Orange challenged to lift ban on attending Catholic services…
THE Orange Order has been challenged to ‘ditch a longstanding ban preventing its members from taking part in Roman Catholic services’, according to the News Letter. A correspondent writing in the newsletter associated with Dublin and Wicklow Orange Order LOL 1313 wrote: The special place of the Roman Catholic Church in the constitution has gone. Is it not time to remove from the ‘Qualification of an Orangeman’ those references to our Roman Catholic fellow subjects of both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? References which they find offensive and many of us anachronistic. What better way to change without compromise than to return to the original qualifications? In doing so we would be displaying to the world that we still hold dear our Protestant principles. More than that we would be practising the instructions of scripture, on which our order is founded. The Irish News recalls how Orange spokesman David Jones called for David Trimble’s expulsion from the Order after he attended the funeral of a child killed in a Real IRA bombing. Interestingly, while googling on the subject, it seems that the Grand Orange Lodge of England’s Qualifications do not specifically prohibit attendance at Catholic services in the way the Orange Institution in Ireland does.
Or listening to a ‘Republican’ spoof on about morality.
Tell me Marion Morrison, does espousing republican beliefs or ideals preclude one from having morals? I had no idea the Duke lived in an Ivory tower !
“[i]Ulster’s my homeland – if you were not comparing RC acts of worship with “satanic practices” why mention “satanic practices”? Are you suggesting RC mass and “satanic practices” are equivalent?”[/i]
I wasn’t comparing the Catholic mass to a Satanic practice, I was comparing the Orange Order’s position to have it’s members abstain from a practice which it is in complete disagreement with, to the position taken by any Christian organisation from anything Satanic. Chalk and Cheese!
There are however doctrines of Devils within the church as described in, 1 Timothy 4.
“[i]Of course no reformed church believes in transubstantiation. (Although the Lutheran belief in consubstantiation comes very, very close.) “[/i]
There’s nothing similar or close about transubstantiation and consubstantiation. There is a world of difference. Transubstantiation gives the Priest the power to act as God (“so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” (2Thes.2v4). Consubstantiation gives none else that right but God himself.
“[i]The ecumenical dialogue between the various Reformation traditions and RCism demonstrates how agreement can be explored and differences expressed with charity.”[/i]
It’s good that differences are expressed with charity, but as long as they are expressed with clarity.
Yeah, supporting the Provos, when it turns out, the rest of us were right all along, and murdering people was wrong, kinda does kick in the head your chances of anyone taking you seriously moralising about anything.
Rooster, not entirely sure how my employment has anything to do with this issue. Of course, you wouldn’t have raised it if I had felt the need to hide behind a psuedonymn.
As I mentioned in a previous comment, I am fully aware of the provisions of RC Canon Law. (Which, it should be noted, are not as you say – Canon Law allows ‘non-Catholics’ to receive the eucharist in instances of “grave necessity”.) It is hardly news that those provisions are widely disregarded, especially on continental Europe.
Ulster’s my homeland – I find it hard to see that there is a “world of difference” between the Lutheran belief in consubstantiation and transubstantiation. Yes, the theory of consecration is different. But the purpose of the doctrines are the same – to affirm (in the words of the Augsburg Confession) that the “Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed”.
Psuedonymn? Perhaps a new satanic ritual, who knows? Pseudonym
[i]“Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed”.[/i]
only in spirit, not physically.
As I said before, there’s a world of difference.
Ulster’s my homeland – “only in spirit, not physically”? For our Reformed brethren, yes. But not for Lutherans. Luther’s Small Catechism – “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine”.
”No one suggests that Orangemen participate only that there should be no penalty for attenting.”
McKelvey, the Orange Order have a right to look after the spiritual welfare of their members, they are a religious organisation for goodness sake. Just as any Christian organisation would prevent it’s members from participating in Satanic practices, the Orange Order prevents it’s members from being partakers of the RC Eucharist, a practice in which the whole Reformed Christian world regards as an act of blasphemy against Christ.
The OO are quite right to look after the spiritual welfare of their members, it’s their duty.
Posted by Ulsters my homeland on Aug 16, 2008 @ 09:30 PM
——–
Do you not believe that the average Orangeman would be capable of making up his own mind on where he should be allowed to go?
Or do you believe that the Grand Lodge need do his thinking for him?
Ulster’s my homeland – “only in spirit, not physically”? For our Reformed brethren, yes. But not for Lutherans. Luther’s Small Catechism – “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine”.
Posted by Brian Crowe on Aug 17, 2008 @ 04:45 PM
I believe that the Anglican Church also subscribes to the Lutheran “Consubstantiation” formula.
“[i]Ulster’s my homeland – “only in spirit, not physically”? For our Reformed brethren, yes.”[/i]
Aye, I was thinking on Calvin’s “Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper” http://www.the-highway.com/supper1_Calvin.html
“[i]Luther’s Small Catechism – “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine”.[/i]
….but still no magical presence in the elements, performed by a Priest.
