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

[HisChildForever]

According to what I read it is a fairly short time. Presumably just to offer a breather for everyone to make their final choices, and get baptised, get a confession in, etc..

 

Oh makes sense.

[HisChildForever]

HisChildforever,

Eat some more food.  To your question: I think that's just the way God allows free will to unfold, while allowing all parties involved an opportunity to express their true desires and show their true colors.  The question of "why" is harder than the one I'm asking, I'd say. 

 

Eh that's fashion photography, not me. :blink: Although I am pretty skinny.

[Eliakim]

Thanks for the welcome CMAD2006.

HisChildForever: glad to hear that's not your pic :-) 

 

Okay, this is pretty heavy stuff, so I wanted to take some time to research this more and pray for guidance.  TinyTherese, you copy and pasted a boatload of information.  Indeed it is practically overwhelming for a thread, however because I believe this is a very important subject I will try to respond to it.  Also I believe you picked a good reference point: Dave Hunt (right or wrong) does a good job summarizing the R.C.C. = Whore of Babylon theory, so it's worth discussing this with you in detail. 

 

First, this is not something anyone who loves God's Church wants to believe: that the most visible and prominent Church manifestation, centered in Rome with subordinate branches throughout the world, is the Whore of Babylon.  It is almost like a nightmare to consider such a frightening thought.  However it is something I brushed off when I first heard a similar theory months ago from a Protestant pastor that could not be easily put to rest after becoming aware of so much filth and corruption in the R.C.C. such as overwhelming number of sodomite seminaries, testimonies of abused nuns and rampant paedophilia.  But do keep in mind as the topic's subject connotes, the original intent was find out if R.C.C. may one day become the Whore of Babylon, not that it already is.  The book of Revelation does not reveal when the woman became a whore.  The Reformers thought the R.C.C. in their day had already become the whore.  However I suppose this discussion is relevant to both hypothesese: whether the R.C.C. has already become the Whore of Babylon or may some day in the future. 

 

 

No one here is saying that we shouldn't want to correct scandal nor that we should be complacent about scandal.

 

 

This is not "scandal", TinyTherese, and in fact this is where I get very dissapointed with fellow Catholic "loyalty at all costs" types for parotting the Vatican's euphemisms.  Do not let the Vatican undermodulate what should be shouted from the rooftops to expel the wickedness.  Not scandal but pure wickedness growing like mold in the dark, feasting off the laity's blind trust that the Vatican is handling it properly.  Alright, this could be for another thread, but I wanted to be very clear about why this thread's topic is important for any faithful believer in the Church. 

 

 

On to the main now:

 

Regarding the theory that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon here are two articles on the subject:

 

Hunting the Whore of Babylon

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work. 

 

 

 

Yes, I've seen Dave Hunt's video and read some of his literature recently.  I agree he is a good one to reference for our discussion about this topic.  I have also previously read the R.C.C. response tract to Hunt's argument that you copy and pasted.  I find both the tract and Hunt unconvincing in some areas. But it is a fair and good start for the topic. 

 

#1: Seven Hills

 

Hunt argues that the Whore "is a city built on seven hills," which he identifies as the seven hills of ancient Rome. This argument is based on Revelation 17:9, which states that the woman sits on seven mountains. 

 

The Greek word in this passage is horos. Of the sixty-five occurrences of this word in the New Testament, only three are rendered "hill" by the King James Version. The remaining sixty-two are translated as "mountain" or "mount." Modern Bibles have similar ratios. If the passage states that the Whore sits on "seven mountains," it could refer to anything. Mountains are common biblical symbols, often symbolizing whole kingdoms (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Amos 4:1, 6:1; Obad. 8–21). The Whore’s seven mountains might be seven kingdoms she reigns over, or seven kingdoms with which she has something in common. 

 

The number seven may be symbolic also, for it often represents completeness in the Bible. If so, the seven mountains might signify that the Whore reigns over all earth’s kingdoms. 

 

Even if we accept that the word horos should be translated literally as "hill" in this passage, it still does not narrow us down to Rome. Other cities are known for having been built on seven hills as well. 

 

Even if we grant that the reference is to Rome, which Rome are we talking about—pagan Rome or Christian Rome? As we will see, ancient, pagan Rome fits all of Hunt’s criteria as well, or better, than Rome during the Christian centuries. 

