Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu soc.religion.christian:21746
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: Christopher.Vance@adfa.oz.au (Christopher JS Vance)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Mormon temples
Message-ID: <May.20.05.02.16.1993.22867@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 20 May 93 09:02:16 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: Computer Science, University College, UNSW/ADFA, Canberra, Australia
Lines: 32
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <May.14.02.11.39.1993.25225@athos.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:
| 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

I have no problem with the idea that catechumens be dismissed before
the Eucharist.  They were not considered qualified to participate.

| 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.

Does the dismissal in the early church mean that the eucharist was a
secret?  I mean, was it:

	you don't have to stay; from now on, only the membership can
	participate; you really don't have to hang around; yes, I know
	you're obliged to keep up attendance to qualify, but now is an
	exception, okay?

or was it:

	you may not stay; what happens next is secret

When we have had reason to conduct business meetings after church,
we've made it clear that only members can vote.  But we've always been
happy for non-members to stay and observe.

Do you have evidence for intentional secrecy?  (Other than rumours,
which will always happen when you have an underclass doing things not
approved of by those in power?)

-- Christopher
