RELIGION....(part 2)

[mannyamador]

---

So what happens if a Catholic trusts in Jesus Christ alone and courses all prayers through Him alone? bypassing the dulia and hyperdulia....

Nothing. So long as a person does not disbelieve the the doctrines about Mary there is no problem. If you even bothered to listen to a single Mass, you will note that many prayers there are addressed to Christ directly.

The fact that you don't even know this shows you are totally irresponsible. You have no business attacking a doctrine unless you actually know what its all about. That is unbelievable PREJUDICE and STUPIDITY.

Try reading the Catechism and the documents cited in it before you make yourself look like an idiot.

Sure, but the exaltation of the Blessed Mother as Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix is more than that, it's Messianic Attributes ascribed to someone else. especially the third definition I have mentioned.

Messianic attributes? As Dacs has shown, you were AGAIN MISINTERPRETING the titles and taking them out of context. I remember that post very well. Putting your own meanings into titles and figures of speech (when such meanings were never intended), and pretending your interpretations are what the author intended, is despicably dishonest.

So if it's NOT a sin at all and if the Catechism DOES affirm that Mary's role in the hyperdulia does in no way undermine the efficacy of Christ as ONE MEDIATOR, is there a consequence for trusting in Christ alone?

If you trust in Christ, you show love for Him when you honor His mother (just as HE did). Because we honor Mary, we consciously ask her to intercede.

Again ,you are misintepreting what has been taught. You keep on doing that, and we keep on showing how stupid and dishoenst it is.

[mannyamador]

WHY SAINTS? MARY?
Fr. William Most

Why would God want to bother with Saints, even with Our Lady? Jesus His Son is infinite. The Father loves us, Jesus once said He did not need to ask the Father for us—the Father himself loves us?

Anyone who talks this way does not really understand our Father.

Let us start at the beginning. When Adam and Eve fell, His generosity of course wanted to restore our race. How would He do it? As absolute Master, He could have forgiven all sin, present, past, and future, without any reparation

But that would never suit His Holiness -- the quality in which He loves all good, so if what we might call the scales of the moral order is put out of balance by sin, it is His Holiness that wants it restored.

How do it? First, He could have picked any ordinary human and told that one to do something good, perhaps an animal sacrifice. That would be a reparation far short of the infinite evil of sin -- the Person offended is Infinite. But He could have accepted it. He could have even bound himself by promise in advance to accept it.

But there is more. It seems as though as long as anything more could be done to make everything richer, the Father would not stop short. So, He could have sent His Son to become man in a palace, a palace with every conceivable luxury, more than our best technology could dream of. That would have been literally an infinite reparation for sin: any act of a God-man, who is infinite, would have infinite worth as merit and as reparation. In fact, the mere act of being incarnate would have been infinite. He could have ascended at once, in blaze of glory.

But the Father is never satisfied with less if there is more than can possibly be done. So His Son went beyond the palace to the stable, beyond a brief stay to the hours of agony on the cross. Literally, that would have been infinite (infinite in itself) beyond infinity (incarnation for only a moment).

But then our Father noticed that He could have had a redemption, finite but great, from the offering of an ordinary human. So it is as if He said to Himself? Why not? Why not add that role of a mere human to that of the God-man? In other words, add Our Lady?

Her contribution could not add anything to His -- there can be no adding anything to infinity. But the Father’s love of all goodness led Him to literally go to infinity beyond infinity.

The value of the offering of His Son was not just in the terrible suffering -- It was in the fact that He underwent all this as an act of obedience. Through Isaiah 29.13 God had said: this people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." Only the interior, the obedience would make it priceless. It was the Annunciation, Our Lady was called on to obey, to say fiat. That she did. Did she know what she was doing? Very much so, terribly so. As soon as the archangel said He would reign over the house of Jacob forever, any ordinary Jew would know it was the Messiah. Then there would begin to crowd into her mind all the ancient prophecies. Especially those of His suffering in Isaiah 53 and in Ps 22, they have pierced my hands and my feet. Her pondering in her heart would make all this all the more vivid.