 

Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican City—the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered—and Hunt’s claim becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one: Vatican Hill, which is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the east side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the west. 

 

 

 

I will skip to your (repeating the author's) concession that pagan Rome fits Hunt's criteria, and I will agree that fact the Whore sits on the 7 hills/mountains, does not necessarily mean that it is the Vatican.  This is reasonable because it could just as easily mean pagan Rome.  I would also add that Scripture itself in Rev. 17:18 tells us that the Whore is "that great city..." which further gives weight to the argument that the Whore is not the Vatican but an actual city.  However I hasten to add the Vatican itself identifies as a city: Vatican City. So that name adoption certainly didn't help the Vatican's case. 

 

 

 

#2: "Babylon"—What’s in a Name?

 

Hunt notes that the Whore will be a city "known as Babylon." This is based on Revelation 17:5, which says that her name is "Babylon the Great." 

 

The phrase "Babylon the great" (Greek: Babulon a megala) occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, and 18:21). Light is shed on its meaning when one notices that Babylon is referred to as "the great city" seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18, 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to "the great city." That passage is 11:8, which states that the bodies of God’s two witnesses "will lie in the street of the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified." 

 

"The great city" is symbolically called Sodom, a reference to Jerusalem, symbolically called "Sodom" in the Old Testament (cf. Is. 1:10; Ezek. 16:1–3, 46–56). We also know Jerusalem is the "the great city" of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says it was "where [the] Lord was crucified." 

 

Revelation consistently speaks as if there were only one "great city" ("the great city"), suggesting that the great city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven texts—Babylon. Additional evidence for the identity of the two is the fact that both are symbolically named after great Old Testament enemies of the faith: Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon. 

 

This suggests that Babylon the great may be Jerusalem, not Rome. Many Protestant and Catholic commentators have adopted this interpretation. On the other hand, early Church Fathers often referred to Rome as "Babylon," but every references was to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians. 

 

 

This is a bit murkier.  Although Rev 11:8 calls Jerusalem "the great city", Jerusalem is also called the "blessed city" in Rev 21:2 and "beloved city" in Rev. 20:9.  So we cannot be more literal than Scripture Itself is when seeking to place "great city" only on Jerusalem as if they are always synonomous.  Furthermore and interestingly Rev. 11:8 also says Jerusalem is spiritually called "Sodom and Egypt".  It does not say Babylon.  And Rev 17:1-2 fits more with Rome (I'll grant pagan) than Jerusalem.  Jersusalem does not fit such a highly influential secular status as committing fornication with all the kings of the earth.  Jersusalem instead is quite (rightfully so) ethno-centric, and seems to me to remain so even in the future.  So even if Jerusalem is rebuilt I do not see this fitting with descriptions like this as well as Rev 18:3 which says "the merchants of the earth grew rich from her drive for luxury."  Also consider Rev 18:9-18: this clearly was a massive city that traded near the sea with all the world.  Jerusalem is 37 miles from the sea, whereas Rome's center is 15 miles from the sea, yet Rome actually extends all the way to the sea.  So when shipmasters in Rev 18:17 actually saw the smoke of the city's ruins, it's more plausable to assume Rome, not Jerusalem is the city of the seven hills/mountains.  Finally and perhaps most importantly I do not find any Early Church Father stating the wealthy city of Rev 17 and 18 is Jerusalem, but in fact they seem to believe it means the city of Rome. 

 

 

#3: Commits Fornication

 

Hunt tells us, "The woman is called a ‘whore’ (verse 1), with whom earthly kings ‘have committed fornication’ (verse 2). Against only two cities could such a charge be made: Jerusalem and Rome." 

Here Hunt admits that the prophets often referred to Jerusalem as a spiritual whore, suggesting that the Whore might be apostate Jerusalem. Ancient, pagan Rome also fits the description, since through the cult of emperor worship it also committed spiritual fornication with "the kings of the earth" (those nations it conquered). 

 

To identify the Whore as Vatican City, Hunt interprets the fornication as alleged "unholy alliances" forged between Vatican City and other nations, but he fails to cite any reasons why the Vatican’s diplomatic relations with other nations are "unholy." 

 

He also confuses Vatican City with the city of Rome, and he neglects the fact that pagan Rome had "unholy alliances" with the kingdoms it governed (unholy because they were built on paganism and emperor worship). 

 

 

I suppose Hunt "confused" Vatican City with city of Rome, only if he made references to things ancient pagan Rome did and juxtaposed this with what he said Vatican City did/does.  I suppose a question for Hunt is when does he think the great apostasy occurred?  If in the first century then by Vatican City he means the Church of Rome immediately after St. Peter.  He does not seem to merely believe the apostasy will happen in the future but that it already has come.  I'm more inclined to think the "great city", as I stated above is some major supercity that extends near the water and conducts massive trade as Revelation describes.  I don't think Vatican City fits this criteria (although here comes to mind Cardinal Newman's famous quip "If the Pope is not Antichrist he has bad luck to be so like him").  It seems the most reasonable interpretation is to believe this "great city" on "seven hills" is actually some resurrected Roman empire of the future.  I say future because Rev 18:21 clearly states this Rome will be completely destroyed and shall not be found anywhere.  Obviously not the case today.   

 

 

#4: Clothed in Purple and Red

 

Hunt states, "She [the Whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy." He then cites the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments. 

 

Hunt ignores the obvious symbolic meaning of the colors—purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead, he is suddenly literal in his interpretation. He understood well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than literal sex, but now he wants to assign the colors a literal, earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy. 

 

Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so.

The purple and scarlet of the Whore are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This is a problem for Hunt for three reasons: (a) we have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally; (b) the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation ("the righteous acts of the saints;" 19:8); implying that the clothing of the Whore should also be given a symbolic meaning; and (c) the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the Whore may be old (apostate) Jerusalem—a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25–26). 

 

Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs. 

It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel. 

Hunt neglects to remind his readers that God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that thepriests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29). 

 

The reasons *why* the R.C.C. hierarchy wear scarlet and purple are not really relevant or present a case against Hunt's (and others') allegation that the Whore clothing herself in scarlet and purple equates to the Vatican's cardinals and bishops, who when assemble fit exactly this picture.  Keep in mind, a major weakness of this particular R.C.C. tract overlooks the fact that for something to be a called a "whore" it had to be something loved/perhaps even a bride gone wicked.  This is supported in many passages in Jeremiah, Isaiah and elsewhere in the Old Testament.  Isaiah 1:21: "The faithful city has become a harlot! It was full of justice."  A few verses earlier it compares her sins to the color scarlet.  And this was during the time when the actual priests of Israel would wear scarlet and purple.  So this suggests that the colors can be taken in both manners: literal and figurative.  It is not unreasonable to interpret St. John's vision of the harlot decked out in these colors as equating to a massively corrupt rotten Vatican, just as ancient priests of Israel became apostate and wallowed in sin. Catechism #877 calls the Church the new Israel. 

 

So this appears to me a weak argument.  Although priests sometimes wear white, the most visible and recognizable color scheme when the heirarchy are all assembled in the Vatican is certainly purple and scarlet.  I am not opposed to a figurative interpretation that the purple and scarlet of the Whore represent empire and sins of scarlet.  But this can just as easily be turned to say it represents "empire" as a Catholic empire and scarlet to indicate the inquisition ensuring the deaths of many faithful God-fearing believers that should not have been killed.  Again, the official reasons behind the R.C.C. hierarchy wearing purple and scarlet are nice in theory, but if the hierarchy is wallowing in wickedness, this certainly could fit with Hunt's literal (and figurative theory such as just mentioned) of the colors. 

 

Again remember I wouldn't even bring this topic up if there wasn't massive sodomite rot in the R.C.C. (where some priests have gone on record stating half of seminarians in many seminaries are engaging in sodomy even though lately Benedict XVI tried to curb it for a while - to say nothing of epidemic paedophilia.  Interestingly enough I can no longer access the page that I cited at CA forum before I got banned: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc1.htm ) so, going with the "by their fruits you shall know them" criteria rather than sheer volume of Catholic theology and clever arguments, I believe the R.C.C. = Whore of Babylon question is fair. 

 

 

part 2 to follow

[Eliakim]

#5: Possesses Great Wealth

 

Hunt states, "[The Whore’s] incredible wealth next caught John’s eye. She was ‘decked with gold and precious stones and pearls . . . ’ [Rev. 17:4]." The problem is that, regardless of what it had in the past, the modern Vatican is not fantastically wealthy. In fact, it has run a budget deficit in most recent years and has an annual budget only around the size of that of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Furthermore, wealth was much more in character with pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem, both key economic centers.

