-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
They are believing Christ will save them. If they have that, why would they be refused heaven. Just because they don't believe your interpretaton of baptism? So Christ died on the cross for them yet just because they might think water baptism saves them all of Christ's work means nothing?
I also thing its a bit strange how Baptists are so particular about the methods of baptism and when you are baptised, yet also saying it's not necessary for salvation.
Baptists are basically a bunch of gnat strainers IMO.
I also thing its a bit strange how Baptists are so particular about the methods of baptism and when you are baptised, yet also saying it's not necessary for salvation.
Baptists are basically a bunch of gnat strainers IMO.
B
If that's the case, why couldn't someone by a Muslim or Mormon and hold to everything those groups believe, but somewhere in it, believe Jesus saves them?
Believing baptism saves makes the work of Christ meaningless, because they are still depending on themselves to be saved. It's either by grace or it's by works, you can't have both.
From the words of Paul.. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Believing baptism saves makes the work of Christ meaningless, because they are still depending on themselves to be saved. It's either by grace or it's by works, you can't have both.
From the words of Paul.. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
S
I will not be posting in this thread again if I can help it. I have tried to explain very clearly and consisely to the best of my ability what we believe. I don't think anyone has actually read half of what I have posted, and I don't see any reason to believe anyone is actually willing to take what I am saying to heart because they don't want to believe that the Catholic Church is anything but evil. Fine.
And yes, Catholics do pray. This includes me. Yes, we do pray our own heartfelt personal prayers. Those "set" prayers are typically used for public prayer in group settings to allow everyone the chance to participate in praying to the Lord as a group. We have prayers like that because sometimes, we as humans, don't know what to say to God. Sometimes we tend to babble on and on to God. He already knows what we want to say before we say it. We don't want to spend 7 minutes giving long drawn out prayers when a simple one will do - in public settings. We are also told not to make a show of our prayer so as not to appear boastful. This is why our public prayers are usually short and to the point and "set." Someone came up with a way to say something good in a short amount of time and in an effective manner, so we figure "hey, if it aint broke dont fix it."
Most people never see me pray. This is because I do not make a show of it, or advertise it. When I pray, I simply do so. I don't say "Hey, guys, I'm praying now!" and then do it. I just do it, silently, in my mind and with my heart. And my prayers are typically organic. I come up with them as I go along. I pray fequently during the day, often in class, and no one knows it. They don't need to know it. If you say that you don't know of any Catholics who pray regularly, this may be why. They are praying and you just don't know it. We are greatly encouraged to pray whenever we feel the spirit is moving us. We are even encouraged to pray when it feels like the last thing we would ever really want to do, because it is usually then that we need it most. We don't have to pray the rosary. We don't have to use any set prayer if we don't want to. If we feel that our own words are most appropriate in prayer, if we feel like we want to speak to God what is on our minds, then we are encouraged to do so. Those "set" prayers, like the Our Father itself, or the "O My Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner" prayer etc are prayers which we have been given to use for those times when we are at a loss for words. Even then, we must realize that prayer is a two-way street and we don't even have to talk...we might need to stop and start to listen. This too is prayer. Silence. Stillness. Listening to God in our hearts.
And yes. I pray for the Holy Spirit to lead me to what is true. I believe I have already said so in this thread. But it seems that either no one reads what I write or it simply goes through one ear and out the other. I have been told by people on this forum that all I need for salvation is to accept on faith that Jesus is Lord. I have confessed my faith that I believe Jesus is Lord. That is, in the end, all you need to know. Yet I take the time out of my busy schedule as a full-time college student to explain with great patience and all charity what we Catholics believe so that you might know that we are not some evil satanic cult, yet I do so to know avail. I provide scripture, historical references, and even logic, but to no avail. He who has ears ought to listen. I am told my scriptural interpretation is wrong by people who tell me that I am supposed to interperate scripture myself. I did, and I am wrong? I asked the same Holy Spirit for guidence and uderstanding, and the same Holy Spirit has caused us to come to different conclusions?
The Catholic Church is where the Holy Spirit has led me and millions of others. Prayer has lead me there also. Scripture has led me there. I have met Christ there and I continually experience his presence there. If anyone wants to be so bold as to tell me I am wrong, then go ahead, and deny that Holy Spirit which has lead me to where I am today and to my Savior, Jesus Christ, who daily renews within me his divne love and divine mercy. And may the God of Mercy grant you peace.
I am done with this thread.
And yes, Catholics do pray. This includes me. Yes, we do pray our own heartfelt personal prayers. Those "set" prayers are typically used for public prayer in group settings to allow everyone the chance to participate in praying to the Lord as a group. We have prayers like that because sometimes, we as humans, don't know what to say to God. Sometimes we tend to babble on and on to God. He already knows what we want to say before we say it. We don't want to spend 7 minutes giving long drawn out prayers when a simple one will do - in public settings. We are also told not to make a show of our prayer so as not to appear boastful. This is why our public prayers are usually short and to the point and "set." Someone came up with a way to say something good in a short amount of time and in an effective manner, so we figure "hey, if it aint broke dont fix it."
