I say No, but it was only ever called a cult [ until certain sects of Protestants in the last few centuries ] by the Roman soldiers and their superiors, in fact the first few century soldiers would also address the first Catholic or Christians as : " those who eat their gods " in reference to the Sacred Eucharist and the Trinity {Neither Trinity nor Eucharist labeled those names yet by the Catholic Church until hundreds of years later } Roman soldiers would readily seek out these members for the price or reward for Catholic/ Christians of the first three or four centuries, a much higher reward was placed on the Bishop of Rome. The majority of Catholics took refuge in underground catacombs, their writings tell the hardship they endured while devoutly practicing and preserving the new Christian Faith of the "Good News" Gospel of Jesus our Lord and Savior. Those Catholic/Christians of the early centuries were the most persecuted Christians in numbers until the last Twentieth and 21ST. Century. More Catholics than any other church members shed their blood trying to preserve the Christian Faith and Holy Bible. Incidentally, the first printed Bible in the vernacular was printed on a German Catholic printing press.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is the Catholic Church a cult ?
- Thread starter lakeside
- Start date
If we are speaking of the Catholic Church then it was considered apostate by those "Christians" outside of the Catholic Church. You provided a list of heretics on another page. It is noteworthy that many accepted the gospel, but denounced other doctrines (they were heretics to the Catholic Church, and many held false beliefs....I grant this). But from the 3rd Century forward there was many "churches"...or "sects"...that denounced the Catholic Church as a cult. So yes, as one outside of the Catholic faith I believe they meet the criteria of our contemporary use of "cult."
Sorry JonC, Jesus only left us with " One church" [ singular usage in Mt.16:16- 18 } and that church that Jesus formed was only on His Apostles. The only church that can trace it's religious Christian Faith back Two-Thousand years to Jesus and His Apostles is none other than what is called in Greek the word is called Catholic , nope not any other. Of course people have tried to reinvent history but that history is only accepted by the unlearned, they do the very same thing with Bible { see 2 Peter 3: 16and 2 Peter 1:20 }
We agree here, lakeside. There is indeed One Church. It is the one universal or catholic (using a historical definition of the term) Church. We disagree as to the identity of that Church, but I am sure that you don't want this thread to descend into a Catholic apologetic session or a Christian apologetic session, so we can just end it there. The answer to the thread for me is "Yes, I believe the Catholic Church to be a cult." For you it is otherwise. Perhaps because we disagree as to whether or not the Kingdom is of this world....BUT that would be another thread.
That's right - the First Baptist Church of Jersuleaum.
Doumentation please, and don't try and say that the Catholic Church destroyed competition, because Jesus said that His Church would last for ever, so apparently it wasn't any other church but His Apostolic Universal [ Catholic } Church, because Jesus only formed His Church on His Apostles, as the Bible tells us. Now let's hear some more revisable history, it just doesn't work for you guys, the truth that is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesus also tells us that His Kingdom is not of this world. You present the Catholic Church as if you were a Jew who, rejecting Christ, looked for the material and physical. Can you not see the differences in the NT churches? They were united under the Apostles teaching, and in Christ, but they did not have such a uniform appearance as your “one physical church” theory would make them out to have. You severely misunderstand the nature of the Church, which is understandable.
JonC, you wrote: " They were united under the Apostles teaching, and in Christ, but they did not have such a uniform appearance as your “one physical church” theory would make them out to have. You severely misunderstand the nature of the Church, which is understandable. "
The first part of your post I may agree with. The second part ,No.
This is my understanding of the "church" using only the Bible [ your sole rule for salvation ]-
The Church is One
{ Rom.12:5, 1Cor.10:17, 12:13 }
The Church is Holy
{Eph.5:25-27, Rev. 19: 7-8 }
The Church is Catholic
{ Matt.28:19-20, Rev. 5: 9-10 }
The Church is Apostolic
{Eph. 2: 19-20 }
The first part of your post I may agree with. The second part ,No.
This is my understanding of the "church" using only the Bible [ your sole rule for salvation ]-
The Church is One
{ Rom.12:5, 1Cor.10:17, 12:13 }
The Church is Holy
{Eph.5:25-27, Rev. 19: 7-8 }
The Church is Catholic
{ Matt.28:19-20, Rev. 5: 9-10 }
The Church is Apostolic
{Eph. 2: 19-20 }
What I believe you misunderstand is the nature of the Church itself. The warnings to the churches in Revelation is actually a decent example. You are right that the Church is catholic....but that does not mean it is the Catholic Church (although it is a cleaver play on words....the Church of Christ uses the same argument). Ephesians 2:19-20 does not suggest, by the way, apostolic succession (if it did, then the Catholic Church is wrong as that passage reaches back to the prophets as well). But it is one Church and one family...you are right there. I disagree with you as to its nature.
JonC, Eph. 2:20 - the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The word "foundation" proves that it does not die with apostles, but carries on through succession.
Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:9,14 - the words "household," "Bride of the Lamb," the "new Jerusalem" are all metaphors for the Church whose foundation is the apostles.
Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:9,14 - the words "household," "Bride of the Lamb," the "new Jerusalem" are all metaphors for the Church whose foundation is the apostles.
I don't have your translation to go off of, but mine reads:
Ephesians 2:19-22 (NASB)
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
Obviously mine does not hint at apostolic succession. I do agree, however, that the Church has been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus himself as the corner stone. Conclude the same from Revelations. If you would be so kind as to direct me to the translation that you use, I'd appreciate it. That may be the difference in our understanding.
JonC, my Bible reads the same as yours. I interpret my Bible in the same way that those that originally compiled the Holy Bible interpreted it. One of us has the correct interpretation. If you believe that your Bible contains the correct Holy Books then why aren't you interpreting the Bible as those early Bishops that gave us the correct Canonical List and introduced a Table of Contents ?
I asked because a previous thread made me think you were perhaps speaking of translations, not interpretations. What you do speak of is NOT interpretation, lakeside.
When you read τοῦτο πέτρα οἰκοδομέω ἐκκλησία you take it out of the context of the passage (which is a dialogue that continues through the next several verses). You are not interpreting, you are adding a doctrine to the text which is not there in the first place. There is a difference. I know that you get this from the Catholic Church (and holding the Church above Scripture this is understandable). BUT don’t act as if it is merely a matter of interpretation. It is adding ideas to the text that are not present within the text itself.
Another evidence is your “interpretation” of ἐποικοδομέω θεμέλιος ἀπόστολος προφήτης in Ephesians 2. You ignore ἀπόστολος προφήτης and see this as validating apostolic succession. This is not “interpretation.”
I don’t mind conversing with you, but please be honest. You don’t arrive at Catholic doctrine through Scripture but through the “revelation” of the Catholic Church. I have tried to be honest with you, and I would appreciate the same in return. Your interpretation has absolutely nothing with how the early church interpreted Scripture. It has everything to do with the tradition and doctrine handed down throughout the centuries by the Catholic Church. For you that is fine because you believe the RCC has that authority. But please stop pretending that they arrive at this via Scripture. They don’t - they arrive at a doctrine and then go back and attempt to blend it with Scripture. Scripture was already in the Church long before it was a canon.
Look, the difference between us when it comes to Scripture is plain. There are many instances where Catholic doctrine is actually unbiblical….it goes against what Scripture teaches. For me, this disproves Catholic doctrine because Scripture is authoritative even above the Church. It is where the Church derives its operational authority (its authority is Christ, but it operates within the revelation of God…this was the purpose of apostolic teaching). For you, what the Catholic Church says trumps Scripture. There is no “we have the correct interpretation” because you are not really speaking of interpretation of Scripture – you are speaking of interpretation of Church doctrine. We have different foundations. We can make observations, but not really debate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maintaining your logic you apply to JonC. Why aren't you interpreting the OT like the Hebrew Rabbis do? The collected, assembled, duplicated and then provided interpretation to scripture. Yet you do not interpret like they do. Which you shouldn't. Otherwise, you would have to deny Jesus.
The Jews didn't give us the OT and more than the RCC gave us the NT. The NT scriptures where in every church well before the received them as scripture.
Plus the ones who "received" the Scripture, did not claim to give scripture. They said it was received, because God made in evident to them. The process was very simple. The only real debate was did the book James belong. Everyone in the church already knew what was real and what was not. They went through this process, because heretics were coming out with there own, heavily edited scripture. No one gave us scripture but God. Man just took steps to preserve and prevent alteration of what was already known as scripture.
This was something that Muslims did with the Qu'ran much quicker than we did with the Bible. Collected their scripture and made sure it was the same.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Is the RCC a cult? no, but they've seemed to add some things which were not part of the original apostolic deposit, which at times (particularly during the middle ages) obscurred the Gospel in the minds of the folks. The Reformation was necessary to correct this, but sadly it caused division, and within the Reformation itself there arose several competing versions, some closer to apostolic/patristic thought, some not so much.
You have stated it correctly, no doubt.
Oh, I forgot. We're not infallible, like the pope.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Pope is only infallible dealing with our Lord's Teaching. Why is it you can not understand the difference between "infallibility" and impeccability " The Pope makes mistakes just as we do, the Pope tells us he is a sinner just as you and I are sinners. For the past 2000 years the Pope has not ever been able to change any Doctrine of the Church, because it is impossible for him to do that, because it is of God's Church, and the Gates of Hell shall never be able to destroy God's Doctrines found only in His Church. A most recent doctrine that was changed by all of the other non-Catholic Christian churches happened in 1930 A.D. with the acceptance of contraception, only the Catholic Apostolic Church never accepted it because God's Church teaches that it is wrong so it never changed it's stance. I can not picture Jesus handing out contraceptives outside a high school, can you ?