|
Published: July 30, 2010
“Getting emails from Catholics”
Anglican cleric apologizes for giving communion to dog
Toronto, Canada, Jul 29, 2010 (CNA) -- An Anglican female priest in Canada has apologized for offering communion to a dog after the incident added to already growing tensions within Anglican churches.
 Last month, Donald Keith, 56, took his dog Trapper, a German Shepherd-Rhodesian Ridgeback crossbreed, into St. Peter’s Anglican Church in Toronto where Rev. Marguerite Rea was officiating. The man and his dog frequented the park outside the church.
An interim priest, Rea welcomed the two inside and offered communion to both Keith and Trapper.
One parishioner filed a formal complaint about the action with Anglican Bishop Patrick Yu. The parishioner has since left the congregation.
After the action became public last week, Rea apologized during her Sunday sermon to anyone who may have been hurt or embarrassed by her actions. She explained the initial gesture as a way of welcoming a stranger.
Cheryl Chang, chancellor of the Anglican Network in Canada, responded critically to the action. "Communion to a dog is not something that will ever happen to our or any Bible-believing Christian church anywhere in the world," she said, according to the Agence France-Presse.
Keith, who had never been in the church before, thought the action was “very innocent.”
"And the joy and happiness on the face of one old lady in the front row made it all worthwhile," he told the Toronto Star.
Keith told the National Post he thought the act was “small stuff” that made him think of the church’s annual blessing of the animals. “This has blown me away,” he said of the controversy. “The church is even getting emails from Catholics.”
Rea declined to discuss the incident since her apology, telling the AFP, "The incident is done, it's over and I have no more comment about it… I am not going to discuss anything about it."
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 2:24 AM By RWhite
Sad , that this "priest" has such little regard for the sacrament , imperfect in this denominations practices, that to confuse hospitality with profanation on not a true holy Eucharist, but to the congregants the body of Our Lord is a sad comment on the state of this church and its thinking. Good news the one true Catholic faith treats this sacrament with the reverence it deserves. To our Anglican brothers and sisters come join us we welcome you and we need you!.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 6:42 AM By BUD
It certainly is sad that someone who actually considers herself to be a priest would have the mindset of using what she thinks is the Eucharist in such a manner. I'm sure our Queen Episcopal Bishops in the US will find a reason or rationale for her actions. I have believed from the very beginning that the Episcopal Church should simply move in with the Universalist Church for their "touchy-feely" brand of religion(?).
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 7:34 AM By Canisius
This pathetic heretic church, show's no respect to their own sacraments. "And the joy and happiness on the face of one old lady in the front row made it all worthwhile," he told the Toronto Star. What humanistic idiocy.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 7:42 AM By Brad
There was no apology. The woman gave the celebrity/politician canard of not apologizing for a objective, mistaken deed, but for the reaction that she perceives someone had, subjectively, upon witnessing the deed: "Rea apologized during her Sunday sermon to anyone who may have been hurt or embarrassed by her actions". I loathe loath loathe this phenomenon and I see it constantly. Not only is it not contrite, it actually belies broiling contempt.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 8:06 AM By Maria
He who is without sin let him cast the first stone, isn't this what Jesus told the crowd? Doesn't one pass judgement which is God's alone? Aren't we call to love (recognize this was wrong and repent or know not to do it ourselves-any sin)? Christianity is the universe that unites us all who believe in Jesus Christ as God and savior. I do not believe that spending time to draw a line between christian is where we should start as we now and in history have killed each other in the name of our Lord. Who does our God side with? We must each search our souls and ask for guidance instead of quick to judge. I agree this should not have been done but let God judge each of us as Christians.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 8:13 AM By JLS
It is not a sacrament, but a piece of bread. It won't hurt the dog. There is no sacrilege, so it does not hurt people or God. Feeding bread to dogs is not an offense against nature. I do not see the problem. Now if the woman giving that bread to the dog told the dog that it was the Body of Christ, then she lied. That might be a sacrilege. In fact if she tells people she gives the bread to that it is the Body of Christ, then she is lying, and that would be a sacrilege ... not in that she is lying but in the character of her particular lie.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 9:05 AM By CRuiz