Most people never see me pray. This is because I do not make a show of it, or advertise it. When I pray, I simply do so. I don't say "Hey, guys, I'm praying now!" and then do it. I just do it, silently, in my mind and with my heart. And my prayers are typically organic. I come up with them as I go along. I pray fequently during the day, often in class, and no one knows it. They don't need to know it. If you say that you don't know of any Catholics who pray regularly, this may be why. They are praying and you just don't know it. We are greatly encouraged to pray whenever we feel the spirit is moving us. We are even encouraged to pray when it feels like the last thing we would ever really want to do, because it is usually then that we need it most. We don't have to pray the rosary. We don't have to use any set prayer if we don't want to. If we feel that our own words are most appropriate in prayer, if we feel like we want to speak to God what is on our minds, then we are encouraged to do so. Those "set" prayers, like the Our Father itself, or the "O My Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner" prayer etc are prayers which we have been given to use for those times when we are at a loss for words. Even then, we must realize that prayer is a two-way street and we don't even have to talk...we might need to stop and start to listen. This too is prayer. Silence. Stillness. Listening to God in our hearts.
And yes. I pray for the Holy Spirit to lead me to what is true. I believe I have already said so in this thread. But it seems that either no one reads what I write or it simply goes through one ear and out the other. I have been told by people on this forum that all I need for salvation is to accept on faith that Jesus is Lord. I have confessed my faith that I believe Jesus is Lord. That is, in the end, all you need to know. Yet I take the time out of my busy schedule as a full-time college student to explain with great patience and all charity what we Catholics believe so that you might know that we are not some evil satanic cult, yet I do so to know avail. I provide scripture, historical references, and even logic, but to no avail. He who has ears ought to listen. I am told my scriptural interpretation is wrong by people who tell me that I am supposed to interperate scripture myself. I did, and I am wrong? I asked the same Holy Spirit for guidence and uderstanding, and the same Holy Spirit has caused us to come to different conclusions?
The Catholic Church is where the Holy Spirit has led me and millions of others. Prayer has lead me there also. Scripture has led me there. I have met Christ there and I continually experience his presence there. If anyone wants to be so bold as to tell me I am wrong, then go ahead, and deny that Holy Spirit which has lead me to where I am today and to my Savior, Jesus Christ, who daily renews within me his divne love and divine mercy. And may the God of Mercy grant you peace.
I am done with this thread.
R
But many regard water baptism not to be a work but part of saving faith. Paul's mention of works is mostly about the law, circumcision etc. Is baptism counted as a work?
Does walking to a lake, pool, etc require human effort?
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9
"I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life FREELY." Revelation 21:6
If a gift is a FREE gift are any strings attached other than receiving it? Would it truly be free if I said you can have this toy but you must pay for it in any way?
Does walking to a lake, pool, etc require human effort?
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9
"I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life FREELY." Revelation 21:6
If a gift is a FREE gift are any strings attached other than receiving it? Would it truly be free if I said you can have this toy but you must pay for it in any way?
R
suaso, I have in fact read most of your comments...When it comes to salvation, your very own testimony declares works will save you(salvation as a process on man's part)...even others have quoted the catholic catechism to you. The catholic religion does a good job deceiving its followers about works and faith. Which is why I am exposing it as a false religion! The Holy Spirit does not contradict the Word.
A
Ok, I know you're done with this thread but I have one comment. I don't really understand everything there is to know about Roman Catholisim, especially Purgatory which my church (Anglican) teaches is "grounded upon no warranty of Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God." BUT, I totally believe you about the Holy Spirit leading you there. I have a couple of friends, they're a married couple, and a couple years before they got married God lead them from a contemporary Evangelical church to the Roman Catholic Church. I don't understand why they ended up there, but that's because it's not mine to understand. I've also always thought of them as being stronger Christians than me, so if they say the Holy Spirit lead them there, I totally believe them. I guess I could ask them why they ended up Catholic, but I won't for two reasons: they've given up internet use for Lent, and they have five kids spaced about two years apart, the youngest are twins (they named one of the twins John Paul!) and the older ones are home schooled. So, they have their hands very full and I won't bother them in any way.
R
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. " Romans 10:9-10
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart;....." Matthew 15:18
"Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." John 6:28-29
This should clarify some things up. Good night.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart;....." Matthew 15:18
"Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." John 6:28-29
This should clarify some things up. Good night.
MahogonySnail: Just because the R.C church isn't listed in those books doesn't mean it isn't a cult. Often they are too afraid to mention the RC church as a cult because of fear of the repercussions/backlash if they published that.
Test_F_i_2_Luv: You said: "Just because the R.C church isn't listed in those books doesn't mean it isn't a cult."
Half of the books I mentioned in post 329 do list RCism. A third one, Martin's book, only mentions RCism a few times. Only 1 book failed to mention RCism at all. The misery here for you is that it's hard to find a Christian author who will write a book that tosses RCism into the category of a cult. I have a hard time finding anything that could be classified as more than a pamphlet(50 pages or less) when it comes to "Christian" authors categorizing RCs as a cult.
You said: "Often they are too afraid to mention the RC church as a cult because of fear of the repercussions/backlash if they published that."
You've got strange logic. Every book I mentioned characterizes cults. Half of the books elaborate on RCism, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestantism as they declare all three "branches" to be Christian. The rest don't address the issue of the various branches of Christianity or the various denominations within the Protestant branch of Christianity. Instead, they go immediately into explaining what groups are cults and why they are cults.
The writers of the books I've mentioned have been involved in and/or studied cults, determined the characteristics of cults, and made a list of cults. They don't include RCism because RCism doesn't fit the definition of a cult in their view. There is no reason to conclude they think the opposite of what they write. In the case of Walter Martin(who wrote the 700+ page book), he debated with Roman Catholics before audiences, so he was already on unfriendly terms with Roman Catholics. He'd have had little reason to not include RCism in his book if he felt it was a cult...he already was in an unfavorable position with the RCC.
I think I'll apply your logic to you. You believe protestants are all cultists. If, like the authors I've mentioned, you write a book(or a post, for that matter) and declare protestant churches to be Christian and even go on so far as to explain why they are Christian, it will still be perfectly fine for me to assume you really think they are cults. You're just unwilling to declare them cults because you're afraid of the repercussions. Regardless of what you say about protestants, you really believe they are all cultists.
MahogonySnail: I don't have those books on hand but there are plenty of internet resources that deal with cults.
Test_F_i_2_Luv: There is also a lot of garbage on the internet. The web allows a person to put whatever stuff s/he wants to...and it can be truthful or complete garbage.
When it comes to cults, it's no different. Even a brief look on the internet will result in finding nearly everything imaginable falling under the definition of a cult. I found web pages that declare all sorts of things as cults: specific denominations, specific religions, specific types of government, specific branches of the military...and so on. One website declared people cultists for celebrating certain events/holidays.
Books are costly to print. If/when the author can be shown to be off target, his/her reputation is scarred and he/she can't make a profit selling books anymore. If the book turns into a flop s/he suffers a financial loss(publishing costs exceed income from people purchasing the book). The costs of putting material on the internet is less, which allows the most hateful and critical people to push whatever garbage they like for mere pocket change. All they need is an agenda and a free website or webskills to develop their own website.
MahogonySnail: Let's take a look at this check list shall we and see how the R.C. as an organisation stacks up: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
Test_F_i_2_Luv: Nice list given. I'll get back to that in a bit. First things first, though!
The list of cult characteristics you've mentioned is compiled by Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D. This tidbit is noted under the list of characteristics on the webpage you've used.
Lalich co-authored a book with Margaret Singer(another cult expert) called Cults in Our Midst, The Hidden Menace in Our Everyday Lives, in which they clearly state Roman Catholicism is not a cult.
As for Langone, I'm having a hard time finding anything where he clearly tosses RCism into the category of a cult. He does state that there are groups within the RCC that are potentially cultic in nature, but he does not declare RCism to be a cult. Instead, he refers to RCism as a "church" and as a "denomination" when he discusses the church's efforts to rid itself of cultic groups springing up within itself. If he thought the RCC was a cult, he ought to refer to it as a cult instead of as a 'church" or "denomination". Also, if he felt RCism was a cult, it's very strange that he'd suggest that the RCC was trying to rid itself of potential cultism. Cults don't remove cultism from themselves.
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_introduction_cultsevangelicals.htm
Next up, the website itself. While your goal in using this website is to show that the RCC is a cult, the website itself doesn't agree with you. The website itself comes to the opposite conclusion.
In a discussion on the Marines, the website states:
"Cults clearly differ from such purely authoritarian groups as the military, some types of sects and communes, and centuries-old Roman Catholic and Greek and Russian Orthodox Orders. These groups, though rigid and controlling, lack a double agenda and are not manipulative or leader-centered. The differences become apparent when we examine the intensity and pervasiveness with which mind-manipulating techniques and deceptions are or are not applied."
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/marine_def.htm
Now, onto the cult characteristics list.
When I read through your observations, it became very plain that you have had very little experience within RCism or that your observations were of one very peculiar congregation somewhere in loonyville. A good chunk of you wrote looks like something you've read in the writing of some zealous anti-RC and then converted into "observations" of your own.
In my case, I can reflect on the nearly 20 years I spent in the RCC.
1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
I respected, appreciated, and had confidence in the leadership of the church. Had I gotten a chance to meet the Pope, I suspect I'd have been about as excited as a person gets when s/he gets to meet the president. I did get to meet with a bishop at confirmation. I had about the same level of enthusiasm as I had about seeing a legislature from the House of Representatives in high school.
