Is the Catholic Church a cult ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter celticcrusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thanks to adstrinity for the eytomological dissertation, though think that celtic crusader was using the term cult in the sense of Jonestown, Guyana and those folks w/the funky sneakers-“heavens gate”, lol.
No problem. I was thinking the same thing, but, even so, there are discussions on what a cult COULD be. Since many are not familiar with the term in its antiquated sense, I wanted to provide a bit of knowledge. I got the idea when somebody (forgive me, I don’t remember who) pointed out that cult WAS a Church term
Yeah they were but haven’t you gotten into something because of your passion for it then after time the reality of day to day sits in. Also think of howm many times they are comforting other women and we all know where that can go. That was not a sexist statement but a statement on vulnerability
Really, how many times has that happened, and can you prove it?
Not sure what I stated that I have to prove here.
Please prove how many times priests have comforted other women (not that they are women themselves…or are comforting a first woman) and where that has gone…where can that go?
Very thorough post, but the last line pertains to me.

Yes, Jesus was. Even if yout ake out the miracles and other reasons people might have followed him, such as percieved power when Rome was kicked out, he still was a powerful speaker who seemed to be able to hold an audience.

At work today, we had a similar discussion. If the charisma of the founder is the criteria, it seems to kill the cult when he dies. THere are no branch davidians hiding out. There are no Heaven’s gate folks waiting for a repeat. Further, none of these groups has attracted anyone new after the fell apart.

Further,every other cult seems to fall into some form of depravity before the end.
Hmmm…this is true. Thank you for the logical answer.
show me! You can’t! sorry but that is a lie and one on Gods Word. I believe you KNOW that is a lie and I pray that God forgives you for that.
Pay close attention to Pauls admonition. It speaks of being eternally condemned for this exact thing! That is why so many non-cath try and try to get these points and others accross. There is Gods word left for us and there is no excuse for your assertions and the writings of men do not qualify at all in Gods eyes. Do you really think for a minute that God holds them as equal in His eyes? I don’t think so.
Very good. I cannot show you where Jesus set up the Roman Church, BUT, I can show you where he set up the Catholic Church. I thank you for your prayers. I will pray to God and to St. Peter and to St. Paul that you recieve the grace to accept your humility and come into the fold of the Catholic Church, the one that Jesus founded, before you die.
 
It is impossible to be a Christian and be separated from the one true church founded by Christ. The Church he founded is composed of all believers in Jesus Christ.

Catholics can repeat and re-repeat the assertion that the Roman Church is the Church Christ founded; but it doesn’t make it so. The kingdom of God is the Church, and the kingdom of God is found within; in the hearts of the regenerate who put their trust in the saving work of Christ on the cross. Not the building they enter, the rites they perform, the liturgy they celebrate, the ministers they worship under, or the name of their individual communions.
**That’s like saying you can’t be an American if you disagree with the Administration. **You can be a Christian who is not in full communion with the fullness of the truth that is the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Curch can and does trace its beginnings all the way back to Jesus Christ and his Apostles.


**Tell me, Triune - who started your church? **
**When was it founded? **

Mine was founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter (Matt. 16:17-19).
 
Yes,

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: \ˈkəlt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel
Date: 1617
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
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: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
 
Catholics can also point out this assertion by Jesus in the Bible…as well as point out this assertion by the Early Church Fathers. If Jesus says it, I believe it’s so.
Is that the missing text in the Codex Sinaiticus that states Jesus’ words regarding founding the Roman Catholic Church? It is mere assertion that the Church Jesus and the apostles mention is the modern institution of Rome.
 
That’s like saying you can’t be an American if you disagree with the Administration. **You can **be a Christian who is not in full communion with the fullness of the truth that is the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Curch can and does trace its beginnings all the way back to Jesus Christ and his Apostles.

Tell me, Triune - who started your church?
When was it founded?

Mine was founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter (Matt. 16:17-19).
I’m not getting into a theological whizzing match with you, elvis, really, I am not. What you’re stating has been repeated here umpteen million times before and has been repeatedly argued and debated. There’s no sense going around on it again.
 
