Madam, - If only things were half as simple as Father M. Philip Scott (May 9th) makes them out to be: Catholics and Orthodox believe in transubstantiation, Anglicans do not. Intercommunion is, therefore, meaningless.
But Anglicans only deny what they think Catholics mean by transubstantiation.
What is that? Do Catholics have to believe in an Aristotelian notion of substance and accidents which medieval theologians adapted in ways that would have seemed incredible to Aristotle himself?
To be orthodox, a Christian doesn't have to believe in a difficult, not to say, probably incoherent piece of metaphysics: namely, that the substance of bread is changed into Christ's substance while leaving the accidents of the bread unchanged. If this were so, most Catholics, including most priests, would be precluded from orthodoxy because they haven't the faintest idea of what it means.
Surely all that faith - as opposed to theology - can demand is that Christians believe what Jesus intended them to believe when he blessed the bread and wine.
Anyone who accepts that unreservedly is orthodox. Anyone who demands more, whether he be Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, is going beyond anything that Jesus could possibly have intended. - Yours, etc.,
PETER DE ROSA, Ashford, Co Wicklow.
**********
Madam, - As an Irish exile, but recently resident for two months in Wexford, I followed this controversy with some interest. The affirmation of one's beliefs, it seems to me, is one thing, but expressions of arrogance and contempt for the beliefs of others are something quite different.
Is spiritual pride a mortal sin? - Yours, etc.,
ROY GIBSON, Belwood Road, Manchester, England.