 

 

Rubbish, the Vatican is wealthy beyond measure. I saw the opulence, and know money can be concealed from audits. The Vatican Bank refuses to be transparent. The Vatican museum charges 15 euro a head, now maybe more to visit, and when I did it was stuffed with people. I do think though as I stated before, that the wealth and trade stated in Rev 18:9-18 suggests a future Roman Empire extending to the sea.

 

 

#6: A Golden Cup

 

Hunt states that the Whore "has ‘a golden cup [chalice] in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.’" This is another reference to Revelation 17:4. Then he states that the "Church is known for its many thousands of gold chalices around the world."

 

To make the Whore’s gold cup suggestive of the Eucharistic chalice, Hunt inserts the word "chalice" in square brackets, though the Greek word here is the ordinary word for cup (potarion), which appears thirty-three times in the New Testament and is always translated "cup."

 

He ignores the fact that the Catholic chalice is used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper—a ritual commanded by Christ (Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:24–25); he ignores the fact that the majority of Eucharistic chalices Catholics use are not made out of gold, but other materials, such as brass, silver, glass, and even earthenware; he ignores the fact that gold liturgical vessels and utensils have been part of the true religion ever since ancient Israel—again at the command of God (Ex. 25:38–40, 37:23–24; Num. 31:50–51; 2 Chr. 24:14); and he again uses a literal interpretation, according to which the Whore’s cup is not a single symbol applying to the city of Rome, but a collection of many literal cups used in cities throughout the world. But Revelation tells us that it’s the cup of God’s wrath that is given to the Whore (Rev. 14:10; cf. Rev. 18:6). This has nothing to do with Eucharistic chalices.

 

 

Yeah, this is something definitely hard to swallow and extremely offensive to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Further very early on Christians seemed to believe in transubstantiation (though not all, however it was the official view of the hierarchy). This is a tough one to tackle since one would essentially have to believe the hierarchy was misled very early on/an early great apostasy occurred. I am inclined to think Christ's prayer against the gates of hades would prevent a great apostasy from occuring just after He left the Apostles. If indeed transubstantiation is this golden chalice in Revelation connected with apostasy and fornication as Hunt seems to think, then I think the man of lawlessness (Antichrist) would have already arrived and Judgment Day been completed by the second century. Otherwise this cup of gold seems to be something different reserved to be offerred in the future when the Apostasy really does come to pass.

 

Revelation seems to suggest Jesus comes back *shortly* after the great apostasy and massive plagues and earthquakes occur around the same time as the great apostasy. So to say the Mass is the harlot's chalice is an extremely serious charge to level, and frankly I do not think warranted. If the hierarchy teaches transubstantiation, I don't believe God would look down on this and call it "full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication" simply because of the doctrine itself, but rather the moral wickedness of the one offering the Sacrifice. I could see God getting very upset with the R.C.C. clergy and using this language to show His anger at them mixing Something so holy with their filthiness and false faith.

 

So if Hunt assumes the doctrine of transubstantiation itself is the filth Revelation alludes to, I would disagree (since that would mean a great apostasy occurred years after St. John's death, which is unreasonable considering Christ's prayer that the gates of hades shall not prevail). But if he says the cup of the Offering by wicked priests is essentially seen by God as repulsive than I would agree, as this is clearly how God reacted during the period of ancient wicked priests of Israel (Hosea 8:13). However it must be noted that not during *all* wicked times does God always rebuke unworthy priests of their Offerings (Psalm 50:8). It seems to me Hunt goes too far here, but this does not mean that a great apostasy will not occur in the future. The gates of hades will not prevail but may certainly get away with putting Antichrist on the Vatican throne perhaps for just "an hour"/short period as Rev 18:19 alludes to.

 

And I suppose this begs the question that perhaps we need not worry about when/if this will happen, since even if does happen, it will be short and quickly dealt with by the "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (Rev 19:16). Being vigilant and wise does not necessarily mean we have to concern overselves with the "when" and "if" especially since St. John himself was not given a very plain message that the harlot is actually the Church led by St. Peter's successors. Indeed there are times when the angel specifically told St. John not to write things down, so it seems we aren't expected or desired to precisely know who the Whore is beyond it likely being some massive city/empire in Rome.

