Tony Blair received communion from Pope John Paul II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ma.Eugenia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Ma.Eugenia

Guest
I was happy to read the front page news in our newspaper today. It hinted that Tony Blair might convert to Catholicism.

This is the article I read (online version):

newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=73437

I am confused about this part of the news:
Communion from John Paul
Click to expand...
Blair is believed to have taken communion from the late Pope John Paul II during a visit to the Vatican in 2003, although the Vatican has never confirmed this.
Click to expand...
From some of the threads I read in CAF, I learned that one must be Catholic in order to take communion in our Church.

Is it possible for Pope John Paul II to bend this rule for Tony Blair?
 
I wondered about the communion thing too.

Blair becomming a Catholic has been talked about for a while in the UK.

His wife and children are all Catholic and it had been suggested in British newspapers that as soon as he left the office of PM (today) he would convert!
 
Is it possible that he was baptised at birth in the faith?

Just wondering.
 
I heard the Pope gave him a good talking to about gay adoption, stem cell research and Iraq!

The Blairs apparently gave him a picture of John Henry Newman-- the great English Anglican who converted and became a Cardinal, greatly influencing Vatican II’s ideas of Revelation and Development (Dei Verbum for those who are interested!). Could be a sign that Blair sees himself as a bit of a Newman??? Delusions of grandeur???
:whistle:
 
Ma.Eugenia said:
I was happy to read the front page news in our newspaper today. It hinted that Tony Blair might convert to Catholicism.

This is the article I read (online version):

newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=73437

I am confused about this part of the news:

From some of the threads I read in CAF, I learned that one must be Catholic in order to take communion in our Church.

Is it possible for Pope John Paul II to bend this rule for Tony Blair?
Click to expand...
That’s not what I heard. I heard that Tony Blair has been going to Catholic Mass than going to the Church of England. To answer your question, the Pope cannot buy pass the Canon Law that restrict Non-Catholic Christians from taking Holy Communion.

If he did, he make a human error on his part. Mistakes are bound to happen.

The article states, “Blair is believed to have taken communion from the late Pope John Paul II.” That itself is purely speculation and I don’t think it is true.
 
Ma.Eugenia said:
I was happy to read the front page news in our newspaper today. It hinted that Tony Blair might convert to Catholicism.
This is the article I read (online version):
newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=73437
I am confused about this part of the news:
From some of the threads I read in CAF, I learned that one must be Catholic in order to take communion in our Church.
Is it possible for Pope John Paul II to bend this rule for Tony Blair?
Click to expand...
And if the pope had officially, but secretly, welcomed Blair into the Catholic Church? Is there some rule that says Blair or for that matter the pope would be required to make that public? Could PJPII have accepted Blair into the Catholic Church and no one knows? I don’t know, any reasons this couldn’t have happened? Any reason to care at all?
 
Ma.Eugenia said:
I was happy to read the front page news in our newspaper today. It hinted that Tony Blair might convert to Catholicism.

This is the article I read (online version):

newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=73437

I am confused about this part of the news:

From some of the threads I read in CAF, I learned that one must be Catholic in order to take communion in our Church.

Is it possible for Pope John Paul II to bend this rule for Tony Blair?
Click to expand...
“Is believed to have” is the key point here. Doesn’t mean he did.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
That’s not what I heard. I heard that Tony Blair has been going to Catholic Mass than going to the Church of England. To answer your question, the Pope cannot buy pass the Canon Law that restrict Non-Catholic Christians from taking Holy Communion.

If he did, he make a human error on his part. Mistakes are bound to happen.
Click to expand...

That would not be a mistake, but a sin. Confusing England with Scotland, or Baptism with the Anointing of the Sick, is a mistake - giving the sacraments to someone whom one’s own legislation has excluded from receiving them, is close to sacrilege, & would be severely attacked as hypocritical in anyone else. If it’s bad when “liberal” bishops do it, it is bad when the Pope does it: worse, because the Pope’s bad example is far more damaging. If the Pope did not know that Bliar was not a Catholic, he should have made it his business to know - the sacraments are not sweeties, to be handed out to all & sundry. He would not be the first Pope to do have done this - so did Paul VI, in 1967, to an American Presbyterian woman​

There is no such thing as a mistake in sin - one might as well talk of a mass murderer having been unfortunate enough to commit his crimes. Sin is so voluntary, that it cannot be committed by mistake. That is the teaching of no less an authority than St. Alphonsus Liguori, who is the Patron of moral theologians.

Besides, Bliar’s voting record whenever there has been a vote in Parliament on the prospect of making abortion harder to obtain is an absolute disgrace. Bliar is by no possible stretch of even the most generous & elastic imagination a pro-lifer. If words have any meaning at all, he is a favourer of abortion:
Also: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/june2007/blairabortion.htm

Lots more about the stupid rumours of his forthcoming conversion on this excellent weblog: [/search?q=Blairthe-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com (http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/search?q=Blair)

Or is there one standard for measuring John Kerry - & another for measuring Bliar ? So it appears.
The article states, “Blair is believed to have taken communion from the late Pope John Paul II.” That itself is purely speculation and I don’t think it is true.
Click to expand...

On what evidence ? Why should it not be true ?​

It would be entirely in character, for this would not be the first time he has received the Bl. Sacrament - the Archbishop of Westminster had to tell him not to do it, a few years ago, after similar episodes in Catholic churches in London. The Blessed Sacrament is less important than the ego of Tony Bliar, or so it seems. If it is evil for Clinton to do this kind of thing, how is it one iota better for Bliar to do so ? Or is profanation of the Sacraments allowable, provided one agrees with the politics of the profaner ? That is relativism with a vengeance :eek:
 
Ma.Eugenia said:
I am confused about this part of the news:
Click to expand...
It never happened. He went forward to receive a blessing; he did not receive Holy Communion.
From some of the threads I read in CAF, I learned that one must be Catholic in order to take communion in our Church.
Click to expand...
That’s true.
Is it possible for Pope John Paul II to bend this rule for Tony Blair?
Click to expand...
Only if Mr. Blair is in danger of death, and has indicated that he believes all that the Church believes.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

That would not be a mistake, but a sin. Confusing England with Scotland, or Baptism with the Anointing of the Sick, is a mistake - giving the sacraments to someone whom one’s own legislation has excluded from receiving them, is close to sacrilege, & would be severely attacked as hypocritical in anyone else. If it’s bad when “liberal” bishops do it, it is bad when the Pope does it: worse, because the Pope’s bad example is far more damaging. If the Pope did not know that Bliar was not a Catholic, he should have made it his business to know - the sacraments are not sweeties, to be handed out to all & sundry. He would not be the first Pope to do have done this - so did Paul VI, in 1967, to an American Presbyterian woman​

Click to expand...
A sin is a mistake. We all done it. I don’t think Pope John Paul II gave Tony Blair Holy Communion. The Vatican have not confirm that report.
There is no such thing as a mistake in sin - one might as well talk of a mass murderer having been unfortunate enough to commit his crimes. Sin is so voluntary, that it cannot be committed by mistake. That is the teaching of no less an authority than St. Alphonsus Liguori, who is the Patron of moral theologians.

Besides, Bliar’s voting record whenever there has been a vote in Parliament on the prospect of making abortion harder to obtain is an absolute disgrace. Bliar is by no possible stretch of even the most generous & elastic imagination a pro-lifer. If words have any meaning at all, he is a favourer of abortion:
Click to expand...
Also: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/june2007/blairabortion.htm

Lots more about the stupid rumours of his forthcoming conversion on this excellent weblog: [the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com (http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/search?q=Blair)/search?q=Blair

Or is there one standard for measuring John Kerry - & another for measuring Bliar ? So it appears.
Click to expand...

On what evidence ? Why should it not be true ?​

Because it isn’t True. The article said, “It is believed that Tony Blair received communion.” The article further states, the Vatican have not confirm that. I know Pope John Paul II, and I think he would know better not to allow a Non-Catholic Christian not to received Holy Communion. Throughout, JPII’s life he made it pretty clear to us that he knows what the CC teaches. Just to say that he did gave Tony Blair communion itself is a scandal because if the *rumors is lie *than the one who wrote the article has the greater sin.
 
I believe there is a provision that under some extreme circumstances the church may give communion to someone whose public conversion would cause damage. I don’t know if that is what happened in this case .
 
Firstly how would Tony Blair publicly converting cause damage? Surely no-one in the UK is bigoted enough to give a toss if he converted to his wife’s faith while in office? Even members of the Royal Family have converted to Catholicism, for crying out loud.

Secondly - I can well believe that there are occasions where people, even public figures, have mistakenly been allowed to partake in Communion because someone thinks they’re Catholic when they’re not.

I doubt that JP2 would ever KNOWINGLY give a non-Catholic Holy Communion, but mistakenly? Maybe. He was an elderly and ill man, it could happen.
 
LilyM said:
Firstly how would Tony Blair publicly converting cause damage? Surely no-one in the UK is bigoted enough to give a toss if he converted to his wife’s faith while in office? Even members of the Royal Family have converted to Catholicism, for crying out loud.

Secondly - I can well believe that there are occasions where people, even public figures, have mistakenly been allowed to partake in Communion because someone thinks they’re Catholic when they’re not.

I doubt that JP2 would ever KNOWINGLY give a non-Catholic Holy Communion, but mistakenly? Maybe. He was an elderly and ill man, it could happen.
Click to expand...
There is still an anti-catholic sentiment. The King/Queen cannot be Catholic for instance.There is a law against it. Aren’t you paying attention to whenever the Catholics on our Supreme Court happen to vote the same there is an anti-catholic outcry?
 
LilyM said:
Firstly how would Tony Blair publicly converting cause damage? Surely no-one in the UK is bigoted enough to give a toss if he converted to his wife’s faith while in office? Even members of the Royal Family have converted to Catholicism, for crying out loud.

Secondly - I can well believe that there are occasions where people, even public figures, have mistakenly been allowed to partake in Communion because someone thinks they’re Catholic when they’re not.

I doubt that JP2 would ever KNOWINGLY give a non-Catholic Holy Communion, but mistakenly? Maybe. He was an elderly and ill man, it could happen.
Click to expand...
Well don’t think it will cause damage per say…but as I recall it is the Prime Minister who selects/approve/apoints Bishops for the Church of England.
And as a recall there is no longer a law prohibiting a Catholic being Prime Minister.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
A sin is a mistake. We all done it. I don’t think Pope John Paul II gave Tony Blair Holy Communion. The Vatican have not confirm that report.
Click to expand...

No. That trivialises sin. A mistake as such does not imply blameworthiness - to sin, is always blameworthy. That we sin, all of us, does not make sin any less wicked, or us any less blameworthy.​

Are the goats in Matthew 25 cursed by God & sent into everlasting fire, for making mistakes ? If we go to Hell, it will be because we have earned the curse of God by our wickedness - not because we have made mistakes. How s making a mistake worthy of the curse of God ? If we define sins as mistakes, that is going to lead to all sorts of confusions 😦 - especially about the justice of being damned for our sins: for it is one thing to damn the self-willed & incorrigibly wicked for the wickedness they have wickedly committed, but a very different matter to damn those who make mistakes.

So unless sin, & mistakenness, are kept apart, so as not to be confused with one another, preaching & meditating & confessing, & many other things, are going to be badly confused. If we confuse sin & mistakenness, this is going to affect apologetics. In many ways.

We need conversion from our sins - but: from our mistakes ?
40.png
Mannyfit75:
Gottle of Geer:

On what evidence ? Why should it not be true ?​

Click to expand...
Because it isn’t True. The article said, “It is believed that Tony Blair received communion.” The article further states, the Vatican have not confirm that. I know Pope John Paul II, and I think he would know better not to allow a Non-Catholic Christian not to received Holy Communion. Throughout, JPII’s life he made it pretty clear to us that he knows what the CC teaches. Just to say that he did gave Tony Blair communion itself is a scandal because if the *rumors is lie *than the one who wrote the article has the greater sin.
Click to expand...

I saw an OP’s post on this issue - I hope you are right. Unless anything more emerges, it is best to assume the best.​

 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

I saw an OP’s post on this issue - I hope you are right. Unless anything more emerges, it is best to assume the best.​

Click to expand...
Tony Blair receiving communion by the late Pope John Paul II is at best is just speculation. It hasn’t been confirmed by either parties. It’s all base on rumor. You also heard that Tony Blair is rumored to be considering converting to Catholicism. As it turn out, he wasn’t. So this speculation that he received Holy Communion is could also be untrue.

So I rest my case. I know the Pope to be a very Holy man for he love the Lord Jesus Christ just as we love Him. I don’t think he would defile the Lord Jesus Christ in Holy Communion by having a Non-Catholic Christian received the Blessed Host.
 
jmcrae said:
Only if Mr. Blair is in danger of death, and has indicated that he believes all that the Church believes.
Click to expand...
If the Prime Minister is anything like the President of the United States, death threats are a constant occurance. Therefore, isn’t he almost always in danger of death?

John Paul could probably have sympathized with Blair on this one.
 
pprimeau1976 said:
If the Prime Minister is anything like the President of the United States, death threats are a constant occurance. Therefore, isn’t he almost always in danger of death?

John Paul could probably have sympathized with Blair on this one.
Click to expand...
If Blair was in danger of death, he would receive. But he wasn’t so he never receive Holy Communion from the Pope.
 
pprimeau1976 said:
If the Prime Minister is anything like the President of the United States, death threats are a constant occurance. Therefore, isn’t he almost always in danger of death?
Click to expand...
I think the presumtion is that he would be in immediate danger of death (meaning, after he got the deadly disease, or after he got shot, etc.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top