My commitment was to the Christian faith, and to the theological views of the RCC. Since the leaders taught the views of the RCC, I assumed they were right.
2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
When I had questions, I asked the parish priest. He was happy to answer my questions. I don't recall a priest ever telling me to stop asking questions, to stop learning, or to stop investigating.
3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
What is here probably referred to as "chanting" was to me considered to be corporate prayer. As we prayed-whether it was the Rosary or the Lord's prayer- we were to meditate on the words in the prayers. Tongues were unheard of. A prayer we said during the mass was the Act of Contrition. That was a corporate prayer to acknowledge our sinful nature. There were no "debilitating works".
4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
I felt inadequate and distant from God. My view, since becoming a protestant, has been that the RCC doesn't stress grace and mercy enough, leaving many people feeling as though works have to be done to gain God's favor rather than doing works as a result of having His favor. The church didn't say anything about dating or jobs.
The RCC doesn't "dictate" how people should feel. The way the church teaches grace & mercy, though, leaves some feeling as though works will gain God's favor.
5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
While priests surely referred to the RCC as the "One True Church", priests didn't go so far as to call other denominations false and non-Christian. The pope represented the church. He was not Jesus Christ in a different body.
6. The group has a polarized us-versus them mentality
Didn't experience this. I grew up in a community that had 3 denominations. I was friends with folks from all denominations.
7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
My priest was accountable to the diocese bishop. I especially noticed this at confirmation. I didn't know how things were with the bishops and the pope.
Now I realize that the Pope is accountable to the bishops and the bishops are accountable to each other.
8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
Didn't experience this.
9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Confession induced shame and guilty...but that's what confession was about: guilty feelings for wrongdoings!
10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
Not experienced.
11. The group is preoccupied with bring in new members
I have observed this far more as protestant in protestant churches.
12. The group is preoccupied with making money
There was little discussion of money outside of the weekly offering basket.
13. The members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities
Church on Sundays, CCD classes on Tuesday during the school year. Now and then, women were asked to help clean the church.
14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members
Not at all. Rifts with churches started by people outside of walls of the church.
15. The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
The loyalist members were simply loyal to the RCC. They did more for the church & were more likely to volunteers for CCD classes or to help with upkeep of the facility.
Test_F_i_2_Luv: You said: "Just because the R.C church isn't listed in those books doesn't mean it isn't a cult."
Half of the books I mentioned in post 329 do list RCism. A third one, Martin's book, only mentions RCism a few times. Only 1 book failed to mention RCism at all. The misery here for you is that it's hard to find a Christian author who will write a book that tosses RCism into the category of a cult. I have a hard time finding anything that could be classified as more than a pamphlet(50 pages or less) when it comes to "Christian" authors categorizing RCs as a cult.
You said: "Often they are too afraid to mention the RC church as a cult because of fear of the repercussions/backlash if they published that."
You've got strange logic. Every book I mentioned characterizes cults. Half of the books elaborate on RCism, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestantism as they declare all three "branches" to be Christian. The rest don't address the issue of the various branches of Christianity or the various denominations within the Protestant branch of Christianity. Instead, they go immediately into explaining what groups are cults and why they are cults.
The writers of the books I've mentioned have been involved in and/or studied cults, determined the characteristics of cults, and made a list of cults. They don't include RCism because RCism doesn't fit the definition of a cult in their view. There is no reason to conclude they think the opposite of what they write. In the case of Walter Martin(who wrote the 700+ page book), he debated with Roman Catholics before audiences, so he was already on unfriendly terms with Roman Catholics. He'd have had little reason to not include RCism in his book if he felt it was a cult...he already was in an unfavorable position with the RCC.
I think I'll apply your logic to you. You believe protestants are all cultists. If, like the authors I've mentioned, you write a book(or a post, for that matter) and declare protestant churches to be Christian and even go on so far as to explain why they are Christian, it will still be perfectly fine for me to assume you really think they are cults. You're just unwilling to declare them cults because you're afraid of the repercussions. Regardless of what you say about protestants, you really believe they are all cultists.
MahogonySnail: I don't have those books on hand but there are plenty of internet resources that deal with cults.
Test_F_i_2_Luv: There is also a lot of garbage on the internet. The web allows a person to put whatever stuff s/he wants to...and it can be truthful or complete garbage.
When it comes to cults, it's no different. Even a brief look on the internet will result in finding nearly everything imaginable falling under the definition of a cult. I found web pages that declare all sorts of things as cults: specific denominations, specific religions, specific types of government, specific branches of the military...and so on. One website declared people cultists for celebrating certain events/holidays.
Books are costly to print. If/when the author can be shown to be off target, his/her reputation is scarred and he/she can't make a profit selling books anymore. If the book turns into a flop s/he suffers a financial loss(publishing costs exceed income from people purchasing the book). The costs of putting material on the internet is less, which allows the most hateful and critical people to push whatever garbage they like for mere pocket change. All they need is an agenda and a free website or webskills to develop their own website.
MahogonySnail: Let's take a look at this check list shall we and see how the R.C. as an organisation stacks up: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
Test_F_i_2_Luv: Nice list given. I'll get back to that in a bit. First things first, though!
The list of cult characteristics you've mentioned is compiled by Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D. This tidbit is noted under the list of characteristics on the webpage you've used.
Lalich co-authored a book with Margaret Singer(another cult expert) called Cults in Our Midst, The Hidden Menace in Our Everyday Lives, in which they clearly state Roman Catholicism is not a cult.
As for Langone, I'm having a hard time finding anything where he clearly tosses RCism into the category of a cult. He does state that there are groups within the RCC that are potentially cultic in nature, but he does not declare RCism to be a cult. Instead, he refers to RCism as a "church" and as a "denomination" when he discusses the church's efforts to rid itself of cultic groups springing up within itself. If he thought the RCC was a cult, he ought to refer to it as a cult instead of as a 'church" or "denomination". Also, if he felt RCism was a cult, it's very strange that he'd suggest that the RCC was trying to rid itself of potential cultism. Cults don't remove cultism from themselves.
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_introduction_cultsevangelicals.htm
Next up, the website itself. While your goal in using this website is to show that the RCC is a cult, the website itself doesn't agree with you. The website itself comes to the opposite conclusion.
In a discussion on the Marines, the website states:
"Cults clearly differ from such purely authoritarian groups as the military, some types of sects and communes, and centuries-old Roman Catholic and Greek and Russian Orthodox Orders. These groups, though rigid and controlling, lack a double agenda and are not manipulative or leader-centered. The differences become apparent when we examine the intensity and pervasiveness with which mind-manipulating techniques and deceptions are or are not applied."
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/marine_def.htm
Now, onto the cult characteristics list.
When I read through your observations, it became very plain that you have had very little experience within RCism or that your observations were of one very peculiar congregation somewhere in loonyville. A good chunk of you wrote looks like something you've read in the writing of some zealous anti-RC and then converted into "observations" of your own.
In my case, I can reflect on the nearly 20 years I spent in the RCC.
1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
I respected, appreciated, and had confidence in the leadership of the church. Had I gotten a chance to meet the Pope, I suspect I'd have been about as excited as a person gets when s/he gets to meet the president. I did get to meet with a bishop at confirmation. I had about the same level of enthusiasm as I had about seeing a legislature from the House of Representatives in high school.
My commitment was to the Christian faith, and to the theological views of the RCC. Since the leaders taught the views of the RCC, I assumed they were right.
2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
When I had questions, I asked the parish priest. He was happy to answer my questions. I don't recall a priest ever telling me to stop asking questions, to stop learning, or to stop investigating.
3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
What is here probably referred to as "chanting" was to me considered to be corporate prayer. As we prayed-whether it was the Rosary or the Lord's prayer- we were to meditate on the words in the prayers. Tongues were unheard of. A prayer we said during the mass was the Act of Contrition. That was a corporate prayer to acknowledge our sinful nature. There were no "debilitating works".
4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
I felt inadequate and distant from God. My view, since becoming a protestant, has been that the RCC doesn't stress grace and mercy enough, leaving many people feeling as though works have to be done to gain God's favor rather than doing works as a result of having His favor. The church didn't say anything about dating or jobs.
The RCC doesn't "dictate" how people should feel. The way the church teaches grace & mercy, though, leaves some feeling as though works will gain God's favor.
5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
While priests surely referred to the RCC as the "One True Church", priests didn't go so far as to call other denominations false and non-Christian. The pope represented the church. He was not Jesus Christ in a different body.
6. The group has a polarized us-versus them mentality
Didn't experience this. I grew up in a community that had 3 denominations. I was friends with folks from all denominations.
7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
My priest was accountable to the diocese bishop. I especially noticed this at confirmation. I didn't know how things were with the bishops and the pope.
Now I realize that the Pope is accountable to the bishops and the bishops are accountable to each other.
8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
Didn't experience this.
9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Confession induced shame and guilty...but that's what confession was about: guilty feelings for wrongdoings!
10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
Not experienced.
11. The group is preoccupied with bring in new members
I have observed this far more as protestant in protestant churches.
12. The group is preoccupied with making money
There was little discussion of money outside of the weekly offering basket.
13. The members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities
Church on Sundays, CCD classes on Tuesday during the school year. Now and then, women were asked to help clean the church.
14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members
Not at all. Rifts with churches started by people outside of walls of the church.
15. The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
The loyalist members were simply loyal to the RCC. They did more for the church & were more likely to volunteers for CCD classes or to help with upkeep of the facility.
K
In order to know more of the "eucharist", you NEED to study Jewish Feasts of the 1st Century.
Passover (Leviticus 23:5) – Pointed to the Messiah as our Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7) whose blood would be shed for our sins. Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover at the same hour that the lambs were being slaughtered for the Passover meal that evening.