 

Another reason why the Whore cannot be the Church of St. Peter since early times is because Rev 18:4 said, "Come out of her my people lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues." Since the Whore/city's description matches Rome more than Jerusalem, we would have to believe for 2000 years Christians have been disobeying this command since there have been Christian communities in Rome, and even Jerusalem. So again, it seems that this Rome is some future Roman Empire as the old pagan Rome was. Modern Vatican City does not fit the description of the Whore's vastness in Rev 18:9-18 (at least not yet). And in fact, perhaps what currently stops this future Roman Empire from resurrecting is ironically those true believers in the Vatican. Just as the Dome of the Rock currently prevents the rebuilding of the third temple in Jerusalem. This comparison alone could be worthy of a separate thread.

 

 

#7: The Mother of Harlots

 

Now for Hunt’s most hilarious argument: "John’s attention is next drawn to the inscription on the woman’s forehead: ‘THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH’ (verse 5, [Hunt’s emphasis]). Sadly enough, the Roman Catholic Church fits that description as precisely as she fits the others. Much of the cause is due to the unbiblical doctrine of priestly celibacy," which has "made sinners of the clergy and harlots out of those with whom they secretly cohabit."

Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline—a discipline in the Latin Rite of the Church—and even this rite has not always been mandatory. This discipline can scarcely be unbiblical, since Hunt himself says, "The great apostle Paul was a celibate and recommended that life to others who wanted to devote themselves fully to serving Christ."

Hunt has again lurched to an absurdly literal interpretation. He should interpret the harlotry of the Whore’s daughters as the same as their mother’s, which is why she is called their mother in the first place. This would make it spiritual or political fornication or the persecution of Christian martyrs (cf. 17:2, 6, 18:6). Instead, Hunt gives the interpretation of the daughters as literal, earthly prostitutes committing literal, earthly fornication.

If Hunt did not have a fixation on the King James Version, he would notice another point that identifies the daughters’ harlotries with that of their mother: The same Greek word (porna) is used for both mother and daughters. The King James Version translates this word as "whore" whenever it refers to the mother, but as "harlot" when it refers to the daughters. Modern translations render it consistently. John sees the "great harlot" (17:1, 15, 16, 19:2) who is "the mother of harlots" (17:5). The harlotries of the daughters must be the same as the mother’s, which Hunt admits is not literal sex!

 

There is nothing wrong with Hunt equating "abominations" with real fornications, which indeed is a major filth the R.C.C. is dealing with now and has been for a long time likely because the discipline of celibacy turns away many good straight men from a vocation in the Roman/Latin jurisdiction churches. This seems to be a cheapshot at Hunt for not strictly limiting the words "harlotry" and "abominations" to merely a spiritual connotation only. Language is often used in Scripture to have more than just the spiritual or literal meaning and I see Hunt justified in calling our attention to the literal fornications and filth many of the hierarchy are engaged in.

 

This dismissal of Hunt smacks of a "loyalty at all costs" Catholic type cheap shot. They often throw the baby out with the bathwater and dismiss everything from guys like Hunt. Woe to them if they sweep this massive filth under the rug or simply call it "scandal" and carry on complacently or naievely.

 

 

#8: Sheds the Blood of Saints

 

Hunt states, "John next notices that the woman is drunk—not with alcohol but with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus . . . [cf. verse 6]." He then advances charges of brutality and killing by the Inquisitions, supposed forced conversions of nations, and even the Nazi holocaust!

 

This section of the book abounds with historical errors, not the least of which is his implication that the Church endorses the forced conversion of nations. The Church emphatically does not do so. It has condemned forced conversions as early as the third century (before then they were scarcely even possible), and has formally condemned them on repeated occasions, as in theCatechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 160, 1738, 1782, 2106–7).

 

But pagan Rome and apostate Jerusalem do fit the description of a city drunk with the blood of saints and the martyrs of Jesus. And since they were notorious persecutors of Christians, the original audience would have automatically thought of one of these two as the city that persecutes Christians, not an undreamed-of Christian Rome that was centuries in the future.

 

 

Again the R.C.C. loyalty at all costs type Catholic (henceforth LAACTC) minimizes the inquisition and evilness of the past and present. LAACTCs need to get off their high horse so they can see the reality of the mess on the ground. Everyone here should read Fox's Book of Martyrs, especially the LAACTCs. Even though the book may not be 100% verifiable, get the main point that the hierarchy did indeed murder Christians. Be a devout but thinking Catholic not a LAACTC which is pretty much all the CA forum has now chattering over there because of its current LAACTC moderator overlords.