“[i]Yes, the theory of consecration is different. But the purpose of the doctrines are the same”[/i]
Even if the purpose of the doctrines are the same, that doesn’t matter. There are many instances where there’s similarities including the removal of sin, yet there’s a world of difference in how these sins are removed. There are also similarities in the purpose of prayer, yet there’s a world of difference in how, what or who we pray to.
The Orange Order doesn’t agree with it’s members attending forms of worship and santification which is completely alien from that of the wider Christian world and the bible which this worship is based upon.
“[i]Do you not believe that the average Orangeman would be capable of making up his own mind on where he should be allowed to go?”[i]
He made up his own mind to join under the OO conditions, so he hasn’t been forced into anything.
Brain, if you honestly think your whim, your convenience, let alone your personal preference constitutes the “grave necessity” provided for by Catholic canon law (and, um, helpfully cited in the link I supplied you with) you’ve managed to do something I had hitherto thought impossible. You’ve managed to be even more arrogant, solipsistic yet still unrelentingly second rate than dear ould Doctor King. (Oh, and I raise the pertinent matter of your employment because I for one object to being a member of a party whose paid employees are so stupid and self-indulgent as to post on Slugger under their own names. Or rather, name, because of course, only one of them is dim enough to do that.)
Rooster – I think if you check you will see I only post on issues related to religion/theology. But do feel free to raise the issue with the relevant authorities. I would assume that expressing my religious beliefs during my own time would be of little interest to my employers.
At no time did I say that my “whim” equated to the “grave necessity” allowed for in RC Canon Law – I was merely pointing out that your summary of the provisions of Canon Law was inaccurate.
The link to the “grave necessity” provision of Canon 844(4) is http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM
Yeah, you’re a credit to the Party Brian, and a peach of a fellow generally. ‘Only’ posting under your own name on matters of religion, only taking the communion of other Christian churches as and when *you* deem it the right thing. If you can’t see why and how you’re being so willfully insulting to Catholics by first ignoring, then abusing the teaching of their church, can I suggest that you post a little bit less about religion and read a little bit more?
“If you can’t see why and how you’re being so willfully insulting to Catholics by first ignoring, then abusing the teaching of their church”
I cant imagine any Catholic being offended by this at all, or any lutheran or anglican (outside of NI) being annoyed if a Catholic was stuck and takes bread.
People in Britian and in Europe just arent that silly / petty.
From the late Basil Hume downwards, polite as they are, the English catholic hierarchy, for one, have been perfectly clear about their preference that non-catholics shouldn’t abuse the hospitality of parish priests by falsely taking communion. I’d never been to a Catholic church service on the mainland where it wasn’t made plain that the Eucharistic content was, quite literally, for Catholics only.
For what little it’s worth, I’d much rather catholic canon law came into line with common episcopal practice, but then I’m not a catholic. So my views on what the Magisterium of the Catholic church *ought* [sic to amount to are of very little to no account. Unlike some of my colleagues in the UUP, I’m modest enough to realise this too.
‘…the rest of us were right all along, and murdering people was wrong’
Modest and hypocritical, unless of course you apply similar criticism to supporters of the british Army, establishment and indeed successive governments…no? Didn’t think so, be careful not to fall out off your ivroy tower now Marion !
Rooster, there is a case to be made that your wish is coming true – “much rather catholic canon law came into line with common episcopal practice”.
At JPII’s funeral, the now Benedict gave communion to an elderly Reformed pastor (Roger Schutz) from Taize, known to Benedict. And at the pastor’s funeral a few months later, a RC cardinal distributed communion to Reformed and RC communicants.
testing
[/i]“[i]At JPII’s funeral, the now Benedict gave communion to an elderly Reformed pastor (Roger Schutz) from Taize, known to Benedict. And at the pastor’s funeral a few months later, a RC cardinal distributed communion to Reformed and RC communicants.”[/i]
What was going on Brian? Has Rome changed their position that the Priest no longer claims to speak for the people and change the elements within the wafer and wine? or has Roger Schutz come to some conclusion that it doesn’t matter how the communion is performed?
‘From the late Basil Hume downwards, polite as they are, the English catholic hierarchy, for one, have been perfectly clear about their preference that non-catholics shouldn’t abuse the hospitality of parish priests by falsely taking communion. I’d never been to a Catholic church service on the mainland where it wasn’t made plain that the Eucharistic content was, quite literally, for Catholics only.’
In their defence, and I don’t usually defend priests, or any ‘holy men’, however, many of the priests at whose masses I have been a somewhat reluctant attendant to their masses, have said at Communion, that those people who are not permitted by their own belief, or any other reason, could come forward and receive a blessing. What is wrong with this? I was in Canada in 1996, and felt honoured that the chiefs and ‘priests’ of the Indigenous Native people (Injuns to the ignorant) felt that it was right to bless me in the names of their gods. I wasn’t offended by this. As I said, I felt honoured. Likewise, in Zambia recently, I was again honoured by being present at ceremonies usually only attended by the local people, where again, they asked their gods, as well as ‘our’ God, to look after me and wish me well for the future.
