Christian Forums

Quote from: constantine on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 19:26:34

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 14:01:00
I think Buff was just trying to get some clarification when it comes to the terminology and how we have arrived at the conclusion that Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are cults, but sects like The Roman Catholic Church and similar groups are not.

I for one would like to better understand this distinction.

The distinction between the Christian Church and a cult boils down to a believe in the Trinity.

     Not necessarily.  Note the following cultic traits and then tell me if the religious system under discussion fits the bill.

They practice separatism and devote much of their time trying to proselyte others.

Their efforts to convert others are underhanded and manipulative.

The group's leaders claim to be God's prophets or messiahs or apostles who receive "divine revelations.

I posted a similar list once on here:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=20080.msg412053#msg412053

Caused quite a stir with the same crowd.

Quote from: Reformer on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 21:05:31

Quote from: constantine on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 19:26:34

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 14:01:00
I think Buff was just trying to get some clarification when it comes to the terminology and how we have arrived at the conclusion that Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are cults, but sects like The Roman Catholic Church and similar groups are not.

I for one would like to better understand this distinction.

The distinction between the Christian Church and a cult boils down to a believe in the Trinity.

     Not necessarily.  Note the following cultic traits and then tell me if the religious system under discussion fits the bill.

They practice separatism and devote much of their time trying to proselyte others.

Their efforts to convert others are underhanded and manipulative.

The group's leaders claim to be God's prophets or messiahs or apostles who receive "divine revelations.

WOW.. it's actually a mirror image.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 23:36:00

Quote from: Reformer on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 21:05:31

Quote from: constantine on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 19:26:34

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 14:01:00
I think Buff was just trying to get some clarification when it comes to the terminology and how we have arrived at the conclusion that Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are cults, but sects like The Roman Catholic Church and similar groups are not.

I for one would like to better understand this distinction.

The distinction between the Christian Church and a cult boils down to a believe in the Trinity.

     Not necessarily.  Note the following cultic traits and then tell me if the religious system under discussion fits the bill.

They practice separatism and devote much of their time trying to proselyte others.

Their efforts to convert others are underhanded and manipulative.

The group's leaders claim to be God's prophets or messiahs or apostles who receive "divine revelations.

Indeed. Many denominations and individual churches could be categorized as cults.

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 01:56:06
Indeed. Many denominations and individual churches could be categorized as cults.

Could we agree that churches who adapt doctrines that lead people astray and give false hope of Salvation after death are not Christian?

Quote from: Bonnie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 04:54:46

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 01:56:06
Indeed. Many denominations and individual churches could be categorized as cults.

Could we agree that churches who adapt doctrines that lead people astray and give false hope of Salvation after death are not Christian?

Most definitely!

CRP

Quote from: constantine on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 19:26:34

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 14:01:00
I think Buff was just trying to get some clarification when it comes to the terminology and how we have arrived at the conclusion that Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are cults, but sects like The Roman Catholic Church and similar groups are not.

I for one would like to better understand this distinction.

JWs and Mormons distort the nature of God and therefore disagree with the Nicene Creed.  Roman Catholic and Protestants share a belief in the nature of God.  He is a Trinity.

The distinction between the Christian Church and a cult boils down to a believe in the Trinity.

This board recognizes this truth because the basic requirement to be considered a Christian here is agreement with the Nicene Creed.

Here is what the handy internet dictionary defines a cult as.

Quote
cult   
–noun 1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. 
3. the object of such devotion. 
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. 

CRP

Quote from: Bonnie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 04:54:46

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 01:56:06
Indeed. Many denominations and individual churches could be categorized as cults.

Could we agree that churches who adapt doctrines that lead people astray and give false hope of Salvation after death are not Christian?

Well... be careful though.  For purposes of what is allowed on this forum, the forum rules define who should be consider "Christian" on this forum and who is, therefore, protected from being called cultists, heretics, not Christians, etc.  Read the forum rules for more details.  But, this includes anyone who agrees with the following adaptation of the Nicene creed:

Quote
We believe in ONE God, Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible.  

