Callers to my door.

Slav

Donatello wrote: »

It should be noted that anyone can write or edit Wikipedia, and the English was quite bad in that entry, so who's to say the information is accurate?

Who says it's not? I think if you are claiming that a source has historic inaccuracies it's usually expected that you point out where they are wrong and what is, in your opinion, the historic truth and on what basis (especially when discussing a source that you brought up yourself). And "Deus vult!" does not normally count as an acceptable excuse for not doing that.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

30,000 separate reformed denominations tells you all you need to know about the extent of dissent.

Our recent discussion-ette involving Beetles and Passats tells us all we need to know about the significance and locus of the dissent, to whit: disagreement over non-essentials (by and large)

As someone who is a practicing RC, I don't find the church repressive or unwilling to argue with authority.We're a broad church and a wide variety of views with different emphasis is tolerated and encouraged with the RCC.

Are you saying you agree on essentials (which I assume you must under RC) but dissent on non-essentials? Wouldn't that make you like the Protestants?

PDN

Donatello wrote: »

Remember that St. Thomas was one of ours! All the Churches that might have been or that became detached were eager to pursue communion with the Holy See at the earliest opportunity. It is only human sin which leads to heresy and schisms, especially pride.

Nonsense. Thomas did not belong to a movement with a history of using violence against 'heretics'. He did not belong to a movement with most of what today distinguishes Roman Catholicism from other churches, nor had he any conception of a 'Holy See' in Rome.

Mention 'Rome' to Thomas and, like any Jew of his day, he would immediately have thought of an organisation with palaces in Rome, where the leaders dressed themselves in royal colours and accumulated gold, where the top leader was known as the Pontifex Maximius, and where they bowed before statues - ie the Roman Empire.

philologos

Donatello - If you doubt the facts that are in that article, use the footnotes to follow it up. It seems that there were other churches before Roman Catholicism in fact.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Our recent discussion-ette involving Beetles and Passats tells us all we need to know about the significance and locus of the dissent, to whit: disagreement over non-essentials (by and large)

I think you miss the point.
The issues that separate reformed/Protestant churches from RCC are central core issues of dissent.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you saying you agree on essentials (which I assume you must under RC) but dissent on non-essentials? Wouldn't that make you like the Protestants?

I am saying that the RCC is a broad church in which criticisms and viewpoints across a spectrum of issues can be aired and discussed.

This is different to dissent over core issues such as those which lead to dissenters leaving the RCC and founding their own denominations and following their own rules.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

I think you miss the point. The issues that separate reformed/Protestant churches from RCC are central core issues of dissent.

The point hadn't anything to do with the division between Protestantism and Catholicism.

The point was that the body 'Protestantism' isn't anywhere near as fractured as "30,000 different denomations ....following their own rules" tries to suggest. No one can prevent you trotting out that line - but it doesn't quite stack up when you look behind the hyperbole.

You might not think that the basis of salvation is a core essential. You might not think that eternal security is an essential either. Nor may you model God in quite the same directly-personally-relating way that the body Protestantism does (whatever about the spectrum of views within those global lines). But those are essentials for Protestantism and they are united in the main on those essentials


Can you stop using this particular fallacy in future One True Church discussions? It really is neck and neck alongside On This Rock-ism in the Monotonously Tiresome Sweepstakes.

I am saying that the RCC is a broad church in which criticisms and viewpoints across a spectrum of issues can be aired and discussed.

This is different to dissent over core issues such as those which lead to dissenters leaving the RCC and founding their own denominations and following their own rules.

...and getting along quite nicely with other dissenters when it comes to essentials. Take this very forum, where Protestant churches of all hues meet (the Protestant idea of a church laying far more in the members than in an institution). I don't see much in the way of dissent between us. Although I do see forum where viewpoints across a spectrum of issues can be aired and discussed.