 

 

#9: Reigns over Kings

 

For his last argument, Hunt states, "Finally, the angel reveals that the woman ‘is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth’ (verse 18). Is there such a city? Yes, and again only one: Vatican City."

 

This is a joke. Vatican City has no power over other nations; it certainly does not reign over them. In fact, the Vatican’s very existence has been threatened in the past two centuries by Italian nationalism.

 

Hunt appeals to power the popes once had over Christian political rulers (neglecting the fact that this was always a limited authority, by the popes’ own admission), but at that time there was no Vatican City. The Vatican only became a separate city in 1929, when the Holy See and Italy signed the Lateran Treaty.

 

Hunt seems to understand this passage to be talking about Vatican City, since the modern city of Rome is only a very minor political force. If the reign is a literal, political one, then pagan Rome fulfills the requirement far better than Christian Rome ever did.

 

 

 

I agree pagan Rome does fit better than Vatican City, but a future Pagan Rome, since nothing in ancient Pagan Rome's time came close to the plagues described in Revelation 16. Overall though this R.C.C. tract, like too many Catholic apologetics, turns a blind eye or minimizes the wickedness rife in the hierarchy and R.C.C. institution writ large. It's always good to end with Scripture: Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:3,

 

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”

 

I believe this Scripture (and the reasons presented above) show us that the great apostasy has not yet occurred, (though 1 John 2:18 says it already was the last hour even in his day, and that the Antichrist was on the horizon). However, this great apostasy seems to have been held back. There has not been the falling away/apostasy that people like Hunt think already occurred. The Whore in Revelation seems for the future. Not to be known by us, but written down in the Book so that we may yet be vigilant and ready when that day does come, awaiting not anxiously, but confident in the hope and love of Jesus Christ's glory now and forever.

 

E

 

 

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Eliakim, Disciple of Christ, December 18, 2013

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Gday elakim, may the love of Christ consume you completely. Welcome to phatmass. :)

[tinytherese]

This is not "scandal", TinyTherese, and in fact this is where I get very dissapointed with fellow Catholic "loyalty at all costs" types for parotting the Vatican's euphemisms.  Do not let the Vatican undermodulate what should be shouted from the rooftops to expel the wickedness.  Not scandal but pure wickedness growing like mold in the dark, feasting off the laity's blind trust that the Vatican is handling it properly.  Alright, this could be for another thread, but I wanted to be very clear about why this thread's topic is important for any faithful believer in the Church. 

 

 

What is it that you don't like about me using the term "scandal"?

 

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

 

¹scan·dal noun \ˈskan-d^É™l\

: an occurrence in which people are shocked and upset because of behavior that is morally or legally wrong

: talk about the shocking or immoral things that people have done or are believed to have done

: something that is shocking, upsetting, or unacceptable

 

 

Full Definition of SCANDAL

1

a :  discredit brought upon religion by unseemly conduct in a religious person

 

b :  conduct that causes or encourages a lapse of faith or of religious obedience in another

2

:  loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety :  disgrace

 

3

a :  a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it

 

b :  a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality <a scandal to the profession>

4

:  malicious or defamatory gossip

5

:  indignation, chagrin, or bewilderment brought about by a flagrant violation of morality, propriety, or religious opinion

 

source http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scandal

 

 

I also still don't understand why I'm being referred to as Loyal to the Catholic Church at all costs. I'm not denying that there have been evil Catholic religious leaders in the both past and present. I don't want sex abuse to happen to anyone and not just by priests. Nor do I want sex abuse cover up to happen under any circumstances. I want the Church as well as everyone in the world, to make sure that such behavior never happens again.

 

This is a very delicate subject which will not be easily resolved. The Church has been working to improve it and will continue to do so for a very long time. I don't all of the Church leaders to handle it flawlessly. I expect some of them to go about it downright sinfully as well because I know that the Church is not full of angels. I'm not naive enough to think that Church leaders are beyond reproach.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

What if the whore of babylon represents the whole of humanity ? Upper and Lower case blasphemies written all over her body ? Or at least the darker sides of the human race.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye