I don't have the time to wade through each Presbyterian Web Site. Plus I think the PC(USA) and the Cumberland Presbyterian Churches are irrelevant for the point of this discussion, since they are PINO. But you what you ask is fair considering I made the statement, so I will address the following bodies:
The PCA:[of which I am a member] "The Presbyterian Church in America received the same Confession and Catechisms as those that were adopted by the first American Presbyterian Assembly of 1789, with two minor exceptions....the reference to the Pope as the antichrist (XXV,6)." It now reads: 6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.
The OPC: 6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.
The Bible Presbyterians: 25. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof.
The Evangelical Presbyterians: 25.6 There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.
I'm sure if you searched hard enough you could find an independent Presbyterian Church or some small assembly that I am unaware of, that holds to the Pope being the ant-Christ, but none of the above, which to varying degrees are right of center, do so.
Thanks for the post. Like I said before, I have a very good friend who is a serious Presbyterian here in Baton Rouge, LA where I live. His Church, the largest Presbyterian CHurch in LA, left the PCUSA and is going to join a different Presbyterian Fellowship. His pastor has been frequently quoting from Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazareth”, so I have anecdotal evidence that at least First Presbyterian in Baton Rouge, LA does not hold to the position that the Pope of Rome is the antichrist.
I have always had more respect for the Historic Protestant Confessions (Lutherans, Traditional Anglicans, and Reformed) than the recent Protestant groups that have sprung up in the last 100 years, as there are many core doctrines we all hold in common as Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Historical Protestants. At least you all have a position which clearly states where you stand and I as a Catholic can appreciate that, even though I disagree with some of the positions of the Reformed Confessions.
On your point about Pro-Abortion/Choice Catholic Politicians receiving Holy COmmunion, that is an issue that is widely discussed on Catholic Blogs. Trust me, it is an issue, and it has begun to get more attention at the Bishop’s level. As of now, Rome has made its position clear, but not given directions to the Local Bishop as to how to “pastorally handle the question”. Still, there are some Bishops who are beginning to tell politicans that if you continue to promote Abortion policies, you should not present yourself for Holy Communion. Just recently, Cardinal Egan of NY reprimanded Rudy Guiliani for taking Holy COmmunion at the Papal Mass. The Bishop of Kansas City, MO issued a letter telling the governor of Kansas or MO, I can’t recall which Governor, is not to take Holy COmmunion until her public position on that issue changes.
I know Abp Burke of St. Louis has issued similar statements on the abortion and Communion question. Perhaps other Catholics on Free Republic can provide other cases in the U.S. that I can’t recall of the top of my head.
Once again, thanks for your post in response to mine.
Regards