Roman Catholicism , cult or not?

This is a false allegation and simple proof that you have not read my posts.

 

I was interested in joining the Catholic church before. I was hooked by the same statements all the others were hooked in by. "The Catholic church is the oldest", "Jesus founded the catholic church", "We teach the whole truth, not just part of it like your church does", so on and so fourth. So I did my homework. I attended masses, read the Catechism and other catholic writings, spoke to priests, spoke to other catholics, even attended the RCIA, all while keeping a completely open mind.

I found that the catholic church (in my opinion) is very misguided. But I do NOT think they are a cult. What most RCC supporters don't know or want to accept is that not only is the RCC NOT the "first" church founded by Jesus, but their dogma, canon, whatever word you want to use, weren't compiled until much later in church history.

Like a lot of people on this board I could go on for days with arguments against the RCC. But I think it is a little over the top to label them as a cult. Just very misguided. However, there is no one in here that can deny that many church movements that are gaining ground today in the non-RCC world are mislead.

---Justin

 

We have a slight difference in approach then to the Bible and the NT in particular. One group of Christians do things in a certain way because they believe to find that way in the NT; the other group, to which I belong, do things in a certain way because our spiritual ancestors did them that way, and their spiritual ancestors too, and so on, right back to NT times and therefore to us, whilst important, the NT is not the be all and end all of doctrine and practive; that's simply not what it's for. </font>[/QUOTE]By spiritual ancestors you mean Augustine. Augustine was a heretic. Calvin got most of his ideas from Augustine. Augustine began the idea of the allegorization of Scripture; before that time it was not known. Before that time believers took the Bible literally, as it should be.

That doesn't mean your way of interpretation is right. To rightly divide the word of truth one must first be able to grasp principles of sound hermeneutics which the Catholic Church lacks. They accomodate the Bible to their tradition. They don't properly exegete the Bible. Accomodation is not rightly dividing the word of truth. It is butchering the word of the truth. It is the mark of a cult; the same method any cult leader uses--accomodating the verses in the Bible to fit his own belief system instead of objectively looking at the Bible to see what God is saying to him, not the other way around--to see how the Bible can be fit into what he wants it to say for him.
DHK

 

I appreciate your post, the first half. However, you need to go deeper in their doctrines and into chruch history written by the true believers not by RC or by anyone influenced by Rc.
There have been all the time true churches throughout the history, and often RC persecuted them condemning them as Heretics,and Inquistion was one of their tools, and Crusade did the same things, True believers owe nothing to Whorish Roman Catholic which committed Idolatry, goddess worship, preaching Purgatory which is contrary to the Salvation by Grace, Papacy, No Salvation outside Roman Catholic, Ever-asking forgiveness at the Mass without bringing the Answer from God, etc.
You need more study on that issue.

 

From Webster's...

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k&lt;
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual ; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious ; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator &lt;health cults&gt;
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object , movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

 

I can only say that my experiences with Catholics (in general) and my local Catholic church (specifically)are different.

The local church is evangelical. The Scriptures are read (in English, not Latin - post V2). The Gospel is proclaimed. They have praise and worship services, indistinguishable from many evangelical protestant churches. I've even heard an invitation given (complete with "the sinner's prayer") at one service.

Personally, I am not Catholic. As a Reformed Christian, my doctrinal views are very different. However, I find it difficult to agree that "you cannot be right with God with corrupted doctrine." Only God knows each person's heart.

 

DHK,

I've reread just a couple of your posts and I'm wondering if it's not you are the one who fails to see what is coming from your heart.

You use words like heresy easily and state that Catholic dogma is directing people to hell. You state that one cannot believe the Bible and Catholic doctrine at the same time.

Frankly, you are assuming the very authority that you claim is wrong when the Catholic church assumes it. You are, implicitly (always) and explicitly (sometimes), claiming that YOU know with moral certainty what is false doctrine and what is not. At least, the Catholic church is gracious enough to realize that there are those who, though not Catholic themselves, are still part of God's family. You, however, deny that it is not possible to believe the Bible and to be a faithful Catholic.