That's it: Jesus IS God's Passover Lamb sacrifice.
Before then, WE had to supply the Passover lamb. The lamb was sacrificed before God who accepted the sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins.
With Jesus, He, Himself, became God's Passover Lamb. Now it's OUR turn to accept the Passover Lamb!
How? Confess.
Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Romans 10:10
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Jesus said during the breaking of the bread and wine "Do this in rememberance of Me."
Remember that He is the Passover Lamb who takes away our sins!
He is not the bread, itself, but when we celebrate the Passover, He wants us to remember! Remember what? Our sins are forgiven! We don't have to rely on a priest to enter the Holy of Holies once a year with our own lamb.
Instead, because we accept God's Passover Sacrifice, we can BOLDLY to before God ourselves!
Somebody many years ago said "this wafer IS Jesus" and too many people bow to it.
Fools.
Repent.
Learn the Jewish Feasts.
Passover (Leviticus 23:5) – Pointed to the Messiah as our Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7) whose blood would be shed for our sins. Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover at the same hour that the lambs were being slaughtered for the Passover meal that evening.
That's it: Jesus IS God's Passover Lamb sacrifice.
Before then, WE had to supply the Passover lamb. The lamb was sacrificed before God who accepted the sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins.
With Jesus, He, Himself, became God's Passover Lamb. Now it's OUR turn to accept the Passover Lamb!
How? Confess.
Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Romans 10:10
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Jesus said during the breaking of the bread and wine "Do this in rememberance of Me."
Remember that He is the Passover Lamb who takes away our sins!
He is not the bread, itself, but when we celebrate the Passover, He wants us to remember! Remember what? Our sins are forgiven! We don't have to rely on a priest to enter the Holy of Holies once a year with our own lamb.
Instead, because we accept God's Passover Sacrifice, we can BOLDLY to before God ourselves!
Somebody many years ago said "this wafer IS Jesus" and too many people bow to it.
Fools.
Repent.
Learn the Jewish Feasts.
CATHOLIC IS A FALSE RELIGION. THATS IT
IT IS IN ALL OVER IN THE BIBLE IN THESALONIAN, REVELATION AND MANY OTHERS.
WHETHER WE REACH THEM IN LOVE OR ANYTHING ONE THING STANDS OUT, THEIR DOCTRINE IS FALSE.
ITS JUST AN INTERMARRIAGE OF PAGAN WORSHIP AND CHRISTIANITY.
BROUGHT FORTH A DEATH IN RELIGION.
ITS TRUE GOD IS NOT A HYBRIDER, AND WHEN WE HYBRID THE BIBLE IT BRINGS FORTH DEATH.
CATHOLIC IS A DEATH TO SPIRITUAL WORSHIP.
IT IS IN ALL OVER IN THE BIBLE IN THESALONIAN, REVELATION AND MANY OTHERS.
WHETHER WE REACH THEM IN LOVE OR ANYTHING ONE THING STANDS OUT, THEIR DOCTRINE IS FALSE.
ITS JUST AN INTERMARRIAGE OF PAGAN WORSHIP AND CHRISTIANITY.
BROUGHT FORTH A DEATH IN RELIGION.
ITS TRUE GOD IS NOT A HYBRIDER, AND WHEN WE HYBRID THE BIBLE IT BRINGS FORTH DEATH.
CATHOLIC IS A DEATH TO SPIRITUAL WORSHIP.
L
i think you should focus on spreading gods love dear freinds dont get caught up in denominational debate it does nothing for you i promise, please dont missunderstand my reply i dont mean to cause offence but i know it just divides and paul mentions that we should be of one accord and not divided it saddens me to see people of god fallin out over cos of the enemy bringin confusion and dissaray ): lets beat him at his own game!! 
peace n love xxxxxxxxxx
peace n love xxxxxxxxxx
K
i think you should focus on spreading gods love dear freinds dont get caught up in denominational debate it does nothing for you i promise, please dont missunderstand my reply i dont mean to cause offence but i know it just divides and paul mentions that we should be of one accord and not divided it saddens me to see people of god fallin out over cos of the enemy bringin confusion and dissaray ): lets beat him at his own game!! peace n love xxxxxxxxxx
peace n love xxxxxxxxxx
I totally agree with you.
The debate is that the catholic denomination actually believes that it is THE True Church. The have the traditions of men which are totally against the Word of God. Yet, they believe what they believe.
One example:
Besides rejecting the gospel of God (Romans 9:6-22) in regards to predestination ("God predestines no one to hell;" CCC, p. 270, #1037), the Catholic Church has created their own gospel of "sacraments." In this also they speak lies in hypocrisy (1 Timothy 4:2). In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) on page 292 under #1129 the following is written:
The Church affirms that for all believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. (italics in original)
What are these "sacraments" that are necessary for salvation?
There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. (CCC, p. 289, #1113; see also p. 311, #1210)
This is the tradition of men (Matthew 15: 8-9; Colossians 2:8-10), not the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9). Scripture nowhere teaches any such sacraments necessary for salvation. What is necessary for salvation is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (the Word, John 1:1; Revelation 19:13). As John 3:36 says,
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. (John 3:36)
It's all a pride issue that they have and they spread it world wide. The unchurched, unfortunately, accepts the RCC and the "church" and is blinded by their lies and false teachings.
THIS POST IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A REFLECTION OF ANY DENOMINATION
If the gospel of Christ is received by grace through faith in response to Christ's finished work, without any works of righteousness on our part, then repentance has to be a work of God's grace given to man, to turn man in his volition, from sin unto Christ. If repentance is not a work of God's grace, then it is a work of man's righteousness of faith toward God that some have said, on this site, that God accepts. God only accepts the repentance He gives to man when man is under conviction by the Holy Spirit. No one can be saved on their own, it is the work of God that saves them. There are those that make repentance a work of man and try to work it into the gospel of grace. That, my friend, is a little leaven. When you read in the NT scriptures, any call to repentance, whether it came from John the Baptist, our Savior or any other Spirit-filled inspired man of God, that is an invitation of grace and mercy to believe and to repent. What I am saying is that every part of Salvation is of God (Acts 13:26, 16:17, 28:28; Rom 1:16, 2Thes 2:13, Titus 2:11, 2Pt 1:3) that the glory may be of God and not of us (1Chr 16:35, Psalm 79:9, Rom 15:7). God draws us (Jer 31:3), He calls us by grace (Gal 1:6,15), He gives us repentance (Acts 5:31, 2Tim 2:25), He gives us faith for our volition (Rom 12:3) He turns us (Acts 26:18), He gives us His salvation by grace and through faith (Eph 2:8,9), He forgives and cleanses us (Acts 26:18, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14), He imputes His righteousness to us (Rom 4:11,22-24), and it all comes from Him. If we do not respond and we reject His plan of salvation or try to come in through some other door, then we have rejected and hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18).
Any gospel that imputes (keeps a record or account) the sins or transgressions of anyone that is in unbelief or not, who is reprobate, who is apostate, who is a great sinner or wicked person or one that turns the truth into a lie, or any person no matter what state they are in, that gospel is not the gospel of our LORD Jesus Christ and has no power to regenerate through mercy. I think that this is why some ministries never see, or see very few, true conversions and transformations in their midst or they are filled with the letter of the law crowd that likes to criticize and judge everybody that doesn't line up with their legalistic indoctrination. If anyone wants to be a part of that crowd, you can have it, but I don't want any part of it and I don't care what denomination that crowd comes from.
BTW – If anyone would actually read the scripture references mentioned, you will see that I am not making any of this up. And for those that think you can not take verses from the scriptures and put them together to understand truth, they do not understand that all scripture is given by inspiration of God (Job 32:8, 2Tim 3:16) and they don't understand or utilize the line on line, precept on precept principle that God taught Isaiah and anyone that teaches knowledge (Isaiah 28:9-13) nor do they understand what it means to compare spiritual with spiritual (1Cor 2:13). These are all part of rightly dividing the word of truth (2Tim 2:15). Lastly, many have tried to support their beliefs and understanding by accusing others of taking truth out of context, without considering what Jesus Christ meant when He said the scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:34-42) along with adding to and taking from those scriptures of prophetic utterance (Rev 22:18,19). At times truth can be misinterpreted within the context and you need to compare it with other scriptures to get a greater and more complete understanding of what is being taught.
If the gospel of Christ is received by grace through faith in response to Christ's finished work, without any works of righteousness on our part, then repentance has to be a work of God's grace given to man, to turn man in his volition, from sin unto Christ. If repentance is not a work of God's grace, then it is a work of man's righteousness of faith toward God that some have said, on this site, that God accepts. God only accepts the repentance He gives to man when man is under conviction by the Holy Spirit. No one can be saved on their own, it is the work of God that saves them. There are those that make repentance a work of man and try to work it into the gospel of grace. That, my friend, is a little leaven. When you read in the NT scriptures, any call to repentance, whether it came from John the Baptist, our Savior or any other Spirit-filled inspired man of God, that is an invitation of grace and mercy to believe and to repent. What I am saying is that every part of Salvation is of God (Acts 13:26, 16:17, 28:28; Rom 1:16, 2Thes 2:13, Titus 2:11, 2Pt 1:3) that the glory may be of God and not of us (1Chr 16:35, Psalm 79:9, Rom 15:7). God draws us (Jer 31:3), He calls us by grace (Gal 1:6,15), He gives us repentance (Acts 5:31, 2Tim 2:25), He gives us faith for our volition (Rom 12:3) He turns us (Acts 26:18), He gives us His salvation by grace and through faith (Eph 2:8,9), He forgives and cleanses us (Acts 26:18, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14), He imputes His righteousness to us (Rom 4:11,22-24), and it all comes from Him. If we do not respond and we reject His plan of salvation or try to come in through some other door, then we have rejected and hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18).
