From what I was told at a local catholic church it doesn't matter if you are baptized a catholic or whatever, just as long as you are a Christian.

I personally do not believe that the wafer is anything other than a symbol of faith, NOT Jesus. Otherwise Jesus was in the Prime Minister's pocket!!

I don't care if he did or didn't do it. In fact I would be more impressed if he didn't as long as he had a reason. Maybe he thought he had to be catholic in order to receive?

Whatever reason, I don't really care that much. The catholic church has to realize that they are not that important anymore. They have lost a lot of power.

Stories like this make it REALLY hard for me to care about ecumenical relations with the Roman Catholic establishment.

Communion is communion no matter what. It is about Christ and not which church you belong to.  When I went to my Grandpa's Catholic funeral I took the host. Luckily I used to go to Catholic church so I sort of knew the protocol and thus didn't do or forget anything in the ceremony. Whew!

I asked at my niece's wedding ( I was reading scripture) if I could take communion. No answer came back to my enquirey but during the service the Priest gave me his answer - "All good catholics are invited to Communion", he stated at the beginning of the Mass.

Thats an interesting way of stating that crazyheart!  Are you a non-catholic christian?

catholic (small c) means universal.  So in theory all Christians are catholic.  ANd many baptism liturgies refer to being baptised into the holy catholic church.

Catholic (large C) has become shorthand for the Roman Catholic church.  There are in fact other Catholic churches that use the Large C (Ukrainian Catholic for example).

Mind you, according to a documetn he released a while back Benedict doesn't believe that most of us in the catholic church are true churches after all.

It's a tempest in a teapot. There are enough reasons to like or dislike a politician of any stripe that one little faux pas in church isn't even worth a headline.

Last time I was at an RC wedding, it was made clear that the mass was for the RCs only. The funny thing was that almost everyone on the groom's side (including us) stayed seated except the groom, his brother and his brother's wife (the brother converted when he married as did the groom), but the bride's side were almost all in line.

I do take communion when in the UCC because (a) I was baptized and confirmed in the UCC and I don't think that being a member of a non-UCC church undoes that and (b) the UCC I go to pretty much welcomes everyone to partake.

Mendalla

GordW, it makes it very difficult to tell who is "catholic" and who is "Catholic", since most people can't pronounce the capital letter.

Just thinking of possible different interpretations of what the priest said at the wedding CH attended!

 Had the Primeminister made a similar faux pas at a Muslim, Sikh or Buddhist gathering we would be quite prepared to talk about insensitivity and disrespect - we would have expected the PMO to be versed in the tradition and practice of whatever ritual Mr. Harper was attending.   I think that there is an obligation to be a good host, but I think that there is also an obligation to be a good guest, and part of that obligation is to know what is important to your host and respect those things.  I don't believe in transubstantiation, but Roman Catholics do... as a matter of faith they believe that the wafer is body of Christ...  I am ordained in the United Church of Canada, but my wife and children are Roman Catholic, I have attended Mass many, many times, when I go forward at Communion, I bow my head, cross my hands over my chest and accept a blessing from the Priest.  Sitting around a table talking about faith and practices, I can debate Transubstantiation until the cows come home, but when I am a guest at the table, I think that it would be disrespectful of me to partake in the wafer without partaking in the belief.  

It's not hard to be polite or respectful... I wish that my Primeminister had been.

The Blessed Host in his pocket or his mouth is not respectful.

 Norm,

Like you I would go up anyway and damn the torpedoes.  I USED to be Catholic. I got confirmed at age 16 so if they wanna get sticky, I'll get sticky.

 Back when I was Anglican, it was considered shocking and progressive to offer communion to anyone "baptised in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit".  That was the bottom line.

Still wonder why he went up in the first place if he wasn't sure what to do.  Why couldn't he just stay in the pew and look like he was praying or something?

I know that at least one of the Roman Catholic churches will only allow Roman Catholics who are confirmed as same to take communion on their church.  (A friend of mine could not take communion at his father's funeral.  Being UCC didn't cut it).

I do not know if this is a priest / local congregation item.

Our United Church congregation's communion table is open to all who wish to receive.  In fact, I had guests who were Hindu.  One, whilst knowing , chose to partake-- quite surprised me...did in an honourable way.  The other did not choose to

Our open table and the invitation is a most wonderful thing, Pinga.

Official RC doctine says that non-RCs are not to be offered or receive the sacrament.  However, it has been known for some priests to discreetly ignore that in an ecumenical setting.   THere have even been instances of RC priests co-celebrating with other clergy, including women.

But officially these things doon't happen.

I agree Harper should have known ahead of time about accepting a blessing and not receiving the wafer (whatever you want to call it).  this could have been ironed out ahead of time very easily.

That being said, with the whole story, I think in this day & age, Harper comes out looking better than the Catholic church, because he was polite & respectful & at church more than most people these days, so he looks like a good boy.  The RC's comes out looking weird.  I imagine a good number of people who read that story were shocked at the 'host/body of jesus' bit and perhaps weirded out by that.  (I know about it, but can't get past being amazed by how seriously it gets taken).  

Anyway, Harper comes out better on this one, despite lacking basic research skills.  No surprise he attacked Iggy today for something Iggy didn't really say.  He's gotta get himself some good help.  Or retire.