Such arrogance is breath-taking.

Alexander

 

A couple is not enough. You have a short memory. Go to page three and read my response to you: posted February 25, 2006 02:41 PM

Unless you are God you cannot see what is in my heart, so that is a pretty big claim that you are making.

I am objective. I study the Bible, and I know Catholic doctrine: both by my own study and from my own experience by being deeply involved in the Catholic Church for 20 years of my life. I know what the Catholic Church teaches. Inasmuch as one can say that you cannot believe in Islam and in Christianity at the same time, one cannot believe in the doctrines of the Catholic Church and be saved at the same time. They are diametrically opposed one to another. I am sorry if you have a hard time understanding that.
The Bible teaches that one is saved by grace through faith.
The Catholic Church teaches that one is saved by their works.
Both cannot be right. You must choose between one system or the other. I prefer to choose the Bible over the RCC, and so I did, many years ago.

I assume nothing.
#1. I know the heretical doctrines of the Catholic Church, what they teach, and how they lead people down the road to Hell.
#2. I know what the Bible teaches, the plan of salvation, how that Christ is the only way to Heaven, and not the RCC (as it claims to be).
I don't have to assume anything. I know what I believe and why I believe it.

The Catholic Church (even in Vatican II documents) has stated that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. And you call that gracious?

Indeed it is! Ask Martin Luther about the graciousness of the Catholic Church, or the Albigenses who were the butt of their Inquisition, or John Huss who was burned at the stake for simply believing the Bible. Ask them about the graciousness of the RCC!
DHK

 

We have a slight difference in approach then to the Bible and the NT in particular. One group of Christians do things in a certain way because they believe to find that way in the NT; the other group, to which I belong, do things in a certain way because our spiritual ancestors did them that way, and their spiritual ancestors too, and so on, right back to NT times and therefore to us, whilst important, the NT is not the be all and end all of doctrine and practive; that's simply not what it's for. </font>[/QUOTE]By spiritual ancestors you mean Augustine. Augustine was a heretic. Calvin got most of his ideas from Augustine. Augustine began the idea of the allegorization of Scripture; before that time it was not known. Before that time believers took the Bible literally, as it should be.
</font>[/QUOTE]Several points to make:-

1. Who mentioned Augustine? I certainly didn't!

2. Augustine was a pivotal figure in the early medieval Church in the West. However he was virtually ignored by the Church in the East, and so doesn't qualify as an ECF. He also condemned Pelagianism - the very thing you accuse the RCC of preaching today.

3. Luther also drew heavily on Augustine. Without Augustine there'd have been no Reformation and ...er...you'd be Catholic today.

4. I think you're getting him confused with Origen and the Alexandrian school of allegorical interpretation. Origen, by contrast,was looked up to in the East but regarded with suspicion by the West and so likewise cannot be regarded as an ECF

5. What exactly is wrong with an allegorical interpretation of Scripture? Most Christians do this with the first few chapters of Genesis for example - are you going to pontificate and say they're wrong? Show me a place where Scripture demands that it do be interpreted literally. There isn't, which means you are doing the very thing you accuse the Catholics of doing - adducing a doctrine found outside Scripture. You therefore have your own tradition.

Or that yours is either.

On what basis should I trust you that you have a sound grasp of hermeneutics, then?

And you don't? The Church in fact quite properly builds on the foundations of those giants which have preceded it - the apostles and their successors

And how on earth do we know that you do?

We all do this if we are honest - no man is exempt from it.

 

Really??!! I had not idea you were a robot.

Snap! I however have reached a 'diametrically opposed' conclusion to yours. Who is right?

No it doesn't! The Catholic Church under the influence of - that's right, your favourite early medieval theolgian, Augustine! - condemned Pelagianism in 418 and semi-Pelagianism in 529.

Wrong again! Lets look at some quote form a Vatican II document, namely LUMEN GENTIUM, where that material can be found:

Chapter 1 paragrpah 6 the Second Vatican Council sets out all the Biblical metaphors for the Church, - as the sheepfold of which Christ is the door, as the village of God, as the building of God, our mother, the spotless spouse of the Lamb, sanctified and bound to God by unbreakable promises, but on earth journeying as an exile.

