Scotch-Irish-L ArchivesArchiver > Scotch-Irish > 1998-03 > 0889807521
From: "Dorothy Chance" <>
Subject: Re: resonating etc.
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:45:21 -0600
One of the most humiliating experiences of my life came as a teenager
exploring the world around me, 'visiting' a congregation given to religious
practices I did not at all understand. When I realized that I was
"watching" human brothers and sisters as if I were at a zoo beholding an
alien species with some amusement, I was (in Presby parlance, I believe,)
'convicted.' Close to 60 years later, the thought still gives me the heebie
jeebies. (Try that one, old world!)
So, intellectually I applaud those of us who would open arms wide for
everyone to enter; emotionally I cringe at the thought of religious peeping
tomism. For, after all, we of all peoples are products of very strongly
held, highly personal belief systems that mattered deeply to our forebears,
regardless of our current estimation of the validity of some of the tenets.
There is something about "watching" that threatens respect, I think.
From: Edward Andrews <>
To: JRose10700 <>
Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: resonating etc.
>> In a message dated 98-03-12 20:46:30 EST, you write:
>> << 'll never forget the look
>> of hurt and uncomprehension on my 11 year old daughter's face when she
>> was refused communion at St. Patrick's in NYC. We're Christians, who
>> worship in a Methodist congregation and are used to the celebration of
>> an open communion table. >>
>> "Closed communion" - which Catholics as well as many Protestant churches
>> practice, can be a complexity to explain.
>> I am of the belief that anyone who shares the samve views about the
>> Eucharist should be able to partake.
> I find this view - which of course is the official teaching of the
>Roman Church, and justification for closed Communion somewhat at odds
>syncratic views in the post which began this discussion.
> For some years the Iona Community have been arguing that when Mass is
>celebrated in Iona or at events like the Haddington Pilgrimage, there
>should be an open Communion. The reply has always been that unless you
>believe what we believe then you cannot receive. It is as much a
>matter of discipline as doctrine.
> As one who was at both what was alleged to be the first Mass said in
>the Abbey grounds, and then in the Abbey itself since the Reformation,
>I have watched this discussion with keen interest.
> Back in 1966 the Abbey in Iona was under an interdict, It was against
>Church law for a priest to say mass there. However two priests, who
>were not from the Diocese decided that they would do it, and as the
>terms of the deed under which the Abbey is held makes it necessary for
>the premises to be made available for the exercise of Worship of any
>branch of Christ's Church, we facilitated their service.
> At that time the Communion celebrated regularly in Iona was
>according to the rite of the Church of Scotland. It was an open table,
>and on occasions I either served Roman Catholic Priests, who were
>receiving, or were aware of Roman Catholic Priests being present who
> In my present charge, I make a point in using the formula
>"This is the Table of the Lord, not the Table of any one Church, we
>therefore invite those baptized into Christ in any tradition to join
>with us in this Christ's gift to His Church".
> It is not however for us to criticize those who for whatever reason
>do not feel able either to join with other people at a Eucharistic
>celebration, or who do not feel able to extend eucharistic hospitality
>to others. These issues are between them and God.
> At the same time, I would have little sympathy for those who seek to
>intrude into the rites of any other faith without making enquiries as
>to whether or not they are welcome. We do not walk into other people's
>houses and expect to be able to sit down for a meal with them. If they
>invite us in, that is fine, but we are guests.
>The fact that my Theology would claim that I am part of the one family
>of Christ, does not entitle me to intrude into the domestic
>arrangements of those who do not have the same view.
> The parents of the child who was refused communion must accept
>responsibility for not only the event, but also the consequences.
> In the Temple in Jerusalem, at the boundary between the Court of the
>Gentiles and the Court of the Women there were notices which said
>words to this effect (I can't be bothered looking up the reference)
>Gentiles who are found past this point will be responsible for their
>own death which they will have caused.
> It may not be an attitude which we resonate with. It is however one
>that we have to accept historically happened.
>St Nicholas Buccleuch Parish Church Dalkeith
>Visit our Web site
|Re: resonating etc. by "Dorothy Chance" <>|