Any gospel that imputes (keeps a record or account) the sins or transgressions of anyone that is in unbelief or not, who is reprobate, who is apostate, who is a great sinner or wicked person or one that turns the truth into a lie, or any person no matter what state they are in, that gospel is not the gospel of our LORD Jesus Christ and has no power to regenerate through mercy. I think that this is why some ministries never see, or see very few, true conversions and transformations in their midst or they are filled with the letter of the law crowd that likes to criticize and judge everybody that doesn't line up with their legalistic indoctrination. If anyone wants to be a part of that crowd, you can have it, but I don't want any part of it and I don't care what denomination that crowd comes from.
BTW – If anyone would actually read the scripture references mentioned, you will see that I am not making any of this up. And for those that think you can not take verses from the scriptures and put them together to understand truth, they do not understand that all scripture is given by inspiration of God (Job 32:8, 2Tim 3:16) and they don't understand or utilize the line on line, precept on precept principle that God taught Isaiah and anyone that teaches knowledge (Isaiah 28:9-13) nor do they understand what it means to compare spiritual with spiritual (1Cor 2:13). These are all part of rightly dividing the word of truth (2Tim 2:15). Lastly, many have tried to support their beliefs and understanding by accusing others of taking truth out of context, without considering what Jesus Christ meant when He said the scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:34-42) along with adding to and taking from those scriptures of prophetic utterance (Rev 22:18,19). At times truth can be misinterpreted within the context and you need to compare it with other scriptures to get a greater and more complete understanding of what is being taught.
A
I got a book from the library called "Christianity: origins of a pagan religion." The thesis of the book (from what I read from it, I'll admit I didn't read the whole thing) is that many Christian traditions have pre-Christian origins. That's a pretty far cry from actually saing that Chrisitianity is pagan but if he had titled the book "Christianity: has adopted some pre-Christian traditions" it wouldn't have the same selling power, now would it? I've done a lot of research into the history of Christmas (a truly facinating subject, by the way). There are lots, LOTS of Christmas traditions that pre-date Jesus. I guess you could say that they were Pagan. But, in December when there are too many Christmas trees and holly and it ticks off the secular humanists, who do they point the finger at? Christians. That's because when Christiainity adopts something, God makes it new. See, when Christinaity was brought to Europe, the church figured that if they adopted the mid-winter Pagan festival as the festival of the Nativity, then everyone will eventually forget what it was they were celebrating at the time of the year before they were Christian and they'd be able to chanel that urge all Europeans seem to have to celebrate the Winter Solstice into celebrating the Nativity. And it worked, didn't it?
See, I want to challenge your notion that God is not a hybrider. Just think of the creation story. I heard a theologian say that the creation story in the Bible is very similar to the Eygption creation story. That's not accident. That's something called inculturation. God wanted to get the message across to that He created the world. But why make it complicated? Why not just take a story they're already familiar with and change it to show that He was behind it all?
Canadians most beloved example of inculturation is the Huron Carol, written by Jean de Brebeuf who was a Jesuit missionary. Basically, the song implies that Jesus was born to Native people in Canada. That's obviously incorrect, but trying to explain to the Huron about the Middle East and whatnot, would have have been futile. They weren't stupid, it just what were they going to say to them "You've never heard of the Middle East? Just Google it."? So basically, if I remember correctly, the Jesuits did a good job of adapting Christianity to the Huron culture without actually comprimising the message of the Gospel. And if I remember my history, the Jesuit's sucessful attempt to evangelize the Hurons really contrast all the dismal failures when Europeans told the Natives that they must adopt their culture in order to accept Jesus.
Now I guess these real question is: when is these cultural adaptations become incompatible with the true message of the New Testament? And I don't think Evangelicals are immune to such problems.
See, I want to challenge your notion that God is not a hybrider. Just think of the creation story. I heard a theologian say that the creation story in the Bible is very similar to the Eygption creation story. That's not accident. That's something called inculturation. God wanted to get the message across to that He created the world. But why make it complicated? Why not just take a story they're already familiar with and change it to show that He was behind it all?
Canadians most beloved example of inculturation is the Huron Carol, written by Jean de Brebeuf who was a Jesuit missionary. Basically, the song implies that Jesus was born to Native people in Canada. That's obviously incorrect, but trying to explain to the Huron about the Middle East and whatnot, would have have been futile. They weren't stupid, it just what were they going to say to them "You've never heard of the Middle East? Just Google it."? So basically, if I remember correctly, the Jesuits did a good job of adapting Christianity to the Huron culture without actually comprimising the message of the Gospel. And if I remember my history, the Jesuit's sucessful attempt to evangelize the Hurons really contrast all the dismal failures when Europeans told the Natives that they must adopt their culture in order to accept Jesus.
Now I guess these real question is: when is these cultural adaptations become incompatible with the true message of the New Testament? And I don't think Evangelicals are immune to such problems.
- Status