Of course. the Father did not have to accept her obedience, her fiat, as part of the obedient sacrifice of His and her Son. But it pleased His Holiness -- to go again beyond infinity, by adding her immense, but finite offering of her obedience, to His. Any soul that knows what God positively wills is called on to positively will it too -- not to just tolerate it. So she was asked to positively will that He die, die then, die so terribly. And to will that in spite of her incomprehensible love for Him.

Would the Father call on her to do all this so painfully, and then, even though He could accept it along with the obedience of His Son, would He merely choose to ignore it? It was part of the covenant obedience -- and He who makes a covenant can of course specify what things He wants as part of the compliance with His covenant. So of course He would not just pass it by. So He did accept it. And that is what we mean by cooperation in the redemption.

Another question? Why the Mass? The cross bought and paid for all grace and forgiveness, infinitely. Why more? The answer lies in the Infinite Generosity and Holiness that our Father is. We already saw that out of all possible options, He likes to pick that which is most rich for us, and for Holiness -- that is, to rebalance the scales of the moral order when it is out of joint.

The Mass is a real sacrifice. A sacrifice has two elements: outward sign, interior dispositions. The outward sign on Holy Thursday was the seeming separation of body and blood. On Friday, the actual separation. In the Mass the same sign as on Holy Thursday is back. As to the interior disposition it is obedience to the will of the Father. As Hebrews 10.7 tells us "On entering into the world, He said: Behold, I come to do your will O God." That obedience of Jesus is not repeated on the altar, it is continuous from His first coming into the world, on through His passion, and now in the Mass.

It is evident, then, that the Mass is a real sacrifice -- not needed, yet the Holiness of the Father is pleased to provide it. Similarly the obedience of Our Lady is not needed -- the cross is already infinite, In fact, His mere entrance into the world was infinite. Yet Our Father loved to add and add -- in mathematics, infinity plus a finite quantity does not grow. But this is not the lowly terrain of mathematics -- it is the lofty realm of Infinite Holiness/Generosity.

Now it is easy to see why the Saints? There were even less needed than Our Lady, But just as His Generosity loved to make all more and more rich for Holiness and for our benefit: so He is pleased to employ the saints too.

[Cardinal Bunal]

Messianic attributes? As Dacs has shown, you were AGAIN MISINTERPRETING the titles and taking them out of context. I remember that post very well. Putting your own meanings into titles and figures of speech (when such meanings were never intended), and pretending your interpretations are what the author intended, is despicably dishonest

It's not just a matter of constantly asking her to intercede, there are many cases when the devotionals are more than that......

But this remains: Babylon is NOT the way to go.

As for Scripture making the claim that it IS the one sole authority - there are no words in Scripture per se..... But as the apostle Paul wrote before he was about to be executed God's words in written form are enough to make a man fully qualified and fully equipped (TEV) for every good work. That includes doctrinals and Christian morals.

Do you need the written words in order to give someone the message of Christ? Not all the time! Because if you are indeed relaying God's words, the Lord knows His sheep and they hear his voice........ but can the sacred writings stand alone? Yes they can. And they are even enough to save even without the excess baggage of what is taught in Roman Catholicism....

How can the Roman Catholic Church claim to be the one true church when the local ecclesia founded by the apostles were autonomous to Rome but NOT to the Gospel......

TRADITIONS HANDED DOWN TO YOU BY WRITTEN LETTER OR WORD OF MOUTH

In written letter as documented by Luke, the believers met everyday and devoted themselves to prayer, and in many epistles to each other as it IS a requirement for a genuine build-up of ministry. (Romans 12: 5, see also Hebrews 10: 25) but in the most routined form of gathering in Roman Catholicism people hardly ever know each other in the Mass!

There are groups where much better fellowship can be experienced but for the "common Catholic" who has a zeal for at least attending one hour with his Heavenly Father, there is no communion with those around him at all!

How can it be a "church" then if this most routined form of worship is so stilted to the point that there are obviously many who let the message of the presbyter pass from their left ear to their right. YES this is to be expected as Christ said that those who truly follow him tread on a narrow path but how can it be when in the Romish Church's most common event of collective worship hardly has any fellowship?

Are they keeping the traditions of the apostles then?

Woe to these modern day Pharisees who shut the door to the kingdom of Heaven!

In the law of subalterns, all undenominationals are separated from the church of Rome, but NOT all of them are necessarily wrong, in the same principle undenominational Christianity is NOT all denominational Christianity. As there are many who have fallen short of their calling and have distorted the Gospel of Christ or worst, blasphemed the undeniable fact that Jesus is God the Son, God Incarnate, the Incarnate Word.... but there are those undenominationals who have obeyed the voice in Heaven that has lamented for people to come out of Babylon the Great Harlot.... for in Rome's forehead you will see a hidden meaning: MYSTERY BABYLON, MOTHER OF ALL PROSTITUTES AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

[MrBiddle]

If you died right this moment, where would you go? Heaven or Hell?

Have you ever been angry at someone? Jesus has said that anyone angry at his brother is liable to the fires of hell. - Matthew 5: 22

Are you a virgin? Never done anything like premarital "making out?" Jesus says whoever looks at a woman with lust has already commited adultery with her in his heart. - Matthew 5: 27, 28 and God will judge the adulterer and ALL the sexually immoral. - Hebrews 13: 4

Can you honestly say you have not sinned recently?

John writes that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the "truth is NOT in us." - 1 John 1: 8

And Jesus makes this pronouncement in Matthew 5: 48, Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.

If these be the case, what then can be your ticket to Eternal Life How, then can you pass God's standard of perfection

[KS Stanilavsky]

Can you honestly say you have not sinned recently?

John writes that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the "truth is NOT in us." - 1 John 1: 8

Acts 10: 43, Romans 4: 24 - 25

And Jesus makes this pronouncement in Matthew 5: 48, Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.

If these be the case, what then can be your ticket to Eternal Life How, then can you pass God's standard of perfection

Hebrews 10: 12 - 14, see also Hebrews 10: 18 and 2nd Corinthians 5: 20, 21

Then finally read Romans 10: 9, and after that 2 Tim. 2: 19

[mannyamador]

It's not just a matter of constantly asking her to intercede, there are many cases when the devotionals are more than that...

Only if you quote them out of context and interpret them according to your wacky logic.

But this remains: Babylon is NOT the way to go.

More wacko interpetations? I can just see you foaming at the mouth.

But as the apostle Paul wrote before he was about to be executed God's words in written form are enough to make a man fully qualified and fully equipped (TEV) for every good work. That includes doctrinals and Christian morals.

That is NOT the same as saying it is the ONLY means. You are AGAIN expecting us yo believe your nutty PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS. And as I have pointed out before, you have nothing ot back them up. They are no better than any other madman's ravings.

The bottom line is that your claim is UNSCRIPTURAL. The Bible does NOT claim to be the sole and final authoroty. And it does NOT claim to be the only sufficient means either. You can't show me the verses, right? So therefore you are making your own personal interpretations and adding them to the Bible. All of a sudden, the Bible ISN'T sufficient then!

Do you need the written words in order to give someone the message of Christ? Not all the time! Because if you are indeed relaying God's words, the Lord knows His sheep and they hear his voice........ but can the sacred writings stand alone? Yes they can. And they are even enough to save even without the excess baggage of what is taught in Roman Catholicism.

Then following your logic, the Bible is excess baggage! Foot in mouth disease detected!

How can the Roman Catholic Church claim to be the one true church when the local ecclesia founded by the apostles were autonomous to Rome but NOT to the Gospel.

Wrong again. The early Chruch recognizd the authority of Peter, bishop of Rome, and his successors. In fact, the documents of the early Christians show that they deferred to Rome. Some examples are in this piece I posted earlier (and which you have conveniently "fogotten"):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm
St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church.
In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote
an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered
with Corinth. Before 117 St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church as the one which "presides
over charity... which has never deceived any one, which has taught others." St. Irenaeus (180-200) states
the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows:

With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that is
the faithful everywhere, in this [i. e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the Apostles
has ever been preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III)

The heretic Marcion, the Montanists from Phrygia, Praxeas from Asia, come to Rome to gain the countenance
of its bishops; St. Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatens to excommunicate the Asian Churches; St. Stephen refuses
to receive St. Cyprian's deputation, and separates himself from various Churches of the East; Fortunatus and Felix,
deposed by Cyprian, have recourse to Rome; Basilides, deposed in Spain, betakes himself to Rome; the presbyters
of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, complain of his doctrine to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome; the latter expostulates
with him, and he explains.

but in the most routined form of gathering in Roman Catholicism people hardly ever know each other in the Mass!

