on his father, who actaully paid for them, but who was a practising Jew.
That, as they say, "would be an ecumenical matter". The current situation is that any baptised person is welcome to go up for communion.They don't now. They did then. Which is why it was the test used for determining whether somebody was a Protestant or not, when that was a question of considerable legal signficance.
I'm not sure the doctrine would have changed so radically during the intervening time.0 -
And yet, as repeatedly pointed out, the evidence is strongly against you on this. Taking Anglican communion was a big deal, both for the establishment which used it to decide who would be oppressed and who would be privileged, and for the Catholics (and dissenting Protestants) who suffered considerable oppression and discrimination rather than take Anglican communion.That, as they say, "would be an ecumenical matter". The current situation is that any baptised person is welcome to go up for communion.
I'm not sure the doctrine would have changed so radically during the intervening time.0 -
Advertisement
-
So its seems that the Irish Army (and oddly enough the tiny Maltese Army) today took the protestant soup in Christchurch Cathedral, Dublin.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0204/1027457-cadets/67 new Army officers and one Air Corps officer will graduate today, along with nine Maltese officers who trained in Ireland.
The men and women will take up junior leadership roles in the Defence Forces, while the Maltese Officers will return to the Armed Forces of Malta.
Following an ecumenical service at Christchurch Cathedral this morning, the cadets marched to Dublin Castle ahead of the official commissioning ceremony, which will take place this afternoon.
Will this oppression ever end?0
Advertisement