That would be a very starnge "church " indeed-a “church” made of people who have a wild diversty of opinons(often diametrically opposed) on the nautre of Christ and what is necessary for salvation. A “church” where many of the “member” believe everyone else in the “church” is going to hell if they dont accept their personal interptetation of their favored translation of Scriptre.

Of course we know that this mythical invisible church does not exist as Scripture assures us that God is not the author of confusion.
The invisible Church has never been and never will be composed of doctrinal unity on every single point. A mythical church wherein there is no discussion or dispute of any single point of doctrine doesn’t exist estes and never has. Modern apologists love to romantically read the early church fathers and assume there was lockstep unity on absolutely everything. The early church fathers contradict one another more than Reformation Protestants do.

If you think Christ had massive cathedrals filled with infallible men in pointy hats when he said “the church” then you can continue to believe that.
 
Is that the missing text in the Codex Sinaiticus that states Jesus’ words regarding founding the Roman Catholic Church? It is mere assertion that the Church Jesus and the apostles mention is the modern institution of Rome.
Rome is not an institution. We are not talking of cities.
The invisible Church has never been and never will be composed of doctrinal unity on every single point. A mythical church wherein there is no discussion or dispute of any single point of doctrine doesn’t exist estes and never has. Modern apologists love to romantically read the early church fathers and assume there was lockstep unity on absolutely everything. The early church fathers contradict one another more than Reformation Protestants do.

If you think Christ had massive cathedrals filled with infallible men in pointy hats when he said “the church” then you can continue to believe that.
No, but, the Catholic Church will. So will the Orthodox Church(es). And, these aren’t the mythical invisible “church” concocted by Protestant thinking. These are tangible and tracible. I don’t believe anybody here has asserted no discussion or dispute of a single point of doctrine, that is how the Church has come to Her answers, by debate and dispute, and checking and rechecking and checking again what has been done in the past and praying and re-praying and praing again to ask that God may give His Church the help and answer she NEEDS. Seeing as how there is no solid and practical way to prove if the ECF disagreed more than the Reformers, the ECF would give their opinions, but, they weren’t inventing new doctrine. What they said was not binding to any of the faithful, and, when the Church made public the official view, the ECF would go by it.

We don’t believe in infallible men, per se. Certainly not a cathedral filled with them. We believe one man at a time can pronounce infallibly what God wants.
 
must say that some of the give and take from a few of those who participate in the postings that I’ve read are a little strong. it is my belief that anger comes from fear. as Pope John Paul II said: “BE NOT AFRAID!” what has any of us to fear by someones ignorance? is it not our obligation to inform/educate those willing to listen? and to paraphrase Jesus, what good does it to cast pearls before those who cannot appreciate them. did He also not admonish us to turn the other cheek? when any of us reads a silly, ignorant or “fantastic” assertion, does it not speak for itself? ESPECIALLY on CATHOLIC answers forums.
 
The invisible Church has never been and never will be composed of doctrinal unity on every single point. A mythical church wherein there is no discussion or dispute of any single point of doctrine doesn’t exist estes and never has. Modern apologists love to romantically read the early church fathers and assume there was lockstep unity on absolutely everything. The early church fathers contradict one another more than Reformation Protestants do.
Of course the invisible Church will never be in doctrinal unity-thats becuase it never existed.

I
f you think Christ had massive cathedrals filled with infallible men in pointy hats when he said “the church” then you can continue to believe that.
Ignorance of Catholocism dulty noted.
 
Catholic Christianity is called by fundamentalist “evangelicals” a cult. Antichristian roman pagans seem to agree:
Gaius Plinius to the Emperor Trajan
It is for me an important point of responsibility to refer to you as Head of State, things about which I have questions, since you are the person best able to set straight my hesitations and correct my lack of information.
Actually I have never been present at a Examination (cognitio) of Christians, so I do not know what punishment is required or how far it is to be carried out. Nor do I understand the legal grounds for a prosecution, or how stringently it is to be prosecuted. I am not clear about prosecutions in respect to the age of the persons, whether no distinction should be made between the young and the old, and furthermore whether a pardon should be granted in cases of recanting, or if there is no advantage for a person completely ceasing to be a Christian. Or is it the name “Christian” which is prosecutable, even if not involved in criminal actions, or is that “criminality” is automatically attached to the name?
In the meantime, I now handle it this way with those who are turned over to me as Christians. I ask them directly, in person, if they are Christian, I ask a second and third time to be sure, and indicate to them the danger of their situation. If they persist, I order them led dispatched (= executed). I have had no trouble with this, since whatever it was they admitted or professed, I decided that their obstinacy and unyielding inflexibility should be sufficient reason for punishment. **Some others who were virtually insane with this cult, but Roman citizens, I sent back to Rome for trial.As I continue with this handling of the situation, as often happens, the numbers and kinds of incriminations are becoming more widespread. An anonymous List has been brought out which contains the names of a great many persons. I decided to dismiss charges again any on this list who stated that they were now not, nor had ever been Christians, if they repeated after me a prayer of invocation to the Gods, and made an offering of wine and incense to your statue, which I had brought in to the court along with the statues of the Gods, for this purpose. And in addition they were to formally curse Christ, which I understand true Christians will never do.
Other named by the anonymous List said they were Christians, and later changed their statement. Some said that they had been and then stopped, some three years before, some longer, some even twenty years before. All these reverenced your statue and those of the Gods, and cursed Christ. They stated that the sum total of their error or misjudgment, had been coming to a meeting on a given day before dawn, and singing responsively a hymn to Christ as to God, swearing with a holy oath not to commit any crime, never to steal or commit robbery, commit adultery, fail a sworn agreement or refuse to return a sum left in trust. When all this was finished, it was their custom to go their separate ways, and later re-assemble to take food of an ordinary and simple kind. But after my edict which forbids all political Societies, they did in fact give this up.I thought at this point that it was necessary to get information from two slave women, whom they call Deaconesses (ministrae) about the actual truth, by means of torture. I found nothing worthy of blame other than the blind and over-wrought nature of their cult-superstition.
I have therefore postponed further Examinations (cognitiones) and made haste to come to you immediately for consultation.
This situation seem to demand serious consultation, especially in view of the large number of people falling into this danger. A great many persons of every age, of every social class, men and women alike, are being brought in to trial, and this seems likely to continue. It is not only the cities, but also the towns and even the country villages which are being infected with this cult-contagion. **
It seems possible to check and reverse this direction at this point, for it is quite clear that the Temples of the Gods which have been empty for so long, now begin to be filled again, the sacred rites which had lapsed are now being performed and flesh for sacrificial rites is now sold again at the shops, although for a while nobody would buy it. So it seems reasonable to think that a great many people could be persuaded to reform, IF there were a legal procedure for Repentance. Emperor Trajan to Pliny:
You have done the right thing, my dear Pliny, **in handling the cases of those who were brought to you under the charge of being Christians. But it is not possible to make hard and fast rule with one specific formula. These people must not be searched out, if they are brought before your court and the case against them is proved, they must be punished, **but in the case of anyone who states that he is not a Christian and makes it perfectly clear that he is not, by offering prayers to out Gods, such a one is to be pardoned on the grounds of his present repentance, however suspect he may have been in the past. But anonymous lists must not have any place in the court proceedings. They are a terrible example and not at all in keeping with our times.
 
Fundamentalists say Catholic are cannibals who sacrifice Jesus over and over again. Pagan antichristians seem to agree.
From Minucius Felix. Octavius
And now, **as wickeder things advance more fruitfully, and abandoned manners creep on day by day, those abominable shrines of an impious assembly are maturing themselves throughout the whole world. **Assuredly this confederacy ought to be rooted out and execrated. **They know one another by secret marks and insignia, and they love one another almost before they know one another; everywhere also there is mingled among them a certain religion of lust, and they call one another promiscuously brothers and sisters, that even a not unusual debauchery may by the intervention of that sacred name become incestuous: it is thus that their vain and senseless superstition glories in crimes.
Nor, concerning these things, would intelligent report speak of things so great and various, and requiring to be prefaced by an apology, unless truth were at the bottom of it.
I hear that they adore the head of an ***, that basest of creatures, consecrated by I know not what silly persuasion, a worthy and appropriate religion for such manners. **Some say that they worship the genitals of their pontiff and priest, and adore the nature, as it were, of their common parent. I know not whether these things are false; certainly suspicion is applicable to secret and nocturnal rites; and he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve.
Now the story about the initiation of young novices is as much to be detested as it is well known. An infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with their rites: this infant is slain by the young pupil, who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the surface of the meal, with dark and secret wounds. Thirstily - O horror! they lick up its blood; eagerly they divide its limbs. By this victim they are pledged together; with this consciousness of wickedness they are covenanted to mutual silence.
 