Marguerite Rea is a self-proclaimed priestess, not a priest. Calling her a priest would be like calling a female chicken a rooster instead of a hen.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 9:24 AM By Maryanne Leonard
I thought I was too old to be shocked about anything any more. Rea says, "I am not going to discuss anything about it." Her Maker might have something to say about it though.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 9:24 AM By Peter
This article refers to this woman as a priest, which according to my dictionary is incorrect as a priest is a male one step under a bishop, the correct term should be priestess which designates a female, especially in a pagan religion which some branches of the Anglicans have taken themselves.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 9:31 AM By Nightingale
I belong to an Anglican Catholic church, and I assure you no priest would give Communion to a dog. Our priests don't even give Communion to know guests until they are sure the newcomer is aware of what they are receiving, lest they receive unworthily. Communion in our church is held in strict reverence.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 9:38 AM By VirgoPotens
A non-priest gave a non-sacrament to a dog in a false church? Sorry, but I'm just not that upset about this.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 10:01 AM By barbara kralis
Actually, there's nothing wrong with the dog, in the story below, receiving plain bread from the Anglican's fake altar because the Anglican's do not have the Eucharist, they do not have duly ordained Catholic Priests or Bishops [who are the only ones given the ability and right by God] to Confect the bread and wine on the altar during the 'Consecration,' a change that is called 'Transubstantiation.' The Anglicans are only able to have a 'service' [not Holy Sacrifice of the Mass] that is only symbolic of a Catholic Mass, because of their pride and stubbornness. In fact, Anglicans have declared that Transubstantiation "cannot be proved by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many superstitions." Therefore, the dog was merely being fed 'snacks' at the table or fake altar, as we all do to our own pets.barb kralis
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 10:01 AM By Abeca Christian
VirgoPotens I hold the same sentiments as you do regarding this article.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 10:22 AM By JLS
Maria, you have figured it correctly up to a point. It is true that the Baptised are united one with another. But that Sacrament does not unite a soul to God. It is the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist which unites man with God, through Jesus Christ. History shows us what happens to those groups which give up the Eucharist.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 10:29 AM By Laurette Elsberry
This incident reminds me of an event held years ago in Sacramento. The local Episcopal diocese was installing a new bishop. This Episcopal bishop had been ordained a Catholic priest but got married and joined the Episcopal church. The Convention Center installation was attended by a representative of the Catholic Diocese, and many others. What really hit me was that at the end of the Episcopal "mass", which the Episcopal bishop celebrated, there was extra "wine", which the "mass" attendants unceremoniously poured into the bushes outside the center. Was this a sacrilege? The wine had been "consecrated" by someone who had been ordained as a Catholic priest. It is my belief that this Episcopal bishop intended to consecrate this wine into the Blood of Christ.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 11:03 AM By Jose
@Maria… We do have the right to judge someone’s actions. We do not have the right to judge someone’s state of soul. Judging someone’s actions is something we do in many aspects of life, not only in religion. If something is wrong or evil, it needs to be rejected. And if something causes grave scandal, then even more of a reason to lovingly but firmly denounce it. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Let us not exercise a false charity by simply treating bad deeds with indifference. Unfortunately, the world today does not want to hear fraternal correction. Yet, if we do not to judge someone’s wrongful actions, then how would we help them out of the dangerous path they are heading?
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 11:21 AM By Willi H
VirgoPotens and JLS are both correct. The sex of the "priest" not withstanding, the Church has determined that no Sacrament (as Catholics believe, that Christ is present on the altar) is possible in Anglican Orders (unlike Orthodoxy and some Old Catholic sects). High Church Traditionalist Anglican (Episcopalian) clergy that come back to Holy Mother Church are re-ordained (since Anglican Orders are not recognized by Rome).