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Only-Begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages.  
Light from Light; True God from True God; Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father through whom all things were made;
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.  
And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried.  
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.  

And in the Holy Spirit, Lord, Giver of Life,
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son];  
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified;  
Who spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy Church.  

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.  
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life in the age to come.  

All those on this forum who agree with all the statements in the above creed should be considered Christians on this forum.  The other "doctrines" that you see as giving "false hope of salvation after death" are not under consideration in the forum rules.  But, as clearly stated in the above creed, when someone affirms that creed, then it should be clear from that creed where the hope of salvation comes from.  To be sure, there are many different groups and denominations represented on this forum.  And, nearly every denomination or church affiliation has certain doctrines/practices that are unique to itself.  Those doctrines/practices may be called into question.  But, someone belonging to a church with those doctrines should not be called "not Christian" (nor their church be called "not Christian") and are protected by the forum rules... when they and their church affirms everything in the above creed.

Quote from: DCR on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 07:05:46

Quote from: Bonnie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 04:54:46

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 01:56:06
Indeed. Many denominations and individual churches could be categorized as cults.

Could we agree that churches who adapt doctrines that lead people astray and give false hope of Salvation after death are not Christian?

Well... be careful though.  For purposes of what is allowed on this forum, the forum rules define who should be consider "Christian" on this forum and who is, therefore, protected from being called cultists, heretics, not Christians, etc.  Read the forum rules for more details.  But, this includes anyone who agrees with the following adaptation of the Nicene creed:

Quote
We believe in ONE God, Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible.  

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Only-Begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages.  
Light from Light; True God from True God; Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father through whom all things were made;
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.  
And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried.  
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.  

And in the Holy Spirit, Lord, Giver of Life,
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son];  
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified;  
Who spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy Church.  

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.  
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life in the age to come.  

All those on this forum who agree with all the statements in the above creed should be considered Christians on this forum.  The other "doctrines" you have in mind that "give false hope of salvation after death" are not under consideration in the forum rules.  But, as clearly stated in the above creed, when someone affirms that creed, then it should be clear from that creed where the hope of salvation comes from.  To be sure, there are many different groups and denominations represented on this forum.  And, nearly every denomination or church affiliation has certain doctrines/practices that are unique to itself.  Those doctrines/practices may be called into question.  But, someone belonging to a church with those doctrines should not be called "not Christian" and are protected by the forum rules... as long as they affirm everything in the above creed.

I agree that we should stand by the rules of the forum.  That is nothing more than common curtesy and the only thing to gain by defying them is to be 

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 07:05:15Here is what the handy internet dictionary defines a cult as.

Quote
cult   
–noun 1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. 
3. the object of such devotion. 
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. 

CRP

That dictionary definition as it is written is broad enough that any Christian church could be considered a "cult" (by its definition), even with God being the object of our veneration and devotion...

Quote from: DCR on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 07:14:11

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 07:05:15Here is what the handy internet dictionary defines a cult as.

Quote
cult   
–noun 1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. 
3. the object of such devotion. 
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. 

CRP

That dictionary definition as it is written is broad enough that any Christian church could be considered a "cult" (by its definition), even with God being the object of our veneration and devotion...

You are reaching for straws now, God is not a thing, nor ideal, nor person in the sense the definition is being used.

That said, one of the neat things about living in the Laodicean period, is that most of what is considered Christian, actually isn't.

CRP

Quote from: DCR on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 07:05:46

Quote from: Bonnie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 04:54:46

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 01:56:06
Indeed. Many denominations and individual churches could be categorized as cults.

Could we agree that churches who adapt doctrines that lead people astray and give false hope of Salvation after death are not Christian?

Well... be careful though.  For purposes of what is allowed on this forum, the forum rules define who should be consider "Christian" on this forum and who is, therefore, protected from being called cultists, heretics, not Christians, etc.  Read the forum rules for more details.  But, this includes anyone who agrees with the following adaptation of the Nicene creed:

Quote
We believe in ONE God, Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible.  

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Only-Begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages.  
Light from Light; True God from True God; Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father through whom all things were made;
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.  
And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried.  
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.  

And in the Holy Spirit, Lord, Giver of Life,
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son];  
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified;  
Who spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy Church.  

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.  
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life in the age to come.  

All those on this forum who agree with all the statements in the above creed should be considered Christians on this forum.  The other "doctrines" that you see as giving "false hope of salvation after death" are not under consideration in the forum rules.  But, as clearly stated in the above creed, when someone affirms that creed, then it should be clear from that creed where the hope of salvation comes from.  To be sure, there are many different groups and denominations represented on this forum.  And, nearly every denomination or church affiliation has certain doctrines/practices that are unique to itself.  Those doctrines/practices may be called into question.  But, someone belonging to a church with those doctrines should not be called "not Christian" (nor their church be called "not Christian") and are protected by the forum rules... when they and their church affirms everything in the above creed.

And therein lies the rub, the Nicene creed does a poor job in the summation of the person of Christ, but it does absolutely nothing on the summation of the work of Christ. By limiting your requirement to just accepting the Nicene creed, even a Christadelphian, Christian Scientist, or a Oneness Pentecostal could profess outward agreement to it.

I guess the only real question is, which is the ultimate authority, the rules of the forum, or the word of God? Once that is answered the rest should be easy.


CRP

Be that as it may, those are the ground rules of the forum.

Quote from: DCR on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 07:49:32
Be that as it may, those are the ground rules of the forum.

I realize that, but the question is are they correct? Is there not room for more alignment with the word of God?

CRP

circuitridingpreacher

Hi Lee,  The Nicene creed is deceptive.  It is like a baited hook to pull you in. When I first became a Christian I went to a Catholic church funeral.  The priest was saying things that sounded like what I believed but he meant something else.  I didn't take the bait.

I'm sorry, but moving a deleted conversation onto another forum, which is what has been done here, is not consistent with forum rules either.

Quote from: marc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 08:15:37
I'm sorry, but moving a deleted conversation onto another forum, which is what has been done here, is not consistent with forum rules either.

Marc

I don't know what that meant, you are going to have to enlarge on that one for me.


CRP

The discussion equating Catholics with cults is based on a thread started by Buff and deleted, per the rules. If you go back and begin reading on page 5 here, you will find the history.

Quote from: marc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 08:24:08
The discussion equating Catholics with cults is based on a thread started by Buff and deleted, per the rules. If you go back and begin reading on page 5 here, you will find the history.

OK, your previous statement is somewhat cleared up (I think)....

Now back to my question. Since the basis of entry here is agreement with the Nicene creed (which will allow many cults as listed before to professe agreement with it), is there not room for more alignment of the rules of this forum with the word of God?

CRP

I guess it needs to be stated again that the entrance to the forum is not based on acceptance of the creed as a creed, but with agreement to the basic expressed within it that are found in the Word of God.  Note again (with emphasis added):

Quote6.2  We do not expect members to accept or affirm this as a Creed as Grace-Centered recognizes no Creed but the Bible. We do, however, expect members to agree to the content below only because it is based on the Bible.

At any rate, further discussion on the rules should really be taken out of this thread an into the Forum Issues area where these discussions belong.

Anyone who really wants to know what Roman Catholics believe (or at least what the Magisterium actually teaches-many people who consider themselves Catholics don't believe everything the Church teaches), should buy a used Catechism of the Catholic Church. A lot of the teaching would undoubtedly surprise many Protestants. Its easier to generalize and stereotype, and repeat second-hand information, than it is to study for oneself.

We don't have to agree with everything the RCC teaches, but shouldn't we want to be accurate, fair and honest about what the RCC really teaches? We'd object if our Catholic friends here at GCM misrepresented our beliefs to others wouldn't we? I know I would.

