Sir, - More than 20 years ago I took part in discussions on the agreed statement on the Eucharist by Archbishop Henry McAdoo and Bishop Alan Clark. I waited hopefully for the green light which would allow me to participate at least in the Anglican Communion, since broad agreement seemed to have been reached. I continued to attend Glenstal, obediently refraining from approaching the altars of sister churches, particularly as I was aware that many members of my church, far more experienced and knowledgeable about ecumenism than I, did not do so. One year the Spirit within me told me to accept the invitation to the Eucharist and I did so. I have never regretted my decision.
At the Reformation, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the fathers of Trent all spoke about the Eucharist in different ways. To my mind it is not possible for anyone to comprehend fully what happens at the supper of the Lord - hence the divergence of views. Dr Walton Empey rightly talks about "mystery". The assumption that all Catholics have the same understanding of Eucharist, I feel, is erroneous.
When I taught history at third level, I used to have to explain to students, many products of good Catholic schools, what we mean by transubstantiation! As one Jesuit friend said, "It's not what happens in the bread that matters, but what happens in me."
When I receive the Eucharist, I receive the body of my Lord, who bids us: "Love one another as I have loved you." I respect Dr Connell's authority to teach the truth as he sees it, but for me receiving the Eucharist in fellowship with either Catholic or Protestant friends is not a sham. Blindly obeying church teaching, irrespective of what Jesus seems to be telling me, would be. - Yours, etc.,
From Elizabeth Roddy
Corcullen, Co Galway.