The critical paragaph is paragraph 7 of Chapter 1 which I quote in part:

The relevant citations are

As we are part of Christ's Body, so we should be conformed to him. In becoming like him we must reach out in love to our neighbours. Again from paragraph 8 Ch 1Lumen Gentium:

That sets the background. Now to the part to which you refer - the extra ecclesiam nulla salus part:-

Note the passages I have highlighted in italics. Firstly, the 'outside the Church no-one is saved', is addressed to 'the Catholic faithful', not the Baptists, Pentecostals etc. It is also addressed to those Catholics who, ' knowing that the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation' nonetheless refuse to be a part of it. Those like DHK and Mike (and me!) who have left for reasons of conscience and conviction do not in any way fall under that category. Further, many Catholic theologians would pitch the term 'Catholic Church' very widely and so regard any Christian as being in some way part of the Catholic Church.

So, plenty of graciousness there. Can DHK and Co repay the compliment?

 

I am not getting the two confused. I realize that Augustine is not an ECF, but I also realize that the Catholic Church draws heavily on his teaching. On the other hand many still consider Origen early enough to be consdiered an ECF. Origen was an heretic. He was considered the Father of Arianism. His theology was highly influenced by his Greek upbringing. It is to Origen that we owe the tampering of the texts of which now compose the critical texts.

Once you begin to allegorize Scripture there is no stopping it. Soon you have even the gospel allegorized so that there is no meaning any more to the death burial and resurrection to Jesus Christ. The Bible was meant to be taken literally in all places except where context indicates otherwise. If it is a parable, Jesus normally indicates it is. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are obvious to the readers. "I will hide you under my wings." We all know that God does not have wings. It is a figure of speech. Such things are not difficult to spot, just as they are not difficult to spot in English. The Bible is meant to be read literally just as any other piece of literature. It is not an allegorical mystery. It means what it says. Unless there is good reason to take it symbolically, it should be taken as it is written, and that is literally. That goes for a 7 day creation week as well. I believe that what God says is true. It is as simple as that.

I am right if my method of hermeneutics is right and yours is wrong, which I believe to be the case.

I have had a number of years of seminary training and have both studied and taught the subject of hermeneutics.

[/qb][/quote]And you don't? The Church in fact quite properly builds on the foundations of those giants which have preceded it - the apostles and their successors [/qb][/quote]
No, absolutely not. My doctrine is not built on tradition. The Bible is my sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. I have no tradition. My church is an independent church with no tradition to fall back on. We do not belong to a denomination. Our church's history is young, not old enough to develop any tradition. Our services are informal and subject to change at a moment's notice. We don't go by tradition. We follow the Word of God, and on it we stand.

I know I do because there are no contradictions in the Bible. I know that you can find many contradictions in the Bible. But I cannot. And yet I have had far more years of study than you. The Bible does not contradict itself. It is a unified whole. It is to be taken literally, and it is to be obeyed. The RCC does neithr of this.

Sorry to burst your bubble. I don't do it. What reason would I have to accomodate the Bible to any thing, any person, or any thing at all? I don't. I objectively study the Bible for myself, find out what it means, and endeavour to follow it. If I am wrong in my interpretation of Scripture then show me where I am wrong and I will change.
I have mentioned before that my family (extended) is still Roman Catholic. I have an outstanding challenge for them (and others). Show me from the Bible that the Catholic doctrine is Scriptural and I will go back to Catholicism. But if I show you from the Bible what I believe is Scriptural then you change your beliefs and become saved; and join a Baptist church.
DHK

 

This isn't the setting up of a teaching authority at all. Jesus was setting up principles of discipline for a local church, any local church.</font>[/QUOTE]And your authority for interpreting ecclesia as purely local is...?

Excommunication. It's happened quite a bit, most recently with the Lefevbrists - so the CC is quite capable of so disciplining.

