Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by colbe
"The Church" is the Roman Catholic Church.

Originally posted by adjensen

The marks of a cult:

Exclusivity from/Denunciation of Other Group: Each cult group, regardless of what other doctrines are taught, will all have this one common idea -- "The Only True Church Syndrome." The members of each specific organization have been taught that their church, organization, or community, is the only true group and that all other groups are false. The group's leaders will explain that it is impossible to serve God without being a member of the specific group.

If you look at that page, as well as the Catechism page that I posted earlier, you should see the difference. Members of a cult believe that only they know the truth, and only they will be saved, because they're the only ones that know the truth and act on it. That is not what the Catholic Church teaches -- yes, they believe that they are "right", as everyone does (or else they'd believe something else) but they do not claim that everyone else is wrong and is condemned, as a result.

Personally, I view "the church" (small 'c') as being the body of Christ -- all Christian believers (ie: holding to the Nicene Creed) and "the Church" (large 'c') as being the denominations, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc. Doctrinal differences result in frictions between the denominations, but there is still unity in the body of Christ. I can't remember the last time that I saw a mainline Protestant state that every other Nicene Christian other than them is condemned, and if I did, I would have to ask them on what basis they come to that conclusion. The SDAs come the closest, but when I try and pin them down, they admit that salvation doesn't hang on observing the Jewish Sabbath.

reply to post by charles1952

That post was a reply to Colbe and aimed very directly at Colbe's attitude, which is exactly the old-fashioned "you belong to us or you're out in the cold" approach which I was asking about, and which other posters have managed to escape.
I am not saying that Catholic teaching at large is a cult- just pointing out the cultish aspect of Colbe's version.
As long as Catholic teaching is producing people like Colbe, Protestants will want to keep the Catholic community at arm's length.

reply to post by adjensen

. . . but they do not claim that everyone else is wrong and is condemned, as a result.

OK, then explain what excommunication is.
Has the Catholic Church discontinued the practice?

reply to post by adjensen

That post, as I've just explained to someone else, was a reply to Colbe; not immediately obvious, perhaps, because I clicked on "quote" instead of "reply" in order to extract his comment.
So I am not saying that the Catholic Church as such is a cult- simply pointing to the cultish aspect of Colbe's version of the faith.

And you must admit that there is a similarity. Isn't the Colbe approach precisely the kind of brainwashed, strong-arm bullying that we naturally associate with cult members? The blind inability to recognise that anyone outside the group can be saved? I asked for acceptance that I am a member of the Church of Christ. Colbe refuses to give it. That is precisely the attitude that non-Catholic Christians are afraid of, and they will not trust the Catholic Church as long as it remains evident.

Yes, your understanding of the church seems to be the same as mine, and I don't have any problem with it.
But which poster is truly representative of the Roman Catholic community?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

. . . but they do not claim that everyone else is wrong and is condemned, as a result.

OK, then explain what excommunication is.
Has the Catholic Church discontinued the practice?

Excommunication is the state of being in mortal sin, and simply means that the person cannot take communion until they fix the problem. As an example, because my wife and I were married outside of the Catholic Church, she did not take communion after our marriage, but she didn't get kicked out of the church -- she still went, participated in church events and missions, had a good relationship with the priest and staff, and when she died, was anointed by a priest.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
But which poster is truly representative of the Roman Catholic community?

Well, I am admittedly a recent convert to the church, but I asked that very question before I started the process, because some of the things that Pope Benedict had to say about it put me off, and the priest explained it as I did above, and as is evidenced by the catechism.

I've cautioned Colbe in the past about his somewhat myopic view of the Catholic Church (in one instance, it was his claim that "everyone in Heaven would be Catholic", though I think he was implying that everyone would convert, not that only Catholics would get in,) because it is off-putting, and not necessarily valid, but he definitely has a different view than I do.

reply to post by adjensen

. . . when she died, was anointed by a priest.

Isn't there some other procedures that were left out?
Anointing is like saying "good luck".

reply to post by adjensen

So, getting back on track-
I've always seen the way forward as mutual acceptance and co-operation among Nicene believers (rather than incorporation into some kind of organisational structure).

(I must tell the story sometime of my brief stint as chairman of the local Council of Churches)

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

. . . when she died, was anointed by a priest.

Isn't there some other procedures that were left out?
Anointing is like saying "good luck".

I don't know, since she was essentially found dead, so couldn't have confession, communion or Last Rites. Her Mom is an ardent Catholic, and the anointing was all she was worried about, so I think that's all she expected.

I've had personal experiences that have told me that she's in heaven, sort of like the miracles that the church requires for someone to be considered for sainthood, because that's the only way that you'd know someone was in heaven (people in hell can't perform miracles,) so I don't worry about her state of being in excommunication -- when I asked the priest about it, he brought up the "God's mercy" bit, which was a good enough explanation for me.

reply to post by adjensen

I've had personal experiences that have told me that she's in heaven . . .

I'm not trying to make light of your wife dying.
It seems like maybe excommunication is not the same as it was in Medieval times.

reply to post by charles1952


I didn't take that post as an attack on the RCC, but an attack on the notion that one church o another is the only true church and all others are false/illegitimate etc.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

I've had personal experiences that have told me that she's in heaven . . .

I'm not trying to make light of your wife dying.
It seems like maybe excommunication is not the same as it was in Medieval times.

That's an understatement. General in those times excommunication = martyrdom. Lol

reply to post by NOTurTypical and DISRAELI

Gentlemen,

My apologies for misinterpreting the post, but your clarifications only add another question.

I didn't take that post as an attack on the RCC, but an attack on the notion that one church o another is the only true church and all others are false/illegitimate etc.

Suppose I was starting a new church today. What would be the result if I said "There are already existing churches that teach the truth, mine isn't unique?" How could I respond to the question, "Then what do we get out of joining yours?"

No church could survive by saying that some other church is more true, that's obvious. It's fairly clear that saying "Oh, you can get the same amount of truth by going to the Baptismal Pentacostalist Church three blocks down" would result in keeping only those members who thought their church was prettier, or more convenient, or had better "personality."

A church can say "We don't have the answer to that." But it must not say "We are teaching error." Every church believes it is teaching "the truth." If two contradict, one must be wrong. Doesn't it follow from all this that each church must say "We are the one's teaching the truth?" There can't be two churches with contradictory teachings which both teach "the truth." "There can be only one." (And, no, I don't know what movie that came from.)

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Well, many churches have different traditions, however there is one universal gospel. I don't really put too much stock in the varying traditions of the elders of any church, but prefer one that keeps to the basics of the gospel as defined in scripture.

I haven't been involved in denominational Christianity for many years now.

reply to post by charles1952

"There can be only one."

That would be Highlander... Good movie!

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by charles1952

 

"There can be only one."

That would be Highlander... Good movie!

You jus have a man-crush on Mario Van Peeples.

Freak.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by charles1952

 

"There can be only one."

That would be Highlander... Good movie!

You jus have a man-crush on Mario Van Peeples.

Freak.

Who the hell is Mario Van Peeples??!?

Christopher Lambert and Sean Connery are in Highlander... Silly

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by charles1952

 

"There can be only one."

That would be Highlander... Good movie!

You jus have a man-crush on Mario Van Peeples.

Freak.

Who the hell is Mario Van Peeples??!?

Christopher Lambert and Sean Connery are in Highlander... Silly

OIC... so apparently you're just a poser fan.

Geeesh, Highlander 3. *shakes head*