The Lies and Prejudices of ANTI-Catholics

[mannyamador]

But the creature is the Creator.. They one in the same...

How can a creature create itself? If it did not exist before it was created, then how could it have been around to create itself?!!!

Your statement contradicts the most fundamental Christian teachings of BOTH the Catholic Church and ALL mainstream protestant and born-again churches! God, and all the Persons in the Trinity, are NOT created and are NOT creatures.

Read the Nicene Creed:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages.
(God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father,
by whom all things were made.

To say that any Person of the Trinity is a creature contradicts the fundamental tenets of Christianity. How can you worship a creature? [b] And therefore weedmeister's charge of mariolatry (which rests on this claim) also collapses! Disastrously!!!

[mannyamador]

And still there are questions...

The details themselves are hardlyu significant. The Church has no dogma oin which set of bones is actually Peter's. That's for archaeology to determine. But the fact that Peter was in Rome has been scientifically and historically established and can no longer be seriously questioned.

By the way, the bones are NOT worshipped.

It must be remembered that, when speaking ex cathedra in matters touching on faith and morals involving the whole church, the popes are infallible. And, certainly, the identification of the tomb and relics of Peter, of whom Pius XII was one of an unbroken line of successors, must touch on the faith of all the Catholic church.

Again you make a clear error. The Pope was NOT speaking ex cathedra. Again, look at Vatican I and the Catechsim. The requirements for an ex cathedra statement are clear and as follows:

• The Pope must be speaking on a matter of faith and morals, not oin science or archaeology
• The Pope must EXPLICITLY state he is defining doctrine and making an ex cathedra statement. This is not a casual statement. The ex cathedra nature of the statement must be CLEAR and UNMISTAKABLE.
• It must be clear and unmisatakable that the statement is meant for the assent or belief of the ENTIRE Church.

ALL of these requirements are MISSING. I already enumerated the TWO ex cathedra statements issued by Popes. To pretend that these others are ex cathedra statements is extremely dishonest of you.

Since when were the Persons in the Holy Trinity considered CREATURES? Mary is above all creatures, but since the
Persons of the Holy Trinity are NOT creatures, then Mary is NOT being made higher than God at all! This is so
clearly obvious that I wonder if you deliberately pretending not to notice.

Logically:
Creature = Man
Man = Jesus
Jesus = God the Father & Holy Spirit (Hence the term HOLY TRINITY)
CREATURE = HOLY TRINITY

It seems you are contradicting the most fundamental premises of Christianity (both Catholic and non-Catholic)!!! This is plain nuts. You seem to forget that Jesus as the Son existed BEFORE man was made. Read the first verses of John's Gospel:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Now if all things were made throught eh Son, and the Son is Himself creature, how did He create Himself? Youj are being plain illogical. And worse, you contradict the most basic tenet of the Christian faith (both Catholic and non-Catholic). Perhaps you ought to try that bit of silly logic with your own pastors. They just might accuse you of blasphemy!

So now you've fallen into a trap! If mariolatry exists as you claim, then it is because the Son (Jesus) is a creature we put Mary above (which is blasphemous and totally absurd). But if you say the Son (Jesus) is God and therefore not a creature, then your charge of mariolatry evaporates. Quod erat demonstrandum.

This is just too easy...

I did not miss the point. It's not a matter of what's okay or not, it's a matter of DID THE POPE DO IT?

You missed the point again. It's not OK for the Pope to do it. Popes are sinners. This is NOT disputed. You arer trying to use this to disprove papal infalibility, but as I have already pointed out, papal infallibility is NOT papal sinlessness. You have completely and totally misundcerstood papal infallibility. That's bad enough, but if you REFUSE to understand it afte rit has been explained, well that's just plain dumb.

[mannyamador]

Hunting the Whore of Babylon
http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunt...of_Babylon.asp

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.

#1: Seven Hills

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

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

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

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

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

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

#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.

#3: Commits Fornication

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

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

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

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

#4: Clothed in Purple and Red

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#5: Possesses Great Wealth

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

#6: A Golden Cup

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

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

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

#7: The Mother of Harlots

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

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

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

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

#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.

#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.

[irangejuice]

@manny amador:

Talking about logics..

I believe in everything in about God being the Alpha and the Omega but I've done so without logic--I prefer to call it Faith.

But really, how any more illogical is a creature creating itself compared to a God that has always existed even before time (seeing as how time came to be through him)? Why can't the Son of the Holy Trinity be a human being, a creature of His own creation, and be accepted with out logic the same way we've come to accept: All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be?

[Gwynhuever]

There's a book Third Secret by Steve Berry ...interesting sad....it would really qualify as one of the lies told by the Catholic Church if found to be true ...but this is FICTION..... Anyway the reason I remembered it is that mannyamador posted about the "city built on seven hills" ...in this book i learned that Bamberg, Germany was also called the city on seven hills in ancient times ( i did not get a chance to check if this is true or part of the authour's fictional plot)....

[keyser_soze]

You've stated the obvious: They are one, that's the whole idea behind The Holy Trinity. How does anyone manage to forget that? I certianly hope your didn't imply that I did.

Well I don't think I'm out of line when I say you've managed to confuse yourself and hopefully not others with your ambiguous post. You stress on obvious points, and accepted points when merely my previous post only pointed out that God had three "versions", if you will, of the same God and that one of those "versions" was a human being who walked among His creations.

Should you want to concentrate on the fact that He (again, yes, the same God) was born unto this earth , skip through all that happened in His lifetime, and jump right to the part you're so eager to point out, Him dying on the cross and saving us-- it still doesn't change the fact that Jesus Christ was human being..a creature of His own creation.

Don't even talk about negations--to maintain an accepted Holy Trinity, logic must take a hike.

yeah i do accept na medyo ambiguous ang previous post nako, wa lang nako na tarong og illustrate ako point..Â* Ako rang point ato kay si Jesus is not a creature. a creatue cannot be his own creator. i was mearly pointing out the absurd logic of "the creature being his own creator".. gi point out na ni manny that the nicene creed says "begotten not made".. i just tried to explain it thru logic.


And why does logic have to "take a hike" when talking bout the Holy Trinity?Â* God gave us reason.Â* Logic is the art & science of reasoning. I think he might want us to use it to find Him and His true nature. Yes Faith is very important, but we cant just throw reason away like that.

[keyser_soze]

whatsso illogical bout a God before time?

He created time

therefore

He was there before time existed

[irangejuice]

Logic is the art & science of reasoning.

I was waiting for you to deliberately bring up the meaning of logic.

When you say reason, and I mean logically, you refer to deductive reasoning, yes?

How does the validity of God before time hold up against deductive reasoning? How do you prove a God that exists, has always existed, and will never cease to exist without stumbling through a shitload of illogical series of events? This is a common reasoning got Scientists in trouble before..questioning the logic of a God.

I, on the other hand (and might I add not even the slightest close to becoming a scientist), "threw out" logic in this case because I CHOOSE to BELIEVE in God without the need for evidence or reason.

That is why I also believe that He has the capability to do things outside the limits of LOGIC. This leads us back to the simple comment I made about how He made Jesus, a human being, a creature of His own creation.

[irangejuice]

whatsso illogical bout a God before time?

He created time

therefore

He was there before time existed

Why must you constantly pull logic into this?

Fine.

Ask yourself this question, oh logical man:

What was there before God? Logic is all about general to particular - cause and effect - deductive reasoning.
Let's have it then.

I've long turned away from logic and turned to faith when faced with this question or anything similar to this effect.
Which makes me more than happy to accept the fact of God as three beings. The Father, the Human (but still God) Son, and the Holy Spirit.

[tolstoi]

good point Zerone_Null :mrgreen: