hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (02/09/85)
> To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist > Presbyterian and a variety of other "churches" ALL state in their > official doctrine that they are the ONE TRUE CHURCH. (They either > excommunicate or damn each other.) I appreciate that many are moving > toward reconciliation but what are they move from? > I don't know of any denomination that actually has the audacity to state that it is the only true church. If there is one, it is not on the list that you have given. All of the Protestant churches that I know about practice open Communion. This means that they will allow anyone to participate in Communion who professes faith in Jesus Christ. (Presbyterians also require that they be baptized. I am not sure how common such a restriction is. There is no specification on who did the baptism.) All of the Protestant churches that I know about accept new members from other churches by "letter of transfer". That is, they accept the other church's word that this person is a church member in good standing. There is probably a limit on the groups from which a given church would accept a letter of transfer, but in Presbyterian (USA) churches, I have heard transfers from quite a range, including both very conservative churches and "high" churches. The Roman Catholics are a special problem. But even they consider other churches to be part of the true church. I will leave it to a Catholic to explain why they do not practice open Communion. Generally those Christians that are inclined to be exclusivist are not so concerned about which church you belong to as what you believe. You might find a Christian somewhere that thinks I will go to Hell. But if so, it will not be because I am a Presbyterian rather than a member of his church. It will instead be because I take a liberal view of the way Scripture is to be used. That is, I do not believe that it is in principle error-free (though I do believe that it is quite reliable). But even there, I think it would be the unusual conservative who would think that this actually damns me. They might think I was seriously wrong, but Christ's death would atone even for that. Churches differ primarily in their "form of government" and in their liturgy (i.e. the way they worship). In general everyone considers these to be theologically insignificant. From the BOok of Order of the Presbyterian Church (USA): "This form of government is established in the light of Scripture to give order to this church, but is not regarded as essential to the existence of the church of Jesus Christ nor to be required of all Christians." There are a few items of liturgy that specific churches feel quite strongly about, e.g. Baptists about adult baptism. But even there, I would not expect that a Baptist would say that someone who was baptized as a child was not a Christian. These days most of the major denominations have more theological diversity within them than there is difference between them. I do not mean to minimize the amount of disagreement that still exists among Christians. But I think it is not associated with membership in specific chruches. And even where disagreement exists, it is often over the precise application of principles that we all agree on. E.g. we all agree that Scripture is the record of God's actions with men, and at least all Protestants consider it authoritative over the Church. The issue is whether it is reliable as a human witness is reliable, or is guaranteed error-free on all details. All of us agree that Communion was established by Jesus as an institution that the church should carry out, and that he will be present with the church when it is celebrated. But there are differing views on exactly how he will be present, and whether it is different than the way he is always present with the church. These differences can be significant in certain contexts. But aside from a few marginal groups such as the Mormons and Quakers (and I mean no insult to them: many of them are fine Christians -- they are simply not in the mainstream of Christian tradition), all churches use the Apostles and Nicene creeds to define their faith, and all believe in the basic doctrines of Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, etc.
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (02/11/85)
> The Roman Catholics are a special problem. But even they consider > other churches to be part of the true church. I will leave it to a > Catholic to explain why they do not practice open Communion. While I do not know the official church policy on open Communion, the last three catholic funerals (well, Masses of Christian Burial) that I have attended (one in Maryland and two in Massechussettes) the priest has always stated that qualified communicants of other religions are welcome to participate in communion if the desire. Now I could understand one parish being renegage, but this was three different churches in three different dioceses. As a matter of fact, the church in Maryland went out of it's way to help non-catholics through the ceremony (which was much appreciated by the jewish friend of mine sitting next to me). -Ron
wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (02/17/85)
> The Roman Catholics are a special problem. But even they consider other > churches to be part of the true church. I will leave it to a Catholic > to explain why they do not practice open Communion. It's because of the doctrine of transubstantiation, which states that the consecrated bread or wine represents the body and blood of the living Christ, eternally giving his life for our salvation. Hence the powerful taboos in the past against non-priests touching the host, special rituals for decontaminating the floor or other objects where the host/wine has fallen, etc. If another Christian denomination believes the same thing about communion, the Catholic Church recognizes its communion as a valid sacrament for Catholics as well as other Christians. As I recall, the Anglican church's sacraments were recognized as valid by the Roman church until sometime well into the nineteenth century.
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/18/85)
There is no real connection between the Social Credit political party and the Roman Catholic Church. If you want to see a more ``main-line'' Catholic newspaper, try *The Catholic Register*. (Hmm. I know is considered ``too liberal'' by some. I don't have any sense of perspective here. It has a big circulation, though.) Also, let it be known that the Catholics in Canada don't all a) live in Quebec or b) speak French. [Though the education system goes to great length to teach all students French, what usually happens is that Anglephones can read French, write it some, and never, ever speak it...]. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura