Ok To Believe Vatican May 1 Day Become Whore Of Babylon?

[Eliakim]

Good day,

Took advice from another Phorum member, and posted this topic here as well:

 

"Is it ok for catholics to believe the Vatican *may one day* become the Whore of Babylon?"

 

So I asked this question over at Catholic Answers and got banned by the Michael Francis moderator, without any warning, even though I asked in complete politeness and sincerity. Has anyone else experienced an unusual amount of rudeness, keep the "laity" in the dark attitude and self-righteousness with CA moderators? I noticed many of the interesting threads were begun by folks as I found out were banned too. Oh well, so I'll try here.

 

My question is about the future, not present. St. Augustine actually speculated on this too in his City of God, as did Dante in his Inferno Divine Comedy masterpiece.

 

It seems to me when I read Revelation that the whore symbolizes a church that goes apostate. What other church could this be? The only thing that comes close is Jerusalem, but this doesn't really sit on 7 hills despite some recent rumors to the contrary, nor does it fit the description of becoming apostate, since it already rejects Christ, and has for the last 2000 years. It seems, and St. Augustine seems to agree that it is possible that the antichrist will take his seat at the head of the Church.

 

The only issue is Christ's promise that the gates of hades will not prevail. However perhaps they won't if Christ comes back to save the Church before things get way out of hand, or if the true believers exit the apostate church in the future as Rev. 18:4 alludes to.

 

I appreciate any insight and discussion.

Thank you.

[Nihil Obstat]

Aw man, I wish you had posted this last week, because then I would have had the time to put together a good response.

I have an excellent book called Trials Tribulation and Triumph: Before During and After Antichrist by a man named Desmond Birch. He is an expert in Catholic eschatology, and this book is considered one of the best on the subject. I know he talks about this subject, but unfortunately it has been several years since I read it, and I will be incommunicado for a few weeks starting tomorrow.

If this is a subject that interests you, definitely pick up that book. Otherwise, good luck getting a solid answer.

[Basilisa Marie]

Okay, well, first it depends on what you mean by the question, because it could imply a ton of different things.  Are you saying that the Church will eventually fall away from Christ and be evil? I don't think so, but that might be why you got banned, if they thought you were trolling about that idea.  Do you mean that the Church hierarchy will fall away from Christ and only the lay faithful will remain as the true Church? That's also problematic, for the same reasons.  Are you talking about some people in the hierarchy of the Church, in the Vatican, becoming corrupted and working down to bring down the Church from the outside (sort of like an evil faction working within the greater institution)? Some educated priests and exorcists already believe that there are forces at work trying to "bring down" the Church from within. But that's nothing new or strange or shocking. 

 

The thing about Revelation is that it is hugely symbolic and very mysterious. We aren't meant to know any specifics. Trying to figure out specifics really never ends well, because it can lead a lot of people into speculating about things we're not supposed to speculate about, and focusing on things we aren't supposed to focus on. Jesus said that we won't know the day or the hour when he'll come again, the end of the world, etc. And, like you said, we know that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. We can have hope-filled assurance, because Christ has already won. It's our job to be faithful to Christ. 

 

So is it okay for Catholics to believe that the Vatican "might" become the symbolic whore of Babylon? I'd say no. That's because that statement can lead a person to all kinds of ideas that'll eventually make it sound like it's okay to leave the Church, and/or it opens the door to unhelpful speculation that's really not our job.  Are there people who are corrupt working in the Vatican, both now and in the future? Probably, but that's because we're dealing with humans, and humans experience temptation to sin.  Will a bunch of people in the Curia get super corrupt and try to do bad stuff? I don't know, and it's not my job to know or even to speculate. It's my job to trust in God and Christ, and the Church as the Bride of Christ.  

[blazeingstar]

I can understand why CAF banned you.  You need to look at the banned topics before you open with a post that sounds like trolling.  I believe the Vatican will always be the seat of Christ's vicor.  You need to also stay away from higly offensive phrazes which have connotations not in the future.  However, I also think that in the future there will be atleast one, if not more False Pope especally with the retirement of Benedict or a similar situation.

 

For instance, Benedict was a true Pope and retired.  However, there are some who strongly believe that a Pope is a Pope until death.  Those who hold this as a fact many/will hold thier own conclave when Benedict dies (or another pope in the future) and then there are those who believe that that Pope is the True Pope wheras Francis and any of his sucessors are not. I believe this is what is indicated by the information in private revalation that we have about the Seat of Peter.

 

 

 

[Basilisa Marie]

I can understand why CAF banned you.  You need to look at the banned topics before you open with a post that sounds like trolling.  I believe the Vatican will always be the seat of Christ's vicor.  You need to also stay away from higly offensive phrazes which have connotations not in the future.  However, I also think that in the future there will be atleast one, if not more False Pope especally with the retirement of Benedict or a similar situation.

 

For instance, Benedict was a true Pope and retired.  However, there are some who strongly believe that a Pope is a Pope until death.  Those who hold this as a fact many/will hold thier own conclave when Benedict dies (or another pope in the future) and then there are those who believe that that Pope is the True Pope wheras Francis and any of his sucessors are not. I believe this is what is indicated by the information in private revalation that we have about the Seat of Peter.

 

Wait, you're saying that you think the "private revelation" stuff (like Malachy? Is that the one you're thinking of?) means that people will think Francis isn't the true pope so they'll elect their own? Not that all that is fact, just that some weirdos will think it.  Yes? 

 

This is all why I don't think it's helpful to even speculate about whether or not the Vatican will get evil or something, because it leads to all kinds of similar topics, most of which involve encouraging sedevacantists. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Very briefly, from a very short skim I just did, I can say this in a very disorganized fashion:

 

It is well established within the realm of Church-approved private prophecy that there will be a Minor Chastisement that may, under some conditions, lead to a major schism within the Catholic Church. Could be an antipope involved. Hard to say, but there are many approved prophecies which offer possible details.

The minor chastisement is said to end with a sort of major victory for the Church, led by a very holy secular leader, some kind of 'Great King' bringing in an age of peace. A sort of new renaissance of Catholicism. A saintly pope is also elected around this time. The final event of the minor chastisement is typically described as three days of darkness, and we are well within the scope of Church-approved prophesies to believe that this is a real event.

There are well-established alternative possibilities that allow for the minor chastisement to be largely averted through the prayers and penance of the Church.

The age of peace is very conditional, but it ends as the prosperity causes people to become lax in the faith.This Catholic renaissance ends as a false prophet, as a mocking type of St. John the Baptist, 'prepares' the world for the literal Antichrist. The Catholic influence over the world crumbles at this point. 

Antichrist then gains great power and uses it to persecute the Church. Enoch and Elias return to preach to the gentiles and Jews, and are murdered by Antichrist, then commanded by God to rise up again. They do so, scoring a victory against Antichrist who is then defeated by St. Michael as Antichrist attempts to replicate Christ's ascension from Mt. Olivet.

After the death of Antichrist there is some amount of time during which things return to normal, preparing the world for Christ's return, of which of course we do not know the day or the hour.

 

So, a couple important notes. No Catholic is compelled to believe in private prophecy. If this does not help your faith, then pay no attention. But these things come from a comprehensive study of those private prophecies which have received official approval, so it is also permitted for a Catholic to believe these things.

With regards to your original question, during that possible schism during the minor chastisement, certainly many will be led astray, and perhaps there will be an antipope. Some have also speculated that the false prophet of the Antichrist sets himself up as an antipope.

During the minor chastisement, there is a period of war on a worldwide scale during which it is usually believed that the pope is forced to flee Rome. It is possible that an antipope sets himself up in St. Peter's during this time.

 

So once again, nobody is required to believe any of this, but it is entirely permitted to believe these things as well, because over many centuries and across many geographical locations there has been remarkable agreement among approved private prophets about many of these events. A serious, faithful study of these things is certainly something to be respected, as long as it remains faithful to the Church. Which I am assured Dr. Birch certainly does.

 

Also, many of these things could certainly be interpreted in a symbolic way. Enoch and Elias, for instance. The three days of darkness. The exact nature of the wars during the minor chastisement. We do not know how it will play out - we are simply left with a very broad set of approved prophecies which agree on a set of points, about which we cannot understand the exact nature without experiencing.

 

Lastly, while I did not get into this in the interest of time, Dr. Birch is very clear that there is not sufficient reason to expect the minor chastisement to be at hand. There are quite a few conditions which will be present, according to our prophecies, when this happens, and we are not seeing those things right now. He is not one of the "the end is near" types. He is very well respected for his work. Interesting sidenote, there was a member here in the past who did believe that the chastisement was at hand in a matter of years. Dr. Birch was posting here temporarily and attempted to show how this was not a feasible interpretation of the body of approved prophecy that we have.

[Nihil Obstat]

My explanation is disorganized and highly incomplete, so I absolutely recommend reading the book for yourself. Please read it; it is excellent, and irreproachably Catholic. :)

[CatherineM]

Didn't Dr. Birch get banned? He got into a debate with someone that drove him, and everyone else, bonkers.

[Nihil Obstat]

Didn't Dr. Birch get banned? He got into a debate with someone that drove him, and everyone else, bonkers.

No, he left, and was fairly miffed about what he saw as extremely rude treatment by other posters. At least that is my understanding of what happened.

[NotreDame]

No, he left, and was fairly miffed about what he saw as extremely rude treatment by other posters. At least that is my understanding of what happened.

 

I've decided that, given the choice between frequent banning or rude replies, I'm much more comfortable with rude replies (especially since I'm probably rude myself.)  I'd rather overlook rude posts than not have any posts at all.
 

[Nihil Obstat]

I recall him being quite the gentleman, actually. Very polite - though he got progressively more frustrated as he continued posting - firm and extremely well studied in his opinions, and really put a lot of effort into sorting through a complicated topic.

[Nihil Obstat]

I've decided that, given the choice between frequent banning or rude replies, I'm much more comfortable with rude replies (especially since I'm probably rude myself.)  I'd rather overlook rude posts than not have any posts at all.
 

As I understand it, he was used to a very different environment. One might say more academic. I think he came here expecting an environment in which rude treatment was not considered acceptable. Speculation on my part. I think I heard it from someone who knew him better than me.

 

I was one of his biggest fans on this site though. :hehe:

[blazeingstar]

Wait, you're saying that you think the "private revelation" stuff (like Malachy? Is that the one you're thinking of?) means that people will think Francis isn't the true pope so they'll elect their own? Not that all that is fact, just that some weirdos will think it.  Yes? 

 

This is all why I don't think it's helpful to even speculate about whether or not the Vatican will get evil or something, because it leads to all kinds of similar topics, most of which involve encouraging sedevacantists. 

 

There's a guy who made himself Pope after JP I died becuase he believed it was an inside job and that JP II was never elected. He has followers.  I forsee this only getting worse after Benedicts passing.

 

It's not really about personal revolation so much as seeing it happen again, except this time, the world is near end.  We are nearer the end than the apostles were.

 

It was in the 1500's that the Protestants declared the Pope the anticrist and thus started this whole "whore of babaon" nonsense and declared that reformation trumped papacy and that the papal line was ended.  There were also 3 separate popes who claimed to be Pope during that century.

 

It is thus, reasonable to think that something similar may happen now, especally becuase many more traditional Catholic authors whom are followed by many still refuse to really acknowlage the pontificate of Francis and are still telling people to reserve jugment on his teachings and emphasizing that not everything he sais is infallable (true, but not good to constantly point that out)

[Nihil Obstat]

We may be nearer to the endtimes than were the Apostles, but we are not 'near' in the sense of a few more years, or even a few more decades. At this point there is no way to determine how 'near' we in fact are.

We will be able to make some general estimates when certain things start happening, none of which have begun to happen.

[NotreDame]

There's a guy who made himself Pope after JP I died becuase he believed it was an inside job and that JP II was never elected. He has followers.  I forsee this only getting worse after Benedicts passing.

 

This guy?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmarian_Catholic_Church