Rome, the Future Capital of the Future United States of Europe, and the Destruction of the Vatican
- Thread starter christiang
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
jaybird
Well-Known Member
- Feb 29, 2016
- 1,595
- 560
- 113
the church never makes errors? what of when the church was being led by pharisees who plotted the death of Jesus, or middle ages church that burned villages to the ground full of women and children or when the church used the doctrine of discovery to commit mass genocide on native americans, were these not errors?
What an imbecile. I didn't even make the video nor edit it, its on youtube where I simply grabbed the video link from secular sources, not even religious folk who would care about prophecy. I don't interpret these prophecies as I do because I'm anti-catholic, I'm anti-catholic because these scriptures point to none other than the catholic church. If they pointed to Kim Jong Un, then surely I would be saying, "he is the fulfillment of these prophecies". But now these prophecies don't, because they point to the ROMAN kingdom WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT. How much longer before you come to understanding?
What you are saying is the gates of Hades prevailed against the Church, thus you are calling Jesus a liar. Teaching without error (infallibility) has nothing to do with sinful members.
Catholics are attacked with remarkable regularity for supposed crimes against the native peoples of the New World. Much has been written, for example, about the demolition of the Meso-American cultures such as the Aztecs and the South American Andean civilization of the Incas by the Spanish Conquistadors, the severe oppression of the indigenous peoples, and the devastation delivered upon the Indian tribes across the Americas from displacement, disease, war, and slavery.
In truth, the plight of the Native Americans in North America was the source of great concern to the Church, and missionaries distinguished themselves for their heroic defense of Indian rights. There is no question that European colonialism wrought vast troubles for the tribes and cultures of the New World. But it is unfair to blame the Church for the actions of the European powers—who regularly punished the Jesuits, Franciscans, Augustinians, and countless priests, nuns, and laypeople for speaking out in defense of the suffering natives. John Tracy Ellis, one of the fathers of American Catholic historiography, wrote:
No informed person would endeavor to maintain that the churchmen were always in the right, but by the same token no one can deny that they were generally on the side of the angels in their treatment of the Indians. It was the outraged voice of the friar, Bartolomé de las Casas, which first made Europe aware of the fate that had befallen thousands of the natives in enslavement by the Spanish conquerors. As it was the agitation aroused by Las Casas and his kind that prompted Pope Paul III in 1537 to issue the bull Sublimis Deus in which he declared: "The said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ." (American Catholicism, 5)
The Church and the Native Americans
You have been programmed.In truth, the plight of the Native Americans in North America was the source of great concern to the Church, and missionaries distinguished themselves for their heroic defense of Indian rights. There is no question that European colonialism wrought vast troubles for the tribes and cultures of the New World. But it is unfair to blame the Church for the actions of the European powers—who regularly punished the Jesuits, Franciscans, Augustinians, and countless priests, nuns, and laypeople for speaking out in defense of the suffering natives. John Tracy Ellis, one of the fathers of American Catholic historiography, wrote:
No informed person would endeavor to maintain that the churchmen were always in the right, but by the same token no one can deny that they were generally on the side of the angels in their treatment of the Indians. It was the outraged voice of the friar, Bartolomé de las Casas, which first made Europe aware of the fate that had befallen thousands of the natives in enslavement by the Spanish conquerors. As it was the agitation aroused by Las Casas and his kind that prompted Pope Paul III in 1537 to issue the bull Sublimis Deus in which he declared: "The said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ." (American Catholicism, 5)
The Church and the Native Americans
R
HITLER’S PLAN TO KIDNAP OR KILL THE POPE
More Proof of Hitler’s Plan to Kill Pius XII
Son of German Intelligence Officer Comes Forward
In 1796, Napoleon invaded Italy and defeated the papal army. The French troops took Pope VI prisoner and he died in captivity seven months later.
Worse, the first 40 popes were killed by pagan Romans. I don't see that in any of your "prophecies". I know where I stand, do you?
Anybody can read INTO the Bible anything they want when it is ripped from the Tradition from which it flowed. So you have your private interpretation of "Rome" that conflicts with thousands of others. You try to use that as a bat to beat Catholics with. Rome is a city in Italy, the Vatican is a separate city state. There is no "Roman kingdom" associated with the Vatican. That's paranoid fundamentalism attacking the Church with lies. The full text of the Pope's address to European leaders has been posted twice. You ignore it because it demolishes your phony claims. Your assertions about Rome/Vatican is laughable.
If you get your information from selected you tube videos and call it reliable, you have my sympathy.
HITLER’S PLAN TO KIDNAP OR KILL THE POPE
More Proof of Hitler’s Plan to Kill Pius XII
Son of German Intelligence Officer Comes Forward
In 1796, Napoleon invaded Italy and defeated the papal army. The French troops took Pope VI prisoner and he died in captivity seven months later.
Worse, the first 40 popes were killed by pagan Romans. I don't see that in any of your "prophecies". I know where I stand, do you?
Anybody can read INTO the Bible anything they want when it is ripped from the Tradition from which it flowed. So you have your private interpretation of "Rome" that conflicts with thousands of others. You try to use that as a bat to beat Catholics with. Rome is a city in Italy, the Vatican is a separate city state. There is no "Roman kingdom" associated with the Vatican. That's paranoid fundamentalism attacking the Church with lies. The full text of the Pope's address to European leaders has been posted twice. You ignore it because it demolishes your phony claims. Your assertions about Rome/Vatican is laughable.
Last edited by a moderator:
LISTEN TO ME, THE FOURTH BEAST OF DANIEL ARE THE ROMANS, WHO DESTROYED JERUSALEM AND THE HOLY TEMPLE. THIS SAME BEAST EXISTS UP UNTIL THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST BECAUSE IT HAS LIVED ON THROUGH THE ROMAN POPES, WHO HAVE MASSACRED COUNTLESS PEOPLE. UNDERSTAND, FOR YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT.
jaybird
Well-Known Member
- Feb 29, 2016
- 1,595
- 560
- 113
Jesus himself called the pharisees sons of the devil and the pharisees lead the church.
i dont know why you keep bringing sinful members into it, i never mentioned it. im talking about errors the church makes like the examples i just gave.
my last post was directed at three different denomination, Catholic, Jew, Protestant.
the church can stand in front of the masses and make all kind political statements that make the people happy. but the actions tell a very different story.
this does not even make sense.
Please document "MASSACRED COUNTLESS PEOPLE" with primary sources and spare me your hate propaganda. Did you know pagan Rome and Christian Rome are not one and the same?
Last edited by a moderator:
I keep bringing it up because you don't understand the difference between sins and doctrines. The pharisees that Jesus admonished never led the Church, Peter and the Apostles led the Church. St. Paul was a Pharisee and he wasn't a son of the devil. The Bereans were also Pharisees. Jesus did not appoint evil Pharisees to lead the Church.
There are many indications in the Bible that say the Church is infallible and indefectable (that has nothing to do with sinful members) but you for some reason are forced to disagree with God's promises.
I know of no other church that has apologized for the mistakes of some of her members centuries ago, do you? But those mistakes were sins, not doctrines.
Post #44 was directed at an entire culture that infringed on Native rights. The problem was that few people listened.[/quote]
Sublimis Deus is not a mere political statement. It was declared in 1537 and more followed. I don't deny that some people sinned, but that does not contaminate doctrines.
I don't think this is the right thread for a discussion on Native American and Church history. But it is unfair to blame the Church for the actions of the European powers—who regularly punished the Jesuits, Franciscans, Augustinians, and countless priests, nuns, and laypeople for speaking out in defense of the suffering natives. See post #44.
Last edited by a moderator:
How about you google it yourself? You have fingers and hands, do you not? This information is readily available to everyone. If you want to find the truth, then you go seek it out. I've already provided enough information to arouse suspicion that the rule of the Romans fulfill prophecies in Daniel and Revelation. Now its up to you to go look for it, or not. I'm not going to waste an hour of my day to procure information for you that you're going to reject anyways. I'm busy.
You haven't specified pagan Romans or Christian Romans. Pagan Rome didn't last, the names of the Christian Romans are recorded in history that you have failed to identify. Nearly every Pope of the first 3 centuries was killed by pagan Romans; you have ignored that fact because it doesn't fit your preconceptions.
Non-Catholic Christians and the secular world have used the Inquisitions, the Crusades, and the Galileo incident as “clubs” to bash the Church for almost 500 years. I did so myself, in my Protestant days. But such critics almost invariably distort (willingly or unwittingly) the known facts in order to do so.
One Reformed Protestant apologist, for example, referred on his website to “the Inquisition where an estimated 50-68 million people were killed by Rome.” That’s quite a fantastic allegation (to put it mildly and charitably), seeing that the entire population of Europe at its height in the Middle Ages is thought by scholars to have been between 100-120 million. If true, that would mean the Church killed as many people as the Black Death (Bubonic Plague), which wiped out about a third to half the population.
I replied by asking him to give me the names of any reputable historians who asserted such absolutely ridiculous figures. He said he knew of an Internet article that he couldn’t locate, by one David A. Plaisted, who turned out to be a professor of computer science; not an academic historian at all. Ultimately, when pressed, my friend offered no actual historian to back up his assertion, and the “debate” quickly descended from there.
On the other hand, there are many historians — even non-Catholic ones — and professors of history who offer vastly different opinions. Edward Peters, from the University of Pennsylvania, author of Inquisition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), and Henry Kamen, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and professor at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, who wrote The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), are two such scholars.
These two books are in the forefront of an emerging, very different perspective on the Inquisitions: an understanding that they were exponentially less inclined to issue death penalties than had previously been commonly assumed, and also quite different in character and even essence than the longstanding anti-Catholic stereotypes would have us believe.
“The best estimate is that around 3,000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts,” Dr. Peters writes on page 87 of his book.
Likewise, Dr. Kamen writes: “Taking into account all the tribunals of Spain up to about 1530, it is unlikely that more than two thousand people were executed for heresy by the Inquisition (p. 60).
Be that as it may, some Protestants and other critics of the Catholic Church exercise a glaring double standard in condemning only the Catholic Church for engaging in this practice, and grotesquely exaggerating ludicrous numbers. In reply, it must be noted that Protestants (including Luther, Calvin, the early English Protestants, Zwingli, Melanchthon, et al) have a long and troubling list of scandals and “inquisitions” as well. As just one example among many, Martin Luther and John Calvin both sanctioned the execution of Anabaptists due to their belief in re-baptizing adults, which they considered to be “sedition.” In addition, thousands of English and Irish Catholics were executed (often in very hideous ways) simply for being Catholics and worshiping as their ancestors had done for 1,500 years. The execution of reputed “witches” (such as in the famous Salem Witch trials) was almost entirely a Protestant phenomenon as well.
In any case, it is clear that the notion of the death penalty for heresy was largely a product of the Middle Ages, and the Protestants who came at the end of that period did not, for the most part, dissent from it.
To utterly ignore these facts, while condemning the Catholic Church, is to engage in dishonest historical revisionism.
http://www.themichigancatholic.org/2016/11/inquisition-50-68-million-killed-church/
Last edited by a moderator:
Plaisted has a Ph.D. in computer science. He’s not an historian at all. So I ask for “reputable historians” and the best you can come up with is a computer science guy? That’s laughable, and you can do far better. I know that for sure, because I’ve seen and recommended your work. But it’s also a case study in severe bias against the Catholic Church and what it does to otherwise sound and able minds.
The actual numbers, of course, are just a few thousand, according to real (and competent) historians. For starters, here are two non-Catholic, reputable historians:
1) Edward Peters, professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Inquisition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).
On page 87 of his book, Peters states: “The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.”
2) Henry Kamen, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and professor of history at various universities, including the University of Wisconsin – Madison; author of The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998; fourth revised edition, 2014).
Their work is featured in the Wikipedia article, “Historical Revision of the Inquisition”.
These two books are in the forefront of an emerging, very different perspective on the Inquisitions: an understanding that they were exponentially less inclined to issue death penalties than had previously been commonly assumed, and also quite different in character and even essence than the longstanding anti-Catholic stereotypes would have us believe. Dr. Kamen states in his book:
Taking into account all the tribunals of Spain up to about 1530, it is unlikely that more than two thousand people were executed for heresy by the Inquisition. (p. 60)
. . . it is clear that for most of its existence that Inquisition was far from being a juggernaut of death either in intention or in capability. . . . it would seem that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries fewer than three people a year were executed in the whole of the Spanish monarchy from Sicily to Peru, certainly a lower rate than in any provincial court of justice in Spain or anywhere else in Europe. (p. 203)
For copiously documented facts and figures, see: “Beyond the Myth of The Inquisition: Ours Is ‘The Golden Age'”, by Fr. Brian Van Hove, S. J., Faith and Reason (Winter, 1992).
I do not “defend” the Inquisition as a practice, but what I do do (what you clearly have not done) is try to properly and accurately understand it in the context of its time (the Middle Ages and early modern periods). In those days, almost all Christians (not just Catholics; minus only a few small groups like Anabaptists and Quakers) believed in corporal and capital punishment for heresy, because they thought (here is the correct premise) that heresy was far more dangerous to a person and society than physical disease was. That is exactly right: heresy can land one in hell; no disease could ever do that.
So they believed in punishing the heretic for the sake of the good of the society. I deal with these issues at length, on my web page, “Inquisition, Crusades, and ‘Catholic Scandals'”.
What Protestants often do, however, in direct proportion to how much they are anti-Catholic, is to exercise a double standard in condemning the Catholic Church for engaging in this practice, and exaggerating grotesquely by positing ridiculous, ludicrous numbers, given the entire population of Europe in those days, and even enlisting clowns like Plaisted, who is not an historian, to bolster their uninformed prejudices.
It’s thought that the population of Europe was 73.5 million in 1340 and 50 million in 1450, due to the Black Death. It was about 70 million in 1550 and 78 million in 1600; 150 million by 1800. There is no way that the numbers killed could be anything remotely approaching Sam’s ridiculous figures. We know that they weren’t, anyway, by consulting actual historians (not eccentric computer scientists) and experts on the Middle Ages.
This being the case, I inform my readers that Protestants (including Luther, Calvin, the English “reformers”, Zwingli, Melanchthon et al) have a long list of “scandals” and inquisitions as well. In just one example among many, Martin Luther and John Calvin both accepted the execution of Anabaptists (by a mocking drowning) due to their belief in adult baptism. They considered this sedition. They also executed many Catholics in England, often by drawing and quartering and ripping out their hearts) simply for being Catholics (think: end of Braveheart: William Wallace was hanged, emasculated, disemboweled, his heart cut out, and all four limbs and head cut off). This is what Henry VIII and his successors did to many Catholics, simply for worshiping as their ancestors had done for 1500 years. I document this at great length and excruciating detail on my web page: “Protestantism: Historic Persecution and Intolerance”.
I’ve answered your question in great detail. Now the ball’s in your court. You can choose (and dare!) to keep this going and reply to it in a reasonable manner (with substantiation from real historians this time, as I requested), or drop the discussion.
The actual numbers, of course, are just a few thousand, according to real (and competent) historians. For starters, here are two non-Catholic, reputable historians:
1) Edward Peters, professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Inquisition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).
On page 87 of his book, Peters states: “The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.”
2) Henry Kamen, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and professor of history at various universities, including the University of Wisconsin – Madison; author of The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998; fourth revised edition, 2014).
Their work is featured in the Wikipedia article, “Historical Revision of the Inquisition”.
These two books are in the forefront of an emerging, very different perspective on the Inquisitions: an understanding that they were exponentially less inclined to issue death penalties than had previously been commonly assumed, and also quite different in character and even essence than the longstanding anti-Catholic stereotypes would have us believe. Dr. Kamen states in his book:
Taking into account all the tribunals of Spain up to about 1530, it is unlikely that more than two thousand people were executed for heresy by the Inquisition. (p. 60)
. . . it is clear that for most of its existence that Inquisition was far from being a juggernaut of death either in intention or in capability. . . . it would seem that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries fewer than three people a year were executed in the whole of the Spanish monarchy from Sicily to Peru, certainly a lower rate than in any provincial court of justice in Spain or anywhere else in Europe. (p. 203)
For copiously documented facts and figures, see: “Beyond the Myth of The Inquisition: Ours Is ‘The Golden Age'”, by Fr. Brian Van Hove, S. J., Faith and Reason (Winter, 1992).
I do not “defend” the Inquisition as a practice, but what I do do (what you clearly have not done) is try to properly and accurately understand it in the context of its time (the Middle Ages and early modern periods). In those days, almost all Christians (not just Catholics; minus only a few small groups like Anabaptists and Quakers) believed in corporal and capital punishment for heresy, because they thought (here is the correct premise) that heresy was far more dangerous to a person and society than physical disease was. That is exactly right: heresy can land one in hell; no disease could ever do that.
So they believed in punishing the heretic for the sake of the good of the society. I deal with these issues at length, on my web page, “Inquisition, Crusades, and ‘Catholic Scandals'”.
What Protestants often do, however, in direct proportion to how much they are anti-Catholic, is to exercise a double standard in condemning the Catholic Church for engaging in this practice, and exaggerating grotesquely by positing ridiculous, ludicrous numbers, given the entire population of Europe in those days, and even enlisting clowns like Plaisted, who is not an historian, to bolster their uninformed prejudices.
It’s thought that the population of Europe was 73.5 million in 1340 and 50 million in 1450, due to the Black Death. It was about 70 million in 1550 and 78 million in 1600; 150 million by 1800. There is no way that the numbers killed could be anything remotely approaching Sam’s ridiculous figures. We know that they weren’t, anyway, by consulting actual historians (not eccentric computer scientists) and experts on the Middle Ages.
This being the case, I inform my readers that Protestants (including Luther, Calvin, the English “reformers”, Zwingli, Melanchthon et al) have a long list of “scandals” and inquisitions as well. In just one example among many, Martin Luther and John Calvin both accepted the execution of Anabaptists (by a mocking drowning) due to their belief in adult baptism. They considered this sedition. They also executed many Catholics in England, often by drawing and quartering and ripping out their hearts) simply for being Catholics (think: end of Braveheart: William Wallace was hanged, emasculated, disemboweled, his heart cut out, and all four limbs and head cut off). This is what Henry VIII and his successors did to many Catholics, simply for worshiping as their ancestors had done for 1500 years. I document this at great length and excruciating detail on my web page: “Protestantism: Historic Persecution and Intolerance”.
I’ve answered your question in great detail. Now the ball’s in your court. You can choose (and dare!) to keep this going and reply to it in a reasonable manner (with substantiation from real historians this time, as I requested), or drop the discussion.
The Protestant Inquisition
In Massachusetts, for successive convictions, a Quaker would suffer the loss of one ear and then the other, the boring of the tongue with a hot iron, and sometimes eventually death.
In Boston three Quaker men and one woman were hanged. Baptist Roger Williams was banished from Massachusetts in 1635 and founded tolerant Rhode Island (Stoddard, 208).
Melanchthon accepted the chairmanship of the secular inquisition that suppressed the Anabaptists in Germany with imprisonment or death. . . . he was convinced that God had destined all Anabaptists to hell. (Durant)
A regular inquisition was set up in Saxony, with Melanchthon on the bench, and under it many persons were punished, some with death, some with life imprisonment, and some with exile. (Smith , 177)
The persecution of the Anabaptists began in Zurich . . . The penalties enjoined by the Town Council of Zurich were ‘drowning, burning, or beheading,’ according as it seemed advisable . . . ‘It is our will,’ the Council proclaimed, ‘that wherever they be found, whether singly or in companies, they shall be drowned to death, and that none of them shall be spared.’ (Janssen, V, 153-157)
In his Dialogues of 1535, Bucer called on governments to exterminate by fire and sword all professing a false religion, and even their wives, children and cattle. (Armstrong; Janssen, V, 367-368, 290-291)
His [John Knox’s] conviction . . . harked back to the darkest practices of the Inquisition . . . Every heretic was to be put to death, and cities predominantly heretical were to be smitten with the sword and utterly destroyed: “To the carnal man this may appear a . . . severe judgment . . . Yet we find no exception, but all are appointed to the cruel death. But in such cases God wills that all . . . desist from reasoning when commandment is given to execute his judgments.” (Durant , 614; citing Edwin Muir, John Knox, London: 1920, 142)
[Queen] Elizabeth . . . is on record for the burning of two Dutch Anabaptists in 1575. (Hughes, 143)
An English Servetus could have been burned under Elizabeth, and, in fact, in 1589 she burned an Arian. (Hughes, 274)
In the preface to the Institutes he [John Calvin] admitted the right of the government to put heretics to death . . . He thought that Christians should hate the enemies of God . . . Those who defended heretics . . . should be equally punished. (Smith , 178)
[During Calvin’s reign in Geneva, between 1542 and 1546] “58 persons were put to death for heresy.”(Durant , 473)
Melanchthon, in a letter to Calvin and Bullinger, gave ‘thanks to the Son of God’ . . . and called the burning [of Michael Servetus] ‘a pious and memorable example to all posterity.’ Bucer declared from his pulpit in Strasbourg that Servetus had deserved to be disemboweled and torn to pieces. Bullinger, generally humane, agreed that civil magistrates must punish blasphemy with death. (Durant , 484)
Persecution, including death penalties for heresy, is not just a Catholic failing. It is clearly also a Protestant one, and a general “blind spot” of the Middle Ages, much like abortion is in our own supposedly “enlightened” age. Furthermore, it is an outright lie to assert that Protestantism in its initial appearance, advocated tolerance. The evidence thus far presented refutes this notion beyond any reasonable doubt. (Armstrong)
The presence at sermons [in Zwingli’s Zurich] . . . was enjoined under pain of punishment; all teaching and church worship that deviated from the prescribed regulations was punishable.
The Mass was abolished in Zurich in 1525. (Armstrong; Dickens, 117)
William Farel, who preceded Calvin in Geneva, helped to abolish the Mass in August, 1535, seize all the churches, and close its four monasteries and nunnery. (Harkness [P], 8)
His [Farel’s] sermons in St. Peter’s were the occasion of riots; statues were smashed, pictures destroyed, and the treasures of the church, to the amount of 10,000 crowns, disappeared. (Hughes, 226-227)
Here, in 1529, after the Town-Council had prohibited Catholic worship, the Councillors were requested by the preachers to help fill the empty churches by issuing regulations prescribing attendance at the sermons. (Grisar, VI, 277-278)
[In John Knox’s Scotland] It was . . . forbidden to say Mass or to be present at Mass, with the punishment for a first offence of loss of all goods and a flogging; for the second offence, banishment; for the third, death. (Hughes, 300)
Protestant Inquisitions: “Reformation” Intolerance & Persecution
all citations from Protestant and secular historians
St. Thomas More: Noble Heroism Amidst Treachery [1991] *
161 English and 269 Irish Catholic Martyrs During the Reign of the Tyrant Henry VIII: 1534-1544 [at the Very Least: 430 Martyrs] [2-6-08] *
312 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (“Bloody Good Queen Bess”): 1558-1603 [2-8-08] *
123 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors in the Post-Elizabethan Era: 1603-1729 (+ 66 English Martyrs of Unknown Dates / Martyr Resources) [2-16-08] *
444 Irish Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors, Persecuted by English Royalty, Anglicans, Cromwellians, Etc.: 1565-1713 [2-27-08]
Discussion on Whether the English Revolution (aka “Reformation”) was a “Terrorist” Campaign [Facebook, 9-16-14]
Luther Favored the Death Penalty for Anabaptists [2-24-04]
Philip Melanchthon: Death for Denying the Real Presence (He Later Denied the Real Presence Himself) [5-23-06]
Lord Acton on Melanchthon and Persecution of Heretics for Denial of the Real Presence and Various Other Crimes [5-29-06] *
The Pope did nothing like this (but he is the anti-Christ and the reformers are tolerant???)
Martin Luther’s Reactions to the Deaths of Zwingli, St. Thomas More, and St. John Fisher [11-30-07; posted to Facebook on 2-2-17]
*
Martin Luther: The Civil Government Ought to Put Frigid Wives and Adulterers to Death [12-20-07; posted to Facebook on 2-2-17]
*
John Calvin’s Advocacy of Capital Punishment and Persecution of Those Whom He Considers “Blasphemers” or Heretics (Catholics, Anabaptists, Etc.) [6-1-09]
*
Protestant “Reformer” Martin Bucer Advocated Death for Adulterers [9-18-09; posted to Facebook on 2-6-17]
*
Martin Luther Advocates Torture and Execution for Prostitutes, Female Sorcerers, Burning of “All” Witches [2-22-10; posted to Facebook on 2-2-17]
*
John Calvin: Torment of an Inept Execution “Special Will of God” [3-23-10]
*
John Calvin’s Mocking of Michael Servetus’s Initial Reaction to His Death Sentence (Burning at the Stake) [3-25-10; posted to Facebook on 8-30-17]
*
John Calvin Reiterates His Support of Capital Punishment for Heresy in 1557: Four Years After Servetus’ Execution [11-6-11]
*
Reply to Reformed Luther Apologist James Swan’s Request for Documentation of Executions of Anabaptists Sanctioned by Luther, in the 1530s [8-17-14]
*
Calvin the “Destroyer” of Servetus: James Swan Misses Forest for Trees [8-24-17]
The Mass was abolished in Zurich in 1525. (Armstrong; Dickens, 117)
William Farel, who preceded Calvin in Geneva, helped to abolish the Mass in August, 1535, seize all the churches, and close its four monasteries and nunnery. (Harkness [P], 8)
His [Farel’s] sermons in St. Peter’s were the occasion of riots; statues were smashed, pictures destroyed, and the treasures of the church, to the amount of 10,000 crowns, disappeared. (Hughes, 226-227)
Here, in 1529, after the Town-Council had prohibited Catholic worship, the Councillors were requested by the preachers to help fill the empty churches by issuing regulations prescribing attendance at the sermons. (Grisar, VI, 277-278)
[In John Knox’s Scotland] It was . . . forbidden to say Mass or to be present at Mass, with the punishment for a first offence of loss of all goods and a flogging; for the second offence, banishment; for the third, death. (Hughes, 300)
Protestant Inquisitions: “Reformation” Intolerance & Persecution
all citations from Protestant and secular historians
St. Thomas More: Noble Heroism Amidst Treachery [1991] *
161 English and 269 Irish Catholic Martyrs During the Reign of the Tyrant Henry VIII: 1534-1544 [at the Very Least: 430 Martyrs] [2-6-08] *
312 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (“Bloody Good Queen Bess”): 1558-1603 [2-8-08] *
123 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors in the Post-Elizabethan Era: 1603-1729 (+ 66 English Martyrs of Unknown Dates / Martyr Resources) [2-16-08] *
444 Irish Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors, Persecuted by English Royalty, Anglicans, Cromwellians, Etc.: 1565-1713 [2-27-08]
Discussion on Whether the English Revolution (aka “Reformation”) was a “Terrorist” Campaign [Facebook, 9-16-14]
Luther Favored the Death Penalty for Anabaptists [2-24-04]
Philip Melanchthon: Death for Denying the Real Presence (He Later Denied the Real Presence Himself) [5-23-06]
Lord Acton on Melanchthon and Persecution of Heretics for Denial of the Real Presence and Various Other Crimes [5-29-06] *
The Pope did nothing like this (but he is the anti-Christ and the reformers are tolerant???)
Martin Luther’s Reactions to the Deaths of Zwingli, St. Thomas More, and St. John Fisher [11-30-07; posted to Facebook on 2-2-17]
*
Martin Luther: The Civil Government Ought to Put Frigid Wives and Adulterers to Death [12-20-07; posted to Facebook on 2-2-17]
*
John Calvin’s Advocacy of Capital Punishment and Persecution of Those Whom He Considers “Blasphemers” or Heretics (Catholics, Anabaptists, Etc.) [6-1-09]
*
Protestant “Reformer” Martin Bucer Advocated Death for Adulterers [9-18-09; posted to Facebook on 2-6-17]
*
Martin Luther Advocates Torture and Execution for Prostitutes, Female Sorcerers, Burning of “All” Witches [2-22-10; posted to Facebook on 2-2-17]
*
John Calvin: Torment of an Inept Execution “Special Will of God” [3-23-10]
*
John Calvin’s Mocking of Michael Servetus’s Initial Reaction to His Death Sentence (Burning at the Stake) [3-25-10; posted to Facebook on 8-30-17]
*
John Calvin Reiterates His Support of Capital Punishment for Heresy in 1557: Four Years After Servetus’ Execution [11-6-11]
*
Reply to Reformed Luther Apologist James Swan’s Request for Documentation of Executions of Anabaptists Sanctioned by Luther, in the 1530s [8-17-14]
*
Calvin the “Destroyer” of Servetus: James Swan Misses Forest for Trees [8-24-17]
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.
Lie #1
The 7 hills of Rome.
The Vatican does not sit on any of the seven hills of Rome. One must cross the Tibur River from the Vatican to get to the seven hills as seen on any map.
Lie #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.
Hunting the Whore of Babylon | Catholic Answers
Lie #1
The 7 hills of Rome.
The Vatican does not sit on any of the seven hills of Rome. One must cross the Tibur River from the Vatican to get to the seven hills as seen on any map.
Lie #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.
Hunting the Whore of Babylon | Catholic Answers
Vatican city itself is not on seven seven hills, but Rome is, which is where Vatican city is. Even in the vision of the whore and the beast, the beast itself is the entity that has even heads, not the whore, she is simply seated on the beast that has the seven heads, just as Vatican city is seated on the city of seven hills, Rome, which you cannot deny.
I deny your twisted abuse of scripture. So you interpret scripture to mean Vatican city is the Beast because Rome sits on seven hills?
Vatican city did not exist as an independent state until 1928.
How can a Beast or a whore be the largest charity in the world? That makes no sense; it fits no biblical description but you twist it to make it fit your agenda of hate.
Moving on to lie #3, which parallels your false claims:
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).
You also confuse Vatican City with the city of Rome. You are too full of pride to be corrected.
Dcopymope
Well-Known Member
As much criticism that the Vatican rightfully gets, there is no evidence in scripture backing up this idea that the Vatican is the whore of Babylon, neither is there any evidence for it being the United States, or Europe, or Mecca as some have proposed, or anywhere else on earth except Israel itself.
I deny your twisted abuse of scripture. So you interpret scripture to mean Vatican city is the Beast because Rome sits on seven hills?
Vatican city did not exist as an independent state until 1928.
How can a Beast or a whore be the largest charity in the world? That makes no sense; it fits no biblical description but you twist it to make it fit your agenda of hate.
Moving on to lie #3, which parallels your false claims:
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).
You also confuse Vatican City with the city of Rome. You are too full of pride to be corrected.
Since when does charity automatically make a nation righteous? Does America also not send millions of dollars in aid and help around the world, yet it is exceedingly wicked because it permits homosexual marriage and the murder of unborn children, among other evils that are common in this country that are contrary to the Law of God? What do you suppose "wolves in sheep's clothing" means, hello? Also, you have not acknowledged what I said earlier, so I will ask,
1. Does Rome have seven hills? Yes or no.
2. Is the Vatican In Rome? Yes or no.
Answer those simple questions.
Similar threads