This to backfrmthebrink:

I would like to hear how we misinterpret the passage concerning Peter being the foundation of the Church. For brevity’s sake I am only going to quote a small portion of the entire passage that begins at MT 16:13 and ends MT 16:19.

MT 16:17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you Simon sonof Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

If the rock of the church is not Peter in this sentence then who is and why?
Its answer is to be found in the use of the two words “petros” and Petra". He is saying that Peter you are a pebble and on this rock, (the statement that Petrer made) I will build my church. Again then the use of the term church translated from the two words Kurious (The Lords People or those who belong to the Lord) and Ekklesia (Those called out) It is where we get our word “church” from. It is a body of believers. There are those who also believe that it refers specifically to the assembly when all are together but most do not see that conclusion as nothing really lends itself to that inclusion. Generally it is a calling out from the world to be His.
 
how will your theory change when you use the original word kepa[aramaic] for some reason they used aramaic and not greek or hebrew, maybe because there is only one meaning for the word. if you change it to another language where you have different meanings for the word you can make the word mean what you want it to mean not what was originally ment.
 
another thought , what language are the dead sea scrolls written in? aramaic? so the early followers would have spoken aramaic and wrote it as well?
 
Its answer is to be found in the use of the two words “petros” and Petra". He is saying that Peter you are a pebble and on this rock, (the statement that Petrer made) I will build my church. Again then the use of the term church translated from the two words Kurious (The Lords People or those who belong to the Lord) and Ekklesia (Those called out) It is where we get our word “church” from. It is a body of believers. There are those who also believe that it refers specifically to the assembly when all are together but most do not see that conclusion as nothing really lends itself to that inclusion. Generally it is a calling out from the world to be His.
Simply not true-whether one uses the Aramaic Mathew was writtne in or the Greek it was translated into.

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
 
I’m not getting into a theological whizzing match with you, elvis, really, I am not. What you’re stating has been repeated here umpteen million times before and has been repeatedly argued and debated. There’s no sense going around on it again.
I like that you used the word “whizzing” - my favorite euphemism for that particular function!

**Anyway, Triune, my questions are valid. Who started your church and when. ****This is important because as Cathllics, we know that Jesus started our Church, whereas, men started all of the Protestant denominations. **

This really all boils down to the question of authority. If you reject the authority of the Catholic Church, (I don’t know how you can if you hold to sola scriptura - Matt. 16:17-19, Matt 18:15-18, John 20:21-23), then you are rejecting Jesus himself (Luke 10:16, Acts 9:4-5).

Virtually every Protestant reformer broke away from the Catholic Church because of a rebellion against the very authority that Jesus established.
 
I like that you used the word "whizzing" - my favorite euphemism for that particular function!
Good. We can at least agree on euphemisms!
Anyway, Triune, my questions are valid. Who started your church and when. **This is **important because as Cathllics, we know that Jesus started our Church, whereas, men started all of the Protestant denominations.
There is only one Church; all believers who trust in Christ as the atonement for their sins, and believe he was raised for their justification.
This really all boils down to the question of authority. If you reject the authority of the Catholic Church, (I don’t know how you can if you hold to sola scriptura - Matt. 16:17-19, Matt 18:15-18, John 20:21-23), then you are rejecting Jesus himself (Luke 10:16, Acts 9:4-5).
It does boil down to a question of authority; I accept the authority of the God-breathed Scriptures over and against those who teach in opposition to it. Whether it be Rome or another sect.
Virtually every Protestant reformer broke away from the Catholic Church because of a rebellion against the very authority that Jesus established.
No; they were excommunicated from Rome for stating that her doctrines were unbiblical and against that which Christ instituted and that which the apostles taught.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top