This is the technical use of the word "cult": "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object". As is "the cult of Diana" and not "the Branch Davidian or The Children of God cults."
It's a religion that was worshipped by a peoples who covered the area of modern day Poland. Cults are lead by a single, charismatic leader (sometimes a couple)... like Jesus, or Jim and Tammy Faye Baker or Jim Jones. There have been many Christian cults, but Christianity is not, itself a cult (any longer). Cults do not have large social influence, like this one obviously did. Calling this a cult is like calling the religion of the Maya or the pre-Christian Romans a cult.
As far as "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object"... You just described Christianity. The worship of Jesus... while that might not be what the point was supposed to have been, you might want to send a memo out. There are a lot of folks who are idolatrous to that cross.
And here's an example of the usage from another article about late-antique Judaism: "...the Sadducees stressed the importance of the priests in the Temple cult, while the Pharisees insisted on the participation of all Jews."
https://www.livius.org/articles/people/sadducees/
Yes, Christianity is a cult but not really in the tabloid, cable news meaning that you are used to. “Cult” is not inherently negative or out of the mainstream. It simply means a system of religious worship. It has become more negative in recent decades in popular culture by being associated with some “unusual” religious groups.
I don't mean it as a slur, really but Christianity started as a cult, though it can no longer be construed as one for the most part - aside for certain sects (though I'm unsure about Catholocism and their fealty to the Pope above almost anything... it seems almost antithetical to pure New Testiment teaching, but I'm non religious and wasn't raised Catholic, so much of it is a mystery to me). This religious group they're describing in the article, however seems very out of bounds for the term "cult" and they seem to use the term in merely a pejorative sense.
As far as the legal definitions of cults go (under US law), well there it gets "squishy" and kind of comes down to a popularity contest, almost. "Are you of a certain age", "Are you of a certain size", "Have you a certain amount of influence", type of thing.
Cults don't need a single leader. Hellenic cults were lead by the ritual with practitioners themselves leading the rites, not unlike masonic tradition or fraternity rituals today.
> This article discusses the _original_ meaning of the word "cult", not the term in the sociology of religion, new religious movements called "cults", cults of personality, or popular cult followings.
Emphasis mine. As far as I was educated this is neither the commonly understood nor academically encouraged usage.
It's still used like that in historical or anthropological writing. Cult of the emperor, cult of this or that. You're just used to a different meaning that is also avoided in your particular field where the two meanings are more negatively collidey.
