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.

  • MunsterRepublic

    Like a Nazi going to a synagogue.

  • billie-Joe Remarkable

    Gee, thanks, Diamond Dan! The process of ‘decontamination’ upping a gear this century, is it?

    Although, truth to tell, I hate the nasty, right-wing supremacist organisation, but me and my family have been attending the 12th for 40 years. When we’re not doing that we write letters to “Doctor” Paisley telling him how great he is for representing us…FFS!

  • Outsider

    These comments are most ironic due to the fact that innumerable Orangemen give their lives fighting fascism and in particular the Nazi regime of the second world war.

    In addition to this 5 Orange Halls were attacked last night in Northern Ireland, I will leave fair minded people to give a sensible analysis of the Orange Order.

  • smcgiff

    Outsider, as laudable as the actions described in your first paragraph are and as despicable as the actions in your second paragraph are, what has that got to do with a ban on one Christian group attending another Christian group’s services?

  • slug

    I think it would be a very good thing if they did lift this ban. But then I am not an Orangeperson.

  • Outsider

    smcgiff

    I was addressing the first two despicable remarks.

  • smcgiff

    Outsider,

    The first comment is not worthy of a comeback, and I’m still trying to decipher the second comment. 🙂

  • Rooster Cogburn

    This (anti-Orange) claim is spurious hogwash, dishonestly meant and utterly irrelevant. I’m not an Orangeman, indeed, I am . . . a snob, and if anything, markedly unkeen on the Orange Order. Perfectly prejudiced as I am, my main thought whenever anyone mentions it isn’t parades, fields or bonfires, but instead, the drunken yahoos who come in their wake. Now as I’ve said, all of that, derived in very large part from fairly despicable social condescension on my part, is the purest bigotry. Making it no less wrong or excusable, if I were being honest, I’d have to concede that in the wake of *any* large, male-dominated outdoors activity in these islands (from footie matches downwards), drunken yahoos bob along like, well, like seagulls after the trawler, as, I believe, a great Cartesian thinker once said. And believe me, I don’t much like soccer or its Neanderthal fans either.

    Okay, so there, then, are my bona fides, such as they are. I’m not keen on the Orange Order, never have been, and yes, I accept that this is a fairly petty dislike on my part. Right, onto the point: the ‘correspondent’ supposedly ‘associated’ with the Lodge down south is talking out of his erse (as we say in Malone Park). The Orange Order is not, a la some political party, voluntary youth organisation, capitalist enterprise or whatever secular entity you care to posit, just that – secular. It’s, in fact, an avowedly Christian fraternity, specifically, a reformed protestant one. Which means, it’s as absurd to belabour the Orange Order for having denominational preferences as it would be, say, to have a tilt at the Catholic church for proscribing its adherents from taking communion, for example, at another church.

    As ever with all you dishonest liberal t*rds out there, if you want to have a whack at religion, ffs do it honestly. But if you really did subscribe to pluralism, and tolerance, and all the rest of your pious litany, you’d accept that the religious are allowed to be exactly that: religious. Catholic prelates can deny Catholics non-Catholic communion, Orange lodges can inveigh against unreformed religion. I’m not much interested in either proposition, but then nor am I even slightly interested in denouncing, still less, banning either proposition. I suppose that’s why I’m not a liberal.

    And as for those of you who just, however insincerely, want to pick up on this as a useful hammer with which to hit at themmuns. Obviously you’ll go right ahead, and stuff the inconsistency and contradictions. After all, you’re happy as a pig in sh*t being sectarian. So what odds to you a false smear of it against the other lot?

  • Outsider

    I don’t think there is much to decipher regarding the second comment.

  • Dave

    The Qualifications of an Orangeman sounded suspiciously like it had been plagiarised from some 1930s booklet called How to Be an Obedient Nun until it came to this part:

    [i]He should strenuously oppose the fatal errors and doctrines of the Church of Rome, and scrupulously avoid countenancing (by his presence or otherwise) any act of ceremony of Popish worship;

    He should by all lawful means, resist the ascendancy of that Church, its encroachments, and the extension of its power, [b]ever abstaining from all uncharitable words, actions or sentiments, towards his Roman Catholic brethren;[/b][/i]

    If promoting hostility to Catholics is what this organisation considers to be the hallmark of an Orangeman, then it has quite a way to go before it can be considered to be a respectable civic organisation.

