Is the Catholic Church a cult ?

[Revmitchell]

As I said in my post,[ of which you probably ignored ] that the Church made mistakes, because it is made up of humans , that said, not one doctrinal Teaching has ever changed in the past 2000 years, popes are fallible in matters not pertaining to the Christian faith. If your non- Catholic churches were around as long they too would have made bad mistakes also. Let's not forget that the civil courts also used extreme punishment back then, even after the Protestant Revolt within those areas under Protestantism. Protestants even murdered each other in the " Protestant Peasant Wars."

Popes are fallible period.

 

[McCree79]

Popes are fallible period.

Yes they are. They crusades were a war for God(faith), which the Pope used to kill other Christians and attempt to take over other Christian churches fallible. Zosimus wanted to be a pelagian until the emperor corrected him. Fallible. Peter refused to let men bow before him. Jesus washed feet. The Pope wants his feet kissed and his subjects to kneel before him. Fallible. Popes would force public humiliation on rivals. King John of England and bishop of Constantinople to mention a couple. Popes taught salvation by death in war, fallible. ......the list never ends. They are fallible the claim of infallibility is ridiculous. Pope Innocence III declared the church has never erred and never will.....we know that isn't true.

 

[DHK]

Yes they are. They crusades were a war for God(faith), which the Pope used to kill other Christians and attempt to take over other Christian churches fallible. Zosimus wanted to be a pelagian until the emperor corrected him. Fallible. Peter refused to let men bow before him. Jesus washed feet. The Pope wants his feet kissed and his subjects to kneel before him. Fallible. Popes would force public humiliation on rivals. King John of England and bishop of Constantinople to mention a couple. Popes taught salvation by death in war, fallible. ......the list never ends. They are fallible the claim of infallibility is ridiculous. Pope Innocence III declared the church has never erred and never will.....we know that isn't true.

IMO, He is just as wicked as ever.
This is unbelievable:

Pope Francis: Palestinian President Abbas 'an angel of peace'

Compliment comes days after the Vatican recognizes 'state of Palestine' in treaty.
UPDATE: Vatican says Pope meant no offence to Israel with 'angel of peace' remark

​Pope Francis praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as an "angel of peace" during a meeting Saturday at the Vatican that underscored the Holy See's warm relations with the Palestinians as it prepares to canonize two 19th-century nuns from the region.

Francis made the compliment during the traditional exchange of gifts at the end of an official audience in the Apostolic Palace. He presented Abbas with a medallion, explaining that it represented the "angel of peace destroying the bad spirit of war."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pope-francis-palestinian-president-abbas-an-angel-of-peace-1.3077400

Unbelievable!
IMO, This is condoning terrorism.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[lakeside]

Jesus left us with His imperfect church, but it was and is His church, not your churches, that is all that matters ' 'His Church" not all your Johnny- come- lately churches.Read your Bibles, Jesus said that His church would contain " good and bad " members.

 

[JonC]

Your concept of Ecclesia is flawed, but it is exactly the concept that was created with Constantine. In the Bible, believers were added to the Church …not unbelievers. Unbelievers were among believers, but not “members.” They were among them, but not a part of them. There were wheat and tares growing together. It is the children of the promise who are regarded as descendants, it is those who believe who are members of the Church.....not just anybody ....or in the case of the ancient RCC, just anybody who happens to live in its territory. You have a skewed understanding of the nature of the Church.

 

[McCree79]

IMO, He is just as wicked as ever.
This is unbelievable:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pope-francis-palestinian-president-abbas-an-angel-of-peace-1.3077400

Unbelievable!
IMO, This is condoning terrorism.

I wish I could say I was surprised. I have a great distrust for the position of the Pope. As will as the ayatollah of Iran.

 

[DHK]

Jesus left us with His imperfect church, but it was and is His church, not your churches, that is all that matters ' 'His Church" not all your Johnny- come- lately churches.Read your Bibles, Jesus said that His church would contain " good and bad " members.

Eph 5:25 ... Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

--This description totally disqualifies the RCC. He isn't speaking of the RCC.

