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?
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.
Thats disputable -- I'd put it in the top 3 yes, along with the Crimean War and the Siege of Vienna
in MY mind the worst was the Crimean war -- willingly two major Christian powers allied themselves with a Moslem power against a Christian power. That was utterly despicable.
I think that war, the Crimean war was started over the issue of the Church of the Nativity of Jesus, the site where Jesus was born. This is the shrine where the “star” is located.
Untrue. Strictly speaking, we "recognize" all marriages, as long as both parties are actually capable of marrying. (We don't recognize divorce, so divorced-and-remarried folks fail the "capable of marrying" test.). A marriage between two Hindus is "recognized" by the Church, but it's a "natural marriage", not a sacramental one.
A marriage between two validly-baptized Christians is recognized as a sacrament. Since most Protestants are validly baptized, most Protestant marriages (again, where both parties are capable of marrying according to the church) are recognized as sacramental, just as the marriage of two Catholics would be.
What you may be thinking of is the Church law which does not recognize a marriage contracted by a Catholic in a non-Catholic ceremony without church permission.
A civil wedding between two validly-baptized Protestants (with no living ex-spouses, etc.) would be both valid and sacramental. A civil wedding involving a Catholic would not be.
Given the extreme perversity of XXI Century America, I suppose it has to be said that of the two parties proposing to marry, one only must be male and one only must be female. Two male individuals, or two female individuals, cannot marry each other. The acceptance and celebration of such perversion in some parts of what might loosely be called Christendom is an act of apostasy and a huge barrier to Christian unity.
Right. To be perfectly clear, both parties must be capable of marrying (in the abstract) and also capable of marrying each other. Any grouping other than one man and one woman fails the latter test.
But the Crimean war appalls me because 2 western powers used Christianity as a pretext to fight alongside the Moslems AGAINST Christians.
no wonder Orthodox see a madness -- and I agree with them
Campion — thanks for clarifying. I, of course, was thinking of two Catholics only, because I remember that there was a guy who got a civil marriage here in Poland, had a kid, then divorced and still got a Church marriage. In the eyes of the Church I guess he was unmarried and the other “purely civil union” marriage was not valid.
That is why for years, until the time of Blessed JPII and now with Pope BXVI, the Orthodox are slowly begining to have what looks like fruitfull talks.