    On the issue of it being protestant-only, so what? I see no reason why private clubs should not be discriminatory in their membership just to placate dangerously deranged PC-mongers who would tell us next that the Dublin Chamber of Commerce should be open teachers and poets, et al, from Germany, etc.

  • Dec

    Given that the current Grand Master of the Orange Order, Robert Saulters, branded Tony Blair a ‘Traitor’ for for attending Catholic mass and receiving communion, it’s not too difficult to predict the outcome of this.

  • billie-Joe Remarkable

    “The first comment is not worthy of a comeback, and I’m still trying to decipher the second comment.”

    Would you like a little help? Or you could join slugger’s Leg Up Programme. In the new term, I believe, they’ll be discussing irony.

  • Dave

    Just to, ahem, withdraw my previous comment: I misread “uncharitable” as “charitable.”

    I don’t consider being opposed to the catholic religion as the same thing as being opposed to catholics, and the quote doesn’t either.

  • Outsider

    Thanks Dave I wasn’t sure what you were getting at in your previous post.

  • Harry Flashman

    Yeah, Dave, that “un-” bit gets you every time eh?

  • USA

    The Orange Order is full of bigots and needs to clean its act up. Its not rocket science.

  • George

    Outsider,
    “These comments are most ironic due to the fact that innumerable Orangemen give their lives fighting fascism and in particular the Nazi regime of the second world war.”

    It’s also a fact that innumerable Catholics gave their lives fighting fascism and in particular the Nazi regime of the second world war.

    As I’m sure you’re aware, more southerners signed up to fight the Nazis than northerners but that says nothing about specific Catholic or Protestant bigotry.

  • Kathy C

    posted by Kathy C

    Hi all,

    Yes, Catholics did fight against fascism in world war II…and the Nazi’s threw alot of priest and nuns into concentration camps. That said…personally I think the orange order should be labled a hate group by the EU just as Nazi’s are.

  • Dave

    Harry, it’s more a case of being distracted by other things than being ambushed by the adjectives that are rendered negative by said prefix. We can’t all be lazing in a hammock on some veranda in Asia, sipping piña coladas in-between laptop visits to our MySpace page to see if our new profile has sent the hit counter into overdrive. 😉

  • ggn

    In my experience the number of Protestants who would not attend a Catholic funeral or wedding is very low.

    And those who wouldnt probably would never have any need to, if you catch my drift.

    I couldnt give a shit what happens to my body after I die but I am sure some members of my familia would insist on a Catholic burial just in case.

    In that case frankly I would expect all Protestant friends and aquantences to be in attendence. If they weren’t then frankly I would (metaphoricaphy speaking) only be able to draw one conclusion, hey were no friends of mine.

    I have to say that I have been to a number of ecumenical funerals in the 26 counties, which at first glance may seem to be somewhat egotistical but is normally an attempt to accomadate all ones friends.

    In the north I have noticed that is the priest believes that people from other faiths are present he will welcome them especially and will drop the Creed from the mass, which I dont dig fully as he will then proceed to the eucharist, but I suppose COI can just take from that what they will.

    I think that the Orange rule in banning people marrying Catholics and attending Catholic services in any capacity in barbaric, BUT the Orange Order is not compulsory, not one is forced to join.

    If that is what you are into, and frnakly it is not liberal tolerant or in MY PERSONAL view very Christian, then work away and hope that you never meet a nice girl called Siobhan or are expected to go to your workmate Padraig’s funeral.

  • dodrade

    Speaking as an Orangeman in a rural area I know that often this rule is not enforced. If a family member is having a wedding at a RC Church for example nothing will be said if a member attends it.

  • Greagoir O Frainclin

    Ah…the curse of religious dogma!

    BTW ‘The Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland’

    But where’s this place ‘Ireland’?

    I thought it was two seperate and very different countries as Unionists would tell ye us, particularly the hardline Orange type!

    Should it not be the ‘The Grand Orange Lodge of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland’ instead!

  • MunsterRepublic

    Maybe it should be a KKK member attending a Civil rights march then!

  • Ulsters my homeland

    Why should Orangemen be part of the mummery of transubstantiation? The mass is made up of two parts and Rome has declared both form one single act of worship and all those present partake of it.

    [u]CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 4, 1963.[/u]

    C) Norms based upon the didactic and pastoral nature of the Liturgy

    33. Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people and of [b]all present[/b]. And the visible signs used by the liturgy to signify invisible divine things have been chosen by Christ or the Church.

    [u]CHAPTER II
    THE MOST SACRED MYSTERY OF THE EUCHARIST[/u]

    56. The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other [b]that they form but one single act of worship.[/b]

  • Greagoir O Frainclin

    UMH

    You refuse to believe in certain aspects like ‘the mummery of transubstantiation’ as you quite rightly call it.

    But why not refuse to believe in the whole lot of it?

  • Ulsters my homeland

    because I’m not an atheist

  • Dave

    “Hi all,

    Yes, Catholics did fight against fascism in world war II…and the Nazi’s threw alot of priest and nuns into concentration camps. That said…personally I think the orange order should be labled a hate group by the EU just as Nazi’s are.

    Posted by Kathy C on Aug 16, 2008 @ 03:44 AM”

    You are 90% correct about— (the Nazi’s threw alot of priest and nuns into concentration camps.)

    Why not read the account of priests and nuns running concentration camps.)by Avro manhatten.

  • Joe

    “Why not read the account of priests and nuns running concentration camps.)by Avro manhatten.”

    Because Avro Manhatten was a screaming fucking madman?

  • Nathan

    If the letter writer is a member of a southern lodge, and I seriously doubt it – then the matter should be raised with the leadership rather than the public domain.

    The southern lodges have the right to enforce/relax whatever rules it sees fit on its members provided it is consistent with Irish law and Bunreacht na hÉireann.

    Thank you

  • Hubert Butler: THE ARTUKOVITCH FILE (1970)

    I asked him if Artukovitch (Anitch) had ever been to visit him. “No, he had no visitors at all, though once or twice he went to Dublin. He brooded the whole time. He said the only hope for us was to have a third world war immediately. He thought us a very weak lot. There was a milk strike in Galway at the time and he could not understand why we did not settle it straight away by shooting the milkmen. And we should invade the six counties and settle that matter, too, immediately.”

  • Outsider

    Slugger needs to get its house in order, the large number of bigoted posts within this topic alone is a disgrace with no moderating done at all.

    In addition to this there is still NO thread about the 5 Orange Halls that were attacked recently.

  • McKelvey

    Why should Orangemen be part of the mummery of transubstantiation? The mass is made up of two parts and Rome has declared both form one single act of worship and all those present partake of it.
    Posted by Ulsters my homeland on Aug 16, 2008 @ 12:20 PM
    —–
    No one suggests that Orangemen participate only that there should be no penalty for attenting.

  • Brian Crowe

    I think there is a case to be made that the relevants parts in the Qualifications of an Orangeman have little significance for quite a few OO members. As noted in some earlier comments, very many OO members ignore those aspects of the Qualifications. As for those who adhere to them, I have a feeling they would avoid RC acts of worship anyway, irrespective of OO membership.

    This comes back to what Belfast-born Anglican theologian Alister McGrath calls “the spectrum of Protestant possibilities”. Both in historical and contemporary terms, many in the Protestant traditions have understood the theological differences between their traditions and RCism as part of a debate within the Christian tradition – and a debate that should be undertaken with charity.

    There is, of course, another part of the Protestant spectrum which is – how shall I put it? – much less charitable in its assessment of RCism.

    Surely there is a case that if the OO is to have a positive, representative relationship with the mainstream Protestant tradition(s), it should also recognise the diversity of Protestant relationships with and approaches to the RC tradition. At present the Qualifications enshrine only one such approach.