Personally, I have tremendous respect for Benedict XVI, as both leader of the RCC and a theologian and scholar.

Pax.

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 09:38:12
Anyone who really wants to know what Roman Catholics believe (or at least what the Magisterium actually teaches-many people who consider themselves Catholics don't believe everything the Church teaches), should buy a used Catechism of the Catholic Church. A lot of the teaching would undoubtedly surprise many Protestants. Its easier to generalize and stereotype, and repeat second-hand information, than it is to study for oneself.

We don't have to agree with everything the RCC teaches, but shouldn't we want to be accurate, fair and honest about what the RCC really teaches? We'd object if our Catholic friends here at GCM misrepresented our beliefs to others wouldn't we? I know I would.

Personally, I have tremendous respect for Benedict XVI, as both leader of the RCC and a theologian and scholar.

Pax.

All the information I use in my determination is first hand, in fact I posted some of it yesterday, but it was deleted.

FYI: Here is some of it again.

Quote"For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED." -- CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE)." --[POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302

"[We] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." --POPE LEO XIII

Among the hundreds of anathema's against biblical doctrine found in the counsel of Trent, here are just a few.

QuoteSixth Session, CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

Seventh Session, CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Thirteenth Session, CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

Thirteenth Session, CANON IX.-If any one denieth, that all and each of Christ's faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have attained to years of discretion, to communicate every year, at least at Easter, in accordance with the precept of holy Mother Church; let him be anathema.

Twenty-second Session, CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a [Page 159] bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

CRP

Quote from: mllevaleur on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 10:47:40

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 09:24:53

Quote from: don has a plan on Tue Apr 22, 2008 - 08:21:20When threads are started specifically to bait Catholics into no-win discussions, when one Catholic tries to present a case but is piled on by six or eight or ten fundamentalists, when one poster's tag line includes a link to his own personal website which exists solely to bash Catholics -- When all of those things happen, then this has become an anti-Catholic website.  When the moderators absolutely refuse to enforce the rules and keep discussions moving in a positive direction, then this has become an anti-Catholic website.  If you consider a dozen people ganging up on one or two to be 'fair' and 'tit for tat', then this has become an anti-Catholic website.  If the moderators absolutely refuse to remove posts that contain charges that are obviously false, then this has become an anti-Catholic website.

Is it really Lee's wish to be identified as the owner of an anti-Catholic website?  I thought this was supposed to be a pro 'grace centered' website.

Just another case of sympathizers demonizing the opposition and trying to squelch them on the boards. Special pleading, glittering generalities, buzzwords (anti-catholic), and the composite fallacy that because a number of people here verbally disagree with catholic doctrines that either we are silenced or expelled or the entire site will be considered anti-catholic.

Just pure prejudiced propaganda.

Ok, so I've been pretty absent during all this stuff, and coming in I'm looking at it with fresh eyes. I like to think that I can be pretty objective, despite my being Catholic. Certainly tempers have been flaring on both sides.

I don't mind people saying "this or that Catholic teaching is false." I don't even mind people telling me they think I'm wrong for what I believe. I don't mind them telling me why they think I'm wrong. All of this is, in fact, what discussion is about.

Where it crosses the line, in my opinion, is when someone tells me I'm wrong for something I DO NOT believe or do. That is simply dishonest.

I imagine I would be reprimanded should I tell a Baptist friend, in a discussion, that he is in danger of Hell because he thought it was ok to murder people after accepting Christ. Especially if he said to me, "What?!?! But I don't think that at all!" and I continued to tell him (as if I somehow knew his heart and mind better than him) that he indeed did believe that, and continued to condemn him for it.

Why in the world would I need to resort to dishonesty like that to condemn him? Why would I not listen to him and take him at his word, that he doesn't believe that and would never promote it? If someone were acting in this way, I'd say it looks like they WANT to believe the worst about their baptist brother despite what the baptist himself says...and I'd say it looks like they are anti-baptist for some unknown reason.

