The Catholic Church Is A Cult

We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts: (I) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and (2) that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship. [1]

The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same (N~D); this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term “rock” as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church.[1]

4And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by people, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For this is contained in Scripture:

“BEHOLD, I AM LAYING IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNERSTONE,

AND THE ONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME.” 7This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for unbelievers,

“A STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,

THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE,” 8and,

“A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”; - 1 Peter 2:4-7

10According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each person must be careful how he builds on it. 11For no one can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. - 1 Corinthians 3:10-11

A Catholic would not use the term sola scriptura—which is historically contentious and highly prone to misunderstanding—but he certainly can agree that the basic facts of the gospel and how to respond to it can be derived from Scripture. A Catholic would add that these facts need to be understood in the light of Sacred Tradition and that the Church’s intervention may be necessary to make sure they are understood correctly.[2]

Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? - Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 4 paragraph 1

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” - Epistle To The Corinthians, Chapter 42

This has major Scriptural problems for clear reasons,

Take Christianity, wars have been fought over what is considered orthodox and people killed for what is considered unorthodox.

I am not saying people shouldn't be free to try to make their own interpretation.

But I believe there is only one proper interpretation of the Christian Scriptures based on the language and other things from that day and age. 

But this doesn't mean people shouldn't be free to debate what that interpretation is. Most of the time it is cut-and-dry what the proper interpretation is and people are simply wrong. But there are rare occasions where it takes a some research to figure out what was meant. In these the debates are important.

But in Christianity there is only one right interpretation and people need to do the best they can to get as close to it as possible. 

I have never been sure as  how to differentiate between a cult and a religion.

• Well, if you go by any standard of evidence or purity test the distinction will always be fuzzy.
  
• Certainly, Dionysian cults, Imperial cults, Cargo cults were all considered orthodox and genuine in the context of their time- they were only considered cults by the standards of later religions.
  
• The distinction I generally use is secrets and lies.  Any authentic expression of faith without ulterior motive seeks to maximize attention, attendance, patronage.  If you genuinely believe that you hold the secret to human salvation, eternal life, that alone is sufficient motivation for evangelism.  If membership is limited, if there are rituals or beliefs that are done in secret, if a members' relationships must be monitored to control the message- then that is what I call a cult.
  
• By this standard, there are certainly many cults within the Catholic Church, some officially sanctioned, many not.  In high school, I was recruited into one such cult.  We spent a week forbidden to speak, given much work with little opportunity to sleep and pressed in shoulder to shoulder for long hours into a tiny dark crowded room for worship.  I was very much taken in by the simple satisfaction of hard work without much worry about social niceties or personal decision-making.  We were expressly forbidden from speaking about those practices but fortunately my mother called bullshit on that as soon as I got home.  Even though she was a devoted Catholic she immediately recognized that if one has to keep one's religious practice secret in a free society, then there's something wrong, something dangerous being cultivated within the shadows of that secrecy.
  

Cult: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (Merriam Webster's online dictionary).

Spurious: outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : FALSE (Merriam Websters online dictionary)

The Catholic Church has a history of teaching heresy, and still teaches heresy, about the Pope, fasting, church authority, and church history and many foundational beliefs about Christianity.

For starters, the Catholic Church believes and teaches that the Pope is the head of the church.

As the Catholic Apologist website Catholic.com explains:

We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts: (I) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and (2) that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship. [1]

This has major Scriptural problems for clear reasons, mainly:

"For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body." - Ephesians 5:23

He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. - Colossians 1:18

"and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;" - Colossians 2:20

But they also inaccurately claim that Peter is the foundation of the church:

The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same (N~D); this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term “rock” as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church.[1]

There's one problem with this... Peter himself never even claimed this about his position in the church:

4And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by people, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For this is contained in Scripture:

“BEHOLD, I AM LAYING IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNERSTONE,

AND THE ONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME.” 7This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for unbelievers,

“A STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,

THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE,” 8and,

“A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”; - 1 Peter 2:4-7

Here Peter himself calls Christ the cornerstone of the church. If Peter believed he was the foundation of the church, then why call Jesus the cornerstone? It is because Peter knew that Jesus, not himself, was the foundation of the church.

Moreover, Paul also calls Jesus the foundation of the church:

10According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each person must be careful how he builds on it. 11For no one can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. - 1 Corinthians 3:10-11

So both Peter and Paul agreed that Jesus, not Peter, was the foundation of the church. This, therefore, means the Catholic Church believes heresy about Papal supremacy and Peter's divine placement as the foundation of the church.

But not only do they err in papal supremacy, they also do not adhere to church tradition regarding sola scriptura.

Catholic.com explains:

A Catholic would not use the term sola scriptura—which is historically contentious and highly prone to misunderstanding—but he certainly can agree that the basic facts of the gospel and how to respond to it can be derived from Scripture. A Catholic would add that these facts need to be understood in the light of Sacred Tradition and that the Church’s intervention may be necessary to make sure they are understood correctly.[2]

Here, again, Catholics invent their own doctrine that simply was not to be found when Christianity was founded.

In Against Heresies, a work that Catholics have extremely high regard for, Irenaeus, who was an actual student of a pupil of John the Apostle, says that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority for doctrinal matters:

Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? - Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 4 paragraph 1

So in the case of disputes, Irenaeus makes it clear that the early church sought THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES to settle them before any sort of oral tradition. They didn't rely on oral tradition to interpret these writings. They went to the writings themselves and interpreted them on their own merit.

This is a fact that is also confirmed by Clement of Rome, who lived at the same time as the Apostles. Catholics also believe he is the second Pope after Peter:

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” - Epistle To The Corinthians, Chapter 42

So here Clement states that the order of authority in the church is first God, then the Apostles, and THEN the deacons and bishops. So it follows from this that the writings of the Apostles, by the Apostles' very nature of superceding those left after them, supercedes the teachings of those who followed them.

This is why Irenaeus says that the church first consults the writings of the Apostles when controversy strikes. So the concept of Sola Scriptura is actually the true tradition.

Catholics also teach many other peculiar beliefs such as prayer to the saints, abstaining from meat, and other false doctrines that are not to be found anywhere in the early Christian writings as proper doctrine.

Therefore, the Catholic Church is a cult.

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/pope

[2] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-exactly-do-you-mean-by-sola-scriptura

• Certainly, Dionysian cults, Imperial cults, Cargo cults were all considered orthodox and genuine in the context of their time- they were only considered cults by the standards of later religions.
  

but I suppose it would have taken several posts to explore most of it.

introduced to the religion by Constantine I

Do you have any primary sources on this?

I have heard this argument before and seen it debunked before

but I have yet to see any actual historical documents on it from his day.

• here is a debate that lays it out pretty well

• Well, if you go by any standard of evidence or purity test the distinction will always be fuzzy.
  
• Certainly, Dionysian cults, Imperial cults, Cargo cults were all considered orthodox and genuine in the context of their time- they were only considered cults by the standards of later religions.
  
• The distinction I generally use is secrets and lies.  Any authentic expression of faith without ulterior motive seeks to maximize attention, attendance, patronage.  If you genuinely believe that you hold the secret to human salvation, eternal life, that alone is sufficient motivation for evangelism.  If membership is limited, if there are rituals or beliefs that are done in secret, if a members' relationships must be monitored to control the message- then that is what I call a cult.
  
• By this standard, there are certainly many cults within the Catholic Church, some officially sanctioned, many not.  In high school, I was recruited into one such cult.  We spent a week forbidden to speak, given much work with little opportunity to sleep and pressed in shoulder to shoulder for long hours into a tiny dark crowded room for worship.  I was very much taken in by the simple satisfaction of hard work without much worry about social niceties or personal decision-making.  We were expressly forbidden from speaking about those practices but fortunately my mother called bullshit on that as soon as I got home.  Even though she was a devoted Catholic she immediately recognized that if one has to keep one's religious practice secret in a free society, then there's something wrong, something dangerous being cultivated within the shadows of that secrecy.
  

This atheist would say that all theistic devotion is non-sensical, and therefore, there is no real difference between cultish or religious practices.

Regarding secrets and lies, secrets maybe, lies are harder to identify, what we may perceive to be a lie, if it is believed to be true, even if obviously false, isn’t a lie

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3075-constantine-the-great-should-not-be-considered-a-mainstream-christian-because-he-was-actually-a-heretic

• here is a debate that lays it out pretty well
  

-->@oromagi

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3075-constantine-the-great-should-not-be-considered-a-mainstream-christian-because-he-was-actually-a-heretic

• here is a debate that lays it out pretty well
  

I remember this debate quite well. Nevets issue was in trying to contrast Constantine I with what he considered "mainstream" Christianity, i.e. Catholicism, despite the fact that modern Catholicism was heavily influenced by Constantine I. And despite my having some qualms with your vote--e.g. not considering that fauxlaw refused on a personal level to accept Wikipedia as a citation--your assessment of Nevets' argument wasn't unfair. If it were me, I probably would have deemed the debate a tie since most of fauxlaw's responses were apoligistic as opposed to contradictory or even refuting. But I suppose I'm preaching too much from my armchair since I did not vote.

Well if you have actual documented proof that Constantine instituted pagan beliefs I would love to read them.

spiritual beliefs and practices other than those of Judaism, Islam, or especially Christianity.

The Sabbath

The Jewish Sabbath (from Hebrew shavat, “to rest”) is observed throughout the year on the seventh day of the week—Saturday. According to biblical tradition, it commemorates the original seventh day on which God rested after completing the creation.

enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though not as dies Domini, but as dies Solis, in conformity to his worship of Apollo, and in company with an ordinance for the regular consulting of the haruspex (321);

He enjoined the observance, or rather forbade the public desecration of Sunday, not under the name of Sabbatum or Dies Domini, but under its old astrological and heathen title, Dies Solis, familiar to all his subjects, so that the law was as applicable to the worshippers of Hercules, Apollo, and Mithras, as to the Christians. There is no reference whatever in his law either to the fourth commandment or to the resurrection of Christ.

If I remember right, that debate was just minutes away from ending with zero votes, so that judgement was super hasty.

Taken from History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene. Christianity. A.D. 311-600. by Philip Schaff.

THERE IS NO DIRECTIVE IN ANY BIBLICAL TEXT that shifts the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday. The shift among Catholics can only be attributed to Constantine I's decree.

16Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 18Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. - Colossians 2:16-19 NASB95

5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. - Romans 14:5-9 NASB95

First off, I never thought Id live to see the day that I met someone who cited Philip Schaff in a conversation with me. I'm a huge fan of his work. I haven't read everything so I can't unilaterally endorse everything he's written. But I've consulted his encyclopedia of religion and I have been meaning to get around to the book you just cited. I love his work on translating the church fathers.

The Bible actually allows believers the freedom to worship on whatever day they choose:

16Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 18Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. - Colossians 2:16-19 NASB95

Paul also repeats this idea here:

5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. - Romans 14:5-9 NASB95

So Christians do have liberty to choose which day to regard as the Sabbath.

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.