    Comparing the prohibition on attending RC acts of worship with the provision in the canon law of the Catholic Church prohibiting ‘non-Catholics’ from receiving the eucharist – I am not sure it equates. There is a substantial difference between attending an act of worship and receiving the Sacrament.

    Where there is a comparison, however, is in the fact that both provisions are widely disregarded. As an Anglican who has attended a few RC eucharists on the continent, it is quite clear that the bar on receiving communion is very widely ignored.

  • sunny south east

    I am amazed there is an oo lodge in dublin the capital of the papal conspiracy in prods eyes. Aside from that there saying the south has changed
    coming from religious fundamentalists i wonder is that a complement they remind me of the reform assocaition and the catholic church with there longing for the good old days. If a united ireland leads to more catholic fascists and Prod fascists i say fuck it and lets kill christianity ireland should become god free.

  • skullion

    Outsider

    pehaps the reason no one has mentioned the vandalism to 5 orange halls is that no one really gives a fuck.

  • skullion

    Outsider

    pehaps the reason no one has mentioned the vandalism to 5 orange halls is that no one really gives a fuck.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    [i]”There is a substantial difference between attending an act of worship and receiving the Sacrament.”[/i]

    That may well be the general perception, a false perception at that. The Roman Catholic Act of Worship, is a spoken liturgy (Mass), it’s basically the same as the physical Eucharistic liturgy, but in a different form. If anyone thinks you can attend the spoken mass, while abstaining from the physical Eucharist and not be considered to be a partaker of transubstantiation, they’re a fool.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    ‘Why should Orangemen be part of the mummery of transubstantiation?’

    “[i]No one suggests that Orangemen participate only that there should be no penalty for attenting.”[/i]

    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.

  • Brian Crowe

    Well we have just seen an illustration of one part of the Protestant spectrum with regards to RCism. “Satanic practices”. And if anyone disagree, well they are just “a fool”. Need more be said?

    The arrogant assumption that “the whole Reformed Christian world” regards the the eucharist as understood by RCism to be “an act of blasphemy” fairly well sums up the problem. Yes, some in the Reformed world think like this. Others of us who have been shaped by the Reformation heritage do not.

    The World Alliance of Reformed Churches (Presbyterian), the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran World Federation have all been in dialogue for decades with RCism on the eucharist. While Anglicans and Lutherans have reached high levels of agreement with RCism on key aspects of the eucharist, RCism Presbyterianism globally remain some distance from theological consensus.

    It is interesting, however, that the Reformed-Catholic dialogue in the US emphasised the need for “mutual respect”.

    Not a bad piece of advice.

  • Kathy_C

    posted by Kathy C

    Hi all—;

    Dave, since my German grandmother’s cousin was a German Catholic priestwho was sent to a concentration camp and killed I find your statement a guise to bring the attention away from the orange order…the order that bans it’s members from attending a Catholic Mass. Like I stated earlier…the orange order is akin to the nazi’s and the KKK and they should be labeled as they are…hate group

  • Ulsters my homeland

    “[i]Well we have just seen an illustration of one part of the Protestant spectrum with regards to RCism. “Satanic practices”. And if anyone disagree, well they are just “a fool”. Need more be said?”[/i]

    I never said anything about the RC church using satanic practices. Get your facts right.

    “[i]The arrogant assumption that “the whole Reformed Christian world” regards the the eucharist as understood by RCism to be “an act of blasphemy” fairly well sums up the problem. Yes, some in the Reformed world think like this. Others of us who have been shaped by the Reformation heritage do not. “[/i]

    Show me one reformed church which also believes in transubstantiation?

    “[i]The World Alliance of Reformed Churches (Presbyterian), the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran World Federation have all been in dialogue for decades with RCism on the eucharist. While Anglicans and Lutherans have reached high levels of agreement with RCism on key aspects of the eucharist, RCism Presbyterianism globally remain some distance from theological consensus.”[/i]

    waffle

  • Ulsters my homeland

    “[i]the order that bans it’s members from attending a Catholic Mass. Like I stated earlier…the orange order is akin to the nazi’s and the KKK and they should be labeled as they are…hate group”[/i]

    Wind yer neck in. You haven’t the slightest idea what yer on about.