Put this back in Catholic context...some people accuse Catholics of certain things. The Catholics say, "That's not true, we don't' believe that," and yet people continue to condemn Catholics for those things. I would think true Christian charity would mean rejoicing in finding out one was mistaken and Catholics actually don't believe what they mistakenly thought. I always rejoice when I find I agree more with a brother or sister in Christ than I first thought....and yet, it seems many, when told by Catholics "But we don't believe that," rather than taking this at face value and rejoicing, actually dare to tell the Catholic himself that he is incorrect about his belief, and he most certainly does believe this. How is this charitable or honest? Unless the person is God Himself he cannot know what is in the heart or mind of the Catholic, and to reject his instistence that he doesn't believe that is essentially calling him a liar.

So this is what I see as anti-Catholicism...the almost frenzied desire to believe the worst about the Catholics' beliefs, despite what the Catholics themselves say.

You see this frenzied desire when a flurry of posts follows a particularly mistaken explanation of Catholicism, praising this faux representation of our beliefs. You see this frenzied desire in reverse when an authentically  Catholic explanation is essentially ignored, presumably because it sounds too genuinely Christian and doesn't provide fuel for the fire.

So, the above is what I mean when I say anti-Catholic. Mis-representing my beliefs, repeatedly (I always assume when I first see misconceptions about my beliefs that the person is genuinely mistaken...when I correct the misconception, though, and see it repeated elsewhere by the same person, I begin to question their motives.) Apparently wanting to believe the worst about Catholics, reveling in descriptions of corruption and evil (whether true or not) within Catholicism, and always assuming that if someone says something bad about Catholicism it must be true without actually checking facts. It all stems from a desire to hate the Catholic Church, and by extension Catholics and their beliefs. That is anti-Catholicism.

Do I see it here? Yes, from some, though certainly not all.

And here's what I expect to be the response to this post from such people..."But we're not misrepresenting your beliefs, you actually DO believe all these horrible things."

Which only proves my point...they don't want to listen or hear what I say I believe, they want to tell me what I believe and condemn me for it without even hearing me out.

I have no ill will towards anyone here...in fact I was once very anti-Catholic myself, and I know the visceral reaction against "popery", I know the sense of disgust even the words alone bring up, the feelings of incredulity that anyone could ever "fall" for all their deceit and lies. I know these feelings all too well...and after having been freed from them, I also know that Satan is the Father of Lies, and was very happy to keep me in this fog of hate and disgust, because it kept me from examining Catholic teaching from the source itself, it kept me in shadows and out of clarity and light, it kept me from seeing the reality for quite a long time. My first step out was seeing that it seemed people kept misrepresenting the same things about Catholics, when Catholics themselves denied those things...and I wondered, why would good ever want to misrepresent evil, if evil Catholicism was already evil enough on its own? That was my first step out of the fog....

I have much to do so I can't promise to be around to respond much, but I felt like simply presenting things from my POV. I hope it's apparent that, thus far, I haven't responded in anger or attacked anyone, I've simply tried to present my viewpoint and perspective of what sometimes goes on here as honestly as possible, and I'll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions about whether it matches reality or not.

God bless you all.

Stephanie,

You seem like a nice girl, and that why I hesitated to answer you because I would rather not get into a knock down drag out with you over these issues. You know where I stand, I am a vocal opponent of Catholicism and their teachings, doctrine, and dogmas. And I have demonstrated that I am not uneducated on what your group teaches or unfamiliar with the documents they teach from.

You have not seen me on the board arguing (much) that Catholics worship statues (although I could make a strong case), nor have you seen me asserting Catholics worship the Pope (although again, I can provide documents, quotes, and historical evidences if I were so inclined). This is because I am not interested in proving things you do not believe because you are not going to consider them valid even if I show you they are, or could at least be viewed and understood as such.

No, my interest is to expose doctrine, such as the despicable anathemas of the Council of Trent, the actual historical horrors of the Crusades or the Inquisition, the robbery of the common people through the selling of indulgences to amass unparalleled wealth, and other historical and doctrinal facts that cannot be denied. I wish to educate others about the truth of the Roman Catholic Church especially with this spirit of ecumenism and tolerance seeking to unify all Christianity at the expense of the truth and the facts.

So just consider when you (and others) are asserting in the face of indisputable facts and evidences that you don't believe that or its not true, your words are about as convincing as an Atheist telling me there is no God.

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 09:38:12
Anyone who really wants to know what Roman Catholics believe (or at least what the Magisterium actually teaches-many people who consider themselves Catholics don't believe everything the Church teaches), should buy a used Catechism of the Catholic Church. A lot of the teaching would undoubtedly surprise many Protestants. Its easier to generalize and stereotype, and repeat second-hand information, than it is to study for oneself.

We don't have to agree with everything the RCC teaches, but shouldn't we want to be accurate, fair and honest about what the RCC really teaches? We'd object if our Catholic friends here at GCM misrepresented our beliefs to others wouldn't we? I know I would.

Personally, I have tremendous respect for Benedict XVI, as both leader of the RCC and a theologian and scholar.

Pax.

It appears that there is a lot of throwing down upon the Roman Catholic and other churches here based upon information that is either only partly true, untrue, or misunderstood.

Something that is hard to do, but that we all should do, is to seek first to understand.  Not until you can say to someone "you believe A because of B", and they tell you that you are correct, do you understand.  I need to do that more, and it seems from looking at these threads concerning the Roman Catholics, some others may need to do that, as well.

Quote from: Gary on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 00:10:58

I could fit many things of this list to segments of the "Church of Christ" church, and many other churches for that matter.

     Is it fair to categorize all churches or denominations as cults? Where do we draw the line, if at all? And whose standard of measurement should we use? A genuine cult to one man is his salvation and blanket of security. To another man, the same cult is dangerous and should be shunned. One man considers his circle of fellowship as having begun with Deity's approval and blessings. Another man judges the same group cultist and affirms that its leaders are interested only in money, power, prestige, and control.

    Surely there must be traits that will help us determine whether or not a particular group is full-blooded or half cult. I'm convinced there are. Two of the definitions Webster offers of a cult are: 1) "An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric interest

Quote from: Mere Nick on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:11:26

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 09:38:12
Anyone who really wants to know what Roman Catholics believe (or at least what the Magisterium actually teaches-many people who consider themselves Catholics don't believe everything the Church teaches), should buy a used Catechism of the Catholic Church. A lot of the teaching would undoubtedly surprise many Protestants. Its easier to generalize and stereotype, and repeat second-hand information, than it is to study for oneself.

We don't have to agree with everything the RCC teaches, but shouldn't we want to be accurate, fair and honest about what the RCC really teaches? We'd object if our Catholic friends here at GCM misrepresented our beliefs to others wouldn't we? I know I would.

Personally, I have tremendous respect for Benedict XVI, as both leader of the RCC and a theologian and scholar.

Pax.

It appears that there is a lot of throwing down upon the Roman Catholic and other churches here based upon information that is either only partly true, untrue, or misunderstood.

Something that is hard to do, but that we all should do, is to seek first to understand.  Not until you can say to someone "you believe A because of B", and they tell you that you are correct, do you understand.  I need to do that more, and it seems from looking at these threads concerning the Roman Catholics, some others may need to do that, as well.

It is interesting when we have confirmation of that as well. Lee Freeman was confronted by his error earlier this year (by several Catholics on this board) when he stated that Vatican II changed some of the doctrines of the Council of Trent. In fact those here were in emphatic agreement with Benedict's declaration that Vatican II confirmed everything put forth at Trent.

The problem is that if one has an ecumenical desire, they refuse to see past it to the truth when it is presented.