All this adduced by your personal interpretation of Scripture. You forget conveniently of course that it was the Apostle who commanded the discipline, not the pastor of some local congregation.

Yes I do and no there isn't.

Nope. Most of the ones I've come across have been Protestant and, frequently, your beloved 'pastor of the local church'.

Yep, they all say that.

I have no wish for this to get personal and can only trust your word for that; I accept your integrity.


Me:Oh for goodness sake! This is getting plain silly now. So you would compare the Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans to the guys at Waco? Puh-leese!

I'm afraid that now you're the one who is sounding like a cult: "I'm the only one with the Truth and all these other churches are wrong, wrong wrong!"

Oh, come on! You cannot be serious! if that were true for one moment, every Bible-believing Christians on this board would believe the same thing. Take a look around you and you will see that that manifestly isn''t the case.

Yeah, right: that's why you're all busy anathematising each other.,

And spend so much time telling each other why they're wrong about that.

Yes, they do; they just don't believe in justification through praying some kind of 'sinner's prayer' and then swanning off and sinning with impunity. Neither do any serious Protestant/ evangelical theologians

None of the anathemas of Trent were pronounced against Luther - you try and find his name in any of them - and the RCC has acknowledged that they don't apply to Lutherans in the JDDJ to which I referred above.

So, for someone who 'objectively' reads the Bible and 'knows Catholic doctrine', you aren't half making an awful lot of mistakes in your information...

 

I was so angry about some of the posts I just went and made a few more rosaries


so thank you, it is interesting how vehment some folks are on this site about Catholics, we must be on the right track because otherwise it would not be a topic of conversation ......

 

Particularly Lutherans and Calvinists - are you going to anathemantise them too?

I ask you again where this literalist doctrine is found in Scripture.

Ah, so now you've shifted from absolute certainty and 'objectivity' to opinion. Fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. It in no way makes it Truth however.

So have most Catholic priests.

No-one can do this; we all study the Bible through the lens of our own prejudices, upbringing, denominational traditions etc

1. Both of us have shown each other and are now de facto engaging in a dialogue of the deaf.

2. I am saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross and by the work of the Holy Spirit within me. If the 'sinner's prayer' is your criterion for salvation, then I prayed that and meant - and still mean - every word of it at 16.

3. No-one is asking you to go back to Catholicism, just for you to acknowledge that Catholics are Christians as much as Baptists

4. I am a member of a Baptist church.

 

Buddhists are the expert with Rosaries (Pryaer with beads)!

 

Matt Black,

Thank you for refuting baseless, bigoted, biased, half-truths with facts.

But I suspect this is not about facts. Some minds are already made up, and facts are not going to convince them otherwise.

Alexander

 

You are right on Origen !

I think RC have to show the biblical background for Idol making for Mary, Papacy calling Holy Father instead of Brothers and Sisters, Immaculate Conception etc.

 

To be more specific then. The anathemas pronounced at the Council of Trent were pronounced as a result of the 95 theses posted by Luther, and by Luther's continual protest against the RCC. These anathemas are still in effect against all Christians who follow such doctrines. That includes all evangeliecals who believe in the doctrine that a man is justified by faith.
You falsely say that the Catholic Church believes this doctrine. They don't. Here is what the Catholic Church says about "Justification by Faith," at the Council of Trent." These were never rescinded:

It is quite clear that one cannot believe what the Catholic Church believes and be a Christian at the same time. A Christian is one who is justified by faith alone. The Catholic Church does not believe this; in fact it places a curse on those that do.
DHK

 

DHK posted...

It is quite clear that one cannot believe what the Catholic Church believes and be a Christian at the same time. A Christian is one who is justified by faith alone. The Catholic Church does not believe this; in fact it places a curse on those that do.
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]Everyone is now kindly advised to brace themselves for the double talk, linguistic gymnastics and attempts at "hoodwinking" to come fast and furious as Catholic responses arrive.

Mike

 

"A Christian is one who is justified by faith alone."

I thought a Christian was saved by God's grace alone.