Are there differences among Christians?

[Grace Seeker]

Yes, there are differences among Christians.

Those differences are sometimes seen as divisions: Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, asundry diffrerent Protestant denominations. A good study of church history helps to understand how these divisions occurred, they primarily have to do with issues of authority -- that is who can and who cannot speak for others within the church, and with issues of accountability -- that is to whom does one report and who can tell another that he/she is out of line in one's Christian discipleship or ethics. These issues would often flare-up in response to an issue of doctrine, but in reality the root was often about authority and accountablity, i.e. "that other person/group can't tell me what to do", and so individuals or groups would break away going to go off on one's own and not pay attention to the other group from which they broke off anymore.

There is a second type of difference that also occurs among Christians, and this is one that does not follow denominational lines at all. It has to do with how one thinks about the faith personally. Sometimes it is termed a liberal vs. conservative divide. Other times you will hear the media talk about either "born-again" Christians or evangelical believers. But, these terms are used differently by different people so that individuals and churches apply them to themselves differently. Few people can say what those terms actually mean.

For instance, the term "born-again" comes from a reference in John 3:3 where Jesus tells Nicodemus that you must be born-again. But no one ever really defines what it means there, though of course most Christians have an interpretation of its meaning. The term evangelical comes from the Greek word euangelon meaning a good message or "good news" which is also translated by into the term "Gospel". So, pretty much anybody who accepts the Gospel of Jesus might call themselves an evangelical. I could even see some Muslims, who by their understanding believe that Jesus taught the same Injeel message that Muhammad brought, claim to be evangelical.

So, obviously this makes labelling very difficult. One group will see themselves as born-again, saved, evangelical Christians and because of some small point of departure from others deny that another group is and yet that other group would apply the very same label to themselves. By this way of thinking, for instance, there are some protestants who would claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians because Catholics find value in church tradition, not just the scriptures, for interpreting the faith. And by the same token there are some Roman Catholics who would see Protestants as Christian but not a part of the true Church because Protestants only use the Bible and won't accept the teachings of church tradition on par with scripture.

What does all of this mean? Well, for one, that things can easily become confusing and are rarely what they seem at first glance. And in particular, as relates to this board, that the self-described monikers we use to label ourselves as Christian may not tell other posters all that they think it does. I encourage those who post regularly to try to get to know us as individuals. And when one searches the web to find "Christian" sites, be aware that the most extreme views that are held by only an insignificant number of supposed Christians are presented on par with the historically orthodox views that are shared by nearly all Christians. Don't take anything at face value, learn to know the different groups and how they represent themselves, as to whether they fit in the norm or are at the fringes, perhaps even outside of Christendom.

I know that is a difficult task. I struggle with it myself and I have grown up within Christendom; for someone from outside it has to be even harder. Here are some suggestions to help those who care to be able to discern some differences.

First, though I am a protestant pastor, I do recognize the Roman Catholic Church to have been good keepers of the historical traditions of the Church. One of the best sources for information from the Roman Catholic Church is New Advent. The other huge division within Christendom are the Orthodox churches. They are not as well represented in the USA, Latin America or western Europe, but they are huge in eastern Europe and western Asia. A couple of sites for them include: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and this listing of Orthodox Churches of the world.

If interested in protestant churches one does best to study individuals who were major thinkers in the development of the various protestant churches. One site that provides a nice access to some of the major reformers and their works is Reformations: 1453-1800. A disclaimer -- this is a site administered by my denomination, the United Methodist Church; however, I do think it presents a fairly balanced historical view and is a good place to learn about these key figures of the protestant reformation. In addition, if you are interested in other aspects of church history, you can get links to quick summaries of all the periods of church history from its inception right up to the present at the same site. Obviously there is also doctrinal information about my United Methodist Church denomination, which is considered fairly mainline in the USA, so it might even be a good place to look if trying to get a picture of generic protestantism. Another source is Christian Classics Ethereal Library; this source will stear you to the writings of and about major figures in Christendom. In junction with information gained from a timeline (such as that provided in the previous link), you can read the writings of these people for yourself. (And if you read all of them, you'll have a better seminary education than I do. :D )

Lastly, in dealing with labels that people apply to themselves today, I recognize that as long as each person decides what a label means for him or herself, they really mean nothing to anyone else. One organization, the Barna Group, has tried to devise some sort of standard for these frequently used labels. You can read more about their definitions of terms here: Survey Explores Who Qualifies As an Evangelical. While I may not quite agree with each of standards, at least their 9 points are an objective starting place:

Barna defines "Born-Again" Christians as

1. people who say they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today. AND
2. people who indicate they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.