CRP

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:26:46
The problem is that if one has an ecumenical desire, they refuse to see past it to the truth when it is presented.

Exactly.

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:02:26

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 09:38:12
Anyone who really wants to know what Roman Catholics believe (or at least what the Magisterium actually teaches-many people who consider themselves Catholics don't believe everything the Church teaches), should buy a used Catechism of the Catholic Church. A lot of the teaching would undoubtedly surprise many Protestants. Its easier to generalize and stereotype, and repeat second-hand information, than it is to study for oneself.

We don't have to agree with everything the RCC teaches, but shouldn't we want to be accurate, fair and honest about what the RCC really teaches? We'd object if our Catholic friends here at GCM misrepresented our beliefs to others wouldn't we? I know I would.

Personally, I have tremendous respect for Benedict XVI, as both leader of the RCC and a theologian and scholar.

Pax.

All the information I use in my determination is first hand, in fact I posted some of it yesterday, but it was deleted.

FYI: Here is some of it again.

Quote"For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED." -- CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882

And, in context if you read the whole section of the catechism, we understand that Catholics believe this power is given to him by Christ...so he's not above Christ or equal to Christ, he is under Christ. But he acts as Christ's vicar, steward of the visible Church, while Christ is away, he is a visible head.

The Vicar of Christ is the wise and faithful steward whom his Master (Jesus Christ) has set over His household (the Church on earth) to care for His other servants (Christians) in until His return (Second Coming). (Luke 12:41-46; Matthew 24:45-51)

The Vicar of Christ is the man to whom Jesus Christ entrusted the feeding and tending of His lambs and sheep (Christians). (John 21:15-17)

The Vicar of Christ is the man to whom Jesus Christ entrusted the keys of His Kingdom. (Matthew 16:18-19; prefigured in Isaiah 22:15-24.)

I understand others don't agree that Christ set up a vicar for His Church, but we do...however, that doesn't mean we believe he is equal to Christ in any way.

Quote"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE)." --[POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302

You have to understand these things in historical context. At the time, one was pretty much either Christian (of the Catholic variety) or some other religion (Jewish, Muslim), or a blatant heretic (trying to say things like God wasn't really human, he was just spirit, or things like that.) So, at the time, this pope doesn't even have a concept of whole other groups of Christians out there. The intended audience here is not protestants, but Catholics, reminding them that they are subject to the Pope, no one is excepted.

Later in history, as protestants become more common and numerous, the Church clarifies her position, saying that those who don't realize the pope does have authority are not going to be held responsible for not submitting to him, if they are doing their best to serve God the way they know how. This is what the phrase "invincible ignorance" refers to...

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/papal_primacy.htm

QuotePope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum (1302), spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the primacy of authority of Peter and his successors he stated:

But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] ...  Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

As with all principles of morality, God does not hold the invincibly ignorant of the truth culpable for failing to live by them. Thus, Pope Pius IX could say regarding the salvation of those outside the Church, and thus also those who do not submit to the Roman Pontiff,

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

Quote"[We] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." --POPE LEO XIII

It would be nice if you could actually include a clear reference, rather than just naming the pope. Popes write a lot of stuff, you know!

This is from  Præclara Gratulationis Publicæ (APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM, JUNE 20, 1894), and it is not one sentence alone as if this were the purpose of the letter, it is a phrase used in passing while talking about something else entirely...Christian unity, in fact.

QuoteBut since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, who when about to return to heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest prayer, that His disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray ... that they all may be one, as thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us. And as this divine prayer and supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the unity of divine faith.

Regardless, what does it mean?

It simply means, as I've already explained above, that we believe that the pope is a "stand in" for Christ while Christ is gone. He "holds the place," that doesn't mean he IS Christ or is equal to him. (Exactly like the steward talked about in Isaiah 22). And actually, it seems this letter is directed to all bishops, so the "we" refers to all of them, not just popes. It's a reference to the authority they've been given to shephard the flock.

