Skip to comments.Has modern Christianity formed a new Church? [vanity]
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?
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.
to the former, yes, still
But many of the earliest non-catholic Churches are discovering they have a lot more with the Church than with liberal members of their own denominations
But the gulf between orthodoxy and, say Lutheranism, is small
The gulf between orthodoxy and the Baptist creed is quite large, but still within the bounds of Trinitarian Christianity
But, the distance between Baptists/Catholics and Oneness Pentecostals who deny the Trinity is very large for example, insurmountable.
Since the collapse of the Western Empire, the West had descended in the eyes of the East to utter barbarism
They stopped speaking the same language -- Latin was not understood in the 11th century in the East and very few in the West understood Greek, indeed the literacy levels in the West were abysmal compared to the East
Culturally and politically they were also quite distinct
The Venetians were the cause of the 4th C tragedy -- they were, until the 10th century a part of the Byzantine Empire and shrugged it off while keeping their trading ties
in time they became an economic rival to the Byzantines, keeping troops and colonies in Byzantine areas
The Byzantines, government and people, didn't like this and it lead to the "slaughter of the Latins" 10 years before the 4th C
Venice waited for its revenge -- it could not stand up to the Byzantines militarily, so it diverted the attention of the Germanic 4th crusaders to Byzantium
The Byzantines were appalled at the sight of the dirty, barbaric hordes from the west. Perhaps some of them compared these to the Caliphate who were Romanized and well, cleaner and wondered if it was worth it
Anyway, the westerners felt they were not treated well -- they were probably expecting to be treated as saviors, while they weren't treated that way and it took little for the Venetians to divert their attention and to sack Constantinople
This was among the most shameful of Christian on Christian acts and one for which I (who normally think apologizing for centuries past events is silly) fully agree with Pope JP II who begged for forgiveness for this.
As Christians we have shamefully not stood together and have fallen to the common enemy -- the 4th C and then in the Crimean War when Anglican England and Catholic France fought on the side of the Moslem Turks against our Christian brethren and in the 1683 siege of Vienna when Calvinist Hungarians fought on the side of Moslem Turks against Catholic Hungarians, Austrians, Poles-Lithuanians-Ruthenians, Croats etc. (just as a historical note -- the Moslem Tartars fighting in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth army were very loyal in the fight against the Turks even though they even shared a similar language - Turkic)
Between a Lutheran and a Catholic , there is little difference any more. There still ARE differences, but not the yawning gulf that once was
Between Lutherans and Baptists there is a yawning gulf
There will be one group led by the ECUSA which is the "gay liberal kirk"
There seems to be increasing unity between Catholics and Orthodox -- God willing and perhaps more unity with the orthodoxy Lutherans and Anglicans and Methodists and Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians and Assyrians
There will be some kind of Baptist-Pentecostal unity or perhaps a separate Baptist and Pentecostal, but these are too diverse even in each term to constitute one Church.
And definitely not that if you are not, you go to heck.
Well in regards to when a non-Catholic Christian who disires to enter into the Catholic Church, it is rather based on it accepting the baptism from that church in order to gain acceptance.
The general rule is that it goes by the baptism that the seperate Christian church does.
What you were describing could be said that when Blessed JPII asked for the forgiveness of the Eastern Orthodox Christians for what took place during the time of the crusades, the sacking of Constantinople, what took place back then was the “worse” example of when Christian brother fought against Christian brother.
It is based upon what is considered to be the updated RCIA set up.
The only question I do have is that, in the event where in regards to number 3, as long as there is the intention to marry for life as well as to be faithful, what about those who are beyond the ability to have children, by age or medical reason? I would think the most likely thing is to express fruitfulness via a life of doing good.
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.