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?
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.
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.