Many of the early Christians didn't know each other either. But that is irrelevant. Good grief, you're really grasping at straws now! Can't you find anyhting more substantial than such trifles?

How can it be a "church" then if this most routined form of worship is so stilted to the point that there are obviously many who let the message of the presbyter pass from their left ear to their right.

Happens in all so-called christian churches, even in yours. Does the existence of lukewarm perosns invalidate a church? Theye xisted even in the early Church and evne amongst Christ's disciples! By your own logic then, YOUR church is babylon. What idiocy!

for in Rome's forehead you will see a hidden meaning: MYSTERY BABYLON, MOTHER OF ALL PROSTITUTES AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Wacko personal interpretations again? Have you had your rabies shot yet?

[mannyamador]

Honesty and Misrepresentation in Argumentation

It's pretty clear that all cardinalwacko's arguments against catholic doctrines on Mary are based on his misrepresenting phrases and titles given to Mary. Instead of understanding the meanings of these phraaes or terms as used by the Catholic Church, he susbstitutes his own meanings andf interpretations and then pretends that these are the ones used by the Church.

Anyone with an iota of integrity can see that cardinalwacko's practice is extremely dishonest. The only valid way to go about disproving another person's claim is to undertsand the claim in the snese that HE makes it. And then show that the claim doesn't square with the evidence or contradicts other claims that he also makes (also in the sense and meaning that he makes them).

Substituting one's own interpretations is tantamount to commiting a "straw man" fallacy.

On the other hand, using cardinalwacko's OWN claims, we have been able to show that his fundamental claims are self-contradictory. He believes that the Bible is the final authority (sufficient on its own) and in salvatioin by faith alone. But then why isn't salvation by faith alone clearly taught in the Bible, his final authority? Why does it say in James that one is NOT saved by faith alone and that good works are required?

And the Bible itself doesn't claim to be the final authority. And it doesn't to be the ONLY authority either. There isn't a siongle verse in the Bible that says the Bible is the ONLY sufficient authority and that there is no other. Not a single verse at all.

The truth of the matter is that the Bible doesn't claim those things because there was ANOTHER authority for early Christians even BEFORE the complete Bible was written and compiled. That authority was the Catholic Church. The Church determined what was to be in the Bible. No other complete canon ever existed before the Church determined it. Cardinalwacko disputes this, but in all these months he has NOT been able to produce a complete biblical canon that pre-dates the Church councils that determined the canon. His obstinate insistence on a claim that has no proof is evidence of his unreasonableness and pride.

We should all keep this in mind when we see cardinalwacko conjure up personal interpretations of scripture: he has no authoroty to do so.

There is no reason to believe that this man's ravings are better than any other madman. There is no guarantee that his intepretations are correct or even sane. His repreated use of faulty reasoning even gives us reason to believe that any of his claims, scriptural or not, are to be questioned as a matter of course.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, was established by Christ Himself, and He cannot err. And He commissioned the Catholic Church to teach the world. And there has never bewen a break in formal authority and continuity from the Apostles all the way down to the Catholic Church today. No hter church can make that claim, especially not cardoinalwacko's church.

It is totally unreasonable to believe that Christ would not keep the Church safe from officially teaching wrong doctrine. Chrsit, of course, never said that Christians would be free form making any mistake. But he did would not have sent the Church to teach if it would be teaching error. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the official dogma of the Church (which is so different from the opinions and personal teachings of priests and pontiffs) is free from error.

[mannyamador]

The Whore of Babylon
http://www.catholic.com/library/Whore_of_Babylon.asp

In another tract, Hunting the Whore of Babylon, we looked at nine arguments given by fundamentalist Dave Hunt for his claim that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon from Revelation 17–18. His arguments are typical of those used by fundamentalist anti-Catholics and are easily proven wrong. (See that tract for details).

But we can go beyond a mere critique of the shallow anti-Catholic arguments like Hunt’s. There is irrefutable evidence in Revelation 17–18 (the chapters Fundamentalists love to quote against the Catholic Church) that proves that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to be the Whore.

A Vision in the Wilderness

When John introduces the Whore in Revelation 17, he tells us: "Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who is seated upon many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the dwellers on earth have become drunk.’ And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; and on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations.’ And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her I marveled greatly" (Rev. 17:1–6).

This passage tells us several things about the Whore: (1) She is an international power, since she "sits on many waters," representing different peoples (17:15), and she has committed fornication with "the kings of the earth," and she has inflamed "the dwellers on earth" with her fornication. (2) She is connected with the seven-headed Beast from Revelation 13:1–10. That Beast was a major pagan empire, since its symbolism combined animal elements from four other major pagan empires (compare Rev. 13:1–2 with Dan. 7:1–8). (3) The Woman is connected with royalty, since she is dressed in the royal color purple. (4) The Woman is rich, for she is "bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup." (5) She has committed some kind of fornication, which in Scripture is often a symbol of false religion—lack of fidelity to the God who created heaven and earth. (6) She is symbolically known as Babylon. (7) She is a central cause of "abominations" in the land, abominations being a reference to practices, especially religious practices, that are offensive to God. And (8) she persecutes Christians "the saints and . . . martyrs of Jesus."

While the rest of her description could refer to a number of things, the symbolic designation "Babylon" narrows it down to two: pagan Rome and apostate Jerusalem. It is well known that the early Church Fathers referred to pagan Rome as "Babylon"; however, there are also indications in Revelation that the Whore might be apostate Jerusalem. Historically, a number of commentators, both Protestant and Catholic, have adopted this interpretation.

The Seven Heads

Continuing in Revelation, the angel begins to explain to John the woman’s symbolism: "This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while" (Rev. 17:9–10).

Fundamentalists argue that these seven mountains must be the seven hills of ancient Rome. However the Greek word here, horos, is almost always translated "mountain" in Scripture. Mountains are often symbols of kingdoms in Scripture (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Obad. 8–21; Amos 4:1, 6:1), which might be why the seven heads also symbolize seven kings. The mountains could stand for a series of seven kings, five of whom have already fallen.

This passage gives us a key rule of Bible interpretation which is often denied by Fundamentalists: A symbol does not have to refer to one and only one thing. Here Scripture itself tells us that the heads refer both to seven mountains and seven kings, meaning the symbol has multiple fulfillments. Thus there is not a one-to-one correspondence in the Bible between symbols and their referents.

Also, the mountains could be a reference to pagan Rome, yet the Whore could still be a reference to apostate Jerusalem. In this case, her sitting on the Beast would not indicate a geographical location but an alliance between the two powers. The Whore (Jerusalem) would be allied with the Beast (Rome) in persecuting "the saints and . . . martyrs of Jesus." (Note that the Whore also sits on many waters, which we are told are many peoples, [cf. 17:15]. The context makes it clear that here her "sitting" on something does not refer to a geographical location.)

This passage gives us one reason why the Catholic Church cannot be the Whore. We are told that the heads "are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come." If five of these kings had fallen in John’s day and one of them was still in existence, then the Whore must have existed in John’s day. Yet Christian Rome and Vatican City did not. However, pagan Rome did have a line of emperors, and the majority of commentators see this as the line of kings to which 17:10 refers. Five of these emperors are referred to as having already fallen, one as still reigning in John’s time, and another yet to come. Since Jerusalem had no such line of kings in the first century, this gives us evidence that the Beast (though not the Whore) is Rome.

The Ten Horns

The angel also interprets for John the meaning of the Beast’s ten horns: "And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. These are of one mind and give over their power and authority to the beast; they will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful" (17:12–14).

This shows us that the Beast is allied with ten lower rulers and with their own territories. Some Fundamentalists bent on making this apply to modern times and the Catholic Church have argued that the horns refer to the European Community (EC) and a revived Roman empire with the Catholic Church at its head. The problem is that there are ten kings, but there are now many more than ten nations in the EC.