Barna defines “Evangelical" Christians as

1. people who say they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today.
2. people who indicate they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.
3. people who say their faith is very important in their life today.
4. people who believe they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians.
5. people who believe that Satan exists.
6. people who believe that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works.
7. people who believe that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth.
8. people who assert that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches. AND
9. people who describe God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today.

Barna does not make being classified as an either a Born-Again Christians or an Evangelical Christian dependent upon church attendance nor the denominational affiliation.

[GreatLoveJesus]

^

As a Msulim I see it as quite a huge difference when a group thinks tht they should not report to so-and-so, and decide to form a different group and to emphasize their difference vis-avis the first group. In most cases this also has to do with doctrine, because when two groups start diverging from one another, then the doctrines will become different as time passes by.

However, I doubt any Muslim will ever call themselves evangelical, since the two are just not relted whatsoever.

[Grace Seeker]

^

As a Msulim I see it as quite a huge difference when a group thinks tht they should not report to so-and-so, and decide to form a different group and to emphasize their difference vis-avis the first group. In most cases this also has to do with doctrine, because when two groups start diverging from one another, then the doctrines will become different as time passes by.

Indeed huge differences can develop. Hence I was calling attention to this possibility, as many non-Christians may stumble on a site that purports to be Christian, but that espouse views that hardly any other Christian would recognize. I am saying, "be careful who you listen to for information regarding Christianity."

However, I doubt any Muslim will ever call themselves evangelical, since the two are just not relted whatsoever.

Nor do I expect that to really happen either. I was just illustrating how such a term can be both used or mis-used depending on how one preceives him/herself.

Thank-you for your reply.

[Keltoi]

One also has to put things into an historical perspective. The Catholic Church had the monopoly on Christian doctrine and belief for a very long time. Yes, there was a split in the Catholic Church between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic, but in doctrine they were pretty much the same.

In comes Martin Luther with his emphasis on literacy for the common people. In a very short time, a majority of Christians became literate. This caused many to put emphasis on different things within the Gospel. There would have been a time when the Catholic Church would have called these offshoots "heretics", but the Church knew better than that. With the Message no longer soley in the hands of the Catholic Church, Christians were free to explore the Bible on their own terms.

Now one has to figure out which Protestant denominations adhere to the true Message of Jesus Christ, and which ones have slipped off into modern heresy. That is what caused all the bloodshed during the 1500's. The 100 Years War for example.

Now there are still many denominations, but the overwhelming majority of these still adhere to the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the Word of Jesus Christ. The ones who do not adhere to the accepted doctrine of Christianity aren't recognized as legitimate Christian denominations, even though they may consider themselves to be so.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Abdul Fattah]

I recently found this very illustrative drawing of branches in christianity on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...tyBranches.svg
I was under the impression that most christians on this forum are protestants, right? Well I was wondering, do you either believe the normal divisions as displayed on that illustration, or do you believe that there's a separate lineage as also illustrated on the drawing?

[Woodrow]

:sl:

Steve I believe that illustration is leaving one very large group out. That is many of the "Bible" Fundamentlists. They seem to make up the majority of the 14,000+ denominations (Number of denominations, not by members) Many of those claim no lineage and state that their belief is based on their interpretation of the bible. Many of them consist of just one leader and a few members and call themselves the "True Christians" They strike me as being very zealous, very Evangelical and usualy very short term. They seem to be very active in prostylizing their concepts of Christianity.

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

Steve I believe that illustration is leaving one very large group out. That is many of the "Bible" Fundamentlists. They seem to make up the majority of the 14,000+ denominations (Number of denominations, not by members) Many of those claim no lineage and state that their belief is based on their interpretation of the bible. Many of them consist of just one leader and a few members and call themselves the "True Christians" They strike me as being very zealous, very Evangelical and usualy very short term. They seem to be very active in prostylizing their concepts of Christianity.

Yeah, Woodrow, you are right about the zealotry of that particular group. That makes them a little more noticed than they really are in the total scheme of things I think, but it has been a fast growing group for about 20-30 years. But like you said they are very independent, have no connectional system holding them together except for many of them thinking along very similar lines. These are also the groups that are probably most represented on Christian radio and TV, so their influence is also growing.



Steve, as to the Wikipedia chart, yes I've seen it and I think the drawing is fairly accurate. These fundamentalist groups that Woodrow speaks of would classify themselves in the Protestant lineage. But they are fiercely independent. Some examples include the Independent Christian churches, and many of the so-called non-denominational fellowships. Those that the chart refers to as Restorationists are, in my understanding, other groups that have sprung up originally within Christian circles but have since disassociated themselves from the rest of Christiantiy, some such as the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witness even reject the doctrines of pretty much all other Christian churches and have sought to establish themselves as the only true Christians (at least in their own minds). Other groups may not have rejected traditional Christian doctrines, but they think that they are the only ones that properly understand them. These restorationists groups are certainly not protestant, and there are some of them that I personally would not even classify as Christian -- but then those groups would not classify me as Christian either, so I guess we are even.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace to you all,

Doctrinal differences might be the excuse that there are many Christian denominations, but I believe the real reason is a lack of love for each other.

Christ said love one another as I have loved you, by this all men will know that you are my disciples.

If you asked a hundred Catholics the same questions about their faith, there would be a number of differences. I know this to be true simply by attending journey in faith at my church, I see how others perceive the church. The thing that seems to bind us Catholics together is love for one another, and the spirit of community in helping each other.

I attend various Christian Unity events and try and visit one or two other Christian Churches each month. I have a sense that seeds are being sown for a greater friendship between Christians. I have noticed a great difference in the way Christians are starting to work together within my life time.

For me differences in worship and beliefs are not such a problem, when I go into a Baptist church I see them bringing people to Christ in ways that Catholics are not able too. When I go into an Anglican Church I see them bringing people to Christ in ways that Baptists are not able too.

I look on the Christian Church as one body in Christ with many parts.

In the spirit of growing together in faith.

Eric

[E'jaazi]

This is what happens when people try to follow their own reasoning instead of just following what Allah has told us to follow.

[Keltoi]

This is what happens when people try to follow their own reasoning instead of just following what Allah has told us to follow.

Jesus Christ delivered his message to the world. The Catholic Church doesn't have a monopoly on the "truth". The only difference in doctrine, for the most part, is that Protestants aren't as concerned with Catholic tradition as they are the Word of Christ. IMO

[Grace Seeker]

This is what happens when people try to follow their own reasoning instead of just following what Allah has told us to follow.

Personally, I think some differences are quite healthy.

While Muslims do not believe in using music in worship, something that makes me question the authenticity of the revelation (sorry), Christians do. We find music rooted in the worship of God in the Psalms themselves and in the tradition of both Judaism and Christianity. Because people are not just rational beings, but spiritual beings, music can help open one's spirit to God in ways that preaching and teaching simply cannot. I think this is a good thing, a very good thing. However, there are many different types of music and many different types of people. Thus, what helps me to get in touch with God and what helps another person open up themselves to God may be two very different styles of music. The same thing could be said about modes of prayer or other aspects of worship. One size does not fit all, and designing worship so that it connects the individual to God is something that can lead to differences in a very constructive and healthy way.

[Woodrow]

This is one of the reasons I became disillusioned with Christianity. I do not see it as divisions of just simple ritual forms. What I saw when I was Christian, you have all of these groups all claiming to follow the same cook book as written by the same master chef.

One produces a Chocolate cake, one produces lemon meringue pie and another ends up with beef stew. But, they all say they are following the same recipe.

[Grace Seeker]

This is one of the reasons I became disillusioned with Christianity. I do not see it as divisions of just simple ritual forms. What I saw when I was Christian is that you have all of these groups all claiming to follow the same cook book as written by the same master chef.

One produces a Chocolate cake, one produces lemon meringue pie and another ends up with beef stew. But, they all say they are following the same recipe.

When I get out the cookbook passed on to me by my mother, I can prepare an entire buffet table, and still not have totally exhausted all that is contained therein. What is wrong with that?

[Woodrow]

When I get out the cookbook passed on to me by my mother, I can prepare an entire buffet table, and still not have totally exhausted all that is contained therein. What is wrong with that?

That is true. However something is wrong if your mother and your aunt Matilda both say they will bring the apple pie for desert and one brings a curling iron and the other brings a pet hamster and they both tell everybody they brought apple pie.

[Grace Seeker]

That is true. However something is wrong if your mother and your aunt Matilda both say they will bring the apple pie for desert and one brings a curling iron and the other brings a pet hamster and they both tell everybody they brought apple pie.

I would agree with you on that being a problem. However, I don't think that the differences in Christianity are as great as what you have just described. My aunt might bring a dutch apple pie and my mom a apple 'n' raisin pie, but everyone brings pie if they say they are going to bring pie. (Those who instead bring dates are those that I would no longer classify as understanding what it means to be a Christian.)


Plus, you really didn't answer my question: What is wrong with different people going to the same recipe book and creating different recipes to feed people with different tastes? As long as they aren't feeding them poision, and if they are using my mom's recipe book they won't be.

[Woodrow]

It seems a bit more when one group says they are serving the Actual Body and Blood of Christ(as) as the Eucharist another says that they are serving Bread and wine that represent the body and blood of Christ(as) and another group says the are serving bread and grape juice in memory of Christ(as)

I tend to agree with Ambrose Bierce when he wrote that "Christianity is a group of people who sat down for a meal together, and have been arguing for 2000 years as to what was served."

[Grace Seeker]

It seems a bit more when one group says they are serving the Actual Body and Blood of Christ(as) as the Eucharist another says that they are serving Bread and wine that represent the body and blood of Christ(as) and another group says the are serving bread and grape juice in memory of Christ(as)

I tend to agree with Ambrose Bierce when he wrote that "Christianity is a group of people who sat down for a meal together, and have been arguing for 2000 years as to what was served."

Ah!

I thought your comment: "This is one of the reasons I became disillusioned with Christianity." was in response to what I had just said before that about some differences, such as differing worship styles, actually being something I valued.

[Woodrow]

Ah!

I thought your comment: "This is one of the reasons I became disillusioned with Christianity." was in response to what I had just said before that about some differences, such as differing worship styles, actually being something I valued.

My apologies, I can see I did lead to that conclusion.

I became disillusioned when I became aware of the actual doctrinal differences, not simply differences in forms of worship. But, actual differences in what is being worshiped. Simple methodological differences pose little concern. I will say that among the Protestant denominations the differences are simple differences in method. Among Catholic and orthodox the differences are in method again.

But the difference between Protestant-Catholic/Orthodox is a matter of doctrine as to what is being worshiped, not the manner of worship nor the question of Church Authority.

[Grace Seeker]

Well, despite a little diversion, I think we are on the same page now.

Yes, there are some differences in doctrine. But I disgree with your other two comments about it.

First, if you take a look at the creeds of most protestant churches and the catholic/orthodox creeds I see remarkable similarities, not great differences. Now some of this may be the difference in one person who sees the glass half-full and the other half-empty, but I also think it is possible simply because there are a number of similarlities. In fact, enough so that I think the glass is more like 80-90% full, perhaps more. That's just my perspective on it, I could try an articulate them if you would like, though my guess is that you probably know enough that I don't need to do that for you in particular.

Two, I think that it is the question of authority which leads to the differences that you do see. Getting particular now, as the Roman Catholic Church continued to add to its collection of dogma over the years it would inevitably articulate a position that some within the chuch would disagree with. Those differences were resolved in different ways at different points in the churches history. Sometimes by councils, sometimes by conversation, and sometimes by excommunication. When the last of those was used to resolved the differences between Luther and the Roman Catholic Church it created a different type of schism than the one that took place between Rome and Constantinople. When the western and eastern churches split, it was indeed about authority, but one that was basically between two equals.

When Rome excommunicated Luther it saw itself as a mother disciplining a child. But that is not how Luther saw it, Luther saw it more as despot trying to dictate to free citizens. And because of the support of others, Luther found that he did not have to cower in fearful response but could continue on the path that he felt he was directed by conscientious to follow. For Luther and all subsequent protestants they viewed themselves as answering to a higher power than the church, they saw themselves as answer to God. But from the Roman Catholic perspective, this just showed how little the protestants understood the true nature of things, for the Church on earth stood in Christ's place and that in rejecting the teachings of the Church, Rome felt that these people were in effect rejecting Christ herself (I say herself, rather than himself so that one understands I am still talking about the Church as Christ, rather than the person of Jesus). All subsequent differences in doctrine are a result of this different view of to whom one should listen for the source of doctrine in the church, the Church herself, or one's consciensce as directed by the Spirit of God and God's Word.

[Keltoi]

Well, despite a little diversion, I think we are on the same page now.

Yes, there are some differences in doctrine. But I disgree with your other two comments about it.

First, if you take a look at the creeds of most protestant churches and the catholic/orthodox creeds I see remarkable similarities, not great differences. Now some of this may be the difference in one person who sees the glass half-full and the other half-empty, but I also think it is possible simply because there are a number of similarlities. In fact, enough so that I think the glass is more like 80-90% full, perhaps more. That's just my perspective on it, I could try an articulate them if you would like, though my guess is that you probably know enough that I don't need to do that for you in particular.

Two, I think that it is the question of authority which leads to the differences that you do see. Getting particular now, as the Roman Catholic Church continued to add to its collection of dogma over the years it would inevitably articulate a position that some within the chuch would disagree with. Those differences were resolved in different ways at different points in the churches history. Sometimes by councils, sometimes by conversation, and sometimes by excommunication. When the last of those was used to resolved the differences between Luther and the Roman Catholic Church it created a different type of schism than the one that took place between Rome and Constantinople. When the western and eastern churches split, it was indeed about authority, but one that was basically between two equals.

When Rome excommunicated Luther it saw itself as a mother disciplining a child. But that is not how Luther saw it, Luther saw it more as despot trying to dictate to free citizens. And because of the support of others, Luther found that he did not have to cower in fearful response but could continue on the path that he felt he was directed by conscientious to follow. For Luther and all subsequent protestants they viewed themselves as answering to a higher power than the church, they saw themselves as answer to God. But from the Roman Catholic perspective, this just showed how little the protestants understood the true nature of things, for the Church on earth stood in Christ's place and that in rejecting the teachings of the Church, Rome felt that these people were in effect rejecting Christ herself (I say herself, rather than himself so that one understands I am still talking about the Church as Christ, rather than the person of Jesus). All subsequent differences in doctrine are a result of this different view of to whom one should listen for the source of doctrine in the church, the Church herself, or one's consciensce as directed by the Spirit of God and God's Word.

I really enjoyed this post. I couldn't agree more with this. The primary difference in "doctrine" between the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations is the way in which one goes about recieving the Word of God.

[duskiness]

two Protestant made there point - and I (Catholic..not the best one, but still...) agree - division in Christianity is mainly about authority. That is were we can't agree, the rest is just an effect of this basic disagreement

you see Woodrow - sometimes we can find a common point ;) and I don't care that much were Grace Seeker or Keltoi find their source for authority. In the end they are just my brothers in Christ. If I start to think about them in any other way, then it is my mistake.

[Woodrow]

two Protestant made there point - and I (Catholic..not the best one, but still...) agree - division in Christianity is mainly about authority. That is were we can't agree, the rest is just an effect of this basic disagreement

you see Woodrow - sometimes we can find a common point ;) and I don't care that much were Grace Seeker or Keltoi find their source for authority. In the end they are just my brothers in Christ. If I start to think about them in any other way, then it is my mistake.

Is your common point sufficient where you would invite them to your church to participate in Communion, knowing that they do not believe in the actual presence?

[Keltoi]

I don't see Catholics to be any less "Christian" than me or any other Protestant. Hopefully most Catholics feel the same way about Protestants. We all follow the Word of Christ, whether we believe certain rituals to be important or not.

[duskiness]

Is your common point sufficient where you would invite them to your church to participate in Communion, knowing that they do not believe in the actual presence?

:D good question
I would like to see them participating in it, even if they understand it differently. But as a Catholic I also accept the fact that I'm bounded by law and decision of my Church, although i don't agree with them.
Once again it comes down to authority.
So no, I wouldn't ask them, i wouldn't participate in Communion in other church. I do feel bad about it and it is hard to hide that, I disagree with ruling of my church.
Nobody said it's gone be easy... :rolleyes:

[Woodrow]

Before I hijack this thread and get it sidetracked into doctrinal differences among different Christiasn denominations.

I think I better remind myself, that the purpose of this thread is to show that because a person says he is Christian, does not necessarily mean that he believes the same things as somebody else who says he is Christian. I think it can be thought that most Christians are different flavors of ice cream, but there are a few that are not ice cream.

[Keltoi]

Before I hijack this thread and get it sidetracked into doctrinal differences among different Christiasn denominations.

I think I better remind myself, that the purpose of this thread is to show that because a person says he is Christian, does not necessarily mean that he believes the same things as somebody else who says he is Christian. I think it can be thought that most Christians are different flavors of ice cream, but there are a few that are not ice cream.

That would be a sufficient analogy.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you duskiness, its nice to see you back, I hope you are well.

I am a Catholic and as a job I support people with a learning disability, on occasions I support a couple to go to a Baptist Church and when they offer communion I share it with them, the minister knows that I am a Catholic. I feel it would be a greater sin to turn away Christ.

On occasions I support a gentleman going to an Anglican Church and I share communion with them there, the minister also knows that I am a Catholic.

This is a personal feeling that I have and I would not ask anyone else to do the same, but my conscience tells me this is the right thing to do. I might be committing spiritual suicide by going against the rulings of the church, but my intentions are to strive for greater relationships between our churches.

In the spirit of growing together in Christ

Eric

[Grace Seeker]

Before I hijack this thread and get it sidetracked into doctrinal differences among different Christiasn denominations.

I started the thread and find the tangent still a part of the same conversation, so no problem with me.

I think I better remind myself, that the purpose of this thread is to show that because a person says he is Christian, does not necessarily mean that he believes the same things as somebody else who says he is Christian. I think it can be thought that most Christians are different flavors of ice cream, but there are a few that are not ice cream.

I like the different flavors analogy, and would agree if you mean that perhaps not all are ice cream because they are soft serve frozen custard rather than the type of ice cream you dip.

As to taking communion, I, a protestant pastor, have actually been invited by a Catholic priest, with the permission of his bishop, to serve communion alongside him in a community service. I'm sure that some would say this is against the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, but it was done with permission and everyone of all faiths participated, so it can be and is being done.

[Abdul Fattah]

Steve, as to the Wikipedia chart, yes I've seen it and I think the drawing is fairly accurate. These fundamentalist groups that Woodrow speaks of would classify themselves in the Protestant lineage. But they are fiercely independent. Some examples include the Independent Christian churches, and many of the so-called non-denominational fellowships. Those that the chart refers to as Restorationists are, in my understanding, other groups that have sprung up originally within Christian circles but have since disassociated themselves from the rest of Christiantiy, some such as the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witness even reject the doctrines of pretty much all other Christian churches and have sought to establish themselves as the only true Christians (at least in their own minds). Other groups may not have rejected traditional Christian doctrines, but they think that they are the only ones that properly understand them. These restorationists groups are certainly not protestant, and there are some of them that I personally would not even classify as Christian -- but then those groups would not classify me as Christian either, so I guess we are even.

Thanks for your answer, the reason I asked is because I never understood the protestants. I mean one one hand they distrust the catholic church for their interpretations and rituals and so on, yet on the other hand they do trust them for their source, because they use a bible who has been passed on (and many claim changed) over the years by catholisism. It seems contradicting to at one hand trust them but at another hand distrust them. Unless of course there are claims of a separate lineage as suggested in the image with restorationism.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Grace Seeker;

As to taking communion, I, a protestant pastor, have actually been invited by a Catholic priest, with the permission of his bishop, to serve communion alongside him in a community service.

Gradually we are starting to brake down barriers, I believe that the Catholic Church has the greater problems when it comes to unity.

In the spirit of praying for Christian Unity and interfaith friendships,

Eric

[Alexius]

I don't participate in Protestant communion, because I feel it is disrespectful to those churches. I do not agree with them, so it is not proper for me to become "one" with them. Just my thoughts...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:shade: