Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Protestantism as Church (long) (not anymore) Message-ID: Date: 7 Sep 89 10:08:29 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of No Money, Albuquerque, New Mexico Lines: 152 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu The post about the unity of Protestantism and its severe schism with the Roman Church is particularly sensitive to me. First off, I'm in the Reformed Tradition. The word "tradition" here is important. The Presbyterian church uses documents going back to the beginnings of that tradition in its consitution. Most Congregationalists use that same Book of Confessions. There is similarly a "Lutheran Tradition", a "Union Tradition". Those three, Reformed, Lutheran, and Union were the first Protestants out of the barrel. The other "traditions" in Christianity are usualy recognized as the "Roman" and "Orthodox" traditions. It's important to note that, until 1917, there were really two different Orthodox churches, the Eastern and the Russian. They had two different Patriarchs and all. They were fairly closely tied, however, and since the Russian Revolution, I think Russian Orthodox believers trace authority to the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox church. (whew) Many years ago, I went with a group from New Mexico to Oaxaca to help in construction with a church there. The reason we went there was that Oaxaca and this church were where the leader of our group grew up. His (then) wife is a Catholic... This situation isn't too uncommon anymore in the US, and no one thought of it. In Oaxaca, we were warned not to refer to the fact that Demetria (his wife) was not Protestant. It seems that the rather severe persecution against Protestants in Mexico, especially southern Mexico, had created a sore spot among this church. One day, I went to Mass with Demetria, basically as a learning experience for me. As we entered the (beautiful) cathedral, I remarked about what a shame it was that this situation existed; I was quite saddened by the division that occurred. The priest overheard me. While I was permitted to stay, he refused the Lord's Supper to me. Since then, I have made a point of not misrepresenting myself. I have attended a Catholic mass twice since, and both times the sacrament was denied me. The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) reads: The minister shall invite to partake of the Sacrament all those who are active church members or communicants in good standing in some Christian church, who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of their sins, and who covenent anew to live as followers of Christ. The invitation shall include baptized children who are being nurtured and instructed to participate with and understanding of the significance of the invitation to the Lord's Table and of their response in faith. Participation in the Sacrament is to be understood as a privilege given to the undeserving rather than a right conferred upon the worthy. Yet, those who are unprepared, who are self-sufficient and unrepentant, should be warned not to come to the Holy Table. (S-3.0500d) The attitude here is that all who are believers and followers of Christ are to be invited to participate. The attitude of the Roman church is that all who are not followers of THAT CHURCH are excommunicate or incommunicate are are not to be accepted to the Table. This attitude is unique. The reason that we (Protestants) emphasize the schismatic nature of Rome, is because it is Rome that declares itself as the only true church of the Lord, as the only valid route to Christ. The essence of Protestantism is that there is no route to Christ but Himself, and the He is reacheable to all who want Him, without the assistance of any church or other group. -- Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. Telephone: +1 505 292 0001 / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee! [We are about to duplicate a previous discussion in talk.religion.misc. In order to avoid a complete duplication, let me summarize what I see as the outcome. Most (all?) of the Catholics there say that although the Catholics have a very different understanding of the nature of the visible Church, it is misleading to say that they claim to be the only true Church. Certainly they do not claim to be the only valid route to Christ. About that there is little ambiguity. They certainly accept non-Catholic Christians as Christians. The discussion is whether their concept of the Church in some sense denies validity to other churches. They certainly don't think that our sacraments are valid Catholic sacraments. However there now seems to be a recognition that they are none the less carried out in response to Christ's commands. In a response to one of my postings, one Catholic said that although Protestant pastors are certainly not validly ordained according to the Catholic concept of ordination (which seems in some sense a simple observation of fact), he does believe that they are appointed to a special office in the Universal Church. I pushed to see whether any other Catholics wanted to disagree with this, and none did. This statement has more implications than it appears, because it effectively acknowledges the authority of Protestant churches to act on behalf of the Universal Church in ordaining (even though not in the Catholic sense) leaders. It seems clear to me that Catholics are not yet quite ready to accept the model of the Catholic church as just one denomination among many. However they also recognize the role played by other denominations. My feeling is that this leaves them in a certain tension, with theory that has not entirely caught up with their de facto understanding. I don't think anyone believes that the current position is a stable one. I believe further development in their concept of the nature of the church is probably going to happen. There are in fact ongoing negotiations between the Catholics and members of various other Christian traditions. The issue of intercommunion is a particularly sensitive one, because many (most?) Protestants see the Catholic position as symbolically excluding other Christians from Christ's table. The way it looks from the outside is that a sacrament that is supposed to symbolize the unity of the Church has been hijacked so that it symbolizes the unity of a particular denomination, and its separation from the Universal Church. Unfortunately, it's easier to state the problem than to find a solution. To be fair, they have the same problem that some other denominations have: balancing their responsibility to the truth as they see it with the desire not to create unnecessary separations in Christ's body. Similar considerations have led baptists to not recognize baptisms done by other churches if it was done when the person was an infant. Catholics have very specific ideas about the validity of liturgical actions. Those ideas create exactly the same problem for them as the baptist ideas about believers' baptism. I suspect that as changes continue in the Catholic church, intercommunion is going to be almost the last issue resolved, since it involves almost every other sensitive issue. Note by the way that the Catholics are not the only group affected by ecumenical issues. At the most recent General Assembly, the Presbyterian Church (USA) commissioned a study on how ongoing ecumenical progress is going to affect our church's organization. The Consultation on Church Union is continuing to lumber onward. The problem from our point of view is that the viewpoints within the Consultation tend to be based on some sort of episcopal form of organization. So the Presbyterian Church (USA) has to decide whether it wants to maintain its current ideas about church order, even at the cost of hampering church union. One specific problem is that our elders do not have any obvious correspondence in other denominations. Here we have leaders that have been ordained, and who in Reformed tradition are considered to hold the same New Testament office as pastors. Are we to accept a form of church union that effectively causes that ordination to vanish? (How would we even do that? Do we have to do some sort of formal unordination?) Or do we say that because in principle it is the same NT office, all of our Ruling Elders turn into pastors in the united church? (You can all prepare to call me Herr Prof. Rev. Dr. Hedrick.) --clh]