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 11:35 AM By dan
Dear RWhite above
I am a convert from Judaism to Catholicism and I've only once in a year been to a non Tirdentine Mass. The priest dumped communion wafers in potato chip serving bowls and his two 'helpers' or whatever they call these lay persons would fish around with their defiled hands and pass them to the hands of the 'communicants' who received them standing with the slightest condescending dip of their heads (if that much). Catholic? If they say so, its not for ME to decide.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 12:17 PM By JLS
Judging another human being's state of soul is not possible; so whatever we judge we can do without fear of doing the impossible.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 1:15 PM By Janek
It is long overdue for Traditional Anglicans to leave their heritical church and come home to the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Holy Father paved the way for them, with much prayer I hope they cross the Tiber and come home to The One True Chuch of Rome.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 1:34 PM By Abeca Christian
Maria God has already judged and has instructed His church on that.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 1:36 PM By RWhite
Dear Dan , point well taken I applaud your devotion to the TLM, you are correct the communion in the hand and the distribution by the laity is disturbing. I attend St. Peter and St. Paul's church in Wilmington , CA, the beautiful marble alter rail is still in use and the Norbertine Fathers do a excellent job , as well as offering a TLM on Sundays. God Bless
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 1:45 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Maria,
You mix so much truth with so much flowerery self interpretation. It is your kind of misinterpretation that has put the Mystical Body of Christ in to such a sad state. Have you ever read where Our Lord himself ORDERED the Apostles to ADMONISH THE SINNER?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 2:40 PM By JonJ
Whatever the nature of Anglican communion in catholic theology, this action trivializes a solemn religious rite. Obviously, it was an inappropriate act. That being said, there are far worse immoral acts to worry about in the world. We need to get perspective and focus on the great evils that surround us (and on many of these issues we're in substantial agreement with the Anglicans), rather than use this incident as an exuse to beat our chests about how we're better than Anglicans.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 4:54 PM By bettybbret
Hi, dan Nice to hear from you. What do you think of the following?I'm a Catholic. Our new pastor stopped at the moment in the Mass that is called the "going forth" (I've forgotten the latin name) where the priest traditionally says Goodbye, God bless you, etc. Our priest stopped and told a joke. My husband and I objected to the insertion of a joke into a solemn religious ceremony. I objected specifically because people stood up during his joke, some leaning on canes. I asked one man how he liked the joke and he said,
"What joke?" because he was totally deaf and couldn't hear anything. At last, wearying of the joke-telling, I laughed
uproariously after the joke, stamped my feet, kept laughing for several minutes, etc. etc. They called me "disruptive" and I got a "dis-invite" letter from the Cardinal's office telling
me that I was not to attend Mass at that particular church
any more. I now attend another church. What do you think?
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 5:27 PM By JLS
So, JonJ, you're in effect saying that souls in union with God are no better than souls not in union with God? Where did you get that theology?
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 5:31 PM By JLS
bettybbret, you should contact the Cardinal and invite him to attend that Mass ... in disguise. Or, you should appeal the issue and demand to face your accusers. You can also file a complaint against the jokester priest, and send it to the Cardinal and to the Pope or one of the Vatican cardinals in charge of liturgy and clergy ... I think they have a new one who is part of the house cleaning crusade.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 5:40 PM By Dan
I do what Padre Pio said to do. If I must go to a New Mass I will ask to receive kneeling and by mouth from the priest's hands if possible. When the priest passes I will bow to him though no one else does and maybe the children will see and learn something. I treat everything with profound reverence. It IS Our Lord present, even though mocked, barely tolerated and humiliated, be there for Him with love and NEVER judge sinners and poor souls who know no better. How sad for them, we must try to love them the way Christ does.
|
Posted Friday, July 30, 2010 6:24 PM By JLS
The word, "judge", seems to have a hidden meaning that only those in the know know, and those who rely on common definitions found in all reference books do not know.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 7:17 AM By Mea Culpa
What she gave the dog is not the Eucharist, and she is not a priest. To any faithful followers of Jesus Christ who are still in the Episcopal or Anglican churches - it has to be painfully obvious by now that these are false churches that are not guided by the Holy Spirit but by the whims of man (men and women). It is time to come home to the Catholic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ and to which He sent the Holy Spirit to guide it into all Truth.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:13 AM By TradPriest
"Do not give what is holy to dogs." Didn't someone say that???
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:32 AM By Brad
It's not so much who she is (sham) and what she gave (simply bread), it's what she and her congregants thought she was (valid) and what she was -- to the relish of attending demons -- doing (giving communion to a dog). I.e., if I give someone what I think is poison, I am a murderer, even if I didn't understand the poison was placebo.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:48 AM By Anne T.
"Do not give that which is holy to dogs," Matthew 7:6. No matter how you read it in the context in which it was written it says not to give sacred things to dogs, whether of the animal or human kind. Evidently, this woman does not consider the bread she is handing out either sacred or holy.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:55 AM By Anne T.
I also suggest that all of you put in "Judge not that you be judged by Fr. John Echert" into your search bar and click on his article about what the phrase actually means in the context in which it was written. One of things he says is that this passage is often quoted as an excuse not to correct a behavior that is immoral. Does that sound familiar?
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 10:35 AM By JonJ
No, JLS, I say that we need to be careful lest over-satisfaction about our "superiority" leads to hubris; which, in turn, leads to sin. I get the feeling that rivalry with other Christians can sometimes get too intense, driven by the human need to promote ourselves (or our group) over others..Many times, this supposed "superiority" is rather trivial, and can distract us from uniting against true evil.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 11:29 AM By Anne P
I agree with Anne T.
When was the last time you heard from the Pulpit that we are required to "judge" sin. And the "TOLERANCE" of sin can be sinful in itself. (CCC 1868 & 1869).
Read the "Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition". Only men can be ordained Priests in the Catholic Church.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 11:31 AM By JLS
Great point, Brad. Maybe it's another act that in effect leads up to the "abomination of desolation". Or in that there are many "anti-Christs" running around now for twothousand years, this act is one more among many little practice runs for the big event.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 12:09 PM By Anne T.
I need to clarify that certain sacred things are all right to use for a pet's collar, etc., such as a blessed medal of St. Frances or other Saint asking for their protecting intercession, but a Catholic would never give the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in Communion to a dog. Of course a priest can bless animals while using a Church approved prayer.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 12:14 PM By Anne T.
There is a difference in sacredness between sacraments and sacramentals. The former being meant for human's only. In fact most sacramentals are meant for human's only too, except in cases such as medals for pets. Common sense needs to be used.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 12:16 PM By Robert
Non-catholic communion or wafers are just that - bread wafers. Non-catholics neither believe nor does their communion resemble or in fact becomes - the body and blood of Christ as the catholic communion does. Only Catholic priests have been given the power through Apostolic succesion of confecting the sacrament and transubstantiation. We live in times when people no longer realize, know, or believe in sin anymore - get ready.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 12:44 PM By Anne T.
Sorry, it was late and I made several typos in my last post. The article by Fr. John Echert would be under "Judge Not That You Be Not Judged".
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 3:18 PM By Jimmy Mac
Heavens, why should Catholics care? We all know that Episcopal priests are not real priests and their communions/eucharists are not real, so why care?