The only argy bargy I see is between the body Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

Proofs postive of the paucity of your postion in this matter - were proof necessary, hinault.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

The point hadn't anything to do with the division between Protestantism and Catholicism.

The point was that the body 'Protestantism' isn't anywhere near as fractured as "30,000 different denomations ....following their own rules" tries to suggest. No one can prevent you trotting out that line - but it doesn't quite stack up when you look behind the hyperbole.

You might not think that the basis of salvation is a core essential. You might not think that eternal security is an essential either. Nor may you model God in quite the same directly-personally-relating way that the body Protestantism does (whatever about the spectrum of views within those global lines). But those are essentials for Protestantism and they are united in the main on those essentials


Can you stop using this particular fallacy in future One True Church discussions? It really is neck and neck alongside On This Rock-ism in the Monotonously Tiresome Sweepstakes.





...and getting along quite nicely with other dissenters when it comes to essentials. Take this very forum, where Protestant churches of all hues meet (the Protestant idea of a church laying far more in the members than in an institution). I don't see much in the way of dissent between us. Although I do see forum where viewpoints across a spectrum of issues can be aired and discussed.

The only argy bargy I see is between the body Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

Proofs postive of the paucity of your postion in this matter - were proof necessary, hinault.

You make a good point. By its very nature, Protestantism is relativistic. Despite the clear promises of Christ, Prots must admit that they aren't able to say what is truth and so a diversity of opinions must co-exist fairly peacefully. It is only the CC that says we have the truth cos Christ gave it to us and the Prots get irked cos they know nobody really has the truth and Christ must have not really meant what He said about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth.

One True Church?
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world
today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the
world. In other words, I would look for the Church, which the world hates.

My reason for doing this would be that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated, as He was when He was on earth in the flesh.

If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned.

Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth.

Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils.

Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God.

Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims to be infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth.

Look for the Church which amid the confusions of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then itis unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore, the Church is Divine"

For Jakkass:

Someone said the Emperor Constantine setup the Catholic church in 312AD?

This is false. Constantine only legalized Christianity when he signed the Edict of Milan in 313AD which officially ended Roman persecution of the church. The previous year he had just defeated the pagan general Maxentius using the Christian cross in battle. His mother St. Helena was already a Christian long before that and probably raised Constantine with Christian virtues. There was already an existing church when Constantine came into the picture as evidenced by the writings of the Patristic fathers.

philologos

Donatello: I know full well there was a church before Constantine. That was the Christian church. There are other churches that pre-date Roman Catholicism as I've demonstrated already.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

The point hadn't anything to do with the division between Protestantism and Catholicism.

The point was that the body 'Protestantism' isn't anywhere near as fractured as "30,000 different denomations ....following their own rules" tries to suggest. No one can prevent you trotting out that line - but it doesn't quite stack up when you look behind the hyperbole.

You might not think that the basis of salvation is a core essential. You might not think that eternal security is an essential either. Nor may you model God in quite the same directly-personally-relating way that the body Protestantism does (whatever about the spectrum of views within those global lines). But those are essentials for Protestantism and they are united in the main on those essentials


Can you stop using this particular fallacy in future One True Church discussions? It really is neck and neck alongside On This Rock-ism in the Monotonously Tiresome Sweepstakes.





...and getting along quite nicely with other dissenters when it comes to essentials. Take this very forum, where Protestant churches of all hues meet (the Protestant idea of a church laying far more in the members than in an institution). I don't see much in the way of dissent between us. Although I do see forum where viewpoints across a spectrum of issues can be aired and discussed.

The only argy bargy I see is between the body Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

Proofs postive of the paucity of your postion in this matter - were proof necessary, hinault.

I don't really know what point your attempting to make?

As regards dissent, the number of reformed and Protestant sects/denominations tells you all you need to know about their tendency to adopt their own rules to suit their own ends.

As regards the RCC and Protestant/reformed churches, if there was agreement on "the essentials", we would not have the hundreds/thousands of different sects in Protestantism/reformism.
We would have conformity to Rome.

