Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu soc.religion.christian:21762
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Secret ceremonies (was Re: Mormon Temples)
Message-ID: <May.21.02.43.06.1993.4189@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 21 May 93 06:43:07 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Lines: 47
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:
>In article <May.11.02.38.41.1993.28297@athos.rutgers.edu> 
>mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
> 
>>I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see 
>no 
>>Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.  
> 
>Early in Church history, the catechumens were dismissed prior to the 
>celebration 
>of the Eucharist.  It WAS secret, giving rise to the rumors that Christians
>were cannibals and all sorts of perverse claims.  The actions were considered
>too holy to be observed by non-Christians, as well as potentially dangerous
>for the individual Christian who might be identified.
> 
>Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) [.sig deleted for brevity]

Larry -

Thanks for the reply, but this isn't quite the same thing.  Like I said before, 
I can understand why non-Christians would be denied *access* to holy 
ceremonies, but the ceremony itself (communion) was not secret.  In fact, all 
four gospels record the first "breaking of the bread" in some detail.  
Communion was a fellowship meal, and it was (and still should be, in my 
opinion) inappropriate to invite those who did not share in the fellowship of 
the Body of Christ.  The fact that unbelievers, denied access to these communal 
meals, began to imagine all sorts of secret and debased rituals during 
communion does not by any means imply that the early Christians were in fact 
hiding shameful things from the general public.  In fact, I think if you read 
some of the early church fathers, you will find that they were not at all 
bashful about describing what went on during communion.  That's why it seems 
funny to me when Mormons, who claim to be the only true restoration of 1st 
century Christianity, insist on hiding certain rituals on the grounds that they 
are "too sacred."

- Mark

[Actually, that's not quite the case.  John omits the central elements
of the Last Supper.  His Gospel is full of symbolism of bread and
wine.  But the actual story isn't there.  Some people think he has
omitted some of the details because they were not talked about in
public in his community.  There is also evidence that some aspects of
baptismal practice were kept secret. See Morton Smith's "Secret
Gospel" -- I don't agree with his lurid speculations on what the
secret practices actually were, but there does seem to be some
evidence that Mark omitted certain details because they were 
inappropriate for publication.  --clh]