Look, for example, at the term in loco parentis:

To assume the duties and responsibilities of a parent: "Because Jack's parents were out of town, his sister acted in loco parentis and punished him for staying out so late.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:03:23

Stephanie,

You seem like a nice girl, and that why I hesitated to answer you because I would rather not get into a knock down drag out with you over these issues. You know where I stand, I am a vocal opponent of Catholicism and their teachings, doctrine, and dogmas. And I have demonstrated that I am not uneducated on what your group teaches or unfamiliar with the documents they teach from.

Well, I think I've seen evidence that you know where to find some resources, perhaps...as far as representing them accurately, I'm sure it's no surprise that I'm not quite convinced. 

QuoteYou have not seen me on the board arguing (much) that Catholics worship statues (although I could make a strong case), nor have you seen me asserting Catholics worship the Pope (although again, I can provide documents, quotes, and historical evidences if I were so inclined). This is because I am not interested in proving things you do not believe because you are not going to consider them valid even if I show you they are, or could at least be viewed and understood as such.

Well...uh...thanks, I guess, lol. Lots of things can be understood certain ways...the question is, do the people doing those things understand them that way? I see lots of Catholics saying "no" and lots of non-Catholics telling them "yes you do," and that, I think, is dishonest. I appreciate you refraining from doing so at least with me.

QuoteNo, my interest is to expose doctrine, such as the despicable anathemas of the Council of Trent, the actual historical horrors of the Crusades or the Inquisition, the robbery of the common people through the selling of indulgences to amass unparalleled wealth, and other historical and doctrinal facts that cannot be denied. I wish to educate others about the truth of the Roman Catholic Church especially with this spirit of ecumenism and tolerance seeking to unify all Christianity at the expense of the truth and the facts.

Lol...I'm wondering if you heard Pope Benedict's recent speech on ecumenism? Believe it or not, I think you'd rather agree with what he said. ;-) His point was, essentially, true unity and ecumenism lies in truth, and not in setting aside truths in order to promote a false unity. It's here if you're interested.

As for historical facts, I don't think anyone denies these things happened, but it is important to always put history back in its context, and of course to make sure your "facts" are verifiable and true. (I've seem some ridiculous exaggerations in the past!)

QuoteSo just consider when you (and others) are asserting in the face of indisputable facts and evidences that you don't believe that or its not true, your words are about as convincing as an Atheist telling me there is no God.

Um...I don't think I've ever denied verifiable facts before while discussing such things here. 

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:29:03

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:26:46
The problem is that if one has an ecumenical desire, they refuse to see past it to the truth when it is presented.

Exactly.

I'd say not always, but it can certainly happen if one isn't careful about what their understanding of ecumenism is...

Even within the ecumenical movement, Christians may be reluctant to assert the role of doctrine for fear that it would only exacerbate rather than heal the wounds of division. Yet a clear, convincing testimony to the salvation wrought for us in Christ Jesus has to be based upon the notion of normative apostolic teaching: a teaching which indeed underlies the inspired word of God and sustains the sacramental life of Christians today.

Only by "holding fast

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:26:46
The problem is that if one has an ecumenical desire, they refuse to see past it to the truth when it is presented.

CRP

The only reasonable course, istm, is that if I want to know what a Roman Catholic who posts here believes, I ask that Roman Catholic.  The same goes for other folks who post here whatever is the SOF.    

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 11:55:17
I'd say not always, but it can certainly happen if one isn't careful about what their understanding of ecumenism is...

I know exactly what kind of ecumenism is being promoted through the Roman Catholic Church, and it has no place in Christianity.

---

Quote from: Mere Nick on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 11:59:45

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 10:26:46
The problem is that if one has an ecumenical desire, they refuse to see past it to the truth when it is presented.

CRP

The only reasonable course, istm, is that if I want to know what a Roman Catholic who posts here believes, I ask that Roman Catholic.  The same goes for other folks who post here whatever is the SOF.

Whatever the SOF?