However, what we are told about the horns does fit one of the other candidates we have for the Whore -- apostate Jerusalem. The angel tells John: "And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the harlot; they will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and giving over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled" (17:16–17).

If the Whore is Jerusalem and the Beast is Rome (with the ten horns as vassal states), then the prophecy makes perfect sense. The alliance between the two in persecuting Christians broke down in A.D. 66–70, when Rome and its allied forces conquered Israel and then destroyed, sacked, and burned Jerusalem, just as Jesus prophesied (Luke 21:5–24).

The Whore’s Authority

Finally the angel tells John: "And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth" (17:18). This again points to pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem. In the case of the former, the dominion would be political; in the case of the latter, it could be a number of things. It could be spiritual dominion in that Jerusalem held the religion of the true God. It could be a reference to the manipulation by certain Jews and Jewish leaders of gentiles into persecuting Christians.

It could even be political, since Jerusalem was the center of political power in Canaan and, under the authority of the Romans, it ruled a considerable amount of territory and less powerful peoples. On this thesis "the kings of the earth" would be "the kings of the land" (the Greek phrase can be translated either way). Such local rulers of the land of Canaan would naturally resent Jerusalem and wish to cooperate with the Romans in its destruction -- just as history records they did. Local non-Jewish peoples were used by the Romans in the capture of Jerusalem.

The hub of world commerce

Continuing in chapter 18, John sees the destruction of the Whore, and a number of facts are revealed which also show that she cannot be the Catholic Church. For one, she is depicted as a major center of international trade and commerce. When it is destroyed in chapter 18, we read that "the merchants of the earth [or land] weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo any more" (18:11) and "all shipmasters and seafaring men, sailors and all whose trade is on the sea . . . wept and mourned, crying out, ‘Alas, alas, for the great city, where all who had ships at sea grew rich by her wealth!’" (18:17–19).

Pagan Rome was indeed the hub of world commerce in its day, supported by its maritime trading empire around the Mediterranean, but Christian Rome is not the hub of world commerce. After the Reformation, the economic center of power was located in Germany, Holland, England, and more recently, in the United States and Japan.

Persecuting apostles and prophets

When the Whore falls we read, "‘Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you’. . . . In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth" (18:20, 24). This shows that the Whore persecuted not just Christians, but apostles and prophets. Apostles existed only in the first century, since one of the requirements for being an apostle was seeing the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1). Prophets existed as a group only in the Old Testament and in the first century (Acts 11:27–28, 13:1, 15:32, 21:10).

Since the Whore persecuted apostles and prophets, the Whore must have existed in the first century. This totally demolishes the claim that Christian Rome or Vatican City is the Whore. Rome was not a Christian city at that time, and Vatican City did not even exist, so neither of them could be the Whore. Furthermore, Fundamentalists continually (though wrongly) claim that Catholicism itself did not exist in the first century, meaning that based on their very own argument Catholicism could not be the Whore!

Fundamentalists are fond of conjecturing that in the last days there will be a "revived Roman empire," such as the one that persecuted Christians in the first century. Yet they never draw the inference that this empire would be headed by a revived pagan Rome, with the bishop of Rome leading the Christian underground, just as he did in the first century.

Still, Revelation 18:20 and 18:24 prove that the Whore had to be a creature of the first century, which, in the Fundamentalist view, the Catholic Church was not. Thus, on their own view, their identification of the Catholic Church with the Whore is completely impossible! Only ancient, pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem could possibly be the Whore.

If Not the Whore, the Bride

The fact that the Catholic Church is singled out by Fundamentalists as the Whore reveals that they intuit the fact it has an important role in God’s plan. No other church gets accused of being the Whore -- only the Catholic Church. And it is understandable why: The Catholic Church is the largest Christian body, larger than all other Christian bodies put together, suggesting a prominent place in God’s plan. Fundamentalists assume, without objectively looking at the evidence, that the Catholic Church cannot be the Bride of Christ, so it must be the Whore of Babylon.

