Posted on 01/10/2013 9:33:42 AM PST by MeOnTheBeach
Has modern Christianity formed a new Church?
I'll keep the journey into history simple. In the last 2000 years the churches large enough to survive the attacks by larger established churches could survive.
They were not civil nor peaceful. They conducted massive wars against each other.
However, over the last several decades, something different has happened, a new church has formed. All these churches that used to slaughter each other now accept the baptisms and membership performed by their one time rivals.
Individual doctrines no longer matter. Their adherents now claim everyone is "saved" in the body of Christ. Modern Christianity has even brought new scripture with them. The various "new" translations of the Bible.
They've changed doctrine too.
So, would this be considered a new Church? Instead of a thousand individual religions, there is now just one Church?
Thoughts?
Perhaps it’s the whole concept of sin that is not correct?
If we accept that God is capable of anything, why must something that appears to be a contradiction to man, also be a contradiction to God?
The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of protestant baptisms that use the Trinitarian formula (see Matthew 28:19-20). By the way, these verses also show us that the Church was universal (which is what catholic means) before it was local.
I don’t know about forming new churches but the church seems to be examine itself and it’s history right bow to see how we arrived at this diabolical time period in our history. From what I’ve gathered they seem to agree that dogma / rituals (which is not truly worshipping or honoring God has much to do with it. That along with hypocrisy, failure to obey and follow the tenets of the Word, and just proclaiming you are a Christian, ands omplacency (removal of concern of politics from religion) has much to do with it. Much of the spiritual leaders are returning to having a personal relationship with God an trying to get way from ritualized and dogmatic religious model.
“The Catholic Church doesn’t accept other churches’ sacraments with perhaps the exception of marriage.”
The Catholic Church accepts all the sacraments of the Orthodox Church and ‘oriental’ Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church accepts any Trinitarian Christan baptism as a valid Christian baptism.
Freegards
No. The Catholic Church teaches that who does and doesn't get into heaven is not our call.
You have it backwards. The Catholic Church recognizes most protestant baptisms, and in an emergency, last rites administered by a protestant. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize protestant marriages.
Nope. The Catholic Church often recognizes protestant marriages as valid.
I thought it was two Protestants married outside the Church don’t have to have another marriage if they join the Catholic Church, as long as the marriage is valid (no remarriage before). Two Catholics married outside the Church(a jp wedding or went to another church) or a Catholic and Protestant married outside the Church have to have another ceremony, I think. Two nonChristians joining the Catholic Church I think have to have a ceremony, but the Church considers them married.
I could be wrong with all or some of that.
Freegards
Christian denominations have not done a lot of “slaughtering” of one another since the middle of the seventeenth century.
About 4 Decades ago, non-denominational churches strated springing up. Instead of methodist or baptist, the trend was to get away from those labels. It was common to hear someone say “oh, I’m not baptist, I’m just a christian!” Time passed and even the most staunchest denominations that adhered faithfully to their set of doctrines beganb to lose their identity, becoming much like their non-denominational competitors.
The question still remains. In the macro, has Christianity, in it’s essence, merged to be one church?
Is there a distinction now between the churches?
Is there a reason to actually be a Catholic? Or to be a Baptist?
Ireland is an area I overlooked. But 3,000 killed in 45 years hardly compares to, say, the Fourth Crusade, when fighting between Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians killed tens of thousands.
A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.
Protestant marriages require approval from a Catholic authority to be valid. It is my understanding that converts to Catholicism can easily have their protestant marriage blessed to make it a valid marriage. But normally, a Catholic marriage is a liturgical sacrament (celebrated during Mass). A Protestant marriage is never performed during a Catholic Mass.
Whatever that deal in Ireland is, it is more like Chicago than “slaughtering” in a war between Christians.
It's good that you went to the Catechism for direction. However, the paragraphs you cited are not relevant to the topic. Here are the relevant paragraphs:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
But the Catholic Church only considers Catholic Church marriages as a valid Sacramental marriage.
see: http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/k001rpMarriage1.html
My wife’s cousin is a nun.
She remind us that our marriage almost 45 years ago is (still) not recognized by the Catholic church.
The Catholic church over 45 years ago refused to marry us, because I (non-Catholic) would not agree to raise children as Catholics.
This nun retired recently. She’s got more time to try to “save” her family members.
We respect her good intentions. But multiply this intention, by all the denominations claiming they alone have the “truths” and it is little wonder many are sceptical of organized religions.
Thank you for your clarification and correction.
In regards to 846, does the Catholic Church still teach that it alone is the body of Christ?
“The Catholic Church doesn’t accept other churches’ sacraments with perhaps the exception of marriage.”
We accept baptism.
I think the paragraphs you cited above provide the answer.
“In regards to 846, does the Catholic Church still teach that it alone is the body of Christ?”
We teach that protestants are separated brethren per Lumen Gentium. Insofar as they are divided from the body of Christ they remain part of the elect.
Do you have a source for this? I'd sure like to print it out and send it to a certain member of my family who condemned me to hell for leaving the Catholic Church for a Christian Church.
“Besides the pomp and circumstance, is there a difference between being a Lutheran vs a Baptist vs a Catholic?”
One can find believers in those denominations and in others. The difference is in how they worship. Of course between them they would disagree.
Three thousand killed in all of Northern Ireland in 45 years of sectarian strife? I’ll bet that feuding between rival gangs in Pico Rivera, Calif. has resulted in more deaths over the same period.
Not being a member of any church, that’s something that I really don’t know.
There are a number of differences among Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, and other denominations on matters such as sanctification, predestination, baptism, the concept of immaculate conception, etc.
No. That's about as wrong as wrong can be.
Amen. No matter how idiodic one's doctrine is, the very basic tenant of the Christian faith is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." However, there's a lot more that goes into the "Believe on..." than simply having a song fest on Sunday.
Churches are not merging but separating. What we are seeing is a clear division of the wheat from the tares; those true believers are separating themselves from the false believers.
Also note that it's not only Catholics but also the Orthodox and Orientals who look with askance at some other sacraments of non-orthodox groups
Finally, even within non-orthodox groups, I'm sure most Presbyterians don't accept the Oneness Pentecostal non-Trinitarian baptism..
among non-orthodox groups, which sins are you talking about?
There is too much varience -- for instance the Luthernas believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and have an episcopate, while others don't, while some "protestant" groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the Trinity and other groups that by theology seem "protestant" like the Baptists say they aren't (ok, SOME baptists say they aren't Protestants)
I prefer the term non-orthodox.
Irish Protestants, even those of Norman etc. descent who felt Irish were Irish patriots
The Irish didn't get enticed by the Anglican Church because it was too English-centric and didn't get enticed by the austerity of the Scottish Presbyterians, but their main "enemy" for a long time was the English and by extension the Anglican Church.
The English then imported Scots into Belfast and then the focus changed to being Scots versus Irish
This was apparent even in Glasgow which had a strict football sectarian divide (Catholics for the Celtics, Protestants for the Rangers) but when the Celtics hired Protestants from the continent or the Rangers hired Catholics from the continent, these were embraced by those teams
civil weddings, definitely not. The Church considers the civil union to be something completely separate from the sacrament of Marriage. And that’s the way it should be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.