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.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/10/85)
In article <562@topaz.ARPA> hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) writes: >> 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? This is almost totally wrong. All of them claim to part of the ONE TRUE CHURCH, but of those listed, only the Catholics lay claim to being the sole representative of Christ on earth. The Anglicans recognize practically everyone claiming to be Christian, and generally allow all baptized christians to partake of communion. In the USA, most of the various Lutheran churches and the Episcopal Church are linked together much more strongly. Even the Eastern churches and the protestants have some ties. About the only groups for which the above statement is really true are the hyper- schismatic groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the "heretical" (in the sense that their theology disagrees violently with that of the principal denominations) churches such as the Mormons. I don't want to go off at great length, but the above statement shows a need for some education as to the true tenets of the various denominations. Next we'll be hearing comments like "All Baptists are fundamentalists" or "All Episcopalians support homosexuality." Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
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
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (02/11/85)
> 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. The officially stated policy is that a non-Catholic may receive Communion if the following conditions are met (quoted from "Catholicism", by Fr. Richard P. McBrien, Winston Press, 1981, who is himself quoting a Vatican directive): "1.) Admission to the Eucharist is confined to particular cases of those Christians who have a faith in the sacrament in conformity with the Catholic Church. 2.) Such Christians must experience a serious spiritual need for the eucharistic sustenancce. 3.) They must be unable for a prolonged period to have recourse to a minister of their own community. 4.) They must ask for the sacrament of their own accord. 5.) They must have proper dispositions and lead lives worthy of a Christian. Even if these conditions are met, it will be a pastoral responsibility to see that the admission of these other Christians to communion does not endanger or disturb the faith of Catholics. These 'rules' do not apply to Orthodox Christians." I think Ron's experience (and my own) reflects the strange state of American Catholicism, where "rules" are one thing, but practice is often quite another. Frankly, I appreciate the kind of situational flexibility we see here, given the glacial intransigence of years of tradition. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
wmk@ptsfa.UUCP (Bill Klein) (02/12/85)
In article <3141@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > >>> 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? > >This is almost totally wrong. All of them claim to part of the ONE TRUE >CHURCH, but of those listed, only the Catholics lay claim to being the sole >representative of Christ on earth. The Anglicans recognize practically >everyone claiming to be Christian, and generally allow all baptized >christians to partake of communion. In the USA, most of the various Lutheran >churches and the Episcopal Church are linked together much more strongly. >Even the Eastern churches and the protestants have some ties. About the >only groups for which the above statement is really true are the hyper- >schismatic groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the "heretical" (in the >sense that their theology disagrees violently with that of the principal >denominations) churches such as the Mormons. > >I don't want to go off at great length, but the above statement shows a need >for some education as to the true tenets of the various denominations. Next >we'll be hearing comments like "All Baptists are fundamentalists" or "All >Episcopalians support homosexuality." > >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe The following reflects the Official doctrine of the Episcopal Church in America. Although many Episcopalians like to ignore the Articles of Religion many (most?) diocess still require a candidate to affirm them before being ordained. XIX. Of the Church The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath errred, not only in their living an manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith. XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, as set forth by the General Convention of this Church in 1792, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering; neither hath it any thing that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly. And, therefore, whoever are consecrated or ordered according to said Form, we decreee all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered. * * * * As mine was the original quotation, let me say that although many denominations in practice accept each other, their doctrine either has in the past, or still states that the others are in "ERROR". The Episcopalians state that Rome and the Orthodox are in error and that the protestants who have no Priests and Bishops are "invalid". This doesn't mean that most current diocess and parrishes deny communion to those baptised in other denominations; it only means that their theory denies the other denominations. As for homosexulatiy, the general convention has made it abundatly clear that homosexuality is not, per se, a deterient to either membership in the Church or Eternal Salvation. I would be the first to agree that not ALL Episcopalians accept or believe this. Bill Klein (...!ucbvax!dual!ptsfa!wmk) Pacific Bell
jhs@houxa.UUCP (J.SCHERER) (02/15/85)
This is a followup to a recent posting by Bill Klein which pointed out that the Episcopal church considered other churches to be in error. I'd like to note that saying that someone is "in error" is quite different from saying that he's not Christian or not a member of Christ's one church. If an "error" threw us out of the running, who'd be left running? Further, the "errors" referred to in his quote from our Articles of Religion (which date from Elizabethian times) have, I think, been corrected by the Romans. Further yet, the article stating that our form of consecration of bishops is valid does NOT say that all other rites are invalid - only that ours is sufficient (but not necessarily necessary). Finally, the Articles of Religion are not the basic statement of our faith or practice - they show up in our prayer book as "historical documents of the church". I'll end by noting that although we're a hierarchial church, there's room for a fair variety of opinions (one past Bishop of California suggested considering the Bishop of Rome as "first among equals" - might not satisfy the Romans but it would sure be heresy to Anglicans of an earlier day - to some today, too).
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
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (02/19/85)
[From a former RC] In article <unc.86> wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) writes: > >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. ... The RC church teaches that the bread and wine ACTUALLY BECOME the body and blood of Christ. It is more than a mere representation to Catholics. Transubstantiation means that at the time of the consecration of the elements, they are literally transformed into the body and blood while maintaining their original appearance. Calvin and other Reformers (not Luther) taught that the elements represent Christ's body and blood and Christ is spiritually present in Communion. As for Christ eternally giving his life, that's another question entirely. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl