Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!west
From: west@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Steve Westfall)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian,net.religion,net.flame
Subject: Supposed claims to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH
Message-ID: <193@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Feb-85 01:31:40 EST
Article-I.D.: sphinx.193
Posted: Sat Feb 16 01:31:40 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 04:21:43 EST
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 119
Xref: watmath net.religion.christian:231 net.religion:5646 net.flame:8393


Bill Klein (wmk@ptsfa.UUCP) has written several articles asserting
that the major Christian groups are all exclusive and condemn all
of the other groups to hell.  

For example, in article <469@ptsfa.UUCP> Bill 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?

In a reply to Charley Wingate (mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP), Bill makes such
an assertion about the Episcopal Church in article <474@ptsfa.UUCP>:

>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.

[Now Bill quotes from the Articles of Religion of the Episcopal Church:]

>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 and 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 decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated
>and ordered.

[Bill then continues on with the following *INCREDIBLY IGNORANT*
interpretation of these articles:]

>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.

If this were not such an *INCREDIBLY IGNORANT* interpretation of
what those two Articles actually say, it would be funny.  Is Bill
so unaware of what issues were debated at the time of the Reformation
that he cannot see that these articles have nothing to do with his
interpretation?  It helps if you read a document in light of what
was happening at the general time of its composition!  The Thirty Nine
Articles of the Episcopal Church in America are almost identical with
the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England, from which they
were derived, and the latter are a product of the English Reformation.

When Article XIX says that "as the churches of Jerusalem, etc. etc.
have erred, so also has the church of Rome erred," it is making a
denial of the claim that the church of Rome is the only true church
and that it is infallible.  It is saying that all churches, including
the church of Rome, are fallible.  This has *NOTHING* to do with Bill's
interpretation that all churches except the Episcopal [Anglican] are
wrong and that the Episcopal is right.  To assert the latter is
simply sheer ignorance of history and hermeneutics.  Also, Bill
might be interested to note that it has long been the policy in the
Anglican communion that priests from the Roman or Orthodox communities
who wish to join the Anglican church and minister there do NOT have
to be reordained.  Their original ordination carries over and is
recognized as valid by Anglican churches, and this is a consequence
of the fact that the Anglican churches recognize the legitimacy of
the Roman and Orthodox episcopacy.

As to Bill's interpretation that Article XXXVI says that the
protestants who have no priests and bishops are "invalid", you
will note that the article doesn't even use the word "invalid",
but Bill has implied that it does by enclosing the word in
quotation marks.  The article says nothing about the legitimacy
or illegitimacy of Protestant ministers in general or about Protestant
religion in general.  What it does say is that the way that bishops,
priests, and deacons are consecrated or ordained in the Episcopal
Church is sound, proper and lawful.  It does not logically follow,
however, as Bill seems to think, that all non-Episcopal bishops,
ministers, or whatever are "invalidly" ordained.

Article XXXVI of the Episcopal Church's articles is somewhat revised
from the original article in the Church of England's prayer book.
The point of the original article is that Anglican priests are validly
ordained, in spite of what the Roman church may say (i.e., in
the aftermath of the Reformation), and the American revision of
it, while removing references to parliament and king in the
aftermath of the American revolution, is maintaining the same thing,
that American Episcopal priests are validly ordained, in spite of
anything that Rome, or for that matter, King George and the English
parliament, might say.  It is not the purpose of the article to
make any statement about ministers in other churches, and to
interpret it in that way is simply to wrench it from its historical
context.

I am rather offended that Bill has presumed to say that his
ill-informed interpretation of a document that he obviously knows
nothing about is "the official doctrine of the Episcopal Church" (from
his summary header).  I suggest that he try reading a little history.
The fact is that in spite of various disagreements between Anglicans
and other branches of Christianity, historically Anglicanism has
never claimed to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH, and that is also true of
most of the other churches mentioned by Bill.


-- 
Steve Westfall			     uucp:  ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!west
Staff Analyst			   bitnet:  staff.westfall%chip@UChicago.bitnet
U. of Chicago Computation Center