Rome, the Future Capital of the Future United States of Europe, and the Destruction of the Vatican

[epostle1]

ok, so 3/4 of a million kilometers? Pick a number, k, i'm not trying to prove anything here, and as far as i'm concerned the RCC owning it is prolly better than Crystal Cathedral, ok. But let's get real, the only two entities that beat the RCC for land holdings are Monarchs, holding Virtual Title only.

Land holdings does not prove the Church is evil, and the Church being the largest charity in the world makes no difference to Bible Christian hate cults.
So, how much land does the Church actually own? Well, what do we mean by "the Church"? The first thing we have to understand is that there is no such concept as "the Church" owning land. The Vatican does not have centralized land holdings all over the world like, say, the Church of Scientology does. The dozens of parishes in any given county all over the country are not in any way owned by the Vatican, and the Vatican has no claim or title to them.

Parish land is owned by the diocese in which a local church is situated. Usually, the parish itself will own the buildings on the land. Catholic schools are private organizations whose land is either owned by the parish they are affiliated with or by a holding group or corporation set up in that school's name. So, instead of asking how much land "the Church" owns, you have to ask how much land does any given diocese own, and even then it is confusing since the diocese may own only the land, but not the buildings upon which the land is situated. Monastery lands are owned by those religious communities, and seminaries are owned by the diocese. Oh, and keep in mind that probably in any given parish, a sizable chunk of its land holdings (sometimes up to 50%) are cemeteries.

In order to figure out how much land these many organizations own collectively would be a very burdensome task. You'd have to figure out how much land and buildings are owned by every parish in the world - there is usually only one Catholic Church in every city of average size, and many more in larger ones. Then you'd have to figure out how much land each individual diocese owns - and there are 2,797 dioceses and archdioceses in the world, and each of them is completely independent. That's a lot of dioceses, and potentially a lot of land, although any given diocese rarely owns more land besides the land immediately adjacent to the land that the parish sits upon. Then you'd have to figure out how much land each religious order owns, how much land held by private Catholic schools not affiliated with a parish, etc. These are all independent; they are not agents of the papal government or in any way under the legal authority of the Vatican as regards property ownership. The only benefit the Vatican gets from the dioceses of the world is an annual collection called Peter's Pence that is voluntary.

But even if you could do this math and add up the land owned by every Catholic diocese and parish, it would be a meaningless number, because it would not tell you how much land "the Church" owns, but rather, how much land is owned by an artificial hodgepodge of thousands of organizations. To ask the question of how much land "the Church" owns is like asking how much land blond haired people own - there simply is no collective organization that centrally owns land on behalf of blond haired people, and even if you could add up all the land owned by individual blond haired people, you'd have just a number that didn't reflect anything in the real world.

This answer no doubt does not satisfy you. You are convinced that "the Church" owns more land than anyone else and want to prove it. If we were to take 'the Church' as being just the Vatican, what would the answer be?

The Vatican itself owns only the 108 acres it happens to be on and some other small sites outside of Rome. So, if we insist on interpreting "the Church" to mean the Vatican, then there is your answer: the Vatican owns 108 acres plus some smaller sites outside Rome.

Okay, you say, so maybe the Vatican as a central authority doesn't own all the land mentioned above, but the Catholics collectively do, and this is "the Church" in some degree, even if it is extremely decentralized. When you add up all of the parishes, monasteries, seminaries and diocesan owned buildings, surely the Church must be the single largest landowner on the earth? Not so. Not even close. Who are the biggest landowners?

By category, the largest public landowners in the world are the governments of various nations who own things like roads, airports, public parks, etc. The largest private landowner in the world is CNN”s Ted Turner, who own 1,800,000 acres. The other top ten landowners are all ranching families (sources: Forbes magazine, Oct. 6, 2003). The largest single landowner on the whole planet: LAND VALUES-GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS: “As of June 30, 1966, the world's largest land owner was the United States Government, with a holding of 765,291,000 acres (1,185,787 square miles) including 529,000 acres outside of the United States. The total value at cost was $69,357,000,000.” I’d imagine this is still true, though I'm sure the dollar value has gone up.

Even if the Church is not the world's largest landowner, with all of the tithes and offerings that come through it, surely it must be the world's largest financial institution then? This is very untrue, and one which many non-Catholics are confused about. They seem to think that the Church is financed from the top down, as if things at the diocesan and parochial level are paid for by the Vatican or something. But we know that the Church is financed from the bottom up: the diocese is supported by the community of parishes, and Rome is supported by the dioceses, as well as from collections like Peter’s Pence, etc. The Church is actually quite poor, because statistically most parishes are in Third World countries and have very little to contribute.

I hope this provides you with some food for thought, and ammunition against those who arrogantly claim that the Church is the world's biggest landowner or biggest financial institution. The Church is not the biggest land owner because there is no centralized Church to own the land. It is not the biggest financial institution because it is funded solely by donations from a people who by statistical majority are located in the Third World.

Educate yourself.

 

[bbyrd009]

This answer no doubt does not satisfy you.

? it is a perspective, provided by someone who has no vested interest in telling me the truth, and a stated interest in apologizing for the RCC, so i take it as given, a biased perspective.

You are convinced that "the Church" owns more land than anyone else and want to prove it.

ya, no, wrong guy. maybe you should post the link from your copy/paste?

 

[Helen]

I agree...everything is only by guess or by golly.
We all "think" that this means that and that = this...not one person has any solid proof of what the bible is really say...ONLY when we see things happen.

As in the book of Acts..WHEN we see it, and only then...we will say as they did in Act's... ( Acts 2:16) Ahh "so this is that which was spoken by the prophet .."

But until then, we just keep on guessing. But it does make for interesting postings.

 

[christiang]

I agree...everything is only by guess or by golly.
We all "think" that this means that and that = this...not one person has any solid proof of what the bible is really say...ONLY when we see things happen.

As in the book of Acts..WHEN we see it, and only then...we will say as they did in Act's... ( Acts 2:16) Ahh "so this is that which was spoken by the prophet .."

But until then, we just keep on guessing. But it does make for interesting postings.

keph31 is an idiot. Don't listen to him. I've asked him several times if Rome has seven hills and he keeps avoiding the question because deep down he knows that Rome fits the description of Revelation.

 

[epostle1]

? it is a perspective, provided by someone who has no vested interest in telling me the truth, and a stated interest in apologizing for the RCC, so i take it as given, a biased perspective.
ya, no, wrong guy. maybe you should post the link from your copy/paste?

Unam Sanctam Catholicam: How much land does the Church own?

 

[epostle1]

Lie #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 the Catechism 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.

 

[epostle1]

Hunting the Whore of Babylon

Lie #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.

Christiang doesn't get it.

 

[epostle1]

Please document "MASSACRED COUNTLESS PEOPLE" with primary sources and spare me your hate propaganda.

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.

Then don't make up slanderous lies you can't back up. "This information is readily available to everyone" is not a primary source, it's hate propaganda. The big problem with anti-Catholics is they swallow down whole every lie against the CC without a second thought, no discernment, no research and no common sense.
"MASSACRED COUNTLESS PEOPLE" has been debunked as phony revisionism by real historians. See post #53

google:
In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.

 

[epostle1]

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.

christiang 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 christiang’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 christiang’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.

To identify the Whore as Vatican City, christiang 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". I suppose diplomatic relations with the United States is unholy as well??? I provided the full context of the Pope's speech to the European Union twice, there is nothing sinister in it. I got no response.

christiang 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).

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.

not even close
​

 

[christiang]

christiang 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 christiang’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 christiang’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.

To identify the Whore as Vatican City, christiang 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". I suppose diplomatic relations with the United States is unholy as well??? I provided the full context of the Pope's speech to the European Union twice, there is nothing sinister in it. I got no response.

christiang 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).

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.

not even close
​

I've been to Rome, and to the Vatican, rest assured, Vatican city is within Rome, not far away from Rome or outside Rome. Let's not be morons and deny the obvious. Until you admit that Vatican city is within Rome, and that Rome has seven hills, I won't discuss this further with you, because if you cannot accept the obvious, neither will you accept what is less obvious.

 

[epostle1]

I've been to Rome, and to the Vatican, rest assured, Vatican city is within Rome, not far away from Rome or outside Rome. Let's not be morons and deny the obvious. Until you admit that Vatican city is within Rome, and that Rome has seven hills, I won't discuss this further with you, because if you cannot accept the obvious, neither will you accept what is less obvious.

Within Rome is irrelevant, the Vatican does not sit on any of the 7 hills. See the map. You are desperately trying to equate the old PAGAN Rome of the 1-3rd centuries with the Vatican of the 21 century. It's stupid.
How does that make the Vatican evil? By your warped interpretation of scripture? Because the EU had a meeting? United States of Rome is a joke, nothing more than a catchy phrase that appeals to fear based cults. It's a conspiracy theory that is not based on reality. The Vatican can't even control the immoral laws passed in Italy. The Vatican HAS NO POWER OVER OTHER NATIONS and never will, it's contrary to the mission of the Church to preach the gospel to all nations, which is not power and control. United States of Rome is paranoid fundamentalist anti-Catholic bigotry.

If you didn't have such an inferiority complex, you wouldn't find it necessary to be picking on Catholicism the way you do.

 

[epostle1]

Judging by the criteria of biblical fundamentalism (literal words literally understood) it is certain that there is no mention of the Catholic Church in the book of Revelation as the Whore of Babylon. By contortions of interpretation (not biblical literalism) some groups and individuals equate the Whore in Revelation 17:9 with the Catholic Church since Rome is the famous city of seven hills and the Church's principal See is Rome. This position is untenable, both factually and from the only words of Scripture which tell us of the actual doctrine of the Antichrist, those of the apostle John in his letters.

There would seem to be two choices, either interpret Rev 17:9 absolutely literally or according to some interpretive key that is metaphorical, allegorical or otherwise non-literal. Lets look first at literal interpretation.

"The seven heads represent seven hills on which the woman sits." First of all, no Pope has ever lived or had his "seat" (cathedra or cathedral) on any of the seven hills of Rome. These hills are small hillocks (Capitoline, Palatine, Esquiline, Aventine and three lesser "bumps" in central Rome) where the religion and government of pagan Rome was situated. The Catholic Church's headquarters at the Lateran (the cathedral) and at the Vatican (where the Pope lives) does not coincide with them. At the time that John wrote Revelation the Christians of Rome lived mostly in Trastevere (trans Tiber), a district "across the Tiber" from the City and adjacent to the Vatican hill where St. Peter was crucified and buried. The Vatican is on top of that burial site and is today its own city-state distinct from Rome and Italy.

So, of what was St. John speaking when he wrote Revelation on the island of Patmos around 96 AD? Obviously of the pagan imperial system situated on the Seven Hills, especially the Capitoline (the religious and political center) and the Palatine (the imperial palace). This pagan power persecuted the Church of Rome in Nero's day (64-67 AD), and in the mid-90s under Domitian was persecuting Christians throughout the Roman world. Domitian was considered by the people a re-incarnation of the evil, but well-liked, Nero (the head that lives again). While the antichrist Nero persecuted only the Christians of Rome, Domitian extended that persecution throughout the empire. Both are thus types of the final persecutor, the Antichrist.

Why the cryptic name Babylon? First, the historical Babylon was the pagan power which persecuted the People of God, the Jews, between 610 and 538 BC, destroying the Temple and dispersing the people. The Romans inherited that mantle of infamy when they destroyed the Temple in 70 AD, and, more importantly, persecuted the new People of God, the Church. Thus, St. Peter, writing from Rome refers to as "Babylon" (1 Pt. 5:13) - a name any Jew or Christian familiar with the Old Testament would know.

How does this relate to the Antichrist? The future Antichrist will be a world-wide power, essentially pagan, which will persecute the Catholic Church (and orthodox Christians in general) (as do ignorant fundamentalists) everywhere, as the Babylonians persecuted the Jews and 1st century Rome the Church. These are biblical types! The Babylon of John's day, Rome, stands for the kingdom of the future Antichrist and is no more likely to be situated in Italy than Rome needed to be situated in Babylonia (modern Iraq). John was informing his readers of these prophetic types by drawing their attention to the contemporary fulfillment they found in pagan Rome. The Antichrist will come out of the Christian world (Greco-Roman civilization) to be sure (1 John 2:19), but America is as much an inheritor of that civilization as Europe and just as likely to be the source of the Antichrist.

Finally, after distorting the text and history to read what they want into the Bible, and thereby obtaining God's "blessing" on their hatred of the Catholic Church, some "Christians" ignore the only texts of Scripture which tells us about the religious leanings of the Antichrist. The Catholic faith being a religion you would think they would see what it teaches on the only criteria the Bible actually gives about the Antichrist.
In St. John's letters (1 John 4, 2 John 1), he tells us that the spirit of the Antichrist denies the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming man) and thereby also the Trinity (the Father and the Spirit, too). This is the spirit of the Antichrist.

There is not a single text in 2000 years, including the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, where the Catholic Church, her popes, her bishops, her official teachings, her saints, or her acknowledged ecclesiastical authors, deny the Word-made-flesh or the Blessed Trinity. Instead, all of Christianity owes the preservation of these Truths to the Catholic Church, whose great Councils formulated them and whose saints and popes have defended them to this day, often at the cost of martyrdom. John Paul II, has written three great encyclical (circular) letters on the Trinity, one for each Divine Person, and he has without a doubt preached Jesus Christ to more people than any other person in human history. The Catholic Church does not have the spirit of the Antichrist but of God, since no one without the Spirit can say "Jesus is Lord" (1 Cor. 12:3), something the Church and Catholics always have done and continue to do!

 

[epostle1]

The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice
by Phil Jenkins, Ph.D. a non-Catholic sociologist
book review

Anti-Catholicism has a long history in America. And as Philip Jenkins argues in The New Anti-Catholicism, this virulent strain of hatred--once thought dead--is alive and well in our nation, but few people seem to notice, or care.

A statement that is seen as racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic can haunt a speaker for years, writes Jenkins, but it is still possible to make hostile and vituperative public statements about Roman Catholicism without fear of serious repercussions. Jenkins shines a light on anti-Catholic sentiment in American society and illuminates its causes, looking closely at gay and feminist anti-Catholicism, anti-Catholic rhetoric and imagery in the media, and the anti-Catholicism of the academic world.

For newspapers and news magazines, for television news and in movies, for major book publishers, the Catholic Church has come to provide a grossly stereotyped public villain. Catholic opinions, doctrines, and individual leaders are frequently the butt of harsh satire. Indeed, the notion that the church is a deadly enemy of women--the idea of Catholic misogyny--is commonly accepted in the news media and in popular culture, says Jenkins...

It was said that with the election of John F. Kennedy, anti-Catholicism in America was dead. This provocative new book corrects that illusion, drawing attention to this important issue.