It is my view that there is a considerable gulf between RCC and all of these other churches and it is not the case that there is agreement on the "essentials" as you put it.

And as regards my referring to "One True Church", the fact of the matter is that the RCC is the One True Church!

Finally, with regard to the RCC, it is the case that within the RCC there is constant discussion/debate/criticism.
Far from being an oppressive and authorative institution that some here would portray, the RCC is alive with discussion/debate/criticism by it's members.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

I don't really know what point your attempting to make?

That this..

As regards dissent, the number of reformed and Protestant sects/denominations tells you all you need to know about their tendency to adopt their own rules to suit their own ends.

...is to vague to be of use to you.

Protestant dissent with Rome on essentials doesn't mean Protestant dissent with each other on essentials. One denominaton might forbide women elders, the next might allow them. Neither says this issue is essential.

You're not addressing the unity on essentials between Protestants (in the main). Pointing to numbers doesn't impinge negatively on this.

As regards the RCC and Protestant/reformed churches, if there was agreement on "the essentials", we would not have the hundreds/thousands of different sects in Protestantism/reformism.
We would have conformity to Rome.

See the above example re: women preachers. And bonnet wearing. And spirit movement within the church and a whole host of other non-essentials.

Again, you're waving your hand in a general direction. You're not actually formulating any substantial response.

It is my view that there is a considerable gulf between RCC and all of these other churches and it is not the case that there is agreement on the "essentials" as you put it.

Good grief man. Read what I wrote. That unity on essentials exists between Protestants. That dissent on essentials exists between Protestants and RC. With Rome dissenting with Protestants as much as the other way around.

And as regards my referring to "One True Church", the fact of the matter is that the RCC is the One True Church!

Donatello is dead - long live Donatello.

:rolleyes:

Finally, with regard to the RCC, it is the case that within the RCC there is constant discussion/debate/criticism.

Far from being an oppressive and authorative institution that some here would portray, the RCC is alive with discussion/debate/criticism by it's members.

When Rome is the final authority then it is per defintion (at least it should be in your eyes), authoritive. It must also be authoritarian - in the sense of setting boundaries on the limits of freedom. Otherwise you get Reformation.

That said, I've no doubt you can discuss and debate and criticise within those boundaries.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Protestant dissent with Rome on essentials doesn't mean Protestant dissent with each other on essentials. One denominaton might forbide women elders, the next might allow them. Neither says this issue is essential.

You're not addressing the unity on essentials between Protestants (in the main). Pointing to numbers doesn't impinge negatively on this.

I get you now.
Dissent within and between Protestant denominations wasn't what I was discussing because I am not familiar enough with inter-Protestant issues to be able to discuss those matter.

I take your point that Protestant churches, between them, could well agree on the essentials.
(one essential that does unite them is their collective and individual opposition to Rome )

antiskeptic wrote: »

When Rome is the final authority then it is per defintion (at least it should be in your eyes), authoritive. It must also be authoritarian - in the sense of setting boundaries on the limits of freedom. Otherwise you get Reformation.

That said, I've no doubt you can discuss and debate and criticise within those boundaries.

Fine.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

I take your point that Protestant churches, between them, could well agree on the essentials.

Great. I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to mention that to Donatello next time he plays he 30,000 denomination card.

(one essential that does unite them is their collective and individual opposition to Rome )

Indeed. When an institution feels it can do this..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Pedro_Berruguete_-_Saint_Dominic_Presiding_over_an_Auto-da-fe_%281475%29.jpg

..it's worth opposing. Fortunately, we don't have to demonstrate superhuman (or supernatura) levels of bravery to do so now.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

Great. I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to mention that to Donatello next time he plays he 30,000 denomination card.

Indeed. When an institution feels it can do this..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Pedro_Berruguete_-_Saint_Dominic_Presiding_over_an_Auto-da-fe_%281475%29.jpg

..it's worth opposing. Fortunately, we don't have to demonstrate superhuman (or supernatura) levels of bravery to do so now.

Calvin, Luther, Cromwell, witch trials, English Anglican establishment persecution of Catholics - it's not as if the Catholics have a monopoly on being unpleasant. People in glass houses and all...

Anyhow, it is one of those things that the members of the Church have in the past done things that were less than ideal.

We also shouldn't seek to judge the past by today's standards. People did what they could to forward and protect the mission of the Church, even if today we might rightfully reject their methods.

philologos

Donatello wrote: »

Calvin, Luther, Cromwell, witch trials, English Anglican establishment persecution of Catholics - it's not as if the Catholics have a monopoly on being unpleasant. People in glass houses and all...

Not really. antiskeptic & I aren't responsible for these things. We can condemn them as wrong and completely opposed to the Gospel & un-Christlike.

Donatello wrote: »

We also shouldn't seek to judge the past by today's standards. People did what they could to forward and protect the mission of the Church, even if today we might rightfully reject their methods.

This presumes a Zeitgeist / relative morality? Weren't these things always wrong?

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

Seriously?

Imagine you have ten kids playing in a room. Nine of the kids play together quite happily. But the tenth kid insists that he won't play with the others unless they recognise him as boss, because he thinks he's better than anyone else. This, understandably, causes dissension.

Most reasonable folks would correctly identify this particular brat as the problem in the room, and would see the solution to the problem as lying in a much needed attitude adjustment.

You would need to have a very one-eyed perception of reality to insist, "There you are! All that bickering proves that we won't have any peace unless we force the other nine children to acknowledge the little bully as their boss!"

Saving that in my Favourites. That's going to become a classic! :):)

*********************************************************************************
3 John 1:9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. 10 Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.

Donatello

Jakkass wrote: »

Not really. antiskeptic & I aren't responsible for these things. We can condemn them as wrong and completely opposed to the Gospel & un-Christlike.



This presumes a Zeitgeist / relative morality? Weren't these things always wrong?

Well, didn't the Pope apologise for the sins of the Church in 2000? There must be forgiveness.

As regards the 10th child, the bully - I don't see what that has got to do with the Catholic Church. Is that meant to be a figure of the Pope? I hope not.

Anyhow, from the Catholic perspective, the Church is the Mother, and the obedient children are the children of the Catholic Church, whereas the other children, lost and confused, are outside the Church and must be gathered in, just as Christ said:

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

This one flock, one shepherd, can only be the Catholic Church, to which all the children are called to be part of. All the scattered sheep are called to this Church. Vatican II spoke very nicely about this, as I have posted in the past. Come right on in - leave the gate the way you found it!

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

As regards the 10th child, the bully - I don't see what that has got to do with the Catholic Church. Is that meant to be a figure of the Pope? I hope not.

It represents your position. Christians of all kinds gather here without any problem - they are unified where they consider it essential to be unified.

You and other Catholics like you, who claim One True Church and the like, are the odd-man out. The ones who stamp their feet insisting that they are in the right.

Anyhow, from the Catholic perspective, the Church is the Mother, and the obedient children are the children of the Catholic Church, whereas the other children, lost and confused, are outside the Church and must be gathered in, just as Christ said:

And from the perspective of everyone else in the room, Christ wasn't referring to the Catholic church as the Church.

This one flock, one shepherd, can only be the Catholic Church, to which all the children are called to be part of. All the scattered sheep are called to this Church. Vatican II spoke very nicely about this, as I have posted in the past. Come right on in - leave the gate the way you found it!

Er..the shepherd is Jesus Christ. Says both Jesus Christ and your picture.

philologos

Donatello: In using John 10 as your example, Jesus being the shepherd and those who follow Him being the flock (or in your case the Roman Catholic Church) you are again doubting the salvation of non-Roman Catholic Christians.

Can you clarify exclusively as to whether or not Christians who are non-Roman Catholics can be ultimately saved?

antiskeptic

YO!! DONNATELLO

I think this must be the 4th time I've asked you this question in-thread.

antiskeptic wrote:

I was asking how you know you haven't gone astray in the matter of your supposing the Roman Church to be what it claims to be. Doesn't that require quite a large amount of intepreting what is claimed / history / Bible verses on your part in order to be sure they are what they claim to be?

..and assuming you arrive at the conclusion you arrive at re: the Roman Catholic church via personal intepretation, then why do you poo-poo others who engage in the same practice but who come to alternative conclusions?

Aren't you special pleading your way to invoking personal infallibility? n

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

He did indeed. And when he saved them, their lives where transformed and they moved on from prostitution, pimping .. and atheism. You've vast quantities of people utterly unaffected by virtue of being Roman Catholic Christians (which is something different to sinners remaining sinners)

With attitudes like yours and PDN's there are no better words than those of Jesus recorded by Matthew in Chapter 21.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

The point was that the body 'Protestantism' isn't anywhere near as fractured as "30,000 different denomations ....following their own rules" tries to suggest. No one can prevent you trotting out that line - but it doesn't quite stack up when you look behind the hyperbole.
.

I understand it's nearer 40,000 but that doesn't matter.

What does matter is that there is One Holy Spirit, and all denominations claim to be inspiried by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations.

If there is only one Holy Spirit there can be only one interpretation.

The overwhelming majority of Christians do subscribe to the correct one.

The remaining members of the 40,000 or so other "Christian" denominations are either misled or just making it up.

Logically with only One Holy Spirit there is only One interpretation.

Logic v hyperbole. Catholics win.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er..the shepherd is Jesus Christ. Says both Jesus Christ and your picture.

Yeah the Shepherd is Christ, but it was His will to appoint Peter the earthly head as you can see at the end of John's Gospel, 'Feed my sheep, feed my lambs, tend my sheep.'

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

It represents your position. Christians of all kinds gather here without any problem - they are unified where they consider it essential to be unified.

And this is their prerogative.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You and other Catholics like you, who claim One True Church and the like, are the odd-man out. The ones who stamp their feet insisting that they are in the right.

You do a good line in irony, I have to say.
You stamped your foot the other day telling me not to refer to the RCC as the One True Church.

hinault

Jakkass wrote: »

Donatello: In using John 10 as your example, Jesus being the shepherd and those who follow Him being the flock (or in your case the Roman Catholic Church) you are again doubting the salvation of non-Roman Catholic Christians.

Can you clarify exclusively as to whether or not Christians who are non-Roman Catholics can be ultimately saved?

Become Roman Catholic.
That solves all doubt;)

hinault

Donatello wrote: »

Calvin, Luther, Cromwell, witch trials, English Anglican establishment persecution of Catholics - it's not as if the Catholics have a monopoly on being unpleasant. People in glass houses and all...

Anyhow, it is one of those things that the members of the Church have in the past done things that were less than ideal.

We also shouldn't seek to judge the past by today's standards. People did what they could to forward and protect the mission of the Church, even if today we might rightfully reject their methods.

Agreed.
Many Protestant/reformed churches devolved from other Protestant/reformed churches.

I also agree with the point that what was tolerated/accepted in the past, would not be tolerates/accepted by today's standards.
With the acquisition of more knowledge for example, we know that the earth revolves around the sun.
For years the literal/biblical interpretation required a christian to believe that the entire universe revolved around Earth.

suarez9

Cherithgospel.org no longer hoping read literature online or Gotquestions.org. Excellent. Feel free to pm me

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

YO!! DONNATELLO

I think this must be the 4th time I've asked you this question in-thread.

..and assuming you arrive at the conclusion you arrive at re: the Roman Catholic church via personal intepretation, then why do you poo-poo others who engage in the same practice but who come to alternative conclusions?