Hmmmph. That kind of action from the RC church makes them look like they think they own rights to Christ and the Holy Spirit and Communion in general. 

I think we should take Harper at his word that he did take the host and not put it in his pocket.  I agree with some upthread that the UCC is wonderfully inclusive with our Communion service.  Rev Richard Bott has posted his communion liturgy in the past which really emphasises that Christ welcomes all no matter what the age, race, sexual orientation or belief, etc.

I don't know who left this quote on WonderCafe. "The table of new beginnings"

Catholics can lay claim to what is uniquely theirs, ie. their unique celebration of the Eucharist. But no one can say they "own" Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or Holy Communion. Jesus belongs to the whole human race because that's who he died for. Ownership of God is a fallacious idea. If anything, it's God/Jesus/Spirit who owns us.

exactly.  We may not all be Catholic but we are all God's children.  I still think we should be able to participate in Communion in a Catholic church, providing we can follow their lead and not disrupt the flow, making it a free for all in communion styles. Following their procedure and tradition is out of respect but we should all be able to participate if we are Believers. If you are not a Believer and participate in communion anywhere then you bring judgement upon yourself as it is a declaration of belief.

the taking of communion in a Roman Catholic Mass is quite different than what we do at our "open table" concept.

they have a belief that the host is transformed ( that isn't the correct word but i forget it right now) and "becomes" the flesh of Jesus.  They are many rituals about what to do with the extra unconsumed host and wine and I believe it is one of the reason that they perfomr the cross when seating.

if my understanding is correct, the unconsumed host is placed in a very special locked box in the altar for future use and as such is the body of Jesus sitting there.

It is a strong part of their belief and why they don't want non Roman catholics to consume.  We don't have the same belief.

We may disagree but it isn't something to ridicule, it is how they worship.

I do think a big tempest was made over the PM and that it was silly. 

 I would ask any who care to know the truth to really read John capter 6 the whole chapter verse 1 all the way through and including verse 71.  Pray upon and reflect with your mind what this chapter is talking about.  Dont be satisfied with the quick easy answers which are given out so freely.  Why does our Lord Jesus Christ focus so much on this point dispite the disciples and followers grumbling and raising their voices at him.  Everyone was okay with Jesus claiming to be the vine or the shephard because they knew he was speaking metaphorically but on this point Jesus is willing to let disciples leave him when they find this teaching too hard to believe.  Jesus even asks his own apostles if they also will leave him.  Why if it was so easy to clear up this point would Jesus let them all walk away misunderstanding him.  This belief is really one of the original core beliefs of all Christians.  Eastern Orthodox Christians still beleive this along with Roman Catholics, Egyptian Coptics,  Abyssinian Chrisitians, All the original  Protestant Reformers from the middle ages believed this truth.  Sadly it is only the modern Christian church which has left behind this difficult belief which is too mysterious for modern as well as most ancient ears.  If you believe that God can create the universe from nothing in a flash of energy which all the laws of nature which eventually give rise to our current state in the universe.  If you believe Jesus died on the cross and was risen from the dead three days later.  If you want to follow Christ Jesus why is him saying this bread and wine of the new covenant is not his Body and Blood.  In Christ Jesus   

I agree that no one should ridicule another's sacredness.  I'm not RC, and never have been, but I do know how important they hold the sacraments.  It may be just a dried up wafer to me but in their house it is the most powerful symbol of their belief.

The tempestuous sore point for me is that the PM went to another's house of worship and made a significant blunder in the rules of protocol.  It makes me wonder does he, would he, do this in another country or does he just allow his ignorance to pop up in religious contexts.

One hopes that when he embarks on a trip to another country one of his many staff briefs him on the cultural differences - those differing quirks that can lead to another feeling offended - so that our PM embarrasses neither himself or this country. 

After all, wars have been started for less.

LB

A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone`s feelings unintentionally

Oscar Wilde

If roman catholics believe the host is really transformed into the flesh of Jesus, wouldn't this make them cannibals??

shucks, lb, he can't make it to a photo op on time ..and keeps the heads of state waiting

...why do you think his handlers can get him to respect a cultural point.

Today there was a first page apology to the Prime Minister from the New Brunswick newspaper that started this whole thing.  They admitted that it was actually someone else, not the original journalist even, that added the remark about Harper pocketing the waffer.  They have apologized saying that there was never, nor is there now evidence that he did or did not eat it, and it should never have been published.  Just thought I would put that in.

Side note - I heard this on a radio show - afterward a Catholic woman called in and made a comment about how when this story broke the main thing she was upset about was someone making a recording with their cell phone during the Eucharist.  That is something I would not even have thought of.  This wasn't even a journalist that took the video - why was someone recording the taking of communion with a cell phone???

The last time I preached on John 6 - in an Anglican church by the way - I recieved an interesting response.  I do not believe that Jesus is talking about the Eucharist, at least as far as the act of taking Communion.  The Greek words are present active in tense.  In effect Jesus is not saying - unless you eat and drink, but is saying, unless you are eating and drinking.  This is even more so why the people are so confused - how can they be eating and drinking of a living man?  This passage is, I believe, an illusion to communion and a part of a greater understanding of what the Eucharist really is, but it is not dealing with the act of communion itself.