 

[Rippon]

Eph 5:25 ... Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

--This description totally disqualifies the RCC. He isn't speaking of the RCC.

Paul was referencing the elect, His Bride, His Body. He laid down His life for His sheep alone.

 

[DHK]

Paul was referencing the elect, His Bride, His Body. He laid down His life for His sheep alone.

He was also writing to the church at Ephesus.
You say he is writing to the elect. Are you part of the elect? How do you know?
What could you say to convince Lakeside that you are one of the elect when he believes he is one of the elect, but his reason is different than yours?

 

[Rippon]

He was also writing to the church at Ephesus.

Actually it was a circular letter. The name Ephesians does not occur in the orginal at all in this epistle in the earlier manuscripts.

You say he is writing to the elect.

Of course. The true Church is composed of only the elect --His sheep, His Body, His beloved.

Are you part of the elect?

Indeed I am. Are you?

How do you know?

I am a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is my Savior.

Besides, in 2 Cor. 13:5 it says:

"Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves..."

The KJV adds "...except ye be reprobates."

And in 2 Peter 1:10 it states :

"Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election..."

You run away from all forms of the word election in the Word of God DHK. Why is that?

What could you say to convince Lakeside that you are one of the elect when he believes he is one of the elect, but his reason is different than yours?

I haven't followed all of Lakeside's reasoning, but I dare say I do so on biblical grounds --not a sacramental, traditional and man-made basis.

 

[lakeside]

Rippon, may I ask you if you are Catholic ?

 

[JonC]

Rippon, may I ask you if you are Catholic ?

[emoji13][emoji13]. Sorry ..... That just struck me as funny.

 

[Rippon]

Rippon, may I ask you if you are Catholic ?

I am not Roman Catholic. I am a Calvinistic Baptist --I am among the Reformed and Reforming. But more generally I am a Protestant Christian.

 

[DHK]

Of course. The true Church is composed of only the elect --His sheep, His Body, His beloved.

Indeed I am. Are you?

I am a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is my Savior.

Besides, in 2 Cor. 13:5 it says:

"Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves..."

The KJV adds "...except ye be reprobates."

And in 2 Peter 1:10 it states :

"Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election..."

You run away from all forms of the word election in the Word of God DHK. Why is that?

I haven't followed all of Lakeside's reasoning, but I dare say I do so on biblical grounds --not a sacramental, traditional and man-made basis.

I am happy for your testimony. I may answer it more fully later, but only to demonstrate Lakeside's answer (which is typical)

Rippon, may I ask you if you are Catholic ?

His answer is based on a false foundation.

 

[lakeside]

JonC, about your Constantine remark. I think a parallel today might be if the Chinese communists called a Christian Council.
I'm sure the Catholic Church would work with that power without being subordinate to it.
We also have to remember that is was Constantine that moved the capital from Rome to Anatolia with all his army and governmental structure while the head of the Church stayed in Rome.

Also we have to remember that Constantine's son, when he became ruler went back to persecuting the Church.

None of this could have happened if the church was the creation of the Roman state.

Despite 250 years of pesucution Christains made up between a third and a half of the empire and growing.
Constantine realized it was in his best interests to be on good reclations with the greatest force in the Empire.
Christains had infiltratred the Army and even the Empiriral household.
He was not a stupid man. Why wouldn't he have a ligitimate intestest in what the beliefs of this group were.
He had been given conflicting stories. By inviting the local Bishops to gather he would gain a view of the majority.
The most important thing this council did was to exspand on long. existing beliefs to specifically target the Arian heresy.There were no Western Bishops present as this meeting.This Heresy in the early 4th century was still localized

It is true that Constantine was the last man standing (of four Roman Emperors) and became the sole emperor after internal civil war. It is also true that although he was from the Serbian region his original 1/4 of the empire was based in the west where relatively few of his citizens were Christian (about 20%).

Christians weren't persecuted in his realm because they were such a low percentage. In the eastern realms, the Christian population was nearing 50%.