    If anyone is to remove or change anything, it should be Rome.

  • Dave

    “Dave, since my German grandmother’s cousin was a German Catholic priest who was sent to a concentration camp and killed…” – Kathy

    Different Dave. Citing Avro Manhattan as an authority on the Holocaust marks one out as a raving loon in much the same manner as citing David Irving. 😉

  • TAFKABO

    Kathy.

    I take it your German grandmother’s cousin isn’t in this photograph?

    http://www.michaelbradford.com/NaziPriestsSaluteHitler.jpg

  • George

    TAFKABO,
    considering it was in the Protestant German areas that the Nazis got the most support and nearly 20% of Protestant pastors joined Hitler’s German Christian movement when he came to power, I find it strange you get so hung up on a photograph.

  • Prionsa Eoghan

    Yep George I’ve seen the arguments that spell out Catholic opposition to the Nazi’s. Doesn’t make that photo any less of a disgrace though.

  • Brian Crowe

    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?

    Of course no reformed church believes in transubstantiation. (Although the Lutheran belief in consubstantiation comes very, very close.) So what relevance does that have for this debate? The Reformed traditions differ widely themselves on the doctrine of the eucharist, alongside a wide range of other issues. It does not result in a prohibition on attending acts of worship.

    The ecumenical dialogue between the various Reformation traditions and RCism demonstrates how agreement can be explored and differences expressed with charity.

  • Other dave

    “posted by Kathy C

    Hi all—;

    Dave, since my German grandmother’s cousin was a German Catholic priestwho was sent to a concentration camp and killed I find your statement a guise to bring the attention away from the orange order…the order that bans it’s members from attending a Catholic Mass. Like I stated earlier…the orange order is akin to the nazi’s and the KKK and they should be labeled as they are…hate group

    Posted by Kathy_C on Aug 16, 2008 @ 10:29 PM”

    Hi KC

    Thanks for the reply. nonetheless have a good read of Avro Manhattan.

    In most cases the truth really hurts. Please do try to see beyound your own bigoted remarks.

  • Rooster Cogburn

    Catholic canon law couldn’t be plainer – their communion is for their adherents only: http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

    Please do stop abusing the good offices of our Catholic brothers and sisters by injuring their sincerely held beliefs. Which, to repeat, very firmly include their wish that you, a non-Catholic, should *not* falsely take [sic] their communion. If you’re that keen to have it, the answer lies in your own hands.

    [text removed – keep to the ball Rooster – you’re doing well enough without getting personal – mods]

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘… the Orange Order have a right to look after the spiritual welfare of their members, they are a religious organisation for goodness sake.’

    So whats the story with the militaristic marches with colonial militia bands (“nothing to do with OO”) and political speeches?

    ‘nonetheless have a good read of Avro Manhattan.’

    I expect you’ll be recommending Mein Kampf or David Duke for a fair critique of Judaism next.

  • Rooster Cogburn

    Or listening to a ‘Republican’ spoof on about morality.

  • RepublicanStones

    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 !

  • Ulsters my homeland

    “[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.

  • Rooster Cogburn

    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.

  • Brian Crowe

    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”.

  • Brian Crowe

    Psuedonymn? Perhaps a new satanic ritual, who knows? Pseudonym

  • Ulsters my homeland

    [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.

  • Brian Crowe

    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”.

  • McKelvey

    ”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?

  • McKelvey

    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.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    “[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.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    “[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.

  • Rooster Cogburn

    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.)

  • Brian Crowe

    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

  • Rooster Cogburn

    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?

  • ggn

    “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.

  • Rooster Cogburn

    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.

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘…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 !

  • Brian Crowe

    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.

  • slasheye

    testing

  • Ulsters my homeland

    [/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?

  • Seimi

    ‘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……?

  • McKelvey

    ”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.

  • Brian Walker

    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?