Is Roman Catholicism a cult?

Here is a thing, as Protestants we look to people like Justin Martyr and others in the early church and claim them as our own. Yet so do the Roman Catholic Church. At what point did the early church cease to exist and the Roman Catholic Church begin?

 

Interesting question Ben W. There are many in the history of the church that "intersect."

 

When did the early church cease?

She never has ceased--See Mt. 16:18; 28:20; Eph. 3:21. That is one of the many wonderful promises of Jesus: "I will never leave you or forsake you"--He was speaking to The Bride, The Lamb's wife, His assembly which would survive the onslaughts of Hell. And she has.

When did the RCC begin?

If one stays out of the Catholic Encyclopaedia, the "holy see" cannot be traced earlier than the 4th century. Emperor Constantine(the Great) married the Roman State to what ever religious group which he chose to support.(unconverted pagans with crosses)--a CULT. The "church" which Jesus is building never had anything to do with that unholy marriage--still does'nt.

This creates a bit of a dilemma for those who call themselves Protestant. The so-called Protestant denominations were started by de-frocked priests of Rome--with what Henry VIII started being an exception. Whence cometh their authority to function? They have rejected Rome as to authority and Rome had them "anathematized" until Vatican II, when they were recognized as "separated brethren" and given a semblance of "subordinated" authority--from the Holy See of course.

To summarize: most of the so-called Christian churches in the world today were started by a man, not The Lord Jesus Christ. All of their "authority" is usurped--which is no authority at all.

Jesus is still building His Assembly--she has never been through Rome, nor has she been a part of The Reformation. In fact she has been persecuted by Luther, Calvin and others.

And all the Real Baptists said: Amen.

We have a spiritual heritage that will make you praise God for His faithfulness, grace and mercy.

Selah,

Bro. James

[ June 05, 2005, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

The term "cult" isn't very useful. It defies precise definition. You may have a precise definition, but most preachers do not; and your definition will not consist well with the next guy's definition.

I know a pastor who routinely refers to the Churches of Christ as a cult because of their baptismal regeneration doctrine. But he doesn't call Lutherans a cult, and they teach baptismal regeneration. And he doesn't call the United Methodists a cult, a group overrun with apostates who've tried to ordain homosexuals and perform homosexual marriages--things the CofC would never think of doing.

The term just doesn't communicate much hard data at all.

 

The connotation of "Cult"--

is usually negative.

Jesus and His followers were called "That Way" by the Jews. Early "Christians" would probably be called a cult-- using the currrent definition. "Christian" has not been an affectionate term in "pagan" circles; and the real meaning of "Christian", a follower of Christ, has certainly been subverted in our day of "nominal" Christianity.

We can make similiar observations for the term: orthodoxy. That which is orthodox seems to be whatever is in accordance with the decrees of the powers that be which have been handed down by the traditions of men. This may be why the scripture was withheld from "Christians" under the pervue of the holy see.

Thank the Lord--He preserved a remnant which had nothing to do with that sort of "orthodoxy".
May we coin a phrase: "false orthodoxy"?

If one defines a cult as a group which does not take the Word of God as their only rule of faith and practice, the Church that Constantine built would certainly qualify. The offspring of that marriage are cultic as well, by virtue of their origin--their authority is "usurped"--another interesting word study.

Where is the assembly that Jesus is gathering?(Mt. 16:18)
She is the one without spot, blemish or any such thing.(orthodox)

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Before the 1900s when abusive religious groups became common and popular in the media, the term cult did not have a negative connotation. It simply referenced a minority group of devoted followers.

So was the RCC ever a cult? If you assign the origin of the RCC to be the Constantine (400s) or the East-West Schism (1054), in both cases, the RCC was already a majority position. If you assign their origin to be the early church, then they would have properly label a cult at that time.

According to the traditional definition of cult, Baptists in the 1600s could properly be applied that label.

According to the modern North American understanding of the word, neither group should be properly called a cult.

Some Christians define a cult as any group that holds "unorthodox" theologies which usually translates to theology different from theirs. That definition of cult is not a very useful one because of its subjective nature.

 

Abusive religious groups-probably pre-date Nimrod. One of them was the Holy Roman Empire. All of this is false religion.

Jesus never forced "That Way" on anyone--nor have His followers. This is part of the "War against God" which continues to rage since Satan was cast out of heaven.

Some folk have difficulty with which side is which. It is no wonder--Satan himself is become an angel of light.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

True. But the use of the word cult to describe them (outside of being a minority position of devotion) was a recent development.

 

Cult is the right word if one means:
false religion, doctrines of devils, founded by man. There is no middle ground. False is false is false.

Religions started by man are by nature corrupted because man is corrupted because his will is in bondage to sin. Jesus is building His assembly even today. His authority is vested in His assembly. Man has no authority to "start" anything.

The world is filled with religion--most of it is false.

"But they cannot be a cult if they believe in the Triune God", some say. "The devils believe in God--and they tremble." "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

That is a common usage today of the word among evangelical and fundamentalist circles. However, that usage is very subjective and like you said, if you use it, the word cult basically is applied to all religious groups that disagree with you.

If I were to guess, that would almost be 100% of religious folks outside the US. Probably about 75-90% of religious folks inside the US. And almost 100% of religious folks in human history. I'm not sure what the usefulness is of calling everyone who disagrees with you part of a cult.

Obviously I'm not saying all those folks believe in "true religion" and many believe in false religion, doctrines of devils, founded by man. I'm just saying that using the term cult as loosely as you do that could apply to almost every human being ever in existence effectively makes it a meaningless term and is contrary to the historical meaning of the word which suggests a minority belief.

But feel free to use that definition if you so wish.

 

Minority/Majority

If one lives in Salt Lake City, Utah, most everything besides LDS would be a minority. Yet the Mormons are considered a cult in many Christian circles. They do have millions of members and lots of money. They also have people in high places in government.

A Catholic mission in rural Arkansas would probably be considered a cult-- but not in rural south Louisiana.(90% Catholic)

Right, it is about who is running the show.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Y'all see what I mean?

 

Right is wrong, up is down. Truth has a diminished value in todays society. It is more about Burger King theology. Have it your way!

 

Is praying worship? If it is, praying to dead people makes catholicism a cult.

 

Deuteronomy 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

 

I am not sure praying to saints is techinally necromancing. Easton Bible dictionary calls a Necromancer “one who interrogates the dead,” the word literally means, with the view of discovering the secrets of futurity"

I think praying to departed saints is silly since it would require them to be Omniscient and seeking another Mediator other than Jesus Christ boggles my mind. Necromancing however may be too strong a term despite the false theology of praying to saints. The Mariolatry however at times in certain places does at the very least border on it.

I do think a form of idolatry is involved in this praying to saints.

 

Have you READ the prayers to saints?
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/saints.htm

 

Diane,

I was not defending Roman Catholicism and find these prayers disgusting and heretical. My point of contention is I am not sure the Roman Catholic practice could be accurately labeled "Necromancing". Though in maybe some cases maybe (such as going to Lourdes and seeking answers to the future from the virgin Mary).

Necromancing would seem to be more similar to in which dead people are summoned to tell one the future. Summoning Mary or Moses to tell them the future would be necromancing.

There are people who go to the grave yard and talk to their deceased loved one (which is similar to the Roman Catholic practice) but could not be called necromancy. I do think it is dangerously close and I wonder why anyone would engage into prayers to the saints rather than to the Holy Trinity.

So, I am not in any major dispute with you, I am only arguing over terminology not whether invoking saints is a heretical and false practice (Which it is!)

 

Catholicisim is Satan's crown jewel. It is the total opposite of true christianity.