When Constantine became sole emperor it made political sense to stop the persecutions in his new Eastern realm. In doing so he had ready made support from a large section of the population there (i.e. Christians).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

[emoji13][emoji13]. Sorry ..... That just struck me as funny.

He may have been at one time but he went over to the "Dark Side" when his buddy Jean Calvin jumped ship. :wavey:

 

[DHK]

When Constantine became sole emperor it made political sense to stop the persecutions in his new Eastern realm. In doing so he had ready made support from a large section of the population there (i.e. Christians).

Did he?
Let's read in more depth about the deeds of Constantine from Armitage's "A History of the Baptists"

CONSTANTINE conquered Rome, A. D. 312. At that time he reigned over the Western Empire only, but in 323, after the battle of Chalcedon, he became sole Emperor of the Roman world. He published an edict concerning Christians in 312, at Rome, but this document is lost. In 313 another, issued at Milan, gave toleration to all religions, and restored the confiscated property of Christians; he also gave large sums of money to rebuild their places of worship. But in 324 he inflicted a blow upon the Christian system from which it has not yet recovered, by making it the religion of the State. Between 315 and 323 he had sent forth five edicts admitting Christians to offices of state, civil and military; had taken measures to emancipate Christian slaves; had exempted the clergy from municipal burdens, and had made Sunday a legal day of rest from public work. But in 325 he attempted to settle the disputes in the Church by presiding at the first General Council which ever was held, that of Nicaea, in which Arianism was condemned, the unity of the Catholic party proclaimed, and the last step taken to establish the union between Church and State.

This great historical character has been the subject of malignant depreciation or extravagant laudation, according to the point of view from which he has been seen. Like all other great men, he took type from the character of his times, and the truth will make him human, without magnifying his virtues or blackening his weaknesses. He was born of a Christian mother, who must have been troubled with Baptist notions, for she never had him christened. His disposition was naturally mild and tolerant; and his father, who was not a Christian, being moved by clemency toward Christians, had probably influenced him in the same direction, as well as the counsel and example of his mother. In his early manhood he worshiped at the shrine of the gods, but after the removal of the government to Constantinople he forbade pagan worship in that city, and leveled its temples throughout the Empire. Having renounced that religion himself, he persecuted the unconverted pagan for his constancy therein. He is said to have seen the cross in the sky, but possibly his Christianity had borne a higher character had he discovered love for the true cross of Christ in his soul; crosses in the firmament are of rather light moral worth. Unfortunately, it was years after this traditional vision that his nominal Christianity allowed him to kill his son, his second wife and others of his family. Full of ambition and passionate resentment, it would require considerably more today than a sky miracle, a sword in the hand, and a conquering army at the Malvian Bridge to give him membership ‘in good standing’ in the Baptist Church recently established at Rome. It is said that the cross in the heavens was attended with the inscription: ‘By this sign conquer!’ What, and whom? His own sin? His own soul? It seems not. But rather Maxentius and Rome and a throne. At the beginning Jesus had made himself king in Zion, to disallow all imperialism there; and did he now rise from his throne to hang his cross of peace an ensign of blood in the firmament, and to indicate that he turned over his universal lordship to an unregenerated heathen? This cross story needs thorough revision.

Common sense and the after life of Constantine rather say, that he kenned this cross in the clouds with the eye of a politician and statesman. [Vit. Constant., lib. Iv, cap. 62]

 

[lakeside]

DHK, as the author of your article wrote: " This cross story needs thorough revision."

And the Baptist did just that, revisionist history.

 

[DHK]

DHK, as the author of your article wrote: " This cross story needs thorough revision."

And the Baptist did just that, revisionist history.

Yes he did. Constantine was not a Christian in any sense of the word.
A true Christian does not go around murdering people by the sword.
A true Christian doesn't turn on his own family and kills his own son, and wife, and others of his family. That is not the mark of a Christian.
He revised the story to put it in perspective of what Biblical Christianity was. His type of "Christianity" was paganism, not Christianity at all. The name of Christ doesn't have to be dragged through the mud with the likes of Constantine, the Crusades, and the RCC!!!!!!