MR EZECHIAL appeals for reasons why non-Catholics should be denied Holy Communion in our churches.
My understanding is that one aspect of receiving Holy Communion is as a sign of unity with God and with our fellow communicants — a'union of fact — not of intent.
No one will deny that we share Unity with other Christians in most areas of our faith, but this unity is not yet complete — otherwise we would not have different denominations. Indeed one of our major differences of belief is that of the nature of Holy Communion, A leading churchman once commented "Yes, it does hurt, but it is not until it hurts badly enough that we will all be forced into facing up to our real divisions and seek to resolve them." This is acceptable and hopeful. Indeed unrestricted intercommunion would be a sign of loss of hope. It would be a sign that we have moved as far towards one another as we are able, a sign that full unity could never be achieved.
Hazel Naughton Aberdeen JIM EZECH1AL, February 22 demands response. What is the good of getting hot under the collar about the devil having power to appoint governments (Luke 4 v6, this week's gospel) when we deny ourselves the only remedy'? If there is any point at all in the Eucharist then Turton's hymn indicts us all: 'Thou who at Thy first Eucharist didst pro'. That all Thy Church might he forever one, Grant us at every Eucharist to pray With longing heart and soul, "Thy will be done."
oh, may we all one Bread, one Body be, Through this blest Sacrament of Unity", Reception of an indisputably valid Sacrament by indisputably baptised (albeit non-Catholic) Christians, is not "intercomrnunion" in the same sense us reception of a (possibly) invalid sacrament by Catholics.
Non-Catholocity does not wear a uniform instantly recognisable by priests. who in any case have no desire to deny the Sacraments to Christians not in mortal sin.
For 15 years I have been ashamed of my own dumbness over the inability of our Church leaders to recognise the logical implications of Eucharistic doctrine, so movingly expressed by Tinton.
If we need the Eucharist to be one with God and each other, how can we expect our separated brethren to become one with us before receiving that necessity?
What greater priority can there be for Catholic bishops than ensuring by all means which can be made effective that valid Sacraments are available to all Christians?
These few brash words are a poor offering before God for 15 years of dumbness. But brother Jim, I am with you on the importance of this. Dave Taylor Worcs