Reply With Quote
you are still going to mouse! haha
I must make a public apology,
I had no idea who or what the Pope really was, All my life I just saw this old man driving through different countries waving his hands in the air,
I figured there goes another Catholic trying to get folks to give money to the church, And after the Priest molestation cases that keep popping up every week? I really wanted no part of Catholics or the Pope.
But after watching the news and seeing what this man accomplished I felt he could be Buddhist as far as I care, the man made changes ,and he did many good things to different people, I saw that yesterday when some dude from the middle east who is not catholic was there to try and get a glimpse of the pope, he said this man did not care where you come from or your religion he was there to spread peace and good will.
Now that I know more about this man I would like to take back any thing I might have said towards him in a negative way,
I am sorry to him, and anyone else I may have offended with my negative comments.
Thank You
you are still going to mouse! haha
From the looks of this place mouse won't be alone..........
HEY! I may be going to , but not because of anything I said in here!
Don't get me wrong, I still stand where I always have with the Catholic church and there members. This apology is for the Pope and anyone I may have offended in the last 3 days.
I know for a fact a sinner like myself has a better chance to go to heaven than the most religious Catholic I have ever met. If you read the bible you will see there is only one way to GOD.
Oh by the way I went to a Catholic church last weekend not one Bible to be found on the pews, So maybe most of you have an alibi since you might not know there is such a book.
How many Catholics are there in here? A few are obvious, but it's hard to tell with some others.
That is a good question, Catholic people are like vampires, they only surface on certain occasions. Once a catholic person leaves church they go about there every day routines, And if they have sinned during that week they go to confession or pray about it next Sunday. After 3 years of going to a catholic church I found that out the hard way, These people I went to church with as soon as they left the door and got in there car? All I heard was "look where this head parked how are we going to get out of here"? as we drank beer and went to Bandera downs to bet on horses? I had to here every 10 minutes how so and so was screwing his secretary and how Fred at work is a son of A for not bringing enough ice to the company pic nick. As there daughter who was On the pill gave me blow jobs in the parking lot, I kinda figured this catholic thing is cool. I can sin like Satan all week as long as I show up in church Sunday, Why else to the Catholics get that ash on there heads once a year? Is it the only way into heaven? or do they do it cause their continuos bothers them?
Or do they do it cause they see everyone else doing it?
Trust me If there is a Knock at your door? It usually means its a Mormon or Jehovah witness, maybe a Christian trying to spread the word of God or asking for Donations,
If your at a local bust stop downtown and you hear some man yelling at the top of their lungs? 99.9% it is not a Catholic. When was the last time a Catholic person asked you if you know Jesus?
The Catholics have all the rights in the world to do and say what they wish, I just won't sit by silent and not say what Jesus wants the world to know.
Maybe before I leave this earth I can convince at least one Catholic to change their ways and by that we can both rejoice in heaven as we celebrate the right choices we both made together. Will you be that person?
Last edited by mouse; 04-05-2005 at 12:30 PM. Reason: It was the Lord
Holy , you're funny today. But I hope you don't think I'm Catholic!
There is no such thing as a Catholic, just those who try and act like one.
Holy , you're funny today. But I hope you don't think I'm Catholic!
I set my moral compass on the teachings of the Mouse. I'm glad he's around to tell me how bad those Catholics are.
Amen.
catholic upbringing...st. jude around my neck with my cross....didn't care much for catholic church growing up....went most of my teen years and first couple college years not going to church...questioned God and such...typical teen behavior....but then I woke up and have attended baptist most of my adult life....recently switched to a wesleyan church...because my friend is the pastor and his wife and my wife are friends....it's much like baptist but a more homey than castle hills first baptist where we used to go....i'm thinking of being baptized...we shall see.
Glad you came around on Pope John Paul, mouseman....i too am a bit ignorant of all he's accomplished and will be watching and learning....
When you go to borders book store look around on books about Cults and the Catholic religion, you will be amazed at what you read from former priest, and Catholics that saw the light. The answer is out there my friend...
to scare their co-workers
Your very funny would you like to work for me at Newman Enterprises?