Aren't you special pleading your way to invoking personal infallibility? n

This is one of the best reasons to accept the Tradition of the Catholic Church for all those on the fence.

There is a lot at stake. If the Catholics are wrong, it's no big deal. If the Protestants are wrong, then 'Houston, we have a problem!'

Catholics take the Lord at His Word. That is why we are Catholics. That is why we accept the Eucharist. God said it, that settles it. Same with the Pope and all the other things Catholics believe. There is so much evidence for Catholicism, whilst Protestantism has very shaky foundations.

The Lord walked the earth for a very short time - he had no time to waste on cryptic talk - he said 'This is my body' - Catholics accept Him at His Word. If it turns out we are wrong, then we have the solid defense: 'YOU said it was your body!' Whereas the Protestant will have no defense against the charge of not believing in Him in His Eucharistic reality.

On the Eucharist, Ignatius (a student of John the Apostle) wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:

“ Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1



“ I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God's sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God's wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ.— Letter to the Romans

virmilitaris

Seriously, all this bickering we do on these threads only goes to prove that the true unity that Christ desired can only come through Catholic unity.

Non-RC people. I might disagree with you all on most things but I honestly sympatheise with ye here. This 'logic' is bordering on JC-like madness.

philologos

hinault wrote: »

Become Roman Catholic.
That solves all doubt;)

Can you not just tell me what the actual RCC position is on it, because it is looking like one of the most confused theologies of salvation that I've ever come across.

JimiTime

Slav wrote: »

Since the approach is the same it instils more or less the same attitude, that's my point.

A point that fails to see the difference between a proper faith grounded in Christ, and the institutional faith which befalls a OTCer. Your point is akin to saying, 'Well me and Albert Einstein are very alike, in that we both have heads'.

With rare exceptions all Christians believe in One True Church and I don't see their attitude towards those outside of it (according to their definition of the Church) is not much different.

Don't start confusing terms here Slav. There is a HUGE difference in believing in the body of Christ, and believing in institutional superiority.

While I respectfully disagree with your assessments (imho in itself it neither encourages nor discourages pride and elitism and certainly does not encourage the blind obedience and lack of critical thinking) you logic can equally be applied to all Christians.

Well think about it this way. If an institution lifts itself up to a point of authority, and its adherents recognise this authority, then it instills a misapplied confidence in such a person. They can argue ignorantly simply in the belief that they are right. They don't need to understand, just feel safe in the belief that someone in their institution does. Such attitude is displayed here on a regular basis by the usual suspects. Also, in discussions with JW's, I've heard it actually said I.E. 'I don't know, but such and such elder will definitely know' etc. Its faith in an institution, and whatever similarities you try to paint, THIS faith in institution is what makes it so different. As I alluded to in my first post here, it is this faith in an institutional authority that gives this security to many, and also encourages (Not always induces) religious pride.

Are you open to fellowship with JW or Mormons?

Institutionally no, they would be to me the same as the RCC institutionally speaking. However, any tree that bares good fruit I will call brother.

Don't you know many Christians who look down on them because they are a poor imitation?

I do, but not based on an institutional superiority complex.

Is it unusual to see someone being discouraged of critical thinking by the security of "the Bible is the word of God"? Is elitism unknown to the Protestant world?

Certainly not. It SHOULD be unknown to the Christian world though. 'Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing'. People will be people, the point however, is that institutions that declare themselves THE elite, will encourage it more. I know from my experience with JW's, and my own attitude of when I was involved with them. Institutional superiority is a very different animal to simply having issues with doctrine.

I believe the roots of these unpleasant things are exactly the same whether you find them among RC, Orthodox or Protestants.

What would you consider the roots? I believe OTCers are attracted to elitist type institutions, and find security in institutional authoritarianism. Believing you have the right answers is a powerful spell that these institutions can cast. While I believe Christians should be discouraged from such attitudes, such institutions help such attitudes blossom.