Shouldn’t the point be, that, whether or not you participate fully, if at all, in every single part of the religious celebration, that you are welcomed, as an outsider maybe, but welcomed? It’s a celebration, isn’t it? Or do we go back to the blood sacrifice for all unbelievers? Claws of steel shall rend the unholy and all that?
Each religion/belief is different. Each has its own rules. Most are similar, if not practically identical. If you visited a country that prohibited non-believers from entering their temples whilst wearing shoes, whilst your belief didn’t have this requirement, what would you do? You would remove your shoes, in deference to your host’s beliefs, regardless of your own beliefs. Therefore, if a religion says that, because you, as a non-member of their belief/religion, cannot receive the bread, that they consider holy, even if you don’t, because you are not a member of your church, should you not accept that with the good grace that your own religion/belief has taught you, and accept the blessing and good will that the church in which you are a guest has offerred you.
Or maybe I’m completely wrong here……?
”Do you not believe that the average Orangeman would be capable of making up his own mind on where he should be allowed to go?”
He made up his own mind to join under the OO conditions, so he hasn’t been forced into anything.
Posted by Ulsters my homeland on Aug 17, 2008 @ 05:33 PM
You didn’t answer my question.
Mes enfants,
It’s good to know that the debate has got back almost to where it was 40 years and two months ago, when the controversies over Sunday Swings and the Republican clubs ban were raging.
Introductory note to the sequence below:
Phelim O’Neill cousin of Terence and an Etonian liberal- minded squire of Lizard manor Aghadowey was one of the best of the gentry.
Phelim, later briefly Minister of Agriculture eventually went completely berserk, sent his daughters to the Loreto Convent school in Coleraine and joined the Alliance Party. On the death in the 1980s of his ancient father Hugh, the first Speaker of the old Parliament, he became Baron Rathcavan and decamped to Mayo. Phelim died in 1994. (I used to practice scout orienteering on his estate, knew him later and liked him a lot.) I’m sure he joined the Order for the most cynical of reasons, as many future minister and judges did, to qualify for those jobs. It was what you did.
PHELIM AND THE ORANGE
11 June, 1968
Belfast Telegraph
Grand Lodge may expel Mr Phelim O’Neill
Report: If Phelim O’Neill is expelled from the Orange Order for his attendance at a catholic function, it will ‘raise searching questions about the role of a Unionist public representative in fulfilling his duty as he sees fit.’ O’Neill himself is defiant, citing his ‘minimum inescapable public duty’ in defence of his actions.
12 June, 1968
News Letter
Grand Lodge may take no action
Report: The Grand Lodge of Ireland at its meeting in Omagh, it is hoped, will take no action against members in technical breach of its rules on attendance of catholic events. The lodge should ‘take cognisance of the contribution such occasional public and private attendances at Roman catholic functions make to better community relations.’
13 June, 1968
Irish News
Orange Order rules here, says Fitt
Report: Gerry Fitt, following the expulsion of Phelim O’Neill from the Orange Order, says he will make known at Westminster his concern at the Order’s ‘unhealthy influence’ over the Northern Ireland government.
News Letter
Phelim is ruled out of Order
Leader: Phelim O’Neill is expelled from the Orange Order for his attendance at a catholic church service. Gerry Fitt condemns ‘”the ridiculous pressure” which the Order wields in the Northern Ireland political scene.’ William Craig denies that the Order is anti-catholic.
Belfast Telegraph
Unionist-Orange gulf
Leader: Many Unionist MPs are worried by the Orange Order’s decision to expel Phelim O’Neill. It is seen as ‘an open challenge to one of the main objectives of government policy – improvement of community relations by involvement at local level.’ Any further expulsion may lead to a split between the Order and the Unionist Party.
MP seeks ‘early clarification of relationship’
Report: Phelim O’Neill reacts to his expulsion from the Orange Order, and asserts that the Orange Order has ‘far too much political power as a pressure group.’
[IN, NL, 14 June]
Fateful decision
Editorial: The Orange Order’s expulsion of Phelim O’Neill is to be condemned; it places the relationship between the Order and the Unionist Party in question, and makes nonsense of protestations that the Order is not anti-catholic. The move has damaged the prime minister’s efforts at improving community relations. In the end, a stark choice must be faced: ‘either the Order alters its out-dated rules or surrenders its influence in party affairs.’
[IN, NL, 14 June]
News Letter
Bishop slams Ulster’s bigotry image
Report: The Church of Ireland Bishop of Connor dismisses the image of Northern Ireland as it is often seen abroad, claiming that this image of bigotry is created by certain ‘noisy and unruly elements.’ The real situation is that ‘today there is a far greater spirit of goodwill and co-operation in the churches of this land than ever before.’
End note. The bishop referred to above was war time chaplain dear old Cyril Elliot, who was himself a walking member of the Order. He saw it I’m sure as no contradiction to Christian charity. Like so many. Four months later on October 5, the civil rights march in Derry was batoned and the modern Troubles began.
Forty years on, have we still not worked out what the connection is?