Your very funny would you like to work for me at Newman Enterprises?
sure - but i must warn you - i'm very very expensive
I am Catholic.
When I see you Mouse, you better run.
Man it is hard to feign anger in a post that has my sig staring at you after my post.
I also have misgivings about some aspects of Catholic theology and practice, but the Pope really did some great things and stood firm for many good things. He will be missed. I hope his predecessor carries on his heritage.
successor...but i'm crazy too...so it's okay...i know what you meant.
D'oh!
You must make all Catholics proud. way to prove mouse's point.I am Catholic.
When I see you Mouse, you better run.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
At least that's what I think it says, but then again I'm just an ignorant Catholic that doesn't know anything about the Bible.
Mouse, you can mouth off all you want to about Catholics and the church and I'll support your right to do so. However, your legitimacy is pretty freakin' low. I'm not offended by anything you say about the church and the members. I'm offended at your incredible ignorance and hatred. If you really wanted to understand the dogma and traditions of our church, you'd get information from people that actually have an understanding of what goes on there instead of some disgruntled and/or defrocked priest whose screeds are printed and passed out like toilet paper or through the longstanding ignorance that you seem to have subscribed to. And you have the audacity to actually suggest that you're better than Catholics and your chances of reaching heaven are greater because you're not a Catholic. That may be one of the most unChristian comments I've ever been subjected to.
I don't agree with the teachings of all the churches and faiths and religions, but I do respect them and their beliefs. I don't belittle them nor do I think I'm better than they are because they're not Catholic. I think you might want to do some soul searching and possibly reread your Bible. The God that I believe in doesn't see people as Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, or Muslims. My God sees us as people.
I can make my point with out the bitterness you have shown us all.
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/...m/isitcult.htm
Roman Catholicism
Is It A Cult?
To many Christians, the Roman Catholic Church is an enigma -- a mysterious ecclesiastical system of laws, rituals, and religious orders. For centuries there have been angry denouncements from Roman Catholics against Protestantism for the schism created by the Reformation, and from Protestants against Roman Catholicism for its theological errors and its claim to be the only one true church.
Out of this controversy, charges have arisen that Roman Catholicism is not truly Christian, but is in fact, the largest and oldest "Christian" cult in the world.
The Christian Research Ins ute, (CRI), founded by the late Dr. Walter Martin, is regarded by many as the foremost authority on cults and the occult. They also see themselves as experts on what cons utes Biblical theology. CRI has produced position papers on Roman Catholicism, addressing some of the doctrines with which they are in disagreement. They have stopped short, however, of acknowledging Roman Catholicism as a cult. They are, in fact, adamant in their defense of Roman Catholicism as an orthodox Christian religion. In this regard, they have come against others for their insistence that Roman Catholicism meets the criteria of a cult.
That there are grave problems with many Roman Catholic doctrines and interpretations of Scripture, no knowledgeable non-Catholic would dispute. But to what degree does Roman Catholicism present a danger to the purity of Biblical truth? Are their teachings, practices, and liturgy commiserate with cultism? Or are they truly Christian, differing only in minor interpretations and applications? To answer these questions, it is necessary to define just what cons utes a cult.
What is a Cult?
The word "cult" connotes neither good nor evil. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines a cult as "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents."
Based on this rather simple definition, every church body may be classified as a cult. But there is another definition offered by Webster's , which is more akin to the use of the word employed by theologians and sociologists: "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents," and "great devotion to a person, idea, or thing."
But even this definition is inadequate in light of current trends in Christian thought. There is a wide distinction between the sociological and theological viewpoints.
Our concern is with the theological definition. Yet even here, one of the problems we have today is that there have developed several benchmarks from which to define a cult. For example, the Christian Research Ins ute has established as its benchmark what it terms "orthodoxy." That is, the historical position of the Church or churches from the time of the apostles to the present. This definition includes the early Roman Catholic Church fathers. On this basis, CRI (as do other cult-watching groups) considers Roman Catholicism as orthodox, but in error in only some teachings. However, Dr. Martin's original assessment would have to include Roman Catholicism:
"... a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person's interpretation of the Bible. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses are, for the most part, followers of the interpretation of Charles T. Russell and J. F. Rutherford. The Christian Scientist of today is a disciple of Mary Baker Eddy and her interpretations of Scripture. The Mormons, by their own admission, adhere to those interpretations found in the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It would be possible to go on citing many others, including the Unity School of Christianity, which follows the theology of Charles and Myrtle Filmore. From a theological viewpoint, the cults contain not a few major deviations from historic Christianity. Yet paradoxically, they continue to insist that they are en led to be classified as Christians" (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 11).