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 5:08 PM By bettybbret
Nice message, Mea Culpa. I really liked what you said.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 7:12 PM By Brad
Jimmy Mac, we should care not because of what she did but what she thought she was doing. (see my comment above)
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 10:09 PM By Janek
Correct, Jimmy Mac like their bishops they are only laymen dressed up as bishops and priests, their orders are null and void case ended.
|
Posted Saturday, July 31, 2010 11:08 PM By JLS
"Why care?", Jimmy Mac? Jesus cared enough for the people He created, so much so that He died that they all might have life. "Why care?" So that they might have life.
|
Posted Sunday, August 01, 2010 7:59 AM By magdalene
She is not a true priest and this communion does not have a Catholic understanding and is actually just a piece of bread so there is not a physical sacrilege here.
|
Posted Sunday, August 01, 2010 10:39 AM By Anne T.
Magdalene and Jimmy Mac, I think the concern for some of us is how far some in the Protestant community have fallen, right along with some in the Catholic community. Even most Protestants used to have a sense of what was sacred. Growing up I never knew a Methodist or Baptist minister who would have given the bread or grapejuice -- yes they used and use grapejuice most of the time -- to a dog when they were passing our what they called "the Lord's Supper". They might have given the leftovers to animals after the service and away from the congregation, but never during the service since they still how somewhat of a sense of the sacred. Even the "Lord's Supper" was done with solemnity back then and in many places now. Another concern is that what goes on around all of us, affects all of us to a certain extent. When both Catholics and Protestants have more of a sense of the sacred, they generally have more respect for human life concerning abortion.
|
Posted Monday, August 02, 2010 10:28 AM By Rick DeLano
The dog and the guest received bread and wine. Nothing more. But the episode serves to remind of the awful consequences of separation from the Catholic Church and loss of the Divine and Catholic Faith. Not only is the sacrament lost, but how easily also is the sense of the sacred. Now the same dispositions are not altogether lacking among some Catholics I have seen approach the Blessed Sacrament in the most breezy and blase manner. While one can never be certain if the internal dispositions match the external evidences of these Catholics, if they do then they might arguably have been better off as Protestants. At least, then, they would not be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
|
Posted Monday, August 02, 2010 10:36 AM By FrMichael
We are blessed that the make-believe Catholic Church of Anglicanism-- murderer of true Catholicism in Our Lady's dowry of England-- is showing itself so clearly a mockery in our own day. There was a time in the first half of the 20th century where it looked like Anglo-Catholicism could prove triumphant, but now the only branch with real vitality is the evangelical branch, which in England, the US, and Canada is completely at odds with head honchos of the church. Meanwhile the dwindling "Broad Church" is literally going to the dogs! Thanks be to the Holy Spirit Who inspired Pope Benedict to throw the Anglo-Catholics a lifeline to enter God's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!
|
Posted Tuesday, August 03, 2010 4:20 PM By Anne T.
Yes, Fr. Michael, let us pray that more take ahold of that lifeline the Holy Father has offered. Let us pray for the conversion of England and all of Europe also.
|
Posted Sunday, August 15, 2010 6:50 PM By David Irby
To those who say, “This was just bread” (etc.); its not as simple as that. Anglicans (I was raised one) believe that their Orders and their Eucharists are valid and many believe that what they receive is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. This priestess is a sacrilege herself, of course, and many, perhaps even most, Anglicans agree that she is. And she also committed a sacrilege against that which is believed by most Anglicans, when she gave communion to a dog. So, she made a double profanation against the True Sacrament, even though the bread she gave the dog was (thank God!) not the True Sacrament. These are matters, which also pertain to dialogue with “Catholic-inclined” Anglicans, which is becoming more fruitful because of such abominations in their church. So many are coming over every day. Such dialogue requires honesty (e.g.) as to the “Orders” issue, but honesty doesn't require, nor is it helped by, simplistic formulations.
|
Posted Sunday, August 15, 2010 8:47 PM By JLS
How is one to know for sure if the "bread" is authentically consecrated becoming the Body of Jesus Christ? Apostolic procession? But how is this determined for sure? If some Anglican organizations are apostolic, then they would perhaps be schismatic like the orthodox but not heretical.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2010. All Rights Reserved.
|