Yet the evidence for its true role is plain. The First Vatican Council taught that "the Church itself . . . because of its marvelous propagation, its exceptional holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works; because of its Catholic unity and invincible stability, is a very great and perpetual motive of credibility and an incontestable witness of its own divine mission" (On the Catholic Faith 3).

So why is the Bride maligned as the Whore? Jesus himself answered the question: "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Matt. 10:25). "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world . . . the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you" (John 15:18–20).

[Cardinal Bunal]

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, was established by Christ Himself, and He cannot err. And He commissioned the Catholic Church to teach the world. And there has never bewen a break in formal authority and continuity from the Apostles all the way down to the Catholic Church today. No hter church can make that claim, especially not cardoinalwacko's church.

The refuge of lies and the hiding place of falsehood (Isaiah 28: 15 ) of Babylon are more believable because indeed they are they can indeed trace their time back to the apostles and they are the unsinkable city. (Rev. 18: 18 ), but their claims aren't necessarily true. They are the apostates, and as Hebrews 6: 6 would put it - recrucifying the Son of Man...

Many of the early Christians didn't know each other either. But that is irrelevant. Good grief, you're really grasping at straws now! Can't you find anyhting more substantial than such trifles?

Not in ecclesias in OTHER locations that's for sure, but beyond a doubt they knew each other and they had tight bonding.........

No, the Scriptures are NOT excess baggage because they contain the message of salvation, AND THEN SOME to guide one to righteousness. Both the message of the Gospel and those that can only add to the spiritual workout can stand alone. Many times what was written letter had also to be read orally (1 Thes. 5: 27, Col. 4: 16 )

So why is the Bride maligned as the Whore? Jesus himself answered the question: "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Matt. 10:25). "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world . . . the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you" (John 15:18–20).Â*

They did. From Nero to the Popes in one form or another the persecution of God's elect came from Rome. Only those who were truly followers of Jesus were mixed up and numbered among those who were indeed truly evil and heretics. So where does God's elect really come from? Where will they go? John 3: 8

Whenever Scripture convicts Babylon or whenever someone presents it, RCFD Christians will dismiss it for it is not what they want to hear... Because those who have been blinded by the universal institution have indeed been trampled underfoot..... the power of Rome succeeded that of Greece before it, or Medo-Persia preceding Greece, or the ancient Babylon.... (Daniel 7: 23)

But the Prince of Peace will come and destroy that 4th kingdom (Mystery Babylon) and overthrow it. This is the truth. Whether you agree or not.

[mannyamador]

The refuge of lies and the hiding place of falsehood (Isaiah 28: 15 )

You really should take heed of those words. The way you MISREPRESENT the teachings of the Church is truly despicable.

Not in ecclesias in OTHER locations that's for sure, but beyond a doubt they knew each other and they had tight bonding.

Or so you claim. But kindly show me even one verse that clearly states that the presence of strangers in a church means the church is illegitimate. Oh, I'll bet we'll wait months again before you finally admit no such verse exists!

And then you'll fall back on some wacko interpretation!

No, the Scriptures are NOT excess baggage because they contain the message of salvation, AND THEN SOME to guide one to righteousness.

So does the Catholic Church. So by your own logic, the teachings of the Catholic Church cannot be excess baggage either. The reaoning goes both way, cardilawacko.

They did. From Nero to the Popes in one form or another the persecution of God's elect came from Rome.

Uh... the Romans persecuted the Popes!

Sorry cardiwacko, but the historical evidence makes it quite clear your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION has no evidence to back it up. Any nutcase can get some verses and fish around for events to fit it (like what INK does). But if I can show even ONE alternative interpetation, that make yours non-authoritative, and not any better than any other. It proves that your personal interpretatiion is not necessarily the right one. And then it becomes a matter of authority. And you DON'T have any authority. But Jesus gave auithority to the Catholic Church. That means your interpreetations are no better than any other wacko.

Whenever Scripture convicts Babylon or whenever someone presents it, RCFD Christians will dismiss it for it is not what they want to hear

That's exactly what you do.

You're getitng nowhere because all your arguments rest on your PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS. And as I have shown, yours isn't necessarily any better than any madman's ravings. You need clear authority. And that's something you just will never have.

Have you had your rabies shot yet, though?