The basis for determining what cons utes a cult must go beyond stated doctrinal positions. If we use Dr. Martin's original test, "a group of people gathered about a specific person or person's interpretation of the Bible," we will not be fooled into thinking that, just because an organization issues a doctrinal statement in conformity with "orthodoxy," that organization is truly Christian.
Even if an organization can be said to have been established by God, there are no guarantees that God is going to continue to sanction it if it doesn't continue in the spirit and purpose for which He established it. And unless its criterion for establishing truth is the unadulterated Word of God rightly divided, its existence is counterproductive to the Faith. Add to this any liturgy or practices which are counter to the spirit of the Word, and you have the makings of a cult in the theological sense.
Ron Enroth, author of The Lure of the Cults and New Religions, and professor of sociology at [the neo-evangelical and liberal] Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, cites Brooks Alexander, co-founder of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, as having established the criteria for determining what cons utes a cult from a Biblical theological perspective. These are twofold:
1. A false or inadequate basis of salvation. The apostle Paul drew a distinction that is utterly basic to our understanding of truth when he said, "By grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9). Inasmuch as the central doctrine of biblical Christianity is the sacrificial death of Christ for our sin, all cultic deviations tend to downplay the finished work of Christ and emphasize the importance of earning moral acceptance before God through our own religious works as a basis of salvation.
2. A false basis of authority. Biblical Christianity by definition takes the Bible as its yardstick of the true, the false, the necessary, the permitted, the forbidden, and the irrelevant. Cults, on the other hand, commonly resort to extra-biblical do ents or contemporary "revelation" as the substantial basis of their theology (e.g. Mormons). While some cult groups go through the motions of accepting the authority of Scripture, they actually honor the group's or leader's novel interpretation of Scripture as normative (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International) (Enroth, The Lure of the Cults & New Religions, p. 21).
Enroth and Alexander make the distinction between sociological understanding of what cons utes a cult, and theological understanding. The sociological position is that whatever is normative to a given culture is not a cult. The Biblical theological position is that those groups that adhere to the Bible as the basis for all theology and practice are normative. Those groups that offer other criteria as equal to or superior to the Bible, including erroneous and/or exclusive interpretations of Scripture, are cults.
From the sociological point of view, Roman Catholicism is not a cult. But what about the Biblical theological point of view? To ascertain the answer to this question, we will be quoting almost exclusively from the Vatican II do ents. This is because of the misconception that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same as it was in the past, and that it has ins uted reforms through the Vatican II Council which allow for evangelical Christianity to seek unity with the papacy. While Vatican II has softened its stance in regard to its approach toward non-Catholics, it will be seen that it still holds major doctrines and practices that rule out unity for true Christians who have the knowledge to understand the insurmountable barriers erected by the Roman Church itself.
The Basis for Salvation
The Roman Catholic Church claims that salvation is by grace through the shed blood of Christ on the cross. But in practice and other teachings, how true is their affirmation of that crucial doctrine?
Historically, Roman Catholicism has maintained that Jesus merely made the way open for salvation. But to enter into that salvation, one must live in obedience to the authority of the papacy. In addition, Jesus' provision for salvation not being complete, the Church offers other means to assure one's salvation.
It is through the Roman Catholic Church alone that salvation in its fullest sense can be attained:
"For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation. that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God" (Vatican Council II, p. 456).
Penance
On the subject of salvation and the expiation of sin, Vatican Council II stated:
"Therefore, the Church announces the good tidings of salvation to those who do not believe, so that all men may know the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent and may be converted from their ways, doing penance (Vatican Council II, p. 6).
"The full taking away and, as it is called, reparation of sins requires two things. Firstly, friendship with God must be restored. Amends must be made for offending his wisdom and goodness. This is done by a sincere conversion of mind. Secondly, all the personal and social values, as well as those that are universal, which sin has lessened or destroyed must be fully made good. This is done in two ways. The first is by feely making reparation, which involves punishment. The second is by accepting the punishments God's just and most holy wisdom has appointed. From this the holiness and splendor of his glory shine out through the world. ...
"The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed. They often are. In fact, in purgatory the souls of those 'who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions' are cleansed after death with punishment designed to purge away their debt" (Vatican Council II, p. 64).
Indulgences
One means of attaining salvation from the punishment of one's sins is what the Roman Church calls indulgences. These may be purchased with money or through acts of penitence, acts of charity, or other pietistic means. The concept of indulgences is based on the idea that one's good works merit God's grace. Since Christ's sacrifice was insufficient for the full payment of the penalty of sin, acts of piety and gifts to the Roman Church may be used as partial payment for one's sins. The efficacy of an indulgence depends upon the merit attributed to it by the church. For example, one may pay to have a mass said for a relative believed to be in purgatory. The mass will then account for a certain number of days deleted from his purgatorial sentence.
"The use of indulgences spread gradually. It became a very clear element in the history of the Church when the Popes decreed that certain works which were suitable for promoting the common good of the Church 'could replace all penitential practices' and that the faithful who were 'genuinely sorry for and had confessed their sins' and done such works were granted 'by almighty God's mercy and ... trusting in his Apostles merits and authority' and 'by virtue of the fullness of the apostolic power' 'not only full and abundant forgiveness, but the most complete forgiveness possible for their sins.
"For 'God's only-begotten Son ... has won a treasure for the militant Church ... he has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven, and to his successors who are Christ's vicars on earth, so that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation. They may apply it with mercy for reasonable causes to all who have repented for and have confessed their sins. At times they may remit completely, and at other times only partially, the temporal punishment due to sin in a general as well as in special ways (insofar as they judge to be fitting in the sight of the Lord). The merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of the elect ... are known to add further to this treasure'" (Vatican Council II, p. 70).
While acknowledging that indulgences have been abused, the Roman Church ascribes that abuse to "the past," as if no such abuse occurs today. But the very nature of indulgences is an abuse against the purity of the Faith. To make matters worse, the Roman Church condemns those who oppose the idea of indulgences:
"[The Roman Catholic Church] 'teaches and commands that the usage of indulgences -- a usage most beneficial to Christians and approved by the authority of the Sacred Councils -- should be kept in the Church; and it condemns with anathema [cursing by ecclesiastical authority] those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.'" (Vatican Council II, p. 71)
The Roman Catholic Church says it alone can grant this essential blessing for full salvation, and then condemns to those who disagree -- virtually all non-Catholics!
It was primarily Martin Luther's opposition to the evil practice of selling indulgences that sparked the Reformation. While he sought to remain in the Roman Church and bring reform to it [e.g., Martin Luther never gave up the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration], he was eventually excommunicated for his stand, as were other Reformers.
The response of Roman Catholicism to the Reformation was a hardening of the papal heart which resulted in mass executions, torture, and other violent means to squelch the rejection of papal authority. The Counter-Reformation resulted in the creation of Order of Jesus -- the Jesuits -- as a means to spy out and destroy those who sought to follow the path to freedom from Rome's tyrannical grip upon their souls. Thus ensued one of the bloodiest periods in the history of the Church, which saw countless martyrs for Christ at the hands of the papacy. With all its posturing to win the hearts of non-Catholic Christians today, the Roman Catholic Church has never offered an apology for its murdering of our ancestral brethren. This chapter in history is virtually ignored by the Vatican.
The Eucharist & The Mass
Roman Catholicism states that redemption is accomplished in the Eucharist:
"For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, 'the work of our redemption is accomplished'" (Vatican Council II, p. 1).
In Roman Catholic belief, the Eucharist is the embodiment of Christ in the bread of the Roman Catholic communion table; the bread is literally His body, and the wine is literally His blood. To non-Catholics, this can be confusing. But the Vatican II do ents spell out the degree to which this literalness is held by its affirmation of the Council of Trent's Decree on the Eucharist that the wafer is to be worshiped as God. Is not idolatry the sign of a cult?
"There should be no doubt in anyone's mind 'that all the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored by any the less because it was ins uted by Christ to be eaten'" (Vatican Council II, p. 104).
The Roman Church insists that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient in itself to take away the penalty for our sins, but that we must add to His sacrifice through penance and through the application of the Roman Catholic mass as an ongoing sacrifice:
"Hence the Mass, the Lord's Supper, is at the same time and inseparably: a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated (Vatican Council II, p. 102).
"Christ's own association of what he did at the Last Supper with what he was to do on Good Friday has been the Church's own norm for intimately relating the two. The sacrifice of the altar, then is no mere empty commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby Christ is the high priest by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most acceptable victim to the eternal Father, as he did on the cross. 'It is one and the same victim; the same person now offers it by the ministry of his priests, who then offered himself on the cross. Only the manner of offering is different.' ... Worth stressing is that what makes the Mass a sacrifice is that Christ is a living human being with a human will, still capable of offering (hence priest) and being offered (hence victim), no less truly today than occurred on the cross. (John Hardon, The Catholic Catechism, pp. 465-66) (cf. Heb. 10:12-18).
Scripture is clear that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was sufficient for taking away not only the guilt, but also the punishment for our sins. The whole purpose of His suffering was to bear our punishment (Isa. 53:4-6).
The chastisement (or punishment) that reconciled us to God (establishing peace with Him) was laid upon Jesus at the cross. There is not a single Scripture that speaks of punishment for our sins if we die in Christ. At worst, we will suffer the loss of reward for our failure to produce fruit in our lives to our capabilities. But all Scriptural references to punishment apply to unbelievers only. For the believer, to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ (2 Cor. 5:8).
Does this make us more inclined to sin and take a cavalier at ude about our position in Christ? Just the opposite. When those who have the Spirit of God consider the awful price paid for our redemption, we abhor our sins all the more. If we fall, it is as Paul said, the result of sin that dwells in our mortal bodies. But our spirits -- our at ude -- is one of hatred for sin.
The history of the Catholic Church proves conclusively that its means for salvation is not by grace, but by works of its own laws. This, in itself, qualifies it to deemed a cult. It was one of the "approved religions" under the pagan emperor Constantine -- the first major cult that broke from the teachings of the apostles.
The Basis for Authority
Perhaps the most cogent argument offered against the cults by true believers in Christ Jesus is that Scripture is the sole authority for all belief and practice for those who are in Christ. The first avenue of attack against a cult's theology takes the researcher through that cult's basis for belief. Even those cults which affirm the validity of the Bible as the sole authority, add their own authorities to it. And that is what cult researchers mark as one of the unmistakable signs of a cult.
Like other cults, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that is the basis for establishing truth, doctrine, and practice. But it also has other criteria that it says are equal to Scripture: tradition, and Magesterium (the teaching authority of the Church).
While asserting, as do all aberrant "Christian" cults, that Scripture is the primary source of all revelation, the Roman Catholic Church in practice and in its teachings affirms that its interpretation of Scripture is the only valid basis upon which all truth resides and upon which its other authorities rest.
"Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them , flowing out from the same divine wellspring, move towards the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles [the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church] so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence...
"But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet this Magesterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.
"It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magesterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls" (Vatican Council II , pp. 755-756). (Emphasis ours.)
In addition, the Roman Church openly professes that its view of Scripture differs from that of 'other' Christians:
"But when Christians separated from us affirm the divine authority of the sacred books, they think differently from us -- different ones in different ways -- about the relationship between the scriptures and the Church. For the Church according to Catholic belief, its authentic teaching office has a special place in expounding and preaching the written Word of God (Vatican Council II, p. 468).
"It is for the bishops, 'with whom the apostolic doctrine resides' suitably to instruct the faithful entrusted to them in the correct use of the divine books, especially of the New Testament, and in particular of the Gospels. They do this by giving them translations of the sacred texts which are equipped with necessary and really adequate explanations. Thus the children of the Church can familiarize themselves safely and profitably with sacred Scriptures, and become steeped in their spirit.
"Moreover, editions of sacred Scripture, provided with suitable notes, should be prepared for the use of even non-Christians and adapted to their cir stances. These should be prudently circulated, either by pastors of souls, or by Christians of any rank" (Vatican Council II, pp. 764-765).
The cry of Reformation was sola scriptura -- the insistence that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority for all believers. The Holy Spirit's enlightenment is a safeguard against religious tyranny.
But for the Roman Catholic Church, the Scriptures are not sufficient of themselves to provide all that is necessary "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:16-17) without the Roman Church's interpretations. Isn't that what CRI originally established as one of the primary criteria for determining if a group is as cult?
Exclusivity
Another sign of a cult is its exclusivity and insistence that it alone holds the authority as God's only true church. Rather than acknowledge that the true Church is comprised of individuals bound to God the Father through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, a cult looks upon the organization itself -- that is, the hierarchical structure -- as the Church. This is true of Romanism.
Although the Roman Catholic Church admits today that God's grace is active in non-Catholic Christians, we are referred to as "separated brethren" (which the Roman Church, through its e enical movement, hopes to some day bring into fellowship under its authority). According to Romanism, unless we acquiesce to this movement toward "unity," we remain outside the graces of the Church, regardless of how much in God's grace we live.
"Bishops should show affectionate consideration in their relations with the separated brethren and should urge the faithful also to exercise all kindness and charity in their regard, encouraging e enism as it is understood by the Church" (Vatican Council II, p. 573).
The key phrase in this statement is "as it is understood by the Church." This betrays Roman Catholicism's cult mindset that sees the Church as a separate en y from the corporate body of all true believers. How the Roman Church views e enism is revealed in the Vatican II do ents:
"The term 'e enical movement' indicates the initiatives and activities encouraged and organized, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity" (Vatican Council II, p. 457).
To the papacy, the purpose of the e enical movement is to meet the needs of the Vatican's ecclesiastical system on the pretext of promoting Christian unity. But on what terms is unity to be realized?
"This sacred Council urges the faithful to abstain from any frivolous or imprudent zeal, for these can cause harm to true progress toward unity. Their e enical activity cannot be other than fully and sincerely Catholic, that is, loyal to the truth we have received from the Apostles and the Fathers, and in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed, and at the same time tending toward that fullness in which our Lord wants his Body to grow in the course of time" (Vatican Council II, p. 470).
Through the e enical movement, the Roman Catholic Church is attempting to undo the Reformation, and to bring all of Christendom under the authority of the papacy. While it encourages "dialogue" with non-Catholic Christians, its position is adamant: there will be no unity without surrender to "Mother Church."
This establishes the pope as the central figure for the Faith in the same way that the apostles of other cults are established. While they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the central figure of the faith to which they adhere, there can be no true relationship with Him apart from the dictates of the hierarchical pronouncements. The cult of the papacy is in itself sufficient grounds to recognize the Roman Church as a cult. The display of adoration, the gaudy parade of a mere man as if he were a god, the pandering to idolatrous worship through bowing down and kissing his ring, the insistence that he be addressed as His Holiness the Pope (or Father) of all Christians cannot but confirm to any Christian -- let alone professed cult-watchers -- that Roman Catholicism is a cult.
Conclusion
There are other evidences of cultism in Roman Catholicism, too numerous to mention here. One significant consideration: any religious group that threatens damnation and/or excommunication to any segment of its membership for eating, drinking, marrying, or failure to attend religious rites is a cult.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Dr. Bill Jackson, president of the Association of Fundamentalists Evangelizing Catholics (AFEC), prepared the following, "The Marks of a Cult," as applied to the Roman Catholic Church:
1) Extra Biblical Revelation. Dr. Ludwig Ott, probably the most readable and conservative Roman Catholic theologian, has written in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: “Theology, like faith, accepts as the source of its knowledge Holy Writ and Tradition ... and also the doctrinal assertions of the church … this latter means the day by day teaching ministry of the Church through the pope and the bishops united with the pope.” (This latter is referred to as the Magesterium.)
2) False Basis of Salvation. From Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), #16: “the ways of reaching bea ude—through right conduct, with the help of God’s law and grace, through conduct that fulfills the twofold commandment of charity, specified in God’s Ten Commandments.”
3) Uncertain Hope. A very complimentary article in The Philadelphia Inquirer stated of the late Cardinal Krol: “He doesn’t have to worry about food, clothing, shelter. What are his worries? ‘My salvation, getting to Heaven’ says the Prelate.”
4) Presumptuous Messianic Leadership. If the pope is NOT the Vicar of the Messiah (Christ), he is presumptuous in thus identifying himself. Jesus Christ knew His church would need an infallible Head, so He Himself chose His Vicar in John 14:26, 15:26 and 16:7-15. This Vicar is not only infallible, He is infinite. He is the Holy Spirit.
5) Doctrinal Ambiguity. From the New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Bible as a literary work had traditions that included myth” (Vol. 10, p. 184); “Some of the miracles recorded in Holy Scripture may be fictional and include imaginative literary exaggerations. The episode of Noah and the Ark is imaginative literary creation” (Vol. 9, p. 887); “The Gospels are not biographies of Jesus and still less scientific history” (Vol. 12, p. 403).
6) Claims of Special Discoveries. These, in Catholicism, are numberless. They go from the Letter of the Oration, a “true letter” of Jesus found in the Holy Sepulchre to the revelations at Fatima (an apparition approved by the Vatican). In between are countless appearances of Mary to Catherine Laboure, Simon Stock, the visionaries at Medjugorje and Bernadette Soubirous, etc. Add a few of Bob and Penny Lord’s “Eucharistic Miracles” and you have more special discoveries than all the other cults combined.
7) Defective Christology. Pius XII’s encyclical, Mediator Dei: Christ “has offered and continues to offer Himself as a victim for our sins.” Hebrews 9:25 says, “nor yet that he should offer himself often.” Hebrews 10:14, “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.”
8) Segmented Biblical Attention. “The Seven Verses of Scripture Authoritatively Interpreted by Rome” (from the Denver Catholic Register, 3/29/90, p. 10): “Father (Francis X.) Cleary (S.J.), scripture scholar and professor in the Department of Theological Studies of St. Louis University, writes, ‘Many people think that the Church has an official “party line” about every sentence in the Bible. In fact, only seven passages have been definitively interpreted.’”
9) Enslaving Organizational Structures. This may not be as evident in contemporary “liberated” American Catholicism, but it was very much a fact for Europe’s millions in past centuries. All were taught that there was no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, which through her bishops could impose anathemas or excommunication seemingly at will. The masses of people were controlled by that system. Even the kings of Europe quaked at the possibility of papal displeasure.
10) Financial Exploitation. The coins ringing in the coffers of Tetzel have ceased, and exorbitant payments for early purgatorial release can be relegated to previous centuries, but the very fact that any Mass stipend is expected for Masses to remit fic ious purgatorial suffering is a case for financial exploitation.
11) Denunciation of Others. Priest Lawrence Feeney of the Boston Heresy Trial believed “extra nullus salus ecclesia” (no salvation outside the church). He was approached by Bobby Kennedy, who complained that Feeney was sending his Protestant friends to . Feeney replied, “I’m not sending them to , but I am telling them where to come if they want to get to Heaven.”
12) Syncretism. From Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), #846: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try by their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This material (preceding the Note directly above) has been excerpted and/or adapted from a Media Spotlight Special Report of October, 1991.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biblical Discernment Ministries - Revised 12/01
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...784101-9680865
http://www.factnet.org/cults/Catholi...atholicism.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.net/Romanism/kjcroman.htm
18 Questions For "Saved" Roman Catholics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occasionally, some well-meaning Christian thinks he knows a "saved Roman Catholic". We invite such a person to introduce us to his friend so that we may, in his presence, ask the Roman Catholic the following questions. His answers will easily determine that he is not saved in the true, Biblical sense.
