Sir, - Preaching at the broadcast Mass in Bristol Cathedral on Sunday, October 18th, the celebrant referred to the recent bishops' statement on inter-communion and he accepted that many would not agree with it. The spate of letters to The Irish Times from lay people confirms this. Informed dissent is as justifiable as informed consent.
Their lordships reduce the mystery of the Eucharist to a level of bureaucratic regulation. All Christians share a belief in its commemorative meaning and the differences between Christians are in the field of mystical interpretation, with many overlapping areas of shared belief.
Twenty years ago, while on a visiting sabbatical in a US medical school, my academic host invited me to the university chaplaincy which he attended on Sundays. At the church door the Episcopalian, Catholic and Non-comformist chaplains greeted the congregation, all robed. One read the Old Testament, one read the New Testament and one preached.
At the consecration all, together, blessed the bread and wine. At the communion all the congregation joined the line. No matter how each member of the congregation viewed the rite and the mystery the participation of their own chaplain validated the Eucharist for every one of them individually.
The Christian churches are losing ground throughout the Western world. A retreat behind defensive barriers negates the effectiveness of a mission which should reach out to all men and women. Inter-communion is to be permitted in special circumstances. The exceptions imply that the concept is not intrinsically flawed. A very large body of lay Catholics approved of President McAleese's courteous sharing of communion when she was a guest at the altar table of the Church of Ireland. We should concentrate on the beliefs we share and not on those which divide us. - Yours, etc., Conor Ward, MD,
Hampton Wick,
Middlesex.