The new "accommodation" approach of the Roman Church in these e enical days of apostasy is to use the same expressions as Fundamental Christians. But Christian love is not shown by permitting these people to believe they are saved when they are not. Christian love is shown by making the true Gospel plain and clear so that the "religious but lost" person will recognize his unsaved condition and his need of a Saviour, the true Christ of the Bible, not a counterfeit, as in the Roman, Greek and many other churches.
The Apostle Paul said that he was free from the blood of all men. May the same be true of every genuine witness for Jesus Christ! Here are the questions:
When were you converted?
How were you converted?
To what, or to whom, were you converted?
What do you believe now that you did not believe before your conversion?
What does it mean to be saved?
On what Scriptural promises do you base your salvation?
What does it mean to be born again?
Are you sure today that if you die tomorrow, or at any time in the future, you will be in heaven immediately after death?
What do you believe about Purgatory?
What do you believe about the Mass?
Do you still participate in the Mass?
Do you believe that to miss Mass voluntarily on Sunday would be a mortal sin, so that if you did not confess it before you died, you would not go to heaven?
Do you believe that any sinner can be saved who dies without trusting in Jesus Christ alone for the salvation of his soul and forgiveness of his sins?
Do you believe that Mary and Roman Catholic saints can help you get to heaven?
How do you believe that the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ is applied to your soul?
Have you told your priest you have been saved (converted)?
Do you believe you will still go to heaven if you leave the Roman Catholic Church, receive believer's baptism and join a fundamental Protestant church?
When and where do you plan to do this?
As these questions, and others you can think of, are discussed in detail, you will quickly see that the person is trusting in his work, merits, baptism, confirmation, sacraments, or something besides - or plus - Jesus Christ and not in Christ and Christ alone. He can then be shown the difference between his unbiblical form of salvation and the saving faith of the Bible. (From The Gospel Catholic - The Conversion Center, Phila. PA)
Related Resources:
Can A Good Catholic Be Saved?
Is Romanism Christianity?
Open Letter to Roman Catholics
Return to Index Listing on Roman Catholicism
Customers who bought this book also bought
Lead Us Not into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children by Andrew M. Greeley
Betrayal: The Crisis in the Catholic Church by The Investigative Staff of the Boston Globe
Our Fathers : The Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal by DAVID FRANCE
Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis by Philip Jenkins
Vows of Silence : The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II by Jason Berry
Slayer of the Soul: Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church by Stephen J. Rossetti
Explore Similar Items: in Books
Berry
Slayer of the Soul: Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church by Stephen J. Rossetti
Explore Similar Items: in Books
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
In this riveting, disturbing expose, journalists Burkett of the Miami Herald and Bruni of the Detroit Free Press , present an indictment of not only pedophiliac priests, but also of a church hierarchy that is interested more in concealment than compassion. Among the cases do ented, the book focuses on Frank Fitzpatrick, a private detective living in Rhode Island, and his search for Father James Porter, a priest who 30 years earlier had molested him in elementary school in Massachusetts. Fitzpatrick was stonewalled by both the church and the law in tracking down the elusive cleric. When he finally found him in Minnesota in 1990--now married but also still a molester, according to court records-- Fitzpatrick helped direct the public's attention to a problem the church had been denying for years. Through the attention of the media, more than 200 people nationwide accused Porter of molesting them. This case could serve as a catalyst for many Catholics, male and female alike, who had been molested by their parish priests to now come forward. The authors estimate that the lawsuits to date have cost the church $400-500 million. Unfortunately, one concludes from this frightening book that if your child is molested by a priest, the bishop is not the avenue of recourse; better to call the police and a lawyer. Photos.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc.--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this le.
Product Description:
The relentless crescendo of revelations of sexual abuse in the nation's Catholic churches has rocked the nation. Just how widespread is child sexual abuse by the Catholic clergy? And why hasn't the Catholic church done more to stop it?
In A Gospel of Shame, Pulitzer Prize-nominated journalists Elinor Burkett and Frank Bruni provide the answers to these questions and more. The answers, however, turn out to be infuriating and heartbreaking, difficult to accept but impossible to dismiss. The authors thoroughly do ent dozens of cases across the country and reveal how this heinous abuse of trust has been tacitly sanctioned by the Church's silence.
I'm under the impression that this was a mouse joke that just wasn't funny.
Priceless
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
